Comment Re:Oh, please, no more... (Score 0) 54
I came here for ponies.
Slashdot got bad. The ponies are the stallions of what was right about this place. Yet they still choose not to return.
I will return next year, in seek of ponies.
I came here for ponies.
Slashdot got bad. The ponies are the stallions of what was right about this place. Yet they still choose not to return.
I will return next year, in seek of ponies.
to
too
Not being a Grammar Nazi, just pointing out how such an error can completely null the point you're trying to make (and null that to any others listening). Some others:
Effect and affect
It's and its
Where and were (this mind boggles me, I suppose it is a West Coast accent thing, I have no idea)
Don't let your argument be straw-manned for the sake of a few basic errors; it happens again and again.
The CD is still very much alive, in my house anyway.
At this moment in time, I don't see myself ever paying for a digital music download, call me old fashioned but I need something tangible when it comes to music. (Though I do admit to downloading and paying for games through Steam and Good Old Games.)
To me, the CD represents excellent value for money, especially if I am paying around £10 UK for a piece of music I may well end up repeatedly enjoying over the next few decades.
Your CDs will not function a few decades from now.
They are smaller no doubt, but in both cases the blood brain barrier is just beneath the surface of the skull
No it's not. It's formed by the endothelium (thin layer one cell thick that is in direct contact with the cerebral blood stream) on the smallest capillaries that penetrate deep into the brain matter.
So why is scientific error in the news so often? The submission skimmed right past it: public relations sabotage by political and commercial interests who stand to gain by casting doubt on science. Global warming deniers, anti-vaccine nuts, anti-evolution zealots, nontraditional medicine snake-oil salesmen
And no, I don't have any rigorous data to support my claim. But according to the submission, I should treat all data as baloney and make my arguments based on truthiness alone.
There's nothing like that in the submission, why don't you read the articles linked rather than spout off "ermahgerd its a republican smear campaing!!!!!!1111one" like all the other idiots with their heads in the sand.
It is difficult to give exact figures because there are so far few formal studies quantifying the extent of the problem. We know that for example psychology retractions have quadrupled since 1989, a rate higher than the growth in the number of publications in the same period. It is also likely that most scientific misconduct remains uncovered or unacknowledged. It seems that few scientists admit misconduct, but many more know someone else who is committing it:
"an average of 1.97% of scientists admitted to having "fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once – a serious form of misconduct by any standard – and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices." (from http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/sep/13/scientific-research-fraud-bad-practice)
If a subordinate asks you a pertinent question, look at him as if he had lost his senses. When he looks down, paraphrase the question back at him.