I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. Always consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for legal advice and legal services.
I'm not trying to be rude, but you are terribly mistaken in your interpretation of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
SCOTUS has pretty much settled on a VERY liberal interpretation of the "interstate commerce" language. They can pretty much regulate any damn thing they want to. Only recently has the court been applying the 10th amendment as a restraint on Congress' commerce powers.
Why the hell do you think that your WiFi device has to comply with FCC regulations? Gee... what does that F stand for?
I'm not saying I agree with the current reality. Merely that the law is likely not what you think it is.
You're missing the point completely. The whole point is that "interstate commerce" includes many more things than you would normally think of after a cursory reading.
Simply dismissing reality doesn't make reality less real. 'Belief' is unimportant. Federal laws with Supreme Court approval == reality.
I think the Wickard case is terrible; however, that's a real illustration of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. Always consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for legal advice and legal services.
If you have contraband in your house and your neighbor breaks in, takes it, and gives it to the police, the police can still use it to prosecute you.
There is no 4th amendment protection even if the neighbor broke the law. Sure, you could sue your neighbor or press charges or whatever, but that doesn't change the fact that YOU are going to be prosecuted based on that contraband the neighbor found.
You're arguing a technicality that doesn't keep you out of jail.
I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. Always consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for legal advice and legal services. This conversation does not create attorney-client privilege.
LOL. It actually DOES take a law degree. Words in a legal sense quite often have a different 'meaning' than their use in the common vernacular.
What if I told you that Congress can regulate the amount of wheat grown by a farmer solely for personal use, on the grounds that his action affected interstate commerce because he would not be buying wheat on the open market? Even if it would take hundreds of farmers doing the same thing to affect the supply and demand equation?
"The trial is about to enter its fourth day, and in a gesture of support for the four men hackers have begun assaulting plaintiff websites, beginning with that of the The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry."
Dear lord... use some commas and make it two sentences.
The 4th amendment matters unless that NY law requires law enforcement to exclude the illegally intercepted communications. If the law doesn't require exclusion of the evidence, then law enforcement can still use it to prosecute you--so what if it was acquired illegally? All that matters is the government didn't acquire the information illegally.
The 4th amendment only applies to government actors, or private citizens who are acting in such a capacity that they are deemed the equivalent of a government actor.
The 4th does NOT regulate private citizens' conduct. They could very well bust in to your place and hand over evidence to the police. It would not be a search nor a seizure if a nosy neighbor did it.
You would have to go after the person under some sort of tort action, and then try to convince the police (who they just greatly helped out) to prosecute them.
Regardless, the police have the evidence they need without any Constitutional violation.
How so? This is the argument that is repeated ad nauseum.
How would presidents solely be elected by large cities in a popular vote situation?
If more people in rural areas vote against the urban areas, then the rural areas don't win? Sure you'll have more voter turn out in certain places, but now there will be incentive for everyone to vote. Rural or urban. Texas or California. And so on and so forth.
1) I really think the EC existed to make the 'vote' not really a 'vote' in the old days. It was just there to give the masses something to do, and let them think they were legitimately participating. The original EC could take the public's vote into account but still ultimately had the power to cast their votes the way they wanted to. Maybe it was a protection against theocracy?
2) I think the modern incarnation of the EC are a political convenience to Presidential candidates. With the EC in place, certain parties just give up on certain states and don't even bother campaigning there. In other words, Obama came to Texas during his presidential campaign rarely just the same as McCain. The state was pretty much locked for McCain. Why would either candidate expend a lot of time and effort wooing Texas voters? Without the EC, both candidates would focus HARD on a state with such a massive amount of population.
So basically, you prefer a system which lets a few swing states pick the president in any election, whether they have the most people or not. You also prefer a system that makes it simply easier for the politicians to campaign.
How much control do we have over the zinc finger nucleases? I thought zinc fingers were pretty common DNA landmarks.
I reached #1 thinking that ANY modification to a T-cell created some risk that the T-cells' immune response would be modfied. Granted, it would most likely be harmless, but we're talking about peoples' lives. Also, (i forget what it's called) but what if the reintroduction triggered the same type of hypersensitivity reaction similar to TSS?
In response to T-Cell production, the HIV article on wikipedia states, "HIV primarily infects vital cells in the human immune system such as helper T cells (specifically CD4+ T cells), macrophages, and dendritic cells. HIV infection leads to low levels of CD4+ T cells through three main mechanisms: firstly, direct viral killing of infected cells; secondly, increased rates of apoptosis in infected cells; and thirdly, killing of infected CD4+ T cells by CD8 cytotoxic lymphocytes that recognize infected cells. When CD4+ T cell numbers decline below a critical level, cell-mediated immunity is lost, and the body becomes progressively more susceptible to opportunistic infections.HIV primarily infects vital cells in the human immune system such as helper T cells (specifically CD4+ T cells), macrophages, and dendritic cells. HIV infection leads to low levels of CD4+ T cells through three main mechanisms: firstly, direct viral killing of infected cells; secondly, increased rates of apoptosis in infected cells; and thirdly, killing of infected CD4+ T cells by CD8 cytotoxic lymphocytes that recognize infected cells. When CD4+ T cell numbers decline below a critical level, cell-mediated immunity is lost, and the body becomes progressively more susceptible to opportunistic infections."
There are 3 big risks / problems I see with this approach:
#1: The modified T-Cells attack the host after they are reintroduced. Think of it like auto-immune disease or transplanted-organ rejection. This could cause effects ranging from a mild food allergy to death. Anyone know how much damage 10 billion rogue T-cells could do? I sure don't; however, I do know that they aren't a straight 1 T-Cell used up for each 1 antigen.
#2: Unmodified T-cells attack the modified T-Cells because the surface of the modified T-Cells (i.e. the CCR5 protein) could possibly trigger an immune response. This would render the modified T-Cells kind of pointless. Seems like this would have better chance of working on patients with full blown AIDS rather than merely HIV+.
3: Modified T-Cells survive and are unaffected by HIV; however, these surviving modified T-Cells are just clones of the one original T-Cell that the lab modified. So in essence, you have injected the test subject with 10 billion of the same T-Cell. Unless the doctors have a way of massaging the genes on a representative sample of T-Cells, then this is kind of useless to the patient. What good are 10 billion T-Cells if they are each only good for tagging one antigen? Meaning, that the 10 billion T cells could only respond to a single stimulus, i.e. they could all only fight one strain of the common cold, but not anything else.
Disclaimer: I have a BA in bio from a public ivy; however, my GPA wasn't that great, and I didn't pursue a career in the field. I very well could be overlooking something substantial in immunology etc.
Please go RTFA before you just assume the apple panel is bad. Each panel in his review has pros and cons: the main compromise being viewing angle versus color shift.
If you really want to save 'memories,' just learn to use wget and start mirroring whatever you think is important. But you'll need to hire a few lawyers for copyright and other issues, find some investors (read idiots) to give you the money needed for a data center.
Slashdot Mirror
I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. Always consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for legal advice and legal services.
I'm not trying to be rude, but you are terribly mistaken in your interpretation of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
SCOTUS has pretty much settled on a VERY liberal interpretation of the "interstate commerce" language. They can pretty much regulate any damn thing they want to. Only recently has the court been applying the 10th amendment as a restraint on Congress' commerce powers.
Why the hell do you think that your WiFi device has to comply with FCC regulations? Gee... what does that F stand for?
I'm not saying I agree with the current reality. Merely that the law is likely not what you think it is.
Slashdot readers are NOT lawyers.
Sometimes I don't even know why I bother.
You're missing the point completely. The whole point is that "interstate commerce" includes many more things than you would normally think of after a cursory reading.
Simply dismissing reality doesn't make reality less real. 'Belief' is unimportant. Federal laws with Supreme Court approval == reality.
I think the Wickard case is terrible; however, that's a real illustration of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. Always consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for legal advice and legal services.
". . . and in a gesture of support for the four men, hackers have begun assaulting. . ." would be much better.
Again... you're missing the point.
If you have contraband in your house and your neighbor breaks in, takes it, and gives it to the police, the police can still use it to prosecute you.
There is no 4th amendment protection even if the neighbor broke the law. Sure, you could sue your neighbor or press charges or whatever, but that doesn't change the fact that YOU are going to be prosecuted based on that contraband the neighbor found.
You're arguing a technicality that doesn't keep you out of jail.
I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. Always consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for legal advice and legal services. This conversation does not create attorney-client privilege.
LOL. It actually DOES take a law degree. Words in a legal sense quite often have a different 'meaning' than their use in the common vernacular.
What if I told you that Congress can regulate the amount of wheat grown by a farmer solely for personal use, on the grounds that his action affected interstate commerce because he would not be buying wheat on the open market? Even if it would take hundreds of farmers doing the same thing to affect the supply and demand equation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.
Did this go through an editing process?
"The trial is about to enter its fourth day, and in a gesture of support for the four men hackers have begun assaulting plaintiff websites, beginning with that of the The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry."
Dear lord... use some commas and make it two sentences.
+1 Informative
I am not a lawyer.
The 4th amendment matters unless that NY law requires law enforcement to exclude the illegally intercepted communications. If the law doesn't require exclusion of the evidence, then law enforcement can still use it to prosecute you--so what if it was acquired illegally? All that matters is the government didn't acquire the information illegally.
I think my comment was directly on point.
I am not a lawyer.
I am not a lawyer.
The 4th amendment only applies to government actors, or private citizens who are acting in such a capacity that they are deemed the equivalent of a government actor.
The 4th does NOT regulate private citizens' conduct. They could very well bust in to your place and hand over evidence to the police. It would not be a search nor a seizure if a nosy neighbor did it.
You would have to go after the person under some sort of tort action, and then try to convince the police (who they just greatly helped out) to prosecute them.
Regardless, the police have the evidence they need without any Constitutional violation.
I am not a lawyer
You're still assuming that a popular vote only would not change the amount of people who vote.
How so? This is the argument that is repeated ad nauseum.
How would presidents solely be elected by large cities in a popular vote situation?
If more people in rural areas vote against the urban areas, then the rural areas don't win? Sure you'll have more voter turn out in certain places, but now there will be incentive for everyone to vote. Rural or urban. Texas or California. And so on and so forth.
1) I really think the EC existed to make the 'vote' not really a 'vote' in the old days. It was just there to give the masses something to do, and let them think they were legitimately participating. The original EC could take the public's vote into account but still ultimately had the power to cast their votes the way they wanted to. Maybe it was a protection against theocracy?
2) I think the modern incarnation of the EC are a political convenience to Presidential candidates. With the EC in place, certain parties just give up on certain states and don't even bother campaigning there. In other words, Obama came to Texas during his presidential campaign rarely just the same as McCain. The state was pretty much locked for McCain. Why would either candidate expend a lot of time and effort wooing Texas voters? Without the EC, both candidates would focus HARD on a state with such a massive amount of population.
So basically, you prefer a system which lets a few swing states pick the president in any election, whether they have the most people or not. You also prefer a system that makes it simply easier for the politicians to campaign.
IANAL - but you might want to google "personal jurisdiction" and "subject matter jurisdiction."
And... the law's not black and white.
It was merely to let readers know that I wasn't claiming to be an infallible authority.
I just said zinc fingers were common DNA landmarks. That's completely wrong.
Apologies in advance.
Thanks for the clarification Sokoban...
I haven't had genetics in 5 or 6 years.
How much control do we have over the zinc finger nucleases? I thought zinc fingers were pretty common DNA landmarks.
I reached #1 thinking that ANY modification to a T-cell created some risk that the T-cells' immune response would be modfied. Granted, it would most likely be harmless, but we're talking about peoples' lives. Also, (i forget what it's called) but what if the reintroduction triggered the same type of hypersensitivity reaction similar to TSS?
Thanks for the clarification.
In response to T-Cell production, the HIV article on wikipedia states, "HIV primarily infects vital cells in the human immune system such as helper T cells (specifically CD4+ T cells), macrophages, and dendritic cells. HIV infection leads to low levels of CD4+ T cells through three main mechanisms: firstly, direct viral killing of infected cells; secondly, increased rates of apoptosis in infected cells; and thirdly, killing of infected CD4+ T cells by CD8 cytotoxic lymphocytes that recognize infected cells. When CD4+ T cell numbers decline below a critical level, cell-mediated immunity is lost, and the body becomes progressively more susceptible to opportunistic infections.HIV primarily infects vital cells in the human immune system such as helper T cells (specifically CD4+ T cells), macrophages, and dendritic cells. HIV infection leads to low levels of CD4+ T cells through three main mechanisms: firstly, direct viral killing of infected cells; secondly, increased rates of apoptosis in infected cells; and thirdly, killing of infected CD4+ T cells by CD8 cytotoxic lymphocytes that recognize infected cells. When CD4+ T cell numbers decline below a critical level, cell-mediated immunity is lost, and the body becomes progressively more susceptible to opportunistic infections."
There are 3 big risks / problems I see with this approach:
#1: The modified T-Cells attack the host after they are reintroduced. Think of it like auto-immune disease or transplanted-organ rejection. This could cause effects ranging from a mild food allergy to death. Anyone know how much damage 10 billion rogue T-cells could do? I sure don't; however, I do know that they aren't a straight 1 T-Cell used up for each 1 antigen.
#2: Unmodified T-cells attack the modified T-Cells because the surface of the modified T-Cells (i.e. the CCR5 protein) could possibly trigger an immune response. This would render the modified T-Cells kind of pointless. Seems like this would have better chance of working on patients with full blown AIDS rather than merely HIV+.
3: Modified T-Cells survive and are unaffected by HIV; however, these surviving modified T-Cells are just clones of the one original T-Cell that the lab modified. So in essence, you have injected the test subject with 10 billion of the same T-Cell. Unless the doctors have a way of massaging the genes on a representative sample of T-Cells, then this is kind of useless to the patient. What good are 10 billion T-Cells if they are each only good for tagging one antigen? Meaning, that the 10 billion T cells could only respond to a single stimulus, i.e. they could all only fight one strain of the common cold, but not anything else.
Disclaimer: I have a BA in bio from a public ivy; however, my GPA wasn't that great, and I didn't pursue a career in the field. I very well could be overlooking something substantial in immunology etc.
The test subjects have drug resistant HIV.
Mod parent up.
Please go RTFA before you just assume the apple panel is bad. Each panel in his review has pros and cons: the main compromise being viewing angle versus color shift.
To the Editors: did you not RTFA?
Only if your name is Hans...
If you really want to save 'memories,' just learn to use wget and start mirroring whatever you think is important. But you'll need to hire a few lawyers for copyright and other issues, find some investors (read idiots) to give you the money needed for a data center.
You can use their limited charting package and place orders on *nix.
1) vet's can keep DNA records of pets; and
2) cities find it economical to enforce poop-scoop laws by DNA testing dog shit.
Sheesh.
IANALY, but AMEN. I'm getting to where I absolutely can't stand Slashdot anymore. The ignorance is appalling.