It has nothing to do with being a matter/anti-matter pair, it has to with the QM effect that one member of the pair will evade the event horizon and the other member won't. It could the antiparticle that gets swallowed up, or it could be that the particle gets swallowed up. If you carefully read what you just quoted, which member of the pair escaped isn't stated. You're mixing up the reference to negative energy with charge and quantum spin.
It sounds like a psychopath saying "Sure, I'll admit there's some scuffs on my shoes, but the blood on my hands, I swear to God those people wanted to die!"
1. Just how much energy would it take to recombine hydrogen with carbon and oxygen to make hydrocarbons? 2. Hydrogen still delivers more bang per unit of measure than any hydrocarbon. 3. Burning hydrocarbons creates greenhouse gases.
That film's lead actors were all Americans. I'll agree it is one of the best movies ever made, but Leone clearly was making an international film. You're trying to make a movie starring Clint Eastwood, Eli Wallach and Lee Van Cleef, filmed in Spain with a lot of Spanish extras sound like an Italian film.
Oh, and another Leone classic was Once Upon a Time in the West, again with most of the leads played by Americans.
The chief difference between the earlier shows and the later ones was more about the camaraderie that grew between Siskell and Ebert. In the early days they were a lot more sincerely combative, and my brother and I (who were just nine or ten at the time we started watching them) genuinely thought the two didn't like each other very much. As it progressed into the mid-80s, I think they had spent so much time around each other that the nastier aspects of their relationship fell by the wayside, and I gather in the last years of Siskel's life they in fact had become very close (btw. Ebert put Saturday Night Fever on his Great Movies list not so much because he thought it was a great movie but because it was Siskel's favorite film).
The two thumbs concept was what they would do at the end of the review, but the reviews themselves were usually pretty in depth, particularly considering the show was just a half an hour in length. If you wanted their in depth criticisms, you had to read their newspapers. Still, the show did a lot to shape my taste in films.
My favorite burning Ebert review was the one he did about The Human Centipede, which had the incredible ending "I am required to award stars to movies I review. This time, I refuse to do it. The star rating system is unsuited to this film. Is the movie good? Is it bad? Does it matter? It is what it is and occupies a world where the stars don't shine."
Ebert should be given a helluva lot of credit for waving the flag for many years for Herzog, who really is one of the most daring and brilliant filmmakers in history. I suspect Werner will be grieving very much for him. If you want to read how just deeply Ebert admired Herzog, this is the open letter he wrote to Herzog upon hearing that Encounters At The End Of The World had been dedicated to him:
I suspect if you talk to a Chinese or Indian film critic, they would know exactly who he was. In fact, he'd started to integrate foreign reviewers on his web site with his "Far Flung Correspondence", something I hope whoever takes over his job (I'm assuming Jim Emerson) will do.
I'm in Canada, and there's definitely been some naming and shaming here. The press will inevitably be more cautious, to be sure, but still it's already looking to do some pretty serious damage to one of our Senators, whose husband hid millions offshore and named her as the beneficiary.
Whoever leaked this is a lot smarter than Assange and the Wikileak's lot, who seem to be in it as much out of arrogant displays of "gotcha!" as anything else. This one was done a lot more quietly, so that those effected by the revelations can't try to turn this around and go after those that did the leaking.
As I said, they are cowed. If they accepted the cases could drag on for years, and pursued them against a substantial fraction of super-rich tax evaders, the ultimate effect would to chill the desire to evade taxes. It would cost significant amounts of money to begin with, but we're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars apparently nestled in offshore accounts here, so I think the prize is worth the effort. That some crimes are tough to prosecute doesn't mean they shouldn't be prosecuted.
Well yes, we've always known that they do, but now we have some of their names, along with where the money is and how it got there, and in some cases, at least, it's pretty clear that some nations' domestic taxation and monetary laws were violated in the process of moving money to offshore accounts. With that information, the taxation authorities of a number of sovereign states can either a. swoop in and seize the money from offshore accounts or b. simply seize domestic assets to make up for the taxes owed.
Of course, few if any taxation authorities will do that, because, at the end of the day, most of them probably already had the information, but are either complicit or too cowed to move in.
Guilty of what amounts to a pretty minor infraction. The notion that a punishment should fit the crime should have been the overwhelming concern of the prosecutors, but they showed themselves to be power-mad maniacs, or at least in one case, a sociopath who couldn't have given the tiniest shit about justice and was trying to pave a way to political career with some sort of "tough on crime" record.
I can't defend those harassing them (to wrongs never make a right), but at the same time to imagine that anyone on the prosecution team ever wavered on what they had done is ludicrous. I suspect that these individuals range from fanatics to sociopaths.
Slashdot Mirror
It has nothing to do with being a matter/anti-matter pair, it has to with the QM effect that one member of the pair will evade the event horizon and the other member won't. It could the antiparticle that gets swallowed up, or it could be that the particle gets swallowed up. If you carefully read what you just quoted, which member of the pair escaped isn't stated. You're mixing up the reference to negative energy with charge and quantum spin.
It sounds like a psychopath saying "Sure, I'll admit there's some scuffs on my shoes, but the blood on my hands, I swear to God those people wanted to die!"
We know no such thing. In fact both appear to be true, the problem being that we don't have an overarching theory that explains how that is so.
Perhaps you could cite what you are referring to. I know of no statement by Hawking that suggests gravity affects antimatter differently than matter.
1. Just how much energy would it take to recombine hydrogen with carbon and oxygen to make hydrocarbons?
2. Hydrogen still delivers more bang per unit of measure than any hydrocarbon.
3. Burning hydrocarbons creates greenhouse gases.
So, because of maybe three or four articles out of the thousands that he wrote, you've decided he was an idiot?
That film's lead actors were all Americans. I'll agree it is one of the best movies ever made, but Leone clearly was making an international film. You're trying to make a movie starring Clint Eastwood, Eli Wallach and Lee Van Cleef, filmed in Spain with a lot of Spanish extras sound like an Italian film.
Oh, and another Leone classic was Once Upon a Time in the West, again with most of the leads played by Americans.
The chief difference between the earlier shows and the later ones was more about the camaraderie that grew between Siskell and Ebert. In the early days they were a lot more sincerely combative, and my brother and I (who were just nine or ten at the time we started watching them) genuinely thought the two didn't like each other very much. As it progressed into the mid-80s, I think they had spent so much time around each other that the nastier aspects of their relationship fell by the wayside, and I gather in the last years of Siskel's life they in fact had become very close (btw. Ebert put Saturday Night Fever on his Great Movies list not so much because he thought it was a great movie but because it was Siskel's favorite film).
The two thumbs concept was what they would do at the end of the review, but the reviews themselves were usually pretty in depth, particularly considering the show was just a half an hour in length. If you wanted their in depth criticisms, you had to read their newspapers. Still, the show did a lot to shape my taste in films.
My favorite burning Ebert review was the one he did about The Human Centipede, which had the incredible ending "I am required to award stars to movies I review. This time, I refuse to do it. The star rating system is unsuited to this film. Is the movie good? Is it bad? Does it matter? It is what it is and occupies a world where the stars don't shine."
Ebert should be given a helluva lot of credit for waving the flag for many years for Herzog, who really is one of the most daring and brilliant filmmakers in history. I suspect Werner will be grieving very much for him. If you want to read how just deeply Ebert admired Herzog, this is the open letter he wrote to Herzog upon hearing that Encounters At The End Of The World had been dedicated to him:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071117/PEOPLE/71117002
And put it on his Great Movies list, and it is indeed an astounding movie, the greatest of all of the children of Metropolis.
I suspect if you talk to a Chinese or Indian film critic, they would know exactly who he was. In fact, he'd started to integrate foreign reviewers on his web site with his "Far Flung Correspondence", something I hope whoever takes over his job (I'm assuming Jim Emerson) will do.
There is one thing that Ebert said about movies that stands above everything else:
“It's not what a movie is about, it's how it is about it.”
I'm in Canada, and there's definitely been some naming and shaming here. The press will inevitably be more cautious, to be sure, but still it's already looking to do some pretty serious damage to one of our Senators, whose husband hid millions offshore and named her as the beneficiary.
I didn't agree with every review, but all in all he was damned good critic, and a significant part of his Great Movies list is a must-see for me.
At least one Canadian apparently evaded this sort of rule by mailing envelopes of cash.
Whoever leaked this is a lot smarter than Assange and the Wikileak's lot, who seem to be in it as much out of arrogant displays of "gotcha!" as anything else. This one was done a lot more quietly, so that those effected by the revelations can't try to turn this around and go after those that did the leaking.
As I said, they are cowed. If they accepted the cases could drag on for years, and pursued them against a substantial fraction of super-rich tax evaders, the ultimate effect would to chill the desire to evade taxes. It would cost significant amounts of money to begin with, but we're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars apparently nestled in offshore accounts here, so I think the prize is worth the effort. That some crimes are tough to prosecute doesn't mean they shouldn't be prosecuted.
The law is an ass and no, he did not deserve it. Quit giving digital blow jobs to the prosecutors, you're authority fetish is showing.
Well yes, we've always known that they do, but now we have some of their names, along with where the money is and how it got there, and in some cases, at least, it's pretty clear that some nations' domestic taxation and monetary laws were violated in the process of moving money to offshore accounts. With that information, the taxation authorities of a number of sovereign states can either a. swoop in and seize the money from offshore accounts or b. simply seize domestic assets to make up for the taxes owed.
Of course, few if any taxation authorities will do that, because, at the end of the day, most of them probably already had the information, but are either complicit or too cowed to move in.
If he had gone to trial, he was facing more than six months. Don't be a fucking idiot.
If he didn't cop a plea for the six months, he faced a fairly significant fraction of 35 years.
What he did really didn't justify a prison sentence at all.
Guilty of what amounts to a pretty minor infraction. The notion that a punishment should fit the crime should have been the overwhelming concern of the prosecutors, but they showed themselves to be power-mad maniacs, or at least in one case, a sociopath who couldn't have given the tiniest shit about justice and was trying to pave a way to political career with some sort of "tough on crime" record.
I can't defend those harassing them (to wrongs never make a right), but at the same time to imagine that anyone on the prosecution team ever wavered on what they had done is ludicrous. I suspect that these individuals range from fanatics to sociopaths.
I'm sorry. I don't get car metaphors. Could you restate your argument as a superhero metaphor?