A place which makes fuel for a nuclear power plant - in this instance, a nuclear power plant designed to release terawatts of power over the course of a few milliseconds.
Um, just to ask - what particle? Oh, you mean the light wave?
You're understanding of the basic assertion of the Uncertainty Principal is correct - in order to know the exact position of a particle at an exact moment, you have to measure the particle which changes it's position. Right on.
However, when speaking of electromagnetic phenomena, it's generally understood that we're speaking of something which can be either a particle or a wave, depending upon the property being observed. Call it a 'wavicle', if you like. It's the act of measuring the behavior that "collapses the wave function" - i.e., I can demonstrate exactly where a photon struck a sensor under a certain set of conditions, but doing so collapses the wave function. OR I can demonstrate the wavelike properties of light, but only by sacrificing any clue to the position of the photons which create that wave structure (oddly enough, collapsing the wave function once again).
Now, this is only my understanding of the condition, and I'm not really that certain I've got it right . . .
Or am I the only one who thinks M$ will use this as an excuse to work their "embrace, extend, extinguish" magic on Skype? This is just a way for the pirates of Redmond to kill the Linux (beta) client - which, incidentally, hasn't seen any progress in the last two years - while keeping their grubby little meat-beaters clean.
They're only discontinuing support for OLDER versions of these browsers. The summary almost makes it seem like Google will only support Google Chrome.
I don't blame 'em - it's bad enough to have to cross-develop for multiple browsers, cross-developing for current and past versions of older browsers literally doubles the difficulty involved - especially where an older version doesn't supply some critical functionality (like HTML5).
Everybody out there listening? Sony's astroturfer actually managed to say something intelligent. Of course, the rest of the post was pure garbage, but this is certainly a diamond of wisdom in a pile of, er, dirt.
And yet, no matter the slashdot ID you end virtually every post with "You're an idiot", "You're pathetic", or some other form of insult. You really need to stop talking to yourself, you pathetic idiot.
One day I looked and magically all of my recent posts had lost a point - somebody got himself mod points, surfed out to my user page and modded down every comment I'd made.
Score: +4 (troll) was the most amusing. Still got karma to burn. Wish I knew who went after me, though. Revenge is sweet (unless your name is Osama).
I hate to say it, but Disney is the 800-pound gorilla in the room. Remember the recent HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray debacle? Disney went with Blu-Ray and HD-DVD went the way of the Dodo bird.
Hmmm . . . does this mean (as I've long suspected) that matter in our universe obeys not only the law of cause and effect, but the law of effect and cause - i.e., the law of causality is symmetrical?
A proton's antiparticle is a negatron, which is just like a proton except for having a negative charge. Check.
An electron's antiparticle is a positron, which is just like an electron except for having a positive charge. Check.
Anti-hydrogen is an atom composed of a negatron orbited by a positron, and is antimatter. Check.
What the frell is an anti-neutron? A neutron with a lack of a lack of charge? (Okay, I get it - it's a neutron composed of antiquarks instead of quarks . . . but why would anti-helium require a nucleus composed of two negatrons and two anti-neutrons? Wouldn't it be two negatrons and two neutrons?) I'm confussed.
All substances are toxic. Take water for example.
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 0
The standard tests to determine whether a substance is toxic is to dose rats with several hundred times the expected daily exposure (dose) of a substance. Thus, the carcinogenic/toxic effects are made extremely clear, which might not otherwise be so.
When this experimental technique was applied to water, the rats drowned.
There's a reason we use/bin/sh (Bourne) to write scripts, and it's the same reason we use vi to edit them - mainly it's available on ALL UNIX systems. Despite widespread adoption, bash is not universally available - sorta like EMACS.
If I stick it in root's cron on, say, an AIX system and it pukes I'm not interested in rewriting somebody's bash script to handle running under sh, csh or ksh. I want it written by its original author in sh. And I don't want to hear about a shebang line (#!/bin/bash) - if I haven't installed bash, it'll still puke.
Um, er, uh . . . so reality is projected at 24FPS? I don't know about you, but my reality is projected at 3.1x10^43FPS.
Look, all you need to do with sight and sound is be sure to exceed the human perceptual threshold. Persistence of vision (the concept, not the software) makes 24FPS fine, but when you do 3D with LCD glasses that ends up being 12FPS/eye. The brain still manages to 'see' continuous motion, but possibly still perceives on some level that something is wrong.
Then again, it may be the disagreement between visual and vestibular senses which causes the headaches. I'd say more research is needed.
There's an interesting theory which relates (tangentially) to your question. You see, from your perspective the cube would never quite reach the EH and would appear frozen in time. However, yon cube will sail uneventfully through the event horizon and in short order strike the singularity. This is a paradox, and we all know that any theory which results in a paradox is by definition false. Reducto ad absurdum is a recognized tool for disproving a hypothesis or theory. The Holographic Principal reconciles the paradox.
The holographic principle was inspired by black hole thermodynamics, which implies that the maximal entropy in any region scales with the radius squared, and not cubed as might be expected. In the case of a black hole, the insight was that the description of all the objects which have fallen into the hole, can be entirely contained in surface fluctuations of the event horizon. The holographic principle resolves the black hole information paradox within the framework of string theory.
So, to answer your first question - your cube full of information would remain visible and appear to be outside/on the surface of the event horizon forever.
Yes, you could use this as some form of optical storage - except that other objects will almost certainly be drawn in, obscuring your view of your stored information, and there's absolutely no way to clear your visual field.
To answer your fourth question (I'm going to skip the third, as you did) you'll have the opposite effect - you'll never render the singularity "visible". There is no such thing as a naked singularity. Current theory forbids it. Period. You can completely obscure the event horizon, but the net effect would be to render the singularity more obscured, not the opposite.
Okay, it's made by Motorola, and I guess the Android 2.2 software stack is still open (but v3.0 is questionable). It's still not quite ready for prime-time.
But it still could benefit from a quad-core proc, I think.
Slashdot Mirror
A place which makes fuel for a nuclear power plant - in this instance, a nuclear power plant designed to release terawatts of power over the course of a few milliseconds.
You're understanding of the basic assertion of the Uncertainty Principal is correct - in order to know the exact position of a particle at an exact moment, you have to measure the particle which changes it's position. Right on.
However, when speaking of electromagnetic phenomena, it's generally understood that we're speaking of something which can be either a particle or a wave, depending upon the property being observed. Call it a 'wavicle', if you like. It's the act of measuring the behavior that "collapses the wave function" - i.e., I can demonstrate exactly where a photon struck a sensor under a certain set of conditions, but doing so collapses the wave function. OR I can demonstrate the wavelike properties of light, but only by sacrificing any clue to the position of the photons which create that wave structure (oddly enough, collapsing the wave function once again).
Now, this is only my understanding of the condition, and I'm not really that certain I've got it right . . .
Or am I the only one who thinks M$ will use this as an excuse to work their "embrace, extend, extinguish" magic on Skype? This is just a way for the pirates of Redmond to kill the Linux (beta) client - which, incidentally, hasn't seen any progress in the last two years - while keeping their grubby little meat-beaters clean.
I don't blame 'em - it's bad enough to have to cross-develop for multiple browsers, cross-developing for current and past versions of older browsers literally doubles the difficulty involved - especially where an older version doesn't supply some critical functionality (like HTML5).
The advisory says that this ActiveX-based software is vulnerable. It doesn't say it's on internet-facing httpd servers.
Everybody out there listening? Sony's astroturfer actually managed to say something intelligent. Of course, the rest of the post was pure garbage, but this is certainly a diamond of wisdom in a pile of, er, dirt.
It's called BOINC.
IMDB listing
MichaelKristopeit423 (2018892)
And yet, no matter the slashdot ID you end virtually every post with "You're an idiot", "You're pathetic", or some other form of insult. You really need to stop talking to yourself, you pathetic idiot.
Score: +4 (troll) was the most amusing. Still got karma to burn. Wish I knew who went after me, though. Revenge is sweet (unless your name is Osama).
I hate to say it, but Disney is the 800-pound gorilla in the room. Remember the recent HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray debacle? Disney went with Blu-Ray and HD-DVD went the way of the Dodo bird.
Uhhh...
Hmmm . . . does this mean (as I've long suspected) that matter in our universe obeys not only the law of cause and effect, but the law of effect and cause - i.e., the law of causality is symmetrical?
An electron's antiparticle is a positron, which is just like an electron except for having a positive charge. Check.
Anti-hydrogen is an atom composed of a negatron orbited by a positron, and is antimatter. Check.
What the frell is an anti-neutron? A neutron with a lack of a lack of charge? (Okay, I get it - it's a neutron composed of antiquarks instead of quarks . . . but why would anti-helium require a nucleus composed of two negatrons and two anti-neutrons? Wouldn't it be two negatrons and two neutrons?) I'm confussed.
...someone might make them wear some idiotic cape!
Go BigTime TV!
There's one in every crowd, isn't there?
When this experimental technique was applied to water, the rats drowned.
Posting your picture online again?
Oh, and could somebody ban "slashushi"? Some troll out there is generating slashdot ID's just to post pictures of himself.
If I stick it in root's cron on, say, an AIX system and it pukes I'm not interested in rewriting somebody's bash script to handle running under sh, csh or ksh. I want it written by its original author in sh. And I don't want to hear about a shebang line (#! /bin/bash) - if I haven't installed bash, it'll still puke.
Apparently, backslashdotperiod is a model and wants us all to see his picture.
Look, all you need to do with sight and sound is be sure to exceed the human perceptual threshold. Persistence of vision (the concept, not the software) makes 24FPS fine, but when you do 3D with LCD glasses that ends up being 12FPS/eye. The brain still manages to 'see' continuous motion, but possibly still perceives on some level that something is wrong.
Then again, it may be the disagreement between visual and vestibular senses which causes the headaches. I'd say more research is needed.
(the following quoted from Wikipedia)
So, to answer your first question - your cube full of information would remain visible and appear to be outside/on the surface of the event horizon forever.
Yes, you could use this as some form of optical storage - except that other objects will almost certainly be drawn in, obscuring your view of your stored information, and there's absolutely no way to clear your visual field.
To answer your fourth question (I'm going to skip the third, as you did) you'll have the opposite effect - you'll never render the singularity "visible". There is no such thing as a naked singularity. Current theory forbids it. Period. You can completely obscure the event horizon, but the net effect would be to render the singularity more obscured, not the opposite.
Clear as mud?
But it still could benefit from a quad-core proc, I think.