Slashdot Mirror

This looks like a creative re-telling of a story from ~6 years ago, which pleasantly linked to a good explanation of how algorithmic pricing leads to these oddities.

We physicists have been quietly mortified by his crackpottery for decades. He squanders the capital of credibility built up by so many careful researchers, and to what end?

You never had credibility to anyone but the credulous. Get over it.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ma...
https://www.npr.org/sections/t...
http://www.michaeleisen.org/bl...

Science and philosophy aren't improved by the adulation of laymen who are merely seeking a replacement for their black-cassocked hierophant in a white-coated scientist. Don't promote attribution of trustworthiness to your field, that's exploitative pseudoscience, instead be trustworthy as an individual.

More amusing is when they don't actually own the product and have the price just a little bit higher than other vendors in the hope of making a little cash with no stock.

http://www.michaeleisen.org/bl...

If you don't want to give away your e-mail use an anonymous one. Plenty out there.

Yes these are general books about programming but it's still good value. Some publishers like Elsevier take and take and take from the community without giving anything back EXCEPT POLITICAL DONATIONS TO CONGRESSMEN TO KEEP THEIR CARTEL. O'Reilly's done very well out of the programming community but he does give back. Good for him.

I read TFA, and did a search on that "bottom of pizza box" antenna.
[...]
The cost of the antenna alone is $591.25 a pop.

So just because the first place you found the antenna, is selling it for $600, you assume that's actually the going rate they paid for it?

I wonder how many people bought this $23 million book about flies:
http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=358

This article is being widely panned as lacking controls, published without any critical review, and driven by self-interest from a traditional publisher with the most to lose from Open Access taking off (as it is). Some have gone so far to assert it's an over-reach for how badly it was done, and will make Science as a journal look partisan.

For example, quick scan brought up these three scathing responses:

Mike Eisen (HHMI Berkeley Professor)
http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1439

Peter Suber (Author of the book "Open Access", Director of the Harvard Open Access Project, Faculty Fellow at the Berkman Center)
https://plus.google.com/u/0/109377556796183035206/posts/CRHeCAtQqGq

Mike Taylor (programmer with Index Data and a research associate at the department of earth sciences, University of Bristol)
http://svpow.com/2013/10/03/john-bohannons-peer-review-sting-against-science/

I'm sure this will heat up some much needed debate about poor quality journals and the failings of peer review, but with the lack of any controls at all, it says basically nothing about open access as a model for publishing.

Whoops... forgot to log in before posting.

The publication of the ENCODE data is a big deal, make no doubt about it. But it has been overhyped and misreported in the popular press. Interestingly, this is not the fault of science journalists, but rather a consequence of the lead scientists in charge of publicity for this project. UC Berkeley biologist Michael Eisen has a couple blog posts addressing this issue, as does University of Guelph biologist T. Ryan Gregory.

Two of the main criticisms directed at the publicity surrounding ENCODE are:
(1) The fact that noncoding DNA is functional does not count as "news." Far from it. Biologists have known for many, many years that functional elements make up a significant portion of the genome.
(2) The 80% figure, which is being widely reported as the proportion of the genome that is functional, is inaccurate and misleading. A more truthful statement is that 80% of the genome is biochemically active, but this is decidedly not the same thing (a point addressed by Eisen in the second post linked above). The headline on the Slashdot article is completely wrong.

The data produced by ENCODE is extremely important and will lay the groundwork for many future studies. But it should be lauded for that, and not for the hyperbole currently surrounding it.

Whoops... forgot to log in before posting.

The publication of the ENCODE data is a big deal, make no doubt about it. But it has been overhyped and misreported in the popular press. Interestingly, this is not the fault of science journalists, but rather a consequence of the lead scientists in charge of publicity for this project. UC Berkeley biologist Michael Eisen has a couple blog posts addressing this issue, as does University of Guelph biologist T. Ryan Gregory.

Two of the main criticisms directed at the publicity surrounding ENCODE are:
(1) The fact that noncoding DNA is functional does not count as "news." Far from it. Biologists have known for many, many years that functional elements make up a significant portion of the genome.
(2) The 80% figure, which is being widely reported as the proportion of the genome that is functional, is inaccurate and misleading. A more truthful statement is that 80% of the genome is biochemically active, but this is decidedly not the same thing (a point addressed by Eisen in the second post linked above). The headline on the Slashdot article is completely wrong.

The data produced by ENCODE is extremely important and will lay the groundwork for many future studies. But it should be lauded for that, and not for the hyperbole currently surrounding it.

The publication of the ENCODE data is a big deal, make no doubt about it. But it has been overhyped and misreported in the popular press. Interestingly, this is not the fault of science journalists, but rather a consequence of the lead scientists in charge of publicity for this project.

UC Berkeley biologist Michael Eisen has a couple blog posts addressing this issue, as does University of Guelph biologist T. Ryan Gregory. Two of the main criticisms directed at the publicity surrounding ENCODE are:
(1) The fact that noncoding DNA is functional does not count as "news." Far from it. Biologists have known for many, many years that functional elements make up a significant portion of the genome.
(2) The 80% figure, which is being widely reported as the proportion of the genome that is functional, is inaccurate and misleading. A more truthful statement is that 80% of the genome is biochemically active, but this is decidedly not the same thing (a point addressed by Eisen in the second post linked above).

The data produced by ENCODE is extremely important and will lay the groundwork for many future studies. But it should be lauded for that, and not for the hyperbole currently surrounding it.

The publication of the ENCODE data is a big deal, make no doubt about it. But it has been overhyped and misreported in the popular press. Interestingly, this is not the fault of science journalists, but rather a consequence of the lead scientists in charge of publicity for this project.

UC Berkeley biologist Michael Eisen has a couple blog posts addressing this issue, as does University of Guelph biologist T. Ryan Gregory. Two of the main criticisms directed at the publicity surrounding ENCODE are:
(1) The fact that noncoding DNA is functional does not count as "news." Far from it. Biologists have known for many, many years that functional elements make up a significant portion of the genome.
(2) The 80% figure, which is being widely reported as the proportion of the genome that is functional, is inaccurate and misleading. A more truthful statement is that 80% of the genome is biochemically active, but this is decidedly not the same thing (a point addressed by Eisen in the second post linked above).

The data produced by ENCODE is extremely important and will lay the groundwork for many future studies. But it should be lauded for that, and not for the hyperbole currently surrounding it.

Loved this when I read it the first time. Book prices go up to a million dollars because of this. http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=358

Floors are good, but so are ceilings.

Amazon’s $23,698,655.93 book about flies

If Amazon can sell a book for $23 million, what's wrong with Best Buy selling a $1000 HDMI cable?