Or he can go down the long hall to his boss and say, "Nope, this one didn't work either, and while I'd like to start a religion based on false hope, this isn't the false hope you're looking for."
And that's what *really* pissed me off about academia. Guys like that never get tenure, never get thanked. With so many of the people I worked with, "hypothesis" was synonymous with "foregone conclusion." The standard practice was to come up with your hypothesis, cook up a bunch of data to support it (dismissing any evidence that contradicted it with a little intellectual sleight-of-hand), publish, and then get your promotions and tenure. The guys who treated their hypotheses as ACTUAL hypotheses (that they might actually find to be wrong) were treated like bad researchers, when in fact, they were the *good* researchers. With so many people cooking the numbers, it began to be assumed that if your hypotheses weren't always proven right, it meant you were somehow flawed.
Yes, but unless that system is made as efficient as possible, it can take a very long time to correct itself. Eugenics is the classic example. Sure, it was eventually shown to be so much junk science, but not before it contributed to millions being killed/lobotomized/institutionalized. Even though there were skeptics of it almost from the beginning, the biology and medical fields did a piss-poor job at self-correcting, and people suffered for decades after this should have been laughed away as humbug.
Simply saying "Well, it will eventually sort itself out" is not an excuse to avoid reform.
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.
As I've said before, back when I was in academia, there were always grant-whores and academics more interested in their own interests than science around. Too many people have come to treat science with a reverence more appropriate to a religion than a system of knowledge and discovery, however. And so when I point out that there are scientists out there willing to cook the numbers, exaggerate, play to politics and/or public opinion, etc. I inevitably run into those who say "Science wouldn't allow that" (like my friend who's still in the field). But science is only as good as the people practicing it. And, in any field, there are always those willing to put their own personal interests ahead of the greater good.
I just hope this doesn't cast a shadow over those out there who *are* doing good work and *are* trying to do honest work. Sadly, some of the best researchers out there are the ones who make the least noise, get the least attention, get the least grants, and are least likely to get tenure.
Right now, some illiterate goat farmer who's practices a medieval, backwards religion is looking at the remains of a nearby ancient Egyptian city and wondering what it must have felt like to be one of the world's most advanced civilizations and what went wrong.
Nonsense, I love the video about the technology they use to get all that refreshing taste into a delicious, cold bottle of Coca-Cola. We should all buy Coca-Cola now.
In those games, you actually have to ACTIVELY PURSUE gay relationships. So are these groups arguing that game makers have an obligation to stop good Christians from their *own* desire to pursue gay relationships? Because I'm pretty sure that eliminating the POSSIBILITY of gayness in a game is not going to make them all into good Christian heterosexuals, especially if they're *that* determined to pursue the gay endings.
It's easy to make a prediction when it's so far off into the future that you know no one will remember you even making it when it doesn't come true. It's like a President promising to put a man on Mars long after his administration is gone. It's an easy promise to make when you know no one is ever going to be able to hold you accountable for it (and even if they tried, you could just blame your successors).
I can predict anything as long as it's far enough off in the future for people to forget it if I'm wrong. Obligatory xkcd.
IIRC, Sony said something very similar at the beginning of the PSN breach--something along the lines of "This was a minor incident. It was probably only a few accounts. Nothing to see here."
The reality distortion field might break under greater strain.
That collapsed the second Jobs died. It's just a matter of time before everyone notices it and you start hearing hipsters and Macheads all saying some variation of:
"Apple just isn't the same since Steve left. They sold out. It used to be about the MUSIC, man!"
My workplace requires IE for one specific (but very important) reason. Everyone here uses Powerpoint (way too much, IMHO, but that's another issue), and Powerpoint has a built-in tool for converting presentations to webpages (meaning they can be posted on our intranet with forms and other pages). But those webpages only look right in IE. Pretty sneaky on MS's part. The alternative would be trying to convert tens-of-thousands-of-slides worth of presentations into html by hand. So it's a lot easier to just force people to use IE rather than having to deal with either the conversion costs or 2,000 phone calls with conversations like this:
Caller: "These slides don't look right"
Tech: "What browser are you using?"
Caller: "I'm using the internet"
Tech: "What is the picture you click on to get to the internet look like?"
Before everyone starts celebrating, keep in mind that some of the more popular gas car models out there average 40,000-60,000 units a month in sales. And the Prius hybrid sold about 30,000 units last month.
I was already paying for that anyway. But substitute "PS3" for "Xbox" if it makes you feel superior. The point is that it's reasonably-priced, simple, and easy.
I don't on the Xbox. I just click the Netflix button, it takes a few seconds to connect, and there is my queue (I supposed it's logging in transparently in the background, but I never see it). I think when I first set it up, I had to get a number and login to my account to tell Netflix that my Xbox was an allowed streaming device. But now it's a one-click operation. Can't get any simpler than that. I've even taken it with me on trips and used it in hotels and at friends houses, with no hassle.
Somewhere I picture Jerry Yang getting drunk and calling up his remaining friends every night to rant about how it totally wasn't a mistake to turn Microsoft down.
It's pretty clear NBC and many other media outlets constructed a narrative almost from the get-go of what happened, long before they even heard Zimmerman's side of the story. All the evidence was made to fit that narrative, a series of people who knew nothing about the case were paraded out to express outrage, and they basically found him guilty in the court of public opinion without even holding a trial. To get their ratings, they put this guy's life (and the lives of his family) in danger and threw gasoline on the fire of racial tension that already exists around these cases.
They should apologize for a LOT more than just a little selective editing of one tape.
Look, there is no such thing as "free" energy. There is always some price to be paid, some tradeoff. If someone out there is selling you on the perfect energy source that is the answer to all out problems with no downsides, they're selling you on something that just doesn't exist.
It's a question of what tradeoffs you think are better than others. Poll any five people on/. and I'll bet you'll get 7 different opinions as to which source(s) are most practical/safe/efficient/cost-effective. That's not to say this means they're all created equal, just an acknowledgement that none of them are anywhere close to perfect.
My own opinion is that solar, wind, and hydroelectric power are almost certainly the three cleanest and safest sources we have at present--but current practical considerations also stick them into the "can supplement, but not replace" category when compared to the dirtier and less safe sources (at least for now). I'm not so concerned with birds, fish spawning, and farmers' property values as I am the more industrial-scale waste issues that you get with coal, oil, and nuclear fission. I'm sure someone can also make the case for natural gas, thorium reactors, and fusion too--but we'll see on that. But there's always someone who's going to bitch, no matter what path(s) you take.
I can watch *way* more movies and TV shows than that with no hassle on my Xbox and they don't expire or require some annoying separate login, weird PC-only DRM scheme, or any other annoyances. I just pay my $8 a month, click "Netflix" on my Xbox menu, and watch whatever I like.
Slashdot Mirror
Or he can go down the long hall to his boss and say, "Nope, this one didn't work either, and while I'd like to start a religion based on false hope, this isn't the false hope you're looking for."
And that's what *really* pissed me off about academia. Guys like that never get tenure, never get thanked. With so many of the people I worked with, "hypothesis" was synonymous with "foregone conclusion." The standard practice was to come up with your hypothesis, cook up a bunch of data to support it (dismissing any evidence that contradicted it with a little intellectual sleight-of-hand), publish, and then get your promotions and tenure. The guys who treated their hypotheses as ACTUAL hypotheses (that they might actually find to be wrong) were treated like bad researchers, when in fact, they were the *good* researchers. With so many people cooking the numbers, it began to be assumed that if your hypotheses weren't always proven right, it meant you were somehow flawed.
Yes, but unless that system is made as efficient as possible, it can take a very long time to correct itself. Eugenics is the classic example. Sure, it was eventually shown to be so much junk science, but not before it contributed to millions being killed/lobotomized/institutionalized. Even though there were skeptics of it almost from the beginning, the biology and medical fields did a piss-poor job at self-correcting, and people suffered for decades after this should have been laughed away as humbug.
Simply saying "Well, it will eventually sort itself out" is not an excuse to avoid reform.
premeds
I'll thank you not to use that kind of language on a family forum, sir!
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.
As I've said before, back when I was in academia, there were always grant-whores and academics more interested in their own interests than science around. Too many people have come to treat science with a reverence more appropriate to a religion than a system of knowledge and discovery, however. And so when I point out that there are scientists out there willing to cook the numbers, exaggerate, play to politics and/or public opinion, etc. I inevitably run into those who say "Science wouldn't allow that" (like my friend who's still in the field). But science is only as good as the people practicing it. And, in any field, there are always those willing to put their own personal interests ahead of the greater good.
I just hope this doesn't cast a shadow over those out there who *are* doing good work and *are* trying to do honest work. Sadly, some of the best researchers out there are the ones who make the least noise, get the least attention, get the least grants, and are least likely to get tenure.
Right now, some illiterate goat farmer who's practices a medieval, backwards religion is looking at the remains of a nearby ancient Egyptian city and wondering what it must have felt like to be one of the world's most advanced civilizations and what went wrong.
Nonsense, I love the video about the technology they use to get all that refreshing taste into a delicious, cold bottle of Coca-Cola. We should all buy Coca-Cola now.
God almighty meant for you to use the arrow keys, the way all decent people do.
We are all children of God.
We are all sinners too. Satan awaits you too, my friend.
You do realize that only the Mormons got it right, don't you? Everyone of the rest of us...straight to hell, right beside Hitler.
I'm going to boycott them until they stop milking us for $60 every year for the same goddamned Madden game.
In those games, you actually have to ACTIVELY PURSUE gay relationships. So are these groups arguing that game makers have an obligation to stop good Christians from their *own* desire to pursue gay relationships? Because I'm pretty sure that eliminating the POSSIBILITY of gayness in a game is not going to make them all into good Christian heterosexuals, especially if they're *that* determined to pursue the gay endings.
And the one thing in common with every major pandemic, catastrophe, and economic collapse has had in common? No one ever saw them coming.
It's easy to make a prediction when it's so far off into the future that you know no one will remember you even making it when it doesn't come true. It's like a President promising to put a man on Mars long after his administration is gone. It's an easy promise to make when you know no one is ever going to be able to hold you accountable for it (and even if they tried, you could just blame your successors).
I can predict anything as long as it's far enough off in the future for people to forget it if I'm wrong. Obligatory xkcd.
IIRC, Sony said something very similar at the beginning of the PSN breach--something along the lines of "This was a minor incident. It was probably only a few accounts. Nothing to see here."
The reality distortion field might break under greater strain.
That collapsed the second Jobs died. It's just a matter of time before everyone notices it and you start hearing hipsters and Macheads all saying some variation of:
"Apple just isn't the same since Steve left. They sold out. It used to be about the MUSIC, man!"
No, college kids love them. They use them to tweet out messages encouraging their fellow students to fight evil corporations.
My workplace requires IE for one specific (but very important) reason. Everyone here uses Powerpoint (way too much, IMHO, but that's another issue), and Powerpoint has a built-in tool for converting presentations to webpages (meaning they can be posted on our intranet with forms and other pages). But those webpages only look right in IE. Pretty sneaky on MS's part. The alternative would be trying to convert tens-of-thousands-of-slides worth of presentations into html by hand. So it's a lot easier to just force people to use IE rather than having to deal with either the conversion costs or 2,000 phone calls with conversations like this:
Caller: "These slides don't look right"
Tech: "What browser are you using?"
Caller: "I'm using the internet"
Tech: "What is the picture you click on to get to the internet look like?"
Caller: "I don't know, JUST FIX IT!!!"
And some of us use Firefox, which doesn't push anything and has the best add-ons of any browser.
selling 2,289 units in March
Before everyone starts celebrating, keep in mind that some of the more popular gas car models out there average 40,000-60,000 units a month in sales. And the Prius hybrid sold about 30,000 units last month.
I was already paying for that anyway. But substitute "PS3" for "Xbox" if it makes you feel superior. The point is that it's reasonably-priced, simple, and easy.
I have to login to Netflix on my PS3, IPhone, Wii
I don't on the Xbox. I just click the Netflix button, it takes a few seconds to connect, and there is my queue (I supposed it's logging in transparently in the background, but I never see it). I think when I first set it up, I had to get a number and login to my account to tell Netflix that my Xbox was an allowed streaming device. But now it's a one-click operation. Can't get any simpler than that. I've even taken it with me on trips and used it in hotels and at friends houses, with no hassle.
If Jerry Yang walked away with more than $1 it was too much.
Somewhere I picture Jerry Yang getting drunk and calling up his remaining friends every night to rant about how it totally wasn't a mistake to turn Microsoft down.
It's pretty clear NBC and many other media outlets constructed a narrative almost from the get-go of what happened, long before they even heard Zimmerman's side of the story. All the evidence was made to fit that narrative, a series of people who knew nothing about the case were paraded out to express outrage, and they basically found him guilty in the court of public opinion without even holding a trial. To get their ratings, they put this guy's life (and the lives of his family) in danger and threw gasoline on the fire of racial tension that already exists around these cases.
They should apologize for a LOT more than just a little selective editing of one tape.
Look, there is no such thing as "free" energy. There is always some price to be paid, some tradeoff. If someone out there is selling you on the perfect energy source that is the answer to all out problems with no downsides, they're selling you on something that just doesn't exist.
It's a question of what tradeoffs you think are better than others. Poll any five people on /. and I'll bet you'll get 7 different opinions as to which source(s) are most practical/safe/efficient/cost-effective. That's not to say this means they're all created equal, just an acknowledgement that none of them are anywhere close to perfect.
My own opinion is that solar, wind, and hydroelectric power are almost certainly the three cleanest and safest sources we have at present--but current practical considerations also stick them into the "can supplement, but not replace" category when compared to the dirtier and less safe sources (at least for now). I'm not so concerned with birds, fish spawning, and farmers' property values as I am the more industrial-scale waste issues that you get with coal, oil, and nuclear fission. I'm sure someone can also make the case for natural gas, thorium reactors, and fusion too--but we'll see on that. But there's always someone who's going to bitch, no matter what path(s) you take.
I can watch *way* more movies and TV shows than that with no hassle on my Xbox and they don't expire or require some annoying separate login, weird PC-only DRM scheme, or any other annoyances. I just pay my $8 a month, click "Netflix" on my Xbox menu, and watch whatever I like.
Keep it simple, make it easy--then we'll talk.