This bill gives law-enforcement powers to Big Media.
Except that this Bill does nothing of the kind. DMCA allowed them to do fun things with takedown notices. SOPA/PIPA require Court Orders for everything. And getting Court Orders is expensive...
One of the most interesting things about the interwebs getting excited about any pending legislation is how few people bother to read the actual text of the bills they're complaining about.
Thomas.gov will have the complete text of any pending legislation, plus modifications and annotations as it moves through the legislative process. Including little notes like "this is the version sent to the President for signature"...
The search function isn't too friendly with acronyms (searching for SOPA yields nothing), but if you can type out the popular name of the bill (Stop Online Piracy Act), you'll go right to it.
For that matter, if you know that the first word of the name is "Stop", you should be able to find it (that's how I did it last night - amazing the number of Bills with "Stop" as the first word in the name).
And SOPA is neither long nor complicated. You can read the entire text in two minutes.
So WHY CAN'T THE PEOPLE COMPLAINING ABOUT IT AT LEAST READ IT FIRST AND MAKE VALID COMPLAINTS? Instead of that sort of idiocy...
Having said that, I'm also an author and copyright owner and my book can be found on multiple pirate and other sites around the Internet. I would love the ability to press a button or fill out a form and have the link removed from every index.
Alas, for all the hype about SOPA/PIPA, it won't be that easy.
Any action under SOPA/PIPA requires a Court Order. Which you won't get by pressing a button and filling out a form.
Plus the Court Order has to be properly delivered to whoever it is. Not by you, mind, but getting an officer of the Court to go to East Bumfuckistan to deliver a court order and get a signed receipt for same is going to be interesting.
And, of course, the Court Order can be challenged (yes, there's a provision for that in both bills), which would pretty much hold it in abeyance until the Court considered the case.
After the wife came home last night bitching about the Bills in question, I went to the trouble of reading the actual texts of the SOPA and PIPA. They're remarkably alike, really, and neither is the bogeyman they''re being made out to be. Requirements for Court actions for pretty much everything means that they're less of a nuisance than the DMCA, when all is said and sifted.
Oh, and they have a clause about prior restraint of the First Amendment - so no, you won't have to worry that you might be linking to a site that does that nasty ol' piracy thing.
Actually, you won't have to worry about it in any case, unless your site is based outside the USA, and you're not a US resident. In either of those cases, current law allows legal relief, and SOPA/PIPA don't deal with you at all....
Because Wikipedia isn't down. Search for something and you'll find it, without even seeing any banner or mention of SOPA/PIPA. And who visits Reddit?
Umm, no.
I was surprised to see this, so I did a quick test. Googled "Walt Whitman", first option offered was wikipedia.
Clicked on the link, saw Walt Whitman entry for a second or three, then it was replaced with wikipeida's blackout page, which bitches about SOPA and offers you a lookup for your congresscritter, in case you feel the urge to contact him/her/it.
This is just part of a larger, really nasty conflict which has been going on within the King family since Coretta King's death.
Who cares? That ought to be irrelevant. Copyright should not extend as long (or longer than) 70 years in the first place.
Hmm, "I have a dream" speech, 1963. 70 years after that would be 2033. So it would still be under Copyright.
If we drop back to the version of Copyright that was in use at the time (28+28), it would be under copyright protection until 2019. So it would still be under copyright.
We'd have to drop back to the Copyright Act of 1831 to find a version (28+14) that would have removed it from copyright before today (in 2005)....
My point was up until the first time most of us heard of El Nino a decade or so ago... well, nobody had ever heard of it
Well, no.
El Nino/La Nina have long been known to affect the behaviour of hurricanes in the Gulf. So most of us who live down here have been paying attention to them for as long as I can remember...
No. Your parents wouldn't even notice if you weren't wearing a dosimeter. Nor would you.>/BLOCKQUOTE>
... and that is what scares people...
What? The fact that you'd show no symptoms of this exposure ever is scary?!?
Did you know you'll never show symptoms from taking a shower either? That ought to be even more scary, since you do it more without showing symptoms.
Fact is, 1.17 mS over three months isn't enough to cause a problem for anyone. That exposure rate (1.17mSv/90 days) for your entire life would be unlikely to cause any noticeable effect on you.
If An-Awlaki had been killed on US soil I wouldn't care, but that happened abroad.
If he'd been killed on US soil, it would have been murder (probably, depending on details - the way he was killed was definitely murder by US standards), and the people involved (quite possibly up to the President) would have been in serious trouble.
Note that even by the RoE implied by the new NDAA, killing him in Yemen (or whatever hell-hole he wa sin) was illegal. Obama's executive order allowing it was questionably at best...
to ensure such bills are not tabled in the first place.
Just out of curiousity, are you European?
Reason I ask is that "tabled" means exactly the opposite thing in American politics as it does across the pond. Here, "tabled" is what you do when you stopped consideration of a bill, not when you start.
Maybe you should read the NDAA, because you're wrong. It specifies that military detention is required for non-citizens, but not required for citizens. Not required. They can still do it, they just aren't required to.
Perhaps you should read it. It specifies that military detention is FORBIDDEN for Citizens, Resident Aliens, and ANYONE ELSe who is captured/arrested within the borders of the USA. Military detention is ALLOWED (but not required) for anyone who doesn't meet the above requirements.
The key section you missed was:
(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
Note that phrase "existing law or authorities relating to the detention of..."
And "existing law" does NOT allow military detention of US Citizens unless they're engaged in an act of war against the USA outside the USA. INSIDE the USA, they're covered by normal law enforcment, absent a declaration of martial law, which hasn't happened.
First it was not for US citizens, then it was to be changed to exclude US citizens, then
And then the version actually signed by the President specifically excluded US Citizens, US Resident Aliens, and ANYONE actually caught inside the USA.
Remember that Obama didn't issue a signing statement because the NDAA allowed indefinite detention of US Citizens, he did that because he thought he ALREADY had the power to detain someone captured outside the USA indefinitely, and didn't like Congress suggesting he needed their permisssion.
Where history is actually repeating itself lies in the fact that bought-out politicians are nothing new.
Quite so.
Last night, I found myself looking at a collection of political cartoons from the 40's and early 50's.
Same complaints. Same bickering between White House and Congress. Same bickering between Parties. Same "special interests" buying legislation. Same bitching about healthcare and schools and everything else we're bitching about now.
Yes, back when my father was a boy, we had the same problems we have now that my daughter is grown up....
Zip code's not enough. The item type itself will cause different tax rates. For example, clothes vs. housewares may have different sales tax rates. Carbonated beverages often have additional taxes that other products don't.
Where I live, this applies.
In addition, there are Sales Tax holidays - certain days of the year, certain items are tax-free, other days, they're at full (and occasionally non-zero but reduced) tax-rates.
So, does the tax rate apply as of the date of the order, the date it ships, or the date it arrives at its destination?
ust ban organizations from donating money. Only individuals can donate money to a politician. Next, ban donating to a campaign you can't vote in. If you can't vote in California's elections why are you donating money? Next, strict caps on donations. Lastly, enforce the policy with a lifetime ban on holding political office and/or long, long prison terms. Take your pick. It's clear, it's cut & dry, and it eliminates money.
So, how do you deal with CBS giving favourable press to a candidate who just happens to support laws that give them huge tax breaks? Or unfavourable press to a candidate who just happens to want to raise taxes on them?
Or NBC?
ABC?
CNN?
New York Times?
New York Post?
Washington Post?
etc, etc, etc?
And how do you keep, say, General Electric from buying a major newspaper, which just happens to start giving favourable press to politicians who favour tax breaks for GE? Or unfavourable press to politician who oppose tax breaks for GE?
There is absolutely no way, short of repealing the First Amendment and restricting ALL political news to what is approved in Washington DC of accomplishing that.
And restricting all political news to what is approved in Washington DC pretty much guarantees that all incumbents (at least in the majority Party) get favourable press, and any challenger is quietly ignored.
Private institutions may, indeed, do as they please.
Of course, if the publishers decide (after buying a law preventing the government from mandating openness) to say "we won't publish your paper if YOU mandate openness either", then, as a scientist, you're pretty much screwed.
I don't have a problem with "the author gets to decide" (though I think if my taxes are paying for it, it should be open unless there's a good reason otherwise).
I DO have a problem with "the Publisher gets to decide, which is what this is doing...
I'm serious, why is it even legal for politicians to accept any kinds of money outside of their salary?! If that one thing was done - illegal to accept any outside money - then I'd optimistically predict that politics wouldn't be the sh*t-hole it is today.
You assume there's some way to prevent this.
Or are you just assuming that featuring your favorite (or least favorite) politician in a news article doesn't count as a contribution in kind?
Getting all money out of politics (except the news) would just mean more media-types controlling what you find out about your politicians, and therefore more politicians doing more favors for media-types.
Note that people who run publishing houses probably count as media-types for these purposes....
With this bill, the feds paying out the grants (NIH, NSF, DARPA, etc.) can't mandate the openness, but the research institutions and the researchers can do it themselves.
Umm, no.
No Federal agency may adopt, implement, maintain, continue, or otherwise engage in any policy, program, or other activity that--
(1) causes, permits, or authorizes network dissemination of any private-sector research work without the prior consent of the publisher of such work;
Note that the publisher has a veto on it as well, if it's published in a peer-reviewed journal.
(3) PRIVATE-SECTOR RESEARCH WORK- The term `private-sector research work' means an article intended to be published in a scholarly or scientific publication, or any version of such an article, that is not a work of the United States Government (as defined in section 101 of title 17, United States Code), describing or interpreting research funded in whole or in part by a Federal agency and to which a commercial or nonprofit publisher has made or has entered into an arrangement to make a value-added contribution, including peer review or editing. Such term does not include progress reports or raw data outputs routinely required to be created for and submitted directly to a funding agency in the course of research.
With this definition, they've basically declared all work not done by Federal Employees "Private sector", even if paid for entirely by the Federal Government, so long as the work is published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Yep, surely is. But then, I like Kipling too, another English author whose prose wasn't necessarily the most polished in the world....
In fact, his work influenced both Serbian nationalism to a great extent (and unfortunately, even played a role in the Bosnian conflict and in heightening anti-muslim sentiments in the region).
I don't actually think the purpose of great literature is to influence nationalism, Serbian or otherwise. Nor do I consider heightening anti-muslim sentiments in Yugoslvia something to be proud of.
I'd strongly recommend that you read his The Bridge on the Drina. Amazing masterpiece.
If I could read it in the original language, I'd be tempted. Alas, I can't. And my experience is that the quality of prose suffers every time it's translated....
Slashdot Mirror
Except that this Bill does nothing of the kind. DMCA allowed them to do fun things with takedown notices. SOPA/PIPA require Court Orders for everything. And getting Court Orders is expensive...
This doesn't really surprise me.
One of the most interesting things about the interwebs getting excited about any pending legislation is how few people bother to read the actual text of the bills they're complaining about.
Thomas.gov will have the complete text of any pending legislation, plus modifications and annotations as it moves through the legislative process. Including little notes like "this is the version sent to the President for signature"...
The search function isn't too friendly with acronyms (searching for SOPA yields nothing), but if you can type out the popular name of the bill (Stop Online Piracy Act), you'll go right to it.
For that matter, if you know that the first word of the name is "Stop", you should be able to find it (that's how I did it last night - amazing the number of Bills with "Stop" as the first word in the name).
And SOPA is neither long nor complicated. You can read the entire text in two minutes.
So WHY CAN'T THE PEOPLE COMPLAINING ABOUT IT AT LEAST READ IT FIRST AND MAKE VALID COMPLAINTS? Instead of that sort of idiocy...
Interesting that you should say that, since SOPA/PIPA require Court Orders to do anything.
Alas, for all the hype about SOPA/PIPA, it won't be that easy.
Any action under SOPA/PIPA requires a Court Order. Which you won't get by pressing a button and filling out a form.
Plus the Court Order has to be properly delivered to whoever it is. Not by you, mind, but getting an officer of the Court to go to East Bumfuckistan to deliver a court order and get a signed receipt for same is going to be interesting.
And, of course, the Court Order can be challenged (yes, there's a provision for that in both bills), which would pretty much hold it in abeyance until the Court considered the case.
After the wife came home last night bitching about the Bills in question, I went to the trouble of reading the actual texts of the SOPA and PIPA. They're remarkably alike, really, and neither is the bogeyman they''re being made out to be. Requirements for Court actions for pretty much everything means that they're less of a nuisance than the DMCA, when all is said and sifted.
Oh, and they have a clause about prior restraint of the First Amendment - so no, you won't have to worry that you might be linking to a site that does that nasty ol' piracy thing.
Actually, you won't have to worry about it in any case, unless your site is based outside the USA, and you're not a US resident. In either of those cases, current law allows legal relief, and SOPA/PIPA don't deal with you at all....
Umm, no.
I was surprised to see this, so I did a quick test. Googled "Walt Whitman", first option offered was wikipedia.
Clicked on the link, saw Walt Whitman entry for a second or three, then it was replaced with wikipeida's blackout page, which bitches about SOPA and offers you a lookup for your congresscritter, in case you feel the urge to contact him/her/it.
Hmm, "I have a dream" speech, 1963. 70 years after that would be 2033. So it would still be under Copyright.
If we drop back to the version of Copyright that was in use at the time (28+28), it would be under copyright protection until 2019. So it would still be under copyright.
We'd have to drop back to the Copyright Act of 1831 to find a version (28+14) that would have removed it from copyright before today (in 2005)....
Well, no.
El Nino/La Nina have long been known to affect the behaviour of hurricanes in the Gulf. So most of us who live down here have been paying attention to them for as long as I can remember...
Not the foggiest idea, really. I've just always found it interesting that we use the word to mean exactly the opposite of everyone else....
If he'd been killed on US soil, it would have been murder (probably, depending on details - the way he was killed was definitely murder by US standards), and the people involved (quite possibly up to the President) would have been in serious trouble.
Note that even by the RoE implied by the new NDAA, killing him in Yemen (or whatever hell-hole he wa sin) was illegal. Obama's executive order allowing it was questionably at best...
No. Your parents wouldn't even notice if you weren't wearing a dosimeter. Nor would you.
The biologicals in dirt are far more of a hazard than 1.17 mSv per three months.
You're more likely to get tetanus than experience any noticeable effects from the radiation dose mentioned.
Bah! Should have occurred to me that India would use the same terminology as the Brits, and included that as a possibility.
Just out of curiousity, are you European?
Reason I ask is that "tabled" means exactly the opposite thing in American politics as it does across the pond. Here, "tabled" is what you do when you stopped consideration of a bill, not when you start.
Perhaps you should read it. It specifies that military detention is FORBIDDEN for Citizens, Resident Aliens, and ANYONE ELSe who is captured/arrested within the borders of the USA. Military detention is ALLOWED (but not required) for anyone who doesn't meet the above requirements.
The key section you missed was:
Note that phrase "existing law or authorities relating to the detention of..."
And "existing law" does NOT allow military detention of US Citizens unless they're engaged in an act of war against the USA outside the USA. INSIDE the USA, they're covered by normal law enforcment, absent a declaration of martial law, which hasn't happened.
Isn't this basically what Heinlein used in Methuselah' Children back before I was born?
Be funny as hell if we ended up with a Public Health Service providing new blood to everyone when they needed it, as a life-prolonging treatment....
Re: NDAA
And then the version actually signed by the President specifically excluded US Citizens, US Resident Aliens, and ANYONE actually caught inside the USA.
Remember that Obama didn't issue a signing statement because the NDAA allowed indefinite detention of US Citizens, he did that because he thought he ALREADY had the power to detain someone captured outside the USA indefinitely, and didn't like Congress suggesting he needed their permisssion.
Quite so.
Last night, I found myself looking at a collection of political cartoons from the 40's and early 50's.
Same complaints. Same bickering between White House and Congress. Same bickering between Parties. Same "special interests" buying legislation. Same bitching about healthcare and schools and everything else we're bitching about now.
Yes, back when my father was a boy, we had the same problems we have now that my daughter is grown up....
Or not, since we only use Russian rockets for our manned launches, which this wasn't.
Where I live, this applies.
In addition, there are Sales Tax holidays - certain days of the year, certain items are tax-free, other days, they're at full (and occasionally non-zero but reduced) tax-rates.
So, does the tax rate apply as of the date of the order, the date it ships, or the date it arrives at its destination?
Or some other day?
So, how do you deal with CBS giving favourable press to a candidate who just happens to support laws that give them huge tax breaks? Or unfavourable press to a candidate who just happens to want to raise taxes on them?
Or NBC?
ABC?
CNN?
New York Times?
New York Post?
Washington Post?
etc, etc, etc?
And how do you keep, say, General Electric from buying a major newspaper, which just happens to start giving favourable press to politicians who favour tax breaks for GE? Or unfavourable press to politician who oppose tax breaks for GE?
There is absolutely no way, short of repealing the First Amendment and restricting ALL political news to what is approved in Washington DC of accomplishing that.
And restricting all political news to what is approved in Washington DC pretty much guarantees that all incumbents (at least in the majority Party) get favourable press, and any challenger is quietly ignored.
Would that be a better system?
Private institutions may, indeed, do as they please.
Of course, if the publishers decide (after buying a law preventing the government from mandating openness) to say "we won't publish your paper if YOU mandate openness either", then, as a scientist, you're pretty much screwed.
I don't have a problem with "the author gets to decide" (though I think if my taxes are paying for it, it should be open unless there's a good reason otherwise).
I DO have a problem with "the Publisher gets to decide, which is what this is doing...
You assume there's some way to prevent this.
Or are you just assuming that featuring your favorite (or least favorite) politician in a news article doesn't count as a contribution in kind?
Getting all money out of politics (except the news) would just mean more media-types controlling what you find out about your politicians, and therefore more politicians doing more favors for media-types.
Note that people who run publishing houses probably count as media-types for these purposes....
Umm, no.
Note that the publisher has a veto on it as well, if it's published in a peer-reviewed journal.
With this definition, they've basically declared all work not done by Federal Employees "Private sector", even if paid for entirely by the Federal Government, so long as the work is published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Yep, surely is. But then, I like Kipling too, another English author whose prose wasn't necessarily the most polished in the world....
I don't actually think the purpose of great literature is to influence nationalism, Serbian or otherwise. Nor do I consider heightening anti-muslim sentiments in Yugoslvia something to be proud of.
If I could read it in the original language, I'd be tempted. Alas, I can't. And my experience is that the quality of prose suffers every time it's translated....