Of course, he doesn't mention the smart person that shows up on time, does their work dutifully, and saves the company money by doing over and above what their job entails.
You know what's worse than a smart person who is lazy and doesn't show up on time? A dumb person that is lazy and doesn't show up on time. All of those traits he listed aren't qualities that solely belong to "smart people."
1) The man names the method after himself. I can see the smug look on his face when he figured out how to integrate, and decided to name his newfound discovery after himself. That's a big no no in science.
2) It's been cited 137 times since it was published. Most recently in June. That means that there has been ~137 people that cited it without seeing that it's just an integral.
3) It completely reaffirms the whole stereotype of the premedical student memorizing everything they need to get into medicine but understanding nothing.
Oh good, I can finally predict the next solar flare to send a note back in time from 2010 to 2001 and fix the future by stopping that world changing event from occurring!
/end stargate reference
99% of science isn't big jumps and revolutionary new ideas. It's incremental gains and slow but (usually) steady progress. Proof of concept of printing solar cells on paper is a pretty substantial deal, even if it isn't usable in the market yet.
It doesn't matter that it changes very little. It still changes, which makes it completely different than light.
And this change can be counteracted by the object's own gravity? What? Are you saying that an object is going to exert a net force on itself? Even Newton knew you couldn't do that.
I'd recommend you do some further reading before you started handing out physics advice. You're spouting a lot of nonsense and masquerading it as fact.
The explanation isn't really much, it's just what gravity is. The force of gravity (as we know it) depends on the invarient mass of the object. An object's invarient mass is the thing that affects it's gravitational properties. When we speed an object up it becomes harder to accelerate, which is where we get the "relativistic mass" explanation (that term itself hasn't been used much past the 1950s in research and is usually only seen today introductory physics textbooks), but "relativistic mass" is just a redundant term for total energy. As you increase an object's velocity the energy diverges, but the invarient mass remains the same.
What paradox? You're describing two inherently different things:
1) A black hole, which does not release particles (hawking radiation aside)
2) An object that is releasing particles behind and in front of it due to relativistic effects.
Just google search "relativistic mass black hole". The very first link is a university FAQ debunking "very fast particle = black hole".
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=relativistic+mass+black+hole&btnG=Search
This isn't true. An extremely fast object changes velocity depending on your reference frame, and that alone is enough to make it a completely different entity than light.
Reposted for formatting
Here's the thing: I AM a physicist, and here's why you're wrong.
1) I assume you are having the particle release photons isotropically. Yes, there will be a "jet" of photons behind it in the rest frame. However, in the frame of the particle, the photons are STILL being released isotropically. Not a black hole. 2) In the reference frame of the particle, the photons are moving away from the particle at the::gasp:: speed of c. They are escaping the particle. Not a black hole. 3) This is a criterion for something to be a black hole? Well blue-shift me stupid!
What you're saying is a common misconception about relativistic mass. I don't blame you, the title "relativistic mass" is misleading and I even once had that thought, but it's wrong.
Here's the thing: I AM a physicist, and here's why you're wrong.
1) I assume you are having the particle release photons isotropically. Yes, there will be a "jet" of photons behind it in the rest frame. However, in the frame of the particle, the photons are STILL being released isotropically. Not a black hole.
2) In the reference frame of the particle, the photons are moving away from the particle at the::gasp:: speed of c. They are escaping the particle. Not a black hole.
3) This is a criterion for something to be a black hole? Well blue-shift me stupid!
What you're saying is a common misconception about relativistic mass. I don't blame you, the title "relativistic mass" is misleading and I even once had that thought, but it's wrong.
You can't create a black hole by increasing a particles velocity. There's a large difference between mass (that what makes a black hole) and relativistic mass (what you're describing). Relativistic mass is a misnomer, because you aren't actually changing the mass of the object. Now, remember that one of the main principles of special relativity is that all laws of physics are the same in all reference frames. Imagine a situation with a particle going with a extremely large velocity in one reference frame. If your statement was true and this velocity was large enough, then a black hole would emerge from this particle. Now, lets move to the rest frame of the particle. Since there's no velocity, it sees the same mass that it was when it was at rest, so there's no black hole. Black hole = no black hole? Contradiction. You can't have both, and thus the original idea must be wrong.
Their PSP coverage was overshadowing the DS for months. I think there was a two month period where the DS page wasn't updated at all, while the PSP page was catered to like a legless billionare. Most of the articles written in the spring were PSP-hyping articles or DS-hating articles, and just recently in the last two months evened out (due to the release of great games and the PSP game drought).
If that's true, then why is his article full of dreck?
"Moreover, Nintendo's best IPs - Mario, Link, and friends - lie far from today's violent and realistic cutting-edge. Hardcore gamers might value gameplay above all else, but the mass-market buys the total package."
The mass-market buys good gameplay. GTA, violence not withstanding, has good gameplay. The reason GTA was a success wasn't because you can kill hookers, but because you were granted freedom to do whatever you wanted. Part of the "Total Package" is also price. If the Revolution is $100 cheaper than it's PS360 brethren, the "Total Package" will attract a larger audience (both people just buying one console and someone buying a second).
"And from the technical specs, Revolution is no Cell-beater - just as Nintendo had warned."
Already took care of this. Considering we really have no idea what either console is capable of (especially considering Sony's tend to exaggerate, as well as not knowing the revolutions specs), this statement is hogwash.
"news that Nintendo's 20-year old back catalogue will be available online and playable on Revolution has been widely welcomed. But making decade-old games a key selling point of your next gen system seems somewhat ironic."
No, it's damn smart. He makes it sound like the addition to the back-library of Nintendo games was an indication that the rest of the system would not be up to standards with the rest of the generation. Ignoring Nintendo's own statements saying that the Revolution will be able to deliver graphics on-par with it's competitors, it's just another feature.
In addition, he's the editor of a UK magazine. The UK market is much less forgiving to Nintendo than both the US and Japanese markets. He's seeing the Revolution from a market which has never really liked Nintendo, and thus his viewpoints are skewed.
It's like the average American telling his or her opinions on your football (our soccer). Most people hate it or find it boring, but that's not a good indication on it's success worldwide. Sure, in the UK the Revolution might do badly, but a Nintendo console has yet not to make money in the US and Japan (minus the travesty that was the virtual boy).
"And from the technical specs, Revolution is no Cell-beater - just as Nintendo had warned."
Strange, I don't remember Nintendo releasing any technical specs. The writer of this article is just pulling information out of his ass, and the article reflects this. He's another "Nintendo's next consoul is going to fl0p!!!11" because it doesn't appeal to the inner-city "hip" crowd that wants more games where they can shoot heroin and kill anything that moves. He never once mentions that due to the Revolutions price-point (which, by the precedent of other Nintendo consoles compared to it's Sony and Microsoft brethren, as well as Nintendo's own statements about it) will be significantly lower than the competitions. There's a bunch of parents out there that aren't going to buy a $300-400 game console, and they trust the Nintendo brand.
Just another Nintendo-naysayer with no idea what he's talking about.
$300 today is equilivent (due to inflation) to $265 at the launch of the PS2. It's actually fairly cheap compared to the previous generation.
Hell, lets go back to 1991 when the SNES was released at $200. Today, that would be the equivilent to about $290! The XBox is actually releasing at a reasonable price, I say.
(Although I'm still going to wait out for the revolution, which will probably come into the market even cheaper and have that 1991 SNES quality build right into it)
Slashdot Mirror
Newton wasn't wrong. He just discovered physics, to first order.
I played this game on my Nokia YEARS ago.
Of course, he doesn't mention the smart person that shows up on time, does their work dutifully, and saves the company money by doing over and above what their job entails.
You know what's worse than a smart person who is lazy and doesn't show up on time? A dumb person that is lazy and doesn't show up on time. All of those traits he listed aren't qualities that solely belong to "smart people."
Things that are ridiculous about this paper:
1) The man names the method after himself. I can see the smug look on his face when he figured out how to integrate, and decided to name his newfound discovery after himself. That's a big no no in science.
2) It's been cited 137 times since it was published. Most recently in June. That means that there has been ~137 people that cited it without seeing that it's just an integral.
3) It completely reaffirms the whole stereotype of the premedical student memorizing everything they need to get into medicine but understanding nothing.
Oh good, I can finally predict the next solar flare to send a note back in time from 2010 to 2001 and fix the future by stopping that world changing event from occurring!
/end stargate reference
99% of science isn't big jumps and revolutionary new ideas. It's incremental gains and slow but (usually) steady progress. Proof of concept of printing solar cells on paper is a pretty substantial deal, even if it isn't usable in the market yet.
Yes, that was quite an informative post. I'll do that right away. Either that, or the mods have a wonderfully dry sense of humor.
Any idiot newb knows this. Whenever you raid and are not the right level, you invariably get wiped out. Duh.
Submitter obviously forgot to DVR the last episode of BSG.
Here we go again!
That's one expensive metronome.
It doesn't matter that it changes very little. It still changes, which makes it completely different than light.
And this change can be counteracted by the object's own gravity? What? Are you saying that an object is going to exert a net force on itself? Even Newton knew you couldn't do that.
I'd recommend you do some further reading before you started handing out physics advice. You're spouting a lot of nonsense and masquerading it as fact.
The explanation isn't really much, it's just what gravity is. The force of gravity (as we know it) depends on the invarient mass of the object. An object's invarient mass is the thing that affects it's gravitational properties. When we speed an object up it becomes harder to accelerate, which is where we get the "relativistic mass" explanation (that term itself hasn't been used much past the 1950s in research and is usually only seen today introductory physics textbooks), but "relativistic mass" is just a redundant term for total energy. As you increase an object's velocity the energy diverges, but the invarient mass remains the same.
What paradox? You're describing two inherently different things:
1) A black hole, which does not release particles (hawking radiation aside) 2) An object that is releasing particles behind and in front of it due to relativistic effects. Just google search "relativistic mass black hole". The very first link is a university FAQ debunking "very fast particle = black hole". http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=relativistic+mass+black+hole&btnG=Search
This isn't true. An extremely fast object changes velocity depending on your reference frame, and that alone is enough to make it a completely different entity than light.
Reposted for formatting Here's the thing: I AM a physicist, and here's why you're wrong.
::gasp:: speed of c. They are escaping the particle. Not a black hole.
1) I assume you are having the particle release photons isotropically. Yes, there will be a "jet" of photons behind it in the rest frame. However, in the frame of the particle, the photons are STILL being released isotropically. Not a black hole.
2) In the reference frame of the particle, the photons are moving away from the particle at the
3) This is a criterion for something to be a black hole? Well blue-shift me stupid!
What you're saying is a common misconception about relativistic mass. I don't blame you, the title "relativistic mass" is misleading and I even once had that thought, but it's wrong.
Here's the thing: I AM a physicist, and here's why you're wrong. 1) I assume you are having the particle release photons isotropically. Yes, there will be a "jet" of photons behind it in the rest frame. However, in the frame of the particle, the photons are STILL being released isotropically. Not a black hole. 2) In the reference frame of the particle, the photons are moving away from the particle at the ::gasp:: speed of c. They are escaping the particle. Not a black hole.
3) This is a criterion for something to be a black hole? Well blue-shift me stupid!
What you're saying is a common misconception about relativistic mass. I don't blame you, the title "relativistic mass" is misleading and I even once had that thought, but it's wrong.
You can't create a black hole by increasing a particles velocity. There's a large difference between mass (that what makes a black hole) and relativistic mass (what you're describing). Relativistic mass is a misnomer, because you aren't actually changing the mass of the object. Now, remember that one of the main principles of special relativity is that all laws of physics are the same in all reference frames. Imagine a situation with a particle going with a extremely large velocity in one reference frame. If your statement was true and this velocity was large enough, then a black hole would emerge from this particle. Now, lets move to the rest frame of the particle. Since there's no velocity, it sees the same mass that it was when it was at rest, so there's no black hole. Black hole = no black hole? Contradiction. You can't have both, and thus the original idea must be wrong.
This movie just zapped me away. It had high potential, but as it was based on an 80's cartoon I thought it wouldn't be that current.
But the movie took my expectations and reversed them!
Isn't that redundant?
1up.com isn't a Nintendo site.
Their PSP coverage was overshadowing the DS for months. I think there was a two month period where the DS page wasn't updated at all, while the PSP page was catered to like a legless billionare. Most of the articles written in the spring were PSP-hyping articles or DS-hating articles, and just recently in the last two months evened out (due to the release of great games and the PSP game drought).
If that's true, then why is his article full of dreck?
"Moreover, Nintendo's best IPs - Mario, Link, and friends - lie far from today's violent and realistic cutting-edge. Hardcore gamers might value gameplay above all else, but the mass-market buys the total package."
The mass-market buys good gameplay. GTA, violence not withstanding, has good gameplay. The reason GTA was a success wasn't because you can kill hookers, but because you were granted freedom to do whatever you wanted. Part of the "Total Package" is also price. If the Revolution is $100 cheaper than it's PS360 brethren, the "Total Package" will attract a larger audience (both people just buying one console and someone buying a second).
"And from the technical specs, Revolution is no Cell-beater - just as Nintendo had warned."
Already took care of this. Considering we really have no idea what either console is capable of (especially considering Sony's tend to exaggerate, as well as not knowing the revolutions specs), this statement is hogwash.
"news that Nintendo's 20-year old back catalogue will be available online and playable on Revolution has been widely welcomed. But making decade-old games a key selling point of your next gen system seems somewhat ironic."
No, it's damn smart. He makes it sound like the addition to the back-library of Nintendo games was an indication that the rest of the system would not be up to standards with the rest of the generation. Ignoring Nintendo's own statements saying that the Revolution will be able to deliver graphics on-par with it's competitors, it's just another feature.
In addition, he's the editor of a UK magazine. The UK market is much less forgiving to Nintendo than both the US and Japanese markets. He's seeing the Revolution from a market which has never really liked Nintendo, and thus his viewpoints are skewed.
It's like the average American telling his or her opinions on your football (our soccer). Most people hate it or find it boring, but that's not a good indication on it's success worldwide. Sure, in the UK the Revolution might do badly, but a Nintendo console has yet not to make money in the US and Japan (minus the travesty that was the virtual boy).
"And from the technical specs, Revolution is no Cell-beater - just as Nintendo had warned."
Strange, I don't remember Nintendo releasing any technical specs. The writer of this article is just pulling information out of his ass, and the article reflects this. He's another "Nintendo's next consoul is going to fl0p!!!11" because it doesn't appeal to the inner-city "hip" crowd that wants more games where they can shoot heroin and kill anything that moves. He never once mentions that due to the Revolutions price-point (which, by the precedent of other Nintendo consoles compared to it's Sony and Microsoft brethren, as well as Nintendo's own statements about it) will be significantly lower than the competitions. There's a bunch of parents out there that aren't going to buy a $300-400 game console, and they trust the Nintendo brand.
Just another Nintendo-naysayer with no idea what he's talking about.
$300 today is equilivent (due to inflation) to $265 at the launch of the PS2. It's actually fairly cheap compared to the previous generation. Hell, lets go back to 1991 when the SNES was released at $200. Today, that would be the equivilent to about $290! The XBox is actually releasing at a reasonable price, I say. (Although I'm still going to wait out for the revolution, which will probably come into the market even cheaper and have that 1991 SNES quality build right into it)
Nintendo does NOT use a proprietary protocol for it's internet service. It uses plain old 802.11b.