One problem with that is that whatever system we used would have to have two ends. One to get us up to 2 million MPH and another to stop us.

i.e. since the summary mentions two supermassive black holes probably having something to do with getting to that speed, we'd probably need something similar or equivalent to slow down within a reasonable timeframe from that speed.

Doing something like that within our solar system would be somewhat difficult I think. Even if we could somehow compact that much power into something we could build near Earth, we'd need an equivalent one wherever we are going in the solar system.

It's like Mass Effect. You can only go to places using the Mass Relay beacons that also have Mass Relay beacons. You need breaks as much as, if not more than, gas.

Because the US is moving slowly more and more towards a police state. Between the NSA doing what it does, Net Neutrality being butchered, Police brutality and authority overreach occurring more and more often, and other similar events, people don't want anything that can help the situation get worse.

And while I agree terrorizing a marketing drone is unreasonable and unacceptable, at the same time, I also don't think it's unreasonable or unacceptable for us to be so "against" this type of technology.

It existing and becoming prevalent in society will just give politicians with agendas ideas about enforcing it upon us. And their track record tells us they can do such things fine on their own as it is and are willing to. Extra initiative is bad. We have enough to deal with and giving people technology like this can make things worse more than it can make things better imo.

I personally wish this technology wasn't even a thing and that the people who own this company didn't want to make it mainstream. I'm not going to go as far as terrorizing them for it, but I stand by that choice to be completely against the idea of these type of weapons.

As is said, "Keep it simple, stupid."

Yes! Finally, people are talking about this!

I have considered this before and it threw me for a loop, if you will.

Our understanding of everything about the past (i.e. big bang, evolution, etc) are hinged upon the idea that these constants are just that. Constants.

Now, if they aren't, then what happens to our measurements (i.e. age verification on fossils via radioactive decay and measuring the cosmic background) is these constants are not constants? Simple, they become wrong.

If, say, the constants changed considerably, rather than slightly, they would effectively erase the evidence of the fact they existed at all because the only way we can measure the universe is using them. Which incidentally would make certain things seem wonky (i.e.everything we "know" about the big bang, the missing mass in the universe, etc).

I agree that it isn't science by default, because it's impossible to measure something when you can only measure things with that something (i.e. it becomes circular logic as that something proves itself). Because of this, I personally have become increasingly skeptical of any science that involves talking about ancient things beyond the usual amount I give everything.

I'm very interested with where this might go. It's a concept that many are quick to discount because it's "unscientific", but it's a question that must be asked if we are to accept what the evidence suggests about the past and what our universe is doing or has done.

What Whatsisname said.

In theory, it's a win/win. In practice, it's not.

As someone else said, when you need a gun, really need it, you don't want something technical like a dead battery or a bug from stopping you on top of the other things that can happen (i.e. malfunction, it being taken, etc).

This is why the police don't use technologies made to help them prevent criminals from gaining the upper hand like magazine safeties and such. It's just another thing that could get in the way of when you need it most.

If the professionals aren't willing to use this type of stuff, I don't see why average citizens should be forced [Note the "forced"] to as well personally. It's fine as an offering, but even then, it's still terrible for the same reasons.

Right, I was wrong.

I like to think of it, using his barometer reference, as a tug of war where one side has a natural advantage (elevation). Imagine it so that the two barometers are pushing against each other (where the siphon works) and the top one is winning due to it's advantage causing the liquid to be transferred down.

It's really quite something.

Then that brings up the question of how the siphon actually pulls the liquid up and over.

Gravity pulls the liquid down on the back end, but the front end needs to be pulled up by something and that's the pressure differential penguinoid mentioned. So you are incorrect, as a siphon requires the pressure created by the gravity pulling the liquid down to pull the liquid up the front end. Or it can't siphon.

This can work in an environment without an atmosphere but with gravity, obviously, but not the point. You still need pressure. Just not explicitly atmospheric pressure.

Uh...

It is bonded together with Covalent Hydrogen bonds. Which are very weak. Thus, liquid. It doesn't mean they aren't bonded. It means the bonds are easily broken and have little effect (i.e. the substance doesn't change).

.... In a strict open "You VS Us" kind of way, sure.

But apparently you missed what happened in the Middle-East, Vietnam, etc. Guerilla warfare is a game changer if done right. If every able bodied man and woman in the US fought against the US military using Guerilla Wafare tactics, the military would be screwed.

The biggest question becomes "Who do I shoot and who don't I shoot?"

I agree with you, in part. I disagree also, in part.

While I think it's actually noble of people to sacrifice themselves for the greater good, I think his argument comparing it to him asking to be killed is not the same thing. One has potential large tangible benefits for humanity (pushing science's boundaries), the other doesn't (he dies, doesn't use the resources he would have, and that's it).

The thing is, is that a large portion of the time, a person committing suicide is usually caused by temporary circumstance. Don't get me wrong. Depression sucks, but more often than not, it's temporary. I'll just use the old adage "a permanent solution to a temporary problem". There are obviously exceptions, such as terminal illness, chronic depression, and other things that we can't really fix (though medication can sometimes help), but since that isn't always how it is, I think you can't just go "It's their life." and pull the trigger without considering these things to define if it's ethical for you. It should be a last choice, because there is no going back (yet).

Can we somehow make something that turns earthquakes into usable energy like electricity?

Kinda being serious. Feel free to laugh me out of /. for a month.

Well, people with autism sometimes have extreme talents. It's hard for a "normal" person to actually have or attain these talents, so maybe it's a happy side effect of an evolutionary trait that otherwise would be a complete negative. That we get geniuses out of it.

Just a thought. Good examples of what I'm talking about that I found are here and here.

It may be a byproduct of evolution, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's purely for the sake of bettering reproductive capabilities.

Although illegal in many countries (but not all), it is satisfying. And free. It doesn't cover everything, but it certainly covers a lot and is expanding from what I can see. I can't help but wonder when TV shows will be added, along with a choice of where to pull the torrents from (it's locked in to YIFY currently though there might be an easy way to change that, I haven't the time).

Although the team that originally started it dropped the project, it was entirely open source so others could (and did) pick up where they left off. They didn't do so due to legal issues (because they checked multiple times to see that what they were doing was indeed legal), but because they didn't want to be in the middle of fighting the paradigm that the film (and other) industries have established.

Here's a link.

>But for the first time astronomers have discovered that ring systems aren't exclusive to planetary bodies — asteroids can have them too.

I get the word "discovered" here, but... I wouldn't think that gravity is exclusive to planetary bodies. Anything with significant gravity can have a ring system under the right conditions.

Sensationalist article is sensationalist. But hey, it's slashdot.

Interesting. Thanks for that info. It could just be some bias in the community (which, of communities, the PC Enthusiast one is probably the most guilty of). I need to further expand my horizons.

Actually, within the PC Enthusiast community, it's believed they are not behind schedule. They just have little reason to push things out quickly due to a lack of competition and need for the technologies themselves. i.e. Neither AMD nor games these days are at a point that actively require the technologies they have (had) planned to be released either to give AMD a run for their money, or to actually make the games playable at our current resolutions. 1080p/1440p are the currently most used resolutions with 4K being far off as it isn't economical yet. I'm not sure on the professional side of things, as I don't know much about that section of the industry, but from our perspective, this move makes perfect sense.

Why would they release these things, ready or not, when they don't need them? It's more economical to save whatever you've researched for when you actually need to release it, and milk what you currently have for all it's worth.

It's not good for consumers (the current tech doesn't get cheaper by much, and we don't get the new tech until later), but good for the company (i.e. more profits).