Comment Re:That's "dilithium" (Score 1) 355
actually, plants do contain fat soluble vitamins, particularly leafy green ones, hence the reason vegans don't (all) suffer from theses deficiencies
Coders, Your Days Are Numbered 305
snydeq writes "Fatal Exception's Neil McAllister argues that communication skills, not coding skills, are a developer's greatest asset in a bear economy. 'Too many software development teams are still staffed like secretarial pools. Ideas are generated at the top and then passed downward through general managers, product managers, technical leads, and team leads. Objectives are carved up into deliverables, which are parceled off to coders, often overseas,' McAllister writes. 'The idea that this structure can be sustainable, when the US private sector shed three-quarters of a million jobs in March 2009 alone, is simple foolishness.' Instead, companies should emulate the open source model of development, shifting decision-making power to the few developers with the deepest architectural understanding of, and closest interaction with, the code. And this shift will require managers to look beyond résumés 'choked with acronyms and lists of technologies' to find those who 'can understand, influence, and guide development efforts, rather than simply taking dictation.'" Update: 04/04 19:52 GMT by T : InfoWorld's link to the archived version of the story on open source development no longer works; updated with Google's cached version.
Comment Bad science (Score 1) 684
There are several flaws in the articles reasoning:
1. Retracted papers are retracted for many reasons...a small fraction of which is because the fundamental principal of the paper is wrong. Most often it has to do with smaller things.
2. Prediction is not a zero sum game. Just because someones theory about the risk is incorrect does not mean the worst case scenario will happen.
3. The risk assessment of the LHC is not based on one persons theory, but a collection of scientists theories. As with most scientists, they disagree on a multitude of minor points and some major ones. Despite this the consensus from the vast majority of physicists is that there is little or no danger in smashing particles at the energys used in the LHC. For this to be incorrect the hypotheses of not one but all of the scientists would have to be in error, bringing us back to a very small probability of death by black hole.
1. Retracted papers are retracted for many reasons...a small fraction of which is because the fundamental principal of the paper is wrong. Most often it has to do with smaller things.
2. Prediction is not a zero sum game. Just because someones theory about the risk is incorrect does not mean the worst case scenario will happen.
3. The risk assessment of the LHC is not based on one persons theory, but a collection of scientists theories. As with most scientists, they disagree on a multitude of minor points and some major ones. Despite this the consensus from the vast majority of physicists is that there is little or no danger in smashing particles at the energys used in the LHC. For this to be incorrect the hypotheses of not one but all of the scientists would have to be in error, bringing us back to a very small probability of death by black hole.
Comment Just Type.... (Score 1) 180
It seems like the Norberg's comments fall in a rather blurry area between libel and opinion. Rather than taking this to court, generating more bad publicity and awarding only the lawyers, why does the chiropractor simply publish a rebuttal to the review, explaining his side of the story?
Yes, I know, one bad review is worth ten good ones etc. etc., but I personally prefer to make a decision based on reading many points of view. Just like you and the other slashdotters that have made it this far down the forum.
Comment Re:I'm Confused Why We Don't See This En Masse (Score 1) 113
I don't think anyone really enjoys or wants more [insert your favorite ad hominem argument here]
