It also makes you stupider, which in fact changes your sense of humor, and not for the better. You become incapable of subtlety and things which are just stupid to anyone with their wits about them become hilarious. Before you accuse me of being a prohibitionist, I drink, and sometimes to excess. But honestly if you think being drunk is bringing out the comedic genius in you, uh, well, I guess have another beer and enjoy, but stay the f*ck away from me.
. Well the hole was in the floor (many wooden houses around here are "on blocks") so it must have been cowgirl or reverse cowgirl.
That's just impressive either way. I mean, wow. How... I mean why... shit, I give up. I can't decide if I miss my 20's or am relieved they're over.:-)
Don't be a sad panda -- happy pandas get more out of life.:-) The hell with the moderators, just post whatever you like. That's what I do and I get modded quite fairly.
or some reason I never get hired to to stand-up at church retreats.
As opposed to all those other people in your life that are uplifted and amused by your amazing sense of humor? You people who think you're funny -- you might want to check if all the people who are laughing are drunk.
Wow, I have all sorts of questions as to how that one worked. First of all, how horny was that guy? Second, how big was his penis? Third, how desperate was she? Fourth, did they do it doggy style or missionary position? Fifth, were there splinters involved?
Regarding humor, while the lack of ability to smile is a big red flag, sometimes a "sense of humor" is just resistance to new experience or confusion or embarrassment masquerading as a joke. So no, I don't think your supposed superior funny bone is necessarily something to aspire to, although there is nothing wrong with it either. And of course, don't go around thinking that just because you think something is funny everybody has to. ROTFLMAO OK
I think it's more subtle and complex than that. Religion is like a virus that has benefits to its host. It transmits certain successful memes and in exchange it replicates itself. It cannot be denied that simply telling people to "be good" does not motivate them to act wisely. But giving a loving environment to practice kindness and support for each other is what religion excels at. As an atheist, I wish I had more such structures for myself. I turn to mens teams and personal development for finding more evolved and kind people.
just achieve the same effects through gin, not religion.
Alcohol does not give you the same effect as deep spiritual practice, at least for most people. I'm assuming you are not referring to the card game here. And religion is not the same as spirituality. You sir sound like you might be ignorant of a very important and beneficial part of life. I say this as an atheist.
Why do you think that happiness is the same as stupidity? In my experience, many people go from blissful ignorance (childhood) to unhappy ignorance (teenagers) to arrogant unhappiness (young adulthood) to resignation (midlife crisis) to mature joy. Some people skip various steps and there are others possible, of course. I'm just saying your view is extremely narrow and not particularly accurate. There are many very intelligent people who live very happy lives, laughing and loving their lives. Just because you are serene and have deep inner peace and happiness doesn't mean you never cry or don't get upset.
No, I wasn't insinuating what you talked about, never would have considered it.:-) I'm just pointing out that instead of saying "We are funded with tax dollars" they say "from the corporation for public broadcasting." Things like that are never an accident. I don't know why they hide it, but clearly they do.
It's fine to give code to referees who want to see it under peer review. I have no problems with that.
Got it, great! We're 90% of the way there. LOL
If you release code more generally, you need to support it. You will get questions. If you don't answer them, your work will be brought into question. What's this thing about "working as advertised"? Scientific code is quite often written to be used for a short time on specific inputs on a specific computer system. It won't "work as advertised" without a lot of support and hand-holding..
By assumptions, I mean things such as filename standards, format of data, and so on. These aren't scientific assumptions, but assumptions of the code itself, so are different things.
I think you are overstating this part. It's true it's a bit harder to have to explain yourself, but that's part of being a researcher. You do not need to explain every program feature or state your file format standards in general. Think outside your box for a second. YOu have this idea about supporting and it's getting us stuck. All you need to supply is your data, the code, and the commands you used to execute the code, perhaps spend a half hour or an hour explaining your data format and how the code works. Voila! You are done. Yes, you might get questions about poorly documented parts of the code, and as a computer guy, I think if you cannot explain parts of your code then you don't know if your code is accurate, but if your colleagues don't care, then I don't. The point is you released it and it's being looked at. I'll let your community decide the rest.:-)
And keeping code private isn't to stop people reproducing what you did, but to not allow others an advantage in an area you are working on.
Of course, but it potentially has both effects. If it's such an advantage to keep it secret, then nobody is forcing you to publish anything. The fact is that publishing is an advantage to everyone, that's why you do it. You want to have your cake and eat it too, and I applaud you for it, but the real tension is not between publishing code and getting things done, it's between keeping your stuff secret and publishing your results. If your code is your secret weapon, then write a paper about it and copyright it. And if it's that hard to document, I would argue it's not much of an advantage anyhow, but that's just me. LOL
Reproduction of results is about independent verification anyway, so they probably should be starting with the raw data and not working with an existing code.
Well, this is a very debatable point. I would argue that they have a right to know how your code works in order to verify your results. If a chemist said, "I went into my lab and mixed some chemicals together, but I'm not going to tell you how, but this is what I ended up with," then other chemists would probably want to know more details. Your code is a huge part of your process. It stands to reason that your results are not reproducible without a detailed description. The best easiest way to furnish the description is to publish the source.
I wouldn't go so far as to say what should constitute peer review in a journal outside of my field. But it seems obvious to me the code should be published to the full extent possible.
I never asked you to support your position, I said provide a link as a help to others if you want to be helpful. I don't expect anything from anyone, including you. And it doesn't make me angry if you don't supply it, you don't owe me anything. OK? The "shame on you" thing was kind of tongue in cheek, it's called "having a sense of humor."
Fine, no computer science dude ever looks at your paper. So... publish it anyhow, bugs and all. The point is to have it reviewed by your peers. Anyone who says the point is to have CS majors review it is being silly I think, although yes it might be that CS people have something to contribute to it, in which case, would you have a problem with them looking at it? If they say something silly, fine, then you will learn to laugh at them. But some CS people say useful things sometimes, even in the area of climate modeling. Not always.
You don't have to support it just because you publish it. People are not calling for that kind of code release. It's just available for reviews. The only people you have to "support" are your peers who have legitimate questions about its use and the only support you need give is to explain to them how the hell it works. You don't need to add new features or even fix any bugs -- just explain how the bug does not affect your results. I think it's appropriate you answer to them, don't you? "Peer review," you know? You are focused on the "review" and forgetting the "peer" part. I know you're busy but think of all the time the code saved you.
Documenting your assumptions etc. sounds like something you had better damned well be doing, so I don't understand your point. And who cares if it's "safe" for others? You just have to demonstrate to your peers that it works as advertised, to their satisfaction.
And if you are holding back to avoid others learning what you did, then your experiment and results are not reproducible by definition, which makes the idea of peer review a bit suspect in my mind.
I don't know, but at least if they do so without valid reason, since they don't have my money, I have the chance to respond before they actually have my money? Shit, you know, what's true of PayPal is true for anyone. That's why as a rule I use credit cards for everything, never my bank account.
If you are not trying to prove anything, then how am I in a debate? You are not making any freaking sense. I'm just saying, as a courtesy to others, how about providing a link with more information. Let's not make a federal case out of it
Just release your god damned code and don't worry about it. What are you afraid of? The sky will not fall. Your reputation will not crumble. Of course it's not perfect, duh. The point of releasing it is not to have people check for perfection, it's to see if there is a bug that could explain your surprising results. It's part of defending your results. Deal with it. I don't trust you.
lets not kid ourselves and pretend that every little program is fully commented, sanitizes inputs, and has an implementation of clippy
Snarky references to Clippy aside, let's not kid ourselves and pretend that just because you release your source code you have to respond to every idiot out there who questions it. I mean, anyone can read a science journal right now and see some of your methods and object on ridiculous grounds, and what do you do? You consider the source and act appropriately. If someone doesn't know how to use the code and challenges you, you can just say "You don't know what you are talking about, fuck off." You're apparently pretty good at that already.
So if the scientist who wrote the computer model isn't a qualified software engineer and doesn't have intimate knowledge of the workings of processor architectures, computer languages and all that, then any results he gets using a computer program of his own making are not to be trusted?
Isn't the whole point of peer review to remove the need to rely on trust in order to promote knowledge? Hell no, I don't trust your results, and yes I want to know how you got them. The extent to which you won't tell me is the extent to which I become very suspicious.
I think you are both right, and this all goes to show that this is a very complex subject and there are no absolute right answers. I personally would favor the release of the code and data as a requirement. Mashdar, just because some idiot claims you are wrong in the newspapers doesn't mean you have to respond. In fact, they are already doing so, so no change is likely. However, it's possible you will be shown a weakness in your argument by releasing the code, and I know you would like that, as a lover of knowledge.
Slashdot Mirror
STOP in the name of Godwin's Law!
It's not really that slow, either. The claim that the batteries will run perpetually is RIDICULOUS. Slashdot occasionally makes me feel ill.
It also makes you stupider, which in fact changes your sense of humor, and not for the better. You become incapable of subtlety and things which are just stupid to anyone with their wits about them become hilarious. Before you accuse me of being a prohibitionist, I drink, and sometimes to excess. But honestly if you think being drunk is bringing out the comedic genius in you, uh, well, I guess have another beer and enjoy, but stay the f*ck away from me.
. Well the hole was in the floor (many wooden houses around here are "on blocks") so it must have been cowgirl or reverse cowgirl.
That's just impressive either way. I mean, wow. How... I mean why... shit, I give up. I can't decide if I miss my 20's or am relieved they're over. :-) :-) The hell with the moderators, just post whatever you like. That's what I do and I get modded quite fairly.
Don't be a sad panda -- happy pandas get more out of life.
or some reason I never get hired to to stand-up at church retreats.
As opposed to all those other people in your life that are uplifted and amused by your amazing sense of humor? You people who think you're funny -- you might want to check if all the people who are laughing are drunk.
Wow, I have all sorts of questions as to how that one worked. First of all, how horny was that guy? Second, how big was his penis? Third, how desperate was she? Fourth, did they do it doggy style or missionary position? Fifth, were there splinters involved?
Regarding humor, while the lack of ability to smile is a big red flag, sometimes a "sense of humor" is just resistance to new experience or confusion or embarrassment masquerading as a joke. So no, I don't think your supposed superior funny bone is necessarily something to aspire to, although there is nothing wrong with it either. And of course, don't go around thinking that just because you think something is funny everybody has to. ROTFLMAO OK
one of the main characteristics of most "spiritual" people is a lack of a sense of humor.
If this is the funniest material you have, then you need to work on your routine, brother.
"A loving environment to practice kindness and support for each other" is family, often quite extended.
Not everyone is so lucky.
I think it's more subtle and complex than that. Religion is like a virus that has benefits to its host. It transmits certain successful memes and in exchange it replicates itself. It cannot be denied that simply telling people to "be good" does not motivate them to act wisely. But giving a loving environment to practice kindness and support for each other is what religion excels at. As an atheist, I wish I had more such structures for myself. I turn to mens teams and personal development for finding more evolved and kind people.
just achieve the same effects through gin, not religion.
Alcohol does not give you the same effect as deep spiritual practice, at least for most people. I'm assuming you are not referring to the card game here. And religion is not the same as spirituality. You sir sound like you might be ignorant of a very important and beneficial part of life. I say this as an atheist.
Why do you think that happiness is the same as stupidity? In my experience, many people go from blissful ignorance (childhood) to unhappy ignorance (teenagers) to arrogant unhappiness (young adulthood) to resignation (midlife crisis) to mature joy. Some people skip various steps and there are others possible, of course. I'm just saying your view is extremely narrow and not particularly accurate. There are many very intelligent people who live very happy lives, laughing and loving their lives. Just because you are serene and have deep inner peace and happiness doesn't mean you never cry or don't get upset.
No, I wasn't insinuating what you talked about, never would have considered it. :-) I'm just pointing out that instead of saying "We are funded with tax dollars" they say "from the corporation for public broadcasting." Things like that are never an accident. I don't know why they hide it, but clearly they do.
It's fine to give code to referees who want to see it under peer review. I have no problems with that.
Got it, great! We're 90% of the way there. LOL
If you release code more generally, you need to support it. You will get questions. If you don't answer them, your work will be brought into question. What's this thing about "working as advertised"? Scientific code is quite often written to be used for a short time on specific inputs on a specific computer system. It won't "work as advertised" without a lot of support and hand-holding..
By assumptions, I mean things such as filename standards, format of data, and so on. These aren't scientific assumptions, but assumptions of the code itself, so are different things.
I think you are overstating this part. It's true it's a bit harder to have to explain yourself, but that's part of being a researcher. You do not need to explain every program feature or state your file format standards in general. Think outside your box for a second. YOu have this idea about supporting and it's getting us stuck. All you need to supply is your data, the code, and the commands you used to execute the code, perhaps spend a half hour or an hour explaining your data format and how the code works. Voila! You are done. Yes, you might get questions about poorly documented parts of the code, and as a computer guy, I think if you cannot explain parts of your code then you don't know if your code is accurate, but if your colleagues don't care, then I don't. The point is you released it and it's being looked at. I'll let your community decide the rest. :-)
And keeping code private isn't to stop people reproducing what you did, but to not allow others an advantage in an area you are working on.
Of course, but it potentially has both effects. If it's such an advantage to keep it secret, then nobody is forcing you to publish anything. The fact is that publishing is an advantage to everyone, that's why you do it. You want to have your cake and eat it too, and I applaud you for it, but the real tension is not between publishing code and getting things done, it's between keeping your stuff secret and publishing your results. If your code is your secret weapon, then write a paper about it and copyright it. And if it's that hard to document, I would argue it's not much of an advantage anyhow, but that's just me. LOL
Reproduction of results is about independent verification anyway, so they probably should be starting with the raw data and not working with an existing code.
Well, this is a very debatable point. I would argue that they have a right to know how your code works in order to verify your results. If a chemist said, "I went into my lab and mixed some chemicals together, but I'm not going to tell you how, but this is what I ended up with," then other chemists would probably want to know more details. Your code is a huge part of your process. It stands to reason that your results are not reproducible without a detailed description. The best easiest way to furnish the description is to publish the source.
The fact that you had to dig to learn that shows that they are not proud of that source of funding.
The US media, however, is eager to twist the story.
It would seem not, as you linked to PBS, a news outlet funded by the U.S. Government. LOL
I wouldn't go so far as to say what should constitute peer review in a journal outside of my field. But it seems obvious to me the code should be published to the full extent possible.
I never asked you to support your position, I said provide a link as a help to others if you want to be helpful. I don't expect anything from anyone, including you. And it doesn't make me angry if you don't supply it, you don't owe me anything. OK? The "shame on you" thing was kind of tongue in cheek, it's called "having a sense of humor."
Fine, no computer science dude ever looks at your paper. So... publish it anyhow, bugs and all. The point is to have it reviewed by your peers. Anyone who says the point is to have CS majors review it is being silly I think, although yes it might be that CS people have something to contribute to it, in which case, would you have a problem with them looking at it? If they say something silly, fine, then you will learn to laugh at them. But some CS people say useful things sometimes, even in the area of climate modeling. Not always.
You don't have to support it just because you publish it. People are not calling for that kind of code release. It's just available for reviews. The only people you have to "support" are your peers who have legitimate questions about its use and the only support you need give is to explain to them how the hell it works. You don't need to add new features or even fix any bugs -- just explain how the bug does not affect your results. I think it's appropriate you answer to them, don't you? "Peer review," you know? You are focused on the "review" and forgetting the "peer" part. I know you're busy but think of all the time the code saved you.
Documenting your assumptions etc. sounds like something you had better damned well be doing, so I don't understand your point. And who cares if it's "safe" for others? You just have to demonstrate to your peers that it works as advertised, to their satisfaction.
And if you are holding back to avoid others learning what you did, then your experiment and results are not reproducible by definition, which makes the idea of peer review a bit suspect in my mind.
I don't know, but at least if they do so without valid reason, since they don't have my money, I have the chance to respond before they actually have my money? Shit, you know, what's true of PayPal is true for anyone. That's why as a rule I use credit cards for everything, never my bank account.
If you are not trying to prove anything, then how am I in a debate? You are not making any freaking sense. I'm just saying, as a courtesy to others, how about providing a link with more information. Let's not make a federal case out of it
Just release your god damned code and don't worry about it. What are you afraid of? The sky will not fall. Your reputation will not crumble. Of course it's not perfect, duh. The point of releasing it is not to have people check for perfection, it's to see if there is a bug that could explain your surprising results. It's part of defending your results. Deal with it. I don't trust you.
lets not kid ourselves and pretend that every little program is fully commented, sanitizes inputs, and has an implementation of clippy
Snarky references to Clippy aside, let's not kid ourselves and pretend that just because you release your source code you have to respond to every idiot out there who questions it. I mean, anyone can read a science journal right now and see some of your methods and object on ridiculous grounds, and what do you do? You consider the source and act appropriately. If someone doesn't know how to use the code and challenges you, you can just say "You don't know what you are talking about, fuck off." You're apparently pretty good at that already.
So if the scientist who wrote the computer model isn't a qualified software engineer and doesn't have intimate knowledge of the workings of processor architectures, computer languages and all that, then any results he gets using a computer program of his own making are not to be trusted?
Isn't the whole point of peer review to remove the need to rely on trust in order to promote knowledge? Hell no, I don't trust your results, and yes I want to know how you got them. The extent to which you won't tell me is the extent to which I become very suspicious.
I think you are both right, and this all goes to show that this is a very complex subject and there are no absolute right answers. I personally would favor the release of the code and data as a requirement. Mashdar, just because some idiot claims you are wrong in the newspapers doesn't mean you have to respond. In fact, they are already doing so, so no change is likely. However, it's possible you will be shown a weakness in your argument by releasing the code, and I know you would like that, as a lover of knowledge.