Trouble is, this knowledge is not shared using the usual method of scientific communication: the peer-reviewed article. It remains within the lab, or at the most shared informally among close colleagues. As it stands, the scientific culture discourages sharing negative results.
This sort of complaint goes back a very long ways, and it's certainly as good a time as any to address it head on.
We have a habit in writing articles published in scientific journals to make the work as finished as possible, to cover all the tracks, to not worry about the blind alleys or to describe how you had the wrong idea first, and so on. So there isn't any place to publish, in a dignified manner, what you actually did in order to get to do the work, although, there has been in these days, some interest in this kind of thing.
- Richard Feynman, Nobel Prize Acceptance Lecture, 1965
If you really want to defend creationism on/., I salute your bravery.
Because of course even mentioning what assholes you guys are about Creationism must prove that I'm defending it. I've done nothing whatsoever to defend it, I've just questioned your behavior towards it in the distinct absence of it.
Nice job not even reading any of my posts or any of the respondents. I was discussing non-Creationists who warp biological topics into an excuse to attack Creationism, despite the fact that the Creationists usually aren't here and aren't posting.
So no, I wasn't disagreeing with modding down anti-scientic and anti-logical topics, I was disagreeing with going out of one's way to bring up anti-scientific topics just to ridicule them.
...[criticizing creationism] is still a discussion about evolutionary theories, it only digresses towards pointing out the wrong ones.
Except that it's not a mere digression when it's so many respondents first (and only) thing to contribute; it's just hate and smug dismissal of someone not even in the conversation masquerading as a contribution.
I'm not exaggerating in the least; look around. I see at least one +5 post in every biology or evolution topic that exclusively concerns bashing creationism and only half of the time even mentions the topic at hand.
You're seriously asking this question?
Of course I'm not seriously asking why ultra-conservative rants get modded down as if I believe they shouldn't, I was just contrasting the constant stream of hate stupid, vitriolic conservatives get with the near-acceptance stupid, vitriolic anti-Christians receive.
Fucking brilliant, modding my prior post offtopic. I respond directly to someone elses post for the sake of pointing out a systemic problem with snotty, self-righteous offtopic posts and what do you do? Mod me offtopic. Good fucking game, slashdot.
The very first thing I wondered when I saw the word Darwinian in the headline was "How many seconds will it take the slashdotters to slip in a blithe attack on creationism, even though no creationists will have attacked the theory or even responded?"
Turns out it was roughly five.
Just why is it that ultra-conservative rants about God or racial superiority or anti-socialism are instantly modded off-topic, troll, and/or flamebait until they sink beneath the thresh hold and yet completely off-topic attacks on Creationism in every story even vaguely connected with biology or evolution get modded +5 insightful?
Consider that vitamin D deficiency is related to behavioral issues like depression that can manifest themselves in different ways in children. If kids misbehaves in school, they are often denied going outside at recess into the sunshine. If kids misbehave more, they are denied being outside all summer in the sunshine because they have to go to summer school. If they are really bad eventually, then kids get set to juvenile detention and then prison where they may be mostly indoors for years. Sadly, that is a negative spiral of vitamin D deficiency. Homeschoolers at least have the option of being outdoors more and getting more sunshine.
Holy shit, I never realized all juvenile behavioral problems could be linked to a child 'acting out' just one single time and then never seeing sunshine again. You've enlightened me.
Seriously though, you've taken your potentially valid hypothesis and then strung it through 3 or 4 eventualities in a child's life to the point where it's barely plausible anymore, and completely unprovable. It's dramatic over-simplifications like your lack-of-sunlight claim that started things like telling kids to never, ever get any sunlight in the first place. If it's a problem then say so and back it up, but don't hype it as the source of all human discontent.
Every time I hear someone use these words my mind instantly knows you're version of politics is about the same as my version of NFL Football.
So every time someone uses the word liberal or conservative you automatically know they're an ignorant, belligerent partisan worthy of your undying contempt? Are you insane?
I also can't tell you how ironic it is when someone insulting another person's intelligence can't use the correct form of the word "your" in the process.
I've found that more than just about any other degree Computer Science and to a less extent Medical Degrees imbue the recipient with an unnatural ego when it comes to subjects with which they are unfamiliar.
+5 insightful
In the last couple years I've come to my own theory that economists, physicists, and computer "scientists" all suffer some delusion that they can solve all problems in all other fields with slightly esoteric applications of the standard methods from their discipline. See Freakonomics, etc.
Discomfort often comes from the neck size of the shirt being too small.
And the neck sizes are always too small because shirts are made for the fattest possible person who still somehow has a neck of a particular size. At 6 feet and 160 pounds I'm thin but nowhere near emaciated, yet every shirt long enough for my arms, whether from Target or Nordstrom, could literally hold two of me in the torso yet barely buttons in the neck.
Yes, I know I'm way off topic, but good god it pisses me off. Why should it be impossible to find a shirt that fits for less than $150?
Since magnetic North does not coincide with true North, then magnetic North can move East by simply circling true North in a counter-clockwise direction, as viewed from above the (true) North Pole.
Provided magnetic north isn't actually on the north pole, anyway. God knows how we'll figure things out if that ever happens.
So their rules are even stricter than the English version?
Does this mean the German editors are nicer and less bureaucratic than the possessive assholes who consider English wikipedia their personal creation, or should we expect to see German wikipedia go down in flames sooner than later?
...we would be concerned that the cameras might encourage vigilantism. That people would think they saw an illegal immigrant and then jump in their truck with a gun.
That criticism shows up at least twice in the BBC article, but it doesn't make sense to me. The cameras might attract some people already partial to vigilantism, but I don't believe they flat out encourage vigilantes in general.
What's more, the locations of the cameras are secret; otherwise immigrants and traffickers would learn to avoid all those spots within days. The watchers shouldn't be able to find the camera locations, so this stuff about "jumping into their truck with a gun" isn't even possible.
I don't know whether I agree or not with the program, but the "concerns" quoted here seem a little far fetched. Furthermore, vigilantes present as much danger to law enforcement as to their prey, so I don't believe the Border Patrol or sheriff's offices will continue the program if there's significant evidence of more people hunting illegals.
Double post, sorry. Here's your link for just how the EU also does crazy, domineering shit to other countries. I know you love to think it's all fun and cooperation and puppy dogs in the EU, and the US government are 100% imperialist psychos, but pretty much everyone as big as either the EU or the US government are power hungry pricks.
Are you aware how America (well, the USA) is viewed outside of the US?
Yup, totally aware, thanks. And they're halfway right; they're also halfway wrong. Just like I'm certainly at least partially wrong about the EU, but I'm pretty sure it's only partially. Welcome to the wonderful world of perception.
None of that, however, has anything to do with whether or not the EU imposes on other nations. Your attempt to reframe the discussion in terms of US imperialism is simply the pot calling the kettle black. The EU does every bit as much crazy, manipulative shit as the US, *especially* with copyright law.
Why are you all surprised that a case against a canadian was heard in California?
The MPAA have pretended for the last decade that US copyright law has worldwide jurisdiction, and their attorneys have generated lawsuits or cease-and-desist letters reflecting this belief. Dreamworks sics the DMCA on Pirate Bay
Between the EU and the MPAA there's always someone trying to concentrate their own power by making their favorite local laws the international rule.
And it's the people who run the medical schools and control the AMA who limit the number of graduates exclusively to keep the salaries high.
It's doctor-politicians who fuck it up, and they're actually rare in the profession. We'd almost certainly have better doctors than we do now if we paid them half as much and let them consistently work less than 60 hours a week, and they'd absolutely make less mistakes; we're stuck with what we have because the people certifying doctors want doctors to remain filthy rich and continue paying them fees.
In no way whatsoever did I assume money should be the primary goal: if money was in any way the primary goal, science is the dead last place to seek your fortune when finance gets you all the money you want on a four-year degree.
I simply said that a large number of great minds would like to make a decent or above-average living, to enjoy a few genuine luxuries, in exchange for the sort of job where 70 hours a week isn't uncommon. I didn't state or imply that all they care about is the money, not by any psychotic stretch of the imagination.
Yes, I suppose people who give selflessly are impressive, but in the historic record I don't believe they're more productive or more important than people who expect some compensation, or even people who do just care about the money.
Why should newspapers get first crack at the information posted in the leaks? It sounds like all they'd contribute is the research time of their writers (and a little local publicity), and yet the leaks would shorten and ease their research process enormously. Why give them the added benefit of two weeks exclusive time with the leaked information?
Maybe I'm missing something here, but why should an organization built on the premise that traditional media hides the truth or doesn't have the resources to investigate it properly begin an initiative which will prop up local papers and give them exclusive stories, albeit temporarily, from the information uncovered? Does wikileaks actually like traditional media and want to help them out? Why not continue relying on their volunteer sources for the whole process?
I call bullshit. Yes, some things are greater than any amount of money, but it doesn't automatically follow that accepting money makes you impure or insincere. Your selection of quotes strongly implies this, however.
It's thinking like this that brought us a world where people assume doctors are greedy bastards if they want a high-end salary for 12 years of soul-crushing education, where we assume that $55,000/year should be great for any scientist because they're not *supposed* to care about money, only about the work.
You insult a large number of great minds when you assume a truly good researcher isn't allowed to enjoy caviar as much as the next guy. It also makes the field look highly unattractive for people who might work their asses off to solve world hunger and might like to drive a Jaguar. If you can imagine such a selfish, insincere bastard.
Good science and a love of luxury don't conflict automatically, they only conflict when you compromise good science to feed your love of luxury. Not to mention that food still costs money everywhere I've ever lived, whether it's caviar or oatmeal.
Didn't we do this in the 90's?... If we do this there had better be significant strings attached.
Right...give them more money but this time put *strings* on it.
How about the kind of strings where we send every board member and executive, of any of these companies at any time since we gave them the money *last time*, a notice that they can install what we've already paid for or face federal fraud charges?
Seriously, I'm not usually a litigious, pseudo-populist dickwad, but a lawsuit or some criminal charges seem completely reasonable here.
And for fuck sake don't give them *more* money, unless you're okay with literally *training them*, like suggestible little puppy dogs, to defraud taxpayers.
Re:Gee, it's almost like they have a monopoly or s
on
Less Than Free
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
First of all, having a monopoly is legal. Nothing wrong with that.
But there *is* something wrong with that. The conditions of an Efficient Market, upon which our current iteration of capitalism is more or less based, actually demand competition and mathematically prove that both affordability and total innovation ultimately suffer when monopolies exist. Some economists believe 4 companies owning a total of 80% in a given market effectively form a cartel, and gouge their customers automatically; they charge more and innovate less unconsciously, even if they don't communicate with one another, even if they don't know the other 3 competitors *exist*.
Google probably controls almost 80% of search *by itself*. If 4 companies owning 80% of a market can do serious damage, one company owning 70% or 80% is a potential catastrophe.
Google gives us cool things for now, but ultimately their primacy online could be an even bigger problem than Microsoft's primacy in operating systems.
Before you all get too bent out of shape (too late, I know) this comments much more on the Italian justice system, and only to a lesser extent on the increasing debate over whether your genes "made you do it".
Italian law provides for "degrees of guilt", meaning even if you admit your crime certain affirmative defenses result in reduced sentences. They can decide *how* guilty you are after deciding you're guilty, as an official process, as opposed to the fuzzier ways judges think about "mitigating circumstances" and stuff in other places.
Slashdot Mirror
Trouble is, this knowledge is not shared using the usual method of scientific communication: the peer-reviewed article. It remains within the lab, or at the most shared informally among close colleagues. As it stands, the scientific culture discourages sharing negative results.
This sort of complaint goes back a very long ways, and it's certainly as good a time as any to address it head on.
We have a habit in writing articles published in scientific journals to make the work as finished as possible, to cover all the tracks, to not worry about the blind alleys or to describe how you had the wrong idea first, and so on. So there isn't any place to publish, in a dignified manner, what you actually did in order to get to do the work, although, there has been in these days, some interest in this kind of thing.
- Richard Feynman, Nobel Prize Acceptance Lecture, 1965
If you really want to defend creationism on /., I salute your bravery.
Because of course even mentioning what assholes you guys are about Creationism must prove that I'm defending it. I've done nothing whatsoever to defend it, I've just questioned your behavior towards it in the distinct absence of it.
Nice job not even reading any of my posts or any of the respondents. I was discussing non-Creationists who warp biological topics into an excuse to attack Creationism, despite the fact that the Creationists usually aren't here and aren't posting.
So no, I wasn't disagreeing with modding down anti-scientic and anti-logical topics, I was disagreeing with going out of one's way to bring up anti-scientific topics just to ridicule them.
...[criticizing creationism] is still a discussion about evolutionary theories, it only digresses towards pointing out the wrong ones.
Except that it's not a mere digression when it's so many respondents first (and only) thing to contribute; it's just hate and smug dismissal of someone not even in the conversation masquerading as a contribution.
I think you are exaggerating.
I'm not exaggerating in the least; look around. I see at least one +5 post in every biology or evolution topic that exclusively concerns bashing creationism and only half of the time even mentions the topic at hand.
You're seriously asking this question?
Of course I'm not seriously asking why ultra-conservative rants get modded down as if I believe they shouldn't, I was just contrasting the constant stream of hate stupid, vitriolic conservatives get with the near-acceptance stupid, vitriolic anti-Christians receive.
Fucking brilliant, modding my prior post offtopic. I respond directly to someone elses post for the sake of pointing out a systemic problem with snotty, self-righteous offtopic posts and what do you do? Mod me offtopic. Good fucking game, slashdot.
The very first thing I wondered when I saw the word Darwinian in the headline was "How many seconds will it take the slashdotters to slip in a blithe attack on creationism, even though no creationists will have attacked the theory or even responded?"
Turns out it was roughly five.
Just why is it that ultra-conservative rants about God or racial superiority or anti-socialism are instantly modded off-topic, troll, and/or flamebait until they sink beneath the thresh hold and yet completely off-topic attacks on Creationism in every story even vaguely connected with biology or evolution get modded +5 insightful?
Consider that vitamin D deficiency is related to behavioral issues like depression that can manifest themselves in different ways in children. If kids misbehaves in school, they are often denied going outside at recess into the sunshine. If kids misbehave more, they are denied being outside all summer in the sunshine because they have to go to summer school. If they are really bad eventually, then kids get set to juvenile detention and then prison where they may be mostly indoors for years. Sadly, that is a negative spiral of vitamin D deficiency. Homeschoolers at least have the option of being outdoors more and getting more sunshine.
Holy shit, I never realized all juvenile behavioral problems could be linked to a child 'acting out' just one single time and then never seeing sunshine again. You've enlightened me.
Seriously though, you've taken your potentially valid hypothesis and then strung it through 3 or 4 eventualities in a child's life to the point where it's barely plausible anymore, and completely unprovable. It's dramatic over-simplifications like your lack-of-sunlight claim that started things like telling kids to never, ever get any sunlight in the first place. If it's a problem then say so and back it up, but don't hype it as the source of all human discontent.
Every time I hear someone use these words my mind instantly knows you're version of politics is about the same as my version of NFL Football.
So every time someone uses the word liberal or conservative you automatically know they're an ignorant, belligerent partisan worthy of your undying contempt? Are you insane?
I also can't tell you how ironic it is when someone insulting another person's intelligence can't use the correct form of the word "your" in the process.
I've found that more than just about any other degree Computer Science and to a less extent Medical Degrees imbue the recipient with an unnatural ego when it comes to subjects with which they are unfamiliar.
+5 insightful
In the last couple years I've come to my own theory that economists, physicists, and computer "scientists" all suffer some delusion that they can solve all problems in all other fields with slightly esoteric applications of the standard methods from their discipline. See Freakonomics, etc.
Discomfort often comes from the neck size of the shirt being too small.
And the neck sizes are always too small because shirts are made for the fattest possible person who still somehow has a neck of a particular size. At 6 feet and 160 pounds I'm thin but nowhere near emaciated, yet every shirt long enough for my arms, whether from Target or Nordstrom, could literally hold two of me in the torso yet barely buttons in the neck.
Yes, I know I'm way off topic, but good god it pisses me off. Why should it be impossible to find a shirt that fits for less than $150?
Since magnetic North does not coincide with true North, then magnetic North can move East by simply circling true North in a counter-clockwise direction, as viewed from above the (true) North Pole.
Provided magnetic north isn't actually on the north pole, anyway. God knows how we'll figure things out if that ever happens.
So their rules are even stricter than the English version?
Does this mean the German editors are nicer and less bureaucratic than the possessive assholes who consider English wikipedia their personal creation, or should we expect to see German wikipedia go down in flames sooner than later?
...we would be concerned that the cameras might encourage vigilantism. That people would think they saw an illegal immigrant and then jump in their truck with a gun.
That criticism shows up at least twice in the BBC article, but it doesn't make sense to me. The cameras might attract some people already partial to vigilantism, but I don't believe they flat out encourage vigilantes in general.
What's more, the locations of the cameras are secret; otherwise immigrants and traffickers would learn to avoid all those spots within days. The watchers shouldn't be able to find the camera locations, so this stuff about "jumping into their truck with a gun" isn't even possible.
I don't know whether I agree or not with the program, but the "concerns" quoted here seem a little far fetched. Furthermore, vigilantes present as much danger to law enforcement as to their prey, so I don't believe the Border Patrol or sheriff's offices will continue the program if there's significant evidence of more people hunting illegals.
Double post, sorry. Here's your link for just how the EU also does crazy, domineering shit to other countries. I know you love to think it's all fun and cooperation and puppy dogs in the EU, and the US government are 100% imperialist psychos, but pretty much everyone as big as either the EU or the US government are power hungry pricks.
The EU apparently owns Canada now
Are you aware how America (well, the USA) is viewed outside of the US?
Yup, totally aware, thanks. And they're halfway right; they're also halfway wrong. Just like I'm certainly at least partially wrong about the EU, but I'm pretty sure it's only partially. Welcome to the wonderful world of perception.
None of that, however, has anything to do with whether or not the EU imposes on other nations. Your attempt to reframe the discussion in terms of US imperialism is simply the pot calling the kettle black. The EU does every bit as much crazy, manipulative shit as the US, *especially* with copyright law.
Why are you all surprised that a case against a canadian was heard in California?
The MPAA have pretended for the last decade that US copyright law has worldwide jurisdiction, and their attorneys have generated lawsuits or cease-and-desist letters reflecting this belief. Dreamworks sics the DMCA on Pirate Bay
Between the EU and the MPAA there's always someone trying to concentrate their own power by making their favorite local laws the international rule.
And it's the people who run the medical schools and control the AMA who limit the number of graduates exclusively to keep the salaries high.
It's doctor-politicians who fuck it up, and they're actually rare in the profession. We'd almost certainly have better doctors than we do now if we paid them half as much and let them consistently work less than 60 hours a week, and they'd absolutely make less mistakes; we're stuck with what we have because the people certifying doctors want doctors to remain filthy rich and continue paying them fees.
In no way whatsoever did I assume money should be the primary goal: if money was in any way the primary goal, science is the dead last place to seek your fortune when finance gets you all the money you want on a four-year degree.
I simply said that a large number of great minds would like to make a decent or above-average living, to enjoy a few genuine luxuries, in exchange for the sort of job where 70 hours a week isn't uncommon. I didn't state or imply that all they care about is the money, not by any psychotic stretch of the imagination.
Yes, I suppose people who give selflessly are impressive, but in the historic record I don't believe they're more productive or more important than people who expect some compensation, or even people who do just care about the money.
Why should newspapers get first crack at the information posted in the leaks? It sounds like all they'd contribute is the research time of their writers (and a little local publicity), and yet the leaks would shorten and ease their research process enormously. Why give them the added benefit of two weeks exclusive time with the leaked information?
Maybe I'm missing something here, but why should an organization built on the premise that traditional media hides the truth or doesn't have the resources to investigate it properly begin an initiative which will prop up local papers and give them exclusive stories, albeit temporarily, from the information uncovered? Does wikileaks actually like traditional media and want to help them out? Why not continue relying on their volunteer sources for the whole process?
Somethings are greater than any amount of money.
I call bullshit. Yes, some things are greater than any amount of money, but it doesn't automatically follow that accepting money makes you impure or insincere. Your selection of quotes strongly implies this, however.
It's thinking like this that brought us a world where people assume doctors are greedy bastards if they want a high-end salary for 12 years of soul-crushing education, where we assume that $55,000/year should be great for any scientist because they're not *supposed* to care about money, only about the work.
You insult a large number of great minds when you assume a truly good researcher isn't allowed to enjoy caviar as much as the next guy. It also makes the field look highly unattractive for people who might work their asses off to solve world hunger and might like to drive a Jaguar. If you can imagine such a selfish, insincere bastard.
Good science and a love of luxury don't conflict automatically, they only conflict when you compromise good science to feed your love of luxury. Not to mention that food still costs money everywhere I've ever lived, whether it's caviar or oatmeal.
Didn't we do this in the 90's? ... If we do this there had better be significant strings attached.
Right...give them more money but this time put *strings* on it.
How about the kind of strings where we send every board member and executive, of any of these companies at any time since we gave them the money *last time*, a notice that they can install what we've already paid for or face federal fraud charges?
Seriously, I'm not usually a litigious, pseudo-populist dickwad, but a lawsuit or some criminal charges seem completely reasonable here.
And for fuck sake don't give them *more* money, unless you're okay with literally *training them*, like suggestible little puppy dogs, to defraud taxpayers.
First of all, having a monopoly is legal. Nothing wrong with that.
But there *is* something wrong with that. The conditions of an Efficient Market, upon which our current iteration of capitalism is more or less based, actually demand competition and mathematically prove that both affordability and total innovation ultimately suffer when monopolies exist. Some economists believe 4 companies owning a total of 80% in a given market effectively form a cartel, and gouge their customers automatically; they charge more and innovate less unconsciously, even if they don't communicate with one another, even if they don't know the other 3 competitors *exist*.
Google probably controls almost 80% of search *by itself*. If 4 companies owning 80% of a market can do serious damage, one company owning 70% or 80% is a potential catastrophe.
Google gives us cool things for now, but ultimately their primacy online could be an even bigger problem than Microsoft's primacy in operating systems.
Before you all get too bent out of shape (too late, I know) this comments much more on the Italian justice system, and only to a lesser extent on the increasing debate over whether your genes "made you do it".
Italian law provides for "degrees of guilt", meaning even if you admit your crime certain affirmative defenses result in reduced sentences. They can decide *how* guilty you are after deciding you're guilty, as an official process, as opposed to the fuzzier ways judges think about "mitigating circumstances" and stuff in other places.
You people mod this a troll!? Seriously? Talk about lashing out.....