Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:questions... (Score 1) 337

The behavior of a black hole mirrors the behavior you'd expect of a two-dimensional object.

'Two dimensional object' is a contradiction in terms. If it can be called an object at all then it must have at least 3 spatial dimensions. Even an object only 1 atom thick would have 3 spatial dimensions. One of those dimensions would just be very small.

Whether something can have more than 3 spatial dimensions is pure speculation. It could be argued that such an idea is non-falsifiable. The whole concept of perpendicularity seems to break down when applied to a 3 dimensional (aka real) object.

Maybe we're in 2D space.

If 3 spatial dimensions are not required to measure our bodies then we do not exist at all. Even one atom thick creatures would require 3 spatial dimensions to measure. Also a 2D universe would not be a universe at all. A universe, by definition, contains everything that exists. A 2D universe could not contain 3 dimensional objects.

Comment Re:Uhhh... what did he just say to us? (Score 1) 337

a black hole in such a universe would have a 3-d "surface"

I'm trying to decide whether this makes any more sense than a square circle. 3D surface is a contradiction in terms. A surface is 2 dimensional by definition.

Once something has passed the edge of the visible universe it is effectively lost to us

Only until we build a bigger telescope.

a bit like when something passes the event horizon of a black hole.

It's not really the same because anything that collides with a black hole will cease to exist. There is no way for anyone with any sort of conceivable detector to observe what no longer exists. Even if the collapsed star's gravity did not stop the photons from exiting it would effectively vanish out of existence.

Comment Re:"We have to take all threats seriously" (Score 2) 706

It sounds like you cannot have a serious discussion period. This kid made a little video game. That is not against the law no matter what the characters look like in it. The cop in this case is a dangerous thug and a threat to us all and our freedoms. He belongs in prison or at the very least he should lose his job. I don't think we want to rely on the judgement of some mentally retarded cop as to whether or not people get arrested for thoughtcrime.

Comment Re:Wait, wait! (Score 5, Informative) 706

At the very least, the posting of the video constitutes a death threat, which demands justice.

No it does not constitute a death threat. A death threat is, "I'm going to kill you now, AC". A video game is just a video game now matter what the pixels may or may not look like.

Let me say that again. AC, I am going to murder you sometime very soon. I own a gun. An assault rifle. I am going to kill you with it. This IS going to happen. So you might want to prepare a will or something. Perhaps flee whatever country you live in as well. Just to be safe.

The only problem is that I have no idea who you are and no way to find out and I don't actually own a gun. Do you see why threats are required to be credible and why the person making the threat is expected to have some realistic means of carrying it out?

Comment Re:A threat is a threat (Score 1) 706

He isn't being charged with threatening anyone. Legally threatening someone would be considered assault in most states so long as the threat is both credible and it is possible for it to be immediately carried out.

The reason for this is simple. Talk is just talk and even we cannot build enough jails to hold something like the 80% of the population that makes some kind of vague threat to someone at some point in their lives.

If the kid has a gun in his hand and says, "I'm going to kill every last one of you" that would be simple assault in most states. But if he says the same thing without any immediate means to carry it out and it doesn't seem credible then it is not asssault in most states.

I think they really need the new terrorism laws to go after someone for making non-credible threats that anyone can see is just talk. Lucky for people like you they do have such laws now. Just be careful what you say...oops did I just threaten you? I guess it could be seen that way, right? Someone is pounding on the door. I'm just going t

Comment Re:The Major is right though (Score 1) 706

if he lets it go and the kid DOES shoot up the place

This is where your reasoning fails. This kid is no more likely to end up shooting someone than anyone else. You may as well arrest everyone who owns a squirt gun or who plays violent video games or who has ever used the word "gun" in a sentence. If the cop's reasoning is as you describe then he is a fucking moron.

Comment Re:I thought you needed a gun to shoot someone... (Score 1) 706

Let me see if I am following your logic.

Outlaw all firearms. That worked well for illegal drugs and alcohol. So it will definitely work for firearms too.

Since firearms have vanished from existence due to above law there will be no more school shootings. Angry kids will have to make due with bladed weapons.

And when a school kid dies from knife wounds and it makes the national news everyone will behave 100% rationally and not overreact about it like they do now. Someone weilding an imaginary knife will not go to prison because that would just be silly, right?

Comment Re:People forget the most important reason.. (Score 1) 180

I'm no expert on space travel

That is becoming clear.

but surely we have invented engines capable of going more than 1/10th of light speed?

The problem is the lack of fuel or alternatively the impractically large size and mass of the fuel necessary to accelerate to a useful speed. So effectively we have not. The best we can do with curent tech is probably less than 0.1c and we are talking very, very large numbers of nuclear bombs and kilometer scale ships. Of course nuclear pulse ships might scale upward such that a 100 kilometer ship is capable of 0.25c etc but since we haven't yet manufactured even one it's hard to know.

Comment Re:Thanks (Score 1) 356

Because the private sector isn't known for invading your home at 3 AM, shooting your pets and maybe a few family members depending on how jumpy the cops are and then locking everyone in cages for years. The private sector isn't known for actually forcing you to do anything. The only power of the corporation is the power of money. Economic power. That is a far cry from the power to shoot or imprison you.

Slashdot Top Deals

Just go with the flow control, roll with the crunches, and, when you get a prompt, type like hell.