Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Manslaughter Conviction Overturned For Scientists Who Didn't Predict Earthquake

Posted by Soulskill on from the but-their-crystal-ball-has-been-confiscated dept.

Jason Koebler writes: Geologists who didn't warn a town about an impending earthquake are not murderers, an Italian appeals court ruled today. A 2012 decision that rocked the scientific world has been overturned, according to Italy's Repubblica newspapers and confirmed by other Italian outlets. In that decision, six prominent geologists and one government worker were convicted of manslaughter for failing to notify the town of L'Aquila of a 2009 earthquake that killed at least 309 people. The scientists were originally sentenced to six years in prison and were to pay more than $10 million in damages.

139 comments

  1. Welcome! by Tablizer · · Score: 0

    I for one welcome our slow-to-sanity overlords.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
    1. Re: Welcome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's important to understand; and you have to spend serious time with Google translate or reading the Italian to get this; they weren't charged for failing to predict. They were charged for predicting there wouldn't be an earthquake. They said that there was no special likelihood of it even though several signs pointed to a raised probability.

      The conviction may be wrong, however it's nowhere near as stupid as people are making out.

    2. Re: Welcome! by brantondaveperson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And if there hadn't been one, then they would have been right. What's your point? Just because there was no special likelihood of an earthquake doesn't actually mean that there won't be one, does it? The whole episode is total nonsense.

    3. Re: Welcome! by gweihir · · Score: 2

      It actually is exceedingly stupid, not for the specific situation itself, but for the greater ramifications. It is better to even have mediocre geologists looking at the possibility of earthquakes than to not have any at all. With manslaughter convictions like the one in question, no sane geologist will work on earthquake predictions anymore an _that_ is what would result in massively more casualties and what makes this verdict so stupid.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    4. Re: Welcome! by curious.corn · · Score: 2

      In the phone conversation between Bertolaso (head of the italian "FEMA") and Daniela Stasi (councilor of the Abbruzo regional government) of 3.30.2009 recorded by the investigators: "... we have decided to hold a meeting there in L'Aquila... in order to shut up any idiot, appease... I send them to L'Aquila, it's a media stunt... these guys who are the maximum authorities in earthquakes will say: business as usual, these phenomena happen, better to have one hundred tremors at Richert scale 4 that nothing, because one hundred quakes remove energy, and there will never be a big one, the one that hurts, you understand !?..."

      Nobody ever accused these scientists of having failed to do the rain dance, but of having prostituted themselves.

      --
      Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
    5. Re: Welcome! by curious.corn · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Nope, that wasn't the problem. The issue was that a bunch of corrupt politicos were fed up of the clamor that a "quack" (Giampaolo Gioacchino Giuliani) was making about his Radon monitoring stations and the coming of a big quake, so they summoned these scientists and organized a media blitz to discredit and call out the guy.

      People heaved a sigh of relief, stopped sleeping in their cars and went back to their homes. Many died under the rubble a couple days later.

      Sane geologists still have no good reason to remain in Italy, unless you're ok to be commanded and manipulated by filthy politicos.

      --
      Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
    6. Re: Welcome! by curious.corn · · Score: 1

      I take offense... being Italian.

      --
      Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
    7. Re: Welcome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's be specific

      • A bunch of scientists lied; they claimed that tremors did not indicate an increased risk of earthquakes
      • Tremours actually do correlate to an increased risk of earthquakes.
      • People believed the scientists and changed their behaviour
      • Many of those people died, who would not have died otherwise

      What should the scientists have said? Something like

      We don't believe this guy knows what he's talking about, so there's no real reason to panic. However, we know that the buildings in the area are too weak for the earthquake risk they run. People should move to buildings which are safe and rebuild the ones that aren't.

      If they had done that then probably some more people would have died, but not nearly as many as actually did. Also they would have left a situation where next time round they could be believed. All the idiots telling us how sad it is that there will be no geologists forget that the geologists would now be ignored as liars. At least the court can make it less likely geologists lie in future.

    8. Re: Welcome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well it still are italians... it's a different kind of human race...

      You cannot even speak english correctly, and you talk about a country that you probably cannot even locate on a map and where you would probably be considered an obese wreckage? Do you realize how ridiculous your life is?

    9. Re: Welcome! by jafiwam · · Score: 2

      It's important to understand; and you have to spend serious time with Google translate or reading the Italian to get this; they weren't charged for failing to predict. They were charged for predicting there wouldn't be an earthquake. They said that there was no special likelihood of it even though several signs pointed to a raised probability.

      The conviction may be wrong, however it's nowhere near as stupid as people are making out.

      Just wait a while.

      They'll try them again three more times, twice in absentia, and once including the maids and the guys that fixed their cars.

      Italian "courts" are a laughing stock, only useful for being mocked, nothing more than third world idiots now.

    10. Re: Welcome! by Gravitron+5000 · · Score: 1

      As a speaker of the English language, I also take offence.

    11. Re: Welcome! by slashmydots · · Score: 1

      In addition, there's strong evidence that political pressure made them lie and say there would be no large earthquake to avoid a panic. So they're definitely guilty, it's just that the government was the one who told them to lie and then dropped the hammer on them.

    12. Re: Welcome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      however you slice it. they still went to jail for failing to predict the future.

      phrase that however you like. it's still epic stupid.

    13. Re: Welcome! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      And if there hadn't been one, then they would have been right.

      Wrong.

      Just because there was no special likelihood of an earthquake doesn't actually mean that there won't be one, does it?

      In fact, there was special likelihood of an earthquake. You may now try again. Read around this thread for citations, there are several links.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re: Welcome! by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      i seem to remember them saying there was no raised probability and based on the scientific consensus on the matter there was no raised probability. There was a single guy that was saying that there was an increased probability of quakes from prior signs. In other words, 99/100 geologist you asked would have said the same thing as the convicted.

      The problem was that the scientists said that a quake was "unlikely" and the Governmental liaison with the public took that to mean that everything was fine so he said there was "no danger" in a press conference. The quake was unlikely, and there was no more danger than normal but that didn't mean "no danger" at all.

      I remember feeling sad for italy when these guys were convicted.

    15. Re: Welcome! by canadian_right · · Score: 1

      The conviction can not be any stupider as it was the stupidest case ever brought to trail - stupid even for Italy's notoriously fickle justice system.

      NO ONE CAN PREDICT EARTHQUAKES.

      They said, rightly,that the recent "swarm" of small quakes did not increase the risk of a big quake. They never said there was no risk. The area has a a higher than normal risk for quakes which was never denied. Government officials did want to shut up a technician that was predicting a big quake due to radon reading - a method that has been discredited - to prevent unnecessary alarm. If you live in an earthquake zone you have to accept there is going to be a big one eventually, and you have to accept to one can predict when.

      The conviction was a travesty. You might as well convict them of not predicting every heart attack that was going to occur in the city for the next year, even with everyone's medical records.

      They caused no harm. An unpredictable natural event did that no one could predict. "Swarms" of smaller quakes happens in that area regularly and the last big quake was in 1706.

      It is a very well established legal principal that you don't hold people responsible for things they have NO control over!

      --
      Anarchists never rule
    16. Re:Welcome! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      What makes you think it's over? Italy has no concept of "double jeopardy" and someone found not guilty may be tried again and later found guilty. Have you never heard of Amanda Knox?

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    17. Re: Welcome! by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      You may now try again.

      Thank you.

      In fact, there was special likelihood of an earthquake.

      Is this true? We know an earthquake occurred, but this is far from a statement about the 'likelihood' of that earthquake, isn't it? Isn't it the case that most large earthquakes aren't preceded by anything out of the ordinary? And that most sequences of small earthquakes do not culminate in a large event - except insofar as that large event occurs eventually?

      The earthquake in NZ that killed 185 people in February of 2011 was a large aftershock - there is no dispute that a large event will always cause a large number of subsequent events of varying size - of another large earthquake in September of the previous year. It could be argued that the central city should have been evacuated and not re-entered until all the unsafe buildings within the area had been strengthened - but no-one was bonkers enough to suggest that the aftershock should have been 'predicted', even though at that time the aftershocks were occurring almost every day.

      Now, why is this? And what would prediction have meant in any case? There is no reason to believe that a prediction, which will never be more than a general notion of increased likelihood over an indeterminate period of time anyway, could possibly save lives. As is often said, earthquakes do not kill people, unsafe buildings kill people. The buildings that collapsed and killed in Italy were unsafe obviously, and many of those that collapsed were extremely old. Where is the court case about the council (or whoever it ought to be) failing to earthquake strengthen a town full of mediaeval buildings?

    18. Re: Welcome! by ale2011 · · Score: 1

      In fact, there was special likelihood of an earthquake.

      Is this true?

      Yes. There had been smaller "warning" shakes. As a matter of fact, there have been families who were going to leave l'Aquila as a precaution, and changed their minds after hearing an appeal to keep calm and stay home, on the radio. That was narrated by survivors. There had been some political pressure, aimed at keeping order, to have those scientists sign that appeal. No illicit deals were proved, and even if there had been any, they can be considered part of Berlusconi's style of administration. Governors command, subjects obey.

      There is no reason to believe that a prediction, which will never be more than a general notion of increased likelihood over an indeterminate period of time anyway, could possibly save lives.

      It is not the usual kind of "predictions" (or opinions), which are common in such cases, but rather the propensity to give false, unjustifiable predictions in order to keep people calm. The latter sounds like "we don't care if you die or not, but please do it silently."

      As is often said, earthquakes do not kill people, unsafe buildings kill people. The buildings that collapsed and killed in Italy were unsafe obviously, and many of those that collapsed were extremely old. Where is the court case about the council (or whoever it ought to be) failing to earthquake strengthen a town full of mediaeval buildings?

      Sure.

    19. Re: Welcome! by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      Yes. There had been smaller "warning" shakes

      No. There is no reason to believe that smaller shakes are warnings. None whatsoever. That there was a subsequent deadly earthquake is a terrible tragedy, but it does not change the fact that small shakes are not a predictor of large earthquakes.

      If those families had left l'Aquila, then one presumes that they would have returned at some point. If a large earthquake had not occurred by that point, but did shortly thereafter, would the scientists still be at fault?

      Actually, upon re-reading your reply, I'm not sure what you were actually arguing.

    20. Re: Welcome! by ale2011 · · Score: 1

      I think we all agree that predicting earthquakes (or weather, or stock exchange, for that matter) is not an exact science.

      Actually, upon re-reading your reply, I'm not sure what you were actually arguing.

      An expert's prediction —especially if officially appointed— should be solely based on her or his knowledge and beliefs, free from external pressure, lobbying, or prejudice. Scientists who are in conflict of interest because their opinions are too intertwined with their wishes should either stay silent or explain their position clearly. Legally, appointed experts who (ab)use their role for channeling spurious advices should be sentenced. IANAL, but it seems to me that would have been straightforward if the subject had been of financial rather than geological flavor, correct?

  2. They can be tried again, I think? by mmell · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Unlike the US system, I believe Italian authorities are free to refile this if they don't like the appeals court ruling?

    Try them again, I say! That'll show 'em. They'll think twice before becoming scientists in Italy.

    1. Re:They can be tried again, I think? by TWX · · Score: 1

      If that trial of that American girl for murder, its overturn, and its refiling is any indication, then yes, it may be possible.

      I think that if they do refile though, it'll give incentive for scientists and other intellectuals to move, and with the EU rules allowing one from a member-state to live anywhere within the EU, it would probably be an easier choice to leave if one's work could be interpreted this way.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:They can be tried again, I think? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Frankly, I don't know why anyone lives in Italy. With the EU free movement rules, it's a wonder the whole damned country didn't pick up and move to Germany

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:They can be tried again, I think? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As the misguided summary advises, these guys aren't murderers, which is why they were charged with manslaughter. I don't know Italian law, but why they weren't charged with criminally negligent homicide is puzzling. Clearly, they are guilty of negligence. I guess in Italy, whether you are a prosecuter or a geologist, you're probably too dumb for the job. Even Mussulini was second rate. Here's what he said: " A nation of spaghetti eaters cannot restore Roman civilization!"

    4. Re:They can be tried again, I think? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it'll give incentive for scientists and other intellectuals to move

      Perhaps. More likely it'll give a disincentive for scientists to go on TV and use their credentials to make public safety pronouncements, based on no evidence whatsoever, that result in hundreds of deaths.

    5. Re:They can be tried again, I think? by rogoshen1 · · Score: 0

      Because the Turks were in the way?

    6. Re: They can be tried again, I think? by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 2

      You act as if it is a problem with their government, and not a cultural problem with the Italian people.

      In any case, the Italian court sense of morality is flawed (or their legal system doesn't fit with morality...). The geologists have a moral obligation to not harm, not to save, though saving the town would have been admirable.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    7. Re:They can be tried again, I think? by SternisheFan · · Score: 2

      Those seismologists have left Italy for good. They pulled out, took their equipment and won't be sharing their data with the Italian scientists. I don't blame them.

    8. Re:They can be tried again, I think? by Kjella · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Unlike the US system, I believe Italian authorities are free to refile this if they don't like the appeals court ruling?

      I can't speak with 100% certainty of Italy, but generally here in Europe they can not refile. However the trial process is not ended until neither side wants to appeal or the appeal possibilities are exhausted. That means you can get acquitted at trial court and the prosecutor appeals, acquitted at appeals court and the prosecutor appeals, the supreme court might say the law was applied wrong and remand it back to the appeals court where you're ultimately convicted. I guess the idea is that a higher court will do a more thorough review and thus its judgement is more valid than the lower court, even if it's to your disadvantage. If you get acquitted and the appeal limit which here is two weeks expires then that is final even if they find the murder weapon with your prints on it three weeks later.

      I'll use a gun analogy since that'll probably appeal to US folks. The first trial is like a hip shot, asking both parties "Are you both in agreement with this ruling?" and if both agree then okay. Second trial they take a good aim and ask "Are you still disputing this ruling?" and if yes they put a sniper rifle on a bench and say "This is going to hit so dead center as possible, final ruling. No more appeals." as opposed to the US system where if you can fool one judge once you're off the hook, no matter how ill considered and legally unsound that judgement was. I think we still acquit more people than in the US, there you get really slammed for using your day in court instead of taking the plea bargain, even if you don't really think you're guilty.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    9. Re:They can be tried again, I think? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 2

      This is why all the smart Italians already live in the United States.

    10. Re:They can be tried again, I think? by cpotoso · · Score: 2

      Have you eaten in Italy vs. in Germany? Enough said.

    11. Re:They can be tried again, I think? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ONce again, the Ottoman Empire gets the blame! My scimitars are vibrating out frustration every time our great Empire is blamed for the scuffles between the Christians in the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.

    12. Re:They can be tried again, I think? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they moved to Switzerland, where there are French women, German engineering, billions in hidden money, and jobs as Italian chauffeurs without dealing with the traffic in Rome.

    13. Re:They can be tried again, I think? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Plea bargains are a legal abomination. The fact you can get a traumatized guy who came home and found his wife strangled by a burglar and say "Take the plea bargain and get 20 years in jail for something you do, or risk capital punishment if you cant convince the jury your innocent.

      That is *fucked*, because so many people who probavbly could have proved their innocence will take the 20 years rather than risk getting slain by the state.

    14. Re:They can be tried again, I think? by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      Suleiman plz go

    15. Re:They can be tried again, I think? by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1, Funny

      Absolutely! Go Germany every day of the week!

      I have been to both countries multiple times and the germans win on food and beer every single time. They lose horribly on the wine though.

    16. Re:They can be tried again, I think? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why work for the MAFIA when you can work for the U.S. government? You'll probably even get your training time acknowledged.

    17. Re:They can be tried again, I think? by curious.corn · · Score: 2

      German beer - surprisingly - doesn't hold a candle against british, belgian and lately dutch craft beers. Seriously...

      --
      Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
    18. Re:They can be tried again, I think? by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      Times must have changed then. I lived in the UK in the early 2000s and I never managed to get on with the beers there.

      I have always liked the pale German beers. I was back there in 2012 as part of a multi-country trip and I loved the food.

      Truth be told though I am not the biggest beer drinker so it is lost on me. I prefer my wine.

    19. Re:They can be tried again, I think? by bsolar · · Score: 1

      In Italy it is exactly as you explained for Europe: there are 3 levels of judgement and the sentence is not definitive until either the appeal is not filed in due time or the last level is reached. The first appeal is basically a new process within the scope of the appealed matters: in the second and last appeal evidence cannot be re-examined, only wheter the law was followed correctly, but if the court finds issues it can rule than the whole trial needs to be re-done from scratch...

    20. Re:They can be tried again, I think? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry but the food of ANY mediterranean country is orders of magnitud better than German food, every single time in every single aspect: variety, nutrition, taste... German beer is good (most is better than most Italian beer) but it's not the best beer you can have in Europe (not by far). Belgian is the best (IMO) but Czech, Irish and some British beers are, to different degrees, better than most German beer. Still one of the best beers in Europe, don't get me wrong: they are among the best brewers, hands down. But again, food... I think only British cuisine is worse than German.

    21. Re:They can be tried again, I think? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Italian here. Basically there is a second level of appeal, it's called "sentenza di Cassazione". I'm no expert on the topic, but I think it is unlikely that it is going to be used here - it is usually used the other way around, like if there is a conviction after the first appeal the defense attorney can opt for the Cassazione and try to waive the sentence.

    22. Re:They can be tried again, I think? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have been to both countries multiple times and the germans win on food and beer every single time.

      Never heard anyone daring to even compare the german food with the italian. You must be ridiculously obese and drunk.

    23. Re:They can be tried again, I think? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation"... LOL !

      As Voltaire said, that german bizarre confederation was neither an empire nor holy, let alone Roman. Just a pathetic, desperate, and obviously unsuccessful imitation of the actual Roman Empire.

    24. Re: They can be tried again, I think? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Their argument was that the geologists said that the risk was low, which then caused harm because people trusted them and didn't prepare for the earthquake. If they had stayed quiet they would not have been blamed, but they actually made a prediction in language that conveyed some certainty.

      If there is a lesson here it's that if you are not 100% sure and lives are at risk you should err on the side of caution.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    25. Re:They can be tried again, I think? by cpotoso · · Score: 1

      You are certifiably insane :)

    26. Re: They can be tried again, I think? by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      Their argument was that the geologists said that the risk was low, which then caused harm because people trusted them and didn't prepare for the earthquake. If they had stayed quiet they would not have been blamed, but they actually made a prediction in language that conveyed some certainty.

      If there is a lesson here it's that if you are not 100% sure and lives are at risk you should err on the side of caution.

      Do you ever travel by airplane? Did you know a NON ZERO number of planes crash every year? And, by getting on a plane you take a risk of getting shredded and burned in a crash?

      Plane travel, despite the possible end-game, is still VERY SAFE.

      Gonna try to throw me in jail now if you get in a crash? Idiot?

    27. Re:They can be tried again, I think? by JeffAtl · · Score: 1

      Sounds like the US

    28. Re:They can be tried again, I think? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      German beer - surprisingly - doesn't hold a candle against british, belgian and lately dutch craft beers. Seriously...

      And yet the "best beer in the world" comes from California. Seriously...

      We're better at wine, we're better at beer, we're better at cheese. The only thing we're not better at is modesty, as proven by all our nudist camps. Or paying our bills, but you red states are sucking down our tax money hardcore for stuff we can't even afford.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    29. Re: They can be tried again, I think? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you ever travel by airplane? Did you know a NON ZERO number of planes crash every year? And, by getting on a plane you take a risk of getting shredded and burned in a crash?

      Gonna try to throw me in jail now if you get in a crash? Idiot?

      Somebody call the TSA! Some guy name Jafir is warning about people dying in a plane crash as part of some game!
      I hope your skin isn't brown, oh evil djinn....

    30. Re:They can be tried again, I think? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you dare blame other states for the fact that California can't pay it's fucking bills! You have Hollywood. You have the Kardashians. Fucking tax them already you bastards. In fact, tax the Kardashians out of existence and I bet you we can find some nice federal grant money for you as a reward.

    31. Re:They can be tried again, I think? by knarf · · Score: 1

      Well, no. German beer is different, not worse. They have their own traditions which they follow, often with religious fervour. While this limits the diversity in beer types, it does not diminish the quality. There are many good beers to be had in Germany which you'll be hard-pressed to find elsewhere.

      --
      --frank[at]unternet.org
    32. Re:They can be tried again, I think? by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      Lol. I guess it comes down to taste. I'm not obese, at least not last time I checked any way. I just prefer the food types. Italian food as a genre has lots and lots of options and pizza is a top ranked contender for favourite food. But I love the richness of German foods. And my experiences of eating in both countries has always been more pleasurable in Germany.

    33. Re:They can be tried again, I think? by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      I try to be. I just love their food. A love things like the venison and the boar. Their Schnitzels and sausages and their heavy heavy breads.

      It just sits well with me.

      Perhaps as well a big factor is that my experiences in Germany have always been positive. I have always got on well with the people and the place. My experiences in Italy have left a lot to be desired. To the point that on one of our trips through Italy we decided after a week we had had enough and drove to Austria for a break.

    34. Re:They can be tried again, I think? by cpotoso · · Score: 1

      Good explanation. I think italian food is incredibly better, but the way they treat you in Italy leaves a lot to be desired. I remember in the old days pre-Euro, that we exchanged USD to all sorts of currencies and only in Italy we felt they were trying to always get the best of us... We had similar negative experiences in the Czech republic some 3 years ago.

    35. Re:They can be tried again, I think? by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      I did a 10 week motorcycle trip around Europe with my now wife. We camped our way from Spain to Greece and every where in between. In Greece I got horribly horribly lost and asked for directions from some construction guys upgrading a road. When I couldn't understand their directions due to language barriers they jumped in a car and said follow us. They drove 20 minutes out of their way to get me to the next town.

      In Hungry I broke the charger for our digital camera. I walked into an electronic shop and mimed if they had a replacement. The answer was no but they wrote an address on a piece of paper and gave me rough directions. I followed the direction, starting to feel I was getting off the beaten path and stopped an elderly woman walking the other way. I spoke to her in broken German and I showed her the note, she walked me to the shop.

      In France I needed new brake pads for my bike. I asked at the reception of a hotel if they knew where a motorcycle shop was. The concierge drove me to a shop 5 minutes away, and explained to the dealer what I needed (he spoke perfect English, my French kinda sucked). Then drove me back.

      In Italy I asked a group of older gentlemen sitting playing Chess on the water front if they knew where a campsite was near by. They turned to a younger man, I'm guessing a grand son, and asked him. His response... Looked me straight in the eye and said "F&ck off". Kinda came as a shock that one.

      Not saying my experience is anything other than anecdotal, but after going through 22 countries the ONLY negative experiences we had with people were in Italy (there were a couple of others but this post is long enough already).

      I have been to Prague twice and loved it each time, though this was back in 2003 & 2004 so times may have changed.

  3. SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by lesincompetent · · Score: 5, Informative

    Will you ever get it right? Will you ever get the fucking title right?
    They did not fail to predict.
    They said we (yes, i was there at the time) could stay home since the likelihood of a strong earthquake was not heightened by the preceeding MONTHS-long swarm.

    1. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm glad someone pointed this out. I don't know why no one can get this right. There is a huge difference between failing to predict something would happen, and predicting that something IS NOT going to happen.

    2. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Vihai · · Score: 1, Interesting



      You may repeat as many times you want that but you may easilly deduct from the 1st grade conviction that if the earthquake did not happen they would not be indicted and their behaviour would have been considered appropriate.

      It's easy to point out the wrong information *after* the facts....

      What they said was that the seismic swarm was not indicative of a strong earthquake coming. So, if the population was fine before the long seismic swarm they do not have any reason to be more alarmed than usual and thus they may go back and behave a usual.

      That is something that anyone whould have said in a very alarmed situation with people yelling of an imminent earthquake, newspapers spreading alarmism, etc... and with good reason because people sleeping in their cars and living outside the houses do suffer and it is important to avoid such suffering if the behaviour is not backed by any evidence.

    3. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "could stay home since the likelihood of a strong earthquake was not heightened by the preceeding MONTHS-long swarm."

      And that was, and still is, the correct scientific conclusion. A conclusion supported by thousands of scientists world-wide: the occurrence of the earthquake swarm neither increased, nor decreased, the probability of a major earthquake. What part of "we can't predict the timing of major earthquakes" are you failing to understand?

      If anyone was at fault it was municipal authorities who let people continue to live in centuries-old substandard buildings when they knew that someday, eventually, a major quake would happen just as it had happened previously in L'Aquila over the centuries. The earthquake swarm was irrelevant to that risk, which was still there as always. When the scientists told people to go home, it was go home to the same non-zero risk of a major quake that you face every day you live there.

    4. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But that's not what they said. They said the risk had not changed because of the earthquake swarm. That's very different from saying there's no risk. No sane scientist would say there was no risk of earthquakes anywhere in Italy. It's a tectonically active area. There is ALWAYS a risk.

      It's like saying that an earthquake isn't going to happen in California tomorrow. NOBODY is going to say that for any reason, because there is no reason why one couldn't happen tomorrow no matter what happened today, earthquake swarm or not.

      Large commercial airplane crashes are also rare. If there was a crash of a small plane yesterday, would you say that the risk of a major plane crash today was increased? There's no reason to expect any link. If someone asked a flight attendant "In light of the small plane that crashed at this airport yesterday, is the risk of a major plane crash today increased?" They'd probably say "no". That doesn't mean they'd say there is no risk. People might be worried because the thought of a plane crash was foremost in their thoughts thanks to the previous day's events. But there's no *rational* reason to expect an increased risk.

      So if the plane crashed, would you sue the flight attendant for manslaughter for misleading the passenger into thinking there was no risk? No, you'd say the passenger was not listening carefully.

      Why is this so hard to understand?

    5. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shuddup. Yuo git what yuo paiy fore.

    6. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Informative

      Will you ever get it right? Will you ever get the fucking title right?
        They did not fail to predict.
        They said we (yes, i was there at the time) could stay home since the likelihood of a strong earthquake was not heightened by the preceeding MONTHS-long swarm.

      And the distinction is?

      If there was a well established method for predicting earthquakes that they ignored. Sure, fine then.
      But there's no current way to predict earthquakes that isn't better than a divining rod. So you have to fall back on statistics which say you're probably safer staying home. Thousands of people tracking half way across the country are more likely to get hurt on the road than in an earthquake at home.

    7. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I think the conviction was ridiculous but the scientists don't get off scot free either. They said reassuring things in public that they shouldn't have, and I think a fair bit of ego got in the way; scientists do have egos too.

    8. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if the plane crashed, would you sue the flight attendant for manslaughter for misleading the passenger into thinking there was no risk? No, you'd say the passenger was not listening carefully.

      Why is this so hard to understand?

      It was hard for someone to understand because they want someone to blame. And if you were looking to blame someone, you are not going to understand something to the contrary.

      And in your example above, yes, some people will definitely sue that flight attendant.

    9. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is NOT THEIR JOB to predict the future. It is their job to review the evidence and apply the well-established analytical techniques to it, and from that make an assessment of risk.

      They did that correctly. Any other competent scientist, in their place, would have done the exact same thing.

      It's not like they threw all evidence aside and just whimsically made a pronouncement. It's not like they didn't bother to do their homework, or maliciously lied about what the evidence said. If they had done these things, maybe some charges would be warranted. But they didn't do these things. They did their jobs exactly as defined.

      They are guiltless.

    10. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And the distinction is?

      The distinction is that they didn't know if it was safer or not, so they should have said "we don't know" in the most reassuring way possible. Instead they tried to look smarter than they were and ended up being badly wrong.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "could stay home since the likelihood of a strong earthquake was not heightened by the preceeding MONTHS-long swarm."

      And that was, and still is, the correct scientific conclusion. A conclusion supported by thousands of scientists world-wide: the occurrence of the earthquake swarm neither increased, nor decreased, the probability of a major earthquake.

      Oh, ffs, this article is barely on page 2 on this very same site:
      http://science.slashdot.org/st...

    12. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      How do you know they ended up being badly wrong?

      Do you have some information that shows that small earthquake swarms lead to a greater chance of a big earthquake?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    13. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Italian here. This is not really correct. You can read more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_L'Aquila_earthquake#Prosecutionshere but this is more or less what happened:

      L'aquila is a town located in a high-seismicity area. Small tremors happen monthly/weekly.

      In 2009 there was a period of intensification of the seismic activity, but nothing really out-of-the-norm.

      Then there was this guy, Giampaolo Giuliani, a lab technician at an Italian science facility, who claimed that he could predict an imminent strong earthquake on the site in the next few days. His autonomous research involved the detection of ground radon before the big shock. Now, consider the following:

        - earthquake prediction by radon leakage is no new science, it dates back to the 70's; although correlations have been found, the method has never proven to be efficient enough to predict earthquakes;

        - at any given point in time, there are countless self-acclaimed prophets predicting an imminent earthquake; since earthquakes eventually DO happen, it turns out that some of these predictions turn true, by sheer statistics;

        - the guy above had already been reported to the authorities for spreding these kind of claims in other circumstances in the past - forecasts which never realized.

      Now, after the L'Aquila tremors, this guy went public with his claims, and this spread panic in the population. What the Civil Protection did, then, in an effort to calm down the people on the streets, was to arrange a press conference where these six scientists were called to debunk the claims. Eventually, when the earthquake happened, the ignorant populistic machine of Italy (God, how am I ashamed) found in those six scientists the perfect scapegoat.

      Maybe the only guy who was overzealous in his declaration was Bernardo De Bernardinis, who claimed that "there was no danger" - and, still, this is far from being comparable to manslaughter.

      In any case, Italy is the country where for three years the vice-president of the CNR (National Research Centre) was a self-acclaimed Creationist acquainted with Berlusconi. I am happy I moved to Germany.

    14. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you know they ended up being badly wrong?

      Do you have some information that shows that small earthquake swarms lead to a greater chance of a big earthquake?

      First there is some evidence that smaller earthquakes preceed bigger one. You can, e.g., read the Wikipedia page about Earthquake prediction.

      Second the statment used by the researches, "It's good to have many small earthquakes because it reduces the energy of the possibly big one", is just wrong. The small earthquakes do not reduce the energy of the big one subtantially as scale is logarithmic. Eq. you need around 300 of magnitude 4 earthquakes to reduce the energy of magnitude 6.3 earhquake by 10%

    15. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "could stay home since the likelihood of a strong earthquake was not heightened by the preceeding MONTHS-long swarm."

      And that was, and still is, the correct scientific conclusion.

      No; The correct conclusion was; "we do not know what effect these earthquakes could have had" and "sometimes earthquakes are preceeded by a shock and sometimes not; probably the period just after a shock is more dangerous than a few weeks later". The correct advice was "rebuild your most dangerous buildings since they aren't suitable for an earthquake zone". Compare the advice given in the other AC's linked article

      This does not necessarily mean a big one will come, state seismologists said, but they added that it's good to be prepared, just in case.

      That's what a competent earth quake organisation says.

    16. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you know they ended up being badly wrong?

      The people died. They were wrong. There is a legal principle, the eggshell skull which says that you are responsible for consequences of knowing deliberate wrong actions, like claiming to know that the probability of an earthquake has not changed when in fact you do not know that, even if you could not have known that those consequences would happen.

    17. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Maybe the only guy who was overzealous in his declaration was Bernardo De Bernardinis, who claimed that "there was no danger" - and, still, this is far from being comparable to manslaughter.

      I never said that it was. It's still irresponsible and unacceptable behavior.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    18. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. You go home to the same high-risk earthquake zone that you did before this earthquake swarm began. L'Aquila is in the highest-risk zone in Italy. But there was nothing in that earthquake swarm that was predicting an imminent major earthquake. It's an opportunity for education about the risk that people already faced every day.

    19. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They said that, in the relevant meeting. One of the scientists specifically said that L'Aquila was in the highest-risk earthquake zone. They showed the hazard map for Italy and pointed to where L'Aquila was: the highest risk zone. It's silly that anybody could leave that meeting with the impression that there was NO risk of an earthquake.

    20. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by hendrips · · Score: 2

      And they were exactly right to do so. There is no scientifically accepted method to reliably predict earthquakes. There no scientifically accepted method to reliably predict increases in major earthquake risk over short periods of time. Period.

      I work in the property & casualty insurance field. You seem to think that these seismologists should have known about some sort of method to detect an increased risk of a major earthquake. Can you tell me what this method is?

      Seriously, if you could give my employer a method that reliably calculates increases in earthquake risk based on recent seismic activity, they would pay you 10 billion dollars. I am not even slightly joking about this.

    21. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Probability isn't binary: if the earthquake was 0.001% likely to occur, and they said it was unlikely to occur, it could happen. If, after the swarm, it was still 0.001% likely to occur, then the probability hadn't changed; yet, in 1 out of 1000 cases, it would occur anyway.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    22. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      when there's no consensus on the matter one way or the other, you'll have people saying both things.

      I don't think there's a consensus that earthquake swarms predict large earthquakes. But it's always better to be prepared than not, so everybody should say, "we don't know, but make sure you're ready"

    23. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      they didn't say a damn thing, the government official reinterpreted their words and said on their behalf.

    24. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      :) fuck, if the insurance providers don't think there's a reliable way, then yeah... there's no fucking way to predict earthquakes.

      When real money gets involved, all the bullshit falls away.

    25. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      The people died. They were wrong.

      Did the scientists say that an earthquake would not happen? Can you point to specific statements by the geologists that there was no risk of an earthquake?

    26. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Why is this so hard to understand?

      Because they did not sit there and say that the risk had not changed and there was no way to know if there would be an earthquake or not. If they had kept saying that or just never had their press conference to begin with, they would have been fine. In previous /. stories on there, there were the transcripts of the public meeting. They started off by saying that there was no way to tell if there was any way to tell if there would be an earthquake or not, but under the pressure of public questioning to answer yes or no to something they don't know, they finally caved and gave an answer that seemed to the listeners to be a "no". In the end they said something along the lines of "Don't worry about it. Go home and have a glass of wine."

  4. Amanda Knox? by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    Let's hope they also overturn the Amanda Knox conviction. The evidence against her is rather weak. It appears she did lie, but perhaps because she was scared and was trying not to get framed by spinning her story. Reduce her sentence to lying in court, which she already spent the time for, anyhow.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
    1. Re:Amanda Knox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reduce her sentence to lying in court

      She didn't lie in court. She lied in a police interrogation room after being deprived of sleep for 36 hours.

    2. Re:Amanda Knox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Isn't that torture?

    3. Re:Amanda Knox? by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not if you hire Cheney's lawyers.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    4. Re:Amanda Knox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      She's already publicly stated that she will never return to the Italian court system. Currently she's a reporter for a small newspaper.

    5. Re:Amanda Knox? by JeffAtl · · Score: 1

      After sleep deprivation torture, people will say anything.

    6. Re:Amanda Knox? by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      Yes. Plea bargains are also torture. They threaten greater harm if you don't confess. That's the original definition of torture. The harm wasn't the torture, the threat of harm for not confessing was torture.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    7. Re:Amanda Knox? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Unless you're tortured to get a plea bargain, a plea bargain is not torture. It is often coercion, and can be wrong for all those sorts of non-torturous reasons. But threatening someone with jail unless they accept a plea bargain is not torture -- that just waters down the definition of torture.

    8. Re:Amanda Knox? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Unless you're tortured to get a plea bargain, a plea bargain is not torture.

      Define "torture". Threat of pain/punishment to extract a confession was the original definition of it (from the Inquisition), and that's what a plea bargain is. "You will be anally raped if you don't confess" is not an uncommon torture statement. That in the Inquisition their threats of pain were immediately replaced by actual pain doesn't change the meaning of the word, just the context.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
  5. Blatantly wrong summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    They weren't accused of "not warning about an earthquake", let alone failing to predict it. They were accused of not taking in adequate consideration earthquake warnings coming from other experts.

    Just avoid reporting a story if you don't even know what you are talking about. And since this story is from Italy, get informed on Italian media about it.

    1. Re:Blatantly wrong summary by Vihai · · Score: 1

      Except for the fact that other "experts" were kooks who weren't able to predict anything.

    2. Re:Blatantly wrong summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean berlusconi media. I can see how the confusion happens.

    3. Re:Blatantly wrong summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't taken much consideration of the 'experts' in LNER, like Rossi and his eCat, and the various other 'independent' verification of it - thus far I haven't really been proven wrong in my assessment that Rossi (an Italian by the way) and his 'invention' are a fraud, and none of the 'independent' verification has really been all that scientific or truly independent.

      Now maybe tomorrow someone will prove me wrong, but thus far IMHO it's nothing but a fraud.

    4. Re:Blatantly wrong summary by tysonedwards · · Score: 1

      That is ultimately the problem. Once things get to the point where the courts are involved, much like scientific debates depicted on television, they are reduced to 1 person for, and 1 person against, and are largely not representative of the consensus of the scientific community as a whole. The format combined with subject matter that most people choose not to attempt to understand creates the illusion that there is still cause for discussion on the matter and that one crackpot saying "I can predict big earthquakes, and so can you! Look at this data, there was all of these events going on for months, so why wouldn't they think that there was something going on in a seismically active region?" versus the 99 others saying "Here are 500 other instances where in this very city, these same conditions were present and absolutely nothing happened. If we alerted everyone, everywhere every time that there was a minor event based off of the potential that something *could* happen, there would be no credibility when at some point in the future we have adequate technology and understanding to predict these events!" And that is ultimately the problem, out of an emphasis of "fairness", both sides are given equal time and their information presented is gauged based off of which is more plausible for a layman to understand and are most compatible with their social biases and prejudices. It ceases to be about which side is right but rather which side is more likable and most compatible with the political and social viewpoints of the community.

      --
      Thirty four characters live here.
    5. Re:Blatantly wrong summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for the fact that other "experts" were kooks who weren't able to predict anything.

      Except that you're wrong. They actually predicted it, and it actually happened. And nobody cared about their warnings. And that's exactly why the entire investigation started.

    6. Re:Blatantly wrong summary by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      apparently he's predicted a lot of other earthquakes before. and this is the first one that actually came to pass.

  6. Italy is still a corrupt shithole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great.

  7. phew! by PaulMattSutter · · Score: 2

    As a scientist, I can breathe a sigh of relief: I can finally go back to not double-chorking my results!

  8. Re: What about 'mainstream economists'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Roman, it's silly for you to say "I would argue". And inaccurate too. You should say "I would witter inanely", which is much more accurate

  9. Re:What about 'mainstream economists'? by the+gnat · · Score: 1

    So, basically, we should criminally prosecute anyone whose views disagree with your political biases?

  10. Bizarre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I never considered Italy a 3rd world country before. I would understand African tribal villagers with no exposure to science, but Italy?

  11. Never out of style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Looking for a scapegoat is never out of style. Also look how politicians from Maine handled Ebola quarantine. Scientifically she was Ebola free however it was a better political move to act as if there was danger, just in case.

    1. Re:Never out of style by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      :) quarantine to avoid spreading a disease, or quarantine to avoid a panic. Both are valid in my opinion.

      We're not all scientists, and therein lies the problem no? you must account for the less scientifically literate members of a population too.

  12. In the US, the State gets ONE shot. by mmell · · Score: 1

    We like it that way here.

    1. Re: In the US, the State gets ONE shot. by mmell · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but a couple hundred years ago we fought for this.

    2. Re:In the US, the State gets ONE shot. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      We like it that way here.

      The one shot thing is good. The plea bargaining thing is insanely awful.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    3. Re:In the US, the State gets ONE shot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We like it that way here.

      The existence courts of appeal is a feature, not a bug.

  13. Of course they aren't... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Who in their right mind would judge them for a natural occurrence... It might be their job, but they aren't Gods either.

    1. Re:Of course they aren't... by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      they could have gone to the Pope and asked him to have a chat with his employer and ask whether the earthquake would happen.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  14. Not good enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The people responsible for the original sentencing and prosecution need to be executed. We can't have dangerous psychopaths in positions of power.

  15. Failing to predict wasn't the problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The main problem was that they denied the risk of an earthquake.

    The problem started when a hobby earthquake guy watched measurements and noticed increased activity. He then wrote online about increased stress and that a big earthquake was imminent. People panicked and started fleeing the city. The later convicted people then showed up in public as national experts to tell people that there would not be an earthquake, people should return home and resume normal life. The earthquake then hit less than a week.after that.

    The problem here is that it is easy to look back and say that the first guy was right. However the background earthquake noise is far from constant and it is rather common to see spikes of activity. Most of the time those spikes will stop and nothing happens and while they do indicate that the risk of an earthquake has increased, the probability still indicates that it will not happen. It is kind of like the statement that the risk of being hit by fireworks is higher at new years eve than it is on any other day. While the statement is true, the majority of people still avoids being hit and as such is almost useless to tell if a specific person will be hit.

    The reason for the conviction is not that they failed to predict the earthquake. The problem was that they stated that they were 100% sure it wouldn't happen. If they had said that the risk had increased from 1% to 4% (or whatever the numbers were) and used that to state that it was really unlikely, then they would likely not have been convicted in the first place.

  16. Only in Italy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Convict someone of manslaughter because the crystal ball didn't predict an earthquake. Yup, good thing it wasn't in the U.S. or the lawyers would be making lots of money suing science. Reminds me of the Italian wanting his car repaired so it would never breakdown, and spent the amount of getting a brand new car in repairs because he was paranoid about breaking down. Fix It Again Tony.

  17. Not good enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The people responsible for the original sentencing and prosecution need to be executed. We can't have dangerous psychopaths in positions of power.

    True, but they're the only people who want the job.

  18. Re:What about 'mainstream economists'? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

    How would this be different from current law in most, if not all, nations?

  19. Re:What about 'mainstream economists'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Such a waste...

    A single bullet to the back of the head would be much more expedient and economical.

  20. In the US, the State gets ONE shot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah man. And the State really uses it. First threaten a life in prison, then offer a plea for two years. For something you didn't do. Then threaten to drag the case for 10 years and melt your money, which you don't even have anymore because it was confiscated as evidence by the state. Also the whole case exists only because some attorney wants to be a mayor. Best idea ever to VOTE this kind of people in. "Show us how tought you are on crime, YEAH, throw some innocents to jail! M'urica fuck yeah! 1% of population in prison, fuck yeah!"

  21. Re:What about 'mainstream economists'? by Barsteward · · Score: 1

    don't let us stop you experimenting on yourself..

    --
    "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  22. Randy Marsh is a bad role model by magusxxx · · Score: 1

    What pop stars were they pretending to be instead of doing their jobs?

    --
    Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
  23. the real issue by jjohn_h · · Score: 2

    The scientists did not stand accused of failing to warn against an earthquake. Not at all. Legend.

    They were accused to have encouraged the town of Aquila to disregard threatening tremors and stay safely at home.

    The town followed 'their' recommendation against the century old habits in an earthquake-prone region to run out and wait in the open air. Result was more then 300 deads.

    The appeal court has decided that the fatal recommendations did not come from the scientists but from the inept, corrupt, opportunistic bureaucracy. Doubts about this version linger on.

  24. the real issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An century old habbit should have been converted into better building codes, perhaps?

  25. Misleading title by mgf64 · · Score: 2

    Actually the summary is an invention. They were accused of stating that there was no possibility of harm, that people should have remained at home. I.e.: they released false and fatally flawed recommendations for political reasons. It was well known that the region was at risk due to historical evidence.

  26. Amanda Fox: SACRIFICE on alter needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don Vito said. Earthquake is one thing, but a virgin killer we will not stand-for.

  27. Amanda Knox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She did not just lie. She falsely incriminated a completely innocent man. She also concocted a false alibi with her boy-friend. The forensic evidence against her is fairly strong, although not conclusive. I believe that Italy's Supreme Court (the Court of Cassation) will consider the case as carefully as any other similar body in Europe, and will come to a conclusion based solely on the evidence before them. I do not believe her nationality will have the slightest effect on their judgement.

  28. well they certainly could be liable tho'. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Government scientists/officials have certain duties. If they fail, due to negligence or misconduct in a serious way, they should face criminal punishment.

    obamasweapon.com

  29. That's crap by jennatalia · · Score: 0

    I knew a guy who was killed in a tornado. Scientists didn't warn anyone a tornado was going to be near him. All those scientists should be in jail. What about Hurricanes? Jail. What about floods? Jail. Lightning? Jail. ISIS? Jail. Ebola? Jail. Wal-Martians? Jail.

  30. -3K Years, They Got Off Lightly by tmjva · · Score: 1

    Versus Three Thousand Years Ago.

    We all know would have happened to false prophets!

    --
    Tracy Johnson
    Old fashioned text games hosted below:
    http://empire.openmpe.com/
    BT
  31. Re:What about 'mainstream economists'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why? I don't disagree with my own political biases... but since you're here, turn around, please

  32. Bad Ruling - Slippery Slope by david999 · · Score: 0

    If they let this ruling stand then they will not burn witches next!!