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

 



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

Comment Re:Bitcoin was not dead, nor is it "back" (Score 2) 106

It could go sky high and still fail in its mission.

Indeed, it couldn't go sky high and not fail in its mission. With those kinds of rapid value changes and deflationary tendency, it would, under those circumstances, prove itself to be a valuable commodity, but it would be a very poor choice for a currency. Alas, goldbugs usually don't understand the difference...

Comment Re:How did they calculate? (Score 4, Informative) 36

In the physical literature about the n-body problem (n 3), sometimes reference is made to the impossibility of solving the n-body problem (via employing the above approach). However, care must be taken when discussing the 'impossibility' of a solution, as this refers only to the method of first integrals (compare the theorems by Abel and Galois about the impossibility of solving algebraic equations of degree five or higher by means of formulas only involving roots).

See here.

Comment Re:We can only detect planets they pass their star (Score 1) 90

We can confirm the ecliptics for billions of star systems; no exoplanets are required, given that the majority of stars are part of multiple star systems. And there's no reason to think that some bizarre unknown force causes systems with only one luminous member to align their ecliptics in a way that systems with multiple luminous members don't.

Comment Re:True, but statement is too narrow. (Score 1) 90

Almost as disturbing as their failure to acknowledge that there may be dozens of species of jumping spider that are currently unknown! Indeed, these are just two of the many things that might be true that they fail to acknowledge in their paper on a particular study that wasn't studying those things....

Comment Re:poorly researched article, if at all (Score 1) 528

And it took only actually watching the video to note that it reads -45.9ft when it hits the ground, so if that is to be taken seriously (assuming it isn't damaged), the take-off point was about 45ft higher than the house, and true altitude above ground was over 300ft at the point it was shot.

Comment Re:80 versus 200 with no points of reference (Score 2) 528

200 feet is still pretty close.

Yes, but if I shoot someone's car who parked is on the street 200 ft outside my property and assert it was my right because he was parked "too close" to my property, the law is not going to consider "pretty close" to be close enough.

Airspace in general is the public domain. At what point it above your property it becomes yours is a legal grey area.

Comment Re:Why does his telemetry show ground being -46ft? (Score 1) 528

So when it hits the ground, telemetry shows -45.9ft which means he was actually over the neighbor's house at 154ft and not the 200ft he claims.

You fail basic math; the difference between 200 and -45.9 is 245.9.

Also, it was well over 200ft at the start. I didn't go frame by frame, but I did manage to pause at very close to the right point and it appears to read 262ft when shot. That would suggest a fall of over 300ft if the -45ft at the end is taken seriously, but I suspect it might just be damaged at that point...

Comment Re:Government knows best... (Score 1) 432

I don't want government restricting options available to me, or restricting those that would provide those options to me.

As a more liberty-minded individual, I don't want anyone restricting me in that manner, be they governments, corporations, "market forces" or whatever, and I understand that regulations are necessary to insure freedom in the market (a truly free market is as free as any anarchy, which is to say, not free at all -- laws and regulations are what protect the freedom of individuals).

Slashdot Top Deals

"Why waste negative entropy on comments, when you could use the same entropy to create bugs instead?" -- Steve Elias

Working...