Posts by Bart Janssen
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Apologies up front I'm going to make a couple of separate posts
I still don't really know the answer to Lucy's question.
How many of "the 78" would have been protected by the bill as it exists now. Not the bill SST drafted. How many of the criminals had served three 5 year sentences for violent crimes?
-
You're a little flag??
Don't be silly, she a little dangly bit of jewelery.
-
Whad'ya tryin' to do Emma - keep us on topic????
I do think you missed a piece in your How to:
Spend more time scheduling and appearing in interviews than you do reading the legislation, after all it's about about getting your face in the media.
-
PCR is a method of getting lots of copies of a piece of DNA.
Full name Polymerase Chain Reaction.Invented by Kary Mullis for which he received the Nobel prize. And yes there are arguments about just how much he invented. But he is nevertheless an entertaining speaker :).
PCR now forms the basis for probably thousands of techniques including amplifying ancient DNA (that's how they sequenced Neandertals recently) and the methods that were used to first sequence the human genome.
In short it's a core technique in biology that frequently does not work as advertised :).
-
Talk about contamination issues.
Spill kit???
-
I promise you I wouldn't have gone quietly.
That's Ok Lucy. A good bit of screaming does wonders for the ambience of the lab. Mwa ha ha ha ha
-
as a totem: The Donkey of Thesis Completion
We used to sacrifice to Barbie to get difficult PCRs to work
-
why are we really bothering
But most impotantly it will get politicians in the news - sigh.
-
hmmm
Rugby League: 6th tackle handover
Softball/baseball: 3 strikes
Rugby: ?
Basketball: 3 seconds in the key
Cricket: 2nd bouncers in an over
Actually that is interesting because what if your 3 strikes are each 20 years apart? Surely after enough time being good your strikes should be removed.
Tennis: um 7 point tiebreaker OR 3 sets for women 5 sets for men?
Because women just shouldn't get as many chances as men right?In the end this will be a stupid law no matter which moronic sporting analogy is used.
It won't reduce crime.
It will restrict judges ability to apply experience and knowledge to sentencing.But most impotantly it will get politicians in the news - sigh.
-
I understand this bill is better than the CA version and claims of life for stealing candy are silly.
On the other side how silly are claims that 70 people would not have been murdered if this bill was already law?
What bugs me is this bill seeks to allow politicians to decide sentencing instead of judges. While I accept not all judges are created equal I have a greater trust in a judge to be sensible than a politician.
The other issue for me is the question "is this really the most effective way of reducing crime?"
I doubt it.