Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



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 1) 159

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) 159

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 0, Troll) 159

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 1) 159

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:From TFA: bit-exact or not? (Score 1) 114

There used to be a web page called "Your Eyes Suck at Blue". You might find it on the Wayback machine.

You can tell the luminance of each individual channel more precisely than you can perceive differences in mixed color. This is due to the difference between rod and cone cells. Your perception of the color gamut is, sorry, imprecise. I'm sure that you really can't discriminate 256 bits of blue in the presence of other, varying, colors.

Comment Re:From TFA: bit-exact or not? (Score 5, Insightful) 114

Rather than abuse every commenter who has not joined your specialty on Slashdot, please take the source and write about what you find.

Given that CPU and memory get less expensive over time, it is no surprise that algorithms work practically today that would not have when various standards groups started meeting. Ultimately, someone like you can state what the trade-offs are in clear English, and indeed whether they work at all, which is more productive than trading naah-naahs.

Comment Re:Cancel or Allow? (Score 1) 219

How many people use their microphone that often? If they don't care about their own privacy over the inconvience of clicking a button then they probably deserve the privacy intrusion they're going to get.

How many people use their microphone that often?

I can think of users of Siri, users of OK Google, users of Cortana, users of voice-to-SMS, frequent users of VoIP, and people who use dictation because they have trouble using a standard keyboard. Someone who scans barcodes of products or scans personal checks from friends and family and payroll checks from employers too small for direct deposit might use the camera often.

I suggest a different privilege model for access to privacy-sensitive sensors:

  • Background access (while this origin or this app is open)
  • Foreground access (while this origin or this app is open and focused)
  • Temporary background access (revoked once all documents from this origin are unloaded, other than in navigation to another same-origin document, or all windows from this app are closed)
  • Temporary foreground access (default)
  • No access (do not ask user again)

Comment Re:What other ways? (Score 1) 219

Which side of the equation do the content creators care about the most? Would they rather provide the readers with value and treat them with respect, or suck up to those with the money?

If the choice is between trying to respect visiting readers while showing tasteful ads and trying to respect visiting readers while showing no ads, it depends on how much the authors want to keep a roof over their heads. The alternative (a paywall to cover authors' salaries and server costs) disrespects readers who are visiting, as paywalls lead to bounces, and bounces waste not only the reader's time but also server resources.

Comment I have root. (Score 1) 187

For those of you in the community who have similar positions, what is your experience? Do you have unfettered access to the environment?

Yes. I have root or root equivalent on all company-owned equipment. In the instances where vendors did not grant root access to systems they sold us, I cracked them and gave myself access, with the full knowledge and prior permission of the company's CIO. You cannot audit or analyze a system without full access.

Are purely architectural / advisory roles the norm at this level?

In an organization like yours, where the performance of the chief architect has been visibly unsatisfactory, it is probably normal. In my organization I am trusted not to abuse my privileges, and trusted never to change anything without informing all relevant parties, so nobody minds that I have the ability to monitor and analyze everything that's going on everywhere in the infrastructure.

You have to build trust. I recommend that you never, ever change anything without discussing it with responsible parties first (you don't have to follow their advice, but you have listen, and then you tell them what they are required to do, and don't just do it for them) unless it's a critical emergency, and if you make emergency changes you have to make damn sure that every interested party is informed afterwards of why and when and what you did.

You're asking for them to place absolute trust in you. They won't do it unless they think you deserve it - not as a technical expert, but as a person.

"Pok pok pok, P'kok!" -- Superchicken

Working...