All we know from the study is that the false positive rate was about 89%

Exactly. We don't know the false positive rate in the cases where the evidence was used. You can't claim that my speculation is not valid, yet yours is valid.

This isn't a case of a random subset of a larger population. In every case, there was a decision made whether or not to use the hair evidence. That decision was based on the evidence available. Thus, you can't assume that you have a random subset of the larger population. Thus your projection of an 11% false positive rate on the subset isn't valid.

Finally, a lack of other evidence would suggest a higher likelihood of innocence, which would imply a higher liklihood that the hair evidence was false.

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?

Up front confession: haven't read the article, but unless the diaries are in the public domain, isn't this pretty cut and dry?

In the USA there would also be the possibility of the extracts being fair use.

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.

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.

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.

That should be the next 'go back in time' movie, send the Puritans to colonize Krakatoa and let the good-timing criminals colonize America

We know where that leads: Australia.

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.