Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

UC Berkeley Asking Incoming Students For DNA

StoneLion posted more than 4 years ago | from the gullibility-gene dept.

Education 468

peterofoz writes "The students will be asked to voluntarily submit a DNA sample. The cotton swabs will come with two bar code labels. One label will be put on the DNA sample and the other is kept for the students' own records. The confidential process is being overseen by Jasper Rine, a campus professor of Genetics and Development Biology, who says the test results will help students make decisions about their diet and lifestyle." No word in the story on just what "confidential" means — who will have access to the results, how long they'll be kept, or what else they might someday be used for. Will the notoriously liberal Berkeley campus see this as a service or an invasion of privacy?

cancel ×

468 comments

Your official guide to the Jigaboo presidency (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32265818)

Congratulations on your purchase of a brand new nigger! If handled properly, your apeman will give years of valuable, if reluctant, service.

INSTALLING YOUR NIGGER.
You should install your nigger differently according to whether you have purchased the field or house model. Field niggers work best in a serial configuration, i.e. chained together. Chain your nigger to another nigger immediately after unpacking it, and don't even think about taking that chain off, ever. Many niggers start singing as soon as you put a chain on them. This habit can usually be thrashed out of them if nipped in the bud. House niggers work best as standalone units, but should be hobbled or hamstrung to prevent attempts at escape. At this stage, your nigger can also be given a name. Most owners use the same names over and over, since niggers become confused by too much data. Rufus, Rastus, Remus, Toby, Carslisle, Carlton, Hey-You!-Yes-you!, Yeller, Blackstar, and Sambo are all effective names for your new buck nigger. If your nigger is a ho, it should be called Latrelle, L'Tanya, or Jemima. Some owners call their nigger hoes Latrine for a joke. Pearl, Blossom, and Ivory are also righteous names for nigger hoes. These names go straight over your nigger's head, by the way.

CONFIGURING YOUR NIGGER
Owing to a design error, your nigger comes equipped with a tongue and vocal chords. Most niggers can master only a few basic human phrases with this apparatus - "muh dick" being the most popular. However, others make barking, yelping, yapping noises and appear to be in some pain, so you should probably call a vet and have him remove your nigger's tongue. Once de-tongued your nigger will be a lot happier - at least, you won't hear it complaining anywhere near as much. Niggers have nothing interesting to say, anyway. Many owners also castrate their niggers for health reasons (yours, mine, and that of women, not the nigger's). This is strongly recommended, and frankly, it's a mystery why this is not done on the boat

HOUSING YOUR NIGGER.
Your nigger can be accommodated in cages with stout iron bars. Make sure, however, that the bars are wide enough to push pieces of nigger food through. The rule of thumb is, four niggers per square yard of cage. So a fifteen foot by thirty foot nigger cage can accommodate two hundred niggers. You can site a nigger cage anywhere, even on soft ground. Don't worry about your nigger fashioning makeshift shovels out of odd pieces of wood and digging an escape tunnel under the bars of the cage. Niggers never invented the shovel before and they're not about to now. In any case, your nigger is certainly too lazy to attempt escape. As long as the free food holds out, your nigger is living better than it did in Africa, so it will stay put. Buck niggers and hoe niggers can be safely accommodated in the same cage, as bucks never attempt sex with black hoes.

FEEDING YOUR NIGGER.
Your Nigger likes fried chicken, corn bread, and watermelon. You should therefore give it none of these things because its lazy ass almost certainly doesn't deserve it. Instead, feed it on porridge with salt, and creek water. Your nigger will supplement its diet with whatever it finds in the fields, other niggers, etc. Experienced nigger owners sometimes push watermelon slices through the bars of the nigger cage at the end of the day as a treat, but only if all niggers have worked well and nothing has been stolen that day. Mike of the Old Ranch Plantation reports that this last one is a killer, since all niggers steal something almost every single day of their lives. He reports he doesn't have to spend much on free watermelon for his niggers as a result. You should never allow your nigger meal breaks while at work, since if it stops work for more than ten minutes it will need to be retrained. You would be surprised how long it takes to teach a nigger to pick cotton. You really would. Coffee beans? Don't ask. You have no idea.

MAKING YOUR NIGGER WORK.
Niggers are very, very averse to work of any kind. The nigger's most prominent anatomical feature, after all, its oversized buttocks, which have evolved to make it more comfortable for your nigger to sit around all day doing nothing for its entire life. Niggers are often good runners, too, to enable them to sprint quickly in the opposite direction if they see work heading their way. The solution to this is to *dupe* your nigger into working. After installation, encourage it towards the cotton field with blows of a wooden club, fence post, baseball bat, etc., and then tell it that all that cotton belongs to a white man, who won't be back until tomorrow. Your nigger will then frantically compete with the other field niggers to steal as much of that cotton as it can before the white man returns. At the end of the day, return your nigger to its cage and laugh at its stupidity, then repeat the same trick every day indefinitely. Your nigger comes equipped with the standard nigger IQ of 75 and a memory to match, so it will forget this trick overnight. Niggers can start work at around 5am. You should then return to bed and come back at around 10am. Your niggers can then work through until around 10pm or whenever the light fades.

ENTERTAINING YOUR NIGGER.
Your nigger enjoys play, like most animals, so you should play with it regularly. A happy smiling nigger works best. Games niggers enjoy include: 1) A good thrashing: every few days, take your nigger's pants down, hang it up by its heels, and have some of your other niggers thrash it with a club or whip. Your nigger will signal its intense enjoyment by shrieking and sobbing. 2) Lynch the nigger: niggers are cheap and there are millions more where yours came from. So every now and then, push the boat out a bit and lynch a nigger.

Lynchings are best done with a rope over the branch of a tree, and niggers just love to be lynched. It makes them feel special. Make your other niggers watch. They'll be so grateful, they'll work harder for a day or two (and then you can lynch another one). 3) Nigger dragging: Tie your nigger by one wrist to the tow bar on the back of suitable vehicle, then drive away at approximately 50mph. Your nigger's shrieks of enjoyment will be heard for miles. It will shriek until it falls apart. To prolong the fun for the nigger, do *NOT* drag him by his feet, as his head comes off too soon. This is painless for the nigger, but spoils the fun. Always wear a seatbelt and never exceed the speed limit. 4) Playing on the PNL: a variation on (2), except you can lynch your nigger out in the fields, thus saving work time. Niggers enjoy this game best if the PNL is operated by a man in a tall white hood. 5) Hunt the nigger: a variation of Hunt the Slipper, but played outdoors, with Dobermans. WARNING: do not let your Dobermans bite a nigger, as they are highly toxic.

DISPOSAL OF DEAD NIGGERS.
Niggers die on average at around 40, which some might say is 40 years too late, but there you go. Most people prefer their niggers dead, in fact. When yours dies, report the license number of the car that did the drive-by shooting of your nigger. The police will collect the nigger and dispose of it for you.

COMMON PROBLEMS WITH NIGGERS - MY NIGGER IS VERY AGGRESIVE
Have it put down, for god's sake. Who needs an uppity nigger? What are we, short of niggers or something?

MY NIGGER KEEPS RAPING WHITE WOMEN
They all do this. Shorten your nigger's chain so it can't reach any white women, and arm heavily any white women who might go near it.

WILL MY NIGGER ATTACK ME?
Not unless it outnumbers you 20 to 1, and even then, it's not likely. If niggers successfully overthrew their owners, they'd have to sort out their own food. This is probably why nigger uprisings were nonexistent (until some fool gave them rights).

MY NIGGER BITCHES ABOUT ITS "RIGHTS" AND "RACISM".
Yeah, well, it would. Tell it to shut the fuck up.

MY NIGGER'S HIDE IS A FUNNY COLOR. - WHAT IS THE CORRECT SHADE FOR A NIGGER?
A nigger's skin is actually more or less transparent. That brown color you can see is the shit your nigger is full of. This is why some models of nigger are sold as "The Shitskin".

MY NIGGER ACTS LIKE A NIGGER, BUT IS WHITE.
What you have there is a "wigger". Rough crowd. WOW!

IS THAT LIKE AN ALBINO? ARE THEY RARE?
They're as common as dog shit and about as valuable. In fact, one of them was President between 1992 and 2000. Put your wigger in a cage with a few hundred genuine niggers and you'll soon find it stops acting like a nigger. However, leave it in the cage and let the niggers dispose of it. The best thing for any wigger is a dose of TNB.

MY NIGGER SMELLS REALLY BAD
And you were expecting what?

SHOULD I STORE MY DEAD NIGGER?
When you came in here, did you see a sign that said "Dead nigger storage"? .That's because there ain't no goddamn sign.

Welcome (4, Funny)

thijsh (910751) | more than 4 years ago | (#32265820)

Please leave your DNA with the school nurse...

Re:Welcome (1)

Devout_IPUite (1284636) | more than 4 years ago | (#32265824)

DNA is awesome. We should all know what ours is. Also, please not more patents on genes...

Re:Welcome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32265936)

Joke->

You

Re:Welcome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32266104)

DNA is awesome. We should all know what ours is.

Mine is salty and a little tart.

Re:Welcome (4, Funny)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 4 years ago | (#32265886)

Please leave your DNA with the school nurse...

Is she cute?

Re:Welcome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32266032)

Please leave your DNA with the school nurse...

Is she cute?

Why would you come here and ask that question?

Re:Welcome (1, Flamebait)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266054)

Aye..... that would certainly help. Or maybe get some sorority girls to volunteer at the clinic.

Re:Welcome (3, Insightful)

rotide (1015173) | more than 4 years ago | (#32265890)

I don't see the problem as it appears voluntary. Now obviously they need to disclose what purposes it will ever be used for and exactly how the process of keeping it confidential works but assuming that's all copacetic there really don't seem to be any issues. Again, it's voluntary.

Re:Welcome (1)

thijsh (910751) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266070)

At least there are strict laws against giving your DNA involuntarily.

Privacy (4, Insightful)

mollog (841386) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266232)

Privacy used to be expected. Now I no longer expect it. I expect that everything that is done on the internet is viewed by someone, somewhere. In a discussion yesterday about Microsoft's NSAKEY, it was discovered that there was yet another hidden key embedded in Microsoft apps to allow the government access to your data. Brave new world.

Coming soon to your community; risk assessment of every individual, eugenics, fascism.

Re:Privacy (3, Interesting)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266366)

This is only a problem while "one side" has a monopoly on the use of these technologies. If invasive technology is ubiquitous and uncontrollable, then any abuse of that technology should be totally transparent to everybody.

In short, the answer to "who will watch the watchers" needs to be "everyone ... and records should be kept forever."

Re:Privacy (3, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266480)

Why did you tell me that? I was living in oblivious happy ignorance until you told me MS has government backdoors in my software. :-( Oh well.

Is Mac OS any better? (falls over laughing)

As for the DNA I wouldn't have any problem giving it voluntarily since they don't know who I am (just a barcode). The problem is that voluntary often evolves into compulsory. SSI was originally a voluntary retirement program* but it quickly became mandatory, and Weekly Tax withholding used to be a "convenience" for workers but by the 1950s it became mandatory too.

*
* Some communities still have voluntary SS, like Amish Americans and state government workers in Arizona (I think it's AZ - have to double check).

Re:Privacy (1)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266540)

Is Mac OS any better? (falls over laughing)

Well, at least large chunks of OS X are open source (and I don't mean "Pay us lots of money and promise to never even think of what you saw and we'll let you have the source", I mean GPL, LGPL, BSD and a few other real open source licenses. Here you go [apple.com] ).

Re:Privacy (2, Funny)

thijsh (910751) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266536)

A runaway joke just turned interesting... :)
Do you have any information about this hidden key (I suppose it wasn't just named '_KEY3')?

Re:Welcome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32266026)

Please leave your DNA with the school nurse...

Giggity.

Both, of course (4, Funny)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#32265828)

Liberals tend to think for themselves, so I imagine we will see many different viewpoints emerge, rather than some lock-step, campus wide consensus.

Re:Both, of course (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32265862)

Please tell me that's sarcasm.

Re:Both, of course (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32265976)

Please tell me that's sarcasm.

Re:Both, of course (1, Offtopic)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#32265996)

Nope. Despite the propaganda put out by certain groups that do think in lock-step, liberals are fairly... liberal in their thinking. Liberals don't tend to hold the view that things are perfect just the way they are. Upholding the status quo means thinking the same thing: everything is peachy just the way it is and the old ways are best. Instead, liberals are open to new ideas and new ways of looking at the world, so they tend to be more eclectic in their thoughts and ideals than some other groups.

Re:Both, of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32266056)

Well the liberals in my east coast rust belt city ARE the forces of status quo and think way to many things in this dysfunctional city are just peachy. And reject any new ideas that might scare any teachers or public employees union.

Re:Both, of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32266102)

they are not liberal in the classical sense than...

Re:Both, of course (1)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266140)

I would say that >5% of liberal in the U.S. are liberals in the classic sense.

Re:Both, of course (2, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266172)

I'd say your wild guess is very far from the truth.

Re:Both, of course (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32266390)

I would say 5% of mathematicians appreciate you getting your "less than" sign wrong.

Re:Both, of course (2, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266130)

>>>Upholding the status quo means thinking the same thing: everything is peachy just the way it is and the old ways are best.

I'm a conservative, and I think things are FAR from peachy in the U.S. We've basically just traded one set of oligarchs (King George and his nobles) for another set of oligarchs (King Bush, King Obama, the Congress, and the Justices). :-|

A new and truly liberal idea is to let each Individual be sovereign & run his/her own affairs with virtually no government interference. ;-) But alas that idea will never fly in someplace like Berkeley. :-(

Re:Both, of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32266170)

Wow, that last sentence is practically sarcasm.

Re:Both, of course (4, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266252)

Sorry, but in order for people to be free, we need government intervention. Otherwise, the powerful oppress the weak. That was the whole reason we fought off King George, and we still need protection against tyrants, who now use economic coercion. Wage slavery is still slavery. Wall Street CEOs are the new kings, not Obama.

Re:Both, of course (1)

medcalf (68293) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266330)

I honestly can't tell if you're astoundingly dense or the best troll ever.

Re:Both, of course (1)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266424)

Both. Meaning, I actually believe what I'm writing, but yes, I am writing it deliberately to piss off the closed minded. If you even need to question whether or not I am the best troll ever, you've not been paying attention.

Re:Both, of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32266514)

I know one country where every individual is sovereign, and there is no evil specter of socialism to taint the nation:

Somalia.

If you want to be able to live your life without having to have better guns and better bodyguards than everyone around you, you have to give up some "sovereignty". Otherwise if you lose the arms race (or someone manages to get a clear head shot with a sniper rifle), you will be worm food.

Screw that. I'd rather give up some "sovereignty" so I can walk to the grocery store without having to pay multiple people with AK-47s escort me, or have to belong to a glorified gang. Maybe have the food at the store be up to some type of standards so the hamburger meat actually was ground from from cows as opposed to some hapless cats/dogs found in back of the shop.

This tea party rhetoric is mindless and stupid. Businesses are there for profit. They are not going to do anything that is not in their financial interest. Ever read Upton Sinclar's "The Jungle" (even though it is a book biased for communism)? The setting would be come reality for what was the middle class,( not to mention sausages) if the government doesn't hold standards for labor. The only thing stopping businesses from adding aniline dyes to food again is that there are government regulations involved with fines and jail time if they are broken.

These kooks who want to go back to the Gilded Age and be the slaves of 21'st century robber barons is getting old. It would be nice to hand my kids a better work environment than the one I was raised in. However, it looks like 8-10 year old kids may be doing the 16 hour shifts in the coal mines again if more teabaggers get into office. I want my kids to be able to go to a reliable public school system, as opposed to having to put them in a private school. However, because of funding cuts which always attack schools first, the only thing kids learn in most public schools is how to be a good consumer and the hard science fields are for losers who don't cut it in sports.

OTOH (1)

dammy (131759) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266186)

OTOH, Conservatives/Libertarians would most likely pass on giving up their DNA, in lock step. I know, I know, the very idea of them being at Berkeley is laughable, but still.

Re:Both, of course (1)

dogmatixpsych (786818) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266402)

There are just as many conservatives who are "liberal" in their thinking as liberals. Conservative vs. liberal political ideology have nothing to do with open-mindedness or eclectic thoughts. To extend your thoughts: if conservatives think everything is peachy (are optimistic about the present) the way it is and that old ways are best then liberals think the world is not peachy (are pessimistic about the present) and that new ways are best. This means that conservatives are happy/content now but liberals are happy/content in the future (again, I'm just providing a corollary to your black and white stereotyping of liberals and conservatives).

I think it is rare to have a conservative who is not open to new ideas, they just believe that traditions provide a secure foundation for society and are reticent to change. Liberals want to change and want to eschew the traditions of the past.

Besides, in my experience (I know that anecdotes do not mean much), the conservatives I know are much more open-minded than the liberals I know. I know some truly open-minded liberals and some truly open-minded conservatives but on average, by experience, and in practice, the conservatives I know personally are less dogmatic than the liberals I know.

Further, there is some evidence that conservatives are more open to reading opposing viewpoints from theirs than liberals are: "People with stronger party affiliation, conservative political views, and greater interest in politics proved more likely to click on articles with opposing views, according to the Ohio State study." (source: http://www.livescience.com/culture/090608-media-message.html [livescience.com] ).

But that's just my experience and opinion, take from it what you will.

Re:Both, of course (4, Insightful)

AthanasiusKircher (1333179) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266488)

Nope. Despite the propaganda put out by certain groups that do think in lock-step, liberals are fairly... liberal in their thinking.

Bullshit. Anyone who would ever accept the name "liberal" in the U.S. is already buying into the idea that there is only one possible spectrum of ideas, which goes from "conservative" to "liberal." Most people seem to think that any possible collection of political ideas should be able to be mapped onto that one-dimensional scale. If you actually were thinking independently, you wouldn't buy into this oversimplified (and inaccurate) model.

Liberals don't tend to hold the view that things are perfect just the way they are. Upholding the status quo means thinking the same thing: everything is peachy just the way it is and the old ways are best.

Here's a newsflash -- the reality is that a lot of ideas have been around for a long time. Those who are supposedly "liberal" may actually be wanting to go back to older ideas as well, or older ideas that were rejected in the past for various reasons. If you think that "conservatives" only want things to stay the same, take a look at the "neo-conservative" movement, which has actively tried to change society in the past few decades. In your naive conception of conservative/liberal, is it even possible to have a "neo-conservative"? You might argue that the neo-cons are actually trying to return to some deeper past, but we all know that's just rhetoric -- their idealized past never existed.

Instead, liberals are open to new ideas and new ways of looking at the world, so they tend to be more eclectic in their thoughts and ideals than some other groups.

That may have had some traction in the classic "liberalism" on the nineteenth century. Today, though, the vast majority of "liberals" are just sheep buying into a certain collection of ideas that certain people deem "liberal."

You want to be truly open to new ideas? Start thinking independently for yourself. Analyze every political question from your own perspective and logic, and decide what makes the most sense to you. The standard modern "conservative" and "liberal" positions aren't very consistent and make a lot of assumptions that don't necessarily make a lot of sense.

Re:Both, of course (1)

butterflysrage (1066514) | more than 4 years ago | (#32265868)

I think it greatly depends on how firmly they are "asked". I personally tend not to mind when people ask for lots of things so long as I'm not bound by law to provide it.

Re:Both, of course (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32265964)

I didn't see many liberals react to filming black people with guns and claiming they are white racists, or to Obama's branding of opposition to his healthcare plan that was felt by 60% of the population as "manufactured" and "astroturfing". In the mind of liberals, those 9 out of 20 people who didn't want Obama as president have ceased to exist.

Conclusion: Liberals may or may not think for themselves, but in any case, they are deceptive fuckheads.

Re:Both, of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32266034)

I didn't see many liberals react to filming black people with guns and claiming they are white racists, or to Obama's branding of opposition to his healthcare plan that was felt by 60% of the population as "manufactured" and "astroturfing". In the mind of liberals, those 9 out of 20 people who didn't want Obama as president have ceased to exist.

Conclusion: Liberals may or may not think for themselves, but at least they're not as fucking retarded as this post.

FTFY

Re:Both, of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32266082)

Quoted for truth: The things I mentioned were obviously not a problem in any way for you either. You prove my point in an excellent way - rather than comment on unpleasant facts you attack and dismiss the criticizer. Perfect, traditional, full on 100% Liberal. You make me feel blessed with extreme accuracy at times.

Re:Both, of course (1, Informative)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266152)

You mean the lies you parroted back? Get us some proof of your outrageous claims, or everyone will be forced to conclude you are full of shit. Your claims are so outrageous, normal Americans will need a lot of convincing. So where's your proof? And right wing blogs don't count, as right wing bloggers simply don't care about facts, this is a game to them and lies are just part of the strategy.

Re:Both, of course (4, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266072)

No blacks with guns were filmed and called white racists. The majority of America supports health care reform. The Democrats have tried to be bipartisan, but the Republicans have stone-walled them. The conservative minority is fracturing, going crazy with conspiracy theory fueled rage. The deception from the right wing is astonishing: Obama is a Muslim, Obama is Kenyan, death panels, the list goes on. Meanwhile, Republican after Republican is caught doing the exact opposite of what they preach, usually in bed with someone not their spouse. Who are the deceptive fuckheads, really?

Re:Both, of course (0)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266408)

>>>No blacks with guns were filmed and called white racists.

False. MSNBC did exactly that. They looped the footage of a black man holding a gun, so you couldn't see his face, and then called him a white man with racist attitudes. It's a perfect example of "The Illusion of Truth" to borrow a phrase from Babylon 5. VIDEO - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI [youtube.com]
.

>>>The Democrats have tried to be bipartisan, but the Republicans have stone-walled them

Have can the R party block anything when the D party hold a supermajority? C'mon. The only thing standing in the way of Democrats was the Conservative Democrats (so-called blue dogs). That was why it took so long to gather the necessary votes to pass Pelosicare.
.

>>>Who are the deceptive fuckheads, really?

BOTH are. Vote libertarian, or libertarian-republican (like Ron Paul) if you want real change towards a smaller government. Don't vote for Democrats or democratic-republicans (like Arlen Specter) or RINOs (mcCain), as they will only make us Less free.

Re:Both, of course (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266484)

The majority of America supports health care reform.

Citation needed.

The Democrats have tried to be bipartisan, but the Republicans have stone-walled them.

The Democrat party’s idea of bipartisan politics is best described as “my way or the highway”. Particularly now that they have the presidency and both houses of congress.

conservative minority

Citation needed.

The deception from the right wing is astonishing: Obama is a Muslim, Obama is Kenyan, death panels, the list goes on.

When Bush was president, left-wing nutjobs were not much better. Are we comparing the worst of the worst of both parties?

Re:Both, of course (1)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 4 years ago | (#32265984)

Liberals tend to think for themselves, so I imagine we will see many different viewpoints emerge, rather than some lock-step, campus wide consensus.

No bias here whatsoever.

Re:Both, of course (3, Funny)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266096)

Liberals tend to think for themselves, so I imagine we will see many different viewpoints emerge, rather than some lock-step, campus wide consensus.

No bias here whatsoever.

You have no bias? We've conversed before, so unless you've changed recently, I don't believe you, sorry.

Re:Both, of course (1)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266250)

Oh hell no, of course I do. But I would think the obvious difficulty of applying a political label (any political label) to an entire group of people that genuinely 'think for themselves' would have caused you to press 'Cancel' rather than 'Submit'.

Alas, you were blinded by bias, and I just thought I'd point that out...

Re:Both, of course (0, Troll)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266312)

So I'm not allowed to say that people who think for themselves actually think for themselves, or I am showing bias? I don't think your argument is quite as logical as you'd like to believe. What should I call them? "Folks who think for themselves and tend not to vote Republican?" How about that?

Re:Both, of course (3, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266208)

>>>Liberals tend to think for themselves

I guess that's why they all share the same talking points: "Let's call them teabaggers." "There are no people of color in the Tea Partys." "Tea partiers are racist." "What he needs is more gravitas." - And so on. I call that mimicking one another, not independent thought.

Re:Both, of course (0, Troll)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266264)

But those things you mention are true. The truth has a noticeable liberal bias. Liberals think for themselves, yes, but when they see the truth, they ay what they see. So everyone is seeing the same thing? It doesn't mean they all have the same ideas, just that they have eyes.

How is this different from (4, Informative)

Robert Heinich (857844) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266238)

the Ivy League nude posture photos were taken in the 1940s through the 1970s of all incoming freshmen at certain Ivy League and Seven Sisters colleges, ostensibly to gauge the rate and severity of rickets, scoliosis, and lordosis in the population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_League_nude_posture_photos [wikipedia.org]

Re:Both, of course (1, Insightful)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266240)

I think you're right. I think Liberals do think for themselves.

Unfortunately, in the US at least, they are so afraid of appearing politically incorrect or being on record for having an opinion that Jon Stewart might mock that they will parrot whatever the mocha-decaf-latte-frappucino line of thought is on any particular subject. What they think, and what they will say about what they think in mixed company, are frequently at odds. I can't count how many self-professed liberals I have met who become pro-life, anti-gay marriage, and/or pro-Arizona after a few beers.

Conservatives, on the other hand, accustomed to being mocked, have come to wear it as a badge and pretty much say fuck-all exactly what they think, even it cuts against the grain of "established conservative" thought. It's probably stems from the fragmentation of the Republican party under the liberally-spending Bush.

Re:Both, of course (1)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266256)

Liberals tend to think for themselves, so I imagine we will see many different viewpoints emerge, rather than some lock-step, campus wide consensus.

Don't make me laugh. Liberals & conservatives both follow the party line. With this absolutely horrible Political Correctness agenda, policies that reward poverty and step on self-employment and small business; thinking for ones self appears to be the last thing on the Liberal Agenda.

Re:Both, of course (1, Informative)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266374)

Yes, "liberals and conservatives are all the same" is a popular lie put out by conservatives. As is "Political correctness," "Rewarding poverty," and "Stepping on self employment." All of which are actually things conservatives do. Which makes them different from liberals.

Re:Both, of course (2, Interesting)

Troed (102527) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266438)

The GP made the mistake of not clarifying "Liberal". It seems he meant what in the US would be called "Libertarian" (with a small or a big L dependent on whom you ask) - which in large parts of the world is the same thing as meant with "liberal".

In the US you've managed to make "liberal" mean "socialist" (or at least what you believe to be socialist, which would still be far far right wing in other countries).

... and then, when talking about libertarians, the GP is correct.

(libertarians can be both right and left-leaning, although some would claim that libertarians cannot support a non-free market and thus they're usually grouped at the right end of the scale. The Political Compass makes a better argument adding a freedom-dimension to politics)

Gattaca? (2, Interesting)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32265830)

There's no gene for fate.

Re:Gattaca? (5, Funny)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 4 years ago | (#32265900)

There's no gene for fate.

Maybe not, but there's one for AWESOME!

No. Sadly, I don't have it.

Question Authority (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32265878)

What if a student REFUSES to make a voluntary donation?

Yours In Novosibirsk,
K. Trout

Re:Question Authority (1)

Steauengeglase (512315) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266290)

It is the involuntary contribution of DNA samples that they really want to crack down on.

I see nothing bad coming from this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32265882)

Nope, never!

I'm torn (5, Interesting)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32265892)

It's voluntary, so there is no invasion of privacy going on, when you give up your DNA willingly you can't be expected it to be held very strongly in confidentiality. It's kind of like that whole unsecured Wifi debacle. If you don't know exactly what they want to do with your DNA, you'd be a fool to give it to them. That is their mistake to make though, I'm not going to deny them that by saying this kind of action should be illegal.

If kids want dietting tips, or help on decisions, there are plenty of resources out there. I'm a little more paranoid at the idea of this becoming Comfortable. First its "Let us take your DNA to help you diet". Even if only 10% of people sign up, if they enjoy their results they'll tell their friends to partake in it next year. It will grow, until more schools are doing it. Then the elementary schools will do it. Then that confidentiality agreement will phase away, and there goes the neighbourhood.

I guess the only course of action is to warn people of the dangers and hope they make the right choice.

As long as it's explicit. (3, Insightful)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266090)

As long as it is expressed explicitly that this is voluntary and the privacy policy is written, I don't have a problem.

Unfortunately with most bureaucracies (especially universities), voluntary things have a bad habit of being "required". For example, a student goes in, University bureaucrat just says "and give me your DNA sample." Most students having to go through all the horseshit, including having to give Social Security numbers, probably won't even think to ask if it is in fact voluntary.

Speaking of SSNs, those used to be voluntary and now they're required. And when that happens, school admin folks become very careless with personal data - universities are just horribly incompetent with student's personal information.

Re:As long as it's explicit. (1)

jittles (1613415) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266458)

California Universities are not allowed to use SSN's for ID purposes. It's not the school that is requiring them, but the IRS. The student does not have to give the SSN but they will face a $50 fine per semester.

Re:I'm torn (2, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266120)

It's voluntary, so there is no invasion of privacy going on, when you give up your DNA willingly you can't be expected it to be held very strongly in confidentiality. It's kind of like that whole unsecured Wifi debacle.

Where did you get the idea that voluntary = weak confidentiality?
Unlike Wifi, I can negotiate the terms of my DNA's storage and usage.

Re:I'm torn (3, Informative)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266282)

You think the school is going to negotiate with every student on campus? They haven't the manpower or the resources or the time.

There will be a set contact, and you can either take it or leave it, I imagine. And since we don't know the details of that arrangement, I'd err on the side of caution.

Re:I'm torn (1)

Herkum01 (592704) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266500)

Maybe because it has happened before? [aolnews.com] Once they have your data, negotiated terms are only as strong as the morality of the person you are giving them too. Since large organizations can be amoral you are running a risk regardless of your terms.

It's not *really* voluntary. (3, Insightful)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266144)

It's voluntary from the college's point of view. The problem is that things that are voluntary from the school's point of view are things that students who are applying are strongly compelled to do. It's absurd, but higher education admissions are a game of signals, and high school students (And their parents) don't want to risk giving the wrong signals when there are thousands of people competing with them. This means that there's a strong incentive do anything "voluntary" on the application.

The school may not even be thinking this, because schools often think students' calculations about how to get in are just over-the-top and absurd. But the schools should be thinking this, because applicants at competitive schools will almost always make those calculations, no matter that the school says "Don't worry about it so much" in the left hand while saying "We only admit the very best!" in the right hand.

Re:I'm torn (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266254)

It's voluntary, so there is no invasion of privacy going on, when you give up your DNA willingly you can't be expected it to be held very strongly in confidentiality.

Well, I'll agree that voluntarily (if it's truly voluntary and not semi-coerced as in 'we won't let you do $desirable_but_not_mandatory_thing until you 'volunteer') providing a sample isn't an invasion of privacy. But your notion that doing so willingly means I can't expected it be confidential is utter hogwash. I willingly and voluntarily give up credit card numbers, medical information, etc. etc... on a daily basis with every expectation that they will be held confidential. I see no reason why DNA should be any different.

Re:I'm torn (4, Insightful)

Kozz (7764) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266378)

You said:

It's voluntary, so there is no invasion of privacy going on, when you give up your DNA willingly you can't be expected it to be held very strongly in confidentiality.

There's an interesting related story here [nytimes.com] . From the article itself:

Members of the tiny, isolated tribe had given DNA samples to university researchers starting in 1990, in the hope that they might provide genetic clues to the tribe’s devastating rate of diabetes. But they learned that their blood samples had been used to study many other things, including mental illness and theories of the tribe’s geographical origins that contradict their traditional stories.

We all know what the majority of slashdotters probably think about the tribe's beliefs, origin myths, etc. But the fact is that the researches thought that once they had the material (the DNA/blood), they could crunch the numbers in attempts to answer many questions. But the donors of said material didn't approve all that was done. I'm not trying to say who is right or wrong, but it's a cautionary tale for any organization that wants to conduct research of this kind.

Go Bears! (-1, Offtopic)

pigiron (104729) | more than 4 years ago | (#32265902)

Go Bears!

Why? (1)

thepike (1781582) | more than 4 years ago | (#32265908)

What is this DNA going to be used for? How is it going to "help students make decisions about their diet and lifestyle." Will they use it for genetic screening? In my opinion, most DNA screening is useless. It's like a full body scan, I'm sure you're going to find something, but is it going to be anything you can change? Or anything you care about? Or will it just make you nervous about a 1% increase in the chance that you'll get some rare cancer? Most gene association studies are weak at best anyway. It's pretty rare that one gene, or even one QTL is responsible for most or all of a phenotype.

I'm sure they'll use this in other ways too. They say it's confidential, but it can probably get trotted out in the case of some sort of criminal proceedings. Which is probably a good thing, conceptually, but is still somewhat of an invasion. And it's voluntary now, but will it stay that way?

Re:Why? (2, Informative)

rotide (1015173) | more than 4 years ago | (#32265946)

I realize this is slashdot and all, but if you read the article it states: "Once the DNA sample is sent in and tested, it will show the student’s ability to tolerate alcohol, absorb folic acid and metabolize lactose."

Not sure if they will test for other things or not, but that's the list provided thus far.

Re:Why? (3, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266006)

"Once the DNA sample is sent in and tested, it will show the student's ability to tolerate alcohol, absorb folic acid and metabolize lactose."

Not sure if they will test for other things or not, but that's the list provided thus far.

Frankly, I'm not sure you could survive college without knowing those things about yourself...

Re:Why? (1)

qbast (1265706) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266044)

Because for all those years student have not noticed that he or she is lactose-intolerant. Yeah, sure.

Re:Why? (1)

saforrest (184929) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266244)

Because for all those years student have not noticed that he or she is lactose-intolerant. Yeah, sure.

Frequently you only develop lactose intolerance later in life, though the eventual onset of that intolerance can be inferred from your DNA.

Re:Why? (1)

Troed (102527) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266490)

A lot of people get lactose intolerant in their 30s, without ever understanding that that's what it is.

"My stomach cannot tolerate the coffee anymore" is not uncommon to hear - and it's seldom the coffee.

Curious (1)

DaMattster (977781) | more than 4 years ago | (#32265928)

It would be curious to know what kind of agreement the student has to sign when voluntarily giving a DNA sample. My guess is that they would have to sign a legal waiver, absolving the UC Berkley of any responsibility should something untoward happen. I am curious to know what is being done to ensure that privacy and protection is being guarranteed. I hate to be a naysayer, but what if the unthinkable happens and law enforcement attempts to get DNA data from UC Berkley and a mistake happens which wrongfully convicts or potentially executes someone.

Re:Curious (1)

Ichoran (106539) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266018)

You think it's more likely for law enforcement to make a mistake when they get DNA than when they don't? How exactly does that work?

What does confidential mean? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32265938)

The data will be kept private to those who profit financially from it.

Absolutely UNREAL that the Berkeley IRB approved. (2, Interesting)

GungaDan (195739) | more than 4 years ago | (#32265940)

Maybe they just don't give a damn about potential research subjects' rights during recruitment, but permitting the solicitation to go out AS PART OF A FUCKING FRESHMAN ORIENTATION PACKET is beyond the pale. This research subject recruitment strategy is damnably coercive my view. Berkeley's IRB should be ashamed. Or better yet, replaced.

Re:Absolutely UNREAL that the Berkeley IRB approve (3, Interesting)

rotide (1015173) | more than 4 years ago | (#32265998)

Did you notice it was voluntary? It's not a requirement. If a freshman doesn't want to do it, it appears they can just not do it. Not sure if people should be fired for offering voluntary choices to new students. I guess, however, in our coddled child society, choices might confuse and damage the young minds. If we don't spoon feed them and water everything down to the bare minimum, they might not be able to cope!

Re:Absolutely UNREAL that the Berkeley IRB approve (2, Insightful)

GungaDan (195739) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266176)

There is zero reason why it couldn't be voluntary AFTER the students are settled on campus. Putting it in the orientation packet makes the incoming student vulnerable to parental pressure to "volunteer," and sends a message (regardless of the word "voluntary") that this is something expected of incoming freshmen by the University, not something one clueless researcher somehow conned the IRB into approving. It's an outrageous recruiting tactic that should never have been approved, ESPECIALLY for subjects who may be minors at the point of recruitment.

Re:Absolutely UNREAL that the Berkeley IRB approve (1)

rotide (1015173) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266294)

I'm sorry, but your two points against this seem to be:

1) Students could be pressured to volunteer by their parents.

2) Students might infer that this is "required".

Both are simple ways to say students can't think for themselves and we shouldn't subject them to simple decisions. When you enter college you're usually 18. You're an adult. Part of being an adult is understanding what a voluntary program is and understanding that you do _not_ have to volunteer.

If you can't read a piece of paper that says to do follow along, I'm not sure what you're going to learn in college.

Re:Absolutely UNREAL that the Berkeley IRB approve (1)

rotide (1015173) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266370)

Don't you love it when your palm taps the touchpad and you overwrite your own sentence?

"If you can't read a piece of paper that says this program is voluntary and realize you don't have to follow along, I'm not sure what you're going to learn in college."

Re:Absolutely UNREAL that the Berkeley IRB approve (1)

Ichoran (106539) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266138)

I don't quite understand what the big deal is. You're acting as though the incoming class is being asked to sign its soul away.

I think universities should do this sort of thing much more often. If universities turned around and made the results of their research available to students on an accelerated schedule, it would be exciting, inspirational, and motivate learning a lot better than, "Well, read this textbook about stuff that happened 20 years ago while we do a lot of exciting new things that we won't tell you about and are licensing to for-profit companies who might sell it to you after you graduate."

Of course there are privacy issues, but universities have access to a fair bit of private information (e.g. financial, if the student has applied for aid; academic transcripts; possibly personal essays, and so on). As long as they're not completely careless with genetic information, it's hardly different from anything else (especially since they're doing a limited analysis).

It's for their own good. (3, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#32265980)

> Will the notoriously liberal Berkeley campus see this as a service or an
> invasion of privacy?

It's only invasion of privacy if it's done by an evil "corporation" or other capitalist running dog. Everything a liberal organization does is for your own good and only a right-wing wacko would ever suspect one of failing to diligently and effectively safeguarding his privacy (especially when said organization is part of the state of California: you know they have only your best interests at heart and know better than you what you need).

 

Re:It's for their own good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32266166)

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

Re:It's for their own good. (1)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266284)

"It's only invasion of privacy if it's done by an evil "corporation" or other capitalist running dog."

And its only a liberal loony who would think that any good can come of this type of activity at all. Only a liberal loony believes that any governing agency is only looking after the good of its people. Even a university. Gattica was an interesting story, rent it.

At Berkely? Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32265986)

Wow, whatever happened to the last bastion of counter culture and hippies?

For a place that's considered one of the most liberal places in the US, you'd really expect some more backlash against this.

I mean, Harvard, sure, but Berkely??

Wrong key word in summary (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266046)

The summary emphasized the word "confidential". Really, the important key word here should have been "voluntary". What are the consequences of not giving a sample? If they don't care if you give a sample or not, then why would this be an issue? If you're smart enough to go to Berkeley you should be smart enough to be aware of the current pros and cons of giving a DNA sample.

Barcode is moot (1)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266058)

I just thought I'd point out that the whole barcode thing is irrelevant. They may as well put your name on the sample, because as soon as you seek to turn in your code and discover the result, you're mapped back to the sample.

Unless you can look at all the samples, and you're bright enough to examine several hundred mixing your own in somewhere at random. You'd need a printer of some sort, a free barcode font, and a $70 reader to reverse-engineer the code. It wouldn't hurt to have a handful of friends' codes to make sure you've got the sequence right.

But let's face it, almost zero will notice that link.

Personally, I'd suspect that the entire barcode thing is a lie of sorts. The researchers would have to know the flaws, but they're not disclosing it to the students up front, rather disguising it.

Re:Barcode is moot (2, Informative)

b0bby (201198) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266162)

I just thought I'd point out that the whole barcode thing is irrelevant. They may as well put your name on the sample, because as soon as you seek to turn in your code and discover the result, you're mapped back to the sample.

From TFA:
"The results of the test will be put in a secure online database where students will be able to retrieve their results by using their bar code."
There doesn't seem to be any indication that you'd have to identify yourself to retrieve the results - they give you a code, you enter it in & see the results. If none of the samples are linked to names, it doesn't really matter that you could look at other results. So I don't think you'd be mapped back to the sample.

Re:Barcode is moot (1)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266326)

Is it going on the web? And even if via web, are they anonymizing the IP's somehow? Or perhaps in a secure location, which would be monitored?

The point being, since they know you're coming after the data, they'll have no trouble tracking you if they so desire.

How quickly we forget: "posture photos" (5, Informative)

AEton (654737) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266182)

From the 1940s to the 1970s, Ivy League colleges took naked pictures of every incoming freshman [wikipedia.org] , supposedly for use in scientific studies of the students' posture.

I am not making this up. See, e.g., this Times coverage from 1995 [nytimes.com] .

I'm not going to make any kind of normative statement about whether people should say Yes to Cal's offer, here, but just wanted to point out that weird-ass instrusions into student privacy are nothing new.

Re:How quickly we forget: "posture photos" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32266274)

tits or gtfo

Voluntary (1)

pr100 (653298) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266188)

It's hardly a big deal if it's voluntary. If you don't like it say no...

It's a "free" service... (1)

Infiniti2000 (1720222) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266198)

The first one is free. At what point is it no longer "free," monetarily or otherwise?

There are no "Temporary" records (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266280)

Once it's recorded, it is recorded for life.

Be ready to pulled in for questioning with a presumption of guilt when the police get a 90% dna match on the 13 markers sometime in the next decade when the police are using records from that "temporary" database.

DO NOT WILLINGLY SUBMIT YOUR DNA!!! (5, Insightful)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266310)

Kids, DO NOT DO THIS!!! Ever! For any reason! Holy shit, do you have any idea how crazy this is? There are sooooo many ways this information could be used against you, both now and in the future that I could type for hours without even scratching the surface.

Once you give this data away, you can't take it back. You can't control it. You will have no way to know where it goes or who has access to it.

Berkeley students, you should be out marching and protesting right now. Your protests should make national headlines by Friday. Get to it!

Jasper Rine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32266348)

I don't know if I would trust Jasper Rine. He was a part of the committee reviewing Ignacio Chapella's tenure case [berkeley.edu] and made a forceful (but empty) threat during a class [youtube.com] , implying one of his students stole it. (In reality, it was probably some shmuck off the street who nabbed it.)

Honestly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32266396)

Honestly... What is the difference between giving away your photo and a sample of yout DNA?

Don't answer shalow crap, as both:

- can be used to identify you
- can be used for evil purposes, racism, crime etc.!

  Is it really dangerous in practice?

DNA profiles on Facebook next? (1)

peter303 (12292) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266510)

The ultimate narcissism: posting your genome in a social network.

Dont laugh. Blood types, a very simple version of one's gentic idnetity, is a major pseudo-science in Japan. You cant date someone of the "wrong type".
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...