Slashdot Mirror

I would oppose any federal legislation making criminal the possession or use of some technology simply because it has the potential of being used for some illegal purpose by some potential criminal. I would likely oppose legislation mandating that technology carry certain features designed to prevent copyright infringement, since these mandates exceed Congress's constitutional authority. I also oppose giving copyright holders the powers to violate individual property rights by hacking into a computer on the mere suspicion that a computer is involved in piracy.

That's funny. The website makes no mention to the historical reason behind the use tax. The first time that I heard about the use tax was to capture sale taxes from Internet purchases. Most people don't know that they are still paying a phone tax to fund the Spanish-American War of 1898.

I won't tell you what my name is but I will tell you who I voted for.

• 1992, Ron Paul, Committee to reelect Ron Paul or Congressman Ron Paul
• 1996, unfortunately didn't vote, see below.
• 2000, against Bush
• 2004, Micheal Badnarik

Now some may be asking why I didn't vote in 1996. Just over a month before the election I had a bad accident that put me in a coma. Then about a month later I was moved to a rehab house for therapy. I planned on voting for Harry Brown though.

Read Preserving Democracy - What Went Wrong in Ohio. " "We have found numerous, serious election irregularities . . . which resulted in a significant disenfranchisement of voters. . . . "In many cases these irregularities were caused by intentional misconduct and illegal behavior, much of it involving Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio."

Think about that for a moment. The person in charge of vote counting in Ohio was also running the Bush campaign.

I wouldn't be so quick to say that electronic voting machines are "horseshit." Using closed machines is, of course, absurd, and elections can be effectively conducted without electronic machines, but electronic machines do have some advantages. Electronic voting machines are significantly easier to make accessible, both for the disabled and for voters whose first language isn't English, then purely paper-based voting systems.

By the way, HR 550 is not really an electronic voting bill. It is careful not to require electronic voting machines, but to require a voter-verified paper audit trail for all voting systems, electronic or not.

Holt's bill requires that any voting software be open source, which is a dramatic improvement in transparency. That, in combination with the requirement of random audits in at least 2% of precincts, gives me confidence in elections conducted under this bill.

''(8) PROHIBITION OF USE OF UNDISCLOSED SOFTWARE IN VOTING SYSTEMS.
No voting system shall at any time contain or use any undisclosed software. Any voting system containing or using software shall disclose the source code, object code, and executable representation of that software to the Commission, and the Commission shall make that source code, object code, and executable representation available for inspection upon request to any person."

The voter does not take the paper trail away from the polling place; if one did, how would it be used for an audit.

From the bill:

"The voting system shall not preserve the voter-verifiable paper records in any manner that makes it possible to associate a voter with the record of the voter's vote."

Here's an idea - maybe the person who runs the company making vote-counting machines should be making public statements about how he's "committed to ensuring that the machines deliver an accurate count of the vote tallies", instead of such blatant political posturing.

No, O'Dell never made any public statements that he would engage in election fraud, but he did say that he was committed to helping deliver Ohio's Electoral votes to Bush. That is a bit more specific than saying he wanted to help Bush win in Ohio, and it is mostly the particular wording used that caused the uproar.

I am not saying that I think he knowingly engaged in election fraud (considering that Blackwell was both the Sec. of State of Ohio and the co-chair of the Bush/Cheney campaign in Ohio, and he did more than his share of election "fixing", it's not like O'Dell needed to), but I am saying that having the head of the company pushing for a particular result could be perceived as encouraging underlings to take that as a more important goal than accuracy.

It's just a bad idea for people involved in vote-counting to have an obvious political agenda that could be perceived as being more important with their professional impartiality. I believe that harms the people's confidence in our electoral system, and by extension, harms our democracy,

Actually it isn't just one incident. The Bush Administration has been trying to tell scientists what to think since 2000. This may just be the most egregious example of distorting scientific conclusions. There was a House investigation into the issue, and was covered on slashdot before. Worse, the administration attitude toward science is affecting public discourse more generally. This is truly unprecedented and it really is a problem with the Bush Administration. "FUD" has nothing to do with it.

Bill info on Thomas

It has no provision regarding eliminating "business method" (read: software) patents. This bill won't do anything but clog up the patent office more with so-called opposition requests.

It would be interesting if the Judiciary committee could be swayed to eliminate software patents. If your congressman is on the committee, let them know how you feel.

In other words, just because you were the first person to invent a device, it doesn't mean that you can rightfully own a patent for it. So if some young inventor creates something and some other company swipes it, it is a race to the patent office. I am guessing that a big company's lawyers know a shortcut or two.

Folks, there's still hope. The Senate Intelligence Committee merely proposed their recommendations. These recommendations still have to be approved by Congress and the Senate.

Email your respective representatives NOW!!!

Who are my Senators?
Who is my Congressman?

I'm afraid of making any sort of software, even for fun. If it somehow leaves my PC goes public, someone could notice I made it, dig up some old patent, and sue my ass to Hoboken, New Jersey. This leeching is far worse than file leeching, and it's always sad to see that something intended to advance science and the arts (see Sec. 8, Clause 8) is impeding it instead. If it can happen to "M$" with their many IP/etc. lawyers, it can happen, and cause far worse damage, to us. That's -1, Scary to me.

I'm fine with DRM as long as I can install my pirated windows, office and run my pirated mp3s

I'm not sure if you were making a sarcastic pro-DRM quip... if so I have a reply:

I'm fine with DRM as long a no one faces prison for making NONINFRINGING use, nor faces prison for helping/enabling someone else to make NONINFRINGING use.

That is all that the DMCRA would do, it would amend the DMCA to say that noninfringing people do not go to prison.

Of course if people do not face prison for removing/circumventing DRM in order to make noninfringing use, and if people do not face prison for offering information/products/services for striping/circumventing DRM, then there can be no expectation that DRM will ever actually work, that it would ever actually prevent infringment.

The fact that DRM would be rendered absolutely WORTHLESS is merely a side effect of not sending INNOCENT NONIFRINGING PEOPLE TO PRISON.

It is simply an unfortunate fact that you cannot expect DRM to work without innocent noninfringing people face prison.

If you were not making a sarcastic post in support of DRM... well.... nevermind. Chuckle.

-

So I'm wondering. I'm assuming this is in the US, and in the US don't we have the right to trial by jury, or has this turned into yet another right we think we have but don't? I know very little about the law, but I was under the impression this was part of a little known document called the constitution.

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

Article III, Section 2, Clause 3:
"The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed."

Is this only applicable to federal crimes?

drm... a perfectly valid system, as long as any of my rights are not affected.

Impossible.

The line between infringment and legal use often lies in intent. Short of a mindreading DRM system, it is physically impossible for any meaningful DRM system not to infringe upon Fair Use.

Look, I realize some people on slashdot support drm, but there are others who think it is intolerable to criminalize noninfringing people in some misguided attempt to get DRM to actually work.

I have a question: Do you support the DMCRA? Basiclly what it does is amend the DMCA to say that NONINFRINGING people do not go to prison. That no one goes to prison for making a NONINFRINGING use, or for information, products, or services needed for that NONINFRINGING use.

-

The problem is that as long as congress continues to (unconstitutionally) extend the life of copyrights, they aren't really limited.

You should be careful saying that. It happens that I agree with you, but not everybody does. It works like this:

The constitution says that congress may "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" . That's a pretty loaded statement, and I could argue that very long term copyrights don't promote the progress of science and the useful arts, but in the absence of experimental evidence I couldn't prove it.

What the parent was getting at, however, was the "limited times" part of the above. The way it's been done lately is that every time copyrights start to expire, congress adds an amendment extending all existing copyrights for another 20 years. This means that at any one time, the copyright term certainly is limited, but the net effect is that of eternal copyrights.

Another point that I feel is important is that, given the text above, it's pretty questionable to extend the term of an existing copyright. If the point of copyright is to promote the useful arts, then a new copyright law which doesn't promote such things should be unconstitutional (in my underinformed opinion). How exactly would another 20 years of copyright protection now make Walt Disney produce more or better quality art back in the 1930s?

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

DRM solution that respects Fair Use

Any system that actually supports one is INCAPABLE of meaningfully supporting the other.

The line between infringment and noninfringment often lies in the intent of the user. Nothing short of a mindreading DRM system can distinguish the intent to use something in an educational classroom enviornment. Nothing short of a full blown artificial intellegence can detect humor and parody use. Nothing short of precognition can determine whether some new and never before imagined use will be Fair Use.

So you are asking for the impossible. You are asking for magic handcuffs that only close on guilty people. Well yeah, obviously if these things were possible they'd have been created years ago and we wouldn't be wasting time on these arguments and these battles. We wouln't be wasting time and money on courts and judges either.

Any system that actually supports Fair Use leaves people able to choose to commit infringment.

Any system that making any meaningful attempt to deny the ability to commit infringment inherently infringes Fair Uses.

The problem is idiots who expect legal enforcement of DRM itself. This means imprisoning INNOCENT people who remove or bypass DRM to make NONINFRINGING use.

Your solution of DRM that supports Fair Use is impossible. You pretty much have to choose one of the two sides:

DMCA: You get your DRM and DRM enforcement and you support the holy crusade against copyright infringment. You're also supporting a law that says INNOCENT people go to prison for making NONINFRINGING use.

DMCRA: This bill would amend the DMCA to say that innocent noninfringing people do not go to prison. Pretty simple really. However it also means that DRM becomes entirely worthless. It means that you'll be able to walk into Radio Shack and buy a product to strip off pesky DRM. A product you need to be able to make Fair Use, but also a product that enables you to commit infringment if you want.

So which side are you on? Do you insist on the holy crusade against copyright infringment? Or do you say that we cannot imprison innocent noninfringing people? Or do you have some magic pixie dust alternative?

-

they're stepping all over our rights to do anything

No, they aren't stepping on the right to do "anything". They are stepping on rights of NONINFRINGING use.

So long as they try to infringe Fair Use rights, and so long as they claim some jackass law (the DMCA) that says INNOCENT NONINFRINGING PEOPLE GO TO PRISON, then I have a big fat 'fuck you', 'fuck the horse you rode in on', and 'drop dead' for them.

Now I don't neccesarily mean to direct any of that at you. Perhaps you overlooked what the problem here is. So I have a question for you:

Do you support the DMCRA? It is a law to amend the DMCA. All it does is say that INNOCENT NONINFRINGING PEOPLE do not go to PRISON, and that people offering instructions or products for INNOCENT NONINFRINGING USE do not go to prison. Copyright infringers would still be infringers and just as guilty under the law. No no change for infringers, just a change to prevent noninfringers from going to prison.

So, do you support the DMCRA to keep innocent noninfringing people out of prison? Or do you claim some right or justification to imprison innocent noninfringing people as part of some holy crusade for DRM enforcement and prevent people from obtaining the ability to infringe?

If the former, then I welcome you aboard the call for DMCA reform. If the latter, then you can consider my earlier colorful language directed at you as well.

-

I'll stop whining about DRM the moment it stops blocking LEGAL AND NONINFRINGING use.

Actually it's not even DRM that I object to. It's the DMCA that I object to.

So I'll stop wining about DRM the moment INNOCENT people no longer face PRISON for making LEGAL AND NONINFRINGING USE and people no longer face PRISON for providing instructions or products or services so people can make LEGAL AND NONINFRINGING USE.

I have a question for you, do you support the DMCRA? It would merely amend the DMCA to say that NONINFRINGING people do not go to prison. If you don't support the DMCRA, then please explain what right or justification you have to imprison NONINFINGING people?

-

Look in the Constitution - the word "wireless" does not appear ONCE.

Maybe because the Constitution's authors didn't have computers or wireless networks?

Section 8 of the Constitution does say the government should build physical infrastructure like Roads as well as communication infrastructure like Post Offices. Seems very similar to building wireless infrastructure.

An open letter on this memorial day. A time to remember our countrymen and the sacrifices they made for our freedom. Consider the price of freedom, and how fleeting it is. What must be taken with mighty armies can be given away with the stroke of the pen...

I've read that congress is considering revisions to the Patriot Act, and that President Bush is pushing for more powers to intrude in secret into lives of Americans. Please don't let our nation go down this road. I am asking people to discuss this issue and contact your congress person and senator to let them know how you feel. Freedom is not free, it must fought for and held close dearly, in the statehouse and on the battlefield.

In America a battle is raging that is threatening our freedom in the name of terrorism. It used to be "drugs", then it was "the children", and now its "terrorists". The government doesn't care who the bogeyman is, it simply wants more power, and it will use any excuse possible to get it.

When the events of 9/11 occurred, everyone-- the politicians, the President, the newscasters, and the people everywhere-- said "We must go on with our lives, if we change who we are as a result of the trajedy then the terrorists have won..." I hate to say it then, because that's exactly what we did. We allowed our government to put in all these draconian measures that would have scared the pants off us if we had seen it in a hollywood movie on September 10th. We have fundamentally altered our country in response to what the terrorists did, and our freedom and liberty is at stake.

We are no longer as free as we were. We are no longer as kind to each other as before. We run around the world acting like the bully, and we've even lost the respect for ourselves-- our own moral compass and lamp of righteousness. We used to be the shining beacon of freedom and liberty for all the world to see. Now we're reviled and hated in many parts of the world and shunned by our friends and allies.

We've changed a lot since 9/11. Government agents can search your home and seize your property without anybody ever knowing what happened. They have even made talking about it a "national security" crime. These are things are supposed to happen in Cuba. These are things that happen in China. These are things that are supposed to happen only in the farthest, darkest, most oppressive corners of the world-- not in America, "the land of the free".

It has been said that people who give up their liberty for safety have neither. It would seem that since 9/11, Americans have looked away while lawmakers stripped away fundamental freedoms that are guaranteed to us under our constitution. Since the birth of this nation we have championed against tyranny, oppression, and the subjugation of humanity all around the world. What an irony that we must now remind ourselves of these very principles and warn our politicians to step lightly to avoid leading us into the abyss.

Step away from that edge! Guide us back into the light and liberty. America was great before, and shall be great again. All that is required is the wisdom and the courage to stand up and speak against what we all know is wrong. America has a mighty weapon, and its not our tanks, its not our ships, its not our weapons of mass destruction-- America's mightiest weaspon is ourselves. Our love for humanity, our reaching out to stop the oppressors of the world, our zest for life and our yearning to be free.

The terrorists who aim to defeat us can never win because they simply can't understand our spirit. But the politicians who govern us can defeat us. They are charged with protecting our spirit and keeping the beacon of liberty lit for all the generations that come. It is not the terrorists I fear. We have mighty armies and very smart people that will eventually defeat them, of this I am ce

How do you know this? I'm asking seriously: what is your evidence or sources of information that supports the claim that "counterfeiting (money, CDs, DVDs, designer labels, etc.) is popular with terrorists"?

First off, I'm going to ignore the newspaper articles and network/cable news reports that go back decades. Apparently you missed those. However I will offer an advanced internet based research technique: I typed "terrorist counterfeit" into google.

First hit, the training manual thing sounds familiar: "... the recovery of Al-Qaeda training manuals had shown that the organization recommends the sale of counterfeit products to raise funds ..."
http://www.fraudaid.com/ScamSpeak/conprods.htm

In other words cells should make money locally. If money doesn't flow from headquarters to the cells there is nothing for the FBI/CIA/etc to trace up or down.

"What makes this activity so popular among criminals - and, it appears, attractive to terrorists as well - are its low risks and high rewards. In other words, the penalties and the risk of getting caught are minimal, while the potential for making money is maximal."
"... the Terrorist Financing Operations Section of the FBI provided an unclassified document to our Committee three years ago - in the context of another investigation - that listed the sale of counterfeit goods among various criminal activities the terrorist organization Hezbollah uses to raise cash in the United States."http://www.senate.gov/~gov_affairs/index.c fm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&Affiliation=R&P ressRelease_id=997&Month=5&Year=2005


"... The link between organized crime groups and counterfeit goods it well established. But Interpol is sounding the alarm that Intellectual Property Crime is becoming the preferred method of funding for a number of terrorist groups ..."
http://wwwa.house.gov/international_relations/108/ nob0716.htm

Again, none of this is anything new to someone who has paid attention the last few decades. The Iranians pioneered the field with their fal $100 bills. Of course it helped that we sold the overthrown Shah the same printing presses that the US treasury department uses. The $100 bills have been handed out to terrorist organization all over the middle east and spurred redesign of our currency.
http://nsi.org/Library/Law/counterfeit2.txt

You can do you own googling from here on out ...

Terrorists also run stoplights. We must therefore execute lightrunners, in case they might be terrorists.

When your House Representative comes up for reelection in 2006, send them back if they voted against this obvious trivialization of terrorism, and fascist powergrab in its name. Otherwise, try a new one. They're the ones who make these laws - we're the ones who have to live with them.

Write your congressperson.

Write them a letter. With an envelope. And a stamp. It carries a tremendous amount of weight (it really does). Don't use a form letter. Don't type it. Don't call them. Write a legible, clean and concise letter expressing your viewpoint. Tell them that you do not agree with the upcoming changes to copyright laws. While you're at it, tell them you don't appreciate parts of the PATRIOT act becoming legitimate law either. Tell them that the erosion of your rights in the name of fighting "terrorists" isn't something that you're willing to tolerate anymore.

Instead of whining and bitching to people who--by and large--agree with you, write to someone who can make a difference.

When you're finished with that, write your senator as well.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) originally introduced the bill as part of the House's intelligence community reform package in late 2004. When opposition to the provisions in the Senate threatened to kill that bill, the provisions were dropped, but the House leadership agreed to reattach them "to the first piece of legislation this session that both chambers were expected to pass" [Los Angeles Times, 1/27/05]. The Real ID Act was reintroduced in 2005 and passed the House, but apparently recognizing that the stand-alone bill lacked support in the Senate, the House leadership attached the legislation to the House version of the emergency funding bill. The Senate version did not include the measure. With bipartisan support, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced an amendment expressing the sense of the Senate that the provisions should not be in the final bill, but the amendment was ruled "non-germane" and denied a vote. Most of the Real ID provisions in the House's version survived the House-Senate conference committee and were part of the conference report that passed the House and Senate.

During the Senate debate on the final version of the bill, several senators voiced opposition to the inclusion of the Real ID provisions in the conference report, but this opposition was not reflected in the final vote of 100-0. Here are some excerpts from the debate:

* Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN): "That does not stop me from objecting and expressing my disappointment to two provisions in the bill. One is the so-called Real ID Act. Actually, unlike a lot of legislation we pass here, this is well named. This really is a national identification card for the United States of America for the first time in our history. We have never done this before, and we should not be doing it without a full debate. This Real ID provision turns 190 million driver's licenses, which are now ineffective ID cards, into more effective national identification cards. To add insult to injury, we have also slapped state governments with the bill for them. I strongly object to this. When I was governor of Tennessee, I vetoed our state ID card twice because I thought it was an infringement on civil liberties. I thought that driver's licenses are for driving. If we need an ID card, we should have an ID card."
* Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI): There are many concerns I have with Real ID in addition to the process used to bring it to the floor. First, the measure is an unfunded mandate to the states. Furthermore, unless every state complies, the federal government will have to mandate the creation of a national ID. Between the creation of a new database and approval system, training for DMV workers, and struggling state budgets, Real

To
promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

So what constitutes fair use? Sharing your music and DVD collection with 100,000 of your closest friends?

So what constitutes a criminal act? A school girl removing DRM encryption in order to copy pieces of a DVD into a noninfringing class project?

I have a question. Do you support the DMCRA? Under the DMCRA infringment remains illegal, but innocent NONINFRINGING people do not go to prison for bypassing/removing DRM, and people do not go to prison for offering information or products or services to bypass/remove DRM for NONINFRINGING purposes.

-

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

Some links here and here.

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

the patents run out

Not if Rep. Mary Bono (R-CA) has anything to do with it. Look at what she did to copyrights in the name of her late husband, and then ask yourself whether she wouldn't be willing to do the same thing to patents.

(When I hand out "more information" postcards for my alma mater, I black out the space that asks for the kids' SSNs.)

Those of you in the U$A and out of school may want to print and carry the piece of 5 USC 552a beginning at the words DISCLOSURE OF SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER when they next go to renew their driver's license.

I think you mean a lapdog.

With a few more Republicans in Congress since the one that created and passed the Act, who owe their offices to the Republican machine that funded and organized their campaigns, why should they change any of the Act that they all like so much?

Yep, those Republicans are definitely to blame for this one. Those Democrats fought tooth and nail to prevent it from being passed.

Isn't it possible that the Democrats generally oppose the Patriot Act today, and the Republicans generally support it today, because they're playing the political game and trying to drum up support from the far-extreme parts of their parties, rather than examining the law to see whether the provision really is a good or a bad idea?

I do find it interesting that the Libertarian party seems to be what Republicans claim to be. Proof, apparently that marketing wins over substance.


While this is certainly true in some circumstances, it is not true in all circumstances. Libertarians tend to believe in a significantly less authorative state than democrats or republicans, and always have.

There are, though, some republicans that do have libertarian tendencies; ron paul comes to mind, although he's a republican in name only, apparently. Bringing things back to this topic, he's one of the few in congress who have spoken out about the national id.

http://www.house.gov/paul/

That's why sadly even Boxer and Feingold voted for it. In the House it had a fairly partisan vote, with only 8 Republicans voting no, and 42 Democrats voting yes. The roll call is here.

Sensenbrenner Statement on Senate's Passage of REAL ID Legislation; Measure Now Goes to Bush for His Signature

5/10/2005 6:34:00 PM

To: National Desk

Contact: Jeff Lungren or Terry Shawn, 202-225-2492, both of the Committee on the Judiciary; Web: http://judiciary.house.gov/

WASHINGTON, May 10 /U.S. Newswire/ -- House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-Wis.), the author of the REAL ID Act (H.R. 418), issued the following statement following today's Senate passage of the supplemental appropriations conference report that included the REAL ID Act:

"The REAL ID is vital to preventing foreign terrorists from hiding in plain sight while conducting their operations and planning attacks. By targeting terrorist travel, the REAL ID will assist in our War on Terror efforts to disrupt terrorist operations and help secure our borders.

"I am grateful for the White House's strong support of this border security legislation. In addition, Senators Frist, McConnell, Santorum, Specter, Kyl, Sessions, Brownback, DeWine, and Cornyn were among those very helpful in shepherding this legislation through the Senate and I wish to thank them."

http://www.usnewswire.com/

Where in the Constitution is this right to secede? I got a copy here, and I really can't find anything in it about "right of self government" but I do find things about individual states not being able to enter into a CONFEDERATION along with alot of other things the confederate states did. (Art. I sec 10) http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.htm l
So if the secession of the confederate states was unconstitutional, where does your argument go from there?

For those outraged enough to complain to their House representatives for passing this crap to the senate in the first place, here's a link to the vote:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll031.xml

http://www.house.gov/sensenbrenner/index.htm

Phew.

I call upon all the Democratic senators and representatives who read Slashdot to stop this as soon as possible! There. I've done my part.

I agree with what you said, right up until the bit about having "done my part." I sincerely doubt that many Senators or their staff members read Slashdot, or make policy based on our comments.

Instead, how about contacting your elected represenatives directly, and telling them what you just told us? Here, I'll help you out:

• Contact info for US Senators
• Contact info for US House of Represenatives

Be polite and make a reasoned, rational argument to the people chosen to represent you -- then your opinion will be worth more than a (+5, Insightful).

Wow, is anyone else surprised CNET put this in here:

> Why did these ID requirements get attached to an "emergency" military
> spending bill??
> Because it's difficult for politicians to vote against money that will go to the troops
> in Iraq and tsunami relief. The funds cover ammunition, weapons, tracked combat
> vehicles, aircraft, troop housing, death benefits, and so on.

The Republicans control congress and the executive branch now, and they wanted to have this National ID bill. By attaching this to a wholly unrelated military spending bill, the so-called advocates of small government will get their national ID card wish.

As an interesting aside it's funny that they chose to stick this into a military spending bill for Iraq. Anyone recall that the Bush Administration told us told this war was going to cost? I thought this was was supposed to cost between $10 and $100 billion? We're already more than three times the high end figure, with no end in sight. This is the fourth emergency allocation of money Bush has asked for for his war "on the cheap".

Anyway, make no mistake about it. The Republicans are now using their complete control to railroad this bill through, by sticking this thing in a military spending bill. It's a perfect catch-22. If the Democrats voted against it, they would have been accused of being against our troops (John Kerry, please take some time to describe how that feels). If they voted for it, it miraculously becomes a bipartisan bill so the Republicans can pass the blame around to evade responsibility. Even after this, the Democrats can be accused of "flip-flopping" since they voted against the national ID before, and now they're voting for it when it's buried in a military spending bill (Senator Kerry, your turn again). Wow, it's a win-win-win situation for the Republicans.

Of course, for the Democrats and the public in general, it's a nice lose-lose-lose situation though. Maybe a brave Democrat can filibuster this bill so it doesn't get railroaded through. Oh, wait, the Republicans want to get rid of the filibuster, too.

I call upon all the Democratic senators and representatives who read Slashdot to stop this as soon as possible! There. I've done my part.

Specifically: "...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble"

The Boy Scouts, or any private group for that matter, may exclude whomever they so choose, for any reason. This particular group does not believe that homosexuality or atheism are acceptable lifestyles.

Who are YOU to impose your beliefs upon them? Isn't that the very thing you people are fond of accusing 'conservative' groups of doing?

It is petty of you to deride an organization that first and foremost encourages community volunteerism and service. It is best that people like you don't associate with the Boy Scouts; your involvement would taint their good work.

yeah, but the supreme law of the land has nothing to say about other lands (except to say that individual states can't make agreements with them).

color me unamerican, but I think the constitution is outdated. At least we have one though...

"...all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land [emphasis mine]; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby..."

They did swear under
oath
that they would release they data without restrictions.

They also told congress (under oath) that their strategy
would end speculative patenting of the human
genome, whereas infact they've applied
for thousands and thousands of speculative
patents.

Shame on them.

If you give a bunch of people 6 billion dollars, well, many many millions WILL end up with Taliban. Heck, I've seen in various movies (documentries made by US gov't) showing the CIA with the fundamentalist freedom fighters. They even said how the US believes in their fight against the atheist soviets (emphesize atheist).

Of course, the CIA will deny funding bin Laden, but then, they probably didn't give money to him diretly anyway. It just went though a third party and ended up with bin Laden and the CIA knew that.

Here's the CIA's propaganda: http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/24- 318760.html

The CIA ignored the Russian story. Stories of suicide missions of the jihadists where they entered a camp, high on drugs so they don't feel pain, shooting everyone. Soldiers said that even when the enemy was leaking blood like a sieve he continued to shoot until killed or lost conciesness. And where did those people get american weapons, including state of the art (at the time) ground-to-air missles? 3rd party!!? LOL.

Also, you will not find much from gov't sources about CIA and drug smuggling, yet there is more than enough evidence of CIA's involvment in smuggling drugs, even into the US itself!

The dudes at Rice invented 3 of the 4 current methods for producing buckytubes. Their current research involves the use of catalysts applied to the end of existing tubes which results in "cloning" the tube, allowing for unprecedented control of the tubes characteristics. Here are some of Smalley's comments on buckytubes...

"These single walled carbon nanotubes are uniquely specified by two small integers, n and m. The diameter is roughly proportional to the sum, n+m. The electronic properties, however, are determined by the difference, n-m. If n and m are the same, then n-m=0 and the tube conducts electrons like a perfect metal. In the trade it is called and "arm-chair" tube. Electrons move down this tube as a coherent quantum particle, traveling down the tube much like a photon of light travels down a single mode optic fiber. Individual armchair tubes can conduct as much as 20 microamps of current. This doesn't sound like much until you realize that his little molecular wire is only 1 nanometer in diameter. A half inch thick cable made of these tubes aligned parallel to each other along the cable, would have over 100 trillion conductors packed side-by-side like pipes in a hardware store. If each of these tubes carried only one microamp, only 2 percent of its capacity, the half inch thick cable would be carrying one hundred millions amps of current. Fabricating such a cable - we call it the "armchair quantum wire" - is a prime objective of our work."

Buckytubes exceed the strength of carbon fiber (30 to 100 times that of steel), the thermal transfer ability of diamonds, and are the best electrical conductor of any molecule known. They promise great advances not only for the transmission of energy, but also for energy storage (including hydrogen), composite fabrics, and even solar power. The world's leading producer of buckytubes is Carbon Nanotechnologies Incorporated, a Houston based spin-off from Rice. In the computer category, IBM has already announced the successful manufacture of buckytube transistors. It may not be all that long until we start to see some real world applications that begin to fulfill the exalted "gee whiz" promise of nanotechnology. And I'm not talking about facial creams.

billy - no...they are NOT calling the transistor 'little blue'

1. You either didn't comprehend part of the constitutional quote I provided in my last post (specifically the "not herein otherwise provided for" part), or you plain didn't read it.
2. You're using the words "Senate" and "Congress" interchangably, apparently confusing what the Senate can do alone and what both chambers of Congress are required for.