DNA testing from a "database" is the same as in a lab. They only check a set of markers, a tiny fraction of all the DNA. These markers where chosen to be random... only they were quite random in the ethnic group tested, but not so random in other groups (one marker IIRC was shared by *all* African Americans tested).
Now if there is other collaborating evidence then fine, that changes things. But to base it *only* on DNA, that was directed via a database search and little else, then collision is still a problem. The "two sets of dna in that test" are not independent, one of the samples of DNA was chosen because of similarities with the other piece with a family member via a database search.
Unless of course you only care about getting a guy, rather than the guy that did it (Sorry, known too many cops).
Either way, with a poor state of knowledge of DNA markers and how they work, combined with DNA databases and conviction rate reward system, is scary.
Biology, despite the movies, really doesn't work that way. You may find a gene... that gives them a 4% chance of being a serial killer, perhaps. Maybe. We think. But there is a good chance you won't find anything at all. Its not all in the DNA (epigenetics, nurture vs nature etc.)
DNA fingerprints are not as random as many think. The markers used were not designed for a nation wide database situation. Hence collisions could be a big problem. That is two people with the same fingerprint (at least at the very small parts of DNA we look at) can in fact be very likely with a database this size.
I'm not saying he is innocent, but i don't think we should jump to the conclusion that he is guilty either.
In fact we may need to use SNPs (Single nucleotide polymorphisms) to be good enough for a database of millions (or eventually billions) to reduce collisions to acceptable levels.
There is sufficient transparency in the scientific community,....
The fact that these scientist published in journals without providing the data *at the time of publication* where's I must do so, shows that this is simply not true.
I peer review a lot. I don't try to pull it apart, but ensure that its well written, no big mistakes, and basically correct, and results are reproducible. Thats what gets published. A good solid paper that other scientist then read. Then a another paper is published by some else showing improved results, or showing where it all went wrong.
But if you can't publish the unpopular results.........
As a scientist, I can say bullshit. 10K is not a lot. Also most of us are not here for the money... since commercial work pays far better. Further more, some universities the Professor does get a slice of the grant pie personally.
And what is the size of a grant for the CRU? There is money to be made by pushing AGW. Money *is* being made by pushing AGW.
Oil companies really don't care. We are *dependent* on oil. After say 10 years or so of AGW is the doom of us all.... we have increased our oil usage.
However AGW or even "climatology" is not one of those things. Its a wonderfully complex system, and our models have a long way to go. Predictions from models are not facts and indeed are not experimental result. You can't even use the scientific method properly(Control planet earth?). So the science is about as far from settled as it can get.
So what? Al Gore isn't either, but everyone thinks he is the s**t when it come to climate change, never mind he make millions in carbon credit trading.
Don't make the mistake that only the priests have the ability to understand. It never ends well.
In my opinion, it seems like bureaucratic incompetence rather than malice or ideology.
It still breaks the publics trust.
Making data available is a fundamental part of science. Explaining the results to people outside your field is a fundamental part of science. Explaining the results to the general public when the public is interested/affected is a fundamental part of science. Its our job. The whole idea of specialization is that others don't need to be a specialist to get a good idea of whats going on.
Excuses like Exxon mobile will miss quote (they don't care--we are *dependent* on oil. Guess how much less energy a "greenie" uses? Guess how much less oil we use over the last 5 years?), or that some noob will look at the data just don't cut it.
AGW is very political and scientist are bad at government politics. But they still oversell dooms day results even before the media gets a hold of it. Some scientists actively believe they *must* over sell so the "little people" take it seriously. This is not what scientist should be doing, we already have enough Politicians. When the dust settles the damage will go well beyond climatology.
Whenever some group thinks they know better or think they are better than the rest of the people, and then take power.... things have never turned out good. I am a scientist. I know my field, but I am not better than anyone else. When it comes to policy that affects everyone, then everyone should be in the "know" and have a "say".
Only the claims really matter. Well no they don't, because a Judge and some lawyers decide what it all means, and guess how good their EE is? And the real deal breaker... they are all paid by the hour.
I don't understand why people care? I mean i don't like the music. But what do i care about if she has talent or not? Or more to the point, why would i put effort into putting her down over the kind of music she plays/sings. Really i think some people are just jealous of others success.
Does that not make sending the Enterprise worth doing anyways?
It makes about much sense as "cleaning beaches". It would be a PR campaign and nothing else. And a pretty expensive campaign at that. If you think an aircraft carrier is expensive in Dock. Just wait till its seaside.
310 Megawatts of power could "turn over" a lot of ocean water.
No it couldn't. In fact it could "turn over" hardly any at all. The ocean is not a swimming pool. Run the numbers... How much of just the gulf region can 310 MW "clean" after ruining for a century. Its nothing compared to how much is there.
Sometimes experts know too much...
And you are ignorant of basic facts, and are too lazy to even run some simple back of the envelope calculations. Thank God you are not in charge of fixing it, or we would really be screwed.
Well i think the problems are more compounded with software. This is for 2 reasons. More people can create software "inventions" that solve a relevant problem, and 2, most of these people consider their solution pretty uninteresting with regards to patents.
Then there are some "practical" considerations. Patents are suppose to have a "preferred embodiment" disclosed, as in with enough detail to make it. Yet every software patent i have read never disclose a working anything and uses very very vague terminology. The reason is that if the are specific enough, they are coded around trivially as compared to hardware. Some other posts in this topic point that out. A patent that is specific enough for a software "invention" is no different from copyright.
Slashdot Mirror
DNA testing from a "database" is the same as in a lab. They only check a set of markers, a tiny fraction of all the DNA. These markers where chosen to be random... only they were quite random in the ethnic group tested, but not so random in other groups (one marker IIRC was shared by *all* African Americans tested).
Now if there is other collaborating evidence then fine, that changes things. But to base it *only* on DNA, that was directed via a database search and little else, then collision is still a problem. The "two sets of dna in that test" are not independent, one of the samples of DNA was chosen because of similarities with the other piece with a family member via a database search.
Unless of course you only care about getting a guy, rather than the guy that did it (Sorry, known too many cops).
Either way, with a poor state of knowledge of DNA markers and how they work, combined with DNA databases and conviction rate reward system, is scary.
Biology, despite the movies, really doesn't work that way. You may find a gene... that gives them a 4% chance of being a serial killer, perhaps. Maybe. We think. But there is a good chance you won't find anything at all. Its not all in the DNA (epigenetics, nurture vs nature etc.)
DNA fingerprints are not as random as many think. The markers used were not designed for a nation wide database situation. Hence collisions could be a big problem. That is two people with the same fingerprint (at least at the very small parts of DNA we look at) can in fact be very likely with a database this size.
I'm not saying he is innocent, but i don't think we should jump to the conclusion that he is guilty either.
In fact we may need to use SNPs (Single nucleotide polymorphisms) to be good enough for a database of millions (or eventually billions) to reduce collisions to acceptable levels.
Every time we let only permit "qualified" "Priests" tell us what truth is and is not, things go very very bad.
In God I trust. The rest of you, show me the data.
Also I bet you are not really a true Scotsman either... so why should i listen to you?
There is sufficient transparency in the scientific community,....
The fact that these scientist published in journals without providing the data *at the time of publication* where's I must do so, shows that this is simply not true.
I peer review a lot. I don't try to pull it apart, but ensure that its well written, no big mistakes, and basically correct, and results are reproducible. Thats what gets published. A good solid paper that other scientist then read. Then a another paper is published by some else showing improved results, or showing where it all went wrong.
But if you can't publish the unpopular results.........
As a scientist, I can say bullshit. 10K is not a lot. Also most of us are not here for the money... since commercial work pays far better. Further more, some universities the Professor does get a slice of the grant pie personally.
And what is the size of a grant for the CRU? There is money to be made by pushing AGW. Money *is* being made by pushing AGW.
Oil companies really don't care. We are *dependent* on oil. After say 10 years or so of AGW is the doom of us all.... we have increased our oil usage.
Wow, so we should just ignore skeptics then? Do you even know what science is?
In God we trust, the rest of you show me the data.
However AGW or even "climatology" is not one of those things. Its a wonderfully complex system, and our models have a long way to go. Predictions from models are not facts and indeed are not experimental result. You can't even use the scientific method properly(Control planet earth?). So the science is about as far from settled as it can get.
I know many hardcore $TYPEs. They are pretty much the same regardless of the value, type or even Class of $TYPE.
More to the point, none of them are a true Scotsman either. So no whiskey for them. I rest my case.
No i don't. Data should be available, in most fields this is a requirement.
This is not limited to climatology. Many fields suffer from this. Its just more public with AGW.
Steve McIntyre is NOT a climatologist...
So what? Al Gore isn't either, but everyone thinks he is the s**t when it come to climate change, never mind he make millions in carbon credit trading.
Don't make the mistake that only the priests have the ability to understand. It never ends well.
In my opinion, it seems like bureaucratic incompetence rather than malice or ideology.
It still breaks the publics trust.
Making data available is a fundamental part of science. Explaining the results to people outside your field is a fundamental part of science. Explaining the results to the general public when the public is interested/affected is a fundamental part of science. Its our job. The whole idea of specialization is that others don't need to be a specialist to get a good idea of whats going on.
Excuses like Exxon mobile will miss quote (they don't care--we are *dependent* on oil. Guess how much less energy a "greenie" uses? Guess how much less oil we use over the last 5 years?), or that some noob will look at the data just don't cut it.
AGW is very political and scientist are bad at government politics. But they still oversell dooms day results even before the media gets a hold of it. Some scientists actively believe they *must* over sell so the "little people" take it seriously. This is not what scientist should be doing, we already have enough Politicians. When the dust settles the damage will go well beyond climatology.
Whenever some group thinks they know better or think they are better than the rest of the people, and then take power.... things have never turned out good. I am a scientist. I know my field, but I am not better than anyone else. When it comes to policy that affects everyone, then everyone should be in the "know" and have a "say".
Only the claims really matter. Well no they don't, because a Judge and some lawyers decide what it all means, and guess how good their EE is? And the real deal breaker... they are all paid by the hour.
No matter who loses, the lawyers always win.
Many people still take these kind of drugs. Nice try, but no cigar.
I don't understand why people care? I mean i don't like the music. But what do i care about if she has talent or not? Or more to the point, why would i put effort into putting her down over the kind of music she plays/sings. Really i think some people are just jealous of others success.
Death by snu snu!
Everything sux and yet they (the movie/music/software companies) expect us to pay and pay and pay through our nose for their wares.
If it sux so much, why are so many downloading it. Hell they are making a lot of money still, so many people are paying for it too.
So really you are saying that you think it sux and its not worth it. But a lot of folks clearly disagree with this opinion.
The best teaching aid for a lazy student is a failing grade.
Since when is others laziness my problem? (yes, I teach)
http://www.schneierfacts.com/fact/42
Does that not make sending the Enterprise worth doing anyways?
It makes about much sense as "cleaning beaches". It would be a PR campaign and nothing else. And a pretty expensive campaign at that. If you think an aircraft carrier is expensive in Dock. Just wait till its seaside.
310 Megawatts of power could "turn over" a lot of ocean water.
No it couldn't. In fact it could "turn over" hardly any at all. The ocean is not a swimming pool. Run the numbers... How much of just the gulf region can 310 MW "clean" after ruining for a century. Its nothing compared to how much is there.
Sometimes experts know too much...
And you are ignorant of basic facts, and are too lazy to even run some simple back of the envelope calculations. Thank God you are not in charge of fixing it, or we would really be screwed.
Well i think the problems are more compounded with software. This is for 2 reasons. More people can create software "inventions" that solve a relevant problem, and 2, most of these people consider their solution pretty uninteresting with regards to patents.
Then there are some "practical" considerations. Patents are suppose to have a "preferred embodiment" disclosed, as in with enough detail to make it. Yet every software patent i have read never disclose a working anything and uses very very vague terminology. The reason is that if the are specific enough, they are coded around trivially as compared to hardware. Some other posts in this topic point that out. A patent that is specific enough for a software "invention" is no different from copyright.
But there is always many more positions for privates than officers....
This is the way for a lot of micro controllers and DSPs. Its not all it crack up to be. Pros and cons and all that.