Slashdot Mirror

So lobby your congresscritter to have the relevant technologies added to the Commerce Control List. Ty-Raps large enough to be used as handcuffs are already there for exactly this reason. It might not stop the Chinesee, but it will stop American facilitation. The penalties are hefty.

its the law they have to provide you one http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2005/octqtr/47cfr76.640.htm

That's a lousy bit of reporting by the Washington Post. No proper sourcing at all. It took a little looking, but I found some data.

First, Senator Sessions (R-MS) is despicable human and an embarrassment to The Nation as a Senator. He was one of the Nine Reprehensible Republicans Senators who voted against the McCain anti-torture amendment to the Department Of Defense Appropriations Act, 2006, on October 5, 2005, which passed 90-9. During debate and commentary about the amendment, Sessions defamed West Point Graduate Captain Ian Fishback, 82nd Airborne Division, who had served in combat tours in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and had come forward, at the cost of his military career, to publicly make a statement with two anonymous Army NonComs about the use of human torture. More recently, Sessions rationalised the use of waterboarding in a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing held February 27, 2008. Sessions a a lowlife scum, whose election reflects poorly upon Mississippi voters' discretion. May fortune be so kind that I toast to a better world upon hearing news of his death.

There is however, a bit of counterbalance given as a reason for the amendment. I am not well enough informed on the facts though to make a decent judgment regarding the merits.

The following three citations are from:
Senate Report 110-259 (GPO PDF) - Accompanied S. 1145: The Patent Reform Act Of 2007, January 24, 2008

Here's the official rationale given for the limiting the patent's reach:

Section 14: Limitation On Damages And Other Remedies With Respect To Patents For Methods In Compliance With Check Imaging Methods

Background

In 1994, the Federal Reserve proposed the idea of an electronic check image processing, archival, and retrieval system. In 1996, the American National Standard for Financial Image Interchange issued its architecture and design specification for such a system. The Federal Reserve implemented this technology in a check truncation pilot in 1999. Years later, this evolving technology became standard practice in the banking industry, and its importance became particularly noted in the days after September 11, 2001, when transporting paper checks by airplane was impossible for several days.[158] In 1999 and 2000, several inventors sought a series of patents relating to a system/process for imaging and storing documents, building their technology around what the government was already doing. The patent claims relate to a three-tiered system for imaging, transferring, and storing (archiving) paper checks tendered for processing via the electronic payment system. The 108th Congress enacted the Check 21 Act of 2003, P.L. 108- 100,[159] which allowed the recipient of a paper check to create a digital version to store and transfer (referred to as a "substitute check"),[160] thereby eliminating the need for further handling of the physical document.[161] The Check 21 Act requires all banks to recognize and accept the digital images of checks it receives from other banks.[162] The financial services industry (including banks) and their technology providers must be able to implement the Check 21 Act, which permits electronic check transfer based on technology developed by the federal government.[163]

Discussion of changes

Because Congress has mandated implementation of the Check 21 Act, the Committee accepted an amendment during the mark-up of the bill that declares practicing of the Check 21 industry standard should not constitute patent infringement. Section 14 of the Act amends section 287 of title 35 to limit the remedies available against a financial institution

• Improper disclosure (for example, IRC 7216 - Penalty for disclosure or use of tax return information.)
• Retention (i.e., SEC rule 204-2, assuming it applies to email. Questions still exist.),
• Discovery (to comply with Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure)

I find that plausible, but care to cite a source?

RTFA. Note that nobody ever comes out and says that the emails are in fact lost, except for people who are spinning the story as or to journalists. The government is only ever describing ways in which the emails could have been lost, all the while not supplying the emails themselves. This is because there are laws that would have to be broken in order for these emails to have been lost and it does not appear that Theresa Payton is anxious to be indicted for federal crimes. These statutes have applied to email and electronic records since 1993, so there is no excuse for missing emails, and so the secretive Bush/Cheney administration tries to gum up the works with acts of God with a heapin' helping of "whoops."

I continue to contend that the emails still exist in a known location, but the administration is deseperate not to provide them pursuant to a lawful court order. Ms. Payton should be thrown in the clink for facilitating such contempt of the legal process until such time as she figures out a way to follow the law.

I believe this link works:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:s2533is.txt.pdf

That's for the bill as it was introduced -- couldn't find a copy of the bill post-committee amendments, probably because it hasn't been formatted by GPO yet.

"significant miscommunication concerning technical requirements between the Census Bureau and Harris"

In 2006, the Census Bureau awarded a $595 million contract to Harris Corp. to develop more than 525,000 handheld computers that enumerators would use to collect data from Americans who did not send in their census forms.

Gutierrez plans to tell the subcommittee that the bureau could transfer funds "from existing departmental resources that will fully cover the resources required for the 2010 census.

Meet patriotic act.

As much as it pains me to say it, the parent is wrong.

Refer to Section 221 of Title 13, Chapter 7, United States Code
http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title13/chapter7_subchapterii_.html

Fortunately, the fine is = $100 for not answering the survey. In addition, you have to allow official census workers entrance (and exit) from your home.

So much for privacy.

PS. IANAL.

Since "you" is ambiguous referring to an AC, I will post my $.02 worth of searching.

FCC Rules on FOSS and Software-Defined Radio
Cognitive Radio Technologies and Software Defined Radios

As far as I can gather the main problem is that part of the licensing requirements is that "security measures" that need to be in place to prevent use of the device outside the specifications for which it is licensed.
With the boundary between driver software on the computer vs. firmware on the device shifting ever more away from the device, it becomes harder to implement these security measures.

Sec. 64.1601 Delivery requirements and privacy restrictions.
* * * * *
(e) Any person or entity that engages in telemarketing, as defined
in section 64.1200(f)(7) must transmit caller identification
information.
...
(3) Tax-exempt nonprofit organizations are not required to comply
with this paragraph.

Sec. 64.1200 Delivery restrictions. ...

(f) As used in this section:
...
(7) The term telemarketing means the initiation of a telephone call
or message for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or
investment in, property, goods, or services, which is transmitted to any
person.

TXT available here

I liked the comment by Sen. Bond (R-Mo.) that failure to give telecom providers retroactive immunity for any crimes they may have committed would be

leaving them open to disclosure and exceedingly serious competitive and reputational harm, perhaps even physical retaliation by radicals who oppose our intelligence gathering.

He is saying -- he is actually saying -- that Congress has to prevent its own laws from being applied to a corporation, because if the courts are allowed to proceed with civil lawsuits, angry mobs of disaffected citizens will storm the corporate headquarters of AT&T and Verizon and burn them to the ground because they oppose intelligence gathering. We must circumvent the legal process to soothe the hordes of Americans who are furious at the NSA. This is surely the most bizarre panem-et-circenses ever.

Or maybe he's saying Al Qaeda sleeper cells will launch attacks on key NOCs for our internet backbone... the only thing holding them back is they're waiting for word to come that a civil lawsuit has been filed against the owning corporation and depositions have been submitted and discovery is proceeding, Allahu Akbar!

Huh? Some states elect state judges, some states appoint state judges, and the federal government appoints federal judges. I'd argue pretty strongly that the appointment systems involve a lot of questions about knowing the law.

The problem with your statement is that there is a LOT of "the law." The United States Code -- the document that contains all federal laws currently in force -- runs more than 30,000 pages. Nobody ever could "know" all of that law. If you add state laws and federal regulations you're talking in the hundreds of thousands of pages of law.

Our judges are usually generalists. They hear all kinds of cases. So instead of forcing judges to memorize, we rely on the parties on each side of a lawsuit to present the law to the judge and to inform him what the correct law is. The judge then takes his general legal training and figures out which side is correct, instead of trying to memorize a 30,000-page body of law.

Good judges are usually good lawyers. They are usually very good at legal reasoning. They usually aren't good at memorizing 30,000 pages of text. I'd much rather have smart judges able to reason than judges who have memorized a huge book.

Microsoft had no monopoly in browsers when they started. Microsoft had a desktop OS monopoly. They leveraged that to kill a company whose product might, someday, indirectly have hurt their desktop OS profits. The specific leverage they applied was to sink massive resources into developing a high-quality browser, and ... not only give it away free, but threaten to hurt other companies dependent on them for making products that worked with Netscape. They lost money hand over fist on the effort.

The assertions above are not rhetoric. They're fact. Hunt up the words "malevolent" and "obsessive" in that link. When the Netscape threat was gone, Microsoft virtually abandoned browser development.

Apple had no monopoly on MP3 players or desktop OS's when they started. Apple used no leverage of any kind. They used high-quality industrial design and user-interface research, attention to detail, superb marketing and smart partnerships to earn their present spot on top of the market. They have not, ever, even once, stopped adding new capacity and features on to the iPod. The iPod has been phenomenally profitable since its introduction. Apple continued improving it at a torrid pace even when they had left the competition so far behind there essentially wasn't any, and they're still doing it today.

Here's the legal description of how Microsoft behaved:

Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations,

and what the law says of people who behave that way:

shall be deemed guilty of a felony,

and the prescribed penalties if the prosecutor decides to make it a criminal case (which he didn't):

and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

Note that a hundred million dollars is and was chump change to Microsoft. They had a hundred seventy two times that much available in *cash and short-term notes*.

In short, "to monopolize" trade is not "to have a monopoly on a product". Publishers have a monopoly on distribution of books they publish. That isn't the same as monopolizing trade in books.

Apple have a monopoly on Mac OS X. They are not monopolizing trade in personal-computer OS's. They have a monopoly on iPods. They aren't monopolizing trade in digital music.

They law applies equally to Microsoft and Apple.

It's just that Apple didn't break it.

Just keep in mind that this is not the final version of the bill that was sent to the President. I've linked to it a few comments above, but you can find it here. {ProfJonathan}

Ah, bills. The legislative equivalent of TFA -- no one bothers to read them. Once again, an article about an act of Congress that doesn't even bother including a bill #, or even the proper short title. Why not just refer to it as "that there new energy bill done passed by them there politicians"?

The section discussed here is about as long as TFA. It's 9021 of HR 3221 ("Short Titles.--This Act may be cited as the ``New Direction for
Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act'')
(http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/useftp.cgi?IPaddress=162.140.64.182&filename=h3221eh.txt&directory=/diska/wais/data/110_cong_bills,

In it, you can see that the only bans are based on efficiency standards, not type of manufacture. For example, 100 watt lamps that do not provide 60 lumens/watt or better are banned. Issues of color spectrum are anticipated and basic measures put into place.

Now if we could apply this method to fuel efficiency we'd actually start making a dent.

A snip:

PART 2--LIGHTING EFFICIENCY

SEC. 9021. EFFICIENT LIGHT BULBS.

        (a) Prohibition.--
                        (1) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall issue regulations--

(A) prohibiting the sale of 100 watt general service incandescent lamps after January 1, 2012, unless those lamps emit at least 60 lumens per watt;
(B) prohibiting the sale of general service lamps manufactured after the effective dates shown in the table below that do not meet the minimum efficacy levels (lumens/watt) shown in the following table:

Lumen Range (Lumens/Watt) Effective Dates

200-449 15 1/1/2014
450-699 17 1/1/2014
700-999 20 1/1/2013
1000-1500 22 1/1/2012
1501-3000 24 1/1/2012

(C) after January 1, 2020, prohibiting the sale of general service lamps that emit less than 300 percent of the average lumens per watt emitted by 100 watt incandescent general service lamps that are commercially available as of the date of enactment of this Act;
(D) establishing a minimum color rendering index (CRI) of 80 or higher for all general service lamps manufactured as of the effective dates in subparagraph (B); and
(E) prohibiting the manufacture or import for sale in the United States of an adapter device designed to allow a lamp with a different base to fit into a medium screw base socket manufactured after January 1, 2009.
(2) Exemptions.--The regulations issued under paragraph (1) shall include procedures for the Secretary to exempt specialty lamps from the requirements of paragraph (1)....t

Ah, bills. The legislative equivalent of TFA -- no one bothers to read them. Once again, an article about an act of Congress that doesn't even bother including a bill #, or even the proper short title. Why not just refer to it as "that there new energy bill done passed by them there politicians"?

The section discussed here is about as long as TFA. It's 9021 of HR 3221 ("Short Titles.--This Act may be cited as the ``New Direction for
Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act'')
(http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/useftp.cgi?IPaddress=162.140.64.182&filename=h3221eh.txt&directory=/diska/wais/data/110_cong_bills,

In it, you can see that the only bans are based on efficiency standards, not type of manufacture. For example, 100 watt lamps that do not provide 60 lumens/watt or better are banned. Issues of color spectrum are anticipated and basic measures put into place.

Now if we could apply this method to fuel efficiency we'd actually start making a dent.

Relevant excerpts:

PART 2--LIGHTING EFFICIENCY

SEC. 9021. EFFICIENT LIGHT BULBS.

(a) Prohibition.--
(1) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall issue regulations--
(A) prohibiting the sale of 100 watt general service incandescent lamps after January 1, 2012, unless those lamps emit at least 60 lumens per watt;
(B) prohibiting the sale of general service lamps manufactured after the effective dates shown in the table below that do not meet the minimum efficacy levels (lumens/watt) shown in the following table:

Lumen Range (Lumens/Watt) Effective Dates

200-449 15 1/1/2014
450-699 17 1/1/2014
700-999 20 1/1/2013
1000-1500 22 1/1/2012
1501-3000 24 1/1/2012

(C) after January 1, 2020, prohibiting the sale of general service lamps that emit less than 300 percent of the average lumens per watt emitted by 100 watt incandescent general service lamps that are commercially available as of the date of enactment of this Act;
(D) establishing a minimum color rendering index (CRI) of 80 or higher for all general service lamps manufactured as of the effective dates in subparagraph (B); and
(E) prohibiting the manufacture or import for sale in the United States of an adapter device designed to allow a lamp with a different base to fit into a medium screw base socket manufactured after January 1, 2009.
(2) Exemptions.--The regulations issued under paragraph (1) shall include procedures for the Secretary to exempt specialty lamps from the requirements of paragraph (1). The Secretary may provide such an exemption only in cases where the Secretary finds, after a hearing and opportunity for public comment, that it is not technically feasible to serve a specialized lighting application, such as a military, medical, public safety
application, or in certified historic lighting applications using bulbs that meet the requirements of paragraph (1). In addition, the Secretary shall include as an additional criterion that exempted products are unlikely to be used in the general service lighting applications.
(3) Additional lamps types.--
(A) Manufacturers of rough service, vibration service, vibration resistant, appliance, shatter resistant, and three-way lamps shall report annual
sales volume to the Secretary. If the Secretary determines that annual sales volume for any of these lamp types increases by 100 percent relative to 2009 sales in any later year, then such lamps shall by subject to the following standards:
(i) Appliance lamps shall use no more than 40 watts.
(ii) Rough service lamps shall use no more

Ah, bills. The legislative equivalent of TFA -- no one bothers to read them. Once again, an article about an act of Congress that doesn't even bother including a bill #, or even the proper short title. Why not just refer to it as "that there new energy bill done passed by them there politicians"? The section discussed here is about as long as TFA. It's 9021 of HR 3221 ("Short Titles.--This Act may be cited as the ``New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act'') (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/useftp.cgi?IPaddress=162.140.64.182&filename=h3221eh.txt&directory=/diska/wais/data/110_cong_bills, In it, you can see that the only bans are based on efficiency standards, not type of manufacture. For example, 100 watt lamps that do not provide 60 lumens/watt or better are banned. Issues of color spectrum are anticipated and basic measures put into place. Now if we could apply this method to fuel efficiency we'd actually start making a dent. A snip: PART 2--LIGHTING EFFICIENCY SEC. 9021. EFFICIENT LIGHT BULBS. (a) Prohibition.-- (1) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall issue regulations-- (A) prohibiting the sale of 100 watt general service incandescent lamps after January 1, 2012, unless those lamps emit at least 60 lumens per watt; (B) prohibiting the sale of general service lamps manufactured after the effective dates shown in the table below that do not meet the minimum efficacy levels (lumens/watt) shown in the following table: Lumen Range (Lumens/Watt) Effective Dates 200-449 15 1/1/2014 450-699 17 1/1/2014 700-999 20 1/1/2013 1000-1500 22 1/1/2012 1501-3000 24 1/1/2012 (C) after January 1, 2020, prohibiting the sale of general service lamps that emit less than 300 percent of the average lumens per watt emitted by 100 watt incandescent general service lamps that are commercially available as of the date of enactment of this Act; (D) establishing a minimum color rendering index (CRI) of 80 or higher for all general service lamps manufactured as of the effective dates in subparagraph (B); and (E) prohibiting the manufacture or import for sale in the United States of an adapter device designed to allow a lamp with a different base to fit into a medium screw base socket manufactured after January 1, 2009. (2) Exemptions.--The regulations issued under paragraph (1) shall include procedures for the Secretary to exempt specialty lamps from the requirements of paragraph (1)....

Ah, bills. The legislative equivalent of TFA -- no one bothers to read them. Once again, an article about an act of Congress that doesn't even bother including a bill #, or even the proper short title. Why not just refer to it as "that there new energy bill done passed by them there politicians"?

The section discussed here is about as long as TFA. It's 9021 of HR 3221 ("Short Titles.--This Act may be cited as the ``New Direction for
Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act'')
(http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/useftp.cgi?IPaddress=162.140.64.182&filename=h3221eh.txt&directory=/diska/wais/data/110_cong_bills,

In it, you can see that the only bans are based on efficiency standards, not type of manufacture. For example, 100 watt lamps that do not provide 60 lumens/watt or better are banned. Issues of color spectrum are anticipated and basic measures put into place.

Now if we could apply this method to fuel efficiency we'd actually start making a dent.

Relevant excerpts:

PART 2--LIGHTING EFFICIENCY

SEC. 9021. EFFICIENT LIGHT BULBS.

(a) Prohibition.--
(1) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall issue regulations--
(A) prohibiting the sale of 100 watt general service incandescent lamps after January 1, 2012, unless those lamps emit at least 60 lumens per watt;
(B) prohibiting the sale of general service lamps manufactured after the effective dates shown in the table below that do not meet the minimum efficacy levels (lumens/watt) shown in the following table:

Minimum Efficacy Levels and Effective Dates

Minimum Efficacy

Lumen Range (Lumens/Watt) Effective Dates

200-449 15 1/1/2014
450-699 17 1/1/2014
700-999 20 1/1/2013
1000-1500 22 1/1/2012
1501-3000 24 1/1/2012

(C) after January 1, 2020, prohibiting the sale of general service lamps that emit less than 300 percent of the average lumens per watt emitted by 100 watt incandescent general service lamps that are commercially available as of the date of enactment of this Act;
(D) establishing a minimum color rendering index (CRI) of 80 or higher for all general service lamps manufactured as of the effective dates in subparagraph (B); and
(E) prohibiting the manufacture or import for sale in the United States of an adapter device designed to allow a lamp with a different base to fit into a medium screw base socket manufactured after January 1, 2009.
(2) Exemptions.--The regulations issued under paragraph (1) shall include procedures for the Secretary to exempt specialty lamps from the requirements of paragraph (1). The Secretary may provide such an exemption only in cases where the Secretary finds, after a hearing and opportunity for public comment, that it is not technically feasible to serve a specialized lighting application, such as a military, medical, public safety
application, or in certified historic lighting applications using bulbs that meet the requirements of paragraph (1). In addition, the Secretary shall include as an additional criterion that exempted products are unlikely to be used in the general service lighting applications.
(3) Additional lamps types.--
(A) Manufacturers of rough service, vibration service, vibration resistant, appliance, shatter resistant, and three-way lamps shall report annual
sales volume to the Se

This isn't exactly correct, and I thought it might be helpful to clarify it.

With regard to the law, the version sent to the President for signature can be found here.

In fact, the law does not actually prohibit the sale of indcandescent bulbs by 2012. Rather, beginning in Section 312, the law sets efficiency standards, phasing in over time, that current incandescent bulbs cannot meet, but doesn't specify the type of bulb that should be used. Interestingly, it also includes the following provision in Section 321(h)(1) (found on page 95 of the document I linked to):

"REPORT ON MERCURY USE AND RELEASE.--Not later than
1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary,
in cooperation with the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, shall submit to Congress a report describing
recommendations relating to the means by which the Federal
Government may reduce or prevent the release of mercury
during the manufacture, transportation, storage, or disposal
of light bulbs."

USA Today's story does a good job of summarizing this issue. {ProfJonathan}

http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub121/sec5.html http://www.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/pubs/proceedings/97pro38.html

Also as others have suggested, even if the ECPA could be waived by contract, this should violate the copyright holder's copyright. The copyright holder is not a party to any agreement between the user and ISP.

However Ron Paul voted no!

If you read it, it says basically "if you find out about something involving stuff already described in other bills as 'illegal', you must report it as soon as practical, with a bunch of information about the incident (and if you don't there are various penalties)".

It doesn't change or redefine these 'illegal images' - that's already done in other places (2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A,
2252B, or 226015 involving child porn, and 1466A)

It doesn't force monitoring, filtering, or anything else (and even says that the report includes information, page 3, lines 18-19, 'to the extent available to [...] provider')

It has problems for other reasons (for example, it effectively requires the provider to decide if the material actually meets these criteria - good luck figuring that out), not to mention that they need to be aware of where to report this (the "CyberTipline of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children" - what, it would kill them to at least include a URL or phone number?), but it's not like every coffee shop owner now has hire somebody to install and monitor filtering software on all of their customers traffic and report thought crimes.

I wonder if they even informed the FAA, as required:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/air/hq/engineering/uapo/
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/E7-2402.htm

[...] the applicant must state the intended use for the UAS and provide sufficient information to satisfy the FAA that the aircraft can be operated safely. The time or number of flights must be specified along with a description of the areas over which the aircraft would operate. The application must also include drawings or detailed photographs of the aircraft. An on-site review of the system and demonstration of the area of operation may be required.

Per Federal Law, Piggybacking IS legal
US law clearly states that accessing unencrypted wireless is legal.
But first, I want to address a lie that was started by Alex Leary, a reporter for the St Petersburg Times. I have been following this story since it appeared. A "Benjamin Smith" was never arrested by the St. Petersburg Police for unauthorized access to a computer network, never charged with a third-degree felony, never booked by the Pinellas County Sherff's Office, and never scheduled for a pretrial hearing. There was no follow up to the story because there was no trial. Alex Leary made the whole story up.
Do not spread urban legends. Especially about the law. When you are told that something is against the law, ask which specific law? When you are told someone was arrested, ask for the booking number? Went to trial, docket number. When someone cannot answer these questions, do not believe them.
Accessing unencrypted wireless is VERY legal.
According to Title 18 (Crimes and criminal
procedure) of the United States Code, Part I
(Crimes), Chapter 119 (Wire and electronic
communications interception and interception of oral
communications) from
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/wiretap2510_2522.htm :
2511. (2)(g) It shall not be unlawful under this
chapter
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/wiretap2510_2522.htm
or Chapter 121
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/ECPA2701_2712.htm
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;
2510. Definitions
(16) "readily accessible to the general public"
means, with respect to a radio communication, that
such communication is not --
(A) scrambled or encrypted ;
(B) transmitted using modulation techniques whose
essential parameters have been withheld from the
public with the intention of preserving the privacy
of such communication;
(C) carried on a subcarrier or other signal
subsidiary to a radio transmission;
(D) transmitted over a communication system provided
by a common carrier, unless the communication is a
tone only paging system communication; or
(E) transmitted on frequencies allocated under part
25
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cfr25_04.html,
subpart D
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cfr74.401.htm ,
E
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cfr74.501.htm ,
or F
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cfr74.600.htm
of part 74
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cfr74_04.html ,
or part 94 http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html of the
Rules of the Federal Communications Commission
http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html , unless, in the
case of a communication transmitted on a frequency
allocated under part 74
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cfr74_04.html
that is not exclusively allocated to broadcast
auxiliary services, the communication is a two-way
voice communication by radio; [The unlicensed
spectrum used by Wi-Fi
http:

Per Federal Law, Piggybacking IS legal
US law clearly states that accessing unencrypted wireless is legal.
But first, I want to address a lie that was started by Alex Leary, a reporter for the St Petersburg Times. I have been following this story since it appeared. A "Benjamin Smith" was never arrested by the St. Petersburg Police for unauthorized access to a computer network, never charged with a third-degree felony, never booked by the Pinellas County Sherff's Office, and never scheduled for a pretrial hearing. There was no follow up to the story because there was no trial. Alex Leary made the whole story up.
Do not spread urban legends. Especially about the law. When you are told that something is against the law, ask which specific law? When you are told someone was arrested, ask for the booking number? Went to trial, docket number. When someone cannot answer these questions, do not believe them.
Accessing unencrypted wireless is VERY legal.
According to Title 18 (Crimes and criminal
procedure) of the United States Code, Part I
(Crimes), Chapter 119 (Wire and electronic
communications interception and interception of oral
communications) from
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/wiretap2510_2522.htm :
2511. (2)(g) It shall not be unlawful under this
chapter
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/wiretap2510_2522.htm
or Chapter 121
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/ECPA2701_2712.htm
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;
2510. Definitions
(16) "readily accessible to the general public"
means, with respect to a radio communication, that
such communication is not --
(A) scrambled or encrypted ;
(B) transmitted using modulation techniques whose
essential parameters have been withheld from the
public with the intention of preserving the privacy
of such communication;
(C) carried on a subcarrier or other signal
subsidiary to a radio transmission;
(D) transmitted over a communication system provided
by a common carrier, unless the communication is a
tone only paging system communication; or
(E) transmitted on frequencies allocated under part
25
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cfr25_04.html,
subpart D
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cfr74.401.htm ,
E
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cfr74.501.htm ,
or F
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cfr74.600.htm
of part 74
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cfr74_04.html ,
or part 94 http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html of the
Rules of the Federal Communications Commission
http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html , unless, in the
case of a communication transmitted on a frequency
allocated under part 74
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cfr74_04.html
that is not exclusively allocated to broadcast
auxiliary services, the communication is a two-way
voice communication by radio; [The unlicensed
spectrum used by Wi-Fi
http:

Per Federal Law, Piggybacking IS legal
US law clearly states that accessing unencrypted wireless is legal.
But first, I want to address a lie that was started by Alex Leary, a reporter for the St Petersburg Times. I have been following this story since it appeared. A "Benjamin Smith" was never arrested by the St. Petersburg Police for unauthorized access to a computer network, never charged with a third-degree felony, never booked by the Pinellas County Sherff's Office, and never scheduled for a pretrial hearing. There was no follow up to the story because there was no trial. Alex Leary made the whole story up.
Do not spread urban legends. Especially about the law. When you are told that something is against the law, ask which specific law? When you are told someone was arrested, ask for the booking number? Went to trial, docket number. When someone cannot answer these questions, do not believe them.
Accessing unencrypted wireless is VERY legal.
According to Title 18 (Crimes and criminal
procedure) of the United States Code, Part I
(Crimes), Chapter 119 (Wire and electronic
communications interception and interception of oral
communications) from
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/wiretap2510_2522.htm :
2511. (2)(g) It shall not be unlawful under this
chapter
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/wiretap2510_2522.htm
or Chapter 121
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/ECPA2701_2712.htm
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;
2510. Definitions
(16) "readily accessible to the general public"
means, with respect to a radio communication, that
such communication is not --
(A) scrambled or encrypted ;
(B) transmitted using modulation techniques whose
essential parameters have been withheld from the
public with the intention of preserving the privacy
of such communication;
(C) carried on a subcarrier or other signal
subsidiary to a radio transmission;
(D) transmitted over a communication system provided
by a common carrier, unless the communication is a
tone only paging system communication; or
(E) transmitted on frequencies allocated under part
25
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cfr25_04.html,
subpart D
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cfr74.401.htm ,
E
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cfr74.501.htm ,
or F
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cfr74.600.htm
of part 74
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cfr74_04.html ,
or part 94 http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html of the
Rules of the Federal Communications Commission
http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html , unless, in the
case of a communication transmitted on a frequency
allocated under part 74
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cfr74_04.html
that is not exclusively allocated to broadcast
auxiliary services, the communication is a two-way
voice communication by radio; [The unlicensed
spectrum used by Wi-Fi
http:

Per Federal Law, Piggybacking IS legal
US law clearly states that accessing unencrypted wireless is legal.
But first, I want to address a lie that was started by Alex Leary, a reporter for the St Petersburg Times. I have been following this story since it appeared. A "Benjamin Smith" was never arrested by the St. Petersburg Police for unauthorized access to a computer network, never charged with a third-degree felony, never booked by the Pinellas County Sherff's Office, and never scheduled for a pretrial hearing. There was no follow up to the story because there was no trial. Alex Leary made the whole story up.
Do not spread urban legends. Especially about the law. When you are told that something is against the law, ask which specific law? When you are told someone was arrested, ask for the booking number? Went to trial, docket number. When someone cannot answer these questions, do not believe them.
Accessing unencrypted wireless is VERY legal.
According to Title 18 (Crimes and criminal
procedure) of the United States Code, Part I
(Crimes), Chapter 119 (Wire and electronic
communications interception and interception of oral
communications) from
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/wiretap2510_2522.htm :
2511. (2)(g) It shall not be unlawful under this
chapter
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/wiretap2510_2522.htm
or Chapter 121
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/ECPA2701_2712.htm
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;
2510. Definitions
(16) "readily accessible to the general public"
means, with respect to a radio communication, that
such communication is not --
(A) scrambled or encrypted ;
(B) transmitted using modulation techniques whose
essential parameters have been withheld from the
public with the intention of preserving the privacy
of such communication;
(C) carried on a subcarrier or other signal
subsidiary to a radio transmission;
(D) transmitted over a communication system provided
by a common carrier, unless the communication is a
tone only paging system communication; or
(E) transmitted on frequencies allocated under part
25
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cfr25_04.html,
subpart D
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cfr74.401.htm ,
E
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cfr74.501.htm ,
or F
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cfr74.600.htm
of part 74
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cfr74_04.html ,
or part 94 http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html of the
Rules of the Federal Communications Commission
http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html , unless, in the
case of a communication transmitted on a frequency
allocated under part 74
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cfr74_04.html
that is not exclusively allocated to broadcast
auxiliary services, the communication is a two-way
voice communication by radio; [The unlicensed
spectrum used by Wi-Fi
http:

Per Federal Law, Piggybacking IS legal
US law clearly states that accessing unencrypted wireless is legal.
But first, I want to address a lie that was started by Alex Leary, a reporter for the St Petersburg Times. I have been following this story since it appeared. A "Benjamin Smith" was never arrested by the St. Petersburg Police for unauthorized access to a computer network, never charged with a third-degree felony, never booked by the Pinellas County Sherff's Office, and never scheduled for a pretrial hearing. There was no follow up to the story because there was no trial. Alex Leary made the whole story up.
Do not spread urban legends. Especially about the law. When you are told that something is against the law, ask which specific law? When you are told someone was arrested, ask for the booking number? Went to trial, docket number. When someone cannot answer these questions, do not believe them.
Accessing unencrypted wireless is VERY legal.
According to Title 18 (Crimes and criminal
procedure) of the United States Code, Part I
(Crimes), Chapter 119 (Wire and electronic
communications interception and interception of oral
communications) from
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/wiretap2510_2522.htm :
2511. (2)(g) It shall not be unlawful under this
chapter
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/wiretap2510_2522.htm
or Chapter 121
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/ECPA2701_2712.htm
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;
2510. Definitions
(16) "readily accessible to the general public"
means, with respect to a radio communication, that
such communication is not --
(A) scrambled or encrypted ;
(B) transmitted using modulation techniques whose
essential parameters have been withheld from the
public with the intention of preserving the privacy
of such communication;
(C) carried on a subcarrier or other signal
subsidiary to a radio transmission;
(D) transmitted over a communication system provided
by a common carrier, unless the communication is a
tone only paging system communication; or
(E) transmitted on frequencies allocated under part
25
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cfr25_04.html,
subpart D
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cfr74.401.htm ,
E
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cfr74.501.htm ,
or F
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cfr74.600.htm
of part 74
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cfr74_04.html ,
or part 94 http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html of the
Rules of the Federal Communications Commission
http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html , unless, in the
case of a communication transmitted on a frequency
allocated under part 74
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cfr74_04.html
that is not exclusively allocated to broadcast
auxiliary services, the communication is a two-way
voice communication by radio; [The unlicensed
spectrum used by Wi-Fi
http:

Per Federal Law, Piggybacking IS legal
US law clearly states that accessing unencrypted wireless is legal.
But first, I want to address a lie that was started by Alex Leary, a reporter for the St Petersburg Times. I have been following this story since it appeared. A "Benjamin Smith" was never arrested by the St. Petersburg Police for unauthorized access to a computer network, never charged with a third-degree felony, never booked by the Pinellas County Sherff's Office, and never scheduled for a pretrial hearing. There was no follow up to the story because there was no trial. Alex Leary made the whole story up.
Do not spread urban legends. Especially about the law. When you are told that something is against the law, ask which specific law? When you are told someone was arrested, ask for the booking number? Went to trial, docket number. When someone cannot answer these questions, do not believe them.
Accessing unencrypted wireless is VERY legal.
According to Title 18 (Crimes and criminal
procedure) of the United States Code, Part I
(Crimes), Chapter 119 (Wire and electronic
communications interception and interception of oral
communications) from
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/wiretap2510_2522.htm :
2511. (2)(g) It shall not be unlawful under this
chapter
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/wiretap2510_2522.htm
or Chapter 121
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/ECPA2701_2712.htm
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;
2510. Definitions
(16) "readily accessible to the general public"
means, with respect to a radio communication, that
such communication is not --
(A) scrambled or encrypted ;
(B) transmitted using modulation techniques whose
essential parameters have been withheld from the
public with the intention of preserving the privacy
of such communication;
(C) carried on a subcarrier or other signal
subsidiary to a radio transmission;
(D) transmitted over a communication system provided
by a common carrier, unless the communication is a
tone only paging system communication; or
(E) transmitted on frequencies allocated under part
25
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cfr25_04.html,
subpart D
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cfr74.401.htm ,
E
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cfr74.501.htm ,
or F
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cfr74.600.htm
of part 74
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cfr74_04.html ,
or part 94 http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html of the
Rules of the Federal Communications Commission
http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html , unless, in the
case of a communication transmitted on a frequency
allocated under part 74
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cfr74_04.html
that is not exclusively allocated to broadcast
auxiliary services, the communication is a two-way
voice communication by radio; [The unlicensed
spectrum used by Wi-Fi
http:

Taxes

The option to tax is not the requirement to tax. The income tax was temporary on the wealthiest 5% to pay for WWI, the entry into which by the U.S. has parallels to the unethical invasion of Iraq. Repealing the income tax would just put the U.S. back to between the founding of the Constitution and WWI.

Congress taking abortion out of the Supreme Court

Ron Paul explains the Constitutional basis directly in the bill:

(3) Article III, section 2 of the Constitution of the United States gives Congress the power to make "such exceptions, and under such regulations" as Congress finds necessary to Supreme Court jurisdiction.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Health Care

There is no need for this to be handled at the federal level -- states can handle it just fine.

Global warming

I personally would stretch the commerce clause to cover the environment since air and water do not know state boundaries, but I can go with Ron Paul's approach of first having the federal government "do no harm", such as by eliminating corporate welfare to big oil. Boulder is suing the federal government over global warming due to its OPIC and Imp-Ex agencies, which do things like pay for oil pipelines in third world countries under the premise of providing economic development to the countries. Ron Paul has long stated he would like to eliminate OPIC and ImpEx.

Income disparity

Going on a gold standard, as Ron Paul advocates, would eliminate the hidden tax of inflation. As I've mentioned here before, I make 4x now as a seasoned professional than I did 20 years ago when I just graduated. Yet when using CPI computed according to pre-Greenspan formulas, it's 8% per year and I make less now than I did 20 years ago. Under a gold standard, wages would not automatically fall every year, and things like the minimum wage (which BTW should be at the state and local level, not the federal level) would not lag behind real prices.

In short

Ron Paul is for personal liberty, including the Iraqis and the pre-born. He does not believe liberty should be extended to illegal immigrants, but would like to expand legal immigration somewhat once the incentives for illegal immigration are removed: welfare, education, healthcare, and birthright citizenship.

You are far from reality on this. A primary anti-terror bill from congress during the Clinton administration was the:

Public Law 104-132 April 24, 1996
Antiterrorism And Effective Death Penalty Act Of 1996

It took two years to get passed, and the phrase "Effective Death Penalty" was added to the legislation's title between 1995 and 1996, because it turned out to be a gutted terror prevention bill that primarily rescinded habeas corpus rights of convicted Federal prisoners. Hatch's dream since becoming a US Senator has been to gut Habeas Corpus. Of especially note is the GOP's refusal to allow multi-point wiretaps, approved only after judicial oversight, to be allowed in cases of terror investigations.. This had been already allowed for RICO investigations. When debating the Bill after it had been sent over from The Senate, the Majority GOP members, led by Bob Barr, claimed this was unconstitutional and excised it from the legislation. Orin Hatch defended this. (1, 2 and 3)

The GOP also opposed:

• Synchonising The Statute of Limitations on National Firearms Act Violations to be the same as other crimes by extending it from three years to five years.
• Criminalising Distribution Of Information Relating To Explosive Materials, when it was intended for or known it would be used for criminal acts.
• Taggants added to Eplosives and explosive precursors

The GOP used this Bill as a launching pad for their attacks on the government over Waco and Ruby Ridge, and their soapbox was comprised of the victims bodies from the Oklahoma City Bombing. None of these arguments were used by the GOP politicians when considering the Patriot Bill, and that legislation went far beyond any proposals offered in the 1996 Bill.

Hatch was still defending the Reagan era policy of arming the Arab "Freedom Fighters" in Afghanistan, even after the Khobar Towers, and Africa Embassy Bombings:

Though he has come to represent all that went wrong with the CIA's reckless strategy there, by the end of the Afghan war in 1989, bin Laden was still viewed by the agency as something of a dilettante - a rich Saudi boy gone to war and welcomed home by the Saudi monarchy he so hated as something of a hero.

In fact, while he returned to his family's construction business, bin Laden had split from the relatively conventional MAK in 1988 and established a new group, al-Qaida, that included many of the more extreme MAK members he had met in Afghanistan.

Most of these Afghan vets, or Afghanis, as the Arabs who fought there became known, turned up later behind violent Islamic movements around the world. Among them: the GIA in Algeria, thought responsible for the massacres of tens of thousands of civilians; Egypt's Gamat Ismalia, which has massacred western tourists repeatedly in recent years; Saudi Arabia Shiite militants, responsible for the Khobar Towers and Riyadh bombings of 1996.

Indeed, to this day, those involved in the decision to give the Afghan rebels access to a fortune in covert funding and top-level combat weaponry continue to defend that move in the context of the Cold War. Sen. Orrin Hatch, a senior Republican on the Senate Intellige

Since we're moving more towards specifics that haven't been well-trodden, I'll start with the standard disclaimer: IANAL. Nor am I, by any stretch, an expert on the inner workings of the FCC.

Having said that, however, I have read through the final rules of 47 CFR Part 2, Cognitive Radio Technologies and Software Defined Radios, and I see nothing that would lead me to believe that an iPhone is any more subject to it than would be any other smart phone.

There are many smart phones, for instance, running the PalmOS or Windows CE that allow the user to load other applications without any hindrance at all. None of these appear to be in conflict with 47 CFR Part 2. So, this appears to me to fall under fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD), rather than really being applicable. Whether specific control and access to the telephony components of the iPhone are via an OS X driver on the one hand, or via a PalmOS or Windows CE driver would appear to have no specific bearing. Likewise, it is not clear, by any means that the iPhone, or other smart phones fall under that rule.

I'm not trying to suggest that you're bringing up the possibility deliberately as fodder for FUD, just that it has some of the hallmarks: a general concern that sounds potentially problematic, whether it actually is or not, and not much in the way of detail other than that. I think it's legitimate to wonder whether or not 47 CFR Part 2 applies. But, I doubt that it really does. If it did, then I think there'd have been a significant brouhaha a long time since over one or another of the other smart phones that have already been out in the marketplace for a much longer time.

Note point two, from the Summary of the Memorandum and Order (my bold emphasis):

2. In the Cognitive Radio Report and Order, the Commission modified the rules to require that radios in which the software is designed or expected to be modified by a party other than the manufacturer be certified as software defined radios. To minimize the filing burden on manufacturers, this requirement was narrowly tailored to affect only those radios where the software can be modified by a party other than the manufacturer because such radios pose a higher risk of interference to authorized radio services. The definition of software defined radio (SDR) is intentionally broad, while the category of equipment that is required to be certified as SDRs is intentionally narrow. The Commission agrees with Cisco that a reading of the definition of SDR in the rules by itself may give the incorrect impression that more devices must be certified as SDRs than the rules intended to require. The Commission finds that the appropriate solution to Cisco's concern is to add an additional sentence following the definition of SDR to indicate the class of radios that must be certified as SDRs. It therefore clarifies the rules by adding the following statement to the definition of SDR: ``In accordance with Sec. 2.944 of this part, only radios in which the software is designed or expected to be modified by a party other than the manufacturer and would affect the listed operating parameters or circumstances under which the radio transmits must be certified as software defined radios.'' This action clarifies the intent of the rules adopted in the Cognitive Radio Report and Order.

Section 2.1 Terms and Definitions, subsection (c), defines 'software defined radio' as:

* * * * * (c) * * * Software defined radio. A radio that includes a transmitter in which the operating parameters of frequency range, modulation type or maximum output power (either radiated or conducted), or the circumstances under which the transmitter operates in accordance with Commission rules, can be altered by making a change in software without making any changes to hardware components that affect the radio frequency emissions. In accordance with Sec. 2.944 of this part, only radios in which

State and Federal courts are quite clear on the fact that the manufacturer is in no way obligate to support a item if the user manipulates said item so as it is not covered under the agreed to contract or warranty.

Actually you can in the United States. If you are using spread spectrum (which is what 802.11b is) hams can use up to 100 watts output power from 2.4-2.45 GHz but the transmitters must have automatic power control if using more than 1 watt to decrease power if the link doesn't need it.
All other modes they may use up to 1500 watts output. The unlicensed devices (i.e. WiFi) must except any interference from the hams and also, if your WiFi interferes with the hams you must turn off your WiFi equipment.

Please read both part 15 and part 97 of the FCC's rules under Title 47 of the federal code of regulations.

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_06/47cfr15_06.html

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_06/47cfr97_06.html

Actually you can in the United States. If you are using spread spectrum (which is what 802.11b is) hams can use up to 100 watts output power from 2.4-2.45 GHz but the transmitters must have automatic power control if using more than 1 watt to decrease power if the link doesn't need it.
All other modes they may use up to 1500 watts output. The unlicensed devices (i.e. WiFi) must except any interference from the hams and also, if your WiFi interferes with the hams you must turn off your WiFi equipment.

Please read both part 15 and part 97 of the FCC's rules under Title 47 of the federal code of regulations.

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_06/47cfr15_06.html

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_06/47cfr97_06.html

Depravity is the most controversial of religious dogmas precisely because it is the most empirically provable.

Christian apologetics has been successfully outsorced. Visit http://www.rzim.org/.

I find it rather odd that these communists believe in things that are not empirically provable. Why should they worry? The one child policy should take care of the issue. Now if they are acting from the standpoint that they are in charge of the afterlife as well as the here-and-now, well then we have atheistic materialists acting in a manner contrary to what they have been 'carefully instructed' to believe. The Three Self Patriotic church, the only sactioned Christian body in China is not permitted to teach the second coming of Christ on the basis that it is a challenge to their authority and power. The Falung Dafa are viewed as a threat because it can muster up millions of people in a short time; they are well organized and thus the threat. In that case it will be only a matter of time that all nations shall prohibit the preaching of the gospel on that same basis. One need only read Project Megiddo literature http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps3578/www.fbi.go v/library/megiddo/megiddo.pdf. Bush has repeatedly used binary language concerning the war on terror that either you are with us or with the terrorists. One need not venture much further to hear "Take the mark or we kill you."

5H4L0M

The accident that might have happened would have been similar to Japan's worst accident so far: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokaimura_nuclear_acc ident. Because liquids take on the shape of the container, a spill in the floor is not as important as the liquid accumulating in a narrow shaft. See this description: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi ?dbname=2007_register&docid=fr04my07-111.
--
Bet ter power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

Here is a link to the original notice in the Federal Register: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi ?dbname=2007_register&docid=fr04my07-111 taken from the very much in flux list of civilian nuclear accidents at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nucl ear_accidents. This is not the way that the NRC usually handles accidents of this magnitiude. The lack of awareness of supervisors of what they were dealing with is pretty amazing.
--
Get better power and save: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

All the relevant rules are here: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cf r76_04.html

Section 76.630 is the primary one:
"(a) Cable system operators shall not scramble or otherwise encrypt signals carried on the basic service tier."
But your problem might be the next line:
"Requests for waivers of this prohibition must demonstrate either a substantial problem with theft of basic tier service or a strong need to scramble basic signals for other reasons."

...Which doesn't make separate allowances for encrypting the basic tier, just if/because it is broadcast digitally.

and Section 76.1909 might apply: Redistribution control of unencrypted digital terrestrial broadcast content.

"(d) Unmarked content. Where a multichannel video programming distributor retransmits unencrypted digital terrestrial broadcast content that is not marked with the broadcast flag, the multichannel video programming distributor shall not encode such content to restrict its redistribution."

EFF has lots of good info, as usual: http://www.eff.org/IP/pnp/cablewp.php

and the rest, I leave to you and Google.

Looks like the ARC and J&J had a 1895 agreement on trademark use(referred to in this CNN article, which congress codified in USC Title 18 section 706 chapter 33.

Section 706 talks about "agents", and I'm betting that some bright fellow at ARC either didn't know about the ancient agreement, or thought section 706 would cover them, or thought they could bluff their way past. Also possible that said Bright Young Fellow read the agreement and chose specific products they thought could get away with as "not specifically covered by the agreement"

Here's hoping that the ARC doesn't end up in a $10 million lawsuit, which would neatly match the income from this project...

UNITED STATES CODE TITLE 18 SECTION 1028

http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate. cgi?WAISdocID=364607218197+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrie ve

What you've described sounds like the Amateur Radio Service, also called ham radio.

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_06/47cf r97_06.html

        The rules and regulations in this part are designed to provide an
amateur radio service having a fundamental purpose as expressed in the
following principles:
        (a) Recognition and enhancement of the value of the amateur service
to the public as a voluntary noncommercial communication service,
particularly with respect to providing emergency communications.
        (b) Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven ability to
contribute to the advancement of the radio art.
        (c) Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through
rules which provide for advancing skills in both the communication and
technical phases of the art.
        (d) Expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur radio
service of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts.
        (e) Continuation and extension of the amateur's unique ability to
enhance international goodwill.

If you study hard and upgrade your license to General or Amateur Extra class, you'll find you have access to valuable notches of spectrum all across the RF range. Basically every conceivable type of spectrum you might want to experiment with, you can find an amateur band to play with. For example, the 6 meter band (as in, wavelength of 6 meters -- 50 to 54 mhz) ends right where the current broadcast television channels 2, 3, and 4 begin.

So if you want to see why these bands are so valuable, get yourself a ham license and go roll your own radio! HAM equipment doesn't have to be type-certified by the FCC first. I believe this is the only FCC radio service under which you are allowed, even encouraged, to build your own.

And yes you can discuss your personal views on the air with people. No profanity, no commercial speech, and no 'broadcasting' -- you must be talking to someone, not talking to everyone who can hear.

The FCC publishes Amateur Radio Service related enforcement actions. http://www.fcc.gov/eb/AmateurActions/Welcome.html Go ahead and look around -- you'll find letters for people being poor neighbors, operating in frequencies they're not allowed, deliberately interfering with police radio bands, operating with expired or suspended licenses -- but no citations about people expressing opinions.

THX QSO 73 K :-)

Well .... mostly

There are many positions within the US Federal Government which are considered "Officer" positions. These are directly analogous to military officers. In fact, people who hold these positions are eligible to use military officer quarters and services if their duty requires them to visit a military installation. These positions, in the corporate world would be similar to Manager or Director roles in the private sector.

All "Officers" of the US Federal Government, military or otherwise have to go through an appointment process. And they are approved by the US Senate. 99% of the time, these are non-political appointments who never met nor would ever meet the elected representatives who "appointed" and "approved" them. The news never covers these. These are also done in bulk - Thousands at a time.

Furthermore, USC 5 sect 3331 details the oath all government officers are required to take. This oath usually done in writing.

TITLE 35--PATENTS, PART III--PATENTS AND PROTECTION OF PATENT RIGHTS, CHAPTER 28--INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS has section 271 that says among other things "Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent."

the whoever includes end-users and uses includes mere use. So your assertation that there is no law is clearly erroneous.

TITLE 35--PATENTS, PART III--PATENTS AND PROTECTION OF PATENT RIGHTS, CHAPTER 28--INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS has section 271 that says among other things "Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent."

the whoever includes end-users and uses includes mere use. So your assertation that there is no law is clearly erroneous.

offtopic, but thanks for bringing that up. Another part of history that 99% of folks in the U.S. are completely ignorant about. If you went to secondary school in the U.S. I'll bet that you didn't learn about it in your high school history classes did you? Heaven forbid that FDR's good friends in the USSR had a genocidal campaign of their own.

As for the USA, it does, in fact, indirectly recognize the Holodomor as genocide, even if it doesn't use the word as such (they refer to it "the manmade famine that occurred in Ukraine in 19321933" - the key word here is "manmade", that is, deliberate).