Headline is "Supreme Court Sides With Rambus Over FTC". This is wrong. The Supreme Court did not take sides in the case. Without comment, they let stand an appeals court decision favoring Rambus. The Supreme court takes about 80 cases a year out of about 8,000 submitted. As for the 7,920 that aren't heard, the Court isn't taking sides at all. They are staying out of it. This kind of headline is a frequent journalism error in coverage of the court. *post is insightful and informative, possibly redundant.*
Yes, it's sensible advice, but there's a big difference between being sensible and being a crime not to do. It's a good idea not to jump off the roof, but it shouldn't be a crime to jump off the roof, if there's no one standing underneath. The first amendment is designed to protect foolish and wrong ideas, not just sensible ones.
Oh, I agree. The odds that the court will take this case are pretty slim. If they do take the case, I would expect a divided opinion. I think it would probably get struck down, but I'm biased to think that way.
In Morse v Fredrick, the bong hits case, it was eventually settled for $50,000. The guy had remembered to make a claim under the Alaska constitution, and the school didn't want to go to trial on that, so they settled.
The case might continue to the Supreme Court.
Since the current Supreme Court has held in Morse v. Frederick. that the phrase "Bong Hits 4 Jesus," when displayed in a school setting, is so incredibly dangerous that the First Amendment must be thrown out the window, I think the odds that they'll hold up the First Amendment in this case are less than favorable.
Arbitrary Aardvark here. That was my first reaction too, but when I thought about it, reasonable suspicion, at least to the point of probable cause, is all they need to come in, put you in jail, seize your computers, ransack your house, take your kids to foster care, shoot your dog, etc.
At that point, 90% of cases are resolved by plea bargain, in which the accused pretends to be guilty in exchange for probation/other. So grandparent poster is approximately right.
The only thing a court needs to convict you of possession of child pornography is 'reasonable suspicion' that the subject of the photo is underage and the pose is considered 'sexual.'
I must have missed the memo where they lowered the standard from "beyond a reasonable doubt" to "reasonable suspicion". In the words of wikipedia: [citation needed]
Arbitrary Aardvark here. The submission was edited, changing the headline to "nude ads." The story is important because the proof of age requirement affects content on the internet, and has effects far beyond a swinger's magazine in Ohio. Parent poster is of course correct that you probably don't want to see those pictures. For the most part they are over 30,and there's no question about whether they are of age.
it's probably constitutional as a search incident to arrest,a long recognized category. i'm a civil liberties fanatic, currently suing over unconstitutional searches called voter ID, and looking for a lawyer over the recent search of my trunk that was beyond the scope of search incident to arrest, but i think this one's probably constitutional as to both the us and state constitution. arbitrary aardvark
Chess Go. Tag. Red light green light. Mother May I Simon Says Old Maid Truth or dare Cops n Robbers Smear the.. I mean, Chase the Ball Around Cowboys and Aborigines Duck Duck Wallaby Go Fish
ARTICLE I. DECLARATION OF RIGHTS SECTION 1. Political power in people. All political power is vested in and derived from the people only, therefore, they have the right at all times to modify their form of government. SECTION 2. Religious freedom; freedom of speech; right of assembly and petition. The General Assembly shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government or any department thereof for a redress of grievances.
Senator Robert Ford District 42 - Charleston Co. Contact Address: (H) P.O. Box 21302, Charleston, 29413
Couldn't the recipients, who will generate the new bone marrow, then be used as donors?
Right now, there's a ban on selling organs for donation in this country. However, bone marrow transplants are expensive. If the recipient could later be used as a donor, the ability to pay them for their marrow (thus allowing them to more easily pay for the original transplant) could really help move this thing along. Even if a marrow recipient is reluctant to donate his own marrow, if he had a very large medical bill and was offered money to donate, he would be much more likely to do so.
Of course, given the limited number of naturally HIV-immune people in existence today, it would drive up the price of a transplant in the short term as they demand high prices for their marrow, but in the long run it would even out as we create more HIV-immune people.
A few thoughts. Normally, when you are looking for a transplant donor, you don't look for someone with hiv. Even if this process works as a cure, there's still some risk in using hiv+ donors, even if the recipients are also hiv+. So the way to go might be to use hiv- people as breeders of the immunity bone marrow.
Make money fast! Ask me how...
As noted above, this sort of thing tends to be illegal in the usa. Biomedical research interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. The place to get this going might be India, Switzerland, Tonga.
If you have a lifethreatening need for organ transplant, looking only in the us can be deadly. On the other hand, if you need some expensive medical procedure, medical tourism is just sound economic sense. It's cheaper to buy a plane ticket to India than to pay US prices for medical case.
I looked into the economics of being a compensated blood marrow donor in the us. $125 for a painful procedure - it wouldn't have paid my gas to go do it. I make part of my living testing new drugs, including aids drugs, for a few $K per clinical trial. I am generally open to selling extra body parts for enough cash. I'd be willing to get injected with this immune bone marrow and have it harvested later if it works as a cure. Who do I call?
An article in the AJC earlier in the year was showing the plight of the homeless in Atlanta, the impact of the story fell on its face as all but two of those pictured had a cell phone - a few were using them when the picture was taken
A cell phone is practical technology for a homeless person. Throw in gmail and a po box, and they are set up to work in the formal or underground economy. A pay as you go cell phone costs $20.
But slashdot's idea of 25-50K as low income is laughable. The average world income is under $5000/yr. 25K is rich by world standards and comfortable by us standards (unless you live somewhere like manhattan or have 18 people in the household.) $25-50K is middle class, exactly the kind of people who compete for status with the latest gadgets.
Given that I don't have medical insurance, never have had as an adult, I don't run into that set of perverse disincentives. I'm a cash buyer. I'm enjoying my retirement now in my 40s.
Sergey Brin's blog, http://too.blogspot.com/, is about Parkinson's not Huntingdon's, I had those mixed up. But the principle is the same - if I'm at high risk of some rare disease, all I have to do is find a kabillionaire to fund research and I can ride his/her coattails.
If genetic screening showed that I have a high risk of some rare and currently fatal disease, then I refocus to become an expert in that disease and make sure I'm first in line for the beta testing on new treatments or cures.
You guys are both missing the point. Sure, it benefits humanity, fine. But it would benefit me. The more I know about my medical situation,and the sooner I know it, the better choices I can make. I went to the site to sign up, but the small print says they want $1000, so that lets me out - I have other priorities for $1000.
The place to put the colony is in the inner asteroid belt. Earthlike planets if any would be just a bonus. Based on what little we already know about the system, it's an obvious place to go. Maybe just robots and nanites at first.
I wish I'd kept a copy of when I submitted this story earlier today, although the posted version is as good as mine.
an ad at that site promotes ultrahal, last year's winner. it's not great, but it's better than eliza or some of the earlier attempts. offers a free text to speech thingy and claims to have ofice assistant utility, dunno.
Slashdot Mirror
Headline is "Supreme Court Sides With Rambus Over FTC". This is wrong. The Supreme Court did not take sides in the case.
Without comment, they let stand an appeals court decision favoring Rambus.
The Supreme court takes about 80 cases a year out of about 8,000 submitted. As for the 7,920 that aren't heard, the Court isn't taking sides at all.
They are staying out of it.
This kind of headline is a frequent journalism error in coverage of the court.
*post is insightful and informative, possibly redundant.*
Yes, it's sensible advice, but there's a big difference between being sensible and being a crime not to do.
It's a good idea not to jump off the roof, but it shouldn't be a crime to jump off the roof, if there's no one standing underneath.
The first amendment is designed to protect foolish and wrong ideas, not just sensible ones.
Oh, I agree. The odds that the court will take this case are pretty slim. If they do take the case,
I would expect a divided opinion. I think it would probably get struck down, but I'm biased to think that way.
In Morse v Fredrick, the bong hits case, it was eventually settled for $50,000. The guy had remembered to make a claim under the Alaska constitution, and the school didn't want to go to trial on that, so they settled.
Since the current Supreme Court has held in Morse v. Frederick. that the phrase "Bong Hits 4 Jesus," when displayed in a school setting, is so incredibly dangerous that the First Amendment must be thrown out the window, I think the odds that they'll hold up the First Amendment in this case are less than favorable.
Arbitrary Aardvark here.
That was my first reaction too, but when I thought about it, reasonable suspicion, at least to the point of probable cause, is all they need to come in, put you in jail, seize your computers, ransack your house, take your kids to foster care, shoot your dog, etc.
At that point, 90% of cases are resolved by plea bargain, in which the accused pretends to be guilty in exchange for probation/other.
So grandparent poster is approximately right.
The only thing a court needs to convict you of possession of child pornography is 'reasonable suspicion' that the subject of the photo is underage and the pose is considered 'sexual.'
I must have missed the memo where they lowered the standard from "beyond a reasonable doubt" to "reasonable suspicion". In the words of wikipedia: [citation needed]
Arbitrary Aardvark here.
The submission was edited, changing the headline to
"nude ads." The story is important because the proof of age requirement affects content on the internet, and has effects far beyond a swinger's magazine in Ohio. Parent poster is of course correct that you probably don't want to see those pictures. For the most part they are over 30,and there's no question about whether they are of age.
it's probably constitutional as a search incident to arrest,a long recognized category.
i'm a civil liberties fanatic, currently suing over unconstitutional searches called voter ID, and looking for a lawyer over the recent search of my trunk that was beyond the scope of search incident to arrest, but i think this one's probably constitutional as to both the us and state constitution.
arbitrary aardvark
For sale. Reasonable rates.
Banned in Australia?
Chess
Go.
Tag.
Red light green light.
Mother May I
Simon Says
Old Maid
Truth or dare
Cops n Robbers
Smear the.. I mean, Chase the Ball Around
Cowboys and Aborigines
Duck Duck Wallaby
Go Fish
Are each of these rated?
obligatory xkcd solution to captchas
http://xkcd.com/233/
ARTICLE I.
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SECTION 1. Political power in people.
All political power is vested in and derived from the people only, therefore, they have the right at all times to modify their form of government.
SECTION 2. Religious freedom; freedom of speech; right of assembly and petition.
The General Assembly shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government or any department thereof for a redress of grievances.
Senator Robert Ford
District 42 - Charleston Co.
Contact Address:
(H) P.O. Box 21302, Charleston, 29413
Bus. (843) 813-1777 Home (843) 852-0777
(C) 506 Gressette Bldg., Columbia, 29201
Bus. (803) 212-6124 Home (803) 798-9220
It's 3 am here. I'm sure senator ford would like to hear from you about his bill. Feel free to call collect.
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/members/bios/0606818109.html looks like a badaas tho, don't ring his doorbell.
'Next year, the Air Force will procure more unmanned aircraft than manned aircraft,'
Nice to see the air force finally getting behind affirmative action.
>> that would be tantamount to eating a fellow human's flesh.
it only seems weird the first couple times.
was, yes we can!, now, yes icann
in too late to get mod points
http://xkcd.com/208/
Iphone: 94% not broken in a year.
Blackberry: 88% not broken in a year.
And we all know that 88 x 2 = 94.
Pedantically objecting to a broken slashdot headline?
I must be new here.
Couldn't the recipients, who will generate the new bone marrow, then be used as donors?
Right now, there's a ban on selling organs for donation in this country. However, bone marrow transplants are expensive. If the recipient could later be used as a donor, the ability to pay them for their marrow (thus allowing them to more easily pay for the original transplant) could really help move this thing along. Even if a marrow recipient is reluctant to donate his own marrow, if he had a very large medical bill and was offered money to donate, he would be much more likely to do so.
Of course, given the limited number of naturally HIV-immune people in existence today, it would drive up the price of a transplant in the short term as they demand high prices for their marrow, but in the long run it would even out as we create more HIV-immune people.
A few thoughts. Normally, when you are looking for a transplant donor, you don't look for someone with hiv. Even if this process works as a cure, there's still some risk in using hiv+ donors, even if the recipients are also hiv+.
So the way to go might be to use hiv- people as breeders of the immunity bone marrow.
Make money fast! Ask me how...
As noted above, this sort of thing tends to be illegal in the usa.
Biomedical research interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. The place to get this going might be India, Switzerland, Tonga.
If you have a lifethreatening need for organ transplant, looking only in the us can be deadly.
On the other hand, if you need some expensive medical procedure, medical tourism is just sound economic sense. It's cheaper to buy a plane ticket to India than to pay US prices for medical case.
I looked into the economics of being a compensated blood marrow donor in the us. $125 for a painful procedure - it wouldn't have paid my gas to go do it. I make part of my living testing new drugs, including aids drugs, for a few $K per clinical trial. I am generally open to selling extra body parts for enough cash.
I'd be willing to get injected with this immune bone marrow and have it harvested later if it works as a cure. Who do I call?
At $200 retail it becomes free with contract - which will no doubt be a selling point.
bla bla bla free bla bla bla
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Stewart's law: It always costs more to get something "free" than to just buy it.
An article in the AJC earlier in the year was showing the plight of the homeless in Atlanta, the impact of the story fell on its face as all but two of those pictured had a cell phone - a few were using them when the picture was taken
A cell phone is practical technology for a homeless person. Throw in gmail and a po box, and they are set up to work in the formal or underground economy.
A pay as you go cell phone costs $20.
But slashdot's idea of 25-50K as low income is laughable. The average world income is under $5000/yr. 25K is rich by world standards and comfortable by us standards (unless you live somewhere like manhattan or have 18 people in the household.)
$25-50K is middle class, exactly the kind of people who compete for status with the latest gadgets.
Given that I don't have medical insurance, never have had as an adult, I don't run into that set of perverse disincentives. I'm a cash buyer. I'm enjoying my retirement now in my 40s.
Here's that wired article on 23andme, a google-backed $1000 genetic screening company.
http://www.wired.com/medtech/genetics/magazine/15-12/ff_genomics?currentPage=all
Sergey Brin's blog, http://too.blogspot.com/, is about Parkinson's not Huntingdon's, I had those mixed up. But the principle is the same - if I'm at high risk of some rare disease, all I have to do is find a kabillionaire to fund research and I can ride his/her coattails.
If genetic screening showed that I have a high risk of some rare and currently fatal disease, then I refocus to become an expert in that disease and make sure I'm first in line for the beta testing on new treatments or cures.
post is informative but inciteful.
Right, but on the application, it says there's a $1000 fee. You can apply to have that waived, but I wouldn't count on it.
You guys are both missing the point. Sure, it benefits humanity, fine. But it would benefit me.
The more I know about my medical situation,and the sooner I know it, the better choices I can make. I went to the site to sign up, but the small print says they want $1000, so that lets me out - I have other priorities for $1000.
Post is insightful and underrated.
The place to put the colony is in the inner asteroid belt. Earthlike planets if any would be just a bonus. Based on what little we already know about the system, it's an obvious place to go.
Maybe just robots and nanites at first.
I wish I'd kept a copy of when I submitted this story earlier today, although the posted version is as good as mine.
see previous slashdot stories
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/18/1359214 Interstellar Ark
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/11/214248 Mission Could Seek Out Spock's Home Planet (re 40 eridani, not epsilon eridani)
http://www.zabaware.com/
an ad at that site promotes ultrahal, last year's winner. it's not great, but it's better than eliza or some of the earlier attempts.
offers a free text to speech thingy and claims to have ofice assistant utility, dunno.
A friend of mine had his laptop confiscated when coming back from canada. It happens.
I am a systems administrator, primarily Unix/Linux and enterprise NAS/SAN storage, working for an aerospace company.
Penguins.
example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrxmpihCjqw
what's the term for that?
some sort of reverse karma whore.