<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_15_1811224</id>
	<title>Yale Law Student Wants Government To Have Everybody's DNA</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1268679960000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"Michael Seringhaus, a Yale Law School student, writes in the NY Times, 'To Stop Crime, Share Your Genes.'  In order to prevent discrimination when it comes to collecting DNA samples from criminals (and even people who are simply arrested), <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/15/opinion/15seringhaus.html?ref=opinion&amp;pagewanted=all">he proposes that the government collect a DNA profile</a> from everybody, perhaps at birth (yes, you heard that right)."</i>
Regarding the obvious issue of genetic privacy, Seringhaus makes this argument: "Your sensitive genetic information would be safe. A DNA profile distills a person&rsquo;s complex genomic information down to a set of 26 numerical values, each characterizing the length of a certain repeated sequence of 'junk' DNA that differs from person to person. Although these genetic differences are biologically meaningless &mdash; they don&rsquo;t correlate with any observable characteristics &mdash; tabulating the number of repeats creates a unique identifier, a DNA 'fingerprint.' The genetic privacy risk from such profiling is virtually nil, because these records include none of the health and biological data present in one&rsquo;s genome as a whole."</htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Michael Seringhaus , a Yale Law School student , writes in the NY Times , 'To Stop Crime , Share Your Genes .
' In order to prevent discrimination when it comes to collecting DNA samples from criminals ( and even people who are simply arrested ) , he proposes that the government collect a DNA profile from everybody , perhaps at birth ( yes , you heard that right ) .
" Regarding the obvious issue of genetic privacy , Seringhaus makes this argument : " Your sensitive genetic information would be safe .
A DNA profile distills a person    s complex genomic information down to a set of 26 numerical values , each characterizing the length of a certain repeated sequence of 'junk ' DNA that differs from person to person .
Although these genetic differences are biologically meaningless    they don    t correlate with any observable characteristics    tabulating the number of repeats creates a unique identifier , a DNA 'fingerprint .
' The genetic privacy risk from such profiling is virtually nil , because these records include none of the health and biological data present in one    s genome as a whole .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Michael Seringhaus, a Yale Law School student, writes in the NY Times, 'To Stop Crime, Share Your Genes.
'  In order to prevent discrimination when it comes to collecting DNA samples from criminals (and even people who are simply arrested), he proposes that the government collect a DNA profile from everybody, perhaps at birth (yes, you heard that right).
"
Regarding the obvious issue of genetic privacy, Seringhaus makes this argument: "Your sensitive genetic information would be safe.
A DNA profile distills a person’s complex genomic information down to a set of 26 numerical values, each characterizing the length of a certain repeated sequence of 'junk' DNA that differs from person to person.
Although these genetic differences are biologically meaningless — they don’t correlate with any observable characteristics — tabulating the number of repeats creates a unique identifier, a DNA 'fingerprint.
' The genetic privacy risk from such profiling is virtually nil, because these records include none of the health and biological data present in one’s genome as a whole.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31491118</id>
	<title>Re:Obama likes the idea as well</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1268666520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He never promised he'd change things for the <em>better!</em></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He never promised he 'd change things for the better !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He never promised he'd change things for the better!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485858</id>
	<title>Will not work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268683920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Stick to law, not biology Mr. Seringhaus (and honestly, I'm not too hot on you entering law). The genetic fingerprint works OK for identifying the guilty person out of several suspects, but it does not work if you have everyone on a database. If the chance of two unrelated people having the same fingerprint is (and I don't know the actual number) one in ten million and if you have every American in a database then given a DNA sample you'll get thirty people, twenty nine of which will be dragged into court through no fault of their own. Put simply, this is a profoundly stupid idea.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stick to law , not biology Mr. Seringhaus ( and honestly , I 'm not too hot on you entering law ) .
The genetic fingerprint works OK for identifying the guilty person out of several suspects , but it does not work if you have everyone on a database .
If the chance of two unrelated people having the same fingerprint is ( and I do n't know the actual number ) one in ten million and if you have every American in a database then given a DNA sample you 'll get thirty people , twenty nine of which will be dragged into court through no fault of their own .
Put simply , this is a profoundly stupid idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stick to law, not biology Mr. Seringhaus (and honestly, I'm not too hot on you entering law).
The genetic fingerprint works OK for identifying the guilty person out of several suspects, but it does not work if you have everyone on a database.
If the chance of two unrelated people having the same fingerprint is (and I don't know the actual number) one in ten million and if you have every American in a database then given a DNA sample you'll get thirty people, twenty nine of which will be dragged into court through no fault of their own.
Put simply, this is a profoundly stupid idea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485938</id>
	<title>How does he know it's unique?</title>
	<author>khasim</author>
	<datestamp>1268684160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Before we even get to the Gattaca part, how does he know that this process will result in a unique sequence for every person? Including identical twins?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Before we even get to the Gattaca part , how does he know that this process will result in a unique sequence for every person ?
Including identical twins ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before we even get to the Gattaca part, how does he know that this process will result in a unique sequence for every person?
Including identical twins?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486332</id>
	<title>Every baby I know of gets a prick on the heel</title>
	<author>aarongadberry</author>
	<datestamp>1268685480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And where does the blood from that go?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And where does the blood from that go ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And where does the blood from that go?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486188</id>
	<title>I prefer "Stop Crime, Become Better People"</title>
	<author>eepok</author>
	<datestamp>1268684880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, I do. In an attempt to create a safer society while preventing attempts at "Pre-Crime" and not further taxing our "post-crime" response paradigm, I focus all my attention at education and mentoring students. Instill an appreciation for knowledge of history (and the mistakes of other people), logic (and thus decision-making), and give the kids the tools they need to reject marketing (which tells them they need things they don't... which leads them to be victims of strain).</p><p>The best way to reduce crime? Be better people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , I do .
In an attempt to create a safer society while preventing attempts at " Pre-Crime " and not further taxing our " post-crime " response paradigm , I focus all my attention at education and mentoring students .
Instill an appreciation for knowledge of history ( and the mistakes of other people ) , logic ( and thus decision-making ) , and give the kids the tools they need to reject marketing ( which tells them they need things they do n't... which leads them to be victims of strain ) .The best way to reduce crime ?
Be better people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, I do.
In an attempt to create a safer society while preventing attempts at "Pre-Crime" and not further taxing our "post-crime" response paradigm, I focus all my attention at education and mentoring students.
Instill an appreciation for knowledge of history (and the mistakes of other people), logic (and thus decision-making), and give the kids the tools they need to reject marketing (which tells them they need things they don't... which leads them to be victims of strain).The best way to reduce crime?
Be better people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486024</id>
	<title>other usages</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268684460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any information you share to others can be used against you. I bet that Jewish didn't guess that by getting your name in the temple papers would work against them when the Nazis were searching for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any information you share to others can be used against you .
I bet that Jewish did n't guess that by getting your name in the temple papers would work against them when the Nazis were searching for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any information you share to others can be used against you.
I bet that Jewish didn't guess that by getting your name in the temple papers would work against them when the Nazis were searching for them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31488876</id>
	<title>I'll give the gov't ...</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1268652600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... my DNA. They're just not going to get a reach-around while I'm delivering it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... my DNA .
They 're just not going to get a reach-around while I 'm delivering it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... my DNA.
They're just not going to get a reach-around while I'm delivering it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486100</id>
	<title>Whatcouldpossiblygowrong?</title>
	<author>santax</author>
	<datestamp>1268684700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Come on, where is the tag? You all know this one deserves it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on , where is the tag ?
You all know this one deserves it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on, where is the tag?
You all know this one deserves it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485776</id>
	<title>Dammit...</title>
	<author>Dr. Manhattan</author>
	<datestamp>1268683680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>...my fingers don't even have to be cold and dead to pry my DNA out of them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...my fingers do n't even have to be cold and dead to pry my DNA out of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...my fingers don't even have to be cold and dead to pry my DNA out of them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485760</id>
	<title>Dear Seringhaus, see the movie Gattaca</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268683620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Then feel free to post a retraction to your very naive statement.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then feel free to post a retraction to your very naive statement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then feel free to post a retraction to your very naive statement.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31491956</id>
	<title>Re:This is why...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268674380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Crack open any law school, and you'll find a distribution of craziness on any subject of social discourse just like you'll find anywhere else.</p><p>Still, Yalies tend to pick Yale (over the several other law schools they likely got into) because they want to be in charge of some part of the government some day.  Budding lawyers who just want your money go to other schools.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Crack open any law school , and you 'll find a distribution of craziness on any subject of social discourse just like you 'll find anywhere else.Still , Yalies tend to pick Yale ( over the several other law schools they likely got into ) because they want to be in charge of some part of the government some day .
Budding lawyers who just want your money go to other schools .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Crack open any law school, and you'll find a distribution of craziness on any subject of social discourse just like you'll find anywhere else.Still, Yalies tend to pick Yale (over the several other law schools they likely got into) because they want to be in charge of some part of the government some day.
Budding lawyers who just want your money go to other schools.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486278</id>
	<title>Never mind the Constitution</title>
	<author>netwiz</author>
	<datestamp>1268685300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As I see it, this violates at least one Amendment (#4, right against search and seizure without warrant) and maybe more (I can probably make a case against #6 as a violation of the fact there's no act or cause of accusation and maybe #5 as a violation of my right to not self-incriminate).  This is sick.  This kid should be drummed out of Yale due to his gross misunderstanding of the fundamental tenants of criminal law in the United States.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As I see it , this violates at least one Amendment ( # 4 , right against search and seizure without warrant ) and maybe more ( I can probably make a case against # 6 as a violation of the fact there 's no act or cause of accusation and maybe # 5 as a violation of my right to not self-incriminate ) .
This is sick .
This kid should be drummed out of Yale due to his gross misunderstanding of the fundamental tenants of criminal law in the United States .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I see it, this violates at least one Amendment (#4, right against search and seizure without warrant) and maybe more (I can probably make a case against #6 as a violation of the fact there's no act or cause of accusation and maybe #5 as a violation of my right to not self-incriminate).
This is sick.
This kid should be drummed out of Yale due to his gross misunderstanding of the fundamental tenants of criminal law in the United States.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486580</id>
	<title>At least do it right</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1268686260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
If we're going to have this, this "26 marker" stuff isn't good enough.  Commercially available systems can do over a <a href="http://www.illumina.com/products/human1m\_duo\_dna\_analysis\_beadchip\_kits.ilmn" title="illumina.com">million markers per sample.</a> [illumina.com] "23andMe" uses those. There have been false matches with only 26 markers, but the modern systems that use tens of thousands shouldn't have that problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we 're going to have this , this " 26 marker " stuff is n't good enough .
Commercially available systems can do over a million markers per sample .
[ illumina.com ] " 23andMe " uses those .
There have been false matches with only 26 markers , but the modern systems that use tens of thousands should n't have that problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
If we're going to have this, this "26 marker" stuff isn't good enough.
Commercially available systems can do over a million markers per sample.
[illumina.com] "23andMe" uses those.
There have been false matches with only 26 markers, but the modern systems that use tens of thousands shouldn't have that problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31489620</id>
	<title>I hate those Yale suckers...</title>
	<author>sgt\_doom</author>
	<datestamp>1268656980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>..who wear those super-expensive Burberry trench coats. Mofos.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>..who wear those super-expensive Burberry trench coats .
Mofos.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..who wear those super-expensive Burberry trench coats.
Mofos.....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31490746</id>
	<title>Just checking, citizen!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268663820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, a few strands of junk DNA. Then, a few more, for verification. Until they work up to getting the whole thing - "for your convenience". As with babies' blood, in Texas, recently. Which they didn't care to mention they were doing, apparently.</p><p>I, of course, think it's a great idea - if applied to really big criminals. The ones who actually gleefully cooperate and contribute to wholesale collective mayhem, murder and destruction : corporate assets, big lawyers, bankers, financiers, lobbyists, etc.</p><p>Once caught, we discover that most of them studied at Yale, Harvard, and other institutions of similar standing. And exibit similarities in associations and activities there. Ergo, knowing that many of them shall be instrumental or cumplicit in mass crimes against people's rights and well-being, and against nature itself - they should all, upon entering those institutions, be thoroughly recorded - for future use in judicial proceedings in national or world courts.</p><p>And, when the database leaks, their mini-mes can be<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... ah, never mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , a few strands of junk DNA .
Then , a few more , for verification .
Until they work up to getting the whole thing - " for your convenience " .
As with babies ' blood , in Texas , recently .
Which they did n't care to mention they were doing , apparently.I , of course , think it 's a great idea - if applied to really big criminals .
The ones who actually gleefully cooperate and contribute to wholesale collective mayhem , murder and destruction : corporate assets , big lawyers , bankers , financiers , lobbyists , etc.Once caught , we discover that most of them studied at Yale , Harvard , and other institutions of similar standing .
And exibit similarities in associations and activities there .
Ergo , knowing that many of them shall be instrumental or cumplicit in mass crimes against people 's rights and well-being , and against nature itself - they should all , upon entering those institutions , be thoroughly recorded - for future use in judicial proceedings in national or world courts.And , when the database leaks , their mini-mes can be ... ah , never mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, a few strands of junk DNA.
Then, a few more, for verification.
Until they work up to getting the whole thing - "for your convenience".
As with babies' blood, in Texas, recently.
Which they didn't care to mention they were doing, apparently.I, of course, think it's a great idea - if applied to really big criminals.
The ones who actually gleefully cooperate and contribute to wholesale collective mayhem, murder and destruction : corporate assets, big lawyers, bankers, financiers, lobbyists, etc.Once caught, we discover that most of them studied at Yale, Harvard, and other institutions of similar standing.
And exibit similarities in associations and activities there.
Ergo, knowing that many of them shall be instrumental or cumplicit in mass crimes against people's rights and well-being, and against nature itself - they should all, upon entering those institutions, be thoroughly recorded - for future use in judicial proceedings in national or world courts.And, when the database leaks, their mini-mes can be ... ah, never mind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487652</id>
	<title>Another punk kid that's missing fundementals....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268647200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously.</p><p>Anyone that takes this kind of stuff seriously is also missing some fundamental basics in human rights.... and WHY they're rights.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously.Anyone that takes this kind of stuff seriously is also missing some fundamental basics in human rights.... and WHY they 're rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously.Anyone that takes this kind of stuff seriously is also missing some fundamental basics in human rights.... and WHY they're rights.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31491006</id>
	<title>Re:How does he know it's unique?</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1268665740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed.  If you use the database as a screen to generate suspects, you must not also be allowed to use the same dna comparison results as evidence in the following court case.  Somehow, though, I think this fact will not be anywhere near on the minds of a jury of your "peers."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed .
If you use the database as a screen to generate suspects , you must not also be allowed to use the same dna comparison results as evidence in the following court case .
Somehow , though , I think this fact will not be anywhere near on the minds of a jury of your " peers .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed.
If you use the database as a screen to generate suspects, you must not also be allowed to use the same dna comparison results as evidence in the following court case.
Somehow, though, I think this fact will not be anywhere near on the minds of a jury of your "peers.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486110</id>
	<title>Re:Good Idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268684700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why did the NYT publish this?  Probably because the President of the US just said that he was in favor of   <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/03/obama-supports-dna-sampling-upon-arrest" title="wired.com">getting DNA from every person who is arrested.</a> [wired.com]  Confusing times we live in....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why did the NYT publish this ?
Probably because the President of the US just said that he was in favor of getting DNA from every person who is arrested .
[ wired.com ] Confusing times we live in... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why did the NYT publish this?
Probably because the President of the US just said that he was in favor of   getting DNA from every person who is arrested.
[wired.com]  Confusing times we live in....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31493862</id>
	<title>"Junk" DNA?</title>
	<author>k.a.f.</author>
	<datestamp>1268746800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Regarding the obvious issue of genetic privacy, Seringhaus makes this argument: "Your sensitive genetic information would be safe. A DNA profile distills a person&rsquo;s complex genomic information down to a set of 26 numerical values, each characterizing the length of a certain repeated sequence of 'junk' DNA that differs from person to person. Although these genetic differences are biologically meaningless &mdash; they don&rsquo;t correlate with any observable characteristics</p></div><p>...as far as we know today.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Regarding the obvious issue of genetic privacy , Seringhaus makes this argument : " Your sensitive genetic information would be safe .
A DNA profile distills a person    s complex genomic information down to a set of 26 numerical values , each characterizing the length of a certain repeated sequence of 'junk ' DNA that differs from person to person .
Although these genetic differences are biologically meaningless    they don    t correlate with any observable characteristics...as far as we know today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Regarding the obvious issue of genetic privacy, Seringhaus makes this argument: "Your sensitive genetic information would be safe.
A DNA profile distills a person’s complex genomic information down to a set of 26 numerical values, each characterizing the length of a certain repeated sequence of 'junk' DNA that differs from person to person.
Although these genetic differences are biologically meaningless — they don’t correlate with any observable characteristics...as far as we know today.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31496748</id>
	<title>Re:Obama likes the idea as well</title>
	<author>Hillgiant</author>
	<datestamp>1268758500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>YEAH!</p><p>Next you know they will want samples when they come to take away your guns.</p><p>THEN they will want a sample when they intern you in the FEMA camps.</p><p>Finally, they will get everyone else when the brownshirt fifth column reveals itself and brings everyone in the WHOLE NATION before the death panels!!!1!!!</p><p>Tinfoil is not enough people!  You have to destroy your entire DNA sequence!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>YEAH ! Next you know they will want samples when they come to take away your guns.THEN they will want a sample when they intern you in the FEMA camps.Finally , they will get everyone else when the brownshirt fifth column reveals itself and brings everyone in the WHOLE NATION before the death panels ! ! ! 1 ! !
! Tinfoil is not enough people !
You have to destroy your entire DNA sequence ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>YEAH!Next you know they will want samples when they come to take away your guns.THEN they will want a sample when they intern you in the FEMA camps.Finally, they will get everyone else when the brownshirt fifth column reveals itself and brings everyone in the WHOLE NATION before the death panels!!!1!!
!Tinfoil is not enough people!
You have to destroy your entire DNA sequence!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31492404</id>
	<title>By Neruos</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268681100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Genetic information is just a number and a number never prevented crime. It may help solve it, sure. But it will never prevent crime, never, ever, ever. Social, moral, ethical and ecomonic understanding and change will be the only thing that lowers or stamps out crime as you know it, but it will never remove crime 90\% or even 80\%. The crime you see and the crime reported is a far lower value of the actual crime that is commited.</p><p>When you and the general population understand this, then you will have a better understanding on how to deal with it. I'm sorry Yale-guy, but your theory is bunk junk!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Genetic information is just a number and a number never prevented crime .
It may help solve it , sure .
But it will never prevent crime , never , ever , ever .
Social , moral , ethical and ecomonic understanding and change will be the only thing that lowers or stamps out crime as you know it , but it will never remove crime 90 \ % or even 80 \ % .
The crime you see and the crime reported is a far lower value of the actual crime that is commited.When you and the general population understand this , then you will have a better understanding on how to deal with it .
I 'm sorry Yale-guy , but your theory is bunk junk !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Genetic information is just a number and a number never prevented crime.
It may help solve it, sure.
But it will never prevent crime, never, ever, ever.
Social, moral, ethical and ecomonic understanding and change will be the only thing that lowers or stamps out crime as you know it, but it will never remove crime 90\% or even 80\%.
The crime you see and the crime reported is a far lower value of the actual crime that is commited.When you and the general population understand this, then you will have a better understanding on how to deal with it.
I'm sorry Yale-guy, but your theory is bunk junk!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31507388</id>
	<title>Skull &amp; Bones</title>
	<author>blue\_teeth</author>
	<datestamp>1268835480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yale has Skull &amp; Bones Society right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yale has Skull &amp; Bones Society right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yale has Skull &amp; Bones Society right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486828</id>
	<title>Re:Paternity</title>
	<author>zero\_out</author>
	<datestamp>1268643900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That was already done, on a smallish scale.  I remember reading, a few years ago, about 1 in 10 men in Chicago are raising a child that they believe is theirs, but in fact, is not.  This was based on data collected at a hospital.  I think it was blood tests?  I can't take the time to look up the original study / article at this moment.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That was already done , on a smallish scale .
I remember reading , a few years ago , about 1 in 10 men in Chicago are raising a child that they believe is theirs , but in fact , is not .
This was based on data collected at a hospital .
I think it was blood tests ?
I ca n't take the time to look up the original study / article at this moment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was already done, on a smallish scale.
I remember reading, a few years ago, about 1 in 10 men in Chicago are raising a child that they believe is theirs, but in fact, is not.
This was based on data collected at a hospital.
I think it was blood tests?
I can't take the time to look up the original study / article at this moment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486952</id>
	<title>This guy has Nerd Myopia</title>
	<author>gig</author>
	<datestamp>1268644380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't even need a DNA sample from him to know that.</p><p>If 100\% of society were scientists, maybe this would work. If 100\% of laws were just, maybe this would even result in justice. Neither of these things is true, though.</p><p>If this database existed, cops would simply arrest whoever's DNA they could find at a crime scene. Job done. No messy investigation required. Criminals would frame people by leaving their DNA at crime scenes. Society at large would believe you were guilty because DNA is science. DNA is easier to fake than fingerprints. It's easier to break into your house and collect some hairs than lift your fingerprints. Easier to drop them at a scene.</p><p>Junk sociolgy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't even need a DNA sample from him to know that.If 100 \ % of society were scientists , maybe this would work .
If 100 \ % of laws were just , maybe this would even result in justice .
Neither of these things is true , though.If this database existed , cops would simply arrest whoever 's DNA they could find at a crime scene .
Job done .
No messy investigation required .
Criminals would frame people by leaving their DNA at crime scenes .
Society at large would believe you were guilty because DNA is science .
DNA is easier to fake than fingerprints .
It 's easier to break into your house and collect some hairs than lift your fingerprints .
Easier to drop them at a scene.Junk sociolgy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't even need a DNA sample from him to know that.If 100\% of society were scientists, maybe this would work.
If 100\% of laws were just, maybe this would even result in justice.
Neither of these things is true, though.If this database existed, cops would simply arrest whoever's DNA they could find at a crime scene.
Job done.
No messy investigation required.
Criminals would frame people by leaving their DNA at crime scenes.
Society at large would believe you were guilty because DNA is science.
DNA is easier to fake than fingerprints.
It's easier to break into your house and collect some hairs than lift your fingerprints.
Easier to drop them at a scene.Junk sociolgy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31488172</id>
	<title>Paging the new reincarnation of John Yoo</title>
	<author>colinnwn</author>
	<datestamp>1268649060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That is all...</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is all.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is all...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31490052</id>
	<title>Re:And how useful would it really be?</title>
	<author>Oligonicella</author>
	<datestamp>1268659440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Also there's the fact that DNA tests aren't cheap, or particularly quick."<br> <br>
Neither were fingerprints when I was a kid.  What was your point again?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Also there 's the fact that DNA tests are n't cheap , or particularly quick .
" Neither were fingerprints when I was a kid .
What was your point again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Also there's the fact that DNA tests aren't cheap, or particularly quick.
" 
Neither were fingerprints when I was a kid.
What was your point again?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31488724</id>
	<title>The article itself mentions one big problem...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268651820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Aside from the ability in some cases to determine whether two individuals are closely related, DNA profiles have nothing sensitive to disclose."</p><p>Uh, isn't this a pretty big deal?  I mean, a simple query of the database could find John McCain's illegitimate black baby...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Aside from the ability in some cases to determine whether two individuals are closely related , DNA profiles have nothing sensitive to disclose .
" Uh , is n't this a pretty big deal ?
I mean , a simple query of the database could find John McCain 's illegitimate black baby.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Aside from the ability in some cases to determine whether two individuals are closely related, DNA profiles have nothing sensitive to disclose.
"Uh, isn't this a pretty big deal?
I mean, a simple query of the database could find John McCain's illegitimate black baby...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486350</id>
	<title>Political Correctness Taken Too Far</title>
	<author>chill</author>
	<datestamp>1268685540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>His main argument against storing DNA of only convicted criminals is that there aren't enough white criminals, so the idea is racist.  This entire premise makes me want to puke.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>His main argument against storing DNA of only convicted criminals is that there are n't enough white criminals , so the idea is racist .
This entire premise makes me want to puke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His main argument against storing DNA of only convicted criminals is that there aren't enough white criminals, so the idea is racist.
This entire premise makes me want to puke.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486546</id>
	<title>To be free...</title>
	<author>SeeManRun</author>
	<datestamp>1268686200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To be free you have to be free to commit crime.  This idea isn't making it impossible to commit crime, but you are giving up too much in the hopes of finding more criminals, and turning people into being afraid to commit crime so they stop.  That seems to be the goal of this, make detection so perfect that criminals know they will get caught.  Sounds like DRM, and we know that has worked perfectly.

Why not spend money on reducing the incentive for crime rather than battling criminals.  The theory of taking away the incentive (make sure people have access to jobs and homes if they want them) is just as sound as the theory all criminals can be found with a DNA database.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To be free you have to be free to commit crime .
This idea is n't making it impossible to commit crime , but you are giving up too much in the hopes of finding more criminals , and turning people into being afraid to commit crime so they stop .
That seems to be the goal of this , make detection so perfect that criminals know they will get caught .
Sounds like DRM , and we know that has worked perfectly .
Why not spend money on reducing the incentive for crime rather than battling criminals .
The theory of taking away the incentive ( make sure people have access to jobs and homes if they want them ) is just as sound as the theory all criminals can be found with a DNA database .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be free you have to be free to commit crime.
This idea isn't making it impossible to commit crime, but you are giving up too much in the hopes of finding more criminals, and turning people into being afraid to commit crime so they stop.
That seems to be the goal of this, make detection so perfect that criminals know they will get caught.
Sounds like DRM, and we know that has worked perfectly.
Why not spend money on reducing the incentive for crime rather than battling criminals.
The theory of taking away the incentive (make sure people have access to jobs and homes if they want them) is just as sound as the theory all criminals can be found with a DNA database.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31493690</id>
	<title>Prevent crime - execute every child at birth!</title>
	<author>piotru</author>
	<datestamp>1268745060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After less than 15 decades, all crime would disappear. Guaranteed.</p><p>Does every idiot deserve mention on Slashdot?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After less than 15 decades , all crime would disappear .
Guaranteed.Does every idiot deserve mention on Slashdot ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After less than 15 decades, all crime would disappear.
Guaranteed.Does every idiot deserve mention on Slashdot?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31488690</id>
	<title>Re:Awwwww, hes just so cute and innocent...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268651580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Trust your government.</p><p>Love your leader.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Trust your government.Love your leader .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trust your government.Love your leader.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486388</id>
	<title>Re:Will not work</title>
	<author>jhutcheson</author>
	<datestamp>1268685660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Before taking such shots on a person instead of the issue, you should always at least Google...</p><blockquote><div><p>Michael Seringhaus [i]s a third-year student at Yale Law School, where he serves as an executive editor of the Yale Journal of Law and Technology (YJoLT) and a co-director of the Green Haven Prison Project, as well as the Trumbull College Graduate Affiliate Coordinator.
He completed his PhD and a short post-doc in Mark Gerstein's bioinformatics group in the Department of Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry at Yale University in 2007.  He did his undergraduate work at Trinity College, University of Toronto and thereafter spent a year as lead bioinformatics scientist at Affinium Pharmaceuticals in Toronto.</p></div></blockquote><p>Looks like he may have the credentials (one of the top law schools, editor of a law journal on law &amp; tech, and... a PhD in bioinformatics) to at least get past your initial objection.</p><p>As to your other objection, and I'm not saying I agree with his central thesis, there are other factors that would likely eliminate the false positive issue (esp. if it's upwards of 1:1,000,000,000) - physical location (if your passport says you were out of the country when the crime occurred, surveillance tape has you at a retail store across town, etc.), other physical evidence at the crime scene, etc.</p><p>I should probably concede that there's that extremely distant chance that your DNA doppelganger could live in the same neighborhood, frequent the same social circles, and commit a crime in which you have no alibi and there's no other evidence aside from some trace DNA.  That would be a real bummer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Before taking such shots on a person instead of the issue , you should always at least Google...Michael Seringhaus [ i ] s a third-year student at Yale Law School , where he serves as an executive editor of the Yale Journal of Law and Technology ( YJoLT ) and a co-director of the Green Haven Prison Project , as well as the Trumbull College Graduate Affiliate Coordinator .
He completed his PhD and a short post-doc in Mark Gerstein 's bioinformatics group in the Department of Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry at Yale University in 2007 .
He did his undergraduate work at Trinity College , University of Toronto and thereafter spent a year as lead bioinformatics scientist at Affinium Pharmaceuticals in Toronto.Looks like he may have the credentials ( one of the top law schools , editor of a law journal on law &amp; tech , and... a PhD in bioinformatics ) to at least get past your initial objection.As to your other objection , and I 'm not saying I agree with his central thesis , there are other factors that would likely eliminate the false positive issue ( esp .
if it 's upwards of 1 : 1,000,000,000 ) - physical location ( if your passport says you were out of the country when the crime occurred , surveillance tape has you at a retail store across town , etc .
) , other physical evidence at the crime scene , etc.I should probably concede that there 's that extremely distant chance that your DNA doppelganger could live in the same neighborhood , frequent the same social circles , and commit a crime in which you have no alibi and there 's no other evidence aside from some trace DNA .
That would be a real bummer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before taking such shots on a person instead of the issue, you should always at least Google...Michael Seringhaus [i]s a third-year student at Yale Law School, where he serves as an executive editor of the Yale Journal of Law and Technology (YJoLT) and a co-director of the Green Haven Prison Project, as well as the Trumbull College Graduate Affiliate Coordinator.
He completed his PhD and a short post-doc in Mark Gerstein's bioinformatics group in the Department of Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry at Yale University in 2007.
He did his undergraduate work at Trinity College, University of Toronto and thereafter spent a year as lead bioinformatics scientist at Affinium Pharmaceuticals in Toronto.Looks like he may have the credentials (one of the top law schools, editor of a law journal on law &amp; tech, and... a PhD in bioinformatics) to at least get past your initial objection.As to your other objection, and I'm not saying I agree with his central thesis, there are other factors that would likely eliminate the false positive issue (esp.
if it's upwards of 1:1,000,000,000) - physical location (if your passport says you were out of the country when the crime occurred, surveillance tape has you at a retail store across town, etc.
), other physical evidence at the crime scene, etc.I should probably concede that there's that extremely distant chance that your DNA doppelganger could live in the same neighborhood, frequent the same social circles, and commit a crime in which you have no alibi and there's no other evidence aside from some trace DNA.
That would be a real bummer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485862</id>
	<title>What a coincidence!</title>
	<author>GodfatherofSoul</author>
	<datestamp>1268683920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just watched <i>1984</i> last night.  Freedom is Slavery!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just watched 1984 last night .
Freedom is Slavery !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just watched 1984 last night.
Freedom is Slavery!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487602</id>
	<title>Re:Awwwww, hes just so cute and innocent...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268646960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even your assumptions are making assumptions...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>1) A sample will be destroyed after it is used to create a DNA profile.<br>2) Only law enforcement will have access<br>3) Since more Americans are in the database there is a less likelihood of government misuse.</p></div><p>1)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and it will never be possible to re-create that DNA just from the information alone<br>2)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and law enforcement will never misuse the data.<br>3)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and America will remain uncorrupted (well, more so than most) and will also never misuse the data.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even your assumptions are making assumptions...1 ) A sample will be destroyed after it is used to create a DNA profile.2 ) Only law enforcement will have access3 ) Since more Americans are in the database there is a less likelihood of government misuse.1 ) ... and it will never be possible to re-create that DNA just from the information alone2 ) ... and law enforcement will never misuse the data.3 ) ... and America will remain uncorrupted ( well , more so than most ) and will also never misuse the data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even your assumptions are making assumptions...1) A sample will be destroyed after it is used to create a DNA profile.2) Only law enforcement will have access3) Since more Americans are in the database there is a less likelihood of government misuse.1) ... and it will never be possible to re-create that DNA just from the information alone2) ... and law enforcement will never misuse the data.3) ... and America will remain uncorrupted (well, more so than most) and will also never misuse the data.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31489912</id>
	<title>Student says something stupid and controversial</title>
	<author>Tim C</author>
	<datestamp>1268658720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Film at 11.</p><p>Seriously, who is this guy and why do I care what he says? Because he's at a prestigious university? Wooo, so was I, whoopy-fucking-doo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Film at 11.Seriously , who is this guy and why do I care what he says ?
Because he 's at a prestigious university ?
Wooo , so was I , whoopy-fucking-doo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Film at 11.Seriously, who is this guy and why do I care what he says?
Because he's at a prestigious university?
Wooo, so was I, whoopy-fucking-doo.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487050</id>
	<title>Re:Will not work</title>
	<author>Fujisawa Sensei</author>
	<datestamp>1268644740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Stick to law, not biology Mr. Seringhaus (and honestly, I'm not too hot on you entering law). The genetic fingerprint works OK for identifying the guilty person out of several suspects, but it does not work if you have everyone on a database. If the chance of two unrelated people having the same fingerprint is (and I don't know the actual number) one in ten million and if you have every American in a database then given a DNA sample you'll get thirty people, twenty nine of which will be dragged into court through no fault of their own. Put simply, this is a profoundly stupid idea.</p></div><p>Of course its profoundly stupid; he's in Yale.</p><p>That means he's never actually going to have to work for a living because his family has plenty of $$$, and enough connections to get him a high paying job as a partner is a law firm where just has to make nice with his country club golf buddies, and get contracts signed.</p><p>My guess would be he already has money or connections someplace to make a huge amount of money from this; if he isn't already.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stick to law , not biology Mr. Seringhaus ( and honestly , I 'm not too hot on you entering law ) .
The genetic fingerprint works OK for identifying the guilty person out of several suspects , but it does not work if you have everyone on a database .
If the chance of two unrelated people having the same fingerprint is ( and I do n't know the actual number ) one in ten million and if you have every American in a database then given a DNA sample you 'll get thirty people , twenty nine of which will be dragged into court through no fault of their own .
Put simply , this is a profoundly stupid idea.Of course its profoundly stupid ; he 's in Yale.That means he 's never actually going to have to work for a living because his family has plenty of $ $ $ , and enough connections to get him a high paying job as a partner is a law firm where just has to make nice with his country club golf buddies , and get contracts signed.My guess would be he already has money or connections someplace to make a huge amount of money from this ; if he is n't already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stick to law, not biology Mr. Seringhaus (and honestly, I'm not too hot on you entering law).
The genetic fingerprint works OK for identifying the guilty person out of several suspects, but it does not work if you have everyone on a database.
If the chance of two unrelated people having the same fingerprint is (and I don't know the actual number) one in ten million and if you have every American in a database then given a DNA sample you'll get thirty people, twenty nine of which will be dragged into court through no fault of their own.
Put simply, this is a profoundly stupid idea.Of course its profoundly stupid; he's in Yale.That means he's never actually going to have to work for a living because his family has plenty of $$$, and enough connections to get him a high paying job as a partner is a law firm where just has to make nice with his country club golf buddies, and get contracts signed.My guess would be he already has money or connections someplace to make a huge amount of money from this; if he isn't already.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485816</id>
	<title>Good Idea</title>
	<author>afabbro</author>
	<datestamp>1268683800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally, I'm in favor of this.  Vast numbers of sex offenders and other criminals would be swiftly caught and punished.  Oh wait, this is America - well, they'd be caught anyway.  It's a privacy-vs-justice tradeoff I'm willing to make.</p><p>However, there is a much larger question here...<b>who the frack cares what a college student has to say?</b> </p><p>In other news, my barber thinks 9/11 was a conspiracy by the Bush administration.  New York Times, I expect to see an editorial written by him published soon.</p><p>BTW, what's with the editorial "yes, you heard that right" - as if this is a completely shocking idea that hasn't been proposed about a hundred times.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I 'm in favor of this .
Vast numbers of sex offenders and other criminals would be swiftly caught and punished .
Oh wait , this is America - well , they 'd be caught anyway .
It 's a privacy-vs-justice tradeoff I 'm willing to make.However , there is a much larger question here...who the frack cares what a college student has to say ?
In other news , my barber thinks 9/11 was a conspiracy by the Bush administration .
New York Times , I expect to see an editorial written by him published soon.BTW , what 's with the editorial " yes , you heard that right " - as if this is a completely shocking idea that has n't been proposed about a hundred times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I'm in favor of this.
Vast numbers of sex offenders and other criminals would be swiftly caught and punished.
Oh wait, this is America - well, they'd be caught anyway.
It's a privacy-vs-justice tradeoff I'm willing to make.However, there is a much larger question here...who the frack cares what a college student has to say?
In other news, my barber thinks 9/11 was a conspiracy by the Bush administration.
New York Times, I expect to see an editorial written by him published soon.BTW, what's with the editorial "yes, you heard that right" - as if this is a completely shocking idea that hasn't been proposed about a hundred times.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485978</id>
	<title>Re:Dammit...</title>
	<author>NotBornYesterday</author>
	<datestamp>1268684280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's got to be a masturbation joke somewhere in there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's got to be a masturbation joke somewhere in there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's got to be a masturbation joke somewhere in there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487684</id>
	<title>Re:And how useful would it really be?</title>
	<author>chrb</author>
	<datestamp>1268647320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The less data you have from the DNA, the more matches you are going to find.... Now that's usually pretty good, like 1 in a million or something. However not so useful if your sample size is 300,000,000 and growing.</p></div><p>Even reducing the whole genotype to 10 regions provides enough data to differentiate between most individuals:</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA\_profiling" title="wikipedia.org">wiki:</a> [wikipedia.org]"for unrelated individuals with full matching DNA profiles a match probability of 1 in a billion is considered statistically supportable  (Since 1998 the DNA profiling system supported by The National DNA Database in the UK is the SGM+ DNA profiling system which includes 10 STR regions and a sex indicating test."</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Also there's the fact that DNA tests aren't cheap, or particularly quick. They aren't the kind of thing you can use for every criminal case, it'd be way too expensive, not to mention unnecessary.</p> </div><p>As somebody already mentioned, everybody in the U.K. is DNA fingerprinted when taken into custody (not even necessarily charged). The cost of sampling the whole nation has been estimated at <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6999703.stm" title="bbc.co.uk">&pound;700 million</a> [bbc.co.uk]. For comparison the Iraq war has cost Britain around <a href="http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/british-pm-insists-iraq-war-was-right-decision-20100306-pp4a.html" title="smh.com.au">&pound;8 billion</a> [smh.com.au]. So &pound;700 million is easily doable if there is the political will.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The less data you have from the DNA , the more matches you are going to find.... Now that 's usually pretty good , like 1 in a million or something .
However not so useful if your sample size is 300,000,000 and growing.Even reducing the whole genotype to 10 regions provides enough data to differentiate between most individuals : wiki : [ wikipedia.org ] " for unrelated individuals with full matching DNA profiles a match probability of 1 in a billion is considered statistically supportable ( Since 1998 the DNA profiling system supported by The National DNA Database in the UK is the SGM + DNA profiling system which includes 10 STR regions and a sex indicating test .
" Also there 's the fact that DNA tests are n't cheap , or particularly quick .
They are n't the kind of thing you can use for every criminal case , it 'd be way too expensive , not to mention unnecessary .
As somebody already mentioned , everybody in the U.K. is DNA fingerprinted when taken into custody ( not even necessarily charged ) .
The cost of sampling the whole nation has been estimated at   700 million [ bbc.co.uk ] .
For comparison the Iraq war has cost Britain around   8 billion [ smh.com.au ] .
So   700 million is easily doable if there is the political will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The less data you have from the DNA, the more matches you are going to find.... Now that's usually pretty good, like 1 in a million or something.
However not so useful if your sample size is 300,000,000 and growing.Even reducing the whole genotype to 10 regions provides enough data to differentiate between most individuals:wiki: [wikipedia.org]"for unrelated individuals with full matching DNA profiles a match probability of 1 in a billion is considered statistically supportable  (Since 1998 the DNA profiling system supported by The National DNA Database in the UK is the SGM+ DNA profiling system which includes 10 STR regions and a sex indicating test.
"Also there's the fact that DNA tests aren't cheap, or particularly quick.
They aren't the kind of thing you can use for every criminal case, it'd be way too expensive, not to mention unnecessary.
As somebody already mentioned, everybody in the U.K. is DNA fingerprinted when taken into custody (not even necessarily charged).
The cost of sampling the whole nation has been estimated at £700 million [bbc.co.uk].
For comparison the Iraq war has cost Britain around £8 billion [smh.com.au].
So £700 million is easily doable if there is the political will.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487194</id>
	<title>No, they have learned</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1268645340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forget, some people WANT the outcome most of us are trying to avoid. And those people DO learn from history, and human nature..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forget , some people WANT the outcome most of us are trying to avoid .
And those people DO learn from history , and human nature. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forget, some people WANT the outcome most of us are trying to avoid.
And those people DO learn from history, and human nature..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485792</id>
	<title>Until...</title>
	<author>Xamusk</author>
	<datestamp>1268683740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Until someone eventually find a use for that so-called "junk" DNA.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Until someone eventually find a use for that so-called " junk " DNA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until someone eventually find a use for that so-called "junk" DNA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486040</id>
	<title>Re:Awwwww, hes just so cute and innocent...</title>
	<author>Yvan256</author>
	<datestamp>1268684520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>More like hypothetical requirements for an argument, like, the Sun will be Purple tomorrow.</p></div></blockquote><p>Crap, everybody paint their windows yellow, quick!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>More like hypothetical requirements for an argument , like , the Sun will be Purple tomorrow.Crap , everybody paint their windows yellow , quick !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More like hypothetical requirements for an argument, like, the Sun will be Purple tomorrow.Crap, everybody paint their windows yellow, quick!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486732</id>
	<title>Re:How does he know it's unique?</title>
	<author>FrankSchwab</author>
	<datestamp>1268686740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's the CSI belief.</p><p>Now, for reality:<br><a href="http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci\_10026634" title="denverpost.com">http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci\_10026634</a> [denverpost.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the CSI belief.Now , for reality : http : //www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci \ _10026634 [ denverpost.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the CSI belief.Now, for reality:http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci\_10026634 [denverpost.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486982</id>
	<title>Yale sure knows how to churn 'em out</title>
	<author>Black Sabbath</author>
	<datestamp>1268644440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe he wants to follow in the illustrious path of this former alumnus:<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John\_Yoo#Regarding\_torture\_of\_detainees\_and\_children\_of\_detainees" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John\_Yoo#Regarding\_torture\_of\_detainees\_and\_children\_of\_detainees</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe he wants to follow in the illustrious path of this former alumnus : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John \ _Yoo # Regarding \ _torture \ _of \ _detainees \ _and \ _children \ _of \ _detainees [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe he wants to follow in the illustrious path of this former alumnus:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John\_Yoo#Regarding\_torture\_of\_detainees\_and\_children\_of\_detainees [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31489366</id>
	<title>Time for a retrovirus.</title>
	<author>mhajicek</author>
	<datestamp>1268655480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How long until someone comes up with a retrovirus that will change the length of your "random strings" without significantly altering the function of your genome?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How long until someone comes up with a retrovirus that will change the length of your " random strings " without significantly altering the function of your genome ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How long until someone comes up with a retrovirus that will change the length of your "random strings" without significantly altering the function of your genome?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31502590</id>
	<title>Already Done.</title>
	<author>pubwvj</author>
	<datestamp>1268740080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They've been doing this to American citizens for years. If you were born in a US hospital, or went in for tests, they probably already have your DNA on file. Of course, the government will never abuse the power they have. Thrust them. Hard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 've been doing this to American citizens for years .
If you were born in a US hospital , or went in for tests , they probably already have your DNA on file .
Of course , the government will never abuse the power they have .
Thrust them .
Hard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They've been doing this to American citizens for years.
If you were born in a US hospital, or went in for tests, they probably already have your DNA on file.
Of course, the government will never abuse the power they have.
Thrust them.
Hard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486836</id>
	<title>Obama likes the idea as well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268643900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/03/obama-supports-dna-sampling-upon-arrest" title="wired.com">http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/03/obama-supports-dna-sampling-upon-arrest</a> [wired.com]</p><p>At the moment it is *just* upon arrest... how's that hope and change working out for you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/03/obama-supports-dna-sampling-upon-arrest [ wired.com ] At the moment it is * just * upon arrest... how 's that hope and change working out for you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/03/obama-supports-dna-sampling-upon-arrest [wired.com]At the moment it is *just* upon arrest... how's that hope and change working out for you?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31491632</id>
	<title>what is it with Yale?</title>
	<author>retchdog</author>
	<datestamp>1268671020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I went to a statistical genetics talk by a Yale postdoc and it was almost completely lies about the state-of-the-art, invented to prop up his trivial result.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I went to a statistical genetics talk by a Yale postdoc and it was almost completely lies about the state-of-the-art , invented to prop up his trivial result .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I went to a statistical genetics talk by a Yale postdoc and it was almost completely lies about the state-of-the-art, invented to prop up his trivial result.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486302</id>
	<title>And in other news..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268685420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>..this law-abiding citizen wants that Yale law student to kiss my ass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>..this law-abiding citizen wants that Yale law student to kiss my ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..this law-abiding citizen wants that Yale law student to kiss my ass.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486064</id>
	<title>Re:Will not work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268684580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>" the chance of two unrelated people having the same fingerprint is (and I don't know the actual number) one in ten million and if you have every American in a database then given a DNA sample you'll get thirty people, twenty nine of which will be dragged into court through no fault of their own. Put simply, this is a profoundly stupid idea.'</p><p>Wow. So you have no clue about the actual overlap rate, have no clue if the author does, and then conclude his idea is dumb.</p><p>I marvel at the logic of you and the person who modded you up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" the chance of two unrelated people having the same fingerprint is ( and I do n't know the actual number ) one in ten million and if you have every American in a database then given a DNA sample you 'll get thirty people , twenty nine of which will be dragged into court through no fault of their own .
Put simply , this is a profoundly stupid idea.'Wow .
So you have no clue about the actual overlap rate , have no clue if the author does , and then conclude his idea is dumb.I marvel at the logic of you and the person who modded you up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" the chance of two unrelated people having the same fingerprint is (and I don't know the actual number) one in ten million and if you have every American in a database then given a DNA sample you'll get thirty people, twenty nine of which will be dragged into court through no fault of their own.
Put simply, this is a profoundly stupid idea.'Wow.
So you have no clue about the actual overlap rate, have no clue if the author does, and then conclude his idea is dumb.I marvel at the logic of you and the person who modded you up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486462</id>
	<title>Re:Will not work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268685960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(and I don't know the actual number)</p><p>Wow. So you have no clue about the actual overlap rate</p></div><p>No, he said he doesn't know the exact number. Just like I don't know (without using google) what the exact diameter of the earth is, but I do know it's about 8000 miles. Likewise, I remember hearing before this bit of info about DNA, and I know the "uniqueness" is only true to some degree in the millions. I couldn't tell you if it's 5 million, 50 million, or 500 million, but I DO know that there will be other people in the world that match.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( and I do n't know the actual number ) Wow .
So you have no clue about the actual overlap rateNo , he said he does n't know the exact number .
Just like I do n't know ( without using google ) what the exact diameter of the earth is , but I do know it 's about 8000 miles .
Likewise , I remember hearing before this bit of info about DNA , and I know the " uniqueness " is only true to some degree in the millions .
I could n't tell you if it 's 5 million , 50 million , or 500 million , but I DO know that there will be other people in the world that match .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(and I don't know the actual number)Wow.
So you have no clue about the actual overlap rateNo, he said he doesn't know the exact number.
Just like I don't know (without using google) what the exact diameter of the earth is, but I do know it's about 8000 miles.
Likewise, I remember hearing before this bit of info about DNA, and I know the "uniqueness" is only true to some degree in the millions.
I couldn't tell you if it's 5 million, 50 million, or 500 million, but I DO know that there will be other people in the world that match.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486652</id>
	<title>You got it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268686500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The birthday collision illustrated:<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday\_problem" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday\_problem</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Even with 365 days a year, there is 50\% probability that two people will have the same birthday in any random group of 23 people.</p><p>Now take 300 million people right now in the USofA.</p><p>Where is the evidence that these strings of "junk" DNA really are that unique?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The birthday collision illustrated : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday \ _problem [ wikipedia.org ] Even with 365 days a year , there is 50 \ % probability that two people will have the same birthday in any random group of 23 people.Now take 300 million people right now in the USofA.Where is the evidence that these strings of " junk " DNA really are that unique ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The birthday collision illustrated:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday\_problem [wikipedia.org]Even with 365 days a year, there is 50\% probability that two people will have the same birthday in any random group of 23 people.Now take 300 million people right now in the USofA.Where is the evidence that these strings of "junk" DNA really are that unique?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31489946</id>
	<title>This will not work.</title>
	<author>DamnStupidElf</author>
	<datestamp>1268658960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The simple reason is that the government already has trouble finding people when they have 1) a picture, 2) a last known address, and 3) their DNA on file from previous crimes.  You know that whole FBI most wanted list?  That would still be around if every one of the people on it had their DNA fingerprinted when they were born.<br>
<br>
Expect to routinely get pricked at every security checkpoint or if you're declared a "person of interest", because the only way that DNA fingerprints help law enforcement identify fugitives is if they randomly sample anyone who might be a fugitive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The simple reason is that the government already has trouble finding people when they have 1 ) a picture , 2 ) a last known address , and 3 ) their DNA on file from previous crimes .
You know that whole FBI most wanted list ?
That would still be around if every one of the people on it had their DNA fingerprinted when they were born .
Expect to routinely get pricked at every security checkpoint or if you 're declared a " person of interest " , because the only way that DNA fingerprints help law enforcement identify fugitives is if they randomly sample anyone who might be a fugitive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The simple reason is that the government already has trouble finding people when they have 1) a picture, 2) a last known address, and 3) their DNA on file from previous crimes.
You know that whole FBI most wanted list?
That would still be around if every one of the people on it had their DNA fingerprinted when they were born.
Expect to routinely get pricked at every security checkpoint or if you're declared a "person of interest", because the only way that DNA fingerprints help law enforcement identify fugitives is if they randomly sample anyone who might be a fugitive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487120</id>
	<title>Hash collision</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268645040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yay. Now I have to explain to my wife why my kids are dead in a shoot out with the SWAT team due to the fact my DNA had a hash collision with a terrorist half a world away.</p><p>Thanks America.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yay .
Now I have to explain to my wife why my kids are dead in a shoot out with the SWAT team due to the fact my DNA had a hash collision with a terrorist half a world away.Thanks America .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yay.
Now I have to explain to my wife why my kids are dead in a shoot out with the SWAT team due to the fact my DNA had a hash collision with a terrorist half a world away.Thanks America.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31488056</id>
	<title>Re:Awwwww, hes just so cute and innocent...</title>
	<author>Nefarious Wheel</author>
	<datestamp>1268648700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Recently and ongoing, there's been work to try to discover some genetic predilection to particular behaviours. Things like a "entrepreneurial gene", a "thief gene", a "rapist gene", and so on. Wouldn't it be awkward if everyone's genetic fingerprint were encoded on the genes which encode for predilection to discover holes in crackpot genetic crime prevention theories?</p></div><p>At the risk of invoking Godwin, I'm going to point out that a certain party during WWII had determined - via phrenology and other pseudoscientific means - that certain classes of people were fundamentally flawed, and proposed an ultimate solution to their quality of life issues were (a) more room to live (lebensraum) and (b) removal of the people classified as defective from society.</p><p>The first step was to invade a peaceful neighboring country, the second was by systematic removal of people of certain genetic types, "geno-cide". This removal involved transporting people via rail freight cars and interring them in landfill, after removing any valuables (such as gold teeth) first.</p><p>People, classifying people in <i>any</i> way is dangerous.  Institutionalising the classification of people is pernicious.  And if that pan has a handle, people will carry with it.</p><p>If you put people in boxes, pretty soon you'll see a lot of people in boxes.  </p><p>Stop this insanity now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Recently and ongoing , there 's been work to try to discover some genetic predilection to particular behaviours .
Things like a " entrepreneurial gene " , a " thief gene " , a " rapist gene " , and so on .
Would n't it be awkward if everyone 's genetic fingerprint were encoded on the genes which encode for predilection to discover holes in crackpot genetic crime prevention theories ? At the risk of invoking Godwin , I 'm going to point out that a certain party during WWII had determined - via phrenology and other pseudoscientific means - that certain classes of people were fundamentally flawed , and proposed an ultimate solution to their quality of life issues were ( a ) more room to live ( lebensraum ) and ( b ) removal of the people classified as defective from society.The first step was to invade a peaceful neighboring country , the second was by systematic removal of people of certain genetic types , " geno-cide " .
This removal involved transporting people via rail freight cars and interring them in landfill , after removing any valuables ( such as gold teeth ) first.People , classifying people in any way is dangerous .
Institutionalising the classification of people is pernicious .
And if that pan has a handle , people will carry with it.If you put people in boxes , pretty soon you 'll see a lot of people in boxes .
Stop this insanity now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Recently and ongoing, there's been work to try to discover some genetic predilection to particular behaviours.
Things like a "entrepreneurial gene", a "thief gene", a "rapist gene", and so on.
Wouldn't it be awkward if everyone's genetic fingerprint were encoded on the genes which encode for predilection to discover holes in crackpot genetic crime prevention theories?At the risk of invoking Godwin, I'm going to point out that a certain party during WWII had determined - via phrenology and other pseudoscientific means - that certain classes of people were fundamentally flawed, and proposed an ultimate solution to their quality of life issues were (a) more room to live (lebensraum) and (b) removal of the people classified as defective from society.The first step was to invade a peaceful neighboring country, the second was by systematic removal of people of certain genetic types, "geno-cide".
This removal involved transporting people via rail freight cars and interring them in landfill, after removing any valuables (such as gold teeth) first.People, classifying people in any way is dangerous.
Institutionalising the classification of people is pernicious.
And if that pan has a handle, people will carry with it.If you put people in boxes, pretty soon you'll see a lot of people in boxes.
Stop this insanity now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486900</id>
	<title>Re:And how useful would it really be?</title>
	<author>mea37</author>
	<datestamp>1268644140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't get me wrong, I think the idea of a universal DNA database is insane.  However, as always, I dislike arguments that are poorly thought out even when I agree with their conslusions, largely because they somehow become the arguments the other side wants to talk about.</p><p>So let's get this out of the way:</p><p>1) Just because you collect everyone's DNA, doesn't mean that your sample size when running a DNA test is "300,000,000 and growing".  In the context of a specific crime, you would do your preliminary work of identifying suspects the same way you do it today.  Maybe you get it down to five guys, and run their profiles (exactly the use case you listed as workable); maybe you even get it down to one guy, but the DNA profile is what pushes you over the "reasonable doubt" line.</p><p>2) You wouldn't have to do DNA tests in every criminal case to make this idea useful.  I can't imagine that anyone's going to argue for use of DNA in every criminal case; in many cases it doesn't even make sense that there would be DNA evidence.  But in some cases DNA evidence makes a lot of sense, and in many of those it's used today.  Even if you only use DNA in the same cases where it's done today, the fact that you don't have to collect a DNA sample first - and presumably then don't have to worry about "discriminating" in some way against your suspect(s) - is the supposed advantage of this system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't get me wrong , I think the idea of a universal DNA database is insane .
However , as always , I dislike arguments that are poorly thought out even when I agree with their conslusions , largely because they somehow become the arguments the other side wants to talk about.So let 's get this out of the way : 1 ) Just because you collect everyone 's DNA , does n't mean that your sample size when running a DNA test is " 300,000,000 and growing " .
In the context of a specific crime , you would do your preliminary work of identifying suspects the same way you do it today .
Maybe you get it down to five guys , and run their profiles ( exactly the use case you listed as workable ) ; maybe you even get it down to one guy , but the DNA profile is what pushes you over the " reasonable doubt " line.2 ) You would n't have to do DNA tests in every criminal case to make this idea useful .
I ca n't imagine that anyone 's going to argue for use of DNA in every criminal case ; in many cases it does n't even make sense that there would be DNA evidence .
But in some cases DNA evidence makes a lot of sense , and in many of those it 's used today .
Even if you only use DNA in the same cases where it 's done today , the fact that you do n't have to collect a DNA sample first - and presumably then do n't have to worry about " discriminating " in some way against your suspect ( s ) - is the supposed advantage of this system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't get me wrong, I think the idea of a universal DNA database is insane.
However, as always, I dislike arguments that are poorly thought out even when I agree with their conslusions, largely because they somehow become the arguments the other side wants to talk about.So let's get this out of the way:1) Just because you collect everyone's DNA, doesn't mean that your sample size when running a DNA test is "300,000,000 and growing".
In the context of a specific crime, you would do your preliminary work of identifying suspects the same way you do it today.
Maybe you get it down to five guys, and run their profiles (exactly the use case you listed as workable); maybe you even get it down to one guy, but the DNA profile is what pushes you over the "reasonable doubt" line.2) You wouldn't have to do DNA tests in every criminal case to make this idea useful.
I can't imagine that anyone's going to argue for use of DNA in every criminal case; in many cases it doesn't even make sense that there would be DNA evidence.
But in some cases DNA evidence makes a lot of sense, and in many of those it's used today.
Even if you only use DNA in the same cases where it's done today, the fact that you don't have to collect a DNA sample first - and presumably then don't have to worry about "discriminating" in some way against your suspect(s) - is the supposed advantage of this system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486222</id>
	<title>Re:Awwwww, hes just so cute and innocent...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268685060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Has not the goverment been caught time and time and time again abusing databases by using them for purposes well outside of the justifications and reasons for their initial creation? Doesn't the goverment quite frequently change their minds about what they will do with resources after the fact?</p></div><p>Not only that but how many times have we seen an employee leave a laptop full of information in their car overnight only to discover it gone in the morning?   I'm not sure I trust the government employees to keep it secure even if they have the best of intentions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Has not the goverment been caught time and time and time again abusing databases by using them for purposes well outside of the justifications and reasons for their initial creation ?
Does n't the goverment quite frequently change their minds about what they will do with resources after the fact ? Not only that but how many times have we seen an employee leave a laptop full of information in their car overnight only to discover it gone in the morning ?
I 'm not sure I trust the government employees to keep it secure even if they have the best of intentions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has not the goverment been caught time and time and time again abusing databases by using them for purposes well outside of the justifications and reasons for their initial creation?
Doesn't the goverment quite frequently change their minds about what they will do with resources after the fact?Not only that but how many times have we seen an employee leave a laptop full of information in their car overnight only to discover it gone in the morning?
I'm not sure I trust the government employees to keep it secure even if they have the best of intentions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485758</id>
	<title>Good for him...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268683620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd for everyone to have a million dollars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd for everyone to have a million dollars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd for everyone to have a million dollars.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31492288</id>
	<title>Who is he, and why do we care?</title>
	<author>SofaMan</author>
	<datestamp>1268679240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously - why isn't the header for this story "Some Guy says something outrageous".</p><p>Since this guy is no-one in any position to implement this sort of policy, leave him to his distasteful opinion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously - why is n't the header for this story " Some Guy says something outrageous " .Since this guy is no-one in any position to implement this sort of policy , leave him to his distasteful opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously - why isn't the header for this story "Some Guy says something outrageous".Since this guy is no-one in any position to implement this sort of policy, leave him to his distasteful opinion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31496920</id>
	<title>Re:"No."</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268759040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For the purpose of medical research, DNA can be submitted anonymously.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For the purpose of medical research , DNA can be submitted anonymously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the purpose of medical research, DNA can be submitted anonymously.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486934</id>
	<title>To get signature requires entire DNA sample</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268644260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And thus it is only a teeny, tiny procedural step to going from that signature to getting the entire thing, including the "sensitive genetic information" he's apparently still concerned about.  I'm not saying you can derive the whole of your DNA from that signature (<i>obviously not</i>), but you have to turn over your entire DNA sample to the government or agents of the government to get that signature.  What, exactly, is keeping the government or some commercial entity doing the job from retaining and storing a small sample that they could subsequently analyze in greater detail?  Law?  What prevents the law from being changed?  Or from people doing it anyway and retroactively changing the law after it is found out it has been done illegally for years (plenty of prior art there)?</p><p>It's a stupid idea.</p><p>Let me put it another way.  The only way I'd ever consider turning over a sample of my DNA to determine that unique signature would be if I turned over the sample, they did the analysis right there in my presence, such that I could see where the sample went and that the result coming out was valid, and then they handed back the remaining sample they did not need so that I could destroy it myself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And thus it is only a teeny , tiny procedural step to going from that signature to getting the entire thing , including the " sensitive genetic information " he 's apparently still concerned about .
I 'm not saying you can derive the whole of your DNA from that signature ( obviously not ) , but you have to turn over your entire DNA sample to the government or agents of the government to get that signature .
What , exactly , is keeping the government or some commercial entity doing the job from retaining and storing a small sample that they could subsequently analyze in greater detail ?
Law ? What prevents the law from being changed ?
Or from people doing it anyway and retroactively changing the law after it is found out it has been done illegally for years ( plenty of prior art there ) ? It 's a stupid idea.Let me put it another way .
The only way I 'd ever consider turning over a sample of my DNA to determine that unique signature would be if I turned over the sample , they did the analysis right there in my presence , such that I could see where the sample went and that the result coming out was valid , and then they handed back the remaining sample they did not need so that I could destroy it myself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And thus it is only a teeny, tiny procedural step to going from that signature to getting the entire thing, including the "sensitive genetic information" he's apparently still concerned about.
I'm not saying you can derive the whole of your DNA from that signature (obviously not), but you have to turn over your entire DNA sample to the government or agents of the government to get that signature.
What, exactly, is keeping the government or some commercial entity doing the job from retaining and storing a small sample that they could subsequently analyze in greater detail?
Law?  What prevents the law from being changed?
Or from people doing it anyway and retroactively changing the law after it is found out it has been done illegally for years (plenty of prior art there)?It's a stupid idea.Let me put it another way.
The only way I'd ever consider turning over a sample of my DNA to determine that unique signature would be if I turned over the sample, they did the analysis right there in my presence, such that I could see where the sample went and that the result coming out was valid, and then they handed back the remaining sample they did not need so that I could destroy it myself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486436</id>
	<title>Re:Poisonous.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268685840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Either that or sneak into this student's dorm/apartment, fill it with underage porn (like those nude Disney girls), and then call the FBI or state police (or both).  Let him be a victim of his own faulty "I have nothing to hide" philosophy.</p><p>Don't worry.  I'm sure he'll get off.  Eventually.  No real harm will be done, but it will be a valuable life lesson for the student and the other ~10,000 students in his community - you cannot trust government to invade your personal privacy.  Even if you're innocent, you're likely to get screwed in an uncomfortable place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Either that or sneak into this student 's dorm/apartment , fill it with underage porn ( like those nude Disney girls ) , and then call the FBI or state police ( or both ) .
Let him be a victim of his own faulty " I have nothing to hide " philosophy.Do n't worry .
I 'm sure he 'll get off .
Eventually. No real harm will be done , but it will be a valuable life lesson for the student and the other ~ 10,000 students in his community - you can not trust government to invade your personal privacy .
Even if you 're innocent , you 're likely to get screwed in an uncomfortable place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Either that or sneak into this student's dorm/apartment, fill it with underage porn (like those nude Disney girls), and then call the FBI or state police (or both).
Let him be a victim of his own faulty "I have nothing to hide" philosophy.Don't worry.
I'm sure he'll get off.
Eventually.  No real harm will be done, but it will be a valuable life lesson for the student and the other ~10,000 students in his community - you cannot trust government to invade your personal privacy.
Even if you're innocent, you're likely to get screwed in an uncomfortable place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487904</id>
	<title>Re:How does he know it's unique?</title>
	<author>mb\_96\_net</author>
	<datestamp>1268648220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When I first read your comment I agreed with it, but the more I think about it the less I do.

The assumptions are that the government has everyone's DNA so they should be able to match the DNA at the crime scene to the 10,000 people in the USA with that matching genetic markers. If the defence also has access to this information it should help your case as much as hurt it. The defence should be able to provide a plausible alternate suspect and as long as you're not guilty and they were it should be less difficult than today.

more like:
-They find DNA at the scene.
-Birthday paradox comes into play
-I happen to be in the same city at about the right time AND no one else with the same DNA markers and similar or worse alibi is in the same city AND no other convincing evidence pointing away from me OR I live in Texas
-lazy defence
-I'm fucked.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I first read your comment I agreed with it , but the more I think about it the less I do .
The assumptions are that the government has everyone 's DNA so they should be able to match the DNA at the crime scene to the 10,000 people in the USA with that matching genetic markers .
If the defence also has access to this information it should help your case as much as hurt it .
The defence should be able to provide a plausible alternate suspect and as long as you 're not guilty and they were it should be less difficult than today .
more like : -They find DNA at the scene .
-Birthday paradox comes into play -I happen to be in the same city at about the right time AND no one else with the same DNA markers and similar or worse alibi is in the same city AND no other convincing evidence pointing away from me OR I live in Texas -lazy defence -I 'm fucked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I first read your comment I agreed with it, but the more I think about it the less I do.
The assumptions are that the government has everyone's DNA so they should be able to match the DNA at the crime scene to the 10,000 people in the USA with that matching genetic markers.
If the defence also has access to this information it should help your case as much as hurt it.
The defence should be able to provide a plausible alternate suspect and as long as you're not guilty and they were it should be less difficult than today.
more like:
-They find DNA at the scene.
-Birthday paradox comes into play
-I happen to be in the same city at about the right time AND no one else with the same DNA markers and similar or worse alibi is in the same city AND no other convincing evidence pointing away from me OR I live in Texas
-lazy defence
-I'm fucked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486958</id>
	<title>Assurance</title>
	<author>DaveGod</author>
	<datestamp>1268644380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Working in audit there is a great deal of importance in the approach you take to testing. Do you take an invoice and check it exists on the ledger, or check the ledger and then see if the invoice exists? One tells you something completely different to the other. </p><p>Sure, with stored profiles testing can still be done the right way (getting the profile from the scene and then comparing to the alleged perp). But what assurance is there? How certain can you be that they did not take your profile and then "find" it at the scene? Yes, by getting the profile afterwards it still could be faked, but the controls are inherently stronger when they did not already have the profile. Administrative controls such as time stamps for example, and it would require more people to collude.</p><p>More importantly perhaps, if they have to first find someone to test in order to match the DNA, they have to do some police work - they need other evidence. With stored profiles there is a strong risk the police could decide they have their perp based soley on the DNA and then limit all other investigations into proving that guy is their man. The result is DNA becomes nothing more than a police tool for finding suspects and its true value as evidence is compromised. True, more perps are likely to be caught, and more quickly, but there will also be more miscarriages of justice. Juries already convict too easily due to DNA evidence (who says that strand of my hair didn't just blow there in the wind?).</p><p>Any doubters consider fingerprinting and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley\_McKie" title="wikipedia.org">Shirley McKie</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Working in audit there is a great deal of importance in the approach you take to testing .
Do you take an invoice and check it exists on the ledger , or check the ledger and then see if the invoice exists ?
One tells you something completely different to the other .
Sure , with stored profiles testing can still be done the right way ( getting the profile from the scene and then comparing to the alleged perp ) .
But what assurance is there ?
How certain can you be that they did not take your profile and then " find " it at the scene ?
Yes , by getting the profile afterwards it still could be faked , but the controls are inherently stronger when they did not already have the profile .
Administrative controls such as time stamps for example , and it would require more people to collude.More importantly perhaps , if they have to first find someone to test in order to match the DNA , they have to do some police work - they need other evidence .
With stored profiles there is a strong risk the police could decide they have their perp based soley on the DNA and then limit all other investigations into proving that guy is their man .
The result is DNA becomes nothing more than a police tool for finding suspects and its true value as evidence is compromised .
True , more perps are likely to be caught , and more quickly , but there will also be more miscarriages of justice .
Juries already convict too easily due to DNA evidence ( who says that strand of my hair did n't just blow there in the wind ?
) .Any doubters consider fingerprinting and Shirley McKie [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Working in audit there is a great deal of importance in the approach you take to testing.
Do you take an invoice and check it exists on the ledger, or check the ledger and then see if the invoice exists?
One tells you something completely different to the other.
Sure, with stored profiles testing can still be done the right way (getting the profile from the scene and then comparing to the alleged perp).
But what assurance is there?
How certain can you be that they did not take your profile and then "find" it at the scene?
Yes, by getting the profile afterwards it still could be faked, but the controls are inherently stronger when they did not already have the profile.
Administrative controls such as time stamps for example, and it would require more people to collude.More importantly perhaps, if they have to first find someone to test in order to match the DNA, they have to do some police work - they need other evidence.
With stored profiles there is a strong risk the police could decide they have their perp based soley on the DNA and then limit all other investigations into proving that guy is their man.
The result is DNA becomes nothing more than a police tool for finding suspects and its true value as evidence is compromised.
True, more perps are likely to be caught, and more quickly, but there will also be more miscarriages of justice.
Juries already convict too easily due to DNA evidence (who says that strand of my hair didn't just blow there in the wind?
).Any doubters consider fingerprinting and Shirley McKie [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31492912</id>
	<title>Re:How does he know it's unique?</title>
	<author>pipingguy</author>
	<datestamp>1268733540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good point. TV and the internet seems to have encouraged some groups' certainty of things (pseudo-experts, 14 year-old forensic specialists and trolls).<br> <br>
That's not a good thing, but hey, whatever sells must be right.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good point .
TV and the internet seems to have encouraged some groups ' certainty of things ( pseudo-experts , 14 year-old forensic specialists and trolls ) .
That 's not a good thing , but hey , whatever sells must be right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good point.
TV and the internet seems to have encouraged some groups' certainty of things (pseudo-experts, 14 year-old forensic specialists and trolls).
That's not a good thing, but hey, whatever sells must be right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485830</id>
	<title>Fine With Me</title>
	<author>LearnToSpell</author>
	<datestamp>1268683860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Gimme your<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/shadow too.  What's the problem?  It's encrypted.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gim me your /etc/shadow too .
What 's the problem ?
It 's encrypted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gimme your /etc/shadow too.
What's the problem?
It's encrypted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31488414</id>
	<title>Since When Does 1 Student Represent Society?</title>
	<author>djdevon3</author>
	<datestamp>1268650260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>First off this is a law student and one that I hope never graduates. The NYTimes published his article which shows an obvious angle of intent. Only our representatives should be speaking publicly on this sort of issue.  That way we can at least vote them out or impeach them for incompetence for supporting such eugenic prone laws.  It seems as if all of you haven't even considered that this guy does not and should not speak for society as a whole.  That's what we have representatives for.  It's bad enough we're all branded with numbers and forced to into financial servitude but to have some newbie wanna-be lawyer become a proponent of a system which will only lead to future genetic discrimination is beyond ridiculous.</htmltext>
<tokenext>First off this is a law student and one that I hope never graduates .
The NYTimes published his article which shows an obvious angle of intent .
Only our representatives should be speaking publicly on this sort of issue .
That way we can at least vote them out or impeach them for incompetence for supporting such eugenic prone laws .
It seems as if all of you have n't even considered that this guy does not and should not speak for society as a whole .
That 's what we have representatives for .
It 's bad enough we 're all branded with numbers and forced to into financial servitude but to have some newbie wan na-be lawyer become a proponent of a system which will only lead to future genetic discrimination is beyond ridiculous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First off this is a law student and one that I hope never graduates.
The NYTimes published his article which shows an obvious angle of intent.
Only our representatives should be speaking publicly on this sort of issue.
That way we can at least vote them out or impeach them for incompetence for supporting such eugenic prone laws.
It seems as if all of you haven't even considered that this guy does not and should not speak for society as a whole.
That's what we have representatives for.
It's bad enough we're all branded with numbers and forced to into financial servitude but to have some newbie wanna-be lawyer become a proponent of a system which will only lead to future genetic discrimination is beyond ridiculous.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31490442</id>
	<title>Make It All Public Info</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1268661720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>         There is simply no reason for genetic privacy except for fraud and deception of others. Yes. some people are born with defective genes but that does not imply that they are inferior in any way. They have no reason to be ashamed simply because their genetic conditions may lead to an early death or lack of function in life.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The catch is that people want to fool that insurance company, that potential employer, that future wife or husband. And why should they get away with that? If a person is doomed to fall apart at a young age then employers should not be tricked into training them to make them valuable in the future. Insurance companies should not be screwed. And potential mates should darned well know the health outlook of a mate and the implications it might have for children produced in such a union. Social justice and the right to know can not be trashed over some peoples' notions of privacy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is simply no reason for genetic privacy except for fraud and deception of others .
Yes. some people are born with defective genes but that does not imply that they are inferior in any way .
They have no reason to be ashamed simply because their genetic conditions may lead to an early death or lack of function in life .
                  The catch is that people want to fool that insurance company , that potential employer , that future wife or husband .
And why should they get away with that ?
If a person is doomed to fall apart at a young age then employers should not be tricked into training them to make them valuable in the future .
Insurance companies should not be screwed .
And potential mates should darned well know the health outlook of a mate and the implications it might have for children produced in such a union .
Social justice and the right to know can not be trashed over some peoples ' notions of privacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>         There is simply no reason for genetic privacy except for fraud and deception of others.
Yes. some people are born with defective genes but that does not imply that they are inferior in any way.
They have no reason to be ashamed simply because their genetic conditions may lead to an early death or lack of function in life.
                  The catch is that people want to fool that insurance company, that potential employer, that future wife or husband.
And why should they get away with that?
If a person is doomed to fall apart at a young age then employers should not be tricked into training them to make them valuable in the future.
Insurance companies should not be screwed.
And potential mates should darned well know the health outlook of a mate and the implications it might have for children produced in such a union.
Social justice and the right to know can not be trashed over some peoples' notions of privacy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486538</id>
	<title>Re:Awwwww, hes just so cute and innocent...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268686140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree completely with what you say, and beyond that it is worse and wasteful. I recently completed courses in genetic analysis and RFLP along with cloning. There are some very serious logical flaws in the assumptions. I think you are giving too much credit to say 5 year old and it looks more on the order of the terrible twos. Or maybe terrible binaries of good and evil.<br>
The person is acting from a legal perspective and does not understand the technology. I can see many different places where the technology will change and much like the internet, people will be surprised when the first SQL injection happens or the first BOT. It is a complex technology and it is the same fricking problem that happens with everything. A linear system cannot control and manage a system which is NP hard. <br>
I am certain from my studies that most people do not even understand what the RFLP measures. They seem to think it measures something which is related to the person, and it really doesn't. That fact really shocked me when I was in the lab. <br>
I wonder whether the drone that bombs a city has a DNA to tell you who is the culprit? Or does the BOT net give a signature that says it is created by some unique UUID?<br>
This is an extension of methods which worked in another world before the internet.Fingerprinting, DNA and many other forensics were great when this began, but it is a new world and the threat is not cloaked in DNA or doesn't sneak into your data base in a meat suit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree completely with what you say , and beyond that it is worse and wasteful .
I recently completed courses in genetic analysis and RFLP along with cloning .
There are some very serious logical flaws in the assumptions .
I think you are giving too much credit to say 5 year old and it looks more on the order of the terrible twos .
Or maybe terrible binaries of good and evil .
The person is acting from a legal perspective and does not understand the technology .
I can see many different places where the technology will change and much like the internet , people will be surprised when the first SQL injection happens or the first BOT .
It is a complex technology and it is the same fricking problem that happens with everything .
A linear system can not control and manage a system which is NP hard .
I am certain from my studies that most people do not even understand what the RFLP measures .
They seem to think it measures something which is related to the person , and it really does n't .
That fact really shocked me when I was in the lab .
I wonder whether the drone that bombs a city has a DNA to tell you who is the culprit ?
Or does the BOT net give a signature that says it is created by some unique UUID ?
This is an extension of methods which worked in another world before the internet.Fingerprinting , DNA and many other forensics were great when this began , but it is a new world and the threat is not cloaked in DNA or does n't sneak into your data base in a meat suit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree completely with what you say, and beyond that it is worse and wasteful.
I recently completed courses in genetic analysis and RFLP along with cloning.
There are some very serious logical flaws in the assumptions.
I think you are giving too much credit to say 5 year old and it looks more on the order of the terrible twos.
Or maybe terrible binaries of good and evil.
The person is acting from a legal perspective and does not understand the technology.
I can see many different places where the technology will change and much like the internet, people will be surprised when the first SQL injection happens or the first BOT.
It is a complex technology and it is the same fricking problem that happens with everything.
A linear system cannot control and manage a system which is NP hard.
I am certain from my studies that most people do not even understand what the RFLP measures.
They seem to think it measures something which is related to the person, and it really doesn't.
That fact really shocked me when I was in the lab.
I wonder whether the drone that bombs a city has a DNA to tell you who is the culprit?
Or does the BOT net give a signature that says it is created by some unique UUID?
This is an extension of methods which worked in another world before the internet.Fingerprinting, DNA and many other forensics were great when this began, but it is a new world and the threat is not cloaked in DNA or doesn't sneak into your data base in a meat suit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31501638</id>
	<title>Re:DNA fingerprints are NOT UNIQUE</title>
	<author>Japher</author>
	<datestamp>1268735100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, I was off by several orders of magnitude, I stand corrected. I wasn't paying attention.

Thanks for the catch. And thanks for not repping me down. I guess my public humiliation is punishment enough.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , I was off by several orders of magnitude , I stand corrected .
I was n't paying attention .
Thanks for the catch .
And thanks for not repping me down .
I guess my public humiliation is punishment enough .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, I was off by several orders of magnitude, I stand corrected.
I wasn't paying attention.
Thanks for the catch.
And thanks for not repping me down.
I guess my public humiliation is punishment enough.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31488096</id>
	<title>Re:Will not work</title>
	<author>chrb</author>
	<datestamp>1268648760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a well known point and one which forensic scientists are well aware of. The point is not that DNA is the whole evidence, but forms part of the evidence. Juries are supposed to take other evidence into account too:</p><p>"It seems logical therefore that DNA evidence alone cannot be a proof &ndash; some additional information is necessary. However, the amount of additional information that is necessary might be a very small amount. For example, add to the DNA matching evidence (of 7000 to one) the mere knowledge that the suspect was arrested before his DNA type was known, and you have something like a proof." <a href="http://dna-view.com/profile.htm" title="dna-view.com">link</a> [dna-view.com]</p><p>"In the early days of the use of genetic fingerprinting as criminal evidence, juries were often swayed by spurious statistical arguments by defense lawyers along these lines: given a match that had a 1 in 5 million probability of occurring by chance, the lawyer would argue that this meant that in a country of say 60 million people there were 12 people who would also match the profile. This was then translated to a 1 in 12 chance of the suspect being the guilty one. <b>This argument is not sound unless the suspect was drawn at random from the population of the country. In fact, a jury should consider how likely it is that an individual matching the genetic profile would also have been a suspect in the case for other reasons</b>" <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA\_profiling" title="wikipedia.org">wiki</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a well known point and one which forensic scientists are well aware of .
The point is not that DNA is the whole evidence , but forms part of the evidence .
Juries are supposed to take other evidence into account too : " It seems logical therefore that DNA evidence alone can not be a proof    some additional information is necessary .
However , the amount of additional information that is necessary might be a very small amount .
For example , add to the DNA matching evidence ( of 7000 to one ) the mere knowledge that the suspect was arrested before his DNA type was known , and you have something like a proof .
" link [ dna-view.com ] " In the early days of the use of genetic fingerprinting as criminal evidence , juries were often swayed by spurious statistical arguments by defense lawyers along these lines : given a match that had a 1 in 5 million probability of occurring by chance , the lawyer would argue that this meant that in a country of say 60 million people there were 12 people who would also match the profile .
This was then translated to a 1 in 12 chance of the suspect being the guilty one .
This argument is not sound unless the suspect was drawn at random from the population of the country .
In fact , a jury should consider how likely it is that an individual matching the genetic profile would also have been a suspect in the case for other reasons " wiki [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a well known point and one which forensic scientists are well aware of.
The point is not that DNA is the whole evidence, but forms part of the evidence.
Juries are supposed to take other evidence into account too:"It seems logical therefore that DNA evidence alone cannot be a proof – some additional information is necessary.
However, the amount of additional information that is necessary might be a very small amount.
For example, add to the DNA matching evidence (of 7000 to one) the mere knowledge that the suspect was arrested before his DNA type was known, and you have something like a proof.
" link [dna-view.com]"In the early days of the use of genetic fingerprinting as criminal evidence, juries were often swayed by spurious statistical arguments by defense lawyers along these lines: given a match that had a 1 in 5 million probability of occurring by chance, the lawyer would argue that this meant that in a country of say 60 million people there were 12 people who would also match the profile.
This was then translated to a 1 in 12 chance of the suspect being the guilty one.
This argument is not sound unless the suspect was drawn at random from the population of the country.
In fact, a jury should consider how likely it is that an individual matching the genetic profile would also have been a suspect in the case for other reasons" wiki [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486342</id>
	<title>already happening?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268685540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where does the blood drawn from the heel of every newborn go?  We're already there people, might as well make a DNA database out of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where does the blood drawn from the heel of every newborn go ?
We 're already there people , might as well make a DNA database out of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where does the blood drawn from the heel of every newborn go?
We're already there people, might as well make a DNA database out of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485854</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268683860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems to me the elites are getting worried that the middle class is about to start an uprising.</p><p>The best way to stop crime is to also add a DNA kill-switch on everyone.   Stop behaving in a manner that enriches the elites of our society, and poof you're a goner.</p><p>So how do we stop the elites the crimes of robbing a plundering our hard work?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems to me the elites are getting worried that the middle class is about to start an uprising.The best way to stop crime is to also add a DNA kill-switch on everyone .
Stop behaving in a manner that enriches the elites of our society , and poof you 're a goner.So how do we stop the elites the crimes of robbing a plundering our hard work ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems to me the elites are getting worried that the middle class is about to start an uprising.The best way to stop crime is to also add a DNA kill-switch on everyone.
Stop behaving in a manner that enriches the elites of our society, and poof you're a goner.So how do we stop the elites the crimes of robbing a plundering our hard work?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486010</id>
	<title>Hashes?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268684400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about just storing a hash of the DNA sequence?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about just storing a hash of the DNA sequence ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about just storing a hash of the DNA sequence?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485946</id>
	<title>"No."</title>
	<author>drDugan</author>
	<datestamp>1268684160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>"Your sensitive genetic information would be safe."</em> It won't be safe for long with databases like these around.</p><p>It's simply na&#239;ve to hope that all those in political power will follow a course of action other than acting to get more power and more control.  Most people will follow the rules and take sincere interest in their fellow man, but the few who don't are those you have ward against.</p><p>Imagine the next argument about how much better the government could make life for people if  "Your sensitive genetic information" were also collected.  This data would help medicine a lot.  As we move toward more genetic basis for defining diseases, and defining the interaction of drugs within different people based on their genetics, there is a very strong argument that scientists could make health care better with broad access to the exact genetic information of all patients.  Genetics coupled with disease phenotypes, frequencies, and drug interactions with quantitative metrics of effectiveness leads to revolutionary breakthroughs in drug development.</p><p>But to get this data would eliminate all aspects of personal privacy regarding your health.</p><p>If you believe in property at any level, your own body is unequivocally the one thing you own without exception. Unless there are overriding and unequivocal public health reasons to give someone else control over your body, the only answer is simply "No."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Your sensitive genetic information would be safe .
" It wo n't be safe for long with databases like these around.It 's simply na   ve to hope that all those in political power will follow a course of action other than acting to get more power and more control .
Most people will follow the rules and take sincere interest in their fellow man , but the few who do n't are those you have ward against.Imagine the next argument about how much better the government could make life for people if " Your sensitive genetic information " were also collected .
This data would help medicine a lot .
As we move toward more genetic basis for defining diseases , and defining the interaction of drugs within different people based on their genetics , there is a very strong argument that scientists could make health care better with broad access to the exact genetic information of all patients .
Genetics coupled with disease phenotypes , frequencies , and drug interactions with quantitative metrics of effectiveness leads to revolutionary breakthroughs in drug development.But to get this data would eliminate all aspects of personal privacy regarding your health.If you believe in property at any level , your own body is unequivocally the one thing you own without exception .
Unless there are overriding and unequivocal public health reasons to give someone else control over your body , the only answer is simply " No .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Your sensitive genetic information would be safe.
" It won't be safe for long with databases like these around.It's simply naïve to hope that all those in political power will follow a course of action other than acting to get more power and more control.
Most people will follow the rules and take sincere interest in their fellow man, but the few who don't are those you have ward against.Imagine the next argument about how much better the government could make life for people if  "Your sensitive genetic information" were also collected.
This data would help medicine a lot.
As we move toward more genetic basis for defining diseases, and defining the interaction of drugs within different people based on their genetics, there is a very strong argument that scientists could make health care better with broad access to the exact genetic information of all patients.
Genetics coupled with disease phenotypes, frequencies, and drug interactions with quantitative metrics of effectiveness leads to revolutionary breakthroughs in drug development.But to get this data would eliminate all aspects of personal privacy regarding your health.If you believe in property at any level, your own body is unequivocally the one thing you own without exception.
Unless there are overriding and unequivocal public health reasons to give someone else control over your body, the only answer is simply "No.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31490790</id>
	<title>Re:You got it.</title>
	<author>MadMagician</author>
	<datestamp>1268664120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The birthday collision illustrated:<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday\_problem" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday\_problem</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><p>Even with 365 days a year, there is 50\% probability that two people will have the same birthday in any random group of 23 people.</p><p>Now take 300 million people right now in the USofA.</p><p>Where is the evidence that these strings of "junk" DNA really are that unique?</p></div><p>If each of the 26 DNA sections were reduced to "Yes" or "No", the would be 2^26 possibilities.</p><p>If instead of 2 possibilities, there were 10, how many times does 3x10^8 go into 10^26? Just saying.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The birthday collision illustrated : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday \ _problem [ wikipedia.org ] Even with 365 days a year , there is 50 \ % probability that two people will have the same birthday in any random group of 23 people.Now take 300 million people right now in the USofA.Where is the evidence that these strings of " junk " DNA really are that unique ? If each of the 26 DNA sections were reduced to " Yes " or " No " , the would be 2 ^ 26 possibilities.If instead of 2 possibilities , there were 10 , how many times does 3x10 ^ 8 go into 10 ^ 26 ?
Just saying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The birthday collision illustrated:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday\_problem [wikipedia.org] Even with 365 days a year, there is 50\% probability that two people will have the same birthday in any random group of 23 people.Now take 300 million people right now in the USofA.Where is the evidence that these strings of "junk" DNA really are that unique?If each of the 26 DNA sections were reduced to "Yes" or "No", the would be 2^26 possibilities.If instead of 2 possibilities, there were 10, how many times does 3x10^8 go into 10^26?
Just saying.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485920</id>
	<title>What about parental rights? Filial rights too?</title>
	<author>140Mandak262Jamuna</author>
	<datestamp>1268684040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can a parent provide a DNA sample to some collection agency for money or for few? Can a child sue his/her parents, when he/she turns 18 if his/her parents have compromised his/her privacy?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can a parent provide a DNA sample to some collection agency for money or for few ?
Can a child sue his/her parents , when he/she turns 18 if his/her parents have compromised his/her privacy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can a parent provide a DNA sample to some collection agency for money or for few?
Can a child sue his/her parents, when he/she turns 18 if his/her parents have compromised his/her privacy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31492660</id>
	<title>This has been happening for years</title>
	<author>ZDRuX</author>
	<datestamp>1268773140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Huh? People are saying this is a bad idea without knowing this has been happening for years?! Most people in the know already ugh.. "know" this, but we don't say anything because we're kooks and conspiracy theorists. <a href="http://www.texastribune.org/stories/2010/feb/22/dna-deception/" title="texastribune.org">DNA Deception</a> [texastribune.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh ?
People are saying this is a bad idea without knowing this has been happening for years ? !
Most people in the know already ugh.. " know " this , but we do n't say anything because we 're kooks and conspiracy theorists .
DNA Deception [ texastribune.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh?
People are saying this is a bad idea without knowing this has been happening for years?!
Most people in the know already ugh.. "know" this, but we don't say anything because we're kooks and conspiracy theorists.
DNA Deception [texastribune.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31494706</id>
	<title>Re:Awwwww, hes just so cute and innocent...</title>
	<author>(arg!)Styopa</author>
	<datestamp>1268751240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One interesting point for me is that your skepticism and downright cynicism is validated in the US Constitution.</p><p>The Framers built the document on the PRESUMPTION that the various parts of government would constantly try to marginalize the others, and that government always is ultimately a threat to its citizens' liberties.  It's all about the assumption that power corrupts and people are generally bastards.</p><p>"A government big enough to supply you with everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have...." - Gerald Ford</p><p>Note, the bulk of our government is now dedicated to catering to our needs.  Think about that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One interesting point for me is that your skepticism and downright cynicism is validated in the US Constitution.The Framers built the document on the PRESUMPTION that the various parts of government would constantly try to marginalize the others , and that government always is ultimately a threat to its citizens ' liberties .
It 's all about the assumption that power corrupts and people are generally bastards .
" A government big enough to supply you with everything you need , is a government big enough to take away everything that you have.... " - Gerald FordNote , the bulk of our government is now dedicated to catering to our needs .
Think about that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One interesting point for me is that your skepticism and downright cynicism is validated in the US Constitution.The Framers built the document on the PRESUMPTION that the various parts of government would constantly try to marginalize the others, and that government always is ultimately a threat to its citizens' liberties.
It's all about the assumption that power corrupts and people are generally bastards.
"A government big enough to supply you with everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have...." - Gerald FordNote, the bulk of our government is now dedicated to catering to our needs.
Think about that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486138</id>
	<title>Re:Will not work</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1268684760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to mention I get a knock at the door and it's the cops:</p><p>Cops: Mr. Desperation, your friend Unquiet Slumber was killed earlier today.<br>Me: ZOMG! O\_o<br>Cops: We need to take you in.<br>Me: Buh?<br>Cops: Your DNA was identified at the scene.<br>Me: Well, yeah, Unquiet's a buddy. I'm over there all the time.<br>Cops: Come with us please.<br>Me: Buh?<br>Cops: Book him, Danno.<br>Me: Hey, how'd we get to the police station so fast?<br>Cops: We have teleportation, too.<br>Me: Well, you'll never hold me, coppers! Mwah ha ha!<br>(QD transforms into flight mode and blasts out of there, leaving a hole in the roof)<br>Cops: ZOMG! O\_o<br>Me: Ha ha! Now to take over the Vatican with my maser cannons of doom!</p><p>er...</p><p>OK, I strayed a bit from the point, but you savvy what I'm sayin?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention I get a knock at the door and it 's the cops : Cops : Mr. Desperation , your friend Unquiet Slumber was killed earlier today.Me : ZOMG !
O \ _oCops : We need to take you in.Me : Buh ? Cops : Your DNA was identified at the scene.Me : Well , yeah , Unquiet 's a buddy .
I 'm over there all the time.Cops : Come with us please.Me : Buh ? Cops : Book him , Danno.Me : Hey , how 'd we get to the police station so fast ? Cops : We have teleportation , too.Me : Well , you 'll never hold me , coppers !
Mwah ha ha !
( QD transforms into flight mode and blasts out of there , leaving a hole in the roof ) Cops : ZOMG !
O \ _oMe : Ha ha !
Now to take over the Vatican with my maser cannons of doom ! er...OK , I strayed a bit from the point , but you savvy what I 'm sayin ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention I get a knock at the door and it's the cops:Cops: Mr. Desperation, your friend Unquiet Slumber was killed earlier today.Me: ZOMG!
O\_oCops: We need to take you in.Me: Buh?Cops: Your DNA was identified at the scene.Me: Well, yeah, Unquiet's a buddy.
I'm over there all the time.Cops: Come with us please.Me: Buh?Cops: Book him, Danno.Me: Hey, how'd we get to the police station so fast?Cops: We have teleportation, too.Me: Well, you'll never hold me, coppers!
Mwah ha ha!
(QD transforms into flight mode and blasts out of there, leaving a hole in the roof)Cops: ZOMG!
O\_oMe: Ha ha!
Now to take over the Vatican with my maser cannons of doom!er...OK, I strayed a bit from the point, but you savvy what I'm sayin?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486170</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>AndrewNeo</author>
	<datestamp>1268684820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep! Collisions and all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep !
Collisions and all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep!
Collisions and all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486646</id>
	<title>This makes me afraid of being violated</title>
	<author>mikerz</author>
	<datestamp>1268686440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't understand why a government, any government, would want information on the unique aspects of an acid that is found in my every cell... Why the fuck does the government -- an imperfect organization which by definition rules by force -- explicitly deserve an in-depth profile of my biologic basis? Even if it were voluntary -- imagine how easy it would be to pressure organizations into making it mandatory (raise the overall tax, give organizations which only employ Gene-mapped employees a tax  break).

I don't care what this student thinks is best, I DO care that the president of the USA agrees to no small degree.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand why a government , any government , would want information on the unique aspects of an acid that is found in my every cell... Why the fuck does the government -- an imperfect organization which by definition rules by force -- explicitly deserve an in-depth profile of my biologic basis ?
Even if it were voluntary -- imagine how easy it would be to pressure organizations into making it mandatory ( raise the overall tax , give organizations which only employ Gene-mapped employees a tax break ) .
I do n't care what this student thinks is best , I DO care that the president of the USA agrees to no small degree .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand why a government, any government, would want information on the unique aspects of an acid that is found in my every cell... Why the fuck does the government -- an imperfect organization which by definition rules by force -- explicitly deserve an in-depth profile of my biologic basis?
Even if it were voluntary -- imagine how easy it would be to pressure organizations into making it mandatory (raise the overall tax, give organizations which only employ Gene-mapped employees a tax  break).
I don't care what this student thinks is best, I DO care that the president of the USA agrees to no small degree.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486250</id>
	<title>DNA profiling is not flawless</title>
	<author>zmooc</author>
	<datestamp>1268685180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The way the DNA samples are represented and compared is far from perfect. Evidence-samples are often incomplete or polluted. False positives occur and will occur increasingly as the number of samples grows. DNA profiling is NOT flawless, but you cannot defend yourself against the presumption that it is. Collecting everybody's DNA wil inevitably result in quite a few innocent people ending up in jail.</p><p>Random link about the subject: <a href="http://dna-view.com/profile.htm" title="dna-view.com">http://dna-view.com/profile.htm</a> [dna-view.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The way the DNA samples are represented and compared is far from perfect .
Evidence-samples are often incomplete or polluted .
False positives occur and will occur increasingly as the number of samples grows .
DNA profiling is NOT flawless , but you can not defend yourself against the presumption that it is .
Collecting everybody 's DNA wil inevitably result in quite a few innocent people ending up in jail.Random link about the subject : http : //dna-view.com/profile.htm [ dna-view.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The way the DNA samples are represented and compared is far from perfect.
Evidence-samples are often incomplete or polluted.
False positives occur and will occur increasingly as the number of samples grows.
DNA profiling is NOT flawless, but you cannot defend yourself against the presumption that it is.
Collecting everybody's DNA wil inevitably result in quite a few innocent people ending up in jail.Random link about the subject: http://dna-view.com/profile.htm [dna-view.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487856</id>
	<title>Resistance is futile</title>
	<author>gestalt\_n\_pepper</author>
	<datestamp>1268647980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your DNA will be assimilated into the collective. Your life as you know it has ended. From now on, you will service <i>us.</i></p><p>But you do get to wear a really cool monocle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your DNA will be assimilated into the collective .
Your life as you know it has ended .
From now on , you will service us.But you do get to wear a really cool monocle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your DNA will be assimilated into the collective.
Your life as you know it has ended.
From now on, you will service us.But you do get to wear a really cool monocle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486378</id>
	<title>Hack all of his accounts</title>
	<author>blueskies</author>
	<datestamp>1268685660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm just waiting for someone to hack his gmail account, facebook, yale computer accounts, bank account information and post it publicly.</p><p>That is the only counter you need to disabuse him of his ignorance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm just waiting for someone to hack his gmail account , facebook , yale computer accounts , bank account information and post it publicly.That is the only counter you need to disabuse him of his ignorance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm just waiting for someone to hack his gmail account, facebook, yale computer accounts, bank account information and post it publicly.That is the only counter you need to disabuse him of his ignorance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487172</id>
	<title>Re:Dammit...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268645220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There's got to be a masturbation joke somewhere in there.</p></div><p>fingers HAVE to be cold and dead to pry DNA out of me........</p><p>not really a masturbation joke, more necrophilia... but close enough<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's got to be a masturbation joke somewhere in there.fingers HAVE to be cold and dead to pry DNA out of me........not really a masturbation joke , more necrophilia... but close enough : /</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's got to be a masturbation joke somewhere in there.fingers HAVE to be cold and dead to pry DNA out of me........not really a masturbation joke, more necrophilia... but close enough :/
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31488024</id>
	<title>Re:This is why...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268648580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Only an ignorant fool would advocate what this guy is advocating!</i></p><p>Yale - check<br>Student - check<br>Law - check</p><p>Bingo, you are a genius</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only an ignorant fool would advocate what this guy is advocating ! Yale - checkStudent - checkLaw - checkBingo , you are a genius</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only an ignorant fool would advocate what this guy is advocating!Yale - checkStudent - checkLaw - checkBingo, you are a genius</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31488884</id>
	<title>How DNA databases work now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268652600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's an article on the drawbacks of current uses of DNA databases:  http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1003.bobelian.html.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's an article on the drawbacks of current uses of DNA databases : http : //www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1003.bobelian.html .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's an article on the drawbacks of current uses of DNA databases:  http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1003.bobelian.html.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31489492</id>
	<title>Celente (as in Gerald) was right....</title>
	<author>sgt\_doom</author>
	<datestamp>1268656320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...when he gave a six-word description for what's wrong with America:<p>Harvard, <b>YALE</b>, Princeton, bullets, bombs and banks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...when he gave a six-word description for what 's wrong with America : Harvard , YALE , Princeton , bullets , bombs and banks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...when he gave a six-word description for what's wrong with America:Harvard, YALE, Princeton, bullets, bombs and banks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486202</id>
	<title>Re:How does he know it's unique?</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1268685000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These 26 markers are basically snippets of DNA that are cut out of a DNA sample using endonucleases.  these enzymes only cut at specific sites like GATTACA but not AATTACA etc.  These cuts depend on the sequence of the snippet in question.  The cuts are different lengths depending on where that GATTACA site is.  A mutation at the G in the example causes the enzyme not to cut where it normally does.  The probability of two separate individuals sharing the same genetic fingerprint would be at the least incredibly rare outside of identical twins.<br>So much in fact that human error with the test its self would be far more likely to blame for a match on more than one individual than more than one individual sharing the same genetic fingerprint outside of identical twins.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These 26 markers are basically snippets of DNA that are cut out of a DNA sample using endonucleases .
these enzymes only cut at specific sites like GATTACA but not AATTACA etc .
These cuts depend on the sequence of the snippet in question .
The cuts are different lengths depending on where that GATTACA site is .
A mutation at the G in the example causes the enzyme not to cut where it normally does .
The probability of two separate individuals sharing the same genetic fingerprint would be at the least incredibly rare outside of identical twins.So much in fact that human error with the test its self would be far more likely to blame for a match on more than one individual than more than one individual sharing the same genetic fingerprint outside of identical twins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These 26 markers are basically snippets of DNA that are cut out of a DNA sample using endonucleases.
these enzymes only cut at specific sites like GATTACA but not AATTACA etc.
These cuts depend on the sequence of the snippet in question.
The cuts are different lengths depending on where that GATTACA site is.
A mutation at the G in the example causes the enzyme not to cut where it normally does.
The probability of two separate individuals sharing the same genetic fingerprint would be at the least incredibly rare outside of identical twins.So much in fact that human error with the test its self would be far more likely to blame for a match on more than one individual than more than one individual sharing the same genetic fingerprint outside of identical twins.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486960</id>
	<title>Re:Awwwww, hes just so cute and innocent...</title>
	<author>EdIII</author>
	<datestamp>1268644440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>We shouldn't automatically reject any proposal simply because abuse and mistakes are possible.</p></div></blockquote><p>Oh, but I am not.  I am rejecting the proposal because abuse and mistakes are highly highly likely because they have happened repeatedly in the past.</p><blockquote><div><p>If I used your exact same methodology/argument to evaluate the criminal justice system, I would have to decide that it doesn't make sense to prosecute criminals because we could make a mistake and send a guilty person to jail. Society has decided that it is OK to prosecute criminals as long as the rate of false convictions is low because the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's a Strawmen argument and you are not using my methodology in the first place.</p><blockquote><div><p>IF it is indeed technically possible that one can "hash" DNA into a one-way encoding, then the concerns for abuse drop dramatically while the benefits (identification) still stay roughly the same.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's not the issue at all.  The concerns for abuse do not drop in any measurable way whatsoever.  One of the issues is whether or not the government can be trusted to destroy the sample, containing the information that is supposed to be 'hashed'.  I don't trust them to do so and the facts support my position of not trusting them as being reasonable and rational.</p><p>Just because the information is hashed, does not mean it cannot be abused either.  Maybe not in the ways popularized by the movie Gattaca, but there are still plenty of other ways this could be abused by government, and indeed, even other entities that gain illicit access to the databases.</p><blockquote><div><p>The more rational argument is to compare this proposal to our existing system of criminal investigation, flaws and all, where cops intimidate/interrogate everyone they suspect they get their man/woman.</p></div></blockquote><p>No it is not.  There is no comparison here at all.  This database would only be a small tool used in criminal investigation and does not present an alternative to intimidation, or improper interrogation, at all.  That will still happen.  The only difference is that the DNA database will be used as a justification to bring in a person for questioning.  I don't even believe that it would be used to convict a person either.  A full DNA test would be run to provide that kind of evidence.</p><p>It is perfectly reasonable to take into account government's behavior with systems such as these, and their methods of collection, when determining whether or not it would be a good idea.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We should n't automatically reject any proposal simply because abuse and mistakes are possible.Oh , but I am not .
I am rejecting the proposal because abuse and mistakes are highly highly likely because they have happened repeatedly in the past.If I used your exact same methodology/argument to evaluate the criminal justice system , I would have to decide that it does n't make sense to prosecute criminals because we could make a mistake and send a guilty person to jail .
Society has decided that it is OK to prosecute criminals as long as the rate of false convictions is low because the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.That 's a Strawmen argument and you are not using my methodology in the first place.IF it is indeed technically possible that one can " hash " DNA into a one-way encoding , then the concerns for abuse drop dramatically while the benefits ( identification ) still stay roughly the same.That 's not the issue at all .
The concerns for abuse do not drop in any measurable way whatsoever .
One of the issues is whether or not the government can be trusted to destroy the sample , containing the information that is supposed to be 'hashed' .
I do n't trust them to do so and the facts support my position of not trusting them as being reasonable and rational.Just because the information is hashed , does not mean it can not be abused either .
Maybe not in the ways popularized by the movie Gattaca , but there are still plenty of other ways this could be abused by government , and indeed , even other entities that gain illicit access to the databases.The more rational argument is to compare this proposal to our existing system of criminal investigation , flaws and all , where cops intimidate/interrogate everyone they suspect they get their man/woman.No it is not .
There is no comparison here at all .
This database would only be a small tool used in criminal investigation and does not present an alternative to intimidation , or improper interrogation , at all .
That will still happen .
The only difference is that the DNA database will be used as a justification to bring in a person for questioning .
I do n't even believe that it would be used to convict a person either .
A full DNA test would be run to provide that kind of evidence.It is perfectly reasonable to take into account government 's behavior with systems such as these , and their methods of collection , when determining whether or not it would be a good idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We shouldn't automatically reject any proposal simply because abuse and mistakes are possible.Oh, but I am not.
I am rejecting the proposal because abuse and mistakes are highly highly likely because they have happened repeatedly in the past.If I used your exact same methodology/argument to evaluate the criminal justice system, I would have to decide that it doesn't make sense to prosecute criminals because we could make a mistake and send a guilty person to jail.
Society has decided that it is OK to prosecute criminals as long as the rate of false convictions is low because the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.That's a Strawmen argument and you are not using my methodology in the first place.IF it is indeed technically possible that one can "hash" DNA into a one-way encoding, then the concerns for abuse drop dramatically while the benefits (identification) still stay roughly the same.That's not the issue at all.
The concerns for abuse do not drop in any measurable way whatsoever.
One of the issues is whether or not the government can be trusted to destroy the sample, containing the information that is supposed to be 'hashed'.
I don't trust them to do so and the facts support my position of not trusting them as being reasonable and rational.Just because the information is hashed, does not mean it cannot be abused either.
Maybe not in the ways popularized by the movie Gattaca, but there are still plenty of other ways this could be abused by government, and indeed, even other entities that gain illicit access to the databases.The more rational argument is to compare this proposal to our existing system of criminal investigation, flaws and all, where cops intimidate/interrogate everyone they suspect they get their man/woman.No it is not.
There is no comparison here at all.
This database would only be a small tool used in criminal investigation and does not present an alternative to intimidation, or improper interrogation, at all.
That will still happen.
The only difference is that the DNA database will be used as a justification to bring in a person for questioning.
I don't even believe that it would be used to convict a person either.
A full DNA test would be run to provide that kind of evidence.It is perfectly reasonable to take into account government's behavior with systems such as these, and their methods of collection, when determining whether or not it would be a good idea.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486260</id>
	<title>Re:Until...</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1268685240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Non-protein coding regions would be far far more accurate.  Biologists have known this to be the case for quite some time yet the media just won't let the "junk DNA" term die.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Non-protein coding regions would be far far more accurate .
Biologists have known this to be the case for quite some time yet the media just wo n't let the " junk DNA " term die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Non-protein coding regions would be far far more accurate.
Biologists have known this to be the case for quite some time yet the media just won't let the "junk DNA" term die.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486120</id>
	<title>Re:That fucker!</title>
	<author>boyfaceddog</author>
	<datestamp>1268684760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Close, they'll stop looking when the data they find matches the person they WANT to put away.</p><p>FIRST COP: "This one has an 88\% match."<br>SECOND COP: "This one has a 75\% match AND he's a sex offender."<br>FIRST COP: "BINGO!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Close , they 'll stop looking when the data they find matches the person they WANT to put away.FIRST COP : " This one has an 88 \ % match .
" SECOND COP : " This one has a 75 \ % match AND he 's a sex offender .
" FIRST COP : " BINGO !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Close, they'll stop looking when the data they find matches the person they WANT to put away.FIRST COP: "This one has an 88\% match.
"SECOND COP: "This one has a 75\% match AND he's a sex offender.
"FIRST COP: "BINGO!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486986</id>
	<title>Re:Until...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268644500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's like the old saying...</p><p>One man's trash is another man's daughter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's like the old saying...One man 's trash is another man 's daughter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's like the old saying...One man's trash is another man's daughter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31490460</id>
	<title>Re:You got it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268661840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Where is the evidence that these strings of "junk" DNA really are that unique?</i></p><p>We'll never know unless we start collecting the data, prosecuting people for crimes they didn't commit but were fingered by the data, executed in Texas, then exonerated when we have a better understanding of the science. Sheesh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where is the evidence that these strings of " junk " DNA really are that unique ? We 'll never know unless we start collecting the data , prosecuting people for crimes they did n't commit but were fingered by the data , executed in Texas , then exonerated when we have a better understanding of the science .
Sheesh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where is the evidence that these strings of "junk" DNA really are that unique?We'll never know unless we start collecting the data, prosecuting people for crimes they didn't commit but were fingered by the data, executed in Texas, then exonerated when we have a better understanding of the science.
Sheesh.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31497036</id>
	<title>Re:Mission Creep</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268759400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well you can't fool me twice</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well you ca n't fool me twice</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well you can't fool me twice</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486360</id>
	<title>FTFY</title>
	<author>RevWaldo</author>
	<datestamp>1268685600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"The genetic privacy risk from such profiling is virtually nil, because <b>as yet</b> these records include none of the health and biological data present in one&rsquo;s genome as a whole."</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The genetic privacy risk from such profiling is virtually nil , because as yet these records include none of the health and biological data present in one    s genome as a whole .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The genetic privacy risk from such profiling is virtually nil, because as yet these records include none of the health and biological data present in one’s genome as a whole.
"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486200</id>
	<title>mar0e</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268684940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">Are incompatible the wind 4ppeared</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are incompatible the wind 4ppeared [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are incompatible the wind 4ppeared [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486130</id>
	<title>Re:Until...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268684760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm afraid you don't know much about genetics. The "use" of that junk DNA is as a spacer, to help the chromosome fold into a specific shape. Forensics uses a kind of repeating DNA sequence called a VNTR, which is just a repetition of a handful of nucleotides less than 50 bp in length. These sequences are shaped in such a way that they cause DNA polymerase to slip, and so when passing on the genes there is a higher likelihood that they will change in the number of repeats. <b>The content of these repeats is the same in everyone</b>, it is only the number of them that varies. When the genes containing these sequences are expressed, they are cut out (look up "intron" on Wikipedia) and are prevented from being expressed.</p><p>There are a very small number of VNTR patterns that are actually important to medicine and biology, such as the one that causes Huntington's disease, where different numbers of repetitions can create problems. However, the VNTRs that forensics use are known to have no impact on cell health (there are enough to chose from!) As our dear foolish law student said, the FBI's database really just consists of a few numbers (the number of repetitions for each VNTR per chromosome.)</p><p>As far as programmers should be concerned, the use of genetics in criminology is directly analogous to creating a unique serial number for people, which can only be cheated by faking a blood sample or by identical twins. <b>Any rebuttals of this technique should focus on that scenario</b>, or on corruption of the process used to check and verify the samples (i.e. mishandling of the samples, collection of extra info, et cetera.) The actual procedure this guy's proposing isn't at fault for procedural reasons, and unless you've actually taken a genetics course, STFU about GATTACA-like scenarios.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm afraid you do n't know much about genetics .
The " use " of that junk DNA is as a spacer , to help the chromosome fold into a specific shape .
Forensics uses a kind of repeating DNA sequence called a VNTR , which is just a repetition of a handful of nucleotides less than 50 bp in length .
These sequences are shaped in such a way that they cause DNA polymerase to slip , and so when passing on the genes there is a higher likelihood that they will change in the number of repeats .
The content of these repeats is the same in everyone , it is only the number of them that varies .
When the genes containing these sequences are expressed , they are cut out ( look up " intron " on Wikipedia ) and are prevented from being expressed.There are a very small number of VNTR patterns that are actually important to medicine and biology , such as the one that causes Huntington 's disease , where different numbers of repetitions can create problems .
However , the VNTRs that forensics use are known to have no impact on cell health ( there are enough to chose from !
) As our dear foolish law student said , the FBI 's database really just consists of a few numbers ( the number of repetitions for each VNTR per chromosome .
) As far as programmers should be concerned , the use of genetics in criminology is directly analogous to creating a unique serial number for people , which can only be cheated by faking a blood sample or by identical twins .
Any rebuttals of this technique should focus on that scenario , or on corruption of the process used to check and verify the samples ( i.e .
mishandling of the samples , collection of extra info , et cetera .
) The actual procedure this guy 's proposing is n't at fault for procedural reasons , and unless you 've actually taken a genetics course , STFU about GATTACA-like scenarios .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm afraid you don't know much about genetics.
The "use" of that junk DNA is as a spacer, to help the chromosome fold into a specific shape.
Forensics uses a kind of repeating DNA sequence called a VNTR, which is just a repetition of a handful of nucleotides less than 50 bp in length.
These sequences are shaped in such a way that they cause DNA polymerase to slip, and so when passing on the genes there is a higher likelihood that they will change in the number of repeats.
The content of these repeats is the same in everyone, it is only the number of them that varies.
When the genes containing these sequences are expressed, they are cut out (look up "intron" on Wikipedia) and are prevented from being expressed.There are a very small number of VNTR patterns that are actually important to medicine and biology, such as the one that causes Huntington's disease, where different numbers of repetitions can create problems.
However, the VNTRs that forensics use are known to have no impact on cell health (there are enough to chose from!
) As our dear foolish law student said, the FBI's database really just consists of a few numbers (the number of repetitions for each VNTR per chromosome.
)As far as programmers should be concerned, the use of genetics in criminology is directly analogous to creating a unique serial number for people, which can only be cheated by faking a blood sample or by identical twins.
Any rebuttals of this technique should focus on that scenario, or on corruption of the process used to check and verify the samples (i.e.
mishandling of the samples, collection of extra info, et cetera.
) The actual procedure this guy's proposing isn't at fault for procedural reasons, and unless you've actually taken a genetics course, STFU about GATTACA-like scenarios.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486824</id>
	<title>Re:Awwwww, hes just so cute and innocent...</title>
	<author>dwiget001</author>
	<datestamp>1268643900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I disagree.</p><p>Anything, in my view, that even slightly smells of going towards invading the privacy of one or more individuals, should be expunged pronto-like.</p><p>Oh, sure, there are probably a few reasons that this would be "good" or considered so. But once you open that door, it makes it easier to kick the door open wide and say:</p><p>Well, we got this sample, might as well keep it just in case, get some Congress critters on the phone and tell them 'It's in the best interest of children' or some such crap. They will eat it up and get this into law for us to keep and also obtain more samples whenever we want in no time!"</p><p>It's all a slippery slope, IMHO.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree.Anything , in my view , that even slightly smells of going towards invading the privacy of one or more individuals , should be expunged pronto-like.Oh , sure , there are probably a few reasons that this would be " good " or considered so .
But once you open that door , it makes it easier to kick the door open wide and say : Well , we got this sample , might as well keep it just in case , get some Congress critters on the phone and tell them 'It 's in the best interest of children ' or some such crap .
They will eat it up and get this into law for us to keep and also obtain more samples whenever we want in no time !
" It 's all a slippery slope , IMHO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree.Anything, in my view, that even slightly smells of going towards invading the privacy of one or more individuals, should be expunged pronto-like.Oh, sure, there are probably a few reasons that this would be "good" or considered so.
But once you open that door, it makes it easier to kick the door open wide and say:Well, we got this sample, might as well keep it just in case, get some Congress critters on the phone and tell them 'It's in the best interest of children' or some such crap.
They will eat it up and get this into law for us to keep and also obtain more samples whenever we want in no time!
"It's all a slippery slope, IMHO.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31489584</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268656800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>didnt obama go to yale?  is it something in the water there or just communal sutpidity or complete disregard for the constitution?  I can well imagine a world where DNA is taken at birth and used to convict criminals.  what i can't imagine is how the government, so good at keeping all the other government programs working so well and of course, protected completely (do state department laptops, social security laptops/cds, va privacy data screwups come to mind for anyone?).  yeah, please, just try to take my childs dna without my permission.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>didnt obama go to yale ?
is it something in the water there or just communal sutpidity or complete disregard for the constitution ?
I can well imagine a world where DNA is taken at birth and used to convict criminals .
what i ca n't imagine is how the government , so good at keeping all the other government programs working so well and of course , protected completely ( do state department laptops , social security laptops/cds , va privacy data screwups come to mind for anyone ? ) .
yeah , please , just try to take my childs dna without my permission .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>didnt obama go to yale?
is it something in the water there or just communal sutpidity or complete disregard for the constitution?
I can well imagine a world where DNA is taken at birth and used to convict criminals.
what i can't imagine is how the government, so good at keeping all the other government programs working so well and of course, protected completely (do state department laptops, social security laptops/cds, va privacy data screwups come to mind for anyone?).
yeah, please, just try to take my childs dna without my permission.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486408</id>
	<title>Re:Mission Creep</title>
	<author>Adaeniel</author>
	<datestamp>1268685780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> And they claimed the social security number would Never be used for anything else, but the SS administration.</p> </div><p>This is not the fault of lawmakers, is it?  I thought that this was mainly due to the private sector requiring use of the social security number for various purposes although they had been encouraged not to.  It's not like the government is forcing your cable company to take you SSN, and I have heard that you can opt for an alternate identifier.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And they claimed the social security number would Never be used for anything else , but the SS administration .
This is not the fault of lawmakers , is it ?
I thought that this was mainly due to the private sector requiring use of the social security number for various purposes although they had been encouraged not to .
It 's not like the government is forcing your cable company to take you SSN , and I have heard that you can opt for an alternate identifier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> And they claimed the social security number would Never be used for anything else, but the SS administration.
This is not the fault of lawmakers, is it?
I thought that this was mainly due to the private sector requiring use of the social security number for various purposes although they had been encouraged not to.
It's not like the government is forcing your cable company to take you SSN, and I have heard that you can opt for an alternate identifier.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31488588</id>
	<title>Re:There is a law against that...</title>
	<author>neophytepwner</author>
	<datestamp>1268651100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apart from that, think of the costs.  Our government can't afford to do anything that absurd, ooh wait...

I think Yale should DNA profile all Law student applications to make sure no one with the similar DNA mutation gets accepted.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apart from that , think of the costs .
Our government ca n't afford to do anything that absurd , ooh wait.. . I think Yale should DNA profile all Law student applications to make sure no one with the similar DNA mutation gets accepted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apart from that, think of the costs.
Our government can't afford to do anything that absurd, ooh wait...

I think Yale should DNA profile all Law student applications to make sure no one with the similar DNA mutation gets accepted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31488112</id>
	<title>Re:Fine With Me</title>
	<author>isorox</author>
	<datestamp>1268648880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Gimme your<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/shadow too. What's the problem? It's encrypted.</i></p><p>That's the reason I still have passwords in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/passwd -- noone will think of looking there!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gim me your /etc/shadow too .
What 's the problem ?
It 's encrypted.That 's the reason I still have passwords in /etc/passwd -- noone will think of looking there !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gimme your /etc/shadow too.
What's the problem?
It's encrypted.That's the reason I still have passwords in /etc/passwd -- noone will think of looking there!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486168</id>
	<title>Safe and Secure and Fast....</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1268684820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Terms never associated with the government.</p><p>I am sure we can surely trust them with our DNA.</p><p>It will turn out just fine.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Terms never associated with the government.I am sure we can surely trust them with our DNA.It will turn out just fine.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Terms never associated with the government.I am sure we can surely trust them with our DNA.It will turn out just fine.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485826</id>
	<title>Poisonous.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268683860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This has so many flavors of wrong, so toxic to freedom, and so indicative of the mindset of "If you have nothing to hide..." that there's really only one response I can pull together.  It's not eloquent, but it does, I feel, have a certain crude charm.</p><p>"FUCK.  YOU."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This has so many flavors of wrong , so toxic to freedom , and so indicative of the mindset of " If you have nothing to hide... " that there 's really only one response I can pull together .
It 's not eloquent , but it does , I feel , have a certain crude charm. " FUCK .
YOU. "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has so many flavors of wrong, so toxic to freedom, and so indicative of the mindset of "If you have nothing to hide..." that there's really only one response I can pull together.
It's not eloquent, but it does, I feel, have a certain crude charm."FUCK.
YOU."</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486370</id>
	<title>American government quiz</title>
	<author>WebManWalking</author>
	<datestamp>1268685660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Quick, what's the constitutional problem with the government forcing an individual to provide evidence that could be used to convict that same individual of a crime?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quick , what 's the constitutional problem with the government forcing an individual to provide evidence that could be used to convict that same individual of a crime ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quick, what's the constitutional problem with the government forcing an individual to provide evidence that could be used to convict that same individual of a crime?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31488744</id>
	<title>Re:And how useful would it really be?</title>
	<author>oji-sama</author>
	<datestamp>1268651880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"We know that 1 of these 300 people probably committed this crime. Now the police simply have to investigate to figure out which of them are likely to be tied to this crime either by proximity or possible motive." How is that not useful, from a law enforcement standpoint? You just narrowed your list of potential suspects from 300 million to 300, a large number of whom could probably be eliminated simply because they are not remotely related to the victim in any way, spatially or socially.</p></div><p>This here is the scary part. If I could believe that one person out of those 300 was always the criminal, this would be great. However, I fear it is very much likely that there would be cases where the police would go after 'the wrong DNA' and find a person that is tied to the crime either by proximity or motive...</p><p>The second non-optimal possibility would be sweeping the crime scene and harassing the persons that have visited it, because one of them 'must have done the deed'...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" We know that 1 of these 300 people probably committed this crime .
Now the police simply have to investigate to figure out which of them are likely to be tied to this crime either by proximity or possible motive .
" How is that not useful , from a law enforcement standpoint ?
You just narrowed your list of potential suspects from 300 million to 300 , a large number of whom could probably be eliminated simply because they are not remotely related to the victim in any way , spatially or socially.This here is the scary part .
If I could believe that one person out of those 300 was always the criminal , this would be great .
However , I fear it is very much likely that there would be cases where the police would go after 'the wrong DNA ' and find a person that is tied to the crime either by proximity or motive...The second non-optimal possibility would be sweeping the crime scene and harassing the persons that have visited it , because one of them 'must have done the deed'.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We know that 1 of these 300 people probably committed this crime.
Now the police simply have to investigate to figure out which of them are likely to be tied to this crime either by proximity or possible motive.
" How is that not useful, from a law enforcement standpoint?
You just narrowed your list of potential suspects from 300 million to 300, a large number of whom could probably be eliminated simply because they are not remotely related to the victim in any way, spatially or socially.This here is the scary part.
If I could believe that one person out of those 300 was always the criminal, this would be great.
However, I fear it is very much likely that there would be cases where the police would go after 'the wrong DNA' and find a person that is tied to the crime either by proximity or motive...The second non-optimal possibility would be sweeping the crime scene and harassing the persons that have visited it, because one of them 'must have done the deed'...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487014</id>
	<title>This man needs a lesson in predictive value</title>
	<author>SashaMan</author>
	<datestamp>1268644560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Besides all the other obvious problems with this idea, the author seems to assume that DNA profiles are unique. While duplicates ARE exceedingly rare, the birthday paradox ensures that you DO get lots of false positive matches if everyone in the US is indexed. Juries already assume DNA matches are 100\%, and since there is no chance they understand statistics, they are going to put a lot of innocent people in jail if a scheme like this goes through.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Besides all the other obvious problems with this idea , the author seems to assume that DNA profiles are unique .
While duplicates ARE exceedingly rare , the birthday paradox ensures that you DO get lots of false positive matches if everyone in the US is indexed .
Juries already assume DNA matches are 100 \ % , and since there is no chance they understand statistics , they are going to put a lot of innocent people in jail if a scheme like this goes through .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Besides all the other obvious problems with this idea, the author seems to assume that DNA profiles are unique.
While duplicates ARE exceedingly rare, the birthday paradox ensures that you DO get lots of false positive matches if everyone in the US is indexed.
Juries already assume DNA matches are 100\%, and since there is no chance they understand statistics, they are going to put a lot of innocent people in jail if a scheme like this goes through.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31490614</id>
	<title>Re:Dammit...</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1268662800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...my fingers don't even have to be cold and dead to pry my DNA out of them."</p><p>(cue Charlton Heston voice)</p><p>"They can have my DNA, when they pour it from my cold, dead keyboard!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...my fingers do n't even have to be cold and dead to pry my DNA out of them .
" ( cue Charlton Heston voice ) " They can have my DNA , when they pour it from my cold , dead keyboard !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...my fingers don't even have to be cold and dead to pry my DNA out of them.
"(cue Charlton Heston voice)"They can have my DNA, when they pour it from my cold, dead keyboard!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486766</id>
	<title>Yeah right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268643660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What makes him think that they don't already do this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What makes him think that they do n't already do this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What makes him think that they don't already do this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486074</id>
	<title>And how useful would it really be?</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1268684640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The less data you have from the DNA, the more matches you are going to find. The reason things like DNA and fingerprints work is you have a smallish possibility set. You have 10 suspects, you compare the fingerprints, one matches, nine don't well there you go. In all cases with fingerprints and DNA you are saying "This item matches 1 in X people in the population." Now that's usually pretty good, like 1 in a million or something. However not so useful if your sample size is 300,000,000 and growing.</p><p>Also there's the fact that DNA tests aren't cheap, or particularly quick. They aren't the kind of thing you can use for every criminal case, it'd be way too expensive, not to mention unnecessary. I can't see that this would get used all the time. Fingerprints are done often because they are pretty cheap to test, but DNA? Not so much at this point.</p><p>So I can't really see this of being a whole lot of use to law enforcement either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The less data you have from the DNA , the more matches you are going to find .
The reason things like DNA and fingerprints work is you have a smallish possibility set .
You have 10 suspects , you compare the fingerprints , one matches , nine do n't well there you go .
In all cases with fingerprints and DNA you are saying " This item matches 1 in X people in the population .
" Now that 's usually pretty good , like 1 in a million or something .
However not so useful if your sample size is 300,000,000 and growing.Also there 's the fact that DNA tests are n't cheap , or particularly quick .
They are n't the kind of thing you can use for every criminal case , it 'd be way too expensive , not to mention unnecessary .
I ca n't see that this would get used all the time .
Fingerprints are done often because they are pretty cheap to test , but DNA ?
Not so much at this point.So I ca n't really see this of being a whole lot of use to law enforcement either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The less data you have from the DNA, the more matches you are going to find.
The reason things like DNA and fingerprints work is you have a smallish possibility set.
You have 10 suspects, you compare the fingerprints, one matches, nine don't well there you go.
In all cases with fingerprints and DNA you are saying "This item matches 1 in X people in the population.
" Now that's usually pretty good, like 1 in a million or something.
However not so useful if your sample size is 300,000,000 and growing.Also there's the fact that DNA tests aren't cheap, or particularly quick.
They aren't the kind of thing you can use for every criminal case, it'd be way too expensive, not to mention unnecessary.
I can't see that this would get used all the time.
Fingerprints are done often because they are pretty cheap to test, but DNA?
Not so much at this point.So I can't really see this of being a whole lot of use to law enforcement either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486576</id>
	<title>Re:DNA fingerprints are NOT UNIQUE</title>
	<author>canajin56</author>
	<datestamp>1268686260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The USA has a population of 300 million, not 300 billion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The USA has a population of 300 million , not 300 billion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The USA has a population of 300 million, not 300 billion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486310</id>
	<title>Re:Awwwww, hes just so cute and innocent...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268685420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Add an assumption: that "junk DNA" is junk.</p><p>It's a common misconception that it doesn't code for anything. The truth is, it just hasn't been discovered yet what it encodes for. Put another way, rather than a fairly straightforward mapping of gene-to-feature, it's a more complex relationship. You can test this yourself by taking some "junk DNA" from one species and pasting it into another.</p><p>Recently and ongoing, there's been work to try to discover some genetic predilection to particular behaviours. Things like a "entrepreneurial gene", a "thief gene", a "rapist gene", and so on. Wouldn't it be awkward if everyone's genetic fingerprint were encoded on the genes which encode for predilection to discover holes in crackpot genetic crime prevention theories?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Add an assumption : that " junk DNA " is junk.It 's a common misconception that it does n't code for anything .
The truth is , it just has n't been discovered yet what it encodes for .
Put another way , rather than a fairly straightforward mapping of gene-to-feature , it 's a more complex relationship .
You can test this yourself by taking some " junk DNA " from one species and pasting it into another.Recently and ongoing , there 's been work to try to discover some genetic predilection to particular behaviours .
Things like a " entrepreneurial gene " , a " thief gene " , a " rapist gene " , and so on .
Would n't it be awkward if everyone 's genetic fingerprint were encoded on the genes which encode for predilection to discover holes in crackpot genetic crime prevention theories ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Add an assumption: that "junk DNA" is junk.It's a common misconception that it doesn't code for anything.
The truth is, it just hasn't been discovered yet what it encodes for.
Put another way, rather than a fairly straightforward mapping of gene-to-feature, it's a more complex relationship.
You can test this yourself by taking some "junk DNA" from one species and pasting it into another.Recently and ongoing, there's been work to try to discover some genetic predilection to particular behaviours.
Things like a "entrepreneurial gene", a "thief gene", a "rapist gene", and so on.
Wouldn't it be awkward if everyone's genetic fingerprint were encoded on the genes which encode for predilection to discover holes in crackpot genetic crime prevention theories?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486258</id>
	<title>Re:Will not work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268685240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The chance of two unrelated individuals sharing the same "fingerprint" is less than 1 in the number of people on the planet, by a couple orders of magnitude. So yes, it would still be useful, although its discriminatory value drops when suspects are related to one another.</p><p>Refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short\_tandem\_repeat for more information. In the US, only 13 loci are necessary for a fingerprint to be unique enough (again, chance of two unrelated individuals sharing the same 13 loci is less than 1 in the number of people on the planet).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The chance of two unrelated individuals sharing the same " fingerprint " is less than 1 in the number of people on the planet , by a couple orders of magnitude .
So yes , it would still be useful , although its discriminatory value drops when suspects are related to one another.Refer to http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short \ _tandem \ _repeat for more information .
In the US , only 13 loci are necessary for a fingerprint to be unique enough ( again , chance of two unrelated individuals sharing the same 13 loci is less than 1 in the number of people on the planet ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The chance of two unrelated individuals sharing the same "fingerprint" is less than 1 in the number of people on the planet, by a couple orders of magnitude.
So yes, it would still be useful, although its discriminatory value drops when suspects are related to one another.Refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short\_tandem\_repeat for more information.
In the US, only 13 loci are necessary for a fingerprint to be unique enough (again, chance of two unrelated individuals sharing the same 13 loci is less than 1 in the number of people on the planet).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485998</id>
	<title>The unintended consequences</title>
	<author>zapster</author>
	<datestamp>1268684340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if that ever happens then we will all have to protect our DNA (Hair, skin, spit, etc.) because loss of control of your DNA to a criminal spells guilty in court.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if that ever happens then we will all have to protect our DNA ( Hair , skin , spit , etc .
) because loss of control of your DNA to a criminal spells guilty in court .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if that ever happens then we will all have to protect our DNA (Hair, skin, spit, etc.
) because loss of control of your DNA to a criminal spells guilty in court.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486472</id>
	<title>Re:Awwwww, hes just so cute and innocent...</title>
	<author>Swanktastic</author>
	<datestamp>1268685960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We shouldn't automatically reject any proposal simply because abuse and mistakes are possible.</p><p>If I used your exact same methodology/argument to evaluate the criminal justice system, I would have to decide that it doesn't make sense to prosecute criminals because we could make a mistake and send a guilty person to jail.  Society has decided that it is OK to prosecute criminals as long as the rate of false convictions is low because the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.</p><p>IF it is indeed technically possible that one can "hash" DNA into a one-way encoding, then the concerns for abuse drop dramatically while the benefits (identification) still stay roughly the same.</p><p>The more rational argument is to compare this proposal to our existing system of criminal investigation, flaws and all, where cops intimidate/interrogate everyone they suspect they get their man/woman.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We should n't automatically reject any proposal simply because abuse and mistakes are possible.If I used your exact same methodology/argument to evaluate the criminal justice system , I would have to decide that it does n't make sense to prosecute criminals because we could make a mistake and send a guilty person to jail .
Society has decided that it is OK to prosecute criminals as long as the rate of false convictions is low because the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.IF it is indeed technically possible that one can " hash " DNA into a one-way encoding , then the concerns for abuse drop dramatically while the benefits ( identification ) still stay roughly the same.The more rational argument is to compare this proposal to our existing system of criminal investigation , flaws and all , where cops intimidate/interrogate everyone they suspect they get their man/woman .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We shouldn't automatically reject any proposal simply because abuse and mistakes are possible.If I used your exact same methodology/argument to evaluate the criminal justice system, I would have to decide that it doesn't make sense to prosecute criminals because we could make a mistake and send a guilty person to jail.
Society has decided that it is OK to prosecute criminals as long as the rate of false convictions is low because the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.IF it is indeed technically possible that one can "hash" DNA into a one-way encoding, then the concerns for abuse drop dramatically while the benefits (identification) still stay roughly the same.The more rational argument is to compare this proposal to our existing system of criminal investigation, flaws and all, where cops intimidate/interrogate everyone they suspect they get their man/woman.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487488</id>
	<title>Re:There's something seriously frightening</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268646420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yeah, i dont trust the government of tank man either...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/joke</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah , i dont trust the government of tank man either... /joke</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah, i dont trust the government of tank man either... /joke</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31491574</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1268670600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Please explain how a DNA fingerprint (note that this is not a copy of your entire genome kept on file) represents a problem.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please explain how a DNA fingerprint ( note that this is not a copy of your entire genome kept on file ) represents a problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please explain how a DNA fingerprint (note that this is not a copy of your entire genome kept on file) represents a problem.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485994</id>
	<title>Be safe?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268684280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is possible to create a matching genetic sample from arbitrary DNA given only those 26 numeric values. With genetic samples of everyone, even if only those 26 values, anyone can be framed for any crime. And thanks to CSI genetic evidence is taken almost unquestionably as proof of guilt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is possible to create a matching genetic sample from arbitrary DNA given only those 26 numeric values .
With genetic samples of everyone , even if only those 26 values , anyone can be framed for any crime .
And thanks to CSI genetic evidence is taken almost unquestionably as proof of guilt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is possible to create a matching genetic sample from arbitrary DNA given only those 26 numeric values.
With genetic samples of everyone, even if only those 26 values, anyone can be framed for any crime.
And thanks to CSI genetic evidence is taken almost unquestionably as proof of guilt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31488476</id>
	<title>Who really needs this ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268650560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tbh my life is perfectly fine security-wise. I will most likely die a natural death, maybe die in a car accident, but that doesn't keep me from driving, the chance that I get murdered is neglible, so I feel safe. I'm not willing to take the risk that comes with storing all that data about people and blindly trusting in the result of DNA tests etc. People should stop going crazy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tbh my life is perfectly fine security-wise .
I will most likely die a natural death , maybe die in a car accident , but that does n't keep me from driving , the chance that I get murdered is neglible , so I feel safe .
I 'm not willing to take the risk that comes with storing all that data about people and blindly trusting in the result of DNA tests etc .
People should stop going crazy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tbh my life is perfectly fine security-wise.
I will most likely die a natural death, maybe die in a car accident, but that doesn't keep me from driving, the chance that I get murdered is neglible, so I feel safe.
I'm not willing to take the risk that comes with storing all that data about people and blindly trusting in the result of DNA tests etc.
People should stop going crazy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487220</id>
	<title>How about this Yale student go to class more?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268645460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is obvious that he missed the class(es) on the Fourth Amendment.  The government, be it Federal, state, or local, cannot require a person or persons to relinquish possessions without probable cause.  There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that says any person has to give us their genetic code for "the greater good".  The stance this asshole is taking is just one of the many tenants of the "big government" crowd.  I believe he needs to keep his mouth shut and quit attempting to interfere with U.S. citizen's privacy.</p><p>In short, Michael Seringhaus, you can go fuck yourself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is obvious that he missed the class ( es ) on the Fourth Amendment .
The government , be it Federal , state , or local , can not require a person or persons to relinquish possessions without probable cause .
There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that says any person has to give us their genetic code for " the greater good " .
The stance this asshole is taking is just one of the many tenants of the " big government " crowd .
I believe he needs to keep his mouth shut and quit attempting to interfere with U.S. citizen 's privacy.In short , Michael Seringhaus , you can go fuck yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is obvious that he missed the class(es) on the Fourth Amendment.
The government, be it Federal, state, or local, cannot require a person or persons to relinquish possessions without probable cause.
There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that says any person has to give us their genetic code for "the greater good".
The stance this asshole is taking is just one of the many tenants of the "big government" crowd.
I believe he needs to keep his mouth shut and quit attempting to interfere with U.S. citizen's privacy.In short, Michael Seringhaus, you can go fuck yourself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31491354</id>
	<title>Sci Am Amateur Scientist DIY DNA replication</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268668380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The 'Scientific American' Amateur Scientist CDROM released a few years back has as one of the experiments how to multiply DNA from a sample, using some biotech solutions available by mail-order. It wasn't that difficult for them to do.</p><p>Now just imagine if there was someone who wanted to frame you for a crime, they would obtain some of your DNA (hair sample etc), amplify, put it in a spray bottle and go around spraying door handles, coffee cups and the like. Try explaining your way out of that one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The 'Scientific American ' Amateur Scientist CDROM released a few years back has as one of the experiments how to multiply DNA from a sample , using some biotech solutions available by mail-order .
It was n't that difficult for them to do.Now just imagine if there was someone who wanted to frame you for a crime , they would obtain some of your DNA ( hair sample etc ) , amplify , put it in a spray bottle and go around spraying door handles , coffee cups and the like .
Try explaining your way out of that one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 'Scientific American' Amateur Scientist CDROM released a few years back has as one of the experiments how to multiply DNA from a sample, using some biotech solutions available by mail-order.
It wasn't that difficult for them to do.Now just imagine if there was someone who wanted to frame you for a crime, they would obtain some of your DNA (hair sample etc), amplify, put it in a spray bottle and go around spraying door handles, coffee cups and the like.
Try explaining your way out of that one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486876</id>
	<title>Re: Yale Law Student Wants Government To Have Ever</title>
	<author>element-o.p.</author>
	<datestamp>1268644080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yale Law Student Wants Government To Have Everybody's DNA</p></div><p>
Alaska Network Admin doesn't.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Regarding the obvious issue of genetic privacy, Seringhaus makes this argument: "Your sensitive genetic information would be safe...these records include none of the health and biological data present in one&rsquo;s genome as a whole."</p></div><p>
The <i>only</i> information that is &quot;safe&quot; is information that isn't known and isn't recorded anywhere.  Isn't<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. the site where people keep repeating &quot;information wants to be free!&quot;?  Ben Franklin had it right: <a href="http://quotationsbook.com/quote/35333/" title="quotationsbook.com">&quot;Three can keep a secret if two of them are dead.&quot;</a> [quotationsbook.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yale Law Student Wants Government To Have Everybody 's DNA Alaska Network Admin does n't.Regarding the obvious issue of genetic privacy , Seringhaus makes this argument : " Your sensitive genetic information would be safe...these records include none of the health and biological data present in one    s genome as a whole .
" The only information that is " safe " is information that is n't known and is n't recorded anywhere .
Is n't / .
the site where people keep repeating " information wants to be free ! " ?
Ben Franklin had it right : " Three can keep a secret if two of them are dead .
" [ quotationsbook.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yale Law Student Wants Government To Have Everybody's DNA
Alaska Network Admin doesn't.Regarding the obvious issue of genetic privacy, Seringhaus makes this argument: "Your sensitive genetic information would be safe...these records include none of the health and biological data present in one’s genome as a whole.
"
The only information that is "safe" is information that isn't known and isn't recorded anywhere.
Isn't /.
the site where people keep repeating "information wants to be free!"?
Ben Franklin had it right: "Three can keep a secret if two of them are dead.
" [quotationsbook.com]
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31489826</id>
	<title>You have the wrong hat on</title>
	<author>denzacar</author>
	<datestamp>1268658120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are wearing you "tech-hat" when you should be wearing your "law-hat".</p><p>300 instant possible suspects means that every case will get instantly thrown out - as soon as suspect's lawyer proves reasonable doubt.<br>300 suspects for every crime is pretty darn reasonable.</p><p>AAAH! But we can avoid that with better tech and more precise tests, you must think right about now - because you are still wearing your tech-hat.<br>And there we get to the issue of COST.<br>Sure, you can do cheap tests for everyone once, keep results in the database and then do cheap tests for the evidence at the scene.<br>But what happens when suspect's lawyer demands another test to be done, and this time you must do it with best tech available?<br>Hey! Their defendant may be going to the electric gas chamber! Don't you go cheap just because it may be taxpayer's money that is paying for the testing.<br>So what happens now?<br>Bingo! Now you must do at least 300 very expensive tests to prove that none of the other "possible suspects" matches the "main suspect's" DNA close enough.</p><p>But that is just peanuts compared to the legwork you now must do.<br>Cause to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that the "main suspect" did do it - you now must also prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that 300 other people DIDN'T DO IT.<br>That is 300 parallel investigations. Loooong after the fact. You are now chasing 300 ghosts across the country, possibly even across the planet.<br>And unless you somehow had all those 300 people tied up in the basement with 24/7 surveillance, WHILE on the other side of the country you had someone do the crime under the same "24/7 surveillance" conditions - you can't really prove they DIDN'T do something.</p><p>Even then... since DNA can be planted MUCH EASIER than fingerprints - one or more of those 300 might still be connected with the crime in some way.<br>Maybe they've hired the "main suspect" to commit the crime for them. Gave him the tools/weapons.</p><p>"Everyone in the database" just means that lawyers would start getting criminals back out to the street using only a pocket calculator.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Hypothetical: Serial rapist is terrorizing New York City. Police have a DNA sample. With a database like this, they could pull a list of 300 people "who might be the serial rapist." They can rapidly go through that list and say "okay, in that 300 people, 50 of them live within 300 miles of New York City. Let's start interviewing those people, and see what turns up." If the matches are *accurate* (and this is the point you must really attack if you want to argue against this sort of a database), then it's overwhelmingly likely that one of those 50 people would turn out to be your criminal.</p></div><p>Except police doesn't send people to jail - lawyers and judges do. Police just investigates and makes arrests according to the accusation and the results of the investigation.<br>And we are back to prosecution trying to prove, in court, that 300 people couldn't ever do it.<br>Not even if they used cloning and teleportation and time travel.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are wearing you " tech-hat " when you should be wearing your " law-hat " .300 instant possible suspects means that every case will get instantly thrown out - as soon as suspect 's lawyer proves reasonable doubt.300 suspects for every crime is pretty darn reasonable.AAAH !
But we can avoid that with better tech and more precise tests , you must think right about now - because you are still wearing your tech-hat.And there we get to the issue of COST.Sure , you can do cheap tests for everyone once , keep results in the database and then do cheap tests for the evidence at the scene.But what happens when suspect 's lawyer demands another test to be done , and this time you must do it with best tech available ? Hey !
Their defendant may be going to the electric gas chamber !
Do n't you go cheap just because it may be taxpayer 's money that is paying for the testing.So what happens now ? Bingo !
Now you must do at least 300 very expensive tests to prove that none of the other " possible suspects " matches the " main suspect 's " DNA close enough.But that is just peanuts compared to the legwork you now must do.Cause to prove " beyond reasonable doubt " that the " main suspect " did do it - you now must also prove " beyond reasonable doubt " that 300 other people DID N'T DO IT.That is 300 parallel investigations .
Loooong after the fact .
You are now chasing 300 ghosts across the country , possibly even across the planet.And unless you somehow had all those 300 people tied up in the basement with 24/7 surveillance , WHILE on the other side of the country you had someone do the crime under the same " 24/7 surveillance " conditions - you ca n't really prove they DID N'T do something.Even then... since DNA can be planted MUCH EASIER than fingerprints - one or more of those 300 might still be connected with the crime in some way.Maybe they 've hired the " main suspect " to commit the crime for them .
Gave him the tools/weapons .
" Everyone in the database " just means that lawyers would start getting criminals back out to the street using only a pocket calculator.Hypothetical : Serial rapist is terrorizing New York City .
Police have a DNA sample .
With a database like this , they could pull a list of 300 people " who might be the serial rapist .
" They can rapidly go through that list and say " okay , in that 300 people , 50 of them live within 300 miles of New York City .
Let 's start interviewing those people , and see what turns up .
" If the matches are * accurate * ( and this is the point you must really attack if you want to argue against this sort of a database ) , then it 's overwhelmingly likely that one of those 50 people would turn out to be your criminal.Except police does n't send people to jail - lawyers and judges do .
Police just investigates and makes arrests according to the accusation and the results of the investigation.And we are back to prosecution trying to prove , in court , that 300 people could n't ever do it.Not even if they used cloning and teleportation and time travel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are wearing you "tech-hat" when you should be wearing your "law-hat".300 instant possible suspects means that every case will get instantly thrown out - as soon as suspect's lawyer proves reasonable doubt.300 suspects for every crime is pretty darn reasonable.AAAH!
But we can avoid that with better tech and more precise tests, you must think right about now - because you are still wearing your tech-hat.And there we get to the issue of COST.Sure, you can do cheap tests for everyone once, keep results in the database and then do cheap tests for the evidence at the scene.But what happens when suspect's lawyer demands another test to be done, and this time you must do it with best tech available?Hey!
Their defendant may be going to the electric gas chamber!
Don't you go cheap just because it may be taxpayer's money that is paying for the testing.So what happens now?Bingo!
Now you must do at least 300 very expensive tests to prove that none of the other "possible suspects" matches the "main suspect's" DNA close enough.But that is just peanuts compared to the legwork you now must do.Cause to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that the "main suspect" did do it - you now must also prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that 300 other people DIDN'T DO IT.That is 300 parallel investigations.
Loooong after the fact.
You are now chasing 300 ghosts across the country, possibly even across the planet.And unless you somehow had all those 300 people tied up in the basement with 24/7 surveillance, WHILE on the other side of the country you had someone do the crime under the same "24/7 surveillance" conditions - you can't really prove they DIDN'T do something.Even then... since DNA can be planted MUCH EASIER than fingerprints - one or more of those 300 might still be connected with the crime in some way.Maybe they've hired the "main suspect" to commit the crime for them.
Gave him the tools/weapons.
"Everyone in the database" just means that lawyers would start getting criminals back out to the street using only a pocket calculator.Hypothetical: Serial rapist is terrorizing New York City.
Police have a DNA sample.
With a database like this, they could pull a list of 300 people "who might be the serial rapist.
" They can rapidly go through that list and say "okay, in that 300 people, 50 of them live within 300 miles of New York City.
Let's start interviewing those people, and see what turns up.
" If the matches are *accurate* (and this is the point you must really attack if you want to argue against this sort of a database), then it's overwhelmingly likely that one of those 50 people would turn out to be your criminal.Except police doesn't send people to jail - lawyers and judges do.
Police just investigates and makes arrests according to the accusation and the results of the investigation.And we are back to prosecution trying to prove, in court, that 300 people couldn't ever do it.Not even if they used cloning and teleportation and time travel.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31489234</id>
	<title>Re:And how useful would it really be?</title>
	<author>davidbofinger</author>
	<datestamp>1268654700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>
[...] "This item matches 1 in X people in the population." Now that's usually pretty good, like 1 in a million or something. However not so useful if your sample size is 300,000,000 and growing. [...] So I can't really see this of being a whole lot of use to law enforcement either.
</p></div><p>
If I understand correctly what you're saying is that at the moment we're convicting people because they happen to be in the DNA database which is relatively small, but that if our database was larger we'd notice there were several such people so we wouldn't be able to convict on this evidence.
</p><p>If that's true then the enlarged database would serve to prevent unsafe convictions, which sounds like an excellent benefit to law enforcement.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ ... ] " This item matches 1 in X people in the population .
" Now that 's usually pretty good , like 1 in a million or something .
However not so useful if your sample size is 300,000,000 and growing .
[ ... ] So I ca n't really see this of being a whole lot of use to law enforcement either .
If I understand correctly what you 're saying is that at the moment we 're convicting people because they happen to be in the DNA database which is relatively small , but that if our database was larger we 'd notice there were several such people so we would n't be able to convict on this evidence .
If that 's true then the enlarged database would serve to prevent unsafe convictions , which sounds like an excellent benefit to law enforcement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
[...] "This item matches 1 in X people in the population.
" Now that's usually pretty good, like 1 in a million or something.
However not so useful if your sample size is 300,000,000 and growing.
[...] So I can't really see this of being a whole lot of use to law enforcement either.
If I understand correctly what you're saying is that at the moment we're convicting people because they happen to be in the DNA database which is relatively small, but that if our database was larger we'd notice there were several such people so we wouldn't be able to convict on this evidence.
If that's true then the enlarged database would serve to prevent unsafe convictions, which sounds like an excellent benefit to law enforcement.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31489152</id>
	<title>Re:Awwwww, hes just so cute and innocent...</title>
	<author>davidbofinger</author>
	<datestamp>1268654220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>BIG ASSUMPTIONS he is making: (1) A sample will be destroyed after it is used to create a DNA profile.</p></div><p>
Actually that's probably valid. The typing isn't going to be done by people with top secret clearances in highly secure government laboratories where everything is need to know. There just aren't enough such people to run a project of this size. It's going to be done by basically ordinary medical technicians. And if every one of these people is told, "Oh, and illegally keep the whole sample as well," then it's going to get out because that many people can't keep anything secret.
</p><p><div class="quote"><p>(2) Only law enforcement will have access</p></div><p>
That's an interesting one. I'm wondering what specific abuses would be an issue. If I understand correctly, "I think my daughter is still seeing that black kid, here's her bra, tell me if it's been handled by an African American" wouldn't work because race doesn't correlate to DNA fingerprint. If it's "the same guy as touched this door handle," then we don't need the database. I guess we could do, "the guy with this license plate" but how big a concern is that?
</p><p>I'm not sure the parent-squared deserved what was heaped on his head.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>BIG ASSUMPTIONS he is making : ( 1 ) A sample will be destroyed after it is used to create a DNA profile .
Actually that 's probably valid .
The typing is n't going to be done by people with top secret clearances in highly secure government laboratories where everything is need to know .
There just are n't enough such people to run a project of this size .
It 's going to be done by basically ordinary medical technicians .
And if every one of these people is told , " Oh , and illegally keep the whole sample as well , " then it 's going to get out because that many people ca n't keep anything secret .
( 2 ) Only law enforcement will have access That 's an interesting one .
I 'm wondering what specific abuses would be an issue .
If I understand correctly , " I think my daughter is still seeing that black kid , here 's her bra , tell me if it 's been handled by an African American " would n't work because race does n't correlate to DNA fingerprint .
If it 's " the same guy as touched this door handle , " then we do n't need the database .
I guess we could do , " the guy with this license plate " but how big a concern is that ?
I 'm not sure the parent-squared deserved what was heaped on his head .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BIG ASSUMPTIONS he is making: (1) A sample will be destroyed after it is used to create a DNA profile.
Actually that's probably valid.
The typing isn't going to be done by people with top secret clearances in highly secure government laboratories where everything is need to know.
There just aren't enough such people to run a project of this size.
It's going to be done by basically ordinary medical technicians.
And if every one of these people is told, "Oh, and illegally keep the whole sample as well," then it's going to get out because that many people can't keep anything secret.
(2) Only law enforcement will have access
That's an interesting one.
I'm wondering what specific abuses would be an issue.
If I understand correctly, "I think my daughter is still seeing that black kid, here's her bra, tell me if it's been handled by an African American" wouldn't work because race doesn't correlate to DNA fingerprint.
If it's "the same guy as touched this door handle," then we don't need the database.
I guess we could do, "the guy with this license plate" but how big a concern is that?
I'm not sure the parent-squared deserved what was heaped on his head.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31490654</id>
	<title>Re:Awwwww, hes just so cute and innocent...</title>
	<author>azrider</author>
	<datestamp>1268663100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>We shouldn't automatically reject any proposal simply because abuse and mistakes are possible.</p></div></blockquote><p>
No, should automatically reject any proposal simply because abuse and mistakes are PROBABLE.</p><p>
Three words for you: National Security Letter.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We should n't automatically reject any proposal simply because abuse and mistakes are possible .
No , should automatically reject any proposal simply because abuse and mistakes are PROBABLE .
Three words for you : National Security Letter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We shouldn't automatically reject any proposal simply because abuse and mistakes are possible.
No, should automatically reject any proposal simply because abuse and mistakes are PROBABLE.
Three words for you: National Security Letter.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486950</id>
	<title>Discredited</title>
	<author>swanzilla</author>
	<datestamp>1268644380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Before any further consideration of this dude's merits, take a look at this epic gem from his personal website:</p><p>

<a href="http://seringhaus.net/lyse.html" title="seringhaus.net"> Lyse Lyse Baby</a> [seringhaus.net]</p><p>
I have a feeling that alone will discredit anything further from Mr. Seringhaus.  Thanks for playing.  </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Before any further consideration of this dude 's merits , take a look at this epic gem from his personal website : Lyse Lyse Baby [ seringhaus.net ] I have a feeling that alone will discredit anything further from Mr. Seringhaus. Thanks for playing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before any further consideration of this dude's merits, take a look at this epic gem from his personal website:

 Lyse Lyse Baby [seringhaus.net]
I have a feeling that alone will discredit anything further from Mr. Seringhaus.  Thanks for playing.  </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31491772</id>
	<title>Re:Obama likes the idea as well</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1268672400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well that won&rsquo;t change. It&rsquo;s only that the state itself will become the jail. It&rsquo;s the logical next step, when everyone is treated like a criminal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well that won    t change .
It    s only that the state itself will become the jail .
It    s the logical next step , when everyone is treated like a criminal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well that won’t change.
It’s only that the state itself will become the jail.
It’s the logical next step, when everyone is treated like a criminal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486632</id>
	<title>His Personal Web Page</title>
	<author>jamesoutlaw</author>
	<datestamp>1268686440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here is a link to his personal web page:</p><p><a href="http://seringhaus.net/bio.html" title="seringhaus.net">http://seringhaus.net/bio.html</a> [seringhaus.net]</p><p><a href="http://www.seringhaus.net/" title="seringhaus.net">http://www.seringhaus.net/</a> [seringhaus.net]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is a link to his personal web page : http : //seringhaus.net/bio.html [ seringhaus.net ] http : //www.seringhaus.net/ [ seringhaus.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is a link to his personal web page:http://seringhaus.net/bio.html [seringhaus.net]http://www.seringhaus.net/ [seringhaus.net]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31489904</id>
	<title>Re:Awwwww, hes just so cute and innocent...</title>
	<author>waspleg</author>
	<datestamp>1268658720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>notice it says law student, and he's at yale. so unlike you, he's very unlikely to have ever lived the real world, where the auspices of his parents money can't protect him from reality forever (or can it?).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>notice it says law student , and he 's at yale .
so unlike you , he 's very unlikely to have ever lived the real world , where the auspices of his parents money ca n't protect him from reality forever ( or can it ?
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>notice it says law student, and he's at yale.
so unlike you, he's very unlikely to have ever lived the real world, where the auspices of his parents money can't protect him from reality forever (or can it?
).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486376</id>
	<title>junk dna</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268685660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>just because junk dna doesn't play a major or obvious role in human biology doesn't mean it should not be private information.  The fact is science has not determined what this dna is for.  Assuming it does not contain any private information is premature.  Maybe once we know more about the human genome we can identify certain base positions that do not contain any private information but that could be used to uniquely identify a person.  I would gladly submit this portion of my genome to the government, much in the same way I gave them a photograph of myself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>just because junk dna does n't play a major or obvious role in human biology does n't mean it should not be private information .
The fact is science has not determined what this dna is for .
Assuming it does not contain any private information is premature .
Maybe once we know more about the human genome we can identify certain base positions that do not contain any private information but that could be used to uniquely identify a person .
I would gladly submit this portion of my genome to the government , much in the same way I gave them a photograph of myself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just because junk dna doesn't play a major or obvious role in human biology doesn't mean it should not be private information.
The fact is science has not determined what this dna is for.
Assuming it does not contain any private information is premature.
Maybe once we know more about the human genome we can identify certain base positions that do not contain any private information but that could be used to uniquely identify a person.
I would gladly submit this portion of my genome to the government, much in the same way I gave them a photograph of myself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485942</id>
	<title>Not necessarily junk</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268684160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Aside from the obvious arguments on the complete invasion of privacy, junk DNA is just DNA that we<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/think/ does not actually express itself with any observable or measurable trait.  However, it's quite possible that how a gene expresses may be discovered at a later date.  Imagine it's discovered that certain thinking patterns or genetic disease with high cost of treatment have a correlation to certain sequences of formerly junk DNA.  In insurance company or government hands, I don't see how that information would be used in anything but an oppressive manner.


And of course, the particular set of digits which result from one's DNA profile is condition of the enzyme used to slice up the DNA sample.  With that large of a sample space false positives are all but assured.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Aside from the obvious arguments on the complete invasion of privacy , junk DNA is just DNA that we /think/ does not actually express itself with any observable or measurable trait .
However , it 's quite possible that how a gene expresses may be discovered at a later date .
Imagine it 's discovered that certain thinking patterns or genetic disease with high cost of treatment have a correlation to certain sequences of formerly junk DNA .
In insurance company or government hands , I do n't see how that information would be used in anything but an oppressive manner .
And of course , the particular set of digits which result from one 's DNA profile is condition of the enzyme used to slice up the DNA sample .
With that large of a sample space false positives are all but assured .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aside from the obvious arguments on the complete invasion of privacy, junk DNA is just DNA that we /think/ does not actually express itself with any observable or measurable trait.
However, it's quite possible that how a gene expresses may be discovered at a later date.
Imagine it's discovered that certain thinking patterns or genetic disease with high cost of treatment have a correlation to certain sequences of formerly junk DNA.
In insurance company or government hands, I don't see how that information would be used in anything but an oppressive manner.
And of course, the particular set of digits which result from one's DNA profile is condition of the enzyme used to slice up the DNA sample.
With that large of a sample space false positives are all but assured.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31491148</id>
	<title>when has fingerprint framing happened?</title>
	<author>ffflala</author>
	<datestamp>1268666820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously -- have there been any proven instances where fingerprints have been used, maliciously, to frame an innocent person for a crime? I've seen it on television episodes. I've heard of corrupt forensic investigators framing people for murder and subjecting them to the death penalty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyce\_Gilchrist), but this has been through falsification of lab reports -- purported evidence that, had it been checked by others, would have been found lacking: IOW, instances where people abused trust, authority, and reputations to pin the crime on the wrong person.</p><p>Yet despite being around since Mark Twain first wrote about using fingerprints for crime solving, I haven't heard of a single instance where fingerprint evidence was used to *frame* an innocent person. The closest I've heard is about exonerating fingerprint evidence being intentionally withheld. (Gilchrist sent Curtis McCarthy to death row for 20 years; there was a bloody footprint on the victim's body and a full set of fingerprints on the victim's broken &amp; entered window that matched the actual perp and would have exonerated McCarthy.)</p><p>Of course there are obvious and glaring problems with the Yale kid's idea. Yes I heard what happened in the UK, and was not at all surprised by it. But knee jerk OMG GATTACA!!! rejections tend to overlook the non-malicious and possibly beneficial uses of such technology and preclude possible approaches that might reconcile both kinds of concerns. Yes it would present considerable and very troubling privacy risks. Yes of course it would be a valuable target for misappropriation. However the usefulness of such a collection would truly be quite useful for crime investigations -- specifically in instances where unmatched DNA evidence is available. There are a number of unsolved murders and rapes that are currently at exactly that place. The best we can do at this point is hope that these people kill or rape again, but manage to get caught the next time.</p><p>The cons might outweigh the pros here, but they do not neutralize them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously -- have there been any proven instances where fingerprints have been used , maliciously , to frame an innocent person for a crime ?
I 've seen it on television episodes .
I 've heard of corrupt forensic investigators framing people for murder and subjecting them to the death penalty ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyce \ _Gilchrist ) , but this has been through falsification of lab reports -- purported evidence that , had it been checked by others , would have been found lacking : IOW , instances where people abused trust , authority , and reputations to pin the crime on the wrong person.Yet despite being around since Mark Twain first wrote about using fingerprints for crime solving , I have n't heard of a single instance where fingerprint evidence was used to * frame * an innocent person .
The closest I 've heard is about exonerating fingerprint evidence being intentionally withheld .
( Gilchrist sent Curtis McCarthy to death row for 20 years ; there was a bloody footprint on the victim 's body and a full set of fingerprints on the victim 's broken &amp; entered window that matched the actual perp and would have exonerated McCarthy .
) Of course there are obvious and glaring problems with the Yale kid 's idea .
Yes I heard what happened in the UK , and was not at all surprised by it .
But knee jerk OMG GATTACA ! ! !
rejections tend to overlook the non-malicious and possibly beneficial uses of such technology and preclude possible approaches that might reconcile both kinds of concerns .
Yes it would present considerable and very troubling privacy risks .
Yes of course it would be a valuable target for misappropriation .
However the usefulness of such a collection would truly be quite useful for crime investigations -- specifically in instances where unmatched DNA evidence is available .
There are a number of unsolved murders and rapes that are currently at exactly that place .
The best we can do at this point is hope that these people kill or rape again , but manage to get caught the next time.The cons might outweigh the pros here , but they do not neutralize them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously -- have there been any proven instances where fingerprints have been used, maliciously, to frame an innocent person for a crime?
I've seen it on television episodes.
I've heard of corrupt forensic investigators framing people for murder and subjecting them to the death penalty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyce\_Gilchrist), but this has been through falsification of lab reports -- purported evidence that, had it been checked by others, would have been found lacking: IOW, instances where people abused trust, authority, and reputations to pin the crime on the wrong person.Yet despite being around since Mark Twain first wrote about using fingerprints for crime solving, I haven't heard of a single instance where fingerprint evidence was used to *frame* an innocent person.
The closest I've heard is about exonerating fingerprint evidence being intentionally withheld.
(Gilchrist sent Curtis McCarthy to death row for 20 years; there was a bloody footprint on the victim's body and a full set of fingerprints on the victim's broken &amp; entered window that matched the actual perp and would have exonerated McCarthy.
)Of course there are obvious and glaring problems with the Yale kid's idea.
Yes I heard what happened in the UK, and was not at all surprised by it.
But knee jerk OMG GATTACA!!!
rejections tend to overlook the non-malicious and possibly beneficial uses of such technology and preclude possible approaches that might reconcile both kinds of concerns.
Yes it would present considerable and very troubling privacy risks.
Yes of course it would be a valuable target for misappropriation.
However the usefulness of such a collection would truly be quite useful for crime investigations -- specifically in instances where unmatched DNA evidence is available.
There are a number of unsolved murders and rapes that are currently at exactly that place.
The best we can do at this point is hope that these people kill or rape again, but manage to get caught the next time.The cons might outweigh the pros here, but they do not neutralize them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487052</id>
	<title>Re:Good Idea</title>
	<author>flaming error</author>
	<datestamp>1268644740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; It's a privacy-vs-justice tradeoff I'm willing to make.</p><p>Trade-off?  Justice and Privacy are not opposites any more than obesity and amputation are.  All you'll be trading is a reassuring illusion of efficiency for a reality of freedom lost by a thousand cuts such as this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; It 's a privacy-vs-justice tradeoff I 'm willing to make.Trade-off ?
Justice and Privacy are not opposites any more than obesity and amputation are .
All you 'll be trading is a reassuring illusion of efficiency for a reality of freedom lost by a thousand cuts such as this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; It's a privacy-vs-justice tradeoff I'm willing to make.Trade-off?
Justice and Privacy are not opposites any more than obesity and amputation are.
All you'll be trading is a reassuring illusion of efficiency for a reality of freedom lost by a thousand cuts such as this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485806</id>
	<title>prevent discrimination?</title>
	<author>Sir\_Lewk</author>
	<datestamp>1268683800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What... What!?!  To prevent the system from singling people out for abuse we are going to abuse <i>everybody</i>?  Only a lawyer could think this wasn't perverted logic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What.. .
What ! ? ! To prevent the system from singling people out for abuse we are going to abuse everybody ?
Only a lawyer could think this was n't perverted logic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What...
What!?!  To prevent the system from singling people out for abuse we are going to abuse everybody?
Only a lawyer could think this wasn't perverted logic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486030</id>
	<title>Mission Creep</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1268684460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Elected Nobility won't keep their promises.  "Oh it's only 26 markers... we can't predict your health from that," and then in ten or twenty years they'll want to sequence your entire genome, so they can create a society like GATTACA.</p><p>I've seen this before.  The Nobles promised income tax would only affect people over $100,000 not the commoners.  They said Medicare would only cost 60 billion, and that it would REDUCE healthcare costs, which of course it did the exact opposite.  And they claimed the social security number would Never be used for anything else, but the SS administration.</p><p>Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Elected Nobility wo n't keep their promises .
" Oh it 's only 26 markers... we ca n't predict your health from that , " and then in ten or twenty years they 'll want to sequence your entire genome , so they can create a society like GATTACA.I 've seen this before .
The Nobles promised income tax would only affect people over $ 100,000 not the commoners .
They said Medicare would only cost 60 billion , and that it would REDUCE healthcare costs , which of course it did the exact opposite .
And they claimed the social security number would Never be used for anything else , but the SS administration.Fool me once , shame on you .
Fool me twice.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Elected Nobility won't keep their promises.
"Oh it's only 26 markers... we can't predict your health from that," and then in ten or twenty years they'll want to sequence your entire genome, so they can create a society like GATTACA.I've seen this before.
The Nobles promised income tax would only affect people over $100,000 not the commoners.
They said Medicare would only cost 60 billion, and that it would REDUCE healthcare costs, which of course it did the exact opposite.
And they claimed the social security number would Never be used for anything else, but the SS administration.Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486226</id>
	<title>Re:Will not work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268685120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would 29 people be dragged to court? Where all thirty people living in the same city of the crime? That's a heck of a coincidence, you are assuming that they will go and arrest everyone that matches the DNA without an investigation of some sort...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would 29 people be dragged to court ?
Where all thirty people living in the same city of the crime ?
That 's a heck of a coincidence , you are assuming that they will go and arrest everyone that matches the DNA without an investigation of some sort.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would 29 people be dragged to court?
Where all thirty people living in the same city of the crime?
That's a heck of a coincidence, you are assuming that they will go and arrest everyone that matches the DNA without an investigation of some sort...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485780</id>
	<title>Awwwww, hes just so cute and innocent...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268683740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>As a practical matter, universal DNA collection is fairly easy: it could be done alongside blood tests on newborns, or through painless cheek swabs as a prerequisite to obtaining a driver's license or Social Security card. Once a biological sample was obtained, its use must be limited to generating a DNA profile only, and afterward the sample would be destroyed. Access to the DNA database would remain limited to law enforcement officers investigating serious crimes.</p><p>Since every American would have a stake in keeping the data private and ensuring that only the limited content vital to law enforcement was recorded, there would be far less likelihood of government misuse than in the case of a more selective database.</p></div></blockquote><p>Yeah, I remember being 5 or 6 years old and wondering why the whole world wasn't just nice to each other and all our problems would be solved.</p><p>Unfortunately, I grew up to have to understand the real world.</p><p>This guy reminds me of a cute little 5 year old.  His heart is in the right place and he just wants everything fair and nice.  However, those are some BIG ASSUMPTIONS he is making:</p><p>1) A sample will be destroyed after it is used to create a DNA profile.<br>2) Only law enforcement will have access<br>3) Since more Americans are in the database there is a less likelihood of government misuse.</p><p>Actually, I am not sure we can call those assumptions.  More like hypothetical requirements for an argument, like, the Sun will be Purple tomorrow.</p><p>All 3 of those assumptions have been proven to be false, time and time and time and time again.  Wasn't it just recently that we found out Texas A&amp;M was participating in collecting blood and tissue samples from newborns without the parents knowledge and consent?  Were they not also used for purposes the parents were unaware of and could object to?</p><p>Are we really to believe that only law enforcement would have access when any PI with a few bucks can currently gain access to supposedly proteced information that only law enforcement officials should be accessing?</p><p>Has not the goverment been caught time and time and time again abusing databases by using them for purposes well outside of the justifications and reasons for their initial creation?  Doesn't the goverment quite frequently change their minds about what they will do with resources after the fact?</p><p>Sure, if all of those assumptions are held to be true, I would agree with him about making a DNA database.  However, it is not my cynicism and disillusionment in goverment that causes me to be skeptical of those assumptions.  It's <b>COLD HARD REALITY, FACTS, AND PRECENDENCE</b>.  If you want to ignore that, and let them move on with a clean slate, that's your choice.  I choose to remember how often the government lies to me and abuses me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a practical matter , universal DNA collection is fairly easy : it could be done alongside blood tests on newborns , or through painless cheek swabs as a prerequisite to obtaining a driver 's license or Social Security card .
Once a biological sample was obtained , its use must be limited to generating a DNA profile only , and afterward the sample would be destroyed .
Access to the DNA database would remain limited to law enforcement officers investigating serious crimes.Since every American would have a stake in keeping the data private and ensuring that only the limited content vital to law enforcement was recorded , there would be far less likelihood of government misuse than in the case of a more selective database.Yeah , I remember being 5 or 6 years old and wondering why the whole world was n't just nice to each other and all our problems would be solved.Unfortunately , I grew up to have to understand the real world.This guy reminds me of a cute little 5 year old .
His heart is in the right place and he just wants everything fair and nice .
However , those are some BIG ASSUMPTIONS he is making : 1 ) A sample will be destroyed after it is used to create a DNA profile.2 ) Only law enforcement will have access3 ) Since more Americans are in the database there is a less likelihood of government misuse.Actually , I am not sure we can call those assumptions .
More like hypothetical requirements for an argument , like , the Sun will be Purple tomorrow.All 3 of those assumptions have been proven to be false , time and time and time and time again .
Was n't it just recently that we found out Texas A&amp;M was participating in collecting blood and tissue samples from newborns without the parents knowledge and consent ?
Were they not also used for purposes the parents were unaware of and could object to ? Are we really to believe that only law enforcement would have access when any PI with a few bucks can currently gain access to supposedly proteced information that only law enforcement officials should be accessing ? Has not the goverment been caught time and time and time again abusing databases by using them for purposes well outside of the justifications and reasons for their initial creation ?
Does n't the goverment quite frequently change their minds about what they will do with resources after the fact ? Sure , if all of those assumptions are held to be true , I would agree with him about making a DNA database .
However , it is not my cynicism and disillusionment in goverment that causes me to be skeptical of those assumptions .
It 's COLD HARD REALITY , FACTS , AND PRECENDENCE .
If you want to ignore that , and let them move on with a clean slate , that 's your choice .
I choose to remember how often the government lies to me and abuses me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a practical matter, universal DNA collection is fairly easy: it could be done alongside blood tests on newborns, or through painless cheek swabs as a prerequisite to obtaining a driver's license or Social Security card.
Once a biological sample was obtained, its use must be limited to generating a DNA profile only, and afterward the sample would be destroyed.
Access to the DNA database would remain limited to law enforcement officers investigating serious crimes.Since every American would have a stake in keeping the data private and ensuring that only the limited content vital to law enforcement was recorded, there would be far less likelihood of government misuse than in the case of a more selective database.Yeah, I remember being 5 or 6 years old and wondering why the whole world wasn't just nice to each other and all our problems would be solved.Unfortunately, I grew up to have to understand the real world.This guy reminds me of a cute little 5 year old.
His heart is in the right place and he just wants everything fair and nice.
However, those are some BIG ASSUMPTIONS he is making:1) A sample will be destroyed after it is used to create a DNA profile.2) Only law enforcement will have access3) Since more Americans are in the database there is a less likelihood of government misuse.Actually, I am not sure we can call those assumptions.
More like hypothetical requirements for an argument, like, the Sun will be Purple tomorrow.All 3 of those assumptions have been proven to be false, time and time and time and time again.
Wasn't it just recently that we found out Texas A&amp;M was participating in collecting blood and tissue samples from newborns without the parents knowledge and consent?
Were they not also used for purposes the parents were unaware of and could object to?Are we really to believe that only law enforcement would have access when any PI with a few bucks can currently gain access to supposedly proteced information that only law enforcement officials should be accessing?Has not the goverment been caught time and time and time again abusing databases by using them for purposes well outside of the justifications and reasons for their initial creation?
Doesn't the goverment quite frequently change their minds about what they will do with resources after the fact?Sure, if all of those assumptions are held to be true, I would agree with him about making a DNA database.
However, it is not my cynicism and disillusionment in goverment that causes me to be skeptical of those assumptions.
It's COLD HARD REALITY, FACTS, AND PRECENDENCE.
If you want to ignore that, and let them move on with a clean slate, that's your choice.
I choose to remember how often the government lies to me and abuses me.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31492002</id>
	<title>irritating bs.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268675100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Absolutely nothing in this article is new. Not the analysis, not the ideas, not anything (maybe the timeliness of the intro is 'new', or more accurately, 'news').</p><p>But if you're at law school at Yale, and you're involved in some on-campus bio-informatics group, then you get to have your name put in the Times?</p><p>This is something that's always bugged me about the Times quite a bit. Neither WSJ nor WaPo are as clearly enamored with Ivy elitism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely nothing in this article is new .
Not the analysis , not the ideas , not anything ( maybe the timeliness of the intro is 'new ' , or more accurately , 'news ' ) .But if you 're at law school at Yale , and you 're involved in some on-campus bio-informatics group , then you get to have your name put in the Times ? This is something that 's always bugged me about the Times quite a bit .
Neither WSJ nor WaPo are as clearly enamored with Ivy elitism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely nothing in this article is new.
Not the analysis, not the ideas, not anything (maybe the timeliness of the intro is 'new', or more accurately, 'news').But if you're at law school at Yale, and you're involved in some on-campus bio-informatics group, then you get to have your name put in the Times?This is something that's always bugged me about the Times quite a bit.
Neither WSJ nor WaPo are as clearly enamored with Ivy elitism.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486970</id>
	<title>clone</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1268644440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. Make dozens of clones of a few black ops soldiers.<br>2. ???<br>3. Profit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Make dozens of clones of a few black ops soldiers.2 .
? ? ? 3. Profit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Make dozens of clones of a few black ops soldiers.2.
???3. Profit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31490246</id>
	<title>I Propose Instead</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268660460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This ex-Yale medical school staff member proposes instead that Michael Seringhaus, Yale Law School student, attempt to collect samples from those who disagree with his proposal. Personally. By hand. And no, those of us who don't want this done will not have our arms tied down. Right about the time he gets in phlebotomy range he'll also be in manua-cranial impact range. I want to go first.</p><p>I'm making book on how many he'll attempt before he changes his mind. My money is in "one".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This ex-Yale medical school staff member proposes instead that Michael Seringhaus , Yale Law School student , attempt to collect samples from those who disagree with his proposal .
Personally. By hand .
And no , those of us who do n't want this done will not have our arms tied down .
Right about the time he gets in phlebotomy range he 'll also be in manua-cranial impact range .
I want to go first.I 'm making book on how many he 'll attempt before he changes his mind .
My money is in " one " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This ex-Yale medical school staff member proposes instead that Michael Seringhaus, Yale Law School student, attempt to collect samples from those who disagree with his proposal.
Personally. By hand.
And no, those of us who don't want this done will not have our arms tied down.
Right about the time he gets in phlebotomy range he'll also be in manua-cranial impact range.
I want to go first.I'm making book on how many he'll attempt before he changes his mind.
My money is in "one".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486190</id>
	<title>Stop crime?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268684940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So if everyone shared their DNA, all crimes would be solved...</p><p>Maybe this kid is watching to much CSI.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if everyone shared their DNA , all crimes would be solved...Maybe this kid is watching to much CSI .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if everyone shared their DNA, all crimes would be solved...Maybe this kid is watching to much CSI.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31500060</id>
	<title>Re:Awwwww, hes just so cute and innocent...</title>
	<author>Swanktastic</author>
	<datestamp>1268770980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A fair response, but my point still stands.  While you mock the idea for being one extreme (100\% optimistic), you assert the opposite extreme (100\% pessimistic) as truth.  Distilled, your argument is that because a system has failure modes, it cannot be used period.  Obviously this cannot be the answer, because every system has failure modes (e.g. the Criminal Justice System as I mentioned).  Every day we place trust in what we know to be flawed systems (mechanical, software, and government) because we decide that the benefits outweigh the dangers of doing nothing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A fair response , but my point still stands .
While you mock the idea for being one extreme ( 100 \ % optimistic ) , you assert the opposite extreme ( 100 \ % pessimistic ) as truth .
Distilled , your argument is that because a system has failure modes , it can not be used period .
Obviously this can not be the answer , because every system has failure modes ( e.g .
the Criminal Justice System as I mentioned ) .
Every day we place trust in what we know to be flawed systems ( mechanical , software , and government ) because we decide that the benefits outweigh the dangers of doing nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A fair response, but my point still stands.
While you mock the idea for being one extreme (100\% optimistic), you assert the opposite extreme (100\% pessimistic) as truth.
Distilled, your argument is that because a system has failure modes, it cannot be used period.
Obviously this cannot be the answer, because every system has failure modes (e.g.
the Criminal Justice System as I mentioned).
Every day we place trust in what we know to be flawed systems (mechanical, software, and government) because we decide that the benefits outweigh the dangers of doing nothing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487122</id>
	<title>It strikes me...</title>
	<author>Belial6</author>
	<datestamp>1268645040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a great way to further put the wealthy in a winning position in our courts.  Obviously, once the DNA is collected, it will become as restricted in it's use as our social security numbers.  Well, for us regular folks, the chance of a collision is 1 in a million, and to counter that, a jury will have to be convinced through math that this doesn't really prove what the prosecution says it does.  Where as the wealthy will just hire a PI to find a half dozen other people with the same sequence.  They will then subpoena them into the court, and present real physical people who also match the same DNA.<br> <br>

Poor person:  There are at least 100 other people with the same DNA sequence.<br>
Prosecutor:  100 people?  In what geographical area?<br>
Poor person:  Well... The world...<br>
Prosecutor:  What are the chances that a match is living in this city?<br>
Poor person:  1 in 1 billion...<br>
<br>
Rich person:  There are tons of other people with the same DNA sequence.<br>
Prosecutor:  Tones huh?  In what geographical area?<br>
Rich person:  Near by.<br>
Prosecutor:  What are the chances that a match is living in this city?<br>
Rich person:  I don't know, but half that front row in over there matches my DNA sequence!  There everywhere!</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a great way to further put the wealthy in a winning position in our courts .
Obviously , once the DNA is collected , it will become as restricted in it 's use as our social security numbers .
Well , for us regular folks , the chance of a collision is 1 in a million , and to counter that , a jury will have to be convinced through math that this does n't really prove what the prosecution says it does .
Where as the wealthy will just hire a PI to find a half dozen other people with the same sequence .
They will then subpoena them into the court , and present real physical people who also match the same DNA .
Poor person : There are at least 100 other people with the same DNA sequence .
Prosecutor : 100 people ?
In what geographical area ?
Poor person : Well... The world.. . Prosecutor : What are the chances that a match is living in this city ?
Poor person : 1 in 1 billion.. . Rich person : There are tons of other people with the same DNA sequence .
Prosecutor : Tones huh ?
In what geographical area ?
Rich person : Near by .
Prosecutor : What are the chances that a match is living in this city ?
Rich person : I do n't know , but half that front row in over there matches my DNA sequence !
There everywhere !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a great way to further put the wealthy in a winning position in our courts.
Obviously, once the DNA is collected, it will become as restricted in it's use as our social security numbers.
Well, for us regular folks, the chance of a collision is 1 in a million, and to counter that, a jury will have to be convinced through math that this doesn't really prove what the prosecution says it does.
Where as the wealthy will just hire a PI to find a half dozen other people with the same sequence.
They will then subpoena them into the court, and present real physical people who also match the same DNA.
Poor person:  There are at least 100 other people with the same DNA sequence.
Prosecutor:  100 people?
In what geographical area?
Poor person:  Well... The world...
Prosecutor:  What are the chances that a match is living in this city?
Poor person:  1 in 1 billion...

Rich person:  There are tons of other people with the same DNA sequence.
Prosecutor:  Tones huh?
In what geographical area?
Rich person:  Near by.
Prosecutor:  What are the chances that a match is living in this city?
Rich person:  I don't know, but half that front row in over there matches my DNA sequence!
There everywhere!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31491982</id>
	<title>Re:Poisonous.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268674860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As crude as that is, I have to second the "FUCK YOU". And make firm commitment to boycott all Yale Law graduates until the said student dunks his claims at length.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As crude as that is , I have to second the " FUCK YOU " .
And make firm commitment to boycott all Yale Law graduates until the said student dunks his claims at length .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As crude as that is, I have to second the "FUCK YOU".
And make firm commitment to boycott all Yale Law graduates until the said student dunks his claims at length.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485882</id>
	<title>Main problem: inept crime labs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268683980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/the-dark-side-of-dna/article1499631/" title="theglobeandmail.com" rel="nofollow">The dark side of DNA</a> [theglobeandmail.com]</p><p>Short summary: crime labs make a lot of errors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See The dark side of DNA [ theglobeandmail.com ] Short summary : crime labs make a lot of errors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See The dark side of DNA [theglobeandmail.com]Short summary: crime labs make a lot of errors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31489082</id>
	<title>Trust no one...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268653860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They can have my DNA when they pry it from my cold bloody dead hands ! LOL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They can have my DNA when they pry it from my cold bloody dead hands !
LOL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can have my DNA when they pry it from my cold bloody dead hands !
LOL.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31488570</id>
	<title>Re:Will not work</title>
	<author>bitingduck</author>
	<datestamp>1268650980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tell that to Brandon Mayfield: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon\_Mayfield" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon\_Mayfield</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>The spanish police told the US that the prints were no match, and that they had other real suspects with real evidence, but the FBI chose to keep after him anyway.</p><p>In his case they're talking about real fingerprints that have been in use for about 100 years, and they still got it all wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tell that to Brandon Mayfield : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon \ _Mayfield [ wikipedia.org ] The spanish police told the US that the prints were no match , and that they had other real suspects with real evidence , but the FBI chose to keep after him anyway.In his case they 're talking about real fingerprints that have been in use for about 100 years , and they still got it all wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tell that to Brandon Mayfield: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon\_Mayfield [wikipedia.org]The spanish police told the US that the prints were no match, and that they had other real suspects with real evidence, but the FBI chose to keep after him anyway.In his case they're talking about real fingerprints that have been in use for about 100 years, and they still got it all wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486574</id>
	<title>U.S. announced today national DNA plan (2014)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268686260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...by legalizing prostitution stipulating mandatory [female] condom control. Registered prostitutes are to mail dilapidated paraphernalia directly to the Department of Health and Sex Services.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...by legalizing prostitution stipulating mandatory [ female ] condom control .
Registered prostitutes are to mail dilapidated paraphernalia directly to the Department of Health and Sex Services .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...by legalizing prostitution stipulating mandatory [female] condom control.
Registered prostitutes are to mail dilapidated paraphernalia directly to the Department of Health and Sex Services.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486936</id>
	<title>Excellent...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268644260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So a DB full of DNA signatures that would be used to link someone to a crime if one is committed?</p><p>You can buy DNA of arbitrary sequences for a rather paltry amount. (http://tools.invitrogen.com/content.cfm?pageid=9716)</p><p>Now, just who do I want to frame?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So a DB full of DNA signatures that would be used to link someone to a crime if one is committed ? You can buy DNA of arbitrary sequences for a rather paltry amount .
( http : //tools.invitrogen.com/content.cfm ? pageid = 9716 ) Now , just who do I want to frame ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So a DB full of DNA signatures that would be used to link someone to a crime if one is committed?You can buy DNA of arbitrary sequences for a rather paltry amount.
(http://tools.invitrogen.com/content.cfm?pageid=9716)Now, just who do I want to frame?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487960</id>
	<title>Re:Dammit...</title>
	<author>skine</author>
	<datestamp>1268648340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kyle: Wow! That's a lot of seamen, Cartman.<br>Cartman: Yeah, I bought all that I could at this bank, and then I got the rest from this guy Ralph in an alley.<br>Stan: That's cool.<br>Cartman: Yeah, and the sweet thing is, the stupid asshole didn't even charge me money for it. He just made me close my eyes and suck on a hose.</p><p>Not quite masturbation, but I would definitely comply if there were free blowjobs involved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kyle : Wow !
That 's a lot of seamen , Cartman.Cartman : Yeah , I bought all that I could at this bank , and then I got the rest from this guy Ralph in an alley.Stan : That 's cool.Cartman : Yeah , and the sweet thing is , the stupid asshole did n't even charge me money for it .
He just made me close my eyes and suck on a hose.Not quite masturbation , but I would definitely comply if there were free blowjobs involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kyle: Wow!
That's a lot of seamen, Cartman.Cartman: Yeah, I bought all that I could at this bank, and then I got the rest from this guy Ralph in an alley.Stan: That's cool.Cartman: Yeah, and the sweet thing is, the stupid asshole didn't even charge me money for it.
He just made me close my eyes and suck on a hose.Not quite masturbation, but I would definitely comply if there were free blowjobs involved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487870</id>
	<title>Re:Awwwww, hes just so cute and innocent...</title>
	<author>johncadengo</author>
	<datestamp>1268648100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This guy reminds me of a cute little 5 year old.  His heart is in the right place and he just wants everything fair and nice.  However, those are some BIG ASSUMPTIONS he is making:</p></div><p>Why does everyone assume he is naive? What if he's manipulative, cunning? Do you think he got to Yale because he was cute?</p><p>Maybe his intentions are as the consequences of his proposed actions. Maybe he means what he does.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This guy reminds me of a cute little 5 year old .
His heart is in the right place and he just wants everything fair and nice .
However , those are some BIG ASSUMPTIONS he is making : Why does everyone assume he is naive ?
What if he 's manipulative , cunning ?
Do you think he got to Yale because he was cute ? Maybe his intentions are as the consequences of his proposed actions .
Maybe he means what he does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This guy reminds me of a cute little 5 year old.
His heart is in the right place and he just wants everything fair and nice.
However, those are some BIG ASSUMPTIONS he is making:Why does everyone assume he is naive?
What if he's manipulative, cunning?
Do you think he got to Yale because he was cute?Maybe his intentions are as the consequences of his proposed actions.
Maybe he means what he does.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487884</id>
	<title>You are all wrong.</title>
	<author>wasabii</author>
	<datestamp>1268648100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First off, his technical points are correct. The fingerprints cannot be used to discover anything specific about you by themselves.</p><p>The second point is more complicated. Are we comfortable with being compelled by the government to carry around with us material that they can identify, correlate to discover where we travel, and then use to build a profile of our activities?</p><p>I'd say the second point is a duh. We already are. I have on me now a government ID, which I scan to get into a bunch of bars. Which I'm compelled to show on demand to a cop when driving. My car's license plate correlates to me, and lets any camera anywhere identify where I am. I guess I'd wonder how much easier could it get to them? I guess if every hair I dropped could identify me, that'd be a bit worse. But certainly not much.</p><p>If we care about the second point, we should really start showing it. You know. Stop driving. Ride a bike. Don't carry ID with you. Since I doubt we're going to do that, they've already won. We should just give them the DNA fingerprints so they stop wasting our tax dollars on doing it the more difficult way.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First off , his technical points are correct .
The fingerprints can not be used to discover anything specific about you by themselves.The second point is more complicated .
Are we comfortable with being compelled by the government to carry around with us material that they can identify , correlate to discover where we travel , and then use to build a profile of our activities ? I 'd say the second point is a duh .
We already are .
I have on me now a government ID , which I scan to get into a bunch of bars .
Which I 'm compelled to show on demand to a cop when driving .
My car 's license plate correlates to me , and lets any camera anywhere identify where I am .
I guess I 'd wonder how much easier could it get to them ?
I guess if every hair I dropped could identify me , that 'd be a bit worse .
But certainly not much.If we care about the second point , we should really start showing it .
You know .
Stop driving .
Ride a bike .
Do n't carry ID with you .
Since I doubt we 're going to do that , they 've already won .
We should just give them the DNA fingerprints so they stop wasting our tax dollars on doing it the more difficult way .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First off, his technical points are correct.
The fingerprints cannot be used to discover anything specific about you by themselves.The second point is more complicated.
Are we comfortable with being compelled by the government to carry around with us material that they can identify, correlate to discover where we travel, and then use to build a profile of our activities?I'd say the second point is a duh.
We already are.
I have on me now a government ID, which I scan to get into a bunch of bars.
Which I'm compelled to show on demand to a cop when driving.
My car's license plate correlates to me, and lets any camera anywhere identify where I am.
I guess I'd wonder how much easier could it get to them?
I guess if every hair I dropped could identify me, that'd be a bit worse.
But certainly not much.If we care about the second point, we should really start showing it.
You know.
Stop driving.
Ride a bike.
Don't carry ID with you.
Since I doubt we're going to do that, they've already won.
We should just give them the DNA fingerprints so they stop wasting our tax dollars on doing it the more difficult way.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31491754</id>
	<title>A law students ramblings is now news?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1268672220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who gives a shit about some douche nobody talking out of his ass? (Especially a law student. You know: The new blood of RIAA lawyers and politicians...)</p><p>First build a reputation, then you can say something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who gives a shit about some douche nobody talking out of his ass ?
( Especially a law student .
You know : The new blood of RIAA lawyers and politicians... ) First build a reputation , then you can say something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who gives a shit about some douche nobody talking out of his ass?
(Especially a law student.
You know: The new blood of RIAA lawyers and politicians...)First build a reputation, then you can say something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487906</id>
	<title>Re:Awwwww, hes just so cute and innocent...</title>
	<author>Foobar of Borg</author>
	<datestamp>1268648220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This guy reminds me of a cute little 5 year old. His heart is in the right place and he just wants everything fair and nice.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Actually, I would be more interested in what he plans to do after graduation and if this kind of database would be useful for him.  Remember, he is a law student.  Lawyers don't care about the truth.  In fact, it is a part of the job description ("zealous advocacy" and all that sort of thing).  He probably does not actually believe what he is writing, but if enough *other* people believe his arguments, he gets what he wants.</p><p>
Remember politicians, lawyers, journalists, and similar people are not interested in facts or logical arguments.  They are interested in "winning" the argument since it gives them the advantage.</p><p>
It is a problem that geeks (myself included, I'm not trying to poke fun at anyone) have with the "real world" of politics and law.  We are used to dealing with science and engineering principles, which require that we find out what the facts are, and to how many decimal places.  We use logic as a means to design things properly or determine new principles.</p><p>
In the "real world" facts are used selectively and placed in favorable lights.  The truth is relevant only insofar as it serves someone's needs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This guy reminds me of a cute little 5 year old .
His heart is in the right place and he just wants everything fair and nice .
Actually , I would be more interested in what he plans to do after graduation and if this kind of database would be useful for him .
Remember , he is a law student .
Lawyers do n't care about the truth .
In fact , it is a part of the job description ( " zealous advocacy " and all that sort of thing ) .
He probably does not actually believe what he is writing , but if enough * other * people believe his arguments , he gets what he wants .
Remember politicians , lawyers , journalists , and similar people are not interested in facts or logical arguments .
They are interested in " winning " the argument since it gives them the advantage .
It is a problem that geeks ( myself included , I 'm not trying to poke fun at anyone ) have with the " real world " of politics and law .
We are used to dealing with science and engineering principles , which require that we find out what the facts are , and to how many decimal places .
We use logic as a means to design things properly or determine new principles .
In the " real world " facts are used selectively and placed in favorable lights .
The truth is relevant only insofar as it serves someone 's needs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This guy reminds me of a cute little 5 year old.
His heart is in the right place and he just wants everything fair and nice.
Actually, I would be more interested in what he plans to do after graduation and if this kind of database would be useful for him.
Remember, he is a law student.
Lawyers don't care about the truth.
In fact, it is a part of the job description ("zealous advocacy" and all that sort of thing).
He probably does not actually believe what he is writing, but if enough *other* people believe his arguments, he gets what he wants.
Remember politicians, lawyers, journalists, and similar people are not interested in facts or logical arguments.
They are interested in "winning" the argument since it gives them the advantage.
It is a problem that geeks (myself included, I'm not trying to poke fun at anyone) have with the "real world" of politics and law.
We are used to dealing with science and engineering principles, which require that we find out what the facts are, and to how many decimal places.
We use logic as a means to design things properly or determine new principles.
In the "real world" facts are used selectively and placed in favorable lights.
The truth is relevant only insofar as it serves someone's needs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486390</id>
	<title>Re:Good Idea</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1268685720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would like to see it done too, out of a purely scientific curiosity perspective.  We could like things like figure out what the probability of two people having the same DNA signature <i>really</i> is.  Who knows what other kinds of interesting studies we could do. We should open source it.  Yeah, privacy concerns, but<br> <br>
See? This is why curiosity killed the cat. And yet I still really want to know</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would like to see it done too , out of a purely scientific curiosity perspective .
We could like things like figure out what the probability of two people having the same DNA signature really is .
Who knows what other kinds of interesting studies we could do .
We should open source it .
Yeah , privacy concerns , but See ?
This is why curiosity killed the cat .
And yet I still really want to know</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would like to see it done too, out of a purely scientific curiosity perspective.
We could like things like figure out what the probability of two people having the same DNA signature really is.
Who knows what other kinds of interesting studies we could do.
We should open source it.
Yeah, privacy concerns, but 
See?
This is why curiosity killed the cat.
And yet I still really want to know</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31489966</id>
	<title>Re:Mission Creep</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268659080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Elected Nobility won't keep their promises.  "Oh it's only 26 markers... we can't predict your health from that," and then in ten or twenty years they'll want to sequence your entire genome, so they can create a society like GATTACA.</p><p>I've seen this before.  The Nobles promised income tax would only affect people over $100,000 not the commoners.  They said Medicare would only cost 60 billion, and that it would REDUCE healthcare costs, which of course it did the exact opposite.  And they claimed the social security number would Never be used for anything else, but the SS administration.</p><p>Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice.....</p></div><p>...uh, you can't fool me again!</p><p>Like the man you love, you can't remember the second part of that phrase.  I guess it also makes sense that you can't remember that those earning less than $100,000 per year had a tax DECREASE since Obama took office.  I have no idea what you're talking about with Medicare, but I suspect it has to do with something that happened back in the Clinton administration, as there have been no major changes in Medicare in 2009.</p><p>If only people like you didn't shut off your outrage generators when the ruling party had an "(R)" after their names.  We really could've used you before Bush went and spent $3 trillion on a war in Iraq.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Elected Nobility wo n't keep their promises .
" Oh it 's only 26 markers... we ca n't predict your health from that , " and then in ten or twenty years they 'll want to sequence your entire genome , so they can create a society like GATTACA.I 've seen this before .
The Nobles promised income tax would only affect people over $ 100,000 not the commoners .
They said Medicare would only cost 60 billion , and that it would REDUCE healthcare costs , which of course it did the exact opposite .
And they claimed the social security number would Never be used for anything else , but the SS administration.Fool me once , shame on you .
Fool me twice........uh , you ca n't fool me again ! Like the man you love , you ca n't remember the second part of that phrase .
I guess it also makes sense that you ca n't remember that those earning less than $ 100,000 per year had a tax DECREASE since Obama took office .
I have no idea what you 're talking about with Medicare , but I suspect it has to do with something that happened back in the Clinton administration , as there have been no major changes in Medicare in 2009.If only people like you did n't shut off your outrage generators when the ruling party had an " ( R ) " after their names .
We really could 've used you before Bush went and spent $ 3 trillion on a war in Iraq .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Elected Nobility won't keep their promises.
"Oh it's only 26 markers... we can't predict your health from that," and then in ten or twenty years they'll want to sequence your entire genome, so they can create a society like GATTACA.I've seen this before.
The Nobles promised income tax would only affect people over $100,000 not the commoners.
They said Medicare would only cost 60 billion, and that it would REDUCE healthcare costs, which of course it did the exact opposite.
And they claimed the social security number would Never be used for anything else, but the SS administration.Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice........uh, you can't fool me again!Like the man you love, you can't remember the second part of that phrase.
I guess it also makes sense that you can't remember that those earning less than $100,000 per year had a tax DECREASE since Obama took office.
I have no idea what you're talking about with Medicare, but I suspect it has to do with something that happened back in the Clinton administration, as there have been no major changes in Medicare in 2009.If only people like you didn't shut off your outrage generators when the ruling party had an "(R)" after their names.
We really could've used you before Bush went and spent $3 trillion on a war in Iraq.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487322</id>
	<title>Re:Good Idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268645880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Personally, I'm in favor of this. Vast numbers of sex offenders and other criminals would be swiftly caught and punished. Oh wait, this is America - well, they'd be caught anyway. It's a privacy-vs-justice tradeoff I'm willing to make.</p></div><p>that's right, support 'perfect enforcement' while ignoring the fact our laws are hardly just to begin with.  YOU may be willing to make that trade, but I'm not.  Get out of my life and I'll gladly stay out of yours, thanks.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I 'm in favor of this .
Vast numbers of sex offenders and other criminals would be swiftly caught and punished .
Oh wait , this is America - well , they 'd be caught anyway .
It 's a privacy-vs-justice tradeoff I 'm willing to make.that 's right , support 'perfect enforcement ' while ignoring the fact our laws are hardly just to begin with .
YOU may be willing to make that trade , but I 'm not .
Get out of my life and I 'll gladly stay out of yours , thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I'm in favor of this.
Vast numbers of sex offenders and other criminals would be swiftly caught and punished.
Oh wait, this is America - well, they'd be caught anyway.
It's a privacy-vs-justice tradeoff I'm willing to make.that's right, support 'perfect enforcement' while ignoring the fact our laws are hardly just to begin with.
YOU may be willing to make that trade, but I'm not.
Get out of my life and I'll gladly stay out of yours, thanks.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486038</id>
	<title>Just out of curiosity ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268684520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is there some kind of strange black oil rolling around on the surface of his eyeballs?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there some kind of strange black oil rolling around on the surface of his eyeballs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there some kind of strange black oil rolling around on the surface of his eyeballs?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31491924</id>
	<title>My daughter ain't gonna go to Yale now.</title>
	<author>tibit</author>
	<datestamp>1268674020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That Yale student needs to retake high school math. No story here, move on please. He absolutely clueless as to how many matches there are expected to be in the U.S. population alone, never mind if the geni.., ahem, idiots in Europe picked up on that great idea. The extraditions would be endless. The airlines would need to schedule extra flights.</p><p>People watch too much junk TV shows and think whatever they see there is real. Just today on  the news I saw some idiot at the grocery store hitting kids at random. The surveillance video was so low resolution and artifact laden to the point where you could hardly tell the "person" was in fact a human -- you couldn't even tell whether he was black or white! Yet the dickheads speaking Queen's very own think putting cameras on the street solves the crime problem.</p><p>You ain't gonna see shit by looking at the street with PAL/NTSC cameras. To get anything like a recognizable face when you have a single camera looking down at a length of public street/sidewalk, you need a 4K digital cinema camera. If those were ordered in batches of 1000, we're talking $10k for one camera+optics. Or $100M for one order. Apparently they need tens of thousands of those -- yeah right.</p><p>So, if government people in charge can't figure something as comparatively simple as a surveillance camera system requirements, you think there's ANYONE in ANY position of power who has enough clue to even BEGIN to understand the implications of using DNA fingerprinting? Sorry Winnetou, this requires some solid, science-based common sense. People who have it are nowhere near politics (with scant exceptions). And for a good reason.</p><p>At least with cameras, any politician dickhead can do an experiment: go to the store, fetch a $1k HD camera, see how much of a picture you get. So you'd think it's easy enough not to be fooled by the vendors, right?</p><p>Now somehow you can't get a DNA fingerprinter at Costco just yet and run a bunch of tests on a 100M population, just to be sure. Thus such things are absolutely out of reach of common sense of politicians, and most -- like 99.99\% of voting public.</p><p>You have every reason to be scared, especially since that Yale student just proved my point: his genious idea was picked up by the NYT hook, line and sinker. And some people on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. argue it's somehow good? WHAT THE FUCK happened to you people. It's not all that hard to imagine what's wrong with the idea. Just don't read what the media publish about it, do some goddamned research yourself. Jeez.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That Yale student needs to retake high school math .
No story here , move on please .
He absolutely clueless as to how many matches there are expected to be in the U.S. population alone , never mind if the geni.. , ahem , idiots in Europe picked up on that great idea .
The extraditions would be endless .
The airlines would need to schedule extra flights.People watch too much junk TV shows and think whatever they see there is real .
Just today on the news I saw some idiot at the grocery store hitting kids at random .
The surveillance video was so low resolution and artifact laden to the point where you could hardly tell the " person " was in fact a human -- you could n't even tell whether he was black or white !
Yet the dickheads speaking Queen 's very own think putting cameras on the street solves the crime problem.You ai n't gon na see shit by looking at the street with PAL/NTSC cameras .
To get anything like a recognizable face when you have a single camera looking down at a length of public street/sidewalk , you need a 4K digital cinema camera .
If those were ordered in batches of 1000 , we 're talking $ 10k for one camera + optics .
Or $ 100M for one order .
Apparently they need tens of thousands of those -- yeah right.So , if government people in charge ca n't figure something as comparatively simple as a surveillance camera system requirements , you think there 's ANYONE in ANY position of power who has enough clue to even BEGIN to understand the implications of using DNA fingerprinting ?
Sorry Winnetou , this requires some solid , science-based common sense .
People who have it are nowhere near politics ( with scant exceptions ) .
And for a good reason.At least with cameras , any politician dickhead can do an experiment : go to the store , fetch a $ 1k HD camera , see how much of a picture you get .
So you 'd think it 's easy enough not to be fooled by the vendors , right ? Now somehow you ca n't get a DNA fingerprinter at Costco just yet and run a bunch of tests on a 100M population , just to be sure .
Thus such things are absolutely out of reach of common sense of politicians , and most -- like 99.99 \ % of voting public.You have every reason to be scared , especially since that Yale student just proved my point : his genious idea was picked up by the NYT hook , line and sinker .
And some people on / .
argue it 's somehow good ?
WHAT THE FUCK happened to you people .
It 's not all that hard to imagine what 's wrong with the idea .
Just do n't read what the media publish about it , do some goddamned research yourself .
Jeez .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That Yale student needs to retake high school math.
No story here, move on please.
He absolutely clueless as to how many matches there are expected to be in the U.S. population alone, never mind if the geni.., ahem, idiots in Europe picked up on that great idea.
The extraditions would be endless.
The airlines would need to schedule extra flights.People watch too much junk TV shows and think whatever they see there is real.
Just today on  the news I saw some idiot at the grocery store hitting kids at random.
The surveillance video was so low resolution and artifact laden to the point where you could hardly tell the "person" was in fact a human -- you couldn't even tell whether he was black or white!
Yet the dickheads speaking Queen's very own think putting cameras on the street solves the crime problem.You ain't gonna see shit by looking at the street with PAL/NTSC cameras.
To get anything like a recognizable face when you have a single camera looking down at a length of public street/sidewalk, you need a 4K digital cinema camera.
If those were ordered in batches of 1000, we're talking $10k for one camera+optics.
Or $100M for one order.
Apparently they need tens of thousands of those -- yeah right.So, if government people in charge can't figure something as comparatively simple as a surveillance camera system requirements, you think there's ANYONE in ANY position of power who has enough clue to even BEGIN to understand the implications of using DNA fingerprinting?
Sorry Winnetou, this requires some solid, science-based common sense.
People who have it are nowhere near politics (with scant exceptions).
And for a good reason.At least with cameras, any politician dickhead can do an experiment: go to the store, fetch a $1k HD camera, see how much of a picture you get.
So you'd think it's easy enough not to be fooled by the vendors, right?Now somehow you can't get a DNA fingerprinter at Costco just yet and run a bunch of tests on a 100M population, just to be sure.
Thus such things are absolutely out of reach of common sense of politicians, and most -- like 99.99\% of voting public.You have every reason to be scared, especially since that Yale student just proved my point: his genious idea was picked up by the NYT hook, line and sinker.
And some people on /.
argue it's somehow good?
WHAT THE FUCK happened to you people.
It's not all that hard to imagine what's wrong with the idea.
Just don't read what the media publish about it, do some goddamned research yourself.
Jeez.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486448</id>
	<title>Now where did I leave that pesky DNA?</title>
	<author>redshirt</author>
	<datestamp>1268685900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This student from Yale (I don't even see why that matters, does it give him some sort of credibility?  You know, like John Kerry and George Bush) has really only focused on the application of a DNA profile to criminal investigations.  He makes some poor argument about how the DNA profile can't be used to glean physical characteristics, etc.  To build a DNA profile, they use an actual DNA sample, which does contain that information.  What happens to all the blood and saliva samples used to collect DNA?  Does he think that those samples will be disposed of, and that's that?  Guess again.</p><p>He also seems to think that the only privacy exposure is what your genes represent (i.e. blue or green eyes, or a disposition to diabetes).  The government doesn't care about any of that.  They care about tracking people and finding out what they are doing, regardless of any criminal intent.  That's what DNA will be used for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This student from Yale ( I do n't even see why that matters , does it give him some sort of credibility ?
You know , like John Kerry and George Bush ) has really only focused on the application of a DNA profile to criminal investigations .
He makes some poor argument about how the DNA profile ca n't be used to glean physical characteristics , etc .
To build a DNA profile , they use an actual DNA sample , which does contain that information .
What happens to all the blood and saliva samples used to collect DNA ?
Does he think that those samples will be disposed of , and that 's that ?
Guess again.He also seems to think that the only privacy exposure is what your genes represent ( i.e .
blue or green eyes , or a disposition to diabetes ) .
The government does n't care about any of that .
They care about tracking people and finding out what they are doing , regardless of any criminal intent .
That 's what DNA will be used for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This student from Yale (I don't even see why that matters, does it give him some sort of credibility?
You know, like John Kerry and George Bush) has really only focused on the application of a DNA profile to criminal investigations.
He makes some poor argument about how the DNA profile can't be used to glean physical characteristics, etc.
To build a DNA profile, they use an actual DNA sample, which does contain that information.
What happens to all the blood and saliva samples used to collect DNA?
Does he think that those samples will be disposed of, and that's that?
Guess again.He also seems to think that the only privacy exposure is what your genes represent (i.e.
blue or green eyes, or a disposition to diabetes).
The government doesn't care about any of that.
They care about tracking people and finding out what they are doing, regardless of any criminal intent.
That's what DNA will be used for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486116</id>
	<title>Here's an idea</title>
	<author>Vinegar Joe</author>
	<datestamp>1268684760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why don't we try this only with Yale law students?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't we try this only with Yale law students ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't we try this only with Yale law students?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31491570</id>
	<title>Re:And how useful would it really be?</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1268670540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now, if we could just get police and prosecutors to be more interested it figuring out who was actually guilty and prosecuting that person than in playing pin the crime on the donkey and let the court sort it out (or not). We live in a world where teens get convicted of producing child pornography for taking pictures of themselves. The only thing standing between us and law enforcement madness is the necessity of legwork.</p><p>In real life, detectives seem to be a LOT less interested in exclusionary evidence than they are on CSI.</p><p>In any given metro area, for each career criminal there will be 3 or 4 innocent people routinely questioned by the police due to a profile match. The lack of a database at least forces police to first determine some connection between crime and suspect FIRST, then use DNA to narrow the field and help prove it. (Note, since DNA matching is based on limited sampling, it is properly used only as exclusionary evidence).</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Hypothetical: Serial rapist is terrorizing New York City. Police have a DNA sample. With a database like this, they could pull a list of 300 people "who might be the serial rapist." They can rapidly go through that list and say "okay, in that 300 people, 50 of them live within 300 miles of New York City. Let's start interviewing those people, and see what turns up." If the matches are *accurate* (and this is the point you must really attack if you want to argue against this sort of a database), then it's overwhelmingly likely that one of those 50 people would turn out to be your criminal.</p></div><p>And the other 49 will never be quite the same, having been grilled for a horrific crime they knew nothing about and had everyone they know interviewed. They will have been through hell wondering if they would be prosecuted or even convicted.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Now, if you can demonstrate that the DNA matching is inaccurate, leads to false positives, or sends law enforcement down blind alleys with false leads, then this database is a "bad idea."</p></div><p>You said it yourself, in your scenario, it generated 49 false positives. In other words, it has a 98\% rate of false positives, even when narrowed geographically.</p><p>Imagine if the serial rapist turned out to be from another country (and so not in the database) or visiting from elsewhere (and so wrongly excluded geographically) or just fell through the cracks and wasn't in the database. Now, somebody matching the profile will go on trial and will be "proven guilty" by a DNA match, it just won't be the rapist. If the real rapist is at all smart he'll move on knowing the heat is off.</p><p>See also the article on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. about current matching techniques being fooled by lab made samples.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , if we could just get police and prosecutors to be more interested it figuring out who was actually guilty and prosecuting that person than in playing pin the crime on the donkey and let the court sort it out ( or not ) .
We live in a world where teens get convicted of producing child pornography for taking pictures of themselves .
The only thing standing between us and law enforcement madness is the necessity of legwork.In real life , detectives seem to be a LOT less interested in exclusionary evidence than they are on CSI.In any given metro area , for each career criminal there will be 3 or 4 innocent people routinely questioned by the police due to a profile match .
The lack of a database at least forces police to first determine some connection between crime and suspect FIRST , then use DNA to narrow the field and help prove it .
( Note , since DNA matching is based on limited sampling , it is properly used only as exclusionary evidence ) .Hypothetical : Serial rapist is terrorizing New York City .
Police have a DNA sample .
With a database like this , they could pull a list of 300 people " who might be the serial rapist .
" They can rapidly go through that list and say " okay , in that 300 people , 50 of them live within 300 miles of New York City .
Let 's start interviewing those people , and see what turns up .
" If the matches are * accurate * ( and this is the point you must really attack if you want to argue against this sort of a database ) , then it 's overwhelmingly likely that one of those 50 people would turn out to be your criminal.And the other 49 will never be quite the same , having been grilled for a horrific crime they knew nothing about and had everyone they know interviewed .
They will have been through hell wondering if they would be prosecuted or even convicted.Now , if you can demonstrate that the DNA matching is inaccurate , leads to false positives , or sends law enforcement down blind alleys with false leads , then this database is a " bad idea .
" You said it yourself , in your scenario , it generated 49 false positives .
In other words , it has a 98 \ % rate of false positives , even when narrowed geographically.Imagine if the serial rapist turned out to be from another country ( and so not in the database ) or visiting from elsewhere ( and so wrongly excluded geographically ) or just fell through the cracks and was n't in the database .
Now , somebody matching the profile will go on trial and will be " proven guilty " by a DNA match , it just wo n't be the rapist .
If the real rapist is at all smart he 'll move on knowing the heat is off.See also the article on / .
about current matching techniques being fooled by lab made samples .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, if we could just get police and prosecutors to be more interested it figuring out who was actually guilty and prosecuting that person than in playing pin the crime on the donkey and let the court sort it out (or not).
We live in a world where teens get convicted of producing child pornography for taking pictures of themselves.
The only thing standing between us and law enforcement madness is the necessity of legwork.In real life, detectives seem to be a LOT less interested in exclusionary evidence than they are on CSI.In any given metro area, for each career criminal there will be 3 or 4 innocent people routinely questioned by the police due to a profile match.
The lack of a database at least forces police to first determine some connection between crime and suspect FIRST, then use DNA to narrow the field and help prove it.
(Note, since DNA matching is based on limited sampling, it is properly used only as exclusionary evidence).Hypothetical: Serial rapist is terrorizing New York City.
Police have a DNA sample.
With a database like this, they could pull a list of 300 people "who might be the serial rapist.
" They can rapidly go through that list and say "okay, in that 300 people, 50 of them live within 300 miles of New York City.
Let's start interviewing those people, and see what turns up.
" If the matches are *accurate* (and this is the point you must really attack if you want to argue against this sort of a database), then it's overwhelmingly likely that one of those 50 people would turn out to be your criminal.And the other 49 will never be quite the same, having been grilled for a horrific crime they knew nothing about and had everyone they know interviewed.
They will have been through hell wondering if they would be prosecuted or even convicted.Now, if you can demonstrate that the DNA matching is inaccurate, leads to false positives, or sends law enforcement down blind alleys with false leads, then this database is a "bad idea.
"You said it yourself, in your scenario, it generated 49 false positives.
In other words, it has a 98\% rate of false positives, even when narrowed geographically.Imagine if the serial rapist turned out to be from another country (and so not in the database) or visiting from elsewhere (and so wrongly excluded geographically) or just fell through the cracks and wasn't in the database.
Now, somebody matching the profile will go on trial and will be "proven guilty" by a DNA match, it just won't be the rapist.
If the real rapist is at all smart he'll move on knowing the heat is off.See also the article on /.
about current matching techniques being fooled by lab made samples.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486344</id>
	<title>DNA fingerprints are NOT UNIQUE</title>
	<author>Japher</author>
	<datestamp>1268685540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TFA is dead wrong. While DNA evidence can prove that a person <b>didn't</b> commit a crime, a false positive is still possible. If we collect DNA from everyone in the country as suggested, the odds of a false positive will increase accordingly. With the odds of a false positive are about 1:1 Billion (Google it if you don't believe this number), that means that about 300 people in the United States alone will match your DNA fingerprint. And that's just the ones who are currently alive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA is dead wrong .
While DNA evidence can prove that a person did n't commit a crime , a false positive is still possible .
If we collect DNA from everyone in the country as suggested , the odds of a false positive will increase accordingly .
With the odds of a false positive are about 1 : 1 Billion ( Google it if you do n't believe this number ) , that means that about 300 people in the United States alone will match your DNA fingerprint .
And that 's just the ones who are currently alive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA is dead wrong.
While DNA evidence can prove that a person didn't commit a crime, a false positive is still possible.
If we collect DNA from everyone in the country as suggested, the odds of a false positive will increase accordingly.
With the odds of a false positive are about 1:1 Billion (Google it if you don't believe this number), that means that about 300 people in the United States alone will match your DNA fingerprint.
And that's just the ones who are currently alive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31489898</id>
	<title>Re:How does he know it's unique?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268658660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WTF? FTA:</p><p><i>"Indeed, experts agree that many &mdash; but not all &mdash; of the Arizona matches were to be expected statistically because of the unusual way Troyer searched for them.</i></p><p><i>In a typical criminal case, investigators look for matches to a specific profile.</i></p><p><i>But Troyer looked for any matches among all the thousands of profiles in the database, greatly increasing the chances of finding them.</i></p><p>Have we passed through the looking glass? Duplicates are the point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WTF ?
FTA : " Indeed , experts agree that many    but not all    of the Arizona matches were to be expected statistically because of the unusual way Troyer searched for them.In a typical criminal case , investigators look for matches to a specific profile.But Troyer looked for any matches among all the thousands of profiles in the database , greatly increasing the chances of finding them.Have we passed through the looking glass ?
Duplicates are the point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WTF?
FTA:"Indeed, experts agree that many — but not all — of the Arizona matches were to be expected statistically because of the unusual way Troyer searched for them.In a typical criminal case, investigators look for matches to a specific profile.But Troyer looked for any matches among all the thousands of profiles in the database, greatly increasing the chances of finding them.Have we passed through the looking glass?
Duplicates are the point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486012</id>
	<title>This is why...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268684400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...you shouldn't listen to student lawyers that still can't grow a mustache!</p><p>The Israelis have already shown that <a href="http://www.politics.co.uk/printerfriendly.aspx?itemid=1319949" title="politics.co.uk">DNA can be replicated</a> [politics.co.uk] and an innocent individual could be implicated in a crime without his or her knowledge.</p><p>Only an ignorant fool would advocate what this guy is advocating!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...you should n't listen to student lawyers that still ca n't grow a mustache ! The Israelis have already shown that DNA can be replicated [ politics.co.uk ] and an innocent individual could be implicated in a crime without his or her knowledge.Only an ignorant fool would advocate what this guy is advocating !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...you shouldn't listen to student lawyers that still can't grow a mustache!The Israelis have already shown that DNA can be replicated [politics.co.uk] and an innocent individual could be implicated in a crime without his or her knowledge.Only an ignorant fool would advocate what this guy is advocating!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485856</id>
	<title>Paternity</title>
	<author>Nit Picker</author>
	<datestamp>1268683920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone could have a field day with this data looking for discrepancies between claimed and actual paternity.  A gold-mine for the tech savvy blackmailer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone could have a field day with this data looking for discrepancies between claimed and actual paternity .
A gold-mine for the tech savvy blackmailer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone could have a field day with this data looking for discrepancies between claimed and actual paternity.
A gold-mine for the tech savvy blackmailer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31489416</id>
	<title>Re:Mission Creep</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268655840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They said Medicare would only cost 60 billion, and that it would REDUCE healthcare costs, which of course it did the exact opposite.</p></div><p>But Canada did manage to reduce costs. Perhaps the problem lies with <i>your</i> government, not government in general.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They said Medicare would only cost 60 billion , and that it would REDUCE healthcare costs , which of course it did the exact opposite.But Canada did manage to reduce costs .
Perhaps the problem lies with your government , not government in general .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They said Medicare would only cost 60 billion, and that it would REDUCE healthcare costs, which of course it did the exact opposite.But Canada did manage to reduce costs.
Perhaps the problem lies with your government, not government in general.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486186</id>
	<title>I'm all for it</title>
	<author>obarthelemy</author>
	<datestamp>1268684880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As soon as politicians and the people around them start carrying 24x7 mikes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As soon as politicians and the people around them start carrying 24x7 mikes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As soon as politicians and the people around them start carrying 24x7 mikes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31491686</id>
	<title>wtf</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268671560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>wow, this is insane; what AILS people these days... like I TRUST THE GOVERNMENT with my PERSONAL information?!?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>wow , this is insane ; what AILS people these days... like I TRUST THE GOVERNMENT with my PERSONAL information ? !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wow, this is insane; what AILS people these days... like I TRUST THE GOVERNMENT with my PERSONAL information?!
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486356</id>
	<title>Re:Good Idea</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1268685540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;Vast numbers of sex offenders and other criminals would be swiftly caught and punished</p><p>Like those nasty vermin Jews and Japanese Nisei and Chinese Intellectuals.  Round 'em up and throw them into concentration camps!!!  We'll line them in front of the firing squad next week.   POINT:</p><p>- You have to think not only of the positive effects of your ideas, but also the negative effects when some Future nutjob takes over as leader.  No reason to make his job easy by giving him a convenient database for 100 million Germans, 300 million Americans, or 900 million Chinese.  Better to make that database never exist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; Vast numbers of sex offenders and other criminals would be swiftly caught and punishedLike those nasty vermin Jews and Japanese Nisei and Chinese Intellectuals .
Round 'em up and throw them into concentration camps ! ! !
We 'll line them in front of the firing squad next week .
POINT : - You have to think not only of the positive effects of your ideas , but also the negative effects when some Future nutjob takes over as leader .
No reason to make his job easy by giving him a convenient database for 100 million Germans , 300 million Americans , or 900 million Chinese .
Better to make that database never exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;Vast numbers of sex offenders and other criminals would be swiftly caught and punishedLike those nasty vermin Jews and Japanese Nisei and Chinese Intellectuals.
Round 'em up and throw them into concentration camps!!!
We'll line them in front of the firing squad next week.
POINT:- You have to think not only of the positive effects of your ideas, but also the negative effects when some Future nutjob takes over as leader.
No reason to make his job easy by giving him a convenient database for 100 million Germans, 300 million Americans, or 900 million Chinese.
Better to make that database never exist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487640</id>
	<title>Re:Good Idea</title>
	<author>Bryan Gividen</author>
	<datestamp>1268647140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>who the frack cares what a college student has to say?</p></div></blockquote><p>I do when that college student has a PhD in Molecular Biophysics and Chemistry, was lead bioinformatics scientist at a pharmaceutical company, and goes to the most prestigious law school in the United States (possibly world). (Source: <a href="http://www.seringhaus.net/bio.html" title="seringhaus.net">http://www.seringhaus.net/bio.html</a> [seringhaus.net])</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>who the frack cares what a college student has to say ? I do when that college student has a PhD in Molecular Biophysics and Chemistry , was lead bioinformatics scientist at a pharmaceutical company , and goes to the most prestigious law school in the United States ( possibly world ) .
( Source : http : //www.seringhaus.net/bio.html [ seringhaus.net ] )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>who the frack cares what a college student has to say?I do when that college student has a PhD in Molecular Biophysics and Chemistry, was lead bioinformatics scientist at a pharmaceutical company, and goes to the most prestigious law school in the United States (possibly world).
(Source: http://www.seringhaus.net/bio.html [seringhaus.net])
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486252</id>
	<title>Of course only the summary info will be collected,</title>
	<author>xanthos</author>
	<datestamp>1268685180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is until the pharm and insurance companies decide it would be beneficial for their businesses if the government collected this information, processed the full sequence and then shared it with them for free.</p><p>A few well placed political donations (thanks supreme court for dropping the caps!) and it is a done deal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is until the pharm and insurance companies decide it would be beneficial for their businesses if the government collected this information , processed the full sequence and then shared it with them for free.A few well placed political donations ( thanks supreme court for dropping the caps !
) and it is a done deal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is until the pharm and insurance companies decide it would be beneficial for their businesses if the government collected this information, processed the full sequence and then shared it with them for free.A few well placed political donations (thanks supreme court for dropping the caps!
) and it is a done deal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486510</id>
	<title>Re:Mission Creep</title>
	<author>Myrimos</author>
	<datestamp>1268686080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice.....</p></div><p>Oh, I know this one.</p><p>"Fool me once, shame on, shame on you. Fool me, you can&rsquo;t get fooled again."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fool me once , shame on you .
Fool me twice.....Oh , I know this one .
" Fool me once , shame on , shame on you .
Fool me , you can    t get fooled again .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice.....Oh, I know this one.
"Fool me once, shame on, shame on you.
Fool me, you can’t get fooled again.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486022</id>
	<title>There's something seriously frightening</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268684400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>about this steady stream of idiots who are willing to mindlessly trust the government.  Have the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht" title="wikipedia.org">horrible lessons</a> [wikipedia.org] of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State\_Protection\_Authority" title="wikipedia.org">twentieth century</a> [wikipedia.org] already <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank\_man" title="wikipedia.org">been forgotten</a> [wikipedia.org]?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>about this steady stream of idiots who are willing to mindlessly trust the government .
Have the horrible lessons [ wikipedia.org ] of the twentieth century [ wikipedia.org ] already been forgotten [ wikipedia.org ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>about this steady stream of idiots who are willing to mindlessly trust the government.
Have the horrible lessons [wikipedia.org] of the twentieth century [wikipedia.org] already been forgotten [wikipedia.org]?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31489498</id>
	<title>Re:prevent discrimination?</title>
	<author>b4dc0d3r</author>
	<datestamp>1268656320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can only assume you are making a reference to the NSA warrantless wiretapping which was thrown out because the plaintiffs did not have standing.  Why?  Because they were not singled out for government abuse - the government abused everyone, not those particular people, and therefore those particular people had no right to sue.</p><p>So not just a lawyer, a federal judge thought the same thing.</p><blockquote><div><p>Late on Thursday, Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that because the internet traffic of millions of Americans had been caught up in the dragnet, the harm alleged in the complaint was not specific to the plaintiffs, so the case should not proceed.</p></div></blockquote><p><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/22/nsa\_dismissal/" title="theregister.co.uk">http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/22/nsa\_dismissal/</a> [theregister.co.uk]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can only assume you are making a reference to the NSA warrantless wiretapping which was thrown out because the plaintiffs did not have standing .
Why ? Because they were not singled out for government abuse - the government abused everyone , not those particular people , and therefore those particular people had no right to sue.So not just a lawyer , a federal judge thought the same thing.Late on Thursday , Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that because the internet traffic of millions of Americans had been caught up in the dragnet , the harm alleged in the complaint was not specific to the plaintiffs , so the case should not proceed.http : //www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/22/nsa \ _dismissal/ [ theregister.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can only assume you are making a reference to the NSA warrantless wiretapping which was thrown out because the plaintiffs did not have standing.
Why?  Because they were not singled out for government abuse - the government abused everyone, not those particular people, and therefore those particular people had no right to sue.So not just a lawyer, a federal judge thought the same thing.Late on Thursday, Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that because the internet traffic of millions of Americans had been caught up in the dragnet, the harm alleged in the complaint was not specific to the plaintiffs, so the case should not proceed.http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/22/nsa\_dismissal/ [theregister.co.uk]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486218</id>
	<title>This is already being done!</title>
	<author>another\_other</author>
	<datestamp>1268685060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Newborn babies in the United States are routinely screened for a panel of genetic diseases. Since the testing is mandated by the government, it's often done without the parents' consent, according to the National Newborn Screening &amp; Genetics Resource Center.

In many states, newborn, babies' DNA is stored indefinitely, according to the resource center. In New Jersey, newborn babies' DNA is stored for 23 years.  In 2008 alone over 125,000 samples of newborn's DNA was collected and stored in a government or state run lab in New Jersey.  While I do not think that parents should forego such genetic screening, I think they should have the right to have the screening done privately and with their complete consent.  While we know the law (GINA) signed by then President George W. Bush is supposed to protect future generations from discrimination based on their genetic profiles, even the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children suggests that only parents or legal guardians should have access to a child's genetic profile.

Many parents don't realize their baby's DNA is being stored in a government lab, but when they find out, as this couple did, they take action. Parents in Texas, and Minnesota have filed lawsuits, and these parents' concerns are sparking a new debate about whether it's appropriate for a baby's genetic blueprint to be in the government's possession.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Reference:
<a href="http://www.amaware.net/blog/dnalady/2010/02/federal-dna-collections-at-bir.html" title="amaware.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.amaware.net/blog/dnalady/2010/02/federal-dna-collections-at-bir.html</a> [amaware.net]</p></div></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Newborn babies in the United States are routinely screened for a panel of genetic diseases .
Since the testing is mandated by the government , it 's often done without the parents ' consent , according to the National Newborn Screening &amp; Genetics Resource Center .
In many states , newborn , babies ' DNA is stored indefinitely , according to the resource center .
In New Jersey , newborn babies ' DNA is stored for 23 years .
In 2008 alone over 125,000 samples of newborn 's DNA was collected and stored in a government or state run lab in New Jersey .
While I do not think that parents should forego such genetic screening , I think they should have the right to have the screening done privately and with their complete consent .
While we know the law ( GINA ) signed by then President George W. Bush is supposed to protect future generations from discrimination based on their genetic profiles , even the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children suggests that only parents or legal guardians should have access to a child 's genetic profile .
Many parents do n't realize their baby 's DNA is being stored in a government lab , but when they find out , as this couple did , they take action .
Parents in Texas , and Minnesota have filed lawsuits , and these parents ' concerns are sparking a new debate about whether it 's appropriate for a baby 's genetic blueprint to be in the government 's possession.Reference : http : //www.amaware.net/blog/dnalady/2010/02/federal-dna-collections-at-bir.html [ amaware.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Newborn babies in the United States are routinely screened for a panel of genetic diseases.
Since the testing is mandated by the government, it's often done without the parents' consent, according to the National Newborn Screening &amp; Genetics Resource Center.
In many states, newborn, babies' DNA is stored indefinitely, according to the resource center.
In New Jersey, newborn babies' DNA is stored for 23 years.
In 2008 alone over 125,000 samples of newborn's DNA was collected and stored in a government or state run lab in New Jersey.
While I do not think that parents should forego such genetic screening, I think they should have the right to have the screening done privately and with their complete consent.
While we know the law (GINA) signed by then President George W. Bush is supposed to protect future generations from discrimination based on their genetic profiles, even the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children suggests that only parents or legal guardians should have access to a child's genetic profile.
Many parents don't realize their baby's DNA is being stored in a government lab, but when they find out, as this couple did, they take action.
Parents in Texas, and Minnesota have filed lawsuits, and these parents' concerns are sparking a new debate about whether it's appropriate for a baby's genetic blueprint to be in the government's possession.Reference:
http://www.amaware.net/blog/dnalady/2010/02/federal-dna-collections-at-bir.html [amaware.net]
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31489972</id>
	<title>Genetic BS</title>
	<author>darku</author>
	<datestamp>1268659080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why not just have everybody log in via a genetic print to web sites and so on?
Then I would be able to know if you are the one that is questioning the ways of the government.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not just have everybody log in via a genetic print to web sites and so on ?
Then I would be able to know if you are the one that is questioning the ways of the government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not just have everybody log in via a genetic print to web sites and so on?
Then I would be able to know if you are the one that is questioning the ways of the government.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486794</id>
	<title>Give everything to the government</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268643780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>do it. now! nothing could possibly go wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>do it .
now ! nothing could possibly go wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>do it.
now! nothing could possibly go wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486196</id>
	<title>"Give me a place to stand on ...."</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1268684940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... and I will move the Earth", said archimede, in regard to levers.</p><p>the correct application of this as a metaphor for this situation would be, "Give me 1000 fools like this to put in charge, and they will destroy Earth" i think.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" .... and I will move the Earth " , said archimede , in regard to levers.the correct application of this as a metaphor for this situation would be , " Give me 1000 fools like this to put in charge , and they will destroy Earth " i think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" .... and I will move the Earth", said archimede, in regard to levers.the correct application of this as a metaphor for this situation would be, "Give me 1000 fools like this to put in charge, and they will destroy Earth" i think.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485798</id>
	<title>ITG wants Yale Law student to go to hell</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268683740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I feel the above statement that came to me in a moment was just about as well thought out as this students proposal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I feel the above statement that came to me in a moment was just about as well thought out as this students proposal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I feel the above statement that came to me in a moment was just about as well thought out as this students proposal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31488208</id>
	<title>Da Comrade Seringhaus</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268649240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mr. Seringhaus should EABOD and then DIAF. The government has too much information on the sheeple as it is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mr. Seringhaus should EABOD and then DIAF .
The government has too much information on the sheeple as it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mr. Seringhaus should EABOD and then DIAF.
The government has too much information on the sheeple as it is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31488658</id>
	<title>Re:How does he know it's unique?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268651460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>-lazy prosecutor<br>-I'm fucked.</p></div><p>Then the problem is lazy prosecutors and/or dumb juries/judges.  We should fix that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>-lazy prosecutor-I 'm fucked.Then the problem is lazy prosecutors and/or dumb juries/judges .
We should fix that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>-lazy prosecutor-I'm fucked.Then the problem is lazy prosecutors and/or dumb juries/judges.
We should fix that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486286</id>
	<title>100\% Crimeless world</title>
	<author>zzyzyx</author>
	<datestamp>1268685360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What joy it would be to live in a world where the slightest breach of the law would be 100\% certain to be punished by the state<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... How safe we would be under the benevolent watch of our governments<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... We can only dream about it.

I think this student (why the hell is his opinion posted on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. by the way?) should study some more.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What joy it would be to live in a world where the slightest breach of the law would be 100 \ % certain to be punished by the state ... How safe we would be under the benevolent watch of our governments ... We can only dream about it .
I think this student ( why the hell is his opinion posted on / .
by the way ?
) should study some more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What joy it would be to live in a world where the slightest breach of the law would be 100\% certain to be punished by the state ... How safe we would be under the benevolent watch of our governments ... We can only dream about it.
I think this student (why the hell is his opinion posted on /.
by the way?
) should study some more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486146</id>
	<title>Re:Will not work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268684820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to say there aren't other issues with this, but in and of itself the one to many mapping of DNA 'fingerprints' to actual people is not as big a problem as you make it out to be.  Sure a given 'fingerprint' may ID 20, 30 or even 100 people, but once this becomes the norm, cops will have to go back to old fashioned police work.  If semen with a certain 'fingerprint' is found at a crime scene in NY and it maps back to 50 people, all it would take to eliminate virtually all of them was a phone call to get a rough alibi (what state were you in last Wednesday and whom can we call to verify this?).</p><p>The single most valuable thing such a registry would do would be to convince people that DNA 'fingerprints' are NOT, in and of themselves, reliable identifiers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to say there are n't other issues with this , but in and of itself the one to many mapping of DNA 'fingerprints ' to actual people is not as big a problem as you make it out to be .
Sure a given 'fingerprint ' may ID 20 , 30 or even 100 people , but once this becomes the norm , cops will have to go back to old fashioned police work .
If semen with a certain 'fingerprint ' is found at a crime scene in NY and it maps back to 50 people , all it would take to eliminate virtually all of them was a phone call to get a rough alibi ( what state were you in last Wednesday and whom can we call to verify this ?
) .The single most valuable thing such a registry would do would be to convince people that DNA 'fingerprints ' are NOT , in and of themselves , reliable identifiers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to say there aren't other issues with this, but in and of itself the one to many mapping of DNA 'fingerprints' to actual people is not as big a problem as you make it out to be.
Sure a given 'fingerprint' may ID 20, 30 or even 100 people, but once this becomes the norm, cops will have to go back to old fashioned police work.
If semen with a certain 'fingerprint' is found at a crime scene in NY and it maps back to 50 people, all it would take to eliminate virtually all of them was a phone call to get a rough alibi (what state were you in last Wednesday and whom can we call to verify this?
).The single most valuable thing such a registry would do would be to convince people that DNA 'fingerprints' are NOT, in and of themselves, reliable identifiers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486362</id>
	<title>Tro7il</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268685600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>wo8se 4nd worse. As BSD machines,</htmltext>
<tokenext>wo8se 4nd worse .
As BSD machines,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wo8se 4nd worse.
As BSD machines,</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487520</id>
	<title>Re:Awwwww, hes just so cute and innocent...</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1268646540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Naive indeed. You know they won't really destroy those samples (either through design, delay, or incompetence). And the thought of insurance companies one day getting hold of such a databank scares the hell out of me. And, considering that the insurance industry owns the U.S. Congress, it would be all too easy for them to quietly slip though a law giving them access.</p><p>"Sorry, Mr. Smith but we can't give you health or life insurance coverage."</p><p>"Why?"</p><p>"I'm sorry sir, but that's proprietary information."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Naive indeed .
You know they wo n't really destroy those samples ( either through design , delay , or incompetence ) .
And the thought of insurance companies one day getting hold of such a databank scares the hell out of me .
And , considering that the insurance industry owns the U.S. Congress , it would be all too easy for them to quietly slip though a law giving them access .
" Sorry , Mr. Smith but we ca n't give you health or life insurance coverage. " " Why ?
" " I 'm sorry sir , but that 's proprietary information .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Naive indeed.
You know they won't really destroy those samples (either through design, delay, or incompetence).
And the thought of insurance companies one day getting hold of such a databank scares the hell out of me.
And, considering that the insurance industry owns the U.S. Congress, it would be all too easy for them to quietly slip though a law giving them access.
"Sorry, Mr. Smith but we can't give you health or life insurance coverage.""Why?
""I'm sorry sir, but that's proprietary information.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31491998</id>
	<title>Re:He should never be admitted to the bar.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268675040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think his plan is a good idea, but what provision of the bill of rights does it violate?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think his plan is a good idea , but what provision of the bill of rights does it violate ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think his plan is a good idea, but what provision of the bill of rights does it violate?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485952</id>
	<title>Re:Awwwww, hes just so cute and innocent...</title>
	<author>dfsmith</author>
	<datestamp>1268684160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mulder &amp; Scully found them.  They were behind a secret door in an abandoned warehouse.  Pfft&mdash;what was the goverment thinking.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mulder &amp; Scully found them .
They were behind a secret door in an abandoned warehouse .
Pfft    what was the goverment thinking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mulder &amp; Scully found them.
They were behind a secret door in an abandoned warehouse.
Pfft—what was the goverment thinking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487774</id>
	<title>Re:Good Idea</title>
	<author>Xamusk</author>
	<datestamp>1268647680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both. (Benjamin Franklin)</htmltext>
<tokenext>People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both .
( Benjamin Franklin )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.
(Benjamin Franklin)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487072</id>
	<title>Just not in America...</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1268644860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's get this straight once and for all...</p><p>In the U.S., we are supposed to be protected from unnecessary search and seizure, the Fourth Amendment to our Constitution grants us this right.  Generally, this implies that the prosecution, usually the Government, must have reasonable (or probable) cause to accuse us of a crime.  Taking my DNA for an identification database SEEMS, to me, to violate this right, as it takes identifying information primarily for the potential future use in prosecution.  I need not even be suspected of a crime to do this.  It SEEMS to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment.</p><p>The Fifth Amendment guarantees us the right to not be compelled to be a witness against ourselves.  This is regularly overriden by fingerprinting suspects as they are processed in jail, under the assumption that merely knowing your identity is not a violation of the Fifth Amendment.  Fair enough.  DNA is excessive for this purpose.</p><p>The idea of creating a national DNA database and fingerprinting all of us as soon as possible in our lives smacks of unconstitutional excess.  While there are fingerprint clinics for children offered sometimes to 'aid in recovery of missing children', these are not mandatory.  Yet. A mandatory DNA database is unconstitutional, IMHO.</p><p>And I fear this is not enough to stop such a project.</p><p>We just don't live in a nation that permits this by law.  Changing the law to allow this will change our nation.</p><p>Choose carefully.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's get this straight once and for all...In the U.S. , we are supposed to be protected from unnecessary search and seizure , the Fourth Amendment to our Constitution grants us this right .
Generally , this implies that the prosecution , usually the Government , must have reasonable ( or probable ) cause to accuse us of a crime .
Taking my DNA for an identification database SEEMS , to me , to violate this right , as it takes identifying information primarily for the potential future use in prosecution .
I need not even be suspected of a crime to do this .
It SEEMS to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment.The Fifth Amendment guarantees us the right to not be compelled to be a witness against ourselves .
This is regularly overriden by fingerprinting suspects as they are processed in jail , under the assumption that merely knowing your identity is not a violation of the Fifth Amendment .
Fair enough .
DNA is excessive for this purpose.The idea of creating a national DNA database and fingerprinting all of us as soon as possible in our lives smacks of unconstitutional excess .
While there are fingerprint clinics for children offered sometimes to 'aid in recovery of missing children ' , these are not mandatory .
Yet. A mandatory DNA database is unconstitutional , IMHO.And I fear this is not enough to stop such a project.We just do n't live in a nation that permits this by law .
Changing the law to allow this will change our nation.Choose carefully .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's get this straight once and for all...In the U.S., we are supposed to be protected from unnecessary search and seizure, the Fourth Amendment to our Constitution grants us this right.
Generally, this implies that the prosecution, usually the Government, must have reasonable (or probable) cause to accuse us of a crime.
Taking my DNA for an identification database SEEMS, to me, to violate this right, as it takes identifying information primarily for the potential future use in prosecution.
I need not even be suspected of a crime to do this.
It SEEMS to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment.The Fifth Amendment guarantees us the right to not be compelled to be a witness against ourselves.
This is regularly overriden by fingerprinting suspects as they are processed in jail, under the assumption that merely knowing your identity is not a violation of the Fifth Amendment.
Fair enough.
DNA is excessive for this purpose.The idea of creating a national DNA database and fingerprinting all of us as soon as possible in our lives smacks of unconstitutional excess.
While there are fingerprint clinics for children offered sometimes to 'aid in recovery of missing children', these are not mandatory.
Yet. A mandatory DNA database is unconstitutional, IMHO.And I fear this is not enough to stop such a project.We just don't live in a nation that permits this by law.
Changing the law to allow this will change our nation.Choose carefully.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486568</id>
	<title>Re:Mission Creep</title>
	<author>Gramie2</author>
	<datestamp>1268686260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...shame on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... won't get fooled again!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...shame on ... wo n't get fooled again !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...shame on ... won't get fooled again!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486554</id>
	<title>Re:Poisonous.</title>
	<author>DCFusor</author>
	<datestamp>1268686200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have to agree.

Two more good words.

"FALSE POSITIVE".

Go fight that charge with your own money sometime and then get back to me, willya, you naive idiot?

Oh, you aren't rich?  Slammer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to agree .
Two more good words .
" FALSE POSITIVE " .
Go fight that charge with your own money sometime and then get back to me , willya , you naive idiot ?
Oh , you are n't rich ?
Slammer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to agree.
Two more good words.
"FALSE POSITIVE".
Go fight that charge with your own money sometime and then get back to me, willya, you naive idiot?
Oh, you aren't rich?
Slammer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485814</id>
	<title>wait a minute...</title>
	<author>quantumhuman</author>
	<datestamp>1268683800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not as interested in keeping my genetic medical profile secret as in preventing EXACTLY THIS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not as interested in keeping my genetic medical profile secret as in preventing EXACTLY THIS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not as interested in keeping my genetic medical profile secret as in preventing EXACTLY THIS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31499120</id>
	<title>Re:And how useful would it really be?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268767200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every technology becomes significantly cheaper over time, especially when it becomes widespread. But keep in mind that as soon as DNA sampling becomes widespread, criminals will come up with a million ways to go around it and possibly even falsify the results. Imagine a chemical compound that you can apply to your blood or sperm which damages the DNA. After analysis, a wrong fingerprint is generated, innocent man goes to jail, case closed. No thanks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every technology becomes significantly cheaper over time , especially when it becomes widespread .
But keep in mind that as soon as DNA sampling becomes widespread , criminals will come up with a million ways to go around it and possibly even falsify the results .
Imagine a chemical compound that you can apply to your blood or sperm which damages the DNA .
After analysis , a wrong fingerprint is generated , innocent man goes to jail , case closed .
No thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every technology becomes significantly cheaper over time, especially when it becomes widespread.
But keep in mind that as soon as DNA sampling becomes widespread, criminals will come up with a million ways to go around it and possibly even falsify the results.
Imagine a chemical compound that you can apply to your blood or sperm which damages the DNA.
After analysis, a wrong fingerprint is generated, innocent man goes to jail, case closed.
No thanks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487682</id>
	<title>He can share his own!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268647260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Michael Seringhaus can share his own DNA. He can go fuck himself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Michael Seringhaus can share his own DNA .
He can go fuck himself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Michael Seringhaus can share his own DNA.
He can go fuck himself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31492094</id>
	<title>This is a wonderful idea...</title>
	<author>LuNa7ic</author>
	<datestamp>1268676240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...If your government is trustworthy, which is why it should never happen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...If your government is trustworthy , which is why it should never happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...If your government is trustworthy, which is why it should never happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486006</id>
	<title>One thing this wouldn't address...</title>
	<author>NecroPuppy</author>
	<datestamp>1268684340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is human chimerism (induced or innate).</p><p>That is, absorbing a twin (CSI episode, I think), or from a bone marrow donor.</p><p>A mouth swab won't include blood-based DNA.</p><p>Admittedly, the odds of this actually coming up in a criminal case are pretty low...  but even knowing about it was apparently enough to get me dismissed from a jury.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is human chimerism ( induced or innate ) .That is , absorbing a twin ( CSI episode , I think ) , or from a bone marrow donor.A mouth swab wo n't include blood-based DNA.Admittedly , the odds of this actually coming up in a criminal case are pretty low... but even knowing about it was apparently enough to get me dismissed from a jury .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is human chimerism (induced or innate).That is, absorbing a twin (CSI episode, I think), or from a bone marrow donor.A mouth swab won't include blood-based DNA.Admittedly, the odds of this actually coming up in a criminal case are pretty low...  but even knowing about it was apparently enough to get me dismissed from a jury.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487452</id>
	<title>Re:How does he know it's unique?</title>
	<author>danlip</author>
	<datestamp>1268646300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The birthday paradox isn't relevant here.  In the case of the birthday paradox you are matching everyone against everyone else.  In the case of the DNA crime solving database you are matching everyone against a single person (i.e. the unknown person who left their DNA at the crime scene).</p><p>I still think it is a profoundly bad idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The birthday paradox is n't relevant here .
In the case of the birthday paradox you are matching everyone against everyone else .
In the case of the DNA crime solving database you are matching everyone against a single person ( i.e .
the unknown person who left their DNA at the crime scene ) .I still think it is a profoundly bad idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The birthday paradox isn't relevant here.
In the case of the birthday paradox you are matching everyone against everyone else.
In the case of the DNA crime solving database you are matching everyone against a single person (i.e.
the unknown person who left their DNA at the crime scene).I still think it is a profoundly bad idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485838</id>
	<title>That fucker!</title>
	<author>BubbaDave</author>
	<datestamp>1268683860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They'll stop looking for a match after they find one- regardless of the fact there will be hundreds to thousands of potential matches.</p><p>Dave</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 'll stop looking for a match after they find one- regardless of the fact there will be hundreds to thousands of potential matches.Dave</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They'll stop looking for a match after they find one- regardless of the fact there will be hundreds to thousands of potential matches.Dave</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486076</id>
	<title>Re:Until...</title>
	<author>BubbaDave</author>
	<datestamp>1268684640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I though we all knew at this point there is no such thing as junk DNA- it's all used for something, whether it be patches supplied by bacteria, viruses, or who knows what.</p><p>Dave</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I though we all knew at this point there is no such thing as junk DNA- it 's all used for something , whether it be patches supplied by bacteria , viruses , or who knows what.Dave</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I though we all knew at this point there is no such thing as junk DNA- it's all used for something, whether it be patches supplied by bacteria, viruses, or who knows what.Dave</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486834</id>
	<title>Re:And how useful would it really be?</title>
	<author>Americano</author>
	<datestamp>1268643900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with your conclusion, but your arguments are fairly weak.</p><blockquote><div><p>Now that's usually pretty good, like 1 in a million or something. However not so useful if your sample size is 300,000,000 and growing.</p></div></blockquote><p>If the match was a probability of 1 in 1 million, and you have 300 million samples, then you would expect three hundred (300) matches.  For the purpose of finding a criminal, narrowing down your list of suspects to 300 "likely" candidates based on a DNA or fingerprint match, you can very quickly narrow down your search to people who:  a) could have been present at the scene of the crime during its commission;  and b) have a possible motive to commit the crime in question.</p><p>"We know that 1 of these 300 people probably committed this crime.  Now the police simply have to investigate to figure out which of them are likely to be tied to this crime either by proximity or possible motive."  How is that not useful, from a law enforcement standpoint?  You just narrowed your list of potential suspects from 300 million to 300, a large number of whom could probably be eliminated simply because they are not remotely related to the victim in any way, spatially or socially.</p><p>Now, that said, I agree that there is huge potential for a tool like this to be misused and abused, and I don't like the idea of "the government" tracking people in this manner.  But to claim that a 1 in a million sensitivity makes the tool entirely useless to law enforcement isn't much of a compelling argument against it.</p><blockquote><div><p>Also there's the fact that DNA tests aren't cheap, or particularly quick.</p></div></blockquote><p>Technology marches on, and the cost and time required get smaller and smaller all the time.  And imagine how much the price would fall when you create - by law - a market of 300 million customers.</p><blockquote><div><p>They aren't the kind of thing you can use for every criminal case</p></div></blockquote><p>But it'd make finding high-profile criminals who leave DNA samples behind a lot faster, wouldn't it?</p><blockquote><div><p>it'd be way too expensive, not to mention unnecessary.</p></div></blockquote><p>What's "way too expensive"?  People react pretty strongly to stories of serial murder, rape, and the like.  Often times there is DNA evidence that can be collected, but law enforcement doesn't have a match for the DNA, so they don't have a lead as to who might have committed the crime - they're just waiting to find a suspect who they can test the DNA evidence against.  With this, they could collect DNA evidence, run it against a database, and instantly have a fairly small set of leads for people who are very likely candidates.</p><p>Hypothetical:  Serial rapist is terrorizing New York City.  Police have a DNA sample.  With a database like this, they could pull a list of 300 people "who might be the serial rapist."  They can rapidly go through that list and say "okay, in that 300 people, 50 of them live within 300 miles of New York City.  Let's start interviewing those people, and see what turns up."  If the matches are *accurate* (and this is the point you must really attack if you want to argue against this sort of a database), then it's overwhelmingly likely that one of those 50 people would turn out to be your criminal.</p><p>Now, if you can demonstrate that the DNA matching is inaccurate, leads to false positives, or sends law enforcement down blind alleys with false leads, then this database is a "bad idea."  If you can't demonstrate that, then I'm sorry to say, but most of the public is going to say "This is a great thing, because it will allow us to catch rapists and murderers faster."  And I'd be inclined to agree - if it could be guaranteed that this type of law enforcement is the only thing the database were used for, and that the DNA fingerprinting technique is accurate.  Do you want to be the person who stands up and says, "Sorry, I don't want to spend $100 on a DNA test to prevent a half a dozen more murders?"</p><blockquote><div><p>Fingerprints are done often because they are pretty cheap to test, but DNA? Not so much at this point.</p></div></blockquote><p>Again - technology marches on.  If you had a system like this required by law, I guarantee you'd see the price fall, drastically.  The government would create a market of 300 million people overnight if it put something like this into law - that's a pretty sizable market, and would undoubtedly generate some bidding competition for government contracts.</p><p>As I said, I agree with your conclusion - the whole system would be fraught with potential for misuse and abuse, it could generate false leads, and I wouldn't trust the government to keep the data secure and not collect "extra" data, without significant, transparent oversight.  But arguing that law enforcement could only use it "sometimes" just isn't a compelling argument when the times it would be used would be splashed all over the headlines.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with your conclusion , but your arguments are fairly weak.Now that 's usually pretty good , like 1 in a million or something .
However not so useful if your sample size is 300,000,000 and growing.If the match was a probability of 1 in 1 million , and you have 300 million samples , then you would expect three hundred ( 300 ) matches .
For the purpose of finding a criminal , narrowing down your list of suspects to 300 " likely " candidates based on a DNA or fingerprint match , you can very quickly narrow down your search to people who : a ) could have been present at the scene of the crime during its commission ; and b ) have a possible motive to commit the crime in question .
" We know that 1 of these 300 people probably committed this crime .
Now the police simply have to investigate to figure out which of them are likely to be tied to this crime either by proximity or possible motive .
" How is that not useful , from a law enforcement standpoint ?
You just narrowed your list of potential suspects from 300 million to 300 , a large number of whom could probably be eliminated simply because they are not remotely related to the victim in any way , spatially or socially.Now , that said , I agree that there is huge potential for a tool like this to be misused and abused , and I do n't like the idea of " the government " tracking people in this manner .
But to claim that a 1 in a million sensitivity makes the tool entirely useless to law enforcement is n't much of a compelling argument against it.Also there 's the fact that DNA tests are n't cheap , or particularly quick.Technology marches on , and the cost and time required get smaller and smaller all the time .
And imagine how much the price would fall when you create - by law - a market of 300 million customers.They are n't the kind of thing you can use for every criminal caseBut it 'd make finding high-profile criminals who leave DNA samples behind a lot faster , would n't it ? it 'd be way too expensive , not to mention unnecessary.What 's " way too expensive " ?
People react pretty strongly to stories of serial murder , rape , and the like .
Often times there is DNA evidence that can be collected , but law enforcement does n't have a match for the DNA , so they do n't have a lead as to who might have committed the crime - they 're just waiting to find a suspect who they can test the DNA evidence against .
With this , they could collect DNA evidence , run it against a database , and instantly have a fairly small set of leads for people who are very likely candidates.Hypothetical : Serial rapist is terrorizing New York City .
Police have a DNA sample .
With a database like this , they could pull a list of 300 people " who might be the serial rapist .
" They can rapidly go through that list and say " okay , in that 300 people , 50 of them live within 300 miles of New York City .
Let 's start interviewing those people , and see what turns up .
" If the matches are * accurate * ( and this is the point you must really attack if you want to argue against this sort of a database ) , then it 's overwhelmingly likely that one of those 50 people would turn out to be your criminal.Now , if you can demonstrate that the DNA matching is inaccurate , leads to false positives , or sends law enforcement down blind alleys with false leads , then this database is a " bad idea .
" If you ca n't demonstrate that , then I 'm sorry to say , but most of the public is going to say " This is a great thing , because it will allow us to catch rapists and murderers faster .
" And I 'd be inclined to agree - if it could be guaranteed that this type of law enforcement is the only thing the database were used for , and that the DNA fingerprinting technique is accurate .
Do you want to be the person who stands up and says , " Sorry , I do n't want to spend $ 100 on a DNA test to prevent a half a dozen more murders ?
" Fingerprints are done often because they are pretty cheap to test , but DNA ?
Not so much at this point.Again - technology marches on .
If you had a system like this required by law , I guarantee you 'd see the price fall , drastically .
The government would create a market of 300 million people overnight if it put something like this into law - that 's a pretty sizable market , and would undoubtedly generate some bidding competition for government contracts.As I said , I agree with your conclusion - the whole system would be fraught with potential for misuse and abuse , it could generate false leads , and I would n't trust the government to keep the data secure and not collect " extra " data , without significant , transparent oversight .
But arguing that law enforcement could only use it " sometimes " just is n't a compelling argument when the times it would be used would be splashed all over the headlines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with your conclusion, but your arguments are fairly weak.Now that's usually pretty good, like 1 in a million or something.
However not so useful if your sample size is 300,000,000 and growing.If the match was a probability of 1 in 1 million, and you have 300 million samples, then you would expect three hundred (300) matches.
For the purpose of finding a criminal, narrowing down your list of suspects to 300 "likely" candidates based on a DNA or fingerprint match, you can very quickly narrow down your search to people who:  a) could have been present at the scene of the crime during its commission;  and b) have a possible motive to commit the crime in question.
"We know that 1 of these 300 people probably committed this crime.
Now the police simply have to investigate to figure out which of them are likely to be tied to this crime either by proximity or possible motive.
"  How is that not useful, from a law enforcement standpoint?
You just narrowed your list of potential suspects from 300 million to 300, a large number of whom could probably be eliminated simply because they are not remotely related to the victim in any way, spatially or socially.Now, that said, I agree that there is huge potential for a tool like this to be misused and abused, and I don't like the idea of "the government" tracking people in this manner.
But to claim that a 1 in a million sensitivity makes the tool entirely useless to law enforcement isn't much of a compelling argument against it.Also there's the fact that DNA tests aren't cheap, or particularly quick.Technology marches on, and the cost and time required get smaller and smaller all the time.
And imagine how much the price would fall when you create - by law - a market of 300 million customers.They aren't the kind of thing you can use for every criminal caseBut it'd make finding high-profile criminals who leave DNA samples behind a lot faster, wouldn't it?it'd be way too expensive, not to mention unnecessary.What's "way too expensive"?
People react pretty strongly to stories of serial murder, rape, and the like.
Often times there is DNA evidence that can be collected, but law enforcement doesn't have a match for the DNA, so they don't have a lead as to who might have committed the crime - they're just waiting to find a suspect who they can test the DNA evidence against.
With this, they could collect DNA evidence, run it against a database, and instantly have a fairly small set of leads for people who are very likely candidates.Hypothetical:  Serial rapist is terrorizing New York City.
Police have a DNA sample.
With a database like this, they could pull a list of 300 people "who might be the serial rapist.
"  They can rapidly go through that list and say "okay, in that 300 people, 50 of them live within 300 miles of New York City.
Let's start interviewing those people, and see what turns up.
"  If the matches are *accurate* (and this is the point you must really attack if you want to argue against this sort of a database), then it's overwhelmingly likely that one of those 50 people would turn out to be your criminal.Now, if you can demonstrate that the DNA matching is inaccurate, leads to false positives, or sends law enforcement down blind alleys with false leads, then this database is a "bad idea.
"  If you can't demonstrate that, then I'm sorry to say, but most of the public is going to say "This is a great thing, because it will allow us to catch rapists and murderers faster.
"  And I'd be inclined to agree - if it could be guaranteed that this type of law enforcement is the only thing the database were used for, and that the DNA fingerprinting technique is accurate.
Do you want to be the person who stands up and says, "Sorry, I don't want to spend $100 on a DNA test to prevent a half a dozen more murders?
"Fingerprints are done often because they are pretty cheap to test, but DNA?
Not so much at this point.Again - technology marches on.
If you had a system like this required by law, I guarantee you'd see the price fall, drastically.
The government would create a market of 300 million people overnight if it put something like this into law - that's a pretty sizable market, and would undoubtedly generate some bidding competition for government contracts.As I said, I agree with your conclusion - the whole system would be fraught with potential for misuse and abuse, it could generate false leads, and I wouldn't trust the government to keep the data secure and not collect "extra" data, without significant, transparent oversight.
But arguing that law enforcement could only use it "sometimes" just isn't a compelling argument when the times it would be used would be splashed all over the headlines.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487634</id>
	<title>police</title>
	<author>Spaham</author>
	<datestamp>1268647080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It always boils down on whether you want to live in a police state or not.<br>Of course, if everyone was tracked all the time, their DNA registered (cf big brother et al), then we'd catch most wrongdoers.<br>Are you ready to trade your private life, for that ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It always boils down on whether you want to live in a police state or not.Of course , if everyone was tracked all the time , their DNA registered ( cf big brother et al ) , then we 'd catch most wrongdoers.Are you ready to trade your private life , for that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It always boils down on whether you want to live in a police state or not.Of course, if everyone was tracked all the time, their DNA registered (cf big brother et al), then we'd catch most wrongdoers.Are you ready to trade your private life, for that ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31496580</id>
	<title>Resume Killer</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1268757960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>After the grilling here on Slashdot and all of the bad press, this guy might as well write "I'm an Idiot" in red crayon on the top of his resume. The lack of judgment demonstrated by Michael Seringhaus really is appalling; I don't see how any law firm would want to hire him after this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>After the grilling here on Slashdot and all of the bad press , this guy might as well write " I 'm an Idiot " in red crayon on the top of his resume .
The lack of judgment demonstrated by Michael Seringhaus really is appalling ; I do n't see how any law firm would want to hire him after this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After the grilling here on Slashdot and all of the bad press, this guy might as well write "I'm an Idiot" in red crayon on the top of his resume.
The lack of judgment demonstrated by Michael Seringhaus really is appalling; I don't see how any law firm would want to hire him after this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31488054</id>
	<title>Re:And how useful would it really be?</title>
	<author>Exception Duck</author>
	<datestamp>1268648700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But it'd make finding high-profile criminals who leave DNA samples behind a lot faster, wouldn't it?</p></div><p>Yes, maybe they will leave your DNA sample behind.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But it 'd make finding high-profile criminals who leave DNA samples behind a lot faster , would n't it ? Yes , maybe they will leave your DNA sample behind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But it'd make finding high-profile criminals who leave DNA samples behind a lot faster, wouldn't it?Yes, maybe they will leave your DNA sample behind.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486220</id>
	<title>There is a law against that...</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1268685060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow.</p><p>Considering with the current DNA sampling methods, my DNA will match one or two million other people on the planet, a good few thousand of them being in my own country...</p><p>No thanks, I have no desire to admit and take the blame for the crimes those other people did and were caught at.</p><p>Someone should direct this so called law student to our constitutional amendments.  He only has to get through the first 5 or so<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow.Considering with the current DNA sampling methods , my DNA will match one or two million other people on the planet , a good few thousand of them being in my own country...No thanks , I have no desire to admit and take the blame for the crimes those other people did and were caught at.Someone should direct this so called law student to our constitutional amendments .
He only has to get through the first 5 or so : P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow.Considering with the current DNA sampling methods, my DNA will match one or two million other people on the planet, a good few thousand of them being in my own country...No thanks, I have no desire to admit and take the blame for the crimes those other people did and were caught at.Someone should direct this so called law student to our constitutional amendments.
He only has to get through the first 5 or so :P</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486324</id>
	<title>Re:Good Idea</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1268685420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No search or seizure may be conducted without probable cause and a warrant by a judge.  It's unconstitutional and our law student friend should know this.</p><blockquote><div><p>who the frack cares what a college student has to say?</p></div></blockquote><p> Careful there, he might have political aspirations and actually get this nonsense passed by congress.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No search or seizure may be conducted without probable cause and a warrant by a judge .
It 's unconstitutional and our law student friend should know this.who the frack cares what a college student has to say ?
Careful there , he might have political aspirations and actually get this nonsense passed by congress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No search or seizure may be conducted without probable cause and a warrant by a judge.
It's unconstitutional and our law student friend should know this.who the frack cares what a college student has to say?
Careful there, he might have political aspirations and actually get this nonsense passed by congress.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486946</id>
	<title>Re:How does he know it's unique?</title>
	<author>solafide</author>
	<datestamp>1268644320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It depends on the frequency of mutation. There are mutations that are very common, adn those that are rare; thus, if you only are dealing with where 26 introns are located, you're probably going to have a \_lot\_ of collisions for the most normal people. Note also that DNA replicase has exonuclease activity: it'll attempt to repair mutations everywhere. So, for people without a lot of mutations, who don't have rare mutations, their info generated this way will be essentially equivalent. It really takes a bio student to create a good DNA-based fingerprinting method, but I can shoot at this one a little.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It depends on the frequency of mutation .
There are mutations that are very common , adn those that are rare ; thus , if you only are dealing with where 26 introns are located , you 're probably going to have a \ _lot \ _ of collisions for the most normal people .
Note also that DNA replicase has exonuclease activity : it 'll attempt to repair mutations everywhere .
So , for people without a lot of mutations , who do n't have rare mutations , their info generated this way will be essentially equivalent .
It really takes a bio student to create a good DNA-based fingerprinting method , but I can shoot at this one a little .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It depends on the frequency of mutation.
There are mutations that are very common, adn those that are rare; thus, if you only are dealing with where 26 introns are located, you're probably going to have a \_lot\_ of collisions for the most normal people.
Note also that DNA replicase has exonuclease activity: it'll attempt to repair mutations everywhere.
So, for people without a lot of mutations, who don't have rare mutations, their info generated this way will be essentially equivalent.
It really takes a bio student to create a good DNA-based fingerprinting method, but I can shoot at this one a little.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486570</id>
	<title>what could possibly go wrong?</title>
	<author>AlgorithMan</author>
	<datestamp>1268686260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>go and ask the survivors of the holocaust, why this is a fucking bad idea!</htmltext>
<tokenext>go and ask the survivors of the holocaust , why this is a fucking bad idea !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>go and ask the survivors of the holocaust, why this is a fucking bad idea!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487998</id>
	<title>Re:Fine With Me</title>
	<author>chrb</author>
	<datestamp>1268648460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DNA profiling is basically a one-way hash, so here you go:</p><p># md5sum<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/shadow<br>1455d8b99e194b5d8d3cb3825c3104e1<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/shadow</p><p>Not as big a problem as you thought?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DNA profiling is basically a one-way hash , so here you go : # md5sum /etc/shadow1455d8b99e194b5d8d3cb3825c3104e1 /etc/shadowNot as big a problem as you thought ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DNA profiling is basically a one-way hash, so here you go:# md5sum /etc/shadow1455d8b99e194b5d8d3cb3825c3104e1 /etc/shadowNot as big a problem as you thought?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31490974</id>
	<title>It's inevitable</title>
	<author>shadowbearer</author>
	<datestamp>1268665560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; <i>A DNA sample is taken of every child born <b>globally</b>, to test for potential genetic diseases.</i></p><p>
&nbsp; This will happen. Don't pretend it won't. Eventually genome analysis will be reduced to a chip.</p><p>
&nbsp; <i>Regarding the obvious issue of genetic privacy, Seringhaus makes this argument: "Your sensitive genetic information would be safe.</i></p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Hahahahahaha.</p><p>
&nbsp; First lesson of security, when it comes to computer databases: There is always someone out there smart enough to crack your security, and given sufficient profit motive, they will.</p><p>
&nbsp; No matter how smart you are, there is, or will be, someone smarter.  It's a basic lesson of history. If it weren't true, we wouldn't have computers.</p><p>
&nbsp; I am NOT saying we should stop scientific process (as if "we-globally" could!) - but our society needs to evolve to realize it's potential. It will.  Whether we survive it as a species, is another question entirely.</p><p>
&nbsp; In the meantime...</p><p>sb</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>  A DNA sample is taken of every child born globally , to test for potential genetic diseases .
  This will happen .
Do n't pretend it wo n't .
Eventually genome analysis will be reduced to a chip .
  Regarding the obvious issue of genetic privacy , Seringhaus makes this argument : " Your sensitive genetic information would be safe .
    Hahahahahaha .
  First lesson of security , when it comes to computer databases : There is always someone out there smart enough to crack your security , and given sufficient profit motive , they will .
  No matter how smart you are , there is , or will be , someone smarter .
It 's a basic lesson of history .
If it were n't true , we would n't have computers .
  I am NOT saying we should stop scientific process ( as if " we-globally " could !
) - but our society needs to evolve to realize it 's potential .
It will .
Whether we survive it as a species , is another question entirely .
  In the meantime...sb  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>
  A DNA sample is taken of every child born globally, to test for potential genetic diseases.
  This will happen.
Don't pretend it won't.
Eventually genome analysis will be reduced to a chip.
  Regarding the obvious issue of genetic privacy, Seringhaus makes this argument: "Your sensitive genetic information would be safe.
    Hahahahahaha.
  First lesson of security, when it comes to computer databases: There is always someone out there smart enough to crack your security, and given sufficient profit motive, they will.
  No matter how smart you are, there is, or will be, someone smarter.
It's a basic lesson of history.
If it weren't true, we wouldn't have computers.
  I am NOT saying we should stop scientific process (as if "we-globally" could!
) - but our society needs to evolve to realize it's potential.
It will.
Whether we survive it as a species, is another question entirely.
  In the meantime...sb
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485842</id>
	<title>My DNA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268683860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>They can pry my xy chromosomes from my cold dead body</htmltext>
<tokenext>They can pry my xy chromosomes from my cold dead body</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can pry my xy chromosomes from my cold dead body</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486798</id>
	<title>sure a 26 digit number will work</title>
	<author>prgrmr</author>
	<datestamp>1268643780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because the government has been so successful at preventing identity theft with the 9 digit social security numbers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the government has been so successful at preventing identity theft with the 9 digit social security numbers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the government has been so successful at preventing identity theft with the 9 digit social security numbers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31489792</id>
	<title>I used to work with Michael. . .</title>
	<author>the gnat</author>
	<datestamp>1268657940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>. . . in a bioinformatics lab, and I'll wager that he knows far more about biology (and, specifically, genomics) than most Slashdot readers.  Search for his name on PubMed and you'll find a decent number of peer-reviewed articles (although more letters and opinion pieces - I got the impression that he was more interested in policy issues than research).  I'm pretty sure he ended up receiving a PhD in biochemistry from Yale, although I left long before he would have finished.</p><p>That said, he's also Canadian, which may explain his relaxed attitude towards the privacy implications of an omniscient, paternalistic government.  (He's not the only Canadian I've met with this attitude.)  Those of us living in the US, where the partisans of the last administration continue to defend - no, <b>demand</b> - the torture and/or indefinite detention of terrorism suspects, may be more suspicious.  I certainly don't think much of this idea.  Hopefully this is one of the rare cases where libertarian-leaning individuals on both the left and right can cooperate enough to overcome the reflexive authoritarianism of most of the rest of the country, especially the law-and-order conservatives.  (In fairness to conservatives, the last time I read about a similar proposal, it was being pushed by Tony Blair.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.
. .
in a bioinformatics lab , and I 'll wager that he knows far more about biology ( and , specifically , genomics ) than most Slashdot readers .
Search for his name on PubMed and you 'll find a decent number of peer-reviewed articles ( although more letters and opinion pieces - I got the impression that he was more interested in policy issues than research ) .
I 'm pretty sure he ended up receiving a PhD in biochemistry from Yale , although I left long before he would have finished.That said , he 's also Canadian , which may explain his relaxed attitude towards the privacy implications of an omniscient , paternalistic government .
( He 's not the only Canadian I 've met with this attitude .
) Those of us living in the US , where the partisans of the last administration continue to defend - no , demand - the torture and/or indefinite detention of terrorism suspects , may be more suspicious .
I certainly do n't think much of this idea .
Hopefully this is one of the rare cases where libertarian-leaning individuals on both the left and right can cooperate enough to overcome the reflexive authoritarianism of most of the rest of the country , especially the law-and-order conservatives .
( In fairness to conservatives , the last time I read about a similar proposal , it was being pushed by Tony Blair .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.
. .
in a bioinformatics lab, and I'll wager that he knows far more about biology (and, specifically, genomics) than most Slashdot readers.
Search for his name on PubMed and you'll find a decent number of peer-reviewed articles (although more letters and opinion pieces - I got the impression that he was more interested in policy issues than research).
I'm pretty sure he ended up receiving a PhD in biochemistry from Yale, although I left long before he would have finished.That said, he's also Canadian, which may explain his relaxed attitude towards the privacy implications of an omniscient, paternalistic government.
(He's not the only Canadian I've met with this attitude.
)  Those of us living in the US, where the partisans of the last administration continue to defend - no, demand - the torture and/or indefinite detention of terrorism suspects, may be more suspicious.
I certainly don't think much of this idea.
Hopefully this is one of the rare cases where libertarian-leaning individuals on both the left and right can cooperate enough to overcome the reflexive authoritarianism of most of the rest of the country, especially the law-and-order conservatives.
(In fairness to conservatives, the last time I read about a similar proposal, it was being pushed by Tony Blair.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31490984</id>
	<title>Re:There's something seriously frightening</title>
	<author>shadowbearer</author>
	<datestamp>1268665620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For some people, conveniently.</p><p>SB</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For some people , conveniently.SB</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For some people, conveniently.SB</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486536</id>
	<title>"incredibly rare" is not good enough.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268686140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For this purpose, it has to be unique.<br>26 sequences<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... of what length each (range)?</p><p>Even 1 in a billion means there are 6 other people out there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For this purpose , it has to be unique.26 sequences ... of what length each ( range ) ? Even 1 in a billion means there are 6 other people out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For this purpose, it has to be unique.26 sequences ... of what length each (range)?Even 1 in a billion means there are 6 other people out there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486468</id>
	<title>Re:How does he know it's unique?</title>
	<author>HungryHobo</author>
	<datestamp>1268685960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which would be great if such fingerprints didn't run into the birthday paradox.</p><p>The chances of any 2 random individuals sharing the same profile is tiny.<br>The chances of getting a lot of matches in a large population are extremely high.</p><p>Also those odds are not entirely independent, second cousin has a higher chance of matching with me than a random stranger so crank up the odds a little more.</p><p>And thanks to all the CSI crap DNA evidence is like magical-never-wrong fairy dust.<br>-They find DNA at the scene.<br>-Birthday paradox comes into play<br>-I happen to be in the same city at about the right time.<br>-lazy prosecutor<br>-I'm fucked.</p><p>I have nothing to gain from adding my DNA to such a database and plenty to lose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which would be great if such fingerprints did n't run into the birthday paradox.The chances of any 2 random individuals sharing the same profile is tiny.The chances of getting a lot of matches in a large population are extremely high.Also those odds are not entirely independent , second cousin has a higher chance of matching with me than a random stranger so crank up the odds a little more.And thanks to all the CSI crap DNA evidence is like magical-never-wrong fairy dust.-They find DNA at the scene.-Birthday paradox comes into play-I happen to be in the same city at about the right time.-lazy prosecutor-I 'm fucked.I have nothing to gain from adding my DNA to such a database and plenty to lose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which would be great if such fingerprints didn't run into the birthday paradox.The chances of any 2 random individuals sharing the same profile is tiny.The chances of getting a lot of matches in a large population are extremely high.Also those odds are not entirely independent, second cousin has a higher chance of matching with me than a random stranger so crank up the odds a little more.And thanks to all the CSI crap DNA evidence is like magical-never-wrong fairy dust.-They find DNA at the scene.-Birthday paradox comes into play-I happen to be in the same city at about the right time.-lazy prosecutor-I'm fucked.I have nothing to gain from adding my DNA to such a database and plenty to lose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485876</id>
	<title>He should never be admitted to the bar.</title>
	<author>jcr</author>
	<datestamp>1268683980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This student is the kind of larval shyster whose contempt for the bill of rights should exclude him from ever being allowed to practice law in the United States.  Kick him out of law school.</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This student is the kind of larval shyster whose contempt for the bill of rights should exclude him from ever being allowed to practice law in the United States .
Kick him out of law school.-jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This student is the kind of larval shyster whose contempt for the bill of rights should exclude him from ever being allowed to practice law in the United States.
Kick him out of law school.-jcr</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487114</id>
	<title>Dear DumbAss Yale Law Student</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268645040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>State governments already collect DNA from baby births.</p><p>Yours In Perm,<br>K. Trout</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>State governments already collect DNA from baby births.Yours In Perm,K .
Trout</tokentext>
<sentencetext>State governments already collect DNA from baby births.Yours In Perm,K.
Trout</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31488828</id>
	<title>Trust the government</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268652360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's like a bank which tells your neighbor how much is in your account and whom you paid by check: If banks were like that, people would keep their money at home or look for foreign banks who protect their privacy. If people feel that their government becomes too intrusive in their lives, they will become hostile towards government in general. Good government is government you can trust, not because you believe the government consists of trustworthy people, but because the government is limited in its powers and can only get the information it strictly needs for a narrowly defined set of purposes. Government must not have total control over its citizens. Total control is unstable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's like a bank which tells your neighbor how much is in your account and whom you paid by check : If banks were like that , people would keep their money at home or look for foreign banks who protect their privacy .
If people feel that their government becomes too intrusive in their lives , they will become hostile towards government in general .
Good government is government you can trust , not because you believe the government consists of trustworthy people , but because the government is limited in its powers and can only get the information it strictly needs for a narrowly defined set of purposes .
Government must not have total control over its citizens .
Total control is unstable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's like a bank which tells your neighbor how much is in your account and whom you paid by check: If banks were like that, people would keep their money at home or look for foreign banks who protect their privacy.
If people feel that their government becomes too intrusive in their lives, they will become hostile towards government in general.
Good government is government you can trust, not because you believe the government consists of trustworthy people, but because the government is limited in its powers and can only get the information it strictly needs for a narrowly defined set of purposes.
Government must not have total control over its citizens.
Total control is unstable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31490890</id>
	<title>Re:Will not work</title>
	<author>http</author>
	<datestamp>1268664840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The actual number is approximately one in one million; it took me a bit to look it up (not knowing off the top of my head what professionals in the field call those measures).  I suspect that the reason few people remember the exact numbers is that the take-home is more important: the odds of having a false match rise significantly and rapidly as the database size increases (cf. Birthday  paradox).   The imprecision of the numbers doesn't take away the validity of the OP's point.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The actual number is approximately one in one million ; it took me a bit to look it up ( not knowing off the top of my head what professionals in the field call those measures ) .
I suspect that the reason few people remember the exact numbers is that the take-home is more important : the odds of having a false match rise significantly and rapidly as the database size increases ( cf .
Birthday paradox ) .
The imprecision of the numbers does n't take away the validity of the OP 's point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The actual number is approximately one in one million; it took me a bit to look it up (not knowing off the top of my head what professionals in the field call those measures).
I suspect that the reason few people remember the exact numbers is that the take-home is more important: the odds of having a false match rise significantly and rapidly as the database size increases (cf.
Birthday  paradox).
The imprecision of the numbers doesn't take away the validity of the OP's point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487764</id>
	<title>Old</title>
	<author>fulldecent</author>
	<datestamp>1268647680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DNA samples are currently collected at birth. Look it up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DNA samples are currently collected at birth .
Look it up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DNA samples are currently collected at birth.
Look it up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31495162</id>
	<title>A Despot's Dream</title>
	<author>Hasai</author>
	<datestamp>1268752740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's becoming increasingly evident that the teaching of History has been discarded in America's centers of "higher" learning.</p><p>Orwell was an amateur.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's becoming increasingly evident that the teaching of History has been discarded in America 's centers of " higher " learning.Orwell was an amateur .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's becoming increasingly evident that the teaching of History has been discarded in America's centers of "higher" learning.Orwell was an amateur.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31491000</id>
	<title>Re:You got it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268665680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i> <b>Even with 365 days a year</b>, there is 50\% probability that two people will have the same birthday in any random group of 23 people.</i> </p><p>Typical.  How US-centric of you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even with 365 days a year , there is 50 \ % probability that two people will have the same birthday in any random group of 23 people .
Typical. How US-centric of you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  Even with 365 days a year, there is 50\% probability that two people will have the same birthday in any random group of 23 people.
Typical.  How US-centric of you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486812</id>
	<title>How many criminals actually leave DNA</title>
	<author>Stephenmg</author>
	<datestamp>1268643840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Putting aside the liberties and constitution protections this would stomp on, how many cases actually have DNA evidence left? All I see this doing is making criminals work harder to not to leave DNA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Putting aside the liberties and constitution protections this would stomp on , how many cases actually have DNA evidence left ?
All I see this doing is making criminals work harder to not to leave DNA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Putting aside the liberties and constitution protections this would stomp on, how many cases actually have DNA evidence left?
All I see this doing is making criminals work harder to not to leave DNA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486904</id>
	<title>Eventually it's unavoidable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268644200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if you somehow manage to avoid giving out your DNA, eventually the DNA database is going to be so vast they can identify your family line by using supercomputers to compare you against the database.  So someday instead of seeing "Unknown male wanted in the rape of Jane Doe"  we'll see "Unknown male known to be from X bloodline, and have X alleles in common with the following individuals:" etc.  They'll be able to pinpoint you even more accurately as the database grows.  So the only thing to do is scrub the shit out of yourself every day so you shed less epithelials, shave yourself bare of hair, and wear a condom.  But still things like the particles released from your mouth when talking or even just breathing could bag you; the sample size just keeps getting smaller.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if you somehow manage to avoid giving out your DNA , eventually the DNA database is going to be so vast they can identify your family line by using supercomputers to compare you against the database .
So someday instead of seeing " Unknown male wanted in the rape of Jane Doe " we 'll see " Unknown male known to be from X bloodline , and have X alleles in common with the following individuals : " etc .
They 'll be able to pinpoint you even more accurately as the database grows .
So the only thing to do is scrub the shit out of yourself every day so you shed less epithelials , shave yourself bare of hair , and wear a condom .
But still things like the particles released from your mouth when talking or even just breathing could bag you ; the sample size just keeps getting smaller .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if you somehow manage to avoid giving out your DNA, eventually the DNA database is going to be so vast they can identify your family line by using supercomputers to compare you against the database.
So someday instead of seeing "Unknown male wanted in the rape of Jane Doe"  we'll see "Unknown male known to be from X bloodline, and have X alleles in common with the following individuals:" etc.
They'll be able to pinpoint you even more accurately as the database grows.
So the only thing to do is scrub the shit out of yourself every day so you shed less epithelials, shave yourself bare of hair, and wear a condom.
But still things like the particles released from your mouth when talking or even just breathing could bag you; the sample size just keeps getting smaller.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485870</id>
	<title>So...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268683920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's basically like my DNAs MD5 hash?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's basically like my DNAs MD5 hash ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's basically like my DNAs MD5 hash?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487190</id>
	<title>I agree with him</title>
	<author>JerryLove</author>
	<datestamp>1268645340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The government has my name. They took my footprints at birth, but who checks that? They issued me an ID card that tied me to a number, which was asking for others to claim it. They keep a photo of me with my driver's license since I was 15. In my case they also have fingerprints.</p><p>So what I have is a bunch of differnt things taken at different times (SSN, name, picture, birth certificate, etc): few of which can be concretely tied to a body (IOW: are easy to steal). We have people getting arrested because their are warrants on others with the same name.</p><p>And don't get me started on the credit reporting industry.</p><p>The privacy cat is out of the bad. DNA from birth just makes it far more accurate: and I believe that's a good thing. I'd love anonymity: but I can't have it. At least let my ID be something I can prove is (or isn't) me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The government has my name .
They took my footprints at birth , but who checks that ?
They issued me an ID card that tied me to a number , which was asking for others to claim it .
They keep a photo of me with my driver 's license since I was 15 .
In my case they also have fingerprints.So what I have is a bunch of differnt things taken at different times ( SSN , name , picture , birth certificate , etc ) : few of which can be concretely tied to a body ( IOW : are easy to steal ) .
We have people getting arrested because their are warrants on others with the same name.And do n't get me started on the credit reporting industry.The privacy cat is out of the bad .
DNA from birth just makes it far more accurate : and I believe that 's a good thing .
I 'd love anonymity : but I ca n't have it .
At least let my ID be something I can prove is ( or is n't ) me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government has my name.
They took my footprints at birth, but who checks that?
They issued me an ID card that tied me to a number, which was asking for others to claim it.
They keep a photo of me with my driver's license since I was 15.
In my case they also have fingerprints.So what I have is a bunch of differnt things taken at different times (SSN, name, picture, birth certificate, etc): few of which can be concretely tied to a body (IOW: are easy to steal).
We have people getting arrested because their are warrants on others with the same name.And don't get me started on the credit reporting industry.The privacy cat is out of the bad.
DNA from birth just makes it far more accurate: and I believe that's a good thing.
I'd love anonymity: but I can't have it.
At least let my ID be something I can prove is (or isn't) me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31491486</id>
	<title>Silly Yale kid...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268669520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He thinks the people who break laws are more dangerous than the people who write them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He thinks the people who break laws are more dangerous than the people who write them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He thinks the people who break laws are more dangerous than the people who write them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486994</id>
	<title>Re:And how useful would it really be?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268644500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By creating enormous database of people's  parameters (fingerprints, DNA, any others) you only move the problem from "how to identify the criminal" to "how to avoid false positive".<br>When you sustain then the method is absolutely secure, you move the duty from showing somebody's guilt to showing somebody's innocence - and that's the biggest threat to democracy!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By creating enormous database of people 's parameters ( fingerprints , DNA , any others ) you only move the problem from " how to identify the criminal " to " how to avoid false positive " .When you sustain then the method is absolutely secure , you move the duty from showing somebody 's guilt to showing somebody 's innocence - and that 's the biggest threat to democracy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By creating enormous database of people's  parameters (fingerprints, DNA, any others) you only move the problem from "how to identify the criminal" to "how to avoid false positive".When you sustain then the method is absolutely secure, you move the duty from showing somebody's guilt to showing somebody's innocence - and that's the biggest threat to democracy!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486416</id>
	<title>Let's make it even better and combine it w/ IPV6!</title>
	<author>TheNarrator</author>
	<datestamp>1268685780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think they should take your genetic identity and use it as the bottom 64 bits of your 128 bit IPV6 address whenever you access the internet.  They can even program it in into a tamper-proof RFID chip implanted under your skin, so that when you access the internet all you have to do is scan your chip!  Think of the genetic segmentation we could do in online marketing!!!  We could tie this to a facial identification database and your cell phone and then you could rent time on homeland security predator drones to see what your friends are up to in real-time!!!  Wow.. We have such an absolutely wonderful future ahead of us!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think they should take your genetic identity and use it as the bottom 64 bits of your 128 bit IPV6 address whenever you access the internet .
They can even program it in into a tamper-proof RFID chip implanted under your skin , so that when you access the internet all you have to do is scan your chip !
Think of the genetic segmentation we could do in online marketing ! ! !
We could tie this to a facial identification database and your cell phone and then you could rent time on homeland security predator drones to see what your friends are up to in real-time ! ! !
Wow.. We have such an absolutely wonderful future ahead of us !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think they should take your genetic identity and use it as the bottom 64 bits of your 128 bit IPV6 address whenever you access the internet.
They can even program it in into a tamper-proof RFID chip implanted under your skin, so that when you access the internet all you have to do is scan your chip!
Think of the genetic segmentation we could do in online marketing!!!
We could tie this to a facial identification database and your cell phone and then you could rent time on homeland security predator drones to see what your friends are up to in real-time!!!
Wow.. We have such an absolutely wonderful future ahead of us!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487082</id>
	<title>Re:Will not work</title>
	<author>MightyMartian</author>
	<datestamp>1268644920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think so.  You're saying that society will only be free when we all have personal teleportation devices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think so .
You 're saying that society will only be free when we all have personal teleportation devices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think so.
You're saying that society will only be free when we all have personal teleportation devices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486152</id>
	<title>Assumes that the junk is really junk</title>
	<author>Matt Perry</author>
	<datestamp>1268684820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>they don't correlate with any observable characteristics</p></div></blockquote><p>... that we know of at this time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>they do n't correlate with any observable characteristics... that we know of at this time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they don't correlate with any observable characteristics... that we know of at this time.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487038</id>
	<title>Not a bad idea!</title>
	<author>cbytes</author>
	<datestamp>1268644680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now all I need to do to get away with an illegal act is plant someone else's DNA at the crime scene! Thanks!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now all I need to do to get away with an illegal act is plant someone else 's DNA at the crime scene !
Thanks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now all I need to do to get away with an illegal act is plant someone else's DNA at the crime scene!
Thanks!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31488608</id>
	<title>Re:You got it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268651160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pretty interesting discussion thread.  It would make for a good dinner theater plot:</p><p>In the dead of the unusually hot and muggy Houston summer of '25, the latest winner of "America's Next Top Senator," actor-model Ricardo "Benny" Iglesias is found dead.  Partial DNA evidence at the scene implicates 6 people from disparate walks of life in the National DNA registry.  River Oaks Head DA (and charismatic judge on "Stripping with the Stars") Anton Malone, calls in Sugar Land's hard-nose flat-foot head of Homicide, Juan Gomez, to crack the case.  The lead suspect seems obvious, until the CIA Datamining algorithms start piecing together bizarre and unlikely intersections in the entire cast's lives including bit-characters and the investigators themselves!  It seems that 6-degrees of separation is not enough to keep one above suspicion in a city of 4 million people!  Dun-dun-duuuun</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty interesting discussion thread .
It would make for a good dinner theater plot : In the dead of the unusually hot and muggy Houston summer of '25 , the latest winner of " America 's Next Top Senator , " actor-model Ricardo " Benny " Iglesias is found dead .
Partial DNA evidence at the scene implicates 6 people from disparate walks of life in the National DNA registry .
River Oaks Head DA ( and charismatic judge on " Stripping with the Stars " ) Anton Malone , calls in Sugar Land 's hard-nose flat-foot head of Homicide , Juan Gomez , to crack the case .
The lead suspect seems obvious , until the CIA Datamining algorithms start piecing together bizarre and unlikely intersections in the entire cast 's lives including bit-characters and the investigators themselves !
It seems that 6-degrees of separation is not enough to keep one above suspicion in a city of 4 million people !
Dun-dun-duuuun</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty interesting discussion thread.
It would make for a good dinner theater plot:In the dead of the unusually hot and muggy Houston summer of '25, the latest winner of "America's Next Top Senator," actor-model Ricardo "Benny" Iglesias is found dead.
Partial DNA evidence at the scene implicates 6 people from disparate walks of life in the National DNA registry.
River Oaks Head DA (and charismatic judge on "Stripping with the Stars") Anton Malone, calls in Sugar Land's hard-nose flat-foot head of Homicide, Juan Gomez, to crack the case.
The lead suspect seems obvious, until the CIA Datamining algorithms start piecing together bizarre and unlikely intersections in the entire cast's lives including bit-characters and the investigators themselves!
It seems that 6-degrees of separation is not enough to keep one above suspicion in a city of 4 million people!
Dun-dun-duuuun</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31488618</id>
	<title>Re:How does he know it's unique?</title>
	<author>hedwards</author>
	<datestamp>1268651220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The thing is though that DNA and every other method we've come up with has been imperfect and in certain jurisdictions, such as Texas, the government sees no problem with executing known innocents. Which is precisely why this should never, ever happen, even keeping DNA from individuals that aren't convicted is extremely troubling. If there's cause to know later, then you can get another sample.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing is though that DNA and every other method we 've come up with has been imperfect and in certain jurisdictions , such as Texas , the government sees no problem with executing known innocents .
Which is precisely why this should never , ever happen , even keeping DNA from individuals that are n't convicted is extremely troubling .
If there 's cause to know later , then you can get another sample .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing is though that DNA and every other method we've come up with has been imperfect and in certain jurisdictions, such as Texas, the government sees no problem with executing known innocents.
Which is precisely why this should never, ever happen, even keeping DNA from individuals that aren't convicted is extremely troubling.
If there's cause to know later, then you can get another sample.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487300</id>
	<title>Re:How does he know it's unique?</title>
	<author>vxice</author>
	<datestamp>1268645760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"each characterizing the length of a certain repeated sequence of 'junk' DNA that differs from person to person" and a significant portion of the DNA was supposed to be junk only a few years ago.  Depending on the length of the 'junk' sequences and how they are hashed in principal yes they would be unique and a good one way hash of the dna with low collision rate and no discrimination.  This is how fingerprints are matched and stored anyways.  But if any of those change like large population change, I do mean massive on an order of magnitude, or the 'junk' isn't really junk major changes would have to be made.  In the end the most important thing to remember is that anything that makes the police's job easier make anyones job abusing the info easier.  I mean come on police we pay you, demand that you have to take the most effort possible so that a) you are guaranteed work and b) any abuse of the system is harder.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" each characterizing the length of a certain repeated sequence of 'junk ' DNA that differs from person to person " and a significant portion of the DNA was supposed to be junk only a few years ago .
Depending on the length of the 'junk ' sequences and how they are hashed in principal yes they would be unique and a good one way hash of the dna with low collision rate and no discrimination .
This is how fingerprints are matched and stored anyways .
But if any of those change like large population change , I do mean massive on an order of magnitude , or the 'junk ' is n't really junk major changes would have to be made .
In the end the most important thing to remember is that anything that makes the police 's job easier make anyones job abusing the info easier .
I mean come on police we pay you , demand that you have to take the most effort possible so that a ) you are guaranteed work and b ) any abuse of the system is harder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"each characterizing the length of a certain repeated sequence of 'junk' DNA that differs from person to person" and a significant portion of the DNA was supposed to be junk only a few years ago.
Depending on the length of the 'junk' sequences and how they are hashed in principal yes they would be unique and a good one way hash of the dna with low collision rate and no discrimination.
This is how fingerprints are matched and stored anyways.
But if any of those change like large population change, I do mean massive on an order of magnitude, or the 'junk' isn't really junk major changes would have to be made.
In the end the most important thing to remember is that anything that makes the police's job easier make anyones job abusing the info easier.
I mean come on police we pay you, demand that you have to take the most effort possible so that a) you are guaranteed work and b) any abuse of the system is harder.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486662</id>
	<title>Re:Will not work</title>
	<author>MozeeToby</author>
	<datestamp>1268686500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the false positive rate is anything greater than zero his point is still valid.  Let's say there's 1,000,000 violent crimes committed in the US each year, and the odds of you being flagged falsely are one in a billion, you're betting your freedom on a 1 in 100 chance that your name won't come up in some investigation in any given year.  It's the birthday paradox writ large, it doesn't matter if there's a billion DNA fingerprints or 365 days, the odds of a collision across a significant number of samples is much higher than intuition would make it seem.</p><p>Granted, odds are pretty good that the police won't even question you depending on your location, so maybe you'd only be investigated if you were in the same area that the crime took place, so instead of 100 it's 5000.  Maybe if being accused of certain crimes wasn't a punishment in and of itself (sexual assault of a child comes to mind) you might convince me that it's worth the risk.  But the way the world works, a 1 in 50000 chance of being accused of something like that is quite simply unacceptably high.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the false positive rate is anything greater than zero his point is still valid .
Let 's say there 's 1,000,000 violent crimes committed in the US each year , and the odds of you being flagged falsely are one in a billion , you 're betting your freedom on a 1 in 100 chance that your name wo n't come up in some investigation in any given year .
It 's the birthday paradox writ large , it does n't matter if there 's a billion DNA fingerprints or 365 days , the odds of a collision across a significant number of samples is much higher than intuition would make it seem.Granted , odds are pretty good that the police wo n't even question you depending on your location , so maybe you 'd only be investigated if you were in the same area that the crime took place , so instead of 100 it 's 5000 .
Maybe if being accused of certain crimes was n't a punishment in and of itself ( sexual assault of a child comes to mind ) you might convince me that it 's worth the risk .
But the way the world works , a 1 in 50000 chance of being accused of something like that is quite simply unacceptably high .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the false positive rate is anything greater than zero his point is still valid.
Let's say there's 1,000,000 violent crimes committed in the US each year, and the odds of you being flagged falsely are one in a billion, you're betting your freedom on a 1 in 100 chance that your name won't come up in some investigation in any given year.
It's the birthday paradox writ large, it doesn't matter if there's a billion DNA fingerprints or 365 days, the odds of a collision across a significant number of samples is much higher than intuition would make it seem.Granted, odds are pretty good that the police won't even question you depending on your location, so maybe you'd only be investigated if you were in the same area that the crime took place, so instead of 100 it's 5000.
Maybe if being accused of certain crimes wasn't a punishment in and of itself (sexual assault of a child comes to mind) you might convince me that it's worth the risk.
But the way the world works, a 1 in 50000 chance of being accused of something like that is quite simply unacceptably high.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31489012</id>
	<title>Re:Dammit...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268653380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's coming.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's coming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's coming.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486484</id>
	<title>new business - DNA collection agency</title>
	<author>a2wflc</author>
	<datestamp>1268685960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tell me who you want to frame for the crime you are about to commit (actually don't tell me the details - I'll assume you have a legit reason<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)  I'll follow them around until they discard tissues or a cup or whatever.  You can leave the evidence at the scene and the police won't need to spend weeks or months collecting other evidence since they've got all they need.  At the very least they'll spend some effort tracking down someone other than you.</p><p>I assume this "law student" hasn't had the class where they discuss the constitution yet.  At least I hope Yale isn't teaching that this is an appropriate use of government power.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tell me who you want to frame for the crime you are about to commit ( actually do n't tell me the details - I 'll assume you have a legit reason : ) I 'll follow them around until they discard tissues or a cup or whatever .
You can leave the evidence at the scene and the police wo n't need to spend weeks or months collecting other evidence since they 've got all they need .
At the very least they 'll spend some effort tracking down someone other than you.I assume this " law student " has n't had the class where they discuss the constitution yet .
At least I hope Yale is n't teaching that this is an appropriate use of government power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tell me who you want to frame for the crime you are about to commit (actually don't tell me the details - I'll assume you have a legit reason :)  I'll follow them around until they discard tissues or a cup or whatever.
You can leave the evidence at the scene and the police won't need to spend weeks or months collecting other evidence since they've got all they need.
At the very least they'll spend some effort tracking down someone other than you.I assume this "law student" hasn't had the class where they discuss the constitution yet.
At least I hope Yale isn't teaching that this is an appropriate use of government power.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485834</id>
	<title>Piss off, Seringhaus.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268683860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fuck off, Seringhaus. Your idea stinks, and should have absolutely no place in the United States, or any other first-world nation that considers freedom to be of even the slightest importance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck off , Seringhaus .
Your idea stinks , and should have absolutely no place in the United States , or any other first-world nation that considers freedom to be of even the slightest importance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck off, Seringhaus.
Your idea stinks, and should have absolutely no place in the United States, or any other first-world nation that considers freedom to be of even the slightest importance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487726</id>
	<title>Re:Awwwww, hes just so cute and innocent...</title>
	<author>AthanasiusKircher</author>
	<datestamp>1268647500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, and as we know, we're already <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/02/05/0440247/Routine-DNA-Tests-For-Newborns-Mean-Looming-Privacy-Problems" title="slashdot.org">keeping biological samples from infants in many states indefinitely.</a> [slashdot.org]

</p><p>

And yes, many states that do this claim that there are great restrictions on its use, but as we've recently seen in Texas, this system already has been abused.  I simply don't understand why the government wouldn't allow parents to request that such samples be destroyed within a reasonable amount of time, if they so desire -- unless they're up to more nefarious purposes.  And don't tell me it's for overall population research only, since samples could be anonymous for that sort of thing, only retaining some basic demographic data.  The only reasonable explanation is that someday, someone will want to use these samples to track you down and check up on you specifically -- whether it's for some medical purpose or law enforcement or something else.
</p><p>
Right now, my state only allows you to opt out if the parents have religious objections.  Otherwise, the samples are required by law and will be stored indefinitely.  We're already well on our way to this database.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , and as we know , we 're already keeping biological samples from infants in many states indefinitely .
[ slashdot.org ] And yes , many states that do this claim that there are great restrictions on its use , but as we 've recently seen in Texas , this system already has been abused .
I simply do n't understand why the government would n't allow parents to request that such samples be destroyed within a reasonable amount of time , if they so desire -- unless they 're up to more nefarious purposes .
And do n't tell me it 's for overall population research only , since samples could be anonymous for that sort of thing , only retaining some basic demographic data .
The only reasonable explanation is that someday , someone will want to use these samples to track you down and check up on you specifically -- whether it 's for some medical purpose or law enforcement or something else .
Right now , my state only allows you to opt out if the parents have religious objections .
Otherwise , the samples are required by law and will be stored indefinitely .
We 're already well on our way to this database .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, and as we know, we're already keeping biological samples from infants in many states indefinitely.
[slashdot.org]



And yes, many states that do this claim that there are great restrictions on its use, but as we've recently seen in Texas, this system already has been abused.
I simply don't understand why the government wouldn't allow parents to request that such samples be destroyed within a reasonable amount of time, if they so desire -- unless they're up to more nefarious purposes.
And don't tell me it's for overall population research only, since samples could be anonymous for that sort of thing, only retaining some basic demographic data.
The only reasonable explanation is that someday, someone will want to use these samples to track you down and check up on you specifically -- whether it's for some medical purpose or law enforcement or something else.
Right now, my state only allows you to opt out if the parents have religious objections.
Otherwise, the samples are required by law and will be stored indefinitely.
We're already well on our way to this database.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31494040</id>
	<title>Discrimination!!!111</title>
	<author>RichiH</author>
	<datestamp>1268747940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The obvious question is if we will imprison everyone to end the discrimination against people who were found guilty in a court of law.</p><p>And what about people who we discriminate against breaking bones by making them wear a cast?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The obvious question is if we will imprison everyone to end the discrimination against people who were found guilty in a court of law.And what about people who we discriminate against breaking bones by making them wear a cast ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The obvious question is if we will imprison everyone to end the discrimination against people who were found guilty in a court of law.And what about people who we discriminate against breaking bones by making them wear a cast?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486830</id>
	<title>Re:Dammit...</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1268643900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I could think of worse ways to die, but none as embarassing as autoerotic asphyxiation." - Clyde Bruckman<br>"Why are you looking at me when you say that?" -  Mulder</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I could think of worse ways to die , but none as embarassing as autoerotic asphyxiation .
" - Clyde Bruckman " Why are you looking at me when you say that ?
" - Mulder</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I could think of worse ways to die, but none as embarassing as autoerotic asphyxiation.
" - Clyde Bruckman"Why are you looking at me when you say that?
" -  Mulder</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485996</id>
	<title>Re:Awwwww, hes just so cute and innocent...</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1268684280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>This guy reminds me of a cute little 5 year old. His heart is in the right place and he just wants everything fair and nice. However, those are some BIG ASSUMPTIONS he is making</i></p><p>You could say the same thing about the American electorate.  As obviously flawed as these arguments are, they are convincing to a large proportion of the population.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This guy reminds me of a cute little 5 year old .
His heart is in the right place and he just wants everything fair and nice .
However , those are some BIG ASSUMPTIONS he is makingYou could say the same thing about the American electorate .
As obviously flawed as these arguments are , they are convincing to a large proportion of the population .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This guy reminds me of a cute little 5 year old.
His heart is in the right place and he just wants everything fair and nice.
However, those are some BIG ASSUMPTIONS he is makingYou could say the same thing about the American electorate.
As obviously flawed as these arguments are, they are convincing to a large proportion of the population.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485780</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31491354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31488570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31489904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31491998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31491006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31488112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31489966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31488024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31488054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31488658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31490984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31491118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31497036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31491000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31496748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31489898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31489620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31490614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31488096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31490460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31488588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31499120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31490890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31489416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31488744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31494706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31490654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31490790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31501638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31491570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31500060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31491982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31489792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31491772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31489826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31488828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31488056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31490052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31489492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31489234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31488618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31491956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31489152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31488690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31492912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31496920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31489012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31488608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31489498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1811224_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1811224.37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487122
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1811224.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31491982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31488828
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1811224.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31488112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487998
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1811224.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487072
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1811224.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486188
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1811224.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31491772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31496748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31491118
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1811224.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486828
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1811224.38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31496920
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1811224.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487052
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1811224.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31501638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486576
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1811224.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487120
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1811224.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485942
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1811224.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31490614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485978
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487172
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487960
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31489012
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486830
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1811224.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31489498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31489492
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1811224.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487634
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1811224.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486332
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1811224.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486120
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1811224.39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31494706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31488690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486074
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487684
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486900
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486834
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31488054
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31488744
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31489826
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31491570
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486994
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31489234
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31490052
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31499120
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31489904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486310
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31488056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486472
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486824
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486960
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31500060
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31490654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31489152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487520
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1811224.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485758
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1811224.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31488024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31489620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31491956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31491354
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1811224.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486064
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31490890
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486662
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486146
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31488570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31488096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31489792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486138
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486226
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1811224.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485842
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1811224.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31490984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487488
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1811224.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31488588
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1811224.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31497036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31489416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31489966
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1811224.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486286
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1811224.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487884
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1811224.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485798
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1811224.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31491998
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1811224.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485834
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1811224.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486570
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1811224.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31490246
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1811224.36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486170
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1811224.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487114
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1811224.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486986
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1811224.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485938
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486202
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486536
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486732
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31489898
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31492912
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486946
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486468
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487904
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31488618
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487452
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486652
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31490790
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31488608
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31491000
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31490460
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31487300
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31491006
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31488658
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1811224.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486376
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1811224.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31485920
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1811224.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486006
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1811224.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1811224.31486116
</commentlist>
</conversation>
