Slashdot Mirror

There are no UN Resolutions explicitly authorizing either US or NATO military action in the former Yugoslovia as there were with the recent Iraq War (key phrase "serious consequences" - diplo-doubletalk for WAR)

23 Sept. 1998: UN Security Council Resolution 1199 does not authorize military action ... the Iraq War phrase "serious consequences" is missing

24 Mar. 1999: The Kosovo air war begins.

Three-months elapse

10 Jun. 1999: After NATO's unilateral not authorized by the UN attack of Serbia, the UN kinda gets around to authorizing what has already happened as things are winding down dead UN link ... alternate link

20 Jun. 1999: The Kosovo air war ends

FICTION - "We are *done* in Kosovo." Visit the US Army Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo *today* as in like *not* done

TRUTH - "We have had no combat fatalities in Kosovo. We are done and the war is over. Service people have died, but not because of enemy combatants and insurgents"

Having never deployed any ground troops to the combat zone there were no US combat deaths.

partial FICTION - "Clinton never lied to the American people, and never relied on cooked up intelligence to sell the war. We went in to stop genocide and get rid of the bad guy. We did just that."

If "Bush Lied" on Iraq then so did these characters, Clinton included. Rather funny to see what Clinton & Co said about Iraq & Saddam. Reads identical to what Bush2 was saying.

I will not dwell upon the domestic aspects of Clinton lying or otherwise although "[Clinton] admitted that he had made false statements under oath [lying] about his relationship with the former White House intern [in the context of a sexual harassment lawsuit] and surrendered his law license for five years" CBS News

Section 209 of the USA Patriot (http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html ) redefines "wire communication" in Title 18 of the United States Code (http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title18/parti_ch apter119_.html) so that it strikes out the part saying "and such term includes any electronic storage of such communication" from the definition.

Sec. 2511 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cg i?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+18USC2511) of the Title 18, United States Code states, "Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications is prohibited."

Because electronic storage of wire communication was stricken from that definition, the USA PATRIOT allowed electronic storage of intercepted wire communication. Thus, recorded wiretapping was made legal by the USA PATRIOT Act.

However, the changing of this definition, and thus the legality of recorded wiretapping, expires December 31, 2005. Now I'll examine the punishment for this once the USA PATRIOT Act expires.

Sec. 2511 of the Title 18, United States Code:

"Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication

...

shall be punished as provided in subsection (4) or shall be subject to suit as provided in subsection (5)."

In the intervening space, it mentions how using mechanical devices, ala wiretapping, to get this information is illegal.

Subsection 4 says "Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection or in subsection (5), whoever violates subsection (1) of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

Unless Bush stops the recorded wiretapping by the end of the year, he could be fined or go to jail, for procuring the recorded wiretapping.

Now, paragraph B makes an exception to that punishment for first-time offenders who are not wiretapping or procuring wiretapping for illegal purposes or commercial gain. Bush is not a firsttime offender because he has authorized the NSA to wiretap 30 times since September 11, 2001.

I'm guessing, if the NSA is found to keep wiretapping past 2005, the result will be Bush getting fined. I'm examining subsection 5 now. Paragraph A states that an unscrambled, unencypted, private satellite video communication being tapped will result in the wiretapper or the person that procures that wiretapper being subject to suit.

Paragraph B of subsection 5 states that if Bush has procured wiretapping unscrambled and unencrypted American radio communications within frequencies allocated by the Federal Communications Commission, he's also subject to lawsuit. When the USA Patriot Act expires, of course.

The section of the FCC's rules they refer to in Paragraph B of Subsection 5, subpart D of part 74, is listed here, with subpart D being numbers 74.401 to 74.482:

http://www.hallikainen.com/FccRules/2006/74/

In conclusion, in addition to being fined or sent to jail, if the NSA keeps wiretapping past 2005, George W. Bush is subject to lawsuit by the Federal Government.

I think that George Bush could avoid it, however, by argueing against the interpretation of the word "procure." (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=procure)

If George Bush has procured another person to wiretap, meaning "to

Section 209 of the USA Patriot (http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html ) redefines "wire communication" in Title 18 of the United States Code (http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title18/parti_ch apter119_.html) so that it strikes out the part saying "and such term includes any electronic storage of such communication" from the definition.

Sec. 2511 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cg i?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+18USC2511) of the Title 18, United States Code states, "Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications is prohibited."

Because electronic storage of wire communication was stricken from that definition, the USA PATRIOT allowed electronic storage of intercepted wire communication. Thus, recorded wiretapping was made legal by the USA PATRIOT Act.

However, the changing of this definition, and thus the legality of recorded wiretapping, expires December 31, 2005. Now I'll examine the punishment for this once the USA PATRIOT Act expires.

Sec. 2511 of the Title 18, United States Code:

"Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication

...

shall be punished as provided in subsection (4) or shall be subject to suit as provided in subsection (5)."

In the intervening space, it mentions how using mechanical devices, ala wiretapping, to get this information is illegal.

Subsection 4 says "Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection or in subsection (5), whoever violates subsection (1) of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

Unless Bush stops the recorded wiretapping by the end of the year, he could be fined or go to jail, for procuring the recorded wiretapping.

Now, paragraph B makes an exception to that punishment for first-time offenders who are not wiretapping or procuring wiretapping for illegal purposes or commercial gain. Bush is not a firsttime offender because he has authorized the NSA to wiretap 30 times since September 11, 2001.

I'm guessing, if the NSA is found to keep wiretapping past 2005, the result will be Bush getting fined. I'm examining subsection 5 now. Paragraph A states that an unscrambled, unencypted, private satellite video communication being tapped will result in the wiretapper or the person that procures that wiretapper being subject to suit.

Paragraph B of subsection 5 states that if Bush has procured wiretapping unscrambled and unencrypted American radio communications within frequencies allocated by the Federal Communications Commission, he's also subject to lawsuit. When the USA Patriot Act expires, of course.

The section of the FCC's rules they refer to in Paragraph B of Subsection 5, subpart D of part 74, is listed here, with subpart D being numbers 74.401 to 74.482:

http://www.hallikainen.com/FccRules/2006/74/

In conclusion, in addition to being fined or sent to jail, if the NSA keeps wiretapping past 2005, George W. Bush is subject to lawsuit by the Federal Government.

I think that George Bush could avoid it, however, by argueing against the interpretation of the word "procure." (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=procure)

If George Bush has procured another person to wiretap, meaning "to

"They should have a non partisan agency to advise them about these issues -- then perhaps stuff like this wouldn't be overlooked."

they did - it was called the Office of Technology Assessment. http://www.access.gpo.gov/ota/

Congress got rid of it.

why isn't there a CTO (Congressional Technology Office)? There's ... a non partisan office that exists to advise Congress on budgetary issues ... It's unreasonable to expect that all Congresscritters can be knowledgeable techies. They should have a non partisan agency to advise them about these issues

I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, there was such an agency.

The Office of Technology Assessment was such a congressional body, founded in 1972, and it lasted until 1995, when the Gingrich Congress came in, it was disbanded.

More about that here, here, here, and of course on Google.

I think if you read the article it will remind you that is not the volume of the ocean per ce but the presence of less dense water in the places where currently the water becomes chilled and sinks.

So it is more like this.

1. Temperature warms up. Surface ice in the northern/southern reaches melt. This is something we've been seeing with the shrinking glaciers/nothern ice cap/Antartic icebergs melting.

2. Additional fresh water in the northern latitudes decreases the density of the water which does not sink as it becomes colder. This in turn reduces the south to north current and consequently the transfer of heat to the North.

3. The arctic ice cap grows (maybe dramaticaly by freezing all that less saline water) and the white surface absorbs less sunlight (lowers albedo).

4. With no warm ocean currents and less absorbed sunlight, weather patterns are altered. Cold air that would have been warmed by the ocean currents remain cold.

5. Climate in London becomes more like the northern part of the Sakhalin penisula (similar Latitude) where in the http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/websites/pollux/po llux.nss.nima.mil/NAV_PUBS/SD/pub155/155sec8.pdf winter it is often -20 C/-4 F and with blizzards as often as every 10 days in December and January. YMMV

Microsoft has been on top for a while, but it isn't anything unnatural -- they've created a product that billions of people LIKE using.

You make a good case for Microsoft but your arguments are mostly personal (experiences) and are unreferenced. It's debatable whether Microsoft got to "be on top" because people like there system or because they had no choice.

I'd suggest reading the Findings of Fact from the Microsoft antitrust case. It's quite revealing. It details, for example, exactly how Microsoft threatened vendors with severe consquences if they even considered selling computers with competing software.

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

1. (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
2. The classes of the militia are--
   1. (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
   2. (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

A person who claims exemption because of religious belief is exempt from militia duty in a combatant capacity, if the conscientious holding of that belief is established under such regulations as the President may prescribe. However, such a person is not exempt from militia duty that the President determines to be noncombatant.

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

1. (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
2. The classes of the militia are--
   1. (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
   2. (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

A person who claims exemption because of religious belief is exempt from militia duty in a combatant capacity, if the conscientious holding of that belief is established under such regulations as the President may prescribe. However, such a person is not exempt from militia duty that the President determines to be noncombatant.

Apple has some nice stuff, but other stuff that Steve doesn't care about are absolutely atrocious (perfect example: Quicktime for Windows). ... Not every company can be a personality cult.

Sure Steve may be a problem, but the particulars around that specific example tend to indicate that the problem may be elsewhere...

And speaking of personality cult, or just plain cult, when's ol' Chairman Gates there going to drop the fascade of having anything to do with IT?

Anyone with a sense for history knows that the Republican movers learned a tough lesson when Nixon was run out of the White House. Since that time it has been the policy of the GOP to proffer mental gimps as their presidential candidates. In GW's' case, they have found their dream date. With Mr. Bush, all denials seem plausible...

What is a troubling trend in the GOP though, is that now even the their behind the scenes lawbreakers have begun to use variants of the Reagan defense. Scooter Libby's shysters have been throwing up test ballons with this defense painted on them:
It's not perjury. it's a faulty memory.

Enough flames for now. Yucca Mountain was shoved down Nevada's throat in 2002, and that round did begin with a Bush Broken campaign promise:

Scientists and public health officials have expressed many serious concerns about the choice of Yucca Mountain as the nuclear waste disposal site for the nation. More than two hundred significant technical and scientific issues with the Yucca Mountain site remain, including how quickly the waste containers will leak deadly radioactive waste into the aquifer beneath Yucca, and the likelihood of earthquake activity around the mountain. Even more uncertainties surround the safety of transporting nuclear waste by rail or highway.

Despite all these unanswered questions and unresolved problems, the Bush administration pushed forward a recommendation to Congress that the Yucca Mountain site be chosen to store 77,000 tons of nuclear waste. In so doing, he broke the 2000 campaign promise he made to the people of Nevada to base all decisions surrounding Yucca Mountain and nuclear waste on "sound science."

Sierra Club, Deadly Nuclear Waste Coming to a Rail Line Near You? The Bush Administration's Broken Promise

Nevada's Republican Governor vetoed the presidential finding, sending the decision into the Federal legislatures. It was amazing how fast the western "state rights" politicians sccurried off of that ship. As examples: on the right, Murkowski's (R-Alaska) April 9th, 2002 statement, and on the left, Bingaman's (D-New Mexico) statement

Gov. Guinn Vetos Yucca Mountain

Fight moves to Congress, where lawmakers have 90 legislative days to override Nevada's governor

Declaring that "the battle is not over," Gov. Kenny Guinn departed Monday for Washington, D.C., to follow through on his historic veto of the president's decision to build a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

Keith Rogers and Steve Tetreault, "Yucca Mountain: Guinn vetoes Bush", Las Vegas Review-Journal, April 9, 2002

The House overrode the Governor on May 6, 2002 in the Yucca Mountain Repository Site Approval Act. The Senate's override came on July 9, 2002, in their Approval of Yucca Mountain Repository

Just in case you have an uncontrollable urge to squawk, billydidit, billydidit:

The Senate failed Tuesday to override President Bill Clinton's veto of the nuclear waste storage bill on a 64 to 35 vote -- two votes short of the two-thirds needed.

The legislation provided for storing high-level spent fuel from commercial nuclear p

Anyone with a sense for history knows that the Republican movers learned a tough lesson when Nixon was run out of the White House. Since that time it has been the policy of the GOP to proffer mental gimps as their presidential candidates. In GW's' case, they have found their dream date. With Mr. Bush, all denials seem plausible...

What is a troubling trend in the GOP though, is that now even the their behind the scenes lawbreakers have begun to use variants of the Reagan defense. Scooter Libby's shysters have been throwing up test ballons with this defense painted on them:
It's not perjury. it's a faulty memory.

Enough flames for now. Yucca Mountain was shoved down Nevada's throat in 2002, and that round did begin with a Bush Broken campaign promise:

Scientists and public health officials have expressed many serious concerns about the choice of Yucca Mountain as the nuclear waste disposal site for the nation. More than two hundred significant technical and scientific issues with the Yucca Mountain site remain, including how quickly the waste containers will leak deadly radioactive waste into the aquifer beneath Yucca, and the likelihood of earthquake activity around the mountain. Even more uncertainties surround the safety of transporting nuclear waste by rail or highway.

Despite all these unanswered questions and unresolved problems, the Bush administration pushed forward a recommendation to Congress that the Yucca Mountain site be chosen to store 77,000 tons of nuclear waste. In so doing, he broke the 2000 campaign promise he made to the people of Nevada to base all decisions surrounding Yucca Mountain and nuclear waste on "sound science."

Sierra Club, Deadly Nuclear Waste Coming to a Rail Line Near You? The Bush Administration's Broken Promise

Nevada's Republican Governor vetoed the presidential finding, sending the decision into the Federal legislatures. It was amazing how fast the western "state rights" politicians sccurried off of that ship. As examples: on the right, Murkowski's (R-Alaska) April 9th, 2002 statement, and on the left, Bingaman's (D-New Mexico) statement

Gov. Guinn Vetos Yucca Mountain

Fight moves to Congress, where lawmakers have 90 legislative days to override Nevada's governor

Declaring that "the battle is not over," Gov. Kenny Guinn departed Monday for Washington, D.C., to follow through on his historic veto of the president's decision to build a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

Keith Rogers and Steve Tetreault, "Yucca Mountain: Guinn vetoes Bush", Las Vegas Review-Journal, April 9, 2002

The House overrode the Governor on May 6, 2002 in the Yucca Mountain Repository Site Approval Act. The Senate's override came on July 9, 2002, in their Approval of Yucca Mountain Repository

Just in case you have an uncontrollable urge to squawk, billydidit, billydidit:

The Senate failed Tuesday to override President Bill Clinton's veto of the nuclear waste storage bill on a 64 to 35 vote -- two votes short of the two-thirds needed.

The legislation provided for storing high-level spent fuel from commercial nuclear p

Apparently, they are planning on including anti-skimming material.

More information from the Federal Register can be found here

I read the text of the passport release earlier, and they claim to have addressed the privacy concerns but really haven't. The biggest problem is that a criminal could very easily grab all of your identity information without your knowledge. They assert that (I'm paraphrasing) "since the chip has no internal power source, it can't broadcast your identity". But that is a canard -- anyone who wants to read out your identity can simply use the same high-gain antenna to beam power your way as to pick up your passport's readout. Of course the protocols will be discovered -- at least by the people you don't want reading your passport.

All the more reason to stick your passport in the microwave with your new shirts from Wal-Mart.

Meanwhile, bop on over to www.house.gov and send a quick note of outrage to your representative!

http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/websites/www.nrc.g ov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/next-gen -reactors.html

Process Inherent Ultimate Safety

IUS: The Process Inherent Ultimate Safe reactor is a 640 MWe advanced pressurized water reactor designed by ABB-Atom of Sweden that utilizes natural physical phenomena to accomplish control and safety functions. The PIUS design consists of a vertical pipe, called a reactor module, which contains the reactor core and is submerged in a large pool of highly borated water. The reactor core is comprised of fuel elements that are similar to current PWR fuel elements. The borated pool water is provided to shut down the reactor and to cool the core by natural circulation. Unlike most reactors, PIUS does not use control rods for controlling the nuclear chain reaction. The reaction is controlled by the boron concentration and temperature of the primary loop reactor water. The steam generating equipment of the PIUS design is similar to that of a typical pressurized light water reactor plant. One important difference in plant design is the very large, by current standards, prestressed concrete reactor vessel. This vessel holds both the reactor module and the borated pool.

Yep, the very same Coleman that Galloway tore a third anus into to go along with his matching set of the one he defecates with, and the one he thinks with.

Coleman is worthless.

The only reason he is a senator is because of Wellstone's tragic plane crash. He was a strawman candidate in a no chance race.

If you can handle the sissification, read a couple of congressional daily reports:

• Coleman plays straight man to Hatch
• Barbara Boxers Coleman's ears in

If Coleman had any morals, he be investigating the Americans implicated in tthe Oil for Food scandal, but he is too much of a party hack to investigate family and cronies of the President.

Here's an example of Coleman's compassionate conservatism:

"United States Senator Norm Coleman said today that the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina offers an historic opportunity to revitalize the Gulf Coast, while providing for economic incentives that will ensure massive investment in intellectual, physical and technological infrastructure."

Coleman Press Release September 5, 2005

You say natural disaster, Coleman says "historic opportunity"; and he released this one week to the day after Katrina had hit New Orleans.

The same type of historic opportunity that made him a senator...

Of course in keeping with contemporary conservatism's rampant hypocrisy, their vaunted fiscal responsibility shines brightly by their funding this "massive investment in intellectual, physical and technological infrastructure" with the work product of the future. Norm shares another common trait with contemporary conservatives.

Coleman the chickenhawk

Coleman was born on August 17, 1949. That made him Grade A prime monkey-boy fodder for the Vietnam War, but Norm never served in the military. Judging from his appearance back then, he was on the antiwar side of the equation when it was his turn to march off to war.

"A lottery drawing - the first since 1942 - was held on December 1, 1969, at Selective Service National Headquarters in Washington, D.C. This event determined the order of call for induction during calendar year 1970, that is, for registrants born between January 1, 1944, and December 31, 1950.

[...]

The highest lottery number called for this group was 195; all men assigned that lottery number or any lower number, and who were classified 1-A or 1-A-O (available for military service), were called to report for possible induction."

Coleman's number would have been 154

Source: The Selective Service System website

Yep, the very same Coleman that Galloway tore a third anus into to go along with his matching set of the one he defecates with, and the one he thinks with.

Coleman is worthless.

The only reason he is a senator is because of Wellstone's tragic plane crash. He was a strawman candidate in a no chance race.

If you can handle the sissification, read a couple of congressional daily reports:

• Coleman plays straight man to Hatch
• Barbara Boxers Coleman's ears in

If Coleman had any morals, he be investigating the Americans implicated in tthe Oil for Food scandal, but he is too much of a party hack to investigate family and cronies of the President.

Here's an example of Coleman's compassionate conservatism:

"United States Senator Norm Coleman said today that the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina offers an historic opportunity to revitalize the Gulf Coast, while providing for economic incentives that will ensure massive investment in intellectual, physical and technological infrastructure."

Coleman Press Release September 5, 2005

You say natural disaster, Coleman says "historic opportunity"; and he released this one week to the day after Katrina had hit New Orleans.

The same type of historic opportunity that made him a senator...

Of course in keeping with contemporary conservatism's rampant hypocrisy, their vaunted fiscal responsibility shines brightly by their funding this "massive investment in intellectual, physical and technological infrastructure" with the work product of the future. Norm shares another common trait with contemporary conservatives.

Coleman the chickenhawk

Coleman was born on August 17, 1949. That made him Grade A prime monkey-boy fodder for the Vietnam War, but Norm never served in the military. Judging from his appearance back then, he was on the antiwar side of the equation when it was his turn to march off to war.

"A lottery drawing - the first since 1942 - was held on December 1, 1969, at Selective Service National Headquarters in Washington, D.C. This event determined the order of call for induction during calendar year 1970, that is, for registrants born between January 1, 1944, and December 31, 1950.

[...]

The highest lottery number called for this group was 195; all men assigned that lottery number or any lower number, and who were classified 1-A or 1-A-O (available for military service), were called to report for possible induction."

Coleman's number would have been 154

Source: The Selective Service System website

It is called the Government Printing Office. The GPO publishes books, magazines. posters and CD-ROMs in hundreds of categories. Titles like "The American Practical Navigator" have been in print for two hundred years. U.S. Government Online Bookstore

The name "gene patents" is a bit hysterical. The USPTO Guidelines say, "If a patent application discloses only nucleic acid molecular structure for a newly discovered gene, and no utility for the claimed isolated gene, the claimed invention is not patentable. But when the inventor also discloses how to use the purified gene isolated from its natural state, the application satisfies the ``utility'' requirement. That is, where the application discloses a specific, substantial, and credible utility for the claimed isolated and purified gene, the isolated and purified gene composition may be patentable."

So it's not just the DNA sequence that they're patenting; it's the DNA sequence plus a description of how to use it. Not just your body using it, but a technological invention outside your body.

It still seems like an awful lot of store to give away. The idea is that isolating and understanding the functions of genes is expensive, so to encourage people to do it they're giving away rights to use the results of that research (i.e. more than just props for being the first to describe it.)

But no, you can't sue somebody for having children; the use of the gene in its natural state (i.e. you) isn't patentable. Producing the same chemical as a medicine is There's a long history of getting patents on stuff you find in nature and putting a use to it; they cite a patent on adrenaline. You didn't lose right right to get excited, but you couldn't bottle up the output of your adrenal gland without coming up against their patent.

I'm not defending it; I'm just explaining it.

Actually, the law explicitly grants us the right to resell the music we buy. In fact, the law (upon a cursory reading) doesn't appear to discount electronic copies of music (such as music downloaded from iTMS), and the law also states that we are entitled to resell said music, which means that someone might actually have a legal case to force Apple to open up some mechanism for us to resell the music we buy from them.

A logical basis for disagreement might be that he is completely factually incorrect about the content of the bill. In fact, when an AC attempted to point this out, rather than admit he was mistaken, his response was to slur republicans and call the AC a liar. So forgive me if I come to a "logical" conclusion that Mr. Ruby is full of crap.

The original post about this is wrong. It is the FEC that is wanting to impose campaign finance on the Internet -- not Congress. Instead, The Online Freedom of Speech Act is designed to "not include communications over the Internet" as applicable to the Campaing Finance Reform Act. Please see the complete text of the bill at the following URL.

H. R. 1606
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/useftp.cgi ?IPaddress=162.140.64.88&filename=h1606ih.txt&dire ctory=/diskb/wais/data/109_cong_bills

Online Freedom of Speech Act Introduced in House
http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/4/13/164333/833

"Prevailing wages" is a term from the Davis-Bacon Act. It really means "union wages." A bureaucrat in the US Department of Labor sets them. It's mere pork for Big Labor, to ensure that government projects use only union workers. But there are not enough union workers to do a job this big.

If we allowed a government commissar to set Davis-Bacon "prevailing wages" by fiat, it would take ten times as long to recover from the disaster, because no rational business owner is going to hire people for more than the true value of their labor. That value is bound to be higher than minimum wage, but not as high as Big Labor would like the government to decree.

Union men do tend to be more skilled than the average, and nominally faster, when they are not featherbedding or striking or bitching to their stewards about work rules. However, to force employers to pay every unskilled laborer in a disaster zone as if they were an experienced union journeyman is economic ignorance of the highest degree.

Bush understands this. Leftist ignoramuses like you do not, unless you are the kind of cynical pseudo-leftist who cares only about the well-being of union members, with no regard for the disaster victims they are supposed to be helping.

-ccm

That would be under Title 47, Chapter 1, Part 15, Section 15.5, Subsection B of the US Federal Code.

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cf r15.5.htm

I don't doubt what you say. It makes sense to me.

However, the question is whether the FBI is, in some ways, actually influencing law enforcement and the law in other countries. That's what happens with the U.S. government's CIA agency; "working with other countries" meant "infiltrating the governments of other countries". Does the FBI operate by its own rules, but show the other government only what it wants the other government to know?

In Brazil 40 years ago, U.S. government agencies "providing training" meant influencing the military to create a military dictatorship. Hidden actions of the U.S. government overthrew Brazil's government.

Corruption of the Brazilian government by the CIA in Brazil is a strong present-day concern. O Globo, the place where the article was originally published, is the biggest media company in Brazil.

The question is not what you see, but what is deliberately hidden from you.

In actuality, it is very difficult to run any organization. Organizations that have a high degree of secrecy quickly become uncontrolled.

U.S. Senator Frank Church investigated extreme corruption in the U.S. government's secret agencies. The agencies certainly never apologized; it must be assumed that nothing really changed.

I'm guessing that you, like most American citizens, have never read about the corruption mentioned here, or the many other cases of extreme corruption of the U.S. government in influencing other countries. That's why you mentioned "tinfoil hats".

--
Trying to make one book explain all of life makes some people crazy enough to kill.

The US Army is a part of the US Government, and the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is a part of federal law. Specifically this one.

Ummm... That isn't entirely true. The FCC has multiple classes of licensing for electronics. The majority of consumer electronics, including devices that operate in the 2.4GHz band, have this restriction. However, I'm sure the security systems for the airport have different restrictions on emitting and receiving interference-causing signals.

In fact, a quick dig at the FCC's site (here) regarding Radio Devices alone shows lots of different requirements for any various spectrum, device, etc.

Specific to my point, FM radio broadcasters are allowed protection from interference as outlined here.

Knowing just the basics about FCC licensing, however, I do know that this is all a load of crap from the airport authorities. Devices operating in the 2.4GHz band are licensed for use under the condition that they don't cause any interference with other electronics. As long as those devices are not modified to operate outside the rules under which they were licensed, they wouldn't and there's no reason the FCC should, or would, get involved. And, as others have noted, if the 2.4GHz signals from Continental's WiFi equipment are interfering with the airport's security systems, what is preventing the same interference from the airport's own WiFi equipment?

The point is that the airport is being greedy and wants control over all WiFi access so they can charge for it. It's purely profit motivated, and all rather childish.

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cf r15_04.html

This part sets out the regulations under which an intentional, unintentional, or incidental radiator may be operated without an individual license.

Sec. 15.5 General conditions of operation.

(a) Persons operating intentional or unintentional radiators shall not be deemed to have any vested or recognizable right to continued use of any given frequency by virtue of prior registration or certification of equipment, or, for power line carrier systems, on the basis of prior notification of use pursuant to Sec. 90.63(g) of this chapter.
(b) Operation of an intentional, unintentional, or incidental radiator is subject to the conditions that no harmful interference is caused and that interference must be accepted that may be caused by the operation of an authorized radio station, by another intentional or unintentional radiator, by industrial, scientific and medical (ISM) equipment, or by an incidental radiator.

http://www.qrpis.org/~k3ng/ham_wisp.html

Long story short, if you think someone is interferring with your wireless service, too bad. You're only recourse is to complain to the FCC and say the the offending party is operating outside of Part 15 (or whatever part may apply). I.E. - they are transmitter too much power. Commercial interest doesn't mean anything since you're an unlicensed user.

I commonly get 3-4 pieces of fax spam a week, despite all my phone numbers being on the federal "do not call" list. And the station numbers always lead to disconnected lines.

#1. The sending address is on a blacklist because that address sent a message to a spam trap.

#4. See #3, but key words can be classified as "spammy" content. The easy way around this is to use the "this is not spam" function that should be available to you.

Mostly it looks like an issue of enforcing and/or clarifying United States Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, Part I, Sec. 227:

It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States ... to use any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine ...

Check your computer; they are also supposed to be FCC certified. Few, if any, anymore, are. That doesn't stop anyone and everyone from modifying them.

Don't know back of which truck you are buying your computers from, but every PC and PC component sold in US legally has an FCC certification - they dont tend to stay very long in business if they do not. If you are talking about people buying separate motherboards, CPUS etc - that is actually covered in FCC regs and as long as all components are certified FOR USE AS COMPONENTS - it is legal to put them together. There is also exemption for home built devices (less than five built, personal use only) however they cannot be built from kits (separate reqs) and still have to comply with SOME of the regs - they cannot intentionally BREAK the regs either.

Here is the FCC "Part 15" text

-Em

As Joe Hobbyist, I can make pretty much whatever damned antennas I want, so long as I follow some half decent engineering principals and don't deliberately exceed limits for that band. Section 15.23 re: Homebuilt devices.

Learn something new every day. For the interested here is a link to Section 15.23 of the FCC rules regarding homebuilt devices. So it seems that for personal use the cantenna is legal if you build it yourself and not from a kit.

And I know many WISPs that are operating completely illegally. Not only have they assembled radios with antennas not certified, but they don't even have the calculations to show that they did any work to say "Sure, it's not certified, but we calculated this out and it's under the limit." Not that the FCC would care if they got a complaint.

Yeah the WISP I worked at only had one certified piece of equipment (a 5.8Ghz 16MBit Point to Point backbone radio). Everything else was cobjobbed together. Then my boss (not the sharpest tack in the drawer) got the bright idea to file a complaint with the FCC because of another company who was using amplifiers (something even we were loath to do) and causing us all sorts of signal problems. Of course the FCC issued notices of violations to both of them because neither one had certified equipment. I was actually kind of surprised that's all they did. No fines or seizure of equipment -- just notices of violation and a reinspection a few months later to make sure it was all replaced with certified gear.

The sad thing was that our competitor probably deserved to be fined out the ass. He was dumping so much raw power out of his POPs that I couldn't use my access point at home (half a mile from one of his POPs) with my laptop unless I was in the same room. Once he went out of business amazingly enough my AP worked out to 200-300 feet with my laptop with no special antennas or whatnot. I shudder to think of what that must have done to anyone with a 2.4GHZ cordless phone.

"They're unsophisticated but reliable, and it's illegal to possess them," said Lozito of the Hi-Tech Crimes Task Force.

Lozito, meet fcc part 15 rules:

Sec 15.23: home built devices

1. Equipment authorization is not required for devices that are not marketed, are not constructed from a kit, and are built in quantities of five or less for personal use.
2. It is recognized that the individual builder of home-built equipment may not possess the means to perform the measurements for determining compliance with the regulations. In this case, the builder is expected to employ good engineering practices to meet the specified technical standards to the greatest extent practicable. The provisions of Sec. 15.5 apply to this equipment.

Also, cantennas are no better (except in terms of price) than commercially available antennas which are also legal to own and use, provided you use them in accordance with fcc regulations, for instance by not exceeding power and gain limits, and without breaking any other applicable laws.

(disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, or an RF engineer)

I suppose you also believe that the USA PATRIOT Act allows the FBI to perform a mass library record search without the approval of a judge. Libraries aren't even mentioned in the entire text of the law, and the language people blow out of proportion would only allow the search of a single person's records on approval of a federal judge with respect to a specific ongoing investigation. Please try to verify things you read on Slashdot before passing it on, including what I just said.

Not that I disagree with you that things could quickly get out of hand. I assume because you feel so strongly on the matter that you have contacted your Congressman to support H.R. 1076: Detention of Enemy Combatants Act , which acknowledges the need to detain enemy combatants who are U.S. citizens, but enacts specific requirements on the duration, conditions, and judicial review of such detentions.

You do realize that declaration of enemy combatant status has nothing whatsoever to do with the PATRIOT Act, right?

PATRIOT, however one may feel about it, concerns itself with observation and information gathering - pin registers, wiretaps, compulsion to disclose records, and so on.

It doesn't authorize the government to hold enemy combatants. In fact, the PATRIOT Act doesn't contain the word "enemy." It also doesn't contain the word "combatant." Don't believe me? Check for yourself.

Actually, there was a bill introduced into the House just days ago to let the DHS regulate sales of fertilizer.

See http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi ?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h3197ih.txt.pdf

Caveat: This article is merely the results of my research, so please keep in mind that I am not a lawyer and am not qualified or licensed to disburse legal advice. Corrections to this information are welcomed and desired.

My research would indicate that accessing an open (that is unencrypted) 802.11b/802.11g wireless network is not a federal crime. However, individual states may have enacted their own laws.

According to Title 18 (Crimes and criminal procedure) of the United States Code, Part I (Crimes), Chapter 119 (Wire and electronic communications interception and interception of oral communications) from usdoj.gov:

2511. (2)(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person --

(i) to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;

2510. Definitions
(16) "readily accessible to the general public" means, with respect to a radio communication, that such communication is not --

(A) scrambled or encrypted ;

(B) transmitted using modulation techniques whose essential parameters have been withheld from the public with the intention of preserving the privacy of such communication;

(C) carried on a subcarrier or other signal subsidiary to a radio transmission;

(D) transmitted over a communication system provided by a common carrier, unless the communication is a tone only paging system communication; or

(E) transmitted on frequencies allocated under part 25, subpart D, E, or F of part 74, or part 94 of the Rules of the Federal Communications Commission, unless, in the case of a communication transmitted on a frequency allocated under part 74 that is not exclusively allocated to broadcast auxiliary services, the communication is a two-way voice communication by radio; [Ed. FYI the unlicensed spectrum used by Wi-Fi is ruled by part 15.]

I do not believe that Title 18 (Crimes and criminal procedure) of the United States Code, Part I (Crimes), Chapter 47 (Fraud and false statements) Section 1030 (Fraud and related activity in connection with computers) from usdoj.gov applies:

1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with computers
(a) Whoever--
(1) having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access [...]
(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains--
(C) information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication;

Whether or not this would apply would depend on the definition of the term "protected computer". An open netwo

Caveat: This article is merely the results of my research, so please keep in mind that I am not a lawyer and am not qualified or licensed to disburse legal advice. Corrections to this information are welcomed and desired.

My research would indicate that accessing an open (that is unencrypted) 802.11b/802.11g wireless network is not a federal crime. However, individual states may have enacted their own laws.

According to Title 18 (Crimes and criminal procedure) of the United States Code, Part I (Crimes), Chapter 119 (Wire and electronic communications interception and interception of oral communications) from usdoj.gov:

2511. (2)(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person --

(i) to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;

2510. Definitions
(16) "readily accessible to the general public" means, with respect to a radio communication, that such communication is not --

(A) scrambled or encrypted ;

(B) transmitted using modulation techniques whose essential parameters have been withheld from the public with the intention of preserving the privacy of such communication;

(C) carried on a subcarrier or other signal subsidiary to a radio transmission;

(D) transmitted over a communication system provided by a common carrier, unless the communication is a tone only paging system communication; or

(E) transmitted on frequencies allocated under part 25, subpart D, E, or F of part 74, or part 94 of the Rules of the Federal Communications Commission, unless, in the case of a communication transmitted on a frequency allocated under part 74 that is not exclusively allocated to broadcast auxiliary services, the communication is a two-way voice communication by radio; [Ed. FYI the unlicensed spectrum used by Wi-Fi is ruled by part 15.]

I do not believe that Title 18 (Crimes and criminal procedure) of the United States Code, Part I (Crimes), Chapter 47 (Fraud and false statements) Section 1030 (Fraud and related activity in connection with computers) from usdoj.gov applies:

1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with computers
(a) Whoever--
(1) having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access [...]
(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains--
(C) information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication;

Whether or not this would apply would depend on the definition of the term "protected computer". An open netwo

Caveat: This article is merely the results of my research, so please keep in mind that I am not a lawyer and am not qualified or licensed to disburse legal advice. Corrections to this information are welcomed and desired.

My research would indicate that accessing an open (that is unencrypted) 802.11b/802.11g wireless network is not a federal crime. However, individual states may have enacted their own laws.

According to Title 18 (Crimes and criminal procedure) of the United States Code, Part I (Crimes), Chapter 119 (Wire and electronic communications interception and interception of oral communications) from usdoj.gov:

2511. (2)(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person --

(i) to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;

2510. Definitions
(16) "readily accessible to the general public" means, with respect to a radio communication, that such communication is not --

(A) scrambled or encrypted ;

(B) transmitted using modulation techniques whose essential parameters have been withheld from the public with the intention of preserving the privacy of such communication;

(C) carried on a subcarrier or other signal subsidiary to a radio transmission;

(D) transmitted over a communication system provided by a common carrier, unless the communication is a tone only paging system communication; or

(E) transmitted on frequencies allocated under part 25, subpart D, E, or F of part 74, or part 94 of the Rules of the Federal Communications Commission, unless, in the case of a communication transmitted on a frequency allocated under part 74 that is not exclusively allocated to broadcast auxiliary services, the communication is a two-way voice communication by radio; [Ed. FYI the unlicensed spectrum used by Wi-Fi is ruled by part 15.]

I do not believe that Title 18 (Crimes and criminal procedure) of the United States Code, Part I (Crimes), Chapter 47 (Fraud and false statements) Section 1030 (Fraud and related activity in connection with computers) from usdoj.gov applies:

1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with computers
(a) Whoever--
(1) having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access [...]
(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains--
(C) information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication;

Whether or not this would apply would depend on the definition of the term "protected computer". An open netwo

Caveat: This article is merely the results of my research, so please keep in mind that I am not a lawyer and am not qualified or licensed to disburse legal advice. Corrections to this information are welcomed and desired.

My research would indicate that accessing an open (that is unencrypted) 802.11b/802.11g wireless network is not a federal crime. However, individual states may have enacted their own laws.

According to Title 18 (Crimes and criminal procedure) of the United States Code, Part I (Crimes), Chapter 119 (Wire and electronic communications interception and interception of oral communications) from usdoj.gov:

2511. (2)(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person --

(i) to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;

2510. Definitions
(16) "readily accessible to the general public" means, with respect to a radio communication, that such communication is not --

(A) scrambled or encrypted ;

(B) transmitted using modulation techniques whose essential parameters have been withheld from the public with the intention of preserving the privacy of such communication;

(C) carried on a subcarrier or other signal subsidiary to a radio transmission;

(D) transmitted over a communication system provided by a common carrier, unless the communication is a tone only paging system communication; or

(E) transmitted on frequencies allocated under part 25, subpart D, E, or F of part 74, or part 94 of the Rules of the Federal Communications Commission, unless, in the case of a communication transmitted on a frequency allocated under part 74 that is not exclusively allocated to broadcast auxiliary services, the communication is a two-way voice communication by radio; [Ed. FYI the unlicensed spectrum used by Wi-Fi is ruled by part 15.]

I do not believe that Title 18 (Crimes and criminal procedure) of the United States Code, Part I (Crimes), Chapter 47 (Fraud and false statements) Section 1030 (Fraud and related activity in connection with computers) from usdoj.gov applies:

1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with computers
(a) Whoever--
(1) having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access [...]
(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains--
(C) information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication;

Whether or not this would apply would depend on the definition of the term "protected computer". An open netwo

Caveat: This article is merely the results of my research, so please keep in mind that I am not a lawyer and am not qualified or licensed to disburse legal advice. Corrections to this information are welcomed and desired.

My research would indicate that accessing an open (that is unencrypted) 802.11b/802.11g wireless network is not a federal crime. However, individual states may have enacted their own laws.

According to Title 18 (Crimes and criminal procedure) of the United States Code, Part I (Crimes), Chapter 119 (Wire and electronic communications interception and interception of oral communications) from usdoj.gov:

2511. (2)(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person --

(i) to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;

2510. Definitions
(16) "readily accessible to the general public" means, with respect to a radio communication, that such communication is not --

(A) scrambled or encrypted ;

(B) transmitted using modulation techniques whose essential parameters have been withheld from the public with the intention of preserving the privacy of such communication;

(C) carried on a subcarrier or other signal subsidiary to a radio transmission;

(D) transmitted over a communication system provided by a common carrier, unless the communication is a tone only paging system communication; or

(E) transmitted on frequencies allocated under part 25, subpart D, E, or F of part 74, or part 94 of the Rules of the Federal Communications Commission, unless, in the case of a communication transmitted on a frequency allocated under part 74 that is not exclusively allocated to broadcast auxiliary services, the communication is a two-way voice communication by radio; [Ed. FYI the unlicensed spectrum used by Wi-Fi is ruled by part 15.]

I do not believe that Title 18 (Crimes and criminal procedure) of the United States Code, Part I (Crimes), Chapter 47 (Fraud and false statements) Section 1030 (Fraud and related activity in connection with computers) from usdoj.gov applies:

1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with computers
(a) Whoever--
(1) having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access [...]
(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains--
(C) information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication;

Whether or not this would apply would depend on the definition of the term "protected computer". An open netwo

Caveat: This article is merely the results of my research, so please keep in mind that I am not a lawyer and am not qualified or licensed to disburse legal advice. Corrections to this information are welcomed and desired.

My research would indicate that accessing an open (that is unencrypted) 802.11b/802.11g wireless network is not a federal crime. However, individual states may have enacted their own laws.

According to Title 18 (Crimes and criminal procedure) of the United States Code, Part I (Crimes), Chapter 119 (Wire and electronic communications interception and interception of oral communications) from usdoj.gov:

2511. (2)(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person --

(i) to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;

2510. Definitions
(16) "readily accessible to the general public" means, with respect to a radio communication, that such communication is not --

(A) scrambled or encrypted ;

(B) transmitted using modulation techniques whose essential parameters have been withheld from the public with the intention of preserving the privacy of such communication;

(C) carried on a subcarrier or other signal subsidiary to a radio transmission;

(D) transmitted over a communication system provided by a common carrier, unless the communication is a tone only paging system communication; or

(E) transmitted on frequencies allocated under part 25, subpart D, E, or F of part 74, or part 94 of the Rules of the Federal Communications Commission, unless, in the case of a communication transmitted on a frequency allocated under part 74 that is not exclusively allocated to broadcast auxiliary services, the communication is a two-way voice communication by radio; [Ed. FYI the unlicensed spectrum used by Wi-Fi is ruled by part 15.]

I do not believe that Title 18 (Crimes and criminal procedure) of the United States Code, Part I (Crimes), Chapter 47 (Fraud and false statements) Section 1030 (Fraud and related activity in connection with computers) from usdoj.gov applies:

1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with computers
(a) Whoever--
(1) having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access [...]
(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains--
(C) information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication;

Whether or not this would apply would depend on the definition of the term "protected computer". An open netwo

Caveat: This article is merely the results of my research, so please keep in mind that I am not a lawyer and am not qualified or licensed to disburse legal advice. Corrections to this information are welcomed and desired.

My research would indicate that accessing an open (that is unencrypted) 802.11b/802.11g wireless network is not a federal crime. However, individual states may have enacted their own laws.

According to Title 18 (Crimes and criminal procedure) of the United States Code, Part I (Crimes), Chapter 119 (Wire and electronic communications interception and interception of oral communications) from usdoj.gov:

2511. (2)(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person --

(i) to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;

2510. Definitions
(16) "readily accessible to the general public" means, with respect to a radio communication, that such communication is not --

(A) scrambled or encrypted ;

(B) transmitted using modulation techniques whose essential parameters have been withheld from the public with the intention of preserving the privacy of such communication;

(C) carried on a subcarrier or other signal subsidiary to a radio transmission;

(D) transmitted over a communication system provided by a common carrier, unless the communication is a tone only paging system communication; or

(E) transmitted on frequencies allocated under part 25, subpart D, E, or F of part 74, or part 94 of the Rules of the Federal Communications Commission, unless, in the case of a communication transmitted on a frequency allocated under part 74 that is not exclusively allocated to broadcast auxiliary services, the communication is a two-way voice communication by radio; [Ed. FYI the unlicensed spectrum used by Wi-Fi is ruled by part 15.]

I do not believe that Title 18 (Crimes and criminal procedure) of the United States Code, Part I (Crimes), Chapter 47 (Fraud and false statements) Section 1030 (Fraud and related activity in connection with computers) from usdoj.gov applies:

1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with computers
(a) Whoever--
(1) having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access [...]
(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains--
(C) information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication;

Whether or not this would apply would depend on the definition of the term "protected computer". An open netwo

Considering the number of patent-related stories that appear on Slashdot, the community should not, yet again, need to be beaten with a clue-by-four. But of course it does...

A further requirement for the patent system to work is that it should be open to challenge without enormous financial resources.

Guess what -- IT IS A REQUIREMENT THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN MET.

Look at this link

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee2005 mar15.htm

Read the section entitled "Post Issuance Fees"

Ex parte reexamination $2520
Inter partes reexamination $8800.

Now look at this link

http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title35/partiii_c hapter30_.html

Read each and every subsection. The first five are the most important with respect to this problem.

If your art is so killer, and you can read simple instructions, it will cost you a grand total of $2520, photocopying, and postage to have the government do the hard lifting for you.

If you don't trust the government, and you can write a simple legal argument (in all likelihood you can't, because if you couldn't do the research to find this then you have little hope of doing research to find the standards for various kinds of patent invalidity), it will cost you a grand total of $8800, photocopying, postage, and the opportunity cost of the time that you're not spending on Slashdot whining about the evil patent system ($0) to be able to read and rebut any argument that the evil patent holder presents to overcome your not-killer-but-close prior art.

If you run an actual business and have better things to do, then you hire an attorney at the rate of $150-200/hr to either warn you off because your prior art is not going to achieve what you think it will achieve, or to present a professional argument backed by research and worthwhile citations to precedent.

If you cannot afford $3k-$10k, or more, then frankly you're not doing a business that is in any danger of being sued for patent infringement. Pre-emptive anti-lawyer, anti-patent whine response: Forming a business costs money, buying or renting a workplace costs money, buying equipment costs money, hiring staff costs money, paying workers comp and unemployment insurance costs money, and, in the rare case where a patent may be a problem, patent clearance or other efforts are going to actually cost money too. Grow up and deal with it.

Well, that's your theory. Have you got case law to back it up?

Who needs case law for this? We've got statutory law.

having real trouble quantifying the loss of a wronged GPL developer and calling it zero.

Learn what the GPP meant when he said "(punitive) damages".

Sure, the actual damages of the developer might be zero, but 17USC504 provides for not just actual damages, but also profits that the offender made. Also, 17USC504(c) allows the copyright owner to, rather than receive actual damages + profits, elect to receive statutory damages of up to $150k.

IANAL.

Section 216 of the bill basically amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act, instructing "Federal banking agencies, the National Credit Union Administration, and the [Federal Trade] Commission" to "issue final regulations requiring any person that maintains or otherwise possesses consumer information, or any compilation of consumer information, derived from consumer reports for a business purpose to properly dispose of any such information or compilation." And they need to do so in ways that don't contradict one another or the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, a/k/a GLBA a/k/a Public Law 106-102. I did a quick search of GLBA and didn't find anything specific to such record destruction.

Got it. Federal banks, the National Credit Union Admin, and the FTC need to make rules on how people should dispose of credit reports.

So can anyone link the actual rules issued by any of these agencies? I struck out in finding those. And they're, y'know, the meat of the matter.

Section 216 of the bill basically amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act, instructing "Federal banking agencies, the National Credit Union Administration, and the [Federal Trade] Commission" to "issue final regulations requiring any person that maintains or otherwise possesses consumer information, or any compilation of consumer information, derived from consumer reports for a business purpose to properly dispose of any such information or compilation." And they need to do so in ways that don't contradict one another or the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, a/k/a GLBA a/k/a Public Law 106-102. I did a quick search of GLBA and didn't find anything specific to such record destruction.

Got it. Federal banks, the National Credit Union Admin, and the FTC need to make rules on how people should dispose of credit reports.

So can anyone link the actual rules issued by any of these agencies? I struck out in finding those. And they're, y'know, the meat of the matter.

Under the proposed rule, any person that maintains or otherwise posesses consumer information would be required to "take reasonable measures to protect against unauthroized access to or use of the infomation in connection with its disposal." Recognizing that there are few foolproof methods of record destruction, the NPR stated that the propossed rule would not require covered persons to ensure perfect destruction of consumer information inevery instance; rather, it requires covered entities to take reasonable measures to protect against unauthorixrf access to or use of the information in connection with its disposal. In determining what measures are "reasonable" under the rule, the Commission stated in the NPR that it expects that entities covered by the rule would consider the sensitivity of the consumer information, the nature and suze if the entity's operations, the costs and benefits of different disposal methods and relevant technological changes. Thd commission also noted that "reasonable measures" are very likely to require elements such as establishment of policies and procedures governing disposal as well as appropriate employee training.

(b)scope. This rule applies to any person over which the Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction, that, for a business purpose, maintains or otherwise possesses consumer information.

In any case, they call for reasonable measures -- in other words, a little mom and pop (literally) operation hiring a nanny wouldn't have the same requirements as equifax disposing of thousands of documents, so ripping up the mammy's credit/bond report and distributing the pieces between two or three different garbage cans would probably suffice.

You can buy the US Code here: http://bookstore.gpo.gov/sb/sb-197.html It is 35 volumes, each of which costs close to $80, so if you want to have a copy of the laws it'll run you $2,800. Alternately you can go online and search them, but that's not as good as owning a copy. And this is only the US law, state law and and local ordinances will set you back at least a grand each, so if you want to know what you're doing wrong, you have to spend $5000 and probably a year reading.

In general, you're limted to 300 baud below the 10m band, 1200 baud in the 10m band, 19.6K baud in the 6m and 2m bands and 56K baud in the 1.25m and 70cm bands.

Most packet radio activity I've heard of has been in the 2m and 70cm bands (there may possibly be some 6m activity, but I can't say for sure). These are VHF bands, so they aren't shortwave, strictly speaking.

So the short answer is: No, it's not high-bandwidth, but it's better than no-bandwidth. :)

YMMV outside the US, since these are US rules.