Capture orbits have to do with loss of energy by way of gravitational radiation. Gravity around a black hole is just like gravity anywhere else. They do not magically suck things in.
> Their idea was to mimic the properties of a cosmological black hole, whose > intense gravity bends the surrounding space-time, causing any nearby matter > or radiation to follow the warped space-time and spiral inwards.
The device sounds interesting but the reporter's notion of gravity is utter nonsense.
> The article did not say the price, unless I missed it, but I can say its > going to be a hell of alot more than a bit of ink and a piece of paper. And > what is the point? Fingerprints on stuff are already 2D, why do we need to > check 2D against 3D?
Speed and accuracy. The market is biometrics, not CSI.
> For all the glory it gets, the fingerprint has evolved very little in the > last 60 years.
Is there a type of fingerprint that has a selective advantage? I would think you'd do better with ones like everyone else's. Perhaps after 2000 generations of CSI we'll all have identical prints.
I have to wonder why wearing glasses makes you "a pretty big nerd".
Regardless, as soon as Apple comes out with a product that requires special glasses they will become cool, no matter how dorky the exact same glasses looked the day before the Apple product was introduced.
> We should not get rid of E-mail so much as improve it. E-mail could be easily > improved by adding ideas such as threading which would quite easily overcome > the complicated mess that is quoting.
Everything needed for threading is already there in the "References:" header line and decent MUAs such as Gnus fully support it.
> TI probably has some features disabled or unavailable in their lower-end > models, hack the software, and lo and behold, the actual hardware can > probably do most of the same stuff the more expensive model can. I can see > why they wouldn't want people *SHARING* this information with the general > public.
So can I. So what? "Inconvenient for TI" is not a synonym for "illegal".
> I'm quite eager to start 'testing' satellite TV signals again... After all, > it's just some keys used for signing, right? I purchased my hardware > receiver for money, right? Quite the slippery slope, isn't it?
> After reading some of the replies and think about the limit I started > wondering about exactly what problems existed that would demand more > computational power than 10^16 above what we have now.
1% accurate minute by minute weather forecasts for each cubic kilometer of the Earth's atmosphere a full year in advance.
> Yup, back in the 80s the physicists said it would be physically impossible to > provide switching and encoding which would allow phone line communication to > exceed 2400 baud in modems.
Slashdot Mirror
Capture orbits have to do with loss of energy by way of gravitational radiation. Gravity around a black hole is just like gravity anywhere else. They do not magically suck things in.
Stay home.
> Their idea was to mimic the properties of a cosmological black hole, whose
> intense gravity bends the surrounding space-time, causing any nearby matter
> or radiation to follow the warped space-time and spiral inwards.
The device sounds interesting but the reporter's notion of gravity is utter nonsense.
> Conflict of interest, anyone?
More like identity of interest. He isn't "conflicted" about it at all.
You've studied this matter extensively, haven't you?
You're right.
"In short, the Higgs boson (if theories are correct)"
Not really. It just means that your FBI dossier will include pictures of your bugers.
Which is why I suggested that there would be an advantage to having prints just like everyone else's.
Right, but the software won't flatten the print quite the way pressing the finger against an object would.
> The article did not say the price, unless I missed it, but I can say its
> going to be a hell of alot more than a bit of ink and a piece of paper. And
> what is the point? Fingerprints on stuff are already 2D, why do we need to
> check 2D against 3D?
Speed and accuracy. The market is biometrics, not CSI.
> For all the glory it gets, the fingerprint has evolved very little in the
> last 60 years.
Is there a type of fingerprint that has a selective advantage? I would think you'd do better with ones like everyone else's. Perhaps after 2000 generations of CSI we'll all have identical prints.
This may be a great improvement for biomtric applications[1] but for comparing with prints lifted off objects at a crime scene you want flat prints.
[1] Though with a touchless system it's going to be a bit harder to make sure that's a real live finger.
I have to wonder why wearing glasses makes you "a pretty big nerd".
Regardless, as soon as Apple comes out with a product that requires special glasses they will become cool, no matter how dorky the exact same glasses looked the day before the Apple product was introduced.
Well sure, but what's the fun in that?
WWW -> World Wide Web.
> We should not get rid of E-mail so much as improve it. E-mail could be easily
> improved by adding ideas such as threading which would quite easily overcome > the complicated mess that is quoting.
Everything needed for threading is already there in the "References:" header line and decent MUAs such as Gnus fully support it.
What does it cost? Where does Joe Ordinary get it? Does it include a current browser?
> The public key itself - the modulus - might be subject to copyright.
Not a chance.
> TI probably has some features disabled or unavailable in their lower-end
> models, hack the software, and lo and behold, the actual hardware can
> probably do most of the same stuff the more expensive model can. I can see
> why they wouldn't want people *SHARING* this information with the general
> public.
So can I. So what? "Inconvenient for TI" is not a synonym for "illegal".
> I'm quite eager to start 'testing' satellite TV signals again... After all,
> it's just some keys used for signing, right? I purchased my hardware
> receiver for money, right? Quite the slippery slope, isn't it?
No. It's fundamentally different.
As the EFF lawyers clearly explain in their letter to TI, you are quite wrong.
> After reading some of the replies and think about the limit I started
> wondering about exactly what problems existed that would demand more
> computational power than 10^16 above what we have now.
1% accurate minute by minute weather forecasts for each cubic kilometer of the Earth's atmosphere a full year in advance.
> Yup, back in the 80s the physicists said it would be physically impossible to
> provide switching and encoding which would allow phone line communication to
> exceed 2400 baud in modems.
Let's see a citation.
And perhaps even larger is the sum of the solution spaces in which their are no humans to build the thing at all.
That shit is healthy and nutritious. If you are a fly.