Slashdot Mirror

No, it wouldn't apply to the iPod Touch or PS3.

The exemptions are limited to exactly what the Librarian puts in their rules. Because the rule in question only mentions "wireless telephone handsets', it would not apply to iPod touches or PS3's.

The provision is as follows:

Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications, when they have been lawfully obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset.

The full list of exemptions is here

There is a video game exception, but it only applies to those on PC's and only if used for security testing.

http://www.loc.gov/today/pr/2010/10-169.html is the original source; guess JOELLE TESSLER , quoted in http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TEC_DIGITAL_COPYRIGHT?SITE=MSJAD&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT couldn't be bothered linking.

p>DeMint probably supports McCain's Internet Freedom Act of 2009. Which prohibits the FCC from placing any regulation over the internet.

Of course, not to be confused with the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009. Which is the actual net neutrality bill that asks the FCC to enact consumer protections.

Though neither bill is technically aptly named, since in both cases the "freedom" of one body is going to limit another. Consumers and corporations just have competing interests here. That's how it goes.

So in other words, McCain is pushing the Internet BSD Act, while Democrats are pushing the Internet GPL Act?

In both cases someone's freedom is limited to ensure the greatest freedom to someone else.

p>DeMint probably supports McCain's Internet Freedom Act of 2009. Which prohibits the FCC from placing any regulation over the internet.

Of course, not to be confused with the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009. Which is the actual net neutrality bill that asks the FCC to enact consumer protections.

Though neither bill is technically aptly named, since in both cases the "freedom" of one body is going to limit another. Consumers and corporations just have competing interests here. That's how it goes.

So in other words, McCain is pushing the Internet BSD Act, while Democrats are pushing the Internet GPL Act?

In both cases someone's freedom is limited to ensure the greatest freedom to someone else.

The FCC's rush to takeover the Internet is just the latest example of the need for fundamental reform to protect consumers

Oddly enough he still uses the words "fundamental reform", which would imply a piece of legislation.

DeMint probably supports McCain's Internet Freedom Act of 2009. Which prohibits the FCC from placing any regulation over the internet.

Of course, not to be confused with the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009. Which is the actual net neutrality bill that asks the FCC to enact consumer protections.

Though neither bill is technically aptly named, since in both cases the "freedom" of one body is going to limit another. Consumers and corporations just have competing interests here. That's how it goes.

The FCC's rush to takeover the Internet is just the latest example of the need for fundamental reform to protect consumers

Oddly enough he still uses the words "fundamental reform", which would imply a piece of legislation.

DeMint probably supports McCain's Internet Freedom Act of 2009. Which prohibits the FCC from placing any regulation over the internet.

Of course, not to be confused with the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009. Which is the actual net neutrality bill that asks the FCC to enact consumer protections.

Though neither bill is technically aptly named, since in both cases the "freedom" of one body is going to limit another. Consumers and corporations just have competing interests here. That's how it goes.

Admirable to ask this question. Vigilance is always required.

In the case of this bill, the text appears to be straightforward, well targeted, reasonably concise, and free from extraneous tack-ons.

Check it out: Full text of bill at Thomas

I hope that URL will last, but the cgi looks suspiciously transient. If it stops working, just google "hr 2765 text".

This is perhaps the most ill-constructed wealth of ignorance posted on Slashdot for a while, at least without original intent to be tardy.

Copyright protects creative works. Whereas published works may have required copyright notice on the work (before 1989), or deposit with the Library of Congress, unpublished works have never required a copyright notice for protection. If you created it, you have the copyright on it, and can take protective action against others distributing copies of your work.

Patents protect exclusive distribution of inventions. We do not do the exact same thing with patents. Patents allow you to take legal action and prohibit competitors from making infringing products.

Trade secrets are secrets as long as they are kept secret, but 'infringing' products are not actionable. You have not publicly declared that you invented something, so if someone else invents it they can use it too (and might even be able to patent it if you haven't created prior art implementing your invention). There are only legal covenants (and criminal liability in some states) to prevent employee disclosure, theft, or espionage. Trade secrets can include non-copyrightable or non-patentable things such as the formula for Red Bull.

Software, which is currently under discussion, can have all: patentable (think Amazon one-click checkout patent), under copyright (as the Amazon web server software is, even if undisclosed), and contain trade secrets (such as server cloud optimization routines to speed processing).

If you work for Apple and released the source code to 1984's Macintosh File System you would be breaching your non-disclosure trade secret agreement with Apple. The disclosed software would still be covered by copyright, and features or inventions implemented in the software may be covered by patents too. Many software patents are so vague in their description (merely describing the end result or user interface) that the actual implementation in code may indeed be a trade secret too.

This is perhaps the most ill-constructed wealth of ignorance posted on Slashdot for a while, at least without original intent to be tardy.

Copyright protects creative works. Whereas published works may have required copyright notice on the work (before 1989), or deposit with the Library of Congress, unpublished works have never required a copyright notice for protection. If you created it, you have the copyright on it, and can take protective action against others distributing copies of your work.

Patents protect exclusive distribution of inventions. We do not do the exact same thing with patents. Patents allow you to take legal action and prohibit competitors from making infringing products.

Trade secrets are secrets as long as they are kept secret, but 'infringing' products are not actionable. You have not publicly declared that you invented something, so if someone else invents it they can use it too (and might even be able to patent it if you haven't created prior art implementing your invention). There are only legal covenants (and criminal liability in some states) to prevent employee disclosure, theft, or espionage. Trade secrets can include non-copyrightable or non-patentable things such as the formula for Red Bull.

Software, which is currently under discussion, can have all: patentable (think Amazon one-click checkout patent), under copyright (as the Amazon web server software is, even if undisclosed), and contain trade secrets (such as server cloud optimization routines to speed processing).

If you work for Apple and released the source code to 1984's Macintosh File System you would be breaching your non-disclosure trade secret agreement with Apple. The disclosed software would still be covered by copyright, and features or inventions implemented in the software may be covered by patents too. Many software patents are so vague in their description (merely describing the end result or user interface) that the actual implementation in code may indeed be a trade secret too.

And segregation didn't exist as a concept in 1600s, 1700s, or early 1800s america. The southern states treated blacks as slaves, and the northern states treated "freemen" blacks the same as whites

You mention the southern states as if they were a different country. I think you're exaggerating about how many free blacks there were, and about the rights they enjoyed. Free blacks were the exception, not the rule.

A few states adopted "gradual emancipation" laws in the 1780s, and by 1800 only ten percent of blacks were free. This hardly sounds like racial equality.

The scarcity of free blacks isn't surprising, however, considering that the vast majority of blacks were concentrated in the South until the Great Migration of the 20th century.

29 The institution certifies that the institution

A has developed plans to effectively combat the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material, including through the use of a variety of technology-based

B will, to the extent practicable, offer alternatives to illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property, as determined by the institution in consultation with the chief technology officer or other designated officer of the institution.

That said, language about it has been in there since the very first draft in 2007, Section 485:

An annual disclosure that explicitly informs students that unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material, including unauthorized peer-to-peer file sharing, may subject the students to civil and criminal liabilities;

2 a summary of the penalties for violation of Federal copyright laws;

3 a description of the institution's policies with respect to unauthorized peer-to-peer file sharing, including disciplinary actions that are taken against students who engage in unauthorized distribution of copyrighted materials using the institution's information technology system; and

4 a description of actions that the institution takes to prevent and detect unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material on the institution's information technology system.

The bill's primary sponsor, Rep. George Miller, doesn't appear to get any funding at all from the RIAA/MPAA according to OpenSecrets, so I'm guessing that language was put in place by one of the other 29 cosponsors, or by committee. I'd love to find out where that provision originated.

That is exactly the problem in Government right now. These HUGE bills that no one knows what they contain.

Only because they don't appear to know how to use THOMAS, where activity up to floor actions from the day before are available. It's the web version of the Congressional Record and has been around since the Clinton Administration. If you want things before they even leave the committees, you may have to look somewhere else, but everything else is available there.

One of the main problems in our federal government right now is that we have millions of armchair quarterbacks who don't properly understand the rules of the game.

I'm wondering how stable this person is - sending me stuff outing someone else's online identity is really stupid considering what I've been through the last month :-)

The law is clear that you need to have previously registered the work in question to have any hope of a felony copyright infringement charge, and yet ... http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=Kristopeit+Michael the US Copyright Office says that Michael Kristopeit is nothing.

Sure, it could have been registered in the last few weeks, but someone who confuses a business license with copyright registration ... I have my doubts.

This is the sort of thing that tempts me to do a write-up and post it in a few places (along with pics, of course :-) as an example to others of just how whoever says "I'm gonna sue the internetz" first is invariably a crank.

Or maybe a "fark this" contest?

Copyright search for Kristopeit, Michael
http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=Kristopeit+Michael
Public Catalog
Copyright Catalog (1978 to present)
Your search found no results. Refer to search examples, check spelling or try another search type.

The USCO says you are nothing. Unless you can show a copyright registration, you have no grounds for a claim of felony copyright infringement against clone54321 or anyone else.

You made a claim that clone54321 is guilty of felony copyright infringement. You have no evidence of that - your typing something in all-caps doesn't make it so. You need to have registered the individual image with the US Copyright Office prior to the alleged offense.

the images did have registered copyrights. all of my images do. i have a business license to take and distribute photography.

Having a "business license to take and distribute photography" is irrelevant to the question of the registration of the individual image with the U.S. Copyright Office, as required for felony copyright infringement charges. Having a "business license" is irrelevant to the whole question of copyright. You're an idiot if you think otherwise. Read the Bern Convention.

So post the copyright registration # (as described here) for the image in question.

Time to put up or shut up. Or maybe I should write an article about this (with pictures of course) and post it on a few of my sites, about how some people haven't got a clue when it comes to copyright.

Copyright search for Kristopeit, Michael
http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=Kristopeit+Michael
Public Catalog
Copyright Catalog (1978 to present)
Your search found no results. Refer to search examples, check spelling or try another search type.

The USCO says you are nothing. Unless you can show a copyright registration, you have no grounds for a claim of felony copyright infringement against clone54321 or anyone else.

You made a claim that clone54321 is guilty of felony copyright infringement. You have no evidence of that - your typing something in all-caps doesn't make it so. You need to have registered the individual image with the US Copyright Office prior to the alleged offense.

the images did have registered copyrights. all of my images do. i have a business license to take and distribute photography.

Having a "business license to take and distribute photography" is irrelevant to the question of the registration of the individual image with the U.S. Copyright Office, as required for felony copyright infringement charges. Having a "business license" is irrelevant to the whole question of copyright. You're an idiot if you think otherwise. Read the Bern Convention.

So post the copyright registration # (as described here) for the image in question.

Time to put up or shut up. Or maybe I should write an article about this (with pictures of course) and post it on a few of my sites, about how some people haven't got a clue when it comes to copyright.

Corrected Thomas LoC link

S3538 appears to be the bill in question. It would be nice if we could read it, but the text currently isn't public.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:1:./temp/~bdgRx1:@@@L&summ2
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s3538/show

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.3480 -- really though, there should be a law, or at least a "best practice" requiring that bill numbers be reported in print and links to Thomas be report in on-line journalism. They stupid article linked in the /. summary didn't even give the name of the bill. I had to find it searching for the 3 co-sponsors, plus the Senate committee name. And then, it was one of 11 results. This is why people are uninformed, even when they're not lazy.

Have you ever seen a 1 page bill before? Head on over to the Library of Congress and find me one... 10 pages is pretty short for a bill actually.

The NYT isn't going anywhere. It may have to evolve to stay afloat, but it'll outlast Twitter for sure. Even if it didn't, it will be better archived for future generations than Twitter will ever be.

Are you sure about that?

Even if it didn't, it will be better archived for future generations than Twitter will ever be.

How Tweet It Is!: Library [of Congress] Acquires Entire Twitter Archive.

• The missing carbon
• Graph showing ice age with 12 times more CO2 than today.
• Polar bears
• Ethanol
• Ethanol again
• Climate cultist whack job from "Whale wars" believes quote We need to radically and intelligently reduce human populations to fewer than one billion.
• NASA's chief on global warming.
• The IPCC get their their asses handed to them in front of Congress in 1997. A personal favorite is this quote:

  The observed warming since the late 19th Century has only been 0.5 degrees Celsius, or less than one-third of the predicted value. Critics argued, as I did before this committee, that there would have to be a dramatic reduction in the forecast of future warming in order to reconcile the facts and the hypotheses.

  By 1995, in its second full assessment of climate change, the IPCC admitted the validity of the critics' position: `When increases in greenhouse gases only are taken into account, most climate models produce a greater mean warming than has been observed to date, unless a lower climate sensitivity to the greenhouse effect is used. There is growing evidences that increases in sulfate aerosols are partially counteracting the warming due to increases in greenhouse gases.'

  Let me translate this statement. It means either it is not going to warm up as much as we said it would or something is hiding the warming. I predict that every attempt will be made to demonstrate the latter before admitting that the former is true.

My links are getting old it seems. I have a folder full of them, but a lot seems to have been eradicated by the cult of climate change. Feel free to use this stuff in your next big flame war, but I think you'll find that arguing with these idiots is pointless. Your best bet is to put together a well reasoned, informative essay... then wait for a related story and top post. You may be marked troll, but it doesn't matter. People like myself who don't agree with /.s group think tend to read at troll +6 anyway. In fact, I would have never seen your response if you had not been marked troll above... anyhow, we'll mod you up if you're hit with -1 disagree mod.

The 'older versions' would be specific snapshots of the draft (in no particular order): Introduced in House, Engrossed in House, Enrolled Bill, Referred to Senate, Reported in Senate, Received in Senate, etc. It's like v0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.4.1, 0.5, 1.0RC1, 1.0RC2, 1.0, etc. You get the point.

The legislative process already follows a development process rather similar to open source software development. Many can review and provide input, or just yammer. Only a few have commit privileges. At specific events, a line is drawn and a version of the bill is released.

If you follow some of the hearings, a lot of time is devoted to reading out loud what are essentially diffs expressed in prose. We can keep that for tradition's sake but it does not preclude using a proper versioning system.

one possible reason to use a distributed versioning system would be to allow schools to tear off a chunk and play with it.

...are the Library of Congress site and the Supreme Court site. Both of them are extremely informative, and have a massive wealth of information that is readily available.

I didn't read through the entire bill, but the part I read talked about people arrested for sexual crimes and murder -- nothing about burglary that I could see.

`(iv) Such individuals who are arrested for or charged with a criminal offense under State law that consists of burglary or any attempt to commit burglary.

Falcon

Now to convert to units we all understand!

http://www.loc.gov/about/facts.html claims 745 miles of bookshelves in the Library of Congress Assuming they're 1' deep by 2' high we get 1 LOC = 0.000053 cubic miles (puny library!) therefore the oceans occupy 5,987,307,382,550.34 Libraries of Congress.

I could swear that the Library of Congress is trying to preserve all the information that you say is being lost.

Isn't that part of their purpose? http://www.loc.gov/about

It's not all that hard to get the info from LOC.

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/jefferson_papers/mtjtime1.html

Or elsewhere.

http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/default.xqy?keys=TSJN-print-01&mode=TOC

Tinfoil (or paper) hat conspirists will never be happy, so why try.

17 U.S.C. 1201(e) (1998)
Exception for Law Enforcement and Intelligence Activities. The DMCA permits circumvention for any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity by or at the direction of a federal, state, or local law enforcement agency, or of an intelligence agency of the United States.

Oh, facts? You can use them to prove anything that's even remotely true.

(e) LAW ENFORCEMENT, INTELLIGENCE, AND OTHER GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES- This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, information security, or intelligence activity of an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or a person acting pursuant to a contract with the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State. For purposes of this subsection, the term `information security' means activities carried out in order to identify and address the vulnerabilities of a government computer, computer system, or computer network.

Congratulations, sir, you win the Internets.

Strong defense doesn't mean perpetual offense. And what does Howard Zinn have to do with anything? His opponent was Saxby Chambliss who, by the way, didn't have to serve in Vietnam because he got military deferments.

Fair enough to call out the voters. I suppose if they were stupid enough to be swayed by this ad, well, whatever. All it shows is bin Laden, Hussein, and Cleland, and a bunch of things Cleland voted against without even mentioning what they are.

I can't find what they are but would appear to be amendments to S.2452. So, yeah, I will blame 'them' for muddying the issue with non-specific, scary talk and I will blame the voters for being stupid and lazy and accepting of the Republican narrative that it's ok to piss yourself over any mention of terrorism.

Such a system could possibly be implemented here as well. The Library of Congress's project Thomas (as well as the GPO) publishes all the public law information, including the various drafts taken into consideration during the process of developing them in the house/senate. Most of them are already available as an (example here) XML file, though perhaps not quite in the same format we'd need. This includes some of the more important pieces written before the project was started.

Such a system could possibly be implemented here as well. The Library of Congress's project Thomas (as well as the GPO) publishes all the public law information, including the various drafts taken into consideration during the process of developing them in the house/senate. Most of them are already available as an (example here) XML file, though perhaps not quite in the same format we'd need. This includes some of the more important pieces written before the project was started.

Mount Vernon, September 25, 1798. From: George Washington To: George Snyder

I have heard much of the nefarious, and dangerous plan, and doctrines of the Illuminati, but never saw the Book until you were pleased to send it to me.9 The same causes which have prevented my acknowledging the receipt of your letter have prevented my reading the Book, hitherto; namely, the multiplicity of matters which pressed upon me before, and the debilitated state in which I was left after, a severe fever had been removed. And which allows me to add little more now, than thanks for your kind wishes and favourable sentiments, except to correct an error you have run into, of my Presiding over the English lodges in this Country. The fact is, I preside over none, nor have I been in one more than once or twice, within the last thirty years. I believe notwithstanding, that none of the Lodges in this Country are contaminated with the principles ascribed to the Society of the Illuminati.

The book he is referring to is Proofs of a Conspiracy by John Robison

Mount Vernon, October 24, 1798. From: George Washington To: George Snyder

It was not my intention to doubt that, the Doctrines of the Illuminati, and principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more truly satisfied of this fact than I am.

The idea that I meant to convey, was, that I did not believe that the Lodges of Free Masons in this Country had, as Societies, endeavoured to propagate the diabolical tenets of the first, or pernicious principles of the latter (if they are susceptible of seperation). That Individuals of them may have done it, or that the founder, or instrument employed to found, the Democratic Societies in the United States, may have had these objects; and actually had a seperation of the People from their Government in view, is too evident to be questioned.

My occupations are such, that but little leisure is allowed me to read News Papers, or Books of any kind; the reading of letters, and preparing answers, absorb much of my time. With respect,

Note: Although in the 2nd letter he says he is "satisfied," meaning he agrees that the Illuminati and their doctrines have made their way to the United States.

Source: Search for illuminati

That's 1/3 or 1/4 to remove the law. Not to pass it.

You don't "remove a law" without passing a law. Essentially, most laws are "diffs" to the federal or state "code". Like this bit from H. R. 4957 (selected as a random example from thomas.loc.gov):

a) In General- Paragraph (1) of section 9502(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended-- (1) by striking `April 1, 2010' and inserting `May 1, 2010'; and (2) by inserting `or the Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010' before the semicolon at the end of subparagraph (A).

[T]he Obama administration is abandoning its policy of using nationality alone to determine which US-bound international air travelers should be subject to additional screening...

They're actually now trying to correlate security screening with specific, known information about actual suspects, rather than saying, "So you're from Pakistan? Would you mind coming with me, sir?" The new policies will be far from perfect, I'm sure, but they seem more sensible than a "random" screening based solely on nationality.

Yea, it's imperfect. Not only that but the Constitution of the USA does not give the federal government these powers.

Every time technology makes another leap forward, we have to reclaim the Fourth Amendment, and often we have to reclaim the entire Bill of Rights, because technology gives [the authorities] powers that were not envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

Fair enough, but I think the founding fathers would also have had a difficult time envisioning several dozen unrelated people climbing into a flying metal tube to cross the ocean in a matter of hours. They also probably didn't foresee the rise of ideologies that make those flying tubes attractive targets for persons armed with concealable explosive devices. Saying that the Founding Fathers were poorly-versed in 21st century technology and geopolitics doesn't mean much by itself. I'm willing to bet the passengers on any of the airplanes that have been subject to terrorist attacks in the past few years would have been willing to undergo a full body scan if it meant the bad guy couldn't get on the plane with them.

Then amend the Constitution. Don't treat it like TP. As for what the Founding father envisioning, they easily envisioned government goons knocking down doors and dragging away the people inside. As for terrorists, as President, Thomas Jefferson sent the Marines to fight Barbary pirates in North Africa. Between them and what the British did the Founding Fathers knew what the enemy was capable of. British Lieutenant Colonel Banastre Tarleton of the Green Dragoon wasn't known as a butcher for nothing, he "practiced total war -- burning houses, destroying crops, the end justifying the means".

Falcon

doesn't show the text in Opera. ( I'll assume it's a site problem, since Opera 10.51 scores perfect on all the acid tests).

Here's a better one, and official, too.

And when did you stop beating your wife?

Of course "a conservative" advocated rounding up Arabs. Hundreds or thousands of them did. And "a liberal" has advocated burning all the churches, and "a muslim" has advocated killing all the Jews, and "a Christian" went on Crusade in the 13th century, &c. As for Coulter? I don't know- though I'll take it on faith that she did, to what level of seriousness I've no idea- and I don't care. The Threat To Domestic Harmony that Coulter (or Limbaugh or Fox News or whoever the whipping boy of the day is) represents is roughly equal to that presented by the Simpsons. Alert the press and start putting microphones in all the bars to hear more stupid, outrageous things said by people to get a rise or a laugh or make a point.

It amazes me that (presumably you) Americans are so hot about a media personality, whose job it is to say things, saying something. Every other week it's "XOMG LIMBAUGH SAID X" or "FSCK COULTER SAID Y." There's no screaming panic when Howard Stern says "tits," is there? Or maybe there is, I don't know. Why aren't you guys complaining that, like "the Republicans have presented a bill that is in opposition to what we perceive as the ideals of America, and we should rally public support against it so that well-meaning Democrats are not led astray!" I mean, surely the Republicans are doing that, yes? And surely an actual bill being discussed to, I don't know, revoke ACORN's tax-free status is of more importance than a talking head talking?

(a) Requiring Coverage of Counseling and Pharmacotherapy for Cessation of Tobacco Use by Pregnant Women- Section 1905 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d), as amended by sections 2001(a)(3)(B) and 2303, is further amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(4)--
(A) by striking `and' before `(C)'; and
(B) by inserting before the semicolon at the end the following new subparagraph: `; and (D) counseling and pharmacotherapy for cessation of tobacco use by pregnant women (as defined in subsection (bb))'; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
...

You don't consider that dense text? If I'm reading it correctly this part of the bill amends another part of the bill which amends an existing statute. How is a person supposed to make sense of this? You have to dig through existing statutes and add the wording yourself just to find out what it says. Even with that, there is no guarantee this amendment isn't overwritten by another section of the 2000 page bill. Even if someone references a section of a bill and points you directly to the source you have no way of knowing if what you're reading is what the bill really says since it could be amended someplace else in the bill.

It takes months to update the statutes after the President signs a bill because someone has to go through every law that was modified and update the wording to fit changes described in the bill. The sad thing is, this is the way most bills are written. Even more sad is that this bill is supposed to be brand new!

Seems I'm also confused as hell about what exactly has "passed" [the House].

After looking at it again, it seems that:
H.R. 3590 was the main piece of legislation commonly called the 'Health Care Bill' which was voted on yesterday.

H.R.4872 is the 'reconciliation' portion with the amendments that the house wanted.

They were both voted successfully in the house: Here and Here .

I'm guessing the first one is basically done and needs to be signed by the president. The second one still needs to go through the Senate? I'm not sure.

At any rate, the parent post I responded to had linked to a bill that was old and irrelevant.

Seems I'm also confused as hell about what exactly has "passed" [the House].

After looking at it again, it seems that:
H.R. 3590 was the main piece of legislation commonly called the 'Health Care Bill' which was voted on yesterday.

H.R.4872 is the 'reconciliation' portion with the amendments that the house wanted.

They were both voted successfully in the house: Here and Here .

I'm guessing the first one is basically done and needs to be signed by the president. The second one still needs to go through the Senate? I'm not sure.

At any rate, the parent post I responded to had linked to a bill that was old and irrelevant.

Or maybe you would prefer read the one that was actually passed, before forming opinions.

Look further down in the thread. PSM321 already linked to it. In case you are too lazy to do that:

Senate bill (PDF): http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/t2GPO/http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3590eas.txt.pdf

Reconcilliation bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.4872

Look further down in the thread. PSM321 already linked to it. In case you are too lazy to do that:

Senate bill (PDF): http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/t2GPO/http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3590eas.txt.pdf

Reconcilliation bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.4872

Convoluted? It took me a grand total of 2 minutes to find the text after reading your comment. Here you go (sorry, not sure if these are perma-links):

Senate bill (PDF): http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/t2GPO/http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3590eas.txt.pdf

Reconcilliation bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.4872:

Convoluted? It took me a grand total of 2 minutes to find the text after reading your comment. Here you go (sorry, not sure if these are perma-links):

Senate bill (PDF): http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/t2GPO/http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3590eas.txt.pdf

Reconcilliation bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.4872:

see Application -> Common Article 2 -> 3rd bullet point

Drilling down to its references:
[pdf] page 50, paragraph 3.

The problem with this strategy is that captions often have typos, and are not properly annotated. As such, they are not considered part of the official congressional record. (Live TV captioners have a tough job. I don't envy them one bit, especially since Senators have been known to mumble from time to time.)

Fortunately, we have official congressional records. They've been available online (and in libraries) for about as long as we've had libraries or internets, and contain this wonderful information and more. The online editions are in plaintext, which can easily be searched, parsed, and compressed.

You're far better off searching the official records, and then looking up the corresponding C-SPAN clip, which now takes all of 15 seconds.

http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=Zero+Wing&Search_Code=TALL&PID=T5I32hDmtQlC8vGJrqqzQ4M&SEQ=20100313121910&CNT=25&HIST=1

Wow, the Federal Government is actually pretty on-the-ball with this. I'm impressed.

You can even get a list of all the works copyrighted by that corporation in the US: http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?SC=Author&SA=Toaplan%20Company%2C%20Ltd.&PID=TMgAaxP2Z2dDvBeDvaZQzQYU&BROWSE=1&HC=19&SID=2

http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=Zero+Wing&Search_Code=TALL&PID=T5I32hDmtQlC8vGJrqqzQ4M&SEQ=20100313121910&CNT=25&HIST=1

Wow, the Federal Government is actually pretty on-the-ball with this. I'm impressed.

You can even get a list of all the works copyrighted by that corporation in the US: http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?SC=Author&SA=Toaplan%20Company%2C%20Ltd.&PID=TMgAaxP2Z2dDvBeDvaZQzQYU&BROWSE=1&HC=19&SID=2

Your history is bad. America was colonised by puritans fleeing the lack of religious values in Europe (read: puritans were no longer in power) which is why it is not really ironic that they persecuted non-Christians and burned wiccan or suspected wicca at the steak.

No, your history is bad. I. America as a Religious Refuge: The Seventeenth Century Says "Many of the British North American colonies that eventually formed the United States of America were settled in the seventeenth century by men and women, who, in the face of European persecution, refused to compromise passionately held religious convictions and fled Europe."
Notice the "loc.gov", that's a governmental website.

For more...
Calverts of Roman Catholic faith, who had fled religious persecution in England, founded Maryland in 1632." Or Religious Persecution in Ireland.

Quite simply early settlers of the New World fled religious persecution. On the other hand you were right about them wanting to persecute others in Europe. I have never denied that. I have actually accused European Christians of persecuting people. The NAZI Holocaust wasn't the first tyme Jews were persecuted, nor were they the only ones. Spain, which was not united until Queen Isabella united it, was quite efficient at persecuting people. Jews, Muslims, other Christians, and others were persecuted. Isabella told Jews and Muslims to convert, leave Iberia, or die. Of course because Jews and Muslims were educated Spain suffered a massive brain drain which set back their civilization back. At least they were given a choice, Agnostic Christians weren't. They were slaughters by the hundreds if not thousands. So called Catholics would burn down entire villages that were still inhabited and make sure no one could escape. Much like Muslims did in Saudi Arabia in 2002 when a girls' school got on fire.

Read up on the Magna Carta, it is the basis of constitutional law and English common law. It was the influence of many constitutional documents including the United States Constitution.

I have read about the Magna Carts, as well as actually read it myself. I have also read the writing of the USA's Founding Fathers. One of the writers of the Constitution of the USA was John Rutledge of South Carolina and he "proposed they model the new government they were forming into something along the lines of the Iroquois League of Nations, which had been functioning as a democratic government for hundreds of years, and which he had observed in Albany."

Falcon