Slashdot Mirror

Of course, your whole point assumes that Wal-Mart pays its employees less than other retailers. This is unlikely to be true.

And...? If Wal-Mart has figured out how to sell grocereies without needing to pay people to manage inventory, that's a GOOD thing - it allows our economy to be more productive.

Let's assume Wal-Mart pays its work force minimum wage (which it doesn't), and let's say Wal-Mart were, just because it suddenly decides to be a welfare company, to raise everyone's wage to $6.2. That's a 20% increase.

In order for that 20% increase to ONLY result in a 1% change in expenses, wages would need to make up less than 5% of expenses, which is obviously too low, but we'll assume you meant that it wouldonly make a 1% difference in expenses and that, if you had actually said that, you'd be right.

Wal-Mart made 2.5 billion in net income on 70.6 billion in revenue in Q1CY05, leaving 69.1 billion in expenses. 1% of 69.1 billion is 690 million - or over 25% of profit, not 1%.

How does that cost me billions of dollars? If we were to assume this were true, which it isn't, wouldn't every other grocery store not paying its workers health insurance also be costing the tax payers billions of dollars?

Where is this money going to come from? We've already shown that it's well beyond the ability of Wal-Marat to cover this with their profits

so short of the company going out of business, that means prices will have to go up, prices paid by.... oh yeah, the consumers/taxpayers.

Eitehr we pay for everyone's healthcarein higher prices for goods, or we pay for it in taxes.

Wal-Mart's business practices are cost-neutral in regards to tax payers.

If you look on the house website, you'll notice that they've also written letters to the NSF asking for a list of all climate scientists who receive NSF money. blacklist, anyone?

We should have more links like the fossil fools one above. Maybe Google will then finally learn the truth.

Actually, part of the interest by Congress is in results from federally funded studies, so part of the interest is from its own funding.

• The Congressional letters are available in PDF format.
• The replies from some people are available.
• The scientists explained some things, but it seems odd that the source code does not match the data, so the program can not simply be run as is.
• Although the program calculated R2 statistics they were not published along with an explanation of why they were not important so others would learn from their wisdom.
• The Barton questions about statistics were not answered.

I call BS.
http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Letters/062320 05_1570.htm

The letter asks for financial information from studies, not his own bank records.

This is liberals trying to build something out of a reasonable request.

If they asked for personal financial information then you might have a point. But they didn't. They asked for information on funding for the research.

Don't believe me? Prefer to believe what you read in the newspaper?

Go and read the letters for yourself.

Er, the paragraph I quoted in turn contained a quote from a Republican congressman.

The main point, though, is to read this before jumping to any conclusions.

Since you responded within two minutes I am reasonably confident you didn't.

Here, let me save you a step. How would you like to be minding your own business (in Mann's case, in the process of moving to a new university in a different state) and suddenly from out of the blue receive a letter like one of these?

I would advise you to read the actual letters. They don't request personal financial information. They request information on the funding sources for his research and information on disclosure obligations that result from those funding sources.

Simply stated, the newspaper article and the Slashdot summary are wrong. But since when has this been a surprise to anyone?

2. List all financial support you have received related to your research, including, but not limited to, all private, state, and federal assistance, grants, contracts (including subgrants or subcontracts), or other financial awards or honoraria.
3. Regarding all such work involving federal grants or funding support under which you were a recipient of funding or principal investigator, provide all agreements relating to those underlying grants or funding, including, but not limited to, any provisions, adjustments, or exceptions made in the agreements relating to the dissemination and sharing of research results.

Actually, part of the interest by Congress is in results from federally funded studies, so part of the interest is from its own funding.

• The Congressional letters are available in PDF format.
• The replies from some people are available.
• The scientists explained some things, but it seems odd that the source code does not match the data, so the program can not simply be run as is.
• Although the program calculated R2 statistics they were not published along with an explanation of why they were not important so others would learn from their wisdom.
• The Barton questions about statistics were not answered.

I know, I know, the liberal scientists will probably talk about hot-air and inflammatory rhetoric causing electoral heating. Some say that if we don't curb emissions like this one, we may have an increase in heated opinions, leading to an increase in Republicans. Many blame the continued use of fossil fools for this problem.

But there's little evidence to show this. For one, Michael Crichton says these governments are purely cyclical. Over time, you get Republican Administrations, then Democrat Administrations, then Republican again. Apparently there's a wealth of historical evidence to show this fact.

Then there's the so-called scientists and how their theories change. According to many back in 2004, we were supposed to get a Democratic administration! Now they're saying we're having Republicans. Why should we believe them now?

Anyway, if Joe Barton can discredit the notion that human beings have anything to do with Republicanism, and he's doing a fine job right now let me tell you, I think this will be a great thing.

Look up their votes on the parent post's list and call them to tell them what you think.

All ten MA representatives just got thank you calls from me.

How do I pick mine out of there?

If they don't indicate the state your rep is from (well, even if they do really, since most states have lots of them), you have to know their last name. There's a search form on the front page.

Check again- almost everyone who voted against it was Democrat.

Only 21% of Democrats voted for this. 4 out of 5 voted against.

On the other hand, 96% of Republicans voted for it.

That said, if every single Dem had voted against it, we'd be 1 vote short. We'd have to convince 1 of those republicans who voted "yes" to vote "no."

Look at it this way...there was a change of about 100 votes against the Patriot Act since it was passed the first time.

357-66 on October 24, 2001
257-171 on July 21, 2005

In about 4 years that's a lot of crow eaten. (Mostly democrats admittedly, but 11 more Republican votes against than in 2001 (14 now to 3 in 2001. Wikipedia was the source for the link above incidentally.)

Here's the list.

But here's a summary:

94% of Republicans voted for the act. They have no morals.

21% of Democrats voted for the act. They have no strength.

My Rep voted against it. How did your reps vote?

If they voted differently than you had wished, pick up the phone tomorrow, and let them know. Tell people you meet. Do something. Don't just bitch on slashdot.

(Unless you can't vote in the US, at which point bitching is about all you can do about this latest vote.)

The biggest reason not to use DST is the increase in auto accidents in the morning.

The balance of evidence appears to be that DST results in a decrease in auto accidents and pedestrian fatalities and a reduction in violent crime.

This testimony from the U.S. Department of Transport before the U.S. House Science Committee says:

With respect to traffic fatalities, we were able to identify a 0.7 percent reduction due to daylight saving time in March and April 1974 compared to the comparable months in 1973 when we were under standard time. At the time, DOT analysts believed that these estimates were conservative and that their calculations understated the real reduction due to daylight saving time, which they judged to be on the order of 1.5 percent to 2 percent.

With respect to the incidence of crime, study of daylight saving time impacts on the incidence of crime revealed reductions in violent crimes of 10 to 13 percent in Washington, D.C. throughout a 3-year period.

This study from Rutgers University argues that

Results show that a switch to full year daylight saving time would reduce pedestrian fatalities by 343 over the 1998-1999 period, or by 13 percent of all pedestrian fatalities in the 5 AM to 10 AM and in the 4 PM to 9 PM time periods examined in this research. Motor vehicle occupant fatalities would be reduced by 390, or 3 percent during the same time periods. In metropolitan areas, full year daylight saving time would reduce pedestrian fatalities by 255 in the 1998-1999 period, or by 12 percent, and would reduce pedestrian fatalities in non-metropolitan areas by 81 or 17 percent.

The reasoning is that the extra daylight in the working day increases visibility and thereby reduces accidents. Fewer people are also out after dark when they are more likely to be a victim of crime.

There are studies that show some increase in motor accidents during certain periods but this increase is more than balanced out by the decrease in other periods.

Trying to correlate accidents with daylight savings time is a complicated statistical exercise but, at best, the evidence for both sides of the question is inconclusive. The result is that, contrary to your statement, there is no strong case against DST out of concern for traffic fatalities.

Hillary? You must be thinking of the esteemed Rep. Pickering, an author of both COPA and CIPA.

The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on the Central American Free Trade Agreement in the next two weeks, and one little-known provision of the agreement desperately needs to be exposed to public view. CAFTA, like the World Trade Organization, may serve as a forum for restricting or even banning dietary supplements in the U.S.

I don't see the evil in DRM

There's no problem with DRM. The problem is the broken and evil DMCA. The problem is innocent NONINFRINGING people facing prison.

I have a question for you. A question I have asked of at least a dozen different DRM proponents. A question that not a single one has ever answered.

Do you support the DMCRA? It would amend the DMCA to say that innocent NONINFRINGING people do not go to prison. Pretty simple really. So, do you support the DMCRA? Or are you going to say that innocent NONINFRINGING people SHOULD be imprisoned?

Once the DMCA is fixed and innocent noninfringing people no longer face prison, then natural market forces will operate normally and resolve any DRM problems.

-

Any scheme with the premise that INNOCENT NONINFINGING PEOPLE face PRISON is draconian and evil.

I have a question for you. A question I have asked of probably a dozen different DRM proponents. A question that oddly enough NOT A SINGLE ONE has ever answered. Never once have I gotten an answer to this question:

Do you support the DMCRA? It simply amends the DMCA to say that noninfringing people do not go to prison. Pretty simple really. Do you support the DMCRA, or are you going to argue that it is good and correct for innocent noninfringing people to be put in prison?

And any Americans who wants to help support the DMCRA, my current SIG is a handy dandy link to the EFF's page to easily fire off a note asking your Representitive to co-sponsor it.

-

If I produce content, I should be able to decide what's done with it (for a reasonable time, anyway). If I want it to be one-peek-per-customer, that's my right, it's my content.

Wrong. By law you do not own the content, you own the copyright on that content. You are only granted limited rights. You do not have the right "to decide what's done with it" outside of the limited rights granted to you.

The solution, as always, is simple. Vote with your wallet for either (a) DRM solutions that make sense, or (b) for solutions that don't take advantage of the richly enabled DRM fabic available to content producers.

Wrong. The problem is not DRM, and the solution is NOT some asinine suggestion to submit to DRM or be locked out.

The problem is the DMCA which says that INNOCENT NONINFRINGING people face prison. I defy you to tell me that is not a problem.

The solution is the DMCRA which merely fixes the law to say that INNOCENT NONINFRINGING people do not go to prison.

Pass the DMCRA to fix the DMCA and all of the problems do away. Then it is perfectly legal for people to circumvent or remove DRM for noninfringing uses, and it is perfectly legal for people to sell you a product to circumvent or remove DRM for noninfringing purposes. Natural market forces are then able to solve the problems.

I ask you, do you support the DMCRA? Or are you seriously going to sit there and claim that position that INNOCENT NONINFRINGING PEOPLE SHOULD FACE PRISON?

-

When you buy a DVD you do not buy - and do not receive - any license at all. You are not buying a "license to put it in the drive and hit play". By law you are the legal owner of that disk. By law you are the owner of that particular copy of the movie.

Not only are they trying to force people to unneccesarily buy new hardware, they are attempting to force everyone to PAY EXTRA to cripple the hardware.

They are attempting to deny your legal rights over your property.

But most of all the entire house of cards is grounded upon an expectation that INNOCENT NONINFRINGING PEOPLE be fucking IMPRISONED.

I have a question for you. Do you support the DMCRA? What it says is that innocent noninfringing people do not face prison. Are you seriously going to defend this system and for innocent noninfringing people be imprisoned?

some right you are afforded by some legal precendent from years past.
It is not an essential right

Try learning some CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. Fair Use was esablished based on AFFIRMATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. In particular the majority of Fair Use was established on First Amendment grounds. Any copyright law attempting to diminish or revoke Fair Use would be unconstitutional and invalid.

Note that the DMCA has been on the books about eight years and circumvention crime has NEVER been upheld in court, not once. And of course it is kinda hard to have a law overturned as unconstitutional on appeal if there has never been a conviction to appeal. So this entire house of cards is built on dubious law (not to mention an evil law to imprison innocent noninfringing people). The DMCA is an attempt to circumvent Constitutionally based Fair Use rights indirectly, in the hope that they can do through the back door that which is illegal to do through the front door.

Noneof that gives me the right to shoot people.

Same old bull that DRM advocates always pull, making a false statement or implication that we are talking about infringment and therefor you're right. Well we're not talking about infringment. We're talking about innocent NONINFRINGING people doing NONINFRINGING things.

Again I ask do you support the DMCRA that says noninfringing people do not go to prison... that says people who do NOT shoot people do not go to prison.

-

And it looks like the bill sponsor is the Representative from Slashdot, Boucher. Seriously, I love this guy (and I'm kinda sad that he represents Virginia instead of my state). Take a look at the list of legislation he's been involved in.

Reading down the list, he's opposed the RIAA, the DMCA, argued for fair use, argued for privacy laws, argued against the broadcast flag, argued against additional RIAA laws (and urged that the RIAA simply lower prices to provide a more appealing product), in favor of allowing features for Linux, worked on weakening the DMCA, pushed an anti-spam law (though admittedly not the most stringent of the proposals), pushed for the Do Not Call List, opposed DoJ anti-P2P propaganda attempts, and been a proponent of pro-VoIP laws. His arguments are quite tech-savvy -- if the man does not understand technology himself, he has some pretty sharp advisors. Many of these stances have been those that oppose major lobbyist groups (direct marketing, RIAA, MPAA, etc).

Stick about a hundred more like him in Congress and throw Orrin Hatch to the wolves and I'd have a damn lot of respect for the legislative branch.

Pick any major pharmaceutical that took >10 years to develop. I'm i'm Merck or GSK or Pfizer, why the hell would I spend tens of billions of dollars researching and getting FDA approval for a drug that my competitors can produce from the moment it's FDA approved?

London has one the most dense forest of security cameras of any city in the world and it did not stop the latest terrorist attack. These sort of items provide the illusion of safety and profitability to electronic snake oil salesmen at the cost of the private lives and dignity of citizens. The only true way to prevent terrorism is to capture, interrogate and kill terrorists. Its cheaper and more effective than having minimum wage bozos who have no other quantifiable skills watching your every move with the latest technological gizmo. Unfortunately, our fellow citizens would rather trust these mouth breathers and cry out against the treatment of those that mean them harm to conform to the trendy PC chic.

Hooray for freedom and our right to vote in people to help eliminate our freedoms! Next up on our agenda, an amendment to eliminate the 22nd amendment so we can keep Bush in the WhiteHouse forever because he has sure made us all feel safer now that we pay $2.00+ per gallon of gasoline and line his pockets even more.

We already got a telephone tax to fund the Spanish-American War (1898). I wouldn't be surprised if we have a broadband tax to fund the Iraqi-American War, too.

Uhhhmmmmm....we do?

Uhhhmmmmmm... yes, we do. Article IX.

Try reading the Constitution. This "up-or-down" vote is spelled out in Article II, Section II, Clause II:

[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint...Judges of the supreme Court.

You can argue what "Advice and Consent" of the senate means, but it sure as hell doesn't mean that the senate picks the Justices. Historically it has meant an up-or-down vote once the Justice gets to the floor of the Senate.

There is not an elected federal offical who openly supports abolishing social security. If you have some direct evidence otherwise, please, I'd love to see it.

I can't say, er name one, if there are any government officials who want to abolish social security but there is at least one congressperson, Ron Paul, who wants to.

No he's not talking about Politicians, Enviornmentalists and other activists grous.

He's talking about amongst climatoligists and other real scientists who realize repeating Consensus over and over again doesn't make it real.

People amongst who realize that there is a scientific debate, and that peer review is an important part of scientific debate.

No he's not talking about Politicians, Enviornmentalists and other activists grous.

He's talking about amongst climatoligists and other real scientists who realize repeating Consensus over and over again doesn't make it real.

People amongst who realize that there is a scientific debate, and that peer review is an important part of scientific debate.

No he's not talking about Politicians, Enviornmentalists and other activists grous.

He's talking about amongst climatoligists and other real scientists who realize repeating Consensus over and over again doesn't make it real.

People amongst who realize that there is a scientific debate, and that peer review is an important part of scientific debate.

No he's not talking about Politicians, Enviornmentalists and other activists grous.

He's talking about amongst climatoligists and other real scientists who realize repeating Consensus over and over again doesn't make it real.

People amongst who realize that there is a scientific debate, and that peer review is an important part of scientific debate.

No he's not talking about Politicians, Enviornmentalists and other activists grous.

He's talking about amongst climatoligists and other real scientists who realize repeating Consensus over and over again doesn't make it real.

People amongst who realize that there is a scientific debate, and that peer review is an important part of scientific debate.

Well, it's nice that we agree anyway!

The only elected official in Washington worth his pay is Ron Paul.

-Peter

Tell me then, what could he have done about this? He could have issued an executive order... which people would have just loved and would have only lasted until Congress could've voted on it, or maybe he could have denounced it publicly, which he would have been painted as a partisan trying to interrupt the rulings of a court. He had no way to prevent this. I don't see how this particular problem is his fault. I voted for him too, but this isn't about him. He has done some things that I don't agree with... but, Hell, I've done things I don't agree with. If you were going to blast anyone, please blast the supporters of this. Write letters to your Congressman asking for legislation, then Bush so he can sign it. If it falls apart at Bush's desk, then you can blast him, and I'll agree. But for me, I choose to blame the SCOTUS Justices who botched this. I'm off to the DoJ Website to find contact information to complain, and let them know I'm not happy, and my Representative to try to change it. I'd appreciate the help, if you're obliged to actually DO something as an American citizen, and hence part of the Gov't. Otherwise... quit misdirecting people's agner and let us try to fix it. But I would really appreciate the help.

In fact, if Charles Rangel D-NY has his way, a draft will be instituted to force the rich sons and daughters of yuppies to fight for their parent's right to drive cheaply-fueled gas guzzlers.

Good NYT reprint here:

http://www.radicalmiddle.com/military_mirrors.htm

The soldiers currently KIA in Iraq actually fall on one side of a rural/urban demographic line than a white/nonwhite or rich/poor line. This is getting Congress' attention FWIW:

http://www.house.gov/skelton/pr050228.htm

Well, they do have all those pickup trucks in the Heartland. If you want to start a class war, say let them fight for their gas guzzlers.

Me, I say, what do you do when you find yourself deep in a hole? Stop digging.

...people laughed at him, people wouldn't fund his research, he said "I'm going to do it anyway" and he did it. He patented some of the hugest, largest numbers of genes, human genes, that anyone has done. People said you couldn't sequence whole bacterial genomes, they laughed at him, he said "I'm going to do it", he just did it. People said you can't sequence the entire human genome that way he laughed, set up a company, and he did it. Link

I left NIH to create TIGR in part because, at the time, NIH was not in a position to conduct a large-scale human gene discovery study within the intramural program. In our first two years, we at TIGR used the EST strategy to identify more than half of the genes in the human genome. Then, using many of the laboratory and computational methods that we developed for the human gene discovery program, we pioneered the whole-genome shotgun sequencing of the first complete genome of a free-living organisms, Haemophilus influenzae, a bacterium that causes ear infections in children. Interestingly, an NIH study section said this couldn't be done with available technology. Ultimately, this approach became widely adopted. Link

You don't respect Representative Richard Boucher?

I also have a perspective on the subject because I grew up here and I live and work here now. You are correct that tobacco and coal are primary industries here and are failing, that much is true. However, if you look closely at what he's doing, he is trying to help attract high tech industries to the area by showing that we have and are continuing to get better technology all the time. This has been something that he's been working on for quite some time. If you lived in the area, you might know that if you were paying attention. You would also know that many do return to the area after college seeking work here.

While not all localities in his district do have access to broadband, many do. What he wants is high speed connections in locations that do not have them so that there will be new industries already in place when the failing ones finally go. So you fault him for trying to help the region grow by attracting high technology to the area and "move the region into the 21st century"? He's already been successful in procuring money for high technology and attracting companies to Southwest Virginia.

Most of his constituants probably don't even have computers, much less even $20/month to spend on broadband

I also live in the county in which his office is located and while not everyone does have a computer let alone broadband, many do. Yes, even grandmothers and not necessarily just in Washington County.

Oddly enough, most of the people in southwest VA are very religious, ultra-conservative Christians, who would be shocked at the way Mr. Boucher votes on the so-called "moral issues". But it's amazing what a person desperate not to lose his/her job in an area where finding another one is nearly impossible without any kind of skills or education will overlook if he/she foolishly thinks that voting for Mr. Boucher will mean 2 more years of employment. And when you can't read, or else don't read very well, it's far too easy to fall for the crafty lies of such a gifted speaker.

Sir, I think you will find natives from here and people moving to the area are not these uneducated people that you seem to think they are. I'll address your employment issues in a moment, but your argument is very weak as you present the majority of people in this region in a very bad light. One that I might add has been cast on it for a long time and quite frankly is time for it to go. As for the "moral issues" The mud slinging toward Mr. Boucher got quite heavy in the last election, but the people know that he does work hard for the region and gets results. Even the ultra conservative people of the area know a hard worker when they see one.

Now for your unemployment statements. Looking at the counties that are part of his district, very few of them have unemployment above the national average, with several below that. While this can definitely use improvement, in some cases over the last year in this district, the unemployment percentage went down -- way down from what they were. In some counties, it went up. While unemployment is a big issue, to say that the man does nothing to try and help the region grow is quite uncalled for, and it is the same tired argument. This argument typically comes from those that do not pay attention to what is going on around them. If you would like to understand what he's been doing for the region, why not take a look.

The fact is, all over the state, unemployment has risen in many counties over the last year. It is not related to just this district. You should take a look at state wide unemployment for the last 4 quarters, take a look here. You can see that it is not just in the 22 counties that he represents.

As for originally voting for the DMCA, you can see

The House of Representatives is currently working on a bill to abolish a 3% telephone tax that was originally imposed in 1898 to help finance the Spanish American War. This "temporary" tax has been in effect for more than a century. Various attempts to repeal it in recent years have met with failure in Congress or Presidential veto. The current attempt (HR1898, coincidentally?) is in committee, but counter-efforts are also underway to expand the tax to cover more modern forms of communication.

And asked him to supprt this guy. My letter was slightly off topic - copyright terms rather than fair use so much, but the main point being copyright reform with the original intent of a copyright system(which was NOT abject greed) in mind. Those of you in the US that vote and care abou this, I suggest doing the same. Your tax dollars paid for http://www.house.gov/writerep/ and I highly suggest using it. Your email probably be ignored and responded to by some intern political science flunkie, but they do make a difference, especially in volume. Here's my letter - feel free to copy it, use it, abuse it, or even claim authorship: To the Honorable Jay Inslee: Please support Rep. Rick Boucher in his fight for consumer rights in digital media. I would even be willing to actively campaign for anyone who defends the public domain and fair use. As my representative, I would ask that you remember that the founders of this great nation intended any copyright system you the congress may choose to enact to ultimately *enhance* the public domain. Our current system only serves to decimate it. A copyright term of 20 years past the creator's death should be MORE than sufficient, but now we're up to what.....95 years?!?!? This is insane. Nobody should have a monopoly on our culture, but that's exactly what we have with massive media consolidation and what effectively amounts to perpetual copyrights. This is wrong and you know it. Repeal the Sonny Bono copyright extension act. Thank you and good day.

Removing the thing will restore the constitution to its original rule-set.

The PATRIOT Act didn't modify the Constitution, so repealing the Act won't unmodify it. I direct your attention to Article V.

It's all on house.gov.

Voting record for roll call 258.

Description of The Sanders Amendment:

An amendment numbered 15 printed in the Congressional Record to prohibit funds in the bill from being used to implement provisions of Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act which permits searches of library circulation records, library patron lists, book sales records, or book customer lists under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

Republican Representatives vote against Patriot Act.

Read the vote results.

To put it simply, 186 Republicans voted in favor of the Patriot Act, with only 38 voting against. 199 Democrats voted against the Patriot Act, with only one in favor. 83% of Republicans voted pro-Patriot Act. 99.5% of Democrats voted anti-patriot act.

Must reach Slashdot Liberal spinner

The reason you perceive an anti-Republican sentiment is that most people have correctly concluded that legislation like the Patriot Act is supported strongly and almost exclusively by Republicans.

Not everyone. My Representative, John Lewis (Georgia 5th district), has his head screwed on straight. He voted against the PATRIOT Act, and I've been watching him (via his Plogress feed) come down on the right side of every major issue.

I'm sure there are others like him. Don't throw out any babies with the bath water.

You freaking moron...this bill is sponsored by a Democrat (Steny Hoyer, Democrat, Maryland 5th district). I'm sure they're intending to use it to keep Bush in office forever.

--trb