Comments on: In Praise of Secrecy http://landshape.org/enm/in-praise-of-secrecy/ The Power of Numeracy Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:57:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: davids99us http://landshape.org/enm/in-praise-of-secrecy/#comment-1117 davids99us Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:03:54 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3473#comment-1117 My understanding of it, that in the case of mineral exploration, the front runners might suffer a cash crisis, while the market is fluctuating around the long term expected value, and the secrecy reduces the volatility.Standards and enforcement are not working. But if there was a wall between those papers that have data and code available, and those that don't, and a higher value placed on the latter, maybe? My understanding of it, that in the case of mineral exploration, the front runners might suffer a cash crisis, while the market is fluctuating around the long term expected value, and the secrecy reduces the volatility.Standards and enforcement are not working. But if there was a wall between those papers that have data and code available, and those that don't, and a higher value placed on the latter, maybe?

]]> By: sherro http://landshape.org/enm/in-praise-of-secrecy/#comment-1116 sherro Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:37:02 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3473#comment-1116 This is an interesting approach if you neglect that econometric models have a disaster failure rate and thus do not serve as good illustrations of transparency. In the present context, the problem with the analogy is that transparency of financial data can change the I.P. and wealth of others who sometimes show irrational behavior , but it cannot effectively change the climate.We analyse in the frames of our experience, so I ask if premature discolsure of our past mineral exploration results would have been good or bad. Then good or bad for whom, competitors or economist/investors or the national economy? (I say premature release because the law required the eventual release, so perhaps its is best to ask if release was of overall benefit or detriment).The overall conclusion to this thought exercise is that early release enhances the likelihood of error detection and correction, in both the data and the methodology. The disadvantage is a loss of incentive for the leaders to maintain front running, as free riders hop on the wagon.That front runing has a true value only if it works for the common good. If the common good can be identified (as in more original wealth creation from new mineral discoveries), then front runners have a place. If it cannot be identified (as in the difficulty of changing the climate as opposed to gossiping about it) then transparency is the logical preference. If it is a common bad with perverse intent, then transparency is essential. Discerning if it is good, unidentifiable or bad comes back to economics and prospering by reward. The punters eventually find out about the duds.A case can be made for the progressive and prompt enforcement of standards (such as for data transmission or methods of ore analysis or certification of laboratories). The failure shown by several cases in Climategate would not have happened if standards for transparency were policed. Often standards were in place, as journal or association or funding policy, but often they were swept beneath the tablecloth. That is where the real lesson sits.If you wish to publish without releasing your code and data, then don't publish. Heard that before? This is an interesting approach if you neglect that econometric models have a disaster failure rate and thus do not serve as good illustrations of transparency. In the present context, the problem with the analogy is that transparency of financial data can change the I.P. and wealth of others who sometimes show irrational behavior , but it cannot effectively change the climate.We analyse in the frames of our experience, so I ask if premature discolsure of our past mineral exploration results would have been good or bad. Then good or bad for whom, competitors or economist/investors or the national economy? (I say premature release because the law required the eventual release, so perhaps its is best to ask if release was of overall benefit or detriment).The overall conclusion to this thought exercise is that early release enhances the likelihood of error detection and correction, in both the data and the methodology. The disadvantage is a loss of incentive for the leaders to maintain front running, as free riders hop on the wagon.That front runing has a true value only if it works for the common good. If the common good can be identified (as in more original wealth creation from new mineral discoveries), then front runners have a place. If it cannot be identified (as in the difficulty of changing the climate as opposed to gossiping about it) then transparency is the logical preference. If it is a common bad with perverse intent, then transparency is essential. Discerning if it is good, unidentifiable or bad comes back to economics and prospering by reward. The punters eventually find out about the duds.A case can be made for the progressive and prompt enforcement of standards (such as for data transmission or methods of ore analysis or certification of laboratories). The failure shown by several cases in Climategate would not have happened if standards for transparency were policed. Often standards were in place, as journal or association or funding policy, but often they were swept beneath the tablecloth. That is where the real lesson sits.If you wish to publish without releasing your code and data, then don't publish. Heard that before?

]]> By: Wikicrapedia! « TWAWKI http://landshape.org/enm/in-praise-of-secrecy/#comment-1115 Wikicrapedia! « TWAWKI Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:31:17 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3473#comment-1115 [...] In praise of secrecy, [...] [...] In praise of secrecy, [...]

]]> By: Anonymous http://landshape.org/enm/in-praise-of-secrecy/#comment-12102 Anonymous Thu, 14 Jan 2010 11:03:00 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3473#comment-12102 My understanding of it, that in the case of mineral exploration, the front runners might suffer a cash crisis, while the market is fluctuating around the long term expected value, and the secrecy reduces the volatility. Standards and enforcement are not working. But if there was a wall between those papers that have data and code available, and those that don't, and a higher value placed on the latter, maybe? My understanding of it, that in the case of mineral exploration, the front runners might suffer a cash crisis, while the market is fluctuating around the long term expected value, and the secrecy reduces the volatility.

Standards and enforcement are not working. But if there was a wall between those papers that have data and code available, and those that don’t, and a higher value placed on the latter, maybe?

]]> By: Anonymous http://landshape.org/enm/in-praise-of-secrecy/#comment-12101 Anonymous Thu, 14 Jan 2010 10:37:00 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3473#comment-12101 This is an interesting approach if you neglect that econometric models have a disaster failure rate and thus do not serve as good illustrations of transparency. In the present context, the problem with the analogy is that transparency of financial data can change the I.P. and wealth of others who sometimes show irrational behavior , but it cannot effectively change the climate. We analyse in the frames of our experience, so I ask if premature discolsure of our past mineral exploration results would have been good or bad. Then good or bad for whom, competitors or economist/investors or the national economy? (I say premature release because the law required the eventual release, so perhaps its is best to ask if release was of overall benefit or detriment). The overall conclusion to this thought exercise is that early release enhances the likelihood of error detection and correction, in both the data and the methodology. The disadvantage is a loss of incentive for the leaders to maintain front running, as free riders hop on the wagon. That front runing has a true value only if it works for the common good. If the common good can be identified (as in more original wealth creation from new mineral discoveries), then front runners have a place. If it cannot be identified (as in the difficulty of changing the climate as opposed to gossiping about it) then transparency is the logical preference. If it is a common bad with perverse intent, then transparency is essential. Discerning if it is good, unidentifiable or bad comes back to economics and prospering by reward. The punters eventually find out about the duds. A case can be made for the progressive and prompt enforcement of standards (such as for data transmission or methods of ore analysis or certification of laboratories). The failure shown by several cases in Climategate would not have happened if standards for transparency were policed. Often standards were in place, as journal or association or funding policy, but often they were swept beneath the tablecloth. That is where the real lesson sits. If you wish to publish without releasing your code and data, then don't publish. Heard that before? This is an interesting approach if you neglect that econometric models have a disaster failure rate and thus do not serve as good illustrations of transparency. In the present context, the problem with the analogy is that transparency of financial data can change the I.P. and wealth of others who sometimes show irrational behavior , but it cannot effectively change the climate.

We analyse in the frames of our experience, so I ask if premature discolsure of our past mineral exploration results would have been good or bad. Then good or bad for whom, competitors or economist/investors or the national economy? (I say premature release because the law required the eventual release, so perhaps its is best to ask if release was of overall benefit or detriment).

The overall conclusion to this thought exercise is that early release enhances the likelihood of error detection and correction, in both the data and the methodology. The disadvantage is a loss of incentive for the leaders to maintain front running, as free riders hop on the wagon.

That front runing has a true value only if it works for the common good. If the common good can be identified (as in more original wealth creation from new mineral discoveries), then front runners have a place. If it cannot be identified (as in the difficulty of changing the climate as opposed to gossiping about it) then transparency is the logical preference. If it is a common bad with perverse intent, then transparency is essential. Discerning if it is good, unidentifiable or bad comes back to economics and prospering by reward. The punters eventually find out about the duds.

A case can be made for the progressive and prompt enforcement of standards (such as for data transmission or methods of ore analysis or certification of laboratories). The failure shown by several cases in Climategate would not have happened if standards for transparency were policed. Often standards were in place, as journal or association or funding policy, but often they were swept beneath the tablecloth. That is where the real lesson sits.

If you wish to publish without releasing your code and data, then don’t publish. Heard that before?

]]> By: davids99us http://landshape.org/enm/in-praise-of-secrecy/#comment-1114 davids99us Thu, 14 Jan 2010 10:03:54 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3473#comment-1114 My understanding of it, that in the case of mineral exploration, the front runners might suffer a cash crisis, while the market is fluctuating around the long term expected value, and the secrecy reduces the volatility.Standards and enforcement are not working. But if there was a wall between those papers that have data and code available, and those that don't, and a higher value placed on the latter, maybe? My understanding of it, that in the case of mineral exploration, the front runners might suffer a cash crisis, while the market is fluctuating around the long term expected value, and the secrecy reduces the volatility.Standards and enforcement are not working. But if there was a wall between those papers that have data and code available, and those that don't, and a higher value placed on the latter, maybe?

]]> By: sherro http://landshape.org/enm/in-praise-of-secrecy/#comment-1113 sherro Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:37:02 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3473#comment-1113 This is an interesting approach if you neglect that econometric models have a disaster failure rate and thus do not serve as good illustrations of transparency. In the present context, the problem with the analogy is that transparency of financial data can change the I.P. and wealth of others who sometimes show irrational behavior , but it cannot effectively change the climate.We analyse in the frames of our experience, so I ask if premature discolsure of our past mineral exploration results would have been good or bad. Then good or bad for whom, competitors or economist/investors or the national economy? (I say premature release because the law required the eventual release, so perhaps its is best to ask if release was of overall benefit or detriment).The overall conclusion to this thought exercise is that early release enhances the likelihood of error detection and correction, in both the data and the methodology. The disadvantage is a loss of incentive for the leaders to maintain front running, as free riders hop on the wagon.That front runing has a true value only if it works for the common good. If the common good can be identified (as in more original wealth creation from new mineral discoveries), then front runners have a place. If it cannot be identified (as in the difficulty of changing the climate as opposed to gossiping about it) then transparency is the logical preference. If it is a common bad with perverse intent, then transparency is essential. Discerning if it is good, unidentifiable or bad comes back to economics and prospering by reward. The punters eventually find out about the duds.A case can be made for the progressive and prompt enforcement of standards (such as for data transmission or methods of ore analysis or certification of laboratories). The failure shown by several cases in Climategate would not have happened if standards for transparency were policed. Often standards were in place, as journal or association or funding policy, but often they were swept beneath the tablecloth. That is where the real lesson sits.If you wish to publish without releasing your code and data, then don't publish. Heard that before? This is an interesting approach if you neglect that econometric models have a disaster failure rate and thus do not serve as good illustrations of transparency. In the present context, the problem with the analogy is that transparency of financial data can change the I.P. and wealth of others who sometimes show irrational behavior , but it cannot effectively change the climate.We analyse in the frames of our experience, so I ask if premature discolsure of our past mineral exploration results would have been good or bad. Then good or bad for whom, competitors or economist/investors or the national economy? (I say premature release because the law required the eventual release, so perhaps its is best to ask if release was of overall benefit or detriment).The overall conclusion to this thought exercise is that early release enhances the likelihood of error detection and correction, in both the data and the methodology. The disadvantage is a loss of incentive for the leaders to maintain front running, as free riders hop on the wagon.That front runing has a true value only if it works for the common good. If the common good can be identified (as in more original wealth creation from new mineral discoveries), then front runners have a place. If it cannot be identified (as in the difficulty of changing the climate as opposed to gossiping about it) then transparency is the logical preference. If it is a common bad with perverse intent, then transparency is essential. Discerning if it is good, unidentifiable or bad comes back to economics and prospering by reward. The punters eventually find out about the duds.A case can be made for the progressive and prompt enforcement of standards (such as for data transmission or methods of ore analysis or certification of laboratories). The failure shown by several cases in Climategate would not have happened if standards for transparency were policed. Often standards were in place, as journal or association or funding policy, but often they were swept beneath the tablecloth. That is where the real lesson sits.If you wish to publish without releasing your code and data, then don't publish. Heard that before?

]]>