Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:But what system does he suggest instead? (Score 1) 308

You completely misunderstand what this is about. The problem is that productivity is measured in number of publications, regardless of quality of said publications. Anything that can scape by the reviewers, often in a 3rd or 4th attempt counts. The guy that gets all his stuff published on the first attempt, because it is actually good, does not stand a chance, because he will never get the numbers.

The problem is that low quality publications actually represent negative productivity.

There have been alternative methods to quantitatively assess qualitative measurements. If it were possible, I like to think we'd be doing it.

Comment Re:The double standard (Score 1) 308

Go to most science and engineering departments in the U.S. today, and you'll find senior faculty members sitting on P&T (promotion and tenure) committees who would never qualify for tenure if they were judged by the same standards they apply to junior faculty.

And how is that different from anywhere else? The old judge the young, on a standard that didn't exist before, and doesn't apply to them.

Case in point - How many senior managers are more qualified (educationally) than the people they are hiring?

Comment Re:I can confirm that (Score 1) 308

And in industry they do no research at all any more.

Incorrect.

There is plenty of research done by industry (well, depending on the industry). It is generally not pure research, though. It's focused and should bring some sort of competitive advantage. Also, industry will not publish to the same extent, or in the same manner, because it isn't pure science.

Maybe this is less true in CS than it is in biology or psychology, but I don't even need to check for sources to know that pharmaceutical companies and chemical companies both do quite a bit of research.

Comment Re:Money, Money, Money..... (Score 4, Informative) 308

That's the way it is. Keep the research papers churning, regardless of how utter crap they are, and more importantly keep the research grants flowing. I remember the BBC did a programme a few years ago asking why people are so sceptical about science these days. This is exactly why.

No. There is a distinct difference between poor quality science and bad science.

There's also the public tendency to reduce everything to a simple answer, when it's rarely simple.

Comment Re:But what system does he suggest instead? (Score 2) 308

This reminds me of my Health class in high school. At the end of the semester (it was a 1-semester class only, usually the other semester was used for driver's ed), the crazy old teacher gave everyone a grade on their notebook. His method for determining the quality of your notebook? The number of pages in it. I got a bad grade, because I wrote small and had few pages, even though I wrote down everything important. The guy next to me had giant writing, and filled up a bunch of pages just writing "Health is cool!" and got a high grade.

You think Universities would be more intelligent in their rating of professors than some idiotic old gym coach, but apparently not.

Did the gym coach tell you how it was being marked? Because, if he did, then you had a clear success criteria, and you failed to follow instructions.

Now, if he didn't tell you it was being marked that way, that's just bad teaching practice. But no one is claiming that the universities are deceiving candidates - they're just requiring quantity, not quality. That's a different scenario than you described.

Comment Could be used ... (Score 0) 98

You're telling me that the contents of a medical supply truck could be dangerous?!

Oh wait, you're telling me they're VERY dangerous? As in, more lethal than lethal? More poisonous than poison? More toxic than ... er ... part of a bomb?

Sorry. The hijack and theft of a supply truck, in an area of the world known for theft and hijacking isn't news. Sure, it's dangerous and bad. But ... news? Not really. Someone might look in the fridge and say "Hey, I've got the ingredients for Nachos, lets have Nachos". But even crazy people don't say "Hey, I just HAPPEN to have the ingredients for a dirty bomb. Why don't we do that instead of the other bombs we were going to build?".

A dirty bomb isn't a crime of opportunity, any more than another type of bomb. Let's not pretend otherwise.

Comment Re:Maybe, but... (Score 1) 246

...Iron Maiden had established a strong reputation and fan base before Internet piracy became a problem.

That's not really part of the argument, though - Maybe it should be, maybe it shouldn't be. Fact is, they have a strong brand that is valued by their fans.

Of course, you could always make a joke that the older fans don't actually understand the internet and its series of tubes.

Comment Re:Junk Food (Score 1) 151

Yeah, because it's something that everyone should be buying, despite the fact that: so many are struggling financially people want to live better and feel better Right? It's got to be because of online shopping.

Yeah. We should definitely control it. That works out well for alcohol and marijuana and 32 oz cups of soda.

Comment Re:Canonical Needs to Make Money (Score 1) 346

That much has become clear for quite a while now. What's also become clear is they don't know how to do it, what direction they're in and they're unusual recent behaviour is just a bunch of initial death throes.

Sorry, I thought you meant they didn't know how to throw their users overboard properly. You know, the way Apple and Microsoft do, with almost every unnecessary software (and hardware) update.

Comment Re:SSL? (Score 1) 38

So they switch to SSL? Thats kind of the point of the DH exchange in SSL. Stealing the key later still doesn't get you access to the data since the DH exchange ensures that neither side ever transmits enough information to derive the key.

Because twitter security is important.

... particularly to big companies and brands. Maybe this will help them monetize their service?

Slashdot Top Deals

fortune: cpu time/usefulness ratio too high -- core dumped.

Working...