...and, as such, had to be served with a subpoena by a US law enforcement entity. That's why the FBI was tangentially involved. The FBI merely acted as a legal conduit under an international legal treaty to which the US, UK, and many other nations are parties.
According to this Indymedia.org article and AFP report, the request to seize Indymedia servers hosted by a US company in the UK (covered in this previous slashdot story) originated from government agencies in Italy and Switzerland, not the United States. Because Indymedia's hosting company, Rackspace, is a US company, the FBI coordinated the request and accompanied UK Metropolitan Police on the seizure under the auspices of the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT), an international legal treaty, but, according to an FBI spokesman, 'It is not an FBI operation. Through [MLAT], the subpoena was on behalf of a third country'. Rackspace's statement reads, 'In the present matter regarding Indymedia, Rackspace Managed Hosting, a U.S. based company with offices in London, is acting in compliance with a court order pursuant to a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT), which establishes procedures for countries to assist each other in investigations such as international terrorism, kidnapping and money laundering. Rackspace responded to a Commissioner's subpoena, duly issued under Title 28, United States Code, Section 1782 in an investigation that did not arise in the United States. Rackspace is acting as a good corporate citizen and is cooperating with international law enforcement authorities. The court prohibits Rackspace from commenting further on this matter.'
This is it. The beginning of Apple's "media center" strategy.
And it's completely different from the way Microsoft and others are approaching it.
Everyone else has been going about it from the respect of making a whole freaking separate *computer* a part of your entertainment/AV center. A computer with its own maintenance and patching needs, another computer that needs to be upgraded, another computer to break, etc.
Apple started it with AirPort Express...a wireless device, that integrates with your existing wireless or wired network, integrates with your entertainment center, has analog and digital optical audio outputs, and seamlessly meshes with the applications and techniques you ostensibly already use (or will switch to) for managing your music collection.
Now, an iPod, with a massive amount of storage, and clearly with a dock or some other capability to attach to an external video device, such as a TV, even if only for viewing photos. This means that some type of interface - whether it's on the TV or the iPod's own screen - has been built to navigate through items that reside on the iPod. Meaning that video playback (as long as the iPod and/or dock can handle the playback/decoding) would be trivial.
Imagine this: download a movie or other video content on your Mac. Perhaps via the iTunes Store. Sync with your iPod. Drop your iPod into its dock at your entertainment center. Select content (a movie?) and play. Simple. Clean. Doesn't require you to have 45 computers.
So, yes, this new iPod is "just as expensive" as a PC someone might build or buy to integrate into your entertainment center as a media PC. But think about NORMAL PEOPLE for a second. Think about how unbelievably cool this is.
His distinction doesn't even make sense. He says Windows Media has had DRM for years, and then somehow ties that to the majority of the iPod's music being stolen, presumably a veiled reference to the fact that iPod uses a different format.
But that logic doesn't follow, because iPod's "paid" format ("Protected AAC") contains DRM (though in Apple's implementation is probably more forgiving and transparent than some alternatives). The "stolen" format he must be referring to is, therefore, MP3, a format that is also supported by all portable music players that support Windows Media!
Since Apple's music store - which only works with iPod - has by far the largest market share of all online music stores, there is actually more legitimately purchased downloaded music (to say nothing of legally purchased CDs that have then been ripped) in use on iPods than on players that support Windows Media. If there are "stolen" MP3s in use on iPod, then there are stolen MP3s in use on ANY player that supports MP3 in the same proportions. And even if we concede that there might be physically more stolen music on iPods, in numbers of songs, it's only because iPods so ridiculously vastly outnumber any competitive player...not because iPods somehow magically enable more easy theft, when it's MP3 - not the iPod's "scary different non-Windows Media format", which IS DRM'ed - that constitutes the "theft", which is possible on ANY other player! [1]
So, to sum up: nuthin' but FUD.
[1] Except perhaps Sony's.;-) (Yes, yes, I know they've announced they'll support MP3.)
Caution: This page contains some works of "anomalous motion illusion", which might make sensitive observers dizzy or sick. Should you feel dizzy, you had better leave this page immediately.
Some of the pictures on this website can cause dizziness or might possibly epileptic seizures. The latter happens when the brain can't handle the conflicting information from your two eyes. If you start feeling unwell when using this website, immediately cover one eye with your hand and then leave the page. Do not close your eyes because that can make the attack worse.
The combined storage for your.Mac Mail and iDisk has been increased to 250 MB. That means you now have additional room for your email messages and mail attachments, web pages, and backups. Need even more storage? You also have the option of upgrading your.Mac account to 1 GB for US$49.95 per year.
You can decide how the storage is allocated between iDisk (a WebDAV network storage volume) and email
That's the most recent one that doesn't require a subscription, but Apple is consistently and continually number one in lack of need for repairs, number one in product quality, and number one in support. This has been true for years, and was still true in Consumer Reports' most recent report a couple of months ago.
Seriously, though, all this shows is that almost any object can be used in potentially dangerous ways. Could it be a "tool of terrorists"? Sure. So could almost anything.
It's extremely easy to get Class IIIa (potential eye damage, especially if viewed through optical instruments) and Class IIIb (potential instantaneous eye damage, even from reflected beam) lasers, even in handheld pointer form:
It's even possible to get small, portable Class IV (potential instant severe eye damage, even from diffuse or reflected beams; this is the class of laser which also includes burning and cutting beams) lasers:
The front windows of a commercial aircraft and objects in the cockpit could easily reflect and refract a beam from the ground in ways that would be at a minimum very distracting and unsafe, and potentially damaging to eyesight.
The Iraqis don't want a fundamentalist Islamic form of government.
"...54 percent [of Iraqis] said a parliamentary democracy would be acceptable, 42 percent said they would accept a council of elders and 20 percent said they would accept an Islamic theocracy. One percent said a Taliban-style regime would be acceptable." [1]
"...73 percent of respondents said a new government should have freedom of religion..." [1]
Also:
"57 percent of [Iraqis] said life was better now than under Saddam, against 19 percent who said it was worse and 23 percent who said it was about the same." [2]
"When asked what Iraq needs in five years, people were more likely to say an Iraqi democracy, 42 percent, followed by "a single strong leader," 35 percent." [2]
I don't recall having run into one blinking person who's said that she thinks Bush and his cronies are secretly plotting to reinstate the draft. Heck, Rumsfeld went out of his way to dismiss the military significance of draftees in previous wars, in a move I remember particularly well because it so upset my Uncles down in Oklahoma who served. Your entire premise is a misstatement of the objections to Bush's policy.
There are TONS of websites, blogs, and emails circulating which either imply or directly state that "the administration" is trying to "quietly" bring back the draft. Some even reference the actual bills, but of course don't link to them. Most people just assume what's said is true on its face.
What is said is that Bush's policies have made the reinstatement of a draft more likely, and that the specific changes made to terms of military service -- not allowing scheduled retirements, dramatic changes to the terms of service of the national guard -- amount to a "back-door" draft right now.
That I will agree with. The Guard is being used for tasks for which it was never intended, quite inappropriately in my personal opinion. However, consider that the forces are there, and the current administration, frankly, doesn't want a draft. It was either that, or cripple active forces - or find more soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines elsewhere. I don't agree with it, but since I agree that the radical elements in the mideast as a whole MUST be dealt with, up to and including with force, I agree with the general strategy.
It's funny how your "who's who" of the left in congress didn't include Teddy Kennedy or Mark Dayton. Those were the first names on my lips.
It's not really "funny", and "who's who" was a little tongue-in-cheek, but some of those representatives are pretty darned liberal.
Also funny how the support for H.R. 487 is bipartisan with a slight slant to the Democratic side.
How is that funny? I even noted that. I'm glad that sensible people on both sides of the aisle might be able to collaborate on a bill. What's "funny" is that there's not a SINGLE Republican on the former set of bills.
There are also people in congress from both sides who support the broader "national service" idea this bill was about.
Sure, but I think that's a different discussion. Heck, I think if framed properly, a lot of people would support some kind of "service" (not necessarily military). But I don't think that's what people are talking about when they speak of the "draft".
You're looking at a complicated issue and stomping it flat to score political points.
On the contrary: I simply don't have time to write a novel on the subject on slashdot. I realize it is insanely more complex than what will be discussed here.
This whole issue is ridiculously more complex than what people want to make it out to be. Sometimes I wonder how the United States ever had the will to fight and win the great battles of this century.
Oh, yeah... I think I know which candidate you support...
Oh? Please, do tell. Because I really don't particularly like Bush. Or Kerry.
Kerry's detailed policy speech today was fantastic, in my opinion. (I'm glad he's stopped talking about something that happened over three decades ago.) He talks about Al Qaeda being the real enemy. He talks about holding Saudi Arabia accountable and responsible. He talks about becoming independent of mideast oil. He talked about radical Panislamism wanting to use hatred of the West to topple governments in the mideast to develop a new unified empire in the region, to fight the US and the West. He made some really firm statements about the things we should be doing. It all is really, really great rhetoric - and I don't mean that in a derogatory sense.
But how do we do these things?
Al Qaeda *is* the real enemy. And "Al Qaeda" is rooted in the mideast. NOT in Iraq, but in the region. And much of the Arab/Muslim world s
Many questions circulating seem to revolve around the rumored return of "the draft", apparently at the behest of a secret Bush administration effort.
In truth, the pair of Universal National Service Act bills, S.89 and H.R.163, have been introduced and sponsored by liberal Democrats. S.89 is sponsored by Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-SC), while the companion H.R.163 was introduced by Congressional Black Caucus cofounder and Harlem representative Charlie Rangel (D-NY), along with 14 other Democrats that read like a Who's Who of the Left in Congress:
D Rep Abercrombie, Neil - 1/7/2003 [HI-1]
D Rep Brown, Corrine - 1/28/2003 [FL-3]
D Rep Christensen, Donna M. - 5/19/2004 [VI]
D Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy - 1/28/2003 [MO-1]
D Rep Conyers, John, Jr. - 1/7/2003 [MI-14]
D Rep Cummings, Elijah E. - 1/28/2003 [MD-7]
D Rep Hastings, Alcee L. - 1/28/2003 [FL-23]
D Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila - 1/28/2003 [TX-18]
D Rep Lewis, John - 1/7/2003 [GA-5]
D Rep McDermott, Jim - 1/7/2003 [WA-7]
D Rep Moran, James P. - 1/28/2003 [VA-8]
D Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes - 1/28/2003 [DC]
D Rep Stark, Fortney Pete - 1/7/2003 [CA-13]
D Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. - 1/28/2003 [NY-12]
By contrast, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) has introduced a bill, H.R.487, to repeal the Military Selective Service Act, permanently ending the draft. Cosponsors include two other Republicans and five Democrats.
D Rep Boucher, Rick - 2/12/2003 [VA-9]
D Rep DeFazio, Peter A. - 1/29/2003 [OR-4]
R Rep Foley, Mark - 3/6/2003 [FL-16]
D Rep Frank, Barney - 1/29/2003 [MA-4]
D Rep Nadler, Jerrold - 2/7/2003 [NY-8]
D Rep Owens, Major R. - 2/11/2003 [NY-11]
R Rep Rohrabacher, Dana - 6/23/2003 [CA-46]
I'm really surprised from the tone of many of these rumors, everyone seems to assume it's Bush or the "neo-cons" behind some kind of effort to reinstate "the draft", when in reality it's all liberal Democrats that have introduced and sponsored the bills, while almost all Republicans OPPOSE forced service, whether it be civil or military.
This is indeed an important issue, but when writing your representatives in Congress and/or the President - or voting - keep in mind who is actually supporting these bills. Hint: it's not Bush and the "warhawks"...
I hope this information is found useful.
PS - the predictable copout, when faced with the truth, of "yeah, well, the only reason the liberals are doing it is because they have no choice, so that the sons and daughters of the warmongers and of the rich Republicans in Congress would actually have to serve, perhaps making them think twice about voting for war" is a little tired, ESPECIALLY when the initial accusations about the draft routinely revolve around Bush and his "cronies" "secretly" wanting to bring it back. Do we need to all sit down and watch the Schoolhouse Rock about how bills become law again? Additionally, if you truly oppose the draft, shouldn't you come to terms with the fact that it's liberal Democrats who are the ones closest to making it a reality? Stop trying to justify it with a bunch of ridiculous arguments.
While I value the thoughts and insight of some of the non-major party candidates in this forum, how about approaching the candidates that actually have a fundamentally real chance of winning the election in November?
(Not that either of them would necessarily do it, and they may even have been approached, but either way it's worth a try.)
...with 5C, HDCP, and the Broadcast Flag, the only way we'll end up being allowed to record any digital broadcast legally will be with analog equipment anyway. And maybe that won't even be legal.
(i) Effective April 1, 2004, upon request of a customer, replace any leased high definition set-top box, which does not include a functional IEEE 1394 interface, with one that includes a functional IEEE 1394 interface or upgrade the customer's set-top box by download or other means to ensure that the IEEE 1394 interface is functional.
(ii) Effective July 1, 2005, include both a DVI or HDMI interface and an IEEE 1394 interface on all high definition set-top boxes acquired by a cable operator for distribution to customers.
The actual "law" is Section 304 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, but the above FCC rule action 03-225 is the actual practical interpretation of that section.
Slashdot Mirror
...and, as such, had to be served with a subpoena by a US law enforcement entity. That's why the FBI was tangentially involved. The FBI merely acted as a legal conduit under an international legal treaty to which the US, UK, and many other nations are parties.
According to this Indymedia.org article and AFP report, the request to seize Indymedia servers hosted by a US company in the UK (covered in this previous slashdot story) originated from government agencies in Italy and Switzerland, not the United States. Because Indymedia's hosting company, Rackspace, is a US company, the FBI coordinated the request and accompanied UK Metropolitan Police on the seizure under the auspices of the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT), an international legal treaty, but, according to an FBI spokesman, 'It is not an FBI operation. Through [MLAT], the subpoena was on behalf of a third country'. Rackspace's statement reads, 'In the present matter regarding Indymedia, Rackspace Managed Hosting, a U.S. based company with offices in London, is acting in compliance with a court order pursuant to a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT), which establishes procedures for countries to assist each other in investigations such as international terrorism, kidnapping and money laundering. Rackspace responded to a Commissioner's subpoena, duly issued under Title 28, United States Code, Section 1782 in an investigation that did not arise in the United States. Rackspace is acting as a good corporate citizen and is cooperating with international law enforcement authorities. The court prohibits Rackspace from commenting further on this matter.'
This is it. The beginning of Apple's "media center" strategy.
And it's completely different from the way Microsoft and others are approaching it.
Everyone else has been going about it from the respect of making a whole freaking separate *computer* a part of your entertainment/AV center. A computer with its own maintenance and patching needs, another computer that needs to be upgraded, another computer to break, etc.
Apple started it with AirPort Express...a wireless device, that integrates with your existing wireless or wired network, integrates with your entertainment center, has analog and digital optical audio outputs, and seamlessly meshes with the applications and techniques you ostensibly already use (or will switch to) for managing your music collection.
Now, an iPod, with a massive amount of storage, and clearly with a dock or some other capability to attach to an external video device, such as a TV, even if only for viewing photos. This means that some type of interface - whether it's on the TV or the iPod's own screen - has been built to navigate through items that reside on the iPod. Meaning that video playback (as long as the iPod and/or dock can handle the playback/decoding) would be trivial.
Imagine this: download a movie or other video content on your Mac. Perhaps via the iTunes Store. Sync with your iPod. Drop your iPod into its dock at your entertainment center. Select content (a movie?) and play. Simple. Clean. Doesn't require you to have 45 computers.
So, yes, this new iPod is "just as expensive" as a PC someone might build or buy to integrate into your entertainment center as a media PC. But think about NORMAL PEOPLE for a second. Think about how unbelievably cool this is.
His distinction doesn't even make sense. He says Windows Media has had DRM for years, and then somehow ties that to the majority of the iPod's music being stolen, presumably a veiled reference to the fact that iPod uses a different format.
;-) (Yes, yes, I know they've announced they'll support MP3.)
But that logic doesn't follow, because iPod's "paid" format ("Protected AAC") contains DRM (though in Apple's implementation is probably more forgiving and transparent than some alternatives). The "stolen" format he must be referring to is, therefore, MP3, a format that is also supported by all portable music players that support Windows Media!
Since Apple's music store - which only works with iPod - has by far the largest market share of all online music stores, there is actually more legitimately purchased downloaded music (to say nothing of legally purchased CDs that have then been ripped) in use on iPods than on players that support Windows Media. If there are "stolen" MP3s in use on iPod, then there are stolen MP3s in use on ANY player that supports MP3 in the same proportions. And even if we concede that there might be physically more stolen music on iPods, in numbers of songs, it's only because iPods so ridiculously vastly outnumber any competitive player...not because iPods somehow magically enable more easy theft, when it's MP3 - not the iPod's "scary different non-Windows Media format", which IS DRM'ed - that constitutes the "theft", which is possible on ANY other player! [1]
So, to sum up: nuthin' but FUD.
[1] Except perhaps Sony's.
...it's coming.
Caution: This page contains some works of "anomalous motion illusion", which might make sensitive observers dizzy or sick. Should you feel dizzy, you had better leave this page immediately.
Some of the pictures on this website can cause dizziness or might possibly epileptic seizures. The latter happens when the brain can't handle the conflicting information from your two eyes. If you start feeling unwell when using this website, immediately cover one eye with your hand and then leave the page. Do not close your eyes because that can make the attack worse.
Also, the informative US Navy Fact File on the Clam Lake, WI ELF site, as well as the station's actual home page.
...a thorough debunking
USGS earthquake info for Mt St Helens National Volcanic Monument area (wide view)
USGS Cascades Volcano Observatory Mt St Helens seismic observations
Pacific Northwest Seismograph Network Mt St Helens home page (earthquake list)
The combined storage for your .Mac Mail and iDisk has been increased to 250 MB. That means you now have additional room for your email messages and mail attachments, web pages, and backups. Need even more storage? You also have the option of upgrading your .Mac account to 1 GB for US$49.95 per year.
You can decide how the storage is allocated between iDisk (a WebDAV network storage volume) and email
Index
Summary
Text of legislation
That's the most recent one that doesn't require a subscription, but Apple is consistently and continually number one in lack of need for repairs, number one in product quality, and number one in support. This has been true for years, and was still true in Consumer Reports' most recent report a couple of months ago.
Light?
Thank you folks, thank you very much.
Tip your waitresses.
Seriously, though, all this shows is that almost any object can be used in potentially dangerous ways. Could it be a "tool of terrorists"? Sure. So could almost anything.
Class IIIa (>5mW) 532nm green laser pointer (ThinkGeek)
Class IIIb (>15mW) 532nm green laser pointer (MegaLaser)
Class IIIb 200mW handheld green laser (Information Unlimited)
It's even possible to get small, portable Class IV (potential instant severe eye damage, even from diffuse or reflected beams; this is the class of laser which also includes burning and cutting beams) lasers:
Various Class IV portable lasers, including a small battery powered 2W diode laser (Information Unlimited)
The front windows of a commercial aircraft and objects in the cockpit could easily reflect and refract a beam from the ground in ways that would be at a minimum very distracting and unsafe, and potentially damaging to eyesight.
Information about laser classes.
Real Media
Real Media high quality
Windows Media
Many more...
"...54 percent [of Iraqis] said a parliamentary democracy would be acceptable, 42 percent said they would accept a council of elders and 20 percent said they would accept an Islamic theocracy. One percent said a Taliban-style regime would be acceptable." [1]
"...73 percent of respondents said a new government should have freedom of religion..." [1]
Also:
"57 percent of [Iraqis] said life was better now than under Saddam, against 19 percent who said it was worse and 23 percent who said it was about the same." [2]
"When asked what Iraq needs in five years, people were more likely to say an Iraqi democracy, 42 percent, followed by "a single strong leader," 35 percent." [2]
[1] Source
[2] Source Oxford Research International National Survey of Iraq
National Map (National Map Viewer)
(and the somewhat related National Atlas)
...from the minds of Alan Kay, David Smith, David Reed, and others...
There are TONS of websites, blogs, and emails circulating which either imply or directly state that "the administration" is trying to "quietly" bring back the draft. Some even reference the actual bills, but of course don't link to them. Most people just assume what's said is true on its face.
What is said is that Bush's policies have made the reinstatement of a draft more likely, and that the specific changes made to terms of military service -- not allowing scheduled retirements, dramatic changes to the terms of service of the national guard -- amount to a "back-door" draft right now.
That I will agree with. The Guard is being used for tasks for which it was never intended, quite inappropriately in my personal opinion. However, consider that the forces are there, and the current administration, frankly, doesn't want a draft. It was either that, or cripple active forces - or find more soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines elsewhere. I don't agree with it, but since I agree that the radical elements in the mideast as a whole MUST be dealt with, up to and including with force, I agree with the general strategy.
It's funny how your "who's who" of the left in congress didn't include Teddy Kennedy or Mark Dayton. Those were the first names on my lips.
It's not really "funny", and "who's who" was a little tongue-in-cheek, but some of those representatives are pretty darned liberal.
Also funny how the support for H.R. 487 is bipartisan with a slight slant to the Democratic side.
How is that funny? I even noted that. I'm glad that sensible people on both sides of the aisle might be able to collaborate on a bill. What's "funny" is that there's not a SINGLE Republican on the former set of bills.
There are also people in congress from both sides who support the broader "national service" idea this bill was about.
Sure, but I think that's a different discussion. Heck, I think if framed properly, a lot of people would support some kind of "service" (not necessarily military). But I don't think that's what people are talking about when they speak of the "draft".
You're looking at a complicated issue and stomping it flat to score political points.
On the contrary: I simply don't have time to write a novel on the subject on slashdot. I realize it is insanely more complex than what will be discussed here.
This whole issue is ridiculously more complex than what people want to make it out to be. Sometimes I wonder how the United States ever had the will to fight and win the great battles of this century. Oh, yeah... I think I know which candidate you support...
Oh? Please, do tell. Because I really don't particularly like Bush. Or Kerry.
Kerry's detailed policy speech today was fantastic, in my opinion. (I'm glad he's stopped talking about something that happened over three decades ago.) He talks about Al Qaeda being the real enemy. He talks about holding Saudi Arabia accountable and responsible. He talks about becoming independent of mideast oil. He talked about radical Panislamism wanting to use hatred of the West to topple governments in the mideast to develop a new unified empire in the region, to fight the US and the West. He made some really firm statements about the things we should be doing. It all is really, really great rhetoric - and I don't mean that in a derogatory sense.
But how do we do these things?
Al Qaeda *is* the real enemy. And "Al Qaeda" is rooted in the mideast. NOT in Iraq, but in the region. And much of the Arab/Muslim world s
In truth, the pair of Universal National Service Act bills, S.89 and H.R.163, have been introduced and sponsored by liberal Democrats. S.89 is sponsored by Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-SC), while the companion H.R.163 was introduced by Congressional Black Caucus cofounder and Harlem representative Charlie Rangel (D-NY), along with 14 other Democrats that read like a Who's Who of the Left in Congress:
D Rep Abercrombie, Neil - 1/7/2003 [HI-1]
D Rep Brown, Corrine - 1/28/2003 [FL-3]
D Rep Christensen, Donna M. - 5/19/2004 [VI]
D Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy - 1/28/2003 [MO-1]
D Rep Conyers, John, Jr. - 1/7/2003 [MI-14]
D Rep Cummings, Elijah E. - 1/28/2003 [MD-7]
D Rep Hastings, Alcee L. - 1/28/2003 [FL-23]
D Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila - 1/28/2003 [TX-18]
D Rep Lewis, John - 1/7/2003 [GA-5]
D Rep McDermott, Jim - 1/7/2003 [WA-7]
D Rep Moran, James P. - 1/28/2003 [VA-8]
D Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes - 1/28/2003 [DC]
D Rep Stark, Fortney Pete - 1/7/2003 [CA-13]
D Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. - 1/28/2003 [NY-12]
The details of these bills are here:
H.R.163 | Text | Cosponsors
S.89 | Text
By contrast, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) has introduced a bill, H.R.487, to repeal the Military Selective Service Act, permanently ending the draft. Cosponsors include two other Republicans and five Democrats.
Details:
H.R.487 | Text | Cosponsors
D Rep Boucher, Rick - 2/12/2003 [VA-9]
D Rep DeFazio, Peter A. - 1/29/2003 [OR-4]
R Rep Foley, Mark - 3/6/2003 [FL-16]
D Rep Frank, Barney - 1/29/2003 [MA-4]
D Rep Nadler, Jerrold - 2/7/2003 [NY-8]
D Rep Owens, Major R. - 2/11/2003 [NY-11]
R Rep Rohrabacher, Dana - 6/23/2003 [CA-46]
I'm really surprised from the tone of many of these rumors, everyone seems to assume it's Bush or the "neo-cons" behind some kind of effort to reinstate "the draft", when in reality it's all liberal Democrats that have introduced and sponsored the bills, while almost all Republicans OPPOSE forced service, whether it be civil or military.
This is indeed an important issue, but when writing your representatives in Congress and/or the President - or voting - keep in mind who is actually supporting these bills. Hint: it's not Bush and the "warhawks"...
I hope this information is found useful.
PS - the predictable copout, when faced with the truth, of "yeah, well, the only reason the liberals are doing it is because they have no choice, so that the sons and daughters of the warmongers and of the rich Republicans in Congress would actually have to serve, perhaps making them think twice about voting for war" is a little tired, ESPECIALLY when the initial accusations about the draft routinely revolve around Bush and his "cronies" "secretly" wanting to bring it back. Do we need to all sit down and watch the Schoolhouse Rock about how bills become law again? Additionally, if you truly oppose the draft, shouldn't you come to terms with the fact that it's liberal Democrats who are the ones closest to making it a reality? Stop trying to justify it with a bunch of ridiculous arguments.
...how much that thing looks like the US space shuttle.
While I value the thoughts and insight of some of the non-major party candidates in this forum, how about approaching the candidates that actually have a fundamentally real chance of winning the election in November?
(Not that either of them would necessarily do it, and they may even have been approached, but either way it's worth a try.)
...with 5C, HDCP, and the Broadcast Flag, the only way we'll end up being allowed to record any digital broadcast legally will be with analog equipment anyway. And maybe that won't even be legal.
(4) Cable operators shall:
(i) Effective April 1, 2004, upon request of a customer, replace any leased high definition set-top box, which does not include a functional IEEE 1394 interface, with one that includes a functional IEEE 1394 interface or upgrade the customer's set-top box by download or other means to ensure that the IEEE 1394 interface is functional.
(ii) Effective July 1, 2005, include both a DVI or HDMI interface and an IEEE 1394 interface on all high definition set-top boxes acquired by a cable operator for distribution to customers.
The actual "law" is Section 304 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, but the above FCC rule action 03-225 is the actual practical interpretation of that section.
And EACH cable can be up to 4.5m (15 ft) long. Most of your cables needn't be longer than 15 inches, much less 15 feet.
Also, IEEE-1394b supports up to 3.2Gbps up to 100m (328 ft) over fiber.
To say nothing of Wireless FireWire...