There is nothing indicate that the rate would be any different among samples that were used in court.
When hair "evidence" was used in a little over 10% of the times that it was available, it's reasonable to think that a lot of selection is going on.. It's reasonable to assume that those cases where the hair evidence was used were not typical. It's very reasonable to assume that the reason the hair evidence was used was lack of alternative evidence. 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.
In your world, lack of evidence for a proposition is evidence of an alternative proposition? You have no evidence to support your claim that the 11% of all false positives also applied to hari evidence used in court. Nothing. Nada.
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.
And your claim that the 11% false positives (of all analysis) applies to the subset cases where hair analysis evidence was used at trial? Where's your evidence to support that claim? It's no more than speculation.
You have no more evidence than I do, but at least I have a rational explanation why it's likely to be greater than 11%.
Re-reading the article, I think that I know where you got the 90% number from, but I think that you are wrong.
Firstly, as you note in another post, it's 89%, not 90% (bias showing here?)
However, more importantly, it's 89% of all the "positive" results, not 89% of those used at trial. In the 11% where there was a false match, the likelyhood of actual guilt is lower, so the amount of other evidence would be much lower, thus it is very reasonable to assume that the 11% of false matches are over-represented in the 268 cases where the hair evidence was used at trial. Thus, your estimate of 27 or 28 is likely to be very low.
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.
I don't see the 90% match through DNA testing in the article. Case to explain where it came from?
They rarely, if ever, produce results that are even vaguely related to what I'm searching for. They don't have market share because THEY SUCK.
Exactly. I find that Google produces better results for searches relating to Microsoft products.
Some time back when Microsoft was advertising their website the showed Google results side-by-side with Bing (with the intent that Bing would give more useful results), I tried the side-by-side website and the Bing side did not even load.
Why is that the government's job? Shouldn't that be the job of ISO, ANSI, or the AMA (all NGOs)?
Because they failed. Standards organizations don't get involved unless the companies in that technical field want them to be involved.
It looks like medical records companies don't want standards -- probably because they would prefer to seek an effective monopoly through proprietary standards. However, enforcing open standards benefits society and that's why government should be involved.
Government doesn't have to develop a standard, merely mandate the requirement for a standard.
They HAVE asked Netflix to pay for the capacity upgrade at the border gateways -- capacity that is being used in large part by Netflix and is making Netflix money. Netflix is profiting from a peering agreement that Comcast has to pay for. Seems fair to me that Netflix pays part of the costs of upgrade.
The cost for Comcast increasing its capacity at the handover point was a few thousand dollars. It wasn't money for upgrades that was holding up the capacity increase, it was money to pay the t[r]oll.
What must life be like for crypto experts at the NSA? I assume that they are smart people, who must surely realize what a boneheaded idea this is. Imagine working somewhere where your most senior bosses go around publicly showing off their lack of knowledge.
Why do the policiians not realize that the tools they are giving can and will be misused and abused and that those same politicians are very likely to be the targets of that misuse?
As what I'd consider a 'power user', one of the first things I do is turn that obnoxious thing off. I understand it's purpose for being there, it's to protect idiots.
You never heard of "drive-by installs"? And don't reply with "but I don't go to that type of website", because we have often seen that both ordinary websites and ad networks can be compromised to install malware.
you do not fucking understand the concept of entrapment. stop talking about a concept you do not understand
Is your anger or stupidity so great that you have to keep insisting that I am claiming entrapment, when I am not? But even in your examples: you say: cop gives person to keys to car, says go steal it: entrapment. In this case: FBI gives bomb to suspect, says: go use it. How is this different? What was the intent of the recipient of the car keys in your example?
it's about *intent*. if you form the intent to do something malicious on your own, you are not entrapped. you are a criminal
So let's talk about intent. No-one knows what is truly in someone else's mind. We can only infer this from a person's words and actions. So, let's look at this person's words and actions and see if an alternative intent fits the known facts:
The accused person isn't the brightest person around. Imagine that he was worried about radical muslims and he formed the idea of catching some and turning them over to the FBI. So, what does he do? He goes on a fishing expedition for radicals by posting requests for a handler who will help him plant a bomb. He is contacted by someone who appears to be a radical muslim. He is careful not to build a bomb himself, but instead, he lets the supposed radical build a bomb and show him how to use it. His plan is to drive off with the bomb and then show it to the FBI as proof of the handler's intentions, however, his plan breaks down because he is arrested before he can hand it over to the FBI.
As you can see, the above narrative fits the known facts, yet it presents an intent which is 180 degrees from the intent that you presume.
if the fbi wasn't around, he would have figured out how to buy gasoline or fertilizer on his own, or he would have hooked up with a genuinely malicious crew
And you know this how? Isn't this the concept of "pre-crime"
if you INTEND to do harm, stopping you from following through on your intent is doing good in the world, and removing you from society for being a murderous asshole is doing good in the world
it's not entrapment. it does not fit the definition of the concept, which you don't seem to understand
And you just showed that your reading skills are poor. I agreed that it did not fit the legal definition of entrapment.
understand intent. understand entrapment. then comment on this topic. you don't seem to have the moral or social faculties to comment intelligently at this time, as you don't seem to understand the concepts involved
The refuge of the weak of mind: an ad-hominem argument.
the involvement of the fbi is manipulating all of his material to be harmless, and allowing him to proceed. they are not telling him what to do, he's choosing to do it
You did not read the story properly. The FBI told him exactly what to do. They provided detailed instructions and "training". The FBI built the "bomb" for him and showed him how to "arm" it.
Just because it doesn't fit the legal definition of entrapment doesn't mean that it isn't morally entrapment.
In this case, yes, the guy had the desire to do something. However, he did not and would never have had the capability to do anything. There was no public safety justificaton for this FBI operation.
Did you not notice the stories about how random people have breached security at airports many times over the last few years? If there were any serious terrorists, there would have been attacks at airports. The fact that teenagers were able to get on planes while we haven't had any terrorist attacks shows that the threats are wildly over-stated.
According to this source, the H1-B program as it is today started in 1990. Since then, the visa cap fluctuated between 65,000 and 195,000 per year. Let's take an average of 85,000 and we're talking about 85,000 times 25 years which equals 2,125,000. That's 2.1 million.
Your numbers may be in in the correct ballpark, but they overstate the real numbers. Firstly, I don't think that the full quota was used when the H1-B program started. Secondly, some H1-Bs went home. Others may have gone home for a year or more and come back to the USA on a new H1-B (don't discount this, I did it and I know many others who also did). Finally, many of those former H1-B workers may not work in tech any more.
First: the item must be marked by an assay office (after the maker's mark is applied by the manufacturer). Secondly, since this isn't a traditional gold alloy, traditional methods of assaying the gold may not work, thirdly, traditional methods of applying the hallmark may not work.
How is that states can pass laws that relate to in-state sales of cars to consumers, but apparently laws that relate to in-state sales of drugs to consumers are pre-empted by federal law?
Slashdot Mirror
When hair "evidence" was used in a little over 10% of the times that it was available, it's reasonable to think that a lot of selection is going on.. It's reasonable to assume that those cases where the hair evidence was used were not typical. It's very reasonable to assume that the reason the hair evidence was used was lack of alternative evidence. 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.
In your world, lack of evidence for a proposition is evidence of an alternative proposition? You have no evidence to support your claim that the 11% of all false positives also applied to hari evidence used in court. Nothing. Nada.
And your claim that the 11% false positives (of all analysis) applies to the subset cases where hair analysis evidence was used at trial? Where's your evidence to support that claim? It's no more than speculation.
You have no more evidence than I do, but at least I have a rational explanation why it's likely to be greater than 11%.
Re-reading the article, I think that I know where you got the 90% number from, but I think that you are wrong.
Firstly, as you note in another post, it's 89%, not 90% (bias showing here?)
However, more importantly, it's 89% of all the "positive" results, not 89% of those used at trial. In the 11% where there was a false match, the likelyhood of actual guilt is lower, so the amount of other evidence would be much lower, thus it is very reasonable to assume that the 11% of false matches are over-represented in the 268 cases where the hair evidence was used at trial. Thus, your estimate of 27 or 28 is likely to be very low.
I don't see the 90% match through DNA testing in the article. Case to explain where it came from?
In the USA there would also be the possibility of the extracts being fair use.
Exactly. I find that Google produces better results for searches relating to Microsoft products.
Some time back when Microsoft was advertising their website the showed Google results side-by-side with Bing (with the intent that Bing would give more useful results), I tried the side-by-side website and the Bing side did not even load.
Because they failed. Standards organizations don't get involved unless the companies in that technical field want them to be involved.
It looks like medical records companies don't want standards -- probably because they would prefer to seek an effective monopoly through proprietary standards. However, enforcing open standards benefits society and that's why government should be involved.
Government doesn't have to develop a standard, merely mandate the requirement for a standard.
Why do people who have access to the computer also have the ability to control the cameras?
Splitting responsiblity this way is such a basic and obvious security measure.
The cost for Comcast increasing its capacity at the handover point was a few thousand dollars. It wasn't money for upgrades that was holding up the capacity increase, it was money to pay the t[r]oll.
We know where that leads: Australia.
What must life be like for crypto experts at the NSA? I assume that they are smart people, who must surely realize what a boneheaded idea this is. Imagine working somewhere where your most senior bosses go around publicly showing off their lack of knowledge.
Why do the policiians not realize that the tools they are giving can and will be misused and abused and that those same politicians are very likely to be the targets of that misuse?
You never heard of "drive-by installs"? And don't reply with "but I don't go to that type of website", because we have often seen that both ordinary websites and ad networks can be compromised to install malware.
Strawman argument.
Is your anger or stupidity so great that you have to keep insisting that I am claiming entrapment, when I am not? But even in your examples: you say: cop gives person to keys to car, says go steal it: entrapment. In this case: FBI gives bomb to suspect, says: go use it. How is this different? What was the intent of the recipient of the car keys in your example?
So let's talk about intent. No-one knows what is truly in someone else's mind. We can only infer this from a person's words and actions. So, let's look at this person's words and actions and see if an alternative intent fits the known facts:
The accused person isn't the brightest person around. Imagine that he was worried about radical muslims and he formed the idea of catching some and turning them over to the FBI. So, what does he do? He goes on a fishing expedition for radicals by posting requests for a handler who will help him plant a bomb. He is contacted by someone who appears to be a radical muslim. He is careful not to build a bomb himself, but instead, he lets the supposed radical build a bomb and show him how to use it. His plan is to drive off with the bomb and then show it to the FBI as proof of the handler's intentions, however, his plan breaks down because he is arrested before he can hand it over to the FBI.
As you can see, the above narrative fits the known facts, yet it presents an intent which is 180 degrees from the intent that you presume.
And you know this how? Isn't this the concept of "pre-crime"
So we should prosecute "thought crime" should we?
And you just showed that your reading skills are poor. I agreed that it did not fit the legal definition of entrapment.
The refuge of the weak of mind: an ad-hominem argument.
You did not read the story properly. The FBI told him exactly what to do. They provided detailed instructions and "training". The FBI built the "bomb" for him and showed him how to "arm" it.
Just because it doesn't fit the legal definition of entrapment doesn't mean that it isn't morally entrapment.
In this case, yes, the guy had the desire to do something. However, he did not and would never have had the capability to do anything. There was no public safety justificaton for this FBI operation.
Did you not notice the stories about how random people have breached security at airports many times over the last few years? If there were any serious terrorists, there would have been attacks at airports. The fact that teenagers were able to get on planes while we haven't had any terrorist attacks shows that the threats are wildly over-stated.
FBI sets up naive person and then arrests him when he follows instructions from his FBI handlers.
Your numbers may be in in the correct ballpark, but they overstate the real numbers. Firstly, I don't think that the full quota was used when the H1-B program started. Secondly, some H1-Bs went home. Others may have gone home for a year or more and come back to the USA on a new H1-B (don't discount this, I did it and I know many others who also did). Finally, many of those former H1-B workers may not work in tech any more.
First: the item must be marked by an assay office (after the maker's mark is applied by the manufacturer). Secondly, since this isn't a traditional gold alloy, traditional methods of assaying the gold may not work, thirdly, traditional methods of applying the hallmark may not work.
I wonder what Apple is going to do in the UK, which requires marking of gold items with hallmarks.
How is that states can pass laws that relate to in-state sales of cars to consumers, but apparently laws that relate to in-state sales of drugs to consumers are pre-empted by federal law?
Just goes to show that personal enrichment is higher on the average policician's priorities than ideology for all parties.