As I recall, it's like storing a long string attached to your name. Then they feed in a bunch of strings from fragments found at the crime scene, and see how many of them are substrings in _your_ string. Lots of substrings, not many unfound, and bang.
Which makes one wonder... is the query designed to return multiple positives, or does it implicitly assume that the first match is right? (or even that the best match is right, which seems intuitively closer, but still not that hot).
The problem, I think, is that you're getting DNA-sampled regardless of whether the DNA has any evidence value for your arrest. Shoplifting over a certain value is a felony. Generally they don't need DNA to make that case. Taking a DNA sample is not germane to your arrest or trial. Why should they do it?
These are also supposed to be removed from the statewide databank when they're notified that the subject is no longer a suspect. But the time limit for notification is 2 years. And if they happen to not actually remove it, and it gets matched in a search, the result is not invalidated. And of course local law enforcement can keep their own database.
(Actually, the prescribed method is cheek swabs)
I dunno. It would take a lot to keep Disney from repackaging and reselling their movies over and over... and over... I don't think there'd be archaeologists left afterwards.
The catch, though, is they have to make _every single step_ of the process completely new and unrelated to anything that has gone before. That means lots of basic research, which is expensive and unreliable. What company is going to spend that kind of money on something that may not pan out (probably won't) instead of on improving something they already have some control over?
I don't think many here really thinks copyright is unimportant. What most of them seem (to me) to think is that it's frequently abused, and many of them feel that it is not immoral for them to ignore a copyright that is being abused. In a situation like this, where they don't see the enforcement of copyright as being abusive, they're fine with it and want it respected.
I don't think he's trying to assert there's no ethical issue. He's answering the question of how nobody noticed the binaries couldn't be built, by explaining that there's enough there to build the binaries.
I think the original idea was that the individual didn't have the knowledge to invest wisely or the money to hire someone to do it or a fallback in case there's a recession just before they have to cash out, so the government does it for (hopefully) cheaper and smoother.
Of course, pensions are going out of style and the new thing is defined contribution, which gets us back to the individual having to manage the investments at a high level, and still pay whoever's running the fund. So at this point we may as well get the government out of it. Except we can't without screwing over everyone who's paid in.
Good point. I only have one segment now, and I don't see that changing, but if it did, link local would no longer suffice. (I'm not sure VPN would be helped by FD00::/8, though. Since I'm presumably VPN'ing from outside, wouldn't I need to use a non-private address anyway?)
Which is why I don't. I see movies in the theater if and only if I believe that being on a screen that big and speakers that loud is going to be a more enjoyable experience than my TV and surround sound at home... which basically means if the immersion is worth more than the convenience. Oddly enough, everything I've been to the theater for in the last year has been in the 'special effects blockbuster' genre...
Netflix may not think there's enough demand to have picked it up yet, but I'm sure 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment would love the fraction of your money that amazon.co.uk will send them.
Slashdot Mirror
Why couldn't they have used the Dos-i-dos or something else I don't like?
nah, you can get carbon from regular fusion. It's getting past iron that gets tricky...
I am inclined to say correlation, considering that other times the US or parts thereof didn't care about patents were some of our growth spurts.
Unless you weren't using 'cheap' as a synonym for 'fragile', in which case I have no idea where you got it from the sentence you quoted.
13 or no deal!
Which makes one wonder... is the query designed to return multiple positives, or does it implicitly assume that the first match is right? (or even that the best match is right, which seems intuitively closer, but still not that hot).
The problem, I think, is that you're getting DNA-sampled regardless of whether the DNA has any evidence value for your arrest. Shoplifting over a certain value is a felony. Generally they don't need DNA to make that case. Taking a DNA sample is not germane to your arrest or trial. Why should they do it?
These are also supposed to be removed from the statewide databank when they're notified that the subject is no longer a suspect. But the time limit for notification is 2 years. And if they happen to not actually remove it, and it gets matched in a search, the result is not invalidated. And of course local law enforcement can keep their own database.
(Actually, the prescribed method is cheek swabs)
That's a good point. Can this format handle going through the dishwasher?
I dunno. It would take a lot to keep Disney from repackaging and reselling their movies over and over... and over... I don't think there'd be archaeologists left afterwards.
That is a fairly common British usage, as far as I'm aware.
The catch, though, is they have to make _every single step_ of the process completely new and unrelated to anything that has gone before. That means lots of basic research, which is expensive and unreliable. What company is going to spend that kind of money on something that may not pan out (probably won't) instead of on improving something they already have some control over?
I don't think many here really thinks copyright is unimportant. What most of them seem (to me) to think is that it's frequently abused, and many of them feel that it is not immoral for them to ignore a copyright that is being abused. In a situation like this, where they don't see the enforcement of copyright as being abusive, they're fine with it and want it respected.
I don't think he's trying to assert there's no ethical issue. He's answering the question of how nobody noticed the binaries couldn't be built, by explaining that there's enough there to build the binaries.
You get movies on cable with no ads for less than the DVD cost? What provider is this?
you forgot Christians. All the Abrahamic religions include Genesis.
Of course, pensions are going out of style and the new thing is defined contribution, which gets us back to the individual having to manage the investments at a high level, and still pay whoever's running the fund. So at this point we may as well get the government out of it. Except we can't without screwing over everyone who's paid in.
Well, there goes my day *start through archives*
Oh, I see. I didn't know that about VPN. Thanks!
and, once in a while, this green paper stuff.
Good point. I only have one segment now, and I don't see that changing, but if it did, link local would no longer suffice. (I'm not sure VPN would be helped by FD00::/8, though. Since I'm presumably VPN'ing from outside, wouldn't I need to use a non-private address anyway?)
or even just the link-local addresses (fe80::/10). They're based on MAC addresses so they should be pretty stable, no?
Which is why I don't. I see movies in the theater if and only if I believe that being on a screen that big and speakers that loud is going to be a more enjoyable experience than my TV and surround sound at home... which basically means if the immersion is worth more than the convenience. Oddly enough, everything I've been to the theater for in the last year has been in the 'special effects blockbuster' genre...
Netflix may not think there's enough demand to have picked it up yet, but I'm sure 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment would love the fraction of your money that amazon.co.uk will send them.
he didn't say he couldn't keep it organized, he's just saying that 400 messages does not always indicate stupidity.