 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
> That's easily demonstrable by taking any court case where more than one
> eyewitness produces a differing set of events. Who do you believe if
> they both can't be right?
That makes it easy. The problems start when two eyewitnesses give the
same testimony... which happens to be wrong.
> > For some reason most people also keep anecdotal evidence in high
> > regard,
> > up to it being more credible than actual physical tests.
> I would disagree with that based on what I wrote above. :-)
I said "most people", not "courts of law".
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> That doesn't sound like eyewitness testimony. That sound like a policeman
> testifying what he did.
Yes. It's still "eyewitness" rather than "physical tests." It's a
description of the physical tests the cop performed, is what I was trying to
say.
> Eyewitness testimony is more like: "Is the man you saw exiting the building
> in this court room? Could you point him out?" "Yes, he is the defendant."
Yes. Of course, you have to evaluate the credibility of the witness. If
one person says "I saw George leaving the building" and another says "George
was with me in a different city all day", how do you resolve that
scientifically? That's what expert witnesses are for. "Yes, this person
*did* die because of a blow to the head, and not drowning, even though we
found the victim floating in the lake." Is that a fact or an opinion?
When something only happens once, anecdote is all you have.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Yes, we're traveling together,
but to different destinations.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> "passed" legislation recently for state health care that is virtually
> identical to the federal one, but are not sueing the fed over passing
> the same thing.
Nothing wrong with that.
No more than saying a cop is allowed to handcuff me but my neighbor is not.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Yes, we're traveling together,
but to different destinations.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:17:43 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> That's easily demonstrable by taking any court case where more than one
>> eyewitness produces a differing set of events. Who do you believe if
>> they both can't be right?
>
> That makes it easy. The problems start when two eyewitnesses give the
> same testimony... which happens to be wrong.
Then it's the lawyer's job to prove that the eyewitnesses are wrong. And
that does happen quite often.
Real court in the US isn't like you see on TV. I enjoy watching Law &
Order, for example, but I have actually sat on a jury as well - and it's
nowhere near as exciting as the TV shows make it out to be.
The drug trial that I sat on the jury for, for example, the lead of the
SWAT team that broke down the door told us what he saw upon entering the
house and what happened. He was a professional witness, though, and as a
trained observer, his version of what happened would naturally be given
more weight unless his credibility was impeached (and it wasn't, though
the newbie defense lawyer tried to). The defendant didn't take the stand
(because it turned out he was actually guilty - even the defense lawyer
knew it - and if he'd been put on the stand, the prosecution would've
shredded him).
>> > For some reason most people also keep anecdotal evidence in high
>> > regard,
>> > up to it being more credible than actual physical tests.
>
>> I would disagree with that based on what I wrote above. :-)
>
> I said "most people", not "courts of law".
That's a fair point, and I had assumed you meant "in court" because
that's most often what I think of when I hear about "eyewitness
reports" (I don't spend a lot of time watching the news myself, so that
may be what more people think about than just "court").
And I would agree that "most people" do tend to give an unreasonable
amount of weight to anecdotal evidence - I deal with that on a daily
basis. One person writing an e-mail complaining about a course can have
more effect than statistical data that shows that the course is actually
quite good.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 13:08:49 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Course.. One of the other 14 is doing one better than that. They
> "passed" legislation recently for state health care that is virtually
> identical to the federal one, but are not sueing the fed over passing
> the same thing. Lot of serious stupid right now from the right. One only
> hopes that the effect will be less violent, but otherwise similar, to
> certain French nobility's babble about starving people and eating cake.
That's crazy. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30/03/2010 9:01 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> What Patrick said - Utah is one of 14 states that's suing the federal
> government for passing the healthcare legislation.
>
> This is the same state government that recently passed a law that
> essentially means that an expecting mother who is involved in an accident
> that causes the death of her unborn child can be held criminally
> responsible for the death of that unborn child. (This came about because
> of a case where an expectant mother essentially caused a miscarriage
> intentionally by causing an accident.)
>
Bloody Ada!
> It may be getting on towards time to get the hell out of this state.
>
Go for it!
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 13:50:46 -0400, Warp wrote:
> I found a related video amusing: "Why Homeopathy Works and Makes
> Sense":
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xedLd9djgyg
>
> Not surprisingly, it did not explain why homeopathy works or did it
> make
> any sense...
My $DEITY, I think I lost IQ points listening to this. Somehow
"nanodoses" are the same as "ultra-low frequency waves"....WHAT?
> I also like this one:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFxniaxj_Dk
>
> He says that:
One of the funnier things I've seen recently. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 07:46:30 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 30/03/2010 9:01 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> What Patrick said - Utah is one of 14 states that's suing the federal
>> government for passing the healthcare legislation.
>>
>> This is the same state government that recently passed a law that
>> essentially means that an expecting mother who is involved in an
>> accident that causes the death of her unborn child can be held
>> criminally responsible for the death of that unborn child. (This came
>> about because of a case where an expectant mother essentially caused a
>> miscarriage intentionally by causing an accident.)
>>
>>
> Bloody Ada!
Yeah, I know - both on the accusation (and if true, that should carry a
stiff penalty IMHO) and on the extrapolation.
>> It may be getting on towards time to get the hell out of this state.
>>
> Go for it!
Probably another year before we can - Ken's still finishing up school,
with luck will graduate in the spring (depends on his credit load).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/30/2010 3:01 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> "passed" legislation recently for state health care that is virtually
>> identical to the federal one, but are not sueing the fed over passing
>> the same thing.
>
> Nothing wrong with that.
>
> No more than saying a cop is allowed to handcuff me but my neighbor is not.
>
Uh.. No, this is more like, "The cop in my town can do it, but I don't
want them damn Highway Patrol people laying a hand on me." The point is,
the man protesting the government reform is the same one who instituted
the near identical thing in his own state. And he isn't the only one.
Can't remember which one, but they recently *elected* a Tea Party moron,
who promised to go after the current bill, while his own state has one
which is universal, which this one isn't even close to being.
But, that isn't some of the craziest out there. There is actually one
state which just passed a law that a) attempts to deny the federal
government from interfering with investigations of hate crimes in their
state, and b) excludes a specific set of definitions for that, in their
own law, so that they can continue to discriminate. The absolutely
hilarious thing is, they intended to erase the part of the law that
covered gay people, so that churches could "continue to tell the truth
about the gay agenda...". Ooooh! Only one problem. The morons wrote the
law wrong, and instead of repealing the new law that covered gay
bashing, they repealed the portion of their state law covering,
"Discrimination on the basis of race, color, or religion." Apparently..
they are real damn good at hating them gays, but not so good at keeping
track of ***numbers***, which are used to refer to the subclauses that
cover a specific definition of the crimes.
In other words, its **still** illegal to bash gays, but no longer
illegal there to bash and/or discriminate against Jews, Christians,
women, men, blacks, hispanics, indians, or ***anything else***. But, you
can't do it against gay people, since that part of the law is still in
effect. lol
We are dealing with serious morons here.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> The point is,
> the man protesting the government reform is the same one who instituted
> the near identical thing in his own state.
You *do* understand that we have a federal constitution, right? Are you
aware of why you pay local property taxes but not federal property taxes?
But sure, I guess if you lump everyone in as "the government" it might make
sense to complain. That's just not how it works here.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Yes, we're traveling together,
but to different destinations.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
