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


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:It's called transmission losses. 5% over 250 mi (Score 1) 504

i was under the impression that the higher voltages minimized the loss. thought the loss was a function of resistance and current. so you minimize current by boosting voltage, and you minimize resistance by minimizing distance and maximizing wire diameter.

Comment Re:Aaannd they're off (Score 1) 511

and people are rightly more afraid of say, a new-fangled rocket car exploding them than say... a literal hunk of iron and a literal hunk of aluminum doing the same.

when people say chemicals, i think most of them just mean synthetics. when they say, hey, this herbal remedy is working I scoff... but i also understand it probably won't give them thalidomide babies. efficacy aside, nature that's been historically used for food or medicine has a track record of not killing its user in obvious ways. cultural and historical natural selection.

Comment Re:Aaannd they're off (Score 1) 511

yeah, but the common parlance has chemicals referring more to entirely synthetic compounds, or isolated/purified natural compounds.

if you're using terminology like atoms and molecules, people more readily understand what your emphasis is.

and your language is de-emphasizing the importance in the organizational information of the matter. akin to describing a car as a hunk of iron, carbon, aluminum, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen copper, etc. etc.

Comment Re:Aaannd they're off (Score 1) 511

nah, but i'd be more comfortable with molecules and atoms. chemicals is a bit to ambiguous these days... and it doesn't capture the complexity of the organization, and how easily it can be organized out of place. and and and... essentially all of biology.

don't know, technically you're right, but the wording is inadequate.

Comment Re:Aaannd they're off (Score 1) 511

generally speaking, do you think that a perfect modelling of your brain electronically, with the inputs and outputs of your meat-suit, and the instantaneous state of your electric fluxuations, would be another "you".

or is there something intrinsically special about your meatsuit that, despite more computational power and detail than you can imagine, cannot be reproduces in an alternate medium? i don't think there's anything significantly special about our physical analog brains, that one cannot reproduce it's pattern at some future point.

mind-body duality yes, to an extent, but probably not the historical interpretation.

Comment Re:Aaannd they're off (Score 1) 511

yes, but they compose the framework. the specific pattern of electrical activity i think is me. maybe. hard to tell. i think "you" are an ephemeral ever shifting pattern bouncing between your chemical interactions... well, also mechanical.

bleh, also, chemical is not specific enough for semantic debate.

apparently, energy isn't a chemical. information and organization aren't chemicals either.

the question is do you want to do this colloquially or full on scientifically?

Comment Re:Now how US Law works (Score 1) 91

i've googled, please provide link. from what i read,

he could not return "guilty" of murder and was the lone holdout. after more deliberation the "guilty" camp actually lost people too. and there were numerous questions about the difference between a voluntary manslaughter conviction and a murder conviction.

voir dire is the prosecution and defense's responsibility too.

Slashdot Top Deals

The Macintosh is Xerox technology at its best.