Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Cool! (Score 1) 150

They have been trying to detect GW's for roughly half a century, making instruments gradually ever sensitive when nothing found. Was their magnitude so uncertain that they had no idea how sensitive the detector had to be to detect them?

If it's nearly a guaranteed result, as you implied, then why the huge uncertainty over the sensitivity needed? Or did the early trials merely hope the models were wrong when trying to detect results beyond what the tech of the day could handle relative to the (faint) magnitude the models suggested?

For example, why build a detector that is only sensitive to waves of 100 units or larger if the models say the actual waves should only be 2 units of size? You wouldn't build the 100 unit-size detector unless you had a decent reason to believe the models could be wrong. But I've never seen that assumption stated in the write-ups over the years they've been building all these detectors.

Comment Re:buh? there's non-Human scientists? (Score 1) 150

yet another proof of the global alien conspiracy.

The Trumpenians have invaded! They suck all our sour lemons dry, make our casinos cheesy, spread a virus that shrinks our babies' heads to lollipop size, steal Tony the Tiger's catch-phrases, and wear orange Tribbles on their heads.

Comment Re:Not Progress (Score 1) 536

That's a great example... I hate to say that nothing should ever change, but I guess it has to change in a way that is different enough you cannot be confused like that.

It was probably cheaper to not have to include the ability to lock at the bottom/top of the switching positions.... but like you said it seems like it would really confuse people, or make it more likely to forget the signal was on.

Comment Re:Wasn't the C64 just a BASIC interpreter anyways (Score 1) 117

Asking about 80's computers and knowing about 80's computers are two different things. I've read the original post 4 times. There is nothing objectively wrong with my reply. I will agree there are perhaps valid alternative interpretations, but that's no reason to complain about my interpretation in such a rude way. If someone by chance interprets it different, they can give a re-phrasing of it based on how they interpret it. No reason to rudely accuse the other person of reading it wrong.

Comment Re:those were the days (Score 2) 117

Sounds like a fairly good learning experience even if you were disappointed with the game design.

I used to write my own games, watch my brother play and find holes in them and chew me out:

Bro: "Hey, why does the robot say 'meow' when it crashes into rocks? Dontcha know what a @#& robot is?"

Me: "Hey, I'm new at this; do I look like Atari to you?"

Bro: "Atari didn't get big by making meowing robots."

Me: "How did your mouth get big?"

Ah, the good 'ol days...

Comment Re:tom (Score 1) 117

i had one of those could never use it though because we had a windows 95? machine and i couldn't work out how to get BASIC

If my memory serves me, you could download a free version of Visual Basic "Lite" from common dial-up services of the day, and it was bundled with certain VB books. I don't remember what Microsoft called it exactly; it might be this thing:

http://news.microsoft.com/1996...

It supported a subset of traditional BASIC, but I never heavily tested backward compatibility.

Slashdot Top Deals

Were there fewer fools, knaves would starve. - Anonymous

Working...