Forgot your password?

typodupeerror

Comment: requiem (Score 1) 277

by kencurry (#37485130) Attached to: Sources Say Meg Whitman To Become HP CEO
So long HP.

I met you in the eighties; my college days. I bought an 11C calculator when I could barely afford to eat, learned the stack, and had much respect for the engineers who built that tech. My first analytical chemistry job was running a 1050 HPLC, and I still remember how well-built that equipment was. You brought that stack paradigm to chromatography in chemstation software, which I thought was fantastic. I STILL have an HP2100M laser printer that I believe will out-live me. In summary, your engineering hardware used to be the standard in more than one field.

RIP

Comment: Re:Get off my carbon emitting lawn (Score 1) 542

by kencurry (#37086872) Attached to: What's the Carbon Footprint of Bicycling?
I don't post much any more on slashdot but I've got to comment here.

There is no way in hell biking cost are equivalent to driving costs in any typical analysis. I also drive/bike/train to work and have been doing this for several years so I speak from my own experiences, but I am also as a trained chemist; - the whole argument is just silly IMHO. If you can bike to work, even just a couple days a week, you should. Better for your health, better for the environment. period. Leave the whole stupid argument about the carbon footprint comparisons to those with nothing better to do.

Comment: Re:but but (Score 1, Funny) 153

by kencurry (#35232700) Attached to: Supermassive Black Holes Not So Big After All

It will only effect geeks that tell and receive insults, because they are the only ones that will be able to reference this. So to all the people that don't read Slashdot : "Yo momma is so fat. If she gained another pound, she would collapse in on herself and become a black hole."

and then became uranus...

Comment: Re:This doesn't prove anything (Score 1) 437

by kencurry (#34700780) Attached to: Cheaters Exposed Analyzing Statistical Anomalies

Yet according to Caveon Test Security, I'd be a cheater.

According to the article, according to Caveon Test Security, you might be a cheater.

So you'd be investigated. And you'd pass investigation, because you didn't cheat.

Why would he automatically be exonerated? If the administration is willing to take action with weak circumstantial evidence, what suggests that they would somehow switch to using good judgement later?

You're definitely on their list. The question to ask next is what list it is.

Working...