Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

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:The older I get, the better I once was. (Score 2) 103

by davewoods (#46767073) Attached to: Your <em>StarCraft II</em> Potential Peaked At Age 24

This is the part that confuses me. As I get older I am noticing that I have lost my twitch reaction speeds, so I can no longer play Quake, or Team Fortress very well. However, what I have lost in speed reaction, I have gained in cleverness. Having played a lot of games and seen how mechanics work, I am able to more quickly come up with solutions to problems via "Out of the box thinking".

Now I am curious if anyone else is the same way, I suppose that now that I am forced to move more slowly, my brain is counteracting that by helping me strategize more quickly. Maybe it is just a part of my inner workings, but I doubt I am any more special than anyone else.

Can anyone confirm/deny this for themselves?

Comment: Re:Actually... (Score 1) 642

Since apparently you feel like being a dick... The very first words on that Wikipedia page say this:

In physics, an orbit is the gravitationally curved path of an object around a point in space, for example the orbit of a planet around the center of a star system, such as the Solar System

Just like I said. And since you never gave a counter argument, that must mean you agree with me and/or are a troll. So I suppose that is it for this lovely conversation, have a fantastic day.

Comment: Re:Actually... (Score 1) 642

No, you are still wrong. Earth orbits the Sun, however, the Sun is affected by the gravitational pull from the Earth, and is therefore also shifted slightly toward it. The gravitational effect of the smaller body is not included in the definition of orbit. It simply states:

The curved path of a celestial object or spacecraft around a star, planet, or moon, esp. a periodic elliptical revolution.

You are really starting to look like a troll at this point, so maybe you should just call it a day, mate. If, however you are not trolling and simply misunderstanding, then please say so, I would be glad to help you understand.

Comment: Re:Actually... (Score 1) 642

I'm not sure that holds up.

Why not? He never said anything about the barycenter, which would move anyway. The sun being the center of the solar system is correct, regardless of the precise orbits of the planets. They all orbit around the most massive object here, which is the sun. In other single star solar systems, it is the same way.

However, if we had a binary system, I would definitely be with you on this one, how would one determine the center of the solar system then? I suppose perhaps the barycenter of the two stars would be used in that instance, but I really have no idea.

Yes, we will be going to OSI, Mars, and Pluto, but not necessarily in that order. -- Jeffrey Honig