Slashdot Mirror
Researcher Jailed for Falsifying Research
Caldeso writes "For the first time in U.S. history, a researcher has received jail time for falsifying research data to obtain federal grants. Eric Poehlman pled guilty to defrauding the government to the tune of nearly 3 million dollars by changing and making up research and was sentenced to a year in a federal prison work camp and a lifetime ban on further federal grants."
But did he run Linux?
I'll be here all night folks!
ur right dumbass me forgot about the taxes owed
You wouldn't last there a day.
Politician goes to prison for lying THAT will be a milestone.
(About politics, apparently personal stuff is grounds for candal)
...I should stop making up page numbers in my references?
Czech language for absolute beginners
Troll me if you want but it's been published.
Here you go. Pre-war link but I'm sure I'll still manage to score a few troll points.
Going for the troll points here =-)
Well I was thinking of the half KG of radioactive material that was found at one of Iraqi universities.
Or the airplanes and converted missles that were found, but he and the UN said that he didn't have.
Or the last few pages of the Wilson report that stated that while that regime might not currently have the capacity for nuclear weapons, that they were actively seeking it.
And wow, how quickly some of us have forgotten that information, but I guess since the media didn't feed it to you it didn't happen, right?
Oh yeah, if we're going to kvetch about the poor intelligence, can we kvetch about how Billary decided to slash their budgets during his admin and restricted their capacity?
But that's okay, because we have so brave people in those agencies who are all too willing to violate their oaths and several laws so that they can chat with the newspapers regarding whatever items they might not totally agree with. You can complain about the biased system used to report whistleblower concerns, however my question is this: if they're willing to do all that just to make public some stuff and embarass the administration, how many are willing to give that information to "level the playing field" with other countries?
And yeah maybe some of his chemical weapon supply did drop off in potency, but they were still there and the UN didn't find them. Wonder what else they'll find in time.
neener, neener
Guess your vaunted "science" ain't at all what it's cracked up to be, huh? You'll have to find something else to worship. Sorry, kids.
Oh my, you're so right! I guess I should worship that great big lovable God guy, who has the power to do and see anything, but still lets hundreds of thousands of people die horrible deaths in earthquakes, tsuanmis, genocides and even creates terrorists to fly planes into buildings!
Yeah, he's really got his finger on the pulse.
-- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
OK, I know I'm being stupid for replying to an acknowledged troll, but let's take a moment and see if we can't try and set the record straight about WMDs and Iraq. This is one of those issues that really bugs me, so I feel compelled to reply:
It's not uncommon for universities to have supplies of radioactive isotopes on hand for physics or medical research. In fact, many universities in the US and elsewhere run small-scale nuclear reactors for producing a variety of radioactive materials. Unless this Iraqi university you mention had half-a-kilo of weapons-grade U-235 or plutonium, than I think it's a stretch to hold this out as proof of an active nuclear weapons program in Iraq before the most recent war. There are more uses for radioactives than just building bombs.
Say it with me now -- evidence of banned missiles or aircraft that *might be* used to deliver chemical, biological or nuclear munitions offers no concrete proof that Iraq actively sought to develop and produce C-B-N weapons prior to the US invasion in 2003. To date, no compelling evidence has emerged to substantiate the claim that the Iraqis had any recent capacity to manufacture weapons of mass destruction, at least not since the end of Operation Desert Storm in the early 1990s. While a few examples of old chemical munitions have cropped up in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, none of these weapons proved to have more than trace amounts of Serin or mustard gas inside. As far as I am aware, most experts still agree that the handful of artillery shells found to date containing chemical agents were probably leftovers from Iraq's war with Iran during the 1980s. Despite unlimited access to the country and several years to carry out the search, the US still has no smoking gun which proves that Iraq failed to comply with United Nations resolutions banning the manufacture of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
I don't think that any reasonable person in the US, or any nation in the international community for that matter, believes that Saddam abandoned his ambitions to acquire weapons of mass destruction after Iraq's defeat in the Gulf War. The main issue of consequence before the 2003 Iraq invasion was not if Saddam still wanted these weapons, but if he actually *had* them, or had the capacity to manufacture new weapons after 1991, in open defiance of numerous United Nations resolutions. Right now, the overwhelming majority of evidence points to the conclusion that Saddam, perhaps grudgingly and unwillingly, generally complied with the demands of the United Nations. Had anyone really doubted Saddam's intentions, it's unlikely that the United Nations would have spent so much time, money and effort on weapons inspections and monitoring before the 2003 war. Again, it wasn't Saddam's intentions that were up for debate before the US-led invasion, it was his capacity to manufacture and deploy these weapons that the US administration provided as the rationale for war.
I'm going to save my response to this statement for the next section.