Isn't that the nature of an experiment, though? I mean really, when you do the experiment, you don't have proof to back up your claims. You have a hypothesis.

Now, in his case, there is actually some proof. Apparently, these kinds of stem cell treatments have been shown to be efficacious in animal trials, right? So actually, there is some basis for believing that they will do so in human trials as well.

At the same time, however, he doesn't have data showing that his treatments work. But he is gathering that data and publishing his studies in peer-reviewed journals. So, in fact, he is engaged in the science of medicine.

In a few years, if he's right, he'll be a pioneer in stem cell treatment. If he's wrong, he'll have to face the legal, ethical, and professional consequences of his failed experiment.

But, I'm sure you'll agree, it's a bit hasty to claim that he is "a con man bring shit that doesn't work to the people." As you must acknowledge, there is no proof EITHER WAY as to whether the treatments work in human beings.

Please, do try to restrain yourself from defaming people you don't know.

--AC

A bug that you know about. If, by chance, you find yourself in an accident, and get sued, I doubt a jury is going to look kindly on the "I passed up on the fix for the known bug because I thought it might brick my car" defense. If you pass on the deal, you are essentially taking full responsibility for Toyota's bad code.

That's not a good choice.

--AC

Technically, the 9th Circuit lacks authority to overturn Cruikshank.

--AC

Not exactly. They need a reasonable belief. See, because the Bill of Rights does not apply to private actors. Instead, the store-customer relationship is governed by longstanding principles of common law. At common law, you have the right to freedom of movement, and can sue individuals who wrongfully and intentionally limit your freedom of movement by confining you to a bounded area. This is the tort of false imprisonment. However, a store keeper has a limited privilege to infringe your right where he reasonably believes that doing so is necessary to protect his property. So the while the mere failure to show a receipt upon leaving a store may not be sufficient to justify a store owner's decision to detain you, if there are other facts that the store owner is aware of, such a detention may be legally authorized.

--AC

Technically, FRCP 5.2(a) only requires redaction of the first 5 digits. Since these digits are the ones that can easily be guessed, the redaction rules are ineffective at achieving their primary purpose, which is the prevention of the dissemination of an individuals SSN.

--G

It's even better than that. Consider that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure call for the redaction of all but the last four digits of an individual's social security number if it must be part of a court record (for example a discovery response).

Much of the discovery I have seen asks for the party's date of birth, place of birth, and social security number. While the rule "protects" the SSN from release by redacting the first five numbers, with a typical set of interrogatory responses, and the techniques pioneered by these researchers, I can get the holy trinity of identity theft information: SSN, DOB, and location of birth.

Even worse, most of the country now uses PACER for electronic filing in Federal Courts. For $.08/page, anyone can access filings in a Federal case. This seems ripe for abuse.

--AC

That's not going to happen.

You have to understand the legal arenas in which the cases you look at are decided. The strip-search case involved a state actor who engaged in conduct arguably prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. That gave rise to a 1983 action (a suit for damages based on a violation of your Constitutional Rights). In those kinds of cases, there is a defense called qualified immunity. It can be invoked by state actors to say "The rule I broke was not well settled by the Supreme Court. I did not know I was violating your rights. Because I did not know, and there was no way for me to know, I should not be held liable."

But that defense only comes up where a state actor is sued for violating someone's rights. This case involves a criminal prosecution against a private citizen. The private citizen does not have a "I didn't know" rule. In fact, the general rule is that ignorance of the law is not a defense. He can still defend himself by arguing that Tennessee's law is unconstitutional, but he cannot say that he did not know that what he was doing was illegal.

--AC

The Sun does revolve around the Earth.*

--AC

* For certain frames of reference.

And I fail at reading the entire subject line.

I'll have my order of crow, well done, with a side of my foot. And can you cover that in my own words?

--AC

It's not limited to Dems, thankyouverymuch.

Check out Steve Jackson Games, Inc. v. United States Secret Service. It's the case about a Secret Service Raid on SJ Games in which the Secret Service seized a number of computers, nearly crippling a business. The details can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jackson_Games,_Inc._v._United_States_Secret_Service.

For the record, the seizure of the computers took place in 1990, under the Bush (I) administration.

--AC

Is "Posting Anonymously" any less anonymous because I use a pseudonym online? At the end of the day, aren't most slashdotters really anonymous cowards?

I sign my posts --AC because there's little difference between anonymous internet postings behind a handle, and anonymous internet postings with no handle.

--AC

I am sorry that you find the annual foolery un-funny. I typically find portions of the April Fools Day slashdottery humorous, and other parts tedious. This particular bit got a chuckle today.

Perhaps you should consider altering your browsing habits on this one, entirely predictable, date. That way, you won't be tempted to bring down anyone else's enjoyment of the holiday.

--AC

Hell. It's even kinda fun.

--AC

Waivers have to be in writing witnessed by three parties?

Are you smoking Matanuska Thunder*uck?

Morons waive their rights on a daily basis without a writing or a witness. Any time an officer says "Hey, mind if I look in your backpack?" and the moron says "Nope, not at all officer!" the moron has waived his rights. All that is required to show a waiver of a right is evidence that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily allowed the officer to conduct a search. Hell, criminals waive their Miranda rights all the time, and by law, they have to be read those rights. If you're ever incarcerated, be smart and stfu. The only words that should ever come out of your mouth after your arrest are "I want a lawyer." If you need to pee, and you don't have a lawyer, wet yourself before speaking with the police. Because if you invoke your right to remain silent, and then you start talking to them, a trial judge may well find that you waived your rights.

--AC