DavidsonCats.com

This is Tiger's explanation (and I suppose he's sticking to it):

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/tiger ... 38898.html

ChantillyCat wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3mnSnkgM4s

38:18 through 39:18.

True?

Idk.

The idea that someone can peruse a paper for an hour or two and serve some useful purpose seems extreme. Especially since no one ever checks the statistical work and computer code that is so critical to the results.

As Steve McIntyre discovered repeatedly, modern scientists are offended at the very notion that they should ever let someone check their data and calculations. We don't need no stinkin' quality in science. If a scientist says it is true, shut up and obey.

I feel like I should be able to speak to this, but I haven't had morphine for over a week and still haven't driven yet.

stan wrote:

ChantillyCat wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3mnSnkgM4s

38:18 through 39:18.

True?

Idk.

The idea that someone can peruse a paper for an hour or two and serve some useful purpose seems extreme. Especially since no one ever checks the statistical work and computer code that is so critical to the results.

As Steve McIntyre discovered repeatedly, modern scientists are offended at the very notion that they should ever let someone check their data and calculations. We don't need no stinkin' quality in science. If a scientist says it is true, shut up and obey.

stan wrote:The idea that someone can peruse a paper for an hour or two and serve some useful purpose seems extreme. Especially since no one ever checks the statistical work and computer code that is so critical to the results.

As Steve McIntyre discovered repeatedly, modern scientists are offended at the very notion that they should ever let someone check their data and calculations. We don't need no stinkin' quality in science. If a scientist says it is true, shut up and obey.

It depends on the person, and the subject, I guess. My grad school advisor spent 20 minutes one morning reading a paper containing a just-published result in the field of algebraic topology. That same afternoon, he presented the paper at a "math coffee". At the presentation...

1. He noted that the hypotheses of the result were so restrictive that even he would have had trouble coming up with an example
2. He pointed out a flaw in the proof, thereby invalidating the result and its associated peer review
3. Just to cap things off, he relaxed the hypotheses, strengthened the conclusion, and provided an elegant proof thereof

That was a typical day for him. He was a very smart guy. The same guy who told me the "visualizing a 7-dimensional sphere" story I posted a few years back.

I also want to note that Steve McIntyre was not a bona fide peer reviewer in the sense that you had to go through him to get your paper published. He was just some guy in the mining business who was very good at math. He ended up filling a void created by people who, for whatever reason, weren't doing their jobs. And in this case, it may have more about being secretive than being offended.

"Especially since no one ever checks the statistical work and computer code that is so critical to the results." -- Stan


As each of us knows so well, all generalizations are false.

MakeIt-TakeIt Cat wrote:Sad.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... d-DUI.html

Tiger needs help, big time.

MrMac wrote:

stevelee wrote:Also, maybe a journal didn't need a lot of peer review when the editor was Max Planck.

Word.

You guys are constantly amusing.

I had a class with a New Testament prof who reminded me of Dick Cavett. They looked a bit alike, but sounded a lot alike, I assume more from Nebraska than from Yale.

I was by his office a time or two (for no momentous reasons), and I noticed on his wall an award from the Werner Heisenburg Institute (aka Max Planck institute). I never got around to asking him about it.

The class was on exegeting Romans from the Greek text, which for Romans is probably a little easier than working from the English, and for some of us a little harder than modern physics.

i77cat wrote:http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/1945 ... e-warriors

Can we make this quote a sticky?

i77cat wrote:There is where our assumptions differ. I have Cleveland with a 45% of coming out of the East. Not too different from you. But you have them with a 40% chance of beating the West champion. I have them at 20%. They weren't just bad at the end of the season. They were horrible. This looks like GS or SA to me.

I had Cleveland at 20% to beat the West champ. ESPN had them at 7%. Looks like I'm too dang soft on the Cavs.

https://www.si.com/nba/2017/06/05/kevin ... bron-james

One of the dumbest pieces of "journalism" I've seen in a long time.

In a world of free agency, we will always have to be prepared for teams like the Warriors. However, like the Yankees and the Green Bay packers, it will not last forever. What free agency can give, it can also take away. Even if Cleveland loses the finals, it should be grateful for what LeBron has provided, rather than seeing some racist idiot defacing his home.

I'm no Cleveland fan. I thought the owner's response when Lebron left for Miami proved that James made the right choice. But wasn't the racist vandalism in LA?

slowcat95 wrote:

I got this in my work email today. I usually get one or two solicitations like this a week. This one, however, is particularly amusing. The scary ones are the ones that don't read like they were written by yahoo translate.

"Dear slowcat,

Greetings from Journal of Remote Sensing & GIS

We have read your article “ xxxx ”, it's attention-grabbing and contains a really valuable data. Subsequent to experiencing your article we can't avoid our self to raise you to contribute your knowledge for our journal.

We tend to assure you that we will provide considerable discount on publication fee that may positively satisfy you and can confirm to publish your article as early as possible.

Please reply us on your possibility of contribution, we will be awaiting for your response.


Thanks & Regards,
Elena Evans
Journal Manager
Remote Sensing & GIS
5716 Corsa Ave, Suite 110
Westlake, Los Angeles
CA 91362-7354, USA"