Slashdot Mirror

a form of state political organization in which the government is based on religious offices.

Sounds bad.

A system of government controlled by the dominating religions beliefs inherent in the society.

Sounds good, given that you have a set of ``dominating religions beliefs''. If you think that the U.S. doesn't have that, you must be new here. Supreme Court Justice Black said: ``We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.'' The original government of the U.S., as described in our constitution, would be a theocracy by that definition. It was designed to be controlled by the religious majority.

Letting religious organizations get a little bit of slops from the pork barrel is a long way from either of those definitions of theocracy.

The term of protection granted by this Convention shall be the life of the author and fifty years after his death.

Let's make this clear:

The Democrats created the DMCA.


It's traditional to cite such things. It often makes for a stronger argument, assuming the facts support it.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (Public Law 105-304) was sponsored in the House by a Howard Coble, a republican (NC-6th). In the senate, it was sponsored by Orrin Hatch, also a Republican (UT).

The Democrats extended copyrights.

The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (Public Law 105-298) was also sponsored by Orrin Hatch. It was named for a Republican congressman. In the House, it was sponsored by, (get this!) Howard Coble of North Carolina.

Yeah yeah, some Democrats are listed as cosponsors. And both bills did garner the votes of both Republicans and Democrats. Details, details.

Let's make this clear:

The Democrats created the DMCA.


It's traditional to cite such things. It often makes for a stronger argument, assuming the facts support it.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (Public Law 105-304) was sponsored in the House by a Howard Coble, a republican (NC-6th). In the senate, it was sponsored by Orrin Hatch, also a Republican (UT).

The Democrats extended copyrights.

The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (Public Law 105-298) was also sponsored by Orrin Hatch. It was named for a Republican congressman. In the House, it was sponsored by, (get this!) Howard Coble of North Carolina.

Yeah yeah, some Democrats are listed as cosponsors. And both bills did garner the votes of both Republicans and Democrats. Details, details.

Is the US at war now ? No.

Some people would disagree with you.

And, before the democrats threw a fit, it was only going to be for the super-rich. Specifically, the parts for people with incomes of under $200,000 per year were not in the original bill.

Just to clarify too: its HR 163. You can read the official text of the bill at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.0 0163:

2 Yeas, 402 Nays

Someone else want to find the Senate counterpart?

It was my belief that one of the requirements on slashdot was the capability of using a search engine. Since that seems to be beyond you, here is a link to the text of the bill:

McCain-Feingold

McCain Feingold specifically struck down an attempt to restrict 527 groups, making them the only avenue for political speech in America. These 527 groups are also allowed to create "get-out-the -vote" or "voter motivation groups" These groups are the ones currently registering thousands upon thousands of voters. This activity was specifically brought under consideration by the courts, but they decided that at this "late date" in the elections, any decision about the legality of 527 activities should be deferred for 90 days (i.e. past the election).

The part of McCain Feingold that allows these groups to register voters without providing ID information back to the clerks for the county is one of thse lovely little "in section 23(A) strike "." and replace with ";". One of these innocuous lines changed the entire meaning of a clause in the law and made the people out collecting registrations also able to verify ID.

Which clause was it ? I have no idea, IANAL, nor do I have hours to parse this legalese. But, again, two minutes on google or dogpile should answer your question.

You do know those are search engines, right?

OTOH, Kerry worked to change the reviled CDA, to keep taxes off Internet business, to require telemarketers to divulge their location at the start of a call, and to promote broadband deployment (all cited in that same McCullagh article. Kerry's Congressional career has been mostly during the Gingrichian Republican majority. He has engaged in the tricky minority politics that require going along with popular bills, then changing them in subsequent legislation, after the Republican "loyalty machine" has moved on, and some sense can be talked across the aisle.

Kerry isn't a tech champion; his priorities lead him into some conflicts with some sensible tech agendas. Especially, it seems, when promoting police access to information for law enforcement: he was a successful prosecutor. But with so many heinous laws passed under Bush, we need someone who knows how to undo the damage. And that's our choice NEXT WEEK: Kerry - who knows what he's doing, who has at least a balanced tech agenda, or Bush - who doesn't understand tech or techies, who has a solely corporate agenda, when his agenda is actually in control of any situation rather than incompetence and chaos.

Others in this thread have pointed out that the DMCA isn't as important in voting as Iraq, healthcare, the Patriot Act. Of course, it all gets factored in. Kerry isn't as tech friendly as, say, *I* would be, but you can't vote me into the White House. If you vote Bush back, more of the same of his antiscience, antihuman, antiAmerican agenda will be an unacceptable alternative to Kerry, who can at least understand his own agenda.

In other news, here's a rollcall for the PATRIOT Act. It's a dead horse, but I just noticed that Sen. Sensenbrenner ( R-WI ) sponsored this beast and Sen. Feingold ( D-WI ) cast the only dissenting vote. It's amazing to me that no one voted against the DMCA.
I know this has been a bit offtopic, but it was interesting news to me being an ignorant Wisconsonite.
*shrug*
I guess I'll go back to my chronic Googling now...

Why would he support a bill that wouldn't get through a Republican Congress?

It is Senate Bill 1431, which would extent the Assault Weapons ban with added restrictions.

Time is of the essence on this one, as those campaigning in tight races need something to prop up their electoral base. Somehow I find it refreshing or disturbing that for the past few weeks I've had to call in to Washington three times for poor legislation. So here's the the deal.

The bill is S. 2845, and the portion of debate here is (Information Sharing) Sec. 206, among others. Find your Senators here. Then I want you to e-mail, call, whatever. I, personally, like to call and be firm but nonetheless polite. Don't contact Sen. McCain's office unless you're from Arizona: there is no, no, no, no national politic. None. Your message will be either be forwarded to your state Senators' offices or discarded, and I don't want some aide doing tallies to think that everybody who contacted them was from every state but the one with their voters.

E-mail will also work, and hell, if you have all of ten minutes and $2, consider writing a very basic letter and overnighting it USPS. Remember: you don't have to convince them, all you need to let them know is that you are opposed to it. Paper talks.

Because I can write a better law than H.J.RES.109

http://bolson.org/voting/amendment.txt

Because I can write a better law than H.J.RES.109

http://bolson.org/voting/amendment.txt

"Subtitle B, Sections 3052, 3053:

To be eligible to receive any grant or other type of financial assistance made available under H.R. 10, The 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act, a State shall participate in the interstate compact regarding sharing of driver license data, known as the `Driver License Agreement', in order to provide electronic access by a State to information contained in the motor vehicle databases of all other States. [Requiring] (1) All data fields printed on drivers' licenses and identification cards issued by the State. (2) Motor vehicle drivers' histories, including motor vehicle violations, suspensions, and points on licenses."

and

"(b) MINIMUM DOCUMENT REQUIREMENTS- To meet the requirements of this section, a State shall include, at a minimum, the following information and features on each driver's license and identification card issued to a person by the State:

(1) The person's full legal name.
(2) The person's date of birth.
(3) The person's gender.
(4) The person's driver license or identification card number.
(5) A photograph of the person.
(6) The person's address of principal residence.
(7) The person's signature.
(8) Physical security features designed to prevent tampering, counterfeiting, or duplication of the document for fraudulent purposes.
(9) A common machine-readable technology, with defined minimum data elements."

Mmmmm, Big Brother is my Friend!

This from the same bill that is seeking to outsource torture:

"Section 3032 - (3) BURDEN OF PROOF- The revision shall also ensure that the burden of proof is on the applicant for withholding or deferral of removal under the Convention to establish by clear and convincing evidence that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal."

yeah, that sounds plausible.

Time to write your congressional reps folks!

http://www.house.gov/writerep/

The Most Sweeping Gun Ban Ever Introduced in Congress--Clinton Gun Ban "Reenactment" Bans Millions More Guns

For the last time, stop the plagiarism! If you think somebody else made your case better than you could, then link to it. Don't pollute slashdot with copies of NRA propaganda.

And one more time: Bush said he supported that bill! Either Bush was lying about that, or he is just as anti-gun as Kerry.

And one more time: Kerry never voted for that bill.

There is something funny about that bill, though. Of course it's obviously too vague to be effectively implemented. But it also reflects a special fear politicians have: the assasin's rifle. 5 years ago there was an uproar about the availiblity of the Barret 50, which reminded all the Washington people that they're never really safe.

One specific quote:Bans the three centerfire rifles most popular for marksmanship competitions: the Colt AR-15, the Springfield M1A and the M1 "Garand."

That's false. Yes, the AR-15 is banned, as is the M1 Carbine, which is a different, shorter weapon than the actual M1 Garand rifle. I also can't find anything in the text about Springfields. It would be pretty crazy if it actually banned those, because a Springfield is no different than any deer-hunting rifle.

he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.

The most famous comes from anthropology. Watching and Observing Chimps in the wild like Jane Goodall.

Aha. Up to now I thought that Margaret Mead deserved the honour.

CC.

I personally prefer both IRV and Condorcet to the current system. Between the two, condorcet is better, but until the debate enters the mainstream, my favorite term is simply the more generic Proportional Representation.

I personally prefer both IRV and Condorcet to the current system. Between the two, condorcet is better, but until the debate enters the mainstream, my favorite term is simply the more generic Proportional Representation.

I hate replying to sigs... since changing them changes them for old comments also...

But... nice sig.

Made me get off my ass and check it out for myself.

You are so full of horse-crap. You are aware that the Republican party, as it was first conceived, was identical to the current Libertarian party? They were the staunch supporters of government non-interventionism.

Hmmm... let's think... What was the first action taken by the Republican party once it reached national office?

Oh yes! The Civil War- the single largest government intervention in the history of the USA.

Yeah a bit late.

Both House and Senate adjourned on Oct 8, and won't meet again until sometime next January.

The wired story was posted Oct. 6, and links to the text of the bill.

It seems that it and related measures passed both houses of Congress though.

Yeah a bit late.

Both House and Senate adjourned on Oct 8, and won't meet again until sometime next January.

The wired story was posted Oct. 6, and links to the text of the bill.

It seems that it and related measures passed both houses of Congress though.

Yeah a bit late.

Both House and Senate adjourned on Oct 8, and won't meet again until sometime next January.

The wired story was posted Oct. 6, and links to the text of the bill.

It seems that it and related measures passed both houses of Congress though.

Yeah a bit late.

Both House and Senate adjourned on Oct 8, and won't meet again until sometime next January.

The wired story was posted Oct. 6, and links to the text of the bill.

It seems that it and related measures passed both houses of Congress though.

She is trying to actually know whether Kerry will be better before she changes her vote

Kerry has a 20+ year history in the senate. Look at his voting record:
Voted to increase taxes over 300 times (most failed, fortunately).
Despite his claims that there needs to be an "international test" to use the US military, voted No on Gulf War #1 which had the full support of practically every other country.
Voted Yes on #2, No to continue funding it after it started, and now complains that it shouldn't have happened.
Voted to cut intelligence spending AFTER the WTC was bombed in 96 and now complains that GWB acted on bad intel.
Left the meeting between the President and the 911 commission almost 2 hours early.

The list goes on and on. Just check Senate Roll Call
I assure you, Kerry would be much worse.

I keep reading a bunch of "definitions" of cybersquatting relying solely on the intent to sell a domain name back to its intended owner, but there's more to it than that according to US law:

According to the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, cybersquatting is registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name with bad-faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else.

Yes, intent to profit has a lot to do with it, but bad-faith intent is all that's necessary for such activity to be considered cyber-squatting. Punishments are only much worse for those intending to profit from it. Besides, since when is profit limited to money? The additional attention via registering your political opponent's namesake domain name allows extra persuasion of voters, and that's a profit... or else, what is your definition of profit?

Maybe drop the "see DMCA/USAPA" part and instead, make it:

Welcome to America, Land of the Free*

*Void where prohibited. Some restrictions apply.

Well, maybe not that much time.

The Piracy Deterrence and Education Act of 2004 was recently introduced in the Senate (09.29) and what I find so interesting about it is one of Congress' "findings" - (4) Many computer users simply believe that they will not be caught or prosecuted for their conduct. The interesting section - "SEC. 9. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS ON NEED TO TAKE STEPS TO PREVENT ILLEGAL ACTIVITY ON PEER-TO-PEER SERVICES." outlines Congress' sense about the illegal activity. The kicker is that the Supreme Court has held that as long as the central service is not hosting anything then the true p2p is not copyright infringement thus the whole need for RIAA to attack the general public and end-users.

For the text of the pending amendment to the Copyright Act, see the Lib of Cong website. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.0 4077:

Just because a tool may potentially infringe copyright, does not make it an instrumentality of copyright infringement.

I was referring to this and myriad of similiar efforts under way every day of the week in the Senate and the House. We get these sort of proposals like clockwork and they get conglomerated in major acts every 4-8 years extending the terms of patents and copyrights. Witness the Copyright Extension Act and the HR507 Patent Terms Restoration Act (17 years) from the date of filing. So while you are likely right that the "Cher" act wasn't (I do not follow the minutia of proposals de-jeur) there is absolutely nothing counter-indicative to the predictions that these efforts are likely to continue and be successful.

I submitted a similar story last week [2004-10-05 18:44:25 National ID Card proposed (Index,Privacy) (rejected)] and when I saw this headline, I assumed it was about the same bill. Turns out it's not.

There is another bill proposed by three Republicans and a Texas Democrat that would make the Social Security card a national ID, one that would also be linked to a country-wide database containing information about your "employability."

However, since our SSNo. is also required for banking, tax, and medical records, the potential for database linking and tracking is even higher.

I used to work in the music department of the Library of Congress, and there was already scanning going on, in fact there was about three terabytes of books all ready to go up on the web and pictures of a collection of over a thousand flutes that is kept at the library were also being prepared to go up. They also already have a large amount of audio files up for grabs. http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/browse/ListSome.php?ca tegory=Performing%20Arts,%20Music
As well, on the topic of how many books actually get in to the LOC, the copyright office is in the same building as one of the three LOC buildings, so it's pretty easy for stuff to make its way there.
-Julius

What a cool idea and, even "if" the dollar estimate is too low, who cares? $260M is chump change for our gov't.

Right now, the only way to access the stuff in LoC is to go there in person. Anyone can do it but you have to travel to WashDC and pass through security and so forth to get into the LoC public reading room. Then you have to ask the librarian to pretty-please bring you the book that you want.

Now imagine that you can access any item in the LoC by simply entering the building and using a public kiosk with a browser. LoC's software would only permit use within the copyright so that is OK. But you don't have to mess with as much security because LoC isn't handing over the physical book.

Now imagine that, from any web browser, you can access any book in the LoC for which the copyright has expired. I like that idea!

My opinion... skip the buy on the next couple of cruise missiles and digitize LoC's books instead.

Oh yeah, before I forget, LoC already has tons of seriously neat stuff online. My favorite is this collection of tons photos from Russia. These were taken between about 1907 and 1915! I don't know about you, but I never dreamed that I would see color photos that are almost 100 years old.

Cheers,
-- Art Z.

Their collections policy statement states that they only keep material specific to their very broad mission statement. This means that they will not keep a copy of a laundry list they received throught the copyright office.

2) The LoC is not just English language. For example the French Collections is about 1 million volumes. http://www.loc.gov/rr/european/coll/fren.html

EC. 201. DESIGNATION OF NATIONAL TREE.

(a) DESIGNATION- Chapter 3 of title 36, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 305. National tree

`The tree genus Quercus, commonly known as the oak tree, is the national tree.'.

As seen on Transterrestrial Musings, spacepolitics.com, and RLV News:

Just got this message Jeff Greason of XCOR Aerospace that the current legislation to assist the development of the suborbital spaceflight industry has been distorted by Senate staffers into something that will instead smother the industry in the cradle:

There is a last-minute move by some staffers in the Senate to heavily amend HR 3752. The amendments would completely change the charter of the office of commercial space transportation (AST), placing the safety of the crew and passengers on equal footing with the safety of the uninvolved public. Since that is well beyond present technology, it would effectively stop development of the industry in the U.S.. It is too late to fix the bill before the session adjourns, but not too late to stop it. If you or people you know have connections to any Senator, please ask them to put a "hold" on HR 3752. That prevents it from passing by unanimous consent. We may have less than 24 hours.

If the bill is "held" there may be opportunity to fix it in a post-election session -- but if not, we would still rather the bill die than pass with these poison-pill amendments.

If your Senator is on the Commerce Committee, that's even better: http://commerce.senate.gov/about/membership.html

Personally, I'm in favor of having the AST in charge of the safety of the uninvolved public on the ground, as the bill was originally worded. However, I think that the last-minute changes to have the same agency regulate the safety of crew and passengers (and require the corresponding mountains of paperwork) would be an excellent way to kill off the budding US space tourism industry.

MSNBC has a more in-depth article on this.

As reported on several space-related news sites, including RLV News and Transterrestrial musings:

There is a last-minute move by some staffers in the Senate to heavily amend HR 3752. The amendments would completely change the charter of the office of commercial space transportation (AST), placing the safety of the crew and passengers on equal footing with the safety of the uninvolved public. Since that is well beyond present technology, it would effectively stop development of the industry in the U.S.. It is too late to fix the bill before the session adjourns, but not too late to stop it. If you or people you know have connections to any Senator, please ask them to put a "hold" on HR 3752. That prevents it from passing by unanimous consent. We may have less than 24 hours.

If the bill is "held" there may be opportunity to fix it in a post-election session -- but if not, we would still rather the bill die than pass with these poison-pill amendments.

1. When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
2. 
   
   We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Constitution

1. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
2. establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Preamble to the Bill of Rights

1. THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire,
2. in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Bill of Rights

1. Amendment I
2. 
   Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
   
   Amendment II
   A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
   
   Amendment III

Heh, heh. Well, I guess I'm just of the opinion that the rest of the world places more value on Canada than most U.S. citizens think. We get used to thinking of them as kind of a puppet, and although they're fun to rip on, they have done some things internationally that places them in higher regard than the U.S. sometimes.

Well I have to agree we did nothing but fuck up during the CMC, but even with all the mistakes we managed to come to an acceptable solution between both parties.

In lieu of being blown up, it's entirely acceptable. Funny part is that, the USSR was not happy with the handling of the crisis, and deposed Kruschev. He was placed under house arrest.

As for the end of the world? I can't speak for others but my objection to Iraq is I don't want to be drafted into a war I don't support. Unfortunately I'm not convinced either candidate can avoid the draft at this point.

I don't want to be drafted for it either. I don't think we have to worry about being drafted, though. The official word is that congress hasn't done anything about reinstating the draft, the administration denys that there is a need for one, and the Selective Service says that it is unable to manage a draft at this point.

The unofficial word, however, is that they're reinstating the draft, and making it harder to dodge it. I'm sure that you've probably read the same things I have about S.89 and H.R.163, and are probably pretty worried that you're going to have to do your required 2 years of service in Iraq. There was a lot of sites quoting these two bills, and saying how horrible it was they were going to draft people for a protracted war on terrorism.

I got curious about this, so I took a look at them. First of all, it's kind of funny, because these bills weren't really designed with that in mind (they don't even mention terrorism or Iraq). Furthermore, it turns out that S.89 has been tied up in the Armed Services Committee since January. I wanted to know what was going on, so I took a look at it's sister bill H.R.189 (same text), and found out that it was voted on yesterday! Guess what, though? It failed to pass 402 to 2.

Anyway, I hope that makes you feel a little bit better.

And you know as well as I do that you're misrepresenting the global test there. I thought it was pretty clear it was an (unfortunately worded) idealogical test that needed to be passed. I thought the point was that if people violently don't support you there can be severe consequences played out over many years, and you need to do everything you can to appease everyone that you can appease. Such is the game of statesmanship.

Yeah, I got carried away. That's kind of the problem with the global test, though. Everybody's idea of it is slightly different. The administration has their own opinion, and they felt they appeased everybody they needed to, so it passed for them. Apparently, though, worldwide protests and lack of UN support does not fit their global test.

Er, I hope most people are aware of the fact that (most?) reactors are built so they cannot go critical even in a meltdown. Then again, it is the average person we are talking about here.

Critical means that the number of neutrons causing fission is constant with time, and is what happens normally in a nuclear reactor when it's generating power. So, a reactor is pretty much critical all the time, unless you're starting it or stopping it. If the reaction goes supercritical, you have a run-away chain reaction, which is how you get an atomic bomb.

You can stop nuclear fission in a reactor by inserting the reactor's control rods ("scramming"). The co

Heh, heh. Well, I guess I'm just of the opinion that the rest of the world places more value on Canada than most U.S. citizens think. We get used to thinking of them as kind of a puppet, and although they're fun to rip on, they have done some things internationally that places them in higher regard than the U.S. sometimes.

Well I have to agree we did nothing but fuck up during the CMC, but even with all the mistakes we managed to come to an acceptable solution between both parties.

In lieu of being blown up, it's entirely acceptable. Funny part is that, the USSR was not happy with the handling of the crisis, and deposed Kruschev. He was placed under house arrest.

As for the end of the world? I can't speak for others but my objection to Iraq is I don't want to be drafted into a war I don't support. Unfortunately I'm not convinced either candidate can avoid the draft at this point.

I don't want to be drafted for it either. I don't think we have to worry about being drafted, though. The official word is that congress hasn't done anything about reinstating the draft, the administration denys that there is a need for one, and the Selective Service says that it is unable to manage a draft at this point.

The unofficial word, however, is that they're reinstating the draft, and making it harder to dodge it. I'm sure that you've probably read the same things I have about S.89 and H.R.163, and are probably pretty worried that you're going to have to do your required 2 years of service in Iraq. There was a lot of sites quoting these two bills, and saying how horrible it was they were going to draft people for a protracted war on terrorism.

I got curious about this, so I took a look at them. First of all, it's kind of funny, because these bills weren't really designed with that in mind (they don't even mention terrorism or Iraq). Furthermore, it turns out that S.89 has been tied up in the Armed Services Committee since January. I wanted to know what was going on, so I took a look at it's sister bill H.R.189 (same text), and found out that it was voted on yesterday! Guess what, though? It failed to pass 402 to 2.

Anyway, I hope that makes you feel a little bit better.

And you know as well as I do that you're misrepresenting the global test there. I thought it was pretty clear it was an (unfortunately worded) idealogical test that needed to be passed. I thought the point was that if people violently don't support you there can be severe consequences played out over many years, and you need to do everything you can to appease everyone that you can appease. Such is the game of statesmanship.

Yeah, I got carried away. That's kind of the problem with the global test, though. Everybody's idea of it is slightly different. The administration has their own opinion, and they felt they appeased everybody they needed to, so it passed for them. Apparently, though, worldwide protests and lack of UN support does not fit their global test.

Er, I hope most people are aware of the fact that (most?) reactors are built so they cannot go critical even in a meltdown. Then again, it is the average person we are talking about here.

Critical means that the number of neutrons causing fission is constant with time, and is what happens normally in a nuclear reactor when it's generating power. So, a reactor is pretty much critical all the time, unless you're starting it or stopping it. If the reaction goes supercritical, you have a run-away chain reaction, which is how you get an atomic bomb.

You can stop nuclear fission in a reactor by inserting the reactor's control rods ("scramming"). The co

You can find the enforcement section there too, it's section 4. Multimillion dollar fines are provided for, to be enforced by the FTC.

You had to ask didn't you? Well, I asked google how many burning libraries of congress(es?) in one gram of antimatter... And google was stumped :(

So, here we go... 1 gram of antimatter -> burning libraries of congress(es?):

For the sake of argument, lets assume that the Library of Congress is entirely non-flamable and only the books contribute to the heat. Furthermore, lets assume that all the books are made of 100% wood or equivilant.

Now, 1 gram of wood when completely burned produces 3000 calories.

The Library of Congress contains approximately 128 million items. Again, some of these are recordings of various natures and will not burn as well as books... so to compensate we'll deviate from our initial assumptions and assume that the burning of the 530 miles of bookshelves compensate for any lack of flamability of the old records.

So... our average paperback weighs under 1lb and our average hardcover book weighs between 1 and 2lbs. Seems reasonable enough. Lets assume a distribution between hardcover and paperbacks so as the average book weight in the LOC is 1lb.

Now, Google can help us some more here. Our friendly search engine lets us know that one pound is 453.59237 grams. We'll round that off to 453 grams, since we're averaging book weight anyway.

So, the LOC has (453*128,000,000) or 57,984,000,000 grams worth of books. At 3000 calories per gram, burning down the LOC would produce 173,952,000,000,000 calories of energy. For the sake of sanity, lets convert that to joules. Google says that 173 952 000 000 000 calories = 7.27815168 × 10^14 Joules

Now, our space shuttle main tank (and engines, NOT including boosters which are more powerful) produce 1,987,500,000 Watts of energy, and burn for 8.5 minutes. That's (510*1,987,500,000) 1013625000000 Watt/seconds of energy. Converted to joules, that is remarkably 1013625000000 Joules.

So.. One space shuttle fuel tank of energy is 1013625000000 Joules. 23 space shuttle tanks of energy is 23313375000000 Joules. For convienence, one space shuttle tank is 0.23313375x10^14 joules.

So... it comes down to one burning LOC is 7.27815168 × 10^14 joules. 23 space shuttle fuel tanks are 0.23313375*10^14 joules. So, one gram of antimatter combining with one gram of matter is approximately 0.032 Burning Libraries of Congress(es?). I actually expected it to be more.

Now how do I get Google to include space shuttle fuel tanks and burning libraries of Congress(es?) as acceptable measurements?

You had to ask didn't you? Well, I asked google how many burning libraries of congress(es?) in one gram of antimatter... And google was stumped :(

So, here we go... 1 gram of antimatter -> burning libraries of congress(es?):

For the sake of argument, lets assume that the Library of Congress is entirely non-flamable and only the books contribute to the heat. Furthermore, lets assume that all the books are made of 100% wood or equivilant.

Now, 1 gram of wood when completely burned produces 3000 calories.

The Library of Congress contains approximately 128 million items. Again, some of these are recordings of various natures and will not burn as well as books... so to compensate we'll deviate from our initial assumptions and assume that the burning of the 530 miles of bookshelves compensate for any lack of flamability of the old records.

So... our average paperback weighs under 1lb and our average hardcover book weighs between 1 and 2lbs. Seems reasonable enough. Lets assume a distribution between hardcover and paperbacks so as the average book weight in the LOC is 1lb.

Now, Google can help us some more here. Our friendly search engine lets us know that one pound is 453.59237 grams. We'll round that off to 453 grams, since we're averaging book weight anyway.

So, the LOC has (453*128,000,000) or 57,984,000,000 grams worth of books. At 3000 calories per gram, burning down the LOC would produce 173,952,000,000,000 calories of energy. For the sake of sanity, lets convert that to joules. Google says that 173 952 000 000 000 calories = 7.27815168 × 10^14 Joules

Now, our space shuttle main tank (and engines, NOT including boosters which are more powerful) produce 1,987,500,000 Watts of energy, and burn for 8.5 minutes. That's (510*1,987,500,000) 1013625000000 Watt/seconds of energy. Converted to joules, that is remarkably 1013625000000 Joules.

So.. One space shuttle fuel tank of energy is 1013625000000 Joules. 23 space shuttle tanks of energy is 23313375000000 Joules. For convienence, one space shuttle tank is 0.23313375x10^14 joules.

So... it comes down to one burning LOC is 7.27815168 × 10^14 joules. 23 space shuttle fuel tanks are 0.23313375*10^14 joules. So, one gram of antimatter combining with one gram of matter is approximately 0.032 Burning Libraries of Congress(es?). I actually expected it to be more.

Now how do I get Google to include space shuttle fuel tanks and burning libraries of Congress(es?) as acceptable measurements?

The bill to which you refer (HR 163 and its Senate counterpart, S 89) are not what you seem to think it is. It was launched in the run-up to the Iraq war by Rep. Charlie Rangel to illustrate the potential risk of launching that conflict. It accomplished its purpose (Rangel got on the news decrying the looming war) and it then essentially died in the House Armed Services Committee.

Here's a link to HR 163's details on THOMAS for more info. As you can see there's been no action on it since February 2003 -- long before the Democratic nomination contest had even begun.

If you don't believe me, go poke through news archives from January-February 2003 and look for articles about Rep. Rangel. (I'll leave looking up the links as an exercise for the reader.)

Hardly a "conspiracy".

• The text of the Iraq war resolution
  
• The roll call vote in the house
  
• The roll call vote in the senate
  

How Our Laws Are Made

Large portions of the patriot act were written by people that had a D beside their name.

Well, according to this, "Assistant attorney general, Viet D. Dinh, was the chief architect of the act." While he might count, I think you intended to imply party affiliation, not middle initial. :-)

The bill was introduced first in the House. The sponsor was Sensenbrenner, and the only cosponsor Oxley, both Republicans. Note that this 342 page bill was introduced on 10/23/2001, and passed by the House at 11:03 AM the next day.

It was received in the Senate that same day (the 24th) and passed without amendment the next day. I listed the wrong roll-call vote in another post... the UPA passed 98-1 with Feingold (D-WI) dissenting and Landrieu (D-LA) not voting. (Note that the Senate office building was attacked by anthrax on 10/15/2001, only 10 days before this vote.)

It was signed the next day, 10/26/2001, by the President and became law.

It seems to me that, although the list of Senatorial co-sponsors included many Democrats, none of the Senatorial co-sponsors appear to have had any effect whatsoever on the language of the bill. The House sponsor and cosponsor, neither of which are Democrats, are presumably the ones ultimately responsible for the bill's language.

So... which guys with a "D" next to their name helped write it, exactly? As I see it, most of Congress didn't have time to read it, let alone help write it.

A voice vote occurs when Members call out "Aye" or "No" when a question is first put by the Speaker. The Speaker will say, "As many as are in favor [of the question], say `Aye'." Then the Speaker will ask: "As many as are opposed, say `No'." http://www.house.gov/rules/voting_house.htm

Full bill details with summary and status info: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:H.R.4 077: