Most of the people who will see the film can tell the difference between fact and fiction, including being able to generally identify the wide swath in between. This is not going to be a "Batman" blockbuster. It's not even going to be a "The Social Network" blockbuster.
Anyone who had an opinion on whether or not Mark Zuckerberg was sort of a sleaze did not have their opinion changed by seeing "The Social Network."
... make forecasts of technological advancements, market adoption rates, production scale and resultant pricing all the time. Quite often, they come up with them pretty much the same way you would: By asking around.
McKinsey, same product, often the same methodology.
And it is *astonishing* how many of those reports you cannot find on the Internet later, when you want to make fun of them.
Yes, the search page say 86,700 results, or whatever. But you only get 13 results, and then the:
"In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 13 already displayed.
If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included."
Asking for omitted results gives you a grand total of 73 results, no matter WHAT the top of the results page says...
"The Library's mission is to support the Congress in fulfilling its constitutional duties and to further the progress of knowledge and creativity for the benefit of the American people." (from its website.)
No, I don't see how archiving Twits and tweets furthers this mission *at all.*
It's not much of a step from there to archiving all the phone conversations of all Americans... oh, wait, sorry. That's in the FBI's mission statement.
... I thought that "Ubuntu Phone OS Unveiled" on/.... leading to
"Ubuntu Now Fits on Your Phone"
... meant that I was going to encounter an actual operating system or some evidence that someone, somewhere, has this working. And by "working," I don't mean has an artist's mockup set up on a demo.
I was mostly exasperated at how poorly the article was summarized, which led to an even-worse-than-usual discussion of the merits. Krugman doesn't deserve this and neither do/. readers. I'd rather put my eyes out that go back and read the whole thread, but thanks for saying something intelligent, here, after the fact.;-)
And this means that in a sense we are moving toward something like my intelligent-robots world; many, many tasks are becoming machine-friendly. This in turn means that Gordon is probably wrong about diminishing returns to technology.
Ah, you ask, but what about the people? Very good question. Smart machines may make higher GDP possible, but also reduce the demand for people — including smart people. So we could be looking at a society that grows ever richer, but in which all the gains in wealth accrue to whoever owns the robots.
And then eventually Skynet decides to kill us all, but that’s another story.
Anyway, interesting stuff to speculate about — and not irrelevant to policy, either, since so much of the debate over entitlements is about what is supposed to happen decades from now.
... except for the few people I knew who worked for companies that stood to benefit from the wide acceptance of DRM, pretty much everyone was predicting it was a disaster starting in about 1996.
It seems to me that I've done it more than half the time. I'll get the latest socket in a motherboard and buy a lower-cost CPU... then upgrade the cpu to the best the mobo will take after a few years. Then I'll keep the machine around as secondary/storage/backup etc. while it has some life.
I'm running a p35 with an Intel quad and 8gb ddr2 now... it originally had a dual core and 4gb. And I'm about ready to finally build another, since this one's predecessor died.
... you'll find that the affair was apparently discovered by the FBI during an investigation into Petraeus' biographer, Paula Broadwell.
"The biographer for resigning CIA Director David Petraeus is under FBI investigation for improperly trying to access his email and possibly gaining access to classified information, law enforcement officials told NBC News on Friday." (NBC News)
I'd say this makes the story: 1) Slashdot-worthy; 2) Probably not in any way about Benghazi; 3) Messier and more mysterious than the average case of adultery by a public official.
Except that my point about the article -- that it implies that there is lots of fraud in science -- has already been made by the fact that a fair number of commenters jumped right to that unproven implication.
And it would be quite reasonable to complain about such a study of cancer deaths if the article implied that the deaths were substantially greater than might be expected in the general population, without offering evidence.
Respectfully, you're compounding the error by referring to "all fraudsters" and the "situation of medical science," implying, by language, that this is a much larger problem than statistics show when considering the enormous volume of scientific articles. I'm not a scientist but I'm very good at interpreting numbers.
I didn't say that fraud does not exist, or that there isn't pressure to produce publishable results that might affect accuracy or ethics (on occasion.) I said that this is a much smaller problem than the article implies. Only the retractions were analyzed; the retractions are a vanishingly small percentage of the total. If you want to argue that the retractions are the tip of an iceberg of falsified scientific data, let me know.
I think that the article implicitly misrepresents the level of misconduct by leaving out some relevant statistics.... More than 2,000 scientific articles, retracted! And... fraud!... plagiarism!
In context -- PubMed has more than 22 million documents and accepts 500,000 a year, according to Wikipedia.
So, to do the math: Number of fraudulent articles, total, = vanishingly small percentage of the total articles.
Slashdot Mirror
Societally, I'm glad to have us focusing on improving safety and efficiency of transportation.
Think past the automobile era.
Wow. Touchy. It was funny anyway, Indra, if you don't work at Facebook. Because the freakin' birthday notifications are a plague on the planet.
They got a birthday notification from the planet's Facebook page.
Most of the people who will see the film can tell the difference between fact and fiction, including being able to generally identify the wide swath in between. This is not going to be a "Batman" blockbuster. It's not even going to be a "The Social Network" blockbuster.
Anyone who had an opinion on whether or not Mark Zuckerberg was sort of a sleaze did not have their opinion changed by seeing "The Social Network."
"Dude, come back when you understand how funny that was."
McKinsey, same product, often the same methodology.
And it is *astonishing* how many of those reports you cannot find on the Internet later, when you want to make fun of them.
Yes, the search page say 86,700 results, or whatever. But you only get 13 results, and then the:
...
... nothing to see here, at all. Bullsh*t.
"In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 13 already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included."
Asking for omitted results gives you a grand total of 73 results, no matter WHAT the top of the results page says
So
We're getting perilously close to "Don't say anything out loud that you don't want to be public."
"The Library's mission is to support the Congress in fulfilling its constitutional duties and to further the progress of knowledge and creativity for the benefit of the American people." (from its website.) No, I don't see how archiving Twits and tweets furthers this mission *at all.*
... oh, wait, sorry. That's in the FBI's mission statement.
It's not much of a step from there to archiving all the phone conversations of all Americans
... I thought that "Ubuntu Phone OS Unveiled" on /. ... leading to
... meant that I was going to encounter an actual operating system or some evidence that someone, somewhere, has this working. And by "working," I don't mean has an artist's mockup set up on a demo.
"Ubuntu Now Fits on Your Phone"
All your presents are belong to us!
I was mostly exasperated at how poorly the article was summarized, which led to an even-worse-than-usual discussion of the merits. Krugman doesn't deserve this and neither do /. readers. I'd rather put my eyes out that go back and read the whole thread, but thanks for saying something intelligent, here, after the fact. ;-)
The poster can't read, or summarize.
Here's the link to Krugman's column: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/is-growth-over/
And this means that in a sense we are moving toward something like my intelligent-robots world; many, many tasks are becoming machine-friendly. This in turn means that Gordon is probably wrong about diminishing returns to technology.
Ah, you ask, but what about the people? Very good question. Smart machines may make higher GDP possible, but also reduce the demand for people — including smart people. So we could be looking at a society that grows ever richer, but in which all the gains in wealth accrue to whoever owns the robots.
And then eventually Skynet decides to kill us all, but that’s another story.
Anyway, interesting stuff to speculate about — and not irrelevant to policy, either, since so much of the debate over entitlements is about what is supposed to happen decades from now.
Netflix: $1.5 billion in revenues in 2011 and growing.
Starz: $1.6 billion in revenues in 2011 and relatively stagnant.
Pretty much explains why.
From The New York Times in February:
Both China and Russia prohibit travelers from entering the country with encrypted devices unless they have government permission.
Was there a survey I missed or has the poster missed the difference between
...
"Slashdot readers using Android"
and
"Slashdot readers using Android to read Slashdot
I look at Slashdot on my computer, NOT my Android 2.3 phone.
... They have to completely uninstall their current justice system, first.
... except for the few people I knew who worked for companies that stood to benefit from the wide acceptance of DRM, pretty much everyone was predicting it was a disaster starting in about 1996.
It seems to me that I've done it more than half the time. I'll get the latest socket in a motherboard and buy a lower-cost CPU ... then upgrade the cpu to the best the mobo will take after a few years. Then I'll keep the machine around as secondary/storage/backup etc. while it has some life.
... it originally had a dual core and 4gb. And I'm about ready to finally build another, since this one's predecessor died.
I'm running a p35 with an Intel quad and 8gb ddr2 now
... you'll find that the affair was apparently discovered by the FBI during an investigation into Petraeus' biographer, Paula Broadwell.
"The biographer for resigning CIA Director David Petraeus is under FBI investigation for improperly trying to access his email and possibly gaining access to classified information, law enforcement officials told NBC News on Friday." (NBC News)
I'd say this makes the story: 1) Slashdot-worthy; 2) Probably not in any way about Benghazi; 3) Messier and more mysterious than the average case of adultery by a public official.
How does this not get resolved by: "Sheesh, okay. Stop suing us, and we'll stop suing you. You can use our really dumb patents, we can use yours."
Oh, right. Lawyers are involved.
... surely they can change the name of YOOR a nus ... pick some other deity. It's not like there's a shortage.
Right.
Except that my point about the article -- that it implies that there is lots of fraud in science -- has already been made by the fact that a fair number of commenters jumped right to that unproven implication.
And it would be quite reasonable to complain about such a study of cancer deaths if the article implied that the deaths were substantially greater than might be expected in the general population, without offering evidence.
I didn't say that fraud does not exist, or that there isn't pressure to produce publishable results that might affect accuracy or ethics (on occasion.) I said that this is a much smaller problem than the article implies. Only the retractions were analyzed; the retractions are a vanishingly small percentage of the total. If you want to argue that the retractions are the tip of an iceberg of falsified scientific data, let me know.
In context -- PubMed has more than 22 million documents and accepts 500,000 a year, according to Wikipedia.
So, to do the math: Number of fraudulent articles, total, = vanishingly small percentage of the total articles.