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

U.S. Senator: All Cops Should Wear Cameras

ceoyoyo Re:I like... (601 comments)

Why would the cops say the woman attacked the man if they only got there in time to see the man attacking the woman?

3 days ago
top

ACM Blames the PC For Driving Women Away From Computer Science

ceoyoyo Re:what is computer science nowadays? (329 comments)

Have to agree with the other guy who replied to you - when I took it, pure CS was sort of an applied math degree with a bit of engineeringish stuff like operating systems theory and digital design mixed in. From what I hear, it's now hard to find that, and most CS programs have turned into software engineering, at best.

Maybe women just don't want to slam energy drinks and sit in front of a screen in a cubicle seventy hours a week. I've always suspected they were smarter than men.

5 days ago
top

ACM Blames the PC For Driving Women Away From Computer Science

ceoyoyo So... (329 comments)

So women stopped studying computer science because they didn't have to anymore? That certainly sounds like a crime against humanity.

about a week ago
top

Do Readers Absorb Less On Kindles Than On Paper? Not Necessarily

ceoyoyo Re:Flipping Kindles (105 comments)

Kindle's have bookmarks. They're easy to use and work very well. I use them exactly as you've just described.

about two weeks ago
top

Do Readers Absorb Less On Kindles Than On Paper? Not Necessarily

ceoyoyo Re:No difference (105 comments)

That's not the suspicious part. This is:

"But instead, the performance was largely similar, except when it came to the timing of events in the story."

So they measured a whole bunch of things. What would you like to bet they didn't correct for multiple comparisons?

about two weeks ago
top

New Watson-Style AI Called Viv Seeks To Be the First 'Global Brain'

ceoyoyo Re:So misleading. (161 comments)

Of course a program can do things that it is not explicitly programmed to do, at least in the sense you're implicitly using "explicitly programmed to do." Any learning algorithm, from simple regression on up, changes it's output based on the training data it's presented with.

If you want to use that phrase in the most general way possible, then your brain can't do anything it's not explicitly (by genetics) programmed to do either.

Nobody knows how to program "general intelligence." Virtually everybody has given up on the idea of doing so and has turned to the idea that you don't have to.

about three weeks ago
top

Point-and-Shoot: TrackingPoint's New Linux-Controlled AR-15s

ceoyoyo Re:Apply liberal amounts of gloss. (219 comments)

You'll have to wait a few years until they integrate radar and track the bullet's flight. The first one might miss, but the one behind that will hit exactly. By then they'll have dropped the pretense of a human pulling the trigger too.

about three weeks ago
top

Why the "NASA Tested Space Drive" Is Bad Science

ceoyoyo Re:Another case, perhaps? (315 comments)

I recognize your username I think I've been able to answer one of your questions before. They're interesting, and you've got a great way of asking for clarification if you don't like the answer you get. Reminds me of the nineties on Slashdot. ;)

about three weeks ago
top

Why the "NASA Tested Space Drive" Is Bad Science

ceoyoyo Re:A little behind the times (315 comments)

You're being pedantic (yes, in your other post too). NASA is a US government agency. Individual researchers in that agency are US government employees. As far as I can tell, this study was funded by internal NASA funds.

Somebody convinced someone in a responsible position within NASA, with the power to allocate funds and probably assign personnel, that this was something worth looking into. Normal people understand that when you say "NASA did this" or "IBM did this" or "Microsoft did this" that you don't mean that every individual associated with one of those entities was involved, but that someone was, and that there was some kind of institutional involvement. Funding certainly qualifies.

about three weeks ago
top

Why the "NASA Tested Space Drive" Is Bad Science

ceoyoyo Re:Author really knows his "bad science" (315 comments)

I imagine they'll get around to that, provided everything goes well, but they'd probably like to do some more ground testing before they invest millions putting up a satellite.

about three weeks ago
top

Why the "NASA Tested Space Drive" Is Bad Science

ceoyoyo Re:A little behind the times (315 comments)

Your "major reason" is BS you made up. Have you heard of relativity?

If you're going to use P = F*v then the v has to come from the thruster, not from however you got the train up to mach 10 in the first place. Congrats though, you managed to dazzle the mods with some "math."

about three weeks ago
top

Why the "NASA Tested Space Drive" Is Bad Science

ceoyoyo Re:A little behind the times (315 comments)

So you're arguing that NASA shouldn't test a potential new propulsion technique based on some shady logic founded on a description in a pop science magazine? Very rigorous of you.

about three weeks ago
top

Why the "NASA Tested Space Drive" Is Bad Science

ceoyoyo Re:A little behind the times (315 comments)

Which NASA is working towards gathering. What's the problem?

Somebody convinced NASA that it was worth spending some money checking this out, so they build a small scale version and tested it. Results were positive, with some compromises in the experiment. The next step is to do a more rigorous experiment. If that's positive you invest a little more. Eventually, if everything goes well, you launch a test satellite. There's your extraordinary evidence.

Many crazy ideas are not worth testing. This one isn't nearly as crazy as the media likes to make it sound. The leading theoretical explanations don't involve any violations of conservation of momentum.

about three weeks ago
top

Why the "NASA Tested Space Drive" Is Bad Science

ceoyoyo Re:Another case, perhaps? (315 comments)

All (known) forces are between two charge carriers: electric charge for electromagnetism, mass for gravity, colour for the strong force, etc. You can use electromagnetic interactions to accelerate mass out the back of your rocket and because of that force symmetry the result is that your rocket accelerates in the opposite direction. You can drop a rock and it will accelerate towards the Earth, but the Earth also accelerates towards the rock. The symmetry means that momentum is conserved. Essentially, in order to change your momentum, you need something to push (or pull) on, thereby changing it's momentum, conserving total momentum.

For a reactionless drive you want to be able to change your momentum without pushing or pulling on anything. That idea has all sorts of problems. One of the proposed mechanisms for the EM drive is that it isn't actually reactionless at all: the asymmetric design of the drive canister causes the microwaves to push asymmetrically on the sea of virtual particles that are always popping up and annihilating. So the drive actually would have an exhaust, it would just be virtual particles that were encountered along the way instead of fuel you brought along.

about three weeks ago
top

Why the "NASA Tested Space Drive" Is Bad Science

ceoyoyo Re:Nerd fight!!!! (315 comments)

I was surprised. He's usually pretty good. But this article is crap. Maybe someone hacked his blog.

The results, as he described them OR as actually reported in the paper, are weak support for the EM/Cannae drive. You can't conclude that it actually works from those results because there were some compromises in the experiment, like not running everything in a vacuum. But you also can't conclude it doesn't work.

This is a far better article.

about three weeks ago
top

Why the "NASA Tested Space Drive" Is Bad Science

ceoyoyo Re:Space Drive or Global Warming? (315 comments)

The NASA experiment demonstrated that one man's idea of what was required for thrust generation was wrong. The null device differed from the real device only in not having some ridges machined into the case.

That doesn't mean the device really is producing thrust useful as a space drive, but it also doesn't mean it isn't. The experimenters reported "anomalous thrust," which is exactly what they saw. More experiments, in a vacuum to start, are required.

about three weeks ago
top

Black Holes Not Black After All, Theorize Physicists

ceoyoyo Re:Mostly done by 1985... (227 comments)

From the perspective of someone falling in, the outside universe experiences an infinite amount of time. So if it's going to end, it's going to end before the infalling observer has even the very short period of time required to cross the event horizon.

If the universe doesn't end, it will have infinite time to cool off and the black to hole to evaporate from Hawking radiation. To conserve energy that means the infalling observer must observe a greater and greater amount of Hawking radiation the closer he gets to the event horizon, and the horizon will always recede from him as the hole shrinks. When he eventually reaches the centre he'll discover that there's no black hole left.

about a month ago
top

Black Holes Not Black After All, Theorize Physicists

ceoyoyo Re:Mostly done by 1985... (227 comments)

Physicists originally called black holes "frozen stars" because the flow of time stops at the event horizon. Nothing can fall past an event horizon in outside time because that would take an infinitely long time to happen. It also can't happen from the perspective of an observer falling in, provided the outside universe has a finite lifetime. So you can never get a singularity.

I'm not really sure why that idea doesn't get more attention from today's physicists.

about a month ago
top

Marvel's New Thor Will Be a Woman

ceoyoyo Re:Ridiculous! (590 comments)

Not the original poster, but I agree. I think it's great to have strong female main characters, on an equal footing with strong male main characters. But this ain't it. They're taking a character who is male, both in mythology and in their own storyline, and changing him into a woman. Why? Because they can't write female leads so they'll just take a male one and give him boobs? Because a female main character can't be successful without all the momentum gathered by that character being male for a thousand years?

Ridiculous seems like a reasonable summary.

about a month and a half ago
top

Another Dementia Test Oversold

ceoyoyo Surprise (24 comments)

Hey, the condescending article manages to not know what positive predictive values are!

about 2 months ago

Submissions

top

Martian Volcanoes May Not Be Extinct

ceoyoyo ceoyoyo writes  |  more than 6 years ago

ceoyoyo writes "The Tharsis volcanoes on Mars show evidence they may have erupted within the last two million years and may still be dormant, not extinct. The three volcanoes also show evidence of erupting in a chain, much like the Hawaiian islands, with the southernmost showing the oldest lava flows and the northernmost the youngest. On Earth chains of volcanoes are produced when the crust moves over a magma plume in the mantle. On Mars, since there is no tectonic activity, the researchers theorized that the magma plumes themselves move under the fixed crust."
Link to Original Source

Journals

ceoyoyo 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>