What you would notice is that you cannot point to the outside of the black hole since space is infinitely curved
It's only infinitely curved at the singularity. Just because you're beyond the event horizon, that doesn't mean you can't point (or indeed see) outside.
We apologize for the inappropriate comments made by an employee on Twitter yesterday. This person is not a spokesperson for Microsoft, and his personal views do not reflect the customer centric approach we take to our products or how we would communicate directly with our loyal consumers.
Uh, okay. Since we're speculating on unrelated fields now, it seems (and using commercial success as the only measure of worthiness), a car that runs on horse poop and gets 1000 miles per dump would be even more commercially successful.
I guess they're a little spoiled for bandwidth over at faculty.washington.edu, and don't realise that a 15mb, 4000x2020 JPEG scaled down to 1000 pixels is not the best use of teh tubes.
You overly-sensitive and possibly a little bit pretentious asshole. Where exactly in the summary does it say that film is for loserz and digital is the shizzle?
There is a look you get from film that cannot be duplicated any other way.
No there isn't. There are hundreds of pieces of software dedicated to exactly that. If you really wanted to you could simulate film at a near-molecular level to get it just right. The thing is - and I'm sorry if you feel it's a bad thing - not many people are that interested in approximating film any more. They want to capture their images and have them look good - you could do that with film and now you can do it with digital. And even if there was something about film that just couldn't be emulated in the digital realm, what makes that objectively better? One could just easily claim the inverse.
If you're happy shooting film with all the attendant extra time and effort it takes, great. But why come here sneering at everyone else because they're happier with their high-tech gizmos? Are you the sort of person who gets annoyed because now anyone and his dog can get into what used to be a nice exclusive field?
This zombie fad is getting worn out. Just stop it, stop referencing it, stop producing zombie-related media, just STOP.
Alternatively, you could stop trying to be the arbiter of what is good and worthy and just indulge in the media you do enjoy. I'm very sorry* if you feel marginalised by those who have an interest in all things undead and shambling, but no-one's actually forcing to watch The Walking Dead or Jersey Shore.
If it can, it would be at the expense of incredible amounts of energy, and the mass of the equipment and fuel required to generate the energy would probably outweigh the generated dark matter by billions of times. No free lunches in this universe.
Could such a thing be used to make some sort of dark matter highway to provide a gravity well between stars for ships to travel down without expending much energy?
No more than it could be used to create a unicorn that poops cookie dough.
Slashdot Mirror
it's really the third hand if you ask me.
What if we don't ask you? Does it remain the second hand then?
Hey, you started it...
You cannot milk a franchise forever, no matter how great it is.
Oh, you can. You shouldn't, but you can.
It's traditional for the summary to contain more pertinent information than the headline, not the other way around. Just sayin'.
What you would notice is that you cannot point to the outside of the black hole since space is infinitely curved
It's only infinitely curved at the singularity. Just because you're beyond the event horizon, that doesn't mean you can't point (or indeed see) outside.
We apologize for the inappropriate comments made by an employee on Twitter yesterday. This person is not a spokesperson for Microsoft, and his personal views do not reflect the customer centric approach we take to our products or how we would communicate directly with our loyal consumers.
Then why are you apologising for him?
If the black hole is large enough, no, they won't. You could pass the event horizon and barely notice.
It's the true name of god [wikipedia.org], spoken at the beginning of creation to bring about the universe and all we know,
It won't end well for us.
You're wrong, ironically.
Uh, okay. Since we're speculating on unrelated fields now, it seems (and using commercial success as the only measure of worthiness), a car that runs on horse poop and gets 1000 miles per dump would be even more commercially successful.
I guess they're a little spoiled for bandwidth over at faculty.washington.edu, and don't realise that a 15mb, 4000x2020 JPEG scaled down to 1000 pixels is not the best use of teh tubes.
http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/gammasquadcthulhumicrobe.jpg
If password recovery is the only instance where email is sent to users, this should work.
And what about when the database gets hacked and the admins need to send email to the affected users asking them to change their passwords?
only in the sense that they're emulating a certain kind of film known for its high quality
I can't see anything saying they're aiming to emulate anything except for the exterior look of the camera.
Ah, well. RAW format digital is more or less the 21st Century equivalent of Kodachrome, so it will have to do*
*to be taken as dodgy journalistic metaphor only.
There is a look you get from film that cannot be duplicated any other way.
No there isn't. There are hundreds of pieces of software dedicated to exactly that. If you really wanted to you could simulate film at a near-molecular level to get it just right. The thing is - and I'm sorry if you feel it's a bad thing - not many people are that interested in approximating film any more. They want to capture their images and have them look good - you could do that with film and now you can do it with digital. And even if there was something about film that just couldn't be emulated in the digital realm, what makes that objectively better? One could just easily claim the inverse.
If you're happy shooting film with all the attendant extra time and effort it takes, great. But why come here sneering at everyone else because they're happier with their high-tech gizmos? Are you the sort of person who gets annoyed because now anyone and his dog can get into what used to be a nice exclusive field?
No, it's just a high-quality uncompressed video camera. It doesn't attempt to reproduce any visual artefacts of its namesakes.
Oh yeah? Then how do you explain the headline:
Digital Bolex Gives You a Classic Film Look
Next you'll be telling me the Slashdot editors are morons who don't look twice at the stories they post!
...what you're blathering on about?
Just Let It Die
I'm trying, but it just keeps coming back!
This zombie fad is getting worn out. Just stop it, stop referencing it, stop producing zombie-related media, just STOP.
Alternatively, you could stop trying to be the arbiter of what is good and worthy and just indulge in the media you do enjoy. I'm very sorry* if you feel marginalised by those who have an interest in all things undead and shambling, but no-one's actually forcing to watch The Walking Dead or Jersey Shore.
*I'm not really
A zombie apocalypse happened in Britain and was shown in a BBC documentary by Derren Brown.
I don't even know where to start pointing out what's wrong with that sentence.
a river perhaps?
Implying that you've imparted momentum to the dark matter - momentum you may as well just impart directly to your spaceship.
Surely it can be created though
If it can, it would be at the expense of incredible amounts of energy, and the mass of the equipment and fuel required to generate the energy would probably outweigh the generated dark matter by billions of times. No free lunches in this universe.
1997 called. They want their "(Now - X years) called" joke back.
Could such a thing be used to make some sort of dark matter highway to provide a gravity well between stars for ships to travel down without expending much energy?
No more than it could be used to create a unicorn that poops cookie dough.
The water dowsers apparently had a much higher rate of success than the metal dowsers.
Did the water dowsers pass their test? If not, what difference does it make if they did "better" than the metal dowsers?
That's what they said about invading Iraq, and... ah.
Simple. Because it costs the airline more to move 180lbs than it does 100lbs.
But not 1.8x. They've got to move the plane and the fuel regardless.