OK, there are a few strictly theoretical ways to transfer energy faster than the speed of light, but nothing that has been rigidly proven or demonstrated, as far as I know.
Ignoring all the silly posts above, this is a fascinating event. It's nice to know there's still mystery in the universe, and the prospect of seeing a supernova unfold is very exciting. I'm not sure, but I believe a supernova would outshine any other stars in the sky, even from that distance (although this may only be stars within out galaxy). Either way, it will let us get valuable information on the hardest part of a star's life to observe: their death.
Ignoring all the silly posts above, this is facsinating. It's nice to know there's still mystery in the universe, and the prospect of seeing a supernova unfold is very exciting. I'm not sure, but I believe a supernova would outshine any other stars in the sky, even from that distance (although this may only be stars within out galaxy). Either way, it will let us get valuable information on the hardest part of a star's life to observe: their death.
That's right: nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, not even information. We are witnessing something that happened millions of years ago, but because the electromagnetic waves (light, gamma rays etc) carrying the information are all travelling at the same speed (the speed of light), we get a chronological "look" at how the event panned out millions of years ago.
In actual fact, when you look at, say, a chair, you're actually seeing the chair as it was several (nano/pico/something, not sure of the exact time interval) seconds ago (a very small time period).
While the graviton has never been observered, it's not as wildly unlikely as that article seems to suggest. Of the four fundemental forces (strong/weak nuclear forces, E/M and gravity) only gravity hasn't had a "force mediator" particle (one which "carries" the force, for example photons for electricity and magnetism) observed in lab experiments. However, as gravity is the weakest force (by an order of I believe around 10^-28 times, or similar), this is not unlikely. However, it is extremely unlikely there ISN'T a particle which mediates gravity, ergo the (pretty reasonable) assumption of the existance of the graviton. Assuming it exists, further things can be predicted about it from other laws of Physics, hence we have a particle we've never seen but are pretty sure exists, with certain properties.
A more complex game is going to have more chances to go wrong.
Modern games have more 3D models, scripted sequences, dynamic rendered doodahs etc etc. Many older games would easily fit on 2MB of space, moderns games you're lucky if it's under 4GB. With so much extra information, so many extra possibilities, bugtesting is far harder - the code itself can't be checked for bugs, but instead playtesting is mainly relied on to find them. Thus, many bugs will be missed, and those that are missed will require more "space" to fix, as the language describing whatever's wrong will be longer, and thus more will be needed to replace it.
A bit of an oversimplified way of explaining it, possibly, but getting across what matters.
Either we have small companies with no money for R&D, and few if any industry wide standards, or we have a few big companies which can effectively pricefix and control the market with ease, preventing further companies from joining.
This seems to be the big dilemma these days, so, honestly, I have no idea if this is a good or a bad thing...
Personally I don't care why Microsoft is against it - I'm sure they have their own agenda, but the enemy of my enemy is still my friend. If Microsoft are against it, it almost certainly won't happen - they have enough clout.
Anyway, such a law would be pandemonian, it would require international standards etc etc - it would never work...
Let's remember that in the original series the 12 colonies were "destroyed" by being strafed by Cylon fighters firing ineffective ship to ship laser-things that made small explosions and did no seeming serious damage.
In the new series, the Cylons just nuked the colonies from orbit. Repeatedly.
That alone was a huge leap in my book - something that actually made sense.
Personally the original actors were wooden and cheesey, but that's also partly due to the dated nature of the show. The Baltar plot seems... a bit silly to me, and there are definately flaws, but overall it's still a great show.
If an actor can't play a variety of roles, that's fine, provided he sticks to roles suited for the way he acts. Maybe he isn't a very varied actor, but his acting style is perfect for the character he plays.
Arnie might be a rubbish actor, but that doesn't mean he wasn't perfect as the Terminator in the first film. Credit where credit's due, maybe the actor doesn't deserve a huge ammount of praise (although I think he did a pretty good job as Adama), but whoever cast him for that role definately does.
24 wasn't originally released in 2005, and was never a serious show - it was vaguely fun, sure, I watched most of the first one before it got too ridiculous to even be amusing any more (and I watch kids tv when I get bored, go figure), but it was never a good show - poorly acted, more plot twists than even the least credible Hollywood blockbuster... 24 is not believable, the plot is so outrageous that even suspending belief, one cannot connect with the characters. It's populist entertainment, not a good show.
Lost, likewise, is so unbelievable it's impossible to connect with or feel involved in. I don't know about you, but watching a bunch of... well, morons, stuck on a desert island is not my idea of entertainment. The acting is actually not that terrible (mostly), but the directing is. Flashbacks are not going out of fashion, no need to use 'em like they are...
Andromeda was:
Not released in 2005.
(In my view) poorly acted.
Attempted to be what so many science fiction shows try, which is appealing to "the common American", who doesn't tend to watch science fiction anyway, rather than being a decent, realistic show.
Not released in 2005!
Don't get me wrong, I liked Andromeda, but I'm under no illusions - it was a formulaic science fiction, watched for a bit of fun, with no real merit to it. I can name off the top of my head at least 5 better mainstream science fiction series (in the same sub-genre of space/futuristic), and as there aren't many science fiction shows of that type... It doesn't bode well for Andromeda.
This is definately a pleasant suprise - I personally think that Battlestar Galactica was remade with class, care and just the right ammount of respect. The show neither attempted to please everyone like so many do (then fall on their faces as bland clones), nor did it attempt to remain 100% true to the original and thus dated itself. It was a well deserved award, for a good peice of science fiction.
Maybe it's partly due to the fact that noone can buy the 360s? Afterall, noone is likely to want to buy games for a console they don't have, so the difficulty in buying the consoles may well be seriously affecting the sale of EAs games for them. The formulaic nature/ports of existing games problem as previously mentioned won't help either, of course...
Complilations always seemed to me to be a way for the marketing departments to flog some dead horses... Repackaging a bunch of old games to try and make them seem shiny and new...
I wonder if this isn't to do with recent economic fluctuations - it might be interesting to compare the state of the western economies with the rate of illegal filesharing - I suspect that it's usage increases when people have less disposable income to spend on themselves, which would explain a recent upsurge - people downloading stuff for themselves as Christmas means they feel they have to spend all their money others, and can't buy themselves things.
Or maybe I'm just oversimplifying a complex situation. Would be interesting to check though...
I must admit, I never really saw why anyone would WANT to use Internet Explorer on a Mac - the only reason I have in installed on my Windows machines is soley for Windows Update...
Is it just me, or does this seem like a way for NASA to avoid paying anyone to come up with these plans for them? Maybe I'm being cynical, but it seems that NASA are trying to outsource their work to mugs who'll do it for free...
What's next, paying a few hundred dollars for "help build a space shuttle" holidays in a factory in Taiwan?
Slashdot Mirror
OK, there are a few strictly theoretical ways to transfer energy faster than the speed of light, but nothing that has been rigidly proven or demonstrated, as far as I know.
Ignoring all the silly posts above, this is a fascinating event. It's nice to know there's still mystery in the universe, and the prospect of seeing a supernova unfold is very exciting. I'm not sure, but I believe a supernova would outshine any other stars in the sky, even from that distance (although this may only be stars within out galaxy). Either way, it will let us get valuable information on the hardest part of a star's life to observe: their death.
Ignoring all the silly posts above, this is facsinating. It's nice to know there's still mystery in the universe, and the prospect of seeing a supernova unfold is very exciting. I'm not sure, but I believe a supernova would outshine any other stars in the sky, even from that distance (although this may only be stars within out galaxy). Either way, it will let us get valuable information on the hardest part of a star's life to observe: their death.
That's right: nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, not even information. We are witnessing something that happened millions of years ago, but because the electromagnetic waves (light, gamma rays etc) carrying the information are all travelling at the same speed (the speed of light), we get a chronological "look" at how the event panned out millions of years ago.
In actual fact, when you look at, say, a chair, you're actually seeing the chair as it was several (nano/pico/something, not sure of the exact time interval) seconds ago (a very small time period).
While the graviton has never been observered, it's not as wildly unlikely as that article seems to suggest. Of the four fundemental forces (strong/weak nuclear forces, E/M and gravity) only gravity hasn't had a "force mediator" particle (one which "carries" the force, for example photons for electricity and magnetism) observed in lab experiments. However, as gravity is the weakest force (by an order of I believe around 10^-28 times, or similar), this is not unlikely. However, it is extremely unlikely there ISN'T a particle which mediates gravity, ergo the (pretty reasonable) assumption of the existance of the graviton. Assuming it exists, further things can be predicted about it from other laws of Physics, hence we have a particle we've never seen but are pretty sure exists, with certain properties.
A more complex game is going to have more chances to go wrong.
Modern games have more 3D models, scripted sequences, dynamic rendered doodahs etc etc. Many older games would easily fit on 2MB of space, moderns games you're lucky if it's under 4GB. With so much extra information, so many extra possibilities, bugtesting is far harder - the code itself can't be checked for bugs, but instead playtesting is mainly relied on to find them. Thus, many bugs will be missed, and those that are missed will require more "space" to fix, as the language describing whatever's wrong will be longer, and thus more will be needed to replace it.
A bit of an oversimplified way of explaining it, possibly, but getting across what matters.
Either we have small companies with no money for R&D, and few if any industry wide standards, or we have a few big companies which can effectively pricefix and control the market with ease, preventing further companies from joining.
This seems to be the big dilemma these days, so, honestly, I have no idea if this is a good or a bad thing...
Pedantic but true, congratulations.
Still, you know what I mean - I don't care why Microsoft kill it, provided they kill it.
Personally I don't care why Microsoft is against it - I'm sure they have their own agenda, but the enemy of my enemy is still my friend. If Microsoft are against it, it almost certainly won't happen - they have enough clout.
Anyway, such a law would be pandemonian, it would require international standards etc etc - it would never work...
Let's remember that in the original series the 12 colonies were "destroyed" by being strafed by Cylon fighters firing ineffective ship to ship laser-things that made small explosions and did no seeming serious damage.
In the new series, the Cylons just nuked the colonies from orbit. Repeatedly.
That alone was a huge leap in my book - something that actually made sense.
Personally the original actors were wooden and cheesey, but that's also partly due to the dated nature of the show. The Baltar plot seems... a bit silly to me, and there are definately flaws, but overall it's still a great show.
If an actor can't play a variety of roles, that's fine, provided he sticks to roles suited for the way he acts. Maybe he isn't a very varied actor, but his acting style is perfect for the character he plays.
Arnie might be a rubbish actor, but that doesn't mean he wasn't perfect as the Terminator in the first film. Credit where credit's due, maybe the actor doesn't deserve a huge ammount of praise (although I think he did a pretty good job as Adama), but whoever cast him for that role definately does.
24 wasn't originally released in 2005, and was never a serious show - it was vaguely fun, sure, I watched most of the first one before it got too ridiculous to even be amusing any more (and I watch kids tv when I get bored, go figure), but it was never a good show - poorly acted, more plot twists than even the least credible Hollywood blockbuster... 24 is not believable, the plot is so outrageous that even suspending belief, one cannot connect with the characters. It's populist entertainment, not a good show.
Lost, likewise, is so unbelievable it's impossible to connect with or feel involved in. I don't know about you, but watching a bunch of... well, morons, stuck on a desert island is not my idea of entertainment. The acting is actually not that terrible (mostly), but the directing is. Flashbacks are not going out of fashion, no need to use 'em like they are...
Andromeda was: Not released in 2005. (In my view) poorly acted. Attempted to be what so many science fiction shows try, which is appealing to "the common American", who doesn't tend to watch science fiction anyway, rather than being a decent, realistic show. Not released in 2005! Don't get me wrong, I liked Andromeda, but I'm under no illusions - it was a formulaic science fiction, watched for a bit of fun, with no real merit to it. I can name off the top of my head at least 5 better mainstream science fiction series (in the same sub-genre of space/futuristic), and as there aren't many science fiction shows of that type... It doesn't bode well for Andromeda.
This is definately a pleasant suprise - I personally think that Battlestar Galactica was remade with class, care and just the right ammount of respect. The show neither attempted to please everyone like so many do (then fall on their faces as bland clones), nor did it attempt to remain 100% true to the original and thus dated itself. It was a well deserved award, for a good peice of science fiction.
Maybe it's partly due to the fact that noone can buy the 360s? Afterall, noone is likely to want to buy games for a console they don't have, so the difficulty in buying the consoles may well be seriously affecting the sale of EAs games for them. The formulaic nature/ports of existing games problem as previously mentioned won't help either, of course...
Complilations always seemed to me to be a way for the marketing departments to flog some dead horses... Repackaging a bunch of old games to try and make them seem shiny and new...
I wonder if this isn't to do with recent economic fluctuations - it might be interesting to compare the state of the western economies with the rate of illegal filesharing - I suspect that it's usage increases when people have less disposable income to spend on themselves, which would explain a recent upsurge - people downloading stuff for themselves as Christmas means they feel they have to spend all their money others, and can't buy themselves things. Or maybe I'm just oversimplifying a complex situation. Would be interesting to check though...
I must admit, I never really saw why anyone would WANT to use Internet Explorer on a Mac - the only reason I have in installed on my Windows machines is soley for Windows Update...
Is it just me, or does this seem like a way for NASA to avoid paying anyone to come up with these plans for them? Maybe I'm being cynical, but it seems that NASA are trying to outsource their work to mugs who'll do it for free... What's next, paying a few hundred dollars for "help build a space shuttle" holidays in a factory in Taiwan?