Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Tip of the iceberg (Score 1) 579

by SJHillman (#48259515) Attached to: Pope Francis Declares Evolution and Big Bang Theory Are Right

" How exactly is is he then worthy of worship or awe from us?"

Throughout history, the more technologically advanced societies tend to think they deserve awe, and in some cases outright worship, from the much more primitive tribes they encountered. Why should we think this kind of mindset is limited to humans? Why couldn't an alien species share the same philosophy or take it even further?

Comment: Re:Government Dictionary (Score 3, Informative) 239

by SJHillman (#48195973) Attached to: Facebook To DEA: Stop Using Phony Profiles To Nab Criminals

Many words have a separate legal definition. For example, insanity means something completely different in legal, medical and colloquial contexts. When talking about a legal matter, assume the legal definition is what is meant. And you won't find a legal definition in the Webster or Oxford dictionaries unless it's a word with no alternative meanings.

Comment: Re:Marriage is binary, not linear (Score 1) 447

by SJHillman (#48161939) Attached to: Statisticians Uncover What Makes For a Stable Marriage

I disagree. I think a 54 year marriage is a success even if it ends in divorce. People change over time. After 54 years, both people have changed considerably and it's entirely possible to mutually agree that you're no longer married to the person you want to be.

However, people don't normally change all that much after only two years. So if you get divorced that quickly, then you probably lose.

Comment: At Odds (Score 3, Insightful) 447

by SJHillman (#48129379) Attached to: Statisticians Uncover What Makes For a Stable Marriage

"Couples who elope are 12.5x more likely to end up divorced than couples who get married at a wedding with 200+ people.");"

"Whether you had a honeymoon (Couples who had a honeymoon are 41% less likely to divorce than those who had no honeymoon).""

Those two seem to be at odds with this one:

"How much you spent on the wedding (The more you spend on your wedding, the more likely you'll end up divorced.);"

Unless they mean that you should invite 200 people to a park wedding with no food, and then honeymoon in the alley behind Dunkin' Donuts to take advantage of their dumpster?

Comment: Re:Skipping a version number (Score 1) 644

by SJHillman (#48040067) Attached to: Microsoft Announces Windows 10

I had to look up some of it, but knowing the internal version number can be seriously helpful if you're writing a script that needs to do different things depending on what version of Windows it's running on (such as looking for "C:\Users\Public\Public Desktop\" vs "C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Desktop\", as a simple example). Getting that version number from the command line is as easy as "ver"

Comment: Re:Skipping a version number (Score 4, Informative) 644

by SJHillman (#48029463) Attached to: Microsoft Announces Windows 10

Here's the thing... those are are marketing numbers, not version numbers. If you go by their internal version numbers, they make a lot more sense, and better reflect incremental changes vs total rewrites.

Windows 2000 - 5.0
Windows XP - 5.1
Windows XP 64-Bit/Server 2003 (incl R2) - 5.2
Windows Vista/Server 2008 - 6.0
Windows Server 2008 R2 - 6.1
Windows 7 - 6.1
Windows 8 - 6.2
Windows Server 2012 R2 - 6.3
Windows 8.1 - 6.3

Before Windows 2000/XP, there were two completely separate OSes (NT and DOS), rather than simply different editions of the same OS. Because 2000 and later are the successors to NT, that's why it starts with 5.0.

So why did NT start at 3.x? Because it started life as the successor to OS/2 1.3 and 2.0, known as OS/2 3.0. When it shifted to become Windows rather than OS/2, it kept the version number.

The DOS based Windows go: 1.01, 1.03, 1.04, 2.0, 2.10, 2.11, 3.00, 3.10, 3.11, 3.2, 4.0 (Win95), 4.10 (Win98), 4.90 (WinMe)

Windows versioning numbers makes a lot more sense once you separate the marketing name from the actual version number. MS Office works the same way (e.g. Office 10 is Office XP).

Comment: Re: MAD (Score 1) 342

by SJHillman (#47973165) Attached to: US Revamping Its Nuclear Arsenal

The great thing about nuclear weapons is that they're most effective against cities and other surface targets when detonated in an airburst. The fallout from an airburst causes significantly less fallout of the kill-everything-on-Earth kind, and less uninhabitable-for-a-few-dozen-millennia radiation on the ground than a comparable surface-detonated weapon. This is one of the reasons why Hiroshima and Nagasaki are inhabitable today (both were airbursts), while Chernobyl is going to take... a few more years.

You can do this in a number of ways. IBM chose to do all of them. Why do you find that funny? -- D. Taylor, Computer Science 350