Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Dang... (Score 2) 122

You evidently don't understand what science is. Science is "right", because the point is that falsehoods are verifiable, and the established truths are verified by the process of peer review. Science is also getting more "right" with each new discovery. This discovery doesn't invalidate previous discoveries: it bolsters them, and adds new information.

We used to think the Earth was the center of the Universe. New discoveries led to new insights. These changes to the scientific understanding didn't change the model of the motion of planets across the sky. It helped improve them.

Conversely, I don't see anyone blaming creationist parks.

There are also museums of natural history dotted around the world, which collectively contain (I would say) tens of thousands of models, which would either have to be replaced or reworked, or reinterpreted as being an artefact of an earlier, less complete understanding.

Comment: Re:Yes (Score 1) 381

by cream wobbly (#47440979) Attached to: Slashdot Asks: Do You Want a Smart Watch?

The right name for the devices being announced is not "smart watch". It is "smartphone-linked-dumb watches". What you're describing is a "smart watch" and would likely do away with the phone in your pocket altogether. But please, allow me to dismantle your argument, point-by-point:

1. like most people under 50, I don't wear jewellery
2. vibrating and beeping is something my phone does adequately
3. I don't leave my phone behind (forgetting your phone is irrelevant if a watch can take the call)
4. this is not a technological problem that needs fixing, it's a social one -- and it sounds like overprotection (or perviness)
5. bluetooth earpieces have call-answering functionality and microphones already
6. my phone camera has a timer, and there are applications to "insert" yourself into photographs
7. I have plenty of imagination, sonny

Comment: Re:Modern Weak Languages (Score 1) 283

by cream wobbly (#47302205) Attached to: Perl Is Undead

I completely agree. I choose not to handle a "more powerful language" because I don't want to have to remind myself how the language works every time I go back to edit a script I wrote four or five years ago: I want to grok it completely in one glance. Bash has done that for me. I'm sure Python will in years to come. Perl doesn't have any compelling features for me any more.

panic: kernel trap (ignored)