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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment How can he even show his face? (Score 1) 190

What gets me is that the lead author has claimed (and UT seems to believe) that his conflict of interest had no impact on the quality or findings of the report. This is unlikely, but possible. I won't belabor that point. But the the only other explanation for allowing his name at the top of this nonsense is gross negligence and/or extreme incompetence, either of which should disqualify him from any academic position ever. At this point he is at best a corporate shill, and at worst an unethical idiotic corporate shill.

Comment Re:Stego (Score 1) 332

At least in criminal trials, juries are intended to be finders of fact only, which requires no prior experience or knowledge of the relevant laws. The system was designed this way on purpose and is potentially way more equitable than a system in which someone's job/career/reputation is at stake every time he or she reaches a verdict. 12 strangers may be more emotional than a single judge, but in the long run will probably be more fair.

Nobody wants their case to be decided as soon as they find out they have the judge who thinks everyone is guilty.

Comment Not a great use of resources (Score 1) 371

Regarding the actions of the police under the covers, are these activities in general efficient uses of police time and taxpayer money? Why are undercover police spending seven years infiltrating environmental activists? Not terrorists, mind you, but activists. Another officer spent 4 years infiltrating an anti-racist group. Not racists, but people against racism. Really?

Seems like in seven years agents could infiltrate various government or corporate entities and expose enough graft that the program could pay for itself.

Comment Re:Crap title (Score 1) 137

No, 1000% per year compounded over 3 years would be an increase of 1000 (1000% is 10 times, year 0 = 1, year 1 = 10*1 = 10, year 2 = 10 times year 1 = 100, year 3 = 10 times year 2 = 1000);

For a 30x growth in 3 years that would be an annual growth of 310%.

To calculate a yearly increase of some initial amount A at a rate of r, you would use A(1+r)
You don't just multiply the rate of increase by the initial value to get the value at the next iteration. A 100% yearly growth rate implies doubling each year, whereas in your calculation a 100% growth rate implies a static state

.

Comment Math (Score 4, Informative) 137

Somebody forgot about compounded growth.

1000% growth over three years (compounded annually) would have them grown a thousandfold over three years. Compounded continuously would be ridiculously large.

If you assume continuous growth, the actual growth rate would be ln(30)/3, or about 113%. If you just want a number to quote as the annual growth rate that would give a thirtyfold increase over three years, go with 211% since (1+2.11)^3 is about 30.

Comment I do not think it means what you think it means (Score 1) 478

Immaculate conception is not the same concept as virgin birth. If the original sin of Adam and Eve have tainted all births since Genesis, consider what the serpent's offspring have had to deal with.

To the religious minded it may be even more inconceivable that a snake be born without sin than without a father.

Comment Re:There is not, and cannot be... (Score 1) 228

There are other methods to increase the alcohol content besides distillation. Freezing, for example, works very similar to distillation since alcohol freezes at a lower temperature than water. Get a freezer between these two temperatures and then remove the ice. The finished product is still considered beer.

Slashdot Top Deals

There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.

Working...