Posts by Vociferous

Re: Science: Eleventy Billion! Religion: 0

How would time dilation in our universe be observable to an observer in another universe? There's an event horizon between us.

Also, if the idea is that our universe has moved so fast that it's suffered time dilation, then time runs slower in the other universe, and (assuming the figures are right) you have to multiply our 14 billion years with 10^12 to get how long the outside observer thinks our universe has existed.

Re: "Mu"

> "before" is just implying outside in one particular dimension (time)

The problem is that it implies an earlier point in time, like "lower" implies a lesser altitude and "shorter" implies less distance. But in our universe there is no point in time earlier than zero, just like there is no distance shorter than zero. The question then becomes "are there other universes", which brings you solidly into the realm of free speculations like the Multiverse theory and the 'the universe is a computer simulation' theory.

> now we know that FTL spacetime expansion is real, it's time to roll our sleeves up and build that space drive!

There have been proposed FTL travel methods which are based on manipulating spacetime.

(Needless to say, it's easier said than done)

Re: "expansion of space briefly exceeded the speed of light "

> Space CAN move (expand) faster than light speed as it has no mass

Space does not move. Space is the dimensions of the universe: length, breadth, height, time (plus the little squiggly ones). They're the axles on the graph in which objects in spacetime are plotted. They can change, but to say that e.g. "length" moves is nonsensical.

Re: "expansion of space briefly exceeded the speed of light "

> But if the train was moving at c (the speed of light) relative to an observer, it would seem to the observer that you're both moving at c; even though to you you're moving forwards along the train to the observer you're frozen still.

Relativity has wierd effects, but none of them (AFAIK) produce a measurable "greater than c" velocity for an object.

You're taking issue with a simple example where a changing reference frame lead to odd conclusions. If you can suggest a better everyday analogy in which changes in the dimensions of space produce easily observable effects, I'm all ears -- I admit I struggled. I toyed with a rewrite of the 'rabbit and the tortoise' paradox, which is based on manipulating time, but it didn't make things clearer.

The expansion of space itself is both why we can see objects further away than the age of the universe, and why the light from them is redshifted (the wavelength of the light has been increased by the expansion of space itself). If you could backtrack the light, you'd find that even though it has covered 30 billion light years in 14 billion years, it has never moved faster than c. Neither the object nor the light is moving at greater than c, it's the reference frame, space itself, which has changed.

Re: Correction, Mr. T

AFAIK inflation theory explains the temperature differences as being caused by quantum fluctuations in the temperature of the very early universe, being inflated to multi-galaxy-cluster size when the universe inflated.

Re: "expansion of space briefly exceeded the speed of light "

> Not seem.

Yes seem. No object is moving at more than light speed, which is a good thing as that is impossible.

Let's say you're walking forward inside a train moving at 200 km/h. Inside the train, in your reference frame, your walking speed is 2 km/h like it's always been, but to an observer outside the train it might seem as if you're walking at an incredible 202 km/h.

An example: the most distant galaxy found is roughly 30 billion light years away, but the universe is only 14 billion years old, and light clearly can't move faster than the speed of light in vacuum -- so how could the light have reached us? Because the universe, the ruler you're measuring the distance with, is expanding.

Re: Le résumé de la situation

Wow. Imagine if only there was some actor -- let's call it "a state" -- which would guarantee bank deposits if the bank stealingspeculating with or investing the money was unable to pay the customer when he wanted his deposit back...

Also, does anyone really think the Magic The Gathering Online eXchange is just an innocent victim in this?

Re: Viruses and malware

> If you browse the web logged on as Admin you deserve everything you get.

So in other words nothing at all?

Re: Micro-USB is too flimsy

> the flimsiest piece of garbage imaginable, being much less robust in practice than the Mini-USB

I've never managed to break any of mine, but I guess it may happen. That said, Micro USB is rated for 10 000 insertion cycles, while Mini USB was rated for 5000 insertion cycles.

Re: Suck it, Apple.

> Nevermind that microUSB will be obsolete and replaced by the reversible Type-C USB connector before this goes into effect in 2017.

Yeah, honestly, never mind that. The Micro-USB is good enough. That the Type-C is smaller and reversible doesn't change anything. The options here are a) each manufacturer comes up with its own connector and its own standards, forcing us back to the charger hell of the early noughties, OR b) Micro-USB.

If down the road Type-C is found to be so much better that it's worth updating the standard, then by all means the EU should do so -- they can do that you know -- but the future existence of Type-C is in itself in no way an argument against having a EU mandated standard.

Re: no surprise here

> Wrong

Secure Boot is junk. It solves a nearly nonexistent problem (boot sector viruses -- I haven't even seen one since I owned an Amiga!) by adding an encryption mechanism which only Microsoft owns the keys to, and which can and already has been used to prevent installation of other OS's.

Re: no surprise here

> secure boot inhibits dual boot

Yes, it seems to me as if the main purpose of "secure boot" is to prevent the installation of alternative OS's.

> Except that it is likely to cause the phone to be more expensive.

It might, yes. As I said, I'd prefer to be able to decide which single OS I want installed on my cellphone.

Re: 1000 Users!

> What about Chrome? Is there a Metro version of that?

Kindof, sortof. There's a Chrome which runs under Metro but it has Chrome OS interface.

Re: A good decision

A lot of people simply refused to believe that it was physically possible for a Windows to bomb, and a lot of people assumed that the worst misfeatures (like the missing start menu and constant in-your-faceness of Metro) were things that Microsoft would quickly fix. You'll find words to that effect in nearly all reviews of the public beta.

Re: no surprise here

> MS should be begging for dual boot everywhere - not trying to kill it.

They're begging for dual boot where they're weak (mobile phones), not where they're strong (PC:s), as dual-booting with a weaker competitor only helps the competitor.

For the exact same reason Google isn't interested in having Windows dual boot with Android on mobile phones.

From the customer's point of view, dualboot or no is not a major issue, but it would benefit customers to be able to choose what OS to install on their cellphones.

Re: isp commercial censorship

(cue libertarians explaining to you why this can never happen, because Liberty and Invisible Hand of the Truly Free Market)

Re: Some of this makes me want for "simpler" times.

Surely The Reg should be somewhere in the comp.sci.* hierarchy, or maybe talk.*, not alt.*?

As a bit of a sidenote, I just noticed that Google has destroyed the groups search function -- the advanced search is gone, so it is no longer possible to search for specific groups or posts from a specific time. It's a shame, as the UseNet archive was the only place one could get a good feel for how people felt about, say, Windows 95 on release.

Re: Stop who?

> I care that the NSA is spying on me because what the NSA finds they share.

To standard law enforcement? They don't. They have a very limited set of interests, which do not extend to, for instance, my pirated Farscape DVD. The reason they don't pass material to law enforcement is that they have a task considered more important than catching murderers, tax evaders, or even software pirates, and passing on information would expose them and harm their ability to carry out that more important mission.

If the Metropolitan police early one morning kick down my door for that pirated DVD, it will not be because NSA or GCHQ intercepted this conversation and tracked it back to me. It will instead be because the Metropolitan police did, all on their own.

> Americans and Brits conduct economic espionage against other countries too.

Military secrets yes, commercial ones not so much. Mainly state surveillance comes into play during arms deals or bidding for very large contracts, as in the west patents are enforced. If a start-up wind power firm in the UK stole vital technical details from the market leader they would be sued. When start-up firms in China did it, the Western market leader, Vesta, got harassed by the Chinese government until they signed away their patents.

> The state should not be able to tap an undersea cable to catch me downloading Farscape. That falls into the realm of "petty crimes"

I agree. And so do, to the best of my knowledge, all defense intelligence organizations. There have been calls recently that the GCHQ should use its surveillance to catch pedophiles; I oppose this because it isn't their job, and using military capabilities against citizens sets a bad precedent. Of course, soon standard law enforcement will have capabilities similar to those of the military organizations -- and then what?

> Innocent unless proven guilty. When the government can spy on everything that everyone does how does that concept apply? How do we enforce it? Where do we enforce it?

The answer to all three of your questions is "randomly". That is effectively how it works. The entire population is criminalized by this approach, and police, politicians and journalists randomly pick citizens for prosecution.

If I was feeling charitable I'd say the "random sampling" approach is intended to reduce crime by making examples, but I don't believe it. I believe the "random sampling" is the result of an unattainable ideal of zero crime colliding with the reality that it is not possible to go through life without committing petty crimes on a daily basis, often without even knowing.

Re: Stop who?

> You've never been married have you?

Not in a GOOD marriage, at least. Insisting on deciding everything is possible, but so very not worth it.

Re: Stop who?

> So what do I care if they attempt to blackmail me?

If you ask yourself why you care if NSA is spying on you, you likely also answer the question what the FSB or Chinese secret service could do to you.

> As for stealing vital secrets...so what?

I am of course happy to see that you are so on the ball. Wind power, solar power, and IC circuits were industries which weren't able to do what you can -- when they had their technologies stolen and copied, they got outcompeted.

> Our own governments and their allies are far greater threats to the average person and business than the Russia/China boogeyman.

How do you reckon? I've never even heard of anyone getting arrested by the NSA or based on NSA evidence; the number of cases must be very easily counted.

Like I've said before: the focus on NSA/GCHQ is a bit unfortunate, not just because it ignores the equally big threat from other countries, but especially because it ignores that most people are under much greater threat from the rising capabilities of "standard" law enforcement agencies. NSA and FSB wont give a crap that I've got a copy of the "Farscape: The Peacekeeper Wars" DVD on my computer, but the FBI or Metropolitan Police would kick my door down and haul me off to prison.

Re: done it well?

> For one, they haven't been very successful at increasing or maintaining national security

You don't know that. In fact, none of us have the slightest inkling of a clue what they have reported or how things would have played out without NSA, GCHQ & friends.

> one could argue that they have seriously decreased everybody's security

No, one could not. They have decreased everyone's privacy, but risk is unchanged or decreased. Lack of information, for instance leading to inability to determine that an informer is lying or if Iran is close to obtaining nukes, increases risk.

> doing "one's job" without questioning the ethics is often looked down upon in civilized society

Yes, but this isn't civilized society: this is national security and war.

> then there's the little matter of what they've been doing being illegal.

Some of it sure, but since they did it at the behest of the politicians no one will ever be sent to prison for it. Except for the spying on that Senate committee, that is the one single thing in the Snowden files which will lead to heads rolling.

Re: Stop who?

> Maybe China and Russia have similar programs.

They do.

> Oh well. Who cares? Their spying programs won't impact me or mine unless I try to enter their country.

Except, of course, they use what they find to blackmail you or steal vital secrets from the company you work for (or own).

Re: The government has changed its talking points

> So the best interest of the poor downtrodden prole is not to support his own country is it?

It is in the best interest of the poor & downtrodden to not die, at least when all that's on the line is the interests of rich and powerful people. There are situations when it is in the best interests of the poor & downtrodden to fight -- for instance, to rid themselves of an oppressive dictator, or in defense against an oppressive or genocidal invader -- but in those cases you do not need nationalism to get them to fight. You need nationalism when they otherwise would not have fought. Fighting for < insert country here > was always a bullshit reason, emotive language designed to tug at the heart strings in order to bypass the brain.

Re: The government has changed its talking points

> The "national interest" hasn't included the common person for a long time.

I would argue that it never has.

> The "national interest" is and has been for quite some time about power. Big business = money = power

That was always the case.

Nationalism is irrational, it is, literally and completely, nothing but powerful people's mindgame to get less powerful people to act against their own best interest.