Slashdot Mirror

Puerto Rico does have a Representative in Congres.

http://www.house.gov/acevedo-vila/

You have it backwards. You shouldn't be looking for the clause that provides your right to travel anonymously. You should be looking for the clause that permits Congress to pass a law that restricts your right to travel anonymously.

Congress also cannot pass a law that allows police to install cameras in my toilet, but the reason isn't because it's specifically mentioned in the Constitution "People have the right to shit privately" - it's the fact that specific responsibillities have been ALLOWED to Congress and the government. All others are prohibited.

Please read The Constitution, and also Federalist Papers which provide a lot of background information about the thinking of the framers of the Constitution.

from the last link in the article:
An institution that maintains an account with a Federal Reserve Bank generally can become a Fedwire participant. Participants use Fedwire to instruct a Federal Reserve Bank to debit funds from the participant's own Federal Reserve account and credit the Federal Reserve account of another participant
Instead of focusing on all the bad things that can happen, think about a positive aspect. Security is a relative concept anyway, look at paypal. How about scaling this system up an order of magnitude and voila, Digital Cash. Visa/mastercard won't like it but so what. We really do need a digital currency and as I recall this is a function of the federal government.
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.htm l
Article I Section 8
Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
Clause 6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States

However, who's to say that the US Constitution is some magically ordained super-document that is completely infallible and utterly trustworthy?

Few are suggesting that the Constitution is infallible. Most are suggesting that if the Constitution, the document which created our system of government, says something, we should at least look at why they wrote it that way.

It was written by men. Smart men, true, but still just men. It's great to have a common root for our legal/government practices, and to keep a (relatively) clear and concise record, but why this continual return to "the Constitution from 225 years ago says so!"? If we dropped some of the stigma around the Constitution, it could be _changed_ and actually be a living document that helps the US develop into the future.

The Constitution has been changed, 27 times in fact, since it's initial inception. It is a living, growing document.

5) Copyright infringement is a civil crime, not a criminal one. The gvt has no case in trying someone under criminal law for copyright infringement.

Actually, under 17 USC 506 (enacted in 1976, effective in 1978, so predates P2P and even the Betamax), there's a criminal component to the Copyright Act. Both a civil complaint and criminal charges can be brought. Just ask Arcady.

It appears you don't know what your rights are. Read your Constitution and amendments. I'm not even American yet I seem to know more about it than the typical /.er.

The 1st amendment begins 'Congress shall make no law respecting...' If Congress passes a law that say you can't call someone a shyster on the internet, then you can cry and scream about the 1st ammendment.

Stephen's a shyster, an idiot and a moron, but that has nothing to do with the 1st ammendment that he is not violating.

Moderators : you'd do well to read the US Constitution and Amendments so that next time you can mod such a posting as Offtopic.

This shows the DMCA can be used by the MPAA/RIAA to put legitimate technology companies out of business. But they're hoping for another tool to do even more of this, and it's called the INDUCE act.

Go to EFF's Action Center and savetheipod.com to take action! Let your Senators know that they should be supporting Rep. Boucher's DMCRA rather than INDUCE.

We can turn the tide here if we take action!

It's an impressive machine. 640 nodes, each of which is an 8-CPU shared memory multiprocessor. The unusual feature is that the machines are interconnected not by a network, but by a brute-force 640 x 640 crossbar switch. Each data path has 12.3GB/s, and 640x2 paths can be going at once. 83,000 separate cables. Aggregate bandwidth about 8TB/s.

It's a reasonable way to make a one-off machine, but a dead end as a commercial product.

When do we get to vote on how the military handles housekeeping?

How about every two or six years? Remember, the Congress approves how the military spends its money, and they define the laws by which the military must operate.

Bring this issue up to your representative's office, and let them know that we don't approve the lax I.T. policies. Or how about write to someone on the Armed Services Oversight Committee, inform them that things like this are taking place, that national security is at risk. If they can shut down Los Alamos over floppy disks, then something needs to change here.

Those in Virginia's 9th district should also keep Rep. Rick Boucher in mind as a crusader (and frequently a lone voice) for fair use and limited copyright as well as free (as in speech) innovation.

If you are as pissed off about this as Ted and I are, please write to Michael Powell (FCC chair) and your Congressional leaders and tell him how you feel.

Michael.Powell@fcc.gov

Write your representative

Yeah, it is a very Republican state, but not as bad as many think:

Jim Matheson - Congressman

Bill Orton - Former Congressman (3rd Dist, no less!)

Scott Matheson - Former Govenor

But, it's not like Bush or even Cheney think they need to swing through the state to lock it in... Hatch on the other hand, may just get the boot if he keeps being a bone head!

For the house:

http://clerk.house.gov/members/index.html

For the senate:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/ senators_cfm.cfm>

Let's make a difference!

• VoIP must be stopped! It lets people make phone calls without paying someone [other than the broadband provider]!
• Making people pay [a fortune] for commercial television. I remember when people thought it was okay to pay for cable because you got things like HBO, which didn't have commercials. HBO still doesn't have commercials, but it's still an extra $12/mo on your $60 cable bill.
• When did ease-of-use become piracy? I used to make mixtapes for girlfriends. I had the Jerky Boys calls on some umpteenth generation copy of a copy. I don't remember anyone up in arms about this--the Jerky Boys got a movie deal out of that underground phenomenon. Now that I can easily make a share a mix it's illegal?

Bruce Sterling has a good article on why this is a very bad thing

Everything.

"One of the joint transformational technology initiatives is the National Aerospace Initiative (NAI), which consists of research and development in hypersonic flight technology, affordable and responsive space launch, and enhanced on-orbit space technologies. In the FY04 budget request, the Department focused the increased investment into hypersonic technology, investing over $150M additional funds in hypersonics. We seek Congressional support for the FY04 budget request for the increased hypersonic technology work and the integrated technologies of NAI. Hypersonic technology could be truly transformative as it could provide increased capability through speed in several mission areas. For example, hypersonics could provide the opportunity to conduct tactical strikes from strategic distance in a short amount of time. Technology has progressed to the point where we believe that demonstrations of a Mach number per year, reaching Mach 12 by 2012, are within reach. The development of hypersonic technology could reduce vulnerability of future systems, while potentially providing a flexible capability to strike quickly and effectively deny enemy sanctuary anywhere in the world. Additionally, a hypersonic roadmap, developed cooperatively by DoD and NASA provides long term potential for affordable access to space. In short, the National Aerospace Initiative is one of those technology opportunities that has the potential to capture American interest in technology, much like the race to the moon in the 1960's, while providing needed technical capability for the warfighter. The National Aerospace Initiative is the right initiative for America as we celebrate the first century of manned flight."

The problem here is the only body with the ability to fix this mess across the entire nation before the November election is Congress and they've already refused. So you are stuck tryng to fix it state by state.

There is a bill with more than a hundred sponsers that would require a paper trail in November but it is being sat on by the same people who wrote HAVA which is the bill that started this mess in the first place.

Here is the statement from the bipartisan representatives and senators that have bottled it up in committee.

It contains some disturbing statements, this one in particular:

"Most importantly, the proposals requiring a voter-verified paper record would force voters with disabilities to go back to using ballots that provide neither privacy nor independence, thereby subverting a hallmark of the HAVA legislation. There must be voter confidence in the accuracy of an electronic tally. However, the current proposals would do nothing to ensure greater trust in vote tabulations"

Not sure how they can claim a recountable paper trail, "would do nothing to ensure greater trust in vote tabulations".

They also want the same agency that is apparently responsible for the current mess to sit on the problem and do nothing in time for this election:

"Questions regarding voting systems security, as well as many others, need to be examined by the entity responsible for doing so under existing law, the Election Assistance Commission, before Congress begins imposing new requirements, just months before the 2004 presidential and congressional elections, that have not been fully considered. The security of voting technology is a non-partisan issue. We encourage you to allow HAVA to be implemented as enacted and provide those who are charged with ensuring the security of voting systems the time and flexibility needed to get the job done effectively. "

As if this whole situation wasn't disturbing enough this same commission is exploring give the Bush administration, and Homeland Security power to postpone the election in the event of a terrorist attack, especially if it looks like Bush might lose in its wake the same way the Spanish government did, if it becomes apparent he may not have made America safer.

I completely agree with you re: money. Part of the tongue-in-cheek troll was the idea that you still have all the rights you can pay for.

What has happened in this country (or maybe it was always this way and we look at the past through rose-colored glasses) is that the government has decided not to come right out and outlaw your rights, but to make it so prohibitively expensive to exercise them that they might as well just not exist in the first place. In that way, they can still say, of course you have free speech! Of course you are protected from unlawful search and seizure! But it will cost you an arm and a leg to defend those rights, which will constantly be challenged.

Which, I think, was also your point.

Here's a homework exercise for the curious: go read the bill of rights and compare them to the actions of the current administration. I found myself laughing out loud when I re-read some of the verbiage.

It would be nice it you got your facts straight... Most of your statements are outright lies !!

"The Price-Andersen Act simply allows the government to act as an insurance broker for nuclear power plants. The plants PAY for the insurance, and it only covers small accidents-- maximum liability for the government is something like $10 million. Furthermore, the act allows for private companies to step in to take over the insurance after a period of some years-- something that private companies have indeed done. (The PA Act has actually made taxpayers money, as plants have paid out more than they have received, just like any successful insurance company. So it doesn't count as subsidy at all.)"

Wow.. talk about deception.... Time for a dose of the truth and here.

"NRC's procedures for ensuring that licensees comply with Price-Anderson Act liability insurance provisions include requirements that licensees provide proof of primary and secondary insurance coverage. NRC requires each licensee to show proof that it has liability insurance that includes the $300 million of primary insurance coverage per site required by the Price Anderson Act. NRC and the licensee also sign an indemnity agreement that requires the licensee to maintain an insurance policy in this amount. This agreement is in effect as long as the owner is licensed to operate the plant."

Note: This is a per plant policy.

"in the event of a nuclear incident causing damages exceeding $300 million, would be collected from each nuclear power plant licensee at a rate of up to $10 million per year and up to a maximum of $95.8 million per incident for each nuclear power plant."

Or roughly 8.5 Billion dollars in total, enforced by a form a government socialism. (Post accident levy).

As for maximum liability.. it goes into the Tragedy of the commons category..
"The key to the tragedy of the commons is when individuals use a public good, they do not bear the entire cost of their several actions."

As for estimate of REAL damages.. take a look a Chernobyl catastrophe

"If accident damages exceed that amount, taxpayers will be asked to make up the difference. Compare that to the 1982 Sandia National Laboratories study (CRAC-2), which projected economic damages of up to $300 Billion (in 1982 dollars) resulting from an accident at the Indian Point, NY reactor site. The 1986 Chernobyl catastrophe already has cost Russia, Ukraine and Belarus some $300 Billion, and the costs-from interdicted land, from radioactive waste disposal, from ongoing health effects-mount daily."

"Moreover, no other hazardous industry has such a subsidized insurance scheme. "

Yes, the Feds and ultimately the Taxpayers are on the hook for unlimited liability, since no company has that type of resources to pay the real cost of a catastrophe, and someone will have to pay for the damages.

Furthermore.. "The Price Anderson Act directs DOE to fully indemnify its contractors for any and all public liability in connection with nuclear activities - even with accidents resulting from a contractor's bad faith, reckless behavior, gross negligence, or willful misconduct."

I left a comfortable job position to try for a Ph.D. at a major US institution. I was offered a full stipend, and it paid for pretty much everything except car insurance and clothing costs.

Unfortunately, when I got there, I found myself outclassed, and without help. Once my advisor came to realize I was not a specialist in the areas he thought I was, he rarely saw me, while discouraging me to look elsewhere.

Finally, my advisor dumped me two months before my contract with him was due to expire, well after the point all the other Ph.D. advisors had already chosen their underlings for the next year. I later found one of my friends in that research group was originally under my advisor as well, and had been dumped just prior to this advisor taking me in.

But it was too late for me. I lost a large amount of personal funding taking out loans to pay for the next two quarters. The politics in the Engineering department there were much worse than those I ever encountered working for the US government. Eventually I received a very good job offer from a private firm, and dropped out with the Masters degree I already had received at another school. But by that point in time, I estimated I wasted well over $10,000 in my own funds waiting for a new advisor I liked to take me in (it is worth noting he did come up with some funds for me, but I left just after this point).

The paranoid should look at two professors' testimony before the US Congress for some insight. The first is the testimony of Dr. David Goodstein about how the US Ph.D. program attempts to only breed elite members like themselves. The second is the testimony of Dr. Norman Matloff (revised since 1998) on how there really is not a Software labor shortage in the US (one section of this paper discusses why American CS students tend not to go for Ph.D. degrees).

repeal the "patriot" act!

write your rep
Contact your senator
Letters to leaders

Please help get this worthless legislation off the lawbooks. Throwing legal protections out the window may be handy at the moment, but I guarentee that it will bite you or someone you care about in the ass sooner or later. As Ben Franklin said: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Searching on clerk.house.gov, I located the Roll call vote for the amendment.

See how your representative stood: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll339.xml

Okay, I found it!

The bill was sponsored by Rep Bernard Sanders, Bernard [VT] and I see no reference to a Rep Otter.

Ammendment information is here

Vote results are here

curl -O -f "http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.c gi?position=all&page=H53[48-74]&dbname=2004_record "

curl -O -f "http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.c gi?position=all&page=H53[48-74]&dbname=2004_record "

Hold your congresmen accountable.
Roll Call Results
Bill Text

and supporting those who put it in place to begin with? Good job. Pat yourself on the back. Sorry, about the only solution I see outside of revolution is "Reelect No One".

Your representatives' votes are here!

Check out how they voted and let your representative know how you feel about this issue: find yours here (requires knowlege of where you live)

Your representatives' votes are here!

Check out how they voted and let your representative know how you feel about this issue: find yours here (requires knowlege of where you live)

Maybe you should read this sometime, particuarly the fourth point, but the fifth applies here, too.
Someone with a army.mil e-mail address should not want to tear up a document that his comrades in arms have fought and died to protect.

Who in their right mind could argue that a 91% income tax on anyone is fair and desirable. Are you that jealous of others that you want to take (practically) everything that they earn. Not to mention the fact that most of the "fabulously rich" don't really earn that much in the sense of wages. They mostly live off their assets (this may involve capital gains, but that is a competely different tax structure).

Even with the current tax structure, the "rich" pay virtually all of the tax. In 2000, the top 1% of wage-earners pays 35% of the total tax bill. The top 50% pay over 95% of the tax! See the statisics here. I always find it funny that politicians and the media make such a big deal about "tax breaks for the rich". Given these statistics, how could any tax break fail to benefit the wealthy (i.e. those above the median income), the pay all of the tax! Why is it that someone who works harder to be successful should have to take up the slack for those that aren't as successful (for whatever reason)? I can understand setting a percentage-based tax, but why can't the same percentage apply to all? This will result in higher wage-earners paying more, but everyone will be required to contribute. Why even try to become successful if your reward is to simply give the fruits of you labor to the government?

Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.

Doesn't a Xerox copier fall withing this bill's purview? A scanner/printer all-in-one combo unit? A printing press?

In order to make the laying of fiber (or any other cable) profitable, typically companies have to hope for a monopoly service so they can charge whatever is necessary to recoup their costs. But, in an age in which other means of Internet and telephone access exist, that's an impossible requirement. Competition would exist from day one from cable and telephone operators, supplying a service that may be "good enough" for most consumers.

This quagmire of businesses being unable to guarantee the business case exists for producing a modern telecommunications infrastructure will not disappear by itself. Resources need to be devoted, and unless people are prepared to actually act, not just talk about it on Slashdot, nothing will ever get done. Apathy is not an option.

You can help by getting off your rear and writing to your congressman or senator. Tell them that bandwidth is important to you. Tell them that you appreciate the work being done by telephone companies (both mobile and fixed line), cable operators, Craig McCaw, satellite operators, and now broadband-over-airship operators, to create an infrastructure that will provide more plentisome bandwidth to a large group of people, but that if new businesses continue to be unable to justify the huge expense of laying a genuinely large enough pipe to every home to create enough bandwidth to support just about any application, you will be forced to use less and less secure and intelligently designed alternatives. Explain the concerns you have about freedom, openness, and choice, and how the lack of bandwidth harms all three. Let them know that this is an issue that effects YOU directly, that YOU vote, and that your vote will be influenced, indeed dependent, on their policies on bandwidth.

You CAN make a difference. Don't treat voting as a right, treat it as a duty. Remember, it was thanks to ordinary people like YOU that we are now seeing such innovations as SMP in OpenBSD. Keep informed, keep your political representatives informed on how you feel. And, most importantly of all, vote.

There is a bill sitting in the House with 140 co-sponsers to require a paper trail for evoting this November. Its apparently being held up in the House Administration committee by Robert Ney (R-Ohio). He's from Diebold's home state though not sure they are in his district. He is one of the principal authors of the bill that funded the evoting mess in the first place, HAVA.

Here is his contact info especially if he is your congressman and you want to adjust his attitude.

Here is his statement on why he opposes the bill and is apparently going to be able to kill it. Its signed by Mitch McConnell, another Republican I wouldn't trust democracy to, but there are two Dem's as well Christopher Dodd and Steny Hoyer.

It contains some disturbing statements, this one in particular:

"Most importantly, the proposals requiring a voter-verified paper record would force voters with disabilities to go back to using ballots that provide neither privacy nor independence, thereby subverting a hallmark of the HAVA legislation. There must be voter confidence in the accuracy of an electronic tally. However, the current proposals would do nothing to ensure greater trust in vote tabulations"

Not sure how they can claim a recountable paper trail, "would do nothing to ensure greater trust in vote tabulations".

They also want the same agency that is apparently responsible for the current mess to have plenty of time to create a new one so they want no audit trail in time for this election:

"Questions regarding voting systems security, as well as many others, need to be examined by the entity responsible for doing so under existing law, the Election Assistance Commission, before Congress begins imposing new requirements, just months before the 2004 presidential and congressional elections, that have not been fully considered. The security of voting technology is a non-partisan issue. We encourage you to allow HAVA to be implemented as enacted and provide those who are charged with ensuring the security of voting systems the time and flexibility needed to get the job done effectively. "

All of this, of course, ignores the fact that when the President of the United States decides to embrace the doctrine of preemptive war, claiming that there is an imminent threat to his own nation, the burdern of proof is on him to support those claims. Let's see the evidence of WMDs in Iraq. How about those aerial drones that could be used against the US? An Iraq-Al Qaeda link? Some uranium from Africa? Anything?

All of this, of course, ignores the fact that when the President of the United States decides to embrace the doctrine of preemptive war, claiming that there is an imminent threat to his own nation, the burdern of proof is on him to support those claims. Let's see the evidence of WMDs in Iraq. How about those aerial drones that could be used against the US? An Iraq-Al Qaeda link? Some uranium from Africa? Anything?

The role of the federal government is to take care of external relations with foriegn states, and regulate those powers that if they were left to the states would cause trouble. (trade wars and tarrifs to import things between new york and new jersey, (yes this happened) private wars between states (almost happened too!) etc. )

Unlike you, our founding fathers were not socialist. They would have shot down any such nonesense in a hurry. They called us the United states of America (yes, I got the capitalization right!) 'state' here is synonymous with 'nation' Learn some history please.

Ummm...so was Jack Valenti. He was a cabinet member in LBJ's cabinet. Special assistant to the President, whatever that entails. My Congressman and both of my Senators are thoroughly 0wnz0r3d by the RIAA and MPAA. And they all are Democrats. Dems are usually better about personal freedom issues, but that all falls apart whenever Big Media and their desire for special rights against potential thieves^H^H^Hconsumers enters into the picture.

Section. 8.

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power ...

Clause 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

We don't have to imagine it: it's here. At less than 500 nodes, the cluster is gridlocked

For those who want to write to their Representatives to ask them to vote against the bill, the bill passed by the Senate is S.1932, the Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act of 2004 (or ART Act for short). It has been assigned to the House Judiciary Committee.

Iirc, The entire senate also voted for the patriot act, didn't it?

No, Russ Feingold (Wisconson) voted against it, the only Senator to do so. The final Senate vote count was 98-1 (Mary Landrieu of Louisiana didn't vote because she was in a very tight election race and voting for it would have hurt her chances).

Maybe you should think a bit harder about what it means when some country's parliament unanimously votes for a law that really should have been highly controversial.

It wasn't anywhere near a unanimous vote. In addition to Feingold in the Senate, 66 Representatives voted against it.

And yes, it should have been discussed and debated thoroughly before passage. That irked me considerably.

correct.
It's clarified here in a 8 hour class on the US Constitution.
The first hour should cover it.
or.. just read the thing yourself.

-metric

Where in Article 1 Section 8 do we, the people, give Congress the privilege to do this?

Watch an 8 hour class on the Constitution: torrent format

-metric

Now maybe a private company can develop it for 2% of the cost and we'll have cheap, environmentally benign power.

Or, now maybe we can continue to be dependent on (mostly foreign) oil, established oil companies with little incentive to develop newer and ultimately cheaper energy sources, and politicians who make sure NASA doesn't undermine those vested interests.

"NASA officials cited a policy shift toward the International Space Station and the space shuttle program."

Now, I know the Shuttle has been so tremendously successful, and the International Space Station isn't just the leftovers of the lasts gasps of the old Soviet Manned Space Flight Program, both have been so well funded since the "policy shift" three years ago in 2001 -- so, if you're going to be intellectually honest, you have to ask yourself, "what occasioned this policy shift?"

I'm not just trying to be annoyingly partisan here; I'm trying to make the point that even when it comes to science, politics takes over, and when politics takes over, you have to follow the money.

I clicked on that link above: http://www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_t he_record/

That website is AMAZING. A friend and I just watched Fahrenheit 9/11 and were looking for a website that put all this information together.

Great site, thanks Apple man.

"I also expect a serious effort, backed by several billion dollars in bribe money (oops, excuse me, campaign contributions), to get open-source software outlawed on some kind of theory that it aids terrorists."
"But in the next year, I think we need to focus more on government adoptions, in order to protect our political and legislative flanks."

We need to beat them to the punch. Open Source is a matter of national security! It only takes one back door in a closed source OS or application to put our nations security at risk. All applications critical to national security should be running on OS' where the people are able to read the source and thus be positive no terrorist has planted a back door.

Write your congressman! Now, before anyone else has a chance to beat you to it. Here are some important things to remeber when you are trying to influence government:

1. Email makes little impact. It is very easy to send a congressman email. As a result most congressmen are flooded with emails, and actually read very little of it. Send Snail Mail Instead!
2. One petition is the equivalent of only one letter. A lot of people will sign your petition just to get rid of you. Your congressman knows this. Therefore you petittion only counts for the person who mailed it in, not for every signer.
3. Form letters don't work. Congressmen do not open their own mail. A staffer opens it instead. If there are 300 copies of the same form letter, the congressman will only see one copy and be told that 300 copies came in. It just does not have the impact of 300 seperate letters with different wording making the same point.
4. Vote! I cannot stress this enough. The list of registered voters is public record and whether you voted in the last election is part of that record. If you are not a voter, your congressman does not care what you think. You will not vote for his opponent in the next election anyway.
5. Send Money. Yeah I know, It feels kind of dirty and you may not actually like your congressman. Still, Microsoft donates to both political parties and many individual politicians. We have to in some way counter this. Even a five dollar check will make an impression on the politician. It proves you are serious. An alternative to donations to the politician himself is a donation to his party. Just send a photocopy of the check to your congressman with your letter. Even better if he votes wrong, send him a photocopy of your donation to his opponent!

I knew about the legal definition in the USA as 2.54 inches (the proclimation has been turned into formal legislation), but I didn't know the details about how it was defined.

BTW, here is the exact legal definition of metric to US measurement conversions (BTW, this is a MS-Word document, but I got it to open in OpenOffice). This is as close to an authoritiative source as you can get, since it is just a definition anyway.

Just an FYI, according the U.S. Code, the formal definition of a conversion of meter to U.S. measurements is: 1 yard == 0.9144 meters
That converts without error (exact definition) to 25.4 mm == 1 inch

This document is also interesting, because it includes definitions of grains, gills, ounces, townships (a unit of area), bushels, pecks, cords (of firewood), therms (a unit of energy), and other fun units of measure.

It also has detailed metric conversion policy, including the original legislation that "permits" the use of metric measurements in the USA, so they could also be used in legal documents and contracts. Believe it or not, the metric system was at one time illegal to use in the USA.

Avenge the threats against his father ... disregard due to no links to supporting data and it contradicts the available evidence Joint Authorization and US Public Law 105-338 and UN Report on Subject (read all 17-pages :-) and UN Resolutions violated by Iraq (btw, each resolution had 'diplo-speak' as in "serious consequences" authorizing war - don't say the US did it without the UN ;-)

Look good to the world for booting Hussein. Opps, that didn't work out to[o] well. ... disregard due to no link(s) to supporting data ... BTW, it didn't work out too well in post-Nazi Europe/Japan either

Get a [childish expletive deleted]load of money to Halliburton and make him and Cheney some big ass bucks. Didn't you know that Bush also owns a large amount of Halliburton stock? ... disregard due to there being no evidence that Bush Jr. ownes any Halliburton stock Bush 2003 Tax Return ... perform further research with respect to Cheney due to an "it's a stretch" connection Cheney 2003 Tax Return ... and also here leading to:

The forms Thursday showed he collected $162,392 in deferred compensation [think 401k - therefore this is not the big bad Halliburton connection you claim] from Halliburton Co., the Dallas-based energy services company he headed until Aug. 16, 2000. Cheney elected in 1998 to recoup over five years a portion of the money he made in 1999 as chief executive officer of Halliburton ... SUGGESTION: you should chat with some HR compensation folk who can explain this other "deferred compensation" plan (its the 'other' 401k the HR types don't talk about to individual contributors). Most companies have this 'other' 401k plan - lucrative but very restrictive tax-wise - perhaps almost like a blind-trust. However, IANAL also IANACPA

From Christopher Hitchens' review of "Unfairenheit 9/11":

The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism . Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists , one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States ... (Orwell's Notes on Nationalism in May 1945)

... and still more from "Orwell's Notes on Nationalism" ... thank you Chris Hitchens from tickling my intellect such that I dug for more info ... love the internet