So, you seem to think that a bigger, less responsive government is more likely to care for the environment more than a level of government that has to actually live with the consequences. That people who will be only minimally effected by the results of what happens are more likely to make the best decision for the future than the people whose children will have to live with the results? Wow, I just don't know what world you live in, but it is not the world I have experienced. My experience is that the people who must deal with the consequences of an action are the ones most likely to make the best decisions about that action.
I have expected Dice to kill slashdot ever since I heard that they bought it because I cannot imagine anyway to make slashdot a profit center. The best I can see is for it to do is to pay for itself and perhaps a little bit more, but not enough return to justify it to the accountants. I think if I was in Dice management I could make a case for it on the basis of the good will it generates and the ability to data mine it to predict technology trends (the only reason to actually capture user information in this would be in order to weight some user's opinions more heavily than others). However, I don't see how that could possibly justify the amount they spent on it, which means they will have to try to remake it into something which generates greater revenue....something I believe to be impossible.
It depends on how law enforcement first came into contact with those that were arrested. The article is somewhat ambiguous about how these guys came to the attention of law enforcement. It does appear that the only real crime these guys committed was being "unlawful money transmitters", which seems like a crime that should not exist to me. When the undercover agent told them that they wanted the bitcoins in order to do something illegal, they should have told them, "Sorry, I will not do business with you." Not because I think that they should legally have to care, but because people who genuinely want bitcoins to do something illegal are not likely to tell you that. This suggests that the person who is telling you his reasons is something other than someone who wants to conduct a transaction. It also seems likely that the reason they presented that they wanted to use the bitcoins for something illegal was because they doubted a jury would have convicted the men on the "unlawful money transmitters" charge.
Ultimately, I do not know if this was entrapment by the legal definition, but it does seem like a waste of law enforcement resources.
Yes, and then the people of West Virginia can decide if the consequences of the regulation are of greater loss to them than the consequences of lack of regulation. You see the difference is that it is the people who suffer the consequences either way who ought to be deciding, not people hundreds and more miles away who suffer little or no harm either way. They still hold elections in West Virginia. You know, sometimes people make bad choices, but they should be free to do so, because it is very hard for someone else to truly know what decision will lead to the greatest happiness for someone else.
So, you think that is OK to base regulations on scientific studies with results that no one can reproduce?
And no, I don't think Congress gives two fucks about the environment. They care about re-election and setting up cushy post-political careers, and will accordingly dance on the strings of powerful people who have much to gain and very little to lose by letting the status quo play itself out, even if that means the global climate goes to hell and 90% of the worlds population dies in famine and war over the next century or two.
As opposed to government bureaucrats who have all of the same motivations and NOTHING to lose by by increasing the power of government over individuals, and lots to gain, even if that means that the climate goes to hell and 90% of the world's populations dies in famine and war over the next decade or two.
Then he should support the bill, since the impetus behind this bill was the refusal of the EPA to provide Congress with the science behind its latest change in regulations under the Clean Air Act.
So, was the information contained in that article wrong? The link quoted from a statement released by Lamar Smith. Here is another link to the same statement: http://science.house.gov/sites...
Hmmm, I don't see anything different there. So, is he lying? Or did the EPA fail to provide Congress with the science behind their new regulations?
Do you really believe that the people who run the EPA care any more for the environment than the people in Congress who have to face elections?
Did you READ the bill, which was linked to in the summary? can you point out to me what part of this bill is more objectionable than the EPA implementing regulatory changes on the basis of scientific studies which they refuse to release, even to Congress?
So, it's OK with you that the EPA is making regulations on the basis of scientific studies(or at least which they claim are based on those studies) which they refuse to provide to Congress?
While there is some truth to that, in that context, "reproducible" would mean that someone else could look at the same data and follow the data manipulation methods you used to reproduce your results. There have been several climate studies where the researchers either were unable/unwilling to release their data, or they were unable/unwilling to release the methodology they used to process that data. In either case, other scientists were unable to validate that the data supported their conclusions. Such studies should NOT be used to make public policy (although they may be perfectly acceptable as a reason to conduct more open studies).
Did you read the bill? He brought up a complaint about the wording of the bill, I asked him to provide wording which accomplished the declared purpose that was better than that contained in the bill.
The already exists a legal definition of "publicly available". In addition, this law would apply to the EPA, not to the labs which produced the results. That is, it is the EPA which this law requires to make this information publicly available. This bill was created in reaction to the EPA's failure to provide the scientific information upon which it based its revision to Clean Air Act regulations to Congress.
Feel free to suggest an alternative wording that is more to your liking.
Are you saying that it is a bad thing for government regulations to be based on information which the public can actually examine so as to determine whether it actually justifies the regulations?
I understand, and have no problem with, a scientist doing research based on information which they cannot release to the public. However, when they start to use that as a basis for regulating MY behavior, I want to see the evidence behind their claims. It is one thing to say, "You should change your behavior because we have this study which shows that behavior is bad, but we cannot show you the evidence because of an NDA." and another to say, "You are required by law to change your behavior because we have this study which shows that behavior is bad, but we cannot show you the evidence because of an NDA." In the former case, I can decide whether or not I trust the scientist in question enough to change my behavior. In the latter case, I do not have a choice in the matter. This is especially true when the regulation in question seems to fulfill some people's long standing goals, goals which were established long before the study, which I cannot examine, was conducted.
Well, theoretically, but the EPA is in the process of instituting new regulations under the Clean Air Act. Congress has held hearings on those regulations and the EPA promised to send them the studies upon which the regulations are based over two years ago, but have so far failed to do so.
Once this law is passed, if it is passed, it will be much harder to justify opposing similar laws for other regulatory agencies. One thing to point out is that passing such a law for an agency that has been open and forthright about the science behind its regulations is probably a bad idea. However, the EPA has demonstrated an unwillingness to release the data behind at least some of their regulations, making this law necessary.
Because of recent refusals by the EPA to release the science behind new regulations they have instituted, even when that information was requested by Congress.
Did you read the linked bill? Can you point out the language that institutes something other than good science?
You might want to read this link to understand where this bill comes from:http://junkscience.com/2013/08/01/statement-of-chairman-lamar-smith-r-texas-business-meeting-to-consider-epa-subpoena-over-secret-science/
Really? Did you read the law, it is linked in the summary and is about three, widely-spaced, pages long. It is not hard to read, and the language is pretty clear. Please quote the portion that does something different than the sponsors of the bill says it does.
Or maybe we should leave to the government of West Virginia, which is answerable to the people of West Virginia (you know, the people who suffered as a result of the chemical spill), handle these problems?
The proposed law does not say WHO reproduces it, merely that someone MUST be able to reproduce the results. If the EPA can point to another, independent, study which reproduces the results of the first study, it meets those qualifications.
Because I don't care about your "slashcot". If Dice decides to implement the beta in anything like its current form, that will be time enough to stop coming to slashdot. You appear to want me to stop enjoying slashdot while it is in a form I like, because they have talked about changing it to a form I do not like. If Dice decides that the beta is more valuable to them than my participation in slashdot, I will respect their wishes and leave. Until then I will continue to enjoy slashdot.
prohibit the EPA's administrator from proposing or finalizing any rules unless he or she also discloses "all scientific and technical information" relied on by the agency. The only problem? Much of that data is not owned by the government. It's studies and reports made by private businesses and provided to the government. The government does not, in all cases, have the rights to republish. The standard being set is all, so if the EPA finds 10 studies on something, all of which agree it's very, very bad, but can only publish 9 out of 10, it's no go!
No, it means that the EPA can only rely on those 9 studies. If it takes the 10th study, which they cannot disclose, to make the case for the regulation, they cannot make the regulation. When they are challenged in court, they cannot say, "Yes, these 9 studies leave the question open, but the 10th study (which we cannot allow you to view) proves that this regulation is necessary." What it means is that if the EPA makes a regulation, independent scientists need to be able to look at the science it is based on and determine if it is sound science. While it can be misused, you seem to be satisfied with regulations being based on, "Trust us, we're with the government."
Slashdot Mirror
So, you seem to think that a bigger, less responsive government is more likely to care for the environment more than a level of government that has to actually live with the consequences. That people who will be only minimally effected by the results of what happens are more likely to make the best decision for the future than the people whose children will have to live with the results? Wow, I just don't know what world you live in, but it is not the world I have experienced. My experience is that the people who must deal with the consequences of an action are the ones most likely to make the best decisions about that action.
I have expected Dice to kill slashdot ever since I heard that they bought it because I cannot imagine anyway to make slashdot a profit center. The best I can see is for it to do is to pay for itself and perhaps a little bit more, but not enough return to justify it to the accountants. I think if I was in Dice management I could make a case for it on the basis of the good will it generates and the ability to data mine it to predict technology trends (the only reason to actually capture user information in this would be in order to weight some user's opinions more heavily than others). However, I don't see how that could possibly justify the amount they spent on it, which means they will have to try to remake it into something which generates greater revenue....something I believe to be impossible.
It depends on how law enforcement first came into contact with those that were arrested. The article is somewhat ambiguous about how these guys came to the attention of law enforcement. It does appear that the only real crime these guys committed was being "unlawful money transmitters", which seems like a crime that should not exist to me. When the undercover agent told them that they wanted the bitcoins in order to do something illegal, they should have told them, "Sorry, I will not do business with you." Not because I think that they should legally have to care, but because people who genuinely want bitcoins to do something illegal are not likely to tell you that. This suggests that the person who is telling you his reasons is something other than someone who wants to conduct a transaction. It also seems likely that the reason they presented that they wanted to use the bitcoins for something illegal was because they doubted a jury would have convicted the men on the "unlawful money transmitters" charge.
Ultimately, I do not know if this was entrapment by the legal definition, but it does seem like a waste of law enforcement resources.
Yes, and then the people of West Virginia can decide if the consequences of the regulation are of greater loss to them than the consequences of lack of regulation. You see the difference is that it is the people who suffer the consequences either way who ought to be deciding, not people hundreds and more miles away who suffer little or no harm either way. They still hold elections in West Virginia. You know, sometimes people make bad choices, but they should be free to do so, because it is very hard for someone else to truly know what decision will lead to the greatest happiness for someone else.
And no, I don't think Congress gives two fucks about the environment. They care about re-election and setting up cushy post-political careers, and will accordingly dance on the strings of powerful people who have much to gain and very little to lose by letting the status quo play itself out, even if that means the global climate goes to hell and 90% of the worlds population dies in famine and war over the next century or two.
As opposed to government bureaucrats who have all of the same motivations and NOTHING to lose by by increasing the power of government over individuals, and lots to gain, even if that means that the climate goes to hell and 90% of the world's populations dies in famine and war over the next decade or two.
Which (government or industry) do you think would sell out their mother for a dollar?
Both, but if you gave the government a dollar, you are overpaying. They would do it for 50 cents.
So, you are saying that he is lying and the EPA GAVE that information to Congress? Can you provide me with a link supporting that?
Then he should support the bill, since the impetus behind this bill was the refusal of the EPA to provide Congress with the science behind its latest change in regulations under the Clean Air Act.
So, was the information contained in that article wrong? The link quoted from a statement released by Lamar Smith. Here is another link to the same statement: http://science.house.gov/sites...
Hmmm, I don't see anything different there. So, is he lying? Or did the EPA fail to provide Congress with the science behind their new regulations?
Do you really believe that the people who run the EPA care any more for the environment than the people in Congress who have to face elections?
Did you READ the bill, which was linked to in the summary? can you point out to me what part of this bill is more objectionable than the EPA implementing regulatory changes on the basis of scientific studies which they refuse to release, even to Congress?
So, it's OK with you that the EPA is making regulations on the basis of scientific studies(or at least which they claim are based on those studies) which they refuse to provide to Congress?
While there is some truth to that, in that context, "reproducible" would mean that someone else could look at the same data and follow the data manipulation methods you used to reproduce your results. There have been several climate studies where the researchers either were unable/unwilling to release their data, or they were unable/unwilling to release the methodology they used to process that data. In either case, other scientists were unable to validate that the data supported their conclusions. Such studies should NOT be used to make public policy (although they may be perfectly acceptable as a reason to conduct more open studies).
Did you read the bill? He brought up a complaint about the wording of the bill, I asked him to provide wording which accomplished the declared purpose that was better than that contained in the bill.
The already exists a legal definition of "publicly available". In addition, this law would apply to the EPA, not to the labs which produced the results. That is, it is the EPA which this law requires to make this information publicly available. This bill was created in reaction to the EPA's failure to provide the scientific information upon which it based its revision to Clean Air Act regulations to Congress.
Feel free to suggest an alternative wording that is more to your liking.
Trust me, I'm a lawyer.
Yeah, right
Are you saying that it is a bad thing for government regulations to be based on information which the public can actually examine so as to determine whether it actually justifies the regulations?
I understand, and have no problem with, a scientist doing research based on information which they cannot release to the public. However, when they start to use that as a basis for regulating MY behavior, I want to see the evidence behind their claims. It is one thing to say, "You should change your behavior because we have this study which shows that behavior is bad, but we cannot show you the evidence because of an NDA." and another to say, "You are required by law to change your behavior because we have this study which shows that behavior is bad, but we cannot show you the evidence because of an NDA." In the former case, I can decide whether or not I trust the scientist in question enough to change my behavior. In the latter case, I do not have a choice in the matter. This is especially true when the regulation in question seems to fulfill some people's long standing goals, goals which were established long before the study, which I cannot examine, was conducted.
Well, theoretically, but the EPA is in the process of instituting new regulations under the Clean Air Act. Congress has held hearings on those regulations and the EPA promised to send them the studies upon which the regulations are based over two years ago, but have so far failed to do so.
Once this law is passed, if it is passed, it will be much harder to justify opposing similar laws for other regulatory agencies. One thing to point out is that passing such a law for an agency that has been open and forthright about the science behind its regulations is probably a bad idea. However, the EPA has demonstrated an unwillingness to release the data behind at least some of their regulations, making this law necessary.
Because of recent refusals by the EPA to release the science behind new regulations they have instituted, even when that information was requested by Congress.
Did you read the linked bill? Can you point out the language that institutes something other than good science? You might want to read this link to understand where this bill comes from:http://junkscience.com/2013/08/01/statement-of-chairman-lamar-smith-r-texas-business-meeting-to-consider-epa-subpoena-over-secret-science/
Really? Did you read the law, it is linked in the summary and is about three, widely-spaced, pages long. It is not hard to read, and the language is pretty clear. Please quote the portion that does something different than the sponsors of the bill says it does.
Or maybe we should leave to the government of West Virginia, which is answerable to the people of West Virginia (you know, the people who suffered as a result of the chemical spill), handle these problems?
The proposed law does not say WHO reproduces it, merely that someone MUST be able to reproduce the results. If the EPA can point to another, independent, study which reproduces the results of the first study, it meets those qualifications.
Because I don't care about your "slashcot". If Dice decides to implement the beta in anything like its current form, that will be time enough to stop coming to slashdot. You appear to want me to stop enjoying slashdot while it is in a form I like, because they have talked about changing it to a form I do not like. If Dice decides that the beta is more valuable to them than my participation in slashdot, I will respect their wishes and leave. Until then I will continue to enjoy slashdot.
prohibit the EPA's administrator from proposing or finalizing any rules unless he or she also discloses "all scientific and technical information" relied on by the agency. The only problem? Much of that data is not owned by the government. It's studies and reports made by private businesses and provided to the government. The government does not, in all cases, have the rights to republish. The standard being set is all, so if the EPA finds 10 studies on something, all of which agree it's very, very bad, but can only publish 9 out of 10, it's no go!
No, it means that the EPA can only rely on those 9 studies. If it takes the 10th study, which they cannot disclose, to make the case for the regulation, they cannot make the regulation. When they are challenged in court, they cannot say, "Yes, these 9 studies leave the question open, but the 10th study (which we cannot allow you to view) proves that this regulation is necessary." What it means is that if the EPA makes a regulation, independent scientists need to be able to look at the science it is based on and determine if it is sound science. While it can be misused, you seem to be satisfied with regulations being based on, "Trust us, we're with the government."
Did you READ the linked bill? It is one page and amazingly easy to understand. Go read it and then come back and tell us what it says that is crazy.