That can be true only if multiple rapes actually occurred. End even if they did, I'm not convinced that the victim of the first rape would be culpable for the second. The second victim could say to the first "if you had gone straight to the police, I might not have been raped", but that does not necessarily mean she can say "my rape was partly your fault".
Is Lou Ferrigno known for choosing women of exceptional veracity? Does being married to Lou Ferrigno dispel the feminist tendency to define rape as almost anything, or the human tendency to seek fame and public sympathy, or to invent evidence to help convict someone already thought to be guilty?
Why did you mention it (without parentheses)? Please be honest; does her being married to Lou Ferrigno make you feel that she should be believed more than someone who isn't?
There's this thing called Conservation of Energy. It's a rule built into the universe. Any discussion of a new trick that violates this rule must start with a few words about how physicists around the world are tearing up their theories back to Galileo and starting over, before digressing into the refueling schedules of ships at sea. Otherwise it's almost certainly crackpottery.
...Tyree Threatt, 21 years old, facing charges of mugging a woman on June 27. They didn’t arrest him that day, of course, but she gave a description of the mugger. A few weeks later, officers saw Threatt and determined he matched the description.
Did she say she'd been mugged by a man in striped pajamas, carrying an improvised pickaxe?
Joking aside, here's a line we ought to remember:
Then they put his photo in a lineup and she picked him out.
Remember this when on a jury: the victim can pick a photo from a set of photos, and be wrong.
Before I trust the Noke, I'd like to know the exact challenge-and-response protocol. When a company doesn't reveal such details, it usually means that the protocol is full of holes. It's not hard to imagine a "straightforward" design that would allow a device pretending to be a Noke to quietly collect the keys of all Noke-users who walk past it.
The results of the experiment seem to indicate that people don't like sites with a low signal/noise ratio.
If there are no comments, all you see is the news, the "content". If there are comments, you read them, hoping for something interesting, and find nothing. You've wasted your time. And it appears that this is a site frequented by people with nothing much to say. Monotonous praise and monotonous scorn are bad enough, but at least they indicate something. If they are mixed, then they indicate nothing; these sites get the lowest score.
Why not try a more brave experiment? The Washington Post allows pseudonymous comments by registered readers. Suppose it allowed anonymous comments, but provided a filter for readers, to hide or reveal anonymous comments along with the threads that follow from them? Then Wallston and Tarski could see pretty clearly whether their own readers preferred pages that allow anonymity.
Scientific theories posit that certain things are impossible -- otherwise they'd be useless. But the scientific method requires that all theories be subject to challenge, that no theory can ever attain the rank of "absolutely certain", that we always remain open to the possibility that our most trusted theories might turn out to be wrong. In that sense, nothing in science is absolutely impossible.
The "Cannae Drive" is not absolutely impossible -- nothing in science is -- but I'd offer long odds against it. for one thing:
"...If it really works, it could be a major breakthrough for deep-space exploration."
If it really worked, we'd have to tear down our theories of Physics and rebuild them. Ms. Nelson doesn't seem to understand just how staggering this discovery would be if it turned out to be real, so I have to doubt that she asked the right questions about this experiment. (And NASA has never had much of a reputation for experimental physics, even before they started losing spacecraft by e.g. getting miles and kilometers mixed up.)
The difference is that in this case the guilty parties make things worse by not apologizing for not knowing what a word meant, and in the prior case the innocent party made things worse by apologizing for knowing what a word meant and using it correctly.
I read the article on Syndrome X. It's interesting, but the headline is misleading. The Syndrome involves a disruption of development, with different systems evolving at different rates (e.g. rapid deterioration of the telomeres, but retarded mental development). These girls don't remain bouncy little children for 90 years, they grow in a disordered way and die young.
This syndrome may tell us a lot about development and gene regulation, but the people who refer to it as "the key to halting the aging process" seem to be indulging in pure wishful thinking.
"The issue here is not the right to anonymous speech. Nobody disputes that right. The issue is whether there is a right to anonymous speech... if the speaker is a public figure."
So Bob Lord isn't disputing the right, he's just saying it doesn't apply to those who hold pubic office.
...And all the rest of his argument boils down to "he's a creep, so he should be exposed", which just shows that we should remind ourselves again that we should not undercut the rights of others just because we dislike them. How many times must we learn that lesson?
"Don't you see? You have the heart, but you don't have the soul. No, no, wait... you have the soul, but you don't have the heart. No, no, scratch that... you have the heart and the soul, but you don't have the talent."
Where was this journalistic outrage when the ruling was still in the works?
On the 16th of May, the day of the ruling, the Guardian printed an article by this same James Ball about it that can be summed up as "ooh, this will be tricky for Google". And now that juicy Guardian articles are getting blanked, now he's up in arms.