Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re: (Score 3, Interesting) 408

And ignores the fact that once published, there's no reliable corrective mechanism to propagate those results down beyond a standard literature search. I'm posting as AC because quite a few years ago I published results that I believed at the time to be correct, but were shown to be wrong in a subsequent paper. Despite this, I'm *still* being cited in new papers while the paper that refuted mine is seldom cited. Science isn't some infallible field. We make mistakes; Sometimes those mistakes are accidental, sometimes they're sloppy, and yes, sometimes they're even intentional. That doesn't reduce the validity of science, but it requires us to be more vigilant.

Comment Re:Robots Randroids? (Score 1) 360

Assume my income is high enough that I'm not only paying for the services I receive but that I'm also paying extra. Please explain to me how I'm not being forced to be charitable - and while you're at it, explain to me what ultimately happens if I refuse to 'donate' this extra amount. You've got the most creative use of the word 'disincentivized' of anyone I've ever seen. :)

Semantics aside, this report is actually pretty cool.

Comment Re:And that (Score 1) 203

Define 'good money' and someone will still decide that they're worth more. Besides, there's no evidence that a developer leaked it intentionally. If that were the case, I would have expected to see the source code likewise leaked. Rather, my guess would be that it was leaked by someone who was given a dev copy. Now whether this leak was intentional or inadvertent is another matter altogether.

Slashdot Top Deals

Adding features does not necessarily increase functionality -- it just makes the manuals thicker.