This article proposes seven indicative signs of bogosity
in scientific claims, but I find the outlook generally conservative.
Applying it with too much zeal will result in false positives,
dismissing truly revolutionary
accomplishments. Einstein's work on special relativity comes off as
bogus when viewed through the
prism of #6 and #7, for instance:
6. The discoverer has worked in isolation.
7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.
Moreover, it should be noted that the most successful (and perhaps most prevalent) bogus science
doesn't trigger any alarms or raise eyebrows. It does so simply by
virtue of avoiding making any extraordinary claims - thus staying below
the radar of suspicion.
I don't think there are any reliable shortcuts in identifying bogus
science. You have to look at things very carefully before you can
categorically dismiss them as nonsense. The thing is, this takes time,
which is is why everyone needs rules of thumb such as those proposed to
decide how to allocate their time in the most productive manner.
And if you need to run the occasional Windows app nevertheless, Wine is a popular Windows compatibility layer that runs within Linux. What do you think? [] links to this post 6:21:01 PM
If you're wondering what serious partying looks like in the third
millenium and can spare the bandwidth, you could watch these two videos
back-to-back:
David Weinberger: The Tragedy of Coloring Books. "And
then you come to coloring books that train kids to see the world as
edges to be filled in. Put down your crayons, kids. I have bad news."
See also this early post by Liz: outlines and boundaries. "I wouldn't use an outline for a poem."
and Ton: Monsters again. "Basically, as soon as you draw lines somewhere (this is a tree, this is
a shrub) you get into trouble when you encounter things that are on the
border of such categories (is it a small tree, or a large shrub)."
I think there are a number of
criteria to consider when selecting a conference:
Innovation - will you hear new stuff that may challenge you
Technical - will you learn about techniques/technologies you will
use
Political - will you get a better of view at the strategic level
Networking - will you hook up with (new) people
Career - will this conference help you to advance your professional
goals
Entertainment - Will you be able to have some fun
Location - if the conference sucks can you go somewhere else
From there, he assigns numerical values and
computes ratios to rate a number of geeky conferences. As it turns out,
Chris Pirillo's Gnomedex comes out on top. Now how would you rate the O'Reilly Emerging Technology Conference, Werner?
A few people I trust have written that the Bloglines Web-based news aggregator works well. It looks clean and might be an excellent way to get started if you've never used an aggregator, especially if you move around between computers, as your data is kept on the site instead of on your computer. Here's what Joe Hart had to say about bloglines:
I've found Bloglines the easiest to use among the free news readers.
I'm recommending it for students and instructors who want to get
started reading blogs and other rss feeds. Bloglines makes getting an
account easy and subscribing to feeds very easy (you don't even need to
know the full rss address).
On the recommendation of colleague Todd Bingham, I've switched from Internet Explorer to Mozilla Firebird
a while ago and have been utterly enjoying it ever since. I had no
problems whatsoever installing, and it runs without a glitch. It will
even import your IE bookmarks upon startup. Give it a try - I don't
think you'll be disappointed.
Now I'm trying out Jake's spiffy Moz editor for Radio Userland, and so
far it looks superior to the one available under IE. What's this icon on the right?
Oh, does that mean I can make tables? And fool around with colors?
