You're not stupid, but you are ignorant. When you know enough to even ask sensible questions, and know enough to understand what is meant by "provisional" in science then maybe you can have a conversation. But you're pedantry and ignorance is just too much of an obstacle, and your thin skin just makes it all the worse.
All science is provisional, but some science is less provisional. Every test we've flung at general relativity over the last century has confirmed it. While it's not complete (Quantum Mechanics is not accounted for), it is as much settled science as one can get. Your problem is ignorance of how science works, coupled with pedantry, so that somehow you imagine you can usefully critique theories which you clearly know absolutely nothing about. You're arrogant and ignorant, but obviously not stupid, so instead of constructing versions of science that don't exist to cover up your lack of knowledge, just pick up some god-damned literature on the subject and fill the void that you have mistaken for intellectual curiosity.
The existence of such objects was predicted by Einstein a century ago. While some physicists are resistant to the notion of a singularity, no one contests that stars of a certain mass or greater with suffer gravitational collapse.
Look, the more you have to make allowances for facts in your conspiracy theory, the more you have to bend the theory and invent even more motivations for the Illuminati or whatever imagined or semi-imagined evil ruling class you care to invoke, the more ridiculous the conspiracy theory gets.
The fact is that Assange had worn out his welcome, his behavior since 2016, even under the previous Ecuadorian government, was becoming egregious. If he was going out of his way to piss off the government that offered him asylum, with a new governing party in power, how could he expect any other result. And I imagine embassy staff were just bloody tired of the guy. Good grief, when they pulled him out, he looked like Howard Hughes.
I agree with this. While Wikileaks has tried to pass itself off as essentially a journalistic organization, it's previous behavior was simply to dump the documents and let the cards fall where they may (I first read anything of theirs' when they leaked details of corruption in the Turks and Caicos, which lead to the British government dismissing the local government and taking over direct administration of the Overseas Territory). If this had been, say, the New York Times, the Guardian, Washington Post or heck, even a more right wing outlet like the Daily Telegraph, there would have been first and foremost a helluva lot of discussions with the outlet's lawyers, a helluva lot of redaction, but ultimately the only splitting up of the information would be more along the lines of how quickly those steps could be followed on such a massive dump of information.
But the way the Democrat leak was handled was not how journalists would handle it. It was overtly partisan, clearly designed to cause the Clinton campaign as much damage as possible, and there's at least some pretty strong hints that one way or the other it was done with at least some orchestration from the Trump campaign. Now while I don't particularly hold anything against Trump or his team, since deliberate and timed leaks of damaging information against a political opponent is just how political campaigns work. But for Wikileaks I think it was fatal, because it destroyed whatever shreds of credibility it had as a non-partisan distributor of leaked information. But even the Manning leak was handled pretty badly in my view, though I think at the very least Assange could claim he was just setting the information free.
Maybe they will. But it isn't going to be an extrajudicial torture chamber. Because there is national security involved, aspects of the trial will happen outside of public view, but it will be a regular judicial proceedings, and if Assange takes a plea bargain, then that's par for the course as well, no different than how you would, say, prosecute mobsters. But facilitating and even encouraging the dump of all those cables was something Assange should have been aware would inevitably bring him in to conflict with the DoJ, but he was so drunk on his own cult of personality that he failed to see the risks. The way that newspapers like the Guardian tried to handle it was the way a journalist handles such a hot potato, with caution and an eye to consequences. It's why they are journalists, and Assange is just a polemicist.
Why would they torture him? The DoJ's signals thus far are a five year prison term, and it's unlikely, even if convicted, that he would spend five years in prison. But the US was never going to let the Manning fiasco go unpunished. Manning spent time in prison for it, and now so will Assange. We can debate whether or not what Assange did was right or wrong, but dumping thousands of unredacted cables without concern for the lives that might be put in jeopardy, not to mention the necessity of US diplomats needing to report observations and interactions back to the State Department without fear of reprisal, makes me think the way Wikileaks handled it was grossly negligent, and should be punished.
Nobody is going to see the inside of a courtroom. The fact was that the Trump campaign and Russian officials and representatives were in communication. So far as I can see, the job of any intelligence agency is to monitor the activities of foreign agents. The fact that Trump surrounded himself with idiots who didn't think anyone in the signal agencies would notice them being chatted up by Russians is not an indictment on those agencies. Perhaps someone should consider why Trump surrounded himself with such a pack of simpering treacherous halfwits. I mean, they're crooks, maybe traitors, but they are also some of the most jaw droppingly stupid people one could imagine encountering.
It's a photon collector. Is it different than a traditional photograph? Absolutely. Is it that much different than a modern digital lens? Not so much. The difference is by and large the range of spectra each device is designed to capture. Radio telescopes are designed to capture a very wide spread of spectra, whereas an optical telescope is designed by and large to capture spectra within the visual range.
Now if you're talking about, say, capturing gravity waves, neutrinos and other exotic phenomena, then yes, the underlying technologies are quite different, but still what is produced is an "image". Not a photo (but then again, I'm not sure in the digital age if there's a distinction anymore), but an image. And an image can be enhanced or otherwise modified. In the case of radar, the data, which is still photons, is converted into a visual picture, and with a radio telescope, much the same thing happens. But a camera capable of imaging UV or IR does the same thing too. In all cases we're taking photons being emitted at various energy levels and either increasing or decreasing the wavelength so we can get a picture the human eye can see.
If there was a virus that would render 4chan's foul spawn unable to get on the Internet, I'd be all for it. Even if you're joking, you're still a disgusting piece of crap.
Most people have no ability to decide. Providing the feature can be turned off, I have absolutely no problem with a default that blocks files that are the most frequent delivery agents of malware.
True enough. That's where science journalism frequently falls short, with sexed up headlines. But even being able to see the event horizon is one helluva an achievement, and gives us an opportunity to see gravity at work in probably the most extreme environment in the Universe.
This just becomes a game of definitions. I could take a picture, shift the visible light well into the UV spectrum, and to my mind, it's still a picture, just in the part of the spectrum human eyes can't detect. By, I suppose, the most restricted definition of a "picture", that is an image that, with reasonable accuracy, reproduces the spectra actually reflected or emitted in the real world object, it isn't a picture. But then, would a black and white photo be a picture, since it doesn't record a large amount of the spectral information in the original object, so it is essentially "modified".
It's the most sensitive instrument ever developed. The technical leap that made LIGO possible is likely to have a vast number of applications going forward.
The actual black hole itself cannot be imaged. Light falling through the event horizon is pretty much gone (what exactly happens to it is still a mystery, and one of the problems of not having a unified theory encompassing GR and QM). But what has been seen is the shadow of the event horizon.
Slashdot Mirror
Big bang nucleosynthesis
In other words, he's just a complete idiot
I'm sorry, you don't want to change the fact that youre ignorant?
Lemme guess, you fall somewhere on the spectrum.
You're not stupid, but you are ignorant. When you know enough to even ask sensible questions, and know enough to understand what is meant by "provisional" in science then maybe you can have a conversation. But you're pedantry and ignorance is just too much of an obstacle, and your thin skin just makes it all the worse.
All science is provisional, but some science is less provisional. Every test we've flung at general relativity over the last century has confirmed it. While it's not complete (Quantum Mechanics is not accounted for), it is as much settled science as one can get. Your problem is ignorance of how science works, coupled with pedantry, so that somehow you imagine you can usefully critique theories which you clearly know absolutely nothing about. You're arrogant and ignorant, but obviously not stupid, so instead of constructing versions of science that don't exist to cover up your lack of knowledge, just pick up some god-damned literature on the subject and fill the void that you have mistaken for intellectual curiosity.
I think you should actually understand black hole formation. You appear pretty ignorant of the science, and thus utterly incapable of critiquing it.
It's an image of a shadow of the event horizon
The existence of such objects was predicted by Einstein a century ago. While some physicists are resistant to the notion of a singularity, no one contests that stars of a certain mass or greater with suffer gravitational collapse.
Look, the more you have to make allowances for facts in your conspiracy theory, the more you have to bend the theory and invent even more motivations for the Illuminati or whatever imagined or semi-imagined evil ruling class you care to invoke, the more ridiculous the conspiracy theory gets.
The fact is that Assange had worn out his welcome, his behavior since 2016, even under the previous Ecuadorian government, was becoming egregious. If he was going out of his way to piss off the government that offered him asylum, with a new governing party in power, how could he expect any other result. And I imagine embassy staff were just bloody tired of the guy. Good grief, when they pulled him out, he looked like Howard Hughes.
I agree with this. While Wikileaks has tried to pass itself off as essentially a journalistic organization, it's previous behavior was simply to dump the documents and let the cards fall where they may (I first read anything of theirs' when they leaked details of corruption in the Turks and Caicos, which lead to the British government dismissing the local government and taking over direct administration of the Overseas Territory). If this had been, say, the New York Times, the Guardian, Washington Post or heck, even a more right wing outlet like the Daily Telegraph, there would have been first and foremost a helluva lot of discussions with the outlet's lawyers, a helluva lot of redaction, but ultimately the only splitting up of the information would be more along the lines of how quickly those steps could be followed on such a massive dump of information.
But the way the Democrat leak was handled was not how journalists would handle it. It was overtly partisan, clearly designed to cause the Clinton campaign as much damage as possible, and there's at least some pretty strong hints that one way or the other it was done with at least some orchestration from the Trump campaign. Now while I don't particularly hold anything against Trump or his team, since deliberate and timed leaks of damaging information against a political opponent is just how political campaigns work. But for Wikileaks I think it was fatal, because it destroyed whatever shreds of credibility it had as a non-partisan distributor of leaked information. But even the Manning leak was handled pretty badly in my view, though I think at the very least Assange could claim he was just setting the information free.
Maybe they will. But it isn't going to be an extrajudicial torture chamber. Because there is national security involved, aspects of the trial will happen outside of public view, but it will be a regular judicial proceedings, and if Assange takes a plea bargain, then that's par for the course as well, no different than how you would, say, prosecute mobsters. But facilitating and even encouraging the dump of all those cables was something Assange should have been aware would inevitably bring him in to conflict with the DoJ, but he was so drunk on his own cult of personality that he failed to see the risks. The way that newspapers like the Guardian tried to handle it was the way a journalist handles such a hot potato, with caution and an eye to consequences. It's why they are journalists, and Assange is just a polemicist.
If by non-morons, you mean people who just make shit up to defend Trump, then sure.
Why would they torture him? The DoJ's signals thus far are a five year prison term, and it's unlikely, even if convicted, that he would spend five years in prison. But the US was never going to let the Manning fiasco go unpunished. Manning spent time in prison for it, and now so will Assange. We can debate whether or not what Assange did was right or wrong, but dumping thousands of unredacted cables without concern for the lives that might be put in jeopardy, not to mention the necessity of US diplomats needing to report observations and interactions back to the State Department without fear of reprisal, makes me think the way Wikileaks handled it was grossly negligent, and should be punished.
Nobody is going to see the inside of a courtroom. The fact was that the Trump campaign and Russian officials and representatives were in communication. So far as I can see, the job of any intelligence agency is to monitor the activities of foreign agents. The fact that Trump surrounded himself with idiots who didn't think anyone in the signal agencies would notice them being chatted up by Russians is not an indictment on those agencies. Perhaps someone should consider why Trump surrounded himself with such a pack of simpering treacherous halfwits. I mean, they're crooks, maybe traitors, but they are also some of the most jaw droppingly stupid people one could imagine encountering.
Don't let a little thing like accurate chronology of events get in the way of a good conspiracy.
Indeed. It's pretty much on the front page of every outlet around the world. This is what I'd call the opposite of "burying a story".
Ecuador had wanted to get rid of him since at least last summer. This has been coming for months.
It's a photon collector. Is it different than a traditional photograph? Absolutely. Is it that much different than a modern digital lens? Not so much. The difference is by and large the range of spectra each device is designed to capture. Radio telescopes are designed to capture a very wide spread of spectra, whereas an optical telescope is designed by and large to capture spectra within the visual range.
Now if you're talking about, say, capturing gravity waves, neutrinos and other exotic phenomena, then yes, the underlying technologies are quite different, but still what is produced is an "image". Not a photo (but then again, I'm not sure in the digital age if there's a distinction anymore), but an image. And an image can be enhanced or otherwise modified. In the case of radar, the data, which is still photons, is converted into a visual picture, and with a radio telescope, much the same thing happens. But a camera capable of imaging UV or IR does the same thing too. In all cases we're taking photons being emitted at various energy levels and either increasing or decreasing the wavelength so we can get a picture the human eye can see.
If there was a virus that would render 4chan's foul spawn unable to get on the Internet, I'd be all for it. Even if you're joking, you're still a disgusting piece of crap.
Most people have no ability to decide. Providing the feature can be turned off, I have absolutely no problem with a default that blocks files that are the most frequent delivery agents of malware.
True enough. That's where science journalism frequently falls short, with sexed up headlines. But even being able to see the event horizon is one helluva an achievement, and gives us an opportunity to see gravity at work in probably the most extreme environment in the Universe.
This just becomes a game of definitions. I could take a picture, shift the visible light well into the UV spectrum, and to my mind, it's still a picture, just in the part of the spectrum human eyes can't detect. By, I suppose, the most restricted definition of a "picture", that is an image that, with reasonable accuracy, reproduces the spectra actually reflected or emitted in the real world object, it isn't a picture. But then, would a black and white photo be a picture, since it doesn't record a large amount of the spectral information in the original object, so it is essentially "modified".
It's the most sensitive instrument ever developed. The technical leap that made LIGO possible is likely to have a vast number of applications going forward.
Um, even cameras record waves. The radio telescope is able to detect photons outside the human visual spectrum range, but they are still photons.
The actual black hole itself cannot be imaged. Light falling through the event horizon is pretty much gone (what exactly happens to it is still a mystery, and one of the problems of not having a unified theory encompassing GR and QM). But what has been seen is the shadow of the event horizon.