The unimportant news thread

[Ken B]

Two bits of news about one of the leading scientists of the Rosetta mission.

First, he is a Cannibal Corpse fan. Well... can't say I'm a fan of them, but it is death metal. 
http://www.metalsucks.net/2014/11/13/dr-matt-taylor-dude-put-probe-comet-cannibal-corpse-fan/


And apparently the guy was criticized and reduced to tears and an apology for wearing a shirt that is "sexist." Of course, it's a terrible shirt and inappropriate. But this has gotten ridiculously out of hand. Seriously, if a woman wore a shirt with pictures of bodybuilders on it, how much you wanna bet she won't be publicly shamed and forced to tearfully apologize for "degrading" or "objectifying" men?
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/13/living/matt-taylor-shirt-philae-rosetta-project/?cid=ob_articlesidebarall&iref=obnetwork

This is the appropriate response. http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/198279/

This is on the wrong thread because this issue is actually important.  Reynolds puts his finger on why. Puritanical self-satisfied know-nothing invigilators of other people's lives are everywhere. They do nothing but bully, harry, accuse, insult.  They need to be called out, not knuckled under to.

I will bet his "community" as she ignorantly calls it, the professionals who contribute to this and other advances, are vastly more open to anyone who can do the job regardless of their background, sex, or colour than are the members of Eveleth's "community" however she defines it.

[ibanezmonster]

This is the appropriate response. http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/198279/

I read what this linked to here:
https://archive.today/zgmaO#selection-3483.253-3483.369


This paragraph had me laughing:

This is the sort of casual misogyny that stops women from entering certain scientific fields. They see a guy like that on TV and they don't feel welcome. They see a poster of greased up women in a colleague's office and they know they aren't respected. They hear comments about "bitches" while out at a bar with fellow science students, and they decide to change majors. And those are the women who actually make it that far. Those are the few who persevered even when they were discouraged from pursuing degrees in physics, chemistry, and math throughout high school. These are the women who forged on despite the fact that they were told by elementary school classmates and the media at large that girls who like science are nerdy and unattractive. This is the climate women who dream of working at NASA or the ESA come up against, every single day. This shirt is representative of all of that, and the ESA has yet to issue a statement or apologize for that.

Imagine how stupid I would sound if I got into the cosmetology field and the ladies I was talking with said that some guy was a "dick" and I decided to switch majors because of it. Oh, the misandry! 

"Girls are told that if they like science they are nerdy and unattractive..." oh, and men who get into science are seen as supermen worshipped more than sports stars, eh?

This is getting endless... almost every day I read something on facebook and easily find a link about some stupid feminist outrage over the stupidest things. I'm never, ever, searching for these things. I probably looked up a feminist related question one time and never even posted about it. The stupidity is in my face, but at least it's not infecting me. 

[Todd]

Well, how about that?

[ibanezmonster]

Well, how about that?

A world leader says it, so it muuuuuuust be true.  0:)

[Florestan]

Romanian presidential elections, first run: the Socialist prime-minister Victor Ponta (a pathological liar, a proved plagiarist and a sinister demagogue) leads 10 percents ahead of the Liberal-Conservative Klaus Iohannis, mayor of Sibiu (a sober, even taciturn person of German ethnicity), roughly 40% vs 30%. If all non-Socialist parties would have supported the same candidate, Mr. Iohannis would have been ahead. Run-off on November 16. I have high hopes that Iohannis will defeat Ponta and the Socialists will lose the third Presidential elections in a row.

My wildest hopes have been exceeded.  I rejoice over it!

Provincial mayor inflicts shock defeat in Romania presidential vote



These elections brought about a few remarkable firsts:

1. The first President of Rpmania who is not an ethnic Romanian (German)
2. The first President of Romania who is not of Orthodox faith (Lutheran)
3. The first President of Romania whose name doesn´t end in -escu. 

Klaus Werner Johannis´ victory is all the more remarkable as it comes after a fiercely nationalistic and religious campaign run by his opponent, the Socialist prime-minister, centered on the absolutely idiotic slogan "Proud to be Romanians!" (that´s exactly like saying you´re proud to have blue eyes and be 1.80 m tall) and on the non-Orthodox faith of Johannis.

Besides those firsts, this extraordinary result will have huge geopolitical consequences, at a time when Russia doesn´t make a secret anymore about their neoimperialist agenda. Bad news, Mr. Putin: Romania stays firmly in the Western camp! (the Socialist candidate repeatedly sang the praises of the Chinese Communist Party, and publicly asked the prosecutors not to pursue an inquiry into the tax evasion practices of Lukoil in Romania)

[mc ukrneal]

My wildest hopes have been exceeded.  I rejoice over it!

Provincial mayor inflicts shock defeat in Romania presidential vote



These elections brought about a few remarkable firsts:

1. The first President of Rpmania who is not an ethnic Romanian (German)
2. The first President of Romania who is not of Orthodox faith (Lutheran)
3. The first President of Romania whose name doesn´t end in -escu. 

Klaus Werner Johannis´ victory is all the more remarkable as it comes after a fiercely nationalistic and religious campaign run by his opponent, the Socialist prime-minister, centered on the absolutely idiotic slogan "Proud to be Romanians!" (that´s exactly like saying you´re proud to have blue eyes and be 1.80 m tall) and on the non-Orthodox faith of Johannis.

Besides those firsts, this extraordinary result will have huge geopolitical consequences, at a time when Russia doesn´t make a secret anymore about their neoimperialist agenda. Bad news, Mr. Putin: Romania stays firmly in the Western camp! (the Socialist candidate repeatedly sang the praises of the Chinese Communist Party, and publicly asked the prosecutors not to pursue an inquiry into the tax evasion practices of Lukoil in Romania)

I understand that the organization of the election (mostly diaspora) was an issue that they did not really resolve well. It seems they (Socialists) shot themsleves in the foot.

[Ken B]

I understand that the organization of the election (mostly diaspora) was an issue that they did not really resolve well. It seems they (Socialists) shot themsleves in the foot.

Give that Party a bigger gun!

[Florestan]

I understand that the organization of the election (mostly diaspora) was an issue that they did not really resolve well. It seems they (Socialists) shot themsleves in the foot.

They did not want the diaspora to vote because they knew beforehand that the Romanian expats would massively vote against them, so they did everything they could in order to not allow all people wanting to vote to do so: they lessened the number of voting stations, the number of voting booths and the number of voting stamp. Moreover, the people had to manually fill in a form on the spot. Thus, the average time needed for a citizen to vote was several hours, between six and ten, depenidng on the location. Cinically, the minister of foreign affairs invited people in Paris to go to Nancy, some 350 km away, because there they could vote faster and besides, Nancy is a very beautiful city, home of Art Nouveau.

All this was to no avail, though, and turned against them: people both abroad and at home went to vote in a record turnout (62%) and gave Johannis 55 %, while the Socialist candidate only 45 %. Mind you, in the first run Ponta had 40% and Johannis only 30%. Such spectacular reversal of a winning trend is quite unique, I think. I´m only too happy with it: I can´t stand the Socialists, they are the most corrupt, demagogic and authoritarian Romanian party.

[Florestan]

Give that Party a bigger gun!

A machine gun would do just fine.

[Ken B]

When your protest "turns" violent it's useful to have a list of targets.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/11/justice-for-mike-brown-group-releases-list-of-targets-including-anheuser-busch-boeing-emerson-electric-airport/

And let's be sure to protest that report before anyone reads it!

[Todd]

And why shouldn't NASA have its own undercover agents?  Or the USDA?  Or the SBA?

[Ken B]

Evidence, schmevidence.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/24/do-the-facts-of-the-michael-brown-shooting-matter/

[North Star]

Evidence, schmevidence.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/24/do-the-facts-of-the-michael-brown-shooting-matter/

Author of In Defense of the Death Penalty, too.

The aims of this text are two-fold. The first is to provide a brief overview of the underpinnings of the death penalty. (The death penalty is firmly grounded in many traditional rationales for punishment, a fact that may explaining why death penalty abolitionists have made so little progress in challenging it head on.) The second is to examine the new wave of administrative challenges to the death penalty. Here again, these claims fail to provide a significant reason for abolishing capital punishment.

Perhaps the most straightforward argument for the death penalty is that it saves innocent lives by preventing convicted murderers from killing again...

Some sense of the risk here is conveyed by the fact that, of the roughly 52,000 state prison inmates serving time for murder, an estimated 810 had previously been convicted of murder and had killed 821 persons following those convictions. Executing each of these inmates after the first murder conviction would have saved the lives of more than 800 persons.

Curious how criminologists seem to disagree with him on the 'saving lives' issue. And also curious to think that killing 52,000 to save 800 lives is a good ratio in Cassell's opinion. If 1.6% of those serving time later turned out to be not guilty of murder, that would be more than 800 lives. 1.6 % is a rather tiny margin of error. And I don't see how death penalty is more effective than imprisonment in preventing the convicts from killing again - sure, the occasional inmate or prison guard might get killed, but that's a bit of a stretch. And see on the Amnesty link the graph which clearly shows that the states without a death penalty have a lower murder rate.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-cost
http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/the-death-penalty-and-deterrence

[Karl Henning]

"You mean, all our hubbub about a supposed scandal was as so much fart gas??"

[Ken B]

Author of In Defense of the Death Penalty, too.

Curious how criminologists seem to disagree with him on the 'saving lives' issue. And also curious to think that killing 52,000 to save 800 lives is a good ratio in Cassell's opinion. If 1.6% of those serving time later turned out to be not guilty of murder, that would be more than 800 lives. 1.6 % is a rather tiny margin of error. And I don't see how death penalty is more effective than imprisonment in preventing the convicts from killing again - sure, the occasional inmate or prison guard might get killed, but that's a bit of a stretch. And see on the Amnesty link the graph which clearly shows that the states without a death penalty have a lower murder rate.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-cost
http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/the-death-penalty-and-deterrence

Amnesty is not an impartial source.
There is quite good evidence now that the death penalty has a strong deterrent effect. So there is in fact a strong case it saves lives. But offing 52K to prevent 800 is not that case!
It isn't any sort of argument really, since no-one says the alternative to execution is early release.

[mc ukrneal]

What it actually says is that out of 52k, roughly 800 had been convicted of murder and subsequently killed 821 people. So the author (agree or disagree) is not saying quite what is being written in this thread.

That said, I have not seen any reliable evidence that says that capital punishment is a deterrant. And even if it is, this is not really the key argument for having or not having capital punishment. I don't think that most people who might murder someone really stop to say to themselves, "Oh, maybe I shouldn't do this as I could be convicted and in turn put to death." It certainly doesn't help with murders done in the passion of the moment and it doesn't help with murders that are cold and calculated. Not sure what that leaves.

[North Star]

Amnesty is not an impartial source.
There is quite good evidence now that the death penalty has a strong deterrent effect.

Can you point me to some of it?

What it actually says is that out of 52k, roughly 800 had been convicted of murder and subsequently killed 821 people. So the author (agree or disagree) is not saying quite what is being written in this thread.

No, it says that out of roughly 52k convicted murderers, 810 had been previously convicted of murder, and murdered again. But the funny thing is how he writes:

Executing each of these inmates after the first murder conviction would have saved the lives of more than 800 persons.

Now, how exactly does one know which of the 52k will kill again?

That said, I have not seen any reliable evidence that says that capital punishment is a deterrant. And even if it is, this is not really the key argument for having or not having capital punishment. I don't think that most people who might murder someone really stop to say to themselves, "Oh, maybe I shouldn't do this as I could be convicted and in turn put to death." It certainly doesn't help with murders done in the passion of the moment and it doesn't help with murders that are cold and calculated. Not sure what that leaves.

Not to mention the situations where a murderer facing death penalty is on the loose - they don't have any reason to not kill police officers or civilians in order to survive.

[Ken B]

Can you point me to some of it?

I can give you a name to start googling with. Ehrlich.
An area where people have strong feelings, which makes things complicated. The most important thing is that the death penalty has little effect, but actual executions do seem to. At least at first.  I am pretty convinced that in situations when the death penalty is rarely applied then actually applying it has a noticeable deterrent effect. Less clear to me what happens after it is routine and no longer has the same shock value. That complicates analysis too. In any case the analysis is way better than it was 40 years ago.

[Ken B]

No, it says that out of roughly 52k convicted murderers, 810 had been previously convicted of murder, and murdered again. But the funny thing is how he writes:Now, how exactly does one know which of the 52k will kill again?

I think you guys may be getting wires crossed. You don't have to know which of the 52K will kill again, as 800 of this 52K were already convicted murderers. You'd have killed them already the first time. Of course that still means offing 52K (assuming no deterrence): 800 the first time and the other 51.2K on their first conviction.

[North Star]

I can give you a name to start googling with. Ehrlich.
An area where people have strong feelings, which makes things complicated. The most important thing is that the death penalty has little effect, but actual executions do seem to. At least at first.  I am pretty convinced that in situations when the death penalty is rarely applied then actually applying it has a noticeable deterrent effect. Less clear to me what happens after it is routine and no longer has the same shock value. That complicates analysis too. In any case the analysis is way better than it was 40 years ago.

Thanks.
Here's his study