Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:One Criterion Missing (Score 1) 365

by Aighearach (#49617561) Attached to: No, NASA Did Not Accidentally Invent Warp Drive

So until that is resolved, we might have braking issues. Definitely a hurdle for both the science, and actually building a spaceship, but extra thrust when you don't expect it in no way refutes the existence of the thrust.

That the initial predictions are proving to be incorrect, even while the device is indeed producing thrust, that isn't a sign that this is nothing. Rather, that is a sign that this might be bigger than we realize.

The expected success state is for the experiment to match prediction. The expected failure state was no thrust. That the predictions were wrong, and there was also thrust, that is actually what makes this such a huge thing.

Comment: Re:One Criterion Missing (Score 1) 365

by Aighearach (#49617525) Attached to: No, NASA Did Not Accidentally Invent Warp Drive

That one of the device states produced unexpected thrust implies that the inventors hypothesis of why it works is incorrect, but this is already replicated and the device does produce thrust.

The failure of the prediction means that the science they were testing gave a negative result, but it does not at all refute the engineering success of having produced thrust.

Comment: Re:Free as in ads for beer (Score 3, Informative) 68

And often even on F-Droid.

A lot of F-Droid apps ask for extra permissions. Instead of just trusting them, I download the source, reduce the permissions, and then run the app. If it is trying to use those extras permissions I took out, then it will crash when it tries. Almost all the apps (on f-droid) that claim not to actually use those permissions unless some feature is turned on will actually crash without them. Then I go in and comment out the sections of code that cause the app to crash. That way I don't need to audit their source, just debug the crashes.

It is a total PITA but it is the only way to get the tracking code out; even on "free" software.

Comment: Re:Seriously ? What a non story (Score 1) 365

by Aighearach (#49616903) Attached to: No, NASA Did Not Accidentally Invent Warp Drive

Even if they're bending spacetime, they're only doing it inside the device so it would be more of a pinch drive than a warp drive. Warp drive is a metaphor from the art of weaving, applied to the concept of a "fabric" of space and time. So "warp drive" implies a large scale folding, an effect involving the breadth of space. This device, if we give the interpretation most favorable to this line of thinking, pinches space locally without changing what is outside the device. This creates an imbalance, and some angular momentum keeps everything balanced.

You need to be able to project the imbalance outside the device in order to have any sort of "warp drive." Here the effect is contained entirely between the threads, so if you don't like "pinch drive" it could also be a "stitch drive."

Comment: Re:The question is (Score 1) 365

by Aighearach (#49616825) Attached to: No, NASA Did Not Accidentally Invent Warp Drive

It could mean anything between, "shave a few hours off a trip to Jupiter" all the way up to, "2 hours to Alpha Centauri."

What we have now is some new engineering that advanced ahead of the science. Until the science catches up and explains it, we have no way to understand or predict the actual utility of the device beyond the inconsequential amount of force the existing device directs.

Another thing to remember when thinking about it is that the speed of light is not any sort of "speed limit." Actual photons go faster or slower than that speed according to quantum theory. Since photons are faster than our fuel sources, and spewing fuel out the back of a craft requires increasing fuel as you approach light speed, it is realistic to say that as a matter of engineering it is unlikely to be possible to build a device based on spewing fuel out the back that could achieve the average speed of light.

That is the potential importance of this technology. It is creating directional force without spewing any fuel. So there is no reason to just assume that the practical limits on fuel-spewing based propulsion will apply here. What will matter is the exact details of the forces involved and their edge cases, which is not yet well established. We don't know what we don't know.

Maybe the limits will be so broad, we can start tootling around between the galaxies. Or maybe the limits will be even stricter, and this won't even be useful for short trips.

Comment: Re:One Criterion Missing (Score 2, Insightful) 365

by Aighearach (#49616743) Attached to: No, NASA Did Not Accidentally Invent Warp Drive

No. These tests prove that the device is real, and that it produces force.

You're just saying, it isn't proved how it works. That is true, there are different ideas, and a lot of people are skeptical of the inventor's theory of operation. However, most of those skeptics also claimed the device wouldn't work at all, and yet, it does work. So it is on them to think up new hypotheses if they don't like his.

That the device works is what was proven here. Waving your hands about how you don't know why it works, that doesn't refute that the device works.

Or to put it another way, that the device works is proven engineering. Why it works is unresolved science. But the science and engineering are not going to be in dispute; we know that in advance. The science can't refute the proven engineering, and it is silly to claim outright that it does. Especially in advance of even understanding the science! lol

Comment: Re:Warp drive? (Score 3, Insightful) 365

by Aighearach (#49616709) Attached to: No, NASA Did Not Accidentally Invent Warp Drive

If this device actually works, it means everything we think we know about physics is wrong.

No, just the non-scientific armchair claims of various things being "impossible," where actual physics doesn't even address what isn't possible, and can't claim anything to be impossible. Science is about what is known, not what isn't. Things are either know to be true in a certain set of conditions, known not to be true in a certain set of conditions, or not known. There is no way that science could, or would try to, claim what is or isn't possible in unknown conditions.

A new technology is just an example of a new context, a new set of conditions. There are basically no limits to what might be true under new conditions. Those are all unknowns.

Comment: Re:New HTTP daemon (Score 1) 80

by Aighearach (#49597075) Attached to: OpenBSD 5.7 Released

Right, exactly, the default one is for bare minimum use. If you're hosting some modern what-the-what, then you install a full size web server. If you just need to serve up some HTML on a server that mostly does something else, then this is great.

If you are actually hosting something, using a default bare-bones httpd is a no-go. You will have to make a choice between web server packages, and install one. Probably configure it, too.

Comment: Re:"although not with bug-free results" (Score 1) 160

by Aighearach (#49580341) Attached to: Google Officially Discontinues Nexus 7 Tablet

Notice the difference between, "one guy with a problem not widely reported" and "I've never heard of it so it doesn't exist?"

I mean, if you can't disagree with what I said, just make something up to disagree with, right? LOL haters gotta hate I guess

BTW, hating a company harder doesn't change what hardware they manufacture. Reviews are widely available. Your anonymous review says nasty stuff; the ones from reputable sources say other, different things.

Also, if ASUS sucked for years and then you bought their tablet after having that experience, only to be totally shocked that it was the low quality you expected, it would not lead to the review you give here. It would be a different review. Your review doesn't seem consistent with your claimed facts. It was not the cheapest tablet, so if you thought they were so bad, you wouldn't have chosen them.

There are no widespread reports of tablets just "stopping" charging. For one person to claim it happened 2 times, well, there are ways to consistently damage batteries, for example aftermarket products that claim to give you extra battery life. If if it was somebody claiming it happened to them once, that is totally believable. Some electronic devices will die earlier than expected. It is just the nature of manufacturing. But that is very different than claiming a specific manufacturing fault that repeatedly causes a very specific problem, like batteries totally dead and not charging. That sort of manufacturing fault would actually be widely reported, and show up in reviews.

We can't know what did or didn't happen in one case, but we actually can know if a particular problem is frequent and caused by poor build quality.

Comment: Re:Good bye ( and not good buy) (Score 1) 160

by Aighearach (#49562603) Attached to: Google Officially Discontinues Nexus 7 Tablet

I dropped my N7-2012 an insane number of times. Whenever it fell out of a pocket, it did a backflip and landed flat, unharmed. Every single time. Knocking off tables was the same deal... tumble, tumble, *slap*! I did finally knock it out of a laundry basket onto a sidewalk, and it didn't have a chance to flip at that angle, because when it slides off a curved surface it can't do the backflip balance tricks. So then it finally hit direct and smashed the corner bad.

OTOH even then, since everything is accessible I could order the part and put a new touchscreen on for ~$65.

Comment: Re:"although not with bug-free results" (Score 2) 160

by Aighearach (#49562293) Attached to: Google Officially Discontinues Nexus 7 Tablet

If some anonymous person claims a rare, unlikely hardware fault, my thinking is, that is possible but not a real concern since others don't report the same problem.

When that coward claims to have had a rare problem twice, I'm assuming either they used some sort of third party battery over-charger, or else they're just full of shit.

And really, if all we know is that it "stopped charging," you probably torqued the plug until it was loose, and could just bend the housing back and get it working again.

I did have to re-solder a headphone jack, but that was only after yanking on the cord a bunch of times like a brute. Unlike many devices, the repair was accessible. If I didn't know how to fix it, the whole audio module was easily removed for replacement. A+ design there.

Receiving a million dollars tax free will make you feel better than being flat broke and having a stomach ache. -- Dolph Sharp, "I'm O.K., You're Not So Hot"

Working...