Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Puh-lease (Score 1) 102

Multiple-Tesla fields that are changing their orientation rapidly in time aren't particularly healthy to be around. Induced currents in your nerves, heating, etc. That MRI field is acceptable because it's DC. That is, if you don't have any ferromagnetic objects on you.

Comment Re:Stupid lack of nonrelativistic propulsion. (Score 1) 102

Rockets being the only solution does not automatically mean rockets are a viable solution. Please quit ignoring the real challenges presented.

Unfortunately, this can't be approached as an engineering problem and get the result you would like. It needs to be approached as a problem in fundamental research of the physics underlying our world.

There were lots of efforts to miniaturize the vacuum tube. They only resulted in smaller tubes. It took new insights in fundamental physics before people could understand how to make a transistor. There were many experiments with germanium (a natural semiconductor) that could have led to the transistor before 1947 if anyone had understood what was happening.

Comment Re:Puh-lease (Score 1) 102

Look at the amount of money made on oscillococcinum, and you might agree it's a successful hack to make money from the stupidity of others.

This would be cool if it was more than a stage trick. The superconductor needed to do this used to be mail-ordered from Edmund Scientific. So lots of hackers were doing levitation demonstrations in the 90's. People think it's cool because they've not lived through that, or have forgotten it.

Comment Puh-lease (Score 1) 102

Before someone makes a working hoverboard, we will first hear about the principle that makes it possible. Because one that's practical is almost guaranteed to get someone a Nobel Prize. And certainly Lexus would go for that if they could.

No new principles lately. There is an existing principle of magnetic repulsion that would work only in an extreme condition. One requiring really special stuff buried in the street, and probably including liquid nitrogen to keep it working for even a short time and a few feet.

So, it's a gimmick.

Comment Confusion of terms. (Score 1) 233

The article claims that NTP is the cause of the leap second. NTP is just a protocol that handles keeping computer clocks in sync with each other and with the official time (UTC, IIRC).

If NTP handles leap seconds by increasing update frequency and then coming to the conclusion: "Whoa! my offset just went from 0.3 ms to 1000.25 ms, lets step the clock a second once we're sure this was not a fluke measurement". then that's a bad way of handling it in my opinion. (also suddenly speeding up does not provide a smooth-enough transition).

One of the things that is bad about this is that when normal operation can handle (the bandwidth of) most hosts updating every 1024 seconds, and a few hosts (just rebooted, just installed, sync lost, whatever), now all of a sudden a synchronized (pun intended!) attack will take place where many many hosts will increase their update frequency by several order-2 magnitudes.

For google, they internally have needs for synchronized clocks. Why I don't know, and I don't care. They have decided to handle the leap second in a more controlled way. It's actually not that hard. Just make sure that everything syncs off one level-0 server, and during the 20 hour period leading up to the leap second, add a variable number of microseconds to the exported time.

Comment Re:Doesn't matter, so why do it? (Score 1) 233

The thing that people-who-don't-know-better are suggesting is that the second will be the same all the time.

They think that nothing bad will come from "thirty years from now, the sun is in the south at 11:59:30" (assuming an average of 1 leap-second per year).

(I can't think of anything bad that would happen... but I know my limitations. It's probably annoying as hell to /some/ fields of research or something....)

Comment Re:Infinity (Score 1) 1067

Suppose I have a variable A that ends up with the value Y*X. (Y might be a difficult calculation). Next I want to calculate B = A/X .

This could happen for example when I'm doing physics calculations where the parameter X eventually cancels out.

Anyway, this will end up with B = Y if you do the math and cancel out the X. However, if you let a computer follow through with the calculations, when X=0, you'll end up with a variable A with the value zero. And if you assign a value of "1" to 0/0 you'll silently get a wrong result when Y != 1.

So: The computer should throw an error. There is no way a compiler can come up with a reasonable answer for the variable B.

If you want it your way, you write B = X?A/X:1; If you want get rid of that expression everywhere in your code, you get a few choices. In C++ you could probably define a "myfloat" that overloads the division operator. Or you could make a "mydiv" function.

Slashdot Top Deals

If a 6600 used paper tape instead of core memory, it would use up tape at about 30 miles/second. -- Grishman, Assembly Language Programming

Working...