2526
Living Room / Re: We Are the Idiots
« Last post by IainB on December 11, 2014, 12:47 PM »@MilesAhead: No, I gather that Malathion doesn't really have a sweet enough taste to replace sugar, so sugar is still the favourite.
Recent Posts
WildReplace v0.99d (beta)Undeveloped since 2008? It's maybe a bit old.
©2003-2008 CyLog Software
WildReplace is a search & replace tool that lets you searh for files on your disks and presents the results in a folder tree highlighting the folders and files that have been found. Most programs of its kind display a plain list of results; WildReplace presents the information by mainting the folder structure of your disk, and highlighting the folders that contain files that have matched your search criteria.
You can search for files using many different search options (file attributes, size, date/time, contents). For example, you can search for files that are read/only and contain a matching phrase (works with both Text and Binary files), or for files that have been modified in the last few days and they have a certain size. Any combination of search terms is allowed.
WildReplace can also replace text on files, a feature that is really very powerful but should be treated with care. WildReplace can create backups of modified files, delete files that match your search criteria or move all matching files to a new location while preserving the same folder structure.
WildReplace is now in public beta but is in fully working condition.
__________________________________
Not sure if it's quite what you want, but DC member anandcoral wrote Stick-A-Note. IainB's review is here: Stick-A-Note + Universal Viewer - Mini-Review
There was a very simple Stickynotes by Toren K. Smith at http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/tbone , but that page has gone (WayBackMachine?). Or, take a look at KNot v2.04b
__________________________________-rjbull (December 07, 2014, 03:14 PM)
... what's the point or reason behind changing the Topic Title in a reply? I don't get it...Because I can, I suppose, but generally as an attempt to give the joke (or post) a more easily identifiable and meaningful/relevant subject line - e.g., (say) other than "Re: silly humor - post 'em here! [warning some NSFW and adult content]". I mean, how dreary is that?-crabby3 (December 07, 2014, 05:00 AM)
...Oh, and that's a grammar error that gives me the same physical reaction as nails on a blackboard!Yes, absolutely, and given that it was in a supposed "teaching" context on that website, it seemed doubly scratchy/cringeworthy to me.-app103 (December 07, 2014, 05:08 AM)
...Hmm, if it were 9 one inch nails I wonder if music would be produced?Har-de-har-har, a very punny point you drive home there, @MilesAhead.-MilesAhead (December 07, 2014, 09:59 AM)
这款软件免费高效。但是停止开发了。真的很可惜。-legendcvb (June 05, 2013, 07:27 AM)
Abuse of Science in Texas
By Anne LeHuray
On November 19, 2014, the House of Representatives passed HR 4012, the Secret Science Reform Act of 2014. The bill would prohibit the US Environmental Protection Agency from regulations based on “science that is not transparent or reproducible.” Hooray! Reproducibility is the touchstone of science. Transparency is the way to ensure that scientists who want to reproduce another scientist’s results can try to do so. No scientist anywhere would argue against reproducibility, nor should any scientist argue that research results used to make regulatory decisions (such as drug approvals, emission limits, product bans) be exempt from transparency. Unfortunately, transparency has not always been a priority. Examples of the current reproducibility crisis in the sciences can be found here, here, here, here, and here. A requirement to use transparent, reproducible science should apply to all government agencies, not just EPA. The government need not replicate the science itself, just make sure the information needed for reproducibility is readily available. Just one of the many examples from the pavement coatings industry’s decade-long effort to obtain data from the U.S. Geological Survey illustrates the point. ... (Read more at the link.)
If use Windows Search key, (after finding specific text to search for), all i get is a folder icon with nothing to tell me what its from and it won't open to wherever the data is either. On the other hand, if i search within OneNote itself, there are no problems.-dantheman (November 29, 2014, 11:17 AM)
...One thing i miss with this program is a better integration with Windows own search engine. ...- I don't quite understand. OneNote is already integrated with Windows Search.-dantheman (November 29, 2014, 08:14 AM)
The Peer Review Scam: Why not review your own paper?
If you suffer from an uncontrollable urge to claim that peer review is a part of The Scientific Method (that’s you Matthew Bailes, Pro VC of Swinburne), the bad news just keeps on coming. Now, we can add the terms “Peer Review Rigging” to “Peer-review tampering”, and “Citation Rings”.
Not only do personal biases and self-serving interests mean good papers are slowed for years and rejected for inane reasons, but gibberish gets published, and in some fields most results can’t be replicated. Now we find (is anyone surprised?) that some authors are even reviewing their own work. It’s called Peer-Review-Rigging. When the editor asks for suggestions of reviewers, you provide pseudonyms and bogus emails. The editor sends the review to a gmail type address, you pick it up, and voila, you can pretend to be an independent reviewer.
One researcher, Hyung-In Moon, was doing this to review his own submissions. He was caught because he sent the reviews back in less than 24 hours. Presumably if he’d waiting a week, no one would have noticed.
Nature reports: “THE PEER-REVIEW SCAM”
Authors: Cat Ferguson, Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky are the staff writer and two co-founders, respectively, of Retraction Watch in New York City.
Moon’s was not an isolated case. In the past 2 years, journals have been forced to retract more than 110 papers in at least 6 instances of peer-review rigging. What all these cases had in common was that researchers exploited vulnerabilities in the publishers’ computerized systems to dupe editors into accepting manuscripts, often by doing their own reviews. The cases involved publishing behemoths Elsevier, Springer, Taylor & Francis, SAGE and Wiley, as well as Informa, and they exploited security flaws that — in at least one of the systems — could make researchers vulnerable to even more serious identity theft. “For a piece of software that’s used by hundreds of thousands of academics worldwide, it really is appalling,” says Mark Dingemanse, a linguist at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics in Nijmegen,
Even Moon himself thinks the editors should “police the system against people like him”.
“editors are supposed to check they are not from the same institution or co-authors on previous papers.”
That would rule out half the publications in the climate science world.
The worst case involved 130 papers:
….a case that came to light in May 2013, when Ali Nayfeh, then editor-in-chief of the Journal of Vibration
and Control, received some troubling news. An author who had submitted a paper to the journal told Nayfeh that he had received e-mails about it from two people claiming to direct contact with authors, and — strangely —the e-mails came from generic-looking Gmail accounts rather than from the professional institutional accounts that many academics use (see ‘Red flags in review’). Nayfeh alerted SAGE, the company in Thousand Oaks, California, that publishes the journal. The editors there e-mailed both the Gmail addresses provided by the tipster, and the institutional addresses of the authors whose names had been used, asking for proof of identity and a list of their publications. One scientist responded — to say that not only had he not sent the e-mail, but he did not even work in the field.
This sparked a 14-month investigation that came to involve about 20 people from SAGE’s editorial, legal and production departments. It showed that the Gmail addresses were each linked to accounts with Thomson Reuters’ ScholarOne, a publication-management system used by SAGE and several other publishers, including Informa. Editors were able to track every paper that the person or people behind these accounts had allegedly written or reviewed, says SAGE spokesperson Camille Gamboa. They also checked the wording of reviews, the details of author-nominated reviewers, reference lists and the turnaround time for reviews (in some cases, only a few minutes). This helped the investigators to ferret out further suspicious-looking accounts; they eventually found 130. As they worked through the list, SAGE investigators realized that authors were both reviewing and citing each other at an anomalous rate. Eventually, 60 articles were found to have evidence of peer-review tampering, involvement in the citation ring or both.
Those 60 papers were retracted.
Nature, of course, is happy to air problems that mostly apply to its competitors. When will Nature admit that namecalling, and failures of logic and reason are every bit as damaging to science as rank corruption?
Ht to Willie.
