Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - Pay What You Want for the Learn to Code Bundle, includes AngularJS, Python, HTML5, Ruby, and more. ×

Comment Re:Next up: Stone candy. (Score 2) 89

I agree with you in spirit, but disagree in terms of basic caloric intake.

Once we have the ability to create tasty foods with effectively no caloric value, it doesn't matter how much our bodies tell us to eat. We can only hold so much worthless food at a time. If we can literally gorge ourselves on near-zero calorie foods, we will have solved obesity, simple as that.

I do have to wonder how our bodies will rebel against this latest way to eat-without-eating, but strictly in terms of energy-budgets, this seems like a win/win.

Comment Re:Dealers cannot die soon enough (Score 5, Insightful) 441

you think Kia wants to open up their own showrooms at malls across america? I assure you not.

Hey, if Kia doesn't want to sell directly to me - Tesla does. I have no problem with both business models competing with one another.

I do, however, have a problem with needing to deal with middle-men because of protectionist laws that forbid companies like Tesla from selling directly to me. But hey, YMMV, right?

Comment Re:The dark matter between their ears (Score 1) 160

The way it varies though - mapping out the "dark matter" - suggests interactions with common matter both ways. So it's not like "the underlying fabric varies" - it really behaves like matter, forming clouds, strands, that "hair" - it's not a generic field or a generalized property of space "resulting in galaxies".

MOND suggests some unknown as of yet function mu(a/a0). If that function was to fit the observational data, it would be incredibly complex; nothing as elegant and common as common [something]/r^2 or sqrt(v^2/c^2). It would be more like a function to describe shapes of clouds basing on air flow, temperature and humidity.

We don't know any other physical entity that would behave that way - move, flow, gather - than matter. And while still some predictions are defied and we can't say for sure it's matter, if we compare the effects to known behaviors of various physical entities - waves, fields, energies - this one has strong similarities to matter and very few to others.

For example, space expansion is uniform; about all of cosmos expands at the same, flat rate that slowly changes over time, but is independent of location. Its source is described as "dark energy" but you can have justified doubts if it's really energy because its interaction with reality seems really unidirectional: it affects space, but the space and its contents don't seem to affect it. In case of dark matter though, the similarities are striking.

And if you think about difficulties of detecting it - it doesn't interact with electromagnetism... What percentage of our observation methods are not based on electromagnetism? All known matter keeps its structure - solid, gas, structure of atoms - due to electromagnetic forces. Bindings between atoms are all about electrons and protons interacting electromagnetically. All of light is EM wave. Most of non-electromagnetic observations like neutrina or collisions of neutrons - boil down to interactions that *eventually* produce some EM influence; be it an emitted photon, a neutron decaying into a proton and an electron, and so on - we observe them indirectly. If Dark Matter doesn't interact electromagnetically, it could sit right in front of our noses and we'd be unable to spot it. A solid chunk of dark matter could directly phase through a solid chunk of steel, because there's a lot of room between electrons and the nuclei and no force (electromagnetic!) that would prevent particles of the dark matter occupying locations in between; it could even phase through the nuclei because who says it needs to follow Pauli's Exclusion Principle? It's enough that it interacts gravitationally, and so your chunk of steel would exhibit 30% higher gravitational pull - but since its original gravitational pull is piconewtons, the change would be undetectable.

Comment Re:It probably comes down to ... (Score 3, Insightful) 90

The difference in the way of thinking is simple.

Mathematician: "This is too complex for my brain. I can grasp the outer layer of the problem, but the underlying thing is beyond any human's capacity."

CompSci guy: "Oh, I can write a program that handles the outer layer of this problem; I have no clue what that underlying thing is but I bet it can be brute-forced."

Comment Re:Ockhams's razor (Score 2) 160

Yes, it would - given a theory fully consistent with the observation without the "god-like" dark matter. Which we don't have.

So until either a workable alternate theory is developed, or we manage to disprove Dark Matter through other means (e.g. discovering it's not actually matter) it's there to stay.

Comment Re:Those who can, program. (Score 1) 90

Programming, my boy, is to science what accounting is to calculus. I don't think you have even the beginning of a glimmer of understanding of what science is.

Not entirely true - I can assure you that, on a daily basis, I apply the scientific method to figuring out how to talk to undocumented "black boxes" (whether hardware, OS features, or just how to safely use buggy libraries I can't avoid or rewrite).

That said, your statement holds largely true in a bit different light than how you meant it...

In mathematics, you can spend a career mentally masturbating over your favorite "hard" problem, and retire after decades with nothing to show for it. In programming, if you work on a problem for five years, you'd damned well better get world-changing results, or find a new job.

Comment Re:Stop spying on everyone (Score 2) 491

For that to work you'd also have to come up with a scheme of monetary compensation or none of us will get to play with toys.

If $600 for a phone doesn't cover the cost of production, charge more.

... And then (rightly) go out of business when your customers laugh and buy a $150 knockoff that has all the same features at a quarter the price.

The two most common things in the Universe are hydrogen and stupidity. -- Harlan Ellison