Slashdot Mirror

The "crisis" is entirely manufactured by Congress. Yes, Congress. They ( and by "they," I mean mostly Republicans who seem to want to drive the post office into bankruptcy )

Can you elaborate on your position? In the article you link to Ralph Nader refers to Congress as a whole and doesn't place blame squarely (or mostly as you say) with one of the two parties. If I look at just the numbers then in 2006 the Democrats held 44 seats in the Senate compared to the Republican's 55 and the bill passed the Senate unanimously. In the House the Democrats held 202 seats (and essentially also another independent seat) compared to the Republican's 230 and with the exception of one abstain all Democrats voted in favor of the bill. Of the Republicans 20, including Ron Paul, voted against the bill.

And just because I feel like it, here's some George Carlin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk

http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/lcco/

http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/lcc.html

Unless I'm looking in the wrong place, it appears that you have to subscribe to their online service or purchase the printed manuals to get "the complete text of the classification schedules". Some sort of a summary is available free on their website (above) but not the whole thing.

Perhaps using it is free (is it really?) but getting the needed data in the first place is not.

http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/lcco/

http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/lcc.html

Unless I'm looking in the wrong place, it appears that you have to subscribe to their online service or purchase the printed manuals to get "the complete text of the classification schedules". Some sort of a summary is available free on their website (above) but not the whole thing.

Perhaps using it is free (is it really?) but getting the needed data in the first place is not.

Read your Federalist Papers

Looks like you didn't read them all.

Federalist Papers 29.

"THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.
It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS."
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_29.html

No I'm not.

Federalist Papers 29.

"THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.
It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS."
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_29.html

That's the legal age in most places of Canada to start working, what's the problem? In Ontario you'd need to be 15 to work in a factory. I had my first job (part time) when I was that age.

The problem is that the legal working age in China is 16. http://www.loc.gov/law/help/child-rights/china.php

The library of Congress specializes in certain things.In many areas, they're no better than a college library

Instructional Support level: A collection that in a university is adequate to support undergraduate and most graduate instruction, or sustained independent study; that is, adequate to maintain knowledge of a subject required for limited or generalized purposes, of less than research intensity

In some areas, they are truly awesome:

Comprehensive Level: A collection which, so far as is reasonably possible, includes all significant works of recorded knowledge (publications, manuscripts, and other forms), in all applicable languages, for a necessarily defined and limited field. This level of collecting intensity is one that maintains a " special collection." The aim, if not achievement, is exhaustiveness.

Their areas of interests are defined here

There are stunning turn of the 20C images of Russia done by Sergei Prokudin-Gorskii at the Library of Congress using this process. He used three lantern projectors to display the pictures. http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/gorskii.html Of course the great thing is we don't have the fading of color dyes like modern color film, so the color is as good now as it was when captured.

Except for the fact that the Republican controlled House HAS passed budgets for consideration in the last two years (actually before that too, but it wasn't Republican controlled), but the Democrat controlled Senate has refused to even take up any discussion about budget this year (thanks Harry!). So why do you say that the Democrats want to see the president "fall flat on his ass"?

And if you think the only increases in spending took place prior to the last three years, apparently you haven't been paying attention.

Except for the fact that the Republican controlled House HAS passed budgets for consideration in the last two years (actually before that too, but it wasn't Republican controlled), but the Democrat controlled Senate has refused to even take up any discussion about budget this year (thanks Harry!). So why do you say that the Democrats want to see the president "fall flat on his ass"?

And if you think the only increases in spending took place prior to the last three years, apparently you haven't been paying attention.

RE: "Again, calling something bullshit does not make it so, no matter how loudly you say it."

Pot, meet kettle. Look in the mirror bright-eyes.

Oh, and by the way you arrogant patrician twit:
"Thomas Jefferson was an ardent advocate of public education as a cornerstone of a free republican society."

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/jeffrep.html

Looks like you're right. The bill was reintroduced as S.3414 which was voted on and rejected a few hours ago.

Well, here's the summary links to the bill itself.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.2105:

I'm a little out of my depth but "comprehensive legislation" these days makes me nervous that there aren't sneaky things in there.

I think you must be mistaken. I don't see that any Republicans voted for it in the Senate. Here is the list of sponsors of the bill. Charie Rangel - Democrat, and 40 co-sponsors. I doubt that any are Republicans.

. . . .it seems that some might need a refresher course on the history of Obamacare’s enactment. Reconciliation didn’t play a small role in Obamacare’s passage, as has been suggested. Without reconciliation, Obamacare would not have become law at all. It’s true that the main Obamacare structure was passed by the Senate in December 2009 under normal rules for legislative consideration. That’s because Democrats at that time had 60 votes (including two independent senators who caucus with them). They didn’t need to resort to reconciliation to pass the bill as long as all 60 of their senators stuck together and supported passage, which they did.

But then Scott Brown won the Massachusetts Senate race in January 2010; the Democrats lost their 60-vote supermajority and could no longer close off debate on legislation without the help of at least one Republican senator.

At that point, the president and his allies had two choices. They could compromise with Republicans and bring back a bill to the Senate that could garner a large bipartisan majority. Or they could ignore the election results in Massachusetts and pull an unprecedented legislative maneuver, essentially switching from regular order to reconciliation at the eleventh hour, thereby bypassing any need for Republican support. As they had done at every other step in the process, the Democrats chose the partisan route. They created a separate bill, with scores and scores of legislative changes that essentially became the vehicle for a House-Senate conference on the legislation. That bill was designated a reconciliation bill. Then they passed the original Senate bill through the House on the explicit promise that it would be immediately amended by this highly unusual reconciliation bill, which then passed both the House and Senate a few days later, on an entirely party-line vote. - - The Reconciliation Option

The Democrats own Obamacare, which may not be good news for them.

Poll: Obamacare Still a Huge Issue for the Voters This Fall - By Grace-Marie Turner - July 19, 2012 1:26 P.M.

The latest New York Times/CBS News poll dives into public opinion on Obamacare following the Supreme Court decision and finds opposition to the law virtually unchanged from when it was enacted in 2010, with about half disapproving and one-third supporting the law.

And those who strongly disapprove (36 percent) continue to significantly outnumber those who strongly approve (14 percent) of the law.

Support for repeal also remains strong: 61 percent of those polled say they want Congress to repeal the individual mandate (27 percent) or the entire law (34 percent). Only 15 percent want to keep the law as it is.

Black and white prints are the safest picture types.

The LOC has restored color photographs from the Czarist Russia of 1910. The Empire That Was Russia

The idea that you could use color filters to record color images on stable black and white media is as old as photography itself. The difficulty was always in maintaining alignment and color balance in print or projection.

The color photograph can change the way you look at an entire era:

"Color Photographs From The New Deal (1939-1943)" , Bound for Glory: America in Colour 1939-1943

The details can be telling:

in the thirties, bulk flour and seed was sold in sacks printed in floral patterns and prints suitable for dress making, as you will see here,

The government already has a copy.
http://blogs.loc.gov/loc/2010/04/how-tweet-it-is-library-acquires-entire-twitter-archive/
(Library of Congress)

The Library of Congress is supposedly archiving all tweets. Curious what happens to these public-then-private tweets.

But most of what's printed right now won't last more than a hundred years since the paper will crumble. http://www.loc.gov/preservation/resources/care/deterioratebrochure.html

Worse, an increasing proportion of what's being written is on electronic media, known for its longevity in neither technology nor formatting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_dark_age

The claim that history has no relevance has a long history of being proven wrong. Superficials change. The basics don't: people die, and information decays.

He also forgot to disclose that the sponsor to the amendment to kill funding Was Dale Bumpers [Democrat, Kansas]

Thomas Jefferson

All said or written when he was younger. When he was older ... especially after he was President... he changed his mind on a great many things. Not always completely, but his attitude on religion did a near-180. Jefferson never became a conventional Trinitarian Chirstian, but he did warm up to religion and came to understand it as healthy and necessary in America, to the point where he believed that American liberty might not survive without it. Jefferson recognized that while he wasn't a conventional Christian, the vast majority of his countrymen were, and he came to respect their faith. Contrary to the whole notion that Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists indicated he favored a complete ban on religious expression on public grounds (the letter with the now oft-misquoted "separation of church and state" line), this was a false understanding of his position. Jefferson himself approved of Protestant services being held in the US capitol building. He attended them himself every Sunday, and at times even had the Marine Band play music for the hyms... all at public expense. And don't take my word for it. See what the Library of Congress has to say about it:

It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.
Jefferson's actions may seem surprising because his attitude toward the relation between religion and government is usually thought to have been embodied in his recommendation that there exist "a wall of separation between church and state." In that statement, Jefferson was apparently declaring his opposition, as Madison had done in introducing the Bill of Rights, to a "national" religion. In attending church services on public property, Jefferson and Madison consciously and deliberately were offering symbolic support to religion as a prop for republican government."

Far from being anti-religion, Jefferson came to recognize that the American experiment depended on a melding of ideas that had to include religion and the best ideas of the enlightenment:

"Religion, as well as reason, confirms the soundness of those principles on which our government has been founded and its rights asserted." --Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815.

Jefferson, after all, was the primary mover behind the notion that we had an inalienable right to freedom of religion, and was the primary influence in ensuring that this right was enshrined in the Constitution. Like a lot of people, he was a bit of a radical hothead when he was younger, and again like most people, he became older and wiser.

It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers. Jefferson's actions may seem surprising because his attitude toward the relation between religion and government is usually thought to have been embodied in his recommendation that there exist "a wall of separation between church and state." In that statement, Jefferson was apparently declaring his opposition, as Madison had done in introducing the Bill of Rights, to a "national" religion. In attending church services on public property, Jefferson and Madison consciously and deliberately were offering symbolic support to religion as a prop for republican government.

He also granted federal money to spread the gospel to Indians http://vftonline.org/EndTheWall/indian_evangelization.htm

Notice that during his administration, Jefferson appropriated funds for Christian missionaries to evangelize the heathen, as Justice Rehnquist noted: As the United States moved from the 18th into the 19th century, Congress appropriated time and again public moneys in support of sectarian Indian education carried on by religious organizations. Typical of these was Jefferson's treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians, which provided annual cash support for the Tribe's Roman Catholic priest and church. The treaty stated in part: "And whereas, the greater part of said Tribe have been baptized and received into the Catholic church, to which they are much attached, the United States will give annually for seven years one hundred dollars towards the support of a priest of that religion . . . [a]nd . . . three hundred dollars, to assist the said Tribe in the erection of a church." 7 Stat. 79.

Here's a fundamental question:

If I am enjoying some music, do I owe the artist for that enjoyment? (Owe in the sense of "some money or obligation is due" rather then the sense of "resulting from".)

Interesting question. Is the artist performing said music or are you replaying a recording of music performed some time in the past? Or are you listening to neighbours who turned their radio up? If it's a recording, how long ago was it made? Is the artist still alive? What recording is it? Is it a "Japanese original 1st CD pressing" (i.e. before the onset of the loudness wars) that has been out of print for decades? Is the only "legal" way of acquiring this recording going through CD collections at flea markets and hope you're in luck (in which case the artist also will get nothing)?

Maybe you're enjoying music over at the LoC's National Jukebox, music recorded over a century ago but still somehow under "state copyright"?

Impolite, but here's a question for you: why would I owe Vesta Victoria a single red penny for listening to her performance of "Poor John" recorded on June 20th, 1907 CE?

Here's a fundamental question:

If I am enjoying some music, do I owe the artist for that enjoyment? (Owe in the sense of "some money or obligation is due" rather then the sense of "resulting from".)

Interesting question. Is the artist performing said music or are you replaying a recording of music performed some time in the past? Or are you listening to neighbours who turned their radio up? If it's a recording, how long ago was it made? Is the artist still alive? What recording is it? Is it a "Japanese original 1st CD pressing" (i.e. before the onset of the loudness wars) that has been out of print for decades? Is the only "legal" way of acquiring this recording going through CD collections at flea markets and hope you're in luck (in which case the artist also will get nothing)?

Maybe you're enjoying music over at the LoC's National Jukebox, music recorded over a century ago but still somehow under "state copyright"?

Impolite, but here's a question for you: why would I owe Vesta Victoria a single red penny for listening to her performance of "Poor John" recorded on June 20th, 1907 CE?

Did this include seamen who only sailed the ocean within their own state, or did it apply only to seamen who sailed the ocean between states and/or between the US and other countries?

Outside the United States.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=257

I would be very surprised if ObamaCare even made it into THOMAS.

Be surprised then. Both The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the earlier House version called The Affordable Health Care for America Act (subsequently amended into an entirely different bill) are in there. (And apropos of TFA, trying to find those bills then extract a stable URL is a pan because the UI appends session specific data to query result URLs).

But it turns out there's a good reason why you might have the impression that Obama was secretive about the health insurance reform bill.

Keep in mind that when it came to health insurance reform the political game had three sides. The Democrats in Congress wanted to pass the most ambitious reform bill they could manage. The White House wanted a bill big enough allow them to say they delivered on reform promises but not so big Obama face the kind of shit storm Clinton faced when he tried to do insurance reform. The Republicans wanted to force Obama and the House Democrats through the same political meat grinder they put Clinton through in the 1990s.

Obama was inexperienced in national politics at this point. His strategy was to make a high profile call for reform, then leave it up to the House to come up with a package of specific proposals that it could pass. The intent was to get a reform bill passed without staking too much White House credibility on the specifics, and not to give opponents a political punching bag before the details of the actual bill had been worked out. This was a miscalculation. The Republicans were able to attack straw men proposals like death panels, bolstered by the lack of political leadership from the White House. And by leaving the specifics up to the House, Obama got a bill that was a lot more ambitious and politically risky than he wanted (source:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/health/policy/21reconstruct.html). It was also some 70 billion dollars more expensive than he wanted (source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34753.html).

The House Democrats, for their part, based their proposals on Romney's Massachusetts plan, which in turn was based on Bob Dole's Republican alternative to Clinton's reform plans. While this would seem to be a politically safe move, the lack of leadership from the White House meant they ended up taking the political damage for a much more radical government takeover of health insurance, while at the same time alienating their base for *not* doing that.

In the end Republicans were able to gain a significant political victory in Congress and and advantageous position against Obama at the price of enacting their own health care plan from the mid 1990s.

I would be very surprised if ObamaCare even made it into THOMAS.

Be surprised then. Both The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the earlier House version called The Affordable Health Care for America Act (subsequently amended into an entirely different bill) are in there. (And apropos of TFA, trying to find those bills then extract a stable URL is a pan because the UI appends session specific data to query result URLs).

But it turns out there's a good reason why you might have the impression that Obama was secretive about the health insurance reform bill.

Keep in mind that when it came to health insurance reform the political game had three sides. The Democrats in Congress wanted to pass the most ambitious reform bill they could manage. The White House wanted a bill big enough allow them to say they delivered on reform promises but not so big Obama face the kind of shit storm Clinton faced when he tried to do insurance reform. The Republicans wanted to force Obama and the House Democrats through the same political meat grinder they put Clinton through in the 1990s.

Obama was inexperienced in national politics at this point. His strategy was to make a high profile call for reform, then leave it up to the House to come up with a package of specific proposals that it could pass. The intent was to get a reform bill passed without staking too much White House credibility on the specifics, and not to give opponents a political punching bag before the details of the actual bill had been worked out. This was a miscalculation. The Republicans were able to attack straw men proposals like death panels, bolstered by the lack of political leadership from the White House. And by leaving the specifics up to the House, Obama got a bill that was a lot more ambitious and politically risky than he wanted (source:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/health/policy/21reconstruct.html). It was also some 70 billion dollars more expensive than he wanted (source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34753.html).

The House Democrats, for their part, based their proposals on Romney's Massachusetts plan, which in turn was based on Bob Dole's Republican alternative to Clinton's reform plans. While this would seem to be a politically safe move, the lack of leadership from the White House meant they ended up taking the political damage for a much more radical government takeover of health insurance, while at the same time alienating their base for *not* doing that.

In the end Republicans were able to gain a significant political victory in Congress and and advantageous position against Obama at the price of enacting their own health care plan from the mid 1990s.

Skipping over the editorializing in the summary, I would like to point out that the Military using Hollywood for promotion is not a recent occurence.

It dates back to the very beginning of motion ptctures:

[in 1899] the limitations of film equipment prevented the filming of actual battles, so Edison offered reenactments of the fighting made for the most part in New Jersey using National Guard troops. Film reenactments such as "Shooting Captured Insurgents " showed Spanish soldiers killing Cuban prisoners, while "U.S. Infantry Supported by Rough Riders at El Caney" and "Skirmish of Rough Riders" offered patriotic glimpses of the popular Rough Riders fighting.

The War in Cuba

That's not the full context either. Tsk. Look, the conversation is difficult to parse but you can see the entire ten and a half hour session here:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/event/198841#program302754-1

The discussion in question begins after the quorum call at 14:15. They're discussing several things: one is the mandatory military detention of terrorism suspects, one is a provision that allows the president (or the secretary of defense) to grant a waiver for that military detention which would send the suspect to the civilian courts, one is the ability to transfer prisoners (the extraordinary rendition that Bush did), and one the relevance of the location where the person is captured (within the country or without).

They're trying to phrase the mandatory detention in terms of weakening our ability to combat terrorism, because that's the politically savvy thing to do, but it makes the conversation more confusing.

Regarding the original clip that you linked, I'm not entirely sure what senator Levine was referring to when he said that they removed language at the president's request. When he says, "and that we removed it at the request of the administration that would have said that this determination would not apply to U.S. citizens and lawful residents" he clearly isn't talking about military detention because when you look at the bill that they were discussing:

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/LegislativeData.php?&n=BillText (search for bill number S.1867.ES)

that language is still there. It says quite clearly that section 1031 does not apply to citizens or lawful residents. I suspect that he might have been talking about the waiver language - that there might have been a version of the bill that required a waiver for citizens, but I'm just guessing. That draft, as far as I know, is not publicly accessible.

Regardless, the article I linked gives another quote from earlier in the session: "The administration officials reviewed the draft language for this provision the day before our markup and recommended additional changes. We were able to accommodate those recommendations, except for the administration request that the provision apply only to detainees who are captured overseas." (This is part of Levine's longer speech at the 11:45 mark, if you'd like to watch it) That at least should have made you pause for a second.

"Clearly," you should have said after reading that, "there's more to this than that one minute clip suggests."

"After all," you should have said, "Levine seems to be indicating two contradictory things at two different times during the same session of congress. Maybe this warrants some further investigation."

The president has come out pretty strongly in favor of due process in the past. He did make a pretty solid effort at closing Gitmo, an effort that was stymied by congress. I think it would be uncharacteristic of him to support a provision for indefinite detention so when I see these sorts of statements I try to dig a little further.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights say nothing about the "separation of church and state." It simply states that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This is the very first sentence in the Bill of Rights, so the Framers considered it to be pretty important. The "wall of separation" was built by Thomas Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptists. http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html. In this letter Jefferson refers directly to the text in the First Amendment, with no additional context.

From everything that I've heard from Ron Paul, he adheres to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, nothing more (building huge wall) and nothing less (infringement on the free exercise thereof).

So they'll implement a new protocol: httpSS - twice as secure

You laugh, but...

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/

https://wwws.safra.com/SafraOfficeBank/

http://wwws.aa.warnerbros.com/journeytothecenteroftheearth2/

https://wwws.loc.gov/readerreg/remote/

Secure browsing has already gone enterprisey with the new WWWS for secure sites

Notice the 3rd link. https:/// is not even configured on this server. Yet we are meant to think it is secure because of the 'wwws'.

You have to be very careful with dye-sub work. First off, there's two kinds. One is "inkjet" printing that uses gaseous colorants to create the image, and the other is simply printing onto a transfer medium and then using a heat press to imprint the image.

The first is commonly used for things like name badges (we actually have some printers here that do it) or photos, and yes, dental and medical images, but the process is often limited in available classic substrates (canvas, luster photo paper, etc). That little Kodak kiosk thing that may be at your local Wal-Mart can claim it's this kind of "dye-sub", so they're not all created equally. The second type is useful for printing onto dimensional objects, or objects that cannot be fed through an inkjet, but you lose saturation during the transfer process. A shop using "dye-sublimation" can claim either of these, and not be very good at it in any case.

As for as longevity goes; this is ALWAYS a function of the colorant and substrate you use, aggravated by the conditions you store the output in, and has little to do with the original process of getting the color to the substrate (solvent, UV, and Latex applications excluded; by their very natures these inks attach to the substrate more aggressively).

Generally speaking, dye inks (colored solutions) will fade fastest (magenta first, in most cases, and that sucks because dye inks are typically the most vibrant), pigment inks (solutions with wee little colored flakes in them) will fade more slowly, solvent inks (more aggressive pigment inks) more slowly still, with latex and UV inks typically tied for the slowest, depending on substrate. All substrates must be acid-free, too, or you're hosed, as the substrate itself will start to yellow, fade, and break down as UV accelerates the process. There are also ways to protect any existing or brand new print regardless of the ink used; check out the way the Library of Congress does frames and archives their prints and paper items for a good idea on how it's done: http://www.loc.gov/preservation/care/mat.html / http://www.loc.gov/preservation/care/paper.html respectively. It's a pain in the ass, but following true standards always is.

Basically, take what a manufacturer of a printer, paper, or ink says about longevity with a grain of salt; the requirements for Epson, Kodak et. al. to say "will last 75 years!!" are lax to the point of ridiculous. I'm not blasting them; especially Epson, as I have 4 of their printers and they truly ARE absolutely amazing. It's just that there IS no standard for testing print permanence, so anybody can claim anything: "If you leave your prints in a lightless vacuum in extreme deep space, it'll last for a kajillion years!!!" Well, duh.

For instance, this is Epson defending their testing practices against Kodak's, while admitting that their own are not very realistic (and it's an amusing public gripe, to boot): ftp://ftp.epson.com/webfiles/whitepprsum.pdf. A shamelessly cherry-picked quote:

"Currently there is no ISO print permanence standard for digitally printed photographs, and there is no prediction as to when, or even if an ISO standard will be established."

You have to be very careful with dye-sub work. First off, there's two kinds. One is "inkjet" printing that uses gaseous colorants to create the image, and the other is simply printing onto a transfer medium and then using a heat press to imprint the image.

The first is commonly used for things like name badges (we actually have some printers here that do it) or photos, and yes, dental and medical images, but the process is often limited in available classic substrates (canvas, luster photo paper, etc). That little Kodak kiosk thing that may be at your local Wal-Mart can claim it's this kind of "dye-sub", so they're not all created equally. The second type is useful for printing onto dimensional objects, or objects that cannot be fed through an inkjet, but you lose saturation during the transfer process. A shop using "dye-sublimation" can claim either of these, and not be very good at it in any case.

As for as longevity goes; this is ALWAYS a function of the colorant and substrate you use, aggravated by the conditions you store the output in, and has little to do with the original process of getting the color to the substrate (solvent, UV, and Latex applications excluded; by their very natures these inks attach to the substrate more aggressively).

Generally speaking, dye inks (colored solutions) will fade fastest (magenta first, in most cases, and that sucks because dye inks are typically the most vibrant), pigment inks (solutions with wee little colored flakes in them) will fade more slowly, solvent inks (more aggressive pigment inks) more slowly still, with latex and UV inks typically tied for the slowest, depending on substrate. All substrates must be acid-free, too, or you're hosed, as the substrate itself will start to yellow, fade, and break down as UV accelerates the process. There are also ways to protect any existing or brand new print regardless of the ink used; check out the way the Library of Congress does frames and archives their prints and paper items for a good idea on how it's done: http://www.loc.gov/preservation/care/mat.html / http://www.loc.gov/preservation/care/paper.html respectively. It's a pain in the ass, but following true standards always is.

Basically, take what a manufacturer of a printer, paper, or ink says about longevity with a grain of salt; the requirements for Epson, Kodak et. al. to say "will last 75 years!!" are lax to the point of ridiculous. I'm not blasting them; especially Epson, as I have 4 of their printers and they truly ARE absolutely amazing. It's just that there IS no standard for testing print permanence, so anybody can claim anything: "If you leave your prints in a lightless vacuum in extreme deep space, it'll last for a kajillion years!!!" Well, duh.

For instance, this is Epson defending their testing practices against Kodak's, while admitting that their own are not very realistic (and it's an amusing public gripe, to boot): ftp://ftp.epson.com/webfiles/whitepprsum.pdf. A shamelessly cherry-picked quote:

"Currently there is no ISO print permanence standard for digitally printed photographs, and there is no prediction as to when, or even if an ISO standard will be established."

Get 'em right here.

Oh yeah, there's music there too. Have I said enough to get Slashdot shut down for linking, and armed men in black uniforms sent to my house to terrorize me? No? Well, how about a few more links:

• Project Gutenberg
• MusOpen
• Library of Congress
• A used bookstore
• An audio file format with no DRM
• The Pirate Bay
• The Pirate Bay via an IP address
• A porn site
• An Arabic news site
• A hacker magazine
• Wikipedia article on 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

How about the library of congress
http://thomas.loc.gov./ Search by bill number s. 1813
You might not like the source but google isnt that hard to use.
Fucktards

This works.

If we can agree that the mainstream news media are no longer opting to practice legitimate journalism, and that many new online reporters do not know how, it doesn't follow that journalistic standards do not exist, or that they're impossible to implement or insist upon. I think it may argue the case in favor of them more strongly.

Huh when I click on that link above it's broken.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.01738:

try it from here if it fails for you.
http://www.cybertelecom.org/cda/protect.htm

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.01738:

NOTE: In the fall of 2008, Congress passed Sen. Biden's PROTECT Our Children Act which has a data retention requirement!

That again is your definition, with which many reasonably qualified sources disagree, for example:
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/lawsmade.bysec/sourceofleg.html

Your post would have been considerably shortened if you had simply summarized it as the US fought Communism around the globe. That is why so many countries are free today. It is a good thing too or else the bloody, oppressive march of communism would have continued. Contrary to what you wrote, Communism was a world wide conspiracy, and a bloody one at that. Sadly I don't have enough time at the moment to correct all of the twisted renderings of facts in your post, as it would be a Herculean task. I think just comparing the history of the Berlin Wall to what you wrote might give a sense of how twisted the history you give is.

More information about: The Berlin Wall

Before the Wall's erection, 3.5 million East Germans circumvented Eastern Bloc emigration restrictions and defected from the GDR, many by crossing over the border from East Berlin into West Berlin, from where they could then travel to West Germany and other Western European countries. Between 1961 and 1989, the wall prevented almost all such emigration. During this period, around 5,000 people attempted to escape over the wall, with estimates of the resulting death toll varying between

And lets provide some background material:

Communism killed ~ 100,000,000 people in the last 100 years.

Why Doesn't Communism Have as Bad a Name as Nazism?

What Were Their Crimes?

Have you ever been late to work?

In the Stalin era, a person who arrived late to work three times could be sent to the Gulag for three years.

Have you ever told a joke about a government official?

In the Stalin era, many were sent to the Gulag for up to 25 years for telling an innocent joke about a Communist Party official.

If your family was starving, would you take a few potatoes left in a field after harvest?

In the Stalin era, a person could be sent to the Gulag for up to ten years for such petty theft.

Living in the Gulag

Some claim that the US is militarist, but it has no custom like the annual military parade through Red Square.
Soviet Military Parade 1984

Stalin World - Lithuania

The KGB Museum - (the Museum of Genocide Victims)

The Soviet Union conquered Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia and annexed them. At the ends of WW2 it took part of Poland as its own territory. The Soviets turned the governments of East Germany, Poland, Romania, Hungary, and the rest of Eastern Europe into not merely client states, but puppet states.

Revelations from the Russian Archives - UKRAINIAN FAMINE

The dreadful famine that engulfed Ukraine, the northern Caucasus, and the lower Volga River area in 1932-1933 was the result of Joseph Stalin's policy of forced collectivization. The heaviest losses occurred in Ukraine, which had been the most productive agricultural area of the Soviet Union. Stalin was determined to crush all vestiges of Ukrainian nationalism. Thus, the famine was accompanied by a devastating purge of the Ukrainian intelligentsia and the Ukrainian Communist party itself. The famine broke the peasants' will to resist collectivization and left Ukraine politically, socially, and psychologically traumatized.

The policy of all-out collectivization instituted by Stalin in 1929 to finance industri

Logical fallacy here. Our government is NOT founded on the concept of separation of church and state, it was founded on the concept of religious freedom. i.e. the freedom of people to worship whatever god they chose, how they chose, without government interference. The reason for the 1st Amendment was not to keep religion out of government but to keep the government out of religion. Church services were held every Sunday in the House of Representatives until after the Civil War. Jefferson, who was responsible for the phrase "wall of separation" attended services most Sundays in the House chambers. "Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers." http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html I really wish schools actually taught history now days. How is it that you young people have so much trouble understanding this? I strongly recommend that you go to the library and pick up a copy of the Federalist Papers. Read them and learn what the founders were discussing and what the reasoning was for the actual wording that they settled on.

> Would they really keep tracks as AAC, MP3, or MPA in their digital archive?

Yes, just like the Library of Congress does with photos. Not everyone needs a 200 megabyte TIFF when a lower resolution 200 kilobyte image will suffice.

Sony likely has multiple formats of each song stored in their library. There's a chance the intruders just got a bunch of 128kbps or lower VBR mp3s that are typically used for review purposes only.

No, it was not. Go read it. Here's the link. Click on the PDF link for #7, which says "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Enrolled Bill [Final as Passed Both House and Senate]". Read Subtitle D, Section 1021, paragraph (e). It's on page 265. I'll repost it here for you so that you have no excuse not to read it, but by all means check the actual document as well so that you know I'm not lying.

(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed
to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of
United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States,
or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United
States.

I can't make the truth any easier for you to see. This whole thing is just a smear intended to discredit Obama in the minds of his supporters, and the sad thing is, they're falling for it.

Of course what's really scary are the number of evangelicals who are HOPING that the end times are here and are willing, again, to do anything to bring it about.

You're obviously not well read and don't understand what the end times as described in Christian scripture entail. They can't be hurried or brought about by anyone's actions. The bible repeatedly enjoins believers to be prepared by living righteous lives, but never once does it say you can make it happen by anything you do. Evangelicals can hope for the end times all they want - that won't make it happen any faster or slower.

Maybe that's why the founding fathers put such a clear line between Church and State (please read Jefferson's exact, specific, detailed words on the subject before claiming otherwise).

Or maybe put them in context first. Jefferson was writing to the Danbury Baptists in response to their letter expressing worry that the government will trample on their religious liberties. In fact, they say in their letter that their concern is that the government views their rights as "favors granted, and not as inalienable rights"; they then ask Jefferson to reassure them the government will not attempt to remove their liberties with laws. Jefferson responds very clearly that "religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions". There is not a single reference anywhere, in either of those communications, of a fear of religion having influence on government, which is how "separation of church and state" has been construed since. Again, you apparently have never read any of this, so please do as you encourage and go read it yourself.

blowing up the world won't automatically send them (and their families!) to Heaven

That's Islam, not Christianity. Please inform yourself. Your ignorance is stunning.

According to the legal definition, a single general term is not copyrightable, however a non-generic term is.

Copyright Registration Number: TXu000111775 - EMAIL

I did some digging. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, you can't "copyright a term."

Here's his actual claim. What he did was register the copyright on his software. The title of his software is "EMAIL." That doesn't give him any kind of rights to the term, and it is not proof that he was the first one to use the term, either. There could have been a thousand software systems that called themselves that -- there just isn't a government record to prove it. Either A.) they didn't register their copyrights with the copyright office; or B.) they did so before 1978, which is as far back as the current online records go.

Here you go: HR 3699
"To ensure the continued publication and integrity of peer-reviewed research works by the private sector."
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3699:

With regards to the NIH chart. Applicants have doubled since 1993 while success rate has dropped about 33%. Is it possible we are seeing the effects of a higher education bubble?

Perhaps the success rate could go up if the amount per grant (about $400k/yr for an RO1) was decreased. The various equipment and reagent suppliers know the money is coming from the government and how spending sprees occur at the end of the fiscal year, we are likely seeing price inflation. I know we get wildly different prices from different companies (sometimes even the same company), and also depending on whether we order through the VA or an associated private hospital.

This leads me to believe suppliers could probably get more efficient and offer the same products for less if they need to, but how much more? That is just my hypothesis, I'll have to look at the numbers eventually and see if it is supported.

Bigger projects require more funding, I agree. Collaboration is supposed to increase efficiency though. Have the projects actually been getting bigger? Is this concentrating funding into only big labs (and those associated with them), thus reducing the merit factor and increasing the pal-review factor?

Just once I would like to hear from genuine copyright holders on slashdot who both make a living from their creative works *AND* support un-regulated torrenting and file sharing

Sir or Madam,

I apologize for the length and I know some will feel this is irrelevant, but I feel the background is important to the point.

I am a professional software engineer of 25 years ( AST-Cons @ http://www.sco.com/support/docs/openserver/506/rnotes/ipxrnC.install_configure.html & many other non-published works) and a semi-professional musician of 30 years ( http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=7&ti=1,7&SAB1=Chuck%20Fletcher&BOOL1=all%20of%20these&FLD1=Keyword%20Anywhere%20(GKEY)%20(GKEY)&GRP1=OR%20with%20next%20set&SAB2=&BOOL2=as%20a%20phrase&FLD2=Keyword%20Anywhere%20(GKEY)%20(GKEY)&CNT=25&PID=wKzqQlM4-haqA4MgAO7ElXsllTO36&SEQ=20120206023617&SID=1 , http://www.soundclick.com/ChuckFletcher & http://www.musicpreview.com/ )

I am 100% behind the free sharing of all content and for searching out alternative methods of payment.

The most blatant and egregious circumstance that has helped form my opinions are my own experience with copyrighted works and infringement of said works.

In 2006 my company did extensive work for a law firm. The firm had a service agreement in place (since 1996) with my company, under which they purchased time at an hourly rate & licensed our proprietary technologies for which they paid a monthly fee. They purchased a new server for about $15,000.00 and requested our expertise to configure the new server, and their network of about 80 workstations, in order to replace their current 5 or 6 varied-platform servers with this huge AIX-based server. What they forgot is that $15,000.00 was the price of the server & Informix software. When they received a bill for $65,000.00 for time, they proceeded in typical lawyer fashion to sue my company and myself personally for incompetence and a slew of other trumped charges (which were eventually dismissed) in order to avoid payment. For 10 years we provided outstanding performance and overnight became incompetent?

After installation, my company maintained the 'admin' passwords and continued to provide support for the new configurations. During this time there were a few issues which were resolved and their systems were otherwise working flawlessly with 100% access to their data. After three months of non-payment from them, their workstations began displaying a simple non-repeating license non-compliance message upon reboot. They perpetrated a fraud on the courts and acted like their data was inaccessible due to our maintaining the admin passwords. I could really go on, but the main point that I wanted to make is in regards to the proprietary email/firewall extensions, custom Samba Active-Directory extensions & custom tools which were all protected by the admin passwords and the subsequent handing over of said works. The lawyers proceeded to bring us into court under a mandatory restraining order and the judge compelled my company to turn over the admin passwords and in turn all of our protected works. They then proceeded to give that admin password to one of our competitors, in turn giving that competitor access to all of our protected configuration & administration tools including sources & binaries.

My next move was to hire a copyright attorney in pu

... it is it's natural manure.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/105.html

It's good to know the Library of Contress posts documents quoting Thomas Jefferson using an incorrect version of "its".

America, fuck yeah, comin' again to save the motherfuckin' day yeah!

It's what Thomas Jefferson said to do.

what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it's natural manure.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/105.html

ACTA: http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/assets/pdfs/acta-crc_apr15-2011_eng.pdf.
SOPA: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3261:.
PIPA: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-968.

Also discuss the differences in what they are. ACTA is an international trade agreement, like the Berne Convention, the Paris Convention, the TRIPs treaty, the Patent Cooperation Treaty, NAFTA, etc. It's not legislation, but rather an agreement between signatory countries to pass legislation in their own countries. Accordingly, ACTA sets out minimum standards that each country has to meet. Contrary to what some people think, it doesn't need to be ratified by Congress, because it's a non-enabling treaty... instead, Congress has to write legislation implementing it, at which point they get to weigh in on what it means. Until they pass that legislation, ACTA effectively has no teeth in the US.

SOPA and PIPA are house and senate bills, respectively. They implement many of the provisions of ACTA, but they differ in important ways. Reading them side by side is probably a good thing. Note, however, that even if both were passed, a joint committee would then figure out a compromise position, so neither one is what a final statute would look like.