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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

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:how much it took (Score 1) 274

by by (1706743) (#49199445) Attached to: Laser Takes Out Truck Engine From a Mile Away

... the longer it takes the less practical it would be to use it against a moving target.

Certainly true, but given that light is (near as makes no difference) instantaneous in this case, having the target in your sights and hitting it are the same thing. If the range is increased enough, I suspect that this would be a much easier weapon to use than, say, projectiles, as there's no possibility of evasion.

Comment: Re:the layout sucks, thanks Dice ! (Score 1) 391

Of course, some people/corporations will make arguments relating internet to delivery services -- paying more for overnight shipping means you get the package/letter faster. Of course, this is a flawed argument for myriad reasons, not the least of which is that if someone mails me an overnight letter I don't then have to pay extra to receive it...

Comment: Re:Numerology (Score 4, Insightful) 183

Good point. I think, though, that they approached it completely backwards: they have presented a method for determining the information-theory voxel size of the universe (or whatever you like to call it), NOT the energy density, as TFS claims. That is, I think they should have started with the correct answer (10^-27 g/cm^3) and derived the voxel size from there. Then we could debate on the physical meaning of this voxel, which is a legitimate thing to talk about.

Comment: Re:Numerology (Score 2) 183

No, I think this information theory "approach" uses 10km^3 voxels:

Specifying the location of the 10^25 stars in the visible universe to an accuracy of 10 cubic kilometers...gives an energy density of about 10^-30 g/cm^3. ...But if the location has to be specified to the Planck length, then the energy density is about 117 orders of magnitude larger.

So they roughly recover the quantum mechanical (apparently incorrect) result if they use Planck length^3 voxels.

Not that I read the article of course, but this seems an odd thing to do, as you should probably be confining them to hbar units of phase-space, not just confining them to voxels.

Comment: Re:Do we need 8K, except for special purposes? (Score 1) 94

It boils down to solid angle per pixel -- sit close enough to a huge screen and you'll be able to tell the difference.

I could imagine absolutely humongous curved screens being really cool -- the periphery might not contain any information relevant to the plot of the movie, but it would make for a very immersive experience. I call it the 4pi steradian display...

If it's not in the computer, it doesn't exist.

Working...