QT display all the quality of HD 1080p - or not?
in [Mac Systems]
|
Prev: bible stuff
Next: Recommend OCR programs?
From: Geoffrey S. Mendelson on 23 Jun 2010 15:04 Mark Conrad wrote: > > May not have existed? - There was blood all over the > crime scene, according to the reports. But WHOSE blood? If it was Nicole Simpson's and Ron Perlman's blood, it proves nothing except that they beld there. It does NOT prove that they were stabbed there, nor does it prove (or disprove) that OJ had anything to do with it. Nor actually does it prove they were stabbed, people bleed for lots of reasons besides knife wounds. In order to have ANY relevance in the prosecution of OJ, it would have had to have been his (or someone else's) blood, and not the TWO victims. That would have been difficult, if there really was as much blood as you say, for anyone to differentiate. > Wrong - DNA testing was first used in a double-homocide trial > in 1986. The OJ murder took place in 1994, eight years later. Still too new. They were still talking about 1 in a billion combinations being found with only a few thousand samples at the time. Just because a process is eight years old does not make it common or cheap. > Do you really believe that DNA testing would _not_ be used in > a high profile case like OJ Simpson? No, I believe it would. It's just that at more than $10,000 a test, and a few thousand tests ever done, I doubt that it meant anything. It was still in the "scientific mumbo jumbo" stage. Especially in light of the research since then showing common threads in people's genomes. A friend of mine sent a DNA sample and a few bucks to National Geographic who mapped where his ancestors came from, were they went and how they got to where he is. I'm not making any claims as to how accurate it was or wasn't, but how unique was it. Actually in his case you did not need the DNA, you could of done it if you asked his name and religon. > I am not saying that DNA testing is 100% infallible, it is not. > (contrary to popular belief) > However it certainly could have influenced the outcome. NO! It MAY of influenced the outcome, it may not. You have to understand that the chance of OJ's blood being at the scene was very small in the first place, and how many samples and expensive tests there would of had to have been done, and at the time, it probably would of indicated the person may of been OJ, or it may of been any other man of mixed negro and caucasian ancestry. > No system of justice is perfect, guilty people get set free, innocent > people wind up in jail; before DNA testing, even more so. Yes. > But the innocent person still gets put into jail by a jury of > his peers for the remainder of his life. Or if he happened to live in Texas, be executed. :-( Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm(a)mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM I do multitasking. If that bothers you, file a complaint and I will start ignoring it immediately.
From: Doug Anderson on 23 Jun 2010 15:17 "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm(a)cable.mendelson.com> writes: > Mark Conrad wrote: > > > > May not have existed? - There was blood all over the > > crime scene, according to the reports. > > But WHOSE blood? If it was Nicole Simpson's and Ron Perlman's blood, it proves > nothing except that they beld there. It does NOT prove that they were stabbed > there, nor does it prove (or disprove) that OJ had anything to do > with it. That's where the logic puzzle comes in. See the Englishman lived in a green house, and the Swede owned a Scotch Terrier, and the German only smoked Cuban cigars. So the only person left who could have committed the crime is OJ!
From: Tim McNamara on 23 Jun 2010 21:42 In article <xdaaqma6gz.fsf(a)ethel.the.log>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Mark Conrad <aeiou(a)mostly.invalid> writes: > > > In article <timmcn-1E2D14.17521922062010(a)news-2.mpls.iphouse.net>, > > Tim McNamara <timmcn(a)bitstream.net> wrote: > > > > > I think you have confused TV with reality, Mark. > > > > Not likely, as I do not even own a TV, my time is spent on more > > creative pursuits. > > > > > > > CSI, Bones, Criminal Minds, etc. are not only not real, they are > > > not representative of actual procedure. > > > > I would not know. Even when I had a TV, I did not watch any crime > > shows. > > > > > > > > > According to my friends on the force, the majority of their job > > > is catching criminals red-handed. > > > > Of course, has to be, for a police dept that does not know how to > > solve logical puzzles. > > > > > > > > > No clues to follow, they see the person committing the crime- or > > > find them immediately afterwards when someone reports the crime > > > and identifies the criminal. > > > > Is that why they let OJ go, that and their totally inept way of > > mishandling blood samples. > > OJ being acquitted has nothing to do with whether police can solve > logic puzzles. > > Just like Madoff being convicted has nothing to do with whether > police can solve logic puzzles. > > Good detective work isn't about solving logic puzzles. It is about > using the information one already has to direct the search for more > information, and about following procedure in gathering information > so that this information could be used at trial. > > And yes, criminals are usually identified because someone saw > something, not because after extensive interviews and deductions you > conclude that the butler mast have done it! It would appear that Mark (1) has some axe to grind and (2) has no interest in correcting his misperceptions. -- That'll put marzipan in your pie plate, Bingo.
From: Mike Rosenberg on 24 Jun 2010 08:37 Tim McNamara <timmcn(a)bitstream.net> wrote: > It would appear that Mark (1) has some axe to grind and (2) has no > interest in correcting his misperceptions. So, in other words, there's nothing new here. -- Favorite yoga position: Rosh hashavasana, the high holy pose Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi>
From: Mark Conrad on 25 Jun 2010 01:13
In article <timmcn-AC3CC3.20424323062010(a)news-1.mpls.iphouse.net>, Tim McNamara <timmcn(a)bitstream.net> wrote: > It would appear that Mark (1) has some axe to grind Wrong. (as usual) > ...and (2) has no interest in correcting his misperceptions. The only misconceptions are yours. You, and the other pathetic ding-dings here bellow loud and long that the detectives and police _only_ detect clues about a crime, and then by magic the criminal is found. That is your misconception. The other part of their job, which you fail to grasp, is that those clues have to be examined. Part of that examination is making connections between the clues, to expose subtle facts which would otherwise be missed. (such as who has the fish in the Einstein Puzzle) ....or, to spell it out for the simpletons in this thread, to analyze a similar Logic Puzzle to bring out the fact that the ample blood samples in the OJ Simpson case would deteriorate and become useless as evidence if the blood was not carefully collected and refrigerated. You see, the L.A. Police and detectives were too stupid to make that connection, in the same way that you are too stupid to see the connection between solving logic puzzles and ordinary intelligent detective work. Bad misconception you have there, you should really try to correct it. Mark- |