Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:a little brighter (Score 1) 201

by BlackPignouf (#49126457) Attached to: What Happens When Betelgeuse Explodes?

I'm not sure about the 2 first questions. seems to suggest that apparent magnitude is based on flux (=total amount of light), and not on intensity (=light density).
It means that the light density of Betelgeuse supernova would be much higher than the light density of the quarter moon. The total amount would be approximately the same. If I'm not mistaken, since the sun (32.7 arcminutes) is much bigger than Betelgeuse (0.056 arcseconds), Betelgeuse supernova would also have a much higer intensity than the Sun.

For the last one :
During a quarter moon, you only get sunlight reflected at weird angles off the moon.

Comment: Re:Whatever (Score 2) 395

Wait, what?
When was alcohol considered really good for your health?
When was marijuana considered really bad for your health?
The worst side effects for marijuana have always been those linked to prohibition :
* landing in jail
* supporting mafia

As far as marijuana being possibly linked to mental illness, I think it's more of a correlation than causation.
The same goes for those studies about heavy marijuana use at a young age. If you can smoke pot all day long at 14, I think you're life isn't screwed solely because of weed.

Comment: Re:But CNN Said... (Score 1) 265

by BlackPignouf (#49099767) Attached to: The Robots That Will Put Coders Out of Work

Would you say sociology, psychology,etc are not science just because your narrow definition of science is exact science, those fields like physics, chemistry and mathematics which are leading to one single unambiguous answer?

It's actually pretty easy to prove that economics is flawed.
Just take one of the many bullshit predictions (e.g. possibility of infinite growth) that is in direct contradiction with physical laws.
Economics isn't even on

Comment: Re:Peak oil? (Score 1) 213

The primitive coal to liquids technology they used was very inefficient tech consuming way more energy of coal than it produced jet fuel (highly negative EROEI).

You're right. But then you're back to problem 1 on the list : extreme climate change.
We have too much oil/coal/gas (see climate change) but not enough oil/gas (see oil peak).

Comment: Re:Peak oil? (Score 5, Insightful) 213

+5 Insightful?
No :
-5 for bullshit, willful ignorance and not reading the article you link to :

However, economists later showed that Ehrlich would have won in the majority of 10-year periods over the last century,[2][3] and if the wager was extended by 30 years to 2011, he would have won on four out of the five metals.[3]

You might want to take a look at this article about the energy trap :
You're talking about extraction price, you should talk about the energy return on investment :
Once it costs more energy to retrieve oil than to leave it in the ground, we'll have a big problem, and that hasn't been mentioned one bit by TFA.

... though his invention worked superbly -- his theory was a crock of sewage from beginning to end. -- Vernor Vinge, "The Peace War"