Slashdot Mirror

Why would it be hard to find teachers to educate the inmates? Use online or video teaching courses, and tie other privileges to completion of those courses. Those who want to learn will learn and get other perks, and those who don't won't learn and won't get those perks. If an inmate hears about others who are getting good grades on tests and are therefore getting more time outside, for instance, won't that inmate think about trying out these classes so that he or she can get outside more often?

Similarly, if an inmate destroys the learning materials or in other ways prevents others from making use of the opportunities, punish them by removing some of the privileges they have received.

Once they have the basics down, give them specialized training in an area that is likely to give them something to do when they are released. Unfortunately, the law would need to be changed to allow this -- see this article from the Congressional Record published in 1996.

Do we really want Catwoman and Sing The Hits of Ashlee Simpson sitting anywhere near The Thomas Jefferson Papers on the shelves of the Library of Congress?

A bill to regulate the transmission of personally identifiable information to foreign affiliates and subcontractors.

That's right -- they are designing Yucca Mountain to hold 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste (Source: Congress -- search for 77,000 within the page). Yucca Mountain will likely be full to capacity by the time they open it, if it ever even opens (God forbid). Right now the project is dead, because congress didn't give it the funding they needed and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit recently ruled that it is illegal for the EPA to set the waste storage time period arbitrarily at 10,000 years when it needs to be isolated from the environment for hundreds of thousands of years at a minimum. I've heard that Wisconsin may be the next target for the nation's second nuclear waste dump (look out Wisconsin!).

You obviously either didn't read my post about alternative energy or didn't read it very thoroughly [read it here]. Most of your arguments on alternative energy sources are pessimistic, outdated and incorrect. Geothermal can be used in most places in the United States, because the temperature below the crust stays at a steady 55 Fahrenheit year round. You pump water through pipes into wells in the ground to cool or heat it and then circulate it back up to your house. I don't understand the heating/cooling engineering beyond that (that's my father's area of expertise), but it keeps your house toasty warm in the winter and cool in the summer. These are small geothermal systems as opposed to the large commercial ones that you are probably thinking of. I've already addressed your other remarks in my alternative energy post.

A part of the problem with alternative energy is that people have been taught by the corporate owned media to have such negative attitudes toward it. Clean energy is achievable. If you want to play into the hands of big oil, then keep believing that alternative energy isn't possible -- that's what they want you to believe.

No good solution has been found to the nuclear waste problem since the first fission reaction in 1942 and I don't expect that one will be found in my lifetime. The best solution right now is to stop making more nuclear waste.

Even though my generation has inherited a monumental mistake and problem caused by the nuclear industry, I'm no pessimist -- there's still hope. I firmly believe that our society is innovative enough to create the technologies needed to be energy independent and powered by 100% clean energy. The only thing standing in our way is corrupt and powerful corporations that would rather keep doing things the dirty, profitable way. I believe in the people, not the filthy rich, immoral corporations.

The parent with its ideas of experiment and failure in the pursuit of an ideal reminds me of the Gettysburg Address.

--

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Abraham Lincoln
November 19, 1863
Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, United States of America

A 9.0 earthquake would release the equivalent of 1,800 Megatons, so it would be in the same ballpark.

Come on, man! This is SLASHDOT! A "Megaton" is a measurement of the size of your average /.'ers girlfriend, but it's never actually used by the affected slashdotter.

Use a term that others can relate to. For example, how many LOCs would a 9.0 earthquake be?

Heh - I was about to submit this story. I can add a link to the actual bill, though: H.R. 2735 could be in order. Just a thought. ni

I thought it was "Speak softly and carry a big stick." Or at least, Teddy Roosevelt's original version was.

From Fascinating Facts About the Library of Congress:

The Library of Congress is the largest library in the world, with nearly 128 million items on approximately 530 miles of bookshelves. The collections include more than 29 million books and other printed materials, 2.7 million recordings, 12 million photographs, 4.8 million maps, 5 million music items and 57 million manuscripts.

So to answer your question, it's about 0.52 LoC if you count only the books. :)

Blind persons whose visual acuity, as determined by competent authority, is 20/200 or less in the better eye with correcting lenses, or whose widest diameter of visual field subtends an angular distance no greater than 20 degrees.
That All May Read

Other physically handicapped persons are eligible as follows:

Persons whose visual disability, with correction and regardless of optical measurement, is certified by competent authority as preventing the reading of standard printed material
Persons certified by competent authority as unable to read or unable to use standard printed material as a result of physical limitations.
Persons certified by competent authority as having a reading disability resulting from organic dysfunction and of sufficient severity to prevent their reading printed material in a normal manner.

______

Distribution of audio books and players to the blind began in 1934.
Players were custom-made wind-up phonographs and radio-phonographs, books were recorded at 33 1/3 RPM. Distribution has never been in a consumer-audio format. The last flexible-disk audio books were recorded at 8 1/3 RPM.

Read these.

Read these.

Available at the Library of Congress website.

Here is a good site that covers the issue. Check the galleries for pictures.
Here are pictures from the Library of Congress.

The after pictures are highly deceiving because they look pretty and green after reclamation. In reality they are very low functioning ecosystems. No trees will grow there, only hearty grasses (seeded). The stream below has been buried and the spoil pile leaches metals like selenium and aluminum into the remaining stream.

There are two bills before the US Congress that have been buried in committee since their introduction. Both these bills would require the use of open source software on voting machines and an auditable paper trail.

I urge all US citizens to write their representatives requesting action on these bills.

In my searches for open source voting software the best I've found comes from The Open Voting Consortium.

sign me "Concerned Citizen"

There are two bills before the US Congress that have been buried in committee since their introduction. Both these bills would require the use of open source software on voting machines and an auditable paper trail.

I urge all US citizens to write their representatives requesting action on these bills.

In my searches for open source voting software the best I've found comes from The Open Voting Consortium.

sign me "Concerned Citizen"

""I can't believe the Democrats were stupid enough to allow [this]," he says. "I can't imagine anyone going to a bank and not getting a receipt. But yet we have our voting machines that way....

This is a misleading comment. What does he mean "the democrats allowed this"? The republican party has been in control of both houses for sometime now.

And the democrats HAVE been trying. In fact, a group of democrats proposed a bill called the RECORD Act of 2004, which had a stated purpose: "To amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require a voter-verified permanent record or hardcopy under title III of such Act, and for other purposes."

It strikes me as really odd that machines like that could even exist.""

Seems odd to me too... perhaps the republican-owned voting machine companies, or the republican Secretaries of State in Ohio and Florida could shed some light on why hese machines were created / purchased?

Support the bills already in the House and Senate that will fix this, instead of fantasizing about how the 2004 election was "stolen" (it wasn't).

A frequent charge levied after the 2000 election was voter disenfranchisement and ballot spoilage due, in large part, to antiquated, malfunctioning, or broken mechanical voting equipment. Legislation was introduced guaranteeing a minimum standard for the equipment and processes associated with voting in all jurisdictions. Since we are living in the 21st century, electronic systems were specified. $3.9 billion was set aside under HAVA to replace all mechanical punch card systems with electronic systems by 1 January, 2006. The goal is to ensure a consistency and fairness in the appearance and operation of the voting systems, both for voters and local election officials.

After the 2000 presidential election, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA):

To establish a program to provide funds to States to replace punch card voting systems, to establish the Election Assistance Commission to assist in the administration of Federal elections and to otherwise provide assistance with the administration of certain Federal election laws and programs, to establish minimum election administration standards for States and units of local government with responsibility for the administration of Federal elections...

The putative reasoning for going with electronic systems was likely that since we have managed to design accountable and reliable electronic and computing equipment for the management of our power, medical care, money, etc., it likely was more or less assumed by the legislature that such accountable systems could also be applied to voting.

A bill has been introduced to amend HAVA. H.R.2239 and its twin Senate counterpart S.1980, discussed further here, will amend the Help America Vote Act such that there is "a voter-verified permanent record or hardcopy" attached with each and every ballot cast by every voter, and that "any voting system containing or using software shall disclose the source code of that software to the Commission, and the Commission shall make that source code available for inspection upon request to any citizen".

Additionally, the three electronic voting manufacturers already have the ability to add permanent, individual voter-verified paper audit trails to their products. Some e-voting critics make it seem like vendors are resisting. However, it is the local election boards that are resisting (as well as the slow march of bureaucracy). The e-voting vendors will build - and sell - whatever municipalities will buy.

Disclaimer: this comes from a previous post of mine on the subject

Support the bills already in the House and Senate that will fix this, instead of fantasizing about how the 2004 election was "stolen" (it wasn't).

A frequent charge levied after the 2000 election was voter disenfranchisement and ballot spoilage due, in large part, to antiquated, malfunctioning, or broken mechanical voting equipment. Legislation was introduced guaranteeing a minimum standard for the equipment and processes associated with voting in all jurisdictions. Since we are living in the 21st century, electronic systems were specified. $3.9 billion was set aside under HAVA to replace all mechanical punch card systems with electronic systems by 1 January, 2006. The goal is to ensure a consistency and fairness in the appearance and operation of the voting systems, both for voters and local election officials.

After the 2000 presidential election, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA):

To establish a program to provide funds to States to replace punch card voting systems, to establish the Election Assistance Commission to assist in the administration of Federal elections and to otherwise provide assistance with the administration of certain Federal election laws and programs, to establish minimum election administration standards for States and units of local government with responsibility for the administration of Federal elections...

The putative reasoning for going with electronic systems was likely that since we have managed to design accountable and reliable electronic and computing equipment for the management of our power, medical care, money, etc., it likely was more or less assumed by the legislature that such accountable systems could also be applied to voting.

A bill has been introduced to amend HAVA. H.R.2239 and its twin Senate counterpart S.1980, discussed further here, will amend the Help America Vote Act such that there is "a voter-verified permanent record or hardcopy" attached with each and every ballot cast by every voter, and that "any voting system containing or using software shall disclose the source code of that software to the Commission, and the Commission shall make that source code available for inspection upon request to any citizen".

Additionally, the three electronic voting manufacturers already have the ability to add permanent, individual voter-verified paper audit trails to their products. Some e-voting critics make it seem like vendors are resisting. However, it is the local election boards that are resisting (as well as the slow march of bureaucracy). The e-voting vendors will build - and sell - whatever municipalities will buy.

Disclaimer: this comes from a previous post of mine on the subject

Maybe not. But what you can do is record your own version of say Ludwig van Beethoven's 9th Symphony No.9 played on say a didgeridoo. Yes, the music would be clearly based on someone elses work, but it would be a work that is out of copyright.

Other sources of music that could be legally made available via P2P networks includes recordings that are old enough to be outside copyright (I have one relative who collects Edison Cylinder Phonograph recording, the vast majority of those are outside copyright).

This page has a transcript of the House debate on the bill. Some interesting parts (bolding is mine):

[Boehlert, R-NY]This bill tries to strike a delicate balance between the need to give
a new industry a chance to develop brand-new technology and the desire
to provide enough regulation to protect the industry's customers.
We think we have struck that balance and here is why. First, the bill
gives the Federal Aviation Administration clear authority for the first
time to regulate the commercial human space flight industry.
Second, the bill gives the FAA unlimited authority to regulate the
industry and its rockets to make sure they do no harm to third parties,
that is, people on the ground or in the air who are in no way involved
with the flight.
Third, the bill sets a clear timetable for when FAA will have
unlimited authority to regulate the industry and its rockets to make
sure they do no harm to the people on board.
But here is what the bill does not do. It does not allow the FAA
right now to guess whether some new untested rocket technology will do
harm to the people onboard. Why? Because this industry is at the stage
when it is the preserve of visionaries and daredevils and adventurers.
These are people who will fly at their own risk to try out new
technologies. These are people who do not expect and should not expect
to be protected by the government. Such protection would only stifle
innovation.
So instead of allowing FAA guesswork for the next several years, the
bill requires that anyone participating in launch, whether it is crew
or passenger, must be notified of all risk of flight and must be told
explicitly that the government has not certified the vehicle as safe
for crew or passengers. And the FAA can come in and prohibit rocket
designs and operational procedures that have already been shown to
fail.
Now, obviously, this Wild West or barnstorming or infant industry
state of affairs cannot obtain forever, if the commercial space flight
industry is to become more than an expensive and risky novelty. Safety
must increase, and gradually the industry will start to look more like
a common carrier. And that is why the bill allows FAA after 8 years to
regulate commercial space flight in pretty much the same way it
regulates the airline industry. But it seems to me kind of silly to
regulate Burt Rutan's vehicle, which has flown three times, as if it
was a Boeing 747. If we regulate it that way, then his craft will never
evolve into the equivalent of a 747. ...

[DeFazio, D-OR] We all salute the innovation and the achievement that we have recently
seen in the early days of private space flight, and we certainly do
want to encourage that. But we go a little bit too far in this
legislation.
I do not understand why the committee has inserted the references to
paying passengers and that we would not regulate until after the
serious injury or death of paying passengers. It took me a decade here
in Congress to strip the FAA of its requirement to promote the
industry. That was something adopted in the very early days. It seems
to be similar to what is going on here, to say that in the early days
the Civil Aeronautics Board would have a charge of promoting the
industry and later regulation became more paramount. But up and to and
through the 90s until a tragic accident with then Air Tran, the
industry was both regulated and promoted by the same agency. I promoted
it out for years as a conflict. And it was only after that incident
that we finally changed the language and said, no, it would be
paramount that they would regulate in the interest of public health and
safety.
But here we are again trying to codify the old so-called ``tombstone
mentality'' of the FAA by including paying passengers. It is one thing
to say, here is someone who invente

In an update to this earlier Slashdot story, after the defeat of HR3752, California representative Dana Rohrabacher reintroduced the legislation as HR5382. This new bill has just passed the crucial role call vote necessary to maintain it during the "lame-duck" session. More information on this bill that will enable the private spaceflight industry to (both literally and figuratively) takeoff is available from this MSNBC article and from Google News.

In an update to this earlier Slashdot story, after the defeat of HR3752, California representative Dana Rohrabacher reintroduced the legislation as HR5382. This new bill has just passed the crucial role call vote necessary to maintain it during the "lame-duck" session. More information on this bill that will enable the private spaceflight industry to (both literally and figuratively) takeoff is available from this MSNBC article and from Google News.

(11) the making imperceptible, by or at the direction of a member 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 the creation or provision of a computer program or other technology that enables such making imperceptible and that is designed and marketed for such use at the direction of a member of a private household, if--

(A) no fixed copy of the altered version of the motion picture is created by such computer program or other technology; and

(B) no changes, deletions or additions are made by such computer program or other technology to commercial advertisements, or to network or station promotional announcements, that would otherwise be performed or displayed before, during or after the performance of the motion picture.

A frequent charge levied after the 2000 election was voter disenfranchisement and ballot spoilage due, in large part, to antiquated, malfunctioning, or broken mechanical voting equipment. Legislation was introduced guaranteeing a minimum standard for the equipment and processes associated with voting in all jurisdictions. Since we are living in the 21st century, electronic systems were specified. $3.9 billion was set aside under HAVA to replace all mechanical punch card systems with electronic systems by 1 January, 2006. The goal is to ensure a consistency and fairness in the appearance and operation of the voting systems, both for voters and local election officials.

After the 2000 presidential election, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA):

To establish a program to provide funds to States to replace punch card voting systems, to establish the Election Assistance Commission to assist in the administration of Federal elections and to otherwise provide assistance with the administration of certain Federal election laws and programs, to establish minimum election administration standards for States and units of local government with responsibility for the administration of Federal elections...

The putative reasoning for going with electronic systems was likely that since we have managed to design accountable and reliable electronic and computing equipment for the management of our power, medical care, money, etc., it likely was more or less assumed by the legislature that such accountable systems could also be applied to voting.

A bill has been introduced to amend HAVA. H.R.2239 and its twin Senate counterpart S.1980, discussed further here, will amend the Help America Vote Act such that there is "a voter-verified permanent record or hardcopy" attached with each and every ballot cast by every voter, and that "any voting system containing or using software shall disclose the source code of that software to the Commission, and the Commission shall make that source code available for inspection upon request to any citizen".

Additionally, the three electronic voting manufacturers already have the ability to add permanent, individual voter-verified paper audit trails to their products. Some e-voting critics make it seem like vendors are resisting. However, it is the local election boards that are resisting (as well as the slow march of bureaucracy). The e-voting vendors will build - and sell - whatever municipalities will buy.

A frequent charge levied after the 2000 election was voter disenfranchisement and ballot spoilage due, in large part, to antiquated, malfunctioning, or broken mechanical voting equipment. Legislation was introduced guaranteeing a minimum standard for the equipment and processes associated with voting in all jurisdictions. Since we are living in the 21st century, electronic systems were specified. $3.9 billion was set aside under HAVA to replace all mechanical punch card systems with electronic systems by 1 January, 2006. The goal is to ensure a consistency and fairness in the appearance and operation of the voting systems, both for voters and local election officials.

After the 2000 presidential election, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA):

To establish a program to provide funds to States to replace punch card voting systems, to establish the Election Assistance Commission to assist in the administration of Federal elections and to otherwise provide assistance with the administration of certain Federal election laws and programs, to establish minimum election administration standards for States and units of local government with responsibility for the administration of Federal elections...

The putative reasoning for going with electronic systems was likely that since we have managed to design accountable and reliable electronic and computing equipment for the management of our power, medical care, money, etc., it likely was more or less assumed by the legislature that such accountable systems could also be applied to voting.

A bill has been introduced to amend HAVA. H.R.2239 and its twin Senate counterpart S.1980, discussed further here, will amend the Help America Vote Act such that there is "a voter-verified permanent record or hardcopy" attached with each and every ballot cast by every voter, and that "any voting system containing or using software shall disclose the source code of that software to the Commission, and the Commission shall make that source code available for inspection upon request to any citizen".

Additionally, the three electronic voting manufacturers already have the ability to add permanent, individual voter-verified paper audit trails to their products. Some e-voting critics make it seem like vendors are resisting. However, it is the local election boards that are resisting (as well as the slow march of bureaucracy). The e-voting vendors will build - and sell - whatever municipalities will buy.

I just looked up HR 2391 on Thomas . I don't see anything that addresses recording broadcast programming and skipping commercials. The only thing mentioned seems to be recording movies in a movie theater.

I did note that HR 2391 got a lot bigger when the senate got the resoultion after the house passed it.

Um, that's the wrong Senate bill. The Senate bill is still known by it's house bill number (HR 2391 SR). Search on THOMAS for "Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement". I believe the query result is sorted by date. For me, the relevant result is this:

"8. Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement (CREATE) Act of 2004 (Reported in Senate)[H.R.2391.RS]"

From SEC. 212 of Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement (CREATE) Act of 2004 (Reported in Senate)[H.R.2391.RS], available as http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.239 1:/ ....

(3) by inserting after paragraph (10) the following:

(11) the making imperceptible, by or at the direction of a member 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 the creation or provision of a computer program or other technology that enables such making imperceptible and that is designed and marketed for such use at the direction of a member of a private household, if--

(A) no fixed copy of the altered version of the motion picture is created by such computer program or other technology; and

(B) no changes, deletions or additions are made by such computer program or other technology to commercial advertisements, or to network or station promotional announcements, that would otherwise be performed or displayed before, during or after the performance of the motion picture.';and ...

It seems that one key clause in there is 'the making imperceptible' of the editing out of the commercial. Seems that if you got a 1 second 'commercials removed' screen then it might be OK?

Reading the Wired article talks about HR4077 and S2237. So where did H.R.2391 and S.2192 come in?

Actually, now that I'm digging some more, it looks like H.R.2391 got padded w/ that piracy mess. Actually, it looks like they trojan-horsed it, where they took the patent bill and stripped the copy out and put in that mess. So if the Senate version passed, does it have to go through re-voting in the Senate, given that the House has dramatically changed the bill?

Just want to make sure I tell my representative the right bill. If I'm confused, I'm thinking they might be, too. Of course, they've been at this game for a while longer than I have.

Looks like I need to write my H.R. dude (instead of my Senate dudes).

Sec. 2319B. Unauthorized recording of motion pictures in a motion picture exhibition facility

• (f) Definitions, in this section
  [...]
  
  • (3) MOTION PICTURE EXHIBITION FACILITY- The term "motion picture exhibition facility" means a movie theater, screening room, or other venue that is being used primarily for the exhibition of a copyrighted motion picture, if such exhibition is open to the public or is made to an assembled group of viewers outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances.

At least they don't try to regulate private screenings. I guess.

SEC. 210. ENHANCEMENT OF CRIMINAL COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.

• (a) Criminal Infringement- Any person who--

  • (1) infringes a copyright willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain,

    (2) infringes a copyright willfully by the reproduction or distribution, including by the offering for distribution to the public by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000, or

    (3) infringes a copyright by the knowing distribution, including by the offering for distribution to the public by electronic means, with reckless disregard of the risk of further infringement, during any 180-day period, of--

    (A) 1,000 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works,

    (B) 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works with a total retail value of more than $10,000, or

    (C) 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted pre-release works,

    shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish the necessary level of intent under this subsection.; and

  
  [...]
  (g) Limitation on Liability of Service Providers-
  [...]

These provisions say that there are three ways you can be liable:

1. You try to sell the stuff to make money w/o paying the copyright owner
2. You put up some thing(s) worth $1000
3. You privately (or publicly) exchange 1000 files, a $10000 work, or a pre-release work.

The valuation is "retail value", but in effect they munge that in the definitions section to mean the asking price. So street value may or may not determine whether someone goes to jail; it may be some absurdly high asking price.

Still, on its face anyway, this is going after people who are either profiting or trafficking in other people's copyrighted commercial stuff.

The next question is, since FOSS is copyrighted, how does this change affect enforcement of the GPL? Someone who loses their right to copy under the GPL would be liable depending on the value of the work, which may or may not be its asking price.

Unfortunately, it appears to be sponsored by Lamar Smith, one of the BSA fascist go-to-boys. I found this link, which seems to show that none of the cosponsors are from my state either, so not too much I can do directly to vote them out.

SEC. 212. EXEMPTION FROM INFRINGEMENT FOR SKIPPING AUDIO AND VIDEO CONTENT IN MOTION PICTURES.

(a) Short Title- This section may be cited as the `Family Movie Act of 2004'.

(b) Exemption From Copyright and Trademark Infringement for Skipping of Audio or Video Content of Motion Pictures- Section 110 of title 17, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in paragraph (9), by striking `and' after the semicolon at the end;

(2) in paragraph (10), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and';

(3) by inserting after paragraph (10) the following:

`(11) the making imperceptible, by or at the direction of a member 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 the creation or provision of a computer program or other technology that enables such making imperceptible and that is designed and marketed for such use at the direction of a member of a private household, if--

`(A) no fixed copy of the altered version of the motion picture is created by such computer program or other technology; and

`(B) no changes, deletions or additions are made by such computer program or other technology to commercial advertisements, or to network or station promotional announcements, that would otherwise be performed or displayed before, during or after the performance of the motion picture.'; and

(4) by adding at the end the following:

`For purposes of paragraph (11), the term `making imperceptible' does not include the addition of audio or video content that is performed or displayed over or in place of existing content in a motion picture.'.

(c) Exemption From Trademark Infringement- Section 32 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1114) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(3)(A) Any person who engages in the conduct described in paragraph (11) of section 110 of title 17, United States Code, and who complies with the requirements set forth in that paragraph is not liable on account of such conduct for a violation of any right under this Act. This subparagraph does not preclude liability of a person for conduct not described in paragraph (11) of section 110 of title 17, United States Code, even if that person also engages in conduct described in paragraph (11) of section 110 of such title.

`(B) A manufacturer, licensee, or licensor of technology that enables the making of limited portions of audio or video content of a motion picture imperceptible as described in subparagraph (A) is not liable on account of such manufacture or license for a violation of any right under this Act, if such manufacturer, licensee, or licensor ensures that the technology provides a clear and conspicuous notice at the beginning of each performance that the performance of the motion picture is altered from the performance intended by the director or copyright holder of the motion picture. The limitations on liability in subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall not apply to a manufacturer, licensee, or licensor of technology that fails to comply with this paragraph.

`(C) The requirement under subparagraph (B) to provide notice shall apply only with respect to technology manufactured after the end of the 180-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of the Family Movie Act of 2004.'.

(d) Definition- In this section, the term `Trademark Act of 1946' means the Act entitled `An Act to provide for the registration and protection of trademarks used in commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain international conventions, and for other purposes', approved July 5, 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq.).

1) Only applies to motion pictures (ie: movies) 2) Prevents any commercial skippage... so when they show a movie on TV, you are legally required to not skip them? From here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:5:./tem p/~c10864QF67:e20039: `(B) no changes, deletions or additions are made by such computer program or other technology to commercial advertisements, or to network or station promotional announcements, that would otherwise be performed or displayed before, during or after the performance of the motion picture.';

The original bill was introduced into the House, hence the HR2391 in the write up and article. It basically they was hijacked once it got to the Senate, but it still is tracked by the HR2391 name here. Check out the differences between #4 and #5. Anything that was in the house version was strickened out and all the extra crap was added.

I'm a little confused, though, because S.2192 looks pretty innocuous; it's H.R.2391 that contains the bad stuff

I'm a little confused, though, because S.2192 looks pretty innocuous; it's H.R.2391 that contains the bad stuff

Anyone else find the ideological mix interesting? The bill is co-sponsered by a mix of Democrats and Republicans. Many get money from Hollywood, which is traditionally Democrat and liberal. Yet this issue is considered by many as being pushed by "conservatives". Where are all the celebrity pundits now?

The Senate bill is S.2192

The House bill is H.R.2391

See the S is for Senate, the H in H.R. is for House...

The Senate bill is S.2192

The House bill is H.R.2391

See the S is for Senate, the H in H.R. is for House...

...can be found here.

I am quite familiar with downloading mp3s and I've found that there are quite a few downsides to downloading vs. purchasing in today's market.

1) Quality:
The quality of mp3s one is downloading are at times quite suspect. I don't know about anyone else, but I can certainly tell the difference between 128kbps, 192kbs and 256kbps without too much difficulty and I tend to want better quality (who doesn't?).

2) Organization:
Organizing anything over like I'd say 1000 mp3s gets to be a monumental task if you let it go to hell. In addition it doesn't help that everyone under the sun has different naming conventions and what not for all of their mp3s. Sure there are utilities out there to help organize mp3s, but I haven't found anything that really comes close to doing a good job of finding exact song duplicates (I mean EXACT duplicates where I can choose the better quality song I have over the crappier quality one) as well as cleanly renaming huge batches of songs without problem. It also becomes a big pain to try and search through all of your songs to find what you're looking for when your songs have different naming conventions.

3) Translation to Different Media:
I feel that the issue here is just a matter of data-loss. In the end when all is said and done 99% of compression algorithms lead to some element of data loss. When you go to burn mp3s to a cd or what have you, you're most likely play a song that has the cutoffs to its frequency spectrum within the audible range. Consequently the quality (once again) will suffer and you're going to hear things like an annoying low buzz on those awesome speakers you just got because the song's low end frequencies are cut short.

4) Taking it with you?:
Transferring through upgrades and what have you, or even backing up this type of data is such a pain in the ass. I can't tell you how big of a pain it is when windows can't even classify how many freaking songs you have. How do you backup even 90,000 songs reliably and hopefully cheaply? Even DVDs you burn aren't going to last as long as your parents' vinyl records have, so in 10 years when you try to find that hit from 2001 you're going to be hit with disc rot anyway! So what's the point of amassing such an incredible collection only to have it vanish into nothingness as you get older? Also, purchased cd's have an extra layer of scratch protective coating that, while not as good as many would like, is worlds better than having burned CDRS that have no scratch protection.

5) Do you really listen to all of them?:
I've noticed recently I'm thinking more and more of just getting rid of 99% of my mp3s and almost starting over with iTunes and what have you. Because if I purchase music most likely it'll be music I really want to listen to. Frankly, I only really download music to check out a CD to see if I want to plop down money for ALL of the songs (not just the single). Therefore, those mp3s I download, that I like just enough to not delete immediately, start to take up tons of hard-drive space needlessly. I think it's just a waste to keep mp3s you aren't really listening to nor ever plan on really playing again. Now, you do have these people who are out to save the music history of the world given a catastrophe. These people are nuts. There is no way in God's green earth that any consumer will viably be able to download that magnitude of achievable quality music and store it reliably as well. It's just a stupid excuse to keep downloading mp3s when there's already projects well established projects for doing so!

In the end I feel that it's silly to fight music or movie pirating, because frankly the only music or movies that are genuinely hurt are the crappy ones. Just look at the numbers, Finding Nemo grossed $339,666,356, Alicia Keys' first album sold over 7 million copies world-wide. Granted these are only two examples but there are many more. I submit that peopl

Unless subject to poor conditions, I haven't seen much of our 35mm film degrade significantly. I've recently been scanning some slides (positives) that my parents took in the 50s, and the ones that weren't subject to dampness are beautiful. They were simply stored in the box the processing lab provided. Some of those that were stored where they got damp got mold on them.

But, to put all this in context with this article, you wouldn't store your digital images on a CD left in the sun, loose in a backpack, or on a hard drive that you then subjected to strong magnetic fields. There's always some environmental hazard that can destroy them. But 45 years from now, that picture in an acid-free album (excluding catastrophes) should be easy to view -- to view the digital ones you probably will have had to transfer them from format to format to format over the years, or you may find yourself in a frantic search to locate a viewer that views those quaint "JPG" files from 2004, and it might be as hard as locating a working Commodore 1541 floppy disk is now.

Are you actually alleging that ALL THREE e-voting vendors - ES&S, Diebold, and Sequoia - have found some way to add votes only to the Republican candidates, undetected?

Do you think Kerry's $300M campaign, and the hundreds of experts who worked it for the better part of two years, just said "Oh, well! Guess we lost, even though there's proof of widespread fraud! Let's just throw in the towel and not say anything about it!" Wake up.

These are EXACTLY the kinds of problems, i.e., errors and failures in equipment (and setup) that we aim to prevent. But it is not possible for a central entity to control the vote.

We do need verified voting, but I'm sorry to say that there was no widespread fraud in all e-voting states. It's just not possible. There are thousands of people involved, thousands of pieces of equipment, many, many, many election and other government officials at all levels in extremely disparate jurisdictions with different ways of doing things, with no way for any central entity to reach these machines after the fact. (And no, they don't come "preloaded" with votes for Republican candidates; the logistics of the way they're set up and the diversity of the the configurations also makes that impossible.)

Bush won. Again. Get over it.

H.R.2239 and S.1980, discussed further here [verifiedvoting.org], will amend the Help America Vote Act (an act designed to ensure consistent voting systems that meet certain standards be available to ALL voters in ALL jurisdictions), such that there is "a voter-verified permanent record or hardcopy" attached with each and every ballot cast by every voter.

Please, simply support this legislation.

Additionally, the electronic voting manufacturers, such as Diebold, already have the ability to add permanent, individual voter-verified paper audit trails to their products .[1] Don't believe people who make it seem like companies like Diebold are resisting. They aren't. They'll build - and sell - whatever municipalities will buy.

The roadblock, as it turns out, is often local election boards. First, the new paper verification systems NEED to go through the government certification process - remember, it's the e-voting watchdogs who are chastising non-certified patches/updates being put into place; the paper audit systems need to go through the same certification process. Further, many municipalities can't understand why they should be forcing paper audit trails; after all, they think, they are just getting away from paper ballots - why should they be arguing for paper ballots (and all the headaches that go along with them, ON TOP of the headaches they already have from learning to deal with e-voting), so why should they go back to them?

Folks, so many people are involved in elections at so many different levels that there is literally no way that any central entity could rig an election across an entire state. Experts dealing with e-voting don't even have this on their radar. Their concern is more errors and failures. E.g., most of Ohio is still punchcard as it is (the majority of the 35 counties moving to e-voting pushed off the transition until AFTER the election because of problems), and someone like Diebold doesn't even have access to this equipment after the fact. Yes, an unscrupulous election official or enterprising hacker might be able to breach individual machines and potentially even a county - it's possible. But the likelihood of something like that happening on any significant scale, ESPECIALLY without being caught (the articles we're talking about here actually prove that the audit processes, be they what they are, do work) is very, very low.

That said, we absolutely sho

Are you actually alleging that ALL THREE e-voting vendors - ES&S, Diebold, and Sequoia - have found some way to add votes only to the Republican candidates, undetected?

Do you think Kerry's $300M campaign, and the hundreds of experts who worked it for the better part of two years, just said "Oh, well! Guess we lost, even though there's proof of widespread fraud! Let's just throw in the towel and not say anything about it!" Wake up.

These are EXACTLY the kinds of problems, i.e., errors and failures in equipment (and setup) that we aim to prevent. But it is not possible for a central entity to control the vote.

We do need verified voting, but I'm sorry to say that there was no widespread fraud in all e-voting states. It's just not possible. There are thousands of people involved, thousands of pieces of equipment, many, many, many election and other government officials at all levels in extremely disparate jurisdictions with different ways of doing things, with no way for any central entity to reach these machines after the fact. (And no, they don't come "preloaded" with votes for Republican candidates; the logistics of the way they're set up and the diversity of the the configurations also makes that impossible.)

Bush won. Again. Get over it.

H.R.2239 and S.1980, discussed further here [verifiedvoting.org], will amend the Help America Vote Act (an act designed to ensure consistent voting systems that meet certain standards be available to ALL voters in ALL jurisdictions), such that there is "a voter-verified permanent record or hardcopy" attached with each and every ballot cast by every voter.

Please, simply support this legislation.

Additionally, the electronic voting manufacturers, such as Diebold, already have the ability to add permanent, individual voter-verified paper audit trails to their products .[1] Don't believe people who make it seem like companies like Diebold are resisting. They aren't. They'll build - and sell - whatever municipalities will buy.

The roadblock, as it turns out, is often local election boards. First, the new paper verification systems NEED to go through the government certification process - remember, it's the e-voting watchdogs who are chastising non-certified patches/updates being put into place; the paper audit systems need to go through the same certification process. Further, many municipalities can't understand why they should be forcing paper audit trails; after all, they think, they are just getting away from paper ballots - why should they be arguing for paper ballots (and all the headaches that go along with them, ON TOP of the headaches they already have from learning to deal with e-voting), so why should they go back to them?

Folks, so many people are involved in elections at so many different levels that there is literally no way that any central entity could rig an election across an entire state. Experts dealing with e-voting don't even have this on their radar. Their concern is more errors and failures. E.g., most of Ohio is still punchcard as it is (the majority of the 35 counties moving to e-voting pushed off the transition until AFTER the election because of problems), and someone like Diebold doesn't even have access to this equipment after the fact. Yes, an unscrupulous election official or enterprising hacker might be able to breach individual machines and potentially even a county - it's possible. But the likelihood of something like that happening on any significant scale, ESPECIALLY without being caught (the articles we're talking about here actually prove that the audit processes, be they what they are, do work) is very, very low.

That said, we absolutely sho

Processes that are cost-effective at reducing energy consumption are, in fact, implemented by industries of their own accord. It would be stupid not to. The issue is that a lot of the processes for reducing pollution reduce the efficiency of the production process (or, at least, don't improve efficiency).

Take, for instance, the catalytic converter in your car - the catalytic converter reduces fuel efficiency and performance somewhat by creating backpressure in the exhaust manifold. Obviously, the emissions benefit is a large net positive, but given the choice, a lot of people would run their cars without a catalytic converter because (a) they wouldn't have to buy the converter and (b) their fuel efficiency and performance would be better. Laws require you to have a properly installed catalytic converter on your car.

Now, the issue that is of concern to our government (not just Bush, but also the Senate, which preemptively refused to ratify Kyoto in 1997, with a resolution sponsored by Democrat Robert Byrd that passed 95-0, including a yes vote from Senator John Kerry) is similar to what would happen to cars if catalytic converters were prohibitively expensive to operate. People wouldn't buy cars, and what's more, people would likely move to a country where they were allowed to run a car without a catalytic converter.

The same is true here - if environmental regulations make operating an industry too expensive in the U.S., then companies will (a) close down plants in the U.S., and (b) likely move those plants overseas to the countries who are already producing the most pollution per dollar GDP but who are exempt from the regulations of Kyoto (such as China).

H.R.2239 and S.1980, discussed further here, will amend the Help America Vote Act (an act designed to ensure consistent voting systems that meet certain standards be available to ALL voters in ALL jurisdictions), such that there is "a voter-verified permanent record or hardcopy" attached with each and every ballot cast by every voter.

Please, simply support this legislation.

Additionally, the electronic voting manufacturers, such as Diebold, already have the ability to add permanent, individual voter-verified paper audit trails to their products .[1] Don't believe people who make it seem like companies like Diebold are resisting. They aren't. They'll build - and sell - whatever municipalities will buy.

The roadblock, as it turns out, is often local election boards. First, the new paper verification systems NEED to go through the government certification process - remember, it's the e-voting watchdogs who are chastising non-certified patches/updates being put into place; the paper audit systems need to go through the same certification process. Further, many municipalities can't understand why they should be forcing paper audit trails; after all, they think, they are just getting away from paper ballots - why should they be arguing for paper ballots (and all the headaches that go along with them, ON TOP of the headaches they already have from learning to deal with e-voting), so why should they go back to them?

Folks, so many people are involved in elections at so many different levels that there is literally no way that any central entity could rig an election across an entire state. Experts dealing with e-voting don't even have this on their radar. Their concern is more errors and failures. E.g., most of Ohio is still punchcard as it is (the majority of the 35 counties moving to e-voting pushed off the transition until AFTER the election because of problems), and someone like Diebold doesn't even have access to this equipment after the fact. Yes, an unscrupulous election official or enterprising hacker might be able to breach individual machines and potentially even a county - it's possible. But the likelihood of something like that happening on any significant scale, ESPECIALLY without being caught (the articles we're talking about here actually prove that the audit processes, be they what they are, do work) is very, very low.

That said, we absolutely should be ensuring that there is a permanent, voter-verified, paper record. It is absolutely critical to our voting process, even if the software is still proprietary on these systems (though it, too, should be open for public inspection). But the permanent voter-verified paper record alone eliminates the chances for any widespread fraud with the counting process itself, and at the very least makes any fraud easily reversible and/or detectable.

Contact your representative and senators, and urge them to support the above bills. It will be a lot more productive that imagining fantasies about Diebold "handing" Bush the election. (If ANYTHING remotely like that happened, there are a shitload of professors, campaign staff, scholars, journalists, and researchers who know a LOT more than you do who would be all over this in a heartbeat. Kerry's $300 million, two-year campaign didn't just roll over for no reason. Bush won, whether anyone likes it or not, and it wasn't because electronic voting handed anyone anything. The POINT here, is that instead of inventing wild conspiracy theories, we should be ensuring that there is voter verification and a permanent paper record for all future elections, because HAVA will require a shift to electronic voting for everyone - before that happens, we should make sure that it's veri

H.R.2239 and S.1980, discussed further here, will amend the Help America Vote Act (an act designed to ensure consistent voting systems that meet certain standards be available to ALL voters in ALL jurisdictions), such that there is "a voter-verified permanent record or hardcopy" attached with each and every ballot cast by every voter.

Please, simply support this legislation.

Additionally, the electronic voting manufacturers, such as Diebold, already have the ability to add permanent, individual voter-verified paper audit trails to their products .[1] Don't believe people who make it seem like companies like Diebold are resisting. They aren't. They'll build - and sell - whatever municipalities will buy.

The roadblock, as it turns out, is often local election boards. First, the new paper verification systems NEED to go through the government certification process - remember, it's the e-voting watchdogs who are chastising non-certified patches/updates being put into place; the paper audit systems need to go through the same certification process. Further, many municipalities can't understand why they should be forcing paper audit trails; after all, they think, they are just getting away from paper ballots - why should they be arguing for paper ballots (and all the headaches that go along with them, ON TOP of the headaches they already have from learning to deal with e-voting), so why should they go back to them?

Folks, so many people are involved in elections at so many different levels that there is literally no way that any central entity could rig an election across an entire state. Experts dealing with e-voting don't even have this on their radar. Their concern is more errors and failures. E.g., most of Ohio is still punchcard as it is (the majority of the 35 counties moving to e-voting pushed off the transition until AFTER the election because of problems), and someone like Diebold doesn't even have access to this equipment after the fact. Yes, an unscrupulous election official or enterprising hacker might be able to breach individual machines and potentially even a county - it's possible. But the likelihood of something like that happening on any significant scale, ESPECIALLY without being caught (the articles we're talking about here actually prove that the audit processes, be they what they are, do work) is very, very low.

That said, we absolutely should be ensuring that there is a permanent, voter-verified, paper record. It is absolutely critical to our voting process, even if the software is still proprietary on these systems (though it, too, should be open for public inspection). But the permanent voter-verified paper record alone eliminates the chances for any widespread fraud with the counting process itself, and at the very least makes any fraud easily reversible and/or detectable.

Contact your representative and senators, and urge them to support the above bills. It will be a lot more productive that imagining fantasies about Diebold "handing" Bush the election. (If ANYTHING remotely like that happened, there are a shitload of professors, campaign staff, scholars, journalists, and researchers who know a LOT more than you do who would be all over this in a heartbeat. Kerry's $300 million, two-year campaign didn't just roll over for no reason. Bush won, whether anyone likes it or not, and it wasn't because electronic voting handed anyone anything. The POINT here, is that instead of inventing wild conspiracy theories, we should be ensuring that there is voter verification and a permanent paper record for all future elections, because HAVA will require a shift to electronic voting for everyone - before that happens, we should make sure that it's veri

So what I'm curious about (and have been wondering from the beginning), is how the president is supposedly supportive of the draft?

Especially considering only democrats support the proposal...?!?

Bill in the senate: S.89
Supporter(s):
Sen Fritz Hollings (DFL)

Bill in the house: H.R.163
Supporter(s):
Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] - 1/7/2003 (DFL)
Rep Brown, Corrine [FL-3] - 1/28/2003 (DFL)
Rep Christensen, Donna M. [VI] - 5/19/2004 (DFL)
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] - 1/28/2003 (DFL)
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] - 1/7/2003 (DFL)
Rep Cummings, Elijah E. [MD-7] - 1/28/2003 (DFL)
Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23] - 1/28/2003 (DFL)
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2] - 7/21/2004 (DFL)
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] - 1/28/2003 (DFL)
Rep Lewis, John [GA-5] - 1/7/2003 (DFL)
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 1/7/2003 (DFL)
Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] - 1/28/2003 (DFL)
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] - 1/7/2003 (DFL)
Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [NY-12] - 1/28/2003 (DFL)
So again, please tell me how President Bush (or any Republican for that matter) is linked to reinstating conscription?

So what I'm curious about (and have been wondering from the beginning), is how the president is supposedly supportive of the draft?

Especially considering only democrats support the proposal...?!?

Bill in the senate: S.89
Supporter(s):
Sen Fritz Hollings (DFL)

Bill in the house: H.R.163
Supporter(s):
Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] - 1/7/2003 (DFL)
Rep Brown, Corrine [FL-3] - 1/28/2003 (DFL)
Rep Christensen, Donna M. [VI] - 5/19/2004 (DFL)
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] - 1/28/2003 (DFL)
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] - 1/7/2003 (DFL)
Rep Cummings, Elijah E. [MD-7] - 1/28/2003 (DFL)
Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23] - 1/28/2003 (DFL)
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2] - 7/21/2004 (DFL)
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] - 1/28/2003 (DFL)
Rep Lewis, John [GA-5] - 1/7/2003 (DFL)
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 1/7/2003 (DFL)
Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] - 1/28/2003 (DFL)
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] - 1/7/2003 (DFL)
Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [NY-12] - 1/28/2003 (DFL)
So again, please tell me how President Bush (or any Republican for that matter) is linked to reinstating conscription?