" At the very least you know the were reliable enough to make it through a four year degree" In Arts!
I had a friend in Arts who passed a class he did not know he was enrolled in until the day before the final exam.
The average life span has had hardly changed over tens of thousands of years. The average adult caveman lived into his 60 and 70s, many making it decades longer.
I do not care how you signal your are braking, it is simply unsafe to brake without both hands holding onto and controlling the steering bar. not that it is much safer to do anything on a bike without both hands firmly on the handle bars.
It is just irresponsible and completely unsafe to take your hands off the steering wheel to signal, or for any other reason. You need both hands to safely control a bicycle. Sure, it is possible if nothing happens to cost forwards with even no hands on the steering, but a bump in the road or any situation that requires your active participation to avoid because huge hazards.
There are people who purposely run them down because pretty much all non-bikers, hate bikers. And pretty much all bikers hate drivers. Car and bikes simply seem to not get along on the same road very well at all. This hatred often erupts into open and excessive displays of violence on both sides. So it is getting more dangerous to bike.
They had a complimentary idea, not a different idea. Page Rank ranks a page in general terms, but tells you nothing on if it has anything to do with Einstein (from what I understand). You still need some form of the old way of judging the Einsteininess of a page.
Except for for the examples you used "Doctors, Lawyers" that is complicated. Being a doctor from India would put you on the fast track to being a doctor in America, but there are loads of Indian doctors in America who now just drive cabs for a living. Same for Lawyer, except there is probably far less applicable knowledge, knowledge of Indian laws and courtroom culture is sort if irrelevant in America.
Also, Lawyers are renowned for being an extremely overcrowded profession in America.
While an H1B worker by definition takes a job away from an American. There cannot be any debate on that point. I guess you could argue that without cheap H1B's that entire companies would just more overseas to employ even cheaper labor.
"We aren't going to pretend this didn't happen." Except that is exactly what they did. You cannot even learn about the Nazis in Germany, as they ban all content the mentions them. America and the rest of the world gets Nazi and holocaust documentaries and novels, German citizens don't.
OK, if you have a law, than how about you take legal action against the people saying things you don't like then, Maas. Why should other people in other countries do your job for you?
"However, science is self-correcting."
Except this statement is completely unfounded by evidence. This study, and others like it, show that this science starts out incorrect, and continues to be incorrect. And at no point in time does it magically get self-corrected.
"The scientific process is not perfect but it's the best solution we currently have to removing the people problem."
The scientific process is the only method we use. And there are many alternatives that no one in modernity has seriously measured against science to see if they are perhaps better. People say that science is the absolute best possible solution we are ever going to get, but no one has ever bothered to back that up with evidence. While the evidence we do have implies that flipping a coin instead of using double blind trials might actually yield better results!!!
I will title it the "Random Luck Method" and will revolutionist the field of Cancer research by reducing the cost of research to basically zero (flip a coin, heads the hypothesis is true, tails it is false) while increasing the reproducible (and objective truthiness of the results) by up to 40% more than science is giving the field. (Some studies have found reproducibillity as low as 10%)
Except that these projects have not made any signification effect on psychology. It took a sampling of the results and found most of them were shit, what it did not do go through the entire field and filter out all the bad studies. Most psychology papers are still non-reproducible, and the ones currently being written will still be 50% wrong. This is just a status update telling us how the entire field has failed and is continuing to fail. There is no way to interpret this as Science behaving as it should. When science proves a results, you expect the result to have 95% certainty, not less that 50%. And Science is suppose to be self correcting, bus like I said becaue this is just a status update and have corrected nothing, this is just evidence that science is not self-correcting.
But if science can be corrupted, how is it safe? Say you are transported a thousand years into the future. You no longer know the people and establishments doing science. Do you trust the scientific facts and results, or not? If you need to respect, trust, and know the scientists conducting the research to trust the results, that means that scientific findings are irrelevant. Are just as useless as someones hunch or theory. Science is setup specifically so that the science stands on its own, so that if we find out years latter that Einstein was an adulterer it does not invalidate half of science. But these results specifically mean the exact opposite. Scientific results really do depend completely on the integrity of the one making them, important pillars of scientific research that many more studies are based on can and are easily disproved. Proven research is proven to be incorrect. So no, I disagree, Science itself it broken.
Science has disproved itself. It is not even internally consistent. Actual hard sciences get the same results. If you have no reason to trust the a result returned from science is more likely to be true that 50-50, then the entire system is just worthless. I think we need to rethink the whole process.
I am not sure I understand. What even is a paper in computer science? CompSci is pure math, in a very specific field. So what is a no-reproducible study in CompSci, just math that you cannot follow?
The editor absolutely should not have a better idea or who is an expert in your specific sub-field of a sub-field of science. You are the best judge of that.
I don't think this article implies that 64 is the total number of articles that used this method of feud. Just that a single publisher spent tiny amount of effort and found 64 articles. What is this publisher 1% of the industry?.00001%? It does not say. It states 10 journals, what does a single journal publish per year? I imagine these 64 are out of a pool in the thousands, possible a little less or a little more. But we have no reason to assume that they caught any big percentage of the fraudsters.
So now what? We always hear of fraud, bad practices, and papers disproved/invalidated. But what happens then? Are hundreds/thousands of scientist fired and rendered un-hire-able every single year? Or do things like this not have repercussions?
When a peer review journal has absolute proof of fraud is there any chance the scientists will lose their job? Will be ostracized and forever more be ineligible for grants and no community college would touch him? Or does he continue working and researching? What about lesser offences, what if it just turns out that your ground breaking research that got you a job turns out to be false. It is not proof of fraud, but it invalidates your results at the very least.
5,000 people is more people then you could even know by name. That is probably more scientists than are in your entire field of study. You could not have even of has small conversations with all of these people during the course of the research project. That is just too many people for it to ever make sense for most of them to have had an impact on the paper. If I were to credit every single historic scientists who enabled me to finally conduct my research it probably would not even equal 5K people.
He lost all possible respect I might of had for him. Any one who thinks that the Democratic party is any different form the Republican party is an idiot.
In my opinion, every individual bears the brunt of responsibility for themselves. It does not matter if we are talking about crimes, acts of god, or accidents. Crime happens, it is a statistical fact. If it was not the person who did it, it would of been someone else. It is not the fault of a individual criminal that crime exists or the fault of a single bad driver that if you are not being extremely vigilant and are ready for fast action while anywhere near a road you might get killed. Look at it this way. We have a car collide with a pedestrian crossing the road. If we had the ability to go back in time to educate a single individual, for the purpose of saving that single pedestrian, how best to use this power? We could teach the motorist to be a better driver, but there is nothing particularly out of the ordinary about this driver, they are probably not any worse than a significant percentage of other drivers, so we have not increased the victims changes of survival much. Alternatively, if we went back and taught the victim to be vigilant while crossing the road, we would have greatly increased their chances of surviving traffic.
You bear the ultimate responsibility over your own life. No one else. It is not that fault of the lightning that strikes just because you are the victim of that strike, it is not the fault of the home robber, he just did what home robbers do, pick the easiest house to rob. If he did not exist another robber would of made that same assessment. Yes, criminals are also responsible, they are responsible for their actions and for the harm they cause, but if you want to prevent crime from happening you blame the victim, because it is they who had the power to prevent it, and failed to do so.
Did you even read the article. Cheap public transit specifically means that people buy just as many cars as before, but the people who are already not buying cars using slightly more.
Slashdot Mirror
" At the very least you know the were reliable enough to make it through a four year degree" In Arts! I had a friend in Arts who passed a class he did not know he was enrolled in until the day before the final exam.
The average life span has had hardly changed over tens of thousands of years. The average adult caveman lived into his 60 and 70s, many making it decades longer.
I do not care how you signal your are braking, it is simply unsafe to brake without both hands holding onto and controlling the steering bar. not that it is much safer to do anything on a bike without both hands firmly on the handle bars.
It is just irresponsible and completely unsafe to take your hands off the steering wheel to signal, or for any other reason. You need both hands to safely control a bicycle. Sure, it is possible if nothing happens to cost forwards with even no hands on the steering, but a bump in the road or any situation that requires your active participation to avoid because huge hazards.
We have those, they are called sidewalks. The only reasonable place to bike.
There are people who purposely run them down because pretty much all non-bikers, hate bikers. And pretty much all bikers hate drivers. Car and bikes simply seem to not get along on the same road very well at all. This hatred often erupts into open and excessive displays of violence on both sides. So it is getting more dangerous to bike.
They had a complimentary idea, not a different idea. Page Rank ranks a page in general terms, but tells you nothing on if it has anything to do with Einstein (from what I understand). You still need some form of the old way of judging the Einsteininess of a page.
Ethnically cleaning the ocean, one fully automated murder at a time.
Except for for the examples you used "Doctors, Lawyers" that is complicated. Being a doctor from India would put you on the fast track to being a doctor in America, but there are loads of Indian doctors in America who now just drive cabs for a living. Same for Lawyer, except there is probably far less applicable knowledge, knowledge of Indian laws and courtroom culture is sort if irrelevant in America. Also, Lawyers are renowned for being an extremely overcrowded profession in America.
While an H1B worker by definition takes a job away from an American. There cannot be any debate on that point. I guess you could argue that without cheap H1B's that entire companies would just more overseas to employ even cheaper labor.
"We aren't going to pretend this didn't happen." Except that is exactly what they did. You cannot even learn about the Nazis in Germany, as they ban all content the mentions them. America and the rest of the world gets Nazi and holocaust documentaries and novels, German citizens don't.
OK, if you have a law, than how about you take legal action against the people saying things you don't like then, Maas. Why should other people in other countries do your job for you?
"However, science is self-correcting." Except this statement is completely unfounded by evidence. This study, and others like it, show that this science starts out incorrect, and continues to be incorrect. And at no point in time does it magically get self-corrected.
"The scientific process is not perfect but it's the best solution we currently have to removing the people problem." The scientific process is the only method we use. And there are many alternatives that no one in modernity has seriously measured against science to see if they are perhaps better. People say that science is the absolute best possible solution we are ever going to get, but no one has ever bothered to back that up with evidence. While the evidence we do have implies that flipping a coin instead of using double blind trials might actually yield better results!!!
I will title it the "Random Luck Method" and will revolutionist the field of Cancer research by reducing the cost of research to basically zero (flip a coin, heads the hypothesis is true, tails it is false) while increasing the reproducible (and objective truthiness of the results) by up to 40% more than science is giving the field. (Some studies have found reproducibillity as low as 10%)
Except that these projects have not made any signification effect on psychology. It took a sampling of the results and found most of them were shit, what it did not do go through the entire field and filter out all the bad studies. Most psychology papers are still non-reproducible, and the ones currently being written will still be 50% wrong. This is just a status update telling us how the entire field has failed and is continuing to fail. There is no way to interpret this as Science behaving as it should. When science proves a results, you expect the result to have 95% certainty, not less that 50%. And Science is suppose to be self correcting, bus like I said becaue this is just a status update and have corrected nothing, this is just evidence that science is not self-correcting.
But if science can be corrupted, how is it safe? Say you are transported a thousand years into the future. You no longer know the people and establishments doing science. Do you trust the scientific facts and results, or not? If you need to respect, trust, and know the scientists conducting the research to trust the results, that means that scientific findings are irrelevant. Are just as useless as someones hunch or theory. Science is setup specifically so that the science stands on its own, so that if we find out years latter that Einstein was an adulterer it does not invalidate half of science. But these results specifically mean the exact opposite. Scientific results really do depend completely on the integrity of the one making them, important pillars of scientific research that many more studies are based on can and are easily disproved. Proven research is proven to be incorrect. So no, I disagree, Science itself it broken.
Science has disproved itself. It is not even internally consistent. Actual hard sciences get the same results. If you have no reason to trust the a result returned from science is more likely to be true that 50-50, then the entire system is just worthless. I think we need to rethink the whole process.
I am not sure I understand. What even is a paper in computer science? CompSci is pure math, in a very specific field. So what is a no-reproducible study in CompSci, just math that you cannot follow?
Ya, and science says that it is so deadly you have to cover any exposed skin with special creams to not die of cancer.
The editor absolutely should not have a better idea or who is an expert in your specific sub-field of a sub-field of science. You are the best judge of that.
I don't think this article implies that 64 is the total number of articles that used this method of feud. Just that a single publisher spent tiny amount of effort and found 64 articles. What is this publisher 1% of the industry? .00001%? It does not say. It states 10 journals, what does a single journal publish per year? I imagine these 64 are out of a pool in the thousands, possible a little less or a little more. But we have no reason to assume that they caught any big percentage of the fraudsters.
So now what? We always hear of fraud, bad practices, and papers disproved/invalidated. But what happens then? Are hundreds/thousands of scientist fired and rendered un-hire-able every single year? Or do things like this not have repercussions? When a peer review journal has absolute proof of fraud is there any chance the scientists will lose their job? Will be ostracized and forever more be ineligible for grants and no community college would touch him? Or does he continue working and researching? What about lesser offences, what if it just turns out that your ground breaking research that got you a job turns out to be false. It is not proof of fraud, but it invalidates your results at the very least.
5,000 people is more people then you could even know by name. That is probably more scientists than are in your entire field of study. You could not have even of has small conversations with all of these people during the course of the research project. That is just too many people for it to ever make sense for most of them to have had an impact on the paper. If I were to credit every single historic scientists who enabled me to finally conduct my research it probably would not even equal 5K people.
He lost all possible respect I might of had for him. Any one who thinks that the Democratic party is any different form the Republican party is an idiot.
In my opinion, every individual bears the brunt of responsibility for themselves. It does not matter if we are talking about crimes, acts of god, or accidents. Crime happens, it is a statistical fact. If it was not the person who did it, it would of been someone else. It is not the fault of a individual criminal that crime exists or the fault of a single bad driver that if you are not being extremely vigilant and are ready for fast action while anywhere near a road you might get killed. Look at it this way. We have a car collide with a pedestrian crossing the road. If we had the ability to go back in time to educate a single individual, for the purpose of saving that single pedestrian, how best to use this power? We could teach the motorist to be a better driver, but there is nothing particularly out of the ordinary about this driver, they are probably not any worse than a significant percentage of other drivers, so we have not increased the victims changes of survival much. Alternatively, if we went back and taught the victim to be vigilant while crossing the road, we would have greatly increased their chances of surviving traffic. You bear the ultimate responsibility over your own life. No one else. It is not that fault of the lightning that strikes just because you are the victim of that strike, it is not the fault of the home robber, he just did what home robbers do, pick the easiest house to rob. If he did not exist another robber would of made that same assessment. Yes, criminals are also responsible, they are responsible for their actions and for the harm they cause, but if you want to prevent crime from happening you blame the victim, because it is they who had the power to prevent it, and failed to do so.
Did you even read the article. Cheap public transit specifically means that people buy just as many cars as before, but the people who are already not buying cars using slightly more.