How about the US government stops listening to Netanyahu and the paranoid wing of the Israeli government, listens to its own intelligence (and the former head of Mossad), recognises Iran as a regional power that is no worse than Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, and starts using serious diplomacy on the slow process of getting Iran's head out of the sand? As Churchill remarked, jaw-jaw is better than war-war.
It's unpatriotic to think there's a better solution than bombs.
Could this be the place we escape to when the earth is uninhabitable? Will we live in a space western?
No, it's the place prepared for our afterlife.
If you're good, you get to float around the clouds of the gas giants playing a harp. If you're bad, you spend all eternity assembling smartphones on one of the scorching inner planets.
Still, a pharmaceutical company would have much deeper problems with a false drug then a scholar with a false paper.
I don't think so, unless some shyster lawyers can sucker enough people into joining a class action lawsuit.
In the past few years we've been learning of cases where pharmaceuticals leave drugs on the market for years after discovering that they aren't actually effective, and in at least one case, for a couple of years after discovering that the drug caused an increased risk of heart attacks.
These companies are as ethically challenged as the tobacco industry, but as far as I know, a hand-slap is the *worst* they can expect from the FCC.
By rights they'd be disbanded, their assets auctioned off, and and their officers sent to prison. These aren't mistakes, overoptimism, or even spin: it's deliberate fraud that kills people for profit.
A scholar with a paper that is judged to be deliberately false can at least expect to have their career ruined when they get caught. (Unfortunately, it happens often enough for a casual reader to run across a news story about once a year.)
Very interesting to keep hearing all the info still coming on CO2 based warming. This theory seems to have been proven less plausible, with the solar cycle theory of warming a somewhat more sustainable cause
According to industry talking points...
Do you have any idea how long ago the physics of greenhouse gasses was discovered?
There's no question of whether it is torture. We've been prosecuting people for it since the Spanish-American war. We've prosecuted enemies who did it to us, we've prosecuted our own troops who did it to the enemy, and we've prosecuted local law enforcement officers for doing it to accused criminals.
Obama's not getting my vote, no matter who he's up against, because so far as I'm concerned he's giving shelter to war criminals.
This, to me, might well be the final straw. What can I do to reverse this? I'm not apathetic, I'm willing to work to change this, but thanks to the majority of the voting public, I feel the simplest solutions will not work. What can I do to stop this?
Speaking out on Slashdot may not change the world, but at least you're doing *something*.
well, you need to sign confidentiality agreements to reproduce the studies..
No you don't. You just need to read the published paper and attempt to reproduce what the paper reports. (A good scientific paper includes enough information to make the work it reports on reproducible.)
*However*, I suspect my post was over-reactive in a couple of regards:
a) They might have asked the authors for their unpublished raw data, in which case a confidentiality agreement becomes plausible.
b) When I read "landmark studies", I think longitudinal studies or clinical trials. However, it appears that they were using their own notions of "landmark", and included things like the effect of a chemical on cell biology. That sort of thing can be reproduced at a cost a private company would undertake.
However, the "I can't tell you" criticism still stands. Among the posts at the on-line article in the Slashdot update, someone points out that the Nature article is a complaint about irreproducible results, but is not itself reproducible. Basically, from what I'm reading, Nature published an anecdote.
But they and others fear the phenomenon is the product of a skewed system of incentives that has academics cutting corners to further their careers.
A few years back one of the USA's leading medical journals changed their rules to allow doctors who are receiving money from pharmaceuticals to publish reviews of the drugs sold by those same pharmaceuticals. We may have a problem that runs deeper than "cutting corners".
Slashdot Mirror
The more I use slashdot the more I think it's turning into shit
I wish there was something anything better
Any recommendations out there? Anonymous responses are ok. Thanx much.
Have you tried Slashdot 3D?
I'd guess the 3d bit is a convenient excuse for some people to see it again.
I wish theaters would re-show good movies now and then.
(*good* movies)
Is there some economic reason they don't do it? Maybe the studios are afraid you won't go see their new cr*p if there's a proven classic on?
...who really wanted to see Titanic in 3D?
I never understood the public's continued fascination with the Titanic.
As for the 3D movies, please quit going to see them, so they'll let the format die.
If pesticide-laden hfcs is having this impact on bee colonies, what is it doing to human beings given the prevalence of hfcs in modern 'diet'?
Bees are important to the economy. People aren't important enough for anyone to get excited about.
I thought it was fungus.
I think this is the third cause discovered in the past month.
How about the US government stops listening to Netanyahu and the paranoid wing of the Israeli government, listens to its own intelligence (and the former head of Mossad), recognises Iran as a regional power that is no worse than Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, and starts using serious diplomacy on the slow process of getting Iran's head out of the sand? As Churchill remarked, jaw-jaw is better than war-war.
It's unpatriotic to think there's a better solution than bombs.
That what the missiles are for, no trial required. Seriously, "just kill them all" is not a valid route to take for a police action.
Works for dark-skinned people half-way around the world.
Could this be the place we escape to when the earth is uninhabitable? Will we live in a space western?
No, it's the place prepared for our afterlife.
If you're good, you get to float around the clouds of the gas giants playing a harp. If you're bad, you spend all eternity assembling smartphones on one of the scorching inner planets.
Pluto fails because it hasn't cleared its orbit.
So get in there and clean your room, or you'll never amount to anything!
Any wagers on which conspiracy theories will have legs this time?
How exactly is this News for Nerds? First it's politics, then it's this:"EA Defends Itself Against Thousands of Anti-Gay Letters", and now this story?
I someone threatening to crash a jet into your house if you don't read Slashdot?
Yeah, we're seeing some change in focus. But what's the point in complaining? It's not like there aren't a billion other sites you could visit.
Great troll! Very original.
However, you could have linked to goatse, claiming that it was a report supporting your claim. So you only get ***/*****.
Still, a pharmaceutical company would have much deeper problems with a false drug then a scholar with a false paper.
I don't think so, unless some shyster lawyers can sucker enough people into joining a class action lawsuit.
In the past few years we've been learning of cases where pharmaceuticals leave drugs on the market for years after discovering that they aren't actually effective, and in at least one case, for a couple of years after discovering that the drug caused an increased risk of heart attacks.
These companies are as ethically challenged as the tobacco industry, but as far as I know, a hand-slap is the *worst* they can expect from the FCC.
By rights they'd be disbanded, their assets auctioned off, and and their officers sent to prison. These aren't mistakes, overoptimism, or even spin: it's deliberate fraud that kills people for profit.
A scholar with a paper that is judged to be deliberately false can at least expect to have their career ruined when they get caught. (Unfortunately, it happens often enough for a casual reader to run across a news story about once a year.)
Very interesting to keep hearing all the info still coming on CO2 based warming. This theory seems to have been proven less plausible, with the solar cycle theory of warming a somewhat more sustainable cause
According to industry talking points...
Do you have any idea how long ago the physics of greenhouse gasses was discovered?
There's no question of whether it is torture. We've been prosecuting people for it since the Spanish-American war. We've prosecuted enemies who did it to us, we've prosecuted our own troops who did it to the enemy, and we've prosecuted local law enforcement officers for doing it to accused criminals.
Obama's not getting my vote, no matter who he's up against, because so far as I'm concerned he's giving shelter to war criminals.
This, to me, might well be the final straw. What can I do to reverse this? I'm not apathetic, I'm willing to work to change this, but thanks to the majority of the voting public, I feel the simplest solutions will not work. What can I do to stop this?
Speaking out on Slashdot may not change the world, but at least you're doing *something*.
arguing the change would have disastrous consequences for their ability to scalp you
FTFThem.
well, you need to sign confidentiality agreements to reproduce the studies..
No you don't. You just need to read the published paper and attempt to reproduce what the paper reports. (A good scientific paper includes enough information to make the work it reports on reproducible.)
*However*, I suspect my post was over-reactive in a couple of regards:
a) They might have asked the authors for their unpublished raw data, in which case a confidentiality agreement becomes plausible.
b) When I read "landmark studies", I think longitudinal studies or clinical trials. However, it appears that they were using their own notions of "landmark", and included things like the effect of a chemical on cell biology. That sort of thing can be reproduced at a cost a private company would undertake.
However, the "I can't tell you" criticism still stands. Among the posts at the on-line article in the Slashdot update, someone points out that the Nature article is a complaint about irreproducible results, but is not itself reproducible. Basically, from what I'm reading, Nature published an anecdote.
Maybe it was a letter rather than a paper?
Given the expense, I flat don't believe that a private company just decided to replicate 53 studies.
And he claims that authors "made" his team sign confidentiality agreements. How do authors force that?
So, he claims, he can't even tell us which studies failed.
Now he works at a different cancer research company. Conflict of interests?
I don't doubt that we've got problems in the "medical industry", but the linked article reeks of bullshit.
Has anyone looked at Nature?
Most people pursue careers in atmospheric science for the dollars
Yeah, you can make way more than you could at one of those poor energy companies.
Same way when I was a student it was always the premeds who did all the cheating.
During my orientation at a university, the Dean of my college said that's exactly what they found among the people who get busted.
But they and others fear the phenomenon is the product of a skewed system of incentives that has academics cutting corners to further their careers.
A few years back one of the USA's leading medical journals changed their rules to allow doctors who are receiving money from pharmaceuticals to publish reviews of the drugs sold by those same pharmaceuticals. We may have a problem that runs deeper than "cutting corners".
The *AA will keep sponsoring legislation until they get what they want. Then they'll decide they want more.
News, indeed.
Having a troll as a story - kudos!
Yeah, but makes it kind of pointless to try to come up with a trollish response.
They get $4
More likely the lawyers get $3.92, and CSIRO gets $0.08.