As Techdirt stated, this story was: Vetted By Malnourished Monkeys. Apparently the same this happened here. Yay.
That's the link I was looking for. Mods take notice of parent's post please? Here is a tidbit:
NYT Runs Quack, Self-Serving Anti-Google OpEd
By Paul Kedrosky Monday, December 28, 2009 ShareThis
There is a quack, self-serving, and silly search-related OpEd in Monday's NY Times that would be amusing, if it weren't so indelibly dumb. In it the founder of a company, Foundem, in the search business alleges that search company Google should be investigated and forced to do a better job of highlighting firms like his.
Gosh, what a shocker. Someone in search with minimal web traffic -- Compete says Foundem gets a little less web traffic than The Fortune Cookie Chronicles does, which is to say around 1,700 a month -- wants someone in search with a lot of web traffic, Google, to send his company buckets of visitors. Amazing.
The OpEd goes downhill from there. We get a litany of silly complaints, like the idea that Google doesn't innovate, that it just buys stuff from others, and that Google's Maps and other products have hurt other companies. Yeesh. I'll say this really slowly: Consumers want products that work together, simplify our lives, and solve problems. For this nitwit to want to throw us back to a world where we need point products -- maps here, directions there, product search there, email over there, etc. -- as some sort of full-employment act for me-too companies that can't get web traffic on their own merits is batshit nuts.
Of course, there is a second level of stupid to this piece, and that goes to the NYT itself. It took until the fourth paragraph of the piece until we find out that the OpEd author is, you know, conflicted in that he himself runs a search company (albeit one with negligible traffic). Not only that, he has an axe to grind, as he goes on in paragraph four to arm-wavingly allege that Google "disappeared" his site from its results...
American site, dude. If someone says that taking a rifle or a semi-automatic on a plane is your god-given right, that's a +5 insightful. (now on for my wasting of karma)
Hey, here is another thing we haven't thought much about. I don't know how it would affect us, but it could be, like, super heavy important.
yeah dude like they have been with us for millions of years and they do lots of stuff we don't know well and there are plenty of interaction effects and... Well I could go on, but there's so much village idiot bait one can take per day.
When exactly was our lifespan 35?
Or are you just demonstrating that you suck at math?
Here's a mental exercise for you:
Say you have 1000 people. 499 of them die before they turn one year old. 499 of them die at the age of 70. Two of them die at the age of 35.
What is the average lifespan? At what age did most of them die?
Our "average lifespan" has been increasing because we're eliminating infant mortality, not because most people only lived to some ridiculously low age.
thing is the American prison system is like an MIT PhD for turning anyone into an ultra-violent animal. Then after your years, it's back to society, pitbull; go have some fun out there.
I would guess that temperature, in the Hofstadterian sense, would play a large role here. By the way, here is the full paper, and miraculously, it is an open access one.
But, a referee report should not be about opinions, it should be a straight forward analysis of the results reported in the paper. If it's really science, then it should be completely objective, thus opinion and personality should have nothing to do with it. Hence, there should be no need for anonymity. When I grade my students' papers, it certainly isn't anonymous, but it doesn't need to be because I am giving them objective feedback (e.g. "this is wrong because you said cos(x+h) = cos(x) + cos(h) which is not true.").
Your idea is interesting, but I guess opinion matters more than you think it does. I recently recommended rejection or major revision on a paper about "Economic forecasting". I think the math was all fine and dandy. In your view, I should have recommended publication. But I simply could not stand the way terms like prediction or forecasting were used. I asked the author to use terms like "data extrapolation". If economic prediction were possible, why publish? The function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable; and all those clich'es.
My point is, something could be totally right inside the little confines of a model, while the premises of the model become a matter of opinion and philosophy. So I don't see how you can actually separate the two; what's opinion and what's objective, so cleanly like that.
If anyone subscribed to it in google reader or other feeds, it's probably still there. It will be nice to read what was in there. Arrington's chuck norris is in the US visas. If it was really techcrunch that got visas for that guy with a wig and his band, then either a) they conducted official business with techcrunch.com, or b) they Fking lied to Uncle Sam (which is not a good position to be in in an american court, i would imagine there may be some crimes involved way beyond the civil stuff).
This is a PR war also; he wants to, well, crunch fusion garage; all the while attracting other potential investors/partners. Hell, all it takes is one phone call from someone high up at Dell or Google and the thing is built. PR overrules lawyers, always! (unless the court says otherwise).
On other news, with Android and Chrome OS on the market, who would like to get on a sinking boat of a losing OS???
The answer you seek is in the Visas. If these FG folks got into America through Techcrunch.com to conduct any form of business, as Arrington claims, they'll have a lot of explaining to do as to why they stepped into sacred uncle sam's land and did not conduct aforementioned business. I'm a Brazilian and it's effing annoying to get a business visa to the usa; if techcrunch helped or filed the wonderful, marvelous, USA immigration forms, then I think they can start from there.
Here Iranians, How to make an atomic bomb, a nice weekend project. There's also how to clone your neighbor's wife in 10 easy steps. Quite an informative website actually.
"The US quite clearly has the ability..." Tha ability, yes. Sure. Piece of cake. But the US doesn't have the will. You seem to think that a war with Iran would be easy as the one in Iraq. That's a very bad assumption. Iraq was under a decade's of international sanctions, and the scarcity of WMDs just showed that those sanctions were indeed working.
Iran is a whole new ball game; and a war there would not be easy, unless the atoms are split or the atoms are banded up together--which is basically suicide to do on a first strike basis, as everyone turns against you.
Slashdot Mirror
As Techdirt stated, this story was: Vetted By Malnourished Monkeys. Apparently the same this happened here. Yay.
That's the link I was looking for. Mods take notice of parent's post please? Here is a tidbit:
NYT Runs Quack, Self-Serving Anti-Google OpEd By Paul Kedrosky Monday, December 28, 2009 ShareThis There is a quack, self-serving, and silly search-related OpEd in Monday's NY Times that would be amusing, if it weren't so indelibly dumb. In it the founder of a company, Foundem, in the search business alleges that search company Google should be investigated and forced to do a better job of highlighting firms like his. Gosh, what a shocker. Someone in search with minimal web traffic -- Compete says Foundem gets a little less web traffic than The Fortune Cookie Chronicles does, which is to say around 1,700 a month -- wants someone in search with a lot of web traffic, Google, to send his company buckets of visitors. Amazing. The OpEd goes downhill from there. We get a litany of silly complaints, like the idea that Google doesn't innovate, that it just buys stuff from others, and that Google's Maps and other products have hurt other companies. Yeesh. I'll say this really slowly: Consumers want products that work together, simplify our lives, and solve problems. For this nitwit to want to throw us back to a world where we need point products -- maps here, directions there, product search there, email over there, etc. -- as some sort of full-employment act for me-too companies that can't get web traffic on their own merits is batshit nuts. Of course, there is a second level of stupid to this piece, and that goes to the NYT itself. It took until the fourth paragraph of the piece until we find out that the OpEd author is, you know, conflicted in that he himself runs a search company (albeit one with negligible traffic). Not only that, he has an axe to grind, as he goes on in paragraph four to arm-wavingly allege that Google "disappeared" his site from its results...
It goes on from there. Excellent piece overall.
American site, dude. If someone says that taking a rifle or a semi-automatic on a plane is your god-given right, that's a +5 insightful. (now on for my wasting of karma)
Hey, here is another thing we haven't thought much about. I don't know how it would affect us, but it could be, like, super heavy important.
yeah dude like they have been with us for millions of years and they do lots of stuff we don't know well and there are plenty of interaction effects and... Well I could go on, but there's so much village idiot bait one can take per day.
and here I was thinking this was the wonderful yearly x-mas thread having absolutely nothing about government tracking paranoia
When exactly was our lifespan 35? Or are you just demonstrating that you suck at math? Here's a mental exercise for you: Say you have 1000 people. 499 of them die before they turn one year old. 499 of them die at the age of 70. Two of them die at the age of 35. What is the average lifespan? At what age did most of them die? Our "average lifespan" has been increasing because we're eliminating infant mortality, not because most people only lived to some ridiculously low age.
beyond me how you got modded troll
+$0.65
thanks for the laugh, Sulphur!
no worries. with that username, you'll probably be molesting one anyways
now that microsoft CEO/suspected cyborg Steve Ballmer nailed this thing, who on /. will care about it anymore? nothing to see here
no. they would need to have sex.
thing is the American prison system is like an MIT PhD for turning anyone into an ultra-violent animal. Then after your years, it's back to society, pitbull; go have some fun out there.
Oh, like the Americans do with oil?
sorry mate. you mean a glass of whisky, right?
I can't refrain from pointing out that you seem to have a very adequate userid
human population growth is much more bacteria-like than primate-like.
I would guess that temperature, in the Hofstadterian sense, would play a large role here. By the way, here is the full paper, and miraculously, it is an open access one.
twitter?
But, a referee report should not be about opinions, it should be a straight forward analysis of the results reported in the paper. If it's really science, then it should be completely objective, thus opinion and personality should have nothing to do with it. Hence, there should be no need for anonymity. When I grade my students' papers, it certainly isn't anonymous, but it doesn't need to be because I am giving them objective feedback (e.g. "this is wrong because you said cos(x+h) = cos(x) + cos(h) which is not true.").
Your idea is interesting, but I guess opinion matters more than you think it does. I recently recommended rejection or major revision on a paper about "Economic forecasting". I think the math was all fine and dandy. In your view, I should have recommended publication. But I simply could not stand the way terms like prediction or forecasting were used. I asked the author to use terms like "data extrapolation". If economic prediction were possible, why publish? The function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable; and all those clich'es.
My point is, something could be totally right inside the little confines of a model, while the premises of the model become a matter of opinion and philosophy. So I don't see how you can actually separate the two; what's opinion and what's objective, so cleanly like that.
If anyone subscribed to it in google reader or other feeds, it's probably still there. It will be nice to read what was in there. Arrington's chuck norris is in the US visas. If it was really techcrunch that got visas for that guy with a wig and his band, then either a) they conducted official business with techcrunch.com, or b) they Fking lied to Uncle Sam (which is not a good position to be in in an american court, i would imagine there may be some crimes involved way beyond the civil stuff).
On other news, with Android and Chrome OS on the market, who would like to get on a sinking boat of a losing OS???
The answer you seek is in the Visas. If these FG folks got into America through Techcrunch.com to conduct any form of business, as Arrington claims, they'll have a lot of explaining to do as to why they stepped into sacred uncle sam's land and did not conduct aforementioned business. I'm a Brazilian and it's effing annoying to get a business visa to the usa; if techcrunch helped or filed the wonderful, marvelous, USA immigration forms, then I think they can start from there.
Here Iranians, How to make an atomic bomb, a nice weekend project. There's also how to clone your neighbor's wife in 10 easy steps. Quite an informative website actually.
Iran is a whole new ball game; and a war there would not be easy, unless the atoms are split or the atoms are banded up together--which is basically suicide to do on a first strike basis, as everyone turns against you.
haha. The collapse is from within. It has names like deficit, debt, and dollar.
very insightful. you must be a nice, balanced, person