Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

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:car (Score 1) 188

by ClickOnThis (#49176959) Attached to: Study: Refactoring Doesn't Improve Code Quality

Car repair does not make car faster, nor more comfortable.

Well, sometimes it can. An engine or transmission in poor condition can slow down a car's uphill performance. A broken heater will make a car less comfortable in the winter. Repairs will correct these problems.

And so it goes with software refactoring. Removing redundant calculations and data-reads (e.g., out of loops) where possible will improve performance. Changing names of variables, functions, classes, etc., to reflect their use more closely will improve readability (or "comfort" if you will.)

Good car analogy, though.

Comment: Re:Financial Relationships (Score 1) 387

by ClickOnThis (#49143853) Attached to: Lawmakers Seek Information On Funding For Climate Change Critics

that is one fucking huge gravy train. I am sure no one will be influenced by this funding.....

Whenever I hear anyone compare scientific funding to a gravy train, I burn with contempt.

Surviving as an academic researcher is difficult. There is a high level of competition for grant money. Typically, only one out of every 5 to 10 proposals gets funded. The dollar amount of a grant can vary significantly from $100k to a few million, depending on whether the grant covers a year-long study, or a larger mission that involves building and/or transporting equipment to remote parts of the earth or to space. But no matter what the funding level, researchers' salaries are capped by the institution they work at. Getting more grant money just allows the researcher to do more projects with larger teams. It doesn't increase their take-home pay.

And let's not get too excited about the amount of $21.4B. It is comparable to recent yearly budgets of NASA.

Comment: Re: Inquisition (Score 1) 387

by ClickOnThis (#49141713) Attached to: Lawmakers Seek Information On Funding For Climate Change Critics

Wrong, a change is needed in science, where scientists disclose the agenda they are working to, and by who approves the agenda that is funded.

I see what you did there. You are implying that (climate) scientists have an agenda. And that makes it okay for AGW-deniers to have one, doesn't it?

If scientists aspire to any agenda, it is to advance the understanding of nature through observation of it. Of course, scientists are human, and some may have hidden agendas. That is why scientists are obliged to reveal their observations and their methods that they use to arrive at their conclusions, so their peers can examine it. Revealing their sources of funding is part of that process.

Comment: Re:disclosure (Score 3, Insightful) 445

by ClickOnThis (#49104007) Attached to: How One Climate-Change Skeptic Has Profited From Corporate Interests

Most of those who work on the IPCC reports are also paid by their universities, their respective governments or from grants to do their individual research when they are not working on an assessment report.

TapeCutter already said that they get their salary from the university, and thus indirectly from governments and/or grants.

I hope you are not trying to make us believe that only 5-6 million dollars a year is spent on climate research.

TapeCutter did not say that. S/he didn't even imply it. You made a straw man, and a pretty sloppy one at that.

Comment: Re:disclosure (Score 1) 445

by ClickOnThis (#49103977) Attached to: How One Climate-Change Skeptic Has Profited From Corporate Interests

You're expected to cite your funding sources in the acknowledgements of all academic publications, and some funding orgs will get super pissed at you if you don't.

It's common practice to cite not only the funding sources, but the actual grant numbers. The agencies may be supporting several areas of research, and they want to be sure the funding supported the area for which it was intended.

Comment: Re:No, MSNBC did not (Score 1) 211

by ClickOnThis (#49098429) Attached to: 800,000 Using Were Sent Incorrect Tax Data

Several ACs here have misunderstood my post. Rather than responding to each of them, I'm responding to my own to cover each of them. No offense intended.

First of all, I'm far from a Republican shill. I happen to like MSNBC. And although she's obviously biased, I think Rachel Maddow is an insightful commentator and I enjoy watching her show.

My point was that MSNBC has not done what greenwow claims. I can find no evidence that MSNBC "exposed" as a "lie" the report of 800,000 users receiving false tax information. Quite the contrary, in fact.

Genius is ten percent inspiration and fifty percent capital gains.