And they pawned it. UT now owns you.

i keep my inner child on the outside. the inner adult is the elusive one.

So UT only owns what your were; not what you are.

"Can a gene be patented?"
 

The last paragraph in HQ's link:

Pennsylvania judge Mark Ciavarella Jr. has been sentenced to almost three decades in jail after conspiring with private prisons to trade kids for cash.

In this case I'd lean death penalty, let's see how much actual time is served.

http://intellihub.com/2013/05/22/pen...rU_wk.facebook

If we are going to have prisons, I don't think mixing in the profit motive is a good idea.

In this case I'd lean torture. What he did to those kids is indefensible.:mad2:

I am flabbergasted !!! The earth must have changed it's direction of rotation.

Today, I agreed with US Supreme Court Judge Anthonin Scalia :eek:

The USSC has handed down a 5-4 decision to allow "DNA cheek swabs"
to be taken by police from anyone without a warrant and before
the person has been charged, let alone convicted with a crime.
Scalia voted in the minority.

Ostensibly, the police want to do this to "identify" the person,
but then they use DNA to check a database of previous crimes.

Here are two NY Times editorials opposing and supporting the decision:

DNA and Suspicionless Searches
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Why the Court Was Right to Allow Cheek Swabs
By AKHIL REED AMAR and NEAL K. KATYAL
Sam Alito's parents are so proud.

You seem to be under the impression that we have a 4th amendment.

We gave it up years ago.

Attachment 44273

My response precisely.

When I recovered consciousness, I pondered these two questions:

What will be done with the DNA sample taken from a person under arrest, but who is later released? Will that sample and the name, rank and serial number of the person from whom it was taken be added to the database, along with <NULL> as the entry for crimes committed?

A fingerprint is fairly reliable evidence that the person to whom the print belongs was actually present where the fingerprint was found. DNA is vastly more transportable than a fingerprint. I'm not challenging the validity of DNA/fingerprint evidence, that's a thread's worth all by itself. I'm saying "planting" a fingerprint is very difficult, but "planting" DNA seems trivial. I wonder what finding dna at a crime scene will imply, regardless if it matches the sample taken from a person under arrest. (Now that I think about it, this question has little to do with the recent SCOTUS decision.) I think there are some situations that are pretty unambiguous, like DNA from semen in a vagina. But the advances in technology make getting a legitimate reading from smaller and smaller samples will continue. I heard today that it's possible in some cases to get a DNA reading from a fingerprint. Wow.

In his other job, he is a priest.

Corporations can own genes, so, why can't the powers that be 'caretake' DNA sequences?

Apparently (legally) there's no reason at all why 'they' shouldn't or can't.

I'm lookin' to re-jigger my flesh so as to stymie the ghouls.

#

"What will be done with the DNA sample taken from a person under arrest, but who is later released?"

Best to assume the worst, I think.

That sample will be warehoused/archived along with all other information collected on the individual for use 'at a later date' when the 'proper circumstances arise'.

It's not over til the fat lady sings...


NY Times
July 25, 2013
U.S. Asks Court to Limit Texas on Ballot Rules
<snip>

A major difficulty in finding the proper role (?) for government is the government's constant de-legitimization of itself in areas that it would logically have authority.

Sad situation.

Of course any time you have a 95 year-old retirement home resident sitting in a chair,
wielding a cane, a shoehorn, a walker, AND one of those disappearing butcher knives,
that's enough to strike fear into the hearts of any SWAT team.

After all, at the end of the day, they want to go home to their families too.

But then, that's the trade off you get when you militarize a civilian police force.