Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:Well... (Score -1, Troll) 609

The problem with eugenics is that it's completely scientifically invalid. And what starts with the (false) notion that you can measure someone's intelligence by measuring the circumference of their head ends with abominations like the Buck vs. Bell decision upholding the legality of forced sterilization as a cure for "hereditary feeblemindedness." In this decision, Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes actually stated "Three generations of imbeciles are enough." (http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/topics_fs.pl?theme=3)

That quote should, in and of itself, answer the question of what's wrong with eugenics.

Submission + - Slaughter at the bridge: Uncovering a colossal Bronze Age battle (sciencemag.org)

schwit1 writes: About 3200 years ago, two armies clashed at a river crossing near the Baltic Sea. The confrontation can't be found in any history books-the written word didn't become common in these parts for another 2000 years-but this was no skirmish between local clans. Thousands of warriors came together in a brutal struggle, perhaps fought on a single day, using weapons crafted from wood, flint, and bronze, a metal that was then the height of military technology.

"If our hypothesis is correct that all of the finds belong to the same event, we're dealing with a conflict of a scale hitherto completely unknown north of the Alps," says dig co-director Thomas Terberger, an archaeologist at the Lower Saxony State Service for Cultural Heritage in Hannover. "There's nothing to compare it to." It may even be the earliest direct evidence-with weapons and warriors together-of a battle this size anywhere in the ancient world.

Comment Re:Restore from backup (Score 4, Insightful) 212

... when these hackers get caught, they should ALL get death sentences regardless if there has been any patient fatalities.

This was an ill-conceived attack on the hackers' part.

If any patient dies in connection with this attack, then it puts murder charges on the table. And the thing about murder is that there's no statute of limitations. Thus, these guys will be looking over their shoulders for the rest of their lives.

All for MAYBE $3.6 million in Bitcoin.

Submission + - House and Senate Science Committees in Creationists Hands. (dallasnews.com) 3

willy everlearn writes: Does anyone else find it scary that we have put creationists on both the House and Senate's science committies? The very core of a creationist's argument is"No matter what evidence you show me my belief will continue." Extend this to Climate Change, Vaccinations or any other of myriad topices these right wing hold as sacred. What can we do about it?

Submission + - Windows 10: Can Microsoft get it right this time?

An anonymous reader writes: Later this week Microsoft will provide more details of Windows 10, most likely focusing on how the new operating system will look and feel on smartphones and tablets. According to Mary Jo Foley, Microsoft is likely to unveil a version of Windows 10 that's expected to work on Windows Phones and smaller Windows tablets running ARM and perhaps Intel processors. Microsoft will be hoping that by making it easier for developers to build for tablets and smartphones it can take some of its dominance of the desktop world and port that to the mobile world. That may help a bit, but will not in itself create the breakthrough that Microsoft wants: when it comes to mobile, Microsoft's Windows Phone is still a distant third in a two-horse race.

Comment Re:Fox News? (Score 5, Insightful) 460

It's not just Fox. It's a problem with journalists in general.

Journalists are taught to present "both sides" of a story. This approach, however, leads to journalists giving charlatans "equal time." Thus, the public wrongly assumes that scientists must be split 50/50 on important issues like climate change. The reality, of course, is that the split is far closer to 99/1 than to 50/50.

The REAL underlying problem is that journalists don't know enough science to be able to spot a crackpot when they see/hear one.

Submission + - Physics Professor Publishes Mathematical Proof that Black Holes Cannot Exist (phys.org)

cranky_chemist writes: "By merging two seemingly conflicting theories, Laura Mersini-Houghton, a physics professor at UNC-Chapel Hill in the College of Arts and Sciences, has proven, mathematically, that black holes can never come into being in the first place. The work not only forces scientists to reimagine the fabric of space-time, but also rethink the origins of the universe"

The full article in "Physics Letters B" is available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...

Submission + - New research suggests cancer may be an intrinsic property of cells (npr.org)

cranky_chemist writes: "Cancer simply may be here to stay. Researchers at Kiel University, the Catholic University of Croatia and other institutions discovered that hydra — tiny, coral-like polyps that emerged hundreds of millions of years ago — form tumors similar to those found in humans. Which suggests that our cells' ability to develop cancer is 'an intrinsic property' that has evolved at least since then — way, way, way before we rallied our forces to try to tackle it, said Thomas Bosch, an evolutionary biologist at Kiel University who led the study, published in Nature Communications in June."

The paywalled original article is available at http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2...

Submission + - Nature Publishing Group Requires Authors to Waive "Moral Rights" to Works (chronicle.com)

cranky_chemist writes: Megan O'Neil has published a story on the Chronicle of Higher Education's website noting some unusual language in the license agreement between authors and Nature Publishing Group.

"Faculty authors who contract to write for the publisher of Nature, Scientific American, and many other journals should know that they could be signing away more than just the economic rights to their work, according to the director of the Office of Copyright and Scholarly Communication at Duke University.

Kevin Smith, the Duke official, said he stumbled across a clause in the Nature Publishing Group’s license agreement last week that states that authors waive or agree not to assert "any and all moral rights they may now or in the future hold" related to their work. In the context of scholarly publishing, "moral rights" include the right of the author always to have his or her name associated with the work and the right to have the integrity of the work protected such that it is not changed in a way that could result in reputational harm."

Nature Publishing Group claims the waivers are required to ensure the journal's ability to publish formal retractions and/or corrections.

However, the story further notes that Nature Publishing Group is requiring authors at institutions with open-access policies to sign waivers that exempt their work from such policies.

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?

Working...