As a professional using DNA for human identity every day, I can assure you that your fears are completely unfounded. UNLIKE a fingerprint (ink and thumb concept), a DNA 'fingerprint' is very incomplete. It is more like the biometric fingerprint. All a biometric reader sees is a handful of specific points to use as points of comparison. The DNA fingerprint works like that. It takes a handful of specific 'markers' that can help distinguish people. A DNA match in a crime or paternity or whatever is not a nucleotide base by base comparison. It is using specific differences to statistically support the match. It is entirely plausible for an innocent person to have a profile that matches another person. In fact, identical twins have identitical DNA. DNA evidence alone will never convict or acquit on its own. There has to be something else. For example, if the DNA match demonstrates a 1 in 3 million liklihood of it being the same person, one can imagine only one person in LA could have been the source of the DNA. That along with other physical and emperical evidence (witnesses saw the white bronco, OJ had motive, etc.), it becomes plausible that it is the same person. While I do worry that insurance companies can get information about diagnostic tests, there is no need to fear insurance companies getting a hold of DNA profiles from criminals. That data is essentially useless for disease information or anything else. Put your conspiracy theories back in your pocket and relax. Personally, I'd rather Big Brother had posession of my CODIS profile than my fingerprints which are much easier to plant or end up in innocent places- city streets, etc. If someone has a fingerprint card, they have all my fingerprint information. If somebody has my CODIS profile, they can't do anything useful.
They aren't saying bad music leads to piracy, rather that bad music leads to low sales. The low sales are not caused by piracy, rather there is not as much demand for the shit they make today versus a few years ago. I know that I buy stuff I like, even if I 'stole' it to check it out first. Most people do, I think. Why be satisfied with low-grade digital copies horked from someone else when I can have the original, high quality recording to work from?
Uh...check that- the Congress granted rights to Bush to declare this a war and to act with aggression against hostile enemies. Your buddy Kerry even voted in favor of it...So yes, we are at war...
This is novel and interesting for the fact that the gene was found in 'intergenic space' and does not have all the normal features and functions of a gene. You are taking the reference of Junk DNA far to personally. It is not to say the DNA has no purpose. If it is there for nothing else, it minimizes the odds of mutating important genes. If the genome was just one gene stacked end to end, then every time a mutation occurred, it would be in a gene. Since 95% of the material has no known function, at the very least it reduces the chances of harmful mutation.
We have been inside a box for years thinking that genes have a specific structure, specific role. We find that it is not that simple. I wonder now, in light of this, if introns might have a more important role than previously thought...
Slashdot Mirror
As a professional using DNA for human identity every day, I can assure you that your fears are completely unfounded. UNLIKE a fingerprint (ink and thumb concept), a DNA 'fingerprint' is very incomplete. It is more like the biometric fingerprint. All a biometric reader sees is a handful of specific points to use as points of comparison. The DNA fingerprint works like that. It takes a handful of specific 'markers' that can help distinguish people. A DNA match in a crime or paternity or whatever is not a nucleotide base by base comparison. It is using specific differences to statistically support the match. It is entirely plausible for an innocent person to have a profile that matches another person. In fact, identical twins have identitical DNA. DNA evidence alone will never convict or acquit on its own. There has to be something else. For example, if the DNA match demonstrates a 1 in 3 million liklihood of it being the same person, one can imagine only one person in LA could have been the source of the DNA. That along with other physical and emperical evidence (witnesses saw the white bronco, OJ had motive, etc.), it becomes plausible that it is the same person. While I do worry that insurance companies can get information about diagnostic tests, there is no need to fear insurance companies getting a hold of DNA profiles from criminals. That data is essentially useless for disease information or anything else. Put your conspiracy theories back in your pocket and relax. Personally, I'd rather Big Brother had posession of my CODIS profile than my fingerprints which are much easier to plant or end up in innocent places- city streets, etc. If someone has a fingerprint card, they have all my fingerprint information. If somebody has my CODIS profile, they can't do anything useful.
They aren't saying bad music leads to piracy, rather that bad music leads to low sales. The low sales are not caused by piracy, rather there is not as much demand for the shit they make today versus a few years ago. I know that I buy stuff I like, even if I 'stole' it to check it out first. Most people do, I think. Why be satisfied with low-grade digital copies horked from someone else when I can have the original, high quality recording to work from?
Uh...check that- the Congress granted rights to Bush to declare this a war and to act with aggression against hostile enemies. Your buddy Kerry even voted in favor of it...So yes, we are at war...
This is novel and interesting for the fact that the gene was found in 'intergenic space' and does not have all the normal features and functions of a gene. You are taking the reference of Junk DNA far to personally. It is not to say the DNA has no purpose. If it is there for nothing else, it minimizes the odds of mutating important genes. If the genome was just one gene stacked end to end, then every time a mutation occurred, it would be in a gene. Since 95% of the material has no known function, at the very least it reduces the chances of harmful mutation. We have been inside a box for years thinking that genes have a specific structure, specific role. We find that it is not that simple. I wonder now, in light of this, if introns might have a more important role than previously thought...
If you visit the story at The Scientist, they have a much better article and a link to the PubMed, full text article.