Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:This just in (Score 1) 1017

by Peter La Casse (#33324442) Attached to: Julian Assange Faces Rape Investigation In Sweden — Updated

If he is acquitted, he is not suspected any more. He is vindicated

The details may differ in Sweden, but typically in the West, "not proven guilty" is not the same as "proven innocent". Justice systems that do this are based on the idea that it is better to err and let some guilty people go free in order to decrease the number of innocent people who are wrongly convicted.

He may well be proven innocent, as you rightly point out, but there is a middle ground where suspicion might well remain.

Comment: Re:Happy Simple Assertion Tuesday, everyone! (Score 1) 837

by Peter La Casse (#33137190) Attached to: WikiLeaks 'a Clear and Present Danger,' Says WaPo

I haven't shuffled through all of them, or seen a believable analysis of the whole enchilada. But according to one Guardian article, your simple assertion is probably bullshit.

I heard it on that jingoistic, neocon broadcast network NPR. Specifically, On Point with Tom Ashbrook, Monday July 26, with guests Mark Mazzetti (NYT), Nick Davies (Guardian), Richard Haass (some NGO). Mr. Davies and Mr. Mazzetti were among the reporters who reviewed the wikileaks documents before they were published so they have a multi-week head start on the rest of us. link to this episode

Note that the story you link to does not disprove my assertion. Incompetence and bumbling, and even deceit, while indefensible, are not even close to as bad as intentionally killing civilians (at a rate in excess of ten to one) in terror attacks. The Taliban and their supporters are clearly the bad guys in this conflict.

Comment: Re:not cleared (Score 1) 701

by Peter La Casse (#32874698) Attached to: Climategate and the Need For Greater Scientific Openness

Except the report did not claim anywhere that it was intentional.

The report didn't have to, because nobody disputes that it was intentional; the authors themselves admitted to writing those emails. The question was whether "hiding the decline" was legitimate or misleading. The report concluded that it was misleading.

Comment: not cleared (Score 3, Interesting) 701

by Peter La Casse (#32867652) Attached to: Climategate and the Need For Greater Scientific Openness

From the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review Final Report pdf:

On the allegation that the references in a specific e-mail to a "trick" and to "hide the decline" in respect of a 1999 WMO report figure show evidence of intent to paint a misleading picture, we find that, given its subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the IPCC Third Assessment Report), the figure supplied for the WMO Report was Misleading.

Intentionally supplying misleading figures is scientific misconduct. It may be commonplace, but that's no excuse.

Personally, that doesn't bother me much; science has always been politicized between factions who behave unethically in order to further their own theories. What does bother me is the attempt to pass off the results of incompetent software engineering as valid science.

Comment: Re:"cyber 9/11" (Score 1) 433

by Peter La Casse (#32681956) Attached to: Say No To a Government Internet "Kill Switch"

Yes, they could wage a DoS attack to stifle the economy and communications, maybe slow some business down, but people will not die. Alleging that type of attack is even remotely similar to what happened on 9/11 is grossly irresponsible.

It is easy (though not pleasant) to imagine how a prolonged disruption of computer-controlled utilities (power, water, heat, transportation) could cause suffering far in excess of 9/11, especially if current trends are extrapolated into the future. Read RISKS.

"If the code and the comments disagree, then both are probably wrong." -- Norm Schryer

Working...