5 ms·

that is a lot of data. i think journalists will sum it up for you, if there is something interesting.

• dfc 14y ago
  That is a strange philosophy/view-point for HN...
  • javajosh 14y ago
    Au contraire. Journalists are highly motivated to plough through the data for the scoop. ("Data scoop" is certainly an interesting development in our 21st century, btw!) I'm happy to let a highly motivated person do the ploughing, and give me the highlights, especially about a subject as marginally interesting as Scientology.
    • dfc 14y ago
      Au contraire? Respectfully, in my opinion sitting back and hoping someone else has the motivation to be inquisitive/curious is counter to the spirit of HN. Furthermore as others have pointed out (as well as myself in another thread) CoS has deep pockets and I imagine that serves as a decent motivation for big media to not publish the incident.
      • mikescar 14y ago
        Nothing complex about this--it's a time-saving measure. Obviously there will be plenty of people sifting through this data, and we are free to rely on them to do so. You don't have to do everything yourself and find every data problem interesting to keep within the 'spirit of HN'.
        • dfc 14y ago
          It has nothing to do with finding everything interesting. I was speaking about the "if there is ever something interesting, the journalists will investigate/sum it up for me" line of reasoning. And whats with the "we are free" language, its not a cable news show. When did I ever say that anyone lacked the liberty to do something?
          • javajosh 14y ago
            Tell you what, you sift through the data and let me know what you find via email!
          • mikescar 14y ago
            You're reading entirely too much into minor points.
          • anthonyb 14y ago
            Well, technically you are free to ignore the Scientologists... up until they overthrow the government and appoint L. Ron's disembodied head as ruler for life.
      • javajosh 14y ago
        I think the underlying message here is that Scientology is a lot more interesting to you than it is to me! Honestly, I care about global warming a lot more and yet I didn't take much time to sift through the "Climategate" emails in detail[1]. I also care about Linux security, and yet I've not done an audit of the kernel I'm currently running. I also care about the federal tax code, and have certainly not taken the time to analyze it for inconsistencies and unfairness. Would you say that these decisions are "counter to the spirit of HN"? Of course, Paul Graham started HN mainly to have intelligent, on topic discussions about technology and startup issues. And in that sense, apart from my aside about "data scoops", I am probably posting contrary to the spirit of HN, since the bulk of this message and the one before it are just simple opinion expression, rather than anything more susbtantive. Heck, now that I think about it I'm tempted to delete them both! [1]http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_... And for the record, those emails are pretty disgusting and I'm surprised and disappointed at the reaction.
        • anthonyb 14y ago
          So you're disgusted / "surprised and disappointed" at the reaction to the CRU emails, and yet you still trust other people to filter your news for you? This is why you need to inform yourself about what's going on in the world. At least look at things with a critical eye, and not just throw up your hands and say "Oh well, the journalists will filter the important bits for me."
        • jmyc 14y ago
          From your link, "Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct" (concerning the "climategate" e-mails). By hearing the cherry-picked quotes from those e-mails, you could get the impression that they're full of fraud, but now that the dust has settled and the investigations have been made, do you really think they're disgusting? I think this example is counter to your point. The initial media reaction gave the complete wrong impression, and the later findings that the story is nonsense went completely unreported.
          • 14y ago
      • Produce 14y ago
        This isn't HN, it's Reddit with a different theme. Didn't you get the memo?
    • deno 14y ago
      Not to mention there’s the language barrier…
      • ctchocula 14y ago
        Maybe someone will parse the emails and have a detector that will find the ones written in English.
        • dfc 14y ago
          That's the spirit;) Most of the marketing material that I have seen is in English. But that is just based off skimming the attachments Extracting the MIME attachments is pretty straight forward: ls *.txt |xargs -n1 munpack
    • anthonyb 14y ago
      Unfortunately journalists are also highly motivated not to get sued.
  • DanBC 14y ago
    Good journalists should be able to plough through the data and put the information into context; referencing previous news stories or other organisations. Unfortunately, as can be seen by the bloody awful mess they make of almost any scientific or medical or technical press release, it's unwise to rely on a journalist to provide sensible analysis. Maybe there's some great crowd-sourcing website that could do this? (A bit like the "Human Flesh Search Engine" in China, but different.) Or perhaps as a MVP someone could just write a script that turns many words into links to a wikipedia entry?
• 46Bit 14y ago
  To risk being viewed as that crazy paranoid commentator: Scientology is no stranger to lawsuits. They may well discourage publishing such at risk of expensive, drawn-out legal action.
• zekenie 14y ago
  i mean, has anyone even gotten a chance to look at what's in the folder?