Just have a little ink pad at the desk where the tests are handed over... and have them put their left or right thumb print in a box next to the signature.
Then when you scan the documents in, capture the thumb print and enter it into a database.
If the same print shows up multiple times under different names then you know you have an issue.
Easy peasy.
I think I'm with Kin Jong Il when I say that I'm... so... roanry... why are people so stupid. Why can't them be intelligent... like me.:p
Not really. The germans prior to both wars were being locked out of trade or subjected to various things that impoverished them.
The British Empire prior to WW1 went out of its way to control trade into and out of europe. It went through them. And their vast colonial empire was set up in such a way to systematically do the same thing around the world. This was the heart of the German ire.
Am I defending what the Germans did? No. But they did have reasons.
As to world war 2, you're talking about a country that was under a lot of stupid sanctions that the french mostly couldn't or wouldn't enforce.
After WW1, the US strongly encouraged european power to try and rebuild Germany rather than crush it under foot. Look at what the US did to Japan after WW2. That was what we wanted Europe to do to Germany. The US was ignored and a stupid policy basically caused WW2 by sustaining murderous feelings in Germany.
Another idea that would have worked just as well would be to break Germany up into smaller countries.
As to social program spending, that never stops people from saying that money should be spent on social programs.
Everything. The US is the primary military force of the entire western world. Our allies can only spend the majority of their budgets on social programs and spend nothing on their militaries because we are their military. And yet people will say the US should emulate Sweden or Canada or something forgetting that NATO would collapse, our alliances in Asia would collapse, you're seeing what happens in the middle east when strong men stop killing the zealots, etc.
The thing is that there are a lot of people that think the ONLY thing taxes should be spent on is social programs. They want that to be 99 percent of the budget. And then they want to raise the taxes on anyone with money so that we're all equal... and they want to make work optional... and those that work are to be given no reward for it beyond what anyone gets for doing nothing.
Literally.
This is the heart of the political struggle in the western world and it is the very thing that killed the old Roman empire. This precise problem.
People don't want to go to the moon or mars if it means welfare reform. They don't want the US to have a credible military force if that means welfare reform. They don't want to have reasonable business friendly taxes if that means welfare reform. They don't want a balanced budget if that means welfare reform.
Nothing that requires welfare reform is considered acceptable. And the reality is that we can't afford the existing welfare system regardless... so there you go.
Having any integrity system does not mean they're attempting to draw out frauds and destroy them.
First off, my suggestion is different in nature. Second, it is different in intent.
I don't want to issue slaps on wrists for this stuff. I want it to be something that is scary enough that the scientists that remain take it very very seriously.
As to unqualified opinions... please cite what you'd like qualified. Keep in mind, I do not believe I am under any obligation to prove what the author was thinking. That is not central to my position. I need only point out that his position is ambiguous given the charged nature of issue and therefore the mere supposition of his actual intent can be used to justify expanding on that.
Beyond that I'm not sure what you're talking about with unqualified opinions... possibly you think I need to prove that the scientific community takes academic fraud seriously? I'm sure there are some people that do, but given the prevalence of it, whatever steps are taken are not sufficient. Thus the screws need to be tightened.
Are my specific solutions the correct ones? No. I believe in trying things and evaluating their effectiveness empirically. I would only stand behind a given solution once it had been proven through experimentation to be effective.
So... you think I have a problem with being challenged? Not at all. I revel in it. I am quite seasoned in such things. Keep that in mind... I am not a push over.;)
can you think of an example of two countries profiting off mutual trade that went to war?
Generally there is an economic element to war. Often one side or both will put economic pressure on the other by attempting to isolate it from trade or charge the other some kind of mark up because they can. And generally this is one of the primary causes of war.
I can cite examples as far back as the Trojan war. I believe it was mostly over copper. I'd have to check.
That said, the Chinese are pushing for expanded territorial waters and the US is attempting to cut that back. So that is something. But war? Over "that"? Possible I suppose but it would be idiocy. China's expansion of territory isn't going to profit the state or society much and they risk a great deal by doing that. For the united states... again, there is dubious value in pushing the chinese one way or the other. We'd perhaps lose some prestige with our asian allies. But I'm not sure what that is ultimately worth to us. On the downside, a war with china could be horrific... so it is in both our interests to avoid that.
The chinese apparently want to play chicken with the US on that. I'm not sure of the best way to play that game assuming we even want to do it. I'm sure there is an optimal strategy in diplomatic chicken.
We battled the soviets because they were a national security threat.
The chinese and americans make too much money off each other to go to war with each other.
Look, Neil... on slashdot of course we all want to go to space. We're a tech community and we like all that space shit.
But a lot of people don't. I had a high school teacher that had a big sticker on his wall that said "no space cadets"... and he was talking about the space program and how he thought it was a waste of money. He wanted to spend it all on social programs.
that is just the general public. What we need to do is take it out of the politician's hands. the government is if anything backsliding on space. The future is private space exploration. it is going to be different than what the government was doing but if they can actually figure out how to make money up there then there will be an explosion of development that will never stop.
Because I have a point and my insults are a conclusion derrived from analyzing what someone else said... yep. I am superior.
Look, if someone says something stupid... and you go through that and show it to be stupid... and then call them stupid for saying that... that isn't unreasonable.
If you instead say a given argument is wrong because someone else is stupid that is just ad hominem and is not constructive.
As to peppering a post with insults that don't actually have anything to do with the central argument... that IS immaturity.
Do you see the differences?
Details matter. Context matters. In one context I can stab you in the face and be considered a hero. In another were I to do the same thing I would be considered a maniac and thrown in prison. In others my moral and legal position could be ambiguous.
The context in which things are done is obviously relevant.
I know this... because I'm not a child.
Did you see what I did there? Notice how the insult came as a conclusion to an argument. That is almost always what I do when I level insults at all.
I generally only do it when someone else is disrespecting me. If you're JUST stupid, then I'll probably humor you for awhile and try to be polite for as long as I can. But often as not, people will open with an insult and THEN say stupid things.
And that means I get to take the gloves off and just rhetorically fuck them up to the extent it amuses me.
Be nice and respectful to me and I'll almost always be nice and respectful to you. The only exception would be if you are being exceptionally stupid and are not productively engaging in a meaningful dialog.
I do not need you to agree with me. But if you can't even have a basic conversation because you're just too stupid to do it, then I'm going to call you stupid at some point. That isn't an insult in that context... that is... like someone calling you short or weak because you can't open that jar of mayonnaise. It isn't an insult in that case... it is me realizing that a given person is mentally incapable of having the discussion I'm attempting to have with them.
In any case... as should be more than obvious to even the most limited of mentalities... I'm not myself stupid. Rude? Perhaps. But not stupid... and as to maturity? That is a question that relies on an understanding of moral and ethical and cultural norms that you can't presume.
In my culture, I am not immature. YOUR culture might see it that way. But why exactly do I care?
Nope. I get where I'm going as fast as anyone. I just don't burn my breaks out or rear end people because I'm stupid.
And as to your lack of knowledge about manual transmissions... You see the same behavior with all the manual transmissions on the road. I'm not alone out there. Lots of cars don't automatically accelerate when the traffic opens up for a minute because it serves no purpose. you're going too fast when that happens and it forces everyone to come to a halt over and over and over again.
You avoid that by just going the average speed of the road.
But you know what... I don't really need you to agree with me. I'm okay with you being wrong.
At to projection, it wasn't me that focused like a laser on the corporate labs and then entirely ignored the rest of my argument to focus on that... going increasingly off topic to whine about something we're not talking about.
I didn't do that. You did.
Fact.
As to being out of left field, not really... you started kneejerking and I decided to punch you in the throat for it. I regret only that you didn't realize what I did or why I did it.
As to your silly strawman that I'm saying you're evil for working in anything... I said no such thing. That you say I'm strawmaning you for saying that is idiotic since I didn't say that... so ironically you're strawmanning ME by saying that I strawmanned you about something which I didn't actually say.
Talk about projection. *chuckles*
Anyway, I'd suggest you look at that youtube video I posted above. It is a narration of something Richard Feynman wrote. It is funny and quite relevant to the actual topic... and not your silly obessions.
Fighting words? Oh heavens to mercy what shall I do? Allow me to clutch my pearls in terror!:D
Get on topic. If you want to play games of who is better at insulting whom... I'm going to win. I'm much more offensive than you.:D I'm also better at being condescending and probably a lot of other things. So... you can either get on topic or give me more excuses to practice being a massive throbbing dick. Choose.
As to corporate labs, I'm sorry I made the qualification because you're focusing on it beyond its relevance.
We're talking about scientific fraud. Your comments about the corporate labs is not on topic.
Saying "well they're too focused"... so the fuck what? What does that have to do with fraud? Am I saying "do away with government labs and only have corporate labs"?... Nope.
So kindly shut the fuck up about that because you're embarrassing yourself.
Just forget I said anything about corporate labs at all. No no. Enough. Done. Over.
We're talking about fraud and bullshit science.
Spending 2000 years testing polycarbonate limbs or whatever is not related to either FRAUD or faulty science. Is it a waste of time? Perhaps. But it isn't fraud.
is it fraud?
Answer that question for me... please. Tell me now.
Is it fraud?
Yes or no?
If you say no... and you will because that's a rhetorical question, then you're off fucking topic.
If that were the case then scientific fraud wouldn't happen... and neither would simple mistakes.
Both happen with some frequency so I'm more than a little dubious as to your position.
I think a lot of the issue is that many papers have become so data heavy that they're very difficult to audit without going through all the data in extreme detail which isn't practical.
And I think to some extent this is intentional. You get some of that from corporations that are sued and respond by giving whomever 500,000 pages of memos. How do you go through that? You can't unless you have a huge team and a huge team isn't going to do that without the promise of a huge payoff.
I can think of several scientific papers of dubious providence that are largely immune to systematic audit on this basis. Whether they are true or not is anyone's guess. No one knows. And I'm seeing MORE papers of this nature over time rather than less.
As to what Horton mentions, I have my own thoughts beyond his blog post. It didn't just now occur to me that we have a problem here. And people have been talking about a growing problem of scientific fraud for sometime. To say that because Horton isn't talking about what I am talking about that I'm somehow not entitled to hold a given opinion or make a given argument is irrational.
This article brought up a subject and I gave my opinion on the subject IN GENERAL.
As to his comment not being about fraud, I disagree. Think he's being politically correct. You find this in any thing that gets political in that you need to talk about things without outright calling someone powerful or influential a liar or a cheat. People tend to get defensive when you do that and that makes them less likely to cooperate.
I think he believes that if he softballs this he might get people that would otherwise clamp down to not obstruct reform.
Ergo, he talks about strengthening all the systems in science that would make fraud harder to get away with... while not calling anyone a fraud.
Do you see?
Now here you might say "well making a mistake is not the same thing as being a fraud"... I agree. And certainly there is some simple sloppiness going on. Being sloppy or incompetent is not the same thing as being a fraud or a cheat. However, there is quite a lot of both going on and much of it is being normalized in the "everyone is doing it so I thought it was okay too" sense. This creates a moral disconnect in that the people doing the action often don't see it as morally wrong. Someone that commits some sort of crime or ethical violation will often be genuinely offended that you accused them such actions even though they did precisely that. And their offense stems from the notion that their actions were not out of the norm for their social set. They don't see themselves as being abnormal. And as such they object to the notion that they're being accused of immorality or unethical behavior.
The funniest example of this was when the Governor of Illinois was literally baffled as to why anyone had a problem with him selling Obama's vacant senate seat for CASH. He literally put the appointment up for the highest bidder. And the money would go to the Governor personally. But he was utterly baffled as to why that was an ethical violation. In his words "I had something valuable and why shouldn't I get something for it?" He literally was just confused as to why it was a problem.
And that is because he exists in a systemically corrupt environment. Compare the number of Chicago politicians that have gone to federal prison against the national average and it is night and day.
Regardless, it is expected of adults like you and me... to read between the lines.
I am not a fool. And I expect you are not a fool either.
Therefore, neither of us literally accept whatever is written down by anyone as being without some subtext that influences the meaning or nature of what is being said. There are implications, inferences, explicit understandings, unwritten rules, etc.
You know that or you are a fool. No offense. I'm just emphasizing the point that you can't be literal especially in issues that are this highly charged.
There are many interests that would be threatened or inconvenienced by reform. So if you actually want reform then you have to do it gently to avoid triggering kneejerk opposition... which is apparently what you're doing from my perspective.
In this, the author likely showed more wisdom than myself. I was honest and spoke to you without pretense. This runs the risk of triggering your sort of response. Regrettable but I hold the belief that it is better to trigger you rather than coddle your biases.
Everyone should be triggered until they can't be triggered anymore. Desensitized and burned out until all that remains is logic and reason. No pretense. No political correctness. No paren
You do appreciate that the republicans shot down this push while it was the democrats mostly trying to reinstate it... right?
I mean, if the republicans wanted it as well... it would have become law again. The only reason this died was because the democrats lost control of congress.
Was it passed by a republican congress the first time? Yep.
But that was after 9/11 and I really doubt most people knew what they were really voting on at the time. Take the TSA for another example, even the person that personally wrote the legislation that created it... regrets it.
Also who was the guy that filibustered the reinstatement of those provisions? It wasn't a democrat. And if you look at the voting for who did try to reinstate it... it was 90 percent democrats.
A nuclear powerplant that can supply power to millions can be relatively small. Most of the size of a plant is concerned with containment and not the reactor itself. But solar power plants are relatively enourmous.
It doesn't make sense to centralize and concentrate them. Rather, just put panels on every roof in town.
There is also no logistical reason to centralize. With nuclear power you want to keep dangerous materials out of the hands of idiots and you want the system overseen by someone that knows what they're doing. With coal or gasoline you need to worry about the logistics of fuel delivery and storage and you need to be concerned about the exhaust not washing over houses.
None of these things are relevant for solar. Rather than dumping billions into solar farms, we should instead LOAN panels to the community. Retain ownership of them since the government is paying for them or the utility is paying for them. But install them on the houses rather than concentrating them.
here someone will say "but that requires a control box at every house to allow each house to feed power back into the system"... yep. But that also normalizes that practice as being standard and to be expected rather than as the exception to the rule. That changes the way the grid words and that is change for the better.
As to how people speed up and slow down with an automatic versus a manual transmission, you do realize I have personal experience with this right?
Furthermore, physics calls you wrong. A large truck is not going to be jamming on the acceleration and then jammming on the break or even down shifting into first gear or something over and over and over again.
Perhaps you don't know what stop and go traffic is in the first place? Okay, it is this traffic pattern during times of very heavy congestion where people will be bumper to bumper and then speed up to perhaps 40 t0 50 miles an hour and then drop down to perhaps 10 to 20 miles an hour.
This pattern pulses on the highway with people increasing in speed and decreasing in speed every couple miles.
I have driven through such traffic in Los Angeles for years. I know of what I speak.
The big semis or buses generally don't go any faster than the fastest sports cars under those conditions. The difference is that they don't accelerate during the fast periods and they don't slow down during the slow periods. They tend to hold a consistent average speed between the two extremes. Because they don't speed up, a gap opens before them so that they don't have to slow down. They just hold their speed which is often something like 20 to 25 miles an hour and they just cruise through the whole thing.
Now, anyone with a manual transmission is going to find stop and go traffic especially annoying. It means upshifting and downshifting constantly.
But an automatic driver finds it less annoying because all they have to do is press the gas or press the break. There is no process up upshifting and then downshifting. And so they will mindlessly get into the pattern of stop and go traffic.
I don't think a highway full of manuals would do that. it would be too annoying for everyone and they'd just follow the truck's example and MY example by not accelerating in the open patches so that they didn't have to slow down during the slow patches.
As to your stupid little insults at the end... We'll write that off as immaturity and move forward.:)
Of all the features to make optional, "pedestrian detection" is not one of them.
Either include that in the auto parking feature or do not include an auto parking feature.
Really... these auto driving features are premature in most cases. People need to take responsibility for what their own cars do and not fob it off on dubious auto pilot systems.
That said, I don't even like automatic transmissions... I'm convinced that they're responsible for stop and go traffic. People with manual transmissions do not accelerate and then jam on the breaks over and over and over again. Instead, the whole highway keeps a consistent speed.
it is why in such traffic I get behind the biggest semi I can find. That semi is NOT accelerating and stopping over and over again. That guy is going to go the average speed of traffic. I get behind him... and an otherwise stressful drive becomes quite peaceful.
When we have fully automated cars, I think it might get better just because I'm convinced that most issues on the roads are caused by fucktard drivers. And maybe the robots will be less stupid. But who knows.
When I challenged you to quote me, I was challenging you to show what I said that provoked his rude comment.
You have just conceded that I was right and his comment came without provocation. I responded to his rude comment with a rude comment. Complaining about getting a rude comment to a rude comment is hypocritical.
Well first off, proposing that objective is not meaningless because we're currently not even trying. My objective is literally driving unethical scientists out of the field. That is not something that is actively done.
Second off, I did actually propose some ideas to someone else in this thread and suggested a method of determining effectiveness.
I find this notion that I have to give you a complete proven system gift wrapped for you or I have no valid input to be essentially fallacious. My point and general objective is neither correct nor incorrect if I do not propose a complete system.
I do not need to do that to be right or wrong.
If you'd like a summary of some of my ideas... I'd like to apply FBI fraud and IRS audit tactics to some of these papers. The FBI tactics involve traps. You put out something that an unethical or lazy scientist will slurp up and use in a paper. When it is cited, you humiliate them as using a bogus source.
It should be convincing enough and in the university library and databases so it appears to be real UNTIL you actually read the source. IF you read the source and actually check it, then you'll see it is shit. But you can have it referenced in various places so it seems valid. The point will be to try and get lazy scientists that don't actually read material but read what someone else said about something and then reference the original source when they've never consulted the original source.
This is something the FBI does with stings. You set up some bait and you wait until someone bites.
The IRS randomly subjects a percentage of returns to intensive audits. Do the same thing with the papers and studies. You can subject any study or paper to an audit if you get red flags but the idea here is on top of that to audit some entirely randomly. This increases the risk factor because a deep examination of the paper or study will not be predictable.
There are other ideas as well. But what we're basically dealing with here is fraud.
Fraud is something we have methods of dealing with and various organizations have systems they've developed. Even CIA counter intelligence tactics should be looked at. The idea is to get the fraudsters to stand out.
The best method is basically to get them to self select. You do something that a fraudster will respond to differently than an honest scientist.
And if you didn't get enough evidence to crucify him on the first pass then you don't even let him know you found him. Instead, you subject him to a second round opportunities to incriminate himself.
Because no one is being convicted of a crime in a court of law... the entrapment laws etc do not even begin to apply.
There are many ways to find unethical people. It isn't that hard, chum. You just have to make ANY effort. Apply the same cunning an illiterate fur trapper uses to catch his pray and you'll actually be doing quite well. You must be patient, methodical, and determined.
I'm not arguing whether or not some idiot wrote down something stupid on a piece of paper. I'm arguing that it was a stupid thing to put on the paper.
Look at the taxi mediallion licenses for another example of the same thing. You want to run a taxi service in this town? Give the city 200,000 dollars.
What does that do? That locks out all the smaller competitors because who can afford the seed capital of an additional 200,000 dollars PER cab on top of the actual cab, advertising, office space, etc.
Your point that "but the agreements says this" is utterly irrelevant to me. The thing could say any fucking thing some asshat wrote on it.
it is anti competitive, pro monopolist, anti consumer, it is the reason internet speeds are often shit throughout the country and it is the reason many areas have very poor coverage.
You know that.
I know that.
Why are you defending something that is objectively bad for pretty much everyone and serves no purpose besides letting well monied companies basically sit on their asses collecting monthly fees for shitty service?
As long as you admit to being AC trolls, you've conceded the position to me and from my perspective... I win.
First off, I've explained to YOU several times that my mod points don't matter to me.
Second, people that CAN"T be modded up or down, don't get to talk about other people's mod points.
Unlike you, I actually care about ACTUALLY being right. This is an alien concept to people like you. It means I don't care about what you say or do unless it impacts the argument. Nothing else matters to me.
As to local government, you're not telling me anything I don't know and I frankly made it quite clear I was talking about that so you're just restating what I said.
As to "Do a bunch of stupid shit we made up to lock small companies out of the conduits or we don't let you run cable in the conduits"... no. Those are often not reasonable.
A common stipulation for example is that cable be run throughout the entire city/town if it is run anywhere.
And that means that a small company that might only have the resources to provide service to one neighborhood initially is locked out for basically no reason.
this is sort of like saying you can't open a sandwich shop unless you agree to open ten locations across town.
That means that big franchises can open sandwich shops but little companies can't. So everything turns into McDonalds.
Sound reasonable?
As to local government, we don't let local governments screw with roads. So no. Same basic principle.
You think it is reasonable for local governments to be systematically bribed to lock out all competition using these bogus agreements.
It is nonsense. I believe portland issued their last franchise agreement after FREE gigabit internet was given to their capital building. And I know there was something like that in another city where the company gave them free internet at the schools.
Well great. Your schools save a hundred dollars a month on their internet bill and the entire town is locked down by the monopoly for fucking chump change.
Those comments were AFTER the rude comment. So you fail at causality.
Here was the ONLY post prior to the rude comment from the AC shithead:
""
That's the issue.
It is as a great man once said "cargo cult science"... it presents the seeming of science... the seeming of logic... but is it? And the thing is that only people that are genuine can really tell one from the other.
While this will sound terribly retrograde and classist... the issue is that we have a lot of sleazy people in positions of trust. Sleazy people are not going to behave themselves under any system.
A community is not just defined by those in it but those not permitted to join it. Some sort of integrity check should be put on the system and those that are clearly only interested in money or power or attention should be kicked out. Those interested in actually doing a real science... humble though it often is... should be the only ones on the pay roll.
I speak of public universities only. Private universities and corporations can do whatever they want. But if you're taking the public coin then the public has a right to insist on integrity. What private individuals want to do with their own money is their own business.
Simply cutting the sophists off from public funding should largely solve the problem. That is where this fungus has grown. The corporations are too goal oriented to get side tracked by this sort of thing. And the private universities are likely just as vulnerable as the public ones but their credibility is their problem and not one anyone else needs to worry about. ""
Find the rude comment in there. Quote it for me.
If you don't... I reserve to the right to call you names.;)
So if a man stabs me... and I respond by shooting him... you would imply that i shot the man without provocation?
See, the problem with your statement is that it came AFTER he was rude to me. There was no provocation from ME prior to his rude comment.
AFTER he was rude to me, I responded by being rude to him.
See how that works?
This is what I hate about ACs... I suspect you're all the same raging fucktard.
If not, there are an awful lot of fucking stupid people that comment under the AC comment system on this site. I mean, nearly all of you are morons. The people that actually log in are a magnitude more intelligent and constructive. But the ACs are good for little more than feeding the soylent green machine.
Slashdot Mirror
Just have a little ink pad at the desk where the tests are handed over... and have them put their left or right thumb print in a box next to the signature.
Then when you scan the documents in, capture the thumb print and enter it into a database.
If the same print shows up multiple times under different names then you know you have an issue.
Easy peasy.
I think I'm with Kin Jong Il when I say that I'm... so... roanry... why are people so stupid. Why can't them be intelligent... like me. :p
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Not really. The germans prior to both wars were being locked out of trade or subjected to various things that impoverished them.
The British Empire prior to WW1 went out of its way to control trade into and out of europe. It went through them. And their vast colonial empire was set up in such a way to systematically do the same thing around the world. This was the heart of the German ire.
Am I defending what the Germans did? No. But they did have reasons.
As to world war 2, you're talking about a country that was under a lot of stupid sanctions that the french mostly couldn't or wouldn't enforce.
After WW1, the US strongly encouraged european power to try and rebuild Germany rather than crush it under foot. Look at what the US did to Japan after WW2. That was what we wanted Europe to do to Germany. The US was ignored and a stupid policy basically caused WW2 by sustaining murderous feelings in Germany.
Another idea that would have worked just as well would be to break Germany up into smaller countries.
You're right. I don't know where I got my information from but I either misunderstood what I saw or I was misinformed.
Thank you for the correction.
As to social program spending, that never stops people from saying that money should be spent on social programs.
Everything. The US is the primary military force of the entire western world. Our allies can only spend the majority of their budgets on social programs and spend nothing on their militaries because we are their military. And yet people will say the US should emulate Sweden or Canada or something forgetting that NATO would collapse, our alliances in Asia would collapse, you're seeing what happens in the middle east when strong men stop killing the zealots, etc.
The thing is that there are a lot of people that think the ONLY thing taxes should be spent on is social programs. They want that to be 99 percent of the budget. And then they want to raise the taxes on anyone with money so that we're all equal... and they want to make work optional... and those that work are to be given no reward for it beyond what anyone gets for doing nothing.
Literally.
This is the heart of the political struggle in the western world and it is the very thing that killed the old Roman empire. This precise problem.
People don't want to go to the moon or mars if it means welfare reform. They don't want the US to have a credible military force if that means welfare reform. They don't want to have reasonable business friendly taxes if that means welfare reform. They don't want a balanced budget if that means welfare reform.
Nothing that requires welfare reform is considered acceptable. And the reality is that we can't afford the existing welfare system regardless... so there you go.
Having any integrity system does not mean they're attempting to draw out frauds and destroy them.
First off, my suggestion is different in nature.
Second, it is different in intent.
I don't want to issue slaps on wrists for this stuff. I want it to be something that is scary enough that the scientists that remain take it very very seriously.
As to unqualified opinions... please cite what you'd like qualified. Keep in mind, I do not believe I am under any obligation to prove what the author was thinking. That is not central to my position. I need only point out that his position is ambiguous given the charged nature of issue and therefore the mere supposition of his actual intent can be used to justify expanding on that.
Beyond that I'm not sure what you're talking about with unqualified opinions... possibly you think I need to prove that the scientific community takes academic fraud seriously? I'm sure there are some people that do, but given the prevalence of it, whatever steps are taken are not sufficient. Thus the screws need to be tightened.
Are my specific solutions the correct ones? No. I believe in trying things and evaluating their effectiveness empirically. I would only stand behind a given solution once it had been proven through experimentation to be effective.
So... you think I have a problem with being challenged? Not at all. I revel in it. I am quite seasoned in such things. Keep that in mind... I am not a push over. ;)
can you think of an example of two countries profiting off mutual trade that went to war?
Generally there is an economic element to war. Often one side or both will put economic pressure on the other by attempting to isolate it from trade or charge the other some kind of mark up because they can. And generally this is one of the primary causes of war.
I can cite examples as far back as the Trojan war. I believe it was mostly over copper. I'd have to check.
That said, the Chinese are pushing for expanded territorial waters and the US is attempting to cut that back. So that is something. But war? Over "that"? Possible I suppose but it would be idiocy. China's expansion of territory isn't going to profit the state or society much and they risk a great deal by doing that. For the united states... again, there is dubious value in pushing the chinese one way or the other. We'd perhaps lose some prestige with our asian allies. But I'm not sure what that is ultimately worth to us. On the downside, a war with china could be horrific... so it is in both our interests to avoid that.
The chinese apparently want to play chicken with the US on that. I'm not sure of the best way to play that game assuming we even want to do it. I'm sure there is an optimal strategy in diplomatic chicken.
We battled the soviets because they were a national security threat.
The chinese and americans make too much money off each other to go to war with each other.
Look, Neil... on slashdot of course we all want to go to space. We're a tech community and we like all that space shit.
But a lot of people don't. I had a high school teacher that had a big sticker on his wall that said "no space cadets"... and he was talking about the space program and how he thought it was a waste of money. He wanted to spend it all on social programs.
that is just the general public. What we need to do is take it out of the politician's hands. the government is if anything backsliding on space. The future is private space exploration. it is going to be different than what the government was doing but if they can actually figure out how to make money up there then there will be an explosion of development that will never stop.
Because I have a point and my insults are a conclusion derrived from analyzing what someone else said... yep. I am superior.
Look, if someone says something stupid... and you go through that and show it to be stupid... and then call them stupid for saying that... that isn't unreasonable.
If you instead say a given argument is wrong because someone else is stupid that is just ad hominem and is not constructive.
As to peppering a post with insults that don't actually have anything to do with the central argument... that IS immaturity.
Do you see the differences?
Details matter. Context matters. In one context I can stab you in the face and be considered a hero. In another were I to do the same thing I would be considered a maniac and thrown in prison. In others my moral and legal position could be ambiguous.
The context in which things are done is obviously relevant.
I know this... because I'm not a child.
Did you see what I did there? Notice how the insult came as a conclusion to an argument. That is almost always what I do when I level insults at all.
I generally only do it when someone else is disrespecting me. If you're JUST stupid, then I'll probably humor you for awhile and try to be polite for as long as I can. But often as not, people will open with an insult and THEN say stupid things.
And that means I get to take the gloves off and just rhetorically fuck them up to the extent it amuses me.
Be nice and respectful to me and I'll almost always be nice and respectful to you. The only exception would be if you are being exceptionally stupid and are not productively engaging in a meaningful dialog.
I do not need you to agree with me. But if you can't even have a basic conversation because you're just too stupid to do it, then I'm going to call you stupid at some point. That isn't an insult in that context... that is... like someone calling you short or weak because you can't open that jar of mayonnaise. It isn't an insult in that case... it is me realizing that a given person is mentally incapable of having the discussion I'm attempting to have with them.
In any case... as should be more than obvious to even the most limited of mentalities... I'm not myself stupid. Rude? Perhaps. But not stupid... and as to maturity? That is a question that relies on an understanding of moral and ethical and cultural norms that you can't presume.
In my culture, I am not immature. YOUR culture might see it that way. But why exactly do I care?
Nope. I get where I'm going as fast as anyone. I just don't burn my breaks out or rear end people because I'm stupid.
And as to your lack of knowledge about manual transmissions... You see the same behavior with all the manual transmissions on the road. I'm not alone out there. Lots of cars don't automatically accelerate when the traffic opens up for a minute because it serves no purpose. you're going too fast when that happens and it forces everyone to come to a halt over and over and over again.
You avoid that by just going the average speed of the road.
But you know what... I don't really need you to agree with me. I'm okay with you being wrong.
Good day.
At to projection, it wasn't me that focused like a laser on the corporate labs and then entirely ignored the rest of my argument to focus on that... going increasingly off topic to whine about something we're not talking about.
I didn't do that. You did.
Fact.
As to being out of left field, not really... you started kneejerking and I decided to punch you in the throat for it. I regret only that you didn't realize what I did or why I did it.
As to your silly strawman that I'm saying you're evil for working in anything... I said no such thing. That you say I'm strawmaning you for saying that is idiotic since I didn't say that... so ironically you're strawmanning ME by saying that I strawmanned you about something which I didn't actually say.
Talk about projection. *chuckles*
Anyway, I'd suggest you look at that youtube video I posted above. It is a narration of something Richard Feynman wrote. It is funny and quite relevant to the actual topic... and not your silly obessions.
Fighting words? Oh heavens to mercy what shall I do? Allow me to clutch my pearls in terror! :D
Get on topic. If you want to play games of who is better at insulting whom... I'm going to win. I'm much more offensive than you. :D I'm also better at being condescending and probably a lot of other things. So... you can either get on topic or give me more excuses to practice being a massive throbbing dick. Choose.
As to corporate labs, I'm sorry I made the qualification because you're focusing on it beyond its relevance.
We're talking about scientific fraud. Your comments about the corporate labs is not on topic.
Saying "well they're too focused"... so the fuck what? What does that have to do with fraud? Am I saying "do away with government labs and only have corporate labs"?... Nope.
So kindly shut the fuck up about that because you're embarrassing yourself.
Just forget I said anything about corporate labs at all. No no. Enough. Done. Over.
We're talking about fraud and bullshit science.
Spending 2000 years testing polycarbonate limbs or whatever is not related to either FRAUD or faulty science. Is it a waste of time? Perhaps. But it isn't fraud.
is it fraud?
Answer that question for me... please. Tell me now.
Is it fraud?
Yes or no?
If you say no... and you will because that's a rhetorical question, then you're off fucking topic.
Okay? So... enough.
If that were the case then scientific fraud wouldn't happen... and neither would simple mistakes.
Both happen with some frequency so I'm more than a little dubious as to your position.
I think a lot of the issue is that many papers have become so data heavy that they're very difficult to audit without going through all the data in extreme detail which isn't practical.
And I think to some extent this is intentional. You get some of that from corporations that are sued and respond by giving whomever 500,000 pages of memos. How do you go through that? You can't unless you have a huge team and a huge team isn't going to do that without the promise of a huge payoff.
I can think of several scientific papers of dubious providence that are largely immune to systematic audit on this basis. Whether they are true or not is anyone's guess. No one knows. And I'm seeing MORE papers of this nature over time rather than less.
Because I can see they're not trying.
Give me examples to the contrary.
As to what Horton mentions, I have my own thoughts beyond his blog post. It didn't just now occur to me that we have a problem here. And people have been talking about a growing problem of scientific fraud for sometime. To say that because Horton isn't talking about what I am talking about that I'm somehow not entitled to hold a given opinion or make a given argument is irrational.
This article brought up a subject and I gave my opinion on the subject IN GENERAL.
As to his comment not being about fraud, I disagree. Think he's being politically correct. You find this in any thing that gets political in that you need to talk about things without outright calling someone powerful or influential a liar or a cheat. People tend to get defensive when you do that and that makes them less likely to cooperate.
I think he believes that if he softballs this he might get people that would otherwise clamp down to not obstruct reform.
Ergo, he talks about strengthening all the systems in science that would make fraud harder to get away with... while not calling anyone a fraud.
Do you see?
Now here you might say "well making a mistake is not the same thing as being a fraud"... I agree. And certainly there is some simple sloppiness going on. Being sloppy or incompetent is not the same thing as being a fraud or a cheat. However, there is quite a lot of both going on and much of it is being normalized in the "everyone is doing it so I thought it was okay too" sense. This creates a moral disconnect in that the people doing the action often don't see it as morally wrong. Someone that commits some sort of crime or ethical violation will often be genuinely offended that you accused them such actions even though they did precisely that. And their offense stems from the notion that their actions were not out of the norm for their social set. They don't see themselves as being abnormal. And as such they object to the notion that they're being accused of immorality or unethical behavior.
The funniest example of this was when the Governor of Illinois was literally baffled as to why anyone had a problem with him selling Obama's vacant senate seat for CASH. He literally put the appointment up for the highest bidder. And the money would go to the Governor personally. But he was utterly baffled as to why that was an ethical violation. In his words "I had something valuable and why shouldn't I get something for it?" He literally was just confused as to why it was a problem.
And that is because he exists in a systemically corrupt environment. Compare the number of Chicago politicians that have gone to federal prison against the national average and it is night and day.
Regardless, it is expected of adults like you and me... to read between the lines.
I am not a fool. And I expect you are not a fool either.
Therefore, neither of us literally accept whatever is written down by anyone as being without some subtext that influences the meaning or nature of what is being said. There are implications, inferences, explicit understandings, unwritten rules, etc.
You know that or you are a fool. No offense. I'm just emphasizing the point that you can't be literal especially in issues that are this highly charged.
There are many interests that would be threatened or inconvenienced by reform. So if you actually want reform then you have to do it gently to avoid triggering kneejerk opposition... which is apparently what you're doing from my perspective.
In this, the author likely showed more wisdom than myself. I was honest and spoke to you without pretense. This runs the risk of triggering your sort of response. Regrettable but I hold the belief that it is better to trigger you rather than coddle your biases.
Everyone should be triggered until they can't be triggered anymore. Desensitized and burned out until all that remains is logic and reason. No pretense. No political correctness. No paren
You do appreciate that the republicans shot down this push while it was the democrats mostly trying to reinstate it... right?
I mean, if the republicans wanted it as well... it would have become law again. The only reason this died was because the democrats lost control of congress.
Was it passed by a republican congress the first time? Yep.
But that was after 9/11 and I really doubt most people knew what they were really voting on at the time. Take the TSA for another example, even the person that personally wrote the legislation that created it... regrets it.
Also who was the guy that filibustered the reinstatement of those provisions? It wasn't a democrat. And if you look at the voting for who did try to reinstate it... it was 90 percent democrats.
Just saying. They're not as similar as you think.
Solar panels are inherently defuse power sources.
A nuclear powerplant that can supply power to millions can be relatively small. Most of the size of a plant is concerned with containment and not the reactor itself. But solar power plants are relatively enourmous.
It doesn't make sense to centralize and concentrate them. Rather, just put panels on every roof in town.
There is also no logistical reason to centralize. With nuclear power you want to keep dangerous materials out of the hands of idiots and you want the system overseen by someone that knows what they're doing. With coal or gasoline you need to worry about the logistics of fuel delivery and storage and you need to be concerned about the exhaust not washing over houses.
None of these things are relevant for solar. Rather than dumping billions into solar farms, we should instead LOAN panels to the community. Retain ownership of them since the government is paying for them or the utility is paying for them. But install them on the houses rather than concentrating them.
here someone will say "but that requires a control box at every house to allow each house to feed power back into the system"... yep. But that also normalizes that practice as being standard and to be expected rather than as the exception to the rule. That changes the way the grid words and that is change for the better.
As to how people speed up and slow down with an automatic versus a manual transmission, you do realize I have personal experience with this right?
Furthermore, physics calls you wrong. A large truck is not going to be jamming on the acceleration and then jammming on the break or even down shifting into first gear or something over and over and over again.
Perhaps you don't know what stop and go traffic is in the first place? Okay, it is this traffic pattern during times of very heavy congestion where people will be bumper to bumper and then speed up to perhaps 40 t0 50 miles an hour and then drop down to perhaps 10 to 20 miles an hour.
This pattern pulses on the highway with people increasing in speed and decreasing in speed every couple miles.
I have driven through such traffic in Los Angeles for years. I know of what I speak.
The big semis or buses generally don't go any faster than the fastest sports cars under those conditions. The difference is that they don't accelerate during the fast periods and they don't slow down during the slow periods. They tend to hold a consistent average speed between the two extremes. Because they don't speed up, a gap opens before them so that they don't have to slow down. They just hold their speed which is often something like 20 to 25 miles an hour and they just cruise through the whole thing.
Now, anyone with a manual transmission is going to find stop and go traffic especially annoying. It means upshifting and downshifting constantly.
But an automatic driver finds it less annoying because all they have to do is press the gas or press the break. There is no process up upshifting and then downshifting. And so they will mindlessly get into the pattern of stop and go traffic.
I don't think a highway full of manuals would do that. it would be too annoying for everyone and they'd just follow the truck's example and MY example by not accelerating in the open patches so that they didn't have to slow down during the slow patches.
As to your stupid little insults at the end... We'll write that off as immaturity and move forward. :)
Of all the features to make optional, "pedestrian detection" is not one of them.
Either include that in the auto parking feature or do not include an auto parking feature.
Really... these auto driving features are premature in most cases. People need to take responsibility for what their own cars do and not fob it off on dubious auto pilot systems.
That said, I don't even like automatic transmissions... I'm convinced that they're responsible for stop and go traffic. People with manual transmissions do not accelerate and then jam on the breaks over and over and over again. Instead, the whole highway keeps a consistent speed.
it is why in such traffic I get behind the biggest semi I can find. That semi is NOT accelerating and stopping over and over again. That guy is going to go the average speed of traffic. I get behind him... and an otherwise stressful drive becomes quite peaceful.
When we have fully automated cars, I think it might get better just because I'm convinced that most issues on the roads are caused by fucktard drivers. And maybe the robots will be less stupid. But who knows.
The laundry list of shady deals is so long as this point that the organization itself has lost all credibility.
When I challenged you to quote me, I was challenging you to show what I said that provoked his rude comment.
You have just conceded that I was right and his comment came without provocation. I responded to his rude comment with a rude comment. Complaining about getting a rude comment to a rude comment is hypocritical.
morons.
*rolls eyes at the fucktard ACs.*
Well first off, proposing that objective is not meaningless because we're currently not even trying. My objective is literally driving unethical scientists out of the field. That is not something that is actively done.
Second off, I did actually propose some ideas to someone else in this thread and suggested a method of determining effectiveness.
I find this notion that I have to give you a complete proven system gift wrapped for you or I have no valid input to be essentially fallacious. My point and general objective is neither correct nor incorrect if I do not propose a complete system.
I do not need to do that to be right or wrong.
If you'd like a summary of some of my ideas... I'd like to apply FBI fraud and IRS audit tactics to some of these papers. The FBI tactics involve traps. You put out something that an unethical or lazy scientist will slurp up and use in a paper. When it is cited, you humiliate them as using a bogus source.
It should be convincing enough and in the university library and databases so it appears to be real UNTIL you actually read the source. IF you read the source and actually check it, then you'll see it is shit. But you can have it referenced in various places so it seems valid. The point will be to try and get lazy scientists that don't actually read material but read what someone else said about something and then reference the original source when they've never consulted the original source.
This is something the FBI does with stings. You set up some bait and you wait until someone bites.
The IRS randomly subjects a percentage of returns to intensive audits. Do the same thing with the papers and studies. You can subject any study or paper to an audit if you get red flags but the idea here is on top of that to audit some entirely randomly. This increases the risk factor because a deep examination of the paper or study will not be predictable.
There are other ideas as well. But what we're basically dealing with here is fraud.
Fraud is something we have methods of dealing with and various organizations have systems they've developed. Even CIA counter intelligence tactics should be looked at. The idea is to get the fraudsters to stand out.
The best method is basically to get them to self select. You do something that a fraudster will respond to differently than an honest scientist.
And if you didn't get enough evidence to crucify him on the first pass then you don't even let him know you found him. Instead, you subject him to a second round opportunities to incriminate himself.
Because no one is being convicted of a crime in a court of law... the entrapment laws etc do not even begin to apply.
There are many ways to find unethical people. It isn't that hard, chum. You just have to make ANY effort. Apply the same cunning an illiterate fur trapper uses to catch his pray and you'll actually be doing quite well. You must be patient, methodical, and determined.
I'll leave you with this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I'm not arguing whether or not some idiot wrote down something stupid on a piece of paper. I'm arguing that it was a stupid thing to put on the paper.
Look at the taxi mediallion licenses for another example of the same thing. You want to run a taxi service in this town? Give the city 200,000 dollars.
What does that do? That locks out all the smaller competitors because who can afford the seed capital of an additional 200,000 dollars PER cab on top of the actual cab, advertising, office space, etc.
Your point that "but the agreements says this" is utterly irrelevant to me. The thing could say any fucking thing some asshat wrote on it.
it is anti competitive, pro monopolist, anti consumer, it is the reason internet speeds are often shit throughout the country and it is the reason many areas have very poor coverage.
You know that.
I know that.
Why are you defending something that is objectively bad for pretty much everyone and serves no purpose besides letting well monied companies basically sit on their asses collecting monthly fees for shitty service?
You have to be fucking kidding me.
As long as you admit to being AC trolls, you've conceded the position to me and from my perspective... I win.
First off, I've explained to YOU several times that my mod points don't matter to me.
Second, people that CAN"T be modded up or down, don't get to talk about other people's mod points.
Unlike you, I actually care about ACTUALLY being right. This is an alien concept to people like you. It means I don't care about what you say or do unless it impacts the argument. Nothing else matters to me.
As to local government, you're not telling me anything I don't know and I frankly made it quite clear I was talking about that so you're just restating what I said.
As to "Do a bunch of stupid shit we made up to lock small companies out of the conduits or we don't let you run cable in the conduits"... no. Those are often not reasonable.
A common stipulation for example is that cable be run throughout the entire city/town if it is run anywhere.
And that means that a small company that might only have the resources to provide service to one neighborhood initially is locked out for basically no reason.
this is sort of like saying you can't open a sandwich shop unless you agree to open ten locations across town.
That means that big franchises can open sandwich shops but little companies can't. So everything turns into McDonalds.
Sound reasonable?
As to local government, we don't let local governments screw with roads. So no. Same basic principle.
You think it is reasonable for local governments to be systematically bribed to lock out all competition using these bogus agreements.
It is nonsense. I believe portland issued their last franchise agreement after FREE gigabit internet was given to their capital building. And I know there was something like that in another city where the company gave them free internet at the schools.
Well great. Your schools save a hundred dollars a month on their internet bill and the entire town is locked down by the monopoly for fucking chump change.
Those comments were AFTER the rude comment. So you fail at causality.
Here was the ONLY post prior to the rude comment from the AC shithead:
""
That's the issue.
It is as a great man once said "cargo cult science"... it presents the seeming of science... the seeming of logic... but is it? And the thing is that only people that are genuine can really tell one from the other.
While this will sound terribly retrograde and classist... the issue is that we have a lot of sleazy people in positions of trust. Sleazy people are not going to behave themselves under any system.
A community is not just defined by those in it but those not permitted to join it. Some sort of integrity check should be put on the system and those that are clearly only interested in money or power or attention should be kicked out. Those interested in actually doing a real science... humble though it often is... should be the only ones on the pay roll.
I speak of public universities only. Private universities and corporations can do whatever they want. But if you're taking the public coin then the public has a right to insist on integrity. What private individuals want to do with their own money is their own business.
Simply cutting the sophists off from public funding should largely solve the problem. That is where this fungus has grown. The corporations are too goal oriented to get side tracked by this sort of thing. And the private universities are likely just as vulnerable as the public ones but their credibility is their problem and not one anyone else needs to worry about.
""
Find the rude comment in there. Quote it for me.
If you don't... I reserve to the right to call you names. ;)
So if a man stabs me... and I respond by shooting him... you would imply that i shot the man without provocation?
See, the problem with your statement is that it came AFTER he was rude to me. There was no provocation from ME prior to his rude comment.
AFTER he was rude to me, I responded by being rude to him.
See how that works?
This is what I hate about ACs... I suspect you're all the same raging fucktard.
If not, there are an awful lot of fucking stupid people that comment under the AC comment system on this site. I mean, nearly all of you are morons. The people that actually log in are a magnitude more intelligent and constructive. But the ACs are good for little more than feeding the soylent green machine.