Only using less energy can save us. But failing that, nuclear will buy us some time.

Keep Calm and Ca... Holy shit! Is that a flying piece of plastic?? Shut everything down now!!!!1!!!

Slander is a false spoken statement about somebody, damaging to their reputation. That is not what is going on here. Besides, what fraud did he expose? Did you actually RTFA? This supposed "research" is even lamer than the articles they submitted to the journals. Didn't control for overall journal acceptance rates of real articles. Didn't test for other biases. Didn't compare to nonsense article acceptance rates in other fields. There's really nothing of value here, besides a few good laughs. If they wanted to spend all this time making fun of idiots, they should have done it in such a way that would actually prove their point.

If his actual objective was to expose ethical problems that would be one thing, but the lackluster design of this "experiment" is dubious at best. Somebody with his level of education would have known to control for certain variables a bit better. It sounds more like some smartass professor and a couple of his buddies got busted pranking some journals, and they concocted this "research" story to cover their asses.

Cue the rants from people that don't understand why you are right. There were a number of obvious and rudimentary things these three could have done to make their actions "research" rather than "pranks." They did none of them. They would have needed to control for several variables. The most basic would have been to submit actual papers to the same publishers and perform analysis to determine whether real versus fake articles were published at different rates. Then of course there's the equally obvious plan to submit some with fake data with the opposite results and conclusions and see if one gets accepted at a different rate.

Maybe they weren't actually trying to prove anything. Maybe their objective is just to get all silly-sounding research to cease. That would be a sad day for science.

The fact that they had to stop their "research" early because they got found out just proves that journals aren't as dumb as they used to be.

It's a well-known problem with scientific journals that they are not robust against falsified data. This isn't really news. Did they attempt to submit fake articles that went against whatever they perceive to be the bias of the journals in question? From what I have read, they did not. Thus, they really only proved that falsified data can get an article published, which is something we knew. It proves nothing about the correlation between data quality and political leanings of the editors/reviewers. And honestly, the dildo article doesn't really even come to an interesting conclusion.

Worse than "ethical issues," Dr. B should be fired for not knowing how to successfully implement a social experiment so that it actually proves or disproves his hypothesis. I don't have a problem with him being an asshole making fun of other assholes. I have a problem with him wasting everybody's time by not designing the experiment correctly.

I already automate when I can; it allows me to get done with my tasks faster. In turn, my boss can give me more tasks, and I am more productive. I don't comprehend how that would be unethical.

I wonder if this is part of why people who drink diet soda are just as likely to be obese as people who drink non-diet soda. Aspartame and sucralose are the worst. They give me a screaming headache within minutes. I can tolerate saccharine, though.

The known unknowns are huge and interesting and confusing and wonderful. But the unknown unknowns are what really should keep us up at night. Or as Neil DeGrasse Tyson puts it, there are questions that we don't even know to ask.

I bet he's really APK.

You missed a perfect opportunity for a Beowulf cluster joke.

As somebody who lived through Harvey, please fuck off. The more people who can be made to understand the effects of storm surge, the better. This is not hype. This is trying to educate people who might otherwise "hunker down" and end up dead, or spread emergency resources needlessly thin in an attempt to rescue their ass later.

I just read through some of the YouTube comments. It's like 10% whackadoodles claiming god knows what. Everything from climate deniers to HAARP something-or-other. I'm hoping most of it is people just being silly, but I don't know. Some of them have made similar comments on other videos. I can't decide if I'm disappointed it's that many or surprised it isn't more. I wonder if Alex Jones had a link on InfoWars or something.

We got my son a Chromebook for classwork. It's fine as long as you don't mind being limited to online versions of everything. There's only so much you can do in I can't imagine not being able to use "real" Excel or 3DCAD software. Once the features of online "cloud" apps match that of their desktop counterpoints, it might be worth it. But for now, it's just not flexible enough. And forget gaming.

That being said, the new version of Windows really sucks; I'm putting off upgrading as long as possible. If you're ok with Mac's foibles, I recommend just sticking with that.

I've used it before calling on behalf of Beto. It's a shit database. At least 50% old numbers or disconnected. Of the other half, most either don't care or have republican husbands who answer the phone and yell at you. 10% are gonna vote for a D already. About 5% of the people might have been worth calling. The Russians couldn't have made it much worse.