Are wormholes possible? If they are, when should we expect them to be usable for space travel?

ciacciojon · 2012-05-25T20:13:05.807186+00:00

Possible is very much not the same as usable for travel. The math seems to indicate that they are possible. They may very well never be usable for travel.

Also, if we could could both travel through wormholes and move one end, then then time travel would be possible.

Accipehoc · 2012-05-25T19:05:47.261559+00:00

I think the awareness of rule 34 material must be sufficient relative to the brand awareness for it to matter. Some would have to be pretty creative to get sufficient word of mouth going for a rule-34'd gecko.

MancusoMancuso · 2012-05-25T16:47:58.782391+00:00

The article is rather poorly written in that it mixes the real reason (marketing and price changes making it popular with a different crowd) with a bunch of idiot comments from a google search about how some fools think they argue more when drinking this beer than others.

laidbacklife · 2012-05-25T16:40:23.105248+00:00

Reddit has already tried and failed. Maybe for round two we could leave off the silliness like "Paid For By: The Internet" and instead actually mention the politicians that support these laws.

ref5022 · 2 days

A "Jump to Conclusions" mat.

Aregular89 · 2 days

Awesome discounts?

johnny17 · 2 days

TL;DR: "Loureedia" is named after Lou Reed's early band "The Velvet Undergound" because it is a velvet spider that lives underground.

silkinator · 2 days

10 inches

Mrluxury91 · 2 days

They are two excellent movies. Why does one have to be better than the other?

thumperj · 2 days

I'm not a huge fan of the light rail proposal myself, but arguing against it on the basis of it being self-supporting and/or profitable is disingenuous. Infrastructure in general is necessary and improving infrastructure has many indirect benefits. One doesn't worry about profitability of roads*, parks, or parking.

The important questions are a) to what degree it facilitates things that aren't practical now (e.g. more convenient business locations, etc.) and b) to what degree it will reduce the load on other infrastructure (eliminate the need for new or expanded roads and road maintenance, reduced police and emergency costs related to driving, etc.)

Arguing about the profitability or sustainability might actually be counter-productive because the answer to b) above is primarily a function of how many people actually use the thing. Reducing the fair might actually make the whole thing more cost effective in the end.

* Obviously people try to do so for roads with tolls, but that never really works out.

damontoo · 3 days

It's not Lego brand building blocks. It's LEGO. Just LEGO.

So you keep saying. You keep insisting that your preferred short term is the only correct one. Even the wikipedia article only uses "Lego" as a noun when referring to the company. You can repeat this all you want, but it just isn't that common of a usage.

I don't demand you pronounce the word correctly

Your insistence that your usage is the only correct one is about as close as you can get to a demand under the circumstances.

I suggest it. If a product name has been copyrighted a certain way,

Do you have any citation for that claim. Even advertisements (1,2) refer to the toys as "LEGO bricks and elements".

but in this case it's a willful ignorance to acknowledge a mistake.

I don't think that sentence fragment means quite what you intended. And if there's any "willful ignorance" here, I don't think its on my part.

damontoo · 3 days

The "correct term" for the product, as promoted by the Lego company was at one time "Lego-brand building blocks". Or at least I think it was. That was a long time ago. Obviously, children aren't going to use such an awkward phrase when discussing their toys. The choice to shorten it to "Legos" vs "Lego" was largely a regional thing.

You say this as if the Lego legal department or myself are insulting you or something. I don't see the need to tell me to fuck off for what I originally said.

I resent you demanding that I use a particular short form that you prefer. I resent (and I mean "resent" in the lightest sense -- lets not resume the discussion about calmness) that the Lego company expects people refer to their toy with so ridiculous a term as "Lego-brand building blocks" because of their concern over trademark issue.

Also the brand is Lego.

Yes, but brand and product need not use the same monicker.

Rememeber K'nex?

No.

Did you call them K'nex's? No, because the plural of the original word is plural and singular both.

Is there some universal rule such that what was true for K'nex (which I'll take your word for--it isn't something I've heard of before) must be true for all products?

No need for the s, so why use it?

Because I like it? Why does it bother that I do?

damontoo · 3 days

Never once did I see a box of Lego with the logo saying "Legos" on it.

You say that as if it somehow contradicts something I said.

You need to calm down.

Why would you assume that I'm not calm?

JustMosh · 3 days

What does "need" have to do with it? The better question is does everyone already hate M.Bay so much that this new information is insignificant. I think the answer is no. This is a whole new kind of evil.

RyRyFoodSciGuy · 3 days

Dinty Moore is a subsidiary of Hormel.

ALPO is actually a subsidiary of Nestle .

damontoo · 3 days

Everyone called them "legos" in the US until a decade ago when Lego started a big advertising campaign to prevent dilution of their trademark. I'll call them what everyone called them throughout my childhood and you and the Lego legal department can just fuck off.

TestZero · 4 days

Isn't just about everything here (this topic) pedantry?

TestZero · 4 days

I always interpreted "forest moon of Endor" as "forest moon named Endor", analogous to "city of Austin". While wikipedia says that "Endor" was actually the name of the planet, there was certainly nothing canonical that indicates that "Endor" wasn't the name of the moon.

diegocg · 4 days

There were some non-intel people arguing about things like the bit-width of the ALUs on Intel CPUs (apparently the P4 had 16-bit ALUs and therefore broke integer arithmetic instructions into several micro-ops.) However, the same people seem to routinely mix up distinct concepts like instruction size, instruction set, operand size, etc. such that I'm not inclined to put much weight into their opinions.

And who cares if Intel chose to include more ALUs of a 32-bit variety instead of fewer that support full 64-bit operations? As long as the end result is the same, these kind of implementation details shouldn't matter. Either the CPU takes longer to execute integer arithmetic operations or it doesn't. The big difference between 32-bit and 64-bit (and what this new "architecture" addresses) is the memory issue. When using 64-bit pointers, the size of data structures containing pointers grows, requiring not only more memory, but reducing effective cache size.

diegocg · 4 days

I read through the first few pages of comments on the blog you linked to and didn't see anything about 32-bit vs. 64-bit performance. Just a lot of debating about which Intel CPUs supported the x86_64 (EMT64 or whatever they were calling it back then) instruction set.

I was right that the processing requires twice the power

As in Watts of electricity?

diegocg · 4 days

It's not just for 64-bit wide data. You also get newer CPU instructions that were introduced with x86_64 and the larger set of general purpose registers. The latter is a big thing for x86, which has always had a fairly small number of registers compared to typical RISC instruction sets.

diegocg · 4 days

Cite? Given that the CPU has 64-bit registers, this seems highly unlikely.

_neunte · 7 days

I think somehow people have taken that if you don't like it, leave concept to "leave" and that's bullshit.

Even "if you don't like it, leave" is BS. While Austin is great, it isn't perfect. There's nothing wrong with discussing ways that it might be improved.

It's like someone coming to your house and telling you your carpet's ugly

That is a poor analogy unless the things about Austin that people are complaining about are a) entirely a matter of personal taste and b) aren't detrimental to the person doing the complaining, or really anyone else.

I can see that new arrivals complaining about things in Austin might be annoying if those things are just a matter of preference (they're that way because that's the way we like it), but to paint all discussions of possible improvements that way implies that new-comers should be worshiping the city or something.

_neunte · 7 days

earned the right to show animosity

Fuck everything about that. If you act like an asshole, you are an asshole. There's no "earning" some kind of free pass that makes such behavior (animosity to all newcomers) something other than assholery.

Its great and all that for a while you had the best rent anywhere in the nation for a nice urban area. Be happy about what you had, not angry about what you "lost". Times change, real estate marks change, etc. Some of that change in the real-estate market is due to growth. But growth has its upsides too. Stagnant or shrinking communities have lots of economic issues (in addition to cheaper housing.)

But that's mostly irrelevant. Nicer areas to live will grow. That's just the way it is. Just because you were fortunate enough to be born in a nice area to live, or got here earlier, or whatever, doesn't mean you should expect others who where less fortunate to stay in a shittier place. There's no innate rite of exclusivity. In fact, its quite the opposite: one of our nations primary freedoms is the freedom to travel unrestricted within our nation.

dexter2062 · 7 days

Understanding how compilers are implemented will give a you better understanding of how your every day code is translated into assembly and what assembly-level code in general looks like (registers, etc.), giving you a better understanding of what you're actually doing.

Further, a compiler is a complex application for which the design and implementation of many of the sub-components (e.g. parser) may be applicable in other areas.

Reading a book on compilers may or may not be the best way to learn those things, but your claim that it is totally irrelevant shows your lack of knowledge. Maybe you should read the dragon book :)

ramennoodle

TROPHY CASE

ramennoodle

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login