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


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Asinine. (Score 2) 438

While citizens do not have access to the same class of weaponry as the state, we out number them.

There are 300,000,000 gun in private hands.
Compared to the whole of the US military and civilian law enforcement which comes to just under 3,000,000.

If 3% of the adult population stands up and says we will not give up our guns then we outnumber the government almost 3 to 1.

Thought I think they would have an issue collecting the guns from the 25,000,000 people in Texas.

Before someone says "They will just bring in the UN troops" Well, that will add about 150,000 people. Not really enough to make a dent.

Comment Re:Most likely explanation (Score 1) 248

Even a measurement error is at first: evidence

Yes, in a non-technical sense there is evidence of something. In the technical sense (see for example Bayesian Probability for the technical meaning used in the hard sciences) there is still no evidence that indicates the EMDrive works as advertised. If there had been such evidence then scientists across the world would flock to reproduce the results of the successful experiment just like people rushed to reproduce the results of Pons and Fleishman.

A more precise statement might be to say that even though all of the experiments reported some unexplained thrust, there is no agreement between the experiments and none of the experiments have been able to show a clear signal or lack thereof above the noise floor. Contrast this with the Pons and Fleishman experiment which did show a clear signal way above the noise floor (which ended up being non-reproducible) or the CERN experiment which showed that neutrinos traveled faster than light, again way way above their noise floor. Those CERN experimenters had the honestly and humility to say they didn't think their clear signal was real because the experiment was very complicated and there was probably something in the experimental setup they were not accounting for. The reason they said this is because if their clear signal had been real then it would have thrown a huge monkey wrench into established theoretical physics. It turns out that they eventually found their mistake, in one place in the experimental apparatus a longer cable was used instead of the short one they assumed was used. This caused an extra delay in their measurement of the light signal and thus cause the erroneous results.

If any of the EMDrive experiments provided real, scientific evidence of the EMDrive mechanism working then the scientific world would be in an uproar like they were after Pons and Fleishman. For the EMDrive experiments thus far we have the worst of both worlds. On the theoretical side, the EMDrive would upturn the world of theoretical physics much more than the faster than light neutrinos; on the experimental side, all the experimental results (except the refuted ones from China) are consistent with there being no EMDrive effect at all. This is what I meant. I didn't mean there was no evidence, I meant there was no evidence that the EMDrive actually works as advertised.

Comment Re:Most likely explanation (Score 1) 248

By refuted I mean the early experiments in China that were not done in a vacuum. Their thrust measurements were orders of magnitude greater than the results in any of the experiments that were done in vacuum.

As for citations, read the actual papers published by the experimenters. If we discount the earlier paper from China which has been refuted, none of the others demonstrate clearly that the EMDrive mechanism produces a specific measurable, reproducible, amount of thrust. When you look at all the experiment results combined, it actually looks worse than any single experiment because while each of them measured some unaccounted for thrust, the results are not consistent across experiments which indicates that each one was not accounting for a different source of noise.

If any one of the experiments had been a success then the next step would have been to reproduce the same results in a different lab, just like people rushed out to reproduces the results of Pons and Fleischman. Instead, after each paper people try to make a new and different experiment with more signal and less noise that will conclusively show that the EMDrive mechanism produces thrust. This Slashdot article is a perfect example. If any of the previous experiments had been a success then the next step would have been to repeat that experiment to confirm the results. Instead, it is suggested they continue to try to beat back the noise floor by greatly adding to the cost and the inconvenience (to say it mildly) by conducting a brand new experiment in outer space.

Comment Re:Most likely explanation (Score 1) 248

What makes you so certain it will fail spectacularly? It hasn't so far ...

ALL of the experiments that have not been totally refuted have completely and utterly failed to demonstrate a consistent and a repeatable signal that is higher than the noise threshold. Being unable to track down all sources of noise is not the same thing as getting a reliable signal that can be replicated in other experiments. When we look at all of the experimental evidence taken together it is completely consistent with zero signal and only noise.

If you are measuring this as performance art, then sure, it has been a rip-roaring success but if you are measuring it in terms of science and engineering then all the experiments have totally failed to demonstrate that the effect is real.

Just because all of the experiments thus far have either failed or been refuted, with some experiments getting a signal in the opposite direction of the one expected, and others getting as much signal when vital parts of the apparatus are missing, and yet other early experiments claiming a signal many orders of magnitude greater than anything seen in the more controlled experiments, doesn't mean the effect does not exist. It just means that no matter how carefully they look, somehow, by some miracle, the signal is always buried in the noise. When you reduce the noise by a factor of 1,000, that darned signal also gets reduced by a factor of 1,000.

There is absolutely no coherent theoretical explanation for why this should work. That doesn't mean it can't work but the fact that this "new force of nature" with numbers that were pulled out of a hat just happens to always require an apparatus that creates enough noise to mask the effect is highly suspicious. Basically they need to pipe in and dissipate 1,000 Watts of microwaves in order to create enough thrust to keep a single snowflake from falling. Certainly it would be great if this worked but so far there is no theoretical explanation and no experiment evidence to indicate it does actually work. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.

The signal they are looking for is so darned small, it is almost impossible to account for all the possible sources of noise. Claiming that what is left over after all known sources of noise have been eliminated must be the real signal is ridiculous. This is why they see the signal in the wrong direction or see a signal 1,000 times greater in the earlier experiments when the noise floor was 1,000 time greater.

The reaction to the EMDrive is very similar to the reaction to the "face on Mars" which was also a signal that was down at the noise threshold. Scientists who tried to explain this to the public got castigated and got sent tons of hate mail and some may have lost their jobs over it. When higher resolutions photos were eventually taken, the doubting, cautious scientists were right and the wisher and dreamers were wrong.

Comment Wow has it been that long? (Score 5, Insightful) 316

I remember when Linus posted it. I downloaded it and played with it a bit.

When Slackware 0.99a came out I gave it another try. It was not long before I was converting my Minix boxes at the house over to Linux.

In 1995 I switched from Windows 3.11 to Slackware and never looked back. To this day I run linux on all my systems at home save a small laptop that runs Windows XP though it is just to manage the spectrophotometer which does not have a linux driver.

Linux has come a long way and I am always amazed at how much of the world runs linux from Cell Phones, to routers, to supercomputers.

Comment 20th century temperature anomalies were not unsual (Score 0) 412

Actually if you look at the math in this paper temperature anomalies of the 20th century were not in any way unusual fom temperature anomalies in the previous 8100 centuries:

Think about it, pick any two points on a line and you can show a positive, negative or zero slope and "prove" anything if you pick the two points correctly. For example using the noaa data post 2K you can show warming, cooling or no change *depending on what points you pick*. (The NOAA has a graphing calculator you can play with to prove this to yourself - if you can prove your opponents point with this tool as well as yours maybe the methodology was meant for demonstration to the public and not mathematical rigor, eh?

The fact they play fast and loose with the math is not confidence inspiring. Recall the statement "each of the past 10 years has been the hottest on record" - the president has actually said this (and you'll note has never used the word "pollution") but the numbers clearly show that 1989 was the hottest year and each year from 200o to 2009 was colder than the previous one. A clear decadal cooling period but still hot years this making the statement true, despite the fact it got cooler each year not warmer as they tried to infer. That's not science, that's marketing. If you have to lie about it, it's probably not true or you wouldn't need to lie you's just explain the facts. The facts are it stopped warming and we were wrong about CO2. Overall it has a positive effect, not negative and it created by an increase in temperature not vice versa. Only 4 billion years of fossils show this, argue with CERN and NASA if you disagree.

Here's ALL the temperature data all 4.5 billion years of it, so there's zero chance of cherry picking. The other point that kills the agw argument is there's no discernable human signature of warming in the thermal record. If you think there is, please point it out - it will be recognizable as a sharper slope than has ever occurred in the thermal record before.

Co2 stopped rising years ago:

It was higher (by 40 ppm) 200 years ago:
(See Beck 2008).

Articles keep saying "global warming" as if it were true. It's never actually been proved true, that was a hypothesis based on some incomplete models and now have 75% error between predicted and measured temperature. Even when CO2 ose temperature declined (2000-2009) for a decade, every year being colder than the previous despite CO2 rising sharply:

  In a new interview with MSNBC he says: '"The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said. "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that," he added.'

Comment Re:Activism (Score 1) 323

Yes, the trees, grass, plants, and plankton breath in CO2 and release O2, converting CO2 to O2 and bonding the Carbon into carbohydrates.

There are more trees on the planet earth than there are stars in the milkyway galaxy.

So the real question is, how much co2 does a tree sequester? (48lbs a year)
How many trees are there? 3,000,000,000,000

I guess you can do the math on that one. ;)

Comment Re:application recovery vs infrastructure recovery (Score 2) 239

Off the top of my head I can name over 20 companies that have full failover to a backup DC. One of them is an Airline that everyone knows the name of.

Hell, I have configured stretch clusters for companies so that in the event of a DC failure the secondary DC is available with 0 down time and the failover is automatic. So it is done, it is normal operating procedures/best practices, and there is no reason the SECOND LARGEST AIRLINE IN THE USE IS NOT DOING IT!!!

If you want to argue that some small company of 1000 people is not doing it that is fine but there is no excuse beyond management failing to do their job for this one. I think the board needs to look into it and start cutting people from the top down.

Slashdot Top Deals

"my terminal is a lethal teaspoon." -- Patricia O Tuama