Yes, but maybe we could engineer the industry so that the checking scientist has nothing to gain or lose by hiding anything. One step towards that outcome is by ensuring they can't check each other's work at any point (only one sided).
At least three different research departments would be needed:
A checks B
B checks C
C checks A
Would that work? I'm just throwing ideas around, but someone's gotta try. If that too becomes a circle-jerk, then maybe we could try this:
A checks D
B checks E
C checks F
(where A/B/C can't publish any papers of their own, and are paid a fixed amount).
There's got to be something we can do, to at least mitigate the problem.
Checking surely? Even if someone thinks their own motives are genuine, sometimes they can fool themselves.
We go the extra mile with the double blind test gold standard, yet the factor of scientific fraud and deceit is perhaps an even greater issue. I think even having 2 people (unrelated) watching over each experiment from each scientist would be of great benefit to everybody in the end.
As someone else said, an inaccurate paper can affect all the papers which come to rely on that as a source, multiplying the 'bug' in a deadly way.
Has anyone thought of good ways of combating this? Is it possible to have every study "peer reviewed" by a completely independent, impartial party. And by that, I don't just mean the checking the paper itself, but overseeing the ENTIRE experiment from start to finish including the production of the data so that it can't be skewed.
We'll need double the amount of people, but in the end, science could grow 10x faster.
That's odd, I expected the design to 'feature' dangly metal scraps which filter through the side of the plughole in a tentacle like fashion. Perhaps even for the whole mechanism and pipe to be metal through and through with just a tiny bit of rubber on the end to act as insulation. This would ensure people have to be very careful when they recharge, and only touch the small rubber bit. Perhaps that could create a new market for rubberized extending tongs.
I don't know - if I didn't know any better, it's almost as if....... some slashdotters have a thing against using high power in any form.
Sounds good in theory, but thinking longer term...
It would be ideal to charge from the house most often, rather than from a filling station. Because of this, there would be pressure to get the refill time down to as low a time as possible. That pressure for technology to progress wouldn't be so great if we went about exchanging them in the manner you suggest. Also, it means extra storage/time/pumps for the garages to maintain round the clock, and may also mean the design of the car has to be more stringent and less flexible as a result.
You're right, the Nokia Lumia 900 did score higher. I only checked.co.uk previously thinking that the US would have the same. But the Lumia 900 isn't out in the UK (and the Lumia 800 scores higher in the US for whatever reason).
My next phone will probably be an Android, but I agree the foundation should be solid. Each mobile OS seems to have massive drawback/s unfortunately...
Can someone who's in contact with Microsoft send this to them? It would be nice to have some competition with Android/IOS, and it's good if MS knows that its potential customers don't like to faff around.
This is getting closer to what I've been hoping for.
Glad to see the realtime filtering of documentation too. That's something that's been missing from not just programming languages, but software and Windows in general (my own documentation for a program called opalcalc takes this to its logical conclusion at the bottom of the page).
What I'd really like to see though is not just real-time filtering of functions/methods/variables (each with their own metadata, so a word such as "exit" can be associated with "close" or "quit"), but ALSO where each function is ranked according to how much it's used. This will vary somewhat from person to person and program to program, but more often than not, some methods (and variables) from a class will be used much more often than others in general. It would be nice to see these at the top when given (often hundreds of) potential candidates.
If it was THAT much of a problem, then we'd see devastating things happen with all the paypal, credit card and bank transfer actions too, which are all recorded. If I have to prove money has been stolen (or merely that I didn't receive money, or did actually send money), the possible loss of privacy is more than made up by security and transparency.
Put into perspective, I'm sure Facebook creates 10x the privacy loss than non-anonymous cash could possibly do, and I don't see the world exploding yet;)
For business concepts or for accounting, it's actually better to run things via pen and paper
See that instinctively sounds wrong. We shouldn't have to write down something if it's just copying too.
Perhaps they can rephrase so the teacher can check they really understand it, or maybe read over very slowly to imitate the typical 'writing' speed. But not just a copy pasta that involves using a few more wrist muscles.
What I'd love to know is the skill level gap between humans and computers when comparing small Go boards and large ones. Do larger boards make this gap wider? Is the gap growth linear with the board size? If the gap widens, is there a board size so big where the gap doesn't widen anymore?
I think 99% of people are FAR more content than what you're portraying. I'm not saying you don't have some partially good points, but at least I would prefer targeted ads than weight-loss or build-your-abs crap. Yeah they might earn a bit more revenue, big deal. Some things you really do gain on the roundabouts and lose on the swings.
Sometimes it doesn't hurt to try things at random first, and then see what theories fit the facts afterwards. A lot of great inventions were accidental.
This is why it would be great if we could have 5-20k+ screens. Scaling and blurring wouldn't be an issue anymore (hardware or in software manually), and we won't have to rely on tricks such as subpixel anti-aliasing (or even *any* anti-aliasing, so that scaling is faster, and where there are less artifacts if you work in graphics). Reading text would as clear as reading a book. And we would take one step closer to true resolution independence where all icons, gadgets and widgets would resize accordingly.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but maybe we could engineer the industry so that the checking scientist has nothing to gain or lose by hiding anything. One step towards that outcome is by ensuring they can't check each other's work at any point (only one sided).
At least three different research departments would be needed:
A checks B
B checks C
C checks A
Would that work? I'm just throwing ideas around, but someone's gotta try. If that too becomes a circle-jerk, then maybe we could try this:
A checks D
B checks E
C checks F
(where A/B/C can't publish any papers of their own, and are paid a fixed amount).
There's got to be something we can do, to at least mitigate the problem.
Checking surely? Even if someone thinks their own motives are genuine, sometimes they can fool themselves.
We go the extra mile with the double blind test gold standard, yet the factor of scientific fraud and deceit is perhaps an even greater issue. I think even having 2 people (unrelated) watching over each experiment from each scientist would be of great benefit to everybody in the end.
As someone else said, an inaccurate paper can affect all the papers which come to rely on that as a source, multiplying the 'bug' in a deadly way.
Has anyone thought of good ways of combating this? Is it possible to have every study "peer reviewed" by a completely independent, impartial party. And by that, I don't just mean the checking the paper itself, but overseeing the ENTIRE experiment from start to finish including the production of the data so that it can't be skewed.
We'll need double the amount of people, but in the end, science could grow 10x faster.
That's odd, I expected the design to 'feature' dangly metal scraps which filter through the side of the plughole in a tentacle like fashion. Perhaps even for the whole mechanism and pipe to be metal through and through with just a tiny bit of rubber on the end to act as insulation. This would ensure people have to be very careful when they recharge, and only touch the small rubber bit. Perhaps that could create a new market for rubberized extending tongs.
I don't know - if I didn't know any better, it's almost as if....... some slashdotters have a thing against using high power in any form.
Sounds good in theory, but thinking longer term...
It would be ideal to charge from the house most often, rather than from a filling station. Because of this, there would be pressure to get the refill time down to as low a time as possible. That pressure for technology to progress wouldn't be so great if we went about exchanging them in the manner you suggest. Also, it means extra storage/time/pumps for the garages to maintain round the clock, and may also mean the design of the car has to be more stringent and less flexible as a result.
I don't know why, but the article and videos only mention cars, not laptops, phone or other gadgets (portable convector heater anyone?).
You're right, the Nokia Lumia 900 did score higher. I only checked .co.uk previously thinking that the US would have the same. But the Lumia 900 isn't out in the UK (and the Lumia 800 scores higher in the US for whatever reason).
My next phone will probably be an Android, but I agree the foundation should be solid. Each mobile OS seems to have massive drawback/s unfortunately...
I don't know, this graph doesn't make it look *completely* inevitable.
Well 266 / 293 users would appear to disagree with you according to Amazon.
What makes you think Android will be dead in 5 years?
Can someone who's in contact with Microsoft send this to them? It would be nice to have some competition with Android/IOS, and it's good if MS knows that its potential customers don't like to faff around.
This is getting closer to what I've been hoping for.
Glad to see the realtime filtering of documentation too. That's something that's been missing from not just programming languages, but software and Windows in general (my own documentation for a program called opalcalc takes this to its logical conclusion at the bottom of the page).
What I'd really like to see though is not just real-time filtering of functions/methods/variables (each with their own metadata, so a word such as "exit" can be associated with "close" or "quit"), but ALSO where each function is ranked according to how much it's used. This will vary somewhat from person to person and program to program, but more often than not, some methods (and variables) from a class will be used much more often than others in general. It would be nice to see these at the top when given (often hundreds of) potential candidates.
get a bunch of things together, it's often more than the sum of its parts
Ah, the arch enemy of "Use the right tool tool for the right job" - my pet hate quote of all time I think.
If it was THAT much of a problem, then we'd see devastating things happen with all the paypal, credit card and bank transfer actions too, which are all recorded. If I have to prove money has been stolen (or merely that I didn't receive money, or did actually send money), the possible loss of privacy is more than made up by security and transparency.
;)
Put into perspective, I'm sure Facebook creates 10x the privacy loss than non-anonymous cash could possibly do, and I don't see the world exploding yet
Do we really need the anonymous clause? It seems it's in most honest people's interest for it all to be recorded, and it would seem to help security.
For business concepts or for accounting, it's actually better to run things via pen and paper
See that instinctively sounds wrong. We shouldn't have to write down something if it's just copying too.
Perhaps they can rephrase so the teacher can check they really understand it, or maybe read over very slowly to imitate the typical 'writing' speed. But not just a copy pasta that involves using a few more wrist muscles.
Why can't you just say "Use another browser if you wish, but then you get no help from me - your're on your own". Then everyone would be happy.
That's bad, but does it take anything away from this story or make it any less valid?
What I'd love to know is the skill level gap between humans and computers when comparing small Go boards and large ones. Do larger boards make this gap wider? Is the gap growth linear with the board size? If the gap widens, is there a board size so big where the gap doesn't widen anymore?
I think 99% of people are FAR more content than what you're portraying. I'm not saying you don't have some partially good points, but at least I would prefer targeted ads than weight-loss or build-your-abs crap. Yeah they might earn a bit more revenue, big deal. Some things you really do gain on the roundabouts and lose on the swings.
Oops, by "lens", I mean the scope/mirrors as you said.
Interesting thanks. Can time be traded for the light gathering aspect, almost as if they're interchangeable?
(e.g.: 8 hours with a particular lens size would be as effective as 4 hours with a lens twice as big.)
Sometimes it doesn't hurt to try things at random first, and then see what theories fit the facts afterwards. A lot of great inventions were accidental.
This is why it would be great if we could have 5-20k+ screens. Scaling and blurring wouldn't be an issue anymore (hardware or in software manually), and we won't have to rely on tricks such as subpixel anti-aliasing (or even *any* anti-aliasing, so that scaling is faster, and where there are less artifacts if you work in graphics). Reading text would as clear as reading a book. And we would take one step closer to true resolution independence where all icons, gadgets and widgets would resize accordingly.
Wasn't a better approach to building telescopes to have multiple smaller ones working in conjunction, spread out across acres of land (or more) ?