Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:The Republicans are right (Score 1) 491

by Black Parrot (#49185103) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills

Depends on what you mean by 'reproducible'. Who's going to reproduce the discovery of the Higg's boson? Who's going to reproduce the big bang, biological evolution, climate change, or continental drift. Of if not actually reproduce those events, what counts as reproducing the science behind them.

The devil is in the details.

Comment: Re:Last straw? (Score 5, Interesting) 533

Finally, someone uses their brain. Sure, we could send a big army over there and stomp them into the ground. But then what?

And if anyone thinks Saddam's dead-enders were a big headache, what do you suppose a bunch of religious zealots will be?

Cue Mencken on problems and solutions.

Comment: Re:disclosure (Score 1) 448

Bullshit. Papers directly supported by funding/grants should, and usually do, thank/credit the sources. But just because someone funded you for one thing doesn't mean you have to disclose that in every paper you write that is remotely related.

Papers directly supported by funding/grants usually don't thank/credit sources (or maybe it's just so small that I never noticed it?).

It's de rigueur, and honest funding sources expect you to credit them.

In my field it's usually a paragraph right before the references cited. Sometimes there is also a Conflict of Interest statement, which I think is required by certain journals.

On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. -- Cartoon caption

Working...