Who cares? Modern graphics cards are capable of (sorry it's a PDF, it was all I could find) 40 GFLOPS. That's not even in SLI mode, which actually does push you to about a 98% over a single card (in terms of raw processing power).
Why would you buy a 96-CPU setup when you could buy a 6-GPU setup and match the same theoretical performance? (All jokes aside about the costs being roughly equivalent, they're nowhere near the same.) 6 top of the line 6800s would run you about $3600. Even if you added top of the line parts for the rest of the system, you'd be looking at about $1600 per system. Add $0 for the linux distribution to drive the whole thing, and you're at a grand total of $10K.
don't bother checking if their allocate succeeded, and they promptly GPF by trying to access a null pointer.
Technically, we don't GPF by trying to access a NULL pointer. A bad_alloc exception is thrown (in C++ anyways) which we fail to catch and deal with properly. However, dealing gracefully with a bad_alloc is tricky, because you have to do it *without allocing any more memory*. Usually this consists of politely shutting down your process.
And the nice thing about windows is that the way that their VM works, in order to coax a bad_alloc out of your application, you have to request an allocation while the VM file is being resized (which is extremely rare and should only occur when you're really hemoraghing memory).
Every Windows operating system today (up to and including Windows Server 2003) has to be rebooted frequently
I call shenanigans. I haven't rebooted my windows XP game machine in well over a month. And it still runs solidly.
The machine I use at work? Yeah, I don't think it's ever been rebooted. It's seriously been up for like 9 months. (I don't ever install new drivers on it).
Don't get me wrong, none of this compares to my little linux box, which had an uptime of 522 days before I had to reboot it (I had to test whether a video card was dead or not).
But saying that windows requires frequent reboots without software installs is just wrong.
Bound To Fail The crash of a critical legacy system at Comair is a classic risk management mistake that cost the airline $20 million and badly damaged its reputation. BY STEPHANIE OVERBY
When Eric Bardes joined the Comair IT department in 1997, one of the very first meetings he attended was called to address the replacement of an aging legacy system the regional airline utilized to manage flight crews. The application, from SBS International, was one of the oldest in the company (11 years old at the time), was written in Fortran (which no one at Comair was fluent in) and was the only system left that ran on the airline's old IBM AIX platform (all other applications ran on HP Unix).
SBS came in to make a pitch for its new Maestro crew management software. One of the flight crew supervisors at the meeting had used Maestro, a first-generation Windows application, at a previous job. He found it clumsy, to put it kindly. "He said he wouldn't wish the application on his worst enemy," Bardes recalls. The existing crew management system wasn't exactly elegant, but all the business users had grown adept at operating it, and a great number of Comair's existing business processes had sprung from it. The consensus at the meeting was that if Comair was going to shoulder the expense of replacing the old crew management system, it should wait for a more satisfactory substitute to come along.
And wait they did. The prospect of replacing the ever-maturing crew management system was floated again the following year, with plans laid out to select a vendor in 2000. But that didn't happen. Over the next several years, Comair's corporate leadership was distracted by a sequence of tumultuous events: managing the approach of Y2K, the purchase of the independent carrier by Delta in 2000, a pilot strike that grounded the airline in 2001, and finally, 9/11 and the ensuing downturn that ravaged the airline industry.
A replacement system from Sabre Airline Solutions was finally approved last year, but the switch didn't happen soon enough. Over the holidays, the legacy system failed, bringing down the entire airline, canceling or delaying 3,900 flights, and stranding nearly 200,000 passengers. The network crash cost Comair and its parent company, Delta Air Lines, $20 million, damaged the airline's reputation and prompted an investigation by the Department of Transportation.
Chances are, the whole mess could have been avoided if Comair or Delta had done a comprehensive analysis of the risk that this critical system posed to the airline's daily operations and had taken steps to mitigate that risk. But a look inside Comair reveals that senior executives there did not consider a replacement system an urgent priority, and IT did little to disrupt that sense of complacency. Though everyone seemed to know that there was a need to deal with the aging applications and architecture that supported the growing regional carrier--and the company even created a five-year strategic plan for just that purpose--a lack of urgency prevailed.
After the acquisition by Delta, former employees say Comair IT executives didn't do the kind of thorough management analysis that might have persuaded the parent airline to invest in a replacement system before it was too late. Instead, Delta kept a lid on capital expenditures at Comair, with unfortunate consequences. The failure of the almost 20-year-old scheduling system not only saddled Delta with a plethora of customer service and financial headaches that the airline could ill afford but it also provides a cautionary tale for any company that thinks it can operate on its legacy systems for just...one...more...day.
The five-year plan that wasn't Today, Cincinnati-based Comair is a regional airline that operates in 117 cities and carries about 30,000 passengers on 1,130 flights a day, with three or four crew members on each. But back in 1984, when Jim Dublikar joined the company as director of finance and risk management, Comair had
...it basically exposed the current artifically inflated price-fixing scheme that is proprietary software. Adapt and evolve, baby. Or cry about it all the way to extinction.
I agree that the lawsuit is stupid. Cry about it all the way to extinction?
What extinction? Closed-source software is doing great! Photoshop is still the dominant texture editing software on the market. And 3DSMax, Maya, and Lightwave are still dominating the 3-D modelling market. And Windows is still the dominant operating system. And Outlook is still the dominant mail client.
There are some truly inspired pieces of OSS avaible, even within the fields I just mentioned. Nevertheless, closed source software is not going anywhere for the forseeable future. Because at the end of the day, trade secrets are still important to business.
I don't hate religious people. I don't particularly care one way or the other whether someone believes in Jesus, Muhammed, the Dalai lama, or no holy man at all. What's important are good, tolerant people who are willing to use their brains. I am happy for you that you found happiness in Jesus. I truly am. I hope you can be happy for me that I don't require Jesus for validation in my life and my character. I know I'm being the best person I can be without an organization telling me so.
But none of that is what this argument is about. This argument is about using public funding to further one's religious agenda. That is unacceptable in my (and the current courts') opinion. Evolution does not further anyone's religious agenda, it is religion agnostic. As are all valid scientific theories.
Actually, Southern Baptists in general believe that the bible is the literal word of God. Both the old and new testament.Justafewlinks.
Public school is really not an appropriate place for you to teach about the "wonders" of Christianity. Unless you plan on covering the negative impacts that Christianity had on the world as well. (For example, the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the holding back of scientists through threat of excommunication, etc.) You would also need to cover (as the other poster suggested) the other important world religions. Christianity isn't even the *dominant* religion on the planet, in terms of number of believers.
Are you planning on discussing the origins of Christianity as a pagan religion? Or how the religion evolved as a way to subjugate the newly conquered Roman masses? Or do you think that stuff should be glossed over because it's not really relevant to the conversation at hand?
Discussing ID or creationism in school exactly violates the seperation of church and state. It is a religious view held by one group of church-goers that is not accepted by anyone outside of their religion. The actual text of the first amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Teaching ID in schools is a not-so-subtle way of pushing impressionable children to find more answers at their local christian place of worship.
I am stumping for a time and place in school for a reasonable discussion of what non-scientists believe. (Emphasis added)
And herein lies our difference. I don't think that the public education system (grades K-12) is an appropriate place to discuss what anyone "believes." Talk about it in college. (Even state-funded college, so long as the class is optional). But keep it out of our public primary schools.
You teach the fact, with respect for dissenting viewpoints, just like any other topic.
Except that ID is not a dissenting viewpoint to anyone with any scientific background. No one in the scientific community actually believes that ID could be "the right answer." (And actually, quite a few Christians believe in a literal interpretation of the bible, they're called Southern Baptists).
There was a phenomenal Penn & Teller's Bullshit! on exactly this topic. I'll skip the details and go with the highlight reel.
First off, the term 'evolutionary theory.' Evolution is a theory, and not a fact. Much in the same way that 'gravity' is a theory and not a fact. It's true! People have come up with corollaries and conjectures and lemmas that all expect gravity to be fact, but it hasn't been proven. It's been demonstrated, tested, peeked, poked, prodded and is generally accepted as fact. But it is still a theory. So when people talk about the 'theory of evolution,' as though it should somehow be less valid... In science, the term 'theory' doesn't mean wild guess. It actually means this is the best guess I have that fits with all the pieces that are available.
Which brings me to my next point. In science, once a theory is widely accepted, it is rarely thrown out as completely wrong. One piece being incorrect generally doesn't invalidate the entire theory. The theory will be adjusted to accommodate the new information, and will be stronger for the change. This is in stark contrast to a literal interpretation of the bible. What Christian fundamentalists find so threatening about evolution is that a literal interpretation of the bible forbids it. To them, if evolution were valid, the book of Genesis couldn't possibly be correct. But because the bible is infallible (the word of God), that would threaten their belief in the entire book. They fear that their faith would fall like a house of cards.
ID is nothing more than a sham to try to work around that pesky "separation of search and state" thing that our forefathers were bright enough to put into that pesky "Constitution." It's creationism with a new name to try to stay under the radar. And frankly, it isn't going to work.
Everyone assumes that this is some sort of money grab because the company waited till the last minute.
It is entirely possible that the entire reason that they waited so long is that they've been talking to Apple about this the entire time. It is also entirely possible that Apple only *recently* gave Tiger Direct "the finger."
Unless you're a member of the Apple legal team or an employee of Tiger Direct, I find it hard to believe that you can be so certain that TD is in the wrong here.
I'm a bit surprised that NASA didn't ask Zyvex to work on this for them... I have friends who work there, and they do some really neat stuff. (Including working on those crazy quantum nano-tubes).
Contrary to popular belief, their office is actually quite large.
The first 90% is all of the fun stuff. Database access, rendering engines, networking layers...
The last 90% is all of the unsexy stuff. UI layout, tweaking and bugfixing. Pesky user complaints. That one case that violates the rule. Then the other case that violates the rule. Then...
Most of the time though, users don't have the FOGGIEST idea of what they want. They know what they want to accomplish in the abstract sense, but they really don't know how to get there.
I agree with you in one regard though, programmers are terrible at designing user interfaces. That's why at most moderate-sized companies there is a seperate position for UI designers. They generally also double as QA.
To be honest, in the time I did commercial shrinkwrap, I rarely found users' direct input to be terribly useful in workflow design. The reason was usually because they were only thinking about how they would use the feature, not how the 300K+ other users of my software would use it.
And, in true slashfashion, they eliminated all context in order to get us stupid plebes to post angrily and jerk off the adserver for them.
After reading TFA, I figured this quote was right in context. If not in the actual words he used, than definitely in the spirit of what he meant.
Didja read the article? That guy is a tool. As another poster mentioned, I will *definitely* not be purchasing any Verizon products at any point in the future. At least not while that jackass is at the helm.
[2] isn't the [highest] [number] today, it was the [highest] [number] when it was [discovered]. The simple fact that there are [higher] [numbers] shows what an impact [2] had on [numbers].
That's sort of funny. Every airplane I've ridden on opens outwards, not inwards. The emergency exits do in fact open inward. But cabin doors open outwards. The hinges are on the front of the door panel, however, which causes the wind to keep the door shut in flight.
You seem to have your pressures mixed up. The pressure inside the cabin of an airplane is substantially *higher* then the air pressure outside. (IIRC, the difference is about 15 lbs / in). That would tend to make the cabin door want to burst open, as opposed to staying closed.
Notwithstanding, the article doesn't really discuss the concern of dust getting into the suit. The concern is dust on the suit, which then comes into the lunar facility with the astronaut. The astronaut (lunarnaut?) then takes off his helmet inside the facility and BAM! Lunar dust can now conceivably get into his lungs.
The bigger problem is any lunar dust that makes its way back to the spacecraft. When the craft goes back into space and into zero-g, the particles which were resting on the ground are now floating in the air.
I would argue, that if you feel you need a certain program to be creative. Your not really that creative at all, I for one have never heard two artist discussing who has the best brush.
Then you've never worked in the game industry, or with other creative people in the movie industry. If you had, you'd know that most companies when hiring for artists include the toolset that's being used on the project. That's not just for fun. That's because there is a very steep learning curve for the software that artists use, and those companies are not particularly interested in paying an artist--even a top-notch one--to retrain.
And it actually seem to me, that most good graphics artist doesn't seem to care a flying f**** what program they use.
Maybe in high school. Or in college. In the real world, they care quite a lot. I've seen entire studios worth of artists (50 people) threaten to walk if the company switched from Max to Maya. It *is* important.
Dark matter is "dark" in that it does not emit its own radiation. There's a big difference between "doesn't emit its own radiation" and "cannot see it".
The former is dark matter. The latter would be a black hole.
Slashdot Mirror
Who cares? Modern graphics cards are capable of (sorry it's a PDF, it was all I could find) 40 GFLOPS. That's not even in SLI mode, which actually does push you to about a 98% over a single card (in terms of raw processing power).
Why would you buy a 96-CPU setup when you could buy a 6-GPU setup and match the same theoretical performance? (All jokes aside about the costs being roughly equivalent, they're nowhere near the same.) 6 top of the line 6800s would run you about $3600. Even if you added top of the line parts for the rest of the system, you'd be looking at about $1600 per system. Add $0 for the linux distribution to drive the whole thing, and you're at a grand total of $10K.
I'm not impressed.
You clearly didn't go read the installation instructions... The joke was the length of them. (It was probably like 40-50 pages printed.)
Technically, we don't GPF by trying to access a NULL pointer. A bad_alloc exception is thrown (in C++ anyways) which we fail to catch and deal with properly. However, dealing gracefully with a bad_alloc is tricky, because you have to do it *without allocing any more memory*. Usually this consists of politely shutting down your process.
And the nice thing about windows is that the way that their VM works, in order to coax a bad_alloc out of your application, you have to request an allocation while the VM file is being resized (which is extremely rare and should only occur when you're really hemoraghing memory).
I call shenanigans. I haven't rebooted my windows XP game machine in well over a month. And it still runs solidly.
The machine I use at work? Yeah, I don't think it's ever been rebooted. It's seriously been up for like 9 months. (I don't ever install new drivers on it).
Don't get me wrong, none of this compares to my little linux box, which had an uptime of 522 days before I had to reboot it (I had to test whether a video card was dead or not).
But saying that windows requires frequent reboots without software installs is just wrong.
Site is already sluggish.
Bound To Fail
The crash of a critical legacy system at Comair is a classic risk management mistake that cost the airline $20 million and badly damaged its reputation.
BY STEPHANIE OVERBY
When Eric Bardes joined the Comair IT department in 1997, one of the very first meetings he attended was called to address the replacement of an aging legacy system the regional airline utilized to manage flight crews. The application, from SBS International, was one of the oldest in the company (11 years old at the time), was written in Fortran (which no one at Comair was fluent in) and was the only system left that ran on the airline's old IBM AIX platform (all other applications ran on HP Unix).
SBS came in to make a pitch for its new Maestro crew management software. One of the flight crew supervisors at the meeting had used Maestro, a first-generation Windows application, at a previous job. He found it clumsy, to put it kindly. "He said he wouldn't wish the application on his worst enemy," Bardes recalls. The existing crew management system wasn't exactly elegant, but all the business users had grown adept at operating it, and a great number of Comair's existing business processes had sprung from it. The consensus at the meeting was that if Comair was going to shoulder the expense of replacing the old crew management system, it should wait for a more satisfactory substitute to come along.
And wait they did. The prospect of replacing the ever-maturing crew management system was floated again the following year, with plans laid out to select a vendor in 2000. But that didn't happen. Over the next several years, Comair's corporate leadership was distracted by a sequence of tumultuous events: managing the approach of Y2K, the purchase of the independent carrier by Delta in 2000, a pilot strike that grounded the airline in 2001, and finally, 9/11 and the ensuing downturn that ravaged the airline industry.
A replacement system from Sabre Airline Solutions was finally approved last year, but the switch didn't happen soon enough. Over the holidays, the legacy system failed, bringing down the entire airline, canceling or delaying 3,900 flights, and stranding nearly 200,000 passengers. The network crash cost Comair and its parent company, Delta Air Lines, $20 million, damaged the airline's reputation and prompted an investigation by the Department of Transportation.
Chances are, the whole mess could have been avoided if Comair or Delta had done a comprehensive analysis of the risk that this critical system posed to the airline's daily operations and had taken steps to mitigate that risk. But a look inside Comair reveals that senior executives there did not consider a replacement system an urgent priority, and IT did little to disrupt that sense of complacency. Though everyone seemed to know that there was a need to deal with the aging applications and architecture that supported the growing regional carrier--and the company even created a five-year strategic plan for just that purpose--a lack of urgency prevailed.
After the acquisition by Delta, former employees say Comair IT executives didn't do the kind of thorough management analysis that might have persuaded the parent airline to invest in a replacement system before it was too late. Instead, Delta kept a lid on capital expenditures at Comair, with unfortunate consequences. The failure of the almost 20-year-old scheduling system not only saddled Delta with a plethora of customer service and financial headaches that the airline could ill afford but it also provides a cautionary tale for any company that thinks it can operate on its legacy systems for just...one...more...day.
The five-year plan that wasn't
Today, Cincinnati-based Comair is a regional airline that operates in 117 cities and carries about 30,000 passengers on 1,130 flights a day, with three or four crew members on each. But back in 1984, when Jim Dublikar joined the company as director of finance and risk management, Comair had
I agree that the lawsuit is stupid. Cry about it all the way to extinction?
What extinction? Closed-source software is doing great! Photoshop is still the dominant texture editing software on the market. And 3DSMax, Maya, and Lightwave are still dominating the 3-D modelling market. And Windows is still the dominant operating system. And Outlook is still the dominant mail client.
There are some truly inspired pieces of OSS avaible, even within the fields I just mentioned. Nevertheless, closed source software is not going anywhere for the forseeable future. Because at the end of the day, trade secrets are still important to business.
I don't hate religious people. I don't particularly care one way or the other whether someone believes in Jesus, Muhammed, the Dalai lama, or no holy man at all. What's important are good, tolerant people who are willing to use their brains. I am happy for you that you found happiness in Jesus. I truly am. I hope you can be happy for me that I don't require Jesus for validation in my life and my character. I know I'm being the best person I can be without an organization telling me so.
But none of that is what this argument is about. This argument is about using public funding to further one's religious agenda. That is unacceptable in my (and the current courts') opinion. Evolution does not further anyone's religious agenda, it is religion agnostic. As are all valid scientific theories.
This differs from my main point (and so I don't want to get sidetracked), but I found a few links...
Funny, and very fitting to the topic at hand
A link discussing Newton's theory of Universal Gravitation
Things moving towards other things is an observed phenomena. "Gravity" is the name we gave to the force that causes this. Thus "gravity" is a theory.
Public school is really not an appropriate place for you to teach about the "wonders" of Christianity. Unless you plan on covering the negative impacts that Christianity had on the world as well. (For example, the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the holding back of scientists through threat of excommunication, etc.) You would also need to cover (as the other poster suggested) the other important world religions. Christianity isn't even the *dominant* religion on the planet, in terms of number of believers.
Are you planning on discussing the origins of Christianity as a pagan religion? Or how the religion evolved as a way to subjugate the newly conquered Roman masses? Or do you think that stuff should be glossed over because it's not really relevant to the conversation at hand?
Discussing ID or creationism in school exactly violates the seperation of church and state. It is a religious view held by one group of church-goers that is not accepted by anyone outside of their religion. The actual text of the first amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Teaching ID in schools is a not-so-subtle way of pushing impressionable children to find more answers at their local christian place of worship.
And herein lies our difference. I don't think that the public education system (grades K-12) is an appropriate place to discuss what anyone "believes." Talk about it in college. (Even state-funded college, so long as the class is optional). But keep it out of our public primary schools.
Except that ID is not a dissenting viewpoint to anyone with any scientific background. No one in the scientific community actually believes that ID could be "the right answer." (And actually, quite a few Christians believe in a literal interpretation of the bible, they're called Southern Baptists).
There was a phenomenal Penn & Teller's Bullshit! on exactly this topic. I'll skip the details and go with the highlight reel.
First off, the term 'evolutionary theory.' Evolution is a theory, and not a fact. Much in the same way that 'gravity' is a theory and not a fact. It's true! People have come up with corollaries and conjectures and lemmas that all expect gravity to be fact, but it hasn't been proven. It's been demonstrated, tested, peeked, poked, prodded and is generally accepted as fact. But it is still a theory. So when people talk about the 'theory of evolution,' as though it should somehow be less valid... In science, the term 'theory' doesn't mean wild guess. It actually means this is the best guess I have that fits with all the pieces that are available.
Which brings me to my next point. In science, once a theory is widely accepted, it is rarely thrown out as completely wrong. One piece being incorrect generally doesn't invalidate the entire theory. The theory will be adjusted to accommodate the new information, and will be stronger for the change. This is in stark contrast to a literal interpretation of the bible. What Christian fundamentalists find so threatening about evolution is that a literal interpretation of the bible forbids it. To them, if evolution were valid, the book of Genesis couldn't possibly be correct. But because the bible is infallible (the word of God), that would threaten their belief in the entire book. They fear that their faith would fall like a house of cards.
ID is nothing more than a sham to try to work around that pesky "separation of search and state" thing that our forefathers were bright enough to put into that pesky "Constitution." It's creationism with a new name to try to stay under the radar. And frankly, it isn't going to work.
Offtopic, but funny...
The World of Warcraft forums censor the word cockroach, which is an ingame pet:
Oh man, I love my new %$#@roach... He follows me around everywhere.
Everyone assumes that this is some sort of money grab because the company waited till the last minute.
It is entirely possible that the entire reason that they waited so long is that they've been talking to Apple about this the entire time. It is also entirely possible that Apple only *recently* gave Tiger Direct "the finger."
Unless you're a member of the Apple legal team or an employee of Tiger Direct, I find it hard to believe that you can be so certain that TD is in the wrong here.
I'm a bit surprised that NASA didn't ask Zyvex to work on this for them... I have friends who work there, and they do some really neat stuff. (Including working on those crazy quantum nano-tubes).
Contrary to popular belief, their office is actually quite large.
No, they're not.
Three words: ported to Windows.
Like Tiger does it? Unix has been doing this for what... 30 years now?
Mod parent up. This is *exactly* the reason.
...
The first 90% is all of the fun stuff. Database access, rendering engines, networking layers...
The last 90% is all of the unsexy stuff. UI layout, tweaking and bugfixing. Pesky user complaints. That one case that violates the rule. Then the other case that violates the rule. Then
hahahahahahahahaha....
let me know how that turns out.
(Coming from a video game graphics coder)
That's true sometimes.
Most of the time though, users don't have the FOGGIEST idea of what they want. They know what they want to accomplish in the abstract sense, but they really don't know how to get there.
I agree with you in one regard though, programmers are terrible at designing user interfaces. That's why at most moderate-sized companies there is a seperate position for UI designers. They generally also double as QA.
To be honest, in the time I did commercial shrinkwrap, I rarely found users' direct input to be terribly useful in workflow design. The reason was usually because they were only thinking about how they would use the feature, not how the 300K+ other users of my software would use it.
After reading TFA, I figured this quote was right in context. If not in the actual words he used, than definitely in the spirit of what he meant.
Didja read the article? That guy is a tool. As another poster mentioned, I will *definitely* not be purchasing any Verizon products at any point in the future. At least not while that jackass is at the helm.
[2] isn't the [highest] [number] today, it was the [highest] [number] when it was [discovered]. The simple fact that there are [higher] [numbers] shows what an impact [2] had on [numbers].
...To the first theme song in ST history that wasn't instrumental.
And of all songs... Faith of the Heart? Are you kidding me?
Seriously. Enterprise was stillborn. Let it go.
That's sort of funny. Every airplane I've ridden on opens outwards, not inwards. The emergency exits do in fact open inward. But cabin doors open outwards. The hinges are on the front of the door panel, however, which causes the wind to keep the door shut in flight.
Some reference.
Yay. Another +5 Insightful that didn't RTFA. :-\
You seem to have your pressures mixed up. The pressure inside the cabin of an airplane is substantially *higher* then the air pressure outside. (IIRC, the difference is about 15 lbs / in). That would tend to make the cabin door want to burst open, as opposed to staying closed.
Notwithstanding, the article doesn't really discuss the concern of dust getting into the suit. The concern is dust on the suit, which then comes into the lunar facility with the astronaut. The astronaut (lunarnaut?) then takes off his helmet inside the facility and BAM! Lunar dust can now conceivably get into his lungs.
The bigger problem is any lunar dust that makes its way back to the spacecraft. When the craft goes back into space and into zero-g, the particles which were resting on the ground are now floating in the air.
Maybe in high school. Or in college. In the real world, they care quite a lot. I've seen entire studios worth of artists (50 people) threaten to walk if the company switched from Max to Maya. It *is* important.
Dark matter is "dark" in that it does not emit its own radiation. There's a big difference between "doesn't emit its own radiation" and "cannot see it".
The former is dark matter. The latter would be a black hole.