As to climate change, where did that study happen even once much less twice?
As to how you'd do that... you can conduct multiple studies at once in isolation if that helps.
The point is that you don't want to change policy because a scientist made a mistake, got bribed, or was otherwise pressured. You want each study done by a different group with neither being able to put any pressure on the other.
As to the politics... I really have no patience for your bigotry. Concern yourself with this legislation specifically without bringing your factional bullshit into it.
If the democrats proposed the same legislation I'm quite certain that most of you would support it reflexively. And anyone that changed their view on that basis is too biased to have a credible opinion.
First off, this is the EPA not the FDA. So the only way my medical records would be relevant would be if I were exposed to some environmental chemical. And in that case, why wouldn't I disclose my records especially when the legislators have said they're okay with names being redacted?
Go for it.
The objections so far as I can see are bullshit. There's no justification for using studies that cannot be reproduced to enact policy or legislation. If its science you can reproduce it. If it isn't then it might not be. And if you're thinking about changing policy or legislation based on a study you can afford to do a study twice.
As to not liking hypothetical problems that is a bullshit argument that politicians throw out when there are serious problems with their agenda and they merely want it to introduced before anyone is permitted to point out obvious problems.
If I proposed a law that would cause people to be vivisected if they stood up on tuesdays... and you said "that's monsterous because they'd stand up and get vivisected"... I could respond that is theoretical as well.
The argument that something can't be brought up because it is theoretical is a pathetic rhetorical dodge. That's like saying when designing a house that calls for a roof to keep out rain is theoretical because it isn't raining right now.
Consider the way our government was set up initially. It assumed corruption and attempts by people to cease control. So they divided power and created a system of due process to make it hard to cease control. That attempt to cease control was theoretical.
EVERYONE does things on a theoretical basis all the time.
So I very deliberately spit in the face of anyone making this stupid argument.
now if you want examples, I can probably get them. But do not tell me you won't consider something just because it is theoretical. its a dumb as saying that being left in a room with a rabid dog is unsafe because the dog MIGHT bite you. Seriously stupid a very very stupid statement you made there.
Except for that doesn't explain asking for a study to be reproducible or disclosure of evidence means pollutors rule. It just means there's some sort of due process.
The problem with you idea is that you're just assuming the government is doing the right thing. Look at the crap out of the NSA these days. The government does dirty stuff sometimes. And what would stop the EPA from passing regulations that hurt one company but not another because some lobbyist paid off a politician that influences that. What defense would anyone have from that? None because you've removed all due process from the situation.
Yes, it means the EPA gets taken to court, but being taken to court is not a bad thing. It is a normal part of our government.
We have three branches of government. It is the job of the judiciary to audit the other branches for legality. If a branch can't be audited then the judiciary can't do their job.
Explain why you think the EPA should be able to operate with impunity and no oversight?
Except I pay increasing premiums if my car gets in accidents. To say nothing of having to pay for the repairs for my own car assuming that wasn't in the insurance.
If the stupid car is crashing due to no fault of my own then how is that going to work? I'm just going to get fucked repeatedly for the stupid car crashing into stuff?
None of you guys are gaming this one out. Actually run the simulation in your mind.
This one is actually sort of reasonable. They're saying they don't want to disclose projected casualties at disaster sites. I'm sure congress would give them a waiver for this sort of thing though. They frequently give waivers for national security stuff.
So yeah. Be less shitty at using search engines please... its the 21st century, you filthy animals.
Every time I get some sort of query like this on Slashdot... I am just baffled that no one knows how to use a search engine but me. I'm apparently the only one.
Good luck collecting on that or good luck being able to run a business.
This is really the big problem with driverless cars. The liability.
one thing you can expect is that bike paths and jaywalking are going to be increasingly unacceptable. The roads are going to be simplified. Those confusing traffic signs that no one can figure out? Gone... because they'll start to generate liability for the cities.
Currently confusing traffic signs are a revenue source because police and meter maids can ticket you for not understanding something that is frankly open to interpretation. But with driver less cars they will have to enter concrete rules into a map of the city and ambiguity won't really be possible. And if there is any then the city can be held liable for making stupid rules that cause automated cars to crash or park in the wrong places.
Any accident is going to be argued with a major corporation backing it rather then some no body that lost control of his car for a minute. And that is going to mean the major corporations are going to lobby the government for stricter laws regarding road design, city planning, etc.
If you think the big companies are going to take responsibility you've got another thing coming. They won't. And they can't. All that is left is the driver, the government, and the guy that got hit. The government isn't going to take responsibility either. And the owner... if they didn't do anything... can't really hold them responsible either.
The liability is a serious serious fucking problem. I haven't heard anyone with a solution to it.
As to the standards, absolutely. Any science used to back up a war should be reproducible. Whether it is disclosed or not in that case is a little more suspect because you're talking about war. Wars are won and lost often on secrets. So for example, I would be in favor secrets being kept when those secrets could save lives.
However, science that is not reproducible is not science.
You think you're being clever by conflating very different things together... military intelligence versus a scientific study.
The problem with your logic here, is that if you don't conflate you know I'll agree with you... and if you do conflate then you suggest that scientific studies should be treated with the same skepticism one regards for military intelligence.
For example, if I said I didn't find a military report to be credible that would be entirely valid no? But if I said I didn't find a tested scientific fact to be credible that would be unreasonable on my part.
By suggesting that they're the same thing you either put standards on military intelligence that are unworkable or you diminish the value of science to such a point that it basically hearsay.
I am prepared to engage with you on this issue rationally. But you should be warned now... I am extremely rational. Doubletalk, sophistry, and other fallacious nonsense will simply get vivisected and pinned to an examination table while I take it apart bit by bit putting each little piece in its own little formaldehyde jar with its own little label.
If you are not honest with me or you think yourself to be clever enough to get away with flimflam... then I will engage you as a troll.
If science and logic are on your side... prove it by not repeating any more sophistry.
So what you're saying is that "Due Process" is inconvenient?
The EPA should be subject to due process. If they're saying they're doing something because of a study... then that study itself should be subject to examination... that includes whether it is reprroducable and therefore science at all... and then you're going to want to know where the information came from so you can audit it.
You're holding the EPA to a lower standard then a corporation that files its yearly tax return.
You're being cousined. It is not unreasonable to ask that studies be reproducible before using them as justification for law and protocol. And it is not unreasonable for those same studies to have their data audited.
If you have such contempt for the political process then just come out and say it now... just say you hate democracy. Say you hate due process. Say you hate freedom of speech. Just admit it.
All these things make dictatorial rule difficult.
Due process forces those that wish to claim power to justify their actions and associate those actions with existing law. Democracy means you can't just take control unless you have a solid majority behind you. Some little cabal can't just do whatever they want. And of course, freedom of speech lets people tell you to your face... that you're a fascist fool. And that's not the image of yourself you want to project when you're pulling these hijinks.
In regards to what, mr AC? Someone made a contextually irrelevant comment to a comment I made. I informed them politely that I had two options...
1. Strawman them by assuming they had responded to my comment even though nothing in their post indicated that.
2. Allow them to pull me off on a tangent that was totally unrelated to my argument.
I chose option 3... I chose not to respond and told them why.
And then I get YOU, mr AC telling me that I'm an ass without giving me any reason for it.
I'm going to assume that you're someone I might recognize if you weren't hiding behind the AC title... and that you don't like the way previous discussions went between us? I can only assume since you're going out of your way to tell me nothing... not even your fake name on this forum.
So how about this, mr AC... Extend your right thumb, place it flatly on your seat and then ease down on to it. When you've done that... we can continue. Otherwise... I really can't see what we have to say to each other.
1. what is your problem with that? 2. We don't need to publish everything. Just publish what you want to base policy upon. If you don't need to produce policy on it then it doesn't need to comply with these rules. If you DO, then explain why the study you are setting policy on cannot be reproduced and you won't disclose the source of your data?
Its very suspecious and frankly I don't see why a study should be considered credible when it cannot be reproduced and the data it is based upon either will not be disclosed or has been disappeared somewhere.
It is quite reasonable to ask that scientific studies that you want to base LAW on be reproducible otherwise you could just make up anything and when it couldn't be reproduced you'd say "well I did it once"... and then if I ask to see where you got that data you just say "nope, its secret"...
""would require that EPA use only publicly available, reproducible data in writing regulations and seek to remake the membership and procedures of the agencyâ(TM)s science advisory panels.""
Explain to me why that is bad? First, unreproducable science isn't science. So requiring that the science be reproducable is requiring that it actually be science. As to the information being publicly avalidable, it can't be peer reviewed unless it can be reviewed by peers.
Here someone will say "but we had some secret shadow council of scientists look it over and they said it was fine."... but since you're not disclosing it, then how can we know? What is more, your selection of scientists could be his buddies for all anyone knows.
I'm not talking about the science being behind a journal paywall. That's one thing. But if the science and data is straight up not disclosed then I'm not approving legislation based on it because I can't get it verified.
Look... republicans and democrats either need to kill each other or the two need to be able to work together reasonably. This is not an unreasonable requirement from what I can see. So... democrats... seriously... what the fuck? If the republicans are doing something stupid, then bitch about that and shut it down. But if they're not... then at least have a rational discussion about it. In fact, strike that... always have a rational discussion.
I know there is a lot of factionalism and tribalism in US politics. But we've come to the point where we need to get over that bullshit or throats need to get cut.
We're not talking about the same thing. Your opinion doesn't touch on my comment and I couldn't comment on your opinion without strawmanning you by making connections you didn't make... or unless I allowed you to randomly take me on whatever tangent you wanted to talk about.
The only thing that you said that crossed my point was that you think end users are not dumb as well. Here we agree. After that... no connection.
yep. Which is why open discussion without censorship is a good idea.
Just let everyone say what they think. Dumb ideas are going to be shown as such. Anyone afraid of having an open discussion or that insists on contradicting opinions be censored is merely admitting that they are afraid of an open discussion on the issue and fear contradiction/argument/debate.
Such people should be treated with the casual contempt of all cowards and confidence men.
The very idea of censorship of speech stands in opposition to democracy itself. And if that's really want people want... then we'll just have a king or a dictator for life. And then whenever you happen to disagree with that guy... have fun being instantly ignored.
You act as if something that huge is something they're just going to get away with... that's bigger then them. If they cross that line... they're going to find a world of pain.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah but what if the lift is shown to not be faulty?
You're just assuming the manufacturer is going to make it rain every time one of these things crashes.
Won't happen.
Given all the coverups lately who can say... I try to be cynical but I can't keep up with these people. Their corruption surprises me still.
Regardless, science has to be open to audit and any government action must be subject to due process.
So whomever wins this political pissing match, it would be best for the country if the EPA were subject to due process.
As to climate change, where did that study happen even once much less twice?
As to how you'd do that... you can conduct multiple studies at once in isolation if that helps.
The point is that you don't want to change policy because a scientist made a mistake, got bribed, or was otherwise pressured. You want each study done by a different group with neither being able to put any pressure on the other.
As to the politics... I really have no patience for your bigotry. Concern yourself with this legislation specifically without bringing your factional bullshit into it.
If the democrats proposed the same legislation I'm quite certain that most of you would support it reflexively. And anyone that changed their view on that basis is too biased to have a credible opinion.
First off, this is the EPA not the FDA. So the only way my medical records would be relevant would be if I were exposed to some environmental chemical. And in that case, why wouldn't I disclose my records especially when the legislators have said they're okay with names being redacted?
Go for it.
The objections so far as I can see are bullshit. There's no justification for using studies that cannot be reproduced to enact policy or legislation. If its science you can reproduce it. If it isn't then it might not be. And if you're thinking about changing policy or legislation based on a study you can afford to do a study twice.
Then pass your regulation without citing any science at all. Just do it "because"... that would at least be honest.
If you have science to back it up then you can cite it. if you don't then you can't cite it.
What is happening now is that they're citing something that isn't science because it either can't be reproduced or the data is suspect.
As to not liking hypothetical problems that is a bullshit argument that politicians throw out when there are serious problems with their agenda and they merely want it to introduced before anyone is permitted to point out obvious problems.
If I proposed a law that would cause people to be vivisected if they stood up on tuesdays... and you said "that's monsterous because they'd stand up and get vivisected"... I could respond that is theoretical as well.
The argument that something can't be brought up because it is theoretical is a pathetic rhetorical dodge. That's like saying when designing a house that calls for a roof to keep out rain is theoretical because it isn't raining right now.
Consider the way our government was set up initially. It assumed corruption and attempts by people to cease control. So they divided power and created a system of due process to make it hard to cease control. That attempt to cease control was theoretical.
EVERYONE does things on a theoretical basis all the time.
So I very deliberately spit in the face of anyone making this stupid argument.
now if you want examples, I can probably get them. But do not tell me you won't consider something just because it is theoretical. its a dumb as saying that being left in a room with a rabid dog is unsafe because the dog MIGHT bite you. Seriously stupid a very very stupid statement you made there.
No offense... do not do it again.
Except for that doesn't explain asking for a study to be reproducible or disclosure of evidence means pollutors rule. It just means there's some sort of due process.
The problem with you idea is that you're just assuming the government is doing the right thing. Look at the crap out of the NSA these days. The government does dirty stuff sometimes. And what would stop the EPA from passing regulations that hurt one company but not another because some lobbyist paid off a politician that influences that. What defense would anyone have from that? None because you've removed all due process from the situation.
Yes, it means the EPA gets taken to court, but being taken to court is not a bad thing. It is a normal part of our government.
We have three branches of government. It is the job of the judiciary to audit the other branches for legality. If a branch can't be audited then the judiciary can't do their job.
Explain why you think the EPA should be able to operate with impunity and no oversight?
Except I pay increasing premiums if my car gets in accidents. To say nothing of having to pay for the repairs for my own car assuming that wasn't in the insurance.
If the stupid car is crashing due to no fault of my own then how is that going to work? I'm just going to get fucked repeatedly for the stupid car crashing into stuff?
None of you guys are gaming this one out. Actually run the simulation in your mind.
Explain your problem in a complete statement please. I'm confused as to why that matters?
I literally typed into google "EPA won't disclose data" and then saw a page full of different examples.
Here's one:
http://www.sej.org/publication...
not quite sure what that is about... something about a mine.
here's another
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
This one is actually sort of reasonable. They're saying they don't want to disclose projected casualties at disaster sites. I'm sure congress would give them a waiver for this sort of thing though. They frequently give waivers for national security stuff.
Here's another:
http://www.foreffectivegov.org...
That one is about pesticides and bees.
So yeah. Be less shitty at using search engines please... its the 21st century, you filthy animals.
Every time I get some sort of query like this on Slashdot... I am just baffled that no one knows how to use a search engine but me. I'm apparently the only one.
Good luck collecting on that or good luck being able to run a business.
This is really the big problem with driverless cars. The liability.
one thing you can expect is that bike paths and jaywalking are going to be increasingly unacceptable. The roads are going to be simplified. Those confusing traffic signs that no one can figure out? Gone... because they'll start to generate liability for the cities.
Currently confusing traffic signs are a revenue source because police and meter maids can ticket you for not understanding something that is frankly open to interpretation. But with driver less cars they will have to enter concrete rules into a map of the city and ambiguity won't really be possible. And if there is any then the city can be held liable for making stupid rules that cause automated cars to crash or park in the wrong places.
Any accident is going to be argued with a major corporation backing it rather then some no body that lost control of his car for a minute. And that is going to mean the major corporations are going to lobby the government for stricter laws regarding road design, city planning, etc.
If you think the big companies are going to take responsibility you've got another thing coming. They won't. And they can't. All that is left is the driver, the government, and the guy that got hit. The government isn't going to take responsibility either. And the owner... if they didn't do anything... can't really hold them responsible either.
The liability is a serious serious fucking problem. I haven't heard anyone with a solution to it.
As to the standards, absolutely. Any science used to back up a war should be reproducible. Whether it is disclosed or not in that case is a little more suspect because you're talking about war. Wars are won and lost often on secrets. So for example, I would be in favor secrets being kept when those secrets could save lives.
However, science that is not reproducible is not science.
You think you're being clever by conflating very different things together... military intelligence versus a scientific study.
The problem with your logic here, is that if you don't conflate you know I'll agree with you... and if you do conflate then you suggest that scientific studies should be treated with the same skepticism one regards for military intelligence.
For example, if I said I didn't find a military report to be credible that would be entirely valid no? But if I said I didn't find a tested scientific fact to be credible that would be unreasonable on my part.
By suggesting that they're the same thing you either put standards on military intelligence that are unworkable or you diminish the value of science to such a point that it basically hearsay.
I am prepared to engage with you on this issue rationally. But you should be warned now... I am extremely rational. Doubletalk, sophistry, and other fallacious nonsense will simply get vivisected and pinned to an examination table while I take it apart bit by bit putting each little piece in its own little formaldehyde jar with its own little label.
If you are not honest with me or you think yourself to be clever enough to get away with flimflam... then I will engage you as a troll.
If science and logic are on your side... prove it by not repeating any more sophistry.
So what you're saying is that "Due Process" is inconvenient?
The EPA should be subject to due process. If they're saying they're doing something because of a study... then that study itself should be subject to examination... that includes whether it is reprroducable and therefore science at all... and then you're going to want to know where the information came from so you can audit it.
You're holding the EPA to a lower standard then a corporation that files its yearly tax return.
You're being cousined. It is not unreasonable to ask that studies be reproducible before using them as justification for law and protocol. And it is not unreasonable for those same studies to have their data audited.
If you have such contempt for the political process then just come out and say it now... just say you hate democracy. Say you hate due process. Say you hate freedom of speech. Just admit it.
All these things make dictatorial rule difficult.
Due process forces those that wish to claim power to justify their actions and associate those actions with existing law. Democracy means you can't just take control unless you have a solid majority behind you. Some little cabal can't just do whatever they want. And of course, freedom of speech lets people tell you to your face... that you're a fascist fool. And that's not the image of yourself you want to project when you're pulling these hijinks.
Lets say my self driving car runs someone over... who is liable?
In regards to what, mr AC? Someone made a contextually irrelevant comment to a comment I made. I informed them politely that I had two options...
1. Strawman them by assuming they had responded to my comment even though nothing in their post indicated that.
2. Allow them to pull me off on a tangent that was totally unrelated to my argument.
I chose option 3... I chose not to respond and told them why.
And then I get YOU, mr AC telling me that I'm an ass without giving me any reason for it.
I'm going to assume that you're someone I might recognize if you weren't hiding behind the AC title... and that you don't like the way previous discussions went between us? I can only assume since you're going out of your way to tell me nothing... not even your fake name on this forum.
So how about this, mr AC... Extend your right thumb, place it flatly on your seat and then ease down on to it. When you've done that... we can continue. Otherwise... I really can't see what we have to say to each other.
1. what is your problem with that?
2. We don't need to publish everything. Just publish what you want to base policy upon. If you don't need to produce policy on it then it doesn't need to comply with these rules. If you DO, then explain why the study you are setting policy on cannot be reproduced and you won't disclose the source of your data?
Its very suspecious and frankly I don't see why a study should be considered credible when it cannot be reproduced and the data it is based upon either will not be disclosed or has been disappeared somewhere.
It is quite reasonable to ask that scientific studies that you want to base LAW on be reproducible otherwise you could just make up anything and when it couldn't be reproduced you'd say "well I did it once"... and then if I ask to see where you got that data you just say "nope, its secret"...
Fuck that.
Why would the EPA be using science from medical studies with undisclosed sources?
We're not talking about the government in general. We're talking about the EPA.
Most of what the EPA is citing is stuff from AGW studies... why would you have a problem with sources being disclosed and data being reproducible?
What is more, aren't the bills separated? Like... isn't one of them saying they want the sources and the other one wants the data reproducible?
Let's just see if we can agree on one thing... do you agree that the government should only use studies that are reproducible?
Just that... forget the sources. Is that stipulation reasonable and if not why?
""would require that EPA use only publicly available, reproducible data in writing regulations and seek to remake the membership and procedures of the agencyâ(TM)s science advisory panels.""
Explain to me why that is bad? First, unreproducable science isn't science. So requiring that the science be reproducable is requiring that it actually be science. As to the information being publicly avalidable, it can't be peer reviewed unless it can be reviewed by peers.
Here someone will say "but we had some secret shadow council of scientists look it over and they said it was fine."... but since you're not disclosing it, then how can we know? What is more, your selection of scientists could be his buddies for all anyone knows.
I'm not talking about the science being behind a journal paywall. That's one thing. But if the science and data is straight up not disclosed then I'm not approving legislation based on it because I can't get it verified.
Look... republicans and democrats either need to kill each other or the two need to be able to work together reasonably. This is not an unreasonable requirement from what I can see. So... democrats... seriously... what the fuck? If the republicans are doing something stupid, then bitch about that and shut it down. But if they're not... then at least have a rational discussion about it. In fact, strike that... always have a rational discussion.
I know there is a lot of factionalism and tribalism in US politics. But we've come to the point where we need to get over that bullshit or throats need to get cut.
This shit is old.
And where do I get in line for it because this sounds like the easiest job ever.
I think I'll make a virtual reality woman that you need to talk to... and then track people's eye movements based on breast size.
You can make the check out to cash.
We're not talking about the same thing. Your opinion doesn't touch on my comment and I couldn't comment on your opinion without strawmanning you by making connections you didn't make... or unless I allowed you to randomly take me on whatever tangent you wanted to talk about.
The only thing that you said that crossed my point was that you think end users are not dumb as well. Here we agree. After that... no connection.
The tendency to treat the user like a moron is common on all the widely adopted consumer operating systems and it really does need to stop.
It just leaves otherwise intelligent people utterly baffled when simple things happen because they're kept in a fantasy land by their GUI.
They're at best treading water.
So... fact to you means "the consensus opinion" which means you want to censor all minority opinion to better preserve your own group think?
This is at best naive foolishness and at worst literal fascism.
This is either a dumb idea or a terrible idea... or some combination of the two.
yep. Which is why open discussion without censorship is a good idea.
Just let everyone say what they think. Dumb ideas are going to be shown as such. Anyone afraid of having an open discussion or that insists on contradicting opinions be censored is merely admitting that they are afraid of an open discussion on the issue and fear contradiction/argument/debate.
Such people should be treated with the casual contempt of all cowards and confidence men.
The very idea of censorship of speech stands in opposition to democracy itself. And if that's really want people want... then we'll just have a king or a dictator for life. And then whenever you happen to disagree with that guy... have fun being instantly ignored.
You act as if something that huge is something they're just going to get away with... that's bigger then them. If they cross that line... they're going to find a world of pain.