Slashdot Mirror

You're wrong when you say it doesn't apply to computers.

17 USC, Chapter 10, Subchapter A, Section 1008 specifically states:
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings. - (emphasis added)

Section 1001 defines a "digital audio recording medium" to be:
any material object in a form commonly distributed for use by individuals, that is primarily marketed or most commonly used by consumers for the purpose of making digital audio copied recordings by use of a digital audio recording device.

In more common language, this refers to audio/music CD-R discs, which are made to work in digital audio recorders. These discs are different from the more common data CD-Rs, in that they contain special digital markings (standard data CD-Rs won't work in digital audio recorders). In addition, by law a royalty has been paid on this blank media. These royalty payments are in turn distributed to copyright holders (see Section 1006 of the law cited above). They usually cost slightly more than data CD-R discs, but they can be found for less than $0.50 each.

So go ahead, make copies onto music/audio CD-R discs, even give copies to your friends. You can do so legally and without any moral problems - you've paid for the right to do so. As a matter of fact, not copying CDs would be theft - the music industry stealing from you through these forced royalties. (And the RIAA fought for this law. Thanks, RIAA!)
Oh, and if you also use those audio CD-R discs for downloaded music, then that would be legal, too!

A year ago, when I confronted Sondy Pope-Roberts, the Democratic State Assembly sponsor of Wisconsin's vidgame bill, she said "the pollsters" (I presume Hillary Clinton's,) had told her "This polls higher than anything else we asked."

Sondy's subsequent press release asserted that "86% of 16 year old boys play these [violent] games." Asked why she'd want to alienate 86% of (then) 16 year old boys, some of whom will be eligible to vote this November, and the rest by her next re-election cycle, she responded, "They won't vote anyway."

This, like the DOPA Myspace censorship legislation that just passed the US House with only 15 dissenting votes (roll call) seems to me pretty shortsighted for a Party that will be competing in elections not just in '06 and '08, but on into the future.

Apologies for the tin foil hat moment... I was wondering that myself, but from a more universal perspective, how do we as a society strike down this kind of thing? This is a victory for privacy, but there's no way the administration will just stop--it will appeal, or claim executive privilege, or just move the whole thing underground away from prying eyes. Even if we soundly boot the Republicans out in 2006 and 2008, does anyone expect the Democrats to do differently? How can we protect our rights to privacy in a day and age where the individual is so thoroughly marginalized?

Throw them all, er most of them, out of office and elect Libertarians to replace them. Though there was one senator who voted against the PATRIOT Act representative Ron Paul was the only congressperson I can name who voted against it.

IBM ... in general does an outstanding job on government contracts.

Maybe the phrase in general saves this sentence, but you seem to be forgetting the single most spectacular failure in the history of software development belonged to IBM.

Well, I considered it spectacular, anyway. At least when I've failed to deliver a project on time I wasn't dragged before a House subcommittee!

Gary Shapiro always complains about the music industry, that's part of what he's paid to do. Gary knows very well that the music industry is talking directly to the broadcasters on this, and he's feeling left out.

A year ago, Sondy Pope-Roberts, the Democratic Assembly sponsor of Wisconsin's vidgame bill, told me "the pollsters" (I presume Hillary Clinton's,) had told her "This polls higher than anything else we asked."

Sondy's subsequent press release asserted that "86% of 16 year old boys play these [violent] games." When I asked why she'd want to alienate 86% of (then) 16 year old boys, some of whom will be eligible to vote this November, and the rest by her next re-election cycle, she responded "They won't vote anyway."

This, like the Myspace legislation that just passed the house with only 15 dissenting votes (roll call,) seems to me pretty shortsighted for a party that will be competing in elections not just in '06 and '08, but on into the future.

The facility at Oak Ridge was located where it is at because of cheap power and cooling.

That's one reason, yes. I was also told when I was studying nuclear engineering was that it was put there because one of the congresscritters in charge of the finance committee asked one of the Manhattan project people discussing the proposed labs, "So, where in Tennessee do you propose putting this project?" And that effectively settled that matter.

Anecdotal only... but I would suspect any new facility would probably need to be in Michigan or Iowa... pending the next election, of course.

The facility at Oak Ridge was located where it is at because of cheap power and cooling.

That's one reason, yes. I was also told when I was studying nuclear engineering was that it was put there because one of the congresscritters in charge of the finance committee asked one of the Manhattan project people discussing the proposed labs, "So, where in Tennessee do you propose putting this project?" And that effectively settled that matter.

Anecdotal only... but I would suspect any new facility would probably need to be in Michigan or Iowa... pending the next election, of course.

You guys are missing the main meet of the story here..

Clint Curtis, (the man who testified to having rigged the software for the diebold machines at the behest of tom feeny, officially the most corrupt politian in office at the moment)

http://www.clintcurtis.com/

http://www.house.gov/feeney/

the "suicide" of the investigator that followed up his allegations (warning some graphic images)

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=1244

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clint_Curtis

It all fits together quite nicely, a little switch, a preprepared flash software inserted whilst the machines were 'sleeping over' at the republican officials houses. Noone can possibly see the difference

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8112825559 202389150&q=hacking+the+vote

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=2449

Yang Enterprises - curtises former employer, linked to feeney, and a chinese spying ring to boot.

http://www.yangenterprises.com/

Which is why I said nearly all. Other videogame laws have been proposed on local, state or national levels by Joe Baca, Leland Yee, Rod Blagojevich, and Roy Burrell just to name the few laws I can remember. Then there are people like Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton who have both threatened to propose videogame violence laws.

http://www.house.gov/feeney/

That may be the ugliest website i've seen all day. His voters should be ashamed.

you suspected correctly. The current rep, Tom Feeney, representing South Florida rigged the US 2004 election election for his post.

http://www.youtube.com/v/7WmC4grXdIk

http://www.house.gov/feeney/

very interesting video. The computer programmer explains what he was asked to do. He gets stupid at the end though and starts rambling off topic, but I blame that on too much time on Slashdot.

Have you read the Cox Report?
I undertand there was tech sharing under Reagan and Bush (and I love how liberals HATE when you use Clinton as an example but will pull out Reagan or Bush for moral equivalence in a heartbeat), however certain things were prevented by being shared, among them Nav tech. What's more, one of the rockets 'blew up' and the Chinese stripped out the satellite control systems. Nice, eh?

I also don't know where your link was going. It's all over the map. Mentions Wen Ho Lee, which was a separate case from the Hughes tech transfer which had nothing to do with the W-88.
The charges lack cohesiveness, although they may be grounded in truth. I find it difficult to believe Reagan arranged for missile tech to be sold by China via a 'right-wing' government to anti-Communist forces.
Shows what I know.
*rolls eyes*

Thank you thank you thank you. Why is it we collectively burst into flames when someone whispers wiretapping, but then spend countless hours and billions of dollars to send the government EXPLICIT information on EVERY dollar we earned, how we earned it, and often as not... how we SPENT it?!!

Section 8, clause 1 of the Constitution gives the government the right to collect taxes. It makes sense that in order to do so, they require some information about how much money you made and how much money your company made. Even if they didn't collect information from you directly, they would collect data from your employer in pursuit of their official duties.

There are lots of arguments against rising minimum wage, but let me give you mine:

Money isn't free. If wages are raised (and it's not only the minimums that will be raised. Anyone with a half-decent employer or union will also get a raise) then everything has to go up in price so that employers can pay the new wage. It will provide a temporary respite for minimum wage earners, but in the long run, it provides nothing. Everything will balance back out, and in a capitalist economy, it will happen pretty fast. If the raise is announced beforehand, it might even drop before the wage hits so that it is balanced WHEN the raise hits, instead of after.

I fully agree that something needs to be done about the millions who cannot earn a living no matter how hard they work. But maybe the problem is at the top instead of the bottom. Sports and movie stars that earn 10 million dollars per year ... Hmm, maybe that's a problem.

Or maybe tax reform? I keep hearing about this 'flat tax' ... Assuming it's as fair as its proponents claim, maybe that should happen.

Or quite a few other things that actually improve the situation for the people we are trying to help, instead of just looking like it improves the situation.

Bush is the first president in modern history who has never vetoed a bill

Flat-out false. Given that, how much of the rest of the article can I trust?

I was going to attack you on the basis of party ratios in the house, saying that the republicans don't outnumber the dems by such a large margin, so saying that "several" of the against votes are dems isn't proving your point, but...

ALL (except the 4 who didn't vote) republicans are for!
In other words,

    Rep Dem
Yea 98.26% 91.04%
Nay 0(!) 7.46%
NV 1.77% 1.64%

All the data is availible in the silver bullet format here

As to the subject of this post, did anyone notice that the bill is called Deleting Online Predators Act? After Operation Iraqi Lib^H^H^HFreedom, it seems to me that they deliberately chose the names just one letter short of comedy gold. Here, all they needed to do is use a synonym to the word "act", such as "edict" or "enactment".

(J) COMMERCIAL SOCIAL NETWORKING WEBSITES; CHAT ROOMS- Within 120 days after the date of enactment of the Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006, the Commission shall by rule define the terms `social networking website' and `chat room' for purposes of this subsection. In determining the definition of a social networking website, the Commission shall take into consideration the extent to which a website--

1. `(i) is offered by a commercial entity;
2. `(ii) permits registered users to create an on-line profile that includes detailed personal information;
3. `(iii) permits registered users to create an on-line journal and share such a journal with other users;
4. `(iv) elicits highly-personalized information from users; and
5. `(v) enables communication among users.'.

I would note that clause (i) appears to exempt political websites from this as well as school sites while clauses (iv) and (v) are entirely undefined indicating that they have neither been thought through nor are expected to be any time soon. Is a handle personal? If I use my real name is that "highly-personalized". What about if I lie?

These same issues hold true with respect to the "technology protection measure" requirement in 3.a (see text). Strictly speaking turning the computer off entirely is a technology protection measure as is a printed sign saying "Don't do bad things" or an overpriced filtering service that can be easily circumvented.

The law is bad because it leaves many aspects undefined while at the same time further restricting online activities for both children and adults. One of the known problems with COPA is that many adults cannot get things turned on. More importantly it places blame in the wrong places, and places effort there as well. It attacks the social networking sites on the assumption that a) they are entirely to blame and b) poor "technology protection measures" will prevent bad things from happening. Sexual predators exist in the real world and molest kids in the real world. If we spent more time and effort educating parents accurately (which I note this bill encourages but does not pay for) about the dangers their kids face and how best to protect them this might work out. As it is this bill is (at best) a band aid that teaches kids and parents to fear the online world not learn to protect themselves in it. It also places one further burden of censoring information on understaffed underfunded public libearies who, as a rule, exist to share information not hide it.

This is essentially an election year problem. This bill is being voted for becuase the reps think that it is free. By voting for this they can claim to have "struck a blow against online predators" even though this blow is all hot air. In my experience such things get done because the politicians think that it will a) make the

(J) COMMERCIAL SOCIAL NETWORKING WEBSITES; CHAT ROOMS- Within 120 days after the date of enactment of the Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006, the Commission shall by rule define the terms `social networking website' and `chat room' for purposes of this subsection. In determining the definition of a social networking website, the Commission shall take into consideration the extent to which a website--

1. `(i) is offered by a commercial entity;
2. `(ii) permits registered users to create an on-line profile that includes detailed personal information;
3. `(iii) permits registered users to create an on-line journal and share such a journal with other users;
4. `(iv) elicits highly-personalized information from users; and
5. `(v) enables communication among users.'.

I would note that clause (i) appears to exempt political websites from this as well as school sites while clauses (iv) and (v) are entirely undefined indicating that they have neither been thought through nor are expected to be any time soon. Is a handle personal? If I use my real name is that "highly-personalized". What about if I lie?

These same issues hold true with respect to the "technology protection measure" requirement in 3.a (see text). Strictly speaking turning the computer off entirely is a technology protection measure as is a printed sign saying "Don't do bad things" or an overpriced filtering service that can be easily circumvented.

The law is bad because it leaves many aspects undefined while at the same time further restricting online activities for both children and adults. One of the known problems with COPA is that many adults cannot get things turned on. More importantly it places blame in the wrong places, and places effort there as well. It attacks the social networking sites on the assumption that a) they are entirely to blame and b) poor "technology protection measures" will prevent bad things from happening. Sexual predators exist in the real world and molest kids in the real world. If we spent more time and effort educating parents accurately (which I note this bill encourages but does not pay for) about the dangers their kids face and how best to protect them this might work out. As it is this bill is (at best) a band aid that teaches kids and parents to fear the online world not learn to protect themselves in it. It also places one further burden of censoring information on understaffed underfunded public libearies who, as a rule, exist to share information not hide it.

This is essentially an election year problem. This bill is being voted for becuase the reps think that it is free. By voting for this they can claim to have "struck a blow against online predators" even though this blow is all hot air. In my experience such things get done because the politicians think that it will a) make the

I was surprised (and more than a little bit disappointed) to see Ron Paul vote for this. You'd think his opinion (even though he's a social conservative) would've been that this is outside the constitutional limits of the federal government.

Sigh. Maybe he's down with a cold.

Obviously with a vote of 410-15, the Democratic party has had their forum and agrees with the legislation.

I don't know if it's the case here, but when a bill is known to have poor or no chances of getting through the other house of Congress, it starts looking like a "freebie" for legislators since it won't become law anyway and presents an opportunity to posture with no consequences. The lopsided vote suggests this might be a possibility. Although technical illiteracy and incompetence certainly played a role.

FWIW, all 15 nays were from Democrats. All the House Republicans voted unanimously for this bill.

It isn't the Interstate Commerce clause that governs this (although that is a much abused section of the constitution).

Instead, it is Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution that governs this, spelling out what states can't do like coin money or engage in foreign policy.... without consent of congress. With congressional consent, any of this is possible. And it is done, too.

USC Title 4 Chapter 4 deals with the relationship of the Federal government and state governments, and there is a section that deals specifically with compacts that are related to law enforcement, strongly encouraging states to cooperate between each other for going after criminals. Unfortunately state compacts are otherwise not explicitly mentioned in terms of procedural matters of the subject.

I can't find much more about this at house.gov, although there are dozens of bills and laws that mention the state compacts as well. The current "hot button" related issue right now is a state compact with an American Indian tribe covering legal gambling. Doing a Google search will pull up a bunch more related bills and mentions of this topic.

Let's consider what RFID is for. It is a means of broadcasting information over radio frequencies. For scanning packages in a depot that's all well and good but what about passports. At present the State Department's plan is to replace the existing bar codes on passports with RFID tags. Why?

You will still need to stand in line in order to present your documents, so this will not save time. RFID chips can be faked so false passports can still be made. Indeed seeing as hoe people will (incorrectly) believe the chips it seems that identitiy theves using fake passports may have an easier time.

The only logical uses for this is passive monitoring and funding. Passive monitoring would occur via sensors in Airport Floors, that would enable passport holders to be logged as they move about the terminal. You laugh but the feds have already begun requiring all non-us citizens to carry their passports when they fly within the U.S. and have pushed for national ID databases. Why not a requirement that you keep your rfid passport on you at all times? As is noted in the article these things can be read from 160 feet awayby special equipment. Why not? Keep in mind many of the same people in the STate department once pushed to outlaw crypo in the U.S. unless they held the keys.

Ahh you say but the feds are putting a "read-proof" screen on the passport to prevent this from happening. Perhaps so. And we will leave aside for the moment the amounts of our money they are paying to develop said screen just so they can justify the RFID tags. By the way, did anyone see any actual security benefits of RFID listed in the article or did they just claim that they exist? In any case, how likely is it that said magic screen will actually be tamper proof? If it isn't then it is nothing more than a security blanket. If it is then perhaps the scanning won't happen but only if noone can defeat it. I for one am not betting on the screen.

But suppose the screen does work. In that event there is only one actual benefit of this, large amounts of money is being given to the RFID makers. In that event it is simply a waste of tax dollars.

In either case it is a dangerously stupid idea. Now is the time to contact your Congressional Rep and your Senator to tell them that it is a dangerously stupid idea. If they hear it, it may stop. If not it will roll forward and we'll be left whining on /.

etc so that we can be tracked even when we aren't in the check-out line.

Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
Walter B. Jones (R-NC)
Ron Paul (R-TX)
Charles W. Pickering (R-MS)

Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
Walter B. Jones (R-NC)
Ron Paul (R-TX)
Charles W. Pickering (R-MS)

Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
Walter B. Jones (R-NC)
Ron Paul (R-TX)
Charles W. Pickering (R-MS)

Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
Walter B. Jones (R-NC)
Ron Paul (R-TX)
Charles W. Pickering (R-MS)

No one will deny the value of learning how to get along with other as needed.

Still, consider any fault that may come from the institution of college itself -- putting together a bunch of poorly socialized kids who have endured twelve years of being in an authoritarian environment that cultivates hate and apathy among children and turns many of them into the monsters who saw sport in taking down your student rather than want to grok her for her unique being.

Second, even if true, one failure of a home schooler to get along with one college crowd does not make a case. There are lots of counter-cases of home schoolers getting a long with all sorts of people -- including college kids.

Third, consider the fault in your student and her parents (or guardians) -- perhaps they just made a mistake in thinking there was any value to college for a bright person? Perhaps dropping out was the best answer. Consider, even the Vice Provost of Caltech told Congress that the US educational system was a collapsing pyramid scheme:
    http://www.house.gov/science/goodstein_04-01.htm

Maybe your student's only problem was having too much faith in an institution that did not have her best interests at heart? Maybe, as is suggested in the essays here:
    http://www.unconventionalideas.com/educatn.html
college is sometimes the cowardly route to life?

However, having said all that, yes, she may well have missed out on something in her earlier education. But that happens to kids all the time in K-12 -- as a college prof you only see the "successes" of the K-12 system. Just think about all the ex-High School kids who you don't see (and likely would not want in your classes). :-)

...article, claims unverified, presented "as is"

http://www.house.gov/israel/issues/shoulderfiredmi ssles.htm

is it better to send rockets at Spain than Morocco? I hope it's not because you think Morocco is filled with radical muslims who would see such rockets as an attack from the evil west...

If so, you do realize that Morocco was the first country to recognize the United States as a nation - and is still considered the longest-standing ally of the United States?

From testimony in the congressional record: http://wwwa.house.gov/international_relations/109/ dia111705.pdf

I think it is important
to remember that the Kingdom of Morocco is our oldest and most enduring ally.
The relationship between Morocco and the United States of America has existed
throughout the history of our country. In December of 1777, when war raged
between the American Colonies and Britain, Sultan Sidi Mohammed boldly
recognized our young and not yet free Republic. That magnanimous act of
recognition was cemented in a Treaty of Peace and Friendship between our
countries, ratified in July of 1787. And that enduring document remains the oldest
unbroken treaty in the history of the foreign relations of the United States.

The United States has had no better nor more constant friend and ally in the
Maghreb, in North Africa, and in the Arab World, than Morocco.

"The President, in his constitutional role as Commander in Chief, has always had the authority in times of war to order the detention of enemy combatants to prevent them from carrying out acts of war and to gather intelligence."

That's interesting. I wonder instead whether not invading countries that pose absolutely no threat to us is cheaper than proper body and vehicle armor. But that's just me... Oh wait, it's not. It's a majority of the American people.


Sadly, it's probably not cheaper.
The US need to defend their foreign interests, if they want to keep the stability of their economy.
I had read about that here in Latin America, and now I saw a reference to this guy, Ron Paul, that makes the point of why the US needs to sped all that money overseas http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr02 1506.htm

Write to Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Vir., voted in favor of Network Neutrality in the Judiciary committee) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore., introduced the Internet Non-Discrimination Act of 2006, S 2360, in March) to tell them about Sen. Stevens comments so that when they debate on the floor, they can speak to the utter incompetence of Sen. Stevens on this subject.

Make this your July 4th pledge. I'm sure most of you have the day off tomorrow. Spend an hour and write some letters. Talking amongst ourselves will accomplish nothing.

-S

I think I'd rather they play corporate duck-duck-goose than have to take a gander at Google's cock.

Mmhmm, Google .Gov dragged up more. Using the keywords supplied by the .PDF, I search for "for official use only" and got this and this. The first is interesting because it was a testimony before the Senate committee in 2001 or 2002 and has the four-star general in charge of the Pacific Command briefing on North Korea. The second has the general in charge of SOUTHCOM, who oversees Guantanamo Bay. While it does not state these are classified, it does state they are for official use only and are not intended for the public until released by the Committee.

I know these posts are hidden, but hopefully someone'll find 'em and give 'em a befitting rating. Come on, you little Slashdot snoopers, you know you love this.

General Craddock: "I recently directed an investigation into allegations of questionable conduct made by members of the FBI. That investigation is ongoing."

OOPS!

Take off the last part of the URL related to SOUTHCOM, and it asks for a username and password. Guess I wasn't supposed to look.

17 USC, Chapter 10, Subchapter A, Section 1008 specifically states:
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.

Section 1001 defines a "digital audio recording medium" to be:
any material object in a form commonly distributed for use by individuals, that is primarily marketed or most commonly used by consumers for the purpose of making digital audio copied recordings by use of a digital audio recording device.

In more common language, this refers to audio/music CD-R discs, which are made to work in digital audio recorders. These discs are different from the more common data CD-Rs, in that they contain special digital markings (standard data CD-Rs won't work in digital audio recorders). In addition, by law a royalty has been paid on this blank media. These royalty payments are in turn distributed to copyright holders (see Section 1006 of the law cited above). They usually cost slightly more than data CD-R discs, but they can be found for less than $0.50 each.

So go ahead, make copies onto music/audio CD-R discs, even give copies to your friends. You can do so legally and without any moral problems - you've paid for the right to do so. (And the RIAA fought for this law. Thanks, RIAA!)

If the directive came from a Bush-insider, or at least a Bush appointee, then your insinuation has some theoretical founding.

Congresscritters wanted it.

There have been allegations of White House involvement but nothing was ever proven.

It is worth noting that the settlement came hard on the heels of the 9/11 attacks. The DOJ likely wanted to shift focus and get rid of a case that had been tying them down for years. Likely Ashcroft reasoned that if the American public perceived the DOJ as being hung up on a fight between software companies when they should be going after terrorists, he'd be strung up by his gonads.

Granted, before 9/11 the Bush DOJ was already signalling that it was interested in a settlement. By many accounts, removal of the charges related to bundling killed any hope of nailing MS to the wall.

I find it foolish to commence financial operations using a system with the possibility of semi-legal cheating.

Can you tell me where in Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution that the federal government is responsible for the elderly?

Nowhere. Here's a good story about Col. David Crockett, Not Yours To Give, from when he was running for congress about how someone he met said he wouldn't vote for him because of how he voted in congress when they voted to give someone some money from the treasury that government didn't own them.

I voted for Ron Paul the Libertarian presidential candidate in 1992. Again in 2004 I voted for the libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik. Unfortunately I didn't vote in 1996 or in 2000. In 1996 I was hit in an accident a few weeks before the election which put me in a coma, and in 2000 I wasn't registered to vote early enough to vote after moving so I could get therapy because of the accident. In both cases though I supported the libertarian candidate, I don't recall who in 1996 but Harry Brown in 2000.

History: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality
The Bill: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi ?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h5252rh.txt.pdf
Testimony (from the House): http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Hearings/03302 006hearing1823/hearing.htm
Contact Congress: http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html

I had not heard that the mustang was a case of credit card fraud, I do remember the sudden tightening of purchase controls, threatened crucifixions, and a couple convictions on similar cases of purchase card use at the same time. That was an example I was using to portray a larger cost and purchasing issue that the Office of Inspector General had testified to House Energy Commerce committee, http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Hearings/02262 003hearing794/Friedman1298.htm

Maybe No Mustang, but there were still significant issues in the accounting.

Claiming that other laboratories do less volume of secret work; when such a metric itself is secret because the DOE would be extremely foolish to report how much secret work went where, is not a sufficient way to back up your argument to belittle my assertions of LANL's unfortunate handling of sensitive materials. How many accidents are acceptable in the handling of such sensitive material. Your argument may suggest that larger laboratories are to be avoided to improve security levels.

Like I said, if they are in trouble for traceable screwups, let them learn and clean up their act so they can be contributing members to the DOE's scientific complex.

No, I am not a politician. I am an ex-lab/now private industry engineer who believes too much is political in funding decisions, too little is gained from weapons lab snobbery, and too many people ignore the need for significant improvements in the DOE.

I found two of them for the US. One here, and the other one can be found here.

And if they can't get to the humans directly with RFID, they'll get to 'em through the back way, by starting with all the domesticated animals (http://usda.gov/nais/). Either way, you will be numbered, you will be cataloged, you will be tracked, and you will show your papers. Ineffectiveness notwithstanding, and inevitable ID theft be damned, to say nothing of basic liberty. The Pentagon's been hacked, the VA's been hacked, the credit companies have been hacked, the CIA can't keep track of all their laptops, etc., "But this time, we'll get it right!"
Feh. You're welcome to your handbasket, if you like, but leave me out of it, thanks...

http://nonais.org/
http://libertyark.net/
http://newswithviews.com/Stuter/stuter91.htm

This has probably been posted already, but it's good...
http://news.com.com/Do+we+need+a+national+ID+card/ 2010-1029_3-6075218.html

Want more? Pay attention to Rep. Ron Paul...
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst052906.ht m

Why can't government just leave me alone? Damn the databases, bring on those FreeStaters. I just hope it's not too late...

Basically, the premise of the tiered system is that companies like your tube, google, etc don't pay for all the bandwidth they consume. NPR's Market Place had a horrible story on last night claiming that with out extra cash from these large web sites, they can't expand bandwidth.

It's the dumbest argument ever. 1) Companies that large connect directly to top tier providers. These companies are paying hundreds of thousandsands of dollars to the top 10 internet back bone providers for fat pipes into the internet. 2) We have tons of dark fiber still running across the US. Companies liek Qwest invested millions upon millions of dollars in infrastructure for customers who still don't exist.

We don't have a bandwidth problem. We have a problem with a congress that doesn't understand infrastructure.

BTW: Here's the list of house member who voted NO the ammendment:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll239.xml

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll239.xml

I suppose this is the roll call for the net neutrality act ?

May this help u.s. voters to decide who to vote for, and not, and they wont be making any mistakes next time, for the sake of god.

Email.BeginHide.merge

                    Sincerely,

                John A. Boehner

                JAB/ gm

Sincerely,

John A. Boehner

Not sure who "represents" you? Check here to find your representative(near upper left).

Not sure who "represents" you? Check here to find your representative(near upper left).

One of the problems with our system is that these politicians think that they can often get away with voting against their constituents interest because no one will bother to look up and see how they actually voted. As long as the "party" votes the way they should, most people assume it was the "other guy" who caused the measure to fail. The truth is, 58 Democrats voted against this measure (and 11 Republicans voted for it). It wasn't just one or two who switched sides here.

Look up how your representatives voted here! And then email them about it. So you know, you can always check the voting record of your reps as it happens at the Office of the Clerk - Legislative Activities web site (use the drop down on the right side labeled House Floor Proceedings -- or the calendar if you can get it to work).