Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - Pay What You Want for the Learn to Code Bundle, includes AngularJS, Python, HTML5, Ruby, and more. ×

Comment Re:The dark matter between their ears (Score 1) 146

gravity is as instantaneous as people can detect - ie its not at the speed of light.

That is not actually known. We still haven't figured out if gravity propagates at the speed of light or not.

In 1916 Einstein figured out that gravity propagates at the speed of light. We just haven't measured it directly yet.

Comment Re:Do you want to pay for advertising? (Score 1) 305

You could say that about any product. You could argue that McDonald's shouldn't be allowed to advertise because it increases the price of a Big Mac. Why not just ban advertising in general?

We don't need to ban it but we sure as hell should stop subsidizing it. Advertising should not be treated as a business expense that can be deducted from taxes, it should be taxed heavily the same way that pollution should be taxed heavily because they are both negative externalities. The rationalization that advertising helps consumers by making them better informed is total bullshit. We all have limited time on earth and limited attention. If someone wants to use my limited time and attention then they should pay me for that. I shouldn't be paying them for it.

Comment Re:Can you liberals please wake the fuck up? (Score 1) 965

So your solution to terrorism is mass genocide? The decision for us to commit much greater atrocities is not "in the hands of the clerics and other muslim [sic] leaders around the world". They are not responsible for our actions, we are. Nor are they responsible for the actions of the people who committed this horrible attack. In addition, why would you expect the attackers to treat us as fellow humans when you are not willing to treat them that way?

We started this bloody awful mess and they see themselves as fighting back and defending themselves in the only way the can. The most effective way to get someone to act subhuman is to treat them as subhuman. Repaying atrocity with atrocity might give you some emotional relief but it is about as effective as pouring gasoline on a fire or copulating for virginity.

I pray we do not become the evil we abhor. As long as enough people choose to dehumanize their fellow human beings then there will be no end to the escalating violence on both sides.

Comment Re:Can you liberals please wake the fuck up? (Score 1) 965


People who would do such things are animals and aren't worth dealing with on an even level. If they wish to behave this way, then they should be treated that way.

Albert Einstein:

We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.

IOW, your reaction to dehumanize the people who did this plays right into their hands. ISIS was created by and survives on atrocities committed by the West. I'm not saying this justifies the attack. I'm saying that from a pragmatic perspective dehumanizing the attackers is extremely stupid and short-sighted.

Comment Re:Scientists (Score 2) 203

> I have not seen any reasonable theoretical explanation for the anomalous force that is purported to power the EM drive
The only thing that critics have managed to say about emdrive theory over 10 years is " muh momentum "

What else can we reply when there is no actually theory presented that we can reply to or refute? All we have to go on is some micro-wave engineer claims that he has invented a device that violates conservation of momentum without providing any reasonable theory for how it might work. Your attempt to blame the critics for the complete lack of theoretical underpinnings by the inventor is ridiculous. The inventor himself said:

I am just a microwave engineer and all that matters is that it works.

In addition, the Anonymous Coward engineer claims:

Emdrive has been experimentally verified by 5 institutions with results published.

(emphasis added)

Have experimental results been published? Yes. Has the effect been verified? No. Most of the extraordinary experimental results seem to have been either debunked or retracted, claims such as nearly one Newton of thrust by a paper from China which has been shrouded in mystery. The more recent and reliable Tajimar paper explicitly says:

... we successfully identified experimental areas needing additional attention before any firm conclusions concerning the EMDrive claims could be made. Out test campaign therefore can neither confirm or refute the claims of the EMDrive [...]

In one of their experiments their measured thrust was in the wrong direction! Their conclusion that the experiments need to be improved before they can be used to verify the EMDrive claims echoes what I already said (and you mocked) that the current experimental results are buried down with the noise. That is what the fine post linked to by the summary says as well. The experimentalists are working on beating back known sources of noise so they will eventually be in a position to confirm or refute the EMDrive claims. It is not all relevant if totally different experiments with totally different devices had better signal to noise ratios with similar input powers and output thrusts.

Your mocking, your ad hominem attacks, and your appeals to emotion and irrelevancies do nothing to bolster your argument. Your claims far exceed the claims of the very experimentalists whose work you (appear to) cite. You are, of course, free to believe whatever the heck you want but it seems your claims of experimental verification are greatly overblown. For me, the lack of theoretical underpinnings, the violation of the conservation of momentum, and the lack of experimental verification (as I cited above and from the fine post linked to in summary) all make me highly dubious that the effect is real.

Comment Re:Scientists (Score 1) 203

Because his prior work, from which the EMDrive stems, is a laser-gyroscope functioning on the exact same principles as the EMDrive in reverse [...]

This is complete hogwash. The effects cannot be related because the laser-gyroscope is based fundamentally on rotational velocities being absolute. Linear velocities (even without Einstein's relativity) are relative. OTOH, it makes some sense that an engineer who developed their intuition based on laser-gyroscopes would misapply that intuition to "invent" the EMDrive.

Shawyer's theory states the greatest way to improve thrust from existing models would be to make a perfect-Q cavity [...]

Can you point to an actual theoretical explanation/prediction of the effect? Shawyer himself said:

I am just a microwave engineer and all that matters is that it works.

This was in reference to his claim (in 2007) of creating a EMDrive that produced 0.1 Newtons (100,000 microNewtons, 1000 times larger than the effect measured in the post from the summary). Was that claim debunked or abandoned? If not, then why are we farting around with machines that only produce 100 micro-Newtons?

In 2012 there was a claim from China about producing an EMDrive that created nearly 1 Newton of thrust. Many people were dubious of this claim because the test wasn't performed in a vacuum so the thrust could have been created by thermal effects (like a Crookes radiometer). Now we are talking about better experiments where the effect has been reduced by a factor of 10,000 and is down in the noise level while the experimenters are working on decreasing the sources of noise. Everything about Shawyer's claim reeks of crockpottery. Sure, if something like this actually existed then it could be the gateway to interstellar travel. But that only makes these dubious claims more suspicious.

Comment Re:Scientists (Score 3, Informative) 203

The problem is not the absolute smallness of 100 micro-Newtons. The problem is the relative size of 100-micro-Newtons compared to the forces that exist in the experimental apparatus. It is like confusing absolute signal level with the signal to noise ratio. Yes, we can easily measure the weight of a snowflake. But if the total thrust from this 100 watt drive is equivalent to the weight of a snowflake then I am exceedingly unimpressed. If you read the fine post that is linked to, you will see that this is literally down in the level of noise that can be produced by ground loops and so on. The author is basically saying that they tried to remove even more noise sources than last time and still have not yet tracked down what is causing the extremely tiny anomalous thrust they have measured.

I am a physicist so I am well aware of just how bloody difficult it is to track down and account for every form of noise and error in experiments like this one. Or in the experiment that measured neutrinos traveling faster than the speed of light. I am often cautioning my friends to not get too excited about weak experimental results like this that contradict foundational physical theories. I also cautioned people to not get too excited about the so-called "face on Mars" for the same reasons. Lots of fascinating things are seen in weak signals that are close to the experimental noise floor.

In addition, I have not seen any reasonable theoretical explanation for the anomalous force that is purported to power the EM drive. There is certainly no relationship between the purported physics of an EM drive and the actual physics of a ring laser gyroscope. Nor have I seen any reasonable theoretical explanation for why the thrust should scale as a large power of the input energy. Yet many people here who ignore the experimental challenges of measuring the weight of a snowflake on top of the forces acting on an apparatus dissipating 100 watts of RF energy seem to blithely accept these remarkable and, AFAIK unfounded, theoretical claims as gospel truth.

Comment Here's your bloody context (Score 2) 213

One trillion connections per year is roughly the size of the traffic the Wikipedia gets. Wikipedia is one of the top ten sites on the internet.

Next up: Judge Bennet tosses out a case because plaintif neglected to provide context for the sky being blue or water being wet. I don't know what bugs me more, this obvious attempt to subvert justice or the lame-ass excuse used for doing so. It is insulting. It's like the judge is telling us the fix is so far in that he doesn't even have to bother to appear to make sense.

If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face -- forever.

Comment Re:DRM (Score 1) 150

It [mandatory full-disk encryption] can benefit consumers AND be self-serving.

Not according to the standard definitions of self-serving which includes:

1. Serving one's own interests, especially without concern for the needs or interests of others.

2. Exhibiting concern solely for one's own interests: serving one's own interests often in disregard of the truth or the interests of others.

It would be more accurate to say that this may be a case where benefiting consumers also benefits the corporate interest. It is curious that you have managed to twist around something good Google has done and spin it as something negative (self-serving). I'm not claiming it was intentional on your part or that it is part of a vast conspiracy but it is part of a larger pattern. Most news stories I've seen about Google doing something good have been spun into stories about Google being evil. Recent memorable examples are Google's fight against software patents and Google's fight for network neutrality. Both of these stories were shrouded with lies about Google doing the exact opposite of what they actually did.

Comment Re:Love that this is modded troll (Score 2) 312

I'm giving up mod points to reply here but the articles linked to above provide no evidence of the claims made by the parent.

CapS said:

As for Google never filing a non-defensive patent lawsuit, that's not true. A quick Duck Duck Go search reveals this:

Did you even bother to look at the article you linked to? It says:

Google, believing that litigation was imminent, responded by asking the court to issue a declaratory judgment that it is not infringing Netlist's patent and that Netlist's patent isn't valid.

That is pretty much the exact opposite of an offensive patent suit.

Then CapS said:

And there are plenty of examples of Google trolling other companies with patents as well:

In this article Google applied for a patent and then, horrors, asked a company that was in the same field to get on board a patent reform initiative. Applying for patents and advocating for patent reform is not the same thing as being a patent troll. In the patent frenzied world of 2013, Google had to acquire patents to defend themselves. It was part of the cost of doing business in the tech arena. You have provided ZERO evidence that Google has switched gears and started to file offensive patent suits. If there are plenty of examples of Google trolling other companies with patents then please provide a link to at least one such case otherwise you are just full of shenanigans.

Comment Re:Translation ... (Score 1) 92

From the fine article:

Dzurak noted that that the team had recently "patented a design for a full-scale quantum computer chip that would allow for millions of our qubits, all doing the types of calculations that we've just experimentally demonstrated."

He said that a key next step for the project is to identify the right industry partners to work with to manufacture the full-scale quantum processor chip.

ISTM that if you want to find the right industry partners and avoid a lot of "it can't be done" BS, there are worse ways than first publishing a paper in a prestigious journal.

I have a theory that it's impossible to prove anything, but I can't prove it.