Okay, lets go through his post bit by bit so it is extra clear to you.
""âoeA lot of what is published is incorrect.â Iâ(TM)m not allowed to say who made this remark because we were asked to observe Chatham House rules. We were also asked not to take photographs of slides. Those who worked for government agencies pleaded that their comments especially remain unquoted, since the forthcoming UK election meant they were living in âoepurdahââ"a chilling state where severe restrictions on freedom of speech are placed on anyone on the governmentâ(TM)s payroll. Why the paranoid concern for secrecy and non-attribution? Because this symposiumâ"on the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research, held at the Wellcome Trust in London last weekâ"touched on one of the most sensitive issues in science today: the idea that something has gone fundamentally wrong with one of our greatest human creations.""
That is the editor of the lancet accusing the scientific establishment of covering up flaws in the peer review process for political reasons. He's saying there is a conspiracy to deceive the public.
He starts with saying someone said "a lot of what is published is incorrect"... and by published we mean what was peer reviewed and published. He is also saying he isn't allowed to tell you who said that. He then says that they're not allowed to take recordings of the event out of the event... for political reasons. He says the government has specifically told the scientists to not quote them when they make statements or give orders to them on this matter. The entire thing is kept secret.
Is that not what he's saying?
And that is the first paragraph which I'm guessing you didn't read.
But it goes on:
""The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, âoepoor methods get resultsâ. The Academy of Medical Sciences, Medical Research Council, and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council have now put their reputational weight behind an investigation into these questionable research practices. The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fi t their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of âoesignificanceâ pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale. We reject important confirmations. Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent, endpoints that foster reductive metrics, such as high-impact publication. National assessment procedures, such as the Research Excellence Framework, incentivise bad practices. And individual scientists, including their most senior leaders, do little to alter a research culture that occasionally veers close to misconduct.""
First he says that a significant portion of what is published is untrue. The reasons for which are that studies often have sample sizes that render them unreliable, they are studying a tiny variation in variables that cannot be accurately attributed to anything, they start with inital premises that go unquestioned, the people conducting the studies sometimes are being paid, coerced, or profit in some manner by specific findings, and finally that certain conclusions are "fashionable" and so they are concluded at the expense of actual science.
You didn't read any of that. Because that's pretty much all
First, I'd like to point out that you ignored the bit where the editor of the Lancet backed up my position. I challenged you to acknowledge that and you just ignored it.
I put it at the top of my post so you couldn't pretend you didn't read it.
So, your evasion on that point is completely confirmed and that destroys whatever intellectual integrity you might otherwise claim. You're now officially and verifiability a scumbag. I win.
Now that you have no intellectual integrity, lets go through the rest of your post.:D
So you say that you're trying to build a future based on deciet, poor research practices, and political bias? Because your lack of intellectual integrity makes it clear what you're all about.
The stagnant swamp I'm promoting is "STANDARDS", "INTEGRITY", "HONESTY", "IMPARTIALITY"... you know... little things that are utterly required to actually conduct any kind of real science.
Since you neither believe in any of that nor especially understand why any of it is important, you're incapable of doing more than grunt work for any new future. Everything you do will have to be checked and rechecked by people more honest and wise than yourself. Your contributions are dubious at best unless you're kept to fields of study or application that are so simple or have no outlet for your many biases.
As you point out, my statement was correct. I specifically used words with specific meanings in conjuction with other words that apply to those specific terms.
You imply a correction while admitting that my statement was accurate.
Does a hypothesis need evidence? Yes and no. Simply proposing a hypothesis does not require evidence. However, VALIDATING one does.
The process of science has a great deal more to do with the validating of various models of natural phenomena than it does with coming up with as yet baseless models as little more than guesses.
What is more, the best and more respectable hypothesises draw as their inspiration existing emperial evidence.
That is you look at something else that was verified and you say "well, if this is true, then this other thing might be true as well."... and then you either observe the thing to see if you can observe proof or you conduct an experiment to test it.
Sorry if my post seemed ridged... when it comes to philosophy, I believe it is only fair to project and structure your thinking in the terms of that philosophy.
Science is a philosophy. Natural philosophy. And to judge it, you have to think in the terms of the philosophy itself... which is quite ridged and hyper logical.
First, acknowledge that the editor of the Lancet backed up my position.
I'm putting that statement before anything else because you're using your FEELINGS to justify not reading things. Again, comical that you call yourself some kind of scientist or engineer when you believe your emotional reactions to things is justification to not have intellectual integrity.
So there you go. No more dodging, shithead. I quoted the article to you multiple times and you've been evading and changing the subject ever since. Face it.
You think my feelings made me want to read anything you said? You fucking disgust me. Talking to you is like taking a bite out of rotten fruit. I don't enjoy it. But I respond because the only way to deal with people coming into communities and speciously claiming to be experts while spreading misinformation is to deal with them.
You're a fucking cancer. And THAT is why I'm dealing with you. Not because of my "feelings". People like you are literally destroying Western civilization. You're narcissistic ideologically driven bullshit corrupts everything it touches. The very idea that you would think your feelings even began to fucking matter is baffling to me.
It is disturbing that the problem is starting to effect physics. They should have been a bastion of resistance. Though, if the softness is in the cosmology department than that is more understandable.
In any case, if they're not backing up their theories with empirical observation or experimentation then it isn't science... at all.
So that has to happen.
This reminds me of when I heard some journalists say "it is impossible to be objective so there is no point trying. Take sides."... that's not journalism.
No one said your jobs were easy. But you have to play by the rules or you're not doing your job.
Scientists need to base their theories on empirical observation or experimentation.
Journalists need to control conflicts of interest and be as objective as they can... and where it isn't possible and there is no one else to report on the issue, at the very least declare your bias.
This nonsense is a bit like a judge saying he doesn't need to worry about conflicts of interest. Or when police officers say they don't need to give people due process.
You have to go through a process to be doing your job in these professions. You go through the process and you're a scientist, a journalist, a judge, a police officer.
If you don't... then you're just some asshole walking around with a badge that doesn't mean anything.
Unless they're paid off or someone on the review board is involved in one of the corrupt institutions.
Conflicts of interest are really common in these subcultures. They all know each other. They all go to the same events. They're all fucking each other in the back room. So its really hard to know what they actually think or if that is just what they're saying.
You see this is a lot of issues. Its a big issue in journalism as well. They all know each other and they all talk to each other. You think an article is independent, but what you don't know is that the guy that wrote the article in the other paper emailed the guy in the paper you're reading and they decided to both print the same story the same way and not tell anyone that they basically colluded.
You see it in lots and lots of places. Not just charities or journalism... any sub culture with a relatively small population of people in control. They all know each other and they're often friends.
Okay, I'm 99 percent positive you lied when you said you were involved in scientific peer review. I don't think anyone with that much education could be this ignorant.
Okay, so to explain how ad hominem works:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ""An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments.""
So the key point here is not whether or not someone insults you but whether the insult itself is the argument used against someone... that is sans any other rational or evidence.
I have not done that to you. My insults are either the conclusions of larger argument. That is I say "because of X variables I conclude you are Y"... that isn't ad hominem. Or the insult isn't even relevant to my argument. Such as saying that the thermometer says the temperature is something other than what you said, therefore it isn't the temperature you said... and by the way you're an idiot. That isn't ad hominem either. The argument was based on the thermometer reading not your idiocy.
Your error is quite common from uneducated people... often high school students. So I'm hoping you're young and not just destined to be ignorant for the rest of your life. Truly. That would be sad.
As to why you have to be an expert to express an opinion? So now you're just descending into hypocrisy? YOU WERE THE ONE THAT STARTED TITLE DROPPING. Not me. Did I ever tell you my qualifications or pretend that I was privy to insider knowledge? Nope.
That was you.
And when I call bullshit on your claims, you respond with "and who says I need to have this special insider knowledge!?"...
Well, you did...
You've made so many fucking mistakes that its hard for me to keep track of them all.
You didn't read the original article or the supporting material which included an ACTUAL expert in peer review... the editor of the Lancet... basically backing up what I was saying.
You made a lot of specious claims about peer review being fine despite there being lots of evidence of being unreliable.
You made laughable claims of having insider knowledge.
You attempted to use "ad verecundiam" against me. Look it up.
Then you tried ad hominem saying that the only reason I would want improved standards in peer review is because I am against global warming research.
Side note, you didn't realize you just admitted that there might be a specific problem with the peer review process in climate change. If there weren't it wouldn't be specifically susceptible to the consequences of reform.
Then when I called bullshit on your credentials, you said "who says I need to have insider knowledge!?"... Well, you did. You tried to use your claims of insider knowledge to sustain ad verecundiam. I didn't do that. You did.
And then you outed yourself as not knowing either how ad hominem works or even what a logical fallacy is in the first place. This further undermines your claims to insider knowledge.
Let me explain fallacies for you as well because really it is the only thing you need to know on the issue. All specific fallacies are derived from this little nugget of wisdom: Any line of logic that does not prove that some variable has a specific outcome 100 percent of the time is fallacious.
For example, if I said "tom isn't hungry so tom must have had a sandwich"... you don't why tom isn't hungry. You can't conclude that because he isn't that he must have had a sandwich. He could be sick, he could have eaten a fucking burrito. It isn't enough information.
Science is all about the attempt to make non-fallacious arguments. You say "well, this drug cures this disease because we did a test with 2000 people. Some were given our drug, some were given a placebo, and some were given nothing. Those that were given our drug improved. Everyone else died."
That's what you're trying to do. Make non-fallacious arguments.
I mean, I am sure the university libraries are busy but in the 21st century the vast majority of information isn't flowing through them. So how do they protect me?
It isn't going to work. What we have to do is anonymize our traffic. Do that and most of their crap won't work.
As to providing universal welfare which is your concept.
The problem with that idea is that we're seeing in the west that it just attracts everyone outside our countries into our countries to get the welfare.
We can't afford to give welfare to the entire planet.
And we apparently lack the will to keep people out.
The problem with open immigration is that it is mutually exclusive with permissive welfare systems.
You can't have both. Pick one.
As to where the economy goes... you assume that the economy, which is the dynamic logistical gestalt cares what you find appealing.
You can't control it. The Soviets couldn't control their own black market in the middle of the cold war. You can't dictate how the market will work.
You must instead BARGAIN with it.
You want the market to do something? What will you PAY it to do what you want? You can't threaten the market. You can pay it and play by its rules or it won't cooperate.
There is a lot of greed and arrogance on this issue and it isn't just greed for money. There is also greed for power. Politicians often are much more interested in power than they are money. What is the use of money after all? Do you actually want the money or what it buys? And thus power is a kind of money in itself. It is influence, leverage, and pressure. With power you can get all the money you want. Power is that gun against someone's head. Need something? Squeeze someone that has it. That is power.
The H1B visas are about money for big business and power for the politicians.
People are too credulous... too easily cowed by arrogant people that speak big and wave their arms around.
This is a peasant's mentality and many Americans are peasants. It was something we tried to educated out of people when they came to the US. But some never learned. Some slipped through the cracks. And institutionally, the system has started outright encouraging peasant ideology.
The politicians say "you are weak, you are powerless... But I will help you. And in return, you must be loyal to me... my subjects."
A citizen is not loyal to a politician any more than a customer is loyal to a sandwich shop. Give me what I want and I'll vote for you. Disappoint me and I walk. No loyalty.
T-Mobile has just fine coverage everywhere I've ever been.
The people that bitch the most about coverage seem to be people living in new york or something. The coverage area isn't the issue. You have to punch the signal through buildings and subways and all sorts of shit.
Now, in Los Angeles, we don't have that problem. It is one of the pros of the Sprawl... nothing really blocks signal.
... okay but why download a blueray iso at all? Again... 2gigs for 1080p in MKV format.
Es muy better, no?
The only reason I can think to download a blueray ISO is because you want to burn it to blueray. And... I have yet to meet anyone that actually ever does that.
Back in the day, burning things to cds/dvds made some sense. But at this point... who needs these fucking plastic discs? I have a 3 terabyte external and I keep all my movies etc on that thing. So much more civilized.
... And don't give to any charity unless you can audit to some extent how the money is spent.
The waste in these things is beyond unethical. Huge salaries for management, lots of money funneled to things that have NOTHING to do with what they raised the money for...
The Red Cross pocketed most of that money. In their minds they need that money for their other good works. So tehy show up at a disaster say "oh look at teh poor people, give to the red cross to help them"... and then basically just put all that money into their general fund.
There's no compartmentalization. So money donated to help Haitians could actually go almost anywhere... including the CEO's yacht/hooker/cocaine fund.
...bullshit... a ten gig movie? What fucking format was that in? Blueray? What kind of crazy person downloads a blueray ISO onto their cellphone?
How much internal memory do you even have on that thing?
You download a compressed AVI or MKV or something... max size is going to be less than 2 gigs and that is for 1080p which is meaningless on a phone's tiny screen. 720p is the most you'd even bother with and that is frankly extravagant on that formfactor. And that brings your total file size down to something between 800 - 1200 megs.
10 gigs? Liar liar pants on fire.:P
As to your plan:
"
Selected Plan..
$ 50 per month
Plus taxes, fees and monthly device payment
Unlimited talk, text, and data while on our network
Up to 1GB of 4G LTE data (Speeds reduced after 1GB)
Unlimited data & text in 120+ countries & destinations
""
You're paying more than five times what I'm paying. I'm not willing to pay what amounts to 40 dollars just for mobile internet every month. I'd rather take that money and use it to get faster home internet or save up for some new sting ray boots. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
There are a couple companies including google talking about about doing things differently.
Last I checked their concept was this:
1. text messages are free 2. You are only billed for calls made through cell towers. You are able to make them through wifi instead and encouraged to do so. They estimate that roughly 80 percent of calls happen within wifi hotspots. 3. Calls made through wifi are free. 4. You can make calls through cell towers are normal rates and are billed for time used. google specifically wants to contract with ALL GSM providers so that you can use any GSM tower.
That was the concept. There is another company out of New York doing a similar thing though not quite as generous as google.
Here is the thing, the calls all happen through the internet. And the fees that providers are charged by tower operators are not per text or per phone call or even in minutes. They're charged by the kilobit.
Its just data. And once you untethered the data from the towers you can put additional leverage on the tower operators to charge a more reasonable fee.
Most of the time when I get a call, I am at home or at work. Those minutes on that system will be free. I'll only be billed for the minutes when I'm out and about. Think about that.
I don't use my phone much. Most conversations on the phone are over in 30 seconds. I get a lot of texts but so what?
Think about how great this is for a kid as well.
The texts are free. You can buy a phone for the kid, get him by text any time at no cost. And if you need to talk to him, you say "connect to wifi and call me"... again... if you're cost conscious and want what amounts to a free cell phone. Then consider international calling. No need to fuck around with skype. You just connect to the wifi with your phone can make a call. No bullshit international calling fees... no additional accounts. And you can call someone's actual phone number at no charge.
I was too busy rubbing lotion in your sister's back to notice what you were talking about...
Repeat please?
The last thing I'm going to do at the beach is sit there and read bullshit on the internet. Why even go?
that's like those people that go to football games and then bring a little TV with them so they can sit AT THE GAME and watch the game on a tiny portable tv.
The bandwidth caps are so low that at 5G speeds you'd blow through your monthly allotment in seconds.
If the carriers want to impress anyone, then increase capacity enough that you can raise the caps or remove them entirely and offer unlimited wireless internet... at speeds you can handle.
5G? They're not really letting people enjoy 4G as it is.
And on top of that, you have google's announcement that they're going to be offering a Wifi cellphone that connects through the wifi when possible to make phone calls... where only cellular service even costs... ANYTHING. And they're contracting with all the cell phone carriers to provide coverage.
YEARLY fees for some people might drop as low as 5 dollars per YEAR under a system like that.
Now... you like your wireless internet? But how much do you like it? First off, you can't buy most smartphones from most carriers unless you have a data plan. They literally won't let you connect unless you sign up for data as well. And for those that say "well that's just because the data plan pays for the reduced price you paid for the phone."... Nope. Because they won't even let you bring your own phone or buy the phone outright and then not have the data plan. They don't care. You have a smartphone? You must have data.
I've currently got my MONTHLY cell phone bill down to about 8 dollars per month. The price of that was that I do not have data on my phone. Which you would think sucks, only people don't appreciate how ubiquitous free wifi is everywhere. When I want data, I turn on my wifi and connect to any number of free wifi hotspots that are everywhere. The only place it could suck would be on the road but my actual needs to connect to the internet on the freeway are pretty limited. I use a map program on my phone that stores the maps in internal memory. And I have plenty of space left over for music, movies, and games.
Don't get me wrong... internet would be nice... but what am I willing to pay for it? 20 dollars a month? Literally tripling my monthly rate... for that? No. I don't care that much.
I like paying 8 bucks a month. And I look forward to paying 5 bucks a year.
Slashdot Mirror
Amazon is not EA. Their attitudes are different and their profoilo is a pretty diversified at this point.
Will the game be any good? I have no idea. But I'm excited to see new money come into the market and try things.
Frankly, I like games more than I like movies or tv shows. My music collection hasn't changed much further in the last 10 years. I've hit that age.
And that means if you want to sell me content, you have to target me. And game... I likes them.
Okay, lets go through his post bit by bit so it is extra clear to you.
""âoeA lot of what is published is incorrect.â Iâ(TM)m not allowed to say who made this remark because we were asked to observe Chatham House rules. We were also asked not to take photographs of slides. Those who worked for government agencies pleaded that their comments especially remain unquoted, since the forthcoming UK election meant they were living in âoepurdahââ"a chilling state where severe restrictions on freedom of speech are placed on anyone on the governmentâ(TM)s payroll. Why the paranoid concern for secrecy and non-attribution? Because this symposiumâ"on the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research, held at the Wellcome Trust in London last weekâ"touched on one of the most sensitive issues in science today: the idea that something has gone fundamentally wrong with one of our greatest human creations.""
That is the editor of the lancet accusing the scientific establishment of covering up flaws in the peer review process for political reasons. He's saying there is a conspiracy to deceive the public.
He starts with saying someone said "a lot of what is published is incorrect"... and by published we mean what was peer reviewed and published. He is also saying he isn't allowed to tell you who said that. He then says that they're not allowed to take recordings of the event out of the event... for political reasons. He says the government has specifically told the scientists to not quote them when they make statements or give orders to them on this matter. The entire thing is kept secret.
Is that not what he's saying?
And that is the first paragraph which I'm guessing you didn't read.
But it goes on:
""The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, âoepoor methods get resultsâ. The Academy of Medical Sciences, Medical Research Council, and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council have now put their reputational weight behind an investigation into
these questionable research practices. The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fi t their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of âoesignificanceâ pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale. We reject important confirmations. Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent, endpoints that foster reductive metrics, such as high-impact publication. National assessment procedures, such as the Research Excellence Framework, incentivise bad practices. And individual scientists, including their most senior leaders, do little to alter a research culture that occasionally veers close to misconduct.""
First he says that a significant portion of what is published is untrue. The reasons for which are that studies often have sample sizes that render them unreliable, they are studying a tiny variation in variables that cannot be accurately attributed to anything, they start with inital premises that go unquestioned, the people conducting the studies sometimes are being paid, coerced, or profit in some manner by specific findings, and finally that certain conclusions are "fashionable" and so they are concluded at the expense of actual science.
You didn't read any of that. Because that's pretty much all
First, I'd like to point out that you ignored the bit where the editor of the Lancet backed up my position. I challenged you to acknowledge that and you just ignored it.
I put it at the top of my post so you couldn't pretend you didn't read it.
So, your evasion on that point is completely confirmed and that destroys whatever intellectual integrity you might otherwise claim. You're now officially and verifiability a scumbag. I win.
Now that you have no intellectual integrity, lets go through the rest of your post. :D
So you say that you're trying to build a future based on deciet, poor research practices, and political bias? Because your lack of intellectual integrity makes it clear what you're all about.
The stagnant swamp I'm promoting is "STANDARDS", "INTEGRITY", "HONESTY", "IMPARTIALITY"... you know... little things that are utterly required to actually conduct any kind of real science.
Since you neither believe in any of that nor especially understand why any of it is important, you're incapable of doing more than grunt work for any new future. Everything you do will have to be checked and rechecked by people more honest and wise than yourself. Your contributions are dubious at best unless you're kept to fields of study or application that are so simple or have no outlet for your many biases.
As you point out, my statement was correct. I specifically used words with specific meanings in conjuction with other words that apply to those specific terms.
You imply a correction while admitting that my statement was accurate.
Does a hypothesis need evidence? Yes and no. Simply proposing a hypothesis does not require evidence. However, VALIDATING one does.
The process of science has a great deal more to do with the validating of various models of natural phenomena than it does with coming up with as yet baseless models as little more than guesses.
What is more, the best and more respectable hypothesises draw as their inspiration existing emperial evidence.
That is you look at something else that was verified and you say "well, if this is true, then this other thing might be true as well."... and then you either observe the thing to see if you can observe proof or you conduct an experiment to test it.
Sorry if my post seemed ridged... when it comes to philosophy, I believe it is only fair to project and structure your thinking in the terms of that philosophy.
Science is a philosophy. Natural philosophy. And to judge it, you have to think in the terms of the philosophy itself... which is quite ridged and hyper logical.
Is the airbus project worth anything? I have no idea. But the more money thrown at this issue the happier I am really.
We need to get into space and we've allowed our space programs to atrophy.
First, acknowledge that the editor of the Lancet backed up my position.
I'm putting that statement before anything else because you're using your FEELINGS to justify not reading things. Again, comical that you call yourself some kind of scientist or engineer when you believe your emotional reactions to things is justification to not have intellectual integrity.
So there you go. No more dodging, shithead. I quoted the article to you multiple times and you've been evading and changing the subject ever since. Face it.
You think my feelings made me want to read anything you said? You fucking disgust me. Talking to you is like taking a bite out of rotten fruit. I don't enjoy it. But I respond because the only way to deal with people coming into communities and speciously claiming to be experts while spreading misinformation is to deal with them.
You're a fucking cancer. And THAT is why I'm dealing with you. Not because of my "feelings". People like you are literally destroying Western civilization. You're narcissistic ideologically driven bullshit corrupts everything it touches. The very idea that you would think your feelings even began to fucking matter is baffling to me.
It is disturbing that the problem is starting to effect physics. They should have been a bastion of resistance. Though, if the softness is in the cosmology department than that is more understandable.
In any case, if they're not backing up their theories with empirical observation or experimentation then it isn't science... at all.
So that has to happen.
This reminds me of when I heard some journalists say "it is impossible to be objective so there is no point trying. Take sides."... that's not journalism.
No one said your jobs were easy. But you have to play by the rules or you're not doing your job.
Scientists need to base their theories on empirical observation or experimentation.
Journalists need to control conflicts of interest and be as objective as they can... and where it isn't possible and there is no one else to report on the issue, at the very least declare your bias.
This nonsense is a bit like a judge saying he doesn't need to worry about conflicts of interest. Or when police officers say they don't need to give people due process.
You have to go through a process to be doing your job in these professions. You go through the process and you're a scientist, a journalist, a judge, a police officer.
If you don't... then you're just some asshole walking around with a badge that doesn't mean anything.
*yawn*
Unless they're paid off or someone on the review board is involved in one of the corrupt institutions.
Conflicts of interest are really common in these subcultures. They all know each other. They all go to the same events. They're all fucking each other in the back room. So its really hard to know what they actually think or if that is just what they're saying.
You see this is a lot of issues. Its a big issue in journalism as well. They all know each other and they all talk to each other. You think an article is independent, but what you don't know is that the guy that wrote the article in the other paper emailed the guy in the paper you're reading and they decided to both print the same story the same way and not tell anyone that they basically colluded.
You see it in lots and lots of places. Not just charities or journalism... any sub culture with a relatively small population of people in control. They all know each other and they're often friends.
Wow. So you don't know what ad hominem means?
This is getting sadder and sadder.
Okay, I'm 99 percent positive you lied when you said you were involved in scientific peer review. I don't think anyone with that much education could be this ignorant.
Okay, so to explain how ad hominem works:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
""An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments.""
So the key point here is not whether or not someone insults you but whether the insult itself is the argument used against someone... that is sans any other rational or evidence.
I have not done that to you. My insults are either the conclusions of larger argument. That is I say "because of X variables I conclude you are Y"... that isn't ad hominem. Or the insult isn't even relevant to my argument. Such as saying that the thermometer says the temperature is something other than what you said, therefore it isn't the temperature you said... and by the way you're an idiot. That isn't ad hominem either. The argument was based on the thermometer reading not your idiocy.
Your error is quite common from uneducated people... often high school students. So I'm hoping you're young and not just destined to be ignorant for the rest of your life. Truly. That would be sad.
As to why you have to be an expert to express an opinion? So now you're just descending into hypocrisy? YOU WERE THE ONE THAT STARTED TITLE DROPPING. Not me. Did I ever tell you my qualifications or pretend that I was privy to insider knowledge? Nope.
That was you.
And when I call bullshit on your claims, you respond with "and who says I need to have this special insider knowledge!?"...
Well, you did...
You've made so many fucking mistakes that its hard for me to keep track of them all.
You didn't read the original article or the supporting material which included an ACTUAL expert in peer review... the editor of the Lancet... basically backing up what I was saying.
You made a lot of specious claims about peer review being fine despite there being lots of evidence of being unreliable.
You made laughable claims of having insider knowledge.
You attempted to use "ad verecundiam" against me. Look it up.
Then you tried ad hominem saying that the only reason I would want improved standards in peer review is because I am against global warming research.
Side note, you didn't realize you just admitted that there might be a specific problem with the peer review process in climate change. If there weren't it wouldn't be specifically susceptible to the consequences of reform.
Then when I called bullshit on your credentials, you said "who says I need to have insider knowledge!?"... Well, you did. You tried to use your claims of insider knowledge to sustain ad verecundiam. I didn't do that. You did.
And then you outed yourself as not knowing either how ad hominem works or even what a logical fallacy is in the first place. This further undermines your claims to insider knowledge.
Let me explain fallacies for you as well because really it is the only thing you need to know on the issue. All specific fallacies are derived from this little nugget of wisdom:
Any line of logic that does not prove that some variable has a specific outcome 100 percent of the time is fallacious.
For example, if I said "tom isn't hungry so tom must have had a sandwich"... you don't why tom isn't hungry. You can't conclude that because he isn't that he must have had a sandwich. He could be sick, he could have eaten a fucking burrito. It isn't enough information.
Science is all about the attempt to make non-fallacious arguments. You say "well, this drug cures this disease because we did a test with 2000 people. Some were given our drug, some were given a placebo, and some were given nothing. Those that were given our drug improved. Everyone else died."
That's what you're trying to do. Make non-fallacious arguments.
Now... pay me.
I mean, I am sure the university libraries are busy but in the 21st century the vast majority of information isn't flowing through them. So how do they protect me?
It isn't going to work. What we have to do is anonymize our traffic. Do that and most of their crap won't work.
As to providing universal welfare which is your concept.
The problem with that idea is that we're seeing in the west that it just attracts everyone outside our countries into our countries to get the welfare.
We can't afford to give welfare to the entire planet.
And we apparently lack the will to keep people out.
The problem with open immigration is that it is mutually exclusive with permissive welfare systems.
You can't have both. Pick one.
As to where the economy goes... you assume that the economy, which is the dynamic logistical gestalt cares what you find appealing.
You can't control it. The Soviets couldn't control their own black market in the middle of the cold war. You can't dictate how the market will work.
You must instead BARGAIN with it.
You want the market to do something? What will you PAY it to do what you want? You can't threaten the market. You can pay it and play by its rules or it won't cooperate.
There is a lot of greed and arrogance on this issue and it isn't just greed for money. There is also greed for power. Politicians often are much more interested in power than they are money. What is the use of money after all? Do you actually want the money or what it buys? And thus power is a kind of money in itself. It is influence, leverage, and pressure. With power you can get all the money you want. Power is that gun against someone's head. Need something? Squeeze someone that has it. That is power.
The H1B visas are about money for big business and power for the politicians.
People are too credulous... too easily cowed by arrogant people that speak big and wave their arms around.
This is a peasant's mentality and many Americans are peasants. It was something we tried to educated out of people when they came to the US. But some never learned. Some slipped through the cracks. And institutionally, the system has started outright encouraging peasant ideology.
The politicians say "you are weak, you are powerless... But I will help you. And in return, you must be loyal to me... my subjects."
A citizen is not loyal to a politician any more than a customer is loyal to a sandwich shop. Give me what I want and I'll vote for you. Disappoint me and I walk. No loyalty.
T-Mobile has just fine coverage everywhere I've ever been.
The people that bitch the most about coverage seem to be people living in new york or something. The coverage area isn't the issue. You have to punch the signal through buildings and subways and all sorts of shit.
Now, in Los Angeles, we don't have that problem. It is one of the pros of the Sprawl... nothing really blocks signal.
You find it easier to actively manage your host file than to install one bit of software and spend perhaps a minute managing every now and again?
Okay.
... okay but why download a blueray iso at all? Again... 2gigs for 1080p in MKV format.
Es muy better, no?
The only reason I can think to download a blueray ISO is because you want to burn it to blueray. And... I have yet to meet anyone that actually ever does that.
Back in the day, burning things to cds/dvds made some sense. But at this point... who needs these fucking plastic discs? I have a 3 terabyte external and I keep all my movies etc on that thing. So much more civilized.
... And don't give to any charity unless you can audit to some extent how the money is spent.
The waste in these things is beyond unethical. Huge salaries for management, lots of money funneled to things that have NOTHING to do with what they raised the money for...
The Red Cross pocketed most of that money. In their minds they need that money for their other good works. So tehy show up at a disaster say "oh look at teh poor people, give to the red cross to help them"... and then basically just put all that money into their general fund.
There's no compartmentalization. So money donated to help Haitians could actually go almost anywhere... including the CEO's yacht/hooker/cocaine fund.
You're forgetting that they don't have to lower costs... at least in their minds. They think they're building monopolies.
The google concept of wifi calling which is coming will annihilate this business model. I can't wait.
My bill is about 8 dollars a month. I can't wait for it to go to 5 dollars a year.
What slows down firefox are the nested javascript ads and sometimes the pointless ad movies that are in the corners of screens.
Use NoScript and make a point of only having javascript enabled for domains that you WANT to run javascript from.
And then firefox is actually quite fast. Added bonus... less bullshit cluttering up your pages.
...bullshit... a ten gig movie? What fucking format was that in? Blueray? What kind of crazy person downloads a blueray ISO onto their cellphone?
How much internal memory do you even have on that thing?
You download a compressed AVI or MKV or something... max size is going to be less than 2 gigs and that is for 1080p which is meaningless on a phone's tiny screen. 720p is the most you'd even bother with and that is frankly extravagant on that formfactor. And that brings your total file size down to something between 800 - 1200 megs.
10 gigs? Liar liar pants on fire. :P
As to your plan:
"
Selected Plan..
$ 50 per month
Plus taxes, fees and monthly device payment
Unlimited talk, text, and data while on our network
Up to 1GB of 4G LTE data (Speeds reduced after 1GB)
Unlimited data & text in 120+ countries & destinations
""
You're paying more than five times what I'm paying. I'm not willing to pay what amounts to 40 dollars just for mobile internet every month. I'd rather take that money and use it to get faster home internet or save up for some new sting ray boots.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
"The Iraq war was not because of faulty intelligence. "
This is just an opinion? You stated it like it was a fact.
And your "evidence" was less than hearsay.
As to you giving up... Since your entire position amounted to pile of steaming bullshit, exactly why am I supposed to miss when you give up here?
Did you even try to make sense before you gave up? Not from where I'm sitting. That was fucking pathetic, dude. Try harder next time.
There are a couple companies including google talking about about doing things differently.
Last I checked their concept was this:
1. text messages are free
2. You are only billed for calls made through cell towers. You are able to make them through wifi instead and encouraged to do so. They estimate that roughly 80 percent of calls happen within wifi hotspots.
3. Calls made through wifi are free.
4. You can make calls through cell towers are normal rates and are billed for time used. google specifically wants to contract with ALL GSM providers so that you can use any GSM tower.
That was the concept. There is another company out of New York doing a similar thing though not quite as generous as google.
Here is the thing, the calls all happen through the internet. And the fees that providers are charged by tower operators are not per text or per phone call or even in minutes. They're charged by the kilobit.
Its just data. And once you untethered the data from the towers you can put additional leverage on the tower operators to charge a more reasonable fee.
Most of the time when I get a call, I am at home or at work. Those minutes on that system will be free. I'll only be billed for the minutes when I'm out and about. Think about that.
I don't use my phone much. Most conversations on the phone are over in 30 seconds. I get a lot of texts but so what?
Think about how great this is for a kid as well.
The texts are free. You can buy a phone for the kid, get him by text any time at no cost. And if you need to talk to him, you say "connect to wifi and call me"... again... if you're cost conscious and want what amounts to a free cell phone. Then consider international calling. No need to fuck around with skype. You just connect to the wifi with your phone can make a call. No bullshit international calling fees... no additional accounts. And you can call someone's actual phone number at no charge.
thanks for the heads up on ting. I'm currently paying about 100 dollars per year. I don't get data but as I said, I don't miss it.
Pure unrefined sadness.
I was too busy rubbing lotion in your sister's back to notice what you were talking about...
Repeat please?
The last thing I'm going to do at the beach is sit there and read bullshit on the internet. Why even go?
that's like those people that go to football games and then bring a little TV with them so they can sit AT THE GAME and watch the game on a tiny portable tv.
That's just distilled sadness.
The bandwidth caps are so low that at 5G speeds you'd blow through your monthly allotment in seconds.
If the carriers want to impress anyone, then increase capacity enough that you can raise the caps or remove them entirely and offer unlimited wireless internet... at speeds you can handle.
5G? They're not really letting people enjoy 4G as it is.
And on top of that, you have google's announcement that they're going to be offering a Wifi cellphone that connects through the wifi when possible to make phone calls... where only cellular service even costs... ANYTHING. And they're contracting with all the cell phone carriers to provide coverage.
YEARLY fees for some people might drop as low as 5 dollars per YEAR under a system like that.
Now... you like your wireless internet? But how much do you like it? First off, you can't buy most smartphones from most carriers unless you have a data plan. They literally won't let you connect unless you sign up for data as well. And for those that say "well that's just because the data plan pays for the reduced price you paid for the phone."... Nope. Because they won't even let you bring your own phone or buy the phone outright and then not have the data plan. They don't care. You have a smartphone? You must have data.
I've currently got my MONTHLY cell phone bill down to about 8 dollars per month. The price of that was that I do not have data on my phone. Which you would think sucks, only people don't appreciate how ubiquitous free wifi is everywhere. When I want data, I turn on my wifi and connect to any number of free wifi hotspots that are everywhere. The only place it could suck would be on the road but my actual needs to connect to the internet on the freeway are pretty limited. I use a map program on my phone that stores the maps in internal memory. And I have plenty of space left over for music, movies, and games.
Don't get me wrong... internet would be nice... but what am I willing to pay for it? 20 dollars a month? Literally tripling my monthly rate... for that? No. I don't care that much.
I like paying 8 bucks a month. And I look forward to paying 5 bucks a year.