Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Bad Summary (Score 1) 1277

Technically they're right. We are not a democracy, we are a republic.

Correct.

Their reasons for doing this may be wrong...

What? I RTA and they don't say anything about democracy having the word democrat in it. It is a valid concern that students in public school systems should be correctly taught what type of government we are (meant to) have. Especially these days when so many are being taught that the government takes care of everything and is the ultimate authority in everyone's lives.

Comment Disaggree with Comments (Score 1) 539

The modern linux is wonderful. There are lots more options and lots of them suck, but some don't. In the old days, there were no options. The one way sucked (sometimes). Todays linux still has everything intact and if you dont want all the Walmart Linux applications, you dont have to run them. Try Gentoo if you still really like to create the universe. But even there you have MUCH more stability and MUCH more supported hardware then in the bad old days.

Comment It goes beyond complete systems (Score 1) 609

Most major brand motherboards (for example) you buy will come with at least one cd. You have to look at each application very carefully, often their names are not intuitive and there is no description. If you want to install chipset drivers, video, sound & maybe the update app, you will have to know what you are looking for.

Comment Re:Bill is a Eugenicist (Score 1) 832

Your an idiot. If half of them died before they were ten (and he's going to fix this) then how would it even be a factor in over population? That's fucking ass backwards thinking. Not to mention that you, like Gates, seem to view people as rabbits or cockroaches or something. I find that perspective completely disgusting.
Science

Why Published Research Findings Are Often False 453

Hugh Pickens writes "Jonah Lehrer has an interesting article in the New Yorker reporting that all sorts of well-established, multiply confirmed findings in science have started to look increasingly uncertain as they cannot be replicated. This phenomenon doesn't yet have an official name, but it's occurring across a wide range of fields, from psychology to ecology and in the field of medicine, the phenomenon seems extremely widespread, affecting not only anti-psychotics but also therapies ranging from cardiac stents to Vitamin E and antidepressants. 'One of my mentors told me that my real mistake was trying to replicate my work,' says researcher Jonathon Schooler. 'He told me doing that was just setting myself up for disappointment.' For many scientists, the effect is especially troubling because of what it exposes about the scientific process. 'If replication is what separates the rigor of science from the squishiness of pseudoscience, where do we put all these rigorously validated findings that can no longer be proved?' writes Lehrer. 'Which results should we believe?' Francis Bacon, the early-modern philosopher and pioneer of the scientific method, once declared that experiments were essential, because they allowed us to 'put nature to the question' but it now appears that nature often gives us different answers. According to John Ioannidis, author of Why Most Published Research Findings Are False, the main problem is that too many researchers engage in what he calls 'significance chasing,' or finding ways to interpret the data so that it passes the statistical test of significance—the ninety-five-per-cent boundary invented by Ronald Fisher. 'The scientists are so eager to pass this magical test that they start playing around with the numbers, trying to find anything that seems worthy,'"

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't compare floating point numbers solely for equality.

Working...