there's something called the Constitution. It consists of more than just the Second Amendment. And it says in no uncertain terms that "cruel and unusual punishment" is no bueno.

Sure, except "what he taught" differs wildly depending on who you ask and even on which part of New Testament you're reading.

And which of the two dozen or so versions of the buy-bull you read. And then there's the whole body of apocryphal literature.

This is why.

Parents who refuse vaccines for their children without a goddamn good reason should have their children taken away. After all, if they're refusing vaccines, what other routine medical care are they withholding?

America is a writeoff. The needed innovation will take place in other countries. Sure, the once-mighty American giants (Motorola, Kodak, HP) will turn into patent trolls and try to block it, but it will be all for naught. Then they'll come, hat in hand, asking for yet another bailout.

to the military-industrial complex. How many of the 60 million or so uninsured Americans could have been provided with coverage for that money? I'm going to guess pretty close to all of them several times over. And this is just one program. If you'd have just let the Bush tax cuts for the extraordinarily wealthy expire, then you'd be in even better shape.

Personally, I gave up on America long ago. The country is a writeoff at this point, there's nothing left worth saving.

Fine the hell out of the "patriotic" corporations like Wal-Mart that hire illegals. $10,000 per worker per day is a good start.

Or, indeed, selling war materiel to the Nazis.

DHS has recommended dropping the colour-coded terror alert system.

Except that we don't know if it's a frivolous case yet. Why not? Because the complaint didn't give the defendants fair notice of which of their products allegedly infringed the patents in question. I agree that it's probably a dogshit case, but statements like yours are just plain ignorant. If it truly is a frivolous (i.e., completely unfounded, baseless or fraudulent) lawsuit, then Brother Paul will end up having to pay the other side's attorney fees as well as possibly additional sanctions. Make no mistake about it, courts are very well-equipped to deal with truly frivolous cases.

Damn, wish I had mod points.

Word of advice, though: Don't bother. Asperger's-addled coders in their 40s living in their parents' basements don't get that you can't fix the world's problems by recompiling your kernel for the 40,000th time.

Wrong.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a complaint is only required to have "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Prior to 2007, this had been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to mean that the complaint would only fail if, on its face, the pleader could prove no set of facts that would entitle him to relief.

In 2007, the Supreme Court tightened up these standards in the two cases Judge Pechman referenced in her ruling. Now, to comply with Rule 8, a pleader must allege enough specific facts in support of his claim so that relief is more than speculative. In other words, "Staples, you infringed my patent, you bastards!" no longer cuts the mustard.

Prior to 2007, though, the type of boilerplate pleading that Paul Allen's lawyers submitted was just fine. They continued to get away with it until, as now, someone decided to call them out on it. The suggestion probably came from a summer associate who mentioned, "argue Twombly and Iqbal" in passing to his boss.

Just doing my part to correct some of the rampant legal illiteracy on /.

Now where are all of the burnout ex-military PTSD cases going to work?

The boy is already dead, don't you get it? Sure, he's breathing, but he's almost certainly in diapers and is most likely being fed through a tube. If your idiotic religion says that preserving this kind of "life" will help you get closer to your nonexistent god through suffering, fine. This boy, however, is being tortured in the name of said idiotic religion and probably has no say in the matter. That is wrong and this doctor should have his licence pulled.

Having such a disease renders the boy ineligible for a heart transplant . . .

your name happens to be Mickey Mantle, eh?

Remember that? He got a new liver after he nearly drank himself to death. Normally a transplant committee wouldn't even open the file in such a circumstance, but money talks.