According to dailymail, this all stems from a letter between the two nations which states "You need to be aware that there is a legal base in the UK, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, that would allow us to take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the Embassy. We sincerely hope that we do not reach that point, but if you are not capable of resolving this matter of Mr Assange’s presence in your premises, this is an open option for us."
It doesn't matter what the arrest warrant says. All that matters is whether Ecuadorian officials believe Mr. Assange is being politically prosecuted. Hell, even that doesn't matter. All that matters is that the Ecuadorian officials, with a semi-straight face, say they believe Mr. Assange is being politically prosecuted. And that's all it takes because the official excuse for prosecution does not always equal the true reason for prosecution, and everyone knows this.
Surely, you realize that any action or nonaction by the UK and Ecuador would not be governed by such trifling technicalities right? What matters here is basically the court of public opinion, where the "public" is all the other nations of the world. If foreign governments are going to condemn the UK for storming an Ecuadorian embassy, they are not going to sit back and say "Oh, you closed the embassy half an hour earlier, all ok then!"
But let's pretend that technicalities do matter. Then I would suggest that technically, the British government would have to officially declare the embassy closed and give the embassy officials ample time to not only leave the country, but to secure and transport their communications, electrical systems, etc.
I think things are going to have to get a LOT worse (not jsut "a little more..." for most Americans before they get off the couch and cause the destruction of the current order. Unfortunately I don't think that there's enough care out there for any meaningful push back towards a decent state. This means we're going to be stuck on this slow downward spiral for a while now. The worst part is that by the time most Americans wake up, first they will be called hippies and minimized in the media, and then the technology used by the police state will be too advanced for any meaningful change to occur. We will simply all end up being labelled as terrorists or have criminal records for showing up at an anti-whatever rally.
By claiming that negative results are worth as much as positive results.
Please enlighten me on where I said or implied anything even close to that statement. My only point was that mistakes did not equate negative results. Nowhere did I suggest that negative results and positive results had the same worth. You and GP seem determined to read more into my statements than what I am actually typing. You seem to be reading somewhere that I think science is somehow perfect and researchers are without flaw. I said no such thing. The closest I came to such as statement was when I implied that was a scientist's goal, "so they don't look like fools." Are you seriously suggesting that since there are mistakes in science that we should just accept those mistakes because science is hard? If not, then surprise, we are in agreement.
Or perhaps you think I'm the original AC who started this thread, with the statement that we could learn as much from negative results as positive ones? Then I'd say the AC is correct that we could learn from negative results. I'd also say that political pressure for new, positive results has no bearing on the actual scientific value of those results. I find it laughable that you would insinuate that negative results have no value. It is a common viewpoint that the intrinsic worth of negative results is a primary flaw in the status quo of prestigious journals and Big Pharma.
Somehow you think that my posts show a lack of participation in the scientific community, and then you go on and attribute a statement to me that 1) is hardly debatable and 2) wasn't even mine. So besides this statement that I never made (until this post I suppose), show me what exactly I said anywhere in this thread that makes you believe I "do not understand science as an institution, or your participation has been minimal at best" because I'd like to know what stance I've taken that is so unpopular. Is it that sloppy mistakes make bad science? I'm sorry but they do. Is it that scientists try to minimize these mistakes? I would hope that is true. Is it that mistakes that do get through can be caught by the review process? That, too, is correct. Is it that mistakes are not the same as negative results? Also true. That pretty much sums up every position I've taken so far, so please, by all means help me out. Let me know what is so "insulting" about my views, because dispite your handful of $5 words, your post lacks substance and specifics.
People are going to be rude so grow up? Give me a break. If I'm trying to have an intelligent discussion and someone starts acting like I child, I will call them on it.
Spoken like someone who never did any research, where a flaky cable is responsible for that super-interesting trend you discovered.... until someone points out the flaky cable. Most people do exactly what you recommend, and are tripped up by flaws in their measurements that they did not foresee or find.
To a large extent, I would say that a scientist has the responsibility to ensure his tools are working correctly before publishing findings; and yes, that includes verifying that a cable is not flaky. Besides that, I agree that not every error can be accounted for or foreseen, which is exactly why I said that sort of thing is that the journalling review process is for. But all that is just distracting from the my main point which is that making errors in an experiment is not the same thing as getting negative results. The two are not the same. That is all I've been trying to say. Whether or not scientists make mistakes is a side issue.
If you want to be taken seriously when talking about how science works, what scientists should do to get results and how scientists should behave when working on their experiments, you might want to figure out what it is they're already doing. Otherwise, you just come across as naive and presumptuous.
I have an idea of what scientists are already doing. I know that scientists try really hard to find errors in their methodology and equipment before publication, so they don't end up looking like fools when it turns out a cable was bad. I also know that scientists don't forgo that step just because "science is hard". Finally, I know that making mistakes during an experiment is not the same thing as getting negative results in that experiment. If any of this is wrong, please share.
Did you actually read my responses, because it sounds to me like you and I have pretty much the same idea of what a scientist does. This thread started simply because someone equated making mistakes with getting negative results. I'm not wrong for trying to correct this.
Do you have any idea what kind of work I do? Do you know how much research experience I have? Or perhaps are you being presumptuous?
Why are you so quick to defend someone being an ass? Even if I worked at McDonalds and had 0 research or scientific experience is no reason for the tone in some of these responses. Adults try to treat each other with respect, even if they think the other person is wrong. Teenagers treat each other with condescension and ridicule. It is not too much to ask for fellow slashdotters to treat each other with some civility. If you think I am wrong, please share.
In the ideal world, that would be true, but in the real world, what you most often learn is that there are many different ways to screw up a delicate measurement in ways from which you learn little or nothing.
What are you talking about? Negative results doesn't mean someone screwed up a measurement. Negative results means the experiment ran correctly but the results went counter to the hypothesis.
That would be nice if things were that simple.
Negative results are the fruit of good science just as much as positive results are. Screwing up the measurements in an experiment is simply bad science, or not science at all.
What planet are you from? I want to move to your planet, where science is so easy, and stuff always works unless it's "bad science," which apparently comes with a label so anybody can tell which is which.
On my planet, stuff doesn't always work. When it doesn't work, it's not always easy to figure out why it doesn't work. When you don't get a result, it's hard to be confident that you didn't do something wrong-- and the people who are confident that they didn't do something wrong... are often wrong. It's not always trivial to say whether or not you did something wrong, or whether the experiment set up had a flaw, or there was something that turns out to be important that you didn't know was important, or whether the result you're trying to replicate was just wrong to start with.
On my planet, I never said or implied that science was easy or trivial. Science IS hard, and if you are submitting to a journal without taking the hard steps of ensuring your measurements are accurate and your methods are not flawed, then you are contributing to bad science. I was not saying that every submitted experiment should be guaranteed to be flawless and come with a "label." I was saying that a scientific error in the experiment is not the same thing as a negative result. You can have scientific errors in papers that claim positive results as well as in papers that claim negative results.
In short, the search for errors in an experiment is one of the primary reasons for the journalling review process, and should not be confused with whether an experiment claims positive or negative results.
Finally, when you respond to this comment, geoffrey.landis, try to act like an adult. There is no need to be a smart-ass, or glib, or whatever it is you were trying to be.
Negative results are sometimes just as interesting as positive ones. As you usually learn something.
You would think.
In the ideal world, that would be true, but in the real world, what you most often learn is that there are many different ways to screw up a delicate measurement in ways from which you learn little or nothing.
What are you talking about? Negative results doesn't mean someone screwed up a measurement. Negative results means the experiment ran correctly but the results went counter to the hypothesis. Negative results are the fruit of good science just as much as positive results are. Screwing up the measurements in an experiment is simply bad science, or not science at all.
Makes me immediately think of robotics. With that in mind, I'd suggest books like JunkBots, Bugbots, and Bots on Wheels: Building Simple Robots With BEAM Technology or Robot Builder's Bonanza. Maybe not these exact books, because they might be a little dated, but anything in that vein. You can also look at microcontroller programming (PIC, Arduino,..), which allows you to do all sorts of things with feedback systems and motor control, etc. Of course there's the good ol' fallback too: Lego Mindstorms.
Seems like this is just advertising. Go watch ads and tell us which ones are good. It's not as if there is a limit to what can be released or when.
I'm old and jaded though. I stick to free roguelikes and muds.
Of course there is a limit. It takes resources to convert a game to play on the steam platform and show up in thier store. Since these resources are limited, the number of games released is limited.
Does Comcast have to make it any easier for customers to find the stand alone-packages? I don't see that requirement anywhere in the summary or article..
I've found the opposite to be true, at least for the things I buy on amazon. I've noticed people like to give poor ratings to things when they are mad at the supplier for a lenthy shipment and other things that don't actually have anything to do with the product.
Well that's my guess too. I just thought it would be less tin-foil-hatty to rule out the possibility that they are being used for less nefarious purposes. The implication being that three-letter-agencies are nefarious.
To be fair, if the data is being collected by scientists conducting a study, I find it diffictult to determine whose rights are being violated. If the data is not being used by law enforcement, then I would say that scientists have a right to take pictures of passing cars (if they have permission to install the cameras of course).
Thanks for the input. It got me curious, so I checked to see if Texas has a FOIA as well. It turns out we do: The Texas Public Information Act. According to at least one website the TPIA is even stronger than the FOIA.
I agree. Fed involvement would also explain why the police chief is being so hush hush about the owner and why the data isn't being used in traffic court.
Another idea: Either these things are network connected, or they aren't. If they aren't they must be storing the pictures and someone has to come around frequently to download the information. If they are connected to a network, I'm sure some leet haxor wouldn't mind wasting a few hours trying to track some IP addresses and whatnot (not that I'm recommending it or anything).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand, FOIA is a federal law that provides for the exposure of federal information. I don't think anyone can file a FOIA request with the state of New York or any of its counties or cities.
Destruction of public property, vandalism, etc. These are the charges I WOULD have been concerned about 15 years ago. Now, I'd have to worry that following your suggestion would lead to some type of retarded terrorism charges. I'd hate to start smashing and see that the people that come calling are the NSA or Homeland Security.
What is the point of having these cameras, if not to catch speeders and red-light runners? If those two ARE the point of having these cameras, then people would be receiving citations based on photos from these cameras. So the immediate question that comes to my mind is: are people getting these citations, or not?
...perhaps it sends the message that what you are able to do, and what you continue to do effectively is more important than what on-paper tests you've passed.
By that logic, the board member selected a candidate for CEO who ended up being successful at it; and therefore did her job effectively. Shouldn't that be more important that what on-paper test the other guy passed?
Slashdot Mirror
According to dailymail, this all stems from a letter between the two nations which states "You need to be aware that there is a legal base in the UK, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, that would allow us to take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the Embassy. We sincerely hope that we do not reach that point, but if you are not capable of resolving this matter of Mr Assange’s presence in your premises, this is an open option for us."
It doesn't matter what the arrest warrant says. All that matters is whether Ecuadorian officials believe Mr. Assange is being politically prosecuted. Hell, even that doesn't matter. All that matters is that the Ecuadorian officials, with a semi-straight face, say they believe Mr. Assange is being politically prosecuted. And that's all it takes because the official excuse for prosecution does not always equal the true reason for prosecution, and everyone knows this.
Surely, you realize that any action or nonaction by the UK and Ecuador would not be governed by such trifling technicalities right? What matters here is basically the court of public opinion, where the "public" is all the other nations of the world. If foreign governments are going to condemn the UK for storming an Ecuadorian embassy, they are not going to sit back and say "Oh, you closed the embassy half an hour earlier, all ok then!"
But let's pretend that technicalities do matter. Then I would suggest that technically, the British government would have to officially declare the embassy closed and give the embassy officials ample time to not only leave the country, but to secure and transport their communications, electrical systems, etc.
I think things are going to have to get a LOT worse (not jsut "a little more..." for most Americans before they get off the couch and cause the destruction of the current order. Unfortunately I don't think that there's enough care out there for any meaningful push back towards a decent state. This means we're going to be stuck on this slow downward spiral for a while now. The worst part is that by the time most Americans wake up, first they will be called hippies and minimized in the media, and then the technology used by the police state will be too advanced for any meaningful change to occur. We will simply all end up being labelled as terrorists or have criminal records for showing up at an anti-whatever rally.
By claiming that negative results are worth as much as positive results.
Please enlighten me on where I said or implied anything even close to that statement. My only point was that mistakes did not equate negative results. Nowhere did I suggest that negative results and positive results had the same worth. You and GP seem determined to read more into my statements than what I am actually typing. You seem to be reading somewhere that I think science is somehow perfect and researchers are without flaw. I said no such thing. The closest I came to such as statement was when I implied that was a scientist's goal, "so they don't look like fools." Are you seriously suggesting that since there are mistakes in science that we should just accept those mistakes because science is hard? If not, then surprise, we are in agreement.
Or perhaps you think I'm the original AC who started this thread, with the statement that we could learn as much from negative results as positive ones? Then I'd say the AC is correct that we could learn from negative results. I'd also say that political pressure for new, positive results has no bearing on the actual scientific value of those results. I find it laughable that you would insinuate that negative results have no value. It is a common viewpoint that the intrinsic worth of negative results is a primary flaw in the status quo of prestigious journals and Big Pharma.
Somehow you think that my posts show a lack of participation in the scientific community, and then you go on and attribute a statement to me that 1) is hardly debatable and 2) wasn't even mine. So besides this statement that I never made (until this post I suppose), show me what exactly I said anywhere in this thread that makes you believe I "do not understand science as an institution, or your participation has been minimal at best" because I'd like to know what stance I've taken that is so unpopular. Is it that sloppy mistakes make bad science? I'm sorry but they do. Is it that scientists try to minimize these mistakes? I would hope that is true. Is it that mistakes that do get through can be caught by the review process? That, too, is correct. Is it that mistakes are not the same as negative results? Also true. That pretty much sums up every position I've taken so far, so please, by all means help me out. Let me know what is so "insulting" about my views, because dispite your handful of $5 words, your post lacks substance and specifics.
People are going to be rude so grow up? Give me a break. If I'm trying to have an intelligent discussion and someone starts acting like I child, I will call them on it.
Spoken like someone who never did any research, where a flaky cable is responsible for that super-interesting trend you discovered.... until someone points out the flaky cable. Most people do exactly what you recommend, and are tripped up by flaws in their measurements that they did not foresee or find.
To a large extent, I would say that a scientist has the responsibility to ensure his tools are working correctly before publishing findings; and yes, that includes verifying that a cable is not flaky. Besides that, I agree that not every error can be accounted for or foreseen, which is exactly why I said that sort of thing is that the journalling review process is for. But all that is just distracting from the my main point which is that making errors in an experiment is not the same thing as getting negative results. The two are not the same. That is all I've been trying to say. Whether or not scientists make mistakes is a side issue.
If you want to be taken seriously when talking about how science works, what scientists should do to get results and how scientists should behave when working on their experiments, you might want to figure out what it is they're already doing. Otherwise, you just come across as naive and presumptuous.
I have an idea of what scientists are already doing. I know that scientists try really hard to find errors in their methodology and equipment before publication, so they don't end up looking like fools when it turns out a cable was bad. I also know that scientists don't forgo that step just because "science is hard". Finally, I know that making mistakes during an experiment is not the same thing as getting negative results in that experiment. If any of this is wrong, please share.
Did you actually read my responses, because it sounds to me like you and I have pretty much the same idea of what a scientist does. This thread started simply because someone equated making mistakes with getting negative results. I'm not wrong for trying to correct this.
Do you have any idea what kind of work I do? Do you know how much research experience I have? Or perhaps are you being presumptuous?
Why are you so quick to defend someone being an ass? Even if I worked at McDonalds and had 0 research or scientific experience is no reason for the tone in some of these responses. Adults try to treat each other with respect, even if they think the other person is wrong. Teenagers treat each other with condescension and ridicule. It is not too much to ask for fellow slashdotters to treat each other with some civility. If you think I am wrong, please share.
In the ideal world, that would be true, but in the real world, what you most often learn is that there are many different ways to screw up a delicate measurement in ways from which you learn little or nothing.
What are you talking about? Negative results doesn't mean someone screwed up a measurement. Negative results means the experiment ran correctly but the results went counter to the hypothesis.
That would be nice if things were that simple.
Negative results are the fruit of good science just as much as positive results are. Screwing up the measurements in an experiment is simply bad science, or not science at all.
What planet are you from? I want to move to your planet, where science is so easy, and stuff always works unless it's "bad science," which apparently comes with a label so anybody can tell which is which.
On my planet, stuff doesn't always work. When it doesn't work, it's not always easy to figure out why it doesn't work. When you don't get a result, it's hard to be confident that you didn't do something wrong-- and the people who are confident that they didn't do something wrong... are often wrong. It's not always trivial to say whether or not you did something wrong, or whether the experiment set up had a flaw, or there was something that turns out to be important that you didn't know was important, or whether the result you're trying to replicate was just wrong to start with.
On my planet, I never said or implied that science was easy or trivial. Science IS hard, and if you are submitting to a journal without taking the hard steps of ensuring your measurements are accurate and your methods are not flawed, then you are contributing to bad science. I was not saying that every submitted experiment should be guaranteed to be flawless and come with a "label." I was saying that a scientific error in the experiment is not the same thing as a negative result. You can have scientific errors in papers that claim positive results as well as in papers that claim negative results.
In short, the search for errors in an experiment is one of the primary reasons for the journalling review process, and should not be confused with whether an experiment claims positive or negative results.
Finally, when you respond to this comment, geoffrey.landis, try to act like an adult. There is no need to be a smart-ass, or glib, or whatever it is you were trying to be.
Negative results are sometimes just as interesting as positive ones. As you usually learn something.
You would think.
In the ideal world, that would be true, but in the real world, what you most often learn is that there are many different ways to screw up a delicate measurement in ways from which you learn little or nothing.
What are you talking about? Negative results doesn't mean someone screwed up a measurement. Negative results means the experiment ran correctly but the results went counter to the hypothesis. Negative results are the fruit of good science just as much as positive results are. Screwing up the measurements in an experiment is simply bad science, or not science at all.
Makes me immediately think of robotics. With that in mind, I'd suggest books like JunkBots, Bugbots, and Bots on Wheels: Building Simple Robots With BEAM Technology or Robot Builder's Bonanza. Maybe not these exact books, because they might be a little dated, but anything in that vein. You can also look at microcontroller programming (PIC, Arduino, ..), which allows you to do all sorts of things with feedback systems and motor control, etc. Of course there's the good ol' fallback too: Lego Mindstorms.
Seems like this is just advertising. Go watch ads and tell us which ones are good. It's not as if there is a limit to what can be released or when.
I'm old and jaded though. I stick to free roguelikes and muds.
Of course there is a limit. It takes resources to convert a game to play on the steam platform and show up in thier store. Since these resources are limited, the number of games released is limited.
Does Comcast have to make it any easier for customers to find the stand alone-packages? I don't see that requirement anywhere in the summary or article ..
1) existing in a natural state, as animals or plants; not domesticated or cultivated; wild.
2) having reverted to the wild state, as from domestication.
3) of or characteristic of wild animals; ferocious; brutal.
All three definitions equate feral with being wild, so what was the point of your pedantic nitpicking again?
If you want a strong experienced team with great leadership, then you aren't a venture capitalist. You're an investor.
Maybe you shouldn't be screwing around with wild animals and their food . . .
I've found the opposite to be true, at least for the things I buy on amazon. I've noticed people like to give poor ratings to things when they are mad at the supplier for a lenthy shipment and other things that don't actually have anything to do with the product.
Well that's my guess too. I just thought it would be less tin-foil-hatty to rule out the possibility that they are being used for less nefarious purposes. The implication being that three-letter-agencies are nefarious.
To be fair, if the data is being collected by scientists conducting a study, I find it diffictult to determine whose rights are being violated. If the data is not being used by law enforcement, then I would say that scientists have a right to take pictures of passing cars (if they have permission to install the cameras of course).
Thanks for the input. It got me curious, so I checked to see if Texas has a FOIA as well. It turns out we do: The Texas Public Information Act. According to at least one website the TPIA is even stronger than the FOIA.
I agree. Fed involvement would also explain why the police chief is being so hush hush about the owner and why the data isn't being used in traffic court.
Another idea: Either these things are network connected, or they aren't. If they aren't they must be storing the pictures and someone has to come around frequently to download the information. If they are connected to a network, I'm sure some leet haxor wouldn't mind wasting a few hours trying to track some IP addresses and whatnot (not that I'm recommending it or anything).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand, FOIA is a federal law that provides for the exposure of federal information. I don't think anyone can file a FOIA request with the state of New York or any of its counties or cities.
Destruction of public property, vandalism, etc. These are the charges I WOULD have been concerned about 15 years ago. Now, I'd have to worry that following your suggestion would lead to some type of retarded terrorism charges. I'd hate to start smashing and see that the people that come calling are the NSA or Homeland Security.
What is the point of having these cameras, if not to catch speeders and red-light runners? If those two ARE the point of having these cameras, then people would be receiving citations based on photos from these cameras. So the immediate question that comes to my mind is: are people getting these citations, or not?
...perhaps it sends the message that what you are able to do, and what you continue to do effectively is more important than what on-paper tests you've passed.
By that logic, the board member selected a candidate for CEO who ended up being successful at it; and therefore did her job effectively. Shouldn't that be more important that what on-paper test the other guy passed?
Welcome to America . . wait . . .