golden state killer

[Len Cnut]

19 minutes ago, Dazey said:

World reknowned or Bollywood actor? Come on man? You can’t have both!  

Has it ever occurred to you, oh sad victim of western imperialism, that there is an ENTIRE planet outside of America and Europe, an ENTIRE planet who don't poo in their hands, sprinkle salt on it and call it dinner, shag their mums and make clothes out of leaves?  Cuz there is y'know and they have cinemas and tellys and mobile phones and money and they watch films, films with AC-tours in them and they patronise them and bring money and everything!   The cunts the richest actor in the world right now, behind Jerry Seinfeld I believe, he's made the cover of Time Magazine, all sorts   

[Dazey]

51 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Has it ever occurred to you, oh sad victim of western imperialism, that there is an ENTIRE planet outside of America and Europe, an ENTIRE planet who don't poo in their hands, sprinkle salt on it and call it dinner, shag their mums and make clothes out of leaves? 

NO.  

[Len Cnut]

29 minutes ago, Dazey said:

NO.  

well you'd be absolutely correct   they all eat each other still y'know, cannibalism and that, rife in the non western world, foreign bastards, all sorts they get up to!  foreign language, load of bollocks, its just sounds innit?  I mean dogs bark, it ain't a language is it, they just have sounds for things!  'ooga booga' for dinner and 'wallah wallah' for sex and 'allah u akbar' for 'kill kill kill, kill dirty white bastard!'  

[Archtop]

Moving away from the DNA ethical debate, anyone else wondering about the guy they have arrested. Almost all of his victims had aged him in his early twenties during the 1970’s. The top age coming in around 28. Joseph DeAngelo is 10 years older than most reported, putting him in his 30’s when committing these crimes. It just seems really odd to me. I wonder without the DNA match does he fit the profile? His holding down a police job in Auborn by day and killing in Sacramento at night. Not sure what kind of distance that is but it seems a stretch. 

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, Oldest Goat said:

@SoulMonster You preach/endorse the forced collection of "non-functional" DNA...and then say the blood of all who are born should be forcefully collected and you see misuse of this forceful act as virtually impossible. Which is completely baseless if you know anything about our species. You don't need to be a scientist to understand people.

But I say this using the touchscreen of a dumbphone. Which I am sure they use to collect all our fingerprints. However, complacency/apathy of myself or others does not make the need for moral debate on an issue obsolete. If anything it makes it even more vital.

Blood from every baby is already "forcefully" collected, and I can't remember this ever resulting in any misuse. Extracting non-functional DNA from this already "forcefully" collected blood would not constitute additional risk for misuse. 

[SoulMonster]

Just now, Oldest Goat said:

They collect blood from all babies?

Yes, immediately after birth blood samples are taken to screen for various hereditary diseases. 

[SoulMonster]

4 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

Do they store the blood and archive their DNA?

They are not supposed to store the blood for long times, but it has been known to happen: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3763707/

Mind you, here we are talking about complete blood, from which ALL KINDS of medical information can be extracted. What I have been talking about is simply extracting non-functional DNA, which contains next to zero biological information, from that blood before it is destroyed and store this DNA in forensic databases with strict and limited access.

 

Edited May 7, 2018 by SoulMonster

[Ace Nova]

Pretty sure testing a baby's blood after birth is common practice in every industrialized nation on Earth. 

[SoulMonster]

24 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

Please explain, in layman's terms if you can, what makes DNA 'non-functional' and why it can only be that, meaning you can't just gather it and then make it functional in a secret lab. (Assuming we trust them to only store non-functional DNA in the first place)

It has long been known that large portions of our DNA doesn't have any apparent biological functions. Such DNA has been referred to as "junk DNA" because it seems to be just garbage that our species (and our ancestral species) has accumulated through millions of years. A lot of this DNA is comprised of remnants of viruses that through history has inserted itself in our DNA but failed to escape (many viruses work by integrating in the genome of hosts, only to escape and cause disease under certain circumstances, herpes and cold sores being examples). Some of these viruses even manage to copy themselves in our genome, resulting in dozens if not hundreds of repeated sequences scattering around our genome. Not only can we identify this DNA as alien intruders (by analyzing the sequences), and not discern any apparent biological functions they might bring to us, we can also observe that such DNA regions mutate much quicker than regions with functional DNA, strongly implying that there is no evolutionary forces to preserve the integrity of this DNA which again points to its non-functionality.

The fact that such non-coding, non-functional junk DNA mutates much more rapidly than the rest of our genome, makes it even more suitable for use in forensic databases, because even short stretches of it can be used to obtain unique DNA fingerprints. 

For all practical purposes, such DNA is molecular fingerprints, unique to each individual and with no discernable way of being misused. But in contrast to fingerprints, they can't be scraped away and most criminals can't avoid leaving them at crime scenes.

Edited May 7, 2018 by SoulMonster

[SoulMonster]

Just now, Oldest Goat said:

Pretty interesting stuff. I wonder if this junk DNA serves some purpose we aren't yet aware of. As if you're currently saying "The furniture inside the house is not part of the house. You could swap it around or throw it all out or whatever and it won't affect the structure of the house itself. The furniture is meaningless junk and serves no purpose." And then years later our corrupt and deeply flawed and incompetent governing forces, having free and total access to our DNA from birth and which society no longer questions, has achieved the means to apply our DNA for their own purposes, example: If I was a corrupt governing force who possessed everyone's DNA I could experiment with it at my leisure or plant DNA evidence at a crime scene to frame any opposition effectively creating a concrete automatic go directly to jail trumpcard.

Maybe that'll never happen and maybe I'm a paranoid fool but science, the law, government; nothing, can ever be worthy of replacing moral debate and philosophy. Our laws should be the result of our morals and our morals should not be the result of our laws.

They won't store our complete DNA; only small parts that smarter people than us have decided is non-functional. 

This is absolutely about morals. The moral question is: Can we afford to not implement a forensic database based on non-functional DNA when we know it will have SIGNIFICANT effects on crime-reduction and police efficiency, when it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY it could -- even if it were to fell into the hands of criminals -- ever be misused for anything? In my opinion the answer is obvious. In my opinion it is ethically wrong to not implement this based on dubious and vague protests from people who, for the most part, have no idea of what they speak.