The problem would be lying about the scope of the problem. Daisey said he stood outside the factory for a few hours and met all these people when, in fact, he met none of them.

The fact that one worker was once exposed to a toxic substance is an accident, if it happens all the time, it is a problem.

60 Minutes reported that Foxconn had installed nets to prevent suicides by workers after 10 workers killed themselves last year. They didn't take the time to point out that the factory had 400,000 employees in it's mini-city, and that the US suicide rate is 11.8/100,000 and that China's is 22/100,000. So the suicide rate at Foxconn is lower than that of both China and the US by a significant margin.

If you lie or exaggerate about the problem it makes it seem like the problem might not really be a problem.

Same reason that I bang my head against the wall every time they upgrade. Newer isn't necessarily better. Firefox keeps introducing "features" that don't work right, use more memory, and run slower. Thunderbird broke IMAP in the new version and I cannot use it on my mail server - so happy it upgraded without asking me.

No, it is the judge who should have known better. That is why we require a judge's consent for a warrant. The judge is supposed to be the guarantor of our rights before the police and prosecutors. Our system of laws anticipated overzealous law enforcement - Judges are not supposed to be part of the prosecution, but the adjudicators of law. This is

What I like is a blogpost citing other blog posts all saying - "this is crap, I can't believe it got published." Uh, since when are blog posts peer-reviewed?

I just read the whole packet. There is nothing in it. My absolute favorite is the Rolling Stone Article. Not only for it evidential value, but for footnote 11. It's the only footnote on a particularly damning paragraph:

11) Facts mentioned in this paragraph are subsequently cited throughout the story.

Normally footnotes refer to supporting material and don't just tell you how important they are.

Perhaps the SysAdmins at MIT want it prosecuted. Since he kept invading their network.

Wow, what a bunch of hogwash. The identified cancer cluster was identified as "an influx of TSA employees falling victim to various forms of cancer, strokes and heart disease". It is not limited to Boston - it is actually the ATL employees who first mentioned it. I'm sure the exposure over the last 12 months caused all this. Cancer pops up (as does heart disease) the moment you are exposed...

Read the sources, not the press releases.

Am I missing something in the comparison? While our response to Wikileaks might be characterized as heavy handed, it was in direct response to a massive data breach. We did not lock anyone up for their opinions and we did not filter any websites or search results.

Just to be clear, I do understand the difference. My point is that we teach this to millions of children as the way things are. Most science curricula spend far less time than we have here discussing the fact that the models are our best attempt to describe our observations, but may be no more accurate than Aristotle's glass spheres. And most of those children will never learn enough to evaluate these things independently, so they will take it on faith.

So, yes, I do agree that science is a kind of religion. But at least it is one that rarely causes wars of belief and is widely open to change.

Then you are taking on faith that your observations are informed. Please recall that science told us unequivocally 100 years ago that atoms were the smallest, indivisible particles.

I bet you believe in the Higgs Boson, too. It has to be there because the science tells me that the universe doesn't work without it. It is possible that we really don't understand it all and take much of it on faith. There are those constantly questioning and testing, but I promise in 500 years we'll look just as silly as those 500 years ago look to us.

-- There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

The Big Bang Theory is a series of mathematical formulas that attempt to describe in a predictable manner the feeble observations we have of the universe. While it shoehorns much of what we can observe in - it is far from perfect.

The biggest problem with it is that it starts with the assumption that all the mass/energy in the universe begins at the same point in space/time.

When asked how it got there - the answer is that the theory does not and can not address that. In other words "God put it there". It is an act of faith to believe it.

My High School Physics teacher made us spend the first day of class proving to him that the moon orbits the earth based on our own knowledge. Quite simply we couldn't do it. I'm sure some /. readers can, but most people in the world take it on faith as they do not have the capacity to prove the heliocentric solar system independently.

We believe what the good and wise men in white coats tell us because that what we're raised to do. The lack of credible voices saying anything different helps a lot.

But how is this different from a 10th century peasant who knows there is a God and that the heavens orbit the earth because his priest (who can read and write in 2 languages!) told him so?

It's a site set-up to support protesters. It is illegal to use government resources for organizing - so no it is not part of your work.

But on a realism note, unrated sites are blocked by content filters - then you program them to allow the traffic when someone asks or the site gets rated.

AND -- the first amendment does not include a right to Free wi-fi. They didn't censor the site - they just didn't give free access to it.

But who cares if they refuse to sell something? We're talking about the internet - publishing isn't hard.
Are we talking about making money? That's not really Amazon's job to guarantee a market for all sellers. I would assume they feel that this is economically in their interest.

Rule 1, you don't publish things that get your sources arrested.

Dumping data blindly is not journalism. Analysis and context make it so

Actually, the tape was well known and was used in the original investigations. This is a copy that was made by plaintiffs lawyers and then placed in an archive.

There doesn't seem to be much information I could discern as to where on the campus the recording was made (a dorm window). Nor does a 20-year-old cassette copy of a 40-year-old reel-to-reel make me put much faith in the information that was "revealed" through unknown audio processing.