You're screwed either way then - if they're going to railroad you, they're going to railroad you. Handle that problem, not the non-existent right of convicts not to give DNA samples.
It is real evidence, you just don't understand it correctly. You take a bunch of evidence, some weak, some strong, etc... You multiply the odds of it occurring and you decide guilt. So maybe I have 10 pieces of evidence. No single one is enough to really prove anything, alone. Taken together, only an idiot or an Ignatow juror (well, that's redundant) would still claim innocence.
It's not used as evidence alone, it's used to generate leads and as part of a comprehensive set of evidence. Even if the odds of a DNA match in their DB were 1/50000 it would still be extremely useful.
Find bloody knife, test it, get list of 600 people, narrow it down by location, age, criminal history, etc... and you can get a good starting place for the investigation.
You do know they don't arrest you and convict you based solely on DNA evidence. Hell, sometimes they don't with DNA and a bunch of other evidence (see: OJ). If you've been convicted of a felony you should have your DNA extracted and stored in a database, end of story. You lost your right to privacy when you were convicted, along with possibly other rights including your freedom, vote, and access to guns.
You don't seem to understand "evidence". It's based on probabilities. The evidence he posited may or may not be enough to convict on its own, but it would certainly come close either way and would be enough to arrest and serve warrants.
If you can show me someone with DNA with a 1/10k DNA match and they were at the theater, you're 75% there on your case. Then you look for motives and other evidence to compound that evidence.
Absolutely agreed, there. Shareholders (and board of directors) should hold them similarly accountable. The company will pay for normal business travel, if you want above and beyond that pay out of your own pocket.
It's not only a waste of money, it's horrible leadership. Any officer in the military pushing for this kind of thing should be immediately railroaded out of the military - being a good military leader and seeking this kind of fluff are absolutely mutually exclusive. Some pig high ranking General lavising in luxury while ordering people to risk their lives and live in cramped air carrier quarters is fucking disgusting.
Equality, as far as I'm concerned, means equal pay for equal jobs.
I disagree. The above criteria is what's used to say that since person X and person Y have the same job description or category they should make the same money. In fact, it should be the value of the work a given person does to his/her employer that determine pay.
If I have two employees working a factory line, and one weighs 250 pounds and can move the 20 pound stacks of paper 50% faster than the one who ways 120 pounds, am I "discriminating" if I pay the 250 pounder more? According to facile "equal pay for equal work" analyses, I am.
It doesn't own anybody. It's competition isn't x86 processors - it's far more expensive, uses more power, and has a non-mainstream instruction set. By the time this is out it will be competing with a very mature Nehalem chip - and not looking favorable in anything but raw performance in specific tasks.
25nm is nothing to write home about, companies are already planning for 25nm. What's exciting is that they created a feature that was smaller than the wavelength of the light used to etch it. Had they used 400nm light to create a 45nm feature, would the title have been "MIT breakthrough could lead to 45nm chips!!!"?
I know it's fun to use hearsay and draw wild conclusions which make a boogeyman out of various unpopular (some rightly so) parties, but is there anything here besides a bunch of conjecture and reporting of anecdote as fact?
I never said it was about proving innocence. What I said was there wasn't one single exonerating piece of evidence. So the prosecution laid out their theory and provided proof. The odds of all that proof existing and his not having murdered his wife is ridiculously small. So at that point, he's guilty. Had he been able to provide some evidence of an alternate theory, he could have reduced that certainty. So let's say I decide (in an inexact, human way) that I think there's a 1/10000000 chance he didn't commit the murder. Guilty. But then he provides some evidence of one of his crackpot stories and I decide that reduces it to 1/10000. That would be a whole different story, and probably not enough to convict.
So just saying things about crazy serial killers or trips to russia means nothing whatsoever, he has to provide credible evidence about those theories to create reasonable doubt. He only has to do this because the prosecution has already proved his guilt. Had they not done so, then even his flimsiest story would be fine because prosecution wouldn't have proved their case.
No, I just have a somewhat old fashioned sense of justice. Probably I watch too many of the "forensic files" type shows. It just enrages me what one human being will do to another, and I allow my baser instincts free reign. When some low life tortures and murders an innocent father of 3 for no reason, I want that low life to be tortured to death. When someone rapes and murders an innocent 12 year old girl I want that someone to be tortured to death, slowly and over the course of weeks if possible.
Some people just deserve to die horribly. Even within the realm of decent society our laws are pathetic and our sentencing ridiculous. You can go to jail longer for a few drug charges than for murdering your wife. You can poison your spouse and they can die horribly over weeks and then you can just get 10-15 years of prison. You can rape someone and go on a high speed chase, putting lives at risk, and just spend a few years in prison.
We don't have the will in this country to do what's necessary to get these fucking animals out of society. And I'm talking just straight, humane prison time here not Extreme Justice. What we need to do is decriminalize drugs, but make any crime committed while under the influence of drugs a much more severe penalty. Then spend the resources keeping the real scum behind bars.
Your position, to me, seems untenable. The defendent and his lawyer will _always_ posit some other explanation for the crime. Without fail, if they deny the charges and don't plead guilty they will come up with some explanation. "I was carrying it for a friend!" "Those drugs aren't mine, someone left them in my car!" "These cops are framing me!". It's incredibly easy to spew stuff out, if jurors paid words alone any heed there would be very few convictions in this country.
The prosecution presents their case. The defense should refute the prosecution's evidence with science or with facts. Stories are meaningless. Anyone could just go out and kill their wife, destroy/hide the body, and assert the wife fled to Timbuktu. It means nothing. Stories about grandiose nutjobs pretending to be serial killers mean nothing. Stories about fleeing to Russia mean nothing. If they want to assert that's what's happeneed, they need to produce credible evidence.
Wait, wait. I know. Now you're thinking "but the prodecution has to prove things, not the defense!". Not true. The prosecution makes an assertion of guilt. They then proceed to prove that assertion. If the defense proposes an alternate theory, they must prove it somehow or at least make it something other than a story made up by the defense team.
As for probabilities, all criminal cases come down to probabilities. Every single one. We just don't think of it that way most of the time. What are the odds of all this evidence pointing to Reiser but him not having killed his wife? Close to zero. The jury, thankfully, understood that on at least a subconscious level. Many of you, despite numerous very clear explanations, still don't understand this very simple thing.
Seriously, talk to a reasonably intelligent judge or prosecutor about this sometime, or more simple just watch one of those shows about forensics cases. Most of the time it comes down to providing enough circumstantial evidence that it eliminates all other reasonable explanations other than the suspect's guilt.
Odds of W incriminating evidence happening and suspect being innocent: 1/500
Odds of X incriminating evidence happening and suspect being innocent: 1/800
Odds of Y incriminating evidence happening and suspect being innocent: 1/5000
Odds of Z incriminating evidence happening and suspect being innocent: 1/2000
Odds of W, X, Y, Z all being true and suspect being innocent: 1/4000000000000.
Hmm, I wonder if this defendent is guilty!! But, gee, no one piece of evidence is all _that_ incriminating! Pfft. Come on, now.
It's a shame you don't understand and I have to explain yet again. Someone has a premise that he murdered his wife. They then proceed to present evidence. No one piece of evidence would convince a reasonable person of guilt. Taken in conjunction, all the evidence eliminates all other possible causes of Nina Reiser being missing other than his having killed her to a very high degree of certainty. It's really very simple.
I see you misunderstood my mentioning the lack of evidence that he didn't kill her. That's not evidence in itself, but again in conjunction with the mountain of other circumstantial evidence you'd have to believe in fairies and magic to have any reasonable doubt about his guilt.
In short, they absolutely proved that any explanation other than his having killed her was unreasonable and ridiculously unlikely. That's kind of how most murder trials work, murderers tend to try not leaving much physical evidence, or witnesses, or smoking guns, etc...
He's getting off too easily anyway, he's taken one life and ruined multiple other lives. Once murder is established, the burden should be on the defendent to prove it wasn't premeditated. Were I a juror, being free of thought, I would vote based on that regardless of the law.
How true. Unfortunately there was tons of evidence, and taken together it clearly indicated he was guilty to the exclusion of all other reasonable explanations. That's how evidence works. You don't say "gee, just because there was blood in his car doesn't mean he did it!". You look at that in conjunction with the SHITLOAD of other evidence and say "shit, that dirty fucker murdered his wife and left his children without a mother or father and with a lifetime of trauma".
Here's the lesson kids...you're all pissing me off. There was plenty of evidence. You're just too stupid to know that circumstantial evidence, taken in an additive way, is perfectly valid evidence and can most certainly be used to convict someone in good conscience.
Did you know that in real life most murderers don't leave a bunch of semen at the crime scene?! Oh, and they don't leave big old bacon grease fingerprints, either! Oooh, and they hide the body! Oh, also, they sometimes try to kill people with no witnesses and out of a camera's watchful eye! It's amazing.
Yet somehow even the 95-105 IQ jurors in this case were able to deduce that he did it. I know how they did it, because I understand what circumstantial evidence is and how to use it to eliminate the possibility that the suspect didn't do it. Maybe if you go read some basic math books, and think on it real hard you can understand too!
Jesus, for a bunch of supposedly smart people a lot of you are fucking retarded. Do you know what circumstantial evidence is? It's not "bad" evidence. Please won't you all stop saying (and I paraphrase) "all they had him with is that bad kind of evidence, that useless circumstantial kind!". It makes you sound horribly stupid.
Oh fuck off. Let's even forget his wife and assume she was a horrible person (I don't know this and am just saying it for argument). As someone else said - look what this lowlife piece of shit did to his kids. No father. No mother. Trauma for the rest of their lives.
I hope he is brutalized in prison. Brutalized and savaged.
Good point, except..for all the evidence. It's hilarious to me that you dweebs are _still_ lamenting the jury's decision. And I do understand the concept of reaching the right decision the wrong way. Only, you know...all the evidence.
Use your purportedly big old nerd noggins and consider all the evidence which does point to him murdering him and the...none that points to him not having mudered her. Seriously, what are the odds of all that stuff coming together with _no_ evidence that he _didn't_ kill her? We're talking lottery odds. And most criminal cases like this come down to odds, there's no camera and no witnesses. You just have to take all the evidence and come up with a percent likelihood that he didn't do it. In this case, that percent was diminishingly small.
No. Now please excuse yourself from any future jury you may be called upon to participate in. The way evidence works (barring the extremely rare multiple eyewitness, camera, or SuperBad "ejaculate all over the place" situations) is you use it to reduce the chances that someone else other than the suspect killed the person. You look at person missing, blood evidence, strange behavior consistent with him having murdered her, motive, no alibi, and all the other stuff.
Taken as one thing, none is strong enough to convict. Hell, even DNA evidence usually doesn't say "this is person X's blood", it tells you "the odds of this blood belonging to someone other than the suspect are 1 in 1xxxxxxx". Each piece of evidence brings the odds of it being someone else to such a ridiculously small number that a reasonable person would have no reasonable doubt that the suspect is guilty.
Re:C# isn't a language...
on
Head First C#
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
Really? Please, can you pontificate on something else you know absolutely nothing about? I'm really dying to get your opinion on Zimbabweyan culture or the physics of tea clumping. Is there any subject you know nothing about you're unwilling to address, so I know to stay away from them?
Slashdot Mirror
You're screwed either way then - if they're going to railroad you, they're going to railroad you. Handle that problem, not the non-existent right of convicts not to give DNA samples.
It is real evidence, you just don't understand it correctly. You take a bunch of evidence, some weak, some strong, etc... You multiply the odds of it occurring and you decide guilt. So maybe I have 10 pieces of evidence. No single one is enough to really prove anything, alone. Taken together, only an idiot or an Ignatow juror (well, that's redundant) would still claim innocence.
Find bloody knife, test it, get list of 600 people, narrow it down by location, age, criminal history, etc... and you can get a good starting place for the investigation.
You do know they don't arrest you and convict you based solely on DNA evidence. Hell, sometimes they don't with DNA and a bunch of other evidence (see: OJ). If you've been convicted of a felony you should have your DNA extracted and stored in a database, end of story. You lost your right to privacy when you were convicted, along with possibly other rights including your freedom, vote, and access to guns.
If you can show me someone with DNA with a 1/10k DNA match and they were at the theater, you're 75% there on your case. Then you look for motives and other evidence to compound that evidence.
Absolutely agreed, there. Shareholders (and board of directors) should hold them similarly accountable. The company will pay for normal business travel, if you want above and beyond that pay out of your own pocket.
He was convicted of drunk driving, but sentenced based on douchebaggery with a little bit of asshattery thrown in.
It's not only a waste of money, it's horrible leadership. Any officer in the military pushing for this kind of thing should be immediately railroaded out of the military - being a good military leader and seeking this kind of fluff are absolutely mutually exclusive. Some pig high ranking General lavising in luxury while ordering people to risk their lives and live in cramped air carrier quarters is fucking disgusting.
Equality, as far as I'm concerned, means equal pay for equal jobs.
I disagree. The above criteria is what's used to say that since person X and person Y have the same job description or category they should make the same money. In fact, it should be the value of the work a given person does to his/her employer that determine pay.
If I have two employees working a factory line, and one weighs 250 pounds and can move the 20 pound stacks of paper 50% faster than the one who ways 120 pounds, am I "discriminating" if I pay the 250 pounder more? According to facile "equal pay for equal work" analyses, I am.
It doesn't own anybody. It's competition isn't x86 processors - it's far more expensive, uses more power, and has a non-mainstream instruction set. By the time this is out it will be competing with a very mature Nehalem chip - and not looking favorable in anything but raw performance in specific tasks.
25nm is nothing to write home about, companies are already planning for 25nm. What's exciting is that they created a feature that was smaller than the wavelength of the light used to etch it. Had they used 400nm light to create a 45nm feature, would the title have been "MIT breakthrough could lead to 45nm chips!!!"?
I know it's fun to use hearsay and draw wild conclusions which make a boogeyman out of various unpopular (some rightly so) parties, but is there anything here besides a bunch of conjecture and reporting of anecdote as fact?
I'm going to come clean your car. I'm going to charge you $10,000. You didn't ask me to do it, but I decided to anyway - now pay me.
So just saying things about crazy serial killers or trips to russia means nothing whatsoever, he has to provide credible evidence about those theories to create reasonable doubt. He only has to do this because the prosecution has already proved his guilt. Had they not done so, then even his flimsiest story would be fine because prosecution wouldn't have proved their case.
Some people just deserve to die horribly. Even within the realm of decent society our laws are pathetic and our sentencing ridiculous. You can go to jail longer for a few drug charges than for murdering your wife. You can poison your spouse and they can die horribly over weeks and then you can just get 10-15 years of prison. You can rape someone and go on a high speed chase, putting lives at risk, and just spend a few years in prison.
We don't have the will in this country to do what's necessary to get these fucking animals out of society. And I'm talking just straight, humane prison time here not Extreme Justice. What we need to do is decriminalize drugs, but make any crime committed while under the influence of drugs a much more severe penalty. Then spend the resources keeping the real scum behind bars.
The prosecution presents their case. The defense should refute the prosecution's evidence with science or with facts. Stories are meaningless. Anyone could just go out and kill their wife, destroy/hide the body, and assert the wife fled to Timbuktu. It means nothing. Stories about grandiose nutjobs pretending to be serial killers mean nothing. Stories about fleeing to Russia mean nothing. If they want to assert that's what's happeneed, they need to produce credible evidence.
Wait, wait. I know. Now you're thinking "but the prodecution has to prove things, not the defense!". Not true. The prosecution makes an assertion of guilt. They then proceed to prove that assertion. If the defense proposes an alternate theory, they must prove it somehow or at least make it something other than a story made up by the defense team.
As for probabilities, all criminal cases come down to probabilities. Every single one. We just don't think of it that way most of the time. What are the odds of all this evidence pointing to Reiser but him not having killed his wife? Close to zero. The jury, thankfully, understood that on at least a subconscious level. Many of you, despite numerous very clear explanations, still don't understand this very simple thing.
Seriously, talk to a reasonably intelligent judge or prosecutor about this sometime, or more simple just watch one of those shows about forensics cases. Most of the time it comes down to providing enough circumstantial evidence that it eliminates all other reasonable explanations other than the suspect's guilt.
Odds of W incriminating evidence happening and suspect being innocent: 1/500
Odds of X incriminating evidence happening and suspect being innocent: 1/800
Odds of Y incriminating evidence happening and suspect being innocent: 1/5000
Odds of Z incriminating evidence happening and suspect being innocent: 1/2000
Odds of W, X, Y, Z all being true and suspect being innocent: 1/4000000000000.
Hmm, I wonder if this defendent is guilty!! But, gee, no one piece of evidence is all _that_ incriminating! Pfft. Come on, now.
I see you misunderstood my mentioning the lack of evidence that he didn't kill her. That's not evidence in itself, but again in conjunction with the mountain of other circumstantial evidence you'd have to believe in fairies and magic to have any reasonable doubt about his guilt.
In short, they absolutely proved that any explanation other than his having killed her was unreasonable and ridiculously unlikely. That's kind of how most murder trials work, murderers tend to try not leaving much physical evidence, or witnesses, or smoking guns, etc...
He's getting off too easily anyway, he's taken one life and ruined multiple other lives. Once murder is established, the burden should be on the defendent to prove it wasn't premeditated. Were I a juror, being free of thought, I would vote based on that regardless of the law.
How true. Unfortunately there was tons of evidence, and taken together it clearly indicated he was guilty to the exclusion of all other reasonable explanations. That's how evidence works. You don't say "gee, just because there was blood in his car doesn't mean he did it!". You look at that in conjunction with the SHITLOAD of other evidence and say "shit, that dirty fucker murdered his wife and left his children without a mother or father and with a lifetime of trauma".
Did you know that in real life most murderers don't leave a bunch of semen at the crime scene?! Oh, and they don't leave big old bacon grease fingerprints, either! Oooh, and they hide the body! Oh, also, they sometimes try to kill people with no witnesses and out of a camera's watchful eye! It's amazing.
Yet somehow even the 95-105 IQ jurors in this case were able to deduce that he did it. I know how they did it, because I understand what circumstantial evidence is and how to use it to eliminate the possibility that the suspect didn't do it. Maybe if you go read some basic math books, and think on it real hard you can understand too!
Jesus, for a bunch of supposedly smart people a lot of you are fucking retarded. Do you know what circumstantial evidence is? It's not "bad" evidence. Please won't you all stop saying (and I paraphrase) "all they had him with is that bad kind of evidence, that useless circumstantial kind!". It makes you sound horribly stupid.
I hope he is brutalized in prison. Brutalized and savaged.
Use your purportedly big old nerd noggins and consider all the evidence which does point to him murdering him and the...none that points to him not having mudered her. Seriously, what are the odds of all that stuff coming together with _no_ evidence that he _didn't_ kill her? We're talking lottery odds. And most criminal cases like this come down to odds, there's no camera and no witnesses. You just have to take all the evidence and come up with a percent likelihood that he didn't do it. In this case, that percent was diminishingly small.
Taken as one thing, none is strong enough to convict. Hell, even DNA evidence usually doesn't say "this is person X's blood", it tells you "the odds of this blood belonging to someone other than the suspect are 1 in 1xxxxxxx". Each piece of evidence brings the odds of it being someone else to such a ridiculously small number that a reasonable person would have no reasonable doubt that the suspect is guilty.
Really? Please, can you pontificate on something else you know absolutely nothing about? I'm really dying to get your opinion on Zimbabweyan culture or the physics of tea clumping. Is there any subject you know nothing about you're unwilling to address, so I know to stay away from them?