Slashdot Mirror

I am sort of joking but seriously its not like Ron Paul is campaigning for full transparency (he falls under the Transparency is not a priority list. He is not campaigning for open source software in government nor an end to DMCA. Although he does appear good on de-federalization...

In terms of so called "free trade"...the removal of local/national government regulatory structures in favor of transnational corporate regulatory structures against labor, the environment and local determinism guided by the single metric of maximizing profit does not really fall on either side of tech-friendly IMHO.

Ron Paul is good on a lot of things, but then he's also one of these Libertarians who latched on to an unfortunate idiotic attribute of Objectivism, The Gold Standard.

That's right, he wants to tie our currency's value to an international commodity's price. He complains about how 1-2% annual inflation has been devaluing our savings, failing to note that, had we been on a gold standard, the money supply would have experienced 50% deflation in five years, matching the 1929-1933 10% annual deflation that caused the Great Depression. Wouldn't that be a great way to stabilize the currency?

Voted FOR investigating "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas"

Actually, he voted against that resolution. The CNet article was incredibly unclear in how checks and X's were assigned to the votes, but as the sibling to this post suggests, the check mark indicates that they voted in the tech-friendly way, which wasn't necessarily "yes".

"Under the circumstances, any legal consequences for this student must take into account his intent to perform a public service, to publicize a problem as a way of getting it fixed. He picked a lousy way of doing it, but he should not go to jail for his bad judgment. Better yet, the Department of Homeland Security should put him to work showing public officials how easily our security can be compromised." http://markey.house.gov/index.php?option=content&t ask=view&id=2336&Itemid=125

Thanks for your concern, but given that you're not even attacking positions that the party actually holds, why on earth would the Democratic party want to move to the right?

You're kidding, right? Democrats moderated, slightly, there stance on gun control because in 1994 it cost them Congress and the Senate in the single largest turn out of incumbents in American history. Al Gore his home state of Tennesse, and hence, the election, in 2000 because he morphed from being a pro-gun Senator into being an anti-gun Vice President.

On abortion, the spectrum goes from "abortion on demand, at any point, for any reason" to "no abortion allowed, ever, for any reason". Most Americans fit in the middle of that spectrum with respect to allowing abortion. There is a sizeable fraction of people, however, that think that 3rd trimester abortions should be perfectly legal. Guess where their comfy home is? Guess who they influence to an undue degree? Yes, the Democratic party. I'm not saying the Democratic party has to change their position on abortion, because it'll never happen. But running a nominally anti-abortion Presidential candidate would take one of the largest wedge issues away from the Republicans.

On immigration, the person writing Democratic policy, more or less, is Ted Kennedy, who's an open borders advocate. His latest, greatest bill, the so-called Senate Amnesty Bill, grants illegal aliens TAX amnesty for 2 out of 5 years (something, btw, that mere subjects, I mean citizens, don't get, nor do legal immigrants either), and a guaranteed median wage for their work (something, again, that legal immigrants and US citizens don't get either). The Senate amnesty bill passed by DEMOCRATS voting en-bloc along with a few RINOs. It's hard to see a permissive immigration policy as anything but a Democratic position. The following is the House Report on Illegal Immigration: http://www.house.gov/mccaul/pdf/Investigaions-Bord er-Report.pdf. It's worth a read, regardless of what political party you belong to.

As for Clinton, sticking chicken feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken. She's a tremendous politician and a hell of a triangulator, but your examples are a thin patina on an otherwise thoroughly red core. The best that can be said for her is she's a statist interested in power for power's sake.

As for the gay issue, I'm talking principally about gay marriage, and gay adoption. And honestly, I'm ambivilent on it myself. I lean liberatarian, and it's hard to come up with an anti-gay marriage argument that is congruent with a libertarian philosophy. The "best" arguments are the slippery slope arguments (principally, bigamy, which has the same argument around consensual relations), heterosexual marriage and the organic family as a social good, and the rapid demise of intact families after the onset of legalized gay marriage in European countries (which may or may not be caused by other factors). Anyway, it's a bit like gun-rights. Republicans frequently shit on gun-owners, because honestly, where else are they going to go? Democrats could do the same to gays and get away with it as well. Not saying it's right, but parties frequently do the wrong thing for expedient political advantage during an election cycle.

By your lights, we should have the state establish a religion, because that would probably pass popular muster as well.

You and I both know that wouldn't and couldn't happen. By the same token, maybe we should just ignore the Second Ammendment and throw away gun owners rights, right (oh yeah, I forgot, it's the leftist canard that gun rights only apply to the government, not to citizens, despite the rest of the BoR applying to individuals...and since when has a government ever needed to enshrine its rights since given a monopoly of force, they can just take what they want?).

Look, you may not lik

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll145.xml

Only 32 nays... depressing.

I don't know if it's been posted yet, but the apology is here:

http://markey.house.gov/index.php?option=content&t ask=view&id=2336&Itemid=125

Seems he's had a change of heart, and now he's saying exactly what many of the people who left comments on Chris' blog wrote.

Under the circumstances, any legal consequences for this student must take into account his intent to perform a public service, to publicize a problem as a way of getting it fixed. He picked a lousy way of doing it, but he should not go to jail for his bad judgment.

You all seem to be missing the most important discovery regarding this article, which I found out by personally reading the entirety of H.R.5122, the bill in question - there is no Section 1076 in H.R.5122, which means this article is a fake. Don't believe me? Go read the actual bill in its entirety on the House.gov website. This is probably why all the major media networks have nothing on their websites or on TV that's discussing this.

http://www.house.gov/hasc/HR5122(v2).pdf [house.gov]

Somebody's watching us and laughing at us all as we are turned against each other it a fit of fake political madness. Congratulations, we're all idiots. :/

Because he's a police officer. He's a law enforcement official.

Besides, you all seem to be missing the most important discovery regarding this article, which I found out by personally reading the entirety of H.R.5122, the bill in question - there is no Section 1076 in H.R.5122, which means this article is a fake. Don't believe me? Go read the actual bill in its entirety on the House.gov website. This is probably why all the major media networks have nothing on their websites or on TV that's discussing this.

http://www.house.gov/hasc/HR5122(v2).pdf

Somebody's watching us and laughing at us all as we are turned against each other it a fit of fake political madness. Congratulations, we're all idiots. :/

In the Senate, it passed by unanimous consent.

In the House, 398 Yeas, 23 Nays. No suprise Ron Paul (TX) was the only Republican against.

The Democrats:
Baldwin
Capps
Conyers
Filner
Frank (MA)
Holt
Inslee
Jackson (IL)

Kucinich
Lee
McDermott
McKinney
Michaud
Miller, George
Owens
Pallone
Payne
Schakowsky
Serrano
Stark
Velázquez
Woolsey

roll call

Edward Markey is your representitive, send him a message: http://markey.house.gov/

Here is a copy of what I sent him:

As a Computer Engineer at the University of Utah, I commonly read articles from technology oriented magazines. I recently came across this article: http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,72023-0.htm l?tw=rss.index.

I'm also active politically, and a lifelong Democrat. Is the characterization of you in this article fair? Are your positions intentionally being misrepresented to alienate your base? If this is an accurate depiction of your stance--- I feel your position does not in any way represent the spirit of our free society, and the Democratic party. I would hope, upon further inspection, you would have the humility to reverse that position.

Mr. Soghoian may himself be a rather talented computer scientist--- but it would not take a talented, or advanced, computer scientist to forge boarding passes using Photoshop. I think my Grandma possesses the technical expertise to do so. Mr. Soghoian's software only illustrates capabilities enemies to our country absolutely already have thought of, and developed.

Often, security exploits will come out for Microsoft Windows. The discoverer, being a decent human being, would often report it to Microsoft in full. In the past, Microsoft would wait for an inordinate period of time to issue a patch. In the meantime, other more nefarious people would learn about these exploits independently, and use them to their advantage.

Eventually, the initial reporter would become so frustrated about the inactivity--- that it became clear the only way to prod Microsoft to issue some kind of patch to protect its users, would be to fully disclose the exploit to its users. Nefarious individuals, this entire time, exploiting it for personal and financial gain.

Microsoft's initial response to this was to try to silence reporters through threats of lawsuits, or criminal prosecution. This would clearly have a chilling effect on any other potential reporters wanting to deal with Microsoft in the future. Microsoft wasn't as interested in actually securing its operating system, but instead simply giving its users a false semblance of security.

Do you want to make a chilling effect to alienate technologically knowledgeable Americans from the United States Government? Mr. Soghoian's software does not aid terrorists, it reveals nothing that certainly wasn't already known of. It only replicates functionality that could be reproduced by any Grandma with a 40 dollar scanner, and Photoshop.

This is a production of a concerned American citizen, to illustrate to other American citizens a danger we face. It was made to prod an inactive republican majority in congress, and a republican controlled executive, to take 'real' action to protect our airport security. A danger, that so far, our political organizations haven't acted upon.

The current administration seems completely reliant on frightening people, and espousing their supposed commitment to national security to alleviate these fears. In reality, they have done very little for homeland security, and are the most likely to actively support Americans who are experts in these various fields being made criminals, and silenced, for attempting to remedy security issues.

I'm certain you're concerned with protecting the security of American families. The best way to go about this is to rely on the talent, and good intentions of concerned American citizens--- not to alienate and criminalize their free speech.

"Secondly : Bush is abnormal in that he has singularly refused to veto ANYTHING (ok, with ONE exception). Look at the numbers :
Clinton issued 37 in two terms.
GHWB issued 44 in ONE term.
Reagan issued 78 in his two terms."

You are missing the key differentiator. All of those Presidents were vetoing bills sent by a Congress controlled by the opposite party. In fact 100% of those veotes were for bills submitted by the opposing party. 0% of those vetoed bills were submitted by the President's own party. During the two years that Clinton presided over a Democratic controlled Congress he vetoed ZERO bills.

Here are a list of Clinton vetoes: http://rules.house.gov/archives/98-147.pdf

Notice that none occur until after January 1995, two years after he took office, when Republicans gained a majority in congress.

You are either ignorant of these facts or purposely omitting them in an attempt to mislead people.

1) I'm a Democrat from Mass. and I was glad to spank Mr. Markey for this via telephone.

2) It was very inspiring to see posts from various /.ers indicating they had contacted congress. It helped me move my butt a little faster!

3) interestingly, ed markey's homepage currently has the headline: SHAM PORT ACT FAILS TO SCREEN 100% OF US-BOUND CARGO AT ALL PORTS

Therefore, in my message I pointed out that he should have seen this boarding pass simulator as being *on the same page as him.* But without hacktivist security experts on his board, things like this are going to be difficult for him to interpret.

The FBI visited.

They handed me with a written order to remove the boarding pass generator. By the time we were somewhere with internet access, the website had already been taken down.

I am now safe (and no longer with the FBI).

Still trying to find a lawyer.....

Edit:

If you want to help, a good start would be to email Congressman Markey - who initially called for my arrest.

I suggest that all concerned Slashdotters contact congressman Markey and let him know what you think.

Dear Honorable Edward Markey,

I just read about your response to Christopher Soghoian's findings regarding online printable boarding passes being easily faked.

I have to say that I am appalled at what I am reading. Mr. Soghoian has found something that could allow terrorist to continue to harm Americans. This technique may have already been used, or plan to be used, but now we know about it and can do something about it.

Why? Because Mr. Soghoian was kind enough to expose this security flaw. Punishing someone that has put this much effort into giving us the knowledge to save more lives is asinine.

As a Quality Assurance Engineer, I know the importance of finding, and reporting, flaws. This man should be commended, not condemned.

I think it would be wise as a senior member of the Department for Homeland Security to withdraw your previous statements as you have gained "an insightful perspective" on this issue after responses such as mine.

Scaring others into not telling us where our security flaws are will only lead to more opportunities for our enemies. How can you not immediately see this?

Or should I put you on the list of government employees that pretend like they care, but would rather play political games instead?


Sincerely,

Quincunx (real name used in the real letter)


I encourage others to write as well. If we let him know his error, give him an "out", then maybe bullshit like this won't happen again. Here's hoping.
Here's the send-an-email part of Honorable Edward Markey's web page

When I searched Google with Peter King's name the #1 hit was his home page, it was not until the 2nd page that anything like the article mentioned appeared, and as we all know most people do not go beyond the first page. So either google did something, or there has been some reverse-google-bombing. I think this is the link they were referring to Peter King and here is his home page Peter King to balance things out.

I recently came across "How to Steal an Election" at http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/evoting.ar s which lays out in rather devastating detail how flawed the current system of electronic voting is. I am concerned that our election process has effectively been privatized by a small number of companies, some of which are overtly partisan in their politics, and none held accountable for the numerous and easily-exploitable security flaws in their equipment. One of the equipment companies in particular has taken to smear campaigns and litigation against its critics in an attempt to silence them.

I understand that voting should and must be accessible to the disabled, but this can be done without compromising the security and integrity of our elections. Slot machines in Nevada are subjected to extremely rigorous design standards for security, while voting machines have no such standards at all. This situation cannot go on -- I urge you to secure our elections with appropriate legislation.

[signature stuff removed]

Customs has been known to accidentally destroy small aircraft on arrival if they are suspected of carrying drugs. No liability for them when nothing is found.

The authority for the searches is 19 USC 1467.

The authority for lack of liability for the damage caused is "sovereign immunity", as reference in this case: Mid-South Holding Co. v. United States, which involved property damage sustained by a vessel during a search by the United States Customs Service and the United States Coast Guard ("Customs Service"). The Customs Service was called in to search the fishing vessel ABNER'S CHOICE on a tip that she was involved in narcotics trafficking. While the agents discovered no contraband, they were alleged to have unplugged the vessel's bilge pump during the search, which caused her to sink the following day. The vessel owners brought suit against the United States under the Suits in Admiralty Act ("SAA") to recover the value of the lost vessel. The United States gained summary judgment on the grounds that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the court concluded the United States enjoyed sovereign immunity in this case.

e360Insight's web site urges us to contact our Senators and Representatives, which is just what I did:

Dear Senator|Representative <XYZ>:

e360Insight, an American company, has recently sued Spamhaus, a British company, claiming that Spamhous's service, which lists the e-mail addresses and domain names of known spammers, has violated e360Insight's rights.

Spamhaus provides an invaluable service. Those of us responsible for administering e-mail services know and love the company. Though most users aren't aware of it, almost anyone who uses e-mail receives less unwanted e-mail because of Spamhaus.

e360Insight, as best I can tell from their website, is a major SENDER of unsolicited and/or unwanted SPAM messages. Their argument is incorrect because only individual e-mail administrators have the ability to block e-mail. Spamhaus has no such ability. We CHOOSE to use or ignore Spamhaus recommendations. If such recommendations compromised the e-mail service we provided, we would quickly stop using them due to user complaints.

A federal court has already ordered Spamhaus to pay $11.7 million (an unenforceable measure, since Spamhaus isn't in the US). e360Insight has also asked that Spamhaus's domain be shut down (which was was rejected by U.S. District Judge Charles Kocoras). Please encourage Judget Kocoras and any other federal judges involved to dismiss e360Insight's frivolously lawsuit and protect the rights of American's to use Spamhaus, a valuable service that makes e-mail a usable form of communication.

http://www.house.gov/

http://www.senate.gov/

The Joint Economic Committee has issued a press release to clarify the purpose of the Committee's planned study. Here are the headline and and some text from the release:

VIRTUAL ECONOMIES NEED CLARIFICATION, NOT MORE TAXES

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The past few years have seen a dramatic increase in the popularity of online gaming and the virtual economies that accompany them. The population of these online worlds has been estimated to exceed 10 million people worldwide. Because of their newness, some uncertainty exists regarding taxes and intellectual property rights.

...if the transaction takes place entirely within a virtual economy, then it seems there is no taxable event. Such distinctions should be addressed and resolved in a common-sense manner.

And here is the link to the full press release: http://www.house.gov/jec/news/news2006/pr109-98.pd f

"Where on the mainstream left are they speaking out against Chavez?"

• Washington Post
• New York Times
• NYT
• Charles Rangel
• Democrats
• The Daily Show

But it is stipulated that it can only be repealed if Public Safety requires it.

And that is where the debate should be focused - are we in a situation where public safety requires it. I agree we are not at that point.

I don't see any current situation where habeas corpus would be detrimental to the public safety. In fact, it's hard to imagine any scenario outside of fiction where habeas corpus would be dangerous to the people.

Habeas corpus has been suspended several times in our history, most famously by Lincoln (1861), but also by Grant (in 1871, actually he had several proclomations suspending the writ, but only one is enough to prove the point).

You might suggest the suspensions were unjustified in these cases, but that would only serve to show that we can survive such abuses. The best we can do at this point is to vote out ALL the bastards who voted FOR it.

Senators who voted for this bill:
Alexander (R-TN), Allard (R-CO), Allen (R-VA), Bennett (R-UT), Bond (R-MO), Brownback (R-KS), Bunning (R-KY), Burns (R-MT), Burr (R-NC), Carper (D-DE), Chambliss (R-GA), Coburn (R-OK), Cochran (R-MS), Coleman (R-MN), Collins (R-ME), Cornyn (R-TX), Craig (R-ID), Crapo (R-ID), DeMint (R-SC), DeWine (R-OH), Dole (R-NC), Domenici (R-NM), Ensign (R-NV), Enzi (R-WY), Frist (R-TN), Graham (R-SC), Grassley (R-IA), Gregg (R-NH), Hagel (R-NE), Hatch (R-UT), Hutchison (R-TX), Inhofe (R-OK), Isakson (R-GA), Johnson (D-SD), Kyl (R-AZ), Landrieu (D-LA), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Lieberman (D-CT), Lott (R-MS), Lugar (R-IN), Martinez (R-FL), McCain (R-AZ), McConnell (R-KY), Menendez (D-NJ), Murkowski (R-AK), Nelson (D-FL), Nelson (D-NE), Pryor (D-AR), Roberts (R-KS), Rockefeller (D-WV), Salazar (D-CO), Santorum (R-PA), Sessions (R-AL), Shelby (R-AL), Smith (R-OR), Specter (R-PA), Stabenow (D-MI), Stevens (R-AK), Sununu (R-NH), Talent (R-MO), Thomas (R-WY), Thune (R-SD), Vitter (R-LA), Voinovich (R-OH), Warner (R-VA)

Representatives who voted for it:
Aderholt, Akin, Alexander, Andrews, Bachus, Baker, Barrett (SC), Barrow, Barton (TX), Bass, Bean, Beauprez, Biggert, Bilbray, Bilirakis, Bishop (GA), Bishop (UT), Blackburn, Blunt, Boehlert, Boehner, Bonilla, Bonner, Bono, Boozman, Boren, Boswell, Boustany, Boyd, Bradley (NH), Brady (TX), Brown (OH), Brown (SC), Brown-Waite, Ginny, Burton (IN), Buyer, Calvert, Camp (MI), Campbell (CA), Cannon, Cantor, Capito, Carter, Chabot, Chandler, Chocola, Coble, Cole (OK), Conaway, Cramer, Crenshaw, Cubin, Cuellar, Culberson, Davis (AL), Davis (KY), Davis (TN), Davis, Jo Ann, Davis, Tom, Deal (GA), Dent, Diaz-Balart, L., Diaz-Balart, M., Doolittle, Drake, Dreier, Duncan, Edwards, Ehlers, Emerson, English (PA), Etheridge, Everett, Feeney, Ferguson, Fitzpatrick (PA), Flake, Forbes, Ford, Fortenberry, Fossella, Foxx, Franks (AZ), Frelinghuysen, Gallegly, Garrett (NJ), Gerlach, Gibbons, Gillmor, Gingrey, Gohmert, Goode, Goodlatte, Gordon, Granger, Graves, Green (WI), Gutknecht, Hall, Harris, Hart, Hastings (WA), Hayes, Hayworth, Hefley, Hensarling, Herger, Herseth, Higgins, Hobson, Hoekstra, Holden, Hostettler, Hulshof, Hunter, Hyde, Inglis (SC), Issa, Istook, Jenkins, Jindal, Johnson (CT), Johnson (IL), Johnson, Sam, Keller, Kelly, Kennedy (MN), King (IA), King (NY), Kingston, Kirk, Kline, Knollenberg, Kolbe, Kuhl (NY), LaHood, Latham, Lewis (CA), Lewis (KY), Linder, LoBiondo, Lucas, Lungren, Daniel E., Mack, Manzullo, Marchant, Marshall, Matheson, McCaul (TX), McCotter, McCrery, McHenry, McHugh, McIntyre, McKeon, McMorris Rodgers, Mica, Miller (FL), Miller (MI), Miller, Gary, Moore (KS), Murphy, Musgrave, Myrick, Neugebauer, Northup, Norwood, Nunes, Nussle, Osborne, Otter, Oxley, Pearce, Pence, Peterson (MN), Peterson (PA), Petri, Pickering, Pitts, Platts, Poe, Pombo, Pomeroy, Porter, Price (GA

Seperation of church and state? (Although, i dont see much proof of that being a serious problem)

If I'm reading this right, it was passed almost unanimously in both the house and the senate (these things aren't terribly clear). It appears to have been sponsored by Dan Lungren (R-CA). Does anyone know how to stop this kind of crap? I don't know of a single person who would endorse this crap, but it appears that pretty much everybody voted for it (no doubt due to it's name).

Any examples besides from kookie conspiracy theorists and Louisiana?

How about Ohio(pdf)?

On election day, a computerized voting machine in ward 1B in the Gahana precinct of
Franklin County recorded a total of 4,258 votes for President Bush and 260 votes for Democratic
challenger John Kerry.254 However, there are only 800 registered voters in that Gahana precinct,
and only 638 people cast votes at the New Life Church polling site.[255] It has since been
discovered that a computer glitch resulted in the recording of 3,893 extra votes for President
George W. Bush256 - the numbers were adjusted to show President Bush's true vote count at 365
votes and Senator Kerry's at 260 votes.[257] (page 57)

That's the biggest one I know of, though if you read the entire report you'll see a whole lot of smaller discrepancies.

Also in Wisconsin.

Here, "objective" should mean by a highly-regarded author who discusses possible other viewpoints and explanations for his/her findings

The one thing that distinguishes honest people from liars is that honest people do not insist on "other viewpoints and explanations" -- they're content with the fact and let those facts speak for themsleves.

Your statement there proves conclusively that you will reject every single link handed to you that actually examines the irregularities in 2004. Every single one. Because tehre's no "alternative viewpoints" here anywhere - the facts are unambiguous. Here's from the (republican-controlled) house of representatives: http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/ohiostatu srept1505.pdf but I'm sure you'll find fault with even your own tax dollars at work telling you the fact of your own government defrauding you.

Reality is independent of opinion. Your opinion. My opinion. Anybodies opinion.

Great... so what you're saying is that you have no proof that the 2004 election was stolen[...]

We have proof. It has been presented many times in many places. Denying it won't make it go away.

In a month, on TUE November 7, 2006, Americans can vote whether to fire their Representative in the House, and probably half their Senators, too.

Here's how your Representative voted for Theocracy Protection (unless they're a Democrat, in which case they probably voted against it).
Here's how your Representative voted for torture (unless they're a Democrat, in which case they probably voted against it).

Here's how your Senators voted for torture (unless they're a Democrat, in which case they probably voted against it).
Here's how your Senators killed any control over US torture (again mostly excepting Democrats).
The Senate is waiting to approve Theocracy Protection until after the November election.

Go to the polls and fire these people who are speaking in your name for torture and theocracy, an America run on the model of the Spanish Inquisition. Keep our country ruled by the people, instead of a class of professional torture priests.

In a month, on TUE November 7, 2006, Americans can vote whether to fire their Representative in the House, and probably half their Senators, too.

Here's how your Representative voted for Theocracy Protection (unless they're a Democrat, in which case they probably voted against it).
Here's how your Representative voted for torture (unless they're a Democrat, in which case they probably voted against it).

Here's how your Senators voted for torture (unless they're a Democrat, in which case they probably voted against it).
Here's how your Senators killed any control over US torture (again mostly excepting Democrats).
The Senate is waiting to approve Theocracy Protection until after the November election.

Go to the polls and fire these people who are speaking in your name for torture and theocracy, an America run on the model of the Spanish Inquisition. Keep our country ruled by the people, instead of a class of professional torture priests.

And is waiting the prez's sig.

http://www.rules.house.gov/109_2nd/text/hr4954cr/h r49543_portscr.pdf

Hang, it's a lot more serious than that post suggests. It has been passed in the Senate, and will become law after the usual 270-day period require to flesh out the details of the law, its enforcement, etc. The bill will make it illegal for "financial transaction providers" (e.g. banks, credit cards, etc.) to allow transactions to online gambling sites. It also appears to require that "interactive computer services" (perhaps hosting companies or ISPs?) remove or disable access to online gambling sites. You can read the full text of the law in this document (from page 213 onwards). Although horse racing and lotteries are exempted, the bill will indirectly make it illegal to do things like play poker online, or make bets on sporting events. Many million Americans enjoy doing either or both of those, but this bill will make it all but impossible for them to find their online accounts, and so effectively put a stop to it. It's going to affect a lot of companies (e.g. the large gaming sites like PartyGaming, Paradise Poker, PokerStars etc, and also the numerous betting sites), but more importantly it's going to prevent many people from enjoying the odd game of poker with some friends, or making a bet or two on a soccer game.

Writing is good but even better is visiting. I visited my reps office a few days ago and let the staffer know I thought the warrentless search bill was really crazy. Granted, this isn't an option for everyone, but if you look into it, you might find the rep's office isn't too far from where you work. You can pick your rep here: http://www.house.gov/ and then look at "contact" for office locations. Letters are great, but a personal visit is probably even better ... or at least more memorable. It shows you _really_ care.

Time to write a polite letter explaining you will not be voting for your elected official come election time, and that you will be encouraging your friends and family to be doing the same thanks to them trampling on your rights.

Here's the vote breakdown: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll502.xml

Here is the House record on who voted for and against HR 5825.

Perhaps more important than you leaving out the $72 billion supplementary budget that was tacked on, is the $438 billion (plus $72 billion, plus whatever more is added on in December) does not cover what the true costs of military spending is.

And your own link shows how you are deceptively lowering the amount spent. There is a chart that says "Nondefense Discretionary Funding, by Budget Function", the slices of which you do not include in your $438 billion. A 7% slice of that for the 2005 budget ($31 billion) is Veterans' Benefits and Services. So from your numbers, a VA hospital treating wounded veterans who had their legs blown off by an IED in Iraq have nothing to do with military spending. The over $30 billion of that is "social welfare" as you call it.

The two ways I mentioned are fairly obvious ways that over $100 billion can be hidden, so that a $438 billion lowball military budget can be claimed. But the true number is higher than that, and much of the money is hidden in even more clever ways, if you take the trouble to investigate it, or read analysis of what the real military budget is.

Republicans praised the bill, saying it will help the U.S. government fight terrorism.

1. Prepare yourself by:
   1. Familiarize youselves with the issues at hand. Wikipedia has a good piece on the topic.
   2. Identify the specific legislation at issue, in this case the major bill in question is (I believe) S 2686 brought to you by Senators Ted (Tube boy) Stevens and Daniel Inouye. Ted has been in office for 37 years and Daniel for 43. Daniel is not the longest serving senator. Do not be fooled by the erroneous wikipedia entry stating that the bill was defeated by the Senate Commerce and Science Committee. Stevens and Inouye head that committee.
   3. You should also note the other relevant legislation especially the Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006 (HR 5417) and the Internet Freedom Preservation Act (S2917)
2. Then:
   1. Contact your Senator and ask them where they stand on Net neutrality as you do explain why neutrality is a good thing and why they should support it (see below). You can identify them online. You can contact them via e-mail, smail mail, fax, or by telephone. I myself favor the phone followed up by a letter. Over the phone you can ask questions and get more info.
   2. Contact your House Representative . Although this is a senate bill there is a house bill (H5417 above) on this issue and they had better support it.
   3. Write a letter to your local paper. It is a truism that most people in the world do not read /. Many of those people get their opinion fodder from the local newspaper, and more people read the letters to the editor than any other part of the paper. This can likely be done via e-mail and can sway a lot of minds if done right. Those minds can then in turn act for net neutrality.
   4. Tell other people. Surely you know at least one other person who hasn't heard about this threat to their ability to do business and/or just do what they want online as they always have. This person may be friends, family, coworkers, etc. It doesn't matter just tell them.
   5. Repeat the above steps as often as possible.

   In all cases be clear, firm, and polite. Net neutrality is important. Make it clear to any elected official that you will vote based upon their stance and donate money accordingly. You get bonus points if they are up for election this year (Senate).
   
   Keep in mind that you will probably not reach them directly. Most likely your call or letter will be directed to an aide. That aide's job is to tell the individual what to think about an issue. The aide will be loyal to their boss but may be more easy to sway (they don't have to appear omnicient). If you make it clear to them why neutrality is important and why a non-neutral internet will cost them then you can get somewhere.
   
   This tone also goes for letters and for the public.

What [Google, Vonage, and others] would like to do is to use my pipes free. But I ain't going to let them do that."

I can tell you that Google, Vonage and everyone else who has a web presence out there already pays a bill. They're already paying to make sure that their packets get where they're going. How is it the consumers fault that AT&T can't work out a profitable peering agreement with Google's bandwith provider? I can tell you why they can't! Too many AT&T customers sending email, visiting site, etc. that aren't on AT&T's network. Since they can't keep their customers on their own network, they have agreements that let them swap traffic "for free". For example, AT&T swaps with C&W so that everyone stays connected, all the email gets through, and we can all surf where we want. What they really want to do away with is the peering agreements. They're all trying to move to an AOL-ish model where you keep your customers on your 'net and just call it "the internet", even though it's really only sites that are either hosted or cached on their network. Man, this makes the Chinese goverment look like a bunch of role models instead of the censors that they really are.

Well, I don't want anyone telling me "You've got mail!" I want a real internet connection.

I pay my bill to Verizon for a screaming fast 7MB/sec FIOSS connection. If I want to host, which is against my AUP, but I never put up anything that sucks up too much bandwidth, so they've never complained. Still, it is bandwidth that I purchase from my provider. I want to go where I want and do what I want on 'net without some damn pop up saying "Google is over it's service limit with Verizon and so your access to this site is temporarily blocked." If Verizon tries it, I'll be going back to my own T1 with an indie carrier. If the indie carrier tries it, so help me, I'll start my own wireless 'net replacement, invite everyone to join me, and make rude hand gestures at the big boys like AT&T, C&W, etc.

If you don't like this legislation, write your congressman or your sentor and tell them to get their 90 year old heads out of the sand before it's too late.

2 cents,

QueenB

"What makes this particularly interesting is that Erlich is a Republican -- the party often maligned for exploiting flaws in electronic systems -- and his attempts to clean up Maryland's voting problems are being opposed by Democrats, the party that is usually complaining about electronic voting!"

That comment strikes me as overly partisan and anti-republican.

If you are going to mention efforts to clean up voting, mention the recent house vote.

Democrats voted *AGAINST* requirements for presenting your ID to vote in federal elections http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll456.xml

Stop it with the biased post making supabeast.

Sep. 19, 2006 | In February, there were several press reports about the Bush administration exercising message control on the subject of climate change. The New Republic cited numerous instances in which top officials at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and scientists at the National Hurricane Center sought to downplay links between more-intense hurricanes and global warming. NOAA scientist Thomas Knutson told the Wall Street Journal he'd been barred from speaking to CNBC because his research suggested just such a link.

At the time, Bush administration officials denied that they did any micromanaging of media requests for interviews. But a large batch of e-mails obtained by Salon through a Freedom of Information Act request shows that the White House was, in fact, controlling access to scientists and vetting reporters. (The e-mails were provided to several members of Congress for comment; Rep. Henry Waxman's office has now published them here.)

In 2005, NOAA press officer Kent Laborde wrote an e-mail that approved Washington Post reporter Juliet Eilperin's request to interview scientists. "CEQ and OSTP have given the green light for the interview," he wrote. CEQ is the Council on Environmental Quality and OSTP is the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Both are White House agencies that work on science issues. During the Bush administration, numerous critics have charged that CEQ has been particularly aggressive in pushing a pro-business agenda and suppressing inconvenient science.

In another e-mail, Laborde's boss, Jordan St. John, said of NOAA scientist Dave Hoffman, whose work tracks greenhouse gases, "This doesn't say anything new about the data, it's just a new way of tracking it. This was the CEQ-approved release that went on the NOAA Web site earlier this week."

The e-mails also show that after Hurricane Katrina, NOAA press officers had to get clearance from the Department of Commerce for scientists to discuss global warming and hurricanes with the press. (NOAA is part of Commerce.) Regarding the request for a particular interview, Commerce press officer Catherine Trinh wrote, "Let's pass on this one." The response from a NOAA official reads, "Can I please have a reason?"

In another message, Trinh writes, "Let's pass on this ... interview, but rather refer him to BLANK of the BLANK at BLANK. CEQ suggested him as a good person to talk on this subject." The blanks denote passages that were whited out by lawyers releasing the documents.

But Commerce's deputy director of communications, Chuck Fuqua, was happy to have a more politically reliable NOAA hurricane researcher named Chris Landsea speak to the press. At the time, Landsea was stating publicly that global warming had little to no effect on hurricanes. "Please make sure Chris is on message and that it is a friendly discussion," Fuqua wrote regarding a request for Landsea to appear on "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." On the show, Landsea downplayed research that linked global warming with more-intense hurricanes like Katrina.

In an e-mail the week prior, Fuqua OK'd Landsea for another interview and asked, "Please be careful and make sure Chris is on his toes. Since BLANK went off the menu, I'm a little nervous on this, but trust he'll hold the course."

The individual who went "off the menu" could have been researcher Thomas Knutson, whose published research indicates that hurricanes will grow stronger because of global warming. But when NOAA press officers asked if Knutson could appear on CNBC, Fuqua asked if Knutson had the same opinion as Landsea. When he learned that Knutson had published research suggesting that hurricanes will be getting stronger, he responded, "Why can't we have one of the other guys on then?"

Fuqua is the former director of media relations for the Repub

Is this propaganda? http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/ohiostatu srept1505.pdf

It's places, people, and numbers, timelines and sources, and quotes from at least one court decision that Kenneth Blackwell was not doing his job.

It's not the emotional, name-calling, irrational appeal that most people mean when they say "propaganda".

1. Making poor jokes.
2. Attempting to refute the article simply because they don't want to believe it.
3. Asking What can we do?

1. The U.S. Senate
2. The U.S. House
3. Use a Google to find state and local reps.

1. This is an unwarranted attack on science by a reckless administration.
2. You oppose any attempts to censor science and the enforcement of environmental laws, laws that keep our air safe to breath and our water safe to drink.
3. Any elected official who doesn't come out against this will not get your vote or your money

It's interesting you say that - could you provide me a reference for where the IPCC TAR concludes that the changes are "entirely explicable" as natural forcings? When I read through the conclusion of the attribution chapter I don't see anything about natural forcings providing adequate explanations.

Which is to say, you didn't read it. Honestly, have a look at chapter 12 (Attribution) of the IPCC Third Assessment Report. You'll find just a single mention, buried in the qualitative section, of Mann's study, listed amongst 5 other different palaeological climate reconstructions by different authors, and only to note that "the 20th century warming is highly unusual."

You said the SUMMARY not the chapter. The centerpiece of the SUMMARY was the thoroughly discredited "Mann Hockey Stick" a piece of shit so bad that not even Mann bothered to defend it when he testified in Congress recently. It was Mann's study that was touted as the "Smoking Gun" of man-made climate change and it was Mann's study that was reproduced five or six times in the Summary for Policymakers.

You can see those reconstructions (plus several others) charted together if you're curious. Mann's studies, let alone the "Hockey Stick", far from being "the centerpiece", get scant mention.

Actually the Mann Hockey Stick gets scant attention now because it's been revealed to be a fraud, which was shoved down the throats of scientists, politicians and the public. The other studies in that spaghetti graph are siblings of the Hockey Stick, using the same flawed proxies over and over again, as the Wegman report made clear. Steve McIntyre has shown that ALL of those studies fail statistical verification tests just like the Hockey Stick.

Hockey Stick Denialism means rewriting history, and Wikipedia is the perfect medium to do it.

Of course calling Mann's work a "scientific fraud" is rather unfounded too. You may note, in the chart linked above, that there are many other historical temperature reconstructions, done indepdently by different people, that arrive at a similar result to Mann.

As Wegman noted, all of those studies used the same flawed proxies, and some used Mann's flawed PC1 as a proxy in itself, even though it had already been shown to be a product of bad data in 2003 and bad statistics in 2005. There's even a nice table in Wegman showing how they are all related. Wegman testified that Mann's study was a piece of "bad mathematics" and was meaningless.

The Mann Hockey Stick was a deliberate fabrication of the climatic record. It removed the Little ice Age and Medieval Warm Period as global phenomena and even last year Mann confirmed that the Hockey Stick did not have those events. It should be obvious that writing "Medieval Warm Period" and "Little Ice Age" across the top of a set of graphs that doesn't show them is not exactly evidence, but we're dealing with Denialism here.

There is also the recent National Academy of Sciences report on the subject which concluded, with high confidence, that the earth was the warmest it had been in 400 years, and that while there was less confidence in reconstructions going further back, they still point to the earth undergoing unusual recent warming.

What they effectively was re-establish the Little Ice Age, which Mann had said didn't exist and downgraded the rest of his crap to "plausible" which my dictionary defines as

1. having an appearance of truth or reason; seemingly worthy of approval or acceptance; credible; believable: a plausible excuse; a plausible plot.
2. well-spoken and apparently, but often deceptively, worthy of confidence or trust: a plausible commentator.

That the Mann Hockey Stick was deliberately fabricated and knowingly false was the discovery of

Yes. Now we know that the centerpiece of that summary, the "Mann Hockey Stick", turned out to be a scientific fraud.

``But the bulk of the insurgency I faced was primarily the people of Iraq who were attacking us as a reaction to what they felt was an occupation of their country. I was engaged actively in urban combat in the Abu Ghraib area west of Baghdad. Many of the people who were attacking me were the poor people of Iraq. They were definitely not members of al Qaeda, leftover Baath party members, and they were not former members of Saddam's regime. They were just your average Iraqi civilian who wanted us out of their country.

``On October 31, 2003, the people of Abu Ghraib organized a large uprising against us. They launched a massive assault on our compound in the area. We were attacked with AK-47 machine guns, RPGs and mortars. Thousands of people took to the streets to attack us. As the riot unfolded before my eyes, I realized these were just the people who lived there. There were men, women and children participating. Some of the Iraqi protestors were even carrying pictures of Saddam Hussein.

Is this guy misrepresenting his experiences? I don't know, but I've read numerous reports from the front, and it all sounds similar.

You need to let your distate of whatever you believe was the causes for the war (when the reality is that the majority of the countries in the world, through their own respective intelligence services, all came to the same conclusion that Iraq had WMD)

No they did not.

There were weapons inspectors in Iraq for months and they found nothing which could threaten the U.S.. Any missiles which were capable of flying beyond a specific limit were required to be destroyed. Iraq complied. This was actually quite a funny few months; every demand made by Bush was met by Iraq, which meant no reason to invade. And so increasingly ridiculous demands were made. Finally it came down to fabricated evidence.

The CIA declared that they had no evidence and that the White House doctored their reports in order to favor an invasion. --The White House claimed otherwise, saying that the CIA made a blunder by feeding them false positives about WMD's, which the CIA denies. --This bickerfest was all over the papers for months and the one underlying fact was that there were no WMD's. Eventually, the war began in earnest, and bad record keeping and clerical errors were the mumbled excuses. --Which it a lie, of course. --The infamous Downing Street Memos document Tony Blair and Bush conspiring to invade regardless of what the WMD status was. This is all part of the public record. Finally, the semi-official reason for invading was because "Saddam was a really bad guy and the Iraqis needed liberating."

Intresting in that Saddam was armed and installed by the CIA, and given support and weapons from the late Fifties until the mid-Eighties. If you want to start a war, it's convenient to have a fall guy in place who will have exactly the policies you require and who you can turn on in a heartbeat.

It's also important to remember that there isn't ever just one factor in war. It's about confusion and chaos. That's what sells the most weapons. Clear-cut scenarios are easy to solve because they're clear-cut. So the more muddied and confused, the more participants, the more likely that a war will be something which cannot be easily ended. This is what the weapons salesmen want. There are fortunes bein

After the counting fiasco in FL, Congress passed the "Help America Vote Act" to get rid of the "hanging chad" forever. The Act provides funds to states to buy electronic machines so they can retire the punch card machines.

As you can see here with the Roll Call Vote, Overwhelming majorities of both parties voted for it, but MORE DEMOCRATS than republicans voted for it, even though Democrats are the minority party.

[posting as AC because I have mod points.]