> Any gobbling such a tiny black hole would do would have to be due to direct chance > collision between it and the nucleus of the atom on question -- it would pass harmlessly > through most atoms without difficulty as long as it didn't hit the nucleus.
Actually, I believe that it would pass harmlessly through the nucleus in most cases.
> I'd draw the line at the point when an animal asks itself, 'What really makes us > different from other animals?'
So all I have to do to create AI is program my computer to ask "What is it that makes me different from other machines?" How about if I assign the meaning "What really makes us > different from other animals?" to one of the sounds my horses make? Will that make them intelligent?
> On the other hand, know nothing of the possibilities of interdimensional travel. > Therefore, we are safer considering, and maybe preparing for, the possibility of Hellboy > landing in the lab.
In fact, we know so little about interdimensional travel that we can't certain that my posting this article won't cause Hellboy to materialize in Cmdr Taco's kitchen. So I better not. It just isn't worth the risk.
> What is the net-gain, other than knowledge? For example, what are the foreseeable > practical applications?
What were the forseeable practical applications of quantum mechanics in 1900? Hint: all of modern electronics is a "practical application" of quantum mechanics.
> A1) Are any of these potential gains greater than the risk of losing the Earth itself?
Yes. It would orbit the the center of mass of the Earth, inside the Earth. Every once in a while it would collide with a particle, absorbing it and acquiring the mass, momentum, and charge of the particle. As a result its orbit would shrink over time. In a few billion years it would settle to the center of the Earth.
> Even if a black hole like particle was briefly formed and then hit by another particle > or two or twenty, then what?
Then you would have a slightly larger nano-blackhole. It would still have such a tiny collision cross-section that it could orbit inside the Earth for a billion years without growing to perceptible size.
But the event you postulate is extremely improbable in any case because of that tiny collision cross-section.
> The headline says that the wireframes are not subject to copyright, and that the judge > used an analogy to photographs. But photographs are subject to copyright, so I'm very > confused.
Photographs that contain creative expression are protected by copyright. Those that do not, do not. For example, an exact photocopy of a page from a book in the public domain is not protected by copyright.
> For a long time now, I've wondered about license or copyright on the community models > for a game like, e.g., Neverwinter Nights, who owns the copyright? If this is to be > believed, no one does.
That doesn't follow at all. The models in this case were of real objects. The ones you refer to are original works. They are not saying that models (wire or otherwise) are never protected by copyright: just that accurate wire models of real objects aren't because they contain no creative expression. It should be obvious that there is creative expression in a model of an object that existed only in the author's imagination.
> If they're likening it TO a photograph... then it IS copyrightable just as professional > photographers have a copyright to their photographs of "public" buildings.
Photographs are only protected by copyright to the extent that they contain creative expression. For example, the photographs in art books, which are intended to reproduce the original painting as accurately as possible, are not protected by copyright precisely because the photographers endeavor to eliminate all creative elements (of course if the original painting is still under copyright that still applies to the photo). Essentially the art-book photos are seen by the courts as copies of the original, not creative works in themselves. In a similar sense the court is saying that these models are a sort of copy of the original car rather than being creative works in themselves. A lot of work went into them, but that, according to USOC in Feist v Rural Telephone, was mere "sweat of the brow".
> Even if they are 100% innocent, ( actually, especially if they are ) the government has > no business reading their mail.
I didn't say it did (actually, I said it didn't). I just said that if it did so anyway nothing bad would befall most of us. We simply are not involved in anything the government cares about.
On the other hand if, instead of just reading it and being bored to tears, they use their buggy software to scan it for "suspicious patterns" we could be awakened at 2AM by machinegun-toting SWAT teams demanding that we tell them where the plutonium is.
Slashdot Mirror
> Any gobbling such a tiny black hole would do would have to be due to direct chance
> collision between it and the nucleus of the atom on question -- it would pass harmlessly
> through most atoms without difficulty as long as it didn't hit the nucleus.
Actually, I believe that it would pass harmlessly through the nucleus in most cases.
> I'd draw the line at the point when an animal asks itself, 'What really makes us
> different from other animals?'
So all I have to do to create AI is program my computer to ask "What is it that makes me different from other machines?" How about if I assign the meaning "What really makes us
> different from other animals?" to one of the sounds my horses make? Will that make them intelligent?
...Whatever it is that computers can't do yet.
Or, to quote someone whose name I don't know, "Asking if computers can think is like asking if submarines can swim."
> On the other hand, know nothing of the possibilities of interdimensional travel.
> Therefore, we are safer considering, and maybe preparing for, the possibility of Hellboy
> landing in the lab.
In fact, we know so little about interdimensional travel that we can't certain that my posting this article won't cause Hellboy to materialize in Cmdr Taco's kitchen. So I better not. It just isn't worth the risk.
> They ended with the estimate that our little section of the space would have black hole
> large enough to consume the our sun in a few years.
They were wrong.
I don't know where you get either the assumption that only the antiparticles fall in or that antiparticles have negative mass.
> What is the net-gain, other than knowledge? For example, what are the foreseeable
> practical applications?
What were the forseeable practical applications of quantum mechanics in 1900? Hint: all of modern electronics is a "practical application" of quantum mechanics.
> A1) Are any of these potential gains greater than the risk of losing the Earth itself?
Since there is no such risk, all of them are.
> did I not learn what a black hole was?
No.
> B) it will grow so slowly that it will finally reach the point where it consumes the
> earth in something like 10k years, so who cares anyway?
You need to add some zeros. A _lot_ of zeros.
> Doesn't time slow or almost stop after crossing the event horizon of a black hole?
Only if you are the one doing it.
> It's one thing if you tell me that this stuff will likely disappear less than a second
> of being created.
Make that a femtosecond.
That's the other "Don't ever do anything because something might go wrong" scenario.
Yes. It would orbit the the center of mass of the Earth, inside the Earth. Every once in a while it would collide with a particle, absorbing it and acquiring the mass, momentum, and charge of the particle. As a result its orbit would shrink over time. In a few billion years it would settle to the center of the Earth.
> Even if a black hole like particle was briefly formed and then hit by another particle
> or two or twenty, then what?
Then you would have a slightly larger nano-blackhole. It would still have such a tiny collision cross-section that it could orbit inside the Earth for a billion years without growing to perceptible size.
But the event you postulate is extremely improbable in any case because of that tiny collision cross-section.
To beat the other astronomers.
This has nothing to do with Open Source. It didn't occur to these doofuses that it just might be a good idea to systematically _test_ their Web site?
> The headline says that the wireframes are not subject to copyright, and that the judge
> used an analogy to photographs. But photographs are subject to copyright, so I'm very
> confused.
Photographs that contain creative expression are protected by copyright. Those that do not, do not. For example, an exact photocopy of a page from a book in the public domain is not protected by copyright.
People make all sorts of _claims_.
Looks like somebody got bluffed, not sued.
> I doubt if you got hold of this mesh and published it that you could avoid getting sued
> by Toyota.
Do you think you would be sued by Toyota if you published a photograph of one of a car manufactured by them?
> For a long time now, I've wondered about license or copyright on the community models
> for a game like, e.g., Neverwinter Nights, who owns the copyright? If this is to be
> believed, no one does.
That doesn't follow at all. The models in this case were of real objects. The ones you refer to are original works. They are not saying that models (wire or otherwise) are never protected by copyright: just that accurate wire models of real objects aren't because they contain no creative expression. It should be obvious that there is creative expression in a model of an object that existed only in the author's imagination.
> If they're likening it TO a photograph... then it IS copyrightable just as professional
> photographers have a copyright to their photographs of "public" buildings.
Photographs are only protected by copyright to the extent that they contain creative expression. For example, the photographs in art books, which are intended to reproduce the original painting as accurately as possible, are not protected by copyright precisely because the photographers endeavor to eliminate all creative elements (of course if the original painting is still under copyright that still applies to the photo). Essentially the art-book photos are seen by the courts as copies of the original, not creative works in themselves. In a similar sense the court is saying that these models are a sort of copy of the original car rather than being creative works in themselves. A lot of work went into them, but that, according to USOC in Feist v Rural Telephone, was mere "sweat of the brow".
> Well I have a Hotmail account, I just don't check it, and there seems to be no way to
> delete it.
Can't you change the address to anonymous@example.com and the password to Yaewoh4i? That would seem to have the same effect.
But they have to pay by the gallon for the gasoline they use.
> Even if they are 100% innocent, ( actually, especially if they are ) the government has
> no business reading their mail.
I didn't say it did (actually, I said it didn't). I just said that if it did so anyway nothing bad would befall most of us. We simply are not involved in anything the government cares about.
On the other hand if, instead of just reading it and being bored to tears, they use their buggy software to scan it for "suspicious patterns" we could be awakened at 2AM by machinegun-toting SWAT teams demanding that we tell them where the plutonium is.