Sexism [again] At 60 Minutes

So there I was enjoying a 60 minutes piece on Lamborghinis I was accosted by some sexist commentary that went unchallenged.

Say's a floor manager as to why the coach building is all men and the interior workers are all women:

I can tell you this. We really need women on material because the precision that the women have, unfortunately we ah as men we don't have....not the precision tha [can't make out] to create a masterpiece like our interiors

No seriously. He said that.

Never mind that right before that piece of shit was said, there was narration and video of men putting together pieces of the vehicles with exacting standards (according to the narration). Placing and aligning glass. torquing bolts and nuts to standards that anyone who works on cars knows is important. Why the hell would this man insult these workers by saying they lacked "precision"?

I don't know Lambo's history but I wonder how long they have been making cars with male interior makers before women came in? And if there was such a time, are they saying that work was inferior (taking into account changes in tech)?

How about this: Since Lambo does not use robotics to make cars and many of the parts are heavy, it makes sense that the men, who are generally stronger than women, do the heavy work and the women do the light work. Why not just say that? It's the most likely truth and it doesn't disrespect either sex. Each according to their ability.

Think about it. If the women were so superior in their "precision" wouldn't the manager want them doing both the interior and exterior? Who volunteers to put sloppy workers on the line when one could have better, more precise workers on it?

So yet another example of sexism directed against men that gets the media pass and a chuckle.

The Dangers of Being To “Informed” To See

On Oct 10, Massimo Pigliucci and Maarten Boudry penned a piece in the NY Times Opinionator in regards to the Dangers of Pseudosience in which they took a hard swipe at Chinese traditional medicine:

Asma’s example of Chinese medicine’s claims about the existence of “Qi” energy, channeled through the human body by way of “meridians,” though, is a different matter. This sounds scientific, because it uses arcane jargon that gives the impression of articulating explanatory principles. But there is no way to test the existence of Qi and associated meridians, or to establish a viable research program based on those concepts, for the simple reason that talk of Qi and meridians only looks substantive, but it isn’t even in the ballpark of an empirically verifiable theory.

In terms of empirical results, there are strong indications that acupuncture is effective for reducing chronic pain and nausea, but sham therapy, where needles are applied at random places, or are not even pierced through the skin, turn out to be equally effective (see for instance this recent study on the effect of acupuncture on post-chemotherapy chronic fatigue), thus seriously undermining talk of meridians and Qi lines. In other words, the notion of Qi only mimics scientific notions such as enzyme actions on lipid compounds. This is a standard modus operandi of pseudoscience: it adopts the external trappings of science, but without the substance.

While I am by no means even close to a professional amateur in the concepts of Qi, I find the authors of this piece quite incorrect in their discussion of it. So let me explain why Qi is in fact scientific and can in fact be tested.

In physics we know that whenever a charge travels down a wire (or other conductor) a magnetic field results.

Now out nerve cells operate in a similar fashion through a chemical process way to long to discuss here without losing a lot of people. Nerve impulses travel along the axon via a process called the Sodium Potassium pump which via an exchange of ions keeps a voltage gradient in an axon. If course where there are moving currents there are changes in magnetic fields. Which definitely means there is energy moving throughout the body and that energy can be “felt”. The science proves it.

Furthermore when discussing Qi and the energy centers of the body, one will note that the basic Chakras happen to be points in the body where there are a lot of nerves. The groin, abdomen. Head, spine, etc. We already know that one can put a device on someone's head to “read” the changes in EM radiation coming from the brain as people think. How is this not a confirmation of Qi? How would knowing that we can “read” the energy being given off by the brain would we not think that the rest of the body also has “tell tale” signals?

In the martial art of Wing Chun, practitioners are taught to develop sensitivity. When we come into contact with an opponent we feel for the slightest change in movement, muscle tension, etc. that for most people go unnoticed. How is it so unfathomable that there are people who have trained to become especially tuned to the various energies that are emanating from the human body?

Lets discuss the merits of acupuncture or pressure. We already know that if we knock someone in the knee we can elicit a reflex action. We also know that if we block a nerve from being able to send a message we can prevent that same reflex action. So then, how is it that we can call acupuncture pseudoscience, simply because a placebo effect can be seen when random points are used?

That people show, or believe they have improved symptoms simply because they have undergone some pin pricking that they believe in is no different from the mental effects of wearing a new outfit for a marathon or wearing lucky socks. It is also no different than a person who responds to a phobia. There is no actual threat yet the person still reacts physiologically to the stimulus as though there was. The belief in the effectiveness of a treatment is, in non-western cultures a part of the healing process. In Chinese medicine in particular a relaxed body (and mind) is part of the process. If one's mind is not relaxed, then it is impossible to control and manipulate Qi (Chi)

I think the good writers ought to take seriously the words of Yoda in Star Wars The Empire Strikes Back: It is their disbelief why they cannot metaphorically raise the star ship.

Underreported or Didn't Happen?

So the LA Times is reporting that Occidental College and USC “underreported' the number of cases of sexual assaults” on their campuses. Certainly we would very concerned if such a thing was going on.

At USC, officials indicated that they had not reported 13 accounts of sexual assaults to federal officials for 2010 and 2011, bringing the total for those years to 39. Occidental acknowledged that it had failed to include 24 reports during that period, bringing the total to 36.

Sounds like something to be concerned with. 13 accounts at USC and 24 from Occidental. But further in the article we find:

USC and Occidental attributed their restated numbers to the mishandling of cases involving those who reported incidents anonymously. Such cases are subject to federal reporting requirements.

Why are annonymous reports of incidents subject to federal reporting requirements? In fact why are reports rather than actual established cases the standard? Anybody can make a claim. And as we know from the internet, anonymous claims are often the most unreliable of claims.

Occidental officials say they discovered 49 anonymous reports of sexual assaults spanning several years in a 2010 survey conducted by Project SAFE, a campus group that seeks to raise awareness about sexual assaults.

So a group that has a vested interest in “reporting” conducted a survey that found 49 cases of anonymous reports spanning several years? Not established reports, but someone who said something happened. And Occidental can be fined for that?

Nineteen of those incidents should have been disclosed under federal rules, which require the reporting of all sexual assaults on campus or in the immediate vicinity.

But there was not a sexual assault. There was an anonymous claim of sexual assault. Not a proven one, not an adjucated one. Only a claim. That would be like adding a column to the murder statistics that included anonymous claims of homicide, as if that number actually matters.

At USC, the problem arose because the administration has since 2008 told students, parents and the federal government that crimes that came to light at its student counseling center would be included in official crime statistics. But they were not, the university acknowledged last week.

Campus administrators said they didn't disclose those numbers in an effort to protect the students' confidentiality. They were concerned, they said, that reporting those statistics to the Department of Education could trigger investigations by the Los Angeles Police Department, which might pressure counselors to identify the anonymous victims.

Wait. So USC didn't want to report the claims of a sexual assault on their campus because it may trigger an investigation by the relevant authorities?

What the fuck?

Sexual assault is a serious crime. Why would USC not want the LAPD to investigate and find out who committed such a crime and have that person removed from the public? Why wouldn't a victim of sexual assualt not want the perpetrator found and prosecuted? Because the alleged victim doesn't want to be identified?

What the fuck?

So then a person who is identified as a potential perp can have their name and face plastered across multiple media outlets regardless of whether he or she is actually guilty, yet the alleged victim can sit behind a curtain and make any claim they wish? That's justice?

What the fuck?

LAPD Deputy Chief Bob Green said those concerns were misplaced. "I can tell you flat out no, we're not going to do that," Green said. "We're never going to try to compel anybody to make that [crime] report.”

why not? If one is going to make a serious charge against someone, shouldn't one then own up and make the criminal complaint? So we get cases where people can make claims about other students which are not substantiated in any impartial court that can affect the target for the rest of their lives AND institutions are under Federal blackmail (fines) if they don't go along with this?

At USC, the campus will no longer list the counseling center as a source of crime statistics. From now on, students who want their sexual assaults included in crime statistics will have to inform designated campus safety officials who are required to report under federal rules, LaCorte said.

Francesca Bessey, a USC junior who said she was sexually assaulted, said making students take additional steps to have their assaults counted shifts "responsibility away from the university and toward students who have been assaulted."

Why are students, or anyone else for that matter, of the opinion that they should not have to take responsibility for reporting their alleged victimization to the proper authorities? What kind of special snowflake sentiments are these people operating under? If you are a victim of a serious crime, it is your duty to report it to those who can find out who did it and remove them from society (if need be). Anyone who has a problem with that cannot be serious about sexual assault.

Text Someone, Go to Jail.

Mark J. Randazza would like to have you believe that the recent NJ ruling in regards to text messaging doesn't mean exactly what it says:

"We hold that the sender of a text message could potentially be liable if an accident is caused by texting but only if the sender knew or had special reason to know that the recipient would view the text while driving and thus be distracted." In other words, yes, you can be held responsible if you cause an accident by sending a text message. But only if you knew that the recipient would look at the text message while driving. If you had any reason to have any doubt in your mind, then you will likely not be held liable.

Mr. Randazza wants you and I to think it doesn't mean the BS that it does. Says Randanzza:

So if you send a text message to someone, you don't need to call your lawyer or your insurance company. But if you send someone a text message and they respond back "driving, leave me alone" and then you keep sending text messages, perhaps you might be found liable.

The court has made a very stupid foray into passing blame. Mind you the precedent for this isn't as Randazza states, the McDonalds case. Instead it is actually the "felony murder" rule. See once it was accepted that you could hold a person responsible for an act they did not commit. Did not intend to commit or even agree to participate in, then this door was opened.

While it sounded "tough" to say that the person driving the getaway car from a robbery is responsible for another party's decision to kill their victim, it broke the Blackstonian rule of law whereby you prosecuted people for the crimes they committed and not for anything else. Cleary under Blackstone rules of law, the getaway driver could not be convicted of murder committed by someone else by considering the evidence. There is no weapon in the hand. There is no malicious intent. There is no intent at all.

So with this acceptance of murder by proxy by the courts (which, in my opinion should be done away with completely) allowed the NJ court to issue this dumb ruling.

In effect they are using the same logic as the felony murder. By going out to commit a crime with another party you should reasonably expect that a murder might happen, and therefore you are to be responsible for it if it happens. Never mind that the person who actually committed the act was the person responsible for deciding to kill.

Similarly a person who's phone goes off indicating a text is under no obligation to acknowledge a text. They are in complete control of their faculties and are therefore quite capable of ignoring any text messages that come in. It is impossible for a party that is not in control of the phone or the person who is driving to make them answer or look at the phone. In essence this decision makes a third party responsible for the conscious behavior of another.

That's just dumb.

What if I proposed the following? Since we know that some accidents on the road are caused by people using car radios, why not allow not only the manufacturer of the vehicle to be sued for providing a device that is a known distraction but also the radio station that the driver was listening to?

Oh what's that? It's not reasonable? Why not? The standard for the text message is knowing that the activation of the device could cause a distraction?

Ok. How about the fact that some accidents happen because men see women dressed a certain way. No doubt the women put on the clothes knowing that it would attract attention. Should we allow them to be held responsible for any accidents that occurred because a male driver was distracted by "all that ass"?

Of course we wouldn't even THINK about blaming the woman for being out in public in clothes that might prove a distraction to some men. Why? Because we expect the men to be in control of themselves. In the event that they do allow themselves to be so distracted we expect that they would take responsibility for their own conscious behavior rather than pass the buck.

But this society is fast becoming one in which people want to spread the blame as much as possible rather than face their own singular responsibility for their actions.

Elysium

It seems the older I get the more critical of movies I get. So here's two problems I have with Elysium: 1) The accident: What factory makes a door that does not disengage when there is a jam? I have a 16 YO car that will reverse the power windows if there is a jam. While I can understand the whole they are trying to be as profitable as possible, given that the door blocks radiation that apparently could kill everyone in the vicinity which would be very bad for productivity, you'd think that there would be some override or "please fully open and then close the door" kind of safety. 2) Elysium itself. If rich people want to live in space well fine. The question I have is how they get food, clothes, and the like. I didn't see any factories on Elysium. Nor did I see any farms. I saw a whole lot of mansions but no farms. As a matter of fact, I didn't see much in the way of eating on earth either. A lot of drinking but no real easting. So where is the farmland? I'm just sayin', if the population is that large there has GOT to be a means of food and clothes production. I didn't see it. Okay I have a third issue: While yeah, it's a shit move to keep the instant healing machines to themselves, if the Earth is overpopulated, how does having mass deployment of instant healing machines help that? It's not like people can GO to Elysium permanently since it is even smaller than the Moon. So essentially, per the movie, the Earth will become more overpopulated, the people will still be poor (but healthy!) and the rich will still live off world, cause from what the movie presents, living on Earth is something to avoid if you can.

Tesla Hyperloop

http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/hyperloop-alpha.pdf

Actually a quite stimulating read... If you're into this type of thing.

Anyone else think The Core, when they saw the passenger module?

Lightning Bolt

Yeah..That's about right.