Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Most science is wrong, as it should be. (Score 1) 962

Most scientific hypotheses fail. So most scientists are usually WRONG. That is not a bad thing. Proving something does not work is knowledge too. But these days scientists appear more like game show hosts. They will say anything knowing hardly anyone will dispute it, and scientific refutation does not usually get reports. Political correctness takes precedent over the scientific method.

This leads to stories worthy of Monty Python. The most recent I have seen was a scientist who died of plague. He was working with a genetically modified version of plague that should have been non-infectious. So they implemented no bio-hazard controls. Since they really had no clue what they were doing, they actually created a version of plague optimized for the genetic condition common to descendants of plague survivors. The scientist died, and a bio-hazard incident on the campus. Talk about Darwin Awards.

In shot take all pronouncements Deus ex Scientifica with a large grain of sand, and wait a few years for the actual physical proof.

Comment Re:To the people complaining about this (Score 1) 753

IMO, this is just as bad as those two. Given all of the core functions of government that are not working today; Given the lack of universal health care. Given the generally shoddy state of the social safety net; Given the generally shoddy state of the economy - maybe the government should spend 3% of GDP on more important things?

This is just welfare for PHD's.

Comment Re:3% if GDP for 480,000 people? (Score 1) 753

3% for scientists is just as bad as 3% for the military (although military defense is a constitutional duty of the federal government while funding research is not).

I argue that 3% of GDP is a ridiculous amount to give to 480,000 scientists. How many research projects that get grants actually benefit society? How are many esoteric studies of useless phenomena?

Does the taxpayer profit from fruits of the research the taxpayer funds? Nope. Any federally funded research should result in patents in the public domain that are open to all.

Given that we don't have the basics such as universal health care, pensions, or a social safety net that comes any where close to that in the EU, I think the money is better spent somewhere other than science at this time.

Comment 3% if GDP for 480,000 people? (Score 1, Interesting) 753

What a complete and utter crock. 3% of GDP dedicated to 480,000 scientists.

Does the public get any payback if research develops the Next Big Thing? Nope, the scientist goes off, gets a patent and gets wildly personally wealthy.

Foreclosures are still rising. Unemployment is still increasing. Wages are still falling. This money would be better spent on the people.

Comment Economic Sense or No Choice? (Score 3, Insightful) 769

GM has no choice at this point. They have taken so much government cheese that they will build whatever they are told to, no matter the cost.

That said, as much as I liked and wanted a Prius, the numbers did not add up. I could get a Fit that averages 38/41 on my commute for $10,000 less than a Prius that averages 45/47mpg on my commute. The Prius no longer has a tax subsidy and 10 grand is a huge nut. I went for the cash in hand.

My VW Rabbit in high school got 60mpg, and my friends' Civics and CRX's got 40+ in the 1980's....why do even small 4cyl cars get such bad mileage today? Is it just the weight of added safety features?

Comment Does it even matter? (Score 2, Interesting) 951

So creationism or Intelligent Design are individuals or religions' way to integrate current science into existing dogma. So what?

Religions have been morphing and changing for 1000's of years for various reasons.

Shoot, most of the material I read on evolution practically implies intelligence in the process, that it approaches deism. The consumer level science outlets are the worst.

Comment Security, Costs, and Flexibility (Score 1) 431

Regardless of web or not, security will drive movement back to centralized data processing. It is more cost effective to secure data in one location than it is to secure thousands of employee desktops and laptops.

Cost will drive data back to the data center. The author's assertion that modern computers are like Cray's only means that companies are wasting money buying unused CPU cycles that can be better used on a centralized farm where cycles can be distributed where needed on the fly.

The flexibility of web deployment means fewer VPNs, faster deployment of new physical work sites, and the potential to run on all sorts of devices.

Slashdot Top Deals

Always draw your curves, then plot your reading.

Working...