That being said, it's my understanding that most scientists work off of grants, and those grants fund novel research. Replicating results is of obvious importance in validating those results, but doing so seems at odds with the funding mechanisms that are the reality for what I would believe to be most researchers.
Are researchers supposed to replicate the experiments of others in their spare time and on their own dime?
(As rhetorical as that might have sounded, I actually welcome those with first-hand experience to respond to it)
Please realize that if we censor our readers's posts because they contain ideas Microsoft does not wish to have made public, we may set an unhealthy precedent for other online news outlets and online service providers, including those owned in whole or in part by Microsoft itself.
come on now
let's not confuse 'ideas Microsoft does not wish to have public' and legal copyrighted information wish Microsoft does not wish to be stolen (please do not try to redefine the word 'steal' in replies...we know what you are thinking). in other posts, readers view Microsoft as being childish. i believe outright that passive aggression is the most advanced form of 'neener neener neener!'.
Indeed, after reflecting on the nature of freedom for a little while...
uncalled for patronization/condescension, or sincere politeness? what do you really think.
but all issues of childishness aside, i think people are ignoring the issue. slashdot has posted 'illegal' material. i don't want to hear about slashdot saying that posts are the responsibilities of the posters, because that is irresponsible (and gee, i would think *not* legally valid). i think that slashdot should take some responsibility, remove the information, and address the information, and ABOVE ALL NOT ATTEMPT TO SWAY SLASHDOTTERS INTO THAT ALL TOO FAMILIAR EXCITED FRENZY.
sounds good on paper (...er, screen...), don't it? in all reality though, it'll never happen. why don't we do the same with all telephone conversations and maybe even email (...oh wait, got *that* one covered...)? keeping such logs would be a HUGE waste^H^H^H^H^Hutilization of resources (human and financial). if i follow you correctly, these logs have the express purpose of ensuring companies don't copy GPL'd code? and there would be some sort of mandate to offer up these logs every time some company feels "hey--that sorta looks like what we did..."? i dunno. sounds sorta far fetched and impractical to say the very least.
Re:Are They Tallking About The Same Movie I Saw ?
on
Terry Gilliam's Brazil
·
· Score: 1
It would been more accurate to have said that one minor subplot was about the hacker ethic.
(in the spirit of the parent post) perhaps it would have been more accurate to have said that someone might have an argument that one minor subplot was about the hacker ethic.
'Kafka fever-dream' was probably the most valid interpretation in the entire review. to me, it seems that the forces driving Brazil were missed with this whole self-gratifying 'hacker-ethic' theme these guys were preoccupied with.
i meant, 'wtf!? they did it in only 12 MICROSECONDS!?' i didn't want to use 'us' becuase that just looks funny (regardless of being correct or not), 'uS' is wrong, and 'microseconds' is unnecessary. i figured that all of you could figure out what 'usecs' meant... -the author
Tuesday, March 16th updated 9:25 pm EST top stories Apple today announced the availability of Mac OS X Server for $500--with an unlimited client license and single-server license. The AppleStore (which incorrectly lists a 5-client license) expects availability by March 23rd. --from macnn.com
Slashdot Mirror
I am not a scientist.
That being said, it's my understanding that most scientists work off of grants, and those grants fund novel research. Replicating results is of obvious importance in validating those results, but doing so seems at odds with the funding mechanisms that are the reality for what I would believe to be most researchers.
Are researchers supposed to replicate the experiments of others in their spare time and on their own dime?
(As rhetorical as that might have sounded, I actually welcome those with first-hand experience to respond to it)
Please realize that if we censor our readers's posts because they contain ideas Microsoft does not wish to have made public, we may set an unhealthy precedent for other online news outlets and online service providers, including those owned in whole or in part by Microsoft itself.
come on now
let's not confuse 'ideas Microsoft does not wish to have public' and legal copyrighted information wish Microsoft does not wish to be stolen (please do not try to redefine the word 'steal' in replies...we know what you are thinking). in other posts, readers view Microsoft as being childish. i believe outright that passive aggression is the most advanced form of 'neener neener neener!'.
Indeed, after reflecting on the nature of freedom for a little while...
uncalled for patronization/condescension, or sincere politeness? what do you really think.
but all issues of childishness aside, i think people are ignoring the issue. slashdot has posted 'illegal' material. i don't want to hear about slashdot saying that posts are the responsibilities of the posters, because that is irresponsible (and gee, i would think *not* legally valid). i think that slashdot should take some responsibility, remove the information, and address the information, and ABOVE ALL NOT ATTEMPT TO SWAY SLASHDOTTERS INTO THAT ALL TOO FAMILIAR EXCITED FRENZY.
that i believe is truly manipulative.
sounds good on paper (...er, screen...), don't it? in all reality though, it'll never happen. why don't we do the same with all telephone conversations and maybe even email (...oh wait, got *that* one covered...)? keeping such logs would be a HUGE waste^H^H^H^H^Hutilization of resources (human and financial). if i follow you correctly, these logs have the express purpose of ensuring companies don't copy GPL'd code? and there would be some sort of mandate to offer up these logs every time some company feels "hey--that sorta looks like what we did..."? i dunno. sounds sorta far fetched and impractical to say the very least.
It would been more accurate to have said that one minor subplot was about the hacker ethic.
(in the spirit of the parent post) perhaps it would have been more accurate to have said that someone might have an argument that one minor subplot was about the hacker ethic.
'Kafka fever-dream' was probably the most valid interpretation in the entire review. to me, it seems that the forces driving Brazil were missed with this whole self-gratifying 'hacker-ethic' theme these guys were preoccupied with.
i meant, 'wtf!? they did it in only 12 MICROSECONDS!?' i didn't want to use 'us' becuase that just looks funny (regardless of being correct or not), 'uS' is wrong, and 'microseconds' is unnecessary. i figured that all of you could figure out what 'usecs' meant... -the author
all i have to say is: 12usecs!?
/. is also not the only news site with links to it...
i'm gonna have to agree with that....funky!
Tuesday, March 16th updated 9:25 pm EST top stories Apple today announced the availability of Mac OS X Server for $500--with an unlimited client license and single-server license. The AppleStore (which incorrectly lists a 5-client license) expects availability by March 23rd. --from macnn.com