There is a troubling article over at Priceonomics titled, “Fraud in the Ivory Tower.” The post begins with the tale of former Tilburg University professor Diederik Stapel, who was found in 2012 to have fabricated or manipulated data in at least 30 papers that had been published in peer-reviewed journals. This case is a dramatic example of a growing problem; Fang Labs reports that instances of fraud or suspected fraud tripled between the 2002-2006 period and 2007-2011. Why the uptick?
We’re reminded that the famed “publish or perish” academic culture grows ever more demanding. At the same time, policies at scientific journals often mean that research integrity takes a back seat to provocative assertions.
If this tale is true, it gives us a new angle on real journalists. Blogger Nate Thayer charges, “How Ted Koppel and ABC TV Tried to Steal my Life Work.” The freelance journalist’s post begins with a bold move: Thayer declares that though he is legally prohibited from describing what happened, he is doing it anyway. Thayer all but dares his nemeses to try to reclaim their settlement money, which he says went to lawyers and taxes anyway.
As most legal sagas do, this one begins years ago. We are told:
Call me stupid, but I think journalism is an exciting way to change the world. But in order to do that these days, we need to favor change and promote disruptive innovation within the news and information ecosystem — and start thinking way outside the box.
This is something I’ve been working toward as hard as possible for several years: as a Knight Fellow at the International Center for Journalists; through Poderopedia.org, a website that reveals the links among Chilean business and political elites; and Hacks/Hackers Chile and Poderomedia Foundation, an organization that promotes the open web and the use of technologies to rethink journalism, teach new skills to journalists and foster cultural change in newsrooms in Latin America. So far this year, I’ve organized and taken part in 10 hackathons, two radiothons, two data journalism bootcamps, helped create a civic lab, participated in the birth of Chicas Poderosas (powerful women in newsroom tech) and collaborated on at least 30 workshops for journalists, students and newsrooms around South America.
This would be an important well-researched essay no matter who wrote it. But it is doubly so because the author is a United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York. The point it makes challenges the integrity of Obama Administration Justice Department in a very fundamental way. The last five year's performa! nce under Attorney General Holder have, in my view, put the American judicial system in crisis. In case after case it is clear that there are two kinds of justice: justice for the rich and lack of justice for everyone else.
Yesterday it was laptop searches, today it is the destruction of the instruments of an internationally renowned musician. This is all part of the rise of the American police state. And please note my comment of yesterday that this is problem that particularly afflicts darker complected individuals, particularly with Muslim sounding names.
The TED talks which at first I thought a wonderful idea have over time become, well, something considerably less. This report tells part of the story. But there is another issue which is not mentioned here: TED will not permit any presentations that deal with a non-reductionist materiali! st view of consciousness. It is straight-out prejudice and censorship.
Yet another example of the Schism Trend that is separating us into two countries. (See my essay: At the Cost of Your Life: Social Value, Social Wellness. http://www.explorejournal.com/article/S1550-8307%2813%2900249-8/fulltext) One aspect of this is that as time goes on the Red value states are literally becoming unhealthy compared to the Blue value states.
Jack Wallen lists 10 reasons why he believes 2014 will be a banner year for Linux and open source.
The year 2013 was a solid year for open source. There were plenty of highs and certainly a few lows. However, I believe that Linux — continuing to build on its solid groundwork — will have the best year yet in 2014.
Click on Image to Enlarge
Some of you may be shaking your heads at yet another prediction of world domination by a Linux zealot. But there are plenty of reasons for such a bold prediction. In fact, here are 10 reasons why I firmly believe 2014 will be a banner year for Linux and open source:
LIST ONLY
1. Open source will dominate corporate data
2. Valve will prompt OEM hardware developers to open up
3. The Linux tablet will finally see the light of day
4. GNOME 3 will become relevant again
5. KDE will release a major game-changing feature
6. MariaDB will begin to make inroads to usurping MySQL
7. Open source will lead the way for smart machines
8. Open source will re-define cloud management
9. Linux desktop will break double-digits in the market share
10. Linux pre-install sales will steadily increase
This is much more serious than one guy with a history of disruptive journalism calling out the man. Two weeks ago in NSA Spies, Brazil Shuns Boeing, Selects Saab we saw a U.S. defense contractor lose a $4.5B fighter fleet upgrade due to the NSA’s clumsy spy games. This comes after a steady flow of negative news about U.S. communications and cloud vendors, and the world has not yet begun to digest the shocking revelation that the NSA can intercept new computers and other devices in transit in order to ‘root’ them.
A handy rule of strategy-making is to first list the assumptions that undergird the strategy’s logic and to identify any risks that might interfere with those assumptions. And this document attempts to do just that. With violence in Afghanistan just as high as it was before the “surge” (if not higher – the Department of Defense decided to stop releasing information on enemy-initiated attacks), the American taxpayer could reasonably expect a candid re-assessment of the assumptions that have guided American strategy in the Hindu Kush in recent years. The analyst could hope for at least a partial departure from the narrative, now resembling Swiss cheese, that we are leaving Afghanistan a more stable and secure place. Both the taxpayer and the analyst in me are disappointed.
Some of the ten assumptions listed are highly problematic – dangerous even – which undermines the entire strategy.
. . . . . . .
The assumptions are followed by a “risks” section, which numbers fewer than 200 words in an 8000 word strategy document.
