When I challenged you to quote me, I was challenging you to show what I said that provoked his rude comment.

You have just conceded that I was right and his comment came without provocation. I responded to his rude comment with a rude comment. Complaining about getting a rude comment to a rude comment is hypocritical.

morons.

*rolls eyes at the fucktard ACs.*

Well first off, proposing that objective is not meaningless because we're currently not even trying. My objective is literally driving unethical scientists out of the field. That is not something that is actively done.

Second off, I did actually propose some ideas to someone else in this thread and suggested a method of determining effectiveness.

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. My point and general objective is neither correct nor incorrect if I do not propose a complete system.

I do not need to do that to be right or wrong.

If you'd like a summary of some of my ideas... I'd like to apply FBI fraud and IRS audit tactics to some of these papers. The FBI tactics involve traps. You put out something that an unethical or lazy scientist will slurp up and use in a paper. When it is cited, you humiliate them as using a bogus source.

It should be convincing enough and in the university library and databases so it appears to be real UNTIL you actually read the source. IF you read the source and actually check it, then you'll see it is shit. But you can have it referenced in various places so it seems valid. The point will be to try and get lazy scientists that don't actually read material but read what someone else said about something and then reference the original source when they've never consulted the original source.

This is something the FBI does with stings. You set up some bait and you wait until someone bites.

The IRS randomly subjects a percentage of returns to intensive audits. Do the same thing with the papers and studies. You can subject any study or paper to an audit if you get red flags but the idea here is on top of that to audit some entirely randomly. This increases the risk factor because a deep examination of the paper or study will not be predictable.

There are other ideas as well. But what we're basically dealing with here is fraud.

Fraud is something we have methods of dealing with and various organizations have systems they've developed. Even CIA counter intelligence tactics should be looked at. The idea is to get the fraudsters to stand out.

The best method is basically to get them to self select. You do something that a fraudster will respond to differently than an honest scientist.

And if you didn't get enough evidence to crucify him on the first pass then you don't even let him know you found him. Instead, you subject him to a second round opportunities to incriminate himself.

Because no one is being convicted of a crime in a court of law... the entrapment laws etc do not even begin to apply.

There are many ways to find unethical people. It isn't that hard, chum. You just have to make ANY effort. Apply the same cunning an illiterate fur trapper uses to catch his pray and you'll actually be doing quite well. You must be patient, methodical, and determined.

I'll leave you with this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I'm not arguing whether or not some idiot wrote down something stupid on a piece of paper. I'm arguing that it was a stupid thing to put on the paper.

Look at the taxi mediallion licenses for another example of the same thing. You want to run a taxi service in this town? Give the city 200,000 dollars.

What does that do? That locks out all the smaller competitors because who can afford the seed capital of an additional 200,000 dollars PER cab on top of the actual cab, advertising, office space, etc.

Your point that "but the agreements says this" is utterly irrelevant to me. The thing could say any fucking thing some asshat wrote on it.

it is anti competitive, pro monopolist, anti consumer, it is the reason internet speeds are often shit throughout the country and it is the reason many areas have very poor coverage.

You know that.

I know that.

Why are you defending something that is objectively bad for pretty much everyone and serves no purpose besides letting well monied companies basically sit on their asses collecting monthly fees for shitty service?

You have to be fucking kidding me.

As long as you admit to being AC trolls, you've conceded the position to me and from my perspective... I win.

First off, I've explained to YOU several times that my mod points don't matter to me.

Second, people that CAN"T be modded up or down, don't get to talk about other people's mod points.

Unlike you, I actually care about ACTUALLY being right. This is an alien concept to people like you. It means I don't care about what you say or do unless it impacts the argument. Nothing else matters to me.

As to local government, you're not telling me anything I don't know and I frankly made it quite clear I was talking about that so you're just restating what I said.

As to "Do a bunch of stupid shit we made up to lock small companies out of the conduits or we don't let you run cable in the conduits"... no. Those are often not reasonable.

A common stipulation for example is that cable be run throughout the entire city/town if it is run anywhere.

And that means that a small company that might only have the resources to provide service to one neighborhood initially is locked out for basically no reason.

this is sort of like saying you can't open a sandwich shop unless you agree to open ten locations across town.

That means that big franchises can open sandwich shops but little companies can't. So everything turns into McDonalds.

Sound reasonable?

As to local government, we don't let local governments screw with roads. So no. Same basic principle.

You think it is reasonable for local governments to be systematically bribed to lock out all competition using these bogus agreements.

It is nonsense. I believe portland issued their last franchise agreement after FREE gigabit internet was given to their capital building. And I know there was something like that in another city where the company gave them free internet at the schools.

Well great. Your schools save a hundred dollars a month on their internet bill and the entire town is locked down by the monopoly for fucking chump change.

Those comments were AFTER the rude comment. So you fail at causality.

Here was the ONLY post prior to the rude comment from the AC shithead:

""

That's the issue.

It is as a great man once said "cargo cult science"... it presents the seeming of science... the seeming of logic... but is it? And the thing is that only people that are genuine can really tell one from the other.

While this will sound terribly retrograde and classist... the issue is that we have a lot of sleazy people in positions of trust. Sleazy people are not going to behave themselves under any system.

A community is not just defined by those in it but those not permitted to join it. Some sort of integrity check should be put on the system and those that are clearly only interested in money or power or attention should be kicked out. Those interested in actually doing a real science... humble though it often is... should be the only ones on the pay roll.

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. What private individuals want to do with their own money is their own business.

Simply cutting the sophists off from public funding should largely solve the problem. That is where this fungus has grown. The corporations are too goal oriented to get side tracked by this sort of thing. And the private universities are likely just as vulnerable as the public ones but their credibility is their problem and not one anyone else needs to worry about.
""

Find the rude comment in there. Quote it for me.

If you don't... I reserve to the right to call you names. ;)

So if a man stabs me... and I respond by shooting him... you would imply that i shot the man without provocation?

See, the problem with your statement is that it came AFTER he was rude to me. There was no provocation from ME prior to his rude comment.

AFTER he was rude to me, I responded by being rude to him.

See how that works?

This is what I hate about ACs... I suspect you're all the same raging fucktard.

If not, there are an awful lot of fucking stupid people that comment under the AC comment system on this site. I mean, nearly all of you are morons. The people that actually log in are a magnitude more intelligent and constructive. But the ACs are good for little more than feeding the soylent green machine.

By resources, you mean share their poles and conduits? Yes.

As to rates I feel are reasonable... I would consider a rate of 1 billion zillion dollars per foot to be unreasonable.

Would you agree?

And really, a better way of dealing with that conflict of interest is to have them sell the poles or conduits to a neutral third party with no conflict of interest. They will set whatever rate they want to charge for pole/conduit lease space. And ANYONE that runs cable will have to pay the same rate based on how much cable they're running.

that would keep the rates reasonable because charging the little companies lots of money would mean the big companies have to pay lots of money as well which is not in their interest.

You're not thinking about this constructively.

Consider roads. What if only one company were allowed to put cars on the road and they would rent you a car to drive on their roads. But you could only drive on their roads if you bought one of their cars. That is basically what is going on with cable these days.

That isn't capitalism.

We have cable monopolies because of a dysfunction in the market. Saying that that is a healthy market is at best ignorant.

No it can't in most cases. Century Link and Google have both been complaining about cities that won't let them run cable.

your argument is either that century link and google are lying or that they're not competent enough to file this paperwork.

neither argument is credible. Sorry. You're wrong.

There are entrenched interests in many municipalities that will not permit right of way of cable. They just won't. Often they've signed exclusive contracts with some other company and they're contractually obligated to not let your run cable.

This has been discussed on this site repeatedly. It is basically common knowledge at this point.

why don't you know common knowledge? Why are you forcing me to explain it to you? Why will you now feel entitled to be snippy with me when you've been putting me through that?

Questions for the ages.

In any case, since your information is horribly off I'm not that interested in going any further with you.

Good day.

As to your points on the corporate labs, you're still agreeing that the issue is not the corporate labs. So we can comfortably focus on where the issue lies.

I'm not interested in the excuses for it. I want constructive solutions. Finger pointing, shrugging, and other political horseshit is not in the common interest.

As to personality screening, no... I did not specify how I would screen people. I said what my intention with the screening would be but I did not offer a method.

The distinction would be saying you want to kill someone versus saying you want to snipe them in the face with a high powered sniper rifle using a trained marksman in a ghili suit.

or saying you want to eat some food versus saying you want to eat at that new french place and eat the muscles you like so much.

See the difference? What you did was take my statement that I wanted to screen out people with poor integrity and inferred a method by which I would do that.

I stated no method.

Ideally, we should try a few different methods and see which of them has empirically results. That is always a nice way to do things but it is especially fitting for this context. So the method should be something that is empirically proven to actually work under repeatable circumstances.

if you'd like me to suggest something I'd like to try first... okay.

1. The barium meal test. This is done in intelligence circles. The idea is to leak little bits of information to various people but to leak totally different bits of information. And when the bad information is leaked to the enemy you know who leaked it because you only gave it to that one person. In science we could do a reverse barium meal system where we could make it seem like it would be very easy to get away with some kind of academic fraud that wouldn't be found but the whole thing would be a set up or a sting. You could have certain bits of research that should be followed up on to be cited properly provided. And when they use them and don't realize the citation is entirely fictitious... that could be a nice way of figuring out if people are actually making any kind of effort. You could put bogus references in the literature that are known to be bad. And then when you see them cited you know that the person did not actually read what they're citing but rather copied a citation from somewhere else and applied it.

2. The IRS subjects a largely random set of returns to intensive audits. There can be red flags that will trigger audits regardless but a certain number of seemingly innocent returns are subjected to audits. It is not practical to go through every study and every paper with a fine toothed comb. However, you can do it with a small number of them. If you randomly select a small number to this kind of audit it increases the perceived risk of fraud because whether or not you'll be audited will not be predictable.

I have a lot of other ideas with prove track records in criminal investigations, fraud prevention, and covert counter intelligence.

I am not a stupid person and I am not ignorant.

I should stress again that I have no firm solutions here because I would need to actually do some experimentation with various ideas before I had real confidence in any specific approach. Anything I hung my hat on would have empirical confirmation of effectiveness.

And assuming I had that... how could you possibly argue against an approach that was proven to work?

The only thing I am asking for is the ability to TRY to fix it.

Saying nothing can be done is something you neither can know and is also not productive because it is just defeatist pessimism.

Really? Quote where I was as rude in this thread.

Do so now.

Also, note that because you're all ACs... I have no idea if you're just the last guy sockpuppeting. So I don't take your commentary seriously unless you've logged in.

ACs really can't presume to comment on anyone else's conduct on the site because they're so anonymous that they could be making racist rants one moment and then complaining about someone not being nice the next.

Its not credible.

Either get on topic or don't comment as AC. The issue is not about you or your precious feelings. I don't care. Truly. Not even a little.

As to whomever owns the poles or conduit, I'm not saying they shouldn't be compensated for permitting someone to run cable. Be reasonable about it. But do not obstruct it either.

Here people say "but it would be messy with all those wires"... it won't be messy if it is just a couple companies doing it. If it is a lot more than that, then you'll be collecting enough money in fees to convert from poles to conduits at which point the way it looks will be irrelevant.

As to private developments allowing people to lay cable... depends. They often are in exclusive agreements to only let company X run cable.

Here is the thing, what would it cost in materials to run fiber from your house to the trunk? If you're in a major city, then you're usually less than a couple miles from place you could click right into the backbone. what does a couple miles of fiber cable cost? Peanuts.

The reason we have so much dark fiber is because they determined that the labor was more expensive than the cable so they just installed way more than they needed so they could just exploit unused cable for years instead of having to go out and lay more every few years.

The cable is cheap.

The labor is also pretty cheap.

The thing holding it back is that you're literally on pain of getting shot in the face not allowed to do it.

Stop stopping people from running cable and we'll all have gigabit internet by christmas.

If a PhD were sufficient then we wouldn't have this problem. We do so it isn't.

And since your initial point was idiotically wrong and you're being rude, I'm going to just stop there.

Have a nice day and go fuck yourself. ;)

As to jesters, that's nonsense. The various lords in the oligarchy which is actually what any feudal kingdom is... will of course tell the king when they think he's wrong.

That does not mean they'll do it disrespectfully. And the various protocols etc for that will shift from one king to the next.

As to this notion that the king will tolerate a jester contradicting him on political matters... No. In that setting, the jester's job is to DISTRACT the king from stressful matters. Which means if he brings up things bothering him that the king does not want to talk about... it will not be appreciated.

What is more, this reference has no baring on our current society.

We have freedom of speech. Nothing stops you from saying someone else is wrong. So you hardly need some fool to do it for you.

Really, your entire line of reasoning is just depressing. You're apparently some person that got comfortable getting their news from the daily show or something which is basically the news for idiots.

It is ENTERTAINMENT. If you HONESTLY think that is news, I pity you.

Good day.

I'm not interesting in indulging your political biases as they are not relevant in this case... which is typical since they're rarely relevant. Though you do seem determined to inflict them on everyone.

I am not saying the corporate labs are great. I'm just saying that the science rot we're seeing is not coming out of the corporate labs.

I gave a theory as to why that was... you won't like that because you think all things corporate are evil. So lets not get into that. But the problem of bad science is concentrated quite strongly in universities and government funded labs. That is simply a fact. We could go over the last 10 or so science scandals and they'd all be from those labs.

Now am I saying that government labs are inherently bad?

Not at all. And since it is your misapprehension in this matter to kneejerk in that direction, I am correcting that and telling you very plainly that I have no problem with government labs.

However, there are some problems coming out of them and some reform would be in the interest of everyone. Especially the government labs because if they do not reform their credibility is going to start to take hits.

I can go through a big list of issues where various scientific departments have been coopted by politicians etc and which dramatically damages the credibility of the department.

I'll leave you with this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...