Slashdot Mirror

In the FAA Modernization And Reform Act of 2012 congress required the following:

SEC. 332.
(a)(4) REPORT TO CONGRESS .—Not later than 1 year after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Con-
gress a copy of the plan required under paragraph (1). ...
(b) RULEMAKING .—Not later than 18 months after the date on
which the plan required under subsection (a)(1) is submitted to Con-
gress under subsection (a)(4), the Secretary shall publish in the Fed-
eral Register—
(1) a final rule on small unmanned aircraft systems that
will allow for civil operation of such systems in the national
airspace system, to the extent the systems do not meet the re-
quirements for expedited operational authorization under sec-
tion 333 of this Act;

This law was passed on 1 Feb 2012. I don't know the exact date that the FAA made their report to congress, but even assuming that they waited till the last possible day, that would mean their final rule on small unmanned aircraft is due on 1 Aug 2014. Banning commercial use of small unnmanned aircraft is not "allowing for civil operation of such systems", so the FAA either is or soon will be operating in direct contradiction to the law passed by congress.

Worse, the rules and guidelines that they have created didn't follow the required process for creating new regulations, in particular they were effected without any public comment period, something a judge already slapped them down for. Come 1 Aug the FAA can claim small commercial drone use is illegal all they want, but the courts aren't going to back them up.

Maybe you should read labels more closely. The law limits specific formulas for different uses, and many of them involve methanol, while other additives can cause more problems for some uses.

I am sorry I'm responding late to this, but your list is incorrect with some of the placement of things in the requirements.

Here is the Law:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/P...

The relevant portion:

(3) ELEMENTS OF NOTIFICATION
(A) To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider that includes substantially the following:
(i) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
(ii) Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site.
(iii) Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material.
(iv) Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted.
(v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

Notice the wording of section VI: A Statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, THAT THE COMPLAINING PARTY IS AUTHORIZED TO ACT...

The only part of any of that in a DMCA takedown is a statement under penalty of perjury that you are actually authorized to send DMCA by the owner of the material in question. There is no perjury on any other portion of it, including the good faith, or accuracy notification.

This law was written specifically this way to protect any agent of copyright holders from mistakes and/or malice.

We may need to see something similar.

We already have it, SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT of the FAA MODERNIZATION AND REFORM ACT OF
2012: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/C...

The current issue is that the FAA has decided to "interpret" that section by more or less pretending it does not exist or apply to them:

http://www.faa.gov/about/initi...

The FAA isn't interested in the law. They consider themselves to be a country unto themselves, consisting of all a space greater then 12" above the land.

What regulations are you talking about?

TFA is referring to the interpretation and enforcement of HR 658 which specifically separates hobby and commercial (with no commercial provisions for the Continental United States!)

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/B...

As it happens, the US has specific legislation to the contrary. In a strikingly atypical turn of events, this so-called "SPEECH Act" (yes, 'Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage' is one hell of a tortured attempt to get a cute acronym; but congress loves that stuff) passed unanimously in both the house and senate, (111th congress) before being signed by Obama in 2010.

The TL;DR is that the US Will Not in any way assist in the enforcement of a foreign defamation judgement against a US citizen or alien lawfully residing in the US at the time of their allegedly defamatory speech unless the domestic court being asked to enforce the judgement finds that either the US person was convicted in a court offering protection equivalent to, or greater than, that provided by the first amendment and any other state laws and constitutional provisions that would apply to the domestic court or that, while the foreign court was not up to those standards, the accused would still have been convicted had such standards been applied. The burden of demonstrating one, the other, or both, is on the person wishing to have the foreign defamation judgement enforced in the US.

So, while you may end up reducing the number of countries you can safely vacation in or catch a connecting flight through (Looking at you, London Heathrow), you have quite broad protection, if you qualify as a US person for the purposes of the act, to tell anyone pursuing a defamation case outside the US to kiss your constitutionally protected, at least in this context, ass. In practice, the UK is basically the country we wrote this against; but it applies to any foreign defamation judgements whatsoever.

> pretend that keys longer than 56 bits don't exist!" theory of regulation is largely a relic.

But the law still sets a limit at 64 bits and requires you to get an export license for anything beyond.
 

You would think the banks would have an obligation to protect investors' money.

Banks were securitizing the bad loans and selling them off immediately.
They protected their investors money, it's the poor assholes who bought those fraudulently rated AAA bundled loans that weren't protected.

The people who want to blame this on government housing policy or sub-prime borrowers are the financial equivalent of climate change deniers (yes, I'm talking about the GP).
All of the official reports blame widespread fraud on the part of lenders.
Anyone who disagrees with this is in an alternate universe.

This was written in 2009 by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland:
Ten Myths about Subprime Mortgages
http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/commentary/2009/0509.cfm

This is the Senate Oversigh Report from 2011:
Wall Street and the Financial Crisis: Anatomy of a Financial Collapse (646 pages PDF)
http://www.hsgac.senate.gov//imo/media/doc/Financial_Crisis/FinancialCrisisReport.pdf

This is the Congressional Report from 2011:
The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report: Final Report of the National Commission on the Causes of the Financial and Economic Crisis in the United States
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-FCIC/pdf/GPO-FCIC.pdf (663 pages PDF)

They lay out in extensively footnoted detail who was responsible and who wasn't, but I'll save you the trouble of reading them:
The collapse was caused by weak regulatory controls, conflicts of interest in the banking sector, lending fraud, credit ratings agencies' fraud, massive failures in risk management by the financial sector, and insufficient capital reserves.

These financial deniers need to cite legitimate research that supports their position.
At the bare minimum, supporting documents would need to lay out (with numbers) what deserves the blame.
Because the official reports say things like

Research indicates only 6% of high-cost loansâ"a proxy for subprime loansâ"had any connection to the [1977 CRA] law. Loans made by CRA-regulated lenders in the neighborhoods in which they were required to lend were half as likely to default as similar loans made in the same neighborhoods by independent mortgage originators not subject to the law.

The facts are out there, if only you'd look past the media noise machines.

On the other hand, DuckDuckGo, appears to be a US only operation. Because of the SPEECH Act, DuckDuckGo could probably ignore European demands. A judgement against DuckDuckGo would be difficult to enforce. (I am not a lawyer, get your own. This is political, social analysis, not legal advise.)

Who knows what DuckDuckGo will decide? But if DuckDuckGo does not some other US search engine will. European advertisers would have to pay in advance.

The end result could be some a migration away from google's search engine.

Google is too subject to international pressure. It is time for those interested in truth to move to a search engine that has no assets in Europe.

What about Duck Duck Go, does it have assets in Europe? What about other search engines?

Have you?

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/B...

The problem is not putting morality into machines. The problem is letting these machines execute this "morality" in a complex environment with life-or-death stakes.

I program protective systems in factories. A guy opens a monitored gate and walks into a conveyor area. If the conveyor runs while he's in there, he will have a messy and painful death. The conveyor "knows" it's "wrong" to move under those conditions.
We don't use the word "morality", we say "safety". When auditing the software that lets the conveyor run I find a potential for exposure. Hang a lock and shut it down until it's fixed. The first law. In all except one case over 20 years I have received full support from production for similar decisions. That's precedence of the first law over the second law.

We know what's "right", and we try to teach that to the machines. Industrial safety operates with a very limited set of variables, and exception handling is simple--just STOP. Immediately stop moving and disconnect all power.

This idea that we can "program" morality and justice is not problematic. Of course we can; we write code for those things all the time. Heck, it's even called "code". Here's some. Here's some more. The execution engine for this code is a group of complex elements (people) from which emerges an even more complex "society". This "morality" execution engine constantly goes hideously and indefensibly wrong.

Now we want to create far simpler code and execute it with a far simpler machine. But with the same stakes and in the same environment. And the source of this simplified code and execution engine is the existing society, particularly the part of it most directly involved in many of the atrocities.

It's wise they're starting with autonomous "good" machine--search and rescue, first responder, etc. Maybe they'll learn something before humanity starts building autonomous "bad" robots. Thankfully, those exist only far into the future...

IANAL, but wouldn't this be prohibited by the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act? Ingersoll-Rand try to pull that crap on me with an oil change on an air compressor. Once they knew I knew my rights, they got real apologetic real quick.

15 USC S2302

(c) Prohibition on conditions for written or implied warranty; waiver by Commission

No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumer's using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade, or corporate name; except that the prohibition of this subsection may be waived by the Commission if—

(1) the warrantor satisfies the Commission that the warranted product will function properly only if the article or service so identified is used in connection with the warranted product, and

(2) the Commission finds that such a waiver is in the public interest.

The Commission shall identify in the Federal Register, and permit public comment on, all applications for waiver of the prohibition of this subsection, and shall publish in the Federal Register its disposition of any such application, including the reasons therefor.

Too bad the regulation is all about processing the grain before it gets picked up and says nothing about how it's handled once it is picked up.

Uh, yea, no. From Animal Food & Feeds we see that Sec.402, Sec. 342 - Adulterated food(go figure on the awkward titling) that:

(i) Noncompliance with sanitary transportation practices

If it is transported or offered for transport by a shipper, carrier by motor vehicle or rail vehicle, receiver, or any other person engaged in the transportation of food under conditions that are not in compliance with regulations promulgated under section 350e of this title.

So, yea, I'm pretty sure transporation is covered. I can only imagine the articles example of "possibly forcing them to dry and package the material before distribution" has more to do with the fact that until recently they've used non-sterile container trucks for the spent grain and it may be...a fungal risk. :)

So let the regulation read that the grain may not come into contact with a container that hauled beef byproducts. BAM, done, because nobody does that anyway. No need to spend millions.

And then a pig waste tanker is used and you'll be back bitching about how the FDA should have made more general rules...which already apply with the reclassification of spent grain as animal feed. Meanwhile, the point about spending millions has almost certainly everything to do with (1) hyperbole, (2) making the most absurd extrapolations of worst case scenario costs upon companies which have such horrible unsanitary conditions that it's a wonder we're all not dead yet from contamination risks, and (3) that just about anything in business of enough scale involves "spend[ing] millions" and so the effective cost is likely amortized into a relatively trivial cost for most companies who aren't shitholes with extant shitty practices.

But, yea, keep on your ranting because an industry spokesman (or a friendly politician with just the right words to say from an industry lobbyist friend) whose only interest is to spin *any* cost or *any* change because it's cheaper to spend a couple thousand as a industry to deride any sort of regulation, no matter how sensible, for fear it may result in more and for which as a whole it's cheaper to bribe or manipulate the public than to have some basic standards for shipping and transporting food to animals we eat.

But, yea, fuck knows that the beer producers have it so tough and are in such a wholly different world of expense that every other company that provides animal feed (and bares the marginal but non-zero) to comply with the regulation are all going bankrupt. Or perhaps it's the fact that with the regulation the spent grain now costs just that little bit more and they're suddenly not quite as competitive of a thing to sell and God knows the beer producers don't want any sort of level playing field on that. It's all about dumping what is otherwise waste on them and for which even if they can continue to sell the waste for a profit becomes a marginally less profitable venture with no real upside for them.

I mean, seriously, you spell out a clear example where a company fails to follow regulation which really shouldn't have been necessary and for which the FDA has no real teeth to enforce except with sternly written letters until something major happens--and a public like you who want the FDA to have some sort of omniscience but to only punish the people I guess at *just* the right time when things go wrong... Honestly, fuck you. The FDA can't magical enforce rules it doesn't have the resources to enforce and your shitty attitude is precisely why the FDA's budget keeps being cut. Not that I think the FDA is blam

The real question is who added this particular provision, and are they still in office? I'm not sure how to dig up that crucial bit of info.

This takes a bit of digging. I believe the provision in question is H.R. 2419, Sec. 14219. "Elimination of statute of limitations applicable to collection of debt by administrative offset."

It was added as part of a list of amendments suggested by a committee report (House Report 110-261). The specific amendment regarding the statute of limitations was entered into the Congressional Record at H9049.

The slate of amendments (H.Amdt.714) from the report were introduced to a full house vote (see Congressional Record H8763) by Rep. Collin Peterson (Minnesota 7th), then chairman of the House Agricultural Committee. Rep. Peterson should probably not be taken to be the main proponent of this measure, since this was part of a slate of amendments introduced in the committee report, which were then offered up to the full house for approval. (A number of members of the Agricultural Committee spoke for this slate of amendments, though it doesn't seem anyone spoke in support of the specific provision for eliminating this statute of limitations -- this provision was included among a whole bunch of other random things in the bill.)

The specific amendment (the 29th on the slate to be considered) did not actually name the elimination of statute of limitations sections as its primary purpose (listed as Sec. 3005, the "Reauthorization of McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program"), so one might argue that this section was buried as an added clause within an amendment which was buried within a slate of amendments.

In any case, the house agreed to these amendments offered en bloc by voice vote on July 27, 2007, so there's no record of who voted for or against (though the assumption is it was more-or-less unanimous, since it was approving something recommended from the committee who was trying to produce a bill which could be passed by the full house).

(Of course, as is typical, the amendment was not actually read in full to the house, and only entered later into the Congressional record as an "omission" for the day, which is why the page number for the amendment is later than the page on which it is approved.)

It's possible you might find something about who actually wanted this provision by digging into records of committee meetings, but I somewhat doubt it. This slate of amendments was part of an ENORMOUS bill, and it looks like this list of amendments was a compiled list of crap the committee needed to put in just to get it to the next stage of legislation.

The real question is who added this particular provision, and are they still in office? I'm not sure how to dig up that crucial bit of info.

This takes a bit of digging. I believe the provision in question is H.R. 2419, Sec. 14219. "Elimination of statute of limitations applicable to collection of debt by administrative offset."

It was added as part of a list of amendments suggested by a committee report (House Report 110-261). The specific amendment regarding the statute of limitations was entered into the Congressional Record at H9049.

The slate of amendments (H.Amdt.714) from the report were introduced to a full house vote (see Congressional Record H8763) by Rep. Collin Peterson (Minnesota 7th), then chairman of the House Agricultural Committee. Rep. Peterson should probably not be taken to be the main proponent of this measure, since this was part of a slate of amendments introduced in the committee report, which were then offered up to the full house for approval. (A number of members of the Agricultural Committee spoke for this slate of amendments, though it doesn't seem anyone spoke in support of the specific provision for eliminating this statute of limitations -- this provision was included among a whole bunch of other random things in the bill.)

The specific amendment (the 29th on the slate to be considered) did not actually name the elimination of statute of limitations sections as its primary purpose (listed as Sec. 3005, the "Reauthorization of McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program"), so one might argue that this section was buried as an added clause within an amendment which was buried within a slate of amendments.

In any case, the house agreed to these amendments offered en bloc by voice vote on July 27, 2007, so there's no record of who voted for or against (though the assumption is it was more-or-less unanimous, since it was approving something recommended from the committee who was trying to produce a bill which could be passed by the full house).

(Of course, as is typical, the amendment was not actually read in full to the house, and only entered later into the Congressional record as an "omission" for the day, which is why the page number for the amendment is later than the page on which it is approved.)

It's possible you might find something about who actually wanted this provision by digging into records of committee meetings, but I somewhat doubt it. This slate of amendments was part of an ENORMOUS bill, and it looks like this list of amendments was a compiled list of crap the committee needed to put in just to get it to the next stage of legislation.

OK, one more thing about the penalty, for further information, see pages 53651-53655 and 53659 of “Shared Responsibility Payment for Not Maintaining Minimum Essential Coverage”

When I first saw that video, I assumed due to the crummy resolution that some joker had voiced it over. I checked the congressional record, though, and that man actually asked those questions in front of the committee where the stenographer could hear him. Page 27: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/C... Props to Admiral Willard for maintaining a straight face?

forgot my link to Federal Digital System, where the actual laws themselves are: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
the menu is on the right, with links to the Code of Federal Regulations, list of presidential and congressional documents, court decisions, etc etc.

One of the criticisms I've seen of this paper is that Pielke doesn't take into account the fact that we've built more resilient structures in response to past natural disasters so the fact that the costs remain about the same means either those responses haven't been very effective or that the natural disasters have been getting worse but the additional resilience keeps the costs about the same.

Disclaimer: I am the State Hazard Mitigation Officer for my state...

Having said that, I can vouch for the fact that every state gets 15% of the cost of the disaster just for mitigating future damages. Everything from acquisition / demolition and elevations for flooding to safe rooms and wind resistant construction for hurricane and tornadoes. This has been going on since the late 80's and is part of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Public Law 93-288) as amended. Section 404 covers the Hazard Mitigation Assistance and 406 covers Mitigation for Public Assistance (infrastructure).

http://www.fema.gov/robert-t-s...

Currently, our state has over 1,500 properties that are under deed restriction preventing any structures from being built there ever again.

Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations stipulates how the Hazard Mitigation Grant programs are to be implemented.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/C...

Add to that the newly (and controversially) enacted Biggert Waters National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 and it makes the NFIP risk based as it should be.

http://www.fema.gov/flood-insu...

So yes, this nation has been actively seeking ways to make communities much more resilient to natural disasters.

And from an anecdotal point of view having been in emergency management for 15 years, I can say from personal experience that storms are getting more frequent and more powerful.

The focus of prisons (from my limited observation) is rarely to rehabilitate.

In the United States, the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 explicitly states that imprisonment is not an appropriate means of promoting correction and rehabilitation. In other words, according to both Congress and the Supreme Court, prison is useless for rehabilitation, and judges are legally barred from considering prison as a rehabilitative measure. Our official incarceration policy exists solely to punish behavior, never to correct it or prevent future crimes. This has always seemed to me like the keystone of the "Reagan Revolution", with Ted Kennedy and Ronald Reagan allying to fundamentally derail the American Dream of an optimally free society, so it seems very appropriate that it was passed in 1984.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

This comment on the Daily Kos article contains a very clear explanation of the Halliburton loophole.

Haliburton Loophole: No such thing.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/P...

Thanks for the link. The passage you apparently missed is on page 694 (sec 322).

CJ

DO NOT watch the film "gasland".
It is full of lies, inaccuracy and misleading examples.
Horrid.

"has been hired to poo poo the film because it might hurt their business."
ah, so people who dislike lies and factual inaccuracies are part of a big conspiracy. Riiiight.

Some examples:
Water on fire: this is a known phenomena the predates fracking. If it was caused by fracking, it would take 1000's of years to go from the source to the water. The shot they get that from was no where near any fracking.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...
http://www.skepticblog.org/tag...

Haliburton Loophole: No such thing.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/P...

You would think that every drone fired kills plague rats, not humans. Anyone defending this policy should explain a right to trial and jury, and why it does not pertain since due process is a "human right" in the US and not a "citizen right".

I would think that someone that claims to understand and revere the Constitution and the law as you claim would understand that. War is not a part of the criminal justice system. And under the terms of the Public Law 107-40, the Authorization for Use of Military Force, the US is at war with al Qaida and its allies.

From what I have read, anyone being considered as a target for a drone strike gets considerably more review individually than these Americans that were shot dead by the Federal government without indictment, arrest, charge, trial, judgment, or sentence in a court. And quite rightly too.

I refer you to Public Law 107-40 commonly known as Authorization For Use Of Military Force

It is well settled legal precedent that is legally equivalent to a declaration of war.

Helium-3 is actually in such short supply that is described as a "supply crisis", and a "White
House He-3 Interagency Policy Committee (IPC) Steering Committee" was set up to deal with it.

And, yes, fusion has nothing to do with it.

I want to be very clear on this, the world is much grayer than this bill, or the terms at hand would indicate.

Science has almost ways been published behind paywalls. Prior to the internet it was published in journals, which at the most basic level someone had to subscribe to in order to get a copy. I'm sure the youngins on here don't remember Magazines, but they were a big deal for a long time. Even when not, often times you had to pay to copy, you can show up at the Government Printing Office and get a copy of all sorts of studies, government records, and the like: for a fee.

So there's a continuum of access, here are some interesting points along it:

• Source won't release the data to anyone.
• Source charges $1,000,000 a copy for the report.
• Source charges $500 for a copy of the report.
• Source charges $5 for a copy of the report.
• Source publishes the report in a magazine that can be purchased for $1.99.
• Source publishes the report online, for free.

Clearly the first one isn't open access, and clearly the last one is, but where is the line? There is some de-minimis burden that is acceptable for it to still be "publicly available science". By attempting to set a standard of "free and open" it's an attempt to push people to the last line item, where the costs are all borne by the researcher. Imagine someone doing good research on an important topic, only to spend the next years battling hackers and DDoS'ers online trying to take down the work, all on their own expense? Crazy. That's part of why publishing in journals, all of which cost money, is the accepted method.

To directly answer your question, I do believe that any science the EPA uses should be available to the general public, the difference is I am ok with it being via paywalls with de-minimis fees. If I have to go buy a copy of a journal to find out the science, I think that's ok.

Sadly no. Making patented gadgets for your own use is an infringement (both for making and for using). You're unlikely to get caught by the patent holder, but it's still not legal. Here's the relevant section of US code.

Now let me demystify your comment good sir, this time with some actual facts: The FCC order doesn't explicitly require phones with GPS at all, it requires the telco ultimately provide 50ft accuracy on location, then by 2018 they'll issue a deadline on when any device capable of calling 911 requires GPS.

Source: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/F...

The administration itself projected this in its own 2010 analysis of its own activity (see page 34,552) where it projected that about half of all employer-sponsored health plans will lose their "grandfather status" and those businesses will likely punt their employers to the ACA exchanges as a cost-cutting plan (the penalty for ditching your employees and leaving them at the mercy of the exchange is a lot smaller than the added cost of plans the employers are allowed to offer)

In other words, the official Federal Government records prove that Obama and all his supporters have been lying to the American people about keeping their health insurance plans since at least 2010 (the year the TEA party was rising politically) and all the way through the 2012 election cycle (while the Obama IRS was supressing TEA party activity). Obama not only KNEW the grandfather clause would break down, he was planning on it. If you thought you could keep the insurance you have through your job because Obama promised, you were duped and he did it intentionally. Why do you think Obama has pushed the "employer mandate" back a year (conveniently until a month after this fall's congressional elections) even though there is no provision in the law allowing him to do that? Hint: he's trying to get through the last election that effects HIM without suffering blowback from his massive lies.

If those entities are still huge threats that justify such pervasive action, then it's time for congress to declare war on countries harboring these agents

They did: Authorization for Use of Military Force

Most of these 'terrorist' groups are getting backdoor support from the governments whose countries they occupy.

In at least some cases, yes. That is why Afghanistan was invaded.

... take out a few mosques, randomly.

That isn't allowed under the law of war unless an enemy force is fighting from it. Even then it still isn't a great idea since Muslims get touchy about that even if they freely incinerate mosques and Korans.

More effeminate passive aggression will not solve this. They're either threats that should be dealt with, or they're not, and the troops should come home.

They are, and people on Slashdot, not to mention Europe and various parts of American society complain bitterly about it. Air strikes and drone strikes are only one of the means. Special Forces are another. There are others.

Either way, crap like the patriot act should be abolished, and the politicians who voted for it should be voted out of office.

The problem is that there are plenty of Muslims in the US that would gladly participate. Example from last month:

Plot to bomb Wichita airport thwarted

This problem won't go away soon.

Genetically engineered foods are overseen by the FDA, but there is no approval process.

They are also overseen by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the EPA where there is an approval process.

I like the selective emphasis.

FDA encourages informal consultation between producers and FDA scientists to ensure that safety concerns are resolved. However, producers remain legally responsible for satisfying section 402(a)(1) of the act, and they will continue to be held accountable by FDA through application of the agency's enforcement powers.

how about this alternate emphasis

FDA encourages informal consultation between producers and FDA scientists to ensure that safety concerns are resolved. However, producers remain legally responsible for satisfying section 402(a)(1) of the act, and they will continue to be held accountable by FDA through application of the agency's enforcement powers.

Again you missed the paragraph before that one.

Section 402(a)(1) of the act will continue to be FDA's primary legal tool for regulating the safety of whole foods, including foods derived from plants genetically modified by the new techniques. Section 402(a)(1) of the act will be applied to any substance that occurs unexpectedly in the food at a level that may be injurious to health. This includes a naturally occurring toxicant whose level is unintentionally increased by the genetic modification, as well as an unexpected toxicant that first appears in the food as a result of pleiotropic effects. Such substances are regarded by FDA as added substances whose presence adulterates the food if present at a level that "may render" the food injurious to health.

FDA does not expect that there will be any serious question about the GRAS status of transferred genetic material.

Obviously GMO organisms are safe because we have no expectations they won't be safe.

Way to take a statement out of context. They are talking about whether or not to class transferred genetic material as an additive (section 409 of the Act) that needs separate approval. There are other sections of the act that GMOs fall under. The consumption of the genetic material itself is not an issue; What the genetic material produces is and that is covered by other regulations from agencies including the EPA and the USDA.

Picking and choosing what to post is a weak way to argue.

This is even all beside the point of the question I posed which is "Does a county have the regulatory authority to pass a bylaw that bans GMO's?"

Depends on where you live and the protections in your state constitution to a large extent. In Maryland for exampel, at least one lower court has ruled that medical records are covered by the third party doctrine (the doctor being the third party), and thus there is no 4th Amendment protection for them. This is a recent case with HIPPA on the books.

PDF page 7 starts the insanity:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-mdd-8_10-cr-00600/pdf/USCOURTS-mdd-8_10-cr-00600-0.pdf

Pharmacy records are also not protected in some jurisdictions under the third party doctrine. I'd have to work harder than I want to right now to dig up a citation, but do note that the DEA is busy trying to make sure medical records get third party doctrine exemption from the 4th amendment if the records are shared with a pharmacist -- this is certainly designed to push the envelope on medical records.

http://www.ihealthbeat.org/articles/2013/9/27/dea-no-privacy-protections-for-rx-records-given-to-third-parties

Remember, what you think a law like HIPPA does has absolutely nothing to do with the way the Feds will interpret that law. Case in point, Sensenbrenner and the PATRIOT act.

http://sensenbrenner.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=337001

Willms isn't the only one to survive and thrive after the government imposed a huge Internet ad-related fine. Google Chairman Eric Schmidt even managed to get named to the Mayo Clinic Board of Trustees in November, after his company agreed to forfeit $500 million for allowing online Canadian pharmacies to place advertisements through its AdWords program targeting consumers in the U.S., resulting in the unlawful importation of controlled and non-controlled prescription drugs. In December, the Mercury News reported on Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood's ongoing efforts to stop Google from making it too easy to buy drugs online without a prescription (screenshot). In his 2011 Senate testimony (PDF), Schmidt said "we absolutely regret what happened. It [drug advertising] was a mistake," and replied "Absolutely" when asked if Google had "taken steps to make sure that that sort of thing never happens again."

You need to understand the process of making law. You don't think what ever party is in opposition would not object to the law and publicize it? It would be their best bet for winning the next election.

IMHO the regulations (if the government felt it NECESSARY to regulate) should have been written in terms of minimal efficiency

That's what they DID do. They specified the maximum allowable wattage for lights of given light output.

Read here and find the table "GENERAL SERVICE INCANDESCENT LAMPS" on page 121.

The question isn't what the 4th Amendment says, but what does it mean, how does it apply legally under the given circumstances? There are many searches that the courts have found that require no warrant, boarding a plane is among them, along with sobriety checkpoints, and border crossings. Beyond that, there is the issue of Article II powers and how they play into this. Napolitano takes no notice of this issue, but the courts have, and it has a role, not to mention actions by Congress involving Article II questions.

You many notice that "Judge" Napolitano is no longer sitting on the bench, so he can spin whatever fanciful theory he cares to. The question is, would it hold up before a court? I think the answer is "No" in his case, otherwise he would be moving a suit forward on his theory. He apparently knows this, and that it would be political suicide since he would be shown to be engaging in nonsense, legally. Politically it's very nice.

But, if you like Napolitano, you may like this one too. Unfortunately he gets the question of law wrong, overlooking this document which he chooses to ignore for some reason, and it is highly relevant.

Your premise is just plain wrong. First, the Swiss provided an invaluable service to Jews in Nazi Germany by giving them a safe place to hide their money from the German government. It's highly unfortunate but not the fault of the Swiss that most of those Jews were killed by the Nazis.

It was an invaluable service....for those who managed to survive long enough to withdraw.

For the rest, the Swiss banks got to keep the assets that the Jewish victims had entrusted them with. Not only did they make no effort to return it to surviving family after the war, in many cases, they actively thwarted survivors who tried to access accounts opened by murdered family members by claiming secrecy, even going so far as to destroy documents that could be used to prove ownership, decades after the war was over, to prevent the elderly survivors from making claims.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-105s768enr/pdf/BILLS-105s768enr.pdf

Is this so clear-cut? The law says it is: "merchandise mailed without the prior expressed request or consent of the recipient." It does not seem to differentiate mistakes. That is, none of these people ordered a Vita bundle--they ordered something different. Therefore the merchandise of a Vita bundle was mailed without prior request or consent. What was requested was a particular game.

Unless there is prior case law, I don't think anyone can really say whether the particular order (or an identical one taking place in the US) would qualify as "mailed without prior expressed request."

I'm referencing http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title39/html/USCODE-2011-title39-partIV-chap30-sec3009.htm which doesn't have any obligation to the recipient--and expressly says so: "Any merchandise mailed in violation of subsection (a) of this section, or within the exceptions contained therein, may be treated as a gift by the recipient, who shall have the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender"

Nothing in this code indicates that you can charge for storage should you return the item, either.

Is there a different law I'm unfamiliar with that you're referring to?

It's actually clear cut the other way. See, for example, this page (I know it's state rather than federal, but it was the first hit on Google and it's late):

If you receive unordered merchandise such as clothing or books in the mail, you may be surprised about your rights. Federal law prohibits a company or organization from mailing unordered merchandise to you and then demanding payment. It is legal to send unordered merchandise if it is clearly marked as a free sample or is mailed by a charitable organization asking for donations...

It is a different matter if the mailing you received was due to a mistake by the company. In these circumstances, Georgia law regarding “unjust enrichment” obligates you to return the item paid for by another customer. The company, however, will have to pay postage and handling or make arrangements to pick it up.

The same thing is in the UCC, which has been adopted in every state. In the case of a shipment that you ordered but which contains non-conforming goods, the seller can notify you of the error and provide the proper goods. They have to pay for return shipment and any storage fees you incurred, but you don't simply get to keep it.

Consider, from a cynical Slashdotter point of view - these commercial laws and the UCC were written to protect merchants and large companies... Do you think they'd really write in a provision that allows a honest mistake by a minimum wage mook in shipping to turn into a windfall?

Sigh

Oh how horrible for you.

First, this is not "unsolicited merchandise", because you did order something. So it's not a "gift" (as it would be if it were truly "unsolicited").

Is this so clear-cut? The law says it is: "merchandise mailed without the prior expressed request or consent of the recipient." It does not seem to differentiate mistakes. That is, none of these people ordered a Vita bundle--they ordered something different. Therefore the merchandise of a Vita bundle was mailed without prior request or consent. What was requested was a particular game.

Unless there is prior case law, I don't think anyone can really say whether the particular order (or an identical one taking place in the US) would qualify as "mailed without prior expressed request."

I'm referencing http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title39/html/USCODE-2011-title39-partIV-chap30-sec3009.htm which doesn't have any obligation to the recipient--and expressly says so: "Any merchandise mailed in violation of subsection (a) of this section, or within the exceptions contained therein, may be treated as a gift by the recipient, who shall have the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender"

Nothing in this code indicates that you can charge for storage should you return the item, either.

Is there a different law I'm unfamiliar with that you're referring to?

It's important to remember that congress can pass no law (at least legally) that changes the meaning of The Constitution or one of its amendments.

I think Congress can expand rights, for example, as it did with the Civil Rights Act. But as far as the Third Party Doctrine goes, Congress didn't invent it. Its present incarnation Is rooted in a 1979 Supreme Court case: Smith v. Maryland: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland

Essentially what happened, is that Smith robbed a woman, she reported it to the police with a description of the robber and the car he was driving. The car was noticed, its license plate taken down, and the owner and his address ascertained from registration info. At that point, the cops went to the phone company and "asked" it set up a pen register. A pen register records the numbers a person dials but does not record the audio content, i.e., it records metadata. Smith called the woman he robbed and harassed her. Then he got arrested and the question is, should the phone evidence be tossed because the cops didn't get a warrant.

Obviously, Smith is an asshole and everyone wants to see him go to jail. But if the SC tossed the evidence, he'd probably get off. By the same token, the cops were assholes too -- they certainly had enough evidence to get a warrant to put on the Pen Register but they couldn't be arsed to do it.

Ultimately, the SC held that when you share information with a third party, like the phone numbers you dial (i.e, _share_ with Ma Bell), you have no expectation of privacy and the 4th Amendment simply doesn't apply at all.

This doctrine has been applied to records most people consider extremely private: The SC has ruled that it applies to phone and bank records. There is a split in the circuit courts of appeals on cell tower location information. There are even cases in some jurisdictions applying it to medical and pharmacy records -- your doctor and your pharmacist are in fact third parties. And no, HIPPA doesn't matter. The SC hasn't ruled on these latter examples so protection depends on where you live, but you're pretty screwed in Maryland:

3. Under the third-party doctrine, Bellosi-Mitchell does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in her medical records.

see PDF page 9: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-mdd-8_10-cr-00600/pdf/USCOURTS-mdd-8_10-cr-00600-0.pdf

In any event, the Third Party Doctrine is sort of like the Long John Silver standard -- the 4th Amendment only applies if you can maintain total secrecy, e.g., you have to kill anyone you do business with or lose your privacy rights.

Here is a nice slide show which shows you the regulatory framework. You can, if you really have nothing more entertaining to do, look up the enabling legislation in the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations).

I do really hope you have something more enlightening to do....

The DMCA (page 22) actually says the following :

To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider that includes substantially the following:

...

A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

I'm not seeing the loophole here...

The Authorization for Use of Military Force passed by Congress is pretty clear.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) In General.--That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

True or not but the wiki also says:

For the purposes of this law, illicit sexual conduct includes commercial sex with anyone under 18,[6] and non-commercial sex with persons under 16 when there is at least a four-year age difference or the person is under 12 years of age.

The actual text is a bit different, but yes there is a definition of illicit: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-108s151enr/pdf/BILLS-108s151enr.pdf

By the way it seems that judges are still free to pick and choose which laws and clauses to enforce: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/18/AR2007011801777.html

It greatly simplifies things to look and see who Congress says the President can take military action against. That is pretty clear.

Authorization for Use of Military Force

Technically I first started reading on July 11, 2000 when I heard the co-founder of Gnutella testify before congress and mention slashdot...

I was a Congressional intern and I snuck in the press box (obv b/c of Metallica and Fanning it was packed). These were the days were an Intern badge meant that you could pretty much go anywhere, because you were so insignificant. We were sort of purposefully overlooked. Lewinsky & the Patriot Act ruined that forever :/

Gene Kan, a co-founder of the Gnutella project just came in and PWNed the whole situation like a boss...the sum of the moment, with all the ways Napster changed the industry, really had a profound effect on my career.

He said that from a technical perspective, Gnutella essentially made the Judiciary's current plans pointless. I was headed for a career in the Air Force but the energy and weight of the moment always stuck with me.

Here's a .pdf of the transcript...it's a great read...Lars is an asshole: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-106shrg74728/pdf/CHRG-106shrg74728.pdf

I started reading /. daily after that but I didn't comment until around 2004 or so when I felt I could actually add value...before that I browsed as an AC.

Currently the FAA Reform Act of 2012 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-112hrpt381/pdf/CRPT-112hrpt381.pdf is the only place that specifically cites what "model sized" aircraft need COA's and which are exempt. Currently anything rc flown line of sight under 400 ft flown for recreation or hobby purposes is considered regulated under FAA Circular AC 91-57. Other than the 2012 reform act no mention anywhere can be found documenting public entities or commercial entities using rc for other than hobby purposes.

It is thought this act was pushed through the rule making process and was not open to public comment the required period.

The current case of the FAA attempting to fine an rc pilot under the Reform Act of 2012 is being fought by alleging the Reform Act failed to follow the Administrative Procedures Act which sets Federal guidelines for regulation making. As such if it is found that they bypassed practice to push this regulation is unenforceable.

They will either pay for it or not pay for it. If they don't pay they are committing a crime which can be severely punished if they get caught.

Simply getting it for free probably wouldn't be a criminal offense, as per copyright law. Of course the DMCA could apply depending on what they do after acquiring it.

Someone above got it just right, teaching only Photoshop to a kid is like teaching only Excel instead of long division.

That's a gross oversimplification. Only covered entities are governed by HIPPA. That's a definition with nuance. See, 45 CFR 160.103.

The lawyers for the government have an argument . . . whether its a good argument or not is up to a judge and the lawyers involved. If you have a specific HIPPA question or issue, you should speak to an attorney - I'm not giving you any legal advice here. IAAL, but not your lawyer.