Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: loc.gov

Stories and comments across the archive that link to loc.gov.

Comments · 2,763

  1. Piracy Deterrence and Education Act of 2004 by daveschroeder · · Score: 5, Informative · on File Trading Law Would Include 'Willing' Traders
    The actual "Piracy Deterrence and Education Act of 2004" itself:

    Index

    Summary

    Text of legislation

  2. Piracy Deterrence and Education Act of 2004 by daveschroeder · · Score: 5, Informative · on File Trading Law Would Include 'Willing' Traders
    The actual "Piracy Deterrence and Education Act of 2004" itself:

    Index

    Summary

    Text of legislation

  3. Piracy Deterrence and Education Act of 2004 by daveschroeder · · Score: 5, Informative · on File Trading Law Would Include 'Willing' Traders
    The actual "Piracy Deterrence and Education Act of 2004" itself:

    Index

    Summary

    Text of legislation

  4. Re:The truth about "the draft" by Rich+Klein · · Score: 1 · on Submit and Moderate Questions for Bush and Kerry
    Interesting, and a quick look at http://thomas.loc.gov/ about HR 163 backs you up, although I didn't have the patience to delve too deeply into it.

    I'll nitpick one thing, though:
    By contrast, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) has introduced a bill, H.R.487...

    If you look at http://www.paul2004.com/ it looks like Paul has parted ways with the Republicans. He had a petition going to make himself an independent presidential candidate, he's pushing to repeal the PATRIOT act, and he's linking to Providential Party candidate Sterling Allan (with the disclaimer: "Not implying an endorsement by Ron Paul").
  5. Re:This is why we need Bush OUT!!! by fnord123 · · Score: 3, Informative · on Today Is INDUCE Act Call-in Day
    If you look at the list of sponsors of the INDUCE act, you will find that more Democrats are sponsoring it than Republicans:

    Orrin Hatch, Sponsor (R)
    Cosponsors:
    Sen Alexander, Lamar [TN] - (R) - 7/15/2004
    Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] - (D) - 6/22/2004
    Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] - (D) - 7/7/2004
    Sen Daschle, Thomas A. [SD] - (D) 6/22/2004
    Sen Frist, Bill [TN] - (R) - 6/22/2004
    Sen Graham, Bob [FL] - (D) - 9/22/2004
    Sen Graham, Lindsey O. [SC] - (R) - 6/22/2004
    Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT] - (D) - 6/22/2004
    Sen Sarbanes, Paul S. [MD] - (D) - 7/12/2004
    Sen Stabenow, Debbie [MI] - (D) - 7/15/2004

    The Democrats are just as much in the pocket of Hollywood and willing to get rid of Betamax as the Republicans are.

  6. Re:It's interesting to note what gets duplicated by tomhudson · · Score: 1 · on Judge: Live Performance Copyright Unconstitutional
    but photocopies for internal use is probably going to be ruled 'fair use',
    Copies of "parts" *may* be governed by fair use doctrine, but not the whole (here's the original quote):
    Under copyright law (Title 17 of the United States Code), the "fair use" doctrine (see 5 FAM 484 below) permits, under limited circumstances, the copying of small portions of copyrighted material for certain purposes.
    The doctrine of fair use (USC 17.107)http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.h tml states:
    for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
    Government surveys, and especially tax forms, are not enumerated in the above "fair use" exemption.

    Section 108 provided the right to make 1 copy are for archives and libraries only.

    As well, photocopies are not permitted unless permission has been granted. Here's one link of going rates charged to government agencies for the right to photocopy all your works for 1 year: http://www.loc.gov/flicc/svcdir/cr.html I'd license them on competitive terms (you have 200,000 employees, it's in finance, that makes it tier 3 - just send me the check for $1.6 million :-) Like I said, PROFIT!

  7. This is a democracy... by servoled · · Score: 3, Interesting · on Chimp Can Hack Diebold Electronic Voting System

    For all the Americans out there, we live in a democracy where "all decisions are made by representatives who act by [our] consent". However, it is incredibly difficult for an elected representative to follow his/her constituent's wishes if they are not informed of which bills they should vote for by their constituents.

    A simple letter (here or here or here or here) is one of the easiest ways to inform your elected representative of your stance in regard to certain bills. If you feel strongly enough about fixing the current state of electronic voting in this country, I highly reccomend writing to your elected representatives to inform them of your concerns and certain bills which they should support.

    Remember, for a democracy to work as intended there needs to be participation by all of its citizens though voting as well as keeping their elected representatives informed of the citizens wishes.

    Also remember that when contacting your representatives a signed, mailed letter makes a much bigger impact than an e-mail.

  8. This is a democracy... by servoled · · Score: 3, Interesting · on Chimp Can Hack Diebold Electronic Voting System

    For all the Americans out there, we live in a democracy where "all decisions are made by representatives who act by [our] consent". However, it is incredibly difficult for an elected representative to follow his/her constituent's wishes if they are not informed of which bills they should vote for by their constituents.

    A simple letter (here or here or here or here) is one of the easiest ways to inform your elected representative of your stance in regard to certain bills. If you feel strongly enough about fixing the current state of electronic voting in this country, I highly reccomend writing to your elected representatives to inform them of your concerns and certain bills which they should support.

    Remember, for a democracy to work as intended there needs to be participation by all of its citizens though voting as well as keeping their elected representatives informed of the citizens wishes.

    Also remember that when contacting your representatives a signed, mailed letter makes a much bigger impact than an e-mail.

  9. This is a democracy... by servoled · · Score: 3, Interesting · on Chimp Can Hack Diebold Electronic Voting System

    For all the Americans out there, we live in a democracy where "all decisions are made by representatives who act by [our] consent". However, it is incredibly difficult for an elected representative to follow his/her constituent's wishes if they are not informed of which bills they should vote for by their constituents.

    A simple letter (here or here or here or here) is one of the easiest ways to inform your elected representative of your stance in regard to certain bills. If you feel strongly enough about fixing the current state of electronic voting in this country, I highly reccomend writing to your elected representatives to inform them of your concerns and certain bills which they should support.

    Remember, for a democracy to work as intended there needs to be participation by all of its citizens though voting as well as keeping their elected representatives informed of the citizens wishes.

    Also remember that when contacting your representatives a signed, mailed letter makes a much bigger impact than an e-mail.

  10. This is a democracy... by servoled · · Score: 3, Interesting · on Chimp Can Hack Diebold Electronic Voting System

    For all the Americans out there, we live in a democracy where "all decisions are made by representatives who act by [our] consent". However, it is incredibly difficult for an elected representative to follow his/her constituent's wishes if they are not informed of which bills they should vote for by their constituents.

    A simple letter (here or here or here or here) is one of the easiest ways to inform your elected representative of your stance in regard to certain bills. If you feel strongly enough about fixing the current state of electronic voting in this country, I highly reccomend writing to your elected representatives to inform them of your concerns and certain bills which they should support.

    Remember, for a democracy to work as intended there needs to be participation by all of its citizens though voting as well as keeping their elected representatives informed of the citizens wishes.

    Also remember that when contacting your representatives a signed, mailed letter makes a much bigger impact than an e-mail.

  11. This is a democracy... by servoled · · Score: 3, Interesting · on Chimp Can Hack Diebold Electronic Voting System

    For all the Americans out there, we live in a democracy where "all decisions are made by representatives who act by [our] consent". However, it is incredibly difficult for an elected representative to follow his/her constituent's wishes if they are not informed of which bills they should vote for by their constituents.

    A simple letter (here or here or here or here) is one of the easiest ways to inform your elected representative of your stance in regard to certain bills. If you feel strongly enough about fixing the current state of electronic voting in this country, I highly reccomend writing to your elected representatives to inform them of your concerns and certain bills which they should support.

    Remember, for a democracy to work as intended there needs to be participation by all of its citizens though voting as well as keeping their elected representatives informed of the citizens wishes.

    Also remember that when contacting your representatives a signed, mailed letter makes a much bigger impact than an e-mail.

  12. This is a democracy... by servoled · · Score: 3, Interesting · on Chimp Can Hack Diebold Electronic Voting System

    For all the Americans out there, we live in a democracy where "all decisions are made by representatives who act by [our] consent". However, it is incredibly difficult for an elected representative to follow his/her constituent's wishes if they are not informed of which bills they should vote for by their constituents.

    A simple letter (here or here or here or here) is one of the easiest ways to inform your elected representative of your stance in regard to certain bills. If you feel strongly enough about fixing the current state of electronic voting in this country, I highly reccomend writing to your elected representatives to inform them of your concerns and certain bills which they should support.

    Remember, for a democracy to work as intended there needs to be participation by all of its citizens though voting as well as keeping their elected representatives informed of the citizens wishes.

    Also remember that when contacting your representatives a signed, mailed letter makes a much bigger impact than an e-mail.

  13. Re:Product idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on NASA Releases World Viewer

    Tin-based paints to keep those beams away from your house.

    Ah, yes, Mr Troll.. but you see the Government already thought of that when they enacted Public Law 100-333 back in 1988, restricting the use and sale of tin-based paint.

    Those rascals disguised it as having something to do with threats to marine life and so on.. But now you know!

  14. Re:The draft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Submit and Moderate Questions for Bush and Kerry

    um. that's not directly about the draft, that's about mandatory service and notice the key phrase there. "or civil service" so you can easily sit it out working for a hospital or the government in the country. it's also over a year old.

    thomas.gov

    is one from 2001 requiring only mandatory military service (no civil serivce option).

    Chuck Hagel has also stated numerous times that this the draft has to be considered seriously.

    see this from rock the vote:

    At a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week about post-occupation Iraq, Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) thrust the issue of reinstituting a military draft right into the public debate. "There's not an American ... that doesn't understand what we are engaged in today and what the prospects are for the future. Why shouldn't we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility and pay some price?" The Senator went further and argued that restoring compulsory military service would force "our citizens to understand the intensity and depth of challenges we face."

    The Nebraska Republican added, "those who are serving today and dying today are the middle class and lower middle class." The draft, he argues, would spread the responsibility of military service in Iraq equally among all Americans.


    it's not just democrats. both sides are guilty of talking about this. as it is, the armed forces are being forced to stay months longer than they're supposed to be staying.

    the silver lining is if you can stomach having sex with guys you can get out of it ;)

  15. The truth about "the draft" by daveschroeder · · Score: 4, Informative · on Submit and Moderate Questions for Bush and Kerry
    Many questions circulating seem to revolve around the rumored return of "the draft", apparently at the behest of a secret Bush administration effort.

    In truth, the pair of Universal National Service Act bills, S.89 and H.R.163, have been introduced and sponsored by liberal Democrats. S.89 is sponsored by Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-SC), while the companion H.R.163 was introduced by Congressional Black Caucus cofounder and Harlem representative Charlie Rangel (D-NY), along with 14 other Democrats that read like a Who's Who of the Left in Congress:

    D Rep Abercrombie, Neil - 1/7/2003 [HI-1]
    D Rep Brown, Corrine - 1/28/2003 [FL-3]
    D Rep Christensen, Donna M. - 5/19/2004 [VI]
    D Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy - 1/28/2003 [MO-1]
    D Rep Conyers, John, Jr. - 1/7/2003 [MI-14]
    D Rep Cummings, Elijah E. - 1/28/2003 [MD-7]
    D Rep Hastings, Alcee L. - 1/28/2003 [FL-23]
    D Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila - 1/28/2003 [TX-18]
    D Rep Lewis, John - 1/7/2003 [GA-5]
    D Rep McDermott, Jim - 1/7/2003 [WA-7]
    D Rep Moran, James P. - 1/28/2003 [VA-8]
    D Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes - 1/28/2003 [DC]
    D Rep Stark, Fortney Pete - 1/7/2003 [CA-13]
    D Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. - 1/28/2003 [NY-12]

    The details of these bills are here:

    H.R.163 | Text | Cosponsors

    S.89 | Text

    By contrast, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) has introduced a bill, H.R.487, to repeal the Military Selective Service Act, permanently ending the draft. Cosponsors include two other Republicans and five Democrats.

    Details:

    H.R.487 | Text | Cosponsors

    D Rep Boucher, Rick - 2/12/2003 [VA-9]
    D Rep DeFazio, Peter A. - 1/29/2003 [OR-4]
    R Rep Foley, Mark - 3/6/2003 [FL-16]
    D Rep Frank, Barney - 1/29/2003 [MA-4]
    D Rep Nadler, Jerrold - 2/7/2003 [NY-8]
    D Rep Owens, Major R. - 2/11/2003 [NY-11]
    R Rep Rohrabacher, Dana - 6/23/2003 [CA-46]

    I'm really surprised from the tone of many of these rumors, everyone seems to assume it's Bush or the "neo-cons" behind some kind of effort to reinstate "the draft", when in reality it's all liberal Democrats that have introduced and sponsored the bills, while almost all Republicans OPPOSE forced service, whether it be civil or military.

    This is indeed an important issue, but when writing your representatives in Congress and/or the President - or voting - keep in mind who is actually supporting these bills. Hint: it's not Bush and the "warhawks"...

    I hope this information is found useful.

    PS - the predictable copout, when faced with the truth, of "yeah, well, the only reason the liberals are doing it is because they have no choice, so that the sons and daughters of the warmongers and of the rich Republicans in Congress would actually have to serve, perhaps making them think twice about voting for war" is a little tired, ESPECIALLY when the initial accusations about the draft routinely revolve around Bush and his "cronies" "secretly" wanting to bring it back. Do we need to all sit down and watch the Schoolhouse Rock about how bills become law again? Additionally, if you truly oppose the draft, shouldn't you come to terms with the fact that it's liberal Democrats who are the ones closest to making it a reality? Stop trying to justify it with a bunch of ridiculous arguments.

  16. The truth about "the draft" by daveschroeder · · Score: 4, Informative · on Submit and Moderate Questions for Bush and Kerry
    Many questions circulating seem to revolve around the rumored return of "the draft", apparently at the behest of a secret Bush administration effort.

    In truth, the pair of Universal National Service Act bills, S.89 and H.R.163, have been introduced and sponsored by liberal Democrats. S.89 is sponsored by Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-SC), while the companion H.R.163 was introduced by Congressional Black Caucus cofounder and Harlem representative Charlie Rangel (D-NY), along with 14 other Democrats that read like a Who's Who of the Left in Congress:

    D Rep Abercrombie, Neil - 1/7/2003 [HI-1]
    D Rep Brown, Corrine - 1/28/2003 [FL-3]
    D Rep Christensen, Donna M. - 5/19/2004 [VI]
    D Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy - 1/28/2003 [MO-1]
    D Rep Conyers, John, Jr. - 1/7/2003 [MI-14]
    D Rep Cummings, Elijah E. - 1/28/2003 [MD-7]
    D Rep Hastings, Alcee L. - 1/28/2003 [FL-23]
    D Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila - 1/28/2003 [TX-18]
    D Rep Lewis, John - 1/7/2003 [GA-5]
    D Rep McDermott, Jim - 1/7/2003 [WA-7]
    D Rep Moran, James P. - 1/28/2003 [VA-8]
    D Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes - 1/28/2003 [DC]
    D Rep Stark, Fortney Pete - 1/7/2003 [CA-13]
    D Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. - 1/28/2003 [NY-12]

    The details of these bills are here:

    H.R.163 | Text | Cosponsors

    S.89 | Text

    By contrast, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) has introduced a bill, H.R.487, to repeal the Military Selective Service Act, permanently ending the draft. Cosponsors include two other Republicans and five Democrats.

    Details:

    H.R.487 | Text | Cosponsors

    D Rep Boucher, Rick - 2/12/2003 [VA-9]
    D Rep DeFazio, Peter A. - 1/29/2003 [OR-4]
    R Rep Foley, Mark - 3/6/2003 [FL-16]
    D Rep Frank, Barney - 1/29/2003 [MA-4]
    D Rep Nadler, Jerrold - 2/7/2003 [NY-8]
    D Rep Owens, Major R. - 2/11/2003 [NY-11]
    R Rep Rohrabacher, Dana - 6/23/2003 [CA-46]

    I'm really surprised from the tone of many of these rumors, everyone seems to assume it's Bush or the "neo-cons" behind some kind of effort to reinstate "the draft", when in reality it's all liberal Democrats that have introduced and sponsored the bills, while almost all Republicans OPPOSE forced service, whether it be civil or military.

    This is indeed an important issue, but when writing your representatives in Congress and/or the President - or voting - keep in mind who is actually supporting these bills. Hint: it's not Bush and the "warhawks"...

    I hope this information is found useful.

    PS - the predictable copout, when faced with the truth, of "yeah, well, the only reason the liberals are doing it is because they have no choice, so that the sons and daughters of the warmongers and of the rich Republicans in Congress would actually have to serve, perhaps making them think twice about voting for war" is a little tired, ESPECIALLY when the initial accusations about the draft routinely revolve around Bush and his "cronies" "secretly" wanting to bring it back. Do we need to all sit down and watch the Schoolhouse Rock about how bills become law again? Additionally, if you truly oppose the draft, shouldn't you come to terms with the fact that it's liberal Democrats who are the ones closest to making it a reality? Stop trying to justify it with a bunch of ridiculous arguments.

  17. The truth about "the draft" by daveschroeder · · Score: 4, Informative · on Submit and Moderate Questions for Bush and Kerry
    Many questions circulating seem to revolve around the rumored return of "the draft", apparently at the behest of a secret Bush administration effort.

    In truth, the pair of Universal National Service Act bills, S.89 and H.R.163, have been introduced and sponsored by liberal Democrats. S.89 is sponsored by Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-SC), while the companion H.R.163 was introduced by Congressional Black Caucus cofounder and Harlem representative Charlie Rangel (D-NY), along with 14 other Democrats that read like a Who's Who of the Left in Congress:

    D Rep Abercrombie, Neil - 1/7/2003 [HI-1]
    D Rep Brown, Corrine - 1/28/2003 [FL-3]
    D Rep Christensen, Donna M. - 5/19/2004 [VI]
    D Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy - 1/28/2003 [MO-1]
    D Rep Conyers, John, Jr. - 1/7/2003 [MI-14]
    D Rep Cummings, Elijah E. - 1/28/2003 [MD-7]
    D Rep Hastings, Alcee L. - 1/28/2003 [FL-23]
    D Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila - 1/28/2003 [TX-18]
    D Rep Lewis, John - 1/7/2003 [GA-5]
    D Rep McDermott, Jim - 1/7/2003 [WA-7]
    D Rep Moran, James P. - 1/28/2003 [VA-8]
    D Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes - 1/28/2003 [DC]
    D Rep Stark, Fortney Pete - 1/7/2003 [CA-13]
    D Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. - 1/28/2003 [NY-12]

    The details of these bills are here:

    H.R.163 | Text | Cosponsors

    S.89 | Text

    By contrast, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) has introduced a bill, H.R.487, to repeal the Military Selective Service Act, permanently ending the draft. Cosponsors include two other Republicans and five Democrats.

    Details:

    H.R.487 | Text | Cosponsors

    D Rep Boucher, Rick - 2/12/2003 [VA-9]
    D Rep DeFazio, Peter A. - 1/29/2003 [OR-4]
    R Rep Foley, Mark - 3/6/2003 [FL-16]
    D Rep Frank, Barney - 1/29/2003 [MA-4]
    D Rep Nadler, Jerrold - 2/7/2003 [NY-8]
    D Rep Owens, Major R. - 2/11/2003 [NY-11]
    R Rep Rohrabacher, Dana - 6/23/2003 [CA-46]

    I'm really surprised from the tone of many of these rumors, everyone seems to assume it's Bush or the "neo-cons" behind some kind of effort to reinstate "the draft", when in reality it's all liberal Democrats that have introduced and sponsored the bills, while almost all Republicans OPPOSE forced service, whether it be civil or military.

    This is indeed an important issue, but when writing your representatives in Congress and/or the President - or voting - keep in mind who is actually supporting these bills. Hint: it's not Bush and the "warhawks"...

    I hope this information is found useful.

    PS - the predictable copout, when faced with the truth, of "yeah, well, the only reason the liberals are doing it is because they have no choice, so that the sons and daughters of the warmongers and of the rich Republicans in Congress would actually have to serve, perhaps making them think twice about voting for war" is a little tired, ESPECIALLY when the initial accusations about the draft routinely revolve around Bush and his "cronies" "secretly" wanting to bring it back. Do we need to all sit down and watch the Schoolhouse Rock about how bills become law again? Additionally, if you truly oppose the draft, shouldn't you come to terms with the fact that it's liberal Democrats who are the ones closest to making it a reality? Stop trying to justify it with a bunch of ridiculous arguments.

  18. The truth about "the draft" by daveschroeder · · Score: 4, Informative · on Submit and Moderate Questions for Bush and Kerry
    Many questions circulating seem to revolve around the rumored return of "the draft", apparently at the behest of a secret Bush administration effort.

    In truth, the pair of Universal National Service Act bills, S.89 and H.R.163, have been introduced and sponsored by liberal Democrats. S.89 is sponsored by Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-SC), while the companion H.R.163 was introduced by Congressional Black Caucus cofounder and Harlem representative Charlie Rangel (D-NY), along with 14 other Democrats that read like a Who's Who of the Left in Congress:

    D Rep Abercrombie, Neil - 1/7/2003 [HI-1]
    D Rep Brown, Corrine - 1/28/2003 [FL-3]
    D Rep Christensen, Donna M. - 5/19/2004 [VI]
    D Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy - 1/28/2003 [MO-1]
    D Rep Conyers, John, Jr. - 1/7/2003 [MI-14]
    D Rep Cummings, Elijah E. - 1/28/2003 [MD-7]
    D Rep Hastings, Alcee L. - 1/28/2003 [FL-23]
    D Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila - 1/28/2003 [TX-18]
    D Rep Lewis, John - 1/7/2003 [GA-5]
    D Rep McDermott, Jim - 1/7/2003 [WA-7]
    D Rep Moran, James P. - 1/28/2003 [VA-8]
    D Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes - 1/28/2003 [DC]
    D Rep Stark, Fortney Pete - 1/7/2003 [CA-13]
    D Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. - 1/28/2003 [NY-12]

    The details of these bills are here:

    H.R.163 | Text | Cosponsors

    S.89 | Text

    By contrast, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) has introduced a bill, H.R.487, to repeal the Military Selective Service Act, permanently ending the draft. Cosponsors include two other Republicans and five Democrats.

    Details:

    H.R.487 | Text | Cosponsors

    D Rep Boucher, Rick - 2/12/2003 [VA-9]
    D Rep DeFazio, Peter A. - 1/29/2003 [OR-4]
    R Rep Foley, Mark - 3/6/2003 [FL-16]
    D Rep Frank, Barney - 1/29/2003 [MA-4]
    D Rep Nadler, Jerrold - 2/7/2003 [NY-8]
    D Rep Owens, Major R. - 2/11/2003 [NY-11]
    R Rep Rohrabacher, Dana - 6/23/2003 [CA-46]

    I'm really surprised from the tone of many of these rumors, everyone seems to assume it's Bush or the "neo-cons" behind some kind of effort to reinstate "the draft", when in reality it's all liberal Democrats that have introduced and sponsored the bills, while almost all Republicans OPPOSE forced service, whether it be civil or military.

    This is indeed an important issue, but when writing your representatives in Congress and/or the President - or voting - keep in mind who is actually supporting these bills. Hint: it's not Bush and the "warhawks"...

    I hope this information is found useful.

    PS - the predictable copout, when faced with the truth, of "yeah, well, the only reason the liberals are doing it is because they have no choice, so that the sons and daughters of the warmongers and of the rich Republicans in Congress would actually have to serve, perhaps making them think twice about voting for war" is a little tired, ESPECIALLY when the initial accusations about the draft routinely revolve around Bush and his "cronies" "secretly" wanting to bring it back. Do we need to all sit down and watch the Schoolhouse Rock about how bills become law again? Additionally, if you truly oppose the draft, shouldn't you come to terms with the fact that it's liberal Democrats who are the ones closest to making it a reality? Stop trying to justify it with a bunch of ridiculous arguments.

  19. The truth about "the draft" by daveschroeder · · Score: 4, Informative · on Submit and Moderate Questions for Bush and Kerry
    Many questions circulating seem to revolve around the rumored return of "the draft", apparently at the behest of a secret Bush administration effort.

    In truth, the pair of Universal National Service Act bills, S.89 and H.R.163, have been introduced and sponsored by liberal Democrats. S.89 is sponsored by Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-SC), while the companion H.R.163 was introduced by Congressional Black Caucus cofounder and Harlem representative Charlie Rangel (D-NY), along with 14 other Democrats that read like a Who's Who of the Left in Congress:

    D Rep Abercrombie, Neil - 1/7/2003 [HI-1]
    D Rep Brown, Corrine - 1/28/2003 [FL-3]
    D Rep Christensen, Donna M. - 5/19/2004 [VI]
    D Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy - 1/28/2003 [MO-1]
    D Rep Conyers, John, Jr. - 1/7/2003 [MI-14]
    D Rep Cummings, Elijah E. - 1/28/2003 [MD-7]
    D Rep Hastings, Alcee L. - 1/28/2003 [FL-23]
    D Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila - 1/28/2003 [TX-18]
    D Rep Lewis, John - 1/7/2003 [GA-5]
    D Rep McDermott, Jim - 1/7/2003 [WA-7]
    D Rep Moran, James P. - 1/28/2003 [VA-8]
    D Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes - 1/28/2003 [DC]
    D Rep Stark, Fortney Pete - 1/7/2003 [CA-13]
    D Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. - 1/28/2003 [NY-12]

    The details of these bills are here:

    H.R.163 | Text | Cosponsors

    S.89 | Text

    By contrast, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) has introduced a bill, H.R.487, to repeal the Military Selective Service Act, permanently ending the draft. Cosponsors include two other Republicans and five Democrats.

    Details:

    H.R.487 | Text | Cosponsors

    D Rep Boucher, Rick - 2/12/2003 [VA-9]
    D Rep DeFazio, Peter A. - 1/29/2003 [OR-4]
    R Rep Foley, Mark - 3/6/2003 [FL-16]
    D Rep Frank, Barney - 1/29/2003 [MA-4]
    D Rep Nadler, Jerrold - 2/7/2003 [NY-8]
    D Rep Owens, Major R. - 2/11/2003 [NY-11]
    R Rep Rohrabacher, Dana - 6/23/2003 [CA-46]

    I'm really surprised from the tone of many of these rumors, everyone seems to assume it's Bush or the "neo-cons" behind some kind of effort to reinstate "the draft", when in reality it's all liberal Democrats that have introduced and sponsored the bills, while almost all Republicans OPPOSE forced service, whether it be civil or military.

    This is indeed an important issue, but when writing your representatives in Congress and/or the President - or voting - keep in mind who is actually supporting these bills. Hint: it's not Bush and the "warhawks"...

    I hope this information is found useful.

    PS - the predictable copout, when faced with the truth, of "yeah, well, the only reason the liberals are doing it is because they have no choice, so that the sons and daughters of the warmongers and of the rich Republicans in Congress would actually have to serve, perhaps making them think twice about voting for war" is a little tired, ESPECIALLY when the initial accusations about the draft routinely revolve around Bush and his "cronies" "secretly" wanting to bring it back. Do we need to all sit down and watch the Schoolhouse Rock about how bills become law again? Additionally, if you truly oppose the draft, shouldn't you come to terms with the fact that it's liberal Democrats who are the ones closest to making it a reality? Stop trying to justify it with a bunch of ridiculous arguments.

  20. The truth about "the draft" by daveschroeder · · Score: 4, Informative · on Submit and Moderate Questions for Bush and Kerry
    Many questions circulating seem to revolve around the rumored return of "the draft", apparently at the behest of a secret Bush administration effort.

    In truth, the pair of Universal National Service Act bills, S.89 and H.R.163, have been introduced and sponsored by liberal Democrats. S.89 is sponsored by Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-SC), while the companion H.R.163 was introduced by Congressional Black Caucus cofounder and Harlem representative Charlie Rangel (D-NY), along with 14 other Democrats that read like a Who's Who of the Left in Congress:

    D Rep Abercrombie, Neil - 1/7/2003 [HI-1]
    D Rep Brown, Corrine - 1/28/2003 [FL-3]
    D Rep Christensen, Donna M. - 5/19/2004 [VI]
    D Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy - 1/28/2003 [MO-1]
    D Rep Conyers, John, Jr. - 1/7/2003 [MI-14]
    D Rep Cummings, Elijah E. - 1/28/2003 [MD-7]
    D Rep Hastings, Alcee L. - 1/28/2003 [FL-23]
    D Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila - 1/28/2003 [TX-18]
    D Rep Lewis, John - 1/7/2003 [GA-5]
    D Rep McDermott, Jim - 1/7/2003 [WA-7]
    D Rep Moran, James P. - 1/28/2003 [VA-8]
    D Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes - 1/28/2003 [DC]
    D Rep Stark, Fortney Pete - 1/7/2003 [CA-13]
    D Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. - 1/28/2003 [NY-12]

    The details of these bills are here:

    H.R.163 | Text | Cosponsors

    S.89 | Text

    By contrast, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) has introduced a bill, H.R.487, to repeal the Military Selective Service Act, permanently ending the draft. Cosponsors include two other Republicans and five Democrats.

    Details:

    H.R.487 | Text | Cosponsors

    D Rep Boucher, Rick - 2/12/2003 [VA-9]
    D Rep DeFazio, Peter A. - 1/29/2003 [OR-4]
    R Rep Foley, Mark - 3/6/2003 [FL-16]
    D Rep Frank, Barney - 1/29/2003 [MA-4]
    D Rep Nadler, Jerrold - 2/7/2003 [NY-8]
    D Rep Owens, Major R. - 2/11/2003 [NY-11]
    R Rep Rohrabacher, Dana - 6/23/2003 [CA-46]

    I'm really surprised from the tone of many of these rumors, everyone seems to assume it's Bush or the "neo-cons" behind some kind of effort to reinstate "the draft", when in reality it's all liberal Democrats that have introduced and sponsored the bills, while almost all Republicans OPPOSE forced service, whether it be civil or military.

    This is indeed an important issue, but when writing your representatives in Congress and/or the President - or voting - keep in mind who is actually supporting these bills. Hint: it's not Bush and the "warhawks"...

    I hope this information is found useful.

    PS - the predictable copout, when faced with the truth, of "yeah, well, the only reason the liberals are doing it is because they have no choice, so that the sons and daughters of the warmongers and of the rich Republicans in Congress would actually have to serve, perhaps making them think twice about voting for war" is a little tired, ESPECIALLY when the initial accusations about the draft routinely revolve around Bush and his "cronies" "secretly" wanting to bring it back. Do we need to all sit down and watch the Schoolhouse Rock about how bills become law again? Additionally, if you truly oppose the draft, shouldn't you come to terms with the fact that it's liberal Democrats who are the ones closest to making it a reality? Stop trying to justify it with a bunch of ridiculous arguments.

  21. The truth about "the draft" by daveschroeder · · Score: 4, Informative · on Submit and Moderate Questions for Bush and Kerry
    Many questions circulating seem to revolve around the rumored return of "the draft", apparently at the behest of a secret Bush administration effort.

    In truth, the pair of Universal National Service Act bills, S.89 and H.R.163, have been introduced and sponsored by liberal Democrats. S.89 is sponsored by Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-SC), while the companion H.R.163 was introduced by Congressional Black Caucus cofounder and Harlem representative Charlie Rangel (D-NY), along with 14 other Democrats that read like a Who's Who of the Left in Congress:

    D Rep Abercrombie, Neil - 1/7/2003 [HI-1]
    D Rep Brown, Corrine - 1/28/2003 [FL-3]
    D Rep Christensen, Donna M. - 5/19/2004 [VI]
    D Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy - 1/28/2003 [MO-1]
    D Rep Conyers, John, Jr. - 1/7/2003 [MI-14]
    D Rep Cummings, Elijah E. - 1/28/2003 [MD-7]
    D Rep Hastings, Alcee L. - 1/28/2003 [FL-23]
    D Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila - 1/28/2003 [TX-18]
    D Rep Lewis, John - 1/7/2003 [GA-5]
    D Rep McDermott, Jim - 1/7/2003 [WA-7]
    D Rep Moran, James P. - 1/28/2003 [VA-8]
    D Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes - 1/28/2003 [DC]
    D Rep Stark, Fortney Pete - 1/7/2003 [CA-13]
    D Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. - 1/28/2003 [NY-12]

    The details of these bills are here:

    H.R.163 | Text | Cosponsors

    S.89 | Text

    By contrast, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) has introduced a bill, H.R.487, to repeal the Military Selective Service Act, permanently ending the draft. Cosponsors include two other Republicans and five Democrats.

    Details:

    H.R.487 | Text | Cosponsors

    D Rep Boucher, Rick - 2/12/2003 [VA-9]
    D Rep DeFazio, Peter A. - 1/29/2003 [OR-4]
    R Rep Foley, Mark - 3/6/2003 [FL-16]
    D Rep Frank, Barney - 1/29/2003 [MA-4]
    D Rep Nadler, Jerrold - 2/7/2003 [NY-8]
    D Rep Owens, Major R. - 2/11/2003 [NY-11]
    R Rep Rohrabacher, Dana - 6/23/2003 [CA-46]

    I'm really surprised from the tone of many of these rumors, everyone seems to assume it's Bush or the "neo-cons" behind some kind of effort to reinstate "the draft", when in reality it's all liberal Democrats that have introduced and sponsored the bills, while almost all Republicans OPPOSE forced service, whether it be civil or military.

    This is indeed an important issue, but when writing your representatives in Congress and/or the President - or voting - keep in mind who is actually supporting these bills. Hint: it's not Bush and the "warhawks"...

    I hope this information is found useful.

    PS - the predictable copout, when faced with the truth, of "yeah, well, the only reason the liberals are doing it is because they have no choice, so that the sons and daughters of the warmongers and of the rich Republicans in Congress would actually have to serve, perhaps making them think twice about voting for war" is a little tired, ESPECIALLY when the initial accusations about the draft routinely revolve around Bush and his "cronies" "secretly" wanting to bring it back. Do we need to all sit down and watch the Schoolhouse Rock about how bills become law again? Additionally, if you truly oppose the draft, shouldn't you come to terms with the fact that it's liberal Democrats who are the ones closest to making it a reality? Stop trying to justify it with a bunch of ridiculous arguments.

  22. The truth about "the draft" by daveschroeder · · Score: 4, Informative · on Submit and Moderate Questions for Bush and Kerry
    Many questions circulating seem to revolve around the rumored return of "the draft", apparently at the behest of a secret Bush administration effort.

    In truth, the pair of Universal National Service Act bills, S.89 and H.R.163, have been introduced and sponsored by liberal Democrats. S.89 is sponsored by Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-SC), while the companion H.R.163 was introduced by Congressional Black Caucus cofounder and Harlem representative Charlie Rangel (D-NY), along with 14 other Democrats that read like a Who's Who of the Left in Congress:

    D Rep Abercrombie, Neil - 1/7/2003 [HI-1]
    D Rep Brown, Corrine - 1/28/2003 [FL-3]
    D Rep Christensen, Donna M. - 5/19/2004 [VI]
    D Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy - 1/28/2003 [MO-1]
    D Rep Conyers, John, Jr. - 1/7/2003 [MI-14]
    D Rep Cummings, Elijah E. - 1/28/2003 [MD-7]
    D Rep Hastings, Alcee L. - 1/28/2003 [FL-23]
    D Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila - 1/28/2003 [TX-18]
    D Rep Lewis, John - 1/7/2003 [GA-5]
    D Rep McDermott, Jim - 1/7/2003 [WA-7]
    D Rep Moran, James P. - 1/28/2003 [VA-8]
    D Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes - 1/28/2003 [DC]
    D Rep Stark, Fortney Pete - 1/7/2003 [CA-13]
    D Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. - 1/28/2003 [NY-12]

    The details of these bills are here:

    H.R.163 | Text | Cosponsors

    S.89 | Text

    By contrast, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) has introduced a bill, H.R.487, to repeal the Military Selective Service Act, permanently ending the draft. Cosponsors include two other Republicans and five Democrats.

    Details:

    H.R.487 | Text | Cosponsors

    D Rep Boucher, Rick - 2/12/2003 [VA-9]
    D Rep DeFazio, Peter A. - 1/29/2003 [OR-4]
    R Rep Foley, Mark - 3/6/2003 [FL-16]
    D Rep Frank, Barney - 1/29/2003 [MA-4]
    D Rep Nadler, Jerrold - 2/7/2003 [NY-8]
    D Rep Owens, Major R. - 2/11/2003 [NY-11]
    R Rep Rohrabacher, Dana - 6/23/2003 [CA-46]

    I'm really surprised from the tone of many of these rumors, everyone seems to assume it's Bush or the "neo-cons" behind some kind of effort to reinstate "the draft", when in reality it's all liberal Democrats that have introduced and sponsored the bills, while almost all Republicans OPPOSE forced service, whether it be civil or military.

    This is indeed an important issue, but when writing your representatives in Congress and/or the President - or voting - keep in mind who is actually supporting these bills. Hint: it's not Bush and the "warhawks"...

    I hope this information is found useful.

    PS - the predictable copout, when faced with the truth, of "yeah, well, the only reason the liberals are doing it is because they have no choice, so that the sons and daughters of the warmongers and of the rich Republicans in Congress would actually have to serve, perhaps making them think twice about voting for war" is a little tired, ESPECIALLY when the initial accusations about the draft routinely revolve around Bush and his "cronies" "secretly" wanting to bring it back. Do we need to all sit down and watch the Schoolhouse Rock about how bills become law again? Additionally, if you truly oppose the draft, shouldn't you come to terms with the fact that it's liberal Democrats who are the ones closest to making it a reality? Stop trying to justify it with a bunch of ridiculous arguments.

  23. Re:Was Gulf War II authorized by congress? by pudge · · Score: 2, Informative · on US Presidents on Presidential Power
    There's some question on Gulf War II- whether it was actual authorization or whether it was only authorization to allow the President to make his case.

    No, there is no question of this. The bill, signed in October 2002, authorized the President to use military force, explicitly.
    (a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
    (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
    (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
    There was a question for whether this bill SHOULD authorize military force, but require the President to come back to Congress before using force. But that was decided against.

    There is simply no question but that Congress authorized the President to use force against Iraq.
  24. Re:The WTO move is the prime incentive by Curtman · · Score: 1 · on Iran: Even If Windows Is Free, Linux Is Preferred
    • America has a problem Canada's lax laws regarding pot, and Canada has a problem with drugs coming in from the U.S. It seems that the issue works both ways, and our two countries seem to be working together


    The silliness goes much further than that. The report from the US government about our proposed legislation harshly critisizes us for being too lenient on people who grow marijuana. The truely strange thing about it, is the bill itself doubles the penalties for growing marijuana, and softens the penalties for simple possession. It almost seems they didn't even read the thing. They just took the opportunity to spread a little FUD. I wholeheartedly dissagree with the entire thing, I think its completely backwards. The problme is the illegal drug trade, and the best way to attack that is by allowing people to grow their own pot, and throw the book at them the second they leave their house with it.

    My point was baited though, you just didn't bite. I really expected you to respond with a 'what does this have to do with anything'. That is the issue as far as I see it. None of that has anything to do with Linux, or free software. If we look at those issues, the things that we should be focusing on are software patents, government lobyists, and rediculous legislation.
    • Iranian officials have stated that they don't feel the least but guilty about stealing


    What they said was that they don't respect copyright laws. Iran has MUCH more severe penalties for theft than the US does. If it isn't made illegal by their laws, then it isn't stealing. If they were to join the WTO, it would be. Just like Canada doesn't have to play along with the American nonsensical war on drugs. If we decide its stupid to lock people up for carrying a bag of weed around, then who is Dubya to tell us different?

  25. Re:Reparations by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1 · on Ask Green Party Presidential Candidate David Cobb
    I could argue that slavery was the prime reason for the Civil War. But I don't even need to, because you made the ludicrous claim that "slavery wasn't even remotely related". To disprove that particular little lie, I only need to show one place where it was related, even remotely. And as you just admitted, I've done so 4 times already.

    that must mean it's a main reason for the war?

    That's a different claim than you made before. Previously, you said slavery wasn't "even remotely related". Now you've fallen back to a much timider position. It would take more space than Slashdot allows to comprehensively refute it.

    The main problem however, according to everything I've seen was that the Federal (Nationalist) government was taking upon itself the -ability-

    That was the propaganda position invented by the rich Southern slaveowning politicians to rally the common non-slaveholding men to die for their cause. It's hard to lead troops into battle with a cry of "Slavery!", when "Freedom" has such a better ring to it.

    Compare against Operation Desert Storm: The US was only cared about Kuwait and Iraq for the oil, but they needed to emphasize some other goal to fire up the troops, so it became a battle against an evil dictator.

    Further, according to original sources--and by "original sources", I'm referring to letters written in Lincoln's own hand--, he didn't care one way or the other about slavery; his only goal was to salvage the Union.

    That's untrue. Lincoln was quite opposed to slavery, even if he didn't think it was important enough to risk dissolving the USA over. But whether you believe me about Lincoln's position on slavery or not is irrelevant. His main goal was to protect the USA, and a divided nation would've become subservient clients of the two European Empires.

    Lincoln's personal view on slavery didn't matter- the President can't write or repeal laws. The majority of the USA (because of the North's higher population) wanted to end slavery eventually. Some day, they would have succeeded.

    How much more authoritative would you like to get?

    Let's go directly to the man who started the war, Abraham Lincoln himself:
    1. One-eighth of the whole population were slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war.

    And yes, if you prefer it in his own handwriting, that's available.

    In conclusion:
    You could look at the cause of any war that ever happened, and claim "No, the war wasn't actually caused by XYZ. The real cause was that one side wanted XYZ, and the other did not". Can you tell how stupid that sounds?
  26. RTFL: Read the Legislation by jfengel · · Score: 4, Interesting · on Anti-Spyware Bill up for Vote in Congress

    The article is actually rather devoid of information. If you want real data, you gotta go to the source: The Library of Congress.

    For example, many articles in this thread have talked about them burying the the notice in the EULA. From the House bill:

    The notice clearly distinguishes such notice from any other information visually presented contemporaneously on the protected computer.

    They call that "clear and conspicuous notice in plain language", and it goes on from there.

    As for enforcement: there's less spyware than spam. Spyware takes time to write, and it takes time to make it useful enough that dumb users install it. Claria is easily tracked down, and if they don't ask "This program will collect and transmit information about you. Do you accept?", they go to jail. Stupid users will click anyway, but "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain" (Frederick Schiller).

    The solution isn't perfect: some malware writers will just move offshore, for example. But I have reason to believe that this legislation will do at least some good.

  27. Re:Links to the bills by gomaroons · · Score: 1 · on Anti-Spyware Bill up for Vote in Congress

    Sorry about that last post (I'm kind of a, uh, n00b is it?). Go here http://thomas.loc.gov/ and do a word/phrase search for spyware if you want to see the bills.

  28. Links to the bills by gomaroons · · Score: 1 · on Anti-Spyware Bill up for Vote in Congress

    Here's the actual bills (not sure which two the article refers to):
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:1:./tem p/~c108vFrH4s::
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:2:./tem p/~c108vFrH4s::
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:3:./tem p/~c108vFrH4s::
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:4:./tem p/~c108vFrH4s::
    BTW, these bills have been around for years. Senator John Edwards introduced one in 2000.

  29. Links to the bills by gomaroons · · Score: 1 · on Anti-Spyware Bill up for Vote in Congress

    Here's the actual bills (not sure which two the article refers to):
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:1:./tem p/~c108vFrH4s::
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:2:./tem p/~c108vFrH4s::
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:3:./tem p/~c108vFrH4s::
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:4:./tem p/~c108vFrH4s::
    BTW, these bills have been around for years. Senator John Edwards introduced one in 2000.

  30. Links to the bills by gomaroons · · Score: 1 · on Anti-Spyware Bill up for Vote in Congress

    Here's the actual bills (not sure which two the article refers to):
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:1:./tem p/~c108vFrH4s::
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:2:./tem p/~c108vFrH4s::
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:3:./tem p/~c108vFrH4s::
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:4:./tem p/~c108vFrH4s::
    BTW, these bills have been around for years. Senator John Edwards introduced one in 2000.

  31. Links to the bills by gomaroons · · Score: 1 · on Anti-Spyware Bill up for Vote in Congress

    Here's the actual bills (not sure which two the article refers to):
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:1:./tem p/~c108vFrH4s::
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:2:./tem p/~c108vFrH4s::
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:3:./tem p/~c108vFrH4s::
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:4:./tem p/~c108vFrH4s::
    BTW, these bills have been around for years. Senator John Edwards introduced one in 2000.

  32. The linked-to bill is scarier than the real one by 0x0d0a · · Score: 4, Informative · on Whois Record Falsification Closer To Illegality

    The Federal Anticounterfeiting Act of 2004, the bill that was *actually* linked to, is some scary stuff.

    Writing a program like Daemon Tools (no, not the *IX suite of software, the CD image software) or bnetd (a FOSS Battle.net implementation) would become illegal, with a potential five year federal prison penalty.

    Why have I not heard about this before?

  33. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Whois Record Falsification Closer To Illegality

    Did you bother to read the law? The text of the law linked S2242, in case its edited by the editors has lots to say about selling bootlegs of copyrighted works that appear to be authentic, but nothing at all to say about names and addresses and phone numbers.

    In fact, I suspect that the only way to have fake whois information actionable under any part of this law is if you changed your whois info to match that of, say, DreamWorks, and then glue the whois dump of your domain to the cover of your bootleg DVD.

  34. At least link to the right Bill: HR3754 by thpr · · Score: 1 · on Whois Record Falsification Closer To Illegality

    This is the correct bill...

  35. "Tits" obscenity went tits up by tepples · · Score: 1 · on Tracking The (English) Words We Use

    And then the U.S. Congress went and tried to replace "tits" with "asshole" in its most recent list of seven (HR 3687).

  36. Re:I might vote for him... by Masker · · Score: 1 · on Libertarian Presidential Candidate Michael Badnarik Answers
    No, no, no.

    1) He voted to support giving the president authorization to send troops into Iraq. Read the freaking bill summary.
    His position is that Bush misused this authorization. He's been consistent in this view throughout his campaign.

    2) He said that he would vote the same way again:
    Yes, I would have voted for the authority [to use force in Iraq]. I believe it is the right authority for a president to have. But I would have used that authority, as I have said throughout this campaign, effectively.
    source (also quotes from Bush & co. distorting the things Kerry has said)

    3) Given that we are now in a war he supports our troops, and favors spending what is necessary to finish the job. However, (to nip this in the bud) he did vote against the $87 billion support bill, because it wasn't funded by temporarily rolling back Bush's tax cuts. In other words, he voted against adding $87 billion to the deficit, since Bush's tax cuts are obliterating our ability to fund all the programs that he supports. source

    Another source on Kerry's position on the authorization vote & subsequent events.

    Please get your facts straight, as these are very important distinctions on complex issues. But, they're not that subtle, if you do a little fact-finding/googling on your own to find the source quotes from Kerry without the slice & dice job that Fox/RNC/etc. have done to them.

  37. Re:Question by Philosinfinity · · Score: 1 · on Ask Libertarian Presidential Candidate Michael Badnarik
    The United States most certainly is a democracy.
    No, it is not. A government that holds a small amount of democratic practices does nto amke it a democracy. Let me cite examples. Article 4, Section 4 of the US Constitution:
    The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
    The US Pledge of Allegience:
    ... and to the republic for which it stands ...
    Benjamin Franklin when asked what form of government the second continental congress had given:
    "A Republic, if you can keep it."
    Furthermore, your idea of what makes a democracy is... well just plain wrong. Democracy is characterized by majority rules. There is no protection for the minority in a democracy. As Plato aptly pointed out, democracy is nothing but a disguised tyrrany.
    Here's some reading that might help you correct your mistaken perceptions: Republic vs. Democracy[chrononhotonthologos.com]
    A Republic, if you can keep it[thenewamerican.com]
    Even the US government agrees[library of congress]
  38. Re:Just curious... by pfriedma · · Score: 1 · on Endorse EDRI's Statement Against Data Retention

    :: notes that there is currently a senate resolution to reinstate the draft :: although afaik it's been tabled for the moment pending modification http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.89:

  39. Re:Lost Cause by Adam9 · · Score: 1, Interesting · on Savebetamax.org National Call-in Day

    I did a quick search at Thomas, and found this:

    "(6) The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (`DMCA') was enacted as an attempt to safeguard the traditional balance in the face of these new challenges. It gave copyright holders the ability to fight digital piracy by employing technical restrictions that prevent unlawful access and copying. In practice, however, the DMCA also endangered the rights and expectations of legitimate consumers."

    and then..

    " `(c) CIRCUMVENTION FOR NONINFRINGING USES- (1) Notwithstanding any other provision in this title, a person who lawfully obtains a copy or phonorecord of a work, or who lawfully receives a transmission of a work, may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to the work or protects a right of the copyright holder under this title if--

    `(A) such act is necessary to make a noninfringing use of the work under this title; and

    `(B) the copyright owner fails to make publicly available the necessary means to make such noninfringing use without additional cost or burden to such person."

    Sounds good to me. It's called the BALANCE Act and it was introduced last year.

  40. Re:Silly by bnenning · · Score: 1 · on Is IP Property?

    Really? Name three.

    It's tough to find any prominent politician for weaker IP.

    Here are the cosponsors for Rep. Boucher's proposal to weaken the DMCA. Several Republicans on the list.

  41. Re:Wild prediction by Guppy06 · · Score: 1 · on West Virginian Mayor Might Defy Popular Vote

    "Do you mind explaining that statement? I fail to see the connection."

    First off the electors get fill-in-the-blank ballots, which eliminates any sort of party nomination process.

    Secondly, the electors never all get together, instead acting as 51 isolated groups, which hampers parties' ability to influence them all (e. g. vote trading is limited to within a single state).

    Third, we're talking about actual people as opposed to simply giving the states a certain number of votes. There is a deliberation process among the electors instead of the state legislature (and its parties) mandating their state's votes.

    You might want to take a look at Federalist paper number 68.

    Personally, what I'd really like to see is electors run for office based on their own merits as opposed to just "I'll vote for this guy."

  42. Re:Total nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative · on West Virginian Mayor Might Defy Popular Vote

    That is BS. Check this link http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_68.html/
    This is from the 68th Federalist Paper. Notice that they don't all go to Washington. They meet in their own state and fill out documents that are sent to DC. It would be just as easy to send a document with the certified popular vote as it is to send the votes of the Electors. Sorry, but you are just wrong on this one. Another issue that wasn't brought up was that low population states have slightly more voting power than heavily populated states per capita. Remember that we get an elector for each representative and senator.

  43. Re:How many Bananas? by Apollo+Jones · · Score: 1 · on Wheat Field Wi-Fi

    Sorry, just found the link. "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." More neat facts here http://www.loc.gov/homepage/fascinate.html.

  44. Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act by SethJohnson · · Score: 2, Informative · on Secret Service Seeks Indymedia Logs


    Just to be fair here, it doesn't look like Sen. Kennedy is the only senator who wasn't too keen on this bill. It failed to pass with 8 yeas and 90 nays. Point fingers at Kerry and Kennedy all you want, but please don't stop pointing them at the other 88 senators who voted this bill down.

    Additionally, the bill you are referencing, Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, is described by Thomas as
    "A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages resulting from the misuse of their products by others. "
    I'm not sure what bill you are referring to when you say This bill would have essentially given the Attorney General the power to ban any ammunition that was capable of penetrating police soft body armor. It doesn't seem to be this one that you've attributed the Kennedy quote to and that a near unanimous number of senators opposed.
  45. Re:No it's not by abbamouse · · Score: 3, Informative · on MPAA Sues DVD Chip Manufacturers

    Try reading the law before you spout off about it. See Section 1201, which provides: "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."

    The anti-trafficking provisions are in addition to the anti-circumvention provisions. See also any published analysis before pontification.

  46. Re:This will be the death of the movie industry... by valkraider · · Score: 2, Interesting · on Grokster Wins Big in Ninth Circuit

    But the Congress the finalized and passed the DMCA was Republican....

    DMCA: Sponsored by Republican, Howard Coble, co-sponsored by Republicans Sonny & Mary Bono, Henry Hyde, Bill McCollum, Bill Paxon, Charles (Chip) Pickering; and Democrats Howard Berman, John Conyers, Barney Frank. (7 Republicans and 3 Democrats).

    The sponsor, Republican Howard Coble's #1 supporting industry is TV/Movies/Music, having given him large chunks of money over the years leading up to the DMCA.

    But thanks for trying to slam Clinton and blame him for things - we all know "It's Clinton's Fault!"

  47. Re:WOW by studerby · · Score: 2, Informative · on Grokster Wins Big in Ninth Circuit
    The DMCA doesn't change standard copyright infringement law all that much, which is what the 9th Circuit applied in the case we're talking about.

    The main points of the relevant-to-the-digital-age portions of the DMCA are:

    1. (as part of Title I; the WIPO Treaty Implementation) making it illegal to circumvent technological access controls *under certain circumstances* or tamper with rights-management information
    2. (Title II: ONLINE COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LIABILITY LIMITATION) giving service providers "safe harbor" from liability if they comply with the notice and takedown provisions
    3. (TITLE III: COMPUTER MAINTENANCE OR REPAIR)Allows computer owners to authorize 3rd party repair people to make incidental copies of someone else's software (that the owner has the right to posess and use) in the course of repairing the computer. (This change was needed because a court found a repair person liable for copyright infringement for such incidental copying and Congress got convinced that vendor lock-in for maintenance was a bad thing.)
    4. (TITLE IV: MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) among other things, broadens the exemption for ephemeral recordings for broadcasters (allows DJs to record their shows way in advance of broadcast and keep them for a while afterwards), modified section 108 so that libraries and archives may make digital copies and not just "facsimile" copies, for archival use, modified the compulsory license terms for webcasters and includes them in the exemption for ephemeral recordings.
    There were also a number of provisions tossed in the bucket that had nothing "digital" about them, such as Title V of the DMCA, entitled the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act.

    You can see this for yourself in the Copyright Office's summary of the DMCA

    If you know anything about copyright law, you'll see that the DMCA's provisions outlined above don't really affect infringement liabilty unless you're a "service provider" (or dealing with one) or are circumventing access controls, none of which is relevant in the Grokster case.

  48. Re:language? by monkeyfamily · · Score: 1 · on Librarians to the Rescue

    Hear, hear! The Library of Congress Classification System beats the pants off Dewey Decimal any day. And it's even got a sense of humor - under LoC, the bible's classified under BS!

  49. Re:Hindsight is a wonderful thing... by bastard42 · · Score: 1 · on Inside Al-Qaeda's Hard Drive

    > Reagan pulled US troops out of Beirut after the Khobar bombing

    No it was the Marine base that Reagan would have known about. Not Khobar Towers, which was well after Reagan left power and the public eye.

    I really don't know that much about what happened in Somalia, but I'm still pretty sure maelstrom's "Black Hawks in Somalia" has little to nothing to do with terrorism, or the increase in terrorism. Seems as if the attacks in Yemen were related to Somalia, but I guess I'll read up on it.

  50. Re:Way to go, 51st State! by Malc · · Score: 2, Informative · on Canadian Robot Could Rescue Hubble

    I always chuckle when Canadians take credit for inventing the phone. Bell was a Scotsman! He had the idea while in Brantford and before he became an American, but I would say that was more coincidental as he hadn't spent that much time in Canada at that point.