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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Cars, phsaw (Score 1) 809

by Maury Markowitz (#48877997) Attached to: Fake Engine Noise Is the Auto Industry's Dirty Little Secret

> Without them, today's more fuel-efficient engines would sound far quieter

Lets talk jets.

I remember a CF-101 Voodoo doing it's first pass over Borden at about 200 feet in full burner. Car alarms went off, children screaming, it was amazing.

Then came the CF-18. Soo boring. Even the F-22's a wimp in comparison.

Maybe we should add fake noise at air shows?

Comment: Re:Damn, No Arabic (Score 1) 122

by Maury Markowitz (#48814983) Attached to: Google Aims To Be Your Universal Translator

> In that culture, it wasn't "bad" to marry someone under-age

I'm reading A Distant Mirror (and you should too, it's amazing!). The Duke of something-or-other has just married a 12 year old. Much chiding ensued. But other than that, both commonplace and well admired. Hey, you have a 50% chance of not making it to 20, so you had to get married early to lock down that dowry.

Best line from the book... A knight and Lady are having a conversation, and she implies he'd be bad in the sack because his beard has less hair that certain parts of the female anatomy. He asks if this is true in her case, and she states that it's not, she's completely bald in this region. Thinking for a moment, he replies that he'll take her word for it, because "grass doesn't grow on the well-trodden path".


Comment: So then... (Score 1) 122

by Maury Markowitz (#48814931) Attached to: Google Aims To Be Your Universal Translator

"But Google's goal behind the latest version of the app is to enhance and simplify the features so they work more quickly and fluidly without any lag time. The latest version of Google Translate aims to change that."

So... slower and laggier in the new version then?

Maybe the story author needs Google Translate.

Comment: Re:Um, what? (Score 1) 69

by Maury Markowitz (#48806039) Attached to: The Strange Story of the First Quantum Art Exhibition In Space

> they're basically sampling random noise off of a CCD and claim that eventually it will produce the Mona Lisa


> He says the interaction of the CCD with the cosmic background radiation ought to generate energy fluctuations
> that are equivalent to the array containing all possible images in quantum superposition.

All paintings at the same time.

It's utter rubbish of course. The decoherence time of a CCD is close to zero. There won't be a single complete image in there, let alone all of them.

Comment: Re:Biased, but... (Score 1) 264

by Maury Markowitz (#48805811) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Linux Database GUI Application Development?

> t Oracle, PostgreSQL and MySQL python modules all do things differently

But so do the underlying DB's. That might sound like deflection, but considering that there's still no way to do cross-platform "return the first 10 rows" on the DB, I'm willing to give the API guys some leeway.

Comment: Re:Why tech zillionaires fund life exension resear (Score 1) 273

by Maury Markowitz (#48802279) Attached to: Silicon Valley's Quest To Extend Life 'Well Beyond 120'

> and I feel FANTASTIC as a result

Of course you do, you're taking a pill. The contents of the pill matter little.

> Dude, there is a TON of low hanging fruit ... been almost no research into the field

Which means there's a TON of BS. Maybe I'm just a little older than you, but NAD is the latest in a very very very long string of things that ultimately proved to do nothing, as one would expect.

If it doesn't have a double-blind, it's not true. You should take that to the bank.

Comment: Re:While suborbital flight may be too expensive... (Score 1) 300

by Maury Markowitz (#48748621) Attached to: Why We're Not Going To See Sub-orbital Airliners

> Concorde's engines WERE turbofans

They were pure turbojets. Zero bypass. You are wrong.

> the most efficient jet engines of their time in fact.

Not even remotely close.

You are, of course, referring to the overall thermal efficiency, which was indeed quite high. This is a wonderful measure of fitness for a *heat engine*, but exactly useless for measuring the fitness of a *jet engine*, which has to use that heat to accelerate air to provide thrust. *That* is called thrust specific fuel consumption, and the Olympus was poor even for its era - the TF39 (CF6) of the same era was twice as efficient:

Comment: Totally fallacious argument (Score 1) 300

by Maury Markowitz (#48748425) Attached to: Why We're Not Going To See Sub-orbital Airliners

The Fallacy of the Excluded Middle to be exact. And it's right here: "and they're going to fly in and out of spaceports some distance from the destination city"

Why would that be true? The *entire article* hinges on that statement. Yet there's exactly zero explanation of why this would be so.

One might make the argument that a hypersonic would be larger than a subsonic. That's likely true, one might imagine it being twice as large. So a Cessna Citation would be the size of a G5, and a G5 would be the size of a C100. All of these operate from small to medium sized airports. Even if it's the size of a 737, it's still going to be able to land and pull up to the executive terminal at every major city on the planet.

End of argument. He's already waved away the security issues and price by defining the market to be bizjet customers, so there appears to be nothing left.

Comment: Re: No we shouldnt (Score 2) 287

by Maury Markowitz (#48746589) Attached to: Should We Be Content With Our Paltry Space Program?

> Really, who paid for the developmental science of tang?

> Teflon?

> Transistors

Bell Labs all the way, totally private. This is well recorded in any number of great books. You might want to try "Silicon Fire".

> , ic circuits?

> High frequency electronics? Plastics? Explosives?

None had to do with NASA, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. But them again I'm not sure what any of the remainder of your poorly-spelled and almost unreadable rant is supposed to be saying.

Comment: Re:No we shouldnt (Score 1) 287

by Maury Markowitz (#48746499) Attached to: Should We Be Content With Our Paltry Space Program?

> Part of the reason those shuttle launches were so expensive was that they carried a lot of science.

Nope, that's not factored into launch costs. The Shuttle required a complete tear-down, rebuild and re-assemble after every flight. This was astonishingly expensive. Airline travel would be just as expensive if it had drop-tanks or launch boosters and required re-assembly after every flight. This is why single-shot rockets continue to dominate launches, the cost of the equipment is rarely as much as the cost of putting it back together.

You know, the difference between this company and the Titanic is that the Titanic had paying customers.