Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Off-shore Off-shore Off-shore (Score 1) 248

Those who claim the US benefits by draining the best and the brightest from around the world are doing two things wrong:

1) They bad liars. Everyone knows they just want cheap labor. Just cut the noise already and accept the fact that they may have to send some mangers overseas.
2) Even if they happen to get someone particularly gifted to leave their native land and work cheap in the US, they're ignoring the negative impact this has on those -- usually developing -- economies which need their best and brightest in order to grow their economies to become importers of US goods and services.

Comment Sorting proponents of social theories to test them (Score 1) 609

The social sciences have tied themselves in a theocratic knot:

The politics of exclusion is evil therefore any attempt to exclude confounding variables in human ecology causality is evil.

Let's look at that word "ecology" for a moment:

There is something called "the ecological fallacy" that like the bromide "correlation doesn't imply causation" is trotted out or ignored at the convenience of the theologian posing as social scientist. The "diagnoses" of "fear" "xenophobia" "racism" are all modern day equivalents of "demon possession" in the moral zeitgeist of these theocrats.

Let me give you a contrasting example from the medical profession to illustrate exactly how intellectually, scientifically and morally bankrupt are social sciences by comparison:

My wife is dying of Huntington's Disease and there is a cure called ASO gene silencing. It has been tested in the entire pipeline of animal models up to and including primate models, and has been shown to be both safe and effective at slowing, halting and even partially reversing symptoms in moderate doses. It is undergoing human safety trials and even though her decline is accelerating toward death and she consents to treatment, she is denied the treatment. This cruel reality actually has _some_ ethical basis due to the need to ensure that before a treatment is unleashed on even a dying population, that it be shown to be both safe _and_ effective -- not by mere "empirical data" (compiled correlations of naturalistic observations) but by establishing causality with experimental controls to exclude confounding variables including placebo effect. Even after being so demonstrated, she would not be treated without her consent.

Compare and contrast "social science" imposing its "treatments" on massive numbers of people without their consent, let alone showing the treatment is both safe and effective through experimental controls.

I'm sure many if not most "social scientists" would give me some sort of "diagnosis" for rendering the foregoing opinion in favor of "the politics of exclusion" and, upon that "diagnosis" would judge me to be a danger to myself and others, hence, to be deprived of the kind of society in which I might prefer to live as a preventative action. This, in their esteemed expert opinion is not "prejudice" even though it removes from me a basic human right without so much as an accusation of commission of a crime, let alone trial let alone full _judicial_ proceeding which judges me after I've made the case for my innocence and/or sanity. No, _that_ is not "prejudice". What is "prejudice" is some personal preference I might exercise in my private life given limited information and limited resources to obtain that information.

Seriously, it's all falling down and good riddance.

Let's hope something like sortocracy replaces it. http://sortocracy.org/

Comment Android Studio not for beginners (Score 2) 98

I teach Android programming at an Australian university.

For various reasons, it was decided that all engineering students had to learn mobile app development in their first year of the degree. Every single person in the faculty who had any experience with Android told them it was a terrible idea.

They ultimately ended up getting them to write web apps instead; Javascript web programming is horrible but you can at least have a relatively gentle introduction to programming in it.

Comment Enough. This is a peer reviewed paper. (Score 1) 299

I can only add to this back-and-forth that the paper in question has been peer reviewed. You all are not dealing with Shawyer's self-published non-reviewed paper here. This is physics, an actual hypothesis. Those of you who disagree have to consider that your comprehension of photon-photon "annihilation" and momentum conservation might be flawed. In any case, we have a way forward; all the previous negative responses had in common (endlessly) was the fact that physics had to be completely wrong for a resonant cavity drive to provide propellantless propulsion. Now we have a way in which EM drives do not violate physics. And - it's emminently testable. Even if Shawyer is completely valueless here, he might have triggered a new way of thinking about momentum transfer, a hack in the universe we can use for propulsion. We need one badly.

Comment Primary vs. General Election (Score 3, Insightful) 421

Being extremely popular with 30% of the Republican primary electorate in a divided and frankly weak field got him the nomination, but that's not enough to win him a general election.

Your guy is disliked by a far bigger proportion of the population than the proportion that like him. He is disliked far more than Hillary Clinton, according to the polls.

Your guy has little acquaintance with facts in his public rhetoric, but that doesn't make them go away. Trump will lose the general election to Hillary. The remaining question is whether his negative impact on the Republican vote will cost the GOP the House and Senate as well.

Slashdot Top Deals

The ideal voice for radio may be defined as showing no substance, no sex, no owner, and a message of importance for every housewife. -- Harry V. Wade

Working...