Would I be foolish to ask exactly how examining source code adds to my ability to peer-review?
If the data and methods are published, how is not examining the source code of the analysis package stopping me from running the analysis of my choice using the same data and methods?
You heard it folks. Scientists would no longer be allowed to use any Microsoft products in their research. How will we know if those Excel calcluations work the way they say they work?
Great. Do you also have a link to his speech where he describes how to recreate extinct species from fossilized tree sap? I also enjoyed Jeff Goldblum's treatise on chaos theory.
First ketchup is a vegetable, now a work of fiction pass as science in this country.
Real scientists have PhDs in their field, completed a post-Doc, and publish in peer-reviewed science journals. Anything less is not science. I don't care what your job title is. I knew a dot-com bonehead who was "Chief Scientist" at now-defunct-never-useful Xuma. I think he had some familiarity with front page.
Science as it is practiced today is contained in peer-reviewed science journals. That is the scientific consensus, just like court decisions are legal consensus.
And a lot of the "scientific controversy" Bush and his buddies cite is nothing more than political argument from industry lobbiests.
The whole point of that deal was to open the population to communicate with the outside world, so they can read something besides their Dear Leader Catechism. It's not threats, but satellite TV and economic relationships that will free NK.
Yeah, I was working at the GB facility when it was being built, and got to stand on top of the main axis. Very cool. Even more cool are those little glass spheres they use for positioning. They make great paperweights if you can get your hands on one.
I have some kind of contract that protects me, I didn't read the details but it sounded like a good deal. That's right, I can blog all I want at work without any fear of... oh what's that? Oh... excuse me, I have to clean out my desk now.
You gotta remember where PC originated. Say, for example, you and I are having lunch in a crowded diner in the deep South in the 1960s, talking about "My girlfriend who is black." Forks drop, silence falls, and all eyes are on me as the patrons wonder who will follow me home that night.
Now, take the same situation, but instead we talk about "My girlfriend who is African-American." It is less likely that non-prying ears will pick this up. Most will just hear "Blah blah American" and go about their business.
PC began as a defense against bigotry. Only later did it become a self-parody, and then a derogatory comment. The implication now, of course, that such convoluted talk is unnecessary and therefore ludicrous. Let's hope so.
Conservatives who rail against PC attitudes would do well to remember this.
"...ideological driven scientists whose jobs would disappear the day we all finally put our foots down and say, "STFU. We don't believe you."
And so grows the anti-intellectual movement in this country. Republican politicians would love to drive scientists out of their jobs.
"Back in the early 80's I did a science report on what some magazines had printed as the eminent global warming that would cause NYC to be 4 feet under water by 2004."
I would question which magazines you chose. I would guess you didn't stick to peer-reviewed scientific journals.
"Before the '80s the buzz in the press was global cooling."
FYI, "Buzz in the press" is not the same as "established science" -- the global cooling BS was entirely the work of the popular press. You go back and read the peer-reviewed science journals of that time, they don't warn of any global cooling. BTW, this global cooling thing is a popular straw man these days among industry lobbyists who think it's unfair to make industry clean up after itself.
The fact is the global cooling thing came from one article in Newsweek which misinterpreted the real science study. And recently George Will misquoted another journal in support of this.
But it makes a good story. Now go back to reading Chriton's latest junk science dribble.
Slashdot Mirror
Didn't the Plasmonics tour with the Dead Kennedys in the 1980s?
Would I be foolish to ask exactly how examining source code adds to my ability to peer-review?
If the data and methods are published, how is not examining the source code of the analysis package stopping me from running the analysis of my choice using the same data and methods?
You heard it folks. Scientists would no longer be allowed to use any Microsoft products in their research. How will we know if those Excel calcluations work the way they say they work?
There were some problems... the murder of a supervisor... nothing proven, I just felt it was best to move on.
Give Dubya a few more years reforming the mideast. 5 cents will be competitive.
If being the first guy to register the clever domain name junkscience.com qualifies you as an expert on every topic, then yes.
But the fact is, this junkscience site is nothing but partisan hackery, and has nothing to do with science, junk or otherwise.
Read Nature.com if you want real science.
The real fear-mongers are those who say: We can't ask industry to clean up after itself, that would destroy our economy!
It's fear mongering driven by greed. They get paid for those results, you know. Paid better than any scientist.
Right, only 7 million data points. I wouldn't listen to anyone with less than 14 million data points.
Great. Do you also have a link to his speech where he describes how to recreate extinct species from fossilized tree sap? I also enjoyed Jeff Goldblum's treatise on chaos theory.
First ketchup is a vegetable, now a work of fiction pass as science in this country.
Of course. You hear the right-wingers in power clamouring about how universities are too liberal, and something must be done about it!
Unfortunately, anti-intellectualism is not without historic precedent, and the results are never good.
Yeah, and that wacky "theory" that CO2 is a heat insulator? That can be countered with a simple, "No it isn't."
Real scientists have PhDs in their field, completed a post-Doc, and publish in peer-reviewed science journals. Anything less is not science. I don't care what your job title is. I knew a dot-com bonehead who was "Chief Scientist" at now-defunct-never-useful Xuma. I think he had some familiarity with front page.
Science as it is practiced today is contained in peer-reviewed science journals. That is the scientific consensus, just like court decisions are legal consensus.
And a lot of the "scientific controversy" Bush and his buddies cite is nothing more than political argument from industry lobbiests.
The whole point of that deal was to open the population to communicate with the outside world, so they can read something besides their Dear Leader Catechism. It's not threats, but satellite TV and economic relationships that will free NK.
Nixon did the same thing with China.
Because people with nukes don't do stupid things
Fine print: Past performance does not guarantee future results.
It's not famous because 1) it's new, and 2) it's radio, producing data instead of pretty pictures.
...or...
I mean, which of the following research results is going to capture the public imagination?
Oooooh, look at the velocity curve of that counter-rotating 3He transition line!
Ooooooh, that cloud looks like a purple horsie!
Yeah, I was working at the GB facility when it was being built, and got to stand on top of the main axis. Very cool. Even more cool are those little glass spheres they use for positioning. They make great paperweights if you can get your hands on one.
Yes, like most sophistigeeks, he got his share of tail. I'm sure you all can relate, right guys? Wink wink nudge nudge...
EasyBake Chip Fab cooks your lithographs with a 40 watt bulb, and it comes with little doping packets, but the secret ingredient is love.
I was warned that smoking can corrupt those 5 1/4" floppies. Bad news for us hackers in Jr High School.
Way ahead of ya. I have a homebuilt flourine pump, and it's been running full tilt in my back yard for the past 10 years now.
Eat my dust NASA! I'm tired of wearing winter coats like a sucker.
Earth is a single point of failure for the human race
What? No RAID? No redundant failover? No backups? Someone should fire the sysadmin.
Now Chris, you know there's no evil monkey.
I have some kind of contract that protects me, I didn't read the details but it sounded like a good deal. That's right, I can blog all I want at work without any fear of... oh what's that? Oh... excuse me, I have to clean out my desk now.
You gotta remember where PC originated. Say, for example, you and I are having lunch in a crowded diner in the deep South in the 1960s, talking about "My girlfriend who is black." Forks drop, silence falls, and all eyes are on me as the patrons wonder who will follow me home that night.
Now, take the same situation, but instead we talk about "My girlfriend who is African-American." It is less likely that non-prying ears will pick this up. Most will just hear "Blah blah American" and go about their business.
PC began as a defense against bigotry. Only later did it become a self-parody, and then a derogatory comment. The implication now, of course, that such convoluted talk is unnecessary and therefore ludicrous. Let's hope so.
Conservatives who rail against PC attitudes would do well to remember this.
"...ideological driven scientists whose jobs would disappear the day we all finally put our foots down and say, "STFU. We don't believe you."
And so grows the anti-intellectual movement in this country. Republican politicians would love to drive scientists out of their jobs.
"Back in the early 80's I did a science report on what some magazines had printed as the eminent global warming that would cause NYC to be 4 feet under water by 2004."
I would question which magazines you chose. I would guess you didn't stick to peer-reviewed scientific journals.
"Before the '80s the buzz in the press was global cooling."
FYI, "Buzz in the press" is not the same as "established science" -- the global cooling BS was entirely the work of the popular press. You go back and read the peer-reviewed science journals of that time, they don't warn of any global cooling. BTW, this global cooling thing is a popular straw man these days among industry lobbyists who think it's unfair to make industry clean up after itself.
The fact is the global cooling thing came from one article in Newsweek which misinterpreted the real science study. And recently George Will misquoted another journal in support of this.
But it makes a good story. Now go back to reading Chriton's latest junk science dribble.