Everyone knows that there is a slight asymmetry tending towards particles rather than anti-particles. It's common sense. It's the reason why the universe exists as matter rather thant antimatter.
Do we? I thought maybe they were exactly equal, and there'd been a huge bang when matter and antimatter annihilated themselves and we were a tiny local cluster of matter bits which got missed.
So everyone speaks about LHC possibly creating earth-eating black holes, and then the people at RHIC break a fundamental symmetry, and nobody warned us. Surely they'll soon turn every matter in the surrounding into antimatter, ultimately annihilating the earth in a giant matter-antimatter explosion! STOP THEM!:-)
A list of interesting names is not a fact in that it is formed by the creative selection of names by a person or group of people.
As soon as you created the list, it's a fact.
One could publish something stating that a name was on the list because that is a fact but not just copy the whole list.
So saying that one name is on the list is a fact. Saying the same about several names certainly is a fact, too. So with how many names does it stop being a fact? I'll answer that for you: Never. Stating a complete list of names on your list is a fact, too, just as stating a complete list of names of people living in Texas is a fact. It started to be a fact as soon as you created that list.
Well, the matter falling in has its own gravity as well.
For simplicity, let's assume that there's a perfectly symmetric shell of matter falling into the black hole, and for some strange reason it remains spherically symmetric (and I'll also assume a non-rotating black hole, which is also spherically symmetric). Remember that for spherically symmetric mass distributions, outside of the mass it looks exactly the same as if the whole mass were concentrated in the center.
Now, for this scenario, the whole space time looks like this:
Inside the matter shell, we have the Schwarzschild solution of the pure black hole (the Schwarzschild solution describes the spacetime of a static black hole)
Outside the matter shell, we have the Schwarzschild solution of the black hole plus the mass of the matter shell.
So at the time the matter shell reaches the Schwarzschild radius of the complete mass distribution, which is larger than the Schwarzschild radius of the original black hole, a new horizon forms at that point.
Now with realistic matter distributions, it's certainly quite more complicated, but I'd guess that the fundamental growing mechanism is basically the same.
In other words, it simulates time dilation (your computer gets slow). However, your script doesn't do a very good job at it, and completely fails with multicore CPUs.
I'm running the simulation right now, simulating falling into the hole. I must say, it's very realistic. I eevveenn eexxppeerriiieeennnccceee ttttiiiimmmmeeee ddddiiiiilllllllaaaaaaaaaaaaaNO CARRIER
Did you know slashdot mod points are traded in real time in yahoo groups? It doesn't matter whether or not a comment is any good.
{{citation needed}}
Meanwhile, a climate change agency would be a fantastic idea
Do you have any indication the National Weather Service is doing a bad job at it? And even if, why should inventing a new agency be better than fixing things at the existing one?
Creating a separate service for climate prediction is like saying we need a separate FBI to work on predicting future crimes. Just let the National Weather Service work on climate (hello, weather!) prediction. Come to think of it, why isn't the NWS working on this already??
If you had RTFS, you'd know that the NWS is already working on that. About the last third if the summary is talking about existing NWS facilities which are to be transferred to that new service, and a climate web site the NWS has set up recently.
The problem is that the robots are owned by the companies.
Imagine everyone would own a robot, and those robots were then rented by companies. Then the robot would do the work, but the owner would get the money, without working himself.
You cannot get round the laws of thermodynamics by avoiding burning the fuel.
The Laws of thermodynamics apply to all ways of converting energy stored in one form to energy in another form. Burning it or not burning it is irrelevant.
While strictly speaking the laws of thermodynamics of course apply everywhere, the second law of thermodynamics only restricts the conversion of heat into work.
Here's the second law in all its glory:
It is impossible to convert heat completely into work in a cyclic process.
There are other formulations involving entropy, but given that heat is the only form of energy which is connected with entropy transfer, they are effectively equivalent.
Is it just me or does anyone else think that a great contributor to global warming is the method with which we create and consume power.
Yes. Especially the burning of fossil fuels. However, it's not the heat generated; that is negligible compared to the energy the sun delivers all the time. The problem is that the CO2 we release into the atmosphere reduces the amount of solar heat the earth can give back into space.
We produce most of the electricity with steam and that steam needs to cool off before it can become steam again.
It doesn't matter whether we use steam. Whenever we want to convert heat into work (and that is what all those power plants do, with the exception of wind power; it's BTW also what your car's motor does), we have to release some of the energy as heat into rthe environment again. That's just a consequence of the second law of thermodynamics. However, note that the heat released in that process is less than the heat produced by the original process (i.e. burning coal, or splitting atomic nuclei); the difference is the usable energy we get from the process.
Now if we want to escape the second law of thermodynamics, we need to find ways to use the energy stored in the fuels without turning it into heat. For example, currently to make use of the energy released by the chemical reaction of carbon with oxygen, we simply burn the coal (which produces heat), and then we use a heat engine to convert part of that energy into usable energy (and the second law of thermodynamics tells us that at the very moment we turned the energy to heat, we already lost the ability to use all of it). If we would find a way to convert the chemical energy into electric energy without first converting it to heat, the second law of thermodynamics wouldn't come into play, and in principle we could get higher efficiencies than thermodynamics allows.
Then, on the consumer side, we also convert much of that electricity into heat, with inefficient light bulbs, cars (thats why the engine needs a heatsink and a fan), electronic equipment, etc... If your computer uses 150W, thats 150W of heat output per hour. Human body outputs on average ~100Wh.
The car needs a heat sink because it's a heat engine. It's the second law of thermodynamics striking again. Also note that the 100W are just the human output if you are doing nothing. As soon as you do physical work, the heat output grows.
And of the light emitted by the monitor, almost all of it gets absorbed by the walls and other things in your room, and therefore also converted into heat. If you want to reduce that, you can put your monitor with the display towards the window, so that some of its light can leave the room and go directly into space. Of course that only works for clear sky (and only if you have a clear view to the sky, so cut that tree in front of your window!), so you better don't work when the weather is bad.:-)
The main problem with encrypted email is that it's not enough to set up your own account for it. Also your recipient has to be set up for it. And you are often not in the position where you can demand it.
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone knows that there is a slight asymmetry tending towards particles rather than anti-particles. It's common sense. It's the reason why the universe exists as matter rather thant antimatter.
Do we? I thought maybe they were exactly equal, and there'd been a huge bang when matter and antimatter annihilated themselves and we were a tiny local cluster of matter bits which got missed.
And where's the corresponding antimatter gone?
What's the matter?
It's not a hair. It's a string.
So everyone speaks about LHC possibly creating earth-eating black holes, and then the people at RHIC break a fundamental symmetry, and nobody warned us. Surely they'll soon turn every matter in the surrounding into antimatter, ultimately annihilating the earth in a giant matter-antimatter explosion! STOP THEM! :-)
TSA is under DHS, so you're both right.
You mean TSA doesn't stand for "Terrorists' Surrogate Army"? I thought Al-Queda had stationed occupying forces in the airports!
Well, it's just that DHS stands for DshiHad Service :-)
As soon as you created the list, it's a fact.
So saying that one name is on the list is a fact. Saying the same about several names certainly is a fact, too. So with how many names does it stop being a fact? I'll answer that for you: Never. Stating a complete list of names on your list is a fact, too, just as stating a complete list of names of people living in Texas is a fact. It started to be a fact as soon as you created that list.
I can assure you that no single research dollar has gone into this. It's all payed in euros.
Well, the matter falling in has its own gravity as well.
For simplicity, let's assume that there's a perfectly symmetric shell of matter falling into the black hole, and for some strange reason it remains spherically symmetric (and I'll also assume a non-rotating black hole, which is also spherically symmetric). Remember that for spherically symmetric mass distributions, outside of the mass it looks exactly the same as if the whole mass were concentrated in the center.
Now, for this scenario, the whole space time looks like this:
So at the time the matter shell reaches the Schwarzschild radius of the complete mass distribution, which is larger than the Schwarzschild radius of the original black hole, a new horizon forms at that point.
Now with realistic matter distributions, it's certainly quite more complicated, but I'd guess that the fundamental growing mechanism is basically the same.
In other words, it simulates time dilation (your computer gets slow).
However, your script doesn't do a very good job at it, and completely fails with multicore CPUs.
Here's a better script:
I'm using the normal, everyday definition of a fact. If the legal definition of a fact is different, that definition should be stated somewhere.
For example, say I'm creative when naming my child, can I then sue the phone book company for copyright infringement when it lists the name?
Yet another proof of the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
I'm running the simulation right now, simulating falling into the hole. I must say, it's very realistic. I eevveenn eexxppeerriiieeennnccceee ttttiiiimmmmeeee ddddiiiiilllllllaaaaaaaaaaaaaNO CARRIER
But if I make a list of all names which appear in your list, it's facts again, namely the fact which names appear in your list ...
{{citation needed}}
Do you have any indication the National Weather Service is doing a bad job at it? And even if, why should inventing a new agency be better than fixing things at the existing one?
Creating a separate service for climate prediction is like saying we need a separate FBI to work on predicting future crimes. Just let the National Weather Service work on climate (hello, weather!) prediction. Come to think of it, why isn't the NWS working on this already??
If you had RTFS, you'd know that the NWS is already working on that. About the last third if the summary is talking about existing NWS facilities which are to be transferred to that new service, and a climate web site the NWS has set up recently.
What happened to Obama's Spending freeze? Now they want to create a new bureaucratic government agency with all sorts of high paid administrators?
You know, when it gets warmer, you get less freeze.
The problem is that the robots are owned by the companies.
Imagine everyone would own a robot, and those robots were then rented by companies. Then the robot would do the work, but the owner would get the money, without working himself.
While strictly speaking the laws of thermodynamics of course apply everywhere, the second law of thermodynamics only restricts the conversion of heat into work.
Here's the second law in all its glory:
It is impossible to convert heat completely into work in a cyclic process.
There are other formulations involving entropy, but given that heat is the only form of energy which is connected with entropy transfer, they are effectively equivalent.
Yes. Especially the burning of fossil fuels. However, it's not the heat generated; that is negligible compared to the energy the sun delivers all the time. The problem is that the CO2 we release into the atmosphere reduces the amount of solar heat the earth can give back into space.
It doesn't matter whether we use steam. Whenever we want to convert heat into work (and that is what all those power plants do, with the exception of wind power; it's BTW also what your car's motor does), we have to release some of the energy as heat into rthe environment again. That's just a consequence of the second law of thermodynamics. However, note that the heat released in that process is less than the heat produced by the original process (i.e. burning coal, or splitting atomic nuclei); the difference is the usable energy we get from the process.
Now if we want to escape the second law of thermodynamics, we need to find ways to use the energy stored in the fuels without turning it into heat. For example, currently to make use of the energy released by the chemical reaction of carbon with oxygen, we simply burn the coal (which produces heat), and then we use a heat engine to convert part of that energy into usable energy (and the second law of thermodynamics tells us that at the very moment we turned the energy to heat, we already lost the ability to use all of it). If we would find a way to convert the chemical energy into electric energy without first converting it to heat, the second law of thermodynamics wouldn't come into play, and in principle we could get higher efficiencies than thermodynamics allows.
The car needs a heat sink because it's a heat engine. It's the second law of thermodynamics striking again.
Also note that the 100W are just the human output if you are doing nothing. As soon as you do physical work, the heat output grows.
And of the light emitted by the monitor, almost all of it gets absorbed by the walls and other things in your room, and therefore also converted into heat. If you want to reduce that, you can put your monitor with the display towards the window, so that some of its light can leave the room and go directly into space. Of course that only works for clear sky (and only if you have a clear view to the sky, so cut that tree in front of your window!), so you better don't work when the weather is bad. :-)
Note that the hard disk temperature is usually higher than the room temperature.
Where did you download your home cinema?
Meh, communism is old and worn out. Can you try linking it to terrorism or pedophilia?
People might use this for payments to terrorism or pedophilia web sites.
He's obviously speaking about storage, not bandwidth. I definitely had a 20MB quota on my account back then.
The main problem with encrypted email is that it's not enough to set up your own account for it. Also your recipient has to be set up for it. And you are often not in the position where you can demand it.