Begin forwarded message:
From: "David P. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: September 27, 2006 9:58:27 PM GMT+02:00
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [IP] more on Academy of P.C. Sciences - New York Times
I'm interested after googling: where is the evidence that "barring"
occurred in letting this contract? Citations would help the skeptics
among us.
In particular, did Congress request NSF to let a contract to parties
with builtin conflicts of interest resulting from their employment?
Or is the "barring" just slang for ensuring that science is not
perverted by special interests?
David Farber wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
From: Ed Gerck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: September 26, 2006 6:03:32 PM EDT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [IP] Academy of P.C. Sciences - New York Times
David Farber wrote:
I never thought the academy was cynical enough to publish a
political tract like “Beyond Bias and Barriers,” the new report on
discrimination against female scientists and engineers.
That's the same thing that was done in the US with Internet voting
by the NSF, where Internet voting companies were barred from
participate -- because they are vendors. So, the scientists that were
leading the field and had actual experience had no voice, while those
who could only speculate and were coincident with the desired result
were left to call the shots. Guilty as charged.
Google David Cheney and that NSF-supported fly-by-night operation
that was called the Internet Policy Institute.
Regards,
Ed Gerck
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-
people/
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as [email protected]
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
