Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



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

Comment Re:Science (Score 2) 59

Yes, more transceivers are better than less, thank you MIT.

But only if they're really tightly synchronized.

MIT got them to be tightly synchronized despite being in different boxes in different rooms, rather than all being in the same box, WITHOUT a lot of extra, extra-special, extra-fancy, extra-cost, hardware. This can be built with a bit more off the shelf stuff (maybe the SAME amount of the same off the shelf stuff but with a bit better firmware) and easily folded into the next generation's chips.

Comment Re:Not handy for the home (Score 1) 59

Since they are talking about many devices connecting to multiple routers it's not going to do much for the average home user then. I may have a couple of devices but only the one router.

Actually:
  - If you got a second router, put it some distance away from the first, and hooked them together with a network cable, you could use two devices about as fast as you could one with one router.
  - If you had three wired routers you could use three devices close to as fast as you could use one with one router.
And so on.

Note that I'm not talking about using the devices with each near a particular router. I'm talking about the routers spread out around the room or the house and the devices also somewhat spread out - but differently (even just at different spots in the same room) and with no particular relation between the device and the router locations.

Comment Re:Starshot is incredibly premature (Score 1) 174

Yes, you are 100% correct, and there is no reason to even debate it. This whole "Breakthrough Starshot" baloney is a waste of time. Even typing the words "Breakthrough Starshot" uses energy and time that I could have used more productively nearly any other way possible.

Comment Re:Travelling at 20% of the speed of light (Score 1) 174

If they're going to make up ridiculous schemes why do they stop there? I think they should instead propose vaporizing every atom on the planet Earth simultaneously in a single large blast that is able to propel a large spacecraft full of ultra sophisticated machinery powered by continuous motion systems all the way there at 0.99999c. It will only take a few years to get there and it can use all of the devices on board to simultaneously sample tons of data in the microsecond it has to view the planet as it flies by. And all of humanities hopes and dreams can be put into a box at the helm of the ship so that none of that is lost when we all blow up.

These guys are clearly amateurs and making dumb shit up.

Comment Re:Travelling at 20% of the speed of light (Score 1) 174

I personally have no interest or patience in something that has zero payoff in my lifetime, my children's lifetime, or my grandchildren's lifetime. I'd rather pay a million dollars for a pencil eraser I can use today than a million dollars for a wealth of information that will not be available until 400+ years after I am dead.

Comment Re:We're not in a mimimum yet. [Re:Of course. . .] (Score 2) 276

There is some possibility that the sun may, at some time in the future, enter another sunspot minimum similar to the Maunder minimum of 1645 to about 1715. But we're not in one now.

Actually, there was a recent development in modelling the sun, which (if I recall correctly) resulted in a model of the sunspot cycle that has a high-90s percentage match to the historical data. (The key was to model it as TWO dynamos rather than one.)

Also (again, if I recall correctly) the new model predicted that we were going into something that looked like a new Maunder Minimum, with this cycle being weak and the next one nearly nonexistent.

(Sorry I can't dig up the reference right now. Only got a couple minutes left to post.)

Combine that with orbital forcing (which has been gradually, but progressively more steeply, pushing us toward another BIG ice age since about the time humans started using agriculture and settled down to dig up stuff, including coal), and the expected exhaustion of practically-extractable fossil carbon reserves in something like four more centuries, and warming might not be our long-range climate-change issue at all.

A Maunder minimum might only cover a half-century or so. But if it brought on another "little ice age", that (at about three centuries duration) might be about right to cover the period before global freezing is more of a concern than global warming.

Comment Re:But of course (Score 5, Insightful) 276

I suffered a few minutes of NPR over the weekend while they happened to be covering the flood news. Apparently the only officials from Louisiana or the feds that NPR has any interest in hosting are climatologists. No FEMA, no state first responders; just climatologists.

While discussing the floods with the climatologists, both the federal and state climate guys made the mistake of mentioning the fact that the high costs and displacement are as much to do with recent property development as the amount of water. You could clearly detect the host's frustration as he attempted to get these hapless officials back on the rails speculating about climate and saying disparaging things about fossil fuels.

Whatever. You people want to eat all the crap they're feeding you and furnish your rulers with the ammo to manage you're decline, go ahead. Enjoy. I don't care anymore. Bill Nye lives in a nice $1,000,000+ home in Studio City and I'm all set with my nice property and neither one of us are giving it up for the benefit of your virtues, so fuck off.

Comment Re: 315 miles? Getting there! (Score 1) 171

uh, I am guessing that you have never owned a luxury ANYTHING.

I own an A8. It's worth fuck all. It's only a D2, but even the D3s are starting to get cheap now.

That is why the wealthy buy them.

No. The wealthy buy them because they are better while they last. They don't give a fuck about resale value. They dump them while they're still young and fresh.

Comment Re:Nah (Score 1) 171

On the other hand, an electric motor can easily produce its maximum torque at stall.

Then drop off like a cliff.

Not necessarily. You're thinking of older, more basic, motor designs, connected directly to a supply (such as a series-wound motor), not a modern electrical machines with winding currents controlled by switching regulators.

Torque is proportional to the product of the stator and rotor magnetic fields, which in turn for wound magnets) are proportional to current.

In a simple motor the current is limited by the fixed voltage applied across the winding resistance, which drops as the machine speeds up due to back-EMF generated by the motor's motion.

In a switching regulator controlled winding the resistance is very low (to reduce I-squared-R losses) and the current is controlled by the switching regulator. The current at stall is potentially astronomical as a result, limited by the regulator's dwell time, not the raw supply voltage. As the motor speeds up the current (and thus the torque) can be maintained at a desired (and high) value despite the rising back-EMF, up to an RPM and back-EMF where the switch would have to be on full-time (or full half-cycle time for AC-excited windings) to push the desired current through the winding resistance.

Comment An interest dichotomy (Score 3, Insightful) 120

You can like it, or hate it, but you can simply not ignore Apple.

This highly depends on your perspective. For instance, I have no apple stuff, nor do any of their products excite me in a way that would suggest that'll change soon. So in that context, I can simply ignore apple.

However, from a business perspective, they're the 800 lb gorilla. What's interesting, however, is how easy it is for some of their target audience to ignore them.

Comment Re:Or... (Score 2) 75

Doesn't this embarrass you, America? Don't you feel ashamed that this is what you've become?

Absolutely, but only in that we've become like everyone else. History seems to just be a series of different groups coming to power, acting like dicks, using up their resources and then being surpassed by someone else who hasn't used theirs up yet. The USA is the country which was in the right place at the right time to dominate everything for the last couple hundred years. Before that, it's been other countries.

Slashdot Top Deals

"A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked." -- John Gall, _Systemantics_

Working...