As a matter of fact, medicine has been trying very hard to stop basing its beliefs in "individual experiences" but rather in statistical proof that meds work or don't work. I think people upvoted you because medicine is increasingly impersonal and that's unfortunate, but equating this to listening to personal experiences when discussing medications is ludicrous. Have we learnt nothing from the big vaccine scare? Some people deducted that it was vaccines that cause autism and were treated as equals by the media. This is actively leading to quite a few children needlessly dying. To make this more applicable to Slashdot readers: replace "doctors" with "IT specialists" or "programmers". Should we really treat everybody as equals when it comes to implementing new policies, what technologies to use or which devices to use? Of course not, expertise is needed, otherwise the new policy will be to install at least 4 toolbars for IE 6 on every Compaq computer.

Because they are not learning CS with this class but how a computer works. This class is meant for humanities students who never took a "computer" class and looks very good for that purpose. Did you really think that the Stanford CS curriculum will stop teaching recursion...?

To clarify, this class is a cursory overview of how computers work, a few basics on whats makes them tick and how to make them do fun things. This class is meant as a general education "learn about computers" effort, this is NOT their intro to CS class. Look at CS106X for programming, CS103X for discrete math, ... To repeat: Stanford is NOT teaching CS majors javascript, they are showing off what computer can do for humanities students with CS101. On a side note: I can see why most commenters would not catch this but how did the editors miss this obvious fact? Do a tiny bit of background research (aka click their link) and you will see how this summary is entirely misleading.

The FDA? The FDA is extremely aggressive and restrictive compared to European regulators for instance. This results in drugs reaching the U.S. market much later. One can argue that this delay causes more damage than by introducing drugs a bit earlier.

Only stupid people have social networking accounts? Everybody gets to control how much information you want to share with others and be available online. Some decide that easier communications between friends and acquaintances is worth posting a few facts about yourself online, it doesn't automatically make them stupid. I am certain that a good amount of slashdot users maintain social networking accounts and the majority of people don't post every detail of their lives on them either.

You know, many "this paper looks interesting" discoveries had a larger impact on your life through medicine etc than landing on the moon. Don't discredit something with potentially huge implications just because you can't "see" it, groundbreaking discoveries can be on any scale.

They have nuclear weapons. I'd say that's a pretty big threat.

Lacking in detail and lacking a real conclusion as studies tend to be? This really depends on your definition of a study. A "study" that leads to a newspaper article (like this) can't be held to the same standards as a study that appears in a peer-reviewed journal. Please don't let this little experiment color your image of actual research.

24 can be a statistically significant sample size, no problem. Remember that sample size AND effect size determine significance. (Just a warning to prevent people from thinking that sample size only is important or that 24 can never be a real study). Now in this specific study this didn't work out quite that well as they aren't statistically significant and therefore can be promptly ignored.

I seriously don't get this mentality where drinking and driving is acceptable. What people don't realize is that even without drinking we have WAY too many accidents as it is. Frankly it's one of the only areas where we as a society can make signifiant changes to everybody's safety without the need for more research or medical discoveries. I have to admit that my viewpoint is obviously skewed having seen way too many car-crashes as an EMT but once you realize that these crashes actually do happen (and not very infrequently compared to other medical issues we get called to) it makes you think of how to avoid them. We as a society shouldn't be so complacent with our current death-rates when traveling by car. Many of these deaths are avoidable (mostly through personal responsibility or more training) and I just can't see why anyone would increase everybody's risk further by drinking and driving (even if they are just a little impaired). Having seen the destruction accidents can bring to whole families it just doesn't make sense. (And before someone brings the "safety nut" argument, I am by no means a risk-averse person but I do like statistics and it looks like drunk driving just has too high a risk for the little benefit it offers)

Yes it is likely that you will be using LaTeX for submitting your paper but first you will need to find an appropriate journal for it and follow THEIR style guidelines. It's not as simple as "hey I wrote this, wanna publish it?" but a rather long and complex process where you draft it based on the journal's requirements (word-counts, formatting, citations, ...). As for, why not publish to Science? Because he won't get in and it's a huge waste of time to prepare a manuscript for them. For someone writing their first journal article, you will need some practice in academic writing, even if your research is good - that doesn't cut it for journals like Science - your research has to be groundbreaking. My recommendation is to find a cool conference that fits your topic well and submit it there. Much more rewarding as you also get to present your paper and have an actual audience. Good luck, it's a lengthy process to publish but if you have any results you will find the appropriate venue!

I'd be curious to see an account of how much money is spent on what in the making of a movie. I'd expect a huge percentage to still be used for producers, famous actors, ... Sounds like they are having a hard time realizing that the golden age is over and they might have to take a step down financially.

I hear that NASA really only has idiots... Joking aside, you see that these generalizations don't work all that well and there very well can be experts that work for the government. Most medical research is done on the governments dime (NIH), are those guys unqualified as well? (As an aside: calling someone an idiot because he said something you disagree with doesn't help this interesting discussion a bit...)

Next time you need to take drug X for condition Y please don't do that - you really shouldn't trust PhDs to have developed a safe and efficient drug. Seriously though, what kind of statement is that? "I would never trust a PhD to do anything actually useful." is getting upvoted even on slashdot. No wonder science has little chance to succeed in America when even some of us geeks think that (completely ignoring evidence to the contrary).

Oh come on, the example you give works for so few cases nowadays. Science today is different from "chasing a storm" or "try to fly using home-made wings". Sure there are some areas of exploration left but real science nowadays is a bit more complicated than the simple concepts of "chasing a storm" or doing something for the first time. Science has gotten so complex that it's (somewhat sadly) not realistic for an amateur to contribute significantly without years of training in most fields. I know it sucks and I also want the opportunity to explore something important but we first have to put in the work...