You are aware that this was a bit of hyperbole on Ben's part, yeah? GIving up liberty for safety is the most fundamental aspect of every form of government. Rather ask how much is too much and ask it often.
In the UK, yes you can copyright a specific collection of facts. I'd be interested in knowing whether that copyright is still in effect once they've been removed from the covered database and made part of a much larger one that would hold its own copyright.
Shrug, I default to not believing anything either side of the argument says. There've been far too many outright lies not to mention people spouting off on things they know nothing about in this argument alone. Which is why I'd like a few more checks on funded research.
It wouldn't be difficult if one of the above became the de facto standard. As to finding funding from an impartial source, yeah, that's a pipe dream. Doesn't mean the research has to be as corrupt as the impetus behind it though.
Strawman argument. There's a world of difference saying you have no right to keep information private and saying you have a right to determine how any facts you share are used in perpetuity.
Really? I thought we'd taken annexed them last year.
Yes, my reply was asinine. I'm fine with that though since what I was replying to also was. Bare facts not being subject IP law is extremely common worldwide.
Bad example but for medical research, for example, I'd prefer doctors who went into it thinking the material to be reviewed was at least probably bullshit. We've seen far too many times throughout history that people (the scientific community included) have some severe resistance to ideas that don't mesh with their commonly held beliefs. It's honestly more important that a skeptical eye be turned on material that fits well with the common wisdom than fantastic results outside the norm; the latter never has any problem finding skeptics.
Seriously? I don't see any reason it should ever have been kept confidential. It's gathered data on temperatures and such not matters of national security and it's not ownable IP because it's just facts. I mean I could see an NDA being useful on things like product specs before you've officially released finalized specs but on temperature/humidity/wind speed? Seriously, WTF?
Proper flamebait but it's a good point. I'd prefer confirmed-skeptic-review to peer-review on pretty much everything. Not just climate change. 'Peer' just doesn't imply any objectivity.
Rest assured that even top tier universities are entirely for-profit institutions. They simply charge a hell of a lot more to make up for the lower volume.
You'd pretty much have to wear a wireless router cranked up to the max legal broadcasting strength as a hat for it to have a any effect. I have one sitting not six feet from me, putting out 251mW to a fair, aftermarket, omni antenna and north still feels just as northy as it ever has.
It also kicks the can down the road to whoever is (re)elected in 2012. Maybe it's just me but I get the feeling Israel didn't have much faith in President Obama having the will to step up and take action or even back Israeli action if it became necessary.
Slashdot Mirror
You are aware that this was a bit of hyperbole on Ben's part, yeah? GIving up liberty for safety is the most fundamental aspect of every form of government. Rather ask how much is too much and ask it often.
most scientists are primarily interested in the surprisingly idealistic goal of discovering the scientific truth about something
You are extremely naive.
Fair point. I'm inclined to think that a business model based on being a gatekeeper of data is a bad, bad idea in this day and age though.
Valid point, if they were at war.
In the UK, yes you can copyright a specific collection of facts. I'd be interested in knowing whether that copyright is still in effect once they've been removed from the covered database and made part of a much larger one that would hold its own copyright.
Shrug, I default to not believing anything either side of the argument says. There've been far too many outright lies not to mention people spouting off on things they know nothing about in this argument alone. Which is why I'd like a few more checks on funded research.
It wouldn't be difficult if one of the above became the de facto standard. As to finding funding from an impartial source, yeah, that's a pipe dream. Doesn't mean the research has to be as corrupt as the impetus behind it though.
Strawman argument. There's a world of difference saying you have no right to keep information private and saying you have a right to determine how any facts you share are used in perpetuity.
Really? I thought we'd taken annexed them last year.
Yes, my reply was asinine. I'm fine with that though since what I was replying to also was. Bare facts not being subject IP law is extremely common worldwide.
Bad example but for medical research, for example, I'd prefer doctors who went into it thinking the material to be reviewed was at least probably bullshit. We've seen far too many times throughout history that people (the scientific community included) have some severe resistance to ideas that don't mesh with their commonly held beliefs. It's honestly more important that a skeptical eye be turned on material that fits well with the common wisdom than fantastic results outside the norm; the latter never has any problem finding skeptics.
Seriously? I don't see any reason it should ever have been kept confidential. It's gathered data on temperatures and such not matters of national security and it's not ownable IP because it's just facts. I mean I could see an NDA being useful on things like product specs before you've officially released finalized specs but on temperature/humidity/wind speed? Seriously, WTF?
I'm going to go with: Because an informed public is in no party's best interest.
Proper flamebait but it's a good point. I'd prefer confirmed-skeptic-review to peer-review on pretty much everything. Not just climate change. 'Peer' just doesn't imply any objectivity.
The article notes that while Trinidad and Tobago refused permission...
Wait, on what grounds? You can't copyright/patent/trademark facts. Why did they even bother asking?
Rest assured that even top tier universities are entirely for-profit institutions. They simply charge a hell of a lot more to make up for the lower volume.
You'd pretty much have to wear a wireless router cranked up to the max legal broadcasting strength as a hat for it to have a any effect. I have one sitting not six feet from me, putting out 251mW to a fair, aftermarket, omni antenna and north still feels just as northy as it ever has.
Inefficient. You get much more bang for your buck killing other people.
Target practice.
There wouldn't be much of an Iranian army left to buy arms by the time they finished haggling over price and delivered the weapons.
It also kicks the can down the road to whoever is (re)elected in 2012. Maybe it's just me but I get the feeling Israel didn't have much faith in President Obama having the will to step up and take action or even back Israeli action if it became necessary.
Maybe but then there's always nethack on the console.
Eh, whatever blows your skirt up. Just don't go thinking correlation == causation.
Depends on if the criminals are doing TM meditation too, I guess. Hard to stick up a liquor store and meditate at the same.
In what reality was that not what I said?
Not a problem. Just hire a troll to say it for you. It's good for the economy.