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


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Leave the original (Score 1) 542

That's an interpretation I hadn't thought of. I just figured he had enough metal in him to be a decent antenna, and a good enough handle on their communication protocols to hack in and break something. I should rewatch and see if I can find any of those earlier hints you alluded to.

Comment Re:Celcius to Fahrenheit converter failed? (Score 1) 162

In science and engineering, the weight of an object is usually taken to be the force on the object due to gravity.[1][2] Weight is a vector whose magnitude (a scalar quantity), often denoted by an italic letter W, is the product of the mass m of the object and the magnitude of the local gravitational acceleration g;[3] thus: W = mg. The unit of measurement for weight is that of force, which in the International System of Units (SI) is the newton. (that wikipedia page I linked to you two posts back)

Comment Re:Celcius to Fahrenheit converter failed? (Score 1) 162

weight is force - your weight is the force you and the Earth are applying to each other. The equivalence of weight and mass on Earth exists only because it's convenient. On a different planet (or even a significant altitude difference on Earth) your mass is the same (kg) but your weight, the force imparted by gravity, is different (newtons).

You can have a force without weight, but with no force you have no weight, only mass.

Comment Re:Why? (Score 1) 238

This is true; I didn't take the triangle rule into account. But that just means equal losses is a best case, and may not be achievable anyway.

For what it's worth, I think the difficulties of working underwater are, in the long run, going to be smaller than the difficulty of working in back yards. So both factors would seem to lead towards the underwater storage.

I am somewhat concerned though, how this might affect marine life. I mean, surrounding the balls with a net to keep fish (above a certain size) from getting close enough to get sucked in is an obvious move, but small stuff can still get sucked in... then again, I guess that's something the engineering is going to have to consider. If these are going to be useful they're going to be moving water a lot.

Comment Re:Celcius to Fahrenheit converter failed? (Score 1) 162

pounds are sometimes used as a mass measure, but they are by far more often used for force (weight) - though the circumstances are such that they're pretty interchangeable (which is also why kilograms get used for weight when the proper unit is really newtons).

But yeah, it was a smartass answer :)

Comment Re:Why? (Score 1) 238

yeah, but while you reduce the losses between the generator and the storage, you increase the losses from the storage to the consumer. Either way, you wind up losing about the same amount, right? So then the difference is which location is cheaper to build storage at (including both the difficulties of working underwater and the difficulties of working in people's back yards/sightlines).

Comment Re:so what? (Score 2) 644

so basically, you're expecting deflation. That'll be... fun...

You're also assuming that this new sector which will be hard to just automate from the get-go will nevertheless be feasible for existing service workers to pick up and perform - essentially, it must be based in something that's easy for the ordinary human but hard for a robot. Any ideas? Personally, the only thing I can see that may meet both of those qualifications is artistic creation. (Which puts me in mind of Melancholy Elephants, by Spider Robinson...) Better crank those art classes back up in elementary school.

Slashdot Top Deals

Lisp Users: Due to the holiday next Monday, there will be no garbage collection.