August182014

jenniferrpovey:

alexofeddis:

thescienceoffandom:

Here are some basics on herd immunity, and here is some more technical research if you’re interested in the details! 

If you’ve ever heard my rants about vaccination, you know it’s a major topic with me. Because hey, I’m one of these immunosuppressed people this comic talks about, so it’s a bit of a sensitive subject. (“Oh, I’m sorry, you don’t like getting vaccinated? I don’t like having three month long respiratory infections because you gave me the freaking flu, but I guess you don’t care about that”)

Essentially, Ellen and her wonderful character Katherine have just said it better than I ever could—and using Shaun of the Dead references, too!!! It’s all about herd immunity—getting vaccinated isn’t just about your own health, it’s about the health—and non-zombification—of the entire human race.

Awesome explanation.

(via beeeeker)

11PM

Ferguson from my TL

lucilleintheskywithdragqueens:

thewilsonblog:

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

(From what I understand, the police thought they heard a gunshot and started throwing tear gas into the crowd. Correct me if I’m wrong)

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

This is real. This is real. This is real.

(via gurl-datsabootyhole)

August102014
bookahplease:



So rude, those two. /rosa

bookahplease:

image

So rude, those two. /rosa

(Source: camp-camp-camp-it-up, via gurl-datsabootyhole)

oitnb 

2PM

distractedbyshinyobjects said: Okay, really though. Did I say you should lie? No. I said you should answer the questions truthfully and not be a dick about it. You don't have to give any more information than they ask for, people who do are looking for anything they could hit on to get themselves dismissed. And that is why our system doesn't work. Just say you are capable of treating the defendant and the witnesses impartially and then ask your specific questions about the proceedings and the evidence during deliberation.

distractedbyshinyobjects:

richardmhp:

"Did I say you should lie?"

Yes, effectively, you did. The reason smart people get kicked off of juries is because they’re smart. If they’re doing their best to *not* be the person that a smart lawyer is going to peremptorily challenge, then they’re trying to be someone other than the person that lawyer is going to drop.

I get called in to jury duty fairly regularly, and aside from *one* case, I get dropped ever time I wind up in the box. Is it because I’m an ass? Nope, it’s because either one side or the other winds up with a strategy that does not include a science-trained writer who honestly believes in impartiality and judging evidence ahead of emotionality on the jury.

NDT answered that question the way he did because that is literally the class he taught at Princeton. Answering another way (“Oh, I teach science”) is lying by omission, at the least. That his answers got him booted is why the system has issues, not that he answered them that way. 

You are saying that people should be less than truthful, less than honest, and less than themselves, in order to avoid getting booted during the voir dire. Because it will be better for the system if more smart people are less honest. 

There is no such thing as a lie of omission in legal proceedings. You answer the question you are asked with enough information to satisfy the authority asking you. And no, the name of his class at Princeton was NOT “The Evaluation of Evidence and the Relative Unreliability of Eyewitness Testimony 101.” That was him trying to get dismissed by characterizing his work in a way he knew would antagonize every legal professional in the room.

Furthermore, anyone who sees a judge or attorney misrepresenting facts has an obligation to correct that *during trial*, when it goes in the record and affects the outcome. Not during jury selection so they can have a moment of smug superiority and be home in time for tea.

There’s no such thing as “he’s a bit smug” as a justifiable cause of dismissal, either.

If the attorneys in question are booting you because you’re smug about the system, then they’re doing so with a preemptory challenge, and if they’re using one of the very few of those to focus on you because you’re smug, then they’ve already lost their case anyway, because holy hell that’s a dumb thing to focus on when someone’s life is potentially on the line. 

Again, we’re left with a system wherein you’re suggesting that advocates are selecting based on how nice you are to them, and your anger towards people not playing into that means that you think the attorneys are right in doing so. That we should swallow ourselves and be as pleasant as possible, even when it means making the system itself less honest, less forthright, and less intelligent, because otherwise a lawyer might get their feelings hurt and subvert their own ability to argue a case. 

Which is doubly specious, because the truth is NDT was going to get booted no matter how nicely he’d answered. He wasn’t booted for being smug(which, again, is not a justifiable cause for dismissal), he was booted for being a celebrity with a reputation for critical thinking, who made it clear that he’d be objective. And neither side wants objective jurors. No lawyer is ever taught that they should select jurors based on objectivity and who would best be able to notice the glaring flaws in their flawed argument, to the betterment of the system as a whole. They are taught (and, given the set-up of our system, rightly-so) to choose jurors based on who is most likely to vote their way, at the end of the case. Plain and simple. 

Scientists get booted with an astonishing regularity from juror pools, regardless of their smugness. Actors, on the other hand, get accepted with a statistically weight in their favor, similarly. This is not because scientists are smug and actors aren’t, this isn’t because scientists have large egos and actors don’t, and it isn’t because scientists are smart and actors aren’t. It is, plain and simply, because scientists will tend to look at the facts and figures, and actors will tend to empathize. 

Again, this isn’t anything to do with any moral judgements on character, this is just due to the inherent reasons they chose the jobs they identify with. And lawyers on both sides will always prefer someone who empathizes to someone who calculates, because it is much, much, much easier to make a compelling emotional argument than to make every fact line up. 

But being pissy towards people who are never going to be the sort of people that lawyers aren’t going to spend a preemptory challenge on, and blaming them for being “smug” about the fact, is ridiculous. 

10AM
10AM

Casual Reminder.

malumdiscordiae:

Diddle band doesn’t come to an end this Saturday for every corps. Keep that in mind.

The lovely folks in DCA/DCJ/DCEURO/DCUK would love and appreciate your continued enthusiasm and support.

#teameverybody
#growdrumcorps
#lovedrumcorps

(via ohheyitsq)

August82014

distractedbyshinyobjects said: Okay, really though. Did I say you should lie? No. I said you should answer the questions truthfully and not be a dick about it. You don't have to give any more information than they ask for, people who do are looking for anything they could hit on to get themselves dismissed. And that is why our system doesn't work. Just say you are capable of treating the defendant and the witnesses impartially and then ask your specific questions about the proceedings and the evidence during deliberation.

"Did I say you should lie?"

Yes, effectively, you did. The reason smart people get kicked off of juries is because they’re smart. If they’re doing their best to *not* be the person that a smart lawyer is going to peremptorily challenge, then they’re trying to be someone other than the person that lawyer is going to drop.

I get called in to jury duty fairly regularly, and aside from *one* case, I get dropped ever time I wind up in the box. Is it because I’m an ass? Nope, it’s because either one side or the other winds up with a strategy that does not include a science-trained writer who honestly believes in impartiality and judging evidence ahead of emotionality on the jury.

NDT answered that question the way he did because that is literally the class he taught at Princeton. Answering another way (“Oh, I teach science”) is lying by omission, at the least. That his answers got him booted is why the system has issues, not that he answered them that way. 

You are saying that people should be less than truthful, less than honest, and less than themselves, in order to avoid getting booted during the voir dire. Because it will be better for the system if more smart people are less honest. 

1AM
distractedbyshinyobjects:

kawaiiabetic:

distractedbyshinyobjects:

thartist72:

“In 2002, having spent more than three years in one residence for the first time in my life, I got called for jury duty. I show up on time, ready to serve. When we get to the voir dire, the lawyer says to me, “I see you’re an astrophysicist. What’s that?” I answer, “Astrophysics is the laws of physics, applied to the universe—the Big Bang, black holes, that sort of thing.” Then he asks, “What do you teach at Princeton?” and I say, “I teach a class on the evaluation of evidence and the relative unreliability of eyewitness testimony.” Five minutes later, I’m on the street. A few years later, jury duty again. The judge states that the defendant is charged with possession of 1,700 milligrams of cocaine. It was found on his body, he was arrested, and he is now on trial. This time, after the Q&A is over, the judge asks us whether there are any questions we’d like to ask the court, and I say, “Yes, Your Honor. Why did you say he was in possession of 1,700 milligrams of cocaine? That equals 1.7 grams. The ‘thousand’ cancels with the ‘milli-’ and you get 1.7 grams, which is less than the weight of a dime.” Again I’m out on the street.”

*sigh*
Not to get all self righteous about this or anything… And god knows I love me some NDGT.
But I wish intelligent, empathetic, reasonable, critical thinkers would not work so hard to get themselves released from jury service.
First of all, it’s your civic responsibility. That and taxes is all you have to do to be a citizen, I don’t feel like it’s too much to ask. But secondly, the American system of jurisprudence only works if everyone on the jury is capable and invested in doing a good job determining the truth.
I hope Mr. Tyson never finds his fate in the hands of a jury for any reason. But I hope for his sake that if he does, at least some of his intellectual peers from the pool decide to stick it out.

Hey, I don’t know if there’s more context to this quote, but is it possible he wasn’t actually trying to get out of jury duty? He never says as much; I read that he’s saying he’s exactly the type of person you want on a jury, yet that somehow disqualifies him from actually serving on a jury, and that’s a problem.

Yeah, I don’t know how expressly telling the court that the course you teach is about how to distrust eyewitness testimony could be construed as anything other than trying to make sure you aren’t seated.
You don’t have to be a super genius to know how to answer voir dire questions in a way that will get you dismissed vs. how to answer truthfully but still be an acceptable juror. If you do that thing anyway, you’re trying to get out of it.

Are you honestly suggesting that people should actively lie in order to avoid getting booted from jury duty, because it’ll be better for the system if they misrepresent themselves to the lawyers that are tasked with choosing a jury? Do you see the problem inherent with that line of reasoning?

distractedbyshinyobjects:

kawaiiabetic:

distractedbyshinyobjects:

thartist72:

“In 2002, having spent more than three years in one residence for the first time in my life, I got called for jury duty. I show up on time, ready to serve. When we get to the voir dire, the lawyer says to me, “I see you’re an astrophysicist. What’s that?” I answer, “Astrophysics is the laws of physics, applied to the universe—the Big Bang, black holes, that sort of thing.” Then he asks, “What do you teach at Princeton?” and I say, “I teach a class on the evaluation of evidence and the relative unreliability of eyewitness testimony.” Five minutes later, I’m on the street.

A few years later, jury duty again. The judge states that the defendant is charged with possession of 1,700 milligrams of cocaine. It was found on his body, he was arrested, and he is now on trial. This time, after the Q&A is over, the judge asks us whether there are any questions we’d like to ask the court, and I say, “Yes, Your Honor. Why did you say he was in possession of 1,700 milligrams of cocaine? That equals 1.7 grams. The ‘thousand’ cancels with the ‘milli-’ and you get 1.7 grams, which is less than the weight of a dime.” Again I’m out on the street.”

*sigh*

Not to get all self righteous about this or anything… And god knows I love me some NDGT.

But I wish intelligent, empathetic, reasonable, critical thinkers would not work so hard to get themselves released from jury service.

First of all, it’s your civic responsibility. That and taxes is all you have to do to be a citizen, I don’t feel like it’s too much to ask. But secondly, the American system of jurisprudence only works if everyone on the jury is capable and invested in doing a good job determining the truth.

I hope Mr. Tyson never finds his fate in the hands of a jury for any reason. But I hope for his sake that if he does, at least some of his intellectual peers from the pool decide to stick it out.

Hey, I don’t know if there’s more context to this quote, but is it possible he wasn’t actually trying to get out of jury duty? He never says as much; I read that he’s saying he’s exactly the type of person you want on a jury, yet that somehow disqualifies him from actually serving on a jury, and that’s a problem.

Yeah, I don’t know how expressly telling the court that the course you teach is about how to distrust eyewitness testimony could be construed as anything other than trying to make sure you aren’t seated.

You don’t have to be a super genius to know how to answer voir dire questions in a way that will get you dismissed vs. how to answer truthfully but still be an acceptable juror. If you do that thing anyway, you’re trying to get out of it.

Are you honestly suggesting that people should actively lie in order to avoid getting booted from jury duty, because it’ll be better for the system if they misrepresent themselves to the lawyers that are tasked with choosing a jury? 

Do you see the problem inherent with that line of reasoning?

August72014

Failure

Have you ever been in that low-down place of feeling like a failure, and in the middle of going through the usual and effective opponents of BS self-doubt like quoting famous people saying “Failure is not falling down, it’s refusing to get back up” and “Why do we fall down, Bruce? To get back up” and “Success is 92% failure, 7% perseverance in the face of hardship, and 6% Butterscotch Ripple”, and all the rest, and had the sudden, inexorable realization that, yes, technically, you did in fact, fail?

I mean, not in the “I’m a failure, boo-hoo, pity me” way of things, just “yep, this goal that was set is now borked. Failure to achieve this has occurred.” Without shame or recrimination; a simple enlightenment that the reason that the demon of self-doubt has crept up and started whispering “you are a failure” is because a failure has, indeed, happened. 

The aphorisms still apply, of course. But I’m sure even the wisest of sages, upon extolling to me the virtues of learning from failure and getting back on the horse and all sorts of other things, would also look upon my recent efforts and say, “Yes, well, son, you done did screw the pooch there.”

It’s somewhat liberating. There’s crushing depression, but that’s part and parcel of any creative process, now and then. But knowing that the goal has been missed, and that that is why I’m feeling like crap at the moment, means that a new goal can be set and striven for. And I don’t even need medication to deal with it. 

August52014
← Older entries Page 1 of 60