"So unless the biotech companies collude with each other there is always the risk that a competitor will produce a cure killing your business, so you had better [Patent it first] first and kill [kill off the entire industry with lawyers]."
Having a DNA sample compared to a public or private DNA database you are in is far more likely to scratch you OFF the list of suspects than it is to put you on it falsely (assuming you didn't do the crime.) Cops being able to compare DNA samples collected at crime scenes to databases of millions and millions of people is a good thing for crime investigators and will lead to FEWER bad convictions. This is a good thing, guys!
And you are really, really, really woefully wrong with you 1 in 100,000,000 chance of a false positive match. Ancestry, for example, tests your DNA in over 600,000 locations. Those locations are specifically chosen because they are of greatest interest in genealogy matching, they aren't wasted on the 99.999% of the DNA locations we all share in common. That means, it's not a 1:100,000,000 chance of an accidental exact match. Unless you have a clone or an identical twin walking around, the chance of an accidental exact match is 1:4^600,000.
My point on the insurance companies doing it is less that it can't happen ever and more that if it DOES happen then they will force you to do it regardless whether or not you had previously taken a test through a consumer service. So, you might as well have fun with your DNA now. If and when it's used against you in the future it won't matter that you did it a few years before.
Honestly, the best reason to not take one is if you are a minority and are concerned about genocide risks, like Native Americans. But even then, genocide isn't exactly a new thing and lots of really bad people were perfectly able to do terrible things long before DNA was discovered. So, even that fear is pointless.
The point is bad people who are going to bad things are going to do bad things with or without your DNA test. So you might as well take the test and have fun with it now.
That may be true, but even if it later becomes legal then your insurance isn't going to use your test from Ancestry.com. They are going to make you take a new one.
This is bad because too many slashdot'ers smoke marijuana which is known to cause irrational paranoia.
Look guys. If the big bad gov'ment is going to fake evidence to pin a murder on you for some reason, then they are just going to fake evidence to pin a murder on you whether you take a commercial DNA test or not. Further, while these consumer level tests can help law enforcement find and narrow down suspects, they aren't going to be admissible in court. Any defense lawyer worth their paycheck would get them thrown. What WOULD happen is that law enforcement would use the public or commercial databases to find or narrow down suspects. Then they would get a warrant to collect a DNA sample under chain-of-custody and run a proper test at an accredited forensics laboratory. Assuming YOU DIDN'T DO THE CRIME, the cops using DNA databases is more likey to clear you from the suspect list than it is to put you on it.
Similarly, if an insurance company is going to use genetic profiling to decide who to raise rates on, then they aren't going to rely on your test from Ancestry.com. They are just going to make you take one of their tests. (Which is illegal, but what ever.)
Passwords are terrible security. Period. They should never have been widely implemented. All websites, 100% of websites, and all other systems that require passwords should be moved to physical keys.
I taught chemistry and physics for 2 years in Dallas ISD while working on my masters. I made lots and lots of assessments, none of which could have been beaten by an Apple watch.
If your "test" can be beat by a kid wearing an Apple watch, then your test sucks and is just a waste of everyone's time. There are plenty of ways to assess student growth that can't be beat by an Apple watch (or answer sheet in your sock, or what ever)
If you don't know any Intelligent religious people then 1) you are completely ignorant about how many of the Intelligent people you know are also religious, 2) don't know any Intelligent people, 3) have simply surrounded yourself by your own echo-chamber bubble, 4) you are simply lying to some random internet stranger to justify your own belief and bigotry.
All options are equally plausible. Since you immediately reject all of the above options, my bet is that you are lying and don't even work for any research University at all.
Remember when it was just the religious right that was anti-science? Ah, those were the days. We could just mock them behind their backs and call then neanderthals. Ha ha. Oh, nostalgia.
Turns out "religion" had nothing to do with it after all. A certain percentage of people will just believe whatever they want to believe, regardless of ethnicity, religion or economic status. Looking back, wasn't that always the case?
The "killer app" was the ability to document things without needing to hold a laptop or tablet and have both hand free.
Think about surgeons. for one example. A surgeon could have a live video feed to a peer for a second opinion during operation all while having vital stats shown to the surgeon in real time without the doctor having to look up from his work.
Or consider a mechanic. A mechanic could have that car's manual visible in real time while working under the car.
Or consider a factory worker. They could have step by step assembly instruction visible in real time while actively assembling the product.
The potential benefit was endless for professional industry. Google thought it was a toy for smug programmers.
Slashdot Mirror
The answers are:
"No." and "No."
You failed.
Yeah. It's a pretty simple test. The answers are:
"No." and "No."
You failed.
Litmus test:
Is locking up innocent children in cages wrong? Or is it okay if they are brown?
99.995% of Trump voters fail this test.
Literally nothing. He's giving nuclear technology to a nation that hates Israel and funds and supplies terrorists.
They still 100% support him unconditionally.
Libertarian answer to this:
"So unless the biotech companies collude with each other there is always the risk that a competitor will produce a cure killing your business, so you had better [Patent it first] first and kill [kill off the entire industry with lawyers]."
Having a DNA sample compared to a public or private DNA database you are in is far more likely to scratch you OFF the list of suspects than it is to put you on it falsely (assuming you didn't do the crime.) Cops being able to compare DNA samples collected at crime scenes to databases of millions and millions of people is a good thing for crime investigators and will lead to FEWER bad convictions. This is a good thing, guys!
And you are really, really, really woefully wrong with you 1 in 100,000,000 chance of a false positive match. Ancestry, for example, tests your DNA in over 600,000 locations. Those locations are specifically chosen because they are of greatest interest in genealogy matching, they aren't wasted on the 99.999% of the DNA locations we all share in common. That means, it's not a 1:100,000,000 chance of an accidental exact match. Unless you have a clone or an identical twin walking around, the chance of an accidental exact match is 1:4^600,000.
My point on the insurance companies doing it is less that it can't happen ever and more that if it DOES happen then they will force you to do it regardless whether or not you had previously taken a test through a consumer service. So, you might as well have fun with your DNA now. If and when it's used against you in the future it won't matter that you did it a few years before.
Honestly, the best reason to not take one is if you are a minority and are concerned about genocide risks, like Native Americans. But even then, genocide isn't exactly a new thing and lots of really bad people were perfectly able to do terrible things long before DNA was discovered. So, even that fear is pointless.
The point is bad people who are going to bad things are going to do bad things with or without your DNA test. So you might as well take the test and have fun with it now.
That may be true, but even if it later becomes legal then your insurance isn't going to use your test from Ancestry.com. They are going to make you take a new one.
This is bad because too many slashdot'ers smoke marijuana which is known to cause irrational paranoia.
Look guys. If the big bad gov'ment is going to fake evidence to pin a murder on you for some reason, then they are just going to fake evidence to pin a murder on you whether you take a commercial DNA test or not. Further, while these consumer level tests can help law enforcement find and narrow down suspects, they aren't going to be admissible in court. Any defense lawyer worth their paycheck would get them thrown. What WOULD happen is that law enforcement would use the public or commercial databases to find or narrow down suspects. Then they would get a warrant to collect a DNA sample under chain-of-custody and run a proper test at an accredited forensics laboratory. Assuming YOU DIDN'T DO THE CRIME, the cops using DNA databases is more likey to clear you from the suspect list than it is to put you on it.
Similarly, if an insurance company is going to use genetic profiling to decide who to raise rates on, then they aren't going to rely on your test from Ancestry.com. They are just going to make you take one of their tests. (Which is illegal, but what ever.)
Sure, I'm all for two part ID. But the vast majority of sites still don't require that, and most have no option for it at all.
My point was about passwords alone.
Passwords are terrible security. Period. They should never have been widely implemented. All websites, 100% of websites, and all other systems that require passwords should be moved to physical keys.
Africa is a long way away. I can only go there a few weeks a year.
How do you know I don't feed children in Africa?
Imagine if the developer focused his talent on something worth while. Like coding for an open source project.
I taught chemistry and physics for 2 years in Dallas ISD while working on my masters. I made lots and lots of assessments, none of which could have been beaten by an Apple watch.
If your "test" can be beat by a kid wearing an Apple watch, then your test sucks and is just a waste of everyone's time. There are plenty of ways to assess student growth that can't be beat by an Apple watch (or answer sheet in your sock, or what ever)
I don't believe that.
That's easy to explain.
Many many many brilliant people throughout history have believed in all kinds of gods and religions.
Why do you think Jews and Muslims can't be intelligent?
I mean wow. Do you really not hear how bigoted you are. You literally just said that you don't know any intelligent Jews.
Wow.
If you don't know any Intelligent religious people then 1) you are completely ignorant about how many of the Intelligent people you know are also religious, 2) don't know any Intelligent people, 3) have simply surrounded yourself by your own echo-chamber bubble, 4) you are simply lying to some random internet stranger to justify your own belief and bigotry.
All options are equally plausible. Since you immediately reject all of the above options, my bet is that you are lying and don't even work for any research University at all.
Thank you. I wasn't sure I got my own point.
Being able to understand and apply "what the experts say" about a particular topic is literally the definition of intelligence.
" I don't know a whole heck of a lot of truly smart people who are also religious."
Yeah, I'm guessing you are either that ignorant, or you simply don't know a whole heck of a lot of smart people of any kind.
Remember when it was just the religious right that was anti-science? Ah, those were the days. We could just mock them behind their backs and call then neanderthals. Ha ha. Oh, nostalgia.
Turns out "religion" had nothing to do with it after all. A certain percentage of people will just believe whatever they want to believe, regardless of ethnicity, religion or economic status. Looking back, wasn't that always the case?
The "killer app" was the ability to document things without needing to hold a laptop or tablet and have both hand free.
Think about surgeons. for one example. A surgeon could have a live video feed to a peer for a second opinion during operation all while having vital stats shown to the surgeon in real time without the doctor having to look up from his work.
Or consider a mechanic. A mechanic could have that car's manual visible in real time while working under the car.
Or consider a factory worker. They could have step by step assembly instruction visible in real time while actively assembling the product.
The potential benefit was endless for professional industry. Google thought it was a toy for smug programmers.