Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Michelson-Morley were wrong. Ether exists (Score 2) 274

There's no difference between "change in speed of light", "change in distance", and "change in travel time for light". They're all the same thing. Don't both instruments detect very small changes in round-trip travel time for light, comparing one direction to the other?

Sure then 1880s apparatus wasn't going to detect gravity waves, but that's just a matter of sensitivity of the instrument. We still call an electron microscope a microscope.

Comment Re:Cool! (Score 1) 274

Oh stop this nonsense. Causality being broken with FTL speeds is one of the most annoying and most wrong thing ever when it comes to FTL.

Causality breaking is subtle. For a simple one-way trip, in your reference frame, nothing will seem wrong, but from another reference frame you may appear to go back in time. If you have two pairs of ansibles (FTL telephones), each pair moving relative to the other, it's possible to send a message round trip (FTL to your connection, normal space to another endpoint, FTL to its connection, back to you) in such a way that you receive it before you send it.

The circumstances needed to break causality are somewhat contrived, but it's possible.

This is also why silly things like long-distance sensors in sci-fi wouldn't work either because light is still based on photons.

So a warp drive moving a whole ship FTL is somehow more believable than some sort of wave or particle that travels FTL and can be bounced off things in front of you? I find tachyons easier to believe than warp drives, myself (much as I hated particle-of-the-week Trek episodes)

Comment No... (Score 1) 204

These are examples of really really dumb people not paying attention. if your GPS says, "drive 250 miles" to the hotel near your airport, and you blindly do it... you are an idiot.

Drive 2 days away... again, idiot level.

The problem is that all technology requires the user to have a modicum of intelligence. The examples in the story are of people that should not be allowed to drive a car let alone use a GPS.

Comment Re:Uh... let me think about it (Score 5, Interesting) 204

TFS said

Could society's embrace of GPS be eroding our cognitive maps?

I delivered pizza for a few years, before GPS, and a few hours of taking orders will disabuse you of this naive notion that most people have "cognitive maps". Most people do not know where they live! They can't tell you the nearest major intersection. What they know is a sequence of steps to follow to get to their house.

"Turn left at the big tree. Turn right where the church was before it burned down. Turn left where Johnny was hit by that drunk drive last year. Look for the red house."

I'm only slightly exaggerating. I really do encourage everyone to use maps, to learn to change your "pathing" dynamically when conditions change, to know where you are not just the steps you took to get there. To quote the REM song: "Stand in the place where you work. Now face north. Think about direction; wonder why you haven't before ". Can you do it without looking anything up?

Comment Re:Cool! (Score 1) 274

I think you meant to say "Inconceivable? You keep using that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means".

Many fictional things are "conceivable", but in terms of real science, no one is going to take a casual "general relativity is totally broken" proposal seriously. General relativity has made more and better predictions (and more unexpected predictions) than just about anything. You can doubt any theory, but the more one has proven itself, the higher the bar to claim "but maybe it's totally wrong".

Every theory "might be wrong", but that's not a useful observation - it helps no one to point that out, much like complaining about the weather. "This might be true instead" is useful, but you have to explain everything the current theory is correct about too.

Comment Re:What kind of telemetry (Score 3, Informative) 159

Actually allow me to correct your correction as MSFT is giving away absolutely nothing as a full version (not the "super duper extra spyware" insider edition) of Windows 10 Requires a legal key from 7 or 8 which currently costs as of this writing between $100-$200 dollars and there are several reports of users trying to go back to Windows 7 after the 30 days to find THEIR KEYS ARE NOW INVALIDATED. I can attest to this being true as I've had to talk to more damned third world MSFT flunkies than I ever cared to thanks to this very issue.

So the REAL cost of Windows 10 is currently between $100- $200 USD, that is the cost of the Windows 7 or 8 key you are giving up by taking this "free OS" and not going for the super duper extra spyware insider edition......sorry but that is the most fucking expensive "free OS" I've ever seen in my life and why we need to kill that "Oh its free you can't complain" bullshit because that is what it is, total bullshit!

Comment Re: FAA doing it right (Score 1) 52

The octo copters are a model of what aircraft? One could argue that http://www.rc-airplanes-simpli... is a model aircraft. As it's literally a model of an aircraft, and RC. But an octo-copter is not a model of any actual aircraft, therefore it isn't a "model aircraft".

If you RC plane is a historically accurate P1 Mustang, feel free to fly it at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... and see what happens. Your court case will be enlightening, if your assertion that it's illegal for the FCC to regulate "model aircraft" is correct.

I think the general thought (here and at the FCC) is that an octocopter is not a model of an existing actual aircraft, nor designed to be.

Comment Re:FAA doing it right (Score 1) 52

After OKC bombings (and a lesser extent car bombings in the middle east), government agencies created no-drive zones around federal buildings. There were some complaints, but little resistance.

Your argument is that we should wait for a tragedy to make rules to prevent a tragedy. We shouldn't try to identify security flaws and patch them until after someone has exploited them with public results. Only then should the government be allowed to patch a security flaw.

Comment Re:FAA doing it right (Score 1) 52

That's how everyone has always done it. The progressive Founding Fathers of the USA were making it up as they went along as well. Taking bits of what worked, making sure to leave out what didn't and seeing what happens, we can always amend it later if it doesn't work. The first US constitution failed miserably. How are those Articles of Confederation working out?

Slashdot Top Deals

When speculation has done its worst, two plus two still equals four. -- S. Johnson