The Silicon laser isn't working with population inversion, it is based on the Raman effect - a nonlinear process. Pump photons are converted to photons with a lower energy given a phonon (a lattice vibration at 15.6 THz in this case). The laser works because the fact that Silicon is NOT strongly absorptive at the lasing wavelength. The lasing wavelength is 1650nm if I recall correctly. The bandgap of Silicon is ~1100nm. So there is no way that Silicon can be used to detect this light. Bandgap engineering or a completely different material system is needed to detect this light.
Exactly.. it's like me listening to someone speak a different language. I know they are saying something but I can't associate those words with a meaning.
First, Rob, I'd like to say that I think you are doing a GREAT job. This new moderation scheme is definitely a very good thing for slashdot.
There are a few things you should add, however. I agree with the comment regarding a score history. It would be very beneficial to the posters if they knew why they got negative points (along with the moderator ID--keeping them anonymous).
If you have enough of a moderator base you should cycle moderators. I believe this will avoid the "I don't care anymore" syndrome, to an extent. ie. eliminating useless moderators over time. I believe you are thinking of this in a way but instead of revoking a moderator just for being bad, revoke them for being a moderator too long regardless of their history (unless it's someone you know personally, obviously).
It's a democracy one way but what about the other ? The moderators get to vote on the posters so why can't the posters vote on the moderators? This can be done by requiring moderators to give reasons for how they moderated on some number N comments. It would be too time consuming to comment on every single one. Then the moderator would have a specific id associated with them. This way the users of slashdot can see what our moderators are like and vote accordingly. You (or some committee you pick) then make the final decision. So, to sum it up, you would cycle to a moderator, they would have a trial period to comment on N comments. The users of slashdot would then vote on their opinion of the moderator - in essence, grading them.
You could take this a step further and allow the users of slashdot to select what moderators influence the score (but it would be completely local to that user). ie, Mod1 votes -2, and Mod2 votes 3. The current user has Mod1 selected as one of their preferred moderators, and Mod2 deselected (you can implement this a zillion different ways i suppose), so Mod2's vote doesn't matter.
Slashdot Mirror
The Silicon laser isn't working with population inversion, it is based on the Raman effect - a nonlinear process. Pump photons are converted to photons with a lower energy given a phonon (a lattice vibration at 15.6 THz in this case). The laser works because the fact that Silicon is NOT strongly absorptive at the lasing wavelength. The lasing wavelength is 1650nm if I recall correctly. The bandgap of Silicon is ~1100nm. So there is no way that Silicon can be used to detect this light. Bandgap engineering or a completely different material system is needed to detect this light.
The nature paper
Exactly.. it's like me listening to someone speak a different language. I know they are saying something but I can't associate those words with a meaning.
First, Rob, I'd like to say that I think you are doing a GREAT job. This new moderation scheme is definitely a very good thing for slashdot.
There are a few things you should add, however. I agree with the comment regarding a score history. It would be very beneficial to the posters if they knew why they got negative points (along with the moderator ID--keeping them anonymous).
If you have enough of a moderator base you should cycle moderators. I believe this will avoid the "I don't care anymore" syndrome, to an extent. ie. eliminating useless moderators over time. I believe you are thinking of this in a way but instead of revoking a moderator just for being bad, revoke them for being a moderator too long regardless of their history (unless it's someone you know personally, obviously).
It's a democracy one way but what about the other ? The moderators get to vote on the posters so why can't the posters vote on the moderators? This can be done by requiring moderators to give reasons for how they moderated on some number N comments. It would be too time consuming to comment on every single one. Then the moderator would have a specific id associated with them. This way the users of slashdot can see what our moderators are like and vote accordingly. You (or some committee you pick) then make the final decision. So, to sum it up, you would cycle to a moderator, they would have a trial period to comment on N comments. The users of slashdot would then vote on their opinion of the moderator - in essence, grading them.
You could take this a step further and allow the users of slashdot to select what moderators influence the score (but it would be completely local to that user). ie, Mod1 votes -2, and Mod2 votes 3. The current user has Mod1 selected as one of their preferred moderators, and Mod2 deselected (you can implement this a zillion different ways i suppose), so Mod2's vote doesn't matter.
Stefan Preble
sfp2322@rit.edu