[R] NA, where no NA should (could!) be!
dieter.menne at menne-biomed.de
Sun Dec 21 11:42:03 CET 2008
Peter Dalgaard <p.dalgaard <at> biostat.ku.dk> writes:
> Why do so many people have such trouble with the word "reproducible"? We
> can't reproduce that without access to weblog_by_date!
In a strict sense, the example is "reproducible" as opposite to "spurious".
Reproducible research means that you can get the same results whe you buy
an ultracentrifuge, high-grade chemicals, a safety lab, and a technician
with a golden hand .:)
We should probably better use "self-running" instead, or whatever a
native speaker would suggest as an alternative. Even in German I do not know
of a better word; it should be "that can be pasted into rterm and give the
More information about the R-help