zapatos

Some people aren't happy unless they can find something to be unhappy about. You're killing me Smalls.

So I'm either an intellectually incompetent clod, or a lying prick who is a waste of good oxygen. Welcome to the site. I'm sure we are going to get along swimmingly.

Yeah, that is a friend network, not a work network. If you are trying to build your network of people who can help you in your field of, say, research in biology, it will take you several lifetimes to build that network if you have to run into the right people at parties with your friends.

Presumably you already have a 'friend' network. A group you are loosely or tightly associated with, either from work, school, whatever. You weren't thinking 'network' when you gathered them but that is what they are nonetheless. Need to talk to someone? Probably someone in your friend network. Need help moving a table? Someone in your network. Business (or research, or construction, etc.) network is essentially the same thing. You meet people, stay in contact, and get to know them so that you can call on them when needed, and so they can call on you. Some of them may also be in your friends network. If you are looking for new people for work, then be sure to introduce yourself to people where you work now, ask them what they do, and get on a friendly basis. Talk to them when you see them. If you are in information technology for instance you can go to symposiums, take classes, join user groups. These are all opportunities to meet the right type of people. You may want to seek out someone who is in a position you'd like to achieve someday yourself. Ask for an introduction, tell them what your goals are, and ask if you can meet periodically to talk. Bottom line is that you want to get to know people well enough that you are willing to do things for each other. When people talk about 'networking' I believe they are talking about something more personal than finding a person in the Yellow Pages. You may very well do business with them, but you may use them to help you find information, tell you abut job openings, explain something to you, tell you about opportunities they know about, mentor you...

What a great match that was! Best in the tournament I've seen so far. England was just relentless.

No. There would be more sugar and water in an orange than what you gave her. Temperature would have zero effect. Excess cola might be considered bad. The 20ml you gave your daughter was a nice treat that probably made her feel better, if only for a moment. Nothing to feel bad about.

Nice tidbit. When I was in college one of the guests to our Speakers Series was Mel Blanc. He was hilarious.

Wow! I'm sure there are many implications and interpretations that I'm not aware of with this treaty, but regardless, that is astounding.

I would have thought that the courts would not have allowed the removal of Constitutional Rights. Interesting country.

Those cartoons meant a lot to us also. Besides the Bugs Bunny cartoons being my introduction to classical music, my wife has an approximation of the following tattooed on her, um, body.

My point is that the quality of the eyewitness testimony varies with the difficulty of the memory task. Generally speaking, remembering something complex and new is difficult; remembering something simple and familiar is easy. It seems to me that saying 'eyewitness testimony is bad' is a generalization that misidentifies the problem. Rather than saying 'eyewitness testimony is bad' and risking that people will disregard 'good' eyewitness testimony, it might make more sense to say 'the quality of eyewitness testimony decreases under the following circumstances: stress, bad lighting, unfamiliarity, etc'. If you and I were both asked to testify whether or not it was your brother leaving a building, I believe your eyewitness testimony should carry more weight than mine. Hence my dislike of saying 'eyewitness testimony is crap'.

While as far as I can tell this is generally correct, I don't think it is accurate to say that there is NO debt held by banks. Unless of course I am missing something here (which is always quite possible). https://www.thebalance.com/who-owns-the-u-s-national-debt-3306124

One might even find an avatar on this internet thingy!

Who is Bugs Bunny?

It can prove someone else committed the crime. A conviction being overturned does not necessarily invalidate eyewitness testimony. You inferred it.

But what was the eyewitness testimony? Did they see the crime committed by a specific person, or did they see the defendant enter and leave the building at about the time of the crime? Yes, details matter. Did the eyewitness identify the defendant committing the crime? Is that stated somewhere? Because an eyewitness account could be anything the observed during the crime. It doesn't have to be, for example, actually pulling the trigger. An eyewitness may claim they saw the defendant running from the building just before it burst into flames. How do you know the eyewitness was wrong? e.g. A man's girlfriend is murdered. Evidence found shows her DNA at his house, that he has a set of knives just like the one that killed her, and that he has soil on his shoes that match the soil outside her house. Eyewitness accounts indicate that the couple were seen fighting the night of the murder, and that he was seen leaving her house the night of the murder. Jury weighs all the evidence and finds him guilty. Jury would not have convicted without eyewitness accounts. Eyewitness accounts were 100% accurate. But DNA evidence later proves he was innocent. Testimony doesn't necessarily get overturned by DNA. Verdicts get overturned. Testimony on its own doesn't necessarily establish guilt. Testimony in addition to other evidence establishes guilt. If you talked to your brother as he left his girlfriend's house last night and were asked to testify about that, do you feel your testimony would be classified only as "better than nothing"? I know some of the testimony in question is about identifying a stranger, or details like height and hair color, but it is also about things that are more certain. I don't feel we can make a blanket "crap" statement about eyewitness testimony.

Is the ~4% wrongful conviction rate strictly due to a poor eyewitness account? Part of the reason I take the "crap" conclusion with a grain of salt is that it seems the ~4% demonstrated wrongful conviction rate is being laid at the feet of the eyewitness. What exactly was the "eyewitness testimony" in these cases? If all the wrongful convictions were due to nothing more than the testimony of an eyewitness saying "He did it!" then I could accept the assertion wholeheartedly. On the other hand, if the eyewitness account was simply corroborating evidence then it seems unreasonable to simply blame the conviction on the eyewitness account. Additionally, could the eyewitness have simply said "I saw Bill walk in the room, and we later found Ted dead in that room." In this case the eyewitness account could have been 100% accurate while getting lumped into the "crap" category because the person was later found to be innocent. I am confident that faulty testimony is given some percentage of the time, but without proper context it is impossible to draw a conclusion about just how bad it is and how much of an impact it had on the decision of the court.

It may be, but not based on your link as far as i can tell. Your link tells you how many convictions based on eyewitness accounts were overturned due to DNA, but doesn't mention how many convictions of all types based on eyewitness accounts were accurate. Not being 100% accurate is not the same as "crap". From another source that discusses how poor practices contaminating memories (just like how poor procedures can contaminate DNA) plays a significant role... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/eyewitness-memory-is-a-lot-more-reliable-than-you-think/

Yes, eyewitness testimony should be graded based on number and types of witnesses and other factors. A police officer by training is more likely to correctly remember details than the average person. If multiple people report the same thing, that is more significant than a single person reporting something. Eyewitness testimony is good, but unfortunately it is not repeatable, not collected in a controlled environment, and subject to bias.

If I correctly understand your question you are comparing a court of law to science. If so, the difference is primarily due to the level of certainty expected when making a claim. In a court of (criminal) law (in the US), the level of certainty must be 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. In science, the level of certainty expected (that is, the evidence) must meet a higher threshold.

It's an analogy. No one is suggesting that a person is using their mouth to cause a partial vacuum thus drawing in the CO2.

You said you were a scientist. I was wondering in what field of study you are doing science.

What kind of scientist are you?

I didn't have that impression. I had no idea if you had thought about it one way or the other. Just trying to participate in the conversation.

Feeling defensive?