This is the type of stuff I used to find cool and tinker with 10 years ago. Nowadays, I value my time (a bit) more and prefer to dedicate it to other, more useful projects. Why waste time trying to run an old version of an OS that has been improved over the years? Processing power and RAM are dirt cheap. Even the small systems, like the raspberry pi support modern distros. It was cool to struggle with a slackware installation 10 years ago and succeed. Given enough effort and time, it can also be done on recent hardware but what does it prove? I would prefer to start a more useful and challenging project.

Then why don't you write Nobel prize in the first place? Your comment, on how bad writing should not be contributed to sloppiness is the first time I ever encounter this "noble prize". Also, "Strictly speaking" is completely out of place here. "Strictly speaking" we should also refer to "Murphy's law" and "Newton's law" instead of "muphries law" and "netwon's law", which no-one ever does anyway.

This may be a detail in your explanation, but you are wrong. That joke relies on "to smell" meaning both to observe odors and to spread them. Apart from that, I agree completely with you. There is no good reason to "wrongify" languages, except laziness. Okay, go ahead and stop using correct grammar, but don't attribute this to some higher bullshit principle. The only reason for all this crappy writing is that people are to lazy to put in any effort. As a correct grammar contributes some redundancy, it eases the reading. (non-native English myself).

How about grammar-nazis? Should they now be referred to as grammar-stalinists?

Thanks for pointing out mistakes in his explanation. This allows other readers to see his statement in another light. But why "mod him to oblivion"? He offers a remarkable story. Why should others not be able to judge for themselves (taking into account your own comment)?

Making the parent's remark even more to the point.

More to the point, how can the researchers assess which female rats are "babes" and which ones are fuglies.

Easy enough. The "pretty ones" are being fucked more than the ugly ones.

How would this be an easy way to get random numbers? Why not just sample an analog noise source? Admittedly, I wasn't even aware of this apparent need for random numbers and the difficulty of getting them.

You are completely correct in that. There is indeed a difference between knowledge (data) and reasoning. However, chances are that if you haven't got a clue whatsoever about numbers and orders of magnitude, that you won't reason very much either.

Most of the time when I read something related to physics, I like to do a rough calculation in my head to see if what is stated seems logical to me. Like how high the ocean level will rise when so many tons of ice melts on Antarctica, what efficiency can be reached with some new kind of solar cell (and whether this is spectacular or not), how long it would take an airliner to fly around the world, etc.

Strange enough, the hardware (pavement) turned my firmware into software, and it took a long time to recover.

... whenever I try to pull one out, I risk a heap dump.

Fortunately your book collection is in the bathroom.

Short answer: because people like books.

Books are (at least in my opinion) easier to browse and go everywhere. Also it is faster to reach for a book than to boot some reader, find a file etc... whereas a book is just sitting on the shelf. Obviously this only works for stuff you have read before (and remembered more or less where it was).

You have a point that it makes little sense not to get all books from a library, but sometimes people just want to have something.

For those who don't know the reference.

Good thinking! And then we burn the diamonds, and the problem is solved completely!

... persisted in their urge to create a black hole, be it in space or in the economy.