For example, here's Clinton's deputy Attorney General (Jamie Gorelick) testifying before the House Permanent Select Commitee on Intelligence in 1994:
Come on, where did you copy this point from? Gorelick testified as much because she believed that 1) there was no law restricting federal physical searches (as opposed to electronic surveillance) and 2) she believed that such a law should be passed.
Here, shall I amend your quote with the sentence that followed it?
At the outset, let me emphasize two very important points. First, the Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the President has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General.
Second, the Administration and the Attorney General support, in principle, legislation establishing judicial warrant procedures under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for physical searches undertaken for intelligence purposes.
Such a bill did eventually pass the following year and the federal government is now required to seek a warrant for physical searches.
She added that the same authority pertains to electronic surveilance such as wiretaps.
I'm not sure what you're talking about if you read the actual testimony. She specifically said that the law which failed to address physical searches did in fact cover electronic searches.
...the Department of Justice believes that Congress can legislate in the area of physical searches as it has done with respect to electronic surveillances, and we are prepared to support appropriate legislation.
DHS GUY 1: It's a proud day for the Department of Homeland Security! Our space probe was very nearly a success! We came very, very close to reaching space, and I'd like to thank all of you for doing a spectacular job!
Facts about the Department of Homeland Security:
* Protecting you from terrorism * Created to coordinate every defensive agency to work together in an emergency * Several employees can tie own shoes * The major domestic policy response to 9/11
Watching this disaster unfold, I'm struck by the generosity of individual people who want to help and the complete ineptitude of the agencies that are supposed to be managing this crisis. I feel sort of frustrated because I would like to help but I live very far away and basically the only thing I can do is give to the Red Cross and just watch it all on TV.
We should all work together and develop open source collaboration software for disaster relief efforts.
Capabilties: * Supercharged task list. I need supply $X at location $Y using vehicle $Z. People should be able to do the reverse, say I have supply $X at location $B but need vehicle $C. Must be able to work with very large numbers of people using it. * Reporting connected to mapping. People should report on the ground what conditions are and report what is needed where * VOIP phone bank. People around the world can volunteer as telephone operators for a central hotline. Obviously it's going to be harder to get web access in some situations so these people can take phone reports help them use the site through that, or just help them with whatever else they need * Interlingual support. Language barriers are often a problem in disasters, especially those with international teams working together. This needs to be coordinated. * Lost and found. People can post stats and descriptions and photos into a database that can be searched easily. People should also be able to do the reverse and register "I'm OK". * Publicity effort: if this thing works then we need to publicize it so that people know to use it * Scalability: this needs to scale to meet high variable demand. People should be able to donate servers and bandwidth. Should be load-tested to meet what seems like unrealistic loads.
I'm really struck by the way that individuals out there are helping one another. I saw one guy saying he was in Nevada, but he was willing to drive to Houston to come pick up someone who needed a place to stay... If we could come up with an application that helps individual people out there help with each other, we could have our own relief movement without needing the government. The big problem with the government agencies seems to be that they can't co-ordinate with one another (even though that was supposed to be the whole point of the Department of Homeland Security). There's really no limit to the people out there who would help if they only knew how, if there was a centralized "task list" maybe we could get the right help where it was needed faster.
Strictly speaking, it's doesn't free the internet from regulation. What it does is free registered campaigns from regulation of spending on the internet. Your rights as a slashdotter or blogger aren't really affected by this.
You can find an exact copy of bill S.678 here in PDF and here
It says simply
Paragraph (22) of section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(22)) is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: `Such term shall not include communications over the Internet.'.
Now, let's google a little further for the bill that this bill amends. Strangely it's missing from any of the summaries I've seen. Ah, here it is (warning: large PDF).
Here's the text of the section being amended (431:22):
(22)
Public communication. The term 'public communication' means a communication by means of any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mass mailing, or telephone bank to the general public, or any other form of general public political advertising.
The last bit of emphasis I added. Just as an exercise, let's see how this would look as amended:
(22)
Public communication. The term 'public communication' means a communication by means of any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mass mailing, or telephone bank to the general public, or any other form of general public political advertising. Such term shall not include communications over the Internet.
So, this bill would exempt all campaign regulation relevant to advertising spending so long as it was on the internet.
If it's happened only once in the four billion years that Earth has sustained life, chances of it happening in your lifetime are difficult to distinguish from zero, and also difficult to distinguish from the odds of it hitting any of the next forty generations of your progeny.
There are much more likely threats that humanity faces such as climate change-related problems, nuclear war, running out of fossil fuels, not to mention AIDS has a good chance of wiping out 10% of the human population within our lifetimes. What do you put the odds on at least one of those things happening within your life span?
You can and should patent a mathematical expression when your competitors can patent it as well and put you out of a job.
It's not Google's or even Amazon's or Microsoft's fault, per se. It's the ridiculous parody of a patent system we have. If they allow companies to patent knives, spoons and forks then companies pretty much have to patent them to survive.
"Intellectual property" amounts to an artificial government-granted monopoly, anyway. Companies like Microsoft would not be able to exist at all without it.
Anti-trust suits are really the government suing another part of itself.
If you really think you have a better idea, figure out the details, write up an outline and propose it to Make yourself. Make is written almost entirely by freelancers IIRC.
Plagiarism (not citing your sources) is considered bad practice but it is not illegal. Piracy (copying copyrighted works without permission) is illegal.
The question here is whether this counts as mere plagiarism (because the court documents are ultimately public domain) or whether it counts as piracy (if Groklaw's display of these public domain works counts as copyrightable). I don't really have a good answer to that question, but the two are definitely not the same thing.
Don't blame the engineers and the scientists. The universe was always out there for us to discover. Blame the politicians and the propagandists who are able to quite successfully able to persuade millions to forget the consequences of their actions.
AFP doesn't make money of its web site... they make money from selling news pictures (to other web sites).
A lot of people seem to think that google was taking pictures from the AFP web site, and AFP sued them for it. That's not what happened. AFP sells a picture to, say, the New York Times. The Times puts this picture on the NYT site with the caption, "Photo by whoever, copyright 2005 Agency France Presse." Google then then takes this picture from the NYT site and puts it on the Google News front page. It has nothing to do with Google indexing the AFP site.
Daniel Ellsberg, the economist who helped work on and ultimately released the Pentagon Papers, expected to spend the rest of his in jail for doing so. He was arrested and tried for 12 felonies including espionage carrying a total possible sentence of up to 115 years. These charges were later thrown out by the judge because of "gross governmental misconduct" after it was revealed that Nixon had ordered the CIA to assasinate him.
Thats why campaign contributions should only be able to be made by those legally able to vote. That would eliminate corporate donations, and if some CEO wanted to put up their own money, it would be more visible.
This already the case. When they say "Microsoft gave the republicans $XX million dollars" what they really mean is "Microsoft executives in sum gave the republicans $XX million dollars." It has been illegal for some time for a corporation to donate (directly financially) to a campaign. Only individuals ($2000 limit), the candidate themselves (no limit) or PACs ($5000 limit) can donate to a political campaign.
More specific info can be found at open secrets, as always.
Slashdot Mirror
Tom DeLay has been unanimously admonished by the House ethics committee run by his own party 3 times now? 4 times?
If you're looking for an innocent victim of scandal here, Tom DeLay is probably not one.
Come on, where did you copy this point from? Gorelick testified as much because she believed that 1) there was no law restricting federal physical searches (as opposed to electronic surveillance) and 2) she believed that such a law should be passed.
Here, shall I amend your quote with the sentence that followed it?
Such a bill did eventually pass the following year and the federal government is now required to seek a warrant for physical searches.
She added that the same authority pertains to electronic surveilance such as wiretaps.
I'm not sure what you're talking about if you read the actual testimony. She specifically said that the law which failed to address physical searches did in fact cover electronic searches.
It's not like the Homeland Security Department.
...eighteen billion deficit-spent taxpayer dollars later...
IF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY LAUNCHED A SPACE PROBE...
DHS GUY 1: It's a proud day for the Department of Homeland Security! We're going to launch a probe into outer space!
DHS GUY 2: Isn't that in Texas?
DHS GUY 1: I think it's in Nevada.
DHS GUY 2: Well there isn't time to check.
DHS GUY 1: Since it's in Nevada we'll need lots of boats to get it there.
DHS GUY 2: Did you say parade floats? Because I just wrote out a contract to Microsoft for 10000 parade floats.
DHS GUY 1: Good, we'll need that in case the bantam rooster-pulled sleigh ride goes too quickly.
DHS GUY 2: What do parade floats eat?
DHS GUY 1: Anemometers and horseshoes, why?
DHS GUY 1: It's a proud day for the Department of Homeland Security! Our space probe was very nearly a success! We came very, very close to reaching space, and I'd like to thank all of you for doing a spectacular job!
Facts about the Department of Homeland Security:
* Protecting you from terrorism
* Created to coordinate every defensive agency to work together in an emergency
* Several employees can tie own shoes
* The major domestic policy response to 9/11
Watching this disaster unfold, I'm struck by the generosity of individual people who want to help and the complete ineptitude of the agencies that are supposed to be managing this crisis. I feel sort of frustrated because I would like to help but I live very far away and basically the only thing I can do is give to the Red Cross and just watch it all on TV.
We should all work together and develop open source collaboration software for disaster relief efforts.
Capabilties:
* Supercharged task list. I need supply $X at location $Y using vehicle $Z. People should be able to do the reverse, say I have supply $X at location $B but need vehicle $C. Must be able to work with very large numbers of people using it.
* Reporting connected to mapping. People should report on the ground what conditions are and report what is needed where
* VOIP phone bank. People around the world can volunteer as telephone operators for a central hotline. Obviously it's going to be harder to get web access in some situations so these people can take phone reports help them use the site through that, or just help them with whatever else they need
* Interlingual support. Language barriers are often a problem in disasters, especially those with international teams working together. This needs to be coordinated.
* Lost and found. People can post stats and descriptions and photos into a database that can be searched easily. People should also be able to do the reverse and register "I'm OK".
* Publicity effort: if this thing works then we need to publicize it so that people know to use it
* Scalability: this needs to scale to meet high variable demand. People should be able to donate servers and bandwidth. Should be load-tested to meet what seems like unrealistic loads.
I'm really struck by the way that individuals out there are helping one another. I saw one guy saying he was in Nevada, but he was willing to drive to Houston to come pick up someone who needed a place to stay... If we could come up with an application that helps individual people out there help with each other, we could have our own relief movement without needing the government. The big problem with the government agencies seems to be that they can't co-ordinate with one another (even though that was supposed to be the whole point of the Department of Homeland Security). There's really no limit to the people out there who would help if they only knew how, if there was a centralized "task list" maybe we could get the right help where it was needed faster.
Let's do it.
Strictly speaking, it's doesn't free the internet from regulation. What it does is free registered campaigns from regulation of spending on the internet. Your rights as a slashdotter or blogger aren't really affected by this.
It says simply
Now, let's google a little further for the bill that this bill amends. Strangely it's missing from any of the summaries I've seen. Ah, here it is (warning: large PDF).
Here's the text of the section being amended (431:22):
The last bit of emphasis I added. Just as an exercise, let's see how this would look as amended:
So, this bill would exempt all campaign regulation relevant to advertising spending so long as it was on the internet.
Which of the internets did this Democrat invent? He definitely can't take credit for creating all of the internets.
If it's happened only once in the four billion years that Earth has sustained life, chances of it happening in your lifetime are difficult to distinguish from zero, and also difficult to distinguish from the odds of it hitting any of the next forty generations of your progeny.
There are much more likely threats that humanity faces such as climate change-related problems, nuclear war, running out of fossil fuels, not to mention AIDS has a good chance of wiping out 10% of the human population within our lifetimes. What do you put the odds on at least one of those things happening within your life span?
I've said it before, I'll say it again -- modern corporations are just too damn small!
You can and should patent a mathematical expression when your competitors can patent it as well and put you out of a job.
It's not Google's or even Amazon's or Microsoft's fault, per se. It's the ridiculous parody of a patent system we have. If they allow companies to patent knives, spoons and forks then companies pretty much have to patent them to survive.
This is the real news here -- that the patent office rejected a patent application.
My question is this: if they accepted swinging on a swing as worthy of a US patent, why did the USPTO decide to deny Smuckers this one?
That wasn't a subtle grammatical error on my part, it was a pretty glaring one.
(Come to think of it, that would make a pretty good slashdot tagline)
"Intellectual property" amounts to an artificial government-granted monopoly, anyway. Companies like Microsoft would not be able to exist at all without it.
Anti-trust suits are really the government suing another part of itself.
Can you spot the subtle misspelling in this statement?
"Not if you want support from Red Hat, it's not."
Answer:
There is a iterative fragment missing from this statement. I've bolded it below.
"Not if you want support from Red Hat until the whim strikes them to EOL your product, it's not."
If you really think you have a better idea, figure out the details, write up an outline and propose it to Make yourself. Make is written almost entirely by freelancers IIRC.
Plagiarism != Piracy
Plagiarism (not citing your sources) is considered bad practice but it is not illegal. Piracy (copying copyrighted works without permission) is illegal.
The question here is whether this counts as mere plagiarism (because the court documents are ultimately public domain) or whether it counts as piracy (if Groklaw's display of these public domain works counts as copyrightable). I don't really have a good answer to that question, but the two are definitely not the same thing.
Don't blame the engineers and the scientists. The universe was always out there for us to discover. Blame the politicians and the propagandists who are able to quite successfully able to persuade millions to forget the consequences of their actions.
AFP doesn't make money of its web site... they make money from selling news pictures (to other web sites).
A lot of people seem to think that google was taking pictures from the AFP web site, and AFP sued them for it. That's not what happened. AFP sells a picture to, say, the New York Times. The Times puts this picture on the NYT site with the caption, "Photo by whoever, copyright 2005 Agency France Presse." Google then then takes this picture from the NYT site and puts it on the Google News front page. It has nothing to do with Google indexing the AFP site.
Here you go:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/German
This illustrates the logical fallacy of exclusive premises. No conclusion can be drawn from two negative premises.
You forgot that the Xbox 2 is supposedly going to be PPC-based. That should spur some interest in PPC Linux!
Look at Panic Struck's Mastercard bill:
* CGI animation: $16,000
* Hair & Makeup: $2500
* Costumes: $5000
* Good actors: PRICELESS
So, getting a refund on those actors then, huh?
(Incidentally, this is very similar to George Lucas' Mastercard bill.)
Daniel Ellsberg, the economist who helped work on and ultimately released the Pentagon Papers, expected to spend the rest of his in jail for doing so. He was arrested and tried for 12 felonies including espionage carrying a total possible sentence of up to 115 years. These charges were later thrown out by the judge because of "gross governmental misconduct" after it was revealed that Nixon had ordered the CIA to assasinate him.
Sources:
Ellsberg's self-bio
Wikipedia page
Thats why campaign contributions should only be able to be made by those legally able to vote. That would eliminate corporate donations, and if some CEO wanted to put up their own money, it would be more visible.
This already the case. When they say "Microsoft gave the republicans $XX million dollars" what they really mean is "Microsoft executives in sum gave the republicans $XX million dollars." It has been illegal for some time for a corporation to donate (directly financially) to a campaign. Only individuals ($2000 limit), the candidate themselves (no limit) or PACs ($5000 limit) can donate to a political campaign.
More specific info can be found at open secrets, as always.
Here are some more comprehensive numbers, courtesy yahoo finance
Market Capitalization by Industry:
Broadcasting & Cable TV: $503B
Motion Pictures: $24B
Oil & Gas Integrated: $1.6T
Oil & Gas Operations: $437B
Oil Well Services & Equipment: $253B
Natural Gas Utilities: $155B
Electric Utilities: $659B