Comment Re:How fitting (Score 5, Funny) 333
tl;dr
tl;dr
According to TFA, Nature did run it through a similar database. No obvious plagiarism was found. It turned out that the journal she originally published in was not in the database. There are one hell of a lot of journals out there.
Exactly. This.
The road to scientist's Hell is paved with journal articles that eventually have been shown to be incorrect. Just because it's published doesn't mean it's gospel. It is Science after all, not religion - even if half of Slashdot seems to think they're one in the same.
And the end result of this is that Nature, along with other high profile journals, will continue to improve the peer review system. Just like they taught us in Science School. Experiment, look at results, repeat....
Furthermore, peer review isn't all that 'vaunted' - we've known for a long time that bad science gets through peer review. It's just one semi-convenient method of screening. The ultimate screening tool is repeating the experiment. That isn't practical in many cases. Although in this case, it should really have come to mind since Nature had recently asked another researcher to do just that for a less 'extraordinary' result.
Like the American, Vacanti, who started the whole thing.
for giving birth to evil people. Arrest them all!
To be fair, the birth of each child comes with an 18 year + sentence, often with a similar sentence for the accomplice.
Didn't he use a police database to look for women? Didn't he browse the web looking for ways to cook human flesh?
Fuck this guy.
What ever floats your boat, dude.
Seriously, Timothy - just why is this on Slashdot? Are you channeling something? Is this a hint? Are we trying to compete with the New York Daily News?
Does this actually matter?
That's why there are TLD's just for that purpose.
OTOH, YouTube is proof positive that your latter statement is true.
No, there is no 'easy' solution to security and people like you are why it's harder than it should be. Security is an ongoing process, not something you just install. The minute you forget about that little detail is the minute that you get pawned.
That's the easy part.
"The International situation is desperate, as usual"
-- Tom Robbins
OMG. It's economists all the way down....
Medicine isn't far behind. People have been complaining about this for years. It is bad/misused stats. The null hypothesis needs to be predicted by your theory. When people use the opposite the logic is messed up, yet this method has been spreading like a disease from educational research, to psychology, to the social sciences, to medicine/biology, and most recently to the historically better sciences of physics and astronomy. I do not know about chemistry.
Medicine and economics have some interesting similarities. They both rely heavily on statistical models since direct experimentation is either impossible or just Frowned Upon. Their practitioners almost uniformly don't really understand statistics (does anyone?). There is a lot of money riding on the outcome and for some odd reason, people seem to think that medicine and economics are important.
The big mistake that economists made is not to offer a special advanced degree in the field. Instead of 'Medical Doctor' they should have had schools devoted to "Doctor Of Outmost Money" or something like that.
Huh. The only 'scientifically valid' law that relates to economic theory is Murphy's Law.
Except these conglomerates were formed by beach humans burning wood and trash and plastic and having the latter melt into the rock. Unless the fish (or other aquatic denizens) are starting fires somewhere, it's not likely to be a general mechanism.
Anything free is worth what you pay for it.
