a star tens of times more massive than the sun that exhausted its nuclear fuel, exploded, then collapsed to form a black hole.
If it exhausted its "nuclear fuel," how could it explode?
When they say the fuel is "exhausted", what they really mean is that there is no longer enough to maintain an equilibrium with gravity. There is still a lot left. As gravity sucks down the remaining fuel it increases the pressure, heating it up enough for a big fusion reaction.
Ender's Game is a fanciful allegory, a forced, fictional situation someone would come up with in a classroom in order to made some sort of philosophical point about ethics. I personally wasn't in the military, but a good friend of mine was in Special Forces, and everyone in his unit read Starship Troopers and would quote from it and even use its terminology in the performance of their profession. Ender's Game is as much about war as Swordfish is about hacking.
Ender's Game is the quintessential classic military sci-fi book.
I have to disagree with that quote. Ender's Game is an anti-war book. If you want the quintessential classic military sci-fi book, read Starship Troopers.
You say "it's there, we've detected it" -- isn't that not strictly true? I mean, aren't their theories (MoND) that could potentially explain things w/o Dark Matter. Not saying they're likely, just that as I understand it they aren't completely ruled out....or am I wrong?
You're technically correct. We've detected something or some phenomenon, and there are theories that can explain that something without dark matter, but like you said, they're not likely. Perhaps I was a little too dismissive of the fringe theories. Without direct evidence of what it is, all we really have is Occam's razor.
It's there. We've detected it from its gravity. They were just hoping that it wasn't completely dark. It's starting to look like it is. The trouble with it being completely dark is that would make it difficult to prove any theories about it. What they're doing is searching for their keys under the streetlight when they've probably fallen down the sewer.
I believe that for the most part, people don't have a "natural" talent for what they are good at -- instead, they have a strong desire for it, which makes the many hours of work they put in seem more like fun than work..
Is the "strong desire" for particular things genetic? For instance, programming is fun for me, and was fun the first time I tried it. But I know many people who consider it some kind of punishment.
However, quite a few of the exoplanets I have been reading about do orbit their star pretty closely (although I would say I haven't even looked at 5% of the 1000 exoplanets out there).
It is easier to detect planets with tight orbits because you don't have to look at it very long to see that there is a planet. For an alien to detect Earth, they would have to observe Sol for a year. For them to detect Jupiter, they would have to observe Sol for 12 years.
I don't think Gravity falls under the category science fiction. If I was to make a movie about a fictional accident in a fictional submarine, would that be science fiction? People can make movies about space now and it doesn't have to be considered science fiction if all of the technology is contemporary.
Long answer: Gravity is about as close as Hollywood's *ever* come to doing it right, and will probably be as close as anyone's ever going to get, until the day you can actually shoot your movie in space itself.
The Imperial system has dumbed Americans down to the point where they can only understand measurements by comparing distances, sizes, weights and volumes to things like football fields, elephants, bowling balls and water bottles.
Dumbed down! Are you kidding? The metric system is so simple and intuitive a two year old child can understand it! The American system of football fields and elephants is so complex and convoluted it takes a genius to get any real work done with it!
Fortunately killer robots don't just grab people by the head and crush them, they like to throw them around first, and they usually throw people near some conveniently discarded weapon.
Having first learned to write manuscripts on a typewriter, I mimic the same style when writing a novel on the computer; using Courier New in manuscript format, underlining where I want italics and double-spacing everything so there is room to write comments on a hard copy. Some younger people have proof-read my work and actually thought that was the way I wanted it published. I had to explain that as an old-fogy, the presentation style is the last thing I do.
Here's a shameless plug for my latest novel, where you can see from the sample the suggested format for ebooks as specified by Amazon.
How about if the elimination of anonymity also eliminates the possibility of individual liberty? If the government has sufficient knowledge of any individual, they will be able to control that individuals life to the point where they can find something to charge against them and arrest them at will. And don't tell me you won't have anything to worry about if you obey the law, if all of your actions are scrutinized they will find something. The lack of anonymity tips power so much into the government's hands that privacy is now necessary for freedom, and we need to find a way to guarantee it for ourselves or we are condemning humanity to perpetual servitude.
The jobless population will be hired as NPCs in vast, ultra-realistic MMORPGs where they will supply amusement to the paying player characters; to be continuously killed, tortured, and humiliated by the ruling elite.
People who are doing repetitive jobs right now at least have some sort of commercial value to society. I hate to sound draconian, but only with commercial value or military value does a population have any bargaining power within a society. If you have a significant portion of a population without commercial value, the question is whether or not they will be allowed to have any political power.
The fact that people wear helmets while cycling and skiing far more than they used to is progress, not unwarranted paranoia.
Thank you for giving me an example of the relative nature of acceptable risk assessment. When I was a child no one would have considered wearing a helmet while riding a bike, and a few of us might have lost some brain cells along the way, but that was considered normal and acceptable back then. Now, it is considered unacceptably risky. Soon, it will be considered unacceptably risky to have cars on the road that don't automatically brake when an object is detected in front of it, and it will save thousands of lives, and that's a good thing. And soon after that it will be unacceptably risky to have your child not wear an implanted life-sign monitor, and that will save thousands of lives, and that's a good thing. And soon it will be unacceptably risky for every person not to have an implanted life-sign monitor with a real-time feed to the local medical facility 24/7, and you will be un-insurable without it, and that might not be such a great thing. But it will save thousands, if not millions of lives.
All hail the Hindmost! I personally couldn't imagine having to wear a helmet every time I rode a bike as a kid. As more and more safety measures get put into place over time, the tiniest threat will loom large due to graphic anecdotal evidence. Eventually we'll become Peirson's Puppeteers.
Slashdot Mirror
It still won't work for giraffes stretching their necks.
I blame Game of Thrones. Although you'd think Joffrey would be example enough to discourage monarchy.
a star tens of times more massive than the sun that exhausted its nuclear fuel, exploded, then collapsed to form a black hole.
If it exhausted its "nuclear fuel," how could it explode?
When they say the fuel is "exhausted", what they really mean is that there is no longer enough to maintain an equilibrium with gravity. There is still a lot left. As gravity sucks down the remaining fuel it increases the pressure, heating it up enough for a big fusion reaction.
All the more reason why we need to get autonomous cars on the road.
Ender's Game is a fanciful allegory, a forced, fictional situation someone would come up with in a classroom in order to made some sort of philosophical point about ethics. I personally wasn't in the military, but a good friend of mine was in Special Forces, and everyone in his unit read Starship Troopers and would quote from it and even use its terminology in the performance of their profession. Ender's Game is as much about war as Swordfish is about hacking.
Ender's Game is the quintessential classic military sci-fi book.
I have to disagree with that quote. Ender's Game is an anti-war book. If you want the quintessential classic military sci-fi book, read Starship Troopers.
You say "it's there, we've detected it" -- isn't that not strictly true? I mean, aren't their theories (MoND) that could potentially explain things w/o Dark Matter. Not saying they're likely, just that as I understand it they aren't completely ruled out....or am I wrong?
You're technically correct. We've detected something or some phenomenon, and there are theories that can explain that something without dark matter, but like you said, they're not likely. Perhaps I was a little too dismissive of the fringe theories. Without direct evidence of what it is, all we really have is Occam's razor.
It's there. We've detected it from its gravity. They were just hoping that it wasn't completely dark. It's starting to look like it is. The trouble with it being completely dark is that would make it difficult to prove any theories about it. What they're doing is searching for their keys under the streetlight when they've probably fallen down the sewer.
I believe that for the most part, people don't have a "natural" talent for what they are good at -- instead, they have a strong desire for it, which makes the many hours of work they put in seem more like fun than work..
Is the "strong desire" for particular things genetic? For instance, programming is fun for me, and was fun the first time I tried it. But I know many people who consider it some kind of punishment.
However, quite a few of the exoplanets I have been reading about do orbit their star pretty closely (although I would say I haven't even looked at 5% of the 1000 exoplanets out there).
It is easier to detect planets with tight orbits because you don't have to look at it very long to see that there is a planet. For an alien to detect Earth, they would have to observe Sol for a year. For them to detect Jupiter, they would have to observe Sol for 12 years.
That's real horrorshow, droog.
No, 24% of kids want to run the cyber-police state they know is coming.
Too bad the Millenials didn't get a cool label, like Generation X.
My rule is, honestly try to figure out how much time you think it will take to write the code--and then double it.
I don't think Gravity falls under the category science fiction. If I was to make a movie about a fictional accident in a fictional submarine, would that be science fiction? People can make movies about space now and it doesn't have to be considered science fiction if all of the technology is contemporary.
Long answer: Gravity is about as close as Hollywood's *ever* come to doing it right, and will probably be as close as anyone's ever going to get, until the day you can actually shoot your movie in space itself.
Apollo 13
The Imperial system has dumbed Americans down to the point where they can only understand measurements by comparing distances, sizes, weights and volumes to things like football fields, elephants, bowling balls and water bottles.
Dumbed down! Are you kidding? The metric system is so simple and intuitive a two year old child can understand it! The American system of football fields and elephants is so complex and convoluted it takes a genius to get any real work done with it!
Fortunately killer robots don't just grab people by the head and crush them, they like to throw them around first, and they usually throw people near some conveniently discarded weapon.
You forgot "hit weak point for massive damage!"
Having first learned to write manuscripts on a typewriter, I mimic the same style when writing a novel on the computer; using Courier New in manuscript format, underlining where I want italics and double-spacing everything so there is room to write comments on a hard copy. Some younger people have proof-read my work and actually thought that was the way I wanted it published. I had to explain that as an old-fogy, the presentation style is the last thing I do.
Here's a shameless plug for my latest novel, where you can see from the sample the suggested format for ebooks as specified by Amazon.
How about if the elimination of anonymity also eliminates the possibility of individual liberty? If the government has sufficient knowledge of any individual, they will be able to control that individuals life to the point where they can find something to charge against them and arrest them at will. And don't tell me you won't have anything to worry about if you obey the law, if all of your actions are scrutinized they will find something. The lack of anonymity tips power so much into the government's hands that privacy is now necessary for freedom, and we need to find a way to guarantee it for ourselves or we are condemning humanity to perpetual servitude.
The jobless population will be hired as NPCs in vast, ultra-realistic MMORPGs where they will supply amusement to the paying player characters; to be continuously killed, tortured, and humiliated by the ruling elite.
People who are doing repetitive jobs right now at least have some sort of commercial value to society. I hate to sound draconian, but only with commercial value or military value does a population have any bargaining power within a society. If you have a significant portion of a population without commercial value, the question is whether or not they will be allowed to have any political power.
The fact that people wear helmets while cycling and skiing far more than they used to is progress, not unwarranted paranoia.
Thank you for giving me an example of the relative nature of acceptable risk assessment. When I was a child no one would have considered wearing a helmet while riding a bike, and a few of us might have lost some brain cells along the way, but that was considered normal and acceptable back then. Now, it is considered unacceptably risky. Soon, it will be considered unacceptably risky to have cars on the road that don't automatically brake when an object is detected in front of it, and it will save thousands of lives, and that's a good thing. And soon after that it will be unacceptably risky to have your child not wear an implanted life-sign monitor, and that will save thousands of lives, and that's a good thing. And soon it will be unacceptably risky for every person not to have an implanted life-sign monitor with a real-time feed to the local medical facility 24/7, and you will be un-insurable without it, and that might not be such a great thing. But it will save thousands, if not millions of lives.
All hail the Hindmost! I personally couldn't imagine having to wear a helmet every time I rode a bike as a kid. As more and more safety measures get put into place over time, the tiniest threat will loom large due to graphic anecdotal evidence. Eventually we'll become Peirson's Puppeteers.