There's some problematic stuff about it, like if you get arrested for a crime that you are eventually exonerated of, they've got your DNA on file forever.
There's always the old chestnut of "if you're innocent, you've got nothing to fear," but then we start getting into slippery slope arguments.
I am just annoyed that they're flipping on it just because Walker needs a victory of some sort going into the recall election.
If these laws were written by sane people there'd be an option to remove your DNA from file somehow on successful exoneration or appeal. Sadly, these laws are designed to get us used to being bagged and tagged for trivial reasons so there is no option to do that.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
I'm on the fence with that, it doesn't really matter either way if all they're doing is linking it to previous DNA criminal evidence.
DNA has a much higher error rate than people think it does. This will increase the number of false matches quite a lot, even if that's all they're doing.
Any info on what percentage of the errors are due to operator error vs PCR error? My bet it is mainly the former. Humans are horrendously incompetent.
It's funny, because DNA sequencing technology is now so cheap, fast, and accurate enough nowadays (or soon) that we could probably afford to just sequence entire genomes rather than using the weird locus-based tests we currently use, and to do it double in two separate labs to cross-check errors. Illumina's got whole genome sequencing down to $5000 per. But to switch to that would be a tacit admission that current methodologies are insufficient, so it's gonna be a while.
Any info on what percentage of the errors are due to operator error vs PCR error? My bet it is mainly the former. Humans are horrendously incompetent.
It's funny, because DNA sequencing technology is now so cheap, fast, and accurate enough nowadays (or soon) that we could probably afford to just sequence entire genomes rather than using the weird locus-based tests we currently use, and to do it double in two separate labs to cross-check errors. Illumina's got whole genome sequencing down to $5000 per. But to switch to that would be a tacit admission that current methodologies are insufficient, so it's gonna be a while.
If you are going to do double test each one for certainty that would be over $10,000 for each one collected and another $10,000 for each sample from a crime scene. It would be a great idea to use whole genome sequencing to confirm the PCR results but that seems WAY too expensive right now to be justified for the vast database they are making.
The poor PCR results are from three things, first different parts of DNA chromosomes can appear similar due to either being the same size or interacting with each other during the test. Second the type of gel and other parts of the experiment (like what chemicals to use to cut the chromosomes) can vary so that just putting the results in a database can be misleading if you have not first regulated the entire industry or every government testing lab to use the same system. Lastly you have human error messing up both the first two and the matching of results together. Running the same PCR will not necessarily give the exact same results every time so you need to run it many times and make judgement calls on what looks similar in terms of the data you get out. Again without rigorous standards this makes matching a guessing game at best.
Right now it is a much less expensive technology so it really should be used if your doing mass testing, but we have better methods so it should not actually be used in courts except for pointing law enforcement in a general direction, confirming other evidence or when new samples are not available.
I do not have the numbers on hand but the general results are with PCR if you just pick two people out of the population, unless they are blood related, the chance of them being a match (false positive) is very low. If you pick one guy and 5% of the population the chance of getting a false positive between unrelated people is much higher. So if your testing samples against a large database, the chances of getting a false positive are higher...
I firmly believe that the good that comes out of this is minimal compared to the invasion of privacy and oppose these kinds of genetic information collection without some kind of bill of genetic rights protecting people from the negative results. The main problem with these kinds of laws is it is an ARREST not even being charged with a crime, in most cases. Police can basically arrest anyone, anywhere with few to no consequences, take the DNA, release you, and then your left with either no recourse to remove your data or a long court battle which even if you win they are still likely to hold onto the information.
Good luck repealing that law though, law enforcement will hang on tooth and nail to any power, even if it is mostly useless and misleading, and the same types of public safety bullshit that surrounds most other law enforcement legislation will pop up. If you don't want mostly arbitrary collection and matching of DNA in a statewide system, you must want people murdered on the streets right?
He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
I'm becoming less and less optimistic about the possibility of getting Walker out after Falk and Barrett are fucking with each other over the whole collective bargaining law, and essentially splitting the party at a time when Democrats should be at their strongest.
I honestly believe the reason that the recall got such a strong response is that everyone thought Feingold would run. Once he didn't, I think the whole sense of progress towards a somewhat sane Wisconsin dropped like a concrete block in a lake.
Feingold said he would not run long before the recall even started, so it wasn't him that kept us going. I have faith that once the primary is over and we've chosen a candidate that the state will rally behind them, no matter who it actually is
0
Options
The DeliveratorSlingin PiesThe California BurbclavesRegistered Userregular
So I'm listening to sly on 1670 WTDY (Local madison talk radio) and he has a guest who works at the law firm that represents most state public employee unions, and the new rule that Walker implemented didn't just change the way pay wages are calculated, but it actually says that every teacher in a collective bargaining agreement will have their base pay based on the lowest base in their unit.
So a teacher's Masters degree or experience or any other training cannot be figured into base pay. Period. The example used in the show was for the Montello school district where their highest base pay bracket is $52,000 (for a teacher with specialized training, experience, and a Masters degree) while their lowest base pay bracket is $38,000 (teacher fresh out of college). The teacher that is currently making $52,000 WILL have their pay cut to $38,000 when the next contract is established if that school district doesn't increase their lowest base pay and if this rule stands.
The outrage is just... their are no words to describe this.
So I'm listening to sly on 1670 WTDY (Local madison talk radio) and he has a guest who works at the law firm that represents most state public employee unions, and the new rule that Walker implemented didn't just change the way pay wages are calculated, but it actually says that every teacher in a collective bargaining agreement will have their base pay based on the lowest base in their unit.
So a teacher's Masters degree or experience or any other training cannot be figured into base pay. Period. The example used in the show was for the Montello school district where their highest base pay bracket is $52,000 (for a teacher with specialized training, experience, and a Masters degree) while their lowest base pay bracket is $38,000 (teacher fresh out of college). The teacher that is currently making $52,000 WILL have their pay cut to $38,000 when the next contract is established if that school district doesn't increase their lowest base pay and if this rule stands.
The outrage is just... their are no words to describe this.
Honestly, it's made me numb inside thinking about it.
Wait, I thought it was just the CoL adjustment that took into consideration base pay, so the teacher making 52,000 would be making 52,000 + COL for someone making 38,000?
Wait, I thought it was just the CoL adjustment that took into consideration base pay, so the teacher making 52,000 would be making 52,000 + COL for someone making 38,000?
The Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission (WERC) General Counsel Peter Davis has confirmed that a new rule recently approved by Governor Walker, together with Act 10, will prohibit school districts and other governmental bodies from including most so-called "add-ons" in the pay scales of new contracts. While years-of-experience add-ons largely will be preserved, additional education, advanced degrees and most other add-ons will be prohibited from being put in the contract.
Wait, I thought it was just the CoL adjustment that took into consideration base pay, so the teacher making 52,000 would be making 52,000 + COL for someone making 38,000?
The Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission (WERC) General Counsel Peter Davis has confirmed that a new rule recently approved by Governor Walker, together with Act 10, will prohibit school districts and other governmental bodies from including most so-called "add-ons" in the pay scales of new contracts. While years-of-experience add-ons largely will be preserved, additional education, advanced degrees and most other add-ons will be prohibited from being put in the contract.
Yes. Well he's making it so school districts can basically have only one pay level for all teachers.
What his end game really is (I'm hypothesizing here), is to make it so teachers bargain on their own with school districts and set up individual contracts so teachers are really paid "what they're worth".
Not that I have any problem with teachers negotiating their own salary as opposed to being union based, what he's doing is incredibly stupid as a whole. Teachers are actually unique enough professions where they can pretty much be single negotiators. As opposed to the guy screwing sheets of metal plates that can be replaced in half an hour because he looked at the boss funny.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Wait, so is Walker making it so that all teachers, regardless of training or experience, are paid the same here or something?
It seems like all new teachers will be paid the same regardless of education level, but it will factor in experience, based of what Adytum posted. Or my reading comprehension has really hit a brick wall and this thing is even more fucked than I thought.
Not that I have any problem with teachers negotiating their own salary as opposed to being union based, what he's doing is incredibly stupid as a whole. Teachers are actually unique enough professions where they can pretty much be single negotiators. As opposed to the guy screwing sheets of metal plates that can be replaced in half an hour because he looked at the boss funny.
Except that for school districts like Madison that employs thousands of teachers, having to negotiate fresh contracts with each teacher because collective bargaining is done away with will be a complete and total disaster and could easily cost the school district much more money than the current (Now old?) system.
Plus Teachers, on average, WANT collective bargaining. They don't want to have to bargain directly with they're employer because they have more important things to worry about. Like teaching the young ones
Posts
If these laws were written by sane people there'd be an option to remove your DNA from file somehow on successful exoneration or appeal. Sadly, these laws are designed to get us used to being bagged and tagged for trivial reasons so there is no option to do that.
Relevant!
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
DNA has a much higher error rate than people think it does. This will increase the number of false matches quite a lot, even if that's all they're doing.
And people wonder why I unapologetically punch hippies.
Not even in the general?
Also, I hope that Feingold comes out heavy for the eventual Democratic nominee, or else I'll have lost all faith in him.
It's funny, because DNA sequencing technology is now so cheap, fast, and accurate enough nowadays (or soon) that we could probably afford to just sequence entire genomes rather than using the weird locus-based tests we currently use, and to do it double in two separate labs to cross-check errors. Illumina's got whole genome sequencing down to $5000 per. But to switch to that would be a tacit admission that current methodologies are insufficient, so it's gonna be a while.
If it came down to a Nazi or Walker, I'd probably vote for the Nazi
So, yes I'll vote for Barrett in the general but I wouldn't be happy
If you are going to do double test each one for certainty that would be over $10,000 for each one collected and another $10,000 for each sample from a crime scene. It would be a great idea to use whole genome sequencing to confirm the PCR results but that seems WAY too expensive right now to be justified for the vast database they are making.
The poor PCR results are from three things, first different parts of DNA chromosomes can appear similar due to either being the same size or interacting with each other during the test. Second the type of gel and other parts of the experiment (like what chemicals to use to cut the chromosomes) can vary so that just putting the results in a database can be misleading if you have not first regulated the entire industry or every government testing lab to use the same system. Lastly you have human error messing up both the first two and the matching of results together. Running the same PCR will not necessarily give the exact same results every time so you need to run it many times and make judgement calls on what looks similar in terms of the data you get out. Again without rigorous standards this makes matching a guessing game at best.
Right now it is a much less expensive technology so it really should be used if your doing mass testing, but we have better methods so it should not actually be used in courts except for pointing law enforcement in a general direction, confirming other evidence or when new samples are not available.
I do not have the numbers on hand but the general results are with PCR if you just pick two people out of the population, unless they are blood related, the chance of them being a match (false positive) is very low. If you pick one guy and 5% of the population the chance of getting a false positive between unrelated people is much higher. So if your testing samples against a large database, the chances of getting a false positive are higher...
I firmly believe that the good that comes out of this is minimal compared to the invasion of privacy and oppose these kinds of genetic information collection without some kind of bill of genetic rights protecting people from the negative results. The main problem with these kinds of laws is it is an ARREST not even being charged with a crime, in most cases. Police can basically arrest anyone, anywhere with few to no consequences, take the DNA, release you, and then your left with either no recourse to remove your data or a long court battle which even if you win they are still likely to hold onto the information.
Good luck repealing that law though, law enforcement will hang on tooth and nail to any power, even if it is mostly useless and misleading, and the same types of public safety bullshit that surrounds most other law enforcement legislation will pop up. If you don't want mostly arbitrary collection and matching of DNA in a statewide system, you must want people murdered on the streets right?
:rotate:
...okay. It would be hilarious if Romney faced a shitstorm for buying votes.
That said, Democratic "machine states" have similar weird pay-for-voting schemes going on.
That, too. I wonder if they're going to be hyper-sensitive to that sort of thing, given all their negative press.
I honestly believe the reason that the recall got such a strong response is that everyone thought Feingold would run. Once he didn't, I think the whole sense of progress towards a somewhat sane Wisconsin dropped like a concrete block in a lake.
caring for the regular joe?
I was thinking more like throwing gulping down a stick of salami or something, but that's less snarky.
http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/crime_and_courts/blog/crime-and-courts-while-other-state-employees-pay-drops-justice/article_6055bd82-8a4c-11e1-92f4-001a4bcf887a.html?sourcetrack=moreArticle
So a teacher's Masters degree or experience or any other training cannot be figured into base pay. Period. The example used in the show was for the Montello school district where their highest base pay bracket is $52,000 (for a teacher with specialized training, experience, and a Masters degree) while their lowest base pay bracket is $38,000 (teacher fresh out of college). The teacher that is currently making $52,000 WILL have their pay cut to $38,000 when the next contract is established if that school district doesn't increase their lowest base pay and if this rule stands.
The outrage is just... their are no words to describe this.
Honestly, it's made me numb inside thinking about it.
Holy fuck.
What his end game really is (I'm hypothesizing here), is to make it so teachers bargain on their own with school districts and set up individual contracts so teachers are really paid "what they're worth".
It seems like all new teachers will be paid the same regardless of education level, but it will factor in experience, based of what Adytum posted. Or my reading comprehension has really hit a brick wall and this thing is even more fucked than I thought.
Except that for school districts like Madison that employs thousands of teachers, having to negotiate fresh contracts with each teacher because collective bargaining is done away with will be a complete and total disaster and could easily cost the school district much more money than the current (Now old?) system.
Plus Teachers, on average, WANT collective bargaining. They don't want to have to bargain directly with they're employer because they have more important things to worry about. Like teaching the young ones
Burn the witch!