"Some of the aircraft can also be equipped with technology that can identify thousands of people below through the cellphones they carry, even if they're not making a call or in public. Officials said that practice, which mimics cell towers and gets phones to reveal basic subscriber information, is rare."
The FBI admits they are scooping up cell phone data.
What they're doing is legal. It's spelled out in plain English in the PATRIOT act.
This represents "plain English" to you? Seems to me that the Fourth Amendment is written in much plainer English than the PATRIOT act.
Go to the Wikipedia page right now and read it top to bottom. It's simplified there, and it cites the legal document itself.
All anyone has to read is the last word of "UNITING AND STRENGTHENING AMERICA BY PROVIDING APPROPRIATE TOOLS REQUIRED TO INTERCEPT AND OBSTRUCT TERRORISM". Unless you believe that the FBI's use of these planes is solely for thwarting terrorists, these activities require judicial oversight.
In any case, just because some dipshit congressmen passed some opportunistic legislation in a time of crisis doesn't mean that their legislation passes constitutional muster.
I'm just wondering, what do we think they are doing? Where I agree it looks bad, but do we have any real information about what they are doing and if the data, pictures or what have you being collected really is somehow a problem.
Right.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
TFA notes that the FBI's surveillance is "generally" done without a judge's approval. The problem here is obvious.
Well said. When I get some mod points, I'll be promoting these "off topic" posts. Sourceforge's behavior is reprehensible, and DICE's obvious suppression of the story on/. is just as reprehensible.
Having any integrity system does not mean they're attempting to draw out frauds and destroy them.
You've got to be kidding. Part of what research integrity departments do is prevent/expose fraud. RI departments are ubiquitous in academia, and plenty of effort is being expended policing research. Claiming no one is trying is simply not supported by the facts.
As to unqualified opinions... please cite what you'd like qualified
I believe I've been pretty clear. If you're going to assert that science is rife with fraud and unethical behavior - a claim that isn't supported by anything in the source articles - you should
back up your assertion with something more substantial than "because I say so". Otherwise, your argument carries little weight.
Did you read the last sentence of my post? The mere existence of research integrity departments indicates *someone* is trying. In any case, you are the one claiming fraud/unethical behavior is the root cause of the problem. It is up to you to support that claim.
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.
Who said you weren't entitled to your opinion? Not me. I'm merely stating that your opinion carries little weight because you fail to support it with anything beyond "take my word for it".
As to his comment not being about fraud, I disagree. Think he's being politically correct.
Perhaps, but anyone publicly denying his words better have *something* to back it up. The fact is, you are not merely putting words in his mouth, you are elevating your inserted words *over* what the man actually said.
Do you see?
What I see is a lot of talk..
You know that or you are a fool.
Just because I don't subscribe to your OPINIONS doesn't make me a fool. Back up your claims and I will consider changing my mind.
But I suspect you're going to remain hostile, closed minded, and dismissive. If your conduct remains in that vein, I'll just take you less seriously.
If you think that challenging your unsupported claims qualifies as hostility, you should probably stay off the internet. If you want to open my mind, support your claims with something stronger than "because I said so".
for arranging this. It might be largely symbolic, but I heartily approve of what she has done. Something bright & positive, better than the trials of ancient concentration camp officials.
FTFY
I approve of what he has done, and I respect and admire what she has done - and not just because she successfully defended her thesis, but because of her accomplishments throughout her long career.
See what I did there? There's plenty of respect and admiration to go around here. Maybe you should stop treating this as if it was a zero-sum game.
Well first off, proposing that objective is not meaningless because we're currently not even trying.
What makes you think nobody's trying...just because one guy (Richard Horton) is complaining of shoddy practices in one specific field of study (biomedical research)? Are Horton's limited complaints reason enough for you to believe that the rest of scientific research is rife with unethical/fraudulent scientists, and that nobody is policing them?
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
That may be your notion, but it's not mine. I said nothing about you supplying a "complete proven system" to me or anyone else.
If you'd like a summary of some of my ideas...[snip]
I believe your summary can be boiled down to "let's try using some law enforcement techniques in order to expose fraudulent scientists, then we can publish a fraudster shitlist which will shame them out of the profession". Presumably, you believe that this will result in better science across the board - not just in the limited case of Richard Horton's perceived problems within the biomedical field.
Without addressing the merits of your proposal, I'd argue that your assumptions aren't valid. Primarily, you seem to assume that the root cause of a major portion of the bad science out there is unethical/fraudulent behavior by research scientists. There is nothing in TFA/TFS to support this assumption. Richard Horton never mentions ethics or fraud as being a problem in biomedical research. He lists sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, flagrant conflicts of interest, and the pursuit of fashionable trends as the causes of "bad" science. You seem to have determined that unethical behavior and fraud are the main threats to "good" science all by yourself.
This story is NOT about fraud or unethical behavior causing anything. This story is about the failures of peer review, inadequate statistical criteria, poor research methodology, conflicts of interest, laziness and incompetence. You are injecting fraud/ethics into the discussion without providing the slightest bit of evidence to support your claim.
There are many ways to find unethical people. It isn't that hard, chum. You just have to make ANY effort.
Well old buddy old pal, I suppose all those research institutions (and all those granting bodies) with research integrity departments are just providing busywork for bureaucrats, right?
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.
The vast majority of research in private universities is government funded, so your public/private university distinction is pretty meaningless. Further, corporations have been eschewing in-house labs in favor of utilizing university labs for some time now.
Simply cutting the sophists off from public funding should largely solve the problem.
So your solution to the problem of bad science is to get rid of bad scientists. Brilliant!
Of course, you have to actually propose a process to eliminate the sophist fungus from the halls of academia - a process that is better than the one currently in place - before you get to claim you've solved anything. Do you know of some test that differentiates a sophist poser from a bona fide scientist?
Yes! But it's not our fault. Evolution has hardwired male brains such that we experience a 20-30 point drop in IQ whenever we see boobs.
In fact, we don't even have to see boobs to start drooling with stupidity...just thinking about them makes us dull-witted morons - albeit to a lesser extent that when we see a fully exposed rack in all its glory.
So you see, Evolution (in its infinite wisdom) has ordained that women have boobs, and men are thus rendered idiots for the majority of their lives.
Now if you'll excuse me, I feel a strange urge to go make one of those "hey guys, watch this!!!" videos that often precede receipt of a Darwin Award.
If your license is revoked, don't store a pressure cooker in your parked car.
Thanks to the fearmongering industrial complex that's sprung up post 9/11, it's bigger than that. Nowadays, it's "if you live in the US, don't even own a pressure cooker."
Gainsville's treated waste water flows into the Trinity, where it then flows into Lake Ray Roberts, then flows into the Trinity, then flows into Lewisville Lake. Dallas pumps water from Lewisville Lake into treatment plants, then to customers. After the water is consumed, the sewage is sent to waste water treatment plants, and back into the Trinity to be used by communities DOWNSTREAM. This is the traditional process that for some bizarre reason you really really want to call "toilet to tap".
There, did I directly answer your question? Did I stick to the facts?
Here's another fun fact: the above outlined traditional process is not "toilet to tap" (which is simply a euphemism for the more accurate term of "water recycling"). Water recycling uses completely different infrastructure and technology, and implements a completely different resource flow. Ultimately, water recycling systems allow a community to re-use it's own waste water, instead of simply flushing it downstream - which is what Gainesville does to Dallas and ever other fucking municipality DOWNSTREAM from them.
There are no water recycling facilities on any part of the Trinity River watershed, so nobody that drinks water from the Trinity River or any reservoir fed from it is drinking "toilet to tap".
I've given you the definition you asked for three times now, and nobody is so stupid that they could fail to see any distinction between the systems in question. I'm guessing you suffer from some pathological need to be right coupled with low self esteem. When someone points out your mistakes, you feel intellectually threatened and react with childish denial. Kinda sad, really.
So "toilet to tap" is the same thing we've been doing for a very long time.
That's not what I said. That's what you keep saying, and it's incorrect. As you requested, I laid out an accurate definition of toilet to tap showing significant distinctions from what "we've been doing for a very long time" compared to how toilet to tap systems actually function.
But hey, you don't see any real differences between reservoirs and rivers - and you spout complete nonsense about Dallas pumping water out of the Trinity and into city reservoirs. So it's hardly surprising that you can't see any distinction between a system that passes it's treated waste water downstream and a system that uses hundreds of millions of dollars in additional advanced technology infrastructure in order to pass potable water back upstream for a community to reuse.
I guess your wish to remain ignorant is interfering with your ability to perform a simple internet search. Here, let me help you. What you describe as "toilet to tap" is:
"Cities take water from rivers or wells, contaminate it as they use it, and send it to wastewater treatment plants for sufficient cleanup to return to the rivers, where it heads downstream to the next city."
Your definition of "toilet to tap" is the same water cycle that's been going on since municipal wastewater treatment facilities came into existence (in other words, long before the term "toilet to tap" was even coined).
What the rest of the world describes as "toilet to tap" is a system where a community's sewage is processed through "highly engineered, well-monitored, advanced treatment processes that remove contaminants", typically involving microfiltration, reverse osmosis, and ultraviolet disinfection. The processed water is then reintroduced to the environment upstream of the community that originally created the wastewater.
If you like, I can further help you become better educated on the subject of reclaimed water...I've got all day. But if you can't see the difference in the definitions above, there's little that can be done to help you.
Slashdot Mirror
We don't know they are scooping up cell phone data...
From TFA
"Some of the aircraft can also be equipped with technology that can identify thousands of people below through the cellphones they carry, even if they're not making a call or in public. Officials said that practice, which mimics cell towers and gets phones to reveal basic subscriber information, is rare."
The FBI admits they are scooping up cell phone data.
It really is impossible for you to write anything without saying that you are Greek, is it?
Of course it is possible for me to write something without saying that i am Greek.
The bigger question is "can you write anything without saying you are Great?"
What they're doing is legal. It's spelled out in plain English in the PATRIOT act.
This represents "plain English" to you? Seems to me that the Fourth Amendment is written in much plainer English than the PATRIOT act.
Go to the Wikipedia page right now and read it top to bottom. It's simplified there, and it cites the legal document itself.
All anyone has to read is the last word of "UNITING AND STRENGTHENING AMERICA BY PROVIDING APPROPRIATE TOOLS REQUIRED TO INTERCEPT AND OBSTRUCT TERRORISM". Unless you believe that the FBI's use of these planes is solely for thwarting terrorists, these activities require judicial oversight.
In any case, just because some dipshit congressmen passed some opportunistic legislation in a time of crisis doesn't mean that their legislation passes constitutional muster.
I'm just wondering, what do we think they are doing? Where I agree it looks bad, but do we have any real information about what they are doing and if the data, pictures or what have you being collected really is somehow a problem.
Right.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
TFA notes that the FBI's surveillance is "generally" done without a judge's approval. The problem here is obvious.
Didn't FBI come to life inspecting brothels?
Yes, but since most of the johns turned out to be Secret Service agents, they decided to focus their efforts elswhere.
WHOOSH!
[citation needed]
Looking to score the next Score:5, Funny
Then stop making Score: 5, Insightful comments!
Well said. When I get some mod points, I'll be promoting these "off topic" posts. Sourceforge's behavior is reprehensible, and DICE's obvious suppression of the story on /. is just as reprehensible.
Having any integrity system does not mean they're attempting to draw out frauds and destroy them.
You've got to be kidding. Part of what research integrity departments do is prevent/expose fraud. RI departments are ubiquitous in academia, and plenty of effort is being expended policing research. Claiming no one is trying is simply not supported by the facts.
As to unqualified opinions... please cite what you'd like qualified
I believe I've been pretty clear. If you're going to assert that science is rife with fraud and unethical behavior - a claim that isn't supported by anything in the source articles - you should back up your assertion with something more substantial than "because I say so". Otherwise, your argument carries little weight.
Because I can see they're not trying.
Give me examples to the contrary.
Did you read the last sentence of my post? The mere existence of research integrity departments indicates *someone* is trying. In any case, you are the one claiming fraud/unethical behavior is the root cause of the problem. It is up to you to support that claim.
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.
Who said you weren't entitled to your opinion? Not me. I'm merely stating that your opinion carries little weight because you fail to support it with anything beyond "take my word for it".
As to his comment not being about fraud, I disagree. Think he's being politically correct.
Perhaps, but anyone publicly denying his words better have *something* to back it up. The fact is, you are not merely putting words in his mouth, you are elevating your inserted words *over* what the man actually said.
Do you see?
What I see is a lot of talk..
You know that or you are a fool.
Just because I don't subscribe to your OPINIONS doesn't make me a fool. Back up your claims and I will consider changing my mind.
But I suspect you're going to remain hostile, closed minded, and dismissive. If your conduct remains in that vein, I'll just take you less seriously.
If you think that challenging your unsupported claims qualifies as hostility, you should probably stay off the internet. If you want to open my mind, support your claims with something stronger than "because I said so".
...does the definition of a panorama require that the viewpoint stay in one place and look outwards?...
Yes.
Another true story ruined by an eye witness.
for arranging this. It might be largely symbolic, but I heartily approve of what she has done. Something bright & positive, better than the trials of ancient concentration camp officials.
FTFY
I approve of what he has done, and I respect and admire what she has done - and not just because she successfully defended her thesis, but because of her accomplishments throughout her long career.
See what I did there? There's plenty of respect and admiration to go around here. Maybe you should stop treating this as if it was a zero-sum game.
I believe Google StreetView is composed of a series of relatively small res panoramas, not one large one.
Funniest post I've seen on the internet all day...and here I am without mod points. Wait...you were trying to be funny, right?
Well first off, proposing that objective is not meaningless because we're currently not even trying.
What makes you think nobody's trying...just because one guy (Richard Horton) is complaining of shoddy practices in one specific field of study (biomedical research)? Are Horton's limited complaints reason enough for you to believe that the rest of scientific research is rife with unethical/fraudulent scientists, and that nobody is policing them?
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
That may be your notion, but it's not mine. I said nothing about you supplying a "complete proven system" to me or anyone else.
If you'd like a summary of some of my ideas...[snip]
I believe your summary can be boiled down to "let's try using some law enforcement techniques in order to expose fraudulent scientists, then we can publish a fraudster shitlist which will shame them out of the profession". Presumably, you believe that this will result in better science across the board - not just in the limited case of Richard Horton's perceived problems within the biomedical field.
Without addressing the merits of your proposal, I'd argue that your assumptions aren't valid. Primarily, you seem to assume that the root cause of a major portion of the bad science out there is unethical/fraudulent behavior by research scientists. There is nothing in TFA/TFS to support this assumption. Richard Horton never mentions ethics or fraud as being a problem in biomedical research. He lists sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, flagrant conflicts of interest, and the pursuit of fashionable trends as the causes of "bad" science. You seem to have determined that unethical behavior and fraud are the main threats to "good" science all by yourself.
This story is NOT about fraud or unethical behavior causing anything. This story is about the failures of peer review, inadequate statistical criteria, poor research methodology, conflicts of interest, laziness and incompetence. You are injecting fraud/ethics into the discussion without providing the slightest bit of evidence to support your claim.
There are many ways to find unethical people. It isn't that hard, chum. You just have to make ANY effort.
Well old buddy old pal, I suppose all those research institutions (and all those granting bodies) with research integrity departments are just providing busywork for bureaucrats, right?
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.
The vast majority of research in private universities is government funded, so your public/private university distinction is pretty meaningless. Further, corporations have been eschewing in-house labs in favor of utilizing university labs for some time now.
Simply cutting the sophists off from public funding should largely solve the problem.
So your solution to the problem of bad science is to get rid of bad scientists. Brilliant!
Of course, you have to actually propose a process to eliminate the sophist fungus from the halls of academia - a process that is better than the one currently in place - before you get to claim you've solved anything. Do you know of some test that differentiates a sophist poser from a bona fide scientist?
So, women are more emotional and men are idiots?
Yes! But it's not our fault. Evolution has hardwired male brains such that we experience a 20-30 point drop in IQ whenever we see boobs.
In fact, we don't even have to see boobs to start drooling with stupidity...just thinking about them makes us dull-witted morons - albeit to a lesser extent that when we see a fully exposed rack in all its glory.
So you see, Evolution (in its infinite wisdom) has ordained that women have boobs, and men are thus rendered idiots for the majority of their lives.
Now if you'll excuse me, I feel a strange urge to go make one of those "hey guys, watch this!!!" videos that often precede receipt of a Darwin Award.
p.s. BOOBS!
What's so great about Sylpheed that I should care?
Sylpheed's primary advantage over all other e-mail clients is its inability to send HTML formatted mail.
Isn't that awesome?!?
If your license is revoked, don't store a pressure cooker in your parked car.
Thanks to the fearmongering industrial complex that's sprung up post 9/11, it's bigger than that. Nowadays, it's "if you live in the US, don't even own a pressure cooker."
The pressure cooker should not have resisted arrest.
Handles up - don't shoot!
Sigh.
Gainsville's treated waste water flows into the Trinity, where it then flows into Lake Ray Roberts, then flows into the Trinity, then flows into Lewisville Lake. Dallas pumps water from Lewisville Lake into treatment plants, then to customers. After the water is consumed, the sewage is sent to waste water treatment plants, and back into the Trinity to be used by communities DOWNSTREAM. This is the traditional process that for some bizarre reason you really really want to call "toilet to tap".
There, did I directly answer your question? Did I stick to the facts?
Here's another fun fact: the above outlined traditional process is not "toilet to tap" (which is simply a euphemism for the more accurate term of "water recycling"). Water recycling uses completely different infrastructure and technology, and implements a completely different resource flow. Ultimately, water recycling systems allow a community to re-use it's own waste water, instead of simply flushing it downstream - which is what Gainesville does to Dallas and ever other fucking municipality DOWNSTREAM from them.
There are no water recycling facilities on any part of the Trinity River watershed, so nobody that drinks water from the Trinity River or any reservoir fed from it is drinking "toilet to tap".
I've given you the definition you asked for three times now, and nobody is so stupid that they could fail to see any distinction between the systems in question. I'm guessing you suffer from some pathological need to be right coupled with low self esteem. When someone points out your mistakes, you feel intellectually threatened and react with childish denial. Kinda sad, really.
Cheers!
So "toilet to tap" is the same thing we've been doing for a very long time.
That's not what I said. That's what you keep saying, and it's incorrect. As you requested, I laid out an accurate definition of toilet to tap showing significant distinctions from what "we've been doing for a very long time" compared to how toilet to tap systems actually function.
But hey, you don't see any real differences between reservoirs and rivers - and you spout complete nonsense about Dallas pumping water out of the Trinity and into city reservoirs. So it's hardly surprising that you can't see any distinction between a system that passes it's treated waste water downstream and a system that uses hundreds of millions of dollars in additional advanced technology infrastructure in order to pass potable water back upstream for a community to reuse.
I guess your wish to remain ignorant is interfering with your ability to perform a simple internet search. Here, let me help you. What you describe as "toilet to tap" is:
"Cities take water from rivers or wells, contaminate it as they use it, and send it to wastewater treatment plants for sufficient cleanup to return to the rivers, where it heads downstream to the next city."
Your definition of "toilet to tap" is the same water cycle that's been going on since municipal wastewater treatment facilities came into existence (in other words, long before the term "toilet to tap" was even coined).
What the rest of the world describes as "toilet to tap" is a system where a community's sewage is processed through "highly engineered, well-monitored, advanced treatment processes that remove contaminants", typically involving microfiltration, reverse osmosis, and ultraviolet disinfection. The processed water is then reintroduced to the environment upstream of the community that originally created the wastewater.
If you like, I can further help you become better educated on the subject of reclaimed water...I've got all day. But if you can't see the difference in the definitions above, there's little that can be done to help you.