Slashdot Mirror

Re-read the constitution, realize that Benjamin Franklin (the architect of that document) was a genius

Actually, as author of the Virginia Plan that was the de facto agenda for the Philadelphia convention, and one of the later authors of the Federalist Papers defending the final document, James Madison was the primary architect, and the one usually credited as "Father of the Constitution".

As for your modest proposal, I suggest you review your history of the French Revolution. Take them out and have them shot... but dot the legal i's and cross the t's first.

Oh, and "put down the crack pipe", troll.

as a general tip on telemarketers grab a copy of http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cg i?TITLE=47&PART=64&SECTION=1200&TYPE=TEXT

  TITLE 47--TELECOMMUNICATION CHAPTER I--FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (CONTINUED) PART 64_MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS--Table of Contents Subpart L_Restrictions on Telemarketing and Telephone Solicitation Sec. 64.1200 Delivery restrictions.

print it out and keep it by the phone (bonus tip include a partners and any that you share your list with line in the remove you from your list "request")

oh btw a DNC "request" drops out the "established business relationship" and does not have any exemptions so if you get a call from the "Joe Shlock for Chairman of Vice campain" a DNC blocks all callers from the campain
extra bonus tip start recording the calls

In Personam Actions: Attachment and Garnishment

(1) When Available; Complaint, Affidavit, Judicial Authorization, and Process. In an in personam action:

(a) If a defendant is not found within the district, a verified complaint may contain a prayer for process to attach the defendant's tangible or intangible personal property--up to the amount sued for--in the hands of garnishees named in the process.

As originally intended from their common-law States, The People could restrictively enter the admiralty/church-states to defend their claim, by use of Rule E.

Actions in Rem and Quasi in Rem: General Provisions ...
(7) Security on Counterclaim.

(a) When a person who has given security for damages in the original action asserts a counterclaim that arises from the transaction or occurrence that is the subject of the original action, a plaintiff for whose benefit the security has been given must give security for damages demanded in the counterclaim unless the court, for cause shown, directs otherwise. Proceedings on the original claim must be stayed until this security is given, unless the court directs otherwise.

(b) The plaintiff is required to give security under Rule E(7)(a) when the United States or its corporate instrumentality

• counterclaims

and would have been required to give security to respond in damages if a private party but is relieved by law from giving security.

(8) Restricted Appearance. An appearance to defend against an admiralty and maritime claim with respect to which there has issued process in rem, or process of attachment and garnishment, may be expressly restricted to the defense of such claim, and in that event is not an appearance for the purposes of any other claim with respect to which such process is not available or has not been served.

In Rule E(8), lack of disclosure, otherwise known as having "no bill of particulars" or not being "allowed" to confront and cross-examine witnesses and evidence, voids attachment by when "inducting" the personage into the corporate COURT (or lack thereof) with a restrictive appearance (which is a ghost, realy). Notice the corporate instrumentality known as "United States" can claims and is not the same as the United States (plural). Notice that "corporate instrumentalty" clause and how it is prima facie evidence of that federa corporation referenced by USCODE Title 27 Section 3002 15(b). That "United States" is singular/corporation, not plural American States united. That "United States" is known otherwise as "trust 72" whereby it secures incompetant/convalescant people (usualy stands as moloch/king to wa

i hate to do this but according to http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cg i?TITLE=47&PART=15&SECTION=121&TYPE=TEXT
it is illegal to own ,manufacture or modify any scanner to receive cellular and cordless phone frequencies
Your "grandfathers" scanner is a technical violation but ...

just a hint for the trolls this would be a text version of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 15 Subpart 121 entitled "Scanning receivers and frequency converters used with scanning receivers."

The folks on EBay are asking for MIBs to show up

Vendors sign a pre-sale contract promising to do and refrain from doing certain things with the software they resell to customers.

A market economy wouldn't force Microsoft to sell their software except on their own terms.

There have to be elements called "demand" and "competition" as well to drive a market economy.

What I'm interested to know is how this affects parents who use their DVR's to achieve the same purpose to sanitize movies for their children. Hollywood has expressed anger over THAT practice, too, which seems to me wholly unfair.

[Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the following are not infringements of copyright:]

[...]

(11) the making imperceptible, by or at the direction of a member of a private household, of limited portions of audio or video content of a motion picture, during a performance in or transmitted to that household for private home viewing, from an authorized copy of the motion picture, or the creation or provision of a computer program or other technology that enables such making imperceptible and that is designed and marketed to be used, at the direction of a member of a private household, for such making imperceptible, if no fixed copy of the altered version of the motion picture is created by such computer program or other technology.; and

History: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality
The Bill: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi ?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h5252rh.txt.pdf
Testimony (from the House): http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Hearings/03302 006hearing1823/hearing.htm
Contact Congress: http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html

Much too long to paste for a slashdot article, but here are the export restriction regulations for encryption hardware and software:

http://www.access.gpo.gov/bis/ear/txt/ccl5-pt2.txt

This whole argument revolves around whether the documentation that would help you make the drivers to control this encryption device is software. There is a very strong argument that it is software. There are some strong arguments that it is not. Best to lean on the side of safety, from a legal perspective.

Can't say I blame the company for making a developer who lives in a foreign country (Canada), follow US Custom laws.

(2) Export documentation requirement.

          (i) When preparing a license application for a
numerical control system, the machine tool and
the control unit are classified separately. If either
the machine tool or the control unit requires a
license, then the entire unit requires a license. If
either a machine tool or a control unit is exported
separately from the system, the exported
component is classified on the license application
without regard to the other parts of a possible
system.

                  (ii) When preparing the Shipper's Export
Declaration (SED) or Automated Export System
(AES) record, a system being shipped complete
(i.e., machine and control unit), should be
reported under the Schedule B number for each
machine. When either a control unit or a machine
is shipped separately, it should be reported under
the Schedule B number appropriate for the
individual item being exported.

(2) Export documentation requirement.

          (i) When preparing a license application for a
numerical control system, the machine tool and
the control unit are classified separately. If either
the machine tool or the control unit requires a
license, then the entire unit requires a license. If
either a machine tool or a control unit is exported
separately from the system, the exported
component is classified on the license application
without regard to the other parts of a possible
system.

                  (ii) When preparing the Shipper's Export
Declaration (SED) or Automated Export System
(AES) record, a system being shipped complete
(i.e., machine and control unit), should be
reported under the Schedule B number for each
machine. When either a control unit or a machine
is shipped separately, it should be reported under
the Schedule B number appropriate for the
individual item being exported.

(2) Export documentation requirement.

          (i) When preparing a license application for a
numerical control system, the machine tool and
the control unit are classified separately. If either
the machine tool or the control unit requires a
license, then the entire unit requires a license. If
either a machine tool or a control unit is exported
separately from the system, the exported
component is classified on the license application
without regard to the other parts of a possible
system.

                  (ii) When preparing the Shipper's Export
Declaration (SED) or Automated Export System
(AES) record, a system being shipped complete
(i.e., machine and control unit), should be
reported under the Schedule B number for each
machine. When either a control unit or a machine
is shipped separately, it should be reported under
the Schedule B number appropriate for the
individual item being exported.

Please post links supporting this contention, or withdraw it.

http://www.access.gpo.gov/bis/ear/ear_data.html

You can skip many of the "Part XXX"s. The applicable categories are obvious. Don't forget to read interpretations and supplement 2.

I'm not going to respond to the rest of your rant, other than to suggest you get legal advice somewhere other than mailing lists and agitprop web sites.

Military cryptographic (including key management) systems, equipment, assemblies, modules, integrated circuits, components or software with the capability of maintaining secrecy or confidentiality of information or information systems, including equipment and software for tracking, telemetry and control (TT&C) encryption and decryption.

If sufficiently concerned over the issue, raise the issue on the floor of the house in question, before the entire house in secret session. While there are potentially serious repercussions to such a move, up to censure or expulsion from that house (subject to the internal rules), that's the most that can happen. Congresscritters have a constitutional immunity from prosecution by any other body for anything they say there. (Article I, section 6: "for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place".)

If done in the Senate, one need merely find an amenable party member willing to trustingly second a Rule 21 motion to raise the issue with some deference to secrecy, which may help prevent expulsion. In the House of Representatives, secret sessions are governed by Rule XVII, clause 9, and it looks like you don't even need a second to close the House. Technically, I suppose a sufficiently pissed member need not even close their house to secret session before starting the debate... but that likely would make the consequences under internal rules much more serious.

Of course, while outright expulsion would be unlikely for a closed session debate (takes too many votes, and is too likely to make an instant political martyr), there's a real risk of losing the committee seat, along with any others held; it's also not exactly the sort of thing that engenders future interbranch co-operation, or comprehensive briefings to the oversight committee. The current White House would throw a howling excretory tantrum. However, I would hope that my elected officials would know when to start making a stink. This needed a stink a long time ago (or, less preferably, a change in the law before the laws got broken).

Almost true. Correct: the Senate tries the case. Correct: the House of Representatives must pass a bill of Impeachment before the Senate gets to hear the case. Incorrect: according to the Rules of the House (as authorized by Article I, Section 5: "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings..."), a bill of impeachment may also be initiated by charges conveyed from a state legislature to the House of Representatives. Not that the House can't vote it down when it arrives, but it can't just be tabled.

In the very fine print. Article I, section five: "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings".

Section 603 (in sec. LIII) of Jeffereson's Rules of the House of Representatives (omitting crossreferences, emphasis added):

[...]there are various methods of setting an impeachment in motion: by charges made on the floor on the responsibility of a Member or Delegate; by charges preferred by a memorial, which is usually referred to a committee for examination; or by a resolution dropped in the hopper by a Member and referred to a committee; by a message from the President; by charges transmitted from the legislature of a State or Territory or from a grand jury; or from facts developed and reported by an investigating committee of the House.

I don't know where the GP post got two states from; as far as I can see, it only takes one state legislature filing charges to start a bill of impeachment. Not that such means the House has to pass the bill if the charges show up; and the Senate doesn't get (legally) involved unless the House passes the bill. But charges sent by a state legislature are enough to start the process. Of course, a lot of bills of impeachment have been introduced in our history; most have been killed quickly, one was aborted by a resignation, and two went to trial in the Senate. It's not until either of the latter looks likely that things get interesting.

The thirty-six current co-sponsors of H. Res 635 to create a Select Committee investigating the grounds for recommending President Bush's impeachment are Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA), Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA), Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO), Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL), Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA), Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA), Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA), Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA), Rep. Jackson, Jr., (D-IL), Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN), Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN), Rep. John Olver (D-MA), Rep. Major Owens (D-NY), Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ), Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), Rep. Martin Sabo (D-MN), Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rep. Fortney Pete Stark (D-CA), Rep. John Tierney (D-MA), Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), and Rep. David Wu (D-OR). Source. All Democrats, but still members. I'm not sure if any are up for reelection this term.

If no member of Congress is willing to stat the process, it does not start.

The US Constitution Article I, Section 2 grants the House "the sole Power of Impeachment." (Section 3 places trial of such impeachments with the Senate.) Under the House Rules, impeachment is governed by Section 603 (in sec. LIII) of Jeffereson's Rules. This states (ommitting crossreferences):

House of Representatives there are various methods of setting an impeachment in motion: by charges made on the floor on the responsibility of a Member or Delegate; by charges preferred by a memorial, which is usually referred to a committee for examination; or by a resolution dropped in the hopper by a Member and referred to a committee; by a message from the President; by charges transmitted from the legislature of a State or Territory or from a grand jury; or from facts developed and reported by an investigating committee of the House.

Most of these methods (such as the abovementioned Select Committee) are internal, but not all. Since a trial necessarily can exhonorate as well as convict, it is not inconceivable that a President might demand his own impeachment trial, to confront and counter debilitating political attack by rumor and innuendo; however, I would consider it implausible given the personal and political character of President Bush. (The president referring the VP for impeachment is barely more conceivable in present circumstances.) Charges may also come from a state legislature, as folk in California, Vermont, and Illinois are currently pushing; if conveyed this way, it must be addressed as a priveleged bill, taking precedence over all other House business. Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is currently investigating the executive, with Libby indicted by a grand jury, and Rove anticipated to follow; it's not inconceivable that Cheney or Bush might be next on his list.

With a Republican controlled House, the potential exists for bills so introduced to be p

You may be a legal student or a lawyer with enough time to post on Slashdot. You invoked many legal tenents (idem sonans, etc) and managed to write some of the densest prose I have ever lain eyes upon. You have to understand, though, that your attemps to elucidate your point did little to that effect. I have no idea what you are saying. I'd say you have a bright future writing very very very very long legal documents for an HMO or a Mortgage Banker. I was simply, in a lighthearted manner, point out that your post almost looked like a troll. Either that or you need to find a nice site for Law enthusiasts. No offense, just...wow...if you understand this stuff great, but not all of us care enough to decipher the UCC. I'll just hire you if I ever need to. That is, assuming you are not some 15 year old dweeb with too many pimples and way too much time on your hands. Unless you wanna cut my grass.

} blockquoth

My point is that for the purposes of modern Airline services, any that challenges and coerces the use of an SSN or supposed "Driver License", such as making an offer of service based on a prior debilitating contract of an unrelated matter. Then, to the effect of Sign or Signature, is again violating the public trust by moving in a manner far from the politic. Looking through the law of nations, where it defines there to be body politic alongside a body corporate; there is a presumption that the people are layed dormant for the appearance of a corporation to act in a mode not acceptable by the people; and just like any sign on a road it is an act of commercial speech, not protected by law, and is a mere suggestion like pants or a-dress. Are the people for sale, or is the purpose of Airline travel to trademark all our luggage as a sale-able item in case someone decides to buy while in transit?

It is only honest to proceed in an Airline service no different than a Bus or a Parcel service, yet it is been gandered proprietarily and monopolized to an unethical extent. To get out of the loop to sell the legislatively-created artificial person (think legal name), then consider the difference between the true name and the shared name; a legal name is defined as a religious/true name and a surname/sirname appended onto. This brings to effect that any accusation made to JOHN QUINCY DOE would evidence a corporation with an artificial person (transmitting utility is the legislated/John Quincy Doe) only if not bound down to defer it as John Quincy dba JOHN QUINCY DOE; correctly done, then the accusation would need to be made in the character of John Quincy. As we all know, that would comply with the fact that such unrelated account and membership numbers are owned by the institution that created them.

To mispresent anyone's name in any character than correct English grammar, would be libel and immediatly needs to be moved back into the district Court (Admiralty jurisdiction).

Looking at the "Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims" (here), as provided by Congress, would reveal that all seizures and wage garnishments on Land (think compelled and de-facto legislative forms) are to be filed in the district Court! Any alleged "notice of levy" or advertized seizures not filed in Admiralty/district Court, are implied an equity Court dispute (issue a Quo Warranto, and if no contract is exhibited then there is fraud).

My intent of the post is to show that there is no such act as "theft" while in commerce, because everyone knows who is carrying someone else's property (that was sold by incrimination) and the buyer simply forgot to pay or get a proper receipt. Commerce is the medium many insurgents in the District of Columbia use

SEC. 113. TRUNCATION OF CREDIT CARD AND DEBIT CARD ACCOUNT NUMBERS.

Section 605 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681c) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(g) Truncation of Credit Card and Debit Card Numbers.--
``(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, no person that accepts credit cards or debit cards
for the transaction of business shall print more than the last 5
digits of the card number or the expiration date upon any
receipt provided to the cardholder at the point of the sale or
transaction.
``(2) Limitation.--This <<NOTE: Applicability.>> subsection
shall apply only to receipts that are electronically printed,
and shall not apply to transactions in which the sole means of
recording a credit card or debit card account number is by
handwriting or by an imprint or copy of the card.

Data security bills have been kicking around for months now, and House Judiciary is actually running behind the pack. Senate Commerce moved a Smith bill (S. 1408). Senate Judiciary moved bills authored by Chairman Specter (S. 1789) and Senator Sessions (S. 1326). Representative Sterns introduced a bill, H.R. 4127, which was referred jointly to House Energy & Commerce and House Judiciary. Commerce voted it out, but Sensenbrenner has been sitting on it while working on his own bill.

Every one of the above-mentioned proposals is better than the Sensenbrenner bill. While the Sessions draft is almost as bad, it's likely to take a back seat to the Specter bill. Most importantly, all the alternative bills have process. They've had hearings. They've had markups. They've been analyzed by industry, DoJ, privacy advocates and everyone else conceivable. They may actually be going places. The Sensenbrenner bill is not. It looks more like a cheap stunt to get some media, and ensure some say in the final product, than a serious attempt to legislate.

Data security bills have been kicking around for months now, and House Judiciary is actually running behind the pack. Senate Commerce moved a Smith bill (S. 1408). Senate Judiciary moved bills authored by Chairman Specter (S. 1789) and Senator Sessions (S. 1326). Representative Sterns introduced a bill, H.R. 4127, which was referred jointly to House Energy & Commerce and House Judiciary. Commerce voted it out, but Sensenbrenner has been sitting on it while working on his own bill.

Every one of the above-mentioned proposals is better than the Sensenbrenner bill. While the Sessions draft is almost as bad, it's likely to take a back seat to the Specter bill. Most importantly, all the alternative bills have process. They've had hearings. They've had markups. They've been analyzed by industry, DoJ, privacy advocates and everyone else conceivable. They may actually be going places. The Sensenbrenner bill is not. It looks more like a cheap stunt to get some media, and ensure some say in the final product, than a serious attempt to legislate.

Data security bills have been kicking around for months now, and House Judiciary is actually running behind the pack. Senate Commerce moved a Smith bill (S. 1408). Senate Judiciary moved bills authored by Chairman Specter (S. 1789) and Senator Sessions (S. 1326). Representative Sterns introduced a bill, H.R. 4127, which was referred jointly to House Energy & Commerce and House Judiciary. Commerce voted it out, but Sensenbrenner has been sitting on it while working on his own bill.

Every one of the above-mentioned proposals is better than the Sensenbrenner bill. While the Sessions draft is almost as bad, it's likely to take a back seat to the Specter bill. Most importantly, all the alternative bills have process. They've had hearings. They've had markups. They've been analyzed by industry, DoJ, privacy advocates and everyone else conceivable. They may actually be going places. The Sensenbrenner bill is not. It looks more like a cheap stunt to get some media, and ensure some say in the final product, than a serious attempt to legislate.

Data security bills have been kicking around for months now, and House Judiciary is actually running behind the pack. Senate Commerce moved a Smith bill (S. 1408). Senate Judiciary moved bills authored by Chairman Specter (S. 1789) and Senator Sessions (S. 1326). Representative Sterns introduced a bill, H.R. 4127, which was referred jointly to House Energy & Commerce and House Judiciary. Commerce voted it out, but Sensenbrenner has been sitting on it while working on his own bill.

Every one of the above-mentioned proposals is better than the Sensenbrenner bill. While the Sessions draft is almost as bad, it's likely to take a back seat to the Specter bill. Most importantly, all the alternative bills have process. They've had hearings. They've had markups. They've been analyzed by industry, DoJ, privacy advocates and everyone else conceivable. They may actually be going places. The Sensenbrenner bill is not. It looks more like a cheap stunt to get some media, and ensure some say in the final product, than a serious attempt to legislate.

Jackson's findings of fact were not overturned. They are here. Penfield's Conclusions of Law and Order are here. The findings of fact were not overturned. Both are available as .html or .pdf or wpd files (but not, interestingly, as .doc [=MS Word] files).

Penfield's remedies are here. The gutted final judgement produced by the DOJ cave-in and the Appeals court kowtowing to MS is here here. It's a mere slap on the wrist. "Pretty please, play nice, now, or at least don't get caught flagrantly breaking the law." I wonder how much $jack the DOJ and US Appeals court judges cost. Less than an hour's profits, I'd bet. Ask your MS pals.

More on this and other MS litigation over here.

Jackson's findings of fact were not overturned. They are here. Penfield's Conclusions of Law and Order are here. The findings of fact were not overturned. Both are available as .html or .pdf or wpd files (but not, interestingly, as .doc [=MS Word] files).

Penfield's remedies are here. The gutted final judgement produced by the DOJ cave-in and the Appeals court kowtowing to MS is here here. It's a mere slap on the wrist. "Pretty please, play nice, now, or at least don't get caught flagrantly breaking the law." I wonder how much $jack the DOJ and US Appeals court judges cost. Less than an hour's profits, I'd bet. Ask your MS pals.

More on this and other MS litigation over here.

Jackson's findings of fact were not overturned. They are here. Penfield's Conclusions of Law and Order are here. The findings of fact were not overturned. Both are available as .html or .pdf or wpd files (but not, interestingly, as .doc [=MS Word] files).

Penfield's remedies are here. The gutted final judgement produced by the DOJ cave-in and the Appeals court kowtowing to MS is here here. It's a mere slap on the wrist. "Pretty please, play nice, now, or at least don't get caught flagrantly breaking the law." I wonder how much $jack the DOJ and US Appeals court judges cost. Less than an hour's profits, I'd bet. Ask your MS pals.

More on this and other MS litigation over here.

They are being given two more beers!

So they can celebrate being able to violate federal law over and over with impunity.

That would only be because you've probably never met George Bush in person, who said "There ought to be limits to freedom." during the 2000 elections when he was angry about a website that parodied him. Any Republican who wants to ban pornography or "obscene and immoral things" is anti-free speech. And there's a few Demcorats like that too, I have no doubt.

Freedom of speech itself is a joke in the U.S., just look up U.S. Code, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 71 and pursuant articles, which is all the parts of the law that make sending pornographic materials through the mail illegal. Section 1461 forbids mailing any obscene, lewd, lascivious, indecent, filthy or vile article, matter, thing, device, or substance; it also forbids mailing any article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use , however you choose to define that. So you can't legally mail your wife a sex toy if you're on a long business trip or something. You also can't legally mail a naked picture of anything. What's the punishment if they catch and prosecute?

Fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both, for the first such offense, and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, for each such offense thereafter

Reference: http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title18/parti_cha pter71_.html/

Supplement No. 2 to Part 774 - General Technology and Software Notes
( http://www.access.gpo.gov/bis/ear/txt/774_sup2.txt )

Point 2:
2. General Software Note. License Exception TSU (\"mass market\" software) is available to all destinations, except countries in Country Group E:1 of Supplement No. 1 to part 740 of the EAR, for release of software that is generally available to the public by being:

Supplement No. 1 to part 740 of the EAR
( http://www.access.gpo.gov/bis/ear/txt/740spir.txt )

E:1 Countries - Terrorist Supporting Countries
Cuba, Iran, \"Korea, North\", Libya, Sudan, Syria

Supplement No. 2 to Part 774 - General Technology and Software Notes
( http://www.access.gpo.gov/bis/ear/txt/774_sup2.txt )

Point 2:
2. General Software Note. License Exception TSU (\"mass market\" software) is available to all destinations, except countries in Country Group E:1 of Supplement No. 1 to part 740 of the EAR, for release of software that is generally available to the public by being:

Supplement No. 1 to part 740 of the EAR
( http://www.access.gpo.gov/bis/ear/txt/740spir.txt )

E:1 Countries - Terrorist Supporting Countries
Cuba, Iran, \"Korea, North\", Libya, Sudan, Syria

T[he plaintiff in the case of a digital transmission to the public without DRM would be t]he US Department of Justice.

This bill (page 1 and page 2) makes no amendment to Title 18, United States Code, which defines crimes. It changes only Title 17, which defines copyrights. Specifically, this bill narrows section 114, which primarily makes exemptions to the exclusive rights under section 106. Therefore, in the case of a licensor and licensee who have agreed to a license under the exclusive rights of section 106 to transmit a work to the public without DRM, how would this bill make either party guilty of a crime or otherwise bring the DOJ into it?

T[he plaintiff in the case of a digital transmission to the public without DRM would be t]he US Department of Justice.

This bill (page 1 and page 2) makes no amendment to Title 18, United States Code, which defines crimes. It changes only Title 17, which defines copyrights. Specifically, this bill narrows section 114, which primarily makes exemptions to the exclusive rights under section 106. Therefore, in the case of a licensor and licensee who have agreed to a license under the exclusive rights of section 106 to transmit a work to the public without DRM, how would this bill make either party guilty of a crime or otherwise bring the DOJ into it?

Actually where have YOU been?

I'm well aware of the bill you quoted, Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005:
http://www.publicknowledge.org/content/legislation /s167
Or:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi ?dbname=109_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ009.109

Are you aware that the text you so fondly claim to have read of the bill passed and signed also contains things like:
1) Using any kind of audiovisual recording device, such as a cell phone camera, inside a movie theatre, even if its to take a quick snapshot, is illigal? And that you can get 3 years in jail for it?
2) As well, theatre operators/employees can detain and interrogate you and are made IMMUNE from federal and criminal lawsuits if they do so?
3) Having certain types of movies on your computer can get you jail time, even if you never share or distribute those?

If you cant find the specific text I'm referring to, lemme know and I'll quote it.
Ok thats all from the already signed into law bill.
Now lets move on.

First lets check some of the text of the current law, "Section 110 of title 17, United States Code"

"the following are not infringements of copyright:"
Ok got it, these are copyright exclusions. Now lets see the text of the family copyright thing:
"Exemption From Trademark Infringement"
Ok, so this is about exclusions from trademarks as well.

Ok next, some specific text:
"the making imperceptible, by or at the direction of a member of a private household, of limited portions of audio or video content of a motion picture, during a performance in or transmitted to that household for private home viewing, from an authorized copy of the motion picture"
Ok, it applies to a private house watching a legit copy. Who else does it apply to?
"or the creation or provision of a computer program or other technology that enables such making imperceptible and that is designed and marketed to be used, at the direction of a member of a private household"
Ok so it applies to anyone who creates such technology as well.
Lets see what else we can learn.
"A manufacturer, licensee, or licensor of technology that enables the making of limited portions of audio or video content of a motion picture imperceptible as described in subparagraph (A) is not liable on account of such manufacture or license for a violation of any right under this Act"
Ok, if you make such technology (that makes parts of a movie imperceptable), you aren't liable. But wait:
"The limitations on liability in subparagraph (A) and this subparagraph shall not apply to a manufacturer, licensee, or licensor of technology that fails to comply with this paragraph."
Ok so you CAN be liable if you dont comply with that paragraph (which currently says you have to have a notice saying this differs from the original movie).

So thats it for the already signed into law part. Now lets look at what will be modified until the proposed law.
The text of that proposal is here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c108:3:./tem p/~c108QoEUCV:e26552:
"no changes, deletions or additions are made by such computer program or other technology to commercial advertisements, or to network or station promotional announcements, that would otherwise be performed or displayed before, during or after the performance of the motion picture."

Got it. In other words, a private person in thier home, and companies making such technology, are no longer exempt when they are skipping stuff, if they skip ads.

Now does that directly say they are violating laws by doing so? No, but now they are not exempt now. And being as the movie companies were already moving to sue the origin

Yeah, maybe that's what you want the law to be. Here's what the law actually says:

Whoever, with intent to convert a trade secret, that is related to or included in a product that is produced for or placed in interstate or foreign commerce, to the economic benefit of anyone other than the owner thereof, and intending or knowing that the offense will, injure any owner of that trade secret, knowingly-- ... (3) receives, buys, or possesses such information, knowing the same to have been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted without authorization; ...

In other words, if you receive what you know to be stolen trade secrets, you're in violation of the law. There's nothing in the law that I can find that exempts some special "journalist" class.

Over the years, Microsoft has acted to thwart Quicktime and has employed both punitive and exclusionary tactics. It has gone as far as introducing technical problems and misleading error messages (DR-DOS anyone?) which impair Quicktime's performance and impede Apple's ability to develop for MS platforms.

Don't take my word for it. See that and very many other examples in the court's records (warning for PDF).

Furthermore, Microsoft has repeatedly pressured apple to give up Quicktime and cede the multimedia playback market to Microsoft. When MS saw how much better Quicktime was that its own crap, MS tried to steal Quicktime. When that didn't work, MS then tried to block Quicktime for Windows.

MS' antics hurt the market, hurt the end users, and run up tax-funded court costs.

I don't know if this was the last one, but the Office of Technology Assessment was disbanded in 1995. their former site http://www.access.gpo.gov/ota/ and of course an obligatory wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Technology_ Assessment

Well done.

Now for those wishing extra reading, Google for "Transfer Pricing for Intangible Property under Section 482"

That is Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Sec 482 (26 U.S.C. 482).
Explained in more depth in Treasury Regulation 1.482-1(a)(1), et al. (scroll down).

It should be noted that Sec 482 covers both tangible and intengible proprty, & domestic and international transfers. Also, note that the US is odd in that it taxes citizens and corps on theiir worldwide (not just domestic) income (see IRC Sec. 61, "from whatever source derived").

I keep a copy of the 217 page Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 handy for this kind of thing. When I get a credit card offer, I print out a polite letter explaining that I must decline the card because of a lack of bankruptcy protection, and that I am including a copy of the legislation in case they have any questions. I cram it all into the business reply envelope. Unfortunately I have to print double sided or 4 sheets to a page but that envelope gets crammed pretty good- nice and heavy.

I met a guy with an even better idea. He has a home equity line of credit (HELOC). When a stupid credit card offer comes offering 0% interest, he pulls a couple grand out of the HELOC. Then he applies for the card and does a balance transfer from the new CC account to the HELOC. (Credit cards are too smart to just send you wads of cash when you apply, but they will give you the money if it's to pay another creditor- that's why he uses the HELOC, as an account to shift balances around.) If he gets the card and the transfer goes through, he puts the money in a CD earning 4.5% that matures when the card's introductory period expires.

I know we don't have the previous satellite images from years gone by, but would it be practical to use some sort of image diffing program to look for changes in satellite imagery in the future? Yes, you'd get all the new building activity and whatnot, but we should also be able to tell when new craters hit (or other bigger changes happen) automatically. 'course, I've no idea how often global satellite images are updated, or how long it takes, so it might not be practical any time soon... Hundred years or so from now, it would be fun (if nothing else) to watch movies of how areas changed, both from direct human changes (buildings, etc) and from natural forces (coastal erosion and so on).

As for how long it would take to re-image the entire planet: a little more than a month, at minimum, but probably more like a year on average. The calculation is easy: it takes about 90 minutes to make one orbit of the Earth in low orbit. If we assume a conservative low orbit altitude of 100 miles and a conservative aperature for the orbital camera of 22 degrees, we get a ground track about 40 miles wide. The Earth's circumference is about 24,000 miles so it would take 600 orbits to get imagery strips covering the entire equator (assuming a polar or near-polar orbit). That would take at least 600*90 minutes = 5400 minutes / 60 minutes in an hour = 900 hours / 24 hours in a day = 37.5 days.

You can already get time-lapse movies and comaprison photos showing coastal erosion and human impact, the difference over only 10 years is quite noticable (heck, the difference from year to year for barrier islands is astonishing).

Methamphetamine itself is schedule II, not schedule I.

Cocaine, and PCP are also schedule II btw.

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_00/21cf r1308_00.html

Meth 21 CFR 1308.12(d)(2)
Cocaine 21 CFR 1308.12(b)(4)
PCP 21 CFR 1308.12(e)(4)

PCP is listed as a depressant, which is ridiculous, any police officer knows how dangerous a suspect on this can be.

Marijuana is schedule I:

Marijuana 21 CFR 1308.11(d)(19)

This information can be found from the Bureau of Export Administration's regulations, in particular, the Commerce Control List (CCL), 15 C.F.R. 774. The alphabetical index lists "encryption software" as deisgnation "5D002", and the numerical index places 5D002 under "Information Security - Software". A hop over to that section says the following:

Encryption software is controlled because of its functional capacity, and not because of any informational value of such software; such software is not accorded the same treatment under the EAR as other "software"; and for export licensing purposes, encryption software is treated under the EAR in the same manner as a commodity included in ECCN 5A002.

5A002.a.1 includes equipment
designed or modified to use "cryptography"
employing analog principles when implemented
with digital techniques.

                    a.1.a. A "symmetric algorithm"
employing a key length in excess of 56-bits; or

                    a.1.b. An "asymmetric algorithm" where
the security of the algorithm is based on any of the
following:
                              a.1.b.1. Factorization of integers in
excess of 512 bits (e.g., RSA);

                              a.1.b.2. Computation of discrete
logarithms in a multiplicative group of a finite
field of size greater than 512 bits (e.g., Diffie-
Hellman over Z/pZ); or

                              a.1.b.3. Discrete logarithms in a
group other than mentioned in 5A002.a.1.b.2 in
excess of 112 bits (e.g., Diffie-Hellman over an
elliptic curve);

This information can be found from the Bureau of Export Administration's regulations, in particular, the Commerce Control List (CCL), 15 C.F.R. 774. The alphabetical index lists "encryption software" as deisgnation "5D002", and the numerical index places 5D002 under "Information Security - Software". A hop over to that section says the following:

Encryption software is controlled because of its functional capacity, and not because of any informational value of such software; such software is not accorded the same treatment under the EAR as other "software"; and for export licensing purposes, encryption software is treated under the EAR in the same manner as a commodity included in ECCN 5A002.

5A002.a.1 includes equipment
designed or modified to use "cryptography"
employing analog principles when implemented
with digital techniques.

                    a.1.a. A "symmetric algorithm"
employing a key length in excess of 56-bits; or

                    a.1.b. An "asymmetric algorithm" where
the security of the algorithm is based on any of the
following:
                              a.1.b.1. Factorization of integers in
excess of 512 bits (e.g., RSA);

                              a.1.b.2. Computation of discrete
logarithms in a multiplicative group of a finite
field of size greater than 512 bits (e.g., Diffie-
Hellman over Z/pZ); or

                              a.1.b.3. Discrete logarithms in a
group other than mentioned in 5A002.a.1.b.2 in
excess of 112 bits (e.g., Diffie-Hellman over an
elliptic curve);

This information can be found from the Bureau of Export Administration's regulations, in particular, the Commerce Control List (CCL), 15 C.F.R. 774. The alphabetical index lists "encryption software" as deisgnation "5D002", and the numerical index places 5D002 under "Information Security - Software". A hop over to that section says the following:

Encryption software is controlled because of its functional capacity, and not because of any informational value of such software; such software is not accorded the same treatment under the EAR as other "software"; and for export licensing purposes, encryption software is treated under the EAR in the same manner as a commodity included in ECCN 5A002.

5A002.a.1 includes equipment
designed or modified to use "cryptography"
employing analog principles when implemented
with digital techniques.

                    a.1.a. A "symmetric algorithm"
employing a key length in excess of 56-bits; or

                    a.1.b. An "asymmetric algorithm" where
the security of the algorithm is based on any of the
following:
                              a.1.b.1. Factorization of integers in
excess of 512 bits (e.g., RSA);

                              a.1.b.2. Computation of discrete
logarithms in a multiplicative group of a finite
field of size greater than 512 bits (e.g., Diffie-
Hellman over Z/pZ); or

                              a.1.b.3. Discrete logarithms in a
group other than mentioned in 5A002.a.1.b.2 in
excess of 112 bits (e.g., Diffie-Hellman over an
elliptic curve);

I personally find hyperbole weak as a defense against fact.

IIRC, approximately 3k people were murdered on 11 SEP 01 as the result of alleged terorrist acts. I do not disagree with that. The United States did not cease to exist, did it? American's did not lose any liberties when those planes hit those buildings, did they? My soul is still very much intact, thank you.

And then try and tell me that there wasn't a Declaration of War. I've found several - in fact - in front of Congress. So, no.. there hasn't been just one, but several.

Please provide a link to any Declaration of War duly authorized and issued by the Congress of the United States stemming from 11 SEP 01. For bonus points, please provide a link to any Declaration of War issued by the Congress relating to the present military action in Iraq. By your own admission, there are none.

I am not "trying to tell you" that there is none. I am stating as a categorical fact and undeniable truth that there has been no authentic Declaration of War issued by the Congress of the United States, in accord with Constitutional requirements, in the last five years.

Conversely, you are "trying to tell me" that there has been a Declaration of War issued by the Congress. As such, the burden of proof is upon you to provide evidence of such. That is all I am asking you to do...please provide evidence of these alleged Declarations of War that have been issued by the Congress of the United States.

Including a resolution passed by Congress to authorize the force[sic]: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi ?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107

You will admit that you are referring to an authorization for the use of force and not to a Declaration of War? My question was quite specific, and I will restate it here (referencing the alleged 'War on Terror'):

• When did the Congress issue a Declaration of War?
• Against whom did they issue it, if they did issue a Declaration of War?
• Where can I find a copy of said Declaration of War, if it exists?

Perhaps you should re-read the Constitution of the United States of America (and the Bill of Rights wouldn't hurt, either).

--
Sig nify

Yes, there has. September 20th, 2001:

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9398253?hook= 798654

Go back and reread that ENTIRE speech and remember what is like to have your nation, your liberty, and your soul murdered on live television.

And then try and tell me that there wasn't a Declaration of War. I've found several - in fact - in front of Congress. So, no.. there hasn't been just one, but several.

Including a resolution passed by Congress to authorize the force: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi ?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107

But again, this is all subject to interpretation! :)

And that only works if you ignore the fact it was authorizing military force.

And if you ignore the fact that he was authorized to use 'all necessary and appropriate force' , where 'appropriate' has always meant, legally, 'within the bounds of the law', vs. 'inappropriate', as in 'outside the bounds of the law'.(1) I see you dropped that word...coincidence, or malice?

The resolution authorized him to use the military in a way consistant with the military code of justice and the laws of the United States of America to do X. That's what 'appropriate' means, that's why it's there, the same way that 'necessary' is there to keep the force from being excessive.

The resolution did not authorize him to operate outside other laws. He must continue behave appropiately, i.e., in a legal manner.(2)

Oh, and you notice 'specific statutory authorization' there for '5(b) of the War Powers Resolution'?(3) Yes, that's right. When they authorize something that another laws says 'can be authorized', they write that down.

Notice the lack of them authorizing anything under FISA?

1) Actually, while appropriate behavior requires operating inside the law, it can additionally require operating inside a code of ethics or behavior. For example, various behaviors are inappropraite for lawyers to do, and they will be punished by the bar, but are not strictly 'illegal'. Likewise, it is also inappropriate to use your office at work for sex, even with your wife. It's not illegal, and it's possibly not against the rules, but it is inappropriate.

However, I am not aware of any professional ethical standards for the President, so the point is rather moot, unless he decided to make war on Afganistan by plastering naked pictures of himself all over the place, which would be rather inappropriate by normal standards. But, anyway, things cannot be illegal but appropriate.(4)

2) Of course, leaving out 'appropriate' would not allow him to break any law either. It's just a fail-safe.

2) That's the law saying the President can only use the military for a certain amount of time unless Congress: has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, has extended by law such sixty-day period, or is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States.

3) Which is actually a fun catch-22. If he's been doing illegal things as part of the invasion in Afghanistan, then the resolution never applied to what he was doing with the troups, because illegal behavior is inappropriate...and he's been using the troups illegally in Apghanistan for almost four years. And that doesn't solve the problem of his original felonies under FISA!

a) does not the US code referred to above limit surveillance to
    15 days after declaration of war?

and b) doesn't that require a Declaration of War?

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi ?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107

I don't know about you, but that doesn't look like a declaratino of war to me.

And the 15 days should be up any time now...

For employees subject to the FLSA, time spent in training or preparing for training outside regular working hours shall be considered hours of work for the purpose of computing FLSA overtime if an agency requires the training to:

bring performance up to a fully successful, or equivalent level; or
provide knowledge or skills to perform new duties and responsibilities in the employee's current position.
See also 5 C.F.R. &#167;410.402(d)(1) (1997), 5 C.F.R. &#167;551.423 (1997), 29 C.F.R. &#167;785.27 through &#167;785.32 (1996).

Time spent in training or preparing for training outside regular working hours is not hours of work for employees subject to the FLSA if the training:

improves the employee's performance above a fully successful, or equivalent level; or
provides the employee with knowledge or skills required for reassignment to another position or advancement to a higher grade in another position.

I always wondered why nobody has written a QuickTime Player for Windows yet.

Because it is forbidden by His Billness:
MS tried to block Quicktime for Windows during 1997 and 1998. I doubt severely, given MS activities against the EU and elsewhere in regards to WMP, that there has been either a change of heart or of policy.

Actually, it's under a class license, which means the devices themselves need to pass certification to be operated in that band.

I think you'll find that in that part of the band, the limit is MUCH less than 1500 watts. I can't recall the exact figures, but from memory, if it's over 200W transmitter power, then you need special permission. I do believe that the 2.4Ghz section of spectrum is much lower due to the potential risks at that particular band. Your request to run this kind of power (1500W) in that area would be denied.

See: Rule Governing Transmitter Power

They are also not legally required to shut down their service. You can just ask nicely. You have just as much responsibility to not cause interference as they do.