Actually, the lack of information is expected, the frustration is over the abundance of stupidity!ltgbrown wrote:Wow there is a lot of frustration over the lack of data/information!
FoI for WB7 peer review.
-
GIThruster
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
Fortunately this forum is not censored, beyond MSimon's efforts, of course.GIThruster wrote:. . .and that's why I asked icarus to not respond to any of my posts. . .and I'm asking again. Please stay away.
If it were then we'd all be asking others to stay away and where would this argument go then?
As for a source of data released serving as background to the peer review report, see:
http://www.emc2fusion.org/RsltsNFnlConc ... 120602.pdf
And more, see bottom of page, this web site:
http://www.emc2fusion.org/
How close is that to WB-7, we're free to speculate, and who owns comercialization rights. Dr. Nebel says:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/03/nebel- ... arify.html
But I don't see that it matters much. I'm not going to submit a FOIA request. I just think that if it were done judiciously, knowing what we know now, or if the current one were appealed, it would probably be more successful.
The thing that upset me was the name calling. Very unprofessional. I wouldn't be surprised if KitemanSA is a little upset, too, but in my opinion he started it .
Aero
Show me the data. I see some discussion ABOUT data, I see no data. Why? It is proprietary!Aero wrote: As for a source of data released serving as background to the peer review report, see:
http://www.emc2fusion.org/RsltsNFnlConc ... 120602.pdf
Again, show me the data!Aero wrote: And more, see bottom of page, this web site:
http://www.emc2fusion.org/
Wheres the data?Aero wrote: How close is that to WB-7, we're free to speculate, and who owns comercialization rights. Dr. Nebel says:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/03/nebel- ... arify.html
Even if you did, I suspect you would get a response similar to ladajo's. If you limited your FOIA request to one or two documents, BY SPECIFIC REFERENCE numbers, you may get a bunch of blacked out pages.Aero wrote:But I don't see that it matters much. I'm not going to submit a FOIA request. I just think that if it were done judiciously, knowing what we know now, or if the current one were appealed, it would probably be more successful.
More frustration here!Aero wrote:The thing that upset me was the name calling. Very unprofessional. I wouldn't be surprised if KitemanSA is a little upset, too, but in my opinion he started it .
Not quite. If the USG pays to support private research, then that research should be made public domain property. It doesn't have to be 'taken over by the government'.GIThruster wrote:Let me get this straight: you don't like that USG pays to support private research and then leaves it private. You think if USG supports research that by its nature, should be kept private, that then USG has a moral obligation to take over the research, and you think this is a more capitalistic solution than the one we have?chrismb wrote:If the work required is so secret, or is so important that it cannot be allowed to fail, then it should be clearly and distinctly owned by the Government.
To do anything else is 'un-captialistic', and we know where un-captialism takes us....
That's really what you're saying?
What is capitalistic about the government collecting revenue from taxpayers, giving that cash to a developer for basic research, and then that basic researcher keeping the fruits of the research for themselves? That sounds more like organized theft and corruption to me.
Last edited by vankirkc on Tue Sep 07, 2010 4:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I think you're forgetting about discovery associated with civil suits brought by shareholders. Do you doubt that the BP shareholders who are suing their company won't be able to obtained detailed information about the Deepwater Horizon?Helius wrote:Not even close. Bizarre actually. Being a citizen isn't *anything* like being a shareholder in a company.For the gov, the public are the shareholders.
It's also a disturbing implication that if you purchase a share of common stock in a company, you then have the right to rifle their files for trade secrets.
There may be some laws regarding Financial information, but a company has a *lot* of leeway regarding the information release to even their shareholders.
One item shareholders and citizens *do* have in common is that for the most part both groups want to have their respective organizations control information to some degree to the benefit of the organization. One group of citizens or one group of shareholders can bring suit against the organization holding information whereby decisions will need to be made regarding what is proprietary and what is appropriate for release, if anything, either in court or by agreed arbitration, but that will take time.
FOIA in the EMC2-Navy case is a comical lost cause. .... and correctly so.
When a shareholder can demonstrate cause, the law does allow them to investigate their holdings and their management in detail.
True, but it doesn't permit BP shareholders to demand to review the proprietary data of Bob's Bar and Oil Suctioning Company, even if BP has a contract with them. At most, if there is some suggestion of hanky-panky) the courts would require that BB&OSC present its data to an impartial panel who would be forbidden to reveal the data (except in case of feloneous activity I think). Sounds kind of like what has happened here, except for the hanky-panky part. They volunteered for the review on their own!vankirkc wrote: When a shareholder can demonstrate cause, the law does allow them to investigate their holdings and their management in detail.
It does if Bobs was doing work for BP and there was suspicion of fraud. BP could sue and win discovery, as could the shareholder.KitemanSA wrote:True, but it doesn't permit BP shareholders to demand to review the proprietary data of Bob's Bar and Oil Suctioning Company, even if BP has a contract with them. At most, if there is some suggestion of hanky-panky) the courts would require that BB&OSC present its data to an impartial panel who would be forbidden to reveal the data (except in case of feloneous activity I think). Sounds kind of like what has happened here, except for the hanky-panky part. They volunteered for the review on their own!vankirkc wrote: When a shareholder can demonstrate cause, the law does allow them to investigate their holdings and their management in detail.
Sounds a bit like the "feloneous activity" I mentioned.vankirkc wrote:It does if Bobs was doing work for BP and there was suspicion of fraud. BP could sue and win discovery, as could the shareholder.KitemanSA wrote: At most, if there is some suggestion of hanky-panky) the courts would require that BB&OSC present its data to an impartial panel who would be forbidden to reveal the data (except in case of feloneous activity I think). Sounds kind of like what has happened here, except for the hanky-panky part. They volunteered for the review on their own!