Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Massive Study Searching For Genes Behind Intelligence Finds Little

DamnOregonian Re: finds little... (269 comments)

I'd +5 informative you if I could. Thanks for the info.

about two weeks ago
top

Information Theory Places New Limits On Origin of Life

DamnOregonian Re:Gibbs Free Energy (211 comments)

Again, no. The work done is very small. All it does is redirect some energy passing through it. The energy at the point of the burning object is absolutely no more than the energy at the entire outward face of the lens. It is in fact the same, minus the cost of the lens refraction.

I can't tell if you really don't understand that energy density is what matters for what's burning, and that increasing the density is not the same as doing the work of the energy you increased the density of... They're entirely orthogonal.

about two weeks ago
top

Information Theory Places New Limits On Origin of Life

DamnOregonian Re:Gibbs Free Energy (211 comments)

The speed of light (or a photon to be precise) is actually constant. It is c, and it does not (can not) vary.
The speed of light (propagation of the wave) is slower through a medium due to the absorption and re-emission as the light interacts with the electrons in the atoms in the medium. Or say sayeth Quantum Electrodynamics, the theory that unifies portions of Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity to give us the best at-all-scales behavior of electromagnetic waves.

about two weeks ago
top

Massive Study Searching For Genes Behind Intelligence Finds Little

DamnOregonian Re:Looking in the wrong place (269 comments)

Nope. But ruthless and immoral exploitation of masses of people for personal/familial gain does require some amount of narcissism/sociopathy.

about two weeks ago
top

Massive Study Searching For Genes Behind Intelligence Finds Little

DamnOregonian Re: finds little... (269 comments)

How can you tell that RNA genes were ignored?
AFAICT, they simply mentioned "genes", which as a catch-all includes RNA genes. They didn't mention which loci were transcribed into functional RNA molecules or proteins... Only that they did supply a decent amount of rigor to the selection of genes (which I would *think* would include both coding DNA and non-coding RNA)

Are you saying you went and looked them up?

about two weeks ago
top

Information Theory Places New Limits On Origin of Life

DamnOregonian Re:Gibbs Free Energy (211 comments)

The model is QED, and yes it can. However it's admittedly pretty far above my head.

about two weeks ago
top

The Argument For a Hypersonic Missile Testing Ban

DamnOregonian Re:They will just cheat anyway (322 comments)

Don't you find it amusing when someone who corrects a patently false assertion is labeled an elitist? I do, too.

I do apologize for the spurious 'a', typing and editing on phone soft-keyboards is a bitch.

about two weeks ago
top

Information Theory Places New Limits On Origin of Life

DamnOregonian Re:Gibbs Free Energy (211 comments)

Costs more in what sense? Energy cost? Lines of code cost? Time cost? In any event, it is not something that I consider when zipping a file. Zip and unzip are treated as equivalent from the user's standpoint.

The great thing about the universe (and information theory) is that it's flexible in how the cost be paid, but the laws of thermodynamics apply all the way down the chain. Zipping can cost more in memory, or more in CPU cycles. The fact that it's the same to you doesn't really matter. It's not the same to the things doing the work.

The point that confuses me is: the energy on the outside lens surface can't light a fire, but the energy produced by the glass can.

The energy hitting the outside of the glass *can* light a fire. It's simply spread over too wide of an area. In the same way that all the potential energy in the gap between the clouds and the ground doesn't immediately kill you, as it exists at all times. It requires a mechanism to focus it before it becomes fatal. The poles are cooler than the equator not because there is less sunlight passing through a square meter of space above them as opposed to the equator, but because the earth sits at a less perpendicular angle to that light, so it is spread out over more area.
You can simulate this effect by angling your magnifying glass in such a way as the focused dot obliquely hits the object-to-be-burned enough to spread out the energy again (let entropy do its thing)

How is the lens doing any work, in that sense?

The lens is doing work via diffraction. Light can't just be redirected by anything but the curvature of space. While that lens looks transparent, what is actually happening is the light is being aborbed by every atom (or electron, more precisely) it hits, and then re-emitted as an all-new photon with a change of direction that follows a statistical set of rules that focuses it (based on the diffraction qualities of the lens). The absorption and re-emission has a cost, it's not free.

about two weeks ago
top

Information Theory Places New Limits On Origin of Life

DamnOregonian Re:Gibbs Free Energy (211 comments)

You can always reduce local entropy. It just takes energy.

With your magnifying glass example, there's nothing that says you can't change the entropy of the energy passing through it at the cost of... the energy passing through it. There is a cost though, and that is the diffraction index of the glass that is doing the focusing. It absolutely does heat up. It's highly efficient (doesn't heat up much, assuming a good diffraction index), but it's there. If you were trying to imply that Q is the energy added to the system that the light is being focused upon, and that it differs from W, well then you're just insane, and I can't help you.

The process of compressing your data costs more than decompressing it. Rule of thumb holds.

A magnifying glass, simply put, directs the energy that hits its outside lense surface to a much smaller area, at the cost of the loss due to diffraction of light. I don't think I've ever seen that presented as a problem in the laws of thermodynamics. Either you or I are greatly misunderstanding something.

about two weeks ago
top

Is It Time To Split Linux Distros In Two?

DamnOregonian Re: More Forks! (280 comments)

Equally poor, I'd say... Why? Did someone make that argument, too?

about two weeks ago
top

Is It Time To Split Linux Distros In Two?

DamnOregonian Re:More Forks! (280 comments)

Ah yes, the good old, "We should do what the guys with captive markets do, because it's Smarter." argument. Cracks me up every time.

about two weeks ago
top

The Argument For a Hypersonic Missile Testing Ban

DamnOregonian Re:Ban when you are done testing? (322 comments)

Very true, on the range, though not useful for a carrier.
The X-15 had that range because it ascended to 107km of altitude and coasted down. With a flight profile like that, any semi-modern ABM frigate (Aegis, etc) is going to knock you out before the carrier is even visible.

about three weeks ago
top

The Argument For a Hypersonic Missile Testing Ban

DamnOregonian Re:Ban when you are done testing? (322 comments)

Yawn.
The Chinese knocked out a mock US aircraft carrier in a wargame by firing a missile into a defenseless spot of the Gobi Desert. Really, dude?

Every successful wargame takedown of a US carrier has relied on tactics that wouldn't be remotely feasible in a real war zone. They were experimental, and educational, but not realistic. Ask the Iranian speed boats how the rules of engagement worked out for them in the Persian Gulf when some US captains got twitchy fingers. The Chinese better hope their "top secret stealth destroyers that took out the mock carrier" really are as super stealthy as they claim. Me, I'll keep smiling and chewing some pop corn. I think you may be blinded by prejudice.

about three weeks ago
top

The Argument For a Hypersonic Missile Testing Ban

DamnOregonian Re:Ban when you are done testing? (322 comments)

Oh, certainly. I meant taking into account the range and required payload of the vehicle. The farther/faster you need to go/more you need to carry, the worse your fuel efficiency is next to any jet. The X-15 carried enough fuel to burn the engines for 85 seconds. Not quite gonna cut it for a cruise missile. In order to make it be able to maintain that speed for the distance a cruise missile needs to go, it's gonna need to be.... the size of a Saturn V (slight exaggeration, but not as bad as you think.)

about three weeks ago
top

The Argument For a Hypersonic Missile Testing Ban

DamnOregonian Re:Ban when you are done testing? (322 comments)

With a rocket, you have to take your oxygen with you. With a turbojet you have to compress the oxygen you're scooping up. With a sc/ramjet, sheer momentum is doing all the work for you. You may very well be able to hit Mach 7 in level flight with a solid rocket, but it'll likely have to be the size of a Saturn V. (exaggerating... a little bit)

Currently, the fastest cruise missile is supersonic, and uses a ramjet, and goes Mach 4.5 for 300km. They're working on Mach 7 hypersonic models of it for more complete ownage. Stopping something that fast becomes very, very difficult when it isn't coming down from the upper atmosphere. If you can start knocking out American carriers with impunity, you've put a *massive* dent in American power projection capabilities.

about three weeks ago
top

The Argument For a Hypersonic Missile Testing Ban

DamnOregonian Re:Ban when you are done testing? (322 comments)

Those things are crazy awesome. Brahmos is building a hypersonic model that will go Mach 7.

about three weeks ago
top

The Argument For a Hypersonic Missile Testing Ban

DamnOregonian Re:Ban when you are done testing? (322 comments)

That's so ridiculously false.
Most cruise missiles are subsonic or slightly supersonic. What hypersonic cruise missiles offer that conventional ones don't, is a missile traveling fast enough, that by the time it pops over the horizon, it's embedded in your hull before your Phalanx can even lock on it.

For reference,
An Exocet travels at Mach .92, at sea level. A tomahawk, even less.

Hypersonic means Mach 5+. A few air-to-air missiles go that fast, a few massive rockets that boost into the upper atmosphere and come back down on ballistic arcs go that fast. Hypersonic isn't just a fancy name, it has a meaning- and Mach 5 delivery systems have a very real use.

about three weeks ago
top

The Argument For a Hypersonic Missile Testing Ban

DamnOregonian Re:They will just cheat anyway (322 comments)

It was. There also wasn't a treaty signed with Russia that mentioned territorial integrity or invasion. It's also a little tenuous to call what Russia has done so far an invasion... Though it's pretty fucked up either way. It's also a bit silly to act as if Ukraine had a choice in disarmament. They couldn't afford their stockpile. Not one bit. They were begging to get rid of it. You can't exactly bury that shit in the back yard.

about three weeks ago

Submissions

DamnOregonian hasn't submitted any stories.

Journals

DamnOregonian has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>