Slander is a false spoken statement about somebody, damaging to their reputation. That is not what is going on here. Besides, what fraud did he expose? Did you actually RTFA? This supposed "research" is even lamer than the articles they submitted to the journals. Didn't control for overall journal acceptance rates of real articles. Didn't test for other biases. Didn't compare to nonsense article acceptance rates in other fields. There's really nothing of value here, besides a few good laughs. If they wanted to spend all this time making fun of idiots, they should have done it in such a way that would actually prove their point.
If his actual objective was to expose ethical problems that would be one thing, but the lackluster design of this "experiment" is dubious at best. Somebody with his level of education would have known to control for certain variables a bit better. It sounds more like some smartass professor and a couple of his buddies got busted pranking some journals, and they concocted this "research" story to cover their asses.
Cue the rants from people that don't understand why you are right. There were a number of obvious and rudimentary things these three could have done to make their actions "research" rather than "pranks." They did none of them. They would have needed to control for several variables. The most basic would have been to submit actual papers to the same publishers and perform analysis to determine whether real versus fake articles were published at different rates. Then of course there's the equally obvious plan to submit some with fake data with the opposite results and conclusions and see if one gets accepted at a different rate.
Maybe they weren't actually trying to prove anything. Maybe their objective is just to get all silly-sounding research to cease. That would be a sad day for science.
The fact that they had to stop their "research" early because they got found out just proves that journals aren't as dumb as they used to be.
It's a well-known problem with scientific journals that they are not robust against falsified data. This isn't really news. Did they attempt to submit fake articles that went against whatever they perceive to be the bias of the journals in question? From what I have read, they did not. Thus, they really only proved that falsified data can get an article published, which is something we knew. It proves nothing about the correlation between data quality and political leanings of the editors/reviewers. And honestly, the dildo article doesn't really even come to an interesting conclusion.
Worse than "ethical issues," Dr. B should be fired for not knowing how to successfully implement a social experiment so that it actually proves or disproves his hypothesis. I don't have a problem with him being an asshole making fun of other assholes. I have a problem with him wasting everybody's time by not designing the experiment correctly.
I wonder if this is part of why people who drink diet soda are just as likely to be obese as people who drink non-diet soda. Aspartame and sucralose are the worst. They give me a screaming headache within minutes. I can tolerate saccharine, though.
The known unknowns are huge and interesting and confusing and wonderful. But the unknown unknowns are what really should keep us up at night. Or as Neil DeGrasse Tyson puts it, there are questions that we don't even know to ask.
As somebody who lived through Harvey, please fuck off. The more people who can be made to understand the effects of storm surge, the better. This is not hype. This is trying to educate people who might otherwise "hunker down" and end up dead, or spread emergency resources needlessly thin in an attempt to rescue their ass later.
I just read through some of the YouTube comments. It's like 10% whackadoodles claiming god knows what. Everything from climate deniers to HAARP something-or-other. I'm hoping most of it is people just being silly, but I don't know. Some of them have made similar comments on other videos. I can't decide if I'm disappointed it's that many or surprised it isn't more. I wonder if Alex Jones had a link on InfoWars or something.
We got my son a Chromebook for classwork. It's fine as long as you don't mind being limited to online versions of everything. There's only so much you can do in I can't imagine not being able to use "real" Excel or 3DCAD software. Once the features of online "cloud" apps match that of their desktop counterpoints, it might be worth it. But for now, it's just not flexible enough. And forget gaming.
That being said, the new version of Windows really sucks; I'm putting off upgrading as long as possible. If you're ok with Mac's foibles, I recommend just sticking with that.
I've used it before calling on behalf of Beto. It's a shit database. At least 50% old numbers or disconnected. Of the other half, most either don't care or have republican husbands who answer the phone and yell at you. 10% are gonna vote for a D already. About 5% of the people might have been worth calling. The Russians couldn't have made it much worse.
I think you missed the entire point of Opportunist's post. We need to find a way to get more people to act. You determined it was worth the effort. Unfortunately, there seem to be human-nature level arguments against actually effecting change. That was the point of the post. It is so much easier to just rationalize your way into the status quo. I try to drive less, and use less plastic. Nevertheless, I can't convince my wife to turn the AC up, nor do I ever remember to bring reusable leftover containers to restaurants, so I end up with their single-use polystyrene. These are easy. I want to do them. But I'm a lazy, forgetful, conflict-averse human just like everybody else.
They book the room to multiple guests. Or just hand out the wrong key. It has happened to me at least once; fortunately the other guest was not there. Just his stuff.
What in the world does that even mean? You know I love you, drinkypoo, but you're not making sense. Sexual assault by a stranger in a hotel room is just not that common. There is a much higher likelihood that somebody coming into a room unannounced is there to clean the place, not rape the guest. Or hell, they might have just double booked the room accidentally; that happens at least as often. If you're going to cite stochastic rape as a reason to shoot at somebody, at least think of the other possible reasons other people might be entering.
These gun nut assholes think it's ok to shoot somebody for knocking at your door for directions, or trying to get help after a car wreck. You might also notice a pattern in the victims of these crimes. The default solution to problems in America seems to be "shoot first, ask questions later."
I love that the AC accuses you of trolling, then pulls like three or four trolls into one post. Very classy. Good luck with these guys; they really believe that white men are totally oppressed by the (((liberals))). They see any attempt to right centuries of racism and sexism as some sort of personal slight against them, just because they have to compete on an almost level playing field.
They have more envelopes now. There's "They did it first." "They made us do it." "We didn't do it." "We did it, but it wasn't illegal." "It's illegal, but still not as bad as when they did it." and "Hey, look at those job-stealing Messicans!"
When I tried to show the GDP growth numbers (as published by Trump's Department of Commerce) to a friend to explain why, no this isn't the best economy since before the recession, he just shambled away muttering something about the Deep State (TM). Facts shall never get in the way of peoples love for Dear Leader!!!
I can tell you from experience, if there is a "do not turn off" sign on a switch, the likelihood of it being turned of is proportional to the cost of restarting the process that it shuts down.
I knew I was done when I had to fill out a form to schedule a meeting to form a committee to train people how to fill out the form to schedule meetings. I wish I was making this up.
Another time we had a "Design for Six Sigma" meeting to determine the best option for a component. When we came up with the best option, the person in charge of the meeting said we had to start all over again since that's not the outcome sought by upper management. So I said, why don't we add a column for "What bossman wants" weight it higher than any other requirement? Did not go over well.
It's an algorithm based on posting behavior. If they don't want to be banned like trolls, maybe they shouldn't, you know, troll people. RWNJ snowflakes still seeing oppression everywhere, even when their team owns all of DC, and most of the airwaves.
Slashdot Mirror
Only using less energy can save us. But failing that, nuclear will buy us some time.
Keep Calm and Ca... Holy shit! Is that a flying piece of plastic?? Shut everything down now!!!!1!!!
Slander is a false spoken statement about somebody, damaging to their reputation. That is not what is going on here. Besides, what fraud did he expose? Did you actually RTFA? This supposed "research" is even lamer than the articles they submitted to the journals. Didn't control for overall journal acceptance rates of real articles. Didn't test for other biases. Didn't compare to nonsense article acceptance rates in other fields. There's really nothing of value here, besides a few good laughs. If they wanted to spend all this time making fun of idiots, they should have done it in such a way that would actually prove their point.
If his actual objective was to expose ethical problems that would be one thing, but the lackluster design of this "experiment" is dubious at best. Somebody with his level of education would have known to control for certain variables a bit better. It sounds more like some smartass professor and a couple of his buddies got busted pranking some journals, and they concocted this "research" story to cover their asses.
Cue the rants from people that don't understand why you are right. There were a number of obvious and rudimentary things these three could have done to make their actions "research" rather than "pranks." They did none of them. They would have needed to control for several variables. The most basic would have been to submit actual papers to the same publishers and perform analysis to determine whether real versus fake articles were published at different rates. Then of course there's the equally obvious plan to submit some with fake data with the opposite results and conclusions and see if one gets accepted at a different rate.
Maybe they weren't actually trying to prove anything. Maybe their objective is just to get all silly-sounding research to cease. That would be a sad day for science.
The fact that they had to stop their "research" early because they got found out just proves that journals aren't as dumb as they used to be.
It's a well-known problem with scientific journals that they are not robust against falsified data. This isn't really news. Did they attempt to submit fake articles that went against whatever they perceive to be the bias of the journals in question? From what I have read, they did not. Thus, they really only proved that falsified data can get an article published, which is something we knew. It proves nothing about the correlation between data quality and political leanings of the editors/reviewers. And honestly, the dildo article doesn't really even come to an interesting conclusion.
Worse than "ethical issues," Dr. B should be fired for not knowing how to successfully implement a social experiment so that it actually proves or disproves his hypothesis. I don't have a problem with him being an asshole making fun of other assholes. I have a problem with him wasting everybody's time by not designing the experiment correctly.
I wonder if this is part of why people who drink diet soda are just as likely to be obese as people who drink non-diet soda. Aspartame and sucralose are the worst. They give me a screaming headache within minutes. I can tolerate saccharine, though.
The known unknowns are huge and interesting and confusing and wonderful. But the unknown unknowns are what really should keep us up at night. Or as Neil DeGrasse Tyson puts it, there are questions that we don't even know to ask.
I bet he's really APK.
You missed a perfect opportunity for a Beowulf cluster joke.
As somebody who lived through Harvey, please fuck off. The more people who can be made to understand the effects of storm surge, the better. This is not hype. This is trying to educate people who might otherwise "hunker down" and end up dead, or spread emergency resources needlessly thin in an attempt to rescue their ass later.
I just read through some of the YouTube comments. It's like 10% whackadoodles claiming god knows what. Everything from climate deniers to HAARP something-or-other. I'm hoping most of it is people just being silly, but I don't know. Some of them have made similar comments on other videos. I can't decide if I'm disappointed it's that many or surprised it isn't more. I wonder if Alex Jones had a link on InfoWars or something.
That being said, the new version of Windows really sucks; I'm putting off upgrading as long as possible. If you're ok with Mac's foibles, I recommend just sticking with that.
I've used it before calling on behalf of Beto. It's a shit database. At least 50% old numbers or disconnected. Of the other half, most either don't care or have republican husbands who answer the phone and yell at you. 10% are gonna vote for a D already. About 5% of the people might have been worth calling. The Russians couldn't have made it much worse.
I think you missed the entire point of Opportunist's post. We need to find a way to get more people to act. You determined it was worth the effort. Unfortunately, there seem to be human-nature level arguments against actually effecting change. That was the point of the post. It is so much easier to just rationalize your way into the status quo. I try to drive less, and use less plastic. Nevertheless, I can't convince my wife to turn the AC up, nor do I ever remember to bring reusable leftover containers to restaurants, so I end up with their single-use polystyrene. These are easy. I want to do them. But I'm a lazy, forgetful, conflict-averse human just like everybody else.
I'm surprised the TSA hasn't been sold to the hotel chains yet. Only a matter of time.
They book the room to multiple guests. Or just hand out the wrong key. It has happened to me at least once; fortunately the other guest was not there. Just his stuff.
There's no clear and present danger,
Given the rates of sexual assault, I disagree.
What in the world does that even mean? You know I love you, drinkypoo, but you're not making sense. Sexual assault by a stranger in a hotel room is just not that common. There is a much higher likelihood that somebody coming into a room unannounced is there to clean the place, not rape the guest. Or hell, they might have just double booked the room accidentally; that happens at least as often. If you're going to cite stochastic rape as a reason to shoot at somebody, at least think of the other possible reasons other people might be entering.
These gun nut assholes think it's ok to shoot somebody for knocking at your door for directions, or trying to get help after a car wreck. You might also notice a pattern in the victims of these crimes. The default solution to problems in America seems to be "shoot first, ask questions later."
I love that the AC accuses you of trolling, then pulls like three or four trolls into one post. Very classy. Good luck with these guys; they really believe that white men are totally oppressed by the (((liberals))). They see any attempt to right centuries of racism and sexism as some sort of personal slight against them, just because they have to compete on an almost level playing field.
They have more envelopes now. There's "They did it first." "They made us do it." "We didn't do it." "We did it, but it wasn't illegal." "It's illegal, but still not as bad as when they did it." and "Hey, look at those job-stealing Messicans!"
When I tried to show the GDP growth numbers (as published by Trump's Department of Commerce) to a friend to explain why, no this isn't the best economy since before the recession, he just shambled away muttering something about the Deep State (TM). Facts shall never get in the way of peoples love for Dear Leader!!!
I can tell you from experience, if there is a "do not turn off" sign on a switch, the likelihood of it being turned of is proportional to the cost of restarting the process that it shuts down.
I knew I was done when I had to fill out a form to schedule a meeting to form a committee to train people how to fill out the form to schedule meetings. I wish I was making this up.
Another time we had a "Design for Six Sigma" meeting to determine the best option for a component. When we came up with the best option, the person in charge of the meeting said we had to start all over again since that's not the outcome sought by upper management. So I said, why don't we add a column for "What bossman wants" weight it higher than any other requirement? Did not go over well.
Also money.
It's an algorithm based on posting behavior. If they don't want to be banned like trolls, maybe they shouldn't, you know, troll people. RWNJ snowflakes still seeing oppression everywhere, even when their team owns all of DC, and most of the airwaves.