Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Motive (Score 1) 280

by ClickOnThis (#48671113) Attached to: Did North Korea Really Attack Sony?

Would you really want to send your son or daughter to die in North Korea because crackers broke into a company's servers?

The cast of "Duck Dynasty" did North Korea's hacking for them? I didn't know this...

Cracker is also a term for a malicious hacker. The media has corrupted the term hacker from its original meaning: someone who is obsessed with the internal details of a system and is able to manipulate it in unconventional ways.

I think of the difference between a cracker and a hacker as similar to the difference between a burglar and a locksmith.

Comment: Re:Age prior to dyine (Score 2, Informative) 110

by ClickOnThis (#48671007) Attached to: Scientists Say the Future Looks Bleak For Our Bones

The older humans lived 20 - 30 years MAX.

Bull. The Bible itself tells us the full span of a man's years is "threescore and ten". That's from the Book of Psalms, and was probably written around 700 BC.

Not that I agree with the GP's 20-30 numbers, but I think he refers to humans who lived tens of thousands of years ago, not in relatively recent biblical times. You deleted his point that humans who lived more recently (which I parse to mean starting around biblical times) lived up to 70-100 years. I think those larger numbers are likely true of earlier humans too, but the premature mortality of those times cuts the average down.

Comment: Re:Flight (Score 4, Informative) 110

by ClickOnThis (#48670957) Attached to: Scientists Say the Future Looks Bleak For Our Bones

Modern human skeletons have shifted quite recently towards lighter—more fragile, if you like—bodies.

Sweet! Maybe we will also start evolving wings and finally be able to fly without manufactured air foils! I for one intend to sit on the couch more and make this happen faster!

If humans could fly, we'd consider it exercise and never do it.
-- origin unknown

Comment: Re:A Solution to the Santa Quantum Wave Function? (Score 0) 58

by ClickOnThis (#48668753) Attached to: The History of the NORAD/Microsoft and Google Santa Trackers

Considering Santa must travel at about 650 miles per second, Rudolph's nose would need to be so bright to illuminate a safe distance ahead that he would incinerate himself and anything else nearby.

It's no wonder the other reindeer didn't let him play in any reindeer games.

Comment: Re:from the what-until-they-get-a-load-of-this dep (Score 1) 291

by ClickOnThis (#48664985) Attached to: Amazon "Suppresses" Book With Too Many Hyphens

According to Merriam Webster, "hit man" should not be hyphenated ...

Alas, Merriam-Webster is part of the problem. A "hit-man" is an assassin, but a "hit man" is a man who has been hit.

I confess that my opinion on hyphens has been influenced strongly by an article I read years ago, and for which I can no longer find a link. The author of that piece ranted in particular about irregularities in Merriam-Webster on the matter of hyphens. For example, "bee-eater", a beautiful bird whose diet includes stinging insects, becomes in Merriam-Webster a "bee eater", a bee who eats.

Comment: Re:from the what-until-they-get-a-load-of-this dep (Score 4, Interesting) 291

by ClickOnThis (#48653123) Attached to: Amazon "Suppresses" Book With Too Many Hyphens

The hyphens make clear that you are using a compound adjective. In fact, a common error in writing is omitting hyphens when they are necessary. For example, someone writing I saw a man eating alligator probably meant I saw a man-eating alligator .

This, this and this.

Awhile ago, we saw a story on this site about a chocolate printer. Of course this was actually a chocolate-printer, a device that prints using chocolate. However, without the hyphen, it refers to a printer that is made out of chocolate. Without the hyphen, what are we to make of The Chocolate Lover's Cookbook?

Hyphens are also important when one needs to disambiguate between compound adjectives and compound nouns. What's a high school building? A building that's a high school (a high-school building) or a school building that is high (a high school-building)?

Hyphens are just another example of how we treat punctuation marks as though they were boogers, something to be expunged and discarded, kept away from ourselves and others. But without them, we cannot distinguish a panda bear who eats shoots and leaves from a mob hit-man who eats, shoots and leaves.

Comment: Re:Why bother? (Score 2) 420

by ClickOnThis (#48644507) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Is an Open Source<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET Up To the Job?

I have always preferred .NET to Java,

Why? A sincere question, not a snark. Is it multi-programing-language support? The Microsoft IDE (VS?) What is it that wins over the Java ecosystem?

with the main drawback to .NET is that in the past its cross-platform functionality has been quite limited.

Until Mono came along, I assume you mean. I have little experience with Mono. Those who do, please weigh in: does Mono offer equivalent cross-platform flexibility to Java run-time environments?

Comment: Re: Science, bitches, that's *how* it works! (Score 4, Insightful) 196

by ClickOnThis (#48636607) Attached to: Quantum Physics Just Got Less Complicated

It is approximately right, but completely wrong. These are not mutually exclusive. Arguing approximations are perfectly accurate is itself a grave error.

You're abusing the semantics of "right" and "wrong" in a scientific context. A theory or law is "right" if it agrees with observations or predictions to within the accuracy of measurements. It is "wrong" if it doesn't. On that basis, Newtonian physics is "right" over a vast domain of experience, but is "wrong" in situations involving atomic particles or near-light speeds. It is not "completely wrong" -- not at all.

BTW, nobody says approximations are perfectly accurate. That's the same as saying they're perfect, and that would mean they cease to be approximations.

We do use Newtonian Physics, not because they are correct (they are not) but rather because their approximations are within tolerances of certain deviations from accurate.

Again, you abuse semantics. Scientists do not use the word "correct" in the sense of an absolute truth, but rather in the sense of what works to make accurate predictions. Science endeavors to shrink-wrap the tightest possible boundary around "absolute" truth, but does not claim to know what that truth is.

When a Banker jumps out of a window, jump after him--that's where the money is. -- Robespierre

Working...