Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment it is as moral as police using informers (Score 3, Insightful) 357

If a cop uses shady characters as informers or a prosecutor reduces someone's charges in exchange for a testimony, then that too serves an agenda of a criminal. But its ultimate goal is to unearth the truth about a bigger fish which is engage in shady practices. And in the current legal regime it is considered moral and justified. The same standard has to apply to the journalists. If they are exposing the criminality in the camp of the ruling party's candidate's campaign, then they are doing a public service even if the source is shady and is doing the releasing of the information in the hopes of improving the chances of an opposition candidate.

Comment Re:Resonating with Americans (Score 1) 181

This :

Clinton may be corrupt

In combination with this:

The problem is that Trump is far less predictable than Clinton.

implies that you part of the camp of those who think she'll stay bought once she is paid. But she is not. She will pursue her own agenda even after taking the bribes. Kadafi settled his debts with the victims of terrorist acts. He gave up his WMD research. He negotiated with the US to become a legitimate state actor in good faith. But, as we know now, it was Clinton who insisted on the strategy of removing him. Which betrays her personality as that of an opportunist rather than an honorable thief. She will not keep any promise she makes or keep to any deal she enters into. He deeds betray her more than her words. Trump does not have the same history of consistent breaking of deals. He renegotiates rather than simply breaking deals when circumstances change. Both of these factors combined indicate that Trump is actually more trustworthy than Hillary.

Comment Re:Resonating with Americans (Score 1) 181

Peer-review research does fairly poorly when evaluating one-time (ie, non-repeatable) events, especially if the said events involve confrontations. It's why we don't have just peers on juries, but also adversarial councils in courts. In the absence of adversarial advocacy, peer review of non-repeatable events quickly becomes a circle jerk. Most judges, for example, will accept plea deals reached by opposing councils. Peer review of politics is essentially impossible. It's why we have elections rather than SCOTUS-style committees deciding who is to be in charge.

Comment how? (Score 1) 910

How can we justify doing that while increasing the social security age? Why not lower it instead? If we go with the assumption that the knowledge economy is what makes people obsolete, then why not ensure basic living conditions for those who (because of their advanced age) are at a disadvantage when it comes to learning new skills?

Comment citation count is a poor measure (Score 1) 97

Yes, I know it's pretty standard, but it's about as telling as the klines count in code. This is true not only of this particular field of research. It's a problem in academia in general. The whole publish-or-perish system encourages it and at some point the publication volume reaches a critical mass where extra information starts to take away from the understanding of the subject. Knowledge requires culling of unnecessary information. And the chase for higher citation count does nothing to encourage new approaches which obviate a lot of old approaches. On a lighter note, "Mr. President, we must not allow a citation gap!" (Dr. Strangelove homage).

Comment we'll punish you and you won't even know it? (Score 1) 396

Does that not defeat the whole purpose of a punishment? They are not talking about preventive measures.... Punishment is supposed to deter future behavior by making it obvious that it brings about consequences. Is this something that needs to be explained to the father of two children (who is sometimes known as POTUS)?

Comment Re:"programs" -- not "codes" (Score 1) 101

Just to follow up, I just looked through the NYTimes article itself, and no "codes" does not appear in it. "Computer code" does. And while "code" is singular, "computer code" is always taken to be plural. So "codes" sounds just as harsh as "maths" to a North American English speaker (even though "maths" has sipped its way into British usage).

Comment Re:"programs" -- not "codes" (Score 1) 101

And as many of these were highly classified. DoD contractors had not yet begun outsourcing top secret work to India

The "codes" was part of the article summary by slashdot. It was not part of the quote. In other words, it was written by whoever submitted the story to Slashdot. So this:

it was an American usage.

does not follow from the slashdot submission. Oh, and it's was never used by oldtimes. It is exclusively Indian. And it is very new. I think "Codechef" was the 1st place I saw it. And you don't have to believe it, but it won't change the fact that it sounds very harsh to the ears of all other English speakers.

Comment Re:Asinine. (Score 1) 438

Except Barney Franks is not a cookie member of the party. He wasn't even an out-of-step member (a la Kucinich) of the party. Barney Franks was an elected *ranking* (committee member) Congressman. He is bona fide part of the in-step leadership of the party. Referring to his statements is most definitely appropriate when discussing the party's agenda.

Slashdot Top Deals

Happiness is a positive cash flow.