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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Probably not... (Score 2) 136

Many distributions have package groups now, which should fill the role of a "LAMP distribution". In Fedora you can for instance install (yum groupinstall) "Web Server", "MySQL Database", "Authoring and Publishing", "Development Tools". That should give you a basic PHP/MySQL setup.
Gentoo has added something similar too recently, probably Debian has also somthing like that, at least in the GUI.

Comment Re:No more bailout (Score 1) 690

Greece's financial problems can be solved if corruption and tax aversion is drastically reduced, which is part of the program Alexis Tsipras promotes. That is why the Troika only gives money if reforms are made and I think they know it is the key for Greece to become financially independent again.

Comment Re:slashdot? (Score 2) 467

Frankly, I'm surprised Twitter ended up as popular as it is for having basically no structure other than "fits in an SMS message" and "# and @ mean something".

That is exactly why it became popular; brevity and free structure. If you concentrate on sent messages (@recipient) I suspect that the trolls (actually rather death and rape threat-sending harassers) are largely repeat offenders. If everyone has a chance to flag them (something akin to karma), and responses/notifications from those troll accounts do not show up anymore, the problem is largely solved(?).

Comment Re:The biggest failure of science: (Score 2) 200

Here is what they do:
1) Set up some null hypothesis of zero correlation between jogging and health, diet and health, etc (probably at least five per study).
2) Measure things until one of the outcomes reaches "statistical significance".
3) Misinterpret this statistical significance to be the probability their theory is true: jogging really does affect health.

Where is the science in that? Do not blame science.

And do not state the size of the effect.

Here is a nice article about exactly this, titled Mindless statistics

Submission + - Human Exploration of Planets cheaper than sending Robots (arxiv.org)

buchner.johannes writes: Putting humans on Mars will get you more bang for the buck, according to a new analysis by the Director of the UCL/Birkbeck Centre for Planetary Science and Astrobiology. Humans are simply better at complex tasks like drilling, while robots have a difficult time just navigating through the rugged terrain, and can thus cover less ground. Small, autonomous, cheap and very intelligent rovers have thus not become a reality — instead the size (and cost) of robots has steadily increased, contrary to Moore-law-like predictions. The autonomous navigation is a hard problem that is not easily solved technically. The article compares the cost of the Apollo missions and the Mars Science Laboratory in detail to illustrate the comparison of human vs. robotic exploration programs. The original article (PDF) also notes that human space-flight benefits from non-scientific motivations, which can further increase the available budget.

Comment Re:Wrong, IMHO (Score 1) 96

There are 2 competing theories for the beginnings of the Universe.

There are many more theories (read: thousands) for the expansion of the Universe since the last scattering (CMB) (the topic of your post), and hundreds for the origin of the early universe (mostly inflation, but also others). Another hundred theories for what Dark Energy is (the most recent expansion).
If you only hear people talking about one theory, you are probably in the wrong room.

Comment Re:Are GMOs safe (Score 1) 514

The surveys found broad support for government to spend money on science, but that doesn't mean the public supports the conclusions that scientists draw.

If I understand the report correctly, they sampled "scientists", but not scientists actually working in the field. E.g. the fraction of scientists working on climate who attribute climate change to human activities is around 99% (IIRC), not below 90%. So all they did is compare a group with average education levels to a group with very high education levels (measured in obtained degrees). Not sure that tells us much. The sentence "that doesn't mean the public supports the conclusions that scientists draw" at least does not follow.

Some are things like having your food produce poison (insecticide). I'm not sure how my food containing more poison is more safe.

Probably for the same reason you use WiFi. You think there is a level of poison that is safe (Paracelsus says hi), whereas someone uninformed may think even a single molecule / ray is the devil.

Regarding your other misconceptions:

I'm not sure how my food containing more poison is more safe. Have the scientists actually studied it, or are they just assuming it's safe because other scientists made it?

There is a reason insecticides are put in: to combat insects, as the name suggests. Which can affect your food in a negative way. It's a trade-off with a benefit. Otherwise go for organic food, which uses other solutions (typically more manpower).
The study of the effects of toxins is a serious topic. There are safety standards for virtually every chemical -- ask your consumer protection agency. Typically the limits are derived from medical studies.

Comment Re:pretty much expected. (Score 2) 46

IT security is about tradeoffs.

Not true, you can have worse security without gaining anything. So you can also increase security without loosing any comfort. You are setting up a false premise that more security always requires a sacrifice. What we really need instead is a measure of achieved security, to rid ourselves of unnecessary, security-theatre-based sacrifices both in terms of privacy and money.

Slashdot Top Deals

Work without a vision is slavery, Vision without work is a pipe dream, But vision with work is the hope of the world.

Working...