Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Test it with the following (Score 1) 88

Okay, but that is just a single pass from English->Chinese->English, and you admit that it is not always successful and might get rejected. The original proposal was FIVE TIMES, without the crib of being able to compare back to the original source at each step. Surely you will agree based on your experience with a "single pass" of this translation that if they went back and forth five times, never being able to reference back to an earlier version, that things would go off the rails.

Comment Re:News Flash! (Score 3, Insightful) 474

I'm seeing a lot of Absurdist (Existentialist? Nihilistic?) braggadocio in this thread. I wonder if all of these people are really this uncaring deep down. For example, would you press the button to end all of humanity in exchange for a mystic vial of infinite happiness potion? Is it really, REALLY all about you? Every one of us alive today is a product of, and influenced (for good and bad) by the legacy of those who came before us. I wonder if people who claim to be totally uninterested in leaving a legacy are either too afraid or too confused to make the personal sacrifices that a satisfactory legacy of your life requires.

Comment Re:Should of also gone after loan abuse with schoo (Score 1) 153

That these mistakes are oft repeated doesn't make them any less wrong.

Absolutely it does make them less wrong. Are you going to tell me that using phrases such as "to curry favor" and "moot point" are incorrect because a long time ago someone misheard someone else say "to curry Favel" and "mute point"? (see: http://blog.oxforddictionaries...)

Everyone should agree that languages evolve over time. For some reason, however, some people get really indignant when they observe the actual mechanisms by which languages evolve up-close.

Comment Re:'Wireless charging' is for fools (Score 1) 120

Cool, does that mean I can get infinite power out of it as long as I can get the receiver and transmitter arbitrarily close to each other? Sounds like each time I cut the distance in half I get twice the power. Zeno saves the day!

If distance=0 represents a theoretical "full power", then how do you double that distance to get the half (or quarter) power according to the inverse law? If some distance > 0 represents "full power", then getting the TX and RX that close ought to be free of this nasty inverse square business.

Comment Re:'Wireless charging' is for fools (Score 1) 120

Induction charging, even at its best, is only about 40% efficient and that's practically touching coils together.

Sure, but that loss isn't due to any inverse square law, is it? Like you said, the coils are practically touching. The op was implying that all wireless charging is stupid because loss increases with the square of the distance. I'm saying (with no research and little expertise in the area) that all of the wireless charging I've seen operates in the near field; and while I don't know how much that 40% efficiency number you gave could be improved upon, I doubt that the dominating factor in the loss is distance in this specific case.

Comment Re:'Wireless charging' is for fools (Score 1) 120

The Inverse Square Law fully applies to any sort of wireless charging because physics works.

I'm pretty sure the fact that most wireless charging systems operate in the near field and rely and near field effects means that the inverse square law doesn't "fully apply". Even if it does in a technical sense, the distance between transmitter and receiver is very small.

Comment Re:I am not able to find that disproof (Score 1, Informative) 270

There's nothing to be disproved. The submitter is just showing ignorance. I was able to find a commencement address by Arno Penzias where he shows the audience what a staggeringly large amount of time we are talking about when we talk about monkeys (or computers) randomly recreating text of any appreciable size. Tip to the submitter: Don't use phrases like "mathematically impossible" unless you really know what you are talking about. Slashdot readers fall all over themselves in their hurry to assert their superiority in these kinds of cases.

Slashdot Top Deals

Consultants are mystical people who ask a company for a number and then give it back to them.