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


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:Nice! (Score 1) 240

There will always be people who exploit the system, any system, but at some point the costs will be higher to keep the system 'pure' than it is catching every single last abuser.

Same applies to millionaires and taxes (but lordy lordy, we can't crack down on THEM abusing the system!)

Why not explain, in detail, how much is being wasted each year?

Comment Re:Back to School (Score 2) 333

Meh, Philip Roth just doesn't understand Wikipedia.

Imagine that you're writing a report on The Human Stain. You see Roth's direct edit to Wikipedia, but since that's the only place he made the change, that's the only source. How would you cite that in your bibliography, knowing that any cite of Wikipedia is immediately scored an F? How do you know Roth personally made the edit?

Wikipedia is, by design and definition, unreliable.

Comment Re:Rumor and Inuendo (Score 1) 482

Personally, I think they need to leave Lance alone. Maybe he did it, maybe not -- I don't know. But all their "witnesses" have been given strong incentives to testify against Lance, even if they have to make stuff up, and the only real science in this witchhunt -- the actual blood tests -- have all show him to be clean.

I'll drink to that.

Comment Re:Rumor and Inuendo (Score 2) 482

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence though, and barring said evidence, the simplest solution still tends to be more likely.

I mean, which is more likely to be possible?

A ten-plus year coverup effort assisted by who knows how many people, being able to fool labs in how many different places at how many different times, your life being put under the microscope for years on end
Lance Armstrong is a very talented, able cyclist.

I read a story about the 1992 USA Olympic basketball Dream Team, and one bit I remember was none of them wanted to be the top scorer for a game, because that meant a mandatory drug test (they hated the inconvenience). The more you win, the tighter the scrutiny becomes, and to keep it up for so long in Armstrong's case, I cannot imagine it *not* being leaked earlier (considering it appears practically anyone who's ever been a part of USA cycling was in on it...they're *all* that altruistic?) and to bring it up now reeks of being a witch hunt and farming for publicity.

But everyone seems to accept the conspiracy, so why not?

Comment Re:If we're not for science, what are we for. (Score 0) 482

You. Stupid. Naive. Moron.

Says the person taking everything coming out of the USADA at face value.

You just want to see someone legitimately successful fail, because the only story we like better than an underdog overcoming obstacles to triumph is to watch someone highly regarded fall from grace flat on their face.

Slashdot Top Deals

Enzymes are things invented by biologists that explain things which otherwise require harder thinking. -- Jerome Lettvin