Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


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:No it doesn't (Score 1) 33

There's a lot of finger pointing at the worst cases like those. Pretending it's only a few rotten apples allows investors and the industry to pretend it's not a vast sea of shit. Shkreli and Retrophin from the pharmaceutical industry for example, they were only the worst of the worst. Every damn pharma company out there is charging absurd amounts for old drugs and not spending any of it developing new ones. (The oft-cited 2.6 billion for each new drug is utter bullshit.)

Theranos was bad, but there are hundreds of "digital health" startups with way too much VC money for what amounts to either "lets put medical records on an ipad" or "it's like a fitbit but not called fitbit."

How the fuck is instagram or snapchat "innovative"?

"Innovation" means "creatively acting like the same old shit is new." So I guess yeah, money does follow innovation.

Comment Re:Time to switch (Score 1) 173

You're a troll, but you're correct about LibreOffice.

Libre/Star/Open Office all suck ass for anything remotely complex.
MS Office isn't going away. We've only been able to transition a small group of our users to Google Docs / etc. because their use is extremely limited and we in fact wanted to limit them more.

Comment Re:DRONE ON (Score 2) 210

The event was already being criticized for "politicizing" science. "You're risking turning it from a non-partisan thing into a liberal vs conservative thing!" they say. "Conservatives will decide science is evil!"

While I think that's naive and stupid, thinking about how the message will be heard IS worthwhile.

"Science says you're having too many babies and that's contributing to climate change so stop!" Yeah, good fucking luck with that one. While you're at it, maybe sell republicans on the fact that taxes are necessary and can't always just be cut. Or Americans at large that Islamic terrorism is coming from our pointless defense of Israel and fighting wars on terrorism?

On top of that, it's a stupid fucking argument to be making. Carbon emissions are not evenly distributed. A handful of the worlds rich assholes (read: us) are doing the vast majority of the climate change (See figure 1). The fundamental problem is that you can get rich shitting in the water everyone is drinking, and there are also some shared benefits. All the birth control isn't going to do anything if people like those who run our government can still make a ton of money digging up carbon and the rest of us enjoy relatively cheap energy that everyone for generations to come is going to mostly pay for.

AND we can actually do something about that without doing anything unethical like forced sterilization. Carbon taxes. Nuclear or other clean energy. Those things you mentioned. Or burning fossil fuel industry people at the stake until no one is willing to do it anymore. All of those things make more sense, are more directly effective, and are less evil than prattling on about overpopulation.

Comment Peer Review is a Joke (Score 1) 119

Peer review is a joke. Journals barely glance at shit the reviewers all engage in favoritism and favor trading.

Fuck peer review. How about peer escrow?

Submit your paper, a full and complete set of instructions for replicating the experiment, and the complete and raw data you collected during your experiment.
The journal reads it and gives if it passes a basic bullshit test, puts the experiment into a queue.

Then the journal pulls different experiments from the queue and presents them to you (only the experiment, not the data or paper). You have to replicate an experiment before your paper can be published. (Different weights can be added for cost and time, and things can be categorized so you don't get biologists doing physics.)

Once you replicate an experiment and submit the complete and raw data, the journal compares both data sets and determines whether or not to publish the original paper associated with the experiment you reviewed. Likewise, once someone replicates your experiment your paper may be published. (Depending on the type of experiment, they can require more than one replication, have different levels of review and different tolerances for discrepancy.)

If a paper is published, everything is published. The paper, the experiment description, and all data from the original submitter and all the replicators.

If you're not doing repeatable experimentation, you're not doing science, so fuck off. If your data contains sensitive info, such as HIPAA, anonymize it. It's not hard, though people claim it's hard when they want to prevent you from seeing their bogus data.

Comment Re: No, the real crime here is... (Score 1) 356

No, I do care that WikiLeaks broke the law and released the DNC emails. I also care about the laws of fairness in the primary, which is why I'm glad Hillary won it after many more people voted for her. Finally, I think the leaking questions should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, I'm assuming a thousand dollar fine.

Comment Re:I thought women made better CEOs (Score 4, Insightful) 39

When you put a woman in as your CEO because they're a woman, you're going to have a bad time.
The same goes for race, religion, sexual identity, whatever. Of course, this also includes straight, white, Christian males, though I suspect I've already offended certain people past the point of no return.

How about you hire the best person for the job?

How many Meg Whitmans, Elizabeth Holmeses, and Marissa Mayers are we going to see trotted out to kill companies for the sake of diversity?
The worst part is that we see all the awful female executives getting pats on the back, accolades, etc., but the ones that are competent like Carly Fiorina (compare her to her successor) or even great (Lisa Su) get almost no fucking recognition.

Remember when HP mattered? And Yahoo?

Comment Re:Don't they test their products before shipping? (Score 1) 30

Why test? The last version was mostly fine. If something's wrong with this version we'll hem and haw, issue a placebo patch in 2 months that will trick half of the people. Half of the people who aren't fooled will get used to it or stop bitching. For the remaining people who complain, we'll just trot out the occasional lie about how we're still working on it. Then it's time for the next version, and maybe we'll fix it there, maybe we won't. Either way, we'll claim that it's been fixed and that the new version is the best ever. People will buy it.

Comment Re:No more "BetaNews" submissions, please! (Score 2) 68

Slashdot editors, can you please stop putting these "BetaNews" submissions on the front page?

These submissions are by far some of the worst ones that end up on the front page.

"BetaNews" is linked to from a submission almost every day! Hell, it was linked to twice on March 31, and from three submissions on March 25!

If want wanted to read "BetaNews" articles, which we don't, we would go directly to that site instead of coming to Slashdot!

Please stop putting mediocre content from "BetaNews" on the Slashdot front page, especially when it appears to be the authors of the articles who are submitting them here!

Please, no more "BetaNews" at Slashdot!

I agree, but you missed the opportunity to call out "Reader BrianFagioli".

Comment Re:Simple rule for all (Score 2) 215

Soda pop is poison. You don't need a study to prove that. There are only four safe drinks in this world. Water, milk, orange juice, and beer. Wait, there are only five safe drinks in this world. Water, milk, orange juice, wine and beer.

You forgot butter. There's nothing like a nice hot mug of butter to start your day.

Slashdot Top Deals

Work is the crab grass in the lawn of life. -- Schulz