The system would be closed to all but people with PhD's or people in graduate programs. And the two groups should be distinguished in the system.
Furthermore, the system should be sensitive to the field of each degree. If you're a computer science major commenting on a biology paper then that should at least be visible to people. I don't think anyone should be restricted from making comments after they're already in the system. BUT their field of expertise should be prominently displayed somewhere just so people know.
The point is not to create a circus. The point is to make the system hard for any group to censor without leaving a paper trail.
If there were a public record of everything that was rejected, when, by who, and why... then I would be fine with it.
There is no transparency. Not only can such people do damage there is no doubt that there are people doing damage all the time.
Come on... Murphy's law. If it can happen it will happen.
I'm okay with keeping the journal system if it can be made more transparent. But frankly there are some credibility issues cropping up that do require some sort of reform at the very least.
Bernie Madoff was a sacred cow prior to the scandal. Think of a scientist that is/was so well respected that no one would even think to question his work. There are people that if they told you 1+1=3 you'd assume YOU made the math error because these people are never wrong.
Bernie also was cited by some people repeatedly for fraud. Some traders did the research. They calculated his returns and then looked at charts and tried to figure out how he could have possibly gotten those results. They reported Bernie to the FCC. They reported him to the media.
No one listened. In fact, the FCC brought Bernie in a couple times as a FRIEND to have some chats about it. They basically showed him everything people were saying and helped him cover it up. Everyone assumed he was right. So if someone was making claims against him, THEY had to be wrong. Had to be wrong... because Bernie is always right.
He was the great man. There are such people in science and the journal system ultimately serves them because most journals will publish anything they say sight unseen and reject anything they tell the journal to reject. We've had reports of this sort of activity for many years.
I don't mean to say the system is completely corrupt. I merely say it is corruptible. If the right people apply pressure they can bury things or make bad science seem legitimate.
I am not a scientist. But I am a human being. I know how humans work. Scientists can't escape their own humanity or the inherent weaknesses of human social structures.
All I'm asking for here is transparency and record keeping. Nothing more. Keep a log of all rejected papers, who, what, when, and why... and another record for accepted papers listing the same criteria... and I am content. You could do it with a spread sheet or a ledger. I don't need anything fancy here. Just a record open to all.
As to transitions... of course. I wouldn't suggest we just shut the journals off cold turkey. In fact, I'm certain that the old guard will stick with them until they retire. The point is to get the next generation using this system. In part they might find it liberating to be peer reviewed by their ACTUAL peers and not their soon to be predecessors.
And that said, if you can actually fix the journal system then GREAT! Fantastic. That would be wonderful. I have no confidence in anyone being able to do that. Its an idea akin to fixing a rotten tree. I mean... there's nothing you can do with it... it's rotten clean through. But if you can somecrazyhow drive the rot out of the tree then that's amazing.
I'm not in favor of going to a new system simply because I think it's better. I just don't see how the old system is salvageable. By all means leave the last generation using it if they want. Just as our parents will still get newspapers delivered to their homes for the rest of their lives. It doesn't matter how many ipads, kindles, or laptops they have. They like having a newspaper in their hands. Fine. Have it. And for that alone the journals will have to persist at least for them for a time. But everyone savvy enough should start transitioning to something better unless the journals ACTUALLY reform. Again, I have zero confidence that they can or will reform. But if they do... they have all my support for what little that's worth.
Oh you don't know the Bernie Madoff story then. He didn't need the money. I thought everyone knew that.
it was worse then that... he did it because he could do it. It was all fueled by contempt. Bernie was a very wealthy guy before he started his Ponzi scheme. He was very well respected for doing REAL work. I mean, he ACTUALLY earned that respect for really good work in the finance industry. Look the man up PRIOR to the ponzi scheme and you'll see he was a very big wheel.
Why did he do it then? He didn't need the money. He risked everything... his fortune... his status... everything. For what? It wasn't the money. I can only guess he did it for contempt or ego or something emotional. Because logically his actions made no sense. He destroyed himself and his reputation for nothing.
In that sort of world I'm not trusting some journal because they have a reputation.
Really this whole reliance on reputation is a bad idea. This is the 21st century. We don't need to rely on primitive social structures. Just be transparent and then I don't need to trust you. We're all walking around naked. I can see everything... if you can't lie to me then I don't care if you're a liar or not.
You could say "who are you to say what we should do here"... and that's valid to a point. But the thing is we can do this right now and I really don't see how it wouldn't be in better in every measurable way? We lose nothing by shifting to such a system and gain a great deal more insight and control into the peer review system. It all becomes very public. No decisions made in the dark.
Well, we would be restricting it to scientists so the spam should be limited.
Furthermore there are a lot of easy methods for filtering work out. Come on... we've all used about a million social networking sites at this point. There are WAYS to filter content in an unbiased way.
Another issue here is scientific group think. This is something science has been prone to for centuries. Most scientists believe something is impossible or that the world works a given way. A few people on the side protest and are ignored for a time and then something happens that discredits the accepted model and science changes.
MAYBE something like this would help stop the group think or manage it better? I don't know. Journals if anything enable it.
Well, as to signal to noise, the issue I have is that I don't trust the journals as a filtration mechanism. It's not transparent. They don't report which articles they reject or why. That's a big problem. "just trust us" is not something I'm willing to accept from anyone at this point. It's also not scientific. It's ad verecundiam.
As to journals solving the problem... there have been some very bad science published in the Lancet in the last few years for example... and that's supposed to be a very well respected journal. There are also always claims of journals excluding people from publishing due to bias or because other scientists threatened the journal that if they published X they and their friends wouldn't publish their work in that journal anymore. It seriously undermines the credibility and sustainability of the journal system.
As to inefficiency, it would only be so temporarily. The automobile was inefficient compared to the horse for some time. Then when better designs for cars came out the horse simply couldn't compete indifferent to any other logistical concern. Our computer technology has progressed to the point where any inefficiency would be very short term and after that it would only be an improvement.
But the real point here is that I want transparency. I want to see EVERYTHING go in... I want to see the peer review process... and I want to see the output.
What bothers me about the system right now is that there are some very critical decisions made that leave no paper trail. There's no explanation. No record. Nothing.
For the sake of argument if the system I'm talking about introduced inefficiency it would be well worth it just for the transparency. And frankly I doubt that inefficiency will actually manifest beyond the first couple years. And I'm not proposing the journals be banned... simply this other system be built and scientists be encouraged to use it instead. If it works better then the journal system will organically wither and die in favor of a superior system.
As to referencing it... again that won't be a problem. We can do that some sort of social networking system. The design is open to interpretation. Possibly some sort of personalized wikipedia type thing. It doesn't really matter. Let scientists put whatever they want online. When they press "publish" it's published. They can't take it down after that. Let anyone see it.
As to peer review, any registered scientist can comment. Obviously you don't want just anyone commenting. But probably no harm in letting everyone read it. Everyone should be able to see the peer review happen in public. Scientists can comment on works, ask questions, whatever.
We don't need these journals anymore.
I guess the big thing I have a problem with is the exclusion. If they let any scientist publish it wouldn't bother me. But the fact that they pick and choose who gets to voice their work bothers me. I don't care how stupid their idea is... if it's big feet aliens... they have a right to publish. They don't have a right for anyone to take them seriously or listen to them but getting published should not be evidence of anything.
Obviously we would be excluding people by not allowing any but verified scientists to submit and comment. But you have to draw the line somewhere.
Anyway, maybe I'm wrong but this doesn't sound like a bad idea.
That's ad verecundiam. What should matter is the science.
Now if you're worried about having some kind of filtration mechanism so scientists aren't bombarded by bad science then there are many ways of doing that without appealing to an opaque editor that has everyone's trust but has no transparency.
Remember Bernie Madoff. Prior to the scandal he was an extremely well respected man in the finance world. Everyone trusted the guy. He was a legend. But no one audited his work. There was no transparency. And he f'ed everyone that trusted him.
Now am I saying the journals are doing that? No. I'm saying the CAN do it.
I don't care if they're respected. That isn't science. There should be nothing between the scientist and his/her peers. If their peers WANT to filter out bad science then it won't be hard to set up such filters in a way that can't be easily gamed.
They seem unnecessary in the internet age. Set up some sort of social networking system for scientists.
Also keep getting disturbing reports of journals censoring works for political reasons or because they're afraid that certain factions within the science community will boycott them.
The whole thing is anti science. Create a forum where all scientists can share information freely without fear of being censored or favoritism. If other scientists don't find your work compelling then they don't have to listen to it.
It will also make disclosing all the information about a given study easier since hopefully more of the work will be within the system.
There weren't many journalists arrested. It was a widely covered event. It would very hard... impossible really... to claim with any credibility that those protests were covered up or that journalists were suppressed from covering it.
The group appears to be more biased and full of beans then I had previously believed.
Moody's etc is something people actually make policy decisions on. No one is changing their plans because this organization changed a rating.
There is no one that was thinking about doing something related to media that saw their ranking and said OH NOES that organization no one cares about changed their rating!
Reality check... they don't matter.
I say this to totally devalue your point. Clearly all the rating agencies are in need of credibility after their many failures. It just hyperbole to directly relate the two. After all people do make different financial choices based on what Moody's says but no one is doing anything differently because of this group.
anyway, I appreciated your comment. Keep treddin'...
The same argument can be made about the US invasion of Iraq. Most would agree that was a mistake. But by your logic it was simply a complex decision made at the time when weighing pros and cons.
Fault isn't relevant. Whether it was a good idea or not is what is relevant.
As to it not being about blame but rather who is to blame for doing it and why... you're talking in circles.
If you care about the goal and not blame then stop focusing on who or why. Focus instead of when, what, and how. Who and why are for blame. When, what, and how gets us to the problem and how to avoid it.
Controlling who and why doesn't stop anything. Controlling when what and how controls things.
Consider the next president of the US. Is who a long term solution to any problem? No. Who will always be different and unpredictable from our current vantage. What about why? That also can't be controlled. Future voters will choose presidents according to their own values and not ours. However, we can control when presidents are selected. We can control what the office means and the various factual peremeters of that system. And we can control how. But who and why? Pointless.
Your insistence on who and why in regards to intelligence failures does nothing to correct those problems or see that such mistakes are not made again. However, what the mistakes are, when they were made, and how they were made is relevant and we can fix that.
As to my disinterest in blame as it relates to intelligence failures. Right there you've proven how blame orrented you are on the issue. That's all you seem to care about. You don't care about what damage was done. You don't care about when the damage was done. You don't care about how the damage was done. You simply care about who is to blame especially if you can pin it on a political rival or if you need to protect a political ally.
It's petty. And for that you deserve to be lectured at until you change. Because that attitude will solve no problems. It is not adaptive behavior. You will perpetuate mistakes and not learn because you've never focused on the actual mistake that was made. By focusing on WHO and WHY instead of WHEN, WHAT, and HOW you learn nothing.
Why is all about intentions. Intentions are frequently irrelevant. If I intend to help a friend and cut him open without any medical knowledge then how is "why" at fault? My "why" was that I wanted to help. My "why" is no different from a doctor that might also want to help. What is instead relevant is what and how. When in this case probably doesn't matter.
Intentions are sometimes relevant in a court of law but if you want to avoid killing people you had better focus on more relevant issues like when, what, and how. Who and why... only really useful for blame.
That was never my claim. I said it happened during the clinton administration... and it did. As to who's fault it is... you care and I don't. Blame your political boogeyman of choice. It's a waste of time and beyond childish but if that's what you like then go for it. I won't complain.
As to your further comment you seem to be trying to avoid blame again. Why? I'm not assigning blame. Stop it. You don't need to protect people that I'm not attacking. People were in charge and mistakes were made. People are human... they make mistakes. That's fine. We've now learned that was a mistake whatever our thoughts were at the time. Don't make that mistake again.
As to the athens approach as you call it, the CIA cannot protect the US if it can't coordinate with US agencies. I'm not saying the CIA enters the US and conducts itself the same way. But if it learns something that is useful to the defense of this country then it should be communicated to all relevant agencies.
Don't make the same mistake again. Or blame will be required if only to remove people from power that have learning problems.
See, mistakes are fine. That's life. But you must learn from them. If for ideological reasons you have learning problems then you cannot be tolerated in places of power or authority because your presence there causes suffering and misfortune for the whole country while not materially benefiting anyone but our enemies.
Be ideological if you want... protect your political faction... I don't care. But learn from your mistakes and do not repeat them.
Cutting the CIA off from US domestic intelligence was a mistake. We have learned that mistake.
Easiest way to track web traffic is by logging DNS queries.
So... if you're thinking about murdering someone and don't want the fact that you were looking up poisons to come up in your trial... consider using an alternate DNS service and possibly a web proxy.
If you're just looking up porn... or whatever... I don't see the reason to bother.
The thing I find so amusing about these laws is that they tend to be so technically ignorant. I mean... civil rights aside... they're just stupid. It's like banning someone from smoking an illegal drug by instructing a store that doesn't sell the drug to track purchases of the drug.
I mean... okay... what does that accomplish? You're going to get lots of nothing.
Granted, laws like this will catch stupid criminals but that's it.
Again. I'm not blaming clinton. I knew that political people would step in to defend their political faction of choice. Stop it.
I don't care about your political party or your various little taboos. I don't care. I'm not blaming them. Your fearless leader can rule the whole world for all I care with a giant beard and beret. Go for it. Total military dictatorship where ONLY your ideas are allowed to be imposed.
I'm not ideological. I don't care.
What I care about is that things WORK properly. And indifferent to who's fault it is, those agencies were cut back during that time and it was a bad move. I'm not blaming anyone because I don't care who's fault it is... it doesn't matter.
It was dumb.
As to agencies being seperate that's a different issue. I'm not talking about that. The CIA prior to that time could and DID pass lots of information to the FBI about national threats all the time. After that period it was made more complicated and that resulted in it not happening much.
You want to blame republicans for that? Fine... I don't care. Blame the man in the moon if that makes you happy. I do not care.
What matters is that it was done by SOMEONE and it was bad. Don't do that. Who is in charge and calling the shots and to blame are not relevant to me. And I don't think it really should matter to anyone else. If things work and everyone gets what they want and need then who cares? It doesn't matter.
Lets say the US government were run by aliens from Pluto but everything was awesome. Would you care? Why? Everything is awesome.
Blame is overrated.
I am goal oriented. I care about the mission. How I get from point A to point B isn't really important so long as everything is the same in the end.
I don't mean to blame anyone. Blame is an overrated concept.
I'm merely saying it was a mistake to chain the CIA. The two provisions that I am referring to are the downsizing of the CIA and the data barrier between the FBI and the CIA which was put in place during those years.
Again... I am not blaming anyone for it. I don't care who's fault it is because it doesn't matter. When a house is on fire do you really care if the cat started it? It doesn't matter. Put the fire out.
If it's anyone's fault then it's OUR fault for letting it happen.
One of the few things I've learned over the years talking to radicals from other countries over the years on the internet... and yes, I do that... is that they fear the US CIA. It's one of the few powers on earth that gives them pause. I'd prefer if they'd just behave themselves. But when I talk to Palestinian radicals or communist radicals... they're not open to negotiation or any kind of reasonable compromise. They see us as weak and the weak don't get to negotiate. So... fund the CIA and send them after the monsters in the dark. We have no other options. But contain this sort of cloak and dagger bullshit to the CIA and NSA. There's no reason to give these sorts of powers to wider agencies.
The patriot act and all these powers were granted to the government to fight the war... to hunt down the terrorists and snuff them out. That was the point.
To that end, I don't think many people would have a problem with the powers IF they used them expressly for that purpose and no other. Sadly, government being run by people and people being people... the power is abused... frequently. My favorite is the guy that got his ex-wife on a terror/no-fly list so she couldn't fly out of town. There are other examples but few are that petty.
The patriot act needs to be rescinded. It has done most of the work it was put in place to do in the first place. We're pulling our troops back... it's time to retire the act. By all means, let the CIA still go hunting for bad guys. It was foolish ever to chain them. That didn't happen until the Clinton Administration and that point is by some credited as being one of the things that allowed 9/11 to happen in the first place. But the legal authorities granted by the patriot act beyond letting the CIA do it's job should be retired.
As to data not being legally safe in other countries... US law has no effect on foreign countries. They don't have to comply unless they wish to comply. In which case it has more to do with what those countries wish then the US.
Really, if you're afraid for your data... fear the NSA... they don't bother with warrants and never have... not their game. They get the information because they can not because they have a right. I don't especially fear them though... they're always after bigger fish then little ol' me.
... you're clearly joking... but even in your joke, everyone would just talk to the state department that kept secrets... and the state department that didn't be defunded or rolled into the other one as a subordinate entity... which would mean the same thing. Since the first thing any competent organization would do is fire the leaks and disband practices that lead to the leaks.
Not really... this sort of behavior is common throughout the world and was common with the US government prior to these leaks.
The leaks are new and specific to the US State Department. The CIA isn't leaking. Think they're doing less nasty things behind closed doors?
This has nothing to do with being nasty or sneaky. This has everything to do with not being able to keep a secret. And furthermore, diplomacy is impossible if you can't keep secrets.
The alternative to diplomacy is shutting down the whole US diplomatic system and shifting those responsibilities to other entities... or just conducting everything through war.
You do NOT want the US diplomatic system to collapse. I don't know who is responsible for this... I am loath to lay this at the feet of Hillary Clinton but she is Secretary of State... this is HER division. I don't blame her for what is happening but she is responsible for fixing it. If this keeps happening it will be her fault.
Maybe this will help you grasp the problem. Lets say you're a foreign official that knows your government is doing bad things. You want to tell the US government because you think they'll stop it. Well, now what will happen is that they'll leak the fact that you told them to everyone... including your own government which means that they might just kill you. Try giving information is you live in North Korea or Iran.... you'll die.
That means you can't tell the US state department anything because they can't keep secrets.
Slashdot Mirror
The system would be closed to all but people with PhD's or people in graduate programs. And the two groups should be distinguished in the system.
Furthermore, the system should be sensitive to the field of each degree. If you're a computer science major commenting on a biology paper then that should at least be visible to people. I don't think anyone should be restricted from making comments after they're already in the system. BUT their field of expertise should be prominently displayed somewhere just so people know.
The point is not to create a circus. The point is to make the system hard for any group to censor without leaving a paper trail.
If there were a public record of everything that was rejected, when, by who, and why... then I would be fine with it.
There is no transparency. Not only can such people do damage there is no doubt that there are people doing damage all the time.
Come on... Murphy's law. If it can happen it will happen.
I'm okay with keeping the journal system if it can be made more transparent. But frankly there are some credibility issues cropping up that do require some sort of reform at the very least.
No.
Bernie Madoff was a sacred cow prior to the scandal. Think of a scientist that is/was so well respected that no one would even think to question his work. There are people that if they told you 1+1=3 you'd assume YOU made the math error because these people are never wrong.
Bernie also was cited by some people repeatedly for fraud. Some traders did the research. They calculated his returns and then looked at charts and tried to figure out how he could have possibly gotten those results. They reported Bernie to the FCC. They reported him to the media.
No one listened. In fact, the FCC brought Bernie in a couple times as a FRIEND to have some chats about it. They basically showed him everything people were saying and helped him cover it up. Everyone assumed he was right. So if someone was making claims against him, THEY had to be wrong. Had to be wrong... because Bernie is always right.
He was the great man. There are such people in science and the journal system ultimately serves them because most journals will publish anything they say sight unseen and reject anything they tell the journal to reject. We've had reports of this sort of activity for many years.
I don't mean to say the system is completely corrupt. I merely say it is corruptible. If the right people apply pressure they can bury things or make bad science seem legitimate.
I am not a scientist. But I am a human being. I know how humans work. Scientists can't escape their own humanity or the inherent weaknesses of human social structures.
All I'm asking for here is transparency and record keeping. Nothing more. Keep a log of all rejected papers, who, what, when, and why... and another record for accepted papers listing the same criteria... and I am content. You could do it with a spread sheet or a ledger. I don't need anything fancy here. Just a record open to all.
As to transitions... of course. I wouldn't suggest we just shut the journals off cold turkey. In fact, I'm certain that the old guard will stick with them until they retire. The point is to get the next generation using this system. In part they might find it liberating to be peer reviewed by their ACTUAL peers and not their soon to be predecessors.
And that said, if you can actually fix the journal system then GREAT! Fantastic. That would be wonderful. I have no confidence in anyone being able to do that. Its an idea akin to fixing a rotten tree. I mean... there's nothing you can do with it... it's rotten clean through. But if you can somecrazyhow drive the rot out of the tree then that's amazing.
I'm not in favor of going to a new system simply because I think it's better. I just don't see how the old system is salvageable. By all means leave the last generation using it if they want. Just as our parents will still get newspapers delivered to their homes for the rest of their lives. It doesn't matter how many ipads, kindles, or laptops they have. They like having a newspaper in their hands. Fine. Have it. And for that alone the journals will have to persist at least for them for a time. But everyone savvy enough should start transitioning to something better unless the journals ACTUALLY reform. Again, I have zero confidence that they can or will reform. But if they do... they have all my support for what little that's worth.
Oh you don't know the Bernie Madoff story then. He didn't need the money. I thought everyone knew that.
it was worse then that... he did it because he could do it. It was all fueled by contempt. Bernie was a very wealthy guy before he started his Ponzi scheme. He was very well respected for doing REAL work. I mean, he ACTUALLY earned that respect for really good work in the finance industry. Look the man up PRIOR to the ponzi scheme and you'll see he was a very big wheel.
Why did he do it then? He didn't need the money. He risked everything... his fortune... his status... everything. For what? It wasn't the money. I can only guess he did it for contempt or ego or something emotional. Because logically his actions made no sense. He destroyed himself and his reputation for nothing.
In that sort of world I'm not trusting some journal because they have a reputation.
Really this whole reliance on reputation is a bad idea. This is the 21st century. We don't need to rely on primitive social structures. Just be transparent and then I don't need to trust you. We're all walking around naked. I can see everything... if you can't lie to me then I don't care if you're a liar or not.
You could say "who are you to say what we should do here"... and that's valid to a point. But the thing is we can do this right now and I really don't see how it wouldn't be in better in every measurable way? We lose nothing by shifting to such a system and gain a great deal more insight and control into the peer review system. It all becomes very public. No decisions made in the dark.
Well, we would be restricting it to scientists so the spam should be limited.
Furthermore there are a lot of easy methods for filtering work out. Come on... we've all used about a million social networking sites at this point. There are WAYS to filter content in an unbiased way.
Another issue here is scientific group think. This is something science has been prone to for centuries. Most scientists believe something is impossible or that the world works a given way. A few people on the side protest and are ignored for a time and then something happens that discredits the accepted model and science changes.
MAYBE something like this would help stop the group think or manage it better? I don't know. Journals if anything enable it.
Well, as to signal to noise, the issue I have is that I don't trust the journals as a filtration mechanism. It's not transparent. They don't report which articles they reject or why. That's a big problem. "just trust us" is not something I'm willing to accept from anyone at this point. It's also not scientific. It's ad verecundiam.
As to journals solving the problem... there have been some very bad science published in the Lancet in the last few years for example... and that's supposed to be a very well respected journal. There are also always claims of journals excluding people from publishing due to bias or because other scientists threatened the journal that if they published X they and their friends wouldn't publish their work in that journal anymore. It seriously undermines the credibility and sustainability of the journal system.
As to inefficiency, it would only be so temporarily. The automobile was inefficient compared to the horse for some time. Then when better designs for cars came out the horse simply couldn't compete indifferent to any other logistical concern. Our computer technology has progressed to the point where any inefficiency would be very short term and after that it would only be an improvement.
But the real point here is that I want transparency. I want to see EVERYTHING go in... I want to see the peer review process... and I want to see the output.
What bothers me about the system right now is that there are some very critical decisions made that leave no paper trail. There's no explanation. No record. Nothing.
For the sake of argument if the system I'm talking about introduced inefficiency it would be well worth it just for the transparency. And frankly I doubt that inefficiency will actually manifest beyond the first couple years. And I'm not proposing the journals be banned... simply this other system be built and scientists be encouraged to use it instead. If it works better then the journal system will organically wither and die in favor of a superior system.
As to referencing it... again that won't be a problem. We can do that some sort of social networking system. The design is open to interpretation. Possibly some sort of personalized wikipedia type thing. It doesn't really matter. Let scientists put whatever they want online. When they press "publish" it's published. They can't take it down after that. Let anyone see it.
As to peer review, any registered scientist can comment. Obviously you don't want just anyone commenting. But probably no harm in letting everyone read it. Everyone should be able to see the peer review happen in public. Scientists can comment on works, ask questions, whatever.
We don't need these journals anymore.
I guess the big thing I have a problem with is the exclusion. If they let any scientist publish it wouldn't bother me. But the fact that they pick and choose who gets to voice their work bothers me. I don't care how stupid their idea is... if it's big feet aliens... they have a right to publish. They don't have a right for anyone to take them seriously or listen to them but getting published should not be evidence of anything.
Obviously we would be excluding people by not allowing any but verified scientists to submit and comment. But you have to draw the line somewhere.
Anyway, maybe I'm wrong but this doesn't sound like a bad idea.
How is that even remotely scientific?
That's ad verecundiam. What should matter is the science.
Now if you're worried about having some kind of filtration mechanism so scientists aren't bombarded by bad science then there are many ways of doing that without appealing to an opaque editor that has everyone's trust but has no transparency.
Remember Bernie Madoff. Prior to the scandal he was an extremely well respected man in the finance world. Everyone trusted the guy. He was a legend. But no one audited his work. There was no transparency. And he f'ed everyone that trusted him.
Now am I saying the journals are doing that? No. I'm saying the CAN do it.
I don't care if they're respected. That isn't science. There should be nothing between the scientist and his/her peers. If their peers WANT to filter out bad science then it won't be hard to set up such filters in a way that can't be easily gamed.
They seem unnecessary in the internet age. Set up some sort of social networking system for scientists.
Also keep getting disturbing reports of journals censoring works for political reasons or because they're afraid that certain factions within the science community will boycott them.
The whole thing is anti science. Create a forum where all scientists can share information freely without fear of being censored or favoritism. If other scientists don't find your work compelling then they don't have to listen to it.
It will also make disclosing all the information about a given study easier since hopefully more of the work will be within the system.
totally... utterly... useless.
Footwear? I mean... I could see doing something based on scanning people's feet like you do their finger prints. But... their shoes? Really?
You might as well classify people by their choice in beverages.
There weren't many journalists arrested. It was a widely covered event. It would very hard... impossible really... to claim with any credibility that those protests were covered up or that journalists were suppressed from covering it.
The group appears to be more biased and full of beans then I had previously believed.
Not really.
Moody's etc is something people actually make policy decisions on. No one is changing their plans because this organization changed a rating.
There is no one that was thinking about doing something related to media that saw their ranking and said OH NOES that organization no one cares about changed their rating!
Reality check... they don't matter.
I say this to totally devalue your point. Clearly all the rating agencies are in need of credibility after their many failures. It just hyperbole to directly relate the two. After all people do make different financial choices based on what Moody's says but no one is doing anything differently because of this group.
anyway, I appreciated your comment. Keep treddin'...
If I lived in a country with a history of that sort of censorship then I'd proxy my twitter.
I can't speak to what other people would do... but it won't effect me.
The same argument can be made about the US invasion of Iraq. Most would agree that was a mistake. But by your logic it was simply a complex decision made at the time when weighing pros and cons.
Fault isn't relevant. Whether it was a good idea or not is what is relevant.
As to it not being about blame but rather who is to blame for doing it and why... you're talking in circles.
If you care about the goal and not blame then stop focusing on who or why. Focus instead of when, what, and how. Who and why are for blame. When, what, and how gets us to the problem and how to avoid it.
Controlling who and why doesn't stop anything. Controlling when what and how controls things.
Consider the next president of the US. Is who a long term solution to any problem? No. Who will always be different and unpredictable from our current vantage. What about why? That also can't be controlled. Future voters will choose presidents according to their own values and not ours. However, we can control when presidents are selected. We can control what the office means and the various factual peremeters of that system. And we can control how. But who and why? Pointless.
Your insistence on who and why in regards to intelligence failures does nothing to correct those problems or see that such mistakes are not made again. However, what the mistakes are, when they were made, and how they were made is relevant and we can fix that.
As to my disinterest in blame as it relates to intelligence failures. Right there you've proven how blame orrented you are on the issue. That's all you seem to care about. You don't care about what damage was done. You don't care about when the damage was done. You don't care about how the damage was done. You simply care about who is to blame especially if you can pin it on a political rival or if you need to protect a political ally.
It's petty. And for that you deserve to be lectured at until you change. Because that attitude will solve no problems. It is not adaptive behavior. You will perpetuate mistakes and not learn because you've never focused on the actual mistake that was made. By focusing on WHO and WHY instead of WHEN, WHAT, and HOW you learn nothing.
Why is all about intentions. Intentions are frequently irrelevant. If I intend to help a friend and cut him open without any medical knowledge then how is "why" at fault? My "why" was that I wanted to help. My "why" is no different from a doctor that might also want to help. What is instead relevant is what and how. When in this case probably doesn't matter.
Intentions are sometimes relevant in a court of law but if you want to avoid killing people you had better focus on more relevant issues like when, what, and how. Who and why... only really useful for blame.
People living in repressive governments have been using proxies for years. This is irrelevant.
That was never my claim. I said it happened during the clinton administration... and it did. As to who's fault it is... you care and I don't. Blame your political boogeyman of choice. It's a waste of time and beyond childish but if that's what you like then go for it. I won't complain.
As to your further comment you seem to be trying to avoid blame again. Why? I'm not assigning blame. Stop it. You don't need to protect people that I'm not attacking. People were in charge and mistakes were made. People are human... they make mistakes. That's fine. We've now learned that was a mistake whatever our thoughts were at the time. Don't make that mistake again.
As to the athens approach as you call it, the CIA cannot protect the US if it can't coordinate with US agencies. I'm not saying the CIA enters the US and conducts itself the same way. But if it learns something that is useful to the defense of this country then it should be communicated to all relevant agencies.
Don't make the same mistake again. Or blame will be required if only to remove people from power that have learning problems.
See, mistakes are fine. That's life. But you must learn from them. If for ideological reasons you have learning problems then you cannot be tolerated in places of power or authority because your presence there causes suffering and misfortune for the whole country while not materially benefiting anyone but our enemies.
Be ideological if you want... protect your political faction... I don't care. But learn from your mistakes and do not repeat them.
Cutting the CIA off from US domestic intelligence was a mistake. We have learned that mistake.
This is an intelligence test.
Easiest way to track web traffic is by logging DNS queries.
So... if you're thinking about murdering someone and don't want the fact that you were looking up poisons to come up in your trial... consider using an alternate DNS service and possibly a web proxy.
If you're just looking up porn... or whatever... I don't see the reason to bother.
The thing I find so amusing about these laws is that they tend to be so technically ignorant. I mean... civil rights aside... they're just stupid. It's like banning someone from smoking an illegal drug by instructing a store that doesn't sell the drug to track purchases of the drug.
I mean... okay... what does that accomplish? You're going to get lots of nothing.
Granted, laws like this will catch stupid criminals but that's it.
This thing reminds me of the doomsday clock.
It's just the opinion of a group of people... the validity of the claim is entirely dependent on their judgment.
Here's a question... what is their judgement rating? Anyone bother to rank them? Is there ever an audit of their reliability?
If not... then how do we know that the broken thermometer isn't telling us it's getting colder or warmer? Have to test the instruments.
Again. I'm not blaming clinton. I knew that political people would step in to defend their political faction of choice. Stop it.
I don't care about your political party or your various little taboos. I don't care. I'm not blaming them. Your fearless leader can rule the whole world for all I care with a giant beard and beret. Go for it. Total military dictatorship where ONLY your ideas are allowed to be imposed.
I'm not ideological. I don't care.
What I care about is that things WORK properly. And indifferent to who's fault it is, those agencies were cut back during that time and it was a bad move. I'm not blaming anyone because I don't care who's fault it is... it doesn't matter.
It was dumb.
As to agencies being seperate that's a different issue. I'm not talking about that. The CIA prior to that time could and DID pass lots of information to the FBI about national threats all the time. After that period it was made more complicated and that resulted in it not happening much.
You want to blame republicans for that? Fine... I don't care. Blame the man in the moon if that makes you happy. I do not care.
What matters is that it was done by SOMEONE and it was bad. Don't do that. Who is in charge and calling the shots and to blame are not relevant to me. And I don't think it really should matter to anyone else. If things work and everyone gets what they want and need then who cares? It doesn't matter.
Lets say the US government were run by aliens from Pluto but everything was awesome. Would you care? Why? Everything is awesome.
Blame is overrated.
I am goal oriented. I care about the mission. How I get from point A to point B isn't really important so long as everything is the same in the end.
You're right, the Illuminati council of Big Feet and Vampires triggered 9/11 along with their alien allies on Pluto to take over the world!
Take your medication and get off the internet.
I don't mean to blame anyone. Blame is an overrated concept.
I'm merely saying it was a mistake to chain the CIA. The two provisions that I am referring to are the downsizing of the CIA and the data barrier between the FBI and the CIA which was put in place during those years.
Again... I am not blaming anyone for it. I don't care who's fault it is because it doesn't matter. When a house is on fire do you really care if the cat started it? It doesn't matter. Put the fire out.
If it's anyone's fault then it's OUR fault for letting it happen.
One of the few things I've learned over the years talking to radicals from other countries over the years on the internet... and yes, I do that... is that they fear the US CIA. It's one of the few powers on earth that gives them pause. I'd prefer if they'd just behave themselves. But when I talk to Palestinian radicals or communist radicals... they're not open to negotiation or any kind of reasonable compromise. They see us as weak and the weak don't get to negotiate. So... fund the CIA and send them after the monsters in the dark. We have no other options. But contain this sort of cloak and dagger bullshit to the CIA and NSA. There's no reason to give these sorts of powers to wider agencies.
The patriot act and all these powers were granted to the government to fight the war... to hunt down the terrorists and snuff them out. That was the point.
To that end, I don't think many people would have a problem with the powers IF they used them expressly for that purpose and no other. Sadly, government being run by people and people being people... the power is abused... frequently. My favorite is the guy that got his ex-wife on a terror/no-fly list so she couldn't fly out of town. There are other examples but few are that petty.
The patriot act needs to be rescinded. It has done most of the work it was put in place to do in the first place. We're pulling our troops back... it's time to retire the act. By all means, let the CIA still go hunting for bad guys. It was foolish ever to chain them. That didn't happen until the Clinton Administration and that point is by some credited as being one of the things that allowed 9/11 to happen in the first place. But the legal authorities granted by the patriot act beyond letting the CIA do it's job should be retired.
As to data not being legally safe in other countries... US law has no effect on foreign countries. They don't have to comply unless they wish to comply. In which case it has more to do with what those countries wish then the US.
Really, if you're afraid for your data... fear the NSA... they don't bother with warrants and never have... not their game. They get the information because they can not because they have a right. I don't especially fear them though... they're always after bigger fish then little ol' me.
... you're clearly joking... but even in your joke, everyone would just talk to the state department that kept secrets... and the state department that didn't be defunded or rolled into the other one as a subordinate entity... which would mean the same thing. Since the first thing any competent organization would do is fire the leaks and disband practices that lead to the leaks.
This just needs to stop. This is unsustainable.
Not really... this sort of behavior is common throughout the world and was common with the US government prior to these leaks.
The leaks are new and specific to the US State Department. The CIA isn't leaking. Think they're doing less nasty things behind closed doors?
This has nothing to do with being nasty or sneaky. This has everything to do with not being able to keep a secret. And furthermore, diplomacy is impossible if you can't keep secrets.
The alternative to diplomacy is shutting down the whole US diplomatic system and shifting those responsibilities to other entities... or just conducting everything through war.
You do NOT want the US diplomatic system to collapse. I don't know who is responsible for this... I am loath to lay this at the feet of Hillary Clinton but she is Secretary of State... this is HER division. I don't blame her for what is happening but she is responsible for fixing it. If this keeps happening it will be her fault.
Maybe this will help you grasp the problem. Lets say you're a foreign official that knows your government is doing bad things. You want to tell the US government because you think they'll stop it. Well, now what will happen is that they'll leak the fact that you told them to everyone... including your own government which means that they might just kill you. Try giving information is you live in North Korea or Iran.... you'll die.
That means you can't tell the US state department anything because they can't keep secrets.
Do you understand? This is a test.