What the FUCK!?!?!?
Is this a joke?

There are good articles at Nature and The Guardian if you want to know wtf this is all about. It is amusing that the guardian piece criticises such misleading headlines as 'Scientists Guilty of Manslaughter for Not Predicting Quake'.

>> ^gorillaman:

There are good articles at Nature and The Guardian if you want to know wtf this is all about. It is amusing that the guardian piece criticises such misleading headlines as 'Scientists Guilty of Manslaughter for Not Predicting Quake'.

Good articles, thanks for the link.


IMO, the saying that headlines like the title of this video are misleading because saying that 'failing to accurately assess and communicate the risks of an earthquake' and 'not predicting and earthquake' are fundamentally different things is a false distinction.
What in this town wanted to know was if a quake was likely. The scientific evidence, and the good faith interpretation of that evidence, was that it would be highly unlikely for there to be a quake soon.
It probably was unlikely that a quake would happen, and on average, the scientists would have prevented unnecessary panic.
Whether the scientists were wrong are not, what the people of that town wanted was an accurate prediction, and that is why they have prosecuted the group who failed to predict an earthquake.

*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Monday, October 22nd, 2012 9:30pm PDT - promote requested by original submitter grinter.

...

"This verdict may change the way scientists warn the public about natural disasters"?? No shit sherlock, next time the people ask if a big quake is likely the answer will be "Fuck you, I'll let you know after it happens!"

Ask doctors in the US if they can relate. While VERY seldom held accountable in criminal court, frequently found guilty of not preventing an act of God in civil court.

That looks like Linus Torvalds at :34!

Acquitted on appeal.

They certainly didn't think this through.
That prosecutor can be tried for not properly assessing the risk of criminal acts and communicating it to the public.
All politicians could be tried for not properly assessing the risk of any legislation and/or communicating it to the public.
In fact, everyone on earth could be tried for not properly assessing something dangerous or harmful and not communicating that assessment to the public.
I don't think I'll ever be going to Italy, their legal system is even more of an insane farce that ours in the US.