Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Probable cause (Score 4, Insightful) 218






Comment: Re:Que the outrage (Score 1) 138

by aardvarkjoe (#47410885) Attached to: BlackBerry's Innovation: Square-Screened Smartphones



Comment: Re:Hello Americans (Score 1) 340


being assholes is the america way



Comment: Re:It's Okay (Score 1) 702





Comment: Re:Illegal and Dangerous? (Score 0) 200




Comment: Re:Illegal and Dangerous? (Score 1) 200







Comment: Re:Earnings reports are in XML now. (Score 1) 29

by aardvarkjoe (#47389497) Attached to: Algorithm-Generated Articles Won't Kill the Journalism Star

Here's the raw XML behind that data. Turning that into verbiage isn't that hard.

Not hard, but does it actually make sense to do so? Serious question, since I don't read the reports in question, but if they're so standardized it would seem like it would be easier for everyone involved to just stick with a tabular format of some sort, rather than trying to translate it into a "written" report.

Comment: Re:Politicians making a promise. (Score 2) 117

"...get a constitutional convention by having non-corrupt state-level politicians pass an amendment."

Clearly you haven't been paying attention. State level races are as bad as national level when it comes to money as influence.

"So we're going to elect some politicians that promise to do something different? Where have I heard that before? (Every 2-6 years)"

Your gutless resignation isn't doing any good. Lessig has a great idea and he understands just how fundamentally broken the system is. He is fighting the system from within the system, something I didn't think was possible, but it's a really worthy goal. Be part of an attempted solution. Go donate. (And yes, I have. Twice.)

Comment: Um, this is how it's supposed to work. (Score 3) 109

Journals aren't arbiters of Truth (capital T), they're just what they say they are: JOURNALS of the ongoing work of science.

Someone records that they have done X in a journal. Because said journal is available to other scientists, other scientists get to try to make use of the same notes/information/processes. If they are able to do so, they journal it as well. Get enough mentions in enough journals that something works, and we can begin to presume that it does.

If only one mention in one journal is ever made, then it is just another record in another journal of another thing that one scientist (or group of scientists) claim to have done.

Peer review is just to keep journals from expanding to the point that there is too much for anyone to keep track of or read. It is emphatically NOT the place at which the factuality or truthfulness of notes/information/processes are established once and for all. That happens AFTER publication as other scientists get ahold of things and put them through their paces.

Seriously, this is all exactly as it is supposed to work. I have no idea why there is such hoopla about this. There is nothing to see here. One group journaled something, other groups couldn't replicate it, they no doubt will reference this failure in future articles, and "what happened" is recorded out in the open for all of science, thereby expanding our pool of knowledge, both about what consistently works in many situations and of what someone claims has worked once in one situation but appears either not to work in the general case or requires more understanding and research.

Again, there is nothing to see here. Let's move on.

Stellar rays prove fibbing never pays. Embezzlement is another matter.