Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Gender-shaming (Score 2) 289

What are ./ readers supposed to do with this "information"?

Clearly, we're supposed to get mad that the research was ever even done and then stomp on it as hard as we can to make it go away.

Sometimes research results are just research results. They may not indicate any particular course of action. But lots of people will flip the fuck out anyway because they think that the facts will be used to push action in a direction they don't like.

Comment Re: Militia ? (Score 1) 336

I don't think anybody was committing violence. They were just threatening it if people tried to enforce the law. If I was on your property and you called the police to have me removed, I don't think you could call me a peaceful protester if I made it clear that I was willing to exchange gunfire with any law enforcement office who came to remove me. That designation is reserved for people who allow themselves to be arrested without physical incident.

Comment Re:The "Floor" was always a kludge (Score 1) 138

Who is getting screwed? 1. The big institutional investors, who used to face the little guys on the exchanges but now only face each other and the HFTs. 2. The floor traders on the exchanges, who used to be able to play incredible shenanigans with the markets.

Exactly this. There have always been lucky bastards who were closer to the action and used that fact to extract cash from people far away, even back when markets included trades that were done by courier moved by sailing ship. The definition of "closer" has just gotten smaller and smaller and instead of a few lucky lumps picking up big chunks of money, it's a bunch of them moving really fast to pick up pennies. Nobody has really made a convincing case that the total amount of cash that these folks extract is larger than it was in the past as a percentage of total transactions. My guess is that it's getting smaller and smaller, and the difference between how much the average Joe pays and how much institutional investors pay is getting smaller as well.

Comment Not big on pair programming but (Score 2) 186

...pair debugging can be great. Two people looking at the same code and same test output at the same time can go back and forth designing tests and interpreting results really effectively, especially if the bug is at the intersection of two modules that you're reach responsible for. Of course, you don't spend all day every day debugging or something has gone very wrong wrong.

Comment Re:I'm not seeing the problem here (Score 1) 315

Seriously. There are enough cases about really unfair and arbitrary profiling of innocent Muslims that they don't need to use this nonsense example. If a kid writes that he lives in a terrorist house or a meth lab house or that daddy is a bank robber, somebody is going to poke around and see what's up.

A side lesson: If you actually do plan on running a terrorist house, don't have little kids living in it. They're really bad at keeping secrets.

Comment Re:return to reality, please (Score 1) 357

Oy. Wants to show glyphosate has been shown to be toxic. Presents a link to an article about research that shows damage in children exposed to glyphosate and two insecticides that are known to be toxic and cause developmental issues during pregnancy. You can kill sheep with witchcraft if you also feed them arsenic.

Look, glyphosate has had a target on its back for years. The piles of research done on it are not just done by Monsanto. And the research that has come out showing it to be dangerous is thin and weak at best. That's why bullshit sites like and need to scrape for articles that just sort of imply it's dangerous. Nobody has found the smoking gun because there probably isn't a smoking gun. It's not for lack of trying. It's for lack of evidence.

Comment Re: FUD (Score 1) 357

That not only happens in nature but in domestic crops as well. It could happen in any of the "naturally" bred versions of crops we plant. It has nothing specifically to do with GMO whatsoever. By not planting GMOs, you do absolutely nothing to mitigate that risk. So people who are anti-GMO because of that fear are also not basing their opposition on any good reasoning or science.

In fact, transgenics provide potential solutions to those types of blights when they happen. For example, the papaya industry in Hawaii. More recently, researchers have made progress on the citrus greening problem in Florida, which is on its way to being a major crisis.

Comment Re:Fraud Detected In Headline? (Score 1) 357

OK, let's go piece by piece. You wrote:

There are allusions to fraud but no evidence

I don't think I'm mischaracterizing your position by saying that you think there's no evidence of fraud. Postings of images from the papers that show signs of manipulation and duplication with different labels is evidence of fraud. Conclusive evidence? No. But strong evidence that should be weighed and not dismissed.

Later you wrote:

I don't know why the organizer is misrepresenting the report, or why he organized the thing in the first place.

Would it be unreasonable to characterize this statement as a claim that the organizer was misrepresenting the report? I'll back off on the claim that you accused the organizer of "lying" if you prefer to stick with wordplay and use the word "misrepresenting." But it seems to me like you made an accusation here without any support. What makes you think he's misrepresenting the contents of his own committee's report?

And as for "why he organized the thing in the first place" the reason is clear: He organized it on the instructions of the university rector. And the university rector gave those instructions because he received the evidence of image manipulation from Cattaneo and Bucci.

Comment Re:I know this is only 1 person and 1 family but.. (Score 1) 357

Organic simply means that no pesticides or chemical fertilizers were used in the production.

Actually, even that is a common myth. Organic growers are allowed to use both pesticides and chemical fertilizers. Just not all of them. And, like most religious strictures, the rules are a little bit arbitrary. They don't like to mention it because a big part of their customer buy-in is because most people erroneously believe that "organic" means "pesticide free." In reality, one of the most common pesticides in organic is the same pesticide that the anti-GMO people freak out about when it's produced by GMO plants. It's super dangerous when plants produce it, but it's totally safe for us to spray it onto organic crops.

Comment Re:Fraud Detected In Headline? (Score 1) 357

I apologize for overstating your position, but claiming somebody is misrepresenting a report from his own committee is a pretty strong accusation to make without presenting your reasoning and evidence.

If you're going to continue to make those types of claims, I recommend taking a look at the images and papers in question and the discussions around them. The summary in Nature is not the only information on this topic. The people they're reporting on are actually making real claims with real data. The fact that you've opted not to look at their evidence and instead wait for the committee's official result and a Nature summary of it (fine--that's what most people will do) is not the same as the evidence not being out there, and it doesn't put you in a good position to be accusing people of anything. The images and arguments are now publicly available and there are open discussions going on about what happened. It looks pretty bad.

Comment Re:Fraud Detected In Headline? (Score 2) 357

I don't know why the organizer is misrepresenting the report, or why he organized the thing in the first place.

So your contention is that the organizer of the report is lying to us about what's in the report, and you're basing it on the fact that Nature's summary of it is written in the journalistic neutral tone? What evidence do you have of misrepresentation? There's a whole bunch of stuff going on here, and none of it is as arbitrary as you're trying to make it appear:

1) Independent scientist finds images in the papers suspicious and commissions an expert to investigate them. Expert says it appears images were reused and manipulated.
2) The author's university starts an investigation. The person coordinating that investigation leaks the results early and says they found manipulation. This is the part you're asserting is a lie. I have no idea why you think so.
3) Investigator from (1) posts his analysis online for people to look at. You're discounting his analysis and the posted images because... it's on the Internet or something like that. Presumably if the images weren't on the Internet, the claims would be untrustworthy because they weren't available for scrutiny.

On the second point, maybe it'll take more to convince me than a personal internet post from someone who claims he found evidence.

This isn't some random guy with no credentials claiming something on his own authority. This is somebody with real expertise posting his claim and the evidence that supports his claim. This isn't, "Trust me, they're manipulated." It's, "Look at this here!"

Notice Nature is being careful to not say they think the images have or not been manipulated.

That's not surprising. It's exactly what every publication writes about preliminary results of investigations of people doing bad things. The serial killer is always the "alleged" serial killer. That doesn't mean there's no evidence. It just means the findings are preliminary or that nothing has been proven in a court of law. You can still actually look at the evidence and make a decision rather than simply asserting that the evidence doesn't exist.

Question: If I asked you before this came out, "What's the probability that this journal article is fraudulent?" and you had to decide on a probability based on nothing, would your estimate have been the same as if I asked you today? Mine certainly would have changed, and that conclusion would be based on evidence.

Slashdot Top Deals

A good supervisor can step on your toes without messing up your shine.