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

When Everything Works Like Your Cell Phone

Jane Q. Public Re:Welcome to Walmart of Things... (171 comments)

You are taking this a step to far.Do you know how to live off the Grid?

GP was being sarcastic. However, it's true that it's an alarming trend. And it's only a trend because people have allowed it to be.

"Owning" a phone is much more complex than owning a plunger.

I *OWN* my phone. It's rooted and unlocked, and I do what *I* want with it, not what some large corporation thinks I should do with it. They get the information I want to give them, and little else.

It's time to take back "things"! Say NO to subscription services. Say NO to term contracts. Buy it, own it, do what you want with it.

2 days ago
top

Seattle Passes Laws To Keep Residents From Wasting Food

Jane Q. Public Re:Another terrible article courtesy of samzenpus (383 comments)

In the general sense, this kind of regulation is nanny-state micromangement.

I don't disagree, but that has nothing to do with my argument. They chose their particular waste management methods. They choose to enforce them. We might disagree with the law but it's not your law or mine.

2 days ago
top

Wanxiang May Give 2012's Fisker Karma a Relaunch

Jane Q. Public Re:Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (56 comments)

Also, STOP sock-puppet modding down my comments. THAT'S AGAINST SLASHDOT'S RULES and it's just plain an asshole thing to do.

2 days ago
top

Wanxiang May Give 2012's Fisker Karma a Relaunch

Jane Q. Public Re:Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (56 comments)

Wow, Joel, I gotta say (after reading some of the replies on this thread) that this really is pointless. These folks have no conception of the FIRST law of thermodynamics, let alone the second. The argument for warming doesn't even require mentioning the SBE, it only requires the first law, the second law, and a monotonic relation between temperature difference in ANY channel and the rate of energy transfer in that channel, subject to very broad constraints.

Funny, because he's contradicting just about every argument behind the whole idea of AGW. I like how he makes these claims but isn't able to show how it actually works. He claims you can show warming via back-radiation WITHOUT the S-B equation? When it is absolutely fundamental to the very "energy transfer" he is asserting? What garbage.

Where's the math? In the comments you show in your link he also conflates backscatter with the "back radiation". But scattering and reflection are straw-men; they are completely unrelated to heat transfer via "back-radiation", and are 100% irrelevant to Spencer's experiment.

His mention of "empirical evidence" isn't science, it's an assertion of correlation without any causal link. It's a ridiculously weak argument... in fact it's not really an argument at all.

But seriously, just a waste of time. When people just make stuff up and reject the contents of ELEMENTARY textbooks on the subject because they just don't like the conclusion those contents lead to, how can you argue with them? If somebody tries to solve the light bulb problem while pretending that it doesn't primarily cool via radiation and completely ignoring radiation, what can you do?

And this is downright hilarious in context. In incorrectly "solving" Spencer's challenge, YOU ignored basic textbook methods and math to get your answer. You used an imaginary "khayman80" method of arriving at your answer, which not only contradicts everything engineering textbooks say about heat transfer, your methodology directly contradicts the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law, even though you used it yourself in calculations. Talk about hypocrisy. I repeat: I checked your final "answer" for temperature of the heat source and it violates both the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the second law of thermodynamics.

Further, what he was referring to in the latter paragraph were the comments in the forum... not Latour's analysis.

That's odd. Just yesterday Jane had no argument with Dr. Shore. Now Jane claims that Dr. Shore "FUCKED UP" his physics.

So? I'm still not arguing with him. I'm not even arguing with you. I've already showed you to be wrong. Let's get this straight: THIS "argument" has been with YOU, and ONLY you, and ONLY about Spencer's experiment. It's over, and you lost. All this other crap you bring up is just your way of trying to hide your own failure. It isn't working.

When a body is in equilibrium with its surroundings, it radiates and absorbs energy at the same rate and so its temperature remains constant. When a body is hotter than its surroundings, it radiates more energy than it absorbs, and so it cools..."

NONE of the bodies in Spencer's challenge are "in equlibrium" with their surroundings. None of them. Not one. Straw-man.

Maybe the Slayers could explain how uncooled IR detectors see cooler objects?

Straw-man. Our argument involved gray bodies, not detectors of specific wavelengths or electronics that take advantage of specific quantum effects. But I have an answer anyway: they measure DIFFERENCES, not absolute radiation. You might be interested in THIS, which explains how IR pyrometers work. Hint: they don't work the way you seem to think they do.

And it's a straw-man in a different way: I repeat that I have NOT been claiming that no radiation from a cooler body is absorbed by a warmer body. What I claimed, I repeat, is that no NET radiative energy transfer occurs from cooler bodies to warmer. That concept does not conflict with the ability of infrared cameras or pyrometers to detect "cooler" radiation. Energy can be absorbed and re-emitted... and often (for non-gray-bodies) it is re-emitted in different wavelengths. But the fact remains that there is still no NET energy transfer from cooler to warmer. If there were, it would violate the second law of thermodynamics.

My argument has always been about NET heat transfer. I have explained to you many times that I do NOT claim no radiation from cooler bodies is ever absorbed. My argument is, and has been, about NET. And further, contrary to your own assertions, since the NET energy transfer from cooler bodies is ZERO, it is not included in the "radiative power out" term of heat transfer equations. Which is a concept that (apparently, if we assume you're being honest, which I doubt) you have had supreme difficulty getting through your head.

So just knock off the straw-man crap. You're very good at it, but I'm better at seeing it than you are at dishing it out.

Jane/Lonny Eachus wins a silver medal in psychological projection for telling me to "be a man for a change" but Slayer CEO John O'Sullivan still takes the gold.

And the ad-hominem too. You can claim all you want that your personal attacks have nothing to do with your arguments, but you have many times proved otherwise. Just knock off the bullshit. It isn't getting you anywhere.

2 days ago
top

FAA Clears Movie and TV Drones For Takeoff

Jane Q. Public Re:I get it (50 comments)

I have repeated this here so many times now I've lost count.

A Federal judge ruled a few months ago that the FAA has no authority EXCEPT in controlled airspace. And "controlled" airspace isn't most or even much of the air around us.

The FAA's authority is derived from INTERSTATE TRAVEL AND COMMERCE. Anything else is none of its business.

If you aren't sending your drone commercially across State lines, or invading controlled airspace, they have no legal basis for "regulating" you.

The FAA has appealed the decision, but pending appeal they have seemed to want to put as many regulations in place as they can before the November election. I wonder why.

4 days ago
top

Wanxiang May Give 2012's Fisker Karma a Relaunch

Jane Q. Public Re:Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (56 comments)

Just so we're clear: I respect Dr. Roy Spencer. But he's not immune from Getting Things Wrong. Even so, all things considered, he has been less wrong than you.

Venus proves nothing about CO2-based warming on Earth. If you ASSUME it's causing warming here, then you can ASSUME it causes warming there, in proportion. Such assumptions prove nothing.

For some reason, you seem to think these continuing comments of yours prove something. The only reason I'm reading them at all is for a daily laugh, and to record them so others later can laugh with me.

4 days ago
top

Wanxiang May Give 2012's Fisker Karma a Relaunch

Jane Q. Public Re:Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (56 comments)

Does Jane have the memory of a goldfish? Of course Jane has argued with these other physicists. Jane personally asked [slashdot.org] Prof. Brown about Sky Dragon Slayerism, but wasn't able to "educate" him.

As usual, you distort reality. Prof. Brown had nothing in the way of refutation or rebuttal or even retort to my second comment? Don't you find that interesting? I do.

As for Joel Shore, again he was mis-applying an equation for heat transfer when he should have been using the equation for radiant power out. Both you and Shore insist on mis-applying this equation in a way that violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It's rather amusing that you brought him up, because you both FUCKED UP YOUR PHYSICS in a similar way.

But again, this is all straw-man bullshit. NONE of them were ever able to actually refute Latour's math with real-world examples. Spencer failed, YOU failed in your analysis of Spencer, etc.

Engineers the world over do the math the way I did. So far that hasn't resulted in you either freezing or burning to death in your home. If they're all crazy, you might want to ask yourself why.

The reason the Earth is not catastrophically warming due to CO2, and the reason you aren't literally burning alive due to your home's heating system, are the same: "warmist" back-radiation physics is bullshit.

4 days ago
top

Wanxiang May Give 2012's Fisker Karma a Relaunch

Jane Q. Public Re:Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (56 comments)

Again, Jane/Lonny Eachus actually means that he intends to show where mainstream physics "went wrong" according to the Sky Dragon Slayers. There are many ignorant, stupid physicists that Jane/Lonny Eachus needs to educate: Prof. Brown, Dr. Joel Shore, the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the Australian Institute of Physics, and the European Physical Society, etc.

You have demonstrated yourself to be utterly inept at knowing "what I actually mean".

These are just straw-man arguments, as usual. I have no argument with these other physicists. It was about Spencer's challenge and how YOU got it wrong, nothing more. Have you asked them, personally, about Spencer's experiment? (No, you haven't, or you would know you were wrong.)

Bringing up OTHER arguments like greenhouse gases won't win THAT argument for you. You have already lost it.

And that last sentence is not an argument, it's just a statement of fact.

5 days ago
top

Wanxiang May Give 2012's Fisker Karma a Relaunch

Jane Q. Public Re:Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (56 comments)

Jane made no such claim? Jane keeps making that absurd claim! Again, the link [thermalradiation.net] I've repeatedly [slashdot.org] given Jane [slashdot.org] shows that for smaller radius R1, F21 = (R1/R2)^2 = 0.9978.

I will make this one correction here. Yes, the view factor I mentioned was the wrong one, from the inside of the enclosing sphere to the heat source. (Or from the chamber wall to the outside of the enclosing sphere, which just happens to be the same due to specified dimensions.) Of course it is not the same from the chamber wall to the heat source. But that is the only mistake I made here.

But (this is not for you, but for other readers): because ALL of the incoming cooler radiation is reflected or scattered, and no NET amount is absorbed, it goes right back out your boundary. The rest that misses the heat source also goes right back out your boundary (pretty much by definition). Which all adds up to the TOTAL radiation coming in through your boundary going right back out again. There is no need to account for the view factor in this direction because there is no net radiation absorbed. It all goes right back out. Net inwelling energy through your boundary is zero.

5 days ago
top

Wanxiang May Give 2012's Fisker Karma a Relaunch

Jane Q. Public Re:Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (56 comments)

No, Jane tried to use an equation that only calculates radiative "power out" when Jane needs to use an equation for heat transfer that calculates radiative "power out minus power in".

I almost started to argue with you again, but I have learned that it won't do any good. You'll still keep insisting that this violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is really how it's done. Sigh.

I don't think you really believe that for a second, if you're really the physicist you claim to be. The very simple textbook math has proved it wrong. I mean, didn't it send up a red flag when you took your answer and fed it back into standard heat transfer equations and it didn't balance? Oh, that's right... you didn't. But I did.

But that's just a statement of fact. I'm not arguing with you now and I'm not going to again. You're either a fool or a liar, and I do not care which. I have already proved it and I intend to publish that for the world to see. Along with textbook explanations and diagrams showing exactly where and how you went wrong.

about a week ago
top

Seattle Passes Laws To Keep Residents From Wasting Food

Jane Q. Public Re:Another terrible article courtesy of samzenpus (383 comments)

I suppose since compost is later turned into fertilizer, composting is a bit less truly wasteful than throwing uneaten food into the "regular" trash, but I doubt that distinction is meaningful since in either case the food is no longer edible.

The only "meaning" it has is to their particular recycling and waste disposal programs. As you say, this is not about waste at all. It is only about where to put different kinds of trash.

It would be very similar to an ordinance that fines people for putting glass in the aluminum recycle bin.

about a week ago
top

Emma Watson Leaked Photo Threat Was a Plot To Attack 4chan

Jane Q. Public Re:Ban Makeup (590 comments)

Use

<br> or <br />

To make a single line break. Double it for 2 (paragraph). Also see down below your text entry window for "Allowed HTML". b in brackets is bold, i in brackets is italics, etc. You must use opening and closing brackets around your text. E.g.,

<i>This would be italics.</i>

I used trickery to do that though. The brackets don't show up in the final text. Try it in a reply and use the "preview" button.

about a week ago
top

Emma Watson Leaked Photo Threat Was a Plot To Attack 4chan

Jane Q. Public Re:but really (590 comments)

Further, Emma Watson's speech wasn't so much about "the need for feminism" as it was about how so many women distort feminism and turn it into man-hating instead.

about a week ago
top

Russia Pledges To Go To the Moon

Jane Q. Public Re:Most promising places (197 comments)

There have been so few because, as it turns out, the moon is a terribly uninteresting place with really annoying dust.

"Terribly uninteresting"? How quaint.

The moon is the single best opportunity for the expansion of space exploration.

Guess what? Rockets large enough to send out to the asteroid belt with people in them, as a practical matter, are too damned big to launch from Earth. Did I hear "build them in orbit"? Nope. Too difficult, slow, and expensive. At our current level of technology you really need gravity to do practical construction on a very large scale. 1/6 the gravity? Perfect! Rockets built there don't have to be very large at all.

The moon has vast natural resources; they merely need to be extracted from the rock. Oxygen is one of them. There is also a surprising amount of fissionable material available. So... given some initial energy and material input, you can probably have sustained output, without too much "resupply" coming from Earth. And while energy requirements of a colony might be high, there are vast amounts of solar energy available, and plenty of silicon and trace elements to make solar cells.

Etc., etc. Our current U.S. government administration might be clueless about these things, but in the long run, the moon is our greatest hope for the future.

about a week ago
top

Wanxiang May Give 2012's Fisker Karma a Relaunch

Jane Q. Public Re:Misleading Article Summary (56 comments)

I am also going to say to you, khayman80, that there will be no further discussion here. You have been doing nothing but repeating false claims which I proved wrong long ago. Any further discussion with you would be a waste of time. You have wasted far too much of my time already.

You've twisted and distorted arguments, played havoc with the math, and tried to deny known physical laws. But I've caught you at every turn.

Time to act like a man and admit that you were wrong. After all, other people are going to see it anyway. I promised to publish the results of our exchange no matter how it turned out. You don't get to complain now just because you lost.

about a week ago
top

Wanxiang May Give 2012's Fisker Karma a Relaunch

Jane Q. Public Re:Misleading Article Summary (56 comments)

I am making one last reply to "khayman80" here, because he's so good at trolling and readers deserve to see the rebuttal.

If radiation enters the boundary and goes right back out, we need to account for it entering and exiting. That's why there are separate terms for "power in" and "power out".

Just no. If radiation goes in and comes right back out, we do not need to account for it, because then the NET amount of that particular radiation crossing your boundary is ZERO. A = A. You do know how to add and subtract, right? You know what a zero is, right?

There is no net "radiative power in" from cooler to hotter. It's against the second law of thermodynamics, and it violates the S-B radiation law: (e * s) * (Ta^4 - Tb^4).

That's exactly the equation Jane should be using to calculate electrical heating power! It has separate terms for "power in" and "power out" so it can describe power entering and exiting a boundary. If Jane would use that equation, he'd honestly be only saying there is no net "radiative power in" from cooler to hotter.

Just no. This is a ridiculous assertion. The equation above is for heat transfer, not radiative power.

I used the proper equation for radiative power, which at steady-state doesn't depend on other bodies. So there is no "difference" term. Just temperature. That's simple physics. You are trying to use a heat transfer equation to calculate power out of a single body at known temperature. That's just plain WRONG.

So Jane refuses to retract his absurd claim [slashdot.org] that view factors vary as the radius ratio, which violates conservation of energy. A cynic might have expected as much, given how Jane flagrantly violates conservation of energy by incoherently ignoring radiative power passing in through a boundary around the heat source.

I made no such claim, you liar. As you well know, the view factor from the surface of the inner sphere to the inner surface of the outer sphere is 1. The calculated view factor from the outer sphere to the inner was 0.9998. BUT, since all the radiation going IN which strikes the hotter body is effectively reflected or scattered, it goes right back out, AND the small amount of radiation from the cooler body that misses the inner sphere ALSO goes right back out, then the EFFECTIVE view factors in this case are both 1.

All the radiation going IN from the cooler body just goes right back OUT again, making the NET radiation crossing your boundary from the cooler body zero. If that were not so, then you'd have net energy being transferred from a cooler body to a hotter one, which is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. As I've explained to you many times now. You're just plain wrong.

Jane's campaign of educating ignorant, stupid physicists about physics has only just begun. Jane still needs to educate Prof. Brown [slashdot.org] and Lonny Eachus still needs to educate Dr. Joel Shore [rit.edu].

No, I don't need to educate either one. They can both pick up a textbook on heat transfer and see that I am correct. I'm not arguing with them. Our discussion was about THIS experiment of Spencer's. What I did was refute YOUR "solution" to Spencer's challenge. I found the correct answers and checked my work. Funny, but YOUR solutions didn't check out when plugged back in to standard heat transfer equations. I daresay that any eminent physicist can also do the math and see where you were wrong. And I'm going to give them plenty of opportunity to see it. So why not just wait and see?

I did NOT make broad claims in this recent exchange about "greenhouse gas" or any such thing. So I'm not arguing with those other people. I simply showed YOU to be wrong.

about a week ago
top

Sci-fi Predictions, True and False (Video 1)

Jane Q. Public Re:Faulty premise (139 comments)

I agree with Blue Trane. It's just not a defining factor. Science fiction is about science. Even if it's just postulating a future world, there is a line between fantasy fiction and science fiction, even if it's a blurry one.

about a week ago
top

3 Short Walking Breaks Can Reverse Harm From 3 Hours of Sitting

Jane Q. Public Re:Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (176 comments)

There is nothing more to say. You have been proved wrong. You can write books about your nonsense "physics", and it won't make your bullshit theory any more correct.

I have 3 heat transfer textbooks here, and they all say you're wrong. I'll stick with the well-known and established physics, thanks very much, and dismiss the nonsense from the cheap seats.

Funny, but for years you talked about "consensus" and "established science", but whenever the established physics disagrees with you, you will write pages and pages about why they're wrong and you're right.

There's a word for that. The word is "hypocrisy". There are other words for what you do, too, but I'll let other readers decide on those.

Well, it didn't work and it won't work. The textbooks all say you're wrong. Goodbye.

about a week ago
top

3 Short Walking Breaks Can Reverse Harm From 3 Hours of Sitting

Jane Q. Public Re:Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (176 comments)

That's why we need to use a heat transfer equation to determine electrical heating power, not just an equation for radiative power out.

And you can achieve that quite nicely by drawing your "boundary" around the heat source.

I've already agreed that it's not necessary to account for cooler bodies in the temperature versus power out equation. Again, we're not disputing the equation for radiative power out. We're disputing the equation describing conservation of energy around a boundary drawn around the heat source: power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls power out = radiative power out from the heat source

Nonsense. By the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law, the chamber walls add no net power in. It just goes right back out through your boundary again. How many times must I explain this to you?

Apparently I would be explaining forever, because I've explained it clearly many times now.

If Jane would reconsider conservation of energy and include a term for "radiative power in", then Jane could honestly say he was only claiming that no net radiative power is absorbed by the source. Until then, Jane's equation claims that no radiation is absorbed by the source at all.

I won't consider it because it's not physics. There is no net "radiative power in" from cooler to hotter. It's against the second law of thermodynamics, and it violates the S-B radiation law: (e * s) * (Ta^4 - Tb^4).

We've been over this. You're just trolling. You were proved wrong many days ago now. No more. Done.

about a week ago

Submissions

top

Global Warming Researchers Trapped In Antarctic Ice

Jane Q. Public Jane Q. Public writes  |  about 9 months ago

Jane Q. Public (1010737) writes "Christ Turney, a climate researcher at University of New South Wales, and some other researchers chartered a ship to go to Antarctica to further their Anthropogenic Global Warming ("climate change") research.

The expedition, consisting of 74 researchers and crew, radioed for help on Christmas day, stating that they are trapped in the ice.

A chinese ice breaker called "Snow Dragon" came within a few miles of the stuck ship but had to turn back. The researchers and crew are now hoping that the ice breaker Aurora Australis, out of Australia, will be able to reach them."
top

Airport Announcement Threatens Arrest For TSA Jokes

Jane Q. Public Jane Q. Public writes  |  about a year ago

Jane Q. Public (1010737) writes "In this YouTube video posted just 2 days ago, the PA system in the Houston airport tells passengers that "... inappropriate remarks OR JOKES concerning security may result in your arrest".

Even under GWB, this would have been unthinkable. And the timing is — for lack of a better way to put it — very interesting."
top

Slashdot Drastically Throttles Submission Frequency

Jane Q. Public Jane Q. Public writes  |  1 year,9 days

Jane Q. Public (1010737) writes "Remember when you could submit a comment in one thread, then submit a comment in another thread after 1 minute?

Slashdot has now limited your submissions to once every 5 minutes.

I don't know about you, but there have been rare occasions in which I found even 1 minute to be stifling. 5 minutes is ridiculous. Sometimes it's possible to browse through 3 whole new topics in less than 5 minutes."
top

Obama Administration Asks Supreme Court To Not Hear Jammie Thomas Case

Jane Q. Public Jane Q. Public writes  |  about a year and a half ago

Jane Q. Public (1010737) writes "The Jammie Thomas-Rasset case has been in the news for years now. As of the last court ruling, she has been ordered to pay $222,000 for sharing 24 songs. Her attorney argues that you can buy the same songs on iTunes for $24, and imposing a penalty of almost 10,000 times as much is "excessive and oppressive". The case has been appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Obama Administration has asked the Supreme Court to not review the case. Is this another example of this administration pandering to the copyright tro... I mean corporations, rather than The People they are supposed to represent?"

Link to Original Source
top

The Best Dennis Ritchie Quote

Jane Q. Public Jane Q. Public writes  |  more than 2 years ago

Jane Q. Public writes "

"Dennis Ritchie (1941-2011). His pointer has been cast to void *; his process has terminated with exit code 0."

Thus spake James Grimmelmann (@grimmelm), on Twitter"

top

MIT Prof. Says Power From Water is Near.

Jane Q. Public Jane Q. Public writes  |  more than 5 years ago

Jane Q. Public writes "At the Aspen Environmental Forum yesterday, MIT Professor Daniel Nocera claimed that MIT research has found a more efficient way to hydrolyze water at room temperature with the use of cobalt and potassium phosphate, and that tomorrow's home will get its power from feul cells charged with hydrogen from plain water and a bank of inexpensive solar cells. If true, this is a major breakthrough in energy distribution and could solve many of our global energy needs."
top

Apologies!

Jane Q. Public Jane Q. Public writes  |  more than 5 years ago

Jane Q. Public writes "I admit that I was a bit less than diplomatic; frankly I did not think I would get your attention, and it really was the kind of error that can cause bad feelings.

I will do better next time."
top

Hey, Editors!

Jane Q. Public Jane Q. Public writes  |  more than 5 years ago

Jane Q. Public writes "Hey! Re: my article that you just posted, "FTC Warns Against Deceptive DRM"... webcasts are NOT available, and you should have checked before you changed the article to say that they were. Live streaming webcasts were available when the talks were going on, but they don't work now.

So now, you are going to get lots of readers trying to download webcasts, and blaming me when they can't. Thanks a shitload."
top

FTC says "We'll 'come calling' about deceptive

Jane Q. Public Jane Q. Public writes  |  more than 5 years ago

Jane Q. Public writes "At the FTC's Seattle conference on DRM, FTC Director Engle started off by referencing the Sony rootkit debacle, and said that companies are going to have to get serious about disclosing DRM that may affect the usability of products. She also said that the fine print in a EULA is not good enough, and "If your advertising giveth and your EULA taketh away, don't be surprised if the FTC comes calling."
The conference was webcast live from the FTC website."
top

Scotty's Final Mission

Jane Q. Public Jane Q. Public writes  |  more than 6 years ago

Jane Q. Public writes "According to a recent article at Ars Technica, the ashes of James Doohan, who played "Scotty" in the original Star Trek series and several movies, were aboard the SpaceX III launch yesterday and were lost when the launch vehicle failed.

A fitting epitaph might be: "The engines are not meeting specification, Captain! She kinna hold out much longer!""

Journals

Jane Q. Public has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?