Slashdot Mirror


Dept. of Homeland Security Enforces Expired Patent

Fouquet writes "Apparently the Department of Homeland Security does not have enough to do in keeping the US safe, and now is enforcing copyright law as well. The AP reports that a toy store owner in Oregon was requested by Homeland Security officials to remove a potentially copyright-infringing Rubik's cube-like toy from her shelves. The patent for Rubik's cube was issued in 1980, and so it is expired."

1,006 comments

  1. Fear of powers by fembots · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In normal cases, people will just consult a lawyer (the shop owner did call her supplier, later), or at least ask for supporting documents before they complied to requests from officials. For example, you tend to ask for a search warranty if someone wants to search your house.

    However with all the terrorism and patriotism nowdays, peasants can't afford to not cooperate, "just in case" you got blamed for being terrorist or unpatriotic.

    Next thing we know, IRS burst into a kindergarten arresting several 5-year-old's for not calculating and paying proper tax while playing Monopoly, just to protect the integrity of the economy and nation's financial systems. "If they can't do tax at age of 5, will you trust them to pay tax 20 years later?!"

    1. Re:Fear of powers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ask for a search warranty

      Been watching Trailer Park Boys lately?

    2. Re:Fear of powers by nomadic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In normal cases, people will just consult a lawyer (the shop owner did call her supplier, later), or at least ask for supporting documents before they complied to requests from officials. For example, you tend to ask for a search warranty if someone wants to search your house.

      I guess their justification is it was a crime in progress, in a public place, so they didn't need a warrant. What they should do is contact their local congressman and see if they can get him to yell at homeland security for this. Whatever else the average congressperson's deficiencies, they oftentimes are surprisingly good at intimidating bureaucrats, when they have the inclination.

    3. Re:Fear of powers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      These are US Customs agents. Customs agents enforce, among other things, import regulations against counterfiet goods.

      The Customs Service is now part of Homeland Security. Ergo, DHS agents were the ones who investigated this incident.

      (This is cut and pasted from below. It should be near the top... or in the summary)

    4. Re:Fear of powers by StikyPad · · Score: 4, Funny

      For example, you tend to ask for a search warranty if someone wants to search your house.

      My search warranties always seem to expire right before I really need them.

    5. Re:Fear of powers by TykeClone · · Score: 1

      Well - that takes all of the fun out of complaining about the DHS.

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    6. Re:Fear of powers by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even if that's true, and it's somehow OK for customs agents to enter a business to stop their selling an item without a judicial process, and even if they distributor is somehow wrong that they are legally selling this toy, does that really sound like the kind of activity we need Homeland Security doing, when they're supposed to be catching terrorists? While they're screaming about otherwise imaginary terrorist threats to the election? Or is it exactly the kind of unaccountable abuse of government power, without due process, that will be excruciatingly bad when they come for an accused "terrorist" in a store, with the same disregard for due process?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    7. Re:Fear of powers by rjkimble · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you do a little research on the web, you can find this page, which explains that such work is the
      responsibility of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, a part of the Department of Homeland Security. They received a trademark infringement complaint, and they followed up on the complaint. That's their job. Why are you getting your knickers in a bunch because some federal agents are doing their job? Nowhere does the inflammatory and poorly written article suggest that they accused the store owner of being a terrorist. Get a grip.

      --

      Guns don't kill people -- people kill people.
      But the guns seem to help a bit. (apologies to Eddie Izzard)
    8. Re:Fear of powers by vk2 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Will the congressperson help when the agents come for the second round with a terrorist assumption and taking you in with PATRIOT laws ?

      Well, I am not sure how much successful Osama (foxnews followers its Usama) and Saddam in spreading terror - but I definitely think that they have successfully brought their kind of governance into "the once free country".

      --
      No Sig for you.!
    9. Re:Fear of powers by dj245 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Under the new system, Customs and Immigration (These are two completely different organizations by the way, Customs handles Goods, Immigration handles People) agents are required to be trained to be capable of performing BOTH Customs duties and the duties of an Immigration officer. Each of these individially is a pile of knowledge about Immigration/Customs law, firearms training, etc, and while some of it is applicable to both, much of it is not.

      There is speculation that Customs and Immigration will be soon split into two separate entities again. This is a good thing because it means those agents will have more training for their area of expertise. The law that brought the combining seemed at the time as good as HP-Compaq, but in the end it seems that Customs and Immigration know what is best and should be separate entities.

      I bring this up only because the local new-hirees for Customs/Immigration (They call it Customs and Border Protection now) have pretty much no idea what they are doing, leaving the people about to retire wondering what kind of things will be let through the border once they are gone.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    10. Re:Fear of powers by bani · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why are you getting your knickers in a bunch because some federal agents are doing their job?

      Because they weren't doing their job. Their job was to determine the validity of the complaint, which they utterly failed to do. Hence, they failed to do their job.

      If anything, the infringer was the manufacturer -- not the retailer. They did not go after the manufacturer, they went after a retailer. Again, they failed in their duties.

    11. Re:Fear of powers by Walker2323 · · Score: 1

      Wow. You Americans are fucked, and I feel bad for you. Your government is taking away you freedoms one by one, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. Bush will steal this election and use the "win" as pretense to enact even more droconian laws. Run.

    12. Re:Fear of powers by waynelorentz · · Score: 1

      Thank you, AC, for setting the record straight.

      Article summaries like this are one of the reasons I seldom visit Slashdot anymore. I used to check it out a few times a day. Now it's a couple of times a week. Sometimes less.

      These days, the headlines and articles are full of fear-mongering, misrepresentations, and outright lies. It's like Jerry Springer or the Weekly World News is writing them.

      People here complain about the media sensationalizing stories for profit. Why blame a newspaper or TV, when I get all the bogus trumped-up stories I can ingest on the front page of Slashdot?

    13. Re:Fear of powers by rjkimble · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Wrong -- they were doing their job precisely the way they're supposed to do it. And maybe you should learn something about the law. Retailers are just as at fault when they sell infringing goods as are the folks who manufacture and import them.

      --

      Guns don't kill people -- people kill people.
      But the guns seem to help a bit. (apologies to Eddie Izzard)
    14. Re:Fear of powers by wo1verin3 · · Score: 1

      Another non-American here thanking god he doesn't live in the so-called 'Land of the free'. Don't things like this scare the hell out of you?

    15. Re:Fear of powers by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm pissed off because they stopped this seller from legitimate commerce, based on a complaint, without due process. Because the rest of their organization has similar powers, but a much broader scope of operations. And you would be, too, if you weren't looking for any excuse to let police abuse of power off the hook. You'll feel differently when some DHS division knocks on your door when you're alone.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    16. Re:Fear of powers by Walker2323 · · Score: 1

      Oh my god, that's terrifying. I'm supposed to go to the States next month and I'm actually a little wary to do so. Wtf?

    17. Re:Fear of powers by cammoblammo · · Score: 4, Funny
      Their job was to stop the sale of an illegal knockoff. They did so. Kudos.

      Your job is to read the article. You didn't do so, because if you did you'd know that no trademark was infringed, and the patent's already expired.

      Being /. though, this still earns you kudos, or at least karma.

      --

      Cogito, ergo sig.

    18. Re:Fear of powers by Krach42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ah, but has anyone noticed that the Slashdot article contains THREE DIFFERENT IP GROUPS in it?

      First, the title says "expired TRADEMARK", the article takes about the DHS enforcing COPYRIGHTS, then lastly it mentions that the PATENT for the rubik's cube is already expired.

      So, like... did anyone bother to go over this and at least make sure that the article was at least talking consistantly about the specific IP protection being applied here?

      --

      I am unamerican, and proud of it!
    19. Re:Fear of powers by mccoma · · Score: 1

      Customs has been doing this for years, it is nothing new. For some basic research look up the King Cobra knockoffs called King Snake.

    20. Re:Fear of powers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the way customs has always worked.

      If you carry something across the border or otherwise import it and Customs agents decide that it's illicit, then they will confiscate it.
      When you import something, the usual rules of due process don't fully apply. And you cross the border or are just near the border, the usual rules of privacy don't apply either. There is well established judicial precedent for this.

      They don't need a court order. They never have. You can go to court to (try to) get your stuff back. But it's not easy.

      Now, sure, this may be a bad way to handle customs... but it has nothing to do with terrorism, except that customs has been lumped into this patchwork Department of Homeland Security.

      For this you can blame Bush (for asking Congress to make said Dept.) or you can blame the Democrats (since Bush was actually against the idea until his opponents very effectively used this opposition to score political points off him.) Myself, I blame both.

    21. Re:Fear of powers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Wrong - they still blew it. And maybe you should learn something about the law. The trademark infringement complaint, according to the article, was invalid, and DHS failed to verify the complaint prior to scaring the crap out of the small-town toy shop lady.

    22. Re:Fear of powers by JeffTL · · Score: 1

      Customs isn't the part of DHS that handles terrorism -- they're the part that handles contraband like Rubik's Cube knockoffs. And Spanish hams.

    23. Re:Fear of powers by Yakko · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No one gives a shit when perception overrules fact.

      It's perceived that Homeland Security's job is to protect the nation from terrorists. That's how the administration billed the agency when it was created. Whether they have additional (or even completely different) duties or not is lost on about 99% of your audience.

      In any event, I think the government has too much time on its hands in some respects, and this incident highlights that.

      --

      --
      Me spell chucker work grate. Need grandma chicken.
    24. Re:Fear of powers by mrwonton · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So basically you're advocating that their job is to respond to a complaint by immediately forcing whoever the complaint is made upon to stop doing whatever was complained about? Thats an interesting approach. So if my competator sells a competing product line, I should file a complaint and have the Department of Homeland Security come shut them down without first performing even the most cursory research? Even if they were right, which in this case they obviously were NOT, they should be stopping infringing products well before they hit retail shelves.

      --
      Not more than you need, just more than you want
    25. Re:Fear of powers by querencia · · Score: 5, Informative

      Your job is to read the article. You didn't do so, because if you did you'd know that no trademark was infringed, and the patent's already expired.

      Which article did you read?

      The article said, "...Agents went to Pufferbelly based on a trademark infringement complaint...." So, this is a trademark issue -- the patent expiration is irrelevant. It also said, "A representative [of Magic Cube's manufacturer] told her that ... the Magic Cube did not infringe on the rival toy's trademark." Of course the manufacturer said that. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the owners of the trademark who filed the complaint obviously disagree.

      Please U[understand]TFA before you tell me to RTFA.

    26. Re:Fear of powers by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I noticed it, as did several other posters in these subthreads. It's obvious to any regular Slashdot readers that the "authors" who actually accept submitted stories for publishing apply some cryptic, personal and inconsistent criteria to the selection process, which does not include fact or consistency checking. At least it's not a dup' of another story from a few days ago, which seems fashionable around here.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    27. Re:Fear of powers by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      This store in Oregon did not import the toy, nor was it illegal. Only the intimidation power of "Department of Homeland Security" gave them any power in the situation, as is evident from the entire angle of the story.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    28. Re:Fear of powers by the_quark · · Score: 5, Informative
      Well, the patent's a total red herring, anyway, it has nothing to do with the raid. The government never said they were enforcing a patent, whether it's expired or not seems to have nothing to do with it.

      The only evidence the article presents that no trademark was infringed is "a representative" of the manufacturer, via hearsay testimony from the owner of the store, both of whom presumably have some interest in claiming not to be breaking the trademark.

      Unfortunately, the only evidence the article presents that a trademark was infringed was a spokesperson for DHS stating there was a complaint. There is a lot we don't know - it's quite possible the Magic Cube does infringe on Rubik's trademark. Contrary to the title of the /. article, it's not expired; they're running around suing people for violating it.


      But, beyond that, nowhere in the article does it say Rubik was the one complaining. People just jumped to that conclusion. There is a live trademark on "Magic Cube" for a "manipulative puzzle" filed in December, 2001 by Atico, International. It would seem reasonable to me that Toysmith's product violates this trademark. There is no information in the AP article to conclude "no trademark was infringed," in fact the reporter seems to have done no research at all but calling DHS and the toy store operator. It's a terribly done article that is mostly about how weird it is that the people who enforce trademarks now work for DHS. But that's hardly new or news.

    29. Re:Fear of powers by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      "We got a thousand points of light
      For the homeless man
      We got a kinder, gentler,
      Machine gun hand

      We got department stores
      and toilet paper
      Got styrofoam boxes
      for the ozone layer
      Got a man of the people,
      says keep hope alive
      Got fuel to burn,
      got roads to drive."

      - Neil Young, Keep On Rockin' in the Free World"

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    30. Re:Fear of powers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They didn't investigate. They ordered the goods be removed. How much investigation was there in that? If the government had bothered to check with the patent office or contacted the MANUFACTURER instead of harassing the a small time toy store owner, they would have found that out!

    31. Re:Fear of powers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      My dad told me that a few days ago Homeland Security officials visited his office. They walked up to my dad's secretary and asked to speak with the person in charge. However, when my dad came to speak with them, they told him that they would talk to his secretary first. They started asking her various questions about the operations of the company, and she told them that my dad would be the best person to talk to. Then they supposidly told her that they were only interested in speaking to American born U.S citizens. Hello? Heard of the 1st Amendment? The funny thing is that my dad's secretary was actually born in Poland and came to the U.S as a child, and my dad, a man of South Asian origin, has actually lived in the U.S longer than her. On the way out, they told my dad that they will "keep an eye" on business in a threatening tone. Too bad my dad's business is 100% legit. I don't know how long it will take Americans to realize that it is attitudes like this that cause people around the world to hate them.

    32. Re:Fear of powers by cammoblammo · · Score: 1

      Their job might be to stop the sale of illegal knock offs. But if we're talking about trademarks (as the OP seems to suggest, but it is a badly written piece of crap that lumps IP into one basket) it's up to the trademark owner to defend that trademark in a court of law and according to due process.

      Until then, it's not illegal. So my point stands.

      --

      Cogito, ergo sig.

    33. Re:Fear of powers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not about protecting from terrorism. It's about protecting the almighty dollar. If terrorism is gets handled in the same shot then all the better.

      Bomb a building, take a month to get a response.

      Fuck with money, get 2 agents to remove products from ONE stores shelves.

      That's the reasoning behind the visit. MEH....

    34. Re:Fear of powers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does import regulations against counterfiet goods relate in any way to this? The manufacturer is in Auburn, WA. There is no international border crossing between Washington and Oregon, just a big river with a few bridges over it. Furthermore, patents are supposed to be defended by the patent holder. No enforecement agency should be involved until ordered by the courts to actively enforce an injunction, which is generally a last recourse to be used only when a defendant refuses to acknowledge that they lost. Even if all that had already happened, the enforcement should be directed towards the manufacturer, who is only about 200 miles awayfrom the store, and apparently not being raided. I think the question is why did they choose this particular person to harass with some flimsy bullshit claim about patent enforcement that obviously won't stand to scrutiny? Did she check out the wrong book from the library? Maybe she used to date a customs agent or politician? Maybe she refused to date the same? Maybe she was video-taped attending an antiwar rally, or worse yet, helped to orchestrate one? I'd like to see a follow up to this where a really vicious lawyer with a long history of shredding the government on civil rights issues takes an interest.

    35. Re:Fear of powers by cgenman · · Score: 1

      Actually, as this is the good in question, and this is what it's supposed to be a counterfit of. It's pretty clear that US Customs shouldn't have gone anywhere near it. It's not a counterfit if it's not trying to pass as the original, like a Schwatz watch or a Glame Boy Advance. We're talking about the difference between a Rubik's Cube and a Magic Cube, where the term Cube can be accepted as descriptive and the packages don't match.

      They also sell metal springs, Chinese Finger Traps, and a whole host of other obviously counterfit products. Just look at that non-pogo brand pogo stick. Devaluing US trademarks by buying generic versions of toys that have been around for generations now... Won't she think of her country? She and those Safeway-brand cereal makers should be shot like the Jap terrorists they are. Did I say Jap? I meant the Arab terrorists. But it's not racist this time, because they are terrorists, the lousy lot of 'em.

    36. Re:Fear of powers by querencia · · Score: 1

      Man, you obviously got your legal education by reading slashdot.

      Read this. The Customs office was doing its job, plain and simple.

      You've tried "RTFA", and now your legal analysis. Want to try again?

    37. Re:Fear of powers by servognome · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Uh this is how it always works. If there is reasonable suspicion you stop the action until through due process things can be resolved.
      This is the same thing as arresting a person, then going through due process. You don't wait to have a trial before arresting somebody in a shooting. You arrest the person, arrange bond (to secure the person's appearance at trial) then go through the trial process.

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    38. Re:Fear of powers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      No one gives a shit when perception overrules fact.

      That has to be one of the most idiotic things I have ever had the misfortune to have read, and I read Slashdot a lot.

    39. Re:Fear of powers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds a lot like Big Brother for me... America who once was the land of the free is now becoming the land of the orwellian world.

    40. Re:Fear of powers by ajs318 · · Score: 4, Informative
      it was a crime in progress, in a public place
      Bzzzzzt! Wrong. It was in a shop, which is private property. Members of the public are admitted strictly by invitation of the rightful occupier -- and can be excluded for any reason they like.

      I don't know about US law, but in the UK, trespass goes from being a simple civil offence to a full-blown criminal offence once you start disrupting a lawful activity {Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 s.61, from memory}.
      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    41. Re:Fear of powers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is that everytime I read "Homeland Security" I think of "Motherland", "Fatherland" and all the fascist reasons and names used during the 20s, 30s and 40s to justify a police state?

      Why couldn't they come up with a friendlier name?

    42. Re:Fear of powers by Siriaan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Perhaps you'd like to point us to the trademark being infringed.

    43. Re:Fear of powers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The AP story said "the lead agent asked Cox whether she carried a toy called the Magic Cube, which he said was an illegal copy of the Rubik's Cube". Clearly the name isn't infringing the Rubik's Cube trademark, since it's distinctly different. We don't know whether there was a trade dress or other claim though. Which is part of the point: it's nice to tell people what they are supposed to have done wrong, specifically and accurately.

      Cached Copy of the toystore page showing the item. That doesn't look to me as though it's infringing anything I associate with the Rubik's Cube, other than the now unprotected puzzle itself.

      My own personal impression, based on the story and the press release you cited, is that the trademark holder is seeking to use the law to harass others for the purpose of stifling competition in the marketing of an item no longer covered by an expired patent.

      It would be interesting to know what the basis for the complaint was. Knowing that might cause me to change my current personal opinion.

    44. Re:Fear of powers by EJB · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Have you read the article on Yahoo news? I know it's not typical for Slashdot readers to do so before commenting, but I'm just asking.

      The Yahoo news article is consistent. "Immigration and Customs Enforcement" only claimed that they were protecting a trademark. The manufacturer of the Magic Cube _also_ claims that the patent on the Rubik's cube has expired, which is interesting but not very relevant.

      Only the Slashdot article submitter throws in the word "copyright", which is completely wrong and not relevant to the article. It's a bit sad that CowboyNeal didn't catch this before putting the article on Slashdot.

      - Erwin

    45. Re:Fear of powers by deke_kun · · Score: 2, Interesting

      because, quite simply, it IS a police state. I would find it quite interesting to see what happened if someone filed a trademark infringement complaint on the Jewish people (oh i dunno, pointy hats are trademarked by disney or some crap). Clearly homeland security dont investigate claims, they just kick down the door and start scaring people, so maybe making a blatant holocaust reference would make the point that the system is fascist.

    46. Re:Fear of powers by julesh · · Score: 1

      The question that has to be asked is - what trademark. Obviously not "Rubik's cube" because that's not what the product was called - it was called "magic cube". "Cube" perhaps?

    47. Re:Fear of powers by MeanSolutions · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Could be because whoever came up with the name "Homeland Security" has exceedingly poor imagination but rather a good grasp of history...

      --
      Swedish, but resident in the UK since 1996.
    48. Re:Fear of powers by MeanSolutions · · Score: 1

      Kristallnacht Mark 2 - here we come... *sigh*

      It is interesting that many from outside the USA has seen what is on the horizon for quite some time. It is also interesting that the people in the USA that has seen the same thing is being marginalised and ignored. Almost as if the majority of people in the USA is oblivious to what is happening, or they want it to happen.

      Oh well, when it happens it happens. I'll refrain from the age-old phrase of "I told you so" at the time.

      Might be that Bush has to be re-elected to make John Titor's predictions right. Time will tell :)

      --
      Swedish, but resident in the UK since 1996.
    49. Re:Fear of powers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Their job is to KNOW the law and enforce it. It is not their job to just harass people when someone else tells them they are breaking a law without checking to see if an actual law is being broken.

    50. Re:Fear of powers by querencia · · Score: 2, Informative

      Perhaps you'd like to point us to the trademark being infringed.

      Perhaps you'd like to look one post down.

    51. Re:Fear of powers by rjkimble · · Score: 5, Informative
      The trademark infringement complaint, according to the article, ....
      Sigh. I guess dealing with the caliber of typical posters on slashdot is a waste of time. The author of the article didn't even grasp the difference between patents and trademarks. On top of that, the source that denied the existence of trademark infringement was the distributo of the infringing goods. Hello????

      Of course, what else would you expect from the likes of an Associated Press reporter?

      A little research turns up the fact that not only has Seven Towns Limited trademarked Rubik and Rubik's Cube, they have trademarked its appearance. You might want to check out this, this, and this before continuing your sophistry. Realizing that one might actually have to search a bit on the last referenced page to find the relevant commentary, I'll post it here:

      March 2004

      Section: 7th Circuit.

      Gary Ropski was quoted in the March, 2004 publication of Corporate Legal Times in an article discussing the Seven Towns v. Hazco lawsuit concerning the Rubik's Cube. Mr. Ropski, counsel for Seven Towns, commented on Hazco saying that, "they know how valuable the Rubik's Cube trademark and trade dress are because they tried to get a license from Seven Towns to use it. . . After being refused permission, they used it anyway." He continued by saying, "The U.S. Patent and Trademark Association granted Seven Towns a trademark for the appearance of the Rubik's Cube. It's a violation of federal law to infringe that trademark by making a product that's confusingly similar."
      So it turns out that the Customs agents knew their job and were doing their job, just as I stated. I'm sorry if you don't like the facts.
      --

      Guns don't kill people -- people kill people.
      But the guns seem to help a bit. (apologies to Eddie Izzard)
    52. Re:Fear of powers by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Members of the public are admitted strictly by invitation of the rightful occupier -- and can be excluded for any reason they like.

      No, they can't be.

      Since you admitted you don't know anything about USA laws, why did you go and invent a lie about them?

    53. Re:Fear of powers by rjkimble · · Score: 5, Informative
      No. I'm advocating that they do their job, which they did. It turns out that Seven Towns Limited has a trademark on the terms "Rubik" and "Rubik's Cube" as well as on the appearance of the Rubik's cube. So the "Magic Cube" mentioned in the story was probably infringing on the appearance trademark. A little research reveals that Seven Towns had already won a lawsuit over this very issue. It's highly likely that the Customs agents had all the relevant information they needed to take their course of action.

      I think you are the one who needs to do some cursory research before jumping to inaccurate conclusions and flaming professionals who are competently performing their jobs.

      --

      Guns don't kill people -- people kill people.
      But the guns seem to help a bit. (apologies to Eddie Izzard)
    54. Re:Fear of powers by Weezul · · Score: 1

      Alright, your correction seems valid, but it still sounds like these things were legal to sell (although an investigation is reasonable).

      More importantly, it strikes me that being the "department of homeland security" ought to make you worry about "homeland security," not customs issues. Perhaps it was a mistake to move customs into homeland security at all? Or perhaps homeland security is an overbroad concept, and theere should just be one little "department of potential terrirism analysis" which runs simulations, and makes suggestions to other more traditional departments. Heck, they could even smuggle things themselves, just to prove their point.

      --
      The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
    55. Re:Fear of powers by Kryos · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, they can. I usd to own a store, and specifically had a lawyer look up the relevant laws because I was having trouble with a disruptive "patron" coming in frequently.

      --
      Now everybody's equal, just don't measure it. -Bad Religion
    56. Re:Fear of powers by farmhick · · Score: 1

      "successful Osama (foxnews followers its Usama) "

      I'm not sure which way you are saying it is supposed to be spelled. But I bet neither one is on his birth certificate.

      Kinda like Chairman Mao. Is his name Tse Tong, Tse Tung, Zedong, or something else? Not to mention the leader of Libya, and the Italian who sailed to the Carribean.

      --
      I have to stop wasting so much time reading Slashdot. It's interfering with my crystal meth addiction.
    57. Re:Fear of powers by rjkimble · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm sure they KNOW the law far better than you. And I'm sure they DID check to see that an actual law was being broken. You might want to read my other responses for my rationale. I don't want to waste my time typing everything in here as well.

      --

      Guns don't kill people -- people kill people.
      But the guns seem to help a bit. (apologies to Eddie Izzard)
    58. Re:Fear of powers by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      US laws are generally based on UK laws pre-1776. There's a saying, "an Englishman's home is his castle", which goes back to long before then {and note, it's your home by virtue of you living there, not by virtue of owning the building or the land it stands on -- an absentee landlord requires the consent of a (rightful) tenant before visiting the property}.

      Since shopkeepers in the UK have enjoyed the right to exclude any person for any reason since before 1776, it's entirely reasonable to suppose that right also applies transatlantically. What post-1776 legislation are you referring to that changes this? Chapter and verse, please.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    59. Re:Fear of powers by Ztream · · Score: 1

      Geez. I mean, I know the journalistic standards of /. are laughable, but the fact that this story is still on the front page and hasn't been pulled is just embarrassing. I can only assume that the editors don't read the comments, in addition to not reading the article.

    60. Re:Fear of powers by Jaysyn · · Score: 2, Informative

      But it wasn't an infringing product, so they didn't do their job properly.

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    61. Re:Fear of powers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wronmg Wrong Wrong, ur so fucking dumb, it just aint funny.

    62. Re:Fear of powers by arkanes · · Score: 1

      Try excluding someone from your shop because he's black and see how far that gets you. Or because he's disabled. The incorrect part is the "for any reason whatsoever". A shop is obviously NOT a home or a purely private residence, it's open to the general public and exclusion is the exception and not the norm, and there's a different standard than there would be for your house.

    63. Re:Fear of powers by arkanes · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I'm not disagreeing here, and I think the article is a load of hogwash, but I think that assuming that law enforcement is "doing the right thing" and acting within the law because they (presumably) know it better than you is a silly and dangerous basis for your assumptions.

      In this specific case I tend to agree, granted. I'm just taking issue with the general tone of your comment.

    64. Re:Fear of powers by kin242 · · Score: 1

      Romania had a department of Homeland Security... they called it the Securitate. They controlled 'free speech', security, pretty much everything after a while. And Who did they answer to? Only George Bush... ooops sorry Nicolae Ceausescu...

      --
      kin242.net
    65. Re:Fear of powers by say · · Score: 1

      You can trademark appearance. The magic cube kinda looks like the Rubik's, don't you think?

      --
      Roses are #FF0000, violets are #0000FF, all my base are belong to you
    66. Re:Fear of powers by say · · Score: 1

      Appearance can be trademarked.

      --
      Roses are #FF0000, violets are #0000FF, all my base are belong to you
    67. Re:Fear of powers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This post isn't insightful, it's a rant.

    68. Re:Fear of powers by SlamMan · · Score: 2, Informative

      The way it was explained to me by a judge I know, is that you can exclude (same goes for firing, btw) someone for good reason. You can exclude someone for NO reason. But you can't exclude some one for a bad reason.

      You can tell a customer to get out because you feel like it. You can tell a customer to leave because they're causing a disturbance. But you can't throw a customer out because you dislike their wheelchair.

      --
      Mod point free since 2001
    69. Re:Fear of powers by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      I do wonder how valid a trademark on the appearance of the product is... but I guess that issue got settled a logn time ago(and I don't know, but would bet it had to do with the appearance of coca cola bottles)

      At any rate, I'd say that at best the appearance is aan expression and coudl be copyrightable.

    70. Re:Fear of powers by nosleep_tolkachi · · Score: 1

      Is there a response from the US governemnt? I would not be surprised if the two "Agents" that walked into this backwater village store were just two teen age pranksters. The rubics cube even sounds suspicious enough to match up with the authority defying hacker persona (http://www.paulgraham.com/gba.html).

    71. Re:Fear of powers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the case of Mao, no one of the above spellings is more 'correct' than any other, as his name, in its original form, is written in a non-phonetic language (Chinese characters are pictographic). Any representation of his name written in English will, therefore, simply be a phonetic spelling.

      There are usually canonical translations between any two phonetic written languages (e.g., Japanese romajii), but translation between a pictographic language and a phonetic language is largely subjective.

    72. Re:Fear of powers by raju1kabir · · Score: 1
      I guess their justification is it was a crime in progress, in a public place, so they didn't need a warrant.

      I would have expected the alleged crime that DHS was going after was the importation of the toys. That was already over and done with by the time the gestapo showed up at the shop.

      --
      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
    73. Re:Fear of powers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You demonstrate an amazing ignorance and lack of understanding what this guy just said. Customs is just a PART of Homeland Security. It wasn't HS enforcing the law it was US Customs doing what they've always done.

      As far as the rest of your post you sound like a member of the Militia ;)

    74. Re:Fear of powers by uberdave · · Score: 1

      ... or maybe a good imagination but a poor grasp of history.

    75. Re:Fear of powers by julesh · · Score: 1

      Not if it is dictated by the function of the object, it can't. And I'd say that almost all aspects of the rubik's cube's appearance are functional.

    76. Re:Fear of powers by danheskett · · Score: 1

      My aunt and uncle were at a ballgame in the late 1980's, and came up with a novell type of umbrella that would be useful in such a circumstance.

      They spec'd one out, did some market research, hired an advertising firm - everyone though it was a neat idea. They filed for patent protection, and hired an attorney to pursue the patent and move it along all the way. They went to the regional sporting goods places, got them to sign on for so many units. They went up the entire east coast had a huge number of orders. They left an occasional sample item with some big potential customers.

      They ordered and recieved the items, had them in a warehouse, and started having them shipped. Maybe 5 months from inception to execution. By the time they got to the clients, a Malayasian company had gotten their hands on a sample, made a knockoff, and poached every single order.

      The items were imported improperly, but had already hit the "streets". The items in question were *exactly* identical in every manner, right down to the hinges used and the size of the stiches and the design and weight and dimensions. They sold them at a massive discount relative to the domestically produced items.

      The bottom line was that my uncle and his wife had 250,000 umbrellas in a wharehouse that - even if sold at cost - were a big financial loser. Sure, they had a agreements with vendors, but, are they going to go up and down the country with a band of lawyers suing 500 distributors for $2000 a piece? Each case would take more than that in legal fees.

      After a few months everything fell apart for them, and their main-line business fell apart due to financial constraints. The result? 20-30 good quality jobs down the drain.

      In any event, I think the government has too much time on its hands in some respects, and this incident highlights that.
      Enforcing trade regulations is perhaps one of the truest, most age-old, most fundamental duties of government.

    77. Re:Fear of powers by agentk · · Score: 1

      This is the problem -- one of the many knee jerk reactions to 911 was to throw money & beurocracy at "the war on terrorism". Now HS includes a million and one previously seperate depertments, and the activities of one (Tradmark "investigation" by Customs) is conflate with that phantom "war on terror".

      Because of this the agents were able to intimidte the shop owner into removing her proudcts from the shelves because they ha HS badges. This is not cool. They can tell her that they have recieve the complaint, but they cannot force her to remove them until it has been proven. The correct thing or them to have done would be to sue or charge the distributor or manufacturer. (Except in the unlikely case that the Magic Cube is manufacture overseas an the store is the only party in the US importing them).

      --

      VOS/Interreality project: www.interreality.org

    78. Re:Fear of powers by swv3752 · · Score: 1

      In practice it means you can exclude healthy straight non-old males. Anyone else you better be arresting them for theft or they need to be causing an extreme disturbance.

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    79. Re:Fear of powers by Fallen_Knight · · Score: 1

      Your telling me a company has a trademark on the APPEARANCE of a damn cube?! now WTF is with that??

      i can see trademarks on names, MAYBE even slogans. But the appearance of a cube?! Thats just going to far.

      Laws and lawyers are going to be the fall of mankind.

    80. Re:Fear of powers by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Rubik and Rubik's Cube, they have trademarked its appearance
      This is the point where we throw our hands in the air and cry "Only in America! Where the streets are made of cheese!"

      Self destruction by silly IP laws now aided by a special department with extralegal powers? Industry happens elsewhere, and now it looks like innovation will have to happen elsewhere too - and you can't fund a country on subsidised agriculture an entertainment industry that doesn't pay tax and defense industries that consume tax.

    81. Re:Fear of powers by swv3752 · · Score: 1

      WTF? How do you get away with trademarking a cube? Thank goodness Ford didn't trademark the appearance of his car, else we would all still be driving model T's.

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    82. Re:Fear of powers by kikta · · Score: 4, Funny
      There is a live trademark... for a "manipulative puzzle"


      So they've trademarked my girlfriend's personality?
    83. Re:Fear of powers by Jameth · · Score: 2, Informative

      Some quick Google research revealed that the Rubik's Cube has colors of: Green, Blue, Orange, Yellow, White, and Red, all in as close to pure tones as possible. By contrast, the Magic Cube (http://shop.store.yahoo.com/opg/magiccube.html) has colors that are off-tones. Only three sides are visible in the image, and they are Fuschia, Teal, and Yellow.

      Although the yellow overlaps with that in the Rubik's Cube (even if a few shades darker) the other colors are definitely different. Although the Magic Cube resembles the Rubik's Cube, they are clearly different in appearance. Seeing as having differently-colored sides is required for the Rubik's Cube to be functional, there is no way I can see that this trademark is reasonable.

    84. Re:Fear of powers by SlamMan · · Score: 1

      Not at all. Just make sure its a group of people you punt out. Include a token white guy.

      Good use for a stock boy, actually.

      --
      Mod point free since 2001
    85. Re:Fear of powers by AstroDrabb · · Score: 1
      In practice it means you can exclude healthy straight non-old males.
      A minor, but important correction:
      In practice it means you can exclude healthy straight non-old white males.
      Exclude a healthy, straight non-old white male for any reason and you should be in the clear. Exclude a healthy, straight non-old black male, and you can be in a world of trouble. Heck exclude anyone that is not a healthy, straight non-old white male and the |race|age|sex|-ism card is pulled from the deck.
      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    86. Re:Fear of powers by Kazrath · · Score: 0

      Isn't that sad though. You have to do an obviously racist move to not appear racist. Well its not racist if you boot a white guy. BAAAH!!! This whole racist crap has to stop.

    87. Re:Fear of powers by stanmann · · Score: 1

      Guess what, if it crosses STATE lines or enters USPS control it has been imported AND can be subject to customs control.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    88. Re:Fear of powers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excuse me, but is this a troll? This case isn't similar in any way to your anecdote, since the patent expired years ago. The patent mentioned in your case should have been enforced, sure, but that's not what this is about.

    89. Re:Fear of powers by ajs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      [The manufacturer defended themselves ...] Of course the manufacturer said that.

      Ah, you must be from outside the United States. It's easy to misunderstand US law with respect to burden of proof, since TV and movies that we export so often make it seem as if the burden is on the accused. It's not.

      This should have happened this way:

      * Complained filed with H.S.
      * H.S. refers it to either FBI or the state's A.G.
      * FBI or A.G. issues a warning or:
      * FBI or A.G. takes retailer to court or:
      * FBI or A.G. refers the matter to the owner of the trademark as a civil matter.

      There's no excuse for the way this played out.

    90. Re:Fear of powers by benhocking · · Score: 1
      In any event, I think the government has too much time on its hands in some respects, and this incident highlights that.

      Actually, I think this suggests that the government doesn't have enough time on its hands (or is using its time inefficiently). The agents went the quick (and dirty) path of assuming that the allegations were valid, when presumably (taking the article at face value) it would have been easy to demonstrate that they were not.

      Of course, even if the complaints were valid, it seems like they were heavy-handed in their approach. A letter to the retailer explaining the scenario and requesting their compliance should have been sufficient (had the complaint been valid).

      --
      Ben Hocking
      Need a professional organizer?
    91. Re:Fear of powers by bcarl314 · · Score: 1

      Seven Towns Limited has a trademark on the terms "Rubik" and "Rubik's Cube" as well as on the appearance of the Rubik's cube.

      Wait a sec... are you saying that ST-TNG can be sued because of the Borg? I mean really, a cube is a cube. So what's so unique about the "appearance"? The fact that is has a different color on each side? The fact that is has 9 smaller squares on each side?

      I'm going to go and patent the "appearance" of a Pyramid, oh wait prior art there (Egypt), perhaps the sphere, nope prior art there (Earth). I know, the icosahedron!

      Don't mean to troll, but the "appearance" patent sounds awfully flaky to me.

    92. Re:Fear of powers by CaptainFlyingToaster · · Score: 1

      There are many DHS agencies that have a tangental role at best when it comes to "Catching Terrorists". FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency doesn't catch JACK - they pick up the pieces afterward. Several former Department of Agriculture organizations are now in DHS; while surveillance of the food supply for signs of bioterrorism is certainly one of their job functions, it's certainly not what they do all day.

      An org chart can be downloaded here:
      http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interweb/asset library /DHS_Org_Chart.ppt
      Why they did it as a single-slide PPT is beyond me... Fuckin' Feds...

    93. Re:Fear of powers by GrenDel+Fuego · · Score: 1

      Not if it is dictated by the function of the object, it can't. And I'd say that almost all aspects of the rubik's cube's appearance are functional.

      Not necessarily. The point of a rubix cube is to allign the matching sides. Ob the rubix cube the sides match based on particular colors. A competing toy could match on pictures or color patterns.

      Here's a photo of the magic cube. Is it just me, or is the color scheme even the same? I've done a bit of quick searching for rubix cube photos, and the colors seem pretty damn close.

    94. Re:Fear of powers by gr8_phk · · Score: 1

      The Fine Article indicates that the product is made in Washington. What does Customs have to do with that? Why not go after the manufacturer instead of this little toy store?

    95. Re:Fear of powers by sjames · · Score: 1

      More importantly, it strikes me that being the "department of homeland security" ought to make you worry about "homeland security," not customs issues.

      Like most government agencies, it is already expanding it's domain. The primary function of any government agency is to maintain it's own existance by any means necessary. Actually accomplishing it's mission and serving the public are purely secondary.

      Be assured that in the event that the homeland ever becomes secure enough that the need for the agency is in question, littering will be defined (by the agency) as a terrorist act.

    96. Re:Fear of powers by strictfoo · · Score: 1

      In practice it means you can exclude healthy straight non-old males

      healthy straight white non-old males

      Otherwise you're clearly racist against <insert "minority" group here>

      --
      I've just signed legislation that'll outlaw Russia forever. We'll begin bombing in five minutes.
    97. Re:Fear of powers by CaptainFrito · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The Department of [Whatever] marching in and "requesting" that someone do something or not do something 'just in case' is itself a form terrorism, by definition. People are genuinely afraid of what might happen if they don't fully comply, regardless of morality or legality. Many suppose that by 'going along to get along', they'll be rewarded with special favor.

      This is exactly what you get when you trade freedom and liberty for the illusion of security. Security is always a future risk issue, and only a fool thinks the future is can be controlled by people. Of course there are general precautions, but history has shown that the most effective methods are simply to treat your neighbor as yourself, then only the profoundly selfish, sadistic and crazed are at issue. In which case, you're sunk anyway.

      For example, why not empower the State to do daily inspections of every single home to root out 'terrorist cells'? Of course, if this were to be undertaken some "cells" would be found, but the proven reliable sociological effect would yield only the sadistic domination by the very 'security' people responsible for the enforcing the policy. And from the evidence I've seen this behavior cannot be predicted by any level of psychological screening. It's a matter of flawed human nature. And the effect is seen in less than a week, so for all those who think this is slow and unusual and is easily managed, you're simply wrong -- the effect propagates through all echelons of such organizations and is quite thorough and complete.

      For those of you following along with the true issues involved, liberty has been redefined by Presidential decree three times in the last 50 years (see EO13083, et al). Of course, the US consitution itself hasn't been changed, but the dictionary used to decode it sure has.

    98. Re:Fear of powers by SlamMan · · Score: 1

      But its good for the economy. You're providing a job for a white high school kid to come in on call and get thrown out. Everybody wins!

      </sarcasm>

      --
      Mod point free since 2001
    99. Re:Fear of powers by Steve525 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What you say is probably true, about why the agents were there. However, let's imagine the story going a little differently...

      Agents from the "US Trademark Enforcement" office call up this same lady asking that the toy be removed. The lady would probably answer back: "What are you nuts? Go get a court order. Or at least talk to the manufacturer of the toy first; I only sell the things".

      So the real issue isn't that the agents weren't doing their job. The issue is that trademark enforcement apparently now falls under the juristiction the Department of Homeland Security. The agents can threaten this store owner and get their way without due process. All they need to do is mention which department they are with and hint that they might somehow invoke the terrorism card (which there is almost no defense against).

    100. Re:Fear of powers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bzzzzzt! Wrong. It was in a shop, which is private property. Members of the public are admitted strictly by invitation of the rightful occupier -- and can be excluded for any reason they like.

      Bzzzzzzt! Wrong. A shopkeeper cannot exclude members of the public because of their race, sex (except in very well-defined circumstances) or disability.

    101. Re:Fear of powers by Proteus · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Heck exclude anyone that is not a healthy, straight non-old white male and the |race|age|sex|-ism card is pulled from the deck.
      And promptly returned to the deck when your lawyer demonstrates that there have been many racial minorities, women, old and young people, and sexual minorities that have not been excluded.

      I'll be the first to say that discrimination lawsuits often go to far, but the reality is that many more are quickly dismissed as groundless. The problem is the media loves to report "Corp X is being sued for ejecting a black woman", but doesn't bother to mention that "the suit against Corp X is being dismissed because the woman was ejected for causing a disturbance, and Corp X even has a black female board member."

      Learn to see through the hype, and check out the reality. There are cases where someone wins over a dumb claim like this, but it's usually overturned on appeal.
      --
      We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
    102. Re:Fear of powers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you're close and the gist of what you're saying is correct, ie there is no cannonical transliteration from Chinese to English as each tranliteration system has certain historical and political implications so nobody can finalize on one.
      However, the linguistic term "pictographic" is inappropriate for Chinese. Linguists refer to written Chinese as an ideographic language. The difference is subtle, but there is a difference. As the prefixes would suggest, pictographic is used for languages where picture-like symbols more or less directly represent objects. While there are many stories about Chinese characters that seem to fit this model there is no systematic rhyme or reason to the patterns by which you could usefully decipther their meaning, besides which the characters are typically used in combinations that further confuse their direct representation of images. So, this type of written language is not called pictographic, like Egyptian heiroglyphics, it is called iceographic which means that the characters suggest certain classes of ideas rather than direct one-to-one representations of objects.

    103. Re:Fear of powers by AstroDrabb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I do hope you are correct. I have heard far too many cases like you mention, though as you point out the media usually just gives the fact that "Corp X ejected a black|old|gay man|women" without givng the reason. It is one of the reason I don't watch the news any more.

      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    104. Re:Fear of powers by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      I'm curious...is trademark violation a civil or criminal offense? (No, I really don't know, though my guess is civil)

      If it's a civil offense, what are federal law enforcement doing in the picture? This should be handled through the civil courts with no need for government intervention (unless the court order is ignored, which doesn't appear to tbe the case here).

      Finally, what is the purpose of raiding a retail establishment which is not financially connected to the manufacturer? Shouldn't the enforecement action, if any, be brought directly to the manufacturer, which is the infringing party, with the manufacturer requiring recalls of the infringing toy?

      I hate to say it, but this smells a bit. Rival toy store owner? Former angry business partner turned whistle-blower? There is precious little detail in the article.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    105. Re:Fear of powers by RailRide · · Score: 1
      I found out a few years ago that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority of New York has a trademark on the appearance of a typical New York City subway car, of all things.

      I found out after I left my e-mail address in a flyer informing interested MTA employees that one of the companies currently making O-gauge electric trains, (MTH) was going to release models of NYC subways. I subsequently got an e-mail from the senior assistant counsel of the MTA that basically said "You know, you require permission from us to make such things. Provide proof of permission or explain why you don't think you need it.". I phoned him the next day and that's when I found out about the trademark. Of course, I was in the clear since I was only publicising the product of a company that I had only the most tenuous connection to, but a similar letter had already been sent directly to the company in any event. (BTW, this was long before 9/11)

      I already knew their route designation symbols (single-digit numbers or letters superimposed on colored circles or diamonds) were trademarked, but a trademark on the subway trains themselves was new to me.

      ---PCJ

    106. Re:Fear of powers by PatHMV · · Score: 1

      Like most government agencies, it is already expanding it's domain.

      That's just not right. When the Department of Homeland Security was created, it didn't take on any new agents or anything. It was composed ENTIRELY of pre-existing government agencies such as the INS (Immigration & Naturalization Service), the Coast Guard, and yes, CUSTOMS. Policing against the importation of counterfeit goods and knock-offs has always been part of the responsibility of the Customs department. Moving it to DHS didn't fundamentally change any of its already existing jobs. So there is no "mission creep" as you allege.

    107. Re:Fear of powers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My impression is that yes, you can trademark appearance - but you cannot trademark functional components. So you could probably trademark the specific combination of colors of a Rubik's Cube. And my impression from prior comments is that the colors of the Magic Cube are entirely different than those of the Rubik's Cube. "kinda looks like" just isn't good enough.

      I think the bigger issue here (and it's hard to tell from the sketchy article) is, where's the court order saying to take the items off the shelf? I'd like to think that the company filing the complaint would need to prove their case in a court of law before interfering with competitors' activity.

    108. Re:Fear of powers by avdp · · Score: 1

      It's not just the cube shape that's part of the trademark. It's the colors, the number of segments, etc. This knockoff could probably have not broken the trademark if they have varied the design a little bit more.

    109. Re:Fear of powers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it doesn't say that the agents mentioned anything about trademark. According to the article, they said it was an "illegal copy" of Rubik's Cube. The manufacturer, as you noted, said that it infringes neither patents nor trademarks.

      I wonder if the store was selling them as Rubik's Cubes. Maybe she had a sign reading "Rubik's Cubes -- $3.99" or something like that. Granted, that's not what the agents said, according to the article, but it could have inspired the initial complaint, which the agents perhaps misunderstood. They dropped the ball either way, but this explanation would sort of make sense.

    110. Re:Fear of powers by RodRandom · · Score: 1

      Not in my shop!!

    111. Re:Fear of powers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US code TITLE 42, CHAPTER 21, SUBCHAPTER II, 2000a

    112. Re:Fear of powers by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Your dad should tell that story to a local newspaper (one with some dignity). If he prefers, I can connect him with a producer at a national TV newsdesk here in NYC. If it's happening to him, of course it's happening to many others across the country. Many Jews in 1930s Germany were too embarassed at being singled out, in exactly these same circumstances, to even tell each other. Before long, the momentum had built, and it was too late. His secretary might have heard about it from her parents - it's a consuming nightmare that first feels like it's only you, but then it turns out to be much worse - then it's too late. These crimes can't stand the light of day, until they've been perpetrated enough that people accept them as "normal". He should protect himself, and use, by using this event against them before they've revised our reality to absolute fascism.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    113. Re:Fear of powers by maomoondog · · Score: 1

      This isn't about two agents doing their job, it's an about an agency setting its priorities, and about legislators placing the proper restraints on a new and untested security agency. Your rhetoric about the poor hardworking agents is irrelevant.

      My question for someone who knows is: even if this was a legitimate trademark infringement, why wasn't this a job for a lawsuit? A court injunction to stop selling something is one thing, but just sending out a couple of agents whose professional opinion is that you might be breaking trademark? Hell, is there a phone number I can call to get homeland security agents to order my competitors around without proving anything to a judge?

    114. Re:Fear of powers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Customs (at least the office in LA) are *not happy about it*. I was in the LA office about 2 years ago, and one of the agents was on the phone telling someone what a waste of time, resources, etc merging into DHS was, and how Customs would be far less efficient having to answer to yet another new hierarchy, as if they weren't buried anough as it was, ... I really wondered who was on the other half of the conversation - just someone who called up for some information and got a slashdot-style harrangue?

    115. Re:Fear of powers by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      This wasn't a shooting, and any suspicion was unreasonable - the toys were legit. You're apologizing for the abuse of power by the Department of Homeland Security. This "gotta break some eggs to make an omlette" apathy is killing the country.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    116. Re:Fear of powers by abb3w · · Score: 1
      In practice it means you can exclude healthy straight non-old males. Anyone else you better be arresting them for theft or they need to be causing an extreme disturbance.

      Personal enemies are also generally acceptable-- people you have met elsewhere, gotten to know by name, and learned hate their guts.

      When I was working in a (hellish) restaurant as a manager, I tossed out (amoung many others) at various separate times an ex-girlfreind, the guy an ex-GF rudely dumped me for, and a despised former coworker from another job, telling them they should feel free to come back when someone else was working, but I didn't want to deal with them. Mostly I just threw out those making an extreme disturbance, but these are a few of the people on this planet who I can remain neither calm nor civil to while talking with them for more than 30 seconds.

      The ex-GF and the guy both had the sense to leave, but the ex-coworker claimed it was because I was racist and sexist, necessitating calling the cops. Coincidentally, the cop who showed up was also a black female. I pointed out the two other black female customers in the store, smilingly (teeth clenched) explained that I didn't care that she was black, didn't care that she was female, but did care that she was both personally known to me and in my opinion an asshole (and several other choice terms), that I didn't care to put up with her, and that she was welcome to come back any time that I wasn't the manager, but I wanted her gone lest I lose my temper.

      The cop was happy to help. The twit left screaming about suing me and the store... but she never did. She eventually ended up effectively banned from the store, as various other managers (including the two black women managers) got pissed at her and also kicked her out as an asshole. =)

      --
      //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
    117. Re:Fear of powers by julesh · · Score: 1

      A competing toy could match on pictures or color patterns.

      That would make it more difficult. I have seen some cubes that have this (they have a picture on each side that you have to match together), and always thought that looked too tricky.

      Is it just me, or is the color scheme even the same?

      Does look it. And it's even got the 70's rounded edges on the colour stickers. OK, they've copied the physical appearance which might (or might not) count as a trademark violation.

      Of course, to stop anyone selling them, you'd need to get an injunction against them. That's the way the system works.

    118. Re:Fear of powers by robertjw · · Score: 1

      Enforcing trade regulations is perhaps one of the truest, most age-old, most fundamental duties of government.

      Looks to me like your post should be an argument for LESS government involvment. Not only did the government NOT fulfill their duty to your aunt and uncle in your story, but they could have lowered their costs, made it to market more quickly and potentially made money if it wasn't for the government red tape.

      It appears that your case, and the Rubik's cube case are prime examples of what's wrong with the government. It would have required work and effort to actually pursue a patent violation by a Malaysian company, plus the damage was already done. OTOH it's quite easy to harrass some poor shop owner about a toy that enjoyed brief notoriety 25 years ago who have probably already made millions off of the toy.

    119. Re:Fear of powers by morleron · · Score: 1

      I think that this is an example of the increasing trend in the US for rule by men instead of rule by law. The Bush Administration has done an excellent job of convincing Americans that it's more important to be "safe" than it is to be free. Anyone who questions the basic assumptions of the President (who has never made a mistake, BTW) is now automatically assumed to be at least unpatriotic, if not an active abettor of terrorism. I'm afraid that electing John Kerry won't make much of a change as he has been mostly silent on issues relating to civil liberties in this country. It may be getting close to time to water the "Tree of Liberty," again.

      Just my $.02,
      Ron

      --
      Impeach Barack Obama for violating the Constitutional requirement to be a "natural born" citizen to hold the office of P
    120. Re:Fear of powers by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      No. But as long as the reason given is not related to race, sex or disability, then it's valid. Point is, being on someone else's property is a privilege not a right. If you are a shopkeeper, and a black woman in a wheelchair is annoying you, and the cause of the annoyance is nothing to do with her blackness, her femininity nor her disability, you can quite legally kick her out. That's what 42 USC 21, II, 2000a seems to say, anyway; referring as it does to "discrimination ..... on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin". Discrimination on other grounds is not mentioned.

      I don't know whether "innocent until proven guilty" still applies in the USA; but if that was the case, it would be up to the ejectee and her legal representatives to prove that you discriminated on one of the proscribed grounds and not some other reason.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    121. Re:Fear of powers by kkovach · · Score: 1

      I'm betting it was this guy who is behind this whole Rubik's Cube thing! Get him DHS!

      - Kevin

      --
      The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act.
    122. Re:Fear of powers by geg81 · · Score: 1

      If an agency is called "Department of Homeland Security", with lots of powers to act arbitrarily and cause people a great deal of trouble without any judicial review, then it is prudent that that agency only deal with terrorism enforcement. Trademark enforcement should be handled by other agencies with fewer powers to avoid any sort of abuse of power.

    123. Re:Fear of powers by serutan · · Score: 1

      ... professionals who are competently performing their jobs.

      Oh come on. Even the USPTO doesn't go out on their own initiative enforcing trademarks. Infringement claims are a civil matter between the trademark holder and the accused infringer, and are resolved by negotiation or in court, not by a passing government agent who sees a window display. Protecting the public from the dangers of trademark infringement at the local retail level has nothing to do with Homeland Security.

      There has to be more to this story than we know from this article. It probably boils down to the misbehavior of a particular Homeland Security employee, for reasons we could only guess at. But it's definitely not a case of "professionals who are competently performing their jobs."

    124. Re:Fear of powers by geg81 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I see: so Seven Towns manages to abuse the trademark system to extend patent protection on something that should be in the public domain by now, these bogus trademarks get enforced by an agency with special powers granted to it to handle terrorist threats whose mere appearance on someone's doorsteps sends shivers down their spine, and you seem to think that's all just the way it should be. Yes, I think lots of people don't like those facts, and you shouldn't like them either.

    125. Re:Fear of powers by JamieF · · Score: 1

      > The Department of [Whatever] marching in and "requesting" that someone do something or not do >something 'just in case' is itself a form terrorism, by definition.

      Maybe by your overly broad definition, but not by the definition that others use. Your definition of terrorism is apparently "anything scary". 5 year old on your porch on Sunday says "boo gimmie candy"... terrorist. Cop pulls you over but gives you a warning... terrorist.

      Look it up. Most definitions of terrorism include unlawful use of force or violence. Even in a free society (unless you've redefined that to mean anarchy), the people authorize certain governmental bodies to use force and/or violence. What's important is that we severely limit the legal authority that governments have, so that when they do knock down and cuff (or even shoot) a suspect, they have a damn good reason for it.

      The problem starts when the limits on authority are relaxed, and suddenly nobody is even allowed to audit the use of force by government. That's the problem we have now - secrecy that makes it impossible to check for abuses of authority (and possibly to prove that recent expansions of authority are more trouble than they're worth).

    126. Re:Fear of powers by the_quark · · Score: 1

      Only if she's named "Magic Cube." :p

    127. Re:Fear of powers by servognome · · Score: 1

      The article said the patent expired, but that the investigation was about trademark violation. The two have nothing to do with each other. The article is entirely slanted with its presentation of facts
      As others point out, these were customs officials, just because they fall under DHS doesn't mean this is terrorist related accusation, its customs doing their job.
      I did not see any conclusions in the story about the validity of the trademark claim. Just that her supplier told her that they weren't infringing (what do you expect them to say?) I just did a quick search and found a live Trademark #76351080 "Magic Cube" word mark that falls under G[oods] & S[ervices]: Manipulative puzzles. It is possible there is a legitimate trademark claim
      From the story, the agents didn't shut the store down, they asked to removed the suspected item from the shelves. I don't think that is excessive.
      The "goverment is always evil and wrong" attitude is killing the country. Be wary of goverment, but don't spout out wild claims until all the evidence is in.

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    128. Re:Fear of powers by servognome · · Score: 1

      Could also be infringment on the "Magic Cube" word mark which is live.

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    129. Re:Fear of powers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'O' and 'U' transliterate the same vowel in Arabic. It's why we get words like "Moslem" and "Muslim". The problem with "Usama" is that people will pronounce it "you-sama" when it's actually closer to "uh-sama". Thus do we spell it 'Osama'.

      "Tse Tung" comes from the same Latinization that gave us "Peking" instead of "Beijing". Zedong is probably closer to how chinese actually pronounce it (chinese doesnt have a lot of hard consonants).

      Qadafi. At least started with a 'q' anyway ... the commonly accepted latin letter for that Arabic consonant is a Q these days. Think "chutzpah", but a tad closer to 'k'.

      It does give the DHS fits to try to match all these latinizations. They don't even spell them consistently in Arabic!

    130. Re:Fear of powers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > So if my competator sells a competing product line, I should file a complaint and have the Department of Homeland Security come shut them down without first performing even the most cursory research?

      Yes. Happens all the damn time. It's supposedly a serious crime to knowingly make a false report, but any decent lawyer could weasel you out of that.

    131. Re:Fear of powers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget Protestant

    132. Re:Fear of powers by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Anonymous apologist Coward:

      " Virginia Kice, a spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said agents went to Pufferbelly"

      "the manufacturer of the Magic Cube, the Toysmith Group, which is based in Auburn, Wash"

      There is no "Immigration and Customs" border between Washington and Oregon. This outrage is about abuse of power. And you sound like a Good Apologist German Coward - nothing to see here, they're just sausage factories...

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    133. Re:Fear of powers by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      And they apparently have an even more "tangential" role in enforcing IP law - these toys were legit, and not even imported. More like a "secant" role, or more properly "can't see".

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    134. Re:Fear of powers by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      No, terrorism is political control of people by fear. That's what this toystore episode is - intimidation by an unaccountable agency of the government, enforcement through fear, rather than any due process of law. When the government intimidates people to control them, that's very obviously political control of people by fear. Terrorism isn't limited to "fringe" groups - ask the Peronistas of Argentina, or Pinochet of Chile, or Germans who survived their local flavor, or Soviets... We have come a long way down to be in their arena today.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    135. Re:Fear of powers by spiritraveller · · Score: 1

      It definitely has different colors than the original Rubik's Cube. It uses more flourescent type colors... but it's possible that the Rubik's Cube company put out a variation that looked like this one.

      If the shape and colors of the item are exactly the same, it's probably a trademark violation. You can make a baseball hat that functions the same as a Red Sox hat. But if it looks the same, then you are violating their trademark. Same thing with a Rubik's Cube.

      But I agree they should have to prove it in court first.

      Are they any law students out there who can do a Lexis search for Toysmith and see if they've been sued for trademark infringement by the Rubik's Cube company?

    136. Re:Fear of powers by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Guess again - states are PART OF THE USA. That's not importation, it's a fundamendal part of USA commerce, as specified in the Constitution.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    137. Re:Fear of powers by Raven_Stark · · Score: 1

      Law enforcement is a bitch. When I was a kid, one morning, a neighbor built a fence across our driveway. We called the cops on the guy rather than deal with him face to face because he was a drunk and liked to point guns at people. The cops refused to stop him and told my father he would be arrested if he took down the fence. It didn't matter that the driveway had been there for several decades nor that we showed the cop our land survey which clearely showed we were in the right. It didn't matter one bit that we had to cut through another neighbor's yard to get to our house. Nope, dumbass cop just doin' his job.

      IIRC it cost well over $5,000 to resolve the issue in court despite having title insurance. Despite half a dozen re-surveys of the land that showed the driveway was ours, we never did get back the land our neighbor stole. Instead, we were forced to purchase about 1/4 acre of our neighbor's land. Why? It's called the good old boy network--the criminal was friends with those in power.

      This is just one of many reasons I don't like to give government power.

      --
      http://www.marxist.com/
    138. Re:Fear of powers by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I had a "Magic Cube" in the 1980s, a Rubik's Cube clone that was probably in violation of their patent. That trademark to which you linked cites prior art only in 1998, so it's probably invalid. (BTW, the PTO website session has, of course, expired - and you're supposed to "log out" to release their antiquated resources.) So this is an example of accusations, probably by a competitor somewhere in the supply chain, interfering with material commerce. The "due process" requires an injunction from a judge to prevent such abuses. And the effect of "Homeland Security" agents scaring the vendor doesn't end with just this abuse of due process and commerce. It also discredits DHS, both for making the "mistake", and for confusing Americans into thinking these petty commerce screwups reflect on the Department's counterterror mission. It probably does, and they're probably right to be afraid of both sides of the coin.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    139. Re:Fear of powers by stanmann · · Score: 1

      Yup, interstate commmerce which is regulated by the US customs service. :) Bonus points for knowing that the constitution was the source of authority here.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    140. Re:Fear of powers by PostScience · · Score: 1
      Don't know if I'm responding to a clever troll, but I'll take my chances...

      Regardless of whether there was or wasn't a violation of trademark, shouldn't these sort of trademark disputes be handled in the courts? Why doesn't Rubik's Cube go after the manufacturer in court, if they have such a great case, according to you.

      Or maybe SCO should call the department of Homeland Security and have them take down your Linux box. I'm sure you can find several websites that claim that Linux infringes on SCO's copyrights. So it has to be true, right?

      That's why we have courts, to sort this stuff out.

    141. Re:Fear of powers by notbob · · Score: 0

      You must be new here....
      but thats ok...

      Slashdot editors do not and will not comprehend and article before posting.

      And if you see the number of dupes fall to almost nill that doesn't mean their editting better it means they're all on vacation and Cmdr Taco is stuck working... oh wait no he'll dupe himself in a day too...

      oh well don't forget when in doubt the right answer is:

      "natalie portman covered in hot grits"

      -Old school slashdot :D

    142. Re:Fear of powers by haruchai · · Score: 1

      One wonders about your own knowledge of US laws. Many laws are not universal - in the state of Nevada, a casino is free to bar or expel ANY patron for ANY reason. Violation of this ban is subject to charges of criminal trespassing.

      This does NOT apply in Atlantic City.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    143. Re:Fear of powers by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I haven't found any legal definition of Customs Service jurisdiction that defines "import" to mean anything but "brought from a foreign country". Educate me.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    144. Re:Fear of powers by foooo · · Score: 1

      You are indeed correct here. The person responding to your original post is totally wrong.

      There are two key issues about how this law is applied in the US.

      1) Constitutionally derived freedom of association.

      While not specifically mentioned in the US Constitution the freedom of association is derived from the 1st and 14th ammendments. (http://fact.trib.com/1st.association.html)

      This freedom of association is essentially the right of citizens to associate (and also *not* associate) with whomever they choose.

      Businesses are *not* public entities, either in the literal physical way or in the more figurative organizational way. Legally a business is simply an association of people.

      2) Regulations

      This is the part where specific laws constrain the behaviors of businesses. I believe these constraints to be largely unconstitutional but the Supreme Court doesn't... so what can you do. These laws include the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabillities Act and many other regulations regarding hiring, business practices, tax law and a seemly endless stream of other things.

      This being said... aside from any other constraints... a business is free to provide or deny service to anyone for any reason.

    145. Re:Fear of powers by vpetersen · · Score: 1

      You write:

      They ordered and recieved the items, had them in a warehouse, and started having them shipped. Maybe 5 months from inception to execution. By the time they got to the clients, a Malayasian company had gotten their hands on a sample, made a knockoff, and poached every single order.

      I write:

      Your company should have made either a separate agreement or a part of the same contract that they won't sell, promote, export, straight-copy your designs or make any similar devices of this kind, to make them available in North America and Europe, and if they do copy and sell them back in China, for example, they are not putting your trademarks and not using the company name and the style and color schemes do not look the same, the shape is different. It works very well for us - we only compete w/North American companies - mostly Targus, Logitech, MS, Belkin, in few narrow niches with each of them. The picture is clear which means we can be flexible and reacting well to the the market trends, and planning for the future is much easier, then if we had 20+ players to compete with. All it takes is one more clause in the agreement/contract.

      Disclaimer: I'm a technician, not a marketroid/salesdroid.

    146. Re:Fear of powers by danheskett · · Score: 1

      All it takes is one more clause in the agreement/contract
      Except you have to enforce it if the agreement is broken. When you are small, and have 1000 vendors, what are you going to do, file a thousand lawsuits, each for a few grand a piece (or less)?

    147. Re:Fear of powers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Posting anonymous, because I am a contractor at US Customs and Border Protection, a bureau of the Dept of Homeland Security.

      The US Customs Service has always been in the business of trademark enforcement. Part of their role is seizing counterfit goods (designer purses, jeans, anything else imported). This is not new.

      I won't defend them for enforcing an expired patent... That just sounds like a fuck up.

    148. Re:Fear of powers by querencia · · Score: 1
      Ah, you must be from the United States. One of those guys who watches Law & Order and thinks that they have received a legal education.

      It should have happened exactly the way that it happened.

      See this:

      In certain countries, including the United States, it is also possible to deposit a local trademark registration with the local customs authorities, who will conduct spot checks of imported goods to make sure that the imported goods bearing the trademark are authorized. If unauthorized uses of a registered trademark are discovered, the products will be confiscated and the trademark owner will be notified, following which, within a short period of time, the trademark owner may bring action against the infringing goods.
    149. Re:Fear of powers by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

      Here's what I don't understand...

      The Department of Homeland Security zeros in some some dude selling knockoff rubix cubes, but fails to notice every mall has one of those carts where people selling those cheap plastic video game controllers stuff fulled on unlicenced roms???

      WTF is up with that?

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    150. Re:Fear of powers by ajs · · Score: 1

      Couple of points. If you're not from outside the states, I appologized for my assumption, it just seemed logical given your statements. No need to be rude.

      Second I misunderstood this to be an internal-to-the-states issue, but even still customs does go through local (or at least federal) law enforcement when dealing with items that are already past the import stage, no? Certainly where these items were on shelves, I just don't see how they had the jurisdiction to walk in and yank them.

      PS: Never saw Law & Order, but if you're a fan and want to suggest some episodes, I'm sure I can download them from an oversees server ;-)

    151. Re:Fear of powers by querencia · · Score: 1

      Sorry for sounding rude, but the only way to understand the law is to actually read the law. Federal Customs agents (here, "local customs" means the local office of the federal division) have jurisdiction over imports. If your store imported a counterfeit Gucci purse, or Rolex watch, or Rubicks Cube, Customs can come and get it.

    152. Re:Fear of powers by vpetersen · · Score: 1

      That's why there are customs and other governmental institutions that will assist and ban the offending products on the port of entry and even impose fine that will prevent the rip-off business overseas from doing any trade here whatsoever unless paid. Have you ever heard of a container with 1 ton of fake Rolexes intercepted and stopped from the distribution, or a shipment of fake adidas snickers, or boxes of disks w/pirated software from East Europe - they typically don't even reach the DCs, let alone retail sales. You don't need to be a part of Fortune500 with lots of polical weight to throw around (although it helps), just have the document signed by both of you about not disclosing the trade secrets and not to sell it here locally. Act timely - it should work. If you're a 5 men operation, yes, it's more difficult but entirely possible, the main problem being expensive trade consultants and attorneys. Local (NA) patent can also help the product from you only sold in your country. My take on the situation is that the company were not prepared to protect itself properly, likely due to lack of resources or slow thinking. The copycats can copy it over there in China but not export it to the countries where your market is. There are hundreds of situations and I can't guarantee this approach works for all but generally there are trade laws that could have helped the umbrella guys have they been prepared *before* feces hit the proverbial blowing device.

    153. Re:Fear of powers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Authors? Actually, you mean editors. Except that they don't actually *EDIT* much of anything (you know, like spellcheck things--for crying out loud, they only need to do this for the ones they actually accept, that CANNOT be very hard). And hell, I've learned more about IP law than the editors by now, apparently, because the FIRST thing I thought when I saw the article was what they were smoking to post something as incoherent as that, when we don't even know what sort of IP it's alleged that they infringed when it's clear that it's not all three.

    154. Re:Fear of powers by servognome · · Score: 1

      I had a "Magic Cube" in the 1980s, a Rubik's Cube clone that was probably in violation of their patent. That trademark to which you linked cites prior art only in 1998, so it's probably invalid.
      It isn't necessarily invalid. I ran across a couple of "Magic Cube" Trademarks in the "puzzle games" category since 1980. (sorry about the link) Seems like that trademark has been claimed, then allowed to expire a couple of times (first one cited 1979). Since it is legal to claim an expired trademark, it is possible the one in 1998 is legit.
      The "due process" requires an injunction from a judge to prevent such abuses.
      What is to say they didn't get an injuction? I didn't see anything in the article either way.
      And the effect of "Homeland Security" agents scaring the vendor doesn't end with just this abuse of due process and commerce.
      It's not as if they came in ransacked the place searching for the toy. Or brought a truck and impounded everything in the store. They came in, asked her about the toy, then asked her to remove it from the shelf due to trademark accusation. The article didn't even say if the agents secured the toys as evidence. Nothing in the article indicates that there was any malicious use of power, the owner overreacted.
      I can't claim knowledge either way on the legitimacy of the case. I am just saying that this appears to be more an overreaction by the store owner than abuse of goverment power. If the author of the article wanted to show DHS abuses, I'm sure there are far worse examples (treatment of immigrants, foreigners, citizens with "suspect" surnames,etc).

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    155. Re:Fear of powers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually by the time you see the search warrant you are face down on the ground with your hands cuffed behind you. You got there because when they knock your down down, point a revolver in you face, and yell "ON THE FLOOR NOW" it seems like the best course of action.

    156. Re:Fear of powers by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      No, they're called "authors" in the Slashdot system (explicitly in the abysmal "search" interface). More evidence that the system has grown way beyond original plans and architectures. Slashdot really is its Slashdotters. The /. editors/authors (submission vetters, really) should at least be skipping dup' stories, as only they have the info to do so, and a simple filter for their queue (eg. on matching URLs) would save a lot of grief. Instead, they're a mystery cabal complete with some lamers.

      I'd like to read Slashdot through a proxy that filters dup's, with the homepage selected by a mod layer from the entire queue. Web service interface...

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    157. Re:Fear of powers by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      As far as we know, there was no injunction. That would certainly be relevant to the story. We also don't know that the toystore wasn't actually harboring terrorists - but we have no evidence to believe that, either. So we can quit trying to apologize for transgressions of due process by inventing imaginary loopholes in the story. Your own logic argues against an agenda by the Oregon reporter - they're just telling this particular story as they uncovered it.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    158. Re:Fear of powers by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      The person responding to your original post is totally wrong.

      Nope. I'm right, he's wrong, and you're wrong too (for supporting him).

      An AC has already answered, so I'll just copy her link.

      If it were possible to exclude people from your business for "any reason", then you could exclude all blacks, asians, and Irish... and that will land you in major legal trouble. You might recall that in 1965 the National Guard enforced against arbitrary exclusion...

      Businesses are *not* public entities, either in the literal physical way or in the more figurative organizational way.

      Wrong. Many businesses are public- including all those that accept uninvited customers walking in off the street, which includes most shops. Also, all restaurants, gasoline stations, and movie theaters are explicitly labelled as public entities.

      If you want to have a restaraunt which is NOT a public entity, then you must define it as a private club, which means maintaining a membership list of allowed customers.

      This is the part where specific laws constrain the behaviors of businesses. I believe these constraints to be largely unconstitutional but the Supreme Court doesn't... so what can you do.

      So, you knew you were wrong the whole time, and yet you still claimed I was wrong?? Just because you think yourself a better jurist than the USA Supreme Court, doesn't mean you can spread falsehoods about the current state of USA law.

    159. Re:Fear of powers by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      What post-1776 legislation are you referring to that changes this? Chapter and verse, please.

      There are others, but this is the most prominent.

    160. Re:Fear of powers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Customs agents? They identified themselves as department of homeland security agents.

      Why are you so eager to defend the threatening behavior of government agents without due process of law?

    161. Re:Fear of powers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That the DHS is now seeming to enforce IP law, and that without due process of law, is still a story no matter what disagreement over violation may exist in the mind of the readers (including you). Due process is the bedrock of the U.S. legal system. When it is violated the system becomes meaningless. And, separately, the DHS should be acting to protect homeland security, not ordering store owners to take allegedly-IP-infringing toys off their shelves.

    162. Re:Fear of powers by rjkimble · · Score: 1
      I'm just taking issue with the general tone of your comment.
      Huh? My comment was not directed at you. It was directed at the AC to whom I responded. My tone was quite appropriate to his comment.
      --

      Guns don't kill people -- people kill people.
      But the guns seem to help a bit. (apologies to Eddie Izzard)
    163. Re:Fear of powers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Wronmg Wrong Wrong, ur so fucking dumb, it just aint funny.
      Wow! What an amazingly literate comment -- short and incisive. Good spelling, too. I don't think there's any more to say about this.
    164. Re:Fear of powers by foooo · · Score: 1

      I'm merely stating that I believe that the civil rights act and other such laws are actually unconstitutional.

      However... You are *still* mistaken as to what the legal definition of "public" is. A public place is something like a park, government building or the sidewalk.

      A business is a private place and any transactions or goings on that occur on that property are negotiated at the free will of both involved parties. For example I believe the ban on smoking in bars in California and New York to be unconstitutional. If you don't like being subjected to smoke in a bar... leave. It's as simple as that. Nobody is forcing you to be there.

      The difference being.. you have no choice if you have to go to court... or walk on a sidewalk or play in a park that you paid for.

      I *do* think I am *better* than a jurist on the US Supreme Court. Most notably because they consider themselves beholden to bad judgements made by past jurists and even lesser courts. I just analyze the Constitution in reference to my own personal beliefs and the intent of the founders.

      At any rate... barring any other constraining regulations the natural state of things is for a business to be private and can include or exclude people for any reason.

      Those other contraining regulations include the ADA and the civil rights act.

      If you enjoy those regulations so much... try to get them put into the constitution. =)

      It's these kind of comments from people that really piss me off~ I can hardly believe what a fucked up job our education system is doing with civics and political science.

      -foooo

    165. Re:Fear of powers by servognome · · Score: 1

      So we can quit trying to apologize for transgressions of due process by inventing imaginary loopholes in the story
      You seem to be the one inventing things. Lets see, odds that there was an injunction >> odds she was harboring terrorists. This obviously was an inflamatory off the cuff story. The mentioning of the expired patent is meaningless, the inference that this was terrorist related because customs falls under DHS was ridiculous, and the whole conversation between the store owner and the supplier had no importance. No furhter investigation about injunctions, who filed the complaint, etc. It's poor journalism
      I'm not apologizing for transgressions, the problem is the factually empty report doesn't point either way. DHS has had numerous and more horrendous transgretions especially towards immigrants and foreign visitors. And they've done far worse things than asking "Ma'am could you take the toy off the shelf."
      I just don't jump to the conclusion that a trademark infringement investigation = outrageous misuse of power when there is no evidence.

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    166. Re:Fear of powers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny thing is, the N.A.A.C.P. is having its 501-C3 status "investigated" by the IRS (at the behest of who?) for questioning the current regime.

      And we thought that the Clinton administration getting the FBI to poke around into some personal files was bad...

    167. Re:Fear of powers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      . I just analyze the Constitution in reference to my own personal beliefs and the intent of the founders. ...in other words, you are just as full of shit as the rest of us who post our opinions on Slashdot (and "talk" radio, and editorials, etc.).

    168. Re:Fear of powers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that is what you should do, before they do it to you.

      On an international scale, it is called "appealing to the WTO". You concoct your complaint that your competitor is getting some sort of unfair governmental subsidy, regulation or kickback that makes it more difficult for you to "fairly" compete in their country.

      But then you need to work to buy off the regulators in that country as well, so that they "see your side of the story", also, so that it takes away that country's willingness to fight the cause vigorously in the court.

      Canadian, Brazilian and Australian Wheat Boards. Australia and New Zealand sheep and wool industry groups.

      Oh well, the US's actions against farmers are good for agribusiness, I suppose.

    169. Re:Fear of powers by EJB · · Score: 1

      Learn to read: " Virginia Kice, a spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said agents went to Pufferbelly based on a trademark infringement complaint filed in the agency's intellectual property rights center in Washington, D.C."

      The agents weren't wrong. The complaint could be that the cube itself (it's looks, design) infringed on the trademark, insofar that it even looked almost like a copy of the original rubik's cube.

      Just because the word "copy" is used doesn't mean that it has anything to do with trademarks.

    170. Re:Fear of powers by EJB · · Score: 1

      Correction:

      Just because the word "copy" is used doesn't mean that it has anything to do with copyrights.

    171. Re:Fear of powers by sjames · · Score: 1

      DHS is somewhat unique in that it's mission (as declared to the public) was in the process of creeping before it was even fully established. That is unless we believe that the evil undefinable terrorists plan to destroy the U.S. by exporting cheap consumer goods that violate trademarks and patents to us.

      If we DO believe that, why hasn't the administration declared China, South Korea, and Taiwan to be terrorist states?

    172. Re:Fear of powers by Spunk · · Score: 1

      Well, if HS's whole job was "catching terrorists", you'd be right. But what does it really mean, "Securing the Homeland"? Border controls would fall into this, and therefore customs.

      I'm not gonna argue about this particular case (I didn't RTFA) but Homeland Security is a mix of a lot of different things.

    173. Re:Fear of powers by swv3752 · · Score: 1

      I meant to put in white but, that is what you get for not previewing.

      However, many places will bend over backwards to avoid upsetting minorities just because of discrimantion lawsuites.

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    174. Re:Fear of powers by prattboy · · Score: 1

      Oh come on. No one on slashdot has a girlfriend.

    175. Re:Fear of powers by elegie · · Score: 1

      Next thing we know, IRS burst into a kindergarten arresting several 5-year-old's for not calculating and paying proper tax while playing Monopoly, just to protect the integrity of the economy and nation's financial systems. "If they can't do tax at age of 5, will you trust them to pay tax 20 years later?!"

      Businesses can be required to have permits, and there was a case where this was applied to a kid with a lemonade stand. It is likely that the rules were not meant to cover such a situation, and most kids probably do not know or care about such issues. As it was, a neighbor reported the stand because she was having problems with the kid's parent. See also these comments.

    176. Re:Fear of powers by tricorn · · Score: 1

      Except the businesses are there by the grace of the community. Why shouldn't the community have the right to determine which businesses have the right to the limited amount of space available? After all, if the business doesn't like it, they can just go somewhere else, right?

    177. Re:Fear of powers by danila · · Score: 1

      If you do a little research at this site or another one here, you will realise that anything can be declared job of a secret police organisation in a totalitarian country. Ergo, anything that the agents do, including assassinating dissidents, planting explosives, selling weapons to fanatics, raping women, torturing children and killing puppies, absolutely anything is "just their job". Heck, the guards in Buchenwald were "just doing their job" too.

      This doesn't change the fact that some jobs are abominable and the government that assigns such jobs is detestable and outright scary.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    178. Re:Fear of powers by danila · · Score: 1

      I was not aware that this is now the procedure for civil cases. Nor was I aware that trademark violation is a criminal offence now...

      As far as I am aware, when your trademark is violated, you can file a lawsuit and wait for the court to decide the case. If the court decides that the toys should be removed from the store even before the case is resolved, so be it, but in no way it is legal for some men in black to arrive in your store and demand to remove certain products. This is abuse of power and all good Americans should oppose this... or just practice bending over and .... with a broomstick, because you will need this skill quite often, it seems.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    179. Re:Fear of powers by foooo · · Score: 1

      They do have that right. They either patronize the business or not. If the community at large chooses not to go there then it'll go out of business.

      =)

      Thus the "invisible hand" takes care of that particular problem.

    180. Re:Fear of powers by rjkimble · · Score: 1
      Even the USPTO doesn't go out on their own initiative enforcing trademarks.
      No duh. That's not their job. However, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, a part of the Department of Homeland Security, does have the job of preventing the importation and sale of goods that do infringe trademarks.
      Protecting the public from the dangers of trademark infringement at the local retail level has nothing to do with Homeland Security.
      Maybe not. Maybe you should write your congressman and senator and ask them why they structured our federal police forces that way. However, that's what they did, and the folks who work at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection still have to perform their duties, whether or not they're part of the Department of Homeland Security.
      But it's definitely not a case of "professionals who are competently performing their jobs."
      Wrong.
      --

      Guns don't kill people -- people kill people.
      But the guns seem to help a bit. (apologies to Eddie Izzard)
    181. Re:Fear of powers by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      However... You are *still* mistaken as to what the legal definition of "public" is.

      No. Once again, you're the one that's still wrong. There are laws that specifically call out certain business categories as "public", restaurants and theaters amoung them.

      barring any other constraining regulations the natural state of things is for a business to be private and can include or exclude people for any reason.

      And barring the force of gravity, I can jump over the moon.

      You're still wrong; you cannot "Legally exclude someone from your business for any reason at all". If you're making statements that only apply in nonexistant fantasylands called "natural state", then please qualify remarks that will otherwise be nonsensical.

      If you enjoy those regulations so much... try to get them put into the constitution.

      That's a meaningless comment. Just see the 10th amendment.

      I can hardly believe what a fucked up job our education system is doing with civics and political science.

      Said the guy who thinks he's got a

    182. Re:Fear of powers by foooo · · Score: 1

      Go read the federalist papers, they were written by the same people that wrote our US constitution. After reading that incredibly thorough commentary on why things were worded the way they were I don't think you could come away with your continuing misunderstanding of the words "Public" and "Private" in relation to your Rights, the law, and the Constitution.

      Think about how you would discuss types of economies, socialism, communism or free market capitalism. In communism there is no private business. It's all owned by the state. In a pure free market system there is no public business.

      Yes I know that some laws refer to any place where the general populace is allowed as "public". It is exactly that mind set that allows us to force ridiculous amounts of regulation on businesses.

      So go, educate yourself. Learn what the founders intended and what the "Marshall Court" and FDR did to subvert the nature of our government into the pseudo-socialist system that we have today.

      FDR had most of his "ABC" programs struck down by the court until he "stacked" it.

      (I only use the "pseudo" because I'm implying that most people think we're still living in a free market economy.)

      You may like the way it is now... and that's fine, but until you have a correct understanding of how our country started and the consequences of the incredible changes that have taken place... I don't think you're in any condition to have a fair intellectual argument with me about the nature of the Constitution.

    183. Re:Fear of powers by foooo · · Score: 1

      Naw, I'm implying that I actually have spent a good deal of time studying the Constitution. During the course of this study I have had to "throw off" some of my old ideas about the nature of government. I've learned over the years the amount of tripe that was shoveled into my head by our public schools in the US. Especially concerning the nature of government.

      If you want to know what I know, go back... read the full text of the US Constitution and *then* read the Federalist Papers. It's a pretty huge collection of commentary on why certian wording or specific concepts were used in the constitution.

      Then take a close look at American constitutional history... specifically in reference to the FDR presidency and his initial failed attempts to start the "ABC" programs. Those were originally struck down by the Supreme Court. Until FDR did some really crazy restructuring of the court... I was totally shocked when I learned about it.

      I wonder if ACs get notified that I replied to their message.

    184. Re:Fear of powers by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1
      I don't think you're in any condition to have a fair intellectual argument with me about the nature of the Constitution.

      Correct. I have no magical ability to imbue you with common sense, or even to force you to address the topic at hand, instead of going of on your pet peeves.

      Nonetheless, for the benefit of any other readers who may get the impression you've won some argument, here's a quick attempt to correct just one of your misconceptions:
      1. You claim that California's prohibition on smoking in bars is an unconstitutional violation of freedom of assembly. Am I right?
      2. The Constituion mentions "freedom of assembly" in Amendment 1, which states "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the right of the people peacefully to assemble".
      3. The Constitution also contains Amendment 10, stating "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states"
      4. Therefore, the Californian ban on smoking is perfectly Constitutional, since the state is exercising a right reserved to it; Congress has made no law on that subject, since of course, the smoking thing isn't federal after all.

      If you couldn't work that out for yourself, then who is it who needs more study before qualifying to discuss constitutionality?
    185. Re:Fear of powers by foooo · · Score: 1

      My contention is that the ADA and the Civil Rights Act are unconstitutional. Because they interfere with two principles:
      1) Amendment 10
      2) Freedom of Association which is based off of amendments 1 and 14 and is well established even in very early supreme court judicial review.

      California and New York have made laws that are morally wrong, but not unconstitutional. IE I think that government in general is getting too big and intrusive so I am making a moral judgement that the anti-smoking legislation is wrong.

      My comments about the "natural state" go to the fact that a lot of people assume that highly regulated business is the the norm, or how things should be. My view is that the natural state of any transaction between two (or more) citizens should not be regulated, with the exception being protection against obvious lawsuits.

      For the moment let's say that there are two main types of laws. Those that protect people from each other and those that protect people from themselves. This is a simplistic view... but I'm using it to illustrate the fact that I'm against *all* laws that protect people from themselves and I'm against *many* laws that protect people from each other at the expense of *every* citizen's liberty.

      The founding fathers had a notion of balance between anarchy and extreme government control of everything. My view is that we have been and continue to head towards extreme government control of everything. I would love to see the pendulum swing the other direction a little.

    186. Re:Fear of powers by Krach42 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I know... I just thought I'd Karma whore some by stating the obvious closer to the top than the last time it was mentioned...

      --

      I am unamerican, and proud of it!
  2. Well if this is true... by MrRTFM · · Score: 1, Insightful

    (and it isnt just thugs from a competing toy chain), then we should be pretty nervous.

    I was going to go for a first post, but now I am too scared to try!

    --
    You can't expect to wield supreme executive power, just because some watery tart threw a sword at you
    1. Re:Well if this is true... by kumachan · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it was the terrorists who called Homeland Security. They might be taking advantage of the govt to do their terrorism for them.

  3. NO NO NO by wirwzd · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now this is one overlord I DO NOT welcome.....

    --
    ZZ
    1. Re:NO NO NO by wirwzd · · Score: 1

      Wow, 5 minutes and no knock at the do

      --
      ZZ
  4. And why are you people voting for Bush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    After he created one of the largest unneccessary beuracracies in the history of the US?

    Suuuuuuurrreee... It's just to prevent terrorism. For very wide definitions of 'terrorism'.

    1. Re:And why are you people voting for Bush? by matth1jd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wouldn't say the Department of Homeland Security was unnecessary, in fact it in my opinion it was originally a step in the right direction. Create an agency which will be responsible for coordinating the security of the nation without all the interagency mess. It seemed like a good idea, until it was given exactly what the parent said a very large brush to paint the picture of terrorism.
      Obviously this case is asinine, and I'd hate to think how many more instances similiar to this have occured. The real question is how do we fix the problem? Will Kerry if elected be able to do anything to dismantle or at least take some of the edge off the Patriot Act? If Bush is re-elected will the problem just get worse? Or is the problem just too large to fix?


      -JM

    2. Re:And why are you people voting for Bush? by trippinonbsd · · Score: 1

      I don't see any such powers in the constitution, maybe he had the help of congress? Remember one man doesn't make every decision we have in this country. Checks and balances should be able to control tyranical presidents. He can't just do whatever he wants he needs support from congress. Don't make it sound so simple.

    3. Re:And why are you people voting for Bush? by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1

      Why are so many voting for Bush?

      Because facts simply don't matter. He makes a lot of people feel good. That's the whole reason.

    4. Re:And why are you people voting for Bush? by donutello · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Actually, according to John Kerry, it was HIS idea to create the Department of Homeland Security and George Bush opposed it.

      That completely aside from the fact that you're a moron and you seem have no idea what the Department of Homeland Security is or what it does.

      The DHS does a lot more than fight terrorism.

      --
      Mmmm.. Donuts
    5. Re:And why are you people voting for Bush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "An evil exists that threatens every man, woman and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our Homeland." -- Adolf Hitler, on the creation of the Gestapo

    6. Re:And why are you people voting for Bush? by Theonewhois · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As much as I hate the man, that's not a valid point. The dept. of Homeland Security plans were started during the Clinton Administration. Furthermore, though I can't be sure of this last point, I've been told that Bush actually opposed the DHS at first.

      --
      Common sense is what tells us that the world is flat
    7. Re:And why are you people voting for Bush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and not only does the Dpt. Of Homeland Security go after shopkeepers, but the Patriot Act also allows broad strokes. Sure, brothels and drug dealers are a problem... But do they need to be dealt with by legislation that's directed at terrorism?

      Bush et al are goat fuckers.

    8. Re:And why are you people voting for Bush? by CurlyG · · Score: 1

      Hilarious! Top effort, johnnyb. That's either the funniest peice of subtle satire ever posted on this site, or else...

      Nah, I just can't believe you're serious. If you are, that would have to be the most amazing bit of labarynthine self-delusion I've ever come across.

      --
      You know they call 'em fingers but I've never seen 'em fing. Oh, there they go.
    9. Re:And why are you people voting for Bush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The DHS does a lot more than fight terrorism.

      Then it's doing too much. Fighting terrorism should be its ONLY responsiblity. Anything else and its working out of its boundaries, not that thats stopped anyone before...

    10. Re:And why are you people voting for Bush? by johnnyb · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      I'm very serious. Bush has done a wonderful job given the circumstances. He got to deal with all of the fallout for the previous four presidencies:

      * Terrorism (Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and to a lesser extent GHWB)
      * Enron (Clinton, maybe others [have not searched it back further than him])
      * Accounting scandals (probably back as far as Raegan, definitely on an increase w/ Clinton. Clinton led by example -- we had a "surplus" with an increasing debt -- great job!)
      * Stock market bomb (this was due to circumstances which were in place under Clinton, but I actually don't think it's his fault -- it's our fault for being so greedy we got stupid)
      * Social Security (this one hasn't hit yet, but it's coming -- Bush did a realistic estimate for how big the national debt is if we accounted for Social Security properly -- I don't remember the exact number but it was between 40 and 60 billion).
      * Illegal immigration (haven't read up enough on the subject to know when it really started and what's been done about it)

      Almost all of these, although they had been building for years, came to a head under Bush. Part of it was because he refused to abuse his power on behalf of large corporations. In fact, it was the former Clinton Secretary of the Treasury Rubin who tried to convince the administration to help Enron out with their credit rating (helping out Enron was basically a normal policy under Clinton -- foreign aid to India was tied to India's contracts w/ Enron). The administration's refusal to abuse its power on Enron's behalf is what triggered its destruction.

      Terrorism was essentially caused by Raegan, and to a lesser extent Carter. Raegan fought the Soviets by propping up Soviet enemies. Unfortunately, Raegan wasn't real picky on who these enemies were, so we wound up w/ Al-Qaeda. Clinton tried to ignore the problem by covering it up. He did not pursue the middle-east links to OKC even though almost all eyewitnesses pointed out that middle-eastern men were with McVeigh on the day of the bombing. Richard Clarke even mentions in his book that Terry Nichols likely learned bomb-making from Ramzi Youssef, the terrorist from WTC1. For the full scoop on the middle-eastern terrorists that McVeigh and Nichols were involved with, see the book The Third Terrorist by Jayna Davis (she was actually sued for libel by the person she names as John Doe #2, and _she_ won). Clinton covered up TWA 800, which has been referred to as a terrorist attack by both George Stephanopolous and John Kerry. Clinton also ignored the middle east connections to the olympic park bombing, wrongfully pinning it on a US citizen (who was not convicted).

      Given all of that, I'd say that Bush has done a great job at keeping us from a national disaster, and keeping the country together while the media tries to divide us.

    11. Re:And why are you people voting for Bush? by muonman · · Score: 1
      ...that would have to be the most amazing bit of labarynthine self-delusion I've ever come across.

      The scary part is, there may be 50-odd million cases just like it, judging from the polls.

      --
      Anything NOT worth doing is NOT worth doing well...
    12. Re:And why are you people voting for Bush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, what you're saying is that, if for example, Bush were a Doctor, and The World was his patient, and one day--during a routine examination--Dr. Bush finds a tumor on The World's toe... He's not exactly sure how to deal with it, though. So, he shows some pictures of it to his janitor, and he's all Mexican and stuff, and Dr. Bush doesn't know Mexican, and Bush backs away saying "grassy ass", and the janitor's thinking he's a homo...

      So, Bush tells The World that it's got a malignant tumor on its toe, and The World's looking down there, and saying "hey man, I don't see nothing".

      So, Dr. Bush goes to a buddy of his, and says hey man, lookie at this picture. And his buddy's like, "yeah, so that's a wart. BFD. Maybe you should use some duct tape on it, and it'll go away after a while" And Bush is like "omg, you stupid motherfucker, that is SO clearly a fucking tumor", and his buddy doctor backs away slowly, thinking that Bush is a fag.

      So, because Bush told the patient that he's got a tumor, he doesn't want to make himself look like a bad doctor, he makes his mind up that he should just wait a while, you know, till The World forgot about his wart, and besides, he needed time to convince himself that he was waiting simply because he didn't want to worry or confuse his patient.

      So, at next year's physical, Bush puts the patient under anesthesia, and cuts the whole fucking leg off, after playing with The Worlds genitals for a few hours... The World wakes up, and it's like "WTF? Where is my leg you motherfucker?!" And Doctor Bush kinda like sits there, blinking his beedy eyes, and rambles incoherently about tumors--while The World sits there in pain because he has friction burns on his wang from Bush's molestation.

      So, The World gets up, stumbles around, and finds its leg over in the corner. Bush freaks out, points at the big toe, says "tumor! omg! kill! *middle finger*"

      And The World's like "You motherfucker! That's a fucking wart! You cut off my leg because of a fucking wart!"

      Is that an accurate enough analogy for you? It's more or less the content of your asinine opinion, put into another form.
      Honestly, man. You aught to at least brush your teeth after you pull your head out of your ass--because everything you say smells like shit.

      p.s. You have a corn kernel or something stuck near your incisor. Dosen't look like it was digested very well (don't you just hate that?)

    13. Re:And why are you people voting for Bush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hopefully at least one of them can spell Reagan....

    14. Re:And why are you people voting for Bush? by tpgp · · Score: 1
      Good lord!

      Well done JohnnyB!

      Not one but two posts that are absolute comedy gold!

      I bet you're just sitting at your workstation snickering whilst you imagine people trying to decide if its satire or not :-)

      I actually thought you might be serious until the closing line...

      Given all of that, I'd say that Bush has done a great job at keeping us from a national disaster, and keeping the country together while the media tries to divide us.


      One little pointer - you should've chosen JohnnyH as your troll account - much funnier for those in the know ;-)
      --
      My pics.
    15. Re:And why are you people voting for Bush? by kir · · Score: 2, Funny

      ooo#### THREAD END ####ooo

      Godwin's law applies.

      --
      3cx.org - A truly bad website.
    16. Re: And why are you people voting for Bush? by coopaq · · Score: 0
      After he created one of the largest unneccessary beuracracies in the history of the US?

      Actually have you ever seen Bush try and solve a Rubix cube?

      Which task do you think he found easier?

    17. Re:And why are you people voting for Bush? by Sancho · · Score: 1

      Yeah, 100%. It applies in that Nazis were mentioned. That doesn't mean the thread must end--a common misconception:

      http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/

      All Godwin's law states is, and I quote, "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

    18. Re:And why are you people voting for Bush? by johnnyb · · Score: 1

      I've been quite annoyed at the moderators, who think that posting argument is the same as trolling. I think they should read the moderator guidelines before moderating. It appears that anyone who is pro-Kerry doesn't want to hear arguments from the other side.

    19. Re:And why are you people voting for Bush? by kir · · Score: 1

      True. It doesn't have to end, but normally when Godwin's law can be applied to a thread, it effectively is over.

      --
      3cx.org - A truly bad website.
    20. Re:And why are you people voting for Bush? by raju1kabir · · Score: 1
      He did not pursue the middle-east links to OKC even though almost all eyewitnesses pointed out that middle-eastern men were with McVeigh on the day of the bombing.

      I think that you're seriously deluded in general, but I will say that executing McVeigh was one of the biggest security mistakes in recent history. Let him percolate, there's a lot more to be learned. Whoever sped that up is either in on it or just really really dumb (I'll vote for the latter).

      --
      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
    21. Re:And why are you people voting for Bush? by Guuge · · Score: 1

      But if the thread was originally about Nazis or Bush then an application of Godwin's law has no special significance.

    22. Re:And why are you people voting for Bush? by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Bush is on the record as initially against DHS. However, I had never heard that DHS was in the works pre-9/11. Do you have a cite?

    23. Re:And why are you people voting for Bush? by johnnyb · · Score: 1

      It would be nice for you to point out evidence of my delusion. If I am wrong, great! I'll learn something new. But simply calling names isn't very helpful.

    24. Re:And why are you people voting for Bush? by raju1kabir · · Score: 1
      It would be nice for you to point out evidence of my delusion. If I am wrong, great! I'll learn something new. But simply calling names isn't very helpful.

      Fully agreed, but you don't pay me enough to be helpful. I'm just here for my own amusement.

      --
      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
    25. Re:And why are you people voting for Bush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words, he can't exactly say why you're wrong, because he doesn't know. All he can do is insult you and laugh at your supposed "stupidity," but not back up said statements.

      Typical liberal. Don't bother wasting your time, johnnyb.

    26. Re:And why are you people voting for Bush? by qqaz · · Score: 1

      Its not like republicans ever want to hear arguments from the other side.

      Republicans don't need to pay attention to facts, because they already know everything. If you try to present a fact, they just cover their ears and say "BLAH BLAH BLAH I'M NOT LISTENING USA! USA! USA!"

      --
      sup :cool:
    27. Re:And why are you people voting for Bush? by johnnyb · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's just that instead of facts we just get ad-hominem attacks. I've presented numerous facts to support my arguments.

  5. go figure by Izago909 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    He told her to remove the Magic Cube from her shelves, and he watched to make sure she complied.
    She's lucky that she wasn't declared a terrorist and her all human rights voided on sight.
    "One of the things that our agency's responsible for doing is protecting the integrity of the economy and our nation's financial systems and obviously trademark infringement does have significant economic implications," she said.
    God forbid some terrorists fly some Boeing knock-offs into buildings instead of legitimate ones.
    "Aren't there any terrorists out there?" she said.
    The war is not meant to be won....
    1. Re:go figure by lq_x_pl · · Score: 1

      The war is not meant to be won....
      Bingo

      --
      An internal system operation returned the error "The operation completed successfully.".
    2. Re:go figure by dbIII · · Score: 1
      One of the things that our agency's responsible for doing is protecting the integrity of the economy
      That excuse can cover very wide ground. Expect Homeland Security to go after file sharing next, with the usual inapropriate military response you get with any suspected computer related crime.
    3. Re:go figure by juan2074 · · Score: 1

      ... just like the drug war!

  6. So which is it? by fossa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Trademark in the title, copyright in the summary, but a patent on the Rubik's cube. These are all different you know...

    1. Re:So which is it? by ajakk · · Score: 3, Funny

      These are all different you know... They are? In /. land, all IP is the same, and it is all BBBBBBBAAAAAAAAADDDDDDDDDDDD.

    2. Re:So which is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RMS was right as usualy, letting people use such non-terms as "intellectual property" only leads to confusion.

    3. Re:So which is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just goes to show, they'll post anything on Slashdot these days. And they wonder why people don't take it seriously anymore and post trolls and shit.

    4. Re:So which is it? by FooAtWFU · · Score: 4, Informative

      Patents expire. Copyrights nominally expire, but even if they don't you can make other stuff that does the same thing from scratch (unlike patents). Trademarks never expire, but they're only supposed to be for names/designs/similar. (Supposed.)

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    5. Re:So which is it? by Brandybuck · · Score: 1, Troll

      It doesn't matter if the submission was correct or incorrect, because it has served it's purpose in fanning the flames of US hatred.

      The whole story is a TROLL!

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    6. Re:So which is it? by Lehk228 · · Score: 3, Informative

      actually trademarks do expire, but only once they fall into disuse, or go undefended, unlike patent and copyright which is a fixed time.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    7. Re:So which is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, newspeak like "free software" and "copyleft" make much more sense than that confusing capitalist jargon.

    8. Re:So which is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. A simple error that an editor with the mind of a three year-old would catch.

      Unfortunately, the two year-olds are on duty.

      Again.

    9. Re:So which is it? by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, it made me want to moderate the story [-1, Confused].
      -russ

      --
      Don't piss off The Angry Economist
    10. Re:So which is it? by psiekl · · Score: 1

      Unless, of course, it's a case of a company abusing
      the GPL (releasing products using modified GPL software and not releasing the changed source).

      Let's be fair, folks. All forms of IP deserve protection (not that we can't argue about the terms and time limits of it).

    11. Re:So which is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trademarks expire 10 years after non-use in commerce.

    12. Re:So which is it? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Must be a trade secret then;)

    13. Re:So which is it? by Bloody+Pulp · · Score: 1

      Trademark in the title, copyright in the summary, but a patent on the Rubik's cube. These are all different you know...

      From the AP report:

      " Virginia Kice, a spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said agents went to Pufferbelly based on a trademark infringement complaint filed in the agency's intellectual property rights center in Washington, D.C."

      So, presumably, it is a trademark issue.

    14. Re:So which is it? by zsau · · Score: 1

      Really? I thought we liked Trademarks and tolerated Copyrights. At least, I do. I wanna know that the Coca-Cola I bought is from Coca-Cola and not CocaIsUs, just branded Coca-Cola...

      And where would the GNU GPL be without Copyright?

      --
      Look out!
    15. Re:So which is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Without copyright law the GPL would be unenforceable. It would also be unnecessary".

    16. Re:So which is it? by gujo-odori · · Score: 1

      I did RTFA, and really, I don't know much more than I did from just reading the summary. It's very thin on detail and basically just presents the shop owner's description of events. No important information such as who filed the complaint or what they allege is being infringed, is presented. However, it does at least make it clear that this is a trademark infringement case. The expired patent has nothing to do with it.

      As to your question, "Why is DHS enforcing any of these?" the answer is that they are doing it because it's their mission. Really. You see, the former INS (now CIS) and the Customs Service (whatever its proper name is) both are part of DHS, and it was the Customs Service that went to her shop and is responsible for trademark enforcement.

      Hey, amid such a totally bolluxed up summary, you didn't really expect any part to be done right, did you? ;-)

    17. Re:So which is it? by techworm · · Score: 1

      ... copyright which is a fixed time.
      Unless you're a big corporation (think Disney), in which case you make some large donations to the right politicans and just keep getting your copyrights (like 75+ year-old Mickey Mouse) extended -- a total perversion of the intent of copyright law.

      --
      You're an individual, just like everyone else.
  7. Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Copyright != Patent, Copyright != Trademark, Trademark != Patent.

    1. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Copyright != Patent, Copyright != Trademark, Trademark != Patent.
      Ergo Copyright=Patent

  8. Ahh, America by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ahh, America -- land of the moron. Where the nation's anti-terrorism forces bravely persecute toy-store owners for "violation" of expired patents.

    1. Re:Ahh, America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh, America -- land of the moron.

      You misspelled "moran".

      Go USA!

    2. Re:Ahh, America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Etats-Unians are "of America"

      There not the American , dont insult us the real american

      C ourageous
      A mericans
      N oble
      A mericans
      D efender of
      A merica

    3. Re:Ahh, America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All right team we got a job to do. Lets go police the world!

      A-mer-i-ca... A-mer-i-ca..

      America! FUCK YEAH!
      Coming again to save the mother fucking day, yeah.
      America! FUCK YEAH!
      Freedom is the only way, yeah.
      Terrorits your game is through, because now you have to answer to...
      America! FUCK YEAH!
      So lick my butt and suck on my balls.
      America! FUCK YEAH!

    4. Re:Ahh, America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God Bless Vespucciland!

  9. waste of resources by Coneasfast · · Score: 2, Funny

    wait up a second, are you telling me, that the homeland security agents have nothing better to do than take off a rubiks cube clone? surely there must be something.

    "One of the things that our agency's responsible for doing is protecting the integrity of the economy and our nation's financial systems and obviously trademark infringement does have significant economic implications,"

    a Rubiks Cube Clone??? Seriously, i could eat a bowl of alphabits and crap a better Bullshit argument.

    --
    Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
    1. Re:waste of resources by Stevyn · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's probably a typical case of government spending. If you don't spend the funds allocated to you this year, you don't have them next year. This perpetuates so much government waste. So they probably ran out of leads on terrorist cells and went after this person so they have a reason to request another million dollars in extra funding next year.

      What makes this so sad is that slowly the terrorists are winning. I don't mean that as a joke. Their goal seems to have been to make our lives as shitty as theirs and they're are making progress.

      And no, John Kerry in office isn't going to change anything because you still have Republicans in the house and senate. And yes, I am a Republican and no I don't agree with everything that they do.

    2. Re:waste of resources by Chapium · · Score: 0

      John Kerry certainly change things with republicans in senate. At least stop more legislation with our friend the veto. Also, the same congressmen wont be in office their whole term.

    3. Re:waste of resources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And no, John Kerry in office isn't going to change anything because you still have Republicans in the house and senate. And yes, I am a Republican and no I don't agree with everything that they do.

      Republicans aren't the problem. I'd take a good old-fashioned Republican/Conservative any day. The Neocons are different story, though. They're one of the most radical and pathological groups to come into political power in recent memory, imo.

    4. Re:waste of resources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is someone who has been in the senate for many years and had plenty of time to get his agenda across. The reason he didn't is because he has no agenda. His opinions reflect a focus group, or the group that is doing better after the fallout. Look at his record and see how he joins the winning side after the fact.

    5. Re:waste of resources by dbIII · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It's probably a typical case of government spending.
      I see it as a decreasing amount of check and balances while saying the opposite. A power mad little shit can piss of a planeload of people and cost an airline thousands by going way overboard to teach Cat Stevens a "lesson" - instead of doing the responsible thing of either passing or rejecting a passenger. Other power mad little shits can throw their weight around hassling people in toy shops or prison camps or wherever confident that no-one is going to pull them into line all of the way up the tree. It's just a symptom of a lack of control, and whatever administration is around in a couple of years time is going to have to try to bring into line people that will make Ollie North look like he was a patriot.

      Don't let it get to the point where you will have to put dollar bills in your passport if you want to get through customs without a strip search.

    6. Re:waste of resources by paul_pick1 · · Score: 1
      John Kerry in office isn't going to change anything

      Remember that re-electing Bush will be seen as an endorsement of his policies, so Kerry's election would, at least, send an important message.

      --
      http://www.switch2firefox.com/
  10. Next person on their list... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this guy. I always thought that damn cube was a threat to my security.

  11. Hello. by j0nkatz · · Score: 0

    I for one, welcome our Homeland Security overlords...

    Like hell I do! BADNARIK IN '04!!!

    --
    Don't mod me, bro'!!!!
  12. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Dept. of Homeland Security Enforces Expired Trademark
    Apparently the Department of Homeland Security does not have enough to do in keeping the US safe, and now is enforcing copyright law as well.
    The patent for Rubik's cube was issued in 1980, and so it is expired."

    So, are we talking about a copyright, a trademark, or a patent?

    1. Re:Huh? by Loconut1389 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      more a problem with the article than a problem with the government's account of the event...

      Either way, it really bugs me that homeland security is even thinking about anything besides terrorism. Why the hell are we paying agents to fly out to bumsville for a da## rubiks cube.. And if we're paying them to do that, why aren't we paying them to research things first? Perhaps the same researchers that decided there were WMD's in Iraq (though I think there must be somewhere.. still intelligence was bad enough we cant find them if they are there)..

    2. Re:Huh? by bluekanoodle · · Score: 2, Informative

      St. Helens, OR is not far (about 20 minutes) from the Port of Portland. These agents were from Customs, which has an office near the port. The article sensationalizes the fact that these were DHS agents, which Customs is now part of. Nobody mentioned it was in anyway related to terrorism until /. got a hold of the story.

    3. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be new here. Welcome to Slashdot. To make your stay less confusing, please remember that the editors are lazy idiots, who are too stupid and too fat to do anything that to click the "accept"/"reject" buttons on a story. To expect them to even correct spelling mistakes, much less major blunders such as these, is complete heresy in their eyes.

    4. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      WMD's in Iraq (though I think there must be somewhere

      I hate this stupid WMD thing - they're NBC weapons (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) and if there were any in Iraq some mad rag head insurgent would have used them by now.

      The greatest reason I have for believing Bush isn't competent is that he couldn't even arrange for some to be discovered. Surely any half competent politician would have planted *something* within a matter of days.

    5. Re:Huh? by Loconut1389 · · Score: 1

      true, but would we really want him to plant something, or admit failure? I have to give him that.

      I'm a weird bush supporter.. I think he was the best choice at the time, but I don't agree with every part of his platform. I have a lot of leanings both directions really.

      I find his 'special' words funny and humanizing, though it would be nice if he were a better orator.

      Anyway, back to the point.. the WMD thing is a tough one.. I think it would certainly have helped the unrest around the US if some were 'found', but then there would have been a discovery later on or someone would have talked and then he'd have been seen just as badly or worse, even perhaps if he had no knowledge of the planting.

      I think I like better that he admitted defeat on that count.

    6. Re:Huh? by Bloody+Pulp · · Score: 1
      But, the AP article the manufacturer of the Magic Cube is the Toysmith Group. According to the Toysmith Group website, "All product is stocked and shipped from our distribution facility located in Auburn, Washington."

      Why didn't the agents go to the distribution facility in Auburn, Washington?

    7. Re:Huh? by nametaken · · Score: 1


      If I could type a response to every ass on slashdot that wants to comment on a situation they know less-than-nothing about...

      Nobody kicked in any doors claiming the rubiks cube knockoff fell under the patriot act. Someone filed a complaint. CUSTOMS agents, which fall under DHS, gave the lady a hard time about one of the products in her store. They may be right, we don't know. We don't even know what the complaint was. She should know, but that's about the extent of what we KNOW is messed up here.

      Jesus, the content of your post indicates you didn't even read the article, and people are pumping your karma because you hate Bush.

      Poor /., where are you?

    8. Re:Huh? by querencia · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Either way, it really bugs me that homeland security is even thinking about anything besides terrorism. Why the hell are we paying agents to fly out to bumsville for a da## rubiks cube.. And if we're paying them to do that, why aren't we paying them to research things first?

      When the Dept of Homeland Security was created, lots of existing agencies got rolled in. Including Customs. These weren't some new brand of "terrorist hunter" agent. These were Customs agents (now part of Homeland Security) doing what they always do.

      If there hadn't been a bureaucratic reshuffling of federal agencies, perhaps Cowboy Neal wouldn't be so confused, and this wouldn't make the front page.

    9. Re:Huh? by mshiltonj · · Score: 1

      So, are we talking about a copyright, a trademark, or a patent?

      Yes.

    10. Re:Huh? by mikael · · Score: 1

      The patent for Rubik's cube was issued in 1980, and so it is expired."

      The patent relates to the mechanism of the cube (six axii, plastic cubes with edges) and sticky tabs.

      Trademark relates to the name "Rubik's Cube" and other titles such as "Mini-Cube" "Professor's Cube" and "Rubik's Snake" and the name of the company.

      Copyright covers the shape and colours and titling of the cube.

      The patent on the mechanism of the cube may have expired, but the trademark may already have been registered if not used.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    11. Re:Huh? by snwcrash · · Score: 1

      Aren't trademark disputes usually handled in civil cases? Is the Magic Cube banned in the US where customs is supposed to be seizing it at the ports? It seems odd to send agents to seize or force a removal of goods from a shop unless there is a health and saftey issue. If someone bought one should they be expecting to have Customs come to their house to remove the offending toy? It just seems an odd manner to enforce trademarks, since it doesn't really sound like a trademark dispute (making a similar toy doesn't violate trademark as far as I know, that would be patent law, wouldn't it?)

      --
      Save a life, sign your organ donor card.
    12. Re:Huh? by Loconut1389 · · Score: 1

      Like I mentioned, im actually more or less a bush supporter.. and I did RTA.. And I posted when there were about 46 comments on the thread, before anybody had really discussed the customs being a part of DHS.

      In any case, I still think research should have been done, either way. All I said was that if we're paying DHS(/customs) to do these things, we should pay them to research too. I also think they should say they're with customs rather than homeland security.

      That's almost like a janitor for the FBI knocking on your door saying he's with the FBI and you have illegal dust on your premises. (well maybe not, but I cant figure out the analogy I'm looking for)

      Either way, not everybody is a Bush hater just because they don't agree with everything he's ever done, and it doesn't have a whole lot to do with whether I read the article or other people agreed with what I said.

    13. Re:Huh? by Loconut1389 · · Score: 1

      So is customs still its own department, just under a new umbrella, or have the agents been integrated (read: assimilated) into DHS?

      If so, why put agents not trained in counter-terrorism in an anti-terrorist capacity?

      If they're still customs agents, just with new parents, I think they should say theyre with customs rather than homeland security.. just pushes the wrong buttons and gives the wrong impression (as seen on /. and in the parent article). And furthermore, if customs doesn't have the same level of power as its parents, they are giving a false statement about the power they posess merely for fear factor.

      Just askin'...

    14. Re:Huh? by querencia · · Score: 1

      US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement is, actually, a very important component of homeland security. Just because some of their duties are more mundane (like stopping counterfeit imports) doesn't mean they don't belong under DHS. Here are the agencies that fall under DHS.

      The problem isn't their classification under DHS. The problem is that most Americans are woefully uneducated about what the DHS is and what its duties are. The formation of the DHS was a huge step away from the fractured nature of these federal agencies. Now that they are under one umbrella, they can more effectively share information and resources. In the past, ICE and the FBI, for example, sometimes competed for "turf." Not anymore -- they both ultimately answer to the same bosses.

  13. rUSsiA by sn0wflake · · Score: 5, Insightful

    USA seem more and more like a police state. Once I wanted to visit USA but now I wouldn't dream of setting foot in the states. I'd probably be arrested if I said something wrong.

    1. Re:rUSsiA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. You're a little paranoid. We're not that bad yet.

    2. Re:rUSsiA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hadn't been to the USA since well before 9/11. I visited a huge hydroelectric dam and did a tour recently in the northern part of the country.

      It was really cool until I noticed a tour guide that straggled behind the group making familiar clicking noises. He was covertly photographing the tour group.

      I won't be visiting the USA again.

    3. Re:rUSsiA by brandonY · · Score: 1

      Once I wanted to visit USA but now I wouldn't dream of setting foot in the states.

      That's the saddest thing I've ever seen posted on Slashdot.

    4. Re:rUSsiA by boredMDer · · Score: 5, Interesting
      You think that's bad?

      Check this out.

      Excerpt:

      A couple of weeks ago, following the last presidential debate, I said some rather inflammatory things about George W. Bush in a public post in my LJ, done in a satirical style. We laughed, we ranted, we all said some things. I thought it was a fairly harmless (and rather obvious) attempt at humor in the face of annoyance, and while a couple of people were offended, as is typical behavior from me, I saw something shiny and forgot about it, thinking that the whole thing was over and done and nothing else would come of what I said.

      I was wrong.

      At 9:45 last night, the Secret Service showed up on my mother's front door to talk to me about what I said about the President
    5. Re:rUSsiA by erick99 · · Score: 1

      That's just plain silly.

      --
      http://www.busyweather.com/
    6. Re:rUSsiA by MoronGames · · Score: 1

      Nah, I say a ton of things wrong. I haven't been arrested yet. Like there was this one time when I ... Hang on, someone is knocking on the door...

      [no carrier]

      --
      hey!
    7. Re:rUSsiA by myowntrueself · · Score: 4, Funny

      The only reason I would go to the USA would be to help in the next revolution.

      And that wouldn't look good on a visa application...

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    8. Re:rUSsiA by erick99 · · Score: 1

      John Hinckley Jr. did the same just prior to shooting President Reagan. You didn't reveal the content of your rant but maybe you said things that sounded pretty bad taken out of the context of the group that you were in. They didn't actually take you away or otherwise harm you did they?

      --
      http://www.busyweather.com/
    9. Re:rUSsiA by gcaseye6677 · · Score: 1

      Why exactly would this keep you from coming back? The most common reason for tour employees to photograph tourists is for promotional materials. You know, those glossy brochures you saw in the hotel that led you to take the tour? Usually they ask permission to do that sort of thing, or at least have some sign or other written materials explaining they will do this, but I suppose they're not required to. The chances of this tour guide working covertly with the FBI to compose tourist profiles is quite remote, not to mention that it doesn't make a lot of sense. For a covert investigation, they would get far more information by secretly photographing the license plates of cars entering the facility.

    10. Re:rUSsiA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the most hysterical ranting I've ever heard. I don't know what the person said or if the FBI's reaction was proper, but they are clearly playing it up to be a much bigger deal than it really was. It's all about maximum scare tactics for the publicity factor, which is pretty much what has always sustained the American Left.

    11. Re:rUSsiA by lobotomy · · Score: 1
      You would not be arrested as long as you made your comments in a designated free-speech zone. Yes, we really have such things.

      1984 was about 20 years late.

    12. Re:rUSsiA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well? What did you say? They can't allow people to make threats against the President without at least asking a few pointed questions.

    13. Re:rUSsiA by OneArmedMan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      a buddy of mine just came back from Canada, via USA

      Zandecks

      **Snip--From the end of the Blog**

      After about half an hour of searching they let me go and everything was ok. The customs girl who searched me was really nice and I've got nothing against her, but now there is a file on me that they found traces of cocain in my bag. I thought about how the hell this could happen, and when I got home I realised that the lock on my bag was missing (I had noticed earlier but forgot when I was being searched). I opened up my bag again and found a note from US customs. Apparently they had broken open my bag to search it. I guess ing these fuckers searched my bag and accidently contaminated my bag with some cocain they found on an ealier search. Thanks guys...

      **Snap**

    14. Re:rUSsiA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Calm down, European socialists. This comment is not +5 Insightful, no matter what you might have read on indymedia. The fact that the Slashdot servers have not been confiscated pretty much shows that what the parent poster said is complete crap. In fact, I'd say there is more freedom of speech in the U.S. than almost anywhere else in the world. Go to London and say that the British government is rotten to the core and hopelessly corrupt. Say it in a very public and inflammatory way. See if you get arrested. Repeat the process in France, substituting the French government. Repeat in Germany. How long will it take for you to get arrested?

      For a control group in this experiment, have someone back in the states doing the same thing, complaining that GW Bush is Hitler's long lost grandson. See who gets arrested first. I think you might be very surprised by the results.

    15. Re:rUSsiA by crashfrog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Once I wanted to visit USA but now I wouldn't dream of setting foot in the states. I'd probably be arrested if I said something wrong.

      Oh, for god's sake. It's not that bad. If it were, there's about 200 newspapers that would be shut down already, for endorsing the political opponent of the president. You can still stand on the street corner and hold up a big sign that says what a dickless coward you think the president is; I know, because I see people doing it all the time here in Columbia, Missouri.

      Where are you now, exactly? Germany, looks like, from your URL? Germany is cool. I'd like to visit again. Did a day in Berlin and it was neat. I don't know what we have over here that they don't have in Germany, so I don't know why you'd want to visit. But for god's sake we're still the land of the free (markets). Let's keep a little perspective, people, and stay realistic. Nobody's going to get in the way of a European coming over here to spend their money, after all.

      And I would point out that yours is the country that still restricts free expression, at least if you choose to express yourself in the manner of Nazis. (Can you even read this in Germany if I say "Nazi"?)

      If you want to visit, do so. Now's a great time, in fact - you can see our political circus at full tilt. Call Bush an asshole, if you want. Nobody's going to stop you. We call him worse in our newspapers every day. Yours is a great country. But I love mine, and for all the faults of the past 4 years, I'd rather live in mine than yours. (Not the least of which because I don't speak German.)

      --
      I never have frustrations, the reason is, to wit:
      If at first I don't succeed, I quit!
    16. Re:rUSsiA by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      How about getting arrested for wearing a T-shirt in public? That's not silly, it's scary. And that's the point of arresting people, to scare them. We call that terrorism, whether the terror is political intimidation by threat of bombs or arbitrary arrest.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    17. Re:rUSsiA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't recall which 19th century Russian author it was, I think Turgenev, who was forced by the state police to remove a portrait of the Czar from a description of a character's room. The mere mention in the (a?) novel was cause for royal offense. Your link reminded of that.

    18. Re:rUSsiA by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1
      Hm, the exact sort of myopic, parochial world-view, formed entirely from the media, that Europeans frequently accuse Americans of holding. If you actually came to America, you'd see that your preformed opinion was totally wrong, but hey, it's more fun to allow your tiny brain to hold preconceptions!

      Of course, as a Dane, I defer to your superior knowledge of police states. After all, I'm not a citizen of a country that raised volunteer divisions for the SS.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    19. Re:rUSsiA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, John Hickley Jr also ate breakfast before he shot Reagan. Big deal.

    20. Re:rUSsiA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My wife and I are in the process of planning an 8-10 week holiday to the USA in 2008 (10th Aniversary - getting remarried by Elvis in Las Vegas - yeah!), but unless your government chills out a little I'm starting to wonder if we'd be better to go to Europe - there's a lot riding on the upcoming election...

    21. Re:rUSsiA by mlyle · · Score: 3, Informative

      Here's the post from google's cache that prompted the secret service-- get it while it's still hot.

      From the post:

      Please kill George Bush. I hate him so much. I think he is a giant dick and I want terrible things to happen to him. I'm not really big on the specifics of how he dies, but if you could at least arrange it so that the authorities find his dead body on top of an underage black male prostitute surrounded by a mountain of cocaine and child pornography, that would really be super-awesome. And maybe you could have some media people there when the police find the body, so they can take pictures and stuff. That'd be fucking GREAT.

      I can see why the Secret Service would want to visit someone after they say something like that.. (sure, context weakens it a bit, but it is borderline nutty and definitely can be construed as a threat against the president.)

    22. Re:rUSsiA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. A few years ago I was going to take up a Postdoc in California, but had to postpone.

      Now I know I'm never going to go to the US for any reason.

      Though I do like the idea of living in Canada :)

    23. Re:rUSsiA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So? We have a little thing called freedom of speech here. Satire is as much legitimate speech as saying "I disagree with your policies, Mr. Bush".

      And whatever happened to the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause? Why do secret service agents show up at the door when some political satirist makes an obviously facetious symbolic representation of Bush being "shot" by political issues but when the average Joe gets threatened, the cops say "File a report and we'll look into it" and you're lucky if they even as much as show up at your door to follow up?

    24. Re:rUSsiA by erick99 · · Score: 1

      Verbal threatening followed by shooting is essentially causal. Eating breakfast is probably not related to shooting presidents. However, you really aren't interested in logic, it's more fun to make silly statements that prove you are not very bright.

      --
      http://www.busyweather.com/
    25. Re:rUSsiA by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1, Troll
      Let me guess, you threatened the president's life. The Secret Service takes all threats seriously. It's their job. Actually, they'd get fired if they didn't investigate every possible threat.

      I noticed the feds investigated, found nothing, and moved on. Where's the prosecution? Ah, America of today, where simply being talked to by a policeman is grounds for shouting "OPPRESSION, 1984, RAPE!!!"

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    26. Re:rUSsiA by yournic · · Score: 1

      A 1917 law makes it a crime to threaten the president. It is designed to deter people from attacking the nation's chief or inciting others to do so.

      um so this person was caught doing just that... and this is scary because...?

    27. Re:rUSsiA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Give me a break.

      That is so over the top and sarcastic, not to mention a "prayer" rather than some planned action, that I have a hard time believing anyone is so dense they don't understand it as a joke.

      I guess there are some highly stupid people out there with limited senses of humour.

      It's definitely not borderline nutty. It can't be construed as a threat against the president... unless you have reason to believe she had access to a mountain of cocaine and a black male prostitute :)

    28. Re:rUSsiA by Vellmont · · Score: 1

      So what? We don't even know what she said to raise the concern of the Secret Service. It's a good bet that since she took down the post it could be taken the wrong way (satyrical style or not). Until I see the post and it just says something along the lines of "Bush is a stupid wanker" I'll defer judgement to the Secret Service. If you post stupid threats against the president on the internet it shouldn't be any surprise that the Secret Service comes to investigate.

      From her own descriptions they didn't throw her in jail, interrogate her downtown, or anything of the kind. They simply asked her some questions, were polite, etc. This kind of thing is NOTHING new and happens with any and all presidents.

      The Homeland Security story is FAR more troubling. What do these guys have to do with preventing some small toy store from selling toys? This agency is really starting to frighten me if they think this kind of thing is within their bailiwick.

      --
      AccountKiller
    29. Re:rUSsiA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was so nice of the Secret Service Men to finish MoronGames post with [no carrier] and send it for him.

      See? They aren't all bad.

    30. Re:rUSsiA by sn0wflake · · Score: 1

      European socialists? You sound like a hillbilly Bush voter with a gun tucked under your pillow awaiting for the new world order.
      Your analogy of stating in public that European governments are rotten versus Bush is Hitler junior is unbalanced. You'd certainly get arrested on both continents if spouting somebody in government is Hitler junior since it's a direct lie and you'd promote nazism. The difference is that you'd get arrested in Europe because we learned the lesson of nazism and do not tolerate nazism. In USA you'd get arrested because you paint a negative image of Bush.

    31. Re:rUSsiA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      That person's an idiot. They mention that apparently their was mention of a gun in the offending post. The Secret Service does not take any threats to the president lightly (regardless of which party the sitting president belongs to and will investigate). These guys don't have a sense of humor when it comes to such matters. Making the statement that was made about the president is along the same lines as talking about a bomb when you're trying to board a flight at the airport. Very dumb.

      When Clinton was president, a group of young republicans had a turkey shooting competition. Guess what image they used for the target? Needless to say they got a visit and the competition was cancelled.

      -AC

    32. Re:rUSsiA by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      How about getting arrested for wearing a T-shirt in public? That's not silly, it's scary. And that's the point of arresting people, to scare them. We call that terrorism, whether the terror is political intimidation by threat of bombs or arbitrary arrest.

      It wasn't the T-shirt, it was the interrupting of the president's speech. From the CBS News article: "she said she had a ticket and asked why she was being arrested. She was told by police she had entered a private event and had refused to leave... Niederer was later charged with defiant trespass and released."

      You can't refuse to leave a private event because you want to shout at the featured speaker, ticket or not. You may stand outside and shout all you want. You may even wear a "Bush killed my son" shirt. You can apparently even wear such a shirt inside such a private event, so long as you're not stupid enough to try to shout down the freakin' president.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    33. Re:rUSsiA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mmm.... I love the smell of flamebait in the morning.

      If you're going to drag Germany's past out and present it as a valid reason not to respect Germany, I'm assuming you've done this equally for all other countries?

      America - land of slavery.
      Mongolia - barbarous hordes.
      Australia - convicts galore.
      Well - lets face it; every country in the world has a nasty history (and some have a nasty present).

      Germany today is a wonderful, vibrant, and beautiful country. Every German I've ever met is friendly, open-minded and an asset to their people.

      However, I've only "met" one Dane, and from your comments you are not doing your country any good.

    34. Re:rUSsiA by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      ok, someone posts what looks like it could be an incitement of violence towards the president and you are suprised that the secret service / FBI took notice?

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    35. Re:rUSsiA by bluekanoodle · · Score: 1
      The secret service has always (pre-bush) investigated any threat against the President. It's not like they actually took the poster away. How are they supposed to tell the difference between a joke and a real threat except by investigating. Obviously they found that the Poster was not serious and they left it at that. They've been doing that for decades.

      To argue that this is a sign of an Orwellian nightmare to come is ludicrous. What do you want them to do, only investigate when they know it's a real threat? How do they know it's a real threat , unless they investigate? Nice Catch-22.

    36. Re:rUSsiA by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      Please substitute "president's wife" for "president" above. Point still stands.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    37. Re:rUSsiA by menscher · · Score: 4, Informative
      Here's the context you so carefully snipped out:

      a prayer for dubya

      Dear God:

      Wassup? How's it hanging? Yeah, I know it's been a long time since we talked. This probably stems from my belief that you do not exist. Anyway, the reason why I'm calling you is because last night, President Bush said that he could feel it every time we prayed for him, and since he apparently doesn't listen to anyone but you, Lord, I thought you might pass this along to him.

    38. Re:rUSsiA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The secret service has always (pre-bush) investigated any threat against the President

      I never said otherwise. I merely provided a single example involving Bush because it was recent.

      . How are they supposed to tell the difference between a joke and a real threat except by investigating

      What gives the governemnt a right to decide that anti-current-presidency speech is a threat?

      I may agree with you that they should investigate if someone says "I will kill George W. Bush at 3:30 PM from behind the grassy knoll", but just because someone makes an obviously satirical journal entry or newspaper cartoon does not give them a right to bully people for simply exercising their 1st Amendment rights.

      Obviously they found that the Poster was not serious and they left it at that. They've been doing that for decades.

      Thanks, J. Edgar Hoover.

      So as long as I submit myself to hours of interrogation by the government and perhaps a search of my house, I can say whatever I want about this President?

      To argue that this is a sign of an Orwellian nightmare to come is ludicrous

      Yeah, those silly people trying to exercise free speech without government intervention. Silly folks!

      What do you want them to do, only investigate when they know it's a real threat?

      Yes.

      How do they know it's a real threat , unless they investigate? Nice Catch-22

      False dillema.

      Investigating does not mean they have to harrass people over legitimate expression. It is very simple enough to judge something based on its actual content, compare it to other things that person has said, and thats all they need to do.

      Its rather ludicrous to bully people over making anti-bush cartoons just because "oh no, the drawing of a gun might somehow be a threat!". Its this kind of paranoia that draws legitimate questins about just how "free" a suposedly free country is.

    39. Re:rUSsiA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Glad to see we're slinging ad-hominem in the name of logical discourse.

      Hypocrite.

    40. Re:rUSsiA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Well, I was talking about Denmark, not Germany, but don't let that get in the way of a good AC knee-jerk remark!

      I've met Mongolians before, and none of them were 'barbarous'. Maybe you need to travel a bit more...

    41. Re:rUSsiA by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      1> Laura Bush, despite her obvious intellectual superiority to her husband, isn't the president.

      2> It's hardly common to be arrested for heckling someone at a campaign speech.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    42. Re:rUSsiA by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      You can't refuse to leave a private event because you want to shout at the featured speaker, ticket or not.

      Four words for you:

      Protect Our Civil Liberties

    43. Re:rUSsiA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was no verbal threat. It was a prayer to God that he die.

      I pray to God that you die Erick. I'm a threatening you?

      However you aren't really interested in getting the story straight: it's more fun to assume your oppenent's position and attack that instead of their actual position.

      I have no problems with mistakes. However, when people are like 'OH your fucking logic is wrong!! Go away !! you're just stupid!!" and are making a mistake themselves, I personally get frustrated. Maybe, just maybe, before you start attacking other people for their positions, make sure you actually know what their positions are. That's just a suggestion though.

    44. Re:rUSsiA by dourk · · Score: 1

      Beautifully fucking said.

      --
      Wake up.
    45. Re:rUSsiA by lactose99 · · Score: 1

      You haven't been here very long have you?

      --
      Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
    46. Re:rUSsiA by bluekanoodle · · Score: 1
      I suppose by now you've seen the Posters thread from a google cahce further down the list. I would certainly expect them to investigate something such as that. Crazy people who usually don't make rational statements of threats with clear, honest context, and details.

      In this case all they have to go on is the Posters statement. Finding the person and asking a few questions would be the next logical step. It's much easier and less invasive then getting a court order and going through that personal records, background, credit etc for a what turns out to be a a benign statement. The poster didn't have to talk to them. But he did, and by doing this avoided a much more costly and potentially harmful investigation.

    47. Re:rUSsiA by dickrichardv8 · · Score: 1

      Back in about 1984 then president Reagen visited his home town of Dixon, Illinois. The Secret Service arrived a week ahead of Reagan's appearance and scoured the town looking for the fifth element. The Secret Service boys did a real job in a real world and made their list which no doubt had a few fourth elements and some only wanabees and crazys. They didn't have time or the man power to split hairs so on the day the president arrived all the ones on the list got picked up and took down town for questioning. The detainees had to wait 24 hours to get questioned and when the President was gone they were all turned loose. Rights violated? Stretched? President safe? your call!

    48. Re:rUSsiA by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      You can't refuse to leave a private event because you want to shout at the featured speaker, ticket or not.

      Four words for you:

      Protect Our Civil Liberties

      That's more like it, but unfortunately it was still a (two words for you) private event. It's perfectly within their rights to throw people out that don't conform to their particular happy-happy joy-joy theme. Those teachers were perfectly free to stand outside with their T-shirts and even wave signs and talk to news crews. Campaign events aren't public forums. They're travelling road shows designed to advertise a certain product. You can no more demand the opportunity to air your opposing viewpoint there than you can demand to sell your own wares in someone else's store. It's basic property rights. It's not that hard.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    49. Re:rUSsiA by Kippesoep · · Score: 1

      Dubya is a twat and...



      Gotta go... secret service is knocking on my door.

    50. Re:rUSsiA by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      1> Laura Bush, despite her obvious intellectual superiority to her husband, isn't the president.

      Duly noted, but largely immaterial to the point.

      2> It's hardly common to be arrested for heckling someone at a campaign speech.

      No, but if you shout loudly enough and upset the sheeple in the audience, it will happen. Campaign events aren't public forums. They're travelling commercials held as private, invitation only events. There is plenty of free speech on the sidewalk, but there is no free speech in there. Calling it denial of rights is as asinine as demanding rebuttal time at the end of every Viagra commercial on TV because you don't think erections should come in pill form. It's their dime, so it's their show.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    51. Re:rUSsiA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously haven't dealt with U.S. customs.. a completely different branch of government than, say, the FCC. And please, stop pissing on the Germans because of Nazi Germany. It was your country, The United States, along with its allies that imposed harsh monetary punishments on Germany for WWI that brought the country into unstoppable inflation that lead the country to elect a leader like Hitler.

      Don't fuck with world politics if you don't know what you are doing.

    52. Re:rUSsiA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In 95' I was probably 13 years old. The bridge on my street had washed out in a flood and because of this I hadto walk an extra 6 blocks to get the bus for school. I kept writing letters to the mayor with no response. So I stumbled on wh*teho*use dot com and wrote the presitent a letter. I got a cool picture of bill clinton in the mail and hung it on my wall. I wanted a customized real response so I then wrote another one with the a list of threatening key words at the bottom(no harm intended. DUH! I somehow thought chelsey was hot too ewww 11 year olds are stupid) It was probably a bad idea and I never got a response. I forgot all about it until today. I'm sure my phones are still tapped to this day..

    53. Re:rUSsiA by amorsen · · Score: 1
      Nobody's going to get in the way of a European coming over here to spend their money, after all.

      I found going through US customs to be a pretty humiliating experience, and they didn't even hassle me much. Nowadays they even take fingerprints of European visitors. No way I'm going to go through that.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    54. Re:rUSsiA by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      We paid for that appearance, according to press reports. As usual, the public pays for Bush's presidential campaign appearances, but enforces "private event" rules when the loyalty oaths aren't enough.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    55. Re:rUSsiA by mvdwege · · Score: 4, Informative

      Can I point out two things?

      1. The country code in his URL is .dk. Would it be so hard to look up the ISO country codes before going off on your anti-German rant? Because Denmark suffered as much as the rest of Europe under the Nazis. You know you are not helping if you perpetuate the stereotype of the ignorant American, no?
      2. The German anti-Nazi laws are pretty strong, yes. Guess where they got them from? They were dictated to the German Federal Republic by the Allied Powers, and given the relative power levels in those days, that means by the United States of America.

      Here's a clue boy: go get yourself an education, you seem to need it.

      Mart
      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    56. Re:rUSsiA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note to dumbass: Don't even jokingly threaten a president.

      I thought this was common knowledge, but apparently this dumb fuck didn't get the message.

    57. Re:rUSsiA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is literally impossible for a _public_ official to be at a private event. _Public_ officials even have the word "Public" in their name. They are our servants and they should have to listen to what we have to say, even if they don't want to listen.

      Free Speach Zones are the most troubling to me. A razor wire enclosure that holds maybe a 1000 people at a time that you have to enter to protest anywhere the president is at the time. Typically a 1/4 mile away behind the dumpsters and the uninals.

      If you attempt to stand with an anti bush sign along the parade route, even with hundreds of other people around you with signs at the same time, you will be singled out and arrested if you do not remove yourself and your sign.

    58. Re:rUSsiA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really have to question why is it illegal to make a threat against the president? The logic of this is because...? The need the have a special police force to investigate because...?

      Yeah, great, Hinckley, and how many reported murders this year? Shed no tears for them; their lives aren't nearly as important.

      I guess it is just the assumption that you are a second-class citizen in the face of an elected official. I thought we got rid of aristocracy.

      I wonder if George Washington procured his own private police force to protect him from British loyalist? All those unregulated muskets roaming about; it might be good if the president just got handed a bulletproof vest and told, "You're on your own".

      I mean causing enough hubris that some crazy would want to kill you; that's the mark of an effective presidency.

      Welcome to thoughtcrime.

    59. Re:rUSsiA by icejai · · Score: 1

      HOly shit.

      Guess that Echelon thing really works.

    60. Re:rUSsiA by Kirth · · Score: 1

      At 9:45 last night, the Secret Service showed up on my mother's front door to talk to me about what I said about the President

      Ah, I see, you've got yourself a Gestapo now. This sure fits nicely to the power to arrest someone without a case.

      The question is, who is gonna liberate you from your Nazi-Führung in 10 years from now?
      --

      --
      "The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
    61. Re:rUSsiA by Stripsurge · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      So does this mean they have to go after God now because he didn't turn this guy in immediately?

      Seriously though, knowing about a crime to be committed yet saying nothing is punishable nearly as severely as actual crime, no? So if I put in my blog "I'm going to kill Joey Jo-Jo Junior Shabadooat at Moe's Tavern on the 13th of Smarch" then anybody and everybody who reads is required to turn me in. Or does this law not apply at all to mis/information spread via the internet? I'm curious is the SS checked IPs of visitors to the guy's site and asked them some questions.

    62. Re:rUSsiA by dbIII · · Score: 1
      I can see why the Secret Service would want to visit someone after they say something like that
      It's obviously way over the top, so only if they need to a tick off a box saying "10 incidents investigated this week" or if they are sent in by a paticularly clueless pointy haired boss. Perhaps it should be left to the conventional police who are more used to dealing with criminals instead of sending in the political police.
    63. Re:rUSsiA by nametaken · · Score: 1


      Read the link before you post. The words following that were:

      "as what I said could apparently be misconstrued as a threat to his life. After about ten minutes of talking to me and my family, they quickly came to the conclusion that I was not a threat to national security (mostly because we are the least threatening people in the entire world) and told me that they would not recommend that any further action be taken with my case."

      Sounds reasonable to me. I'm glad they checked him out. Having a president killed is a bad thing. Bad enough to try to avoid.

      And you don't know that what the man said was obviously facetious, because it's not there.

    64. Re:rUSsiA by mshiltonj · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      USA seem more and more like a police state.

      Where are you now? As bad as things are now, wait till the baby boomers start retiring in about 10 years, and watch things *really* go all to hell.

      Unless we change course in a drastic way and soon, leaving the country will be a compelling, if not necessary choice.

    65. Re:rUSsiA by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

      The only reason I would go to the USA would be to help in the next revolution.

      And that wouldn't look good on a visa application...


      Of course not. MasterCard, now that's everywhere you want to be!

      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
    66. Re:rUSsiA by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I'm sorry, but the grandparent post showed something that the Secret Service would give you a very tough time before 9/11, PATRIOT, etc. The Secret Service is paid to not have a sense of humor, a joke is supposed to be taken seriously.

      Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.

    67. Re:rUSsiA by OgreChow · · Score: 1

      Oh my God...fingerprints? I'm glad you survived the ordeal. Sorry, that was probably nasty. But come on! The moment I step off a plane in Europe I am faced by guards with giant automatic rifles.

    68. Re:rUSsiA by stanmann · · Score: 1

      Well, obviously they did a good job, or you are a good liar, because they determined you were just blowing off steam/hot air and allowed you to keep your blog and your freedom, so what is the problem?

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    69. Re:rUSsiA by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      It is literally impossible for a _public_ official to be at a private event.

      No it's not. What gives you that idea? The only thing it's impossible for a public official to do is claim certain privacy rights, e.g. photographers don't have to ask their permission to publish photos of them in certain circumstances where, were they private citizens, they'd have to obtain a release. I don't know where you get the idea that every event a public official attends somehow becomes a public event just because they are there! Private property remains private no matter who happens to be standing on it.

      _Public_ officials even have the word "Public" in their name. They are our servants and they should have to listen to what we have to say, even if they don't want to listen.

      Are you on crack? Following that logic, any of us should be able to walk into the president's bedroom at 3am and demand a full accounting of his knowledge of (insert scandalous event here). While I'm all for raking politicians over the coals, there's no rational justification for that sort of behavior. The word "public" being in the name of their general job category doesn't grant us some special right to control their lives.

      Free Speach Zones are the most troubling to me. A razor wire enclosure that holds maybe a 1000 people at a time that you have to enter to protest anywhere the president is at the time. Typically a 1/4 mile away behind the dumpsters and the uninals.

      I'm with you there.

      If you attempt to stand with an anti bush sign along the parade route, even with hundreds of other people around you with signs at the same time, you will be singled out and arrested if you do not remove yourself and your sign.

      They did the same thing when the DNC was in town here. Yep, it's a crock of shit.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    70. Re:rUSsiA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This LJ post was obviously in jest. Certainly in satire. A rationale person could easily separate this threat from a valid one.

      My concern is that (assuming the story is true) she was questioned by the USS over this matter. If the USS has such latitude in their investigations over threats to the president why aren't similar innocuous works (ie attempts on the president's life like Tom Clancy novels, the second X-Men film, and countless other fictional stories) also scrutinized?

    71. Re:rUSsiA by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      We paid for that appearance, according to press reports. As usual, the public pays for Bush's presidential campaign appearances, but enforces "private event" rules when the loyalty oaths aren't enough.

      What press reports? I can't find anything that describes it a publicly funded. Everything I've seen so far describes it as being run by the Bush-Cheney Campaign (private, funded by donations) and local Republican parties. The only publicly funded aspects I've seen were the Secret Service bodyguard for the first lady.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    72. Re:rUSsiA by TheSync · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      The War on Drugs has always been stupid. There is one presidential candidate on the ballot who opposes it. I'll leave it to the readers to figure out who.

    73. Re:rUSsiA by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      The Charleston Gazette, among others, as cited in that story to which I linked. I'm disappointed that you're still defending these rigged Bush campaign games, after (assumedly) reading the rest of the documented outrages on that page. But I can't say that I'm surprised.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    74. Re:rUSsiA by snwcrash · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      This still counts as civil disobediance. You entered legally, heckeled the speaker, were arrested, got news coverage and that should be the end of it. Typiically non-violent civil disbediance is dealt with a summons, which is usually dismissed since the charges are minor and no economic or physical damage occured.

      Punishing someone harshly for civil disobediance would be pretty bad for the state of our country. Since we'd be in effect locking up dissedents who refused to play along with the political machine that is American politics.

      --
      Save a life, sign your organ donor card.
    75. Re:rUSsiA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      They were dictated [...] by the Allied Powers, and given the relative power levels in those days, that means by the United States of America.

      Hmmm. Hitler's ally Stalin (look up the pre-war Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) attacked Finland (nearly unarmed and the first country in Europe to have introduced full democracy) in 1939. The mighty Soviet machine failed to break through into Finland that time but invaded numerous other European countries which couldn't defend themselves and then launched another massive attack against Finland in 1941.

      Since Hitler had also attacked Soviet Russia (before Stalin had the chance, although the Soviets were planning the same backstabbing manoeuver), the Allied Powers (USA only joined in later when they were attacked by Japan) decided to make that lunatic Stalin (the most murderous dictator in history) their best buddy and an "Ally". Neat, eh?

      So now the Allied Powers saw little Finland desperately defending itself against the murderous regime of Stalin and decided that Finland was an enemy! In 1944, in the most intense battle ever in continental Europe, Finland managed to repel a huge Soviet invasion and on the strength of that fortunate defensive victory Finland was able to negotiate for peace without losing her independence...

      In the Paris war court in 1947 the Finns were treated as Allied enemies and when the Finnish delegation attempted to set the Soviet-provided records straight (e.g. the ludicrous claim that the unarmed Finns had supposedly attacked their 50-times larger and militarized neighbour first!), they were threatened with immediate removal from the premises if they as much as opened their mouths. The result was that Finland was ordered to surrender large areas of their historical heartland (plus areas further up north, including access to the northern seafront) to the Soviets and to pay humongous war reparations to the invading dictatorship as well. The Putinist Russians hang onto those lands to this day, and haven't returned a sinle penny of those extortionist reparations.

      And now you're saying that it was the in fact the USA that engineered this criminal act on Stalin's behalf??? Of course there has never been any effort to correct such injustice, probably because the US has always been too busy playing new war games and striking convenient new alliances with dictatorships elsewhere...

    76. Re:rUSsiA by mvdwege · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Did I say anything about Finland?

      My remarks on the relative powers of the Allied Powers were obviously in the context of occupied Germany. And it that context it was the USA calling the shots.

      However shameful the treatment the Finns got, it has nothing at all to do with my post.

      Mart
      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    77. Re:rUSsiA by crashfrog · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Would it be so hard to look up the ISO country codes before going off on your anti-German rant?

      Did you reply to my post accidently? I never made an "anti-German rant", any more than the parent was an "anti-American rant."

      But you're right, I mixed up "DE" and "DK". A harmless mistake.

      Where he's from, of course, doesn't change anything about how wrong he was about what it's like in America. And nothing in your post does, either. For one who's chiding me about lacking education, you apparently slept through the day where they taught you how to respond to arguments.

      --
      I never have frustrations, the reason is, to wit:
      If at first I don't succeed, I quit!
  14. Just Wow. by Ryvar · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Virginia Kice, a spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said agents went to Pufferbelly based on a trademark infringement complaint filed in the agency's intellectual property rights center in Washington, D.C.

    "One of the things that our agency's responsible for doing is protecting the integrity of the economy and our nation's financial systems and obviously trademark infringement does have significant economic implications," she said.


    This sounds like really great news. What next? Every person who downloads MP3s is automatically branded a 'terrorist' because they might be threatening the integrity of the economy? Even if they own the CD in question (which is analogous here, because legally there's nothing wrong with the Majick Cube either now that the Rubik's patent has expired)?

    --Ryvar
  15. Confusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
    The title says, "trademark", the blurb says, "copyright" then takes about "patent". These terms are not interchangeable. The article clearly says this is a trademark issue.

    Customs is part of Homeland Security and customs has been enforcing these laws for as long as I can remember. These are imported goods.

    1. Re:Confusion by antiMStroll · · Score: 1

      Therefore, in effect, Homeland Security has been enforcing this as long as you can remember? Either you're stricken with advanced Alzheimer's or you're one of those people for whom any excercise of power by an authority you approve is justified. That kind of thinking will be the end of your republic.

    2. Re:Confusion by craXORjack · · Score: 1
      Customs is part of Homeland Security and customs has been enforcing these laws for as long as I can remember. These are imported goods.

      After the agents left, Cox called the manufacturer of the Magic Cube, the Toysmith Group, which is based in Auburn, Wash.

      Imported from where? From Washington state?

      --
      Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
    3. Re:Confusion by thelenm · · Score: 1

      Hey now! Don't you know this is Slashdot? You're not supposed to ruin a paranoid conspiracy theory with something as inconsequential as the facts!

      --
      Use Ctrl-C instead of ESC in Vim!
    4. Re:Confusion by Ron+Bennett · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Speaking of confusion ... why is does the Dept of Homeland Security include numerous functions that have little to nothing to do with homeland security? That's really the crux of the issue.

      DHS should be an organization designed to focus on real terror threats, and leave the rest to other separate agencies - yes, communication can be a problem between agencies, but misallocation of resources by an oversized organization is likekly to be an even greater problem ...

      DHS likely will be split up eventually ... as big corporate mergers have illustrated well, once an organization becomes too large, they nearly always end up going out of business (being acquired, sold off, etc) or spinning off pieces and become more focused, but I digress.

      Ron Bennett

    5. Re:Confusion by black+mariah · · Score: 0

      Because, as we're all aware, there is no such thing as a company getting someone in another country to produce goods for sale here in this country. Retard.

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    6. Re:Confusion by johnnyb · · Score: 1

      Customs was _moved_ to be under Homeland Security. It didn't change their job, just gave them new management.

    7. Re:Confusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear Retard,
      I like the way you signed your name at the end of the line instead of underneath like most people do. The article says the manufacturer is in Auburn Washington which is just outside of Seattle. Your welcome.
      -Genius who actually RTFA

    8. Re:Confusion by eclectro · · Score: 1

      These terms are not interchangeable. The article clearly says this is a trademark issue.

      So, that means that customs is tracking down all the toy stores that have puzzle cubes, as "cube" might be a trademark, as we know that "Magic" is not the same as "Rubik's."

      But even this still doesn't pass the bullshit test, as is it not only not infringing, but they were granted a trademark for the name "magic cube" according to USPTO.GOV

      The USPTO would not have granted a trademark to the "magic cube" if it was infringing.

      I thought that the Dept. of Homeland Security was all about "communication" between different government agencies.

      Why could they not perform a simple websearch that took me all of 30 seconds rather than spend days hassling a toy store.

      Or are they at the bid and call of anyone who makes any accusation thrown into the wind?

      Truly pathetic. Somebody needs to lose their job over this.

      Hell, why don't they dismantle the whole "Dept. of Homeland Security."

      I do not feel any safer, and I thought the "color coded" threat system was nothing more than a joke, always flipping between orange and yellow.

      While we are at it, if we do not have administration that can give us a "green" (or at least a "blue") on that system, their ass needs to be kicked out too.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
  16. Uh huh by mr.henry · · Score: 5, Funny
    This is a surprise? Here is a nice quote on abuse of the Patriot Act:

    "Within six months of passing the PATRIOT Act, the Justice Department was conducting seminars on how to stretch the new wiretapping provisions to extend them beyond terror cases," said Dan Dodson, a spokesman for the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys. "They say they want the PATRIOT Act to fight terrorism. Then, within six months, they are teaching their people how to use it on ordinary citizens."

    1. Re:Uh huh by LardBrattish · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Fahreinheit 911 had a good take on the Patriot act with that Senator going "we don't have enough time to read all the bills" etc. I'm sorry but THAT'S YOUR FUCKING JOB. That's why it's called "a reading" before the law is passed - YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO READ IT. During the "reading" if it turns up late and if it takes a week to read it, fine, that'll teach the legislators to publish the draft bills early enough to get them thouroughly read before the reading.

      Democracy is quietly dying because a buch of lazy people will happily pass the "Happy fluffy bunny (you'd be a nasty pinko liberal for not passing this) bill" without actually reading it and finding out that it disbands senate & congress and leaves all legislative & executive power in the hands of the president who now has an extended (life) term of office.

      --
      What are you listening to? (http://megamanic.blogetery.com/)
    2. Re:Uh huh by MalachiConstant · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Fahreinheit 911 had a good take on the Patriot act with that Senator going "we don't have enough time to read all the bills" etc. I'm sorry but THAT'S YOUR FUCKING JOB. That's why it's called "a reading" before the law is passed - YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO READ IT.

      I think this is a bit simplistic. The senate had 735 Bills last year according to that site, with language such as:

      "A producer member shall submit to the authority an application for the tax credit authorized by this section on a form provided by the authority. If the producer member meets all criteria prescribed by this section and is approved by the authority, the authority shall issue a tax credit certificate in the appropriate amount."

      Imagine trying to understand 735 documents composed of such language, some of which can be many many pages, or make "small" adjustments to current laws. Some bills, I'm sure, are written and titled to purposely obfuscate their true intentions as well.

      My guess is that's why senators and house members have staffs: to read the bills and tell them what they mean. There's not time enough in the day to read and understand fully all those bills.

      But...

      I certainly agree that each bill should be fully understood before it's voted on, which would mean a LOT more time between introduction and passing, which would mean fewer bills being passed, which is fine with me except in emergency situations (like aid to hurricane victims, etc.).

      Democracy is quietly dying because a buch of lazy people will happily pass the "Happy fluffy bunny (you'd be a nasty pinko liberal for not passing this) bill" without actually reading it...

      No, democracy is dying because of fundamental flaws in large scale republics and american culture, and lack of interest and education of Americans.

      (Disclamer: I'm an American and I dislike both of the major candidates, but I hate Bush more. Remember though, the DMCA was passed under Clinton.)

    3. Re:Uh huh by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      They got the bullet points. They knew it was a big hand out to law enforcement and would be easily abused. It was either sign it or be declared a traitor by the conservative elites who own the media and face a popular outcry by the media-consumers who would be prompted by their friendly anchorman to take action against an enemy of the state.

      The corruption runs deep and its not laziness at its core.

    4. Re:Uh huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe if they spent more than 1/3 of the year actually doing work, instead of campaigning, they'd have more time to actually comprehend what they're voting on.

    5. Re:Uh huh by LardBrattish · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I certainly agree that each bill should be fully understood before it's voted on, which would mean a LOT more time between introduction and passing, which would mean fewer bills being passed, which is fine with me except in emergency situations (like aid to hurricane victims, etc.).

      I think part of the problem is that unrelated laws are being passed in the same bill & they're given media friendly names based on only one part of the bundle. A good thing would be to force the unbundling of unrelated acts. That way it would be easier to summarize the meaning of the bill & harder to hide the bad stuff.

      That way a senator/congressman that wanted to vote down the "Give the police the ability to shoot anyone suspected of thinking of doing anything subversive" clause wouldn't be criticised for voting against "providing Hurricane relief to Florida" because the two things happened to be in the same bill.

      If the Hurricane relief bill could legally only contain clauses relating directly to disaster relief in Southern USA people would not have to study the bills to make sure there wasn't any "accidental Fascism" contained within. Or alternatively set up a Disater Relief office with a flexible budget that can come to the aid of areas hit by natural disasters as & when required. Some years they'd be grossly under the projected budget; other years they'd be over but you wouldn't have to get a bill passed every time a hurricane hits.

      Personally I'd be a lot happier to see a slowing down of legislation if it avoids the erosion of fundamental rights.

      --
      What are you listening to? (http://megamanic.blogetery.com/)
    6. Re:Uh huh by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      EXACTLY. Honestly, I'm surprised Kerry isn't touting the fact that he didn't vote against body armor, he voted against it and a million other, much worse things in that bill the Bush ads are pushing.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    7. Re:Uh huh by HiThere · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You have made an excellent argument as to why there should be limitations on both the number and the length of bills presented to the legislators in any one session.

      You are right, if you let in just anything (P.A.T.R.I.O.T.), then garbage will be passes without being read. SO DON'T.

      Not that I can imagine the current politicians taking the job of legislator seriously. The DMCA wasn't read by the legislators of the states that passed it, either. It was 2000 pages long (or more). Nobody can read that. Yet we're supposed to know and obey it. RIGHT!

      It's becoming increasingly likely that the purpose of the laws is to make EVERYONE a felon. (Can you PROVE that you aren't one. Just because you haven't yet been accused doesn't prove anything.)

      Just how much respect do you have for that kind of legislation?

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    8. Re:Uh huh by RodgerDodger · · Score: 1

      They could start by voting against any bill they haven't had the time to figure out yet. This might encourage the drafters of a bill to make their intentions a little plainer.

      --
      "Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
    9. Re:Uh huh by mpe · · Score: 1

      Imagine trying to understand 735 documents composed of such language, some of which can be many many pages, or make "small" adjustments to current laws. Some bills, I'm sure, are written and titled to purposely obfuscate their true intentions as well.

      This sounds very similar to the problem with the US Patent Office. The difference is that the US Congress is not actually obliged to pass any bills at all.

    10. Re:Uh huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For those of you who are a little bit slow, the laws are not supposed to be understood. Remember Joe Kennedy's comment on his whiskey bootlegging trucks destroying the highways that his company had the contracts to maintain? "Business makes business." This is the same thing, but the business at hand is law.

    11. Re:Uh huh by mpe · · Score: 1

      Not that I can imagine the current politicians taking the job of legislator seriously. The DMCA wasn't read by the legislators of the states that passed it, either.

      At least part of the problem is too many "professional" politicans.

      It was 2000 pages long (or more). Nobody can read that. Yet we're supposed to know and obey it. RIGHT!

      Maybe if there were more ordinary people in the US Congress it would have been filed under "waste paper".

      It's becoming increasingly likely that the purpose of the laws is to make EVERYONE a felon.

      Not everyone various "corporate people" appear to be excluded as do politicans...

    12. Re:Uh huh by mpe · · Score: 1

      Or alternatively set up a Disater Relief office with a flexible budget that can come to the aid of areas hit by natural disasters as & when required.

      Maybe you could even give them a catchy name like "Federal Emergency Management Agency" :)

    13. Re:Uh huh by Kalkin · · Score: 1

      Sadly, bills are presented for vote with little chance to read them. It happens in every Congress, unfortunately, politics aside, this one more than most. (There are stats available for the more energetic folks, however, I'm not sober. Suffer, or use Google.)

      Night sessions, and excluding the minority political party (even if they're part of that sub-commitee), with bills being presented the next day. In some cases, you're looking at having to vote on bills with hundreds of pages, with no time to read them.

      There are several ways to vote on them, at this point. Ideology, or relying on special interests (and their biased information sources.

    14. Re:Uh huh by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      In fact, the full text of the Patriot Act was not provided for the senators to read anyway - they were just given time to read a brief summary, and even THAT was not read by some of them.

      The fateful day that they voted on the Patriot Act, only 1% of the Senate wanted to actually do the duty their consitituents hired them to do, and that 1% was named Russ Feingold. He's the only one that demanded to be allowed to read the full text of the bill before even considering voting for it. He's the only one that refused to support a "blank check" for the executive branch. Keeping the Executive Branch's power down to a reasonable level is a very important duty of the Legislature. If a Senator decides to pass a bill written by the President's cabinet, without even reading it, then that senator is not doing the job of senator.

      This is the primary reason I cannot support Kerry despite my fear of Bush. Kerry was one of that other 99% of the senate that demonstrated to me that they don't see public office as a duty, but as a privilege.

      I'll have to go third-party this year, and for presidential hopes, pin my hopes on keeping Feingold in the senate a bit longer so he can run for president next time. (Despite his claim that he doesn't really plan on doing so, I think that things might change if the situation continues to worsen.)

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    15. Re:Uh huh by gnovos · · Score: 2, Insightful

      magine trying to understand 735 documents composed of such language, some of which can be many many pages, or make "small" adjustments to current laws. Some bills, I'm sure, are written and titled to purposely obfuscate their true intentions as well.

      Yeah, and how, exactly, are the people expected to be abrest of and follow those laws if the very people who pass them can't read them?

      --
      "Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
    16. Re:Uh huh by dbIII · · Score: 1
      I think this is a bit simplistic. The senate had 735 Bills last year according to that site
      If they were on minimum wage without any staff and all of the lovely lobby money they would have an excuse, but they don't - because the people of the USA have provided them with the means to do their jobs FOR the people of the USA.

      Disclaimer - I am not American, and my equivalent of getting off my arse to vote is to hassle those who can.

    17. Re:Uh huh by jonnystiph · · Score: 1

      It's becoming increasingly likely that the purpose of the laws is to make EVERYONE a felon

      Hey that reminds me, did you ever play that game Paranoia? Oh wait...oh crap...nothing, I said nothing mighty computer...

      --

      If we don't make light of everything, we are just stumbling in the dark - Blank

    18. Re:Uh huh by Weirsbaski · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > Fahreinheit 911 had a good take on the Patriot act with that Senator going "we don't have enough time
      > to read all the bills" etc. I'm sorry but THAT'S YOUR FUCKING JOB. That's why it's called "a reading"
      > before the law is passed - YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO READ IT.

      I think this is a bit simplistic. The senate had 735 Bills last year according to that site, with language such as:

      "A producer member shall submit to the authority an application for the tax credit authorized by this section on a form provided by the authority. If the producer member meets all criteria prescribed by this section and is approved by the authority, the authority shall issue a tax credit certificate in the appropriate amount."

      Imagine trying to understand 735 documents composed of such language, some of which can be many many pages, or make "small" adjustments to current laws. Some bills, I'm sure, are written and titled to purposely obfuscate their true intentions as well.

      My guess is that's why senators and house members have staffs: to read the bills and tell them what they mean. There's not time enough in the day to read and understand fully all those bills.


      And yet for most of us, ignorance of the law is no excuse...

      --

      I am not a sig.
    19. Re:Uh huh by tade · · Score: 1

      Imagine trying to understand 735 documents composed of such language, some of which can be many many pages, or make "small" adjustments to current laws. Some bills, I'm sure, are written and titled to purposely obfuscate their true intentions as well.

      I wouldn't be too worried about the senators not being able to understand but think of the said producer that the bill you cited talks about. I mean it's your government and you have to follow the laws. You have to understand and certainly not all citizens are able to hire their law reading staff, are they?

    20. Re:Uh huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      like the man said, it's their fucking job.

      Bill written in bullshit-speak? Send it back until they write it in english.
      Regardless of how many bills, and how garbled, are put in front of them, these are the people who are supposed to check them. Nobody else is in a position do do so.

      It is a senators job to check these bills to make sure they do not contain any nasty surprises, much like airport security personnel ensure that people's luggage does not contain any nasty surprises.
      Senators get paid a LOT more than customs officers, but somehow it's okay for them to just let stuff through "on the nod" because they're awfully busy?
      Can you imagine the outrage if, in the aftermath of a plane being brought down by a bomb, security personnel were to say "we don't have time to check all the bags"?

    21. Re:Uh huh by harks · · Score: 1

      Don't they have staff members to assist with reading the bills and summarizing?

    22. Re:Uh huh by spike1 · · Score: 1

      Citizen jOnnystiph, crime of disrespectful and/or foul and/or desceptive language detected... Please report to orange section re-education booth 5 immediately...

      *ZAP* bring on the clones....

    23. Re:Uh huh by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      If the wording is too obtuse for a senator or congressman to understand easily, then they shouldn't be writing such obtuse shit, or they should go back and really graduate from whatever college they did or didn't go to.

    24. Re:Uh huh by ratamacue · · Score: 1
      The senate had 735 Bills last year

      Stop right there. Can anyone spot the problem?

      There are so many bills that need to be passed, they just don't have the time to read them! In other words, passing the bill -- that is, expanding the scope of government -- is more important than the specifics of the bill itself, let alone the negative effects.

      It's obvious now what the #1 priority of government is: to expand the scope of government.

    25. Re:Uh huh by retinaburn · · Score: 1

      If you can't read it, don't pass it. I don't know why they find this so hard to understand. ARGGGGGG.

    26. Re:Uh huh by alexo · · Score: 1

      > Imagine trying to understand 735 documents composed of such language, some
      > of which can be many many pages, or make "small" adjustments to current laws.
      > Some bills, I'm sure, are written and titled to purposely obfuscate their
      > true intentions as well.


      Then these bills turn into laws which are impossible to understand and follow because of their ambiguous wording which, incidently, makes selective enforcement that much easier.

      Therefore, the representative should reject on sight any bill that the average lay-person cannot read and understand in a reasonably short amount of time.

      Confusing? Obfuscated? Vote NO!

      > Disclamer: I'm an American and I dislike both of the major candidates,
      > but I hate Bush more. Remember though, the DMCA was passed under Clinton.


      It's not that there aren't any other choices...
      You don't have to vote for Kodos.

    27. Re:Uh huh by Qrlx · · Score: 1

      Democracy is quietly dying because a buch of lazy people will happily pass the ... bill without actually reading it
      In case you don't recall, the USA PATRIOT act was rammed through Congress by the Republican leadership. There was no time to read it. I don't recall exactly, but there were something like three days between the time the bill was introduced and the time it was voted on. The thing is 1000 pages, you'd have to spend at least the first day just reading it.

      If you recall the floor debate, many many senators said that they were uncofortable with the language and weren't even sure on what the implications were, but they were voting for it anyway, putting their faith in the system and the President.

      It's reprehensible that a bill which fundamentally alters so much of our government, and in fact creates a whole new branch of government, should get so little debate. But the Powers That Be wanted it that way.

      Blame the leadership.

    28. Re:Uh huh by npsimons · · Score: 1

      I think this is a bit simplistic. The senate had 735 Bills last year according to that site, with language such as:

      "A producer member shall submit to the authority an application for the tax credit authorized by this section on a form provided by the authority. If the producer member meets all criteria prescribed by this section and is approved by the authority, the authority shall issue a tax credit certificate in the appropriate amount."

      Imagine trying to understand 735 documents composed of such language, some of which can be many many pages, or make "small" adjustments to current laws. Some bills, I'm sure, are written and titled to purposely obfuscate their true intentions as well.

      You know, there's a simple solution to this: DON'T PASS THE FUCKING BILL (or buck). If you don't understand it, don't pass it. If it's purposely written to obfuscate it's true nature, don't pass it. If it was submitted for vote and you aren't given enough time to read it DON'T FUCKING PASS IT!! How hard can this be?


      That's it, from now on, I'm going to vote only for candidates that vote "no" on bills and presidents that veto anything that comes across their desk. The less laws, the better.

    29. Re:Uh huh by juan2074 · · Score: 1
      Too bad Feingold only represents Wisconsin.

      Unfortunately, I have not seen any candidates for senate promise to read and understand bills before voting on them.

    30. Re:Uh huh by roju · · Score: 1

      You're right - and not only could these Senators vote Nay on any bills they haven't read, there's an actual vote that means "Really, I don't know what to vote" and it's called an "abstention". You'd think that Senators would be somewhat familiar with these things, but apparently not.

    31. Re:Uh huh by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      Well, I live in Wisconsin, and this tuesday I'll be doing my small part to help keep him in office. Despite the outcry about the president's policies after 9/11, I'm really more angry at the congress for letting it happen. There are measures in place in the US Constitution that are supposed to prevent executive orders from enacting sweeping changes to laws by fiat. The congress chose not to bother excercising them. Therefore any one of the Senators today who complains about Bush's abuse of power is a total hypocrite, and that includes Kerry. The only one with the right to make that complaint is Feingold.

      In case you can't tell, I'm more than a little bit annoyed at the bad choices available this year - a dictator, or a politician who collaborated with that dictator for personal gain.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    32. Re:Uh huh by danila · · Score: 1

      I think this is a bit simplistic. The senate had 735 Bills last year according to that site, with language such as

      And so what? Would millions of kids die if you don't pass a bill about tax credits in time? If you haven't read the bill, vote against it, simple. And next time you, as a Senator or Congressman are writing a bill, write it clearly. It's not like the Bills are prepared by some evil outsiders - they are written in the parliament, so they can at least make sure they understand what they write, that's all.

      Why does the country need so many new laws anyway? It's not like the situation is changing so quickly that without new laws the country would collapse. I think cutting the number of the bills 10 times would only do you all some good.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    33. Re:Uh huh by marxmarv · · Score: 1
      I'm glad I'm not the only person who sees that big = bad when it comes to organizations. The question is: now what?

      -jhp

      --
      /. -- the Free Republic of technology.
  17. two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    fucking awesome.

    Seriously, I'm happy I live in a country that will protect me from the ROUGE RUBICS CUBE!

    1. Re:two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah! Red is scary!

    2. Re:two words by nebaz · · Score: 1

      ROUGE RUBICS CUBE!
      Moulin Rogue would have been a more interesting movie...

      --
      Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
    3. Re:two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Red rubics cubes are the scourge of the known universe.

    4. Re:two words by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1
      Seriously, I'm happy I live in a country that will protect me from the ROUGE RUBICS CUBE!

      This just incident just reinforces Kerry's point in the debates that 90% of the cargo containers in our nation's ports aren't even being inspected.

      If we had adequate inspections in our ports, these rogue cubes would never have penetrated so deeply into our homeland. Not intercepting these cubes until after the general public has possibly suffered exposure to them is completely unacceptable.

  18. Of course! by theparanoidcynic · · Score: 5, Funny

    Puzzles are an atempt to destroy our national security! If our children had puzzels they, they might become smart, and ask questions. We can't have children asking questions now can we? They'll never make good sheeple that way!

    --
    Only in a Slashdot fantasy can a Slackware install turn into several hours of sex . . . . .
    1. Re:Of course! by quarkscat · · Score: 1

      Which is also why Michael Moore's epic
      documentary film "Fahrenheit 9-11" was
      rated "R" (or "Restricted" == 17 or older).
      Can't have youngsters learning to question
      authority before they have been properly
      programmed as witless consumers (of both
      goods & propaganda).

    2. Re:Of course! by cplusplus · · Score: 0

      I was thinking, "Wow, what a dumb way to spell 'sheep'." So I googled it: http://www.wordspy.com/words/sheeple.asp
      I feel like a dork. But the beer is helping!

      --
      "False hope is why we'll never run out of natural resources!" - Lewis Black
    3. Re:Of course! by surprise_audit · · Score: 1
      Did you see "Mercury Rising"?? Bruce Willis as a government agent trying to protect an autistic boy who broke the government's latest super-secret code when some id10t published a puzzle encrypted using the Mercury Rising code.

      Maybe the Rubik Cube is some kind of encryption engine?? There are 54 little squares on the cube - enough for the whole alphabet with some repeats, 10 digits and some special characters. Twist the cube every time you copy off a character, kinda like the Enigma machine rotated its dials... No, I'm probably not serious about it... Or am I?? :)

    4. Re:Of course! by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Puzzles are an atempt to destroy our national security!
      That would have to be the next step after having to protect the children from those unamerican breasts.
    5. Re:Of course! by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Well, you misunderstood: Those puzzles are terrorist's weapons. They bind your mental energy to solving the puzzle, so that it is not any more available to solve more important problems. It's a tool to destroy the free market by removing the mental power from it.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  19. Re:But we all know... by ravenspear · · Score: 3, Funny

    Ok, who modded me troll?

    Come one now, this is /. I have to stand up for my right to make totally asinine posts completely devoid of any relevant subject matter related to the article which I haven't even read.

  20. Uh... yeah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "One of the things that our agency's responsible for doing is protecting the integrity of the economy and our nation's financial systems and obviously trademark infringement does have significant economic implications," she said.

    From the Homeland Security site:

    How does the mission of the Department of Homeland Security differ from those of other agencies? The new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has three primary missions: Prevent terrorist attacks within the United States, reduce America's vulnerability to terrorism, and minimize the damage from potential attacks and natural disasters.

    Another page on what exactly they do...

    Something's not adding up.

    1. Re:Uh... yeah. by anon*127.0.0.1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I've figured it out. The Rubiks cube was actually invented by some commie, wasn't it? So the All-American Majick Cube would actually be HELPING our economy, by making sure part of the profits didn't go to those godless communists.

      So, if the Dept of Homeland Security confiscated the American cubes.... they must be agents of the Soviet Government. Thats the only thing that makes sense.

      --
      I am NOT a man!
      I am a free number!
    2. Re:Uh... yeah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's the land of the brave, and the home of the free; Where the less you know, the better off you'll be.
      I sure hope not, Bush is sure to win the election if this is true.
    3. Re:Uh... yeah. by BigBuckHunter · · Score: 1

      I thought that it was Tetris?

    4. Re:Uh... yeah. by dbIII · · Score: 1
      they must be agents of the Soviet Government
      The cold war is over, and the former USSR is steadily getting democracy. What is the USA getting?

      Best constitution on earth - don't lose it.

    5. Re:Uh... yeah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're thinking of Tetris, not the Rubik's Cube being invented by some commie.

  21. Um. Patent by Mike+Hicks · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Wow. The title of this article (er, the Slashdot blurb) says "trademark," and the body says "copyright" as well as "patent." I think we're just dealing with a patent here. These are fairly distinct things, with wildly different rules...

  22. DHS seems to have morphed by Dancin_Santa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The American Federal government already has a law enforcement agency, that being the ever-venerated FBI. In addition, the Secret Service also acts in some cases as a law enforcement agency, providing protection for the President, government buildings like the U.S. mints, and, of course, as the chief investigator of counterfeiting schemes.

    Now the DHS seems to see its role as more than a simple anti-terrorist investigative agency. They think of themselves as another arm of Federal law enforcement. To some extent, they are correct. The role they play is vital to American national security, and to reach the goals of the agency it is mandatory that they have the ability to use law enforcement tactics.

    However, to stretch the fairly narrow initial charter of the DHS to include such things as "defending the national economy" is nothing short of stupid and dangerous. When the DHS was formed, their purview only included possible terrorist attacks. Now it is expanded to include just about any crime that someone deems undesirable.

    The government should not have many overlapping law enforcement agencies. Indeed, this is what led to the massive intelligence failure on 9/11 with the lack of communication between the various government agencies. The DHS would be better absorbed into the FBI as a anti-terror division than to continue expanding its powers unabated.

    1. Re:DHS seems to have morphed by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Secret Service is security for Treasury. Since they're the only "police" authorized to shoot fleeing suspects on only "suspicion" of guilt, rather than higher standards of evidence or eyewitness, they are used to protect the president. Department of Homeland Security has been given such broad powers, with so little accountability, that they are being used to enforce even nonexistent IP rights. That's why today's lawyer politicians are always talking about getting legal "tools" from Congress. Once they have the tool, they can use it for whatever they please. They're law hackers, with 1337 b51b357 5k177z.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    2. Re:DHS seems to have morphed by praksys · · Score: 2, Informative

      Now the DHS seems to see its role as more than a simple anti-terrorist investigative agency.

      The DHS was never intended to be just an anti-terrorist agency and it never had a narrow charter. The whole idea was to put everything relating to domestic security under one roof. Among the many former departments and agencies that it includes are Customs, Immigration, the Coast Guard, and the Secret Service.

    3. Re:DHS seems to have morphed by SkitzoBunny · · Score: 1

      One of the sub-agencies of DHS is CBP (Customs & Border Protection) and it is now CBP's job (formerly US Customs who is now part of CBP) to clear shipments of incoming goods into the country. If a shipping container full of SpongeBob SquareShorts toys comes in and doesn't have the proper supporting license to sell using a trademarked item, it is rightfully denied entry. All you have is someone who didn't do their homework (If that is what really happened) It is *not* an expansion of powers because the former US Customs agency already had this power. You may now return to your previous level of paranoia.

    4. Re:DHS seems to have morphed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Secret Service protects the President because about the time we started doing that (real Presidents, such as Andrew Jackson, just caned their would-be assassins on the steps of the White House) they were the main and most organized Federal Law Enforcement. The FBI and DEA and all the rest had not come along; other than the Secret Service, there was just Federal Marshalls.

      And your comment about being authorized to shoot fleeing suspects on mere suspicion is simply wrong and ignorant.

    5. Re:DHS seems to have morphed by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      So far I have found the law authorizing Treasury Agents in protection details to arrest people with no warrant, only "reasonable grounds", which is a lower standard for arrest than by regular police. Perhaps I was misinformed about an exaggerated "license to kill" - in which case thanks for reducing my ignorance. It also gave me occasion to learn that under Clinton, divorced presidential spouses are entitled to protection until some other remarriage/death event occurs. I expect that I will never use any of this info again, except perhaps in posting to Slashdot :).

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  23. But wait... by 77Punker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...expiration violations aside, shouldn't the order be to stop manufacturing them, not to stop selling them? Also, isn't the owner of this (expired) patent responsible for enforcing it instead of Homeland Security just hunting them down?

    1. Re:But wait... by surprise_audit · · Score: 1

      As somebody else pointed out, they're imported, not "Made In USA". So, Homeland Security can't really order the manufacturer to stop. What they could do would be to tell Dubya there's WMD's being made at the same plant...

    2. Re: But wait... by gh5046 · · Score: 0

      Trademark infringement only happens when you offer goods or services that have a similar trademark. You can fill cans full of raviolis and put a "Chief Boyardo" label on each of them until the cows come home, but the second you start distributing them the infringement happens.

  24. Just the facts ma'am by StikyPad · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Aren't there any terrorists out there?" she said.

    Terrorists? Do you think we'd be mucking around in Iraq if we knew where to find terrorists??

    Now just put down the cubes and nobody gets hurt.

    1. Re:Just the facts ma'am by kubrick · · Score: 2, Funny

      Do you think we'd be mucking around in Iraq if we knew where to find terrorists?

      You've gone over there to make some more, I'd thought. Can't have a war on terrorism without terrorists, after all...

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
    2. Re:Just the facts ma'am by johnnyb · · Score: 0, Troll

      Actually, Iraq is where all of the terrorists seem to flee. The only remaining terrorist from WTC1 fled to Iraq. Zarqawi fled from Afghanistan to Iraq. Abu Nidal fled from the Phillipines to Iraq.

      In addition, Iraq has been coordinating with Al-Qaeda for over a decade now. The 9/11 victims even won a judgment against Iraq for the 9/11 atrocity (Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence in the months leading up to 9/11).

      Ramzi Youssef, part of Iraqi intelligence, and the technical mastermind behind WTC1, trained Terry Nichols (OKC) in bomb-making. Hussein Al-Hussany, a former member of Iraq's Republican Guard, was seen w/ McVeigh on the day of the OKC bombing, and his alibi was found to be a lie. Jayna Davis, an OKC reporter, even wrote a book naming him as John Doe #2. He sued her for libel, and she won.

    3. Re:Just the facts ma'am by thelandp · · Score: 1
      "Aren't there any terrorists out there?" she said.

      People need to be more objective about how priorities are chosen in what the government should be spending it's time and money on. Terrorism seems to have become the #1 issue in the election, but why is that?

      Here's a more rational criterion: how does terrorism rate in terms of a ranked list of causes of death? Accoridng to the CDC, pretty low.

      No offense to the victims of September 11, it was a great tragedy. But realistically, how do americans justify the amount of time/money spent on fighting this imho overhyped "war on terror"?

      --

      -- the only thing we have to fear is really scary things
    4. Re:Just the facts ma'am by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The really funny thing about this troll is that some people will believe it.

      It's also kinda funny to see someone with a UID under 5000 doing this kind of trolling.

    5. Re:Just the facts ma'am by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Actually, Iraq is where all of the terrorists seem to flee.


      Let's see... Building destroyed by mostly arab nationals ... master mind in Afganistan ... US sends troops to Iraq ...

      So you're saying US troops are terrorists?

    6. Re:Just the facts ma'am by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 9/11 victims even won a judgment against Iraq for the 9/11 atrocity

      I don't suppose you have a source for this remarkable claim. What group of victims "won a judgement", and from what court?

    7. Re:Just the facts ma'am by dbIII · · Score: 1
      In addition, Iraq has been coordinating with Al-Qaeda for over a decade now
      Think for a quarter of a second about what an extreme bunch of religeous fanatics would think about the one secular government on their turf. With all that Saddam did wrong, getting these guys to do something other than to want to kill him just didn't happen.
      former member of Iraq's Republican Guard, was seen w/ McVeigh
      So now even your home grown loonies are spawn of Saddam - get real. Wasn't Rumsfeld shaking Saddams hand about then anyway?
    8. Re:Just the facts ma'am by TheDredd · · Score: 1

      But realistically, how do americans justify the amount of time/money spent on fighting this imho overhyped "war on terror"?

      Guess the same way they did with the cold war

    9. Re:Just the facts ma'am by johnnyb · · Score: 1

      "Think for a quarter of a second about what an extreme bunch of religeous fanatics would think about the one secular government on their turf."

      They shared common enemies -- the US and Israel. In Louisiana, in one county, you had Baptist Churches coordinating with liquor stores in another county in order to keep booze out of their town. The Church just didn't want it, and the liquor stores wanted to maintain their control of the market. They worked together for a common purpose even though otherwise they probably would not have spoken to each other. It's the same kind of thing. Al-Qaeda was the best thing Saddam had to attack the US. He even made his country a little more religious in order to make it more attractive for Al-Qaeda.

      "So now even your home grown loonies are spawn of Saddam - get real."

      Why don't you read the data? This is eyewitness testimony.

      "Wasn't Rumsfeld shaking Saddams hand about then anyway?"

      That was the 80's. As I pointed out in another thread, Bush is having to take the fallout from the previous four administrations. Reagan was the one who set up both Iraq and the terrorist entities in order to defeat communism. Now Bush has to deal w/ their outgrowths.

    10. Re:Just the facts ma'am by johnnyb · · Score: 1

      "A federal judge in New York City on Wednesday found Iraq among those liable for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and awarded nearly $104 million to the families of two men who died in the World Trade Center."

      USATODAY: Lawsuit ruling finds Iraq partly responsible for 9/11

      CBS NEWS: Lawsuit: Iraq Involved In 9/11 Conspiracy

    11. Re:Just the facts ma'am by TummyX · · Score: 1


      master mind in Afganistan ... US sends troops to Iraq ...


      Gee maybe it's not about avenging 9/11 and it's more about preventing the next attack by introducing democracy into a region that has been unstable for the better part of the last century?

      BTW, did you know that Aragorn's administration attacked Mordor when it was Saruman (from Isengard who was funded by middle earth and has ties with Gandalf) who attacked the castle at helms deep?

      PS. They also sent troops to Afghnistan and in case you didn't notice, that country is on course to the 21st century.

    12. Re:Just the facts ma'am by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy shit. Which town in louie is it? 'Cause I'm thinking it would be a supreme opportunity to open up a bar and strip club!

      Just think! All of those alcohol repressed Baptists in denial would flock to my bars and suck down whisky like only like rednecks can!

      (and hey, I can contribute to the demoralization of America, too; that's always worth something--leaves a warm pit in my heart)

    13. Re:Just the facts ma'am by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, read the articles you cite. The judgement was based partly on Colin Powell's testimony linking Iraq and Al Qaeda, which has been debunked by just about every analysis of the 9/11 and the leadup to the Iraq war.

      The judge said 'The testimony, Baer wrote, "barely" established a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq'. Given what we now know about the testimony, this doesn't seem like very solid ground to stand on.

      But, hey.. don't let that stop you from making outlandish claims with no regard for facts. It works for the president, and you seem to be pretty comfortable with it too.

    14. Re:Just the facts ma'am by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > He even made his country a little more religious in order to make it more attractive for Al-Qaeda.

      He began using religion as a tool for more control over his people after he was nearly overthrown in the first Gulf War. Every credible analysis I have seen of Iraq and Al Qaeda agree that there was no significant cooperation between the groups. Al Qaeda wanted to eliminate the non Islamic fundamentalist governments in their holy land (like Iraq and the Saudis).

    15. Re:Just the facts ma'am by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Why don't you read the data? This is eyewitness testimony.
      Even George Bush is only two degrees of separtion from Saddam or even Hitler (via his grandfathers bank directorship), but only a loony would say they are working together in some sort of conspiracy.

      Time to take off the tinfoil hat. It doesn't help that they are getting handed out as wartime propaganda.

    16. Re:Just the facts ma'am by johnnyb · · Score: 1

      "Even George Bush is only two degrees of separtion from Saddam or even Hitler"

      That's because he doesn't think it's an issue worth dividing the country over. He doesn't have enough proof (at least declassified) to convince everyone, so he's not going to try to divide the country when he has a media who questions his every point.

    17. Re:Just the facts ma'am by dbIII · · Score: 1
      He doesn't have enough proof (at least declassified) to convince everyone
      Time to think again for half a second - the commander in cheif can declassify information if required, and the "we have evidence but we can't show you" argument has been used to cover incompetance on more than just the Niger Uranium stupidity.

      If the best evidence they can show nations that they want to help them with military action is a photograph of a shed, either the cupboard is bare or the agency is run by incompetants. Both appear to be the case at this time. Various Roswell bullshit make more sense than some of the things that have been coming out in official press releases - but there was the disclaimer a couple of years ago that there would be wartime propaganda.

    18. Re:Just the facts ma'am by johnnyb · · Score: 1

      "Time to think again for half a second - the commander in cheif can declassify information if required"

      The _reason_ things are classified is that the public should not know for reasons of national security or to protect a source.

      '"we have evidence but we can't show you" argument has been used to cover incompetance on more than just the Niger Uranium stupidity'

      Actually, the Niger Uranium is likely true. Joe Wilson has been discreditted multiple times, and the forged documents were likely just used to hide the fact that the Uranium was shipped either through or to Libya.

    19. Re:Just the facts ma'am by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Actually, the Niger Uranium is likely true
      Now I know you are just winding me up. Two agencies have apologised for their error on the matter, and they almost never apologise. Now you'll say they were competent on absolutely everything apart from picking Joe Wilson to check up on things. US television news must have had something about it - and I suggest you also look at other sources of information. The BBC are reasonably independant (royal charter, seperate income stream, so they can say bad things about anyone), as are many newspapers.
  25. No Whiners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take your mods like a man.

    1. Re:No Whiners by ravenspear · · Score: 1

      Yeah I know. I got to meet Taco this week so at least that's a plus. ;)

    2. Re:No Whiners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, not everybody gets to have the honor of having a gerbiling session with Taco.

  26. Nothing to see here by sulli · · Score: 4, Interesting
    These are US Customs agents. Customs agents enforce, among other things, import regulations against counterfiet goods.

    The Customs Service is now part of Homeland Security. Ergo, DHS agents were the ones who investigated this incident.

    --

    sulli
    RTFJ.
    1. Re:Nothing to see here by Snar+Bloot · · Score: 0, Troll

      Somebody Mod this up. It's a sensible post amongst a pile of knee-jerk one-handed spasm posts from the tin-foil-hat society members.

    2. Re:Nothing to see here by Scumbumbo · · Score: 1

      Imported from Auburn, Washington?

    3. Re:Nothing to see here by gareth6889 · · Score: 0

      "Ergo"

      I really hate The Matrix for introducing that word to the geek world >:-(

    4. Re:Nothing to see here by bluekanoodle · · Score: 1

      If you check out the toysmith group, they look like they are a distributor of a wide variety of toys, mostly cheap, chinese made ones, so yes, these probably were imported.

    5. Re:Nothing to see here by fafalone · · Score: 1

      Too bad it's not imported.

      RTFA please... " After the agents left, Cox called the manufacturer of the Magic Cube, the Toysmith Group, which is based in Auburn, Wash."
      This not fall under Customs.

    6. Re:Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for pointing this out. There is no conspiracy here, US Customs is primarily tasked with inspecting cargo coming across the border.

      The US Customs webpage says clearly Dept. of Homeland Security, so it's not as if anybody is trying to keep this a secret.

    7. Re:Nothing to see here by general_re · · Score: 2, Informative
      Too bad it's not imported.

      Yes it probably is, and it took me a whopping 45 seconds on Google to figure that out - "Founded in 1981, Toysmith is an importer/distributor of toys, gifts and novelties from all over the world."

      source.

      --
      ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
    8. Re:Nothing to see here by Scumbumbo · · Score: 1

      I had considered that probability actually ;) The point is that the importation occured somewhere else entirely. The job of Customs officials is to keep the stuff out in the first place, and should not be to go from store to store across the country watching it be removed from shelves. It's an amazing waste of time and resources to do so when they could simply send out bulletins to the retailers to return the product. The few hundred or so toys that slip through would do less harm to the economy than flying customs agents all over the nation. I mean, if a toy is found to cause spontaneous decapatations of children under the age of 5 the CPSC doesn't send agents to every store to take those off the shelf, they just issue a flyer to the stores to stop selling/return stock - and that is a MUCH worse issue. OK, maybe for spontaneous decapitations they would send people out. More likely they would just issue a bulletin to let local police handle it.

    9. Re:Nothing to see here by bluekanoodle · · Score: 1
      I see your point, but let's consider another possibiliy. Let's say Customs had a complaint filed, but the complaint file only mentioned that this one particular store was selling them. The agents job would be to investigate, and it's possible they thought it was only this store selling them. Upon interviewing the owner, they now know that it's distributed out of Auburn. They can then turn around and go after the importer, once they know who it is.

      This may sound far fetched, but then that's why it's called an investigation, because they don't have all the facts yet.

      All we have to go on is a sensationalist reporting job, that doesn't give us the full facts, so the whole issue is open to speculation.

    10. Re:Nothing to see here by fafalone · · Score: 1

      It's not imported by the merchant, therefore while Toysmith may fall under Customs, the retailer does not.

  27. I'm confused by j0nb0y · · Score: 1, Redundant

    The title of this story says expired trademark. Then it says they were complaining about copyright infringement. Then they say that the patent expired.

    Trademarks, copyrights, and patents are completely different. They are *not* interchangeable terms. The laws are different, the terms are different, and they are meant to protect different things.

    --
    If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?
  28. Patents are important for security by the_other_one · · Score: 4, Funny

    Terrorist suppliers cannot be allowed to sell the tools of evil with just one click.

    The terrorist must always click twice.

    --
    134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
    1. Re:Patents are important for security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      now -that-'s funny ;o)

  29. I think I say it for everybody by mrpuffypants · · Score: 1, Funny

    but that is fucking RETARTED.

    1. Re:I think I say it for everybody by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's "RETARDED" you fool, oh and "Guybrush Threepwood," your going to mod me up right?

    2. Re:I think I say it for everybody by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and apparently so are you.

    3. Re:I think I say it for everybody by AlterEd · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, you most certainly do not speak for me.

      Firstly, because you can't manage to spell "retarded" correctly, but mostly because you demonstrate a gross failure to understand the issue. For one thing, many federal agencies have been subsumed into the Department of Homeland Security, including the Customs Service (which as sulli pointed out is the agency that actually investigated this incident). For another thing, either Fouquet doesn't understand that there are very important differences between patent, copyright and trademark law, or he wants you to overlook that fact. Furthermore, you failed to recognize that fact and have perpetuated the myth that there's some vast conspiracy apparently with the purpose of keeping toys out of the hands of children which means either the entire post is stupid, or you are or both.

      What's most probably really going on here, is that the Customs Service is following up on a complaint that Pufferbelly Toys is selling toys that are infringing on the *trademark* rights (which loyal fans know *must* be defended zealously or lost) of Seven Towns Limited and will hopefully eventually follow up to the manufacturer. I believe the very cube itself is covered by the trademark. This is just basic police work folks, not some conspiracy to revoke your rights to waste time playing with your Rubik's Cube.

      But thanks for wasting my time anyway.

      --

      Ed Chauvin IV
  30. Oh come on by Snar+Bloot · · Score: 0, Troll

    I submit it's jut possible that there are assholes and idiots everywhere. Not just in a huge government agency, not just in one country, not just on the internet on any given "news" site. The people that fly off the handle crying about all their rights being violated, or that the whole world (or any given country) is fscked up, they're just gonna cry regardless. Wait until the rest of the facts come out, not just one little story. Then focus your howling on the appropriately. Essentially...chill out. Hey...I've actually seen instances before where the press sort of blew an instance out of proportion, or *gasp* even misrepresented it.

    1. Re:Oh come on by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's right, "boys will be boys". OK if I call DHS on you, for that suspicious glow from your basement around Midnight every night? You can explain it all to the press properly when they get there to pick through the wreckage.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    2. Re:Oh come on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Logical fallacy + pseudo strawman argument.

    3. Re:Oh come on by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Slashdot AC buzzwords - application to actual post.

      The post to which I replied says "it's no big deal, shit happens". So I offer (rhetorically, they're almost as anonymous as you) to happen some shit to them, and see how big a deal they think it is then. Their post does, however, cover the empty carping in yours.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  31. Appears to be a patent infringement... by BlastM · · Score: 1

    ...rather than a patent one.

    This is but one of the many examples of overpolicing, degredation of privacy, mis-allocation of US taxpayers' resources that has come from the USDOHS, and highlights the ludicrous state of the US patent system which needs a major restructure.

    If there is any consollation in stories like this, it's that there is no massive terrorist threat like the Bush administration has played up and is likely to win the approaching presidential election on.

    1. Re:Appears to be a patent infringement... by Bustedpc · · Score: 1

      This is but one of the many examples of overpolicing, degredation of privacy, mis-allocation of US taxpayers' resources that has come from the USDOHS, and highlights the ludicrous state of the US patent system which needs a major restructure.

      what were you expecting? GW has to look after those corps who brought his electionin 2000

      /rumour - *ducks* and grabs his asbestos undies :)

  32. Useless summary. by praksys · · Score: 5, Informative

    Trademarks don't expire. Trademark, copyright, and patent are entirely different things. Reading the summary you can't tell which of these areas of law was involved and you get the impression that the action was taken on expired IP.

    The article states that the action was taken on the basis of a trademark. With a name like "Magic Cube" if the toy is anything at all like a Rubic's Cube then it almost certainly does infringe on the Rubic's Cube trademark.

    And why all the fake wonderment about the department of Homeland Security handling the case? In case anyone missed the press release the department is not some niche organisation that deals specifically with terrorism. It's a big tarball of a whole bunch of departments and old law enforcement angencies that used to deal with all manner of federal law enforcement issues. They do lots of things besides deal with terrorism.

    1. Re:Useless summary. by qqqqarl · · Score: 1

      The article states that the action was taken on the basis of a trademark. With a name like "Magic Cube" if the toy is anything at all like a Rubic's Cube then it almost certainly does infringe on the Rubic's Cube trademark.

      so if trademark my nifty cardboard box as "Karl's box", i can stop others from calling their boxes "super box"? i can stop the usage of the word "box" for boxes?

      K.

    2. Re:Useless summary. by bluekanoodle · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Mod parent up! I think this one poster has summarized the ACTUAL story, not the civil liberties, big-brother-is-watching story that this bad attempt at journalism by the /. editors would have you believe.

      The AP story very clearly states :

      "Virginia Kice, a spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said agents went to Pufferbelly based on a trademark infringement complaint filed in the agency's intellectual property rights center in Washington, D.C."

      These agents, working for Customs enforcement, were doing there job as mandated by the law. Obviously there is a process in place within Customs to investigate intellectual property. If you don't think they should be doing that, then get involved and get the law changed, don't whine about the man trying to keep you down.

      Of course the /. crowds sees DHS and they start jumping the gun about Anti-terrorism squads hunting down subversive Magic Cubes in violation of the PATRIOT Act.

      Please try and apply some critical thinking skills here.

    3. Re:Useless summary. by Erik+Hollensbe · · Score: 1

      Only if your box has 6 sides.

    4. Re:Useless summary. by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 3, Funny

      With a name like "Magic Cube" if the toy is anything at all like a Rubic's Cube then it almost certainly does infringe on the Rubic's Cube trademark.

      Yeah, cause how dare they call a six-faced object with square faces a "Cube". I mean, they even capitalized the C!

    5. Re:Useless summary. by Daniel · · Score: 1

      The article states that the action was taken on the basis of a trademark. With a name like "Magic Cube" if the toy is anything at all like a Rubic's Cube then it almost certainly does infringe on the Rubic's Cube trademark.

      That's just absurd. What should they call it, Magic Regular Rectangular Prism?

      Daniel

      --
      Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
    6. Re:Useless summary. by slothman32 · · Score: 1

      Everyone knows that trademarks don't expire if you defend them. But since the Constitution specifies that IP can only be monopolized for a limited time does that mean trademarks aren't part of the clause? If not what part does enable them?

      --
      Why don't you guys have friends or journals?
    7. Re:Useless summary. by NonSequor · · Score: 1
      To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;


      While things like slogans can be trademarked, they generally aren't considered writings. However, that doesn't matter since the clause that allows Congress to create a trademark system is the commerce clause.

      Before 1870, when the first US trademark law was passed, some states had already passed their own trademark laws. From this perspective, national trademarks can be justified as neccessary for the purpose of resolving trademark disputes that cross state lines. Of course, you could argue that the Federal government has no business meddling in trademark disputes that don't cross state lines, but that is irrelevent now as in 1941 the Supreme Court ruled that it is impossible to properly distinguish between intra-state and inter-state trade.

      Anyway, trademarks are based on the idea that a company has an exclusive right to the reputation it has earned. Patents and copyrights are supposed to have time limits because it benefits society in the long run while providing authors, artists, inventors, etc. with a motivation for creating things. There is no benefit to society from having trademarks expire after a fixed length of time and there's really not any reason to not let a company keep it's name, logo, etc. for as long as it exists.

      Trademarks are at times overextended, but despite this, trademarks are still a weaker form of intellectual property than copyrights or patents. There are many more defenses against accusations of trademark infringment than there are defenses against patent and copyright infringement.
      --
      My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
    8. Re:Useless summary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Customs or DHS goofed big time.
      Acted on insufficient, detailed information.
      Perhaps failed to apply common sense.
      Failed to make the owner do his/her own legalwork

      They should only poke their beak in at the LAST resort, when normal means have failed. Time wasted on this caper means less time for others with a higher priority -generally bringing the dept. into disrepute. Value adding my a**S.

      They should have said to the complaining party - you go enforce YOUR trademark - come back to us if you have any trouble.

      Capers like this, that harm the Australia-US FTA, proves that .au and others are completely justified in adding punative clauses against shonky IP bullshit that has no legs .

      Of course this could be a training exercise for all those new rookies - but even if intentions were good, exercise seems to have gone sour.

    9. Re:Useless summary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With a name like "Magic Cube" if the toy is anything at all like a Rubic's Cube then it almost certainly does infringe on the Rubic's Cube trademark.

      Once more, with feeling: this line is total bullshit.

    10. Re:Useless summary. by identity0 · · Score: 1

      Oh nos! What if the Dept. of Homeland Security finds out about my G4 Cube or my GameCube?! I'll be branded a terrorist and sent to Gitmo before you can say TimeCube!

      Hey, maybe if we told them Osama was building cheap knockoff Rubik's Cubes, they'll get off their ass and catch him :P

    11. Re:Useless summary. by juan2074 · · Score: 1

      Homeland Security is a misnomer. They do all kinds of things, but they are not protecting my homeland.

  33. I want one by gooman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Oh man, I want one of those Magic Cubes so bad, which is funny, because I hated the Rubiks Cube (not because it was hard, it was just too popular).
    So how about it ThinkGeek? I want "the toy the government doesn't want you to know about".
    How cool would that be.

    --
    "Kittens give Morbo gas!"
    1. Re:I want one by Trunklebob · · Score: 1

      They are available in a ton of places, including amazon.com, mefferts.com, and rubiks.com, just to name a few. I bought a new 3x3x3 a few weeks ago, and my new Rubik's Revenge (4x4x4 came last Friday).

      Next up is the 5x5x5.

    2. Re:I want one by surprise_audit · · Score: 1
      Slightly off-topic - I used to know a guy who wouldn't have a Rubik Cube in the house, because they were also known as the "Magic Cube". Supposedly, being a moderately strict Roman Catholic, he took objection to the word "Magic"... Personally, I think he was embarrassed because he didn't understand how it worked.

      Funny thing was, he had absolutely no objection to the kind of large felt-tip pens commonly known as "Magic Markers"...

    3. Re:I want one by justforaday · · Score: 1

      I bought a new 3x3x3 a few weeks ago, and my new Rubik's Revenge (4x4x4 came last Friday).

      Ay, shuddup! I'm still working on the 1x1x1...

      --
      I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
  34. Huh? by Daniel · · Score: 1

    Is it a trademark, a patent, or a copyright? I thought this was just the /. editors screwing up, but the AP seems to have done the same thing! (well, they only mentioned trademark and patent; the copyright thing seems to be a /. original) Shame on them.

    Can you even trademark or copyright a toy design? The DHS spokesdroid comment suggests that it's a trademark violation. What the heck is being trademarked here? The word Cube? If so, I'll be very worried once I get over laughing hysterically...

    Daniel

    --
    Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
  35. Conspiracy Theory by The_Real_Nire · · Score: 3, Funny

    Perhaps all newer true Rubix cubes are embedded with some sort of micro chips/sensors, (perhaps even microphones and/or cameras!) which can detect if and how long it took a person to solve it, then these individuals are added to some sort of watch list, because they arent the typical dumb sheep the government wishes to rule. But I digress

  36. misleading to say DHS by janneH · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That looks like a misleading article title to me. What happened is that DHS inherited Customs because Customs is responsible for controlling things that cross US - which is not unreasonable. But customs also apparently has some trademark enforcement duties - probably on things that are imported. Also not unreasonable - although it leads to trademark enforcement sitting under DHS which is a little weird. But the article should more rightfully have been about a shop owner who was visited by Customs agents.

    Whether or not trademarks were actually being violated is a another matter.

  37. Oh, come on, guys! by porkchop_d_clown · · Score: 1

    So, what law enforcement agency do you think looks into copyright and trademark violations? Especially now that most of them are now part of the HSA?

  38. abuse by alatesystems · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Abuse of rights, law, and tax dollars. This is why you should vote Libertarian.

    Take the Advocates.org "World's Smallest Political Quiz" to find out what party you belong in based on real issues. According to them, "Take the Quiz now and find out where you fit on the political map!"

    It is my belief that everyone is a Libertarian, but they they just don't know it.

    Vote Michael Badnarik in 2004. Send a message to Washington and don't choose between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich.

    1. Re:abuse by Airw0lf · · Score: 1

      Vote Michael Badnarik in 2004. Send a message to Washington and don't choose between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich.

      Gotta love the biting social commentary of South Park.

    2. Re:abuse by amorsen · · Score: 1
      It is my belief that everyone is a Libertarian, but they they just don't know it.

      It is my belief that you are delusional, but that you just don't know it.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
  39. Well OBVIOUSLY.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They have caught ALL the TERRORISTS now right? So they have moved on to anything that might be used to FUND a TERRORIST group in the future. The Founding Fathers are spinning so fast you can almost hear it now. Sheesh.

  40. haha holy crap... by ikekrull · · Score: 1

    Do people in the US actually believe there is some vast terrorist army out there that the US army is fighting? and who is poised to 'Invade the Homeland', and that there can be any meaningful protection from people hellbent on destroying shit if theyre willing to give their lives to do it?

    Cos thats just plain batshit crazy. Surely youre not all so stupid as to believe that the 'Department of Homeland Security' is not there to protect Americans from anyone but each other?

    --
    I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
  41. In related news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DHS violated a writer's privacy just because of books she checked out from the library. Check it out here at the bottom of the page: http://home.insightbb.com/~d.lawson/Jungle_Beat.ht m

  42. I knew I registered all the TMs for a reason by Ron+Bennett · · Score: 1

    Really getting my monies worth from TM registrations, such as for CANNABIS.COM, Marihemp, and HempNation - and is so reassuring [sarcasm] to know the Dept of Homeland security, in light of heighten alert and numerous terror threats, is proactively working 24x7 to protect trademarks and patents; author of the article confused the two.

    Ron Bennett

    1. Re:I knew I registered all the TMs for a reason by black+mariah · · Score: 0

      Since you either are retarded or missed this in the fifty other fucking posts that mention it... US CUSTOMS IS PART OF THE DHS NOW. Do more than read the fucking blurb on the front page.

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
  43. I'm not sure what's more frightening by HangingChad · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Homeland Security raiding toy stores because they've run out of terrorist threats, or the fact that they can't tell the difference between a patent and a copyright. And we're surprised other countries think we're idiots.

    You have a chance to do something about it next Tuesday. Go vote.

    We're going to have to change our name to the country formerly known as the land of the free.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:I'm not sure what's more frightening by klang · · Score: 1

      Voting next Tuesday will not give anybody a better understanding of the difference between a patent and a copyright.

      Just because a country is called "the land of the free" does not mean that it IS the land of the free, now does it?
      (you can only be "free" if you have money and a large part of the population in the US of A does not have enough for basic needs)

    2. Re:I'm not sure what's more frightening by reverius · · Score: 1

      Voting next Tuesday will not give anybody a better understanding of the difference between a patent and a copyright.

      No, but it might just give the president a better understanding of the difference. And if we're lucky, it just might have a "trickle-down" effect into DHS. Or we might assume that more intelligent people will be appointing more intelligent people (not that that is a fair assumption, just throwing it out as a possibility).

      Short of taking up arms, how are we supposed to make this "the land of the free" besides voting?

    3. Re:I'm not sure what's more frightening by klang · · Score: 1

      First off, I wish you the best of luck from Denmark this tuesday. (Denmark, that little State with something rotten in it, acording to Hamlet)

      Hopefully Kerry will win, but I am not so certain. Bush has proved that he can play the puppet for the very rich and might just get 4 more years. Think about it! For the next four years he woun't have to think about getting re-elected! Now THAT's a frightning thought!

      "The War on Terror" will go on and the American public will live in a world of Terror a bit longer.

      Either Kerry or Bush will win by a margin of less than 2% .. that's not winning! Let Kerry win now by a margin of 25% .. or let him win in 4 years by that margin.

      Either way, YOU are going to take the blund end of this, so go and vote .. bring everybody you know and their neighbour.

      Again; Good Luck from Denmark. Our thoughts are with you!

  44. Abuse of Power by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Tom Delay, (R-TX), is under indictment in Texas for abusing his power as leader of the majority in the House of Representatives (ie, a powerful man) to sic Homeland Security on a group of Democrats state assemblymembers as part of a bitter redistricting battle. Regardless of the merit of the Democrat strategy, Homeland Security was clearly not appropriate, though Delay was able to use them for his purposes, without any security component.

    If we let these powermad tyrants have power, they will abuse it, and maybe apologize later, after the damage is done. We have to get rid of this unaccountable department immediately, and use our National Security system to protect us. Anyone know what is the difference is between "National" Security and "Homeland" Security? Or the Department of Defense, for that matter? We're turning into squalid East Germany, where every fifth German was a "security" henchman, controlling their neighbors through surveillence and intimidation.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Abuse of Power by Thing+1 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      We're turning into squalid East Germany [...]

      Agreed; I even found the fact that they used "Homeland" which sounds so much like "Fatherland" to be mildly entertaining.

      But they took it from a long US playbook, which includes the late Senator Thomas J. Dodd (D-CT) checking the 1938 Nazi gun control laws out of the Library of Congress immediately prior to writing the US's 1968 gun control laws--which look surprisingly like the 1938 version! (In fact, barring translation issues, they're almost word-for-word according to the second link.)

      I don't know which bothers me more:
      1. That they do these things intentionally;
      2. That we allow them to do it without raising holy hell;
      3. That we keep voting them into office.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    2. Re:Abuse of Power by bersl2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Homeland? Fatherland?

      Same difference.

    3. Re:Abuse of Power by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Tom Delay, (R-TX), is under indictment in Texas for abusing his power as leader of the majority in the House of Representatives (ie, a powerful man) to sic Homeland Security on a group of Democrats state assemblymembers as part of a bitter redistricting battle.

      When did this happen? From what I've seen so far it was only 3 aides of his under indictment and Delay himself under investigation; and not for using DHS, but for shenanigans related to TRMPAC contributions. Where can I read more about this DHS abuse of which you speak?

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    4. Re:Abuse of Power by cymraeg · · Score: 1

      Where can I read more about this DHS abuse of which you speak? google?

      --
      you don't have to outrun the bear, just the slowest person in your group.
    5. Re:Abuse of Power by gad_zuki! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Here's a list of abuses from just this week alone.

      >If we let these powermad tyrants have power

      We did. They won a long time ago. Thanks to things like the "culture war," conservative media passing itself off as "fair and balanced," Reaganomics, the marriage of Christian fundies to the GOP, etc. The damage that has been done will take decades to fix, if not generations.

    6. Re:Abuse of Power by ignavus · · Score: 1

      "If we let these powermad tyrants have power, they will abuse it, and maybe apologize later, after the damage is done."

      That is what the DOJ should have said in DOJ vs the Abusive Monopolist.

      "Anyone know..?"

      National security means you see foreigners as a threat. Homeland security means you see your own citizens as a threat. Unless they are "Patriots".

      --
      I am anarch of all I survey.
    7. Re:Abuse of Power by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Dubya went to college on the money his grampa, Prescott Bush (George Sr's father), made selling Nazi war bonds until the Feds shut him down under the "trading with the enemy" Act during the American phase of World War II. Prior to our entry, Grampa Bush helped finance Hitler's rise in Germany, turning a local punk into a monster. Fascism is corporate government, controlling the people with fear and incessant propaganda. It's a total package, and Bush is the red ribbon on top.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    8. Re:Abuse of Power by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure, it's hard to track Delay's crimes without a scorecard. This particular abuse included not only DHS, but various other police and even antiWMD agencies, unacceptably drafted into a Texas parliamentary procedure. How Delay can stay afloat with all that baggage, and that autosatirical name, is testament mainly to the wisdom of the Texan electorate.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    9. Re:Abuse of Power by flyingace · · Score: 1

      Whole heartedly agree with your comments. However I found you signature really funny make install -not war !

    10. Re:Abuse of Power by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Since BushCo's logic says that desperate acts by one group are signs their opposition is winning, I'm encouraged by their flailing, though they disgust me in their descent into fascism. The immediate fix is not limited to NEXT WEEK's election - it will take at least another 2 years to get rid of the zombie Republican majority horde in Congress. We've got a long, hard slog ahead of us. But the alternative is to surrender, and patriots never surrender.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    11. Re:Abuse of Power by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the shout-out. It's hard enough chopping away at these rightwingnuts without seeing the occasional lurker chime in :). The truth is so plain and evident, though, that I expect lots more people reading are nodding in agreement, without sticking their own user ID into the bloody fray. I personally post while my programs compile, which keeps me connected to the keyboard, the ruthless logic of gcc, and the dire thrashings of the the ends of the Republican propaganda tentacles. I'm looking forward to next week, after which these Republicans will be reduced to a mere nusiance again.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    12. Re:Abuse of Power by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Sounds like the usual craziness that goes on in Texas. Figures they'd have a law allowing state law enforcement to drag back legislators who don't show up when there's no quorum. As for the DHS angle, all I saw was this:

      "One federal agency that became involved early on was the Air and Marine Interdiction and Coordination Center, based in Riverside, Calif. -- which now falls under the auspices of the Homeland Security Department. The agency received a call to locate a specific Piper turboprop aircraft. It was determined that the plane belonged to former House Speaker Pete Laney, D-Hale Center. The location of Laney's plane proved to be a key piece of information because, Craddick said, it's how he determined that the Democrats were in Ardmore."

      No mention of Delay, nor indictment, nor that Texas officials were overstepping authority in consulting them. In fact, the only mention of Delay in the entire article was a reference to him being quoted as saying that the Texas House Speaker had asked for FBI and/or US Marshals help in picking up the truant legislators. The Speaker later denied that he had asked that. But even if he had, the point (as the article says) is moot:

      "Jorge Martinez, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Justice, said the matter "falls squarely within the purview of state authority, and it would not warrant investigation by federal authorities."

      I'm not sure how you read into the article that this was abuse of the DHS, that Delay played any substantial role in the matter, or that there is an indictment. Seems to me like just a bunch of crazy Texas politicians chasing around another bunch of crazy Texas politicians and everyone else saying "yep, they're allowed to do that: it's Texas law!"

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    13. Re:Abuse of Power by Tom · · Score: 1

      We're turning into squalid East Germany, where every fifth German was a "security" henchman, controlling their neighbors through surveillence and intimidation.

      Turning into? You're well beyond already. The Stasi (east-german secret police, "Staatssicherheit", ironically an almost direct translation of "Homeland Security") never made public recruitment drives, among other things.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    14. Re:Abuse of Power by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Where can I read more about this DHS abuse of which you speak?

      google?

      Nope. That's the first thing I tried. If you'd tried it yourself, you'd have found the same thing I did: 3 Delay aides under indictment for campaign funding shenanigans, and little else.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    15. Re:Abuse of Power by klang · · Score: 1

      "11/2-2004, the end of an error" ..but probably not in your compiles, though ;-)

      Good luck from Denmark.

    16. Re:Abuse of Power by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      No wonder the Grand Jury is taking so long to indict Delay - he's a master at obfuscating his slime trails. The _Houston Chronicle_ reported that Delay, after denying involvement in Texas Republican Craddick's Democrat manhunt (claiming he ignored Craddick's requests for help), admitted that he complied, getting the ID# of a Democrat's plane and at least supplying it to Craddick. That info was earlier confirmed by DHS as the info used to trick them into finding the plane, under the false impression that it was some kind of emergency rescue service. The Texas cops who actually made the call reportedly destroyed all records of the transactions prior to the conclusion of their investigation, contrary to law. And DHS itself claimed to be investigating these "shenanigans" as criminal abuse of the DHS chain of command. These charges are the subject of the subpoena with which I started this thread. And the subject of Delay's "admonishment" by Congress earlier this month.

      BTW, the point was "moot" was because DHS refused to assist the illegal search beyond their initial location of the plane, once their operators discovered what was up. If it were civilians, rather than the Democratic wing of the Texas legislature, creatures like Delay would have no compunction against pushing DHS further, rather than just letting Texas cops make a call which could be denied. The reporter might think that mooted the search, but it certainly doesn't invalidate this abuse by Delay, or its model for further abuses if he continues to get away with it.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    17. Re:Abuse of Power by ptbarnett · · Score: 1
      Tom Delay, (R-TX), is under indictment in Texas for abusing his power as leader of the majority in the House of Representatives (ie, a powerful man) to sic Homeland Security on a group of Democrats state assemblymembers as part of a bitter redistricting battle.

      No, DeLay has not been indicted for anything.

      Three of his aides of been indicted for charges that include raising illegal corporate contributions and funneling them to state candidates during the 2002 elections:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/22/national/22delay .html?ex=1099195200&en=4e2d77f3ce207197&ei=507 0

      DeLay is also under investigation by the House Ethics Committee over accusations of improper fund-raising.

      He has been subpoenaed to testify in a lawsuit concerning his role in the effort to find the Democrats, after being admonished over the issue by the House Ethics committee last month:

      http://www.broward.com/mld/mercurynews/news/specia l_packages/election2004/9981297.htm?template=conte ntModules/printstory.jsp

      It seems that I'm repeatedly correcting your hyperbole:

      http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=122084&cid =10320477

      Why don't you do some research before making unsubstantiated and/or incorrect accusations?

    18. Re:Abuse of Power by eh2o · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would not say indictment since its not a criminal investigation (though maybe it should be), however the DHS abuse was investigated by the house ethics committee (along with a two other recent incidents involving delay) and they found that he was guilty of ethical misconduct; but only issued an admonition, i.e., just a report stating that his actions were improper, a mere slap on the wrist -- even so, that is saying a lot considering the ethics committee is run by republicans -- seriously the guy is a liability and an embarassment to his own party. the trmpac stuff is more serious but still in the courts. here is a link for more details on delay's long history with the ethics committee:

      http://www.alternet.org/election04/20312/

    19. Re:Abuse of Power by mgbastard · · Score: 1
      No Tom Delay was not indicted, but his associates were. He was being investigated for indictment by the grand jury.

      See Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A395 63-2004Sep21.html/

      AUSTIN, Sept. 21 -- Three top political aides to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) were indicted Tuesday on charges of illegally raising political funds from corporations in 2002, much of which was funneled into the Republican takeover of the Texas legislature.
      --
      Anyone seen my low uid? last seen 10 years ago while panning the #@$# out of Taco's 'web based discussion system'
    20. Re:Abuse of Power by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      This story is about Delay abusing his access to Homeland Security (apropos of the story we're "discussing"), for which he's been subpoenaed by a Grand Jury, as corrected elsewhere. Indictments are likely, as he was "admonished" by the Congress earlier this month for commiting the same acts.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    21. Re:Abuse of Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You missed one: Around here, in the poorer communities, folks have started going door-to-door. They're telling people that, in order to handle the expected volume of voters in this presidential election, Republicans should vote on Nov 2nd and Democrats on Nov 3rd.

  45. It didn't take homeland security and patriotism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Next thing we know, IRS burst into a kindergarten arresting several 5-year-old's for not calculating and paying proper tax while playing Monopoly, just to protect the integrity of the economy and nation's financial systems. "If they can't do tax at age of 5, will you trust them to pay tax 20 years later?!"

    9/11 hadn't happened yet, George W. Bush hadn't been elected President, John Ashcroft hadn't been appointed Attorney General yet, and the US Government sent armed troops into a house in the middle of the night to snatch away Elian Gonzalez

    1. Re:It didn't take homeland security and patriotism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whos guardians, I might add, were in direct violation of a court order.

  46. POE by paulydavis · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I was watching a movie on the american poet Poe and he was impoverished most of his life becasue he was so vocal about copyright (pro copyright) that knowbody would hire him. We have come full circle.

    1. Re:POE by paulydavis · · Score: 2, Informative

      I can back up my BULLSHIT sir with facts

      http://www.eslarp.uiuc.edu/ibex/archive/dickens/ di ckens.htm

    2. Re:POE by cei · · Score: 1

      Well, your "facts" seem to be that Dickens was pro copyright, not Poe. From the blurb you link to, it only mentions that Poe mocked Dickens...

      --
      This sig intentionally left justified.
  47. Poster and AP clearly has no clue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Both the Poster and the AP journo clearly has no clue what is going on, what the various laws are.
    They mix match and mangle various laws and rumors to come up with this story.

    There is nothing to see here, just random rumour and silliness.

    1. Re:Poster and AP clearly has no clue by cammoblammo · · Score: 1

      I'm glad to see someone figured it out. Could you enlighten us as to what actually happened?

      --

      Cogito, ergo sig.

  48. What do you want? Facts? by Media+Girl · · Score: 1
    Facts seem to have gone by the wayside in the press. And confusion about simple things seems to be the standard of the day.

    I'm totally confused about all this. I know it cannot be copyright. And I think patent infringement would have to be proven in court before any governmental action. Which leaves trademark.

    It costs something like $900 to register a trademark. I guess this shows you get your money's worth. :p

  49. Nothing to see here-Santa Arrested. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Bingo! Someone who reads and thinks. However I should point out that the government should have gone after the supplier, not the purchaser if they had a legitimate complaint. I'm certain her store isn't the only ones selling this particular toy. Were are the visits to these other stores?

  50. Big Government? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck yeah!

    Police State, Fuck yeah!

    Common Sense, ... [cricket]

  51. chance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's your chance Kerry, attack the Bush administration!

  52. I can't ever find mine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    :-)
    .
    (no text)

  53. irst by xystren · · Score: 1

    First they take away my nailclippers.... but they ain't taking my ROGUE Rubics Cube....

  54. vote for lesser of 2 evils... by dougnaka · · Score: 1
    and you get evil..

    screw both the main party candidates, Badnarik and libertarianism are ideals for government..

    I AM voting for Badnarik Nov 2.

    --
    My Linux Command of the Day site : LCOD
    1. Re:vote for lesser of 2 evils... by Nitish · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      This is a good analogy? The fact that polls show Michael Badnarik receiving 4% of the votes does not mean that he has a 4% chance of winning the election. He will win if a large number of main party supporters change their votes, and the probability of that happening is a lot less than 4%, or even 0.04%, for that matter.
      And your vote clearly makes a difference. When polls show several states going down to the wire, when Gore won New Mexico by 366 votes in the last election, it's ridiculous to believe that your vote is irrelevant. Even if the candidate you support cannot win, your vote is important as an indicator of public opinion.
      And now, just to be contrarian, I'll admit that I agree with a good deal of the libertarian philosophy myself. Of course, since I'm not an American citizen, my preference is irrelevant. Still, my beliefs don't alter the fact that this analogy is absurd.

    2. Re:vote for lesser of 2 evils... by alatesystems · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I said it didn't matter in the analogy because people would say "you have a 100% chance of getting set free because you're voting". Sometimes absurdity is required to fight against a catch-22.

      People say, "I'm not voting for him because he isn't going to win." But then, how do people win if they don't get votes. If you agree with someone, vote for them. If everyone does this, the leader that is _REALLY_ supported will be elected. My other posts in this thread were modded off-topic(probably by the same moderator, since it was at the same time), but this is very ON TOPIC. This leadership in America can waltz in and take over toystores now as a matter of national security ?!?

      Wake up America, and vote Libertarian.

  55. This concerns Trademarks... by EMN13 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The slashdot story confuses copyrights, trademarks and patents: at issue is trademark infringement (or so it seems). Copyrights have nothing to do with the story, and the patent on rubiks cubes was only mentioned by the copycat manufacturer to clarify that the patent had expired.

    Specifically, the trademark probably hasn't expired (in principle trademarks don't while you defend them); A rubiks cube (or anything similar) can't infringe upon copyright (unless you're crazy enough to consider it a medium for information).

    I don't like whining about bad slashdot stories; but this really is poorly presented...

    --Eamon

  56. How many times? by Fr3d · · Score: 1

    My question is did the DHS do this in every single store selling the magic cube? Isn't an infringement on her rights to confiscate something not illegal without a proper warrent? And why didn't they contact the manufacturer first before going to the tiny little store?

  57. Useless [Questions] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "so if trademark my nifty cardboard box as "Karl's box", i can stop others from calling their boxes "super box"? i can stop the usage of the word "box" for boxes?"

    Or you could go read up on it, and stop asking silly questions on Slashdot.

    As if we don't have enough strawmen here already, sheesh!

  58. This is just a poor FUD attempt by wrench+turner · · Score: 1

    This doesn't make sense. CowboyNeal's goofy and a democrat, but ususally not baited so easily.

    The election's close and we're supposed to believe that Jeb's brother's agency is that incompetent and out of control.

    Sheesh!

    Kerry, Edwards 2004

  59. Cogito ergo sum by sulli · · Score: 1

    Don't credit the Matrix, credit Descartes.

    --

    sulli
    RTFJ.
  60. Your TAX DOLLARS at work! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously... are these black market items? Did she get her stash off the back of a light blue unmarked van?

    What is pathethic is that they actually went after mom and pop stores while they could just have easily raided the source (i.e. the manufacturer or distributor).

    Just another one of your tax dollars at work...

    1. Re:Your TAX DOLLARS at work! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since the manufacturer is probably in China...love that "free" trade (of Chinese-government subsidised goods)!

  61. Nice thing about a rouge cube by AllenChristopher · · Score: 1

    If it's all red, it's always solved... until your girlfriend points out it's six different shades of red. Oy.

  62. Submitter and gov't has no clue about trademarks by clusterix · · Score: 3, Interesting
    What the hell? Trademark, copyright, and patent must all be the same according to the submitter. Hmm, why are they called different things then?

    OK, so US Customs is enforcing a trademark violation. Fine.

    What is wrong is that Customs does not have jurisdiction inside the US only coming and going from it. Once in the US, it is a civil case that would need at least a hearing or court order to remove merchandise from the store. More than likely, an authorized local authority would then execute the court order(not actual agents).

    It is disturbing that Homeland Security did think that Magic Cube and Rubik's Cube are similar in name or that they don't understand what a trademark is. Most disturbing is that Homeland Security obviously does not understand the laws they are trying to enforce or how to legally enforce them.

    The only 'wrong' thing going on is that Rubik or whoever reported it is intentionally damaging and interfering with Magic Cubes and Pufferbelly Toys businesses. Homeland Security should immediately return the items to Pufferbelly Toys and apologize. I don't think there is much Pufferbelly Toys can do for restitution directly against Homeland Security. It would be nice to be able to sue the government for incompetence, but then there would be no government left.

  63. Wow by balster+neb · · Score: 1

    One slashdot article confusing trademarks, copyright AND patents. This has to be some kind of record, even for slashdot.

    Hmmmm......

    I guess its just that I'm new here.

    1. Re:Wow by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      One slashdot article confusing trademarks, copyright AND patents. This has to be some kind of record, even for slashdot.

      Now all we need is an illogical diatribe about copywrites.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  64. Nope, not everyone by LPetrazickis · · Score: 1
    It is my belief that everyone is a Libertarian, but they they just don't know it.

    Apparently, I ain't part of everyone.^-^
    The political description that fits you best is... LIBERAL

    Your PERSONAL issues Score is 90%.
    Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 10%.
    I maybeed the repeal of drug laws and the ending of corporate welfare. The rest were Agree in Personal and Disagree in Economic.

    Of course, I can't vote in American elections,so this hardly matters. Cobb, Nader, or Browne for President!:)
    --
    Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
  65. But wait...Enforcers: The Movie. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Also, isn't the owner of this (expired) patent responsible for enforcing it instead of Homeland Security just hunting them down?"

    You might want to think this through more carefully. Especially the enforcement part. Could make things more interest, no?

    1. Re:But wait...Enforcers: The Movie. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The patent holder is responsible for enforcing a patent by filing civil action. Instead of "thinking this through more carefully" why don't you just get on google and educate yourself ?

  66. Re:And why _aren't_ you voting for Bush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Vote Kerry for a wealthier Kerry"

    This is just about the most retarded anti-Kerry statement I've ever seen.

    You make the Swift Boat Veterans look like honest Abe.

  67. RubiCubes useful for making weapon-grade plutonium by Muhammar · · Score: 1

    It is hard to buy a large quantity of boron-free graphite. But plastics are known to be excellent moderators. Enuf of these cubes and with some natural(non-enriched)uranium and the agents of international terrorism could build their own nuclear reactor, even here in US!

    --
    I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it
  68. puzzling evidence by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    How come no Republicans in this thread are screaming some BS like "this is why Fuherer Bush opposed the DHS in the first place", or somesuch? Because they actually like the idea that corporations can send in the SS to protect our economy from cube clones? Or just because the news is too new in the cycle for the busy Bush campaign to have talking points ready to parrot?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:puzzling evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are preparing for Bush's 2nd term in office. It must suck to be a democrat. It must really suck to be a whiney democrat like you. Are you planning on being a little less shrill after the election or will you continue to whine like a scorned teenager forever?

    2. Re:puzzling evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and once again we see a republican completely unable to make any valid arguments whatsoever as to why bush deserves to continue to erode civil rights. Calling names and throwing insults is the best they can do since there are so few valid reasons for keeping him in office. I really wish every republican in our country would get a visit like this so maybe their eyes will be opened to what is going on. If it's not happening to them then it can't really be a problem right?

    3. Re:puzzling evidence by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Anonymous brownshirt Coward, what preparations are those, exactly? Tearing up Democrat voter registrations? Calling black people to trick them into not voting, or scare them away from the polls? Roadtripping to swing states, ready for preppie riots to stop recounts after your rigged ballots get miscounted? Y'all must be really desperate to spend the hundreds of millions of corporate bribes on destroying democracy in in an attempt to defeat the Democrats. It worked last time, because we still respected you as fellow citizens. But your naked fascism is so heinous that we'll be at the polls to take out country back from you in force NEXT WEEK - even though I'm not a Democrat, we stand united against your zombie hordes. After that, I'm sure that you will return to the swamp of envy that spawned such empty insults as "shrill" back in the 1990s, when the USA was the envy of the world, and Republicans were still just a crowd of creepy yuppies watching in awe.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    4. Re:puzzling evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Picture a Carey Grant with a mouthful of chaw near slurping out when I read this. Not partial to either side of this debate, but the above does convey the mood.

      Way with words sir, I'm impressed. Even moreso you managed to earn a flamebait with a nice regional eloquence. Hard to imagine that this is on par with the gay niggar lover's association, or whatever the fuck the post is, but hey, now strong emotion is flamebait. Imagine a Bolivian speaking strongly against the corruption of his government. Outrage serves no purpose in the public discourse. Just have to intellectualize the blood on the street.

  69. Re:And why _aren't_ you voting for Bush? by matth1jd · · Score: 1

    I would agree that a few inconvienences are to be expected after a tragedy such as 9/11. But a few inconvienences that seriously infringe upon peoples civil rights and civil liberties?
    Honestly I don't mind a few inconvienences, I'm for increased security, but forget it if my rights are going to be taken away from me (After all that's what the our soldiers have been fighting for all these years). I don't think it is as black and white as the parent suggests.
    I don't think the grand parent suggests we ignore terrorists, just that the brush was too large for the job.
    I'm not even going to get started on who makes a better president, because that's just a can of worms I REFUSE to open.


    -JM

  70. the real story by cpu_fusion · · Score: 2, Funny

    The article fails to mention that three of the six sides were arranged to spell out "WMD."

    1. Re:the real story by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

      Damn I thought the six sides rearranges to spell "SADDAM". You must be a cube guru to get 3 letters out of that many sides.

  71. Riiight.. by MattC413 · · Score: 1

    [I][BLOCKQUOTE]Would you really rather have a gutless weakling in charge?[/I][/BLOCKQUOTE]

    Because we all know that a guy who went into Vietnam alongside other troops, in the line of fire, fighting for his country and risking his life, is more gutless than copping out and getting a free ride protecting Omaha - courtesy of one's own dad.

    1. Re:Riiight.. by HangingChad · · Score: 1
      Say what? You don't think a draft dodging college cheerleader from Conneticut is going to be tougher on terrorism than a guy who went out and got shot fighting on the front lines of an unpopular war?

      Dude, that is so messed up. Next you're going to be telling me that the terrorists got a hold of 760,000 pounds of the world's finest plastic explosives because this same college cheerleader blew off data from the UN.

      Lefty, pagan crack addict. The country club membership is going to be taking a SERIOUS look at your application, buddy.

      --
      That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    2. Re:Riiight.. by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      I would add that many of those troops seem to think he was nearly gutless.
      I would also point out Kerry is a self confessed war criminal. And I know a few vets who consider him a traitor for the way he stabbed them in the back when he got home.
      Note this isn't pro-bush, just anti-kerry. I refuse to vote for evil, even the lesser thereof.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    3. Re:Riiight.. by Thjorska · · Score: 0

      And by refusing to vote for the lesser evil you're going to allow the greater evil to regain power? Explain to me your logic in this particular line of reasoning.

      --
      Current Karma Status: Roadkill
    4. Re:Riiight.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who consider him a traitor, these guys? http://www.swiftvets.com/

      You need to stop listening to the propaganda machine. Please, people, stop believing everything you see on TV. Sadly, Americans don't understand that yes, everybody in the media has a slant, they are all pushing some agenda. You have to try to pick up that slant and put things in context before you decide if you believe them and agree with their position. Some are quieter about it than others, but the swift boat group is just flat out saying whatever they need to say to get their buddy Bush elected, end of story.

    5. Re:Riiight.. by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      My uncles, who fought in veit-nam, think what he did when came back was bad. Kerry himself confessed before congress to acts that are very bad, acts that might be war crimes.
      As far as the swift boat vets go, well there are quite a few of them saying one thing, while Kerry and four or five vets are saying several other things, some very inconsistant with what records are public.
      While the odds of anyone telling the unvarnished truth in the realm of politics are simular to certain kinds of precipitation in hades, I find it hard to take the word of a proven liar and a few cronies over dozens of vets.
      Both Bush and Kerry are Yale Skull and Bones rich guys who I seriously distrust.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    6. Re:Riiight.. by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      "And by refusing to vote for the lesser evil you're going to allow the greater evil to regain power? Explain to me your logic in this particular line of reasoning."

      Simple, by voting for the best and encoraging others to do the same I don't participate in perpetuating evil.
      If you think waiting for someone better to have a 'chance' before voting for him/her like most sheeple (contrived word, sheep + people) do, you play right in the false dichotomy the 'two' so called parties feed you and do exactly what they want. Might as lay down and surrender in that case.
      fwiw I consider Kerry the worse of two evils, not by alot though. Considering his record of raising taxes, lying to get ahead no matter what, willing to stab people in harms way in the back, etc. I consider it worse than Bush's crony-ism and borderline zeolotry and so on. Aslo thier the same when it comes to Iraq pre-invasion, it's only after that Kerry acts like he wasn't in a hurry to do the same thing, compared to Bush's near refusal to admit things aren't going perfect.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
  72. Security Theatre by pipingguy · · Score: 1


    http://www.schneier.com/essay-038.html

  73. Re:And why _aren't_ you voting for Bush? by kubrick · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Vote Bush for a better, safer America. Vote Kerry for a wealthier Kerry.

    Have you seen the price of oil recently?

    --
    deus does not exist but if he does
  74. you waited this long? by alizard · · Score: 1

    I started telling my foriegn friends to stay the hell out of the USA a year ago.

  75. ouch by MattC413 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    And I previewed, too. That'll teach me to drink and Slashdot. :P

  76. Closer to USSR-1960, than USA-1960 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People today want to ignore what happens. All to often, we say that it is for security. This is not the first time that DHS has done this.

    I only hope that people realize how many rights and freedoms that we have given up in the last 2 years. The truely funny thing is that in USSR-1960's, the average citizens was not bothered. Just had to show a national ID to do things such as get a job, or open a bank account, or buy a house,... Also, was monitored by a clandistine group that was basically concerned with making sure that they were secured. That is all, no big deal for the average citizen. But those in the know, where in trouble.

  77. MOD PARENT UP!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MOD PARENT UP!!!!!

  78. American Always win the war ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exept Etats-Unians are not American they happen to be "OF America"

    American live in a democracy , Etats-Unians live
    in a republic.

    American are courageous , the Etats-Unians are coward who spend 100 time on useless weapons then what the rest of the entire planet spend on it.

    American are Noble , they dont shit on the UN or there ally , thats exactly the opposite of Etats-Unians

    Americans Defend america against its enemy , the Etats-Unians go to war over oil

    to sums it up Etats-Unians are of America , Real American live in the country next door

    C ourageous
    A mericans
    N oble
    A mericans
    D efender of
    A merica

  79. Re:And why _aren't_ you voting for Bush? by bluekanoodle · · Score: 1

    Which one of your rights have been taken away?

  80. But it wasn't imported. by khasim · · Score: 2, Informative
    From the article:
    After the agents left, Cox called the manufacturer of the Magic Cube, the Toysmith Group, which is based in Auburn, Wash.
    So it wasn't imported. It was made in Amerika.
    1. Re:But it wasn't imported. by general_re · · Score: 2, Informative
      So it wasn't imported.

      Of course it was. They don't make stuff like that in America - spelled with a "c", by the way, for the benefit of illiterates who fancy themselves clever - any more, because it's the sort of thing you can get in China for a fraction of the price that a domestic manufacturer would charge you. But don't take my word for it - "Founded in 1981, Toysmith is an importer/distributor of toys, gifts and novelties from all over the world."

      --
      ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
    2. Re:But it wasn't imported. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Notice some one called "Khasim" is criticizing the people given the tough job of fighting terrorisim. And from what region of the world do the vast majority of terrorists hail from? How many others from that very same region are also called "Khasim"?

    3. Re:But it wasn't imported. by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      It's quite possible he's from Oregon. But this is post-9/11. It doesn't matter where you live now, if you're not white, black or asian you MUST know terrorists.

    4. Re:But it wasn't imported. by general_re · · Score: 1

      Whatever. Customs has been doing this kind of thing for years - they change their letterhead because Congress puts them under DHS, and suddenly it's evidence of creeping fascism.

      --
      ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
    5. Re:But it wasn't imported. by 1lus10n · · Score: 1

      it was evidence of foul play before. Now its under DHS and is much more visable. Nothing changed except the fact that more people are watching the watchers. (what exactly is to be accomplished by this is well beyond my non-tinfoil hat wearing self)

      --
      "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
    6. Re:But it wasn't imported. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When u say Asian, I assume you mean East Asian..because South Asians are discriminated against all the time...

    7. Re:But it wasn't imported. by general_re · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Probably so, but it's really just another day at the office for Customs. Hell, NPR had a story earlier this week about Customs stepping up enforcement of IP laws for imports, so there are about 13 million or so "Morning Edition" listeners who are ahead of the /. curve, whereas here we get the knee-jerk "OMG THOSE FUKKIN BROWNSHIRTS!!!!" reaction from the uninformed shut-in crowd.

      --
      ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
    8. Re:But it wasn't imported. by RALE007 · · Score: 1
      It doesn't matter where you live now, if you're not white, black or asian you MUST know terrorists.

      Anyone with a heritage from the middle east is asian.

      --
      Beware blue cats moving at .99c
    9. Re:But it wasn't imported. by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      That's completely irrelevant to what I said though. I was having a go at the person assuming Khasim must live where terrorists are from. Which depending on your definition of a terrorist could include all Americans.

    10. Re:But it wasn't imported. by 1lus10n · · Score: 1

      I was agreeing with you. It was relevant, but yes I did ignore the racial 'holy war'.

      --
      "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
    11. Re:But it wasn't imported. by general_re · · Score: 1
      I was having a go at the person assuming Khasim must live where terrorists are from.

      Ah, no wonder your reply to me seemed a non sequitur - I think you must have been referring to the AC's comment, not mine? ;)

      --
      ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
  81. Re:And why _aren't_ you voting for Bush? by bigbigbison · · Score: 1

    "Vote Kerry for a wealthier Kerry"
    So, did Bush take a vow of poverty or something? They are both Yale-educated millionares.

    As far as the "few inconvieneiences," tell that to Jose Padilla, an American citizen who has been held in milatary custory for more than two years WITHOUT BEING CHARGED. If the guy is guilty, which I think he probably is, charge him with something, don't just throw him in a brig and throw away the key -- and not even give him access to a lawyer without a fight.

    --
    http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
  82. Re:And why _aren't_ you voting for Bush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't it strange how all these knee-jerk Kerry fanatics can't actually give any examples of the rights they claim have been taken away from them?

    They are willing to work towards leaving the Unisted States without a strong leader, all the while turning a blind eye to Kerry's many serious flaws.

    These guys are doing half the work for the terrorists.

  83. since it's getting closer to election day... by at_slashdot · · Score: 1

    I, for one, welcome our Republican Overlords.

    --
    "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
  84. Re:And why _aren't_ you voting for Bush? by matth1jd · · Score: 1

    Specifically none, but it's where I see things heading...

  85. Re:And why _aren't_ you voting for Bush? by matth1jd · · Score: 1

    I agree alot of Kerry fans claim their rights have been violated. My apologies if I wasn't clear, but it's not that I have had my rights taken away from me, but it's a fear that grows a little more everyday when I see legislation such as the Patriot Act passed, and read stories such as this one.

  86. Get with it... by Duncan3 · · Score: 1

    Poeple here should understand this... Americans don't actually MAKE anything anymore. Nothing, nada. You can't buy Made in the USA if you try!

    So enforcing IP laws are all that stand between _ALL_ of us geeks and unemployment.

    Join the 21st century already.

    --
    - Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
  87. Re:And why _aren't_ you voting for Bush? by johnnyb · · Score: 1

    "So, did Bush take a vow of poverty or something? They are both Yale-educated millionares."

    Well, Bush doesn't do nearly as many tax loopholes as Kerry. Bush pays about 30% of his income in taxes, while Kerry pays about 12%. And Kerry makes a lot more than Bush.

    In addition, Kerry seems to be supported by the big billionaires who will do anything for money, like, say, George Soros.

  88. Only lamers post AC replies to their own posts. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    n/t

  89. Re:And why _aren't_ you voting for Bush? by bdogg0582 · · Score: 1

    Have you seen that we are lucky to be paying 2-3$ for a gallon of gas? Perhaps we should go to Europe? Or even better, head back to the 1920's where Oil was similar to buying a diamond or other precious items. The inflation percentage of oil has remained relatively low compared to the inflation of other items. Count your blessings.

  90. Re:And why _aren't_ you voting for Bush? by Siniset · · Score: 1

    I think it's the fact that there is less judicial overview in this case. If one person does not have protection from search and sesure, then none of us do, because the very same thing could happen to us. They didn't have a search warrant. They didn't even investigate the claim, because a 2 minute purusal would have shown that the claim was bogus. that's why that amendment was added. This is not the first case of the Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act being used for very un-terrorist activities. Bush, could you please explain to us just what a terrorist is?

  91. Magic Cube is a trademark by OrangeTide · · Score: 2, Informative

    Magic Cube(TM) is an active and fairly famous trademark. The Magic Cube(TM) is a toy for toddlers that makes a crapload of electronic noise when you push buttons on it.

    A rubik's cube like toy is fine to import into the US, just don't call it Magic Cube(TM), GameCube(TM), or XBox(TM).

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  92. "Conservative" government in action. by hawkeye · · Score: 1

    The Bush administration has grown not only the deficit to ridiculous sizes, but also the government, itself. Another bureaucracy is just what is needed to keep this country safe... Right!

    So much for the "moderate" conservative that I voted for in 2000! I think I'll vote for the Democrats this time. At least, I know where they stand!

    - slackerman

    --
    "...The smart and lazy ones I make my commanders." - Erwin Rommel
    1. Re:"Conservative" government in action. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, for one, welcome our GNAA overlords.

  93. It's a case of priorities by HangingChad · · Score: 4, Insightful
    95% of shipping containers coming into this country aren't being inspected, yet we have law enforcement agents to spare to make sure Pufferbelly Toys pulls those subversive Magic Cubes off their store shelf? Has our government gone completely f'ing insane?

    It's a matter of priorities and if this our current administration's idea of a law enforcement priority, then we need change really, really bad.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:It's a case of priorities by TummyX · · Score: 1


      95% of shipping containers coming into this country aren't being inspected


      John Kerry, is that you?

      Are you insane? Do you know how many containers come into the country every day? It would be impossible to search for all of them and have a viable economy. What you need to do is to stop terrorists at their source not after they've gotten their goods into the harbours.

    2. Re:It's a case of priorities by mindriot · · Score: 4, Interesting
      What you need to do is to stop terrorists at their source not after they've gotten their goods into the harbours.

      Exactly. What you need to do is to stop terrorists at their source, and not terrorize your own people by hurting their privacy rights.

      Tough statement, I know, but really just a logical conclusion from your argument...

      Besides that (and back more on-topic, sorry), I think in this case the nomenclature is just unfortunate with the customs department being part of the DHS. On the other hand, look what this did to the shop owner... scare tactics at work.

    3. Re:It's a case of priorities by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What you need to do is to stop terrorists at their source not after they've gotten their goods into the harbours.

      Yes, we all know that locking your door is pointless. You need to stop the criminals at their source, not after they've walked into your house.

      So, you're saying that scanning containers is impossible, but somehow it is possible to find every single terrorist hiding spot?

    4. Re:It's a case of priorities by 1lus10n · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No. What we need to do is make america safer. Not fucking expend resources trying to enforce expired patents/copyrights.

      Pal I have to break you the news, but if we dont start figuring out a way to inspect the containers most of the seaports in this country could be blown to kingdom-come. There wont be any products left to buy.

      The Terrorist threat has been blown way the fuck out of proportion by the bush administration. We were attacked (and also had several failed attempts) several times before 9/11. 9/11 was the most succesful for sure, but what exactly made it seem like all of a sudden the terrorists got more well organized, or more well financed than they were before 9/11 ? Need I also remind everyone that we were aware that 9/11 was being planned ? The intelligence was there. The government however is to bloated and bureaucratic to handle things like this, and hence dropped the ball.

      Want to be secure ? Leave everyone else the fuck alone. You dont see every country in the world being attacked by militant islamic extremist foreigners now do you ? Its because most countries mind their own fucking business.

      Oh ... and regarding this comment in specific:
      "What you need to do is to stop terrorists at their source not after they've gotten their goods into the harbours."
      You think searching the harbours or container ships is a problem ? Take a look at a fucking map, searching and securing the entire globe would be a bit harder. I think you can wait an extra month for your digital camera. The economy will adjust if it has to.

      --
      "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
    5. Re:It's a case of priorities by HangingChad · · Score: 1
      Are you insane? Do you know how many containers come into the country every day?

      Does it matter? If they inspected five a day that's five more than we were looking at last week. We have FEDERAL F'ING AGENTS going around to toy stores instead of working terrorist issues and it doesn't sink in that maybe there's something wrong with this picture?

      And you spell harbour like a foreigner. Around here it's a harbor.

      --
      That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    6. Re:It's a case of priorities by l3v1 · · Score: 1

      You need to stop the criminals at their source, not after they've walked into your house.

      Gee, I wouldn't make you sheriff in my town. You'd better recheck your big-brother-o-meter if it's working ok.

      --
      I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
    7. Re:It's a case of priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its because most countries mind their own fucking business.

      Yes, and this would have been a perfect strategy when deciding upon your plan of attack on the Nazi's.
      Repeat after me: ISOLATIONISM DOESN'T WORK!

    8. Re:It's a case of priorities by canadian_right · · Score: 1
      I think you missed the point.

      Agents spent their time tracking down the evil toy copyright infringer instead of looking for "terrorists", or even large scale knock off artists and other bigger fish.

      Somehow I doubt that the operator of this toy store is the biggest criminal left for them to investigate.

      --
      Anarchists never rule
    9. Re:It's a case of priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Want to be secure ? Leave everyone else the fuck alone. You dont see every country in the world being attacked by militant islamic extremist foreigners now do you ? Its because most countries mind their own fucking business.


      Tell that to Spain, Australia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Phillipines, Sudan, etc. What rock have you been hiding under? Islamic extremists don't just hate Americans. They hate anything not ruled by Sharia. You really believe that if we announced "hey guys we're going to become an isolationist country" that they'll stop their bullshit? You are so naive. I really doubt the reason the Islamic militants in the Sudan are murdering African Black Muslims and Christians is because they thought they were towing the Bush line.
    10. Re:It's a case of priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Repeat after me: ISOLATIONISM DOESN'T WORK!

      Neither does haphazardly dropping daisy cutters across an entire country. Iraqis aren't exactly bowing down to us as their saviors, you know.

    11. Re:It's a case of priorities by Robocoastie · · Score: 3, Informative

      >>95% of shipping containers coming into this country aren't being inspected, yet we have law enforcement agents to spare... Ok wait just a minute. I am sick and tired of the left making that statement. As a former Coast Guardsman I can speak to this issue with authority. Do you have any idea how many "shipping containers" come into this country? Millions my friend - millions. There is a system and always has been for what needs inspected just like your local town cops have for what to look for for drunk drivers late at night or suspect vehicles and so on. I guarentee you that at least 95% of all cars driving through town late at night or from bars also are not inspected. So you see that statement is just a scare tactic, it has no helium in its balloon. The suppossed 5% that are getting inspected do so because they meet certain guidelines that are used to weed through it all! It would take absolutely millions of people to inspect them all! The CG has less than 50,000! Most of which are E3 and below who do grunt work, havn't been sent to the LE school yet, or hazmat school and so on. Get some facts before you continue to spew Kerry's unqualified quotes like that. And yes Bush has some whoppers he spews out over and over so I aint letting him off the hook either it's just this one is a whopper that people are completely ignorant about how it works. It should show you how stupid Kerry thinks the American people are that we'd fall for this scare tactic.

    12. Re:It's a case of priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
      I'm with Angry here, piss off and leave the rest of us alone. And that includes your stupid advertisements and corporations.


      No I don't want your stupid shoes, burgers, cars, television, movies or any of the rest of the crap you sell that brings no meaning to my life.


      And for fucksake it is spelt colour and stop giving the letter z such a hard time. Its already coming last, it does not need all the extra work you crazy bastards seem to think it needs to get back into shape.

      And no, shooting at me with a broad and interesting range of weapons is not going to change my mind.

      Piss off you crazy redneck Yankie bastards

    13. Re:It's a case of priorities by greenrom · · Score: 4, Informative
      You dont see every country in the world being attacked by militant islamic extremist foreigners now do you?
      Not every country, but there are a lot of them. Here are a few terrorist attacks from 2003 (the 2004 report isn't out yet). I excluded attacks on Americans, British, and Jews, because everyone knows we are evil and deserve it. I also left a lot of others out because I got tired of typing. All told, there were 208 significant terrorist attacks in 2003 resulting in 625 deaths and 3646 injuries. None of them occurred on U.S. soil. (source: Patterns of Global Terrorism 2003)

      2/25/03 - Venezuela - 2 bombs explode simultaneously at spanish and columbian embassies. 1 Columbian and 3 Venezualans killed.

      3/4/03 - Philippines - bomb explodes at airport. 21 killed, 149 injured.

      3/20/03 - Lebanon - bomb explodes in apartment building. 2 killed, 9 wounded.

      3/22/03 - Greece - bomb explodes at ATM.

      3/24/03 - India - 11 men, 11 women, and 2 boys shot execution style by armed militants

      3/25/03 - Serbia - 4 bomb attacks on UN interim administration

      3/26/03 - Chile - bomb explodes at bank

      3/29/03 - Greece - hand grenade tossed into a McDonalds

      3/31/03 - Cuba - plane carrying 46 passengers hijacked

      4/2/03 - Philippines - bomb explodes on passanger warf. 16 killed, 55 wounded.

      4/5/03 - Lebanon - two bombs explode at restaurant. 10 wounded. undetonated C-4, TNT, and gas containers found.

      4/8/03 - Algeria - 1 Swede and Dutch citizen kidnapped

      4/11/03 - Algeria - 2 Austrians kidnapped

      4/12/03 - India - multiple grenade attacks kill 1, wound 43.

      4/12/03 - Venezuala - C-4 bomb explodes at OAS office

      4/14/03 - France - militants set fire to car and destroy restaurant

      4/15/03 - Turkey - bombs explode at 2 different McDonalds. 1 injured.

      4/22/03 - India - bomb explodes at dairy. 6 killed, 12 wounded.

      4/25/03 - India - bomb explodes at courthouse. 3 killed, 34 wounded.

      5/5/03 - India - bomb and grenade attacks kill 1, injure 26.

      5/16/03 - Morocco - 5 bombs explode simultaneously damaging Belgian consulate. 33 killed, 101 wounded.

      6/4/03 - Belgium - Letters found containing the nerve agent adamsite. 10 hospitalized.

      6/9/03 - Peru - 71 workers of an Argentine company kidnapped

      6/17/03 - Italy - bomb explodes in front of spanish school

      6/18/03 - France - militants destroy 2 villas with bomb blasts

      6/26/03 - Kenya - aid workers attacked with hand grenades

      7/3/03 - Columbia - 5 swiss citizens kidnapped

      8/5/03 - Indonesia - bomb explodes in front of hotel 12 killed 149 wounded. Al-Qaida claims responsibility.

      8/8/03 - Spain - mail bomb sent to Greek consulate

      10/5/03 - Malaysia - 3 Indonesians and 2 Filipinos kidnapped. 1 escaped, 4 found executed.

      11/11/03 - Greece - bomb found outside bank

    14. Re:It's a case of priorities by querencia · · Score: 1

      Yes! We need to make america safer. Not expend resouces trying to enforce expired patents/copyrights.

      Oh, wait. The article was about a valid trademark, not about an expired patent/copyright.

      Well, anyway, we shouldn't expend resources trying to enforce trademarks. For God's sake, America is unsafe! Let's make a list of all laws, in order of priority. Then, let's focus 100% of our resources on the top one until we solve it. Sound good?

    15. Re:It's a case of priorities by FashionNugget · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We can't "leave everyone else the fuck alone". We're not in that kinda position; we don't have that kinda choice. America is the world's largest democracy, the world's largest economy, the world's largest power. I hate using the word, because it's so fucking pretentious, but we truly are a hegemon. No matter what we do, it affects the outside world. For example: Alan Greenspan decides to change interest rates to promote domestic growth, and millions of dollars of global investment funds start flowing in new directions, affecting financial markets world over. McDonalds decides to discontinue the happy meal, and millions of factory workers in china lose their job. America sneezes, and the world is shaken. The world today is too intricately interdependent for us to step out and live an isolated, blinkered existence.

      That's why we actually need a government that approaches foreign policy in a proactive way. We need a government that believes in 'soft power' -- that is, winning the hearts and minds of the world around us by doing something that merits it -- not a government that believes we should intervene with hard military power whenever the hell we decide to, fuck things up, and leave without a permanent solution. That kind of thing only creates more antagonism against us. Working through institutions such as the UN and NATO -- even if you don't believe things end up working any differently -- is important because that's the only way we'll change sentiments towards our country. We need to be respectful, we need to be a team player -- not someone who ignores the rest of the world, the real problem, until our backyard gets bombed.

    16. Re:It's a case of priorities by TyrranzzX · · Score: 1

      I prefer a little bit more of a...proactive solution. Namely, owning a firearm. Now, what person would even think of trying to steal your wallet if you were packing a gun?

    17. Re:It's a case of priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I excluded attacks on Americans, British, and Jews, because everyone knows we are evil and deserve it

      This has to be a joke. Well at least if there is another terrorist attack in the above mentioned, you should be the first to go since you're the most deserving of it aren't you?

    18. Re:It's a case of priorities by gnovos · · Score: 1

      95% of shipping containers coming into this country aren't being inspected, yet we have law enforcement agents to spare to make sure Pufferbelly Toys pulls those subversive Magic Cubes off their store shelf? Has our government gone completely f'ing insane?

      Last year I was all "40,000 people die each year in car wrecks (a WTC per month!) and the government is all trying to stop 'terrorists'? Has our government gone completely f'ing insane?" but it didn't help.

      --
      "Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
    19. Re:It's a case of priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, hi. We weren't interested in stopping the Nazis. It took Japan bombing Pearl Harbor for us to get involved in the war. Know why? We didn't have such strong economic interests in Germany or Israel at the time. We were heavily focused on exploiting Latin America, espcially after World War II, but that's even more off-topic. When Japan attacked us on our own soil, it became our war. We knew for 2 YEARS what the intelligence coming from the battlefront said: Germany is exterminating people. Hitler was killing Jews, the Polish, dissenters, even euthanizing sick and weak Germans! We didn't act until 1941, remember, and that was because of Japanese bombardment, not to stop Hitler. Of course, when it became clear that Hitler wasn't just mad, but actually powerful and unfortunately intelligent, he became the face of evil for the Allies to rally against. However, we are isolationist, or cheek turning, when it doesn't impact our bottom line or our stock market. Our actions, as a Dem or Rep government - which is NOT representative of all Americans - are almost solely based around money (or its various synonyms, like oil). When we are trying to 'protect' a people (Kuwait) it is because there are other interests at stake that directly impact us.

      If we were simply good world citizens, we would have stepped in long ago and tried to put a stop to the various, brutal conflicts that have taken place in Africa over the last decade. Instead, we turn a blind eye.

    20. Re:It's a case of priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      All told, there were 208 significant terrorist attacks in 2003 resulting in 625 deaths and 3646 injuries.

      ...and, despite what the powers-that-be would like you to believe, most were probably not organised by a certain Evil Genius lurking in a cave somewhere in central Asia, despite some superficial similarities in their respective declared aims.

      In other news, The Lancet reckons there have been about 100,000 extra civilian deaths in Iraq since the war of 2003. Still, better them than us, right? Right?!

    21. Re:It's a case of priorities by mumblestheclown · · Score: 1

      Try the "Osama's still on the loose and you're wasting your time with me?" argument when you get pulled over for speeding. Regardless of whether or not this particular case was goofy, just because there are terrorists out there doesn't mean that ordinary law and order goes out the window.

    22. Re:It's a case of priorities by Friggo · · Score: 1

      A person that also have a gun and skoots you before he/she takes your wallet because he/she knows you also have a gun.

    23. Re:It's a case of priorities by feargal · · Score: 1

      Hmm... if I were adept enough to pilfer your wallet, I reckon I'd take your gun and *then* your wallet...

      --
      "A goldfish was his muse, eternally amused"
    24. Re:It's a case of priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "No. What we need to do is make america safer."

      Because you had a terrorist attack a few years ago? I'm shaking in my boots.

    25. Re:It's a case of priorities by Analogy+Man · · Score: 1
      Lets not forget that the Rubics Cube could be used as an enryption device. If red-green-yellow corner is adjacent to blue-orange side blow up the gas station at the corner of 18th and Vine in Topeka.

      Watch Oprah on Wednesday and if she says "Girlfriend!" before the 2nd add break abort the mission.

      So you clearly see, if your break the secret code, the Homeland boys were just doing their job. A 50' shipping container could contain quite a few bits of toy encoded information!

      One CANNOT be too vigilant! Freedom by fascism! Long live King George and Sir Ridge the Duke of the many colors (Alert status MAGENTA - Woop Woop Wooop!)

      --
      When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
    26. Re:It's a case of priorities by a_n_d_e_r_s · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well the one with an AK47 or an M16 would do it he's bulleproof vest will certainaly stop your puny 22 mm toy gun.

      Do you really want to live in a country where everyone have to wear a AK47 and a bulletproof vest if they go outside ?

      --
      Just saying it like it are.
    27. Re:It's a case of priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Theres something unusual about this data. It shows what happened but not who. What Im saying is this is really a list of events much like a crime list would be. But this doesnt suggest terrorist anymore then it does crime or mafia or gang. What makes the government think this is all tied together?

    28. Re:It's a case of priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate to point it out, but the majority of the American people have fallen head over heels for just about every scare tactic that's thrown their way. What the "left" or "right" extremists think is mostly irrelevant. What happened here was just plain wrong.

      If we were truly serious about securing our borders, we'd start training and, yes, paying people to sort through those boxes. We'd have more people working for the coast guard. More border patrol people, not less. More postal inspectors. It's not like there aren't enough people out of work to do the job, and there are definitely worse places for the government to spend those tax dollars. It'd be a lot easier (and probably cheaper) than creating a working ABM defense system, and those millions of jobs would cut unemployment to boot.

    29. Re:It's a case of priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, that made you look retarded, eh?

    30. Re:It's a case of priorities by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Yet my latest order of Anime, purchased from .tn.us and mailed to me in .fl.us was opened and inspected.

      Can't have none of that thar "subversive lituryture" gettin thru, now can we?

    31. Re:It's a case of priorities by 1lus10n · · Score: 4, Insightful

      just out of curriosity, does it say that all of these were commited by islamic foriegners ? Cause I dont see that information anywhere on that list.

      You will also notice that a large number of those countries have a significant oppressed class/religion/whatever. Then quite a few are also just as guilty as the US regarding trying to control the world.

      You know what you wont see on that list are any nuetral countries that dont have their own internal problems. Every single one of those countries has there own internal issues, was/is a significant ally of the US or is involved in the middle east on there own.

      The criteria for that list is bullshit. The bloods and crips would be on that list if they were shooting at mcdonalds instead of each other, that doesnt make them terrorists, it makes them plain old criminals.

      --
      "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
    32. Re:It's a case of priorities by Eunuchswear · · Score: 4, Informative
      4/14/03 - France - militants set fire to car and destroy restaurant
      Wow, serious terrorism. Let's look at what the report said:
      14 France On 14 April 2003, in Sergy [sic] , France, militants set fire to a car parked outside the rear entrance of a McDonald's restaurant. The blaze partially destroyed the restaurant. No one claimed responsibility.
      "militants... no one claimed responsibility"

      Huh? Someone sets fire to a car in a "difficult suburb" (read ghetto) and all of a sudden it's "militants"?

      From the Reuters report:

      A police source in Cergy declined to speculate on whether the incidents were related, adding that there was no graffiti or other immediate clue to indicate why [ or even if ... ] the McDonald's might have been a target.
      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    33. Re:It's a case of priorities by dabigpaybackski · · Score: 1
      Has our government gone completely f'ing insane?

      Yes.

      --
      "OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
    34. Re:It's a case of priorities by 1lus10n · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Better than the current system where we pay lip service to the top issues, do nothing until something happens and then pass a shit load of civil rights bashing laws, all the while still doing nothing to enforce any of it unless it can make somebody some money. Or spy on those "damn liberals". Yay for capitalism. ::barf::

      The sole purpose of the governements existance is to protect its citizens, not the economy, not big business. The PEOPLE.

      --
      "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
    35. Re:It's a case of priorities by 1lus10n · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "No matter what we do, it affects the outside world. For example: Alan Greenspan decides to change interest rates to promote domestic growth, and millions of dollars of global investment funds start flowing in new directions, affecting financial markets world over. McDonalds decides to discontinue the happy meal, and millions of factory workers in china lose their job. America sneezes, and the world is shaken. The world today is too intricately interdependent for us to step out and live an isolated, blinkered existence."

      Sorry, Osama (and the like) doesnt give a flying fuck about the fed raising intrest rates. He does however care about the fact that we have been imposing our will by force (killing millions of innocents) in the middle east for 50 plus years.

      The world is not as dependant on us as we are on the world, because ..... we made it that way. The ownership class in this country has built our entire economy on exploiting other countries, our government is enforcing their will because they have lobbying parties, and a fuckton of money.

      The government does not exist to cater to the rich and pander to the mega-corps. The entire principle of this government is to protect the PEOPLE. Mainly from each other, but also from forgiegn invaders, hostile parties, unjust laws, unjust influence (hello church, meet mr state. Stay the fsck away.) etc etc

      We need a government that leaves the rest of the world alone, because no matter what we do internationally we WILL piss someone off, and we gain what in the end ? GM makes an extra $200 per car because it was made overseas ? Nothing gets cheaper for us, it gets cheaper (or more profitable) for the ownership class.

      Just so you know (I do believe the backyard bombing thing was in reference to pearl harbor) we broke a deal with the japanese BEFORE they bombed pearl harbor. Thats WHY they bombed pearl harbor. So we werent minding our own business and playing fair. We were fucking other countries over. Exactly like we are now.

      --
      "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
    36. Re:It's a case of priorities by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1
      6/4/03 - Belgium - Letters found containing the nerve agent adamsite. 10 hospitalized.
      "the nerve agent adamsite". That sounds scary. Let's see what the Encyclopædia Britannica says about it:
      Adamsite: in chemical warfare, sneeze gas developed by the United States and used during World War I. [ ... ] It appears as a yellow smoke that irritates eyes, lungs, and mucous membranes and causes sneezing, vomiting, and acute discomfort...
      So, not nice, but not a nerve agent either.

      Seems to me they've been padding the list to make it sound like the chocolate making aliance is under attack.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    37. Re:It's a case of priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, we all know that locking your door is pointless. You need to stop the criminals at their source, not after they've walked into your house.

      so then I need to go on a GTA type of rampage in the poor section of town killing the criminals at their source?

      actually that sounds logical considering the intense stupidity that is the current federal government.

      Me? I'm waiting for the first state to succede from the union and the beginning of our second civil war. It's going to happen because of the complete morons that are running the federal government and it's agencies.

    38. Re:It's a case of priorities by mav[LAG] · · Score: 1

      Huh? Someone sets fire to a car in a "difficult suburb" (read ghetto) and all of a sudden it's "militants"?

      There was a hilarious Onion story a few months ago headlined something like "Vandalism in quiet town is either the work of Al-Qaida cell or bored teenagers, says Sherrif." In the article the "sherrif" said "you just can't be too careful."

      --
      --- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
    39. Re:It's a case of priorities by TheDredd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Has our government gone completely f'ing insane?

      Dude, have you been living in a hole the last 4 years?

    40. Re:It's a case of priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are correct. The article should have identified it as a blood agent. The substance is still considered a chemical warfare agent though, or WMD in current parlance.

    41. Re:It's a case of priorities by Odocoileus · · Score: 1

      What you all need to do is watch 'In Plane Sight.' The terrorists were not the ones running the show that day. It was all a ploy to give the customs agents the power to raid toy stores without a warrant. Now that I have spit the truth, they will probably be coming for me now...

      --
      ...
    42. Re:It's a case of priorities by TummyX · · Score: 1


      Yes, we all know that locking your door is pointless. You need to stop the criminals at their source, not after they've walked into your house


      Typical of slashdot to mod you up. How would you like to have to manually lock 20 thousand doors everytime you left your house?


      So, you're saying that scanning containers is impossible, but somehow it is possible to find every single terrorist hiding spot


      No. I'm saying that scanning *all* containers from now until the end of time is impossible and that destroying and keeping the terrorists and the reason they exist is a lot easier.

    43. Re:It's a case of priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or WMD in current parlance.

      Hmmm, making 10 people sick is "mass destruction"? By that definition a knife is a WMD because I could potentially kill lots of people with it.

    44. Re:It's a case of priorities by Xyrus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Terrorism? TERRORISM? You think terrorism is the biggest threat this country faces? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

      The Center for Disease Control (the CDC) keeps odds on what you will most likely die from over the span of your life.

      Do you know where terrorism ranks? Your more likely to die from lightning than die from a terrorist attack. That's right. Go to the CDC site and see it for yourself.

      Your 8 times more likely to die in your own bathtub than die from a terrorist attack. TERRORISM?

      You are 18516 times more likely to die in a car wreck than you are in a terrorist attack at the mall you were driving to. TERRORISM?

      Do you know how many children in this country die every year because of no healthcare and no food? Do you know how many homeless people there are across the country?

      TERRORISM?

      You are THOUSANDS of time more likely to get shot, stabbed, hung, hit by car, flambayed, gored, frozen, drown, bludgeoned, and electrocuted during your life than die in a terrorist attack.

      The amount of fear-mongering in this country is completely revolting. VOTE FOR BUSH BECAUSE HE PROTECTS US! Bullshit. How about making the roads safer. That would save thousands of lives as the average peron has a 1 in 81 chance of dying in a car wreck during their life.

      I've read articles on how parents fear for their childrens safety in this "age of terrorism", while ignoring the fact that their child is thousands of times more likely to die just around their own homes than in a terrorist attack.

      TERRORISM? The only real terrorism I know is the fear-gospel being spewed forth by the media.

      "One terrorist attack is one too many." You have a 1 in 197 chance of being murdered in your lifetime. Compare this to a 1 in 88000 chance of being killed by the terrorist. I'm a little more concerned about being murdered.

      TERRORISM? With 45 million people being uninsured for health, I really don't think that terrorism should be up at the top of the list. You are THOUSANDS of times more like to die from disease over your lifetime than you are to die in a terrorist attack over your lifetime.

      No my friends. Terrorism is not the biggest threat to this country. Ignorance is. This country has real domestic problems of its own that DWARFS terrorism on all fronts.

      We've spent billions on a war that didn't need to be fought, but we have millions of starving kids in our own backyard. We've spent billions to precision bomb a country that didn't even have clean drinking water, while thousands die every year in our country because they can't afford health care. Billions have been spent on Homeland Security, while homeless shelters have been packed to gills here in our own country.

      Think about it.

      ~X~

      --
      ~X~
    45. Re:It's a case of priorities by darkmeridian · · Score: 1
      There is a system and always has been for what needs inspected just like your local town cops have for what to look for for drunk drivers late at night or suspect vehicles and so on.


      Yes. Drunk drivers swerve. Cops follow cars coming out from bars. Yeah, so you search the five percent coming from Afghanistan or whatever. But what if the terrorists are just slightly smarter and ship it from France? Or Spain? Because they do have terrorist groups there, too. How can you guarantee that the five percent you do search are the correct five when it comes to large metal containers that don't swerve or tick? Because just one has to get through to make it a bad day.

      Oh, we are handsearching everything? I thought that we could invest some money in scanners using proton beams or something, instead of blowing another country up. Hehe?

      And Kerry using scare tactics? How about raising the alert level and having Tom Ridge compliment his boss for his great leadership? How many times has Bush said "9/11" or Rice saying, "We don't want the next smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud?"

      Shut up, you partisan hack.
      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    46. Re:It's a case of priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sep 11th didn't even effect the average number of deaths in NY when you look at the stats.

    47. Re:It's a case of priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow! What a well thought out, non-xenophobic, non-racist, Queen's English speaking, rant about the "evils" of America....

    48. Re:It's a case of priorities by Robocoastie · · Score: 1

      You're really not worth replying to because your rudeness shows your low intelligence and the fact that you didn't read my post fully. I said "I'm not letting Bush off the hook either" he's just as guilty. So all you're doing is steering clear of the fact that you don't know jack about this topic.

      Containers get inspected from everywhere, France, Italy, Japan, you name it.

      You're the partisan hack agreeing with this scare tactic of Kerry's without even researching it sheesh.

    49. Re:It's a case of priorities by IvanD · · Score: 0

      I think you are missleading this conversation...

      Yes, there are different countries with many different problems. Unfortunately violence is everywhere. But you are hidding some important information... which is the worst about north-american culture (and I say North... because I am an american.. south-american.. for some reason US citizens confuse the fact that America is a whole continent and not just a country)... kid's games:
      Check here
      I quote:
      April 14, 2003
      New Orleans, La. One 15-year-old killed, and three students wounded at John McDonogh High School by gunfire from four teenagers (none were students at the school). The motive was gang-related.
      April 24, 2003
      Red Lion, Pa. James Sheets, 14, killed principal Eugene Segro of Red Lion Area Junior High School before killing himself.
      Sept. 24, 2003
      Cold Spring, Minn. Two students are killed at Rocori High School by John Jason McLaughlin, 15.


      ... and let me know what's the difference... perhaps that they don't have a clue about what they are doing?

      If a high-school student can get weapons that easy... how come the US is safe?

      But yeah.. perhaps is much better keep looking for copyright, patent and trademark issues, right? In the mean time, this little psychos plan something to kill your brothers or sons.

    50. Re:It's a case of priorities by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      WMD: Weapons of Mass Destruction. Please tell me how such a chemical warfare agent qualifies for that.

    51. Re:It's a case of priorities by legojenn · · Score: 1
      Islamic extremists don't just hate Americans. They hate anything not ruled by Sharia.

      Boy, I tell ya, I feel safe now, since Ontario considered allowing Sharia Law for settling some civil disputes between muslims. I have not followed the story closely, so I don't know if it turned out to be anything more than a proposal, but I am sure there will be a conflict between Sharia and the Charter of Rights & Freedoms

      --
      I make a reasonable middle-class wage by going to work and not spamming blogs with scams.
    52. Re:It's a case of priorities by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      Well...

      Japan attacked the USA because the USA was standing in the way of their plans, building a pacific empire.

      That the USA did not keep to a deal with Japan was a nice pretext for justifing it maybe, but not the reason for the attack.

      I do see 2 basic problems with foreign policy of the USA however:

      1. When it doesn't involve american citizens or soil, all those nice 'American' standards that are so strongly defended in word don't apply anymore.

      2. (and this may be an internal problem as well) money rules the law instead of the other way around.

    53. Re:It's a case of priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes they have. I'm waiting to read the report that says Magic Cubes are linked to terrorism and 9/11 - and Saddam.

    54. Re:It's a case of priorities by NardofDoom · · Score: 1
      I'm sure there are a few crazy people out there who want to hurt Americans no matter what we do, but the vast majority of Muslims are like you and me, just trying to live their lives. They see us interfering and get angry. That's where terrorist support comes from.

      If we talked with the people of the Muslim world and addressed their concerns with the same priority we give to the Israelis or Europeans, the base of support for nuts like bin Laden would fall away, making them much less powerful and well-funded.

      Also, but declaring 'war' on al Qaeda we have validated them as a political group. They're not. They're common thugs. Murders, thieves and drug dealers, the lot of them. Deal with them using law enforcement tactics, not military tactics. Arrest them and throw them in jail. It's not the 19th century anymore; frontier justice ("tall tree and a short rope") is something I had hoped we outgrew. Unfortunately, our president and about 45% of the population is still having too much fun playing cowboys to realize what they're doing wrong.

      Bin Laden has more to fear in any American prison than from the US military.

      --
      You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
    55. Re:It's a case of priorities by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      > Somehow I doubt that the operator of this toy store is the biggest criminal left for them to investigate.

      This of course is absolutely true. The point of going for the reseller also is not that they are personally the biggest problem, but because destroying the market oppertunity for counterfet products is rather important.

      A system which thinks it is completely acceptable to turn people into an example when it comes to enforcing the law can expect such things to happen. Heavy handed measures make for examples that get remembered.

    56. Re:It's a case of priorities by Politburo · · Score: 1

      I'm saying that scanning *all* containers from now until the end of time is impossible and that destroying and keeping the terrorists and the reason they exist is a lot easier.

      I seriously have no idea how you arrived at this conclusion. We know exactly where shipping containers come into the country. It would cost money, people, and time, but it is 100% viable to scan all containers coming into the country. It is ludicrous to think we are going to simply eliminate terrorism, something we cannot even agree on a definition for.

      How you can say that it is easier to eliminate or mitigate a nebulous concept vs. implementing a relatively straightforward security procedure is beyond me.

    57. Re:It's a case of priorities by Spock+the+Vulcan · · Score: 1
      America is the world's largest democracy


      s/America/India/

    58. Re:It's a case of priorities by stanmann · · Score: 1

      Actually, its more like 2% are searched for cause and 3% are "randomly" cherry picked. It's just like anything else, you can't feasably check everything, so you implement sufficiently random "polling" as a deterent and a filter.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    59. Re:It's a case of priorities by Kazrath · · Score: 0

      Obviously you have no clue about an AK47 The whole point of the AK being popular is that its rounds pierce armor. Thus wearing the bulletproof vest would be pointless if EVERYONE had an AK47 :P

    60. Re:It's a case of priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Puny 22 mm toy gun?

      I think you must have meant ".22 cal". A 22 mm diameter projectile (approx .87 caliber) is no toy ... only about 1/3rd inch wider than typical aerial-platform-fired cannon. :-)

      If that's a toy, gimme.

    61. Re:It's a case of priorities by Kazrath · · Score: 0

      Your not compairing apples to oranges. Those 40,000 people were not directly targeted for no reason. Car accidents are exactly that "Accidents". Human error with the worst possible outcome. Next your going to be comparing the amount of deaths in the 70-90 age group to terrorist attacks.

    62. Re:It's a case of priorities by pohl · · Score: 1
      What you need to do is to stop terrorists at their source not after they've gotten their goods into the harbours.

      But what if one were to discover that the biggest font of terrorist sentiment has been decades of US foreign policy in the middle east? What exactly would it mean to address the root cause?

      --

      The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...

    63. Re:It's a case of priorities by cybermage · · Score: 1

      Just for fun, let me respond to both the parent and the grand parent together:

      GrandParent: ... we have law enforcement agents to spare ...

      Terrorists, who I assume are the people you think these law enforement people should be after, are nothing without funding. A great source of illegal revenue is copyright and trademark infringment. While these toys don't really fit the mold, (dvd's seem to be the rage for this) it is right up Homeland Securities alley and undoubtedly one of the reasons Customs became part of the department.

      Parent: Ok wait just a minute. I am sick and tired of the left making that statement.

      Unless something changes, I think it is only a matter of time before one of our ports is leveled in a Nuclear blast. We cannot simply declare we're doing all we can do or that it is impossible, because we aren't and it isn't. Here's a suggestion off the top of my head:

      For the majority of containers coming into this country, we are the ultimate consumers of the product within. Our imports are other people's exports. You want an army of a million inspectors, place a small group of inspectors in each port that ships to the US and require the host country to staff their teams if they want to continue to export to the US. It won't be perfect, and the goods might cost a little more, but it'll be a lot better than not checking at all.

    64. Re:It's a case of priorities by Politburo · · Score: 1

      I am sick and tired of the left making that statement.

      Yeah, I hate when people repeat facts.

      What we do about it is up to debate, but so far I haven't seen anyone, including yourself, dispute the fact: Only 5% of containers are being inspected.

    65. Re:It's a case of priorities by retinaburn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your reply doesn't discount the fact that only 5% are searched. And the poster did not say anything about it was the CG's fault. He is saying that perhaps we should be spending MORE money on getting MORE people to search cargo entering this country, rather than bending over for corporations. Jeez dude take a breath, its friday, enjoy.

    66. Re:It's a case of priorities by Politburo · · Score: 1

      You're kind of missing the big picture. While human lives are important, they aren't the only metric of measuring threats. A threat to the country is not the same as a threat to a person. Personally, I have 0 fear of terrorism for the same reason you mention: statistically, I will not be a victim of terrorism. However, I understand that terrorism can have a profound effect on the nation's economy and overall sanity, and that is important.

      I do agree that there are bigger issues than terrorism, mainly fiscal sanity and health care, but I think you were missing the whole picture in your analysis as you trivialized the effect of terrorism by focusing only on loss of life.

    67. Re:It's a case of priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      uhm...

      "22 mm toy gun"


      if the gun is only 2.2 cm long, i guess that it is a toy. if the round is 2.2 cm in diameter, that's artillery, not a toy.

    68. Re:It's a case of priorities by mojogojo · · Score: 1

      [quote]
      Want to be secure ? Leave everyone else the fuck alone. You dont see every country in the world being attacked by militant islamic extremist foreigners now do you ? Its because most countries mind their own fucking business.
      [end quote]
      Let's take a look at the official statistics for a moment (i.e. the facts):
      1998 - 0 attacks in North America
      1999 - 2 attacks in North America
      2000 - 0 attacks
      2001 - 4 attacks
      2002 - 0
      2003 - 0

      So, that's 6 attacks from 1998-2003, and compare this to the 1,857 attacks EVERYWHERE ELSE in the world for the same period! Geesh.

    69. Re:It's a case of priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You are THOUSANDS of times more like to die from disease over your lifetime than you are to die in a terrorist attack over your lifetime.

      Yes, but those other things that can kill you don't take money out of the pockets of big business or the rich. A terrorist attack on our communications infrastructure... now that is scary. Just think of how many people won't be able to afford a 3rd home after the business losses from that!

    70. Re:It's a case of priorities by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      They're not coming across the ocean to America because they hate us. They're causing problems in most of those other countries (Russia, Saudi Arabia, Phillipines, Sudan) because that's where they live. They're pissed off that their governments aren't their ideal of a Muslim theocracy, so they're committing terrorist actions against them. It's no different from McVey and Nichols blowing up the Oklahoma City federal building. (In Russia it's because they live in Chechnya and want to separate from Russia.)

      With Spain and the USA, it's because they're pissed off at us for getting involved with their affairs. Spain had troops in Iraq. The terrorists blew up a train, and Spain pulled out. The USA, of course, is an obvious target because we've invaded the middle east.

      So, yes, if we were to become an isolationist country, they would stop attacking us. Now, I'm not saying this is absolutely the best plan of action, since there's other factors involved (international relationships, etc.), but if we were just minding our own business like, say, Iceland, we would not have reason to worry about being attacked by foreign terrorists.

    71. Re:It's a case of priorities by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Diction ary&va=sarcasm&x=0&y=0

    72. Re:It's a case of priorities by FurryFeet · · Score: 1

      Wow.
      So, they say that only 5% if containers are being inspected.
      And you confirm that only 5% are being inspected, while getting your panties in a bunch.
      Can't really say I see your point.

    73. Re:It's a case of priorities by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Terrorists don't do what they do for no good reason, or because they don't like the way you live. They do it because they're pissed off at some power (usually a government) because they feel like they're being oppressed. In India, it's because the Muslims in Pakistan are pissed that India won't give up their claim to Kashmir, or it's the Tamil Tigers in the south because they're pissed off about the atrocities they've suffered in Sri Lanka, or because they want independence. In Chechnya, it's because the Muslims want independence from Russia. In Serbia, they probably bombed the UN office because they're pissed that other countries invaded them and stopped their oppression of the Kosovars. In some of these cases, it looks like simple bank robbery, which does not qualify for "terrorism". In the kidnapping cases (such as the Swiss citizens kidnapped in Columbia), it's probably kidnap & ransom, which again is not terrorism, it's just a crime.

    74. Re:It's a case of priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well dude, going with what you said, do you realize the only reason that terrorism has an effect on the economy is because people are afraid? I agree that I have no fears of dying from terrorism. But a friend of mine has a grandmother who thinks terrorists are going to get her everytime she goes to NYC. Apparently our government WANTS people to be afraid. So a lot of people are, and people stop investing in our companies. If they'd just read this posting (which the author did a good job on), maybe our economy wouldn't be all screwed up. Naaaa, Uncle Sam would delete the post somehow. :)

    75. Re:It's a case of priorities by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1
      This is all roughly correct for your average American. Frankly, the only people who are at a substantial risk of dying in a terrorist attack are people who live in or work in downtown or midtown Manhattan. I would say our risk factor is somewhere between 100 and 1000 times greater than the average American, simply on the basis of where attacks have accured and are likely to occur in the future - NYC is like a lightening rod for Islamic militants for a whole variety of reasons.


      And you know the funny thing? The vast majority of us here, despite the fact that we are one of the few groups of people with a legitimate reason to fear death in a terrorist attack, are almost all going to vote for Kerry.


      Put that in your peace pipe and smoke it. I fail to see why a person from Ohio or Oklahoma should have a vote in preventing terrorism, since the likelihood of their being a victim in an attack is essentially zero. Dear rest of America: you aren't here, you aren't at risk of a terrorist attack, please don't go to the polls and vote based on some vague fear that has no personal relevance to you. Let us worry about it here in New York, we promise to vote for the candidate that will best prevent future terrorist attacks in the United States, since it's eminently in our interests to do so.

    76. Re:It's a case of priorities by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Well dude, going with what you said, do you realize the only reason that terrorism has an effect on the economy is because people are afraid?

      I agree that fear is a part, but I'm talking more about successful terrorist attacks. The collapse of two gigantic office buildings in downtown NYC was a huge negative impact on the economy. Now, it's likely that such a large attack will not be successful again, but if it is, there will be another impact on the economy, which, sadly, will be partially driven by fear. That's what I'm referring to when I talk about metrics other than the loss of life. I use the same argument when people say 'Well only 3,000 died in 9/11 many more die from ______ (insert auto accidents, lung cancer, etc.)"

    77. Re:It's a case of priorities by francisew · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think you aren't taking the whole terrorism thing seriously enough.

      For example:

      • What you call car 'wrecks' I call accidents. Nobody really wanted to get hurt. No one really wanted to hurt anyone else. It's just the way things go.
      • Children getting killed around their homes. It's probably just because natural selection is supposed to take care of them. It makes the US stronger as a nation by eliminating the weakest.
      • Murder. Hah. It's probably all deserved in the first place. After all, how often do people get unjustly killed? Probably just brought it on themselves.
      • No healthcare and food? Oh come on, why don't they just eat at McD's? It's not so expensive! With the amount of added chemicals in the food, you don't need any supplementary medication!
      • Bathtubs. Look, if you're wasting all that water taking baths, you are doing the world as a whole a favor by saving water in the future.
      • 'Media fear-gospel'? Come on, look, CNN is just trying to keep us all aware of the truly important, fundamentally preventable issues.
      I also don't see the problem with ignorance. I mean, if people get too smart, it means they can do illegal things. They might not want to follow the laws that keep us all safe. The system could get broken! I also don't see what you have against DWARFS in this country. I say we leave them out of it.

      Ok, so everything I've said so far is satirical. Truth is, I completely agree with you. Big surprise.

      What I found funniest in the article was the closing line: Can't the Department of Home Security find any 'real' terrorists? How many CNN reports have there been about catching domestic terrorists? Preventing terrorist attacks? Complex plots from foreigners to destroy the american way of life? I think the Dept' probably does more to anger and outrage foreigners than to improve the safety of the USA.

    78. Re:It's a case of priorities by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 1

      How would you like to have to manually lock 20 thousand doors everytime you left your house?

      1. Staffing
      2. Machines, Such as this one
      3. Information. Track the source and destinations of the containers.
      4. We don't have to scan all of them, but we can do better then scanning 5%.

      that destroying and keeping the terrorists and the reason they exist is a lot easier

      Easier? Like how Israel's anti-terrorism campaign in Palestine, now going on for more then 50 years? Britains efforts against the IRA? America's efforts against the Taliban in Afghanistan?

      I think you don't understand the nature or scope of the problem.

    79. Re:It's a case of priorities by FashionNugget · · Score: 1

      depends whether you measure in terms of population or surface area. that's the problem with statistics -- you can pick and choose what you want to use, to support your own point.

    80. Re:It's a case of priorities by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 1

      Now, what person would even think of trying to steal your wallet if you were packing a gun?

      Somebody with a bigger gun? Or somebody who waits for you to sleep? Who attacks from behind?

    81. Re:It's a case of priorities by Foosinho · · Score: 1
      I fail to see why a person from Ohio or Oklahoma should have a vote in preventing terrorism, since the likelihood of their being a victim in an attack is essentially zero. Dear rest of America: you aren't here, you aren't at risk of a terrorist attack, please don't go to the polls and vote based on some vague fear that has no personal relevance to you.

      Well, I live in Ohio and just a few miles from one of the biggest military bases in the country. Work there too. While the risk of terrorist attack is low here, it is higher than that of some guy in Podunk, Indiana. As a tactical target, it's hard to find a better one than where I work, but terrorists don't usually pick targets for their tactical value.

      That said, I'm voting Kerry on Tuesday. He is the better choice for America, by any metric. Except if you are a rich, religious dickbag. Then I can see why you'd prefer Bush.
    82. Re:It's a case of priorities by Spock+the+Vulcan · · Score: 1

      Well, in that case, Canada is bigger than the USA.

    83. Re:It's a case of priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Well, not to beat the subject to death (and assuming that you meant .22 caliber as the other posters pointed out)

      NATO 5.56 mm ammunition--you know, what is fired by the M16 (and many other weapons)? Well the 5.56mm ammo for the M16 is technically .223 caliber. Not a toy... it has much more of a charge behind it.

      Not that most .22 caliber rifles aren't basically toys. This is slashdot: never let the point get in the way of the details (haha).

    84. Re:It's a case of priorities by William+Tanksley · · Score: 1

      I've worked at a company running a project designing a system to allow inspection of more than we currently inspect. The problem is the cost, direct and indirect. It would, of course, cost a lot to train enough people to inspect everything that comes in, to the point of making much shipping unprofitable. Much worse, though, it would slow down shipping immensely, and that alone would cost us a HUGE chunk of our GNP.

      Something is being done, of course. There are some possible solutions being examined by a number of eager gov't contractors (some at their own expense, others at gov't expense). We'll never be able to have a human look at anything close to 100%, but we'll probably wind up with a better system to classify stuff based on diverse characteristics and test results, thus allowing human review of questionable cases.

      My jaw dropped when Kerry used that 95% line. It was utter fearmongering, pure and simple; he offers no better improvement than Bush. Honestly, backing off a bit, it's frustrating to see how similar the two candidates are in their actions (not in their rhetoric). Yes, Bush invaded Iraq; and Kerry keeps saying that he might have done the same (yet, somehow, "better").

      Whatever.

      I know who I'm voting for, but I certainly respect the people who remain undecided.

      -Billy

    85. Re:It's a case of priorities by 1lus10n · · Score: 1

      Hi Xyrus mett Mr Reality. Mr Reality please KICK Xyrus in the head.

      I never said a damn thing about DYING because of terrorism. Threats to the ENTIRE COUNTRY come in many shapes and sizes. Imagine our entire economy collapsing, having 20 or 30% of the nation unemployed and unable to afford food or healthcare. Or being homeless. Violence would skyrocket, the governemnt wouldnt be able to afford services like police and firemen because there would be no money coming in from taxes. All it would take is two more planes, one into the stock exchange during the day, the other into the capital building during a session. Or they could hit one of the nuclear facilities that are downwind of NYC or washington and let the fallout kill millions and make the east coast uninhabitable.

      Every single thing you listed would be worse if the terrorists succeed.

      Just so you know Iraq had nothing, has nothing and never will have a damn thing to do with the war on terror. That 200 billion would have been better spent at home.

      I think I dont live in a socialist country, I dont care about people who dont care about themselves. Drug addicts and criminals dont deserve help, they should be deported. I also dont think I should be paying through the nose for sub-standard healthcare so everyone can have it.

      Vote Badnarik. Fuck Bush, screw kerry.

      --
      "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
    86. Re:It's a case of priorities by 1lus10n · · Score: 1

      Two things about that.

      a) its a matter of historical preference why japan attacked. Different historians have said different things.

      b) 1a. If it also doesnt involve oil or some other american industry.

      As far as money ruling the law .... thats what happens without campaign finance reform that means something. Having only two major parties also doesnt help.

      --
      "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
    87. Re:It's a case of priorities by 1lus10n · · Score: 1

      And how many of those 1,857 fit the criteria ?

      Some local army/militia fighting for there rights is not fucking terrorism. I dont give a flying shit if the CIA likes them or not.

      --
      "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
    88. Re:It's a case of priorities by 1lus10n · · Score: 1

      DING DING DING .... ladies and gentleman we have a winner !!!

      Thank you for restoring (at least momentarily) my faith in the human species. Some of us actually think. Thats a dirty word.

      Now if only bush and the religious right would realize this ... we might actually accomplish something in the middle east.

      --
      "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
    89. Re:It's a case of priorities by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      > As far as money ruling the law .... thats what happens without campaign finance reform that means something. Having only two major parties also doesnt help.

      Agree completely there.

    90. Re:It's a case of priorities by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      I'm glad you stated Iraq had nothing to do with terror. I also agree with you that all that money wasted in Iraq would have been much better spent at home. However I disagree with your tone of fear. It would take a lot more than one plant melting down to make the east coast uninhabitable. Not to mention the fact that it is quite difficult to make a plant go merely by smashing something into it (far easier for someone to do it from the contol panel, as an ad-hoc colision of that nature would most likely spread the rods far appart preventing a reaction). If the smash a plane into the NYSE, trading would stop. However, there are many stock exchanges (with backup data) located throughout various cities. Once the initial shock was over, things would return to normal. After the trade towers collapsed, the stock exchanged shut down for several days. The economy did not come to a grinding halt. Many other aspects are involved in the economy other than the stock exchange. There are contingency planes in place if capitol hill got smoked. They've been there for quite awhile. Our whole government is built on the idea of redundancy (as anyone who has dealt with government could tell you). And if unemployment hit 20-30%, I think that would be just cause for a rather fresh shaking up of the government. However, as opposed to your view, I don't think violence would rise to the point of shattering the nation. But all of your statements are based on if the terrorists succeed. They can't, and they never could. The fundamental backbone of our nation is built upon the ideas held in the constitution. We have 300 million people covering a nation of many millions of square miles, and you really think a few thousand religious extremist can wipe out the US? I'll give credit where credit is due, they could cause problems but no where on the order enough to destroy this country. You see, using fear to justify your cause is like saying someone is a willing volunteer when you have a gun to their head. Fear is what Hitler and Stalin used to control the population. When people fear something, they are easier to control. My point is, the people of this nation fearing all the wrong things. I wouldn't be to concerned about a terrorist attack, but what about our emergency responders? Do they have access to abdequate technology? Do they have plans, and then contingency plans for getting people aid? Another terrorist attack is inevitable (especially with all the policies we followed in the past). Extremists will always exist. You will never wipe out the threat fully. This will be like the war on drugs. The best we can do is take as many reasonable preventative steps as we can and have solid plans and resources for dealing with an aftermath. BTW do you really think that terrorist leaders want the US destroyed? ~X~ p.s - Kerry is not my top pick. However my desire to have Bush out of office outweighs my vote choice, so Kerry it is.

      --
      ~X~
    91. Re:It's a case of priorities by 1lus10n · · Score: 1

      Shut down for a few days is one thing, destroyed with all of those people who are involved in trading with tons of data being destroyed is a different horse. Our economy lost as much as 1 trillion as a result of 9/11. Hitting the stock exchange would be much much worse.

      "They can't, and they never could. The fundamental backbone of our nation is built upon the ideas held in the constitution."

      You mean the ideas that the government has been eroding for the past few decades (with scary little attention) and with increasing speed over the past 3 years ?

      You can stop with the "fear fear fear" crap. I dont buy it, and I dont fear terrorists. However if you dont explore the possibility of this then your a fool. Especially if you dont try to prevent it.

      "We have 300 million people covering a nation of many millions of square miles, and you really think a few thousand religious extremist can wipe out the US?"

      We have 300 million people who are bitterly divided with far far more diverse intrests and ideals than the original 13 colonies had. All it would take for this country to break into serveral pieces is 1 thing. You think the liberals in the northeast or the religious nuts in the midwest want to hold hands and sing songs ? The country is the most divided it has been since the civil war.

      Fear is what bush uses to control the population, fear is what the terrorists and this administration are using to drive us apartm the terrorists do it intentionally the administration is doing it on accident as a by product of there policies and actions.

      Fear of being in Fear is what your trying to use to control this discussion.

      "BTW do you really think that terrorist leaders want the US destroyed?"

      Not in the manor your thinking. Honestly I dont think they give a shit about the US or its people so long as the US and its people do not interfere with their lives/countries/rights. No matter who the president is this wont happen (assuming the choices remain kerry or bush). The entire goal of the terrorist attacks was to get us out of the middle east. I really think that bush and his buddies did the exact opposite thing just to spite the terrorists so they could use it has a marketing/campaign thing.

      If they hit indian point nuclear plant (IIRC) there could be as many as 30 million deaths depending on the prevailing winds. The spent fuel rods that are stored incorrectly in pools that are over capacity alone could wipe out NYC and the immediate surrounding area. (When I say east coast I mean washinton to boston. Not the entire coast.)

      --
      "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
    92. Re:It's a case of priorities by greenrom · · Score: 1

      I agree that some of the things included in the report are probably not "terrorism", and clearly not all of the terrorist acts involed muslim terrorists. The point I was trying to make is that terrorism is not a problem that is unique to the United States and its allies as many people have been led to believe. Al-Qaeda doesn't have a monopoly on terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic used all over the world to achieve a wide variety of political and social objectives. Anyone who harms innocent people to use fear as a bargaining chip is a terrorist. Even if you're being oppressed, that's never a justifiable recourse.

    93. Re:It's a case of priorities by indiechild · · Score: 1

      Uh no, a robber would just go pick on easier targets or go into an easier line of thieving business. Why make it harder and more expensive on yourself to get a bulletproof vest and a high-powered weapon if you can simply steal money through more lucrative and less dangerous means, e.g. ID theft and fraud?

    94. Re:It's a case of priorities by TyrranzzX · · Score: 1

      But what if it jamms or the round is a dud? What if you fire, and everyone else draws their gun and shoots you?

      If all the good people carried around guns and kept out of eachothers business, then our society would be FAR better off.

    95. Re:It's a case of priorities by TyrranzzX · · Score: 1

      No, I'd rather live in a country where it's legal to carry around certain guns and weapons, and where people have the sense enough to make sure that criminals don't happen by freely sharing information and being nice/helpful to eachother. Frankly, I'd like to see a lisencing system where you could have any kind of weapon (assualt rifle, firearm, ect), but must pass a standardised test in order to be allowed to carry it (namely, fire the firearm accuratly), and where certain weapons (tanks, helicopters, explosives, ect) there is a test that you must pass in order to use. The tests and information are all administered at libraries, and are payed for with tax money.

      And, there's laws against being mercenaries. There is no law against owning a firearm, operating one at a range, moving one unloaded in the back of your trunk, or obtaining certain weapons. If course, the government would be free to regulate gun shops, but it couldn't tell them they can't sell certain weapons, nor impose such a tax on a firearm that they are impossible to obtain.

      In a society of good people, when those good people are able to defend themsevles, the society will be good. It's said that there's 20k deaths in america from guns. How many of those are criminals, and how many times have guns prevented crime? Compair with britton, where criminals go from street to street jiggling doorknobs and windows to try to get into people's homes, and where defending yourself from an intruder is illegal, much less lunging to the rescue of your next door neighbor.

    96. Re:It's a case of priorities by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      The point I was trying to make is that terrorism is not a problem that is unique to the United States and its allies as many people have been led to believe.

      That's correct, and it would be idiotic to think otherwise. However, terrorism is a problem that is mostly unique to countries that have a bad habit of pissing people off. Stop pissing people off and you won't have much trouble with terrorism.

      Anyone who harms innocent people to use fear as a bargaining chip is a terrorist.

      Wrong. Bank robbers who take hostages in order to try to gain escape from the police are not terrorists. People who take hostages because they're mentally troubled, or have some other criminal motive, are not terrorists. They're simply criminals who have taken hostages. "Terrorist" is not a word that is defined by its literal meaning; it's a person who is working on a national or international scare, using fear to effect some type of political or social change. Using this term to describe common criminals simply dilutes it.

      Even if you're being oppressed, that's never a justifiable recourse.

      I disagree again, strangely enough. I know it's hard to imagine, as an unoppressed member of a stable, first-world country, but suppose you were an oppressed minority in a crappy third-world country where the government simply didn't care about your people, and happily oppressed and murdered them. What would you do? Stand around and feel sorry for yourself, while your relatives get raped and murdered by government soldiers? Or do you fight back? Suppose you're not a pussy, and you choose the latter. Fighting trained soldiers isn't exactly easy; most people don't have access to military weapons and training. Now remember the saying "of the people, for the people." The government in any country exists because the people (or at least a majority of them) allow it to. So if you can't fight the soldiers directly, you take the war to the people, who are allowing their agents in the government to commit atrocities. Now maybe it's not that productive, because it has historically tended to polarize those people against your cause, but regardless I think it's justified. If someone comes in your house and kills your family, you are justified in taking their life. If a government soldier comes in your house and kills your family, you are justified in killing the people who have employed that soldier. I imagine I'll get modded down for this since it's against the Christian morality that's prevalent today, which just tells people to "turn the other cheek".

    97. Re:It's a case of priorities by clambake · · Score: 1

      Your not compairing apples to oranges. Those 40,000 people were not directly targeted for no reason.

      And yet, I'll bet with $200 billion dollars we could actually prevent a great number of those.

    98. Re:It's a case of priorities by SpacePunk · · Score: 1

      "And no, shooting at me with a broad and interesting range of weapons is not going to change my mind."

      Perhaps, but it always tends to make one feel better.

  94. Probably not what it's hyped up to be... by Dr.+Mu · · Score: 2, Informative

    The trademark "Magic Cube", as it applies to "manipulative puzzles", is owned by Atico International USA Inc. of Ft. Lauderdale, FL. You can find out stuff like that here. The manufacturer/importer of the Magic Cube puzzles in the story is the Toysmith Group of Auburn, WA. This could be nothing more than the rightful owner of a trademark pressing its case against a possibly unwitting party who didn't do any trademark research before naming their product. It probably has nothing to do with Erno Rubik, his expired patent, or any copyrights.

  95. Re:And why _aren't_ you voting for Bush? by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 1

    I'd rather have a Kerry, endorsed by an american billionaire, than Bush, endorsed by Saudi billionaires.

  96. This is asinine, even for Slashdot by bcilfone · · Score: 1

    Which is it? A copyright, trademark, or patent?

    Lumping them all together in a jumbled mess like this only helps confuse the issues that surround each.

  97. Good ol' beaurecratic efficiency by lelio98 · · Score: 1

    So, the Department of homeland Security was created to simplify, organize and streamline the process of securing our homeland. Trademark violation falls under their purview now and as any newly minted, efficient government organization worth it's salt would do, they send two agents to a little toy store to scare the crap out of a shopkeeper when a simple stamp, envelope, and letterhead with the words "Cease and Desist" typed on them would have done the trick. Homeland security, why spend $0.50 when $5,000.00 will scare our citizens even more!

    1. Re:Good ol' beaurecratic efficiency by Zarf · · Score: 1

      So, the Department of homeland Security was created to simplify, organize and streamline the process of securing our homeland. Trademark violation falls under their purview now and as any newly minted, efficient government organization worth it's salt would do, they send two agents to a little toy store to scare the crap out of a shopkeeper when a simple stamp, envelope, and letterhead with the words "Cease and Desist" typed on them would have done the trick. Homeland security, why spend $0.50 when $5,000.00 will scare our citizens even more!

      Prank.
      I think this was a prank. How do you know that the person is from "Home Land Security" or not? How do you know any credentials they produce are valid? So I say this was a prank. Why can't I walk into a store wearing a black suit and say, "I'm from Home Land Security, all your toilets must have a rubber duckie on the tank or terrorists will blow up the building. Now make with the duckies or I'm shutting you all down!"

      From the detail in the article it sounds like the gal just heard "Home Land Security" and caved. Naturally, could you really blame her?

      Stop terrorism? This thing sounds like an act of terrorism. I'm going to need more proof that this actually happened. This must be a prank.

      --
      [signature]
    2. Re:Good ol' beaurecratic efficiency by Richard+M.+Nixon · · Score: 1

      So, the Department of homeland Security was created to simplify, organize and streamline the process of securing our homeland.

      OK boys and girls, can you say "Junta"?
      Very Good!

      (To say nothing about Civil vs Criminal violations.)
      (Stay tuned for Marshal Law being declared shortly after the election.)

      --
      Nobody died when Nixon lied.
      I'm meeting you half way you stupid hippies!
  98. more on corruption by gad_zuki! · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Here's the corruption from this week alone. Its not laziness at work here.

    1. Re:more on corruption by LardBrattish · · Score: 1

      RE your sig "It only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea." Robert Anton Wilson

      What's happened to me is the absolute opposite & I think that that is generally the case these days.

      In England you used to have in the '70s (from left to right) - very simplistically:-

      Labour - Left wing pro union anti nuclear. Raise taxes & spend on public services
      Liberals (Liberal Democrats) - Centrist. Invented the national health service but also promote balanced sensible fiscal policies etc
      Conservatives - Right wing pro business low taxes

      Then we got Margaret Thatcher

      Conservatives moved right.
      Labour (eventually) moved right to gain the majority centre right position. Actually therefore moving to the right of the Lib Dems. So although the Lib Dems have pretty much the same agenda as they had 30 years ago they are now the most left wing mainstream party.

      A similar thing happened in Australia in the 1980s where most of the key union reforms were instituted by a revolutionary Labor administration under first Hawke then Keating.

      What people haven't grasped yet is that the parties have shifted ground quite dramatically and voting Labour/Conservative because your parents did is not a valid reason because you are not voting for the same party as your parents.

      As an observer it's really funny trying to watch the English Conservative party trying to criticise Tony Blair for his involvement in Iraq knowing full well that they would have done at least as much to help Bush had they been in the same position.

      --
      What are you listening to? (http://megamanic.blogetery.com/)
  99. Dun Malg is correct - Delay NOT under indictment by davidwr · · Score: 1

    As of the last time I checked, Tom Delay was NOT under indictment.

    His underlings, however, that's another story.

    Why did I post redundantly? so the title "Delay NOT under indictment" would show up in the threaded view. Please don't mod below that of Dung Malg's post.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  100. Mod Parent Up by querencia · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Everyone LOOK AT WHAT THIS GUY WROTE. He says, "I said some rather inflammatory things about George W. Bush in a public post in my LJ, done in a satirical style."

    First of all, this isn't even close to satire. Second, it is supremely stupid.

    I'm very proud of our Secret Service. They behaved in a very diligent and professional manner. No matter who becomes President, I'm glad that they will be protecting him.

    I'm also incredibly impressed that they were able to show the restraint necessary to keep from smacking this jackass upside his head.

    1. Re:Mod Parent Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm also incredibly impressed that they were able to show the restraint necessary to keep from smacking this jackass upside his head.

      Ever hear of Volitaire?

      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

      Despite what you may think, we have (or should I say had) a freedom of speech in this country. Get a clue you moron.

    2. Re:Mod Parent Up by Rallion · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You do realize that this is exactly the type of speech the First Amendment was put in place to protect?

    3. Re:Mod Parent Up by Sinner · · Score: 3, Insightful
      First of all, this isn't even close to satire. Second, it is supremely stupid.
      It's a joke. A joke. Jesus Christ, in other countries people make jokes about the leadership all the damn time. What is wrong with you people?
      --
      fish and pipes
    4. Re:Mod Parent Up by querencia · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ummm, no. Most speech is protected by the First Amendment. Some speech is not. Usually, there are two canonical examples given of speech that is not protected:

      1. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.
      2. Threatening to kill the President.


      Another is joking about bombs while you're waiting to get aboard an airplane. These forms of speech are not protected. Anyone who does them is stupid.

    5. Re:Mod Parent Up by the_riaa · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Another is joking about bombs while you're waiting to get aboard an airplane. These forms of speech are not protected. Anyone who does them is stupid.


      I can attest to this - I was in the Raleigh/Durham (NC) Airport this past weekend and saw a sign while waiting in line for security. It stated that making jokes about bombs or other security threats was not permitted and would lead to interrogation. Fun times, eh?
    6. Re:Mod Parent Up by Belgabor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As far as I can remember threatening to kill the president or encouraging others to do so is not only not protected, it's a criminal offense punishable by jail in the US (at least if you're not a senator according to one of Michael Moores books).

    7. Re:Mod Parent Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and the Secret Service did nothing to bad to him. They saw his rant looked into it carefully then said have a nice day.

    8. Re:Mod Parent Up by 0123456 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "Most speech is protected by the First Amendment. Some speech is not."

      Let's see now: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.'

      Do you want to explain where in there, exactly, the government has any right to ban any kind of speech? What part of 'Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech' is so hard to understand?

    9. Re:Mod Parent Up by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      Right underneath that part, in invisible ink, it's written "The above shall not apply to speech that threatens the security of the Homeland." At least, that's the only explanation I can think of.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    10. Re:Mod Parent Up by CommandLineGuy · · Score: 1

      The 1st Ammendment doesn't protect a citizen from being responsible for what they say - there still is accountability. It only prevents the creation of a law.

      Quoted from The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press:
      "The First Amendment

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

      It helps to actually read the Ammendments beforehand.

      --
      [Of course it's client-server; it runs on a LAN]
    11. Re:Mod Parent Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Catch 22.

    12. Re:Mod Parent Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its not a question of banning speech though. Its a question of investgating people, after they made the speech, which indicates a possible desire to kill the president.

      They man wasn't arrested for his speech: he was investigated to see if he wanted to kill the president.

      And actually, sending death threats isn't legal anyway.

    13. Re:Mod Parent Up by Politburo · · Score: 1

      I like how your list takes the following form:
      "
      1.
      2.

      Oh and by the way, 3, and anyone who thinks otherwise is stupid."

      Where does it end? Where can we joke about bombs? Or, if we can't joke about bombs in line, what about knifes, can I joke about them? Or shoes? Or matches? Or nail files? Or darts? Or knitting needles?

      I'm serious. I like to pass the time by making fun of things and I don't want to be whisked away because I happened to say the wrong thing in the "Land of the Free".

      Why are people so fucking afraid of TALK?

    14. Re:Mod Parent Up by querencia · · Score: 1

      Let's see now: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

      Do you want to explain where in there, exactly, the government has any right to ban assault weapons?

      There are lots of instances where the government has the right to ban or restrict certain kinds of speech.

    15. Re:Mod Parent Up by Rallion · · Score: 1

      and the Secret Service did nothing to bad to him. They saw his rant looked into it carefully then said have a nice day.

      This is why I replied to the person that said they should have beaten the kid up a bit while they were there.

  101. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is a perfect counter arguement to the claim made by the grandparent and should get similar mods for it

  102. Why label yourself then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Why the hell are you even applying a label (Republican) to yourself then? Does it make you feel like more of a man?

    Strip off the labels people. If you're already thinking for yourself (ie: you said you don't agree with everything Republicans support), then god dammit, take the next step and strip yourself of the damn labels! Tell people you are AMERICAN and be proud of that. Vote based on the issues you support, and leave it at that. The country would be better off if more people stopped playing "who's team am I on" and just cared about the core issues.

    1. Re:Why label yourself then? by Stevyn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When I said:

      "And no, John Kerry in office isn't going to change anything because you still have Republicans in the house and senate."

      I didn't want to sound like another annoying liberal slashdotter who spews anti-Bush/republican rhetoric just to be modded up at +1 liberal.

      I'd rather people read the post and understand that while I generally side with republicans, I can still disagree with the actions of those who wear the republican label.

      I'm not a politician so I don't consider myself wearing the republican label. I don't feel that saying you're a republican or democrat stifles independent (no pun intended) thought.

      But thanks for questioning me though. I like to be challenged and back up my viewpoints. It makes them stronger and everyone should be questioned so they can ask themselves if they really believe all this stuff or are just following a bandwagon, as you claimed I was.

    2. Re:Why label yourself then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It turns out he was correct. I don't think that word means what you think it does.

    3. Re:Why label yourself then? by TheDredd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Tell people you are AMERICAN and be proud of that.

      So, what has America done lately that you are proud of?

  103. OK, so, by Duhavid · · Score: 1

    What does Customs have to do with enforcing copyright? Shouldnt that be a court issue? On what basis can they tell her to remove items from the shelf?

    --
    emt 377 emt 4
    1. Re:OK, so, by general_re · · Score: 2, Informative
      What does Customs have to do with enforcing copyright?

      This.

      --
      ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
    2. Re:OK, so, by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      What happened to due process? Shouldnt there first be a court finding that there was a violation? Then enforcement? Or was this done already?

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    3. Re:OK, so, by general_re · · Score: 2, Interesting
      What happened to due process?

      The first part of that is the investigation of wrongdoing by the appropriate authorities. Hopefully, I don't need to point out that we only have one side of the story here, and the toy store lady is hardly a neutral observer. Customs has the power to seize infringing goods on the spot as part of their investigation, and yet they simply ordered her to take it off the shelves and then left without them? Something doesn't add up there, and I won't be a bit surprised to learn that there's more to the story than she's letting on...

      --
      ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
    4. Re:OK, so, by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      That they did not confiscate, impound or destroy the items was bothering me a bit.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
  104. Can anybody tell me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why this post hasn't been modded +5 Funniest Shit Ever on Slashdot?

    1. Re:Can anybody tell me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uh cuz it isn't funny, assclown. It's you who has a fscked up sense of humor!

  105. Which is it? Trademark, Copyright or Patent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is so horribly written I don't know what rules the Dept of Homeland Security think was broken.

    Trademark != Copyright != Patent.

    Next time you submit an article about law, try to get the legal terms right so people can figure out a what rules may have actually been violated. Was it all three? One of the three?

  106. Re:And why _aren't_ you voting for Bush? by johnnyb · · Score: 0

    Okay, let's see here:

    If Bush goes into Iraq, steals their oil for US companies, oil prices drop -- Bush went into Iraq to benefit the oil companies.

    If Bush goes into Iraq, leaves all of the oil in the hands of the Iraqis, oil prices go up -- Bush went into Iraq to benefit the oil companies.

    If Bush did nothing and the oil price went up, clearly Bush did not want to go into the middle east because it would hurt the oil companies.

    If Bush did nothing and the oil price fell, clearly Bush is helping the oil companies, which allow them to offer oil at lower prices.

    Did I miss anything?

    I'm sure you made the same squawk when Al Gore sold off the Naval oil reserves at Elk Hills to the company his Dad worked for?

    Look, Bush clearly has connections to oil, and energy policy has been at the front of presidential agendas for decades. That does not lead directly to conclusions that Bush is trying to enrich himself. He might be, but any argument really needs more information than just his past business and the current price of oil.

  107. ummm by isotope23 · · Score: 1

    if a congressman didn't read it, or didn't understand it, then I would expect him to
    VOTE NO as an automatic response....

    --
    Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
    1. Re:ummm by mindriot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No. You'd expect him to abstain.

      By the way, maybe there are 735 bills a year. BUT it should be common sense to have some priorities, and it did seem clear to most people that the PATRIOT act was something bigger as, say, the latest bill "recognizing the accomplishments and loyal service of XYZ" (there's quite a bunch of those, check loc.gov). So it is CLEARLY not required for them to read all 735. But it is also obvious that priorities are important.

      But we shouldn't really be arguing too much about this, because even though I like the job Moore is doing, we must recognize that he also knows where to spin facts and exaggerate things to make his overall point.

    2. Re:ummm by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      No. You'd expect him to abstain.

      Fair enough - but isn't the final effect the same as saying "nay" when they count the tallies?

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  108. I own a Magic Cube by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's currently sitting on my desk.

    I solved it (with the aid of a computer program) months ago and it is still in the solved state.

    Of cource the US government cannot make me turn it over as I purchased it 1 year ago before they decided to go on their little tax payer time waster.

    (It's like buying cuban cigars before teh trade embargo with Cuba. I can't remember the acctual legal term but the jist of it is that if you make something like buying a certain soda or something illegal. The law cannot work retroactively meaning that if I bought 144 cases of the now banned soda before the law went into effect I cannot be prosecuted for having purchased it in the first place because I bought it before it was made illegal to do so)

    if anyone wishes to purchase this now "illegal" toy from me I will be willing to let it go for a nominal fee.

    1. Re:I own a Magic Cube by hammock · · Score: 1

      EX POST FACTO, contracts, crim. law.

      This is a technical expression, which signifies, that something has been done after another thing, in relation to the latter.
      2. An estate granted, may be made good or avoided by matter ex post facto, when an election is given to the party to accept or not to accept.
      3. The Constitution of the United States, art. 1, sec. 10, forbids the states to pass any ex post facto law; which has been defined to be one which renders the act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when it was committed. 6 Cranch, 138. This definition extends to laws passed after the act, and affecting a person by way of punishment of that act, either in his person or estate.

  109. Re:And why _aren't_ you voting for Bush? by Clockwork+Apple · · Score: 1

    We used to have the right to speedy trial, by a jury of our peers. Now the patriot act negates that, just ask the folks in holding facilities facing military court.

    We used to have a right to face our accuser, now we have annomous tips, they dont leave much for us to face.

    We used to have the right to be secure in our person, property and effects, now, not so much, as evidenced by this story.

    Somebody else finish the list, Im too fucking depressed after that.

    --
    "Doctor, it's not the voices I hear in MY head, but the voices I hear in YOUR head that really frighten me."
  110. Right agents to enforce TM, but didn't do homework by davidwr · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yup, it's the customs agents who are responsible for trademark violations for imported goods. Not sure who if the goods are domestic, which is the case here.

    The problem here is the agents didn't do their homework. They MERELY ACCEPTED THE COMPLAINT ON FACE VALUE. This makes the agents look stupid.

    If they'd done their homework, they'd know that the only potentially valid claim is a trademark claim, and in order to be clear-cut, they'd have to be something so close to "Rubik's Cube" as to cause confusion. If they'd been misspelled as "Rubick's Cubes" or even "Rubick's Boxes" I could see the feds having a case, but "Magic Cube" has no confusion. The "Cube" part is "merely descriptive" and not worthy of protection.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  111. MOD THIS UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most relevant quote ever!

  112. Re:But we all know... by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

    And we have the right to call you on it.

  113. Re:And why _aren't_ you voting for Bush? by bluekanoodle · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I'm sorry but I'm missing your point. This was a Custom's action, which just happens to be part of DHS. Nobody said the Patriot Act was invoked. It's a pretty far stretch to say this had anything to do with terrorism. The first time Terrorism came up was when the the /. crowd saw the letters DHS and automatically assumed it was a terorism case.

    How do you know the claim is bogus? Nowhere does it even say what the actual claim was. Are you the judge and jury because some slashdot article gave you inaccurate and incomplete infromation, that you can pronounce a claim bogus? For that matter, how do you know they didn't have a warrant? The article doesn't mention it either way.

  114. Because he is smarter than Kerry. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    proof Sorry, sometimes I can't help myself.

  115. Re:And why _aren't_ you voting for Bush? by AndyChrist · · Score: 1

    If he's guilty, it's of treason. Christ, it's not even an amendment, it's in the body of the constitution.

    WTF is wrong with the bush administration/courts?

  116. --- Classified --- by BortQ · · Score: 1
    You fools. The solution to the rubik's cube is clearly a nation security issue. If that information fell into the wrong hands who knows what bad things could happen.

    It's time for all Americans to band together and burn all the rubik's cubes. Destroy any written solutions you may have. If you know the solution then you should forget it, or at least kill yourself.

    Otherwise the terrorists will win.

    --

    A Multiplayer Strategy Game for Mac OS X, Windows, and Linux
  117. hmmm... by cymraeg · · Score: 1

    is it any wonder they thought this patent... er, copyright... er, trademark was still valid? look at the agency they would have needed to consult to verify the information. yes, none other than our own patent and trademark office.

    no wonder they're clueless.

    --
    you don't have to outrun the bear, just the slowest person in your group.
  118. Re:And why _aren't_ you voting for Bush? by bluekanoodle · · Score: 2, Insightful
    We used to have the right to speedy trial, by a jury of our peers. Now the patriot act negates that, just ask the folks in holding facilities facing military court."

    Non citizens do not have the right to speedy trial. US citizens do, and that's why I support the US Supreme Court saying the same thing. So no that right has not been taken from you.

    "We used to have a right to face our accuser, now we have annomous tips, they dont leave much for us to face"

    Hyperbole. Name one case where that has happened. "We used to have the right to be secure in our person, property and effects, now, not so much, as evidenced by this story."

    As I and others said in other postings in this story, this was not a Patriot act investigation, it was a Customs act. The article never mentions whether or not a warrant was present, so for us to declare that here rights were taken away is pre speculation. So no, that right has not been taken away from you either.

    Next!

  119. Is it just me...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or do many more people post their messages anonymously when these subjects come up? It's as if they're afraid of being identified for what they are saying or something.

  120. Re:Wow! Endorse Bush for a... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We are helping you do the right thing.. Thats all !

  121. Ok, severe problem with your logic by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1, Insightful

    We cannot just ignore any and all lesser crimes/problems just because there's a big one. Terrorism is a big and scary problem, no doubt, but that doesn't mean that DHS should ignore all it's other duties and just concentrate on that. It's like saying that because we still have some murders, no other crimes matter, so the police should never investigate anything but murders until all murders are solved or murders stop happening. Clearly that's a bad idea.

    See the DHS is just another governmental orignization, with many branches and duities. One of their braches is now U.S. Customs (customs.gov if you want info on them). Customs used to be a part of the treasury, but since their work is more relivant ot the new DHS, they were moved over. Well guess what? This is one of the things they do, they check out illegal imports. Now they were wrong in this case, which happens unfortunately, but that's their job. They actually aren't the terrorist finders, not their job, not what they are good at.

    I know it's popular to jerk the knee and cry about the terrorists whenever law enforcement makes a mistake but remember: You are no better than the politicans trying to use it as a scare tactic when you do. It's just as bad to try and use terrorism as some sort of cut out that makes everything else ok and something to be overlooked as it is to use it as this fersome spectre to erode civil rights.

    When I purchaed an amplifier from a private citizen in Canada the DHS, specifically their customs branch, opend the box up, had a good look at it, and packed it back up and sent it on to me. This is not them wasting time instead of finding terrorists, they aren't that group. This is the import package checkers doing their job. I am not going to demand they run to the Middle East and look for terrorists any more than I'm going to demand the cop directing traffic run off and try to solve a murder case.

    1. Re:Ok, severe problem with your logic by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      Terrorism is a big and scary problem, no doubt, but that doesn't mean that DHS should ignore all it's other duties and just concentrate on that

      In the alternate universe in which you apparently live, where patent enforcement has some connection to homelad security, that comment of yours makes a lot of sense. But here in the real world where the rest of us live, it doesn't make any sense.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    2. Re:Ok, severe problem with your logic by daeley · · Score: 1

      And protecting the president isn't at first glance logically connected to the Department of the Treasury, but the Secret Service is under that department. I do think the trademark "enforcement" was a huge, stupid waste of time and effort, but don't get lost in the "logic" of bureaucracy at the expense of what's really going on in this story: the rights of American citizens being trampled right here at home.

      --
      I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
  122. Re:And why _aren't_ you voting for Bush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You also used to have the right to privileged counsel. Bye-bye.

  123. Re:Dun Malg is correct - Delay NOT under indictmen by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    I might have jumped the gun - Delay has so far only been served a subpoena for his Texas corporate bribery^Wfundraising crimes. On top of the three or four Congressional "admonitions" for other crimes. We still have to wait to see whether Delay's power impresses the Grand Jury as much as it does his Republican bund behind the House Ethics Committee. At least he's earning his name.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  124. This needs a story of its own by xixax · · Score: 1

    I saw this on LJ last night, and if it isn't a hoax, it should get some kind of coverage beyond a thread. I note that one of the threads attached to this LJ post suggested as much, although the person concerned seems to be (sensibly) not intersted in being a centre of attention "martyr".

    All very "Jose Chong's Outer Space".

    Xix.

    --
    "Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
  125. Re:And why _aren't_ you voting for Bush? by bluekanoodle · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but I just did a search for this right being taken away by the Patriot act and I found nothing. Can you point out either the text of the Act that contains this or a real example? If you do I will concede your point.

  126. Absolutely! Read the damn bills! by jefftp · · Score: 1

    Who the fuck needs more bills passed? We have enough damn laws as it is. How about the Representatives and Senators start reading bills, go back to only being in session a few months of the year, and stop sneaking bullshit into law by hiding it under 100 pages of legal gibberish.

    Hell yes congressmen should be reading the bills. It's not just their job, it's their sworn duty.

    1. Re:Absolutely! Read the damn bills! by demi · · Score: 1

      I agree. It's not like these bills appear out of nowhere and you have to vote on them the same day. They spend weeks or months in the development, a great deal of time in specialist committees (who are supposed to delve into their details). I don't have a problem with representatives being aided by staffers. In any case, the USA PATRIOT act wasn't passed because everyone missed all the fine print--it was passed for purely political reasons; in other words, whether or not you'd be re-electable if you opposed it.

      I also agree we need fewer laws. Most of the bills that pass should be revisions or reductions in existing law, not new ones. They should be written in plain language and be free of special exceptions and bonuses for representatives' geographical regions, particular industries or lobbying groups.

      There's no real mechanism in place to review the body of existing law to simplify and reduce it. I'm not sure how it could be added but if anyone has any ideas I love the topic.

      --
      demi
    2. Re:Absolutely! Read the damn bills! by juan2074 · · Score: 1
      There's no real mechanism in place to review the body of existing law to simplify and reduce it.

      I have thought of the same thing, including at the state and local levels. That means not just removing out-dated laws (e.g. for horse-and-buggy life), but re-evaluating laws that do not further the actual goals of the government (which should be exactly the same as the goals of the public).

      We can always dream...

  127. Re:And why _aren't_ you voting for Bush? by muonman · · Score: 1
    ...They are both Yale-educated millionares.

    Well, in Bush's case I would use the term 'educated' loosely.

    --
    Anything NOT worth doing is NOT worth doing well...
  128. Forget everything because of terrorists by HBI · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Taking your logic, i've decided to stop using condoms, stop eating, stop all my bodily functions in fact. After all, there are terrorists in the world.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    1. Re:Forget everything because of terrorists by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Huh? My logic is that the DHS has too much unaccountable power, which it is abusing in nonterrorist enforcement, derived from overreaction to a terrorist threat. It sounds like you agree with me, if I read your sarcasm. How are you turning that around to disagree with me?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    2. Re:Forget everything because of terrorists by HBI · · Score: 1

      DHS is a multiheaded department that is also responsible for customs enforcement. If that's their job, then it is logical they do it, terrorists or no. Entire offices who specialize in finding illegal imports aren't going to be useful for gun battles against terrorist cells, no?

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    3. Re:Forget everything because of terrorists by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      And your logic is multiheaded as the hydra. I point out that we agree, and you change the subject to something on which we might not. OK, how about these "specialists" following the due process which would have prevented them from interfering with legitimate commerce?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  129. No, that's the secret service doing their job by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They have a hard job: protecting the life of a very important and very well known world leader (they have other jobs too). World leaders are popular to try and off, no matter who they are, there's plenty of people who have a beef with them. They ALL have security details and these are peopel who do not take risks and do not have a sense of humour.

    You can get a secret service visit by sending a threatening e-mail to basicaly any valid e-mail address at whitehouse.gov. They investigate all of it because guess what? People have not only tried to kill presidents, they have succeded on a few occasions. It's serious bussiness.

    Also notice that said blogger is NOT locked up for life, in fact he didn't even get inconvenienced. Right after your little exceprt he goes on to say "as what I said could apparently be misconstrued as a threat to his life. After about ten minutes of talking to me and my family, they quickly came to the conclusion that I was not a threat to national security."

    So, what happened? Well the secret service found out about someone who said they wanted the president dead in a very public venue. Ok so tey need to find out is this just some idiot venting, or is this a wacko who might be a real threat? They go, interview the guy, and in ten minutes decide there's no problem and leave.

    What is the damn problem? They did this before 9/11 too. At the university where I work we get about 1 visit per year from them because some student made a threat. It doesn't end up in an arrest, just a check on the student to make sure they really are just a stupid college student, and an explination to said student that this is a bad idea.

    If you read his blog you notice a lot of inconsistent ranting. He calls them the Sekkrit Service, because I guess it sounds sinister or something and talks about rights violations, yet admits they were nice about it and non threatening.

    This is NOT an exmaple of law enforcement being bad or the PATRIOT act being abused (and there are plenty of examples), it's an example of the opposite. Some kid made a stupid post on his website that could be construed as a threat to the president, which is a serious thing. A couple of agents investiagted, determined he was no threat and just blowing off steam, and that is that.

    If you want to argue abuses of power, pick a real example. It's not like they aren't out there.

    1. Re:No, that's the secret service doing their job by Politburo · · Score: 1

      You must have missed the part where it said 'I now have a permanent record on file with the FBI'.

      It always goes beyond a 'simple chat'.

    2. Re:No, that's the secret service doing their job by danila · · Score: 1

      This is bullshit. The King of Sweden drives his own car to work without much protection. The Prime Minister does her own shopping without bodyguards (unfortunatly, the last one was killed by a drug-addict in a terrible and very sad incident). It's mostly like this in the few civilised countries, where life is good, people are well-off and happy, and that do not threated the world.

      Of course, unpopular leaders like Bush, Putin, Kim Chen Ir (sp?), Hussein, etc., need thousands (literally) of thugs "protecting" them. But let me tell you, when you were elected by the people, when people believe you, when they see you care about them and are doing a good job, when they respect you and love you, then you will prevail even when someone attacks you, your government and the constitution of your country. Check out The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, an amazing documentary about a failed US-supported coup d'etait in Venezuela in 2002.

      P.S. And just to make myself clear, if I could kill Mr. Bush (or Mr. Putin) without significan risk to my life or if I could support financially a terrorist organisation that would likely do it, I would. Sadly, I don't have the skills, resources and connections necessary to pull it off. :((

      P.P.S. Just to remind you - King of Sweden drives his own car to job and reportedly he was even stopped once by a traffic cop. If that is OK for a European monarch, surely it must be good enough for a retarded illiterate coke-sniffing deserting greedy lying texan moron scumbag...

      P.P.P.S. Just so that this post is easy to find, here are some keywords: Al-Quaeda, Usama Bin Laden, Saddam, WMD^H^H^H (strike that, it won't be easy to find), explosives, anthrax, dirty bomb, terrorism, kill the president, porn, teens, Nintendo, Zelda, Mario. :)))

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  130. sorry... by zogger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...tha's just wrong. Completely absolutely wrong. I distinctly remember when we had a great, viable economy, a GOOD one, BEFORE almost everything was imported. BEFORE. When any random Joe Normal blue collar job was enough for a house and a car and a flock of kids and benefits and vacations and savings. Not even a high paid white collar, just a normal middle of the road blue collar, and yes, it might even have been making inexpensive toys. Just because you don't remember it doesn't mean it didn't exist. They not only could inspect the containers, they could change the laws back to where the bulk of the containers were going OUT like they used to be when we had a REAL economy that wasn't skewed towards the globalist elite millionaire crowd and calling massive debt, deficits and credit a "strong economy".

    That "not be able to inspect" the containers jazz is a load, OF COURSE they could if they wanted to, they don't want to. They manage to "inspect" 80 year old ladies and crippled vets in wheelchairs at the airport. They manage to "inspect" a heap of countries over yonder, to the tune of billions of dollars a WEEK using hundreds of thousands of dudes, some of them making in excess of 600$ a day to just tote a rifle. The "war on terrorism" is a complete fraud. It's war to terrorise americans,oh, that's true, that's really true, but it's being waged by the government, and this article proved it in yet again another small way.

    You had to watch it grow ever since the 60s to see it,but it's been creeping incrementalism, and a lot of folks have been warning about it for years. The past few years they have hit the nitrous button, that's the only difference. And they show no sign of relenting, or rolling anything back for that matter, just ever onward. And people have been eating it and sucking it up every step of the way. Can't look at a news site anymore without seeing more and more evidence of it. A FAN at a baseball game shot and killed by getting hit in ther eye with a riot paintball pellet? Huh? Random "courtesy" checkpoints? Huh? Cameras all over staring at you? Huh? Even that name "Homeland Security" WHAT WW2 B war movie did they drag that from? What is all this crap BUT big brotherism and state terrorism?

    The goons have proven it, the slow boiling frog, most people will just slurp it down, excuse it, make believe they aren't seeing or hearing what they are seeing or hearing, every step of the way.

    1. Re:sorry... by reddish · · Score: 1

      The goons have proven it, the slow boiling frog, most people will just slurp it down,

      So what have the French to do with anything?

    2. Re:sorry... by arivanov · · Score: 3, Insightful
      great, viable economy, a GOOD one

      Blessed are the days when the bad and nasty foreign manufacturers had an import quota of 6000 cars per class per year per manufacturer.

      Blessed are the days when steel had an import duty of 30+%

      Blessed are the days when... We can continue...

      One minor problem though, the day these days return there will be the same measures everywhere else around the globe so no effing container is going out anywhere. Example - the recent spat over steel tariffs between US and EU.

      So get real.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    3. Re:sorry... by dbIII · · Score: 4, Funny
      "Homeland Security" WHAT WW2 B war movie did they drag that from?
      I dont see the problem - it's a perfectly uber name.
    4. Re:sorry... by nametaken · · Score: 1

      " Virginia Kice, a spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said agents went to Pufferbelly based on a trademark infringement complaint filed in the agency's intellectual property rights center in Washington, D.C. "

      Why is it that everyone has a heart attack every time someone mentions the DHS? This was a customs booch. Everyone is surprised? How people can expand this to global conspiracy is beyond me. Have you BEEN to a government office lately? Most of these people can't write their own names on a sheet of notebook paper. Someone asked the lady to take a product off their stores shelf. Hell, it was probably five 3x3 boxes in a bin by the register. This wasn't Kristallnacht people.

      Now, how you managed to get to people making $600 a day in Iraq for the millionaires of the world while you vent about how you can't make VCR's for a living anymore, nobody knows.

      Damnit, while you're yelling crap like this, there are people fighting battles without body armor or working vehicles, and people at home thinking we've spent too much precious money.

      This was a bogus article in the first place, and the whole of slashdot will swallow it because they can mutate it into some wacked-out, tinfoil hat conspiracy of global scale.

      Please think next time before you spout such nonsense. Failure to do so makes you no better than any other zombified, liberal dogma slinging ass. Shame on you.

    5. Re:sorry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it is your fault that most everything is imported now.

      Would you have bought that computer you are posting to slashdot from if it cost you $7000.00? your Jeans cost you $340.00 and your low priced economoy car cost you $37,500.00?

      Amercians demanded we import everything we demand lowewr prices and dirt cheap things. We want our status symbol Nike shoes made by slave children in malaysia we want a $200.00 computer, we want $9000.00 cars, we want everything cheap.

      That HDTV would cost you 3X the price is made in the USA.

      I dare you to buy all US made. your car will cost you $150,000.00 because you can not touch ford, gm, or chrysler.. all of those are not made in the USA anymore. there is only a couple of specalty companies that completely make cars in the USA.

      I get an absolute kick out of you RAH RAH RAH buy USA people. because you do not do what you preach, you would have to be a billionare to do so.

      Just like 90% of the christians on this planet... they obey their God only when it's convienent... and it's never convienent on the freeway, in stores, etc....

    6. Re:sorry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Careful, they do not like things that make sense on Slashdot! Not the hippies anyway.

    7. Re:sorry... by Rick.C · · Score: 1
      Please think next time before you spout such nonsense.

      While I agree that the spoutage was a bit over-the-top, it was not all nonsense. I would call it more of a "mild delusion".

      You and "arivanov" are correct in many of your factual points (about the Iraq war and the economic protectionism of several decades ago), and I'll add to that list that the environment paid dearly during the '50s and '60s for our high standard of living. The fact that we had The Bomb and were "defending the world against Communism" made it easier to bully the world economy, as well. You were either for us or against us.

      That said, the grandparent does make a very valid point: The US government seems to place a lot more emphasis on Big-Brotherism than it does on real security.

      Why? Firstly, because it's easier. If you're a cop, would you rather write a speeding ticket for a soccer mom or pull out your gun and try to bust the local drug ring? You get paid the same for both; why spend weeks undercover and risk your life? It's the same with the DHS. The real bad guys fight back. The toy dealers only have toy guns. (Before any cops get upset, it's not a matter of bravery. It's all about human laziness.)

      Secondly, you get to spend lots of taxpayer money on databases and computer systems and surveilance equipment and people to monitor it. More people working for you means that you have to get promoted to "director". It's the old "empire builder" mentality that is pervasive everywhere, but especially in government.

      So yes, in some ways things ~were~ better back in the day. After hearing Paul Simon's "American Tune" (in 1973 or so) I reflected that US society had "jumped the shark" around 1968 or 1969. A lot of things have gotten worse, but a lot has changed for the better since then, too.

      The underlying cause of many of our problems is overpopulation. Too many people, not enough resources. People have to elbow and fight for what they need. It didn't used to be like that. America was "the land of plenty". (Yeah, we stole it from the Indians, but let's not go there.) The trouble is that we still have a bunch of "land of plenty" mentality people running the show and a bunch of "land of plenty" mentality people re-electing them term after term. But we've used up the "plenty" and it's time to tighten our belts.

      --
      You were 80% angel, 10% demon. The rest was hard to explain. - Over The Rhine
      "Math in a song is good."-Linford
    8. Re:sorry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Care to back up those seemly absurd numbers with some facts? Only a billionare could buy "made in America"? Give me a break. It *may* be more expensive and quite hard to do for some items (due to the derth of manufactures of certain items in the USA), but only "billionares" is a major stretch.

    9. Re:sorry... by fuzznutz · · Score: 1

      Blessed are the days when the bad and nasty foreign manufacturers had an import quota of 6000 cars per class per year per manufacturer.

      Blessed are the days when steel had an import duty of 30+%

      Blessed are the days when... We can continue...

      One minor problem though, the day these days return there will be the same measures everywhere else around the globe so no effing container is going out anywhere. Example - the recent spat over steel tariffs between US and EU.



      Except as we are the largest consumer market in the world and we are a net importer in a major way, we have less to lose than the rest of the world.

  131. Author apparently lacks knowledge of IP law.... by borgheron · · Score: 1

    The title says that they enforced an expired trademark, the text says that the toy infringed copyright and explains that the patent expired because it was patented in 1980.

    Obviously, the author is mixing these three disparate types of IP. They should never be confused. Copyright is the right to copy written works, a patent is a right to control an invention or an idea and a trademark is a symbol or word representing someone's business (such as FedEX or UPS or Kinko's or something).

    The author *probably* means that the office of homeland security is enforcing an expired PATENT since the patent was issued in 1980, but I'm guessing. ;)

    Later, GJC

    --
    Gregory Casamento
    ## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
  132. Worst Article Postine Ever! by mdielmann · · Score: 1

    Here we have trademark, copyright, and patent, all being used interchangeably. OTOH, this could be diabolically clever, I had to read the article to see if they mentioned all three there, too. And no, they only mention two.

    --
    Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
  133. We best respect Massa's Intellectual Property by Cryofan · · Score: 2, Insightful


    This sort of incident is best understood when you look at America's history. The apple don't fall too far from the tree. America was born on the backs of slaves and indentured servants.

    Historically, the power of the state has almost ALWAYS been aligned with the top of the hierarchy. Back in the slave days, the government mainly worked for Master, or "Massa," the slaveowner, the rich plantation owner, or the merchant, or the rich farmer. The government was designed mainly to take care of Massa's property.

    These days the corporation is our "Massa." And it don't really matter whether Massa is right or not. You best obey the Massa, or you get a taste of the whip.

    And if you can afford to take Massa into court, then YOU must be Massa.

    Always, always act first to protect Massa's property, whether it be a runaway slave, an indentured servant on the run, or one who has been stealing food, or a thief in the cornfield, or a shoplifter, or an IP infringer, then, and only then, ask questions, or deal with it in the courts.

    --
    eat shiat and bark at the moon
    1. Re:We best respect Massa's Intellectual Property by Comrade64 · · Score: 1

      I like apples. I like apple cider the best. Can you pick my apples for me? I don't want them to fall.

      Back in the slave days, everyone went to church. Since the separation of church and state, slavery has ended. Can I blame the western church or use the analogy of the western church as a hierarchy similar to a king and a kingdom with lords and peasents instead of using the slavery analogy? Is it "Massa" or "Mass"? Either way it's all rather feudal.

      I don't like corporations much either, except for the ones that make apple cider. yummy!

      Can I be Massa for a while? I gotta pay off a few debts.

      Massa protects me, why shouldn't I protect Massa? That's it...I'm moving to the cornfield!

      In all seriousness...someone labeled your post insightful. I would say it's rather funny in that Chomsky sort of way.

      --
      If you are reading this, then you are one of those people whom I just can't take seriously.
  134. Re:And why _aren't_ you voting for Bush? by kubrick · · Score: 1

    I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of claiming that Kerry was out to enrich himself, while Bush wasn't. They're all in it for corporate interests and not to "protect the American people", why vote against Kerry on that basis?

    --
    deus does not exist but if he does
  135. obligatory monty python... by Imoen1337 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Nobody expects the homeland security! Our primary weapons are expired copyrights, and rubik's cubes...

    oh damn, let me come in again.

  136. Re:And why _aren't_ you voting for Bush? by kubrick · · Score: 1

    I don't live in the US; I'm sure the price has been kept artificially low for you in the run-up to the election -- can't have a recession starting, can we? Out here in the rest of the world, we don't have any such luck, and Bush and his friends are cashing up on their self-created Gulf crisis.

    --
    deus does not exist but if he does
  137. What we need is a new language! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What we need is a standards committe to come up with a markup language that is more precise and efficient than that archaic style of speech. For example:

    #Define SuspectedTerrorist {
    Posesses {
    Explosives;
    AssaultFirarms;
    WMD; //FIX: Search always returns NULL
    } AND
    Meta {
    ThreatendGovernment;
    ScrewedByUSForeignPolicy;
    }
    }

    //Process Suspected Terrorists
    if (SuspectedTerrorist instanceof entity)
    {
    //Start monitoring but don't do anything
    //with the data until court order is granted
    monitor(entity)
    {
    if (obtainMonitorPermission(entity))
    {
    //Considered to be a terrorist
    hFederalCourt = DueProcessStartup();
    hFederalCourt.process(entity);
    } else {
    //Determined to not be a terrorist
    DestroyMonitorData();
    return;
    }
    }
    }

    Seriously though, the law can't fucking be "interpreted" when you use a language that is explicit (and I don't mean lost of swearing). Stupid politicians. This is why ./'s will inherit the Earth, but it will sure be in shitty condition when we do.

  138. Answer to your question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Has our government gone completely f'ing insane?

    Yes.

  139. Re:And why _aren't_ you voting for Bush? by bitwiseNomad · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A few inconveniences are a bery small price to pay for safety and security of the state and its people.

    No amount of protection from terrorism - not even if it protected us all ad infinitum - is worth one iota of my precious liberty. There is a bigger number of human lives than I can even conceptualize that were given so that I could live in a place where I have the chance to live freely. Nothing is worth voiding the fruits of their sacrifices. Nothing.

    Now on to my point. The only rebuttal I have seen to complaints about the PATRIOT Act have been of the "Don't worry. Nobody will use it to do that sort of stuff."

    I humbly submit this:

    Even if you think Bush and the executive branch of the government under him are from the highest chorus of angels and would never do anything to hurt the citizens of the USA, it should not affect your judgement of the PATRIOT Act at all. For that matter, it should not affect your judgement of any law passed while he is in office, regardless of who passes it, who proposes it, and who votes on it. A bad law passed by a group of angels is still a bad law.

    Say the president is an angel and asks the Congress (who are also a group of angels) to pass a law that provides ways of foregoing due process. Say also that the president, the leadership of Homeland Security and every law enforcement agent in the country are angels and the law is never abused even once. It is still a bad law.

    It is a bad law because in the hands of a devil the law could be abused and used to hurt the people of the USA. Your rebuttal - the claim that the law is okay since it will never be abused - is entirely based on the assumption that we will have angels in public office for as long as the law is a law. If you think the terrorist threat is going to be around for a while, then you should expect the PATRIOT Act and things like it to be around for just as long. It shows no signs of going away, and a PATRIOT Act II was even proposed, I believe.

    The assumption that this country will elect angel after angel is a tenuous one at best. The President is not the only one you should be worried about. What about the leadership of law enforcement and the DHS? Do you think every one of them is an angel? Have you met all of them? The "goodness" of a law should never have to be judged based on who uses it. This is something that a citizen of this country should agree on regardless of their political affiliation.

    A law is a good law if 1.) it does what it sets out to do efficiently, 2.) what is sets out to do is in the public's best interest, and 3.) it can not be abused by those who would abuse it. For the PATRIOT Act, point 1 can be argued on both sides, most people will agree on point 2, but it fails miserably on point 3. I don't know who thought it was a good idea to give law enforcement a way to forego due process, but it's in the Act.

    As a citizen, I will not bet the well-being of my country ride on whether or not the people in office have good intentions. I know a lot of people who don't like to see the PATRIOT Act being attacked feel that it is a personal attack on their Candidate of Choice. I mean to suggest that even if John Kerry or Clinton had pushed the PATRIOT Act through Congress, the very same people would be complaining. I definitely would. They would be complaining not because they are Republicans or Democrats, but because they are good citizens. One prerequisite to having good laws is being critial of them.

    All that being said, I think it's really funny that a lot of conservatives rag on John Kerry and the liberals in Congress for voting to pass such a heinous law. Who proposed the law in the first place?

    --

    Light is filtering down from above. Would you like to use DIVE?
  140. Trademarks DO expire! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They expire when they become generic common-use terms for similar products. Zipper? Kleenex? Xerox?

    1. Re:Trademarks DO expire! by khallow · · Score: 1

      You are incorrect here. Trademarks can become generic common-use terms, but that doesn't mean I can sell a product labeled with the trademark or a like term. "Zipper" (or "Yo Yo" for another example) is I gather an expired trademark, but "Kleenex" and "Xerox" definitely are not. I crudely understand that the criteria is that the owner of the trademark also must fail to defend the trademark.

  141. Thank You America.... by J.+Random+Luser · · Score: 1

    for giving us the Keystone Kops

  142. due process costs money by HBI · · Score: 4, Informative

    Imagine you get a speeding ticket. You follow 'due process' and fight the ticket. Let's say you win (I have done this). You will be made to pay court costs, which are probably as much as the ticket. If you lose, the fine will be outrageous and the judge might slap community service or some incarceration atop of that if you piss him off too much.

    That ticket is just a cop telling you he accuses you of doing this. The DHS people were doing the same thing. If they want to fight it, go to court. Expect to pay a lot of money and really be screwed if you lose, though.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    1. Re:due process costs money by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      > Let's say you win (I have done this). You will be made to pay court costs

      Easily solved, loser pays (in this case the government or agency).

      THis is seriously needed in the justice system there anyway.

    2. Re:due process costs money by akintayo · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, I can just imagine the uproar when OJ bills the government for his legal defence.

      --
      Woe be on to them, all who rise against poor people, shall perish in a the end. Buju Banton
    3. Re:due process costs money by danheskett · · Score: 1

      In my court you do not pay court costs if you win (I have done before, as well). Only if you lose.

      If you lose, the fine will be outrageous and the judge might slap community service or some incarceration atop of that if you piss him off too much.
      The punishment will be within the bounds of the law, or you have a rock-solid case for appeal.

      . The DHS people were doing the same thing. If they want to fight it, go to court. Expect to pay a lot of money and really be screwed if you lose, though.
      That's how it should be!

    4. Re:due process costs money by kingj02 · · Score: 1
      magine you get a speeding ticket. You follow 'due process' and fight the ticket. Let's say you win (I have done this). You will be made to pay court costs, which are probably as much as the ticket.
      Where do you live? I've gotten out of a ticket for running a stop sign in Ohio and a speeding ticket in North Carolina. In Ohio, the cop didn't show up in court, so I said I didn't do, and that was the end of it. In NC, I was doing 58 in a 35 and the cop decided to be nice and write it for 55 in a 35, but he screwed up and wrote 55 in a 58. So that got thrown out for being invalid. In both cases, I didn't have to pay the court fee.
      --
      Ardente veritate incendite tenebras mundi
    5. Re:due process costs money by sisukapalli1 · · Score: 1

      Let's say you win (I have done this). You will be made to pay court costs, which are probably as much as the ticket.
      Actually, if you win, you will not pay any court fees. You would have, however, lost your time in going to the court and such things. Typically, if you lose, you normally get to pay the same fine (they reduce the fine and slap on court fees, normally totalling to the original ticket fine amount).

      This has been my experience in the US (a few tickets here and there over a long time). Though I think the speeding ticket process is a way for the government to make up for the revenue lost in tax cuts (a way of shifting the burden from the rich to the working folks), I think there is still a chance of appealing a speeding ticket without losing much more.

      Ofcourse, this assumes that you don't say anything bad about the officer's mother, or worse, the judge's mother :). Generally, present the case, ask for dismissal/mercy/lenience, and you will not end up in a worse shape.

      Disclaimer: All my experience from appealing tickets in the north eastern US.

      S

    6. Re:due process costs money by JediTrainer · · Score: 1

      Imagine you get a speeding ticket. You follow 'due process' and fight the ticket. Let's say you win (I have done this). You will be made to pay court costs, which are probably as much as the ticket.

      Geez you have some backwards laws where you are. I fought a $100 icket I got last January. The ticket was for "interfering with snow removal", yet there was no snow on the ground. Apparently a plow operator complained because he was trying to get by. The neighbourhood I was parked in has no driveways, and the street is the only option for parking (and it's normally legal, as it was supposed to be part of the design). Problem is that the plows the town contracts out are built too big for the streets when there are cars parked, causing the issue, and for some reason these guys were out there 'plowing' the bare ground (I'm not certain why). It took a while, and wasted a lot of my time, but when it was thrown out I didn't have to pay a cent. I argued this on my own - it was the principle, not the money, so I didn't want to shell out for a lawyer.

      This was in Ontario, Canada. However, I also had the choice to plead guilty for a reduced fine if I wanted, and wouldn't have to pay court costs. It's only if I pleaded innocent (which I didn't) and lost, then I would have had to pay the ticket plus court costs.

      In the end, it actually got thrown out because the town screwed up and forgot to provide their prosecutor with the right documentation, so they couldn't fight me. Made it kind of easy for me, despite me being prepared for a fight.

      --

      You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
    7. Re:due process costs money by flossie · · Score: 1
      Oh yeah, I can just imagine the uproar when OJ bills the government for his legal defence.

      If one is found not guilty in court, then one is innocent in the eyes of the law. What possible justification is there for an innocent person to be out of pocket when a department of the government has made a false (as determined by the court) accusation against that person?

    8. Re:due process costs money by HBI · · Score: 1

      This was a cop and a judge in a corrupt town in Northern New Jersey. Try not to get pulled over here. After getting off on my ticket I figured i'd pay the $100 court costs just to avoid the $500/year insurance surcharge. It wasn't worth it to argue with the judge.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    9. Re:due process costs money by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      > Oh yeah, I can just imagine the uproar when OJ bills the government for his legal defence.

      If he'd be truely innocent, I don't see why he should pay for his legal defense.

      THe simple reason for this is that the way it is now, you are almost always being off better with pleedign guilty even when innocent unless the accusation s very serious and can put you behind bars for a long time or get you the death penalty.

      The simple cost of fighting it, and being put out of that money no matter what, is an extremely powerfull toy in the hands of government and large corporations alike, and causes injustice as a result.

      The problem with the example you give is that many believe he was guilty. If he indeed was then the prosecuter did a bad job, and you peoiple should go address that instead of keeping upo a way of applying the law that causes widespread gross injustice.

    10. Re:due process costs money by Proteus · · Score: 1
      In both cases, I didn't have to pay the court fee.
      In neither case did you "win". "Win" is usually a finding of "not guilty"; what you had was a dismissal of your cases. The first case, the stop sign, was dismissed because the State could not possibly have made its burden without the Cop's testimony. The second was dismissed because the citation was invalid.

      Dismissal is always better for the defendant, because it suggests that the State never had enough evidence to make their case. A finding of Not Guilty suggests that there was enough evidence to make a case, but in the end there was reasonable doubt -- usually not enough evidence to make a convincing case. In the latter case, many jurisdictions require some court costs be paid by the defendant.

      #define I_AM_A_LAWYER 0
      --
      We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
    11. Re:due process costs money by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Let's say the cops just enforce the law, without those expensive judges. Much faster and cheaper, but no justice. That's OK, government should be run like a business. Fascist.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    12. Re:due process costs money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he'd be truely innocent, I don't see why he should pay for his legal defense... The problem with the example you give is that many believe he was guilty.

      You sort of miss the point here - in the US legal system, the court will provide a defense lawyer at taxpayer cost. OJ decided to spend his own money for a team with more legal power. Guilt or innocence is not a consideration here - at least not monetarily. The perception of people has nothing to do with it.

    13. Re:due process costs money by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      > You sort of miss the point here - in the US legal system, the court will provide a defense lawyer at taxpayer cost. OJ decided to spend his own money for a team with more legal power. Guilt or innocence is not a consideration here - at least not monetarily. The perception of people has nothing to do with it.

      Maybe not, but I think you are missing the point really. It is simple, you accuse someone falsely, and cause them inconvinience and (optionally) having to pay for defense. It is no more the logical that you incur the cost of that when your accusations are false.

      Not arranging for that simply results in those with money being able to have the law enforced selectively.

    14. Re:due process costs money by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      This is really an example of the patchwork legal system in the US. It all depends on where you live.

      In the county I grew up in, mostly rural. You can fight a ticket and have a decent chance of having it thrown out (cop doesn't show), or reduced to save the judge some time. If you lose, you pay the ticket and go your merry way.
      In the county next door, large city (Indianapolis). If you decide to fight a ticket and you lose you pay court costs. The cop who wrote you the ticket also gets paid overtime to show up and tell his side of the story. You will probably end up payin more then double the original ticket if you lose and they chances of winning are slim to none. Judges tend to believe cops.

    15. Re:due process costs money by Iamthewalrus · · Score: 1

      So, in the first case you perjured yourself, and in the second you got off on a technicality.

      The system works!

      --
      Help prevent the slashdot effect; stop reading the articles.
    16. Re:due process costs money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That isn't quite true. In the US legal system, the court will provide a defense attorney at taxpayer cost _if_ you cannot afford one. In most cases the court can and will insist that you provide reason, and most likely document why you can't afford an attorney before they will appoint a public defender to you. In OJ's case, he would have certainly had a very difficult time in proving he couldn't afford to hire adequate legal representation. Even after paying all his legal expenses and losing a big civil judgement, he is still much more wealthy than most Slashdotters ever will be.

    17. Re:due process costs money by kingj02 · · Score: 1
      So, in the first case you perjured yourself, ...
      *I admitted no guilt.* I was actually somewhat disappointed that the cop didn't show up. I had the whole case planned out and would've gotten off on reasonable doubt. Basically, a car 'rolled' through a stop sign and the cop didn't catch up and pull me over for a good 5 miles (I assume b/c the road was inaccesible for him). I basically mapped out the road and showed that there were over 10 sidestreets that the perpetraitor could have exitted and that I, driving the same style car, could have turned on. I assume that's why he didn't bother to show up.
      --
      Ardente veritate incendite tenebras mundi
  143. National Intellectual Property Rights Center by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative
    There really is a National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center in the Department of Homeland Security. They even have a convenient online form for reporting "intellectual property violations".

    This is part of the Cornerstone Initiative, "Protecting the Homeland through Economic Security". Their site is "being revised", but their newsletter lists what they're up to.

  144. It's a case of priorities-soon as I find them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "No. What we need to do is make america safer."

    I hear that ranting on a web site called Slashdot is pretty effective.

    "Pal I have to break you the news, but if we dont start figuring out a way to inspect the containers most of the seaports in this country could be blown to kingdom-come. There wont be any products left to buy. "

    Gee, I can't imagine why they call us an open society?

    "Want to be secure ?"

    Get better advice?

    "Leave everyone else the fuck alone. You dont see every country in the world being attacked by militant islamic extremist foreigners now do you ?"

    The people in the Bali bombing would disagree with you.

    "Its because most countries mind their own fucking business."

    At what point in life do most people outgrow their naitivity?

  145. thought police by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We warned you that this was the road you were taking... Too late to cry about it now you are going to need another revolution to fix this.

  146. are trademark cases normally like this by Exter-C · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Are trade mark cases normally looked into via the gov. Its my understanding that for patent and trademark issues the owner has to launch the law suit to follow it up...

  147. I for one... apropos by Zarf · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I, for one, welcome our new trademark, copyright, and patent enforcing overlords.

    --
    [signature]
    1. Re:I for one... apropos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, for one, welcome our new Republician feudal overlords.

  148. About 70 years ago... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This was how Germany was back in the 30's when they were protecting their 'Homeland' from supposed outside threats and things escalated due to politically controlled fears and the general population's 'Patriotic' attitude. Add in a bit of our own 50's 'McCarthyism' and you get an idea of where things seem to be heading. Those quaint and silly 'Constitution' and 'Bill Of Rights' look like they can be interpreted to whatever ends those in power deem necessary and if you don't like it then you're next!

    1. Re:About 70 years ago... by Prothonotar · · Score: 1

      Calm down, buddy. It's just a Rubik's Cube knockoff. That's quite a slippery slope into nazism.

      --
      "Every man is a mob, a chain gang of idiots." - Jonathan Nolan, Memento Mori
    2. Re:About 70 years ago... by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      "It's just some Jew's books burning - we've all seen that before, mein Herr". If this story were isolated, a lone fascist note in a completely free country, you'd be right. You are another bubble in the slowly boiling water that is cooking the frog, the American people, while it doesn't notice. This one event is an outrage. Combined with the many others not (yet?) reported, it's an assault. Along with Guantanamo, the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, and the rest of the "Bush doctrine", too exhaustively heinous to reiterate here, it's a blitzkrieg. "It's just a Rubik's Cube knockoff" would have been a good line to calm down the DHS staff before they shut down this legit vendor without due process of law. Instead you're compounding their crime with your soothing words, when we need action to stop the rising tide of fascism.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  149. One word: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ridiculous.
    What were those countries in Europe where people are allowed to do whatever they want with copyrighted material in their homes, again?

  150. Do we need to revisit the harm of the term "IP"? by jbn-o · · Score: 1

    That's part of the problem of thinking in terms of "IP" (intellectual property). One doesn't learn to recognize the numerous and important differences between these areas of law. These powers work differently, have different histories, last for different amounts of time, cost different amounts of money to acquire and sustain, and most importantly, they affect society in different ways. The term invites one to mash them all together as if they share some common theme and only differ from one another in minor ways, hence, once you learn the theme you can toss the terms "trademark", "copyright", and "patent" about as if there were no real differences between them.

    Another big problem with that term is that we're invited to think about these (and other) disparate areas of law as "property". That framing of the issue is only one possible way to think about them, and if we are going to understand how they work now and how a better system would work, we must not prejudice our thinking by limiting it to property talk.

  151. You know... the more time moves on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the more it seems that America is waking to the fact it has cancer.

    -Your Bowl.

  152. So which is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I mean, I haven't had a chance to RTFA yet (I will be shortly), but the summary is so convoluted I can't make heads or tails of it!

    First, the story headline, which indicates the DoHS is enforcing an expired trademark. Then it refers to a toy that may be infringing on somebody's copyright. Finally, the submission references the date on a patent, as if this makes everything clear!

    Folks! Patents, copyrights, and trademarks ALL have different terms! Copyrights are at (LifeOfAuthor + 75) years. Patents are (as I recall) at 18 years (from file or issue? I think it used to be from issue, now it's from file-- somebody wanna confirm?), and trademarks are another animal completely (I think they're pretty much perpetual, as long as you maintain standing within your market/industry-- again, somebody want to confirm?).

    The patent could very well have expired on the Rubik's Cube-- but that doesn't mean that the trademark term "Rubik's Cube" is open for anybody to use! And, certainly, any copyrighted artwork or design elements (manuals, box art, etc.) would still be property of the original creators.

    (That said: Why is the DHS enforcing ANY of these? That's not their damn mission!)

  153. History may repeat itself ... again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think that pre-pre war II Germany started like this, and every one around knows how it ended.

    Power corrupts, to say the least.

    Same acts, different people, different time, but will it be same result? If so, who can save us? China? yea sure! Europe... don't think so :(

    --
    Cook

    but not kitchen!

  154. This is a Magic Cube... by killpog · · Score: 1

    http://www.mathematische-basteleien.de/magiccube.h tm#Purchase%20of%20the%20cube So, where's the violation?

    1. Re:This is a Magic Cube... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a cube and may infringe on a product not made in 20 years.

    2. Re:This is a Magic Cube... by killpog · · Score: 1

      Has it been THAT long? Gawd, I feel old...

  155. Re:And why _aren't_ you voting for Bush? by bigmattana · · Score: 1

    Slashdot: News for people who have absolutely no idea how the world works.

    A president has very little control on the economy in general, much less the price of oil. First, the Anti-Bushites were saying he wanted cheap oil to help out all his oil friends. (I mean he is from Texas, he must have oil friends who he cares a lot more about than the country or his legacy.) Now they are saying he wants high oil prices. Now you are saying he wants high oil prices but not yet. Good greif! The only thing he could do to reduce the price of oil is to eliminate the federal gas tax (which he has not done), and not without the help of Congress. Gas prices are so high around the rest of the world because all the socialist governments put insanely high gas taxes in place. Ours are much lower, though still too high in this economy. The reason the price of oil has gone up is because there are more people around the world driving cars these days. In developing countries this number is expanding rapidly. Demand is much higher than ever in history. I was in South Korea last year and traffic was absolutely insane because everybody and his brother decided to buy a car in the last few years. OPEC also plays a role, but it is certainly not GWB pulling the strings.

    If Bush had the powers you think he has, this would not even be a close race.

  156. don't knock russia by Suchetha · · Score: 1

    at least the russians made no bones about the duties of the KGB, and the NKVD and the gulags... they basically told the people 'fuck with the Party and the Party will brutally assrape you until your mouth starts bleeding'.. you knew where you stood with people like that (usually up against a wall with a last cigarette, blindfold optional)

    unfortunately the USGOV is telling people 'we love you, we want to help and protect you, now will you PLEASE give us your rights because we're going to take them from you anyway', and people are BUYING it. it looks like shit and smells like shit but they're buying it like it was rare perfume.

    so yes if i were to return to the US (and believe me until dubya started all this shit i DID have plans) it would be to help in the liberation if the US. until then i am making plans to meet my american friends in canada or mexico

    well there goes my name into the no fly list

    vive la revolution

    Suchetha

    ps. if you really want to put your choices into the visa form why not just use that line that says "do you support the overthrow of the US Gov by force or subversion" .. just write "subversion" (or "force" if that is your choice).. i've always wanted to .. but never had the cojones

    --

    learn from yesterday, plan for tomorrow, party tonight
    or one out of three ain't bad
  157. Turn in your neighbor. Snitch on a friend. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    You too can fill out an Intellectual Property Snitch form and have the stormtroopers harass the enemy of freedom and democracy and motherhood and apple pie. Provide us with as much dirt as possible so we can identify the proper tactics to deter any possible violations that may occur , have occurred , or will occur.

    (end of humor, start of straight up reality)

    A quote from the site: At http://www.ice.gov/graphics/cornerstone/ipr/IPRFor m.htm
    "
    National IPR Coordination Center Complaint Referral Form

    The National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center (IPR Center)
    works to protect the United States and its people by deterring, interdicting, and investigating threats arising from the movement of illegal goods into and out of the United States. The IPR Center serves as the focal point for the collections, analysis, and dissemination of intelligence involving copyright and trademark infringement, signal theft and theft of trade secrets. When reporting a suspected violation to the IPR Center provide as much detailed information as possible. The information received and analyzed by the IPR Center will be disseminated for appropriate investigative and tactical use.

    NOTE: Please fill out the form as completely as possible. Although all fields are optional, completing the fields marked with an "*" will greatly enhance our ability to effectively process your complaint. This form can be used by the general public, industry, trade associations, law enforcement, and Government agencies to report IPR violations.

    If you encounter any problems while trying to submit this form please contact the IPR Center Hotline at (202) 344-2410."

  158. Don't they have terrorists to find? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Their site says they are doing this:

    News Releases October 2004 Archived News Releases:

    Federal Way Shooting Fugitive Captured in L.A.
    Husband, Wife, Siblings Indicted for Sham Marriages
    Jordanian Sentenced for Fraud Marriage, Falsifying Pilot Application
    Egyptian Convicted of Lying About Business Deals With Senior Leader of Hamas
    Appeals Board: Deportation for Salvadoran Sex Offender
    Pakistani Who Sold Bogus State ID Cards Removed From U.S.
    British Mercenary Sentenced to Prison for Plot to Purchase Fighter Jet to Assassinate Drug Cartel Leader
    Fugitive Rapist Arrested at ICE Houston Office
    Destrehan Man Arrested for Child Pornography
    DRO Fugitive Operations Team Starts Fiscal Year with Arrest of Child Predator
    DHS Works to Reunite Mother, Infant Separated by Smugglers

    http://www.ice.gov/graphics/news/newsreleases/in de x.htm

  159. Another proof by iconara · · Score: 0, Troll

    This is just another proof (amongst many) that the american society is sick.

    1. Re:Another proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yes. Shame you got modded down for pointing out the obvious. Shame on the moderator that set it, must be an american, one thats never lived abroad, or has any idea whatsoever of life OUTSIDE US borders.

      Yes Virginia, most of the worlds population DOES NOT live in the US, life existed before the US existed, and will do so after they're long gone and but barely a memory, and an historical footnote.

  160. A-ha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So monkey doesn't just own a timber company, but also a Rubik's Cube factory?

  161. Re:And why _aren't_ you voting for Bush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes. It's still *significantly* below historical levels, as is the price of gasoline. Natural Gas is at an all time high, but all other petrolium products are still well under levels they were in the 80's. And even further from the levels they were in the 70's.

  162. Re:Submitter and gov't has no clue about trademark by surprise_audit · · Score: 1
    Homeland Security should immediately return the items to Pufferbelly Toys and apologize.

    According to the article, the agents didn't take the cubes away, they merely watched while the store owner took the cubes off the shelves. And presumably warned her not to put them back on the shelves after they left...

  163. Re:And why _aren't_ you voting for Bush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The price of gas in Europe is mostly due to the TAXES the Europeans put on the gas. To pay for roads and things. We pay the tax, too. Only in our case more of the money comes from Fed taxes rather than gas tax. So people who aren't using the roads can subsidise those that are.

  164. MOD PARENT UP!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This guy needs some mod points pronto! This was almost too sane and rational for this site. Oh, how I wish I had some mod points at this moment...

  165. Not Patent! National Security! by Vo0k · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Everyone knows Rubik's Cube is a smart toy that helps kids train thinking and generally extends intelligence.
    Now, if kids start using it, they grow smart and intelligent. And intelligent people start to question questionable orders from the government, protest against warfare, lobby towards upbringing that makes smart kids, may listen to reason instead of blindly following propaganda...

    This toy is definitely danger to homeland security.
    (but such reasons can't be stated clearly so the dept had to think of some other bogus reasons like the patent or such...)

    --
    Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
    1. Re:Not Patent! National Security! by LoadWB · · Score: 1

      Chess sets are next?

    2. Re:Not Patent! National Security! by Vo0k · · Score: 1

      The patent has expired over 1000 years ago so they still can't come up with an excuse good enough.

      --
      Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
  166. Re:And why _aren't_ you voting for Bush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree that personally I have not had any rights taken away. However, there are examples where U.S., citizens have had there rights taken away. The only example I can think off hand is the US citizen Jose Padilla. He was taken into custody at Chicago's O'Hare airport about 3 years ago. He was then transferred from Justice Dept control to the military as an enemy combatant. He's been accused of being a terrorist. He's been in solitary confinement for 3 years and counting without any access to the outside world. He has yet to be formally charged of any crime. First of all when he was arrested they found no weapons on him. So holding him as an enemy combatant, with no battle within 1000 miles, seems kind of ridiculous. Second point is that the fact that a US citizen is being held indefinitely and in solitary confinement for a time span measured in years without being arrested (charged with a crime) is an insult to the founding father's of this country. This country has a tradition to limit such activities. The British of colonial America threatened people, such that the framers of the constitution had amendments five and six written. There has been no indications that a trial will occur anytime soon, nor has he still been charged with any crime, so how can he have his right to a speedy trial. Given these factors, the situation is a mockery of the constitution.

  167. Re:And why _aren't_ you voting for Bush? by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    Being rich to the tune of billions, ie the whole familily, means you get the 'greed bug', and you turn into Mr Evil, its like super grade-A heroin.

    Nothing is enough, thats how they work, if you have excess resources/money, everything becomes dull/boring, but running the world is the numero uno grand prize :)

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  168. Looks Like Pufferbelly Toys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    has a website and is still selling magic cubes!

  169. patent? copyright? trademark? by geg81 · · Score: 3, Informative
    The summary is going all over the place, talking about "enforcing copyright law", "expired patents", and "trademarks".
    • the three kinds of IP are based on entirely separate bodies of law
    • trademarks don't expire
    • copyrights do, but not for a long time

    Please try to keep the three concepts apart. One thing is clear: the DHS should have no business enforcing any of them.
  170. Full post, for posteriority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Original text copied from the post, while it still exists in Google's cache

    a prayer for dubya
    Dear God:

    Wassup? How's it hanging? Yeah, I know it's been a long time since we talked. This probably stems from my belief that you do not exist. Anyway, the reason why I'm calling you is because last night, President Bush said that he could feel it every time we prayed for him, and since he apparently doesn't listen to anyone but you, Lord, I thought you might pass this along to him.

    Please kill George Bush. I hate him so much. I think he is a giant dick and I want terrible things to happen to him. I'm not really big on the specifics of how he dies, but if you could at least arrange it so that the authorities find his dead body on top of an underage black male prostitute surrounded by a mountain of cocaine and child pornography, that would really be super-awesome. And maybe you could have some media people there when the police find the body, so they can take pictures and stuff. That'd be fucking GREAT. Am I allowed to say "fuck" in a prayer? Shit, I just said it again. Ah, well.

    Anyway, that's my prayer, Lord. Please, please, please kill Dubya. And Dick Cheney. And everyone else in the Bush Administration. Maybe they can all commit mass suicide together or something. I don't know. You're the one with all the ideas. You come up with something. I need more coffee.

    Smooches and Huggles,
    anniesj

    Come on, people. Share your own prayers for Bush. Maybe if we all pray hard enough, Bush will feel it so deeply he'll have an aneurysm! You never know! *squeezes eyes shut and prays harder*

  171. Undefined expanded powers - I can see it now by dbIII · · Score: 1

    "We're the Department of Homeland Security, we're here to investigate your wardrobe malfunction."

    1. Re:Undefined expanded powers - I can see it now by jack_csk · · Score: 1

      In another news, Janet Jackson was arrested due to her terrorist-like behavior in SuperBowl...

  172. The first step... by Blackbird_Highway · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The first step in enforcing the law is knowing what the law is. According to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, a patent is "the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling". Therefore, a patent does not take away anyone's rights, it confers a right to the patent holder. It is up to the patent holder to decide whether to enforce or waive that right. Again from the USPTO, "If a patent is infringed, the patentee may sue for relief in the appropriate federal court." The maker of the Magic Cube did not violate any law, since their right to produce there product was NOT denied by law. The right to deny their product belongs to the patent holder, not the government. Therefore, even if the Rubic's cube patent was still active, the appropriate action would be for the patent holder, NOT any branch of the govt. to (optionally) file a law suit, and optionally an injuction to prevent the sale of the Magic Cube while the suit is being settled. If a judge approves that injuction, then the product may lawfully be required to be pulled from the store's shelves. Aside from the fact that the patent was expired, there was already absolutely NO legal basis for what the government personnel did.

    --
    By the perception of illusion, we experience reality
  173. Re:And why _aren't_ you voting for Bush? by pjt33 · · Score: 1
    Non citizens do not have the right to speedy trial.
    The U.S. Constitution may not say they do, but the U.S. is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Therefore, unless it has made use of Article 4 to derogate its obligations under Articles 2, 9, 14 and 26 (in which case, I'm amazed that it didn't make the news), non-citizens do also have that right.
  174. Icelandic democracy by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1

    IIRC there was a tradition that the speaker of the icelandic ruling body had to recite the entire body of law from memory each year. Any that he missed out was revoked...

    1. Re:Icelandic democracy by juan2074 · · Score: 1
      In related news. . .
      Iceland now has only one law:
      Do no evil.

      Thanks, and goodnight!

  175. something smells fishy by Danathar · · Score: 1

    Something about this article sounds strange. I'd like to know who reported the story to AP? Who at AP called Homeland security?

    There is so much bullshit flying around before the newswires before the election that EVERYBODY should just ignore stuff like this until after the election. Both sides are going to plant stuff to make the other look bad.

    1. Re:something smells fishy by MrMartini · · Score: 1

      That's it! The democrats probably planted the toy there, and then they called Homeland Security. Man, what a dirty election this is turning out to be.

    2. Re:something smells fishy by Danathar · · Score: 1

      Notice I said both sides....

  176. Re:And why _aren't_ you voting for Bush? by nametaken · · Score: 1

    Yeah, what the fuck is Bush doing making my gas more expensive? You're an ass.

  177. Re:And why _aren't_ you voting for Bush? by dbIII · · Score: 1
    If Bush goes into Iraq, steals their oil for US companies, oil prices drop ... oil prices go up
    Either way the oil companies win, and if he didn't go in they would have done well too.

    Look behind the Bush, there's a senile wrestler whose career was in the toilet for a decade because theres a photo of him shaking hands with Saddam, and a whole lot of other reasons. The only problem is none of those reasons were good enough to convince anyone outside of a small Republican faction - hence the lies to the UN, and the distraction of baiting France - unless someone really was stupid enough to think that saying "vote with us or face to consequences" to France would get any response other than a firmly extended middle digit.

  178. I feel much safer now by MrMartini · · Score: 2, Funny

    I will rest well tonight, knowing that Homeland Security is protecting me from possibly illegal toys. That was a close one, too - I live in Oregon!

  179. MOD ARTICLE DOWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Store owner and reporter are both clueless.
    One may trademark a log or image.
    The cube's image is trademarked.
    The patent protected how the cube worked.

  180. No... UK has Road Tax too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    True about "gas tax" but also the UK has once a year Road Tax.

    http://www.dvla.gov.uk/vehicles/taxation.htm

    Plus...

    Highest petrol(Gas), car prices and car crime in Europe!

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/536787.stm
    http://www.aaroadwatch.ie/eupetrolprices/

    But we are the safest drivers! (See BBC link)

  181. And before you know it... by slimyrubber · · Score: 1

    They will start scrubbing out that annoying patch behind the commode thats always hard to reach.

    --
    [ I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance ] -- Isaac Asimov
  182. ...because by trainsnpep · · Score: 1
    ...because America isn't safe with toys that strengthen the spacial ability of people's minds on shelves...right?



    Oh, now I get it!!! Homeland Security is so vastly affected by Rubik's cubes...It teaches kids about how 'cells' can connect and communicate with each other, how positions of power can shift around, and finally how to throw something (a Rubik's cube now, a person later) against a wall.



    Thank God for Homeland Security! It's nice to see that someone in government is doing their job!

    --
    --<Mike>--
  183. What if Kerry/Edwards declared terrorists by Pres? by Schwarzchild · · Score: 1
    "She's lucky that she wasn't declared a terrorist and her all human rights voided on sight."

    This is an interesting line of thought. What would happen if Bush declared Kerry and Edwards terrorists and because of his Patriot Act powers sent them incommunicado to Guantanamo, Cuba?

    What could anyone do to counter this? Anyone?

    Didn't something similar happen in Post-Weimar Republic Germany?

    --

    "sweet dreams are made of this..."

  184. How about stopping the source before it's a source by MarcQuadra · · Score: 1

    What you need to do is to stop terrorists at their source not after they've gotten their goods into the harbours.

    Right. I agree. But I don't think you and I are thinking of the same source.

    I'm quite sure that the BEST way to stop terrorists from even becoming terroritsts would be to stop forking over millitary support for Israel, a nation run by a radical-religious war criminal that has nukes in violation of the non-proliferation treaty, a country who's treatment of arabs on it's land is even worse than the treatment of blacks in apartheid South Africa. I understood helping Israel out during the cold war, when there was a good chance the middle east would jive more closely with the USSR than us, but why do we continue to give Israel $4B in cash for weapons when they're one of the biggest arms exporters in the world? Did I mention that they conduct espionage and recon from inside our our millitary and government?

    Another way to stop terror at it's source would be to stop being chummy with the House of Saud, probably one of the most decadent and corrupt governments in the world. We should keep business down to business with regimes like this, not invite them to dinner with our leaders. We shouldn't have ANY troops in countries in the middle east where we don't have good feelings amongst the populace, that's where terrorists come from.

    We should have sent our forces into Afghanistan to pick-out Osama Bin-Laden, not to topple their government. My guess is that we could have done a more 'surgical extraction' by laying down defense between known Taliban forces and places where Osama may have been, then sending marines in to nail (kill or capture) Al-Qaeda and Osama while the army protected that operation from any Taliban forces.

    Americans are notorious for implementing 'solutions' that cause more trouble than the problem, that's how we got Osama in the first place. Instead of stepping back and looking at the 'big picture' we expend a tremendous amount of resources and credibility trying to fix symptoms. I don't know why, but that's how we handle most problems, from welfare to medicine, education, farming, the drug war, illegal immigration, foreign policy, mass-transit, and a slew of other problems.

    --
    "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
  185. it IS idiotic, but.. by caveat · · Score: 1

    ...unfortunately it's also very true.

    --

    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
  186. Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "for the benefit of illiterates who fancy themselves clever "

    Now that's the pot calling the kettle black.

    That's a "k" in kettle for morons like you.

  187. Re:And why _aren't_ you voting for Bush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Starting a war in the middle east.

    You're the much bigger ass.

  188. Quota? by ElDuderino44137 · · Score: 1

    Is this what happens when Federal Agents have a quota?

    I can see it now:
    [ ] Thwart 2 terrorist plots.
    [ ] Shutdown 5 file tradeing rings.
    [x] Stop 1,500 instances of patent infringement.

    Cheers,
    -- The Dude

  189. I almost shat myself reading this by theolein · · Score: 1

    "One of the things that our agency's responsible for doing is protecting the integrity of the economy and our nation's financial systems and obviously trademark infringement does have significant economic implications," she said.

    That paragraph is so ominous it is just not funny at all. Apart from the obvious things like, uhm, sending a fucking lawyer around with the cops if there is a specific charge about violating Trademark/Copyright/Patent, which nobody seems to be clear about at all in this this case, there are numerous other agencies, like the US customs etc which normally deal with this kind of charge.

    But here we have a fucking quoted paragraph that sounds for all the world like some NSDAP (Nazi Party) official sounding off on "threats against the state" incluidng anything, literaly anything, which displeases the FRIENDS OF THE RULING PARTY.

    SIEG HEIL, Mr Bush, mein Führer. Gott Sei Mit Uns. ("God be with us" -Official slogan of the SS)

    The US has a lot of ominous undertones these days, where the conflicts of interest are so blindingly obvious that it hurts that Republicans, who supposedly support small government, simply ignore it because their Führer is a "God fearing man"

  190. Civil vs Criminal by zerofoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm no attorney, but it appears any department enforcing patents, copyrights, and trademarks like this is overstepping their jurisdiction.

    These laws are written to protect products and ideas in CIVIL cases. If your protected idea or product is infringed upon, you go to CIVIL court, sue someone's ass off, get a cease and desist order and walk away with a nice fat stack of cash.

    Disobeying the court's ruling might land you some criminal charges, but that requires a court order and cops.

    If my understanding of this is wrong, hopefully an attorney will correct me.

    -ted

    1. Re:Civil vs Criminal by ajkessel · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm an attorney. There are criminal statutes relating to all of these areas of intellectual property. It shouldn't surprise anyone that copyright infringement is a criminal act (read the notices at the beginning of DVDs). Counterfeiting--related to trademark infringement--also can carry criminal penalties. I don't believe there is any statute imposing criminal liability for ptaent infringement, however.

  191. It wasn't just a ticket by Presence1 · · Score: 1

    The agents did not simply issue a citation (as your speeding ticket example), or deliver a demand to appear at a hearing .

    They demanded, with the force of the US government, that the storekeeper remove the items from her shelves and watched while she complied. This removes opportunities to sell the product WITHOUT due process, simply based on an unverified complaint. Sounds to me like interference in a market, with the govt acting as willing agents.

    Moreover, if they really wanted to actually solve the problem, they should have gone after the manufacturer or importer, then down the distribution chain.

    This sort of picking on the little guy is just disgusting; they didn't even pick a sizeable retailer. Not only is it the wrong end of the distribution chain, they went after the person least likely to be able to fight.

    Petty stupid people with power -- a dangerous combination.

    1. Re:It wasn't just a ticket by danheskett · · Score: 1

      This sort of picking on the little guy is just disgusting; they didn't even pick a sizeable retailer. Not only is it the wrong end of the distribution chain, they went after the person least likely to be able to fight.
      No, it's not disgusting. They are liable if they sell infringing products. They have to take care when choosing distributors and partners. They obviously selected badly.

      Law is a system of precendents build ontop of regulations and laws. When trying to establish a precendent, you pick easy targets. It's basic, and it's not new.

    2. Re:It wasn't just a ticket by Presence1 · · Score: 1

      I absolutely agree that laws must be established, infringing products taken off the market, and infringers and their distributors punished. If my products were being infringed, I'd be really pissed. But this is not the way to do it.

      "When trying to establish a precendent, you pick easy targets."

      This is not exactly new law. If there is an infringement here, any necessary precedent was established long ago. They do not need to go picking on a tiny retailer. If they need to establish that the infringing product is being sold, they can simply make and record a purchase at her store.

      Remember, this is the full weight and force of the US Government. It is also their JOB to make a difference. If there is an infringement here, they need to first go after the manufacturer (or importer if made offshore). That would both be a more appropriate use of government force, and a more effective protection for the aggrieved competing manufacturer.

      If it was our product being infringed, would this action make us happy? No, I think we'd both be saying, "great, you took $6 of infringing product off the shelves, what are you doing about the scumbag importer who's being in thousands more every week?"

      "They have to take care when choosing distributors and partners. They obviously selected badly."

      IF we were talking about a manufacturer or importer, or even a major distributor, I'd agree. If you are making or importing a product, it is your absolute responsibility to take all measures to make it legal. Perhaps, ideally, every retailer should also fully research the patent, trademark and copyright issues for every product they resell. But in the real world, this is an absurd duplication of effort and cost, and there must be some trust built into the system.

      Perhaps there is some reason that the govt agents were right to bust that small storekeeper, but I haven't yet seen it.

    3. Re:It wasn't just a ticket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Among other things, one problem that I have with this is that it was likely the name-dropping of the Department of Homeland Security that compelled the retailer to comply immediately. I mean if someone came in and said "we're from U.S. Customs" and asked her to take her merchandise off the shelves, she might have asked why in more detail, or refused, or at least been more willing to question their order.

      But they said they were "with the Department of Homeland Security" as the article indicates, then they are using the intimidation factor that comes with the perceptions (valid or not) that we have about the DHS (its seemingly limitless authority backed by things like the PATRIOT act and the threat of being targeted as a potential threat to national security) that scared the store employee to comply.

      They might as well wear long leather coats, speak with Russian accents, and ask for people's "papers, please".

  192. Back to Basics by ReadParse · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Many of the specifics of this case don't really matter, I think. What everybody in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) needs to realize is that they now work in the most intimidating department of the federal government, because of stories like this and worse ones... whether true or not, the stories of people being taken away and held without bond, the blanket superuser authority of DHS officials is scary to anybody.

    Because of the fear involved in their department, they need to be very careful the way they deal with the public, especially when the public they're dealing with is obviously and completely unrelated to a serious threat against the Homeland (and I'm not talking about a minor "economic" threat like selling cheap copies of toys). Of course, this won't matter to many of them, because unfortunately there are many in law enforcement at all levels who do it because of the power they can yield by flashing a badge, turning on a blue light, or calling somebody on the telephone and dropping the name of their agency.

    I am voting for Bush next Tuesday for a variety of reasons (please try not to get inflamed about my choice, which might be different than yours) and I often defend the actions of the DHS (although I wasn't convinced and am still not convinced that we needed a new cabinet-level department to keep us safe) and I often defend the Patriot Act (though I have an open mind about parts of it that might need to be ammended). But I'm not going to be partisan and find an imaginary way to defend anybody from the DHS contacting a retailer and making them remove an item from their shelves without clearly and kindly demonstrating the reasons for the removal, just because I think that's supporting my candidate. These guys would have gotten all the response that they wanted from the retailer by simply saying they were with the Customs Service. Suddenly everybody who is a part of the DHS (which is a LOT of people) wants to go around name-dropping so they get an extra little fear out of everybody. It's completely unneccessary and ridiculous. I would say that many, many people in the DHS should never have to tell the public in their introductions what cabinet department they're in. It will inevitably generate more fear and intimidation than is necessary.

    I believe this is not a policy problem, though. This is that rampant problem with the lower levels of law enforcement, the name dropping and ego trip problem. Unfortunately, there's little that can be done about this, except for a change in the culture, which can take decades.

    RP

  193. There is a difference! by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

    The posting mentions copyrights, trademarks, AND patents?! Despite what most slashdotters think, they are NOT interchangable.

    --
    If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
  194. You wouldn't want to support a US Revolution by caveat · · Score: 1

    Seriously...my friends and I have been talking about the possibility of a forcible uprising in the Us in the forseeable future and we all agree that if it happens, it's going to be the right-leaning people revolting against the left, if the left comes into power (i'm sort of scared of a Kerry win, there's going to be a lot of gun nuts feeling very threatened) - the leftists here tend to be gun grabber and pacifist, two traits that wouldn't be very useful if they chose to revolt. To put it in one of my buddies words - "Extreme liberals are the kind of people you can walk up to and start pushing around, and rather than push back they'll say 'why are you pushing me? let's work out our differences!'". Not to mention if they did get their hands on a bunch of assault rifles and decide to start using them, the other conservative half of the populace (think NRA) would probably pick up THEIR guns and it would be a gigantic bloodbath.

    on a tangent, we've also decided that Bush is going to blatantly steal the election if he needs to, because the worst that will happen is a bunch of protests, and then when those are bloodily ended, a massive exodus to canada. Hmm..now that I verbalize that, perhaps that's what he's planning on - have all the opposition just give up and leave a homicidal madman in unopposed control of the world's most milito-economically powerful country. Fun stuff.

    [disclaimer - my political ideas are an odd mix of conservo-liberalism, my voting history is about 45/45/10 D/R/I, and i already put in my absentee ballot for a 3rd party - i REALLY don't want EITHER of those yahoos in office, and I can't choose who i intensely dislike less...so i just waffled.]

    --

    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
  195. My theory... by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

    That the owner of Rubik's Cube is a huge contributor to the Bush's campaign.

    It's also pretty apparent that the Department of Homeland Security is becoming equivalent to SS troops. Carrying out personal vendettas and attacks on the behalf of the president and his party.

    I certainly hope this becomes a big story, but I'd bet anything it won't.

    --
    If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
  196. Trademark, was Re:Fear of powers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I have no idea what a "Magic Cube" looks like in terms of color, and I don't have time to hunt down the information on the Seven Towns lawsuit or the patent.

    However, there may be a genuine question whether or not Rubik's cube has a valid trademark in their cube's "trade dress." You cannot trademark anything that is functional. Therefore, anything covered by the 1980 patent *cannot* be trademarked. My guess is that the trademark extends only to the color combination on the puzzle, not to the fact that it is a cube with rotating faces. If the Magic Cube has different colors, I don't think it could be infringing even if some other "cube" puzzle did infringe.

    Maybe someone with the time to do it could chase down and share the relevant facts.

  197. Plastic and screensavers. by uberdave · · Score: 0

    So the actual product is the trademark? The cube itself is copyrighted? I don't think it works that way. Also, is my screensaver (which shows various rubik cube puzzles of varying dimensions solving themselves) legal? Could they confiscate my machine?

  198. Getting back on topic: by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "... Expired Trademark" + "...now is enforcing copyright law as well" + "The patent for Rubik's cube..." = WHAT THE FUCK

    This is the most illinformed shit I've seen on Slashdot in a while. A Slashdot while that is, which is not very long. Sometimes people make a little mistake and think say for instance a trademark is covered under the same laws as copyright. Pisses me off, but it's never the end of the world. But this? The End of the World .

    --

    --

    WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    1. Re:Getting back on topic: by mcmonkey · · Score: 1

      Wish I had mod points today.

      Anyway, yes, trademark != copyright != patent, but apparently that's too complicated for the /. crowd.

      I've given up on reading intelectual property threads because the folks here do not know what they are talking about and the mods are no better. I pop in, see if someone like Breakfast Pants makes this point and then continue on my way over to fark to see if there are any new boobies links.

      "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - Honest Abe

  199. Bullshit by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

    The war is not meant to be won....

    Please.

    Bush says we're going to "win the war on terror".

    The Bush-haters talk about how it's not possible to win a war against a noun.

    Then Bush admits on a the Today show that he doesn't think you can actually completely "win" a war on "terror", but that we can certainly do a good job making many regions unfriendly to terrorists.

    Then the Bush-haters - the same ones who said we can't win - go apeshit because Bush says just that.

    The Kerry has even harsher rhetoric about how we are going to find, hunt down, and kill all of the terrorists, that we CAN AND WILL *win* the war on "terror", that we should be fighting and winning against Al Qaeda in all sixty nations they're operating in, and that he wants to greatly expand the US military, and talks about terror in terms that would require an even greater escalation than anything we've seen under Bush (unless, of course, he's egregiously lying).[1]

    And those same Bush-haters apparently have no problem with this head-spinning contradiction.

    Please, explain this to me, because I can't fucking keep up.

    [1] http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_20 04_0924.html

    1. Re:Bullshit by Izago909 · · Score: 1

      You assume that the government is either democratic or republican. You fail to see how both of them will contribute to the downfall of American society. You speak of "Bush haters" as if he as given no reason to discourage such a large percentage of the population. Believe me, it is almost impossible to piss off such a vast ammount of people for petty actions. Americans are fickle, but not to that degree. Let me assure you they Kerry supporters are not like Bush supporters. This election has come down to the Bush vs. ANYONE but Bush camps. Attila the Hun could be running against Bush and poll at the smae numbers as Kerry.

      What people are afraid of is that the war on terror will be a clone of the war on drugs. That it will be ever lasting because nobody will know when to delcare victory. Or they are afraid that civil liberties and judicial oversight will be eroded in the name of protecting the status quo. Say what you want about Iraq, but Saddam was no threat to us, and speculation that he may one day be is speculation at best. He was the problem of the Iraqis; they let him rise to power, and it was their responsibility to remove him. It wouldn't have been the first bloody uprising in the region. Instead Iraqis are now considered patriots for resisting and killing American roops when it should have been Saddams troops.

      Oh, and uh... Bush suporters shouldn't be tempted to point out Kerry's bullshit lest they forget that the current Bush empire is built on it.

  200. That is why Senators have staffs by Presence1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "I think this is a bit simplistic. The senate had 735 Bills last year according to that site, with language such as:..."

    No, as a senator, you ARE supposed to read it, and/or have hired trusted competent staff to read it and raise any issues. There is NO EXCUSE for a senator to say "we don't have enough time to read all the bills" -- yes, the workload is high, but that is what you ran and were elected to do, and you should at least take responsibility for your vote.

    Moreover, that kind of stilted language is not an obstacle to them, as they are almost all lawyers; they are simply writing legally effective language in a way to which they are accustomed (as software engineers write code or specs).

    We at least agree that more understanding and slower legislation would be better, and that the electorate's lack of intrest and education is a root cause of our dying democracy.

  201. Wow, IP is confusing! by PenguiN42 · · Score: 2, Funny

    So the toy would have been copyright-infringing, except that its patent was granted 24 years ago, which means that its trademark is now expired.

    And I thought I had figured this whole IP thing out. Man. *scratches head*

    --
    The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence was false.
  202. Please, please, please help me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm incapable of forming my own rational thoughts and decisions! I for one welcome our evil overlords to control my thoughts and actions! Thank you Dept. of Homeland Security!

  203. This post really stinks ... by SquarePants · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The writer utilizes every form of intellectual property as if they were interchangeable. It demonstrates that the writer does not understand any of them. Its kind of sad for such an intriguing story to make it to slashdot on such a poor introduction. Doesn't anyone edit these things?

    I think there should be a mechanism to mod down an entire story when it is presented like this. Pretty sad.

  204. The DHS experiment by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 1

    The main error in the parent post is a failure to understand the aggregated and unworkable nature of DHS.

    To create DHS, a bunch of agencies were thrown together and wrapped in a new layer of bureauracry. (I won't go into how the employees of those agencies got screwed, what with the administration taking this as an opportunity to strip away most of the civil service protections that prevent govt employees from being used quite as easily for evil purposes because their jobs are protected and they can't be capriciously threatened with firing if they don't unquestioningly act to further political agendas.) This has created turf wars, overlapping work, work that doesn't get done after attempts to eliminate overlapping work, and a host of other problems.

    The FBI could never absorb that many people, so that isn't a solution, either.

    I we had wanted a real, functional DHS, we should have passed enabling legislation to staff an new agency with a few thousand investigators who had broad powers to access the records of OTHER GOVT AGENCIES. They could have been tasked with, in the simplest of terms, just talking to everybody - FBI, SS, local cops, anybody they wanted to. They then could be responsible for the data mining, if you will, that would bring to the fore the kind of intelligence that's needed to prevent attacks. If, for example, someone had just put the pieces together about the 9/11 hijackers, there might have been enough info to start investigations that could have prevented the attacks.

    An effective DHS would have been a bunch of professional gossip junkies who made the rounds of the various agencies, developed contacts, and then talked to each other. When too many suspicious coincidences popped up, they could call up the FBI and say "Here's something you should take a look at." A wetware google function for law enforcement, if you will.

    Instead, we've just got a mess, a boondoggle, and a less-than-optimally efficient political machine.

    Such a shame.

  205. Here is an online store selling the Magic Cube by kpogoda · · Score: 1

    http://www.ssww.com/store/browse/grp=NVL/sbgrp=TOY /ln=PUZ/ So does this mean it should be reported?

  206. end of the world by timster · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Red Sox won the World Series under a total lunar eclipse. The leader of the moderate Palestinians is on his deathbed. The Israeli coalition government is about to fall apart over the Gaza withdrawal plan. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has a serious case of thyroid cancer. All this less than a week before one of the most contentious US Presidential elections in history.

    And now, Slashdot editors confuse copyright, trademark, and patent law all together at once, creating a sort of Grand Unified Theory of IP Confusion which was obviously the purpose of Slashdot.

    So yeah, the end of the world.

    --
    I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
    1. Re:end of the world by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 1
      Out of everything you mentioned, we all know that the Sox winning is the most surprising. That they won under the first total lunar eclipse in World Series history actually helps in justify it. There are only two teams that could, without violating several known physical laws, win the Series during an eclipse. The Sox and the Cubs. Since the Cubs were busy choking on corked ego, we were left with the Sox. Their winning, at least as I figure it, therefore keeps up the natural balance of things.

      Now if the Yankees had won we'd been hosed.

      --
      If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    2. Re:end of the world by tntguy · · Score: 1

      And it's not a repeat!

      Repent, I say! Repent!

      /still agnostic

    3. Re:end of the world by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

      So yeah, the end of the world.

      Funny, I feel fine..

    4. Re:end of the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yasser Arafat is not a moderate.

      Anyone who chooses a terror campaign over a state for his people is not a moderate.

    5. Re:end of the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's all relative.

  207. "Homeland Security" by brlewis · · Score: 1

    They got it from the Hart Rudman report issued in January, 2001. The Bush administration was too busy trashing the economy in early 2001 to pay attention to the important warnings in that report, but 9/11 forced them to.

  208. WTF? by t_allardyce · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is the most insane thing ive read this week, Is this even true? why havnt any big media sources (ie TV) picked it up? how come its not even one of those "and now for a strange story" items where they send a reporter around to do a quick interview? did she have a security camera? Have any other shops been aproached? has the company been contacted by HS? has HS been contacted to actually confirm this? Was it a prank? so many questions and so few answered. I'd really love to believe this and see some more reporting on it because if its true its just insane and scary and makes no sense and would make great news.

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  209. Re:Cornerstone INn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think they got wind of slashdot, as content on the cornerstone initiative is gone now, and the page simply says to expect an update.

  210. Absolutely the worst writeup I've seen too by arete · · Score: 4, Informative

    Definitely my award for worst slashdot writeup And that's saying a LOT.

    A Rubik's cube can't be copyrighted - there's no text. The INSTRUCTIONS could be...

    A trademark on it could be valid - but only if it was confusingly similar - ie, if a reasonable person buying it might THINK they were buying a Rubik's cube, or something from the same company.

    The patent is apparently expired, at least if can trust the article. Which we can't.

    Patent law != copyright law != trademark law != trade secret law. THEY ARE ALL TOTALLY SEPERATE.

    *sigh*

    --
    Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
    1. Re:Absolutely the worst writeup I've seen too by Capella+or+Bust · · Score: 1

      Copyright doesn't only apply to the written word. It applies "expressions," which among other things include literary, musical, audiovisual, pictographic, sculptural and architectural works. The term "Rubik's Cube" can be trademarked. The mechanism through which the cube operates can be patented. Incidentally, thanks for spelling it "A LOT" instead of "alot." I hate it when people get stupid things wrong.

    2. Re:Absolutely the worst writeup I've seen too by SubtleNuance · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Tell that to the slope-foreheaded thugs at the Abteilung der Heimat-Sicherheit.

      What business do these brown-shirts have in such affairs anyway?

      The fact that Intellectual Property Law (or, ownership of ideas) is being "Defended" by the UberPatriots is the fucking point.

      Because, not surrendering to the might of the Capitalist Oligarchy is Unpatriotic, No? Didnt you hear? Whats Good for GM is good for USofAmerica. Do you disagree? Filthy Terrorist!

    3. Re:Absolutely the worst writeup I've seen too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worst writeup ever? Big day for you, eh? God what a Karma whore. Howabout this: Technical Error != Total Failure of Society or Obnoxious Karma Whore != Judge of Worst ever awards

    4. Re:Absolutely the worst writeup I've seen too by lothar97 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      A Rubik's cube can't be copyrighted - there's no text.

      Wrong, copyright covers more than text. Copyright covers any fixed expression in a tangible medium. Thus, it covers text, but it also covers sculptures, bike racks, scribbles on paper, computer code on disk, and potentially, Rubix cube designs.

      If the mods/editors need a quick refresher on what trademark/patent/copyright/trade secret really is, they can check out my blog. So many people mess this up, I have to keep pointing this out. I'll gladly volunteer to review submissions concerning IP- I'm an IP attorney, and it really bugs me that people use these terms interchangeably.

      *sighs louder*

      --

    5. Re:Absolutely the worst writeup I've seen too by timmy+the+large · · Score: 1

      Wonko has been right for a long time now.

    6. Re:Absolutely the worst writeup I've seen too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget that there's "a rat" in sepARATe.

    7. Re:Absolutely the worst writeup I've seen too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A bike rack is a poor example, since it has a functional purpose related to the design. Generally a bike rack would be protected under a design patent or if a truly unique improvement, a utility patent.

      Elements could be conceivably be protected under copyright, to the extent it is an "expression" of a human idea, but this is secondary.

    8. Re:Absolutely the worst writeup I've seen too by torstenvl · · Score: 1

      Someone who spells it "seperate" and missing a subject noun phrase in a subordinate clause ('at least if can trust the article') has no business talking about whether or not a "writeup" is good or bad.

  211. Re:How about stopping the source before it's a sou by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

    > a nation run by a radical-religious war criminal

    Opinions on that differ.. matter of fact is that he is not a convicted war criminal. There was a time however when he sould nto have visited parts of Euroe due to there being a suspicion and complaints together with evidence of him being one.

    > that has nukes in violation of the non-proliferation treaty.

    If only it would be that simple. Israel is not a party to that treaty, and cannot be in violation of it as a result.

    It would be more interesting to look at how such a situation would be dealt with if t would concern any other country then Israel.

    > a country who's treatment of arabs on it's land is even worse than the treatment of blacks in apartheid South Africa.

    Interestingly enough, you will find the person you just called a war criminal in agreement with you on this one.

    I do know Israel and the USA have a simple to define problem in common, failing to apply their own rules in a consistent way to others.

    For the rest I won't comment, anything involving Israel is bound to be extremely biassed no matter rom which side you come, and both sides seem to have made too many mistakes and violated the rights of eachother too many times to point out a curlpit.

  212. Realities on Slashdot by Croaker · · Score: 1
    Slashdot readers that the "authors"... apply some cryptic, personal and inconsistent criteria to the selection process, which does not include fact or consistency checking.

    My bet: they do so intentionally. I mean, let's look at it this way: what's Slashdot's goal? Eventually, to make money. How do you make money on a web site? Get more page views to get more ad impressions. And how do you do that...?

    Say you're a Slashdot editor (no, no, not out loud! Suppose... suppose you're a Slashdot editor). You have two stories in your queue:

    • A well-researched, highly annotated, and somewhat interesting story on an issue that most don't care passionately about.
    • A poorly researched, ungrammatical, illogical, typo-ridden submission that is from someone who apprently didn't read the article they are even submitting (or who apparently didn't have the reading comprehension skills to understand it, or who is the person responsible for the piece in the first place in a transparent plea for attention, or is a partisan with an axe to grind) on one of the hot-button geek topics. Double points for including one or more of the words:
      • SCO
      • GPL violation
      • Microsoft
      • trademarks
      • copyright
      • patents
      • CowboyNeal
      • RIAA
      • Linus
      • Star Wars
      • DRM
      Once this puppy hits the front page, every knee-jerk froth-at-the-mouth keyboard monkey in creation is going to rush to get their say in, and flame every other froth-at-the-mouth keyboard monkey who dares disagree with them (or, heck, even some of those that do agree with them). The page count hit of this story will go through the roof.

    Oh, and you're late on your payments for your BMW with built-in iPod, and you're short on cash for the new PSP. So, which story are you going to pick?

    So, as you see, they probably do look for inconsistencies, logical fallicies, and biased points of view in the submissions. And promptly mash the "approve" button when they find them. That button most likely makes a cha-ching! sound when pressed.

    Eventually, Slashdot will manage to hit the "perfect storm" of article submissions, that including all of those words. In which case, the Slashdot editors will be able to sit back and relax as the thread goes on and on perpetually (or, at least as long as their DB server keeps from melting down).

    So, as you see, it's a conspiracy! (Damn... add conspiracy to the above list.)

    1. Re:Realities on Slashdot by morgue-ann · · Score: 1

      I don't want him, you can have him, he's too meta for me.

    2. Re:Realities on Slashdot by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence."
      - /usr/bin/games/fortune

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  213. I suggest you read up on the trademark law by krem81 · · Score: 1

    You certainly CAN trademark the appearence of a product. It's been like that forever. Coca-Cola has a trademark on the shape of its bottle, for instance.

    1. Re:I suggest you read up on the trademark law by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      That's OK. You can trademark the appearance of the packaging. But if they were to try and trademark the appearance of the brown coloured liquid inside it, I would say they were going too far.

      Nothing Coca Cola is going there is stopping Pepsi from producing a competing product.

    2. Re:I suggest you read up on the trademark law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that you can doesn't necessarily make it right now, does it?

  214. economy/police state/ trade mark "infringement" by zogger · · Score: 1

    "I get an absolute kick out of you RAH RAH RAH buy USA people. because you do not do what you preach, you would have to be a billionare to do so."

    Yes, NOW, if you re read it I said it used to be that you didn't. And prices dropped on new things once the manufacturing got ramped up to a sufficient level, exactly like it is now, just we did it with most things when we wanted them. Admit it, you personally have no frame of reference to remember when it was possible to buy almost all american made with just a modest income level, do you? To you it's just quaint theory, you don't even think it's possible because you've never seen it working. Am I right, you've only grown up since the economy changed drastically?

    Home mortgages were ten years max and a car loan was 12 or 18 months. And other prices were along those lines for domestically made manufactured goods, and it's because we did, in fact, make the stuff here and pay the middle class to do it adequately, and because the dollar shifted around from neighbor to neighbor inside the nation a lot more instead of immediately getting shipped out of the country. It improved the economy more efficiently. It worked, that's just raw past historical data, it is not merely opinion, it's the facts. Go back and look, 25 years ago or so and before the US was the worlds largest creditor nation, now we are the worlds largest debtor nation. This is the same exact time frame where we stopped making things. This is NOT a coincidence, it's the cause and effect in action. We had a higher savings rate, prices were still affordable on your normal consumer items, but they decided to change that,the millionaires decided they needed to be billionaires, so they got up this scheme to offer cheaper trinkets, knowing that it would eventually bork, but they would be set for life then, and it worked, for them.
    We are right now starting to see the delayed effects of those economic decisions. We have less people with full employment, less families with full benefits packages, much higher rates of indebtedness, etc. And a lot of people tried to stop it to little avail, that I will admit.

    Nothing against "trade", people just wanted fair trade and to not dramatically change what we had that was successfully working. We threw the baby out with the bathwater is the old expression.

    Them chickens with the way they have borked the economy ARE going to eventually come home and roost sometime. Get thee to the economy pages and start reading about the reality of what is happening right now as opposed to the globalist shills spinoganda. You simply cannot borrow forever and expect it to keep working. And you also can't keep piling up the police state apparatus, until eventually you have to admit that yes, in fact, you've created a police state.

    And to get to the REAL issue of the article, the toy has the word CUBE in it. BIG DEAL, I thought that part was obvious, I guess it wasn't so I'l line it out here with a clear example. Go to the grocery store, look at the soda section, quite a few cans with the word "cola" stamped on them,yes? But as long as they don't say "coca" in front of it it's LEGAL. LEGAL, GET IT? Saying "magic CUBE" is not a trademark infringement either then. That woman got scared, frightened, terrorised into removing the product, because the cops of whatever federal agency you want to call them now are MORONS and cheap hired gun muscle boy bullys. All they do is sieg heil and follow orders, can't think for themselves even to this basic level. They used police state scare tactics because they can and it's encouraged now.

    1. Re:economy/police state/ trade mark "infringement" by arivanov · · Score: 1

      Complete and utter bulshit.

      First: If your numbers are to be believed fair trade came in the late 70'es. That is simply untrue. There were quotas and protectionist tariffs in place as recent as 1990 and even later. The world trade organisation is not a 30 years old affair, it has become of any significance only after the mid-90es. And the decline you are moaning about came during the most protectionist period in American history - during Ford, Carter and His sanctity the sacred demented fool and his faithful servant.

      Second: It is the protectionist regime that screwed the American economy, not the opposite. As a result of that a significant number of companies created factories on US soil which manufactured goods for the American middle class by the American middle class, but shipped the profit elsewhere. Where did the Geo and Saturn profits go? Where did the profits from the Honda, Toyota and Mitsubishi american assembly plants go? Where did Accura profits go? Sony, Toshiba, VW, Audi, BMW, Mercedes, ad naseum. We are talking 20+ years here. Ever thought of why Japanese economy is suffering from a 10 year slump?

      Third: If the fair trade is doing anything it is fixing it. It forces economies to be competitive. Why do you think Germany is doing worst from the entire EU? It is doing so because they have a similar middle class for middle class policy. Some of its teeth have been taken out by the free trade agreements, but most of it is still there. As a result business goes elsewhere.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
  215. Dude! by freeze128 · · Score: 1
    Your job is to read the article.
    Wow! How did you manage that? How can I get *paid* for reading slashdot?
  216. Hey, wait a minute! by peebeejay · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is it complaining when I mention that I submitted this story yesterday but it was rejected? And I got the original link from the Oregonian, too. I'm not bitter - perhaps my comments were not pithy enough for you - but I'd like some credit, too.

  217. Re:Fear of powers and who are the real DHS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know the REAL DHS is the US military, not this upstart department that was created to spy on and control US citizens.

    I wonder if anyone else has come to the same conclusion?

  218. Fatherland Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That was their first pick, but it
    seems it was already taken
    by some other patriotic, right wing,
    nationalist, conservitive group...

  219. Another instance by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

    Yet another example of how our government is way outta control.

    --
    I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
  220. Trade Marks by Troy+Roberts · · Score: 1

    It is amazing that the Customs Officer could not be bothered to actually look the trade mark up. I took this directly for the uspto web site.

    Word Mark MAGIC CUBE
    Goods and Services IC 028. US 022 023 038 050. G & S: Manipulative puzzles. FIRST USE: 19980500. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19980500
    Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
    Serial Number 76351080
    Filing Date December 20, 2001
    Current Filing Basis 1A
    Original Filing Basis 1A
    Published for Opposition October 15, 2002
    Registration Number 2671747
    Registration Date January 7, 2003
    Owner (REGISTRANT) Atico International USA Inc. CORPORATION DELAWARE 501 S. Andrews Avenue P.O. Box 14368 Fort Lauderdale FLORIDA 33302
    Attorney of Record PETER T COBRIN
    Disclaimer NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "CUBE" APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN
    Type of Mark TRADEMARK
    Register PRINCIPAL
    Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

    Notice that this is the company...

  221. Mod this baby up.. by SlideGuitar · · Score: 1

    Hey, that was a GREAT post. Use real numbers to illustrate the utter mendacity of the Bushies.

    thank you and amen

  222. trademark, patent by Surt · · Score: 1

    No difference really.

    --
    "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  223. Frightening "scope" by griffjon · · Score: 1
    Quoted from the article:
    "One of the things that our agency's responsible for doing is protecting the integrity of the economy and our nation's financial systems and obviously trademark infringement does have significant economic implications," she said.


    This is frightening. One might remember from HS US Gov't about the "commerce clause" that Congress has since (ab)used to regulate all sorts of random aspects of our daily lives that is not in their otherwise closely-defined scope. The commerce clause lets them regulate and intra-state and extra-national trade, which is argued to include/be effected by just about everything, down to abortion (population control effects trade!)

    Now that the Dept. of Homeland Security is claiming to also be responsible for this... that's just scary.
    --
    Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
  224. Please Help Grandpa Here by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    Rubic's Cube and the Department of Homeland Security are in one sentence? Amazing!

    Next it'll be AARP, and Bin Laden in one sentence.

  225. Fact Check by Chrontius · · Score: 2, Informative

    Erhm... 22mm is almost an inch. That's a friggin' antivehicular cannon of the sort mounted on attack helicopters.

    Or were you talking about a .22 caliber toy gun?

  226. Re:And why _aren't_ you voting for Bush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not that I plan on taking advantage of it, but my right to engage in a homosexual marriage, for starters... that is, if Bush had had his way.

    I don't want to give him 4 more years to make it happen.

    Same with reversing women's right to choose, and who knows how many more holier-than-thou, religious-belief-oriented others that his agenda has in store for us.

    Oh, but I'm gaining the right to bring an assault weapon on those weekend hunting trips, so I guess it evens out, doesn't it.

  227. Pufferbelly? by bigpat · · Score: 1

    Did someone say Pufferbelly?

  228. Trademark? by Whibla · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Too late for this post to be read I'm sure, but...

    So they've trademarked the appearance of the Rubiks Cube (TM)...

    How?

    As a corporate logo - this I can see.

    As an actual product? You must be joking!

    Still, and I never thought I'd say this, kudos to the lawyer who came up with this innovative solution to patent expiration.

    Can anyone tell me what would happen if these toys were manufactured by a company based outside the US? Would they be banned/confiscated on importation?

    Whibla.

  229. Re:And why _aren't_ you voting for Bush? by Qrlx · · Score: 1

    Here's a little history lesson called "why natural gas is at an all-time high":

    When did we put a ban on using natural gas to generate electricity?

    Answer: Late 70s, by executive order of Jimmy Carter, in response to the Arab Oil Embargo.

    When did we rescind the ban on using natural gas to generate electricity?

    Answer: Early 1990s, by executive order of George H. W. Bush.

    We used to develop a surplus of gas over the summer and tap into that in the winter. Now, we actually use more in the summer for air conditioning and stuff like that.

    Which is better for the nation? To maintain a surplus, which will keep costs low, but increase demand for oil and coal, and in turn create more air pollution?

    Or to tap into that surplus, producing clean power, lowering demand for oil and coal, but ultimately raising the cost of natural gas?

    Now that the genie is out of the bottle, can we ever go back. Probably not. In the past decade we've become dependent on natural gas as a source of electricity. This was not the case 15 years ago.

    While we're at it, which is the #3 oil producing country in the world? Answer: USA.

  230. What has CowboyNeal been smoking today... by sepluv · · Score: 1

    Its Oct 29 not April 1st....

    --
    Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
    [This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
  231. Re:And why _aren't_ you voting for Bush? by Qrlx · · Score: 1

    A president has very little control on the economy in general, much less the price of oil.

    Oh, see, I disagree with that completely. In most cases, you're right, business is business and it maybe deviates a few percentage points based on anything the President does.

    But there is one notable exception: When the President starts a war, that can greatly affect the economy.

    Personally, I'm expecting double-digit interest rates, high inflation, and high unemployment to kick in over the next five years. You know, the same cycle we saw after Vietnam.

    If the Arab states put on another oil embargo, we could have problems. If OPEC decides to start selling oil to China in Yuan, we would have a huge problem. Our foreign policy has some influence on whether or not those things happen.

    Indeed, I think the biggest problem facing our country right now is that Bush doesn't have the power (abroad, not at home) that he thinks he does.

  232. Here is how to fight this: by geekoid · · Score: 1

    report amazon to homeland security.
    Magic cibe. Report every major chain in this so called violation. Raise a stink, piss off big names.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  233. In keeping with legal tradition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i can see trademarks on names, MAYBE even slogans. But the appearance of a cube?! Thats just going to far[sic]

    It might be "too far", but it's nothing new.

    Mattel owns the trademark rights to "their" colour of pink. If you use that colour without their permission, you may well get sued.

    Coca-cola holds the trademark to the shape of a bottle.

    Photographers have been successfully sued for violating an architect's "copyright" to a distinct building.

    Depending on the country, physical performances such as plays or dances may also be subject to copyright. (For example, the Canadian Copyright Act contains such provisions).

    So, yes, if you dance, draw, sing, paint, talk, sculpt, design, build, or do pretty much anything, using only your own property and resources, you still might be sued for violating someone's "intellectual property".

    In short, you can't win. No matter what you want to do or create, someone might already own the right to stop you from doing it. It's depressing, but true. Worse still, IP laws are vague and unpredictable, and you can't know in advance how a judge will rule on any given issue. In other words, you can't know what rights you do have.

    For a law abiding citizen, not knowing where the lines are, but being forbidden to cross them is frustrating and terrifying. For anyone without their own personal legal department, the best advice may be to simply not to do or create anything new. Sad, but true. At least that way you'll stay out of jail.
    --
    AC

  234. Best part of the news item by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Aren't there any terrorists out there?" she said. :)

  235. Don't tell them about NYC by FSK · · Score: 1

    I just hope these "Homeland Security" guys never find out about New York City. They could shutdown all of Chinatown and most of the garment district.

    --
    When punk rock is outlawed, only outlaws will have punk rock.
  236. It's a case of priorities-It's all Family. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Agreed. Now break down those numbers based on geography. What's my odds of getting killed in LA by gunfire, verses getting shot up in Newcastle, Indiana? How about Israel verses USA (I should point out that Americans live in more than just America)?

  237. Re:And why _aren't_ you voting for Bush? by Clockwork+Apple · · Score: 1

    My house is on fire, I dont have time to convince you that yours is too. If you cant fight the fire without proof in triplicate, then I guess you will just have to wait and see what happens.

    --
    "Doctor, it's not the voices I hear in MY head, but the voices I hear in YOUR head that really frighten me."
  238. Re:And why _aren't_ you voting for Bush? by bluekanoodle · · Score: 1

    Guess so, although, if you go around screaming your house is on fire and everyone comes running to find you were lying, it makes you look pretty silly.

  239. expired? by skiman1979 · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure I understand this. The copyright for the Rubik's cube is expired. Doesn't that mean that other companies or individuals can make the cube and sell it? Can't the original company still make and sell the cube? How can selling the cube be infringing on the copyright if the copyright is expired?

    --
    Having a smoking section in a public restaurant is like having a peeing section in a public swimming pool.
  240. Re:And why _aren't_ you voting for Bush? by bluekanoodle · · Score: 1

    Homosexual marriage is not a right that was ever given, so how can it be taken away? Abortion has absolutely nothing to with the Patriot act, so I don't see how the Patriot act could be contstrued to take that away either. Sounds like you guys on the left are really trying to stretch here.

  241. Oh, the irony! by OzzyRulez · · Score: 1

    Look at the copy of the page and go all the way to the bottom to the last product, and what do you find? It's a RUBIK'S UFO! If this retailer already sells one Rubik's product, why be cheap and sell a knock-off alternative to another?

  242. Re:And why _aren't_ you voting for Bush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Um... Kerry bashes it, yet he voted for it. You don't find that even a tiny bit hypocritical?

    And I'm really sorry that you feel liberty is more important than safety. You do realize that if it were up to the terrorists you wouldn't have either, right?

  243. Re:And why _aren't_ you voting for Bush? by Standmic · · Score: 1

    You are obviously white for you don't notice that any of your rights are being violated because the Patriot Act doesn't to fuck you over like it does to people of color. For example, I know a man from Syria who came to this country when he was 2 (and is now in his 30's) and is now being deported because he didn't register after 9/11. Don't give me any crap about how "well, he wasn't a citizen so he's not american so we don't have to protect his rights" because that is such bullshit. Very few people come to America with the expectation of leaving after a few years (the most common reason would be education). People move here because they want to live the american way of life, which is simply to be free. America is a melting pot, and every single person, except for Native Americans, is part of an immigrant family.

  244. Nothing new here by mi · · Score: 1
    However with all the terrorism and patriotism nowdays, peasants can't afford to not cooperate, "just in case" you got blamed for being terrorist or unpatriotic.

    Back in the "good old days" I had the nerve (or the foolishness) to play with the ire of a certain Kook of the Month. The man called his local police department (in Colorado) and the police department of my then-ISP. The cops never contacted me, but they did call the ISP.

    The owner -- Bob Carp (spit), also of TheCIA.net -- left me a frantic voice message and did not even let me download my files -- so scolding was the urine running down his legs.

    This was all in 1996, when Bush was in Texas, and Clinton was running the country... Oops.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  245. smart! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not like the best and brightest join the Department of Homeland Security.

  246. wrong again by zogger · · Score: 1

    and I'll repeat it. Back when we mostly manufactured all of our own consumer products, we had a better economy by all benchmarks. I don't know what fantasy site you are getting your figures from, but we are running massive deficits. If your way worked, we would be rolling in the dough, we would have surplusses spilling out of bags all over, and I sure don't see them, WHERE are they? Got a link? Get it yet? If it "worked" we would be running near equal, but it hasn't worked as advertised, it was a scam, all we have done is switched to a credit economy, and eventually the credit runs out and we are darn close now. We not only had a better economy, WE werein a position to be the global leader in issuing credit to others, now it's reversed, we are in DEBT to others to the tune of trillions of dollars. It's more than a billion dollars a day in credit we have to beg for realistically, and promise our childrens and grandchildrens future labor on it as the collateral, and that's only possible if they have jobs, and good jobs that actually pay more than what is required for normal existence. That's nuts! It's obscene! there's your great results of the great experiment! Black and white figures, go look at them! It has exactly paralleled the explosion in imports and then outsourcing jobs throughout the economy.
    Less families have full benefits now, not more. If you can prove otherwise, let's see it. Average personal debt is higher, along with our national debt. If you can prove otherwise, let's see it. Average personal savings are lower, much lower. If you can prove otherwise, let's see it. Bankruptcies are at a 30 year high, along with foreclosures. People now are taking out second mortgages just to pay the bills. I mean, I just got a "second line of credit, home equity" offer from my bank today for a quartermillion. How the heck is someone supposed to pay off their first mortgage and bills if they take out a second one for another 1/4 million and then pay interest on top of that, why would they need to? Magic fairy dust money? With what job guarantee, what income guaranty? And people are TAKING those kinds of offers because they are in quiet panic mode now, because they no longer can afford much UNLESS it's with credit. People are getting smacked uplong side the head with bill paying reality now, so what do they do? go into denial and take out whopper second mortgages. that's cuckoo! Mortgages themselves have ballooned, like I said, it used to be ten years was common, because it was quite doable to pay them off in that time frame, now 30 years are the most common AFAIK, and they have now started issuing 40 year mortgages. 40 years! Un precedented! Nothing ever like it! Car notes WERE 12 months or 18 months, not 60 or 72 months, and that's because it was easy to pay it off in that time frame with a joe average middle class blue collar job. One of those incomes was more than adequate to pay the bills,support a full family more than adequately, now most households have to have two incomes to barely stay above water. This is just economic reality history. Yes, that is what it was like back when we exported stuff because we made stuff. And way back then, we didn't buy foreign made cars as much, and the parts that went into the cars were all made here, in US machine shops. Tvs, radios, you name it, all made here, and all still affordable, AND the workers got paid reasonably well. And we all "afforded" what was for sale in the stores for smaller items.

    Sorry, try as you might, you cannot make me dis remember how it used to be. And many economists, the contrarians, warned back then that switching to a service economy and outsourcing was a short sighted idea, precisely because you can't outsource normal cost of living at the same time, some things are fixed in what they cost a lot more than others, and those are the important things, "the bills". A US worker cannot compete very well when his rival has only 1/10th the living costs, I don't care how well they automate it,

  247. IP Primer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I notice the /. blurb for this story describes the issue alternatively as one of trademark, copyright and patent. These are all discrete legal regimes which offer different protections for different kinds of information with only a small amount of overlap. The issue with the Magic Cube was one of Patent (though the period of protection for the Rubik's Cube was actually expired).

  248. That's one of the jobs of Customs by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    Maybe now that they are under DHS instead of the US Treasury, where they used to be, that sould change. However it hasn't yet. Well just because who their boss is has changed, doesn't mean they should suddenly start ignoring their job duties.

    1. Re:That's one of the jobs of Customs by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      Putting it under the administration of the treasury was also nonsensical and wrong.

      Two wrongs don't make a right.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  249. ...and? by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    A great many people have a file with the FBI, or the local police. More or less, if you've ever done anything to get their attention, good or bad, they create a file for you with that information. Ever been arrested for something, but not charged? You now have a file with the police which notes that arrest.

    People try and make an FBI file sound like something scary, it's not. It just means the FBI has a record of something you did. There are plenty of people who have FBI files and don't know it because it's not important and they haven't checked.

    This isn't something that marks you for life. You don't have to get a special tatoo that says "Has FBI file", it's not like employers can check and see. In fac,t no one would ever know except that he's running his mouth and posting it for the world to see.

    I mean you can get an FBI file just by applying for security clearence or a job with the FBI. That gets you a file, with the relivant information.

    It's in every way as relivant as talking about that the public school form where I graduated has a file on me. Yes, they do, and they always will unless their records are destroyed. Doesn't mean they are watching for me, it means that I was involved with them (as a student in this case) and they have a record of it.

    Seriously, you mad tin-foil hatters need to calm the fuck down. Yes, the government, banks, your employers, even your friends, maintain records on you. It's life, deal with it.

  250. It's not that I didn't know that... by arete · · Score: 1

    but I did post in a hurry, and explain myself quite poorly, and I applaud someone who's actually an attorney clarifying stuff.

    Unless I misunderstand though - there's still nothing very copyrightable about a Rubik's cube... As I understand it, for instance, they could copyright say, the patterns used on the little blocks, if they weren't solid colors. I suppose they could copyright what the Rubik's cube looks like...

    I really hope you can't copyright solid colors yet.

    But you can really be very similar without violating copyright, as I understand it - I suppose that my take was anything you could do to a Rubik's cube that would be copyright infringement would be trademark infringement sooner and more easily.

    ----
    Let me put this in a nutshell - how close would I have to be to a Rubik's cube to be infringing copyright, even in a fairly extreme but would win in court kindof way.

    Assume you can go back in time and register whatever copyrights you'd like, if it matters. As I understand it that only matters if someone contests whether you really DID make it first, which isn't up for a lot of argument here.

    --
    Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
    1. Re:It's not that I didn't know that... by lothar97 · · Score: 1
      I'm going to respond to all the posts in this thread about how I got everything wrong. I also appreciate arete's friendly constructive comments/discussion, and not anonymous attacks on my education. For brevity's sake, my earlier post was a condensed version. Now it's time to give a copyright primer to all, so that I can clear up any doubt that I do know something about what I'm writing about (I didn't got to 3 years of evil law school, take a copyright class, just to be called "Mr. Lawyer")

      Copyrights generally cover fixed expressions in a tangible medium. There has to be some sort of expression, that does not change, that in a perceptible medium. And yes, scribbles on paper do count, although that is the extreme example (law students/lawyers love the reduction ad absurdum to make their points).

      In the US, copyrights can cover a wide range of things:

      Literary Works: which covers books, manuscripts, online works, pamphlets, poetry, reports, tests, automated databases, computer programs, or other texts. It does indeed cover computer code on disk, and it does protect text/images of a website (but not the HTML code).

      Visual Art Works: which covers pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional works of fine, graphic, applied art, and architectural works. A bike rack can be under this one, however not to the extent that the design is functional. Copyright does not cover functions, it covers expressions.

      Performing Art Works: which covers musical works, dramatic works, scripts, pantomime, choreography, motion pictures, or other audiovisual works.

      Sound Recordings: which covers recording of music, drama, or lectures.

      Serials and Periodicals: covers periodicals, newspapers, magazines, or other similar works.

      Mask Works: this protection relates to integrated circuits on a semiconductor chip.

      It is possible that the Rubik's cube can be covered by the visual art works area of copyright. Not the color patterns, but the way it looks overall. The cube was also protected by a utility patent, which protects the way it functions.

      If anyone else would like to critique my knowledge of the law, please have the decency to do so in a non-anonymous manner.

      --

  251. Re:And why _aren't_ you voting for Bush? by bitwiseNomad · · Score: 1

    I'm really sorry that you feel liberty is more important than safety. You do realize that if it were up to the terrorists you wouldn't have either, right?

    It's a good thing it's not up to them, then.

    Um... Kerry bashes it, yet he voted for it. You don't find that even a tiny bit hypocritical?

    Normally I would think it's hypocritical... Maybe... Things are never that black and white to me. And in this case, I don't think he's being hypocritical. The reason I don't think he's being hypocritical is that he never went against any of his principals by voting for the Act, because he did not know what was in it when he voted for it.

    The stories I've heard about the passage of the PATRIOT Act mostly go like this:

    Congressman (I don't remember whether or not Senators, House members or both said this): "We were given this bill and told to vote on it. We we not given time to read it. We were told that it was an emergency counter-terrorism measure and that the fate of the country rested on its passage."

    I wasn't there. I don't know what happened. But in nearly every story I've heard told about the PATRIOT Act's passage, the phrases "were not given time to read it" and "were not given time to discuss it" keep coming up. I can't make the claim that any Congressman, be they Republican, Democrat, or Third Party, knew what the Act really said when they voted on it if (like all the stories say) they were not able to read it before voting. I can't reasonably expect a Congressman to know what the provisions in a law are without being able to read it. Laws are long. Laws are convoluted. Laws have tons of crap (riders) that you have to wade through before you can find the important parts. Reading and understanding a law takes time. If time is not given for that purpose, I do not hold a Congressman accountable for understanding a law.

    If the members of Congress had been given adequate time to read and absorb the law and John Kerry chose to ignore that opportunity, I might feel differently. But that's not what the stories suggest.

    So did John Kerry go against his principals by signing the PATRIOT Act? If he did not know what the act entailed, I don't see how he could have made a concious decision to go against his principals, and therefore I can not call him a hypocrite. I might have done the exact same thing in his place, and I hold principals which are so strongly against denial of due process and secret laws that I can't even begin to describe them.

    But there's more to the story. The PATRIOT Act exists. A huge pile of paper with a law written on it does not just appear out of mid-air. That means that someone had to have written it. There was at least one person who knew what was in the PATRIOT Act at the time Congress was voting on it. There were probably many more than one. I want to know who those people are. If those people claim to love the freedoms of the US, then they are the hypocrites for even considering to propose a law which so easily shrugs them off.

    If you've heard a different story as to what happened in Congress on the day the PATRIOT Act was passed, I would love to hear it (I don't mean that sarcastically at all. I really would like to know what other people think happened). Given what I think happened during the passage of the PATRIOT Act, there is certainly at least one person (probably more) out there who deserves to have his/her feet held to the fire regarding that law. I don't think John Kerry is in that group.

    --

    Light is filtering down from above. Would you like to use DIVE?
  252. Not all IP is the same by 42forty-two42 · · Score: 1

    I've seen copyrights, trademarks, and patents mentioned in the summary. Which is it? Make up your mind!

  253. Re:And why _aren't_ you voting for Bush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Vote Kerry for a wealthier Kerry.

    People keep getting this election confused with Survivor. (Remember, this time you want to see your name on that ballot!)

  254. Re:And why _aren't_ you voting for Bush? by bluekanoodle · · Score: 1
    You know pulling the racism card, is the first sign of not having a leg to stand on. 1st of all, if your friend, followed the law, he could've stayed. 28+ years is plenty of time to get your immigration status straightened out. Since he has shown he has no interest is following the laws of this land, he should be deported. Cry me a river. American citizenship for an immigrant is not a Right, it's a privilege, and it must be earned, just as my grandparets did, by followingt the rules.

    I have a coworker who is also Syrian. He's not being deported, so I guess my anectdotal story cancels out yours. :)

  255. Re:And why _aren't_ you voting for Bush? by bluekanoodle · · Score: 1

    And that's why I said below that I support the Supreme Court's recent ruling on his case that he cannot be denied the rights afforded him by the Constitution. Obviously the system of checks and balances have worked, and your rights are still intact.

  256. Original Oregonian story by ArtStone · · Score: 2, Informative

    The last line of the AP story mentions that the Oregonian newspaper was the source of the story:

    Here is the original story before AP edited / rewrote it:

    http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.s sf ?/base/front_page/109896512934940.xml

    It contains significant details that the AP decided not to include:

    [The call came in late July or early August. A man identifying himself as a federal Homeland Security agent said he needed to talk to Cox at her store.

    Cox asked what it was all about.

    "He said he was not at liberty to discuss that," she said.

    They agreed to meet in early August, but the agent later canceled. Cox thought the matter had blown over when the agent called back Sept. 9 to say he was coming out there. ]

    Keeping in mind that this is *her* opinion of the events... So this didn't just come out of the blue... This story is 7 weeks old... it didn't just happen yesterday...

    [Kice also said Homeland Security officials routinely investigate such complaints and follow up if they determine they are valid. ]

    Paragraph dropped. The clear message of that paragraph is that they did make a determination that the TRADEMARK infringement was valid prior to visiting the store.

    [After gaining assurances from Toysmith officials, Cox put the Magic Cube back on the shelf soon after the agents left. ]

    Hmmm...

    The author of the original story [printed at the bottom of the above linked page] is:
    Ashbel "Tony" Green: 503-221-8202; tonygreen@news.oregonian.com if you have any questions...

    --
    Final 2006 "Proof of Global Warming" US Hurricane Count -> 0
  257. Re:Yes you don't know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Copyright = protection of expression in tangible medium

    Trademark = protected product or service identification, i.e. a "brand" name.

    It's OK to admit you didn't know this.

    Copyright does not apply here, and Rubik's is not Magic.

  258. Re:Misleading use of "designs" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The use of the term "designs" here is misleading since this generally would mean that the "design" of the cube itself was protected by copyright. This is incorrect. A drawing of a rubik's cube design can be protected by copyright, but not the functional makeup of the device embodied in the drawing (the design).

    I'm somewhat surprised at the cavalier use of the ambiguous term "design" by an IP attorney. You never claimed to be a teacher, however....

  259. Re:Scribbles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Counselor, you may want to brush up on the subtleties of copyrights.

    Scribbles are yet another poor example, since they may not be an expression at all. One cannot simply assert copyright protection in complete disregard of the purpose of the item to be protected. If the scribbles have no expressive meaning or value, asserting copyright protection is an abuse of this important legal protection.

  260. Re:Computer code? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yet another bad example.

    Computer source code is protectible by copyright.

    Html code is generally not protectible by copyright.

    This is starting to bug me too, counsel.

  261. Re:Fundamental Misunderstanding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Copyright protects expressions. "What something looks like" is not an expression, unless embodied in the some tangible form, in which case THAT is what becomes copyrightable.

    Copyright does not protect ideas.

    Or colors.

    Get it? This is the easy part. Thank god the patent expired, I can't imagine trying to explain those issues if this is so hard.

  262. Re:And why _aren't_ you voting for Bush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why am I not voting for [President] Bush...

    Well, because he's clownshoes. That's the only real word to define him, clown-fucking-shoes.

  263. A trademark on the Rubik's Cube by elegie · · Score: 1

    Here is an actual cease-and-desist notice concerning a trademark infringement on a Rubik's Cube-type game. There is no mention of copyrights or patents. They claim that the "distinctive overall appearance" of the Rubik's Cube is trademarked. The same page says that product design can be trademarked. One would think that the visual appearance of the design would have to be distinctive and be important with respect to marketing and/or identifying the product (i.e. it is associated with the product and/or the manufacturer) in order to be trademarked. They also mention trade dress. This appears to apply to distinctive aspects of the total visual appearance of the product. These aspects would be associated with the product by the public. An example of trade dress is a color scheme that is associated with a specific brand.

    On the Macintosh platform years ago, there was a game called Rubik's Wrap. In the game there was a repeating pattern on a 2D surface. The pattern was scrambled and would have to be unscrambled by the player, similar to a Rubik's Cube toy.

  264. Re:What if Kerry/Edwards declared terrorists by Pr by danila · · Score: 1

    I would be terribly surprised if this idea has never occured to Mr. Bush and his cronies...

    --
    Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  265. Re:rUSsiA tsarkon reports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What was the name of the Agent that came to see that person? Its a lie unless he has the fucking balls to talk about his lawyer, who is lawyer is and what Agent supposedly infringed on his/her 1st amendment right.

    email her to ask:
    anniesj@comcast.net

    I doubt she has real information. She is using it as a ruse to get people to vote against Shrub.

  266. Re:christ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quit whining, you stupid fuck.

    "Slashdot of old" ?? Who talks like that?