Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Wish I could say I was surprised (Score 1) 172

by Kazoo the Clown (#47429509) Attached to: Peer Review Ring Broken - 60 Articles Retracted

No, "publish or perish" really dis-incentivizes novel research because guess what, often times really novel research fails. All "publish or perish" really does is incentivize either cheating or the lowest risk research imaginable. There are other mechanisms for making sure a researcher is actually doing their work, punishing them for taking risks shouldn't be among them.

If novel research is failing peer-review, I don't see that not publishing is a good answer to that. A convenient one, no doubt.

Comment: More about composition. (Score 1) 121

I think the real dichotomy is more between modern composition and older works. I'm only interested in listening to Wagner or Mozart for so long, at some point I'd like to hear something that's fresh. But many of the modern composers seemed to me have lost sight of what sounds good, preferring to take some kind of conceptual approach that may be of interest to other composers but I find often isn't very interesting to listen to. After the likes of Xenakis, Philip Glass, Laurie Anderson and a few others, I found it to be mostly elitist insider music, and tuned out. And I'm a musician myself, but that kind of stuff just lost me. I now listen more to Chris Clark, Peter Scherer, and maybe John Zorn and some ethnic-fusion experimenters, Jazz and electronica artists and a few others who at least haven't lost sight of what sounds interesting. As far as I'm concerned, "purists" of any kind are tending towards boring. If you see your art as a museum piece be a purist and re-create that which has come before. But as I think Grace Slick once said, "Van Gogh never had to paint a painting twice."

Comment: Freakin' coders. (Score 3, Interesting) 57

by Kazoo the Clown (#47233367) Attached to: 545-Person Programming War Declares a Winner
You can tell these guys are all lamer coders, they can't document worth squat. In the forum some guy asks for clear docs and they repond in essense with "just run our simulator, it's too complicated to explain." What a bunch of hosers. A competition like this ought to have clearly deliniated parameters. From reading their page I can't tell a darn thing about what the "Greed" environment is, what the problem to be solved is, and the summary of the winning solution on the Slashdot article here presumes you already know exactly what the conditions and goal with which the warring program must run. I see references on the linked contest site to coins that "randomly appear" and not much more. There's no way he could submit his solution to a journal except the "Journal for Irreproducible Results." Lazy bastards. There may be an interesting solution to something here, but there's seems no way to tell exactly what without reverse engineering their simulator.

Comment: Google? Are you kidding? (Score 1) 309

by Kazoo the Clown (#47225633) Attached to: Google Engineer: We Need More Web Programming Languages
These guys take the cake for the world's WORST user interfaces. They don't need more programming languages. They need to learn how to make USABLE programs with the languages they have, first. My latest favorite example: YouTube history lists are sorted RANDOMLY. I have a history list with nearly 2000 views. Now I want to find a vid I watched last week. WTF? It's no help at all. It allows me to clear the list, which might have helped if I did it a month ago, but not now. So I go off trying to find it by searching from memory. No luck, and now I've added several dozen additional views to my even more useless history list in the process. Microsoft will do dumb things, but usually I can figure out what they were trying to accomplish. The only thing that seems to explain Google on the other hand, is BRAIN DAMAGE.

"Marriage is like a cage; one sees the birds outside desperate to get in, and those inside desperate to get out." -- Montaigne