typodupeerror

## Comment: Re:this report is inconsistent (Score 2)142142

Actually, "mass squared" is a completely relevant concept in this context. The reason is that the equation everybody thinks they know as Einstein's special relativity equation is NOT E = mc^2. That is the simplified version for objects at rest. The version that includes particles in motion is E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4, where p is the momentum of the particle. Note the presence of an m^2 term in that equation. Thus, a negative mass squared -- which others have pointed out should be read as "negative (mass squared)" -- implies that the particle's energy is *decreased* by its mass rather than increased by it. This is a counterintuitive idea, but quite plausible mathematically.

One thing that I should point out is that it is possible that Erlich wrote this paper not because he actually believes it, but because he did the math. Got a surprising result that did not obviously contradict known principles of experiments, and is challenging the world to tell him where he went wrong. We used to do this all the time when I was in grad school. It was a lot of fun. The main difference is that when you stake out an outrageous position and your friends catch your mistake over some beer, no one calls you an idiot on Slashdot. When you publish a paper, the results can be less ... um .. . "civil."

## Comment: Re:this report is inconsistent (Score 5, Informative)142142

Ummm...according to my calculator, 0.33 eV / 510998 eV = 0.646 x 10^-6, which is reasonably close to "two thirds of a millionth" quote

As for the imaginary mass, let's say that some particle had 0.33i eV as its mass. Then if you squared that, you would end up with -0.108 eV^2. How is that not "negative mass squared" ?

There are lots of potential problems with Erlich's theory, but the ideas you chose to nitpick are not at issue..

## Comment: Re: That's amazing (Score 2)5353

You seem to have a really bad case of apples and oranges syndrome. I'm really not trying to get on your case -- rather, I want to help you understand the way things really work.

1. "for example "light" can travel faster than light if they are travelling in different mediums."

Whether you realize it or not, what you're saying here is that the speed of light depends on the medium. This is true. It seems like you are saying that this is some sort of contradiction, when in fact it isn't. Consider your own running speed: do you run faster in air or in a pool? Light faces a similar situation; in denser media it has a slower speed. Saying "light can travel faster than light" is just silly. Light always travels at the speed of light -- just not always at "speed of light in a vacuum."

2. "a vacuum has really high resistance and I seem to remember that electrons travel at different speeds depending on the resistance."

If you are talking about electron drift velocity in a conductor, then I recommend you start reading here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D.... If you are talking about the velocity of free electrons in a vacuum, that's a completely different story. A free electron in a vacuum has no single speed, no more than a free cue ball in a vacuum would have. Either object travels at a speed consistent with its momentum and energy. If you're talking about electrons shot out the back end of an accelerator, they're going close to c (the dreaded speed of light in a vacuum). If you're talking about electrons accelerated by some other mechanism, well, then the speed is going to depend on what energy the accelerator imparted to the electron.

## Comment: Re:That's amazing (Score 5, Informative)5353

You should really read the "abstract," because the entire paper is available there at no cost. The discovered relationship is not a*C = b, but rather x = A y ** (-B), which is a much more complex relationship, and quite startling in this arena. Also be sure to look at all his graphs so you will understand what this guy did, what he discovered, and why this is a Big Deal (tm). Then maybe you won't be so quick to mock this discovery...

## Comment: Re:Natural immunity (Score 3, Informative)122122

This. For the love of god, people need to mod the parent up. In classic Slashdot fashion, the entire conversation on this thread has missed the point, which is that the farm workers are carrying these antibiotic-resistant bacteria BECAUSE THEY CAME IN CONACT WITH LIVESTOCK THAT CARRY THE BACTERIA.

Why do the livestock carry these bacteria? Because they were fed low doses of antibiotics for long times. Antibiotics work great when you use a nice high dose for a specified period of time, and kill all the targeted bacteria. If you use low doses that don't kill all the bacteria, then some survive and eventually the survivors evolve a resistance to the antibiotics.

By using these low doses of antibiotics in livestock, we are *helping* bacteria develop resistance to the very drugs we use to treat those same bacterial infections in humans. In other words, we are setting the stage for an epidemic of disease that we can't treat because we rendered the treatment tools ineffective.

MRSA is the first. What this article is pointing out is that more are on the way, because they now have direct evidence that the resistant bacteria have a means of getting from the livestock to human populations.

This article ain't a political discussion, folks. It's a canary in a coal mine.

## Comment: Re: Lifetime at 16nm? (Score 4, Informative)6666

I read it. It makes some claims that are not actually related to cell lifetime but rather to tricks they can play with the fancy firmware that allow them to do fewer writes and erases. That has nothing to do with the native cell lifetime.

## Comment: Lifetime at 16nm? (Score 4, Insightful)6666

Seems like the durability of flash cells decreases with every process shrink. It makes me wonder what the lifetime of this new stuff will be. A 10% reduction in cost is no bargain if it comes with a 10% reduction in lifetime.

## Comment: Seriously? (Score 5, Insightful)116116

Reading e-books two or three lines at a time on a 3.2-inche screen would turn anyone off of reading. If you're trying to interest people in reading more, it's going to have to be a pleasant experience.

## Comment: This would be a lot more fun... (Score 1)8989

...if they open-sourced the design or at least just let me download a PDF so I could print one and make it at home. As the FAQ says, however, "Foldscope is not yet commercially available."

This, of course, makes me wonder why this needs to be commercial at all...

## Comment: Seems like a small detector assist is in order (Score 1)105105

There are lots of ways of detecting gamma rays, but one really common way is through scintillation and/or fluorescence. Most common scintillators are small blocks of plastic. I'm thinking you could increase the sensitivity of the smartphone gamma system by simply taping a small piece of plexiglass to the outside of the camera lens, using plain old black electrical tape. Then the plexiglass would convert some of the gamma energy to visible light and the camera sensor would do the rest.

Total cost? Probably around \$0.05 total.

## Comment: Re:CMMI is a scam (Score 1)228228

So here's the part the press doesn't cover thoroughly: CGI Federal was not the Prime or Lead System Integrator on this contract. We had no authority to issue orders or assert requirements on any other contractor. Sure, CGI made some mistakes, but we can't be responsible for the other contractors when we have no contractual relationship with them!

Testing, in particular, was something CMS reserved for themselves to manage as the LSI on the program.

Again, I don't work for the CGI division that had the contract, but I do read newspapers and follow the internal chatter on this sort of thing, so I'm pretty well "up" on CGI's experiences on this project.

## Comment: Re:CMMI is a scam (Score 2)228228

Nice way to go fully orthogonal ad hominem while not addressing the actual subject at hand. Did you find your debate skills in a cereal box? Froot Loops, perhaps?

OK for the record: I wrote my first multi-thousand line program in 1978. I was 12 at the time. I hold a PhD in experimental nuclear physics, a PMP certification (project management), have forgotten the details of approximately 119 programming languages that I have learned over the decades (although for some reason, good old fashioned K&R C sticks with me like a bad habit), and don't bother with certifications until my employer wants me to get one for some reason or another, at which point I do what any professional does: I go buy the book, read up until I feel confident I can pass the exam on the first try, and then pound the exam into dust.

The PMP is one example; I had to get that to satisfy the company policies when they promoted me from Chief Engineer to manager of an entire operating division that numbered about 150 people. I took the mandated class and then the exam, out-scoring every single one of the multi-decade experienced program managers who were working for me when I took over the division. Then I went on to grow that division from \$24M/yr to \$35M/yr in 2 years, when the company split my division in half because it had gotten too big. Then I took the \$20M piece and grew it to \$35M again in another two years, at which point it was (again) the single largest division in the company.

So: you are demonstrably, provably wrong in your assumptions about what I know about software engineering, business management, and probably everything else you think you can guess about me based on a single post. You also clearly don't understand the complexities of CMMI, how a company earns such a certification, and what the implications and resulting process burdens are downstream of the cert.

Surprisingly, there is one nugget of half truth in the steaming torrent of verbal diarrhea that was your unprovoked attack. You said "Your business was fucked long before CMMI even if you couldn't recognize it." The truth is that there were things wrong with the company, but we were doing just fine overall. The problem is that CMMI added so much friction to the way we worked that the previously minor problems became huge ones. The fundamental mistake the company made was playing along with SEI's demand that we apply CMMI to the entire company rather than just the division that had the mandate to attain at least Level 3. That project was OK with taking 3 years to develop 50k lines of code, and was more than happy to see costs in the \$5-10 per SLOC range. The average customer is not OK with those parameters. Incidentally, the project in question was ultimately canceled (not just our part, but the entire acquisition), with sunk costs so high that it makes the taxpayer in me weep like a baby who just dropped the ice cream ball out of the cone. But we made every deadline, met every cost target, and hit every defect density goal. Thank you, CMMI, for making our customer so happy with our performance that they gave us upwards of 97% of the maximum award fee (it was a CPAF contract) but making the overall project so expensive that even the US Congress choked on the bill and killed the thing.

Hey kid, running a software business requires much more than just disparaging other professionals whose skills and history you nothing about. You need to learn what you don't know, then get back to me about...

Oh let's just cut to the chase: go fuck yourself.

If a 6600 used paper tape instead of core memory, it would use up tape at about 30 miles/second. -- Grishman, Assembly Language Programming

Working...