RE: [Vo]:N.Y. Times report on corruption in academic science

[Chris Zell]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-09/it-took-4-new-debt-create-1-gdp

Wrong.

Re: [Vo]:N.Y. Times report on corruption in academic science

[Jed Rothwell]

Chris Zell  wrote:

I wonder where a majority of the US public – that is currently reported as
> being unable to come up with a sudden $500 check – will get the money for
> these pipedreams.
>

The internet and the GPS are already paid for. They are profitable. They
are making huge profits, in fact.

If you mean self-driving cars, they will be far cheaper than today's
automobiles. That is, when you take into account the total cost of
ownership, including insurance and accidents. The car itself will cost
more, but accident insurance will be much cheaper, because serious
accidents will be rare once all of the cars on the road are fully
automatic. Before that, your self-driving car will seldom be the cause of
an accident, so the cost will be covered by the owner of the other car.

The cost of an accident might actually be covered by Google or Ford, or
whoever makes the software. Since you will not be driving, it won't be your
fault. There is vigorous discussion about that right now. That is one of
many issues that has to be worked out before these cars can be widely used.

The cost of a Model T eventually fell to around $260, new. You might think
that was the cheapest car in history, but it wasn't. Today's automobiles
are the cheapest they have ever been when you take into account:

1. General inflation, and percent of earnings.

2. The longevity of today's cars. They last far longer than a Model T, and
they go farther. I believe old cars seldom went more than 20,000 miles.

3. The longevity of tires and other components. The improvements in tires
have been especially remarkable. Around 1910, top quality tires cost $50 to
$70 each, in 1910 dollars, which is about $1,200 in today's dollars. I do
not recall how long they lasted but I think it was a few thousand miles.
Drivers could expect a puncture every 125 miles or so.

http://www.carhistory4u.com/the-last-100-years/parts-of-the-car/part-2-section-6

4. The cost of maintenance and repairs is much cheaper today.

5. Most of all, the cost of accidents and insurance. I tend to keep cars a
long time, like 24 years (my present car). Over the life of the car I pay
way more in insurance than for the car itself.

With self driving cars we reduce fatalities from 30,000 to a few hundred
per year. So:

6. Other losses to accidents and deaths not covered by insurance. It is
difficult to put a price tag on 30,000 lives per year, and hundreds of
thousands of serious injuries, but the cost is high.



> And then we have the CBO projections that all tax dollars beyond debt
> payment and entitlements will vanish in about 7 years.  I also understand
> that this ‘tapped out’ condition goes all the way up people making 75K a
> year.
>

I don't see this as a big problem. We will just have to go back and tax
wealthy people at the same rate we did in the Clinton administration. The
entire debt can be paid off pretty soon with that. I am wealthy, and I had
no difficulty paying taxes under Mr. Clinton, so I wouldn't mind.

It is a tempest in a teapot. Rich people can easily afford to pay more, and
as soon as we do, the problem is solved.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:N.Y. Times report on corruption in academic science

[Chris Zell]

Uh… you changed the subject from legal irresponsibility of the elected over to 
your OCD tech of driverless cars.

I wonder where a majority of the US public – that is currently reported as 
being unable to come up with a sudden $500 check – will get the money for these 
pipedreams. And then we have the CBO projections that all tax dollars beyond 
debt payment and entitlements will vanish in about 7 years.  I also understand 
that this ‘tapped out’ condition goes all the way up people making 75K a year.

Oh, they have to raise the debt limit again in 5 days – after Obama pretty much 
doubled it.  It is this acceleration towards collapse that screams out for 
simplicity and honesty – in conflict with elite fantasies and excuses for legal 
complexities.  My vindication is reality, day by day, as dams collapse,  
pension funds dry up,  refugees flee wars the US created and political division 
paralyzes a nation.

And that’s corruption.

Re: [Vo]:N.Y. Times report on corruption in academic science

[Jed Rothwell]

Chris Zell  wrote:


> Funny how a nation can be sustained for 200+ years with a straight forward
> document such as the Constitution but cannot simplify or down size because
> of complexity as an excuse.
>

Complexity is inherent in high technology. Something like the internet, the
air traffic control system, or self-driving automobiles can only work with
more laws, regulations, standards and industry agreement than existed in
the whole world before 1900. These are immensely complex systems. If you
want a world with a GPS in your car and Google at your command, you must
live with thousands of pages of regulations. It cannot be done without
them. You cannot implement 21st century technology with 18th century legal
documents.



> Impenetrable legal language is a product of corruption itself, designed to
> maintain a legal class and confuse others.
>

Perhaps some laws have impenetrable legal language, but Obamacare did not.
You have mischaracterized it. Perhaps you have not read it? As I said, I
read large chunks of it relating to computers. I found it clear,
well-written, with ordinary language. The parts I read had computer jargon,
not legal language. The computer jargon was correctly used and it was
necessary. Computers are essential to healthcare.

I understand computers, so I had no difficulty understanding those
sections. A person who does not understand computers might be mystified by
that part of the law, but that is unavoidable.


The Constitution was written in a way that ordinary people could mostly
> understand and cherish as including sacred rights.
>

That's grand. Now tell me how you could have millions of self-driving
automobiles making millions of life or death decisions every second, and
you could explain all of this in a short document that any ordinary person
could mostly understand.

Good grief! Computers in 1978 were thousands of times smaller, slower and
less complex then they are today. Every single system call for the Data
General computers could be listed in about 20 pages, as I recall. It was a
thing of beauty. I mastered the whole kit and kaboodle in a few months. But
here's the thing. You COULD NOT POSSIBLY write some short document such as
the Constitution describing that minicomputer in a way that any ordinary
person could "mostly understand." Trust me: most people then and now did
not a clue how it worked. It was black magic. The internet, self-driving
cars, Google and the GPS will always be black magic to most people. These
things are millions of times more complicated than the Data General
minicomputer was.

There is no way on earth you can explain that kind of technology to most
people, and that includes most Members of Congress. So what is your plan?
Are you going to ban the use of computers with 64 kilobytes or more?
Because this stuff is too complicated?

Or perhaps your plan is to let Google, Uber, Toyota, Ford and the others
all develop self-driving cars with different standards and no testing, no
communication between the vehicles, no agreements or standards about
safety. Just let let chaos loose on the highways, with a million machines
uncoordinated with no one having any idea how they are supposed to work in
inclement weather or an accident.

High technology *would never work* on that basis! Never. The healthcare
system is high technology.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:N.Y. Times report on corruption in academic science

[Chris Zell]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/06/25/lets-recall-why-the-affordable-care-act-is-so-messed-up/?utm_term=.b1eb6dab705b



From the liberal Washington Post.  Most didn’t bother to read it or much of it 
and the results were typical.  GM and the US government are excellent examples 
of bloated, corrupt and ineffective governance – which is largely why one was 
bailed out and the other piles up unpayable debt.

Funny how a nation can be sustained for 200+ years with a straight forward 
document such as the Constitution but cannot simplify or down size because of 
complexity as an excuse. Impenetrable legal language is a product of corruption 
itself, designed to maintain a legal class and confuse others.   Hence, 
waterboarding that isn’t torture ( enhanced interrogation).

The Constitution was written in a way that ordinary people could mostly 
understand and cherish as including sacred rights. Your ‘trust the elites’ is 
already headed to the dustbin of history – as trust is not earned and violated 
daily in the name of complexity. Tick tock..

Re: [Vo]:N.Y. Times report on corruption in academic science

[Jed Rothwell]

Chris Zell  wrote:

Your daughter? Interesting but irrelevant.
>

It is relevant because she had direct knowledge of some of what happened
during the drafting of the bill. Some of the reports in the mass media and
assertions that the bill was kept secret were false.


>

> It is an elected representative that has the moral responsibility to READ
> every bill they pass – and NOT anyone else.
>

As a practical matter, that is impossible. That would be like demanding
that a major publisher read every word in every book and magazine her
company puts out. It would be like demanding that the CEO of General Motors
should read every word of every technical report, every construction plan,
and sales report issued at every level in the company. Or that the Joint
Chiefs of Staff should read every single military order issued by their
services, at all levels.

A person who spends every waking moment reading could not read all of the
draft legislation in the U.S. Congress. There are thousands and thousands
of pages. Most of it is revised or not passed, so most of that reading
would be a waste of time.

As a practical matter, a Member of Congress has to depend on his or her
staff to read legislation and make recommendations. The Member reads
selected portions of legislation that calls for decisions or input from the
Member.

You might say that a Member should be able to read every draft law, and
because Members cannot, that means the U.S. government is too large. That
is like saying General Motors is too large because the CEO cannot read
every technical report. GM is not "too big." The U.S. government is a
complex modern institution with many responsibilities. It serves 320
million people. It cannot be made smaller and still meet the needs of
modern life, or the needs of the largest military in history.



>   If the matter was so well known and vouched for then why did Pelosi say
> ‘vote for it to find out what’s in it”?  Clearly, many didn’t know – and
> that’s corruption.
>

She meant that the GOP had ignored the bill, and not offered input during
the 1-year drafting process, so it was too late for them to demand changes.
See:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/the-context-behind-nancy-pelosis-famous-we-have-to-pass-the-bill-quote/

Her words were distorted to mean it was a secret, which is ridiculous. As I
said, it wasn't a secret. I and many others read drafts. Of course the
drafts changed over time.


>

> My former Congressman told me that not only do they not read bills but
> those responsible for tax legislation can’t do their own tax returns.
>

There is an example of actual excessive complexity that serves no useful
purpose.

Computer programs are necessarily complex, but some are too complex. Many
other systems become too complex. No doubt, parts of the government should
be simplified or abandoned. A much simpler healthcare system is possible.
In Europe, Japan and Canada they have the equivalent of Medicare for
everyone, at all ages. This is far simpler from the patient's point of
view. The complexity is hidden. This also costs about one-half to one-third
of U.S. healthcare.

Examples of hidden complexity include things like internet, the telephone
system, air traffic control, the regulation of automobile safety, and the
upcoming self-driving car technology. Government and industry are already
drafting thousands of pages of regulations and standards for self-driving
cars. The Congress will have to approve of this. No Member of Congress has
the technical skill to understand this legislation. (I have seen some of
it; I do not understand it, and I know way more about this stuff than most
Members do.) If we are going to have air traffic control and self-driving
cars we must have Members pass legislation they do not understand. That's
all there is to it. Since self driving cars will save roughly 30,000 lives
a year and improve life tremendously in other ways, we should have them
even though most people -- including Members of Congress -- will have no
idea how they work.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:N.Y. Times report on corruption in academic science

[Chris Zell]

Your daughter? Interesting but irrelevant.

It is an elected representative that has the moral responsibility to READ every 
bill they pass – and NOT anyone else.  If the matter was so well known and 
vouched for then why did Pelosi say ‘vote for it to find out what’s in it”?  
Clearly, many didn’t know – and that’s corruption.

My former Congressman told me that not only do they not read bills but those 
responsible for tax legislation can’t do their own tax returns. Former Senator 
Moynihan was ridiculed many years ago for trying to make this reading 
mandatory, as it should be.

A few years back, Rhode Island accidentally legalized prostitution after a 
court case exposed errors in what their state assembly passed. One 
representative admitted no one had bothered to read or properly analyze the 
bill.  From my own experience, I know highly placed lawyers make tragic 
mistakes while daydreaming about their next vacation or mistresses.  If a bill 
is too long, then chop it up.

And finally, it is this sloppy, careless lack of attention to responsibility 
that has made decent healthcare unaffordable – by the whole medical and 
political system.  Consider the abomination of TV commercials for the cancer 
drug Optivo – which may cost 250K for a full treatment and offer only a few 
months of survival.  A patient cured is a customer lost.  Tweaking ACA isn’t 
nearly enough.

Re: [Vo]:N.Y. Times report on corruption in academic science

[Jed Rothwell]

Chris Zell  wrote:

The greatest threat to the American way of life might be that things aren’t
> considered corrupt if they are legal.  Thus, we have ads for prescription
> drugs on TV and Congress commonly doesn’t read bills before passage.
>

If you are referring to Obamacare, you are emphatically wrong about that.
My daughter helped draft that law. She and others read the bill, many, many
times. She was working for a doctor's collective, which is like a union.
Members of congress may not have read the whole thing, but their staff sure
did, and so did hundreds of consultants and people working for insurance
companies, doctor's collectives, and so on. It was available on the
internet for anyone to read.

Most of it was easy to understand. Just a lot of detail. All of it that
detail was included for good reasons. Prosaic reasons. I read parts of it
that pertained to computers, and discussed it with the people drafting the
law. For example, it said that an insurance contract has to be of a limited
length. This was defined as a certain number of pages (10 pages?) when
printed on standard 8.5" x 11" paper in 12-point type. You have to spell
that sort of thing out in a law. Otherwise some insurance company might
print 8-point type (small print) in 50 pages, which is too much for the
average customer to understand.

You may not agree with the ideology of Obamacare, but you cannot say the
law is difficult to understand, or that it was withheld from the public.

Saying it was "too complicated" is a little like saying the documents &
programs that constitute the Apache Web Server are too complicated. A web
server is inherently complicated technology. It is a big system. It takes
lots of documents, specifications, details, warnings, thousands of lines of
code, review boards, and blah, blah, blah to make it work. See:

https://www.apache.org/

If we could code Apache in 200 lines of C++ and have it run faultlessly
without any maintenance . . . Well, gee, that would be great! But it
doesn't work that way. An insurance-based healthcare system will be at
least as complicated as a web server.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:N.Y. Times report on corruption in academic science

[Chris Zell]

The greatest threat to the American way of life might be that things aren’t 
considered corrupt if they are legal.  Thus, we have ads for prescription drugs 
on TV and Congress commonly doesn’t read bills before passage.

Currently, there may be some investigation about dandelion root extract’s 
effect on cancer (forms of leukemia in particular).  We can rest assured the 
FDA and drug companies will find a way to obscure or suppress any positive 
results.

Re: [Vo]:N.Y. Times report on corruption in academic science

[John Berry]

Cancer is IMO easily treated.

But the treatments don't lead to patented medicine or expensive treatments.

I have zero fear of cancer.

John

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> John Berry  wrote:
>
> http://www.australiannationalreview.com/cancer-research-
>> fraud-claims-nobel-prize-winner/
>>
>>
> This article is titled:
>
> "Most cancer research is a fraud, claims Nobel Prize Winner"
>
> I think that title overstates what the article says. I would title it:
>
> "Most cancer research is a dead end"
>
> . . . or "most cancer research is futile, or barking up the wrong tree."
> That is also the case with most cold fusion research. Also with most
> product development, programming languages, new grocery store food snack
> offerings, and just about every other attempt at innovation. Most of the
> time, most new ideas fail. That's unfortunate, but it is not fraud.
>
> On the other hand, there is also fraud. Also lots of sloppy research that
> should not pass peer-review, but it does. I have no way to judge whether it
> is "mostly" fraud and slop, or mostly an honest mistake. In cold fusion, as
> far as I know, most mistakes are honest.
>
> It is impossible to know an experiment is a mistake until you have done it.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:N.Y. Times report on corruption in academic science

[Jed Rothwell]

John Berry  wrote:

http://www.australiannationalreview.com/cancer-research-fraud-claims-
> nobel-prize-winner/
>
>
This article is titled:

"Most cancer research is a fraud, claims Nobel Prize Winner"

I think that title overstates what the article says. I would title it:

"Most cancer research is a dead end"

. . . or "most cancer research is futile, or barking up the wrong tree."
That is also the case with most cold fusion research. Also with most
product development, programming languages, new grocery store food snack
offerings, and just about every other attempt at innovation. Most of the
time, most new ideas fail. That's unfortunate, but it is not fraud.

On the other hand, there is also fraud. Also lots of sloppy research that
should not pass peer-review, but it does. I have no way to judge whether it
is "mostly" fraud and slop, or mostly an honest mistake. In cold fusion, as
far as I know, most mistakes are honest.

It is impossible to know an experiment is a mistake until you have done it.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:N.Y. Times report on corruption in academic science

[John Berry]

http://www.australiannationalreview.com/cancer-research-fraud-claims-nobel-prize-winner/

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I believe there is a great deal of corruption in academic science. Several
> cold fusion researchers, biologists and others have told me about incidents
> such as harassment, publishing fraudulent data, stealing data during
> peer-review, and so on. Academic science has a public reputation of being
> ethical and directed only toward "learning the truth." I believe it is more
> political than the public realizes.
>
> The *New York Times* today published an article about an important
> scientist who has been accused of unethical behavior:
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/08/science/cancer-carlo-croce.html
>
> Years of Ethics Charges, but Star Cancer Researcher Gets a Pass
>
> Quoting the lede:
>
>
> "Dr. Carlo Croce is among the most prolific scientists in an emerging area
> of cancer research involving what is sometimes called the “dark matter” of
> the human genome. A department chairman at Ohio State University and a
> member of the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Croce has parlayed his
> decades-long pursuit of cancer remedies into a research empire: He has
> received more than $86 million in federal grants as a principal
> investigator and, by his own count, more than 60 awards.
>
> With that flamboyant success has come a quotient of controversy. Some
> scientists argue that Dr. Croce has overstated his expansive claims for the
> therapeutic promise of his work, and that his laboratory is focused more on
> churning out papers than on carefully assessing its experimental data.
>
> But a far less public scientific drama has been playing out in the
> Biomedical Research Tower that houses Dr. Croce’s sprawling laboratory on
> Ohio State’s campus in Columbus.
>
> Over the last several years, Dr. Croce has been fending off a tide of
> allegations of data falsification and other scientific misconduct,
> according to federal and state records, whistle-blower complaints and
> correspondence with scientific journals obtained by The New York Times. . .
> ."
>
>
> - Jed
>
>

[Vo]:N.Y. Times report on corruption in academic science

[Jed Rothwell]

I believe there is a great deal of corruption in academic science. Several
cold fusion researchers, biologists and others have told me about incidents
such as harassment, publishing fraudulent data, stealing data during
peer-review, and so on. Academic science has a public reputation of being
ethical and directed only toward "learning the truth." I believe it is more
political than the public realizes.

The *New York Times* today published an article about an important
scientist who has been accused of unethical behavior:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/08/science/cancer-carlo-croce.html

Years of Ethics Charges, but Star Cancer Researcher Gets a Pass

Quoting the lede:


"Dr. Carlo Croce is among the most prolific scientists in an emerging area
of cancer research involving what is sometimes called the “dark matter” of
the human genome. A department chairman at Ohio State University and a
member of the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Croce has parlayed his
decades-long pursuit of cancer remedies into a research empire: He has
received more than $86 million in federal grants as a principal
investigator and, by his own count, more than 60 awards.

With that flamboyant success has come a quotient of controversy. Some
scientists argue that Dr. Croce has overstated his expansive claims for the
therapeutic promise of his work, and that his laboratory is focused more on
churning out papers than on carefully assessing its experimental data.

But a far less public scientific drama has been playing out in the
Biomedical Research Tower that houses Dr. Croce’s sprawling laboratory on
Ohio State’s campus in Columbus.

Over the last several years, Dr. Croce has been fending off a tide of
allegations of data falsification and other scientific misconduct,
according to federal and state records, whistle-blower complaints and
correspondence with scientific journals obtained by The New York Times. . .
."


- Jed