Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Simply (Score 1) 551

by SuiteSisterMary (#47786989) Attached to: Why Women Have No Time For Wikipedia

Absolutely. There are all sorts of reasons why a person lands in jail. Some are in their control, some aren't.

But, to tie this back to the original poster and to the various responses, is it entirely beyond the pale to even entertain the notion that, possibly, due to some combination of nature and nurture, of social upbringing, evolutionary selection, and everything else, that maybe, just maybe, women and men are different?

And that, for some things, those differences may prove to be helpful or harmful? Isn't it better to have the discussion, to figure out what the differences are, and in some cases, make allowances or adjustments for them?

Premise: Women in western society, for a variety of factors both social and biological, tend to be more collaborative than adversarial. Assertion: Wikipedia editing is an adversarial process, in the same way the US legal system is adversarial: people argue their positions with the intent that the best argument wins. Implication of assertion: many women, who prefer collaboration to adversarial systems, will avoid Wikipedia.

To me, that is in no way sexist, demeaning, or anything else negative. But many people, whom I would term 'overly PC,' would attack me for even putting that little paragraph together.

Comment: Re:Science is a religion to some (Score 1) 208

by SuiteSisterMary (#47786947) Attached to: Canada Tops List of Most Science-Literate Countries

Faith is defined as 'belief without evidence.' In other words, and *at best*, one makes a knowledge claim without any supporting fact or evidence whatsoever.

The problem is, 'belief without evidence' rapidly tends to turn into 'belief *despite* evidence.' In other words, the same knowledge claim is often made *despite* clear and contradictory evidence. That's a hell of a way to run a railroad.

Comment: Re:You don't need to archive video. (Score 2) 322

by SuiteSisterMary (#47783765) Attached to: Should police have cameras recording their work at all times?

You really seem to have an unrealistic expectation of how departments and the boards that oversee them will be allowed to use cameras. You also seem to have an unrealistic expectation that a prosecutor, judge, and jury will not press charges or convict someone simply because an officer did not have a camera present.

I think there needs to be a sea change in how the system works, yes. I doubt there will be.

The current LEO system is based on Victorian ideals about how some people are inherently noble and honest, and some aren't. This isn't true. Either a) hiring and training standards need to change, or b) technology needs to be used to smooth out the rough edges.

Comment: Re:You don't need to archive video. (Score 2) 322

by SuiteSisterMary (#47778469) Attached to: Should police have cameras recording their work at all times?
I disagree, but we'll go with that. The camera now has an off switch. Any time the camera is not recording, the officer is off-duty, and does not have LEO authority and privileges. Note that this would be retroactive; you arrest a perp, it's all righteous, you get back to the station, and oh shit, your camera failed? Perp walks. On the spot. In court, the cop does not 'testify,' he comments on the video. No video? The cop doesn't get to talk. Period.

Comment: Re:Now ICP can finally achieve their teaching drea (Score 1) 520

by SuiteSisterMary (#47773589) Attached to: Limiting the Teaching of the Scientific Process In Ohio

Science is not something that is "correct" or "incorrect"; it's a meaningful way of observing the world, reducing human bias of those observations, and making meaningful predictions.

To take this a step farther: "Science" is an epistemology. It's a way of coming to knowledge. Science will NEVER BE 'correct.' One of the basic tenants of a scientific hypothesis is that it needs to be falsifiable. Science just strives and strives to be *more* correct than it was. As opposed to faith, aka 'belief despite evidence,' aka 'pretending to know things you don't know, then making plans and decisions based on that.'

Comment: Re:You don't need to archive video. (Score 3, Insightful) 322

by SuiteSisterMary (#47773079) Attached to: Should police have cameras recording their work at all times?

a) You do need to archive it, and b) it cannot be something that happens if the cop wants it to.

Small device, 720p, two 64 GB cards (in case one breaks, happens to hit it's limit, etc etc.) They go in a rack at the precinct. Start of shift, you draw your camera, clip it on. The moment it leaves it's charging/upload rack, it starts recording. It continues to until it hit's it's rack again at night, whence it starts charging and uploading.

Camera 'breaks?' Radio in, and RTB for a new one. No working camera? Too bad, it's part of your uniform. You are no longer an on-duty cop.

Cop testifies about something where there SHOULD be video, but for some reason, isn't? His testimony is now considered unreliable.

Guess what? You, Mr. Police Man, get extraordinary powers when dealing with civilians. You have powers and authority above and beyond. Therefore, you should be scrutinized.

And yes, this is for your own protection, too. This eliminates any possibility of 'If you don't let me go, I'm going to scream that you grabbed my tits.' This reduces greatly IA's involvement in your life. "He was coming at me with a knife, and ignored my verbal warnings. Right about...here, on the video."

Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. -- Albert Einstein

Working...