Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:It's not about the crime (Score 3, Informative) 206

To be more technical:

The "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard requires that the "facts of the case" be proven beyond a reasonable doubt - every one of them individually, with a list of facts to prove being given in the jury instructions and depending on the crime and jurisdiction For example, in a murder case, basic facts can be "The victim is dead" and "The defendant deliberately killed them". Beyond that, the prosecution "bears the burden" of demonstrating these facts as undeniably true. For more about what the legal burden is, there's details here.

The same does not hold true to what are called "affirmative defenses" or "defense theories". For example, if you charge me with assault and say I hit you with a chair, and I say that I was trying to stop you because you were trying to rape me, you don't face a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard and 100% of the burden to prove that you weren't trying to rape me. Depending on the circumstances, there's either a "shared burden" or I would bear the burden of proof on my own. If the defense is to be analyzed on its own, as it's not a "basic fact", but rather a "defense theory", it would not on its own face a "reasonable doubt" standard (generally a "preponderance of the evidence" or "clear and convincing evidence" - although the claim may shift the jury's views toward whether there's reasonable doubt toward the basic facts in other ways.

There are many different types of defense theories, too numerous to go into here. And in most crimes, claims of consent are treated as defense theories - they don't on their own need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (they contribute to doubt relating to the basic facts but are not themselves a specific fact for jury evaluation), and there's either a shared or shifted defense burden. If you say "Hey, I wasn't robbing her, she gave me the money because she wanted to help me out", the burden doesn't fall 100% on me to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt that I didn't - it's your theory, you have to bear part of the burden of proof for it. The case as a whole still needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, of course.

It would be nice - and in fact, would only be basic fairness - if rape cases faced the same standard. Unfortunately, in most jurisdictions, it does not work that way. Consent is not treated as a defense theory. Humans are not treated as in a perpetual state of consent for giving away money, for being taken strange places by strangers, or any of the other sorts of cases where "consent" defenses are common.... except that they generally are treated as being in a perpetual state of consent for sex. No matter how weird, twisted, sick the sexual practice, with whatever person they may be, even with a person not matching your sexuality, you're presumed by default to be in consent for it. And the burden falls 100% on the accuser in this one type of case to prove that consent was not given.

And this is wrong.

Comment Re:All bullshit (Score 2, Insightful) 206

Where I live, there's pretty much no sexual shame for a woman to have sex, which eliminates the concept of this argument. Yet rape rates are still very high.

And seriously, I simply cannot comprehend this logic. The (incredibly common) logic used by people like you is based on the following premises:

1) The concept that a woman had sex is shameful
2) The concept of going down to a police station, telling them that you were raped, having strangers probe you, having the media cover your sex life, getting countless threats and personal attacks and people calling you a liar and a slut, etc, all for what everyone knows is a pitifully tiny chance of getting a conviction (wherein even more calls of "liar" and "slut" will be fielded), is totally easy and totally not shameful.

I mean, WTF people?

Comment Re:All bullshit (Score -1, Troll) 206

Of course he believes him. Someone alleged rape, and thus she's automatically a liar simply regretting consensual sex, QED. Likewise, in his world, consensual sex is a horrible shameful mark that can only be erased by the totally-no-shame, totally-not-getting-your-name-dragged-through-the-mud, just-another-tuesday process of pressing charges for rape.

Step right up, see the rape culture!

The answer is, they were unable to prove that the sex was not consensual. That's not quite the same as saying that the sex was consensual.

In MRA-land, they're identical.

Do I believe him? I have no reason to believe, nor to disbelieve. I have no way to know either way.

Indeed.

Comment Re:It's not about the crime (Score 2) 206

Let's say it all together: Acquittal doesn't mean that the accuser lied. Just like in the vast majority of cases, rape is incredibly hard to prove. If they felt there was evidence that she lied, rather than insufficient evidence to prove "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt", then they would be trying her for making false charges - which, computer used or not, is usually a felony.

Regardless, I won't consider justice "blind" until "she consented to the sex" is treated by the same legal standard as a robbery defendant's claim "he consented to give me the money" - as an affirmative defense / defense theory.

Comment Re:Garbage what? (Score 2) 71

Without really knowing the answers

Without knowing the answers one conducts research to find out the details to know the answers. There already have been some studies about how plastic trash accumulates metals, although not of the ocean's more valuable metals. In the above-linked articles, some very rough calculations are run for different potential recovery rates of different metals and what their market value would be. There's lots of caveats, though.

Comment Re:Comparison? (Score 4, Interesting) 243

It's interesting nonetheless seeing what studies come up as bunk and which get confirmed. For example, I opened up their data file and started pulling up random entries about gender differences for fun:

"Sex differences in mate preferences revisited: Do people know what they initially desire in a romantic partner?" - The original study claimed that while men often self-report having their selection criteria for a partner being a lot more hinged around appearance than women do, that in practice this isn't the case, and more to the point, people's self-reporting for what they want most in a partner has little bearing on what they actually find most important in partner selection in practice.

The re-analysis confirmed this study.

"Perceptual mechanisms that characterize gender differences in decoding women's sexual intent" - This was a followup study to an earlier study that claimed that women often perceive men's sexual interest as friendliness while men often perceive women's friendliness as sexual interest. This study found, by contrast, that while men often misperceive friendliness as sexual interest, they also often misperceive sexual interest as friendliness - that they're just worse in general than reading sexual interest than women.

The re-analaysis was thus in a way responding to both the original and the followup. And found neither to be true. They found no difference between men and women in ability to read sexual interest vs. friendliness.

"Loving those who justify inequality: the effects of system threat on attraction to women who embody benevolent sexist ideals." - this study was to test - and reported confirmation - of the hypothesis that men who don't trust the government will also tend to find attractive women who embody "benevolent sexist" stereotypes - that is, that women are vulnerable, need to be saved, belong in the house, are there to complete men, etc, vs. women who have interest in careers or activities outside of the family, expect to be seen as equals, etc.

The reanalysis showed no correlation at all.

"The Best Men Are (Not Always) Already Taken: Female Preference for Single Versus Attached Males Depends on Conception Risk" - this study claimed that women in relationships find single men more attractive when they're ovulating and partnered men when they're not, but that single women show no preference. They argued that this result is expected given selective factors.

The reanalysis showed no correlation at all in any of the above cases.

Comment Re:Architect != sysadmin (Score 4, Interesting) 190

Agreed. The architect should not be touching the operational system except for acquiring profiling data and layout information, which they should be able to work with the system administrator to get. They should not have "full access" like the person wants. The architect should be working in a testbed with simulated data or a copy of the live data, depending on the task at hand. Just the same as how an actual architect doesn't go onside and start welding things, they work in simulated models.

Comment Re:Garbage what? (Score 4, Interesting) 71

Ironically, there's the possibility that removing the trash could pay for itself and then some. Plastics floating in the ocean tend to slowly intercalate metals - the types and quantities depending on the plastic and the rate depending on the surface area to volume ratio (very high for most pacific garbage patch trash). Plastic trash that's been floating around for a long time tends to become quite contaminated by these metals (as well as some types of persistent biological toxins), making it much more toxic to sea life than new plastic. But these same metal "contamination" problems could make the waste a potential resource back on land. Intercalated metals can be stripped out by a soak in a strong acid bath. And the ratios of metals found in the oceans are very different than those found on land, with some, such as uranium and lithium, being orders of magnitude more common than they are on land.

Comment Re:Fixed it for you. (Score 2, Funny) 440

When a woman gets married and has children, her whole life changes. Her husband is no longer the focus of her life, her children are. She loses interest in sex, and doesn't see why she should have to do it any more. If she wants another child, sure, but otherwise not. To her, it's just one more person who wants something from her at the end of a long day at work, and this one she can actually say "no" to. So, she does.

Meanwhile, the husband, cut completely off from one source of sex he is allowed to have, grows increasingly desperate and unhappy.

Okay, sorry for the tangent, but: how on Earth are people from the year 1958 managing to make posts on Slashdot that show up today? How are they even getting a bloody net connection back then?

Comment Re:So... (Score 1) 179

Child molesters: If someone calls in a report of a known child molester or a person acting suspiciously, you need police out there to investigate, not a drone zapping people from the air. If someone is running away with a kidnapped child, my "car chase, fast response" example above applies. Now, if you're talking about trying to keep drones in the sky 24-7 tracking the movements of all known child molesters, that's something that should be mandated by a court, not police officers just going off and doing. That's as intrusive as a court-ordered ankle tracking bracelet, and should be treated with no less seriousness.

Drunk drivers attacking police officers: I can't even envision how your mind is factoring drones into this situation. Are you proposing that drones make traffic stops instead of police officers?

Or maybe I'm misreading your post. Was that sarcasm? I can't even tell anymore.

Comment So... (Score 4, Interesting) 179

... So we're talking about poorly regulated government officials using flying robots to spy on and electro-paralyze people from the air.

How exactly is this not a dystopian sci-fi novel come to life?

Don't get me wrong, I think civil use of drones can be a great thing. Even police use of drones - tracking vehicles during a car chase, fast response to a breakin or robbery, etc. But this is just ridiculous.

Is your job running? You'd better go catch it!

Working...