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

DARPA Kick-Starts Flying Car Program

Louis Savain Mass-Market Air Car, an Impossible Dream Unless... (136 comments)

Anybody who thinks that using current propulsion systems (propellers, jets, rockets, etc.) as a viable technology for a levitating air (or space) vehicle is honking the clueless pipe, in my opinion. As you mentioned, high fuel consumption is big disadvantage. Also, they still would have to land and take off in designated areas for questions of safety and health (nobody wants to breathe all that dust and exhaust fumes). Piloting an air car is, by its nature, a dangerous proposition. So much so, that any personal air car that is not 100% self-piloting is out of the question for mass adoption. This would increase the cost exponentially. In the end, you would end up with an expensive, dangerous and fairly useless contraption. Eventually, you realize that the best you can do is no better than something that is already here: the helicopter.

But who says air car dreamers are forever stuck with a dangerous and crippling beast fastened to their backs? Who says that current propellant-based propulsion systems are all there is? Imagine if we had a transportation technology that made it possible to travel from Earth to Mars in hours or from New York City to Beijing in minutes. You may think this is impossible but, in that case, the air car will remain an eternal dream and space colonization and exploitation will forever remain primitive and overly expensive and dangerous.

The space propulsion and ground and air transportation industries must look beyond their current understanding of physics if they are to come out of the rut they are stuck in. It's obvious that current physics is not going to solve this problem anytime soon. Physicists must retrace their steps and reevaluate their fundamental assumptions and practices to uncover a solution.

Our understanding of motion is a case in point. Every physicist seems to be under the impression that inertial motion is uncaused; two bodies in relative motion remain in motion for no reason, as if by magic. But what if this is not true? What if Aristotle was right about the causality of motion? What if there is something (some form of energy) in the "vacuum" that acts as a causal substrate for motion? My point is that a correct and complete understanding of the true nature of motion would, without a doubt, uncover new avenues of research that would revolutionize transportation. NASA and Darpa should promote as many fringe avenues of research as possible, in my opinion, regardless of their expected payoffs. Nobody is going to win the lotto if nobody buys a ticket.

Physics: The Problem with Motion

more than 4 years ago
top

Electric Car Nano-Batteries Aim For 500 Mile Range

Louis Savain Hydrogen Fuel Stations vs. Home Electrical Socket (650 comments)

Yeah, but it is a lot easier to charge your electric car in the garage now than it is to find hydrogen for your hydrogen car.

more than 4 years ago
top

New Motorcycle World Speed Record, 367.382 mph

Louis Savain X-cycle? (253 comments)

Literally, bicycle means 'two wheels', though, and tricycle means 'three-wheels', doh! We probably would use quadracycle for 'four-wheels' but we're too damn lazy for our own good and use car instead. But your point is well taken.

Hexicycle, octocycle, decicycle, anyone? Bueller?

more than 4 years ago
top

New Motorcycle World Speed Record, 367.382 mph

Louis Savain Re:And this is on slashdot why? (253 comments)

Because it has its own mobile wifi, just in case the driver might need to use twitter or something to send a message to his mom or his girlfriend. One never knows in this day and age.

PS. My karma is terrible. Can you help me with some good karma, please? Hahaha...

more than 4 years ago
top

Unambiguous Evidence of Water On the Moon

Louis Savain Re:Yes Indeed, But Rocket Propulsion Sucks (251 comments)

Oh Yeah. I almost forgot. It's a bitch trying to escape the usual shit-for-brains Slashdot censoring crowd. It feels good to have power, doesn't it? What a bunch of shitheads you all are!

Modding me down because you disagree with my views is a form of ad hominem argument. Fucking morons.

So here, censor this and see if I care. LOL.

more than 4 years ago
top

Unambiguous Evidence of Water On the Moon

Louis Savain Re:Yes Indeed, But Rocket Propulsion Sucks (251 comments)

Yes, it would be nice, wouldn't it? But Rome was not built in one day. Have patience. Inertia can be ignored, even under extremely powerful acceleration, if every atom in the ship and its occupants are accelerated simultaneously and equally.

more than 4 years ago
top

Unambiguous Evidence of Water On the Moon

Louis Savain Yes Indeed, But Rocket Propulsion Sucks (251 comments)

Great news indeed. Still, it's depressing to think that we're still using an ancient, dangerous, primitive and very expensive space transportation technology: rocket propulsion. One thing is sure; we'll never colonize the solar system with rockets at the rate we're going.

But rejoice. Soon, a new form of transportation will arrive, one based on the realization that we are immersed in an immense ocean of energetic particles. This is a consequence of a reevaluation of our understanding of the causality of motion. Soon, we'll have vehicles that can move at tremendous speeds and negotiate right angle turns without slowing down and without incurring damages due to inertial effects. Floating cities, unlimited clean energy, earth to mars in hours, New York to Beijing in minutes... That's the future of energy and travel. Check it out.

The Problem With Motion

more than 4 years ago
top

Video Surveillance System That Reasons Like a Human

Louis Savain Numenta? (143 comments)

I wonder if it's based on Numenta's Bayesian HTM (hierarchical temporal memory). My understanding of neuro-like learning system is that, unless its knowledge base is organized hierachically like a tree, it could not possibly do the things its promoters are claiming for it.

more than 4 years ago
top

A Galaxy-Sized Observatory For Gravitational Waves

Louis Savain Re:Guess LIGO failed too many times (190 comments)

ahahaha... I see that the usual politically correct Slashdot gang is hard at work, as ususal, supressing free expression. Did I mention that you people were stupid as fuck? ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

more than 4 years ago
top

A Galaxy-Sized Observatory For Gravitational Waves

Louis Savain Re:Guess LIGO failed too many times (190 comments)

'Not even wrong' does not do it justice. You're a gutless ass kisser on a mission. :-D

more than 4 years ago
top

A Galaxy-Sized Observatory For Gravitational Waves

Louis Savain Re:Guess LIGO failed too many times (190 comments)

If you got any gonads, identify yourself and be on the record. Why be ashamed of what you are? A little bit of gonads is all it takes. :-D

more than 4 years ago
top

A Galaxy-Sized Observatory For Gravitational Waves

Louis Savain Re:Guess LIGO failed too many times (190 comments)

This is precisely this type of condescending, we-are-am-smater-than-you attitude that turns people off on science and scientists. Maybe physicists should concentrate on the foundational issues (e.g., the true nature of motion) first before they go chasing after gravity waves. You folks are not as smart as you think you are.

Did you know that over 90% of physicists believe that matter can move in spacetime even though it is known that spacetime is frozen from the infinite past to the infinite future? Did you know that physicists have no clue as to what keeps a moving particle in motion? Did you know that most physicists believe that moving bodies remain in motion for no reason at all, as if by magic?

My own research, based on the application of the principle of causality to motion, has led me to conclude that we are swimming in a enormous sea of energetic particles. Having a correct causal model of motion will unleash an age of free energy and extremely fast transportation.

The Problem With Motion

more than 4 years ago
top

How To Make Science Popular Again?

Louis Savain Re:Just Stop! (899 comments)

note my non-anonymity

You call mujadaddy non-anonymity? Your gonads are the same size as an electron and you know it. LOL.

more than 4 years ago
top

How To Make Science Popular Again?

Louis Savain Re:Just Stop! (899 comments)

LOL. I get this a lot. It's better to be a kook than an ass kisser any time. Are there any people with gonads left in science? Or more to the point, are there any gonads on Slashdot?

more than 4 years ago
top

How To Make Science Popular Again?

Louis Savain Re:Just Stop! (899 comments)

If you got any gonads, identify yourself. :-D

more than 4 years ago
top

How To Make Science Popular Again?

Louis Savain Just Stop! (899 comments)

You want science to be popular? Just stop the elitist condescension and admit that you don't know it all and that you (especially, the more famous scientists) may be wrong about many things. The public has the right to mistrust scientists just as much as the religious leaders. We don't like to be preached to from on high. We want respect.

As an example, if you ask a physicist to explain why two particles in relative motion remain in motion, you come face to face with bullshit and ignorance. One may tell you that nothing is needed (the magical unseen cosmic hand) while the other may insist that physics is not about the why but the how of things. To a thinking layperson, both answers are pathetically wrong. Learn about why an analysis of the causality of motion leads to the conclusion that we are swimming in an immense sea of energetic particles.

Physics: The Problem With Motion

more than 4 years ago
top

Where's Waldo (the Submarine)?

Louis Savain Ok. I Got a Theory (107 comments)

My theory is that some Mexican or Columbian drug cartel needed a safe way to retrieve bundles of dope dropped off the coast of Florida and floating right below the surface of the water. What (who?) would be better suited for the job than Waldo? I'm sure Waldo is sporting a new black coating by now.

Submarine folks should know better than naming their craft any name other than Nemo. Serves them right. Besides, Waldo is probably a code name for a cocaine mule in that part of the country.

It just goes to show ya. If it's not one thing, it's another.

more than 4 years ago

Submissions

top

Floating Cities, Unlimited Clean Energy, Earth to

Louis Savain Louis Savain writes  |  more than 4 years ago

Louis Savain writes "From the article:
"An analysis of the causality of motion leads to the inevitable conclusion that we are swimming in energy, in an immense lattice of wall-to-wall energetic particles, to be precise."

"Soon, we will figure out how to tap into the lattice for energy production and transportation. It will be an age of practically unlimited free energy and extremely fast transportation. Vehicles will have no need for wheels, will go almost anywhere and negotiate right angle turns without slowing down. Floating cities, unlimited clean energy, earth to Mars in hours, New York to Beijing in minutes. That's the future of energy and travel.""

Link to Original Source
top

Parallel Computing: Why Future Is Compositional

Louis Savain Louis Savain writes  |  more than 4 years ago

Louis Savain writes "Excerpts from article:

"There is a way to define, organize and use software objects that will transform computer programming from the complex unprincipled mess that it currently is into an orderly, easy to use and pristine compositional paradise."

"The computer revolution will not come of age until we are all computer programmers by default, whether we know it or not. This will not happen until software construction becomes strictly compositional in nature."

"Every computer application (or sub-component) will be organized like a tree and will be a branch in the universal tree of all applications.""

Link to Original Source
top

Why I Hate All Programming Languages

Louis Savain Louis Savain writes  |  about 5 years ago

eightwings writes "I hate computer languages because they force me to learn a bunch of shit that are completely irrelevant to what I want to use them for. When I design an application, I just want to build it. I don't want to have to use a complex language to describe my intentions to a compiler. Here is what I want to do: I want to look into my bag of components, pick out the ones that I need and snap them together, and that's it! That's all I want to do. Read more."
Link to Original Source
top

Does Silicon Valley Face an Innovation Crisis?

Louis Savain Louis Savain writes  |  more than 5 years ago

Louis Savain writes "In a blog article at the New York Times, Claire Cain Miller writes:

Judy Estrin, who has built several Silicon Valley companies and was the chief technology officer of Cisco Systems, says Silicon Valley is in trouble. In a new book, "Closing the Innovation Gap," which will be in bookstores Tuesday, she writes that the valley's problems are symptomatic of a crisis in innovation facing the country as a whole.

In an interview in her Menlo Park office Thursday, Ms. Estrin said that the United States is stifling innovation by failing to take risks in sectors from academia to government to venture capital. "I'm not generally an alarmist, but I am really, really concerned about this country," she said.

[...] Ms. Estrin traces Silicon Valley's troubles to the tech boom. She said that's when entrepreneurs and venture capitalists started focusing more on starting companies to turn around and sell them and less on building successful companies for the long term.

"

Link to Original Source
top

Heralding the Empending Death of the CPU

Louis Savain Louis Savain writes  |  more than 5 years ago

Mapou writes "From Rebel Science News: The modern CPU may seem like a product of the space age but its roots are rather ancient. British mathematician Charles Babbage first conceived of the principles behind the CPU more than 150 years ago and he was building on ideas that were older still, such as Jacquard's punch card-driven loom and the algorithm, a mathematical concept that was invented a thousand years earlier by Persian mathematician, al-Khwrizm. Like most mathematicians of his day, Babbage longed for a reliable machine that could automate the tedious task of calculating algorithms or tables of instructions. Parallel computing was the furthest thing from his mind. Yet amazingly, a century and a half later, the computer industry is still clinging to Babbage's ancient computing model in the age of multicore computers."
Link to Original Source
top

How to Solve the Parallel Programming Crisis

Louis Savain Louis Savain writes  |  more than 6 years ago

Louis Savain writes "It is not rocket science. The solution has been staring us in the face from the beginning. Here are two paragraphs from the article:

No Threads

The solution to the parallel programming problem is to do away with threads altogether. There is a way to implement parallelism in a computer that is 100% threadless. It is a method that has been around for decades. Programmers have been using it to simulate parallelism in such apps as neural networks, cellular automata, simulations, video games and even VHDL. Essentially, it requires two buffers and an endless loop. While the parallel objects in one buffer are being processed, the other buffer is filled with the objects to be processed in the next cycle. At the end of the cycle, the buffers are swapped and the cycle begins anew. Two buffers are used to prevent racing conditions. This method guarantees 100% deterministic behavior and is thus free of all the problems associated with multithreading.

Speed and Transparency

The two-buffer/loop mechanism described above works great in software but only for coarse-grain objects such as neurons in a network or cells in a cellular automaton. For fine-grain parallelism, it must be applied at the instruction level. That is to say, the processor instructions themselves become the parallel objects. However, doing so in software would be much too slow. What is needed is to make the mechanism an inherent part of the processor itself by incorporating the two buffers on the chip and use internal circuitry for looping. The processor can be either single core or multicore. In a multicore processor, the cores would divide the instruction load in the buffers among themselves in a way that is completely transparent to the programmer. Adding more cores would simply increase processing power without having to modify the programs.

Related article: Parallel Computing: Why the Future Is Non-Algorithmic"

Journals

Louis Savain 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>