Jokes1 min ago
National DNA Bank?
36 Answers
http://www.dailymail....-MI6-involvement.html
Does this case make a good argument in support of a National DNA Bank?
Does this case make a good argument in support of a National DNA Bank?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
yes pdq but that is not the real point. Some of my DNA could be on someone that is later raped and murdered but I had nothing to do with it, that's the real danger. Or more disturbingy DNA could be planted at a crime scene by those trying to get a quick result. Frightening, I'd rather forgo the use altogether than head down this "DNA proves everthing" road.
There is a difference in bantering on here and being insulting Zeuhl and you fall into the latter.
I think you'll find Brenda that I generally criticise the <post> not the <person>
That is, until I am attacked personally, then I retaliate.
Thank you for expressing your opinion. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact that I have pointed out irrational or nonsensical elements in some of your posts recently.
However, I trust you won't be too offended if I treat your opinion with the derision I feel it deserves.
Have a nice day.
I think you'll find Brenda that I generally criticise the <post> not the <person>
That is, until I am attacked personally, then I retaliate.
Thank you for expressing your opinion. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact that I have pointed out irrational or nonsensical elements in some of your posts recently.
However, I trust you won't be too offended if I treat your opinion with the derision I feel it deserves.
Have a nice day.
/// Can I please point out that this thread has been derailed because a reasonable post by me was responded to by Old Git
thus: ///
/// Still not quite got the hang of creating an understandable sentence yet, I see? ///
Don't play the innocent one here, my sarcastic remark was in answer to your uncalled for criticism of my English usage, in a previous post.
And everyone who criticises another's use of the English language should also be prepared to face criticism, if their own use of English is suspect.
thus: ///
/// Still not quite got the hang of creating an understandable sentence yet, I see? ///
Don't play the innocent one here, my sarcastic remark was in answer to your uncalled for criticism of my English usage, in a previous post.
And everyone who criticises another's use of the English language should also be prepared to face criticism, if their own use of English is suspect.
Fingerprint evidence has been mentioned. How much weight is attached to that depends on how good the lifted print is ; lifted prints vary in quality a great deal. Some are too poor to be used at all. The same applies to DNA. The quality of the samples vary. Some give details which could only replicated in one in a million, some are very much better than that.
Both are evidence, but it is much harder for a person to avoid leaving their DNA than it is their liftable fingerprints, and in many, or most, crimes fingerprint evidence will never be available at all because the relevant surfaces never take, or did not take, a print in the first place.
A national database is a good idea but impracticable and expensive if, by that, is meant the taking and keeping of samples from every resident. It is unfortunate that DNA samples are not now kept in all cases where they were taken but I suppose the same could be said of fingerprints.It would be no great trouble to take and keep a DNA sample from each newborn child though.
Both are evidence, but it is much harder for a person to avoid leaving their DNA than it is their liftable fingerprints, and in many, or most, crimes fingerprint evidence will never be available at all because the relevant surfaces never take, or did not take, a print in the first place.
A national database is a good idea but impracticable and expensive if, by that, is meant the taking and keeping of samples from every resident. It is unfortunate that DNA samples are not now kept in all cases where they were taken but I suppose the same could be said of fingerprints.It would be no great trouble to take and keep a DNA sample from each newborn child though.
in it's context.
Should be 'its' - no apostrophe
See Old Git, it's trivial and silly, so let's not both of us play that game.
My post did not attack you personally - it correctly pointed out your recurring problem with 'imply' and 'infer' which does have an impact on the ease of communication.
I estimated your period of schooling (please explain why that is 'ageist'?) for a jocular remark.
I sincerely wish things;
1. that you stop mixing up imply and infer because it drives me nuts
2. you don't lash out with remarks about the <person> when someone criticises a <post>
And most important
3. that you have a pleasant evening
cheers :-)
Should be 'its' - no apostrophe
See Old Git, it's trivial and silly, so let's not both of us play that game.
My post did not attack you personally - it correctly pointed out your recurring problem with 'imply' and 'infer' which does have an impact on the ease of communication.
I estimated your period of schooling (please explain why that is 'ageist'?) for a jocular remark.
I sincerely wish things;
1. that you stop mixing up imply and infer because it drives me nuts
2. you don't lash out with remarks about the <person> when someone criticises a <post>
And most important
3. that you have a pleasant evening
cheers :-)
AOG/Zeuhl
Had I not been in a teleconference for most of the day (with someone from India who has a stutter) it would've been me who pointed out the whole infer/imply thing - and to be fair, there were others on the David Harewood thread who didn't know the difference.
So <ding ding> back in your corners.
Re: a nationwide DNA database...I strongly disagree with the idea because it's not 'future proof'. History has taught us that you cannot trust governments in perpetuity. Who knows how your DNA profile may be used in future?
Who knows whether some government in the future will outsource the collection and storage of your DNA details to a third party supplier. The data would be held on secured computers, but seeing as even the most secure (Pentagon) computer systems can be hacked, there is a chance that our DNA information could be compromised...and what would happen if this wasn't identified at the point when the data was hacked?
It's all too...dodgy...
Had I not been in a teleconference for most of the day (with someone from India who has a stutter) it would've been me who pointed out the whole infer/imply thing - and to be fair, there were others on the David Harewood thread who didn't know the difference.
So <ding ding> back in your corners.
Re: a nationwide DNA database...I strongly disagree with the idea because it's not 'future proof'. History has taught us that you cannot trust governments in perpetuity. Who knows how your DNA profile may be used in future?
Who knows whether some government in the future will outsource the collection and storage of your DNA details to a third party supplier. The data would be held on secured computers, but seeing as even the most secure (Pentagon) computer systems can be hacked, there is a chance that our DNA information could be compromised...and what would happen if this wasn't identified at the point when the data was hacked?
It's all too...dodgy...
sorry i'm PMSL laughing here, we are having a fairly serious and valid discussion about DNA storage etc and it's used by one of the Moon Hoax id1ots! Are there still people who think the moon landings where faked?! Sorry I digress my sides are splitting!
DNA storage is too much power for any goverenment past/present/future period.
DNA storage is too much power for any goverenment past/present/future period.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.