Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Clearly that has nothing to do with alarmist media (Score 1) 123

by Shadow of Eternity (#49761881) Attached to: Study: Science Still Seen As a Male Profession

I mean there's simply no way that the constant flood of articles screaming about how science is filled with gross evil woman-hating nerds^H^H^H^H^H neckbeards could possibly have led to this perception. And of course nobody stands to gain money and social prestige pounding the war drums over this...

Comment: Re:Men's Rights morons (Score 1) 773

So what you're saying is you refuse to accept a fully formatted academic bibliography because of where that textual list of nearly three hundred references is hosted? Thanks for proving you actually just don't care about evidence or citations and want some asinine arbitrary reason to refuse to even look at them.

Comment: Re:Whistleblower (Score 1) 296

"Accidentally" isn't certain here. If I was part of something that was wrong and I wanted it to be known, I would very well "accidentally" leak it too.

Except I don't see how that applies in this case. Stay or leave -- it's not the bank's call. But if politicians are putting leaving the EU on the table, even as an empty gesture, then naturally the bank has to start thinking about contingency plans. That's just common sense, even if you think the very idea of leaving the EU is mad.

It's also common sense to keep that on the DL to prevent misguided overreaction to what is after all still a hypothetical scenario. The Bank of England a central bank and so people must be constantly scrutinizing it hoping to glean inside information on future monetary policy. That's to say nothing of having to deal with the conspiracy theory nutters.

Comment: Re:Demographics (Score 1) 123

by PopeRatzo (#49761413) Attached to: Study: Science Still Seen As a Male Profession

I was playing guitar but stopped to check the various feeds before shutting down and heading to bed. Snowshoeing early tomorrow.

Right on, brother. Tomorrow morning I'll be busting some broncos and then base-jumping off the Sears Tower with a parachute of my own design. After that, I'll be having sex with the entire wait staff of Hooters, one of whom is my wife, Morgan Fairchild.

Comment: Re:Meanwhile OS/2 and Xenix existed (Score 1) 350

by TheRaven64 (#49761245) Attached to: 25 Years Today - Windows 3.0

enough ram to run without swap file thrashing. Price was high as well

These two are related. OS/2 needed 16MB of RAM to be useable back when I had a 386 that couldn't take more than 5MB (1MB soldered onto the board, 4x1MB matched SIMMs). Windows NT had the same problem - NT4 needed 32MB as an absolute minimum when Windows 95 could happily run in 16 and unhappily run in 8 (and allegedly run in 4MB, but I tried that once and it really wasn't a good idea). The advantage that Windows NT had was that it used pretty much the same APIs as Windows 95 (except DirectX, until later), so the kinds of users who were willing to pay the extra costs could still run the same programs as the ones that weren't.

Comment: Re:For me it's Windows NT 3.1 (Score 1) 350

by TheRaven64 (#49761223) Attached to: 25 Years Today - Windows 3.0
I never ran 3.0 on a 386 to try that. On Windows 3.1 it wouldn't work, because the OS required either (286) protected mode or (386) enhanced mode. Running 3.0 on a 386, the DOS prompt would use VM86 mode (yes, x86 has had virtualisation support for a long time, but only for 16-bit programs). Windows 3.0 could run in real mode, so would work inside VM86 mode. In real mode, it didn't have access to VM86 mode (no nested virtualisation), so probably couldn't start again.

To the systems programmer, users and applications serve only to provide a test load.

Working...