Scientists don't want information released to public
(archive.ph)
Comments (34)
sorted by:
So we should give credit for gathering accurate and useful data and reward those who do so rather than those publishing conclusions; problem solved.
This actually solves a lot of problems we're currently facing in the sciences, such as dogmatism (by having many competing conclusions based on openly available data), and reproduceability (because people are paid to generate data, regardless of conclusions).
Of course then will come the next problem. People generating data, via data generators. Much like 'content' 'creators'. Let me read you an article with my beanie in place.
These are the same people who want competition for YOUR jobs (via mass unrestricted immigration)
But want a monopoly for their government subsidized job?
The progressive game of "heads I win, tails you lose".
One job to rule them all.
TIL the patent system is fair and equitable and open source is not
That's the argument they're making.
That equitable bit made me chuckle. They're just throwing around leftist buzzwords. I'm surprised they didn't throw racism and white supremacy in there, too.
Correct.
I can't tell who's making the argument. Leftists high on their own farts, or capitalists doing the surprised pikachu face after a decade of sucking up to leftists.
“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
― George Orwell, Animal Farm
I honestly think Animal Farm was a better book than 1984 simply because it showed the process that lead up to 1984's totalitarianism.
They know they’re making bunk science and have been for decades. They know that when all scientific research is let open to the public they will lose everything. They are acting out of fear of repercussions.
The monopolization is a response to tumultuous economics. If these people weren't so afraid of losing their livelihoods, they would be more cooperative. This is why we need more socialism. Capitalism encourages monopolies and rent seeking.
My guy, socialism would lead to a stagnation of innovation at almost every scientific level. Trust me, I’m a scientist. People rarely do this job or go into this field solely for the love of it, there’s also the pride of having a massive discovery named after you, money, etc. socialism removes all of those incentives. Ever wondered why the USSR’s weapon platforms and technological innovations were leagues behind us here in the capitalist west?
We have plenty of stagnation today. The mass poverty spearheaded by neoliberalism has kept wages low and prevented adoption of robotics and automation. Why have a burger flipping robot when federal minimum wage is still $7.25? Socialism is the way forward. Capitalism was crumbling in the 1930s. What did we adopt to help deal with it? Social Security. Socialism is in the damn name. Unions are very socialist in desire. Plus lots of of other non-capitalist measures were enacted between the 1930s and 1960s that helped make the 50s and 60s so great.
Why was Germany so powerful in World War 2? They had a fierce fighting force and a roaring industry. The core of their engine wasn't capitalism.
Stop swallowing the neoliberal propaganda. USSR was communist which is different from socialism. Nordic Socialism is working out well for Finland and Norway. It's made Sweden rich enough to afford their ridiculous stance on immigration; though that is collapsing due to a lack of nationalism.
We don't have to go whole hog on it. Small measures, like the difference between 1940s USA compared to 1920s USA would make a big difference.
All the examples you gave are of places with ethically and ethnically homogeneous societies that are relatively small. These things would never work in America, nor should they.
Beyond that, trying to split hairs between communism and socialism is like trying to say a single bacteria and a colony of that same bacteria are fundamentally different. They aren’t, it’s a difference in degree not in kind.
The US is rich enough that it pioneered Social Security. If we were to restructure all of the dysgentic welfare programs we have into a Social Security-like UBI that does not discourage work as welfare programs do, we would be much better off. And if some people misspend their UBI and buy crack and die early, all the better.
Even Milton Friedman suggested we could afford a Negative Income Tax in the 1970s, which is functionally very similar to UBI.
What's wrong with rent seeking?
In a sense, this telescope is close to cooperation and socialism since it's taxpayer funded for everyone. It also demonstrates perfectly how socialism will always be exploited to benefit some classes of people more than others. Tumultuous economics are a fact of life. Most people aren't satisfied with their station.
What do you get when you replace half of all of the farmers with combine harvesters? You get World War 1. If you treat people as labor units and they become obsolete, they don't just quietly disappear. We need an economy that serves people, not people that serve an economy.
Why not get rid of corporations, or limit their size and independence? (i.e. no corporate personhood) Also enforce local ownership. Would not immediately solve those problems, but there'd be more of a chance for little guys to compete and start their own farming empires. It would also be much easier to lay blame at the few "robber barons" for buying up all the farmland and replacing farmers with robots. People could go and shame their rich neighbor instead of having to deal with a faceless corporation.
Until we can do small stuff like that there's no need to discuss going all the way to socialism. Doing so only empowers elites and politicians that benefit from promoting a fake revolution among the masses.
the wages of socialism is death
After watching hackers back in the 90’s i really thought it would be more pervasive. I know governments do it, but instead of using it to steal peoples information i was hoping people would have accessed companies proprietary patents to allow open source information.
I don't mean to come across as rude, but you do realize patents are literally published when issued? It's rather the whole point of the system: to allow those practiced in the art to reproduce the work.
If you say so. Dont see anyone driving around with hydrogen cars if they are able to just get it from the patent office. Or maybe even figure out what pfizers secret ingredient is that shows up in their product. I know you can get access to some items, but your saying all of them are excessable? If so there wouldnt be any competition. All motherboard manufacturers would be the same, but they arent because of their proprietary products that arent available to be reproduced.
Gotta pay hefty licensing fees or wait for the patent to expire (17 years).
That's why a bunch of TCGs started appearing after Wizards of the Coast's patent on Magic expired.
u/Ninpomike wrote "proprietary patents" but I think he just meant proprietary information, like closed-source code. In that case I'd have to agree that anti-corporate hactivism is way less than what we were promised for our cyberpunk future.
Probably because Anonymous was coopted by the Deep State.
Not "scientists" in general, but astronomers: "Without a proprietary period, an astronomer with a brilliant insight might spend years developing it, months crafting a successful proposal to execute it, and precious hours of highly competitive JWST time to actually perform the observations—only to have someone else scoop up the data from a public archive and publish the result."
Big deal. It's not like the findings of astronomy have any impact on our daily struggle. Astronomy is a curious amalgam of philosophy and science anyway, given its theories about the origin and trajectory of the universe.
Fuck stars.
End tyranny.
only the priests can understand the bible
That was the feeling around the earlier IBM computers. That's why so much came from other more open computers.
If by releasing the data, some public person can analyze the data faster than paid scientists and come to meaningful results, GREAT. We should stop paying scientists then.