Slashdot Mirror

Ahh yes the old 'separate of church and state' chestnut. OK simply, it doesn't exist in the Constitution. Its a part of a handwritten letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury church in 1802. http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html All Jefferson meant was that govt couldn't pick favorites. That wall was the prevention of that. Considering he wrote the first amendment, I think he would know. He was a deist. So yes he believed in God. But he didn't want Catholicism crammed down peoples throat. Its like if Obama wrote a letter on Obamacare and stated that his dog should have been covered, and centries later this letter is being used to justify petcare in the ACA behemeth.

Well, there's a couple of technical problems with that. While I'm certainly not a lawyer, I have informally discussed the issue with a friend of mine that is a lawyer. He raised a few of the following points, which I've supplemented.

First, it's not clear that this is actually theft. The crime of theft typically denies the owner of the property access to the property, which isn't the case with electronic documents. Rather, it's more likely to be a violation of the No Electronic Theft (NET) act. NET criminalizes copyright infringement. This may not be a bad approach given what kind of punishments one sees for copyright infringement Massachusetts. More often, the punishment for copyright infringement is fines and I think the prosecutor was looking for jail time.

As far as breaking and entering goes, that seems doubtful. The networking closet he accessed was unlocked. In fact, a homeless man used the area to store belongings. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that breaking and entering would be difficult to argue. Trespassing might be a more successful charge. Trespassing, though, is a relatively minor offense that's unlikely to produce a lengthy jail sentence.

A possible unintended consequence of this approach could be that future peda-wannabees could claim they believed they were talking to a virtual victim and not a real one, even if the potential victim is real.Basically, a game to see if they could pick out the virtual being. They would, of course, want to verify they are really talking to a virtual victim, thus the reason for a visit. Who could prove it wasn't just a game?

Not a good tack to take. If they were willing to voluntarily take the risk that they were speaking to a child, they'd qualify for "reckless" mens rea. Many sex crimes do not require "intentional" or "knowing" behavior; some, like possession, are even strict liability, with no mens rea requirement at all.

If you're curious, you can check your state laws on the matter. Anyone engaging in this sort of behavior may evade the "knowingly" requirements of statutes like 18 USC 1470 & 2422, but cannot evade 18 USC 2251(a) or 18 USC 2252 whose mens rea requirements do not attach to knowing the age (or existence) of the child.

You can find a pretty comprehensive list of federal statutes governing this issue here. Personally, I hope pedos use those kinds of arguments, because they can't use them without admitting to all the other relevant elements of those charges. Attempt is still a crime, even if a child isn't real.

I'd mention the three magic words that everyone seems to forget, "WELL-REGULATED MILITIA" , but I'm convinced by this point that generations of inbreeding, lead poisoning, and the buildup of heretofore-unknown trace toxins present in explosive materials have most likely rendered the standard gun nut's brain literally incapable of processing the meaning of the phrase, if the political indoctrination involved hasn't simply brainwashed them into believing that said phrase simply does not exist, rendering it invisible to their eyes.

It's an archaic usage, but by your apparently positioning yourself as a member of the group not affected by "generations of inbreeding, lead poisoning, and the buildup of heretofore-unknown trace toxins present in explosive materials", you are aware, aren't you that the process of 'regulating' a firearm involves adjusting it so that the sights are accurate -- that the bullet will land where the sights are pointing? And that 'well-regulated' was a term in use in the period applied to troops meaning 'properly disciplined' (check the OED)? In the London Gazette, No. 2568/3, 1690: "We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side."

A clearer interpretation of the usage comes from Alexander Hamilton's words in The Federalist papers No. 29: "The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss." (emphasis mine)

The Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789, specifically from Saturday, Dec. 13, 1777 also conveys this meaning of 'well regulated': "Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army." (emphasis mine) Later in that same day's record: "That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated, and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence. That from the view of the object your Secretary has been able to take he conceives that the only effectual mode of acting against the said Creeks in case they should persist in their hostilities would be by making an invasion of their country with a powerful body of well regulated troops always ready to combat and able to defeat any combination of force the said Creeks could oppose and to destroy their towns and provisions." (emphasis mine)

These and other examples from the period make clear that a "well-regulated militia", as the term was used, was synonymous with one that was thoroughly trained and disciplined, and as a result, well-functioning -- not one bound up by the strictures of laws restricting the arms that the government deems fit for them to possess.

I'd mention the three magic words that everyone seems to forget, "WELL-REGULATED MILITIA" , but I'm convinced by this point that generations of inbreeding, lead poisoning, and the buildup of heretofore-unknown trace toxins present in explosive materials have most likely rendered the standard gun nut's brain literally incapable of processing the meaning of the phrase, if the political indoctrination involved hasn't simply brainwashed them into believing that said phrase simply does not exist, rendering it invisible to their eyes.

It's an archaic usage, but by your apparently positioning yourself as a member of the group not affected by "generations of inbreeding, lead poisoning, and the buildup of heretofore-unknown trace toxins present in explosive materials", you are aware, aren't you that the process of 'regulating' a firearm involves adjusting it so that the sights are accurate -- that the bullet will land where the sights are pointing? And that 'well-regulated' was a term in use in the period applied to troops meaning 'properly disciplined' (check the OED)? In the London Gazette, No. 2568/3, 1690: "We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side."

A clearer interpretation of the usage comes from Alexander Hamilton's words in The Federalist papers No. 29: "The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss." (emphasis mine)

The Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789, specifically from Saturday, Dec. 13, 1777 also conveys this meaning of 'well regulated': "Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army." (emphasis mine) Later in that same day's record: "That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated, and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence. That from the view of the object your Secretary has been able to take he conceives that the only effectual mode of acting against the said Creeks in case they should persist in their hostilities would be by making an invasion of their country with a powerful body of well regulated troops always ready to combat and able to defeat any combination of force the said Creeks could oppose and to destroy their towns and provisions." (emphasis mine)

These and other examples from the period make clear that a "well-regulated militia", as the term was used, was synonymous with one that was thoroughly trained and disciplined, and as a result, well-functioning -- not one bound up by the strictures of laws restricting the arms that the government deems fit for them to possess.

I'd mention the three magic words that everyone seems to forget, "WELL-REGULATED MILITIA" , but I'm convinced by this point that generations of inbreeding, lead poisoning, and the buildup of heretofore-unknown trace toxins present in explosive materials have most likely rendered the standard gun nut's brain literally incapable of processing the meaning of the phrase, if the political indoctrination involved hasn't simply brainwashed them into believing that said phrase simply does not exist, rendering it invisible to their eyes.

It's an archaic usage, but by your apparently positioning yourself as a member of the group not affected by "generations of inbreeding, lead poisoning, and the buildup of heretofore-unknown trace toxins present in explosive materials", you are aware, aren't you that the process of 'regulating' a firearm involves adjusting it so that the sights are accurate -- that the bullet will land where the sights are pointing? And that 'well-regulated' was a term in use in the period applied to troops meaning 'properly disciplined' (check the OED)? In the London Gazette, No. 2568/3, 1690: "We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side."

A clearer interpretation of the usage comes from Alexander Hamilton's words in The Federalist papers No. 29: "The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss." (emphasis mine)

The Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789, specifically from Saturday, Dec. 13, 1777 also conveys this meaning of 'well regulated': "Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army." (emphasis mine) Later in that same day's record: "That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated, and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence. That from the view of the object your Secretary has been able to take he conceives that the only effectual mode of acting against the said Creeks in case they should persist in their hostilities would be by making an invasion of their country with a powerful body of well regulated troops always ready to combat and able to defeat any combination of force the said Creeks could oppose and to destroy their towns and provisions." (emphasis mine)

These and other examples from the period make clear that a "well-regulated militia", as the term was used, was synonymous with one that was thoroughly trained and disciplined, and as a result, well-functioning -- not one bound up by the strictures of laws restricting the arms that the government deems fit for them to possess.

I hear that Congress, the Constitutional body charged with writing and changing the laws, and having oversight over the intelligence agencies and the ability to demand reports, as well as controlling their budgets, has several agencies that work for it that do research and analysis. Somehow it seems preferable to go to them instead of giving hundreds of thousands of highly sensitive documents to a journalist with fringe politics living in a foreign country that works for a foreign newspaper that is ideologically opposed to the American system, and in former times would have been sympathetic to America's sworn enemies.

GAO

LOC

Whats wrong with you, the new official Bitcoin comparison rate is measured in "RWU's" or long hand "Ross William Ulbricht's" @ a rate of 1:$80 Million US.

So thats 169.625 RWU's

Thank you. So how many Library of Congress units does that purchase?

@$629.2 Million for the running costs in 2011 Thats about 21.567 years worth of operating costs unadjusted.

Good, somebody read the exceptions.

There are also privacy rights, which go beyond the copyright.
http://www.loc.gov/homepage/legal.html#privacy_publicity

Since these web sites are trying to make money, there may also be publicity rights, which are subject to even greater restrictions.

In 1990, the "everything runs better as a free market" doctrine wiped out government funding of the patent office, declaring that it would be fully funded by applicant fees from then on. (In fact, since that time Congress withholds some percentage of payments, so it's even more under-funded.) So the office doesn't work as a filter to defend a precious monopoly right, instead it's incentivized to make as many applicants happy as possible, since that's where all their money comes from. Result is a tidal wave of poorly examined patents that no one has time or resources to take court. (And yet: also an enormous and growing backlog of yet-unexamined patents). Pretty similar to how they've bent over the U.S. Post Office.

Step 1: Defund core government agency, Step 2: Complain about how government doesn't work, Step 3: Profit (for some private allied company).

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&sid=cp109OaGul&r_n=hr372.109&dbname=cp109&&sel=TOC_11043&

>The founding fathers were Christians.

No, they were deists at best, which if you describe this to today's "christians" you'd get a horrified reaction as if they were (horrors!) Unitarian Universalists or ... atheists! Today's "christians" believe that God has a direct hand in the lives of everyone. This is in direct opposition to the "clockwork universe" view espoused by the Deists - "God set everything in motion and then abandoned the work to run on its own."

Which is the only thing that makes sense if you're going to write papers on logic and reason, like the founders did. If you have a god that is fiddling around with everything, where is the room for reason?

The Letter to the Danbury Baptists by Jefferson where he says "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. and the letter to the Touro Synagogue by none other than George Washington himself prove that the US is not a "christian nation" - that every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid..

I suggest you read them. They're even short enough for a 4channer to read.

http://www.tourosynagogue.org/index.php/history-learning/gw-letter
http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

Jefferson's version of the New Testament Bible only came to 40 pages, after ripping out what he described as nonsense. "I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill. The result is an octavo of forty-six pages, of pure and unsophisticated doctrines."

People who think that the "founding fathers" were "christian" in the modern sense of the word are wrong. Paine was an atheist and proud of it.

"Hell, the Anti-Federalists argued against the US Constitution because it didn't mention God specifically."

This is also just plain wrong. Rhode Island's history was that of a refuge from the theocracy and other bullshit in the Massachusetts colony, where they did things like hang Quakers. The Charter of 1663 granted to Rhode Island by King Charles II a "lively experiment" in religious freedom - you could be anything you liked and not have to toe the line of Christianity or /version/ of Christianity, for example (since the natives were clearly not Christian). This was basically because of the efforts of people like Roger Williams, who didn't see the natives with the disdain that much of the English did. Go read "A Key into the Language of the Americas" for that and "The Bloudy Tenent" for his assertion that a state church "stinks in the nostrils of God," which was also cited by Jefferson when crafting the First Amendment to the Constitution.

There was an unfortunate time when troops from MA would come into RI chasing "heretics" like Anne Hutchinson.

Because of this history, RI was a hotbed of anti-federalism by the 1780s One of the prominent anti-federalists was from my hometown of North Kingstown, RI - William West. It's because of him (he marched an army of 1000 into Providence to protest ratification in 1788) and others like him that Rhode Island was the 13'th state, the last of the colonies to ratify the Constitution. The point of the anti-federalists was to be anti-central-government, because people like William West saw central government as antithetical to religious freedom, among other things.

And I haven't even mentioned William Penn yet. When you're thrown into prison because of your religious views, you tend to come out of prison severely pissed off and wary of state religion.

Don't try to tell me history. This is my back yard.

--
BMO

Karl Benz, moron...from the library of congress:
http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/mysteries/auto.html

The UCMJ is law passed by Congress, just like Federal criminal law is.

The military may have harsher penalties available to it, that doesn't mean that they are used in ordinary crime. Death as a sentence for rape is more of a historic artifact from troops campaigning in war than a current practice.

Although there may be variation in the rules of evidence between a general court martial and a Federal criminal court, what constitutes proof is the same.

Are you maybe confusing the rules governing a military commission for use in trying al Qaida members and a regular military courts martial? There actually are differences there. (Or at least were, the last time I remember looking.)

My wife is a doc, so we've thought a lot about malpractice.

My opinion is that the doctors are at fault in large part. They could _easily_ band together and kill these lawsuits, but they have a very individualist spirit that harms them greatly. All it would take to kill the worst malpractice suits is for the AMA and local medical boards to start yanking licenses of docs found to be making unreasonable testimony. Many (most?) of the docs testifying are being paid by the plaintiff and do this as a substantial part of their living. Start reviewing expert testimony and punishing docs who are misleading juries. Set it all up to limit conflict-of-interest and keep it above board, and say bye-bye to most frivolous or false malpractice claims.

Honestly, they wouldn't even have to yank licenses... simply publish a hit list of docs that have been making misleading testimony and let the defendant use that as evidence to discredit the expert witness. They'd be constantly fending off defamation suits, but thems the breaks. Perhaps a little government help would work in that regard - pass a law that exempts the AMA from defamation in exchange for running such a program at no cost to the government and putting some kind of appeals process together.

As for Canadian malpractice, I only know that it is lower. I know that docs get reimbursed for their liability insurance to some degree, but I do not know if this is included in their salary figure. Certainly they pay a lot more in taxes than a US doc, so it's probably a wash.

But it's not. Do your own research - by the time someone is running for a federal office they probably have a long track record in politics - so look at the historical record to see what they've actually *done* in the past, not to the media circus, campaign promises, and PR spin they generate.

Answer me one question. How many times have you actually read through in detail and thoroughly understood a bill a politician voted on? Without doing that you are relying on "the media circus, campaign promises, and PR spin they generate." They lie what is in and/or don't even understand the bills they vote for themselves. After they pass a bill it is reinterpreted or words are redefined, like "targeting", often secretly, so the bill has a completely different meaning than it did when it passed. Who on this planet has the time to read through every friggin law congress passes. This US government page states "At the reference desk, we are frequently asked to estimate the number of federal laws in force. However, trying to tally this number is nearly impossible." If the friggin government can't even figure out how many laws there are who on this planet can possible comprehend what those laws are.

The system is broken. Voting doesn't help fix the broken system. With the current system it's impossible to make an informed vote.

I'm an archivist at a mid-sized university archives, trying to develop a policy for archiving computer files ('born-digital records' in archival parlance).

Get Your Bits Off (Old Storage Media)

Demystifying Born Digital Reports

Working Draft of the Levels of Digital Preservation Chart

I'm an archivist at a mid-sized university archives, trying to develop a policy for archiving computer files ('born-digital records' in archival parlance).

Get Your Bits Off (Old Storage Media)

Demystifying Born Digital Reports

Working Draft of the Levels of Digital Preservation Chart

I work on a team which does archiving. We have multiple layers of data storage. First, we keep all copies of media in a library. The media is imaged and stored on a SAN. The SAN is backed up to an off-site NAS. And once a year, we copy the data to hard drives and ship the drives to another site across the country. If you have the capability, put the originals in an archival storage area. I have never known a single archivist to get rid of anything, so you must be new to this community.

As an FYI, there is no such thing as obsolete media, as evidence by this project. And trust me, you can usually find a way to image most old media formats.

Stalin "allowed" territories to starve?!? No, Stalin deliberately removed as much food as he could from the Ukraine through forced collectivisation in order to exterminate Ukrainian nationalism

Actually, that's how things used to be done --- look at the (laborious) notation which was prevalent before Sir Thomas Harriot (and his printer) developed the equals sign, less than and greater than symbols (the printer actually used side-ways `V's at some points in Artis analyticae praxis http://lccn.loc.gov/2006938536 ), &c.

If you want to see the textual names instead of the symbols, just look at the (La)TeX source instead.

How about writing the information in pencil on high quality paper? I understand that the second page of the Nicolay copy of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address that was written in pencil in 1863 (reference: http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9503/gettysburg.html) is very readable to this day (image: http://myloc.gov/Exhibitions/gettysburgaddress/exhibitionitems/ExhibitObjects/NicolayCopy.aspx).

Agree it's hard to believe these days, but he actually, he seems to be one of the good guys.

He previously co-sponsored legislation to help fight bullshit "business methods" patents,

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/another-bill-fix-patent-troll-problem-well-part-it

And now simply wants to extend that to other areas. Text of proposed bill here.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:S.866:

Hat tip to EPP for article.

There is actually a code for Klingon in the iso-639-2 Language Code table.

tlh ==> Klingon; tlhIngan-Hol klingon

See http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/code_list.php for the full list.

They didn't really teach history at my school, either. Do some reading.

That's not how the bill was written: agencies were given no discretion at all as to what and where they could cut.

The sequester is part of the Budget Control Act of 2011, but it's not the first time sequestration was used. It was first used in 1985, with the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act.

The Congressional Research Service published a report on the sequester (PDF link) that provides a very good overview of what sequestration means:

"In general, sequestration entails the permanent cancellation of budgetary resources by a uniform percentage. Moreover, this uniform percentage reduction is applied to all programs, projects, and activities within a budget account."

Sequestration is as across-the-board as you can get. Every "program, project and activity" that's not exempt from the sequester gets cut by an equal percentage. That's the way the bill was written, and that's the bill that was passed by Congress and signed into law by the President.

Sequestration was meant to be as blunt and distasteful an alternative as possible, to give the supercommittee (remember them?) and Congress incentive to come up with a deal.

One thing that really peeves me off about this were the blatant lies spewing from "Mr. Rogers of Michigan".

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r113:./temp/~r113egeF82

I want to back up just a little bit and tell you how we got to where we are today. We sat down some 2 years ago when the ranking member and I assumed the leadership of the Intelligence Committee and we looked at the one threat that we knew existed but we were not prepared to handle as Americans, both the private sector and the government. And we knew that we had to do something about this new and growing and misunderstood cyber threat and what it was doing to our intellectual property across the country, what it was doing to the freedom and open Internet that we so enjoy and are increasingly dependent on and the commercial value of our growing economy. And it was at risk. The private sector was at risk because people were stealing their identities, their accounts, their intellectual property, and subsequent to that, their jobs, and people began to question the value of getting on the Internet and using it for commercial purposes. Their trust in the free and open Internet the way we've embraced it in the United States really was at risk.

It's practically the first thing companies do now, is to build an online presence, and offer some kind of online services. I have never heard of a company hesitating to offer their services online for these reasons, because the benefits far outweigh the threats. At least this makes it clear who I won't vote for during their next election.

Further more, he goes on to mention that the true target of this bill is China, which is complete bullshit.

Also, reading the summary, I stumbled across this gem in the bill (now law), funding for "former Soviet Union cooperative threat reduction".

I think this is legal speak for saying that NASA can buy RTG fuel from Russia even though they are generally restricted from doing business with them due to other laws.

Here is the actual link to the bill (now law):

"For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the conduct and support of science research and development activities, including research, development, operations, support, and services; maintenance and repair, facility planning and design; space flight, spacecraft control, and communications activities; program management; personnel and related costs, including uniforms or allowances therefor, as authorized by sections 5901 and 5902 of title 5, United States Code; travel expenses; purchase and hire of passenger motor vehicles; and purchase, lease, charter, maintenance, and operation of mission and administrative aircraft, $5,144,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2014, of which up to $14,500,000 shall be available for a reimbursable agreement with the Department of Energy for the purpose of re-establishing facilities to produce fuel required for radioisotope thermoelectric generators to enable future missions: Provided, That $75,000,000 shall be for pre-formulation and/or formulation activities for a mission that meets the science goals outlined for the Jupiter Europa mission in the most recent planetary science decadal survey: Provided further, That the formulation and development costs (with development cost as defined under section 30104 of title 51, United States Code) for the James Webb Space Telescope shall not exceed $8,000,000,000: Provided further, That should the individual identified under subsection (c)(2)(E) of section 30104 of title 51, United States Code, as responsible for the James Webb Space Telescope determine that the development cost of the program is likely to exceed that limitation, the individual shall immediately notify the Administrator and the increase shall be treated as if it meets the 30 percent threshold described in subsection (f) of section 30104."

The bill authorizes: “That $75,000,000 shall be for pre-formulation and/or formulation activities for a mission that meets the science goals outlined for the Jupiter Europa mission in the most recent planetary decadal survey” – H.R. 933, p. 64

Also, reading the summary, I stumbled across this gem in the bill (now law), funding for "former Soviet Union cooperative threat reduction".

How long before all RC helicopters (and all hobby RC planes for that matter) will be banned ?

They are already trying in Texas and in New Hampshire. Notice the inclusion of drones by name in the legislation, and the lack of differentiation between government use and private use.

This article from a few weeks ago shows that two other state legislatures, specifically Florida and Virginia, are attempting a legislative fix to drone use, though those attempts are targeted specifically at government use of drones. The mayor of Seattle cancelled the Seattle PD's drone program and ordered the chief of police to return the ones they'd already bought to the manufacturer for a refund.

With that said, attempts to block government use of drones are probably doomed to failure, since the FAA has already been directed by the 112th Congress to integrate drones into the national airspace via HR 658 (relevant section here,) and police departments across the nation are buying them in droves, despite what happened in Seattle. The DHS's "loan a drone" program, coupled with DHS's $4M grant program to local law authorities to acquire drones, would strongly suggest that government use of drones is here to stay.

Given the push/pull legislative wars being driven by the privacy vs. public safety debate, I doubt that banning RC aircraft is a viable legislative option. What is (probably) going to happen with RC aircraft is what has already happened with other "hobbies" that are deemed to be a threat to public safety (think: greenhouses that could be used for growing pot, legal chemicals that could be used to manufacture illegal drugs, model rockets that could be weaponized.) Purchases of RC aircraft and related equipment will be tracked at the point of sale and those records will be forwarded to the feds, where the purchasers will end up on an FBI watch list, just like the purchasers of the above-mentioned items.

There is no "they." The GP is wrong. The decision is made by the Librarian of Congress, in accordance with Section 1201(a)(1) title 17, United States Code. Any "they" would have to be referring to the Register of Copyrights and the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the Department of Commerce, who work in an advisory role.

But, the statement issued by the Library of Congress says about as little as is possible with so many words. I certainly don't get the feeling that the LoC will revisit the decision, and I don't see where the law provides a mechanism for that, even if they wanted to. The statement refers to a benefit to "review and resolution" in the context of telecommunications policy, says the rulemaking "was not intended to be a substitute for deliberations of broader public policy," and ends with a door slam - "The most recent rulemaking has served this purpose."

Yeah, I don't know where they got the HR 845 from. The bill is real, though:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:hr6245:

Why am I having a hard time believing this is real and has a hope of being passed into law?

I haven't been able to verify the bill. According to Thomas the house is only up to H.R. 777. Still, this is a possibility. It protects entrenched power from upstarts, which is the kind of laws that easily pass.

Bill page at Thomas

Find your house rep

Who on earth uses Tiff anymore?

Everyone from libraries and archives such as the Library of Congress (hi-resolution uncompressed TIFFs are the designated master file format for the National Digital Newspaper Program and the FADGI Still Image Working Group guidelines for digitizing cultural heritage materials) to document management companies and banks (as bitonal TIFFs are quite tiny compared to bloated garbage like PDF, offer great resolution of everyday office docs and checks, and work with most every imaging software written in the past 20 years). Just because *you* don't use a file format anymore doesn't mean it's useless to others.

Unless, perhaps, he learns to play clarinet with only his right hand.

Actually special instruments adapted for the disabled to play one-handed aren't unheard of. Here's a one-handed flute made for a veteran of WWI who had an arm amputated; this one is left handed and there's a right handed version at that site as well. And here's a whole page of instruments adapted for the disabled in this manner. Mind you, these are all woodwinds, I'm not sure how you'd play a guitar with only one arm.

Right, because history teaches us that Noah Webster never, at any time, said this:

Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.

And history teaches us that Samuel Adams never, at any time, argued:

Be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of their grievances: or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures.

And history also teaches us that one of the original versions of the Second Amendment never, at any time, read:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

And history furthermore teaches us that the Second Amendment was always intended solely to provide a militia for defense, because that was implied. Except, it's clear that a proposal was made to insert "for the common defence" to the amendment, and that amendment was defeated, which certainly suggests that the founders were NOT simply affirming man's right to "join the National Guard or the Army."

No, it's clear that the founders only cared about the ability of individual states to build standing armies to defend themselves from the federal government! I like your history, friend - it's much simpler and neater to ban guns when you completely ignore the actual intent and discussion surrounding the genesis of the Second Amendment, and accept your revisionist view which says that it was never intended to be interpreted as an "individual" right.

225.28 based on the highly inaccurate assumption that the quantitative size of the library of congress is 10 terabytes.

"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."

It's only one comma:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=144

http://www.guncite.com/second_amendment_commas.html

No, the 10TB estimate is incorrect. The LoC estimates that the digitized size of of its print collection was around 200 TB as of 2000 CE.

That's around 1.5 Libraries of Congress.

I'm trying to find a roll call on the amendment but I don't think it's up yet. Here's what I found:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d112:5:./temp/~bdPthc::#locshare/share

Thomas makes it hard to link, so if this doesn't work its Senate amendment 3438

Nobody knows about it (unless they were watching CSPAN in the middle of the night during those 30 seconds and thought enough to ask what 4310 was). Nobody is accountable for it. And nobody has made a big deal about it.

Yeah, it's all a big secret. Sounds to me like they amended a bill and everyone was fine with that. What did they do wrong? You haven't stated a single problem with the amendment.

While you're waiting, interesting fact about the infamous "Assault Weapons Ban" that cost the Democrats the 1994 election: it was passed with almost unanimous support in the Senate. Republicans and Democrats alike supporting it in overwhelming numbers.

Here's the vote recorded at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d103:HR03355:@@@R
8/21/1994 Conference report agreed to in House: On agreeing to the conference report Agreed to by recorded vote: 235 - 195 (Roll no. 416).
8/25/1994 Conference report agreed to in Senate: Senate agreed to conference report by Yea-Nay Vote. 61-38. Record Vote No: 295.

Hardly unanimous. I didn't bother to read the rest of your comment since it seemed to start with bad information.

*ahem*:
Point the first
Point the second
Point the third (and mind the Cryllic - Chrome should translate it)
Point the fourth
Point the fifth ...and so on...

The USSR made it a point to suppress (and eventually try to eliminate) religion, as Marxism wouldn't have room for it.

Their resources page reads like a Who's Who of, well, sites anyone can link to?

We’re proud to provide you with the following resources:

Professional Organizations and Governmental Agencies

American Bar Association
Library of Congress
American Association of Justice
Association of Trial Lawyers of America

News and Information

The Wall Street Journal
CNN Legal News
The National Law Journal
Law.com

Legal Resources

United States Federal Law
U.S. Code Search

And the footer text of their pages:

Content copyright 2012. Yes It Is No Piracy - DMCA Remover. All rights reserved.

Clearly they were in the DCMA removal business.

I'm guessing you're being sarcastic, but for those who aren't so guessing: http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/paris.html

TFA seems to get a lot wrong, as is common for articles about legislation or litigation. I couldn't find the actual bill text, and I would like to read it. Any help here? More specifically, the two references to the bill that I saw appear wrong:

• There was this link, which goes to a Senate bill without a number. I don't even know whether it is the current version of the bill. I don't know the bill number to which to refer when contacting my Senators, since the bill number is blank. And this is going to vote next week?
• There is mention of H.R. 2471. But, that is a House bill, and it does not appear relevant to this discussion at all.

Any help here?

I'm only superficially aware of the rules and procedures in Congress so perhaps I've been mistaken. It might be that 2005/2006 bill H.R. 22 was different from the later bill H.R. 6407 which passed under suspension of the rules and voice vote (under a voice vote the names or numbers of representatives voting on each side are not recorded).

Helpful article on the subject: http://www.salon.com/2012/03/14/congresss_war_on_the_post_office/singleton/

I'm only superficially aware of the rules and procedures in Congress so perhaps I've been mistaken. It might be that 2005/2006 bill H.R. 22 was different from the later bill H.R. 6407 which passed under suspension of the rules and voice vote (under a voice vote the names or numbers of representatives voting on each side are not recorded).

Helpful article on the subject: http://www.salon.com/2012/03/14/congresss_war_on_the_post_office/singleton/