Re: Commercial tor offering?

[Scott Bennett <bennett@xxxxxxxxxx>]

     On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 15:44:33 -0600 Arrakis <arrakistor@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>OgnenD,
>
>> I think peer review exists in science (and technology) for a purpose. If there 
>> is only one analyst, maybe your claim holds. However, results in general need 
>> to be testable and reproducible by anyone, so that everyone can convince 

     Testable, yes, but reproducible iff the initial conditions can be
reproduced.  For example, many physics experiments in laboratory settings are
reproducible for two reasons:  1) the experimental design is fairly simple
(as compared to physical systems in the natural environment), and 2) the
initial conditions can be reproduced as nearly identically as may be necessary
to obtain the same experimental result.  However, in many systems in the
natural environment, the experimental conditions are neither simple nor
humanly reproducible.  In such cases, one typically compares the observations
of condtitions at the time and location of the initial observation(s) and at
the time(s) and location(s) of some later observations with predictions of
those later observations made according to theory or hypothesis.

>> themselves in the validity of claims being made. Anyways, this is just my 
>> philosophical remark, it is not the main interest of why I asked the original 
>> question.
>
>In academics, peer review is great, and needed. However, it follows that in
>science that the scientific method be followed. The results must be empirical
>and quantifiable.

     The above is poorly stated.  Theoretical results, for example, do not
necessarily involve any such observations.  In many cases, they are simply
derived from the mathematical description of the variables in question and the
relationships between them.  The experimental results required to test
predictions based upon theory are, of course, empirical and usually
quantifiable, though sometimes qualitative results can be adequate to
refute/confirm a hypothesis.
>
>If such a method is known, and an analyst can propose some method of testing
>that we all relatively agree upon, and the results are measurable, I think that
>would be great and I welcome that.

     Again, in some cases, a theoretical analysis is plenty adequate to reveal
flaws in a design, and the time, effort, and expense of measurements can be
avoided.
>
>> This is, however, much more interesting to me. You seem to imply that a 
>> company in one jurisdiction owns/operates nodes in another jurisdiction. Am I 
>> understanding this correctly?
>
>That is correct.
>
     Some tor relays are operated under similar circumstances, as can be seen
fairly readily in the torstatus pages and according to many postings to this
list in the past.


                                  Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG
**********************************************************************
* Internet:       bennett at cs.niu.edu                              *
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
* "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good  *
* objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments *
* -- a standing army."                                               *
*    -- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790         *
**********************************************************************