You take thousands of temperature readings over hundreds of years and come up with trends and that is not statistics?
The model merely jiggers with the numbers, but the statistics ultimately tells you the trend.
For instance in Australia where they too readings from several surrounding stations and came up with numbers for imaginary stations or corrected numbers for real stations... that's not stats?
I'm sure the American spies in Iran appreciate your confidence in the folks at wikileaks.
BTW, who are they? What are their names? How can they be contacted? What are their policies and procedures for taking down inaccurate and/or patently inappropriate information?
As I said, if the protections afforded whistle blowers are inadequate, then get them changed.
And just because you haven't seen the location of US nuclear submarines posted doesn't mean they couldn't be posted does it?
What process does Wikileaks have to check the veracity and evaluate the appropriateness of the information? What keeps them from publishing anything at all? Who is held accountable if the released information results in some tragedy?
Hell, at least the press has some editorial controls and lawyers that can say publishing this is a baaad idea. And they can be held accountable.
What basis do you have to think that morality is absolute?
Well, that's a subject for an entire semester.
Of course, if morality is not absolute or if there is no close approximation to an absolute morality, then the government cannot commit atrocities can it?
So take yer pick:
a) Some things are always wrong and it's justified to release secrets so the people know their government is committing atrocities
b) There is no absolute morality and nothing is inherently wrong. So the government cannot commit "atrocities", it was just being expedient.
If someone does not know if something actually constitutes misconduct, then they should not be leaking.
If they are in a position to know if something does rise to the level of misconduct, or, even if they suspect, then the existing whistler blower laws are in place.
You cannot say that there are secrets that should be kept and at the same time support the unauthorized release of secrets just because someone doesn't think something is not Kosher.
If the whistle blower laws or other means of addressing misconduct are inadequate, change the laws.
Then change the government. That's what elections are for.
But when you do change the government and your imagined horrors are still taking place, then perhaps you should look inward and figure out why all these things you believe to be so terrible are not thought to be so by the people you elected
Of course the flip side is that self-serving individuals and groups will often try to gain political advantage or simply a smug sense of satisfaction and release secrets that could end up getting one or more people killed or otherwise severely impact the nation.
And once you've taken that cork out of the bottle, it becomes extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, to put it back in.
The bottom line is that there are legal and effective ways to bring to light misconduct. Letting just anyone make decisions for the nation about what should and shouldn't be secret is insane.
One thing we all have to count on is law-enforcement and the military taking their oaths to the Constitution seriously. Which means if something like this every does come down from D.C., they will be the one's passing out the firearms to the citizens and telling D.C. to shove it.
And a shout out to all those Slashdotters out there who though Chavez was the best thing since sliced bread and constantly heaped abuse on those of us who saw him for what is was/is.
Just wait. When the feds are paying for your health coverage, there will be much more of this kind of crap.
Every politician who can press the start button on a microwave will think he's smart enough to tell you what, when, where, and how your should eat.
Studies have shown that cutting your calorie intake by 30% of the recommend intake will lengthen your life. How long until some idiot wants to make that a law "for the good of the people"?
Slashdot Mirror
At least you have many CEO's to choose from. You only have one government and no choice.
"I'm not dead yet!"
"I"m feeling better!"
Apologies to Monty Python.
Coming to an Ambulance near you now that the Health Care bill has passed.
And this is not dumb how?
That just shows that most high level managers and executives are dumbest mother fuckers to ever walk the earth.
...or does anyone else think that high level managers and executives are dumbest mother fuckers to ever walk the earth?
You take thousands of temperature readings over hundreds of years and come up with trends and that is not statistics?
The model merely jiggers with the numbers, but the statistics ultimately tells you the trend.
For instance in Australia where they too readings from several surrounding stations and came up with numbers for imaginary stations or corrected numbers for real stations... that's not stats?
It's funny that you say that because is not global warming a statistical creature?
nice.
This is to real workplace religious discrimination as a Clown car with 12 clowns in it is to an overturned van with 24 illegals in it.
Although, it's still kinda funny to see all the illegals bail from the van whenever I see it on World's Wildest Police Videos.
For many years, the mechanism by which killer electrons are produced has remained poorly understood
Isn't it obvious? Climate Change of course.
I'm sure the American spies in Iran appreciate your confidence in the folks at wikileaks.
BTW, who are they? What are their names? How can they be contacted? What are their policies and procedures for taking down inaccurate and/or patently inappropriate information?
See what I mean? No accountability.
I believe this is called anarchy.
As I said, if the protections afforded whistle blowers are inadequate, then get them changed.
And just because you haven't seen the location of US nuclear submarines posted doesn't mean they couldn't be posted does it?
What process does Wikileaks have to check the veracity and evaluate the appropriateness of the information? What keeps them from publishing anything at all? Who is held accountable if the released information results in some tragedy?
Hell, at least the press has some editorial controls and lawyers that can say publishing this is a baaad idea. And they can be held accountable.
What basis do you have to think that morality is absolute?
Well, that's a subject for an entire semester.
Of course, if morality is not absolute or if there is no close approximation to an absolute morality, then the government cannot commit atrocities can it?
So take yer pick:
a) Some things are always wrong and it's justified to release secrets so the people know their government is committing atrocities
b) There is no absolute morality and nothing is inherently wrong. So the government cannot commit "atrocities", it was just being expedient.
I see this discussion circling back on itself.
"One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter"
Only under a structure of moral relativism.
The government IS accountable, just not as quickly as you would like.
Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda
You can work within the system to make it better or just throw bombs and try to destroy the system.
Wikileaks is throwing bombs.
I think your sense of irony is distorted by your cynicism.
There are legal means to bring misconduct, especially "atrocities" to light.
If you don't think these methods are adequate...go to parent post.
If someone does not know if something actually constitutes misconduct, then they should not be leaking.
If they are in a position to know if something does rise to the level of misconduct, or, even if they suspect, then the existing whistler blower laws are in place.
You cannot say that there are secrets that should be kept and at the same time support the unauthorized release of secrets just because someone doesn't think something is not Kosher.
If the whistle blower laws or other means of addressing misconduct are inadequate, change the laws.
Then change the government. That's what elections are for.
But when you do change the government and your imagined horrors are still taking place, then perhaps you should look inward and figure out why all these things you believe to be so terrible are not thought to be so by the people you elected
Of course the flip side is that self-serving individuals and groups will often try to gain political advantage or simply a smug sense of satisfaction and release secrets that could end up getting one or more people killed or otherwise severely impact the nation.
And once you've taken that cork out of the bottle, it becomes extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, to put it back in.
The bottom line is that there are legal and effective ways to bring to light misconduct. Letting just anyone make decisions for the nation about what should and shouldn't be secret is insane.
One thing we all have to count on is law-enforcement and the military taking their oaths to the Constitution seriously. Which means if something like this every does come down from D.C., they will be the one's passing out the firearms to the citizens and telling D.C. to shove it.
And a shout out to all those Slashdotters out there who though Chavez was the best thing since sliced bread and constantly heaped abuse on those of us who saw him for what is was/is.
Bite Me.
Just wait. When the feds are paying for your health coverage, there will be much more of this kind of crap.
Every politician who can press the start button on a microwave will think he's smart enough to tell you what, when, where, and how your should eat.
Studies have shown that cutting your calorie intake by 30% of the recommend intake will lengthen your life. How long until some idiot wants to make that a law "for the good of the people"?
Another way to put it...
Damn!...Just, Damn!