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


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:So much for Apple's "better design" (Score 1) 216

Ah yes the anecdote of one person...modded up. The "hasn't happened to me" approach is like a reverse ad hominem -- "You can't attack Apple, because I say there is no problem."

This page, that Google returned as the first link, is rather extensive.

Clearly this is a massive problem, both in how many are affected, and the cost to rectify things.

Comment Re:BS "most popualar" (Score 2) 367

I'm saying that a cell phone is a commodity. Which is disaster for Apple of all companies.

As to comparing a whole category to one product, again we can look at old style phones. They were all the same, for decades at a time. When other companies were allowed to make and sell them, consumers didn't much care. Commodity item. Yawn.

One could argue that the Smartphone is the Calculator watch of cell phones. Just a passing fad, with basic functionality being all most care about. Again this is a disaster for Apple.

Comment Re:10k? (Score 1) 43

What is the problem? Someone could read the source code for...a six-second video system? What am I missing here? I didn't see any mention of him being to modify and reupload code. Are any credit cards involved? What is the absolute worst thing that could happen? Someone else hosts six-second videos? je ne comprends pas...

Comment Summary is jacked (Score 4, Insightful) 206

In short, the deal doesn't include Alibaba shares, which are the lion's share of Yahoo!'s value. So, mentioning the $125B value in the summary, not clarifying what the deal is, but saying the deal is for $5B, is ...pretty typical for a Slashdot summary.

Comment Re:nuclear reactions (Score 1) 13

As to Two: Mass can not be changed to energy -- this is probably not quite right. The mass that fuses does become that ultra high energy. But this does not produce much in itself. Rather, it is the liberation of the ultra high energy springs -- no longer tied up with the mass -- that are the major energy release.

In thinking still further on this, and going back to the basics of Spring-And-Loop Theory (while walking the dogs)...

Spring-And-Loop Theory says the only matter/mass is protons. That electrons are not matter but more of that ultra high spring energy. {see COASALT: The Electron for more).

Spring-And-Loop Theory also says that a neutron -- being a proton + electron + "anti" neutrino -- is just a proton + two neutrinos. A proton + some bound-up ultra high energy. {see COASALT: Neutrino for more).

When something fissions, the total number of (proton+neutrons) does not change.
When something fuses, the total number of (proton+neutrons) also does not change.

So, to repeat the original QW assertion: Mass can not be changed to energy

Proton(s) may become neutrons, or vice-versa. But no matter has changed to a non-matter form -- with "matter" being defined by Spring-And-Loop Theory. Conventional physics -- i.e. tEmP theories -- define matter differently, and has all sorts of other things being matter -- e.g. neutrinos, virtual particles, and countless sub-atomic "particles" (a subject for a future COASALT talk in itself). This is a major point of departure between conventional physics and Spring-And-Loop Theory.

Comment Re:nuclear reactions (Score 1) 13

Further to my previous answer...

You did not specify what article your question was referencing. I went from memory and knew that in my talk on the Electron I had considered the problem.

A few minutes later, while sitting on the couch with the two dogs, re-watching the final round of The Open, I realized you might be referencing Quantum World where I say:

Mass and energy are not "united into a single concept".
Mass can not be changed to energy.
Energy can not be changed to mass.

The point here is that the "mass" and "energy" being talked about are two different things. Later I use the analogy of a drop of oil tainting a million gallons of water -- this is about all it takes before we can taste it, by the way. The point is that the oil is not the water, and -- when/if the water could be "instantly purified" -- the oil would not have become water.

Mass ties up springs. Damps them down. When you remove a mass, the springs -- all being at the same level of energy -- merely revert to their high energy vibration. They are simply no longer hampered.

A key unlocks a door, and behind that door could be a wall of water. But the key did not become the water.

We are so used to thinking of burning something, and getting linear amounts of energy from linear amounts burned. But what is really happening is energy adjustment; energy optimization. The wood or coal or hydrocarbon were all forms of energy before and the resultant gases and byproducts are all forms of energy after.

Molecules of, say a hydrocarbon were at one energy level, and after combusion the resultant molecules of carbon dioxide and water are at a net lower level. Exothermic reactions are downhill. The point is that gasoline didn't _become_ CO2 and H2O -- that is not a low-level way to think of it. Instead, atoms of C, O and H found a lower collective energy state, and went willingly downhill to get there. And, by the way, that new lower level state is lower in energy because less of the ultra high energy quanta -- I call them springs -- are tied up in it. The "energy" it gave off was the liberation of the higher energy quanta that permeate the universe. An exothermic reaction is a reaction that liberates ultra high energy units. An endothermic reaction is a reaction that ties up more ultra high energy units in the end than were tied up in the starting materials.

In thinking still further about this second place where I talked about mass-energy -- Quantum World -- I would stay I stand by the first and third sentences. One: Mass and energy are not "united into a single concept" -- at least not by relativity nor quantum mechanics. Three: Energy can not be changed to mass. As to Two: Mass can not be changed to energy -- this is probably not quite right. The mass that fuses does become that ultra high energy. But this does not produce much in itself. Rather, it is the liberation of the ultra high energy springs -- no longer tied up with the mass -- that are the major energy release.

Comment Re:nuclear reactions (Score 1) 13

First of all, good observation/question.

Mass can be converted to energy, under high temp and pressure.

The point I was making was trying to resolve/explain? Why -- in a universe that is nothing but ultra high energy -- didn't all the (much lower energy) mass simply merge with that higher energy. Consider that for a moment. Everything is energy, so why isn't it all just one level/amount/type of energy?

I say it isn't because it is an entirely quantized system. Everything, everywhere is marbles of energy. With the idea/point being that they are all the same energy, i.e. size. Maybe it is easier to consider with sand instead of marbles. If everywhere there is sand, why doesn't a bowling ball sitting in it become sand? The answer is that it does, but only under the most extreme -- high temp & pressure -- conditions. Because it has to become that much higher energy.

In short, it is either bowling ball, or sand. There is no other quantization possible. We live in a two-state system: "Mass" (lower energy) and ultra-high energy.

Slashdot Top Deals

Man will never fly. Space travel is merely a dream. All aspirin is alike.