Slashdot Mirror

Now that we have a standing all-volunteer army, there is absolutely no need for citizen militias (which is why there aren't any).

I won't address why your precepts are wrong here, as other posters in this thread have done an excellent job already. It's the last bit of that sentence I'd like to correct. "There aren't any [citizen militias]", you say? Well, if you are a male between the ages of 17 and 45 (I assume you are a U.S. citizen from the wording of your post), you are a member of the citizen militia of the United States. Don't believe me? Look here: USC Title 10, Chapter 13, Section 311.

In any case, there are many smaller, slightly-more-organized groups of armed citizens. They have been for a long time and still are occasionally called upon by local law enforcement to assist in emergencies (natural disasters, for example). It's true that a lot of these so-called "militia" groups are crackpot vigilantes (and sometimes white supremacists as well), but they are fortunately a minority. If any of these groups on their own decided to try to overthrow the government, they would be quickly dealt with. That's the whole point; the founding fathers did not envision the citizen militia as a bunch of small groups of paranoid vigilantes. Rather, the citizen militia is simply the entire body of the armed citizenry, who can in dire need, as a last resort, when every other system put in place has failed to secure the rights and fair representation of the people, exercise their will upon the government by force.

Doesn't look to me like the AOPA had much power at Meigs field.

My local congressman, Mark Kennedy claimed on some radio call interview a few years back that he was the only one in congress who cared about it. (His son is a private pilot) Don't know if it is true, but an interesting claim. At least he instantly understood the issue when a caller got on the air about it.

In response to:

Barry Myers, AccuWeather's executive vice president, said the bill would improve public safety by making the weather service devote its efforts to hurricanes, tsunamis and other dangers, rather than duplicating products already available from the private sector.

Ed Johnson, the weather service's director of strategic planning and policy, said:

"If someone claims that our core mission is just warning the public of hazardous conditions, that's really impossible unless we forecast the weather all the time. You don't just plug in your clock when you want to know what time it is."
And then this gem from Accuweather:

Myers argued that nearly all consumers get their weather information for free through commercial providers, including the news media, so there's little reason for the federal agency to duplicate their efforts.

"Do you really need that from the NOAA Web site?" he asked.

Um, gee, if everyone already doesn't get their weather information from the National Weather Service, then what the fuck are they so worried about? Incidentally, the stated mission of the National Weather Service is:

The National Weather Service (NWS) provides weather, hydrologic, and climate forecasts and warnings for the United States, its territories, adjacent waters and ocean areas, for the protection of life and property and the enhancement of the national economy. NWS data and products form a national information database and infrastructure which can be used by other governmental agencies, the private sector, the public, and the global community.

Clear, timely, comprehensive, accurate - and now open - weather forecasts are critical for many, many sectors of public and private society. The new, open formats of weather data also make its integration into myriad other services and tools trivial. It's only good for the public. I don't think Sen. Santorum realizes how critical the NWS's weather, climate, and marine data is to so many sectors of US society.

The National Weather Service is funded for this mission, among others, by the taxpayers of the United States.

I hope Rick Santorum realizes that in a world where this bill passes, there should also be a corresponding reduction of funding to the NWS, in addition to a wholesale change of its mission. In fact, what would its mission be?

The best part of all of this is that in order for the NWS to effectively be able to gather the necessary data to still predict and warn against life- and property-threatening dangers, it still has to do almost all of the continuing data collection it does now. Removing the public access to this does absolutely nothing for anyone.

Except for-profit weather forecasting providers like Accuweather, of course.

For now, at least, Johnson of the NWS notes his agency is expanding its online offerings to serve the public.

Remember, too, that a "bill" is just that. Time to remind your elected officials of what you think...

http://www.house.gov/writerep/
Write your representative. I'm pretty sure they don't read slashdot, and need to know how the people feel on these matters.

I was in agreement with you, until you laid down the challenge and I remembered an FAA site. In searching for it, I found some other interesting stuff.

Interference and model jets Ironic?
2002 CAA Omega interference PDF
Did Personal Electronic Devices(PEDs) cause TWA 800 to explode??
US House Commitee
2001 NASA Report PDF
2002 NASA Report PDF

I never could find the FAA listing of aircraft incidents. It showed several cases of problems with avionics that the cockpit crew attributed to PEDs

"Umm... I'm pretty sure the Constitution is fairly clear on who gets to regulate interstate commerce, and I'm pretty sure that the states ain't it."

OK, Perry Mason, here is a copy of the Constitution of the United States. Find me the part that denies regulating interstate commerce to the states.

There is a clause granting that power to Congress, but there is no similar clause refusing that power to the states. Other than very specific prohibitions against things like duties, but there is nothing in the document that broadly forbids the states fom affecting that area. And, really, if the broad area of "interstate commerce" is refused the states, what's the point in including such specific restrictions like the one against duties?

What you are probably thinking of is referred to as the Dormant Commerce Clause which is notable in the way it does not explicitly exist in the Constitution. It's more a work of judicial precedence than legislation.

Shameless plug.

Interestingly,Dr. Smalley talked about armchair nanotube technology at the senate Oversight hearing on sustainable, low emission, electricity generation Full Committee Hearing almost one year ago. The full text is here.

That was April 2004. He also lobbied^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hprepared a written statement in June 1999.

Looks like the meaningful web sites all are /.ted at the moment. Doesn't Smalley head the nanotech center at Rice?

Someone probably said the same thing about ARPANET.

I wonder what congressional district the defense company is located in?

Edward J. Markey (Ranking Democrat on the Telecommunications and Internet subcommittee)

Raytheon is based in Waltham, Massachussetts, but they have offices everywhere. Canada, Japan, Oz...
And they are Linux friendly.

And where in the field will this be used?
One use might be a virtual sand table. Not everything the military does is 'in the field'.

Am I the only one who gets scared when I imagine what a room in the pentagon might look like, with Generals wearing special glasses, and moving projected data off walls?

Probably.
Generals don't move data. They direct Col's and Majors to do that.

Well, I'll be darned. After squirming over action items like "supporting the President in the War on Terror" and "Cracking Down on Indecency", I was concerned. We got a letter recently with a checklist of priorites, which included several of the buzzwords being bandied around by the radical right ever since they disguised fear and hate as "Moral Values" to win the 2004 elections.

And then, Jeb Hensarling (R - Athens) goes and opens the door to "these newcomers to our political process [...] bloggers and online activists." (from TFA). And in a show of rare bipartisanship (on an issue not involving oil or war), he's partnering with a leading Democratic Senator. And some of the biggest beneficiaries of the legislation will be third-party bloggers, Greens, Libertarians, and all the rest.

It's as if he has a sense of civic duty. Maybe it's possible, even today. After all, there are an awful lot of "R"s in Texas who were "D"s in a previous life.

• Following the extension of daylight saving time in 1974, Congress directed the Department of Transportation (DOT) to conduct a study on the effects of the extended daylight saving time. The DOT study released in 1975 made a number of conclusions. The following list is not inclusive of the entirety of the report conclusions.
  
  Daylight saving time saves energy. DOT estimates that observing daylight saving time in March and April saved the equivalent in energy of 10,000 barrels of oil each day--totaling 600,000 barrels each year in 1974 and 1975.
  
  Daylight saving time saves lives and prevents traffic injuries. Daylight saving time allows more people to travel home from work and school in the daylight, which is much safer than darkness. And, according to the DOT report, except for the months of November and December, daylight saving time does not increase the morning hazard for those going to school and work.
  
  Daylight saving time prevents crime. Because people get home from work and school earlier and complete more errands and chores in daylight, daylight saving time seems to reduce people's exposure to various crimes, which are more common in darkness than in light.
  
  Daylight Saving Time Saves Energy.Daylight saving time saves energy because it alters the time at which demand for electricity is at its peak. One of the peak demand periods for electricity occurs between 5:00 p.m.-8:00 p.m., when the sun sets and people come home from work. As people come home from work, their first inclination is to turn on a light. If people come home and it is light outside, there is less of an inclination to turn a light on. But pushing the sunset back one hour does not save the energy alone. Energy savings is realized because even with the time adjustment, people tend to go to sleep at the same time under daylight saving time as standard time. And, in the morning, whether it is light out or not, lights are turned on. People get ready for work and school. And, it takes the same amount of time to get ready to go to work or school under daylight saving time as it does under standard time.

Here's a PDF of the amendment, as agreed, from the house.gov page on the session yesterday. Realistically, if it'll make that big of an impact, why not make Daylight Savings Time a year-round proposal? If this amendment is passed by the House, we will have a period of a little over 3 months annually (Dec, Jan, Feb) in which DST is not in effect. That seems ridiculous. Not to mention that if DST becomes year-round, the change in software becomes a static offset to GMT as opposed to figuring out when the annual switch days are. Even Windows allows you to set a time zone that ignores DST, so a company in permanent CDT would only need set their time zone to EST and not worry about changing the clocks again.

Here's a PDF of the amendment, as agreed, from the house.gov page on the session yesterday. Realistically, if it'll make that big of an impact, why not make Daylight Savings Time a year-round proposal? If this amendment is passed by the House, we will have a period of a little over 3 months annually (Dec, Jan, Feb) in which DST is not in effect. That seems ridiculous. Not to mention that if DST becomes year-round, the change in software becomes a static offset to GMT as opposed to figuring out when the annual switch days are. Even Windows allows you to set a time zone that ignores DST, so a company in permanent CDT would only need set their time zone to EST and not worry about changing the clocks again.

You're confusing, intentionally or not, conservatism's multiple definitions. Republicans (who call themselves conservatives) today do not want the status quo - that's why they passed the USA PATRION Act, appoint privacy advocates who don't believe in privacy, etc. Another case in point: Terry Schiavo. The status quo said that it was up to the state courts. Most of today's conservatives thought otherwise (mad props to Republican Christopher Shays for standing up to them, at least on this issue).

Well, if you're in the U.S., and you're concerned about these events (it's looking more and more like an anti-privacy group), might I suggest contacting the privacy office or going directly to the dept. of homeland security to let them know how you feel as a taxpayer about the appointment of individuals with a less than stellar record when it comes to privacy concerns?

Might be a good idea to contact your senators and representatives too.

There is a difference. The term bootleg is usually reserved for the pressed cd.

The copyright law is rather clear on the ownership of concert recordings. US Copyright Law gives the musician the controlling right to recordings of his/her live performances (unless they give it away along with their soul in a record contract). So the majority of the stuff on EzTree was perfectly kosher. There's a list over on etree.org of the bands that are known to be 'trade friendly.' What 'trade friendly' means is that people have emailed/talked to/gotten written permission from the bands and artists to trade live recordings so long as they are not sold. Some bands put weird restrictions on taping such as limits on the type of equipment you can use. The Presidents of the United States of America limit tapers to handheld cassette recorders/md with built in mics. Other bands like the Counting Crows and Phish let you bring in large mic rigs and dat decks and what not. Some artists even let you get a soundboard tap.

It's not really a bootleg if you're not selling it and the artist basicly gives it to you, is it? :)

That having been said, Eztree had a lot of sketchy stuff on it. There were copies of unreleased demos, DVDs with comercial music videos on it (these were suposedly screened by moderators, but it's hard to catch everything on a site as large as EZtree was), there were rips of some bootlegs up there that were of the sketchy legal variety such as an unreleased live show that Capitol records had recorded and someone leaked on acetate years ago.

I don't personally know exactly what it was that ended up catching up with them, but it's no big loss. There are plenty of other good live music trackers out there if you know where to look.

Because, as we all know, passports are never forged. Ever.

I don't see how we are more "protected" than the current system.

To be fair, Texas does have Ron Paul as well. Consistently votes for citizens' privacy, votes for legalization of marijuana, and pushes for a Constitutional Federal Budget. He's pretty much the only politician I trust.

If only more politicians were honest, and believed in the sanctity of the constitution in order to support the things we hold most dear as a society. http://www.house.gov/paul/legis.shtml

That's odd. Whenever I search on that term, I get redirected here. :)

What about Bernie Sanders? He seems like a decent guy, from probably the most decent US state.

"There are 43 million uninsured Americans - 4 million more than when the current administration took office. George W. Bush will reverse this trend by making health insurance affordable for hard-working, low-income families." Source:

Bush-Cheney 2000 website

Reality?

In the first two years Bush was in office, the number of uninsured American increased by nearly four million. Since Bush took office, health insurance premiums have risen by an average rate of 12.5 percent per year. According to a major study, "widespread adoption [of Bush's major health care plan] could drive up the annual deductible paid by workers." Source:

U.S. Census Bureau, 7/8/04; Kaiser Family Foundation, 4/04; USA Today, 4/25/04

Another Healthcare promise:

"George W. Bush will establish the 'Healthy Communities Innovation Fund' to provide $500 million in grants over five years to fund innovative projects addressing targeted health risks, such as childhood diabetes." [Source: Bush-Cheney 2000 website]

Reality?

Bush never established this fund. Source:

The Philadelphia Inquirer, 1/20/04

Environmental promise:

George W. Bush "will also ensure that the federal government, which is the country's largest polluter, complies with all environmental laws." Source: Bush-Cheney 2000 website

Reality?

For the past three years, the Department of Defense has requested that Congress exempt it from environmental laws and regulations like the Clean Air Act of 1970. The exemptions were requested despite the fact that the Environmental Protection Agency has thus far declined to apply the policies to the military training facilities in question. Source:

Government Executive Magazine, 4/6/04

Education promise:

George W. Bush will "fully fund the Pell grant program for first-year students by increasing the maximum grant amount by more than 50 percent, to $5,100." Source:

Bush-Cheney 2000 - Education website

Reality?

President Bush has frozen the maximum Pell Grant at $4,050 in his FY 2005 education budget. This is the third year in a row that Bush has frozen or cut the maximum Pell Grant. Source:

House Committee on Education and the Work Force 2/2/04

Welfare promise:

"To encourage states to help families in crisis, Governor Bush will provide states an additional $1 billion over five years for preventative services to keep children in, or return them to, their homes whenever safely possible." Source:

Bush-Cheney 2000 - Child Welfare website

Reality?

Bush has proposed allowing states to use the federal funds currently earmarked for foster care room-and-board payments to be used for preventative services. In exchange, states must accept a spending cap on the amount of foster care funding they receive. Sour

Since Grokster, kazaa, Azureus, etc. presumably close up shop and take down their websites becuase their businesses were found to be unconstitutional (which is what the Supreme Court acutally decides is the consititutional legality of an issue). No new p2p software is created commercially. Now what?

Well, constitutional protection against ex post facto (Article I, Section 9, Clause 3) means that you would still have the right to have possess p2p software that was on your computer before the Supreme Court decision. You just couldn't use it legally. But for those who are using p2p to download copyrighted content, the legality issue shouldn't be a big issue.

On a related note, programmers with the neccessary wherewithal, will continue to create and update p2p applications...illegaly but will do so none-the-less. Or p2p projects will be created and maintained outside the US. If history has shown us anything, criminalizing a behavior or thought has little effect in stopping the behavior, and tends to give it a glamourizing effect. Example #1: drug use. Example #2: Prohibition.

Or say everybody just walks away from p2p applications all together. Then what, does piracy stop? Of course not. What Microsoft calls "casual piracy" the making of physical, unauthorized copies of copyrighted material has always been a bigger share of piracy than p2p file sharing. Ignoring that issue, what would happen? Instead of downloading illegal content through your p2p client of choice, there would be a resurgence of services like usenet and IRC.

If the Supreme Court had ruled the other way in Betamax, there would have been severe implications, because building hardware is a more difficult enterprise and harder to hide what your doing. But a ruling in favor of the RIAA here wouldn't have half the effect they think it would.

That said, I think it would be historically bad precedent that would criminalize perfectly legal behavior (getting the latest Fedora distribution.

The best way to fight the government is to work with it. Write your support to newspapers. Write your congressperson, they're not all as currupt as you think. At the very least they want to get re-elected and the best way to get re-elected is to support causes popular to your constituency, and oppose causes unpopular to them. Write a detailed, sincere letter, and most of them will respond. But they won't know anything if you don't tell them. Its your job to ask the government to work for you.

Re:You've missed the point (Score:2, Interesting)
by lowrydr310 (830514) on Thursday March 17, @09:12AM (#11964442)

Is it possible for the Plaintiff (the spammers in this case) to be ordered to pay the Defendant's legal bills when they (the plaintiffs) lose the case?

IANAFL

It's possible, but I don't know how likely it is. The trial lawyers, being a very powerful lobby, have consistently opposed the idea. See http://www.overlawyered.com/archives/000199.html

June 14, 2003
Essay on loser-pays

The following essay was written circa 1999 by our editor and formerly appeared on the site's topical page on loser-pays.

* * *

America differs from all other Western democracies (indeed, from virtually all nations of any sort) in its refusal to recognize the principle that the losing side in litigation should contribute toward "making whole" its prevailing opponent. It's long past time this country joined the world in adopting that principle; unfortunately, any steps toward doing so must contend with deeply entrenched resistance from the organized bar, which likes the system the way it is.

Overlawyered.com's editor wrote an account in Reason, June 1995, aimed at explaining how loser-pays works in practice and dispelling some of the more common misconceptions about the device. He also testified before Congress when the issue came up that year as part of the "Contract with America". Not online, unfortunately, are most of the relevant sections from The Litigation Explosion, which argues at length for the loser-pays idea, especially chapter 15, "Strict Liability for Lawyering".

As other countries recognize, the arguments in support of the indemnity principle are overwhelming. They include basic fairness, compensation of the victimized opponent, deterrence of tactical or poorly founded claims and legal maneuvers, and the provision of incentives for accepting reasonable settlements. Sad to say, the American bar, though loud in proclaiming that every other industry and profession should be made to pay for its mistakes, changes its mind in this one area, demanding an across-the-board charitable immunity for its own lucrative industry of suing people.

Also in 1995, Rep. Chris Cox (R-Calif.) published a succinct defense of the loser-pays principle, terming it the "full recovery rule" and pointing out that it would improve the position of a large number of plaintiffs with meritorious claims who currently go undercompensated because of the need to pay their lawyers large sums which cannot be recovered from the opponent.

Author James Fallows of The Atlantic called the idea "overdue" and included it in his list of "Ten New Year's Resolutions for America" (National Public Radio).

The principle in other countries: .....

Go to http://www.overlawyered.com/archives/000199.html to read the rest of it.

An example from Overlawyered.com's "Loser Pays" archives (bold added):

March 15, 2005
"Doctor fights, wins; lawyers aren't swayed"

Dr. Zev Maycon has been sued four times in three years; he's been dismissed before trial each time, but has missed weeks of work as a result, to the

Re:You've missed the point (Score:2, Interesting)
by lowrydr310 (830514) on Thursday March 17, @09:12AM (#11964442)

Is it possible for the Plaintiff (the spammers in this case) to be ordered to pay the Defendant's legal bills when they (the plaintiffs) lose the case?

IANAFL

It's possible, but I don't know how likely it is. The trial lawyers, being a very powerful lobby, have consistently opposed the idea. See http://www.overlawyered.com/archives/000199.html

June 14, 2003
Essay on loser-pays

The following essay was written circa 1999 by our editor and formerly appeared on the site's topical page on loser-pays.

* * *

America differs from all other Western democracies (indeed, from virtually all nations of any sort) in its refusal to recognize the principle that the losing side in litigation should contribute toward "making whole" its prevailing opponent. It's long past time this country joined the world in adopting that principle; unfortunately, any steps toward doing so must contend with deeply entrenched resistance from the organized bar, which likes the system the way it is.

Overlawyered.com's editor wrote an account in Reason, June 1995, aimed at explaining how loser-pays works in practice and dispelling some of the more common misconceptions about the device. He also testified before Congress when the issue came up that year as part of the "Contract with America". Not online, unfortunately, are most of the relevant sections from The Litigation Explosion, which argues at length for the loser-pays idea, especially chapter 15, "Strict Liability for Lawyering".

As other countries recognize, the arguments in support of the indemnity principle are overwhelming. They include basic fairness, compensation of the victimized opponent, deterrence of tactical or poorly founded claims and legal maneuvers, and the provision of incentives for accepting reasonable settlements. Sad to say, the American bar, though loud in proclaiming that every other industry and profession should be made to pay for its mistakes, changes its mind in this one area, demanding an across-the-board charitable immunity for its own lucrative industry of suing people.

Also in 1995, Rep. Chris Cox (R-Calif.) published a succinct defense of the loser-pays principle, terming it the "full recovery rule" and pointing out that it would improve the position of a large number of plaintiffs with meritorious claims who currently go undercompensated because of the need to pay their lawyers large sums which cannot be recovered from the opponent.

Author James Fallows of The Atlantic called the idea "overdue" and included it in his list of "Ten New Year's Resolutions for America" (National Public Radio).

The principle in other countries: .....

Go to http://www.overlawyered.com/archives/000199.html to read the rest of it.

An example from Overlawyered.com's "Loser Pays" archives (bold added):

March 15, 2005
"Doctor fights, wins; lawyers aren't swayed"

Dr. Zev Maycon has been sued four times in three years; he's been dismissed before trial each time, but has missed weeks of work as a result, to the

71% down to 35%.

IRS employs 100,013 employees in 2001.

36,000 employees got wise. What about the remaining 35,000 employees?

No wonder, the quality of our audit is getting better! I just hope not to get audit at all, but if I do, I'd like to know which employee passed this social engineering test so I can avoid them...

What better ways to railroad them with unmarked receipts and explaination of multiple exemptions?

National government revenue is up over the last 10/20/30 years. As I stated earlier, percent of GDP is irrelevent. If the national government is getting more wealth transferred to it than before, measured in the same terms (and it is), then revenue is up.

You don't say that your rent is down because it's gone up less than your production has. Why do you persist in the same error about the total national production?

I know why the GDP grows. Do you know what a catalaxy is? If not, then you don't know as much about economics as you think you do, because that's integral to why the GDP goes up.

Don't attempt to patronize me. I've probably forgotten more knowledge about economics than you even know exists. I can suggest a few dozen books for you to read to educate yourself, if you like.

Are you familiar with the Armey curve? The research behind that is more than sufficient to refute your premise about percent of GDP and economic growth.

As for the effect of tax cuts on revenue, that's been clearly documented. Perhaps you could be bothered to educate yourself about it?

Oh yeah, and stop crediting Clinton or Bush with outlay levels. We both know that Congress has the biggest say and responsibility for exactly how much actually gets spent, regardless of what any president proposes.

Are you aware that for the majority of the nation's history, government spending was more like 3% of GDP, and that most of the growth occured during that time period? Does that shock you?

Are you familiar with the huge body of evidence from all over the world that shows government spending levels much lower than ours lead to much higher national economic growth? It's been true for a very long time.

The average annual GDP growth rate for 1945 to 1969 was 3.06%. Hardly spectacular growth, when you consider that from 1789 to 2003 it averaged 4.14% and 1789 to 1944, it averaged 3.84%. That by itself refutes your claim of "Our nation's biggest economic boom in history was the period from the end of World War II to the end of the 1960s".

Where did you get your economic knowledge? Some U.S public school, perhaps?

National government revenue is up over the last 10/20/30 years. As I stated earlier, percent of GDP is irrelevent. If the national government is getting more wealth transferred to it than before, measured in the same terms (and it is), then revenue is up.

You don't say that your rent is down because it's gone up less than your production has. Why do you persist in the same error about the total national production?

I know why the GDP grows. Do you know what a catalaxy is? If not, then you don't know as much about economics as you think you do, because that's integral to why the GDP goes up.

Don't attempt to patronize me. I've probably forgotten more knowledge about economics than you even know exists. I can suggest a few dozen books for you to read to educate yourself, if you like.

Are you familiar with the Armey curve? The research behind that is more than sufficient to refute your premise about percent of GDP and economic growth.

As for the effect of tax cuts on revenue, that's been clearly documented. Perhaps you could be bothered to educate yourself about it?

Oh yeah, and stop crediting Clinton or Bush with outlay levels. We both know that Congress has the biggest say and responsibility for exactly how much actually gets spent, regardless of what any president proposes.

Are you aware that for the majority of the nation's history, government spending was more like 3% of GDP, and that most of the growth occured during that time period? Does that shock you?

Are you familiar with the huge body of evidence from all over the world that shows government spending levels much lower than ours lead to much higher national economic growth? It's been true for a very long time.

The average annual GDP growth rate for 1945 to 1969 was 3.06%. Hardly spectacular growth, when you consider that from 1789 to 2003 it averaged 4.14% and 1789 to 1944, it averaged 3.84%. That by itself refutes your claim of "Our nation's biggest economic boom in history was the period from the end of World War II to the end of the 1960s".

Where did you get your economic knowledge? Some U.S public school, perhaps?

National government revenue is up over the last 10/20/30 years. As I stated earlier, percent of GDP is irrelevent. If the national government is getting more wealth transferred to it than before, measured in the same terms (and it is), then revenue is up.

You don't say that your rent is down because it's gone up less than your production has. Why do you persist in the same error about the total national production?

I know why the GDP grows. Do you know what a catalaxy is? If not, then you don't know as much about economics as you think you do, because that's integral to why the GDP goes up.

Don't attempt to patronize me. I've probably forgotten more knowledge about economics than you even know exists. I can suggest a few dozen books for you to read to educate yourself, if you like.

Are you familiar with the Armey curve? The research behind that is more than sufficient to refute your premise about percent of GDP and economic growth.

As for the effect of tax cuts on revenue, that's been clearly documented. Perhaps you could be bothered to educate yourself about it?

Oh yeah, and stop crediting Clinton or Bush with outlay levels. We both know that Congress has the biggest say and responsibility for exactly how much actually gets spent, regardless of what any president proposes.

Are you aware that for the majority of the nation's history, government spending was more like 3% of GDP, and that most of the growth occured during that time period? Does that shock you?

Are you familiar with the huge body of evidence from all over the world that shows government spending levels much lower than ours lead to much higher national economic growth? It's been true for a very long time.

The average annual GDP growth rate for 1945 to 1969 was 3.06%. Hardly spectacular growth, when you consider that from 1789 to 2003 it averaged 4.14% and 1789 to 1944, it averaged 3.84%. That by itself refutes your claim of "Our nation's biggest economic boom in history was the period from the end of World War II to the end of the 1960s".

Where did you get your economic knowledge? Some U.S public school, perhaps?

Others have commented to the point that their pricing makes it hard to compete, but I know nothing of Verizon pricing.

I do however know that the four big telcoms testified in front of Congress recently and their testimony might be of interest in this discussion. I watched it on C-SPAN and liked what I heard for the most part.

Their testimony basically told us that their mergers aren't going to harm competition. I'm sure a lot is bull, but please listen to the testimony first. It's interesting if you have a fetish for networks, redundancy and interconnectedness like I do. Plus loving gov't in action helps.

There were a lot of good questions and some pressure for honest answers. Listening is better than reading because you can get tone and inflection. Good thing too because the transcript isn't up yet, all you have is Real Audio.

Er, not in my experience. Libertarians, big fans of the 2nd that they are, generally say "If anything calls for guns ablazing, it's going to be my guns ablazing."

Hey, I didn't vote for the idiot.

I'm guessing by the tone of your post that you don't care for Bush (or the Republicans). The real question is (since all he is doing is signing the bill congress sent him), did you vote for any of the 18 Democratic senators that voted FOR the bill:

Bayh (D-IN) Bingaman (D-NM) Cantwell (D-WA) Carper (D-DE) Conrad (D-ND) Dodd (D-CT) Feinstein (D-CA) Johnson (D-SD) Kohl (D-WI) Landrieu (D-LA) Lieberman (D-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Nelson (D-NE) Obama (D-IL) Reed (D-RI) Rockefeller (D-WV) Salazar (D-CO) Schumer (D-NY)

from: the Senate's roll call listing

How about the 50 Democratic representatives that also voted for passage of the bill:

Baird Bean Berry Boren Boucher Boyd Case Chandler Cooper Costa Costello Cramer Cuellar Davis (AL) Davis (IL) Davis (TN) Edwards Emanuel Ford Gonzalez Gordon Harman Higgins Hinojosa Holden Kanjorski Kind Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Lipinski Marshall Matheson Meeks (NY) Melancon Michaud Moore (KS) Moran (VA) Murtha Peterson (MN) Pomeroy Rahall Reyes Ruppersberger Scott (GA) Smith (WA) Snyder Tanner Tauscher Taylor (MS) Wu

from: the House's roll call listing

Or did you conveniently forget that there is more to the government than just the President?

Hm... I went through three rounds of rejected submission attempts earlier trying to submit this story, several hours before this version was posted. In any case, here's my version of the submission, which has many more links:

NASA Watch, New Scientist, and Space Ref report that Dr. Michael D. Griffin has been nominated as the next administrator of NASA, to replace Sean O'Keefe. As NASA head, Griffin will be tasked with implementing the Vision for Space Exploration. Griffin is currently head of the Space Department at the Applied Physics Laboratory at JHU, is president-elect of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, and has a doctorate in aerospace engineering. He's noted for being passionate about space exploration and having strong management experience. His nomination has been praised by a number of groups, including the Planetary Society, the National Space Society, and House Science Committee Democrats and Republicans. In the past, Mike Griffin has testified to Congress on the future of human spaceflight, the vision for space exploration, and the danger of asteroid impacts. He was also rebuked in the early 90s for pointing out problems with the space station's review process.

As for my own thoughts, I think Griffin is an excellent pick. I'm amazed that they were able to find somebody with as much technical expertise as him who also has such a large amount of experience with managing large organizations. According to the space.com article, Griffin can be expected to make maximum use of the emerging commercial spaceflight industry.

In the past he's also said the following, which I approve of highly: "What is needed is to retire the Shuttle Orbiter, and its expensive support infrastructure," Griffin wrote. "It simply does not serve the needs of exploration and it is too expensive, to logistically fragile, and insufficiently safe for continued use as a low Earth orbit transport vehicle."

In the past he's been highly in favor of the government constructing a new heavy-lift launch vehicle, which I somewhat disagree with. Such an endeavor could easily end up being a bottomless money pit. Hopefully SpaceX's low-cost launches in the coming months will help raise awareness of frequently-launched smaller vehicles.

Hm... I went through three rounds of rejected submission attempts earlier trying to submit this story, several hours before this version was posted. In any case, here's my version of the submission, which has many more links:

NASA Watch, New Scientist, and Space Ref report that Dr. Michael D. Griffin has been nominated as the next administrator of NASA, to replace Sean O'Keefe. As NASA head, Griffin will be tasked with implementing the Vision for Space Exploration. Griffin is currently head of the Space Department at the Applied Physics Laboratory at JHU, is president-elect of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, and has a doctorate in aerospace engineering. He's noted for being passionate about space exploration and having strong management experience. His nomination has been praised by a number of groups, including the Planetary Society, the National Space Society, and House Science Committee Democrats and Republicans. In the past, Mike Griffin has testified to Congress on the future of human spaceflight, the vision for space exploration, and the danger of asteroid impacts. He was also rebuked in the early 90s for pointing out problems with the space station's review process.

As for my own thoughts, I think Griffin is an excellent pick. I'm amazed that they were able to find somebody with as much technical expertise as him who also has such a large amount of experience with managing large organizations. According to the space.com article, Griffin can be expected to make maximum use of the emerging commercial spaceflight industry.

In the past he's also said the following, which I approve of highly: "What is needed is to retire the Shuttle Orbiter, and its expensive support infrastructure," Griffin wrote. "It simply does not serve the needs of exploration and it is too expensive, to logistically fragile, and insufficiently safe for continued use as a low Earth orbit transport vehicle."

In the past he's been highly in favor of the government constructing a new heavy-lift launch vehicle, which I somewhat disagree with. Such an endeavor could easily end up being a bottomless money pit. Hopefully SpaceX's low-cost launches in the coming months will help raise awareness of frequently-launched smaller vehicles.

Hall: I'd prefer if you drove a Ford.

Rep. Hall is an ardent supporter of legislation benefiting the oil and gas industry in the Fourth District and the State of Texas.

Hall: I'd prefer if you drove a Ford.

Rep. Hall is an ardent supporter of legislation benefiting the oil and gas industry in the Fourth District and the State of Texas.

Additionally one could contact members on the Committee on Science.

The current members on that committee can be found at http://www.house.gov/science/

"The the term "owner" is used aptly and correctly - it is not convoluted. The "people" do not own Brtiney Spears' songs - she does (or her music label, however her contract is made).

Even public domain songs are not, generally, owned by the people - it is made free for people to use within certain guidelines (i.e. you do not make an assertion that you created the music)."

Are you sure you are not a RIAA shill? You say the darndest things, without having actual recourse to facts to back them up.

If you would take a peek at the US Constitution, you will see that Section 8, Clause 8 reads "[The Congress shall have Power] 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;"

In other words: the default, according to the founding fathers, is that authors and inventors do not have an exclusive right to their writings and discoveries. Ownership, if anything, is such an exclusive right. Without an exclusive right, there is no ownership. Although there are exclusive rights imaginable that would not amount to ownership (not every animal is a dog), ownership always requires an exclusive right (a dog is an animal).

The public domain, unlike what you are suggesting, is not some kind of reservation where works and inventions end their lives by the grace of congress. It is the whole area of works not or no longer covered by law. Just like the possession of daylight is generally not covered by the law, and thus can be considered "of the people", so is the possession of public domain works not covered by the law: they are of the people, to do with as you like.

In other words: I can make any assertion I want that I wrote the music. I would likely be exposed as a liar, but lying is not against the law. The law has better things to do than to concern itself with plagiarists.

If you want some examples: the Disney corporation is well-known for appropriating (and "copyrighting") public stories. Although I haven't studied these works closely, I seriously doubt that anywhere on a Pocahontas or Little Mermaid print you will find a statement that Disney, in fact, has not written these stories. Which is perfectly fine.

The NAACP suit was not about restoring voting rights to those human defendants, it was attempt to mudsling at Harris and DBT/Choicepoint.

Not to defame hero Katherine Harris or the freedom lovers at ChoicePoint, but that comment on the NAACP suit is certainly groundless and defensive. Besides, these people sling mud on themselves.

Harris and the accountable administrators at ChoicePoint could elevate their status considerably in the conservative movement by serving the prison time they've earned. Too bad there are Republican majorities in every level of government above them, so they'll never be prosecuted.

Whether the Constitution and its amendments grant rights to people or simply recognize the rights of the people is an interesting question. Either way, the rights are there, written down in the Constitution for all to see. Yes, the Constitution limits the rights of the government, but what it's limiting is the government's ability to infringe upon the rights of the people.

Whether the Constitution and its amendments grant rights to people or simply recognize the rights of the people is an interesting question. Either way, the rights are there, written down in the Constitution for all to see. Yes, the Constitution limits the rights of the government, but what it's limiting is the government's ability to infringe upon the rights of the people.

Have you checked out your opponent? You'll need a faraday cage.

I intentionally linked to a couple of legitimate sites because I figured you'd bash any with a liberal bias. I didn't say the election was stolen. I did however indicate that there were irregularities for which there is suspicious involvement of partisan officials in power, similar to Katherine Harris' bullshit in 2000. John Conyers is a legitimately elected congressman who felt these irregularities were worth investigating. He is obviously not the only one.

Notice I link to nonpartisan websites there (with the exception of rawprint, which has a scanned copy of an offical letter). Besides, even republicans should be outraged at Blackwell's lack of co-operation.

I intentionally linked to a couple of legitimate sites because I figured you'd bash any with a liberal bias. I didn't say the election was stolen. I did however indicate that there were irregularities for which there is suspicious involvement of partisan officials in power, similar to Katherine Harris' bullshit in 2000. John Conyers is a legitimately elected congressman who felt these irregularities were worth investigating. He is obviously not the only one.

Notice I link to nonpartisan websites there (with the exception of rawprint, which has a scanned copy of an offical letter). Besides, even republicans should be outraged at Blackwell's lack of co-operation.

I intentionally linked to a couple of legitimate sites because I figured you'd bash any with a liberal bias. I didn't say the election was stolen. I did however indicate that there were irregularities for which there is suspicious involvement of partisan officials in power, similar to Katherine Harris' bullshit in 2000. John Conyers is a legitimately elected congressman who felt these irregularities were worth investigating. He is obviously not the only one.

Notice I link to nonpartisan websites there (with the exception of rawprint, which has a scanned copy of an offical letter). Besides, even republicans should be outraged at Blackwell's lack of co-operation.

I intentionally linked to a couple of legitimate sites because I figured you'd bash any with a liberal bias. I didn't say the election was stolen. I did however indicate that there were irregularities for which there is suspicious involvement of partisan officials in power, similar to Katherine Harris' bullshit in 2000. John Conyers is a legitimately elected congressman who felt these irregularities were worth investigating. He is obviously not the only one.

Notice I link to nonpartisan websites there (with the exception of rawprint, which has a scanned copy of an offical letter). Besides, even republicans should be outraged at Blackwell's lack of co-operation.

I intentionally linked to a couple of legitimate sites because I figured you'd bash any with a liberal bias. I didn't say the election was stolen. I did however indicate that there were irregularities for which there is suspicious involvement of partisan officials in power, similar to Katherine Harris' bullshit in 2000. John Conyers is a legitimately elected congressman who felt these irregularities were worth investigating. He is obviously not the only one.

Notice I link to nonpartisan websites there (with the exception of rawprint, which has a scanned copy of an offical letter). Besides, even republicans should be outraged at Blackwell's lack of co-operation.

I intentionally linked to a couple of legitimate sites because I figured you'd bash any with a liberal bias. I didn't say the election was stolen. I did however indicate that there were irregularities for which there is suspicious involvement of partisan officials in power, similar to Katherine Harris' bullshit in 2000. John Conyers is a legitimately elected congressman who felt these irregularities were worth investigating. He is obviously not the only one.

Notice I link to nonpartisan websites there (with the exception of rawprint, which has a scanned copy of an offical letter). Besides, even republicans should be outraged at Blackwell's lack of co-operation.

I intentionally linked to a couple of legitimate sites because I figured you'd bash any with a liberal bias. I didn't say the election was stolen. I did however indicate that there were irregularities for which there is suspicious involvement of partisan officials in power, similar to Katherine Harris' bullshit in 2000. John Conyers is a legitimately elected congressman who felt these irregularities were worth investigating. He is obviously not the only one.

Notice I link to nonpartisan websites there (with the exception of rawprint, which has a scanned copy of an offical letter). Besides, even republicans should be outraged at Blackwell's lack of co-operation.

That's pure and simple bullshit.

My district as well. Unfortunately, in our district, I think you'll be better off campaigning about crows than about technology.