111–120 of 166 posts
Slightly off-topic, but my guess is that the next 4 years will be the golden age of privacy (in general), file-sharing and maybe even distributed web & federated services - for the US at least .
I'm sincerely dismayed that this is necessary.
Literally no one in the administration has even suggested, ever, that they'd delete climate data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not sufficient to have a record of facts when others have alternative facts. To your signed record of facts they would just introduce alternate facts with alternative signatures and claim you had made it up. Normal people don't have the tools or experience to differentiate, and the alternative facts support a story they want to believe, rather than hard truths. News media won't even mention your so-called 'real…
The US government can't make all of the real scientists out there just disappear. Climate models have an impact on many different fields of research and unless there's a total shutdown of science (which seems absurd) those people and facts will still be there. There's a portion of the population who's wanted to deny climate change for a long time and I believe they'll accept the alt-facts to justify their position. B…
Example: a few years back a uk submarine was stuck high aground. As the tide went out the prop was exposed. I and a billion other people saw it live on bbc news. (Blue poly fins, at least 10 inside a housing). Good luck trying to find that image now. It has been sucessfully removed. The internet isnt the great memory well we all want it to be. With effort, facts can be changed, events scrubbed.
Can I be the first to claim that the people running the mirror are changing the data for their own nefarious purposes? Not that I believe this or anything, but come on - you know that accusation is going to go around. It might make sense to use a remote server to timestamp files as they're uploaded, or something like that.
Before publishing, they could do a checksum, insert it into the blockchain and then voila. Easy to validate if the data has changed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. The thing that everyone is shitting their pants over is a nothingburger. NOAA once had a verifiable mission. The problem with government agencies is mission creep--they all got on the "climate change" bandwagon because that's where the bucks were. That is now over.
The NOAA budget ( http://www.corporateservices.noaa.gov/nbo/fy16_bluebook/FY20... ) is 6 billion, a pittance compared to any number of govt expenditures - say, $1.508 trillion for the lifetime cost of the F-35. The "real money", is in the SSI, benefits, health and human services. If Trump attacks those programs with the same enthusiasm as the (foolishly) politicized environmental ones, that will be interesting.
Obviously it's annoying when Trump saves 500 jobs or shaves $100 million off the budget and celebrates like he's just saved the economy, but honestly I'd much rather have him do that than try to make a tremendous deal to privatize social security or something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Usually around IP incentives as part of the grant, in order to further entice applicants. This is taken further by pressure from educational institutions and their researchers to file for patents against said research. I'm not saying it's right, and agree with you. But often there's a lot of entropy with the status quo, and to the seated incumbents in a space.
Does this carry over to federal agencies as well? I know the state of access to journals and papers published by universities is a shitshow but don't know how it is at the government level.
Having backups is obviously always a good idea but that aside, how likely is it, that mirroring this data is actually necessary? There are obviously at least some people believing that it is necessary but then there are always people convinced that the most silly things are necessary. I am really unable to tell whether this is more of an overreaction or an urgent necessity, especially as someone not living in the US.…
I'd like to discuss a slightly different issue here. Aren't there already a plethora of peer-reviewed journal articles on the issue of climate change? Why is it still necessary to store the presumably raw data? Even my high school geography notes have an abundance of information on the issue of climate change (for and against). So I doubt if this is necessary at all.
Just like you have new versions of a program building on changes to source code, you can run newer and improved analysis on the scientific data (whether to see if you get the same result, a new additional insight or whatever).
Journal papers are often no better than having the binary (or perhaps more accurately the stdout dump of running the binary...)
Left leaning people will not accept any science generated under a Right leaning government
and as we already know Right leaning people find it hard to trust the science coming from a Left leaning government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US government can't make all of the real scientists out there just disappear. Climate models have an impact on many different fields of research and unless there's a total shutdown of science (which seems absurd) those people and facts will still be there. There's a portion of the population who's wanted to deny climate change for a long time and I believe they'll accept the alt-facts to justify their position. B…
Go look at any list of recently-cancelled television shows. You will be shocked at the number of them that you liked, but have now slipped from your mind. Public memory is fickle and it is very possible to remove even widespread facts. Example: a few years back a uk submarine was stuck high aground. As the tide went out the prop was exposed. I and a billion other people saw it live on bbc news. (Blue poly fins, at le…
Change and censorship aren't synonymous and I have no expectation that anything will last forever. But it's easier to ignore and forget about something like a television show than something like global climate change.
My post was in relation to the mass censorship required to create a world like the parent post described.
As for your submarine, that's interesting. Was it this one? http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-116053... I'm not doubting the ability to censor things, especially before they become widespread, but climate change will be much harder because it's already a part of our vocabulary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US government can't make all of the real scientists out there just disappear. Climate models have an impact on many different fields of research and unless there's a total shutdown of science (which seems absurd) those people and facts will still be there. There's a portion of the population who's wanted to deny climate change for a long time and I believe they'll accept the alt-facts to justify their position. B…
Go look at any list of recently-cancelled television shows. You will be shocked at the number of them that you liked, but have now slipped from your mind. Public memory is fickle and it is very possible to remove even widespread facts. Example: a few years back a uk submarine was stuck high aground. As the tide went out the prop was exposed. I and a billion other people saw it live on bbc news. (Blue poly fins, at le…
Second result for me when searching Google Image Search for "bbc uk stuck submarine."
