Slashdot Mirror

Show me a library that beats Wikipedia
Here you go...
http://www.loc.gov/index.html

"Actually that is only true in the western world."

The Barbary pirates were Muslim.

Have you tried to buy Sudafed (not the new fake adrenaline precursor crap, but the kind that's actually pseudoephedrine) in the last year or so? The newest version of the Patriot Act includes a section intended to cut down on meth production by placing restrictions on this *unscheduled* and rather effective sinus medicine. How does the regulation of pseudoephedrine have anything to do with national security? It's Title VII of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2006, and here's a link: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&dbname=cp1 09&sid=cp109WUZzm&refer=&r_n=hr333.109&item=&sel=T OC_218802&

Jose Padilla was a Chicago street gang member originally from Brooklyn who converted to Islam while in prison. He was arrested, declared an "enemy combatant," and transferred to a military brig in South Carolina. He was denied due process, and he's an American citizen. The wikipedia article agrees with what I've read elsewhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_(al leged_terrorist)


These are just two examples. There are many more (the domestic wiretapping?) but these are the two that come to mind readily.

If you like internet radio like I do, you can ask your congress persons to be a co-sponsor of the bills. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR020 60:@@@P - H.R. 2060 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SN013 53:@@@P - S. 1353 Just email them at firstname.lastname@mail.house.gov or firstname.lastname@mail.senate.gov This would stop the need for unreasonable agreements altogether.

If you like internet radio like I do, you can ask your congress persons to be a co-sponsor of the bills. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR020 60:@@@P - H.R. 2060 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SN013 53:@@@P - S. 1353 Just email them at firstname.lastname@mail.house.gov or firstname.lastname@mail.senate.gov This would stop the need for unreasonable agreements altogether.

Maybe I'm not understanding what happened here. The Copyright Royalty Board set new rates for webcasters. They appear to be a branch of the library of congress with statutory authority to set royalty rates, etc http://www.loc.gov/crb/laws/. The webcasters appealed / petitioned to a judge and were denied. So, the rate increase is supposed to go in effect soon.

The webcasters reached a deal with the recording industry to get some temporary relief.

What?

If the Copyright Royalty Board set a new rate, how in the hell can the recording industry strike a deal with anyone to decrease what the webcasters have to pay? If the recording industry is actually able to make an agreement like this and the government or the Copyright Royalty Board just goes along with it can there be any question how far our congress and other politicians have been corrupted by the RIAA influence and lobbying? As part of the government, the CRB shouldn't be a mediator between copyright holders and any other party (or worse, just a puppet of the RIAA). They should be setting public policy that benefits the public. If the board truly believed the rates were fair (which, IMO, they are obviously not) then they have set the policy and any outside agreement should be meaningless.

The fact that the recording industry is willing to make any temporary deals simply means they know the rates are too high and fear repercussions or, as others have mentioned, are just giving a reprieve until Congress is out of session and the public outcry has run its course.

The fact that the CRB would allow outside agreements to nullify the rates they set simply means that the CRB is not attempting to benefit the public interest but is just a bought-and-sold arm of the recording industry.

Breach of copyright isn't an inherent "wrong". It's an explicit social contract, particularly so in the US where the Constitution (IIRC) says that copyright is designed "for the progress of the arts"

Actually, since the constitution was not written by, contracted to be written by, signed by, participated in, or otherwise involved with currently living rank and file US citizens, it has absolutely no bearing on what said rank and file citizen does, or does not, do.

Furthermore, it isn't a document that was ever aimed at US citizens, directly or indirectly. It is a document that specifies the limits within which the federal government may act.

It extends to the state governments to the extent that the 14th amendment requires the states to comply with the bill of rights, that is, amendments one through ten.

No contract your father signs can make you liable to the terms of the contract without your signature. You have to sign it. So even if the constitution directed US citizens to do (or not to do) A, B and C, you still wouldn't be obligated to obey those stipulations by virtue of the constitution itself.

The fact that the government has implemented copyright law is the only issue with any merit, and the only merit involved is that the government is prepared to enforce said law(s) using coercive force.

The (current) government's obligation to the constitution survives and transitions forward based upon oath and affirmation, as for example, the president's oath where he swears to...

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The series of oaths can be found here.

This whole "social contract" thing is nonsense, and always has been.

People know that something is better than nothing. So it's going to be tough to convince Americans that waiting months or over a year to see someone (let alone a specialist) for a non-emergency is somehow worse than waiting long periods of time knowing nobody will see you but the emergency room (which offers no chronic healthcare and everything they offer is very expensive). For over 40 million Americans without insurance that's the case now and that number is only going up. Then there's the ridiculously high cost of the shoddy healthcare Americans get: How many Canadians are entering bankruptcy or are homeless because they can't pay their healthcare bills? The leading cause of bankruptcy and homelessness in the US is not being able to afford the medical bills, according to Michael Moore. How many Canadian doctors get rewards for denying treatment at the behest of the HMOs like Dr. Linda Peeno did, and how many Canadians die as a result of being denied expensive treatment? That number will probably pale in comparison to the number of Americans.

The American system is so bad we can see it's not the best system Americans can have. And that's enough to justify leaving the HMOs out of the discussion and talk about what the Democrats, Republicans, and HMOs don't want us to focus on—a single-payer universal health care system (such as HR676, Americans: write your Congresspeople to co-sponsor this bill). Moore's "Sicko" properly recapitulates this discussion. The HMOs need to be put out of business; like America did when it stopped privatizing firefighting, America needs to stop privatizing health care. If there's a better plan than HR676 in the offing, I'd love to read more about it. But this much is clear: the insurers aren't necessary, and government does plenty of things right, so we should organize and use democratic power to steer things to how we want them to be.

Wow, strawmen:

* Since when is a wiretap of American phone calls not a search? I am not referring to the FBI and DHS searches granted by "National Security Letters," which are a problem in themselves.

While Gonzalez has stated that the President would not reauthorize the NSA surveillance program and would seek FISA warrants, the court case is still pending appeal, granting leave to resume the program without public notification.

* The TSA carry-on policy unjustifiably creates a choice between two inconveniences: playing with your toiletries or checking in luggage. No one has ever demonstrated a mixed fluids bomb. This is hardly in the same class as the choice between not traveling with knives or placing them in checked luggage, as knives are obvious weapons.

* It takes money and effort to launch a court case. In the meantime, First Amendment rights continue to be abridged by the police.

* RealID legislation is in fact real, having passed in 2005 as rider to a spending bill. The money for enforcement has been postponed only until 2009, and many states such as California are on board.

No matter how much it offends your authoritarian sentiments, the lack of outrage is indeed proof that the terrorists have won. Terrorism has claimed 3000 lives in the entire history of the United States. More men and women have died our little $500 billion misadventure in the Middle East, while life stateside grows increasingly hostile.

s/politicians/bureaucrats/

You can find them here.

The list of cosponsors includes Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, so it is likely to become a major issue for the presidential race.

The author of the original article clearly didn't read the S.1178, "A bill to strengthen data protection and safeguards, require data breach notification, and further prevent identity theft", the bill they're citing. And nobody else here seems to have read it either.

First, it's not anything like the European Privacy Directive. It has nothing to do with privacy. It's about leaks of information useful for identity theft and about credit reporting. It's actually another one of those bills designed to remove state consumer protections. The key provisions are 1) it overrides all state laws on that subject, and 2) it doesn't provide for any private right of action. Only the Federal Trade Commission, which seldom does anything really punitive, can enforce it.

Other things in the bill:

Prohibition of wireless networks for use in voting systems
Prohibition of voting systems connected to the Internet
Excludes the use of COTS hardware and software (what about embedded OSes?)

See the full HR-811 bill.

Latest Major Action: 5/16/2007 Passed/agreed to in Senate.

Status: Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.

Here is the entire text of the debate surrounding this bill, including the text of the bill itself, which seems to be aimed at "promoting awareness" of "online bullying."

Exaggerate much? What percentage of gun control supporters are actually interested in "banning" guns? Seriously, now.

Exactly how do you view "assault weapon bans" then?

How about HR 1022, which would ban almost all semi-automatic rifles.

To say the gun-control advocates aren't interested in banning guns is disingenuous. That seems, instead, to be the point of their organization.

At least as important as the 1st Amendment? I'm not buying into it. I'm all for the individual right to gun ownership, but I'd put restrictions on it well before I'd put restrictions on freedom of speech. For example, if you rob a convenience store, I have zero problem with making it illegal for you to own a gun. Forever. No more guns for you. I can't think of a crime that you could commit that would cause me to support abridging your freedom of speech or religion.

There's already laws in place to prevent convicted felons ( and some convicted of misdemeanors ) from ever owning firearms again.

Perhaps those who engage in fraud, say securities fraud, should have the right to continue in that fraud? Or would you restrict their freedom of speach ( via the removal of their SEC license, for instance ) ?

How about the classic example of limiting the 1st amendment: Do you support the right of free speach to yell "Fire" in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire?

It might help the situation if we could get away from Second Amendment absolutism a bit. Do you really think that the right to bear arms should be 100% without restriction? Would you be OK with your neighbor down the street owning a hydrogen bomb or a VX gas rocket (to prevent government oppression, you know)?

Excellent strawman you've got there. We're not talking about hydrogen bombs or VX gas.

When you say "get away from Second Amendment absolutism", what some of us hear is "give your guns up".

That's been a non-starter for the Democrats for at least 20 years. We have only to look at US cities like Washington DC to see how well gun control works as crime control.

The point is, I think both sides of the gun debate like crime control.

Instead of trying to take firearms from the law abiding, which not only doesn't work as crime control, but is becoming increasingly unpopular in the US (
see here for a list of states which now permit law-abiding citizens to carry firearms for personal defense ), how about focusing on the things that can work.. like education and job opportunities for those economically disadvantaged, increased treatment of the mentally ill, increased treatment for cronic substance abusers / adicts, etc. .

If Democrats would like to create new laws to remove firearms from those who haven't commited any crime and make self-defense effectively illegal ( see: here ) then they will continue to alienate a large part of the electorate, who simply do not see any evidence that gun control == crime control (quite the contrary).

If the Democrats would, however, like to attract that part of the electorate then perhaps some changes in their platform are in order.

Yes. This is huge burden on the Digital Preservation community. The only real way we have of guaranteeing that the bit stay around for a long long time, is to make many many copies of it and spread them out. I believe the current limit is 3 copies, which is ridiculous.

Theres a group in charge of changing this part of the copyright code:

http://www.loc.gov/section108/

Indeed, since copyright is a violation of Laissez-faire economics by being a coercive monopoly (specifically a government-granted monopoly), it is obviously anti-capitalist. It may be fruitful to contrast your opinion of copyright as "anti-capitalist" with the Copyright Act of 1790, which begins with the introductory words "An Act for the Encouragement of Learning". Its motivation was stated in the Copyright Clause of the US Constitution, but looking at the rationale (see Senate Report No. 104-315) for its extension (see Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act) from the original total of 28 years to today's 95 years (corporate ownership), "the continued economic benefits of a healthy surplus balance of trade", there is an obvious shift towards a economic mindset. Actually, there is a complete shift I would rather say. When devised, copyright was never intended as a direct instrument of economics, so its effect as "anti-capitalist" would have been subordinate to its original goal of being an instrument "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Instead, what we see today is rather bizarre. For a truly eerie prospect of what to expect, consider this statement by Mary Bono (see Congressional Record No 139, pages H9951 and H9952):

Actually, Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever. I am informed of by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution. I invite all of you to work with me to strengthen our copyright laws in all of the ways available to us. As you know, there is also Jack Valenti's proposal for term to last forever less one day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress.

(Yes, the evidence is there, despite denials). In plain english, and for all practical purposes, there is no limit to copyright protection anymore - by 2018, both houses of the United States Congress will pass a new act to further extend copyright, as a formality. How one concludes that "securing for limited Times" should mean "forever less one day" rather than a reasonable amount of time, as in reasonably within ones life-time, or more meaningfully as in reasonably useful within ones life-time (such as, say, 6 years for software), is beyond me. The economic reasoning behind perpetual copyright is explained by professor Neil W. Netanel (see Copyright and a Democratic Civil Society):

This "neoclassicist" approach posits that, far from simply inducing the creation and dissemination of new expression, copyright serves as a vehicle for directing investment in existing works. Neoclassicists would accordingly treat literary and artistic works as "vendible commodities," best made subject to broad proprietary rights that extend to every conceivable valued use. In this manner, neoclassicists contend, market pricing can direct resource allocation for the marketing and development of existing creative expression in an optimally efficient manner.

I would be inclined to conclude that, in a world of conglomarates, market forces replace Learning as the "optimally efficient manner" by which creative expression can be developed. Obviously, this is utter nonsense, but I would say it captures the essence of what proponents of perpetual copyright would have us believe. The true and unstated objective is, of course, to preserve existing monopolies. As pointed out by Timothy R. Phillips, "The framers assumed, as did Adam Smith, th

Indeed, since copyright is a violation of Laissez-faire economics by being a coercive monopoly (specifically a government-granted monopoly), it is obviously anti-capitalist. It may be fruitful to contrast your opinion of copyright as "anti-capitalist" with the Copyright Act of 1790, which begins with the introductory words "An Act for the Encouragement of Learning". Its motivation was stated in the Copyright Clause of the US Constitution, but looking at the rationale (see Senate Report No. 104-315) for its extension (see Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act) from the original total of 28 years to today's 95 years (corporate ownership), "the continued economic benefits of a healthy surplus balance of trade", there is an obvious shift towards a economic mindset. Actually, there is a complete shift I would rather say. When devised, copyright was never intended as a direct instrument of economics, so its effect as "anti-capitalist" would have been subordinate to its original goal of being an instrument "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Instead, what we see today is rather bizarre. For a truly eerie prospect of what to expect, consider this statement by Mary Bono (see Congressional Record No 139, pages H9951 and H9952):

Actually, Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever. I am informed of by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution. I invite all of you to work with me to strengthen our copyright laws in all of the ways available to us. As you know, there is also Jack Valenti's proposal for term to last forever less one day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress.

(Yes, the evidence is there, despite denials). In plain english, and for all practical purposes, there is no limit to copyright protection anymore - by 2018, both houses of the United States Congress will pass a new act to further extend copyright, as a formality. How one concludes that "securing for limited Times" should mean "forever less one day" rather than a reasonable amount of time, as in reasonably within ones life-time, or more meaningfully as in reasonably useful within ones life-time (such as, say, 6 years for software), is beyond me. The economic reasoning behind perpetual copyright is explained by professor Neil W. Netanel (see Copyright and a Democratic Civil Society):

This "neoclassicist" approach posits that, far from simply inducing the creation and dissemination of new expression, copyright serves as a vehicle for directing investment in existing works. Neoclassicists would accordingly treat literary and artistic works as "vendible commodities," best made subject to broad proprietary rights that extend to every conceivable valued use. In this manner, neoclassicists contend, market pricing can direct resource allocation for the marketing and development of existing creative expression in an optimally efficient manner.

I would be inclined to conclude that, in a world of conglomarates, market forces replace Learning as the "optimally efficient manner" by which creative expression can be developed. Obviously, this is utter nonsense, but I would say it captures the essence of what proponents of perpetual copyright would have us believe. The true and unstated objective is, of course, to preserve existing monopolies. As pointed out by Timothy R. Phillips, "The framers assumed, as did Adam Smith, th

My only point is that there are exceptions allowed to break copy protection where necessary for specifically authorized purposes (simply obtaining clips is not categorically one of them). See also copyright.gov for the recent added exemptions to the DMCA.

H.R.2795 hasn't been passed. "prior art" is still a viable means of invalidating something. And if MS is going to start leaning on the highly flawed patent "reform" before it even makes it out of committee, they'll likely just be digging the H.R.2795's grave next to their own.

And even if we switch to "first to file," prior art will still invalidate the patent. Specifically, see section 135 - "Inventor's rights contests"

Or start at the beginning, and patch it with the ammendments H.R.2795 would make

Will it be substantially easier for MS to abuse patent law under H.R.2795? Absolutely. Will it make "prior art" invalid? Not at all. And, like I mentioned, it's not even out of committee yet ;)

H.R.2795 hasn't been passed. "prior art" is still a viable means of invalidating something. And if MS is going to start leaning on the highly flawed patent "reform" before it even makes it out of committee, they'll likely just be digging the H.R.2795's grave next to their own.

And even if we switch to "first to file," prior art will still invalidate the patent. Specifically, see section 135 - "Inventor's rights contests"

Or start at the beginning, and patch it with the ammendments H.R.2795 would make

Will it be substantially easier for MS to abuse patent law under H.R.2795? Absolutely. Will it make "prior art" invalid? Not at all. And, like I mentioned, it's not even out of committee yet ;)

The government should have to prove its merits -- not have people like you say; "what could possibly go wrong?" That isn't much of a discussion.

They did.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:1:./tem p/~c109xMWd19::

But you didn't answer any of my questions; you just gave me some rhetoric....

The meat of it:

(1) IN GENERAL- Whoever engages in any conduct with intent to convey false or misleading information under circumstances where such information may reasonably be believed and where such information indicates that an activity has taken, is taking, or will take place that would constitute [a hoax] is liable in a civil action to any party incurring expenses incident to any emergency or investigative response to that conduct, for those expenses.
(2) EFFECT OF CONDUCT-
(A) IN GENERAL- A person described in subparagraph (B) is liable in a civil action to any party described in subparagraph (B)(ii) for any expenses that are incurred by that party--
(i) incident to any emergency or investigative response to any conduct described in subparagraph (B)(i); and
(ii) after the person that engaged in that conduct should have informed that party of the actual nature of the activity.
(B) APPLICABILITY- A person described in this subparagraph is any person that--
(i) engages in any conduct that has the effect of conveying false or misleading information under circumstances where such information may reasonably be believed to indicate that an activity has taken, is taking, or will take place that would constitute [a hoax];
(ii) receives actual notice that another party is taking emergency or investigative action because that party believes that the information indicates that an activity has taken, is taking, or will take place that would constitute [a hoax]; and
(iii) after receiving such notice, fails to promptly and reasonably inform 1 or more parties described in clause (ii) of the actual nature of the activity.

Why wouldn't you just use the text of the DMCA itself as the key? Then the government can't publish it!

Pasting the text of this page into a word processor, I learn that it is 177,926 characters long, with spaces. That's a 1,423,408-bit key.

Better get started.

the world will continue to use the US's government funded search engine

You mean this one? You might want to try this non-government one as well.

Matt Raymond, the LOC Communications Director who made the complaint, is not a lawyer and therefore probably has no understanding of trademark law. According tot the bio on his blog, he has a background in journalism, with most of his career in "communication"/public relations.

Slightly OT: In Senate bill 1092, Sen. Chuck Hagel wants to triple the number of H-1B's granted next year to 'help' the high-tech industry.

Coln. Mustard in the kitchen with the revolver.

In other news, Congress continues to sluggishly review sluggishly review H.R.2060: Internet Radio Equality Act. If you write a senator (or actually, house member) perhaps one should mention support for this.

While your writing, put in a bad word about this one. Colleges don't need to be wasting time and money trying to stop software piracy on campuse. Oh, and maybe this one, too.

Coln. Mustard in the kitchen with the revolver.

In other news, Congress continues to sluggishly review sluggishly review H.R.2060: Internet Radio Equality Act. If you write a senator (or actually, house member) perhaps one should mention support for this.

While your writing, put in a bad word about this one. Colleges don't need to be wasting time and money trying to stop software piracy on campuse. Oh, and maybe this one, too.

Coln. Mustard in the kitchen with the revolver.

In other news, Congress continues to sluggishly review sluggishly review H.R.2060: Internet Radio Equality Act. If you write a senator (or actually, house member) perhaps one should mention support for this.

While your writing, put in a bad word about this one. Colleges don't need to be wasting time and money trying to stop software piracy on campuse. Oh, and maybe this one, too.

Perhaps if some energy tax-credit bill were to be introduced to improve tax credit laws and "Allow[s] a tax credit for the full amount of qualified photovoltaic property expenditures (currently, limited to 30%)" then that might improve people's willingness to buy them, too. (Don't wait, write your congress person today and get this thing out of commitee!)

Many politicians have blogs. As for government (.gov) websites, the Library of Congress blog allows comments.

I think the answer might lie not in more fields, but in repeatable fields. I'm drawing on my experience as a library cataloger here. The record format that we use most commonly in my field is called MARC (for MAchine Readable Cataloging... or "Cataloguing" if you are in an English-speaking country other than the US), and, instead of having a field for every possible role a person or corporate body (not as in a corporation in the business sense of the word, but in the literal sense, so "The Beatles", "The Berlin Philharmonic" or "Blue Note Records" would all be considered corporate bodies), there are fields for names which can be repeated for every name you want to add to a record and a subfield can be applied to each entry, identifying the role the person or corporate body plays in the production of the work.

Very interesting. Although in retrospect your explanation makes sense, I didn't quite understand what you meant about MARC until I did a little reading. Anyone else who is interested might want to have a look at this LoC publication. I agree that the way they do things is pretty nice (although, being an old format, they're really niggardly about bits in the headers). I think if you were good about establishing conventions, it would even be possible to hammer such a system into a schema that only provided for arbitrary Key=Value pairs (no explicit 'subfields').

Artist0 = "Beethoven, Ludwig van"
Artist0-type = Composer
Artist1 = "Klemperer, Otto"
Artist1-type = Conductor ... etc.

The real problem, given that AAC files do have the capability of arbitrary Key=Value pairs, is really the interface; what iTunes really needs is a metadata browser that's more like Aperture's (which is excellent); allowing you to define 'views' for commonly used metadata but also view and edit the pairs associated with a file directly if you wish.

Ah, selective name pulling -- what a great way to assess an overall situation!(/sarcasm) Let's pick a bill and look at the actual roll call. How about COPA (HR 3783)? Hmm, this one's a bit tricky because it got merged in with a popular internet commerce bill that banned internet taxes. However, we can look at its sponsor and 65 cosponsors before the merger here. Let's count...

Introduced by: Oxley, Michael G.: R
Aderholt, Robert B.: Republican; Bartlett, Roscoe G.: Republican
Barton, Joe: Republican; Bilirakis, Michael: Republican
Blunt, Roy: Republican; Burr, Richard: Republican
Burton, Dan: Republican; Buyer, Stephen E.: Republican
Callahan, Sonny: Republican; Calvert, Ken: Republican
Christensen, Jon: Republican; Cubin, Barbara: Republican
Danner, Pat: Democrat; Deal, Nathan: Republican
Doolittle, John T.: Republican; English, Phil: Republican
Foley, Mark: Republican (oh, what irony...)
Fox, Jon D.: Republican; Franks, Bob: Republican
Furse, Elizabeth: Democrat; Ganske, Greg: Republican
Gillmor, Paul E.: Republican; Gilman, Benjamin A.: Republican
Gordon, Bart: Democrat; Greenwood, James C.: Republican
Hall, Ralph M.: Democrat; Hobson, David L.: Republican
Hoekstra, Peter: Republican; Hutchinson, Asa: Republican
Istook, Ernest J., Jr.: Republican; Johnson, Nancy L.: Republican
Kasich, John R.: Republican; Kelly, Sue W.: Republican
Kim, Jay: Republican; Largent, Steve: Republican
Lazio, Rick: Republican; Manton, Thomas J.: Democrat
McHugh, John M.: Republican; Metcalf, Jack: Republican
Myrick, Sue Wilkins: Republican; Nethercutt, George R., Jr.: Republican
Neumann, Mark W.: Republican; Norwood, Charles W.: Republican
Pappas, Michael: Republican; Paxon, Bill: Republican
Peterson, Collin C.: Republican; Peterson, John E.: Republican
Pickering, Charles W. "Chip": Republican; Pitts, Joseph R.: Republican
Sandlin, Max: Democrat; Schaefer, Dan: Republican
Sessions, Pete: Republican; Smith, Lamar: Republican
Smith, Linda: Republican; Snowbarger, Vince: Republican
Solomon, Gerald B. H.: Republican; Souder, Mark E.: Republican
Stearns, Cliff: Republican; Taylor, Charles H.: Republican
Upton, Fred: Republican; Watts, J. C., Jr.: Republican
Weldon, Dave: Republican; Weller, Jerry: Republican
Whitfield, Ed: Republican; Wilson, Heather: Republican

(verify parties here) Dems: 6, Repubs: 60. That's a 10:1 ratio. I encourage people do this with other bills. I've done it before -- each time, you find that while there always are a handful of Dems backing it, it's the Repubs that are the drivers behind it. And why should there be any shock about this? "What, the party of the religious right is pro-censorship? Never!"

Why do we get this silly "both parties are the same when it comes to censorship" myth? Two reasons.

1) A few high-profile Dems that do support censorship. These include Tipper Gore (probably the most famous example), Joe Lieberman, and to a lesser degree, Hillary Clinton. However, these are by far the minority.

2) The fact that liberals tend to encourage "political correctness". However, almost never will you see this take the form of censorship. Rather, PC tends to come in the form of guidelines. For example, "In official correspondence, don't refer to short people as "midgets", because this is an offensive term; the term "little people" is preferred." However, almost never will you see anyone introduce legislation anything like "HR. 12345: Protecting Children From The Word 'Midget'". The ones who want *actual* censorship come from the right, 90% of the time. From the left, you get the touchy-feely "please don't use words that offend others, or else... we'll be really hurt" type stuff.

Ah, selective name pulling -- what a great way to assess an overall situation!(/sarcasm) Let's pick a bill and look at the actual roll call. How about COPA (HR 3783)? Hmm, this one's a bit tricky because it got merged in with a popular internet commerce bill that banned internet taxes. However, we can look at its sponsor and 65 cosponsors before the merger here. Let's count...

Introduced by: Oxley, Michael G.: R
Aderholt, Robert B.: Republican; Bartlett, Roscoe G.: Republican
Barton, Joe: Republican; Bilirakis, Michael: Republican
Blunt, Roy: Republican; Burr, Richard: Republican
Burton, Dan: Republican; Buyer, Stephen E.: Republican
Callahan, Sonny: Republican; Calvert, Ken: Republican
Christensen, Jon: Republican; Cubin, Barbara: Republican
Danner, Pat: Democrat; Deal, Nathan: Republican
Doolittle, John T.: Republican; English, Phil: Republican
Foley, Mark: Republican (oh, what irony...)
Fox, Jon D.: Republican; Franks, Bob: Republican
Furse, Elizabeth: Democrat; Ganske, Greg: Republican
Gillmor, Paul E.: Republican; Gilman, Benjamin A.: Republican
Gordon, Bart: Democrat; Greenwood, James C.: Republican
Hall, Ralph M.: Democrat; Hobson, David L.: Republican
Hoekstra, Peter: Republican; Hutchinson, Asa: Republican
Istook, Ernest J., Jr.: Republican; Johnson, Nancy L.: Republican
Kasich, John R.: Republican; Kelly, Sue W.: Republican
Kim, Jay: Republican; Largent, Steve: Republican
Lazio, Rick: Republican; Manton, Thomas J.: Democrat
McHugh, John M.: Republican; Metcalf, Jack: Republican
Myrick, Sue Wilkins: Republican; Nethercutt, George R., Jr.: Republican
Neumann, Mark W.: Republican; Norwood, Charles W.: Republican
Pappas, Michael: Republican; Paxon, Bill: Republican
Peterson, Collin C.: Republican; Peterson, John E.: Republican
Pickering, Charles W. "Chip": Republican; Pitts, Joseph R.: Republican
Sandlin, Max: Democrat; Schaefer, Dan: Republican
Sessions, Pete: Republican; Smith, Lamar: Republican
Smith, Linda: Republican; Snowbarger, Vince: Republican
Solomon, Gerald B. H.: Republican; Souder, Mark E.: Republican
Stearns, Cliff: Republican; Taylor, Charles H.: Republican
Upton, Fred: Republican; Watts, J. C., Jr.: Republican
Weldon, Dave: Republican; Weller, Jerry: Republican
Whitfield, Ed: Republican; Wilson, Heather: Republican

(verify parties here) Dems: 6, Repubs: 60. That's a 10:1 ratio. I encourage people do this with other bills. I've done it before -- each time, you find that while there always are a handful of Dems backing it, it's the Repubs that are the drivers behind it. And why should there be any shock about this? "What, the party of the religious right is pro-censorship? Never!"

Why do we get this silly "both parties are the same when it comes to censorship" myth? Two reasons.

1) A few high-profile Dems that do support censorship. These include Tipper Gore (probably the most famous example), Joe Lieberman, and to a lesser degree, Hillary Clinton. However, these are by far the minority.

2) The fact that liberals tend to encourage "political correctness". However, almost never will you see this take the form of censorship. Rather, PC tends to come in the form of guidelines. For example, "In official correspondence, don't refer to short people as "midgets", because this is an offensive term; the term "little people" is preferred." However, almost never will you see anyone introduce legislation anything like "HR. 12345: Protecting Children From The Word 'Midget'". The ones who want *actual* censorship come from the right, 90% of the time. From the left, you get the touchy-feely "please don't use words that offend others, or else... we'll be really hurt" type stuff.

Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, "Stay the course."

Stay the course? You've got to be kidding. This is America, not the damned Titanic. I'll give you a sound bite: Throw the bums out!

Not that I don't trust a politician to faithfully present God's honest truth or anything, but here is the actual text of the resolution:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.res .00333:

Kucinich is waaaaay too paranoid to fall for that one...

The resolution would be "H.Res.333", not "H.R.333". If you want to read it in non-PDF form directly from the Library of Congress, look here.

While doing research to write Congressman Kline (2nd District, Minnesota) I came across HR 1525 (I-SPY act, much coooler name) that appears to be a competing piece of legislation that is much more palatable.

List of sponsors: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR009 64:@@@P I wonder how much donations from companies these guys get.

Stoopid Democrats!

This came from the newly-Democratic House of Representatives...

With a Democate controlled congress we think everything thing the congress does is considered to be Democrate sponsered. Some bad moves have been their intiatives.

Its important to see the individuals who are supporting this kind of legislation so we can keep an eye on them and I think its poor reporting not to give all the facts.

This has been tried before with the Data Accountability and Trust Act. It was a decent piece of legislation until the corporate lobbyist screwed it up...

This year's version of the legislation are identified as S 1145 and HR 1908 for those who want to track the progress (or lack thereof) of these bills on Thomas.

This is not good. If you file for a patent then immediately, upon being granted the patent, sue me for infringement, we have to go through a costly (and lengthy) court hearings and appeals concerning infringement BEFORE I get a chance to oppose the granting of the patent, even during the time allotted for opposition. This just continues the whole litigation as a business model that is so appalling.

From TFB:

`(d) Stay of Opposition- If the owner of a patent files suit alleging infringement of the patent before the expiration of the 9-month or 6-month period for filing an opposition request under section 321, the Director, if requested by the patent owner, shall stay the opposition proceeding until judgment in the suit, and all appeals thereof, have become final.

There is more than one way to start a fire: Dell Laptop Burns House Down

Congress finds the following:

(1) More than two billion pounds of polyurethane foam are sold in the United States every year.

(2) Polyurethane foam is found in mattresses, bedding, upholstered furniture, carpet padding, soundproofing materials, and countless other objects commonly found in homes and office buildings.

(3) Firefighters refer to polyurethane foam as `solid gasoline' because of its flammability, and when burning, it emits deadly gases including arsenic.

(4) Between 1980 and 1998, mattress, bedding, and upholstered furniture fires killed almost 30,000 people in the United States. During the same period, these fires injured more than 95,000 people.

(5) Direct property damage from foam fires over the same period was nearly $10 billion.

(6) Exposed polyurethane soundproofing foam led to 100 deaths and 200 injuries at the Station nightclub fire in West Warwick, Rhode Island, on February 20, 2003.

(7) A typical room fire will reach `flashover', the high temperature point at which all combustible materials in a room ignites, in 5 minutes or less from the time at which polyurethane foam filled furniture catches fire. The National Fire Protection Association's standard requires that 90 percent of the time, the first firefighters must arrive at the fire within 4 minutes. Foam Fire Safety Act

What can't truly be described - but only understood through experience - is the amount of smoke generated by a smoldering coach or mattress; fog gray and impenetrable it leaves you blind and disoriented, no lamp, no flashlight, will be of any use to you at all. You must not let go of anything that can guide you.