When history is written about the Bush era, the Bush government and the businesses that put the government there will be described as an imperialist warmonger wanting to take over the world through intellectual property and petroleum (Iraq).

Let the Russians and every other sovereign contry run their own country. Go there only if invited and then act only as a guest.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

It is interesting for the following reasons:

(1) Show how the world in general, and the USA in particular is degenerating SERIOUSLY. Just like the Japanese girl who poisoned her mother into a comma, it shows the state of society.

(2) Since this article talks about our “dear comrades” the Russians — Comparing current “american” events is logical.

(3) The EPA and MPAA/RIAA are both controlled by the same “body”…

Organic Consumers | November 17, 2005

Send a letter to EPA here!

Forward this alert to friends and colleagues

Public Comment Period Closes
December 12, 2005
RELATED:

The Ringworm Children: How the Israeli Government Irradiated 100,000 Israeli Kids

Feds Tested AIDS Drugs on Foster Kids

Feds: Some AIDS Drug Tests Violated Rules

Public comments are now being accepted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on its newly proposed federal regulation regarding the testing of chemicals and pesticides on human subjects. On August 2, 2005, Congress had mandated the EPA create a rule that permanently bans chemical testing on pregnant women and children. But the EPA’s newly proposed rule, misleadingly titled “Protections for Subjects in Human Research,” puts industry profits ahead of children’s welfare. The rule allows for government and industry scientists to treat children as human guinea pigs in chemical experiments in the following situations:

1. Children who “cannot be reasonably consulted,” such as those that are mentally handicapped or orphaned newborns may be tested on. With permission from the institution or guardian in charge of the individual, the child may be exposed to chemicals for the sake of research.
2. Parental consent forms are not necessary for testing on children who have been neglected or abused.
3. Chemical studies on any children outside of the U.S. are acceptable.

Send a letter to EPA here!

OCA’s focal concerns with this proposed rule specifically involve the following portions of text within the EPA document (Read the full EPA proposed rule here: PDF — HTML):

70 FR 53865 26.408(a) “The IRB (Independent Review Board) shall determine that adequate provisions are made for soliciting the assent of the children, when in the judgment of the IRB the children are capable of providing assent…If the IRB determines that the capability of some or all of the children is so limited that they cannot reasonably be consulted, the assent of the children is not a necessary condition for proceeding with the research. Even where the IRB determines that the subjects are capable of assenting, the IRB may still waive the assent requirement…”

(OCA NOTE: Under this clause, a mentally handicapped child or infant orphan could be tested on without assent. This violates the Nuremberg Code, an international treaty that mandates assent of test subjects is “absolutely essential,” and that the test subject must have “legal capacity to give consent” and must be “so situated as to exercise free power of choice.” This loophole in the rule must be completely removed.)

70 FR 53865 26.408(c) “If the IRB determines that a research protocol is designed for conditions or for a subject population for which parental or guardian permission is not a reasonable requirement to protect the subjects (for example, neglected or abused children), it may waive the consent requirements…”

(OCA NOTE: Under the general rule, the EPA is saying it’s okay to test chemicals on children if their parents or institutional guardians consent to it. This clause says that neglected or abused children have unfit guardians, so no consent would be required to test on those children. This loophole in the rule must be completely removed.)

70 FR 53864 26.401 (a)(2) “To What Do These Regulations Apply? It also includes research conducted or supported by EPA outside the United States, but in appropriate circumstances, the Administrator may, under § 26.101(e), waive the applicability of some or all of the requirements of these regulations for research…”

(OCA NOTE: This clause is stating that the Administrator of the EPA has the power to completely waive regulations on human testing, if the testing is done outside of the U.S. This will allow chemical companies to do human testing in other countries where these types of laws are less strict. This loophole in the rule must be completely removed.)

70 FR 53857 “EPA proposes an extraordinary procedure applicable if scientifically sound but ethically deficient human research is found to be crucial to EPA’s fulfilling its mission to protect public health. This procedure would also apply if a scientifically sound study covered by proposed § 26.221 or § 26.421–i.e., an intentional dosing study involving pregnant women or children as subjects…”

(OCA NOTE: This clause allows the EPA to accept or conduct “ethically deficient” studies of chemical tests on humans if the agency deems it necessary to fulfull its mission. Unfortunately, the EPA report sets up no criteria for making such an exception with any particular study. This ambiguity leaves a gaping loophole in the rule. Without specific and detailed criteria, it could be argued that any and every study of chemical testing on humans is “necessary.” This loophole in the rule must be removed, based on this inadequacy of criteria and definition.)

Send an email to EPA here!

Forward this alert to friends and colleagues

By mail: Send two copies of your comments to:
Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB)
Office of Pesticide Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mail Code: 7502C
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC, 20460-0001
Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2003-0132

The OCA also needs your financial support to continue working on these important issues. Please donate today!

Whever you type in a website address such as http://www.google.com, your computer contacts what is called a nameserver. The name server sends back an IP address much like directory assistance would send back a telephone number if you called them and asked for the telephone number for say, “John Engel in Podunk, Texas.”

When someone connects to a FreeWan Cell, a wireless router will direct the connecting computer to use the FreeWan owner’s computer as the computer to look up web addresses. The FreeWan Cell’s owner configures his or her computer so that no matter what address is type in, it will resolve to the owners computer. The FreeWan Cell’s owner’s computer shows a homepage that explains to the user of the connecting computer that he or she is connected to a FreeWan Cell rather than the Internet.

The person connecting can upload and download files to the FreeWan Cell. The speed of the FreeWan cell is determined by the equipment that the cell owner uses. The speed on my FreeWan will allow a 650 MB file to be downloaded within less than 6 minutes. On a cartel sanctioned connection, bandwidth limits or rate caps determine how many of these size files are downloaded and at what speeds these types of file are downloaded.

As far as the rules go, use your brain. Grokster was sued successfully for even mentioning that cartel produced movies and songs can be downloaded with their software. Basically, owners set the rules on what files can be downloaded and how fast they can be transfered.
I do not condone trading cartel-copyrighted works, but I point out that many small networks are used for exactly that. If you know how to better explain the concept to Joe Sixpack better, please post this explaination so that the author may use it.

I suppose that this whole project will have to be set up by computer tekkies before those of us who constantly struggle to learn a little more every day can be of any help.

Most important, however, is: I didn’t read anything that demonstrated to me how it would be different from the Web. While claiming to be against restrictive rules and regulations, the author set out broad, generalized rules which, as far as I can tell, make the freewan just as restrictive as the W.W.W. Nor did I see anything that would exempt freewans from existing laws pertaining to the Web.

It is no wonder to me, then, that the concept has not taken off. More is needed to excite interest and to explain the many ins-and-outs.