Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Paywalls? (Score 1) 136

by Uecker (#48661657) Attached to: Does Journal Peer Review Miss Best and Brightest?

Somehow these journals need to be paid for their work. Peer review is not free, publishing is not free. Just putting it all out on the Internet for free is not a viable business model, as is proven by the many pay-to-publish crap journals discussed here many times recently.

While I agree with most other things you said, I think you got this completely wrong. Peer review is done by volunteers and publishing is relatively cheap (and the traditional scientific publishers make a lot of profit). You can easily operate a journal with very minor resources. And this is exactly the reason there are many pay-to-publish journals which are crap. It is just very cheap to set them up. But not all of these journals are crap (PLOS ONE is the most prominent example of a highly-ranked journals of this kind) and those which are crap are not because they are pay-to-publish. And many traditional publishers have crap journals too (remember the fake journals from Elsevier?). There is simply no direct relationship between the publishing model and quality.

The real reason the good journals are still mostly the traditional ones is simply momentum. As a scientist you need to publish in good journals to get attention to your work. The good journals get to select the most interesting research because everybody submits there first. And the readers (other scientists) read these journals exactly because it has the most interesting content. It is a self-sustaining cycle. Because - as you said - scientists have usually free institutional access to most journals, there is also not too much pressure for change. Only the public gets screwed because it does not get direct access to the research output and also because university libraries have to pay for the over-priced journals. But things are slowly changing because funding agencies start to demand open-access.

Comment: Re:Copenhagen interpretation != less complicated (Score 1) 196

by Uecker (#48645099) Attached to: Quantum Physics Just Got Less Complicated

The violation of Bell's inequalities shows that there are no local hidden variable theories, but there might be non-local hidden variable theories. But in contrast to what you seem to think, non-local hidden variables theories do not necessarily enable faster than light (FTL) communication.

Comment: Re:more simplifications and fewer cats, please (Score 1) 196

by Uecker (#48636557) Attached to: Quantum Physics Just Got Less Complicated

Well, the truth is we have the non-locality anyway. Whatever happens which reduces the measurement to a definite result is non-local. And - ofcourse - there has to be something like this. Stil, I am not too convinced by the pilot wave theory, but it is at least an attempt to deal with the inherent problems of QM by trying to create a proper physical theory, not by philosophical bullshit.

Comment: Re:American wastefulness at its finest (Score 1) 143

by Uecker (#48579137) Attached to: Using Discarded Laptop Batteries To Power Lights

Rather obviously it does not work out in the wash. This discussion was about the massive waste of energy in the US which leads to a per capita consumption which is about twice that of other highly developed countries such as Japan and Germany and order of magnitude compared to developing countries. The externalities of the energy use affect people globally (like the war in Iraq and its dire consquences or global warming). As such, your idea that "It's not to anyone's detriment other than the person spending" is simple wrong.

Comment: Re:Wha?!?!!! (Score 1) 172

by Uecker (#48557971) Attached to: Just-Announced X.Org Security Flaws Affect Code Dating Back To 1987

I am not sure why you think rewriting in a different way is the solution. One could also refactor and fix bugs (which is being done).

For example the implementation of the core X protocol has been described as good by the guy who found these bugs (because
bugs have already been fixed in the past). New code will not automatically be better: E.g. compare his comments about Qt and KDE.

From looking at it superficially, Wayland seems to be a pretty good code quality though. I am just not too much a fan of breaking
compatibility with the on-the-wire protocol of X.

Comment: Re:faster-than-light propagation of non-informatio (Score 1) 122

by Uecker (#48528399) Attached to: The Fastest Camera Ever Made Captures 100 Billion Frames Per Second

Ok, I try again.

He claims that a moving non-object (a shadow, a reflection of light, or a mouse cursor) isn't real. They are real.

Of course the reflections are real. The movement is not real.

They can be seen, they can be measured and defined. And they can move faster than the speed of light.

They are real, but the movement is not. There is no movement of anything - because the reflections you see at different times are different reflections. They are just synchronized in some way to make it appear as there were moving - in other words: it is an illusion. Different things appearing at different places at different times is not movement. Do you know the story of the Hare and the Hedgehog?