My argument stands though that yes, something that had more kinetic energy than the sum of a photon's mass and velocity could indeed probe beyond the event horizon (as exists for light) of a black hole.
A photon doesn't have a lot of kinetic energy. A walking human has more kinetic energy than a single photon. Besides, kenetic energy is not the sum of mass and velocity, but the product of mass and (velocity squared).
What you need to get out of an event horizon is something with kinetic energy yet no mass whatsoever. Or at least a better kinetic energy-to-mass ratio than a photon has, but even then that kind of object is simply subject to a smaller event horizon than a photon.
To have no event horizon at all, you need an object that's not subject to gravity at all, which means it can't have mass at all, not even while travelling at the speed of light. I suppose (but am not by any means sure) that a neutrino could do it. They're hard to build a camera out of, though.
According to your statistics, since I've had two incidents where I've had the option to defend myself, once with a sword and once with a gun, I should have at least 4 unintentionally shot members of my household, 7 murdered by thugs and 11 who shot themselves
I see you lack a fundamental grasp of statistics and causality. The larger likelihood of family members being shot by a gun doesn't mean that a single intruder getting shot magically caused your entire family getting shot. It means that for your one example of an intruder getting shot without harm to your family, there are 22 examples of family members getting shot by a gun without an intruder getting shot by it.
It may not have happened with your particular gun, but it has happened with lots of similar guns that people had in their homes.
Did you read... anything? Intermediate-Mass black hole seems to indicate its neither stellar sized (small) nor galactic-center super-massive (large) in size.
Exactly. That is why this is the goldilocks black hole, unlike the previous two that were too big and too small. Please google for "goldilocks" to understand the cultural reference. It's a fairy tale and Wikipedia has a summary.
Strictly speaking, it's the event horizon that either becomes an oblate spheroid or a torus when the black hole is rotating.
A torus-shaped event horizon? Do you mean light could go straight through the center of a black hole (i.e. the singularity) and come out the other end unscathed?
Had to attack the form and not the argument itself.
Considering that your argument is meaningless technobabble, what else was there really to attack?
Just to help you on your way, you're comparing velocity to force. You're also having that force created or possessed by a photon, whereas force is usually exerted or applied. I suspect you mean energy instead of force, but even then it sounds like you're saying a human could walk out of a black hole.
I like the Ajaxiness. The only real problem today is the gigantic buttons, but that should be easily fixed.
What I'd like to know is, why do we get a completely revamped UI every week? Why not simply make the obvious improvements and stick to that? Every other week I discover that folding and unfolding has disappeared or reappeared in a different form. I also like the "quote parent" button, so I'd appreciate if it stopped disappearing all the time.
Stephenson's "Cryptonomicon" was the first and only rather expensive hardbook book I've ever tossed in the trash. And at only about 30 pages in.
That's just after he introduced Alan Turing! (on page 12, I think?) Are you mad?!
Now if it's after the double description of Manilla, then I can understand, but even then it's a shame, because it gets so much better after that! It's my favourite book ever. It dethroned Lord of the Rings. A must-read for every nerd, and that should include every Slashdot reader.
it might as well have just ended with "and, blah blah blah, they lived happily ever after".
I wish it had ended with words to that effect. Instead, he stopped just before the "they lived happily ever after". It ends with the prince kissing the sleeping beauty. You turn the page, and discover that was the last sentence. No waking up, marrying or living happily ever after at all.
It's still a brilliant book, though. Hell, his previous books ended with the prince cutting through the thorn bushes, so this is a huge improvement.
My personally favourite aspect of Cryptonomicon is the WWII information warfare bit. It's all about the question how the hell they can make use of the information gained from cracking the German codes without letting the Germans know their codes are cracked. The solution is a special group of soldiers that gets to perform some totally weird missions just to give the allies a cover or excuse to make use of the information they already had.
Also, it's one of the few novels that gets away with using a methematical formula, and it explains lots of mathematical concepts really well in extremely inventive and original ways without boring the reader. It is in my humble opinion The Ultimate Nerd Novel.
It's not about wanting to know anything in particular, it's just about having a satisfying ending. His endings are very anti-climactic, whereas the entire book reads like he's building up to something (unlike Asimov's Foundation, where he's simpy narrating history). I turn the last page, and discover to my surprise that that was the last one. It didn't feel that way.
I'm reading the Diamond Age now. I really didn't like how he ended the Cryptonomicon,so I suppose I should be prepared.
You didn't like Cryptonomicon's ending? Oh boy. It's the most satisfying ending he's ever written. You should have read The Diamond Age and Snow Crash first. Then you'd really have apppreciated Cryptonomicon's ending.
But his books aren't about the ending. They're about the detailed world he's painting, and about the attention to technical detail. The rushed ending is just something you'll have to accept in order to wrap up all the juicy goodness in the rest of the book.
Of all his books that I read, Cryptonomicon is the only one that has something of an ending. Not a brilliant climax, perhaps, but definitely some sort of conclusion.
Endings are definitely not Stephenson's strongest point, but the fact that this book at least has one, and every single one of the 1100 pages before that ending being exciting, thrilling, interesting and witty, has made Cryptonomicon my favourite book ever. It knocked Lord of the Rings off its throne, and is a must-read for every nerd who is even the slightest bit interested in computers, math, information warfare, submarines, treasure hunts, WW2, or reading.
The only real downer in the book was the two consecutive descriptions of Manilla, one during WW2, the other in modern times. I'm sure the differences between the two descriptions should have been enlightening, but to me it was just boring twice in a row. The rest of the book is absolutely brilliant, however, and that brilliance far outshines these minor downsides.
Managing projects is an issue with developers, culture and diligence. I have been on small java projects that were a mess and on many hige C++ projects that were great to work on. Java allows weak developers to write code without knowing how things work underneath which is unfortuante because it is much harder to find good developers in the java world, I interview too many people who don't even understand basic data structures yet claim to be enterprise level engineers.
I hope you seen that the obvious advantage here is that Java programmers don't have to know about the implementation of underlying datastructures. There's a huge standard library with well defined interfaces, and I can rely on that. Ofcourse I can figure out how exactly HashMap or TreeSet is implemented, but why should I? That time is much better used to do something useful with them. All I have to know is what they're good for and what they aren't good for.
That fact that Java allows programmers to write effective code without knowing how things work underneath is an advantage, not a disadvantage. A language or framework that requires you to know every little detail about its implementation is bad, because it's hard to use and hard to learn.
(Ofcourse that doesn't change the fact that good programmers should have a good understanding of basic datastructures, but they should also understand the importance of transparency, interfaces and APIs.)
As said, readily solved with Java 1.5, unless you are casting between basic types. And within the Eclipse IDE (e.g.) you can use quick fix if you have a casting problem. Having weak typing is a much bigger problem, IMO.
I used to share that opinion, but now that even Java fans like Bruce Tate are cheering the advantages of dynamic typing, I'm not so sure anymore. I'm not about to give up Java yet, but it won't hurt to keep eyes and mind open.
I've been a professional Java programmer for 2 years now, and the more I use it, the less I like it. Java behaves like an advanced scripting language, and it's great as long as the programming tasks stay reasonably simple. But beyond some hard-to-define point, where I'm right now, Java just doesn't cut it. Too many pitfalls, too many workarounds.
In my experience there's no language that's more suitable for gigantic software projects with millions of dependencies than Java. Admittedly I don't have much experience with Python and Ruby yet, and while I see those two as advanced scripting languages, other people keep using them to build large software projects in less time than it takes in Java. But compared to C++, maintaining very large projects is much easier in Java.
If you can try to define your point, pitfalls and workarounds, perhaps someone here can give you some advice. On the other hand, all large, complex projects have their pittfalls and occasionally require workarounds. It simply comes with the software engineering territory.
Seconded. Google Summer of Code is cool. Perhaps not representative of most software development work, but a good way to make contacts with some open source community and companies that are part of that community. Lots of Apache projects are part of GSoC, and lots of companies are involved in Apache projects. Even if it doesn't land you a permanent job (it might), at least it'll get you involved in cool new technologies, which is a lot more exciting than standard code-monkey work at a standard old-tech software house.
Or, in other words, when you're hot, you're hot, and when you're not, you're not, and that's not entirely under your control.
You were modded funny, but an understanding of that -- especially an understanding that it's got nothing to do with things like affection, fairness, or conscious choice -- has got to be one of the most important things to know about a relationship, from either side.
Equally important is to learn how you can influence her hotness. Because I think you can, but only when you know her, know yourself, know what you're doing, and are very, very subtle about it. It's bloody hard, I can tell you. At least, I haven't mastered it, but occasionally it works. Or maybe she was hot to begin with, and I just managed not to screw it up, which is also important to learn.
One important recent lesson: if she wants sex now, that doesn't mean she'll still want sex in 15 minutes, after I've finished what I was working on. If she wants sex, ask yourself: do I want sex this week? If the answer is "yes", drop what your doing immediately.
Argh! Yes they are! We were just filling in some forms for our mortgage, I'm reading everything, she's telling me where to sign, etc. Suddenly she asks me something completely unrelated. No idea what, because I was all focused on the mortgage and related insurance stuff, so I didn't hear a word of it and immediately forgot about it, but apparently (I just asked), it was about some chairs she saw somewhere. Very relevant because it's for the new house, she says, but I just get a very annoying and irrelevant interrupt while I'm in the middle of some heavy processing.
And yet, every application I have that was written in Java is slow and buggy compared to its typical c-programmed counterpart. And yes, I'm including OO.org in that list. What's the deal with that?
I don't know which applications you have, or even which applications that I have are written in C, but I know of a lot of excellent and responsive Java applications. Although Java is a lot bigger on the (web)server than on the client side. Swing is probably to blame.
True, but I'm still used to Java 1.4 collections (and some enterprise environments still require 1.4), and a lot of frameworks pass superclasses around when I know I'm receiving a more specific class.
Besides, this is rumoured to be one of the big reasons why dynamic languages are doing so well lately. Bruce Tate wrote some enlightening stuff about this.
It is a systems language, but that does not mean only the kernel and drivers.
I didn't mean just those. Virtual machines, high performance libraries and stuff like that also make excellent C++ projects. Anything that forms a layer between the high-level programming language is which applications are written, and the low-level stuff. Anything that requires high performance and that will be reused often enough, and rewritten little enough that you can afford to put up with the complexities of the language.
Slashdot Mirror
A photon doesn't have a lot of kinetic energy. A walking human has more kinetic energy than a single photon. Besides, kenetic energy is not the sum of mass and velocity, but the product of mass and (velocity squared).
What you need to get out of an event horizon is something with kinetic energy yet no mass whatsoever. Or at least a better kinetic energy-to-mass ratio than a photon has, but even then
that kind of object is simply subject to a smaller event horizon than a photon.
To have no event horizon at all, you need an object that's not subject to gravity at all, which means it can't have mass at all, not even while travelling at the speed of light. I suppose (but am not by any means sure) that a neutrino could do it. They're hard to build a camera out of, though.
I see you lack a fundamental grasp of statistics and causality. The larger likelihood of family members being shot by a gun doesn't mean that a single intruder getting shot magically caused your entire family getting shot. It means that for your one example of an intruder getting shot without harm to your family, there are 22 examples of family members getting shot by a gun without an intruder getting shot by it.
It may not have happened with your particular gun, but it has happened with lots of similar guns that people had in their homes.
Has Munchkin suddenly become a valid meme for Slashdot?
Exactly. That is why this is the goldilocks black hole, unlike the previous two that were too big and too small. Please google for "goldilocks" to understand the cultural reference. It's a fairy tale and Wikipedia has a summary.
A torus-shaped event horizon? Do you mean light could go straight through the center of a black hole (i.e. the singularity) and come out the other end unscathed?
Considering that your argument is meaningless technobabble, what else was there really to attack?
Just to help you on your way, you're comparing velocity to force. You're also having that force created or possessed by a photon, whereas force is usually exerted or applied. I suspect you mean energy instead of force, but even then it sounds like you're saying a human could walk out of a black hole.
Basically I agree with the grandparent.
I like the Ajaxiness. The only real problem today is the gigantic buttons, but that should be easily fixed.
What I'd like to know is, why do we get a completely revamped UI every week? Why not simply make the obvious improvements and stick to that?
Every other week I discover that folding and unfolding has disappeared or reappeared in a different form. I also like the "quote parent" button, so I'd appreciate if it stopped disappearing all the time.
It might challenge our models of solar system formation. Or it might not. Depending on what scientists find out if they examine this thing a bit more.
That's just after he introduced Alan Turing! (on page 12, I think?) Are you mad?!
Now if it's after the double description of Manilla, then I can understand, but even then it's a shame, because it gets so much better after that! It's my favourite book ever. It dethroned Lord of the Rings. A must-read for every nerd, and that should include every Slashdot reader.
I wish it had ended with words to that effect. Instead, he stopped just before the "they lived happily ever after". It ends with the prince kissing the sleeping beauty. You turn the page, and discover that was the last sentence. No waking up, marrying or living happily ever after at all.
It's still a brilliant book, though. Hell, his previous books ended with the prince cutting through the thorn bushes, so this is a huge improvement.
My personally favourite aspect of Cryptonomicon is the WWII information warfare bit. It's all about the question how the hell they can make use of the information gained from cracking the German codes without letting the Germans know their codes are cracked. The solution is a special group of soldiers that gets to perform some totally weird missions just to give the allies a cover or excuse to make use of the information they already had.
Also, it's one of the few novels that gets away with using a methematical formula, and it explains lots of mathematical concepts really well in extremely inventive and original ways without boring the reader. It is in my humble opinion The Ultimate Nerd Novel.
It's not about wanting to know anything in particular, it's just about having a satisfying ending. His endings are very anti-climactic, whereas the entire book reads like he's building up to something (unlike Asimov's Foundation, where he's simpy narrating history). I turn the last page, and discover to my surprise that that was the last one. It didn't feel that way.
You didn't like Cryptonomicon's ending? Oh boy. It's the most satisfying ending he's ever written. You should have read The Diamond Age and Snow Crash first. Then you'd really have apppreciated Cryptonomicon's ending.
But his books aren't about the ending. They're about the detailed world he's painting, and about the attention to technical detail. The rushed ending is just something you'll have to accept in order to wrap up all the juicy goodness in the rest of the book.
Of all his books that I read, Cryptonomicon is the only one that has something of an ending. Not a brilliant climax, perhaps, but definitely some sort of conclusion.
Endings are definitely not Stephenson's strongest point, but the fact that this book at least has one, and every single one of the 1100 pages before that ending being exciting, thrilling, interesting and witty, has made Cryptonomicon my favourite book ever. It knocked Lord of the Rings off its throne, and is a must-read for every nerd who is even the slightest bit interested in computers, math, information warfare, submarines, treasure hunts, WW2, or reading.
The only real downer in the book was the two consecutive descriptions of Manilla, one during WW2, the other in modern times. I'm sure the differences between the two descriptions should have been enlightening, but to me it was just boring twice in a row. The rest of the book is absolutely brilliant, however, and that brilliance far outshines these minor downsides.
I hope you seen that the obvious advantage here is that Java programmers don't have to know about the implementation of underlying datastructures. There's a huge standard library with well defined interfaces, and I can rely on that. Ofcourse I can figure out how exactly HashMap or TreeSet is implemented, but why should I? That time is much better used to do something useful with them. All I have to know is what they're good for and what they aren't good for.
That fact that Java allows programmers to write effective code without knowing how things work underneath is an advantage, not a disadvantage. A language or framework that requires you to know every little detail about its implementation is bad, because it's hard to use and hard to learn.
(Ofcourse that doesn't change the fact that good programmers should have a good understanding of basic datastructures, but they should also understand the importance of transparency, interfaces and APIs.)
I used to share that opinion, but now that even Java fans like Bruce Tate are cheering the advantages of dynamic typing, I'm not so sure anymore. I'm not about to give up Java yet, but it won't hurt to keep eyes and mind open.
In my experience there's no language that's more suitable for gigantic software projects with millions of dependencies than Java. Admittedly I don't have much experience with Python and Ruby yet, and while I see those two as advanced scripting languages, other people keep using them to build large software projects in less time than it takes in Java. But compared to C++, maintaining very large projects is much easier in Java.
If you can try to define your point, pitfalls and workarounds, perhaps someone here can give you some advice. On the other hand, all large, complex projects have their pittfalls and occasionally require workarounds. It simply comes with the software engineering territory.
Seconded. Google Summer of Code is cool. Perhaps not representative of most software development work, but a good way to make contacts with some open source community and companies that are part of that community. Lots of Apache projects are part of GSoC, and lots of companies are involved in Apache projects. Even if it doesn't land you a permanent job (it might), at least it'll get you involved in cool new technologies, which is a lot more exciting than standard code-monkey work at a standard old-tech software house.
You were modded funny, but an understanding of that -- especially an understanding that it's got nothing to do with things like affection, fairness, or conscious choice -- has got to be one of the most important things to know about a relationship, from either side.
Equally important is to learn how you can influence her hotness. Because I think you can, but only when you know her, know yourself, know what you're doing, and are very, very subtle about it. It's bloody hard, I can tell you. At least, I haven't mastered it, but occasionally it works. Or maybe she was hot to begin with, and I just managed not to screw it up, which is also important to learn.
One important recent lesson: if she wants sex now, that doesn't mean she'll still want sex in 15 minutes, after I've finished what I was working on. If she wants sex, ask yourself: do I want sex this week? If the answer is "yes", drop what your doing immediately.
Argh! Yes they are! We were just filling in some forms for our mortgage, I'm reading everything, she's telling me where to sign, etc. Suddenly she asks me something completely unrelated. No idea what, because I was all focused on the mortgage and related insurance stuff, so I didn't hear a word of it and immediately forgot about it, but apparently (I just asked), it was about some chairs she saw somewhere. Very relevant because it's for the new house, she says, but I just get a very annoying and irrelevant interrupt while I'm in the middle of some heavy processing.
Well, isn't that where they came from?
I don't know which applications you have, or even which applications that I have are written in C, but I know of a lot of excellent and responsive Java applications. Although Java is a lot bigger on the (web)server than on the client side. Swing is probably to blame.
True, but I'm still used to Java 1.4 collections (and some enterprise environments still require 1.4), and a lot of frameworks pass superclasses around when I know I'm receiving a more specific class.
Besides, this is rumoured to be one of the big reasons why dynamic languages are doing so well lately. Bruce Tate wrote some enlightening stuff about this.
Actually, she's planning to become a management coach. Is that close enough?
I didn't mean just those. Virtual machines, high performance libraries and stuff like that also make excellent C++ projects. Anything that forms a layer between the high-level programming language is which applications are written, and the low-level stuff. Anything that requires high performance and that will be reused often enough, and rewritten little enough that you can afford to put up with the complexities of the language.