Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Science is hard (Score 1) 320

A lot of times stuff is not replicatable (suck it spellchecker, i just invented the word) because it's fucking difficult. I mean I have spent thousands of dollars and even worse wasted many hours in the lab on getting something I thought should be straightforward, obvious, and simple to work. Sometimes you want things to work so badly, you might even see things (usually fluorescence) where there is none. It's like how Percival Lowell saw canals on Mars. As a scientist you have to fight hard against your own bias, and not take it personally when someone attacks your work. Biological systems are unreliable (or not easily modeled), it's not like a computer program where everything follows a known deterministic path. In biology, the conditions in which something happens may not be known. It may work in one lab because they are using a reagent with a trace contaminant of salt whereas in another it won't work because the conditions are too pure.

So anyway, I reckon we have 3 reasons why studies are not reproducible (here they are in order of unethicalness/immorality):
1. The actual conditions are not what the researcher thinks it is. (The reagent constituents are not normal for example).
2. The researcher wants to believe a result so badly that they see an effect that doesn't exist. (Nowadays you have to photograph your results and/or use software, so this *should* get caught in peer review).
3. The research was published due to pressure to get grants combined with confidence that a particular hypothesis is real and should work -- in spite of lab failure (which the researcher ignores, telling themselves somebody in their lab made a "pipetting error").

Obviously, #3 is the most evil of the above. None of these are an excuse for publishing bad science. In terms of mitigating effects, #1 is the hardest to avoid. #3 should be very avoidable if you have scruples.

Comment Re:If Apple built a Hololens we'd never hear about (Score 1) 113

The other thing is it won't be a half baked product. I guarantee that it will be a 5K per eye display rolling at not less than 120fps. In other words, Apple will ensure that any VR or AR headset they release shall have a retina display. A retina VR headset is what Oculus should have been. When Apple makes a their VR headset or glasses, do you honestly think it will have the ultra-annoying screen door effect or puke inducing 90fps? The soul of Steve Jobs will emerge from the grave and smack Tim Cook in the face if that were the case. The whole point is that you can watch an entire movie with the headset on and have it be just like you were sitting in the movie theater. Eventually you will be able to watch live sports in that manner too, except you will be able to virtual teleport to various locations as well on the field and off. In 2020 the Mars Rover will carry a VR camera, so you can experience what it's like sitting on Mars. Does anyone think those experiences can be had with any justice if the frame rate is horrible and the display is marred by the screen door effect ? If there is any of Steve Jobs spirit left at Apple they will remember Steve would throw any sub par VR display across the room with anger (think Steve Ballmer tossing a chair).

Comment Makes sense (Score 1) 113

Except we are talking about Microsoft so the 2019 version will have 2016 technology (i.e., it will be low resolution with an annoying screen door effect, nauseous low frame rate).

For VR to be usable beyond 5 minutes of gimicky showing off, the per eye resolution needs to be at 5K and the frame rate at least 120 fps with under 50 millisecond responsiveness.

I doubt we would have those technologies by 2019, we can't get 4K working how are we going to have dual 5K displays rolling at 120 fps by 2019?

Comment Getting a job (Score 1) 70

How about college students be taught what skills would be useful at a job? I mean, nobody wants to hire people straight out of college, so why not provide the work experience during college? Actually, I would let college students sit in on meetings in my company. I would do it for free, of course I am not paying them either since they aren't working for me. I mean, even if there is no work for unskilled people .. colleges should hook up deals so that individual students (maybe no more than 3 at a time) could get invited to local profession-relevant companies. A different company each week for a one or two hours. They wouldn't be allowed to ask any questions during the session, only observe others working -- watch the machines go .. maybe attend a meeting even. I feel like having students experience work environments would be valuable, for one thing it would dissuade many of them from getting a job and help them gain a much needed pessimistic futuristic outlook as to what having a career means.

Comment Own the robot (Score 1) 387

Don't tax it, own it. Humans8 should invest in robot companies and live off the revenue thereof. Robots will make things cheap. Robotic indoor farming. Basic math shows that one large indoor farming skyscraper like they are building in Singapore or even an underground facility powered by a large solar array or other power plant (nuclear fusion, maybe in 25 years) would be able to provide all the food for a large city. For security purposes obviously you would want these spread out over neighborhoods like Freight Farms is trying to do. I personally wish to expand my own high yield indoor vegetable farm so that I won't need to purchase tomatoes or potatoes ever. I already automated lighting and watering with an arduino and raspberry pi .. I could easily envision the fertilizing, harvest, and planting could be automated.

Comment CRISPR (Score 5, Interesting) 159

You people do realize that the CRISPR genes of the type to do gene editing are present in strep pyogenes and also staph aureus? These bacteria, especially staph aureus, are found everywhere. That means that anyone can extract these genes and put them into a plasmid quite easily using technology such as PCR (which can be done with a thermometer, stove, and a cup of ice). The only difficult part is making oligonucleotide sequences -- which are dirt cheap to buy though not trivial for someone to make at home but if I really thought about it I am sure there is a way to do it with just household chemicals and a small lab.

What I am saying is, if you ban this thing it will do nothing other than prevent its good use. The bad use will still be possible -- although there are tons of much easier and more effective ways to cause harm than genetic engineering -- it's rather sad to watch people get so paranoid about something like this. I mean people it's easier to cure late stage IV cancer and diabetes than it is to do something bad with genetic engineering -- yet there are tons of much easier ways to hurt people.

Comment Re:Tim Cook is sad (Score 2) 79

Yeah i see the sarcasm. You seem to know who all these companies should hire. Yet none of you geniuses who say Google, Apple, Microsoft and others don't need to hire foreigners have ever made a billion dollar technology company (real estate, oil, and businesses profiting off monopolization of resources don't count).

There is a reason many of the patents on the original iPhone have foreign names.

Slashdot Top Deals

"May your future be limited only by your dreams." -- Christa McAuliffe