Least Significant Nibble

On April 17, 2005, during an interrogation, Esteban Carpio shot and killed police detective James L. Allen of Providence, RI. Carpio was re-arrested 45 minutes later. He was punched in the face three times by police detective Christopher Zarella, breaking bones in Carpio's face. Comments on Carpio: The streets are not like a court room. There is such thing as street justice, which compensates for the crimes that are not paid for by the legal justice system. That's what he fucking gets. He brought that upon himself Should have let the family's of the people he killed go at him, I promise it would have been much worse. Sympathy sorry we're all out here. Cops should be commended. He walked into the court alive even after shooting a cop. Now that is something! Bet the two people he killed are still dead... Justice bitches...  maybe you shouldn't shoot people in the face This dude took a mans life away. He desevered to be killed. Hopefully he looses si...

Shorter Kathleen Parker : Having a personal opinion about whether Bill Cosby is a rapist is a violation of his due process rights. Blog posts and tweets must meet the same evidentiary standards as a criminal conviction. Also, FERGUSON!

The simplest possible Even Prime Fallacy is shown below: Salviati : Most prime numbers are odd. Simplicio : Two is even! Your argument completely falls apart. We may express this idea more formally: Salviati : p is sometimes true. Simplicio : Yes, but p is sometimes false! Your argument completely falls apart. Simplicio has failed to disprove Salviati, not because Simplicio's rebuttal is illogical or irrelevant, but because it is literally the exact same argument as the one Salviati made! " p is sometimes false" is an inevitable logical consequence of " p is sometimes true." Someone who invokes an even prime fallacy probably thinks of an argument as "words you say in response to words someone else says," rather than as an exercise in logic.

The sign says NO TURN ON RED . It very clearly indicates what lanes you are legally allowed to turn into. Naturally, the car in front of me turns, on red, into a lane in which it is not allowed. He joins a veritable parade of cars illegally blocking the transit lanes, for what purpose I cannot discern. Further up the street, a car honks at a bus pulling away from the bus stop, even though the car is breaking the law by being in a transit lane. Behind me, a train has to slow to a crawl. The trains take a full block to come to a stop, so the operator has to hit the brakes early to avoid crushing all the cars parked on the tracks. Drivers think the law is very important, which is why they always obey it.

Shikha Dalmia : At any given moment, one person wants sex more passionately than the other. What's more, whether due to nurture or nature, there is usually a difference in tempo between men and women, with women generally requiring more "convincing." And someone who requires convincing is not yet in a position to offer "affirmative" much less "enthusiastic" consent. That doesn't mean that the final experience is unsatisfying—but it does mean that initially one has to be coaxed out of one's comfort zone. Affirmative consent would criminalize that. I am finding it next to impossible to read this passage in any other way than "women just need to be raped a little bit or they won't want to have sex." It is deeply, deeply creepy.

Alan Dershowitz : I would bet anything that 99 percent of the people who are demanding that [Salaita] be restored tenure would be on the exact opposite side of this if he’d been making pro-Israel but equally uncivil statements. Hypocrisy about free speech is universal. Even among Supreme Court justices, who are supposed to be non-ideological, Epstein, Parker, and Segal found a strong tendency to support the free speech rights of their ideological brethren and oppose the free speech rights of their ideological opponents. No doubt your average Joe is even less principled than Scalia, Ginsburg, or Kennedy. If free speech hypocrisy is so banal, why make so much of it? The argument goes something like this: Supporters of X 's right to say p claim they care about free speech rights. Were X saying ¬ p , X 's current supporters would not defend his free speech rights. Therefore, censorship is good! P.S., I am not a crackpot.

Two weeks ago, Bike Portland ran a story on Portland's Clinton St. bike boulevard. It included a quote from PBOT traffic safety specialist Greg Raisman: Our safety performance [on bike boulevards] over time has been excellent. 70 percent of our streets are residential. Less than 20 percent of bike and pedestrian crash activity happens there. … There’s comfort factors that are important in how many cars are on the road. But from a pure safety perspective, the big threat is where you’re crossing the busy streets. Immediately after finishing the article, I hopped on my bike and rode down Clinton to go to dinner with my girlfriend and her coworkers. Just after I passed 43rd Ave. heading toward Chavez, I saw a group of three cyclists heading in the opposite direction with a Subaru following close behind. I kept my eye on the Subaru, because dangerous passing is a daily occurrence on Clinton. Suddenly and without warning, the car swerved into my lane and started heading straight ...