You've got a good point about negative results, but I don't think I agree with the rest.
There's nothing wrong with peer review as such, but the current research climate doesn't help it at all. In many countries, research grants are tied to "measurable, objective results", e.g. articles published, preferably in highly-ranked journals. And so researchers want to publish as much as possible, in as highly-ranked journals as they can get into. (Leading to an explosion in research, so no one really has the time to follow all the research in their own field, or even doing thorough peer review.) Journals are ranked among other things from how often they are cited. Negative results aren't often cited. Replicated tests are only cited in systematic reviews. Setting aside money for replication would be a good idea, but journals shouldn't need to fear for their ranking for publishing less glamorous articles either (or rather: ranking shouldn't be taken seriously). Most importantly, publishing shouldn't be so strongly encouraged. Far too much is published already, and much of it just isn't very good.
As for online publishing: that has been the norm the last decade, and is absolutely dominant now. Comment areas? Like Slashdot? God forbid.
What we need is a 'google' of science/medical studies. Unfortunately our government's archaic and purposefully not updated methods of publication mean that if you want to get a digital copy... you have to contribute the labor to re-digitalization. Of course, you can get a digital copy... for a small additional processing fee. -_-
Bullshit. 1) The iPhone 4 started the race for better pixel density. Screen specs were so important to Apple that they had to redefine 'Retina' twice afterwards just to be able to milk the concept for tablets and laptops. 2) Samsung's 2Q2013 smartphone market share was about 30%, with LG, Lenovo and ZTE hovering around 5%, and 'others' (mostly not Nokia) taking 40%, according to IDC (sauce). I'm no mathmagician, but that makes Samsung holding a 90% of the Android market somewhat unlikely. 3) Go to Samsung's web page for the Galaxy Note 3. What are they pushing? Specs? No, the pen and its software interface. Sony's Xperia Z1? Water resistance, then camera. In fact, specs are so alike these days that they're impossible to differentiate by.
So you got everything wrong, except perhaps your last point, which merely lacks any credible evidence.
HL2 isn't beta any more. But yeah, I'd buy more Valve games if I didn't already own them. I played through Portal again (with the open source Radeon driver), and have been playing HL2 now and then, but I usually end up booting to Windows for gaming, just because I'd rather play Bioshock Infinite or whatever. The next big Linux game coming up seems to be Football Manager 2014, but that's just a glorified spreadsheet. I remember playing it under Wine when it was Championship Manager 10 years ago, and it actually ran faster than under Windows.
Highly likely, as weird beliefs about food seem all too fashionable, all the time. I'm sure today's low-carb diets would instantly kill a creature from the eighties, due to the cholesterol.
Research suggests non-celiac wheat allergies actually do exist. Research. Of course, people erroneously self-diagnosing from stuff they've read on the internet and elsewhere also do exist. That does not make you an expert on wheat intolerance, though.
The original iPhone was pretty groundbreaking for what it was (usable touchscreen input), and the iPhone 4 introduced really nice screens, probably the main reason why resolution has been pushed by all other manufacturers since then. Both technologies were available to other manufacturers, but they all followed Apple's lead. Same with tablets, although I think no one in their right mind would get it blown away by the iPad (or any other tablet since then).
The original MacBook Air probably started the whole race to thinness, too. Even though they're no great innovators, Apple certainly have been leading the industry the last ten years. It's a bit funny that it probably started with the iPod, which Apple delivered late to a market in which everyone else insisted on producing utter crap.
Like they said, it's a fashion accessory. Did you see the presenter at the event, with those hideous white glasses? Fashion. So they made a giant, cumbersome watch with insultingly poor battery life and some crazy advanced technology that they couldn't find any practical use for. Fashion. You wouldn't understand. Neither do I.
True, psychology, like any other science, isn't about individuals. But seriously, you know nothing about science. Educate yourself, preferably not on Slashdot.
Your ad-hoc definition of science invented to exclude psychology fails due to the fact that you evidently know nothing about psychology, dictionaries, English majors and pretty much everything else you wrote about.
Truth is, hardly any self-proclaimed AGW 'sceptic' is actually a sceptic. Most of them are True Believers, repeating oft-debunked nonsense in hope of making it stick.
Despite their failures, they've turned record profits several times the last few years. I'm not arguing that Ballmer has been a great CEO, just that he hasn't been running the company into the ground like some claim. Although Windows 8 seems like a nice try.
If stock price is anything to go by, then Microsoft has been a stable multi-billion dollar corporation throughout Ballmer's reign. Microsoft needs to change, but their presumed failure has, so far, been a mighty success compared to most other survivors of the.com crash.
Wrong. There was one article. One. That's not harping. If there were more than one, then surely they would have been escavated by the denialists by now. Yet they cling to that Newsweek article as if it were referenced by everyone else, every day.
As for scientific articles, you've got access to Google Scholar right now, and guess what? It's got year delimiters. If you want to "teach the controversy", at least use readily available data. Here is a review article to get you started. It's a review article, an overview of the then current research on the subject, so you'll see that it actually has something to say about soot and aerosols:
Several studies in the past have concluded that if these aerosols were distributed uniformly over the earth they would increase the earth's overalll albedo by scattering sunlight and thereby cause a general cooling (Rasool & Schneider 1971, Yamamoto & Tanaka 1972, Bryson & Wendland 1975, Budyko 1977). The reason why this is almost surely not the case are summarized by Kellogg, Coakley & Grams (1975) (see also Kellogg 1977), and they are briefly restated. First, such industrial aerosols (and the same would apply to agricultural slash-and-burn smoke) do not remain airborne in the lower levels of the atmosphere for more than about five days on average (Moore, Poet & Martell 1973). That means they are a regional phenomenon and are limited for the most part to the land areas where they were created.
I'm a bit impressed that the referenced article by Yamamoto and Tanaka (1972) is also freely available on the interwebs, and can be found here. And even that one accepts global warming due to CO2, and the local variability of aerosols.
It's not a view, it's a claim: "like the world did [worry about global cooling] when I was back in highschool in the 70's". Your claim is false, it's proven false, it's known to be false. Fascists never were overly preoccupied with the truth, a trait they have in common with you. However, I don't find that a reason for calling you, or people like you, fascist. You're just a dishonest prick. A common liar.
Slashdot Mirror
Even worse than the slashvertisements are the slashbots who proudly flaunt their ignorance instead of doing a basic search.
I'm not sure I'd call a 27" monitor an area of science, but it does benefit from today's faster GPUs.
Not quite. We're seeing an exponential growth in publishing without a similar increase in quality. That means the crap to quality ratio is going up.
You've got a good point about negative results, but I don't think I agree with the rest.
There's nothing wrong with peer review as such, but the current research climate doesn't help it at all. In many countries, research grants are tied to "measurable, objective results", e.g. articles published, preferably in highly-ranked journals. And so researchers want to publish as much as possible, in as highly-ranked journals as they can get into. (Leading to an explosion in research, so no one really has the time to follow all the research in their own field, or even doing thorough peer review.) Journals are ranked among other things from how often they are cited. Negative results aren't often cited. Replicated tests are only cited in systematic reviews. Setting aside money for replication would be a good idea, but journals shouldn't need to fear for their ranking for publishing less glamorous articles either (or rather: ranking shouldn't be taken seriously). Most importantly, publishing shouldn't be so strongly encouraged. Far too much is published already, and much of it just isn't very good.
As for online publishing: that has been the norm the last decade, and is absolutely dominant now. Comment areas? Like Slashdot? God forbid.
What we need is a 'google' of science/medical studies. Unfortunately our government's archaic and purposefully not updated methods of publication mean that if you want to get a digital copy... you have to contribute the labor to re-digitalization. Of course, you can get a digital copy... for a small additional processing fee. -_-
LOL, +5 "insightful" is the new +5, ignorant.
"Insightful" is just some guy with mod points who happens to agree.
Which has nothing to do with anything of the above, and also is without evidence.
Bullshit. 1) The iPhone 4 started the race for better pixel density. Screen specs were so important to Apple that they had to redefine 'Retina' twice afterwards just to be able to milk the concept for tablets and laptops. 2) Samsung's 2Q2013 smartphone market share was about 30%, with LG, Lenovo and ZTE hovering around 5%, and 'others' (mostly not Nokia) taking 40%, according to IDC (sauce). I'm no mathmagician, but that makes Samsung holding a 90% of the Android market somewhat unlikely. 3) Go to Samsung's web page for the Galaxy Note 3. What are they pushing? Specs? No, the pen and its software interface. Sony's Xperia Z1? Water resistance, then camera. In fact, specs are so alike these days that they're impossible to differentiate by.
So you got everything wrong, except perhaps your last point, which merely lacks any credible evidence.
HL2 isn't beta any more. But yeah, I'd buy more Valve games if I didn't already own them. I played through Portal again (with the open source Radeon driver), and have been playing HL2 now and then, but I usually end up booting to Windows for gaming, just because I'd rather play Bioshock Infinite or whatever. The next big Linux game coming up seems to be Football Manager 2014, but that's just a glorified spreadsheet. I remember playing it under Wine when it was Championship Manager 10 years ago, and it actually ran faster than under Windows.
Highly likely, as weird beliefs about food seem all too fashionable, all the time. I'm sure today's low-carb diets would instantly kill a creature from the eighties, due to the cholesterol.
Research suggests non-celiac wheat allergies actually do exist. Research. Of course, people erroneously self-diagnosing from stuff they've read on the internet and elsewhere also do exist. That does not make you an expert on wheat intolerance, though.
What? I don't think the DSM is about to redefine delusion, as a psychiatric term, to include truthers, chemtrail-believers and AGW denialists.
The original iPhone was pretty groundbreaking for what it was (usable touchscreen input), and the iPhone 4 introduced really nice screens, probably the main reason why resolution has been pushed by all other manufacturers since then. Both technologies were available to other manufacturers, but they all followed Apple's lead. Same with tablets, although I think no one in their right mind would get it blown away by the iPad (or any other tablet since then).
The original MacBook Air probably started the whole race to thinness, too. Even though they're no great innovators, Apple certainly have been leading the industry the last ten years. It's a bit funny that it probably started with the iPod, which Apple delivered late to a market in which everyone else insisted on producing utter crap.
Socialism, lol.
Like they said, it's a fashion accessory. Did you see the presenter at the event, with those hideous white glasses? Fashion. So they made a giant, cumbersome watch with insultingly poor battery life and some crazy advanced technology that they couldn't find any practical use for. Fashion. You wouldn't understand. Neither do I.
I'm close when saying you know nothing about science, yes. I'll add that you don't know how to make an argument.
True, psychology, like any other science, isn't about individuals. But seriously, you know nothing about science. Educate yourself, preferably not on Slashdot.
Your ad-hoc definition of science invented to exclude psychology fails due to the fact that you evidently know nothing about psychology, dictionaries, English majors and pretty much everything else you wrote about.
Truth is, hardly any self-proclaimed AGW 'sceptic' is actually a sceptic. Most of them are True Believers, repeating oft-debunked nonsense in hope of making it stick.
Despite their failures, they've turned record profits several times the last few years. I'm not arguing that Ballmer has been a great CEO, just that he hasn't been running the company into the ground like some claim. Although Windows 8 seems like a nice try.
If stock price is anything to go by, then Microsoft has been a stable multi-billion dollar corporation throughout Ballmer's reign. Microsoft needs to change, but their presumed failure has, so far, been a mighty success compared to most other survivors of the .com crash.
Torture was in fact illegal. It was just approved by the government.
What makes you believe Samsung will be any more open source friendly than Google? They have no history of that, quite the contrary. Also, https://developer.tizen.org/forums/sdk-ide/tizen-sdk-licensing-makes-whole-tizen-not-open-source
Wrong. There was one article. One. That's not harping. If there were more than one, then surely they would have been escavated by the denialists by now. Yet they cling to that Newsweek article as if it were referenced by everyone else, every day.
As for scientific articles, you've got access to Google Scholar right now, and guess what? It's got year delimiters. If you want to "teach the controversy", at least use readily available data. Here is a review article to get you started. It's a review article, an overview of the then current research on the subject, so you'll see that it actually has something to say about soot and aerosols:
I'm a bit impressed that the referenced article by Yamamoto and Tanaka (1972) is also freely available on the interwebs, and can be found here. And even that one accepts global warming due to CO2, and the local variability of aerosols.
It's not a view, it's a claim: "like the world did [worry about global cooling] when I was back in highschool in the 70's". Your claim is false, it's proven false, it's known to be false. Fascists never were overly preoccupied with the truth, a trait they have in common with you. However, I don't find that a reason for calling you, or people like you, fascist. You're just a dishonest prick. A common liar.