Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment MEH, not impressed. call me back when ... (Score 1) 176

Three short walking breaks from hours of watching TV from the couch? Too much. Cant be done.Let me know if I summon enough will power to take three short 5 minute breaks from hours of eating junk food while watching TV, will it count? Hey! Got a bright idea. Should patent it. How about combining the bathroom breaks from TV watching to get both the walking break and the snacking break? All I have to do is to remember to leave the beer by the laz-e-boy.

Comment Heads must roll, or they aren't serious. (Score 1) 111

Corporations treat security as an after thought. It shows up in the expense column, nothing in the revenue/income column. The top corporations do not see any benefit to security expenses. It is as idiotic as not installing doors to help customers enter the store easier.

The CEO's bonus must be docked, the CIO must be fired, all the top executives who were in the decision chain of the security decisions must have their bonus forfeited, pay docked and a few of them should be fired too, Unless we see a strong reaction that hits the top management hard, they are not serious. When the things were going was good they had no compunctions in attributing it all to their own super brilliance and their actions and decisions. Thus they justified awarding themselves compensation two orders of magnitude more than rest of the corporations.

They must also take the blame as seriously and pay for it in terms of cash and career prospects.

They should, but they won't.

Comment Re:Scientific Consensus (Score 0) 770

Piltdown Man was once "consensus". We know how that turned out.

And who proved the Piltdown Man hoax? Was it your fire and brimstone sermon delivering priest? Was it your friendly neighbourhood law firm Dewy Chetham and Howe? Was it the Member of Parliament? Or was it a member of House of Lords? Who showed Piltdown Man hoax?

It was another scientist, buddy, another scientist. The track record of correcting their mistakes, is pretty good for scientists. In fact they are the ones with a very good working system to correct their own mistakes. How many religious heads have been proven wrong by others in the same fold?

Think about it, "Onward Christian Soldiers!" cried Britain. "God is with us" claimed Germany. Both sides had chaplains who sent their soldiers to kill the other side. At the end, was there any religious head who came out and said, "We were wrong!"?.

My point is, all of them go wrong. But science has a self correcting process.

Comment What consensus means: (Score 4, Insightful) 770

'Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results.'"

The phrase "One investigator who happens to be right" assumes one would be able to tell who is right and who is wrong immediately as it happens. The consensus is agreeing who got reproducible provable results.

People who do not understand science, who want to game the system are intentionally gaming the system. They bring in rules used in philosophical debates and legal arguments into science. Equal time for both sides works ok in philosophy and in courts. But not in science. Let us say one side has tons and tons of data and the other side is waving hands. Giving equal time to both is doing a great injustice to the side with data.

If one side is just asking questions, raising doubts, etc and the other side is actually answering the questions and clearing the doubts, it is a great injustice to give equal time to both. It takes much longer to answer questions than to raise them.

One should gain standing to raise doubts. Getting funding from industry groups with vested interests is not getting the standing. Must publish in the relevant field, get peer reviewed papers. Must risk reputation gained by hard long work to raise questions.

Comment We don't need that many super brilliants. (Score 2) 203

The creativity distribution obeys a very strong version of the power law [*1]. What it means almost all the brilliant scientific breakthrough comes from very few scientists. Creating incentives for creativity will make the scientists use all that creativity in getting the incentives, innovative proposals, truly genius grant applications etc. Take for example, the true innovation in understanding the "evolution of cooperation". On the face of it "survival of the fittest" and "nature red in tooth and claw" would seem to discourage cooperation between individuals. But many species including our own are highly cooperative. How come? The ground work was done by one guy (Maynard Smith?) in "Evolutionarily Stable Strategies". One guy conducted a tournament of strategies in 1980s in U Mich (Axelrod?). One guy won it, (Anatol?) tit-fot-tat. I think Richard Dawkins played a catalyst by bringing together a biologist and an economist. They were both working on the same cooperation problem but were unaware of each other's work because they used different terminologies. Then a whole bevy of scientists refine the understanding of Iterative Prisoners Dilemma problem to the present level where we can explain how cooperation evolved.

All I am saying is this emphasis on leadership and creativity is a little too much. Leads to "All Chiefs and no Indians" problem. Good, strong, independent thinking followers are as important to science as leaders. And we need an order of magnitude more followers. If anything we should reduce the incentives for creativity so that only truly creative people shine through.

[*1] Power Law: aka 80-20 law. 80% income by top 20% of earners, 80% of crime by 20% of criminals etc.

Comment Al Gore warned about it. (Score 1) 67

You know, if you keep building more and more high ways the cities will sprawl uncontrollably. Al Gore warned us about it back in 2000. (If he had not, he would have, I mean at least it is the sort of thing he would have warned about). Now we have sprawled to some 500 million light year diameter. When you face that impossibly long commute, remember that prophetic sage.

Comment India has this MCA/BCA degrees. (Score 3, Interesting) 546

In India many colleges and universities offer Master/Bachelor of Computer Applications degrees. It started out teaching simple Word, Excel, dBaseIII, FoxPro. Now a days they have added PeopleSoft and Oracle too. Some colleges add things like Ansys, ProE, ProSteel, Fluent, Ansoft HFSS etc.

These are the graduates who end up in USA via H1-B process most of the time in HR, IT, banking projects. Quality of the graduates vary significantly. But they all make decent salaries in USA, comparable to high quality engineering grads from US schools on salaries. I have seen these programmers of questionable abilities pulling 100K to 140K a year easily.

Comment Re:It could be illegal. (Score 5, Interesting) 136

This was the original bill they were circulating. See the section 2e that mandates the use of linear interpolation? Limits the data set to post 1900? They were dropped only after getting nationwide attention.

These legislators have been slipping such clauses into the law all the time, and this time they got caught. Otherwise they would have happily forced the value of pi to be 3.0 exact.

Do you have problems with the legislators decreeing what interpolation technique the scientists must use? Limiting the data sets they might use? Or do you modify the bill after getting caught with hands in the cookie jar and then whip up prodigal quantities of false outrage?

Comment It could be illegal. (Score 4, Funny) 136

These film were stored in North Carolina. It is actually illegal there to predict sea level rise. There is some question about whether the law makers there banned the prediction of sea level rise or the banned sea level rise itself. But anyway these NASA scientists need to tread carefully in North Carolina.

Comment Actually it explains their extinction too. (Score 2) 91

Further research shows that the Neanderthals formed a Cave Painting Artists Association (CPAA) to protect the copyrights and the intellectual properties of these cave painters. CPAA then started suing all other people who made copycat paintings as copyright infringers. Since the early drawings were little more than scratches on the rock faces, anything anyone else did that made any scratch anywhere was deemed to be a copy cat drawing and copyright infringement. All the activities of all the people of the species ground to a halt. Unable to find food they just starved to death.

Comment Re:It is time someone belled the cat. But wish.. (Score 1) 187

The user could log into the bank account and transfer funds to AppStore account. From there Apple could handle micro payments to the vendors. Vendors cash out from the bank. Completely skipping MC/Visa infrastructure, if the NFC terminals are iPad or iPhone based. Ideally I would like something like this emerge in Android and in iOS so that there is some real viable competition to Visa/MC duopoly.

But looks like Apple is also talking to MC/Visa. So Apple does not seem to be competing with them, rather it is also looking to get a cut like the issuing banks are doing now.

Slashdot Top Deals

Friction is a drag.

Working...