Slashdot Mirror

You are full of shit. What the fuck has gotten into Slashdot? The numbers show the Israelis to be the aggressors. You'd think that, having lived through a genocide, they wouldn't attempt to do the same to another people.

2008 cease-fire. Look at the number of rocket and mortar *launches*. The cease-fire was honored by the Palestinians. Israel went over the border and killed 6 Hamas members, violating the cease-fire.

On 4 November 2008, the IDF made an incursion at least 250 meters into the Gaza Strip searching for a tunnel, claiming it was intended for the capture of Israeli soldiers and that it intended to continue with the truce, calling the raid a "pinpoint operation".[33] Hamas and, according to an allegation by Dr. Robert Pastor, one IDF source maintained that it was for defensive purposes.[34] As six Hamas fighters were killed,[4][35] Hamas stated that the attack was a "massive breach of the truce".[36]

This year, the Israeli president announces that they can never relinquish control of the West Bank. Meaning they will not accept a sovereign Palestinian state.

"I think the Israeli people understand now what I always say: that there cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan."

Just a week ago, the UN called out Israel for using Palestinian children as a human shield, torturing them, putting them in solitary confinement, and threatening sexual abuse. Their foreign minister said, "Israel must go all the way."

What the fuck are you people smoking? This is a genocide in motion. The US government wholeheartedly, 100%, with NO dissent supports it, when only 87% of the Israelis themselves support it. The House of Reps even called the attacks "unprovoked". I mean, seriously, WHAT THE FUCK?

For the record, I don't support either side shooting at each other, but it's not hard to see that this is some seriously fucked up shit on Israel's part. No person or group should engage in genocide and war crimes. Right now, Israel is doing 99% of the committing war crimes. That may have been different in the past, and it may change in the future, but it is NO EXCUSE.

on the House of Reppresentatives website.

Thanks for that. It would be doubly helpful if we knew which congressmen were supporting this, I'm sure that it's more than just R's that are getting big campaign contributions. The article only says "some House members." I'd like to know if mine is supporting it. A quick Google search finds another article that says it's being introduced by Marsha Blackburn (R-TN). There's another one, HR 4752 being introduced by Bob Latta (R-OH) that would prevent the FCC from regulating ISPs under Title II (common carrier).

OTOH, there is a group of senators who are pushing the FCC to reclassify ISPs so they can be regulated: Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Ed Markey (D-MA), Al Franken (D-MN) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and Ron Wyden (D-OR). Once again Wyden falls on the side of sanity.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

on the House of Reppresentatives website.

Lloyd Doggett is a stand up gent and the only elected official that I am proud to say represents me. He sponsored the bill to close the NSA "backdoor", and he's typically on the right side of these issues. I'm not surprised he voted against this faux reform bill.

In case you didn't get the memo, Ron Paul and Rand Paul sold out to big business years ago.

A month before the Snowden leaks began, Rand Paul proposed legislation to reform the Third Party Doctrine: http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th/senate-bill/1037/text

The 3PD is the principal that if you share information with a third party, even if that third party promises you confidentiality, and even if that confidentiality is never actually compromised, the 4th Amendment doesn't apply and the Feds can simply demand the information willy nilly. The 3PD totally guts the 4th Amendment -- it is the basis upon which politicians can say that the NSA's masspionage is "legal". Without the 3PD, everything the NSA is doing, at least with respect to people in America, is so unconstitutional a third grader could litigate and win the case against it.

Fortunately, even Justice Sotomayer is questioning the wisdom of this rule in the modern world where everything a person does requires sharing information with third parties -- you cannot navigate the modern economy without such sharing. See the paragraph beginning on PDF page 19 for her thinking on this issue: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf

Whatever Rand Paul's faults are, he was aware of the eviscerating effect of the Third Party Doctrine and took action to protect the 4th Amendment PRIOR to the leaks. This is not the type of legislation that $megacorp loves and supports. It's a pure civil rights issue. However, I don't think his reforms don't go far enough because the only effect it would have is to exclude illegally obtained information at trial. Considering how the Feds engage in intelligence laundering, it is clear that a mere exclusion is insufficient -- there must be personal and agency penalties for a violation. To be fair to Paul, he didn't have this information when he wrote the legislation, but without personal consequences, it won't be that meaningful.

A decent example of such penalties is contained in the WA State statute regarding hidden mic recordings of conversations: See paragraphs 10 & 11: Violating the process for authorizing and recording a conversation surreptitiously, subjects the officers involved to personal prosecution for a class C felony and the agency to substantial fines ($25,000 per occurrence). The Feds need to have a little fear put into their hearts -- they need to ask themselves "If I can't do the time or pay the fine, do I really want to commit this crime?" And make no bones about it, the Federal government, due to its rampant lawlessness (e.g. collateral construction/intelligence laundering), is a criminal organization and needs to be treated as such.

Finally, back to the original point, Rand Paul might be a dick, but if you will step out of your partisan political mindset and consider the possibility that he just might have a good idea, we can get America back. Same goes for the tribal GOP -- both of you, Demoplicans and Republocrats alike, quit being so fricken tribal. The two parties are basically fungible anyway -- latch onto the very few good ideas and push them no matter who makes the proposal.

The good news is that the bipartisan Yoder-Graves-Polis bill now has 157 House sponsors and is gaining steam steadily.

The bad news is that it's going to take a strong external show of support for ECPA reform to really move, largely because the Securities and Exchange Commission has been fighting to preserve their ability to get emails without a warrant. It's an arcane issue but one with broad implications for privacy, since other agencies, from the IRS to the ATF, could use the same loophole.

Now, if you're really worried about the NSA, the risk here is that, if ECPA reform stalls, it will signal to the NSA's defenders on the Hill that the privacy movement is weak, and if they wait long enough, the whole "Snowden thing" will blow over. At most, we might get a few measly reforms around NSA transparency.

Point being: getting ECPA reform moving is in no way a substitute for fixing the NSA. If anything, it's a prerequisite.

I think the world is starting to wise up. The idea that the market is anything but a casino has taken root. It is demonstrable that the current highs in the market have little to no effect on the rest of the economy as [real] unemployment continues to grow, as businesses continue to decline, as welfare programs grow and on and on. Is the word recession or depression? I can never quite tell the difference and it doesn't help that the media and the players making money in all of this are in complete public denial over all of this.

The pedestrian banks are going to begin charging customers for keeping their money in accounts as interest rates are lowered to the point that lending profits are too low for operations to continue.

All of this and they have the gall to report on the market's activities as if it represented the economic health of the nation or the world? This reality is too big to hide any longer. This is especially true as the house votes to restore the conditions which trashed the world economy back when things really went bad before. It has passed the house but not yet the senate. I can't imagine what these people are thinking except that they don't care about the larger economy in the slightest and that's pretty much the 99% of us.

Second, if you are referring to the 'newsletters', well, we know who wrote them, and it wasn't Paul.

You mean all those people who were employed by Ron Paul to write things in his name and run his newsletter, people who were so close to Paul that it's completely implausible he never knew what they were doing? Some of them were close relatives, including his own wife! Another (one of those thought to have directly authored some of the virulent racism) still works for Paul, in a prominent position in Paul's current campaign.

Time to drop the Paulbomb, because you can't deny all the terrible things Paul has repeatedly supported in his time as a politician:

Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception, build a fence along the US-Mexico border, prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases on the Establishment Clause or the right to privacy, permitting the return of sodomy laws and the like (a bill which he has repeatedly re-introduced), pull out of the UN, disband NATO, end birthright citizenship, deny federal funding to any organisation which "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style" along with destroying public education and social security,, and abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard. He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan.

Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas, he's against gay marriage, is against the popular vote, opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964, wants the estate tax repealed, is STILL making racist remarks, believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States, and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories, not to mention his belief that the International Baccalaureate program is UN mind control..

What's ironic about your statement is that the "conservative stamp" these turkeys approved includes teaching the speeches of Jefferson Davis alongside those of Lincoln, who was a Democrat. It just goes to show you that LBJ didn't overestimate when he said "there goes the south for a decade" while passing JFK's civil rights bill. The realignment was so severe it now threatens to rewrite history, literally.

thanks to the U.S.A's elected criminals

Yours In Novosibirsk,
K. Trout

The same has been true with the USPS since 1970. Their entire budget is financed by people buying stamps and other services. They don't get a dime of taxpayer money.

How did you ever get modded +5 informative with that load of bull?

The total funding for the Postal Service in the administration's 2005 budget is just over $61.7 million.

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 $65,135,000
Appropriations, 1999 $100,195,000
etc, etc

The same has been true with the USPS since 1970. Their entire budget is financed by people buying stamps and other services. They don't get a dime of taxpayer money.

How did you ever get modded +5 informative with that load of bull?

The total funding for the Postal Service in the administration's 2005 budget is just over $61.7 million.

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004 $65,135,000
Appropriations, 1999 $100,195,000
etc, etc

S. 2590 was introduced on April 6, 2006 by Senator Coburn, along with Senators Obama, McCain and Carper as original co-sponsors. Nice omission there.

You mean the Coburn-Obama-Carper-McCain bill?

Obama didn't write the bill, he didn't introduce it, he was just a co-sponsor. So says Thomas

Absolutely not informative. Outright lies. Please see this comment and you'll find that Ed Towns is a Democrat and 23 of the 36 co-sponsors were Democrats. See this Congressional biography if you're too lazy to look it up yourself.

Everyone (except you, maybe) rightly decries the fact that Bush can now legally point to anyone he wants and make them disappear without a trace.

I'm obviously missing something, but how can he do this? Patriot II never saw the law of day, and, reading over the text of the act as passed, there is no provision for the revocation of citizenship, or for the trial of anything but alien unlawful combatants by military tribunal, the key word being "alien". I haven't yet read the entire text of the act, so I may be missing something, but under what law can Bush currently "disappear" people?

I'm not saying that I in any way support this legislation (it scares the holy hell out of me), but I really need someone to lay out exactly how it is that I, as an American citizen, born on American soil, am subject to it. Because if I am, it's time for me to leave the country.

I wouldn't consider plugging any of the politicians enjoyable.

He he... "Kerrey."

1. Knows what is going on.

I just listened yesterday to the C-SPAN coverage of SR1389, the Senate version of the bill to re-authorize the USAPATRIOT act.

Harry Reid, filibustering: "This bill contains no judicial oversight of section 215."

Arlen Specter in news conference after the failed cloture vote: "This bill is being misunderstood. Some have claimed that there is no judicial oversight over section 215. But there is."

John Sununu in news conference: "There is no effective judicial oversight over section 215."

Now, here's Section 215. Can you tell me what it means and whether there is or is not effective judicial oversight over section 215?!

I can't, and I have a college education and am used to reading hard things like philosophy and math texts. I can see that the bill allows for judicial review (Sections (e),(f))... but I have no idea whether the judicial review is "effective."

Honestly, even the most informed of us have no clue what is going on. I'm told by people close to the budget process that NO ONE SINGLE PERSON understands the U.S. budget. I don't know whether that's true, but ... wow.

So who do I vote for? The people claiming they are trying to protect me from the terrorists? Or the people claiming they are trying to protect me from the people who are claiming they are trying to protect me from the terrorists?!

We've long since passed the point of accepting limits on our Constitutional rights in order to protect the public good (e.g., you can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater). But now, our laws have become so chaotic that we don't know which rights we have, which ones we have unless we are criminals, and which people are classified as criminals. We are so incredibly unknowledgeable about what our laws actually mean, that are completely depedent on news sources to distill legislative actions for us. We might as well just let the newspapers vote, and forget about voting ourselves. [/cynicalmode]

The Russians have been launching over land for decades. The cynic in me says that they chose Florida because this guy had seniority in the US Senate about the time NASA was choosing a launch site.

Here's something I've been doing all day with regards to the Real ID act and something you might be able to do with regards to this news on the Patriot Act: email the media and get them to cover the issue. Basic format of the email I've been trying to send out follows...

-To -media organiztaion here-,

First off, thank you for taking the time to read this email. While I realize that it is not in good taste for any news organization to take any political stance on matters, I do feel that it is in the best interests of both the media and for the nation if the media would do more to cover the less known topics that happen in Washington.

Case in point is the recent passge of the Real ID act. (H.R. 418, it can be found here: http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:H.R .418:) This act was attached to the recently passed emergency spending bill approved by the President. However, there are some scary details about this act, besides the intended effect of creating a national ID system. For instance, check out Section 102, which allows the Secretary of Homeland Security "the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section." It also prevents any oversight or judicial review of those actions.

There are several other topics on this bill that I think people would find rather enlightening. Here are a few links to other websites with articles over it:

ArsTechnica Article about a Potential part of the RealID act breaking the Constition:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050509-4886 .html

CNet Article Overview:
http://news.com.com/FAQ+How+Real+ID+will+affect+yo u/2100-1028_3-5697111.html

At any rate, thank you again for taking the time to read this email. I hope that you will at least take the time to consider the impliciations of such an issue, and the rather underhanded means of having it been acheived.

Yours,
-name-

I think the only way we're going to get word across is if we can get the media to reveal the implications of this on a much larger scale that what we might be able to do. Here's a general email I've been sending out to sites like the NYTimes and NBC's The Nightly News:

-To -insert media organization here-,

First off, thank you for taking the time to read this email. While I realize that it is not in good taste for any news organization to take any political stance on matters, I do feel that it is in the best interests of both the media and for the nation if the media would do more to cover the less known topics that happen in Washington.

Case in point is the recent passge of the Real ID act. (H.R. 418, it can be found here: http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:H.R .418:) This act was attached to the recently passed emergency spending bill approved by the President. However, there are some scary details about this act, besides the intended effect of creating a national ID system. For instance, check out Section 102, which allows the Secretary of Homeland Security "the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section." It also prevents any oversight or judicial review of those actions.

There are several other topics on this bill that I think people would find rather enlightening. Here are a few links to other websites with articles over it:

ArsTechnica Article about a Potential part of the RealID act breaking the Constition:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050509-4886 .html

CNet Article Overview:
http://news.com.com/FAQ+How+Real+ID+will+affect+yo u/2100-1028_3-5697111.html

At any rate, thank you again for taking the time to read this email. I hope that you will at least take the time to consider the impliciations of such an issue, and the rather underhanded means of having it been acheived.

Yours,
Brandon G.

The legislation linked to above appears to have died in committee in the senate.

The amendment that counts right now is S.AMDT.429:
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SP0 0429:

View the full text and goto page S3699.

You might be interested to know that this amendment also repeals "Section 7212 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004" (found here: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi ?dbname=108_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ458.108) which already does most of the things the current amendment would do (as far as requirements for id's go). The biggest thing added to the id requirements by the new bill is "A common machine-readable technology, with defined minimum data elements."

and cuss him out for not reading it, you might want to read the text of it yourself. You know, just maybe. Democracy requires an informed populace to work, and if you believe the partisan propaganda in the headline of a Slashdot story, how are you any better than a Republican senator who buys the partisan propaganda of the bill's author?

I tried searching around, but was unable to come up with the full text of the act this is proposing to amend. Call me paranoid, but without seeing the context, I can't feel jusified in having an opinion on the proposed amendment.

The Wikipedia article did link to a partial report, but I profess ignorance in how to decipher where Paragraph 22 is, if it's listed. Other links I've found seem to rely on a couple 404's at Cornell, subchapter I and subchapter II.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Some we elect to the U.S. Senate. Over and over again.

..a new security bill coming up right before the election in November.

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:H.R .163:

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:S.8 9:

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:H.R .163:

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:S.8 9:

GWB's father was not CIA Director until his appointment by Pres. Ford in 1976. Google some history before making up your own.

What the founders planned aside, when the "law of the land" cannot be changed for fear of violating these expressed principles, it means that you need to consider more closely either the proposed law, or the principles. And indeed, as is healthy, we regularly consider these principles with reguard to the laws... but seldom find a need to change our expressed principles. (After all, they've survived over 220 years of discussion and debate.) And as this country grows from an adolescent to an adult in the family of nations, I would hope that it has fairly well developed its principles by this time, and would not change them as casually as it does it's mood.

Yes, we do need to recognize that these founders were men of their times, and their plan was not perfect. Merely because an idea is not consistent with their plan need not be the idea's final bane. On the other hand, it was and is a good plan overall. Furthermore, they worked out a set of political compromises that has mostly lasted for over 200 years (leaving aside one virgorous attempt after about 80 years). Most of our current lawmakers would count themselves lucky if anything they propose lasts half so long half so well, and most are suitably humble towards the efforts of those who wrought so well, realizing they while they might be at least in the equal to Jonathan Dayton, few can hope to equal of Madison, Franklin, Washington, nor Hamilton... and even less hope to equal alone what these men achieved combined.

The problem your random new idea faces is that, when considering the new idea, you weigh the wisdom of the new idea against more than 200 years of demonstrated overall wisdom of the plan. This is a Good Thing.

You realize both those bills don't have a single Republican sponsor and will never get out of committee, right? Check for yourself. Both bills have sat in committee since January/Feruary of 2003; they're not going anywhere.

Completely off-topic but:

Troll rhymes with Truth: "THE DRAFT IS COMING BACK, National Service Act of 2003 - 2004, S.89, H.R.163"

That bill is dead in the water and has been for over 1.5 years.
2/3/2003:
Referred to the Subcommittee on Total Force.

but it seems as if business interests have found that these individuals are a weak link that can easily be "bought off" and convinced to act on their own.

Hey, sounds like something else I've heard of.

At least here in Canuckistan, the business interests only have to buy off the Prime Minister, and the rest of the party is forced to follow. Simpler and more efficient kakistocracy!

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN0 0089:@@@L&summ2=m&

Now who's scared?

don't worry about that, if you're an american, you'll be drafted next year to go and die in some god forsaken desert to halliburton can be awarded a no-bid pipeline to make sure the oil arrives in haifa.

dont beleive me?

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:S.8 9:
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:H.R .163:

don't worry about that, if you're an american, you'll be drafted next year to go and die in some god forsaken desert to halliburton can be awarded a no-bid pipeline to make sure the oil arrives in haifa.

dont beleive me?

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:S.8 9:
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:H.R .163:

don't beleive me?

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:H.R .163:
http://www.hslda.org/legislation/national/2003/s89 /default.asp

Thanks in advance for dying for Bush. Your death will make him richer.

True, the slashdot article link is to the torture droid and not the Training Remote, but in Dubya's brave new world, IT-0 may be what NASA had in mind after all-- gotta keep close watch on them astronauts. Shifty, the lot of 'em.

READ THIS LINK [congress.gov] IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE HIM

The first thing I would do would be to learn as much as you can about the current system, find out exactly what the requirments are for filing, allowing and rejecting patents. Also read the PTO's 21st Centruy Strategic Plan to see what they are already planning on changing. It would also be good to find out if any bills are before Congress that would improve the situation.

After that, write (on real paper, sent through the old fashioned mail system) a letter to your Senators and Representavies explaining the current problems with the system and how they should be fixed, if you do find current legislation before either house that you agree with, tell them that you would like to see them vote (yes/no) on that bill.

It is important to know exactly how the current system operates before you attempt to change it. Once you know what is currently in place, you will have a much better idea of what needs to be changed, and be able to write a much more conving letter to your members of Congress.

Note that this method, with a little modification, may work for other problems that you see with US government and laws.

To summarize in a way any slashdotter can understand:

1) Learn as much as you can about the current system
2) Identify problems in current system
3) Write Congress concerning those problems
4) ???
5) Profit!!!

We already have a branch of government to make it.

Even if the supreme court gets to re-write our constitution, it doesn't mean it's right.

There's been a last-minute change in the bill. The version passed by the Senate and approved by the House was to take effect 120 days after enactment. A last-minute change makes the bill effective January 1, 2004. This prevents California's tough anti-spam law from being in effect for over three months.

The bill is S. 1933. It doesn't appear that Congress' website has the text of the legislation up yet, but I believe this link will take you there when it's up. (Congress has a weird linking scheme, so I'm not quite sure if that's a temporary or permanent link.) Now, don't Slashdot Congress, kids ... Homeland Security's just looking for an excuse to visit Cmdr. Taco. ("Now, sir, why do they people who go to this website call you by a military title? What sort of militia are you building up?")

If I'm getting this right, the bill is H.R.2417 and the text of it can be found here along with the ammendments. And even though the Senate disguised who passed it with a voice vote, the House did it the transparently democratic way and the vote broken down beyond yeas and nays into partys and names can be found here.

S.113

This looks like the right bill. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Again, according to the article, Senator Hatch (a co-sponsor) may attempt to attach a repeal of the sunset provision of PATRIOT to the above bill.

I would like to congratulate all of you who write eloquent replies on Slashdot, however you need to write letters to your "elected officials".

Myself, everytime I read an article on Slashdot which makes my blood boil and pertains to privacy, civil liberties, anti-consumer electronic devices, and/or bad technology legislation, I contact my legislators via email, fax, or snail mail.

Your elected official needs and wants to hear from you on the issues! If they get a mere 10 letters, faxes, or emails on a topic it raises a "red" flag and forces them to look at the issue before unknowing upsetting their constituency.

I urge you to contact these people and let them know what you think on a weekly basis. America is still "Government by the people, for the People."

While you are at it, register to vote!

Lastly, we always hear talk about buying legislation in the form of campaign contributions. Believe it or not, it doesn't cost all that much to buy legislation and once we all get in the habit of contacting our legislative officials and voting, we can donate money to a PAC, donate to campaigns and hire lobbyists. Then the Slashdotter will truly be running with the big dogs, but political involvement has to begin small.

Here are some helpful websites to guide you:

U.S. House of Representatives U.S. Senate Congressional News

I fear if we do not act and unite soon, that we will lose control of the Internet and consumer electronics in the name of Patriotism and anti-piracy.

• House of Representatives,
• Senate
• Congressional

Could this be the beginning of the end for our dependence on oil?

I can think of many reasons why it won't.

It is the nature of those in authority to seek out greater power and methods of expanding their empire ... While these incentives exist in forproffit businesses at risk of bankrupcy if they fail to operate efficiently, ICAN doesn't have this threat handing over their collective head.

For more examples see here and here and here and here.