Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | coliveira's comments login

This is not a privilege of CS. Most fields will have conferences where you can learn about new research before it is published. The difference is that CS people rely on proceedings of the conference, while traditional fields postpone formal publication to established journals.

In my opinion this puts an unnecessary burden on conference organizers, because they have in short notice to make a decision about the correctness of the article as well as other more mundane matters such as the formatting and presentation for the proceedings publication.

These complaints are just nonsense propagated by people who don't understand the academic process. As a researcher, I don't need to wait for a paper to be published in a journal to have access to its contents. Most respectable research is already publicized in targeted conferences and stored in websites such as arxiv.org and similar. That's exactly why researchers go to conferences every few months, in order to learn about the new developments before it appears on archived journals.

The reason why we still have journals is that they work as a recording of past research that has been peer reviewed by a well known group of experts (the editorial board). In fact, with the Internet pretty much any journal will have a list of accepted papers so you can access them before they are formally "published". So you can read these papers as soon as they receive the OK from the editorial board.

Do you really think this reviewer for FASEB, an HHMI Investigator and a tenured professor at Rockefeller University, doesn't "understand the academic process?"

For better or for worse, biology isn't like computer science. Wet lab experiments take orders of magnitude more time, interpretation of results is often pretty complex, and there are a lot more articles published, which together combine to make this situation a little different.

There have been several moves to establish ArXiv-like compendia for biology, but they haven't really caught on yet. I'm not sure exactly why.

This only proves that this person is working in a particular dysfunctional field, among thousands of other scientific fields that have no problem with the process. There is probably no research area more competitive than astrophysics. The guys working there, however, decided to use arxiv.org to make available research that costs them millions of dollars and several years of work to produce. I don't see why the biological science community couldn't agree on something similar. It is a social problem, not a process or technological problem.

Yes, its a social problem. The reason is because for biomedical sciences there are many more tangible levels of success - personal, professional, financial, commercial — to be had. Nobody is gonna win in astrophysics like they can win in the biomedical sciences. Therefore what you end up with is much more of a hairball, mutually assured destruction scenario.

Idk how you could quantify that astrophysics is more competitive than biology. There is a lot more money and also many more investigators in biomedicine. NIH grant funding is insanely competitive.

Anyway, you are responding to an argument that I didn't originally make.

In the biomedical sciences most publications DO NOT end up on preprint servers before being peer-reviewed and accepted. Therefore most stories are "done" a year or more before they are published anywhere. Sometimes they are presented at conferences, but often only once the paper is in submission.

Each technical field decides the best way to handle new research. If what you said is true, this is a matter particular to this and similar fields. However, many articles such as the one linked above make it believe that Science as a whole has a big problem because of peer reviewing standards, which is NOT true. In fact, most fields already have procedures to disseminate and archive results in a way that does not conflict with traditional peer reviewing.

That's fair, but she's writing an editorial in FASEB, which is the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology journal :).

The first mass-consumed book of ancient times was the Iliad. Fragments of it exist from the 3rd century BCE. There are around 1000 manuscripts of it known today. But due to the difficulty of copying ancient documents, only books considered very interesting would be reproduced and therefore most of the ancient literature perished when Greek and Roman libraries were burned down at the decline of ancient civilization. Of course, the remaining literature was exactly the religious literature of the people doing the burnings.

The surprising thing about the NT is that these fragments only start to pop up from the mid to late second century. Some of the books of the NT don't even appear until the 4th century. Which says that these books either didn't exist in the first century, or that they were not considered important to be preserved at that time, or maybe even that christianity didn't exist before the mid-second century as propagated by standard christian books.

AFAIK, the earliest fragment known of the NT dates from ~110 AD, which is only about 20 years after the last book of the NT (Revelation) was written. Considering that the oldest manuscript we have of Caesars "De Bello Gallicum" is 900 years older than the original, that's pretty good...

A big problem with the discussion around mental health issues is the idea that your thoughts are a part of what you are, and somehow it is OK even if these thoughts become a problem for you. It turns out that what appear for us as thoughts are just complex chemical reactions occurring in our brain. You can definitely change this chemistry using substances (for the better and for the worse). The same thing also works the other way around: uncomfortable, stressful thoughts can lead to chemical imbalances in the brain, because they're just the same thing. We need to better accept this fundamental fact of science and use it in our favor, not fight against this as if we depended on our mental moods to exist as an individual.

To find a word, just highlight it, hit Command-E to select it into search, and then use a search command such as Command-Shift-F or Command-G.


This is one of the biggest problems of the modern world. So much of what we know is based on science, but there is so little scientific literacy that it is very easy to convince people of incorrect things. For example, global warming deniers are all the time using cheap arguments like this. Because you need to have some understanding of logic to identify logical fallacies, it is increasingly easy to create bogus arguments to support things like creationism, conspiracy theories, etc.


If science has taught us anything, it's that Science is not a Revealed Truth but must be prone to criticism, testing, and new insights, not to mention the discovery of the unknown.

Using 'global warming deniers,' a not-so-subtle comparison to Holocaust deniers, to denigrate an entire body of scientists (scientists, not politicians) who disagree about the degree, level, impact or even nature of global warming, is doing science on a whole a great disservice.

Yes, logical fallacies are frequently used by all types to make cheap arguments. The point is no better made than in this comment.


Except, as has so often been pointed out, the "entire body of scientists" who reject AGW is a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the entire body of climate scientists.

And every so often it comes out that one of the high-profile deniers is on the payroll of some company that benefits from the confusion they stir up!

You could probably find an "entire body of scientists" who believe in a flat-earth theory, and they too are worth ignoring or characterizing as "deniers".


I think you're the one making a comparison to holocaust deniers, with your frankly stinky rhetoric. Where I come from a denier is simply someone who denies something.

As for an entire body of science - yes, all six of them. That climate change isn't happening is not a serious, majority, or even realistic view. It's based on wishful thinking and there's a strong correlation between "scientists" who don't believe (what the hell has it got to do with belief?!) in climate change and those same scientists believing that a deity farted out the earth some 4000 years ago (young earth creationism).

You're now going to reply and tell me that we should carefully consider the evidence that dinosaurs are a hoax placed by satan, right?


> scientists believing that a deity farted out the earth some 4000 years ago (young earth creationism). You're now going to reply and tell me that we should carefully consider the evidence that dinosaurs are a hoax placed by satan, right?

Stinky rhetoric, indeed!


Let's not relitigate the use of the word "denier" here. If we can never again use any word that's ever been used in the same phrase as the word Holocaust, what does that benefit us?


It rightfully shames tribal thought that attempts to masquerade as "scientific." There is value in shaming uncritical thinking.


There is a big difference between scientists doing research, and possibly finding results that go against global warming, and deniers that are only using logical fallacies to support bogus claims. Scientists have no problems with serious research, whatever the conclusion. It is the second group of people that are making a big disservice to humanity.


Big leap to go from "global warming deniers" to "holocaust deniers". Talk about logical fallacies.

First off, I want to clear something up for you. Science is, in fact, all about the "revealed truth". It serves to reveal the actual truth about the universe around us, from the tiniest particle whose truths we are still struggling to discover, to the machinations of huge, massive bodies as they hurtle through the mostly empty space around them, interacting with other massive bodies from a gargantuan distance using forces we can now predict with relatively simple mathematics.

The "revealed truth" of our body of knowledge is just that: the truth of how things work, which is true whether or not we coax it into revealing itself to us through investigation and experimentation, but becomes revealed to us after the considerable effort of the scientists whose works you seem ready to dismiss because a handful of scientists don't agree with them. Is it also advisable to skip brushing your teeth because a commercial once said only "four out of five dentists agree: brush your teeth after every meal"?

These scientists you speak of are not persecuted geniuses who are just misunderstood, they're actually bad at science, and their arguments have, time and time again, been proven incorrect by actual science, their methods have been proven flawed by actual scientific method, and their epithets hurled at all the "establishment scientists" serve only to weaken their position because it comes from a position of emotion rather than science.

The comment to which you replied was clearly written by an impassioned observer who cares how science is applied, and yet you seem to confuse his position with that of actual climatologists. His comment is about the masses who do not understand how science reveals the truth of the world around us, and you literally stepped in to discredit his opinion statement by invoking the holocaust. It's shameful. And it's a shame, because your passion is better served by fighting for the pursuits of those seeking to reveal the truths hiding in plain sight, not arguing with concerned humans who just want the work to continue.


That's why we should really insist on talking about "climate change" rather than "global warming". I'm not a climate revisionist, but as a layman I do believe that climatology is about as good as economy when it comes to predict what will happen (well I'm a layman in economics too :-), and I do believe that instead of a global warning we might get an ice age. Or giant tornadoes all over the place 24/7.


On the other hand, I'm going to take that "belief" and weigh all those possibilities based on best current scientific likelihood. Ice age? Maybe. But I'm not putting any bets on an ice age, and I will bet, and ask my leaders to bet politically, on the sea level rise.


PHP guys are very smart about not trying to reinvent the wheel. They always supported the most common web setup: Apache running on its standard configuration. That's why every shared host company in the world is confident in deploying PHP and avoids like the plague more complex solutions based on Python, Java, and Rubi.


I'd say it's actually the opposite - the users are comfortable with PHP and not the more complex solutions. I'd love for us to support other stuff, but anyone who is using anything else wants more control over their environment than the average shared host can offer. We have as many deployment issues etc. with PHP as we would anything else... possibly more.

That said, isn't 'IaaS' like Heroku basically 'shared hosting for other stuff'?


Evangelicals will not admit this freely, this is a mentality that arises from trying to protect their values in the face of outside interference/criticism. Plainly, they believe in a kind of world that is "us against them", so in any situation they need to somehow justify the actions of their group. As a result, they are prey to the belief that born again christians cannot do anything wrong because they are moved by god himself (through the "holy spirit").


I wish more people realized this. Evangelical christianity has its own crooked morality, which is entirely based on the infallibility of "born again" christians. What for most people is a sign of hypocrisy, for them is just a normal way of conducting business. Their use of the bible is a great reinforcement for this mentality. For example, if a christian leader commits a serious crime, they instantly point to their bible heroes such as David or Jacob (who also had seriously flawed ethics) as an example that christians cannot be opposed by non-christians even when they are wrong, and those chosen by god will always prevail despite their moral failings...


> if you look at the financial code, it would fit on a screen

This is exactly why people shouldn't be afraid at somebody else looking at the code. What is important here is not specifically the code that is implemented, but the ideas, model testing, analytical thinking that went into the writing of those few lines. The problem with many researchers in this area is to think that it would be easy to go from an idea or simple implementation into a full investment system. Most of these ideas have already been published, it is just that few people know how to use them to make money.


That's right. A lot of "ideas" are really a bit useless if you don't have infrastructure to execute them. Normally this means "how can I make these trades as cheaply as possible? And without moving the market?".

For instance, anyone can pick up a paper about fundamentals (or the Bible, aka Graham and Dodd) and see why it might work. To make money there's a lot of dirty work. Getting some data, making sure it's clean, thinking about biases, getting some lines in to do the trading, coding up a trading engine, writing back office code, getting someone to stare at it all day, and so on.



Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact