Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:me dumb (Score 1) 134

by yndrd1984 (#49550629) Attached to: Wormholes Untangle a Black Hole Paradox

There is no traveling.

If you were to travel through 100 light years of space in 4 minutes ... nobody sees a time reversal in any frame of reference.

You're at two events events (leaving one place and appearing at another) separated by what in relativity is called a space-like interval - and by definition there are observers that 'see' them happen at the same time, others that 'see' one happen first, and others that 'see' the other happen first. This isn't a problem because (as far as we can tell) those events can't affect each other.

My best guess as to what you're trying to say is that because you don't end up in your own past light-cone (i.e. the events don't have an inverted time-like separation) there are no paradoxes, no violations of causality, etc. Which is true if this kind of trav ... er ... 'changing position' is one-off, or fairly strictly limited in certain ways.

Comment: Re:me dumb (Score 1) 134

by yndrd1984 (#49549365) Attached to: Wormholes Untangle a Black Hole Paradox

The consequences of that never propagated superluminally.

So you went 100 light years in less than 100 years. That's basically the definition of superluminal. It doesn't matter how it's done.

Superluminal propagation of the light cone is needed to invert cause and effect...

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say. "Magic" or not, you'd be travelling outside of your future light cone, and that's exactly the problem - to you and people on Earth it would appear instantaneous, but for some observers you would be traveling backward in time.

On other words, "instant" travel is nonsense because spatially separated things can't happen "at the same time" for all observers. Relativity of simultaneity and all that.

Comment: Re:me dumb (Score 1) 134

by yndrd1984 (#49549039) Attached to: Wormholes Untangle a Black Hole Paradox

If I were to magically snap my fingers and magically materialize between "earth" and "earth2" 100 light years away without having propagated thru space ... at no point will any observer in any frame be able to detect an inversion of cause and effect.

Only if it took 100 years for you to make the trip. Otherwise you will be moving backward in time for some possible observers.

Comment: Re:Done in movies... (Score 2) 174

People usually only freak out about behavior in movies that they think other people will emulate, especially things that seem realistic. My parents like to watch lots of British murder mysteries, but they'll be put off by 'bad' language, nudity, or people being rude in the same show.

The people who boycott for the reasons you gave believe that our entire culture is heavily racist and sexist, and movies are part of the problem. But most people aren't corrupt cops.

Comment: Re:warm water (Score 4, Informative) 173

And before that, the meteorologists refered to "the southern oscillation"

It's still called that.

there was El Nino and La Nina - depending on whereabouts in the Pacific the warm surface water was located.

Those are names for the warm and cold phases of that oscillation. The only thing that might have changed is that people are more willing to use the Spanish words to describe the phenomenon.

A few decades ago, before global warming became popular

The Southern Oscillation and Anthropogenic Climate Change refer to different phenomena that are explained by different processes. The only thing they have in common is that they both have something to do with the weather.

Comment: Re:Your justice system is flawed, too. (Score 1) 1081

by yndrd1984 (#49260117) Attached to: How To Execute People In the 21st Century

You can't agree to anything just by being born; you aren't even sentient at that point.

Try using that argument to opt out of the "income tax" portion of the social contract.

Well, it didn't work out well for some of my ancestors when they tried to opt out of the "you're a slave" part of the one-sided "contract" they were born into.

On the other hand, some people realize that answering moral questions with appeals to who can inflict the most harm is stupid.

Comment: Re:Circumcised at age 18? (Score 1, Insightful) 221

by yndrd1984 (#49257411) Attached to: World's 1st Penis Transplant Done In South Africa

...I strongly disapprove the hysterical, one-sided tone of the intactivist movement, which I think has potential to harm the body image of circumcised children who grow up with it.

Interesting. Are pro-choice activists 'hysterical' for pushing their particular "my body, my choice" argument? And do they deserve criticism for making women in Ireland who couldn't get abortions feel bad?

Comment: Re:Circumcised at age 18? (Score 1) 221

by yndrd1984 (#49257333) Attached to: World's 1st Penis Transplant Done In South Africa

It must be peculiar to have one's center of being and entire sense of self revolve about one's foreskin. Tell us, what is it like?

It must be peculiar to have one's center of being and entire sense of self revolve around telling other people what they're allowed to care about. Tell us, what is it like?

Comment: Re:Circumcised at age 18? (Score 1) 221

by yndrd1984 (#49257323) Attached to: World's 1st Penis Transplant Done In South Africa

They can both cause destruction, but one is a much larger destruction.

You're comparing one, specific procedure on males (circumcision) to absolutely anything done to a female. It's the equivalent of calling everything from cutting a dorsal slit in a man's foreskin to castration to completely removing the genitalia MGM, and saying it's much worse than merely nicking the clitoral hood.

And of course this argument originates in politics. You're not going convince Americans to go ballistic over FGM if they think it sort of like what they're used to (which is, for exactly the opposite reason, why it was called female circumcision to start with - e.g. "Don't freak out, your culture does things like that, too!"). And unfortunately it gets mixed in with gender politics as well.

Comment: Re:Not at all surprising (Score 1) 187

by yndrd1984 (#49221273) Attached to: China's Arthur C. Clarke

Yes, but the point is that pure laissez faire capitalism in itself does not provide the mechanism to prevent this.

And democracy doesn't provide a magic mechanism to prevent Puerto Ricans from being denied the right to vote. If the only bad thing you can say about a system is that people are capable of following it imperfectly then you really don't have an argument.

So you have to have government and laws, but then the extreme right wingers complain about paying taxes and not being able to beat their legally purchased slaves.

And we've now left the realm of academic discourse in favor of an unhinged political screed...

Comment: Re:Not at all surprising (Score 1) 187

by yndrd1984 (#49211461) Attached to: China's Arthur C. Clarke

Adam Smith wrote that a man had a right to sell his labor.

Right.

What protected that right during the slavery period, in the US?

Nothing. And in that aspect the US was not practicing the system that Smith was describing.

Capitalism needs something outside of it, ...

Almost - Smith presupposed a legal system that (at the very least) attempted to prevent murder, theft and fraud. Capitalism might need something outside of the market, but that's not outside the system.

...because capitalism alone has no morality and perversely incentivizes lying and other sociopathic behavior.

That's true of every economic system - if someone is willing to lie to get money why wouldn't they lie to get a larger ration? The most you can hope to do is reduce the number of rational reasons to cheat, but you can do that without chucking the whole thing out the window (healthcare, social programs, etc) which is how most of the Western world handles it - and fairly successfully, I might add.

Comment: Re:Not so strange (Score 2) 187

by yndrd1984 (#49211331) Attached to: China's Arthur C. Clarke
It sounds like you're referring to "Looking Backward" by Francis Bellamy (the guy who wrote the original Pledge of Allegiance) from the 1880s.

And "saving or hoarding money" in the modern world doesn't "lock up potential resources" - it isn't backed by anything, so taking money out of circulation just raises the value of the remaining currency.

"It's when they say 2 + 2 = 5 that I begin to argue." -- Eric Pepke

Working...