Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - 6 month subscription of Pandora One at 46% off. ×

Comment Re:Do anything other than what Perl did (Score 2) 304

I'd argue that the 'punctuation gone awry' view of Perl is largely because it was one of the first languages to fully embed regular expressions. While it has a fair number of different punctuation operators on it's own, nearly all are shared by other languages, and most of the rest are because the syntax has to differentiate between different types of variable operations, where more statically typed languages can let the types determine that.

Comment Re:Only if you ignore the differences. (Score 1) 684

I actually don't see a point in going to any place at all - going down into a gravity well just makes things more expensive, really. The only real argument for anything beyond pure-space habitats (work them close, get them mobile, then take them out to explore...) is that saying 'we're building a colony on X' is an easier way to raise money, in my opinion.

Comment Re:Huh? (Score 1) 241

I loved that line. It shows the problem in a nutshell: They compared ad blockers to stealing, and then gave two examples of things a large portion of the public isn't convinced is stealing.

So, yes, it's exactly like it. It's something you need to convince us is stealing, if you want us to act in the way you want us to. In fact, just like in those two cases, your best solution is to change your own actions to help us get what we want, so we can accept your solution.

I currently run adblockers solely because without them my computer was painfully slow to browse the web. The difference in many pages cases for me was in the order of a minute or more per page. Fix that problem, and I might reconsider. (Might. Because, after all, at this point the easiest thing to do is to leave the adblocker on...)

Comment Re:pet cemetary (Score 1) 116

I used cats as an example because the comment I was replying to and the article I linked to both use cats as a primary example. However, it's only a primary example, and the article does go into a fair amount of detail on why many of the some effects are found in dogs. Please read it to have your questions answered.

Comment Re:pet cemetary (Score 4, Insightful) 116

You are very wrong. The first cloned cat wasn't even the same official color as their genetic parent - and the researchers considered their personality differences even more pronounced, largely due to how they were raised.

How cats are raised and treated makes a very big difference in their behavior. Even such things as where they were in the womb makes a big difference.

And an identical twin isn't genetically different - that's why you clarify identical vs. fraternal twin. They are very different - both in humans and in animals - but genetically if they aren't the same they aren't an identical twin.

Comment Re:What's the point of cloning a pet? (Score 3, Interesting) 116

There is a research exception. So doing it to see how it works (which has been done...) or to improve techniques is allowed.

What this law really is preventing is another situation like the collapse of the banana production in the 1950's: Bananas are seedless, so are grown from cuttings - essentially clones of single plant. In the 50's, there was a disease that spread that the then-popular type of banana was very susceptible to, which almost wiped out the entire industry. The industry switched to a different variety, but it's still just a vegetative clone, ready to be hit by one disease and wiped out again. Imagine that happening to chickens or cows, wiping out their respective industries, even for a year or two. It would be chaos.

Comment Re:What about pets? (Score 3, Interesting) 116

Most people also have a crazy/wrong idea about what cloning is. It's not going to give you a carbon copy of your pet, all it gives you is an identical twin. I also seem to recall hearing that with some animals a twin won't even look the same due to things like color pattern being influenced by its time in the womb, but I could be completely off in left field with that. Regardless, you're just getting another pet with the same DNA makeup.

You're not off in left field. A cat may not even be the same color, technically. (The first cat cloned was a calico - it's clone was grey and white, no orange; orange is randomly activated during fetal development, and in the clone never activated, by chance.) I don't know if it'll go to that extreme in dogs, but again anything that's not a solid color tends to have color patches randomly distributed during development, so clones won't have the same pattern of colors unless the breed is single-color.

Personality is even more changeable - again the example of the first cloned cat: She was much more friendly to people she didn't know than her clone-mother was. (Probably due to being handled a lot more as a very young kitten.)

Comment Re:Programming (Score 1) 616

Actually using a programming language, instead of a markup language? HTML can be complex, unintuitive and finicky on occasion, but it's not code. (Admittedly many sites these days use JavaScript and such to extend what HTML can do, and that can be code, or it can be just a matter of finding and plugging in the right pre-written program for the job.)

Comment Re:Betteridge's law of headlines says ... no (Score 4, Insightful) 264

Several of these really need to be generalized. We're getting male/female/black/white/asian/etc. variants of everything, needlessly complicating the system. Unicode has inflection support - just mark that 'male' or 'female' is an inflection, like an accent mark. Combined characters, for one glyph.

And yes, that means the 'standard' is gender and race neutral. People might make assumptions; deal with it. It's better than doing 'this is a smiley, and this is a female smiley'.

Comment Re:Passed data with a ton of noise? (Score 4, Informative) 391

Except that the $300 cable isn't grounded on either end, and shows a high level of crosstalk. So the arrows on this cable are just to make people think it's worth the $300.

This cable is better than a $2 cable: It's well built, and meets the specs - barely. But you can get $10-$20 cables that are as well built, and meet the specs with less margin for error (these literally tested as 'within the specs' by less than the margin of error on the testing device) easily.

I've got a bad feeling about this.