You realize the actual problem here is that he did not list those sources of funding. How do you and your idiot friends get modded up when the flipping summary tells you your wrong.
>The letters come after evidence emerged over the weekend that Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, had failed to disclose the industry funding for his academic work. The documents also included correspondence between Dr. Soon and the companies who funded his work in which he referred to his papers and testimony as "deliverables." Soon accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers.
> At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work. "What it shows is the continuation of a long-term campaign by specific fossil-fuel companies and interests to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change," says Kert Davies.
Err, you're making my point for me? Thanks?
I assume you didn't understand my comment. You also forgot to log in.
And yet they have synthesized it and are putting it through trials for approval. I presume that means they expect it to be profitable. Many modern antibiotics are discovered and produced in much the same way as penicillin was except we have much more advanced technology. There are indications of whole new grove of low hanging fruit from soil bacteria.
Meanwhile, the early research in new drugs is frequently publicly funded at universities.
You seem to have missed my point. Growing penicillin is not difficult, and synthesising amoxicillin is also not that difficult. The research and money necessary to synthesise and test modern antibiotics is orders of magnitude bigger than the drugs of old for all manner of reasons.
Brilacidin *might* be profitable - it's not approved yet and it could still fail to make it to market. The vast majority of drugs never make it to market yet they costs millions in development anyway. It's an extremely expensive and difficult business with a high failure rate.
If his papers are fine then why did he not disclose his funding source?
If you are intelligent why is it that you buy into the implied lie that Soon's funding is Koch? That's just what the left is implying, they aren't saying it outright because it's not at all the case - only that Soon a while ago did accept some funding from Koch, not involved at all in this study.
Yet you bought that line, you made the leap they wanted you to make because you want to believe SO BADLY.
Think for yourself man and shrug off the nose ring!
Where did I say that I thought his funding was from Koch?
I said that he did not disclose his funding source and that makes it suspect.
Given the level of your argument though, it seems you're not interested in discussing it. You also forgot to log in. If you forgot your password then you can reset it by email.
Do you have any problem with investigating *all* scientists working on climate, or only on one side of the issue?
No, where did I say that I did?
Scientists are routinely investigated. Not just climate scientists but all scientists of all disciplines - it's part of the process. Accounting for the money used to fund your research is a major part of modern science and it is carefully tracked and audited, as are the sources used by groups and individuals.
It is your responsibility to disclose them in your published work, but that doesn't mean that people aren't also going to check if you don't - that's exactly why this story exists and why it is important. He didn't do so and an investigation caught it. This sort of financial scrutiny of scientists is not uncommon, and it happens to *all* scientists, even ones who don't work on climate science.
And if they don't list someone... there wasn't any support from said someone. Right. Scientists are just as prone to foibles, including hucksterism, as anyone. To believe otherwise is naive at best.
Well obviously, that's what the story is about after all, but in general these things don't happen - there's plenty of scrutiny of scientists from all sides as it is, especially in hot-button political topics like atmospheric science.
Clearly they are not very good at their jobs because the source of funding is irrelevant. Unless you are accusing them of outright fraud, what matters is the research itself, it's replication and peer review.
Right, but the rule for publishing is that you disclose who paid for your research. If you don't do that then people aren't going to take the research seriously. Your funding source is most certainly not irrelevant at all. It doesn't mean that you automatically dismiss any work that us funded by an organisation you don't like, or who you assume has an agenda - you look at the research itself - but if you don't disclose then you're nowhere.
Soon's paper was fine. No lies, no fabricated data... And he attempts to explain the obvious elephant in the room: Why Climate Models Run Hot, which they obviously do.
It depends - reputable scientists disclose all of their funding sources when publishing so you usually don't have to investigate it. Given the pretty major snafu with Willie getting caught and his clear position in opposition to a large published majority, it's not unreasonable to check into actual funding sources, not just those he and others like him have reported.
It's not uncommon to be funded by large industrial groups, even in areas that you would typically not expect - for example, BP funds a lot of non-fossil-fuel energy research at academic institutions which is totally fine, but if you receive money from them then you have to disclose it, regardless of what your results are.
Older antibiotics were cheaper to research and make. It's that simple.
Modern antibiotics are exceedingly difficult synthetic targets (if not entirely impossible, relying on semi-synthetic methods), and developing a new one is not trivial. It is expensive, time consuming and filled with hundreds of dead ends - some of which are not apparent as dead ends until significant money and time has been invested.
Compare a compound like amoxicillin (which has been around since the 70s) with some of the current contenders as new antibiotics like brilacidin or eravacycline to name just a couple. Most of the low hanging fruit in this area has been picked.
You're confusing a design patent with a hardware patent. An easy mistake to make.
Apple's "rounded corners" design patent is like Ford suing someone for making a car that looks like a Mustang - something that is also protected by a design patent.
What patent trolls do is sue because someone is making a car because they hold a broad patent on "a transportation system used by individuals or groups".
Design patents are very common and protect things like trade dress and distinguishing sets of features (for example, a Ford Mustang is a car, and cars are not a new invention, but the design patent that protects the Mustang is valid). The more traditional invention patent, however, protects that specific invention. For example, the patent that protects a specific unique widget prevents another company for making and selling that widget, but the design patent on the Ford Mustang doesn't prevent other companies from making different cars, just not ones that look like the Mustang).
Also, of note, that the summary doesn't mention that this company is also suing Samsung and Google over the same patents. It seems the "throw it at the wall and see what sticks" method has claimed victory in round 1.
Not necessarily sewn up - the fact that contactless terminals are everywhere in, for example, the UK means that when Apple Pay launches here (or any other similar NFC-based phone payment system) people will be able to start using it right away in most of their favourite shopping places.
I use contactless payment pretty much everywhere I shop where my transactions are routinely under £20 (the current contactless limit, rising to £30 soon) - pubs, grocery store, high street shops, gas stations, coffee shops, fast food etc.
All Apple or any other vendor (Google etc) has to do is turn it on for the UK and people will use it.
Waaaahhhhh, we're too fucking stupid to take the android source code and modify it so that we can do what we wanttttt!!! Bwaaaaahhhh, Waahhhh Wahhhh/inserting-pacifier.
I want to make an Android phone that ships with the Google Play store and has Bing as the default search engine.
Can I do that?
That's effectively what they want to do here, but Google doesn't want that. If you have Play then you have to have google as the default search.
But no, of course it's down to stupidity on Yandex's part. I forgot that google can do no wrong. Carry on.
Google default engine is not baked into the phone and users can switch the default search engine to Bing if they like. That is easy to do. If you are going to jump on Google case because their apps are the default on their operation system then you should also take issue with (1) Apple whose services are the default on iOS and can't be changed. Not to mention, Apple generally doesn't allow third party apps that compete with their apps in the Apple Store. (2) Microsoft 8.1 operating system ships with Bing as the default search engine. (3) Amazon version of Android ships with Yahoo as the default search engine that can't be changed.
Right, but you're trying to change the argument - we all know that Microsoft's and Apple's policies on iOS and Win 8 are as they are and they get bashed for them all the time, but somehow it;s ok for Google to do this?
Sure you can change the search engine but *a vendor cannot set a different default out of the box if they want to also ship the Google Play store*. That is what this is about (among other things). Not whether you can change the default search engine as a user of the phone once you've bought it.
Oh, and just for completeness, on iOS: Settings > Safari > Search Engine > [pick one] (default is Google).
Waaaahhhhh, we're too fucking stupid to take the android source code and modify it so that we can do what we wanttttt!!! Bwaaaaahhhh, Waahhhh Wahhhh/inserting-pacifier.
I want to make an Android phone that ships with the Google Play store and has Bing as the default search engine.
Can I do that?
That's effectively what they want to do here, but Google doesn't want that. If you have Play then you have to have google as the default search.
But no, of course it's down to stupidity on Yandex's part. I forgot that google can do no wrong. Carry on.
I have a Samsung phone you insensitive Clod! Seriously, apple doesn't rule the cell phone market anymore, so Apple pay will only be helpful to a handful of the population.
Not to mention, I refuse to put any payment information, or banking info on my phone, period. Too easy to loose, get stolen, and get's upgraded every so often. I can't micro-shred my old cell phone with all my banking info on it, like I can an old credit card when I get an updated one.
It's a good thing that you don't put any banking info on your phone when you use Apple Pay then, isn't it?
It's almost like they thought of that when designing it!
The information on your phone is a one-way hash generated from a combination of factors - the phone's ID, a salt, your credit card number, etc. The phone only needs to see the number once to generate the key, but it doesn't store the actual number on the phone or use it during the payment process.
If you lose your phone you can log into iCloud and immediately invalidate the key, but there's no way that someone in possession of your phone can recover your banking information. The worst you'll have happen to you if you lose your phone is that someone will try to use it to buy something, but unless they know your PIN or have your fingerprint, they won't be able to do that either. The merchant also never knows your CC number, and nor does Apple, plus the way the system is set up, Apple also doesn't know what you are buying or where you're buying it from - the transaction is between your card issuer and the merchant, all the phone does is provide a key that authorises it.
Why do you think Apple Pay is remotely secure. Apple is good at keeping its users hemmed in and docile, not security.
If you assume the GP meant that Apple pay "when it can be hacked by someone standing next to you on the bus (as [sic] demo'd many times)" then where can we see these "many" demonstrations of the hacking of Apple Pay?
I think it's more likely that the GP is talking out of his arse. It's pretty common to see sweeping Apple-bash posts that have almost zero basis in reality on here that rely on groupthink to get positive moderation. For example - a sweeping assertion that Apple Pay is trivially hacked and that many demos of said hack exist. It's simply an outright falsehood.
I'm sure they're working on it. They were unhappy with the inability to adequately (from the broadcast rights perspective) protect their content unless they used Flash.
Since Netflix also had this problem until recently, the issue has been solved and I'm sure we'll see the HTML5 player in the not-too-distant future.
It's an iso standard, but what he means is that you need a licence to distribute an AAC encoder/decoder (unless you distribute it as source code I believe).
Slashdot Mirror
You realize the actual problem here is that he did not list those sources of funding. How do you and your idiot friends get modded up when the flipping summary tells you your wrong.
Reading comprehension. Practice it.
That is my point.
My point; that was it.
Point. Mine. Made.
>The letters come after evidence emerged over the weekend that Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, had failed to disclose the industry funding for his academic work. The documents also included correspondence between Dr. Soon and the companies who funded his work in which he referred to his papers and testimony as "deliverables." Soon accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers.
> At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work. "What it shows is the continuation of a long-term campaign by specific fossil-fuel companies and interests to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change," says Kert Davies.
Err, you're making my point for me? Thanks?
I assume you didn't understand my comment. You also forgot to log in.
And yet they have synthesized it and are putting it through trials for approval. I presume that means they expect it to be profitable. Many modern antibiotics are discovered and produced in much the same way as penicillin was except we have much more advanced technology. There are indications of whole new grove of low hanging fruit from soil bacteria.
Meanwhile, the early research in new drugs is frequently publicly funded at universities.
You seem to have missed my point. Growing penicillin is not difficult, and synthesising amoxicillin is also not that difficult. The research and money necessary to synthesise and test modern antibiotics is orders of magnitude bigger than the drugs of old for all manner of reasons.
Brilacidin *might* be profitable - it's not approved yet and it could still fail to make it to market. The vast majority of drugs never make it to market yet they costs millions in development anyway. It's an extremely expensive and difficult business with a high failure rate.
If his papers are fine then why did he not disclose his funding source?
If you are intelligent why is it that you buy into the implied lie that Soon's funding is Koch? That's just what the left is implying, they aren't saying it outright because it's not at all the case - only that Soon a while ago did accept some funding from Koch, not involved at all in this study.
Yet you bought that line, you made the leap they wanted you to make because you want to believe SO BADLY.
Think for yourself man and shrug off the nose ring!
Where did I say that I thought his funding was from Koch?
I said that he did not disclose his funding source and that makes it suspect.
Given the level of your argument though, it seems you're not interested in discussing it. You also forgot to log in. If you forgot your password then you can reset it by email.
So he works for free?
Must be nice.
Do you have any problem with investigating *all* scientists working on climate, or only on one side of the issue?
No, where did I say that I did?
Scientists are routinely investigated. Not just climate scientists but all scientists of all disciplines - it's part of the process. Accounting for the money used to fund your research is a major part of modern science and it is carefully tracked and audited, as are the sources used by groups and individuals.
It is your responsibility to disclose them in your published work, but that doesn't mean that people aren't also going to check if you don't - that's exactly why this story exists and why it is important. He didn't do so and an investigation caught it. This sort of financial scrutiny of scientists is not uncommon, and it happens to *all* scientists, even ones who don't work on climate science.
And if they don't list someone... there wasn't any support from said someone. Right. Scientists are just as prone to foibles, including hucksterism, as anyone. To believe otherwise is naive at best.
Well obviously, that's what the story is about after all, but in general these things don't happen - there's plenty of scrutiny of scientists from all sides as it is, especially in hot-button political topics like atmospheric science.
That shutting down funding of a contrary point of view is not exactly scientific best practice.
Who said anything about shutting it down?
All they want is for him to disclose who is funding him, as is standard practice in science.
Clearly they are not very good at their jobs because the source of funding is irrelevant. Unless you are accusing them of outright fraud, what matters is the research itself, it's replication and peer review.
Right, but the rule for publishing is that you disclose who paid for your research. If you don't do that then people aren't going to take the research seriously. Your funding source is most certainly not irrelevant at all. It doesn't mean that you automatically dismiss any work that us funded by an organisation you don't like, or who you assume has an agenda - you look at the research itself - but if you don't disclose then you're nowhere.
Soon's paper was fine. No lies, no fabricated data... And he attempts to explain the obvious elephant in the room: Why Climate Models Run Hot, which they obviously do.
Read more...
http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...
Billions and billions of dollars have been squandered on this boondoggle. No wonder so many people don't accountability.
Your source is suspect there, I'm afraid.
If his papers are fine then why did he not disclose his funding source? That's rule one about publishing your work. To not do so is very sketchy.
Now the politically correct enforcers are going to jackboot all over anyone who has a different opinion?
Obviously if they don't agree with us, they must be corrupt or worse.
That's some Nazi shit right there.
No, the fact that he has been caught not disclosing his funding sources and been caught breaking ethical guidelines is what makes him corrupt.
Just a thought.
Disclosing your funding source is standard practice. Not doing so is very sketchy.
You can find that out by looking at their published work - it's standard practice to disclose your funding sources when publishing or presenting.
It depends - reputable scientists disclose all of their funding sources when publishing so you usually don't have to investigate it. Given the pretty major snafu with Willie getting caught and his clear position in opposition to a large published majority, it's not unreasonable to check into actual funding sources, not just those he and others like him have reported.
It's not uncommon to be funded by large industrial groups, even in areas that you would typically not expect - for example, BP funds a lot of non-fossil-fuel energy research at academic institutions which is totally fine, but if you receive money from them then you have to disclose it, regardless of what your results are.
Older antibiotics were cheaper to research and make. It's that simple.
Modern antibiotics are exceedingly difficult synthetic targets (if not entirely impossible, relying on semi-synthetic methods), and developing a new one is not trivial. It is expensive, time consuming and filled with hundreds of dead ends - some of which are not apparent as dead ends until significant money and time has been invested.
Compare a compound like amoxicillin (which has been around since the 70s) with some of the current contenders as new antibiotics like brilacidin or eravacycline to name just a couple. Most of the low hanging fruit in this area has been picked.
You're confusing a design patent with a hardware patent. An easy mistake to make.
Apple's "rounded corners" design patent is like Ford suing someone for making a car that looks like a Mustang - something that is also protected by a design patent.
What patent trolls do is sue because someone is making a car because they hold a broad patent on "a transportation system used by individuals or groups".
Design patents are very common and protect things like trade dress and distinguishing sets of features (for example, a Ford Mustang is a car, and cars are not a new invention, but the design patent that protects the Mustang is valid). The more traditional invention patent, however, protects that specific invention. For example, the patent that protects a specific unique widget prevents another company for making and selling that widget, but the design patent on the Ford Mustang doesn't prevent other companies from making different cars, just not ones that look like the Mustang).
Also, of note, that the summary doesn't mention that this company is also suing Samsung and Google over the same patents. It seems the "throw it at the wall and see what sticks" method has claimed victory in round 1.
Not necessarily sewn up - the fact that contactless terminals are everywhere in, for example, the UK means that when Apple Pay launches here (or any other similar NFC-based phone payment system) people will be able to start using it right away in most of their favourite shopping places.
I use contactless payment pretty much everywhere I shop where my transactions are routinely under £20 (the current contactless limit, rising to £30 soon) - pubs, grocery store, high street shops, gas stations, coffee shops, fast food etc.
All Apple or any other vendor (Google etc) has to do is turn it on for the UK and people will use it.
Waaaahhhhh, we're too fucking stupid to take the android source code and modify it so that we can do what we wanttttt!!! Bwaaaaahhhh, Waahhhh Wahhhh /inserting-pacifier.
I want to make an Android phone that ships with the Google Play store and has Bing as the default search engine.
Can I do that?
That's effectively what they want to do here, but Google doesn't want that. If you have Play then you have to have google as the default search.
But no, of course it's down to stupidity on Yandex's part. I forgot that google can do no wrong. Carry on.
Google default engine is not baked into the phone and users can switch the default search engine to Bing if they like. That is easy to do. If you are going to jump on Google case because their apps are the default on their operation system then you should also take issue with (1) Apple whose services are the default on iOS and can't be changed. Not to mention, Apple generally doesn't allow third party apps that compete with their apps in the Apple Store. (2) Microsoft 8.1 operating system ships with Bing as the default search engine. (3) Amazon version of Android ships with Yahoo as the default search engine that can't be changed.
Right, but you're trying to change the argument - we all know that Microsoft's and Apple's policies on iOS and Win 8 are as they are and they get bashed for them all the time, but somehow it;s ok for Google to do this?
Sure you can change the search engine but *a vendor cannot set a different default out of the box if they want to also ship the Google Play store*. That is what this is about (among other things). Not whether you can change the default search engine as a user of the phone once you've bought it.
Oh, and just for completeness, on iOS: Settings > Safari > Search Engine > [pick one] (default is Google).
Don't let facts get in the way of a good Apple bash on slashdot.
No, but you can patent "functional".
Waaaahhhhh, we're too fucking stupid to take the android source code and modify it so that we can do what we wanttttt!!! Bwaaaaahhhh, Waahhhh Wahhhh /inserting-pacifier.
I want to make an Android phone that ships with the Google Play store and has Bing as the default search engine.
Can I do that?
That's effectively what they want to do here, but Google doesn't want that. If you have Play then you have to have google as the default search.
But no, of course it's down to stupidity on Yandex's part. I forgot that google can do no wrong. Carry on.
I have a Samsung phone you insensitive Clod! Seriously, apple doesn't rule the cell phone market anymore, so Apple pay will only be helpful to a handful of the population.
Not to mention, I refuse to put any payment information, or banking info on my phone, period. Too easy to loose, get stolen, and get's upgraded every so often. I can't micro-shred my old cell phone with all my banking info on it, like I can an old credit card when I get an updated one.
It's a good thing that you don't put any banking info on your phone when you use Apple Pay then, isn't it?
It's almost like they thought of that when designing it!
The information on your phone is a one-way hash generated from a combination of factors - the phone's ID, a salt, your credit card number, etc. The phone only needs to see the number once to generate the key, but it doesn't store the actual number on the phone or use it during the payment process.
If you lose your phone you can log into iCloud and immediately invalidate the key, but there's no way that someone in possession of your phone can recover your banking information. The worst you'll have happen to you if you lose your phone is that someone will try to use it to buy something, but unless they know your PIN or have your fingerprint, they won't be able to do that either. The merchant also never knows your CC number, and nor does Apple, plus the way the system is set up, Apple also doesn't know what you are buying or where you're buying it from - the transaction is between your card issuer and the merchant, all the phone does is provide a key that authorises it.
And I suspect so did the GP.
Why do you think Apple Pay is remotely secure. Apple is good at keeping its users hemmed in and docile, not security.
If you assume the GP meant that Apple pay "when it can be hacked by someone standing next to you on the bus (as [sic] demo'd many times)" then where can we see these "many" demonstrations of the hacking of Apple Pay?
I think it's more likely that the GP is talking out of his arse. It's pretty common to see sweeping Apple-bash posts that have almost zero basis in reality on here that rely on groupthink to get positive moderation. For example - a sweeping assertion that Apple Pay is trivially hacked and that many demos of said hack exist. It's simply an outright falsehood.
Actually that's exactly what they're claiming.
"If you ship a phone with non-google services we'll cut off your access to Google services globally".
Whether this is actually true or not we don't know, but it's what they're alleging.
I'm sure they're working on it. They were unhappy with the inability to adequately (from the broadcast rights perspective) protect their content unless they used Flash.
Since Netflix also had this problem until recently, the issue has been solved and I'm sure we'll see the HTML5 player in the not-too-distant future.
It's an iso standard, but what he means is that you need a licence to distribute an AAC encoder/decoder (unless you distribute it as source code I believe).