Slashdot Mirror

True it was non partisan. But mostly democrats by a small margin IIRC. Though it was really bought and paid for by the entertainment industry.

And this man is guiltly of malfeasance. Between 1997 and 1998 he accepted over $50,000 from the entertainment industry in exchange for indroducing the DMCA to Congress. It's what Ralf Nader calls legalized bribery. You give us money, we'll support your bill. Oh the madness of it!

Unfortunately, they know that the best value they can give to the tools they provide is to make them free. But as long as the tools are free, there will always be those parts of society that do not contribute to the costs of their creation. And, unfortunately, that's not a minority of people. When was the last time YOU gave money to OpenBSD?

This quagmire of people being unable to develop that that should be free will not disappear by itself. Resources need to be devoted, and unless people are prepared to actually act, not just talk about it on Slashdot, nothing will ever get done. Apathy is not an option.

You can help by getting off your rear and writing to your congressman or senator. Tell them that critical free software is important to you. Tell them that you appreciate the work being done by the OpenBSD and GNU teams to support you with the software you need in your life but that if cheapskates keep refusing to contribute to the projects, ensuring people like Theo are not forced to hold down proper jobs, you will be forced to use less and less secure and intelligently designed alternatives. Explain the concerns you have about freedom, openness, and choice, and how a lack of money for Free Software harms all three. Let them know that this is an issue that effects YOU directly, that YOU vote, and that your vote will be influenced, indeed dependent, on their policies on funding Free Software.

You CAN make a difference. Don't treat voting as a right, treat it as a duty. Remember, it was thanks to ordinary people like YOU that we are now seeing such innovations as SMP in OpenBSD. Keep informed, keep your political representatives informed on how you feel. And, most importantly of all, vote.

Part of the problem is that the environmental noise has gotten so bad, headphone wearers have to crank their portable devices to be able to hear their tunes over the noise of traffic, trains, construction, etc.

It's kinda sad that Congress wants to talk about iPod volume levels when in fact the government has the power to directly affect some of the underlying causes.

[disclaimer: I worked on some of the documents linked above]

Finally after 30 minutes of looking for a description of it. Here's a Congresscritter's words on "Harmful to Minors". As defined by him/his committee/his intern in 2003.

• "Harmful to minors" is defined as content that:
  • appeals to minors' morbid interest in violent or sex
  • is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community, and
  • lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

Fact Sheet on H.R. 669: Protect Children From Video Game Sex & Violence Act of 2003
http://www.house.gov/baca/hotissues/video_factshee t.htm

I personally wouldn't want a representative to follow the will of the people too closely. The masses are fickle and rarely understand the issues the feel strongly about.

The House Government Reform committee does some investigation and gives an agency a poor grade.

The Secretary for the agency gets grilled by Congress-critters on why their agency is failing, again. The Secretary doesn't really care about IT security, but (s)he does care about not getting grilled by Congress-critters.

The secretary authorizes some obscene amount of dollars to go towards "improving IT security" and signs off on some plans that purport to do this. Often these are bundled together with initiatives for IT centralization, better management practices, the yearly re-org plan, etc. If you're lucky, some fair portion of the obscene dollar amount actually goes towards something that might really help IT security.

Various political appointees (Deputy Secretaries, Assistant Deputy Secretaries, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretaries, etc.) get shuffled around in the post-Congressional-snitfit era and engage in vicious political battles that make Imperial ascension politics in the Roman Empire look like a shuffleboard tournament. This of course immensely helps the prospects of improving IT security.

Meanwhile, various Beltway contractors propose all sorts of interesting things the agency can do with the money. The ones who are already working with the agency make recommendations to steer the dollars towards projects they can successfully bid on and ways they can increase their headcount, and the outsiders try to weasel their way in. Vendors make extravagent promises about their gear and generously distribute dinners, trips, tickets and job offers in desperate attempts to land a multi-million dollar sale.

Somebody (no one ever admits to this later) actually buys off on some subset of these promises and signs a PO to Make This Happen.

The money eventually filters down to the GS-15s and 14s (career employees) and contractors who Actually Do Something instead of going to meetings all day and answering email. They often emulate the successful political appointees above them by holding lots of meetings and sending lots of email. However, they get to Actually Do Something as well. Lucky them.

Some random collection of program managers, unwitting new subcontractor hires, and government support employees are thrown together to Make This Work. If they're lucky, enough of the people on the task have worked together before to know how to navigate through the bureaucratic, corporate and technical obstacles to have something to show for their efforts after 6 months. If not, well, the government paid for Yet Another Jobs Program.

3 times out of 10, the proposed solution fails so miserably that they can't even convince the other contractors and govvies to put it into production.

6 times out of 10, it works just well enough to shoehorn the "solution" into production, as long as the duct tape holds and they can hire enough bodies for the Mongolian Horde approach to IT ("quick, get more people for the overnight shift, the ticket count's escalating again!"). But that's okay, 'cause the same contractors and govvies will get to fix it again next year when the problem still isn't solved.

1 time out of 10, they actually Make It Work. Wow. People stumble around in shock, awe and amazement at what they have created. Users are happy, management is off their backs. But don't worry. Something will change in another 6 months to bring completely new requirements into the picture, and you get to roll the dice again.

Hmmmm... Let me see... There's this...
"the desire to explore and understand is part of our character," President Bush Wednesday unveiled an ambitious plan to return Americans to the moon by 2020 and use the mission as a steppingstone for future manned trips to Mars and beyond.
AND
President Bush's Jan. 14 speech painted broad brushstrokes of his plan to put humans back on the Moon and send them to Mars.

Oh but that was back in 2004, right, trying to get more "techies" to vote for him...

And NOW, as most of us have always know is TRUE color...

Disgruntled members of a congressional oversight committee objected Wednesday to a White House budget plan that threatens to cripple NASA's unmanned space programs and Earth and aeronautics research, President Bush's plan instead emphasizes sending American explorers back to the moon by 2018.

Budget cuts for 2002

Elsewhere there is talk of a 1% increase in NASA's budget for 2k7 but this is NOTHING compared to the slash to the budget that Bush dealt NASA when he first took office because he "needed" that money for the military we would later use to attach the middle east...

Hmmmm... Nice Logic! Instead of looking FORWARD back then... and looking into alternative fuels, the future, and Space ... We (he) was in it for his Oil buddies. Now that he is a LAME DUCK president he can virtually spout off about whatever...

But that's ok, it's obvious at this point that most Americans have a short attention span and don't really delve deeply. At least the "red" ones.

Methinks those in greenhouses should cast no stones:
from op-ed published on the WSJ
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/nj04_smith/op edgofa.html
Do No (Online) Evil By Congressman Chris Smith March 2, 2006
American people are deeply troubled to see U.S. technology and know-how used by repressive regimes in China and elsewhere in the world to cruelly exploit and abuse the citizens of those countries. While the Internet has opened up commercial opportunities and provided people all over the world with access to vast amounts of information, in China it has also become a malicious tool -- a cyber-sledgehammer of repression in the hands of the government.
When Internet use started to become widespread in China, brave citizens took advantage of this new method of communication to spread information by email about human-rights abuses issues and government corruption. The Chinese government responded with an immediate crack down. To date, an estimated 49 cyber-dissidents and 32 journalists have been imprisoned merely for using the Internet to spread information critical of the Chinese government.
I was recently on a news program talking about Google and China and was asked, "Should businesses be tasked with promoting democracy around the globe?" My response is that we are asking the wrong question. We ought to be asking whether businesses should help repressive dictatorships by partnering with, and providing tools to, a corrupt and cruel secret police, and by cooperating with laws that violate basic human rights.
In the case of China, there's clear evidence that U.S. technology companies are collaborating with a brutally oppressive regime in decapitating the voice of its dissidents. In 2005, Yahoo's cooperation with Chinese secret police led to the imprisonment of cyber-dissident Shi Tao. This was not the first time something like this had happened. Yahoo also handed over information to Chinese authorities on another of its users, Li Zhi -- who was later sentenced to eight years in prison for "inciting subversion." His only "crime" was to use online discussion groups and articles to criticize official corruption.
By using a combination of technology and an estimated force of 30,000 cyber-police to monitor, filter, and block critical content the Chinese government prevents its people from having access to uncensored information on political and human-rights topics. They only see what Big Brother allows them to see. Women and men are going to the gulag and being tortured as a direct result of information handed over to Chinese officials. These are not victimless crimes. We must stand with the oppressed, not the oppressors.
On Feb. 15, as chairman of the committee in the U.S. House of Representatives that oversees global human rights and international operations, I led a hearing to examine this problem. The hearing, which lasted more than seven hours, raised more questions than it answered. I was surprised when Yahoo's witness wouldn't reveal how often or under what circumstances the company provides private information about its customers to the secret police and whether any effort is made to ascertain what actions are taken by police based on this information. Yahoo didn't even seem to be curious whether any of the many journalists and other cyber-activists incarcerated in the laogai (Chinese prison camps) are there on account of information the company provided to the dictatorship.
Similarly, Cisco's witness failed to provide any real insight as to how Cisco's incredible technology is being used by Chinese police thugs to find, capture, convict, jail and torture both religious believers and human-rights advocates. My committee then heard from Harry Wu, a 19 year survivor of the laogai, who told us that Cisco was training the secret police in how to use its technology to identify dissidents -- so making it even harder for those who criticize the Chinese government to evade capture.

...that this might have some effect on Internet taxes that some evil corporations are trying to propose. Contact your representatives if you care about this issue. Who knows whether your voice will be heard, but can it really hurt to try? It only takes a few minutes.

I already did, and you should too.

From reading some of the postings here it sounds reasonable that GPS is just one of a number of navigation instruments available to the flight crew and that they cross reference multiple instruments. As long as cell phones don't cause all available navigation instruments to fail I don't know how much there is to worry about. I'd be more worried if alot of people using their cell phones on a flight can cause uncommanded movement of flight controls on airliners that use a fly-by-wire system. With that I've read about the possibility of using a cell phone inflight by the intruction of a pico cell network on ane airplane. The distance between the cell and phone is very short and so the cell phone would only need to use a low power signal to allow a person to make calls from within the airplane.

http://www.house.gov/transportation/aviation/07-15 -05/07-15-05memo.html

This guy's crime was just sending a billion e-mails? Why, that's hardly illegal at all. There must be something else going on here, like he kicked a senator's dog or something, because nothing's happened to any of the other spammers for whom there is plenty of evidence to put them away - at least, if the government had any real interest in doing so.

Copy all the CDs you want, legally!

17 USC, Chapter 10, Subchapter A, Section 1008 specifically states:
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.

Section 1001 defines a "digital audio recording medium" to be:
any material object in a form commonly distributed for use by individuals, that is primarily marketed or most commonly used by consumers for the purpose of making digital audio copied recordings by use of a digital audio recording device.

In more common language, this refers to audio/music CD-R discs, which are made to work in digital audio recorders. These discs are different from the more common data CD-Rs, in that they contain special digital markings (standard data CD-Rs won't work in digital audio recorders). In addition, by law a royalty has been paid on this blank media. These royalty payments are in turn distributed to copyright holders (see Section 1006 of the law cited above). They usually cost slightly more than data CD-R discs, but they can be found for less than $0.50 each.

So go ahead, make copies onto music/audio CD-R discs, even give copies to your friends. You can do so legally and without any moral problems - you've paid for the right to do so. (And the RIAA fought for this law. Thanks, RIAA!)
Note, too the "based on the...use" clause, which IMHO also legitimizes sharing/downloading MP3 or other audio files, provided you make use of an audio CD-R by burning those files onto it or sharing those files off of it.

What does Kathleen Harris have to do with the 2004 election? She was in Congress by then.

http://harris.house.gov/Biography/
With her swearing in on January 7, 2003, as U.S. Representative for the 13th District of Florida, Katherine Harris opened the newest chapter in her distinguished career of public service to her native state.

Sounds like you're still whining about the 2000 election. Maybe it's time for you to move on.

Something many people here and in other predominantly-left forums seem to be missing is that many Americans truly, honestly believed that Bush was the better candidate. I doubt that your average Republican voted for Bush any more automatically than the typical Democrat voted for Kerry, and yet everyone seems to think that only Republicans were partisan voters. Well, guess what: there are sheep on both sides of the fence. Singling out one group of them will only alienate the bloc of voters you should be trying to persuade.

I voted for Bush for various reasons, but I would probably stand alongside you if a recall vote were held today. The time for partisan sniping is over. We need to work together if we want to make a difference.

As a side note to fellow Republicans, his closing advice is just as valid for us. Contact the RNC and make your opinion known. Write to your representatives and senate and let them know that you disagree with executive branch policies. This is your party: step up and take charge of it.

"I am amazed that people do not see Google's action for what it is -- a huge and hugely inexpensive public relations stunt."

I'm amazed at how short-sited people can be. Within the realms of the law, Google has two options: 1. Hand over the data, 2. File a formal opposition to the motion. Yahoo and MSN were more than happy to jetison our data to whoever wanted it. Google has, at least, taken this step to raise awarness. They may not get anywhere, but at least they tried, which is more than can be said for the Google-alternates.

If Google were to follow the precedent set by Yahoo and MSN then there is absolutely no barrier to doing it again. While a bunch of random URLs may not do the government any good, you can bet that they are using this as a trial run. Next time it won't be random URLs. Next time it will be searches, or searches correlated with urls, or people correlated to searches. Monitoring the search engines is an easy way to monitor the internet as a whole.

Its short-sighted to lambast Google's actions because they're the only major search engine that is trying to defend our rights. Google's business interests and our privacy go hand in hand. One has to remember that Google has to operate within the boundaries of the law. They're doing all they can to raise awareness about those laws, but it is OUR responsibility to get those laws changed. We need to make it politically expensive for our government to act this way; instead you're trying to make it politically expensive for Google to make a stand. Quit your whining, close slashdot, put down the anime, and write a letter to your leaders.

House of Representatives:
http://www.house.gov/writerep/

Senate:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/ senators_cfm.cfm

It's sad that many news sites today don't publish the original source.

Seriously, Lantos has some nerve. He's a memner of the same congress that both approved Guantanamo Bay and moved to supress images from Abu Ghraib. Censoring information to people in other countries is one thing. Censoring information from your own counrtymen is another.

He's a Holocaust survivor. Pay attention. We're not being censored, yet people are still shooting off their mouths uninformed.

Google is to Hitler as 43 million to Taliban (http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2001/tst110501.h tm) is to?

A. Grandstanding
B. Double Standard
C. Promoting Democracy
D. Same as Hussein, Karimov, Shah of Iran, Pinochet
E. A, B, & D

Click Here to find out if one of your representatives is a member of this subcommittee.

Whether you agree with the representatives or with the companies, let them know what you think. I understand the feeling of betrayal on both sides - it seems like the companies have turned to "the dark side" in order to do business in China. But it also reeks of hypocrisy listening to members of our government lambasting companies for doing business in China according to China's laws (when the US is seemingly an advocate for filtration of the internet). Just try to pigeonhole one of these guys for questions on how we can trade with a country that has such horrific human rights violations.

The $MY_GROTESQUELY_OBESE_ANAL_RAPING_RIAA_CLOWNS_DESC RIPTOR complained about that too back in the day. I once had hundreds of cassette tapes recorded from premium LPs (usually half-speed masters). If they had their way, I might still be in the klink despite having spent a very sizable fraction of my then very limited income on this stuff.

As it is now, I have some of the tapes left, but can't easily make new copies because current stereo gear doesn't even include support for phonographs. Even if it did (and yes I know I can buy a preamp widget if I really want to), I don't have the hundreds of hours of my own time available (can you say family?) that it would take to bring all these out of storage and transfer to MP3. It's not like you can burn an LP at 52x...

Bottom line, is that ANYONE does indeed care about this, don't just whine on Slashdot.

At least copy and paste your teeth-gnashing missives into messages to each and every one of your applicable Congress-critters. Do it now. Or the GOARAC will be the ones doing the talking, of the green-foldy sort that finances the next junket to Barbuda with the strippers.

For example, mine in the above-average state of MN:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/ senators_cfm.cfm?State=MN
http://markkennedy.house.gov/

It's all well and good complaining when the RIAA start doing things like this, and it's great to inform your friends, to donate to the EFF or contact your Representative (or MP), but if we still buy music from RIAA members, we are in danger of sending mixed signals.

There is a world of great music out there that is NOT published by RIAA members, including many independent labels that really support artists and treat them with more respect than industry heavy-hitters who - despite their protests to the contrary - really only care about their bottom-line.

Compare, for example, independent music retailers, such as bleep who allow unlimited backups (for your own personal use, of course) of their non-DRM MP3 files with today's announcement from on high by the RIAA to see that there really IS a viable alternative to the dominance of the RIAA/BPI and similar organisations - but it will only ever become a true success if we put our money where our mouths are and stop supporting the RIAA.

A few observations:

> USATODAY is reporting that lawmakers in the US are proposing legislation that
> would keep Google and others out of China.

Actually, no. First off, the bill hasn't even been drafted yet.

Secondarily, as I read the article, it wouldn't prevent anyone from doing business in China and other oppressive regimes. It would simply require the "vital computer servers" (currently not defined; remember, it hasn't been -drafted- yet) from being located physically within the opressive regime's geographic control.

> From the article: 'Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., is drafting a bill that
> would force Internet companies including Google, Yahoo and Microsoft
> to keep vital computer servers out of China and other nations the State
> Department deems repressive to human rights.

The part that wasn't quoted says: "Moving servers would keep personal data they house from government reach. But that also could weaken the firms' crucial Internet search engines."

It appears the intent of the bill is to prohibit situations where crucial equipment could be physically compromised by force, although since it hasn't been drafted yet, it could go further, of course.

I don't know anything about Rep. Smith, but this page:

http://www.house.gov/chrissmith/laws/laws.htm

Seems to indicate he has been actively interested in human rights under opressive regimes rather than gestapo internet control laws. Maybe he deserves the benefit of the doubt, at least until after he has finished a first draft we could look at?

Everyone who lives in the US and has an interest in keeping the net neutral should contact their local representatives. It is a well known fact that the telcos are going to eventually try and get legislation passed to allow them to use their proposed system under law. Who knows how much it might help by contacting your rep, but it can't hurt. If enough people politely contact their rep with examples of ways they enjoy the Internet as it is, and how the proposed changes will affect this, I think it might make a difference when these laws make their ways through the Senate.

The last paragraph of the story says that the science committee will have a hearing on the budget on February 16th. So, if you disagree with this decision, write your representative and air your concerns. IMHO, the action most likely to succeed is holding the shuttle program to its budget and leaving the science funding untouched, so suggest that.

I had no idea I was also "U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky, a Chief Deputy Democratic Whip" (as referenced in the GGP post), I guess it was me on my U.S. Representative web site that compiled that list of quotes from the administration. Otherwise, if I wasn't also Jan, then I wouldn't have been "The only person making inferences...". Nevermind the fact that I am also obviously slashdot user "NMerriam (15122)", as it was s/he who made the original comment. Damn, I must be schizophrenic. Thanks for the info!

You have inferred that Bush is just about the worst person on earth

Actually, no. I have simply inferred (to you and you alone I guess, as it was not my original intent) the W "is just about the worst [president] on earth". It that case, I'd have to agree with myself (but which myself? the Jan myself, or the NMerriam myself? Fuck, this is confusing).

which you know isn't true

Actually, none of the me's are positive about that point.

and you can't offer any support for that argument

(Neverminding the fact that that was not *my* argument) You are so right, I offered absolutely no support for that argument what-so-ever. Silly me, I thought we were talking about W's (and HIS administrations) references to the Iraqi's footing part of the bill. I apologize. Excellent use of the NeoCon-ish-ness "demean your critics, divert the debate and ignore the issues", well played!

I have showed you concrete numbers, yet the OBVIOUSNESS of everything still isn't getting into your skull.

To paraphrase W (and yes, I lived in Texas) - "There's an old saying in Tennessee... well, it's an old saying in Texas, I believe also in Tennessee. Actions [pauses] speak louder then [pauses] government documentation on a National Development Strategy authored more then 2 years after the invasion was 'complete'". Shouldn't that have been done BEFORE the invasion? Or at least very soon there after? Or am I a "dick" to assume some leadership in a war that "we" "choose".
Have there been elections? Yes. Have they represented the population? Depends on if your a Sunni, Kurd or Shiite. We've killed 30,000 of them (W's numbers, not mine), is that considered progress? Guess that depends on if your PWT, KKK, or NeoCon.

You're not even a very smart liberal man, why bother?

I enjoy a bit of intellectual masturbation every once in a while. Besides, since I don't go to church, I don't have a clergy thinking for me, so I guess that makes me more dumber two.

Some guys can hold their ground, but I've reduced you to this? Sad.

Let's take score, shall we?

You referenced 1 document authored by the Republic of Iraq, Iraqi Strategic Review Board, Ministry of Planning and Development Cooperation to support your position.

I referenced the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, The Associated Press/Ex-President Jimmy Carter, The Washington Post, CNN, San Francisco Gate, and U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky's website (which itself references NYT, Reuters, The Washington Post, House Budget Committee, Congressional Testimony, CNBC, White House Press Briefings, House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplem

He never intended to take oil from Iraq...
Indeed.

You borrowed $314 billion from foreign investors, and my buddy from Cuba will love this one, because you have borrowed $52.5 billion from Communist China. You have borrowed $122 billion from Japan. We now owe $1.3 trillion to foreign nations and investors, including $122 billion to Communist China. Tell me you are proud of that. Tell me the Republican majority is proud that we owe $122 billion to China and that $50 billion a year of American tax dollars go to pay interest on what we owe just to foreigners like the Communist Chinese.

Now in 2006, politicians are spending quicker than ever and the amount of debt China holds has gone up a bit

Currently, China is holding $769 billion, the vast majority of its foreign exchange reserves.

So for politicians rambling on about how US corporations are falling into line to please the Chinese, the fact that in order to keep these loans coming in the Government must be friendly to this communist country and still not recognize the democratic Taiwan.

There are bigger structural problems in the USA right now - an alarming statistic is that the average american household has $8k - $10k in credit card debt. This is incredible.

Might have been relevant to include a link to the organisation making the statements in the news snippet?

Here it is:
http://lantos.house.gov/HoR/CA12/Human+Rights+Cauc us/

And here is their member list:
http://lantos.house.gov/HoR/CA12/Human+Rights+Cauc us/Members/

Yeah we can all goggle but why not add a bit of value?

Might have been relevant to include a link to the organisation making the statements in the news snippet?

Here it is:
http://lantos.house.gov/HoR/CA12/Human+Rights+Cauc us/

And here is their member list:
http://lantos.house.gov/HoR/CA12/Human+Rights+Cauc us/Members/

Yeah we can all goggle but why not add a bit of value?

Ok, here's one from kindergarten: Actions speak louder than words.

Ok, I'm fairly certain that I can find a lot of evidence revealing how many leaders of academia actually feel about George W. Bush. And there's a lot of documentation on his actual actions regarding science and research in the nation.

Harvard's Howard Gardner calls Bush's science adviser a "prostitute." And we all remember the Scientists and Engineers for Change organization compromised of sixty Nobel scientists and Tech Leaders. I'll let you guess out their stance on bush. Don't forget their open letter to the American people stating, " President Bush and his administration are compromising our future."

Remember, he only said he supports it. Let's see some actual actions to follow that up.

And if you have time to read up on Bush's actions in the science community, take a look at the Politics and Science in the Bush Administration. I find it hilarious that anyone could expect me to swallow Bush's "scientific research and technology proposals" when his actions are no more proposals than death knells.

Indeed, it seems the hardest issue regarding science that Bush is struggling with is how to silence it.

Yes but large corporations don't have the sort of long-running mismanagement of IT that the IRS has. The story here isn't that Gates' fortune is so large but rather -- assuming the story isn't a hoax -- that the IRS is so mismanaged that it cannot deal with exceptional cases like Gates.

The IRS is apparently still using a computer system that became operational in 1967 (see this announcement for example).

True...but here is a story from my wife.

Back in 1992 when George Bush Sr. was in Houston for the Republican convention, there was an incident at gate 4. Basically the police beat up gay protesters. Some people got trampled on by horses and some people like my wife got beat up. My wife was the strongest case as she wrote down everything that happened. She even had some training on how to stand up for your rights so you can bring charges. Basically she had to let the office know he was hurting her. That didn't stop the cop from hitting her with his baton. She had bone bruises on her leg, elbow, and the side of her face.

There was an inquiry. There were videos. Heck there were Republicans women that over heard the police talking about it before doing it, but they didn't think any people they knew would be in attendance. In the end nothing happened because the cops were in riot gear and their reflective badge numbers on the gear need light to be visible. Nothing happened. I think only one city representative stood up and spoke out about it, city council member, at the time, Sheila Jackson Lee.

same thing can happen with a rent-o-cop. You are going to need more than your word and the word of others. You are going to need lots of evidence and even then it is a luck shot.

Bono?

You mean Rep. Mary Bono (R-CA)? She was the driving force behind the 1998 copyright term extension, heavily lobbied for by The Walt Disney Company, whose biggest shareholder is now Steve Jobs.

You can email him here. All you have to do is send it.

Oh, and here's Meehan's page on house.gov.

"Last week I mailed each of my congressional colleagues a copy of a speech outlining my views on the lobbying and ethics scandals engulfing Washington. Iím afraid many of them wonít like my conclusion: to reduce corruption in government, we must make government less powerful-- and hence less interesting to lobbyists.

I find it hard to believe that changing the congressional ethics rules or placing new restrictions on lobbyists will do much good. After all, we already have laws against bribery, theft, and fraud. We already have ethics rules in Congress. We already have campaign finance reform. We already require campaigns and lobbyists to register with the federal government and disclose expenditures. We already require federal employees, including the president and members of congress, to take an oath of office. None of it is working, so why should we think more rules, regulations, or laws will change anything?

Lobbying, whether we like it or not, is constitutionally protected. The First amendment unequivocally recognizes the right of Americans to ìpetition the government for a redress of grievances.î We canít deal with corruption in government by ignoring the Constitution.

I donít believe the problem is corrupt lobbyists or even corrupt politicians per se. The fundamental problem, in my view, is the very culture of Washington. Our political system has become nothing more than a means of distributing government largesse, through tax dollars confiscated from the American people-- always in the name democracy. The federal budget is so enormous that it loses all meaning. Whatís another million or so for some pet project, in an annual budget of $2.4 trillion? No one questions the principle that a majority electorate should be allowed to rule the country, dictate rights, and redistribute wealth.

Itís no wonder a system of runaway lobbying and special interests has developed. When we consider the enormous entitlement and welfare system in place, and couple that with a military-industrial complex that feeds off perpetual war and encourages an interventionist foreign policy, the possibilities for corruption are endless. We shouldnít wonder why there is such a powerful motivation to learn the tricks of the lobbying trade-- and why former members of Congress and their aides become such high priced commodities.

The dependency on government generated by welfarism and warfarism, made possible by our shift from a republican to a democratic system of government, is the real scandal of the ages. If we merely tinker with current attitudes about the role of the federal government in our lives, it wonít do much to solve the ethics crisis. True reform is impossible without addressing the immorality of wealth redistribution.

After all, criminals by definition ignore laws; unethical people ignore the rules of ethics. Changing the rules or the players is merely a band-aid if we donít change the nature of the game itself."

The ninth amendment ONLY applies when there isn't a law authorizing the government entity to restrict something, but in this case there clearly and obviously is. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 114(s)(1)(C), the Transport Security Administration has the authority to issue secret regulations regarding security procedures at airports.

If you read the sources provided, it becomes abundantly clear that not only does the TSA have authority to issue regulations, but that (DUH) they have regulations requiring ID unless you're willing to go through other more thorough searches (which Gilmore was offered as a "Selectee").

Did you honestly think that there weren't laws in place authorizing the TSA to issue such policies? You'd have to be a moron, especially if you're a paranoid conspiracy nut, to not realize that such policies would exist.

These were all enforced by Southwest and United Airlines employees. They required ID even before these regulations anyway and constitutional rights don't apply to private organizations so it would be a moot point anyway.

Applicable here are the TSA identification policy, CAPPS and CAPPS II, and No-Fly
and Selectee lists.

Here is some information obtained from an official court document (linked below):
*"The airline security personnel could not, according to the Government, disclose to Gilmore the Security Directive that imposed the identification policy because the Directive was classified as "sensitive security information" ("SSI")."

*3. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 114(s)(1)(C) (2005), the Under Secretary of the TSA "shall prescribe regulations prohibiting the disclosure of information obtained or developed in carrying out security . . . if the Under Secretary decides that disclosing the information would . . . be detrimental to the security of transportation." This information is called "sensitive security information." 49 C.F.R. 1520.5(a) (2005). The Under Secretary classified as SSI "[a]ny security program or security contingency plan issued, established, required, received, or approved by DOT [Department of Transportation] or DHS [Department of Homeland Security], including . . . [a]ny aircraft operator, airport operator, or fixed base operator security program, or security contingency plan under this chapter" and "[a]ny Security Directive or order . . . [i]ssued by TSA." 49 C.F.R. 1520.5(b)(1)(i), (b)(2)(i) (2005).

4. The No-Fly and Selectee lists are Security Directives. They were issued by TSA pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 114(l)(2)(A) (2005), which authorizes the TSA Under Secretary to issue Security Directives without providing notice or an opportunity for comment in order to protect transportation security.

Sources:
-Gilmore v. Gonzales CV-02-03444-SI Opinion [pdf]
-TSA: How the Process Works
-TSA: Passenger Security Checkpoints
-The Status Of The Computer-Assisted Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS II)

Shudder.

You know, we've disagreed on things before, but you and I see exactly eye-to-eye on this. It is truly frightening. And for more reasons than that... I've been thinking lately a lot about a Ben Franklin quote:

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic if you can keep it" responded Franklin.

Sometimes, in my more cynical moments, I think Ben was really on to something there. I fear what he meant was that all Republics are, at best, a temporary construct. That a free Republic of Men can only, in the best case scenario, last a few hundred years at most, and provide that brief of security... before it must be 'refreshed'. I'm not sure if I agree that this is strictly true, but it makes you wonder.

Of course, it doesn't help when those in power either don't know the Constitution or (more likely) simply lie about it. Here's an exchange between Gen. Michael Hayden and a reporter where Hayden claims the fourth amendment does not say there must be probably cause to issue a warrent, which is simply wrong.

Hayden is currently Deputy Director of National Intelligence and formerly the Director of the NSA.

If Google's failure to willingly cooperate means that they're completely blocked in China, then as far as the West influencing things it's worse.

Influence is a two-way street. Trade with China was supposed to export our values of freedom and democracy to them, but instead we're importing their corruption and contempt for human rights. Before exposure to China, Google was arguably one of the most morally upright major American companies. Now they're turning into scum.

To put it another way, if Google cooperates with China's censorship, they don't have a whole lot of ammunition when the US Department of Justice asks them for people's search records. This does affect you--it's not just about China.

US Representative Chris Smith (R. NJ) is planning to hold hearings into the cooperation of US internet companies with Chinese censorship. I just wrote my congresswoman and asked her to support these hearings. You should consider doing the same, if you are an American.

I also plan to write Google and tell them I am canceling my AdWords campaign because of their practices.

If Google's failure to willingly cooperate means that they're completely blocked in China, then as far as the West influencing things it's worse.

Influence is a two-way street. Trade with China was supposed to export our values of freedom and democracy to them, but instead we're importing their corruption and contempt for human rights. Before exposure to China, Google was arguably one of the most morally upright major American companies. Now they're turning into scum.

To put it another way, if Google cooperates with China's censorship, they don't have a whole lot of ammunition when the US Department of Justice asks them for people's search records. This does affect you--it's not just about China.

US Representative Chris Smith (R. NJ) is planning to hold hearings into the cooperation of US internet companies with Chinese censorship. I just wrote my congresswoman and asked her to support these hearings. You should consider doing the same, if you are an American.

I also plan to write Google and tell them I am canceling my AdWords campaign because of their practices.

It is not "obviously illegal."

17 USC, Chapter 10, Subchapter A, Section 1008 specifically states:
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.

Section 1001 defines a "digital audio recording medium" to be:
any material object in a form commonly distributed for use by individuals, that is primarily marketed or most commonly used by consumers for the purpose of making digital audio copied recordings by use of a digital audio recording device.

In more common language, this refers to audio/music CD-R discs, which are made to work in digital audio recorders. These discs are different from the more common data CD-Rs, in that they contain special digital markings (standard data CD-Rs won't work in digital audio recorders). In addition, by law a royalty has been paid on this blank media. These royalty payments are in turn distributed to copyright holders (see Section 1006 of the law cited above). They usually cost slightly more than data CD-R discs, but they can be found for less than $0.50 each (as of 1/10/06).

A reasonable interpretation of the above is that distributing copyrighted musical recordings for noncommercial use on these audio CD-R discs is perfectly legal. Copying such recordings is an ordinary part of the process of "using" these discs. The law makes no mention of the media path used to make these copies - and there's little to distinguish between IDE (CD to CD-R drive), SPDIF (CD to audio CD recorder), or TCP/IP (CD on server to CD-R drive).

IANAL, and all that...

So your proof that Reaganomics didn't help the economy is based on a single indicator-- the national deficit. I'll play along. I looked on your chart and I noticed that the budget deficit was higher when Reagan left office. However, it was growing immensely when he came in at the same time interest rates were shicklingly high. It became a surplus when Clinton came into office. That was a laudable feat, but that fact that our defense and national security were gutted during that time span makes it suspect. In any case, it doesn't prove that supply-side economics doesn't work-- it proves that Clinton adopted those policies for his own, under a different name.

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/ reagtxct.htm

Following this paper, Clinton enacted tax cuts and the economy skyrocketed. At least, until the Internet Bubble burst in 1999-2000. Notice the steep dropoff during the last year of his presidency. Oh wait, that's supposed to be Bush's fault! My bad.

sure bear arms. sure, if you are part of a state millitia.

I usually don't like to debate the Second amendment with people on the Internet, but sometimes I just feel like sayin' stuff, you know? :-P

Let's disregard for the moment the fact that the Second Amendment does not explicitly restrict the right to bear arms to members of the militia. Let's forget the fact that the Department of Justice has specifically asserted that the Second Amendment secures an individual right, not a collective one. Let's assume that only members of the militia are authorized by the Constitution to bear arms.

Okay?

Okay.

Well, there's still the fact that every male citizen between the ages of 17 and 45 is a member of the militia of the United States of America. You're probably a member yourself (making some assumptions about members of this site's typical demographic). It's law. See 10 USC 13, S.311.

More on topic, what part of "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" does not imply some right to privacy? But then, maybe you're right. If the protection we have is too vague and too easy to circumvent, then maybe what we need is a much more clear and defensive protection of the privacy of citizens, perhaps as a Constitutional amendment.

This is good to hear that a huge company such as Google is fighting the telcos. Unfortunately, we still need some more big players to stand up to the telcos as well. At that point, the only thing the telcos will have on their side is the law. This is why you need to contact your local representative about this issue. I already have, and received responses from 2 out of 3. Of course they were somewhat generic responses, but still you can only hope that the message gets across. Be sure to write a polite, clear, and concise message to ensure that you get your views heard by your representative.

You continued failed attemps to discredit Bush have always failed and will continue to fail.
My biggest concern here is that you have totally bought into the surface meme that any criticism of the Bush Administration is motivated by partisan hatred. It's a good way of not dealing with any of the issues. But this is not a football game fought by the red team against the blue team. I would suggest looking at reality instead of being a mindless fanboy. You should remember that the Supreme Court struck down two provisions of the Patriot act as unconstitutional. Anton Scalia, a notable conservative justice, joined the majority opinion. Also, plenty of 'non Democratic party' folks are voicing major objections: I wouldn't exactly call Texas Congressman Ron Paul a 'hard left liberal': house.gov There is some serious shit going on in our country right now that deserves real attention, not mindless vomiting of spin.

However, you can't say that America is better in any significant way. Instead of spending huge amounts of money on social programs, we spend absolutely obscene amounts of money on the military. Money we don't even have... we are borrowing incredibly heavily to finance our war machine.

You think we *aren't* spending huge amounts of money on social programs? We're spending much more on entitlement programs on our "war machine." Take a look at the budget and reassess your view of what the federal government spends its money on. If you find the current level of defense spending "absolutely obscene," just look at how much money goes to the elderly alone through Social Security.

if you read both articles, the most damning thing is that the 6 or so paragraphs cover the same parts of his life in the same order.

but in it's defense, there are only so many ways you can say "X owns Y" "X was a senator" "X has 5 kids".

This is even more obvious if you look at his official bio:
http://www.house.gov/lincolndavis/biography.htm

There's more fluff, so it reads differently, but the same facts are there. It's not a copy-paste job, but it looks like the wikipedia article writer only read one source getting his facts, and then wrote it in his own words.

I'd vote it wasn't plagarism because you can't plagarise facts, and both the other sites are very to-the-point.

No. Read the Constitution. The relevant sections are the 9th and 10th amendments discussed in this thread and article I section 8. That section lists what Congress can make laws about. Clause 18 (called the Elastic Clause) makes things blurry. The Commerce Clause only applies to interstate commerce. As soon as you run into commerce that stays within a single state, federal laws cannot touch it.

After VP Cheney, the next in line to become President is the Speaker of the House, who is currently Representative Dennis Hastert, not Senator Ted Stevens. I wouldn't be thrilled to see Hastert become President either.