Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Saturn pulling Jupiter (Score 1) 46

by Tablizer (#48928161) Attached to: We May Have Jupiter To Thank For the Nitrogen In Earth's Atmosphere

The total angular momentum of all solar system objects remain the same, correct? So if we ignore those flung out of the solar system for now (assuming it's not a signif. factor), if Jupiter increases its angular momentum (moves "outward"), then a good many objects will lose angular momentum to counter. Where did it go? Do many "long orbit" objects that once had a semi-circular orbits now have highly elliptical orbits (as many comets do)?

Comment: Re:Saturn pulling Jupiter (Score 1) 46

by Tablizer (#48926703) Attached to: We May Have Jupiter To Thank For the Nitrogen In Earth's Atmosphere

This seems backwards; I'm missing something. Remember, I'm asking about Jupiter moving back out, not in toward the sun (which the article suggests is from friction with dust etc.). Other objects would have to lose orbital momentum for Jupiter to gain. Jup moving out would push the space junk inward, not outward.

Comment: Re:Saturn pulling Jupiter (Score 1) 46

by Tablizer (#48925391) Attached to: We May Have Jupiter To Thank For the Nitrogen In Earth's Atmosphere

The idea that Jupiter moved inwards then back out would have the back out movement come from flinging smaller planetoids out of their orbit and exchanging angular momentum.

But Jupiter is massively massive, to misuse English. It's hard to believe all those small asteroids and junk would have enough bulk and momentum to make a difference on it.

Was there a lot more junk flinging around back then? I don't get it.

Comment: Re:"Science"? (Score 1) 198

by Tablizer (#48924709) Attached to: Bjarne Stroustrup Awarded 2015 Dahl-Nygaard Prize

Let me clarify. It may be "software engineering science" to study reasons existing code bases need changes (written in varied languages and paradigms), but as given, it is not OOP-specific science. The /. intro says "object-oriented computer science". That study is not "object-oriented computer science" because it doesn't split it up by paradigm (OOP versus procedural versus functional, etc). To me "object-oriented computer science" is measuring OOP's impact.

I do not believe there are ANY field studies in Meyer's book that show OOP "being better". You are welcome to prove me wrong.

The superior man understands what is right; the inferior man understands what will sell. -- Confucius

Working...