From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Wed Jul 31 2002 - 15:55:41 MDT
Brian D Williams wrote:
>>From: Charles Hixson <charleshixsn@earthlink.net>
>>
>>
>>So, if well handled, the DNA evidence can, as currently used,
>>*usually* isolate one man out of 100,000 or so. But not one man
>>out of 1,000,000 Quite good, especially if used in conjunction
>>with other evidence. But note the usually. Relatives are
>>examples of people who are likely to share all of the alleles. So
>>if choosing among relatives, it is a much less good test. (How
>>good? I haven't seen any statistics.) And inbred populations
>>would also be likely to share alleles. Etc. (I don't know which
>>sites are choosen, or how long a fragment is checked. But it's
>>short, as the limitation on checking was decided several years ago
>>as a cost containment measure. It probably predates the database,
>>and it's original use was just to confirm other evidence, so it
>>didn't need to be too precise.)
>>
>>
>
>One of the stories on the news last night was how they've been
>offering free DNA testing to inmates for awhile now, and less than
>10 people have requested it.
>
>Less innocent than they claim.
>
>
>Brian
>
>Member:
>Extropy Institute, www.extropy.org
>National Rifle Association, www.nra.org, 1.800.672.3888
>SBC/Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W
>
Or less trusting than you assume. Perhaps less trusting than is
reasonable. But I wouldn't go farther than perhaps.
-- -- Charles Hixson Gnu software that is free, The best is yet to be.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:48 MST