Mszlazak wrote:
>No, not the 6pm news, but I'm OPEN to any possible reports from there. Here's a
>couple "non-6pm news sources" to start with where this appears.
>
>http://www.sheldrake.org/articles/db.cgi?db=default&uid=default&ww=on&id=3
>1&view_records=1
>
>http://www.sheldrake.org/articles/db.cgi?db=default&uid=default&ww=on&id=2
>9&view_records=1
>
>If your papers deal with the "bias of ascertainment" in decided on which
>browser features to develope, then sure, e-mail them over. Otherwise, e-mail
>them anyways or better yet post them here for all to see.
>
Yeah, the tiles of his textbooks are very scientific oriented (sarcasm).
I find this one particularly amusing: /Dogs that Know When Their Owners
are Coming Home, and Other Unexplained Powers of Animals/
and this other one too: /The Physics of Angels/ .... hehehe, how many
angels can fit/dance on a pinhead.That question was posed and answered
during Medieval times. Who was him? St. Thomas Aquinas? Check this out
http://www.beliefnet.com/index/index_204.html
I have no problem if you believe that and with all honesty I can respect
those beliefs, but please don't try to pass them for real science.
Science follows a method, if the scientific method cannot be applied to
the subject at hand it doesn't mean the results are not valid, but it
means that results cannot be validated scientifically. There are science
subjects that do not follow the method either due to their descriptive
nature (e.g. anatomy, for the most part).
I bet peer review journals have not accepted articles like these before.
Plenty of bias (not of the ascertainement kind) from an author who gets
his/her papers rejected by their peers. Try again with a more reputable
scientific source. I have read articles from guys with advanced science
degrees from top universities in which they deny AIDS is caused by HIV
(no empirical evidence provided), other articles that Vitamin C is good
for avoiding colds (disproven a million times), that chicken soup is
good for getting rid of a cold (eaasily explained in other ways), that
the world was created ~6000 years ago as described in the
judeo/christian Bible and so forth (the dinosaur fossils are the
evicdence for the universal diluvium), Kirlian aura, etc etc
Is funny, you told me before that i should be involved or know about
empirical research before talking about empirical design and when i
mention some of my qualifications in the field you reject them. I am
sure you know a lot of empirical research/analysis.
Email me your postal address and I will be more than pleased to sent you
a reprint of a couple of papers ... after all, that is the STANDARD way
of requesting publication reprints. But if you have access to a library
that holds scientific journals I can also send you the bibliographic
information and you can pull them out yourself.
***************************
I am not denying that usability studies can be useful. My point was and
is that what was suggested as criteria for releasing Moz 1.0 was absurd,
. releasing the browser only after a percentage of people commit to
switch browsers. What will be the cutoff line: 5%, 10%, 25%, 50% (as
suggested)? Over what period of time? Open source development, beta
feedback and these newsgroups are providing PLENTY of feedback from many
more users than can be achieved by a limited sample from a
company/organization where people are already using or are used to
another browser. BTW, that is how projects from closed development
environments are usually tested. Netscape has usability studies, I am
sure of that, otherwise they wouldn't have a QA (quality assurance)
department. The idea of having a webpage where people can fill out a
form or questionnaire might help to collect data from beta/nightly
testers might be a good one, no objections to that. ;-)
