Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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: They would have to take budget from somewhere (Score 1) 166

by MemoryAid (#46397997) Attached to: NASA Forgets How To Talk To ICE/ISEE-3 Spacecraft
So, to summarize, you have put forward a nuanced position to clarify that you don't favor the extreme position. You have then been charged with favoring a different extreme position. Now you are challenging the AC to support his own straw man.

As an aside, is there a sub-classification of the straw man fallacy that deals specifically with oversimplifying toward one extreme or another? I'm a big fan of labeling logical fallacies within the discussions where they occur.

Comment: Lex Luthor could use this (Score 1) 110

by MemoryAid (#45797921) Attached to: Metamaterials Developed To Bend Sound Waves, Deflect Tsunamis
Imagine if Lex Luthor controlled a construction company that did major projects around the Los Angeles area. With each project carefully selected by location, he builds, over the years, a lens that will focus earthquake energy onto a specific building to be specified later, perhaps with a tie-in to current events, destroying it completely.

I should note that I haven't really kept up with Lex Luthor's aspirations since the 1978 film.

If he could come up with a good way to trigger the earthquake, the film could be a remake of Black Sunday. Or at least use a similar target.

Comment: Re:A few minutes googling for patents... (Score 1) 152

by MemoryAid (#45596469) Attached to: Patent Battle May Loom Over 'Copenhagen Wheel' Electric Bike
Others have described this as suitable for 'fixies' (fixed-gear) only. In that design, the only torque supplied to the wheel comes from the chain, as there are no brakes. Braking action comes from applying pressure to the pedals on the 'other' side of the stroke. Whatever motor is inside this wheel would then become a generator, providing regenerative braking.

Comment: Re:Anecdote, data, and all that, but... (Score 4, Insightful) 331

by MemoryAid (#45541661) Attached to: 62% of 16 To 24-Year-Olds Prefer Printed Books Over eBooks

I want to see a proper double blind study done of this.

How do you do a double-blind study on screens?

"You will be looking at either a back-lit screen or a book--we won't tell you which until after the study--and then we will ask you questions and examine your eyes to determine the effects."

Comment: Re:England (Score 2) 470

by MemoryAid (#45540477) Attached to: EU Plastic Bag Debate Highlights a Wider Global Problem
There's a lot of talk about 'the environment' when plastic bags are discussed. Where is that, exactly? Seagulls choking on plastic bags is a pretty clear example of 'bad for the environment,' I'll admit, but 'plastic bags buried in a landfill' doesn't sound so bad to me. The landfill has bigger problems, environmentally speaking. That's why we have landfills--to confine the problem.

Plastic bags that degrade in UV light would seem to mitigate the danger to wildlife (for surface-dwelling animals), which is where they cause the most damage. If it ends up being buried and lasting for 1000 years, so what? Archaeologists will be thrilled.

Comment: Re: Gorilla glass (Score 1) 195

by MemoryAid (#45351055) Attached to: The Feathered Threat To US Air Superiority
Some older aircraft feature through-canopy ejection systems. See the part about non-standard egress systems.

Also note that many aircraft canopies have multiple parts (e.g., EA-6B), where the windscreen can be thicker than the overhead portion of the canopy. The birds won't hit from above where the ejection seat pierces the canopy.

The EA-6B has one of those through-the-canopy ejection systems. Note in the photos the presence of a structural aluminum beam along the centerline of the canopy. Aircrew are well advised to keep their body parts clear of that should they need to eject.

Is it possible that software is not like anything else, that it is meant to be discarded: that the whole point is to always see it as a soap bubble?