Right now, religions - at least, some religions - get extra legal benefits that the non-religious don't. Government employees get extra time off for relgious holidays; the non-religious get nothing. Religion is family of metaphysical worldviews, and non-religious philosophies are another branch. Why do certain philosophies get extra privileges?

If a rule really is a good idea, then it should apply to everyone. If we can get by with some people not complying, then it doesn't need to be mandatory. Religion has nothing to do with it.

In terms of vaccines, we just need to arrange for consequences. Your kids not vaccinated, and can't demonstrate a medical reason why not? Fine. No public school for them, sorry. Quite probably other benefits are now off-limits, too.

For example:

If the oil and gas industry wants to prevent its opponents from slowing its efforts to drill in more places, it must be prepared to employ tactics like digging up embarrassing tidbits about environmentalists and liberal celebrities, a veteran Washington political consultant told a room full of industry executives in a speech that was secretly recorded.

For example:

If the oil and gas industry wants to prevent its opponents from slowing its efforts to drill in more places, it must be prepared to employ tactics like digging up embarrassing tidbits about environmentalists and liberal celebrities, a veteran Washington political consultant told a room full of industry executives in a speech that was secretly recorded.

I didn't propose that males would necessarily be irrational in the same way as you think females are. It could easily manifest in different ways or even diferent domains. But even in the same domain... what of the many men who damage their family relationships and careers because they manifest a lack of Johnson control?

I noticed based on the evidence and simple observation that it is much easier for it to happen in females.

Lemme propose a hypothetical. What if you and other males are just as 'irrational' as you think females are... but you don't notice it because you take your own irrationalities as given? It's hard to judge a culture from within; how much harder might it be to judge one's own biology?

Many things that work on a flat screen don't fit well with VR.

Makes some good points in this case, so far as I can see, though.

7 Reasons "Gamergate" Proves Humanity is Doomed

If you are creating a design and then testing it empirically under relatively controlled conditions to determine if it works, then you are doing science.

Using science to evaluate a design? Sure. But the design itself is... wait for it... engineering. Of course engineers can do science, and scientist can engineer. Heck, musicians can be scientists, and vice versa. But that doesn't mean that engineering is science.

Science gives us engineering

Nope. In the words of someone Slashdot readers should respect, Alan Cox: "Engineering does not require science. Science helps a lot but people built perfectly good brick walls long before they knew why cement works."

From TFA:

So let me explain what science actually is. Science is the process through which we derive reliable predictive rules through controlled experimentation. That's the science that gives us airplanes and flu vaccines and the Internet.

No - engineering "gives us airplanes and flu vaccines and the Internet". Science gives us the theoretical (in the scientific sense) frameworks and tools that engineering can apply to do that. The author shows at least as much confusion as those he decries, and he does it from the start.

However I think there is a real danger of honest mistakes being abused, and like I said most of the abuses I know about used those.

If the cameras are only under the control of the people they are supposed to be monitoring, they will wind up being used only to clear, never to convict. I don't want the police getting any access to the videos that the accused doesn't have.

Honest mistakes are already 'abused' in our legal system. Cameras add nothing to that. But they can - if the system is set up properly - reduce a whole host of other abuses.

Let's be clear, does the policeman misremembering and event change what actually happened in anyway?

Doesn't change the event itself, no - but a pattern of errors can speak volumes about intent and state of mind. And many crimes (and torts) depend on intent and belief. So, note, do many defenses.

What is being unsaid is that you are accusing either side of lying to cover up and thus the lying person must be a bad person worthy of punishment for that reason

No. I am, in fact, relying on the deterrent effect of the video. I am trying to prevent lying, not catch someone in a lie. If you know your actions are being monitored, you will behave differently and note what happens more carefully. I'm not trying to 'trip people up'. I am trying to help make it so that testimony is actually accurate. If people are given the opportunity to slant their narrative, they will - this a human thing, hardly limited to police. By reducing the opportunity for this, by requiring people to more carefully examine their memories and words, I'm hoping to make "our justice system" better.

Why, have you never remembered an event wrong?

Sure I have. So what? If police misremember the event, is that somehow not relevant?

The behavior of everyone will be plain to see on the video

That was actually caught on video, that is. As I explicitly pointed out. I spoke - direct quote here - about the ability "to craft a story that fits what was recorded, and leave out or invent things that weren't picked up". What happened before, or just offscreen? Police are known to claim that someone was "reaching for a gun" - even when it didn't happen. But if the camera angle is bad, they will know they can claim that regardless of what they actually remember.

every lawyer knows the trick of picking out one detail someone got wrong and spinning that into proof that everything they say is a lie

But... but... if "The behavior of everyone will be plain to see on the video", how could a lawyer get away with that?

Frankly, I consider that a feature, not a bug, anyway. Eyewitness testimony really is ureliable. 'Bout time juries learned that applies to police too.

Is it the police only? Defense lawyers with a subpoena? The public? There's this:

Officers would be permitted to view video they recorded before making statements in cases where their conduct was questioned

I would vastly prefer they make statements without access to the video. Seeing the video allows them to craft a story that fits what was recorded, and leave out or invent things that weren't picked up. If they don't know exactly what the cameras saw, they have to stick much closer to the truth.