Given the economic, political and social importance of that finding, many have tried to reproduce it, but failed. A post by Mike Konczal on The Next New Deal blog explains how three researchers finally succeeded -- with surprising consequences:

In a new paper, "Does High Public Debt Consistently Stifle Economic Growth? A Critique of Reinhart and Rogoff," Thomas Herndon, Michael Ash, and Robert Pollin of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst successfully replicate the results. After trying to replicate the Reinhart-Rogoff results and failing, they reached out to Reinhart and Rogoff and they were willing to share their data spreadsheet. This allowed Herndon et al. to see how how Reinhart and Rogoff's data was constructed.

They find that three main issues stand out. First, Reinhart and Rogoff selectively exclude years of high debt and average growth. Second, they use a debatable method to weight the countries. Third, there also appears to be a coding error that excludes high-debt and average-growth countries. All three bias in favor of their result, and without them you don't get their controversial result.

The three errors in the original work by Reinhart and Rogoff finally came to light when they allowed other researchers to examine their model and the data they employed in it. It then became clear that the model was flawed, and that not all the relevant data had been included in the calculation. Neither was obvious from the result alone.

This reinforces a point we have made before. Alongside the results of their work, academics also need to release the datasets and any mathematical/computational models that they have used to derive them. Without those additional resources, it is not possible for other researchers to reproduce the results, which may -- as turns out to be the case for Reinhart and Rogoff's famous paper -- contain fundamental errors that completely undermine the conclusions drawn from them.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

By all accounts, in the AIA, Congress intended to remove the "could have been raised" language and provide a narrower estoppel for PGR proceedings. As the Congressional committee report explains, the PGR was designed to "remove current disincentives to current administrative processes." But something funny happened on the way to the Congressional floor, and the problematic "could have been raised" language was inadvertently inserted into the bill.

We're not the only ones to recognize the error. House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith referred to the AIA's PGR estoppel standard as "an inadvertent scrivener's error." Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, in advocating that the Senate adopt the technical corrections bill, said the PGR estoppel standard in AIA was "unintentional," and it was "regrettable" the technical corrections bill doesn't address the issue. Sen. Leahy expressed "hope we will soon address this issue so that the law accurately reflects Congress's intent." The PTO also thinks Congress made a mistake, saying "Clarity is needed to ensure that the [PGR] provision functions as Congress intended."

1. Congress spends seven years debating patent reform.
2. It finally approves patent reform in late 2011, and despite seven years of debate, had a ton of clear errors in the drafting of the bill.
3. The official sponsors of the bill flat out admit that there's a major error in a part of the bill that they did not intend to be in there.
4. A year plus later, Congress finally introduces a bill to "fix problems" in the original bill.
5. This "technical corrections" bill does not fix the one major problem that all admit was a flat out mistake in the original bill.

You see, the internet is like magic. And like most magic, it can be used for entertainment purposes. All the do-gooding in the world doesn't amount to much if you forget to register your URL. While you're busy enjoying that "new ink" smell of freshly printed Voter's Guides, someone quicker on the draw is undermining your "marijuana is bad" propaganda proselytizing information with hilariously over-the-top headlines. 

The good news is that the online voters' guide sports the corrected URL: mavotenoonquestion3.com

The bad news is that the paper version will carry the old URL permanently. Of course, very few people are willing to type in a URL by hand, but as news of this blunder spreads, the fake site with the real URL will be receiving much more attention, voters' guide correction or no.

Here's the official reaction from No on Question 3 spokesman, Kevin Sabet:

"It's funny and upsetting, I guess, at the same time."

The group sent out a press release saying proponents of medical marijuana were tampering with the democratic process through “underhanded efforts.”

The Globe notes that the No on Question 3 campaign has managed to collect all of $600 so far, compared to the $1 million or so that supporters of the initiative have received from Peter Lewis, a longtime patron of drug policy reform.

She said the search warrants were invalid because they were general warrants which lacked specificity about the offence and the scope of the items to be searched for.

Without a valid warrant, police were trespassing and exceeded what they were lawfully authorised to do.

Justice Winkelmann said no one had addressed whether police conduct also amounted to unreasonable search and seizure, but her preliminary view was that it did.

Somewhere between 2500 feet and 2000 feet, the captain's mobile phone started beeping with incoming text messages, and the captain twice did not respond to the co-pilot's requests.

The co-pilot looked over and saw the captain "preoccupied with his mobile phone", investigators said. The captain told investigators he was trying to unlock the phone to turn it off, after having forgotten to do so before take-off.

At 1000 feet, the co-pilot scanned the instruments and felt "something was not quite right" but could not spot what it was.

One recent estimate placed annual direct consumer losses at $114 billion worldwide. It turns out, however, that such widely circulated cybercrime estimates are generated using absurdly bad statistical methods, making them wholly unreliable.

Most cybercrime estimates are based on surveys of consumers and companies. They borrow credibility from election polls, which we have learned to trust. However, when extrapolating from a surveyed group to the overall population, there is an enormous difference between preference questions (which are used in election polls) and numerical questions (as in cybercrime surveys).

For one thing, in numeric surveys, errors are almost always upward: since the amounts of estimated losses must be positive, there’s no limit on the upside, but zero is a hard limit on the downside. As a consequence, respondent errors — or outright lies — cannot be canceled out. Even worse, errors get amplified when researchers scale between the survey group and the overall population.

How quickly things change, especially for entities who find themselves staring down an angry internet. At first, ECAD seemed disturbingly untroubled by the uproar, including the memeification of its intention to stretch the definition of "public performance" to include all audible sound. But it suddenly changed its prohibitively expensive tune when hundreds of thousands of dollars were at stake.

None other than Google Brazil itself issued a blog post stating that ECAD's existing agreement with Youtube did not allow the agency to collect fees from bloggers, pointing out the obvious to ECAD's wilfully obtuse representatives:

These sites don't host or transmit any content when they associate a YouTube video to their site, and as such, the fact of embedding videos from YouTube can't be treated as a ‘retransmission'. As these sites aren't performing any music, ECAD can't, within the law, collect any payment from these.

1- Ecad has never had the intention to curtail the freedom on the internet, known to be a space devoted to information, dissemination of music and other creative works, and propagation of ideas. The institution also lacks a copyright billing strategy geared to embedded videos. Royalties collections for webcasting have been under re-evaluation since February 29th, and the case reported in recent days took place before then. Nevertheless, it resulted from an operational error of interpretation, which represents an isolated fact in this segment. (...)

2- Two years ago, Ecad and Google signed a letter of intent that guides the relationship between both organizations. The document details thatEcad can collect copyright fees for music coming from embedded videos, as long as it gives advance notice to Google/YouTube. As Ecad did not send such a notification, it becomes clear that this is not its goal. If it were the case, it would have sent the notification the letter of intent requires. (...)

The letter continues with a statement that claims that Mr. Steele's office has been unable to get in touch with the recipient.

Odd thing is, the e-mail address that is listed under the mailing address on the letter is not the e-mail address associated with the recipient's ISP. The only way Mr. Steele's firm could obtain the address would be by asking for it during a phone call. One of the five calls which Mr. Steele's firm would like to pretend never happened.

Personally, I believe that the implications of this letter are extremely disturbing. For one, Mr. Steele's firm appears to not bother proof-reading any of its letters. Mr. Steele is comfortable with asking for thousands of dollars from people, but he can't take 10 seconds to at least review the first sentence of his settlement letters.

Are there errors in the affidavit? If so, do they even matter? The answer is no.

These long-prevailing standards seek to safeguard citizens from rash and unreasonable interferences with privacy and from unfounded charges of crime. They also seek to give fair leeway for enforcing the law in the community’s protection. Because many situations which confront officers in the course of executing their duties are more or less ambiguous, room must be allowed for some mistakes on their part. But the mistakes must be those of reasonable men, acting on facts leading sensibly to their conclusions of probability. The rule of probable cause is a practical, nontechnical conception affording the best compromise that has been found for accommodating these often opposing interests. Requiring more would unduly hamper law enforcement. To allow less would be to leave law-abiding citizens at the mercy of the officers’ whim or caprice.

Thus, while the general rule under the Fourth Amendment is that any and all contraband, instrumentalities, and evidence of crimes may be seized on probable cause (and even without a warrant in various circumstances), it is otherwise when materials presumptively protected by the First Amendment are involved... It is "[t]he risk of prior restraint, which is the underlying basis for the special Fourth Amendment protections accorded searches for and seizure of First Amendment materials" that motivates this rule.

YESTERDAY, a news.com.au article incorrectly stated that the Star Trek starship USS Enterprise-E, otherwise known as model NNC-1701-E, was the successor to Captain Kirk's original USS Enterprise.

It has since been brought to our attention that the NNC-1701-E in fact came two models after Captain Kirk retired and was under the command of Captain Jean Luc Picard.

User "Your Mum's Lunch" led the charge of those who correctly pointed out that after losing the original Enterprise to the Klingons, Captain Kirk was given the Excelsior Class Enterprise-B as a stop-gap measure until the refit of the Enterprise-A was completed.

Kirk's last ship was the Ambassador Class Enterprise-C.

Enterprise-D and Enterprise-E were in fact, the first of the Galaxy Class models and were under the command of Captain Picard.

My question about whether you have been charging GDS Publishing by the hour is relevant because, in the criticism of your conduct that I am drafting for publication, I am trying to figure out whether your misadventures in trying to send correspondence to Forte, and your subsequent threats directed to SoftLayer, reflect only incompetence, or rather reflect an effort to run the meter at your client's expense. I'd be grateful, therefore, if you would respond to my question.

Finally, I note your email referring to confidentiality notices that are contained in your emails. Even if the emails purported to forbid publication, such notices do not override fair use. Sad to say, however, you have misstated the fine print in your own emails. I invite you to re-read that text. The disclaimer says that the emails "may" contain privileged or confidential information, not that they do. I see nothing in the emails that merits treatment as either privileged or confidential in any event. Moreover, they instruct the recipients not to disseminate the emails if they are NOT the intended recipients. By negative implication, these notices tell the intended recipients that they ARE free to disseminate the emails. Your office deliberately sent the emails to me, thus effectively giving me permission to publish them.

Your letter also states that your "clients" are reserving their rights about the publication of your letter and emails. However, I see no reason to believe that your clients own the copyright in your letters. The owner would be you and/or your firm. If you choose to try to enforce the copyright by raising a claim of infringement, you will have to do so in your own name.