Of course he could have used TOR to access an anonymizing proxy located in some country which isn't exactly U.S. friendly (assuming such proxies exist). In that case, any U.S. authority would have troubles to find him even if he were posting from home.
But I don't know how much those people have been actually taught about the Mayan calendar, so I can't really say why time will end for them.
Isn't it obvious? They saved one digit by using only the last two digits of the year. Therefore at Dec 12, 2012 they'll run into the equivalent of a Y2K.
No. This is a very common misconception, but it is not correct. Betelgeuse is about 640 light years away. (The exact distance is somewhat uncertain.) It takes a signal about 640 years (or more) to get here from there. So, in our frame of reference no signal indicating that Betelgeuse has gone supernova (as of last night, when I took a look at Orion). In our frame of reference Betelgeuse has not exploded yet (as of last night).
No, in our frame of reference it may already have exploded. It's just that the signal didn't arrive at us. The frame of reference tells us how to calculate place and time. It doesn't tell us what we see at some instance. For example, someone sitting here, and someone sitting on a planet near Betelgeuse would have exactly the same frame of reference if both are at rest to each other (note that I consistently neglect general-relativistic effects, which make the whole problem of frames of references much more complicated; actually I also neglect the movement of the earth around the sun, and a possible relative movement of the sun and Betelgeuse). However, the one close to Betelgeuse would see the explosion within minutes, while we would see it only in 640 years. However, for that imaginary person near Betelgeuse the time until the signal reaches us would still be exactly the same time, while there are other frames of reference (moving with near light speed relative to us) where that time is dramatically different (possibly much longer, possibly much shorter, depending on direction).
Well, first I formulated carefully: "would be flat", not "would be seen as flat". Second, your stated reason is wrong: It's not the three-dimensional treatment which gives the rotation (the dimensions perpendicular to the movement are not affected by relativistic effects), but the optical effects of the finite speed of light (if there were no relativistic contraction, you'd also see a rotated object when going close to the speed of light (relative to the rest frame of light, which you then would have to assume, and assuming the earth would be at rest in that frame); it's just that in this case the objects would also seem expanded in the direction of flight (i.e. the observed earth would look like a cigar, while after correction for the finite speed of light it would of course turn out to be round again; remember, no relativistic effects here). The funny thing is that the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction exactly counters this apparent expansion, so that if you consider both relativistic effects and optical effects of the finite speed of light, you again get round (but rotated) objects.
No, it's exactly our frame of reference where Betelgeuse is 640 light years away, and it is our frame or reference where it might already have happened up to 640 years ago.
Relativity of simultaneity is not about the time when you see it. It's about the time you get after correcting for the finite time the light needed to get to you.
Can some physicist explain the relation of this story with Einstein's relativity theory? AFAICS, Einstein tells us that time difference, and even the order in which events take place is not a universal property, but are all tied to an observer. How can we speak about beetlejuice blowing up in 1411 in that light? Would there not be a possible viewpoint in the universe where the nova event would take place much closer to our time?
Yes. From the viewpoint of an observer passing earth in the direction away from Betelgeuse sufficiently close to light speed, it would be an arbitrary short time between Betelgeuse blowing up and us seeing it (from his view it would also be an arbitrary close distance between earth and Betelgeuse. Also note that in his frame of reference, earth would be flat.:-)
Or even, "after" we see it?
No, the time order of causally related events is the same in all frames of reference. The cause always comes before the effect.
"I've found a bug in the browser." "OK. Let's first identify which browser version you have." "Well, I can''t find a version number." "There isn't one. However we can identify the build by making some tests." "What tests?" "Well, let's start. Please open the about dialog, and then give us the exact RGB values of the background. Those changed recently, which allows us to restrict the range where to look. Also, we need the exact space between "Google" and "Inc" in Pixels, and your screen resolution and size, so we can find out which tweak of the font rendering engine is in use, which allows to further narrow it down."...
If you use a decent email program/OS, it flags the file as being downloaded and possibly harmful. When you try to open it, it warns you - at least.
Ah, yet another annoying warning message the user clicks away unread. And given that the computer cannot know if you know and trust whoever wrote that mail, it would likely give at least 90% "false positives".
If you use a hosted mail service, like gmail, then the file never gets downloaded *at all*.
You mean, at gmail there's no way to get at attachments of mails? Somehow I cannot believe that.
I think I like my software to be more responsible/secure than my users. Reading email should be dead simple and safe.
Attachments are just files, and the mail program cannot do much about them. If you open a file of unknown origin, then it doesn't matter if you got it by mail or downloaded it from some shady place of the internet.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course he could have used TOR to access an anonymizing proxy located in some country which isn't exactly U.S. friendly (assuming such proxies exist). In that case, any U.S. authority would have troubles to find him even if he were posting from home.
Isn't it obvious? They saved one digit by using only the last two digits of the year. Therefore at Dec 12, 2012 they'll run into the equivalent of a Y2K.
No. This is a very common misconception, but it is not correct. Betelgeuse is about 640 light years away. (The exact distance is somewhat uncertain.) It takes a signal about 640 years (or more) to get here from there. So, in our frame of reference no signal indicating that Betelgeuse has gone supernova (as of last night, when I took a look at Orion). In our frame of reference Betelgeuse has not exploded yet (as of last night).
No, in our frame of reference it may already have exploded. It's just that the signal didn't arrive at us. The frame of reference tells us how to calculate place and time. It doesn't tell us what we see at some instance. For example, someone sitting here, and someone sitting on a planet near Betelgeuse would have exactly the same frame of reference if both are at rest to each other (note that I consistently neglect general-relativistic effects, which make the whole problem of frames of references much more complicated; actually I also neglect the movement of the earth around the sun, and a possible relative movement of the sun and Betelgeuse). However, the one close to Betelgeuse would see the explosion within minutes, while we would see it only in 640 years. However, for that imaginary person near Betelgeuse the time until the signal reaches us would still be exactly the same time, while there are other frames of reference (moving with near light speed relative to us) where that time is dramatically different (possibly much longer, possibly much shorter, depending on direction).
Well, first I formulated carefully: "would be flat", not "would be seen as flat". Second, your stated reason is wrong: It's not the three-dimensional treatment which gives the rotation (the dimensions perpendicular to the movement are not affected by relativistic effects), but the optical effects of the finite speed of light (if there were no relativistic contraction, you'd also see a rotated object when going close to the speed of light (relative to the rest frame of light, which you then would have to assume, and assuming the earth would be at rest in that frame); it's just that in this case the objects would also seem expanded in the direction of flight (i.e. the observed earth would look like a cigar, while after correction for the finite speed of light it would of course turn out to be round again; remember, no relativistic effects here). The funny thing is that the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction exactly counters this apparent expansion, so that if you consider both relativistic effects and optical effects of the finite speed of light, you again get round (but rotated) objects.
Bah, everyone knows it's Jan 19, 2038 when the world will end. :-)
No, it's exactly our frame of reference where Betelgeuse is 640 light years away, and it is our frame or reference where it might already have happened up to 640 years ago.
Relativity of simultaneity is not about the time when you see it. It's about the time you get after correcting for the finite time the light needed to get to you.
Yes. From the viewpoint of an observer passing earth in the direction away from Betelgeuse sufficiently close to light speed, it would be an arbitrary short time between Betelgeuse blowing up and us seeing it (from his view it would also be an arbitrary close distance between earth and Betelgeuse. Also note that in his frame of reference, earth would be flat. :-)
No, the time order of causally related events is the same in all frames of reference. The cause always comes before the effect.
What makes this post so interesting is that you were the first person to say it.
As geeks, we know its all relative.
Does this include the question whether to put an apostrophe in "it's"? :-)
Note that this article says that Betelgeuse may or may not blow up soon. Probably it was written by Vroomfondel.
"88 km/h average speed over one kilometre"
How much is that in real speed?
8.2*10^-8 c.
So it's a narcotic switch?
They should have made the kills witch for Java, and while we're at it plugins-container.exe ;)
You think Mozilla should engage in witch-hunt?
Of course, because it's the only way to play it before the world ends.
Well, maybe this year, May is late. :-)
Only six months? I thought the time when you can actually start to play would be December 21, 2012.
"I've found a bug in the browser." ...
"OK. Let's first identify which browser version you have."
"Well, I can''t find a version number."
"There isn't one. However we can identify the build by making some tests."
"What tests?"
"Well, let's start. Please open the about dialog, and then give us the exact RGB values of the background. Those changed recently, which allows us to restrict the range where to look. Also, we need the exact space between "Google" and "Inc" in Pixels, and your screen resolution and size, so we can find out which tweak of the font rendering engine is in use, which allows to further narrow it down."
Well, if the version numbering converged to something interesting like pi (or e, or the golden ratio) I could see people wanting it.
Then again, that kind of system wouldn't be rational.
But it's real!
Ah, yet another annoying warning message the user clicks away unread. And given that the computer cannot know if you know and trust whoever wrote that mail, it would likely give at least 90% "false positives".
You mean, at gmail there's no way to get at attachments of mails? Somehow I cannot believe that.
Attachments are just files, and the mail program cannot do much about them. If you open a file of unknown origin, then it doesn't matter if you got it by mail or downloaded it from some shady place of the internet.
FFS Slashdot, these are not Hackers they are Criminals.
How can you be sure they are not hackers? Being a hacker and being a criminal are not mutually exclusive.
NO CARRIER
I had the same work done last week and it cam e out great.
Except for the spurious spaces it inserts into your posts once in a while. :-)
time wholesome and [tuxedo.org], thing for the and easy - only their 4and...she and reports and centralized models Like I should be
Ah, I see you ported Dissociated Press from Emacs to Firefox!
But there's so much you can see there! Stripped binaries. Hard disks. Even fsck!