The Gaelic naming convention of Mc/Mac places no rules on which you use. Mc and Mac are entirely interchangeable and having studied by Scots heritage, I can say even the same person could vary between them randomly. This creates a serious problem, because if some people insist THEIR spelling is the one true spelling and an equal number insist on the right to vary at will, you CANNOT make either approach a firm policy. There is no simple solution.
Why the hell would you want to store variable strings in the same table as real data? Very inefficient. You're much better off with one or more dictionary tables for non-well-formed data and run everything off fixed-length keys into that dictionary. You almost never actually WANT the value - even a comparison is just comparing the keys, if the dictionary is guaranteed to only have unique entries in it.
This sort of token-driven system solves 99% of your problems, improves efficiency (you make more records fixed-length rather than variable-length, and you're doing comparisons on relatively short fixed-length tokens) and enforces better abstraction.
There might be no global effects, there might be substantial global effects - climate is a chaotic system and thinks common sense stinks. Until someone actually churns the numbers, we really don't know what to expect.
Let's run through a few scenarios, though:
a) You create a stable micro-climate and there are no significant effects outside. Some of the top landscape gardeners and park designers aim for just this kind of effect, which is why Portmeirion in Wales is so weird.
b) You cool the air column, creating more clouds, resulting in the same net rainfall but the location of that rain has now moved. This MAY cause one area to become dryer and another to become wetter. In turn, the area that becomes dryer will reflect more, the area that becomes wetter will reflect less. This will again alter the distribution of the rainfall. And so on. The original change may be small, but the shuffling that follows can be substantially larger. This might actually be a really good thing, or a really bad thing. It's so very hard to say by guesswork alone. (But if this is the primary effect, it would be possible - through skillful engineering - to make it be more beneficial than harmful on average, and maybe even extremely beneficial under typical conditions.)
c) You cool the air column. Cold air is heavier and has lower pressure than warm air, so you create some interesting convection currents. Not devastating, unless you take out one of the many conveyor belts of heat in the process. Not all air patterns are created equal and if you take out the wrong one, you can have some fascinating effects. If this is significant, then it is also entirely possible to simply place the site somewhere that will reduce the risk of harm and perhaps increase the chances of benefit.
It would be interesting to see not only a climate impact study, but an actual effort to utilize the effects where possible.
The difference comes down to three things: Efficiency of conversion, efficiency of transport from collection to storage, and efficiency of storage. In an all-electrical system, over a hot desert (where you can expect the air to pick up a charge easily), there are too many places where you can potentially lose efficiency.
...suddenly reflected a hell of a lot less heat back into the atmosphere, you're going to alter the climate drastically -- which may well reduce the amount of energy you have to tap, as it's likely to cause a regional cooling, which may result in greater cloud formation. I'd want to see the climatologists study the proposal. More to the point, is there an advantage in using solar panels over having the sunlight heat water (which is vastly more efficient) and then use the steam to generate electricity?
That could use stuff like this. I have been working with a group of British archaeologists at the Mellor Archaeological Trust for a few years and they have a superb site - but much of it is either impossible to excavate or too expensive. So they started working with Ground Penetrating Radar. Interesting novelty toy, but it only tells you where it might be interesting to dig, it doesn't really help avoid digging.
At the SC2005 supercomputer show, I saw demonstrated reverse tomography techniques. Ah, this looks better. Being able to take the output an generate a visual representation. Problem is, ground isn't uniform so you've a lot of refraction and reflection to contend with. Possible solution - the game Black Box. If you know where you put the rays in and know where you get the rays out, with sufficient rays you can determine where things must have been to produce those results.
Next problem: Objects aren't of uniform shape and size, and signals aren't transmitted vertically downwards. The result is that the output will be scattered in all kinds of directions, where those directions depend on which direction the radar is facing. Solution - have many receivers, some at fixed points and the regular one on the GPR set.
Next problem - the signals used are bloody weak, but the depths you need to scan to are incredible. It isn't possible to build a single receiver large enough to pick up the extremely faint signals you're going to get at any depth. At great depths, sacrificing the fine detail for any detail at all seems reasonable. That means turning the collection of receivers into one large virtual dish.
And this is where the article comes in. Interferometry is a great technique for a constant signal, but radar is pulsed. You need something analogous for radar systems, which is your synthetic aperture radar.
You do the scan of the ground as a grid once for directional sensitivity and then again for signal sensitivity.
There is, of course, one other problem and it's big. The same set of results can come from multiple possible sources. It should be possible to use herustics to try and find potential solutions, and then conduct further scans which either eliminate or confirm those possibilities.
Isn't this a lot of work? Yes. It's a hell of a lot of work. But the site involved has too many areas of extreme interest where non-intrusive scans MIGHT get permission, but where any kind of digging - so much as a teaspoon - would get you hung, drawn and quartered. And then forced to watch Bob Monkhouse reruns.
To me, this is why the paper is interesting. It tells me if this kind of vision is even possible, it tells me something about what the requirements are, and it tells me whether it would be more cost-effective to actually do it or wait.
It's not just =a= publicity stunt, it's a publicity stunt that will have tens of thousands of screaming rock fans getting sequenced, and will have preachers claim that if you play the DNA backwards over some iron filings, you can hear "The soda's in the fridge, all hail the antichrist" repeatedly.
Admit it! At least the gas pedals didn't stick to the gas tank, causing the tank to rupture horribly over the over-heated engine, thus eliminating any possibility of an official complaint. . . Oh. . . Just been told that's next year's model.
I was thinking more that all Engineering degrees require a combined combined LEGO/Mecchano device as a final-year project (to demonstrate interoperability), with internship at LEGOLand.
And, that, of course, is the most evil and pernicious form of censorship of all. Censorship NOT by a Government is unbounded and unrestricted yet, especially when one or two companies are involved, actually has the potential for greater harm. There is no protection from it, and with increased restrictions against reverse-engineering, no place to hide.
And I will say this slower, as your brains make several weeks to percolate through each fact: OK, I'll try to say this slowly. The radius of the event horizon is linearly proportional to the mass.
No. The radius of the event horizon fomr abssolut mean position to absolutute is directly proprtional to the total informatiomn present. If you want to offer a rebutall do so, but repeating yourself only makes you look the more moronic. Try to understand the basics of Hamiltonian Tensors and Minkowski spacetime. Try, however, may well be as far as your limited brains can go.
The radius of a spherical mass at constant density is proportional to the cube root of the mass.
Only useful for those cases where there is (a) a single, point-sized singularity.
You have IGNORED the fact that:
a) You don't need a sungularity b) The fact that singularities need not be points but may be any shape that cannot be reduced further (a torus is an example). c) The singularity, if it even exists and is the shape you imagine it to exist, need not behave as you think. Nothing else in the physical world ever has. Anything the size of a particle exists in all space and at all times, can simultaneously change position and velocity. d) One of the alternative theories listed had no black holes in them AT ALL! e) Another had one singularity, but not the one you are predisposed to believe at all costs.
> This means (blah blah blah)
"The world is full of obvious things which nobody by any chance ever observes."* You can say nothing about what "it" means until you have an accepted idea of what "it" is!
"No, no: I never guess. It is a shocking habit, -- destructive to the logical faculty."
Enough said, if you are incapable of reading the posts of others of reading even the most basic of replies you are not worthy of my attention.
> I'm know stepping off your lawn, old man.
Too late. I mowed your post into fertilizer. I'm sure there are some deadly parasitic species that could benefit from your gall-loaded remarks, but nothing beneficial, s gerroff my lawn and take your damn poster-made-fertilizer with you!
Kerr ring singularities are interested in your theory and wish to subscribe to your newsletter. (Translation: I'd forgotten more about singularities by the 1987 Tercentenary lectures at Cambridge than you've ever learned.)
Yawn. As I said, there are competing theories. Your absolutism, though, tires me. Have you tried founding a major religion? I hear it's quite profitable. It's certainly going to be more entertaining for the rest of us to watch than your posts. Your claim that singularities aren't required by an event horizon ignores not only all of the alternative theories put forward in physics (pretending a theory does not exist is NOT a way to win friends and influence people, your "proof" is utter drivel. You start by assuming that the radius of the singularity is equal to the radius of the event horizon, then "prove" singularities aren't present by showing this can't be true. Blah blah puke. Get over your ego.
It's pretty much accepted these days that time and space are indistinguishable other than that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics creates a time arrow that no spacial dimension possesses. The notion that time is different from space was rejected in the late 1800s by mathematicians, early 20th century by physicists. In relativistic physics, the equations for modeling relative time, relative space and relative mass are merely Pythagoras' equations where the hypotenuse is fixed at C for all objects. (For reasons that escape me, I won an award from Warwick University for the proof of this. It's so bleedin' obvious.)
Errr, moderators, how is it flamebait to remind people of actual quotes and the actual (and terrifying) xenophobia that exists in the US? Surely to NOT point out that xenophobia is a serious and VERY real problem right now in every country would be the flamebait. Telling humanity that it needs to wake the eff up and cut the crap may not be... delicate, but since when have I ever been delicate? I'm about as delicate as a slice of lemon wrapped around a gold brick and/or piledriver. Marking something as flamebait when you disagree is an abuse of mod privilege - and stupid, pathetic and sufficiently unoriginal that Slashdot introduced metamods to discourage such folly. Grow up.
That allows information from inside the event horizon to leak outside (which is all the astrophysicists really need) and allows the evaporation of black holes, but the event horizon would remain intact. However, we have never seen Hawking Radiation (yet) and it depends some on certain assumptions being valid. One of these assumptions is that the singularity is something "physical".
A lot of cosmologists don't like infinities, so don't like singularities, but let us consider what "infinite gravity" would actually mean. It would mean you have a vertical gravitational well, with the universe being the "walls" of this well. As far as the universe is concerned. the actual hole that makes up the interesting part of the well is on the outside, just as the air in a physical well is outside the brick lining that comprise the walls. Since what we call "physical" are the objects inside the universe, it makes no logical or rational sense to talk of something that is on the outside as being "physical". You can detect it using the usual rules of topology and geometry (you can't apply any topological transformation to a torus to produce a sphere), but if you picture yourself as a Flatlander on the surface of said torus, you could NEVER observe the region on the outside that distinguishes the torus from a sphere. You could infer it existed, you could even prove that it has certain properties, but that's it.
Cosmologists and topologists don't get along, which is why space/time existed as fact in geometry long, long before any physicist accepted it was real. Einstein is said to have loathed and despised the concept, and only grudgingly accepted it had to be true after being dragged, kicking and screaming, by his theories into reaching no other answer. (You might gather from this I have a low opinion of certain branches of physics.)
But precisely because the rules of topology FORBID a torus to become a sphere, it would be impossible for a genuinely infinite-gravity singularity to evaporate completely. Instead of their evaporation speeding up as they shrank, it would have to slow down -- if they evaporated at all. Entirely the opposite of what physics expects. There's no reason for them TO evaporate, however. It is only required in cosmology to meet the requirements of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, but thermodynamics only applies to what exists. A hole is a region where the walls do NOT exist.
There is a third possibility. Under the standard model for space/time, time is orthogonal to space. If space is bent at 90' to all other spacial dimensions, then it is no longer space. It is time. This means that not only is there a singularity at the heart of every black hole, it would be the SAME singularity. There would have only ever been one singularity, right at T=0, and the throats of all black holes would be directly and permanently hard-linked to this. There would still be no evaporation at this end of time (it has already happened).
A fourth (and fifth) possibility is that black holes never actually form at all. There's an entire alternative model in cosmology which prohibits them outright, giving you that fourth option. Then, Professor Hawking's work on imaginary time and the curvature of time around singularities would eliminate the need for a singularity outright. If you factor time curving as well as space, then space/time never vanishes to a point. Space/time would become parabolic, giving it a minimal state, but there is no moment in which any variable hits zero or any infinite states are achieved.
There's probably others I've either not heard of, or have heard of and forgotten. But at least five different ways DO exist and are recognized in modern physics as possible in which no black hole singularity of the kind imagined would arise. That means there is simply no theoretical ground (right now) to assume that this new theory has any meaning or would make any sense.
In the US, at least, falsely accusing people is a major source of income for lawyers, newspapers, TV stations, politicians,... If you shut this line of income down and lock them up, you'd double the prison population in days.
In this day and age of wardriving, wifi sniffers and even your bog-standard network mappers, it's not simply standing out on the porch. It's sticking a bloody great 30' neon sign over said porch saying "look this way".
In the days CRT ruled supreme, it was entirely possible to grab video images from any television or computer monitor directly. Up until the scrapping of analogue TV, anyone with a standard TV areal plugged into a DVD player, cable box, or whatever, was unknowingly broadcasting EVERYTHING they watched. An areal is a two-way device.
(The British discovered this when the fifth broadcast channel started up at the same frequency as a few million Nintendos and a few million more VCRs. This was the ultimate in DDoS attacks, with each and every one of those devices acting as a jamming device. It cost the Government of the day a small fortune to repair, though I'm not sure their solution of re-tuning every household electronic device was the most practical of the options.)
But this signal is entirely possible to intercept and display. Even if that information is something like a home-made sex tape or some other sensitive material. Which means anyone who HAS watched such material on an unsecured device has risked that information being grabbed by a drive-by. This has been known, and done, for decades. Joe and Jane Average just don't give a damn. Well, until it affects them, at which point the fact that it's bloody obvious and something they've only heard about on news stories for most of their lives will completely escape them and they'll protest they could never have known.
Slashdot Mirror
The Gaelic naming convention of Mc/Mac places no rules on which you use. Mc and Mac are entirely interchangeable and having studied by Scots heritage, I can say even the same person could vary between them randomly. This creates a serious problem, because if some people insist THEIR spelling is the one true spelling and an equal number insist on the right to vary at will, you CANNOT make either approach a firm policy. There is no simple solution.
Why the hell would you want to store variable strings in the same table as real data? Very inefficient. You're much better off with one or more dictionary tables for non-well-formed data and run everything off fixed-length keys into that dictionary. You almost never actually WANT the value - even a comparison is just comparing the keys, if the dictionary is guaranteed to only have unique entries in it.
This sort of token-driven system solves 99% of your problems, improves efficiency (you make more records fixed-length rather than variable-length, and you're doing comparisons on relatively short fixed-length tokens) and enforces better abstraction.
There might be no global effects, there might be substantial global effects - climate is a chaotic system and thinks common sense stinks. Until someone actually churns the numbers, we really don't know what to expect.
Let's run through a few scenarios, though:
a) You create a stable micro-climate and there are no significant effects outside. Some of the top landscape gardeners and park designers aim for just this kind of effect, which is why Portmeirion in Wales is so weird.
b) You cool the air column, creating more clouds, resulting in the same net rainfall but the location of that rain has now moved. This MAY cause one area to become dryer and another to become wetter. In turn, the area that becomes dryer will reflect more, the area that becomes wetter will reflect less. This will again alter the distribution of the rainfall. And so on. The original change may be small, but the shuffling that follows can be substantially larger. This might actually be a really good thing, or a really bad thing. It's so very hard to say by guesswork alone. (But if this is the primary effect, it would be possible - through skillful engineering - to make it be more beneficial than harmful on average, and maybe even extremely beneficial under typical conditions.)
c) You cool the air column. Cold air is heavier and has lower pressure than warm air, so you create some interesting convection currents. Not devastating, unless you take out one of the many conveyor belts of heat in the process. Not all air patterns are created equal and if you take out the wrong one, you can have some fascinating effects. If this is significant, then it is also entirely possible to simply place the site somewhere that will reduce the risk of harm and perhaps increase the chances of benefit.
It would be interesting to see not only a climate impact study, but an actual effort to utilize the effects where possible.
If you're not a pessimist, you've clearly not been on Slashdot long. Don't worry, eventually you will see the dark.
The difference comes down to three things: Efficiency of conversion, efficiency of transport from collection to storage, and efficiency of storage. In an all-electrical system, over a hot desert (where you can expect the air to pick up a charge easily), there are too many places where you can potentially lose efficiency.
...suddenly reflected a hell of a lot less heat back into the atmosphere, you're going to alter the climate drastically -- which may well reduce the amount of energy you have to tap, as it's likely to cause a regional cooling, which may result in greater cloud formation. I'd want to see the climatologists study the proposal. More to the point, is there an advantage in using solar panels over having the sunlight heat water (which is vastly more efficient) and then use the steam to generate electricity?
I prefer MySQL to Access.
That could use stuff like this. I have been working with a group of British archaeologists at the Mellor Archaeological Trust for a few years and they have a superb site - but much of it is either impossible to excavate or too expensive. So they started working with Ground Penetrating Radar. Interesting novelty toy, but it only tells you where it might be interesting to dig, it doesn't really help avoid digging.
At the SC2005 supercomputer show, I saw demonstrated reverse tomography techniques. Ah, this looks better. Being able to take the output an generate a visual representation. Problem is, ground isn't uniform so you've a lot of refraction and reflection to contend with. Possible solution - the game Black Box. If you know where you put the rays in and know where you get the rays out, with sufficient rays you can determine where things must have been to produce those results.
Next problem: Objects aren't of uniform shape and size, and signals aren't transmitted vertically downwards. The result is that the output will be scattered in all kinds of directions, where those directions depend on which direction the radar is facing. Solution - have many receivers, some at fixed points and the regular one on the GPR set.
Next problem - the signals used are bloody weak, but the depths you need to scan to are incredible. It isn't possible to build a single receiver large enough to pick up the extremely faint signals you're going to get at any depth. At great depths, sacrificing the fine detail for any detail at all seems reasonable. That means turning the collection of receivers into one large virtual dish.
And this is where the article comes in. Interferometry is a great technique for a constant signal, but radar is pulsed. You need something analogous for radar systems, which is your synthetic aperture radar.
You do the scan of the ground as a grid once for directional sensitivity and then again for signal sensitivity.
There is, of course, one other problem and it's big. The same set of results can come from multiple possible sources. It should be possible to use herustics to try and find potential solutions, and then conduct further scans which either eliminate or confirm those possibilities.
Isn't this a lot of work? Yes. It's a hell of a lot of work. But the site involved has too many areas of extreme interest where non-intrusive scans MIGHT get permission, but where any kind of digging - so much as a teaspoon - would get you hung, drawn and quartered. And then forced to watch Bob Monkhouse reruns.
To me, this is why the paper is interesting. It tells me if this kind of vision is even possible, it tells me something about what the requirements are, and it tells me whether it would be more cost-effective to actually do it or wait.
That's Eric Clapton's DNA.
It's not just =a= publicity stunt, it's a publicity stunt that will have tens of thousands of screaming rock fans getting sequenced, and will have preachers claim that if you play the DNA backwards over some iron filings, you can hear "The soda's in the fridge, all hail the antichrist" repeatedly.
'Ave at it!
Ocaml's spit more.
Admit it! At least the gas pedals didn't stick to the gas tank, causing the tank to rupture horribly over the over-heated engine, thus eliminating any possibility of an official complaint.
.
.
Oh.
.
.
Just been told that's next year's model.
I was thinking more that all Engineering degrees require a combined combined LEGO/Mecchano device as a final-year project (to demonstrate interoperability), with internship at LEGOLand.
And, that, of course, is the most evil and pernicious form of censorship of all. Censorship NOT by a Government is unbounded and unrestricted yet, especially when one or two companies are involved, actually has the potential for greater harm. There is no protection from it, and with increased restrictions against reverse-engineering, no place to hide.
And I will say this slower, as your brains make several weeks to percolate through each fact:
OK, I'll try to say this slowly. The radius of the event horizon is linearly proportional to the mass.
No. The radius of the event horizon fomr abssolut mean position to absolutute is directly proprtional to the total informatiomn present. If you want to offer a rebutall do so, but repeating yourself only makes you look the more moronic. Try to understand the basics of Hamiltonian Tensors and Minkowski spacetime. Try, however, may well be as far as your limited brains can go.
The radius of a spherical mass at constant density is proportional to the cube root of the mass.
Only useful for those cases where there is (a) a single, point-sized singularity.
You have IGNORED the fact that:
a) You don't need a sungularity
b) The fact that singularities need not be points but may be any shape that cannot be reduced further (a torus is an example).
c) The singularity, if it even exists and is the shape you imagine it to exist, need not behave as you think. Nothing else in the physical world ever has. Anything the size of a particle exists in all space and at all times, can simultaneously change position and velocity.
d) One of the alternative theories listed had no black holes in them AT ALL!
e) Another had one singularity, but not the one you are predisposed to believe at all costs.
> This means (blah blah blah)
"The world is full of obvious things which nobody by any chance ever observes."* You can say nothing about what "it" means until you have an accepted idea of what "it" is!
"No, no: I never guess. It is a shocking habit, -- destructive to the logical faculty."
Enough said, if you are incapable of reading the posts of others of reading even the most basic of replies you are not worthy of my attention.
> I'm know stepping off your lawn, old man.
Too late. I mowed your post into fertilizer. I'm sure there are some deadly parasitic species that could benefit from your gall-loaded remarks, but nothing beneficial, s gerroff my lawn and take your damn poster-made-fertilizer with you!
Kerr ring singularities are interested in your theory and wish to subscribe to your newsletter. (Translation: I'd forgotten more about singularities by the 1987 Tercentenary lectures at Cambridge than you've ever learned.)
Yawn. As I said, there are competing theories. Your absolutism, though, tires me. Have you tried founding a major religion? I hear it's quite profitable. It's certainly going to be more entertaining for the rest of us to watch than your posts. Your claim that singularities aren't required by an event horizon ignores not only all of the alternative theories put forward in physics (pretending a theory does not exist is NOT a way to win friends and influence people, your "proof" is utter drivel. You start by assuming that the radius of the singularity is equal to the radius of the event horizon, then "prove" singularities aren't present by showing this can't be true. Blah blah puke. Get over your ego.
It's pretty much accepted these days that time and space are indistinguishable other than that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics creates a time arrow that no spacial dimension possesses. The notion that time is different from space was rejected in the late 1800s by mathematicians, early 20th century by physicists. In relativistic physics, the equations for modeling relative time, relative space and relative mass are merely Pythagoras' equations where the hypotenuse is fixed at C for all objects. (For reasons that escape me, I won an award from Warwick University for the proof of this. It's so bleedin' obvious.)
D'oh! This is further proof Homer Simpson is the greatest mind of our time.
Errr, moderators, how is it flamebait to remind people of actual quotes and the actual (and terrifying) xenophobia that exists in the US? Surely to NOT point out that xenophobia is a serious and VERY real problem right now in every country would be the flamebait. Telling humanity that it needs to wake the eff up and cut the crap may not be... delicate, but since when have I ever been delicate? I'm about as delicate as a slice of lemon wrapped around a gold brick and/or piledriver. Marking something as flamebait when you disagree is an abuse of mod privilege - and stupid, pathetic and sufficiently unoriginal that Slashdot introduced metamods to discourage such folly. Grow up.
That allows information from inside the event horizon to leak outside (which is all the astrophysicists really need) and allows the evaporation of black holes, but the event horizon would remain intact. However, we have never seen Hawking Radiation (yet) and it depends some on certain assumptions being valid. One of these assumptions is that the singularity is something "physical".
A lot of cosmologists don't like infinities, so don't like singularities, but let us consider what "infinite gravity" would actually mean. It would mean you have a vertical gravitational well, with the universe being the "walls" of this well. As far as the universe is concerned. the actual hole that makes up the interesting part of the well is on the outside, just as the air in a physical well is outside the brick lining that comprise the walls. Since what we call "physical" are the objects inside the universe, it makes no logical or rational sense to talk of something that is on the outside as being "physical". You can detect it using the usual rules of topology and geometry (you can't apply any topological transformation to a torus to produce a sphere), but if you picture yourself as a Flatlander on the surface of said torus, you could NEVER observe the region on the outside that distinguishes the torus from a sphere. You could infer it existed, you could even prove that it has certain properties, but that's it.
Cosmologists and topologists don't get along, which is why space/time existed as fact in geometry long, long before any physicist accepted it was real. Einstein is said to have loathed and despised the concept, and only grudgingly accepted it had to be true after being dragged, kicking and screaming, by his theories into reaching no other answer. (You might gather from this I have a low opinion of certain branches of physics.)
But precisely because the rules of topology FORBID a torus to become a sphere, it would be impossible for a genuinely infinite-gravity singularity to evaporate completely. Instead of their evaporation speeding up as they shrank, it would have to slow down -- if they evaporated at all. Entirely the opposite of what physics expects. There's no reason for them TO evaporate, however. It is only required in cosmology to meet the requirements of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, but thermodynamics only applies to what exists. A hole is a region where the walls do NOT exist.
There is a third possibility. Under the standard model for space/time, time is orthogonal to space. If space is bent at 90' to all other spacial dimensions, then it is no longer space. It is time. This means that not only is there a singularity at the heart of every black hole, it would be the SAME singularity. There would have only ever been one singularity, right at T=0, and the throats of all black holes would be directly and permanently hard-linked to this. There would still be no evaporation at this end of time (it has already happened).
A fourth (and fifth) possibility is that black holes never actually form at all. There's an entire alternative model in cosmology which prohibits them outright, giving you that fourth option. Then, Professor Hawking's work on imaginary time and the curvature of time around singularities would eliminate the need for a singularity outright. If you factor time curving as well as space, then space/time never vanishes to a point. Space/time would become parabolic, giving it a minimal state, but there is no moment in which any variable hits zero or any infinite states are achieved.
There's probably others I've either not heard of, or have heard of and forgotten. But at least five different ways DO exist and are recognized in modern physics as possible in which no black hole singularity of the kind imagined would arise. That means there is simply no theoretical ground (right now) to assume that this new theory has any meaning or would make any sense.
In the US, at least, falsely accusing people is a major source of income for lawyers, newspapers, TV stations, politicians,... If you shut this line of income down and lock them up, you'd double the prison population in days.
In this day and age of wardriving, wifi sniffers and even your bog-standard network mappers, it's not simply standing out on the porch. It's sticking a bloody great 30' neon sign over said porch saying "look this way".
In the days CRT ruled supreme, it was entirely possible to grab video images from any television or computer monitor directly. Up until the scrapping of analogue TV, anyone with a standard TV areal plugged into a DVD player, cable box, or whatever, was unknowingly broadcasting EVERYTHING they watched. An areal is a two-way device.
(The British discovered this when the fifth broadcast channel started up at the same frequency as a few million Nintendos and a few million more VCRs. This was the ultimate in DDoS attacks, with each and every one of those devices acting as a jamming device. It cost the Government of the day a small fortune to repair, though I'm not sure their solution of re-tuning every household electronic device was the most practical of the options.)
But this signal is entirely possible to intercept and display. Even if that information is something like a home-made sex tape or some other sensitive material. Which means anyone who HAS watched such material on an unsecured device has risked that information being grabbed by a drive-by. This has been known, and done, for decades. Joe and Jane Average just don't give a damn. Well, until it affects them, at which point the fact that it's bloody obvious and something they've only heard about on news stories for most of their lives will completely escape them and they'll protest they could never have known.