My Core 2 Duo machine that I built is just about as fast as the core i7 that I built not long after... The difference being, the Duo has about the fastest CPU that I can put in it, while the i7 has about the slowest. There was a time - I don't know if you still can - when you could get the qx9650 (quad core extreme 3.0 ghz) chips for less than 200 bucks... Definitely worth it - this old machine is going to be relevant for a long time as far as I can tell. Yeah, you can still find them on pricewatch for about 250 bucks...
lHow can they possibly tell how much of the matter is "Dark"? I can get the idea of what they're doing - using the relative speeds of each local galaxy to determine the masses contained within each, but how could they possible determine how much mass in each galaxy wouldn't be seen by using light within the bounds of the visible spectrum?
Yeah, it was the touch pro 2... I would have to say that this is the ultimate design for a mobil smartphone (for those of us who like keyboards). I held on to that thing long after it was obsolete - I got a lot of funny looks from people at work, especially considering I'm the gadget guy.
Or does it seem like they keep coming up with these cool shaped molecules, then spend years tying to figure out what to do with them?
That had this great slide out keyboard. I think I was the only person in the world that bought one. The real keyboard was fantastic, but when I finally had to upgrade (the hardware did finally kick the bucket), there was no such thing as real keyboards anymore. So I figured I'd "get with the times". I had taken a lot of heat for sticking with that phone because it was really becoming a dinosaur. Though I gotta say there are still things that I miss about it. Besides the real keyboard (which did NOT make any noise as far as I can remember), the old Win OS was not store driven - so you could still download any
.cab that you could find on the internet and install it. It's ironic how technology is moving forward, but functionality is moving backward!
well there's some truth to what you say - I've realized that as well. it's quite clairvoyant of you to figure that from the small post. I think most of it stems from the disappointment in my career though. I've had to grow and watch some of my friends become quite successful (in other fields), despite not really having done anything spectacularly clever, or having had the type of 'gift' that I had - being able to understand and work with such complexity (as I suspect most of the people here do - I'm not saying I'm any better than the rest of us here - it's a bright bunch). I agree with what you say about switching careers - I've thought about it often, though it's just not that simple. Firstly, it feels like giving up. I could get over that if it could lead to some sort of success though. Secondly, I'm in my mid 40s - and have lots of responsibility - big mortgage, teenish kids, needy wife, etc - life isn't really going to give me the time to switch things up. I do actually make 150ish, but that isn't big money around here, my wife doesn't make much, and with the cost of living we still live check to check. That said, if I were to somehow stumble on a chunk of cash that could support me for 6 months or so, I'd love to figure out something else to do. What bothers me still though, is that this system that we're involved in - would have someone who is capable of so much be looking to do something more rewarding. And we wonder why people aren't seeking STEM careers? The best and brightest are seeking other paths... I'm the dope that was too stubborn to not do so. The idea that we put trades, marketing, sales and such in the same category as our scientists is very frustrating to me. More to the topic of the article, we should be seeking out those gifted for STEM and finding ways to make that a desirable career - not 'training' people who aren't even interested, based on their gender or race. I do feel like I've wasted 20 years, but it's hard to give up on it. Once I hit the lottery, I'll start my own company and do things my way. Until then, I don't see any other way to do right by my kids except to stay the path, keep wasting my time and basically forfeit my happiness.
About this field... I thought that my affinity and ability for computers and programming at a young age was a gift and that I was special for it. I thought that since I understood something and was fascinated by it, that I would be highly sought after, well paid and appreciated. It's so disappointing to see how we've turned this whole thing into something that anyone can do. We've done so by bringing the quality down to the level that it can be achieved by anyone. The tools, methods and process that has become the programming industry has turned people like me into waste products. In fact, I'm worse than a lot of people at the job. Of course, if you gave us both some idea and said to go off and "create it" in our own way, I would singlehandedly crush any team (of any size) - as I'm sure a lot of others like me would too. The whole thing sucks. The fact that we're artificially modifying the base of workers in this field can only mean that it can be done by anyone - we've dumbed it down to that level. Oh, and thanks for also taking my gift and turning it into nothing so that I can be underpaid and struggle to live like an average shithead.
Not necessarily... If the volume is zero than any amount of mass creates infinite density. density = m / V (grams / cubic meter). Two ways to get to infinity are, infinite mass with any volume, or zero volume and any mass.
Mass is a finite number, C is a constant, thus E is a finite value. That equation says nothing about the size of the object. No one knows what is inside of an event horizon, so I've never understood why we speculate that matter suddenly just starts changing it's fundamental rules. From Wikipedia for Neutron Star: "Neutron stars are very hot and are supported against further collapse by quantum degeneracy pressure due to the phenomenon described by the Pauli exclusion principle. This principle states that no two neutrons (or any other fermionic particles) can occupy the same place and quantum state simultaneously." This would suggest that a singularity is an impossibility. I don't find any reason that a neutron could or would change it's shape or size depending on gravity - no matter how great in magnitude it is.
With all respect, how do we know that? How do we know that a neutron can be squeezed into a smaller size?
Ever since I was young and understood the concept of a black hole and it's event horizon, I wondered why we choose to mix in this completely non relevant idea that as the density approaches a point at which an event horizon could exist past the exterior of a star's surface, that something magical happens and matter suddenly can occupy the same space. Why did they have to do this? Why wouldn't a black hole just be a big star on the inside? Just because we can't see it doesn't mean that there's something magical. Nothing magical happens once you would cross an event horizon, other than the fact that you wouldn't be getting out. In an imaginary world, if you could cross the event horizon, yeah - you'd see a star, though of course your perception would be quite strange - as if you were surrounded by it. Anyway, whether they prove that these can be dense enough to keep their light or not - let's dispatch this idea of a singularity. It's silly.
It's time to come up with a new name, like "Large dark holes"
I thought I was the only one. It feels like the people considered the best programmers now are the ones who know the complexities of git more than the next guy. I thought I was the only one who felt like the cycle of Jira, Git and Reviewboard was much more brutal, time consuming and complicated than the few lines of code that I'm able to squeeze out on any given day. Then, since everyone has their own way of doing just about anything, every line of code is scrutinized and disected - and often changed. I used to be a great programmer, now I can't produce the amount of Jira/Git/Reviewboard FUD that others can, and thus I'm reduced to less than average.
I think it's a lot to do with how you react to a sexual violation that can make 'rape' a more subjective thing than it ought to be, given the severity of the accusation and punishment. About 20 years ago, when I was in my early 20s (male) - I was at a company Christmas party, drank lots and passed out in my hotel room in which a lot of other guests happened to be hanging around in. The biggest, fattest, most aggressive sales girl of the company allegedly (I was told the story eventually later) wouldn't leave me alone, eventually was able to wake me into a sleep-walk like state and take me to her room and proceeded to have sex with me. In the morning I didn't have any recollection of what had happened. The next day of work, the jokes ensued - co-workers would randomly connect my calls to her phone and stuff like that... I generally laughed it off, though it was humiliating. If the roles were reversed, I suppose that could have easily been a rape case. As a male, I saw it more as just something to be embarrassed about.
yea... i remember how awesome it was to get 5 bucks out of my mother and then literally run to the "dream machine" arcade. There was also a big arcade in it's own building the next town over that we used to go to once we got car licenses. We'd play robotron for hours, as well as some of the other classics. I think the downfall of the arcade was - well I remember when they started replacing "skill games" with the "hack and slash" genre of games. "hack and slash" being - games where you'd fight or something... basically, there was no way to get good at the game. A quarter was going to last about 90 seconds no matter what. Then came all the giant sit down games that pretty much had the same theme - no skill, just 90 seconds of play for your money. Arcades didn't last much longer after that. Games, music - most entertainment types have just seemingly gone downhill too far to get any excitement out of me, and seemingly anyone else for that matter.