"...the fact is that the hard science produced by forensics laboratories might be a tad squishy. It might even be spun to please certain parties. Reports the Newspaper: A recent analysis published in the Criminal Justice Ethics academic journal suggests when technicians perform forensic analysis of blood and other evidence for cases such as drunk driving, the results can be influenced by built-in financial incentives to produce a conviction. Syracuse University Professor Roger Koppl joined Meghan Sacks from Fairleigh Dickinson University argue that even if false conviction rates are very low, a 3 percent error rate could put 33,000 innocent individuals behind bars every year...
The primary problem, according to the paper, is that fourteen states reward crime labs with a bonus for each conviction they generate. North Carolina pays a $600 bounty "upon conviction" to the law enforcement agency whose lab "tested for the presence of alcohol." These incentives do not necessarily encourage scientists to lie, rather they tend to create an observation bias when measuring, for example, a blood specimen for its blood alcohol content...
How can this be? Isn't science objective? Well...no. At least it's not in its application to crime. As Koppl and Sacks point out, "forensic science depends greatly on subjective judgment. Even fingerprint examination and DNA typing often involve subjective judgment." In both fingerprint and DNA matching, graphic results are compared to each other. The degree to which they correspond has a lot to do with personal judgment calls. They point to the FBI's false identification of a "100 percent match' for Brandon Mayfield in the 2004 Madrid train bombing as an example of the fallibility of such tests—the feds later admitted their error."
"The answer is, 'when it had to,' which turned out to be in 1822. For the centuries beforehand, heliocentrism became a battle ground for different religions and religious factions. As Protestantism and Catholicism battled it out for religious supremacy, whichever religion gave ground on the geocentric model of the universe was accused by the other of turning away from the scriptures. As a result, both stood firm on an immobile Earth. In schools, things made a bit more progress. For much of the 1700s, people insisted that both models should be taught to students. (Sound familiar?) Once both models were being taught, with both professional and amateur astronomers proliferating, the geocentric model continuously lost ground. It simply didn't support the growing body of data that scientists were accumulating. "
"And so the way they speak, the logic of the stories and the emotions–it’s going to be my show. That doesn’t really change. I mean The Avengers was The Avengers, but when it was said and done I look at it and I think this is clearly my work. The only problem I’ve had is that the metaphor is more subdued, even though they are heroes. With Dollhouse I had changeable identities. Firefly, I had western in space. Buffy, I had demons. I always had something very, very sort of big to latch onto. And this, it’s so close to the real world that I don’t have as many excuses for absurdity to get in the character. But, you know, we’ll still find it. The only paradigm shift for me is going oh this is closer to reality then I’m used to, which is funny to say about a show that’s about superheroes. I guess I’m just not very good at reality."
This is pretty funny - Benefits of Dating an Older Woman(?) | The Blackdragon Blog:
"It appears I’m going to have to create a new phrase. It’s something I see a lot of, yet there is no word/phrase to describe it. I’m going to call it “gender myopia”... Gender myopia is the condition of being so narrowly focused on what your gender likes, you are completely blinded to the realities of what the other gender likes. You think the other gender wants exactly what you want. Which, of course, they don’t...
When men email pictures of their genitalia to women thinking “Oh yeah, that’ll turn her on,” that’s gender myopia. When women brag on their online profiles about how “sassy” they are and their college degrees, that’s also gender myopia. In both cases, they’re doing what would turn them on, rather than the opposite gender, and are thusly turning off the other gender rather than attracting them.
...sometimes gender myopia is so extreme it’s not funny at all. I recently came across this article posted on some kind of dating advice site. Its gender myopia is stunning in its depth. It really was amazing to read... She lists seven reasons why men should date older women instead of those stupid, slutty, classless younger women...
Since she’s got a little life on her (and maybe even a marriage in her past), she may not have the rigid checklist that a younger girl has.
The exact opposite of reality. Go on ten first dates with ten women over the age of 33. Then go on ten first dates with women under the age of 27. Then come back and tell me which age group is almost completely dominated by their “checklists” when it comes to men and dating...
She knows what she wants—and doesn’t want. And at this point, she’s not afraid to say it. In the bedroom? Go ahead and try to shock her. Bondage? Bisexual encounters? Threeways? Role play? If she hasn’t tried it herself, she’s likely considered it.
Yeah. Try to get your 38 year-old wife or girlfriend into a threesome with you and another woman. Let me know how that goes. Then once you break up with her and get a 24 year-old girlfriend, try to get her into a threesome. Then be shocked at how easy it was to get her to go along with it and enjoy it versus the ASD-ridden 38 year old...
She had sex before she had a FB profile. Hard as it may be to imagine a world before Facebook, the fact is, there was one—and I, along with many of my lady cohorts, lived in it.
This is a benefit to a man…how? Her answer is, because of her gender myopia, for some reason living before Facebook is a badge of honor for her. Therefore it should be for you. Logical..."
Scorched Earth tactics in the age of Google. Pretty sharp, in a Machiavellian way. Also funny - How To Defeat New York City Media Liberals:
"I have been successfully destroyed on Google. My name is linked to all sorts of negative material that ensures I will never get a corporate job again in my life. That’s fine with me since I make my living via other means, but that’s not fine for blog writers who still need to depend on corporate America...
Having your name destroyed on Google... I know this will hurt them because it hurt me, as right now I’m stuck in some backwater European city, waking up at noon every day, banging thin women who bake me cakes and wear heels like they’re sneakers. At the same time I make love to foreign women without condoms, I have immunity from liberal attacks, and have decided to use this immunity for the good of men from my birth country. It’s as if I have been blessed with a superpower."
"It's the best we got." So watching this.
Via Front Toward Enemy:
"Sam Bee, Bob Odenkirk and David Cross repair diplomatic ties with Egypt. "It’s called bacon.""
Neil deGrasse Tyson is a genius and he's funny. Cheers!
ReplyDelete