Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
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: Correcting myself (Score 1) 697

Having read TFA this is clearly a violation however not by Oregon - here we have a man that:
. Works as an engineer (which is okay) while claiming to be an engineer (which he is _not_).
. He repeatedly claims to be an engineer without being one.

This is exactly why these kinds of rules exist - if the man in question don't know the easy rule to not call himself something that requires a specific set of exams, what other rules are he ignorant about? The rules for electrical engineering have huge differences between the US and European countries!

Comment Re: Correcting myself (Score 1) 697

1) You would be fine with people going around claiming to be medical doctors too? Same thing - claiming to be an engineer while not being one is making a claim to have competence that isn't verified _and_ can put people at risk.

2) Irrelevant. One can do engineering work without being an engineer. This is really basic logic.

3) Nobody did! Claiming to be an engineer is (as many other professional titles) restricted in most of the world - and for good reasons. Applying math and physics have no restrictions and claiming somebody did is a blatant lie.

Comment Re:this isnt a surprise (Score 2) 48

That text doesn't really apply to modern programming practices (with modern defined as ~70's forward). Go to statements are mostly used for exception handling and breaking out of nested loops, for those uses they are hard to replace in a good way. The result of removing them will almost always be more verbose and harder to read.

Comment Re: Frog wanker (Score 1) 388

I think you underestimate the skills of a good communicator and I assume that being employed as a science writer at Oak Ridge she is indeed a good communicator - otherwise they'd have hired someone else. It is also likely* the scientists have read not only the finished text but also in progress versions and have corrected any wrong usage of words and descriptions. Because that's part of being a good tech writer.

(* I have a tendency to use weak terms read this as: almost certainly 100% sure)

Comment Re:Could climate science be affected, too? (Score 1) 145

(snip)

Over 100 papers were allegedly improperly reviewed in this one journal alone. The only assumption we can realistically make is that this problem is far more widespread than we may believe.

No that's what _you_ can make. However your understanding of logic and science is obviously lacking. The evidence doesn't support your conclusion.

We'd like to trust research scientists. They're considered some of the most intelligent, educated, and trustworthy people around. But after incidents like this, we can't help but have many questions and lots of doubt.

Reasonable people expect them to be people. Anti-scientist idiots paint them as greedy lying bastards that want to turn people from God. Very few ordinary people have your idea of angels in flesh...

In fact, if we're truly practicing anything resembling science, we can have only one hypothesis in this situation: all peer-reviewed research may have been affected by faulty peer review processes.

That's not even remotely related to being scientific. Using the same train of thoughts would lead to the conclusion that because homosexual behavior is widespread in nature (fact) not only are homosexuality natural as occurring in nature without external forcing factors (fact) but all animals are homosexual. Instead the logical conclusion is that homosexuality exists, is natural but _not_ the only (nor the most common) sexual orientation.

Until proven otherwise, I think we'll have to take any and all academic research with a really big grain of salt.

Bullshit. First of all maybe you should note that the research itself haven't been disproved (yet at least) second maybe you should compare the amount of research done with the the amount of known faulty peer reviews. Or your "logic" would say that because there are fake dollar bills around all dollar bills should be taken "with a really big grain of salt".

Comment So what? (Score 1) 450

First this is a claim about a proprietary test from a company earning money from it, information about what it actually does is not available without paying AFAIK.

Also I've read here and elsewhere how new employees can't code no matter where they come from or graduated. Some even claim that almost everyone interviewed didn't even have basic skills.

Slashdot Top Deals

Man is an animal that makes bargains: no other animal does this-- no dog exchanges bones with another. -- Adam Smith

Working...