<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_09_1321219</id>
	<title>Scientists and Lawyers Argue For Open US DNA Database</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1263050940000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>chrb writes <i>"New Scientist has an article questioning the <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527424.700-unreliable-evidence-time-to-open-up-dna-databases.html?full=true">uniqueness of DNA profiles</a>. 41 scientists and lawyers recently published a <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/citation/326/5960/1631">high-profile <em>Nature</em> article</a> (sub. required) arguing that the FBI should release its complete <a href="http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/html/codis1.htm">CODIS database</a>. The request follows research on the already released Arizona state DNA database (a subset of CODIS) which showed a surprisingly large number of matches between the profiles of different individuals, including one between a white man and a black man. The group states that the assumption that a DNA profile represents a unique individual, with only a minuscule probability of a secondary match, has never been independently verified on a large sample of DNA profiles. The new requests follow <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/08/07/20/0244237/FBI-Fights-Testing-For-False-DNA-Matches">the FBI's rejection of similar previous requests</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>chrb writes " New Scientist has an article questioning the uniqueness of DNA profiles .
41 scientists and lawyers recently published a high-profile Nature article ( sub .
required ) arguing that the FBI should release its complete CODIS database .
The request follows research on the already released Arizona state DNA database ( a subset of CODIS ) which showed a surprisingly large number of matches between the profiles of different individuals , including one between a white man and a black man .
The group states that the assumption that a DNA profile represents a unique individual , with only a minuscule probability of a secondary match , has never been independently verified on a large sample of DNA profiles .
The new requests follow the FBI 's rejection of similar previous requests .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>chrb writes "New Scientist has an article questioning the uniqueness of DNA profiles.
41 scientists and lawyers recently published a high-profile Nature article (sub.
required) arguing that the FBI should release its complete CODIS database.
The request follows research on the already released Arizona state DNA database (a subset of CODIS) which showed a surprisingly large number of matches between the profiles of different individuals, including one between a white man and a black man.
The group states that the assumption that a DNA profile represents a unique individual, with only a minuscule probability of a secondary match, has never been independently verified on a large sample of DNA profiles.
The new requests follow the FBI's rejection of similar previous requests.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30708292</id>
	<title>Re:How data would be misused</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263062880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The solution to the misuse you present is quite simple.  It's the difference between "any two matching each other" and "anyone else matching one specific."  Not a terribly difficult thing to point out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The solution to the misuse you present is quite simple .
It 's the difference between " any two matching each other " and " anyone else matching one specific .
" Not a terribly difficult thing to point out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The solution to the misuse you present is quite simple.
It's the difference between "any two matching each other" and "anyone else matching one specific.
"  Not a terribly difficult thing to point out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30708102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707998</id>
	<title>Similar to the Birthday Problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263060120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its similar to the birthday problem.  Given a class of 35 students the odds that one of them has the same birthday as yours are 35/365 = 9.5\%.  However, the probably that there are two students in the class who have the same birthday (not necc yours) is about 81\% (check Birthday Problem on Wikipedia).</p><p>Its the same here.  The probability of there being matches between different people in a large database of DNA is going to be a lot higher than the probability that there is a match to a given person or crime scene DNA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its similar to the birthday problem .
Given a class of 35 students the odds that one of them has the same birthday as yours are 35/365 = 9.5 \ % .
However , the probably that there are two students in the class who have the same birthday ( not necc yours ) is about 81 \ % ( check Birthday Problem on Wikipedia ) .Its the same here .
The probability of there being matches between different people in a large database of DNA is going to be a lot higher than the probability that there is a match to a given person or crime scene DNA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its similar to the birthday problem.
Given a class of 35 students the odds that one of them has the same birthday as yours are 35/365 = 9.5\%.
However, the probably that there are two students in the class who have the same birthday (not necc yours) is about 81\% (check Birthday Problem on Wikipedia).Its the same here.
The probability of there being matches between different people in a large database of DNA is going to be a lot higher than the probability that there is a match to a given person or crime scene DNA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707788</id>
	<title>Anonymized?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263058260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about an release of the database minus any personally identifiable information?  That should be sufficient to determine uniqueness shouldn't it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about an release of the database minus any personally identifiable information ?
That should be sufficient to determine uniqueness should n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about an release of the database minus any personally identifiable information?
That should be sufficient to determine uniqueness shouldn't it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707942</id>
	<title>Privacy concerns?</title>
	<author>Vellmont</author>
	<datestamp>1263059640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having the names of the people associated with each DNA analysis would be completely unnecessary.  Just assign each person a unique, meaningless number in place of their name and the problem is solved.  There's probably 6 other ways to solve the privacy problem and still make the data useful.  If researchers find special cases where they need actual identities to better understand what's going on, make them sign NDAs and release the information to only them.</p><p>The FBI doesn't want to release this because they know there's a lot of partial or complete matches in the database.  Suddenly having news stories about how there's 100 people in the FBI DNA database with the same 13 identifiers (flash to expert testimony claiming billions to one of such a match) would be a major disaster for the FBI.  The FBI would then talk about how most of them are the same person using different names, and various other explanations, but the damage would be done (flash to news story about one side of a match being a 22 year old male from Alaska, and another a 76 year old female from Florida).</p><p>I understand why the FBI doesn't want to do this, but it's extremely important data about how valid this type of DNA testing is (especially within certain populations) (flash to news story about racism).  Essentially the government holds evidence about the validity of DNA testing that's relevant to thousands of criminal cases that it refuses to release.  That sounds like a strong constitutional issue to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having the names of the people associated with each DNA analysis would be completely unnecessary .
Just assign each person a unique , meaningless number in place of their name and the problem is solved .
There 's probably 6 other ways to solve the privacy problem and still make the data useful .
If researchers find special cases where they need actual identities to better understand what 's going on , make them sign NDAs and release the information to only them.The FBI does n't want to release this because they know there 's a lot of partial or complete matches in the database .
Suddenly having news stories about how there 's 100 people in the FBI DNA database with the same 13 identifiers ( flash to expert testimony claiming billions to one of such a match ) would be a major disaster for the FBI .
The FBI would then talk about how most of them are the same person using different names , and various other explanations , but the damage would be done ( flash to news story about one side of a match being a 22 year old male from Alaska , and another a 76 year old female from Florida ) .I understand why the FBI does n't want to do this , but it 's extremely important data about how valid this type of DNA testing is ( especially within certain populations ) ( flash to news story about racism ) .
Essentially the government holds evidence about the validity of DNA testing that 's relevant to thousands of criminal cases that it refuses to release .
That sounds like a strong constitutional issue to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having the names of the people associated with each DNA analysis would be completely unnecessary.
Just assign each person a unique, meaningless number in place of their name and the problem is solved.
There's probably 6 other ways to solve the privacy problem and still make the data useful.
If researchers find special cases where they need actual identities to better understand what's going on, make them sign NDAs and release the information to only them.The FBI doesn't want to release this because they know there's a lot of partial or complete matches in the database.
Suddenly having news stories about how there's 100 people in the FBI DNA database with the same 13 identifiers (flash to expert testimony claiming billions to one of such a match) would be a major disaster for the FBI.
The FBI would then talk about how most of them are the same person using different names, and various other explanations, but the damage would be done (flash to news story about one side of a match being a 22 year old male from Alaska, and another a 76 year old female from Florida).I understand why the FBI doesn't want to do this, but it's extremely important data about how valid this type of DNA testing is (especially within certain populations) (flash to news story about racism).
Essentially the government holds evidence about the validity of DNA testing that's relevant to thousands of criminal cases that it refuses to release.
That sounds like a strong constitutional issue to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30708012</id>
	<title>Re:Anonymized?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263060180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do realize the DNA <i>is</i> PII, right?</p><p>Or did I just get wooshed?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do realize the DNA is PII , right ? Or did I just get wooshed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do realize the DNA is PII, right?Or did I just get wooshed?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707708</id>
	<title>What exactly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263057360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are we talking about here? If this is a catalog of DNA of convicted criminals then it might be ok. But if its also DNA samples from other people who gave a sample to clear their name, then I don'yt think it should be made public.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are we talking about here ?
If this is a catalog of DNA of convicted criminals then it might be ok. But if its also DNA samples from other people who gave a sample to clear their name , then I don'yt think it should be made public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are we talking about here?
If this is a catalog of DNA of convicted criminals then it might be ok. But if its also DNA samples from other people who gave a sample to clear their name, then I don'yt think it should be made public.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707848</id>
	<title>Re:chimps have 97\% of human DNA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263058740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree with mangu that "DNA tests should be used for finding someone innocent rather than guilty." Paternity tests are done in a similar way even though the general public does not seem to know: genetic microsatellite tests can disprove paternity but not prove if it is in fact the father due to false positives. The question should be how many microsatellite sites (sites that are usually different in the human population) should be analyzed to arrive to a conclusion?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with mangu that " DNA tests should be used for finding someone innocent rather than guilty .
" Paternity tests are done in a similar way even though the general public does not seem to know : genetic microsatellite tests can disprove paternity but not prove if it is in fact the father due to false positives .
The question should be how many microsatellite sites ( sites that are usually different in the human population ) should be analyzed to arrive to a conclusion ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with mangu that "DNA tests should be used for finding someone innocent rather than guilty.
" Paternity tests are done in a similar way even though the general public does not seem to know: genetic microsatellite tests can disprove paternity but not prove if it is in fact the father due to false positives.
The question should be how many microsatellite sites (sites that are usually different in the human population) should be analyzed to arrive to a conclusion?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30709190</id>
	<title>Re:Misuse Of Statistics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263070260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real problem is that Mendel's laws are approximations.  Genes are not assorted randomly from parent to child.  This is because there are only a few cross-overs, and a gene lying next to a second gene is highly likely to be transmitted with the first one.</p><p>This asymmetrical transmission causes correlations between genes.  These correlations drastically alter the probabilities.  In effect, the dimensionality of the "gene space" is reduced by each correlation.  This effect compounds exponentially, and the real probabilities for a given match can be enormously higher than the naive value.</p><p>A huge amount of work needs to be done to measure the correlation matrix between genes.  Only after that is done is it possible to accurately calculate the probability of a n-locus match.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real problem is that Mendel 's laws are approximations .
Genes are not assorted randomly from parent to child .
This is because there are only a few cross-overs , and a gene lying next to a second gene is highly likely to be transmitted with the first one.This asymmetrical transmission causes correlations between genes .
These correlations drastically alter the probabilities .
In effect , the dimensionality of the " gene space " is reduced by each correlation .
This effect compounds exponentially , and the real probabilities for a given match can be enormously higher than the naive value.A huge amount of work needs to be done to measure the correlation matrix between genes .
Only after that is done is it possible to accurately calculate the probability of a n-locus match .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real problem is that Mendel's laws are approximations.
Genes are not assorted randomly from parent to child.
This is because there are only a few cross-overs, and a gene lying next to a second gene is highly likely to be transmitted with the first one.This asymmetrical transmission causes correlations between genes.
These correlations drastically alter the probabilities.
In effect, the dimensionality of the "gene space" is reduced by each correlation.
This effect compounds exponentially, and the real probabilities for a given match can be enormously higher than the naive value.A huge amount of work needs to be done to measure the correlation matrix between genes.
Only after that is done is it possible to accurately calculate the probability of a n-locus match.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30708812</id>
	<title>Re:Misuse Of Statistics</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1263067260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>How it really works? Imagine that you already identified several suspects. If you take DNA samples of these few people and one of them matches the DNA from the hair from the scene, you can still conclude that given your knowledge, with a very high probability the person in question was present at the crime scene.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>No, you can conclude with high probability that the DNA sample you're identifying is that suspect's, not that the suspect was there. It could have been planted, after all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How it really works ?
Imagine that you already identified several suspects .
If you take DNA samples of these few people and one of them matches the DNA from the hair from the scene , you can still conclude that given your knowledge , with a very high probability the person in question was present at the crime scene .
No , you can conclude with high probability that the DNA sample you 're identifying is that suspect 's , not that the suspect was there .
It could have been planted , after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How it really works?
Imagine that you already identified several suspects.
If you take DNA samples of these few people and one of them matches the DNA from the hair from the scene, you can still conclude that given your knowledge, with a very high probability the person in question was present at the crime scene.
No, you can conclude with high probability that the DNA sample you're identifying is that suspect's, not that the suspect was there.
It could have been planted, after all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30763732</id>
	<title>Re:"Time for DNA Disclosure" letter can be read...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263483060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You added an extra<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.  The link is here:</p><p>http://www.bioforensics.com/articles/Krane\_Science\_letter\_2009.pdf</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You added an extra / .
The link is here : http : //www.bioforensics.com/articles/Krane \ _Science \ _letter \ _2009.pdf</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You added an extra /.
The link is here:http://www.bioforensics.com/articles/Krane\_Science\_letter\_2009.pdf</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30710970</id>
	<title>Re:Misuse Of Statistics</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1263043860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>How it really works? Imagine that you already identified several suspects. If you take DNA samples of these few people and one of them matches the DNA from the hair from the scene, you can still conclude that given your knowledge, with a very high probability the person in question was present at the crime scene.</p></div></blockquote><p>OK, we took DNA samples of the people.  One of them had their DNA all over the scene; on the body, on the murder weapon, etc.  No match for the others.  Open and shut case, right?</p><p>But wait, that person had an airtight alibi; he was half a world away in a public place with many witnesses.</p><p>How?  Yeah, he was there; he lived at the crime scene.  His DNA was all over the place and the murder weapon was one of his knives.  But he wasn't there at the time of the crime, which the DNA doesn't tell you.</p><p>I don't know how it works in the real world.  But I do know on those "true crime" shows I often hear prosecutors using that exact sort of reasoning when a man is accused of killing a woman he lived with -- "His DNA is there, therefore he must be guilty" -- as if the DNA is magic and knows only to shed when a crime is taking place.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How it really works ?
Imagine that you already identified several suspects .
If you take DNA samples of these few people and one of them matches the DNA from the hair from the scene , you can still conclude that given your knowledge , with a very high probability the person in question was present at the crime scene.OK , we took DNA samples of the people .
One of them had their DNA all over the scene ; on the body , on the murder weapon , etc .
No match for the others .
Open and shut case , right ? But wait , that person had an airtight alibi ; he was half a world away in a public place with many witnesses.How ?
Yeah , he was there ; he lived at the crime scene .
His DNA was all over the place and the murder weapon was one of his knives .
But he was n't there at the time of the crime , which the DNA does n't tell you.I do n't know how it works in the real world .
But I do know on those " true crime " shows I often hear prosecutors using that exact sort of reasoning when a man is accused of killing a woman he lived with -- " His DNA is there , therefore he must be guilty " -- as if the DNA is magic and knows only to shed when a crime is taking place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How it really works?
Imagine that you already identified several suspects.
If you take DNA samples of these few people and one of them matches the DNA from the hair from the scene, you can still conclude that given your knowledge, with a very high probability the person in question was present at the crime scene.OK, we took DNA samples of the people.
One of them had their DNA all over the scene; on the body, on the murder weapon, etc.
No match for the others.
Open and shut case, right?But wait, that person had an airtight alibi; he was half a world away in a public place with many witnesses.How?
Yeah, he was there; he lived at the crime scene.
His DNA was all over the place and the murder weapon was one of his knives.
But he wasn't there at the time of the crime, which the DNA doesn't tell you.I don't know how it works in the real world.
But I do know on those "true crime" shows I often hear prosecutors using that exact sort of reasoning when a man is accused of killing a woman he lived with -- "His DNA is there, therefore he must be guilty" -- as if the DNA is magic and knows only to shed when a crime is taking place.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30708798</id>
	<title>New Scientist not reliable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263067140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who reads New Scientist?  After their ridiculous article advocating mutilating boy infants the other day!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who reads New Scientist ?
After their ridiculous article advocating mutilating boy infants the other day !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who reads New Scientist?
After their ridiculous article advocating mutilating boy infants the other day!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707796</id>
	<title>"Time for DNA Disclosure" letter can be read...</title>
	<author>bagofbeans</author>
	<datestamp>1263058320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Letter is at <a href="http://www.bioforensics.com/articles/Krane\_Science\_letter\_2009.pdf/" title="bioforensics.com">http://www.bioforensics.com/articles/Krane\_Science\_letter\_2009.pdf/</a> [bioforensics.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Letter is at http : //www.bioforensics.com/articles/Krane \ _Science \ _letter \ _2009.pdf/ [ bioforensics.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Letter is at http://www.bioforensics.com/articles/Krane\_Science\_letter\_2009.pdf/ [bioforensics.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30856480</id>
	<title>Dear Feds.</title>
	<author>dahamsta</author>
	<datestamp>1264096740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dear Feds. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. Right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear Feds .
If you have nothing to hide , you have nothing to fear .
Right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear Feds.
If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
Right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30710086</id>
	<title>The FBI has used bogus scienee before.</title>
	<author>Required Snark</author>
	<datestamp>1263036000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The FBI has a history of using completely unverified pseudo-science to convict people. For 40 years they used bullet lead analysis, where they compared fired slugs from crime scenes to unfired bullets in the possesion of suspects. They assumed that there was consistency from batch to batch of bullets and that all the slugs in a box came from the same batch. Neither assumption was true. <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/16/60minutes/main3512453.shtml" title="cbsnews.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/16/60minutes/main3512453.shtml</a> [cbsnews.com] [cbsnews.com]
<p>
It was only when a retired FBI metallurgist did testing by himself that he proved that the technique was useless. Then the NSF did a study and found the same result, and the FBI stopped using this test. <a href="http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel05/bullet\_lead\_analysis.htm" title="fbi.gov" rel="nofollow">http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel05/bullet\_lead\_analysis.htm</a> [fbi.gov] [fbi.gov]
</p><p>
Now the FBI has a secret data base that they use to claim that people are guilty. They will not release the data for independent verification of their results. Do you really think that they can be trusted one more time?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The FBI has a history of using completely unverified pseudo-science to convict people .
For 40 years they used bullet lead analysis , where they compared fired slugs from crime scenes to unfired bullets in the possesion of suspects .
They assumed that there was consistency from batch to batch of bullets and that all the slugs in a box came from the same batch .
Neither assumption was true .
http : //www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/16/60minutes/main3512453.shtml [ cbsnews.com ] [ cbsnews.com ] It was only when a retired FBI metallurgist did testing by himself that he proved that the technique was useless .
Then the NSF did a study and found the same result , and the FBI stopped using this test .
http : //www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel05/bullet \ _lead \ _analysis.htm [ fbi.gov ] [ fbi.gov ] Now the FBI has a secret data base that they use to claim that people are guilty .
They will not release the data for independent verification of their results .
Do you really think that they can be trusted one more time ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The FBI has a history of using completely unverified pseudo-science to convict people.
For 40 years they used bullet lead analysis, where they compared fired slugs from crime scenes to unfired bullets in the possesion of suspects.
They assumed that there was consistency from batch to batch of bullets and that all the slugs in a box came from the same batch.
Neither assumption was true.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/16/60minutes/main3512453.shtml [cbsnews.com] [cbsnews.com]

It was only when a retired FBI metallurgist did testing by himself that he proved that the technique was useless.
Then the NSF did a study and found the same result, and the FBI stopped using this test.
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel05/bullet\_lead\_analysis.htm [fbi.gov] [fbi.gov]

Now the FBI has a secret data base that they use to claim that people are guilty.
They will not release the data for independent verification of their results.
Do you really think that they can be trusted one more time?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30708232</id>
	<title>Re:Misuse Of Statistics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263062340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If only that were the case.  For example, from page 2 of <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/20/local/me-dna20" title="latimes.com">http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/20/local/me-dna20</a> [latimes.com]:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>In a typical criminal case, investigators look for matches to a specific profile. But the Arizona search looked for <b>any matches among all the thousands of profiles in the database</b>, greatly increasing the odds of finding them.</p></div><p>[emphasis added] What you say is how it usually works, and how it stands any chance of being statistically valid.  In some cases I've read about (not sure if it's in the story I linked to or not), the raw "1 in 100 billion" type odds were presented, which is plainly and patently false when used in this manner, and I believe the defense was not allowed to correct this.  Some states do not allow this sort of search, per the article, but <em>some do</em>.</p><p>However, this is not relevant to independent checking of statistics.  I'm sure the FBI has done at least some good faith testing of their methods, but they are also far too interested in the outcomes of those tests to be trusted with that without some verification.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If only that were the case .
For example , from page 2 of http : //articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/20/local/me-dna20 [ latimes.com ] : In a typical criminal case , investigators look for matches to a specific profile .
But the Arizona search looked for any matches among all the thousands of profiles in the database , greatly increasing the odds of finding them .
[ emphasis added ] What you say is how it usually works , and how it stands any chance of being statistically valid .
In some cases I 've read about ( not sure if it 's in the story I linked to or not ) , the raw " 1 in 100 billion " type odds were presented , which is plainly and patently false when used in this manner , and I believe the defense was not allowed to correct this .
Some states do not allow this sort of search , per the article , but some do.However , this is not relevant to independent checking of statistics .
I 'm sure the FBI has done at least some good faith testing of their methods , but they are also far too interested in the outcomes of those tests to be trusted with that without some verification .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If only that were the case.
For example, from page 2 of http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/20/local/me-dna20 [latimes.com]:In a typical criminal case, investigators look for matches to a specific profile.
But the Arizona search looked for any matches among all the thousands of profiles in the database, greatly increasing the odds of finding them.
[emphasis added] What you say is how it usually works, and how it stands any chance of being statistically valid.
In some cases I've read about (not sure if it's in the story I linked to or not), the raw "1 in 100 billion" type odds were presented, which is plainly and patently false when used in this manner, and I believe the defense was not allowed to correct this.
Some states do not allow this sort of search, per the article, but some do.However, this is not relevant to independent checking of statistics.
I'm sure the FBI has done at least some good faith testing of their methods, but they are also far too interested in the outcomes of those tests to be trusted with that without some verification.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30708022</id>
	<title>Re:Misuse Of Statistics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263060240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"the odds are billions to one against this being someone else".</p></div><p>I've heard odds of 1,000,000:1 for DNA testing here in the UK. That means that there are about 61 other people in this country who will match me on a DNA test.</p><p>DNA testing should only be used in conjunction with other evidence. When fingerprint evidence started being used everyone thought that fingerprints were unique and so therefore a match means you must've done it. We now know that getting a good print and matching it to records isn't an exact process so often the defence will have their own fingerprint experts try and refute the prosecution's interpretation.</p><p>What this means is that if there's fingerprints, DNA, a motive and a witness seeing someone of your description fleeing the scene then you did it. Just one of those, however, and it's not beyond reasonable doubt.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" the odds are billions to one against this being someone else " .I 've heard odds of 1,000,000 : 1 for DNA testing here in the UK .
That means that there are about 61 other people in this country who will match me on a DNA test.DNA testing should only be used in conjunction with other evidence .
When fingerprint evidence started being used everyone thought that fingerprints were unique and so therefore a match means you must 've done it .
We now know that getting a good print and matching it to records is n't an exact process so often the defence will have their own fingerprint experts try and refute the prosecution 's interpretation.What this means is that if there 's fingerprints , DNA , a motive and a witness seeing someone of your description fleeing the scene then you did it .
Just one of those , however , and it 's not beyond reasonable doubt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"the odds are billions to one against this being someone else".I've heard odds of 1,000,000:1 for DNA testing here in the UK.
That means that there are about 61 other people in this country who will match me on a DNA test.DNA testing should only be used in conjunction with other evidence.
When fingerprint evidence started being used everyone thought that fingerprints were unique and so therefore a match means you must've done it.
We now know that getting a good print and matching it to records isn't an exact process so often the defence will have their own fingerprint experts try and refute the prosecution's interpretation.What this means is that if there's fingerprints, DNA, a motive and a witness seeing someone of your description fleeing the scene then you did it.
Just one of those, however, and it's not beyond reasonable doubt.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707586</id>
	<title>Misuse Of Statistics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263056160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have been concerned for years about this, because you often hear prosecutors and "expert" witness testimony to the effect that "the odds are billions to one against this being someone else".
<br> <br>
Among other possible statistical mistakes, these unrealistically large numbers are based on the idea that each genetic location being compared is statistically independent. But in fact we know that to not be so. What we definitely do not know is how, or how often, many of these may actually depend on each other.
<br> <br>
Let me give you a purely hypothetical example: what are the odds that a genetic profile from a random person contains a gene determining curly hair. What are the odds of finding this gene in a random sample?
<br> <br>
You can answer this approximately by simply observing what percentage of the population has curly hair. Let's say 1/4 just for argument. So your odds are 1 in 4.
<br> <br>
But here's the kicker question: what are the odds that a genetic profile includes a gene for curly hair, <b>given that</b> it also contains a gene for sicle cell anemia?
<br> <br>
The odds are going to change drastically.
<br> <br>
This is not a real example, of course, just illustrative. But one can easily see that the contents of genetic locations are NOT necessarily statistically independent, even if one of them does not directly cause the other.
<br> <br>
We simply do not know enough to say that any two genetic locations are truly independent. Therefore these huge probabilities ("billions to one" for example) being spouted by prosecutors are completely specious.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have been concerned for years about this , because you often hear prosecutors and " expert " witness testimony to the effect that " the odds are billions to one against this being someone else " .
Among other possible statistical mistakes , these unrealistically large numbers are based on the idea that each genetic location being compared is statistically independent .
But in fact we know that to not be so .
What we definitely do not know is how , or how often , many of these may actually depend on each other .
Let me give you a purely hypothetical example : what are the odds that a genetic profile from a random person contains a gene determining curly hair .
What are the odds of finding this gene in a random sample ?
You can answer this approximately by simply observing what percentage of the population has curly hair .
Let 's say 1/4 just for argument .
So your odds are 1 in 4 .
But here 's the kicker question : what are the odds that a genetic profile includes a gene for curly hair , given that it also contains a gene for sicle cell anemia ?
The odds are going to change drastically .
This is not a real example , of course , just illustrative .
But one can easily see that the contents of genetic locations are NOT necessarily statistically independent , even if one of them does not directly cause the other .
We simply do not know enough to say that any two genetic locations are truly independent .
Therefore these huge probabilities ( " billions to one " for example ) being spouted by prosecutors are completely specious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have been concerned for years about this, because you often hear prosecutors and "expert" witness testimony to the effect that "the odds are billions to one against this being someone else".
Among other possible statistical mistakes, these unrealistically large numbers are based on the idea that each genetic location being compared is statistically independent.
But in fact we know that to not be so.
What we definitely do not know is how, or how often, many of these may actually depend on each other.
Let me give you a purely hypothetical example: what are the odds that a genetic profile from a random person contains a gene determining curly hair.
What are the odds of finding this gene in a random sample?
You can answer this approximately by simply observing what percentage of the population has curly hair.
Let's say 1/4 just for argument.
So your odds are 1 in 4.
But here's the kicker question: what are the odds that a genetic profile includes a gene for curly hair, given that it also contains a gene for sicle cell anemia?
The odds are going to change drastically.
This is not a real example, of course, just illustrative.
But one can easily see that the contents of genetic locations are NOT necessarily statistically independent, even if one of them does not directly cause the other.
We simply do not know enough to say that any two genetic locations are truly independent.
Therefore these huge probabilities ("billions to one" for example) being spouted by prosecutors are completely specious.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30708176</id>
	<title>Re:chimps have 97\% of human DNA</title>
	<author>honkycat</author>
	<datestamp>1263061740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the purpose is to independently evaluate the rate of false matches in a DNA database to be used in criminal investigations, what better database is there than the one that will be used for that purpose?</p><p>Privacy issues can easily be worked around here---there's no need for personally identifiable information (i.e., name or location, not the dna data itself<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-P ) to accompany the database for this purpose.  You might also worry about statistical independence between the sample to be used for the analysis and that used for testing the results, but there are very well established methods for using subsamples of a data set in just this way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the purpose is to independently evaluate the rate of false matches in a DNA database to be used in criminal investigations , what better database is there than the one that will be used for that purpose ? Privacy issues can easily be worked around here---there 's no need for personally identifiable information ( i.e. , name or location , not the dna data itself : -P ) to accompany the database for this purpose .
You might also worry about statistical independence between the sample to be used for the analysis and that used for testing the results , but there are very well established methods for using subsamples of a data set in just this way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the purpose is to independently evaluate the rate of false matches in a DNA database to be used in criminal investigations, what better database is there than the one that will be used for that purpose?Privacy issues can easily be worked around here---there's no need for personally identifiable information (i.e., name or location, not the dna data itself :-P ) to accompany the database for this purpose.
You might also worry about statistical independence between the sample to be used for the analysis and that used for testing the results, but there are very well established methods for using subsamples of a data set in just this way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30709664</id>
	<title>Re:Misuse Of Statistics</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1263031500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I have been concerned for years about this, because you often hear prosecutors and "expert" witness testimony to the effect that "the odds are billions to one against this being someone else".</i> </p><p>Imagine a murder in Buffalo, NY, population about 290,000.</p><p>Imagine that you have three credible matches:</p><p>1 The priest in North Dakota.<br>2 The engineering officer from downstate now serving in Afghanistan.<br>3 The real estate agent and deer hunter in suburban Amherst NY who lives five miles from the densely wooded creek bed where the body was found.</p><p>The universe of possible - plausible - suspects in any case is often quite small. The forensic evidence may expose other significant connections.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have been concerned for years about this , because you often hear prosecutors and " expert " witness testimony to the effect that " the odds are billions to one against this being someone else " .
Imagine a murder in Buffalo , NY , population about 290,000.Imagine that you have three credible matches : 1 The priest in North Dakota.2 The engineering officer from downstate now serving in Afghanistan.3 The real estate agent and deer hunter in suburban Amherst NY who lives five miles from the densely wooded creek bed where the body was found.The universe of possible - plausible - suspects in any case is often quite small .
The forensic evidence may expose other significant connections .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have been concerned for years about this, because you often hear prosecutors and "expert" witness testimony to the effect that "the odds are billions to one against this being someone else".
Imagine a murder in Buffalo, NY, population about 290,000.Imagine that you have three credible matches:1 The priest in North Dakota.2 The engineering officer from downstate now serving in Afghanistan.3 The real estate agent and deer hunter in suburban Amherst NY who lives five miles from the densely wooded creek bed where the body was found.The universe of possible - plausible - suspects in any case is often quite small.
The forensic evidence may expose other significant connections.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707620</id>
	<title>Re:chimps have 97\% of human DNA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263056520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am consistently horrified that juries offload their responsibility by blindly applying the judgement of expert witnesses (who are often paid to say the same thing over and over again), whether forensic scientists, psychologists or IT specialists. I take DNA evidence the same way as I take the contents of a third party<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/var/log: with a pound of salt, because I know it could have been planted.</p><p>When I was a juror I was interested in means, motive and opportunity as necessary but not sufficient conditions to vote guilty. I also made use of the defendant's inconsistencies in his testimony, details about the background of the defendant and victim to the extent that it was relevant to his alleged act, consistency of information from eye witnesses around the time of the event, known and unknown, doctors' reports, police officers, etc. I paid little attention to forensic details which might, according to the arguments of a scientist, help<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/confirm/ the prosecution's case, because I have more than reasonable doubt in my mind of any evidence which requires me to be an expert to interpret correctly - especially when I'm not that expert, instead deferring to some guy I just heard in a courtroom.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am consistently horrified that juries offload their responsibility by blindly applying the judgement of expert witnesses ( who are often paid to say the same thing over and over again ) , whether forensic scientists , psychologists or IT specialists .
I take DNA evidence the same way as I take the contents of a third party /var/log : with a pound of salt , because I know it could have been planted.When I was a juror I was interested in means , motive and opportunity as necessary but not sufficient conditions to vote guilty .
I also made use of the defendant 's inconsistencies in his testimony , details about the background of the defendant and victim to the extent that it was relevant to his alleged act , consistency of information from eye witnesses around the time of the event , known and unknown , doctors ' reports , police officers , etc .
I paid little attention to forensic details which might , according to the arguments of a scientist , help /confirm/ the prosecution 's case , because I have more than reasonable doubt in my mind of any evidence which requires me to be an expert to interpret correctly - especially when I 'm not that expert , instead deferring to some guy I just heard in a courtroom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am consistently horrified that juries offload their responsibility by blindly applying the judgement of expert witnesses (who are often paid to say the same thing over and over again), whether forensic scientists, psychologists or IT specialists.
I take DNA evidence the same way as I take the contents of a third party /var/log: with a pound of salt, because I know it could have been planted.When I was a juror I was interested in means, motive and opportunity as necessary but not sufficient conditions to vote guilty.
I also made use of the defendant's inconsistencies in his testimony, details about the background of the defendant and victim to the extent that it was relevant to his alleged act, consistency of information from eye witnesses around the time of the event, known and unknown, doctors' reports, police officers, etc.
I paid little attention to forensic details which might, according to the arguments of a scientist, help /confirm/ the prosecution's case, because I have more than reasonable doubt in my mind of any evidence which requires me to be an expert to interpret correctly - especially when I'm not that expert, instead deferring to some guy I just heard in a courtroom.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30708274</id>
	<title>Re:chimps have 97\% of human DNA</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1263062760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't call it a case of mission creep. Research is needed to confirm that the database is suitable for the purposes it was created for.</p><p>These issues were identified as early as 1969, in a landmark HEW report on computer records and the rights of citizens.  It boils down to this: inferences drawn from data that affect the lives of people ought to be rationally justifiable.  This means not using data until its suitability can be established.   Mission creep can lead to data being used outside the context  it is reliable in; but we can also run afoul of privacy and due process concerns by collecting data in the first place without establishing it means what he hope it means.</p><p>I've been concerned for years about the reasoning used in DNA screening. It entails a long chain of assumptions, and while all the assumptions *seem* plausible, the chance that one or more of them is wrong or has some unknown wrinkle is not negligible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't call it a case of mission creep .
Research is needed to confirm that the database is suitable for the purposes it was created for.These issues were identified as early as 1969 , in a landmark HEW report on computer records and the rights of citizens .
It boils down to this : inferences drawn from data that affect the lives of people ought to be rationally justifiable .
This means not using data until its suitability can be established .
Mission creep can lead to data being used outside the context it is reliable in ; but we can also run afoul of privacy and due process concerns by collecting data in the first place without establishing it means what he hope it means.I 've been concerned for years about the reasoning used in DNA screening .
It entails a long chain of assumptions , and while all the assumptions * seem * plausible , the chance that one or more of them is wrong or has some unknown wrinkle is not negligible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't call it a case of mission creep.
Research is needed to confirm that the database is suitable for the purposes it was created for.These issues were identified as early as 1969, in a landmark HEW report on computer records and the rights of citizens.
It boils down to this: inferences drawn from data that affect the lives of people ought to be rationally justifiable.
This means not using data until its suitability can be established.
Mission creep can lead to data being used outside the context  it is reliable in; but we can also run afoul of privacy and due process concerns by collecting data in the first place without establishing it means what he hope it means.I've been concerned for years about the reasoning used in DNA screening.
It entails a long chain of assumptions, and while all the assumptions *seem* plausible, the chance that one or more of them is wrong or has some unknown wrinkle is not negligible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707634</id>
	<title>Independent Databases</title>
	<author>Jane Q. Public</author>
	<datestamp>1263056640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>By the way, I should point out that there are at least several public and private DNA databases being developed in the U.S. alone. However, some of them are for special purposes (genealogy for example), and will test different locations than those used by forensics labs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>By the way , I should point out that there are at least several public and private DNA databases being developed in the U.S. alone. However , some of them are for special purposes ( genealogy for example ) , and will test different locations than those used by forensics labs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By the way, I should point out that there are at least several public and private DNA databases being developed in the U.S. alone. However, some of them are for special purposes (genealogy for example), and will test different locations than those used by forensics labs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707844</id>
	<title>Don't forget the human epigenome</title>
	<author>junglebeast</author>
	<datestamp>1263058740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Scientists already know that the human genome (DNA) is not the complete blueprint for an organism.

The human epigenome, which is far more complex, and contains more of the details about how to put those building blocks together, is no less important...and seems likely that it contains more of what separates us as individuals.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Scientists already know that the human genome ( DNA ) is not the complete blueprint for an organism .
The human epigenome , which is far more complex , and contains more of the details about how to put those building blocks together , is no less important...and seems likely that it contains more of what separates us as individuals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scientists already know that the human genome (DNA) is not the complete blueprint for an organism.
The human epigenome, which is far more complex, and contains more of the details about how to put those building blocks together, is no less important...and seems likely that it contains more of what separates us as individuals.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30708288</id>
	<title>Re:How data would be misused</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263062880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is some background info for what you are referring to: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday\_problem" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Birthday paradox</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is some background info for what you are referring to : Birthday paradox [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is some background info for what you are referring to: Birthday paradox [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30708102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707610</id>
	<title>Re:chimps have 97\% of human DNA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263056400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And it has been shown that chimps have 99.5\% of nigger DNA, but those studies have been kept quiet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And it has been shown that chimps have 99.5 \ % of nigger DNA , but those studies have been kept quiet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And it has been shown that chimps have 99.5\% of nigger DNA, but those studies have been kept quiet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30708304</id>
	<title>And what about fingerprints?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263063000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think a comprehensive review of methods is more than overdue, so yes, a review of how DNA is used and how reliable it is, anyway, plus how it deals with aforementioned people with multiple DNA signatures due to medical or other conditions is not merely a good idea, it is a necessity. Of course, there are important privacy and mission creep considerations, and even the "standard" anonymizing measures are likely to be insufficient. To that I can but say, alright, find a way, because we need to know how reliable that evidence is, and merely hiring expert witnesses is not enough. Solid scientific method and peer review are the way to go.</p><p>Which brings me to another scary thought: What large scale scientific studies have been done regarding fingerprints as legal evidence?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think a comprehensive review of methods is more than overdue , so yes , a review of how DNA is used and how reliable it is , anyway , plus how it deals with aforementioned people with multiple DNA signatures due to medical or other conditions is not merely a good idea , it is a necessity .
Of course , there are important privacy and mission creep considerations , and even the " standard " anonymizing measures are likely to be insufficient .
To that I can but say , alright , find a way , because we need to know how reliable that evidence is , and merely hiring expert witnesses is not enough .
Solid scientific method and peer review are the way to go.Which brings me to another scary thought : What large scale scientific studies have been done regarding fingerprints as legal evidence ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think a comprehensive review of methods is more than overdue, so yes, a review of how DNA is used and how reliable it is, anyway, plus how it deals with aforementioned people with multiple DNA signatures due to medical or other conditions is not merely a good idea, it is a necessity.
Of course, there are important privacy and mission creep considerations, and even the "standard" anonymizing measures are likely to be insufficient.
To that I can but say, alright, find a way, because we need to know how reliable that evidence is, and merely hiring expert witnesses is not enough.
Solid scientific method and peer review are the way to go.Which brings me to another scary thought: What large scale scientific studies have been done regarding fingerprints as legal evidence?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707948</id>
	<title>FBI using outdated technology</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1263059700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The FBI's database only uses 15 markers, checking 15 sites in DNA.  <a href="http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/mediasources/20080722a?OpenDocument" title="nacdl.org">That's not good enough, and there are false matches.</a> [nacdl.org] The problem is that they're using DNA technology from about 1990.
</p><p>
23andme, the commercial DNA analysis service, checks 580,000 sites in DNA.
23andme probably has enough data to validate the quality of the FBI's marker selection.  That's a good way to check.  Identical twins do match, even at the 23andme level of analysis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The FBI 's database only uses 15 markers , checking 15 sites in DNA .
That 's not good enough , and there are false matches .
[ nacdl.org ] The problem is that they 're using DNA technology from about 1990 .
23andme , the commercial DNA analysis service , checks 580,000 sites in DNA .
23andme probably has enough data to validate the quality of the FBI 's marker selection .
That 's a good way to check .
Identical twins do match , even at the 23andme level of analysis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The FBI's database only uses 15 markers, checking 15 sites in DNA.
That's not good enough, and there are false matches.
[nacdl.org] The problem is that they're using DNA technology from about 1990.
23andme, the commercial DNA analysis service, checks 580,000 sites in DNA.
23andme probably has enough data to validate the quality of the FBI's marker selection.
That's a good way to check.
Identical twins do match, even at the 23andme level of analysis.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30708882</id>
	<title>black or white</title>
	<author>EricKoh</author>
	<datestamp>1263067980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>excuse me for being a noob, but if two beings have the same DNA, how did one turn out black and the other white?

unless, the samples were taken from m.j. at two different stages of his life...</htmltext>
<tokenext>excuse me for being a noob , but if two beings have the same DNA , how did one turn out black and the other white ?
unless , the samples were taken from m.j. at two different stages of his life.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>excuse me for being a noob, but if two beings have the same DNA, how did one turn out black and the other white?
unless, the samples were taken from m.j. at two different stages of his life...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30709982</id>
	<title>Re:Misuse Of Statistics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263034920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DNA is nowhere near that simple...</p><p>You're focusing on phenotypical traits where as genetics examine genotypical traits.</p><p>Genotypes are the actual physically basis of DNA, phenotypes are the expression of those.  The problem with trying to draw correlations between phenotype and genotypes are all the interactions between multiple genes to create the phenotypes we can observe.  Many phenotypes such as skin color, hair type, and height are controlled by multiple separate genes that interact with each other.  We've all seen people who are much lighter or much darker than their parents.  We all know people who's hair, eyes, physical height don't match the rest of their family.  Those are examples of how a relatively common set of genetic information which has similar expressions in most combinations can suddenly have different expressions in a few particular combinations.  These combinations are actually quite common.  I happen to be  living example of such a combination.</p><p>It's not as simple as dominant and recessive, there's multiple genes that contribute a fraction to multiple different traits.  So when you look at genotypes, you'll see the same "hair genes" in a curly-haired person as a straight-haired person, but there's 16 other genes that multiply or divide the effect of the primary genes and you wouldn't examine them because they primarily contribute to the bone density or specific protein channels in cell membranes of arteries.  We simply don't have enough knowledge of genetics to draw conclusive correlations between genotypes and phenotypes...and it's a good thing we don't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DNA is nowhere near that simple...You 're focusing on phenotypical traits where as genetics examine genotypical traits.Genotypes are the actual physically basis of DNA , phenotypes are the expression of those .
The problem with trying to draw correlations between phenotype and genotypes are all the interactions between multiple genes to create the phenotypes we can observe .
Many phenotypes such as skin color , hair type , and height are controlled by multiple separate genes that interact with each other .
We 've all seen people who are much lighter or much darker than their parents .
We all know people who 's hair , eyes , physical height do n't match the rest of their family .
Those are examples of how a relatively common set of genetic information which has similar expressions in most combinations can suddenly have different expressions in a few particular combinations .
These combinations are actually quite common .
I happen to be living example of such a combination.It 's not as simple as dominant and recessive , there 's multiple genes that contribute a fraction to multiple different traits .
So when you look at genotypes , you 'll see the same " hair genes " in a curly-haired person as a straight-haired person , but there 's 16 other genes that multiply or divide the effect of the primary genes and you would n't examine them because they primarily contribute to the bone density or specific protein channels in cell membranes of arteries .
We simply do n't have enough knowledge of genetics to draw conclusive correlations between genotypes and phenotypes...and it 's a good thing we do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DNA is nowhere near that simple...You're focusing on phenotypical traits where as genetics examine genotypical traits.Genotypes are the actual physically basis of DNA, phenotypes are the expression of those.
The problem with trying to draw correlations between phenotype and genotypes are all the interactions between multiple genes to create the phenotypes we can observe.
Many phenotypes such as skin color, hair type, and height are controlled by multiple separate genes that interact with each other.
We've all seen people who are much lighter or much darker than their parents.
We all know people who's hair, eyes, physical height don't match the rest of their family.
Those are examples of how a relatively common set of genetic information which has similar expressions in most combinations can suddenly have different expressions in a few particular combinations.
These combinations are actually quite common.
I happen to be  living example of such a combination.It's not as simple as dominant and recessive, there's multiple genes that contribute a fraction to multiple different traits.
So when you look at genotypes, you'll see the same "hair genes" in a curly-haired person as a straight-haired person, but there's 16 other genes that multiply or divide the effect of the primary genes and you wouldn't examine them because they primarily contribute to the bone density or specific protein channels in cell membranes of arteries.
We simply don't have enough knowledge of genetics to draw conclusive correlations between genotypes and phenotypes...and it's a good thing we don't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30709154</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263069960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>99.9\% of a human DNA is identical to all other humans no matter the race. In fact we are about 99\% similar to a banana's genome. They aren't looking at particular genes - obviously we are all going to have the same genes that code for the basic body plan and proteins needed for basic life.</p><p>When they do these DNA tests they are looking at satellite repeats which are almost always outside of the coding regions of genes. Here is where the differences rack up. The repeats are highly variable across the species and there can be any number of repeats in each one of these "groups". Mathematically you would only need to look at 15 or so to have enough data to be completely unique among the 6.7billion people on the planet. Often in criminal cases they look at far more than this and so the probability that two people in the world have the exact same genome (excluding identical twins) is small enough to express certainty. The cases in which DNA has falsely accused someone is user error - the genes don't lie, some people, even though they may be scientists, are still idiots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>99.9 \ % of a human DNA is identical to all other humans no matter the race .
In fact we are about 99 \ % similar to a banana 's genome .
They are n't looking at particular genes - obviously we are all going to have the same genes that code for the basic body plan and proteins needed for basic life.When they do these DNA tests they are looking at satellite repeats which are almost always outside of the coding regions of genes .
Here is where the differences rack up .
The repeats are highly variable across the species and there can be any number of repeats in each one of these " groups " .
Mathematically you would only need to look at 15 or so to have enough data to be completely unique among the 6.7billion people on the planet .
Often in criminal cases they look at far more than this and so the probability that two people in the world have the exact same genome ( excluding identical twins ) is small enough to express certainty .
The cases in which DNA has falsely accused someone is user error - the genes do n't lie , some people , even though they may be scientists , are still idiots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>99.9\% of a human DNA is identical to all other humans no matter the race.
In fact we are about 99\% similar to a banana's genome.
They aren't looking at particular genes - obviously we are all going to have the same genes that code for the basic body plan and proteins needed for basic life.When they do these DNA tests they are looking at satellite repeats which are almost always outside of the coding regions of genes.
Here is where the differences rack up.
The repeats are highly variable across the species and there can be any number of repeats in each one of these "groups".
Mathematically you would only need to look at 15 or so to have enough data to be completely unique among the 6.7billion people on the planet.
Often in criminal cases they look at far more than this and so the probability that two people in the world have the exact same genome (excluding identical twins) is small enough to express certainty.
The cases in which DNA has falsely accused someone is user error - the genes don't lie, some people, even though they may be scientists, are still idiots.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707600</id>
	<title>Blah</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263056220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone have the full text from New Sensationalist or Nature? NS is harping on the fact I used up three of their articles already and now I have to pay/register.</p><p>Here's hoping they fade into obscurity like Salon.com.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone have the full text from New Sensationalist or Nature ?
NS is harping on the fact I used up three of their articles already and now I have to pay/register.Here 's hoping they fade into obscurity like Salon.com .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone have the full text from New Sensationalist or Nature?
NS is harping on the fact I used up three of their articles already and now I have to pay/register.Here's hoping they fade into obscurity like Salon.com.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30710570</id>
	<title>similar argument for government security cameras</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1263040620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The argument from an article in Wired years back suggested that government security camera feeds be made available for realtime public viewing. That could then check abusive uses of this system when you have "the watched watching the watchers".
<br> <br>
Ditto for open source software, like for computer security or voting.  More eyes can spot more flaws.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The argument from an article in Wired years back suggested that government security camera feeds be made available for realtime public viewing .
That could then check abusive uses of this system when you have " the watched watching the watchers " .
Ditto for open source software , like for computer security or voting .
More eyes can spot more flaws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The argument from an article in Wired years back suggested that government security camera feeds be made available for realtime public viewing.
That could then check abusive uses of this system when you have "the watched watching the watchers".
Ditto for open source software, like for computer security or voting.
More eyes can spot more flaws.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30708632</id>
	<title>Re:"Time for DNA Disclosure" letter can be read...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263065700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try not to terminate a link to file with a slash. Have people forgotten how to write raw html?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try not to terminate a link to file with a slash .
Have people forgotten how to write raw html ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try not to terminate a link to file with a slash.
Have people forgotten how to write raw html?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707892</id>
	<title>Re:Misuse Of Statistics</title>
	<author>misof</author>
	<datestamp>1263059100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Another misuse of statistics: Many people expect that FBI uses the DNA database in the following way:
<br>
1. get DNA sample from the crime scene
<br>
2. match DNA sample against all samples in the database
<br>
3. if you got a match, you got the killer.
</p><p>
This is <b>not</b> how it works. Say the real odds of a false positive are ten million to one. In a country of say 300 million people this still gives an expected 30 people who match the sample from the scene. Is each of them the criminal? Clearly not.
</p><p>
How it really works? Imagine that you already identified several suspects. If you take DNA samples of <b>these few people</b> and one of them matches the DNA from the hair from the scene, you can still conclude that given your knowledge, <b>with a very high probability</b> the person in question was present at the crime scene.
</p><p>
In other words, using DNA tests is perfectly reasonable as long as you know what you are doing, even if the probability of a false positive is several orders of magnitude larger than one to a billion.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another misuse of statistics : Many people expect that FBI uses the DNA database in the following way : 1. get DNA sample from the crime scene 2. match DNA sample against all samples in the database 3. if you got a match , you got the killer .
This is not how it works .
Say the real odds of a false positive are ten million to one .
In a country of say 300 million people this still gives an expected 30 people who match the sample from the scene .
Is each of them the criminal ?
Clearly not .
How it really works ?
Imagine that you already identified several suspects .
If you take DNA samples of these few people and one of them matches the DNA from the hair from the scene , you can still conclude that given your knowledge , with a very high probability the person in question was present at the crime scene .
In other words , using DNA tests is perfectly reasonable as long as you know what you are doing , even if the probability of a false positive is several orders of magnitude larger than one to a billion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Another misuse of statistics: Many people expect that FBI uses the DNA database in the following way:

1. get DNA sample from the crime scene

2. match DNA sample against all samples in the database

3. if you got a match, you got the killer.
This is not how it works.
Say the real odds of a false positive are ten million to one.
In a country of say 300 million people this still gives an expected 30 people who match the sample from the scene.
Is each of them the criminal?
Clearly not.
How it really works?
Imagine that you already identified several suspects.
If you take DNA samples of these few people and one of them matches the DNA from the hair from the scene, you can still conclude that given your knowledge, with a very high probability the person in question was present at the crime scene.
In other words, using DNA tests is perfectly reasonable as long as you know what you are doing, even if the probability of a false positive is several orders of magnitude larger than one to a billion.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707736</id>
	<title>Re:chimps have 97\% of human DNA</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1263057660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Before DNA tests are accepted as conclusive much better studies should be done, particularly for false positives.</p></div><p>I agree with you, but I'd add the caveat that the study shouldn't be done with a Federal database that was never intended for the purpose.</p><p>Mission creep is the kind of thing<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.ers usually rail against, especially when there are privacy implications. If scientists want to study large datasets, they should go put together their own, or buy it from someone who has. What shouldn't be happening is a database meant for law enforcement to be opened up to the public.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Before DNA tests are accepted as conclusive much better studies should be done , particularly for false positives.I agree with you , but I 'd add the caveat that the study should n't be done with a Federal database that was never intended for the purpose.Mission creep is the kind of thing /.ers usually rail against , especially when there are privacy implications .
If scientists want to study large datasets , they should go put together their own , or buy it from someone who has .
What should n't be happening is a database meant for law enforcement to be opened up to the public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before DNA tests are accepted as conclusive much better studies should be done, particularly for false positives.I agree with you, but I'd add the caveat that the study shouldn't be done with a Federal database that was never intended for the purpose.Mission creep is the kind of thing /.ers usually rail against, especially when there are privacy implications.
If scientists want to study large datasets, they should go put together their own, or buy it from someone who has.
What shouldn't be happening is a database meant for law enforcement to be opened up to the public.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707512</id>
	<title>chimps have 97\% of human DNA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263055080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Before DNA tests are accepted as conclusive much better studies should be done, particularly for false positives.</p><p>I believe DNA tests should be used for finding someone innocent rather than guilty. Negatives aren't that big a problem. If there are discrepancies then obviously it's not the same DNA.</p><p>Positives are another issue, how many common features there must be to accept two DNA samples as coming from the same individual?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Before DNA tests are accepted as conclusive much better studies should be done , particularly for false positives.I believe DNA tests should be used for finding someone innocent rather than guilty .
Negatives are n't that big a problem .
If there are discrepancies then obviously it 's not the same DNA.Positives are another issue , how many common features there must be to accept two DNA samples as coming from the same individual ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before DNA tests are accepted as conclusive much better studies should be done, particularly for false positives.I believe DNA tests should be used for finding someone innocent rather than guilty.
Negatives aren't that big a problem.
If there are discrepancies then obviously it's not the same DNA.Positives are another issue, how many common features there must be to accept two DNA samples as coming from the same individual?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30708044</id>
	<title>Two measures?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263060360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And the privacy rights of convicted criminals are different from "normal" citizens -- why?</p><p>Look. There's a reason society puts some people in jail. That's considered necessary for the protection of the others. But curtailing their rights in whatever other arbitrary ways is not OK.</p><p>There's this misconception that people lose their civil rights by becoming criminals. They don't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And the privacy rights of convicted criminals are different from " normal " citizens -- why ? Look .
There 's a reason society puts some people in jail .
That 's considered necessary for the protection of the others .
But curtailing their rights in whatever other arbitrary ways is not OK.There 's this misconception that people lose their civil rights by becoming criminals .
They do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the privacy rights of convicted criminals are different from "normal" citizens -- why?Look.
There's a reason society puts some people in jail.
That's considered necessary for the protection of the others.
But curtailing their rights in whatever other arbitrary ways is not OK.There's this misconception that people lose their civil rights by becoming criminals.
They don't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30709350</id>
	<title>Re:It's not just the veracity of the DNA testing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263028500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Speaking of mistakes: last summer, there was a big furor in  Europe over some mastermind criminal who was being implicated via DNA matching in all kinds of crimes: murders, car thefts, etc. The DNA popped up in France, in Eastern Europe in Germany - literally, all over the place. Newspapers started to talk about some sort of supervillain, able to commit crimes at will and escape undetected every time, and with the financial means and independence to constantly travel through Europe.</p><p>Turned out that the swabs used to collect the evidence from the crime scene all came from the same source, and had been contaminated by a manufacturing technician.</p><p>Now this is contamination during what is supposed to be a sterile manufacturing process. I can't imagine what the contamination risks are that come from regular use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Speaking of mistakes : last summer , there was a big furor in Europe over some mastermind criminal who was being implicated via DNA matching in all kinds of crimes : murders , car thefts , etc .
The DNA popped up in France , in Eastern Europe in Germany - literally , all over the place .
Newspapers started to talk about some sort of supervillain , able to commit crimes at will and escape undetected every time , and with the financial means and independence to constantly travel through Europe.Turned out that the swabs used to collect the evidence from the crime scene all came from the same source , and had been contaminated by a manufacturing technician.Now this is contamination during what is supposed to be a sterile manufacturing process .
I ca n't imagine what the contamination risks are that come from regular use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speaking of mistakes: last summer, there was a big furor in  Europe over some mastermind criminal who was being implicated via DNA matching in all kinds of crimes: murders, car thefts, etc.
The DNA popped up in France, in Eastern Europe in Germany - literally, all over the place.
Newspapers started to talk about some sort of supervillain, able to commit crimes at will and escape undetected every time, and with the financial means and independence to constantly travel through Europe.Turned out that the swabs used to collect the evidence from the crime scene all came from the same source, and had been contaminated by a manufacturing technician.Now this is contamination during what is supposed to be a sterile manufacturing process.
I can't imagine what the contamination risks are that come from regular use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707506</id>
	<title>Obama's massive ego explained</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263054960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.utexas.edu/news/2010/01/06/brain\_self\_perception/" title="utexas.edu" rel="nofollow">http://www.utexas.edu/news/2010/01/06/brain\_self\_perception/</a> [utexas.edu]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.utexas.edu/news/2010/01/06/brain \ _self \ _perception/ [ utexas.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.utexas.edu/news/2010/01/06/brain\_self\_perception/ [utexas.edu]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30708286</id>
	<title>Re:chimps have 97\% of human DNA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263062820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>When I was a juror I was interested in means, motive and opportunity as necessary but not sufficient conditions to vote guilty. I also made use of the defendant's inconsistencies in his testimony, details about the background of the defendant and victim to the extent that it was relevant to his alleged act, consistency of information from eye witnesses around the time of the event, </i></p><p>Unlike DNA evidence, there have been many, many studies proving the unreliability of eyewitnesses. In a stressful, quick  situation, people's memory is often wrong.</p><p><i>I paid little attention to forensic details which might, according to the arguments of a scientist, help<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/confirm/ the prosecution's case, because I have more than reasonable doubt in my mind of any evidence which requires me to be an expert to interpret correctly - especially when I'm not that expert, instead deferring to some guy I just heard in a courtroom.</i></p><p>So because you're a doofus who didn't pay attention in school, you ignore the facts? There aren't many people who understand how lasers work, but that doesn't mean they don't work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I was a juror I was interested in means , motive and opportunity as necessary but not sufficient conditions to vote guilty .
I also made use of the defendant 's inconsistencies in his testimony , details about the background of the defendant and victim to the extent that it was relevant to his alleged act , consistency of information from eye witnesses around the time of the event , Unlike DNA evidence , there have been many , many studies proving the unreliability of eyewitnesses .
In a stressful , quick situation , people 's memory is often wrong.I paid little attention to forensic details which might , according to the arguments of a scientist , help /confirm/ the prosecution 's case , because I have more than reasonable doubt in my mind of any evidence which requires me to be an expert to interpret correctly - especially when I 'm not that expert , instead deferring to some guy I just heard in a courtroom.So because you 're a doofus who did n't pay attention in school , you ignore the facts ?
There are n't many people who understand how lasers work , but that does n't mean they do n't work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I was a juror I was interested in means, motive and opportunity as necessary but not sufficient conditions to vote guilty.
I also made use of the defendant's inconsistencies in his testimony, details about the background of the defendant and victim to the extent that it was relevant to his alleged act, consistency of information from eye witnesses around the time of the event, Unlike DNA evidence, there have been many, many studies proving the unreliability of eyewitnesses.
In a stressful, quick  situation, people's memory is often wrong.I paid little attention to forensic details which might, according to the arguments of a scientist, help /confirm/ the prosecution's case, because I have more than reasonable doubt in my mind of any evidence which requires me to be an expert to interpret correctly - especially when I'm not that expert, instead deferring to some guy I just heard in a courtroom.So because you're a doofus who didn't pay attention in school, you ignore the facts?
There aren't many people who understand how lasers work, but that doesn't mean they don't work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30708262</id>
	<title>Re:chimps have 97\% of human DNA</title>
	<author>AliasMarlowe</author>
	<datestamp>1263062700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Before DNA tests are accepted as conclusive much better studies should be done, particularly for false positives.</p></div><p>I agree with you, but I'd add the caveat that the study shouldn't be done with a Federal database that was never intended for the purpose.</p></div><p>You are probably right, if the only conclusion were to be scientific knowledge, so that the database would exist only in the interests of science. Unfortunately, the principal <b>purpose</b> of the FBI database is the provision of strong/irrefutable evidence to secure convictions. Other purposes are to aid in selecting suspects or to eliminate individuals from suspicion. Its suitability for these purposes is what has been questioned, and has never been empirically assessed. Indeed, the cited studies of comparable databases and of a subset of the FBI dataset suggest that the "genetic matches" are not irrefutable, and may be considerably weaker evidence than presented in court.<br>
The FBI database should be quantitatively assessed for suitability for its intended purpose.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Before DNA tests are accepted as conclusive much better studies should be done , particularly for false positives.I agree with you , but I 'd add the caveat that the study should n't be done with a Federal database that was never intended for the purpose.You are probably right , if the only conclusion were to be scientific knowledge , so that the database would exist only in the interests of science .
Unfortunately , the principal purpose of the FBI database is the provision of strong/irrefutable evidence to secure convictions .
Other purposes are to aid in selecting suspects or to eliminate individuals from suspicion .
Its suitability for these purposes is what has been questioned , and has never been empirically assessed .
Indeed , the cited studies of comparable databases and of a subset of the FBI dataset suggest that the " genetic matches " are not irrefutable , and may be considerably weaker evidence than presented in court .
The FBI database should be quantitatively assessed for suitability for its intended purpose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before DNA tests are accepted as conclusive much better studies should be done, particularly for false positives.I agree with you, but I'd add the caveat that the study shouldn't be done with a Federal database that was never intended for the purpose.You are probably right, if the only conclusion were to be scientific knowledge, so that the database would exist only in the interests of science.
Unfortunately, the principal purpose of the FBI database is the provision of strong/irrefutable evidence to secure convictions.
Other purposes are to aid in selecting suspects or to eliminate individuals from suspicion.
Its suitability for these purposes is what has been questioned, and has never been empirically assessed.
Indeed, the cited studies of comparable databases and of a subset of the FBI dataset suggest that the "genetic matches" are not irrefutable, and may be considerably weaker evidence than presented in court.
The FBI database should be quantitatively assessed for suitability for its intended purpose.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707832</id>
	<title>It's not just the veracity of the DNA testing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263058620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even more so than the issue of statistical independence or veracity of the DNA testing process itself (which SHOULD be investigated) is the simple possibility of corruption, incompetence, or simple mistake. If a DNA testing lab simply accepts a bribe to give their expert testimony, has a mistake and switches sample vials, etc, their expert court-testimonyer will still show up in court claiming "The chances are approximately eighty-three bazillion to one".<br><br>This giant number has the emotional effect of certainty, but that number is just the chances that the sample the DNA lab recieved corresponds to the DNA of the accused--IF NO MISTAKES WERE MADE and nobody is planting evidence or accepting bribes. It's not the chance that the accused is innocent. I'm sure this distinction is made in the verbal "fine print" but the jury will still be swayed. The giant odds numbers are nothing powerful emotional hooks. The real possibility that the DNA evidence does not finger the accused breaks down like this:<br><br>1:1billion the DNA matches someone else due to a flaw in the statistics of DNA testing<br>TIMES<br>1:$smallernumber the DNA lab has accepted a bribe, has a mole, made a mistake, etc<br>TIMES<br>1:$smallernumber the DNA lab has honestly received a sample from the accused but the sample was planted at the scene by police, the real criminal, or really bad luck.<br><br>The jury won't be considering these factors when they hear the "1:1billion" number. It's nothing but sensationalism.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even more so than the issue of statistical independence or veracity of the DNA testing process itself ( which SHOULD be investigated ) is the simple possibility of corruption , incompetence , or simple mistake .
If a DNA testing lab simply accepts a bribe to give their expert testimony , has a mistake and switches sample vials , etc , their expert court-testimonyer will still show up in court claiming " The chances are approximately eighty-three bazillion to one " .This giant number has the emotional effect of certainty , but that number is just the chances that the sample the DNA lab recieved corresponds to the DNA of the accused--IF NO MISTAKES WERE MADE and nobody is planting evidence or accepting bribes .
It 's not the chance that the accused is innocent .
I 'm sure this distinction is made in the verbal " fine print " but the jury will still be swayed .
The giant odds numbers are nothing powerful emotional hooks .
The real possibility that the DNA evidence does not finger the accused breaks down like this : 1 : 1billion the DNA matches someone else due to a flaw in the statistics of DNA testingTIMES1 : $ smallernumber the DNA lab has accepted a bribe , has a mole , made a mistake , etcTIMES1 : $ smallernumber the DNA lab has honestly received a sample from the accused but the sample was planted at the scene by police , the real criminal , or really bad luck.The jury wo n't be considering these factors when they hear the " 1 : 1billion " number .
It 's nothing but sensationalism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even more so than the issue of statistical independence or veracity of the DNA testing process itself (which SHOULD be investigated) is the simple possibility of corruption, incompetence, or simple mistake.
If a DNA testing lab simply accepts a bribe to give their expert testimony, has a mistake and switches sample vials, etc, their expert court-testimonyer will still show up in court claiming "The chances are approximately eighty-three bazillion to one".This giant number has the emotional effect of certainty, but that number is just the chances that the sample the DNA lab recieved corresponds to the DNA of the accused--IF NO MISTAKES WERE MADE and nobody is planting evidence or accepting bribes.
It's not the chance that the accused is innocent.
I'm sure this distinction is made in the verbal "fine print" but the jury will still be swayed.
The giant odds numbers are nothing powerful emotional hooks.
The real possibility that the DNA evidence does not finger the accused breaks down like this:1:1billion the DNA matches someone else due to a flaw in the statistics of DNA testingTIMES1:$smallernumber the DNA lab has accepted a bribe, has a mole, made a mistake, etcTIMES1:$smallernumber the DNA lab has honestly received a sample from the accused but the sample was planted at the scene by police, the real criminal, or really bad luck.The jury won't be considering these factors when they hear the "1:1billion" number.
It's nothing but sensationalism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30709600</id>
	<title>Fixed Link</title>
	<author>chrb</author>
	<datestamp>1263030900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good find. The correct link is: <a href="http://www.bioforensics.com/articles/Krane\_Science\_letter\_2009.pdf" title="bioforensics.com">Science Letters - Time for DNA Disclosure</a> [bioforensics.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good find .
The correct link is : Science Letters - Time for DNA Disclosure [ bioforensics.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good find.
The correct link is: Science Letters - Time for DNA Disclosure [bioforensics.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30708106</id>
	<title>Re:Misuse Of Statistics</title>
	<author>Cassini2</author>
	<datestamp>1263060960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>How it really works? Imagine that you already identified several suspects. If you take DNA samples of these few people and one of them matches the DNA from the hair from the scene, you can still conclude that given your knowledge, with a very high probability the person in question was present at the crime scene.</p></div> </blockquote><p>While true, this statement is yet another example from the trap of misleading statistics.  Individually, your statement is likely true.  However, collectively, for all the tests the FBI lab is likely doing, then it is likely false.

</p><p>Look at it this way: "The probability of me, as a random individual, winning the lottery today is near zero."  From this, it is tempting to conclude that: "no random individual in North America will win the lottery today."  However, this is clearly not true.  Multiple random strangers will almost certainly win the lottery today.

</p><p>The statement "no random individual will win the lottery today" is false, because a huge number change occurred.  There are millions of people in North America.  A similar problem happens with the FBI genetic testing.  They do a great deal of testing.  <b>Proving an individual test is likely correct is very different than proving large numbers of tests are all correct.</b>
</p><p>From a statistical analysis point of view, you would be better matching any given DNA profile against everyone else's in North America.  Then you would know exactly how many random matches occurred, and if lab contamination occurred, because the sample would match the lab techs and the police officers DNA too.  This is the test the FBI is arguing against.  Nevertheless, this is the validation test that needs to be done, because modern PCR DNA techniques should detect significant numbers of people connected with the location and/or sample access path, over significant periods of time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How it really works ?
Imagine that you already identified several suspects .
If you take DNA samples of these few people and one of them matches the DNA from the hair from the scene , you can still conclude that given your knowledge , with a very high probability the person in question was present at the crime scene .
While true , this statement is yet another example from the trap of misleading statistics .
Individually , your statement is likely true .
However , collectively , for all the tests the FBI lab is likely doing , then it is likely false .
Look at it this way : " The probability of me , as a random individual , winning the lottery today is near zero .
" From this , it is tempting to conclude that : " no random individual in North America will win the lottery today .
" However , this is clearly not true .
Multiple random strangers will almost certainly win the lottery today .
The statement " no random individual will win the lottery today " is false , because a huge number change occurred .
There are millions of people in North America .
A similar problem happens with the FBI genetic testing .
They do a great deal of testing .
Proving an individual test is likely correct is very different than proving large numbers of tests are all correct .
From a statistical analysis point of view , you would be better matching any given DNA profile against everyone else 's in North America .
Then you would know exactly how many random matches occurred , and if lab contamination occurred , because the sample would match the lab techs and the police officers DNA too .
This is the test the FBI is arguing against .
Nevertheless , this is the validation test that needs to be done , because modern PCR DNA techniques should detect significant numbers of people connected with the location and/or sample access path , over significant periods of time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How it really works?
Imagine that you already identified several suspects.
If you take DNA samples of these few people and one of them matches the DNA from the hair from the scene, you can still conclude that given your knowledge, with a very high probability the person in question was present at the crime scene.
While true, this statement is yet another example from the trap of misleading statistics.
Individually, your statement is likely true.
However, collectively, for all the tests the FBI lab is likely doing, then it is likely false.
Look at it this way: "The probability of me, as a random individual, winning the lottery today is near zero.
"  From this, it is tempting to conclude that: "no random individual in North America will win the lottery today.
"  However, this is clearly not true.
Multiple random strangers will almost certainly win the lottery today.
The statement "no random individual will win the lottery today" is false, because a huge number change occurred.
There are millions of people in North America.
A similar problem happens with the FBI genetic testing.
They do a great deal of testing.
Proving an individual test is likely correct is very different than proving large numbers of tests are all correct.
From a statistical analysis point of view, you would be better matching any given DNA profile against everyone else's in North America.
Then you would know exactly how many random matches occurred, and if lab contamination occurred, because the sample would match the lab techs and the police officers DNA too.
This is the test the FBI is arguing against.
Nevertheless, this is the validation test that needs to be done, because modern PCR DNA techniques should detect significant numbers of people connected with the location and/or sample access path, over significant periods of time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30709712</id>
	<title>Re:Obama's massive ego explained</title>
	<author>logjon</author>
	<datestamp>1263031980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>it's sad when a -1 offtopic comment within one of the few good articles on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. nowadays contains one of the few good articles on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. nowadays.</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's sad when a -1 offtopic comment within one of the few good articles on / .
nowadays contains one of the few good articles on / .
nowadays .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's sad when a -1 offtopic comment within one of the few good articles on /.
nowadays contains one of the few good articles on /.
nowadays.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707514</id>
	<title>Synchronistic timing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263055080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just started watching Gattaca, was inspired to watch it from this CG short ( http://vimeo.com/7809605 ) as it used the sound track.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just started watching Gattaca , was inspired to watch it from this CG short ( http : //vimeo.com/7809605 ) as it used the sound track .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just started watching Gattaca, was inspired to watch it from this CG short ( http://vimeo.com/7809605 ) as it used the sound track.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30710484</id>
	<title>Re:FBI using outdated technology</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263039840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>23andme, the commercial DNA analysis service, checks 580,000 sites in DNA. 23andme probably has enough data to validate the quality of the FBI's marker selection. That's a good way to check. Identical twins do match, even at the 23andme level of analysis.</p></div><p>Since identical twins have identical DNA, that's not surprising.  They could check every single base pair, and it would match (assuming the error rate was 0).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>23andme , the commercial DNA analysis service , checks 580,000 sites in DNA .
23andme probably has enough data to validate the quality of the FBI 's marker selection .
That 's a good way to check .
Identical twins do match , even at the 23andme level of analysis.Since identical twins have identical DNA , that 's not surprising .
They could check every single base pair , and it would match ( assuming the error rate was 0 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>23andme, the commercial DNA analysis service, checks 580,000 sites in DNA.
23andme probably has enough data to validate the quality of the FBI's marker selection.
That's a good way to check.
Identical twins do match, even at the 23andme level of analysis.Since identical twins have identical DNA, that's not surprising.
They could check every single base pair, and it would match (assuming the error rate was 0).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30708236</id>
	<title>Re:chimps have 97\% of human DNA</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1263062340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now you raise an interesting question.</p><p>Suppose that DNA can *rule out* suspects, but not convict them.  In the interest of preventing miscarriages of justice, DNA screening should *still* be routinely done.  I have a feeling that if that were the case, it wouldn't be done very widely.</p><p>It'd be a litmus test of a law enforcement agency: how interested is the agency in getting the right answer, as opposed to *an* answer?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now you raise an interesting question.Suppose that DNA can * rule out * suspects , but not convict them .
In the interest of preventing miscarriages of justice , DNA screening should * still * be routinely done .
I have a feeling that if that were the case , it would n't be done very widely.It 'd be a litmus test of a law enforcement agency : how interested is the agency in getting the right answer , as opposed to * an * answer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now you raise an interesting question.Suppose that DNA can *rule out* suspects, but not convict them.
In the interest of preventing miscarriages of justice, DNA screening should *still* be routinely done.
I have a feeling that if that were the case, it wouldn't be done very widely.It'd be a litmus test of a law enforcement agency: how interested is the agency in getting the right answer, as opposed to *an* answer?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30709562</id>
	<title>Re:chimps have 97\% of human DNA</title>
	<author>ascari</author>
	<datestamp>1263030480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And neanderthal men have dna that's different from ours by only a handful of features. This supports the widely accepted theory that a large portion of violent crimes are committed by time traveling neanderthals and their pet chimps. <p>Actually, I thought tfa explained quite well how they look at specific non-coding markers in order to increase the signal to noise ratio. The noise being dna that codes for proteins common to most living organisms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And neanderthal men have dna that 's different from ours by only a handful of features .
This supports the widely accepted theory that a large portion of violent crimes are committed by time traveling neanderthals and their pet chimps .
Actually , I thought tfa explained quite well how they look at specific non-coding markers in order to increase the signal to noise ratio .
The noise being dna that codes for proteins common to most living organisms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And neanderthal men have dna that's different from ours by only a handful of features.
This supports the widely accepted theory that a large portion of violent crimes are committed by time traveling neanderthals and their pet chimps.
Actually, I thought tfa explained quite well how they look at specific non-coding markers in order to increase the signal to noise ratio.
The noise being dna that codes for proteins common to most living organisms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30763870</id>
	<title>Re:chimps have 97\% of human DNA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263483660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I agree with you, but I'd add the caveat that the study shouldn't be done with a Federal database that was never intended for the purpose.</p></div><p>The legislation that created the database had this type of research in mind:</p><p><i>The 1994 legislation that established NDIS explicitly anticipated that database records would be made available for research and quality control purposes "if personally identifiable information is removed." Release of the data also would be consistent with a March 2009 presidential memorandum to federal agency and executive department heads stating, "If scientific and technological information is developed and used by the Federal Government, it should ordinarily be made available to the public."</i></p><p>http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2010/01/science\_rules\_the\_fbi\_should\_o.html</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you , but I 'd add the caveat that the study should n't be done with a Federal database that was never intended for the purpose.The legislation that created the database had this type of research in mind : The 1994 legislation that established NDIS explicitly anticipated that database records would be made available for research and quality control purposes " if personally identifiable information is removed .
" Release of the data also would be consistent with a March 2009 presidential memorandum to federal agency and executive department heads stating , " If scientific and technological information is developed and used by the Federal Government , it should ordinarily be made available to the public .
" http : //www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2010/01/science \ _rules \ _the \ _fbi \ _should \ _o.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you, but I'd add the caveat that the study shouldn't be done with a Federal database that was never intended for the purpose.The legislation that created the database had this type of research in mind:The 1994 legislation that established NDIS explicitly anticipated that database records would be made available for research and quality control purposes "if personally identifiable information is removed.
" Release of the data also would be consistent with a March 2009 presidential memorandum to federal agency and executive department heads stating, "If scientific and technological information is developed and used by the Federal Government, it should ordinarily be made available to the public.
"http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2010/01/science\_rules\_the\_fbi\_should\_o.html
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30708102</id>
	<title>How data would be misused</title>
	<author>Jeff1946</author>
	<datestamp>1263060900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Assume several thousand matches are found in the database.  Defense lawyer will argue odds are in the thousands that the defendent was falsely matched.  This is wrong.  Much like the puzzle of how many people do you need to have at a party to have two with the same birthday (about 30, I believe).   But the odds that two people have the same birthday are about 1 in 365 not 30/365 as would be falsely concluded using the same arguement as above.</p><p>Assume odds are 1 in 10,000,000 that two people have the same DNA profile. Then defense lawyers asks expert witness</p><p>"How many people would have to be in a stadium before the odds are greater than 50\% that two have the same profile?</p><p>Witness "About 4400."</p><p>Of course the readers of slashdot would be excused from the jury by the defense as they would not fall for this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Assume several thousand matches are found in the database .
Defense lawyer will argue odds are in the thousands that the defendent was falsely matched .
This is wrong .
Much like the puzzle of how many people do you need to have at a party to have two with the same birthday ( about 30 , I believe ) .
But the odds that two people have the same birthday are about 1 in 365 not 30/365 as would be falsely concluded using the same arguement as above.Assume odds are 1 in 10,000,000 that two people have the same DNA profile .
Then defense lawyers asks expert witness " How many people would have to be in a stadium before the odds are greater than 50 \ % that two have the same profile ? Witness " About 4400 .
" Of course the readers of slashdot would be excused from the jury by the defense as they would not fall for this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assume several thousand matches are found in the database.
Defense lawyer will argue odds are in the thousands that the defendent was falsely matched.
This is wrong.
Much like the puzzle of how many people do you need to have at a party to have two with the same birthday (about 30, I believe).
But the odds that two people have the same birthday are about 1 in 365 not 30/365 as would be falsely concluded using the same arguement as above.Assume odds are 1 in 10,000,000 that two people have the same DNA profile.
Then defense lawyers asks expert witness"How many people would have to be in a stadium before the odds are greater than 50\% that two have the same profile?Witness "About 4400.
"Of course the readers of slashdot would be excused from the jury by the defense as they would not fall for this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707976</id>
	<title>Re:chimps have 97\% of human DNA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263059880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While you're right, to a point, and there's certainly an over-reliance on results from forensic tech by the prosecution, the adversarial system is supposed to (and in some measure, with a good legal team, does) take care of this. If the expert witness called by the prosecution represents one point of view where, in fact, there's significant disagreement among experts in the field, the defense should call their own expert witness on the other side to illuminate this dispute and give the jurors back their doubt: "If the experts can't even agree, I sure as hell have a reasonable doubt!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While you 're right , to a point , and there 's certainly an over-reliance on results from forensic tech by the prosecution , the adversarial system is supposed to ( and in some measure , with a good legal team , does ) take care of this .
If the expert witness called by the prosecution represents one point of view where , in fact , there 's significant disagreement among experts in the field , the defense should call their own expert witness on the other side to illuminate this dispute and give the jurors back their doubt : " If the experts ca n't even agree , I sure as hell have a reasonable doubt !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While you're right, to a point, and there's certainly an over-reliance on results from forensic tech by the prosecution, the adversarial system is supposed to (and in some measure, with a good legal team, does) take care of this.
If the expert witness called by the prosecution represents one point of view where, in fact, there's significant disagreement among experts in the field, the defense should call their own expert witness on the other side to illuminate this dispute and give the jurors back their doubt: "If the experts can't even agree, I sure as hell have a reasonable doubt!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30708050</id>
	<title>p = (1/4)^(#base pairs)?</title>
	<author>multi io</author>
	<datestamp>1263060420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Forgive me that I'm a layperson who didn't RTFA, but this story makes me wonder how they actually arrive at these astronomically low probabilities that the DNA profiles of two different people are accidentally identical? They wouldn't just include some random base pairs in the profiles and then calculate the probability as p=(1/4)^(number of base pairs), which would not account for the fact that 99.xxx percent of all base pairs are identical in all humans... would they? I was always assuming that, given that scientists who know what they're doing should have invented this test, there was some sophisticated process that would ensure that they would somehow only choose base pairs from the subset that was actually different in different individuals (and, more specifically, where each of A,C,G and T would have a 0.25 probability of occuring). I'm still relatively confident that something like this takes place, but sometimes you can be just astonished at how stupid people can be...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Forgive me that I 'm a layperson who did n't RTFA , but this story makes me wonder how they actually arrive at these astronomically low probabilities that the DNA profiles of two different people are accidentally identical ?
They would n't just include some random base pairs in the profiles and then calculate the probability as p = ( 1/4 ) ^ ( number of base pairs ) , which would not account for the fact that 99.xxx percent of all base pairs are identical in all humans... would they ?
I was always assuming that , given that scientists who know what they 're doing should have invented this test , there was some sophisticated process that would ensure that they would somehow only choose base pairs from the subset that was actually different in different individuals ( and , more specifically , where each of A,C,G and T would have a 0.25 probability of occuring ) .
I 'm still relatively confident that something like this takes place , but sometimes you can be just astonished at how stupid people can be.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forgive me that I'm a layperson who didn't RTFA, but this story makes me wonder how they actually arrive at these astronomically low probabilities that the DNA profiles of two different people are accidentally identical?
They wouldn't just include some random base pairs in the profiles and then calculate the probability as p=(1/4)^(number of base pairs), which would not account for the fact that 99.xxx percent of all base pairs are identical in all humans... would they?
I was always assuming that, given that scientists who know what they're doing should have invented this test, there was some sophisticated process that would ensure that they would somehow only choose base pairs from the subset that was actually different in different individuals (and, more specifically, where each of A,C,G and T would have a 0.25 probability of occuring).
I'm still relatively confident that something like this takes place, but sometimes you can be just astonished at how stupid people can be...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1321219_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30708236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1321219_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1321219_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30708288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30708102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1321219_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30708176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1321219_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30710484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1321219_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30708812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1321219_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30708292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30708102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1321219_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30708106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1321219_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30708262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1321219_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30708232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1321219_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1321219_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30709190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1321219_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30763870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1321219_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30709982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1321219_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30709600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1321219_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30708044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1321219_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30709712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1321219_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30763732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1321219_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30708286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1321219_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30708022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1321219_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30710970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1321219_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30709350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1321219_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30708274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1321219_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30708632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1321219_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30709562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1321219_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30708012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1321219_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30709664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1321219_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_1321219.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30708632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30709600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30763732
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_1321219.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30708102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30708292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30708288
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_1321219.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707788
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30708012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30708044
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_1321219.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30708050
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_1321219.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30708236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707736
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30708262
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30708274
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30708176
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30763870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707620
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707976
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30708286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30709562
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_1321219.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30709190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30708022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30709982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707832
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30709350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707892
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30708812
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30708232
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30708106
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30710970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30709664
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_1321219.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30710484
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_1321219.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30708882
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_1321219.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30707506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1321219.30709712
</commentlist>
</conversation>
