Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:I wish there was an easy way to understand it (Score 1) 66

by gl4ss (#49565971) Attached to: Holographic Principle Could Apply To Our Universe

number of dimensions? in what way?

current quantummumbojumbo that has already de-evolved into multiverse, current tech singularity ai-blabla etc already resemble ancient philosophical debates... in that they're silly to most people and seemingly also silly to those familiar in actual research and not "futurology" or whatever.

Comment: Re:Pinto (Score 1) 94

by AK Marc (#49565927) Attached to: The Engineer's Lament -- Prioritizing Car Safety Issues
And I read a traffic study that demonstrated that 2-3 seconds following distance was the worst distance to follow. Yet that's the recommended range. Closer was more likely to cause a crash, but a lower damage one. Farther was more likely to avoid the crash. The sweet spot for highest probability of the worst crashes was the "recommended" ranges that governments publish. Like so many government studies that show the opposite of "common sense", I found it missing when I went back for it. That one and the one paid for by the US government that showed that smoking pot reduces crash risk.

Comment: Re:1D compression, AKA "Serialization" (Score 1) 66

by lgw (#49565787) Attached to: Holographic Principle Could Apply To Our Universe

Just about any dimensional space can be represented in fewer dimensions, or even 1 dimension

But that all misses the point here. The point of the holographic principle is not that one can imagine a 3D encoding onto a 2D surface, e.g. a holograph, but that the maximum possible information in a volume is not proportional to volume, but to surface area. That implies the fundamental mechanics of the universe can't be something like "voxels". We observe a universe which we can measure in 3 spatial dimension down to the Plank length, in principle, but that can't be what's really going on, at least if the holographic principle holds.

Comment: Re:Not a theory! (Score 5, Interesting) 66

by lgw (#49565635) Attached to: Holographic Principle Could Apply To Our Universe

The word "theory" implies that it is testable.

"Falsifiable" is a better word here. You don't need to be able to do controlled experiments (tests) in order to have a solid theory - an influx of new observations of the universe as we find it works just as well.

And the holographic principle is certainly falsifiable.

1) It imposes a limit on the amount of entropy in any given volume - find a system which can be in more than the allowed number of states, and isn't inside a black hole, and this theory is dead.

2) It sets a really high value on the entropy of black holes. Black holes become the dominant source of entropy in our universe. This has consequences in cosmology that are fundamental, if the only reason entropy is increasing in our universe is this assigning of entropy to black holes. There are certainly physicists playing with that idea, as it could be career-making, true or false.

3) It has deep implications for the evolution of black holes - how they evaporate. This will be a lot harder to prove (I don't think we'll validate Hawking radiation in my lifetime), but might be possible to falsify by finding a black hole that's clearly not allowed by theory.

Heck, there are implications for particle physics that are still being understood, and lots there is testable now with the LHC. The more and farther you reason from a premise like this, the more likely it is to matter to something easy to measure, or at least possible to measure.

The reason the discovery of the Higgs boson was such a big deal is that it confirmed a bunch of really abstract theory in quantum mechanics that is very, very far from anything we can measure, except at the end of this very long chain of reasoning there's this prediction of this new oddball particle (that there's no other reason to expect - it come from deep in the abstract math of QM, not from anything else we measured). So finding that particle confirms that whole crazy chain of logic. Something similar will eventually happen for the holographic principle.

Comment: Re:Content Expert (Score 1) 327

by AK Marc (#49565597) Attached to: The Future Deconstruction of the K-12 Teacher
If your first job teaching is Chemistry, you must have a bachelor's degree in chemistry (aside for the exceptions for those with an education degree and a "minor" in chemistry). Doesn't that count? Then, once you are a certified full teacher, you can teach almost anything after a quick and easy test, that should be passable by any good HS student in that subject. So there's a difference between the first-subject, sole-subject teachers (who must be experts) and those that "got in" under something else, now teach unrelated subjects.

Comment: Re:Don't forget legacy BROWSERS. (Score 2) 140

by PCM2 (#49565481) Attached to: JavaScript Devs: Is It Still Worth Learning jQuery?

This is tricky. It's tempting to support legacy browsers, but if you do too good a job of supporting them, you don't incentivize your users to ever get their sh*t sorted, and upgrade their browsers. It's a vicious cycle I am eager to avoid.

Yeah, but when your "users" are more properly called "customers" -- or even more important, "potential customers" -- then some web dev's desire to preach the gospel must take a back seat to doing the job the way it needs to be done, rightly or wrongly.

It's fine to push for strict browser standards when the only people who will ever see your web applications are within your own organization. Public-facing sites are a different matter.

Comment: Re:Do not want (Score 1) 94

by AK Marc (#49565317) Attached to: Smart Headlights Adjust To Aid Drivers In Difficult Conditions
Then I'm an absolute fucking retard. I've studied crashes (like as in crash reconstruction in engineering classes), and someone walking across a median is invisible when two oncoming cars are at the right distance in the right lighting conditions. The pedestrian is illuminated insufficiently compared to the oncoming glare. Yes, even if wearing white (though not if wearing a full yellow retro-reflective suit).

So the invisible object, whether human, animal, or other, is invisible because of the lighting. But if both cars turned off their lights, the object is visible. You can't turn off your lights all the time and end up safer, but if you can turn off the other guy's lights where they hit your eyes, then you can see it.

There's real science in it, and linked to real crashes that killed real people.

That you are an ignorant buffoon doesn't change reality.

Comment: Re:Talk to us first if you wish to patent the chan (Score 1) 28

by Bruce Perens (#49565243) Attached to: Imagination To Release Open MIPS Design To Academia

OK. Can we see your agreements, please? Because that did sound very much like trolling for additional intellectual property to add to your portfolio.

People who read this article have pointed out three open CPU designs in addition to the one that I remembered.

While your product might be "production ready", please keep in mind that open projects are very often written to a higher standard than commercial ones, and the researchers involved are no less professional than your own developers. And their projects come with fewer intellectual property issues than yours.

Comment: Most growth in Apple was in China (Score 1) 20

by WillAffleckUW (#49565161) Attached to: Alibaba Looks To Rural China To Popularize Its Mobile OS

The platform restriction of the Alibaba mobile OS is competing with the Apple mystique for their mobile OS. Since we can measure Apple sales of mobile units, we see a sharp spike in sales in China, and thus Alibaba may not do as well with this approach as they might have otherwise.

Until they get the powers that be to block Apple, of course.

"Joy is wealth and love is the legal tender of the soul." -- Robert G. Ingersoll

Working...