Slashdot Mirror

Congratulations on the Insightful mod point. On Slashdot, when talking about patents, that is certification that you don't know what you're talking about. Notice my mod points were informative because my comments were based on information. Just an observation.

It's been my observation that people who make meta-comments about moderation are either insecure, trying to deflect the argument, or are trolls themselves.

If you'd like to refute that you don't have a clue, pick one of those patents and explain to me how the USPTO issued it without complying with the laws created by Congress or the case law created by judges. The notion that the USPTO promotes bogus statutes is, with all due respect, retarded.

Yeah, they don't promote current bad IP law at all. They're really trying hard to fix broken software patents. NOT.

The fact is, as the patent statutes are currently written you could drive a bus through them for or against software patents. According to this and this 35 USC and 37 CFR doesn't even mention the word software! The USPTO is taking advantage of that ambiguity and the ambiguity in case law to build their bureaucratic empire.

The USPTO's deliberate attempt to conflate creativity and patents/copyright at every opportunity, as if they are one and the same is also disengenuous.

Do police officers "promote" the statutes against murder? No, they execute the law to the best of their ability.

They also keep their superiors well informed about the best way to improve the law, turn a blind eye to bad law, particularly when it is badly applicable, and generally try to do the right thing. Unlike the USPTO.

The USPTO is part of the executive branch of the government. If you don't believe those facts based in reality, I'll find you a 3rd grade social studies textbook that will explain the separation of powers.

That's the theory, now look at the above for the reality. You're also giving another common bureaucratic cop-out when somebody points out bureaucratic irresponsibility: "we're just following orders". That's not an excuse if you've made no realistic attempt to get the orders fixed and even then it's dubious.

Face it, despite your obvious attempt to baffle-with-bullshit people here with irrelevant information your argument is weak.

As I've said before it's telling when a government department ignores what a huge number of experts in the field is telling them. And no, lawyers and the USPTO are not expert in the field of software, software innovation, OSS or the true net economic value of software patents despite what they claim. Legal training is irrel

Yes, it is copyright infringment. The copyright owner has the exclusive rights to copy and distribute the work among others.

United States Code Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 106

"Since the Republicans are asking me to fund a war I'm firmly opposed to..."

Perhaps you'd better go check the Congressional record:

An act making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR012 68:@@@R

Not that it's necessary since it passed 100-0, but here's the actual record of votes:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_li sts/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1& vote=00117#position

Likewise the original Congressional authorization for war was similarly bi-partisan:

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HJ001 14:@@@R
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_li sts/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2& vote=00237#position

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

Blaming the war on the Republicans is convenient, but unfortuately ungrounded in fact.

Brilliant solution, and an excellent example of the wide range and advanced nature of many Amateur technologies.

One problem....

He's running a business, and well that's not really amateur than is it? What you are proposing is actually illegal.

Please see part 97 of the FCC rules, specifically section 113, 'Prohibited transmissions'

FCC rules 97.113

-Mikey P

Anybody remember the AMBER Act... which was (imo) a good 'thing'?

Did you know Senator Joe Biden (D-Del.) snuck, the RAVE Act into the AMBER Act (See H.R. 834 Source: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi ?dbname=108_cong_bills&docid=f:h834ih.txt.pdf (Note: this is a PDF file)).

Do you even know what the RAVE Act was? Here's a snip:

Section 305 of the CLEAN-UP Act stipulates that:

`Whoever, for a commercial purpose, knowingly promotes any rave, dance, music, or other entertainment event, that takes place under circumstances where the promoter knows or reasonably ought to know that a controlled substance will be used or distributed in violation of Federal law or the law of the place where the event is held, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned for not more than 9 years, or both.'

Under the provision, any concert promoter, nightclub owner and arena or stadium owner could be fined and jailed, since a reasonable person would know some people use drugs at musical events."

The thing about this Act is, "Taken literally, the law is so broad that letting people smoke marijuana at a private house party could be a federal felony." Source: http://inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=322_0_2_0_ C

Salon.com's take was, "Your glow stick could land you in jail" By Janelle Brown
.
Event Promoters could get up to 20 years in jail and a $250,000 fine if participants do drugs.
Source: http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2003/04/16/rave/i ndex_np.html

Having been one of 'those' who implemented usenet and having invested many hours into trying to understand, I offer this for consideration.

If there was a plan that was created about the time of MacAurther, "THEY" did not count on the existence of the Internet. Source: http://www.flyingsnail.com/Dahbud/theplan.html

Use your imagination and picture how things might be if there were no Internet....

Then figure out what "THEY" will attempt to control next...that will probably be attached to another major bill....and not the one that comes in your mailbox every month.

This site is a worthwhile visit: http://www.unrealid.com/

The legislation linked to above appears to have died in committee in the senate.

The amendment that counts right now is S.AMDT.429:
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SP0 0429:

View the full text and goto page S3699.

You might be interested to know that this amendment also repeals "Section 7212 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004" (found here: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi ?dbname=108_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ458.108) which already does most of the things the current amendment would do (as far as requirements for id's go). The biggest thing added to the id requirements by the new bill is "A common machine-readable technology, with defined minimum data elements."

Here is a pdf of the bill they'll be voting on. H.R.418 REAL ID Act of 2005

Here is the bill everyone is talking about.

Please note -

(1) TV broadcast industry got digital broadband for free.

(2) US Treasury wants to auction off analog bandwidth for $$$

(3) The bill was intended to speed up digital conversion by setting a deadline.

(4) Non-commercial stations (PBS) are not scheduled to return analog bandwidth until 1-1-2007.

(5) The bill only mentions problems with licensees to extend the deadline (it does not mention problems you the people might have with a conversion, even though you the people probably should have a say in this matter).

Here is the bill everyone is talking about.

Please note -

(1) TV broadcast industry got digital broadband for free.

(2) US Treasury wants to auction off analog bandwidth for $$$

(3) The bill was intended to speed up digital conversion by setting a deadline.

(4) Non-commercial stations (PBS) are not scheduled to return analog bandwidth until 1-1-2007.

(5) The bill only mentions problems with licensees to extend the deadline (it does not mention problems you the people might have with a conversion, even though you the people probably should have a say in this matter).

Here's a link to the PDF version of the bill. Happy printing!

Yes.

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cf r95_04.html
(See everything numbered 95.4xx)

Prohibited communications: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/12feb20041 500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cfr95 .413.htm

Paragraph (22) of section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(22)) is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: `Such term shall not include communications over the Internet.'.

(22) Public communication. The term 'public communication' means a communication by means of any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mass mailing, or telephone bank to the general public, or any other form of general public political advertising.

(22) Public communication. The term 'public communication' means a communication by means of any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mass mailing, or telephone bank to the general public, or any other form of general public political advertising. Such term shall not include communications over the Internet.

Sorry the second link is broken. It should be: http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS14005 (Figure 4 is interesting.)

Since existing laws and regulations appear to have been ineffective, more laws seem unlikely to reduce the problem, so the best recommendations would appear to make it part of the standard training of pilots on how to handle the incidents (if that is not already the case). All in my humble opinion, of course.

Funny you should mention good old Public Law 107-243. That's the one containing this text in section 3a:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION.--The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(Which turned out to be a total myth!)

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(Which, the UN Sec-General refers to the US force as illegal!)

Grrrr

A ham operator can't do that. The license does not permit broadcasting (except under very limited circumstances). See: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_02/47cf r97_02.html

OK, I am lost.

"we wind up spending more gas to harvest than we get from the plants."

Let me put that in perspective, what is that, only get a few quarts of biodiesel per acre of plants? That doesn't seem right. That's pretty absurd.

"For every unit of fossil energy used to produce biodiesel, 3.37 units of biodiesel energy are created."

Source

That's a little better.

If it is really possible to make crude oil from farm waste, then that is an interesting thing to investigate. I wonder if it is a path not properly investigated for political reasons. It would unfortunately give creationists what they could exploit as possible ammo. They would try to shoot down the claims it took millions of years to make fuels.

You can find out if your Representative voted for this draconian bill here (requires Adobe Acrobat): GPO's PDF - Rick C. Hodgin

These people?.

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."
-- Bill Clinton in 1998

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
-- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
(this from a speech to the Pentagon staff and the Joint Chiefs is an excellent read. Saying almost exactly the same things Bush was saying in 2002.)

"It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein wiill continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East which, as we know all too well, affects American security."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
---George Santayana

TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART I--CRIMES

CHAPTER 33--EMBLEMS, INSIGNIA, AND NAMES

Sec. 700. Desecration of the flag of the United States;
penalties

(a)(1) Whoever knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles,
burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon any flag of
the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not
more than one year, or both.
(2) This subsection does not prohibit any conduct consisting of the
disposal of a flag when it has become worn or soiled.
(b) As used in this section, the term ``flag of the United States''
means any flag of the United States, or any part thereof, made of any
substance, of any size, in a form that is commonly displayed.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed as indicating an
intent on the part of Congress to deprive any State, territory,
possession, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico of jurisdiction over any
offense over which it would have jurisdiction in the absence of this
section.
(d)(1) An appeal may be taken directly to the Supreme Court of the
United States from any interlocutory or final judgment, decree, or order
issued by a United States district court ruling upon the
constitutionality of subsection (a).
(2) The Supreme Court shall, if it has not previously ruled on the
question, accept jurisdiction over the appeal and advance on the docket
and expedite to the greatest extent possible.

(Added Pub. L. 90-381, Sec. 1, July 5, 1968, 82 Stat. 291; amended Pub.
L. 101-131, Secs. 2, 3, Oct. 28, 1989, 103 Stat. 777.)

I will give you an example. If you search news (i.e., either Google News or Yahoo! News) for stories about the recent federal action (by Washington) involving Chinese companies and Iranians weapons improved by Chinese technology, you will discover that one of the popular news articles about this topic comes from the "New York Times". Several other newspapers redistributed the Times article, written by David Sanger (spelling?).

I read that article, but I also read articles from less popular Web news sites: e.g. "Taipei Times". The "Taipei Times" article does mention that a Taiwanese company was also implicated in the sale of weapons technology to Taiwan. Yet, "New York Times" article made no mention of this fact.

Is the "Taipei Times" telling the truth? It claims that Ecoma Enterprise Company, a Taiwanese company, was one of the culprits.

At this point, I fired up both Yahoo! Search and Google. Only on Google was I successful in locating the the ORIGINAL source of the information about American penalties against the 7 Chinese companies and the 1 Taiwanese company. The information is on page 133 of the "Federal Register" (volume 70, number 1). So, I discovered that the "Taipei Times" was telling the truth.

Guess how long I took on Google to find this information? 5 minutes. I kid you not. Even though I hate Google's employment practices, I am quite impressed with their technology.

Using Yahoo! Search, I was not able to locate the desired information.

Apparently, Google has an algorithm that, although it is unsupervised (i.e. without the kind of human interaction that corrupts Yahoo! Search), it captures the notion of what the typical person wants to find. The Google algorithm, dare I say "it", is on the verge of acquiring human sentience. THAT is, indeed, impressive.

Pray to Buddha that the middle name of the CEO is not "666" or Beelzebub. Just kidding.

an RFI from the Department of Health and Human Services posted November 15th:

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2004/04-25382.htm

80N

Amiga Trombone said: In the process of earning his money, Gates' licensing DOS and it's descendants to all comers created a standard hardware platform for personal computers, thereby forcing hardware vendors to compete on price and innovation.

Microsoft, which makes the MS-DOS and Windows operating systems used in more than 120 million personal computers, was accused of building a barricade of exclusionary and unreasonably restrictive licensing agreements to deny others an opportunity to develop and market competing products.

Amiga Trombone said: This in turn facilitated the growth of ancillary hardware, software, and tech support industries, providing thousands, if not millions, of people a living.

412. Most harmful of all is the message that Microsoft=s actions have conveyed to every enterprise with the potential to innovate in the computer industry. Through its conduct toward Netscape, IBM, Compaq, Intel, and others, Microsoft has demonstrated that it will use its prodigious market power and immense profits to harm any firm that insists on pursuing initiatives that could intensify competition against one of Microsoft=s core products. Microsoft=s past success in hurting such companies and stifling innovation deters investment in technologies and businesses that exhibit the potential to threaten Microsoft. The ultimate result is that some innovations that would truly benefit consumers never occur for the sole reason that they do not coincide with Microsoft=s self-interest.

Doesn't exactly sound like MS "facilitated the growth of ancillary hardware, software, and tech support industries", to me. Ok, maybe the support "industries", but that's more revealing of the incompetence of Microsoft (which is why they needed to use illegal tactics to secure their market) rather than the "advancements" you say were made possible by Mr. Gates.

What advancements never got off the ground because they were precluded from the market by the monopolist? Cheap computing power was already available, as was a standard platform. No one can measure what was lost by the anti-competitive, market destroying actions Microsoft used to prevent being supplanted and replaced by better systems.

... the operators of part 15 devices are required to cease operation should harmful interference occur to authorized users of the radiofrequency spectrum...

Bruce *is* licensed, and in the article, he specifically mentions that he took care to use something that WOULDN'T cause him to lose his license.

A ham radio license gives you no special rights outside of the ham bands. (And yes, I have one too.) Last I checked, the FM broadcast band (88-108 mHz) is outside the ham bands.

even if he were using the ham bands, it's illegal to broadcast music over them, unless it happens to be incidental music from a rebroadcast from the Space Shuttle (yes, the regulations are that specific :)

The (part 15) rules do permit low power transmitters on the FM broadcast band, but they're based on effective radiated power (i.e. in the direction with the strongest signal), not total radiated power. Specific regulations here. If your signal can be picked up in your entire neighborhood, you're obviously exceeding the power limit.

he specifically mentions that he took care to use something that WOULDN'T cause him to lose his license.

From the article --

I used a menu setting to turn it down to 100 mW. But then I found that 100 mW is no longer the FCC limit - it's 250 milivolts per meter radiated emissions, measured 3 meters from the antenna. This is probably a good deal under 100 mW power.

I couldn't find exactly what law he was charged with violating, but suspect it's 49 USC 49504 (search at http://uscode.house.gov/search/criteria.php), which was amended by the Patriot Act.

That section deals with "Interference with flight crew members and attendants," and reads:

An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

So, is shining a light, especially one which meets US safety regulations (as all laser pointers must) at someone "assault?" How about a flashlight? Seems to me that is going to be quite hard to prove. Doesn't "assault" also require intent to do harm?

Certainly, a laser light show not deliberately made to point at an aircraft can't be considered "assault."

The FBI seems confused about the law (no surprise). In this (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=385589) AP article, it states that "According to the FBI, the Patriot Act does not describe helicopters as "mass transportation vehicles." While the statement is technically true, it's also the case that the Patriot Act doesn't describe anything as "mass transportation vehicles," in fact the phrase never appears at all.

After all, things like this have happened before.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi ?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ056.107

When we make thoughts illegal, we're faced with legislating people's minds.

Where I come from, "legislating people's minds" is called Titles 17 and 35, United States Code.

Nasa should set standards for the work they want completed, and have it done in a safe manner

I have one relative who collects Edison Cylinder Phonograph recording, the vast majority of those are outside copyright

If your relative is making copies of these phonographs in California and makes, for example, more than 1000 copies of one of them, he could in principle go to prison for 5 years and face a $250,000 fine.

Crazy...

As a Kurdish guy I can tell you the Turkish Government is a terrorist organisation.
Guilty of killing millions of people include children and women.
Please see http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=kurdish+genoc ide+-iraq+%2Bturkey&btnG=Google+Search for more info.
Also note that the USA acknowledged recently The US Government being a terrorist organization.

Check out the full text of H.R. 4077, the one that says: "To enhance criminal enforcement of the copyright laws, to educate the public about the application of copyright law to the Internet, and for other purposes." ...in the abstract.

Okay, now: skip all the text, and jump right to the bottom- "TITLE II--MISCELLANEOUS." Section 201, the designation of national tree.

"The tree genus Quercus, commonly known as the oak tree, is the national tree."

Can someone more informed in the ways of law tell me what this is all about?

I stand corrected: H.R. 2391.RS Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Instead of the no-brainer www.denver.gov they use www.denvergov.com and www.denvergov.org.

That's because there are special naming requirements for cities that use the .gov namespace. Denver would have ended up as something like www.denver-co.gov. Or they could have gone with www.ci.denver.co.us.

I know you mentioned it, but I don't recall the basis you used for claim the Constitution cannot grant citizenship to the unborn. This is not the argument they used for throwing about abortion laws (although it would have actually made far more sense...). I would assume that given the lack of a definitive statement, it falls the states, which is how it was treated before 1973.

It's considered to be implied in a single phrase regarding who can be President (natural born citizens)- all of our federal citizenship law is tied in some way to that phrase, and similar phrases in who can be elected to House and Senate seats. http://bensguide.gpo.gov/3-5/citizenship/

The Majority Opinion for Roe V. Wade states, in part "IT IS THUS APPARENT THAT AT COMMON LAW, AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF OUR CONSTITUTION, AND THROUGHOUT THE MAJOR PORTION OF THE 19TH CENTURY, ABORTION WAS VIEWED WITH LESS DISFAVOR THAN UNDER MOST AMERICAN STATUTES CURRENTLY IN EFFECT. PHRASING IT ANOTHER WAY, A WOMAN ENJOYED A SUBSTANTIALLY BROADER RIGHT TO TERMINATE A PREGNANCY THAN SHE DOES IN MOST STATES TODAY. AT LEAST WITH RESPECT TO THE EARLY STAGE OF PREGNANCY, AND VERY POSSIBLY WITHOUT SUCH A LIMITATION, THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THIS CHOICE WAS PRESENT IN THIS COUNTRY WELL INTO THE 19TH CENTURY. EVEN LATER, THE LAW CONTINUED FOR SOME TIME TO TREAT LESS PUNITIVELY AN ABORTION PROCURED IN EARLY PREGNANCY. " http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/roe.wade/deci sion/index4.html- and it's in reference to the English Common Law that citizenship and personhood comes into play.

See that's the thing... Kerry talks the talk when it suits him, but he seems far too willing to adjust his position as the situation dictate.

See, that's one thing I like about Kerry- I see it as a sign of intelligence and reason to change one's plans based on outside influences. It's also something I dislike about the President and Vice President, for as you say:

The President and especially the Vice President have spun their pre-war rhetoric retroactively, (essentially because they dumbed down their arguments for war for mass consumption and overplayed their hand), but they haven't materially changed their position. Everything they are saying today they HAD said before the war, just not as much as the smoking gun issues they were trying to produce. I still have to say that if the U.N. were worth the parking tickets it gathers in New York, this whole Iraq thing would have never happened.

I agree with that for sure- had the UN been worth anything at all there would have been a UN invasion of Iraq and a general destruction of all arms long ago. It would have taken a massive increase to UN forces to do so- American generals estimate 740,000 troops and more- but it could have been done.

It's also funny how Clinton didn't get U.N. approval (as I understand it) to go to Kosovo, but no one criticizes him for it. Maybe because it wasn't expensive enough in money and lives.

Actually, I remember it differently- that one of the big complaints about Clinton's little trip to Kosovo was indeed that it was under UN control- to the point of American troops wearing blue helmets and getting their orders from a German general (thus disrupting the standard chain of command). Of course, I was in Klamath Falls at the time- home of surivalists, libertarians, and conspiracy theorists galore- so I got plenty of "This is proof of George Bush's "New World Order" coming true- look out for the Black Helicopters!" rhetoric at the time. I didn't understand then what I now know- that neoliberals and neoconservatives are basically the same stripe- and their marching orders are to turn the governance of the entire world over to the multinational corporations. From that standpoint, it won't matter if Kerry wins or Bush wins- they're both getting their REAL marching

While he makes the point that the Founding Fathers probably had in their minds flintlocks (and sabers, cannon, horse-cavalry) when they were thinking of the arms that the people might keep and bear, at the same time their view of the press was those with manual printing presses, paper and quill-pens, not radio, TV, high-speed automatic presses and the internet. (Remember that any successful argument limiting the scope of one article of the Bill of Rights can immediately be used in the same form against another... precedent can be a bitch.)

I would point out that the intention of the Founding Fathers was that the militia, both organized and unorganized, be equipped with such weapons as are customary for the time. (For those who won't RTFLink, the militia is every able bodied male from 17 to 45 that is a citizen or has declared their intention to become one, plus any female that have joined an organized militia, state or national. Religious conscientious objectors are excused from combat duty, and may be assigned noncombatant roles. Still on the books and in effect... if you're American and male, you're a militiaman.) In order to avoid having an standing army in peace-time, the militia would be relied upon to handle defence against an aggressor until an army could be raised. Furthermore, in order that the standing army not be used as an instrument of oppression after it is raised, the militia would be armed alike to the standing army. Indeed, a few years after the Constitution was established, the Militia Act of 1792 was established requiring all men that could afford it to procure a musket, bayonet, shot, powder and associated gear (i.e. the "assault weapons" of the time). Sunday mornings were spent in worship, exercising their hard earned rights; Sunday afternoon were spent at the local firing range, practicing in order to defend those rights.

I think it is clear that the intention of the Founding Fathers was very clear: if the military can have it, the people can have it. It does not, however, follow that the government shall provide it to any individual of the people. Domestic builders of tanks are under contract with clauses to provide them only to the government, so you'll have to build your own, and you can't import them. Want hacking tools? Well, the military doesn't have to give you theirs, but you can write your own.

So the question posed by arashiakari is interesting: if the government is to classify something as an "arm", then they may not infringe the right of the people to keep and "bear" it, even if it is a Perl script, but they don't have to make it easy to acquire. Which does not mean that you can export it, which is where I think the source of the question came from (i.e. the prohibition on the export of cryptographic devices under their classification as a "munition").

When one is unclear as to the intention of the Founding Fathers, the Internet can bring you some of their insight in the form of the Federalist Papers, thanks to Project Gutenberg.

Any Libertarian who supports Scalia or Thomas hasn't read the opinions of those Justices. Almost every opinion has been against individual liberty.

They've been against federal involvement in protecting individual liberty, perhaps.

As an example, take Thomas's dissenting opinion in the Newdow case -- he argues for what is essentially found state right against an individual right; i.e. he argues without providing any evidence whatsoever (and dismissing as irrelevent contrary evidence in the writings of Madison) that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was INTENDED to protect the States' right to establish sectarian churches.

He may not have provided evidence, but he's absolutely right. The First Amendment was a bar on federal action, not state action. This was modified in the Fourteenth Amendment, but he's absolutely right about the intent of the First Amendment.

Cheers,
Craig

Which is all well and good, but there's this passage (in the `1 watt' link given above) --

if transmitting antennas of directional gain greater than 6 dBi are used the peak output power from the intentional radiator shall be reduced below the stated values in paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section, as appropriate, by the amount in dB that the directional gain of the antenna exceeds 6 dBi.

Now, there is a way out. The ham rules don't have the same restrictions on antennas, and there is some overlap between the ham bands and the WiFi 2.4 gHz band, so you could go that way, but if you go under the ham rules, you have to follow all the ham rules, like those about IDing yourself, no encryption, no bad language, no monetary interest, etc.

It wouldn't surprise me if there's a lot of hams in the group of people trying to get long range WiFi links going for things like this -- but I know that a lot of the people trying aren't hams, and I'll bet that even the ones that are hams aren't all following the ham rules (though they should know better.)

This link talks about wirelss ISPs co-existing with hams in the 2.4 gHz band. It's somewhat relevant, and may be interesting reading.

Which is all well and good, but there's this passage (in the `1 watt' link given above) --

if transmitting antennas of directional gain greater than 6 dBi are used the peak output power from the intentional radiator shall be reduced below the stated values in paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section, as appropriate, by the amount in dB that the directional gain of the antenna exceeds 6 dBi.

Now, there is a way out. The ham rules don't have the same restrictions on antennas, and there is some overlap between the ham bands and the WiFi 2.4 gHz band, so you could go that way, but if you go under the ham rules, you have to follow all the ham rules, like those about IDing yourself, no encryption, no bad language, no monetary interest, etc.

It wouldn't surprise me if there's a lot of hams in the group of people trying to get long range WiFi links going for things like this -- but I know that a lot of the people trying aren't hams, and I'll bet that even the ones that are hams aren't all following the ham rules (though they should know better.)

This link talks about wirelss ISPs co-existing with hams in the 2.4 gHz band. It's somewhat relevant, and may be interesting reading.

Which is all well and good, but there's this passage (in the `1 watt' link given above) --

if transmitting antennas of directional gain greater than 6 dBi are used the peak output power from the intentional radiator shall be reduced below the stated values in paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section, as appropriate, by the amount in dB that the directional gain of the antenna exceeds 6 dBi.

Now, there is a way out. The ham rules don't have the same restrictions on antennas, and there is some overlap between the ham bands and the WiFi 2.4 gHz band, so you could go that way, but if you go under the ham rules, you have to follow all the ham rules, like those about IDing yourself, no encryption, no bad language, no monetary interest, etc.

It wouldn't surprise me if there's a lot of hams in the group of people trying to get long range WiFi links going for things like this -- but I know that a lot of the people trying aren't hams, and I'll bet that even the ones that are hams aren't all following the ham rules (though they should know better.)

This link talks about wirelss ISPs co-existing with hams in the 2.4 gHz band. It's somewhat relevant, and may be interesting reading.

There's a reason they fixed your motherboard without question. They're legally obligated to (at least in the USA). From the Magnuson-Moss act 16 C.F.R. 700.10 section 102(c):

"No warrantor may condition the continued validity of a warranty on the use of only authorized repair service and/or authorized replacement parts for non-warranty service and maintenance. For example, provisions such as, 'This warranty is void if service is performed by anyone other than an authorized "ABC" dealer and all replacement parts must be genuine "ABC" parts,' and the like, are prohibited where the service or parts are not covered by the warranty. These provisions violate the Act in two ways. First, they violate the section 102 (c) ban against tying arrangements. Second, such provisions are deceptive under section 110 of the Act, because a warrantor cannot, as a matter of law, avoid liability under a written warranty where a defect is unrelated to the use by a consumer of "unauthorized" articles or service. This does not preclude a warrantor from expressly excluding liability for defects or damage caused by such "unauthorized" articles or service; nor does it preclude the warrantor from denying liability where the warrantor can demonstrate that the defect or damage was so caused."

• The text of the Iraq war resolution
  
• The roll call vote in the house
  
• The roll call vote in the senate
  

This can, in principle, be used to support the theory of evolution.

Someone did sue Microsoft and moreover, they won. Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. Of course, the court-ordered breakup was nullified, and nothing's happened to control their business practices since. It's both sad and frightening how much "justice" money can buy.

Many fellow /.s predicted this would happen, mainly because like it said, these devices _must_ accept interference.

For more information on the Part 15 docs, see this site:

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_01/47cf r15_01.html

The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which I am the chairman of, regularly conducts oversight, and it has proven to be effective and reliable. To that end I have frequently described the Intelligence Committee when I make public speeches, which I do frequently, as the metaphorical 1-800 number for anybody who has concerns about abuses under the PATRIOT Act or any intelligence-related activities. The number to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has been and continues to be publicly listed and available to anybody who wants to call from around the world. If you have experienced a specific problem with the PATRIOT Act, you can now call us at our toll-free number. It only costs the taxpayers. The number is 1-877-858-9040.

Note that he said that 1-800 was a metaphor he was using to describe the committee. Note that he says that a number *has been and continues to be* published to contact them, but doesn't specifically say which one it was. Note that he says that taxpayers can *now* call the 877 number.

This isn't about Goss saying 1-800 when he meant 1-877. When Goss made the 1-800 comment, and at the time Fahrenheit 911 was released, there was not a free number to call Goss' committee about the PATRIOT Act.

I dare you to find a reference to, or any published material indicating that 877 number was in place before June 25th, the day Fahrenheit 911 hit theaters. Moore would be lying if he said it today, but when the movie was released, it was factual both in semantics and in spirit.

Can I get some linkage on that? Or is it BS? (Specifically the .30-.30 WInchester part)

Sorry, I meant to post a link to that and got in a hurry. First, the exact quote from Kennedy for those who don't feel like reading the Congressional Record which I will link to at the bottom:

"Another rifle caliber, the 30.30 caliber, was responsible for penetrating three officers' armor and killing them in 1993, 1996, and 2002. This ammunition is also capable of puncturing light-armored vehicles, ballistic or armored glass, armored limousines, even a 600-pound safe with 600 pounds of safe armor plating.

"It is outrageous and unconscionable that such ammunition continues to be sold in the United States of America. Armor-piercing ammunition for rifles and assault weapons is virtually unregulated in the United States. A Federal license is not required to sell such ammunition unless firearms are sold as well. Anyone over the age of 18 may purchase this ammunition without a background check. There is no Federal minimum age of possession. Purchases may be made over the counter, by mail order, by fax, by Internet, and there is no Federal requirement that dealers retain sales records."

--- Senator Edward Kennedy, New York (February 26, 2004, Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, Congressional Record, (Pp. S1634-5)

This bill would have essentially given the Attorney General the power to ban any ammunition that was capable of penetrating police soft body armor. (For those unfamiliar with the 30-30 caliber it is a popular deer rifle cartridge.) (Presidential candidate, John Kerry, was one of the votes in favor of this bill.)

Link to the Government Printing Office's site listing the relevant section of the Congressional Record:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cg i?position=all&page=S1633&dbname=2004_reco rd

PS - I had problems getting that to show up properly in Mozilla. IE worked fine.

http://bensguide.gpo.gov/6-8/lawmaking/

A simple guide for kids! :) You're confusing the 2/3 majority to if the president says 'no' to a bill.

Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.