Black Hole Swallows Star 166
Thorfinn.au writes "The New Scientist writes a conjectural piece to explain the light pattern of SCP 06F6 in what was first identified as a supernova — but observations show a skewed and stretched light curve not fitting with an current theoretical explanation of exploding stars. Also, the discussion in the comments is interesting."
"discussion in the comments" (Score:3, Funny)
and you couldn't summarize the "discussion in the comments" in the summary because...
Re:"discussion in the comments" (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can see why the article had so many "breached terms of service" posts, considering the title "Black 'ho swallows star". That sounds like a porn movie.
Because it's not interesting. (Score:5, Insightful)
Aside from all the "This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed" messages, most of the comments are by kooks or people who clearly misunderstood the article (like the guy who saw a 2s flare in Delphinus).
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
+1 funny (Score:2)
Re:Because it's not interesting. (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the comments I like is the fellow who complains that:
So called scientific "facts" such as, black holes, big bang, stretched space, warped space, spacetime and so on,are merely flawed mathematical constructs. They have never been observed
What always strikes me with these sort of comments is the underlying belief that scientists are hiding something from the rest of us. Don't these posters realize that they're complaining about this "supposed conspiracy theory" in an article where scientists are openly admitting that they saw something they don't understand?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
If they just told us what they saw and not what they think it might be they'd simply be talking telescopes, not scientists. It's also disingenuous to suggest that they aren't publishing the original observations for third-party analysis -- they just aren't publishing those observations in the press release.
WHO said it WAS a black hole? (Score:5, Insightful)
The scientists gave a number of possible interpretations. The journalist who wrote the article, or his editor, picked the most interesting-sounding explanation for the thrust of the article.
I think anyone familiar with Slashdot summaries should be aware of this distinction.
LOOK at your TITLE bar! (Score:2)
Although I do see your point about TFS on /. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
"Free-floating black hole may solve space 'firefly' mystery"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Because it's not interesting. (Score:5, Informative)
Same with the neutron stars, or pulsars allegedly being stars that "rotate faster than dentist drills." The impossible is far more likely than the improbable.
And... what's so improbable about a massive and extremely dense object spinning rapidly, vs an even more massive but much less dense object spinning at a rate that is proportionally slower?
I'd say that the impossible, in this case violating Conservation of Angular Momentum, is usually what is far more improbable.
Re:Because it's not interesting. (Score:4, Interesting)
The article does say that someone has proposed this as the best fit to the details of the observed data, while someone has proposed something else (a massive supernova of a star surrounded by carbon dust). Dozens of other possibilities probably got considered and rejected before making the article. If you read the actual scientific papers they will likely consider many more alternatives and explain in detail why they don't fit what's observed. They will also describe in detail
If you want the raw details you need to read the papers and be prepared for some maths (in which they work out which theories fit the data and which don't). The idea that pulsars are neutron stars, for instance, emerged over several years and was confirmed as the predictions it made about what kinds of patterns would, and wouldn't be seen in pulsar radiation panned out. Many other ideas fell by the wayside.
The real data is published and discussed, multiple interpretations are considered, but in scholarly articles, not in press releases.
ATTN: Slashdot Monitor, Galactic Navigators Guild (Score:2, Informative)
Quoting this for your attention just in case (once again) your filter software fails to pick up on a communication whose existence your Guild would prefer to ignore:
The thing is, they DIDN'T see a black hole swallowing a star. They saw a massive burst of radiation. But they describe NOT what they actually observed, but their interpretation of what they observed instead. Are there no other possible sources for massive bursts of radiation than black holes swallowing stars? Given the aberrant numbers of high energy particles entering our star system, I would say it's premature indeed. Same with the neutron stars, or pulsars allegedly being stars that "rotate faster than dentist drills."
Can it be any more clear that the indigenous technosavvies of this backward planet are about to see through the ruses you have been feeding them, and recognize the artifacts of your warp ship accelerations for what they are? How long do you think you can preserve that foolish fiction of a "Hubble Constant Universe" you've been encouraging them t
Re: (Score:2)
best. comment. ever.
Re: (Score:2)
The impossible is far more likely than the improbable.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Re: (Score:2)
...and clearly label this as "conjecture"...
Much of of cosmology is interpretation of what we actually see and receive. For example, we have never seen a black hole, never observed so called dark matter, never actually seen a neutron star and on the list goes. We see the galaxies move in a certain way and their motion does not fit their theories at this time. So, to to make the data fit they give explanations and invent these never directly seen constructs. It appears that the more scientists probe the m
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And nobody has actually seen an electron, a nucleus, a photon outside the visible spectrum, the other side of the moon... We infer most of the things we have "seen" from instrument readings. Of course, the body of different measurements for the electron is much greater than it is for, say, dark matter, so we have a higher confidence level in the former. But there is no qualitative difference between the two, or the other quoted things, merely the size of the pile of evidence. And even some of those things a
Re: (Score:2)
Basically correct, but people have seen the other side of the moon directly. Only about 30 people all told, but they have seen it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Ahhh, so it's like the comments on Slashdot when any topic comes up?
Fixed that for you!
Everyone panic! (Score:1, Funny)
We're next! Ahhhhhhhhhhh!
Re: (Score:2)
Probably a joke, but if there are free-floating black-holes flying around, and we happened to be unlucky enough, we could be gone just like that, and there ain't nothing we could conceivably do about it.
All according to plan (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Thank god we didn't listen to McKay.
new research shows (Score:5, Funny)
Re:new research shows (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You know how sometimes in the mornings, before you're completely awake, you get the weirdest ideas that in retrospect made no sense at all? Well, I just had one when reading your comment.
I wondered how a black hole's gas smells like.
I'm not scientist (Score:2)
But wouldn't a roving black hole produce a tell-tale roving gravitational lensing?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I'm not scientist (Score:4, Informative)
I could have sworn that something like that happened in 1919 when a guy named Arthur Eddington kinda helped confirm the theory for Einstein [wikipedia.org]. Proximity allowed us to see the lensing, which we can't easily see from a distance, but it's there on all objects of sufficient mass, not just galaxies.
Re:I'm not scientist (Score:4, Informative)
But wouldn't a roving black hole produce a tell-tale roving gravitational lensing?
Only if you were extremely close by or got a perfect lineup. The former, we could probably notice out to a significant fraction of a light year or so if we were watching the sky.
The latter case is rather problematic, as it would be hard to distinguish a black hole's lensing effect from noise - one frame you see a few photons, the next you don't. Was it a galaxy? A star? Nebula? Random noise?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"""The amount of the stretching suggests the object sits some 2 billion light years away"""
So if the conditions are perfect and it's moving exactly sideways with respect to us, and it's moving at the speed of light (the first is unlikely, the second is impossible)) - then in a year it moves 0.00000003 degrees in our view.
Good luck.
Especially considering the lensing will be insignificant, since the black hole isn't a galaxy cluster.
repaired Hubble Telescope may come in handy here (Score:5, Interesting)
from the last paragraph of tfa:
Gaensicke hopes one of Hubble's new cameras, the Wide Field Camera 3, which was installed on the last space shuttle mission to visit the telescope, could reveal more about the object's origins. The camera may be able to spot a host galaxy around the object that was too faint to see with other instruments.
As our instrumentation improves, we'll probably have many more head-scratching discoveries...
Re:repaired Hubble Telescope may come in handy her (Score:4, Insightful)
Heh. The more you learn, the more you realize you don't know...Unless you're an asshole or a teenager. In the grand scheme, we're still just scratching the surface. There are so many things we do not understand.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you're an asshole... In the grand scheme, we're still just scratching the surface.
We're just scratching the surface of our assholes? Hey, I mean we haven't discovered any working grand unified theory yet, but at least we're TRYING!
Re: (Score:2)
...Hey, I mean we haven't discovered any working grand unified theory yet, but at least we're TRYING!...
Well at least the scientists have not yet discovered such a theory, but the theologians have. It is called the "God Theory". That theory says that God made and runs the universe whether you believe that or not. This theory is not very palatable to us philosophically, because if there REALLY is such a God, we instinctively feel responsible to him and that is discomforting because most of us want to be ind
Maybe we'll get a chance to see this happen! (Score:4, Interesting)
90's flashback (Score:5, Funny)
*creepy smile* black hole sun, black hole sun
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Black Hole Sun [flickr.com], won't you come
And wash away the rain...
It's really a beautiful piece that has to be stood next to in order to be appreciated. The sun wasn't in the right place for me to take any brilliant photos (and all I'd have had was my cellphone) but this one at least gives you a nice clear view.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:90's flashback (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow, I never did understand that bit in the polka. It might be kind of sad that in the last few Weird Al albums, I've never heard most of the original songs. I'm getting old, huh?
You and me both. The last Weird Al parody I've heard before he did it (talking recent music) was for Amish Paradise. I had no idea what raps All About the Pentiums and White and Nerdy were based on. I consider this to be a good thing. You know what's considered artistic in rap? Buster Rimes, he has a track on GTAIV. It's a soulful little ditty called "where my money" where he goes ranting about how he's taller than a hall of midgets and if he doesn't get his cake he's gonna kill bitches and niggas, where my fucking money?
I'd like to think if MLK came back from the dead he'd go all Cosby and start smacking these idiots upside the head.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure that Busta has a full appreciation for the complete ridiculousness of the whole affair. He's some sort of Hip-Hop Gangsta Satire in my book. Maybe I'm wrong and whoever dresses him is the genius, I don't know.
I do share your sentiment that it's a positive sign when you don't recognize pop culture references. I was being annoyed by the music in some store the other day and I caught myself saying to myself "Wow, that's worse than the Eighties!" Of course, as anyone knows, that's fucking imposs
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you actually did pay attention, and did know what you were talking about, you would know that there is a wide range of styles and traditions in hip hop. Some are quite though
Re: (Score:2)
Those of us who hate rap do not hate it in some vague theoretical fashion. I hate it because I am bombarded with it a lot. Maybe I don't know who wrote what song, and maybe I can't tell whether it is crunk or hyphy, but boy oh boy have I heard a lot of rap. I have liked maybe 2 songs total.
I am thoroughly qualified to state my opinion that rap is garbage.
I am similarly qualified to state that I am sick to death of classic rock. I don't have to have a fricking degree from Santana Tech a
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry if I came of touchy, but it's really irritating to hear the same thing over and over from someone outside the culture. If you don't care about hip hop, that's fine, but don't try and make dramatic, overreaching statements about a genre that is *incredibly* diverse. If you're interested in hearing a few hip hop songs outside what you may have experienced (in the interest of sharing), here's a few great tracks off the top of my head:
Tribe Called Quest - Award Tour [youtube.com]
Black Star - Definition [youtube.com]
DangerDoom [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Massive attack is trip-hop, which is related but not a subgenre any more than rap/rock fusion (e.g. Faith No More, Kid Rock.) It's grouped more with Portishead. The common elements with Hip-Hop would be beats and turntablism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
fantastic song - fantastic band.
could someone please explain (Score:3, Interesting)
Gaensicke and colleagues envision two scenarios that might explain the object. In one, a carbon-rich star gets too close to a middle- or heavy-weight black hole, which tears the star apart. Some of this material is absorbed by the black hole, and some is blasted away in a flare that was eventually seen from Earth as SCP 06F6.
I'm not educated in astrophysics and everytime I read something like this I wonder, how does anything manage to get "blasted away" from a black hole? I was under the impression anything that got close to it was absorbed?
Re:could someone please explain (Score:5, Informative)
One possible way would be a jet of energy streaming from a rotating black hole...
Wikipedia article. [wikipedia.org]
Re:could someone please explain (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not educated in astrophysics and everytime I read something like this I wonder, how does anything manage to get "blasted away" from a black hole? I was under the impression anything that got close to it was absorbed?
Simple, black holes are very messy eaters - they radiate a significant fraction of their food as photons. Keep in mind you are accelerating much of the star to a significant fraction of c, letting it collide with itself. This goes double for stellar mass black holes - you have a million+ kilometer star getting 'swallowed' by a twenty kilometer black hole. Even a perfect landing is going to result in most of the star's mass getting flung back out into space if only because the hole is smaller than the core of the star.
Re:could someone please explain (Score:4, Informative)
Simple analogy I sometimes use to explain black hole emissions in a way most people are familiar with...
Ever flush a toilet and notice a splash that jumps above the rim? Same thing.
While the majority of the mass gets pulled into the hole, the chaotic nature of the flow means that some mass gets ejected every which way. Depending on where you are situated, the ejected material can be quite noticeable.
Re:could someone please explain (Score:5, Informative)
Anything that crosses the event horizon is absorbed. Anything that does not interacts gravitationally with the black hole as it would with any other massive object. Black holes don't have any sort of magical ability to suck things in. All they have is gravity (Well, ok. They also have charge and spin.)
Re:could someone please explain (Score:5, Funny)
All they have is gravity (Well, ok. They also have charge and spin.)
Amongst their properties are... I'll come in again.
Re: (Score:2)
Black holes are a bit weirder than your typical Newtonian gravity well, if you get really close. Light can orbit the black hole at 1.5 Schwarzschild radii. Closer than that, light will get "sucked in" unless it's pointed outward. Farther outside, you can drop an object with sufficient angular momentum and it will stay in orbit, but too close it will get sucked in.
Re:could someone please explain (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, the "event horizon" (EH) is the boundary beyond which nothing can escape the gravitational pull of the black hole.
However, it's not a physical boundary (black holes do not have a physical surface), it's the mathematically-calculated boundary beyond which events inside the EH cannot affect an outside observer. As a particle gets closer to the EH, its chances of escape shrink to infinity, and once the EH is crossed, it's effectively gone from the outside world.
That being said, under certain conditions, particles can be radiated outward from a black hole:
1.) If an object inside the "photon sphere" (Schwartzchild Radius X 1.5) but still outside the EH emits photons, those photons can still escape. (Photons coming inbound are screwed, though. Approaching on a tangent, have a slim chance to "bounce off" due to rotational gain.).
2.) If the black hole is rotating, and a particle is approaching the black hole at a tangent, it may also escape via "stealing" some of the rotational energy.
3.) Rotating black holes also emit particles via Hawking radiation, which is more of a particle-antiparticle explanation that I want to get into here.
So, yeah, it's sort of an issue of semantics - if you consider the zone right outside the EH a part of the black hole, then yes, things can escape from a black hole; if you take the common (and incorrect) view that a black hole has a definite "border", and discount all the fun stuff that's going on around the black hole, then no, nothing can escape.
(Of course, this is a ridiculously simplified explanation, and I do expect at least one Slashdot astrophysicist to poke it full of holes (pun intended).)
Re:could someone please explain (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, someone actually used the phrase spacetime continuum outside of Star Trek! And it makes sense, too!
Re: (Score:2)
does it make any sense to talk about an object being stationary wrt a region of spacetime? if yes, then what is the relative velocity of an object that is stationary in one of these spacetime reference frames with respect to another object that is stationary in the other spacetime reference frame?
European or African stationary object?
Re: (Score:2)
what is the relative velocity of an object that is stationary in one of these spacetime reference frames with respect to another object that is stationary in the other spacetime reference frame? FTL?
Yes, a stationary object inside the ergosphere of a rotating black hole (if it's even possible for anything to be stationary in there, considering the rotational forces and the turbulence) is moving faster than light in relation to the rest of the Universe - because the ergosphere itself is dragging spacetime around faster than c. (This is not prohibited by relativity).
The only way that it would be possible for an object inside the ergosphere to remain stationary (in relation to rest of Universe), is for
Re: (Score:2)
Take calculus again. :-)
Re:could someone please explain (Score:5, Informative)
Gaensicke and colleagues envision two scenarios that might explain the object. In one, a carbon-rich star gets too close to a middle- or heavy-weight black hole, which tears the star apart. Some of this material is absorbed by the black hole, and some is blasted away in a flare that was eventually seen from Earth as SCP 06F6.
I'm not educated in astrophysics and everytime I read something like this I wonder, how does anything manage to get "blasted away" from a black hole? I was under the impression anything that got close to it was absorbed?
Black holes gravitationally pull matter toward them like any other object with the same mass, until you're inside the event horizon, at which point there is no escape. Thus, outside the event horizon, objects will tend to orbit the black hole just as they'd orbit a star of equal mass. Over time, the orbit of gas falling into a black hole decays and the gas falls toward the singularity and its orbital velocity increases. When this happens, the volume occupied by the orbit of the gas decreases, leading to higher density gas and thus heat generated through friction and compression. This heat raises the temperature of the gas, which increases its pressure and can result in a portion of the gas being blown off into space.
Re: (Score:2)
until you're inside the event horizon, at which point there is no escape. Thus, outside the event horizon, objects will tend to orbit the black hole just as they'd orbit a star of equal mass.
that would also seem to imply that nothing can orbit a black hole inside it's EH. (since the EH is basically the distance at which photons orbit the black hole, if they get any closer, they de-orbit)
Re: (Score:2)
Anything that gets too close to the black hole gets sucked in. But on the outside of the event horizon, there is still the possibility of escape. Anything that falls near a black hole gains huge kinetic energy which can't just disappear (conservation of energy). When these things collide with each other, they emit x-rays, much of which will escape.
The cow says "mooooo!" (Score:5, Funny)
The star says "Shine shine shine!"
The black hole says "NOM NOM NOM!!!!"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Reavers! (Score:2)
I felt a great disturbance (Score:3, Funny)
in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Ooops! (Score:5, Funny)
Looks like the inhabitants of the nearest planet just switched on their brand-new LHC...
Re: (Score:2)
I think this works better. ;-)
Cheers
A starship making course correction, obviously. (Score:2)
n/t
Star swallows Black Hole (Score:2)
Science (Score:5, Interesting)
We are in the earliest stages of undesrtanding how the universe works. For the first 8-10 thousand years we have looked what that which is in our universe and how it functions within our universe. Only in the last 3000 years have we started to look at how the universe (or if you prefer reality) itself works.
Based on our understanding the very fundamental laws of our universe at some point has changed. The laws, as we call them, 5 seconds before the big bang may have been very different then at the time of the big bang and vastly different a billion years afterwards.
We look to oddities like black holes to try and grasp and dredge out what additional laws that may exist to better understand how to exist within a system of laws. We must be ever so careful though as we go forward in collecting and looking at data. Who knows, perhaps we will find a white hole adding mass to our universe potentially signalling an escape from heat death or the big rip. Perhaps the graviton will be found... perhaps not.
The question all this begs is crucial to the core of our own existence, and is the harbinger to the meaning of life. The question must be asked after observing this article:
How could we miss an opportunity for a sexual joke with this?
Re: (Score:2)
How could we miss an opportunity for a sexual joke with this?
Because every slashdotter knows that a black-hole spits as it swallows.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow! You already know how the universe works?
To know that we're "in the earliest stages" rather than "in the last stages", you must already know how it's going to play out in the end.
Yeah, but you can make an educated guess by first assuming that the journey is long, and then humbly admitting that whatever the length of the journey, you have only just begun. We're on a journey of discovery, even if we know little more about the end than that, so for their assessment to be wrong we'd have to be under-estima
Re: (Score:2)
Holy crap, get the stick out holmes, that whole speech was salt and pepper leading up to the "no sex jokes" part. Jebus rice man, not everything I write is gospel... just most of it! :)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I know, but then someone tried to cut on you by using a deliberately obtuse understanding of what you said. It's become a pet peeve of mine lately: people who use pedantry and "logic" not to illuminate, but as an excuse to not understand plain English.
I've never seen a Dup this close... (Score:5, Funny)
Has Bing Already Overtaken Yahoo? Posted by CmdrTaco on Monday June 08, @08:54AM [slashdot.org]
Black Hole Swallows Star Posted by CmdrTaco on Monday June 08, @09:38AM [slashdot.org]
And Taco posted both of them. Getting old, Taco?
Re: (Score:2)
It's actually a little-known form of Hypertext lensing caused by the Slashdot Anomaly.
Let me explain.
The Slashdot Anomaly is a powerful attractive force on the internet, drawing in general News-For-Nerds and Stuff-That-Matters articles towards it, constantly increasing the size of its article/comments database - which is the prime generator of it's attractive force.
If there is an article of news behind the Slashdot Anomaly (as viewed from our browsers here in front of the Anomaly) you will often see two dis
Misleading headline (Score:3, Funny)
There's nothing in the article about Paris Hilton.
Ambiguous (Score:4, Funny)
Bad Title (Score:4, Informative)
"These possibilities, combined with the observation that the
disrupted object be a carbon-rich star, rather than a normal
main sequence one appear to make the case for tidal disruption
somewhat contrived. Nonetheless, with only one object, and
thus an essentially unconstrained rate and space density for
such events, it remains a possibility."
So, while tidal disruption is a possibility, it is not the favored scenario.
Heard 'Round the Galaxy... (Score:2)
BELCH!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Roving black hole (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't seem to grasp that black holes can become mobile. I can not imagine something would be able to exert enough force on the black hole to actually accelerate it.
Other than the obvious everything-attracts-everything-else, also remember that black holes don't magically appear from nothing. Whatever matter initially created the black hole was most likely moving, and that momentum doesn't go anywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it the other way around? There isn't anything that can be taken as the ground zero reference for speed.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, ya got me thinking. I'll share aloud. If a black hole is moving (but not spinning rapidly), that momentum is going to be working with its gravitational pull on the side facing the direction the black hole is moving, and against it on the opposite side. So the EH should be "weaker" in that one place. I realize the EH is the distance at which things cannot escape by definition, so I suppose wording it as "the EH is not spherical" is better. Suppose that the black hole is moving fast enough, wouldn't it be possible for this momentum to counteract the force of gravity enough for objects to escape? In short, create a weak point or break in a highly elliptical EH, directly behind the black hole as it moves through space. Somebody explain why this won't work, or why it would.
I think you stand a better chance of getting an answer if you don't post Anon. Some people only read 2+ (me, I read -1).
Re: (Score:2)
So the EH should be "weaker" in that one place. I realize the EH is the distance at which things cannot escape by definition, so I suppose wording it as "the EH is not spherical" is better.
The EH is often non-spherical, mostly due to the rotation of the black hole if I understand. But I realize what you're saying, an egg or teardrop shape favoring the trailing side.
Suppose that the black hole is moving fast enough, wouldn't it be possible for this momentum to counteract the force of gravity enough for obje
Re: (Score:2)
Motion is relative. You can always transform to a frame where the black hole center of mass is not moving. I'm not sure about this, but I suppose a moving black hole is length-contracted like in SR. Gravity waves might exhibit a headlight effect, which makes gravity stronger in front (??? I'm way out of my league here). But it will still be impossible to escape the length-contracted EH.
Re: (Score:2)
A Galaxy
A more massive black hole
A more massive star
Pretty much anything, although there would have to be a lot of anythings for the effect to measurable by humans.
Re: (Score:2)
1. Everything is moving relative to everything else. There is no stationary reference frame, so unless you happen to move at the same velocity as the BH, it will appear to move.
2. Black holes aren't necessarily all that massive. The ones in the centers of galaxies are super massive, but black holes created by supernovae could be around 2 solar masses, which is not very massive on cosmological scales. If it sucks in another solar mass, it just sucked in a huge influx of momentum, which isn't going to disappe
ObShenanigansCallOnGirlfriendClaim (Score:2)
Undeliverable: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
Your message did not reach some or all of the intended recipients. The following recipient(s) cannot be reached: girlfriend@drinkypoo.com
The e-mail account does not exist at the organization this message was sent to. Check the e-mail address, or contact the recipient directly to find out the correct address.
Re: (Score:2)