Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:random breakage (Score 1) 141

by umafuckit (#49623343) Attached to: Microsoft: No More 'Patch Tuesday' For Windows 10 Home Users

> Home users will receive updates as they come out, rather than queueing them all up on "patch Tuesday."

So random breakage, then, rather than breakage on a particular weekday. Sucks to be a home user.

I'd be surprised if you can't still set the auto-update to work once a week (or whatever you want). It's just that from now on the patches will be sent out constantly.

Comment: Re:39/100 is the new passing grade. (Score 1) 174

Is there a valid reason we accept studies that have not been reproduced at least one more time to truly vet them before the community?

I don't think it really works like this. In practice, most studies are totally uninteresting and their only purpose in life is either to not ever be read or to seed more uninteresting studies. Nothing of value is lost if they're wrong (and probably they often are). The studies that do matter are replicated because they're interesting enough that other people try to use them. So if a study discovers an interesting new effect or develops an interesting new tool then other (good) researchers jump on to the badwagon. If the original study was wrong then it'll be obvious pretty quickly. In addition, within every field it's an open secret which high profile papers are actually bollocks. It's usually obvious by just reading them. These papers are generally not contested by others for political reasons, but they are ignored because the field knows them to be crap.

Comment: Re:Free the papers (Score 1) 81

Scientific paywalls (preventing access to science that was funded entirely or partially by the public purse) are a crime.

We need every available quality mind, rich or poor, on some of our scientific and engineering challenges today.

I agree in principle, but I think you're being a little over the top. Most contributors (rich and poor) to today's scientific and engineering challenges work in an institute that has access to the publications they need. For those who don't, they can access most articles by typing "[ARTICLE NAME] PDF" into Google. This works surprisingly often. If it's not available, just e-mail the author for a copy. Authors want their work read and don't give a shit about the pay wall. The paywall might be there, but it's not really stopping anyone from getting what they need.

Comment: Re:Graphing the data would help a lot of the time (Score 1) 208

by umafuckit (#49498991) Attached to: Social Science Journal 'Bans' Use of p-values
In our field we call "bean plot" a violin plot. I agree it's better than a box plot, but it's basically just a histogram. Beanplot or boxplot, I think it helps to overlay the jittered raw data. Even a box plot is far better than a bar chart (which is distressingly common and little better than a table).

Comment: Graphing the data would help a lot of the time (Score 4, Insightful) 208

by umafuckit (#49494871) Attached to: Social Science Journal 'Bans' Use of p-values

I don't think you even need to be pushing people to do Bayesian stats. You just need to force them to graph their data properly. In *a lot* of biological and social science sub-fields it's standard practice to show your raw data only in the form of a table and the results of stats tests only in the form of a table. They aren't used to looking at graphs and raw data. You can hide a lot of terrible stuff that way, like weird outliers. Things would likely improve immediately in these fields if they banned tables and forced researchers to produce box plots (ideally with overlaid jittered raw data), histograms, overlaid 95% confidence intervals corresponding to their stats tests, etc, etc.

Having seen some of these people work, it's clear that many of them never make these plots in the first place. All they do is look at lists of numbers in summary tables. They have no clue in the first place what their data really look like, and know good knowledge of how to properly analyse data and make graphs. Before they even teach stats to undergrads they should be making them learn to plot data and read graphs. It's obvious most of them can't even do that.

Comment: Re:Why stop there? (Score 1) 137

by umafuckit (#49468321) Attached to: UW Scientists, Biotech Firm May Have Cure For Colorblindness

Jerry's experiments with electrodes on individual visual neurons and work with other colleagues made very clear that much of vision is edge detection in the retina itself, which explains why that silly dress color illusion works so well. The cortex does not get raw color: it gets pre-processed information about "this region is much redder than that region,

I have worked on the retina, as it happens. :) What the retina sends the cortex is information about the relative intensity of red/green or yellow/blue in light reflecting from surfaces. This light is heavily influenced by the illuminating light source. So much so that it's possible for, say, an apparently green surface to be reflecting mostly red light. Yet you see it as green. Up until visual area V4, neurons are reporting that the surface is not green but red. In V4 we first see "colour constant" cells, the activity of which relates to perception. The dress illusion surely has its explanation here and not in the retina. The phenomenon is called "colour constancy" and requires neurons that have access to large regions of the image at the same time. This doesn't occur in the retina but only later in cortex.

If it's working, the diagnostics say it's fine. If it's not working, the diagnostics say it's fine. - A proposed addition to rules for realtime programming