Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Start a company (Score 1) 348

And your someone who did not read the article. These are researchers that want to engage in pure research, ask the tough questions that may not have an immediate application. But that's the point about research, discoveries lead to new ideas.

FYI published papers *DO* result in products. Someone takes the ideas in the paper and turns it into something. That's the step that you missing in your list. We call those people engineers.

Comment Re:Tax patents/royalties to fund basic research (Score 1) 348

I hate to break it to you but not one single drug is developed in a vacuum. All research is based on other research. No pharmaceutical company develops drugs that is not based on other research. More importantly there have been no break through drugs developed by the pharmaceutical industry that justifies their 15 year exclusive patents. All they have done is make allergy medications and penis drugs.

I agree about the patents but blame the corporations that claim they can't make the drugs with out them. That's not the NIH's fault.

Comment Re:Stop using tax dollars (Score 1) 348

Hardly. Pure research has traditionally been funded by government because the private sector is risk adverse. But funding has been cut back and back until almost incredibly bland and tame ideas are tested. Cutting edge research is not being done in the United States which leads to a brain drain. People are giving up or leaving for other countries that will fund the research. This puts the United States at a competitive disadvantage.

Comment Re:Not the usual way science is done (Score 3, Insightful) 74

Jesus christ people read the article not the title. Hell even the abstract pointed out the problem: SMALL DATA SETS! There was nothing wrong with the original reporting. Based on the sample size that was the proper conclusion to reach. I would not jump to the conclusion that the Bayesian analysis overturned the original conclusion. What the Bayesian analysis points to is that a new trial should be conducted with a larger sample size.

FYI there's already a blind system. Again - read people.

Comment Re:Lucrative for whom? (Score 1) 387

LMOL yeah they've been saying that for decades and yet COBOL is still here. I don't think you understand how much it would cost to re-write those COBOL application. You are not converting code. There's no magical button that will transform COBOL into the flavor of the month language. You are starting from scratch and oh you need to bring in the existing data. GOOD LUCK!

It's far more lucrative to learn COBOL than the latest flavor of the month where it's easier to outsource you to some guy in India. It's far easier to fill positions that use popular languages. It also means your pay will be lower because of the competition.

It comes down to what you want to do and what industry you want to work. COBOL could be a very good learning experience even if you don't plan on being their for the rest of your career.

Comment Re:COBOL and FORTRAN (Score 1) 387

Agreed. Many companies got dragged into the mainframes are bad client/servers good debate only to find out that servers did not have the up-time that mainframes have. Just because it's shiny and new does not make it better. That's the sorry state of IT. IT does not want to support they just want to replace.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Marriage is low down, but you spend the rest of your life paying for it." -- Baskins

Working...