Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Obvious (Score 1) 1128

I guess the submitter did not read the actual question posed in the poll: “The GSS asked respondents the following question: “I am going to name some institutions in this country. As far as the people running these institutions are concerned, would you say you have a great deal of confidence, only some confidence, or hardly any confidence at all in them [the Scientific Community]?”(page 172) The confidence in “people running these institutions” was being measured, not “Science”.

Comment Re:Waiting.... (Score 1) 442

You were right! He's already been 'scrubbed' from the AGU Task Force on Scientific Ethics page! Those evil deniers are so sneaky!


It was there four days ago, according to google’s cache. Has he resigned/been fired already?

Comment Re:It's not stealing (Score 1) 442

Quote from the very same HuufPo article you link to:

In an effort to do so, and in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else's name.

See that part where he solicited and received additional materials directly? Try that with your local financial institution. Try that with an insurance company.

Comment Re:Forgery - (And obviously so) (Score 1) 442

The memo is the document that purports the Heartland Institute is going to 'bad things' to the Environment. All the other documents are sourced and authentic. They also reveal personal information about employees and donors. To blithely dismiss it as "one memo" is to be disingenuous, ignorant, or deceptive.

Submission + - Leaked Heartland Institute Memo Authenticity Questioned (theatlantic.com)

sithkhan writes: "After the explosive leak of the Heartland Institute documents on Thursday, the documents were looked over by a reporter for The Atlantic. Seems all the leaked documents are similar and consistent, with the exception of one: that damning memo.
" 1. All of the documents are high-quality PDFs generated from original electronic files . . . except for the "Climate Strategy" memo. (Hereinafter, "the memo"). That appears to have been printed out and scanned, though it may also have been faxed.
Either way, why? After they wrote up their Top Secret Here's All the Bad Stuff We're Gonna Do This Year memo, did the author hand it to his secretary and say "Now scan this in for the Board"? Or did he fax it across the hall to his buddy?
This seems a strange and ponderous way to go about it--especially since the other documents illustrate that the Heartland Institute has fully mastered the Print to PDF command.
It is, however, exactly what I would do if I were trying to make sure that the document had no potentially incriminating metadata in the pdf."

There's much more to read and consider at the link.

The author gives two caveats, which are somewhat at odds with one another."

Comment Re:Hmm (Score 1) 857

Can you explain why the shareholders of Chrysler were bypassed in favor of the UAW, who just coincidentally are thick as thieves with SEIU? "The central issue is that the funds feel Chrysler's post-bankruptcy remuneration plans have unfairly cost the funds a great deal of value by putting unsecured debtors such as the UAW ahead of the funds' claims. They are fighting the bankruptcy by alleging that the government's TARP disbursal to Chrysler was unconstitutional and that the subsequent events amount to a covert reorganization, not Chapter 11." Yeah, no union favoring there .... Obamacare: Just curious - does your insurance company force you through legislation to buy their product? Simply because you breathe? Or has the federal government done such a thing? GM: As of January, 2012, the US government's Troubled Asset Relief Program had about $25 billion invested in GM. Break even for the government was figured at $53.98 v. the then-current share price of about $25.

Slashdot Top Deals

Gravity is a myth, the Earth sucks.