You know, you're right. And the one that frantically pleaded with the respondent to "delete all emails" was perfectly innocent, too. Thanks for putting our minds at ease, buddy.
If you read the article, it what was denied was unpublished research. The research the plaintiff's are challenging is available to them. He doesn't have to defend arguments that he hasn't made.
That makes perfect sense to you, because you're looking at it in terms of the AGW denier versus alarmist debate. But that really has nothing to do with the question of whether the FOIA should apply to unpublished research performed using public funds.
But of course the AGW debate is a fun way to look at it, too, and it cuts both ways. "Hide the decline" and all that. That email dump was a convenient (if unwilling) compliance with a bunch of unfulfilled FOIA requests.
You have a weird definition of "private life". This was his work, it's what he was paid public money to do. Why do you consider that his "private life"? Do you really think these are emails about [grand]childcare, restaurant reservations, and romantic interests, or are you just trolling?
Mann said after the ruling, “This is a victory for science...
No, it's not! Our high schools really need to do a better job teacher students what science is and not just memorizing the first 6 steps in the first week of class and then memorizing facts that were found using science (biology, chemistry etc). Just because in this case the other side who is trying to get your data has even less understanding of what science is (and will no doubt intentionally misconstrue your data) does not mean this is a victory for science. There is no concept of proprietary knowledge in science, quite the opposite in fact.
This. Thank you. Only cargo cult science finds victory in hiding its underlying thought processes and justifications from public view. Not saying that Mann's beliefs about AGW are wrong, but that his behavior at various points has demonstrated a profound lack of and disregard for scientific openness.
Do you want all your email and documents published to the public? If not, what do you have to hide?
It's not clear to me how the FOIA would apply to the AC's posts. And scientific transparency is a desirable aim, but not the basis of the legal case here. The FOIA is about getting access to stuff the public paid for. Odd to see someone arguing on Slashdot in favor of publicly funded academic research being kept from the public.
Just publish an app. And monetize it. Problem solved.[1]
[1] Note that for many programmers who try this technique, the universe may opt to substitute an equivalent product, such as gained knowledge about how the world works and reduction of personal naivete.
I wish you were wrong, but am forced to agree with you. Still not an argument for banning guns, though, any more than we should ban antibiotics because they don't cure cancer.
In this context, "go away" is an expression that approximately means "let's mod this down into oblivion", which is exactly what happened (so far).
You are making some decent points (some, not all of which I agree with), but the original poster was just advocating blind deference to academics. In this context, that is the wrong answer, as any doofus in civics class could tell you.
I agree on some level, but with caveats -- if words don't mean anything, then the rule of law is a joke and tyranny is that much easier. As written, the 2nd Amendment doesn't allow the government to disallow gun ownership. So to the anti-gun lobby I say, "Change the constitution or get outta here."
That's not what I was saying. I know he's changing it, I'd just rather he proposed extensive new language rather than insidiously changing the meaning of the whole section by adding a few words. I want the snake out in the open, not hiding in the grass.
The mention of the well regulated militia is one specific desirable goal, and the right of all the people to bear arms is the general freedom that enables the previously mentioned goal. The thought progresses from the specific to the general, and it's a mistake to read the right to bear arms as exclusively related to militias.
Your opinion is so wrong, it's not funny. America is not about the masses sitting at the feet of a former Supreme Court justice to learn how to interpret the Constitution. It has been the expectation for all of our country's existence that all of us will be educated in our civil liberties and have a good understanding of them. Something as basic as the 2nd Amendment is ABSOLUTELY NOT above our heads. So get out of here, doofus, because you're making me mad.
Since Stevens' change has the purpose of exactly contradicting the original intent, it seems shoddy and absurd to just change one little phrase in it. For example, the "of a free state" part becomes a joke, or at least a meaningless window dressing, once this amendment ceases to be about guaranteeing a specific freedom to the people. In other words, Stevens' modified amendment is capable of fitting in very nicely with the goals of a tyranny, and has nothing to do with increasing the power of the people to prevent a powerful government from taking away their freedoms. But maybe Mr. Stevens really anticipates his suggestion going mainstream, and supposes that by leaving the form of the original in place, 2nd Amendment supporters will be unable to effectively oppose the change?
The bakery incident is tricky. I can think of situations where it's obviously in the public's best interest to disallow discrimination, and situations where it seems like ridiculous nanny statism. For example, should a Jewish painter be required to accept a commissioned painting with heavily Christian themes? I'd suggest not. Everybody has to eat, but it seems to me that the government should leave artistic expression alone. Does that make sense? You may disagree, which is fine...
Sorry, my dear AC. It doesn't really matter whether you want to quibble about whether Emanuel's public statement amounted to efforts/actions/etc. The alderman's actions that Emanuel was tacitly supporting were so utterly and obviously illegal under our constitution that this whole debate we're having is an exercise in silliness. I grant your point that the alderman took the action, and Emanual made a public statement in support of it. So what? I lump them both in the "Irish need not apply" camp.
You can boycott Mozilla if you want. Personally I don't think it's really fair nor what Brendan Eich would want people to do. I'm solidly in the Rodney King camp: "Can't we all just get along?"
I agree with you that rich, white, heterosexual men are not typically persecuted in our society, which is great for rich, white, heterosexual men. However, when it does happen, it is not okay. That is all, thank you for playing, my dear AC.
For one, Rahm Emanuel didn't work to deny Chick-fil-A' anything in Chicago. He simply responded to a question by a reporter regarding an Alderman’s announcement that he would block construction of a Chick-fil-A restaurant in his district. Saying "Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values" doesn't really stop Chick-fil-A from doing anything, now does it?
I disagree, since Emanuel was speaking as mayor and giving tacit approval to the alderman's actions. That puts Emanuel on the "Irish need not apply" side. We can argue about whether such speech constitutes "working" or not. If speech isn't working, then I'm afraid mayors don't do very much work.:p
Also, there's a high likelihood that anything from a link to Fox News doesn't contain much factual information.
That may be true. But whenever I post a link, it is not with an expectation that people will either blindly believe, or blindly disbelieve it. I expect people to use these links to just become aware of stuff and discuss further. If you never look at stories covered by conservative media, then you will probably remain unaware of many stories that might otherwise enrich and inform your worldview. (Wow, look at me lecturing the AC.)
One thing that is most definitely true about your post is it's a troll. You can probably count on a few of those mods as well.
OK, I can understand the "Flamebait" mod, I get it. My post reads like provocative satire, but it's also unfortunately true. What part of it is not true, O Gentle Reader?
Slashdot Mirror
You know, you're right. And the one that frantically pleaded with the respondent to "delete all emails" was perfectly innocent, too. Thanks for putting our minds at ease, buddy.
http://www.climateaudit.info/pdf/mcintyre-heartland_2010.pdf
If you read the article, it what was denied was unpublished research. The research the plaintiff's are challenging is available to them. He doesn't have to defend arguments that he hasn't made.
That makes perfect sense to you, because you're looking at it in terms of the AGW denier versus alarmist debate. But that really has nothing to do with the question of whether the FOIA should apply to unpublished research performed using public funds.
But of course the AGW debate is a fun way to look at it, too, and it cuts both ways. "Hide the decline" and all that. That email dump was a convenient (if unwilling) compliance with a bunch of unfulfilled FOIA requests.
You have a weird definition of "private life". This was his work, it's what he was paid public money to do. Why do you consider that his "private life"? Do you really think these are emails about [grand]childcare, restaurant reservations, and romantic interests, or are you just trolling?
And now here's the part that really bugs me:
Mann said after the ruling, “This is a victory for science...
No, it's not! Our high schools really need to do a better job teacher students what science is and not just memorizing the first 6 steps in the first week of class and then memorizing facts that were found using science (biology, chemistry etc). Just because in this case the other side who is trying to get your data has even less understanding of what science is (and will no doubt intentionally misconstrue your data) does not mean this is a victory for science. There is no concept of proprietary knowledge in science, quite the opposite in fact.
This. Thank you. Only cargo cult science finds victory in hiding its underlying thought processes and justifications from public view. Not saying that Mann's beliefs about AGW are wrong, but that his behavior at various points has demonstrated a profound lack of and disregard for scientific openness.
Do you want all your email and documents published to the public? If not, what do you have to hide?
It's not clear to me how the FOIA would apply to the AC's posts. And scientific transparency is a desirable aim, but not the basis of the legal case here. The FOIA is about getting access to stuff the public paid for. Odd to see someone arguing on Slashdot in favor of publicly funded academic research being kept from the public.
You know what they say, have fun but don't quit your day job!
Just publish an app. And monetize it. Problem solved.[1]
[1] Note that for many programmers who try this technique, the universe may opt to substitute an equivalent product, such as gained knowledge about how the world works and reduction of personal naivete.
I wish you were wrong, but am forced to agree with you. Still not an argument for banning guns, though, any more than we should ban antibiotics because they don't cure cancer.
In this context, "go away" is an expression that approximately means "let's mod this down into oblivion", which is exactly what happened (so far).
You are making some decent points (some, not all of which I agree with), but the original poster was just advocating blind deference to academics. In this context, that is the wrong answer, as any doofus in civics class could tell you.
I agree on some level, but with caveats -- if words don't mean anything, then the rule of law is a joke and tyranny is that much easier. As written, the 2nd Amendment doesn't allow the government to disallow gun ownership. So to the anti-gun lobby I say, "Change the constitution or get outta here."
That's not what I was saying. I know he's changing it, I'd just rather he proposed extensive new language rather than insidiously changing the meaning of the whole section by adding a few words. I want the snake out in the open, not hiding in the grass.
The mention of the well regulated militia is one specific desirable goal, and the right of all the people to bear arms is the general freedom that enables the previously mentioned goal. The thought progresses from the specific to the general, and it's a mistake to read the right to bear arms as exclusively related to militias.
Your opinion is so wrong, it's not funny. America is not about the masses sitting at the feet of a former Supreme Court justice to learn how to interpret the Constitution. It has been the expectation for all of our country's existence that all of us will be educated in our civil liberties and have a good understanding of them. Something as basic as the 2nd Amendment is ABSOLUTELY NOT above our heads. So get out of here, doofus, because you're making me mad.
Since Stevens' change has the purpose of exactly contradicting the original intent, it seems shoddy and absurd to just change one little phrase in it. For example, the "of a free state" part becomes a joke, or at least a meaningless window dressing, once this amendment ceases to be about guaranteeing a specific freedom to the people. In other words, Stevens' modified amendment is capable of fitting in very nicely with the goals of a tyranny, and has nothing to do with increasing the power of the people to prevent a powerful government from taking away their freedoms. But maybe Mr. Stevens really anticipates his suggestion going mainstream, and supposes that by leaving the form of the original in place, 2nd Amendment supporters will be unable to effectively oppose the change?
Regardless, I personally smell a rat.
The bakery incident is tricky. I can think of situations where it's obviously in the public's best interest to disallow discrimination, and situations where it seems like ridiculous nanny statism. For example, should a Jewish painter be required to accept a commissioned painting with heavily Christian themes? I'd suggest not. Everybody has to eat, but it seems to me that the government should leave artistic expression alone. Does that make sense? You may disagree, which is fine...
OK, granted. :)
I'll just close with a really poignant statement Gandhi once made: "Can't we all just be the change we wish to see in the world?"
Nah, google it.
Sweet, sweet happiness is restored. Thanks dude.
Wait. Who are you, and what did you do with my Anonymous Coward? Please give him/her back at once.
Thanks for the long and cogent response. We will agree on some things and disagree on others, but I genuinely appreciate your engagement here. Cheers!
Sorry, my dear AC. It doesn't really matter whether you want to quibble about whether Emanuel's public statement amounted to efforts/actions/etc. The alderman's actions that Emanuel was tacitly supporting were so utterly and obviously illegal under our constitution that this whole debate we're having is an exercise in silliness. I grant your point that the alderman took the action, and Emanual made a public statement in support of it. So what? I lump them both in the "Irish need not apply" camp.
You can boycott Mozilla if you want. Personally I don't think it's really fair nor what Brendan Eich would want people to do. I'm solidly in the Rodney King camp: "Can't we all just get along?"
I agree with you that rich, white, heterosexual men are not typically persecuted in our society, which is great for rich, white, heterosexual men. However, when it does happen, it is not okay. That is all, thank you for playing, my dear AC.
For one, Rahm Emanuel didn't work to deny Chick-fil-A' anything in Chicago. He simply responded to a question by a reporter regarding an Alderman’s announcement that he would block construction of a Chick-fil-A restaurant in his district. Saying "Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values" doesn't really stop Chick-fil-A from doing anything, now does it?
I disagree, since Emanuel was speaking as mayor and giving tacit approval to the alderman's actions. That puts Emanuel on the "Irish need not apply" side. We can argue about whether such speech constitutes "working" or not. If speech isn't working, then I'm afraid mayors don't do very much work. :p
Also, there's a high likelihood that anything from a link to Fox News doesn't contain much factual information.
That may be true. But whenever I post a link, it is not with an expectation that people will either blindly believe, or blindly disbelieve it. I expect people to use these links to just become aware of stuff and discuss further. If you never look at stories covered by conservative media, then you will probably remain unaware of many stories that might otherwise enrich and inform your worldview. (Wow, look at me lecturing the AC.)
One thing that is most definitely true about your post is it's a troll. You can probably count on a few of those mods as well.
Whatever.
OK, I can understand the "Flamebait" mod, I get it. My post reads like provocative satire, but it's also unfortunately true. What part of it is not true, O Gentle Reader?