Reproducible

I have noticed it is somewhat difficult to obtain reproducible results. ❋ AYDIN (2009)

But the rigorous process of peer review, a process that requires any new findings to be reproducible, is meant to weed out, as much as possible, political bias. ❋ Unknown (2009)

Especially when the issue is not reproducible, that is, the failure is different, or in a different place each time. edit: I'm not sure what you're saying about the timings. 3-4-4-8 is not relaxed timings with DDR2. 4-4-4-12 qualifies as low latency with DDR2. ❋ Unknown (2009)

Further, data should be study, but the expectation today is that the greatest reproducible, that is if the study were to be con - effort will be made nevertheless and the documen - ducted in a similar population using the same tation to provide evidence of this effort must be procedures, the results should be the same. ❋ Martins0105 (2009)

Is there anything symbolic and reproducible - in other words, we're not talking about your loved ones - you hold that dear?

There was climbing, too, wherein I actually finished every route I tried, including two 5. 7s (with a certain amount of flailing and dogging on the rope, but I think both climbs were reproducible, which is exciting, because so far my technique for anything harder than a 5.6 has been to flounder at it until I either get too tired, or, luck out and find some way up that I can never seem to find twice.) after which my forearms and triceps hurt so much I just did a 5.5 and two 5. 6s on the slab. ❋ Matociquala (2008)

The results of historical sciences are "reproducible" in that you too can examine the findings of other -- the fossils, cosmic background radiation, the rocks, etc. ❋ Steve Caldwell (2008)

And even though I explained it in clear English, you once again confused "reproducible" in the sense of conclusions, with "reproducible" data. ❋ Unknown (2009)

"reproducibly-positive" SNPs that cluster in small genomic regions within genes (vs control comparisons (we define this evidence for significant association in each of two independent samples as "reproducible"), b) cluster, so that at least three reproducibly-positive SNPs lie within 25kb of other reproducibly-positive SNPs, c) identify genes ( ❋ Tomas Drgon Et Al. (2010)

January 5th, 2010 at 3: 36 pm dp: Obviously it'los possible to have concensus about other things as well, but, as Crichton suggests, in science the bottom line is the reproducible results. ❋ Unknown (2010)

July 16th, 2009 at 3: 20 am kornbelt888: An account with no gaps that is reproducible. ❋ Unknown (2009)

This is an easily reproducible experiment - if you have snow and freezing temps. ❋ Unknown (2010)

Mung: So what about "consensus science" where it's not reproducible experiments that are at issue? ❋ Unknown (2010)

January 5th, 2010 at 12: 21 am so the strongest possible confirmation of reproducible results is concensus. ❋ Unknown (2010)

Obviously it's possible to have concensus about other things as well, but, as Crichton suggests, in science the bottom line is the reproducible results. ❋ Unknown (2010)

Ah, but you demanded an "account with no gaps that is reproducible". ❋ Unknown (2009)

July 15th, 2009 at 10: 24 pm kornbelt888: An account with no gaps that is reproducible. ❋ Unknown (2009)

Yes, what is relevant in science is reproducible results. ❋ Unknown (2010)

Not every single person in the world — let alone every scientist or even every scientist in the field — is going to personally reproduce any given result, so the strongest possible confirmation of reproducible results is concensus. ❋ Unknown (2010)

I guess for Don that's not science, since it's not based upon experiments with reproducible results. ❋ Unknown (2010)