I don't believe a black hole could initially form in a way that it spins opposite its accretion disk. However, it appears that most large galaxies today are the result of billions of years of collisions and mergers, so it's easier to see how such a state could come to be.
My understanding was that black holes were a singularity. As for how something with no dimensions can spin, I am baffled. Perhaps my understanding of graduate level astrophysics is lagging a little.
Interesting. My understanding of conservation of angular momentum makes me intuitive think the exact opposite: how could a zero-dimensional singularly have anything less than infinite spin? However, as has been noted elsewhere, the "singularity" in a rotating black hole is not zero-dimensional, as it forms a ring rather than a point, so the question is kinda moot.
Since it now appears that many galaxies, and possibly every single spiral galaxy, is the result of galactic "collisions", I imagine that although in any undisturbed galaxy the central black hole will rotate precisely the way the rest of the galaxy does, following galactic mergers, things can end up a little topsy-turvy. The naturally tendency would be for these collisions and mergers of the central cores of galaxies to bias towards the existing spin (since it will influence the merger itself), so the majority of resulting mergers will maintain a spin in the same direction as the larger galaxy prior to the merger, in some cases, it's going to be a bit out of whack. Particularly after many repeated mergers (and there's evidence that many if not most larger galaxies end up gobbling up a number of smaller galaxies during their lifetimes), some are going to end up with core configurations completely opposite of their original state.
It did. What's observed is other things were impeded, whereas the dark matter passed through without any impediment, merely following a gravitational trajectory as anything would in the absence of anything to impede its progress along its trajectory.
It should also be noted that the entire amount of money spent on SpaceX so far, from the company's inception until today (counting private investment as well as the money from NASA), comes to about half the cost of a single shuttle launch.
We are not against spending money on NASA or on manned space flight. We're against spending money wastefully. Don't throw money at a program just for the sake of throwing money at a program. Ares was a bad idea and needed to be axed. Being truly committed to the future of manned spaceflight pretty much entails being for the axing of stupid programs and spending wisely on stuff that actual works without bankrupting the program.
It is good news. This also points out some of the inconsistencies in politics. Apparently it's okay to privatize space flight but not health care and social security etc...
Yes. Reminds me of those inconsistent builds who use hammers on nails but not on screws. Some silly people seem to think you shouldn't use the same tool to solve every problem.
Unless you pay them. I'm reminded of how the city of Hibbing, Minnesota (pop. 20,000 at the time), up on the Mesabi Iron Range, was moved two miles south when they discovered a rich iron deposit under it. Of course, that was a bit of a smaller scale, but the idea works -- pay people enough, and they will move the entire city.
Romney or Pawlenty will be the GOP candidate in '12, if they decide Obama's weak enough.
No. No no no. Pawlenty is a terrible governor. His only talent is for spewing soundbites. Actually governing is beyond him, if he's required to work with others and within the rules. He can only be successful if he can get the courts to allow him to simply dictate the budget and do an end-run around the legislature, and is involved in a legal battle over the legality of being allowed to simply dictate the entire state budget as long as he refuses to compromise with the legislature (his argument being that certain emergency powers allow him to single-handedly dictate the state budget if the legislature doesn't agree to rubber-stamping his budget -- in other words, as governor, he should be allowed to simply get whatever he wants regardless of what the legislature wants). He's been roundly criticized by every living ex-governor of the state, including all the Republicans, who all consider him a disgrace to a once-great party. I've voted for Republicans more often than Democrats for state office, but it really saddens me to see how far the Republican party in Minnesota has fallen in the last few years. Today's Minnesota Republican Party is a far cry from the IR (Independent Republicans) of my younger days. We'll see no Arne Carlson or the great Al Quie from them anymore, neither would be electable in the present day party. It's been sad decline to watch...
So dose This mean Dinosaurs walked with man, or that Dinosaurs could draw?
LOL! Yes, and the fact that even better likenesses (assuming you similarly outline them for people to see, since they wouldn't seem them if you didn't, and place them next to pictures since otherwise they'll make their own associations -- like the moose in the third picture down where they didn't put a posed dinosaur next to it so it looks like a moose to me) err, what was I saying? Oh yes, and the fact that even better likenesses in the clouds demonstrate that these dinosaurs are alive today and controlling the weather.
But then we figured, nah, its probably this big giant extinct bird instead...
Well, yes. When you find a picture that looks like a bird, but not quite like the emus you knew were around, you might think it's a badly drawn emu. But when you discover that the features that made you think it was badly drawn turn out to exactly match the features of some other species, you can (a) continue to assume it's a badly drawn emu that happens to, by remarkable coincidence, be badly drawn in just the right way to make it looks rather like some other species, or (b) you can now assume it's that other species.
Occam's razor is better satisfied by assume it is what it most resembles, not a badly drawn something else, with the coincidence that the badly drawn features happen to match the features of something else.
People should spend less time trying to proof its or its not BS and more time trying to understand how to make people life better!
This sentence is self-contradictory. Understanding of what works and how it works is required to understand how to make people's lives better. In order to do the thing you say we should spend more time doing, we need to do the thing you say we should spend less time doing.
Yes, you can call it psuedo science, but you would be ignoring the many many many instances of real people affected in real ways.
No, not ignoring at all, just noting the lack of true science involved. I'm sure it works, I'm sure it provides a great benefit to many people, and I'm utterly convinced that it's pseudo-scientific BS. The fact that it's the result of practical testing ensures that it works. The fact that it's post hoc rationalization for what's actually occurring rather than an attempt to determine what actually is occurring makes it pseudo-science.
It's another to say "we don't know how this may work, thus it doesn't mean that it works BUT IT ALSO DOESN'T MEAN IT DOESN'T"
And it's quite another thing to say "we know how this works, it works by disrupting the flow of your chi along the longitudinal meridians of your skin when the moon is full".
The fact that pseudoscience works doesn't alter the fact that it's BS.
The placebo effect is real but less reliable than drugs. It does some good, but not all that much good, usually only a few percent.
And they rely on your belief that they are real drugs. If you were a good medical consumer you'd research your drugs before taking them, and you'd run into "this is just a sugar pill" pretty fast.
Every medical study controls for the placebo effect. If a drug doesn't work better than placebo, they don't sell it.
Often, the placebo test is also used as a control for "no intervention at all". Often people get better without even so much as a placebo. The marginal benefit of the placebo, combined with the necessity for secrecy, means there's no point in giving you the actual placebo.
Two problems here. First, it's not always true that it's "not all that much good". In fact, tests with placebos have shown them to be quite effective at times. Second, it's been demonstrated recently (I heard about this a few weeks back on NPR IIRC), that they don't necessarily rely in your belief that they are real drugs, that rather bizarrely they sometimes provide benefit even if the subject knows it's a placebo! So there may not necessarily be a "necessity for secrecy", although apparently it's helpful for there to be ambiguity. The NPR story talked with a doctor about possible ways to ethically use placebos in practice without lying to the patient about it. The method suggested was for a medicine where you take a pill every day or whatever time period, where sometime between the first and last pill, you've actually switched to sugar pills, but the patient doesn't know where the switch occurs. You can be perfectly honest with the patient, keep them from taking more medicine that might be healthy when it isn't necessary, and the pills continue to work until the end with greater effectiveness than taking nothing, even when it's gone into the pure sugar-pill stage.
Acetaminophen, in my experience, has absolutely no noticeable effect on real pain.
Does it have a noticeable effect on anything? I've tried various different medicines over the years and finally learned to simply avoid anything that lists acetaminophen as an ingredient. As far as I can tell, it doesn't do anything at all. Nothing I've ever tried that contained it did me any good.
Ummm so how old is this revelation that "Acupuncture May Trigger a Natural Painkiller"?
If that's all you got out of the story... that part isn't news. However, if you had better reading comprehension, you'd be able to pick out the parts that are news. I'm pretty sure when Nixon went to China, the journalist in question (a) failed to identify the source of the painkilling effect as adenosine, (b) failed to determine that the effect is enhanced by the use of deoxycoformycin, (c) failed to quantify either of these effects in clinical and scientifically reproducible ways. If I'm wrong on this, please let me know. Otherwise, your comment seems kinda idiotic, like you didn't even manage to read the summary here successfully...
Also, the test is broken. You still receive a point for the lowest option, so the minimum score is 20%.
And this makes a difference how exactly? You could make the scores go from 34-78 instead of 20-100, and it would be equally meaningful. You remind me of that old movie... "These go to 11."
s/count on the fact that everyone will just buy from someone else/count on the fact that not everyone will just buy from someone else/
Long story short -- if your percentage of the market is large enough that, absent you, other people cannot meet the demand, you can dictate prices on the market, whether you have a monopoly or not. As soon as all your competitors stock is bought up, everyone else will come to you, and your competitors will raise their prices to deal with the demand larger than they can accommodate without you.
Depends. How much oil does BP produce vs. their competitors? If it's a large enough percentage, they can raise their rates and count on the fact that everyone will just buy from someone else, because if demand is large enough, people will be forced to buy from them when their competitors simply don't have enough oil to sell to meet demand. The larger a company is, the less this ideal market idea of yours works. Sufficiently large corporations with a significantly large portion of the market can raise prices and count on the fact that their competitors can't fulfill the demand without them.
the idea is not to wait until you're almost running out of gas to check local prices and shop smart.
you don't HAVE to, though.
Depends on where you are. Some parts of the country, you leave one town with a full tank and at less than half by the time you hit the next town. You fill up at whatever station is there, you really have no choice, because the alternative is to run out in the middle of the desert before you hit the next town.
If he's been doing it for a week, and he's destined to be a coder, there's nothing you an do now to stop him.
OTOH, if he isn't going to pursue it and take it to the next level himself, he'll never be a coder. The most important point about good programmers is that they must be able to solve their own problems (that is, at its heart, what the job is), they have to be able to teach themselves, and they must do this continually for the rest of the their lives, or at least as long as they're still coding. If they don't have the ability and the drive to teach themselves, they will never be a good coder and it's a very bad idea to try to force them into it.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't believe a black hole could initially form in a way that it spins opposite its accretion disk. However, it appears that most large galaxies today are the result of billions of years of collisions and mergers, so it's easier to see how such a state could come to be.
My understanding was that black holes were a singularity. As for how something with no dimensions can spin, I am baffled. Perhaps my understanding of graduate level astrophysics is lagging a little.
Interesting. My understanding of conservation of angular momentum makes me intuitive think the exact opposite: how could a zero-dimensional singularly have anything less than infinite spin? However, as has been noted elsewhere, the "singularity" in a rotating black hole is not zero-dimensional, as it forms a ring rather than a point, so the question is kinda moot.
Since it now appears that many galaxies, and possibly every single spiral galaxy, is the result of galactic "collisions", I imagine that although in any undisturbed galaxy the central black hole will rotate precisely the way the rest of the galaxy does, following galactic mergers, things can end up a little topsy-turvy. The naturally tendency would be for these collisions and mergers of the central cores of galaxies to bias towards the existing spin (since it will influence the merger itself), so the majority of resulting mergers will maintain a spin in the same direction as the larger galaxy prior to the merger, in some cases, it's going to be a bit out of whack. Particularly after many repeated mergers (and there's evidence that many if not most larger galaxies end up gobbling up a number of smaller galaxies during their lifetimes), some are going to end up with core configurations completely opposite of their original state.
It did. What's observed is other things were impeded, whereas the dark matter passed through without any impediment, merely following a gravitational trajectory as anything would in the absence of anything to impede its progress along its trajectory.
and yes it did enhance the drama :)
Cue the conspiracy theorists...
Gods bless Russian practicality.
It should also be noted that the entire amount of money spent on SpaceX so far, from the company's inception until today (counting private investment as well as the money from NASA), comes to about half the cost of a single shuttle launch.
We are not against spending money on NASA or on manned space flight. We're against spending money wastefully. Don't throw money at a program just for the sake of throwing money at a program. Ares was a bad idea and needed to be axed. Being truly committed to the future of manned spaceflight pretty much entails being for the axing of stupid programs and spending wisely on stuff that actual works without bankrupting the program.
It is good news. This also points out some of the inconsistencies in politics. Apparently it's okay to privatize space flight but not health care and social security etc...
Yes. Reminds me of those inconsistent builds who use hammers on nails but not on screws. Some silly people seem to think you shouldn't use the same tool to solve every problem.
Unless you pay them. I'm reminded of how the city of Hibbing, Minnesota (pop. 20,000 at the time), up on the Mesabi Iron Range, was moved two miles south when they discovered a rich iron deposit under it. Of course, that was a bit of a smaller scale, but the idea works -- pay people enough, and they will move the entire city.
Romney or Pawlenty will be the GOP candidate in '12, if they decide Obama's weak enough.
No. No no no. Pawlenty is a terrible governor. His only talent is for spewing soundbites. Actually governing is beyond him, if he's required to work with others and within the rules. He can only be successful if he can get the courts to allow him to simply dictate the budget and do an end-run around the legislature, and is involved in a legal battle over the legality of being allowed to simply dictate the entire state budget as long as he refuses to compromise with the legislature (his argument being that certain emergency powers allow him to single-handedly dictate the state budget if the legislature doesn't agree to rubber-stamping his budget -- in other words, as governor, he should be allowed to simply get whatever he wants regardless of what the legislature wants). He's been roundly criticized by every living ex-governor of the state, including all the Republicans, who all consider him a disgrace to a once-great party. I've voted for Republicans more often than Democrats for state office, but it really saddens me to see how far the Republican party in Minnesota has fallen in the last few years. Today's Minnesota Republican Party is a far cry from the IR (Independent Republicans) of my younger days. We'll see no Arne Carlson or the great Al Quie from them anymore, neither would be electable in the present day party. It's been sad decline to watch...
So dose This mean Dinosaurs walked with man, or that Dinosaurs could draw?
LOL! Yes, and the fact that even better likenesses (assuming you similarly outline them for people to see, since they wouldn't seem them if you didn't, and place them next to pictures since otherwise they'll make their own associations -- like the moose in the third picture down where they didn't put a posed dinosaur next to it so it looks like a moose to me) err, what was I saying? Oh yes, and the fact that even better likenesses in the clouds demonstrate that these dinosaurs are alive today and controlling the weather.
But then we figured, nah, its probably this big giant extinct bird instead...
Well, yes. When you find a picture that looks like a bird, but not quite like the emus you knew were around, you might think it's a badly drawn emu. But when you discover that the features that made you think it was badly drawn turn out to exactly match the features of some other species, you can (a) continue to assume it's a badly drawn emu that happens to, by remarkable coincidence, be badly drawn in just the right way to make it looks rather like some other species, or (b) you can now assume it's that other species.
Occam's razor is better satisfied by assume it is what it most resembles, not a badly drawn something else, with the coincidence that the badly drawn features happen to match the features of something else.
People should spend less time trying to proof its or its not BS and more time trying to understand how to make people life better!
This sentence is self-contradictory. Understanding of what works and how it works is required to understand how to make people's lives better. In order to do the thing you say we should spend more time doing, we need to do the thing you say we should spend less time doing.
Yes, you can call it psuedo science, but you would be ignoring the many many many instances of real people affected in real ways.
No, not ignoring at all, just noting the lack of true science involved. I'm sure it works, I'm sure it provides a great benefit to many people, and I'm utterly convinced that it's pseudo-scientific BS. The fact that it's the result of practical testing ensures that it works. The fact that it's post hoc rationalization for what's actually occurring rather than an attempt to determine what actually is occurring makes it pseudo-science.
It's another to say "we don't know how this may work, thus it doesn't mean that it works BUT IT ALSO DOESN'T MEAN IT DOESN'T"
And it's quite another thing to say "we know how this works, it works by disrupting the flow of your chi along the longitudinal meridians of your skin when the moon is full".
The fact that pseudoscience works doesn't alter the fact that it's BS.
The placebo effect is real but less reliable than drugs. It does some good, but not all that much good, usually only a few percent.
And they rely on your belief that they are real drugs. If you were a good medical consumer you'd research your drugs before taking them, and you'd run into "this is just a sugar pill" pretty fast.
Every medical study controls for the placebo effect. If a drug doesn't work better than placebo, they don't sell it.
Often, the placebo test is also used as a control for "no intervention at all". Often people get better without even so much as a placebo. The marginal benefit of the placebo, combined with the necessity for secrecy, means there's no point in giving you the actual placebo.
Two problems here. First, it's not always true that it's "not all that much good". In fact, tests with placebos have shown them to be quite effective at times. Second, it's been demonstrated recently (I heard about this a few weeks back on NPR IIRC), that they don't necessarily rely in your belief that they are real drugs, that rather bizarrely they sometimes provide benefit even if the subject knows it's a placebo! So there may not necessarily be a "necessity for secrecy", although apparently it's helpful for there to be ambiguity. The NPR story talked with a doctor about possible ways to ethically use placebos in practice without lying to the patient about it. The method suggested was for a medicine where you take a pill every day or whatever time period, where sometime between the first and last pill, you've actually switched to sugar pills, but the patient doesn't know where the switch occurs. You can be perfectly honest with the patient, keep them from taking more medicine that might be healthy when it isn't necessary, and the pills continue to work until the end with greater effectiveness than taking nothing, even when it's gone into the pure sugar-pill stage.
Anyhow, it was a very interesting segment.
Acetaminophen, in my experience, has absolutely no noticeable effect on real pain.
Does it have a noticeable effect on anything? I've tried various different medicines over the years and finally learned to simply avoid anything that lists acetaminophen as an ingredient. As far as I can tell, it doesn't do anything at all. Nothing I've ever tried that contained it did me any good.
Ummm so how old is this revelation that "Acupuncture May Trigger a Natural Painkiller"?
If that's all you got out of the story... that part isn't news. However, if you had better reading comprehension, you'd be able to pick out the parts that are news. I'm pretty sure when Nixon went to China, the journalist in question (a) failed to identify the source of the painkilling effect as adenosine, (b) failed to determine that the effect is enhanced by the use of deoxycoformycin, (c) failed to quantify either of these effects in clinical and scientifically reproducible ways. If I'm wrong on this, please let me know. Otherwise, your comment seems kinda idiotic, like you didn't even manage to read the summary here successfully...
Sure, maybe he is wrong, but you're a bit of a douche for calling him an idiot for merely suggesting the possibility.
Re-read your first post, based on that it's a perfectly legitimate suggestion.
I think you should apologize and thank him for caring enough to reply to your post.
Hug it out you guys.
You must be new here. ;)
Also, the test is broken. You still receive a point for the lowest option, so the minimum score is 20%.
And this makes a difference how exactly? You could make the scores go from 34-78 instead of 20-100, and it would be equally meaningful. You remind me of that old movie... "These go to 11."
s/count on the fact that everyone will just buy from someone else/count on the fact that not everyone will just buy from someone else/
Long story short -- if your percentage of the market is large enough that, absent you, other people cannot meet the demand, you can dictate prices on the market, whether you have a monopoly or not. As soon as all your competitors stock is bought up, everyone else will come to you, and your competitors will raise their prices to deal with the demand larger than they can accommodate without you.
Depends. How much oil does BP produce vs. their competitors? If it's a large enough percentage, they can raise their rates and count on the fact that everyone will just buy from someone else, because if demand is large enough, people will be forced to buy from them when their competitors simply don't have enough oil to sell to meet demand. The larger a company is, the less this ideal market idea of yours works. Sufficiently large corporations with a significantly large portion of the market can raise prices and count on the fact that their competitors can't fulfill the demand without them.
the idea is not to wait until you're almost running out of gas to check local prices and shop smart.
you don't HAVE to, though.
Depends on where you are. Some parts of the country, you leave one town with a full tank and at less than half by the time you hit the next town. You fill up at whatever station is there, you really have no choice, because the alternative is to run out in the middle of the desert before you hit the next town.
We have anti-monopoly laws and investigators to deal with these kinds of things.
Hehe!
Oh dear, you were being sarcastic, right?
If he's been doing it for a week, and he's destined to be a coder, there's nothing you an do now to stop him.
OTOH, if he isn't going to pursue it and take it to the next level himself, he'll never be a coder. The most important point about good programmers is that they must be able to solve their own problems (that is, at its heart, what the job is), they have to be able to teach themselves, and they must do this continually for the rest of the their lives, or at least as long as they're still coding. If they don't have the ability and the drive to teach themselves, they will never be a good coder and it's a very bad idea to try to force them into it.