Since they are not being challenged, I would expect that there are no grounds to challenge them. In the metaphor of a jury trial, the defense is apparently not challenging the validity evidence.
No no no that's not how a criminal trial works at all. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Even if the defence says nothing, the jury should still not find guilt unless the prosecution has proven its case beyond reasonable doubt.
If this e-mail is all that was offered, the result should be an instant, trivial "not guilty" - or, more accurately, it wouldn't even get to court.
"Why is Glenn Beck not denying that he raped and murdered etc. etc.?
It's not really an overreaction to make it much harder to find self-published work? u wot m8?
Fuck the Daily Hate - it's caused more problems for society than some sad old man's written fantasy about being a sugar daddy to a naive teen.
"Well, I let my child walk into the newsagents and look freely at the newspapers, and he saw the tits of a 16 year old girl. THIS IS AN OUTRAGE."
Not that I have any problem with WH Smith improving their algorithms to remove unexpected results - hundreds of humans are employed by search engine companies to improve algorithms by asking them to explicitly selecting what is and is not relevant for various given searches. But this isn't really a big deal, unless you're so far in the closet about human sexuality that you're in fucking Narnia.
The context is reliability of evidence in court. Posters appear to be making an equivalence between the reliability of data posted randomly on the Internet and the reliability of data presented in a court of law 0 or, perhaps, presented in a scientific paper.
I was suggesting that evidence is handled and scrutinised BEFORE reaching hearing in court of law in such a way as hasn't happened here before reaching the court of public opinion (IOW published on a public blog). Fabrication of legal evidence is not as easy as people seem to want to think it is.
I've already agreed that I should have chosen the best possible language, but did not. The fact that this discussion is happening shows this to me - and while it is apparent to me that Zero Kelvin is a troll, everyone else here seems to be speaking in good faith.
I am not denying the alternative definition of "evidence" - I am merely confused that a few people are insisting upon this alternative definition then equivocating. When I read something and it makes no sense to me, I don't say, "This person is using words wrongly!" Instead, I say, "Maybe there are some meanings to these words that I'm not aware of." I check those meanings, and re-consider what I'm reading.
While my background is mathematics, over the past few months I've been assisting a linguist with writing research software. It's very interesting to see how different groups of people approach language. In this case, I would hypothesise that since people with an engineering mindset are so used to seeking unambiguous specifications, they even try to backport domain-specific language into everyday parlance, rejecting the nature of everyday speech.
This might be compounded by dialectal differences - but, again, when I'm reading English on the Internet and something doesn't make sense in British English, I'll consult an American English dictionary, and then perhaps even an Indian English. Except when hurling salvos across the Pond for entertainment, I shouldn't jump to a, "Your usage is wrong because only the Queen's English is right!"
This might come down to Postel's (paraphrased), "Be conservative in what you send; be liberal in what you accept." I was not sufficiently conservative in what I sent, for which I apologise; but it is sad to see people not being liberal in what they accept. It's not about right vs. wrong, but understanding the complexity of human communication.
1) As far as reading comprehension, it is evident/clear that one should not take the interpretation which leads to a nonsense - the nonsense makes it clear that one interpretation in wrong;
2) As far as handling accusations by one human against another, the truth of an accusation is not evident/clear from an alleged e-mail screenshot provided by the accuser - the file does not make it clear that the accusation is true.
It's only "clear cut" in the sense that the definition you and one or two other people have taken would make my post a nonsense. A fundamental principle of reading comprehension is to discard the nonsense interpretations when you have trouble understanding something.
Since I would prefer to be as clear as possible to the greatest number of people, and since I could probably have chosen even clearer terminology, I should have done so. However, looking through Zero Kelvin's posting history, I think he likes to pick random fights, so maybe it wouldn't have helped as far as this thread. His later for/as argument, which I took in good faith as reflecting his lack of knowledge of English, might just have been further evidence of trolling.
But it's only the Internet lol. Something to deal with insomnia. Appreciate your responses, and nite nite.
Evidence tends to be collected and stored according to specific procedures involving multiple people, and is independently examined by the other party, with methods existing to detect tampering where there is any contention. The penalties for failing internal audits, or for being found to have fabricated evidence, tend to be fairly high. Nothing's foolproof.
All very different from a random person posting an alleged screenshot.
Of course it's admissible as legal evidence, but that's not the sense in which I was using the word "evidence".
This is the kind of argument I only seem to have on geek forums. Everywhere else I have discussions, there is an understanding that you can't equivocate, i.e. you cannot choose your favoured definition for some term and then counterargue on the basis of your chosen definition rather than the other person's valid usage.
To be clear, the first definition in the OED is:
The quality or condition of being evident; clearness, evidentness.
This is the sense in which I was using "evidence". An e-mail screenshot obtained by an accuser does not make anything evident/clear, therefore it may be inappropriate to publish it in a professional blog run by a reputable magazine. In fact, it's the easiest sort of thing to fake.
Now, the third and fifth definitions of "evidence" are:
3a. An appearance from which inferences may be drawn; an indication, mark, sign, token, trace. Also to take evidence : to prognosticate. to bear, give evidence : to afford indications.
5a. Ground for belief; testimony or facts tending to prove or disprove any conclusion. [...]
You're all assuming these definitions. I'm using the first. I would think this obvious, because otherwise my post makes no sense. But, again, I never have this sort of problem with language except on geek blogs, where people seem to adopt domain-specific interpretations for words and ignore all others, even if they're more popular in common parlance.
Nearly everything presented as "evidence" in court is easily faked.
Not really - everything presented by one party is examined by the other party, so a pile of easily fabricated evidence implies reasonable doubt implies no conviction. When it comes to material evidence, a lot more time is spent explaining the relevance or irrelevance of evidence than on trying to show that e.g. the prosecution has fabricated evidence (which would be a pretty fucking serious accusation).
1. I used a common English phrase; 2. I stated that I understood that my audience might not be native English, to show that I was willing to provide assistance; 3. I explained how to best approach a difficulty with reading comprehension: if you are not sure how to interpret something, don't choose an interpretation which makes no sense; 4. When my audience still failed to understand, I responded by providing a dictionary definition with several usage examples; 5. Finally, I provided a clarification on how to read this dictionary and a method to study modern usage.
What more should I have done, please? I'm not used to confronting someone who has such difficulty understanding how to handle language in general.
because scientists are generally not in it to lie to other people
Throwing out an accusation that someone is using abusive language is nothing to do with science.
And you simply cannot imply - as you have done by saying "why don't we assume scientists are being honest" - that someone is less likely to lie in general just because they are a scientist. That is terrible prejudice.
Non-bracketed usage is most common in British English. As for modern usage, compare e.g. instances of "this passes for" vs. "this passes as" on Google.
Time to crack open a beer and chill out, bud. You slipped up. And I don't care to compare our IQs, penis sizes, or whatever substitutes you make for decent measures of a human.
I assume you're saying that you aren't a native English speaker. OK, no problem. To help you out, from the OED:
a. to pass for (also as) : to be taken for or to serve as (usually with the implication of being something else); to be accepted or received as equivalent to. 1463 in W. Kennedy Ann. Aberdeen (1818) II. 472 [The sum] wes nocht lachful na sufficiande to pas for payment. 1467 Acts Parl. Scotl. II. 88/2 The aulde Inglis grot sall pas for xvi d. a1500 Sidrak & Bokkus (Lansd.) 6441 (MED), Oure foul wille at was so kene Shal wasshe away and passe for noght. 1600 Shakespeare Merchant of Venice i. ii. 54 God made him, and therefore let him passe for a man. 1662 E. Stillingfleet Origines Sacræ iii. ii. 17 Had Lucretius been only a Poet, this might have passed for a handsomly described Fable. 1711 J. Addison Spectator No. 1. 5, I..sometimes pass for a Jew in the Assembly of Stock-Jobbers at Jonathan's. 1752 A. Murphy Gray's Inn Jrnl. (1756) I. 142 A very Considerable Number of masqueraded Shillings..so well disguised, that they passed among the Company for Guineas. 1809 B. H. Malkin tr. A. R. Le Sage Adventures Gil Blas III. ix. vii. 438 You pass for a kind-hearted gentleman. 1884 H. Spencer New Toryism in Man v. State 1 Most of those who now pass as Liberals, are Tories of a new type. 1954 F. O'Connor Let. 13 Feb. in Habit of Being (1980) 68, I have what passes for an education in this day and time, but I am not deceived by it. 2002 Hotdog Feb. 33/2 Even expressions such as ‘bang-tail’ and ‘pinch-pricks’ (Whitechapel prostitutes), could pass as modern street slang back in the 'hood.
Well, if someone is writing for a blog which I publish, I would not like them to publish personal spats containing libellous material to that blog, when all they have to show in favour of their position is their own screenshots of an e-mail exchange.
So, trying to understand the position of SciAm, I would like her to either provide something stronger, or to discuss these things elsewhere.
You're equivocating. It may or may not be admissible as evidence in a hearing, but it doesn't tend to prove or disprove anything, and it certainly makes nothing manifest.
Finally, no evidence is "incontrovertible proof". The best we can get is "beyond reasonable doubt".
Also, questioning the quality of evidence isn't "flamebait", mods. I would like to believe that this scientist is acting in good faith, but I refuse to come into this with any prejudice.
Bravo. Self-driving cars are not solving the problem - the problem is poor assessment of driving skills and focus only on driving "faults" which are easiest to identify (and generate revenue from). The best vehicle acts as an aid to the well-trained driver, not a substitute.
When there is an aircraft accident, pilot behaviour is examined closely and training is adjusted accordingly. When there is a car accident, we usually blame only the individuals directly involved, and learn fuck all.
Mapping: buy-out of two initiatives, one with substantial CIA funding; not the first online mapping tool.
Street imaging: OK, I'll give Google this one, but I'm not sure what's revolutionary. "Creepy novelty" is how I'd describe it.
Systems to help people communicate: Yeah, but nothing new.
Take their work online: OMG! wat?
Provide instant access to a satellite view of the earth: As above.
Brought FTTH broadband: so they invested a little bit of money in what a few hundred firms have also done across the planet. So?
Self driving fucking car which has driven over 500000km: You mean they invested in this existing project - like any interesting things they appear to get involved with. With routes and monitoring all by... Google. Give me the car and I'll take it to a highway in India or the Philippines and report back. Just like their whole ad platform is audited by... Google.
Slashdot Mirror
Since they are not being challenged, I would expect that there are no grounds to challenge them. In the metaphor of a jury trial, the defense is apparently not challenging the validity evidence.
No no no that's not how a criminal trial works at all. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Even if the defence says nothing, the jury should still not find guilt unless the prosecution has proven its case beyond reasonable doubt.
If this e-mail is all that was offered, the result should be an instant, trivial "not guilty" - or, more accurately, it wouldn't even get to court.
"Why is Glenn Beck not denying that he raped and murdered etc. etc.?
It's not really an overreaction to make it much harder to find self-published work? u wot m8?
Fuck the Daily Hate - it's caused more problems for society than some sad old man's written fantasy about being a sugar daddy to a naive teen.
"Well, I let my child walk into the newsagents and look freely at the newspapers, and he saw the tits of a 16 year old girl. THIS IS AN OUTRAGE."
Not that I have any problem with WH Smith improving their algorithms to remove unexpected results - hundreds of humans are employed by search engine companies to improve algorithms by asking them to explicitly selecting what is and is not relevant for various given searches. But this isn't really a big deal, unless you're so far in the closet about human sexuality that you're in fucking Narnia.
The context is reliability of evidence in court. Posters appear to be making an equivalence between the reliability of data posted randomly on the Internet and the reliability of data presented in a court of law 0 or, perhaps, presented in a scientific paper.
I was suggesting that evidence is handled and scrutinised BEFORE reaching hearing in court of law in such a way as hasn't happened here before reaching the court of public opinion (IOW published on a public blog). Fabrication of legal evidence is not as easy as people seem to want to think it is.
I've already agreed that I should have chosen the best possible language, but did not. The fact that this discussion is happening shows this to me - and while it is apparent to me that Zero Kelvin is a troll, everyone else here seems to be speaking in good faith.
I am not denying the alternative definition of "evidence" - I am merely confused that a few people are insisting upon this alternative definition then equivocating. When I read something and it makes no sense to me, I don't say, "This person is using words wrongly!" Instead, I say, "Maybe there are some meanings to these words that I'm not aware of." I check those meanings, and re-consider what I'm reading.
While my background is mathematics, over the past few months I've been assisting a linguist with writing research software. It's very interesting to see how different groups of people approach language. In this case, I would hypothesise that since people with an engineering mindset are so used to seeking unambiguous specifications, they even try to backport domain-specific language into everyday parlance, rejecting the nature of everyday speech.
This might be compounded by dialectal differences - but, again, when I'm reading English on the Internet and something doesn't make sense in British English, I'll consult an American English dictionary, and then perhaps even an Indian English. Except when hurling salvos across the Pond for entertainment, I shouldn't jump to a, "Your usage is wrong because only the Queen's English is right!"
This might come down to Postel's (paraphrased), "Be conservative in what you send; be liberal in what you accept." I was not sufficiently conservative in what I sent, for which I apologise; but it is sad to see people not being liberal in what they accept. It's not about right vs. wrong, but understanding the complexity of human communication.
As I see it:
1) As far as reading comprehension, it is evident/clear that one should not take the interpretation which leads to a nonsense - the nonsense makes it clear that one interpretation in wrong;
2) As far as handling accusations by one human against another, the truth of an accusation is not evident/clear from an alleged e-mail screenshot provided by the accuser - the file does not make it clear that the accusation is true.
Are we agreed?
It's only "clear cut" in the sense that the definition you and one or two other people have taken would make my post a nonsense. A fundamental principle of reading comprehension is to discard the nonsense interpretations when you have trouble understanding something.
Since I would prefer to be as clear as possible to the greatest number of people, and since I could probably have chosen even clearer terminology, I should have done so. However, looking through Zero Kelvin's posting history, I think he likes to pick random fights, so maybe it wouldn't have helped as far as this thread. His later for/as argument, which I took in good faith as reflecting his lack of knowledge of English, might just have been further evidence of trolling.
But it's only the Internet lol. Something to deal with insomnia. Appreciate your responses, and nite nite.
Evidence tends to be collected and stored according to specific procedures involving multiple people, and is independently examined by the other party, with methods existing to detect tampering where there is any contention. The penalties for failing internal audits, or for being found to have fabricated evidence, tend to be fairly high. Nothing's foolproof.
All very different from a random person posting an alleged screenshot.
Of course it's admissible as legal evidence, but that's not the sense in which I was using the word "evidence".
This is the kind of argument I only seem to have on geek forums. Everywhere else I have discussions, there is an understanding that you can't equivocate, i.e. you cannot choose your favoured definition for some term and then counterargue on the basis of your chosen definition rather than the other person's valid usage.
To be clear, the first definition in the OED is:
The quality or condition of being evident; clearness, evidentness.
This is the sense in which I was using "evidence". An e-mail screenshot obtained by an accuser does not make anything evident/clear, therefore it may be inappropriate to publish it in a professional blog run by a reputable magazine. In fact, it's the easiest sort of thing to fake.
Now, the third and fifth definitions of "evidence" are:
3a. An appearance from which inferences may be drawn; an indication, mark, sign, token, trace. Also to take evidence : to prognosticate. to bear, give evidence : to afford indications.
5a. Ground for belief; testimony or facts tending to prove or disprove any conclusion. [...]
You're all assuming these definitions. I'm using the first. I would think this obvious, because otherwise my post makes no sense. But, again, I never have this sort of problem with language except on geek blogs, where people seem to adopt domain-specific interpretations for words and ignore all others, even if they're more popular in common parlance.
Nearly everything presented as "evidence" in court is easily faked.
Not really - everything presented by one party is examined by the other party, so a pile of easily fabricated evidence implies reasonable doubt implies no conviction. When it comes to material evidence, a lot more time is spent explaining the relevance or irrelevance of evidence than on trying to show that e.g. the prosecution has fabricated evidence (which would be a pretty fucking serious accusation).
1. I used a common English phrase;
2. I stated that I understood that my audience might not be native English, to show that I was willing to provide assistance;
3. I explained how to best approach a difficulty with reading comprehension: if you are not sure how to interpret something, don't choose an interpretation which makes no sense;
4. When my audience still failed to understand, I responded by providing a dictionary definition with several usage examples;
5. Finally, I provided a clarification on how to read this dictionary and a method to study modern usage.
What more should I have done, please? I'm not used to confronting someone who has such difficulty understanding how to handle language in general.
because scientists are generally not in it to lie to other people
Throwing out an accusation that someone is using abusive language is nothing to do with science.
And you simply cannot imply - as you have done by saying "why don't we assume scientists are being honest" - that someone is less likely to lie in general just because they are a scientist. That is terrible prejudice.
Non-bracketed usage is most common in British English. As for modern usage, compare e.g. instances of "this passes for" vs. "this passes as" on Google.
Time to crack open a beer and chill out, bud. You slipped up. And I don't care to compare our IQs, penis sizes, or whatever substitutes you make for decent measures of a human.
I assume you're saying that you aren't a native English speaker. OK, no problem. To help you out, from the OED:
a. to pass for (also as) : to be taken for or to serve as (usually with the implication of being something else); to be accepted or received as equivalent to.
1463 in W. Kennedy Ann. Aberdeen (1818) II. 472 [The sum] wes nocht lachful na sufficiande to pas for payment.
1467 Acts Parl. Scotl. II. 88/2 The aulde Inglis grot sall pas for xvi d.
a1500 Sidrak & Bokkus (Lansd.) 6441 (MED), Oure foul wille at was so kene Shal wasshe away and passe for noght.
1600 Shakespeare Merchant of Venice i. ii. 54 God made him, and therefore let him passe for a man.
1662 E. Stillingfleet Origines Sacræ iii. ii. 17 Had Lucretius been only a Poet, this might have passed for a handsomly described Fable.
1711 J. Addison Spectator No. 1. 5, I..sometimes pass for a Jew in the Assembly of Stock-Jobbers at Jonathan's.
1752 A. Murphy Gray's Inn Jrnl. (1756) I. 142 A very Considerable Number of masqueraded Shillings..so well disguised, that they passed among the Company for Guineas.
1809 B. H. Malkin tr. A. R. Le Sage Adventures Gil Blas III. ix. vii. 438 You pass for a kind-hearted gentleman.
1884 H. Spencer New Toryism in Man v. State 1 Most of those who now pass as Liberals, are Tories of a new type.
1954 F. O'Connor Let. 13 Feb. in Habit of Being (1980) 68, I have what passes for an education in this day and time, but I am not deceived by it.
2002 Hotdog Feb. 33/2 Even expressions such as ‘bang-tail’ and ‘pinch-pricks’ (Whitechapel prostitutes), could pass as modern street slang back in the 'hood.
Well, if someone is writing for a blog which I publish, I would not like them to publish personal spats containing libellous material to that blog, when all they have to show in favour of their position is their own screenshots of an e-mail exchange.
So, trying to understand the position of SciAm, I would like her to either provide something stronger, or to discuss these things elsewhere.
OK, maybe English isn't your first language, so I'll break it down. Possibilities:
i) I was using a different meaning of "evidence" to the one you had in mind (noting that there are several definitions of the word);
ii) I had exactly the same definition of "evidence" in mind as you, but decided to type nonsense just to annoy you.
Which is more likely?
You're equivocating. It may or may not be admissible as evidence in a hearing, but it doesn't tend to prove or disprove anything, and it certainly makes nothing manifest.
Finally, no evidence is "incontrovertible proof". The best we can get is "beyond reasonable doubt".
Also, questioning the quality of evidence isn't "flamebait", mods. I would like to believe that this scientist is acting in good faith, but I refuse to come into this with any prejudice.
Does that pass for evidence nowadays?
"Absolutely."
Given that there is almost no evidence at all for this, you may wish to check your prejudices.
Your fate will be quick, but quite heinous:
A spacecraft will land on...
An ugly bag of mostly water.
Bravo. Self-driving cars are not solving the problem - the problem is poor assessment of driving skills and focus only on driving "faults" which are easiest to identify (and generate revenue from). The best vehicle acts as an aid to the well-trained driver, not a substitute.
When there is an aircraft accident, pilot behaviour is examined closely and training is adjusted accordingly. When there is a car accident, we usually blame only the individuals directly involved, and learn fuck all.
Mapping: buy-out of two initiatives, one with substantial CIA funding; not the first online mapping tool.
Street imaging: OK, I'll give Google this one, but I'm not sure what's revolutionary. "Creepy novelty" is how I'd describe it.
Systems to help people communicate: Yeah, but nothing new.
Take their work online: OMG! wat?
Provide instant access to a satellite view of the earth: As above.
Brought FTTH broadband: so they invested a little bit of money in what a few hundred firms have also done across the planet. So?
Self driving fucking car which has driven over 500000km: You mean they invested in this existing project - like any interesting things they appear to get involved with. With routes and monitoring all by... Google. Give me the car and I'll take it to a highway in India or the Philippines and report back. Just like their whole ad platform is audited by... Google.
No, you're thinking of the NT 3.5 stack. And yes, choosing what to deploy is what causes revolutions - not merely thinking something.
This is WebGL, which is a wrapper round OpenGL, which is an API making use of...