Until there's a vulnerability in something you installed and you then need to upgrade. Then you're pretty well fucked and are going to likely end up with a mess of broken dependenies and/or substantial downtime while you upgrade.

Not if you know what you're doing. Your described PEBKAC.

Isn't documentation antithetical to the very nature of Slackware?

Yes, it is. Being as close as possible to "vanilla Linux", Slackware never needed much specific documentation of its own.

As a Slackware user, I'm actually a bit surprised at this piece of news.

Newspapers of the time could have obtained the same results without any plagiarism (e.g. by hiring field correspondents).

The alleged cause-effect relationship exists only in the author's obviously underpowered mind.

Jesus did say a few things that, when taken out of context, can be thought of as anti-marriage or anti-family, but most of those were metaphors for other things.

LOL... so typical of christians! Jesus and/or the Bible say something inconsistent or just plain wrong? Hey, that's a metaphor! It doesn't mean what's written, it means something else that is right or acceptable!

This is NOT "Conway's game of life". I rushed frantically to TFA in disbelief, only to be disappointed.

Are your misleading titles and summaries a pathetic attempt to prove you can still pull a "slashdot effect" on sites nowadays?

Be warned, your readership's patience is not endless. Mine certainly isn't.

Lamers.

With gun control there is the defending perception that guns don't kill but people do. There's a valid point there

No, there is not. It's just a silly semantic trick.
People kill people? Yeah, using guns.

The church held a monopoly because nobody else was interested.

The reason why they had a monopoly has nothing to do with my point. They did, and that spurred the consequences I'm discussing.

Why don't you do yourself a favour and just admit to yourself that you have prejudice and that your fear of religion is based on ignorance?

You're wrong on all counts. First of all, I have no "fear of religion". Contempt is more like it. It's not based on ignorance, because I know the christian religion better than 95% of christians (and that percentage comes from personal experience). Lastly, it's not based on prejudice, but on factual evaluation of the many failures of religion vs. logic and science.

I cannot argue you into changing your mind.

That's right, you can't. And that's because your belief has no rational basis.

You seem to have a problem with cause-effect relationships. The monks were the only chroniclers because the church held a monopoly on education. Probably, without the church's monopoly, there would have been non-religious chroniclers who would have reported the facts without religious interpretations.

Your ineptitude at logic reasoning is showing.

The chroniclers were all monks. Your underwear is showing.

That's because the church held a monopoly on education. If that weren't the case, the chroniclers wouldn't have been monks and the chronicles would have been more accurate. Your cowardice is showing.

By whom exactly? Your prejudice is showing.

By the chroniclers of the time. Your religiousness is showing.

And yet, without the religious text, there wouldn't even be a written record of what happened at all.

More likely, the event would have been recorded more objectively without all the religious bullsh^Wovertones.

Yes, after all, there's no value in confirming your preconceived ideas with experimental evidence, is there?

Experimental evidence is always welcome, but to me this article's title sounds a lot like a tautology.

A new study finds that intelligence can decrease stupidity! Maybe the two teams could join forces.

the program occupied less space in memory

Unlikely. Back then, every BASIC interpreter (certainly all of those for 8-bit home computers) used to "tokenize" commands to save costly RAM (and CPU cycles on interpretation, too). Tokenization usually meant translating every command to a 1-byte index to a lookup table. That's what is called "bytecode" nowadays.

Mr. Roberts' claim proves too much. Let me show you why using analogy with mathematics, as I'm particularly fond of mathematics. Let's suppose I believe that there exists precisely one even prime, and analogously that precisely one god exists. Let's suppose furthermore that Mr. Roberts believes that no even primes exist, and analogously that no god exists.

So you to took a provable mathematical fact and compared "believing" in it to believing in a god. And you probably think you're smart, too!