Slashdot Mirror

Start with Dol official UI#/workforce == (non-seasonally adjusted UE rate. U3)
9144K/146,068K == 6.3% unemployment rate.

( B.T.W. Seasonal adjustment shifts this number to 5.6%, In the last month we really lost 2.8 Million jobs, but seasonal adjustments make it look like a net gain of 112K.)

--

Add IN.....

Disability rolls rise, skew labor data

"Recent research finds a 60% jump in number of disability recipients keeping unemployment low."

"The "labor force," 142.5 million strong, does not include people who draw disability benefits from the Social Security Administration(SSA). As of December 2002, there were about 5.5 million adults getting disability benefits, totaling about $4.6 billion a month. "

OK.. so tack in 3,000K partially disabled, get federal checks, want work, but not counted.
(9,144K+3,000K) / (146,068K + 3,000K) == ~8.1% unemployment rate..

---

Factor in that there are the 10.3 Million self employed workers who are paying estimated (self employment) taxes(14.1%) for LESS THAN a 2.4 million FULL TIME MINIMUM WAGE workers. (Shift another 8 million from the employed to the unemployment category). If they're not filling form 1040-ES's, then they're not making any money. (Equivalent to unemployed)..

raw tax collection data. Table IV.. (individual estimated tax payments)
3,371 Million(2003 1040ES data)/.141(SE tax rate)/10.3Million == average SE income $2,321/yr..
[Notes: Uses 2003 tax collection data as a baseline, and ignores federal income tax liability and the contributions by people paying in for capital gains.] [Full time job at Federal Min wage pays $10,300/yr.]

(9,144K+3,000K+8,000K) / (146,068K+3000K) == ~13.5% unemployment rate.

----

Add in the FACT, that there have been workforce adjustments which lop off a couple of million (unemployed) workers each year, despite the Census numbers that workforce should be growing by 2 Million per year. [B.T.W. We've added ~9 Million to the 16 and over Civilian NI population since the tech bust started, at least 65% would have taken a job if it was available.]

Undo the recent changes to workforce participation percentages. (revert back to 2000 average 67.1% verses current 65.7%) It's obvious they want to work. Just no work to be had.. That adds back in 1.4% percent of overall work population.. 3.0 Million workers..

(9,144K+3,000K+8,000K+3,000K) / (146,068K+3000K+3,000K) == ~15.2% unemployment rate.

-----

Add in the FACT that the DOL changed(1994) the household survey data collection method and resulting in the almost doubling of the non-parcipation rate, from 4.3 to 7.5 Percent. The DOL accomplished this feat by substituting a scientifically sound MAIL IN form, with scientifically discredited IN PERSON interviews.

Well, I don't know about you, but being unemployed is not a badge of honor. Most people do not like to admit that they are unemployed, and would be even less likely to do so while being interviewed in person. I.E. It demeans their social status and self esteem.

If they managed to convince/intimidate those households, with at least one unemployed worker not to participate. That would add another
3.4 Million to the unemployment/workforce figures, thusly increasing unemployment by another 2 to 3 of percent.

[Another item in the DOL household survey is the incredible number of Ineligible households!! Thats 12,000 out of a sample lot of 72,000 or 16.6%..

1. Always start with Thomas. Being the Library of Congress and all, it makes sense for them to maintain an up-to-date collection of all the legislation floating around on the floor. They keep track of bills from introduction until they die, are vetoed, or become law.
2. Make sure you have the right Congress. Even though it seems most members of Congress have been where they are for longer than many of us have been alive, a new "Congress" is considred to be formed the swearing in of the winners of a recent election. Our current Congress was sworn in after the last election, January '03. Since we know what we're looking for happened in '01, we have to go back to the 107th Congress.
3. Know what you're looking for. It sounds simple, but it isn't always. For example, if you're looking for a piece of pork-barrel spending slipped into a bill to complain about, good luck; they tend not to call bills "Act to Buy Votes in my Home District and Keep My Sorry Ass on the Hill" (Bitter? Who, me?). Luckily for us, we know the "proper" name of the bill ("USA PATRIOT Act"). You can also search by things like bill number (they begin with "HR" if they start in the House of Representatives and "S" if they start in the Senate), its status (check out the long list of bills President Bush has vetoed!) as well as other factors. In this example, we see that the USA PATRIOT Act was known as "HR 3162" in the 107th Congress
4. Make sure you have the right version. For better*cough* or for worse, the USA PATRIOT Act is one of those bills nobody bothered to look at before voting on, but that's a rarity. It's pretty common for the House and the Senate to dicker back and forth over the text before sending it off to the White House. (I hear the White House can even occasionally send it back for yet more revision, but I'm beginning to think that's just a myth.) Once you're looking at one version of the bill you're looking for, you can click on "Bill Summary & Status Info" for a breakdown of what the different versions are, where we ultimately learn that HR 3162 was signed into law as "public law 107-56" (107th Congress, 56th public law) and can view the text of the final version there.

Unfortunately, the response you get here doesn't have a URL you can easily cut-and-paste for others to look at, so I had to go to The Other Source on federal law: the GPO. It's their primary job to take all these silly laws numbered solely by Congress and law number and organize them into something that's more easily searched (relatively speaking), breaking it down into titles, chapters, sections and so forth. The USA PATRIOT Act doesn't exist in US Code as one monolithic chunk of text but as a whole mess of edits, addendums and footnotes sprinkled liberally throughout the whole thing (which is why you often want to start with Thomas even if it's already become a law). However, since they had to deal with the beast of "public law 107-56" in its original form before digesting it, and since they're in charge of all government publishing to begin with (what's in a name?), they should have the text available in its original form. Sure enough, go to their website, click on "Public and Private Laws," select the 107th Congress, type in "public law 107-56," and you get to see it in ASCII or PDF format with a (relatively) friendly URL. Now if only they can be convinced to use normal double quotes

The Russians can get you to the ISS for 1/40th the cost of a Shuttle launch.

Yeah of course 17 billion is a lot of money, but when you look here, at table S-7. You will see that NASA's budget compared to the defense spending is miniscule. Of the total US budget, 48% goes to defense. That is ludicrous. And more money gets spent on Homelad Security than on NASA.

Spend a bit less on blowing up Iraqi's, Afghani's, Serbs and developing more nuclear weapons, then spend what you save on putting the human race onto other planets in our solar system and beyond. It may still be a lot of money but you are doing something non-destructive with it...

Some quotes from the FINDINGS OF FACT document from the antitrust trial:

Eric Engstrom, a Microsoft executive with responsibility for multimedia development, wrote to his superiors that one of Microsoft's goals was getting "Intel to stop helping Sun create Java Multimedia APIs, especially ones that run well (ie native implementations) on Windows." Engstrom proposed achieving this goal by offering Intel the following deal: Microsoft would incorporate into the Windows API set any multimedia interfaces that Intel agreed to not help Sun incorporate into the Java class libraries. Engstrom's efforts apparently bore fruit, for he testified at trial that Intel's IAL subsequently stopped helping Sun to develop class libraries that offered cutting-edge multimedia support

Microsoft charges a lower price to OEMs who agree to ship all but a minute fraction of their machines with an operating system pre-installed

Microsoft explained that if Netscape entered a "special relationship" with Microsoft, the company would treat Netscape as a "preferred ISV." This meant that Netscape would enjoy preferential access to technical information, including APIs.

Simply put, if Navigator exposed APIs that competed for developer attention with the Internet-related APIs Microsoft was planning to build into its platform, Microsoft would regard Netscape as a trespasser on its territory

Other firms in the computer industry have had encounters with Microsoft similar to the experiences of Netscape described above. These interactions demonstrate that it is Microsoft's corporate practice to pressure other firms to halt software development that either shows the potential to weaken the applications barrier to entry or competes directly with Microsoft's most cherished software products

In a subsequent memorandum to senior Microsoft executives, Gates reported that he had tried to convince Grove "to basically not ship NSP" and more generally to reduce the number of people working on software at Intel

Microsoft hastened to assure Intel that if it would stop promoting NSP's interfaces, Microsoft would accelerate its own work to incorporate the functions of the NSP software into Windows, thereby stimulating the development of applications and devices that relied on the new capabilities of Intel's microprocessors



I'll admit some of that doesn't directy imply bribery, but most of it fits quite well with what I and probably most others consider to be a bribe. Especially in the context that the grand parent poster used it. Money doesn't have to be in the form of bills either. I'd say that a monopoly promising to make someone a "preferred ISV" if they stop competing with them could easily be interpreted as a promise of financial gain.

That's how

Well, try to put 2 and 2 together here.
Microsoft has a de facto monopoly on the desktop.

Self-building a system, especially with a creative enclosure, is never a Bad Thing. However, there is one very important -- I would even say 'critical' -- aspect of doing so that no one seems to be paying attention to, and it applies to ANY computer case that is not a full wrap-around all-metal enclosure.

Specifically: Unless you take explicit steps to electrically shield the transparent parts, the enclosure will never meet FCC Part 15 requirements for not radiating RF energy, or being susceptible to outside RFI (Radio Frequency Interference).

Here's the filthy details, and some more info on why this is a Bad Thing. Early computer systems and peripherals were classed as "Unintentional Radiators" under part 15.3(z) of the FCC regs. Later, as processor speeds climbed, an additional category of 'Digital Device' was created under part 15.3(k).

It was under this part that two subclasses were created. You may have heard references to something being a "Class A Computing Device" in the commercial world, or a "Class B Computing Device" in the consumer world. Both of these subclasses have to do with how much RF the device radiates under normal use, and how much potential it has to interfere with other nearby devices, including TV's, stereos, etc. The ARRL's web site has a page that summarizes this, and provides a great explanation on the issue of what 'harmful interference' is, and what the rules say about responsibility for solving issues involving it.

The Reader's Disgust version is this: Sure, you can build your computer into the flashiest Lexan-and-Aluminum enclosure you can find. You can equip it with all kinds of see-through parts, flashing LEDs, and other useless fluff to your heart's content.

HOWEVER -- remember that any material other than metal, solid or mesh, is going to be pretty much transparent to whatever RF energy your system spews into the surrounding environment in the course of its normal operation. If your flashy see-through system causes interference to ANY other RF-using device that is NOT covered by Part 15, to the point where said device cannot operate properly, it is YOUR responsibility to clean it up, electrically speaking.

Transparency to RF is a two-edged sword. You might get incredibly lucky, in that your way-cool see-through system might not be causing any interference at all. But what happens when, just as one example, the ham radio operator next door to you starts transmitting with a 1,000-watt-plus signal? (Yes, we are allowed to use that kind of power, and more).

Another example: What happens if a cop, the paramedics, or anyone else with a portable transceiver happens to transmit with said portable and they happen to be close to your computer at the same time?

Either way, a good chunk of the RF energy from those transmissions are going to go straight into your computer, because all that Lexan is going to let it in like a firehose stream through tissue paper. At best, your system may lock up or reboot unexpectedly. At worst, you could be looking at hard drive corruption.

And guess who's responsible for clearing up the resultant mess? Not the ham radio op. What they're doing is covered very well indeed under FCC Part 97. (That's not to say they'd just tell you to fix it yourself -- most hams are pretty nice about helping you to fix such issues if their transmitters appear to be wreaking havoc, but the ultimate responsibility lies with the owner of the Part 15 device).

Not the cops, paramedics, or whoever else was using the portable radio either. They're operating perfectly within the limits of their FCC license as well. No, the onus for fixing the problem lands right back on your shoulders, as the computer owner, all because you wanted a

Good Christ, someone else mod this up. How many times does this have to be said before people get it? Once again I will link to the relevant law.

Yes, he's making a rhetorical argument against Darl's interpretation, a rhetorical argument that DOESN'T WORK when you take the time to really analyze it.

I'm not feeding you bull just to make myself look good. I'm honestly concerned that such a prominent member of the Linux community (and really smart guy) came up with that bit of illogical propaganda. I have no delusions that critisizing the almighty Linus would make me popular or respected here.

I'm looking at this the way a judge would when asked to evaluate the merits of the argument. I really do know how to do that. I promise. I may not be able to hack my kernel, but I know Title 17 pretty well.

The fact is Linus is countering Darl's assertion using a provision of the copyright code that is inapplicable and, humorously, was only adopted recently as part of the NET Act to impose criminal liability on file swappers. See NET Act.

Darl's argument isn't inconsistent on this point because the definition of "financial gain" in sec. 101 is inapplicable to determining the purposes of copyright law.

There are some GREAT arguments out there that Darl and SCO are full of crap. Linus's just isn't one of them. It's just plain bad legal analysis that seems to make sense at first glance to the layperson.

Right, and maybe educating congressmen as well.

But while we're at it - why don't we set up a couple of opt-out master servers where users can send their spam, and some mechanism (maybe human) picks out the opt-out URLs. Users could then enter their e-mail address and spammer's e-mail addresses (they need to use real addresses now, right?) to have them sent to all the opt-out URLs automatically. Well, I would not send my address there, honestly. But I think this idea is fun, and far more reliable than the do-not-email-list that will never work. Because if it did, CAN-SPAM lost its primary purpose to legitimate and promote spam.

Far more fun than setting up more open relays. Although CAN-SPAM explicitly forbids the use of open relays now. But since an individual can't sue, this is bogus.

postscript: CAN-SPAM is an interesting, and unintendedly ironic name for a law that is supposed to limit the amount of spam. Another good example where corporate America eats up the world's resources.

Just thought everyone might be interested in knowing where the definition of "financial gain" came from in section 101.

I think Linus's reliance on the definition is misplaced; see my above post.

The term "financial gain" was defined as part of the No Electronic Theft (NET) Act in 1997. The purpose of the phrase "including the receipt of other copyrighted works" was to create criminal copyright liability for file swappers. Criminal charges for copyright infringement would otherwise only be applicable when the infringement was done for financial gain in the traditional sense of the term. By adding "including the receipt of other copyrighted works", Congress expanded criminal liability to include file swapping, not just the resale for cash of illegally copied works.

Section 101's definition of financial gain really has nothing to do with the underlying purpose of copyright law and certainly does not equate to "explicit encoding" of the idea into copyright law as Linus seems to think. (Not that McBride has any logical legs to stand on.)

See the text of the bill.

It is interesting to note that a proposal for a new amateur radio band at 136KHz (available in many other countries) was denied by the FCC earlier this year. The Commission felt amateurs would be unable to make effective use of the band because of excessive interference from existing power-line communications at the lower frequencies. They also feared that amateur transmissions in this band would interfere with the power companies' low-frequency communications.

Yet now, the utilities feel they can use shortwave spectrum, where the lines "leak" RF even more effectively, without causing - and receiving - ruinous interference? I guess in a country full of lobbyists this makes sense...

The amateur service is not the only one affected, though we're certainly yelling the loudest. CB radio, 27MHz cordless and wireless devices, and a variety of commercial and military communications also continue to use shortwave spectrum.

Some forms of BPL are rumored to use frequencies as high as 80MHz - this would wipe out over-the-air reception of all three major TV networks at my location. Not to mention the local fire department.

I am not completely convinced the utilities actually want to provide broadband data communications. There have always been occasional problems with defective power distribution equipment causing severe interference to shortwave, but lately FCC enforcement action (here too) seems to be increasingly necessary to get stuff fixed.

I have to wonder whether what they really want is to get Part 15 regulations relaxed so they don't have to fix these problems anymore?

Having been bothered enough by my question I went and looked it up. I first looked at a walkie-talkie i had and Read the following "This Device complies with part 15 of the FCC rules. Operation is subject to the condition that this device does not cause harmful interference."

Then looking up Part 15 of FCC Rules available HERE. I focused in on 15.5 General conditions of operation.

Which states

TITLE 47--TELECOMMUNICATION

CHAPTER I--FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

PART 15--RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES--Table of Contents

Subpart A--General

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, cientific and medical (ISM) equipment, or by an incidental radiator.
(c) The operator of a radio frequency device shall be required to cease operating the device upon notification by a Commission representative that the device is causing harmful interference. Operation shall not resume until the condition causing the harmful interference has been corrected.
(d) Intentional radiators that produce Class B emissions (damped wave) are prohibited.

Having been bothered enough by my question I went and looked it up. I first looked at a walkie-talkie i had and Read the following "This Device complies with part 15 of the FCC rules. Operation is subject to the condition that this device does not cause harmful interference."

Then looking up Part 15 of FCC Rules available HERE. I focused in on 15.5 General conditions of operation.

Which states

TITLE 47--TELECOMMUNICATION

CHAPTER I--FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

PART 15--RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES--Table of Contents

Subpart A--General

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, cientific and medical (ISM) equipment, or by an incidental radiator.
(c) The operator of a radio frequency device shall be required to cease operating the device upon notification by a Commission representative that the device is causing harmful interference. Operation shall not resume until the condition causing the harmful interference has been corrected.
(d) Intentional radiators that produce Class B emissions (damped wave) are prohibited.

"No. Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. A US court actually found them guilty,"

Careful now... the apologists will be all over you for that statement because it was only a civil case and "Guilty" applies only to criminal cases... In fact, if you carefully look in the actual judgement, the word "Guilty" never appears... and that's what lets Microsoft continue to behave the way they do, cos in their eyes, strictly legally speaking, they were never guilty...

The Court having jurisdiction of the parties hereto and of the subject matter hereof and having conducted a trial thereon and entered Findings of Fact on November 5, 1999, and Conclusions of Law on April 3, 2000;

The Court having entered judgment in accordance with the Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law on April 3, 2000, that Microsoft has violated 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, 2, as well as the following state law provisions:

So watch out for all those Microsoft Apologists cos they'd have been riding all over you if I hadn't stepped in with a correction... :)

If you read the complete Title 15 Section 2 (15USC2) and look at the amendments log at the end you'll see that the fee was updated to $10m in 1990 as part of Public Law 101-588, and a few times prior to that as well. In fact the original law in 1955 was only a $5,000 fine and only a misdemeanor. Note that those fees/punlishments are for the felony act. That doesn't necessarily limit what the government can do to end the monopoly or act in the public's interest.

However while pretending to be an informed /.'er, you should really read the whole law as it aplies to monopolies, not just the small section 2. See the 15USC Chapter 1. In particular you may want to read section 21, 24, 37 among others.

If you read the complete Title 15 Section 2 (15USC2) and look at the amendments log at the end you'll see that the fee was updated to $10m in 1990 as part of Public Law 101-588, and a few times prior to that as well. In fact the original law in 1955 was only a $5,000 fine and only a misdemeanor. Note that those fees/punlishments are for the felony act. That doesn't necessarily limit what the government can do to end the monopoly or act in the public's interest.

However while pretending to be an informed /.'er, you should really read the whole law as it aplies to monopolies, not just the small section 2. See the 15USC Chapter 1. In particular you may want to read section 21, 24, 37 among others.

The abstract neither broadens nor limits the scope of claims of a patent. By regulation, it "will not be used for interpreting the scope of the claims."

The claim is the thing, and must be read carefully in view of the specification and prosecution history.

As the parent noted, as would anybody who actually took the time to read the patent abstract (which apparently does NOT the original poster), this patent is for using the web as a place to migrate settings and data from one computer to another.

Anybody who reads an abstract and draws conclusions about the scope of the document deserves everything they get. Someone with a clue would know that the abstract, by regulation "will not be used for interpreting the scope of the claims."

Please, don't give us this horseshit by "reading the abstract." The claims define the patent, and the claims are informed by careful reading of the specification and the relevant prosecution history. Seriously, the legal advice offered here is absolutely hopeless.

Time will tell what is the scope of the patent -- but no fair reading of the claims may conclude that this patent covers a scope of behavior as broad as that set forth in the parent. No reading credibly informed by a review of the specification will reach that conclusion.

Just stop it, guys! If you aren't really going to bother to learn what these claims are, don't whine about them. It makes us all look silly, and takes away from those of us who ARE interested in limiting the scope of bad patents.

My tinfoil hat may be on too tight, however:

1. Microsoft Loses Antitrust case.
2. Bush gets into the Whitehouse and expected results of antitrust case become very wattered down.
3. Microsoft employee becomes chief of cyber security for the government - authors 'National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace'.
4. Google is known to have former NSA people on the payroll.
5. Microsoft's 'trusted computing' strategy includes building an all in one DRM gateway.
6. Microsoft goes after Google...

It seems to me that Microsoft is tightening their ties with government in an attempt to influence the upcoming DRM war. What better way to do that than to have an inside man to set internet security policy, to control all access of electronic resources into the home, and to control the most important search portal. There are probably other evidence to support this view - but I don't have the time to 'google' it all for you (kind of ironic, if it wasn't so scary in a 'big brother is watching you' sort of way...)

To paraphrase Frank Herbert, "he who controls the access, controls the universe"

Or it was; in the last century the West has spent less of its resources on developing technology and more on supporting those who aren't able to support themselves.

Nonsense. First, the "dole" is an ancient invention; second, while public welfare programs have somewhat increased, private ones have shrunk enormously, so overall there has not been a redirection of resources towards supporting the poor; third, the amount of public funds spent on aid to the poor is very small - spending on education, training, employment, and social services makes up less than 4% of federal spending. (Every time you hear someone arguing about how expensive welfare programs are because of the huge amount of spending on "entitlements", that's because they lump Social Security (federally funded pension) in there - hardly honest accounting.)

Thanks for the tip. Here's a link to the actual act.

The act is an amendment to the US copyright law under titles 17, chapters 1 and 5, and 18, chapter 113.

If I am understanding the law(s) correctly (IANAL), downloading a file would be a violation of title 17, chapter 5, which states that anyone expecting to recieve an unauthorized copy would be punnishable, but those distributing unauthorized copies would not be guilty until they have distributed more than $1000.00 in retail value of copyrighted works during a 180 day period.

It seems that it is safer to rip and distribute (upload) than it is to download. Could such a law be enforcable? That would be like making it against the law to buy any amount of drugs, no matter how small, but legal to sell drugs, as long as you sell less than $1000.00 dollars during any 180 day period. How f*cked up is that?

Am I reading this correctly? Any lawyers out there?

Thanks for the tip. Here's a link to the actual act.

The act is an amendment to the US copyright law under titles 17, chapters 1 and 5, and 18, chapter 113.

If I am understanding the law(s) correctly (IANAL), downloading a file would be a violation of title 17, chapter 5, which states that anyone expecting to recieve an unauthorized copy would be punnishable, but those distributing unauthorized copies would not be guilty until they have distributed more than $1000.00 in retail value of copyrighted works during a 180 day period.

It seems that it is safer to rip and distribute (upload) than it is to download. Could such a law be enforcable? That would be like making it against the law to buy any amount of drugs, no matter how small, but legal to sell drugs, as long as you sell less than $1000.00 dollars during any 180 day period. How f*cked up is that?

Am I reading this correctly? Any lawyers out there?

One thing to keep in mind about illicit telemarketing is that, despite all the hoopla about the Do-Not-Call list, the TCPA is still alive and well. The TCPA provides a lot of ground rules by which telemarketers must abide, irrespective of whether or not the person they're calling is on the Do-Not-Call list. They can only call between 8:00 A.M. and 9:00 P.M. local time, they must identify themselves, they have to have a do-not-call list policy in place and must send you a copy upon request, etc.

Unlike the Do-Not-Call list, you're not just reporting a company to a federal agency for them to delegate to a state Attorney General's office when they get around to it, who will in turn maybe file a complaint against the company, when they get around to it. The TCPA provides $500 statutory damages against the person called, which can be tripled by a judge if the caller was knowingly violating it. In most cases, that's a small enough value to go after the company in small claims court, which is a relatively painless process.

One thing to keep in mind about illicit telemarketing is that, despite all the hoopla about the Do-Not-Call list, the TCPA is still alive and well. The TCPA provides a lot of ground rules by which telemarketers must abide, irrespective of whether or not the person they're calling is on the Do-Not-Call list. They can only call between 8:00 A.M. and 9:00 P.M. local time, they must identify themselves, they have to have a do-not-call list policy in place and must send you a copy upon request, etc.

Unlike the Do-Not-Call list, you're not just reporting a company to a federal agency for them to delegate to a state Attorney General's office when they get around to it, who will in turn maybe file a complaint against the company, when they get around to it. The TCPA provides $500 statutory damages against the person called, which can be tripled by a judge if the caller was knowingly violating it. In most cases, that's a small enough value to go after the company in small claims court, which is a relatively painless process.

No it doesn't. There are a couple Federal regulations on 'subliminal' messages, but neither applies to this situation. One from the FCC prohibiting broadcast stations from engaging in it, and one from the BATF prohibiting its use in advertising alcohol (this one is for wine, it appears in each section though). That's it in the entire Code of Federal Regulations. Do you have some other source to cite for this?

No it doesn't. There are a couple Federal regulations on 'subliminal' messages, but neither applies to this situation. One from the FCC prohibiting broadcast stations from engaging in it, and one from the BATF prohibiting its use in advertising alcohol (this one is for wine, it appears in each section though). That's it in the entire Code of Federal Regulations. Do you have some other source to cite for this?

About half of the federal budget goes to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other entitlement programs. Then add on a healthy chunk for interest on the debt.

They're verbatim copies of the Library of Congress? If that were true how would the Library of Congress still be the largest library? The depository libraries are deposits for federal government publications. That's it. More info is here.

Sorry, try again.

thomas.loc.gov searches are time based. Results expire quickly. You need to find a more permanent link (house)

The text of the bill can be found here (House, PDF). Or here (Senate, PDF)

Sorry, try again.

thomas.loc.gov searches are time based. Results expire quickly. You need to find a more permanent link (house)

The text of the bill can be found here (House, PDF). Or here (Senate, PDF)

What about peace in the USA?

Compared to many other countries, the USA is a utopia. You refer to the 'ghettos.' Have you ever been outside of the US? Do you really know what people live through in other countries? Do you know what it means to be poor in South American countries? Do you know what it is like to be at civil war for more than 10 years? I have been to other countries and witnissed what people go through there. Our 'ghettos' are like resorts compared to those places. Our 'poor' minorities have more opportunity and wealth than many poor South Americans combined. And if our 'poor' minorities don't like their current condition, then they can invest and work and be creative and have as much wealth as they would like. The American Dream really can be realized.

What about curing disease and AIDs in the USA?

The same prescription drugs used to help Africa are widely availible here, and if one cannot afford them, one can sign up for Medicaid or Medicare.

Oh ok, so now you agree with reparations?

You must be reffering to reparations for slavery. How can you so blatently misconstrue my statement to think that? I believe in extending the hand of mercy, so far as it does not rob justice. Rebuilding Iraq and Afgahnistan is just and merciful. Conversely, using taxpayer money to pay off the descendants of those who suffered does not serve either. Hey, if former slaves want to sue and prosecute their persecutors, I'm all for it! They have a proper claim for reparations. But I cannot support paying off what amounts to a bunch of winers with damaged pride. Hey! I'm Jewish and a Mormon. Should I sue Germany and the US states of Illinois, Ohio, and Missouri? Of course not! They did nothing to me. Yes, they murdered, robbed, and you name it to my ancestors; but that doesn't give me, personally, any claim whatsoever.

You Republicans make absolutely NO sense, how can you give away our money to people in other countries but not people in this country?!

Either you are very uninformed or you do not live in the USA. If you care to read the 2004 fiscal budget, you'll see that 136 billion of 149 billion (see page 5 of Summary Tables) is to be used in programs that benefit Americans directly. That is 91.3% of the entire budget. This does not include defense funds.

People in the USA are begging for money but we dont have enough money for them ...

We have plenty of money and our people recieve it. We even give money we don't have.

Saddam was a bad guy right?

Yes, but the Iraqis weren't and aren't. If we can afford to help them with a few drops from the bucket that represents our budget, shouldn't we do so?

It's called trade secrets, and has nothing to do with antitrust. If I invent a widget that only I know how to build, there are laws that protect me from a) People making money off my widget by building a knock-off b)People reverse engineering my widget and c)Having to release the manufacturing process of my widget.

f ) Reverse Engineering.--(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of
subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to
use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure
that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program
for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the
program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an
independently created computer program with other programs, and that
have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the
extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute
infringement under this title.

Government spending dwarfs spending by virtually all companies in the US, combined.

"When nuclear weapons were being developed, it was to create something that would make future warfare impossible (same with the machine gun)"

Wrong on both counts. The goal of both weapons was to make warfare easier, quicker, and less bloody. Dr. Gatling's concern was the number of men needed in formation to achieve X rate of fire, and his reasoning was that reducing that number of men while achieving the same rate of fire would reduce the need for men to even be there to begin with. As for nuclear weapons, peruse the internet a little and take a look at what Eisenhower's philosophy was on them (nutshell: use them early and often to reduce the need to send in actual soldiers).

"but we know how that turned out."

It's a little to soon to say how nukes have turned out, but in many ways Dr. Gatling was successful. Automatic and semi-automatic weapons have lowered the number of men needed to take and hold an objective, which works to lessen collateral damage. For all the carnage that happened in places like Stalingrad and Berlin during the Second World War, think about how much worse it would have been if all the troops had to stand shoulder-to-shoulder in formation.

"Meanwhile, this thing seems to be purely for killing:"

However, nuclear weapons (and this new concept) are different from the other two classifications of WMD in that they actually have valid military uses. Chemical and biological weapons are all but useless against a moderately prepared force, and their only real use is against civillian populations. However, there are times when you really need a powerful explosive to take out a military target (such as underground bunkers). Yes, it's meant to kill people, but it's only intended to kill certain people in certain places, not "everybody in the downtown area." The fallout is a side-effect that even the DOD wants to eliminate because it hampers the weapon's usefullness in a tactical situation (it's better to take and hold an objective than to deny its use to everybody).

"Why am I paying for the development of a whole new type of weapon when I can't afford school because of the resession?"

DOD = federal
education = state

"and massive defense spending is what caused this deficit mess we're in now..."

FY 2001

Medicaid: 7%
Medicare: 12%
Defense: 16%
Social Security: 23%

Source

Personally, I think you're barking up the wrong tree.

Absolutely correct, and that's why invoking preemption isn't so crazy as many seem to think. The federal courts, in Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software, held that Title 17 Sec. 117 of the U.S. Code preempted terms in Vault's shrink-wrap licensing, so there's precedent for applying the preemption doctrine to private contracts in copyright litigation.

Without knowing more about SCO's argument, we certainly can't argue on the merits of it, but there's always the possibility that some enterprising copyright lawyer has found a potential incompatibility between the GPL and copyright law. (Offhand, though, any argument based on Title 17 Sec. 117(a) seems specious to me, since I don't see how it could possibly affect the right to authorize copies and derivative works in Sec. 106 -- but IANA(IP)L.)

And, actually, *I* say :x!, but who's keeping track?

However, Congress can always specifically permit backup copies (or
anything else) to be made regardless of whether or not it is fair. And
they did so, at least partially.

17 USC Sec. 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.--
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement
for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the
making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
...
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes
only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that
continued possession of the computer program should cease to be
rightful.

Historical and Revision Notes

house report no. 94-1476

...

Since it would be premature to change existing law on computer uses
at present, the purpose of section 117 is to preserve the status quo. It
is intended neither to cut off any rights that may now exist, nor to
create new rights that might be denied under the Act of 1909 or under
common law principles currently applicable.

...

The official notice in the Federal Register is here.

This doesn't explain why other organizations use other fiscal years. My company uses a fiscal year that is identical to the calendar year, but
the US government uses a fiscal year that begins in October and ends in September.

Following are two responses to this. First, here is the answer I typed before I actually went to Congressional Record and read the bit in question:

MY FIRST RESPONSE:

I had the same reaction to this that the Anonymous Coward did (i.e., "That's funny, I don't remember any notable Republicans calling Clinton 'a coward and paranoid' about this").

I didn't think you'd be able to come up with any examples, so I wouldn't deny that you scored a point or two with your reply. But I should point out two things:

First, you didn't say "former Minnesota Senator Rod Grams." You said "all the Republicans," clearly suggesting that it represented some sort of cross-section of contemporary conservative thinking. But you've only cited one instance. Cynthia McKinney strongly implied that Bush knew beforehand about the impending slaughter of potentially 50,000 Americans on 9/11, but I certainly don't believe that represents a cross-section of Democratic thinking. Can you convince us that "all the Republicans" -- or at least a lot of them -- shared Grams' view, as you implied?

Second, you quite explicitly said all these Republicans "called Clinton a coward and paranoid." This could certainly be construed from former Sen. Gram's excerpted comments, and may even be what he meant, but that's not what you said. You said you remembered "all of them" that *called* him a coward and paranoid. I just think being imprecise isn't helpful in these matters.

BELAY THAT! MY SECOND RESPONSE

So I was all ready to submit the above when I noticed that for some reason you hadn't included a link to the Congressional Record. So, out of curiousity, I went there myself.

What I found is that, without that all important "snip," even the article to which you referred doesn't support your thesis very well. Sen. Gram is not criticizing the decision to close down Pennsylvania Avenue (made in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing). He is voicing his agreement with a widespread feeling among D.C. residents that the avenue shouldn't remain closed indefinitely.

Quote: Mr. President, the people of this city who depend on open access to Pennsylvania Avenue say they've accepted the present closure, but they're not going along with the idea that the avenue must be blockaded forever. That case has simply not been made, they say. And I agree.

He doesn't call the president a coward or paranoid. It would take a very strained interpretation to even construe that. Take this quote, for example:

Mr. President, all Americans are deeply concerned about the safety of their President. The security measures used to protect him must be well reasoned, appropriate, and thorough. I don't question the desire to afford him every ounce of security available, but I do question whether we can satisfy that desire without sacrificing the people's freedom.

FULL CIRCLE

Now, let's bring this thing around full circle. You said you "remembered all the Republicans who called Clinton a coward and paranoid," and asked if they were going to apologize. What we have instead is ONE Republican who did not object to the initial street closure, but felt it was appropriate to re-open it after one year.

Then you asked whether AC was "a liar or just ignorant."

How do you respond to this?

We need to stand up against liability lawyers

There is a bill in the House and Senate right now that would do just that.

Patient and Physician Safety and Protection Act of 2003

"It would cap "non-economic damages" at $250,000 "

And here is the reason it will never get a vote on the floor: Analysis: Tort reform or defunding Dems?

Governments will always be under pressure to reduce spending

usbudget.historical.xls

The only years that government spending have gone down(adjusted for inflation) are 1945-48, 1953-56 and 1968-70.

The pressure they are under is not to reduce spending, it is who gets the handouts.

The DMCA makes many modifications to your own hardware illegal.

Any modification that may be used to circumvent copyright is illegal. Whether or not the modification is for that purpose.

Lexmark's current suit is a good example.

Mod chip resellers are being jailed and fined.

For a better understanding of the DMCA's effects, what Princeton Computer Science Professor Edward W. Felten has expressed should be referred to.

Besides the link to a full copy of the DMCA, I feel it important to note all my other references are previous articles from slashdot. It is well established that due to the DMCA, you *cannot* do as you wish with your own hardware.

And yes, if you smashed your xbox and someone else heard, you could be arrested. It is disorderly conduct and I have been arrested for it in an even more ridiculous scenario.

If you smashed your xbox in a fit of rage, that would be considered an even more serious charge of domestic violence according to some states statuettes (seriously). Roll your eyes if you wish, but I have met a half dozen people who have had this ridiculous charge thrown at them.

My point is simply the DMCA is much worse than you think, and it is one of numerous ridiculous laws on the books, and saying you can do what this ridiculous laws specifically says you cannot is an irresponsible statement.

this huge $44Trillion debt that is going to bite us in the ass in the next few years especially with these tax cuts,

The Federal Gov't budget was $2.1 Trillion for 2002. The tax cuts are $35 Billion/yr.

In comparison $75 Billion/yr goes to family farmers who have been obsolete for 40 years now, $344 Billion for defense, $460 Billion for Social Security and $850 Billion for welfare programs.

Here is a good graph showing national debt as % of gdp. We are not any worse off then we were in the '90s or the '60s.

The 2003 Senate Energy Bill (enter S.14 into "bill number") thomas.loc.gov offers loan guarantees for the construction of 7 new nuclear reactors in the US, as well as a new $1.1Billion nuclear plant in Idaho to produce hydrogen. If these are steps you want taken, you should write a letter to your Senators telling them how much your vote depends on their support of this bill.

You are wrong. ;-) Read 47 CFR 22.925.

The 2003 Budget projected real GDP of the United States is about $9.7 trillion. The 2003 spending budget of the Department of Defense is $358.2 billion. This includes more than just the military spending, and it is a mere 3.7% of the GDP.

Thanks!

Whatcha gonna say when several million Americans who have worked hard their entire lives suddenly can't collect the Social Security benefits they've been paying for their entire working lives? "Fuck you, leave my taxes alone, you freeloading jerks!"?

There's a big, angry, flashing red warning light going off right now. We're cutting taxes like they were cancers, out administration has unequivocally stated that they plan to keep cutting taxes, regardless of the fact that both the federal budget and federal deficit are the largest they've ever been. Our forecast for the next few years is to spend money we don't have, and amazingly enough, nobody seems to care that we don't have enough money to pay Social Security. Nobody seems to care that we're running a 6.5 trillion dollar national debt. No, everything and anything can be fixed by cutting taxes. Economy doing well? Well then, cut taxes. Economy doing poorly? Well then, cut taxes. Sky still blue? Well then, cut taxes.

We're spending our nation into oblivion, the largest generation in American history is about to start demanding retirement benefits, and our fiscal policy is being dictated by a president who has a long and proud history of total incompetence at running a business.

And you want lower taxes.

Do you understand how insanely irresponsible that is?

Look it up in the U.S. code, TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, CHAPTER 41--EXTORTION AND THREATS, Sec. 873

Short: No.

The U.S. spends a fraction of its budget on defense. The U.S. spends more than half the budget on Social Security and Medicare, which are "feeding people" by your definition.

* Total spending will grow from $2.140 trillion in 2003 to $2.229 trillion in 2004, an increase of $89 billion or 4.2 percent.

* Total revenues will grow from $1.836 trillion in 2003 to $1.922 trillion in 2004, an increase of $86 billion or 4.7 percent. (These figures include an "adjustment for revenue uncertainty" of -$25 billion in 2003 and -$15 billion 2004).

* The projected budget deficit of $304 billion in 2003 (2.8 percent of GDP) will grow to $307 billion in 2004 (2.7 percent of GDP), before eventually falling to $190 billion by 2008 (1.4 percent of GDP). Deficits in every year are well below historical highs of the 1980's (6 percent of GDP in 1983) and the 1990's (4.7 percent of GDP in 1992).

* Publicly-held debt will equal $3.878 trillion by the end of 2003 (36.1 percent of GDP) and $4.166 trillion by the end of 2004 (36.9 percent of GDP), eventually reaching $5.003 trillion by the end of 2008 (36.4 percent of GDP).

* Total discretionary spending will grow from $751.8 billion in 2003 to $782.2 billion in 2004, an increase of $30 billion or 4 percent, no faster than the average family's income will grow.

* Defense discretionary spending will grow from $382.2 billion in 2003 to $399.2 billion in 2004, an increase of $17 billion or 4.4 percent.

* Homeland security discretionary spending will grow from $26.7 billion in 2003 to $28.2 billion 2004, an increase of $1.5 billion or 5.5 percent.

* All other discretionary spending will grow from $342.9 billion in 2003 to $354.8 billion in 2004, an increase of $11.9 billion or 3.5 percent.