And yes as I said if you have a reasonable suspect and you test his DNA and it matches 9 markers it's extremely likely that DNA was from him. However, if you take your DNA sample and match it against a database of 100 million DNA samples and consider that there's potential errors from collection methodology, to lab processing, to data entry/transfer it's not so clear that things random/eroneous matches are "no longer a possibility"
But yes, I certainly wouldn't be submitting my DNA in that case, and in fact I'd be going on a vacation if my family members were going to submit theirs.
They don't do a "full scan", the marker matches is it. Crime scene samples are contaminated anyway so you aren't getting a "full scan" out of it in the first place.
In the case of "we suspect X due to this evidence, test his DNS for a match" then a match to enough markers would be very good evidence - it's very unlikely he would match by chance. But doing it the other way "compare all these samples against this one" gives you a much higher chance of a random match. 8000 isn't that high a number though - assuming they had a lot of markers. It's still a terrible way to use DNA evidence - and you can be pretty sure they won't tell the jury about the actual odds of a random match in a multi-sample comparison and instead just use the 1:1 match odds.
Of course we are only counting Americans. Why would dead non-Americans in non-America be expected to have an effect on declarations of Martial Law in America?
Also the numbers need to be scaled to be per capita.
"I seriously doubt that Aristotle could have comprehended calculus" does not mesh with being an exceptional thinker. Inability to comprehend calculus is a property of below average thinkers (or unmotivated ones, but that gives the same outcome).
Because it was invented by people rather than having existed for millions of years in nature. And it's less than 20 years old so there are likely valid patents on some of the basics.
CD piracy conviction. If that had been a year in prison instead he'd be in for life without the possibility of parole, since combined with the 5 year assault conviction he'd hit Mississippi's version of three strikes: http://www.mscode.com/free/statutes/99/019/0083.htm
Sure. And it's hard to build a well constructed chest while being really easy to build a shoddy one. Yet we still expect people who we pay to build chests to build them well. I'm not sure why that doesn't apply to people whose job is to teach being expected to perform the various parts of teaching well.
But it seems like a trivial situtation to me - then again I'm don't do photoshop or art so maybe there's something tricky. Just give the students the flattened compressed to crap jpeg export of the final image. It'll be more work to recreate the layers than it would be to do it from scratch and even for the morons who spend more effort cheating than it would take to do properly the image quality will give it away at a glance (and I would hope the teacher is more than glancing at their work).
A supreme court is not the high court. Supreme courts are the highest courts in each state, the high court is the court of appeal for them. Though it's not that likely they'd grant special leave to appeal this particular case.
Yes the police should arrest and charge you for every crime you commit. Always. No warnings. Yes the entire population of the US will be in jail - well all the police might be in jail first actually, so maybe they queue those for last. That would force the system to be changed so that everyone isn't a criminal, since that just won't work.
There is no difference between a place in which any arbitrary person can be whisked off the street/out of their homes by the police for no reason and without charge and one in which any arbitrary person can be whisked off the street.out of their homes by the police for some crime that everyone else is also guilty of. You still have the situation in which people who offend the wrong person get disappeared.
Simplifying as, "there are no deductions, there are no rebates, look up your income in a tax table and pay the amount plus the percentage of the extra". For businesses taxing revenue rather than profit would be a large change but the rates would be lowered significantly, businesses that operate at relatively low margin levels would need to charge higher prices.
Picking a heavily restricted special case product that was so special the constitution got changed twice due to entirely to it and applying it to "almost every product" does not a reasonable argument make.
I can buy pumpkins from a local farmer who grew them. I can buy a computer made by Dell from Dell. I can buy ink for my printer directly from the manufacturer. I can pay a local carpenter to build me a table directly. I can buy a house from the builder.
"Why aren't they subpoena'ing Bloomberg" is not a question of morals. You subpoena about things which are against the law, not about things which are immoral.
Slashdot Mirror
8000 people to match with, not markers.
And yes as I said if you have a reasonable suspect and you test his DNA and it matches 9 markers it's extremely likely that DNA was from him. However, if you take your DNA sample and match it against a database of 100 million DNA samples and consider that there's potential errors from collection methodology, to lab processing, to data entry/transfer it's not so clear that things random/eroneous matches are "no longer a possibility"
People are dumb.
But yes, I certainly wouldn't be submitting my DNA in that case, and in fact I'd be going on a vacation if my family members were going to submit theirs.
They don't do a "full scan", the marker matches is it. Crime scene samples are contaminated anyway so you aren't getting a "full scan" out of it in the first place.
In the case of "we suspect X due to this evidence, test his DNS for a match" then a match to enough markers would be very good evidence - it's very unlikely he would match by chance. But doing it the other way "compare all these samples against this one" gives you a much higher chance of a random match. 8000 isn't that high a number though - assuming they had a lot of markers. It's still a terrible way to use DNA evidence - and you can be pretty sure they won't tell the jury about the actual odds of a random match in a multi-sample comparison and instead just use the 1:1 match odds.
Of course we are only counting Americans. Why would dead non-Americans in non-America be expected to have an effect on declarations of Martial Law in America?
Also the numbers need to be scaled to be per capita.
Flying into the galaxy at non-FTL speeds is going to take quote some time, why were you bothering with FTL in the first place?
Treasuries are something.
"I seriously doubt that Aristotle could have comprehended calculus" does not mesh with being an exceptional thinker. Inability to comprehend calculus is a property of below average thinkers (or unmotivated ones, but that gives the same outcome).
Because it was invented by people rather than having existed for millions of years in nature. And it's less than 20 years old so there are likely valid patents on some of the basics.
CD piracy conviction. If that had been a year in prison instead he'd be in for life without the possibility of parole, since combined with the 5 year assault conviction he'd hit Mississippi's version of three strikes: http://www.mscode.com/free/statutes/99/019/0083.htm
Really? You think the human brain has evolved significantly since Aristotle's time???
Average high school students can comprehend calculus I'm sure if Aristotle was born today he'd manage a passing grade in high school math.
Just because the writer dismissed the perfect answer doesn't mean you can't ask them why they don't use that obvious simple solution.
Sure. And it's hard to build a well constructed chest while being really easy to build a shoddy one. Yet we still expect people who we pay to build chests to build them well. I'm not sure why that doesn't apply to people whose job is to teach being expected to perform the various parts of teaching well.
But it seems like a trivial situtation to me - then again I'm don't do photoshop or art so maybe there's something tricky. Just give the students the flattened compressed to crap jpeg export of the final image. It'll be more work to recreate the layers than it would be to do it from scratch and even for the morons who spend more effort cheating than it would take to do properly the image quality will give it away at a glance (and I would hope the teacher is more than glancing at their work).
I have chosen not to pay capital gains tax by not having any capital gains. So is that also not also not a tax?
A supreme court is not the high court. Supreme courts are the highest courts in each state, the high court is the court of appeal for them. Though it's not that likely they'd grant special leave to appeal this particular case.
And you don't see that as a problem?
Yes the police should arrest and charge you for every crime you commit. Always. No warnings. Yes the entire population of the US will be in jail - well all the police might be in jail first actually, so maybe they queue those for last. That would force the system to be changed so that everyone isn't a criminal, since that just won't work.
There is no difference between a place in which any arbitrary person can be whisked off the street/out of their homes by the police for no reason and without charge and one in which any arbitrary person can be whisked off the street.out of their homes by the police for some crime that everyone else is also guilty of. You still have the situation in which people who offend the wrong person get disappeared.
Because it was violated before it expired..
No they exist "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", the size or age of the inventor is irrelevant.
Obviously. Are you merely illiterate, or just plain thick?
Simplifying as, "there are no deductions, there are no rebates, look up your income in a tax table and pay the amount plus the percentage of the extra". For businesses taxing revenue rather than profit would be a large change but the rates would be lowered significantly, businesses that operate at relatively low margin levels would need to charge higher prices.
Of course there are some restricted products, he listed one. The article is about another. I'm only disputing the "almost every product" claim.
Picking a heavily restricted special case product that was so special the constitution got changed twice due to entirely to it and applying it to "almost every product" does not a reasonable argument make.
I can buy pumpkins from a local farmer who grew them. I can buy a computer made by Dell from Dell. I can buy ink for my printer directly from the manufacturer. I can pay a local carpenter to build me a table directly. I can buy a house from the builder.
Next you'll be telling that accountants don't think the tax system needs simplifying.
You can't issue subpoena for things you don't like that are legal. Why is this such a hard concept?
"Why aren't they subpoena'ing Bloomberg" is not a question of morals. You subpoena about things which are against the law, not about things which are immoral.
They aren't asking for the emails he sent, so ownership of those is irrelevant. Which you'd know if you read the article of the summary.