9:02 - I'm
taking this week off to write, so there will be nothing posted here. I'm
struggling with the USB chapter. Oddly enough, the problem is making
things break. USB breaks often enough, certainly, but unfortunately for my
writing purposes, USB is not break-on-command.
If there's important news, I'll do a mailing to subscribers. I'll try
to keep an eye on the messageboards, particularly the subscriber areas,
but I won't have time to do much posting.
See you next week. In the interim, I'm sure Barbara will be keeping her
page updated.
The newspaper this morning reported a horrible case of
miscommunication. Two Special Forces soldiers from Fort Bragg who were
taking part in an undercover exercise were shot by a sheriff's deputy. One
of them died and one is in critical condition. The soldiers were in plain
clothes in a civilian vehicle that the deputy stopped. He didn't know
about the exercise. The soldiers thought the deputy was part of the
exercise and attempted to disarm him, with fatal consequences. The deputy
was just doing his job, and was attacked. Reasonably enough, he defended
himself. But this is something he'll live with for the rest of his life.
So the lives of three men changed forever, at least one of them ended
prematurely, and all because the left hand didn't know what the right hand
was doing.
In a shocking development, a circuit court judge has ruled that
fingerprint evidence has no scientific basis, which calls into question
the convictions of many prisoners currently serving time. In one sense,
the judge is right. It is not possible to prove a negative, and that
fingerprints from no two people are identical is indeed such an
assumption. In the early days of forensic science, that was truly an
effectively unproven assumption because there were insufficient data to
make it. And in fact many courts in the early days of dactylography
refused to accept that assumption. But we now have billions of data points
from hundreds of millions of people from a span of more than one hundred
years, and so far no case has been found, including identical twins, in
which two people have identical fingerprints. That is sufficient evidence
to allow the reasonable assumption that a fingerprint does in fact
uniquely identify an individual. The standard of proof in criminal cases
is reasonable doubt, and no reasonable person could doubt that
fingerprints are unique.
Of course, the same was thought about the identification system that
preceded fingerprints. It was called the Bertillion System, and depended
on detailed measurements of numerous physical characteristics of a person.
That system was inherently fallible both because it depended upon the
completely unproven assumption that identical Bertillion measurements
uniquely identified an individual, and because the process of taking those
measurements was subject to variation depending on who took them.
The case of Will West destroyed confidence in the Bertillion System
literally overnight. West was arrested in 1903 and taken to Leavenworth
Penitentiary. His Bertillion measurements were taken and it was found that
he'd served a previous term there. West denied that, despite the fact that
his measurements "proved" that he'd done so. He was also
identified visually by people who recognized him from his earlier term.
The prison officials pulled the earlier record and compared West to the
photograph that had been taken earlier. They had no doubt that he was the
same man. Even the name was the same. He'd served his earlier sentence
under the name William West and was now using the name Will West.
Everyone was completely convinced that Will West was indeed the same
man as William West. Until, that is, the guard turned over William West's
record card and and noticed that William West was still a prisoner at
Leavenworth. Duh. William West was quickly produced, and everyone marveled
at the similarities. Standing side by side, the two men appeared to be
identical twins, although it was later established that they were
unrelated. The prison staff carefully repeated the Bertillion measurements
on both men, and they were found to be identical within the error regarded
as acceptable for the system. Although many police departments and prisons
continued to use Bertillion measurements, exclusively or supplementally,
for some years, the Will West case effectively doomed the Bertillion
System.
Superficially, then, it appears that fingerprinting might be subject to
the same debunking. But in fact there are substantial differences. First,
of course, is the size of the database. Bertillion collapsed entirely on
the basis of a duplication occurring within only a few thousand records,
and Bertillion records were not compared globally. Fingerprinting has
billions of data points, and a great deal of global comparison has
occurred without so far a duplication being found. Second, Bertillion was
subject to the "personal equation" much more so than
fingerprinting. Two Bertillion experts could measure the same subject and
arrive at slightly different results. The same is not true for
fingerprinting. A properly-taken fingerprint sample does not differ except
in extent from one operator to the next. Third, fingerprints are
immutable. Bertillion attempted to choose only metrics that did not change
significantly in adults, but even so minor variation could occur in some
subjects over time.
I'm actually in sympathy with what this judge is attempting to do.
So-called expert evidence is in many cases a sham. If that were not the
case, we wouldn't have different expert witnesses testifying for the
prosecution and defense. In many cases, expert witnesses say what they're
paid to say, wiggling by using the uncertainties of their field. In some
cases, such as psychological/psychiatric testimony, there are in fact no
experts, because these "experts" are simply giving opinions that
have no basis in fact. If this judge wants to rule out such witchdoctor
testimony, I think that's a good thing. But he should not rule out
testimony based on generally accepted scientific principles. The real
solution here is to get rid of the concept of expert witnesses siding with
the prosecution or the defense. An expert witness should be impartial,
paid by neither the prosecution or the defense. If an expert witness is
needed, that witness should be selected by the judge and jury and paid for
by the court, with the cost later charged to the losing party regardless
of the testimony.
And only fact should be admitted, not opinion. That is, a chemist
should be permitted to testify on matters of chemistry, an engineer on
matters of engineering, and so forth. But psychologists, psychiatrists,
sociologists, and others whose "disciplines" have no basis in
fact should not be permitted to present their opinions as evidence.
Fingerprint experts fall in the former category, and should be permitted
to testify.
I don't usually post press releases, but this one that came across my
desk yesterday confirms the prediction I made a couple of years ago about
the death of traditional film as a consumer technology. I'm only surprised
that Kodak didn't get there first. I think these units and ones like them
will proliferate rapidly. That and the rapidly declining prices of decent
digital cameras means that consumer film cameras are not long for this
world. Five years from now, I expect the vast majority of casual
photography will be digital. In ten years, I suspect it'll be hard to find
anyone to process standard film.
OLYMPUS
INTRODUCES CAMEDIA TRUE PRINT
DIGITAL
IMAGING AND PRINTING KIOSKS
A Simple Way for Customers to Get Photo Quality Prints from
Their Digital Images
Insert Media Card, Order, and Go
Melville, NY, February 24, 2002 — Olympus America announced today at
PMA the Olympus CAMEDIA®
TruePrint™ digital printing kiosk.
Designed for photo specialty and consumer electronics stores,
mass merchants and high photo output locations such as hotels, resorts,
and cruise ships, etc., the TruePrint
kiosk is a cost-effective way for businesses to enhance existing photo
finishing services, or generate a new business customer base.
TruePrint requires little
space and minimal attention. Customers
can make prints from SmartMedia, CompactFlash (I, II, and Micro Drive),
Memory Sticks, floppy disks, as well as photo CDs.
With the optional flatbed scanner, prints can also be made from
hard copy. Archiving images
to a CD is also possible with the built in CD-RW.
Orders are easily placed with only a few simple steps using the
intuitive touch screen display. And because the printers can be located
behind a counter, customers can continue to shop and stop by later to
pick up the finished prints.
“In addition to our current consumer level digital printing solutions
for the home, Olympus wants to push the digital market by making it
easier to get prints from a digital camera by making photo quality
printing more accessible to consumers,” stated Olympus New Business
Development Manager George Tun. “
The Olympus TruePrint kiosk offers retailers an easy, reliable,
cost-effective way to take advantage of the digital revolution.”
Intuitive User Interface
The easy-to-use touchscreen interface provides customers with automatic
and manual image editing options that even the least technical person
can complete in no time at all: red-eye
reduction, brightness adjustment, cropping, and more.
TruePrint allows
customers to quickly select a wide range of output sizes and photo
packages from wallet size up to 8”x10” enlargements.
TruePrint also offers
the ability to create photo calendars and greeting cards.
TruePrint is a completely
modular system, which provides unique advantages over other kiosks
currently on the market. The
printers are placed behind the counter saving valuable floor space.
The smaller and slimmer upright floor-standing kiosk station is
all that’s visible. Because
the images are printed out behind the counter, customer traffic jams
around the kiosk station don’t occur.
The customer is instead free to continue to shop while waiting
for his or her prints. If
no floor space is available for the kiosk, the retailer can choose the
TruePrint countertop model. Training
and installation is provided for the upright floor-standing unit, along
with customer support and onsite service.
Unique Features:
·
On Site Administration – TruePrint Kiosk
software can be set up to keep track of how many prints and
which sizes are ordered for easy tracking.
Price changes can also be made at the kiosk by store personal.
·
Slim
Compact Design - Existing kiosks are large and bulky and take up a
great deal of valuable floor space.
The kiosk’s slim design means more valuable retail floor space
for other merchandise like picture frames and pre-cut framing mats.
The countertop version eliminates the need to sacrifice any floor
space.
·
Modular
Design - With different print size options, the retailer is no
longer limited to offering one output size. For the retailer, various
print sizes and price ranges can translate into higher print volumes.
With the printers located behind the counter, customers spend
less time hanging around the kiosk waiting for prints and more time
shopping. Both the floor – standing and counter TruePrint come with a
CD-RW and an option to include a print scanner.
·
Rugged
Design - All TruePrint
components are made durable, for years of trouble free operation.
TruePrint kiosks are
available in four models: floor
standing models TP-200 and TP-200S (with flatbed scanner); and
countertop models TP-100 and TP-100S (with flatbed scanner).
All units come with both the 8” x 10” and 4” x 6”
dye-sublimation printers. All units include an enclosed computer; touch
screen interface & easy user-prompting software; CD-RW drive; slots
for CompactFlash, SmartMedia and PCMCIA cards.
The countertop model also provides a floppy disk drive.
All TruePrint kiosks
components are rugged, durable, and designed for years of trouble-free
operation in the retail environment.
TruePrint kiosks will be available in early April 2002. Dealer
price ranges form $11,499 up to $16,999 depending on the module and
options selected.
17:12 - I got email from my
editor late this afternoon. He said a production slot had opened up and
did I want it. The only downside was that if I wanted that slot they'd
need a complete manuscript with all tech review comments incorporated no
later than Friday. Being an experienced author, I immediately called my
editor and told him I wanted the production slot. If I didn't grab this
one, it might delay publication.
I told him that I had the USB chapter in progress, and planned to have
it complete by Friday but wouldn't be able to do that if I was working on
incorporating tech review comments in the other chapters. He said that was
fine and that we could just tell them there'd be another chapter coming. I
then mentioned that there would actually be two chapters coming, including
the chapter on modems, which wasn't anywhere near ready. So in the
interests of getting the book put to bed, we decided to chop the modems
chapter from this edition. If there's still any demand for it, I'll add it
to the third edition.
So that means I'll be busting butt between now and Friday to get the
tech review comments incorporated, at which point I'll immediately change
gears to get the USB chapter finished and polished. It'll all be downhill
from there.
I'm taking down the chapters from the subscriber page. Eventually, I'll
have PDFs of the final versions of the chapters, which I'll put up for
subscribers to download and comment on. But you won't be hearing much from
me until this death march is over.
[Top] |