In particularly expensive places to live, people toy with the idea of buying a run-down house, razing it, and building their dream house on the property. In areas where real-estate is expensive, location can be far more important than the actual physical artifact.
What this robot could do is make that type of investment much more reasonable. So in neighborhoods that aren't quite as expensive, this type of investment would change from foolhearty to worthwhile. It could result in a boom in construction in mid-priced, good-location neighborhoods--raising the property values in those middle class neighborhoods by enabling long-entrenched neglected properties to get transformed that much faster.
One conceivable problem: in old neighborhoods with small lots there may not be enough space to set up (or remove!) the gantry that the robot uses to build the house.
That would be the Ryugyong Hotel. You can witness the folly of North Korea yourself via Google Maps. If you look closely you can see the crane stuck at the top of the hotel (it looks like a minute hand pointing to 5 o'clock). More amusing hotel trivia at the expense of fat lil' Kim can be found here.
I didn't read the subthreads, but it seems like no one has the right answer in the immediate responses. Also, it took me a while to find my/. password.
I believe the vertical landing is simply to pass FAA regulations for test-vehicle short hops. The vehicle isn't a space-ship, yet, but Blue Horizon still wants to test it. The logical low-weight descent is to use a parachute, but the parachute method can't really control the exact landing site. The FAA doesn't want to approve large objects landing randomly. So in order for Blue Horizon to do incremental testing of the vehicle, they need to have a controlled landing. As soon as BH starts getting into space, they will apply for a different set of permits and meet a different set of requirements. I bet the final design will be a parachute descent.
I agree that the optical scan voting is the best system I have seen. There are still problems with it, though. In the HBO blackboxvoting documentary, they use this system at the end of the show and are able to hack the vote-tallying software to get an incorrect count.
That being said, the system has an easy-to-understand user interface (assuming the ballot designer isn't a total idiot), it is relatively inexpensive to prepare and administer the ballots, and it retains a permanent record. The problem with the vote-counting software seems to be a fixable bug, rather than a dealbreaker.
What if DeBeers started a company that claimed to sell man-made diamonds, but actually just sold DeBeers excess stock?
Facts that might support this plan:
- New diamond manufacturing processes create flaws and imperfection, making new-style manufactured diamonds indistinguishable from found diamonds. This also makes found diamonds indistinguishable from manufactured diamonds.
- According to conventional wisdom, DeBeers has a huge stockpile of diamonds. This helps keep the price up by imposing scarcity, but it is also excess, inventory--non-revenue-producing inventory.
- As manufacturing processes become widespread, it seems very likely that the diamond market could collapse, making DeBeer's excess, non-revenue-producing inventory not worth very much.
- DeBeers has a proud history of destroying competition by using its monopoly to offer the same product for less.
- A quick comparison of pricess at http://www.adiadiamonds.com/ and http://www.canadadiamonds.com/ shows similar pricing. For the moment, at least, the market will support high prices for manufactured diamonds.
- This strategy doesn't make sense in the long-term, but if there IS no long term, then selling off excess inventory through another market is a good idea.
- As many commenters have noted, there is a lot of perceived value in not having a "Blood Diamond". If DeBeers can convince these commenters that its diamonds are not blood diamonds, then it can sell to them. One way to do this is to pretend that the diamond is man-made, even though it is not.
The weak link in this chain is the diamond's flaws. If you buy a flawless diamond, it must be man-made.
I don't really know if this is true--it seems pretty far-fetched, but I don't really know anything about Adia (or any of the other diamond manufacturing companies) either. It's an interesting bit of scepticism, that's all.
This is important for another reason as well. The demand for diamonds is large enough that DeBeers can't fill it with their surplus. DeBeers is rumored to have an enormous surplus of diamonds that they refuse to sell, in order to create artificial scarcity and drive up the price of diamonds.
If the artificial diamond manufacturers were simply going after the gemstone market, DeBeers could release enough diamonds from it's stores to drive the price of diamonds below the R&D for artificial diamonds. Sure, the diamond industry would take a hit for a few years, but the fledgling artificial manufacturers would go out of business, DeBeers would buy their infrastructure and patents, and then prices could be returned to their unnatural high.
But, because demand is so great in so many industries, DeBeers has no hope of fullfilling all the demand, and so can't cut the price low enough.
Noble impartiality is all well and good, but there's no point in forgetting history. If it was a director I trusted to make a good movie, I'd be tempted to give it the benefit of the doubt and go see it. Since it's Lucas, and I've already formed an opinion of his abilities based on his past work, the ONLY way I'll see it is if it gets good reviews.
One of the reasons I'm intrigued by the review in Variety (here, but now needs registration) is that the reviewer had many of the same objections to the first movie that I did (I didn't bother with the second). Since he's not blind to Lucas's prior mistakes, he's piqued my interest.
I'm not interested in shoving my opinion down anyone's throat. If you liked the earlier prequels, this sounds like it's going to be better then either of the first two.
Ah, now I get it. So, the changing definition isn't the point. The point is to show that i.d. was tested against the definition and found valid (even though the "test" is a sham).
Thanks.
They're idiots, btw. Don't move out of Kansas for this; vote them out. If the smart people leave, Kansas will suck. The "voting the bastards out" move seems to have worked a few times before.
The article says that the motivation for the redefinition is to open the door for equality of consideration in biology class between the theory of evolution and the belief of intelligent design.
Maybe that's the intention of the politicians (maybe it's the slant of the NYTimes), but I don't think that will be the result of enacting this new definition. I like the new definition better.
It seems to me that "hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation" can't be done on a 'belief', but only a 'theory', so that this would exclude intelligent design from being taught in a science class.
I'm not sure how this language would effect lawsuits for/against the teaching of intelligent design, but in my opinion it's a better definition. It's weird, if this really is an 'intelligent design' campaign it seems like a successful change would exclude i.d. from the classroom. Maybe I don't understand how people support i.d....
I don't think there's enough demand for valid links to old articles. Lots of blogs already have links to NYTimes articles that are far out of date. The people who read them don't care, particularly, that the links become invalid after a few weeks. When looking for information from old articles, the blogging block-quote seems to be enough attribution for most people (and, I suppose, if a blog-researcher needs actual attribution, they pay the news source for the article themselves).
That might actually be a way for a blogger to distinguish himself from other bloggers. Promise (and arrange via license agreements w/news sources and local caching when required) that all of his links would be valid forever.
But, again, I don't think the demand would be high enough. I haven't made my first dot-com million, so I may not be the best judge of what business models work in the new era.
If they charge for subscription, they are in danger of losing a vast portion of their readership, and no longer be the paper of record (well, they may still be the Paper of Record, but the distinction won't be important. They will no longer be the News Source of Record). They are competing with AP, Reuters and the BBC in this realm, all of which will continue to pump out all the international news anyone could hope for.
If the NYTimes hopes to justify the expense by touting it's higher-quality product, it will have to explain how it's reporting standards are lower then the WSJ and magazines like The Economist, both of which have far better reporting then The Gray Lady.
The price isn't horrible in the abstract, it's that the paper isn't worth the price. I often consider subscribing to the WSJ at $70/year. It is possible that one of the main reasons I don't subscribe is that the NYTimes is available for free. If the NYTimes starts charging, the result, for me, would probably be a subscription to the WSJOnline.
So, in order to compete with the WSJ, the NYTimes may be forced to improve it's product. That is not a bad thing, at all. Although it will be a lot of work, the NYTimes has a better chance of reaching a $50/yr value then most other online news sources.
"So if there is no one present from the future theoretically we never figure out how to transend time."
Or the party on May 7th becomes famous throughout time as one of the most suck-ass parties in all history. So, time travelers decide to skip it.
Just opinionated. Don't know how you could consider it a flame or a troll. POSSIBLE SPOILERS I thought the ending with the real-estate agent was a mind-fuck. Maybe I'm too simple. The social commentary wasn't particularly deep, but it was well done. The movie was based on one idea and took that to it's absurd/logical/horrifying conclusion. If you don't accept the premise, I can understand not liking the movie. I liked the premise, though, and so thought the movie was good and entertaining.
Interesting. I didn't realize that this director was the same guy who did both Insomnia and Memento--both movies that I thought were very well done. That bodes well for Batman (and, yes, almost insures moral ambiguity).
Free advice.
Although American Psycho is a great movie, with a real mind-fuck ending, it is NOT a first-date movie. It's really hard to convince a girl to get cuddly after she's seen a movie like that. The more clean-cut and all-American you look, the more jumpy she's going to be.
I'm sure there are disertations about how superheros reflect the current culture. I'm no authority, but I would predict that this Batman will be angrier, more violent and more sure of that he is right then earlier versions were.
I would bet that, of all the things that might go on with this version Batman, if he is shackled by moral uncertainty the movie won't do so well. People are probably in the mood for a hero who knows what's right and is willing to do terrible things to the bad guys.
As long as it's dark, I will probably like the movie either way. A dark Batman of any kind is far preferrable to the bubblegum variety.
Why would it suck if that was the new Batmobile? I mean, sure it doesn't look like the old Batmobile, but it still looks cool. Sort of trading a fast look for a tough look. I don't have a strong opinion (I like the new ugliness), just wondering...
"Some of the main characters were rebels and wore brown (thus brown coats) much like some western characters (ie, the Outlaw Josey Wales) were former confederates."
The costume reference that made me smile was that Serenity's ex-soldier ship captain/smuggler still wore his uniform pants.
Kind of like another sci-fi captain/smuggler I remember fondly from my youth; that guy's ship could make the Kessel run in 12 parsecs, though--a bit faster than Serenity...
The Metro, freely available on the subway is trash, absolute junk. Like broadcast television, it's just a medium used to convey advertisements to the public. All of it's articles are bought from AP/Reuters.
Despite it's junky content, I often need something to read on the long subway rides. So, I would attempt to find something worthwhile in it.
After a short while, I was so sick of the Metro that I wanted to buy a paper in protest--my attention is worth more than that. The problem was, the local paper was stuffed full of AP/Reuters articles as well. The WSJ was the only paper widely available that had better reporting. Since I'm not involved in finance, parts of the paper are pretty uninteresting to me, but generally, there's enough material worth reading to get me through my day's travel on the subway.
So, now I read the WSJ on a fairly regular basis. I like buying the print edition at the stand, rather than getting a subscription, because I want it to be sold at the subway stations I use.
I could see an application for this in use against smugglers... Fly two wasps out in front of the coast guard cutter to put the suspect ship in the center of a triangle of viewpoints. Open water, no flying inside the other ship. In theory, the wasps would have enough power/range to be in place before the coast guard got close. Since the badguys' focus would be on the coast guard, the wasps would be stealthy enough and provide a view of the hidden side of the boat (in case anything was quickly dumped) and a hint at the kind of arms the smugglers might have.
Hm, didn't think of that. And, you're right, it could be bad enough to scrap the whole idea. Maybe the treaty could be changed to not allow nukes in orbit below a certain altitude. That way, ships could be assembled but non-friendly nations would have enough of a buffer to feel safe. Maybe there could also be a certain limit. Maybe the whole idea is so unenforceable that not allowing nukes off the ground in the first place is the only good solution.
This guy is chock full of knowledge of propulsion systems I haven't even heard of before. One of them might a better choice.
On the other hand... At some point, if we become a space-faring society, there's going to have to be a very sizeable amount of dangerous equipment in orbit. So, we might have to compromise. Just like all those oil tankers and LNG tankers float into US harbors every day. Or the fully-fueled jets that take off from major urban centers. All sorts of dangerous but necessary things can be weaponized... I can't argue that orion drives are dangerous-but-necessary because I don't have the knowledge (I would guess "not necessary").
Let's see, things I've never heard of before: Medusa (for what it's worth, the one of the primary reasons I think that Orion drives would be suitable for unmanned probes is that they could easily be designed to withstand high acceleration. That high acceleration is the only reason I know of that an Orion drive would be better than an Ion drive or a solar sail.) mini-magnetospheric propulsion antimatter catalyzed microfission/microfusion "the various fusion core concepts" what? more than one? magnetohydrodynamic propulsion nuclear saltwater rockets
Thanks for the list; I better get busy with google.
FYI, word on on the street is that black holes might not exist (I read it in/., so it's obviously supported by scientific rigor). Might be hard to get grant funding...
Slashdot Mirror
In particularly expensive places to live, people toy with the idea of buying a run-down house, razing it, and building their dream house on the property. In areas where real-estate is expensive, location can be far more important than the actual physical artifact.
What this robot could do is make that type of investment much more reasonable. So in neighborhoods that aren't quite as expensive, this type of investment would change from foolhearty to worthwhile. It could result in a boom in construction in mid-priced, good-location neighborhoods--raising the property values in those middle class neighborhoods by enabling long-entrenched neglected properties to get transformed that much faster.
One conceivable problem: in old neighborhoods with small lots there may not be enough space to set up (or remove!) the gantry that the robot uses to build the house.
massive hotel that couldn't be finished...
That would be the Ryugyong Hotel. You can witness the folly of North Korea yourself via Google Maps. If you look closely you can see the crane stuck at the top of the hotel (it looks like a minute hand pointing to 5 o'clock). More amusing hotel trivia at the expense of fat lil' Kim can be found here.
I didn't read the subthreads, but it seems like no one has the right answer in the immediate responses. Also, it took me a while to find my /. password.
I believe the vertical landing is simply to pass FAA regulations for test-vehicle short hops. The vehicle isn't a space-ship, yet, but Blue Horizon still wants to test it. The logical low-weight descent is to use a parachute, but the parachute method can't really control the exact landing site. The FAA doesn't want to approve large objects landing randomly. So in order for Blue Horizon to do incremental testing of the vehicle, they need to have a controlled landing. As soon as BH starts getting into space, they will apply for a different set of permits and meet a different set of requirements. I bet the final design will be a parachute descent.
I agree that the optical scan voting is the best system I have seen. There are still problems with it, though. In the HBO blackboxvoting documentary, they use this system at the end of the show and are able to hack the vote-tallying software to get an incorrect count.
That being said, the system has an easy-to-understand user interface (assuming the ballot designer isn't a total idiot), it is relatively inexpensive to prepare and administer the ballots, and it retains a permanent record. The problem with the vote-counting software seems to be a fixable bug, rather than a dealbreaker.
What if DeBeers started a company that claimed to sell man-made diamonds, but actually just sold DeBeers excess stock?
Facts that might support this plan:
- New diamond manufacturing processes create flaws and imperfection, making new-style manufactured diamonds indistinguishable from found diamonds. This also makes found diamonds indistinguishable from manufactured diamonds.
- According to conventional wisdom, DeBeers has a huge stockpile of diamonds. This helps keep the price up by imposing scarcity, but it is also excess, inventory--non-revenue-producing inventory.
- As manufacturing processes become widespread, it seems very likely that the diamond market could collapse, making DeBeer's excess, non-revenue-producing inventory not worth very much.
- DeBeers has a proud history of destroying competition by using its monopoly to offer the same product for less.
- A quick comparison of pricess at http://www.adiadiamonds.com/ and http://www.canadadiamonds.com/ shows similar pricing. For the moment, at least, the market will support high prices for manufactured diamonds.
- This strategy doesn't make sense in the long-term, but if there IS no long term, then selling off excess inventory through another market is a good idea.
- As many commenters have noted, there is a lot of perceived value in not having a "Blood Diamond". If DeBeers can convince these commenters that its diamonds are not blood diamonds, then it can sell to them. One way to do this is to pretend that the diamond is man-made, even though it is not.
The weak link in this chain is the diamond's flaws. If you buy a flawless diamond, it must be man-made.
I don't really know if this is true--it seems pretty far-fetched, but I don't really know anything about Adia (or any of the other diamond manufacturing companies) either. It's an interesting bit of scepticism, that's all.
This is important for another reason as well. The demand for diamonds is large enough that DeBeers can't fill it with their surplus. DeBeers is rumored to have an enormous surplus of diamonds that they refuse to sell, in order to create artificial scarcity and drive up the price of diamonds.
If the artificial diamond manufacturers were simply going after the gemstone market, DeBeers could release enough diamonds from it's stores to drive the price of diamonds below the R&D for artificial diamonds. Sure, the diamond industry would take a hit for a few years, but the fledgling artificial manufacturers would go out of business, DeBeers would buy their infrastructure and patents, and then prices could be returned to their unnatural high.
But, because demand is so great in so many industries, DeBeers has no hope of fullfilling all the demand, and so can't cut the price low enough.
Noble impartiality is all well and good, but there's no point in forgetting history. If it was a director I trusted to make a good movie, I'd be tempted to give it the benefit of the doubt and go see it. Since it's Lucas, and I've already formed an opinion of his abilities based on his past work, the ONLY way I'll see it is if it gets good reviews.
One of the reasons I'm intrigued by the review in Variety (here, but now needs registration) is that the reviewer had many of the same objections to the first movie that I did (I didn't bother with the second). Since he's not blind to Lucas's prior mistakes, he's piqued my interest.
I'm not interested in shoving my opinion down anyone's throat. If you liked the earlier prequels, this sounds like it's going to be better then either of the first two.
Ah, now I get it. So, the changing definition isn't the point. The point is to show that i.d. was tested against the definition and found valid (even though the "test" is a sham).
Thanks.
They're idiots, btw. Don't move out of Kansas for this; vote them out. If the smart people leave, Kansas will suck. The "voting the bastards out" move seems to have worked a few times before.
Damn, I replied to a post, only to read further down the thread and find you, who are much more likely to be able to answer my question.
Here is the post.
Basically, this seems to me like a good definition of science. How are the i.d.-ers using this to their advantage?
The article says that the motivation for the redefinition is to open the door for equality of consideration in biology class between the theory of evolution and the belief of intelligent design.
Maybe that's the intention of the politicians (maybe it's the slant of the NYTimes), but I don't think that will be the result of enacting this new definition. I like the new definition better.
It seems to me that "hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation" can't be done on a 'belief', but only a 'theory', so that this would exclude intelligent design from being taught in a science class.
I'm not sure how this language would effect lawsuits for/against the teaching of intelligent design, but in my opinion it's a better definition. It's weird, if this really is an 'intelligent design' campaign it seems like a successful change would exclude i.d. from the classroom. Maybe I don't understand how people support i.d....
I don't think there's enough demand for valid links to old articles. Lots of blogs already have links to NYTimes articles that are far out of date. The people who read them don't care, particularly, that the links become invalid after a few weeks. When looking for information from old articles, the blogging block-quote seems to be enough attribution for most people (and, I suppose, if a blog-researcher needs actual attribution, they pay the news source for the article themselves). That might actually be a way for a blogger to distinguish himself from other bloggers. Promise (and arrange via license agreements w/news sources and local caching when required) that all of his links would be valid forever. But, again, I don't think the demand would be high enough. I haven't made my first dot-com million, so I may not be the best judge of what business models work in the new era.
The NYTimes is in a difficult position.
If they charge for subscription, they are in danger of losing a vast portion of their readership, and no longer be the paper of record (well, they may still be the Paper of Record, but the distinction won't be important. They will no longer be the News Source of Record). They are competing with AP, Reuters and the BBC in this realm, all of which will continue to pump out all the international news anyone could hope for.
If the NYTimes hopes to justify the expense by touting it's higher-quality product, it will have to explain how it's reporting standards are lower then the WSJ and magazines like The Economist, both of which have far better reporting then The Gray Lady.
The price isn't horrible in the abstract, it's that the paper isn't worth the price. I often consider subscribing to the WSJ at $70/year. It is possible that one of the main reasons I don't subscribe is that the NYTimes is available for free. If the NYTimes starts charging, the result, for me, would probably be a subscription to the WSJOnline.
So, in order to compete with the WSJ, the NYTimes may be forced to improve it's product. That is not a bad thing, at all. Although it will be a lot of work, the NYTimes has a better chance of reaching a $50/yr value then most other online news sources.
"So if there is no one present from the future theoretically we never figure out how to transend time." Or the party on May 7th becomes famous throughout time as one of the most suck-ass parties in all history. So, time travelers decide to skip it.
Now if only one of those dustdevils that's been cleaning the solar panels would be kind enough to wedge a 2"x12" behind the drive wheel...
Just opinionated. Don't know how you could consider it a flame or a troll.
POSSIBLE SPOILERS
I thought the ending with the real-estate agent was a mind-fuck. Maybe I'm too simple.
The social commentary wasn't particularly deep, but it was well done. The movie was based on one idea and took that to it's absurd/logical/horrifying conclusion. If you don't accept the premise, I can understand not liking the movie. I liked the premise, though, and so thought the movie was good and entertaining.
Interesting. I didn't realize that this director was the same guy who did both Insomnia and Memento--both movies that I thought were very well done. That bodes well for Batman (and, yes, almost insures moral ambiguity).
Free advice. Although American Psycho is a great movie, with a real mind-fuck ending, it is NOT a first-date movie. It's really hard to convince a girl to get cuddly after she's seen a movie like that. The more clean-cut and all-American you look, the more jumpy she's going to be.
I'm sure there are disertations about how superheros reflect the current culture. I'm no authority, but I would predict that this Batman will be angrier, more violent and more sure of that he is right then earlier versions were.
I would bet that, of all the things that might go on with this version Batman, if he is shackled by moral uncertainty the movie won't do so well. People are probably in the mood for a hero who knows what's right and is willing to do terrible things to the bad guys.
As long as it's dark, I will probably like the movie either way. A dark Batman of any kind is far preferrable to the bubblegum variety.
Why would it suck if that was the new Batmobile? I mean, sure it doesn't look like the old Batmobile, but it still looks cool. Sort of trading a fast look for a tough look. I don't have a strong opinion (I like the new ugliness), just wondering...
"Some of the main characters were rebels and wore brown (thus brown coats) much like some western characters (ie, the Outlaw Josey Wales) were former confederates."
The costume reference that made me smile was that Serenity's ex-soldier ship captain/smuggler still wore his uniform pants.
Kind of like another sci-fi captain/smuggler I remember fondly from my youth; that guy's ship could make the Kessel run in 12 parsecs, though--a bit faster than Serenity...
Two things to make your fears come true.
W.'s term in office has, so far, been more space-friendly than either of his two predecessors.
These are the BIG GOVERNMENT Republicans in charge. They haven't met a government program they didn't like. Why should NASA be any different?
At least the second one allows you to keep saying bad things about Bush...
The Metro, freely available on the subway is trash, absolute junk. Like broadcast television, it's just a medium used to convey advertisements to the public. All of it's articles are bought from AP/Reuters. Despite it's junky content, I often need something to read on the long subway rides. So, I would attempt to find something worthwhile in it. After a short while, I was so sick of the Metro that I wanted to buy a paper in protest--my attention is worth more than that. The problem was, the local paper was stuffed full of AP/Reuters articles as well. The WSJ was the only paper widely available that had better reporting. Since I'm not involved in finance, parts of the paper are pretty uninteresting to me, but generally, there's enough material worth reading to get me through my day's travel on the subway. So, now I read the WSJ on a fairly regular basis. I like buying the print edition at the stand, rather than getting a subscription, because I want it to be sold at the subway stations I use.
I could see an application for this in use against smugglers... Fly two wasps out in front of the coast guard cutter to put the suspect ship in the center of a triangle of viewpoints. Open water, no flying inside the other ship. In theory, the wasps would have enough power/range to be in place before the coast guard got close. Since the badguys' focus would be on the coast guard, the wasps would be stealthy enough and provide a view of the hidden side of the boat (in case anything was quickly dumped) and a hint at the kind of arms the smugglers might have.
Hm, didn't think of that. And, you're right, it could be bad enough to scrap the whole idea. Maybe the treaty could be changed to not allow nukes in orbit below a certain altitude. That way, ships could be assembled but non-friendly nations would have enough of a buffer to feel safe. Maybe there could also be a certain limit. Maybe the whole idea is so unenforceable that not allowing nukes off the ground in the first place is the only good solution.
This guy is chock full of knowledge of propulsion systems I haven't even heard of before. One of them might a better choice.
On the other hand... At some point, if we become a space-faring society, there's going to have to be a very sizeable amount of dangerous equipment in orbit. So, we might have to compromise. Just like all those oil tankers and LNG tankers float into US harbors every day. Or the fully-fueled jets that take off from major urban centers. All sorts of dangerous but necessary things can be weaponized... I can't argue that orion drives are dangerous-but-necessary because I don't have the knowledge (I would guess "not necessary").
Let's see, things I've never heard of before:
/., so it's obviously supported by scientific rigor). Might be hard to get grant funding...
Medusa (for what it's worth, the one of the primary reasons I think that Orion drives would be suitable for unmanned probes is that they could easily be designed to withstand high acceleration. That high acceleration is the only reason I know of that an Orion drive would be better than an Ion drive or a solar sail.)
mini-magnetospheric propulsion
antimatter catalyzed microfission/microfusion
"the various fusion core concepts" what? more than one?
magnetohydrodynamic propulsion
nuclear saltwater rockets
Thanks for the list; I better get busy with google.
FYI, word on on the street is that black holes might not exist (I read it in