Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re: Looking more and more likely all the time... (Score 3, Informative) 324 324

It cannot be incomplete, it is a purely mathematical statement.

Particularly, for linear momentum, conservation of linear momentum is equivalent to the laws of physics being symmetric by translation.

If linear momentum is not conserved, the laws of physics are not the same throughout the universe and vice-versa.

Comment Re: Looking more and more likely all the time... (Score 5, Informative) 324 324

The physics are most certainly NOT uncontroversial.

If this thing were to truly work, it would have insane implications to some basic assumptions about the universe - namely about the very laws of physics themselves.

This device working means that the laws of physics do vary by translation, which goes against every single other observation ever made. The science behind it is most certainly not clearly sound. Skepticism is the only logical option for this thing.

Comment Re:Strange (Score 1) 72 72

Of course the seller has to identify himself. The people selling stuff and seriously thinking about paying taxes are not the same people who'd rather not show up on the government's radar.

As I said, nothing changes, other than bitcoin being grouped with real currencies and not products.

Comment Re:Strange (Score 2) 72 72

Any non-under-the-table sales over a certain amount must identify both parties, in many jurisdictions. Small purchases don't require that.

This ruling has no impact on anonymity: If something was to be kept off the radar, it sure as hell wouldn't be bothered with taxes and government bureaucracy. If it's just something small that should be kept quiet, nobody bothers or is forced to collect information about the buyer.

Comment Re:Strange (Score 5, Insightful) 72 72

What are you talking about? Your statement is the opposite of what happened.

The court basically said "Yeah, that's basically like money" - meaning it's not a product itself but can be used to acquire other products. *Those* products are still subjected to VAT, as should be, but bitcoin itself isn't.

Comment Re:I'm all for it (Score 1) 394 394

Even though the guy is "just" an AC, he's right. You have a right to an opinion. But I also have the right to tell you that your opinion is based on incorrect assumptions.

Seriously, don't put words in other people's mouths.

You're wrong != You're an idiot

You are an idiot, as demonstrated above, but not because you're wrong.

Comment Re:I'm all for it (Score 1) 394 394

Now you're clearly being argumentative because you can't accept the possibility that the idea you defended was a bad one.

And that's fine because the argument against me at the time was "you don't have an aeronautical degree so you can't say anything about the issue that is not 100 percent in line with the status quo"...

So I cited that actually the ideas had been proposed initially by people with such degrees. Which is now causing you to goal post move.

Now the issue is "money". Which is a different consideration. We're talking about economics, business models, existing production lines, etc.

No such argument was made. It was an observation.
Another observation I'll make is that you seem unable to grasp that more weight = less money made at the end of the day (in one way or another).

Weight itself is irrelevant, from an engineering standpoint. We can make the whole thing bigger to match the capacity of the lighter option. The problem is that it's crazy expensive all around! It costs more to produce, costs more to operate, costs more to maintain, costs more to land (airport fees are often based on maximum takeoff weight)...
Less weight = more money.

Ultimately you're going to argue "this is bad because it isn't the way we do things right now. Only status quo policies are good"... You are not currently making that argument... but you've already painted yourself into that corner. Its just a matter of time.

I will put the final nail in your argument's coffin by making the obvious counter argument that nothing would ever change or improve if we didn't challenge the status quo and have a willingness to try new things.

Damn, you're full of yourself.

Nobody is arguing for the "status quo". What is being argued is that the status quo is the status quo for good reason and that your alternative is worse than the status quo. Changing things just because is not engineering. It's throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks.

Seriously, here's some advice for life:

When somebody says you're wrong, don't reply by accusing them of "moving the goalposts" or employing a "strawman" (curiously, that's what you've been doing). Don't act like a prick because some people share your opinion.
And, most importantly, don't play the victim card when somebody makes a statement about you. There's nothing wrong with not having an aerospace degree, but there is something wrong with pretending to know more about the subject than the people who do.

Feel free to respond above with arguments against my point, but remember: "Aerospace engineers looked at the problem" is not an argument. It's their fucking job to investigate alternatives. It's also their job to discard the bad alternatives - including the one you're so strongly defending, for some mysterious reason.

Comment Re:I'm all for it (Score 1) 394 394

That is also questionable, given the complex process involved:
Open door, Airbus Beluga style.
Remove cabin
Check for debris/damage
Insert cabin
Ensure all systems are properly connected (power, water, infotainment, wastewater...). These are going to be more problematic, too.
Close the door (which is also much heavier...)
Make sure it's properly closed (probably a wash, if you're checking several regular doors on a regular plane).

Comment Re:I'm all for it (Score 1) 394 394

The idea being original or not has no bearing on its quality.

I'm sure people have tried to design such concepts. And I'm sure their thoughts when they finished were along the lines of "Yeah, this is never going to work better than what we have now."

Also, no need to be a rude asshole. There's nothing wrong with being clueless about structural engineering, but there is something wrong with being a rude asshole.

Comment Re:I'm all for it (Score 4, Insightful) 394 394

You clearly have no idea about airplane structural engineering, or you wouldn't even consider what you just suggested. The only realistic solution would require a massive weight increase and the added failure scenarios, which need to be carefully examined and worked around.
Furthermore, refueling an airplane does not take less than two minutes. That's the time you need just to plug in the fuel line.

Not to mention the absurd ground complexity. Airports would need several cabins per flight per aircraft model, plus room to store them, plus machinery to handle them...

Never, ever going to work.

Kiss your keyboard goodbye!