Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Too bad (Score 1) 60

No tab completion, but, not one actually typed out "set protection" - all you needed was enough letters to have it be unambiguous, so "set prot" was good enough. "Directory" = "dir", etc.

      It's always funny to watch a Unix person trying to log off, more-or-less they will never figure it out unless you just tell them how.

        I also note - I was once a VMS sysadmin for several of the *many* clusters we used to have. I still use VMS very frequently as it is the basis for several professional systems, and still have a great propensity for trying to use the EDT magic keys to do stuff in other editors. I couldn't actually explain to anyone what the key definitions are, it's muscle memory at this point. I have laminated cards with the magic key definitions on it for newbies.

Comment Too bad (Score 1) 60

It's a shame that so few people have done any work on a command-line system, and even fewer with a good one, like VMS. Unix and the various *ixs are torturous by comparison - like "chmod" VS "set protection", for a good example. The editors, too, are far better. EDT crushes VI or Emacs.

Comment Re:Show us the evidence against PFAS (Score 0) 49

Uh, what? If it lasts "forever", that is literally the definition of non-reactive, aside from certainly types of catalytic action that do not apply here.

      When chemicals react, they reaction products are by definition different that the original component, that is the definition of reactive.
       

Comment Re:Show us the evidence against PFAS (Score -1, Flamebait) 49

The fact that it is "forever" inevitably means that it is essentially non-reactive - meaning aside from completely unknown catalytic action, it *by definition* does not affect anything it comes in contact with.

It's just another attempt by the extreme environmentalists to panic people into doing whatever they say.

Comment Re:Hypothetical question (Score 1) 26

I

n Newtonian terms the object would speed up as it approached the black hole and crossed the horizon, and it could never exceed or attain the speed of light, but would get kinetic energy in excess of it's actual speed. Things appear heavier as they are accelerated, and more and more of the energy is put into mass while the velocity only approaches the speed of light.

Coming around the object the same process happens in reverse, so the object isn't travelling at escape velocity but the pull from the singularity takes mass energy instead of slowing the object down. Without slowing down appreciably, the object should pop back out of the black hole and continue on it's original course.

        The part you are missing is that it can only accelerate to aproach the speed of light, as opposed to Newtownian mechanics where it can accelerate as fast as it wants. In classical terms, the mass growth/time dialation acts like a damping term.

Comment Numbingly predictable (Score 1) 155

Your IoT/"smart" crap doesn't work a few years later? And you are somehow surprised by this, after story after story of DRM servers getting turned off, force "upgrades" on "software as a service" garbage, "the cloud" scam, and every possible indication that these are fly-by-night, short-attention-span entities?

        I'm sorry, but I don't have a lot of sympathy. You jumped on the hype bandwagon despite every possible indication that you would only going to be burned, and now, you got burned. Naivety has its price.

Slashdot Top Deals

"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Working...