Let's also celebrate slashdot accounts that have only one post, praising MS, put up the instant the story is posted. Because that's some effective trolling, for what that's worth. Been going on for a while and people are still taking it seriously.
Why specifically computer science? If you're going to say that ALL open access journals publish junk, then you can't limit examples to one field that I don't happen to be familiar with.
The one that stands out most in my mind is on evolution of duck genitals. I think it was mentioned here. Good science, definitely not junk, interesting phenomena, but not really what the top-tier journals are looking for.
The previous incident mentioned was from 1996, the "Sokal affair" as wiki calls it. It was a journal, not a conference, but was not peer reviewed at the time, according to the wiki article.
The current issue appears to have been peer reviewed, there were some comments for the "author."
In both cases, the journals were mentioned:Advances in Pure Mathematics for the current one, and "Social text" for the 1996 one.
Yeah, and this other periodical, the New York Times? Surely going to fail. I don't need a printed paper telling me what time it is in New York. Even if I lived there, I'd just look at a clock or a watch.
Gets worse though, I was in California a while ago, and they had a newspaper called the "Sacramento Bee." That's just stupid! I wanted the news, not a stinging insect!
Perot was allowed in, got 19% of the popular vote but zero electoral votes. So one could say that history proves that's of little consequence, especially when the "approval" process, the primary, is itself an open, democratic process.
Speaking of the electoral college, that DOES make the democracy thing a joke.
Ron Paul obviously suffered the same fate even though he wasn't running third party, as did Dennis Kucinich. Thus, I'd argue it's not a problem specifically for third party candidates, it's a problem for candidates who don't pander to voters and tell them what they want to hear.
There's also the winner-take-all voting system which makes anything more than two parties pointless, if you're going to start listing reasons why this was a waste of time.
If you're libertarian or green, I'll listen to your arguments about policy changes we should make with an open mind even though I don't identify with those positions usually. If you're trying to pitch why you should get elected, but seem unable to grasp the realities of the election process as they are in this country, however, I really question anything that comes out of your mouth.
It's the THIRD PARTY debates. Better question would be "Why were there three candidates there and a fourth one mentioned, and which one was the one true third party that was supposed to be there?"
And of all the things that piss of New Yorkers, things that obstruct the free flow of traffic ranks right up there with the coffee machine breaking. So... where are the angry New Yorkers?
Presumably not reading the hype about new startups. This is not something I would expect people to riot about. Was the city for some reason excited, convinced that this was going to solve all their traffic problems forever? Or are you personally just angry at this example of bad government and assuming other people aren't apathetic about it?
It's like what Neil Boortz said. If you send your child to a Catholic school, they will be raised to think Catholocism is great.
Well, you lost me there, because I went to a Catholic school and am agnostic. So maybe sending them to an oppressive high school makes them value their freedoms more once they get out.
On issues of privacy no less! What kind of message are these irresponsible parents sending their children, that they have a right to not be treated like inmates? These kids might grow up and demand that the GOVERNMENT not do it either! And then the future terrorists will win!!! WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN'S APATHY TO CIVIL RIGHTS ABUSES!?!?
I'm not sure why you had to put that on progressives. Don't make me bring up cases where regressives have gotten things wrong. THE INTERNET IS TUBES!! Aw, man, you got me started...
That wouldn't make as big a headline though. I mean, there are plenty of moderate, sane islamic leaders out there. But they're not as interesting, as sane people never are, and they don't confirm our impressions of islam as a violent, intolerant religion, so no one wants to hear about them.
Of course, the sooner people realize that all organized religions encourage violence the better, so I'm not going to protest about bias in the media on this subject too loudly, just pointing out that if they did already protest islamic intolerance, would we know? I'm pretty sure I wouldn't.
The thought that we are in control of what makes us afraid and what we react to as a society is determined BY society... terrifies me, frankly. We're doomed.
Yes, for a negative and arguably positive reason. The negative: because terribly produced and/or clearly astroturfed videos "go viral" all the time, it's not a high standard. The positive: because people to some extent seem to care more about the content than the packaging.
I'm guessing the price would be higher with two half-sized drinks than the regular sized drink. There could still be an economic incentive there that could yield results.
Of course the smarter way to accomplish the goal would have been to tax sugary drinks anyway, since banning things is a good way to infuriate people. And maybe an even smarter thing to do would be to keep government to maintaining order and let me drink myself into a diabetic coma if that's what I fucking want to do.
I don't know, I think many if not most obese people, cycling is not an option. People have chosen their jobs and housing to be dependent on a car. Many places are starting to offer better public transit and bike lanes, but we have a long ways to go, and there's always resistance to such change. Perhaps on the part of the auto or oil industries.
I've heard for example it will be a very cold day in hell before Houston becomes accessible to anything other than cars.
Raising gas prices would be a good long-term move, it's insane we've gotten to this point, but it will take decades of that before all the barriers to public transit and biking will be removed.
He finished fourth after two guys who dropped out halfway through. You're suggesting that's because he was marginalized as a non-viable candidate, I think the simpler answer is that he a non-viable candidate, which is why he was ignored.
Also more substantive stuff, like the reviewers suggest an experiment you didn't think of. Or you realize the paper isn't going to get anywhere without some more work that you were loathe to do, and maybe that pays off more than you expect.
There is no voting system under which Ron Paul would have had a decent shot: most voters were not interested. I was going to register as a republican specifically to vote for him, but a move in the middle of the primary season precluded that. I like the guy. But let's not act like his message is so good that every dumb voter out there would have seen the light and voted for him were it not for a conspiracy of shadowy figures who silenced him. He lost. There were some shenanigans, yes, but I don't think that changed the outcome.
Fix things from within what? There are some people who identify with neither conservative nor liberal speaking points.
From his website, first link, he basically says he ran because he thinks both parties are too partisan
The Republicans and Democrats have willfully polarized the country for political gain. The party leaders are actively conspiring against compromise. The worst thing you can be called within your party is "moderate.
Nothing about his views being too far from either to be shoehorned into one, so that doesn't seem to be his concern.
The moderate viewpoint is entirely ignored in the two-party system, except when an extremist candidate from one of the two parties is trying to court moderate votes.
From most third party proponents, I hear the opposite: that both parties are identical and there's no real choice.
I'd love to see an alternative voting system in place that encourages votes for parties other than the big two. It will never happen, of course, while they're in control of congress...
I agree, specifically because in order to get a parlimentary system or some other system that's compatible with multiparty systems, the constitution would need to be changed. And I don't personally see much point: coalitions are formed before the general election here, they're formed after the election in parlimentary systems. You'd still get the religious fundamentalists and the people who don't think rich people should have to pay taxes teaming up for a majority, same as you do now.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's also celebrate slashdot accounts that have only one post, praising MS, put up the instant the story is posted. Because that's some effective trolling, for what that's worth. Been going on for a while and people are still taking it seriously.
Why specifically computer science? If you're going to say that ALL open access journals publish junk, then you can't limit examples to one field that I don't happen to be familiar with.
The one that stands out most in my mind is on evolution of duck genitals. I think it was mentioned here. Good science, definitely not junk, interesting phenomena, but not really what the top-tier journals are looking for.
Thank you. Why slam open access when this is a failure of peer review? Does someone not realize that closed-access journals have problems too?
The previous incident mentioned was from 1996, the "Sokal affair" as wiki calls it. It was a journal, not a conference, but was not peer reviewed at the time, according to the wiki article.
The current issue appears to have been peer reviewed, there were some comments for the "author."
In both cases, the journals were mentioned:Advances in Pure Mathematics for the current one, and "Social text" for the 1996 one.
Yeah, and this other periodical, the New York Times? Surely going to fail. I don't need a printed paper telling me what time it is in New York. Even if I lived there, I'd just look at a clock or a watch.
Gets worse though, I was in California a while ago, and they had a newspaper called the "Sacramento Bee." That's just stupid! I wanted the news, not a stinging insect!
Except fat kids are never so brash as to declare that eating vegetables is dead. Tech executives on the other hand are always trying to tell us that privacy is obsolete, so don't worry about it.
Most voters would seem to be saying that they don't want to live in a world where elected leaders don't just tell them what they want to hear.
I, by the way, was not saying such a situation was a good thing. Only that it IS the situation.
Perot was allowed in, got 19% of the popular vote but zero electoral votes. So one could say that history proves that's of little consequence, especially when the "approval" process, the primary, is itself an open, democratic process.
Speaking of the electoral college, that DOES make the democracy thing a joke.
Ron Paul obviously suffered the same fate even though he wasn't running third party, as did Dennis Kucinich. Thus, I'd argue it's not a problem specifically for third party candidates, it's a problem for candidates who don't pander to voters and tell them what they want to hear.
There's also the winner-take-all voting system which makes anything more than two parties pointless, if you're going to start listing reasons why this was a waste of time.
If you're libertarian or green, I'll listen to your arguments about policy changes we should make with an open mind even though I don't identify with those positions usually. If you're trying to pitch why you should get elected, but seem unable to grasp the realities of the election process as they are in this country, however, I really question anything that comes out of your mouth.
It's the THIRD PARTY debates. Better question would be "Why were there three candidates there and a fourth one mentioned, and which one was the one true third party that was supposed to be there?"
Wait, "just as wrong?" We're holding Anonymous to the same moral standards as the police?
I suppose it's better than going the other way and holding police to only the standards you hold Anonymous, but still...
And of all the things that piss of New Yorkers, things that obstruct the free flow of traffic ranks right up there with the coffee machine breaking. So... where are the angry New Yorkers?
Presumably not reading the hype about new startups. This is not something I would expect people to riot about. Was the city for some reason excited, convinced that this was going to solve all their traffic problems forever? Or are you personally just angry at this example of bad government and assuming other people aren't apathetic about it?
It's like what Neil Boortz said. If you send your child to a Catholic school, they will be raised to think Catholocism is great.
Well, you lost me there, because I went to a Catholic school and am agnostic. So maybe sending them to an oppressive high school makes them value their freedoms more once they get out.
On issues of privacy no less! What kind of message are these irresponsible parents sending their children, that they have a right to not be treated like inmates? These kids might grow up and demand that the GOVERNMENT not do it either! And then the future terrorists will win!!! WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN'S APATHY TO CIVIL RIGHTS ABUSES!?!?
I'm not sure why you had to put that on progressives. Don't make me bring up cases where regressives have gotten things wrong. THE INTERNET IS TUBES!! Aw, man, you got me started...
That wouldn't make as big a headline though. I mean, there are plenty of moderate, sane islamic leaders out there. But they're not as interesting, as sane people never are, and they don't confirm our impressions of islam as a violent, intolerant religion, so no one wants to hear about them.
Of course, the sooner people realize that all organized religions encourage violence the better, so I'm not going to protest about bias in the media on this subject too loudly, just pointing out that if they did already protest islamic intolerance, would we know? I'm pretty sure I wouldn't.
The thought that we are in control of what makes us afraid and what we react to as a society is determined BY society... terrifies me, frankly. We're doomed.
Yes, for a negative and arguably positive reason. The negative: because terribly produced and/or clearly astroturfed videos "go viral" all the time, it's not a high standard. The positive: because people to some extent seem to care more about the content than the packaging.
I'm guessing the price would be higher with two half-sized drinks than the regular sized drink. There could still be an economic incentive there that could yield results.
Of course the smarter way to accomplish the goal would have been to tax sugary drinks anyway, since banning things is a good way to infuriate people. And maybe an even smarter thing to do would be to keep government to maintaining order and let me drink myself into a diabetic coma if that's what I fucking want to do.
I don't know, I think many if not most obese people, cycling is not an option. People have chosen their jobs and housing to be dependent on a car. Many places are starting to offer better public transit and bike lanes, but we have a long ways to go, and there's always resistance to such change. Perhaps on the part of the auto or oil industries.
I've heard for example it will be a very cold day in hell before Houston becomes accessible to anything other than cars.
Raising gas prices would be a good long-term move, it's insane we've gotten to this point, but it will take decades of that before all the barriers to public transit and biking will be removed.
He finished fourth after two guys who dropped out halfway through. You're suggesting that's because he was marginalized as a non-viable candidate, I think the simpler answer is that he a non-viable candidate, which is why he was ignored.
Also more substantive stuff, like the reviewers suggest an experiment you didn't think of. Or you realize the paper isn't going to get anywhere without some more work that you were loathe to do, and maybe that pays off more than you expect.
That and also HE DIDN'T WIN THE PRIMARIES. He didn't even come in second to Romney. Santorum and Gingrich BOTH got more votes in the primary than he did.
There is no voting system under which Ron Paul would have had a decent shot: most voters were not interested. I was going to register as a republican specifically to vote for him, but a move in the middle of the primary season precluded that. I like the guy. But let's not act like his message is so good that every dumb voter out there would have seen the light and voted for him were it not for a conspiracy of shadowy figures who silenced him. He lost. There were some shenanigans, yes, but I don't think that changed the outcome.
Fix things from within what? There are some people who identify with neither conservative nor liberal speaking points.
From his website, first link, he basically says he ran because he thinks both parties are too partisan
The Republicans and Democrats have willfully polarized the country for political gain. The party leaders are actively conspiring against compromise. The worst thing you can be called within your party is "moderate.
Nothing about his views being too far from either to be shoehorned into one, so that doesn't seem to be his concern.
The moderate viewpoint is entirely ignored in the two-party system, except when an extremist candidate from one of the two parties is trying to court moderate votes.
From most third party proponents, I hear the opposite: that both parties are identical and there's no real choice.
I'd love to see an alternative voting system in place that encourages votes for parties other than the big two. It will never happen, of course, while they're in control of congress...
I agree, specifically because in order to get a parlimentary system or some other system that's compatible with multiparty systems, the constitution would need to be changed. And I don't personally see much point: coalitions are formed before the general election here, they're formed after the election in parlimentary systems. You'd still get the religious fundamentalists and the people who don't think rich people should have to pay taxes teaming up for a majority, same as you do now.