Just because there was oil in the PC, and the CPU was cooled, it doesn't follow that the oil did the cooling. It could be that CPUs that drop in temperature exude oil or that there is some other factors that caused both the cooled CPU and the appearance of oil.
However, I don't here this chatter on a good quality pair of headphones
If there really were some "digital chatter" in the line out signal then you'd probably hear it more clearly with good headphones. More likely it's a problem specifically with the earphones (and hence an analogue problem) or something in your imagination.
And using my 64 ohm Sennheiser HD580 headphones my iPod nano isn't quiet at all. I have to admit I was surprised by this.
Yeah - but that wouldn't leave you with enough money to pay for the retinal surgery to give you a blind spot along the right edge of the left monitor and the left edge of the right monitor.
Yet another person who has no clue what they are talking about.
Firstly, there is absolutely no simplification - this is textbook special relativity.
Secondly, quantum teleportation does not imply FTL and I really have no clue where you got the idea it does because you can perform quantum teleportation in the lab yet those people haven't claimed FTL. Quantum teleportation is a simple consequence (in hindsight at least) of elementary quantum mechanics. There's nothing about it that suggests how to make new kinds of communication travel that are faster than conventional ones - it relies on existing communication channels and is exactly as fast as them.
You can't 'break' the speed of light with a microwave transmitter unless you're referring to phase velocity - and phase velocity isn't a meaningful form of FTL.
But of course the biggest giveaway that you're speaking about stuff of which you are completely ignorant is your use of the word 'wormhole' in the same sentence as 'special relativity', because of course special relativity has nothing to say about wormholes which are a subject for general relativity.
It's amazing. As I said earlier, special relativity is baby stuff taught to undergraduates. There must be millions of people who understand it fairly well and hundreds if thousands who understand it very well. It's very easy to detect when someone has no clue what they are talking about on this subject. And yet people will try to peddle all kinds of bullshit about it. You must just about fit into the special group of several billion people whose knowledge of relativity extends as far as having heard of the name 'Einstein'.
I assure you it sounds fine. Well, you might want to move it slightly away from your PC to avoid interference. If you want to listen in many rooms buy a radio for each one - they're pretty cheap. Or buy a portable radio that you can carry with you.
Never attribute malice to that which can be explained by stupidity.
First rule of passive-aggressive maliciousness: act in such a way that every act of malice you perform can be explained away with the excuse of stupidity or ignorance.
Person 1 leaves point A and travels to point B in one day.
Draw a spacetime diagram. Apply a suitable Lorentz transformation to it and you can make arrival at point B occur before leaving A. Or to put it another way: If you can get from A to B in one day (where A and B are more than a light day apart) then in someone's frame of reference you arrive at B earlier than you leave A (because to get from one person's frame of reference to another you apply a Loremtz transform). If you can arrive earlier than you left in one person's frame of reference then you can do it in any frame of reference because special relativity says that there's nothing special about anyone's frame of reference. If I could post pictures I'd do so.
According to special relativity directions through spacetime fall into 5 types: forward looking timelike vectors that are in your forward light cone, reverse looking timelike vectors in your backward light cone, spacelike vectors and forward and backward vectors actually in the light cone surface. By changing frame of reference any vector in one of these can be converted to any other in the same class. If you're traveling along in the normal way your velocity is a forward timelike vector. And from anyone else's frame of reference it will always look like a forward timelike vector. So if you're not traveling FTL nobody else will think you are either. But the class of spacelike vectors is difference. A forward spacelike vector in one person's frame of reference looks like a reverse spacelike vector in someone else's. This means there is no essential difference between a forward and backward spacelike vector. A spacelike vector is your direction of travel if you're traveling FTL. So if you have the physical means to travel FTL then the same physical means will allow you to travel back in time. There's some discussion of the 5 classes of vector here (they add a sixth for the zero vector). Note that like I say they make no distinction between forward and reverse spacelike vectors. In a sense nature can't tell the difference between travel forward and backwards in time when you travel outside the light cone. See here also.
This stuff ought to be better known. I don't know if FTL will ever be possible. But if it is, the consequences are dramatic - either the basic axioms of special relativity are very seriously wrong or we have time travel. This isn't some obscure result but follows directly from the very first assumptions relativity makes.
...using web pages and links you can form a 'person rank' from the calls people make. This has many applications. For example if you want to figure out how to influence the most people with the least money these may be the people whose opinions are the most widely sought and hence the people for you to call.
But they are not suggesting faster than light travel.
Special relativity is a century old and it's taught in undergraduate courses in physics and mathematics, as well as explained in hundreds of books for the layman - and yet I still keep reading nonsense about it on slashdot.
If you can reliably get between general points A to B in less time than it takes light to do so in a vacuum in a mostly flat spacetime then you can travel backwards in time. This is elementary stuff and it follows pretty well trivial once you have learned the most basic facts about spacetime. It doesn't matter if you "shift the craft into a dimension where the speed of light is faster". Whatever means you use to get from A to B in a short enough time, if you can do it then you can travel backwards in time.
Your not travelling backwards in time if you go faster than C
If you have a means of traveling faster than light, and believe the axioms of special relativity, then you can travel back in time. This is just about the most elementary result you can derive from special relativity and I suggest you have a look at the faqs on the subject yourself (which I assume are correct). Once you can travel along paths outside of your forward light cone then there's nothing to stop you traveling along paths to earlier times.
This article is pure BS. The reason why is simple: if you can travel 11 light years in 80 days then you have time travel (backwards in time) unless everything we know about physics is hopelessly wrong. If someone had either (1) invented a time machine or (2) demonstrated that everything we know about physics is hopelessly wrong, they wouldn't be bragging about how they'd invented a means of getting to Mars in 3 hours.
You can go arbitrarily fast by simply getting closer and closer to the speed of light.
You have phrased this very clumsily. You can make your proper time (ie. the time you experience) as short as you like for a journey from A to B and back by traveling close enough to the speed of light even though your folks back home think you've taken a long time. From your point of view this is very cool. From the point of view of most people in the universe this is less useful.
The amount of energy stored on your person from a static charge is miniscule. Energy = voltage*current*time. It may be thousands of volts but the current is miniscule and the length of time discharging is very short too.
...compiler on Macs as it's not a great compiler on x86. Here's a test I did recently where MSVC can produce code that can easily be about 100 times faster than gcc. So I'd be interested to see what happens with the same code on Macs. I have gcc but I don't have codewarrior. So if someone could run that test for me and post the results I'd be interested.
Yet you can point as Final Fantasy: Spirits Within as beautiful visuals with a lame script; arguably it did not carry the movie
Well I agree that it didn't carry the movie.
Firstly. That story was worse than lame. Finding Nemo at least had the standard formulaic story that carries you along. FF had nothing - just a bunch of events that you cared nothing about.
Secondly: while FF was technically awesome the visuals weren't that interesting. Look, animation is an art form. With animation you can express emotions, surprise, tease and simply provide candy like with other art forms. Nemo did all this. The animation in FF was amazing, but also hollow and humourless.
Er...kids that age, in my experience, want the same thing over and over again. Hell, Tellytubbies did the smart thing of repeating the entire program twice within one episode because kids love the anticipation of something they've already seen. Disney understand that better than most and so produce the same story over and over again. But Pixar can draw the adult crowd too as they can ooh! and aah! at the amazing visuals.
What about Episode II? It was like little characters jumping from matte painting to matte painting. There were no interesting visuals. Good visuals is more than just oversaturated color. The Nemo visuals were expressive.
You think they have good writers. Finding Nemo had Yet Another Sucky Disney Story Like All The Others. Tedious crap.
But they have amazing artists. Finding Nemo was an awesome feast for the eyes. It raised the bar (that's the in phrase right now) in visuals and everything was simply a joy to look at. And yet when you see Pixar people interviewed they always repeat the "Story is King" line and say how animation is nothing without story. I disagree. Beautiful visuals can carry a movie with a lame script. Film is a visual art form. Whether you're an old bastard like me or a 5 year old, pretty images can keep you looking.
Tools like Maya have an underlying flowgraph model. Every operation you perform is added to this flowgraph and then the displayed model is a result of pulling data through this flowgraph. So suppose you do A, then B and then C. Internally it's stored as A->B->C. If you decide you did A wrongly but want B and C to remain the same you can edit A directly and make A'->B->C and then pull the data through again. A practical example: you might make a curve, form a surface of revolution from it and then apply a random jitter to the vertices. With a flowgraph model you can edit the initial curve without having to undo the later operations and then redoing them. Updating the curve automatically updates the final jittered surface of revolution. It means that your entire construction history is always available to be tweaked at will. Useful when a visual effects supervisor comes along and says "I think it looks to look a bit knobblier".
Slashdot Mirror
Just because there was oil in the PC, and the CPU was cooled, it doesn't follow that the oil did the cooling. It could be that CPUs that drop in temperature exude oil or that there is some other factors that caused both the cooled CPU and the appearance of oil.
If there really were some "digital chatter" in the line out signal then you'd probably hear it more clearly with good headphones. More likely it's a problem specifically with the earphones (and hence an analogue problem) or something in your imagination.
And using my 64 ohm Sennheiser HD580 headphones my iPod nano isn't quiet at all. I have to admit I was surprised by this.
Yeah - but that wouldn't leave you with enough money to pay for the retinal surgery to give you a blind spot along the right edge of the left monitor and the left edge of the right monitor.
So it's curable then? That's good to know. May your recovery be a complete one.
Firstly, there is absolutely no simplification - this is textbook special relativity.
Secondly, quantum teleportation does not imply FTL and I really have no clue where you got the idea it does because you can perform quantum teleportation in the lab yet those people haven't claimed FTL. Quantum teleportation is a simple consequence (in hindsight at least) of elementary quantum mechanics. There's nothing about it that suggests how to make new kinds of communication travel that are faster than conventional ones - it relies on existing communication channels and is exactly as fast as them.
You can't 'break' the speed of light with a microwave transmitter unless you're referring to phase velocity - and phase velocity isn't a meaningful form of FTL.
But of course the biggest giveaway that you're speaking about stuff of which you are completely ignorant is your use of the word 'wormhole' in the same sentence as 'special relativity', because of course special relativity has nothing to say about wormholes which are a subject for general relativity.
It's amazing. As I said earlier, special relativity is baby stuff taught to undergraduates. There must be millions of people who understand it fairly well and hundreds if thousands who understand it very well. It's very easy to detect when someone has no clue what they are talking about on this subject. And yet people will try to peddle all kinds of bullshit about it. You must just about fit into the special group of several billion people whose knowledge of relativity extends as far as having heard of the name 'Einstein'.
Note that if you can travel FTL in one frame then you can do so in any frame. Physics makes no distinction between frames.
I assure you it sounds fine. Well, you might want to move it slightly away from your PC to avoid interference. If you want to listen in many rooms buy a radio for each one - they're pretty cheap. Or buy a portable radio that you can carry with you.
VHS images have always looked awful and have always looked significantly worse than the quality of the image your TV can display.
First rule of passive-aggressive maliciousness: act in such a way that every act of malice you perform can be explained away with the excuse of stupidity or ignorance.
Draw a spacetime diagram. Apply a suitable Lorentz transformation to it and you can make arrival at point B occur before leaving A. Or to put it another way: If you can get from A to B in one day (where A and B are more than a light day apart) then in someone's frame of reference you arrive at B earlier than you leave A (because to get from one person's frame of reference to another you apply a Loremtz transform). If you can arrive earlier than you left in one person's frame of reference then you can do it in any frame of reference because special relativity says that there's nothing special about anyone's frame of reference. If I could post pictures I'd do so.
According to special relativity directions through spacetime fall into 5 types: forward looking timelike vectors that are in your forward light cone, reverse looking timelike vectors in your backward light cone, spacelike vectors and forward and backward vectors actually in the light cone surface. By changing frame of reference any vector in one of these can be converted to any other in the same class. If you're traveling along in the normal way your velocity is a forward timelike vector. And from anyone else's frame of reference it will always look like a forward timelike vector. So if you're not traveling FTL nobody else will think you are either. But the class of spacelike vectors is difference. A forward spacelike vector in one person's frame of reference looks like a reverse spacelike vector in someone else's. This means there is no essential difference between a forward and backward spacelike vector. A spacelike vector is your direction of travel if you're traveling FTL. So if you have the physical means to travel FTL then the same physical means will allow you to travel back in time. There's some discussion of the 5 classes of vector here (they add a sixth for the zero vector). Note that like I say they make no distinction between forward and reverse spacelike vectors. In a sense nature can't tell the difference between travel forward and backwards in time when you travel outside the light cone. See here also.
This stuff ought to be better known. I don't know if FTL will ever be possible. But if it is, the consequences are dramatic - either the basic axioms of special relativity are very seriously wrong or we have time travel. This isn't some obscure result but follows directly from the very first assumptions relativity makes.
...using web pages and links you can form a 'person rank' from the calls people make. This has many applications. For example if you want to figure out how to influence the most people with the least money these may be the people whose opinions are the most widely sought and hence the people for you to call.
Special relativity is a century old and it's taught in undergraduate courses in physics and mathematics, as well as explained in hundreds of books for the layman - and yet I still keep reading nonsense about it on slashdot.
If you can reliably get between general points A to B in less time than it takes light to do so in a vacuum in a mostly flat spacetime then you can travel backwards in time. This is elementary stuff and it follows pretty well trivial once you have learned the most basic facts about spacetime. It doesn't matter if you "shift the craft into a dimension where the speed of light is faster". Whatever means you use to get from A to B in a short enough time, if you can do it then you can travel backwards in time.
If you have a means of traveling faster than light, and believe the axioms of special relativity, then you can travel back in time. This is just about the most elementary result you can derive from special relativity and I suggest you have a look at the faqs on the subject yourself (which I assume are correct). Once you can travel along paths outside of your forward light cone then there's nothing to stop you traveling along paths to earlier times.
This article is pure BS. The reason why is simple: if you can travel 11 light years in 80 days then you have time travel (backwards in time) unless everything we know about physics is hopelessly wrong. If someone had either (1) invented a time machine or (2) demonstrated that everything we know about physics is hopelessly wrong, they wouldn't be bragging about how they'd invented a means of getting to Mars in 3 hours.
The amount of energy stored on your person from a static charge is miniscule. Energy = voltage*current*time. It may be thousands of volts but the current is miniscule and the length of time discharging is very short too.
...compiler on Macs as it's not a great compiler on x86. Here's a test I did recently where MSVC can produce code that can easily be about 100 times faster than gcc. So I'd be interested to see what happens with the same code on Macs. I have gcc but I don't have codewarrior. So if someone could run that test for me and post the results I'd be interested.
...I have a web page describing how: here
The moderators obviously haven't watched Spartacus!
It's a lot easier than these card counting shenanigans and the casinos are at liberty to throw out whoever they want from their property.
Well I agree that it didn't carry the movie.
Firstly. That story was worse than lame. Finding Nemo at least had the standard formulaic story that carries you along. FF had nothing - just a bunch of events that you cared nothing about.
Secondly: while FF was technically awesome the visuals weren't that interesting. Look, animation is an art form. With animation you can express emotions, surprise, tease and simply provide candy like with other art forms. Nemo did all this. The animation in FF was amazing, but also hollow and humourless.
Er...kids that age, in my experience, want the same thing over and over again. Hell, Tellytubbies did the smart thing of repeating the entire program twice within one episode because kids love the anticipation of something they've already seen. Disney understand that better than most and so produce the same story over and over again. But Pixar can draw the adult crowd too as they can ooh! and aah! at the amazing visuals.
What about Episode II? It was like little characters jumping from matte painting to matte painting. There were no interesting visuals. Good visuals is more than just oversaturated color. The Nemo visuals were expressive.
But they have amazing artists. Finding Nemo was an awesome feast for the eyes. It raised the bar (that's the in phrase right now) in visuals and everything was simply a joy to look at. And yet when you see Pixar people interviewed they always repeat the "Story is King" line and say how animation is nothing without story. I disagree. Beautiful visuals can carry a movie with a lame script. Film is a visual art form. Whether you're an old bastard like me or a 5 year old, pretty images can keep you looking.
Not if you want quality and decent render times!
Tools like Maya have an underlying flowgraph model. Every operation you perform is added to this flowgraph and then the displayed model is a result of pulling data through this flowgraph. So suppose you do A, then B and then C. Internally it's stored as A->B->C. If you decide you did A wrongly but want B and C to remain the same you can edit A directly and make A'->B->C and then pull the data through again. A practical example: you might make a curve, form a surface of revolution from it and then apply a random jitter to the vertices. With a flowgraph model you can edit the initial curve without having to undo the later operations and then redoing them. Updating the curve automatically updates the final jittered surface of revolution. It means that your entire construction history is always available to be tweaked at will. Useful when a visual effects supervisor comes along and says "I think it looks to look a bit knobblier".