Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Sounds good... (Score 4, Informative) 89

That is, if you're near a large supply of readily accessible water.

If you read TFS (not even TFA) you'll see that this has been built "on a naval base in Port Hueneme, Calif." Port Hueneme is on the West Coast of California, right next to the Pacific Ocean. Is that a sufficient supply of water for you?

Comment Re:If it's "settled", it ISN'T "science" (Score 1) 552

You may be right. However, I'm not thinking about how the conditions on the grant are worded, I'm thinking of how they're interpreted. As an example, a grant to study long-term trends in the global climate is nice and even-handed, but if it's never awarded to anybody expressing a contrarian opinion (Please note: this is a made-up example.) the effect is to fund scientists who accept AGW while making it hard for others to test their ideas. I'm not saying that it is happening, but we all know that most politicians are more interested in things that fit their idea of how the world works than in finding out if it does or doesn't.

Comment Re:If it's "settled", it ISN'T "science" (Score -1, Troll) 552

IMHO the Science isn't settled, because science isn't consensus.

Exactly. I'd also suggest that if you really want to find out what's going on, follow the money. There's lots and lots of grant money out there for people in that field, but only if their results match what the politicians need to push their agendas. You don't even need to bias the peer review (If that's actually going on, that is.) if the only studies to get funded say what you want to hear and the contrarian ones don't get funded.

Comment Re:Rajiv.. (Score 2) 219

Someone else suggested giving incorrect information in the training -- I wouldn't go that far, hm, incomplete might be ok.

I've never yet worked anywhere big enough to have an official way to do things where at least some of them weren't at least sub-optimal if not downright wrong. Teach the new hire how to do everything "by the book," and let him find out the hard way, after you're gone, why that's not always a good idea.

Comment Re:One possible argument for lunar industrializati (Score 1) 105

It seems like the Moon's surface could be a fantastic place for an absurdly large optical telescope.

Put it on the back side and you don't have to worry about any light pollution from the Earth. And, you can also set up a huge radio telescope back there because you won't have to worry about any interference from all of the the Earth's broadcast communications.

Comment Re:Metamoderation (Score 1) 1834

Back when I was metamodding, I never worried about distinctions that didn't make a difference. If somebody gave a post a +1 Informative that didn't tell me anything new, I wouldn't say that it was a bad moderation if I found the post insightful or interesting; an upmod is an upmod. And, of course, the same went for downmods. However, if a post was given -1 Flamebait and nobody had responded to it (or at least, nobody took the bait) I'd give it a downcheck on general principles.

Comment Re:There seem to be a lot of these backdoors (Score 1) 50

In fairness, intentionally weakening crypto requires as much understanding of it as doing it right.

In this case, all it would have needed is understanding that it's important that the numbers used to generate the keys are prime and that substituting a composite number would make the keys easier to find. I'm not claiming that this is what happened, but it's not something that only a cryptography specialist could have come up with.

Comment Metamoderation (Score 4, Insightful) 1834

Back when I first registered here, metamoderation consisted of examining how posts had been moderated and judging it was deserved or not. That is, you'd be given a post and told that it had been given a +1 Informative, and asked if it deserved that. I really enjoyed helping out that way and almost never failed to metamoderate.

Now, you're shown a set of posts that have been moderated and asked if they're good posts or bad posts, with no idea of how they were originally rated. You have no context, no way of knowing if you're being asked to judge an upmod or a downmod (For all I know, you're being asked to judge all the mods a post received in one lump.) and no way to tell what effect your decision will have.

It's been years, now, since I've even bothered with metamodding, but if you went back to the old style where people knew just what moderations they were checking, I'd gladly start doing it again, and I doubt I'm the only person here who feels that way. Metamoderation used to serve an important function here, and I'd like to see that come back.

Slashdot Top Deals

You have a tendency to feel you are superior to most computers.