PLC

delicious feces?

Why are twins always evil? Why not a nice twin who always does good deeds that you get credit for?

From original post: Again, how, exactly, will a DNA database help the cops to "keep track" of your siblings?

I'm pretty sure I understand DNA - at least a lot better than you, apparently.

"Yeah, it's so easy to find the siblings of somebody named Jones, Smith, Chen, or Wong using a phone book." How does having their DNA make it any easier?

Take what? That example just shows how a DNA database would allow them to narrow down a list of subjects to the relatives of someone in the database. Isn't that a good thing? And I still don't see what that has to do with "tracking" anyone. If they want to find those siblings, the DNA is not going to help. They still need to track them down using all the other standard databases out there - like the phone book.

I've ready your objections. I just don't find them credible. Basically, they seem like paranoid delusions, but maybe that's just me...

I'm pretty sure we already do...

I ski all over North America and I honestly can't say that I've found any lack of mogul runs. They are mostly devoid of skiers, but that's all the better. The beginners and boarders stick to the groomed runs and I can ski the moguls with my wife and friends.

I mean, if I'm arrested and they take my DNA, how does that help them track down my siblings or keep track of them? It makes no sense. Wouldn't it be easier to use my last name and birth place to find my siblings? How the hell would they track them down using DNA?

What does that mean, specifically - "tracking their siblings"? How is DNA going to help with this in any way. I don't get it.

Umm, I'm pretty sure they get arrested more often because they commit crimes more often. Which seems a pretty good reason to disproportionally suspect them... You know who are really disporportionally singled out? MEN. And good thing, since men commit pretty much all violent crimes.

The only reason big pharma needs drug patents is the fact that the complete chemical composition of their products has to be made public record before they are allowed to sell them. For instance, if Coke was forced to give up it's "secret formula", don't you think they would want patent protection? Instead, they get a better deal - they are allowed to keep their formula secret and they don't have a patent. Patents expire, secrecy does not. I'm 100% positive that if Merck was allowed to keep the composition of their drugs and manufacturing processes secret, that they would gladly sacrifice all their patent protection. Without secrecy or patent protection, why would they spend hundreds of millions of dollars developing drugs?

What, exactly, is this information that the gov't can gleen from DNA that you don't want them to know? A predisposition towards breast cancer? Blue eyes? Who cares! The sooner you give up the illusion of privacy, the happier you'll be. The government, or pretty much anyone, can learn pretty much anything they want about you already. Big whoop.

So, was the dude who licked the envelope guilty? Isn't it a good thing he was caught? Again, he gave up saliva - not "DNA".

Actually, my wife used to work for "big pharma" - Merck, specifically, and I can assure you that they were not really in favor of prescription control at all. It was in their financial interests to get their drugs sold OTC, so if the entire prescription nonsense went away, big pharma would make MORE money. The only people who benefit financially from the prescription requirement are doctors and pharmacists. Which is why it is doctors and pharmacists who primarily argue in favor of more regulation. More regulation = more money for them. Less regulation = more money for "big Pharma".

Uhh, you can't just plant "DNA". You can plant a hair, or some saliva, or maybe sperm. DNA isn't really that useful except in cases of rape or rape-murder. Honestly, I can't imagine too many women willing to plant your "DNA" on themselves in order to frame you... For the vast majority of crimes, I can't see how you would end up leaving DNA behind, and even if you did, all it does it prove you were there... Look at the Duke non-rape case - don't you think the defendents are glad DNA technology exists? And if anyone was ever going to plant DNA evidence, don't you think it would have been Nifong?

"Murder of One" is a good song. I like referring to groups of crows as a "murder". It really helps to make me sound like a pretentious ass.

I don't get how a DNA database is significantly different than a fingerprint database. If they can plant your DNA, they can also plant your fingerprints - so what? Most of the time, DNA is used to exonerate suspects. Paranoid much?

We should. The pharmacy-doctor prescription alliance is not meant to protect us from anything except cheap prices and self-care. Every time I've need a prescription medicine, I've known what drug I specifically wanted, I knew more about my specific condition than the doctor, and I still am not able to just go buy drugs for myself. You should go to a doctor to get a diagnosis, and you should go to a drug store to buy drugs. I'm not sure what one has to do with the other. In the cases of dangerous drugs, they should be treated like we treat all dangerous chemicals. Hint: we don't regulate dynamite because we're worried about someone blowing themselves up.

Exactly - why are we worried so much about the .01% of people who are too thin when 30-40% of people are way too fat. If the media influences you to lose weight, we need MORE thin models.

The media can't MAKE you unhappy. Your reaction to the media is your choice entirely.

The fact that it kills so quickly will prevent it from reaching "global pandemic" status. A really dangerous disease needs to have it's host carry it around passing it off for years before symptoms arise. Sort of like AIDS, expect it would need to be more easily transmitable.

According to Wikipedia, only 8-13 people out of 100,000 suffer from anorexia, and almost all of these are girls between the ages of 15 and 19. About 10% will die, and the others grow up and get over it. Also, "media influence" has been shown to be somewhat correlated with anorexia, although it is not clear whether looking at thin models preceeds or proceeds from anorexia. We don't know which is the cause and which is the effect. Basically, anorexia is a serious psychological disorder than impacts a tiny percentange of a very specific group of people, in which media exposure may or may not play a small role in the development of the disorder (certainly genetics, OCD, clinical perfectionism, despression, biological imbalances all play a more significant role). It seems completely ridiculous to me that 99.9% of people would need to sacrifice their freedoms so that we can maybe protect the 0.01%. I'm allergic to eggs - should be ban the sale of eggs? Or how about banning the advertisment of any product which contains eggs? There are plenty of alcoholics - should we ban the advertisment of alcohol?

Well, the Siberian Husky is essentially zero weight, since he'll be able to walk anywhere you can climb, but I wouldn't recommend trying to put one in your sleeping bag. I tried putting one in a tent once, and even that didn't work out too well (tent destroyed in less than 60 seconds). Apparently, they don't take to confinement.