The Black Hole

If you launch a Flat Earth believer into space (a) what is the probability that they will return convinced the earth is spherical?

(b) If they are launched at escape velocity, what is the percentage of the population that would care?

Can a capacitor go bad even though there are not visible external signs of failure such as bulges or leaks? I am inspecting an inverter board for an older Apple Cinema display that has an intermittent backlight failure. The common diagnosis is failed capacitors on the inverter board, but mine appear ok.

Near the end of James Bond Spectre I had to go to the bathroom. I left just after he escaped from the crater facility and met up with M in London. He was saying goodbye to the girl…

When I got back he was being held by some thugs with his head covered, then overpowered them and fled into the building to find his girlfriend.

What happened in between? How did he and the girl get captured?

We used to be able to click an email option on the user profile if the user allowed emails, but I don t see this option anywhere, even on my own profile. I made the email option active on my privacy preferences, but it does not appear when I look at my profile as an anonymous user.

Does the email option exist anymore? If so, how do you access it?

This post contains movie spoilers. Don't read if you have not seen the movie.

The situation is, the circular 'mothership' Endurance has been damaged by a collision with another craft attempting to dock, and is set into a flat rotation on its (supposed) radial axis. In fact, a substantial portion of its circumference and mass has been lost. The remaining spacecraft attempts a 'spinning dock' by matching the axial rotation of the main craft.

In the film, the main ship is spinning precisely around its central axis, at which the docking bay is located. Without the balanced mass around its circumference this would not be possible. The moment of inertial would have been displaced away from the center due to the loss of part of the ship. If the ship was to go into a spin, the docking bay would follow a wildly eccentric spiral path. That does not even consider the possible precession that could occur due to the off-axis forces in the collision.

In order to dock, the passenger craft would not only have to match the rotation rate, which it does in the film, but it would have to somehow keep its docking bay aligned to the same eccentric spiral while consistently maintaining the exact same spin rate. No matter what kind of computer was in control, there is no way a ship of that mass would react quickly and precisely enough to accomplish that.

Am I incorrect?

I don't believe in this sensationalized scare tactic, but what I read about it makes no sense. In most accounts, believing christians will mysteriously vanish from the earth and be taken up to heaven in the blink of an eye.

Why would their bodies disappear? There is no purpose for their bodies in heaven. When people die, and their 'souls' apparently go to heaven, their bodies don't disappear.

So if the Rapture where to actually happen, it makes more sense that some people would simply drop dead as their souls are taken away. And if it does happen, I seriously doubt it will even be noticed by the population at large, since there are truly very few people on earth that would qualify.

And it has to be free. I don't want to pay for

expensive classes.

Some of my purchased DVD movies are beginning to have playback problems.

Somewhere near the middle of the movie the playback will begin to stutter and breakup, then pause a few times, then just stop altogether.

It seems to occur progressively on discs that previously showed no problems. The discs have no damage or soiling - they are spotlessly clean and in perfect condition.

I'm wondering if the problem is with my player. Maybe the laser is wearing out or the tracking mechanism? I have dozens of other movies old and new and they play fine. Just a few odd ones that at first played perfectly, and later started failing at certain spots.

Whats wrong with this logic?

The odds of winning the California Supper Lotto is 18 million to 1

If one person purchased all 18 million possible combinations

they would be guaranteed to win.

Assume the jackpot is worth 100 million.

What if I went to the lottery officials and made this proposal…

If I spend 18 million $ and buy every unique number I can win your

jackpot. But rather than go through all that trouble, why don't I just

give you the 18 million and you give me the jackpot?

Or to make it even better for you, give me just 1/5 of the jackpot, or

20 million. That would make it fair for any other winners - the possibility of which

is slim.

Or yet, why bother with the tedious transactions. Just pretend I gave you the

18 million and just give me the difference - 2 million.

In fact, if you just give me a million dollars I'll get out of your

hair completely.

What you you rather loose? 100 million or just 1 million?

Whats wrong with this logic?

The odds of winning the California Supper Lotto is 18 million to 1

If one person purchased all 18 million possible combinations

they would be guaranteed to win.

Assume the jackpot is worth 100 million.

What if I went to the lottery officials and made this proposal…

If I spend 18 million $ and buy every unique number I can win your

jackpot. But rather than go through all that trouble, why don't I just

give you the 18 million and you give me the jackpot?

Or to make it even better for you, give me just 1/5 of the jackpot, or

20 million. That would make it fair for any other winners - the possibility of which

is slim.

Or yet, why bother with the tedious transactions. Just pretend I gave you the

18 million and just give me the difference - 2 million.

In fact, if you just give me a million dollars I'll get out of your

hair completely.

What you you rather loose? 100 million or just 1 million?

Find the arc length of the curve

f(x)=x^4 /8 + 1/(4x^2)

over the interval [2,3]

Using the arc length formula ∫√(1+ f'(x)^2)

I get this as the integrand after differentiating the function, squaring it, and simplifying everything under the radical.

∫√(1/2 + 1/4 x^6 - 1/(4x^6))

I cannot find the anti-derivative of this. The method should be fairly simple since this problem assumes no more than basic substitution or numerical integration.

What is that loop hanging over the left hip of Hatsune Miku, Len, Rin, and Kuka?

...they just make cheesy, low-budget movies.

What is it about great artists when they get old? Do they just go senile at a certain point, or do they just stop caring? I can think of 3 great directors of the 70's whose latest works where unfit for the discount straight-to-video rack.

I just saw the latest film from Francis Ford Coppola called Twixt, that I don't recall ever made it to the theater. It was super low-budget, and not too well written or acted. It wasn't totally bad, but could have been better. Anyway, I couldn't help thinking , "This is the same guy that directed Godfather 1 and 2, and Apocalypse Now?"

Same thing with William Freidkin of The Exorcist and French Connection fame. The last fil of his I saw was a low-budget video called "Bug" and featured 2 actors in a closet. I happened to like the movie generally, but it still seemed beneath someone of his stature.

Last is Richard Donner of The Omen, Superman, and Lethal Weapon fame. The last show of his I saw was an abysmal time travel movie with no budget and unknown actors. I felt embarrassed for him while watching it.

Do old folks really loose their mojo that much, or are they just victims of studio prejudice for younger talent? I guess now its just a matter of time till we see Scorcese and Spielberg drop their first really big turd.

Which do you find more entertaining? Which will over-take and outlast the other?

My vote is with Miku.

I'm over 50, and just recently discovered Miku. I don't care for her recorded music, but love her concert performances with live bands. The songs are original, clever, up-beat, and infectiously memorable.

I watched a Lady Gaga concert on tv once and was not impressed. There was only 1 or 2 songs that stuck in my mind, and the rest I was happy to forget. She is vulgar and relies on shock and decadence to get attention. Mind you I am an an Alice Cooper fan from the 70's and still am, so I am not thin-skinned.

I just find Miku songs musically superior, and her performances - along with her accomplices; Rin, Len, Meiko, Kaito, and Luka - fun, and allow me to forget about the misery and depravity of the world that Lady Gaga is so determined to remind me of.

I believe I am still part of the minority, but not for much longer. What say you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL5YKZ9ecpg

What an uninspired, unoriginal, and ridiculous installment of the beloved Trek franchise.

Seriously, they were so bereft of ideas that their only recourse was to rehash the most popular episode in the movie series, and succeed in ripping it into incomprehensible shreds?

Are there no sacred icons in Hollywood anymore? What's next? Casablanca and Citizen Kane?

If you are going to rip-off a successful movie at least have the decency to make it better.

I shudder to think what is in store for Star Wars in the hands of JJ Abrahms. What a hack!

Do I have to claim my max $3000 carryover even if it has no effect on my total taxable income?

I have a large loss carryover from previous years. My total taxable income this year will amount to zero after taking the standard deduction and exemptions. Claiming the capital loss carryover would be a waste of the deduction, since I don't need it to reduce my income.

Do I have to claim it regardless of the circumstances? Or can I hold it over until the following years when I might have a reduceable income?

I do have a long-term gain that will be offset on schedule D. But if I don't take the additional allowed <$3000> for an over-all capital loss will that be lost?

I did see this in the IRS docs ...

" When you figure the amount of any capital loss carryover to the next year, you must take the current year's allowable deduction into account, whether or not you claimed it and whether or not you filed a return for the current year."

This appears to indicate that the max deduction must be taken no matter what the circumstances.

i.e. Use it or loose it.

Is this the general rule?

I had a physics/calculus problem to calculate the lesser of 2 work problems moving water into a tank.

I think their answer is wrong, or at least short sighted... what is correct? Here is the problem...

"Pumping water from a lake 15-ft below the bottom of the tank can fill the cylindrical tank shown here. (See figure 1) There are two ways to go about it. One is to pump the water through a hose attached to a valve in the bottom of the tank. The other is to attach the hose to the rim of the tank and let the water pour in. Which way will be faster? Give reason for answer."

Though it was not stated, I can only assume that the rate of work performed is constant for either example in order to make the comparison fair. They claim that pumping the water to the bottom of the tank requires less work and therefore faster. They integrate over the height of the tank, being 6 ft. and 2 ft. radius. Their integrand for pumping to the bottom is (62.4 lb/ft^3 water weight) * 62.4 * 4pi * (15 +y) dy

The integrand for pumping to the top is 62.4 * 4pi * 21 (total height to top of tank) dy .

The bottom method equals less work, buy I claim that it is leaving out an important factor.

That is, the total force on the water being pushed into the tank increases as the tank fills up.

You not only have to push against gravity, but against the increasing water pressure building up from the water above the bottom of the tank. That increasing factor increases the force in the integrand over the range of integration. Accounting for this the total work done by pumping to the bottom of the tank is greater.

Is this the correct thinking for this problem? Does the weight of the water in the tank contribute to the force required to pump the water up to the tank?

Does anyone have experience keeping a free-roaming Tokay Gecko in their house or apartment?

I live in a medium size 1 bdrm apartment with a cockroach problem. I catch or find 1 or 2 nearly every day. Big ones, 1 1/2 - 2 inches long. I thought it might be interesting to let a gecko loose to take care of the roaches. I'm not interested in taming it, but it would make an interesting house-mate.

I asked a local pet shop owner about it and he said it is perfectly do-able. He said he had a mouse infestation in the shop and let several Tokay's loose, and they cleaned it up, and still live free in the shop.

I'd like to know if there are any special considerations in doing this .

I don't want to keep it in a terrarium, but would be willing to provide it with a climbing and hiding area in the kitchen where most of the roaches appear. I would cater to any special needs, but I want it to have free run of the apt. There are no other pets or children in the apt. just me.

Anyone see This psychological mystery/thriller with Sigourney Weaver and Robert Deniro?

I'm confused about the ending.

Did the young research assistant trying to debunk Simon Silver end up being the one with super psychic powers? If so, that is really stupid. I was starting to like the movie until the ending, which doesn't seem to make any sense at all.

If there is some logic to it please explain.

I'm unclear about what gets included into the final program when a compiler reads the #include or import directives of various function or class libraries.

Does the entire library get inserted into the program, or does the compiler read in only the functions or classes that appear in the source code? It would seem like a lot of wasted memory if the entire library is included when only a single function or class was needed.