Black holes are observationally indistinguishable from dark grey ones (the non-observational difference being whether there is an event horizon).

Black holes are observationally indistinguishable from dark grey ones. There's no conflict between astronomical evidence on the one hand, and the paper and its thesis of non-formation on the other (a thesis that is part of a decades-old lineage of arguments, going back to the fact that an event horizon takes infinite time to form from the viewpoint of an outside observer).

If you really were an astrophysicist, you'd know that black holes are observationally indistinguishable from dark grey ones.

Because a black hole is understood as something with an event horizon. You don't get to define astrophysical terms; they mean what they're understood to mean by those versed in the art. My suggestion is that we go back to the old and just-as-relevant-today term "frozen star", but I'm not arrogant enough to push for it in the way you want to redefine terms just because you will it.

Mod parent down. He claims he hasn't read the paper, and then takes a guess anyway and not only completely misses, but also presents something absolutely wrong. I can only conclude he got modded up because he posted something appearing vaguely scientific and maybe-perhaps-kind-of-cool-sounding. The facts: Hawking radiation cannot prevent formation of a singularity once an event horizon has formed. Parent poster's appeal to time dilation is a red herring: ultimately this is a matter of geometry--if you start from a configuration that has no event horizon and then one forms, then inside the new event horizon, the geometry of space-time is such that a singularity is a requisite component. Note that the paper itself makes none of the crackpot claims that the parent poster does--it argues that an event horizon doesn't form in the first place because Hawking radiation dissipates the mass of the collapsing star sufficiently to prevent a horizon. And that is eminently plausible, unlike the outlandish proposition in the post I'm responding to.

Mod parent down. Hawking radiation cannot intervene in such a manner _inside_ the event horizon and prevent a singularity. It dissipates mass-energy outside an event horizon only. There is no known or even posited quantum effect that would magically prevent a singularity inside an extant event horizon in the way the parent poster fantasizes. Moreover, parent poster would have saved himself the embarrassment had he actually taken a mere cursory look at the paper, which discusses something completely different: the dissipation of the collapsing star's mass before an event horizon can ever form.

Mod parent up--he is spot on that they should have been used against the Chinese troops supporting the North. This was even more justifiable in terms of the massive suffering that would have been prevented than even the savings in lives lost from an alternative of ground invasion by the decisive strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

> he was going to suicide

"Suicide" is not a verb.

No, it is not "here in the open", because "250 and fewer" includes zero as an option. As per the Ars article someone already posted early on in this /. discussion, http://arstechnica.com/tech-po..., the 0-250 range is a reflection of new guidelines from the department of justice. A canary almost becomes unworkable for companies now because saying you have not received such a warrant in the given time period is equivalent to saying you have received 0 orders, which is more specific than the smallest allowable range of 0-250.

Yes.

Contrast this to the reboot of Battlestar Galactica , which paints a very
realistic portrait of advancement of science/artificial intelligence causing the downfall of humanity..

FTFY

http://www.nature.com/nature/j... Can any astro-types chime in on this?

So like a typical ideologue, when you fail to summon logical arguments to support your view, you turn in your desperation to your last resort: abusive language. I hope you realize that you're just revealing that for you, this is about emotional investment, not rationality.

I know that me personally am willing to help the next generations by making reasonable compromises right now but it seems it's not the general consensus.

You do what you want, but who are you to tell other people how to live their lives? And yet, that's what most environmentalists do. This is why environmentalism really is like a watermelon: green on the outside, red on the inside.

I live in Canada, and considering the number of articles in recent years which have listed the impacts of global warming on the country, it's looking like a huge win. Even if only some of the permafrost melts, this is a huge increase in arable land and will allow as much as a doubling of agricultural output. Access to additional fresh water also increases significantly, which is notable given how much hoopla is made about water as an ever-more scarce resource. Increasing population density further north, and making the north actually productive. Better access to natural resources in the north, including mining and gas/oil extraction in the arctic. Levying fees on ships going eventually year round through the northwest passage. The boon global warming, if real, will bring to this surpasses by an order of magnitude anything its politicians could bring about. So yes, please, bring it on!