Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Comment sorting (Score 1) 1826

I'd find sorting based on score much more useful than first-come-first-served. The score would have to be unlimited for it to work, or sorting score be somehow separated from the -1 to 5 scoring system.

Maybe supporting both sorting methods would make everybody happy.

Comment Re:No. There aren't. (Score 1) 704

"News for nerds, stuff that matters".

I consider myself a nerd, and this matters to me. I also infer that nerds in general would be interested in more than tech news, including a US border scandal happening abroad and involving the religion in the spotlight, but I may be wrong.

Maybe since that motto is no longer visible, it may well no longer be the guide for its content subjects. If that's the case, a newer guide doesn't seem to be visible anywhere else either, so assume "tech/geek" at your own risk.

Hope that helps.

Comment Seriously? (Score 2) 151

From the NCA link, about interest in programming and spending all night online:

Many of these are just normal teenage behaviours and don't necessarily suggest a young person is at risk of getting involved in cyber crime. But if a young person is showing several of these signs, try and have a conversation with them about their online activities.

What exactly am I supposed to be shocked about?

Comment Re:Infinity (Score 1) 1067

Ah right, so it's actually:

1/0 = ÃS'
0ÃS' = 1

As for the utility, if there are situations where a plot or solve 1/x for every x is necessary, I imagine there would be situations where it should be workable even if [.'. x] includes 0 without the algorithm being deemed broken because there's no "if x != 0 then 1/x else ???" in it.

Comment Re:Infinity (Score 1) 1067

I'd like to understand why we can't do the same trick we do with sqrt(-1) on (1/0) and call it "zeplex". Example:

1/0 = Ê' (some applicable symbol)

A zeplex number is composed of a real part and a zereal part: a + bÊ'

Ê'/Ê' = 1
0*Ê' = 0

And so on.

It can't be just the asymptotic nature, because it doesn't seem to hold complex from being a valid concept. I.e.:

Comment Re:Depends on the energy source duh! (Score 1) 775

An electrical heater is not a system, it's just part of one. The system itself would at least involve the energy source and the transporting medium, where the losses continue to hold true the fact that there's no 100% efficiency in any system. If there were, Entropy would have no meaning.

If you take the isolated case of the heater as being 100% efficient because in itself it's able to convert 100% of its input energy into wanted heat (which itself is discutable, since there may still be losses through electro-magnetic emissions, vibrations, etc. that would not be captured by the room and transformed into heat, even though all that would be as negligible as contesting gravity acceleration as not being 9.8m/s^2 in most cases), you'd just as well pick a heat pump which, with the same amount of input energy, "produces" 3 times more heat.

Comment Re:Depends on the energy source duh! (Score 1) 775

What I meant is that the fact seems to be "electricity is way more efficient than combustion" rather than "electricity is 100% efficient. Gas is not".

As far as my ignorance in the laws of Physics goes, it's simply impossible to have any system running at 100% efficiency because it automatically implies zero loss of energy.

Electric systems lose energy everywhere: conduction materials have impedance, motors have friction *and* generate inductive impedance, photons are created...

Slashdot Top Deals

"When the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to treat everything as if it were a nail." -- Abraham Maslow