It IS a big deal! Porsche will be the FIRST electric car with a battery hanging behind the rear axle! It won't even need front wheels! They're just for show! Porsche FTW!!!
Maybe as a general matter you are right, but I was talking strictly about this case, it looked communist to me.
LOL! Wait...are you serious? Perhaps you should retake Polysci 101.
The goal of communism is to create a classless society by eliminating the power of the bourgeoisie. If the government (DOD) is "seeding" the means of production by handing over money/power to the proletariat, then you would be correct in describing the policy as communist. But for some reason, I have a sneaking suspicion that proles won't be reaping any benefits of this arrangement. It is the bourgeoisie that will benefit.
Republican? I was under the impression the current Secretary of Defense was part of a Democratic administration. Granted, when it comes to defense spending it's hard to tell the difference.
In any event, when we get our well deserved Trumpublican administration, things will change. More winning. More artful deals. More classy and sophisticated. Five big neon letters on the White House facade. Finally, I'll be able to stop worrying abut my children's future.
Great hope isn't it when a constitutional lawyer who gets elected and hands the US government over to corporate interests.
Aren't you just adorable!
But listen sweetie, the US government was handed over to corporate interests long before the current administration, mkay? Now, go back to playing with your Speak and Spell.
No one knows what "Conservative" means anymore. It's a label looking for a constituency. Democrats have as much of a chance as Republicans for taking on that mantle, but they are both so far away. The Dems have a "Socialist" candidate, the Repubs have an off the charts crazy candidate. Isn't democracy grand?
You are simply incapable of acknowledging any problems.
Not at all. There's certainly a problem. Research integrity has been a problem since Academia was born. That's why every research university has an "Office of Research Integrity" or somesuch.
But as I've said (repeatedly), I want to know the magnitude of the problem. Do you think that ONE fraudulent biomed paper is enough to conclude the entire field is "irretrievably corrupted"? Do 43 fraudulent papers vilify the field? Because that's the ridiculous claim I'm challenging. If one isn't enough, how many then?
Permanently erased? How can this be? Doesn't Google keep an off-site backup of my pr0n on tape or DVDs or sumpthin? So much for best practices, I guess.
I've made no such assumption. I simply asked a question.
But OK, instead of 43 papers, let's say it's 430 papers. Or let's say it's 4,300 papers. I still have the same question: why should anyone conclude that "Biomed is irretrievably corrupted" as GP claims? If there was 43,000 papers submitted during the timeframe in question, 10% of papers are questionable. Is that enough?
IMO, there has to be something more than a few anecdotal reports of fraud before I'll write off an entire field of study as being "irretrievably corrupted".
Biomed....You can draw your own conclusions, but my conclusion is that Biomed is irretrievably corrupted.
What is the basis for your conclusion? TFS is talking about 43 "bad" papers over an unknown (at least to me) timeframe. How many biomed papers in total were produced during the timeframe? Do the "bad" papers constitute 10%? 1%?.1%?.01% of the total?
Fraud is everywhere. Always has been, always will be. Are you going to reject the research of an entire field of study because of the misdeeds of a few researchers?
Furthermore, this misconduct was identified and rectified. Sounds to me like the system is working as intended.
"Cash," "coins," and "value" are all mentioned in the paper, and most people who speak English understand what the term "store of value" means.
LOL! Yeah, "cash", "coins" (why is this in your list?) and "value" are in the Satoshi paper. But "store" is not, is it? Why is that?
Look, you don't have to go any further than the paper's abstract and introduction to see bitcoin's purpose explicitly stated. Sure, people can read a Wikipedia article and understand what "store of value" means. That bitcoin may or may not serve as a store of value isn't the point - your claim is that bitcoin's "intended purpose" is to be "a useful store of value" is. Your claim. Back it up or shut up.
Which can only be true if Bitcoin serves its intended purpose as a useful store of value.
Intended purpose? There is absolutely no mention of "store of value" in the Satoshi paper.
There's a lot of people like you who want to claim this or that as the "intended purpose" of bitcoin...you comprise an endless parade of ideologues trying to hijack a revolutionary idea and fit it into your preconceived notions of how the world works. Sad.
Your rational, sober, succinct and to the point comments have no place here. Or pretty much anywhere else on the internet. Or television. Or talk radio. Definitely not talk radio.
The cost a Mars mission versus the cost of building an iron-curtain style wall from San Diego to Corpus Christi
In all honesty, at 41 years old, I think I'll be long dead before either is a reality.
Corpus Christi? LOL!
What, pray tell, would be the purpose of the stretch of wall between Brownsville and Corpus Christi? Do we have a problem with "wetbacks" in the form of undocumented sea turtles invading the Laguna Madre?
Slashdot Mirror
Which one's the printer and which one's the ink?
Idiocracinism. It's real, and it here. Now.
Nice, to the point, post. And me without mod points. Oh well.
Once you correct for the things that DO matter (IQ of biological parents and family income) all of that correlation vanishes [wordpress.com].
Your link to the WordPress article doesn't support your claim. Care to try again?
It IS a big deal! Porsche will be the FIRST electric car with a battery hanging behind the rear axle! It won't even need front wheels! They're just for show! Porsche FTW!!!
Thanks for stopping by, Donald Trump.
Maybe as a general matter you are right, but I was talking strictly about this case, it looked communist to me.
LOL! Wait...are you serious? Perhaps you should retake Polysci 101.
The goal of communism is to create a classless society by eliminating the power of the bourgeoisie. If the government (DOD) is "seeding" the means of production by handing over money/power to the proletariat, then you would be correct in describing the policy as communist. But for some reason, I have a sneaking suspicion that proles won't be reaping any benefits of this arrangement. It is the bourgeoisie that will benefit.
So no, not communist. Textbook fascism.
Republican? I was under the impression the current Secretary of Defense was part of a Democratic administration. Granted, when it comes to defense spending it's hard to tell the difference.
In any event, when we get our well deserved Trumpublican administration, things will change. More winning. More artful deals. More classy and sophisticated. Five big neon letters on the White House facade. Finally, I'll be able to stop worrying abut my children's future.
Great hope isn't it when a constitutional lawyer who gets elected and hands the US government over to corporate interests.
Aren't you just adorable!
But listen sweetie, the US government was handed over to corporate interests long before the current administration, mkay? Now, go back to playing with your Speak and Spell.
Expect 24/7 operation in 30 years.
And the energy it produces will be too cheap to meter.
No one knows what "Conservative" means anymore. It's a label looking for a constituency. Democrats have as much of a chance as Republicans for taking on that mantle, but they are both so far away. The Dems have a "Socialist" candidate, the Repubs have an off the charts crazy candidate. Isn't democracy grand?
Had not heard of Grace Hopper until today. Googled the name and learned something. Thanks for the mention!
Uh huh. So the supposed irretrievable corruption in the biomed field is a figment of your imagination. Got it.
n/t
Making excuses for these journals or outright denying the problem as "the system is working as intended" (when it clearly is not) isn't helpful.
Clearly to who? Evidence (non anecdotal) please.
Exactly how is Hooperfly different from Brundlefly?
Hooperfly:
You're gonna make your fortune by and by
But if you lose, don't ask no questions why
The only game you know is Do or Die
Ah-ha-ha
Brundlefly? Not so much.
You are simply incapable of acknowledging any problems.
Not at all. There's certainly a problem. Research integrity has been a problem since Academia was born. That's why every research university has an "Office of Research Integrity" or somesuch.
But as I've said (repeatedly), I want to know the magnitude of the problem. Do you think that ONE fraudulent biomed paper is enough to conclude the entire field is "irretrievably corrupted"? Do 43 fraudulent papers vilify the field? Because that's the ridiculous claim I'm challenging. If one isn't enough, how many then?
Permanently erased? How can this be? Doesn't Google keep an off-site backup of my pr0n on tape or DVDs or sumpthin? So much for best practices, I guess.
I've made no such assumption. I simply asked a question.
But OK, instead of 43 papers, let's say it's 430 papers. Or let's say it's 4,300 papers. I still have the same question: why should anyone conclude that "Biomed is irretrievably corrupted" as GP claims? If there was 43,000 papers submitted during the timeframe in question, 10% of papers are questionable. Is that enough?
IMO, there has to be something more than a few anecdotal reports of fraud before I'll write off an entire field of study as being "irretrievably corrupted".
Biomed....You can draw your own conclusions, but my conclusion is that Biomed is irretrievably corrupted.
What is the basis for your conclusion? TFS is talking about 43 "bad" papers over an unknown (at least to me) timeframe. How many biomed papers in total were produced during the timeframe? Do the "bad" papers constitute 10%? 1%? .1%? .01% of the total?
Fraud is everywhere. Always has been, always will be. Are you going to reject the research of an entire field of study because of the misdeeds of a few researchers?
Furthermore, this misconduct was identified and rectified. Sounds to me like the system is working as intended.
"Cash," "coins," and "value" are all mentioned in the paper, and most people who speak English understand what the term "store of value" means.
LOL! Yeah, "cash", "coins" (why is this in your list?) and "value" are in the Satoshi paper. But "store" is not, is it? Why is that?
Look, you don't have to go any further than the paper's abstract and introduction to see bitcoin's purpose explicitly stated. Sure, people can read a Wikipedia article and understand what "store of value" means. That bitcoin may or may not serve as a store of value isn't the point - your claim is that bitcoin's "intended purpose" is to be "a useful store of value" is. Your claim. Back it up or shut up.
Which can only be true if Bitcoin serves its intended purpose as a useful store of value.
Intended purpose? There is absolutely no mention of "store of value" in the Satoshi paper.
There's a lot of people like you who want to claim this or that as the "intended purpose" of bitcoin...you comprise an endless parade of ideologues trying to hijack a revolutionary idea and fit it into your preconceived notions of how the world works. Sad.
Your rational, sober, succinct and to the point comments have no place here. Or pretty much anywhere else on the internet. Or television. Or talk radio. Definitely not talk radio.
The cost a Mars mission versus the cost of building an iron-curtain style wall from San Diego to Corpus Christi
In all honesty, at 41 years old, I think I'll be long dead before either is a reality.
Corpus Christi? LOL!
What, pray tell, would be the purpose of the stretch of wall between Brownsville and Corpus Christi? Do we have a problem with "wetbacks" in the form of undocumented sea turtles invading the Laguna Madre?
Big data is great - based on the assumption that you have so much data that the individual record hardly matters.
That's why the Next Big Thing (tm) in databases is the elimination of the individual record. It will revolutionize the way we do business.