McCulloch accuses Steig et al. of appropriating his âfindingâ that Steig et al. did not account for autocorrelation when calculating the significance of trends. While the published version of the paper didnât include such a correction, it is obvious that the authors were aware of the need to do so, since in the text of the paper it is stated that this correction was made. The corrected calculations were done using well-known methods, the details of which are available in myriad statistics textbooks and journal articles. There can therefore be no claim on Dr. McCullochâs part of any originality either for the idea of making such a correction, nor for the methods for doing so, all of which were discussed in the original paper. Had Dr. McCulloch been the first person to make Steig et al. aware of the error in the paper, or had he written directly to Nature at any time prior to the submission of the Corrigendum, it would have been appropriate to acknowledge him and the authors would have been happy to do so. Lest there be any confusion about this, we note that, as discussed in the Corrigendum, the error has no impact on the main conclusions in the paper.
Even smart people can get worms, virusses and trojans. The chance is small but as example I managed to get hit by a drive by download based on a 0-day exploit. The good thing was that I knew enough about my own computer to disable the bloody thing completely.
I think I've found the end-all solution to this "Which OS is best" question. Sure, it came from 4chan, but it's completely SFW.
Also, I should add that only stupid people get worms/virusses.
McCulloch accuses Steig et al. of appropriating his âfindingâ that Steig et al. did not account for autocorrelation when calculating the significance of trends. While the published version of the paper didnât include such a correction, it is obvious that the authors were aware of the need to do so, since in the text of the paper it is stated that this correction was made. The corrected calculations were done using well-known methods, the details of which are available in myriad statistics textbooks and journal articles. There can therefore be no claim on Dr. McCullochâs part of any originality either for the idea of making such a correction, nor for the methods for doing so, all of which were discussed in the original paper. Had Dr. McCulloch been the first person to make Steig et al. aware of the error in the paper, or had he written directly to Nature at any time prior to the submission of the Corrigendum, it would have been appropriate to acknowledge him and the authors would have been happy to do so. Lest there be any confusion about this, we note that, as discussed in the Corrigendum, the error has no impact on the main conclusions in the paper.
I agree with Alcari. Everybody who doesn't have technical savvy in my particular field is a noob idiot.
Like Alcari, I'm sure I am very socially intelligent and people like being around me.
Greg,
Great find!
This video puts Mac, Microsoft and Linux on even playing fields. The spelling errors make it that more authentic!
Even smart people can get worms, virusses and trojans. The chance is small but as example I managed to get hit by a drive by download based on a 0-day exploit. The good thing was that I knew enough about my own computer to disable the bloody thing completely.
The question is not who gets the worms or virii. The question is how much of your computer resources are spent on the basic security you need.
what are such ad hominem arguments doing on a science blog?
xkcd has a little something to take the piss out of Linux. Sadly, I have to agree.
Nehemiah: Are you a concern troll or a regular troll?
Bob, that is funny, but of course, Linux has better support for Flash than Apple provides AND an open source alternative.
Wait... so Linux is a Mac? PC hardware with Unix software?
Wait... so Linux is a Mac? PC hardware with Unix software?
No a mac is a linux without the balls ... a unix.