Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:IoA (Score 2) 125

When people talk about an IPv6 address being 128 bits they're technically true but they miss the bigger picture. In practice you can't assign anything smaller than a /64 so really there are only 64 bits of address space as we think of it today. 1 IPv4 address hosting a subnet with NAT vs. an IPv6 /64 prefix are roughly equivalent. It's still way more address space than we'll ever reasonably need, but not quite as ridiculous as it looks at first glance. This also means that 64 bit machines (most of them these days) can compare addresses easily, since you can often ignore either the top or bottom half of the address.

Comment This again? (Score 5, Insightful) 397

Seriously Miss Universe is only once a year. Yet I'm seeing "which is the most popular language" every month or so here. Who gives a shit? Certainly not your CPU. It all gets compiled down to assembly anyway. THAT is the most popular language, even if few humans code in it nowadays all computers read it.

Comment Which "scientists" are these? (Score 4, Insightful) 659

Are the "scientists" conducting these "studies" psychologists or behavioral scientists? Because as far as I know, those are the only "scientists" who study why people would react one way or another to a situation. I mean marketing people do too, but that's hardly science. The cited article is unclear although what is clear, apart from the APA format of citation, is that it does not follow the standard format of SCIENTIFIC articles. Usually an article by SCIENTISTS doesn't go "1. Introduction 2. Conclusion". There's a whole lot missing on things like materials and methodology, discussion, etc.

So if you want an additional tip as to why people (including scientists, for I am one) reject climate change "science" - here's a big hint: follow the scientific method. Note that I am not even discussing the actual data evidence for or against climate change. I am discussing the lack of credibility of people who call themselves "scientists" but clearly are not. The scientific method and the way scientific articles are laid out is not new and does not need to be reinvented.

Perhaps the confusion arises because social sciences people are actually starting to believe that they are "scientists" because they took Poli Sci.

Slashdot Top Deals

Quark! Quark! Beware the quantum duck!