Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:could someone please explain (Score 1) 166

IANAPhysicist/Cosmologist/whatever applies here, so please do verify this yourself.

The star isn't IN the black hole . . . yet. The black hole is somewhere close to the star, and we're seeing the energy being thrown off by the stuff being pulled into it. There's an awful lot of colliding going on, so stuff is getting thrown around in a lot of directions at once.

Light (and other stuff) outside of the event horizon can escape. That's my understanding of the definition of "event horizon" . . . the proximity to the black hole at which light can no longer escape the black hole's gravitational pull. As long as stuff happens outside of that region, we can observe it.

Comment Re:Mike (Score 1) 316

In the *nix world, everything is pretty self contained within its own directory.

You must be talking about some crazy, bizarro *nix world, as the one in this world tends to split directories up by what the files are for, not by application.

For example, /etc has configuration files, /usr/bin and /usr/local/bin tend to have executables, /var/log has log files... I could go on.

Very infrequently, apps will install their entire directory structure into something like /opt, but that's very, VERY rare.

Comment Here we go again... (Score 1) 71

The whole "Bad Stuff in the water supply" bit. The problem with every scenario that I've ever seen for poisoning the water supply was that the sheer volume of toxin that would be needed to bring the concentration to anything near a harmful amount is always just plain enormous. Even if you used strychnine, you'd need to pull up to the reservoir with multiple tanker trucks and start dumpin'. You don't need fiber optics and infrared light to see guys dumping thousands of gallons of something into a large lake.

Comment Re:Don't... (Score 1) 11

That can always say it was a concession to the other side so that it could get passed. There is still a large block of voters (a significant power) who want government heavily involved in marriages, and who think government force should be used to prevent some marriages, but they might favor government force in some situations (e.g. incest) more passionately than others (e.g. gay). By giving that block a prohibition against incest, the ones who want to overall lessen regulation may be able to do so.

Sure, somebody had to be victimized, but the deregulators are doing a "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" thing. Winning liberty isn't easy, and they can come back for incest later when more of the pro-government voters/reps have aged and died off.

God damn it's hard to write that w/out sounding like a troll. In fact, I probably didn't succeed. ;-)

Comment Re:No torch? (Score 1) 149

Are you sure? I'm fairly certain that, outside of satirical use of a laugh track, a lot of shows still pad the audience reactions with canned laughter if the audience doesn't react quite the way the producers hoped they would. I do think it would be hard to tell, and I'm mostly basing this off assumption.

I will say that I'm almost certain that Chappelle's Show had at least some canned laughter inserted. It was a bit too well-timed and consistent to have been natural. If it was meant as satire, it obviously flew right over my head.

Slashdot Top Deals

"What man has done, man can aspire to do." -- Jerry Pournelle, about space flight

Working...