Slashdot Mirror

First - oddly enough, SeaCode is a REAL CA corporation, and is currently active.

According to the Official California Business Search Online hosted by the CA State Government, SeaCode Inc. was incorporated on August 5, 2004. In fact, you can even get their CA Corporate Number. As mentioned in another post (which I can't locate at the moment), David R. Cook is listed as the "Agent of Service for Process". Question it? Do a search for Google (yes, the company name), and you'll find

Secondly - Does this filing really prove that SeaCode, Inc. really is what it's described as in the few articles floating around the 'Net?

Various other /. posts made after the parent post (Subject: Baloney), speculate whether or not the boat would be located just outside of LA County or San Diego. Again referencing the information from the Online resource, the company's mainland address is in San Diego. So, it's possible that the boat is anchored somewhere between US and Mexican Waters... in International Waters.

Sounds realistic and legit, no? Oh, but read on.

Thirdly - Here's another article on the SeaCode, Inc mystique. Another /. reader posted the quote "I heard it at a party last night here at the Gartner conference, then did a quick interview with them" - this article is the source. And, I agree with that /.-er, how can you trust someone who heard something at a party?

I agree with dpud1234 - if the Forbes article doesn't exist, then how do we know the deal is real? I can't seem to find any WSJ or AP-affiliated news on SeaCode Inc, not to mention a corporate website (anyone have any ideas?). Yahoo, MSN, NYT, nothing turns up.

Finally - It's somewhat inconclusive.

Disclaimer: I'm not an expert in nautical law and barely have a general understanding of how the waters are charted. Heck, I don't quite understand many things. All I am is the over-analyzing citizen who likes to learn more... and is probably taking this one too far.

Most states have been cracking down on rape for years. In California, the minimum sentence is three years, with six and eight years possible. (California Penal Code, Section 264) It's rare that other charges are not also added on, such as false imprisonment, assault, battery, and/or lewd acts.

Back in 1992, the average sentence in the US was almost ten years, with more than half of that served on average. (Source) As of 2002, the average sentence in state prisons was 104 months (a little under nine years) and 154 months (almost 13 years) in federal prison. Average actual stay in state prison is 90 months (a little over seven years); no numbers were available for average federal stays, but those are almost certainly longer. (Source)

In California, shoplifting of anything under $400 value is a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of at least $50 but no more than $1000, six months in county jail, or both.

In addition, a merchant may be entitled to compensatory damages if the merchandise is not returned in sellable condition, plus compensatory damages of up to $500.

California Penal Code, Sections 490, 490.1, and 490.5

However, if someone stole enough copies to pass out to random people on the street, the theft could rise into grand theft, which is a felony, and is punishable by a minimum of one year in county jail, or longer term in state prison.

Pretty nifty and not just talk, as anybody who lives in the area sees these cars in actual use.

--
Evan

The US Government has an ongoing project to cover the entire country with aerial photography. If you're in on of the regions that have already been photographed, it'll show up on Terraserver at 0.5m resolution or better. I'm in one of the preliminary regions - San Bernardino/Riverside county in California - and managed to snag some gorgeous aerial photos of the hiking trails near my workplace.

For California stuff, I find The California Spatial Information Library site to be more useful. The interface is a bit clunky, but they offer a wider variety of photos.

I do not complain, I stated a fact. The links were not in front of me, and after reading said links, all I saw were 2 charts, with no analysis. If you read the responses to the link http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=145518&cid=121 87185 you'll find that the comment is worthless, and if you check http://www.corporatism.netfirms.com/pay.htm#int visually, it's easy to see the correlation, furthermore, here are some links to show you how the minimum wage is harmful to employees in a free market system. http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2005/050143.htm http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa106.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage http://www.ncpa.org/hotlines/min/pd082100a.html
Let me guess, you're a democrat who's still whining about how your party has no ideas besides we're not republicans. Here's a joke for you:
A Republican and a Democrat were walking down the street when they came to a homeless person. The Republican gave the homeless person his Businesscard and told him to come to his office for a job. He then took 20 bucks out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless guy. The Democrat was very impressed , and when they came to another homeless person , he decided to help. He walked over to the homeless guy and gave him directions to the welfare office. He then reached into the Republicans pocket and gave the homeless person 50 bucks. Now you understand the difference between Democrats and Republicans.

But the strongest opposition to daylight savings time has traditionally come from farmers; evidently, it really mucks with their/their animals' schedules.

Some more of this history is discussed here.

Uhm, no, the time to pour money into battery research was about two centuries years ago. Do you know who invented the battery? This guy. Look at how old he is. Were he alive today, our batteries would be instantly recognizable to him. For all their new oxides and ions, the simple truth is that batteries are the same expensive, bulky, heavy, short-lived, inefficient and environmentally unfriendly means energy portability they always were. Spend your research money on fuel cells, an affordable hydrogen distribution network, whatever--just please stop beating the dead horse that is battery power.

Let's not get started on the irrationality of double and triple-taxing gasonline. Take a look if you don't believe me. If we eliminated the gasoline tax, the price for me (in Iowa) would drop 39.5%!

Now, I'm all in favor of reducing energy waste, but only when it makes good business sense. If tracking down and eliminating the waste costs more than the waste itself, then it's not worth it. And could somebody tell me where these gasoline taxes go? It couldn't be (cough) the EPA (cough cough) and its cronies, could it?

No! Not taxes lining a politician's pockets! Never in America!

I really hope that was tongue-in-cheek...but in case there really are people who think gas isn't taxed in the US: US Gasoline Taxes by State

I can mention "Chinese," "Walmart," "Halliburton," and "Fundamentalists" too.

Christian Fundamentalists and Creationism are not the biggest problems in American schools today. I'm not sure what the biggest problem is (I've begun to realize that my last hypothesis was rather narrowminded), however, I'm starting to think that a deep fear of controversy, and the lack of clear purpose are in a dead heat for it.

Schools seem unwilling to teach about ideas and issues people feel strongly about one way or another. Schools also can't seem to figure out if they exist strictly to do the bidding of the parents, or to have some measure of independence and personal destiny of their own. That ties in with the issue of controversy, though, I suppose. (Then there's also my pet issue with schools: the sink holes that are administrations)

On the issue of broadcast(and cable/satellite) standards, I have to agree with The Wilschon and wonder what this has to do with science, or the Moon. Nevertheless you're talking about one Representative(of 435) and one Senator(of 100). I don't know what kind of support they have for their ideas, but I'm not about to become panicked over the fact that they have them. Senators and Congressmen are allowed to have dumb ideas too... just so long as they don't get the votes to pass them into law.

As to stem cell research(which you can say), like one of the ACs said, he isn't outlawing it, just restricting Federal funding. We're funding it out here in California, though.

Yes, my headline is rather flamish(flemish?), but seriously man, the Dark Ages? If you're going to act as an alarmist, at least come up with some original thoughts.

California auto stations are required to provide compressed air, water, and a gauge for measuring air pressure to any paying customers at their station. They can be fined if their pumps do not work correctly for more than 5 consecutive days.

• Is it just me, or is this like the third story of personal information being stolen from California universities recently? WTF is going on over there?

The reason you keep hearing about data leaking from Californian universities is because they actually follow the law, unlike some federal agencies.

A better question to ask is: 'What about all the privacy violations that you don't get to hear about?

You need this law at the federal level.

In CA (as I just found out) all persons who engage in home/home business PC repair *MUST* be licensed by the state Bureau of Electronics and Appliance Repair at $165/year... no test.

(a) A person whose DNA profile has been included in the data bank pursuant to this chapter shall have his or her DNA specimen and sample destroyed and searchable database profile expunged from the data bank program pursuant to the procedures set forth in subdivision (b) if the person has no past or present offense or pending charge which qualifies that person for inclusion within the state's DNA and Forensic Identification Database and Data Bank Program and there otherwise is no legal basis for retaining the specimen or sample or searchable profile.

(b) Pursuant to subdivision (a), a person who has no past or present qualifying offense, and for whom there otherwise is no legal basis for retaining the specimen or sample or searchable profile, may make a written request to have his or her specimen and sample destroyed and searchable database profile expunged from the data bank program if:
(1) Following arrest, no accusatory pleading has been filed within the applicable period allowed by law charging the person with a qualifying offense as set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 296 or if the charges which served as the basis for including the DNA profile in the state's DNA Database and Data Bank Identification Program have been dismissed prior to adjudication by a trier of fact;
(2) The underlying conviction or disposition serving as the basis for including the DNA profile has been reversed and the case dismissed;
(3) The person has been found factually innocent of the underlying offense pursuant to Section 851.8, or Section 781.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code; or
(4) The defendant has been found not guilty or the defendant has been acquitted of the underlying offense.

'In California, police will be able in 2008 to take DNA samples from anyone arrested for a felony, whether the person is convicted or not, under a law approved by voters in November.'

(a)A person whose DNA profile has been included in the data bank pursuant to this chapter shall have his or her DNA specimen and sample destroyed and searchable database profile expunged from the data bank program pusuant to the procedures set forth in subdivision (b) if the person has no past or present offense or pending charge which qualifies that person [for inclusion] and there is otherwise no legal bases for retaining the specimen or sample or searchable profile.

(b)Pursuant to subdivision (a), a person who has no past or present qualifying offense, and for whom there otherwise is no legal basis for retaining the specimen or sample or searchable profile, may make a written request to have his or her specimen and sample and searchable database profile expunged from the data bank program if:

1. Following arrest, no accusatory pleading has been filed within the applicable period allowed by law charging the person with a qualifying offense as set forth [earlier] or if the charges which served as the basis for including the DNA profile [in the data bank] have been dismissed prior to adjudication by a trier of fact;
2. The underlying conviction or disposition serving as the basis for including the DNA profile has been reversed and the case dismissed;
3. The person has been found factually innocent of the underlying offense [pusuant to statute]; or
4. The defendent has been found not guilty or the defendent has been acquitted of the underlying offense.

(c)(1)The person requesting the data bank entry to be expunged must send a copy of his or her request to the trial court of the county where the arrest occured, or that entered the conviction or rendered disposition in the case, to the [lab], and to the prosecuting attorney of the county in which he or she was arrested or, convicted, or adjudicated, with proof of service on all parties. The court has the discretion to grant or deny the request for expungement. The denial of a request for expungement is a nonappealable order and shall not be reviewed by petition or writ.

Emphasis mine. So even if you jump through the damn complicated hoops, a judge can just say "No" and you are done--it's there for good. That's some great law, California! As for the earlier poster that thinks this is OK because we leave DNA everywhere anyway, like Gattaca--that movie did not represent this situation as a GOOD THING. It was a dystopian vision, not something to begrudgingly accept.

Actually, the California state constitution specifically lists a right to privacy -- it's in the second sentence of the document.

That's because lane splitting is legal in CA.

He'll violate this law AB 301 passed in 2003-2004

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/03-04/bill/asm/ab_0301- 0350/ab_301_bill_20030529_amended_sen.html

Of course, there's a lot of exceptions.

CA state tax can be filed for free here

Its takes about 10 mins to file it

That is rather the point: yes. More exactly, under the California State Constitution, journalists and publishers are immune in many cases from being held in contempt of court (and thus jailed or fined) for failure to comply with a subpoena to reveal their sources. (An exception is recognized where this would interfere with a criminal defendant's US 6th Amendment right to a fair trial.)

From what I can see, journalists are not immune to subpoena, they're immune from the consequences of telling a judge "no" when they get a subpoena for the identity of an anonymous source. The judge can still issue the subpoena in hopes that the journalist will comply (perhaps after getting permission from the source), but can't do squat if the journalist refuses.

Of course, if you look up Article 1, Section 2, it is clearly delineated that newspaper, magazine, wire service, TV, and radio journalists and publishers are protected. On the other hand, it is not clear if a blogger falls into any of these categories-- which were written into the constitution before blogging became big. A strict constructionist judge might well say "no, bloggers are fair game", while a more interpretive judge might well say, "they seem to be delineating a category here that bloggers appear to fit into; hands off." And this is why we have appeals courts, and why appeals judges buy ibuprofen in bulk. =)

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, I just read case law for entertainment.

That is rather the point: yes. More exactly, under the California State Constitution, journalists and publishers are immune in many cases from being held in contempt of court (and thus jailed or fined) for failure to comply with a subpoena to reveal their sources. (An exception is recognized where this would interfere with a criminal defendant's US 6th Amendment right to a fair trial.)

From what I can see, journalists are not immune to subpoena, they're immune from the consequences of telling a judge "no" when they get a subpoena for the identity of an anonymous source. The judge can still issue the subpoena in hopes that the journalist will comply (perhaps after getting permission from the source), but can't do squat if the journalist refuses.

Of course, if you look up Article 1, Section 2, it is clearly delineated that newspaper, magazine, wire service, TV, and radio journalists and publishers are protected. On the other hand, it is not clear if a blogger falls into any of these categories-- which were written into the constitution before blogging became big. A strict constructionist judge might well say "no, bloggers are fair game", while a more interpretive judge might well say, "they seem to be delineating a category here that bloggers appear to fit into; hands off." And this is why we have appeals courts, and why appeals judges buy ibuprofen in bulk. =)

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, I just read case law for entertainment.

OK, I learned some math. Here's a little math lesson.

Inelastic goods tend to have a lump sum, or flat tax (as opposed to a flat rate tax). Cigarettes, in every state in the US, are taxed by the pack. And guess what, gasoline? Taxed by the gallon And holy crap, look at this, I'm looking at my SBC local phone bill right now, and the tax is charged by the line. A portion of my long distance tax charges is actually done as a percentage, but guess what, they're changing that to a flat rate, too. And hang on, I've got my Adelphia broadband bill here, and it's got a flat rate monthly tax too!

So in your example, where they sell twice as much at 1/3 the price, tax revenue would be exactly... twice as much. So I'm looking forward to the second insallment of your math lesson where you contue to explain how I'm such an idiot for thinking that if people buy more of these things, the tax revenue will increase, and enlighten me as to how it will "definitely be less." Of course, without knowing the supply and demand curves, you can't know if it would be more or less even if it were a percentage tax, and in almost all cases, you're wrong, because total sales almost always increase when prices drop. But that's another story.

So, instead of spending $50 on a private ISP, if they spend $25 of their taxes on "free" government service

Try supposing it's $100 for the government's service, and that it ends up going out all the time, being a fifth the speed of the $50 private service, and if you think tech support is lousy these days, imagine having to drive somewhere and stand in line for 5 hours just to have them tell you they don't care and won't help.

According to IDC, 5 million americans have a wifi card now. That's about 1.6% of the population. Of course, not all of those are 802.11 b to work with these networks, but let's round up in the government's favor. Philadelpia, the first US city to try this, has a population of about 1.5 million. Philadelpia's spending $10 million on setup and expects operating costs of $1.5 million. Thus, if Philadelphians own wireless cards at about an average rate, then about 24,000 of them have cards. So for the first year, they're spending $458 of tax money per resident who could even possibly try to make use of the service. Of course, this is just to put one wireless hub on each block; what pecent of people do you think could actually get service without leaving thier home? Our 802.11 hub only reaches some rooms in our house, and it's base station is right here. The people installing the networks admit that the base stations only reach about 100 feet, and that's when they aren't going through brick walls. So I wouldn't be surprised if their first year cost is closer to $4,000 per regular user. But other people will be paying that money, instead of them paying $50 for their own access, so it's good, right? Of course, more people will buy 802.11 cards in the future if there's "free" broadband available, so the numbers should improve, if the government can keep program costs under control.

Just out of curiosity, do you think those 24,000 out of 1,500,000 who have computers with 802.11 are among the poor? How many do you think have incomes at least two standard deviations above the mean? You do realize this is a tax on everyone, including the poor, to provide services overwhelmingly consumed by the rich, so they don't have to pay the fee themselves?

"So, instead of spending $50 on a private ISP, if they spend $25 of their taxes on "free" government service, they would have mo

An excerpt from the relevant section:
22400. (a) No person shall drive upon a highway at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic unless the reduced speed is necessary for safe operation, because of a grade, or in compliance with law.

So, you cannot be ticketed for complying with the speed limit.

At the expense of shops who were using no computer at all. Or abacuses.

I would laugh if the situation weren't so serious for my company. We are on the verge of a disaster.

Chisembop manual sales have been flat for 5 years.

Adding machine sales are down 38%.

Calculator sales are down 52%, including the newest hand held models.

Slide rule sales are down 79%.

Analytical engine sales are down 93%.

Tabulator sales are down 98%.

Our abacus miniaturization project is running into problems with prior art by a "major" competitor.

To top it off, our hope for a Multitronic breakthrough appears to have dangerous side effects after four models that were outright failures.

Unless we can pump up our mentat outsourcing service, or complete development of our Make me a Rainman! kit, we're doomed! Doomed I tell you! :(

Select item 5, "How to Comment on Bills", to submit a comment. Choose Assembly bill 1681.

You can check the status of the bill, subscribe to it, and send comments by going here and entering current (2005-2006) session, Assembly, and 1681 for the bill number.

California Sponsor: Asm. Fran Pavley (assemblymember.pavley@assembly.ca.gov)
Michigan Sponsor: Rep. Jim Howell (jhowell@house.mi.gov)
Texas Sponsor: Sen. John Corona (john.carona@senate.state.tx.us)
Virginia Sponsor: Rep. Joe T. May (Del_May@house.state.va.us)

Let your voices be heard!

For a California Driver's License you need to provide proof of birth date and legal presense in the country. IIRC, Illinois and Florida were the same.

For a US passport you need proof of US citizenship (a birth certificate or SS card) and a photo ID or someone with a photo ID who is a citizen and is willing to confirm your identity.

For a Social Security card you need a photo ID.

So it sounds like if you hang on to your birth certificate, you've got all you need to get any ID you want. Which hopefully makes sense to everyone...

Would this not be signed by his attorney, who might be able to argue that he took his client's word on it (I don't see anything in the declaration about a minimum amount of research needed).

Now if someone were to send a polite and informative letter to his attorney (with a proof of delivery), this attorney could be in a world of hurt if he proceeded.

According to a guy on this thread, this is the attorney.

My objective was to be able to zoom by all those fat cats in their Mercedes' and BMWs and Lexi (plural of Lexus), and only a CNG powered car meets that objective.
(Electric cars have a limited range and their batteries have a limited lifetime, and I never considered them a viable alternative.)

California, 1999 emission 362.8 million tons CO2 (link). Land area is 155,959 sq.m. (403,932 sq.km.). Population (2000) 33,8 M. (link).

Picking European country with similar population... Spain, 40.3 million people, 499.542 sq km (2004) 247.2 million tons CO2 (1998, link),

The economy is bloated and full of beurocracy, if it weren't for government subsidy (State, Local and Federal) the Central Valley (Salad bowl) would have no chance.

Currently South American Farmers are beating the pricepoint by a few pennies for most grown foods in supermarkets. FDR era new deal bullshit subsidies are still around. People need to wake up and smell the gravy train that's been going on for a very long time. If these illegal tariffs continue, the bubble will be much bigger when it bursts.

There needs to be an econmic reformation in California.

Housing prices in the central valley are artificially inflated due to the steep rise in population.

The stress on schools and local hospitals combined with the huge crime rates in the Salinas Valley paint the picture pretty well. libraries are forced to close down, the city can't afford to keep them running. Schools cut vital programs to afford expensive survielance systems to cut back on the crime.

The citizenship by birthright is a nice ideal, but it's not a good way to control migration with open borders. People abuse this system. Parents of citizens who are non-citizens themselves is a byproduct of a fucking loophole. There is a lot of this. 35% of the Central Valley are illegal occupants. That's 1/3rd more people on the roads, 1/3rd more people occupying homes, and 1/3rd more kids in schools.

It's also been slightly more than 1/3rd more crime. But no more than the MOE.

A page from most other nation's constitution might be useful. A stipulation that requires one parent be a citizen.

It's good to see that Bush was concerned enough to throw .01% of the national debt at such a growing problem.

Still, just symptoms of what packing people into such a small area (#47 in population density) and paying them very little can do to a people.

Doh... wrong link... try this one

Find out if the Peace Corps sends other people either to where she is doing her stint, or if someone will pass through. Send the PDA with them, and have her meet them at the airport. This won't solve the theft in situ problem, but she probably has quite a few personal possessions in that category already, so it is not like an unaddressed problem. At least if you get a PDA to her, shipping her bytes consists of just sending a flash media card in a letter.

She might not live near an Internet cafe, so printing out the material might not be feasible, or might be prohibitively expensive, depending on how much she wants to print out.

I think PDA-based solutions might even beat out microfiche at this time, which surprised me. It was difficult to find out how much Computer Output on Microform (COM) costs; closest page to prices I could find seemed to imply that there is a $175 USD setup fee per run. This page seems to imply a $0.02/page cost. Maybe the Canadian government agency price of $0.12 CAD per image says I'm completely wrong, and if you can ship someone a TIFF file of the entire microfiche, they can turn around the microfiche to you for really dirt cheap. Or they might be talking about a TIFF image per page, and not per microfiche. I would be astonished if it was not priced per page, and really was $0.12 CAD per microfiche. If it was that cheap, then I would reconsider a PDA based solution if cheap microfiche readers can be found.

Oh, alright. Google is not all knowing. Curiosity got the better of me, so I broke down and called Microfacs and spoke with a nice guy named Rick. Minimum pricing is $0.05 USD per page, and they think 2,000 pages is a very small order. For that, the deal goes like this. You ship them single page TIFF images. You get about a week turnaround, and it is in the form of 16mm microfilm. If you want microfiche, that costs extra. I didn't ask, because $0.05 per page sounded like about the limit for the low budgets we are talking about; I'm guessing that $0.10 per page for microfiche. More expensive than a copy shop, but a heck of a lot cheaper to ship around I would imagine.

Recondtioned readers don't go below $130 USD, although some student projects seem to be aware of the advantages of shipping bulk human readable data around on microform (they are aming for a $20 USD reader, for example). There are handheld microfiche readers that use sunlight, but they cost about the same as a new low-end PDA, so you would still have in situ theft concerns. Used readers have $50 USD opening bids on eBay in the here and now. This is all for microfiche readers; search around for 16mm format microfilm readers that are sunlight or battery capable (if she isn't around reliable electricity), though I'm not sure about the prudence of using for long periods of time any readers that you have to peer through optics.

It currently seems tough to beat the TCO combination of an eBay'd Palm, solar panel, and SD media if you are talking about shipping all of Project Gutenberg to her. Microform readers cost more than a cheap PDA, even used and reconditioned, and the reproduction costs can really swing the cost picture into the PDAs favor (even assuming a couple get stolen) when you start dealing with 10,000 pages (roughly the number of proofed Project Gutenberg pages) and up. If she is around re

BTW, I have two old monitors that I plan on paying to recycle pretty soon instead of irresponsibly throwing them in the dump. But I don't expect the government to tell me I need to pay a fee upfront to do this.

And im not blaming Bu$h, but the coperate infiltrators in the senate.

The American public are more impressed by a slick PR campaign than by where their pols stand on the issues.. they are willing to vote someone in on name recognition than on a real knowlege of who that person is and what they stand for.. when you need megabucks to pay for a campaign that you may win or lose, then you have to whore yourself out to the highest bidder, and this means the megacorps.. (in my country it's a tad different, they get in and then plunder the treasury.. but the slick campaign remains)

so its our fault. after all, no one is FORCING us to vote those idiots in. if people were willing to vote responsibly, then there would be no need for slick campaigns, only a willingness to actually work for the good of the people.. until then power to the sheeple!!!

First, the thief needs to get close enough to you in order to pick up the transmission. I don't know about anyone else, but I try to make it a point that people I don't know are kept a little more than arm's length. (With the exception of a nice gal D-cup and up without implants.)

Next, the thief has to know EXACTLY which car you drive. Aside from going through the trouble of making the fake key with chip, they would look quit stupid (and suspicious) going to a parking lot and doing the trial-and-error method.

Third, they would have to know where & when you leave your car parked so as they can have the time to make the attempt to steal it without your notice.


Kind of alot of trouble to go through for the average car. Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about it unless you drive an expensive sports car. Plus nowadays people put in stero systems worth more than their car.. so the thieves (looking for the quick kill) would rather take the stereo.

However, I did hear of thieves managing to get keys through some dealerships by providing false proof of ownership. I believe all they would need is the VIN number. And in California, all they would need to get the VIN is go here http://www.smogcheck.ca.gov/vehtests/pubtstqry.asp x and insert the plate number. (I hope I'm wrong about this.)

I am upset about people getting fired in all positions when their company is making profits

Nope, it's still California, who is allocating triple that amount to stem cell research.

The text of Proposition 71 which proposes a 3 billion dollar bond sale to fund stem cell research in the state. It even says in your linked article that New Jersey isn't trying to outdo California's 3 billion.

It was me... sorry, its just because they raised the minimum wage

While I am not a lawyer, I see this type of statute as having no legal authority as it attempts to criminalize conduct which is either potentially legal (as might be in the case of fair use) or which Congress has already set penalties and has specifically pre-empted any form of state protection. I believe these type laws would be found unconstitutional or invalid as having been overridden by Congress. It was made clear by the 1978 law and later changes including the Berne Convention Accession that Congress wanted to eliminate any state control over copyright with the exception of most* sound recordings which were fixed prior to February 15, 1972 which it has declared are not copyrightable (and to which states will have no power to provide any form of copyright protection after February 15, 2047.)

*"Most" being recordings which were not subject to copyright protection under the Urugay Round Agreements Act for materials otherwise subject to copyright in other countries and would have been in the Public Domain here but whose copyright is restored as a result of that act, subject to specific registration under the Urugay agreement, to give those who were legally using material notice that the works now have copyright protection or have had it restored if it lapsed.

While I am not a lawyer, I see this type of statute as having no legal authority as it attempts to criminalize conduct which is either potentially legal (as might be in the case of fair use) or which Congress has already set penalties and has specifically pre-empted any form of state protection. I believe these type laws would be found unconstitutional or invalid as having been overridden by Congress. It was made clear by the 1978 law and later changes including the Berne Convention Accession that Congress wanted to eliminate any state control over copyright with the exception of most* sound recordings which were fixed prior to February 15, 1972 which it has declared are not copyrightable (and to which states will have no power to provide any form of copyright protection after February 15, 2047.)

*"Most" being recordings which were not subject to copyright protection under the Urugay Round Agreements Act for materials otherwise subject to copyright in other countries and would have been in the Public Domain here but whose copyright is restored as a result of that act, subject to specific registration under the Urugay agreement, to give those who were legally using material notice that the works now have copyright protection or have had it restored if it lapsed.

The following contributed to Sen. Murray in the 2003-2004 election season:

Disney Worldwide Services, Inc. - $1,000, 8/23/2004
Motion Picture Association of America CA PAC (MPAA) - $1,000, 8/16/2004
Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc. - $158.02, 5/27/2004
Recording Artists Coalition - $5,300, 6/30/2004
Fox Group - $1,000, 6/15/2004
Paramount Pictures Group - $1,000, 5/27/2004
Motion Picture Association Of America CA PAC (MPAA) - $1,000, 5/27/2004
Warner Brothers PAC - $1,000, 5/27/2004
Don Henley, musician (The Eagles) - $5,300, 3/4/2003
Howard S. Welinsky, Warner Brothers Senior Vice President - $500, 3/6/2003
American Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers (ASCAP) - $1,000, 3/20/2003
National Association of Theatre Owners of California/Nevada - $1,000, 3/20/2003
Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc. - $5,004.93, 3/20/2003
Glenn Frey, musician (The Eagles) - $5,000, 4/2/2003
Warner Brothers PAC - $1,000, 4/1/2003
Paramount Pictures Group - $1,000, 4/2/2003
Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI) - $1,000, 4/24/2003
Fox Group - $1,000, 5/15/2003
Disney Worldwide - $1,000, 5/27/2003
American Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers (ASCAP) - $1,000, 2/11/2004
Disney Worldwide Services, Inc. - $1,000, 2/9/2004
Disney Worldwide Services, Inc. - $1,000, 9/30/2003
Clear Channel Worldwide - $1,000, 10/2/2003
Microsoft - $2,000, 10/23/2003
Vivendi Universal Entertainment LLP - $2,000, 12/12/2003
Motion Picture Association of America CA PAC (MPAA) - $1,000, 12/15/2003
Paramount Pictures Group - $1,000, 12/10/2003

There were also several telecoms, cable companies, entertainment industry agents, etc. The Recording Artists Coalition (Henley and Frey are members) may or may not be evil; your call.

Writing an a file transfer program is about to become illegal. That's about the only way to describe the latest bill to be put forward by California Senator Murray. It is of course a law sponsored by the music and video industries, but it is one of the worst so far. What the law says essentially is that if you as the developer of a piece of software that transmits files does not ensure that you "exercise reasonable care" to not send copyrighted material. Here is the meaty part of SB 96, as introduced, Murray. Peer-to-peer networks: file sharing software.

This bill would provide that any person or entity that sells,
advertises, or distributes peer-to-peer file sharing software, as
defined, that enables the user to electronically disseminate
recordings or audiovisual works over the Internet who fails to
exercise reasonable care in preventing use of the software to commit
an unlawful act with respect to a commercial recording or audiovisual
work, or a violation of provisions related to production,
possession, distribution, or advertisement of obscene matter
depicting a minor under 18 years of age, or tampering with,
interference with, damage to, or unauthorized access to computer data
or systems, is punishable by a fine not exceeding $2,500,
imprisonment in a county jail for a period not to exceed one year, or
by both that fine and imprisonment.

So, a year in prison and a $2,500 fine. All that for any transfer of a copyrighted file between two people. Of course the implication also arises that this could be per use as are other laws already in place.

How ludicrous is this law? Well, suppose we substitute software with CD/DVD. That means that any CD replication equipment manufacturer is tasked with scanning the material to write to ensure it is not copyrighted. Wait! It is about the software so this does imply that through electronic means a CD/DVD burner manufacturer has to look for copyrights. Wow!

But wait, it gets better, note this piece: "obscene matter depicting a minor under 18 years of age, or tampering with, interference with, damage to, or unauthorized access to computer data or systems". That means you need to detect child porn, viruses, and even spyware. Double wow!!! Of course, I am sure that Senator Murray's argument starts with child porn and viruses but the real agenda is the record and movie companies. Guess what? Senator Murray is a member of the Select Committee on the Entertainment Industry. Does that surprise anyone? I'd feel better if he really was fighting child porn.

Of course there is no definition of "exercise reasonable care" which is a mockery we have seen in a lot of other laws. What is 'reasonable'? How would you detect

But this law gets worse by its broad meaning. What is the definition of "peer-to-peer"? P2P is really person-to-person via an electronic means by definition and context of this law. This makes web browsers, TCP/IP, HTTP, FTP, telnet, and dozens of other technologies that move bits around not only illegal, but can put a CEO in prison. Hear that Steve, Bill, Linus, and Scott? You are all going down for your heinous crimes!

If you live in California, you need to fight to stop this law.

This bill is sponsored/written by the same guy that brought us SB1506 which has been approved by California Senate & Assembly and Governor Arnold and became law 19 days ago.

To the non-technical (who don't understand that the entire internet is p2p and ftp is just as guilty as Morpheus), that bill was more bizzare than SB 96, so expect it to pass unless strongly opposed.

It took SB1506 from Feb 9 to Sept 21 2004 to work its way through the CA Legislature.

Bills need three readings & one month after the first before they can move too far. Feb 17th is the earliest that this one can be heard in committee.

SB 1506 went to the Sen. committees on Judiciary and Public Safety first. SB 96 is currently in Rules, but all bills go there for re-assignment.

I'll write to my reps Simitian and Laird today. They stream RealAudio of the hearings.

This one got caught early. Let's work to kill it NOW.

This bill is sponsored/written by the same guy that brought us SB1506 which has been approved by California Senate & Assembly and Governor Arnold and became law 19 days ago.

To the non-technical (who don't understand that the entire internet is p2p and ftp is just as guilty as Morpheus), that bill was more bizzare than SB 96, so expect it to pass unless strongly opposed.

It took SB1506 from Feb 9 to Sept 21 2004 to work its way through the CA Legislature.

Bills need three readings & one month after the first before they can move too far. Feb 17th is the earliest that this one can be heard in committee.

SB 1506 went to the Sen. committees on Judiciary and Public Safety first. SB 96 is currently in Rules, but all bills go there for re-assignment.

I'll write to my reps Simitian and Laird today. They stream RealAudio of the hearings.

This one got caught early. Let's work to kill it NOW.

This bill is sponsored/written by the same guy that brought us SB1506 which has been approved by California Senate & Assembly and Governor Arnold and became law 19 days ago.

To the non-technical (who don't understand that the entire internet is p2p and ftp is just as guilty as Morpheus), that bill was more bizzare than SB 96, so expect it to pass unless strongly opposed.

It took SB1506 from Feb 9 to Sept 21 2004 to work its way through the CA Legislature.

Bills need three readings & one month after the first before they can move too far. Feb 17th is the earliest that this one can be heard in committee.

SB 1506 went to the Sen. committees on Judiciary and Public Safety first. SB 96 is currently in Rules, but all bills go there for re-assignment.

I'll write to my reps Simitian and Laird today. They stream RealAudio of the hearings.

This one got caught early. Let's work to kill it NOW.

why not let your state senator know how you feel about this? If they don't know how absurd these laws are, why don't we take it upon ourselves to tell them?
Just a thought.

Excellent thread. Here's a link to the Senator e-mail list.
Senator E-mail List