Slashdot Mirror

FDA, for example, has entirely skipped on regulating "supplements". No matter their claims or effects, as long as they don't contain restricted substances.

Talk to Congress(ask for Tom Harkin(D-IA) and Orrin Hatch(R-UT) in particular. Harkin appears to be a True Believer and gets some nice campaign cash from Herbalife, Hatch? Well, let's just say that Utah has a thing for 'supplements'.).
 
The "Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994’’ says that the FDA can't do jack about 'supplements', aside from some basic manufacturing standards stuff, unless they get enough adverse event reports to satisfy the burden of proof(on them) and do something about it.

The law reads this way:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-105publ304/pdf/PLAW-105publ304.pdf

PUBLIC LAW 105–304—OCT. 28, 1998
DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT

[cut]

‘‘(f ) MISREPRESENTATIONS.—Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section—

‘‘(1) that material or activity is infringing, or
‘‘(2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,

shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner’s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.

TL;DR what are the consequences? Civil damages. And probably not much of them.

Not being a lawyer, I am not sure if the language allows for punitive damages, as opposed to simple recovery of lost fees and expected income lost by removing the item due to a misrepresented takedown notice. Either way, it's not a criminal offense.

So, my reading is that you can sue for damages and fees if someone misrepresents the material as infringing, although it does have to be "knowingly" and "materially". That still shouldn't excuse robo-notices, but determination of fair use is something a court would do, so the copyright owner could probably argue that since they do not determine what fair use is, they didn't knowingly misrepresent that it wasn't. All they did was call the allegedly infringing material to the attention of the provider and subscriber, who then has the right under the law for a counter notification which would include addressing fair use considerations.

Once the notifications clash, they can work it out or go to court to determine fair use. Even if the fair use is upheld, the copyright holder might have been held to be legitimately mistaken and not "knowingly" misrepresenting it's position, which means no damages would be assessed for misrepresentation under that heading.

The President has always had the right to directly command all agencies in the executive branch.

I didn't realize that ISPs and cell phone carriers were 'agencies of the executive branch', since this executive order, section 5.2 says the government can take over any/all 'privately-owned communications resources' as they see fit.

How about immigration law? This article seems to think the President overstepped his authority with this little gem signed by Napolitano.

You can thank Google for pushing for Open Access rules during bidding for the spectrum:

"(e) Handset locking prohibited. No licensee may disable features on handsets it provides to customers, to the extent such features are compliant with the licensee's standards pursuant to paragraph (b)of this section, nor configure handsets it provides to prohibit use of such handsets on other providers' networks." [bold mine]

Verizon recently got smacked down according to these rules and had to permit tethering without a fee.

So if I was there as a tourist, would I get arrested?

Or is somehow putting your island into a video game now sedition or something?

TFA is pretty slim, but I'm having a hard time imagine what law was broken.

This shouldn't be all that surprising. I'm not familiar with Greek law but in the US one can only be certain that photographing a military installation is legal if one has written authorization from the base commander. See here. Speaking from personal experience, if one were to stop on US Route 2 heading through North Dakota, photograph one of the Minuteman nuclear missile launch facilities just a few yards off the road, a visit from Minot Airforce Base security is quite likely. Again, speaking from personal experience, these security personnel have brand new shiny M-4s (not those beat up ones from the sandbox) and a .30 cal machine gun mounted on their HUMVEE. If one were to continue photographing, this is once again from personal experience, they will call the sheriff's deputy (who happens to be a serious hottie) and she will threaten arrest for disorderly conduct.

My guess is that the Minuteman launch facilities are considered off limits. They have signs which say "Restricted Area" and federal statute considers these areas off limits in terms of photography. According to statute, it seems that even photographing these area from a distance, such as while standing on a publicly traveled way such as US Route 2, is likely prohibited. The signs on the nuclear launch facilities say they will shoot you if you actually climb the fence. There are hundreds of these facilities across northwest North Dakota. It seems to me that the sheer number of launch facilities would make it difficult for a tourist to photographically document their vacation to beautiful North Dakota.

I don't see why it's surprising that other countries have similar laws in place

why do you think you can "know for sure" an actual vote count?

Where I vote, I have to give my name and address, receive a ballot, draw a line to connect an arrow for the candidate for whom I want to vote, and put the physical ballot in a ballot box. The people counting votes there have the actual physical pieces of paper; if someone claims that the vote count isn't correct they can do it again.

do you "know for sure" exactly how many people are in the US?

Why is that relevant? I don't know the family history of the turkey that my family has for Thanksgiving, but that doesn't prevent me from eating it.

of course not. but through statistical samples you can calculate a number that you have good faith in. fact: spend a billion dollars to hand-count every vote in the US, and here a big wooshing sound as thousand of tea-pottiers drop their "FRAUDZ!" and rail against wasteful gov't spending.

In Presidential elections from 1940 to 2008, there were a total of around 1,472,558,000 votes. Let's assume that it costs $1 to count each vote. [That's a gross overestimate I believe, but let's go with it.] That means that counting votes _for the past 68 years_ would have cost about a billion and a half dollars. For 2008, it would have cost about 130 million dollars. For comparison, looking at the summary page for the 2008 federal budget, that's approximately a third to a half of the discretionary spending requested for the Executive Office of the President. The Department of Defense probably wastes $130 million annually on the cost of paper and ink or toner printing out the covers for their TPS reports.

Actually you can use some coms in any way you want, such as unencrypted coms of police and fire departments, and any meant for public consumption. It is explicitly stated that way in the law. An unencrypted wifi is meant for public use.

(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person—
(i) to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;
(ii) to intercept any radio communication which is transmitted—
(I) by any station for the use of the general public, or that relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles, or persons in distress;
(II) by any governmental, law enforcement, civil defense, private land mobile, or public safety communications system, including police and fire, readily accessible to the general public;
(III) by a station operating on an authorized frequency within the bands allocated to the amateur, citizens band, or general mobile radio services; or
(IV) by any marine or aeronautical communications system;

(iii) to engage in any conduct which—
(I) is prohibited by section 633 of the Communications Act of 1934; or
(II) is excepted from the application of section 705(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 by section 705(b) of that Act;

(iv) to intercept any wire or electronic communication the transmission of which is causing harmful interference to any lawfully operating station or consumer electronic equipment, to the extent necessary to identify the source of such interference; or
(v) for other users of the same frequency to intercept any radio communication made through a system that utilizes frequencies monitored by individuals engaged in the provision or the use of such system, if such communication is not scrambled or encrypted.

18 USC 2511 at (g)

Not in my state. You only need the consent of one person. That's me and my scanner; I've heard many cellphone, portable, and HAM communications. Besides: Just like TV and radio you are broadcasting "in the open" and therefore have no more expectation of privacy than if you stood on a soapbox and started reading a book aloud.

If I am interpreting 18 U.S.C. 2511 - Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited correctly, your interception of these signals becomes illegal the moment you tell anyone about what you heard or take any action in any way based on what you heard.

Please notice that this is a U.S. code, so unless your state had seceeded from the the US lately, it is applicable.

Also 18 USC 2511

but there is no laws again(sic) listening

18 USC 2511

Romney has a clearly laid out plan for what he wants to do. You may not like the plan, but he has one.

As numerous sources have pointed out, his proposals do not work mathematically. Coming to even this conclusion is problematic because Romney maintains his budget proposals cannot be scored". I don't think this satisfies a common-sense definition of a "clear plan."

Meanwhile Obama and Democrats in general have failed to produce a budget for THREE FUCKING YEARS. How can you vote for that kind of nonsense?

The OMB submits a budget recommendation every year. The House also passes a budget every year, the last one was passed under the Budget Control Act.

You're confusing a knock against Senate Democrats with a knock against Barack Obama, a complaint which is itself baseless and relying on semantics.

What could be more annoying and less productive than drawing minor distinctions as boundaries, separating two parties that are obviously a single party with the same goal in mind. Notice we face the same problems and only accumulate more, election by election? Taxes don't go down, they go up, liberty doesn't flourish, it wanes. They point fingers at each other and point out small differences in values over minor problems, but they have both ruled the U.S. as a single party for more than a century. They've replaced the SCOTUS with their drones who even now reinterpret the constitution for their own immoral purposes. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?granuleId=&packageId=GPO-CONAN-2002
Now we have a nation of drones, bolstering each others belief that they have been electing represenatives of their interests instead of being suckered into keeping a ruling class of criminals in office to utilize the people as livestock.
Who's a dittohead now buddy?

... George W Bush defend what we did in Asia as an excuse for what he did in the Middle East.

I spoke about the ideological struggle that our Nation faces in the 21st century and the lessons we can draw from the advance of freedom in Asia in the 20th century. America's enduring presence and perseverance on that continent aided the rise of democracy, helped transform American enemies into American allies, and made our country safer.

I suspect he was referring to Korea more than Vietnam, but then he's not often considered as the clearest of thinkers.

Uh no, you get anti-war songs used as title music for the Viet Nam War because that war is almost universally hated, despised, and regretted.

I wish that was true. All the conservatives I know are still pro Viet Nam War, especially the baby boomers. They live through it and will never admit they made the wrong choice. Many can't accept that "filthy hippies" might have been right about something. George W Bush defend what we did in Asia as an excuse for what he did in the Middle East.

I honestly wish there was some serious regret. People wouldn't be holding fake "pro troop" rallies in response to anti-war rallies.

Your numbers are wrong. For the most recent actual numbers, we can take the 2011 year.
See here for the budget: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?packageId=BUDGET-2011-BUD and here for the GDP numbers: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html
3.8 Trillion of 15 Trillion (roughly) is 25%.
40% of the current spending is deficit spending, but no idea where you get the idea that 60% is just financed by printing money. You need some citations for that. Finally, about 9.8% of the US GDP is deficit spending. That is a scary number - but the alternatives are scarier. And as someone pointed out, your information on the CPI is flat-out wrong.

For some who is making grand plans to influence the future, you are remarkably uninformed.

It looks like Honda continues to make improvements.

From 2001 when the Civic was stolen 1.76 times per vehicle produced, in 2009 it is down to 0.7830 thefts per vehicle produced.
See http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-10-24/html/2011-27370.htm

The Top 3 stolen vehicles per vehicles produced are the Audi S8, Shelby G2, and BMW M5. #4 was the Dodge Charger topping the list of what could be called production run cars (production over 50 thousand units).

Forgot my link to the authorizing legislation:
47 U.S.C. 606
PDF: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2009-title47/pdf/USCODE-2009-title47-chap5-subchapVI-sec606.pdf
HTML: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2009-title47/html/USCODE-2009-title47-chap5-subchapVI-sec606.htm

Forgot my link to the authorizing legislation:
47 U.S.C. 606
PDF: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2009-title47/pdf/USCODE-2009-title47-chap5-subchapVI-sec606.pdf
HTML: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2009-title47/html/USCODE-2009-title47-chap5-subchapVI-sec606.htm

Receiving is restricted as well. Ellis D. Tripp (755736) also posted on this:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2010-title47-vol1/xml/CFR-2010-title47-vol1-sec15-121.xml

"scanning receivers and frequency converters designed or marketed for use with scanning receivers, shall ... Be incapable of operating (tuning), or readily being altered by the user to operate, within the frequency bands allocated to the Cellular Radiotelephone Service "

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Mobile_Phone_System#Frequency_bands

Congress killed it with a veto proof majority. While I think a president shoud veto something they don't think is right even ehen it has a veto proof majority, few presidents do as it is a waste of time. The best they can do is make a public statement, sign it and move on.
This applies to any president Clinton, Bush, Reagan, doesn't matter.

, in 1993, Clinton tried to prevent the cancellation by asking Congress to continue "to support this important and challenging effort" through completion because "abandoning the SSC at this point would signal that the United States is compromising its position of leadership in basic science"

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PPP-1993-book1/pdf/PPP-1993-book1-doc-pg864.pdf

Another incorrect attack on Bill Clinton.. you haters are so sad.

  in 1993, Clinton tried to prevent the cancellation by asking Congress to continue "to support this important and challenging effort" through completion because "abandoning the SSC at this point would signal that the United States is compromising its position of leadership in basic science"

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PPP-1993-book1/pdf/PPP-1993-book1-doc-pg864.pdf

No, we didn't know that and the reason because it's BULLSHIT.
When will you RightWingNutBars stop FUCKING LYING??

http://www.quora.com/How-close-was-the-vote-to-cancel-the-Superconducting-Super-Collider

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PPP-1993-book1/pdf/PPP-1993-book1-doc-pg864.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/31/us/stating-regret-clinton-signs-bill-that-kills-supercollider.html?src=pm

I guess the answer is never because if you weren't telling lies, you'd have nothing to say.

What the fuck do you all have against Clinton? So he got his cock sucked while in office; it happens.
Hilary got over it and so should you.

Certain organizations and individuals are subject to trade sanctions, embargoes and other restrictions under U.S. law. These restrictions apply to both domestic and foreign transactions.

Was this girl a representative of "certain organizations and individuals"? ie, was she listed in the OFAC Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List, or representing an organization on the EAR Entity Chart?

"Stop gap" was perhaps the wrong term. However, it is definitely the case that commercial crew would be the primary means to get to the ISS, and Orion merely a backup: "NASA shall make use of United States commercially provided ISS crew transfer and crew rescue services to the maximum extent practicable." [/include #PDFWarn]

That artists made any money from recordings was never really true, except for a few really big acts. Witness Roger McGuinn of the Byrds (testimony before the house judiciary committee) to name just one:

In 1973 my work with the Byrds ended. I embarked on a solo recording career on Columbia Records, and recorded five albums. The only money I've received for these albums was the modest advance paid prior to each recording. In 1977 I recorded three albums for Capitol Records in the group "McGuinn Clark and Hillman." Even though the song "Don't You Write Her Off" was a top 40 hit, the only money I received from Capitol Records was in the form of a modest advance. In 1989 I recorded a solo CD, "Back from Rio", for Arista Records. This CD sold approximately 500,000 copies worldwide, and aside from a modest advance, I have received no royalties from that project.

So there's nothing new there. Live gigs were always the life blood of any musician in the "recording era".

I think from the late 60s into the early 90s, it was true for more acts than just a few really big ones; it just simultaneously wasn't true for many acts that you'd expect it to be the case for, because (to put it very simply) they were being screwed by their labels. Much of the over-the-top pagentry of the stage shows for arena rock bands from the 70s (e.g. Electric Light Orchestra's spaceship on the Out of the Blue tour) was intended to serve as promotional material; Parliament/Funkadelic even took a loss on their tours for years, despite selling out most venues, for that very reason. I agree, though, with the general notion that even then, the pendulum eventually swung back in the other direction as you looked at smaller and smaller (in terms of popularity) bands.

In 1973 my work with the Byrds ended. I embarked on a solo recording career on Columbia Records, and recorded five albums. The only money I've received for these albums was the modest advance paid prior to each recording. In 1977 I recorded three albums for Capitol Records in the group "McGuinn Clark and Hillman." Even though the song "Don't You Write Her Off" was a top 40 hit, the only money I received from Capitol Records was in the form of a modest advance. In 1989 I recorded a solo CD, "Back from Rio", for Arista Records. This CD sold approximately 500,000 copies worldwide, and aside from a modest advance, I have received no royalties from that project.

So there's nothing new there. Live gigs were always the life blood of any musician in the "recording era".

Actually the deep flaw here is probably in assuming that the Tariff is actually based on the cost of China's production at all.

When you dig into the US dumping regulations you quickly find there is no requirement for any audit of costs or subsidies or anything else. It all amounts to speculation, often taking US/Western manufacturing costs as a basis, then simply substituting Chinese average wages and calling it a day.

In antidumping duty proceedings, the Department determines margins of dumping by comparing normal value with the export price of comparable merchandise.

Anti Dumping tariffs are pretty much a joke. You can game the calculation any way you want.

I would be much happier if the US simply said it is in our national interest to have a strong on-shore solar industry and leave it at that.

Instead, this administration is still smarting over the Solyndra failure and looking for someone who isn't running for re-election to take the blame.

No, it doesn't. I've posted the exact text here a dozen times, but hey, what's one more:

(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf, pg 265. Read it for yourself.

This is a brilliant lie. A devastating lie. Whoever came up with it deserves accolades, because I've never seen a piece of propaganda so effective.

FWIW, I have seen you post that before and I appreciate your bringing it to our attention. To be fair, earlier drafts of the bill did not include such language. So there is a reason that people got upset; it wasn't that lies were being spread. However, the language was modified in the final draft and people didn't get the memo. So thanks for pointing it out.

No, it doesn't. I've posted the exact text here a dozen times, but hey, what's one more:

(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf, pg 265. Read it for yourself.

This is a brilliant lie. A devastating lie. Whoever came up with it deserves accolades, because I've never seen a piece of propaganda so effective.

I'm not super in-favor of our patent system either. I'm just wondering if you realize what you are saying. "A legislative act disabling every patent granted for the last 20 years" is simply throwing out every patent ever granted. More or less. Keep in mind that patents don't last very long.

I'm allowing the immense scope of the problem to intimidate me.

I read the US Patent Office 2013 budget proposal: www.uspto.gov/about/stratplan/budget/fy13pbr.pdf I didn't believe what it said, so then I read the Patent Office fee structure: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ29/content-detail.html (see section 11).

The fee structure is all wrong. When you submit a patent application, you pay a small fee and cause the Patent Office to do a very expensive process. The process is documented on page 58 of the Budget Proposal. The Patent Office only collects more money if it approves the patent.

They discuss this problem on page 37: "..More than half of all patent fee collections are from issue and maintenance fees, which essentially subsidize examination activities."

The fee structure demands that REGARDLESS OF MERIT, the patent office has to approve about 1/3 of all patents submitted to it.

The Budget Proposal repeatedly discusses the problem of improving the quality of approved patents, but none of their proposals will cause businesses to submit better patent applications. Instead, they propose streamlining the evaluation process and hiring more patent examiners. See the Gap Assessment on Page 60.

So, we have this immense machine. It is central to our economy. It can only survive by approving patents. It is currently in pain because it can't approve patents fast enough. It is currently creating about 200,000 patents per year. You have to go to court to find out if a patent is valid, and what it covers. It costs about $20,000,000 to go to court. 200,000 * $20,000,000 = $4,000,000,000,000 (4 Trillion dollars) just in court costs. AND that is just this years patents.

When I think about giving this kind of money and influence to patent lawyers, I'm scared shitless.

That is why I think it would be better to just disable all existing patents and start over.

Miles

.. I suspect we can ultimately fix almost all our patent problems by returning the patent office to central funding. Funding the patent office from patent fees has got to be our greatest mistake.

I have spent an instructive afternoon reviewing the nature of US Patent Office Funding:

• * www.uspto.gov/about/stratplan/budget/fy13pbr.pdf (United States Patent and Trademark Office FY 2013 President's Budget)
• * http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ29/content-detail.html (Public Law 112 - 29 - Leahy-Smith America Invents Act)
• * http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v30/n2/full/nbt.2110.html (Nature paper on patent office funding.)
• * http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-05/congress-must-ensure-patent-office-funds-university-leaders-say.html (Bloomberg article on Patent Fee diversion.)

My initial impression that there was a 'greatest funding mistake' is way too optimistic. There is just no bottom to the Patent's office barrel of broken funding bits. But, let me list just a few:

• * Congress loves to steal the Patent office fees to fund other stuff.
• * Page 37 of the budget: "..More than half of all patent fee collections are from issue and maintenance fees, which essentially subsidize examination activities." They charge a small fee to file, and a much larger fee once your patent is granted. The ratio is about 3 to 1. Roughly 1/3 of all patent applications are granted. So, inherent in the design is a perverse financial incentive to grant patents regardless of the merits.
• * Page 12 of the budget: Currently they are backing up patent applications much faster than they clear them. 506924 patents filed last year. 669625 backlogged patents. So, they are currently trying to clear 1,176,549 patents using about 6600 examiners (178 patents per examiner per year.)
• * Page 60 of the budget: "Gap Assessment: Meeting this commitment assumes efficiency improvements brought about by reengineering many USPTO management and operational processes (e.g., the patent examination process) and systems, and hiring about 3,000 patent examiners in the two-year period FY 2012 and FY 2013 (including examiners for Three-Track Examination)." So, the plan is to streamline the process even more and hire many more inexperienced patent examiners. Yea! More crap patents!

So, we have a monstrous machine for issuing patents. It has to issue patents to stay alive. It is currently in severe pain because it can't issue patents fast enough. We need to 'fix' the situation by issuing patents faster.

Seems like the real fix would be:

• * Collect most of the money up front.
• * Force simpler patent applications
• * Say no a lot more often.
• * And slap any silly congresscritter that thinks this should be a money-making operation.

Miles

Not only would his veto have done nothing, it would have also opened the door to attack ads about how he vetoed healthcare for wounded veterans, since that's also in the bill. The man shouldn't fall on his sword just to keep you happy.

And that whole thing about taking out language regarding the bill's application to US citizens... read it for yourself. I've posted it to this site a dozen times. Here is is again. Page 266-67.

The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States. ... Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other domestic law enforcement agency with regard to a covered person, regardless whether such covered person is held in military custody.

The monopoly part was for pushing their browser

Please, before repeating Microsoft's lies for them again, get the facts.

Among other things, besides making contracts with the intent of breaking them, they withheld millions of dollars worth of incentives unless one victim broke a working product's compatibility and severed all marketing relationships with one of their partners.

Too many of the people who conceived, directed and executed Microsoft's felony are still there, still running things.

Your pizza example is a bad one because they specifically allow that now (as of like, decades ago actually).

No, they do not. Stop spreading such patently absurd information. Read the rules sometime. Like this one, 47CFR97.113(a)(2) and (3):

97.113 Prohibited Communications

(a) No amateur station shall transmit:

(2) Communications for hire or for material compensation, direct or indirect, paid or promised, except as otherwise provided in these rules;

(3) Communications in which the station licensee or control operator has a pecuniary interest, including communications on behalf of an employer.

This wouldn't appear to prohibit you ordering the pizza, just the use of amateur radio to reply by the pizza dealer, but then there's this, same section:

(b) An amateur station shall not engage in any form of broadcasting, nor may an amateur station transmit one-way communications except as specifically provided in these rules;

And gosh if I can find a specific exemption from this one-way communication prohibition for "pizza shop".

Now maybe the rules in YOUR country differ, but in the US of A the FCC rules apply, and the FCC rules still prohibit the use of amateur radio for commercial purposes -- with very few exceptions, none of which cover buying pizza.

for Telephone scams one big trick is to have
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title47-vol3/xml/CFR-2011-title47-vol3-sec64-1200.xml
printed out and ready to read from during the call
very good odds that if they even think you know the law they will hang up quickly.

and yes in the US 47CFR64.1200 is THE LAW period FULL STOP

citations?

how about this?

Not when one of the FCC regulations is "must accept interference". No seriously, that's actually a requirement.

I don't think that pacemakers would qualify as Part 15 devices; but Part 95 ones. Those have a much shorter list of things they aren't allowed to interfere with; but they are still required to deal with interference(that and, obviously, building life-critical systems that can't handle a little RF would be a Bad Thing even if it were legal.)

I get annoyed at this kind of learned helplessness when it comes to federal regulation. Regulatory law can make for dry reading, but just because it's boring doesn't mean that it is impossible to follow. It also happens to be the area of law that is most easily affected by public interest and comment --moreso than legislation, decisions, constitutions, even elections themselves.

Proposed federal regulations are published in the Federal Register. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collection.action?collectionCode=FR Except for emergency regulations, proposed regulations have a public comment period. During this period, anyone is able to comment --even online, hint hint-- on any proposed reg before it is put into effect. These comments become part of the official regulatory history. Public comments can, and have been used to prevent regulations from going into effect. They can also be used to guide agency policy decisions. Remember Janet Jackson's nipple exposure, and the subsequent huge fine? That was thanks to, IIRC, around 1200 people who trolled the FCC in the federal register.

A businessperson in a regulated industry can make a daily scan of the TOC of the day's Federal Register part of their regular current-awareness review; or at least delegate this to someone else. Check for any regs in your industry, and complain loudly about those deserving of it.

This is how it has been for decades. By and far it's simply a matter of no one wanting to bother doing the boring work --reading regulations-- that is required to guide regulatory law to one's favor.

Derek's rockets are on a whole different level.

To be sure. Derek's rockets are classified by US Federal Aviation Administration regulations as "Advanced, High-Power Rockets", not Model Rockets. See CFR Part 14, 101.22.

The problem is that companies can't patent naturally occurring genes. What they can patent is a gene fragment that has been isolated in a lab that has a known function, such as serving as a diagnostic aid..

Your premises is based on an urban legend that has no basis in fact.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2001_register&docid=01-322-filed

This is education. A big political term you should acquaint yourself with is FERPA.

Please don't confuse FDA with other organizations. FDA is part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) generally handles inspections of food. I think fish are actually inspected by the Fish and Wildlife Service which is part of the Department of the Interior. Regarding food, FDA deals with approvals, labeling and definitions. (Definitions such as: evaporated milk: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2008/aprqtr/21cfr131.130.htm), not inspections.

Let's be clear - the FCC is not in the business of validating that any particular device is generally well-made or robustly-designed. Their one and only concern wrt to type acceptance is the RF _emissions_ of the device. They do not require testing of receivers for susceptibility to nearby carriers, intermodulation, desense or anything else, only their (in the case of a receiver, unintentional-) emissions. All not-otherwise licensed equipment carries the all-too familiar Part 15 warning about not causing and having to accept interference.

Link to the PDF for those slashdotters who want might want to read the actual bill.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr3674ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr3674ih.pdf

One wonders if Cisco's legal chaps got a trifle nervous about shipping a system that involved quite-possibly-subject-to-CFR 47 15.5 device or devices intentionally causing interference to other such devices...

In particular, I'd be a trifle leery of the possibility that I was contravening the letter, as well as the spirit, of part B:

"(b) Operation of an intentional, unintentional, or incidental radiator is subject to the conditions that no harmful interference is caused and that interference must be accepted that may be caused by the operation of an authorized radio station, by another intentional or unintentional radiator, by industrial, scientific and medical (ISM) equipment, or by an incidental radiator."

If you're so sure, here's the full text. Point to the section supporting your claim. I've challenged several people to do so since the bill was signed, and not one of them has.

I'm getting tired of copy-pasting this for people, but fine:

SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

Source.

Either the law doesn't allow anyone from the US to be detained, or else it already did allow it and this law didn't change it. Considering that the Supreme Court already ruled that detainees in Gitmo have habeas corpus rights, there's no way a law taking those rights from citizens could stand.

I know it's popular around here to pretend the US government is some dystopic comic book empire, but open your eyes. It's simply not true.

Please, please, PLEASE stop spreading this lie. We can't run a country based on false information.

The NDAA is a military spending bill. It gets passed every year. For several years it has allowed the military to detain members of Al Qaeda, and no one had a problem with this. In the latest version, this was expanded to cover members of other terrorists organizations, but it still states that it cannot be applied to United States citizens or immigrants.

What Section 1021, subsection (e), of H.R. 1540 as enrolled says is

Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

which doesn't explicitly say it cannot be applied to US citizens etc.. The question is what "existing law or authorities" say. Senator Carl Levin quoted the Supreme Court as saying "There is no bar to this nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant.", which comes from the O'Connor/Rehnquist/Kennedy/Breyer opinion in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. On the other hand, they also say "It is a clearly established principle of the law of war that detention may last no longer than active hostilities.", but if active hostilities continue until we've defeated "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", who knows when they'll cease.

This is not a patent, this is an application publication. You can tell because it says "pub no" in the upper right corner instead of "patent no". For reference:

Link to publication from TFA
Link to a real patent (believe it or not)

TFA author can't tell the difference, which is incredibly obvious once you know what you're looking for. And a lot of applications never become a patent.

Now that the application has published, anyone who knows of any prior art might be able to let the patent office know about it if this application isn't examined before the new law kicks in September 16 this year. See the America Invents Act, section 8 (starts bottom of page 32).

You are doubling down on your nonsense, the section 1028 is about transfer of existing detainees, and the section 1031 that was removed was about any new detainees, thus your idiotic argument is completely false and you are propagating the same nonsense BS as the MSM wants you to propagate.

The section 1031 that was removed was not about transfer of existing detainees, here is the PDF that still contained that section

Page 15: Sec. 1031. Definition of individual detained at Guantanamo.

Here is the definition of section 1028 from the final version, which does not have 1031

SEC. 1028. REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFICATIONS RELATING TO THE
TRANSFER OF DETAINEES AT UNITED STATES NAVAL STA-
TION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA, TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES
AND OTHER FOREIGN ENTITIES.

So those have completely different purpose. One specifies the DEFINITION of a person contained in Gitmo, one specifies the requirements for certifications relating to TRANSFER of detainees.

Good day.