Definitely, but they know that already. It's genomics 101: a marker is not a 100% sign that a phenotype will develop. They undoubtedly describe their research as being primarily useful in identifying factors that make violence more likely. Their goal wouldn't be "Lock up everyone who has X Y and Z markers." Their goal would be "Identify markers that, in conjunction with other things like abuse as a child, drug problems, etc, could increase the chances that someone is going to become violent, understand how those genes work, and maybe develop drugs to be given in some circumstances."

Put another way, if these researchers were so uninformed as to think that there is a DNA sequence which will tell them with 100% certainty that someone is going to commit violence, then they're not actually scientists and we don't need to worry about them accomplishing anything.

IF they identify markers for violence, THEN we will need to concern ourselves with making sure society doesn't take that as a certainty. Society has decided that sex offenders usually having a high rate of recidivism means that every individual sex offender is going to commit another sex offense, so we should lock them up forever. But that's for people who have already committed a crime. Being sexually assaulted as a child increases the chances of one becoming a child molester, yet we don't victims as ticking time bombs. People with these markers won't have committed a crime already, so perhaps society IS mature enough to handle it.

The EFF just started taking bitcoins again. I hear governments hate bitcoins. At worst, they'd probably assume you were buying guns and drugs from the EFF and dodging taxes while doing it. THEN when you revealed that you weren't, the government would be so embarassed they'd probably leave you alone.

I could, but I'm just going to continue wearing nitrile gloves and assume there's semen and ethidium bromide all it and everything else in the lab.

I suspect that would only benefit patent trolls, who would sue twice with some IP, then the company would dissolve and miraculously, a new company would start with all the same people, IP assets, secretaries, and stationary. Meanwhile, companies with actual copyright infringements to consider would have to make absolutely sure that whoever they sued was ground into bankruptcy.

A few weeks ago, the computer in my lab that is connected to two somewhat expensive bits of equipment came down with this. That was more surprising to me. It's connected to the gel imager and is in a common area. People put agarose gels in the imager and then forget to take off their gloves to use the computer. The keyboard is probably covered in ethidium bromide. Why someone would be watching porn on it is beyond me.

I guess on the bright side, semen being on the keyboard isn't a huge concern compared to the EtBr, but the ransomware prevented some people from doing their research. It said we could unlock it and avoid prosecution by paying $300 at the local CVS. I guess that sounds like a good deal to some people, possibly the person who was jerking off with carcinogens.

But... there already ARE filters on by default. The app store doesn't seem have anything that would rate higher than a PG-13. Safari's default search engine was at least google, maybe they've changed it, but google has safesearch on by default. It's not like you say "Siri, I like dogs" and it goes right to a gallery of people having doggystyle sex.

...

I guess I'm assuming that religious groups would think about it first. You may be right.

Problem there of course is that standard varies from person to person. An ipad mini would count as a phone to some people.

The media panning I seem to recall was because it wasn't an ipad, not because it was doomed to fail. There's also the issue of the "media" covering consumer electronics is somehow even worse than the rest of the media. It's almost all tabloids for nerds, reporting rumors and regurgitating press releases.

There's also designating actual successes as failures and vice versa. The FDA, for instance, blocked approval of thalidomide until more studies were done, limiting the number of victims in the US. When I bring this up, people sometimes try to explain to me how that was a bad thing. I think it boiled down to cyclical reasoning about how it was bad because the market should have been allowed to take care of it, because the market always takes care of these things more efficiently than the FDA.

Let's assume firefox actually won't comply with the NSA for the moment. Isn't it still a futile symbolic gesture if you actually use the phone on any network, since they all happily give up you data? AT&T has (or at least had) a broom closet that was the special NSA link room. Not to mention selling to advertisers.

What's your point? That we did it once so we should have no problem doing it again under different circumstances?

That's quite the hyperbole. Osama bin laden wasn't promised any freedom by the US: he wasn't a citizen. And anyway, there's quite a bit of room between "killing someone who admitted to attacking you" and "no freedom whatsoever.

To anyone who is upset that this story popped up despite not strictly relating to computers, three things:

One: why didn't you stop it?
Two: Slashdot's motto isn't "News for linux, news that linuxes." Other nerds have different interests in you. You should realize this by now.
Three: If you don't care, go back in your browser. You do not need to click on every link on slashdot! DO NOT CLICK ON THE ONES YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT!

Because he hasn't gone to trial yet. Presumably the powers that be figure that detaining someone forever without trial, but it's another thing to execute a person without trial. In terms of PR if not in terms of ethics.

Pretty sure that's exactly what he was referencing and disagreeing with. One doesn't need a link to mention something in passing.

I think you have a much stronger case for calling them a hypocrite based on whether they drive a car or don't donate money to some group fighting climate change, or contact their reps about capping carbon emissions, but you go ahead and channel your rage into whatever idiotic direction you want.