RubyConf '05
Brian McCallister
-Brian
Michael Neumann
> Any news on RubyConf '05 yet? ;-)
Hehe, and EuRuKo '05? ;-)
Regards,
Michael
Michael Neumann
> might well be able to go to only one of them.)
>
> As far as EuRuKo is concerned I raise my voice to locate it in wonderful
> Hamburg this year - or somewhere in Northern Europe (Denmark perhaps?).
Oh yes, Hamburg is damn cool... I am open for any suggestions. Of course
we'd need (if possible) some free rooms.
Regards,
Michael
Stephan Kämper
I vote for stating planning it. (Planning _them_ actually, although I
might well be able to go to only one of them.)
As far as EuRuKo is concerned I raise my voice to locate it in wonderful
Hamburg this year - or somewhere in Northern Europe (Denmark perhaps?).
Happy rubying and let's meet
Stephan
Chad Fowler
> Any news on RubyConf '05 yet? ;-)
>
> -Brian
>
>
I think we've got date and time figured out, but I don't want to
publicly say until consulting with my co-conspirators. We should be
able to say soon :)
--
Chad Fowler
http://chadfowler.com
http://rubycentral.org
http://rubygarden.org
http://rubygems.rubyforge.org (over 50,000 gems served!)
Harry Ohlsen
But no location, eh? Sydney's nice ... any time of year ;-).
************************************************************************
If you have received this e-mail in error, please delete it and notify the sender as soon as possible. The contents of this e-mail may be confidential and the unauthorized use, copying, or dissemination of it and any attachments to it, is prohibited.
Internet communications are not secure and Hyperion does not, therefore, accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message nor for any damage caused by viruses. The views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of Hyperion.
For more information about Hyperion, please visit our Web site at www.hyperion.com
David A. Black
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, Harry Ohlsen wrote:
>> I think we've got date and time figured out,
But no location, eh? Sydney's nice ... any time of year ;-).
Yes, location too -- sorry, not Sydney. Announcement to follow fairly
soon....
David
--
David A. Black
dbl...@wobblini.net
Premshree Pillai
> Hi --
>
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, Harry Ohlsen wrote:
>
> >> I think we've got date and time figured out,
>
> But no location, eh? Sydney's nice ... any time of year ;-).
>
> Yes, location too -- sorry, not Sydney. Announcement to follow fairly
> soon....
Damn, we should have it in India sometime. For one, there'll be more
Rubyists in India once that happens.
>
> David
>
> --
> David A. Black
> dbl...@wobblini.net
>
>
--
Premshree Pillai
http://www.livejournal.com/~premshree
Chad Fowler
>
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, Harry Ohlsen wrote:
>
> >> I think we've got date and time figured out,
>
> But no location, eh? Sydney's nice ... any time of year ;-).
>
> Yes, location too -- sorry, not Sydney. Announcement to follow fairly
> soon....
>
Aren't you all in my mind with me? Wasn't it obvious that "time"
meant location in this context? ;)
Jim Weirich
Chad Fowler said:
>> Yes, location too -- sorry, not Sydney. Announcement to follow fairly
>> soon....
>
> Aren't you all in my mind with me? Wasn't it obvious that "time"
> meant location in this context? ;)
Well, obviously you were speaking four dimensionally and meant a point in
Space/Time.
--
-- Jim Weirich j...@weirichhouse.org http://onestepback.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct,
not tried it." -- Donald Knuth (in a memo to Peter van Emde Boas)
Austin Ziegler
>
> Chad Fowler said:
> >> Yes, location too -- sorry, not Sydney. Announcement to follow fairly
> >> soon....
> >
> > Aren't you all in my mind with me? Wasn't it obvious that "time"
> > meant location in this context? ;)
>
> Well, obviously you were speaking four dimensionally and meant a point in
> Space/Time.
Range, not point. ;)
-austin
--
Austin Ziegler * halos...@gmail.com
* Alternate: aus...@halostatue.ca
Nicholas Van Weerdenburg
Really? Why is that?
Nick
--
Nicholas Van Weerdenburg
Austin Ziegler
<vanw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 01:00:33 +0900, Austin Ziegler <halos...@gmail.com > wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 23:44:33 +0900, Jim Weirich
<j...@weirichhouse.org > wrote:
>>> Chad Fowler said:
>>>>> Yes, location too -- sorry, not Sydney. Announcement to follow
>>>>> fairly soon....
>>>> Aren't you all in my mind with me? Wasn't it obvious that
>>>> "time" meant location in this context? ;)
>>> Well, obviously you were speaking four dimensionally and meant a
>>> point in Space/Time.
>> Range, not point. ;)
A point in spacetime is a single location and instant; a range
allows for both variance in location (e.g., the various locations of
the conference centre/hotel(s) and restaurants) and time (the
typically two and a half days of conference).
Nicholas Van Weerdenburg
Of course. I should have thought before posting.
It's actually a weird language thing- "at what point will you do this"
is maybe inaccurate since it implies both the start and end (or
superpowers). Though "point" deos have an overloaded meaning where
it's not of no size, but rather means a small range. But, it would
properly be the geometric definition if talking space-time.
Thanks,
Hal Fulton
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 23:44:33 +0900, Jim Weirich <j...@weirichhouse.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>Well, obviously you were speaking four dimensionally and meant a point in
>>Space/Time.
>
>
> Range, not point. ;)
>
Well, I for one will be there. Last time was some of the best thousands
of cubic-feet-hours I ever spent.
Hal
Mathieu Bouchard
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Hal Fulton wrote:
> Well, I for one will be there. Last time was some of the best thousands
> of cubic-feet-hours I ever spent.
If you use the Minkowski-Einstein principle that distance = time * speed
of light, then you can talk about some of the best million billion
quartic-feet instead. (feet**4)
.. or some really, really small amount of quartic-seconds.
;-)
_____________________________________________________________________
Mathieu Bouchard -=- Montréal QC Canada -=- http://artengine.ca/matju
Martin DeMello
>
> Damn, we should have it in India sometime. For one, there'll be more
> Rubyists in India once that happens.
+1
martin
Premshree Pillai
Yipee! :)
>
> martin
Tom Rathbone
How about in the UK?
What kind of facilities would be required?
Is there somewhere I could find out more about previous events?
Roughly what time of year are we looking at?
Tom.
Martin DeMello
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:20:54 +0900, Martin DeMello
> <martin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Premshree Pillai <premshre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Damn, we should have it in India sometime. For one, there'll be more
> > > Rubyists in India once that happens.
> >
> > +1
>
> Yipee! :)
I admit, I keep waiting for someone else to start up a Bangalore RUG :)
martin
martinus
all-time-and-space eating singularity called black hole would
ultimatively lead to the destruction of at least this solar system.
Taking all this into consideration, I think a range might be the better
choice for such an event.
martinus
Gavri Fernandez
Ralf Müller
Well,
for a small black-hole you need 15 x mass of the sun, which is 15 * 1,99*10^30 = 1.76261265e+16 kg.
With an average of 75 kg, there should be at least 2.3501502e+14 Rubyists (that's what I call "World Domination").
Lets take the population of the earth as standard, there must be 39170 totally rubyized planets out there (smells good, eh?).
I think, we have a new aim for for "RubyConf 3124".
BTW, a black-hole is considered to be inside the milky way.
ralf
Michael Neumann
Isn't that the proof that there are at least 2.3501502e+14 Rubyists out
there? ;-)
Regards,
Michael
Premshree Pillai
<martin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Premshree Pillai <premshre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:20:54 +0900, Martin DeMello
> > <martin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Premshree Pillai <premshre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Damn, we should have it in India sometime. For one, there'll be more
> > > > Rubyists in India once that happens.
> > >
> > > +1
> >
> > Yipee! :)
>
> I admit, I keep waiting for someone else to start up a Bangalore RUG :)
Damn, are you from Bangalore?! (I am, btw.) We should start some kinda group.
Premshree Pillai
yipee^2! :-)
>
> gavri
Josef 'Jupp' Schugt
> for a small black-hole you need 15 x mass of the sun, which is 15 *
> 1,99*10^30 = 1.76261265e+16 kg. With an average of 75 kg, there
> should be at least 2.3501502e+14 Rubyists (that's what I call "World
> Domination").
It is correct that it needs such a mass if the black hole is the result
of a collapsing star. Smaller masses do not form a black hole but a
neutron star (or something even less dense). IIRC it was the famous
indian theoretical physicist Subramanyan Chandraskhar who showed that
given a mass of more than 15 times that of the sun the pressure becomes
so huge that not even the supermassive neutron matter can stand and
collapses even further.
Nevertheless it is possible that black holes do exist that have a much
lower mass. To understand this one should recall what a black hole is.
The speed you need to escape from a gravitational field essentially
depends on two factors: The distance between you and the source of that
field and the mass of that source. From the mass of an object you can
compute a certain distance that is called the Schwartzschild radius. If
your distance to the object (more precisely: to its center of mass) is
smaller than this radius you would need to fly at superluminal speeds
which to the best of our best knowledge are impossible to reach.
There is one *extremely* important limitation to this: The statement is
only true if the Schwartzschild radius is larger than the actual size of
the physical body. If the Schwarzschild radius is smaller than the
physical size of the object (which is by far the most common case) the
Schwarzschild radius has no real-life meaning.
But what if the physical size of the object is smaller than its
Schwarzschild radius? In that case there is a region around the object
from wich nothing can escape. This is a black hole. The boundary of that
region is called the 'event horizon' of the black hole which means that
nothing beyond that horizion is an event that has any effect on the
region outside the black hole.
In principle the condition that the Schwarzschild radius is larger than
the physical size of the object can be met for *any* mass. Now enters
empirics. It is an unsolved question if black holes with small masses do
exist. Theoretical physics cannot decide, only nature knows. Up to now
no way of asking nature has been found.
Josef 'Jupp' Schugt
--
An often unanswered question in SciFi: Why does the Schwarzschild radius
mean a point of no return to space vessels that can fly faster than light?
Dick Davies
> An often unanswered question in SciFi: Why does the Schwarzschild radius
> mean a point of no return to space vessels that can fly faster than light?
Ah, but these ships never travel faster than light, they always do some kind
of 'warp' or 'wormhole' travel to bypass the speed limit...
--
'Bender, Ship, stop arguing or I'll come back there and change
your opinions manually.'
-- Leela
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns
Martin DeMello
>
> In principle the condition that the Schwarzschild radius is larger than
> the physical size of the object can be met for *any* mass. Now enters
> empirics. It is an unsolved question if black holes with small masses do
> exist. Theoretical physics cannot decide, only nature knows. Up to now
> no way of asking nature has been found.
Hawking proved they'd be unstable, at any rate.
martin
Eric Schwartz
> * Josef 'Jupp' Schugt <ju...@gmx.de> [0232 23:32]:
>> An often unanswered question in SciFi: Why does the Schwarzschild radius
>> mean a point of no return to space vessels that can fly faster than light?
>
> Ah, but these ships never travel faster than light, they always do some kind
> of 'warp' or 'wormhole' travel to bypass the speed limit...
Not necessarily; in Vernor Vinge's stories, the only reason we can't
do FTL now is that we live in a Slow Zone. If we could make it to the
Beyond, we'd be set.
-=Eric "But that's a bit of a hike"
--
Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million
typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare.
-- Blair Houghton.
Dick Davies
> Dick Davies <rasp...@hellooperator.net> writes:
> > * Josef 'Jupp' Schugt <ju...@gmx.de> [0232 23:32]:
> >> An often unanswered question in SciFi: Why does the Schwarzschild radius
> >> mean a point of no return to space vessels that can fly faster than light?
> >
> > Ah, but these ships never travel faster than light, they always do some kind
> > of 'warp' or 'wormhole' travel to bypass the speed limit...
>
> Not necessarily; in Vernor Vinge's stories, the only reason we can't
> do FTL now is that we live in a Slow Zone. If we could make it to the
> Beyond, we'd be set.
I thought Earth was in the Unthinking Deep, myself :)
(Vinge is a new discovery of mine - 'a fire on the deep' was a joy to read...)
--
'The old 'give em a Linux box and they think they're Jean-Luc Picard' syndrome.'
-- Pete Bentley
Dido Sevilla
More precisely, all black holes would, by their emission of Hawking
radiation, be fundamentally unstable, and the smaller they are the
more radiation they would emit. However, for a typical black hole
generated by stellar collapse the amount of Hawking radiation emitted
is so low that the predicted possible lifetime of such a black hole
would be of the order of 1e63 years, much, much, much longer than the
age of the universe. A small primordial black hole with a mass of
several billion tons OTOH would have a lifetime of about 1e10 years,
roughly the age of the universe, so if Hawking's theory is correct
most of them would have evaporated by now, but the larger ones might
still be around. Such "black holes" would actually be emitting vast
quantities of Hawking radiation, so a sensitive gamma ray detector
might be able to detect their presence, and their final demise could
possibly account for some of the large gamma ray bursts that have been
observed.
If Hawking radiation is true, then that would be one way of detecting
low mass black holes.
gabriele renzi
> * Josef 'Jupp' Schugt <ju...@gmx.de> [0232 23:32]:
>
>>An often unanswered question in SciFi: Why does the Schwarzschild radius
>>mean a point of no return to space vessels that can fly faster than light?
>
>
> Ah, but these ships never travel faster than light, they always do some kind
> of 'warp' or 'wormhole' travel to bypass the speed limit...
iirc, "pulse velocity" in star trek is up to 9.5 times faster than
light (but they still use warps for bigger distance).
Worth noting that the reason they can't escape from a black hole, in
at least one episode, is they think of the event horizon as something
"solid". Actually they do escape by finding some kind of "leak" in the
event horizon :)
Eric Hodel
>
> Josef 'Jupp' Schugt
> --
> An often unanswered question in SciFi: Why does the Schwarzschild
> radius
> mean a point of no return to space vessels that can fly faster than
> light?
There are hyperspace monsters living around the gravity wells. Go to
close and your ship gets eaten.
--
Eric Hodel - drb...@segment7.net - http://segment7.net
FEC2 57F1 D465 EB15 5D6E 7C11 332A 551C 796C 9F04
Stephan Kämper
> Few Qs...
>
> How about in the UK?
For the EUROKO? That would be fine for me. Haven't been to the UK for a
long time...
> What kind of facilities would be required?
What comes to my mind right now is:
* at least one lecture room, equipped with the usual stuff
(video projector, power supply, 'net access)
* some kind of PC or 'net access for notebook users/owners, perhaps
* some nice pubs etc. for lunch and dinner
* affordable accommodation (B&B perhaps)
> Is there somewhere I could find out more about previous events?
http://www.approximity.com/euruko03/slides/
and
http://www.ruby-doc.org/EuRuKo2004Pix/
> Roughly what time of year are we looking at?
Whatever suits the organisers and (most) participants most, I'd think.
And we need to be able to do the organising before. A spring meeting
would be too soon; some time outside the school holidays in summer or
autumn should be OK.
Happy rubying
Stephan
Josef 'Jupp' Schugt
> Josef 'Jupp' Schugt <ju...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
>> In principle the condition that the Schwarzschild radius is larger
>> than the physical size of the object can be met for *any* mass.
>
IIRC he showed that *all* black holes are unstable. Something unstable
can exist: A girls best friend wouldn't exist otherwise because diamonds
are not stable at pressures in the 100 kPa region.
Josef 'Jupp' Schugt
Josef 'Jupp' Schugt
> On 04 Feb 2005, at 15:32, Josef 'Jupp' Schugt wrote:
>> An often unanswered question in SciFi: Why does the Schwarzschild radius
>> mean a point of no return to space vessels that can fly faster than
>> light?
>
> There are hyperspace monsters living around the gravity wells. Go to
> close and your ship gets eaten.
Superluminal speed ist nothing that requires a hyperspace. The relative
speed of galaxies for example is known to exceed the speed of light. As
long as the speed is a result of changing properties of space this need
not violate GRT. A warp drive uses the same principle (theoretically it
may be possible to build one, practically it is impossible).
Josef 'Jupp' Schugt
Tim Bates
> Superluminal speed ist nothing that requires a hyperspace. The relative
> speed of galaxies for example is known to exceed the speed of light.
No, it's not. You've forgotten your elementary relativity. If you have
two galaxies on opposite sides of the universe (call them A and B) with
an observer in between (called O) then from O's frame of reference the
sum of the speeds of A and B might exceed c (the speed of light),
although neither galaxy's individual speed can exceed c, BUT from A's
frame of reference B's speed does not exceed c and vice versa.
If this sounds bizarre and impossible to you, you haven't studied physics.
Tim.
--
Tim Bates
t...@bates.id.au
Hal Fulton
I think he's misunderstanding certain observations that seem to indicate
superluminal velocities. I forget exactly how it works, but it's essentially
an optical illusion. Something about making the (invalid) assumption that
light from both ends of a jet left at the same time.
Hal
Andrew Walrond
Depends how you define 'relative'. If your understanding of "the relative
speed of galaxies" is "from O's frame of reference the sum of the speeds of A
and B" then they are actually in full agreement ;)
Of course "speed" as a scaler is misused here; the quantity needs direction to
make much sence (velocity), but of course the maths becomes interesting as
space begins to curve...
I have studied physics, but it still "sounds bizarre and impossible" to me ;)
Andrew Walrond
This is the most interesting thread I've read in ages :)
Jason N.Perkins
On Feb 6, 2005, at 4:30 PM, Andrew Walrond wrote:
> This is the most interesting thread I've read in ages :)
Then I have to wonder if you and the other participants in this thread
shouldn't consider joining a mailing list where this type of content is
topically appropriate and leave this list for discussions specific to
Ruby.
--
Jason N Perkins
<http://sneer.org/>
Andrew Walrond
>
> Then I have to wonder if you and the other participants in this thread
> shouldn't consider joining a mailing list where this type of content is
> topically appropriate and leave this list for discussions specific to
> Ruby.
>
Had a bad day? ;)
Jason N.Perkins
Not at all, but given the volume of this list, off-topic threads that
last for days are becoming an increasing burden. And finding a list
where that type of content is topically appr. means that those who are
interested can subscribe to it and those of us that aren't won't have
to deal with subjects that we're really not interested in as opposed to
say, Ruby. Which is what I signed up to this list to become better
informed about.
Out of curiosity, would you crash an AA meetings and discuss Ruby
development? Just saying.
Jeremy Henty
N.Perkins wrote:
> Out of curiosity, would you crash an AA meetings and discuss Ruby
> development? Just saying.
Look, I'm *not* addicted to Ruby! I could give up writing Ruby code
any time I wanted to, just like that! I just don't *want* to!
Cheers,
Jeremy Henty
Caio Tiago Oliveira
> Josef 'Jupp' Schugt wrote:
>
>> (...) The relative speed of galaxies for example is known to exceed
>> the speed of light.
>
>
> No, it's not. You've forgotten your elementary relativity. If you
> have two galaxies on opposite sides of the universe (call them A and
> B) with an observer in between (called O) then from O's frame of
> reference the sum of the speeds of A and B might exceed c (the speed
> of light), although neither galaxy's individual speed can exceed c,
> BUT from A's frame of reference B's speed does not exceed c and vice
> versa.
>
> If this sounds bizarre and impossible to you, you haven't studied
> physics.
I studied physics and I agreed with Josef.
The universe is in a expansion (an acelerated one). The universe wich is
visible to us is smaller than the whole universe, just because the
galaxies outside the visible universe are moving away from us faster
than the light they emit, so we never see this light.
The faster the universe is expanding, less we can see, the near the
galaxies move away faster than the light.
Hal Fulton
Your point is taken, but at least this one is marked OT. That automatically
makes it ten times as tolerable (IMO) as an off-topic thread not marked
as such.
On one hand, you're correct that off-topic posts should be kept to a
minimum. On the other hand, if they're marked, they're horrifically
easy to skip over. Unless one is connecting at 300 baud, bandwidth
shouldn't be an issue.
Hal
Josef 'Jupp' Schugt
Hash: SHA1
Tim Bates wrote:
| Josef 'Jupp' Schugt wrote:
|
|> Superluminal speed ist nothing that requires a hyperspace. The
|> relative speed of galaxies for example is known to exceed the speed of
|> light.
|
| If you have two galaxies on opposite sides of the universe (call them
| A and B) with an observer in between (called O) then from O's frame
| of reference the sum of the speeds of A and B might exceed c (the
| speed of light), although neither galaxy's individual speed can
| exceed c, BUT from A's frame of reference B's speed does not exceed c
| and vice versa.
Actually it is the distance as a property of space-time that increases
faster than c. This means that light from B has no chance to reach A. So
~ no information from B reaches A and relativity is not violated.
The problem of frames of reference leeds me to the following question:
Say object A and B represent two physical objects moving at relativistic
speed. Should A.speed(B) represent the speed of B in the frame of
reference of A or the speed of A in the frame of reference of B?
Josef 'Jupp' Schugt
- --
Currently running Aurox 10.1 Quicksilver.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCB3Unrhv7B2zGV08RAhMtAKC3awqdZCmpeuqXr5vsfnWk9K7qQQCeI7Fk
aRV2oGvQl+nYLN8ARpGQ48w=
=+xGn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Ralf Müller
Again special relativity: c is the highest speed possible. What about this axiom?
And how do you get any clue that galaxies (you don't even see) can move faster than light.
Ralf Müller
"Josef 'Jupp' Schugt" <ju...@gmx.de> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Tim Bates wrote:
> | Josef 'Jupp' Schugt wrote:
> |
> |> Superluminal speed ist nothing that requires a hyperspace. The
> |> relative speed of galaxies for example is known to exceed the speed of
> |> light.
> |
> | If you have two galaxies on opposite sides of the universe (call them
> | A and B) with an observer in between (called O) then from O's frame
> | of reference the sum of the speeds of A and B might exceed c (the
> | speed of light), although neither galaxy's individual speed can
> | exceed c, BUT from A's frame of reference B's speed does not exceed c
> | and vice versa.
>
> Actually it is the distance as a property of space-time that increases
> faster than c. This means that light from B has no chance to reach A. So
> ~ no information from B reaches A and relativity is not violated.
>
> The problem of frames of reference leeds me to the following question:
>
> Say object A and B represent two physical objects moving at relativistic
> speed. Should A.speed(B) represent the speed of B in the frame of
> reference of A or the speed of A in the frame of reference of B?
>
> Josef 'Jupp' Schugt
Isn't this just a question of definition? If A.speed(B) stands for one thing, maybe b.speed(A) should stay for the other, but this is just a language topic. What is intuitive and what is not.
I think the main thing is, that there are two speeds, both having equal rights.