Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment: That test is unscientific (Score 3, Informative) 294

by tgv (#49762273) Attached to: Study: Science Still Seen As a Male Profession

The implicit bias test used is controversial, to say the least. According to mainstream cognitive psychology, it measures temporary perceptual associations via priming. These do not have a causal relation with higher level opinions. The effect can be caused by something as uninteresting as the local way of referring to science and scientists.

Methods? They had a large number of factors to correlate with their data: 25 (possibly a few more, depending on what you read), and ran a multiple regression over it, and are reporting an effect for every p .05. That's bad science at multiple levels.

It's just another fishing expedition.

Comment: Re:Rust made a mistake in going C++-syntax (Score 1) 149

by tgv (#49729583) Attached to: Rust 1.0 Released

I see. Printf is a bit of a weird function: perhaps they need a better macro syntax. Expanding at compile time is safe, so a good language for that might overcome (part of) these problems.

> it will actually become common and necessary to "do ugly things" in order to get stuff done in real-world applications.

Quite likely. But if that can be kept to a minimum, possibly shielded behind macros and the likes, and the rest of the code can achieve good performance, then we might have won something.

Comment: Re:Rust made a mistake in going C++-syntax (Score 2) 149

by tgv (#49704071) Attached to: Rust 1.0 Released

> A simple printf function has to be a macro

I don't see anything wrong with that. Actually, it sounds quite sensible: it gets rid of some ugly variable arguments handling code, but still keeps the source readable. For the rest: Rust is an interesting idea, but doesn't look ideal. Apparently, it does not interface well with C++, only C, but mixing with C++ could be a good start. Rewrite some buggy code in Rust where it makes sense while keeping the rest in C++.

Comment: Re:In whose interest is this? (Score 1) 29

Come on. This kind of front page publicity is very, very rare. Two days, no less. And this research has been done before. And in general, one or two experiments are not going to reveal the ultimate truth, so why the sudden interest in this?

> Because this research is interesting for humans who reproduce and attempt to teach their offspring to act like adult human beings in 18 years or so.

So because the staff is interested in it personally? Then just write so upfront. "I'm personally interested in this."

Comment: Don't!! (Score 1) 51

by tgv (#49687389) Attached to: How Light at Night Affects Preschoolers' Sleep Patterns (Video)

Don't crowdfund research. It's bad for publicly funded research. As soon as the government, the universities and the grant organizations find out that crowdfunding works, they'll cut budgets or make their funding dependent on privately acquired money. That means only public darlings will get funded, or projects with corporate backing, and that the research results can end up in a drawer if there are larger backers that have made such provisions. In short, by funding research, you're killing it. Instead, write your congressman or member of parliament.

Comment: Re:Some random CEO passed away? Oh noes! (Score 1) 176

by tgv (#49609183) Attached to: SurveyMonkey's CEO Dies While Vacationing With Wife Sheryl Sandberg

> as far as valuation.

Ah, you a worthy of front page attention by being the visionless CEO of some unimportant and technologically totally uninteresting company as long as enough drool comes from the mouth of Goldman-Sachs analysts?

At least you're honest, I suppose.

All life evolves by the differential survival of replicating entities. -- Dawkins