Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Why this article should be ignored (Score 1) 350

by celtic_hackr (#48175977) Attached to: The Physics of Why Cold Fusion Isn't Real

Did you really just say all matter in the Universe is Hydrogen?

That's some powerful medication you're on. The Universe will eventually run out of hydrogen (not for a very long time of course, and our species may well be extinct by then, especially given our history and current course). True, we have Jupiter and can mine Jupiter for Hydrogen for a long time. But that means having an actual plan for expanding beyond Earth, and setting budgets to attain those goals. But as a means for say planetary power, we'll need to have a means of supplmenting our source. As a means of propulsion on say interstellar craft, we'd need to stop and "refuel", probably frequently, which might limit possible routes.

I'm not saying we shouldn' set goals to use Fusion power, but it's not a miracle pill, which many people seem to think it is. I'm just trying to set a more realistic tone. Every power source has trade-offs.

Comment: Re:Sorry that's not one of the feats of man... (Score 1, Informative) 350

by celtic_hackr (#48174533) Attached to: The Physics of Why Cold Fusion Isn't Real
Interesting, so you think a gas compound which forms a liquid is comparable to a metal compound which forms as a polymorphous solid? See, generally metals are considered to form alloys. Some alloys have special names like brass, bronze and steel. Aluminum oxide is about 52% aluminum. Malleable Iron is about 95% Iron. Now brass, is anywhere from 50% to 90% copper. An interesting thing is an alloy called Aluminum brass, where aluminum is used in the brass. The interesting thing is, it is used where corrosion resistant brass is needed, like at sea. It seems it forms a protective coating on the brass which is aluminum oxide and is transparent and self-healing. It is something that also forms on the surface of aluminum metal and that is why aluminum doesn't rust like iron. Oh, dear. That means that aluminum metal isn't aluminum either by your definition, because it is actually an alloy of aluminum oxide. At least on the surface. Maybe you should have gone beyond high school chemistry and studied materials science engineering in college, like I did.

Comment: Sorry that's not one of the feats of man... (Score 1) 350

by celtic_hackr (#48174161) Attached to: The Physics of Why Cold Fusion Isn't Real
Nature came up with transparent aluminum a long time ago. Most people just call it white sapphire. Now you can argue that sapphire, (aka aluminum oxide) is not aluminum, just like wrought iron, cast iron and iron oxide are not iron. There are several other iron alloys we still call iron, we just add qualifiers like "wrought", "cast", "gray", "white", etc. to indicate which alloy. Just like "transparent" is a qualifier to the aluminum alloy of aluminum oxide. So, while Star Trek made it famous and maybe gave it a new name, it is an accurate name. It is transparent and it is mostly aluminum by weight, and hence is an aluminum alloy now sometimes called "transparent aluminum". It was not invented by man, you can dig it out of the ground.

Comment: Why this article should be ignored (Score 1) 350

by celtic_hackr (#48174093) Attached to: The Physics of Why Cold Fusion Isn't Real

you'll have opened up an entire new source of clean, reliable, safe, renewable and abundant energy

I'd like to know how elemental hydrogen is a renewable source of energy. Sure you could rip apart the more complex elements that are the product of said fusion to make more hydrogen, but that's hardly what I consider "renewable".

As for the viability of cold fusion, it's a great software tool, but I don't think it's got much of a future as a solution for any energy crisis.

Lastly, you can't ever extract more energy than you put in. The fact we get energy out of fusion is because that energy is already packed in the element itself. All the elements have this capability, it's just that some elements are more ready to release the energy. Eventually you use up all the hydrogen and the other elements become progressively more difficult to extract the energy from. There is no miracle solution, except to be conservative with our use of energy.

Comment: Yes, they got /.ed and shut off comments (Score 1) 345

I don't think they were prepared for the response they got.

I don't know which is the more disturbing point.
1) Coming to the conclusion of removing support of an internally used format for external devices. A format most, or all, of the developers of 3rd party apps use.
2) Not being able to foresee the kind of reaction from the developer community, which any successful OS these days need.

No one ever considers the /. effect.

But Google/Chromium coders should have!

Disturbing on many levels.

Comment: Re:Yes, chromebooks are useful. But also annoying. (Score 2) 345

I disagree with your "might as well buy a real laptop" statement. I see nothing wrong with buying a $200 Chromebook and attaching an external drive, whether a $100-$200 SSD or a $70 TB HD. My Chromebook has a usb 3 port. Very handy for attaching external HDs/SSDs. My chromebook is the higher model @ $250.

I agree Chromebooks are useful. One thing is certain. I will definitely be forking the Chrome OS on any future chromes I might buy, to add back in support for ext2/3/4. Or I may buy a second one which still has the support. If some update comes down removing the support, I will simply "patch" it, to add it back in.

The warranty on the first one expires in a few months. I may just install Linux over it, and be done with it. The Chrome OS, does have just enough quirks that annoy me enough to switch it to Linux. Everyone in the house knows how to use Linux, but there will likely be performance penalties in switching.

Perhaps the best solution is to use a fork of ChromeOS.

Comment: That'd be a good point, except they had no Warrant (Score 1) 208

by celtic_hackr (#48103383) Attached to: Ross Ulbricht's Lawyer Says FBI's Hack of Silk Road Was "Criminal"

You're arguing a strawman argument, or rather a non-existent man argument. IF they had had a warrant, what they did would not be a problem. But they "hacked" into the server "exceeding authorized access" in violation of the CFAA WITHOUT A WARRANT. Hence it was a criminal act, by their own definition.

Now if you remove the CFAA, or clarify the law so it can't be misused to prosecute innocent uses, and uses that security professionals would normally use when looking for weaknesses in systems and not from a maliscious or criminal intent. Then what they did is probably ok. But as it stands now, what they did was criminal. It's a stupid, broken, clueless law, but it is the law and they would definitely prosecute someone for doing what they did.

Comment: I see your grandfather and raise you one grandfath (Score 1) 239

My grandfather manned a gun in a real open cockpit in WWI, flying in planes put together by wires, cloth and wood.

He took one of those wires through his chest in a crash landing, and lived to tell the tale, get married, have kids and eventully die mowing his grass one week after lung surgery because he was bullheaded, stubborn, Irishman [yeah runs in the family].

Comment: Wheel-well traveling (Score 1) 239

Step number 2 should be "bring a rebreather", rather than an oxygen tank. Rebreathers should be good for trans-pacific flights, 1.5-8 hour capacity, theoretically speaking.

Then again, Not sure how well they will work at 40,000 feet in the atmosphere. Nor if the sensors will know how to prevent you getting stoned out of your mind on too much oxygen (depending on the particular configuration of the rebreather). Still a rebreather would be my tank of preference for a wheel well trip.

But then if you can afford the $4000-$15,000+ for a rebreather, you could probably afford to hire a private jet.

Of course, you could probably save a bunch of money, if you plan on being a frequent-wheel-well-flyer.

Comment: Bullshit! (Score 1) 289

It takes 9 hours to go from Omaha to Miami on Amtrack , and you can get a one way ticket for $275.

Yes, you can opt for the 23 train that takes two partial days (not three full days - although there might be a possible package for that too), and yes you can buy a cabin ticket for almost $1100.

No it's not faster to drive, and I've driven such distances. Cheaper? Perhaps. If you have more than one person, definitely. Again, I've done this, I prefer to drive, and often get a rental with full coverage, in case I decide to pull any Jackass stunts ( with full coverage, I can take the car to a demolition derby before returning and not have any worries). It's definitely not more relaxing, especially if you're trying to beat a train going 90.

Note: if going from Omaha to Miami you'll probably go first to Chicago, and may get put on the City Of New Orleans (made famous by the song), and go to , you guessed, it New Orleans, then to Jacksonville, and then to Orlando, and then to Miami, there might be 3 to 5 train changes there. Then there are other, slower routes, with more changes.

It may be more rewarding to drive.

Also, it should be noted that some train stations have TSA agents and you'll still have to deal twith them sometimes by train. If you go that route. Trains can be fun though, no need to turn off your electronics, and you'll likely have excellent signal strengths wherever possible, plus a lot more room to get up and walk around and socialize.

When you don't know what you are doing, do it neatly.