We are not ready to accept apologies from anybody," says Luis Jaime Castillo, the vice minister for cultural heritage. "Let them apologize after they repair the damage.
First, the damage cannot be repaired. But second, Greenpeace has NOT issued a real apology. Their disgraceful excuse for an apology is here:
http://www.greenpeace.org/inte...
The obvious missing element is an apology for defacing a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Instead, they offer mere apologies for how things LOOK, and the typical "I'm sorry if anyone was offended" not-pology. Peru should throw all of the activists in Prison, and when the Executive Director shows up in Lima, lock him up too.
Meanwhile, as others have pointed out, the image of the message doesn't even look real in the first place, and they could have gotten the exact same image from Photoshop. Here's the worthless Greenpeace image:
http://www.iflscience.com/site...
And here's the damage the fuckers caused:
http://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-c...
Prison sentences for all.
What kind of shirt were they wearing when they made the announcement? The world needs to know.
Release all the papers when you release the data.
Not going to happen. You need to publish during the data collection period in order to continue getting the funding you need for data collection.
Few replication attempts are doing exactly the same thing as the original paper, for good reason.
Right, but replication of the experiment is the EXACT reason that we're making the data available. If you want to use the data for something else, that's fine, but if it's data that the original author is still using, then you should contact them about it first.
A partial solution, I think, is for a group such as yours to pre-plan the data use already when collecting it. So you decide from start to publish a subset of that data early and publish papers based on that. Then publish another subset for further results and so on.
Again, this is not realistic in the overwhelming majority of cases. One of the benefits of long-term studies are the unexpected findings. Imagine that I've been collecting data on a population of lemmings over the last 20 years. It seems to me that the lemmings have been getting smaller since I first started capturing them, so one day I decide to regress body size on year and I discover that the lemmings have indeed been shrinking, and I can show that it is probably linked to changes in vegetation driven by climate change. I shouldn't have to give away my entire 20-year data set (which I had been collecting for a different purpose) for anybody to use for any purpose in order for me to get this one study out in a timely fashion.
Besides, many researchers are already dealing with data sets that are >50 years old, and your "plan to release the data before you start collecting the data" suggestion is moot for those people with inherited data sets.
But what we really need is for data to be fully citeable.
Getting your data cited is not NEARLY the same as publishing. Not even close. To get academic positions, pay increases, grants, etc., you need authorship. No one really cares about how often your paper or your data has been cited. That info isn't even on your CV or your grant applications, so no one will even have a rough idea unless it's a particularly preeminent paper.
This is bad news for ecologists and others with long-term data sets. Some of these data sets require decades of time and millions of dollars to produce, and the primary investigators want to use the data they've generated for multiple projects. Current data licensing for PLOS ONE (and--as far as I know-- all others who insist on complete data archiving) means that when you publish your data set, it is out there for anyone to use for free for any purpose that they wish; not just for verification of the paper in question. There are plenty of scientists out there who poach free online data sets and mine them for additional findings.
Requiring full accessibility of data makes many people reticent to publish in such a journal, because it means giving away the data they were planning on using for future publications. A scientist's publication list is linked not only to their job opportunities and their pay grade, but also to the funding that they can get for future grants. And of course those grants are linked to continuing the funding of the long-term project that produced the data in the first place.
What is needed is a new licensing model for published data that says "anyone is free to use these data to replicate the results of the current study, however it CANNOT be used as a basis for new analyses without written consent of the primary investigator of this paper or until [XX] years after publication." Journals would also need to agree that they would not accept any publications based on data that was used without consent.
It seems to me that this arrangement would satisfy the need to get data out into the public domain while respecting the scientists who produced it in the first place.
To give you an idea of how ridiculously overpriced WhatsApp is (and Facebook as well), here's a selection of major American companies with a market cap less than what Facebook paid for WhatsApp.
Retail:
Macy’s
Gap
Bed Bath & Beyond
Tiffany & Co.
Ralph Lauren
Staples
Avon
Tech:
LinkedIn
Netflix
Xerox
Nvidia
Travel:
Marriott International
MGM Resorts
Hertz
Delta Air Lines
United Airlines
American Airlines
Southwest Airlines
Food:
Chipotle
Hershey’s
J. M. Smucker
Campbell Soup
Tyson Foods
Dr Pepper Snapple Group
Monster Beverage
Molson Coors Brewing
Other:
Harley-Davidson
Mattel
Whirlpool
Western Union
H&R Block
McGraw-Hill
News Corp
The Carlyle Group
The author of this article, Matt Ridley, is a known climate change denialist and of course the Wall Street Journal is owned by Rupert Murdoch and therefore operates under the same umbrella as Fox News.
Supposed leaks from the IPCC document have already been mischaracterized in the right-wing media. See, for example, Phil Plait's demolition of them here:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/10/climate_change_sea_ice_global_cooling_and_other_nonsense.html
Or if you prefer your demolition in video format:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lH5D9P6KYfY
I have no reason to trust the right-wing's interpretation of the IPCC document before it is officially announced and I can check it for myself. Why don't you try WAITING for it to be released before you start spreading this very likely BS.
Since OP forgot it, you can learn more about Khan Academy here: http://khaaan.com/
Share fluids, not passwords.
Not many people know it, but the apex of the Washington Monument is made of aluminum. At the time, it was the largest piece ever crafted anywhere in the world and it was a precious metal. Only two years later, aluminum became completely worthless when the Hallâ"Héroult process for mass production of pure aluminum was discovered.
Eat shit, faggoot.
What the gods would destroy they first submit to an IEEE standards committee.
