He will never be driving by that project. Most likely this is all a bluff that will never come to fruition. In the very unlikely event that it does actually get built, Lucas will move away and build his studio somewhere else.
Any system which generates alerts will quickly become an annoyance. That is one of the biggest problems in healthcare applications; too many alerts and the doctors ignore them, not enough alerts and the system is useless. Nobody has found the happy middle ground yet.
You could divert a lot of water from the Columbia before it dumps into the ocean. The pipeline would have to be much bigger than 4 feet, but very large underground pipelines are feasible.
Once you have the pipeline in place it would make sense to continue growing food in the desert: warm, plenty of sunshine, and almost full control over the inputs.
And the fact that his appearance was arranged "at short notice and without consultation" makes it appear that someone wants him to plead his case in front of the judges without going to trial.
It's not reasonable to make the assumption that the percentages would be similar when the number of cases when hair evidence was used in court is such a small proportion of the overall percentage.
You are mixing two unrelated things:
1) A lack of other compelling evidence might increase the likelihood of using hair evidence. Yes, that's reasonable. There is nothing to support the assumption, but it's reasonable.
2) An assumption that the false positive rate on those cases is different than the false positive rate overall. No, there is no reason to assume the false positive rate is different in those cases.
I understand what you are trying to connect - a hair match might be used when other evidence is weak, and that a hair match when other evidence is weak could mean the chance of a false positive is higher. But again, that's pure speculation on your part; not unreasonable, but there's nothing to support it. All we know from the study is that the false positive rate was about 89%
The study indicates that 11% of the positives are false. There is nothing indicate that the rate would be any different among samples that were used in court.
Utilities have no interest in rooftop solar because it is the most expensive way to generate electricity. Without subsidies it would disappear everywhere except places where there is no other reasonably priced alternative.
The article is very misleading on several points. It gives the impression that there was a problem "in almost all trials"; that's not what happened.
Of the ~21000 requests for an analysis, the lab reported a match about ~2500 times. Of those, the evidence was used in something like 268 trials, and a retrospective analysis of the DNA revealed that the hair did indeed match almost 90% of the time.
The bigger problem (which is where the "almost all") part came from is that when the evidence was actually presented at a trial, the expert witness overstated the reliability of the hair match; if they had stated that the analysis was only 90% accurate there wouldn't have been a problem.
A retrial in the 27 or 28 cases in which DNA revealed a mismatch is certainly in order. Otherwise there is no problem with the conviction; a retrial would simply replace the hair match with a DNA match anyway.
In 2002, the FBI reported that its own DNA testing found that examiners reported false hair matches more than 11 percent of the time.
As I read the article, the examiners were right 89% of the time and reported a match when there wasn't one 11% of the time. While that is certainly a problem, it's probably at least as accurate as all the other evidence presented at a trial. The best evidence is usually DNA, but people often don't even believe that (e.g. O.J.)
A far more plausible answer is what the researchers concluded: microbes are in a constant battle with each other, one develops a toxin to kill a second, the second develops resistance to that toxin.
The genes they found are naturally occurring and are the same genes bacteria use to develop resistance to the antibiotics we use. It would have been far more surprising if the bacteria didn't carry those genes.
I counted 48 mergers during the Clinton years versus 39 during Bush. Who let the facts get in the way? That said, the economy has been in the tank for most of the Obama administration, banks weren't doing well for a long time.
I've never watched his show, so I visited his web site and watched his slideshow on GMO food. Here are quotes from it and my impressions:
Slide 1 of 7 starts with a discussion of hybrids
these practices were limited to combining the traits of organisms only within the same species
Wrong. Hybridizing across species is common, e.g. a Mule is a cross between a horse and a donkey.
Slide 2 of 7 titled "Advantages" it starts with a short discussion of why GMO foods were created but slips in a zinger
There have been a great number of studies tracking the effects of GMOs on animals. Most of these studies indicate that GMOs are safe to consume.
Fear mongering much? Some studies show GMO foods are NOT SAFE TO CONSUME??? OMG!
Slide 3 of 7 downside of GMO food
Researchers fear that the health risks may include: exposure to allergens, antibiotic resistance, endocrine disruption, reproductive disorders and accelerated aging.
Researchers "fear"? What did their research actually conclude? More fear mongering with no facts.
Slide 4 of 7 - titled "What Should I Look Out For? "
it is particularly important to avoid packaged foods with corn and soy if you are trying to cut GMOs out of your family’s diet
Without coming right out and saying you should avoid GMO food, he launches into instructions on how to avoid them. The assumption is obvious.
Slide 5 of 7 - titled "How Can I Avoid GMOs? "
it is difficult for consumers to make educated choices about the foods they are purchasing
Essentially a repeat of Slide 4, I assume this is to reinforce the implied message. Also leads into Slide 6...
Slide 6 of 7 - titled "Are GMOs Labeled?
Many companies like Whole Foods have partnered with the Non-GMO Project to undergo extensive third-party verification over their non-GMO claims. The Non-GMO Project is the only North American organization offering independent testing and GMO controls
The first sentence in that quote doesn't seem to go with the second. But this is mostly a continuation of slides 4 and 5 - he doesn't say you should avoid GMO but he gives detailed instructions on avoiding GMO.
Slide 7 - there really isn't a slide 7 - this is all advertising.
True, but I expect the players sign a release authorizing the team or NFL to request their medical records. You can release your records to anyone you darn please.
I read TFA and the author completely misses the issue
The author didn't miss the issue. The issue was whether an employer can get patient data from hospitals all over the country for their employees. The technology is there, that's what HL2 does; I've worked on a few similar systems - it's a hassle but it can be done (although Imaging seems to be a bigger hassle). As the author points out, the real problem is getting that HL7 feed turned on. The NFL has enough money and clout to make it happen.
You bring up the unrelated issue of whether the federal government should be collecting all of that patient data. Congress could pass a law requiring it, but they won't for the reasons you list.
After forty years of service it wouldn't be cost effective to overhaul it. Just removing all the tons of asbestos in those old ships is a huge problem. Plus all the electronic equipment, hydraulics, plumbing, wiring...pretty much everything inside the hull...would have to be replaced.
Slashdot Mirror
He will never be driving by that project. Most likely this is all a bluff that will never come to fruition. In the very unlikely event that it does actually get built, Lucas will move away and build his studio somewhere else.
That's worked in other applications.
Any system which generates alerts will quickly become an annoyance. That is one of the biggest problems in healthcare applications; too many alerts and the doctors ignore them, not enough alerts and the system is useless. Nobody has found the happy middle ground yet.
You could divert a lot of water from the Columbia before it dumps into the ocean. The pipeline would have to be much bigger than 4 feet, but very large underground pipelines are feasible.
Once you have the pipeline in place it would make sense to continue growing food in the desert: warm, plenty of sunshine, and almost full control over the inputs.
And the fact that his appearance was arranged "at short notice and without consultation" makes it appear that someone wants him to plead his case in front of the judges without going to trial.
grrr, proofreading error...false positive rate was 11%
It's not reasonable to make the assumption that the percentages would be similar when the number of cases when hair evidence was used in court is such a small proportion of the overall percentage.
You are mixing two unrelated things:
1) A lack of other compelling evidence might increase the likelihood of using hair evidence. Yes, that's reasonable. There is nothing to support the assumption, but it's reasonable.
2) An assumption that the false positive rate on those cases is different than the false positive rate overall. No, there is no reason to assume the false positive rate is different in those cases.
I understand what you are trying to connect - a hair match might be used when other evidence is weak, and that a hair match when other evidence is weak could mean the chance of a false positive is higher. But again, that's pure speculation on your part; not unreasonable, but there's nothing to support it. All we know from the study is that the false positive rate was about 89%
The study indicates that 11% of the positives are false. There is nothing indicate that the rate would be any different among samples that were used in court.
Plus, if life never started on Earth, no one would care if the continents were smaller.
t's 89%, not 90% (bias showing here?
I said "almost 90%", I believe 89% fits that description. But if you prefer yes - 89% of the time the hair match was supported by a DNA match.
it is very reasonable to assume that the 11% of false matches are over-represented in the 268 cases
Pure speculation on your part, there's nothing to support that assumption.
Utilities have no interest in rooftop solar because it is the most expensive way to generate electricity. Without subsidies it would disappear everywhere except places where there is no other reasonably priced alternative.
First, this doesn't appear to be perjury (which is a felony).
Second, some penal codes (e.g. California) do consider perjury at a capital trial to be a capital offense.
The article is very misleading on several points. It gives the impression that there was a problem "in almost all trials"; that's not what happened.
Of the ~21000 requests for an analysis, the lab reported a match about ~2500 times. Of those, the evidence was used in something like 268 trials, and a retrospective analysis of the DNA revealed that the hair did indeed match almost 90% of the time.
The bigger problem (which is where the "almost all") part came from is that when the evidence was actually presented at a trial, the expert witness overstated the reliability of the hair match; if they had stated that the analysis was only 90% accurate there wouldn't have been a problem.
A retrial in the 27 or 28 cases in which DNA revealed a mismatch is certainly in order. Otherwise there is no problem with the conviction; a retrial would simply replace the hair match with a DNA match anyway.
In 2002, the FBI reported that its own DNA testing found that examiners reported false hair matches more than 11 percent of the time.
As I read the article, the examiners were right 89% of the time and reported a match when there wasn't one 11% of the time. While that is certainly a problem, it's probably at least as accurate as all the other evidence presented at a trial. The best evidence is usually DNA, but people often don't even believe that (e.g. O.J.)
A far more plausible answer is what the researchers concluded: microbes are in a constant battle with each other, one develops a toxin to kill a second, the second develops resistance to that toxin.
The genes they found are naturally occurring and are the same genes bacteria use to develop resistance to the antibiotics we use. It would have been far more surprising if the bacteria didn't carry those genes.
I counted 48 mergers during the Clinton years versus 39 during Bush. Who let the facts get in the way? That said, the economy has been in the tank for most of the Obama administration, banks weren't doing well for a long time.
Nothing more than a tax dodge with good PR spin.
I've never watched his show, so I visited his web site and watched his slideshow on GMO food. Here are quotes from it and my impressions:
Slide 1 of 7 starts with a discussion of hybrids
these practices were limited to combining the traits of organisms only within the same species
Wrong. Hybridizing across species is common, e.g. a Mule is a cross between a horse and a donkey.
Slide 2 of 7 titled "Advantages" it starts with a short discussion of why GMO foods were created but slips in a zinger
There have been a great number of studies tracking the effects of GMOs on animals. Most of these studies indicate that GMOs are safe to consume.
Fear mongering much? Some studies show GMO foods are NOT SAFE TO CONSUME??? OMG!
Slide 3 of 7 downside of GMO food
Researchers fear that the health risks may include: exposure to allergens, antibiotic resistance, endocrine disruption, reproductive disorders and accelerated aging.
Researchers "fear"? What did their research actually conclude? More fear mongering with no facts.
Slide 4 of 7 - titled "What Should I Look Out For? "
it is particularly important to avoid packaged foods with corn and soy if you are trying to cut GMOs out of your family’s diet
Without coming right out and saying you should avoid GMO food, he launches into instructions on how to avoid them. The assumption is obvious.
Slide 5 of 7 - titled "How Can I Avoid GMOs? "
it is difficult for consumers to make educated choices about the foods they are purchasing
Essentially a repeat of Slide 4, I assume this is to reinforce the implied message. Also leads into Slide 6...
Slide 6 of 7 - titled "Are GMOs Labeled?
Many companies like Whole Foods have partnered with the Non-GMO Project to undergo extensive third-party verification over their non-GMO claims. The Non-GMO Project is the only North American organization offering independent testing and GMO controls
The first sentence in that quote doesn't seem to go with the second. But this is mostly a continuation of slides 4 and 5 - he doesn't say you should avoid GMO but he gives detailed instructions on avoiding GMO.
Slide 7 - there really isn't a slide 7 - this is all advertising.
That's called a fixed price contract. There are millions of them on the GSA Schedule.
The Navy withheld the location of the wreck for decades, but the U.S. Geological Survey found its likely resting place while mapping the sea floor
But I know reading past the headline is too much bother.
True, but I expect the players sign a release authorizing the team or NFL to request their medical records. You can release your records to anyone you darn please.
I read TFA and the author completely misses the issue
The author didn't miss the issue. The issue was whether an employer can get patient data from hospitals all over the country for their employees. The technology is there, that's what HL2 does; I've worked on a few similar systems - it's a hassle but it can be done (although Imaging seems to be a bigger hassle). As the author points out, the real problem is getting that HL7 feed turned on. The NFL has enough money and clout to make it happen.
You bring up the unrelated issue of whether the federal government should be collecting all of that patient data. Congress could pass a law requiring it, but they won't for the reasons you list.
True, today they would just bore a tunnel .
Running around blogging and speaking doesn't make him an expert. He sounds more like a conspiracy theorist.
After forty years of service it wouldn't be cost effective to overhaul it. Just removing all the tons of asbestos in those old ships is a huge problem. Plus all the electronic equipment, hydraulics, plumbing, wiring...pretty much everything inside the hull...would have to be replaced.