Slashdot Mirror

Googling for my own state's (Texas) Super DMCA, I found this by Dan Wallach, an asst. professor at Rice University. He has some interesting things to say aout the bills before our House and Senate. So in the interest of fact checking, I looked at the Senate version.

Sure enough, by the letter of the law, NATs would be illegal. It prohibits owning or creating any technology that is used to knowingly modify a communications sevice in ways unauthorized by the service provider. The bill imposes a Class A misdemeanor for the first offence, except where five or more 'communications devices' are employed in the 'criminal episode'. In that case, the crime is a felony.

In my home, I have a wireless NAT setup. There are four desktop systems and a laptop that regularly access the internet via that network. Additionally, there is one more desktop that occasionally joins the network. That makes seven discreet communications devices, including the router, that are employed in gaining access. The definition of a communication device is very broad and includes single connectors,switches and connections (presumably between devices). Theoretically, the state could use each cat5 cable and external wireless nic as communications devices, upping my number of devices to 10 or 12. Since my ISP only grants authorized access to one communication device in my service contract, I would fall squarely under the stated definition of a felony under this bill. For running a freakin' home network!

I freely admit that I use my internet service connection in ways unauthorized by my provider. Sure. And they can cut my service at any time of their choosing if they find out. I accept that. I'm violating the agreement, therefore they have the right to terminate it. Simple, to the point, and effective.

But now I could become a felon as well. That's where I draw the line. In my opinion, the state has no business enforcing civil contracts with the criminal justice system. That's what the civil courts are for. If my provider cares to, they can try to get compensation for any perceived loss in a civil court. There is no need to make my activities a felony.

Somethings got to be done. I'm going to do my part and write a letter. Please do yours.

My post was half-joking, but the point you made is interesting...

Understood, and thanks. My reply was really for the benifit of people that don't live in Delaware and may not have realized the full facts of it's tax code.

...it seems that Retailers in Delaware are subject to a 0.720% tax rate [state.de.us], which compared to say, NJ or NY state sales tax, it's next to nothing

Perhaps, but it is comparable to many other states, including my own - Texas. We pay a state mandated 6.25% sales tax. Cities and counties may (and often do) impose additional sales taxes not to exceed a combined total of 8.25%. In other words, an additional 2%. source

Obviously you do no know what the hell you are talking about.

A P.E. is note required to carry a bond. a PE is required to have specific form of education. The education varies a little, but involves having an engineering degree from an acredited program, or a physics degree. And several years of work experience in the field as an Engineer Intern (E.I.) under an licensed Professional Engineer (P.E.), again depending degree and acredition process. Also there is a test before you can legaly call yourself and E.I and another test before you can call yourself and Engineer. There are also included things like Letters of Reccomendation. But last I checked you can't buy yourself into the prefession by simply purchasing a bond. Just like doctors and lawyers cant buy their license to practice.

If you want to know the reality of things instead the bullshit here on /. . You can check the basic requirements Texas Board of Professional Engineers But is boils down to the fact that unless you are working as a E.I. under a P.E. you will never be a real Engineer.

Want to know how easy that is? try and find a P.E. doing software.

Obviously you do no know what the hell you are talking about.

A P.E. is note required to carry a bond. a PE is required to have specific form of education. The education varies a little, but involves having an engineering degree from an acredited program, or a physics degree. And several years of work experience in the field as an Engineer Intern (E.I.) under an licensed Professional Engineer (P.E.), again depending degree and acredition process. Also there is a test before you can legaly call yourself and E.I and another test before you can call yourself and Engineer. There are also included things like Letters of Reccomendation. But last I checked you can't buy yourself into the prefession by simply purchasing a bond. Just like doctors and lawyers cant buy their license to practice.

If you want to know the reality of things instead the bullshit here on /. . You can check the basic requirements Texas Board of Professional Engineers But is boils down to the fact that unless you are working as a E.I. under a P.E. you will never be a real Engineer.

Want to know how easy that is? try and find a P.E. doing software.

Perhaps, and I suspect that engineer after engineer will testify before the legislative committee considering this matter. However, the State of Texas regulates a number of professions, from lawyers and nurses to dentists and doctors. Part of that regulation is deciding who may bestow upon themselves the title traditionally associated with that profession.

As for engineers, their profession is regulated by this chapter of the Texas Occupations Code. According to section 1001.002, an "engineer" means a person licensed to engage in the practice of engineering in this state. See section 1001.003(c) for a thorough definition of the "practice of engineering."

Now, the Houston Chronicle article alludes to an Attorney General's opinion letter which prompted all of this controversy. The Attorney General interprets the law, and his interpretation in this case was apparently solicited by a legislator. For the sake of the discussion, I have appended it below:

State of Texas

Opinion No. JC-0525
July 9, 2002

Re: Whether the Texas Engineering Practice Act permits in-house engineers to include their job titles on business cards, cover letters, and other correspondence (RQ-0495-JC)

The Honorable Warren Chisum
Chair, Committee on
Environmental Regulation
Texas House of Representatives
P. O. Box 2910
Austin, Texas 78768-2910

Dear Representative Chisum:

You ask whether the Texas Engineering Practice Act (the "Act") permits in- house engineers who work for private corporations that do not offer engineering services to the public to include their job titles on business cards, cover letters, and other forms of correspondence. We conclude they may not do so.

You believe that an employee for a private corporation whose in-house job title is that of "engineer" should be able to use a title, such as "Engineer" or "Process Engineer" on business cards, cover letters, and other forms of correspondence because of an exemption under section 20(a)(5) of the Act. See Request Letter, supra note 1, at 2. You find "it . . . difficult to fathom how a member of the public could be misled into believing that an in-house engineer for a company that does not perform or offer to perform any engineering services for the public is somehow offering such services by the mere use of the job title 'Engineer."' Id.

The Act, article 3271a of the Revised Civil Statutes, specifically addresses the use of the designation of "engineer" in section 1.1. Section 1.1, in part, provides:

[I]t is the intent of the Legislature, in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare, that the privilege of practicing engineering be entrusted only to those persons duly licensed and practicing under the provisions of this Act and that there be strict compliance with and enforcement of all the provisions of this Act, and, in order that the state and members of the public may be able to identify those duly authorized to practice engineering in this state and fix responsibility for work done or services or acts performed in the practice of engineering, only licensed persons shall practice, offer or attempt to practice engineering or call themselves or be otherwise designated as any kind of an "engineer" or in any manner make use of the term "engineer" as a professional, business or commercial identifi

Perhaps, and I suspect that engineer after engineer will testify before the legislative committee considering this matter. However, the State of Texas regulates a number of professions, from lawyers and nurses to dentists and doctors. Part of that regulation is deciding who may bestow upon themselves the title traditionally associated with that profession.

As for engineers, their profession is regulated by this chapter of the Texas Occupations Code. According to section 1001.002, an "engineer" means a person licensed to engage in the practice of engineering in this state. See section 1001.003(c) for a thorough definition of the "practice of engineering."

Now, the Houston Chronicle article alludes to an Attorney General's opinion letter which prompted all of this controversy. The Attorney General interprets the law, and his interpretation in this case was apparently solicited by a legislator. For the sake of the discussion, I have appended it below:

State of Texas

Opinion No. JC-0525
July 9, 2002

Re: Whether the Texas Engineering Practice Act permits in-house engineers to include their job titles on business cards, cover letters, and other correspondence (RQ-0495-JC)

The Honorable Warren Chisum
Chair, Committee on
Environmental Regulation
Texas House of Representatives
P. O. Box 2910
Austin, Texas 78768-2910

Dear Representative Chisum:

You ask whether the Texas Engineering Practice Act (the "Act") permits in- house engineers who work for private corporations that do not offer engineering services to the public to include their job titles on business cards, cover letters, and other forms of correspondence. We conclude they may not do so.

You believe that an employee for a private corporation whose in-house job title is that of "engineer" should be able to use a title, such as "Engineer" or "Process Engineer" on business cards, cover letters, and other forms of correspondence because of an exemption under section 20(a)(5) of the Act. See Request Letter, supra note 1, at 2. You find "it . . . difficult to fathom how a member of the public could be misled into believing that an in-house engineer for a company that does not perform or offer to perform any engineering services for the public is somehow offering such services by the mere use of the job title 'Engineer."' Id.

The Act, article 3271a of the Revised Civil Statutes, specifically addresses the use of the designation of "engineer" in section 1.1. Section 1.1, in part, provides:

[I]t is the intent of the Legislature, in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare, that the privilege of practicing engineering be entrusted only to those persons duly licensed and practicing under the provisions of this Act and that there be strict compliance with and enforcement of all the provisions of this Act, and, in order that the state and members of the public may be able to identify those duly authorized to practice engineering in this state and fix responsibility for work done or services or acts performed in the practice of engineering, only licensed persons shall practice, offer or attempt to practice engineering or call themselves or be otherwise designated as any kind of an "engineer" or in any manner make use of the term "engineer" as a professional, business or commercial identifi

Perhaps, and I suspect that engineer after engineer will testify before the legislative committee considering this matter. However, the State of Texas regulates a number of professions, from lawyers and nurses to dentists and doctors. Part of that regulation is deciding who may bestow upon themselves the title traditionally associated with that profession.

As for engineers, their profession is regulated by this chapter of the Texas Occupations Code. According to section 1001.002, an "engineer" means a person licensed to engage in the practice of engineering in this state. See section 1001.003(c) for a thorough definition of the "practice of engineering."

Now, the Houston Chronicle article alludes to an Attorney General's opinion letter which prompted all of this controversy. The Attorney General interprets the law, and his interpretation in this case was apparently solicited by a legislator. For the sake of the discussion, I have appended it below:

State of Texas

Opinion No. JC-0525
July 9, 2002

Re: Whether the Texas Engineering Practice Act permits in-house engineers to include their job titles on business cards, cover letters, and other correspondence (RQ-0495-JC)

The Honorable Warren Chisum
Chair, Committee on
Environmental Regulation
Texas House of Representatives
P. O. Box 2910
Austin, Texas 78768-2910

Dear Representative Chisum:

You ask whether the Texas Engineering Practice Act (the "Act") permits in- house engineers who work for private corporations that do not offer engineering services to the public to include their job titles on business cards, cover letters, and other forms of correspondence. We conclude they may not do so.

You believe that an employee for a private corporation whose in-house job title is that of "engineer" should be able to use a title, such as "Engineer" or "Process Engineer" on business cards, cover letters, and other forms of correspondence because of an exemption under section 20(a)(5) of the Act. See Request Letter, supra note 1, at 2. You find "it . . . difficult to fathom how a member of the public could be misled into believing that an in-house engineer for a company that does not perform or offer to perform any engineering services for the public is somehow offering such services by the mere use of the job title 'Engineer."' Id.

The Act, article 3271a of the Revised Civil Statutes, specifically addresses the use of the designation of "engineer" in section 1.1. Section 1.1, in part, provides:

[I]t is the intent of the Legislature, in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare, that the privilege of practicing engineering be entrusted only to those persons duly licensed and practicing under the provisions of this Act and that there be strict compliance with and enforcement of all the provisions of this Act, and, in order that the state and members of the public may be able to identify those duly authorized to practice engineering in this state and fix responsibility for work done or services or acts performed in the practice of engineering, only licensed persons shall practice, offer or attempt to practice engineering or call themselves or be otherwise designated as any kind of an "engineer" or in any manner make use of the term "engineer" as a professional, business or commercial identifi

Perhaps, and I suspect that engineer after engineer will testify before the legislative committee considering this matter. However, the State of Texas regulates a number of professions, from lawyers and nurses to dentists and doctors. Part of that regulation is deciding who may bestow upon themselves the title traditionally associated with that profession.

As for engineers, their profession is regulated by this chapter of the Texas Occupations Code. According to section 1001.002, an "engineer" means a person licensed to engage in the practice of engineering in this state. See section 1001.003(c) for a thorough definition of the "practice of engineering."

Now, the Houston Chronicle article alludes to an Attorney General's opinion letter which prompted all of this controversy. The Attorney General interprets the law, and his interpretation in this case was apparently solicited by a legislator. For the sake of the discussion, I have appended it below:

State of Texas

Opinion No. JC-0525
July 9, 2002

Re: Whether the Texas Engineering Practice Act permits in-house engineers to include their job titles on business cards, cover letters, and other correspondence (RQ-0495-JC)

The Honorable Warren Chisum
Chair, Committee on
Environmental Regulation
Texas House of Representatives
P. O. Box 2910
Austin, Texas 78768-2910

Dear Representative Chisum:

You ask whether the Texas Engineering Practice Act (the "Act") permits in- house engineers who work for private corporations that do not offer engineering services to the public to include their job titles on business cards, cover letters, and other forms of correspondence. We conclude they may not do so.

You believe that an employee for a private corporation whose in-house job title is that of "engineer" should be able to use a title, such as "Engineer" or "Process Engineer" on business cards, cover letters, and other forms of correspondence because of an exemption under section 20(a)(5) of the Act. See Request Letter, supra note 1, at 2. You find "it . . . difficult to fathom how a member of the public could be misled into believing that an in-house engineer for a company that does not perform or offer to perform any engineering services for the public is somehow offering such services by the mere use of the job title 'Engineer."' Id.

The Act, article 3271a of the Revised Civil Statutes, specifically addresses the use of the designation of "engineer" in section 1.1. Section 1.1, in part, provides:

[I]t is the intent of the Legislature, in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare, that the privilege of practicing engineering be entrusted only to those persons duly licensed and practicing under the provisions of this Act and that there be strict compliance with and enforcement of all the provisions of this Act, and, in order that the state and members of the public may be able to identify those duly authorized to practice engineering in this state and fix responsibility for work done or services or acts performed in the practice of engineering, only licensed persons shall practice, offer or attempt to practice engineering or call themselves or be otherwise designated as any kind of an "engineer" or in any manner make use of the term "engineer" as a professional, business or commercial identifi

While I agree that the term shouldn't be "watered down", I think you've misunderstood the reach of the law. Pretty much Texas wants you to have an ABET accredited degree (which most of us "engineers" have) and you have to take one of their "exams"

Of course, they don't have an exam for software. So you have to get a waiver based on a combination of experience and "references from existing PE's".

So, pretty much, it's a boy's club.

The exam schedule

Oh, and it's a $3000 buck fine if I put "engineer" on my business card. Having graduated from one of the top ABET accredited engineering schools in the country, I find this a little annoying.

• An engineering degree that meets some basic requirements
• 4-8 years of experience, depending on your degree
• Detailed log of what you've done for these last 4-8 years
• Experience under another licensed engineer
• Five references, three of which must be other licensed engineers
• Two exams

There are exceptions for people who have been in the field for something like 12 years, but you are still required to have a detailed log of everything you've ever done. Simply put, most people never get this far.

Personally, I would love to have my license to go along with my EE degree, but it's just not realistic to waste my time. I don't even know any licensed EEs, much less have a company willing to hire me and place me under another licensed EE to gain the required experience.

My suggestion for the state is this. The word "engineer" has become watered down in the past several years. As it stands today, licensed engineers are allowed to place "PE" after their name, as well as calling themselves "engineers." Thus, the state should probably allow "engineer" to be used in whatever context people want and only let licensed engineers use the "PE" designation.

Licensing is important and has its place in quite a few fields, so I also recommend that the state evaluate ways to open the door for more people to be licensed in the high-tech fields. Perhaps the restrictions should temporarily be made more lenient to "seed" the field with licensed engineers, thus allowing for easier licensing of new engineers in the future. Finally, I recommend that the legislature let the engineers figure this out, rather than figuring it out for them.

(a) A person commits an offense if, with the intent to harm or defraud a communication service provider, the person:

(1) obtains or uses a communication service without:

(A) obtaining the authorization of the provider; or

(B) making a payment to the provider in the
amount normally charged by the provider for the service; or

[(3)] tampers with, modifies, or maintains a
modification to a communication device provided by or installed by the provider

So, you have to, with "intent to harm or defraud," "[use] a communication service without""obtaining the authorization of the provider; or making a payment to the provider in the amount normally charged by the provider for the service; or tampers with, modifies, or maintains a modification to a communication device provided by or installed by the provider." I put it all together for ye who don't want to link.

So, to be even MORE clear, this only effects people who are trying to harm or defraud an ISP, etc, by using service without authorization.

Does a VPN "harm or defraud" an ISP? NO

Does ssh "harm or defraud" an ISP? NO

Does posting anonymously anywhere, or any of the other things being complained about, "harm or defraud" an ISP? NO

I don't have the time to quote and translate each and every bill out there, but I do certainly recommed actually reading them before deciding the bills will make it illegal to brush your teeth. Knee-jerk, anyone? Know what you're having an opinion about, before forming that opinion.

Register to vote. Today.

Call Carter if you want, not that it'll do much good; he got 78% of the vote in his last election in a district that votes even more Republican than the rest of the state, if such a thing is possible.

But maybe you can throw a scare into some of his colleagues.

The antidote is massive voter registration. These guys are counting on college students to not vote; are you going to fulfill their expectations?

Register to vote. Today.

Call Carter if you want, not that it'll do much good; he got 78% of the vote in his last election in a district that votes even more Republican than the rest of the state, if such a thing is possible.

But maybe you can throw a scare into some of his colleagues.

The antidote is massive voter registration. These guys are counting on college students to not vote; are you going to fulfill their expectations?

In fact.. Since the Texas Govt. is broke they are cutting back on all expenses. They even wrote the Governor's website using opensource software... and SURPRISE Its been *very* successful!! Have a look at Governor Rick Perry's Website which is running the Zope application server with the Plone Content Management System

Where, in the month of March, nearly 300 men have been put to death in Texas alone.

Your most cogent point is the last one you made... a war will simply continue the cycle of hate that has prospered in these times. In fact, my main concern is that no comprehensive plan and, more importantly in today's world, no long-term money has been committed to the rebuilding of Iraq and Afghanistan. If we drop that ball, so to speak, we're going to just create more hate and more terrorists.

Sujal

Applicable Law and Standard of Review To be entitled to a temporary injunction a plaintiff must show: (1) a viable cause of action against the defendant; (2) a probable right to recovery; and (3) a probable, imminent, and irreparable injury in the interim. Walling v. Metcalfe, 863 S.W.2d 56, 57 (Tex.1993) (per curiam). The only question before the trial court is whether the applicant is entitled to preservation of the status quo pending trial on the merits. Id. at 58. In an appeal from an order granting a temporary injunction, our review is confined to the validity of that order. See id. The decision to grant or deny the temporary injunction lies within the sound discretion of the trial court; we will not disturb that decision absent a clear abuse of discretion. Id. This Court may neither substitute its judgment for that of the trial court nor consider the merits of the lawsuit. Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. Thompson, 24 S.W.3d 570, 576 (Tex.App.-Austin 2000, no pet.). Rather, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's order, indulging every reasonable inference in its favor, and determine whether the order was so arbitrary as to exceed the bounds of reasonable discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion exists when the court misapplies the law to established facts or when it concludes that the applicant has demonstrated a probable injury or a probable right to recovery and the conclusion is not reasonably supported by evidence. Rugen v. Interactive Bus. Sys., Inc., 864 S.W.2d 548, 551 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1993, no writ).

Applicable Law and Standard of Review To be entitled to a temporary injunction a plaintiff must show: (1) a viable cause of action against the defendant; (2) a probable right to recovery; and (3) a probable, imminent, and irreparable injury in the interim. Walling v. Metcalfe, 863 S.W.2d 56, 57 (Tex.1993) (per curiam). The only question before the trial court is whether the applicant is entitled to preservation of the status quo pending trial on the merits. Id. at 58. In an appeal from an order granting a temporary injunction, our review is confined to the validity of that order. See id. The decision to grant or deny the temporary injunction lies within the sound discretion of the trial court; we will not disturb that decision absent a clear abuse of discretion. Id. This Court may neither substitute its judgment for that of the trial court nor consider the merits of the lawsuit. Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. Thompson, 24 S.W.3d 570, 576 (Tex.App.-Austin 2000, no pet.). Rather, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's order, indulging every reasonable inference in its favor, and determine whether the order was so arbitrary as to exceed the bounds of reasonable discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion exists when the court misapplies the law to established facts or when it concludes that the applicant has demonstrated a probable injury or a probable right to recovery and the conclusion is not reasonably supported by evidence. Rugen v. Interactive Bus. Sys., Inc., 864 S.W.2d 548, 551 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1993, no writ).

The coolest thing about Texas death row is that the last meals of all the condemned are published on the web. It's amazing how much junk food is on that list too....

I say Bull$hit to your Bull$hit!! Sir!!

The problem lays with the patient and the legal system that will sue the doctor's pants off for NOT prescribing antibiotics.

As a licensed RN, I've seen phyisicians prescribe medicines not for the good of the patient but for the good of their malpractice insurance. For if they didn't, they would be sued by the patient and/or their family.

Then I am the one that has to deal with caring for a patient with a communicatible disease that will literally consume a patient's immune system. These patients are treated or cared for last since the staff doesn't want to spread this to the others. I wash when I leave the room and again in the staff lounge to insure that I don't carry anything to the non-MRSA patients.

And all of this is because the d@%# lawyers have more say than the Chief Surgeon of the hospital. Yeah, I don't like a lot of the doctor's attitudes but having to treat my patients with one eye towards F'ing lawyers SUX!

Do a search for RN license # 642474 at Texas Board of Nurse Examiners. and you will see that I've been in the trenches as one that has been there/done that.

Texas does; however, have a law that says they get to collect state sales tax on EVERY e-commerce transaction that's conducted on a server within its borders. Texas is also exempt from the current federal Internet sales tax moratorium. And, that lack of state income tax, well, you really pay for it with an 8.25% state sales tax (higher in some localities). Can you imagine making a resident of another state pay a sales tax rate that is double or triple what he'd pay in his own state?

This is a *MAJOR* sticking point that is ignored by a lot of small companies that have webservers here and could easily get bit. The big companies HQ'd here -- Dell, for instance, do not keep servers within the state borders for this reason.

[Source: Report of Texas Internet Tax Policy Working Group ]

Really, I learned a lot more in undergraduate genetics, microbiology, botany and orgainic chemistry courses on how to be a terrorist than I did by launching model rockets.

Got Botulism? It might take a while to isolate and identify the proper strain, but terrorists don't have the marketing department breathing down their necks to meet a shipping date. They're patient if they have to be. Once identified, it's just a matter of culturing and refining the toxin.

Got Ricin? Yes, the lovely castor bean plant (ricinus communis) produces a rather nice toxin. Readily available through many plant stores. A bit of applied organic chemistry lab work, and you too can get the desired organic compound.

Got GB Nerve gas? Malathion (an readily available and highly used insecticide) and the first component of the binary nerve gas GB are very similar. Any organic chemist worth his money would be able to do some work to make it exactly similar. The other component is isopropol alcohol. You can find that in any drugstore.

Got FAE? Why bother with ANFO (ammonium-nitrate fuel-oil, the fertilizer bomb that has been used in many, many places) truck bombs? A little bit of applied mechanical engineering and you to can have explosives on par with low-yield nuclear weapons. Sure, ethylene oxide and propylene oxide may be a bit hard to source, but you can use others to get a similar result.

Or, as was demonstrated by one nutcase in South Korea, all it takes is a determined individual with gasoline to kill many people on a subway.

Model rockets? Give me a break. Next on the list: slingshots.

SBC has cannot manage the publicly owned wires. It is institutionally retarded, like the Chinese justice system. Talk to someone who works there. Look up the story of the dentist in San Antonio who noticed that SBC was getting rid of their pay phones all over town because "they weren't profitable" and started buying them up . . . he runs hundreds of pay phones with 1/10th the number of employees (and they cost on 25 cents instead of 50).

I wish there were a way I could block all SBC numbers from calling me. SBC has largely destroyed the idea of a national phone system; if I buy a nationwide pre-paid cell phone from AT&T, it doesn't work in many areas covered by SBC. I don't want to be part of any system they work with. I would very much like to see all SBC employees shaking cups on street corners and all SBC company officiers hanging from street lights.

Because of SBC, in Texas the minimum monthly cost of a local line is $22.99 a month (not from SBC of course) with the usual $9 or $10 of fraudulently labled "taxes" (oh, you thought that 911 connection fee and universal service charge went to the government ?) tacked on. In Massachusetts a local line can be had for $11 a month, and that's in an area where snow, ice, and tree branches actually mess up the lines now and then.

SBC overchanged Texans by $870 million last year. That's just Texas. Look at this report, page 75 of the pdf (60 of the document itself):

http://www.puc.state.tx.us/telecomm/reports/scope/ index.cfm

I have a relative who can't afford a telephone because this shit is allowed to go on. I'm paying too much to go with AT&T as a local line, it's better than SBC but even they lied about what my monthly bill would be. SBC and cronies are worse than Ebbers and Skilling/Lay, and should be killed along with those guys.

This would be a good place to start.

Texas Workforce Commission, Employee Rights and Laws

San Antonio's Transguide is probably the best of any of these systems. Much of the city's infrastructure is covered, the signs are accurate, provide travel times, and are posted everywhere.

I've been using San Antonio's Transguide for years.

Before Seattle, I lived in San Antonio that has also had a similar system for a few years.

As far as I remember, both these programs were funded by the federal government. Southwest Research Institute was resposible for setting up the system in San Antonio back in 1996-1997.

Transguide

Transguide is San Antonio's answer to the same problem. Be sure to check out the cameras. Once in awhile you get lucky and catch a flaming car or an 18-wheeler on its side.

They also transmit the camera video on a local low power station that's carried on the cable. Full motion video of wrecks? You bet!

Such things have existed for years in the US.

Here's Houston: http://traffic.tamu.edu/incmap/

Here's Dallas: http://dfwtraffic.dot.state.tx.us/dfwweb/

These don't use 'car counters' (sounds expensive), they simply use the RFID tags that the tollway system uses to automatically charge you when you cruise through at 70 mph. They just set the sensors up on the side of the road (cheap), and send the info in. That's why they can afford to have coverage over the entire city, not just downtown like that slow Denver map.

What would be great is a standardized system to push these maps to LCD screens in your car.

State viewpoints are different. Texas has a section in the Penal code for firearms which makes anything that has a barrel and fires a projectile with expanding gas (other than hand-compressed gas and CO2 cartriges, i.e. chemical propellants) an illegal weapon, no matter what the projectile is.

Search for "Zip gun" on this page:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/pe/pe00046 00.html#pe001.46.01

San Antonio has had a weather and road conditions site for
several years now http://www.transguide.dot.state.tx.us/index.php
that even has cameras Big Brother is out there.

Why don't I have a right to pass on what's mine to somebody else?

When you are dead, you have no rights in the living world. None. Some third party can strongarm victims in your name, but that has nothing to do with any "rights" imbued in your mouldering corpse. This issue is slightly muddied by inheritance law, until you remember all inheritance law is primarily concerned with the rights and properties of the living, because the state has a vested interest in allocation of taxable assets.

When you engage in speech, or publishing, you release an image from your mind (something that's yours) to others (whoever's listening or reading). You have gifted them with knowledge, and although that knowledge may be worthless, it is now available to the recipient to do with as that person wills.

You need to grasp the fundamental difference between property, which exists in a single instance (like a physical CD-ROM) and communication, which can be replicated without diminishment of the source (like a picture that can be copied, or a speech that can be transcripted). Consider Thomas Jefferson's remarks on the subject; if I light your candle with mine, you are illuminated, but my own light is not extinguished.

My reference to "the divine right of kings" is apropos, as you have demonstrated, because most people (like yourself) have been brainwashed into thinking they have a right to force others behavior, all because of an imaginary right to own and inherit that which is essentially and naturally free - human thought and communication.

Your comments about the current regime in the US may be correct, but they have nothing to do with anyone's rights- they have to do with the ability of powerful families to hoard power and escape punishment. Case in point: Bush is apparently a military deserter, which is normally a punishable crime that would invalidate ones' ability to hold public office. There are no "rights" being exercised here, it's plain old corruption at work.

Just because someone can get away with something doesn't mean they have a right to do so. If your dead ancestor wrote down an idea, or painted a picture, you don't have a right to forcibly prevent me from writing down the same idea.

...does it extend to everything I own, including the clothes on my back? I ask because you don't seem to make any distinction.

In order to make the web site do on an older browser such as Netscape 3 all that could be done on Netscape 3, then color information must be coded in the HTML part. Web sites should not be designed for Mozilla or IE. They should be designed to work in general, and it should come out reasonably well on all browsers still in general use ... if it is your intention to do so. You have the choice and right not to. But don't claim that you are making your site compatible with Netscape 3 if you exclude Netscape 3 users from the color information Netscape 3 is certainly capable of correctly handling. Information can be in the color, too. And some sites are even worse. They do put HTML color info in, different than the CSS color, and (possibly intentionally) the HTML color is the same as the text color (or maybe 1 value step off) making it impossible to read the information. One example of this is in the menu on the left of http://www.state.tx.us/. The text color is #5a61a9 while the background color is #5b61a9. The link text color is set with this HTML:

<body vlink="#B17070" link="#5B61A9" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" leftmargin="0" topmargin="0">

<table bgcolor="#5A61A9" width="172" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" border="0">

BTW, when I contacted officials at the state office dealing with these issues, two months ago, their response was "we're working on it". BS! Just edit the HTML and change the color code.

Actually, they *do* use toll tag transponders to track your speed. In Houston, the end result is this cool online map of traffic speeds on all monitored highways in the Houston/Galveston area.

But that data comes from an averaging of individual speeds. Somewhere, there's a computer owned by a government agency which has recorded the fact that Amtech/TransCore tag number 361836456148814 passed station X at 07:32:49.5 and passed station Y (1 mile away) at 07:33:14.2 for an average speed greater than the posted speed limit.

I also remember reading somewhere (possibly on San Antonio's similar site) that any Amtech system can be used to help with their traffic tracking. So their database has you tracked whether you've got a local tag, or one from San Antonio or Dallas, or even your Oklahoma Turnpike Pikepass.

Interesting fact: wrapping your TollTag (etc) in aluminum foil prevents it from being detected by the sensors. That tinfoil beanie doesn't look so silly now, does it?

In Texas it was illegal to own more than 6 dildos.

1.) I'd love to see a citable official source for this law.

OK, Texas Penal code section 43.23 (c)(1), (e) and (f)

(c) A person commits an offense if, knowing its content and character, he:
(1) promotes or possesses with intent to promote any obscene material or obscene device; or

(e) A person who promotes or wholesale promotes obscene material or an obscene device or possesses the same with intent to promote or wholesale promote it in the course of his business is presumed to do so with knowledge of its content and character.

(f) A person who possesses six or more obscene devices or identical or similar obscene articles is presumed to possess them with intent to promote the same.

And, according to Section 43.21 (7) a dildo is an 'Obscene device'.

(7) "Obscene device" means a device including a dildo or artificial vagina, designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs.

(d) An offense under Subsection (c) is a Class A misdemeanor.

To finish up....

12.21. Class A Misdemeanor

An individual adjudged guilty of a Class A misdemeanor shall be punished by:
(1) a fine not to exceed $4,000;
(2) confinement in jail for a term not to exceed one year; or
(3) both such fine and confinement.

Oh, and just so you know I'm not making it up, here's a link to the Texas State Penal Code

Crazy, huh? I think one of the dodges is to call them 'educational devices' around here, but I haven't checked.

The Public Utilities Commission has a "do not call" registry that telemarketers are required to use. http://www.puc.state.tx.us/

I wonder if there is any precedent for that? Courts usually have a tough time making such a leap from penal statutes which don't directly address a specific electronic infraction. Remember, too, that we would be dealing with 51 sets of criminal theft statutes, as well. Take Texas, for example. Compare statutory theft to statutory theft of services. Now, I think we all know that when these statutes were drafted that the authors did not envision spam as it didn't exist at the time of the drafting. There's just no way. The defense attorney would be able to convincingly argue that legislators did not envision these types of offenses and thus they are not covered under the statute. That is why this enterprise is so perilous when we attempt to argue by analogy (i.e. pursuing spammers under junk fax laws) or couch electronic offenses into the statutory language of pre-Internet penal statutes.

Remember, that some courts are still struggling with initial hurdles of authentication and admissibility [PDF] of electronic email and web data. My favorite such quip from a federal judge (from my own state of Texas):

"While some look to the Internet as an innovative vehicle for communication, the Court continues to warily and wearily view it largely as one large catalyst for rumor, innuendo, and misinformation.... Anyone can put anything on the Internet. No web-site is monitored for accuracy and nothing contained therein is under oath or even subject to independent verification absent underlying documentation. Moreover, the Court holds no illusions that hackers can adulterate the content on any web-site from any location at any time. For these reasons, any evidence procured off the Internet is adequate for almost nothing, even under the most liberal interpretations of the hearsay exception rules found in FED. R. EVID. 807". See St. Clair v. Johnny's Oyster & Shrimp, Inc., 76 F.Supp.2d 773, 774-75 (S.D. Tex. 1999)

jd

I wonder if there is any precedent for that? Courts usually have a tough time making such a leap from penal statutes which don't directly address a specific electronic infraction. Remember, too, that we would be dealing with 51 sets of criminal theft statutes, as well. Take Texas, for example. Compare statutory theft to statutory theft of services. Now, I think we all know that when these statutes were drafted that the authors did not envision spam as it didn't exist at the time of the drafting. There's just no way. The defense attorney would be able to convincingly argue that legislators did not envision these types of offenses and thus they are not covered under the statute. That is why this enterprise is so perilous when we attempt to argue by analogy (i.e. pursuing spammers under junk fax laws) or couch electronic offenses into the statutory language of pre-Internet penal statutes.

Remember, that some courts are still struggling with initial hurdles of authentication and admissibility [PDF] of electronic email and web data. My favorite such quip from a federal judge (from my own state of Texas):

"While some look to the Internet as an innovative vehicle for communication, the Court continues to warily and wearily view it largely as one large catalyst for rumor, innuendo, and misinformation.... Anyone can put anything on the Internet. No web-site is monitored for accuracy and nothing contained therein is under oath or even subject to independent verification absent underlying documentation. Moreover, the Court holds no illusions that hackers can adulterate the content on any web-site from any location at any time. For these reasons, any evidence procured off the Internet is adequate for almost nothing, even under the most liberal interpretations of the hearsay exception rules found in FED. R. EVID. 807". See St. Clair v. Johnny's Oyster & Shrimp, Inc., 76 F.Supp.2d 773, 774-75 (S.D. Tex. 1999)

jd

I think, as other posters have said, that custom built cars only have to meet basic safety requirements (lights, size restrictions, ability to drive and maneuver adequately) in the US.

Such requirements are probably largely state law in the US, and as I live in Texas, here is Texas' vehicle equipment requirements as an example. Some states, probably California, might be stricter, at least in the emissions requirements.

Already been done. From the Texas Penal Code:

TITLE 9. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER AND DECENCY
CHAPTER 42. DISORDERLY CONDUCT AND RELATED OFFENSES
42.01. Disorderly Conduct
(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:
(3) creates, by chemical means, a noxious and unreasonable odor in a public place;

OK, it's not really intended to prohibit "farting", but I always thought it was an amusing interpretation.

Finding a dark sky near you.

It looks like I-35 is roughly the dividing line between a much lighter East and generally darker West. Luckily, I live just west of said road, and can head further west to watch from the top of a big bald rock.

In the past, when a customer dialed 0 (for operator) to make a long distance call, the customer was asked which long distance company should carry the call. If the caller said, "It Doesn't Matter," he might be billed by that company, a client company of KTNT, on his next telephone bill. Or if the caller actually has "no preference," his call might be carried by an unknown long distance carrier because the operator used a random list to assign the carrier. Such calls can occur on any phone, but are most frequent with pay phone long distance calls.

...also intervened on behalf of its 46 companies which include the client companies named "I Don't Know;" "I Don't Care;" "It Doesn't Matter;" "Any One is Okay." and "Whatever."

Neighbors getting together for a neigborhood ISP! I'm still laughing. Jeez, here in the States, most neighbors don't even know each other's name, and, if they do, they probably can't stand each. Just take a look at the Relationship to Victim column in this Supplementary Homicide Report from Texas. I know this is a cynical attitude to take, and, luckily, this is not my situation. There's nothing better than standing on my neighbor's front lawn drinking can after can of cheap beer on a hot summer evening. But everyone on my block are AOLers. 8-(

1. You say: The record companies are not making that much in total, anyway. If cds didn't make money, these large corporations wouldn't be in the business, and they wouldn't be buying other record lables.

I never said they weren't making ANY money, or even that they weren't profitable. Perhaps you can actually read my post and the links I provided..

2. Saying 90% albums don't make a profit is no excuse for not paying artists. 90% of movies don't make money, but how come actors and directors get paid even if a movie flops? Of course the record companies are going to say that profits are slim, what do you expect them to say: "Yeah we made a lot of money off our releases this quarter, luckily our artists have shitty contracts."

Actually, artists DO get paid if the record makes money or not. Your point is just silly. Go do some research. Start here and learn a bit about recording contracts.

3. The analogy to supermarkets is incorrect, if I don't like the selection at a supermarket, I can shop at another one, anyone can set up a store to sell niche products.

You defeat your own point here. Anyone can set up a radio station to play niche music, and they do. Anyone with the kind of money to start a niche store can, that is... same point same argument. I agree!

Try the state level. For example Texas

I bet every State is now prohibited by its own laws from allowing MS to bid on software licensing terms...

This can vary, state by U.S. state, but seems to be the common standard. Apparently, Federal law allows this, at least according to this Texas DPS statement on the issue.

It regularly hires or promotes Scientologists into positions of management, and in most cases pays them well above normal salary for such positions.

In fact, the head of MHMR is either the first or second highest paid state employee in Texas (I forget.)

As a condition of employment at or above a certain level of management, employees are required to take one or more "ropes courses", which is promoted as a confidence/team-building class, but is in fact one of these screening/indoctrination courses operated by CoS.

This of course is illegal, and since it's being paid for by the state, it is redirecting state taxpayer money to CoS.

So Texas taxpayers have been unwittingly been funding the CoS for several years. Despite volumes of very concrete and damning evidence, the State Attorney General won't even discuss taking up a case.

I wonder how many other states or state agencies are in the same situation?

It's too bad I have to post this anonymously.

That is an excellent analogy. It would be interesting if the interpretation of a state's Good Samaritan law could be modified to account for things like this.

And, to be fair, it isn't just Shakespeare. Publishers will still do "Texas Only" editions of books. In fact, check out this portion of your state's penal code and scroll down about a third of the way and see what Texas officially defines as "obscene."

The professional engineering societies in Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia have developed criteria for registering Professional Engineers who specialize in Software Engineering.

Here is the PEO press release from this two-year old announcement.

I believe that the Texas Board of Professional Engineers is the only organization in the United States to create this designation, as of now.

Personally, I'm in the midst of my first term enrolled in the Software Engineering program at the University of Waterloo, here in Ontario. We are learning a combination of math, science, computer science, and engineering design principles. I am greatly enjoying it so far, although some days I wish I was in computer science (where they actually have first year electives). Two other universities in Ontario, McMaster and Ottawa, also have such a program up and running.

So although Professional Software Engineers are not commonplace today, the ball is rolling. This is a good thing in my heavily biased opinion and grossly unqualified opinion.

So, do you have another source for the quote, or should we just take your word for it?

Sadly, no. I heard this on television last fall, from his lips (remember his daddy's famous quote?). He did say it -- I remember it because I thought it was an amazing statement from a candidate for the Presidency. But I don't have it on video tape. And I, too, have only found this one reference on the web. I've considered paying the Houston Chronicle's registration fee to search their archives, but that could be a waste of money -- who knows if they have it? I may break down and pay it anyway. Naturally, the Texas Governor's Office doesn't have it on their web site.

If anyone can provide another reference, I'd greatly appreciate it. But he did say it.