It seems that it is USA-only, judging from the comments on the videos and the fact that I also can't see the TEXTp version. I hope that THAT part is the actual joke. Though I doubt that.
I see where you were going with that... BUT!
on
Apple iPad Reviewed
·
· Score: 1
If you can really look at the iPad and think Apple should have just shipped a netbook, then not only have you completely missed the point, but the next 10 years of computer industry evolution are going to be very confusing for you, as the mainstream market increasingly ignores the tech specs that geeks obsess over in favor of user experience considerations that are far more relevant to normal users.
You forgot to tell them that they are stupid and smelly and that they have cooties.
next 10 years of computer industry evolution are going to be very confusing for you
OK... fine... you DID insinuate that they are beings of lesser intelligence and diminished capacity for reasoning. Still.. the post above lacks core elements that would make it a valid kindergarten-level post.
*Didn't read through all the comments, but I am rather amazed that there aren't more posters claiming the "Supertasker's" cape. Or is it cowl? Shield maybe? Sword?
That would be The Transformers you are thinking of. THERE everything from cars to toasters is a product of alien-techTM. Scientists in ID4 (including Lt. Commander Data) had no success in deciphering anything since there was nothing there to power the ship.
Oh and do note that humans had no "ray guns", shields, space-fighters that don't use jet propulsion - in fact all that was a complete surprise to them.
I am not contradicting the point of "flop". I am asking could it be that they didn't flop because there was only one George Lucas, while there were many would-be LRHs involved with the Battlefield Earth. It's not like they lacked the resources to "create" the number of people who would buy the ticket to see it. After all - they've done that before with their other "bestsellers".
You are suggesting using TWO forms of health insurance instead of ONE that would do the same? Only there will be less money wasted on administration and stuff PLUS someone else will get to enjoy the benefits from it instead of just bank and insurance company fat cats. AND it still works for you in case you lose your job, house, ability to provide for yourself and your family.
But you MIGHT actually save a buck or two if you gamble those two accounts just right and skip a doctor's appointment or two and don't get none of those diseases your particular plan does not cover. Is that it?
Sounds a lot like trying to play the game the insurance companies are playing, only you have only one chip (your health) on the table and they run the gambling house. And they cheat.
I've read that twice and I still don't know what you're trying to say.
I believe that the problem lies in the fact that you are thinking on a very specific case, involving very specific variables that you believe are working in your favor. At the same time, I am talking in very general terms and concepts that may or may not cover your very specific case that you have in mind.
That's asking somebody to hold your money for you to keep you from spending it between now and when you need it, which is 100% stupid because of course they'll take their cut.
Not true.
1 - They are not holding your money for you. You are paying them. That is why there is a "cut". In return, they give you a contract that says that in case you need that money spent on the stuff that is listed in the contract, they will cover your expenses.
2 - They are not just holding your money. They are holding the PROFIT your money will create over time. Which is AT LEAST equal to the amount you would get if you've put it in the bank instead and collected interests on it. Since they are a business - they will by definition make more than that. That is economics 101 - why start a business when you can make more or the same by just keeping it in a bank? But... you are buying their service only with your money - NOT with "your money + profit".
3 - They can't have everyone paying exactly the same - as that would mean certain loss of money for them. A for-profit organization can't run that way. So, in order to be constantly making money, they calculate the chances that you will not get to use the service money you've paid for - and then set your specific rate so that even in case you do they will still make a certain percentage.
So... They take your money now and take a cut from it. They keep the profit it will create over the years. They give you just a tiny fraction less than what you should be getting for it. (Not what you could mind you. You can't sign the kind of contracts they can. Nor pay for the lawyers they can.)
So it is actually three different cuts that they take - before they even try to deny you the use of the services that you have already paid for.
You subsidize what already IS. That is, WHEN the cancer metastasizes - there is a subsidy of the costs for the treatment. You can't subsidize a 0% of something, right?
BUT... you can make sure that your are ready in case it doesn't happen to be 0%. Cause you insure against something that MAY or MAY NOT happen. You know... leave the money aside to buy a shovel in case the cat is dead, OR to buy cat food in case it is alive. Being ready only for one of those cases is gambling. Being ready for neither is being fucked. So, while you can't subsidize a closed box with a cat that exists in two states at the same time inside - you CAN make sure that you are ready for both possibilities.
Oh and... there is no "probably" in insurance - not for the insured. For him/her it is "in case I need it". You don't make a calculated gamble with your or your kids' lives. "Probability" part is jammed in there by the insurance company. You know, the ones that run a SERVICE TO THE SOCIETY as a for-profit operation. They are the ones calculating the probabilities to make sure you are paying just a little bit more than you probably should - as far as they can tell. And gambling that you will never actually use that money because you will die from something else (with a greater probability), before some of your probabilities turn into a near certainty.
You are not betting that the cancer will not metastasize - you are making sure that if it does the patient will get the necessary treatment.
You've been brainwashed into thinking that it is OK and even necessary to run everything as a for-profit operation. Hint - it isn't. Things like education, health-care, transport networks, defense, environment etc. are primarily SERVICES. They provide support and continuous operation of a civilized society. That is why it is A-OK for money gathered from the taxes to be spent on those. It is your money being used to provide you with a better quality of life. It is also other people's money. And it is gathered from EVERYONE, all of the time, so any-time ANY-ONE needs it - it is there.
THAT is your flying car. Your jet-pack. May not be as flashy as in The Jetsons, but it will keep you alive and slashdotting for a long time. We are going onto a 100-year lifespan nowadays, haven't you heard?
Main Entry: 1contingent Pronunciation: \kn-tin-jnt\ Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin contingent-, contingens, present participle of contingere to have contact with, befall, from com- + tangere to touch -- more at tangent Date: 14th century
1 : likely but not certain to happen : possible 2 : not logically necessary; especially : empirical 3 a : happening by chance or unforeseen causes b : subject to chance or unseen effects : unpredictable c : intended for use in circumstances not completely foreseen 4 : dependent on or conditioned by something else 5 : not necessitated : determined by free choice synonyms see accidental
-- contingently adverb
You know... there is likely, but not certain chance that you can "catch" any bacterial or viral disease. Or sustain any form of physical injury possible. Or even acquire an illness due to the changes in your lifestyle beyond your control - such as due to aging.
None of those have anything to do with "pre-existing" conditions, but you sure as hell can make SURE that in case it happens - your ass will get the necessary treatment.
Saws currently on the market can not be retrofitted with SawStop's device. Manufacturers would have to redesign saws, which could cause a price increase of about $150.
In documents submitted to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Power Tool Institute has claimed that replacing the cost of SawStop's brake, $69, and blade, about $100, after an incident would burden consumers. The industry group also stated that "table saws are a relatively safe product."
First off, they would have to make these new saws cheap enough for the customers to completely replace all of their existing saws. And since most saws are priced between couple of thousands of dollars - even cheap is not cheap.
Cause, if they want the safety, they need the new tech. And unless customers already have robot employees that can continue to work on those old unsafe saws, while fleshy humans take over the new safe machinery - old equipment will do nothing but take up space and collect rust and dust. Alternatively, they can hire some "lesser humans" to work on those old saws. Or only use them when they plan to have an accident.
On top of all that, first time you stick a finger (or a hot-dog) into one of those - someone has to pay 170$ to replace the saw and the break. And unless they are going to claim that the warranty on the safe saws does no cover using the saw in a such way that would require the use of the built-in safety measures - those 170$ go directly out of manufacturer's pocket. Meaning a direct 170$ price increase for the consumer. And repeating it every time "the incident" happens again.
Patent or no patent, most people would not be able to afford buying these. And since manufacturer would still have to sell "unsafe" regular saws to stay in business - those would also have to increase in price since they would have to include the costs of continuously additionally informing the customers that those old saws are NOT the new safe saws. Basically, it would be like the government creating a new tax to finance the campaign that would inform people that the sky is blue. Or that the fire is hot.
I need two things (actually I need many more than just two, but I am condensing that to just two regarding the lattice-lettuce mix-up).
A better spellchecker and a new mouse. Those two bloody words are right next to each other and my mouse has shown affinity towards clicking all by itself lately. I am guessing that it has something to do with all that DNA I've impressed into it during the years - it has finally become sentient and it is trying to communicate. The other day it clicked on a spyware link all by itself. Took me three days to finally get rid of all of that shit.
But I've found a way to control its outbursts of "behaving". I've plugged in another mouse. Of "El Cheapo" variety that you find in a box of biscuits these days. Ergonomically it feels like you are holding an empty deodorant stick of Chinese manufacture - but it clicks where it is supposed to. When you press it hard enough. The real advantage comes from having both mice plugged in at the same time (Wonders of USB. Couldn't do that back in the day.). If I was really up to it, I guess I could use one for the clicking and the other for moving the cursor around. Loads of fun that is. You can keep yourself entertained for... umm... seconds at a time. But that is secondary. (HA!) See, now that it is sentient, my old mouse is realizing that I can still easily replace it (him, her, them... whatever) with its dumb cousin. So, it is acting nicer now. It will only double-click on some porn from time to time - just for laughs.
... the mythical "Year of Linux on Desktop" will NEVER come.
You know, that self-righteous "fuck your needs - if you don't have the common sense to use Linux you are a fucking moron anyway"-approach to tech support. The guy asks nicely for advice on pest control for his apples (and probably his families', colleagues', customers'...), and he gets "Apples suck. Plant oranges. Or tangerines. Or lemons. Or some other citrus fruit."
Do you also go around telling vegetarians how hamburgers are much better than lattice?
...make a simple script that would do all that, with the system that you propose? With various voices (IPs), coming from various addresses (geolocation), with varying but similar descriptions of the same situation?
You know... like it was actually coming from hundreds of people in dire need of assistance. Or would you just hire hundreds of actors to do all that dialing and talking over that radio-thing you mention?
"OMG! There is looting and raping and pillaging and war and famine and AIDS and cats raining from the sky OVER THERE! Quick, everyone, run to help and block police and news channels with calls - while we rob this bank over here. Then, we will create another "alert" for our getaway."
You are wearing you "tech-hat" when you should be wearing your "law-hat".
300 instant possible suspects means that every case will get instantly thrown out - as soon as suspect's lawyer proves reasonable doubt. 300 suspects for every crime is pretty darn reasonable.
AAAH! But we can avoid that with better tech and more precise tests, you must think right about now - because you are still wearing your tech-hat. And there we get to the issue of COST. Sure, you can do cheap tests for everyone once, keep results in the database and then do cheap tests for the evidence at the scene. But what happens when suspect's lawyer demands another test to be done, and this time you must do it with best tech available? Hey! Their defendant may be going to the electric gas chamber! Don't you go cheap just because it may be taxpayer's money that is paying for the testing. So what happens now? Bingo! Now you must do at least 300 very expensive tests to prove that none of the other "possible suspects" matches the "main suspect's" DNA close enough.
But that is just peanuts compared to the legwork you now must do. Cause to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that the "main suspect" did do it - you now must also prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that 300 other people DIDN'T DO IT. That is 300 parallel investigations. Loooong after the fact. You are now chasing 300 ghosts across the country, possibly even across the planet. And unless you somehow had all those 300 people tied up in the basement with 24/7 surveillance, WHILE on the other side of the country you had someone do the crime under the same "24/7 surveillance" conditions - you can't really prove they DIDN'T do something.
Even then... since DNA can be planted MUCH EASIER than fingerprints - one or more of those 300 might still be connected with the crime in some way. Maybe they've hired the "main suspect" to commit the crime for them. Gave him the tools/weapons.
"Everyone in the database" just means that lawyers would start getting criminals back out to the street using only a pocket calculator.
Hypothetical: Serial rapist is terrorizing New York City. Police have a DNA sample. With a database like this, they could pull a list of 300 people "who might be the serial rapist." They can rapidly go through that list and say "okay, in that 300 people, 50 of them live within 300 miles of New York City. Let's start interviewing those people, and see what turns up." If the matches are *accurate* (and this is the point you must really attack if you want to argue against this sort of a database), then it's overwhelmingly likely that one of those 50 people would turn out to be your criminal.
Except police doesn't send people to jail - lawyers and judges do. Police just investigates and makes arrests according to the accusation and the results of the investigation. And we are back to prosecution trying to prove, in court, that 300 people couldn't ever do it. Not even if they used cloning and teleportation and time travel.
Out of context. The above mentioned "documentary" is not about any kind of competition. Well... except the "space race"... but that would be stretching it a bit.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems that it is USA-only, judging from the comments on the videos and the fact that I also can't see the TEXTp version.
I hope that THAT part is the actual joke. Though I doubt that.
What is this? 1982?
Very ungentlemanly.
If you can really look at the iPad and think Apple should have just shipped a netbook, then not only have you completely missed the point, but the next 10 years of computer industry evolution are going to be very confusing for you, as the mainstream market increasingly ignores the tech specs that geeks obsess over in favor of user experience considerations that are far more relevant to normal users.
You forgot to tell them that they are stupid and smelly and that they have cooties.
next 10 years of computer industry evolution are going to be very confusing for you
OK... fine... you DID insinuate that they are beings of lesser intelligence and diminished capacity for reasoning.
Still.. the post above lacks core elements that would make it a valid kindergarten-level post.
...Supertaskerus!*
*Didn't read through all the comments, but I am rather amazed that there aren't more posters claiming the "Supertasker's" cape.
Or is it cowl?
Shield maybe?
Sword?
That would be The Transformers you are thinking of. THERE everything from cars to toasters is a product of alien-techTM.
Scientists in ID4 (including Lt. Commander Data) had no success in deciphering anything since there was nothing there to power the ship.
Oh and do note that humans had no "ray guns", shields, space-fighters that don't use jet propulsion - in fact all that was a complete surprise to them.
these are 20 guys pretending to be Roman gladiators, are you sure you want to call them "gay"?
Pathetic would be more appropriate.
You are missing the point...
I am not contradicting the point of "flop".
I am asking could it be that they didn't flop because there was only one George Lucas, while there were many would-be LRHs involved with the Battlefield Earth.
It's not like they lacked the resources to "create" the number of people who would buy the ticket to see it. After all - they've done that before with their other "bestsellers".
Obviously you're not a golfer.
You need a bunch of very powerful people with no connection to reality. Nobody can stop them, nobody can correct them.
Star Wars prequels and Indiana Jones: The Fridge Chronicles didn't flop because there is only one George Lucas?
There are some possibly unintended consequences to seeing in IR and UV.
Watch out for that guy whose text is riddled with "DIE!", "DIE MOTHERFUCKER!", "I HATE YOU ALL!" and "ONE DAY YOU WILL ALL BURN!".
He brings a heavy looking sports-bag in the office one day - find a reason to quickly step outside.
You are suggesting using TWO forms of health insurance instead of ONE that would do the same?
Only there will be less money wasted on administration and stuff PLUS someone else will get to enjoy the benefits from it instead of just bank and insurance company fat cats.
AND it still works for you in case you lose your job, house, ability to provide for yourself and your family.
But you MIGHT actually save a buck or two if you gamble those two accounts just right and skip a doctor's appointment or two and don't get none of those diseases your particular plan does not cover. Is that it?
Sounds a lot like trying to play the game the insurance companies are playing, only you have only one chip (your health) on the table and they run the gambling house.
And they cheat.
I've read that twice and I still don't know what you're trying to say.
I believe that the problem lies in the fact that you are thinking on a very specific case, involving very specific variables that you believe are working in your favor.
At the same time, I am talking in very general terms and concepts that may or may not cover your very specific case that you have in mind.
That's asking somebody to hold your money for you to keep you from spending it between now and when you need it, which is 100% stupid because of course they'll take their cut.
Not true.
1 - They are not holding your money for you. You are paying them. That is why there is a "cut".
In return, they give you a contract that says that in case you need that money spent on the stuff that is listed in the contract, they will cover your expenses.
2 - They are not just holding your money.
They are holding the PROFIT your money will create over time.
Which is AT LEAST equal to the amount you would get if you've put it in the bank instead and collected interests on it.
Since they are a business - they will by definition make more than that. That is economics 101 - why start a business when you can make more or the same by just keeping it in a bank?
But... you are buying their service only with your money - NOT with "your money + profit".
3 - They can't have everyone paying exactly the same - as that would mean certain loss of money for them. A for-profit organization can't run that way.
So, in order to be constantly making money, they calculate the chances that you will not get to use the service money you've paid for - and then set your specific rate so that even in case you do they will still make a certain percentage.
So... They take your money now and take a cut from it.
They keep the profit it will create over the years.
They give you just a tiny fraction less than what you should be getting for it. (Not what you could mind you. You can't sign the kind of contracts they can. Nor pay for the lawyers they can.)
So it is actually three different cuts that they take - before they even try to deny you the use of the services that you have already paid for.
Well then...
You subsidize what already IS. That is, WHEN the cancer metastasizes - there is a subsidy of the costs for the treatment.
You can't subsidize a 0% of something, right?
BUT... you can make sure that your are ready in case it doesn't happen to be 0%. Cause you insure against something that MAY or MAY NOT happen.
You know... leave the money aside to buy a shovel in case the cat is dead, OR to buy cat food in case it is alive.
Being ready only for one of those cases is gambling. Being ready for neither is being fucked.
So, while you can't subsidize a closed box with a cat that exists in two states at the same time inside - you CAN make sure that you are ready for both possibilities.
Oh and... there is no "probably" in insurance - not for the insured.
For him/her it is "in case I need it". You don't make a calculated gamble with your or your kids' lives.
"Probability" part is jammed in there by the insurance company. You know, the ones that run a SERVICE TO THE SOCIETY as a for-profit operation.
They are the ones calculating the probabilities to make sure you are paying just a little bit more than you probably should - as far as they can tell.
And gambling that you will never actually use that money because you will die from something else (with a greater probability), before some of your probabilities turn into a near certainty.
Insurance is not like betting.
You are not betting that the cancer will not metastasize - you are making sure that if it does the patient will get the necessary treatment.
You've been brainwashed into thinking that it is OK and even necessary to run everything as a for-profit operation. Hint - it isn't.
Things like education, health-care, transport networks, defense, environment etc. are primarily SERVICES. They provide support and continuous operation of a civilized society.
That is why it is A-OK for money gathered from the taxes to be spent on those.
It is your money being used to provide you with a better quality of life. It is also other people's money.
And it is gathered from EVERYONE, all of the time, so any-time ANY-ONE needs it - it is there.
THAT is your flying car. Your jet-pack.
May not be as flashy as in The Jetsons, but it will keep you alive and slashdotting for a long time.
We are going onto a 100-year lifespan nowadays, haven't you heard?
...what you think it means.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/contingent
contingent
2 entries found.
1. 1contingent (adjective)
2. 2contingent (noun)
Main Entry: 1contingent
Pronunciation: \kn-tin-jnt\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin contingent-, contingens, present participle of contingere to have contact with, befall, from com- + tangere to touch -- more at tangent
Date: 14th century
1 : likely but not certain to happen : possible
2 : not logically necessary; especially : empirical
3
a : happening by chance or unforeseen causes
b : subject to chance or unseen effects : unpredictable
c : intended for use in circumstances not completely foreseen
4 : dependent on or conditioned by something else
5 : not necessitated : determined by free choice
synonyms see accidental
-- contingently adverb
You know... there is likely, but not certain chance that you can "catch" any bacterial or viral disease.
Or sustain any form of physical injury possible.
Or even acquire an illness due to the changes in your lifestyle beyond your control - such as due to aging.
None of those have anything to do with "pre-existing" conditions, but you sure as hell can make SURE that in case it happens - your ass will get the necessary treatment.
...anyway.
You are more of a Otto von Bismarck than Ben Franklin kind of guy, right?
From TFA:
Saws currently on the market can not be retrofitted with SawStop's device.
Manufacturers would have to redesign saws, which could cause a price increase of about $150.
In documents submitted to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Power Tool Institute has claimed that replacing the cost of SawStop's brake, $69, and blade, about $100, after an incident would burden consumers.
The industry group also stated that "table saws are a relatively safe product."
First off, they would have to make these new saws cheap enough for the customers to completely replace all of their existing saws.
And since most saws are priced between couple of thousands of dollars - even cheap is not cheap.
Cause, if they want the safety, they need the new tech.
And unless customers already have robot employees that can continue to work on those old unsafe saws, while fleshy humans take over the new safe machinery - old equipment will do nothing but take up space and collect rust and dust.
Alternatively, they can hire some "lesser humans" to work on those old saws.
Or only use them when they plan to have an accident.
On top of all that, first time you stick a finger (or a hot-dog) into one of those - someone has to pay 170$ to replace the saw and the break.
And unless they are going to claim that the warranty on the safe saws does no cover using the saw in a such way that would require the use of the built-in safety measures - those 170$ go directly out of manufacturer's pocket.
Meaning a direct 170$ price increase for the consumer. And repeating it every time "the incident" happens again.
Patent or no patent, most people would not be able to afford buying these.
And since manufacturer would still have to sell "unsafe" regular saws to stay in business - those would also have to increase in price since they would have to include the costs of continuously additionally informing the customers that those old saws are NOT the new safe saws.
Basically, it would be like the government creating a new tax to finance the campaign that would inform people that the sky is blue. Or that the fire is hot.
I need two things (actually I need many more than just two, but I am condensing that to just two regarding the lattice-lettuce mix-up).
A better spellchecker and a new mouse.
Those two bloody words are right next to each other and my mouse has shown affinity towards clicking all by itself lately.
I am guessing that it has something to do with all that DNA I've impressed into it during the years - it has finally become sentient and it is trying to communicate.
The other day it clicked on a spyware link all by itself. Took me three days to finally get rid of all of that shit.
But I've found a way to control its outbursts of "behaving".
I've plugged in another mouse. Of "El Cheapo" variety that you find in a box of biscuits these days.
Ergonomically it feels like you are holding an empty deodorant stick of Chinese manufacture - but it clicks where it is supposed to. When you press it hard enough.
The real advantage comes from having both mice plugged in at the same time (Wonders of USB. Couldn't do that back in the day.).
If I was really up to it, I guess I could use one for the clicking and the other for moving the cursor around. Loads of fun that is.
You can keep yourself entertained for... umm... seconds at a time.
But that is secondary. (HA!) See, now that it is sentient, my old mouse is realizing that I can still easily replace it (him, her, them... whatever) with its dumb cousin.
So, it is acting nicer now. It will only double-click on some porn from time to time - just for laughs.
... the mythical "Year of Linux on Desktop" will NEVER come.
You know, that self-righteous "fuck your needs - if you don't have the common sense to use Linux you are a fucking moron anyway"-approach to tech support.
The guy asks nicely for advice on pest control for his apples (and probably his families', colleagues', customers'...), and he gets "Apples suck. Plant oranges. Or tangerines. Or lemons. Or some other citrus fruit."
Do you also go around telling vegetarians how hamburgers are much better than lattice?
...make a simple script that would do all that, with the system that you propose?
With various voices (IPs), coming from various addresses (geolocation), with varying but similar descriptions of the same situation?
You know... like it was actually coming from hundreds of people in dire need of assistance.
Or would you just hire hundreds of actors to do all that dialing and talking over that radio-thing you mention?
Legitimate criminals and psychos will LOVE this.
"OMG! There is looting and raping and pillaging and war and famine and AIDS and cats raining from the sky OVER THERE! Quick, everyone, run to help and block police and news channels with calls - while we rob this bank over here. Then, we will create another "alert" for our getaway."
Just imagine if Joker had access to this.
You are wearing you "tech-hat" when you should be wearing your "law-hat".
300 instant possible suspects means that every case will get instantly thrown out - as soon as suspect's lawyer proves reasonable doubt.
300 suspects for every crime is pretty darn reasonable.
AAAH! But we can avoid that with better tech and more precise tests, you must think right about now - because you are still wearing your tech-hat.
And there we get to the issue of COST.
Sure, you can do cheap tests for everyone once, keep results in the database and then do cheap tests for the evidence at the scene.
But what happens when suspect's lawyer demands another test to be done, and this time you must do it with best tech available?
Hey! Their defendant may be going to the electric gas chamber! Don't you go cheap just because it may be taxpayer's money that is paying for the testing.
So what happens now?
Bingo! Now you must do at least 300 very expensive tests to prove that none of the other "possible suspects" matches the "main suspect's" DNA close enough.
But that is just peanuts compared to the legwork you now must do.
Cause to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that the "main suspect" did do it - you now must also prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that 300 other people DIDN'T DO IT.
That is 300 parallel investigations. Loooong after the fact. You are now chasing 300 ghosts across the country, possibly even across the planet.
And unless you somehow had all those 300 people tied up in the basement with 24/7 surveillance, WHILE on the other side of the country you had someone do the crime under the same "24/7 surveillance" conditions - you can't really prove they DIDN'T do something.
Even then... since DNA can be planted MUCH EASIER than fingerprints - one or more of those 300 might still be connected with the crime in some way.
Maybe they've hired the "main suspect" to commit the crime for them. Gave him the tools/weapons.
"Everyone in the database" just means that lawyers would start getting criminals back out to the street using only a pocket calculator.
Hypothetical: Serial rapist is terrorizing New York City. Police have a DNA sample. With a database like this, they could pull a list of 300 people "who might be the serial rapist." They can rapidly go through that list and say "okay, in that 300 people, 50 of them live within 300 miles of New York City. Let's start interviewing those people, and see what turns up." If the matches are *accurate* (and this is the point you must really attack if you want to argue against this sort of a database), then it's overwhelmingly likely that one of those 50 people would turn out to be your criminal.
Except police doesn't send people to jail - lawyers and judges do. Police just investigates and makes arrests according to the accusation and the results of the investigation.
And we are back to prosecution trying to prove, in court, that 300 people couldn't ever do it.
Not even if they used cloning and teleportation and time travel.
out of a contest
Out of context. The above mentioned "documentary" is not about any kind of competition.
Well... except the "space race"... but that would be stretching it a bit.