Slashdot Mirror


LHC Knocked Out By Another Power Failure

known_ID writes "The Large Hadron Collider — the most puissant particle-punisher ever assembled by the human race — has suffered another major power failure, knocking not only the atom smasher itself but even its associated websites offline."

338 comments

  1. Live Report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is BBC news reporting live from LHC .... ~buzz~

    1. Re:Live Report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm covered in bees!

    2. Re:Live Report by 2names · · Score: 5, Funny

      All the action around the LHC is getting pretty spooky...even from up close...

      --
      "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
    3. Re:Live Report by allknowingfrog · · Score: 5, Funny

      On an engineering feat of this scale, you're bound to encounter some serious obstacles. If Windows 7 suffers a debilitating break-down every other week, will we assume the future is trying to prevent Microsoft from destroying the world? Well...maybe that's a bad example.

    4. Re:Live Report by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Failing for the same Vista failed probably.. being rushed into operation before it's time..

      Also parts and architecture designed/implemented with assistance by the lowestBidder(TM)

    5. Re:Live Report by Zediker · · Score: 1

      When you have so many paranoid loonies out there who think your machine will end the world... It is legitimate to assume it is all sabotage.

      --
      I love to slaughter the english language.
    6. Re:Live Report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I'm nowhere near it and it's spooky. That means it's spooky action from a distance...

  2. FP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    first particle!

    1. Re:FP! by JustOK · · Score: 1

      of course, accounting for time dilation because of the speed and energy of the p articles

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
  3. I'm writing this comment from 2017 by mantis2009 · · Score: 5, Funny

    The power outage was my idea. You're welcome.

    1. Re:I'm writing this comment from 2017 by Bombcar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Then why does your user name have 2009 in it?

    2. Re:I'm writing this comment from 2017 by cpu_fusion · · Score: 4, Funny

      We are unable to transmit through conscious neural interference. You are receiving this broadcast as a dream. We are transmitting from the year two zero one seven.

    3. Re:I'm writing this comment from 2017 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because his communication method is via Slashdot. He's creating a series of profiles, one for every year, that allow him to access and communicate with Slashdot in that time period. Duh.

    4. Re:I'm writing this comment from 2017 by mantis2009 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Whoever modded this +1 Informative, you are awesome. I would +1 Funny your entire life if I could.

    5. Re:I'm writing this comment from 2017 by amazeofdeath · · Score: 5, Funny

      Because there were 2008 mantises registered before him?

      --
      U+F8FF
    6. Re:I'm writing this comment from 2017 by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's the year he was born.

    7. Re:I'm writing this comment from 2017 by Zarf · · Score: 1

      Darn time-travelers always screwing up my plans for world domination!

      --
      [signature]
    8. Re:I'm writing this comment from 2017 by Zarf · · Score: 1

      We are unable to transmit through conscious neural interference. You are receiving this broadcast as a dream. We are transmitting from the year two zero one seven.

      Hey! You've had that dream too? I thought I was the only one.

      --
      [signature]
    9. Re:I'm writing this comment from 2017 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's the year he was born.

      Darned 8 year old think they know everything.

    10. Re:I'm writing this comment from 2017 by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I for one welcome our Earth-protecting overlords from the future.

    11. Re:I'm writing this comment from 2017 by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Lucky bastard. You got the glory assignment, while all *I* got was the mission to go back to 1967 and stop disco from happening.

      Well, I'm off. Time for the brothers Gibb to have a little "Tragedy" at sea.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    12. Re:I'm writing this comment from 2017 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, damn. Not again. I thought we sorted that problem out in the 1980s!

      Look, just don't install any full-length mirrors at the LHC and we should be fine.

    13. Re:I'm writing this comment from 2017 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who? Oh wait, that means it worked, right?

    14. Re:I'm writing this comment from 2017 by CecilPL · · Score: 1

      What do you think he was, born yesterday?

    15. Re:I'm writing this comment from 2017 by Leafheart · · Score: 1

      What is this Disco thing you are talking about?

      --
      --- "When you gotta do something wrong. You gotta do it right. (Fighter)"
    16. Re:I'm writing this comment from 2017 by Ephemeriis · · Score: 1

      We are unable to transmit through conscious neural interference. You are receiving this broadcast as a dream. We are transmitting from the year two zero one seven.

      Very Nicely Done

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    17. Re:I'm writing this comment from 2017 by LordAndrewSama · · Score: 5, Funny

      Due to retroactive copyright legislation, the dream you were about to have has been blocked. Please pay £2500 to view this dream. Attempt to view this dream again and you will be prosecuted for premature copyright violation(Under article 554455456 of the DMCA(2017)).
      Your corporate overlord
      Dreamworks

    18. Re:I'm writing this comment from 2017 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah. And if Alice Cooper asks for a tour of the LHC, tell him "no"!

    19. Re:I'm writing this comment from 2017 by OakDragon · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's the year he was born.

      Darned 8 year old think they know everything.

      In 2017, they do!

    20. Re:I'm writing this comment from 2017 by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      My dreams only have advertising for Lightspeed Briefs.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    21. Re:I'm writing this comment from 2017 by MikeDirnt69 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ur saing that we can still kill him and save the Large Hadron Cheerleader?

      --
      Am I eval()? - http://www.monst3r.com.br
    22. Re:I'm writing this comment from 2017 by buswolley · · Score: 1

      Probably the best one of these I've seen.

      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    23. Re:I'm writing this comment from 2017 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Large Hardon Cheerleader

    24. Re:I'm writing this comment from 2017 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you Windows 7 too...

    25. Re:I'm writing this comment from 2017 by Zarf · · Score: 1

      Oh, everyone has those dreams.

      --
      [signature]
    26. Re:I'm writing this comment from 2017 by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ahem ... you insensitive clod.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    27. Re:I'm writing this comment from 2017 by Ipeunipig · · Score: 2, Funny

      He must be new here!

    28. Re:I'm writing this comment from 2017 by Ipeunipig · · Score: 1

      Large Hardon Cheerleader

      wearing

      advertising for Lightspeed Briefs

    29. Re:I'm writing this comment from 2017 by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Funny

      One universe down, an infinite number to go!

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    30. Re:I'm writing this comment from 2017 by snspdaarf · · Score: 1

      I hate premature copyright violation. There should be a pill for that.

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    31. Re:I'm writing this comment from 2017 by natehoy · · Score: 1

      In 2017 Russia, all knowledge comes to you!

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    32. Re:I'm writing this comment from 2017 by edittard · · Score: 1

      Because he means approximately a quarter past eight in the evening.

      --
      At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
    33. Re:I'm writing this comment from 2017 by garompeta · · Score: 1

      The logical explanation Mr. watson is that today kids are defacing websites thanks to the Internet, in 2017 this kid may hacking the time and space fabric thanks to LHC.

    34. Re:I'm writing this comment from 2017 by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      Toast again. How is the sandwich coming?

    35. Re:I'm writing this comment from 2017 by Convector · · Score: 1

      He registered this year. You can only post as far back in time as your original registration date. Otherwise, you will cause a paradox in the space-time continuum of the quantum deflector hyper-inertial technobabble capacipotater, resulting in the total and complete destruction of the entire universe for a period of five minutes plus or minus eighteen billion years. And since we're talking about time travel, the "or minus" really does apply. After/before that everything's fine, but doesn't smell too good. This could all be obviated if Slashdot would spring for a reverse-polarity buttercream laser neutrino charger, but they won't shell out the fifteen bucks for it.

    36. Re:I'm writing this comment from 2017 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, since it was a DJ Shadow sample, it would be the RIAA that would block it.

    37. Re:I'm writing this comment from 2017 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a Large Cheerleader Hardon...

    38. Re:I'm writing this comment from 2017 by CecilPL · · Score: 1

      I wasn't asking you.

    39. Re:I'm writing this comment from 2017 by Zarf · · Score: 1

      No, that one's just you.

      --
      [signature]
    40. Re:I'm writing this comment from 2017 by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

      Then why does your user name have 2009 in it?

      He had to register after he traveled back to 2009 because Slashdot ends in 2012, triggered by a server meltdown from flamewars over an article about debunking 2012 paranoia.
                 

    41. Re:I'm writing this comment from 2017 by BadBlood · · Score: 1

      Excellent Prince of Darkness reference.

      --


      Praying for the end of your wide-awake nightmare.
    42. Re:I'm writing this comment from 2017 by cpu_fusion · · Score: 1

      Actually, since it was a DJ Shadow sample, it would be the RIAA that would block it.

      Actually, as a few others have pointed out, it was originally from the classic sci/horror movie, John Carpenter's "Prince of Darkness." Good stuff.

      DJ Shadow must have got his hands on the vinyl of that movie's soundtrack. ("Endtroducing" was a great album.)

    43. Re:I'm writing this comment from 2017 by cpu_fusion · · Score: 1

      Thank you. When I posted it I took a leap of faith that my fellow Slashdotters likely would get the reference. I wasn't let down. I think that is half the fun of this site: knowing that many of us share a lot of collective experiences.

  4. video of the event by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Luckily some other website managed to capture a video of the event from the webcam's: http://www.cyriak.co.uk/lhc/lhc-webcams.html

    1. Re:video of the event by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, so funny, that hasn't been posted 9000 times.
      Jesus Christ.

    2. Re:video of the event by tohands · · Score: 1

      ok enough already, everyone saw that video, it's been posted the day after LHC started for the first time.

    3. Re:video of the event by BeardedChimp · · Score: 3, Informative

      And yet no one gives it the credit it deserves. See b3ta for the newsletter it starred in. All hail b3ta (and this b3tan), forever spreading virals without acknowledgement.

    4. Re:video of the event by Roman+Coder · · Score: 1

      Actually, I just saw this for the first time, and even laughed. /shrug

      --
      "The future can only affect the present if there is room to write its influence off as a mistake." - Yakir Aharonov
  5. And once again, the world is safe by Abreu · · Score: 4, Funny

    Thanks to the efforts of nameless heroes, the evil LHC has been foiled again, ensuring the survival of earth...

    --
    No sig for the moment.
    1. Re:And once again, the world is safe by sbrown123 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I don't know why anyone would try to stop it. It is not like it will do anything besides collide high powered lasers.

    2. Re:And once again, the world is safe by Bakkster · · Score: 2, Informative

      And Lead. Don't forget about ALICE.

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
    3. Re:And once again, the world is safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Geez. Read the name! The Large Hardon Collider will also collide hardons.

      I don't care who you are. That's gotta hurt.

    4. Re:And once again, the world is safe by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well if that were the case, I am sure that you would be safe, as it is the Large Hardon Collider.

      Zing! Thank you, I'll be here all week.

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    5. Re:And once again, the world is safe by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      They're not nameless. It's Rority, Gumal, and Rula.

    6. Re:And once again, the world is safe by lennier · · Score: 1

      So was it Sapphire.... or Steel?

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    7. Re:And once again, the world is safe by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Oh my. “Moderators” become dumber by the second.

      He is wrong. But you, the moderator, are the flamer, for pointlessly modding him “flamebait”. Meta-moderators, where are you? Smack that loserator with a large fish or something.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  6. Future doesn't want to be discovered? by vvaduva · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Anyone remember this?

    1. Re:Future doesn't want to be discovered? by zippthorne · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, but that was BS. Fact is, collisions of higher energies occur in the upper atmosphere with a much higher frequency than they will in the LHC, and have been for billions of years. The LHC iself is only expected to operate for a few tens of years by comparison.

      Hard science is hard. There is a lot that needs to go right for this to work, and any of apparently dozens upon dozens of things can make it hiccup. No spooky explanations necessary.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    2. Re:Future doesn't want to be discovered? by Bazer · · Score: 1
      Funny you mention this. From the article:

      "Maybe it was a birdy bread-bomber from the future," jokes Chris Stephens of the LHC Portal - referring to the well-known wingnut theory that that the mere possibility of the LHC unmasking certain phenomena engenders forces which act backwards through time to sabotage it before this can happen.

    3. Re:Future doesn't want to be discovered? by electricbern · · Score: 1

      What is this "article" you mention?

      --
      alias possession='chmod 666 satan && ls /dev > il && tail daemon.log'
    4. Re:Future doesn't want to be discovered? by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      Okay. Color me stupid, but aren't there existing hardon colliders that function just fine, like the one in Brookhaven?

      What they do right to get theirs to launch without all these issues?

      As far as I know, the major difference with the LHC is scale.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    5. Re:Future doesn't want to be discovered? by jschen · · Score: 1

      Okay. Color me stupid, but aren't there existing hardon colliders that function just fine, like the one in Brookhaven?

      I'm not sure about any hardons colliding at Brookhaven. Hadrons, on the other hand...

    6. Re:Future doesn't want to be discovered? by hoggoth · · Score: 0

      > Okay. Color me stupid, but aren't there existing hardon colliders that function just fine, like the one in Brookhaven?

      Hardon colliders are all on 4chan.

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    7. Re:Future doesn't want to be discovered? by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Anyone remember that doing something no one ever did is difficult ?

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    8. Re:Future doesn't want to be discovered? by Bakkster · · Score: 1

      The energy of the collisions at the LHC is higher, plain and simple. You need higher energies to explore certain types of physics, and the best way to increase energy is with a larger collider. The size is a function of the desired energy, not the goal itself.

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
    9. Re:Future doesn't want to be discovered? by oGMo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As far as I know, the major difference with the LHC is scale.

      I'm not a physicist or whatever sort of engineer one is to build a giant collider. However, this strikes me the same as saying "company X has 10 servers and they manage to keep them working fine, why does Google have problems? the only major difference is scale!" Well, yes, yes it is.

      --

      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage

    10. Re:Future doesn't want to be discovered? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do not attribute to malice, what can be explained by stupidity... or something like that.

      This is just 'Murphy', as in 'Murphy's Law', rearing his annoying head at in-opportune moments. This won't be the last fault, mishap, or failure we see with the LHC, so just sit back, relax, and enjoy the shenanigans. However, if you are an engineer at LHC, get to work triple checking EVERYTHING!

    11. Re:Future doesn't want to be discovered? by noidentity · · Score: 1

      You're asking whether we remember a crackpot theory that was advanced less than two months ago? How could we forget it?

    12. Re:Future doesn't want to be discovered? by khallow · · Score: 1

      How can I remember something that hasn't happened yet?

    13. Re:Future doesn't want to be discovered? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well, whatever mysterious force terminated all universes in which the power generator didn't fail, forgot about the backup generator! This was nothing but the tiniest of hiccups.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    14. Re:Future doesn't want to be discovered? by Mikkeles · · Score: 0, Troll

      Comon; they're F/LOSS people; they've never done anything that hasn't been already.

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    15. Re:Future doesn't want to be discovered? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Fact is, collisions of higher energies occur in the upper atmosphere with a much higher frequency than they will in the LHC, and have been for billions of years.

      Well why don't they just build a cloud chamber up in the atmosphere then?

      Wow, that sounded a lot better in my head. :-) Never mind.

    16. Re:Future doesn't want to be discovered? by chord.wav · · Score: 1

      Correction: Church doesn't want its dogma to be debunked.

    17. Re:Future doesn't want to be discovered? by SCPaPaJoe · · Score: 1

      It hasn't been written yet.

    18. Re:Future doesn't want to be discovered? by meerling · · Score: 1

      Exactly, and I might add, the more complicated the system or device, the more likely something will go wrong.
      Please note that the LHC is a horribly complicated device with very little tolerance for screwups.
      It's kinda of amazing we lowly humans can even expect to get something like that working...
      (Persistent buggers, aren't we....)

    19. Re:Future doesn't want to be discovered? by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      Yes -- it's "just" energy and scale, both of which are outside of anything that's been done before. These other colliders didn't magically work overnight, either. They still have periodic problems.

    20. Re:Future doesn't want to be discovered? by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      Dude, they're allowed to collide in the atmosphere because no one is watching there. They're not allowed to collide in a lab because then someone might see the higgs boson. Higgs bosons only make sounds in the forest when no one is around to hear them.

    21. Re:Future doesn't want to be discovered? by xZgf6xHx2uhoAj9D · · Score: 1

      Err the whole premise to the linked article is that "God" wouldn't allow the collisions to be observed. Unless you're arguing that all the collisions in the upper atmosphere are being observed, I don't think that's very relevant. If we could observe what's going on in our own sky we probably wouldn't be going through the trouble of building the LHC.

    22. Re:Future doesn't want to be discovered? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why did you have to put together hand and hardon?

    23. Re:Future doesn't want to be discovered? by PPH · · Score: 1

      Actually, this is starting to track the plotline in Einstein's Bridge. Although that was written back when the SSC was still being planned. Time travelers come back from the future to trigger events that will side track progress in physics and technology which lead to the SSC becoming operational, triggering the destruction of the earth.

      IIRC, one of the things that these time travelers did was to cripple scientific collaboration over the Internet. They did so by intervening early in the development of OSs and networking by ensuring that a small company attempting to market crappy products would rise to dominance. That company was Microsoft.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    24. Re:Future doesn't want to be discovered? by jpmorgan · · Score: 1

      You aren't really making any point. You're assuming that since these particles occur naturally and we know there are collisions in the upper atmosphere, then by random chance some of those collisions would form a Higgs boson. But if the formation of a Higgs boson is impossible and does ripple backwards, preventing the event from occurring in the first place... in the upper atmosphere, all that has to happen is for the particles to randomly not hit under the perfect conditions.

      We're talking about an effect which could be influencing random chance. You can't make a statistical argument against it.

    25. Re:Future doesn't want to be discovered? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but that was BS. Fact is, collisions of higher energies occur in the upper atmosphere with a much higher frequency than they will in the LHC, and have been for billions of years. The LHC iself is only expected to operate for a few tens of years by comparison.

      Do they? Do we know (as in, have observed) that they occur, or do we simply conclude that they must, since cosmic rays bombard the atmosphere? Is it possible that the exact same phenomenom that the linked article says prevents LHC from working also prevents high-energy collisions from occurring in the upper atmosphere?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    26. Re:Future doesn't want to be discovered? by jhol13 · · Score: 1

      It bursts thunder in your ear? You know how that would end.

    27. Re:Future doesn't want to be discovered? by daveime · · Score: 1

      If "God" wouldn't allow us to view the collisions, why did he allow us to climb down out of the trees and walk on two legs at all ?

      Why I don't believe in "God", compact version.

      You know we had a massive tropical storm here a couple of months ago, 8 to 10 foot of water outside, ground floor of the house completely flooded. As we were sat on the roof watching the water starting to recede, my neighbour said to me, "Thank God we're all safe". I replied, "Who the fuck you think sent us all the water ?".

    28. Re:Future doesn't want to be discovered? by dido · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, extremely high-energy collisions, of the order of 100 million TeV, have been directly observed. Such events involve particles eight orders of magnitude more energetic than any produced by the LHC at its maximum design potential. The first such ultra-high energy event was observed at a cosmic ray observatory at New Mexico in 1962, and there have been a few since, but they are understandably rare. More information here. So no, I don't think there is any other explanation why the LHC appears to be getting hit by so many problems other than the fact that it is among the most complex devices ever built by humankind. Natural processes already make particles with vastly higher energies than the LHC could even dream of reaching, so if a planet-destroying event was possible at the levels of energy it can achieve, then we wouldn't be here to build the LHC to begin with.

      --
      Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
    29. Re:Future doesn't want to be discovered? by treeves · · Score: 1

      Well, if it is a periodic problem, they should just do an autocorrelation test or FFT and find the period of the problems, and then just shut the thing down periodically, at the same frequency as the problems. Solved.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    30. Re:Future doesn't want to be discovered? by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      Congratulations, I had to scroll at least 30% of the page before I found an on topic comment. Shall I go on to explain how utterly minute an electron volt is ?
      For example, 1.2 TeV = 1.92261175 × 10-7 joules
      A typical electric fence for containing animals produces 10 joules.

    31. Re:Future doesn't want to be discovered? by smoker2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I totally agree with your comment, but you didn't answer the question. The reason we have had to build the LHC is because we don't have control over observations. With the LHC, we can time it to the picosecond, and observe at the correct moment. With the cosmic rays, we have to watch 24/7/365 just to know it's happened at all. And then we can't reproduce it at will. This is science.

    32. Re:Future doesn't want to be discovered? by LearnToSpell · · Score: 1

      I thought periodic problems led to hardon collisions.

    33. Re:Future doesn't want to be discovered? by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      I figure you're joking, but most of these machines do actually shut down on a fairly regular basis, because if they run longer than that at a stretch, they'll stop working. (Most of the problems occur after these breaks when they start back up.)

    34. Re:Future doesn't want to be discovered? by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      I thought periodic problems led to hardon collisions.

      Maybe in your house! Over here, periodic problems lead to hardons not being able to touch anything for a while.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    35. Re:Future doesn't want to be discovered? by treeves · · Score: 1

      I was joking, based the definition of periodic as exactly regular, not /fairly/ regular.

      BTW, if the problems occur after a restart, maybe they should avoid shutting them down in the first place!
      I'm only half joking with that comment.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    36. Re:Future doesn't want to be discovered? by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      Oh, I know.

      Unfortunately things are even less stable if you don't shut down. (On some of the worse runs, you could tell it was getting near the end of the week by beam stability and quality.)

  7. All new ultra-cool technologies have thier issues. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you ever tried to dab ointment on a swimming shark?!?! Noooooo. You haven't. The scale-rot around the laser mounting points was terrrible in the beginning, but that Safeway-Brand polysporin does the trick.

    Nothing to see here.

  8. Who really built this thing? eMachines? by King_TJ · · Score: 1, Funny

    The "uptime" on this collider is worse than an application server running on Windows 3.0!

  9. Large Hardon Collider *ouch* by ExE122 · · Score: 4, Funny
    From the article:

    We ourselves find it hard not to suspect the involvement of some pan-dimensional police force, seeking to prevent humanity acquiring parallel-universe portal capability before we're ready to use it responsibly.

    I have devoted a large portion of my life to playing countless hours of Doom and Halflife, reading Kurt Vonnegut novels, and watching numerous reruns of Quantum Leap and Sliders... I think I'm "ready to use it"!

    Oh, wait... "responsibly"... hmm...

    --
    Capitalism: When it uses the carrot, it's called democracy. When it uses the stick, it's called fascism.
    1. Re:Large Hardon Collider *ouch* by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      I suspect Kilgore Trout is somehow responsible.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    2. Re:Large Hardon Collider *ouch* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A hardon collider..? That'd really be "ouch"

    3. Re:Large Hardon Collider *ouch* by AndrewNeo · · Score: 1

      Does the "pan-dimensional police force" not just scream Combine Overwatch to you? (I suppose they would want us to open the portal, though..)

    4. Re:Large Hardon Collider *ouch* by neoform · · Score: 1

      I've been boning up on my HL2 training lately. Damn you Nova Prospect, I hate the part where you need to fend off attacks with turrets.

      --
      MABASPLOOM!
    5. Re:Large Hardon Collider *ouch* by ChefInnocent · · Score: 1

      What does /. user KilgoreTrout have to do with anything?

    6. Re:Large Hardon Collider *ouch* by physburn · · Score: 1
      Kilgore Trout was Kurt Vonnguts fictional science fiction writer, a character from Kurts novel's, that is, and not a writer of fictional science fiction, which would be doubly fantastical.

      ---

      Science Fiction Books Feed @ Feed Distiller

    7. Re:Large Hardon Collider *ouch* by zevans · · Score: 1

      Kilgore Trout, fictional writer of fiction, also appears in Illuminatus, a different work of fiction.

      Offtopic, but anyone who reads this far down a "hardon" thread deserves it.

      --
      "... and more and more now there are all kinds of electronic goodies available" -- Pink Floyd 1972
  10. Huh? by R2.0 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does Europe not produce competent electrical engineers? I mean, their plugs are so superior...

    --
    "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    1. Re:Huh? by geekoid · · Score: 4, Funny

      Clearly their superior plugs have lead them to complacency.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Huh? by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Funny

      At least they didn't measure the cable run in furlongs only to have the supplier deliver in bushels. Before the plug fell out of the wall.

      --
      No sig today...
    3. Re:Huh? by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ever heard of Joseph Lucas, Prince of Darkness?

      That's why the Brits drink warm beer--Lucas makes the refrigerators!

      --
      Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    4. Re:Huh? by iapetus · · Score: 1

      Um. It's the UK that has superior plugs. If only they'd had the common sense to build the damned thing in Scotland like I told them, it wouldn't keep having all these failures.

      --
      ++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
      Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
    5. Re:Huh? by Thoughts+from+Englan · · Score: 1

      The units don't matter so much as consistancy in their use, hence SI units. This is what happens when people are inconsistant. http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric/

      --
      That was supposed to be "Thoughts from England" ... Oh well.
    6. Re:Huh? by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      You do realise that the UK is in Europe, right? It's even been a member of the European Union for 36 years.

      Obviously, since these are supposed to be the best minds of Europe building this thing, and obviously since the UK plugs are supposed to be the best in the world (even though they had to compare their's to gimped US plugs and not standard 3-prongs to achieve that), they should obviously be using UK plugs for the LHC.

      That the UK plugs failed (and failed, and failed, and failed) shows the inherant weaknesses of European design.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    7. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They out-sourced the design to Harley Davidson.

    8. Re:Huh? by iapetus · · Score: 1

      I do. Do you realise that the LHC isn't in the UK? What would be the point in using a plug that there isn't even a socket for in the country you're using the device in? You'd have to plug the LHC in through one of those cheap airport socket converters, and we all know how prone they are to being knocked out of the socket.

      As for why people compare UK plugs to 'gimped' US plugs and not 'standard' 3-prongs, that would probably be because most US electrical devices they come into contact with don't have 3-prong plugs.

      --
      ++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
      Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
    9. Re:Huh? by Jesus_666 · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's those damn rebels. You construct one little device with the power to destroy a planet and immediately you have dozens of those little pissants insisting on doing "trench runs" and dropping explosives down any vent they can find. It's really annoying.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    10. Re:Huh? by snspdaarf · · Score: 1

      Ever heard of Joseph Lucas, Prince of Darkness?

      That's why the Brits drink warm beer--Lucas makes the refrigerators!

      Didn't he invent the short-circuit?

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    11. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean, their plugs are so superior...

      American plastic industry is more than capable of producing very well made plugs of all sizes for various needs...

    12. Re:Huh? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Pff. That’s because you are a pussy! “Whole planet”... Ha. That’s what our children do for fun.

      Real trans-dimensional overlords wipe at least a couple of universes!

      Lifeforms these days...

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    13. Re:Huh? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Which of the half a dozen or so plug types used on this CONTINENT do you mean?

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    14. Re:Huh? by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      I was a reference to a previous article. I'd normally just go with "Whoooosh!", but I'm not feeling that snarky today.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
  11. Minor inconvenience by Shrike82 · · Score: 5, Informative
    Since the title and summary are short on details, brace yourself, I read the article. From TFA:

    "Diesels cut in OK" noted the controllers, adding that the Meyrin site is now drawing limited grid power from an alternative connection via the Prevessin site. The boffins don't anticipate resuming operations until at least 12:00 local time today.

    So it was just a temporary glitch. Move along people, nothing to see here...

    --
    You can advertise in this sig from as little as £99.99 a month!
    1. Re:Minor inconvenience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Move along people, nothing to see here...

      OMG, people from the future have vaporized the Large Hadron Collider?!

    2. Re:Minor inconvenience by hoggoth · · Score: 2, Funny

      > OMG, people from the future have vaporized the Large Hadron Collider?!

      Those bastards!

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    3. Re:Minor inconvenience by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Temporary or not, I still got paged and had to deal with it last night =(

    4. Re:Minor inconvenience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right now that's

      The boffins don't anticipate resuming operations until at least 18:30 local time today.

      Wouldn't happen if they called Scotty.

    5. Re:Minor inconvenience by thelonious · · Score: 0

      It's those damn boffins! At it again I see!

    6. Re:Minor inconvenience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      ...a great many boffins died to bring you this information.... //obligatory.

    7. Re:Minor inconvenience by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      temporary glitch

      Shit! They changed something in the Matrix!

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  12. Nice work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice work, Professor Lester Knight Chaykin.

  13. Birdy bread-bomber from the future by Barryke · · Score: 0, Redundant
    FTA

    "Maybe it was a birdy bread-bomber from the future," jokes Chris Stephens of the LHC Portal - referring to the well-known wingnut theory that that the mere possibility of the LHC unmasking certain phenomena engenders forces which act backwards through time to sabotage it before this can happen.

    --
    Hivemind harvest in progress..
  14. Dang those future guys by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Interfering with our research. I say we go and kick thei

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    1. Re:Dang those future guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interfering with our research. I say we go and kick thei

      NO CARRIER?

    2. Re:Dang those future guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, is the future ruled by Candlejack or som

  15. Take it easy people ... by abbynormal+brain · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Following 1912, we learned how to properly top "water-tight" containers on ships (Titanic)
    In 1940 we took bridge building back to the drawing board (Tacoma Narrows Bridge)
    In 1996 we slapped a mathematician for not properly handling floating point decimals - it only cost $6M (Ariane 5)

    We learned so much from these things and it was bound to happen with the LHC as well. I mean, c'mon! It only cost ... hmm ... how much did it cost. Let me see here (Checks Popular Science) ... $6 BILLION! WTF?! Forget what I said, get a rope!

    --
    L'esperienza de questa dolce vita (The experience of this sweet life) - Dante Alighieri, The Divine Comedy
    1. Re:Take it easy people ... by geekoid · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's the most complicated and precise piece of engineering ever created. Yeah, it's touchy.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Take it easy people ... by ultramk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...Yes, it cost $6b.

      To put this in perspective, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle program cost $5.6b, and the resulting machine sucks.

      Which is the bigger waste?

      M-

      --
      You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
    3. Re:Take it easy people ... by Thoughts+from+Englan · · Score: 1

      You do know this is a european project don't you? It didn't cost any US Dollars, Euros, Pounds and of course all the previous european currencies involved in the building of the LEP which used to live in the same tunnel but not $ :o)

      --
      That was supposed to be "Thoughts from England" ... Oh well.
    4. Re:Take it easy people ... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      how much did it cost. Let me see here (Checks Popular Science) ... $6 BILLION! WTF?!

      It's still money better spent there than on wars of occupation, bailing out reckless investment banks, etc.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    5. Re:Take it easy people ... by mujadaddy · · Score: 1

      the Bradley Fighting Vehicle program cost $5.6b, and the resulting machine sucks.

      Citation?

      --
      Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
      "Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
    6. Re:Take it easy people ... by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      Well, since the Bradley Fighting Vehicle actually drives, and the Large Hadron Collider has not, as yet, collided any hadrons, the LHC is easilly the bigger waste.

      Now, if they ever get the damn thing running and start colliding hardrons largely (:P) then yeah, the Bradley wins hands down for biggest waste.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    7. Re:Take it easy people ... by jasay · · Score: 1

      the Bradley Fighting Vehicle program cost $5.6b

      http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m2.htm

      and the resulting machine sucks.

      Google was less helpful here and I have no personal experience.

    8. Re:Take it easy people ... by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Forget what I said, get a rope!

      I enjoy rope skipping as much as the next guy but what does it have to do with the LHC?

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    9. Re:Take it easy people ... by smolloy · · Score: 1

      Hadron collisions were achieved last week in all four detectors.

    10. Re:Take it easy people ... by mujadaddy · · Score: 1

      The "suck" was the part I was interested in hearing about. I've heard anecdotes (from soldiers) that they like it -- but the anecdotes are from Desert Storm era.

      --
      Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
      "Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
    11. Re:Take it easy people ... by renrutal · · Score: 1

      ...Yes, it cost $6b.

      To put this in perspective, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle program cost $5.6b, and the resulting machine sucks.

      Which is the bigger waste?

      So they've got a black hole generator for 400 million less. Sounds like a winner.

    12. Re:Take it easy people ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      ...Yes, it cost $6b.

      To put this in perspective, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle program cost $5.6b, and the resulting machine sucks.

      Which is the bigger waste?

      M-

      During the Gulf War, M2 Bradleys destroyed more Iraqi armored vehicles than the M1 Abrams. It generally replaces the M113 which had only a single machine gun mount out in the open. It's somewhat vulnerable to IEDs and RPGs, but in practice causalities have been light. It can fire on the move due to the active stabilization of the cockpit. I've been in one. You feel a lot safer in one than in an M113 or an armored Humvee. I'd say bar the M1 tank, it's pretty safe. It does what it was designed to do.

    13. Re:Take it easy people ... by Flere+Imsaho · · Score: 1

      Wait until the LHC produces a black hole. Then you'll see some real suck.

      "To put this in perspective, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle program cost $5.6b, and the resulting machine sucks."

      --
      It gripped her hand gently. 'Regret is for humans,' it said.
    14. Re:Take it easy people ... by zevans · · Score: 1

      You do know this is a european project don't you? It didn't cost any US Dollars, Euros, Pounds and of course all the previous european currencies involved in the building of the LEP which used to live in the same tunnel but not $ :o)

      It's built in Europe, largely because there was already a handy-dandy tunnel there, as you say. It is, however, an international project. twitter.com/USLHC is worth a follow.

      --
      "... and more and more now there are all kinds of electronic goodies available" -- Pink Floyd 1972
    15. Re:Take it easy people ... by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Is it feely too?

      Scientist 1: OMG, Atlas is *such* an emo! He cut himself again, and all a buttload of helium leaked out all over the floor.
      Scientist 2: Yeah, and wanna know the worst part? Alice has a crush on him because of it!
      Scientist 1: Ugghh. How can she? She’s such a self-destructive detector!
      Scientist woman: I heard he got a huge hadron.
      Scientist 2: I *knew* it! It’s always the huge foreign guys, isn’t it?
      Scientist 1: Yeah, but do they constantly have to tell me all their inner feelings?? I mean 27 TB of raw data per day?? I *hate* emos!
      Other scientists: Agreed!

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  16. LHC Knocked Out By Another Power Failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    There is a frantic search on to find out who was microwaving popcorn in the break room when this occurred.

    1. Re:LHC Knocked Out By Another Power Failure by CecilPL · · Score: 1

      At least it didn't divide the world into a red half and a blue half.

  17. The Future by AttillaTheNun · · Score: 1

    and stay the hell off Europa (in other words, Get off my lawn).

    1. Re:The Future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That deserves a funny mod...
      I wonder if you are aware that Europe is the continent and "Europa" is according to the myths the woman a certain Zeus couldn't stay off of...

    2. Re:The Future by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      All these other worlds are yours...

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    3. Re:The Future by gmrath · · Score: 1

      If I remember my mythology right, didn't Zeus have problems staying off a lot of women?

  18. I hope it's true by AlphaBit · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I'm not sure how much the LHC has actually ended up costing.
    I don't know if it's possible to prove this time-travelling higgs theory without attempting to build several more LHC scale colliders.

    But if it's true, the cost has/will have been worth it. Maybe it's not in the list of breakthrough discoveries we were hoping for, but wouldn't it be mind-bogglingly amazing anyway? I don't think pure science gets much better.

    1. Re:I hope it's true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's interesting that we live in a universe that finds the higgs boson so abhorrent that it will actually travel back in time to prevent it's creation, and yet Sarah Palin's book is allowed to exist.

    2. Re:I hope it's true by mozzis · · Score: 1

      Yes, free speech is a crime against nature.

      --
      This is not a self-referential sig.
    3. Re:I hope it's true by mea37 · · Score: 1

      Pure science? Perhaps pure science fiction. Oh, sure, you could write a good short story around this "trying to build a machine to produce something abhorant to nature" premise, but that's about all it's good for.

      If any device capable of causing particle collisions like those the LHC will produce were doomed to self-destruct in a mind-bending causality-ignoring time travel circus, then the Earth's atmosphere could not exist. The theory's pretty much busted right there.

      I suppose you can throw on another layer of pop-science gobbledygook to try and save it. Maybe it's just impossible to have an instrument record such a collision. After all, observing a phenomenon does affect it, and most people have a narrow enough understanding of what it means to observe a phenomenon that they'll probably buy the idea that upper-atmosphere collisions aren't routinely observed. Well, again, that might be good for a story, but doesn't relate to what's really going on.

      Maybe something else, then. Maybe there's something distinct about what will happen in the LHC's operation that is causing disruptive effects in those events' past, and we just don't know what that difference is. Of course, information propagating back in time is a pretty exotic claim; I'd hope something really hard to explain would have to have happened before we'd be motivated to look for a theory like that. (Even if it were to happen at all, I can't say I believe it would manifest in such a bizzare macroscopic fashion.)

      But the LHC setbacks aren't very hard to explain. It's an insanely complicated machine; components fail. Early computers with a fraction of the power of a modern digital watch were built from arrays of vacuum tubes - which are essentially like light bulbs, only more complex and correspondingly more delicate, being switched on and off over and over again. MTBF would be measured maybe in hours. The more you scale them up, the more components they have and the more complex they get, and the more frequently they break. Likewise, the LHC has a lot of components, and many of them are failure-prone.

      With computers, semiconductors gave us a more reliable way to do the same thing. They didn't just make computers smaller; they also made it possible to make a modern CPU that doesn't fail before it has time to boot up. Maybe we'll find better ways to do high-energy physics at some point; but for now, we've got what we've got.

      Plus, after some early problems, now every little glitch is getting all kinds of disproportionate attention. This outage was short - conveniently measurable in hours. Think you can list all of the scientific installations that've undergone similar outages in the past week? I bet not, because the media won't have bothered to mention them.

      But ok - suppose we just keep trying to build colliders and they just keep failing in more and more ways, many of them unexpected. Surely the probabilities pile up, and eventually it's worth looking for a theory, right?

      Ok, then let's return to the question of whether this time-travel story is "science". It is certainly no theory in the scientific sense It is really just part of a hypothesis. There's no clear way to test it. It hasn't been incorporated into a model of the Higgs boson or of spacetime (such that we could test its impact on those models).

      If pure science doesn't get better than this, then we're in trouble.

    4. Re:I hope it's true by AlphaBit · · Score: 1

      It's incredibly likely that the issues experienced by the LHC are mundane and do not require time travel to explain. If that's the case, I would hardly call a malfunction in one of the most sophisticated machines ever built "pure science", or even interesting.

      But you miss my point. Pure science is about discovery. Finding evidence of time-travel and/or multiple universes would be AMAZING. It would be the first trickle of a new understanding of our place in the universe. In my mind, that really is as good as science gets.

  19. Too much LHC QQ by HuckleCom · · Score: 1

    Maybe it's just me - but it's like the U.S. media when all we see are 'LHC fails this, LHC fails that', not even newsworthy here. A town without power is a bigger deal than this but we don't spam /. about it...

    1. Re:Too much LHC QQ by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      Nobody outside the town without power gives a shit about a town without power. I don't even know what town it is in, and don't bother telling me because I won't care.

      The LHC is the only thing interesting there, so the LHC without power is all we care about.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    2. Re:Too much LHC QQ by Ant+P. · · Score: 1

      The LHC is at least the size of a town.

    3. Re:Too much LHC QQ by HuckleCom · · Score: 1

      You missed the point...

  20. What's that widget? by stei7766 · · Score: 1

    Anyone know what that fried out component is in the picture on TFA?

    1. Re:What's that widget? by Shrike82 · · Score: 2, Funny

      You don't recognise it?! That's the Flux Capacitor! My God man, hand in your geek card immediately!

      --
      You can advertise in this sig from as little as £99.99 a month!
    2. Re:What's that widget? by damien_kane · · Score: 5, Funny

      Anyone know what that fried out component is in the picture on TFA?

      I'm pretty sure it's Amy Winehouse
      I could be wrong, though

    3. Re:What's that widget? by burne · · Score: 1
    4. Re:What's that widget? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Register helpfully identifies it as "lhc_blown_bit". Surely that's all you need to know? Any more information would rule out uninformed speculation, and that would never do.

      Seriously, my guess would be a couple of power line insulators (stacked in a yard, and probably nothing to do with CERN).

    5. Re:What's that widget? by Etrias · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, then we should be able to reverse the polarity of the neutron flow and get this thing back up and running in a jiffy.

    6. Re:What's that widget? by torchdragon · · Score: 1

      I believe the phrase you were looking for is...

      GREAT SCOTT!

      --
      "Don't feel bad for me child; I'm the monster that hides under your bed."
    7. Re:What's that widget? by Convector · · Score: 1

      Well, before we can do that we have to change the fundamental nature of neutrons such that they HAVE a polarity to reverse!

    8. Re:What's that widget? by Etrias · · Score: 1

      Hello sir! Might I point you out to this geek tidbit in order for you to enjoy the hilarity of the above posts. At the end of the re-training, we'll stamp your geek card and you can be fully admitted again into the magical Geekdom!

    9. Re:What's that widget? by Mirlas · · Score: 1

      Where the heck did my sonic screwdriver get to?

    10. Re:What's that widget? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't recognise it?! That's the Flux Capacitor! Great Scott man, hand in your geek card immediately!

      There, fixed that for you

  21. News of the outage emerged ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    News of the outage emerged when keen amateur LHC-watchers

    I haven't noticed anything particular on my watch (more than 100 refreshes since this morning) ...

    http://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/

  22. I know what it is by WindBourne · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Stupid black holes are now being emitted and going into power plants. Thank God that it was done in an area that believes in science. Here in the states, we would have a large group (republicans) screaming that it goes against God and we are not suppose to find out nature's secrets (unless it can be turned into a new WMD as laid out by the bible ) and a very small group of ppl screaming that it is destroying the environment (extremist greenies).

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  23. Bagel by Enderandrew · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Was it another bird with a bagel crumb?

    The first 6 billion dollars doesn't include bagel protection. That is an additional 6 billion.

    --
    http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    1. Re:Bagel by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Why is this "funny"?

      All the bagel jokes were used up in TFA ... I only assume neither author nor mods actually read it.

      Welcome to slashdot...

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:Bagel by hanshotfirst · · Score: 1

      Oracle Licensing, is that you?

      --
      Why, oh why, didn't I take the Blue Pill?
    3. Re:Bagel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dammit, man, It'd been a baguette, not a bagel!

    4. Re:Bagel by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      The article made one bagel joke about the future.

      I made a different bagel joke about bilking people for a 6 billion dollar upgrade. Funny is very subjective. To each their own.

      However, I was under the impression that reading TFA is strictly forbidden on /. Anything that is worth knowing can be gleemed from the unerring wisdom of the discussion threads.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
  24. Re:HEY DOUCHE CMDRTACO -- atomsmasher IS NOT A WOR by Phoenixlol · · Score: 1, Informative

    It's in TFA

  25. The Future called... by electricbern · · Score: 1

    he said it was not his fault.

    --
    alias possession='chmod 666 satan && ls /dev > il && tail daemon.log'
  26. John Titor's fault by WormholeFiend · · Score: 3, Informative

    he needed a replacement miniature black hole for his suitcase-time-machine

    1. Re:John Titor's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter...

  27. Looks like an insulator bushing... by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 3, Informative

    which flashed over. They don't actually what the bushing is ATTACHED to, which could be almost anything. Such bushings are the standard terminal connections on HV switchgear such as transformers, capacitors, reclosers, etc. The bushing itself is most likely replaceable individually, though.

    Hopefully, it just flashed over from foreign debris (another baguette?), and did little damage except to itself. Such a flashover should have tripped upstream circuit breakers, resulting in the power outage.

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    1. Re:Looks like an insulator bushing... by LearnToSpell · · Score: 1

      They don't actually what the bushing is ATTACHED to, which could be almost anything.

      Yeah, sounds like they accidentally the whole bushing.

  28. Did we just slashdot the LHC? by DarthVain · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oops!

  29. Hoverboards don't work on water(unrelated) by orsty3001 · · Score: 1

    I hope there's a Scottish man screaming "WE NEED MORE POWER CAPTAIN!"

  30. I FOUND IT! by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

    http://maps.google.com/maps?&q=higgs+boson

    Does this mean I get $6 billion?

    --
    http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    1. Re:I FOUND IT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, but you do get to have my Large Hardon Collide with your ass and see the explosive results. Put your face in the pillow and don't forget to bring your tears. I am gonna tear your ass up like it's shower time at San Quentin.

  31. WHen CERN was asked why by geekoid · · Score: 0, Redundant

    the web site information about the Large Hadron Collider had disappeared, they said "What Large Hadron Collider?" Jump into there new Ferrari and sped off to the airport.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  32. If it was by JustOK · · Score: 1

    Now, if it was Google running it, they would just have said it was a beta and not a big deal.

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
    1. Re:If it was by idontgno · · Score: 1

      But CERN would have been hosed, because someone would have transposed the "d" and the "r" in "hadron" and Google Docs would lock the whole program down for "inappropriate content".

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    2. Re:If it was by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      Who doesn't search with safe-mode off? Jeeze people, you can set that sort of thing!

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  33. engineers vs. scientists by Lord+Ender · · Score: 0, Troll

    This is what happens when you send scientists and academics to do the work experienced engineers should be doing.

    Academics don't even see failure like this as a bad thing. It's an interesting point of study, which may help them learn, etc.. Engineers just want to make shit work, so they overengineer the parts that make them nervous, do component testing ahead of time, and generally make things happen.

    --
    A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    1. Re:engineers vs. scientists by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Academics don't even see failure like this as a bad thing

      That's just not true. An experiment that provides data is never a failure. An experiment that does not provide data due to technical problems is a failure. It's a waste of time and resources, scientists hate that.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:engineers vs. scientists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously man, you need to get your head out of your ass. Or are you saying that you have expertise in running 8500 amp connections while maintaining 2K temperature.

      http://lists.contesting.com/pipermail/amps/2008-September/063020.html

      "I noticed the klystons - 48 x 100kw units to produce 4.8MW at 400MHz.

      I also noticed the cooling arrangements for the ring - liquid helium to maintain the 1.7 Kelvin temperature. If you click on the ring graphic on http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/ you will get the real time temperature readings for the magnets etc in the ring.

      The power supplies are also quite amazing = 18V at 18000 amps at 5mV ripple.

      Engineering in the extreme!
      "

      Seriously, the entire machine is one of a kind, not OTS stuff. And yes, it is not only physicists designing the machine, but electrical scientists with more know how than any of the people that "overengineer the parts that make them nervous". The notion that something makes them nervous indicates they know shit about it in the first place.

      The most obvious errors in a machine like this are in the assembly phase worked on my the people you would entrust the design to. Well, here's the result!

    3. Re:engineers vs. scientists by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      The notion that something makes them nervous indicates they know shit about it in the first place.

      But this is reality. We really don't "know shit" about everything we build. It's wise to take this into account; it's stupid to deny such facts and plod ahead anyway.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    4. Re:engineers vs. scientists by Abcd1234 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, because I'm sure no engineers worked on the LHC. The whole thing was built by a bunch of theoretical physicists. ::rollseyes::

    5. Re:engineers vs. scientists by cblack · · Score: 1

      Your idea of the LHC commissioning being in the hands of typical investigative scientists is incorrect. In the area of particle physics there are two big sets of expertise: theoretical physicists and experimental physicists. It is the EPs that design and build the components of the LHC and they have plenty of engineering expertise.

    6. Re:engineers vs. scientists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. And engineers need to stop writing craptacular software and firmware. Stick to hardware, you guys are better at it. Leave the software to the professionals.

    7. Re:engineers vs. scientists by smolloy · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's not quite true.

      Experimental accelerator physicists (not particle physicists) will come up with a conceptual design for the machine that fits the particle physicists requirements, and they will then work with engineers to design and build it.

      Most of the designing and building is done by properly qualified engineers, not scientists.

    8. Re:engineers vs. scientists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uhh, most of them are pretty happy to have the grant money in the mean time.

      just saying

    9. Re:engineers vs. scientists by Mirlas · · Score: 1

      My friend who got a degree in Software Engineering might be confused by your comment.

    10. Re:engineers vs. scientists by xkcdFan1011011101111 · · Score: 1

      some academics are engineers, you insensitive clod!

    11. Re:engineers vs. scientists by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      So no engineers were involved in the design yes ? Is that what you're saying ? A 25km underground ring with some of the most advanced machines on the planet and you reckon it was all drawn up in a D&D meeting ?
      Tosser !

    12. Re:engineers vs. scientists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typically software engineers are not called "engineers" proper. At least not yet anyway. Besides, around here a Software Engineering degree is considered substandard when compared to Computer Science.

  34. Sabotage? by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 3, Funny

    I Can't Stand It I Know You Planned It
    I'ma' Set It Straight This Watergate
    I Can't Stand Rockin' When I'm In Here
    'Cause Your Crystal Bal Ain't So Crystal Clear
    So While You Sit Back And Wonder Why I Got This Fuckin' Thorn In My Side
    Oh My God It's A Mirage
    I'm Tellin' Y'all It's Sabotage

    So many people want the LHC to fail or stop so it won't "destroy the world, hur hur hur" so is it possible someone has been sabotaging it from the inside or even outside?

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
    1. Re:Sabotage? by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      is it possible someone has been sabotaging it from the inside or even outside?

      Well, that about covers all the bases...

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    2. Re:Sabotage? by Jainith · · Score: 1

      back in 10th grade I had an assignment to do a book report with associated musical accompaniment. I wasn't into music at the time so I consulted with a friend, I ended up using 'Sabotage' to go with Tom Clancy's Op-Center (the first one).

      It is really pretty amazing how well the song lines up with the events in the book, the comparisons I made would hardly qualify as metaphors...

      It was quite surprising to my classmates as I didn't appear to be the Beastie Boys type, and everyone else's presentation was quite lame...the teacher liked it...my parents, not so much.

    3. Re:Sabotage? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      is it possible someone has been sabotaging it from the inside or even outside?

      If they are, they are the worst saboteurs ever. This is about the equivalent of sabotaging the NSA's wiretapping by pulling the fire alarm.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    4. Re:Sabotage? by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      is it possible someone has been sabotaging it from the inside or even outside?

      Not until after they've collected enough antimatter to make an explosion reminiscent of the old pictures of Creation Day One.
      Hey, if I have to suffer through the scars from that movie, so do you.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    5. Re:Sabotage? by zevans · · Score: 1

      is it possible someone has been sabotaging it from the inside or even outside?

      Well, that about covers all the bases...

      There's always "from above", using only a baguette.

      --
      "... and more and more now there are all kinds of electronic goodies available" -- Pink Floyd 1972
    6. Re:Sabotage? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      *imagines* LHC guys driving and running around the tunnels, looking and acting like the guys from the Sabotage video. With the music running in the background!

      Boy, I wish I could film that. And I bet the LHC guys would be all in. It would spread trough the Internet like wildfire.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  35. Too big to fail by freeasinrealale · · Score: 1

    So its us v. the future. And we ARE gonna win. Spent too much on the LHC. Too big to fail. Failure is not an option. Damn!

    --
    A man spends the first half of his life accumulating stuff, the second trying to get rid of it all.
  36. The sign of the failure of particle physics by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1, Informative

    Is that actually they still have to rely on backup Diesels. It takes technology over 100 years old to keep the LHC running in a power outage. Schroedinger did his best work over 80 years ago. The Manhattan project was successful over 60 years ago. Yet we still have to rely on lumps of metal being banged around by crude chemical combustion to provide backup power for cutting edge research.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:The sign of the failure of particle physics by Shrike82 · · Score: 1

      Generating electricity using diesel motors is a tried and tested technology. That's why they use it for a backup. I fail to understand your objection. Many inventions are almost identical to when they were first invented. Light-bulbs (not the energy saving ones) are pretty much identical to ones from 10, 20 or 50 years ago. Engines in cars work on the same principles as they did decades ago. Your assertion that "particle physics" research "fails" because they use diesel generators as an emergency backup is, frankly, idiotic. Yes, they rely on "lumps of metal" for emergency power, because it's the best choice. They're free to perform their research safe in the knowledge that if the power fails they have a reliable backup. What the hell has that got to do with the success or failure of their research?

      --
      You can advertise in this sig from as little as £99.99 a month!
    2. Re:The sign of the failure of particle physics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it's worse than that -- many of the structural elements are made of steel, smelted, cast, and machined using processes that go back even further than Diesel.

      OMG y dont we kill these jiants insted of stand on there sholdiers!

    3. Re:The sign of the failure of particle physics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously? We shouldn't use proven technology to back up new technology because were better than that. I bet the LHC also uses a wheel somewhere in there, and that technology is 1000s of years old.

    4. Re:The sign of the failure of particle physics by Meumeu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, it's worse than that -- many of the structural elements are made of steel, smelted, cast, and machined using processes that go back even further than Diesel.

      OMG y dont we kill these jiants insted of stand on there sholdiers!

      If you think that's bad, the guys using the LHC are Homo Sapiens. That's like 200000 years old, it should be run by iPhones, or something...

    5. Re:The sign of the failure of particle physics by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      What do you want, battery power? They'd need a building full of them and it is only going to last so long, diesel power is energy dense and is about as efficient a way of producing power as we have available. I am of course exlcuding nuclear power, and if you think we should be using nuclear for the backup power of one facility, well you're a dumbass and the rest of my post is wasted on you.

      The LHC uses about 400mwh of electricity every day when all powered up. That's a ton of energy, but it is not by any means the most a facility has ever used. A wind farm of that size would need acres of land to run on, and would -not- be suitable for backup power due to the variable nature of wind power. Same goes for solar. Backup power needs to be flip-a-switch-and-it-works reliable. With diesels they can truck in gas if they start to run low, but how do you truck in wind or sunlight?

      In fact, anybody who has lived off the grid knows that diesel is usually the only practical option. If the wind isn't right and the sunlight isn't right and you don't happen to be sitting on top of a magma chamber close to the surface, the only options are IC engines, and diesel is the king.

      Lastly, if you think the diesel generators we use today use the same technology (aside from the basic internal combustion principles) as engines 100 years ago did, you're an idiot, and I mean that in the most traditional sense.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    6. Re:The sign of the failure of particle physics by GaryOlson · · Score: 1

      [the LHC] should be run by iPhones...

      There is not an app for that.

      --
      Every mans' island needs an ocean; choose your ocean carefully.
    7. Re:The sign of the failure of particle physics by thelonious · · Score: 0

      The detail of information they are gathering now would make Schroedinger need a nap. Sure burning hydrogenated carbon to release energy is an "old" technology. But in case you haven't noticed the world is still grappling with a better way to store energy. You need energy to research energy. If you are suggesting that they should only be powered by a 60 year old nuclear power plant or some other "futuristic" power source then you are putting some really bizarre and nonsensical restrictions on physics research.

  37. Re:All new ultra-cool technologies have thier issu by sexconker · · Score: 1

    Have you ever tried to dab ointment on a swimming shark?!?! Noooooo. You haven't. The scale-rot around the laser mounting points was terrrible in the beginning, but that Safeway-Brand polysporin does the trick.

    Sharks do not have scales.

    Sharks have dermal denticles - teeth embedded in their skin.

  38. Re:HEY DOUCHE CMDRTACO -- atomsmasher IS NOT A WOR by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Who cares, dude? Shakespeare made up hundreds of words. English is a living language -- if people weren't allowed to make up words we would have nothing to call that machine you are using to post this inane crap, nor for the medium by which we are all disgraced by your brain vomit.

    --
    To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
  39. Alew by imsabbel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Say snotty engineers that cant do shit right

    Hey, the damage was on a surface electricity line. Which was most likely installed by the power company running that part of the grid. I am sure no scientist bothered to work on it.

    --
    HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    1. Re:Alew by raddan · · Score: 1
      What's up with all the hate between scientists and engineers these days? Hey, everybody:
      1. Engineers use science
      2. Scientists use things engineers make

      Let's all be happy! Maybe then you can both stop picking on us widdle computer scientists.

    2. Re:Alew by Werthless5 · · Score: 1

      Actually, most engineering tools are designed by scientists and improved upon by engineers. Scientists tend to invent things that work well enough, engineers tend to improve them.

  40. You're asking if anyone remembers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the same stupid meme that comes up everytime the LHC runs into a problem? Why gee, no, I don't remember that meme that morons like you post every other month.

  41. What do you want, a medal? by snowwrestler · · Score: 4, Funny
    --
    Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
    1. Re:What do you want, a medal? by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's the most plausible explanation I've read yet for why Obama got the Nobel Peace Price, and it manages to maintain the prize's legitimacy! (such that it has)

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    2. Re:What do you want, a medal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok!

      http://www.slowpokecomics.com/strips/terminatrix.html

      Nahh, if humans of the future picked someone to come back in time and save the human race, they'd have picked someone who could remember his lines without a teleprompter. :-)

    3. Re:What do you want, a medal? by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      Really? Is it that hard to understand the opinion a pretty large chunk had of the US after you elected GW not once but *twice*? Think of Obama receiving the price as a way for the world to express its thanks to the american people for growing at least a teeny tiny bit of fucking sense.

      On the other hand, it would have been hilarious to see what would have happened had McCain/Palin made the cut. Can figures for popularity actually go into the negative?

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    4. Re:What do you want, a medal? by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, it would have been hilarious to see what would have happened had McCain/Palin made the cut. Can figures for popularity actually go into the negative?

      You betcha!

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
  42. Janitorial services revealed as the culprit by motherjoe · · Score: 2, Funny

    This just in.... LHC had an abrupt power failure.

    Our field reporter at CERN is providing his update..... "Well at first we thought we had yet another problem with the LHC." reports a source who wishes to be anonymous. "Well, we are now pretty sure it was just Ed. Ed comes in on Wednesdays to clean up in the Lab. Soon as he plugged in that damn hoover all the breakers tripped."

    So there you have it, a hoover and $39.95 breaker brought it all the a halt today. :)

    --
    "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy - Benjamin Franklin"
    1. Re:Janitorial services revealed as the culprit by Provocateur · · Score: 1

      You know this sh*t happened in real life. The unfortunate part was, it was in a certain room in a hospital back in my country. No matter what disease, they couldn't figure out why the patients succumbed, as it were, to their illness. These contract janitors would clean up one day of the week. In this room, there was no other outlet for the vacuum cleaner, so you can guess what he would do, not thinking of dire consequences.

      --
      WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  43. Is this news anby more? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The LHC is on. It's off. It's on and off and on and off...maybe it's Schrodinger's LHC.

    OMG a scientist farted and the LHC died, again.

    Tell me when it actually does something interesting, like, say, particle collision.

    $6 billion and it's accomplished precisely nothing but break the record for biggest waste of energy and the most fragile machine ever built.

    1. Re:Is this news anby more? by zevans · · Score: 1

      Tell me when it actually does something interesting, like, say, particle collision.

      Already has - AND the first paper has been published.
      Fixed that for you.

      --
      "... and more and more now there are all kinds of electronic goodies available" -- Pink Floyd 1972
  44. No Star Trek jokes in this thread, oh, sorry... by hughbar · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    I'd just like to warn people from posting:

    Scotty, I need more power!

    style jokes here, I'm just quoting, not actually making the joke itself...

    --
    On y va, qui mal y pense!
  45. Descendants of disco by tepples · · Score: 1

    all *I* got was the mission to go back to 1967 and stop disco from happening.

    Without disco, there would be no house music, which means no acid house, which means no trance. What kind of music is played on dance floors in your time period?

    1. Re:Descendants of disco by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

      Ha! History will not be denied. In the new timeline, "house" music is a direct descendant of Ken Kesey's "Electric Kool Aid Acid Tests (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Electric_Kool-Aid_Acid_Test)" and the prolonged and inexplicable popularity of a band called "The Grateful Dead."

      --
      Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    2. Re:Descendants of disco by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

      > Without disco, there would be no house music, which means no acid house, which means no trance.

      Why are you saying that like it's a bad thing?!

      > What kind of music is played on dance floors in your time period?

      None.

    3. Re:Descendants of disco by tepples · · Score: 1

      No public dancing? Your time must be severely boring.

    4. Re:Descendants of disco by XDirtypunkX · · Score: 1

      Not at all, without dancing to entertain the masses, everyone in his time was forced to become a swinger to pass the time.

  46. Is this a good thing to happen now? by halcyon1234 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have to wonder, is it better that these glitches and outages are happening now rather than later?

    What would happen if the LHC gets up to full capacity, THEN has a system-killing power outage? Does the LHC shut down gracefully, or could it be a disaster waiting to happen?

    1. Re:Is this a good thing to happen now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy fuck, what are you doing posting on Slashdot when you've got a brain like that? I'm sure during the $6BILLION project of building this thing that nobody fucking thought of a power outage. Jesus.

    2. Re:Is this a good thing to happen now? by Hasai · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      It's French engineering. French engineering NEVER fails "gracefully."

      --

      Regards;

      Hasai

    3. Re:Is this a good thing to happen now? by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      No, it smokes a cigarette after.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    4. Re:Is this a good thing to happen now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy fuck, what are you doing trolling on Slashdot when you've got a sense of humour like that? I'm sure the entire television-owning world could be so totally captivated by a comedy show with you on that they'd be laughing their asses off for years until they forgot all their differences and you created world peace all on you're own just by being so damn fucking funny!

    5. Re:Is this a good thing to happen now? by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Holy fuck, what are you doing overreacting to an AC on Slashdot when...um...a car analogy. And not shouting.

      Good day.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    6. Re:Is this a good thing to happen now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no, this is not interesting, the thousands of highly skilled people involved in building this marvel of technology have thought of the first thing that came up in your mind and thousands of other potential problems and have taken measures to avoid catastrophe.

    7. Re:Is this a good thing to happen now? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > Does the LHC shut down gracefully...

      Yes.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    8. Re:Is this a good thing to happen now? by halcyon1234 · · Score: 1

      > Does the LHC shut down gracefully...

      Yes.

      Good.

    9. Re:Is this a good thing to happen now? by Werthless5 · · Score: 2, Informative

      There are countless backup generators and numerous failsafes that will safely redirect the beam into one of the many beam dumps, which are basically big blocks of concrete.

      The worst that can happen: all of the failsafes fail, backup generators fail, and the LHC damages itself, requiring several years of repairs. That's the biggest disaster that the LHC could possibly ever produce. Keep in mind, it's already 100 meters underground, a length through which the particle beam couldn't penetrate even if it somehow scattered straight upward.

    10. Re:Is this a good thing to happen now? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Neither nor. As stated in the article, the diesel generators kicked in, and nothing happened. It was just a glich.

      If the generators weren’t working too, though, then the super-cooling would die. And that would mean the superconducting cables would stop being superconducting. Imagine the tiny white cable that you see here, getting all the power of the huge array of cables next to it. Now imagine it times ten.
      Along the whole tunnel.

      This then causes the liquid helium to vaporize/ignite/explode. Something like that.

      I don’t think there would be anything left.

      (And as always in nature, everything in between can also happen (except on a quantum level). And there are other factors (dimensions) with their own scales. Then on top of that, everything is relative. ;)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  47. Reverse time wave resistance to Higgs boson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just a continuation of the reverse time-wave resistance to the creation of the utterly abhorrent Higg's Boson, and proof that they're getting closer to creating one!

  48. Think of the movies by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

    Think of all the movie plots that this thing is generating. Soon we'll be enjoying such films as:

    Attack of the Bagle Birds.
    Revenge of the Bagle Birds.
    Bagle Birds do Dallas.
    The sound of Bagle Birds.
    The Bagle Birds of Madison County.
    Power Rangers: Bagle Bird Transformations.
    Sailor Bagle Bird.
    White Christmas.

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    1. Re:Think of the movies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's a Bagle?

      Is that some sort of Twitterspeak perversion of "Bald eagle"? With a redundant "bird" slapped on the end? You wasted 5 of your 140 characters if that's the case.

  49. OMG! It's true!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I just tried to create a particle accelerator in my garage out of some Pringles cans and duct tape, and I totally failed to create a Higgs boson. Stupid Higgs boson sent a ripple back in time to make sure my Pringles-can collider failed.

  50. oh ya by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ya, that intellectual giant and paragon of virtue Nancy Pelosi's book is just so much better.

  51. Re:HEY DOUCHE CMDRTACO -- atomsmasher IS NOT A WOR by melikamp · · Score: 2, Funny

    ?Yambe sit-a-jast fo tammer casle

  52. Re:HEY DOUCHE CMDRTACO -- atomsmasher IS NOT A WOR by neoform · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Careful now, that line of thinking is how we ended up with words like:
    • Proactive
    • Closure
    • Leveraging
    • Paradigm
    • Streamline
    • Metrics
    • Ballmer
    • Mindshare
    --
    MABASPLOOM!
  53. at least they have a sense of humor by ILuvRamen · · Score: 1

    At the end of TFA, they mention of course that idiotic "back in time" theory about the particles. Instead they counter with something that it is sadly actualy more logical:
    We ourselves find it hard not to suspect the involvement of some pan-dimensional police force, seeking to prevent humanity acquiring parallel-universe portal capability before we're ready to use it responsibly

    --
    Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
  54. It's broke - by furby076 · · Score: 1

    To the poster who made this comment:

    Patience

    Yea let's hope the science will begin in January/February like YOU claim. Though the people who run LHC said late 2010.

    --

    I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
    1. Re:It's broke - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At this rate it won't be smashing any particles together until December 21, 2012...

  55. European Power System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I was in Italy, a bolt of lightning followed by the rumble of thunder and sure and poo the lights were out. I remember the last day as a gamer. I was playing Final Fantasy 8 and running around building my character for 8 hours. My only bad was not saving during that time and BOOM the power is out. A storm some 25 miles away knocked out the power. Have not finished that game. Maybe the designers should take that into consideration and build some good power and get it to work and that way Europe can follow suit.

  56. Re:HEY DOUCHE CMDRTACO -- atomsmasher IS NOT A WOR by cez · · Score: 1

    I just made up Symbolagram earlier =)

    --
    Walk with Music;
  57. It's the Eschaton by Ratface · · Score: 1
    --

    A little planning goes a long way...
  58. Re:HEY DOUCHE CMDRTACO -- atomsmasher IS NOT A WOR by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

    Ooh, Slashdot's OED overlords are not gonna' be happy.

    --
    I drank what? -- Socrates
  59. Here's a solution for the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Why don't the scientists modify the phase variance or reverse the polarity? It seems to work every time something goes wrong in Star Trek......

  60. Douglas Adams knows why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    "There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.

    There is another theory which states that this has already happened."

  61. OMG! Turn it off forever! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure this series of events is god's way of telling us to stop using the LHC before it's too late, and we're all destroyed!

  62. Well it does use 10% of all of Geneva's power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://lhc-machine-outreach.web.cern.ch/lhc-machine-outreach/faq/lhc-energy-consumption.htm

  63. Uninterruptible power supply? by diggon · · Score: 1

    Uninterruptible power supply?

    1. Re:Uninterruptible power supply? by deesto · · Score: 0

      Uninterruptible power supply?

      A select number of "critical servers" were powered by UPS and completely unaffected. The rest, I guess, are not critical. I've heard that this "power failure" was actually caused by an "unscheduled scheduled" power outages ... there is a consistent yearly number of days, which are reportedly chosen at random, on which brownouts are enacted. Apparently, nobody but the powers that be know when these are supposed to occur.

  64. Re:HEY DOUCHE CMDRTACO -- atomsmasher IS NOT A WOR by Kagura · · Score: 1

    What's the symbology of that? :/

  65. From the article by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 0

    "just 1.9 degrees above absolute zero - colder than deep space."
    This statement is completely false and meaningless. Deep space is EMPTY and thus DOES NOT HAVE A TEMPERATURE. Yes, 1.9 K is cold, but it has nothing to do with space.

    --
    -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
    1. Re:From the article by bucky0 · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, it's not. There is a ton of things out there, even in the furthest, most desolate parts of space. The cosmic microwave background is about 2.75K and is pervasive throughout the universe, for instance.

      --

      -Bucky
  66. You know... by RonMcMahon · · Score: 1

    I'm SURE Kirk and Spock are behind this. They did an 'ok' job, but to really get things undone right they need to bring Scotty with them next time!

  67. Re:HEY DOUCHE CMDRTACO -- atomsmasher IS NOT A WOR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would also submit to you horrible words from commercials, such as:

    Breakation
    Frugalista
    Dollar Menunairre
    Rockstaring

    The examples are endless, but these are some of the more egregious offenders.

  68. Dude, where's my GW Data? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I stored all my Global Warming data on the website...I can't find it now. What will I do now? I know, I'll just make it up!!
    Signed,

    Al Gore and friends.

  69. Re:HEY DOUCHE CMDRTACO -- atomsmasher IS NOT A WOR by Spazztastic · · Score: 4, Funny

    Careful now, that line of thinking is how we ended up with words like:

    • Ballmer

    Hey hey... no need for profanity.

    --
    Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
  70. OK. So .... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... who is the wise guy who screwed in an incandescent bulb?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  71. Now just wait a nanosecond. by drainbramage · · Score: 1

    Don't you see?
    We ARE the future.
    Just not yet.

    --
    No brain, no pain.
  72. Re:HEY DOUCHE CMDRTACO -- atomsmasher IS NOT A WOR by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 4, Funny

    By leveraging our mindshare in a proactive, streamlined manner we have been able to shift the paradigm of the English language, allowing for closure for hyper-conservative linguists. Ballmer metrics.

    --
    Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
  73. Compared to Fermilab? by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Before you make a comment like that you should compare the LHC performance to the restart of the Tevatron at Fermilab (and this was a restart not a new accelerator!). Having been there when it was happening the number of power cuts was far in excess of what the LHC has experienced so far. Indeed at one point the power cut out about twice a week which was far more of a problem for the Tevatron since it took almost a day to make enough antiprotons.

    1. Re:Compared to Fermilab? by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      Fair play to you sir. I bet your comment gets ignored by the latter day witch doctors.

    2. Re:Compared to Fermilab? by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

      The thing is, when you put together any absurdly complex facility that has never been built before, or it's been a long time since one has been built, you're going to get issues like this.

      There's only so many issues you can account for and so many things you can forsee.

      The proper operation of such facilities requires thousands of active components (compressors, instruments, etc) and hundreds of thousands of passive components (wires, aligned parts, structural members, etc) to do their jobs correctly. Even if you strive to eliminate single points of failure with redundancy and diversity of equipment, you're still gonna be surprised. A lot.

      If it only takes them two years to iron out the bugs I'll be satisfied that the money was well spent. Now, the next guys building a similar facility should strive to not repeat any mistakes, and your talk of the Tevatron implies that happened with the LHC.

      Anyway, carry on. Nothing to see here, just a 'normal' shakedown cruise.

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
  74. what's wrong with these guys? by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Funny

    i mean, how hard can it be to run a large hadron collider anyways? like changing the oil in your car! sheesh

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  75. Fake news by Lcf34 · · Score: 1

    I live nearby and there was no powedhcpcd: eth0: carrier lost

  76. Bruce Almighty by svtdragon · · Score: 1



    Or, it's a SIGN!

    </snark>

    In all seriousness though, I'm a Goddamn Atheist, and *still* this whole thing reminds me of the scene in Bruce Almighty where he's asking God "please send me a sign" as he follows a construction truck full of "STOP" "BRIDGE OUT AHEAD" signs, and winds up crashing.

  77. Re:HEY DOUCHE CMDRTACO -- atomsmasher IS NOT A WOR by trenton · · Score: 1

    I think that's how we ended up with the entire language, actually. I don't recall a Divine Dictionary in the Garden of Eden... or one assembled from DNA.

    --
    Too big to fail? Does that make me to small to succeed?
  78. Using French in the article summary? by Kingrames · · Score: 1

    There's something poisson -y going on here...

    --
    If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
  79. Re:HEY DOUCHE CMDRTACO -- atomsmasher IS NOT A WOR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    • Ballmer

    "Can you use that in a sentence?"

    "Sure. The stock price fell because he Ballmerized the company."

  80. Re:HEY DOUCHE CMDRTACO -- atomsmasher IS NOT A WOR by eamonman · · Score: 1

    Come on, you forgot Synergy and derivatives Synergies and Synergistic

    --
    0- Eamonman Proud member of DNRC
  81. Re:HEY DOUCHE CMDRTACO -- atomsmasher IS NOT A WOR by lennier · · Score: 1

    "I don't recall a Divine Dictionary in the Garden of Eden... or one assembled from DNA."

    Noam Chomsky cries!

    --
    You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
  82. Re:HEY DOUCHE CMDRTACO -- atomsmasher IS NOT A WOR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WHAT?
    What is so wrong with closure? That is a perfectly decent word. Even Streamline is nice.

    Certainly agree with the others though. They should be removed from the page and folded in to a nanoplane.
    Woops, made a new word.

    CAPTCHA: deaden, another you could add to the list.

  83. What next ? by piper5ul · · Score: 1

    This LHC cant seem to catch a break - magnets, bird sh$$ , power, .. what next - H1 N1 ??

  84. Universe is rebelling by nufrosty · · Score: 1

    Obviously the fabric of the universe is rebelling at having its insides peeked into. Something to do with violating relativity...

  85. Let me guess by qmaqdk · · Score: 1

    It was a croissant this time.

    --
    My UID is prime. Hah!
  86. Re:HEY DOUCHE CMDRTACO -- atomsmasher IS NOT A WOR by Faaln · · Score: 1

    and its lame cousin; gestalt.

  87. Re:Who really built this thing? eMachines? by Wintervenom · · Score: 1

    The "uptime" on this collider is worse than an application server running on Windows ME!

    FTFY.

  88. On Schedule by Wardish · · Score: 1

    This delay, like all the others, as well as the delays to come maintain the actual start date at December 12 2012.

    All hail the creation of the Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator, immediately followed by an earth shattering KABOOM!

    --
    Ward

    . Silence! Be thankful thy species is unpalatable! .
  89. Re:HEY DOUCHE CMDRTACO -- atomsmasher IS NOT A WOR by Barny · · Score: 1

    Its his blog, if you don't like it piss off :)

    --
    ...
    /me sighs
  90. Jews are sabotaging LHC! by zmollusc · · Score: 1

    Obviously the LHC's purpose is to open a portal through spacetime so that Hitlar can be picked up, cloned a billion times then the clone army sent back to zerg-rush Moscow. Wake up, people, the truth is right in front of you!

    --
    They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
  91. Thanks, Slashdotters! by zevans · · Score: 1

    I love how problems are reported almost instantly, but anything interesting and successful like first beams, first splash, or first collisions, takes a day. Or two.

    I wonder if we will learn new physics by comparing the speed of bad news and good news. I think pointing-and-laughing might even be superluminal.

    --
    "... and more and more now there are all kinds of electronic goodies available" -- Pink Floyd 1972
    1. Re:Thanks, Slashdotters! by zevans · · Score: 1

      Oh, also, anyone making a "hardon" joke or linking to the "webcams" from this point forward can just fuck off. The webcams did make me laugh. Once. Over a year ago.

      That is all.

      --
      "... and more and more now there are all kinds of electronic goodies available" -- Pink Floyd 1972
  92. Informatics by jimmydevice · · Score: 1

    WTF is wrong with you people?

  93. Re:HEY DOUCHE CMDRTACO -- atomsmasher IS NOT A WOR by XDirtypunkX · · Score: 1

    Hey, he didn't say there was no divine syntax!

  94. Urm... by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1
    I am an idiot whose R&D career started in Diesel engine design and development, and who can probably bore the pants off you explaining the pros and cons of common rail, electronically controlled injection, swirl patterns, and a host of other technologies. I do know the difference between Diesel's original patent and the 4-valve, electronically timed injection, intercooled, variable vane turbocharged engine that powers my car. But, at the end of the day, they are still bits of metal banging around powered by burning oil. And I am still capable of telling m from M, and milliwatts from Megawatts.

    You completely and utterly miss my point, which is that despite all the research into particle physics, nuclear energy and associated technologies, we are still unable to produce in volume a reliable, packaged, nuclear powered standby generator (despite proposed designs by e.g. Toshiba.) We are currently in the absurd position that when the oil runs out we won't be able to do advanced particle physics. If that doesn't suggest to you that we have been fricking around when we should have been working on better reactors, you are an even bigger numskull than your post suggests.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  95. Large Scottish Collider by shani · · Score: 1

    Um. It's the UK that has superior plugs. If only they'd had the common sense to build the damned thing in Scotland like I told them, it wouldn't keep having all these failures.

    The problem with Scotland is that you'd have the locals constantly attacking all the scientists and giving them a damn good kickin'.

    OTOH, we could hope for an ideal solution, where a black hole is formed, but then evaporates just after it has consumed the matter in a sphere extending to Hadrian's wall.

    1. Re:Large Scottish Collider by iapetus · · Score: 1

      What, and wipe out Scottish cuisine? What would the world be reduced to without such delicacies as deep-fried sausage, deep-fried haggis, deep-fried pizza, deep-fried chicken or deep-fried deep-fried sausage?

      --
      ++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
      Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
  96. "Boffins"? by kestasjk · · Score: 1

    The boffins don't anticipate resuming operations until at least 18:30 local time today

    Please don't call workers at CERN (or anyone for that matter) "boffins".. Unless you are a writer in the 1930s working on a Beano comic you have no right to use the words "boffin", "toff", or "boner" (at least not to describe a joke).

    --
    // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
  97. I'm curious by SterlingX · · Score: 1

    Would a nanosized charged spinning toroidal black hole evaporate?

  98. Re:HEY DOUCHE CMDRTACO -- atomsmasher IS NOT A WOR by inflame · · Score: 1

    you missed a line


    Burma Shave

  99. Russian Roulette by bar-agent · · Score: 1

    This reminds me of that Rihanna song:

    He says 'Close your eyes, sometimes it helps.'
    And then I get a scary thought--
    That he's here means he's never lost.

    We're still here. That means it was the other universe that bit it.

    --
    i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
  100. Oh them fancy words by blake182 · · Score: 1

    You know, you can just say "powerful" and get the same alliterative effect...

  101. Re:HEY DOUCHE CMDRTACO -- atomsmasher IS NOT A WOR by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    Hey, “closure” is a programming concept.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.