Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:It should be noted... (Score 1) 148

Great hope isn't it when a constitutional lawyer who gets elected and hands the US government over to corporate interests.

Aren't you just adorable!

But listen sweetie, the US government was handed over to corporate interests long before the current administration, mkay? Now, go back to playing with your Speak and Spell.

Comment Re: buh, bye (Score 1) 494

No one knows what "Conservative" means anymore. It's a label looking for a constituency. Democrats have as much of a chance as Republicans for taking on that mantle, but they are both so far away. The Dems have a "Socialist" candidate, the Repubs have an off the charts crazy candidate. Isn't democracy grand?

Comment Re:Note the Field (Score 1) 186

You are simply incapable of acknowledging any problems.

Not at all. There's certainly a problem. Research integrity has been a problem since Academia was born. That's why every research university has an "Office of Research Integrity" or somesuch.

But as I've said (repeatedly), I want to know the magnitude of the problem. Do you think that ONE fraudulent biomed paper is enough to conclude the entire field is "irretrievably corrupted"? Do 43 fraudulent papers vilify the field? Because that's the ridiculous claim I'm challenging. If one isn't enough, how many then?

Comment Re:Note the Field (Score 1) 186

I've made no such assumption. I simply asked a question.

But OK, instead of 43 papers, let's say it's 430 papers. Or let's say it's 4,300 papers. I still have the same question: why should anyone conclude that "Biomed is irretrievably corrupted" as GP claims? If there was 43,000 papers submitted during the timeframe in question, 10% of papers are questionable. Is that enough?

IMO, there has to be something more than a few anecdotal reports of fraud before I'll write off an entire field of study as being "irretrievably corrupted".

Comment Re:Note the Field (Score 1) 186

Biomed....You can draw your own conclusions, but my conclusion is that Biomed is irretrievably corrupted.

What is the basis for your conclusion? TFS is talking about 43 "bad" papers over an unknown (at least to me) timeframe. How many biomed papers in total were produced during the timeframe? Do the "bad" papers constitute 10%? 1%? .1%? .01% of the total?

Fraud is everywhere. Always has been, always will be. Are you going to reject the research of an entire field of study because of the misdeeds of a few researchers?

Furthermore, this misconduct was identified and rectified. Sounds to me like the system is working as intended.

Comment Re:Do damage to Bitcoin's reputation??? (Score 1) 185

"Cash," "coins," and "value" are all mentioned in the paper, and most people who speak English understand what the term "store of value" means.

LOL! Yeah, "cash", "coins" (why is this in your list?) and "value" are in the Satoshi paper. But "store" is not, is it? Why is that?

Look, you don't have to go any further than the paper's abstract and introduction to see bitcoin's purpose explicitly stated. Sure, people can read a Wikipedia article and understand what "store of value" means. That bitcoin may or may not serve as a store of value isn't the point - your claim is that bitcoin's "intended purpose" is to be "a useful store of value" is. Your claim. Back it up or shut up.

Comment Re:Do damage to Bitcoin's reputation??? (Score 1) 185

Which can only be true if Bitcoin serves its intended purpose as a useful store of value.

Intended purpose? There is absolutely no mention of "store of value" in the Satoshi paper.

There's a lot of people like you who want to claim this or that as the "intended purpose" of bitcoin...you comprise an endless parade of ideologues trying to hijack a revolutionary idea and fit it into your preconceived notions of how the world works. Sad.

In a five year period we can get one superb programming language. Only we can't control when the five year period will begin.

Working...