Since a judge can hold you in contempt indefinitely, I highly doubt that, unless its murder. You're fighting.
this took a very dark turn. Seek counseling.
I think you missed something here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105695/
Good points, though I meant more targeted at the low end of the healthcare spectrum. While I agree torts law is horribly messed up, I think there's enough people out there who can't afford the current medical price point that there'd be a market for the "lower tier" medical treatments and equipment if offered. OF course that raises whole new societal justice and ethical issues...
You were half right: "Before joining the New York Times, Mr. Duhigg was a reporter with The Los Angeles Times. A native of New Mexico, he studied history at Yale and received a Masters in Business Administration from Harvard." http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/d/charles_duhigg/index.html?inline=nyt-per He's an arts grad, but also an MBA. I hear you have to know a thing or two about math to get one of those. Not that I think he's not clueless, though.
But if they can do something like this for field use, why can't they create cheap medical equipment (and thus lower costs) for US facilities?
Bizarrely (and I'm sure no one will believe this), my friend is working for this particular grad student doing translation for one of his other sites. He does seem to be legitimately trying to build them into actual discussion forums on the pros and cons of the Olympic bid cities.
iptables -A FORWARD writes "Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. of Utah reportedly plans to sign the ICPA (Internet Community Ports Act) into law. The ICPA proposes that online content be divided by port, rather like TVs have channels with adult and family content, so that certain internet ports will be "clean" and others will be "dirty." Thus, they hope to remove objectionable content from port 80 and require that it be moved elsewhere (port 666 was already taken by Doom, sorry), so that people could more easily block objectionable content, or have their ISPs block the ports with objectionable content for them. This law was originally suggested by the CP80 group, which is chaired by Ralph Yarro, who also chairs the SCO Group. That probably explains why they didn't choose to adopt RFC 3514, instead."
Kermit (666) writes "Yesterday, Viacom sued YouTube and its owner Google for damages in excess of $1 billion for infringing Viacom's copyrights. Viacom is the media giant which owns television programming including MTV, Nickelodeon, Comedy Central and movie studios including Dreamworks and Paramount. Viacom claims that YouTube has actively infringed Viacom's copyrighted works by publicly performing these movies on its website, and by permitting copies to be embedded in websites across the Net. Central to Viacom's claim is how the court will interpret provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Will Viacom win, or will Google be granted a "safe harbor"? Read this excellent analysis by David Mirchin to find out."
jeevesbond writes to tell us that Jon Dudas, the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the US Patent and Trademark Office has laid out a plan for patent reform. "Speaking at the Tech Policy Summit in San Jose, Dudas said that characterizing the patent system as hurting innovation is a 'fundamentally wrong' way to frame the debate. 'I have traveled around the world, and every nation is thinking how it can model [intellectual property governance] after the U.S,' Dudas said. 'It's a proven system, over 200 years old. The Supreme Court, Congress and policy makers are involved [in cases and legal reforms] not because the system is broken. It's not perfect, and we should be having the debate on how to improve.'"