Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:10% more transmittance for glass? (Score 2) 30

That is one of those Wikipedia articles which is a bit vague about what it means. It's doesn't make sense to intend to say that glass transmits 90% of incident light regardless of the thickness. The Wikipedia entry references a single optical "element", so I'd take "the transmissivity of one element (two surfaces) is about 90%," to mean that 10% is the lower limit of light loss for a single lens of arbitrary thinness.

Now if a very thin silica glass lens transmits 90% of the light falling on it, then clearly it'd be very difficult to conceive of a material that transmits 10% more light than that. However you can achieve whatever level of attenuation you wish by making your piece of glass sufficiently (possibly absurdly) thick. The three inch thick glass panes used in giant ocean tanks are noticeably more opaque than air. Clearly it's physically possible for a material to transmit 10% more light than the same thickness of glass -- for a sufficient thickness. Particularly if the index of refraction of that material is closer to air.

Of course that's where we get to the point that the summary is badly written too. Silica glass *is* very transparent; insufficient transparency isn't a problem in window applications, if there's a problem it's that the material is too transparent. That's why we have dark tinting and anti-IR coating. So it's not clear why we would care that the material can transmit 10% more light. Clearly the story got garbled somewhere along the way.

Comment Re:Get a feature phone, dumbass. (Score 1) 262

You know what's going to happen if you rely on a pager, don't you? Nobody will know how to contact you on that.

Which, indeed, is a feature -- not a bug. Anyone you want to reach you you give them the secret formula: call my pager's phone #, and when you hear the beep enter your phone number followed by #. Or if you need to send text, send an email to myPagerPhoneNumber@provider.com. If you can't handle that I don't want to hear from you.

Oh, and a feature phone is fine solution if it's OK that you can't be reached when you're in a tunnel or some other places the VHF phone band can't reach but typical pager frequencies can.

Comment Re:Whoa! Exciting stuff! (Score 1) 136

If it'll help, the basket looks kind of like a depiction of a gravity well.

Also, the observers changed the outcome. The discussion of this game might very well spark insights that unify quantum mechanics with general relativity.

You can say you were there when the 21st century Newton got hit on the head by a basketball.

Comment Re:Timekeeping isn't precise at all (Score 1) 136

Actually, I'm fairly certain that the time is kept internally (precise) to better than 0.001 seconds, but it's not displayed to that decimal place at any point. When the timer stops, it does not continue to run until a second is completed, but stops mid-second. That's why the decimal was added - so that fractions of a second could be seen.

Comment Re: Everything is an art (Score 1) 431

You just "whooshed" on the meaning of life. Hard too. It's pretty pathetic.

This guy just explained to you that the point of fishing isn't fishing, it's about the art of extracting enjoyment from life regardless of circumstances. Your reply showed you don't get it. At all.

Efficiency is not enjoyment. It doesn't enrich. It doesn't produce. It is the antithesis of richness of experience. It is insectile, robotic, and inhuman. Trawlers that drag immense nets, indiscriminately scouring aquatic life from the water, are efficient. That's already been done, and the results are hideous and unsustainable. Explosives are very efficient for fishing. So is poison.

Why catch fish efficiently when you can do it with joy and pleasure, or flair and gusto? Sorry to rant, but I get the feeling you are modeling life so much that you are missing out on what it is to live it.

Comment Re:Solution? (Score 1) 144

Yaknow, I've been around enough British people and frankly I think that their 'sarcasm' is frequently not sarcasm at all, but bitterness and hate directed outward. Then, when called out on it, you just say "I was just taking the piss mate" and pretend to be offended. 30 seconds later, right back to making horrible comments. I really don't think it's sarcasm.

Comment Re:Never seen so many allergies in people (Score 1) 133

You realize that today even the poorest of the poor live like kings compared to Neanderthals? What were gay rights like under Neanderthal rule? How about women's liberation? Yeah, that's what I thought. Another left-wing fanatic who who won't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Slashdot Top Deals

Make headway at work. Continue to let things deteriorate at home.