Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Natural selection (Score 1) 618

by s2v16 (#44987305) Attached to: First Cases of Flesh-Eating Drug Emerge In the United States
+6 to you, sir.

I was at a loss when I saw the OP's comment at +5 Funny, because I couldn't understand why the ridicule was valid. Having now read the rest of your discussion with him and his replies to other posts, I'm convinced it was not, even though a couple of moderators went along with it.

Sadder still, I also read the original comment on the article and the discussion that follows it, and for the most part it seems that posters there were actually less prone to immediately criticizing that poster - at least a first, most tried to better understand what he was saying.

Comment: Re:Current evidence does not support reasonable do (Score 1) 666

by s2v16 (#44086119) Attached to: Security Researcher Attacked While At Conference
Wow, slashdot let me know you had replied to my post, and I thought your first point about Hans Reiser was a rather fair one, but as far everything else goes, it seems you really can't respond to a clear argument. Read back on your posts and notice how in every one of them you completely take her account for granted. You said "No account I have heard gives us any reason to think otherwise. Not even his account.", but notice he actually chose not give his account of events (except, as he stated, to friends, family and whatnot). Notice, also, how I said there was absolutely no evidence to support the idea that she even told him to back off at all, other than what she said. And now you're saying no one ever goes up to their hotel room to have a one-night stand with a stranger? (and more to your point, notice she had actually met him on previous occasions, as per her story). Just sad.

Comment: Re:Current evidence does not support reasonable do (Score 1) 666

by s2v16 (#44085993) Attached to: Security Researcher Attacked While At Conference

Back the fuck up a second.

So, he starts getting handsy, she starts refuting him. He then does or says that she dislikes (moves his hands down her pants, says something offensive in her ear), and then, pay attention, she physically assaults him. Maybe she bites him, maybe she punches him, knees him on groin, whatever. And then he loses his temper, and hits her. Maybe the violence continues in some way, maybe not, he eventually leaves. So he hit a woman, and that's assault, sure. But rape? No.

Did you actually read what you wrote?

I'm not actually sure what you're criticizing here. I'll assume it's the fact that I said that my scenario wouldn't constitute rape.

So let's review what I said: "Rape has to do with the state of mind of the violated party, at the time the events were happening, but it also has to do with the actions and perceptions of the perpetrator. Like I said, we don't know what happened or what was said, and that's the crux of the matter.". That was actually slightly wrong, since it really should say "actions of the perpetrator and what he should reasonably have been expected perceive". I also said: "If you've had drinks with a guy and invited him up to your hotel room at the end of the night, I'm afraid it [the 'no means no' line] doesn't get blurry in your favor."

So with that I'm mind, what I was trying to show was that the person I was replying to was wrong: the current evidence does support reasonable doubt. We don't know that she said anything at all for him to stop. We don't know that, if she did say something, he should have reasonably be expected to perceive that as a sign to stop, because we don't know what, how or in what context it was said. Basically, I was providing an alternate explanation as to how two people, one with a bigger build and significantly more strength than the other, might enter a room and come back out with bruises without it being (attempted) rape.

she physically assaults him. Maybe she bites him, maybe she punches him, knees him on groin, whatever.

At that point it would be assault and/or battery depending on local laws.

I didn't want to get into the details of it in an already-too-long post, but like you said, depending on local laws. In my scenario, I didn't exclude the possibility of her actually believing she was going to be raped. Now, the actual answer as to whether she hitting him first would constitute assault and/or battery might depend a little on how much leeway is given in the law or by the courts to self-defense. Let's work a modified version of my scenario: They're getting along, kissing and whatnot, she's a little too drunk, and maybe she was fine with everything up to this point, or maybe she thought that what she was saying was enough to dissuade him from moving towards sex (even though, it shouldn't reasonably have been expected for him to see it this way), but at this one particular moment she realizes he took of both his and her pants, and he's going to lie back down on top of her. A switch in her head, because she really wasn't ready to have sex with him, and she, legitimately afraid for herself, hits him.

Like I said, it depends a little on how much or little leeway is given for self-defense in a particular place, but even in this scenario, it could be (and I'll venture that in most places with high proctetion of "human rights", it will be) construed as self-defense under the law. The "how much leeway" part is important here.

So he hit a woman, and that's assault, sure.

Why is it, in your example, that it is only assault when he hits her? Hitting her back could be an act of self-defense on his part, especially if her initial assault involved the coffee cup mentioned in her account.

So with the first part explained, the second part is easier. For an action to constitute self-defense, there must be a reasonable (more or less, hence the "leeway") fear of violence by the (would be) assailant. Like other posters have pointed out (and I agree), she wouldn't ordinarily present much of a threat to him, physically speaking. So if she only hit with the coffee mug or punched him or bit him or kneed him once, in order to get him to back off (proposed scenario), and there wasn't, or shouldn't have been, on his part, an expectation of continued violence, then he shouldn't have hit her back, exactly because she doesn't pose a threat to him, and because self-defense only allows you to take minimally sufficient (crucial words) action to prevent further harm to yourself - that's to say that, although it might seem unfair to you, he couldn't have punched her just because she hit him. There might be some space for discussion depending on the events that took place: like if she if she still had the coffee mug on her hand, he could have grabbed and twisted her arm (even injuring her) to get her to drop it, or if she bit him, he could have shoved her in order to get her away from him.

As an aside, according to her story, the first mention of violence on her part is this:

He was holding my arms down of course, so I leaned up and bit him on the arm as hard as I could, at which point he started swearing and punched me in the face.

Comment: Re:Current evidence does not support reasonable do (Score 2) 666

by s2v16 (#44082137) Attached to: Security Researcher Attacked While At Conference
You know, having read (skimmed over, rather) both hers and his posts, and thus knowing as little as you do about the whole thing, I feel I can honestly provide a reasonable alternative account:

They both go up to her room. They talk for a while, they start making out on the bed. He starts getting handsy, she starts refuting him.

Now, I'll make a brief consideration here. We don't know what was actually said in the room, if anything. Her blog says:

Perhaps I was not making myself clear, “No!” “Stop!” “I don’t want to do this!”

But since we're being constrained by the evidence here, let's just be fair and admit that we just don't know.

So, he starts getting handsy, she starts refuting him. He then does or says that she dislikes (moves his hands down her pants, says something offensive in her ear), and then, pay attention, she physically assaults him. Maybe she bites him, maybe she punches him, knees him on groin, whatever. And then he loses his temper, and hits her. Maybe the violence continues in some way, maybe not, he eventually leaves.

So he hit a woman, and that's assault, sure. But rape? No.

But there's yet another distinction to be drawn. Maybe she really does believe she was going to be raped. I'm not ruling that out. And maybe you'll say "Well, if she was refuting him, it must have been rape". But let me make another consideration: Rape has to do with the state of mind of the violated party, at the time the events were happening, but it also has to do with the actions and perceptions of the perpetrator. Like I said, we don't know what happened or what was said, and that's the crux of the matter. I find it perfectly possible that she may have said or done something that he didn't think was really supposed to make him stop, and in a perfectly understandable way. This is where the "no means no" thing comes into play, and where rape gets into the grey zone: If a man walks up to a complete stranger and tries to have sex with her, the most reasonable assumption is that any form of "no" means "no". If you're talking about a boyfriend and girlfriend having sex, I'll find it completely understandable if she's saying "stop" but really means "keep going". In a lot of scenarios in between, the line gets blurry. If you've had drinks with a guy and invited him up to your hotel room at the end of the night, I'm afraid it doesn't get blurry in your favor. Or yet, maybe she didn't say or do anything at all to make him stop, until she had an unreasonable reaction of assaulting him. Again, there's no evidence of what happened in the room.

By the way, what is this "engineered a situation" that you speak of? He engineered getting invited back into her room? He engineered the conference being a place that was familiar to neither of them? And, by god, how does one engineer the absence of evidence? To me, that can only mean that it would be reasonable to expect to find certain pieces of evidence which were, against such reasonable expectation, not there - and I can't think of anything in this story that fits that.

Other thoughts I have about her story in general:

- Her post is rather "verbose", as someone else here described it, yet there are only three paragraphs dedicated to what would have actually constituted the attack.

- I agree with another poster who said that, on the photo posted elsewhere here, he's missing the cut on his temple he is supposed to have from her account.

- Who the heck tries to rape someone, fails, and then thinks "Well I may as well leave with her passport, iPad, a cellphone, and whatever?" And is even dumb enough to keep that shit in his own room later. And is dumber yet to personally return that stuff later.

Comment: Re:Hey, just market bugs as (Score 0) 705

by s2v16 (#40891057) Attached to: Meat the Food of the Future
I've seen over five posts with +5s on them that all run in this vein of "humans can't do without meat!", and I'm truly wondering whether the mods just went their whole lives without hearing about strict vegetarians, or whether they've heard of them but think they're all full of shit.

And no, we don't need a highly complicated diet either, like some other poster said, rice and beans and the occasional vegetable will do you just fine...

Comment: Re:Savages (Score 1) 533

by s2v16 (#38753194) Attached to: Teens Share Passwords As a Form of Intimacy
Stuff that gets modded insightful in Slashdot... What an argument full of holes"

"Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men." Ayn Rand

Ah yes because every man is an island unto himself, no?

Here you seem to be referring to the "no man is island phrase", that's fine.

A tribe does not need privacy because everybody in the tribe depends on each other for survival, you can't depend on those you don't trust, you can't trust those you do not know,

What a load of bullshit. If you get violently ill, how well will you have to know the doctor in the emergency room before you allow him to treat you? How well do you know the people in the utilities companies that provide you your water and electricity? Or all the people who are needed to get your food to the supermarket? Or do you not depend on any of these people?

you cannot know those who are private.

True, but you don't need to know them to depend on them for survival.

Civilization only requires privacy because there are far too many people to know meaning you can only trust and depend on very few people.

Again, you must have some weird definition of the phrase "depend on".

What is more fundamentally human? We evolved to live and survive in tribes not cities, how many feel at place and purposeful in society as compared to those who live in tribes? Do you really feel that Rand was a happy fulfilled person?

We can decry the actions of these teens as stupid, naive and foolish and we would probably be correct, but consider that the things a teenager most desires above all else is autonomy, purpose, and belonging. Sharing is a primal instinct that we instinctually do and emotionally require to feel close and secure to others. Civilization is a cold bitch, and it is hard to feel like an accepted member, much easier with a clique of friends that you wish to share everything with.

I get that your whole argument is that we have an urge to give up some measures of privacy in order to go back to some tribal ways, but the rest of the argument is entirely flawed.

Comment: Re:It isn't profiling, honest (Score 1) 438

by s2v16 (#37643492) Attached to: DHS Goes Ahead With 'Pre-Crime' Detection Project
First, thanks for the answer. Second, I don't know how interested you would be in a reply, but I'll reply anyways.

There's always that one person in any conversation who just can't take a joke. Tag, you're it. Here, I'll lay it out for you plainly, and I promise to use small words;

Are you saying there's no factual evidence to support this? You disagree with his observation?

Yes and yes. People display a wide variety of behaviors for a wide variety of reasons. Even worse, the emotions expressed are often inconsistent even when circumstances are identical or nearly so because a person's emotional state, receptivity, and responsiveness, depend not just on what's going on now, but on past experience, which isn't available for observation.

"People who are nervous often are hiding something."

The OP said "often", not always. And even then, he doesn't imply that they're hiding anything significant, much less criminal. What you seem to be proposing instead is that the range of emotions expressed for any given reason is so wide and random, that the the former cannot be significantly linked to the latter, or vice-versa. Maybe you have some special knowledge that supports your idea, but the OP's idea seems to speak more to common knowledge, especially since it is culturally normal to assume that people are sad because something bad happened, or happy because something good happened, etc.

I have no idea what this means. Every police officer doesn't profile? Or you can't say either way? Or they shouldn't profile?

Officers who observe others change the behavior of those they are observing.

I agree, if the observed people are aware they're being watched, it would definitely be something to be taken into account.

Worse, they come with their own biases based on frequent exposure to extreme behaviors. Those biases in turn create behavioral interactions with those they are observing, which intensify the first order effect.

I agree also. I'm not sure how you're proposing it would affect an automated system that can't significantly interact with anyone, unless you are talking about the people who program them or the people who later operate them. I am not denying the possibility of a self-confirming bias emerging in the statistics.

So... you agree with his premise? Isn't that how a premise works?

I'm saying the statement has no relevance. It's like saying;

1. It is raining. 2. It never rains on the moon. 3. Rain needs clouds. conclusion: It must be cloudy.

#2 is completely irrelevant, even though it is on the same topic.

"There are lots of people out there, and since you can't really be expected to casually see the criminals in the act..."

I don't see how this is irrelevant to the discussion. He's justifying the need for the system based on factual limitations of the supply of resources available towards "solving" the issue. He is taking a constraint into account.

Where is his backward logic?

He's implying profiling is required to identify people likely to commit crimes. That isn't correct; You can identify people without profiling, for example, by using their past criminal history.

"you need to profile them in order to pick out people who are likely to commit crimes."

This answer left me even more confused. If by "You can identify people without profiling" you mean "You can identify people likely to commit crimes without profiling", then your statement can only be true if you restrict the definition of profiling to the type proposed in the article, since what you proposed is still a type of profiling - and then you would also be saying that the type you proposed is more likely to be correct, and then, self-confirming bias again. If you meant something else, then your definitions are strange to me.
Also, your use of the word required needs clarification. The point the OP was making was that if there is not an "infinite" amount of resources (infinite cops) to casually come across every crime, then there is a "logistical need" to intelligently address the available resources.

You can't look for people who are about to commit a major crime? Or if you look for them, they won't commit crimes? Or if they commit it, you won't catch them?

Non sequitur. Your questions don't even come close to matching up with the statement I made. My point was that looking for crimes that people are 'about' to commit isn't the problem -- it's the fact that increased surveillance of any sufficiently sized group will result in discovering more criminal activity compared to a control group. The group being placed under surveillance is largely arbitrary; the criterion suggested can just as easily ensnare the average person as a 'terrorist', 'person of interest', or whatever the latest phrase is for a political undesirable. This system will simply provide prosecutors with more 'evidence' of a person's 'guilt', when on closer examination, it's a complete deck of cards. It has zero evidentiary value -- a prosecutor can't show up and say "Well your honor, here's the camera footage of the defendant doing the crime, and... here's our form 193-B stating there was a .13% chance of him doing it this week... which being that it was 4 times higher than his neighbors PROVES he's guilty!"

The method of identifying these factors is flawed. But even if it wasn't, subjecting some people to a 'test' that results in an increased risk to their personal liberty without any due process is a circumvention of the entire point of the judiciary: Which is to be a fair and impartial system. And even if THAT wasn't the case, supposing that this system was supported by incontrovertible scientific accuracy, and that this surveillance was subjected to due process, and said surveillance didn't violate reasonable expectations of privacy, etc., etc., it would still be wrong -- because the justification for the warrant is based on statistical probability, also known as circumstantial evidence. But skipping all that, it comes down to this;

The only way we can have a fair system is when we punish people for the things they've done, not the things they could do. And increased surveillance is a form of punishment -- it's subjecting someone to scrutiny, depriving them of privacy, and even if nothing comes of it to them personally, the risk has an associated cost which would be the time spent behind bars and the fines divided by the percent chance that anyone who is subjected to this increased surveillance will be prosecuted and convicted.

So while I still don't know, I will guess that your answer of "Warning: This statement will never evaluate." is a way of saying "It's not about that". Which is actually just dismissing many of the interesting points the OP made, in order to introduce another problem (which you have now explained at length). The other problem may well exist, but the points the OP made remain nonetheless. And if you go back and read his whole post, you'll see that he probably doesn't even disagree with you with most of it. Read his last line especially. He isn't proposing this system be used for evidence, only as a "tag-for-follow-up" system.

Comment: Re:It isn't profiling, honest (Score 1) 438

by s2v16 (#37641742) Attached to: DHS Goes Ahead With 'Pre-Crime' Detection Project
I don't know much about programming, so I'll ask:

People who are nervous often are hiding something.

Warning: Pointer to NULL reference.

Are you saying there's no factual evidence to support this? You disagree with his observation?

Every police officer will profile the people around them, and they should.

Error: select '*' from 'personnel' returned too many results. Warning: join of 'officer' and 'people' objects may cause undesired behavior.

I have no idea what this means. Every police officer doesn't profile? Or you can't say either way? Or they shouldn't profile?

That is how they reduce the signal-to-noise ratio.

Warning: Bad analogy in line 4.

Bad analogy, I agree.

There are lots of people out there, and since you can't really be expected to casually see the criminals in the act...

Compiler warning: Statement will always evaluate as true.

So... you agree with his premise? Isn't that how a premise works?

you need to profile them in order to pick out people who are likely to commit crimes.

Error in logic syntax: Affirmation of the consequent.

Where is his backward logic?

The TSA is actually an example of what happens when you don't: you end up strip searching 90 year old ladies taking away their walkers (profiling works in the other direction too.)

Error in logic syntax: Affirmation of the consequent.

The trick is to look for people who are about to commit a major crime, and catch them in the act

Warning: This statement will never evaluate. (off topic)

You can't look for people who are about to commit a major crime? Or if you look for them, they won't commit crimes? Or if they commit it, you won't catch them?

Additional errors were encounted, further processing of stupid_comment.c aborted.

Hope you can enlighten me.

Comment: Re:War is power. (Score 1) 472

by s2v16 (#37465094) Attached to: US Military Moving Closer To Automated Killing
That doesn't say anything at all. The threat of a gun is in either taking away everything you have (your life, your happiness), or in inflicting great pain; not in making you happy. The reason people might not comply if they feel certain you'll shoot is because there's no bargain either way. If they feel certain you'll make them happy no matter what they do, they may not comply either.

Sounds like the reality of power is different than what you imagine.

"Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence, it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines." -- Bertrand Russell

Working...