Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:The title is misleading (Score 1) 107

Personally, I think those detectors are very likely to be a waste of time. We're just building what are basically better neutrino detectors, not because there's any reason to think dark matter will interact with them, but because it's a detector we know how to build!

I guess partly it's a case of whether dark matter is "massive particles that interact via the weak force" or "massive particles that interact weakly" (via some other force) - if it's the latter, these detectors aren't likely to work.

There are lots of theories about what the "WIMPs" really are - there's no evidence of weak force interaction, it only sets an upper limit on their interaction cross-section. Heck, even that's only true if dark matter was found in equal amounts of matter and anti-matter in the early universe, which is a heck of an assumption since we don't understand why familiar matter had such a matter/anti-matter imbalance early on. If dark matter had the same imbalance, then far more possibilities open up, as long as it doesn't interact with light (or I guess the strong force, as these detectors should really have worked in that case).

Comment Re:String theory is just that: a theory (Score 2) 107

But we just proved it doesn't exist.

No, that's not what TFA says at all. You can't even blame a misleading Slashdot headline here: you just made that up. A detector was built to find a very specific kind of matter. It didn't find anything. No real surprise, as there was never any reason to think it would - it was just the sort of detector we already knew how to build.

Hence, my theory is just as valid, that EM has both mass and is a wave

Yes, that's called "Quantum Field Theory", and it's what nearly everyone believes. Doesn't explain anything that dark matter explains, though, so no.

Comment Re:AND GOD CREATED THE EATHER AND (Score 3, Funny) 164

Considering the state this place is in, he should've taking a bit more time. I mean, look at this lemon of a planet!

Not to mention the time management of this guy. I mean, think about it, he fucked about with this insignificant pebble orbiting a not really noteworthy sun in a rather plain region of a nondescript arm of a rather standard spiral galaxy in a not really remarkable galaxy cluster for six days and the whole rest, those other planets in our system, the stars and their plants, galaxies, galaxy clusters and whatnot, all that took less than a fucking paragraph!

Look around you again and notice just how fucked his place is.
And now imagine how the rest of the creation has to be if THIS is what he spent about 99% of his time on!

Comment Re:Great news everyone (Score 5, Interesting) 107

No, it is more than that. Astrophysicists give the attribute of "gravity" to dark matter. In fact, that was the reason they promulgated the idea, i.e., galaxies would fly apart otherwise so there must be something we cannot see which supplies the extra gravity.

They do not entertain the idea that maybe their laws are wrong, or that some other phenomenon might be affecting gravity.

That was true quite a few years ago, when there were many theories for galactic rotation rates, including MOND (precisely "the idea that maybe their laws are wrong"), hot dark matter, and cold dark matter which might be WIMPs or MACHOs.

Then we got more data.

WIMPs won out because they also explain gravitational lensing and the early universe. The cosmic microwave background radiation observations were decisive. The predictions made WIMPs were right on the money - turns out the early universe had just the predicted amount of (a) matter, that (b) wasn't moving near the speed of light, and (c) before block holes, brown dwarfs, etc could have formed.

That's how science works. Scientists do not lack creativity - there was a whole forest of ideas to explain galactic rotation rates. But as more observations of unrelated phenomena come it, only "some sort of particle" was left standing. Falsifiable theories were falsified.

This experiment was a bit silly IMO - it was just a detector much like the detectors we built for neutrinos, which had never shown any signs of dark matter before. It was very much a case of "well, we know how to build this sort of detector already, so let just build a big one and hope for the best".

Comment Re:It's obvious it won't accelerate offshoring (Score 2) 150

Yeah.... But half of my department are h1b or some sort of opt/ept graduates, so this would fuckin kill my startup. No way can I pay 100K to someone with next to no experience.

There's a whole country full of people with "next to no experience" - the country you're living in in fact, which should be quite convenient.

Comment Re:Jobs vs. purchasing power (Score 1) 114

Do you have any evidence of this? When cars replaced horses, automobiles presented manufacture, repair, and refueling jobs almost immediately.

Car-related jobs did very little to replace horse-related jobs at first (number-wise). It was only after cars had been around for quite some time that Ford made them cheap enough that more people could own cars than previously owned horses that job replacement started to become meaningful.

Manufacturing brought product after product into the purchasing ability of common man that he either could never have afforded, or only afforded for the head of the household.

That's been the trend. The new jobs are in stuff that previously only the wealthy could afford, but now suddenly most people can afford due to automation. People who can predict those products going forward stand to make a great deal of money.

far as Helicopter Money, it's not so much about the money as it is circulatory pressure.

We know that's not true from decades of deflationary pressure in Japan. The truth is: you can't push on a rope. Economies can stagnate, even collapse, for lack of money supply, but it doesn't work the other way: you can't create demand for money by increasing the supply.

Pensions were long common until the private sector made them unfashionable. The gov't typically pays about 15% less than the private sector, making up for it via pensions and benefits

I used to live in Alameda County - their pension obligations were 100% of their budget, and they were far from the worst in California. It's a common story - most states have similar problems at the state level, and most major cities and counties face it to one degree or another. Pensions were under-funded for decades from a combination of assumptions of 90s stock market growth continuing forever, lifespan not increasing, and politicians not giving a shit about any problem they could kick down the road.

BTW, jobs at the federal level now typically pay more than the private sector. Aristocrats vs commoners.

Comment Re:Doing Trump's work for him (Score 1) 390

Needs it for what exactly? You keep asserting that unimproved land has some mystical value, but I'm not seeing it. The majority of such land in the US is owned by the government - local, state, and national parks. There are a few huge private ranches, to be sure, but they're more trophies/status symbols than wealth. There's some unimproved land in the US that's actually rented out, but that's mostly "reverse sharecropping" that more-or-less pays for the property taxes, and again not a source of meaningful income.

Land becomes valuable when you build something useful on it (and not always then).

Comment Re:Harm (Score 1) 93

Kind of funny, our company is on the cutting edge actually, but in fluorescents, not LEDs, which are terrible for producing what we would consider high output of UVB or UVA. There is a huge difference between 320nm and 399nm, yet both are "UVA". 320nm has a lot more energy, and as you up in frequency (down in nm), it forms a Bell curve and gets exponentially more damaging. It also goes down in penetration, which is why you can get a quick flash burn from UVC (100nm-280nm) that doesn't penetrate more than a few layers of skin, but it is very damaging to those layers. And of course, the real kicker is how much you are getting.

And the reason it has that warning on it is simple: anything with any measurable amount of UVA must have that warning by law. The FDA regulates this (CFR 1040.20 for sunlamps, for example). I'm used to seeing them regularly for inspections. For some reason, general lighting fluorescents are excepted from this warning, even though they do produce a measurable amount of UVA.

Slashdot Top Deals

"If you want to eat hippopatomus, you've got to pay the freight." -- attributed to an IBM guy, about why IBM software uses so much memory