I would agree with you that it was unlikely she would forget the password, except for one thing. It has been some time since she last had access to that computer and thus used the password. It is entirely reasonable that in the time that the laptop has been in the possession of the police while she has appealed the initial ruling that she needs to decrypt the hard drive that she has forgotten the password.
Yes, that is why there are so many promising developments since people started doing research on embryonic stem cells...wait, no there aren't. All of the successful treatments developed so far have been with non-embryonic stem cells.
No, I do not have it backwards. There was no federal funding of embryonic stem cell research before George W. Bush. Embryonic stem cells were first isolated in 1998 when Bill Clinton was President. At that time there was a long standing federal ban on funding of research using human embryos. Bill Clinton considered overturning this ban and decided against doing so when controversy arose.
Hello. Could you please cite an alternate source for your claim which is not lifted from a religious tract? Also, I may be hazy in my recollection, but I have a distinct memory that the first embyonic stem cell line was produced in America in 1998.
And lo and behold that is what the source I linked to said. Of course, they were produced without federal funds. I found that source by doing a google search (it was the first result that laid out the time line of government funding of stem cell research), please feel free to do your own google or bing search and present the results here.
I do not know if you understand how the U.S. government works, but Bush did not "pass a bill" doing anything. He may have signed such a bill, but only Congress can pass a bill and George W. Bush never served in Congress.
Before George W. Bush, the federal government provided zero funding for any embryonic stem cell research. Under George W. Bush, the federal government provided funding for some embryonic stem cell research. You may not like the restrictions he placed on such federal funding, but he was the first President to provide any such funding. This source clearly lays out the timeline in the seond to last paragraph.
One of the things you will find is that a large portion of the "scientific community" exists within colleges and universities, which view anyone who believes that people are responsible for the consequences of their actions as ignorant heathens.
You miss the fact that most of those laws you need lawyers to deal with were written by lawyers. To quote the GP, "Your problem is with your legislature, a corrupt shower of bastards voted in by an ignorant population." And most of those people in the legislature are lawyers.
This brings up my second law of voting, "Vote against the lawyer." When voting, if one of the candidates is not a lawyer, unless there is an overwhelmingly convincing reason to do otherwise, that is the candidate you should vote for.
Facebook cannot exist without publishing private data. Facebook is about publishing private information. It is what people create Facebook accounts to do.
I'm sorry, I made a mistake. Project Gunrunner was the Bush Administration program. The Obama Administration program is Operation Fast & Furious. I cannot currently find the articles that talked about both the Bush Administration communication with the Mexican government and the lack of such communication by the Obama Administration.
A couple of points. Operation Gunrunner was not started by the Bush Administration. The Bush Administration had a similar program, but that program was much smaller. Additionally, there was a key difference with the program under the Bush Administration. The Bush Administration ran their program in cooperation with the Mexican government. When a straw purchaser made a gun purchase under the Bush Administration, they tracked the gun until it moved to Mexico, whereupon they informed the Mexican government with the plan calling for the Mexican authorities to pick up the gun smuggler and the person for whom the gun(s) were intended and confiscate the weapons. Under the Obama Administration, the Mexican government was never informed AND when the straw purchaser passed the gun off to someone else (even while still in the U.S.), the agents continued to follow the straw purchaser and did not follow the gun.
Favor my employer's rights over my rights, and if I look what has been happening to workers' pay vs executive pay and profits over the past decade, I don't think they need additional favoring.
Before you accept that conclusion, you might want to look at who most of those executives give their campaign contributions to...hint, it usually isn't the Republican candidate.
You are absolutely correct. The perfect example is the No Child Left Behind law. It was essentially written by Senator Ted Kennedy (well, his staff), yet the "left" derided it as a terrible law enacted by George W. Bush. It is a terrible law, yet many of the things in it that the "left" condemned had long been on their list of proposed education reforms.
You keep minimizing the importance of the Commerce Clause argument, yet without that argument Congress does not have the authority to give the FDA the power to regulate this activity. Or to put it another way, the only way that the FDA has the power to regulate this company's activity is if the Commerce Clause gives Congress the authority to pass laws regulating that activity. So, if this company's activity falls under the Commerce Clause provision, then, yes the FDA has the authority to regulate it. On the other hand, if this company's activity is purely intrastate then Congress does not have the authority to pass any laws which effect their activity. The two relevant recent Supreme Court rulings are Gonzalez v. Raich and United States v. Lopez. If the courts decide this more closely follows Gonzalez v. Raich, they will find in favor of the FDA. On the other hand, if they decide this more closely tracks with United States v. Lopez, they will find against the FDA.
Yes, the Gonzalez v. Raich case is bad (the others are also bad, but not as recent). In United States v. Lopez the Supreme Court found a limit to the Commerce Clause. It will be interesting to see how this plays out as there have been several changes to the makeup of the Supreme Court since both of those cases that seem to be less receptive to a broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause.
If the treatment is done in Colorado, on people in Colorado, with materials that have been put together in the way that the FDA has a problem with in Colorado, why is this not a matter for the state of Colorado to regulate?
So, because I buy clothes which were manufactured in another state, the government has the authority to regulate what activities I do while wearing them?
Actually, no. The Supreme court doesn't have a doctrine of SCOTUS infallibility, you're thinking of the Pope.
They can be and are wrong.
And have admitted that previous rulings were wrong when they later overturned them, which of course makes efforts to get Supreme Court nominees to pledge fealty to stare decisis wrong. Some of the same people who are today strong proponents of Supreme Court Justices honoring stare decisis also praise Supreme Court judgements which overturned previous Court rulings.
The question to be considered is this, does Congess have the Constitutional authority to regulate this activity? This is activity that is conducted within the state of Colorado. They do not sell their treatment across state lines. The FDA's argument is that because they buy supplies across state lines, the FDA may regulate what they do with those supplies.
That being said, there is something to the point you make that the FDA almost has no choice but to try and force these guys to follow FDA regulations, or face major recriminations if anything goes wrong. Which actually represents one of the problems with our current medical regulation system. If the FDA approves a drug or procedure and it is later discovered that a large group of people is negatively impacted by this drug or procedure (even if it is small relative to the number who benefit), they face strong public recriminations as to why they approved the drug or procedure. On the other hand, if they deny (or just delay indefinitely) approval for a drug or procedure that might bring massive benefit to many people, almost nobody will know about it. I am not saying that we should do away with the FDA (although there is an argument to be made there), just that there is a problem with the way the FDA is set up and that there is no easy solution to that problem.
In what way is it inaccurate? The summary states that the FDA argues that because materials they use in this procedure are shipped to them across state lines, the FDA has the authority to regulate what they do with those materials, even though that is done wholly withing the state of Colorado under the Commerce Clause. I read the link you posted and, lo and behold, the FDA does indeed make such a claim.
Actually, the Framers of the Constitution thought that they had passed something that placed very strict limits on the power of the federal government. The Commerce Clause did not get twisted until the 1940s when the Supreme Court decided that doing something so as not to participate in interstate commerce was subject to federal regulation under the commerce clause. The Constitution is not vaguely worded, it is just that it did not allow the Federal Government to do things that people wanted it to, so people intentionally chose to find certain phrases as obscure.
Except that the FDA does not seem to be saying that this group buying those materials violates any laws. The FDA is saying that what they are doing with those materials violates federal law. The defendants are saying that since what they are doing is entirely within the state of Colorado, the federal government has no jurisdiction. For the FDA's contention to hold water, they should be telling the defendant's supllier to no longer sell to them. The reason they don't do that is that the law as written does not give them the authority to do that.
How so? The link you provide clearly states that since some of the components (ingredients, machinery used to manufacture) that they use are shipped from another state, that automatically gives the Federal Government the power to regulate what they make...even if they do not sell it across state lines.
Actually, the Supreme Court said in United States v. Lopez that Congress must actually show that the action they are regulating effects insterstate commerce. Additionally, if one reads the writings of current Supreme Court Justices, there is some evidence that this Court would rein things in even further. When one reads the writings of the Framers of the Constitution one discovers that they had a more narrow definition of "commerce" than the one we use today.
Slashdot Mirror
I would agree with you that it was unlikely she would forget the password, except for one thing. It has been some time since she last had access to that computer and thus used the password. It is entirely reasonable that in the time that the laptop has been in the possession of the police while she has appealed the initial ruling that she needs to decrypt the hard drive that she has forgotten the password.
Yes, that is why there are so many promising developments since people started doing research on embryonic stem cells...wait, no there aren't. All of the successful treatments developed so far have been with non-embryonic stem cells.
No, I do not have it backwards. There was no federal funding of embryonic stem cell research before George W. Bush. Embryonic stem cells were first isolated in 1998 when Bill Clinton was President. At that time there was a long standing federal ban on funding of research using human embryos. Bill Clinton considered overturning this ban and decided against doing so when controversy arose.
Hello. Could you please cite an alternate source for your claim which is not lifted from a religious tract? Also, I may be hazy in my recollection, but I have a distinct memory that the first embyonic stem cell line was produced in America in 1998.
And lo and behold that is what the source I linked to said. Of course, they were produced without federal funds. I found that source by doing a google search (it was the first result that laid out the time line of government funding of stem cell research), please feel free to do your own google or bing search and present the results here.
I do not know if you understand how the U.S. government works, but Bush did not "pass a bill" doing anything. He may have signed such a bill, but only Congress can pass a bill and George W. Bush never served in Congress.
Before George W. Bush, the federal government provided zero funding for any embryonic stem cell research. Under George W. Bush, the federal government provided funding for some embryonic stem cell research. You may not like the restrictions he placed on such federal funding, but he was the first President to provide any such funding. This source clearly lays out the timeline in the seond to last paragraph.
One of the things you will find is that a large portion of the "scientific community" exists within colleges and universities, which view anyone who believes that people are responsible for the consequences of their actions as ignorant heathens.
While we're at it, why don't we thank it for the Bush administration and it's stifling of scientific progress.
You mean, by becoming the first Administration to provide federal funding for embryonic stem cell research?
You miss the fact that most of those laws you need lawyers to deal with were written by lawyers. To quote the GP, "Your problem is with your legislature, a corrupt shower of bastards voted in by an ignorant population." And most of those people in the legislature are lawyers.
This brings up my second law of voting, "Vote against the lawyer." When voting, if one of the candidates is not a lawyer, unless there is an overwhelmingly convincing reason to do otherwise, that is the candidate you should vote for.
Most U.S. conservatives are strong proponents of fewer regulations, effectively enforced.
Facebook cannot exist without publishing private data. Facebook is about publishing private information. It is what people create Facebook accounts to do.
I'm sorry, I made a mistake. Project Gunrunner was the Bush Administration program. The Obama Administration program is Operation Fast & Furious. I cannot currently find the articles that talked about both the Bush Administration communication with the Mexican government and the lack of such communication by the Obama Administration.
A couple of points. Operation Gunrunner was not started by the Bush Administration. The Bush Administration had a similar program, but that program was much smaller. Additionally, there was a key difference with the program under the Bush Administration. The Bush Administration ran their program in cooperation with the Mexican government. When a straw purchaser made a gun purchase under the Bush Administration, they tracked the gun until it moved to Mexico, whereupon they informed the Mexican government with the plan calling for the Mexican authorities to pick up the gun smuggler and the person for whom the gun(s) were intended and confiscate the weapons. Under the Obama Administration, the Mexican government was never informed AND when the straw purchaser passed the gun off to someone else (even while still in the U.S.), the agents continued to follow the straw purchaser and did not follow the gun.
Favor my employer's rights over my rights, and if I look what has been happening to workers' pay vs executive pay and profits over the past decade, I don't think they need additional favoring.
Before you accept that conclusion, you might want to look at who most of those executives give their campaign contributions to...hint, it usually isn't the Republican candidate.
You are absolutely correct. The perfect example is the No Child Left Behind law. It was essentially written by Senator Ted Kennedy (well, his staff), yet the "left" derided it as a terrible law enacted by George W. Bush. It is a terrible law, yet many of the things in it that the "left" condemned had long been on their list of proposed education reforms.
You keep minimizing the importance of the Commerce Clause argument, yet without that argument Congress does not have the authority to give the FDA the power to regulate this activity. Or to put it another way, the only way that the FDA has the power to regulate this company's activity is if the Commerce Clause gives Congress the authority to pass laws regulating that activity. So, if this company's activity falls under the Commerce Clause provision, then, yes the FDA has the authority to regulate it. On the other hand, if this company's activity is purely intrastate then Congress does not have the authority to pass any laws which effect their activity. The two relevant recent Supreme Court rulings are Gonzalez v. Raich and United States v. Lopez. If the courts decide this more closely follows Gonzalez v. Raich, they will find in favor of the FDA. On the other hand, if they decide this more closely tracks with United States v. Lopez, they will find against the FDA.
Yes, the Gonzalez v. Raich case is bad (the others are also bad, but not as recent). In United States v. Lopez the Supreme Court found a limit to the Commerce Clause. It will be interesting to see how this plays out as there have been several changes to the makeup of the Supreme Court since both of those cases that seem to be less receptive to a broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause.
If the treatment is done in Colorado, on people in Colorado, with materials that have been put together in the way that the FDA has a problem with in Colorado, why is this not a matter for the state of Colorado to regulate?
So, because I buy clothes which were manufactured in another state, the government has the authority to regulate what activities I do while wearing them?
Actually, no. The Supreme court doesn't have a doctrine of SCOTUS infallibility, you're thinking of the Pope.
They can be and are wrong.
And have admitted that previous rulings were wrong when they later overturned them, which of course makes efforts to get Supreme Court nominees to pledge fealty to stare decisis wrong. Some of the same people who are today strong proponents of Supreme Court Justices honoring stare decisis also praise Supreme Court judgements which overturned previous Court rulings.
The question to be considered is this, does Congess have the Constitutional authority to regulate this activity? This is activity that is conducted within the state of Colorado. They do not sell their treatment across state lines. The FDA's argument is that because they buy supplies across state lines, the FDA may regulate what they do with those supplies.
That being said, there is something to the point you make that the FDA almost has no choice but to try and force these guys to follow FDA regulations, or face major recriminations if anything goes wrong. Which actually represents one of the problems with our current medical regulation system. If the FDA approves a drug or procedure and it is later discovered that a large group of people is negatively impacted by this drug or procedure (even if it is small relative to the number who benefit), they face strong public recriminations as to why they approved the drug or procedure. On the other hand, if they deny (or just delay indefinitely) approval for a drug or procedure that might bring massive benefit to many people, almost nobody will know about it. I am not saying that we should do away with the FDA (although there is an argument to be made there), just that there is a problem with the way the FDA is set up and that there is no easy solution to that problem.
In what way is it inaccurate? The summary states that the FDA argues that because materials they use in this procedure are shipped to them across state lines, the FDA has the authority to regulate what they do with those materials, even though that is done wholly withing the state of Colorado under the Commerce Clause. I read the link you posted and, lo and behold, the FDA does indeed make such a claim.
Actually, the Framers of the Constitution thought that they had passed something that placed very strict limits on the power of the federal government. The Commerce Clause did not get twisted until the 1940s when the Supreme Court decided that doing something so as not to participate in interstate commerce was subject to federal regulation under the commerce clause. The Constitution is not vaguely worded, it is just that it did not allow the Federal Government to do things that people wanted it to, so people intentionally chose to find certain phrases as obscure.
Except that the FDA does not seem to be saying that this group buying those materials violates any laws. The FDA is saying that what they are doing with those materials violates federal law. The defendants are saying that since what they are doing is entirely within the state of Colorado, the federal government has no jurisdiction. For the FDA's contention to hold water, they should be telling the defendant's supllier to no longer sell to them. The reason they don't do that is that the law as written does not give them the authority to do that.
How so? The link you provide clearly states that since some of the components (ingredients, machinery used to manufacture) that they use are shipped from another state, that automatically gives the Federal Government the power to regulate what they make...even if they do not sell it across state lines.
Actually, the Supreme Court said in United States v. Lopez that Congress must actually show that the action they are regulating effects insterstate commerce. Additionally, if one reads the writings of current Supreme Court Justices, there is some evidence that this Court would rein things in even further. When one reads the writings of the Framers of the Constitution one discovers that they had a more narrow definition of "commerce" than the one we use today.