Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:It was a "joke" back then (Score 1) 272

Clearly, with all that push towards convincing everyone that the wearable tech is the next new thing that you don't want to miss out on (all those various attempts at wrist phones/watches, Google glass and variations on that theme...) SOMEONE has already figured that out some time ago.

There's simply a rather fixed limit what you can do with a pocket sized device and what you can use it for - technology-wise.
Service-wise (like making stuff payable by phone or making every phone into a camera) takes both various technology advancements and accurately guessing (or convincing) the public and its needs.
Both those goals are limited with function.

Making you take it out of your pocket and strap it to your body... That just takes convincing you that it's cool.
The only really limiting factor there is fashion.

I.e. It's low hanging fruit.


Saturn May Have Given Birth To a Baby Moon 71

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the probably-an-alien-spacecraft dept.
astroengine (1577233) writes "NASA's Saturn-orbiting Cassini spacecraft has imaged something peculiar on the outermost edge of the gas giant's A-ring. A bright knot, or arc, has been spotted 20 percent brighter than the surrounding ring material and astronomers are interpreting it as a gravitational disturbance caused by a tiny moon. "We have not seen anything like this before," said Carl Murray of Queen Mary University of London. 'We may be looking at the act of birth, where this object is just leaving the rings and heading off to be a moon in its own right.'"

Comment: Sorry to burst your conspiracy theory... (Score 1) 582

by denzacar (#46746883) Attached to: Jenny McCarthy: "I Am Not Anti-Vaccine'"

...but ALL PEOPLE love conspiracy theories.

It's probably the same mechanism that once had us concluding that "Gods be angry. Quick! Burn someone to appease them." whenever we heard thunder in the distance.
I.e. Coming up with giant important explanations to what we perceive as giant important events.

Comment: You have a funny choice of medical concerns... (Score 4, Insightful) 582

by denzacar (#46746791) Attached to: Jenny McCarthy: "I Am Not Anti-Vaccine'"

You will willingly buy into unsubstantiated claims about dental fillings and ingesting mercury even suffer pain and monetary cost because of it (and possibly even harming your health) - but you will not vaccinate your children on an off chance that "something" might be wrong with the vaccines.

You do realize, your actions there are guided by pure ignorance and fear, right? Much like Jenny's.

You might want to have a chat with her. I had her number somewhere... Found it on the wall once.
It goes something like 86753... Dammit I'll have to look it up.

Comment: That body changed history... (Score 1) 639

When Jack Ryan's campaign for an open United States Senate seat in Illinois began in 2003, the Chicago Tribune newspaper and WLS-TV, the local ABC affiliate, sought to have his records released. Both Jeri and Jack agreed to make their divorce, but not custody, records public, saying their release could be harmful to their son.[30]

On June 18, 2004, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert Schnider agreed to release the custody files.[31] The decision generated much controversy because it went against both parents' direct request, and reversed the decision to seal the papers in the best interest of the child. It was revealed that six years earlier, Jeri had accused Jack Ryan of asking her to perform sexual acts with him in public,[32] and in sex clubs in New York, New Orleans, and Paris.[30][33] Jeri Ryan described one as "a bizarre club with cages, whips and other apparatus hanging from the ceiling."[34] Jack Ryan denied these allegations. Although Jeri Ryan only made a brief statement,[35] and she refused to comment on the matter during the campaign, the document disclosure led Jack Ryan to withdraw his candidacy;[36][37] his main opponent, Barack Obama, then won the 2004 United States Senate election in Illinois.[38]

Comment: Actually its not omitted. (Score 1) 227

by denzacar (#46684851) Attached to: Nanodot-Based Smartphone Battery Recharges In 30 Seconds

Only not explicitly explained.

In short - it lasts the same as the battery of that capacity lasts today.

'In essence, we have developed a new generation of electrodes with new materials â" we call it MFE â" Multi Function Electrode," StoreDot CEO Doron Myersdorf told Gizmag. "On one side it acts like a supercapacitor (with very fast charging), and on the other is like a lithium electrode (with slow discharge). The electrolyte is modified with our nanodots in order to make the multifunction electrode more effective."

It's basically a supercapacitor on top of a battery.
You charge the capacitor quickly, it discharges into the battery slowly, and because the capacitor is actually a part of the electrode the loss is minimal.

On top of that, not having to discharge the capacitor into the battery all at once, it can discharge into the battery slowly, without heating it up, increasing the battery's life-cycle.

Discharge time is not the issue. Like others have already mentioned - we're gonna need new (thicker) cables and connectors to charge that fast.
And we just got the reversible USB.

Comment: Re:May I have a source please? (Score 1) 188

by denzacar (#46629119) Attached to: UN Court: Japanese Whaling "Not Scientific"

Ah! Excellent!
So you do speak SOME sarcasm, but lack finer understanding of philosophy behind the language, or you just can't pick up my dialect.

Let me explain.

1 ) Just because I'm intrigued by the topic someone mentioned enough to look it up myself, and then provide the links for others with just about the same level of interest as mine - does not mean that I have additional expertise or information that I'm withholding for any reason.
You can tell all that from my original post cause if I did have more info, posting the fourth link would be trivial.
Or writing a sentence saying where to find it.

It was all "implied" by the copy/paste link-dump style of the post.

2 ) Even if I did for some inexplicable reason have the info you need while lacking the will to share it - I am not your personal search engine or database.
Feel free to look it up yourself.
You clearly know what you are looking for, you clearly know of existence of search engines and the internet - go look it up yourself.

3 ) Arguing against the quality of freely provided information while asking the provider to get you more of it - makes you come off as spoiled and whiny.
Plus, you aggravate that by showing us that you have the time (enough to hang on slashdot, enough to reply...twice), interest for the subject, tools and ability to look it up yourself - but no will to do so on your own.

I on the other hand while maybe having time, tools and ability, completely lack the necessary level of interest or motivation for such an "adventure".

There you go...
Those seven words expanded to several paragraphs. Now go and google the stuff you want for yourself by yourself.
Or get your manservant or personal assistant to do it for you. I don't care. It's not my job.


UN Court: Japanese Whaling "Not Scientific" 188

Posted by samzenpus
from the swim-easy dept.
First time accepted submitter Nodsnarb (2851527) writes "The UN's international Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled that Japan's Antarctic whaling program is not for scientific purposes. In a statement, the court said that Japan's programme involved activities which 'can broadly be characterised as scientific research.' However, it said that 'the evidence does not establish that the programme's design and implementation are reasonable in relation to achieving its stated objectives.' It added: 'The court concludes that the special permits granted by Japan for the killing, taking and treating of whales in connection with JARPA II are not 'for purposes of scientific research' pursuant to [the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling].'"

Comment: Re:Works both ways (Score 0) 449

by denzacar (#46615285) Attached to: WSJ: Prepare To Hang Up the Phone — Forever

Not everything is a game. Or a sum. Period.

The issues involved can't be quantified numerically, and then just put through an equation until everyone is equally happy or miserable.
Nor could we call such a process just, good, right, proper or any other similar positive term.

If I'm stopped with no reason and unjustly accused of a crime just for shopping there (Which is what asking for a receipt is. Next time try not having it on you and see how it goes.) - I'm not shopping there anymore.
And I'm raising a fuss prior to that. See how that goes regarding their promotions and stamps.

As for your other examples, it appears to me by what you are letting slide and in which way (centering on authoritative and economical aspects of human interaction and disregarding the moral issues like spying, stealing, more spying and workspace harassment) that you are either purposefully putting those up as strawmen OR that you really don't see anything wrong there.

A parent-child relationship with no trust or privacy, where children are objects and not persons. Nice.
A commercial relationship where both trust and honesty hinges on the question of technical abilities of both sides, along with the ability of one side to trick the other without them noticing it - and if they do, that's OK. Cheating - fine if you can get away with it.
And a "I'm your boss, I'm your god" relationship which allows employee fuck-all of options - they can choose having no privacy or no job.
And that, according to your argument, is just as it should be. Even more, "that is a good thing."

Did you check with your psychiatrist lately? You may be a psycho.
Or working for the NSA. But I'm repeating myself there.

Comment: Re:Worst: when they use magic (Score 1) 512

by denzacar (#46614981) Attached to: Why <em>Darmok</em> Is a Good <em>Star Trek: TNG</em> Episode

And the fact that almost nobody in the Star Trek (television) universe is concerned with this fact is bugging me.

Bones McCoy did. All the time.

On the other hand... you did notice they didn't do much church going on that show?
That they were more... what's the word... sciency?

I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve immortality through not dying. -- Woody Allen