Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Asymmetry (Score 1) 392

by EnsilZah (#46678963) Attached to: Why Are We Made of Matter?

I don't know why it's assumed that the universe started out with equal amounts of matter and anti-matter, but assuming that it did, it still seems to have started out with some seed of asymmetry in the manner in which matter is distributed, as we see in the distribution of matter in the cosmos today.

So couldn't the asymmetry in amount of matter and antimatter arise from that?

For example, here's an idea I've had using my very limited understanding of such matters and I'd be happy if someone explained why I'm wrong.

I was wondering what would happen if a matter and an antimatter black holes collided, after reading a bit on the subject it seems that once the black hole is formed the information about what it was formed from is lost so they would be both just black holes and merge if they collided.

Now another aspect of black holes is Hawking Radiation which is supposed to produce radiation at the edge of the event horizon drawing on the mass of the black hole for energy.
So assuming the black hole doesn't retain the information about what formed it, the radiation would constitute photons and equal amounts of matter and antimatter by the random chance of which particle from the pair formed at the event horizon falls in and which escapes.

So then if a star formed from only matter or only antimatter (since a mix of both would fly apart) and collapsed into a black hole, and it was left to radiate Hawking radiation, wouldn't it essentially convert one type of matter into energy and equal amounts of matter and antimatter, violating the symmetry?

And if the universe happened to start out in such a distribution of matter and antimatter that there were slightly more denser regions of antimatter than matter, then a small violation of the symmetry would emerge, the rest of the matter and antimatter annihilate and there would remain a small remainder of matter.

Comment: Re:WHY??? (Score 1) 73

by EnsilZah (#45980487) Attached to: Adobe Adds 3D Printer Support To Photoshop

I guess the developers on the Photoshop team are just running out of ideas for 2D image related features and management just lets them run with whatever silly ideas they come up with.

People sometimes want 3D text or preview the texture they're making for their model?
Sure, lets build 3D rendering engine into Photoshop and add support for 3D printing too!

People might want to make an animated gif?
Why don't we build a fucking audio/video timeline editor into it, even though we already have After Effects and Premiere.
I shit you not, I just played a couple of MP3s through Photoshop.

I'm pretty sure you can build a web browser into Photoshop panels.

I stopped using Winamp around the time they added the browser and then CD burning support.
And I stopped using Nero when they started bundling in all the shitty editors and video player and picture album and quick launch app and whatever.
And I'm sure the managers and marketing actually believe all those extra bullet points bring more value to the consumer or some shit.

Comment: Re:Gather 'round children ... (Score 1) 804

That's an entertaining post and all but those arguments can be made about any other workstation computer, and better.

Now if you're a freelancer and you bring in clients who might be impressed with the new shiny black cylinder on your desk, and you can't afford paying for real enterprise level support or you're just used to OSX or you've specialized in the very small subset of platform specific software like Final Cut Pro then there might be a case for you getting this computer.

But if you actually need a workstation in an enterprise environment you get something like an HP Z series computer where you can get an onsite technician, or just keep a stock of spare parts like a PSU or GPU or RAM that the IT guy can slide out and replace using a conveniently placed color coded handle.
You don't bring it to the Genius Bar and maybe wait for them to ship it somewhere else because they can't deal with it there and leave sensitive data that you need to continue your work on some SDD that's incompatible with any computer your IT department has to transfer the data over.

And on the software side, Apple maybe have been a big name in publishing and video work in the past but nowadays no one cares.
They neglected their relationship with Adobe (who might, at some point make their software compatible with FireGL compute which you can get on any computer with CUDA on an nVidia card today).
I've never seen anyone do any actual 3D work on a Mac (Though maybe they do in CAD? I haven't had any experience with that segment).
But from my experience where I work, a post-production house, out of say 40-50 computers, we only have four apple desktops, two of which are rarely used and are used for work that could be done on a Windows machine, one that's a Mac historically for the job description and could also replaced and one that runs legacy software that's being phased out.

Apple don't do enterprise products, they do trendy prosumer products and services which is all well and good for their bottom line but this is not a push into that market, in fact it's a step backward compared to the previous iteration of the Mac Pro.

Comment: Re:Now.. (Score 1) 321

by EnsilZah (#44821155) Attached to: Intel's Haswell Chips Pushing Windows RT Into Oblivion

The Surface Pro is roughly the size of Wacom Cintiq 12WX.
The guy who draws Penny Arcade uses one.

And a Photoshop license comes with the ability to install it on two computers so I can install it on your workstation and a tablet as well.
Not that Photoshop is the only piece of graphical software in the world.

Personally I'd really like to own a Surface Pro or a Thinkpad Helix but the Helix is too expensive and for some reason I can't a Surface Pro locally (and I might as well wait for a Haswell version anyway).

Comment: Re:Firing a missile over the Mediterranean Sea? (Score 1) 227

by EnsilZah (#44759379) Attached to: US and Israel Test Missile As Syria War Tensions Rise

There were proposals for various other locations.
There was a popular song by a trio of comedians a while back that had "Why not Uganda, why not Uganda?" as a chorus, after the British plan to settle the Jews there.
But I'm sure the hardcore nutcases who thought some specific piece of land was promised to them would still have found their way here.

Comment: Re:Firing a missile over the Mediterranean Sea? (Score 1) 227

by EnsilZah (#44758819) Attached to: US and Israel Test Missile As Syria War Tensions Rise

It can be amusing, when animals ranging from squirrels to sharks are accused of working for the Mossad, probably not so funny for the squirrel getting waterboarded though (despite what the Youtube results for that might lead you to believe), or when the Iranians keep finding Jewish symbols in their own architecture.

Rather sad, when both sides of a an internal conflict, like in Syria or Egypt keep claiming the other side is getting weapons, intelligence and orders from the Zionist regime.

And downright disgusting with claims like the aid operations in Haiti being a front for organ harvesting.

Comment: Re:Firing a missile over the Mediterranean Sea? (Score 1) 227

by EnsilZah (#44757719) Attached to: US and Israel Test Missile As Syria War Tensions Rise

It means that it specifically targets incoming missiles, in fact so specific that Israel has at least three different systems for different classes of projectiles.

And while Israel is perfectly fine with staying out of conflicts fought between the different brands of Arabs and Muslims (who usually proceed to accuse each other of being in league with Israel anyway) it seems that since we're the only target in reach, we're the ones who are going to be repelling a potential counter attack to your first strike.
So I hope that puts things in the right context.

Comment: Re:Firing a missile over the Mediterranean Sea? (Score 1) 227

by EnsilZah (#44757443) Attached to: US and Israel Test Missile As Syria War Tensions Rise

As far as I know it was fired from an aircraft.
And while the US has the privilege of fighting armed conflicts in other people's back yards and being able to postpone or pack up and leave without any effects on its civilian population, Israel generally doesn't, and with the situation in the region being tense to some extent every other week things still have to get done.

It was part a test of Israel's missile interceptor system (though I'm not sure if that's the operational one or one that's in development), but it seems like it's something you might not want to postpone when there are threats of missiles being launched at you.

Comment: Re:Firing a missile over the Mediterranean Sea? (Score 1) 227

by EnsilZah (#44755991) Attached to: US and Israel Test Missile As Syria War Tensions Rise

Disclaimer: I live in Israel.

Fire back where exactly, at the sea, for a missile not aimed at anyone?
I'd think there's a little bit more subtlety to these things than "OMG, missile launch detected, quick, fire everything we've got at everyone we don't like!".
And while the situation might be a bit tense at the moment in the area, that is often the case, and missile tests are still done, satellites are still launched and military drills still performed, often without prior notice to anyone who might be interested.

Nothing is rich but the inexhaustible wealth of nature. She shows us only surfaces, but she is a million fathoms deep. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Working...