When I first read your comment I agreed with it, but the more I think about it the less I do.
The assumptions are that the government has everyone's DNA so they should be able to match the DNA at the crime scene to the 10,000 people in the USA with that matching genetic markers. If the defence also has access to this information it should help your case as much as hurt it. The defence should be able to provide a plausible alternate suspect and as long as you're not guilty and they were it should be less difficult than today.
more like:
-They find DNA at the scene.
-Birthday paradox comes into play
-I happen to be in the same city at about the right time AND no one else with the same DNA markers and similar or worse alibi is in the same city AND no other convincing evidence pointing away from me OR I live in Texas
-lazy defence
-I'm fucked.
The building blocks (electrons, protons or quarks even) of stationary objects still have motion. Maybe anything that has a temperature greater than absolute zero experiences time because it is in motion.
This lighter sentence doesn't make sense. If you accept the assertion that he has a gene that predisposes him to being more aggressive and therefore is less responsible for his actions, you should logically also conclude that he is more likely to reoffend. In most sentencing situations the likelihood or the person being a repeat offender is given a much higher weighting than if the person "couldn't help themselves".
Serial killers are a good example of this; they have a psychological predisposition to committing murder. Their short circuited brains should make them less personally responsible, but more likely to reoffend and the latter should give them a longer sentence
Slashdot Mirror
When I first read your comment I agreed with it, but the more I think about it the less I do. The assumptions are that the government has everyone's DNA so they should be able to match the DNA at the crime scene to the 10,000 people in the USA with that matching genetic markers. If the defence also has access to this information it should help your case as much as hurt it. The defence should be able to provide a plausible alternate suspect and as long as you're not guilty and they were it should be less difficult than today. more like: -They find DNA at the scene. -Birthday paradox comes into play -I happen to be in the same city at about the right time AND no one else with the same DNA markers and similar or worse alibi is in the same city AND no other convincing evidence pointing away from me OR I live in Texas -lazy defence -I'm fucked.
The building blocks (electrons, protons or quarks even) of stationary objects still have motion. Maybe anything that has a temperature greater than absolute zero experiences time because it is in motion.
This lighter sentence doesn't make sense. If you accept the assertion that he has a gene that predisposes him to being more aggressive and therefore is less responsible for his actions, you should logically also conclude that he is more likely to reoffend. In most sentencing situations the likelihood or the person being a repeat offender is given a much higher weighting than if the person "couldn't help themselves". Serial killers are a good example of this; they have a psychological predisposition to committing murder. Their short circuited brains should make them less personally responsible, but more likely to reoffend and the latter should give them a longer sentence
We can debate if it helps or hurts the hardware industry, but I don't think any one can deny that it helps the software industy...