Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:Stupid (Score 5, Interesting) 128

Except that this substrate is not being used for Si based semiconductors, but for GaAs instead. Also, using the wood-based substrate means that you can use 99% less of the semiconductor material (GaAs which is rarer than Si, and also poisonous). This will make specific classes of electronic devices (specifically radio and microwave frequency devices) much cheaper, and much less hazardous to dispose of, which is a big win.

Comment lots of skepticism here (Score 1) 154

First, there's no way that this is both safe and effective: if it really does deliver enough current to your brain to make any difference, then it's not likely that these folks have done the kind of trials that would be needed to prove that it's safe. If, however, it doesn't deliver any current to your brain (which is pretty likely, since it's hard to get a signal through the skull) then it may be trivially safe, but it can't deliver any of the claimed benefits. Or, maybe they will try to take the same route as herbal supplements, and make no actual claims while selling you (hopefully) an inert product (but this isn't an herbal product, and won't be able to claim coverage under herbal supplement regulations, which means that both the CPSC and the FDA will probably want to get involved).

The "first hand account" of the effects of the device can't be taken seriously: the author knows that the device is supposed to make them feel good, so we should expect the placebo effect to make them think that they feel better, more alert, whatever. The author is entirely too credulous in any case; this is nothing more than press release journalism, and Thynk is nothing more than silicon snake oil.

Comment Re:Balloons (Score 1) 174

AC wrote

I think you understand. Yes, the hypothesis is that space itself is being created, and that this is a fundamental law of physics. There's no fundamental law for it to violate, there's conservation mass and energy, no conservation of space.

But there is conservation of angular momentum. If you insert extra space between two objects that are rotating about a common center of mass, then either their rotation must slow down, or you are getting fee energy from the expansion of space. I'm not personally opposed to either outcome, but I'm curious to know which is the observed fact.

Comment "SPACE" Telescope? (Score 1, Informative) 63

What exactly makes this a "space" telescope? Does the submitter (and the "editor" who accepted the article) believe that South Africa is in outer space? Or maybe they believe the word "space" simply indicates that the telescope is used to look at things in space? I'm not sure which would be more idiotic, but I can't think of any other explanations.

Comment The problem with exponential growth... (Score 1) 455

is the constants. If your process doubles in the measured quantity in 20 days then you have something that might be worth worrying about (assuming that it won't hit some other limit, so long as that limit isn't you), but if it doubles in 20 years you have some time to consider and prepare. Whenever I see talk about the singularity it seems like the growth people are talking about either has a very short doubling period (which it probably doesn't) or the growth is actually super-exponential (the doubling period itself is chchanging with time).

In either case, innumeracy will be our downfall before the singularity gets us.

Comment Maybe high O2 led to evolution of hard tissue (Score 3, Interesting) 78

Rather than sparking rapid evolution, maybe the high O2 concentrations led to (or allowed) the development of hard tissue in existing complex organisms. Ocean acidification dissolves the shells of clams, corals, etc. and increased O2 levels could coincide with decreased CO2 levels (probably because the organisms creating all the O2 had to get it from somewhere).

This being Slashdot (and the link being paywalled) I have not bothered to read the linked article. Hell, I've barely bothered to read the summary.

Comment Objective-C, hands down (Score 5, Informative) 316

Swift is still a very immature language, with lots of bugs in the compiler, rough support in the debugger and IDE, and the syntax isn't even set in stone yet (don't expect the syntax to settle down before Swift 2.0, probably some time in late 2015 if not 2016). There are a number of things that you still can't do in Swift (e.g. providing a callback function for APIs that expect a C function pointer), and you'll just spend a lot more time hitting your head against walls than writing working code. On top of this there are many more resources available for learning Objective-C than there are for Swift, and the pitfalls and corner cases are better understood for Objective-C than they are for Swift. As a bonus most of your instincts honed on C will carry over to Objective-C (while they are likely to lead you astray in Swift).

Swift is a really exciting language, and fun to play around with, but it's not ready for production work (yet). It will get there, but in the mean time you should stick with the established tools, which means Objective-C for iOS and Mac OS X app development.

Comment Re:not suprising... (Score 1) 406

Poor people can't use their wealth to shield themselves from the consequences of their own stupidity, so yes.

I observe this fact every weekend in a nearby wealthy neighborhood where I go to eat at good restaurants. Stupid rich people who don't know how to obey traffic signals (both drivers and pedestrians), don't know how to operate simple machines (soft serve machines shouldn't cause issues for observant adults), and who generally seem to expect everyone to make allowances for their blundering and incompetence.

Comment Re:String theory is voodoo physics (Score 2) 259

gtall wrote:

Einstein's theory of relativity was theoretical at first. It was only later that scientists were able to devise experiments to test it

Actually, you have that exactly wrong: Einstein's theory of special relativity was a direct attempt to explain a specific experimental result, the negative results of the Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment to verify the existence of the liminiferous aether. The Michelson-Morley results were published in 1887, and Einstein published special relativity in 1905.

There are three kinds of people: men, women, and unix.