Slashdot Mirror

How long... (Score:1)
by Deathbane27 (884594) on Tuesday September 27, @02:51PM (#13660429)
...until some brave independent slips an amendment about terrorism, abortion, gay marriage, gun control, or some other hotbutton issue onto an unrelated bill, so that congress as a whole will wake up, get pissed, and make this sort of bill amending illegal?

The excess the Republicans' proposed cuts is almost unbelievable. You can read the full proposal here. Here are just some of the most egregious cuts:
$225 billion cut from Medicaid, the last-resort health insurance program for the very poor.
$200 billion cut from Medicare, the health care safety net for the elderly and the disabled.
$25 billion cut from the Centers for Disease Control
$6.7 billion cut from school lunches for poor children
$7.5 cut from programs to fight global AIDS
$5.5 billion to eliminate all funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
$3.6 billion cut to eliminate the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities
$8.5 billion cut to eliminate all subsidized loans to graduate students.
$2.5 bullion cut from Amtrak
$2.5 billion to eliminate the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative
$417 million cut to eliminate the Minority Business Development Agency
$4.8 billion cut to eliminate all funding for the Safe and Drug-Free schools program And the list goes on and on.

The federal government does not have the duty of "providing for the general welfare." It is to "promote the general Welfare" There is a significant difference.

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.htm l

It can be debated whether or not the free trade agreements, etc. have promoted the general welfare. But the general welfare is not provided by the federal government, it is provided by the citizens in the form of commercial activity.

This is a cute suggestion, but not very practical

It's "not practical" because people won't. Many many people say they don't like voting for either democrats or republicans but when it's pointed out they have other choises like voting for Libertarians they say the same thing as you. If they, and you, were to make your votes meaningful things would change. And yes I've voted Libertarian, I first voted LP in 1992 for Ron Paul the Libertarian candidate for president. Admittedly I don't always vote for straight party ticket, I've voted for Democrats, Reform, and Republican, instead I vote on the person who comes the closest to being Jeffersonian, for liberty and small government. When a Libertarian is running s/he usually comes the closest, but many tymes one isn't running for a specific office.

For 1999 (the last year I could easly find numbers for), commercial space launch was a $6.6 billion business (http://www.house.gov/science/mowry_052400.htm).

Because a space elevator can only directly put things in a near-equatoral orbit, it won't capture that entire pie. You'll still need orbital transfer rockets to move things from the orbit the elevator puts them in to the orbit you want them in. Those rockets will probably be built by someone other than the company/government that owns the elevator. Still, at a guess, the elevator will capture 50-75% of a $6.6 billion industry, so you're looking at something like $3-4.5 billion a year in potential income.

You'll hear a lot about how cheap it is to put things in space with an elevator. That's true, as far as the marginal costs go, but it neglects that you've got a very expensive bit of capital equipment. Essentially the only cost of running a space elevator is paying the finance charges on the thing--the rest is a rounding error. You can do your own math as far as necessary ROI, etc. , but at a first cut, if you can build the thing for less than $30-50 billion, it should be able to pay for itself.

And all this is assuming that demand for launch services doesn't grow. Since the marginal cost of using a space elevator is so low, and the finance charges are fixed, they've got lots of incentive to use it as much as possible. So, hopefully they'll price lift services at whatever point on the supply-demand curve creates the most revenue. It's hard to imagine that this wouldn't result in a lot more stuff going into space than we have now.

Here is a list of the Representatives that voted for Real IDs. It passed unanimously in the Senate.

I can't decide if you're trolling, or just totally misinformed. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and treat it as the latter.

According to the Fermilab High Energy Physics Information Center, the SSC was cancelled by the House of Representatives in 1993. That would be the overwhelmingly Democrat controlled House of Representatives. 258-D to 176-R, during the latter part of 1993, and 267-D to 167-R earlier in the year. So who killed the SSC again?

Far from making sense, your theory isn't even possible.

Furthermore, then-Governor G.W. Bush, while visiting Japan in 1992, reportedly offered the Japanese a $1.25 BN "full partnership" stake in the venture in an effort to keep it alive. While I'm sure this had more to do with the windfall for his state than any particular love of high-energy particle physics, it certainly doesn't look good for your book-burning, anti-science red-staters theory.

I don't know if you were just tossing your little 'factoid' out there in the hopes of getting some karma from the other knee-jerk libs, but you must have a really short memory if you thought 1993 was a big year for conservatives, anti-science book-burners or not.

There are a lot of legitimate things to go after the ultra-right wingers with, especially recently, but the SSC isn't one of them. Do some research next time.

This

message is to every musician speaking out against file sharing:
get your facts straight, and stop regurgitating everything the major label tells you.
Anyone still clinging to the cage-format for music is either a middleman or lazy. Squidnecks

You major label suckers make me laugh
Do you really think your label would come out and say, "Hey we cut your paycheck in half because you've got to help pay for the 250 billion copies we give away. Have they mentioned when they cut new releases by 25% sales dropped 4.1% and they blamed it on P2P? Have they mentioned that they responded to that drop by raising the cost of your CD $1 every year? Does that seem like a good business move to you? Or does that smell like fear?
Ask yourself what kind of business would cut research and development first? I'll tell you: the business that's about to make it's bed up in a mother fuckin hearse.
While Hilary Rosen and the RIAA are trying to convince you that free listeners are a bad thing, those same five labels that pay them are charging you $500,000 to buy you spins
While you're negotiating whether or not the latest Napster pays you 1/3 of a cent per download, Comcast and AOL are turning the information highway into a toll road.
you know the end is near when Britney Spears is calling it a moral issue
they've positioned you right between their wallets and your fans
they can't really expect to turn the tide with a few pathetic lawsuits
So you gotta ask yourself how does one stop a flood? You build a damn.
IT'S THE ISPs, IT'S THE ISPs!
Comcast will have every last consumer on their knees
starting with 5.3 million subscribers to cable access high speed
they own the wires, so they can discriminate with bandwidth and queuing fees
guaranteed monopoly by the FCC so

We're standing on the verge of an artistic cleansing of biblical proportions I say bring it
when the wickedness of big business is great in the earth
and it will even try to sell the waters that it's drowning in
marching two rappers
two rockers
two composers
two programmers
onto a pirate ship
in a free-market flood
until businessmen are businessmen
and art is art again. Rock

this is not an issue of children not recognizing value in art
this is an issue of children recognizing value-less art
getting artists paid doesn't even play a part
The truth is
for the first time since it's creat

Go to the website below and enter your zip code to find the contact information of your representative. Then send him/her a letter about stopping the RIAA and maybe about the desperate patent situation, too. http://www.house.gov/ And while you are at it, the EFF has provided an extremely easy way to contact your rep with this online form involving current RIAA lobbying. http://action.eff.org/site/Advocacy?id=157 Please, please fill out that simple form to help make a difference.

The Republican who's using videogames as a scapegoat, or the Democrat who's using videogames as a scapegoat?

Its nice how your assumption results in a world where you don't have to get off your lazy ass and vote.

Btw, here is a list of the 19 democrats and 2 republics in the house who voted no against H.RES.376, a resolution to call upon the FTC to investigate Rockstar Games over the 'Hot Coffee' mod. Unfortunately, not any of my state's representitives voted no. :( YMMV.

That's at the federal level. Obviously, it seems that you didn't know that. Perhaps if gamers like you paid more attention to issues that concern you, we'd have less problems.

Of course, at the state and local level, you have even more power. But perhaps that would require just a tad too much effort.

Get off your ass and vote, damnit. Why are the republicans and democrats voting for legislation like this? Because the people that elected them want legislation like this.

Is this even necessary? $308M is a lot of money (maybe not for our federal government, but for the average taxpayer) and this really seems to be a waste to tax and spend on a program that is better solved by private companies.

Will we need old information in digital format? How many old books have we needed to save that were better saved just by reprinting them? How much information will the future need, and is it important to save just about everything just for memory sake?

It just sounds like pork to me. Competitive pork, yes, but still pork. Our government has kept Lockheed afloat for decades.

I'm trying to find out where in our Constitution does the Federal Government find an enumerated power to pay for this. It is outrageous -- there are numerous companies out there already attempting to archive old data. Why does our government even care? I bet it has more to do with raising taxes, creating new taxpayers to be paid on the government dole, and increasing unemployment figures.

Similar to Hazlitt's Broken Window Fallacy, taxes are NOT good for creating wealth for the country. Instead, they create profit for certain select individuals and reduce wealth for everyone else.

Our elected officials continue to finance deficit spending, which will only make us taxpayers and the next generations poorer.

Pocket Constitution? WTF is wrong with you Americans? Stop treating your 1) Constitution 2) Founding Fathers as gods. They are man-made, erodable, and not so superior to everything and everyone else if you just care to take a look. They were Gods...they were the foremost thinkers of their time. For instance... would you be able to sit here and read this if Ben Franklin hadn't been a Founding Father? I don't care where you are in the world... you haven't NOT been touched by the works of the United States Founding Fathers in some way. Our revolution begat the French Revolution - ending the horror that was the National Razor. Or maybe we should bring it back?? *shudder*

And as for treating our Constitution like 'Gods'.... why don't you check out some of the review that John Roberts is going through to become Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (of the United States)? His entire LIFE is going to hinge on how he interprets, how he applies, and how he believes the Constitution of same said United States. Every person who holds a political office, serves in any branch of our military, including the Reserves, must swear an OATH to uphold, protect and DEFEND same said Constitution.

The United States Constitution IS the rules and laws that govern this land. That is why it must be upheld, defended and protected at all costs, to include the life and limb of America's great citizens, no matter their generation.

Please do take a look over these two documents, and tell me what is manmade and erodable about a person's indellible right to be free?

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experien ce/charters/declaration_transcript.html
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.htm l

And then, I want you to tell me who else on this planet guarantees such freedoms in their government. Very very very few. For all you liberal democrat weinies, this is a good refresher to remind you of just WHO AND WHAT was sacrificed to make sure you can speak you mind today. NEVER FORGET THAT!

Jho -- who's ancestors carried the Declaration of Independence from New York to Philadelphia and back and forth for review, signing, and ultimately introduction.

I have no idea how DVD Jon has kept his ass out of jail

Well duh, because he did nothing illegal.

Moreover I would say he did absolutely nothing wrong. He wrote some extremely useful software which, amongst other things, enabled people to view the DVDs they bought on their Linux machines and enabled people to ignore stupid region coding on DVDs they bought and enabled people to skip the SEVERAL MINUTES of advertizments with the fast-forward and menu buttons LOCKED OUT at the beginning of some DVDs they bought (such as Shrek 2).

And this really clarifies why your DRM utopia is actually a fantasy distopia...

What DVD Jon did is not illegal unless you pass a specific NEW law (like the DMCA) to make it illegal. Under good old traditional copyright law Jon did nothing wrong. Under good old traditional copyright law there is no such thing as DRM enforcment. Under good old traditional copyright law, attempting to enforce DRM is an infringment of contitutionally guaranteed fair use rights. In order for this rediculous new DRM scheme to function you need a new DRM law that has absolutely nothing to do with copyright infringment. That new law is not "effective" unless it turns INNOCENT NONINFRINGING PEOPLE into felons. You see DVD Jon did not commit copyright infringment. Most of the people who used DeCSS did not use it to commit copyright infringment. Advocation a DRM "solution" is essentially advocating that INNOCENT NONINFRINGING people must be imprisoned for making perfectly legal and absolutely legitimate uses, in order to make DRM at least minimally "effective".

There is a bill floating around the US congress called the DMCRA. The DMCRA simply amends the DMCA to say that noninfringing people are not criminals, that noninfringing people do not go to prison. The pro-DRM lobby is fighting tooth and nail to prevent the DMCRA from even coming to a vote. They are fighting it because it opens a big fat hole in DRM enforcement and makes DRM entirely inneffective. However I have NEVER found a single DRM advocate actually willing to justify and defend the position that INNOCENT NONINFRINGING people should be imprisoned. I have asked at least a dozen DRM advocates, ane never once gotten an answer or justification for opposing the DMCRA.

I'm sorry, but you're pretty much stuck with two options. One one hand you can have "effecive" DRM with a draconican DMCA law that needs to imprison noninfringing people doing legal noninfringing things. On the other hand you can NOT imprison innocent noninfringing people, and DRM will be worthless because the natural market will supply people the products and abilities to circumvent or remove DRM for perfectly legal purposes. You can wish for a magic flying carpet "good" DRM system all you like, but the fact is that a law enforcing DRM itself means enforcing bad DRM that obtructs legal uses and that infringes fair use rights and which is abused to impose all sorts of schemes that have absolutely nothing to do with copyright or copyright infringment.

If you wish to continue advocating the DRM position, please please please explain to me how and why you justify the position that noninfringing people should be imprisoned. Either that or actually produce your magic "good" DRM system and explain how enforcing it does not require innocent noninfringing people to face prison.

-

untrue huh?

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.htm l

read the FIRST sentence.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America"

Notice no where in that does it say "we the people of the earth", or "we the humans", or "we the citizens of the state". It is very clear in being for people of the United states.

Also to add to your list of presidents (by YOUR definition), Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Johnson, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and BushH. Treason to kill people who are a threat to the United States? Hardly! Quite the opposite really. Against the law to go against a treaty? Thats debatable, and up to the courts to decide.

Time to contact your representatives!

http://www.house.gov/writerep/

And your senators!

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

This is just ridiculous!!

I hear a lot of complaining and bitching about Paypal. Your tear-soaked bed is one place to go. The media is another place to go. The more productive thing is to http://www.house.gov/writerep/ write to congress telling them of Paypal's constant victimization of their customers and ask for regulation, and notify FEMA (Phone: (800) 621-FEMA) of paypal defrauding flood victims of relief funds.

I'm not a Christian, never have been, but it's part and parcel of the Declaration of Independence (Creator anyone?) and the Constitution (God anyone?).

What are you talking about? Neither of the words "god" or "creator" occur even once in the US Constitution. Meanwhile, in the Declaration of Independence the actual terms that occur are "Nature's God" and "Creator" - neither of which says a ringy-ding-ding about a Christian God. Certainly there is NO mention of Christ, Messiah, Yahweh, Prophet, Bodhisattva, Kalima, or any other specific diety or divine office.

Furthermore, there is no indication whatsoever, and plenty of indication to the contrary, in those documents that religion - any religion - should even be acknowledged by the state.

This is where Scalia and his claims of being a "strict constructionist" fall apart. For the most part his words and deeds match, but once religion comes into the picture he's just waving his hands and hoping nobody examines his justifications too closely, because when you do, you see just how far he has to reach to bring his god into the arena.

We have never had ALL of our branches of government run by a political party with control centered in the hands of so very few.

The pro-DRM side is motivated by stoping copyright infringment. Fine, perfectly reasonable motivation.

The anti-DRM side fundamentally comes down to the position that innocent NONINFRINGING people not face prison. I'll assume you accept that is perfectly reasonable as well?

The resolution one way or the other between them pretty much comes down to whether you support the DMCRA or not. Under the DMCRA anyone who commits copyright infringment would still be subject to the exact same laws and penalties as right now. Teh DMCRA simply says that innocent NONINFRINGING people do not go to prison. A pretty simple and very reasonable position.

Do you support the DMCRA? If you do support the DMCRA then please click my sig and register your support. If you do not support the DMCRA, please explain how and why do you defend the position that NONINFRINING people should be imprisoned?

I have asked that exact question of at least a dozen DRM advocates... and funny thing... not a single one has ever answered it.

-

You're right that the copyright holder has every right to distribute in any format he likes. There is nothing wrong with using DRM.

The problem is in the stupid-ass DMCA and in any expectation that INNOCENT NONINFRINGING people face prison.

Do you support the DMCRA? The DMCRA says that innocent NONINFRINGING people don't go to prison. Pretty simple really. If you do not support the DMCRA then kindly explain how and why to defend the position of imprisoning innocent NONINFRINGING people. Explain why I should go to prison for buying a DVD copy of Shrek2 and playing it on my Linux computer and skipping the "unskippable" several minutes of advertizing before the movie.

There's nothing wrong with people using all the DRM they like, there is something SERIOUSLY wrong with any law imprisoning that innocent noninfring people who circumvent or remove the DRM for perfectly legal and absolutely legitimate use.

-

Perhaps I'm just too tired, but I'm not completely sure whether or not you are advocating DRM and that it be "secure" against the owner of the computer and for the owner of the computer be put in prison if he circumvents/removes the DRM anyway.

If that *is* your position then I'll just repeat my question from my last post:

I have a question for you. It is a question that DRM proponents never answer. It is a question I expect you are not going to answer either. Do you support the DMCRA? It simply decriminalizes innocent NONINFRINGING people. Anyone who commits copyright infringment would still face the exact same penalties as before. If you do not support the DMCRA, please explain how you justify the position of imprisoning INNOCENT NONINFRINGING people. Why you defend the position of INNOCENT NONINFRINGING people facing five years in prison.

P.S.
Maybe I'll reread your post after I get some sleep when I can make better sense of it and maybe I'll tack on another reply.

-

too many people seem to think that "fair use" is giving a copy to 5,000 of their closest anonymous friends

FALSE.

If you want to say that too many people are commiting compyright infringment... and that they know and/or don't care that it is copyright infringment, fine. Saying that too many people think it is Fair Use is rediculous. Of those who know/think about Fair Use at all, I'd say a vanishingly small number of them think that that falls under Fair Use.

Given the concerns of all the parties involved, creators, publishers, and users, then what is "fair"?

You don't get to make up what you like and say you think it is "fair". Fair Use is a legal construct and is has a legal definition and I invite you to review the extensive court rulings on the subject. You'll find taht Fair Use is established on grounds of affirmative constitutional rights. Fair Use is established on the grounds that copyright law itself would be unconstitutional and invalid if it attempted to restrict certain things. If you choose to just MAKE UP what you think would be "fair" and it infringes upon the legal entity of Fair Use then the result is to eliminate ALL of copyright. Unconstitutional law is null and void. Fair Use is copyright law's self protection mechanism. Fair Use is the only thing saving copyright law from being struck down as invalid. The trash heap of legal history is littered with laws of all sorts that have been struck down as unconstitutional for trying to restrict things that constitutionally cannot be restricted.

the key to your "multiple device" problem would seem to involve "ownership" of the material involved.

First of all there is no need for "scare quotes" around the word ownership. Copyright law directly deals with the ownership of copy rights as opposed to the ownership of individual copies. By law I am the legal owner of of the CD I bought and I am the legal owner of the particular copies of the songs on that CD and I am the legal owner of a particular copy of a song I downloaded to my harddrive. People really do "own" their particular copies of things.

the key to your "multiple device" problem would seem to involve "ownership" of the material involved. If everything you owned "knew" you owned it, then you could use it on any of "your" devices.

Same old DRM nonsense. If I build my own device and program my own player it is not copyright infringment to play my music on it. If my daughter reencodes music as an MP3 or as a naked WAV file to include in a class project it is not copyright infringment. If my wife copies a segment out of a DVD for educational use it is not copyright infringment.

The line between copyright infringment and Fair Use often lies in the intent of the use. It is physically impossible to create such a DRM system, unless of course you have some Magic Mindreading software.

I have a question for you. It is a question that DRM proponents never answer. It is a question I expect you are not going to answer either. Do you support the DMCRA? It simply decriminalizes innocent NONINFRINGING people. Anyone who commits copyright infringment would still face the exact same penalties as before. If you do not support the DMCRA, please explain how you justify the position of imprisoning INNOCENT NONINFRINGING people. Why you defend the position of INNOCENT NONINFRINGING people facing five years in prison.

-

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX)

Co-sponsors

Nice try, but the treaty has never been submitted to the U.S. Senate for ratification. Even if it had been, Democrats did not control the Senate (which votes on treaties) in 1998, which is the earliest the Clinton Administration could have submitted the Protocol for ratification. (The Dems didn't control the House either for that matter.) The Republicans have held a majority in the Senate since the 104th Congress (elected in 1995) through the 106th Congress, with a tie for the 107th, and then back to full GOP control for the 108th and 109th. The failure of the Senate to ratify Kyoto cannot be laid at the feet of the Democratic Party. There's nothing the Clinton Administration could have done to ensure ratification of Kyoto - The Republican Senators would have committed harakiri before giving Clinton such a victory, particularly considering they were preparing to impeach him at the time.

If you do write to the Copyright Office (and you should), it might be a good idea to send a copy of your letter to your Representative in Congress as well, asking them to use their influence to get the Copyright Office to behave fairly towards non-IE users who want to be able to use the system.

Congresspeople tend to be more sensitive to the desires of their constituents than bureaucrats within the executive branch, and they know how to get results from the bureaucracy when needed.

You can find your Representative here:

http://www.house.gov/writerep/

Social services *should* be done on a more reasonable level of government, so that you aren't forced, against your will, to pay for them.

Gotta disagree with you there. The Federal government does a MUCH better job with social services than the states ever have. I can demonstrate that with one word and two letters:

Washington D.C.

According the U.S. Constitution, only Congress (or its designees) can govern the capital. It is the only city that has no state or local government to impede the will of the Federal government. Congress bears sole responsibility for the results of all government programs in the city.

Consider those results next time you visit the nation's capital. Observe the lack of poverty and the consequential elimination of homelessness, drug abuse, and crime. Note the rigourous standards in public schools and the resultant high literacy and graduation rates - with such an educational system available to them, no member of Congress bothers to send their children to private schools! It is obvious from even a little reflection that in the city of Washington, Congress has shown the way for state and local governments to address most social ills.

I would encourage everyone reading this to write to their state and local representatives, encouraging them to take a junket to Washington D.C. There, they can observe the results of Congress's decisions and and reconsider state and local policies accordingly. Remember - the more money we give to Congress, and the more control we cede to them, the more our communities will come to resemble Washington, D.C. Who wouldn't want to live in a place like that?

**Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution.

According to the Constitutional Amendments;

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I don't see how due process, double jeopardy, and property rights are equivocal with shutting employees up from freely speaking with the press. In all truth, such a practice is suppressive of the first amendment, which states: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ..."

So would you please elaborate?

The right to privacy is preserved by the tenth amendment to the US constitution.
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html

While we feel close to the 'huge' losses of the dotcom boom/bust, we must not loose sight of the fact that two US corporations (Enrom, $80+ billion, WorldCom $74+ billion in 2000/2001 alone, and Tyco) probably account for more direct losses than all the dotcom spending. It was these big corporate failures trashing the stock market, that led to widespread losses amounting to trillions of dollars (billions from State pensions alone), that then brought down our favourite dotcoms.

The dotcoms may have been pretty fireworks, but they were not the monetary black hole that snak the economy.

Here here. Let's please not focus on ID just because it is the latest thing to come out of this government. Rather, let's focus on the torrent of unsound and unresearched scientific claims made by the administration and the stifiling of scientists who strongly oppose such intrusion.

Here's a great place to start:

I defy you to justify innocent NONINFRINGING people facing prison under the DMCA.

Do you support the DMCRA? It ammends the DMCA to say that INNOCENT NONINFRINGING people do not go to prison. Pretty simple really. Do you support the DMCRA? Or are can you explain to me how and why you defend INNOCENT NONINFRINGING people being imprisoned?

Or were you being sarcastic? I considered that possibility, but it didn't seem to fit with your "not wanting to hear complaints" line.

-

Let's find out who these asshole law makers are and publish their names....

Did the vote divide along party lines?

Close enough for government work. Combining the House and Senate rolls, we have (yea-nay-abstaining):

Republicans: 244-39-2
Democrats: 26-220-1
Independents: 1-1-0
Total: 271-260-3 (1 vacancy)

86% of seated Republicans voted for the bill, representing 90% of the 'aye' votes. 89% of seated Democrats voted against the bill, representing 85% of the 'nay' votes.

There should be a moderation for +6, more informative than the article.

For example, in this request letter, the information requested is entirely about research funding (a disclosure requirement in order to receive federal funding for research), and about the science itself and obtaining the necessary data and code to examine and reproduce the results.

Considering that there HAVE been published questions raised about the reproducibility of Mann's work, and considering that this work was federally funded, then these seem like legitimate questions to ask.

When a scientist publicly advocates policy changes based on publicly funded research, then the full funding, data, and process used to generate that research need to be available to the public.

Delay allows time for a person to develop some wisdom, education, and wealth before reproduction
What in the world does the Honorable Representative from Sugarland, Texas have to do with this?

It comes down to one fundamental point.

I buy a computer. My property. Do I or do I not have the right to uncrew the case on my computer and rip my chips open and look at them under a microscope and read out my key?

End Of Story.

If I have the right to look at my own property under a microsocope then the entire Trusted Computing system falls apart and all of the DRM vanishes.

The TRusted Computing gimmic is that they are trying to foist these ne Trust chips on everyone, and to lock out anyone without a Trust chip. In fact the Trusted Computing Group and Microsoft have issued press releases on a new Trusted Network Connect system that can deny you any internet access at all unless you have a Trust chip and you're running an approved and unmodified Operating System and approved and unmodified software. The Trust chip is designed to keep secrest against it's owner, designed to be secure against it's owner. Designed to be boobytrapped and selfdestructing if you attempt to look at it under a microsocope and read out your own key. Of course all that means it that it's a pain in teh ass to manage to read out your key. It just meas you need to do a bit of work to figure out how and you need a decently equipped college lab to do it. Do I or do I not have the right to use a decently equipped lab and read MY KEY out of MY CHIP in MY COMPUTER, or not? And If I do, I am then going to proceed to assist my million closest friends in obtaining THEIR keys out of THEIR computers as well.

I demand everything that's coming to me

I demand ownership of my own computer and I demand my basic property rights over MY PROPERTY.

and screw what's fair to [the **AA]

Excuse me?!?!!!! WTF?

How's this for fair: People who do NOT commit copyright infringment do not face prison, and anyone who DOES commit copyright faces prosecution for copyright infringment. In fact I'd say the legal penalties are more than fair in favor of copyright holders. I'd say they are downright excessive.... but I won't even quibble over that.

I say what is fair is to pass the DMCRA, it simply says that innocent noninfringing people do not face prison.

It's the copyright lobby with unfair and entirely unreasonable demands. They effectively want to abandon copyright law. They don't want to bother prosecuting infringers. They don't want wast time on little annoyances like whether something is infringement or not. They don't want to bother with annoyances like whether something is a perfectly legitimate and Constitutuionally founded Fair Use. No, instead of that they want to criminalize technology itself, they want to criminalize abilities. They want to throw you in prison if you have the ability to commit infringment. That also means you go to prison if you have the ability to use something in a perfectly legitimate class project.

you treat them as the enemy, which encourages them to treat you as the enemy.

Pardon me, but that's bullshit. The reason I "treat them as an enemy" is they they are attacking me. They bought themselves a law that says INNOCENT AND NONINFRINGING PEOPLE GO TO PRISON, and now they want to seize control of MY COMPUTER with a fucking boobytrapped chip designed to be secure against me and desiged to treat me as the enemy. They want my computer to treat me as the enemy.

Go ahead, tell me I'm being unreasonable. Explain to me exactly how the DMCRA is unreasonable when essentially all it says is that innocent noninfringing people not be imprisoned.

And with the DMCRA then a company can simply go into businedd purchacing these computered designed to treat owners as the enemy, they can use a proper lab to rip the key out of the Trust chip, and they can then resell these compters to people along with the master key to control their computers. People will then NOT go to prison if they use their mas

[Disclaimer: I'm the author of the editorial.]

Notwithstanding the word choice error in the parent, I think the actual force driving the geniuses to seek to immigrate to the US was "promises of religious (how many German and Russian Jews were involved in the Manhattan Project again?) and intellectual freedom." Thanks to the "voice of the majority" that promise is passing by the wayside.

The United States had best listen up. This country is NOT "destined by GAWD" to rule the world. Holding a position of leadership in today's world requires a constant effort to excel in the sciences and technology, NOT teaching "Intelligent Design" to grade school and high school biology students while cutting education budgets.

I find it hilarious that one of those who helped bring this situation about, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, is supporting new federal legislation to improve the quality of science and math through financial incentives (e.g. student loan forgiveness) to students. While I am all for targeted student loan forgiveness, IMHO, it's too little too late and improperly targeted to bring about the desired results.

I think most Democrats and Republicans in Congress are essentially the same side, except for minor differences.

You might want to consider supporting Congressman Ron Paul. He ran for President on the Libertarian ticket in 1988. See some of his latest votes against the energy bill ("leave no lobbyist behind"), against the Patriot act reauthorization, and against the flag burning amendment.

I think most Democrats and Republicans in Congress are essentially the same side, except for minor differences.

You might want to consider supporting Congressman Ron Paul. He ran for President on the Libertarian ticket in 1988. See some of his latest votes against the energy bill ("leave no lobbyist behind"), against the Patriot act reauthorization, and against the flag burning amendment.

I think most Democrats and Republicans in Congress are essentially the same side, except for minor differences.

You might want to consider supporting Congressman Ron Paul. He ran for President on the Libertarian ticket in 1988. See some of his latest votes against the energy bill ("leave no lobbyist behind"), against the Patriot act reauthorization, and against the flag burning amendment.

I think most Democrats and Republicans in Congress are essentially the same side, except for minor differences.

You might want to consider supporting Congressman Ron Paul. He ran for President on the Libertarian ticket in 1988. See some of his latest votes against the energy bill ("leave no lobbyist behind"), against the Patriot act reauthorization, and against the flag burning amendment.

the most leftist

First off, as a Leftist with many Leftist friends living in the most liberal section of the country, I can tell you we don't regard Senator Clinton as Liberal or Left-leaning at all. She's a moderate. Sometimes she sponsors liberal legislation, sometimes she sponsors Conservative legistlation-- but most of the time she does what every other Representative does-- they sponsor legislation which will offend the least amount of people while making them look busy.

Second-- in regards to GTA: It's not just Clinton is it? You're so busy blaming Clinton, you ignore the House while they slip same sort of investigation under the radar.

Over in the House, Congressman Upton, a Republican from Michigan, introduced the bill to the House. It passed 355 for, 21 against, 56 abstain. Nobody is complaining about him.

the most leftist

First off, as a Leftist with many Leftist friends living in the most liberal section of the country, I can tell you we don't regard Senator Clinton as Liberal or Left-leaning at all. She's a moderate. Sometimes she sponsors liberal legislation, sometimes she sponsors Conservative legistlation-- but most of the time she does what every other Representative does-- they sponsor legislation which will offend the least amount of people while making them look busy.

Second-- in regards to GTA: It's not just Clinton is it? You're so busy blaming Clinton, you ignore the House while they slip same sort of investigation under the radar.

Over in the House, Congressman Upton, a Republican from Michigan, introduced the bill to the House. It passed 355 for, 21 against, 56 abstain. Nobody is complaining about him.

You are wise to look at the big picture. You can easily see that Clinton is getting way more coverage and blame then the Congressional Republican who introduced the stupid bill in congress?

Why is nobody complaining about him? Granted, he's a Congressmember and is therefore less powerful then any Senator, but what's with the complete silence?

This is stupid. Why are all you idiots pinning the blame on Clinton, when plenty of other government representatives are involved, including Republicans.

Congressman Upton, a Republican from Michigan, introduced the bill to congress. It passed 355 for, 21 against, 56 abstain.

Yet nobody here is saying "Oh fuck those Congressional Republicans for introducing the supid bill", or fuck those Democrats and Republicans for passing the bill. You're saying "Fuck that Senator Clinton".

It's true, Senator Clinton also asked the FTC to investigate Rockstar, and it's a stupid waste of time-- ala the Janet Jackson breast exposure.

A male congressmember can be an asshole and nobody complains, but as soon as Senator Clinton gets uppity, you all call her a bitch. Where the even-handedness here?

This is stupid. Why are all you idiots pinning the blame on Clinton, when plenty of other government representatives are involved, including Republicans.

Congressman Upton, a Republican from Michigan, introduced the bill to congress. It passed 355 for, 21 against, 56 abstain.

Yet nobody here is saying "Oh fuck those Congressional Republicans for introducing the supid bill", or fuck those Democrats and Republicans for passing the bill. You're saying "Fuck that Senator Clinton".

It's true, Senator Clinton also asked the FTC to investigate Rockstar, and it's a stupid waste of time-- ala the Janet Jackson breast exposure.

A male congressmember can be an asshole and nobody complains, but as soon as Senator Clinton gets uppity, you all call her a bitch. Where the even-handedness here?

H RES 376

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll419.xml
has the list of who voted how

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:H.RES .376:
has more information

In an effort to increase the study of math and science at American universities, lawmakers are considering a bill that would pay up to $10,000 for student's accumulated loan interest through college. The benefits would be available to those studying math, science, engineering and technology, provided that after graduation students work in their fields for at least five years.

I went and found the list of those who voted for this.

So far, on the us house page, I've found this:

7:22 P.M. - ONE MINUTE SPEECHES - The House proceeded with one minute speeches.

H. Res. 376: expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Federal Trade Commission should investigate the publication of the video game "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas" to determine if the publisher intentionally deceived the Entertainment Software Ratings Board to avoid an "Adults-Only" rating

The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.

Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 355 - 21, 1 Present (Roll no. 419).

This leads to this roll call:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll419.xml

Which states that 195 republicans voted yes, 2 voted nay. 159 democrats voted yes, 19 voted nay. 1 independant voted nay.

In other words, it wasn't even a contested vote.

The full list of those who voted yay follows:

Ackerman Aderholt Akin Alexander Allen Andrews Baca Baird Baker Baldwin Barrett (SC) Barrow Bartlett (MD) Barton (TX) Bass Beauprez Berry
Biggert Bilirakis Bishop (GA) Bishop (NY) Blackburn Blunt Boehlert Boehner Bonilla Bonner Bono Boozman Boren Boswell Boucher Boustany Boyd Bradley (NH) Brady (PA) Brady (TX) Brown (OH) Brown (SC) Burgess Burton (IN) Butterfield Calvert Camp Cantor Capito Capps Capuano Cardin Cardoza Carnahan Carson Carter Case Castle Chabot Chandler Chocola Cleaver Clyburn Coble Conaway Cooper Costa Cox Crenshaw Crowley Cubin Cuellar Culberson Cummings Davis (AL) Davis (CA) Davis (IL) Davis (KY) Davis (TN) Davis, Jo Ann Davis, Tom Deal (GA) DeFazio DeGette DeLauro DeLay Dent Diaz-Balart, L. Dicks Dingell Doggett Doyle Drake Dreier Duncan Edwards Ehlers Emanuel Emerson Engel English (PA) Eshoo Etheridge Evans Everett Farr Ferguson Filner Fitzpatrick (PA) Foley Forbes Ford Fortenberry Foxx Franks (AZ) Frelinghuysen Garrett (NJ) Gerlach Gilchrest Gillmor Gingrey Gohmert Gonzalez Goode Goodlatte Gordon Granger Graves Green (WI) Green, Al Green, Gene Gutknecht Hall Harman Harris Hart Hastings (WA) Hayes Hayworth Hefley Hensarling Herger Herseth Higgins Hinchey Hoekstra Holden Holt Honda Hooley Hoyer Hunter Hyde Inglis (SC) Inslee Israel Issa Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Jindal Johnson (CT) Johnson (IL) Johnson, Sam Jones (NC) Kanjorski Kaptur Keller Kelly Kennedy (MN) Kennedy (RI) Kildee Kind King (IA) Kingston Kirk Kline Knollenberg Kolbe Kucinich Kuhl (NY) LaHood Langevin Lantos Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Latham LaTourette Leach Levin Lewis (CA) Lewis (KY) Lipinski LoBiondo Lofgren, Zoe Lowey Lucas Lungren, Daniel E. Lynch Mack Maloney Manzullo Marchant Markey Marshall Matheson Matsui McCarthy McCaul (TX) McCollum (MN) McCotter McCrery McGovern McHenry McHugh McIntyre McKeon McKinney McMorris McNulty Meehan Meek (FL) Meeks (NY) Melancon Menendez Mica Michaud Millender-McDonald Miller (FL) Miller (NC) Miller, Gary Miller, George Mollohan Moore (KS) Moore (WI) Moran (KS) Moran (VA) Murphy Musgrave Myrick Nadler Napolitano Neal (MA) Neugebauer Ney Northup Norwood Nunes Oberstar Olver Osborne Otter Oxley Pallone Pascrell Pastor Pearce Pence Peterson (MN) Peterson (PA) Petri Pickering Pitts Platts Poe Pombo Pomeroy Porter Price (GA) Price (NC) Putnam Ramstad Rangel Regula Rehberg Reichert Renzi Reynolds Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rogers (MI) Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Ross Roybal-Allard Royce Ruppersberger Ryan (OH) Ryan (WI) Ryun (KS) Sabo Salazar Sánchez, Linda T. Sanchez, Loretta Sanders Saxton Schakowsky Schiff Schwartz (PA) Schwarz (MI) Scott (GA) Scott (VA) Sensenbrenner Sessions Shadegg Shaw Sherman Sherwood Shimkus Shuster Simmons Simpson Skelton Slaughter Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Smith (WA) Snyder Solis Spratt Stearns Stupak Sullivan Tancredo Tanner Tauscher Taylor (MS) Taylor (NC) Thomas Tho