I believe that it was not Einstein who first noticed that the GR equations yield solutions which have spacetime singularities, i.e. blackholes. This was first found by Schwartzchild.
Einstein's equations do not predict blackholes. Blackholes are simply compatable with his equations.
This does not mean that blackholes may be incompatable with other physical laws, notably those of quantum mechanics/field theory and those of thermodynamics, which is why it is theoretically interesting to try to derive the quantum and thermo properties of blackholes to find either a contradiction or an interesting property which one might try to observe from earth.
Someone who says they do not believe in black holes either 1) does not believe Einstein's equations, of which they are solutions. 2) believes that other physical laws prevent the occurrence of these solutions.
The first paper on this Bose-Einstein condensate stuff poses another solution of the GR equations in which the point singularity is replaced with a different structure, the BEC. The math seemed all on the up and up.
(BTW the Schwartzchild solution doesn't really have a singularity. The singularity is an artifact of the coordinate system used, just like the singularity of latitude and longitude of the earth -- and we do believe in the north and south poles here, right? Kruskal exhibited coordinate systems in which there is no singularity.)
So what we have is a new analytic solution to the GR equations (and there are not many, so this will undoubtedly make it into graduate texts in the next decade).
The bad news is that the geometry around a gravastar is identicle to that around a blackhole. It is just different when close to the phenomenon, so all that business about terrible cosmic death at the hands of a gravitational giant is still there.
Certain forms of randomized routing offer a
guarrantee of a broadcast to complete after
O(n) time for n clients in O(1) time with high
probability. And there are trade-offs in
between.
I suggest you all study algorithms for
broadcast before assuming that the most
bandwidth intensive algorithm will be the
only one used.
OK, let's look at this carefully. What Rabin has
demonstrated is something that is not quite obvious to the lay person. Namely, that if two
individuals can have exclusive access to the same (non-reconstructable) random stream of data, then they can communicate securely. No biggie there.
How can both parties be sure they
are looking at the same stream (i.e. are not
being spoofed)? How can both parties be assured
that no other party can reconstruct the stream
(from stored results or because the stream is
not that random)?
All we see here is a reduction of secure data
exchange between two parties to secure access
to data from a third party. If there is any novelty here it is the trade of LongTime for
BigSpace (but its EXP(TIME) for P(SPACE)).
When I was first using OpenSSH, I did think it
was the same as ssh. By golly, the command was
"ssh", so how could I, as a user, know the
difference.
I don't really care if this is enforcible or not.
I think he and my own experience make a good case
for the confusion of the two, and I don't think
anyone here will claim that is in any way
desirable.
Is it now so entrenched that changing the name to
FRESH or something else would cause too much
breakage?
Slashdot Mirror
I believe that it was not Einstein who first noticed that the GR equations yield solutions which have spacetime singularities, i.e. blackholes. This was first found by Schwartzchild.
Einstein's equations do not predict blackholes. Blackholes are simply compatable with his equations.
This does not mean that blackholes may be incompatable with other physical laws, notably those of quantum mechanics/field theory and those of thermodynamics, which is why it is theoretically interesting to try to derive the quantum and thermo properties of blackholes to find either a contradiction or an interesting property which one might try to observe from earth.
Someone who says they do not believe in black holes either
1) does not believe Einstein's equations, of which they are solutions.
2) believes that other physical laws prevent the occurrence of these solutions.
The first paper on this Bose-Einstein condensate stuff poses another solution of the GR equations in which the point singularity is replaced with a different structure, the BEC. The math seemed all on the up and up.
(BTW the Schwartzchild solution doesn't really have a singularity. The singularity is an artifact of the coordinate system used, just like the singularity of latitude and longitude of the earth -- and we do believe in the north and south poles here, right? Kruskal exhibited coordinate systems in which there is no singularity.)
So what we have is a new analytic solution to the GR equations (and there are not many, so this will undoubtedly make it into graduate texts in the next decade).
The bad news is that the geometry around a gravastar is identicle to that around a blackhole. It is just different when close to the phenomenon, so all that business about terrible cosmic death at the hands of a gravitational giant is still there.
There is more than one way to do broadcasts.
Certain forms of randomized routing offer a
guarrantee of a broadcast to complete after
O(n) time for n clients in O(1) time with high
probability. And there are trade-offs in
between.
I suggest you all study algorithms for
broadcast before assuming that the most
bandwidth intensive algorithm will be the
only one used.
How can both parties be sure they are looking at the same stream (i.e. are not being spoofed)? How can both parties be assured that no other party can reconstruct the stream (from stored results or because the stream is not that random)?
All we see here is a reduction of secure data exchange between two parties to secure access to data from a third party. If there is any novelty here it is the trade of LongTime for BigSpace (but its EXP(TIME) for P(SPACE)).
Harvard professors are such media pigs.
I don't really care if this is enforcible or not. I think he and my own experience make a good case for the confusion of the two, and I don't think anyone here will claim that is in any way desirable.
Is it now so entrenched that changing the name to FRESH or something else would cause too much breakage?
I have to say that I do like FRESH. Whether the trademark is valid or not. OpenSSH is an uncreative mouthful.
Like Linux is the only open source project, or the only way to organize one: http://www.netbsd.org/Ports/macppc/models.html