According to Nature the report "suggests" the images "may have been intentionally altered". Notice the wording, 'suggests' and 'may have been', so according to Nature the report does not 'say' there is evidence. I don't know why the organizer is misrepresenting the report, or why he organized the thing in the first place.
On the second point, maybe it'll take more to convince me than a personal internet post from someone who claims he found evidence. Notice Nature is being careful to not say they think the images have or not been manipulated.
The double quote marks are to specify that the word is the actual word that Nature used.
"Tommaso Russo, a molecular biologist at the University of Naples who is responsible for coordinating the investigation, told Nature that the committee has found that the papers contain intentional data manipulation."
He's commenting on leaked allegations of a confidential investigation that "suggest that images in the papers may have been intentionally altered" -- this isn't evidence of anything.
"On 14 January, Bucci posted online his analysis of the papers under investigation, as well as of four more papers on GM feed co-authored by Infascelli, and a PhD thesis from Infascelli’s lab. The analysis claims evidence for image manipulation in all eight papers. Bucci has informed the rector and Infascelli of his findings"
He "commissioned" a lab to give him a report on the papers, and then posted his "analysis"/"claims" on the Internet -- again this isn't anywhere near evidence of something.
"and someone paid them some money to do **it** too, most likely"
but there is no evidence of fraud or even misconduct, this is it:
"one of the three papers under investigation has been retracted [...] with a citation of “self-plagiarism”. However, the journal noted that the results were still valid and that it considered the issues an “honest error” -Nature.com
"one of the three papers under investigation has been retracted [...] with a citation of “self-plagiarism”. However, the journal noted that the results were still valid and that it considered the issues an “honest error” -Nature.com
"All the evidence points to this being a pretty serious case of academic fraud."
There are allusions to fraud but no evidence: "sections of images of electrophoresis gels appeared to have been obliterated, and some of the images in different papers appeared to be identical but with captions describing different experiments" -Nature.com
And the seriousness is very low "one of the three papers under investigation has been retracted [...] with a citation of “self-plagiarism”. However, the journal noted that the results were still valid and that it considered the issues an “honest error” -Nature.com
"it does clearly state that images in the papers mentioned have clearly been altered or in some cases reused "
From Nature journal:
"sections of images of electrophoresis gels appeared to have been obliterated, and some of the images in different papers appeared to be identical but with captions describing different experiments"
When I read it I was charitable so i got the main thrust, but it still infected my understanding, kind of like stepping on a spot of dried up soft drink on the hallway floor, your mind gets sided tracked for a second but you still get to where you were going.
"So now the definition of "harassment" in your mind is touching and not just asking someone out or complementing them?":)
I meant touch, like as in physical contact with his hand, and I suppose what he seems to be saying is that he feared he would not be able to stop touching her once he started, even if she said stop it.
"Good guys that care about feelings these days pretty much have to completely avoid women at work for fear they will I inadvertently do something they will take as "harassment" like smiling at them"
If that is what he really feared then he would have to stop coming into contact with all woman because if he didn't avoid all women then the women he did avoid and who repeatedly noticed it could accuse him harassment.
"The adviser wanted to protect her, and eliminate the chance of non-consensual contact between the two"
If a professor fears losing control and touching people who don't want to be touched then the first thing he should do is go to the emergency and seek medical help.
I'm also discussing those who've done it when there's no laws to prevent it, and those who've done it when or where there's been simply no government present.
Ok, I answered the first paragraph, I didn't answer the second paragraph because it just seemed thrown in to divert attention (and well done at that), but if you want me too answer it I will, so here goes
"Are you prepared to tell me that all 1,000 redacted emails consisted entirely of material that was improperly marked BEFORE it was sent in emails through the secret"
No, why would I, who's claiming that all of the redacted emails were originally marked as classified.
You said "Clinton aides stripped the markings that indicated that the material was SCI before sending it through the server"
I said "Can you backup your claim?"
You responded "Clinton aides were the only ones who had accounts on the server. Anyone who introduced information to the server was either Clinton or one of her aides"
But that's besides the point, in other words it doesn't backup your claim or answer why you think the markings weren't removed before Clinton's aides got their hands on the information.
Slashdot Mirror
"there are open discussions going on about what happened. It looks pretty bad"
?
"I apologize for overstating your position"
Then please stop doing it.
"there are open discussions going on about what happened. It looks pretty bad"
?
Lying? Your reading too much into what I said.
As far as the Nature news piece goes I think your reading way too much into it too. Let's wait and see.
According to Nature the report "suggests" the images "may have been intentionally altered". Notice the wording, 'suggests' and 'may have been', so according to Nature the report does not 'say' there is evidence. I don't know why the organizer is misrepresenting the report, or why he organized the thing in the first place.
On the second point, maybe it'll take more to convince me than a personal internet post from someone who claims he found evidence. Notice Nature is being careful to not say they think the images have or not been manipulated.
The double quote marks are to specify that the word is the actual word that Nature used.
I think I'm reading pretty well
"Tommaso Russo, a molecular biologist at the University of Naples who is responsible for coordinating the investigation, told Nature that the committee has found that the papers contain intentional data manipulation."
He's commenting on leaked allegations of a confidential investigation that "suggest that images in the papers may have been intentionally altered" -- this isn't evidence of anything.
"On 14 January, Bucci posted online his analysis of the papers under investigation, as well as of four more papers on GM feed co-authored by Infascelli, and a PhD thesis from Infascelli’s lab. The analysis claims evidence for image manipulation in all eight papers. Bucci has informed the rector and Infascelli of his findings"
He "commissioned" a lab to give him a report on the papers, and then posted his "analysis"/"claims" on the Internet -- again this isn't anywhere near evidence of something.
"and someone paid them some money to do **it** too, most likely"
but there is no evidence of fraud or even misconduct, this is it:
"one of the three papers under investigation has been retracted [...] with a citation of “self-plagiarism”. However, the journal noted that the results were still valid and that it considered the issues an “honest error” -Nature.com
"one of the three papers under investigation has been retracted [...] with a citation of “self-plagiarism”. However, the journal noted that the results were still valid and that it considered the issues an “honest error” -Nature.com
Beyond that there is little evidence of anything
"All the evidence points to this being a pretty serious case of academic fraud."
There are allusions to fraud but no evidence: "sections of images of electrophoresis gels appeared to have been obliterated, and some of the images in different papers appeared to be identical but with captions describing different experiments" -Nature.com
And the seriousness is very low "one of the three papers under investigation has been retracted [...] with a citation of “self-plagiarism”. However, the journal noted that the results were still valid and that it considered the issues an “honest error” -Nature.com
"it does clearly state that images in the papers mentioned have clearly been altered or in some cases reused "
From Nature journal:
"sections of images of electrophoresis gels appeared to have been obliterated, and some of the images in different papers appeared to be identical but with captions describing different experiments"
Oh, thanks.
"does it leave the main thrust intact"
When I read it I was charitable so i got the main thrust, but it still infected my understanding, kind of like stepping on a spot of dried up soft drink on the hallway floor, your mind gets sided tracked for a second but you still get to where you were going.
Do you mean if you pay them they'll tweak the benchmark for you?
Yes, but whom is *really* on the wrong path
Many take the wrong path
"So now the definition of "harassment" in your mind is touching and not just asking someone out or complementing them?" :)
I meant touch, like as in physical contact with his hand, and I suppose what he seems to be saying is that he feared he would not be able to stop touching her once he started, even if she said stop it.
"Good guys that care about feelings these days pretty much have to completely avoid women at work for fear they will I inadvertently do something they will take as "harassment" like smiling at them"
If that is what he really feared then he would have to stop coming into contact with all woman because if he didn't avoid all women then the women he did avoid and who repeatedly noticed it could accuse him harassment.
:)
"The adviser wanted to protect her, and eliminate the chance of non-consensual contact between the two"
If a professor fears losing control and touching people who don't want to be touched then the first thing he should do is go to the emergency and seek medical help.
"I'm not discussing those who break the law.... "
I am.
I'm also discussing those who've done it when there's no laws to prevent it, and those who've done it when or where there's been simply no government present.
" We should fear the government more, it can take more.... "
Corporations, can, and have taken the same.
Full stop
What politically embarrassing item could that be?
That the water quality led directly or indirectly to the dolphins death, kind of like the beluga situation in the St-Laurence river
And yours?
"You've really never lived have you"
What does 'really' mean here and why would 'drinking alcohol' be needed to do it.
Ok, I answered the first paragraph, I didn't answer the second paragraph because it just seemed thrown in to divert attention (and well done at that), but if you want me too answer it I will, so here goes
"Are you prepared to tell me that all 1,000 redacted emails consisted entirely of material that was improperly marked BEFORE it was sent in emails through the secret"
No, why would I, who's claiming that all of the redacted emails were originally marked as classified.
---
You said "Clinton aides stripped the markings that indicated that the material was SCI before sending it through the server"
I said "Can you backup your claim?"
You responded "Clinton aides were the only ones who had accounts on the server. Anyone who introduced information to the server was either Clinton or one of her aides"
But that's besides the point, in other words it doesn't backup your claim or answer why you think the markings weren't removed before Clinton's aides got their hands on the information.
---
"Clinton aides stripped the markings that indicated that the material was SCI before sending it through the server"
Can you backup your claim?
"That doesn't change the fact that the material was still SCI, even without the markings"
Well obviously that's not a defense
"illegal because it was set up in the first place to evade FOIA"
Speculation on your part?
"make it easier for her to illicitly fund her political operation through the Clinton Foundation"
Speculation on your part?