I was using "mass" as shorthand for "rest mass", for which I am deeply, deeply sorry. You are of course correct.
But I did get hung up on the question of whether or not particles with mass have infinite mass at C, and what that would mean to a photon moving towards them. Is the "infinite mass" strictly in terms of gravitational pull, or energy required to change velocity, or would this "infinite mass" also cause increased spacetime curvature?
That last bit feels wrong. And either it's wrong, or there's a good reason we can't model a photon standing still while we rush towards it at C. If we could, all photons would immediately become trapped by the infinite gravity well of the nearest mass.
If you want to take the CMB as a reference point, then you can. But there's no reason to think the CMB isn't moving at its own velocity compared to "stopped"...if there even is such a thing as "stopped".
How fast are we going? Short answer: We have no idea. We don't know what "stopped" looks like, so we can't possibly say how fast we are going compared to "stopped". We can see that we move at X compared to the sun, and Y compared to the galactic core, but since they're in motion as well,...well, we have no idea how "fast we are going".
Aren't we going the speed of light, relative to light? Yeeesssss? Sort of? For anything other than light, the answer is straightforward. If we accelerate an electron to 99% the speed of light, that electron behaves exactly as if it were sitting still, and we were the ones moving towards it at 99% the speed of light.
But once we start talking about photons, and moving at 100% the speed of light, things sort of break down. Photons are fundamentally different from us in that they travel at C and have no mass. That lack of mass may mean that the two situations (us moving towards a photon at C vs a photon moving towards us) may not be symmetrical. But I honestly have no idea - I'm quite out of my depth at this point.
The point being, there's always an abstraction layer below. We work with incredibly complex machines that control the movement of electrons by the pressure exerted by other electrons. For you to pick one of the many abstraction layers above this and say "this is where programming stops" is irrational.
Ultimately, it's all text that's converted to behaviour in a consistent way.
If I invent a chip that directly executes.NET bytecode and standard libraries, does.NET suddenly become "Programming"? Simply because the nature of the system underlying the abstraction has changed?
That's right. This guy is no better than the posers who only know C, and not the assembly commands it translates into. They're just using a fake environment.
Or even worse, people who program in assembly, rather than burning their own chips. They've been handed a programming environment with timing circuits and all sorts of other fancy tools baked right into the silicon.
Or those sad, failed shells of once-humans who bake their own chips without doping their own silicon. Imagine! Just dropping the appropriate materials into place without mixing it by hand? These people know nothing of "technology".
I fully agree. I tried freelancing immediately out of university, and it was a bad experience for both myself and my clients. I learned a lot of things the hard way, and would have seen far more benefit if I had had a mentor or two to show me the ropes.
And there are simply a lot of aspects of development that escape you as a freelancer. Working in a team and relying on other developers taught me skills I could never have learned alone.
Wait a second - did you just try to troll fans of a 15-year-old game? For your next trick, maybe you can jump into the Genesis-vs-SNES wars, or go political and claim that Dole's going to kick Clinton's ass?
And they can do that exactly once. What happens when the next filesharing site opens up in NZ? The official response is going to be "f&#* you", because this operation was such a screwup. How do the NZ authorities involved in this case feel? Is it going to make their career? Or is it going to be a black mark on their record as an unnecessary, unwarranted, and very public cockup?
If their mission was to take down MegaUpload, maybe you're right. If their mission was to prevent piracy in any way, than this is about the worst precedent they could have set.
they need to do way instain partacle> that decay thier kayons. becuse these kayon cant frigth back?
it was on the news this mroing a partacle in pb who had decay it's three quakr . they are taking the quakr back to new clus too lady to rest my pary are with the atom who lost his baron ; i am truley sorry for your lots
"Insert Row Below" is Alt->JLE. "Insert Row Above" is Alt->JLA.
I know this because as soon as you hit Alt, the ribbon shows the shortcuts for the next step. If you're in a table, you see that the "Layout" tab is invoked with "JL", and once you press those, the "Insert Row Below" button is invoked with "E".
If you're using the mouse to do these things, you're doing it wrong. If you're doing a lot of table-related work, your fingers will quickly learn the keystrokes for you.
The proofs themselves may be certain, but you can't ever be sure of it within your own mind. Maybe the universe was created with all of your memories intact halfway through your understanding of the proof.
I'd love to see Robert Picardo play The Doctor. I'll admit it's 90% for the joke (he played The Doctor in ST:Voyager), but if he can do a British accent, I think he'd be able to pull it off well.
Slashdot Mirror
I was using "mass" as shorthand for "rest mass", for which I am deeply, deeply sorry. You are of course correct.
But I did get hung up on the question of whether or not particles with mass have infinite mass at C, and what that would mean to a photon moving towards them. Is the "infinite mass" strictly in terms of gravitational pull, or energy required to change velocity, or would this "infinite mass" also cause increased spacetime curvature?
That last bit feels wrong. And either it's wrong, or there's a good reason we can't model a photon standing still while we rush towards it at C. If we could, all photons would immediately become trapped by the infinite gravity well of the nearest mass.
If you want to take the CMB as a reference point, then you can. But there's no reason to think the CMB isn't moving at its own velocity compared to "stopped"...if there even is such a thing as "stopped".
How fast are we going? ...well, we have no idea how "fast we are going".
Short answer: We have no idea. We don't know what "stopped" looks like, so we can't possibly say how fast we are going compared to "stopped". We can see that we move at X compared to the sun, and Y compared to the galactic core, but since they're in motion as well,
Aren't we going the speed of light, relative to light?
Yeeesssss? Sort of? For anything other than light, the answer is straightforward. If we accelerate an electron to 99% the speed of light, that electron behaves exactly as if it were sitting still, and we were the ones moving towards it at 99% the speed of light.
But once we start talking about photons, and moving at 100% the speed of light, things sort of break down. Photons are fundamentally different from us in that they travel at C and have no mass. That lack of mass may mean that the two situations (us moving towards a photon at C vs a photon moving towards us) may not be symmetrical. But I honestly have no idea - I'm quite out of my depth at this point.
The point being, there's always an abstraction layer below. We work with incredibly complex machines that control the movement of electrons by the pressure exerted by other electrons. For you to pick one of the many abstraction layers above this and say "this is where programming stops" is irrational.
Ultimately, it's all text that's converted to behaviour in a consistent way.
If I invent a chip that directly executes .NET bytecode and standard libraries, does .NET suddenly become "Programming"? Simply because the nature of the system underlying the abstraction has changed?
That's right. This guy is no better than the posers who only know C, and not the assembly commands it translates into. They're just using a fake environment.
Or even worse, people who program in assembly, rather than burning their own chips. They've been handed a programming environment with timing circuits and all sorts of other fancy tools baked right into the silicon.
Or those sad, failed shells of once-humans who bake their own chips without doping their own silicon. Imagine! Just dropping the appropriate materials into place without mixing it by hand? These people know nothing of "technology".
Maybe true, but you get 80% the quality at 50% the cost.
It makes more sense when you realize that they're both advertisements for ad-blocking software.
I fully agree. I tried freelancing immediately out of university, and it was a bad experience for both myself and my clients. I learned a lot of things the hard way, and would have seen far more benefit if I had had a mentor or two to show me the ropes.
And there are simply a lot of aspects of development that escape you as a freelancer. Working in a team and relying on other developers taught me skills I could never have learned alone.
Wait a second - did you just try to troll fans of a 15-year-old game? For your next trick, maybe you can jump into the Genesis-vs-SNES wars, or go political and claim that Dole's going to kick Clinton's ass?
Interesting strategy. I'm definitely going to try out a comments-first writing style. Thanks for the idea.
I assume this is Heroes of Might and Magic, and not some other Heroes 6? You can just add "/offline" to the command line to play connection-free.
This, pretty much.
How is this not a good thing? It means more disease and other bad-mutations in the short term.
In the long term, though, it will lead to longer lifespans.
Get ready to be featured in next month's "Why Individual Sellers Are Amazon's Real Competition" thread.
Good point. Non-story. I can't see anything of interest to nerds here.
And they can do that exactly once. What happens when the next filesharing site opens up in NZ? The official response is going to be "f&#* you", because this operation was such a screwup. How do the NZ authorities involved in this case feel? Is it going to make their career? Or is it going to be a black mark on their record as an unnecessary, unwarranted, and very public cockup?
If their mission was to take down MegaUpload, maybe you're right. If their mission was to prevent piracy in any way, than this is about the worst precedent they could have set.
they need to do way instain partacle> that decay thier kayons. becuse these kayon cant frigth back?
it was on the news this mroing a partacle in pb who had decay it's three quakr . they are taking the quakr back to new clus too lady to rest my pary are with the atom who lost his baron ; i am truley sorry for your lots
"Insert Row Below" is Alt->JLE. "Insert Row Above" is Alt->JLA.
I know this because as soon as you hit Alt, the ribbon shows the shortcuts for the next step. If you're in a table, you see that the "Layout" tab is invoked with "JL", and once you press those, the "Insert Row Below" button is invoked with "E".
If you're using the mouse to do these things, you're doing it wrong. If you're doing a lot of table-related work, your fingers will quickly learn the keystrokes for you.
It's obviously just a Case Of The Missing Hyphen. The headline should read "Tor-Using Narcotics Store".
Mathematical proofs are certain
The proofs themselves may be certain, but you can't ever be sure of it within your own mind. Maybe the universe was created with all of your memories intact halfway through your understanding of the proof.
A coffee shop is one of those places you go to browse online forums.
I'd love to see Robert Picardo play The Doctor. I'll admit it's 90% for the joke (he played The Doctor in ST:Voyager), but if he can do a British accent, I think he'd be able to pull it off well.
Same as any other new technology.
In 2028, James Cameron will spend 3.2 trillion dollars on Avatar: Reloaded. You'll spend $50 to see it once in theatres.
The technology will be ported to games about 5 years after that, costing $60/game (top-tier game prices haven't changed since 1980).
5 years after that, $2 flash games will all include photo-realistic graphics at 200 fps.
Could someone get this in terms of LOCs?
All of them.
Apple's no-porn-on-the-iPhone stand
A quick GIS shows that there's at least one instance of porn on an iPod stand.
This is by far the most plausible explanation I've seen presented.