30 years? Sheesh that makes me feel old! I remember watching the episode of Tomorrow's World where they announced the new wonder of the CD, and showed how it was so great at error correcting from radial damage (cunningly not showing how CDs are rubbish at coping with scratches arcing around the disc)
>two of the judges in this case argued that because the
>recipient had not "downloaded" any other copies of the
>message to store, then the ones on the server were not
I do in fact download my gmail to store it. I figure a lot of other people who don't trust that gmail is forever and some bug won't eat their account do this too (it happened to my hotmail). Clearly the judges are ... not thinking clearly.
As I understand it (correct me if I have it wrong) the sickle-cell gene only causes disease if you have it on both copies of whatever chromosome it is on - but it confers the benefits when you only have one copy, so there's a fix where you get to keep the good stuff and get rid of the bad stuff by just making sure your children only get one copy.
Having said that, I get your point that just finding the 'bad' genes and getting rid of them is not that simple.
As a theory, 'Violent films made him do it' because he was exposed to violent films, is only slightly less stupid than 'Oxygen made him do it' because he breathed oxygen - and that theory has the benefit that everyone who ever killed anyone breathed oxygen, even the ones before violent films.
If you want a theory about why one person out of millions did something, your amazing distinguishing feature (has seen violent films) had better not apply to nearly every single person on Earth!
What we need is something like 'the killer has a distinctive growth in his brain, seen only in violent people' or something. That'd be much better.
What do your years of casual reading of FBI documents say about the odds that agents of the FBI may pick up knowledge from those they investigate, perhaps certain turns of phrase or specific technical terms in use by them?