QT display all the quality of HD 1080p - or not?
in [Mac Systems]
|
Prev: bible stuff
Next: Recommend OCR programs?
From: Warren Oates on 23 Jun 2010 08:18 In article <slrni23qvo.77l.gsm(a)cable.mendelson.com>, "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm(a)cable.mendelson.com> wrote: > 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. OJ did it. -- Very old woody beets will never cook tender. -- Fannie Farmer
From: Walter Bushell on 23 Jun 2010 09:33 In article <slrni23qvo.77l.gsm(a)cable.mendelson.com>, "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm(a)cable.mendelson.com> wrote: > 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. Do they show incorrect identifications from witnesses? And odds of a billion to one are beyond human precision. Just contamination, from unlikely source and then there is the possibility that the lab tech is incompetent or lying. -- All BP's money, and all the President's men, Cannot put the Gulf of Mexico together again.
From: Geoffrey S. Mendelson on 23 Jun 2010 10:09 Walter Bushell wrote: > Do they show incorrect identifications from witnesses? And odds of a > billion to one are beyond human precision. Just contamination, from > unlikely source and then there is the possibility that the lab tech is > incompetent or lying. They did show on CSI New York an allusion to the case of a mass murder the police through out Europe were looking for over 12 years. She randomly showed up in the DNA evidence at random murders all over Europe. No one was able to find any other clue about her. It turned out she was a worker at the factory that made the cotton swaps and accidently contaiminated random batches of them. In the CSI episode, it was someone who simply did not like wearing gloves. As for the billion in one claims look at the DNA claims made in the OJ case. 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 11:03 Mark Conrad <aeiou(a)mostly.invalid> writes: > 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". I fail to see any relationship between the two. > 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. No, not really. > > 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. There is no tricky logic in that, at all. That was carelessness and incompetence. > Same with the lowly officers on the beat, who were obviously > not trained to preserve blood evidence. Well, if you want beat officers to be able to do the sort of problems that get you good scores on the LSATs, then you need to start paying them as well as lawyers. > Result: a costly miscarriage of justice, all because the jackasses > who set policy did not appreciate the value of solving logic > puzzles. Anyone who is good at solving logic problems would understand that your reasoning here is completely absurd.
From: Mark Conrad on 23 Jun 2010 14:20
In article <slrni23qvo.77l.gsm(a)cable.mendelson.com>, Geoffrey S. Mendelson <gsm(a)cable.mendelson.com> wrote: > Since the evidence was NOT preseved, > and may not of existed... May not have existed? - There was blood all over the crime scene, according to the reports. All the lame-brained police needed to do was to go inside the house to get some ice cubes, to properly chill the blood samples so they would last long enough for proper analysis. > Even if they had, DNA evidence was too new that time > to be much use Wrong - DNA testing was first used in a double-homocide trial in 1986. The OJ murder took place in 1994, eight years later. Do you really believe that DNA testing would _not_ be used in a high profile case like OJ Simpson? I am not saying that DNA testing is 100% infallible, it is not. (contrary to popular belief) "DNA Testing - Wikipedia" search string. However it certainly could have influenced the outcome. > 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. No system of justice is perfect, guilty people get set free, innocent people wind up in jail; before DNA testing, even more so. A _good_ police dept puzzles-out the data, to increase their chances of bringing a criminal to justice, or to set an innocent person free. Looking at each clue in isolation is a mistake. Looking at each clue in relation to all the other clues is much more likely to produce results. As you can see from the Einstein Puzzle, looking at subtle inter-relationships between data is not an easy task, it is more like an acquired skill, requiring practice. (despite Michelle's attempts to trivialize that skill) If there are two men on an otherwise deserted island, and one of them winds up murdered, then of course we can not be 100% certain that the survivor did him in, even though the blood stained knife in his posession is the murder weapon. Possibly a helicopter flew by, the real murderer jumped out, grabbed the knife, killed the victim, threw the knife back to the other person, then flew away. But the innocent person still gets put into jail by a jury of his peers for the remainder of his life. Mark- |