whois doesnt agree...
Otherwise, I know no one who uses google to get
Why, thank you Mr. Franklin. While Im not sure you meant to equate privacy and liberty, I centainly do.
Apparently he was "supporting" them simply by promoting these broadcasts? Not sure how I feel on this one. If DVRs are questionable, simply because ads can be skipped, as ads are the only support for television broadcasting companies, how much is something like Mr Iqbal is doing, support?
No date on when this estimate was made.
"I still don't own a car: does that prove that cars are useless and unchanging?" Do you see new cars on your way to work or in your neighborhood? Do you see them changing and improving? My personal lack of ownership was a small portion of my argument. I also noted everything else I see as a source.
Am I right?
I would say if the DNA evidence is the ONLY evidence and the individual has a twin... hope this guy has a good defense. This is going to happen regardless of mandatory DNA filing though. I wouldnt expect to see an increase of wrongful arrests/convictions. Not that we would necessarily know. Unfortunately all it may take is you having no alibi "I was at home alone" and your close relative paying some friends to say he was somewhere else. This is getting a little too specific and crazy for such a general topic, though. Im fairly certain only identical twins (not even siblings of the same parents) are difficult to impossible to tell apart genetically. I dont have a source
This sort of backs up your argument. But basically increasing the number of markers in DNA increases the chances of a false positive. According to this article "The chances of two unrelated people having the same details for all these 10 markers - and hence the chance of a false identification - is said to be about one in a billion." There are only 6 Billion people in the world. Stop making up bullshit. Thanks.
The jury will be given sufficient background into what DNA evidence actually says, as far as it not being 100% accurate. The jurors will have to decide whether or not DNA evidence is enough along with whatever other evidence there is (if any) for their vote of guilty or not guilty. Yes, you are still relying on uneducated CSI watchers and morons. Guess it sucks to be an American. Hope you have a good defense.
I would appreciate it if you didnt make up bullshit http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Facts_on_PostConviction_DNA_Exonerations.php
Thank you. Come again.
Im an avid reader of 2600. The Patriot Act still scares the shit out of me. There are a lot of large governmental things going in here and abroad that I disagree with and wouldnt take part of but this isnt something Im against.
Point taken on Arrest != Conviction though. But Arrest + DNA may equal exoneration. I realise we are talking about arrests for minor convictions. Say I get arrested for heavy speeding in a school zone. Why are they taking a DNA sample? Oh, this matches the DNA of the child rapist/murderer. Case closed. The streets are safer. I have no fancies or disillusionments that this would be some sort of cure all nor do I subscribe to the theory that once the government has your DNA they own you or other such conspiracy theories and nonsense. The government has all of my information. I had to give up my fingerprints to be a security guard for a Wal-Mart (true tory). *gasp* So what?
I welcome a rebuttal. Thank you for your reply.
Please enlighten me.