Morning Links

Friday, October 5th, 2012

Digg it |  reddit | |  Fark

61 Responses to “Morning Links”

  1. #1 |  Weird Willy | 

    @ #30

    “Anyone who has actually worked on Wikipedia articles will understand the professor’s problem.”

    Amen, brother. While I used to assist friends and colleagues in helping to maintain a sane and factually responsible presence on Wikipedia, I have since given up on the forum completely. The last time someone requested my aid in fending off a dedicated team of distortionist ideologues who were redacting his contributions, I essentially told him to forget it, since Wikipedia is not worth donkey balls.

  2. #2 |  Weird Willy | 


    What if the judge simply allows evidence showing that none of Trayvon Martin’s DNA was found on Zimmerman’s weapon and lets the jury decide its weight; still a boob? On what grounds would the judge exclude that evidence? Do you think that such an exclusion would survive the prosecution’s interlocutory appeal, since it would no doubt require a ruling on weight as opposed to admissibility?

  3. #3 |  Mario | 

    I propose the designation be changed from Special Weapons And Tactics to Sanctioned Home Invasion Team.

  4. #4 |  MassHole | 

    Marion wins the internet today. Love it: S.H.I.T

  5. #5 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 

    el coronado,

    I think we’ll have to agree to disagree. There’s evidence enough for BOTH conspiracy and stupidity that I’m not sure “Never attribute to malice what is adequately explained by stupidity” applies anymore. Your experience with the young lady who was so excited by ‘whole language instruction’ is a case in point. That isn’t new. That’s “See-say” in recycled natural fibre clothing. And for some stupid reason the educators cling onto ‘see-say’ like grim death, no matter how often it is demonstrated to be swill. I really think it comes back to “Progressive Education” being their religion. They act as if ‘see-say’ was the Revealed Word.

  6. #6 |  Burgers Allday | 

    Dear Mr. Eapen:

    I do not know if you still read comments here at Mr. Balko’s Adge blog, but this is a case that you and your friends at the Forfeiture Reform Braintrust might be interested in:

  7. #7 |  Juice | 

    Maybe some won’t like the conspiracy nature of this show in general, but this episode is not like that. It’s a much more in depth look at the wikipedia thing with many more examples.

  8. #8 |  Deucemaster | 


    Could you please supply some bona fides for Mr. Siegel? His blog offers zero background information and his writing is atrocious. I’d love to be able to quote his analysis but, without some sort of curriculum vitae, I’m wary of his authority.

    I assume you must have this information, to feel comfortable referring readers to him yourself.


  9. #9 |  Rob | 

    What if the judge simply allows evidence showing that none of Trayvon Martin’s DNA was found on Zimmerman’s weapon and lets the jury decide its weight; still a boob?

    Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because his DNA wasn’t found on the gun doesn’t mean that he didn’t touch it. He may simply have not left any DNA traces on the gun, or any traces were damaged and unmatchable.

    OTOH, a positive match of DNA on the gun would suggest that he did touch the gun, so long as it can be determined that the DNA didn’t end up on the gun from some other way.

  10. #10 |  Weird Willy | 


    How does that have even the slightest thing to do with the question I posed and you excerpted? I can see that if you were empowered as a finder of fact in the judicial process, you would tend to discount the weight of the subject evidence. How that has anything to do with my question escapes me.

  11. #11 |  Rob | 

    Sorry, I misread what you said. For some reason I thought you asked what if they HAD found evidence of DNA on the gun and the judge let them present that as evidence. I really shouldn’t post in the morning before I’ve had any caffeine.