QT display all the quality of HD 1080p - or not?
in [Mac Systems]
|
Prev: bible stuff
Next: Recommend OCR programs?
From: Doug Anderson on 22 Jun 2010 21:22 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!
From: JF Mezei on 23 Jun 2010 00:22 Tim McNamara wrote: > I think you have confused TV with reality, Mark. CSI, Bones, Criminal > Minds, etc. are not only not real, they are not representative of actual > procedure. Those shows correctlty reflect reality. They are true documentaries (*) (*) Documentary of what the actors said when the director yelled "roll tape" :-)
From: Mark Conrad on 23 Jun 2010 05:40 In article <xdaaqma6gz.fsf(a)ethel.the.log>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. You fail to realize that a detective who can not solve logic puzzles has a poor chance of "using the information that one already has". A big part of "using the information" depends on the detective's ability to ferret out useful information from the available facts, "solving logic puzzles" concerning easy-to-miss information that is already staring them in the face. > OJ being acquitted has nothing to do with whether police > can solve logic puzzles. False. If the L.A. Police Dept was full of detectives who were good at solving logic puzzles, they would immediately have seen the connection between preserving the blood samples, and convicting OJ of a heinous murder. Same with the lowly officers on the beat, who were obviously not trained to preserve blood evidence. Result: a costly miscarriage of justice, all because the jackasses who set policy did not appreciate the value of solving logic puzzles. Mark-
From: Ian Gregory on 23 Jun 2010 06:03 On 2010-06-23, Mark Conrad <aeiou(a)mostly.invalid> wrote: > If the L.A. Police Dept was full of detectives who were good at > solving logic puzzles, they would immediately have seen the > connection between preserving the blood samples, and > convicting OJ of a heinous murder. > > Same with the lowly officers on the beat, who were obviously > not trained to preserve blood evidence. > > Result: a costly miscarriage of justice, all because the jackasses > who set policy did not appreciate the value of solving logic puzzles. How does that follow? What you just described is a training issue and/or failure to follow proper procedure - nothing to do with logic puzzles. Ian -- Ian Gregory http://www.zenatode.org.uk/
From: Geoffrey S. Mendelson on 23 Jun 2010 07:14
Mark Conrad wrote: > If the L.A. Police Dept was full of detectives who were good at > solving logic puzzles, they would immediately have seen the > connection between preserving the blood samples, and > convicting OJ of a heinous murder. Mark, that is speculation on your part. Since the evidence was NOT preseved, and may not of existed, you have no way of knowing who actualy committed the murders. Even if they had, DNA evidence was too new that time to be much use, after all how can you claim that there is a 1 in 10 billion chance of someone having the same DNA when there were to date only a few thousand (if that many) samples taken? It has since been proven that most humans share a very large portion of their DNA, and without many samples to determine which portions are different, you can only guess. If you pick the wrong ones, based on the wrong data, you could end up mistaking one person from another of a similar racial or geographical background. Or if you really screw it up one person from any other mammal. Common genes are carried down between generations and show up in the strangest places. For example, there is a gene called the "cohain gene" which is a common thread in the people decended from the Jews who worked in the temple in Jerusalem. Cohanim (priest's assistants) passed the job and the gene down from father to father. It is the source of the family names Cohen and Katz. So if you found a blood sample with that gene present you would look for someone who either was white and Jewish or had a father or grandfather who was. Tell that to the Lembe', an negro African tribe where almost all the men carry that gene. Or someone that was a carrier of Tay-Sach's a genetic disease found in certain eastern European populations. At one time it was almost exclusivly found in Jews, but with the advent of genetic testing (it could be done before DNA testing) and counseling among Jews, it is most prevelant in non Jewish populations, e.g. the Amish. Or since in the US, a very large percentage of the population has at least one negro, native american or hispanic ancestor the presence of a gene found in those gene pools. > Result: a costly miscarriage of justice, all because the jackasses > who set policy did not appreciate the value of solving logic puzzles. Yes, but an equal miscarriage of justice is to accuse OJ Simpson of the murders now that he has been found not guilty by a jury of his peers. That's the real problem with CSI, people think that the evidence really does lead people to the criminals with such precision in such as short time as it seems on TV. Even if all the equipment works the way it is supposed to and they really do get the unequivical results (very rare) that they get on TV, it takes weeks or months. The whole point of CSI is that it is presented backwards to the viewer, the author of the play as it were, starts with a conculsion and works his way backwards to the crime. Along the way, he creates evidence to support the point he is trying to make at that moment. However when you see it, you see the crime, and then see all the evidence fall into place, both correct and incorrect, although rarely do you see incorrect evidence, such as someone looking at a thousand pictures before they see "the one", running a thousand tests before they find the one that gives them some meaningful data, checking hundreds of DNA tests to find one that does not only indicate the victim of the crime was present and so on. 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. |