Slashdot Mirror

Only:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HJ000 63:@@@L&summ2=m&
(referred to committee, congress never actually declared the war on terror). :-)

Link. Any comments?

I think you are confused about the history of the relationship between Cuba and the U.S.

Fidel Castro came to power in 1959. The embargo wasn't enacted until 1962 after Cuba declared its alliance with the Soviet Union. Before the embargo, between 1959 and 1962, more than 200,000 people had fled Cuba for the United States.

The Cuban refugees were fleeing Cuba before the U.S. embargo, and they continue to do so. Not because of the U.S., but because of Fidel Castro.

Here's a link for you to read more about it: Immigration: Cuba: Crossing the Straits

Here is the complete bill text:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.160 6:

Online Freedom of Speech Act (Introduced in House)

HR 1606 IH

109th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1606

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to exclude communications over the Internet from the definition of public communication.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

April 13, 2005

Mr. HENSARLING introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration

A BILL

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to exclude communications over the Internet from the definition of public communication.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Online Freedom of Speech Act'.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.

Paragraph (22) of section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(22)) is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: `Such term shall not include communications over the Internet.'.

Paragraph (22) of section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(22)) is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: `Such term shall not include communications over the Internet.'.

(22) Public communication. The term 'public communication' means a communication by means of any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mass mailing, or telephone bank to the general public, or any other form of general public political advertising.

Has this passed? Is it applicable?

(4) inducing the user to install a computer software component onto the computer or preventing efforts to block installation of a software component;

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.0 2929:

If they used racketeering laws to go after the RIAA, why not antispyware legislation against this?

"Scanning" of old books is typically done with a camera photographing a book lying in a cradle (to not split the binding). One image is taken of each page or every two pages (the latter is faster, but has focus problems).

Once photographed, OCR software grinds away. There are errors. Some projects proof-read the errors (this is very expensive), but with Google's volume they cannot. Even when not proof-read, however, the OCR'ed text has high value in search engines.

For examples of the resulting product, see U of Michigan's Making of America or the Library of Congress American Memory.

New, in-print books can be scanned destructively. That is, saw off the binding and feed into a sheet feed scanner. This works with publishers who have extra copies they can expend.

Speaking of which, Jack Valenti has used information like this in his MPAA stump speech. Last year, Valenti was an invited speaker at the Roger Ebert Overlooked Film Festival. He spoke at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in the Pine Lounge of the Illini Union. He gave his usual emotional arguments including how researchers can transmit a 2-hour movie in some short period of time.

It was a one-sided venue, by design. Nobody but the audience was there to speak against any of his points. Apparently, Ebert doesn't want an informative discussion expressing an array of views, so he won't invite articulate speakers like Siva Vaidhyanathan, Prof. Lawrence Lessig, or those who back interesting copyright bills like the old HR2601, the Public Domain Enhancement Act. So giving context with some copyright history, responding to his arguments including Constitutional interpretation, and generally explaining the social value of a leaky copyright system is left up to people who happen to be in the room.

Maybe you'll see this reply.... maybe you won't. Sorry it's late. The filtered images the rovers capture are post processed by the JPL at NASA after they've been received. Basically, each layer is an additive... all done with some fancy image software. It's very much like that Russian who took some great color photos in the early 1900's (yes, early 1900's). Actually, it wasn't until recently that the actual color filter plates were combined to create color photos. Check it out! http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/

In your reading of the DMCA (you did read it, right? You didn't just blindly repeat the rhetoric?) you missed this tidbit in the section on Circumvention of Copy Protection Systems:

`(c) OTHER RIGHTS, ETC., NOT AFFECTED- (1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c105:1:./tem p/~c105TQi7RV:e11962:

While writing to the Copyright Office and expressing concern over whatever anti-circumvention technologies you would like access to is still a good idea, it's addressing symptoms, and not the problem.

Let's not be like the medical industry here. There is a proposal for cure out there. It's called HR 1201, "Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act of 2005". Write your local congressperson and get this legislation passed!

On November 18, 1883, four standard time zones for the continental U.S.A. were introduced at the instigation of the railroads. When people began traveling by train, sometimes hundreds of miles in a day, the calculation of time became a serious problem. Operators of the new railroad lines realized that a new time plan was needed in order to offer a uniform train schedule for departures and arrivals.

Since every city was using a different time standard, there were over 300 local sun times to choose from. The railroad managers tried to address the problem by establishing 100 railroad time zones, but this was only a partial solution to the problem.

ref: LOC: Today in History

Norm Coleman is my Senator, and I must say that I have been pleased with his approach to consumer rights and technology in general. He's also a supporter of HR 1201, the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act of 2005 . While people may disagree with him, I definitely think that he's making an attempt to look out for the best interests of technological advancement with his constituents in mind, and not a corporate pocketbook.

I don't know that the lack of a database would make the information useless. It may work like running ballistics tests on a shell casing found at a crime scene and matching it to a weapon seized from a suspect.

You want one of these

In fact, the oath of office for President of the United States has two versions. One can either swear or affirm the oath. Note also that nowhere does the word God appear in the oath. That was only added from George Washington but is not part of the official oath. In other words, when a President adds, "So help me God." they are ad libbing.

Joe Schmo should be able to make a copy or two for backup (fair use)

Not only should I not go to PRISON for making a backup, but I also should not go to PRISON for using a segement of it in a classroom project (as eitehr a teacher or a student), I also should not go to PRISON for defeating the region coding, I also should not go to PRISON for editing out sex/violence/commercials, hell I should no go to PRISON for FAST FORWARDING past the commercials that have the fast-forward-lockout-flag, I also should not go to PRISON for doing a fram-grab to blow up as a poster in my bedroom, I also should not go to PRISON for watching my movie on Linux, I also should not go to PRISON for making or selling my own player, I also should not go to PRISON if for some reason I want to play the movie backwards or any of a million other things.

And we try to prevent crime all the time, from signs to cameras to locks to tags to alarms to security guards.

I didn't realize there was a law to IMPRISON me if I open the lock on MY CAR.

Once you buy something it is your property, and it is NOT illegal to bypass or remove locks on your own property. There is absolutely nothing wrong with bypassing or removing locks on your own property.

Without preventative measures

Use all the "preventative measures" you like, just get rid of the screwed up law to imprison INNOCENT PEOPLE who remove or circumvent those "preventative measures".

Do you have any ojection to the DMCRA? It simply fixes the DMCA to say that INNOCENT NONINFRINGING PEOPLE do not go to prision. If you oppose the DMCRA, please explain how you justify that noninfringing people *should* be imprisoned.

If on the other hand you support the DMCRA, great. Clicky clicky my sig to notify your congress critters of your support and ask them to support it as well.

-

Are you serious???? Have you not heard of the Patent Reform Act of 2005, H.R. 2795 ?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.0 2795: ( the bill)

http://www.ipo.org/template.cfm?Section=Patent_Ref orm1&Template=/TaggedPage/TaggedPageDisplay.cfm&TP LID=196&ContentID=18391&requestTimeout=500 (everything you could ever possibly want to know)

This is making major MAJOR changes to patent law (prior use rights, first to file instead of first to invent, creation of public opposition proceedings, publication of all patents, etc, etc, etc.) in 10 or 12 MAJOR areas of patent law.

And this thing is going to pass. It has wide congressional bipartisan support and the support of the all the major players. And it is a good thing for consumers.

Yikes, get your facts straight.

• Moving Image Collections
• Film Archive
• Recorded Sound Reference Center
• American Folklife Center Online Collections

• Moving Image Collections
• Film Archive
• Recorded Sound Reference Center
• American Folklife Center Online Collections

• Moving Image Collections
• Film Archive
• Recorded Sound Reference Center
• American Folklife Center Online Collections

• Moving Image Collections
• Film Archive
• Recorded Sound Reference Center
• American Folklife Center Online Collections

Or would he have declared war earlier, preventing Pearl Harbor

Except that wouldn't have happened, because we wouldn't have invaded the country responsible. We'd have just gone before the League of Nations with "convincing evidence" that Spain really did bomb the U.S.S. Maine, and invade them instead. Thus prolonging the war and tying up our resources in the event of an attack by a real enemy such as Japan.

The rules of the House prohibit amendments of a subject matter different from the text under consideration. This rule, commonly known as the germaneness rule, is considered the single most important rule of the House of Representatives because of the obvious need to keep the focus of a body the size of the House on a predictable subject matter. The germaneness rule applies to the proceedings in the House, the Committee of the Whole, and the standing committees. There are hundreds of prior rulings or "precedents" on germaneness available to guide the Chair.

From here

They dont list any sources other than a vague reference to a "reconciliations bill" due in October, and none of my googling and searching http://thomas.loc.gov/ can find the bill in question. I'd like to see a source for this concern, and until then it's all just smoke and mirrors or whatever the phrase is...

We're already spending ourselves into a gigantic hole.

The tax breaks Dubya gave to the wealthy haven't demonstrably had any effect on the economy.

We're going to throw vast sums of money at Katrina cleanup, likely in the most backwards fashion imaginable, if our infrastructure rebuilding in Iraq is any indicator.

This is about priorities. The Bush Administration has consistently equated corporate welfare with American economic interests, when there is no proof that the two are related. Propping up already successful American companies ultimately makes those companies less competitive. Look at what happened to the automotive industry (and it's happening again - prepare to send some bailout money to Detroit within the next three years).

I know I'll get the usual, "It doesn't work, you're a loser, the political system doesn't care about individuals" rhetoric, but the time is really now. Whether you're a Democrat or a Republican or something else, let your legislators know that you think this is a misallocation of valuable government resources. I'm sending notes to Boxer, Feinstein, and Lofgren as soon as I post this. It may not make a difference, but it beats doing nothing.

If you don't know who your Representative or Senators are, or how to contact them, you can use Thomas to do so.

Sure.

How about the erosion of the 4th Amendment with the USA Patriot Act?
Or perhaps the human rights violations in Guantanamo bay?
Or the government intervention in something as personal as marriage?
Or the War on Privacy, err War on drugs?
Maybe the widening gap between the rich and poor? Perhaps the government endorsing religion?

Is that a good enough start?

I want the language from the act itself. I don't want to hear what someone claims it says, I want to know what it actually says. Also, according to what you linked, they do need a warrant. The standard has been lowered from what it used to be, but a warrant is still required. I know where to find the bill, same place you find all that kind of stuff, The Library of Congress, specifically their Thomas server (thomas.loc.gov). The relivant link is http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.316 2: which has the bill in it's orignal forms, and as passed in to law.

What I'm asking you, since you are the claimiant, is to point to me where in there it has a "no-warrant wiretap" provision. I don't know, I admit this, I was unaware of such a provision. I wouldn't know where to look in teh act and don't feel like reading all of it. Since you claim to know of this provision, I'm asking you to show me where it is, so I can see for myself. If it is in there, it's probably somewhere in Title II.

You're all forgetting something.
READ THE SECOND AMENDMENT.
It reads "A well regulated militia being nessecary to the security of a free State, the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&f ileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=144
It applies ot MILITIA ONLY!!!
Regular everyday folk, i.e. NOT militia, are not given free reign to carry arms.

Yes, they did. They even killed those who had the books printed.

The Republican who's using videogames as a scapegoat, or the Democrat who's using videogames as a scapegoat?

Its nice how your assumption results in a world where you don't have to get off your lazy ass and vote.

Btw, here is a list of the 19 democrats and 2 republics in the house who voted no against H.RES.376, a resolution to call upon the FTC to investigate Rockstar Games over the 'Hot Coffee' mod. Unfortunately, not any of my state's representitives voted no. :( YMMV.

That's at the federal level. Obviously, it seems that you didn't know that. Perhaps if gamers like you paid more attention to issues that concern you, we'd have less problems.

Of course, at the state and local level, you have even more power. But perhaps that would require just a tad too much effort.

Get off your ass and vote, damnit. Why are the republicans and democrats voting for legislation like this? Because the people that elected them want legislation like this.

Our government can't possibly control the weather!

It's seriously time to wake up, people!

Weather Modification Research and Technology Transfer Authorization Act of 2005 (Introduced in Senate)
thomas.loc.gov

S 517 IS
109th CONGRESS
1st Session

S. 517

To establish the Weather Modification Operations and Research Board, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

March 3, 2005

Mrs. HUTCHISON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

A BILL

To establish the Weather Modification Operations and Research Board, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the 'Weather Modification Research and Technology Transfer Authorization Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

It is the purpose of this Act to develop and implement a comprehensive and coordinated national weather modification policy and a national cooperative Federal and State program of weather modification research and development.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) BOARD- The term 'Board' means the Weather Modification Advisory and Research Board.

(2) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR- The term 'Executive Director' means the Executive Director of the Weather Modification Advisory and Research Board.

(3) RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT- The term 'research and development' means theoretical analysis, exploration, experimentation, and the extension of investigative findings and theories of scientific or technical nature into practical application for experimental and demonstration purposes, including the experimental production and testing of models, devices, equipment, materials, and processes.

(4) WEATHER MODIFICATION- The term 'weather modification' means changing or controlling, or attempting to change or control, by artificial methods the natural development of atmospheric cloud forms or precipitation forms which occur in the troposphere.

SEC. 4. WEATHER MODIFICATION ADVISORY AND RESEARCH BOARD ESTABLISHED.

(a) IN GENERAL- There is established in the Department of Commerce the Weather Modification Advisory and Research Board.

(b) MEMBERSHIP-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Board shall consist of 11 members appointed by the Secretary of Commerce, of whom--

(A) at least 1 shall be a representative of the American Meteorological Society;

(B) at least 1 shall be a representative of the American Society of Civil Engineers;

(C) at least 1 shall be a representative of the National Academy of Sciences;

(D) at least 1 shall be a representative of the National Center for Atmospheric Research of the National Science Foundation;

(E) at least 2 shall be representatives of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the Department of Commerce;

(F) at least 1 shall be a representative of institutions of higher education or research institutes; and

(G) at least 1 shall be a representati

It's about modifying it. Whether or not you use it for illegal purposes doesn't matter...I think once you BUY something, you can do whatever you want with it. You can take it apart, whatever.

Of course you can. That's what property ownership means. Now, if the company I bought the product from wants to void my warranty and disavow all knowledge of my purchace once I've modified it, that's fine. But I don't think they can legally take away my right to use that product if I fiddle with it.

If Sony actually goes through with this anti-mod scheme, it will only be a matter of time before someone mods their Blu-Ray for an innocuous reason (say, to integrate it with MythTV or something). Once Sony disables their Blu-Ray machine, the modder hauls Sony into court. My hope is be that this case would be just the situation the Supreme Court needs to strike down (or, at the very least, modify the wording) in the DMCA, section 1201. This section of the DMCA effectively contradicts and nullifies the protections granted to consumers in Title 17, Section 1008, and needs to be changed.

Q: Why does chopping an onion make you cry?
A: Onions produce the chemical irritant known as syn-propanethial-S-oxide. It stimulates the eyes' lachrymal glands so they release tears. Scientists used to blame the enzyme allinase for the instability of substances in a cut onion. Recent studies from Japan, however, proved that lachrymatory-factor synthase, (a previously undiscovered enzyme) is the culprit (Imani et al, 2002).

Using a good 60 watt/hour bulb, at about 12 hours/book (seems like a convenient amount of time) and 29 million books, that's roughly 33.5 libraries of congress, if I'm not mistaken.

The seperation between church and state has been more "fuzzy" than either side would have you believe...

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html

contains a few interesting tidbits. Use Google and find some more :)

Based on the bill's current list of cosponsorshttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z? d109:HR02795:@@@P I would be concerned. With the exception of Goodlatte and Boucher the majority of those listed have aligned themselves with media over individual and technology rights over the years.

I, for one, don't like the first-to-file system, because it is easy for something like the recent Apple/MS iTunes interface thing. Apple CLEARLY introduced it first, and yet MS has filed for a patent. I wonder, if a case like this went before the Supreme Court, would they say that Apple had the right to the patent after all?

Under the new bill, existence of prior art will still void a patent, though the definition of prior art has changed slightly.

If anyone tries to read the linked version of HR2975, good luck. Here's a more readable version from Thomas:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:1:./tem p/~c109SY2LZY:e3477:

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX)

Co-sponsors

You can go ahead and try to blame republicans on this one... but the only time this has come up before the Senate (the only body of the US government that can ratify a treaty) the senate passed a resolution effectively demanding that the treaty not be ratified until developing countries are held to the same standards as the US. The vote was 95-0 and I am pretty sure there weren't 95 republicans in the senate at the time. In fact, 40 democrats voted for the resolution and there were 65 co-sponsors of the resolution.

Here is the link to the actual bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:s786: . The gist is that Sen. Santorum wants to prevent the NWS from distributing data which could be provided by a commercial service.

The bill also calls out prohibitions on persons making use of weather data which may efffect a market before an official warning or notice is issued by the NWS. Great - just what we need - all weather warnings will now need to be reviewed by government counsel before issue.

I'm still waiting for hurricane overlays for google earth. That would really be neat.

Didn't I hear something just recently though about the national weather service trying to cut off access to the free information because they said there were enough free or advertizing subsidized services out here already? ahh yes heres some information on it http://www.livejournal.com/community/weathernerds/ 229555.html
The bill can be read here
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:s786:

None of should have to pay accuweather for data that we've already paid for. This bill in the US Senate is still pending. Given that the NWS is still going forward with making this data available, I don't think that the folks at the NWS support the bill.

The LIbrary of Congress started Thomas in 1989.
That's what the .loc. in http://thomas.loc.gov/ stands for. It was available through BITNET and DIALOG from 1989 forward.

The web-based Thomas went live in January of 1995. This was a partial fulfillment of an Executive Order signed by Wm. J. Clinton on a day that he didn't have any time with Monica. Well, at least on a day when he wasn't acting like the current head of state. http://thomas.loc.gov/home/abt_thom.html/

From the beginning of the Internet there were ways to access the net other than as a government agency or academic institution. BITNET, DIALOG, BRS & BRS After Dark, LEXIS all had portals. Compuserve and The Source had portals to portals for a fee.

I've had constant Internet access for more than 20 years.

The LIbrary of Congress started Thomas in 1989.
That's what the .loc. in http://thomas.loc.gov/ stands for. It was available through BITNET and DIALOG from 1989 forward.

The web-based Thomas went live in January of 1995. This was a partial fulfillment of an Executive Order signed by Wm. J. Clinton on a day that he didn't have any time with Monica. Well, at least on a day when he wasn't acting like the current head of state. http://thomas.loc.gov/home/abt_thom.html/

From the beginning of the Internet there were ways to access the net other than as a government agency or academic institution. BITNET, DIALOG, BRS & BRS After Dark, LEXIS all had portals. Compuserve and The Source had portals to portals for a fee.

I've had constant Internet access for more than 20 years.

The LIbrary of Congress started Thomas in 1989.
That's what the .loc. in http://thomas.loc.gov/ stands for. It was available through BITNET and DIALOG from 1989 forward.

The web-based Thomas went live in January of 1995. This was a partial fulfillment of an Executive Order signed by Wm. J. Clinton on a day that he didn't have any time with Monica. Well, at least on a day when he wasn't acting like the current head of state. http://thomas.loc.gov/home/abt_thom.html/

From the beginning of the Internet there were ways to access the net other than as a government agency or academic institution. BITNET, DIALOG, BRS & BRS After Dark, LEXIS all had portals. Compuserve and The Source had portals to portals for a fee.

I've had constant Internet access for more than 20 years. So much for the "nobody..." before 1993.

The LIbrary of Congress started Thomas in 1989.
That's what the .loc. in http://thomas.loc.gov/ stands for. It was available through BITNET and DIALOG from 1989 forward.

The web-based Thomas went live in January of 1995. This was a partial fulfillment of an Executive Order signed by Wm. J. Clinton on a day that he didn't have any time with Monica. Well, at least on a day when he wasn't acting like the current head of state. http://thomas.loc.gov/home/abt_thom.html/

From the beginning of the Internet there were ways to access the net other than as a government agency or academic institution. BITNET, DIALOG, BRS & BRS After Dark, LEXIS all had portals. Compuserve and The Source had portals to portals for a fee.

I've had constant Internet access for more than 20 years. So much for the "nobody..." before 1993.

A parsec is the distance that something has to be to have an apparent motion of 1 second of arc relative to the big shell on the back of the giant turtle during the course of a year. Since for small angles sin x ~= x, it means that an object 10 pc away will have about 0.1 second of apparent motion. That makes it very useful for astronomers, or anyone with a super ultra-fine adjustment on their camera tripod.

For reference, a degree is about 100km along the Earth's equator. A minute is about 1 mile and a second is about 100 ft. (or about 0.1 Libraries of Congress)*

* Who says using LOC as a measurement is a Kluge?

okay, this is my last post.

i can't convice you that oil companies are collaborating because it is only in their best interest and there is nothing to stop them. oh well. guess i'll just give up....

all hail the oil industry, a model of efficiency proficiency, and incorruptability that will never be topped in the history of the world...

pysche.

http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/ 596718/fromItemId/2332

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/economy/jan-june00/ oil_2-17.html

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:H.R.382 2.RFS:

http://economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story _id=1602123

http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AI D=/20050804/EDIT/508040321/1003

oh, and those links work.
unlike this one...
http://articles.roshd.ir/articles_folder/mohandesi Science/mechanic/HowstuffWorksHowGasPricesWork.htm

and they're legit, whats roshd.ir? (i can't read arabic.)

and, this final link...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2908133.stm

you wanted evidence?

well, i don't think you'll be convinced. so i can't change your mind, you can't change mind. and we both wasted time typing meaningless shit on some nerd website. good debate, but not a big fuckin' deal.