You are allowed to cite any other web page? Would you cite comments on a/. article as a reference in your paper? I would hope not. The Wikipedia isn't that much different. Since anyone can make changes, you have no guarantee that the person you are quoting is really an expert worth quoting. Of course if it is a good article the author will have references backing them up, but then why not just cite those instead?
Ok, the sniper will have time to duck. What then? The robot will have been able to locate his position in a few seconds, and it would take hours for him to sneak out. Should he jump back up and run as fast he can? Well then the Marines won't need a robot to find the guy.
I'm not sure I want to take advice on user interfaces from someone whose blog has black text against a dark blue background. Oh wait, it doesn't matter if I want to take such advice because I can't read it in the first place!
Besides, if you think that looks bad, you should have seen version 6. Actually, netscape was never pretty, but it used to at least work better than the primary alternative.
Sure, its a nice web based email service, but is it really the second best product out there? Do you really think it is better than all the gizmos and gadgets that have come out in recent years?
I know I'll get modded down for this, but I'll say it anyways. The primary reason Gmail got as popular as it currently is is because they used the Eric Cartman "You can't come" business technique by requiring people to be "invited" in. I mean they have been in Beta for a year and a half now, are they ever planning to officially open it up to the general public?
Well, though its not a virus, malaria affects humans and and is spread by insects. Though in order for something like that to cause any problems, the following would have had to happen:
The spider would have had to predate on mammalian blood.
The infectious agent would have to be one durable son of a bitch.
The scientist would have to inject himself with spider saliva (maybe he is trying to become Spiderman).
Then, in order for it to infect more people, it would have to find an alternate transmission vector (I don't think it will be finding many more of these spiders going around biting people).
To be honest, there probably are better things to worry about.
Blade Runner was certainly better as a director's cut, but not because of additional scenes. It was because they took stuff out, like the annoying voiceover or the crappy happy ending. The 5 second scene with the unicorn (as far as I know the only new scene) didn't do much more than to reopen the debate on whether or not Deckard was a replicant.
" He said that for marketing reasons. I don't think he was being sincere."
Why? How would it make economical sense to play down the expensive, new version of the movie that the studio is about to put out and make a fortune off of?
When I want the entire story, I read the books. When I want an entertaining movie, I watch the movies. The deleted scenes just broke up the flow of the movie, and in many places went against the book (like the ten minute flashback with Boromir and Faramir that portrayed younger brother in a completely different characterization as the book).
Well those giant rockets are not reusable (with the exception of the shuttles, which are currently grounded anyways due to major saftey concerns), so we have to build new ones anyways.
And if you RTFA, he did take that into account, which is why he proposed building multiple elevators. And with an existing elevator in place, the later ones would become much easier to build.
No, those are not the kinds of references you are probably thinking of, but studying ethics is not like studying Calculus. There is no definitive resource that proves or refutes any given belief.
"Because you can reverse a life sentence if you find someone is wrongly convicted."
Only if you find that out in time (before they are killed or die naturally). And incidently, if you find out they are innocent before they are executed, you can reverse a death sentence.
"What is the ethical problem with using said prisoners in medical research when they are going be die anyways? They are otherwise going to be executed anyways.
Amendment VIII "
They could always start a slashdot poll. Of course then they might get slightly skewed results.
19% said they no longer get junk phone calls.
32% said they still get junk phone calls.
43% said they still get junk phone calls from Cowboy Neal.
6% said they don't have phone lines, you insensitive clod!
Yes, human divers suffer many negative effects from under water pressure, but then again humans evolved to walk on land, not go swimming along the ocean floor. Other animals are better adapted to handle variations in pressure. Giant squid have been known to go to shallow waters at times and occasionally have even attacked boats, in fact that is how they were first discovered. And their chief predator, sperm whales, have to be able to go the surface to breathe. How often do you see whales exploding when they come up because they are used to higher pressure?
"Anyways, saying a subject is hard is no excuse to pay $40k/yr for a teacher who can't even speak the prevailing language."
If you want to be an engineer or scientist in today's world, you had better learn to understand foreign accents pretty quickly, or you will learn the hard way that the "prevailing language" may not be what you are used to.
"How does the PCR test work? You take a DNA sample and you use PCR to get it to duplicated its self billions of times and then you take the gunk and put it in a centrifuge to spin it for a while (which sorts it based on chromosomes) and then use some paper that absorbs the stuff. The result is you get different bands higher up on the paper based on their weight and separated for each chromosome."
First of all, those are specific sequences being replicated, not entire chromosomes. Second of all, those fragments are sorted by gel electrophoresis, not centrifuges and aborbing paper. At the end of the day, you can see a surprisingly detailed analysis of the target area from a potentially poor starting sample of DNA. This all ends up being a lot more accurate than just weighing chromosomes.
You have the basic idea, but the process is a lot more detailed than you think. If you are interested in more information, there is plenty available on the net, for instance here is a decent animation of the process.
After browsing through your remaining links, they all appear to be the same. State courts convicting people and then rejecting appeal arguments based on DNA evidence.
Now you are of course free to argue that the appeals process should be reformed to make for easier access to DNA testing. In fact, that has already occured in some jurisdicitons, including Virginia back in '01. But do not confuse that with the trial itself. The two are very different processes.
You are also free to argue the states should reform their systems, but then that has nothing to do with the federal database mentioned in this article. In fact, the only state I know of that keeps any such database is Virginia, which as I noted above has already reformed their appeal laws.
if the feds really want the right to forcibly collect dna evidence, then the feds should be forcibly prohibited from blocking admission of defense dna evidence in trials.
Now lets look at your examples...
Earl Washington Jr.:
Convicted by the state of Virginia, not the feds. And the drama here happened post-trial. Sorry, this is not an example of what you mentioned in your origional post.
Clyde Charles:
Convicted by the state of Louisiana, not the federal government. And again this didn't happen during the trial.
Roy Criner:
Convicted by the state of Texas, not the federal goverment. Again, this didn't occur until 7 years after his trial.
Joseph Roger O'Dell:
Again convicted by the state of Virginia. Again the questions on his DNA came up after he was convicted by a jury.
After what I've seen so far, I see no reason to continue reading your links. Do you have a specific example of what you described in your origional post; a federal court denying a defendent's request to introduce DNA evidence during the trial? Or would you like to revise your origional post?
Dolphins have been used to help hunt mines. Their sonar abilities end up being better than our electronic hardware. Though if that is what these are, I'm not sure how much of a threat they will then be to human divers.
If you want a real account of military-trained animals getting out and causing havoc, check this out. One of my old biology profs knew a guy who worked on this.
I've never heard of a test weighing chromosomes. The two most are PCR and RFLP tests. And we do have an idea of how accurate these are, in the 1 in a billion range.
Ok, fine, what if we open it to the public (like with fingerprints) and allow people completely unconnected to a crime to include their DNA (that actually could be useful for indentification purposes in case something rather bad happens to you)?
Would you feel better if we called this a "People who were at some time thought to be connected to a crime database" instead of a "criminal database"? If so I'll send a letter to my congressman to suggest the name change.
Well unless he could find some easily identifiable gene that is common to and unique to Jews (or whatever minority he feels like getting rid of), it wouldn't be of any help. Genetics don't work the way you apparently think they do.
Imagine how much more powerful Hitler could be if he had digital computers or a space program or an interconnected network of computers on which he could spread his propoganda. Should we ban all of those technologies? Any technology can be misused, that doesn't mean we should go back to the dark ages.
The fifth amendment states "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Storing someone's DNA (or any information about them) does not deprive them of life, liberty, or property. It doesn't even necessarily mark you as a criminal.
The Constitution not only fails to forbid the government from collecting information on people, but explicitly requires them to do so in Article 1, Section 2, when it calls for the census. So it is not accurate to state that the freedom against the government collecting information on you is a right the US was founded upon.
And people wouldn't take notice if someone is making lots of unauthorized requests to access someone's DNA from the database?
I'm not suggesting we sequence the DNA of the entire nation and make that information available for anyone to download, rather have a protected, access restricted database used solely for crime prevention. In fact, they probably don't even have to store the tissue sample in the first place, just the results of some standardized tests. That would probably be much cheaper and easier.
And contrary to what sci-fi films may tell us, you can't just glance at a DNA strand and know someone's size, color of skin, or personality. If a particular characteristic can be determined from DNA alone, it generally requires extensive tests.
Slashdot Mirror
You are allowed to cite any other web page? Would you cite comments on a /. article as a reference in your paper? I would hope not. The Wikipedia isn't that much different. Since anyone can make changes, you have no guarantee that the person you are quoting is really an expert worth quoting. Of course if it is a good article the author will have references backing them up, but then why not just cite those instead?
Ok, the sniper will have time to duck. What then? The robot will have been able to locate his position in a few seconds, and it would take hours for him to sneak out. Should he jump back up and run as fast he can? Well then the Marines won't need a robot to find the guy.
I'm not sure I want to take advice on user interfaces from someone whose blog has black text against a dark blue background. Oh wait, it doesn't matter if I want to take such advice because I can't read it in the first place!
Besides, if you think that looks bad, you should have seen version 6. Actually, netscape was never pretty, but it used to at least work better than the primary alternative.
I know I'll get modded down for this, but I'll say it anyways. The primary reason Gmail got as popular as it currently is is because they used the Eric Cartman "You can't come" business technique by requiring people to be "invited" in. I mean they have been in Beta for a year and a half now, are they ever planning to officially open it up to the general public?
To be honest, there probably are better things to worry about.
Blade Runner was certainly better as a director's cut, but not because of additional scenes. It was because they took stuff out, like the annoying voiceover or the crappy happy ending. The 5 second scene with the unicorn (as far as I know the only new scene) didn't do much more than to reopen the debate on whether or not Deckard was a replicant.
Why? How would it make economical sense to play down the expensive, new version of the movie that the studio is about to put out and make a fortune off of?
When I want the entire story, I read the books. When I want an entertaining movie, I watch the movies. The deleted scenes just broke up the flow of the movie, and in many places went against the book (like the ten minute flashback with Boromir and Faramir that portrayed younger brother in a completely different characterization as the book).
And if you RTFA, he did take that into account, which is why he proposed building multiple elevators. And with an existing elevator in place, the later ones would become much easier to build.
- Plato
- Hume
- Kant
- Mill
- Nietzsche
etc.No, those are not the kinds of references you are probably thinking of, but studying ethics is not like studying Calculus. There is no definitive resource that proves or refutes any given belief.
Only if you find that out in time (before they are killed or die naturally). And incidently, if you find out they are innocent before they are executed, you can reverse a death sentence.
"What is the ethical problem with using said prisoners in medical research when they are going be die anyways? They are otherwise going to be executed anyways.
Amendment VIII "
Ethical. Constitutional. Two different things.
And, since it looks like you missed it, Rhetorical Question.
19% said they no longer get junk phone calls.
32% said they still get junk phone calls.
43% said they still get junk phone calls from Cowboy Neal.
6% said they don't have phone lines, you insensitive clod!
That might add up to 100%. If not, see my sig.
Yes, human divers suffer many negative effects from under water pressure, but then again humans evolved to walk on land, not go swimming along the ocean floor. Other animals are better adapted to handle variations in pressure. Giant squid have been known to go to shallow waters at times and occasionally have even attacked boats, in fact that is how they were first discovered. And their chief predator, sperm whales, have to be able to go the surface to breathe. How often do you see whales exploding when they come up because they are used to higher pressure?
If you want to be an engineer or scientist in today's world, you had better learn to understand foreign accents pretty quickly, or you will learn the hard way that the "prevailing language" may not be what you are used to.
First of all, those are specific sequences being replicated, not entire chromosomes. Second of all, those fragments are sorted by gel electrophoresis, not centrifuges and aborbing paper. At the end of the day, you can see a surprisingly detailed analysis of the target area from a potentially poor starting sample of DNA. This all ends up being a lot more accurate than just weighing chromosomes.
You have the basic idea, but the process is a lot more detailed than you think. If you are interested in more information, there is plenty available on the net, for instance here is a decent animation of the process.
Now you are of course free to argue that the appeals process should be reformed to make for easier access to DNA testing. In fact, that has already occured in some jurisdicitons, including Virginia back in '01. But do not confuse that with the trial itself. The two are very different processes.
You are also free to argue the states should reform their systems, but then that has nothing to do with the federal database mentioned in this article. In fact, the only state I know of that keeps any such database is Virginia, which as I noted above has already reformed their appeal laws.
Convicted by the state of Virginia, not the feds. And the drama here happened post-trial. Sorry, this is not an example of what you mentioned in your origional post.
Convicted by the state of Louisiana, not the federal government. And again this didn't happen during the trial.
Convicted by the state of Texas, not the federal goverment. Again, this didn't occur until 7 years after his trial.
Again convicted by the state of Virginia. Again the questions on his DNA came up after he was convicted by a jury.
After what I've seen so far, I see no reason to continue reading your links. Do you have a specific example of what you described in your origional post; a federal court denying a defendent's request to introduce DNA evidence during the trial? Or would you like to revise your origional post?
If you want a real account of military-trained animals getting out and causing havoc, check this out. One of my old biology profs knew a guy who worked on this.
Trust me, you'll live without those few cells that end up on the cheek swab. You are not being deprived of anything.
I don't see any specific examples of what I asked for, so I'll take that answer as an "I have no clue what I'm talking about" answer.
I've never heard of a test weighing chromosomes. The two most are PCR and RFLP tests. And we do have an idea of how accurate these are, in the 1 in a billion range.
Ok, fine, what if we open it to the public (like with fingerprints) and allow people completely unconnected to a crime to include their DNA (that actually could be useful for indentification purposes in case something rather bad happens to you)?
Would you feel better if we called this a "People who were at some time thought to be connected to a crime database" instead of a "criminal database"? If so I'll send a letter to my congressman to suggest the name change.
Imagine how much more powerful Hitler could be if he had digital computers or a space program or an interconnected network of computers on which he could spread his propoganda. Should we ban all of those technologies? Any technology can be misused, that doesn't mean we should go back to the dark ages.
The Constitution not only fails to forbid the government from collecting information on people, but explicitly requires them to do so in Article 1, Section 2, when it calls for the census. So it is not accurate to state that the freedom against the government collecting information on you is a right the US was founded upon.
I'm not suggesting we sequence the DNA of the entire nation and make that information available for anyone to download, rather have a protected, access restricted database used solely for crime prevention. In fact, they probably don't even have to store the tissue sample in the first place, just the results of some standardized tests. That would probably be much cheaper and easier.
And contrary to what sci-fi films may tell us, you can't just glance at a DNA strand and know someone's size, color of skin, or personality. If a particular characteristic can be determined from DNA alone, it generally requires extensive tests.