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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:This. (Score 1) 328

That's because of the inexperience/inability of the person doing the marking. When I did maths coursework assignments at school, they gave my work to the only Cambridge graduate maths teacher who had a proper maths degree. At the time, I didn't realise the significance, but in retrospect I'm grateful as he could give me marks for using a legitimate method, whereas the other teachers would call it the "wrong" method. Really, all exams should cater for people to use any legitimate method and markers should have the experience to recognise that they need to pass the paper on to someone who understands it properly.

Comment Re:Or... (Score 2) 440

I'm not sure why they say these things are hard to understand as it seems like even an idiot could.

They're hard to understand because there isn't a direct one-one relationship between intake and serum levels, and different substances have complex interactions that can take years of experience to properly understand. As a simple example, if you're low on sodium - take salt, right? Well if you eat table salt or inject sodium chloride your sodium will go up, but so will your chloride, which causes acidosis if it gets too high. The purest form of dietary management is parenteral (intravenous) nutrition, which is what people get in ICU/ITU when they can't eat or take gastric feeds. It's incredibly complex and very easy to get wrong.

Comment Re:Boring article - we already know the science (Score 1) 401

You can oversimplify a situation to make the evidence mean whatever you want. A guitarist will talk about "muscle memory" and how their hands just do what they need to do. That doesn't mean they lack free will when playing a guitar solo. Our brains are complex, and behaviours become instinctive and responsive over time in order to react quickly; free will can then override the instinctive decision. For example, when driving your car you might find yourself braking because you've seen something out of the corner of your eye, you then decide that the car in the side road isn't about to pull out on you, so you make a conscious decision to put your foot on the gas. It doesn't mean you lack free will, it means you've trained your instincts to respond before higher reasoning kicks in, but your higher reasoning can still override that response - and it was your decision to train yourself that gave you the instinct in the first place.

Comment Re:Good. (Score 1) 699

Right... because there's nothing that could be done to the albumen between egg and needle that might make it safe and sterile? I think if you look too closely at the food chain from source to table or medicine from source to needle or pill, there will be plenty of things that will gross you out. The question is whether the end products are safe and sterile.

Comment Re:Love camera phones (Score 1) 182

I can take high-ISO handheld photos with my 6D in an only partially lit parking lot at night

Dude, you can get arrested for doing things like that.

Seriously, though, DSLRs are amazing, so long as you actually learn to use them. I almost laugh out loud on a regular basis when on holiday every time I see someone with an entry-level DSLR in full auto mode with a kit lens, shooting some artefact or monument with the built in flash. Those sorts would do better with an all in one bridge camera and spend the difference in the hotel bar.

Comment Re:OS X Upgrade Fear (Score 1) 362

Actually, I've wondered for a long time why it's not normal behaviour for a GUI-based OS to prioritise the foreground task. It drives me mad that, when my workstation is rendering some video (for example), I can't check my mail. Multicore and multiprocessor becoming the norm has done a lot to improve this, but it still seems to me that when I sit down at a computer and click on something with the mouse, the majority of the CPU time should be used to respond to that click since that's obviously what I'm concerned with at that moment in time.

Comment Re:Since when are digital projectors thousands? (Score 1) 236

I don't think it is "inverse square from the projector to the screen and inverse square back". I think the inverse-square law for light is radiation from a point source, i.e. it describes the drop-off in illumination as the light spreads out, rather than attenuation per se. When you're focusing, you're causing the beam to converge on a particular spot (the screen) which is a different thing.

Slashdot Top Deals

The first version always gets thrown away.