Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Misjargonization (Score 1) 354

It might be an archaic term, but they've been in the business for a lot longer than you have (or you would have recognized the terminology).

I recognize the misuse just fine; I've been at this since the 1960's. Front panel toggles, punchcards and paper tape are wholly familiar to me, as are arranging diodes in a matrix and building CPUs out of RTL and TTL. The fact that I recognize the misuse is not motivation to appreciate it, any more than I would if some non-contemporaneous Babbage-era use of "gears" was suddenly thought to be a good idea to use as the go-to word for software, or if someone referred to a modern day stick of RAM as "core", or if someone insisted on referring to computers in general as abaci.

The industry is well centered around particular terminology right now and has been for decades. That's the terminology to use, unless you want people focusing more on what you said, than what you meant. Which tends to lead to the wrong place no matter what you do. Particularly in engineering. Words matter. Being sloppy is costly.

Comment Misjargonization (Score 4, Interesting) 354

Referring to software and applications as 'codes' is common in many industries (example "here). People that use such terminology are of much higher than average intelligence.

And so they have even less excuse for their mangling of the terminology, and definitely should be smiled at, nodded to, and ultimately, ignored other than when they have some kind of arbitrary coercive power over you, in which case, do it in your head anyway.

If you walk up to a nuclear engineer with your 140 IQ and ask him to "turn up the atumz", he should probably just call security and have your ass thrown out on the street.

Seriously. If you don't know even the basics of an industry's terminology -- it's time to leave off trying to involve yourself until you get that handled. If you do.

Comment Re:Mine: (Score 1) 1219

Really? The book must be overwhelmed by the stuff then, because the film is almost completely full of it.

He's right. The book takes a much more serious look at government than the movie does. Books are a better platform for that sort of detail than movies are, there's just no way around that. But the movie does an excellent job of implying all manner of things without the detail, as such things go, and the post here was about movies, not books, so I made no commentary on that initially.

Comment Mine: (Score 5, Informative) 1219

In whatever order I'm in the mood for, which varies:

Bladerunner - the original, with the narration.
Firefly - TV show same. These were just plain fun, except for the pilot's death, which struck me as uncalled for.
Starship Troopers - loved the twisted angle on government. Great bugs. Would you like to know more?
Paul - hilarious, totally non-serious SF.
Alien (original) - great SF horror, and great SF besides.
Terminator - original
The Martian - really good hard SF, quite rare to find

Comment Re:NK *is* a credible threat (Score 1) 294

NK can't even keep the lights on at night.

The reason they can't keep the lights on at night is because they spend 22-23% of their GDP on the military, including nuclear weapons.

That is why they are a threat -- because they can do damage -- you don't make a military threat assessment by counting light bulbs.

Comment Re:Sound waves in water not so simple (Score 4, Informative) 294

They're probably thinking of things like near-field synthetic aperture sonar. You can get images as clear as this, which gives the impression that water is no obstacle. Distance, however, changes what one can do, and there's quite a difference between passive monitoring and active monitoring as well.

Comment Re:Sound waves in water not so simple (Score 3, Insightful) 294

I'm aware. I write signal processing software for the signals that drive spectrum / waterfalls. Some people would be quite surprised as to what can be done with only a hint of data.

Again, no details can be laid out here, but some tracking is definitely possible. My point was that losing track is also possible, so yes, we agree.

Comment Re:Just like finding a crashed airliner under the (Score 4, Informative) 294

Well, it's not quite that cut and dry; subs move, make noise, wakes, create magnetic anomalies in motion (and image subtraction can trivially find one of those consequent to continuous MA observation of any area where the sub is, assuming the monitoring capability is available), and while no one tries to track each jetliner using sufficient resources to never lose sight of it, there's good reason to think that we would be keeping track, as best we can with the resources we have available, any NK asset that presented a potential nuclear threat.

That said, even if we're on them at any one point, it doesn't mean we can't lose track of them, either. Even a hardware failure of a tracking resource could put this kind of thing into play where one might ordinarily assume it wasn't. This stuff is devilishly complex. Lots of ways for tracking to fail.

Comment Re:NK *is* a credible threat (Score 3, Insightful) 294

I'm sure our boomer and attack sub commanders would be appalled to know they are so easily found. You should let them know ASAP. /s

Or to put it another way, you have no idea what you're talking about, and should probably stop talking in order to prevent further illumination of this fact.

Comment Re:NK *is* a credible threat (Score 3, Interesting) 294

Your (completely uncalled for) optimism about NK's 70 or so subs is noted.

Brown water... I would only point out that in WWII, the Japanese managed to build subs that could reach the US coast. Assuming some NK hardware is not at least as capable is absurd.

Assuming a sub can't get out from under surveillance may also be uncalled for. Hard to say without going into classified details. In any case, the fact that they have the hardware that can deliver the weapons means that they present a credible threat, whether we can stop them from doing so or not.

And Trump... well, I am not filled with confidence that Trump is a "thoughtful" person either.

Slashdot Top Deals

I haven't lost my mind -- it's backed up on tape somewhere.