Slashdot Mirror

• 1992: -4.7% 1993: -3.9%
• 1994: -2.9%
• 1995: -2.2%
• 1996: -1.4%
• 1997: -0.3% see end of post for more info)
• 1998: +0.8%
• 1999: +1.4%
• 2000: +2.4% 2001: +1.3% 2002: -1.5% 2003: -2.8% (estimated) 2004: -2.7% (estimated)

• Clinton: -1.20625%
• Bush: -0.7875%

• 1996: -2.7
• 1997: -2.7
• 1998: -2.4
• 1999: -2.3
• 2000: -2.1

91. Although Netscape declined the special relationship with Microsoft, its executives continued, over the weeks following the June 21 meeting, to plead for the RNA API. Despite Netscape's persistence, Microsoft did not release the API to Netscape until late October, i.e., as Allard had warned, more than three months later. The delay in turn forced Netscape to postpone the release of its Windows 95 browser until substantially after the release of Windows 95 (and Internet Explorer) in August 1995. As a result, Netscape was excluded from most of the holiday selling season.

You can read the rest here - USDC Findings of Fact http://usvms.gpo.gov/ms-findings2.html

There are about 5 billion burgers sold each year in the US -- Suggesting a subsidy of $55 Billion.

The total governement agriculture budget in 2002 was $18.6BB, which means the chicken, hog, wheat, and soy bean producers are being completely ripped off!

Heck, McDonalds and Wendy's together have about $4.5 BB in revenue (yahoo finanace), including international sales.

Bottomline: your statistic makes no sense.

Section 512 (h) of the DMCA states that a copyright holder can ask for a subpoena from a service provider in order to identify the person they believe is infringing copyright. They essentially only need to provide:

1. A copy of the takedown notice that they sent to the service provider as per section 512 (c)(3).
2. A proposed subpoena.
3. A statement that the information will only be used to protect the holder's rights under copyright.

It seems that the RIAA would have no problem satisfying these three requirements... yet another reason why the DMCA is not such a good law :P

-Brendan

You please go read it. "Trafficing" is not required to violate the law. 1201.2.A.

"No person shall manufacture ... any technology that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure"

Building something alone in your basement is manufacture. The DMCA text states that manufacture is a form of trafficing, which is an obvious violation of the English language, but now it's the law.

(Just because a law abuses the English definition of a term doesn't protect the public. People have been convicted of "wiretapping" without ever tapping a wire)

Is it just me, or is it hard to find an actual copy of the act?

Patriot Act (text)

It is interesting that you link to the GPO website for the FR rather than the NARA site. The official record keeper and editor of the FR is NARA, wheras the GPO is just responsible for the physicial reproduction and publication. Both run websites, but I find the NARA site to be much better. Also don't forget their joint website Regulations.Gov which went online earlier this year to try to better track proposed regulations still in their comment period and keep the US public better informed.

For those who don't know, the Federal Register is perhaps the most important function of the US National Archives, and most relevent to US citizens' day-to-day activities. I especially like the fact the that NARA FR website is updated daily with each new issue, including a very well organized table of contents. Furthermore each "publication" within the FR is available in both text and PDF format (no proprietary MS formats here!).

Perhaps of the few things which I would like to see improved are: (1) online avilability of FR issues prior to 1998, (2) more frequent revision of the CFR, (3) easier cross reference between issues, dates, and page numbers, (4) an RSS feed of the daily table of contents, (5) FTP access to the FR, and (6) digitally signed (GPG?) issues.

As far as the functional duties of the NARA, keeping the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and so forth are incredibly important, but usually don't affect the citizen directly...those historic documents' power really is expressed indirectly by governing what Congress can do and how the Justice department works...they are just the framework on which the bulk of the legislation and regulations hang. Please don't get me wrong, those foundational documents are what defines the US and and our freedoms, and as such are the most important documents we have. But seriously those documents are very stable and unchanging and don't require much action on the part of the NARA to maintain beyond being just a glorified museum.

But the NARA is right at the center of the US government and has duties way more important than playing museum.

The Federal Register is where the many thousands and thousands of highly detailed regulations, notices, presidental orders and so forth are recorded. It is the very presence of these writings in the Federal Register which makes them official and binding on the US citizens. The Federal Register is the primary means by which the government informs the country about what it expects us to do and not do. And it is the NARA which has the ultimately important responsibility of recording what's official and what's not. That's an incredibly powerful position if you think about it.

That's nice and all, but it would be nice if they massively improved access to the Federal Register. As an environmental engineer dealing with air quality issues, I have to look up regs all the time for changes, so I can atest it is terribly slow. So slow, EPA took all the effort to put the environmental portion of the Federal Register on their own website.

We never annihilate cultures that we just can't deal with (Native Americans, yeah they're much more powerful rich and happy).

We never FORCE people who don't want to be in this country to remain in this country (Civil War anyone? Oh yeah, it was all about slavery. Ask Martin Luther King Jr if slavery ended in 1863).

We never imprison people without a trial just because we're afraid they might disagree with our government (Japanese imprisonment in WWII).

We never persecute communists, or people who associate with communists. (McCarthyism?)

We never consider terrorizing our own citizens to justify conquering another country ( Operation Northwoods?)

We never do anything like
brainwash children to fight our enemies and believe that women are second-class citizens (What kind of freedom is this?)

We never allow the Taliban to take over Afghanistan in the first place (Read what Rohrabacher has to say).

We never sacrifice our WONDERFUL FREEDOM at a whim (Patriot Act).

We never imprison people without a trial just because we're afraid they might disagree with our government (Maher Hawash)

I don't know if it makes us imperialist, but it makes me less happy.

This has nothing to do with petty politics. It has to do with a federal government run-amok and lying to everyone to cover up that fact.

A bill has been introduced in Congress to curb the flagrant misuse of SSNs. Here is a link to a PDF copy of the bill, the Social Security Number Misuse Prevention Act (S228).

Aw come on! This is totally a bunch of liberal trash...and my politics are relatively liberal (although unlike some -- I don't take up liberal causes because its the liberal thing to do). Who is it that's eating your lunch? Well fortunately, you've got your cake...the Bush administration is pulling the Democrat tax and spend crap...one of the few things that I really liked about the Republicans is gone. In any case, I'll refrain from re-hashing ColdFusion's reaming...but there are a few points I wanted to make outside of this post.

Don't forget all the company perks: company housing, cars, food, business trips (read vacations), etc. that don't get reported as income.

If that includes military support for oil drilling, massive corporate subsidies, government research grants, etc

the poor who are guaranteed to spend their money

How much do you earn? I'm betting it's not enough to qualify for a real tax break under the new tax scheme.

Now who is buying whose crap -- and I'm afraid that that stink is not coming from my general direction. Tell you what. When you bust your ass for long enough that you're doing well -- you go pay more taxes. I'll hang on to my income.

--Turkey

Its funny that if you have the 17 USC

I first used the library to study it, then the web after that became a viable technology. I don't own a copy. (When I said "I have", I meant as in "I have read a book" in reference to the AC's post, not "I possess".)

Namely that 17USC1201f does not exist

17 USC1201; update your copy of Title 17 or paste in an addendum for the DMCA. I don't try to stretch this issue to include architecture, even though I did earlier ponder how strongly the case law established for audio works could apply.

17 USC 107 is notorious

And often misused on /., I know. The Fair Use Doctorine as it applies to the DMCA is a real briar patch, and I doubt there's enough case law to do a solid analysis. Mostly, I was not terribly encouraged to give a detailed analysis of my opinions of how the Fair Use doctorine (as established in 17 USC 107, case law, and common law) may apply to the struggle to get Linux on the XBox. The main reason I was not so encouraged is that I was responding to an AC whose only real assertion is that I hadn't done any homework.

However, you apparently have, so I'll give you the courtesy of a more complete response.

I don't think that MS is likely to be happy about Linux being on the XBox. They're likely to pull out a lot of measures to prevent it, both technical and legal. The most likely-- and possibly most deadly-- weapon they'll pull out is the DMCA. That's why I think that copyright law will be significant on this.

Now, if we could get Linux on the XBox legitimately, then we'd have a lot less of a leg to stand on. We first have to make an overture, to establish we can't get it legitimately. The fact that we know it'll be ignored or refused is irrelevant. The overture should be made. Part of this is for ethical reasons, like demanding a ship's surrender before opening fire. The other part is to gather ammo for the upcoming legal battle, so we can say that there was not an alternative.

I certainly am not saying that copyright law establishes that MS is obligated to license jack. I'm referring to the upcoming struggle to get Linux on the XBox.

I'm also interested in looking at the background and case law on 17USC115. I know it's not directly relevant, but the priciples and case law leading up to it may be.

By the way: I keep using the term "we" here. Let me clarify that word. I am not part of the group that is trying to get MS to certify anything. I'm not one of the guys developing Linux on any platform; I'm a BSD guy. I'm using the term "we" to represent a fairly nebulous group of people, who think that Linux on the XBox would be a cool thing to happen.

"This process contains three phases: (1) Completing a cover sheet, and (2) Attaching documents or submitting typed comments, and (3) Receiving a Confirmation." (from ECFS user manual)

Upload expert, submitting an attached MS Word 6.0 and higher, MS Excel 4.0 and higher, Word Perfect 5.1 and higher, ASCII Text, and Adobe Acrobat Portable Document Format (PDF), as specified in the ECFS user manual. Or (maybe?) do a quick file submission under "Broadband over the traditional telephone." (I'm not sure if this files under the proper proceeding, as it provides minimal information so you may want to use expert.)

File using expert

1. Proceeding: 03-45
2. Fill in relevant information (pers info)
3. Document type: Comment
4. Attach document or just type in a quick comment

Now instead of ranting here on the issue. Make your statements on the issue available to people other then techies, law types and such. Not that I'm saying law types don't come here, or techies don't understand ... err ... shut up ... right. The rest of this comment is thrown in for reference.

Home Site ECFS (Electronic Comment Filing System)
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/

Documentation in regards to proper response filings in response to the petition posted by pulvar.com":
http://pulver.com/fwd/fccfwd.html
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/ DA-03-439A1.pdf

The CFRs referenced from time to time are Code of Federal Regulations. On the site referenced, you should come to see quickly there are different titles corresponding to various sectors of industry, Title 47 referencing Telecommuniation.

USC stands for United States Code. You can search this database or download each to view structurally.

I have just discovered all this information out in the past 15 minutes via Google and the www.fcc.gov site and www.pulvar.com. I can't give you a cut clear definition of the difference of U.S.C. and C.F.R., however there is an about page that clearly defines this on each respective home site.

In other words, I'll leave my post and allow the higher states of entropical discussion to follow ;)

P.S.I'm not really a coward, just an ignorant fool who forgot his password/email. Ohhly well. That also means to imply I am not affliated with anybody pertaining to the topic of discussion.

"This process contains three phases: (1) Completing a cover sheet, and (2) Attaching documents or submitting typed comments, and (3) Receiving a Confirmation." (from ECFS user manual)

Upload expert, submitting an attached MS Word 6.0 and higher, MS Excel 4.0 and higher, Word Perfect 5.1 and higher, ASCII Text, and Adobe Acrobat Portable Document Format (PDF), as specified in the ECFS user manual. Or (maybe?) do a quick file submission under "Broadband over the traditional telephone." (I'm not sure if this files under the proper proceeding, as it provides minimal information so you may want to use expert.)

File using expert

1. Proceeding: 03-45
2. Fill in relevant information (pers info)
3. Document type: Comment
4. Attach document or just type in a quick comment

Now instead of ranting here on the issue. Make your statements on the issue available to people other then techies, law types and such. Not that I'm saying law types don't come here, or techies don't understand ... err ... shut up ... right. The rest of this comment is thrown in for reference.

Home Site ECFS (Electronic Comment Filing System)
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/

Documentation in regards to proper response filings in response to the petition posted by pulvar.com":
http://pulver.com/fwd/fccfwd.html
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/ DA-03-439A1.pdf

The CFRs referenced from time to time are Code of Federal Regulations. On the site referenced, you should come to see quickly there are different titles corresponding to various sectors of industry, Title 47 referencing Telecommuniation.

USC stands for United States Code. You can search this database or download each to view structurally.

I have just discovered all this information out in the past 15 minutes via Google and the www.fcc.gov site and www.pulvar.com. I can't give you a cut clear definition of the difference of U.S.C. and C.F.R., however there is an about page that clearly defines this on each respective home site.

In other words, I'll leave my post and allow the higher states of entropical discussion to follow ;)

P.S.I'm not really a coward, just an ignorant fool who forgot his password/email. Ohhly well. That also means to imply I am not affliated with anybody pertaining to the topic of discussion.

When the Slashdot community make comments to the effect that the costs involved in creating a Westlaw or a Lexis-Nexis - with maintaining databases, OCR and so forth - need to be compensated or that these services are like the public highway system, which doesn't entitle you to a free car, you are missing the point.

Let me see if I can get at that point. Lexis-Nexis and Westlaw provide a valuable service that essentially has become the standard if you want to practice law. While it is possible to look some of the information in print, you simply cannot practice law and expect the same level of performance when you are arguing against another attorney that has it - when you don't.

In most circumstances, this would be simply a matter of convenience and nothing further need be said. Convenience is convenience and you can either pay for it or you can't. However, we are talking about the law here - which means that by creating an artifical monopoly in order to support your business model, you are effectively biasing the judicial system against people who do not have access or cannot afford this service.

You accuse me of putting words in your mouth...therefore they add no weight to my argument

Sorry, it sounded like they were supposed to weigh against my argument. Another apology in advance, this post got way too long chuckle.

Your little thought experiment about doing DeCSS in your head

You may think it is silly and meaningless, but I actually want to make it reality. I'll probably have to go with the multi-person version though. Sometimes people do weird irrational and irritating things, but you can't imprison them for it without rock solid justification.

reductio ad absurbum... doesn't apply to social issues.

It applies to anything, so long as it is used properly. It's just easier to make an error when using it on social issues. If a simple case has a property and the simple case really is a member of the general case then you have proven the general case CAN have that property. Some properties will apply to the entire general case. A single false case will invalidate an entire math proof and a single unconstitutional case will invalidate an entire law.

I think you objection is trivial enough that if you are capable of doing DeCSS using only thoughts then you should be allowed to do that.

Yes you should, but the DMCA says it is a crime. It doesn't matter how or why you circumvent. It doesn't matter if I'm doing it with PC, with my brain, or with a tinker toy. You seem to find intent important. DMCA says you can't circumvent even if you are blind and need to use a text-to-speach reader.

Either the DMCA is valid and thinking-DeCSS is a crime or the DMCA is unconstitutional and it is not a crime. Congress passes plenty of invalid laws...

"An act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution is not law." -- Marbury vs. Madison, Supreme court.
Between 1803 and 1990 127 congressional acts were declared unconstitutional. 127 times in 187 years. Between 1995 and 2000 another 24 congressional acts were declared unconstitutional. 24 times in 5 years! The rate unconstitutional acts has skyrocketed. I don't know about cases in 2001 and up.

(Of course, you wouldn't be allowed to transcribe the results of your computation.)

Of course I can. There is no law against writing something down, nor should there be. It cannot cause harm. The potential for harm lies in distribution, and that is what copyright law prohibits. And even then it depends upon the circumstances. I cannot sell it, but I can use it in a classroom.

>reading it backwards...
You can probably do all that non-DeCSS stuff if you want

Probably?? Oh my. Maybe we should outlaw math teachers too.

Books and DVDs are more different than they are alike. The salient difference is that books are analog and DVDs are digital.

You fell into the MPAA/RIAA propaganda. They are trying to invent new rules using the magical and mysterious word "digital". Analog vs digital makes no difference, both are copyrighted content stored on a physical object.

I bet you rejected my last paragraph, but that's ok. DVD's and books are both digital anyway (ignoring any illustrations). A book is a sequence of discrete values (letters), just like a DVD. The copyright on text is a copyright on digital information. (The writing in the book and the writing on DVD's both have random analog edges, but they carry no information and are not copyrighted.)

If you want a fair comparison, you need to compare data to data or medium to medium.

No, copyright is always on data, never on the medium. I can store my novel in a book, on a CD, a clay tablet, or in braille and it's all protected by the same copyright.

You wouldn't be allowed to rearrange the letters into the text of a different, copyrighted book.

Sure I can. It's my property and I can chop it up any way I like. That is purely personal use and has precisely zero impact on the market for the work. Pure fair use. What I can't do is sell it as another book.

permitted to cut up the DVD with a pair of scissors and turn it into a mural.

And with a really good set of scissors (lab equipment) I can cut up a DVD and turn it into a different DVD. The book/DVD analogy is really strong, you break it I'll fix it :) (At least within the current context)

You are trying to compare the physical medium of the book to the data

I was going to dissagree, but I see you are right in that I phrased it carelessly. Everything I said is still valid though. Both books and disks can be cut up and put back together. Both books and disks can have their contents blotted out and overwritten (easy on a Read/Write disks, possible but a pain on Recordables or ROM). All methods change the contents, it doesn't matter if the media gets scrambled or not.

You also don't have the right to scan your book with OCR

Sure I do. It's a cut-and dry case of fair use. If you took me to court I would win on summary judgement. It does not violate someone else's right to a limited monopoly selling copies of that data (copyright).

or give photocopies to your friends.

Probably not, but I could keep the OCR scan I made and give the book to a friend.

it is also wrong to say that they[circumvention/violation] have nothing to do with each other.

They are independant. You can (A)do neither, (B)do both, (C)just circumvent, or (D)just violate.

We can ignore case (A). Case (B) is already a violation crime, the circumvention crime is redundant. (C) you punish someone who has caused no harm. (D) circumvention law is superfluous.

Anti-circumvention law is at best redundant or superfluous. At worst it is (C) unjust.

John Searle's Chinese room

I never intened to indicate the computer was thinking in a conscious sense hehe. I meant to indicate it didn't matter if it was done with a computer or not. Too often legislators and judges get confused when computers are involved and think they need new laws. It's like having special law about commiting murder with a spoon.

I do believe that some day we will make conscious machines. Humans are conscious machines running in carbon-water-etc. A suitably powerful computer could presicely emulate an every atom composing a person and produce consciousness. I have no problem with the "paradox" that the chinese room understands chinese while the person does not. A person can certainly preform calculations without any conscious understanding of what those calculations represent.

When we have artificial consciousness those "mere calculations" will have to aquire unique rules for dealing with the same way "mere atoms" aquire special rules for dealing with them when those atoms happen to make up a person. It will be an extremely complex issue and I have no idea how we will work it out.

BTW, my turn for an off-the-wall question :)
Do you happen to know your personality profile? I'm an INTP. I would speculate you are an ISTJ or ESTJ.

-

You accuse me of putting words in your mouth...therefore they add no weight to my argument

Sorry, it sounded like they were supposed to weigh against my argument. Another apology in advance, this post got way too long chuckle.

Your little thought experiment about doing DeCSS in your head

You may think it is silly and meaningless, but I actually want to make it reality. I'll probably have to go with the multi-person version though. Sometimes people do weird irrational and irritating things, but you can't imprison them for it without rock solid justification.

reductio ad absurbum... doesn't apply to social issues.

It applies to anything, so long as it is used properly. It's just easier to make an error when using it on social issues. If a simple case has a property and the simple case really is a member of the general case then you have proven the general case CAN have that property. Some properties will apply to the entire general case. A single false case will invalidate an entire math proof and a single unconstitutional case will invalidate an entire law.

I think you objection is trivial enough that if you are capable of doing DeCSS using only thoughts then you should be allowed to do that.

Yes you should, but the DMCA says it is a crime. It doesn't matter how or why you circumvent. It doesn't matter if I'm doing it with PC, with my brain, or with a tinker toy. You seem to find intent important. DMCA says you can't circumvent even if you are blind and need to use a text-to-speach reader.

Either the DMCA is valid and thinking-DeCSS is a crime or the DMCA is unconstitutional and it is not a crime. Congress passes plenty of invalid laws...

"An act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution is not law." -- Marbury vs. Madison, Supreme court.
Between 1803 and 1990 127 congressional acts were declared unconstitutional. 127 times in 187 years. Between 1995 and 2000 another 24 congressional acts were declared unconstitutional. 24 times in 5 years! The rate unconstitutional acts has skyrocketed. I don't know about cases in 2001 and up.

(Of course, you wouldn't be allowed to transcribe the results of your computation.)

Of course I can. There is no law against writing something down, nor should there be. It cannot cause harm. The potential for harm lies in distribution, and that is what copyright law prohibits. And even then it depends upon the circumstances. I cannot sell it, but I can use it in a classroom.

>reading it backwards...
You can probably do all that non-DeCSS stuff if you want

Probably?? Oh my. Maybe we should outlaw math teachers too.

Books and DVDs are more different than they are alike. The salient difference is that books are analog and DVDs are digital.

You fell into the MPAA/RIAA propaganda. They are trying to invent new rules using the magical and mysterious word "digital". Analog vs digital makes no difference, both are copyrighted content stored on a physical object.

I bet you rejected my last paragraph, but that's ok. DVD's and books are both digital anyway (ignoring any illustrations). A book is a sequence of discrete values (letters), just like a DVD. The copyright on text is a copyright on digital information. (The writing in the book and the writing on DVD's both have random analog edges, but they carry no information and are not copyrighted.)

If you want a fair comparison, you need to compare data to data or medium to medium.

No, copyright is always on data, never on the medium. I can store my novel in a book, on a CD, a clay tablet, or in braille and it's all protected by the same copyright.

You wouldn't be allowed to rearrange the letters into the text of a different, copyrighted book.

Sure I can. It's my property and I can chop it up any way I like. That is purely personal use and has precisely zero impact on the market for the work. Pure fair use. What I can't do is sell it as another book.

permitted to cut up the DVD with a pair of scissors and turn it into a mural.

And with a really good set of scissors (lab equipment) I can cut up a DVD and turn it into a different DVD. The book/DVD analogy is really strong, you break it I'll fix it :) (At least within the current context)

You are trying to compare the physical medium of the book to the data

I was going to dissagree, but I see you are right in that I phrased it carelessly. Everything I said is still valid though. Both books and disks can be cut up and put back together. Both books and disks can have their contents blotted out and overwritten (easy on a Read/Write disks, possible but a pain on Recordables or ROM). All methods change the contents, it doesn't matter if the media gets scrambled or not.

You also don't have the right to scan your book with OCR

Sure I do. It's a cut-and dry case of fair use. If you took me to court I would win on summary judgement. It does not violate someone else's right to a limited monopoly selling copies of that data (copyright).

or give photocopies to your friends.

Probably not, but I could keep the OCR scan I made and give the book to a friend.

it is also wrong to say that they[circumvention/violation] have nothing to do with each other.

They are independant. You can (A)do neither, (B)do both, (C)just circumvent, or (D)just violate.

We can ignore case (A). Case (B) is already a violation crime, the circumvention crime is redundant. (C) you punish someone who has caused no harm. (D) circumvention law is superfluous.

Anti-circumvention law is at best redundant or superfluous. At worst it is (C) unjust.

John Searle's Chinese room

I never intened to indicate the computer was thinking in a conscious sense hehe. I meant to indicate it didn't matter if it was done with a computer or not. Too often legislators and judges get confused when computers are involved and think they need new laws. It's like having special law about commiting murder with a spoon.

I do believe that some day we will make conscious machines. Humans are conscious machines running in carbon-water-etc. A suitably powerful computer could presicely emulate an every atom composing a person and produce consciousness. I have no problem with the "paradox" that the chinese room understands chinese while the person does not. A person can certainly preform calculations without any conscious understanding of what those calculations represent.

When we have artificial consciousness those "mere calculations" will have to aquire unique rules for dealing with the same way "mere atoms" aquire special rules for dealing with them when those atoms happen to make up a person. It will be an extremely complex issue and I have no idea how we will work it out.

BTW, my turn for an off-the-wall question :)
Do you happen to know your personality profile? I'm an INTP. I would speculate you are an ISTJ or ESTJ.

-

"The electronic comments you submit directly through the Regulations.gov website are temporarily maintained by EPA before being forwarded once per day to the proper agency. The agency receiving your comment is considered the official custodian of the comment. Your comment will not be considered until it has been properly received by that agency in accordance with the requirements described in the Federal Register notice. Users who want to verify that an agency has received their comment are urged to check directly with that agency."

"The electronic comments you submit directly through the Regulations.gov website are temporarily maintained by EPA before being forwarded once per day to the proper agency. The agency receiving your comment is considered the official custodian of the comment. Your comment will not be considered until it has been properly received by that agency in accordance with the requirements described in the Federal Register notice. Users who want to verify that an agency has received their comment are urged to check directly with that agency."

it makes a lot more sense than spendig $360 billion of the taxpayers money per year on people and technology whose sole purpose it is to kill other human beings.

I take it you're referring to the 16% spent on protecting America from human beings who want to enslave or murder Americans (or are we pretending those don't exist?) as opposed to the 23% spent on social security, 19% spent on medicare and medicaid, 6% spent on "Other Means-Tested Entitlements", and 19% spent on "Non-Defense Discretionary" (whatever that means).

Aircraft using GPS navigation equipment under IFR must be equipped with an approved and operational alternate means of navigation appropriate to the flight. Active monitoring of alternative navigation equipment is not required if the GPS receiver uses RAIM for integrity monitoring. [Emphasis added.] Active monitoring of an alternate means of navigation is required when the RAIM capability of the GPS equipment is lost.

I was unable to locate any pertinent regulations. The incomplete copy of the regs on my Palm makes no mention of GPS. Perhaps this would be a good question for AOPA's legal services!

As a pilot who routinely uses GPS, if I catch some bastard jamming my signal because they think it makes them 1337, I'll personally pee on their head from 4500 feet.

cite a regulation

My pleasure.

14 CFR 121.306 Portable electronic devices. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable electronic device on any U.S.-registered civil aircraft operating under this part.
(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to --
(1) Portable voice recorders;
(2) Hearing aids;
(3) Heart pacemakers;
(4) Electric shavers; or
(5) Any other portable electronic device that the part 119 certificate holder has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.
(c) The determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be made by that part 119 certificate holder operating the particular device to be used. (Source: Government Printing Office)

As for a CD player, or a computer, or any other digital device, it does have an RF oscillator: it's called a clock (as in "clock speed"), and most of them are poorly shielded, if shielded at all. Think about it--is your CD player's case made of metal or plastic? I don't feel like retyping (or copying and editing) my previous post on the subject, but if you follow the link, you'll find a much more in-depth explanation.

--Dave Buckles
Commercial Pilot, Airplane Single and Multiengine Land
Instrument Airplane
Flight Instructor--Airplane
Instrument Instructor
2711311 CFII 06/04

US hams are still authorized for 2300-2310 MHz. See the ARRL band plan for the 13cm band. Actually, we used to have all of 2300-2450 in one big 150 MHz chunk. But 80 MHz of it has been lost, so it's now 2300-2310 MHz (mostly because that's where the DX work was done, although it does include things like repeater inputs input so as to have a wider frequency split) and 2390-2450 MHz. Hams do not have 2450-2483.5 MHz, so any operation there has to be strictly under Part 15 rules, including things like not interconnecting any Part 97 operations.

US Hams still have all of 5650-5925 MHz in a single 275 MHz chunk in case you might be interested in working some 802.11a.

US hams are still authorized for 2300-2310 MHz. See the ARRL band plan for the 13cm band. Actually, we used to have all of 2300-2450 in one big 150 MHz chunk. But 80 MHz of it has been lost, so it's now 2300-2310 MHz (mostly because that's where the DX work was done, although it does include things like repeater inputs input so as to have a wider frequency split) and 2390-2450 MHz. Hams do not have 2450-2483.5 MHz, so any operation there has to be strictly under Part 15 rules, including things like not interconnecting any Part 97 operations.

US Hams still have all of 5650-5925 MHz in a single 275 MHz chunk in case you might be interested in working some 802.11a.

US hams are still authorized for 2300-2310 MHz. See the ARRL band plan for the 13cm band. Actually, we used to have all of 2300-2450 in one big 150 MHz chunk. But 80 MHz of it has been lost, so it's now 2300-2310 MHz (mostly because that's where the DX work was done, although it does include things like repeater inputs input so as to have a wider frequency split) and 2390-2450 MHz. Hams do not have 2450-2483.5 MHz, so any operation there has to be strictly under Part 15 rules, including things like not interconnecting any Part 97 operations.

US Hams still have all of 5650-5925 MHz in a single 275 MHz chunk in case you might be interested in working some 802.11a.

DAMN YOU AND YOUR LIES!!!!!

OK, calm down and let's walk through it here. I'm actually kind of curious if you can face the truth.

The ACLU was never about neglect.

Very few people intend to cause harm. The ACLU is the poster-child for "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". I don't doubt the good intentions of the ACLU, but they cause immeasurable damage.

Service were supposed to be provided that never were.

Exactly what are these "magic" services that don't exist? The ACLU made sure that mentally ill people could not be held if they didn't want to be, unless they were an actual danger to people (and even then it's hard to keep them). So if a mentally ill person -- who are usually not in the position to make decisions about themselves -- does not want to take advantage of the services that exist, or doesn't want to take their medication, then what are we supposed to do?

A compassionate society would take these people off the streets, make sure they get the right care, and do what's best for them. But the ACLU made sure that we couldn't do that, since the "rights" of the mentally ill apparently include the right to BE mentally ill and waste away on the street.

And spending on social programs is NOTHING - NOTHING today, comparing to the fetish of weapons and gorging of civil libreties by the police state.

Now, now, at least look up the numbers so you don't look completely ignorant. Let's examine the 2002 budget:

Total budget: 2,052 billion
Defense spending: $336 billion (yes, only 16.4%. Not exactly a "fetish of weapons")
Social spending: $824 billion plus a slew of other stuff. Breakdown:

• Social Security: $456 B
  
• Medicare: $223 B
  
• Medicaid: $145 B
  
• Other Mandatory: $310 (not included in total, but there are a lot of social programs in here). I couldn't find a straight "welfare" number, but you know that's huge.

The biggest receiver of welfare today are the megacorps getting away with raiding the treasury, tax breaks to the rich, and subsidies to the war machines.

Uh, no. First of all, there's no such thing as "corporate welfare". You are allowing yourself to be a tool of the socialists. "Corporate welfare" is allowing people to keep more of THEIR money, rather than give it to the government. The government has no money -- they only have money at the permission of the people. A subtle but critical point.

Second of all, when you look at the amount we spend on social programs, you see that it's completely absurd that corporate tax breaks (which create jobs, by the way) are even in the same ball park.

1980 started with a public debt less then a trillion dollars. Reagan/Bush left it over 3 trillion and raising.

Ah yes, the Democrat's Big Lie that they always pull out. Let's review the facts:

a) The Democrats controlled the congress, and therefore controlled the budget. The are solely responsible for the deficits.

b) Tax cuts. The revenues to the government after the tax cuts nearly DOUBLED because of the economic expansion. So where did the money go? That's right -- your buddies the Democrats spent it all, and much, much more.

Now, I will blame Reagan for not going to war with the Democrats over their orgy of spending. Of course, look what happened to Bush when he tried it... the Dems let the government shut down rather than bring the budget under control.

Don't fucking piss on my leg and tell me it is raining!!!!!!!!

It's raining. Can you handle the truth?

I print this every day for my boss and find it easier to just look at them rather than try to use the search function on their page. You can find the listings here. of course next week you'll just change the 2 in the url to a 3. we are usually searching for grant opportunities- this looks pretty interesting, I think I'll have to start looking for similar items.

1. Google Cache of State Do Not Call lists which has been relaced by FTC List of State Registries
   
   
2. The DMA's list Useful cache versus the Real soon now revised list
   

require[s] that [telemarketer's] do-not-call request records must be maintained for 10 years after a request is
made.

The regulations required by paragraph (2) may require the
establishment and operation of a single national database to compile
a list of telephone numbers of residential subscribers who object to
receiving telephone solicitations,

"Do Not Call Law"(Alaska's Black Dot Law)
AS 45.50.475 prohibits telephone solicitation of persons identified in a telephone directory as not wishing to receive telephone solicitations. These telephone customers have a "black dot" by their name in the directory. The statute also requires local telephone companies to provide a list of "black dot" customers to telephone solicitors who request one.
For a small fee, your local telephone company will identify your residential listing in your telephone directory with a

• black dot.
• This informs telephone solicitors that you do not want to receive telephone solicitations.

About funding: what about reallocating some of that defence budget which is gobbling about 50% of the total budget?

About funding: what about reallocating some of that defence budget which is gobbling about 50% of the total budget?

About funding: what about reallocating some of that defence budget which is gobbling about 50% of the total budget?

As I noted somewhere else, the entire DMCA is only 59 pages long in PDF format. In other words, as is usual, someone was full of shit in claiming it was "over a hundred pages".

Here's the page from the Congressional Record from the GPO. Look at the botton of the first column. Neat.

Note: billion == 1E12

Yes, the United States will spend approximately $320 billion on defense next year. Note, however, that about $200 billion or so is personnel and operations and stuff: there's about $63 billion for procurement and another $41 billion or so in Research and Development. From this source, the GDP of the U.S. is projected as $10.481 trillion dollars next year, which gives us defense spending as a percentage of GDP at 3%.

Whoopdy-fucking-do.

• Social Security: $443 billion
• Medicare and Medicaid: $362 billion
• Means-tested entitlements: $119 billion
• Other (I *love* this): $121 billion

Remember, we have a volunteer military, and no one will sign up unless they get paid decently and have reasonable benefits, so those costs will always be higher than nations with compulsary service.

Note, too, that the United States makes every damn weapon everyone everywhere uses, and we like it that way. This of course means that the United States bears the brunt of these RD costs, but it also means we can limit who gets what equipment elsewhere, and with what degree of smarts.

Note: billion == 1E12

Yes, the United States will spend approximately $320 billion on defense next year. Note, however, that about $200 billion or so is personnel and operations and stuff: there's about $63 billion for procurement and another $41 billion or so in Research and Development. From this source, the GDP of the U.S. is projected as $10.481 trillion dollars next year, which gives us defense spending as a percentage of GDP at 3%.

Whoopdy-fucking-do.

• Social Security: $443 billion
• Medicare and Medicaid: $362 billion
• Means-tested entitlements: $119 billion
• Other (I *love* this): $121 billion

Remember, we have a volunteer military, and no one will sign up unless they get paid decently and have reasonable benefits, so those costs will always be higher than nations with compulsary service.

Note, too, that the United States makes every damn weapon everyone everywhere uses, and we like it that way. This of course means that the United States bears the brunt of these RD costs, but it also means we can limit who gets what equipment elsewhere, and with what degree of smarts.

Note: billion == 1E12

Yes, the United States will spend approximately $320 billion on defense next year. Note, however, that about $200 billion or so is personnel and operations and stuff: there's about $63 billion for procurement and another $41 billion or so in Research and Development. From this source, the GDP of the U.S. is projected as $10.481 trillion dollars next year, which gives us defense spending as a percentage of GDP at 3%.

Whoopdy-fucking-do.

• Social Security: $443 billion
• Medicare and Medicaid: $362 billion
• Means-tested entitlements: $119 billion
• Other (I *love* this): $121 billion

Remember, we have a volunteer military, and no one will sign up unless they get paid decently and have reasonable benefits, so those costs will always be higher than nations with compulsary service.

Note, too, that the United States makes every damn weapon everyone everywhere uses, and we like it that way. This of course means that the United States bears the brunt of these RD costs, but it also means we can limit who gets what equipment elsewhere, and with what degree of smarts.

Perhaps you ought to take a look at what the rules are on animal feed in the United States. Amongst other things, a cow can be fed food scraps of animal protein - yet cooking does not destory prions, as many people in Europe can tell you.

It already is. The newly signed homeland security bill saw to it.(all 420+ pages could not have been adequately examined by those who voted for it but that is another rant.) Download the PDF from the govt web site.
Page 323 Line 15.
...the selection of specific technical hardware and software information security solutions should be left to individual agencies from among commercially developed products.

Clearly no one on this thread works for a manufacturer doing international business from the U.S. (or recalls the export restrictions on encryption a few years back--since relaxed). The U.S. government does quite a good job of imposing morality on business, through its export control classification number (ECCN) system, run by the Bureau of Industry and Security at the Department of Commerce.

This organization has its roots in the old Atomic Energy Commission rules on limiting the export of nuclear materials in the 1940s, but has been greatly expanded, starting in the 1980s, then explosively in the last few years. Every item exported, from software to plastic, must be classified prior to shipment, and there are quite lengthy and detailed descriptions involved. (The sections most relevant to the average /. reader are Category 3-electronics, Category 4-computers, Category 5 (Part 1)-telecommunications, Category 5 (Part 2)-information security, and Supplement No. 2, general technology and software notes, all in section 774.) The rules are in place ostensibly to keep the unwashed heathen overseas from access to U.S. technology that can be turned against the U.S., or technology that they can use to protect themselves against the U.S. Technologists should be aware that the rules were "clarified" a year or two back to include "technology" export, not just the export of physical objects, and that simply discussing a "controlled" technology with someone inside the U.S. that has citizenship from a "banned nation" list makes one subject to fines and/or imprisonment. (This policy works because, as everyone knows, the U.S. is the source of all useful technology ;).)

I bring this up to show that moral obligations (at least in the form of obligations that protect U.S. interests) are already placed on businesses, and that the mechanisms are already in place to control whatever export the federal government desires to control.

Clearly no one on this thread works for a manufacturer doing international business from the U.S. (or recalls the export restrictions on encryption a few years back--since relaxed). The U.S. government does quite a good job of imposing morality on business, through its export control classification number (ECCN) system, run by the Bureau of Industry and Security at the Department of Commerce.

This organization has its roots in the old Atomic Energy Commission rules on limiting the export of nuclear materials in the 1940s, but has been greatly expanded, starting in the 1980s, then explosively in the last few years. Every item exported, from software to plastic, must be classified prior to shipment, and there are quite lengthy and detailed descriptions involved. (The sections most relevant to the average /. reader are Category 3-electronics, Category 4-computers, Category 5 (Part 1)-telecommunications, Category 5 (Part 2)-information security, and Supplement No. 2, general technology and software notes, all in section 774.) The rules are in place ostensibly to keep the unwashed heathen overseas from access to U.S. technology that can be turned against the U.S., or technology that they can use to protect themselves against the U.S. Technologists should be aware that the rules were "clarified" a year or two back to include "technology" export, not just the export of physical objects, and that simply discussing a "controlled" technology with someone inside the U.S. that has citizenship from a "banned nation" list makes one subject to fines and/or imprisonment. (This policy works because, as everyone knows, the U.S. is the source of all useful technology ;).)

I bring this up to show that moral obligations (at least in the form of obligations that protect U.S. interests) are already placed on businesses, and that the mechanisms are already in place to control whatever export the federal government desires to control.

Clearly no one on this thread works for a manufacturer doing international business from the U.S. (or recalls the export restrictions on encryption a few years back--since relaxed). The U.S. government does quite a good job of imposing morality on business, through its export control classification number (ECCN) system, run by the Bureau of Industry and Security at the Department of Commerce.

This organization has its roots in the old Atomic Energy Commission rules on limiting the export of nuclear materials in the 1940s, but has been greatly expanded, starting in the 1980s, then explosively in the last few years. Every item exported, from software to plastic, must be classified prior to shipment, and there are quite lengthy and detailed descriptions involved. (The sections most relevant to the average /. reader are Category 3-electronics, Category 4-computers, Category 5 (Part 1)-telecommunications, Category 5 (Part 2)-information security, and Supplement No. 2, general technology and software notes, all in section 774.) The rules are in place ostensibly to keep the unwashed heathen overseas from access to U.S. technology that can be turned against the U.S., or technology that they can use to protect themselves against the U.S. Technologists should be aware that the rules were "clarified" a year or two back to include "technology" export, not just the export of physical objects, and that simply discussing a "controlled" technology with someone inside the U.S. that has citizenship from a "banned nation" list makes one subject to fines and/or imprisonment. (This policy works because, as everyone knows, the U.S. is the source of all useful technology ;).)

I bring this up to show that moral obligations (at least in the form of obligations that protect U.S. interests) are already placed on businesses, and that the mechanisms are already in place to control whatever export the federal government desires to control.

Clearly no one on this thread works for a manufacturer doing international business from the U.S. (or recalls the export restrictions on encryption a few years back--since relaxed). The U.S. government does quite a good job of imposing morality on business, through its export control classification number (ECCN) system, run by the Bureau of Industry and Security at the Department of Commerce.

This organization has its roots in the old Atomic Energy Commission rules on limiting the export of nuclear materials in the 1940s, but has been greatly expanded, starting in the 1980s, then explosively in the last few years. Every item exported, from software to plastic, must be classified prior to shipment, and there are quite lengthy and detailed descriptions involved. (The sections most relevant to the average /. reader are Category 3-electronics, Category 4-computers, Category 5 (Part 1)-telecommunications, Category 5 (Part 2)-information security, and Supplement No. 2, general technology and software notes, all in section 774.) The rules are in place ostensibly to keep the unwashed heathen overseas from access to U.S. technology that can be turned against the U.S., or technology that they can use to protect themselves against the U.S. Technologists should be aware that the rules were "clarified" a year or two back to include "technology" export, not just the export of physical objects, and that simply discussing a "controlled" technology with someone inside the U.S. that has citizenship from a "banned nation" list makes one subject to fines and/or imprisonment. (This policy works because, as everyone knows, the U.S. is the source of all useful technology ;).)

I bring this up to show that moral obligations (at least in the form of obligations that protect U.S. interests) are already placed on businesses, and that the mechanisms are already in place to control whatever export the federal government desires to control.

Clearly no one on this thread works for a manufacturer doing international business from the U.S. (or recalls the export restrictions on encryption a few years back--since relaxed). The U.S. government does quite a good job of imposing morality on business, through its export control classification number (ECCN) system, run by the Bureau of Industry and Security at the Department of Commerce.

This organization has its roots in the old Atomic Energy Commission rules on limiting the export of nuclear materials in the 1940s, but has been greatly expanded, starting in the 1980s, then explosively in the last few years. Every item exported, from software to plastic, must be classified prior to shipment, and there are quite lengthy and detailed descriptions involved. (The sections most relevant to the average /. reader are Category 3-electronics, Category 4-computers, Category 5 (Part 1)-telecommunications, Category 5 (Part 2)-information security, and Supplement No. 2, general technology and software notes, all in section 774.) The rules are in place ostensibly to keep the unwashed heathen overseas from access to U.S. technology that can be turned against the U.S., or technology that they can use to protect themselves against the U.S. Technologists should be aware that the rules were "clarified" a year or two back to include "technology" export, not just the export of physical objects, and that simply discussing a "controlled" technology with someone inside the U.S. that has citizenship from a "banned nation" list makes one subject to fines and/or imprisonment. (This policy works because, as everyone knows, the U.S. is the source of all useful technology ;).)

I bring this up to show that moral obligations (at least in the form of obligations that protect U.S. interests) are already placed on businesses, and that the mechanisms are already in place to control whatever export the federal government desires to control.

Clearly no one on this thread works for a manufacturer doing international business from the U.S. (or recalls the export restrictions on encryption a few years back--since relaxed). The U.S. government does quite a good job of imposing morality on business, through its export control classification number (ECCN) system, run by the Bureau of Industry and Security at the Department of Commerce.

This organization has its roots in the old Atomic Energy Commission rules on limiting the export of nuclear materials in the 1940s, but has been greatly expanded, starting in the 1980s, then explosively in the last few years. Every item exported, from software to plastic, must be classified prior to shipment, and there are quite lengthy and detailed descriptions involved. (The sections most relevant to the average /. reader are Category 3-electronics, Category 4-computers, Category 5 (Part 1)-telecommunications, Category 5 (Part 2)-information security, and Supplement No. 2, general technology and software notes, all in section 774.) The rules are in place ostensibly to keep the unwashed heathen overseas from access to U.S. technology that can be turned against the U.S., or technology that they can use to protect themselves against the U.S. Technologists should be aware that the rules were "clarified" a year or two back to include "technology" export, not just the export of physical objects, and that simply discussing a "controlled" technology with someone inside the U.S. that has citizenship from a "banned nation" list makes one subject to fines and/or imprisonment. (This policy works because, as everyone knows, the U.S. is the source of all useful technology ;).)

I bring this up to show that moral obligations (at least in the form of obligations that protect U.S. interests) are already placed on businesses, and that the mechanisms are already in place to control whatever export the federal government desires to control.

Anyone care to guess which useful databases are about to be locked off to anyone who can't cough up the required dough?

The argriculture database is defintely Agricola

The legal one is harder to guess. There are really no good legal database hosted by federal government. FLITE is mostly useless. GPO Acess and THOMAS are both potential targets, but those are so important to general public, as oppose to relativly small number to researchers for DOE's PubScience.

IF they do shutdown those two. Then it's time to re-read declaration of Independence:

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

If not a line item veto [pdf]?

So I think the linked article is completely misreading FCC documents (while mixing in some good ol' USC) to the point that the article has next to no basis in reality. I kept thinking "how do these people know that it only lets you opt for premium channels, etc., that doesn't sound like the FCC." Anyhoo, after dillegent searching of the federal register for final rules, the only thing I can find even remotely related to the subject of the linked article is this rule notice which essentially says that big media companies are prohibited from requiring cable operators from having to buy multiple channels. Has nothing to do with a cable operator making a bunch of viewers pay for stuff they don't want

So we've also had some people discussing 47 C.F.R. 76.921 (which I believe is a mis-citation of 47 U.S.C. 543(b)(8)(a) but that's just the perfectionist in me) regarding "Buy through of other tiers prohibited," but that too has nothing to do with the gist of the Business Week article. What that part of the code says is that if I as a cable operator offer anyone a pay-per-view or single premium channel, I must offer it to everyone on the same terms. Meaning if I don't like people getting just HBO, I can make it unavailable without the purchase of the other million HBO's. Or I can offer the pay-per-view channels in bulk without programming as a paid-for feature of digital cable- that way pay-per-view is its own tier. And if I have actual competition, that provision doesn't apply to me anyway.

So, I'm tempted to say the linked article is total bullshit given that we've all been trying to find out just what the hell it's talking about, and the only close things we've found certainly don't support the BusinessWeek article. Certainly nothing in any of this suggests that an individual consumer has the ability to opt out of anything a cable company requires.

The "1992 Cable Act" is actually the "Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992". It is public law PL 102-385, October 5, 1992, 106 Stat 1460.

Mostly it affects 47 USC. See 47 USC, sections 609, 521, 522, 543, 534, 535, 325, 541, 555, 552, 532, 531, 558, 533, 536, 537, 542, 544, 544a, 546, 548, 551, 553, 554, 334, 555, 555a, 335, and 521.

US Code may be viewed at The Government Printing Office (www.access.gpo.gov).