Slashdot Mirror

Well, first of all, I said that Iraq was one of the largest state sponsors of terror, not one of the largest state sponsors of Al Qaeda. If you haven't seen a "shred of proof" about this, I have no idea where you were looking. Iraq was on the State Department's "State Sponsors of Terrorism" list for the better part of two decades. Iraq and Hussein provided open support for many internationally recognized terrorist organizations, including Abu Nadal, Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, Carlos the Jackal, PKK, Ansar al-Islam, and Hamas to name a few. The Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) was also implicated in several terrorism plots, including the attempted bombing of a radio tower in Prague, and the attempted assassination of a former US President. This is why the legislature passed a resolution in 1998 stating that "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime", which happens to be exactly what George Bush is doing right now.

However, there are still concrete links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The Clinton State Department issued an Indictment of Al Qaeda and Bin Laden in 1998, charging that "al Qaeda reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq". This came after Saddam Hussein offered political asylum to Bin Laden after he was expelled from Saudi Arabia and left Afghanistan.

Not to mention the fact that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other Al Qaeda fighters were allowed to set up and operate Ansar al-Islam within Iraqi borders following Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan in December 2001, and that Mohammed Atta had allegedly met with ISS officials in Prague in April 2001.

See Thomas for more information.

Section 7 contains the information about Congressional Oversight

`(3) As used in this subsection--

`(A) to `circumvent a technological measure' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and

`(B) a technological measure `effectively controls access to a work' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.

And that happened 85% of the House and 100% of the (Democrat Controlled) Senate who voted for the bill in early 2002.

I don't think it's available yet. I believe this is the program you're referring to: http://www.neh.gov/projects/ndnp.html

The timeline (http://www.loc.gov/ndnp/ndnptimline.html) mentions a "General-access Phase 1 prototype launched" in Jan 2007.

Thanks. I've been using Thomas for years and am now thoroughly embarrased that I never tried to figure that out.

I still can't figure out how to get to the amendments, but here is a link to the appropriations bill I was using as an example.

Sorry, thomas.loc.gov has a weird cache system that doesn't allow direct links.

Direct Links To Thomas Documents :-)

I've been wanting to do a similar database for a while, but just don't have the time. Trusting Congress to make a porkbuster database is like trusting oil companies with alternative energy research: they're the worst people for the job, but everyone inexplicably is sitting around waiting for them to do it.

Every member of Congress is against pork on camera, but you might be surprised at how much support there is for pork on the house and senate floors. The congressman from my district, Jeff Flake, has been waging a futile war on pork the last couple of years. (So have a few others, but Flake is who I am familiar with.) That makes it a little easier to find votes on pork spending.

On thomas.loc.gov, look up any appropriations bill this year (try H.R. 5384), click on the amendments link, and search for "Flake." Sorry, thomas.loc.gov has a weird cache system that doesn't allow direct links.

What you'll find is that nearly all of the dozens of Flake amendments on appropriations bills this year have been anti-pork. However, I am not aware of a single one that has passed. What may be even more surprising is the margins by which his amendments fail. At best, he gets about 20% of the vote.

So, stop complaining about an obscure senator from Alaska. Find out what pork your own representative voted for, whether benefitting your state or not, and let him or her know that you don't appreciate it.

Perhaps you are looking for the TEACH Act?

Federalist Paper #63 http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_63.html addresses your issue with laws that do not reflect the current opinion of the majority:

"I shall not scruple to add, that such an institution may be sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions."

Tyranny of the majority was of great concern to those drafting the US Constitution. One of the premises of the six year term for Senators was to allow them to enact legislation that went against the will of the majority because they were actually wise enough to know that the majority is not always right.

It is called the Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006

Orrin Hatch was not "the" man who introduced the DMCA. That dubious honor goes to Howard Coble, with Hatch submitting a similar bill nearly a year later. Note that the Coble bill included only the anti-circumvention language we've all come to know and love, and was introduced to mollify WIPO regarding our treaty "obligations". The Hatch version also included the Internet copyright violation liability limitations for ISPs and the like.

No, it comes down to essentially making a dub of a tape, or a photocopy of a page of a book. The Xerox machine at my local library charges 10 cents per copied page. The actual making of a photocopy costs less than that. According to your argument, my library is breaking copyright law by profiting (albeit very little) each time somebody makes a photocopy of a copyrighted work.

Indeed they are. That's why they put those signs around the copy machines with disclaimers telling the user that it is illegal to copy copyrighted works unless some fairly specific conditions are met. http://www.loc.gov/cgi-bin/formprocessor/copyright /cfr.pl?&urlmiddle=1.0.2.6.1.0.175.14&part=201&sec tion=14&prev=13&next=17

Collecting DNA just because you were arrested isn't insane, it's law (here in America). here is an article written before the bill passed:
Bill Would Permit DNA Collection From All Those Arrested
Suspects arrested or detained by federal authorities could be forced to provide samples of their DNA that would be recorded in a central database under a provision of a Senate bill to expand government collection of personal data.
...
The provision, co-sponsored by Kyl and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), does not require the government to automatically remove the DNA data of people who are never convicted. Instead, those arrested or detained would have to petition to have their information removed from the database after their cases were resolved.

And that bill was passed. Just take the bill number (H.R.3402) and plug it into the Library of Congress' bill finder thingy. It was originally passed in the Senate as S.1197, but the House bill is the final version. In the House bill, the portion is Title X, sections 1001-1005

The Founding Fathers beleived that a standing military was a bad idea, that it was a sore tempation for governments to get involved in military adventures and that it made for a military that felt set apart from ordinary citizens. They intended instead for an effective citizen militia, capable of defending the nation. Given the history of American military intervention and the development of the "military-industrial" complex, it seems that their fears about a standing military were well founded.

This presents a bit of a contradiction in Thomas Jefferson. He was one of those those who were against a standing army yet he was the first US president that sent the military on an international adventure. He sent the military to fight pirates along the Barbary Coast of Africa in the Mediterranean:

America and the Barbary Pirates: An International Battle Against an Unconventional Foe

The pirates were demanding tributes or ransoms be paid to them by ships in the Med and at first the US was paying a tribute however Jefferson was dead set against paying anything so he sent the navy to deal with the pirates. About a hundred years later Teddy Roosevelt did the same thing, he sent the marines in navy ships to Morocco when pirates again demanded tributes.

• Drive your car
• Board a plane, train, or bus
• Enter any federal building
• Open a bank account
• Hold a job

Don't believe me? Have a look at the official congressional documentation on the Real ID Act - H.R. 418. Are you wondering how they got this past everyone? They attached it to the Emergency Supplmental Appropriations Act - H.R. 1268 bill, a bill for funding our troops in Iraq. It was passed into law as US Public Law 109-13. I mean who would want to have voting against support of our troops on their voting record, right?

Interested in more information? Want to join in the fight? Take the No National ID pledge. Regardless of your "religious" affiliations, this is certainly a worthwhile cause to contribute to, so they can continue to fight this law.

The National ID card will grant the ability for the Government to apply economic sanctions on an individual level. I hope you find this as disturbing as I do.

• Drive your car
• Board a plane, train, or bus
• Enter any federal building
• Open a bank account
• Hold a job

Don't believe me? Have a look at the official congressional documentation on the Real ID Act - H.R. 418. Are you wondering how they got this past everyone? They attached it to the Emergency Supplmental Appropriations Act - H.R. 1268 bill, a bill for funding our troops in Iraq. It was passed into law as US Public Law 109-13. I mean who would want to have voting against support of our troops on their voting record, right?

Interested in more information? Want to join in the fight? Take the No National ID pledge. Regardless of your "religious" affiliations, this is certainly a worthwhile cause to contribute to, so they can continue to fight this law.

The National ID card will grant the ability for the Government to apply economic sanctions on an individual level. I hope you find this as disturbing as I do.

As I post this, there is still time. Email your senator right now

(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

From the bill as it passed the house (http://thomas.loc.gov/)...note the and:

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

The only other part was instructions to the EPA to study "the rapid growth and energy consumption of computer data centers by the Federal Government and private enterprise."

The studios purport to be every bit as unhappy with Clearplay as the re-recording service providers that were the subject of this lawsuit. They are currently suing Clearplay in the case Huntsman v. Soderbergh/a? which is pending.

Here's the revelant bit of the law:

Title II: Exemption from Infringement for Skipping Audio and Video Content In Motion Pictures - Family Movie Act of 2005 - (Sec. 202) Creates an exemption from copyright infringement for: (1) the making imperceptible, by or at the direction of a private household, of limited portions of audio or video content of a motion picture during a performance in or transmitted to that household for private home viewing from an authorized copy of the motion picture; or (2) the creation or provision of technology that enables such editing, is designed and marketed for such use, creates no fixed copy of the altered version, and makes no changes, deletions or additions to commercial advertisements or promotional announcements that would otherwise be performed or displayed.

Amends the Trademark Act of 1946 to protect from liability for trademark infringement: (1) persons who engage in the above-referenced conduct; and (2) manufacturers of technology that enables such editing if notice is provided that the performance of the movie is altered from the director's or copyright holder's intended performance.

H.R.4777 Internet Gambling Prohibition Act - Actual bill text is here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc109/h4777_ih.xml

Title II: Exemption from Infringement for Skipping Audio and Video Content In Motion Pictures - Family Movie Act of 2005 - (Sec. 202) Creates an exemption from copyright infringement for: (1) the making imperceptible, by or at the direction of a private household, of limited portions of audio or video content of a motion picture during a performance in or transmitted to that household for private home viewing from an authorized copy of the motion picture; or (2) the creation or provision of technology that enables such editing, is designed and marketed for such use, creates no fixed copy of the altered version, and makes no changes, deletions or additions to commercial advertisements or promotional announcements that would otherwise be performed or displayed.

Amends the Trademark Act of 1946 to protect from liability for trademark infringement: (1) persons who engage in the above-referenced conduct; and (2) manufacturers of technology that enables such editing if notice is provided that the performance of the movie is altered from the director's or copyright holder's intended performance.

Dear Slashdot Community,
I know that the very structure of this site lends itself to keeping your comments and opinions contained within the slashdot community. However, in this case, it's not a great time to be so inward. You can take just a couple of extra seconds and make a difference with your opinions on Net Neutrality--go to http://stevens.senate.gov/contact.cfm. Write Senator Stevens a short message expressing your concerns about his lack of expertise on the subject (even his fundamental lack of understanding about what the internet is and how it works). Don't do it by calling him an idiot or otherwise insulting him. Give him a quick summary of how things actually work. Tell him what Net Neutrality *really* is and why it is important--especially to the average consumer. Then take a couple more seconds to go to http://thomas.loc.gov/, find out how to contact your House rep or your favorite senator from your state, and write a similar message explaining that you were concerned with the views Senator Stevens expressed to the Senate Commerce Committee about his lack of support for even the most basic Net Neutrality legislation. Again explain why you feel Net Neutrality is an important issue for the average consumer. This is particularly important if the Senator to whom you write is one of the other 10 members of the Senate Commerce Committee who voted against adding this minor Net Neutrality amendment to a recent telecom bill (presumably, a Republican from this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Senate_Committee _on_Commerce,_Science_and_Transportation). It will only take you a few more minutes than crafting the "perfect" slashdot comment, and it will make much more of a difference.

Best,
Chris

Argghh, matey. We be feeding this post to the trolls, eh?

Axe public health? Check.
What exactly is this president "axing"? Legislation to give universal healthcare? That's all Congress. Oh, and you're assuming that universal healthcare is a good thing.

Axe social security? Check.
YEAHH! GO TEAM! Social Security is going bankrupt, due to Republican and Democratic politicians spending all of the money in any "reserve" it may have once had. I'm 30, and neither I nor any contemporary I've discussed SS with believes we'll see a dime of it. Graduate it out, now. At least save me the last bit of money I'd have to pay into a dying system.

Axe public education? They're most certainly working on it.
Nice. The state of Georgia is consistently bottom of the barrel in education in the US, despite being the 8th highest spending state on primary and secondary education. For once, conservatives are advocating a program (vouchers) that allow people to choose whether or not they like public schools. But you don't want that, do you? Public schools are what you want, and public schools are what those whining bastards will get. Let them eat cake.

Ignore urgent need to invest in renewable resources? Check.
Good plan. Let bureaucracy do our research. It worked before, right?

There's seriously not much more they can axe to funnel more money into the military, is there?
Sure there is. If you weren't just another troll, you'd put your time in helping reduce pork. But no, you just want to bitch, not do anything productive.

the Founders advocated no national one (along with national religion) because they felt it was the responsiblity for the states (which had taxes for churches and an official church).

I think you may be mistaken. The bill is in committee. I expect it's in the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

see http://thomas.loc.gov/

According to thomas.loc.gov

There are 4 versions of Bill Number H.R.5252 for the 109th Congress
1 . Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006 (Introduced in House)[H.R.5252.IH]
2 . Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006 (Reported in House)[H.R.5252.RH]
3 . Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)[H.R.5252.EH]
4 . Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006 (Referred to Senate Committee after being Received from House)[H.R.5252.RFS]

Better to use a persistent link: H.R. 2281.

Note that you didn't post reference links, so let's examine that restricting (a)(2) section.

(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--

(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;

(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or

(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

Clearly, publishing this research would violate this clause as it is a service that is primarily designed to circumvent a technological measure, AND has limited commerical value---violating both (a)(2)(A) and (a)(2)(B).

The DMCA is widely loathed for a reason.

So, when do the researchers get formally indicted under the DMCA? It's a legitimate question.

Contrary to the FUD spread by DMCA opponents (I am not endorsing the DMCA, merely pointing out that all sides, "good" or "bad" engage in FUD), this is perfectly legal.

Quotes are from http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c105:6:./tem p/~c105JANxzK:e11962:

First we have the government exception:

"David Maynor, a research engineer with Internet Security Systems and Jon Ellch, a student at the U.S. Naval postgraduate school in Monterey, California."

(e) LAW ENFORCEMENT, INTELLIGENCE, AND OTHER GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES- This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, information security, or intelligence activity of an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or a person acting pursuant to a contract with the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State. For purposes of this subsection, the term `information security' means activities carried out in order to identify and address the vulnerabilities of a government computer, computer system, or computer network.

Then we also have a security research exemption:

`(j) SECURITY TESTING-

`(1) DEFINITION- For purposes of this subsection, the term `security testing' means accessing a computer, computer system, or computer network, solely for the purpose of good faith testing, investigating, or correcting, a security flaw or vulnerability, with the authorization of the owner or operator of such computer, computer system, or computer network.

`(2) PERMISSIBLE ACTS OF SECURITY TESTING- Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), it is not a violation of that subsection for a person to engage in an act of security testing, if such act does not constitute infringement under this title or a violation of applicable law other than this section, including section 1030 of title 18 and those provisions of title 18 amended by the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986.

`(3) FACTORS IN DETERMINING EXEMPTION- In determining whether a person qualifies for the exemption under paragraph (2), the factors to be considered shall include--

`(A) whether the information derived from the security testing was used solely to promote the security of the owner or operator of such computer, computer system or computer network, or shared directly with the developer of such computer, computer system, or computer network; and

`(B) whether the information derived from the security testing was used or maintained in a manner that does not facilitate infringement under this title or a violation of applicable law other than this section, including a violation of privacy or breach of security.

`(4) USE OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEANS FOR SECURITY TESTING- Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(2), it is not a violation of that subsection for a person to develop, produce, distribute or employ technological means for the sole purpose of performing the acts of security testing described in subsection (2), provided such technological means does not otherwise violate section (a)(2).

I'd cut and paste more but I think readers will get the point.

SEC. 105. PENALTIES AGAINST SEX TOURISM.

(a) IN GENERAL- Section 2423 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
(c) ENGAGING IN ILLICIT SEXUAL CONDUCT IN FOREIGN PLACES- Any United States citizen or alien admitted for permanent residence who travels in foreign commerce, and engages in any illicit sexual conduct with another person shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.
(f) DEFINITION- As used in this section, the term `illicit sexual conduct' means (1) a sexual act (as defined in section 2246) with a person under 18 years of age that would be in violation of chapter 109A if the sexual act occurred in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States; or (2) any commercial sex act (as defined in section 1591) with a person under 18 years of age.

Now the interesting part of (f)(1) is that it can be interpreted in two ways. Either the sexual act has to occur in the jurisdiction of the United States and be in violation of 109A, or it can be read that the sexual act, wherever it occurred, is illicit, if that same sexual act would be in violation of 109A if it had occured in the U.S. jurisdiction.

Which way do we think the Department of State and Department of Justice interpret it? Let's see.

Here are the DoS and DoJ's interpretation of the above sections:

Washington -- On April 30, 2003, President Bush signed into law the Protect Act aimed at strengthening U.S. law enforcement's ability to prevent, investigate, prosecute and punish violent crimes committed against children. Many of the provisions of the Protect Act focus on protecting children within the United States, but the new law also reaches well beyond U.S. borders to help protect young people and combat child sex tourism.
...
Under the Protect Act, conviction would result in a mandatory 30-year imprisonment for each offense related to the sexual exploitation of children, double the previous penalty. In addition, U.S. investigators have enhanced authority and resources to identify and prosecute U.S residents who prey on minors anywhere.
...
The Changes

The Protect Act enhances law enforcement efforts to combat child sex tourism in several new ways, according to Perry Woo, ICE senior special agent at the Cybercrimes Center in Washington, D.C.

-- U.S. prosecutors no longer have to prove the accused traveled abroad with the intent of having sex with minors. Showing intent is no longer necessary. The accused is subject to the full force of U.S. law if they attempted to or engaged in sexual conduct with children under age 18 in foreign places.

-- Individuals legally residing in the United States as well as U.S. citizens can face federal charges under the Protect Act. This means international students, Green Card holders, trainees and other legitimate guests of the United States may be charged in U.S. federal courts for illicit sexual conduct with minors.

Now, admittedly, the specific examples they give in article linked above, are horrific and the men involved were in extreme violation of both U.S. law, and the laws of the countries they were visiting. H

Here is a link to two proposed bills on identity protection.

One is dated July 14th 2005, while the second version is dated December 8th 2005. Get off your ass and call up your senator and tell them that you feel this bill should be passed into law to protect you as either a former victim, or possible future victim. Cite some recent examples of identity theft from the news. Tell them that this is more important to you as a citizen that they are supposed to represent, compared to whatever other "important agenda" they are talking about right now in the Senate (gay marriage, starting MORE wars with countries in the name of "freedom", etc). Don't just whine and complain because no one is going to want to listen to you. Instead, push and shove so that they will be forced to do something about it!

(Cue Braveheart moment) - FFFFFRRRRREEEEEEEDDDDDDOOOOOOMMMMMM!!!!!

Oh yeah, and don't forget to buy LOTS of stock in identity theft protect companies! Citizens will win, and irresponsible parties will lose!

Any (legal) cash transaction more than $10,000 triggers government reporting regulations

That information is out of date - it has been $3k for some years now - that action was taken as part of the so-called "war on drugs" - I am not completely certain it was not lowered again from $3k [according to the Moneygram website referenced below, it has been lowered to $2k under the so-called USA PATRIOT Act].

If you don't believe it (can't imagine why, but .... ;)), the proof is simple - go to Walmart [Moneygram] or Western Union and try to send $5000 in cash to your friend in another state - if you want to make it really interesting, try to do it using the "no ID required for pickup" option.

It's interesting, sometimes, the kinds of fantasitic beliefs some of the people who expect you to trust them with your money seem to hold...

In any case, transacting even in cash leaves a lot more traces these days than it did when the blurb you posted was written... Ever read " Steal This Book "? [i don't know if it is still available uneditted, but it was - at least at one time - a really great read...

From the MoneyGram website:

You must file this SAR-MSB report whenever one or more transactions that add up to $2,000 or more are conducted or attempted at your location involving one of our products and you know or suspect that the transaction: [...] or [...] has no business or apparent lawful purpose and you know of no reasonable explanation for the transaction.

Now, in the real world - the world we lived in up until recently - You're not supposed to have to tell a desk clerk at Walmart why you're sending your associate in California $5k in cash.

Note that MoneyGram - while cheaper than WU - does not do anonymous transfers at all. For that matter, I don't know for sure that WU still allows anonymous money transfer like they did in the days I didn't carry ID and my mom had to send me gas money from out of state - can't get to their Javascript-only website just now]. But the fact remains: I can't think of any good reason I should be required to explain my business to a telex clerk, for any reason, ever - I'm paying for a service, not begging a favour.

More from the same page:

the Currency Transaction Report (CTR) and the recordkeeping and identification requirements that apply to cash purchases of money orders of $3,000 to $10,000, and the recordkeeping requirements that apply to any money transfer of $3,000 or more.

Try the Library of Congress http://thomas.loc.gov/

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

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r109:./temp/ ~r109N60Aux And rip the crap out of him/her

Here's the roll call for this bill. You can also get the full record of the bill (H.R. 5252), in particular see what happened to particular amendments.

Here's the roll call for this bill. You can also get the full record of the bill (H.R. 5252), in particular see what happened to particular amendments.

It's a little late to worry about reading the text and contacting your Congressman, but here's a link to the bill. Here's a link to see how your Congressman voted.

That's the wrong bill. The main bill is HR5252 . What you have linked to is a proposed amendment that is being voted on. Google is "pro" amendment.

...but considering all the posts here, I was thinking this was supposed to be an anti-network neutrality bill. I took 5 minutes of my life to read through it, and other than a couple points which seem a little ambiguous to me (4b2 and 4b5A), it looks as though this bill was written to (try to) enforce network neutrality, not the opposite. Now maybe I've misread something, or perhaps I skipped a line by accident, but I can't see how this is a bad thing.

Someone else already linked to it, but I'll do so again with the hopes that before you make a reactionary post, you've read it for yourself.

SEC. 4. NET NEUTRALITY SAFEGUARDS.
(a) In General- Each broadband network provider has the duty to--
(1) enable users to utilize their broadband service to access all lawful content, applications, and services available over broadband networks, including the Internet;
(2) not block, impair, degrade, discriminate against, or interfere with the ability of any person to utilize their broadband service to--
(A) access, use, send, receive, or offer lawful content, applications, or services over broadband networks, including the Internet; or
(B) attach any device to the provider's network and utilize such device in connection with broadband service, provided that any such device does not physically damage, or materially degrade other subscribers' use of, the network;
(3) clearly and conspicuously disclose to users, in plain language, accurate information about the speed, nature, and limitations of their broadband service;
(4) offer, upon reasonable request to any person, a broadband service for use by such person to offer or access unaffiliated content, applications, and services;
(5) not discriminate in favor of itself in the allocation, use, or quality of broadband services or interconnection with other broadband networks;
(6) offer a service such that content, applications, or service providers can offer unaffiliated content, applications, or services in a manner that is at least equal to the speed and quality of service that the operator's content, applications, or service is accessed and offered, and without interference or surcharges on the basis of such content, applications, or services;
(7) if the broadband network provider prioritizes or offers enhanced quality of service to data of a particular type, prioritize or offer enhanced quality of service to all data of that type (regardless of the origin of such data) without imposing a surcharge or other consideration for such prioritization or quality of service; and
(8) not install network features, functions, or capabilities that thwart or frustrate compliance with the requirements or objectives of this section.
(b) Exceptions- Nothing in this section shall prohibit a broadband network provider from implementing reasonable and nondiscriminatory measures to--
(1) manage the functioning of its network, on a systemwide basis, provided that any such management function does not result in discrimination between content, applications, or services offered by the provider and unaffiliated providers;
(2) offer varying levels of transmission speed or bandwith;
(3) protect network security or the security of a user's computer on the network;
(4) offer consumer protection services (such as parental controls), provided that a user may refuse or disable such services;
(5) carry or offer a cable service that requires management of the network to provide enhanced quality of service, provided that--
(A) a broadband service subscriber may refuse to subscribe to, and avoid charges for, such cable service while obtaining broadband services from such operator; and
(B) such carrying or offering does not violate any of the duties set forth in subsection (a); or
(6) where otherwise required by law, prevent any violation of Federal or State law.

HR 5273

I don't know about Proto-Indo-European, so I can't comment there. Regarding Devanagari, I am aware that some Sanskrit textbooks use an underneath dot, but I'm also aware that they're wrong. Authoritative textbooks would use the ring. You should probably look at books not typeset using computers - older fonts didn't have the ring, so they might have used the dot as a compromise.

Like I said, since the dot is used for another character, it's simply unworkable. I suspect this ring/dot confusion happened when someone misinterpreted the ring as a dot (smudged printing? lack of ring in some font?). I suspect you'd want references; here's one from the US Libary of Congress:

http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/romanization/sanskr it.pdf

Well, I for one wish the authors of these alerts would give the bill number. I searched the Library of Congress bill tracking system using the supposed title of the bill and didn't find it. I did, however, find this bill, which seems fair on its face, at any rate.

Looking at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/R?d109:FLD00 4:@1(rep+goodlatte):, his voting record, the facts would disagree with your anti-hacker culture verbiage.

I'm not saying Goodlatte could not, or has not, changed - but more likely, MikeRT saw a name he recognized from his old district, and milked it for slashdot karma.

Already done:

http://thomas.loc.gov/

Does anyone know where to find the text of the bill? I haven't been able to find it with THOMAS.

"[prohibit] access by minors without parental authorization to a commercial social networking website or chat room through which minors:

may easily access or be presented with obscene or indecent material;

may easily be subject to unlawful sexual advances, unlawful requests for sexual favors, or repeated offensive comments of a sexual nature from adults; or

may easily access other material that is harmful to minors"

"a commercially operated Internet website that:

allows users to create web pages or profiles that provide information about themselves and are available to other users; and

offers a mechanism for communication with other users, such as a forum, chat room, email, or instant messenger."

"Monopolies ONLY occur due to government licensing."

Ridiculous beyond comprehension. Learn about economics and its history. See: John D Rockefeller and Standard Oil. In an unregulated system, the natural equilibrium is monopoly.

"Not true. A provider of a product or service will provide what the consumer wants, including making sure that they abide by whatever environmental restrictions the market demands. Pollution is better covered by trespass and realistic tort laws than by regulation -- regulations of the environment today just move polluters around. The biggest polluter in the country is the US government, by the way."

First of all, a dichotomy between "tort laws" and "regulation" is patently false and intellectually shallow. Furthermore, pollution is not well-suited for tort law. Not only are harms that occur due to pollution often societal, but they are difficult to trace to individuals or companies as the cumulative effect brings about such negative consequences. Tort law focuses on private property and pollution harms the common good, public property and society in general.

"No, child labor has occured during the beginning of markets because the older workers were not able to adapt to the new markets. In most situations, children will be less productive if the government stops restricting how it pays employees. Minimum wage laws create unemployment because they rob uneducated non-productive people from finding jobs that won't pay them what they're worth until they prove their worth as employees. Many foreigners come into the country to work illegally for less than minimum wage, but quickly start earning much more than minimum wage once they've proven their worth."

Factually wrong. Its that simple. Child labor did not occur because older workers were not able to adapt. Its insulting that anyone would actually post such tripe. Children are not working in South East Asia for three generations because the older people couldn't adapt. Children didn't work in Western Europe and the United States from the start of the Industrial Revolution until nearly WWII because their parent's couldn't adapt. The children of children who were forced to work were also forced to work, are still forced to work at the same jobs.

"Go read Mises, Rothbard, Hayek and Goethe. You'll drop your Keynesian theories right quick."
Ah it all becomes clear. How about this - don't try and drape ideology as economics. The Austrian School is all about how economics 'should' be. Its horrible at predicting how things are. Its also fundamentally anti-labor (relying solely on the marginal utility to produce value has no fundamental origin of the system). There's a reason the Austrian school has been a fringe theory of economics in every society (except ironically under the National Socialists).