Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

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:Computers can't model macroeconomics (Score 1) 184

by Fungii (#28198789) Attached to: Hydraulic Analog Computer From 1949

I don't see how anything you've said implies that computers can't model macroeconomics. The kind unstable behaviour you're describing certainly limits the accuracy, but instabilities can definitely be predicted too. It's not as futile as you seem to be making out.

And another thing - people's sense of wealth and understanding of risk isn't something that should need to be modeled, those two things would be something that you would infer from the results/state.

Comment: Re:Silly question (Score 1) 239

by Fungii (#28041213) Attached to: Researchers Store Optical Data In Five Dimensions

Actually, that was me.

What?

They reported on what they did. Multi-wavelength light is commonly used in fiber optic communications to provide multiple channels on a single strand.

Yes, but this isn't as simple as that, the nanorods have been designed to respond to a few specific frequencies, optical fibers are inherently transparent to a wide band of continuous frequencies.

Polarization is a radial angle rather than a hor/vert thing. This is the first iteration. We should not expect everything in the first go.

I understand what polarisation is.. do you understand what linear independence is?

Comment: Re:Nope (Score 1) 239

by Fungii (#28037131) Attached to: Researchers Store Optical Data In Five Dimensions

I'm not sure what you're saying nope to.. I was just using horizontal and vertical dimensions as an analogy because that's the one people are most likely to be comfortable with.

For polorisation you're mistaken - if you are adding light in 45 degree polorisation increments you won't be adding another dimension because it won't be independent of the horizontal/vertical polorisations you are already using - light can't be both horizontally and diagonally polorised without being automatically verticularly polorised. Length width and depth aren't dimesions of this system either.

They can add more dimensions by adding more colours, but it's not unlimited. There are only so many colours that the materials they are using can store independently. You could think of it in terms of each of the colours being a harmonic of vibration of the gold nano wires they are using, so like the harmonics of a string usable frequencies are going to run out pretty fast.

Comment: Re:I count 6 dimensions not 5 (Score 5, Informative) 239

by Fungii (#28033763) Attached to: Researchers Store Optical Data In Five Dimensions

Hmm... why are they calling it 5? Am I missing something?

Yes - the dimension of the system is just the number of independent variables, the 3 wavelengths and the 2 polorisations.

Think about it in terms of a 1D line vs a 2D plane. In the case of the line there is the less than 0 and greater than 0 regions. When you move up to a plane there are two new greater than 0 and less than 0s (in the y plane as opposed to the x plane of the 1D line, say). So you have 4 possible combinations (or quadrants in the plane) in 2 dimensions.

Also - note that light which is circularly polarised is both vertically polarised *and* horizontally polarised, so you can have unpolarised red light; vertically polarised red light; horizontally polarised red light and vertically and horizontally polarised red light.

(Similar to: just red light; red light and blue light; red light and green light and red light blue light and green light)

Comment: Re:Another Job well Done (Score 1) 121

by Fungii (#27958027) Attached to: Successful Launch of ESA's Herschel and Planck

Flaws? Well, for a start there's the fact that it's completely ridiculous...

Any fuel to be used for refueling would have to be launched with the craft - it all has to come from earth anyway so there's no benefit to be gained. It doesn't make any sense, it's just adding in an unnecessary layer of complication.

Even apart from that, a docking at the L2 point in order for the refueling would be a ridiculously complicated process - some kind of automatic system could be designed to do it, but (unless the craft's final destination is the lagrange point, in which case it obviously isn't going to need refueling) that would waste a lot of fuel in order to stop the craft so that it could dock with the tanker.

And the orbit of the craft to be refueled would have to pass through the lagrange point which in almost all cases would waste more fuel than could possibly be gained by the refueling (this is assuming that a transfer orbit through the lagrange point is even possible).

Comment: YAH!! (Score 1) 289

by Fungii (#27479427) Attached to: Could the Internet Be Taken Down In 30 Minutes?

Survivability.. so maybe

All it was designed for was to survive a single point of failure.

(note that I'm quoting canajin here in case there is any confusion)

What makes you think survivability implies the ability to survive nuclear war? The fact that you've heard as much parroted anecdotally countless times in the past?

Comment: Re:Not Very Impressing (Score 1) 309

by Fungii (#27464779) Attached to: Open Source Shooter <em>Nexuiz</em> 2.5 Released

That out of the way, your complaint is totally invalid.

What? How can a compliant be "invalid"?

The amount of work that's gone into the development is completly irrelevant, so there's no need for your snide remarks about 'some guy who plays the latest console releases - the fact of the matter is that this shooter isn't a patch on commercial games from 10 years ago, as is the case for most open source games.

Now, excuse me while I go for a game of tux racer.

Comment: Re:This is not a bad idea (Score 1) 848

by Fungii (#27278519) Attached to: Want a Science Degree In Creationism?

By bringing serious study and research to this field, we can shed light on it and evolve the field to be at least in line with current scientific thought.

Creationism fundamentally conflicts with scientific thought, there is no light to be shed - creationism isn't a field of science with discoveries to be made, it is one theory with absolutely no supporting evidence.

Committees have become so important nowadays that subcommittees have to be appointed to do the work.

Working...