Aereo: For the purposes of copyright, we're not a cable company. Networks: Yes you are. Aereo: No we're not a cable company in any way. Courts: Yes you are. Aereo: Okay, if we're a cable company for the purposes of copyright, then we're exactly the special kind of cable company that gets statutory rates. Networks: You're a cable company, but you're not that kind of cable company. Aereo: Yes we are. Networks: No you're not.
Of course, I get your point that *some* sort of reciprocal discovery will take place - for the unassailable procedural principles you point out - but the kind of sweeping access to records that Mann's opponents are chomping for simply isn't going to happen.
Discovery is reciprocal, but it's not carte blanche to request any and all documentation you might feel like having a look at. In that context, a "truth" defence would require some specific evidence that they're supposed to look for, or at least a general sense that there was something in the defendant's records that they seek. A defendant can't simply request the entirety of a plaintiff's records in the hope of finding something that proves one's claims.
Given the broadness and non-specificity of the NR's claims - Steyn has made it very clear in public statements that he views this as an opportunity to attack Mann on anything and everything he has said on climate - it seems unlikely to me that their request for discovery will succeed.
It amazes me that this needs to be pointed out. Using a deity's name in a secular and preferably angry context is one of the fundaments of swearing, by deus.
I'm not sure what grounds there are for reciprocal discovery in this instance. A libel suit has never been an opportunity for the defendant to play detective and attempt to prove their accusations.
"We'll discredit all information quantifying the problem" doesn't strike me as a great way to engineer your way out of the problem either, for that matter.
The FOI doesn't allow you to sue someone for access to their records soley on the pretext that you're going to trawl for unspecified and potentially nonexistent wrongdoing.
I don't think you know what a cargo cult (or by extension, "cargo cult science") is.
It's not the court's purpose to air dirty laundry of people you don't like soley because there is dirty laundry to be aired.
If I'm reading that right, the material wasn't lost, it just couldn't be accounted for after deliberate disposal because they made some seriously incorrect assumptions about how it would sequester itself in the environment. So that's a different issue.
War in the region that eventually became Germany predated the Cold War by just as long, it doesn't mean it was a good idea to put down a wall and say "you people are now freedom-loving Westerners, and you people are now hard-core communists".
The specific example you give is exactly my point: Sunni-Shia tensions weren't resolved by forcing them both to live in the same country with one group explicitly emplaced as the leaders of the other, if they were then there wouldn't be an outright civil war on.
The study did not have military sponsorship. As the headline states, one of the authors received funding from the military for another project studying social contagion. Regardless we should be unnerved by the idea that there are leading experts on social manipulation out there getting their ideas from studying Facebook and then taking their expertise to the military.
Adam I Kramer, the Facebook analyst responsible for the part of the research considered ethically dubious, is the first and corresponding author on the paper.
...and? I don't see a part of PNAS' policies where it says "it's okay to breach these rules, so long as the people who made the breach and the people who performed the data analysis aren't the same".
When I see an ad or get into an argument with someone they usually don't have a billion-dollar program of research tracking my own and my friends' behaviour and then covertly adjusting what I see and hear to get their way.
The Navy-funded research is all out there in the journals. It's an active area, it's just not a very expensive one (which is one of its benefits) so it's not a political hot potato.
To be explicit about this, the Middle East as it currently exists - its borders, the ruling parties, the dominant social groups - were basically set out by European powers after the First World War with no particular regard for the actual social and political situation on the ground. The past century of instability has pretty much revolved around those boundaries attempting to return themselves to something approaching an equilibrium, and our own dogged efforts to stop that from happening.
It's the Berlin Wall on a truly spectacular scale.
Slashdot Mirror
It makes a little more sense like this:
Aereo: For the purposes of copyright, we're not a cable company.
Networks: Yes you are.
Aereo: No we're not a cable company in any way.
Courts: Yes you are.
Aereo: Okay, if we're a cable company for the purposes of copyright, then we're exactly the special kind of cable company that gets statutory rates.
Networks: You're a cable company, but you're not that kind of cable company.
Aereo: Yes we are.
Networks: No you're not.
Of course, I get your point that *some* sort of reciprocal discovery will take place - for the unassailable procedural principles you point out - but the kind of sweeping access to records that Mann's opponents are chomping for simply isn't going to happen.
Discovery is reciprocal, but it's not carte blanche to request any and all documentation you might feel like having a look at. In that context, a "truth" defence would require some specific evidence that they're supposed to look for, or at least a general sense that there was something in the defendant's records that they seek. A defendant can't simply request the entirety of a plaintiff's records in the hope of finding something that proves one's claims.
Given the broadness and non-specificity of the NR's claims - Steyn has made it very clear in public statements that he views this as an opportunity to attack Mann on anything and everything he has said on climate - it seems unlikely to me that their request for discovery will succeed.
"97% of scientists who actually work in this area" seems like the statistic you want to worry about, doesn't it?
"97% of scientists qualified to comment on the issue" is even worse for the anti-warming movement.
It amazes me that this needs to be pointed out. Using a deity's name in a secular and preferably angry context is one of the fundaments of swearing, by deus.
The "plum pudding" model was one of several competing models at the time. That's why it has a contemporaneous name, because there were alternatives.
....or perhaps your model of the world where all systems perfectly equilibrate in response to perturbations is not accurate and has misled you.
Please elaborate.
So by "the left" you meant "tabloid newspapers"?
I'm not sure what grounds there are for reciprocal discovery in this instance. A libel suit has never been an opportunity for the defendant to play detective and attempt to prove their accusations.
"We'll discredit all information quantifying the problem" doesn't strike me as a great way to engineer your way out of the problem either, for that matter.
The FOI doesn't allow you to sue someone for access to their records soley on the pretext that you're going to trawl for unspecified and potentially nonexistent wrongdoing.
I don't think you know what a cargo cult (or by extension, "cargo cult science") is.
It's not the court's purpose to air dirty laundry of people you don't like soley because there is dirty laundry to be aired.
If I'm reading that right, the material wasn't lost, it just couldn't be accounted for after deliberate disposal because they made some seriously incorrect assumptions about how it would sequester itself in the environment. So that's a different issue.
Thank you! My practical chem is really ropey.
War in the region that eventually became Germany predated the Cold War by just as long, it doesn't mean it was a good idea to put down a wall and say "you people are now freedom-loving Westerners, and you people are now hard-core communists".
The specific example you give is exactly my point: Sunni-Shia tensions weren't resolved by forcing them both to live in the same country with one group explicitly emplaced as the leaders of the other, if they were then there wouldn't be an outright civil war on.
The study did not have military sponsorship. As the headline states, one of the authors received funding from the military for another project studying social contagion. Regardless we should be unnerved by the idea that there are leading experts on social manipulation out there getting their ideas from studying Facebook and then taking their expertise to the military.
Adam I Kramer, the Facebook analyst responsible for the part of the research considered ethically dubious, is the first and corresponding author on the paper.
That's why this isn't all over the mainstream media, of course.
...and? I don't see a part of PNAS' policies where it says "it's okay to breach these rules, so long as the people who made the breach and the people who performed the data analysis aren't the same".
When I see an ad or get into an argument with someone they usually don't have a billion-dollar program of research tracking my own and my friends' behaviour and then covertly adjusting what I see and hear to get their way.
Unless it's election season.
The Navy-funded research is all out there in the journals. It's an active area, it's just not a very expensive one (which is one of its benefits) so it's not a political hot potato.
It's the resources that are the problem. The minds are all in the right places.
You strike me as the kind of guy who stops paying the water bill before he stops paying for Netflix.
To be explicit about this, the Middle East as it currently exists - its borders, the ruling parties, the dominant social groups - were basically set out by European powers after the First World War with no particular regard for the actual social and political situation on the ground. The past century of instability has pretty much revolved around those boundaries attempting to return themselves to something approaching an equilibrium, and our own dogged efforts to stop that from happening.
It's the Berlin Wall on a truly spectacular scale.