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


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:chemistry vs genetics (Score 3, Informative) 202

I don't see it in this article, but I saw another article about the same topic a while ago.

The genetic sequencing is necessary so that they can create artificial DNA sequences to include in the fake horns. Otherwise you could easily detect the fake horns by doing a DNA test on a sample. The point is to make it as hard as possible to distinguish the real from the counterfeit.

Comment Resume Red Flag (Score 2) 296

Having conducted probably 500 software developer interviews, I can tell you that seeing Certificates listed on a candidate's Resume is typically a red flag that indicates they will not be a good candidate. It doesn't mean they will absolutely be bad, just an indication that they probably aren't right for the sorts of positions I hire for. Kind of like seeing "Microsoft Office" listed prominently under their "Skills" section.

Comment Bank Tellers knew my face and name... (Score 2, Interesting) 161

Haven't people been complaining for decades that businesses don't recognize them anymore? There has often been nostalgia for a time when people were recognized by name when they walked into their bank.

Wouldn't this just be reviving the "Good Olde Days", at least for small town America? Or is facial recognition only okay when done by a MeatCreature?

Comment Citation Needed (Score 4, Informative) 281

The assertion that foraging people "traditionally didn't develop high blood pressure, atherosclerosis, or cardiovascular disease" needs a big 'Citation Needed' mark.

This Slate article does a great job of explaining how decades of peer reviewed papers on the Inuit all make the mistake of assuming lower cardiovascular disease based on a flawed assumption in a single paper in the 1970s:

Comment Re:Looks ok to me (Score 1) 229

even if sentenced .025% of innocent people to death it would be doing far better than current efforts.

Assuming 300M people in the US are innocent people, or at least innocent of a capital crime, sentencing 0.025% of innocent people to death would execute 75000 people. That's about 1000x the current rate of executions, so I think it would be worse than current efforts. :)

Unless you meant that 0.025% of people sentenced to death being innocent would be better then current efforts. That one's probably true.

Comment Re:Take that Darwin (Score 2) 118

Yes, I'm trying to be funny. :) Lamarckian evolution (sorry for misspelling it in the original post) is pretty much completely discredited. Though at the time it was a good theory, it lacked a reasonable mechanism. While epigenetics displays some Lamarckian behavior, it doesn't completely fulfill the ability to pass on "acquired traits" and doesn't give the long term changes needed for species differentiation.

And of course Darwin was wrong in some respects. He was just much more correct than anyone before him.

Comment Re:*sigh* Not Again... (Score 5, Insightful) 515

Yep, another case of the FBI finding a 'terrorist' by finding a mildly disgruntled guy, giving him fake weapons and explosives, suggesting a terrorist plot to him, and then 'catching' him when he did exactly what they wanted him to do.

Like these guys:

And these guys:

Slashdot Top Deals

backups: always in season, never out of style.