+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...