Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom - A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at 88% off. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:This is news...? (Score 1) 221

Both are right. Protons are deflected in the atmosphere and neutrons have no charge and no (almost no) magnetic oment so don't interact with things unless they hit a nucleas head-on (elastic interaction).

That being said, if a high energy neutron hits something the energy my be sufficient to create other particles (like protons and gamma rays). So in a way both theories in this thread are correct (protons produced in lower atmosphere from neutrons from space).

If you have the equipment, cosmic ray bit flips in memory can be determined. For this, one must map the status of every memory cell in the affected region to it's physical location in the chip and have a mirrored (RAID 1 like) data set with appreciable physical separation from the data under investigation. If there are many bit flips following a physical straight line path through the memory device, that is likely a cosmic ray.

Comment Re:Charge? (Score 1) 382

City buses in particular are excellent because

-They are doing constant stop and go (very hard an a combustion engine, very power conservative for electrical vehicle with regenerative braking). There are additional savings in electrical vehicle for extended intervals for brake pad / shoe replacement, lack of a transmission & tranny maintenance / fluids for the low speeds involved, and being able to make a speed limiter for the driver that is much more robust.

-Buses stop at very specific places like bus stops. China is already having trials with recharging pads under / over the stops. (Bus kneels, bus gets energy). This has the added benefit of keeping the driver from wandering too far off course or they "run out of gas" is designed as such. I believe this was in a /. article 12+ months ago for buses with supercaps, but should be easily applied to batteries (with a longer charging time for a partial charge)

-The other points already mentioned (lost of battery space on a bus, less noise, better center of gravity for low mounted batteries, more space for people to sit, etc.

Hell, with the low CoG maybe we'll see double decker buses in the US...or even a bus / light rail hybrid (drive around a neighborhood, go to the rails for longer range travel.

Comment Yes, harder. (Score 1) 250

They stared with forcibly not allowing Windows 7 and 8.1 to run on Skylake hardware after 18 months...
http://arstechnica.com/informa...

They're also removing USB 2.0 support, to make sure your much-older computers are properly neutered. Guess you're going to be using that Skylake-esque hardware after all...
http://wccftech.com/intel-skyl...

Don't ask a question if you don't want to know the answer!.

Submission + - Hacktivist Dumps Controversial Data Belonging to America's Biggest Police Union (softpedia.com)

An anonymous reader writes: An unknown hacker breached the computer systems of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), the US' biggest police union, and dumped 2.5 GB of data online. The data was released via the Cthulhu website, and the site's owner, acting as an intermediary, says he still has around 18 TB of info he didn't release because it was too sensitive. FOP is one of America's biggest unions, with over 330,000 members.

Comment Re:Those I play (Score 1) 281

I think the right person could go a long way by reminding developers that w/ linux they could include the OS with the game to create a stable environment free of configuration differences (back to the days of including DOS / MacOS 2.x with the game on a disk). This should go a long way to reducing delivery day problems (assuming all required drivers are available), and would make cheating harder as the OS can be check-summed and read-onlyalong with the game files.

The downside is most companies deliver half assed software dependent on updates, and the updates would now need to include OS updates in addition to the game. Plus, if game developers all used different OS's, that means a crap-ton of rebooting just to play a different game.

Comment Re:Okay, didn't want to go here but... (Score 1) 253

Sure they would. It's a military target, but it's old so unlikely to start a war. It's the perfect target (for anyone--US or not).

As for the Occam's razor part, how large of a accident would it take to cause the satellite to explode? These things aren't small, so unless the battery / heater was heating leftover propellant (Apollo 13 style) I am unsure anything else has the energy necessary explode a 120 lb (55kg) mass--particularly if it's not in an airtight / pressure vessel (which is a guess on my part as the craft is unmanned).

If energy also came from external sources, however, then the postulations above are no longer valid.

Comment Re:Lasers are easy to stop (Score 1) 517

>Currently the velocity of railguns is roughly equivalent to navel guns

Nope, the 8MJ railgun was hypersonic (I think it's at 32-64MJ now). It sounds much louder than the 5" when it fires. It needs the extra velocity as the shell turns into plasma when it hits a target, eliminating the need for explosive in the shell.

The reason for the shells that no one seems to have pointed on yet is the US Navy also need land-attack capability (The Marines continue, to this day, protest the removal of BB's because they love dropping 16" 1.5 ton shells on fortified beaches, See also, LRLAP). If you look back to the Iran-Iraq war, while missiles were used frequently most things were still finished off with 5" / 75mm. The truth is that those rounds cost much less than a standard missile, and a railgun projectile should cost even less as there's no explosive handling required for it's rounds (either HE or propellant). This is all in addition to the massive improvement in safety the CNO frequently cites (which is also important)

>High endurance aircraft that can strike from extreme range and attack submarines with surface strike capability might be the order of the day. A submersible destroyer for example could get in close with heavy weaponry, fire a salvo, and then dive before enemy systems could target and strike it. Such a thing would be vulnerable to enemy attack submarines but then you could just escort it with a flotilla of attack submarines to act as defense. You could even add some drone carriers. Submersible aircraft carriers were built by the Japanese in WW2. Consider what you could do if you gave such a design a nuclear power plant, expanded the size to Nimitz proportions, and replaced the planes entirely with more compact drones.

While I personally believe we would be better served with elimination of the surface fleet for submersible craft for many reasons (difficult to target, risk reduction to asymmetric threats such as a fishing trawler filled with explosives, reduce need for so many ships in a carrier group, etc.) the "Japanese WWII aircraft carrier" was a sub with a built in storage for three seaplanes that had to be assembled before use and disassembled on retrieval (based on memory of the wikipedia article). The sortie rate and number of aircraft supported of a CVN is much, much higher than this design can support, so we would either need a massive number of them (more $$$ + extra manpower), or need to make a submersible carrier meeting the requirements of a modern CVN. Plus, I would guess if anyone followed those Japanese seaplanes back to base that sub-carrier didn't have a lot of options to save both itself and the aircrew, as it didn't have enough planes to maintain a CAP or enough armaments to enforce a defensive perimeter.

If you Nimitz-sized one, the initial cost would be massive (a typical CVN is over $3 billion currently), and there would be a lot of technical challenges to work out (sealing aircraft elevators against water pressure, for instance). I believe it would be worth the one time high R&D cost in the long run, but it would be a hard sell in current economic times. You also have to think about risk (what's the total cost if one sinks accidentally? How many ways could that happen? Can I evacuate a sub with 4000 people the same as one with about a hundred?

Comment Re:Big Myth #2 (Score 1) 339

Selling stock doesn't work that way. You look for people wanting to buy at a price (or offer a sale at a price and an amount) and then people say yes or no.

Selling it the first way (looking for people offering to buy at a given price) takes time, because no one is looking for a volume of stock as large as what Gates has. Thus, it would take multiple buys. After a few buys at a given price (which show up on the "Big Ticker Screen"), people trying to buy will start lowering their prices. If you want to keep selling, you have to accept that price for the amounts offered. The price will go down as time goes on, because the traders know someone keeps buying even as the price goes down. So the price keeps going down, and goes down faster as you keep buying at their unrealistically low prices.

The other way (offering a massive amount of stock for sale at a fixed amount) will cause traders to go who the hell is selling all that? Then panic will ensue and more people will lower their sale price of MS stock. Since no one is likely to buy all the shares at the price you listed, you know have a similar "race to the bottom" of stock price to try to sell it all

The way to get it sold for a fair value is to sell it off slowly and take the risk of price fluctuation over time. This is what the OP was referring to WRT "it's just money on paper" as realistically getting all your value out of that asset takes time to fully close the deal at the prices against which the persons net worth was calculated.

Comment Re:Working as intended (Score 1) 166

Actually, there can be good reasons, which involve detailed requirements. For instance:

-Army develops armored vehicle
-Marines need armored vehicle, get Army vehicle
-Army vehicle doesn't meet Navy safety requirements
    +Army stores HE shells in bunkers waaay far away for everything else on their bases
    +Navy ships not that big (and "sunk due to magazine explosion" is a common theme in naval warfare), so safety is bigger deal
    +Marines must use Navy ships for amphibious capability
-Marines make different armored vehicle (add ability to float as well)
-Congress / people claim waste because two different vehicles built for large $$$ that look / appear to do the same job.

This definitely isn't always true, but it's probably true more often than the layperson expects.
This argument can be done vice versa if you include that the Army doesn't want to pay for Marine-specific features or needs something that can be procured and logistically supplied / maintained in much larger numbers.

Comment Re:The winner? (Score 1) 567

NATO can't easily win a long term tactical / conventional war against the PRC. China is in a production infrastructure boom as the US was during WWII and has plenty of people to man all war materials produced.

China and the US are so economically tied that both would have severe long term losses. China is dependent on US consumers to buy its exports, generate IP to steal (er, "produce"), and on the US being able to repay its foreign debts. The US is dependent on cheap Chinese manufacturing, shipping, and rare earth metal exports.

Slashdot Top Deals

The reason why worry kills more people than work is that more people worry than work.

Working...