Slashdot Mirror

These men have just become my three favorite people to hate, along with our non-president Bush.

Here's some addresses for you to do with as you please; normally I'd recommend writing them as I usually do, but their corrupt stupidity compels me to not care if you DDOS them, spam them, or whatever:

Rep. Robert Wexler

Rep. Adam Smith

Rep. Tom Feeney

Oh, and if you haven't already, try joining the EFF.

Corporatism getting way out of hand. It's getting scary as hell if you ask me.

These men have just become my three favorite people to hate, along with our non-president Bush.

Here's some addresses for you to do with as you please; normally I'd recommend writing them as I usually do, but their corrupt stupidity compels me to not care if you DDOS them, spam them, or whatever:

Rep. Robert Wexler

Rep. Adam Smith

Rep. Tom Feeney

Oh, and if you haven't already, try joining the EFF.

Corporatism getting way out of hand. It's getting scary as hell if you ask me.

we need your help

About a month ago, I started sounding optimistic about getting a bill introduced into Congress to help right the wrong of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. I was optimistic because we had found a congressperson who was willing to introduce the bill. But after pressure from lobbyists, that is no longer clear. And so we need help to counter that pressure, and to find a sponsor.

The idea is a simple one: Fifty years after a work has been published, the copyright owner must pay a $1 maintanence fee. If the copyright owner pays the fee, then the copyright continues. If the owner fails to pay the fee, the work passes into the public domain. Based on historical precedent, we expect 98% of copyrighted works would pass into the public domain after just 50 years. They could keep Mickey for as long as Congress lets them. But we would get a public domain.

The need for even this tiny compromise is becoming clearer each day. Stanford's library, for example, has announced a digitization project to digitize books. They have technology that can scan 1,000 pages an hour. They are chafing for the opportunity to scan books that are no longer commercially available, but that under current law remain under copyright. If this proposal passed, 98% of books just 50 years old could be scanned and posted for free on the Internet.

Stanford is not alone. This has long been a passion of Brewster Kahle and his Internet Archive, as well as many others. Yet because of current copyright regulation, these projects -- that would lower the cost of libraries dramatically, and spread knowledge broadly -- cannot go forward. The costs of clearing the rights to makes these works available is extraordinarily high.

Yet the lobbyists are fighting even this tiny compromise. The public domain is competition for them. They will fight this competition. And so long as they have the lobbyists, and the rest of the world remains silent, they will win.

We need to your help to resist this now. At this stage, all that we need is one congressperson to introduce the proposal. Whether you call it the Copyright Term Deregulation Act, or the Public Domain Enhancement Act, doesn't matter. What matters is finding a sponsor, so we can begin to show the world just how extreme this debate has become: They have already gotten a 20 year extension of all copyrights just so 2% can benefit; and now they object to paying just $1 for that benefit, so that no one else might compete with them.

If you believe this is wrong, here are two things you can do: (1) Write your Representative and Senator, and ask them to be the first to introduce this statute; point them to the website http://eldred.cc, and ask them to respond. And even more importantly, (2) blog this request, so that others who think about these issues can get involved in the conversation.

I have given this movement as much as I can over the past four years, and I will not stop until we have reclaimed the public domain. Stay tuned for more litigation, and more ideas from Creative Commons. But please take these two steps now.

I just wish Larry would mention Gutenberg more...

The iLoo marks one attempt to create an environment where the internet is everywhere. It was a brave attempt - other attempts have focussed on relatively unusable systems such as bringing the internet to pocketable phones, an exceedingly expensive mechanism that does not deliver what it attempts to do due to the limitations of the medium. Airports have experimented, with moderate success, at providing Internet terminals, and also at 802.11 based systems - though in that case, taking advantage of the high number of laptops owned corporately and the high number of corporate users of air travel. More universal 802.11 solutions are doomed - at least until the development of a $199 Apple iBook.

Putting the Internet everywhere will be a difficult task. An environment needs to be fostered where relatively expensive equipment can be placed in public safely and profitably. This means thinking laterally, and Microsoft has, for once, done so with the iLoo. Systems may eventually be developed that provide usable Internet terminals on public transport or in shops or photobooths. The ideas about where cannot be limited except by trying and failing. But it's inevitable that ideas will not be tried if they're laughed at before they can even be tested. This quagmire of laterally thought ideas not being raised for fear of ridicule will not disappear by itself. Unless people are prepared to actually act, not just talk about it on Slashdot, nothing will ever get done. Apathy is not an option.

You can help by getting off your rear and writing to your congressman or senator. Tell them that the Internet is important to you, and that universal access, both geographically and sociologically, is vital to the Internet's future and to the many billions of people who rely upon the Internet in their daily lives. Tell them that you appreciate the work being done to bring the Internet out of the offices and homes to where it can be reached by everyone, by groups such as Microsoft, VoiceStream, Palm, and Apple but that if they are unable to bring ideas even to the prototyping stage, you will be forced to use less and less secure and intelligently designed alternatives. Let them know that SMP may make or break whether you can efficiently deploy OpenBSD on your workstations and servers. Explain the concerns you have about freedom, openness, and choice, and how cramping creativity when it comes to opening the Internet harms all three. Let them know that this is an issue that effects YOU directly, that YOU vote, and that your vote will be influenced, indeed dependent, on their polices on Universal Internet Access .

You CAN make a difference. Don't treat voting as a right, treat it as a duty. Keep informed, keep your political representatives informed on how you feel. And, most importantly of all, vote.

Some synopses:

• REDUCE: Rep. Zoe Lofgren and Professor Lawrence Lessig's plan to set a bounty for citizens catching spammers
• CAN-SPAM: Sen. Conrad Burns et al, requires valid headers and working opt-out, but doesn't allow private lawsuits
• Do-Not-Spam: Sen. Chuck Schumer's proposal covers everything from CAN-SPAM plus has a national do-not-email registry and bans address harvesting.

In general, yes. But there's a difference between a court having jurisdiction over a matter and a court having the ability to hale someone into court. All jurisdiction means (usually) is that the court is satisfied that someone in the court's zone of influence has been affected by someone else's action or has affected someone else by their own actions.

If the plaintiff and the defendant happen to reside in the same state (corporations reside both where their corporate papers are filed and where their principal place of business is) then generally absent a question of federal law ( 28 USC 1331 ) the federal court will kick it out to be dealt with in state courts. See the original post of mine for a more full explanation of the following: there's also jurisdiction in federal court when there's diversity of citizenship and the amount is above $75k.

But absent treaties for extradition and even sometimes despite such treaties, the only way to have a lawsuit in the US affect you if you live abroad is to come visit the US. Individual states in the US usually grant extradition to one another and various nations have treaties for extradition depending on the nature of the offense (usually criminal offenders will be extradited but you can get into situations where non-death penalty places will refuse to extradite to a death penalty place etc.).

All of this makes perfect sense to if you think about it. Bob lives in Brazil. He pisses off Jim in the US and costs Jim a lot of money. That person files a lawsuit and is able to serve Bob with notice of the lawsuit (persuant to FRCP 4(f); scroll down looking for f, the link is to FRCP 4). Bob refuses to answer therefore Bob loses (defaults). If Bob ever wants to visit the US it's going to be an expensive visit because he owes Jim whatever he lost and if Jim catches wind that Bob has come into the US then he can get law enforcement people to have a chat with Bob. I don't know exactly how it works from there, so you'll have to talk to a lawyer who deals in such things if you want the rest of the story, but if Bob never visits the US he's got nothing to worry about.

If you piss someone off, refuse to apologize or work the problem out in some way, and then later go to a party at that person's apartment building that he's also attending, doesn't it make sense he'd give you the cold shoulder and maybe make some snide remarks? It's the same idea. Just more expensive than hurt feelings from bad remarks.

In general, yes. But there's a difference between a court having jurisdiction over a matter and a court having the ability to hale someone into court. All jurisdiction means (usually) is that the court is satisfied that someone in the court's zone of influence has been affected by someone else's action or has affected someone else by their own actions.

If the plaintiff and the defendant happen to reside in the same state (corporations reside both where their corporate papers are filed and where their principal place of business is) then generally absent a question of federal law ( 28 USC 1331 ) the federal court will kick it out to be dealt with in state courts. See the original post of mine for a more full explanation of the following: there's also jurisdiction in federal court when there's diversity of citizenship and the amount is above $75k.

But absent treaties for extradition and even sometimes despite such treaties, the only way to have a lawsuit in the US affect you if you live abroad is to come visit the US. Individual states in the US usually grant extradition to one another and various nations have treaties for extradition depending on the nature of the offense (usually criminal offenders will be extradited but you can get into situations where non-death penalty places will refuse to extradite to a death penalty place etc.).

All of this makes perfect sense to if you think about it. Bob lives in Brazil. He pisses off Jim in the US and costs Jim a lot of money. That person files a lawsuit and is able to serve Bob with notice of the lawsuit (persuant to FRCP 4(f); scroll down looking for f, the link is to FRCP 4). Bob refuses to answer therefore Bob loses (defaults). If Bob ever wants to visit the US it's going to be an expensive visit because he owes Jim whatever he lost and if Jim catches wind that Bob has come into the US then he can get law enforcement people to have a chat with Bob. I don't know exactly how it works from there, so you'll have to talk to a lawyer who deals in such things if you want the rest of the story, but if Bob never visits the US he's got nothing to worry about.

If you piss someone off, refuse to apologize or work the problem out in some way, and then later go to a party at that person's apartment building that he's also attending, doesn't it make sense he'd give you the cold shoulder and maybe make some snide remarks? It's the same idea. Just more expensive than hurt feelings from bad remarks.

The link you have says this was proposed, it does not say nor can I find any evidence that it was ever enacted.

In this (interesting) discussion from the House of Representatives in 2000, they talk about the current state of anti-counterfeit technology and mention that some copiers "scar" or refuse to print bills -- and discussion of implementing this in scanners too -- but there is no mention of serial number tracking.

Unfortunately Snopes hasn't said anything on the subject yet.

... no matter how new it is, what color it is, or how much hot air backs it. It's nuts. At least if they are going to use bogus fiat currency, use the mint, don't make the bills part of some private for-profit bank that can charge "interest" on them and make everyone indebted to them on bogus pretenses, then carefully control the supply based on PRODUCED WEALTH as an aggregate, tangible total, not on some vague debt/credit schemes.

It's the mother of all government scams. I think IIRC this is the third time the US has used phony money, the previous two times failed eventually after ripping people off and letting the crooks skedaddle.

Representative Ron Pauls efforts, a good quick read

BTW, Alan Greenspan, BEFORE he became chairman of the private "federal" reserve bank mega conjob, was totally against phony fiat money. totally, and he articulated a lot of good reasons why. Funny how someone's values change once they get bribed off and put into a position of extreme power, isn't it?

Yes, the original poster is saying that, and the original poster is correct; you haven't been paying attention have you?

U.S. law has a number of "extra-territorial" provisions, particularly in respect to U.S. citizens or U.S. business overseas. For example 18 USC Sec. 2332a gives U.S. Courts jurisdiction over people who "without lawful authority, uses, threatens, or attempts or conspires to use, a weapon of mass destruction" against:

• a U.S. citizen outside the U.S.
• any person within the United States
• any property that is owned, leased or used by the United States

The U.S. is not unique in this regard. Israel prosecuted and executed Adolf Eichmann for crimes that occured in Europe during the Holocaust, before Israel even existed (the only death sentence ever carried out in Israel, btw). A Belgian prosecuter recently initiated "war crimes" proceedings against U.S. General Tommy Franks, for events that occured in the Iraq war.

I'm glad you took the time to misinform people about American law. Had you read the link, you would've noticed 28 USC 1332 was referenced (also known as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 1332). Here's a link to the code itself if you want it.

Basically, what the law says is that if one party is a resident of the state and the other is a resident of a foreign nation AND the damages claimed will be at least $75,000 then the Federal District Court for that state (or part of the state for larger states) has jurisdiction over the case.

Here they said they are residents of Boca Raton, FL, which is in the Southern District of Florida, SPAMHAUS et al are NOT in florida in any way, and they were going to claim damages of at least $75,000. They likely listed everyone and their cousins to make it perfectly clear that complete diversity of citizenship exists. If you don't have complete diversity of citizenship then the Federal Court will throw the case out because it's a State Court matter. It's a little more complex than that and IANAL. I am a law student but this IS NOT legal advice.

And for anyone who doesn't bother checking the above link to the USC, if the damages later end up being less than $75,000 then the plaintiff may not get costs and indeed might have to pay the costs so making a blind allegation that you meet the $75,000 mark can turn out to be expensive if a jury later awards you $1 and the judge levies the costs on you.

So next time you're going to make legal conjectures do at least attempt to do a little research.

> Too bad he's going down such a low path so soon in his carear.

He's an attourney offering his services to a client who thinks it has been damaged. I think his client is a scumbag, and perhaps he is too, but I would probably do the same thing if I thought it would help my career, since I don't think it's unethical to offer a fair trial. Let the courts decide the laws. Unfortunately for him, I think he is going to fall flat on his face with this one.

There are forms of peaceful protesting you can do to encourage those who would support the spam "industry", like signing affilated individuals up for as much spam as you can find. It might not change anything, but at least you can be assured they have to deal with the garbage they are defending.

You could always write your senators or representatives.

[Quoted from a former Slashdot post:]

Do yourself a favor. When writing your congressperson or representative:

1. Don't troll
2. Don't flame
3. Don't start with "I didn't vote..", or, especially, "I didn't vote for you, but..."
4. Above all, write intelligently.

1. What constitutional power does the President hold that can prevent legislation passed by Congress, like spending packages, so that it doesn't become law?

2. Scroll down to the highlighted text. Which President had only 12% (compared to 65%) of their vetoes overturn, despite the President in question having a majority of the opposing party in Congress, Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton?

3. Look at the reference chart. Of the eight presidencies shown (Johnson - Democrat, Nixon - Republican, Ford - Republican, Carter - Democrat, Reagan - Republican, Bush - Republican, Clinton - Democrat, Bush - Republican), which party has consistently spent more than they were receiving?

4. Fill in the blank, "The US Congress during the 80s was largely controlled by these conservatives who went by the popular name of '______ Democrat'"

   Hint: The word is the same as the last name of the president in office at the time.

5. What US President slashed social programs by more than fifty percent and yet doubled military spending while serving his two terms?

6. Bonus Question: Take a look at this chartWhich political party (as represented by the administration of the time), has consistently cut taxes on corporations while doing nothing about the individual tax payers' tax bill? Now compare this to the spending of each of those administrations.

However it is true that since 1976 the USA has become even more credential driven as there is a glut of college graduates -- even PhDs -- and employers often see the college diploma (not necessarily correctly) as proof of social class (ie. not lower class, etc.) and willingness to operate in a bureaucracy and be appropriately submissive. The book "Class - A guide through the American status systems" by Paul Fussell (while a bit dated etc.) has quite a bit to say on how different colleges fit into the US class sytem (e.g. how different colleges link with different social worlds and how people are scammed into paying lots of money for diplomas that aren't tickets to a different class). See a review of it at: http://www.wesclark.com/am/class.html

Also, see for example this testimony http://www.house.gov/science/goodstein_04-01.htm by a Vice Provost of Caltech on the collapse of the PhD pyramid scheme a couple decades back (and it has only gotten worse since). He argues the USA scientific academic system is not mainly educational -- it is more a filtering process. Art Sowers wrote about this too (Although I can;t find a current link to his "Contemporary Problems in Science Jobs" site.) But this site also discusses the problems: http://pmgg.tamu.edu/Advice/Advice4.shtml

It is also true that college is seen by some parents as an investment in their children which the child cannot easily gamble away (as opposed to a trust fund). So such a decision might be made differently when parents are deciding how to invest money in a child as opposed to when the child has to pay for college on their own.

The deeper issue you raise is that of "Voluntary Simplicity". See for example the newsgroup misc.consumers.frugal-living or the Voluntary Simplicity resources page: http://www.thegarden.net/simplicity/ One big thing I learned from reading misc.frugal is that frugality is not necessarily about doing without or living on as little as possible -- it is about recognizing priorities and structuring your time and finances and purchases to reflect those priorities -- whatever they may be. The problem with most people living an unexamined suburban life in the US is that if they looked deep inside they might realize their true priorities (e.g. family, self expression, non-violence, generosity, etc.) are often at odds with their financial and infrastructure and work and food and purchasing etc. reality.

Your advice is great. It's amazing how innovative people in the US are slowed down by being stuck having to worry about health insurance and children's college funds. How many parents are stuck in stultifying jobs to ensure health care for the kids or earn enough to send them to college is hard to estimate -- but it may be a lot. And as a consequence, such parents also can't spend time with their children when it makes the most difference -- the early years. That is another silly thing about college since it involves spending all this money on kids at the end of childhood when they can't learn as fast, as opposed to spending lots of money (or parent time) in first year or two of life.

Another piece of advice might be to live in a European country or Canada (perhaps also once-upon-a-time California too) with cheap (or free) quality colleges and universal health c

Of course not. Only if the supplier has a local presence in your state do you have to pay local sales tax.

So why should making the transaction over the internet result in a tax when there is none for mail order ? The only difference is the change in medium for making the order.

Not that the states haven't tried, mind you - but they were handed their hat by the Supreme Court some years back over mail order taxation because it interferes with the federal power under the constitution to regulate interstate commerce (section 8, Clause 3: [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce [...] among the several States). Such a tax is essentially a tarriff as goods cross the border into the state - which is specifically prohibited by the Constitution (article 1, section 10, clause 2: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports.). Source: U.S. Constitution

In short, California is attempting to get around the Constitution of the United States in order (it thinks) to solve its fiscal problem. Unfortunately, they might just get away with it.

The military gets such a large chunk of the federal budget (49% IIRC, but don't quote me on it)

It's nowhere near 49%. In 2003, the DoD accounted for 16.9% of federal outlays, 10.6% of net public spending, and just 3.5% of gross domestic product. In 2001, the government spent 3x more on welfare, Social Security, etc. than it did on defense (54% vs. 18%).

Let's just take a look at Mr. Caldwell's ideas:

In the House, Zoe Lofgren, a California Democrat, backs an idea of Lawrence Lessig, the Stanford internet guru. She wants hackers who track down the worst offenders to get huge bounties. This is a terrible idea that will make millionaires of two classes of people: reprobates who illegally maraud through others' hard drives;

Maraud through others' hard drives? Um, how?

No, really. How?

Granted, I've only read Rep. Lofgren's press release on the proposed measure, but I don't see anything in there about Joe Citizen going out and investigating spammers himself. It only talks about rewards for "information that leads to the successful collection of civil fines". There's nothing about hacking a spammers system, staking out his house, or the employment of any other invasive methods.

I can appreciate hyperbole as much as the next guy, but you're way off base here.

and those who have built their expertise about spam by peddling it.

...because sending spam is the only way to learn anything about spam, right?

Oh, wait...

Charles Schumer, New York's Democratic senator, has a better approach: a do-not-spam list with stiff fines, modelled on the one the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will launch this summer to tackle the suddenly quaint-seeming problem of phone solicitation.

This solution ignores so, so many things.

I have better than seventy email addresses that come to me. I'm webmaster@, hostmaster@, and abuse@ a few dozen domains. Do I have to register each and every one of those addresses in order to make them off-limits to spammers?

What happens when a spammer in Korea or Brazil harvests this list and sends spam to the addresses on it? We can't exactly send the local sheriff over to his office to serve him.

Even if the list was blind - i.e. you can only see if a specific address exists on it, rather than downloading the whole thing - it'll only serve as a confirmation system for dictionary attacks. Rather than sending dummy mail to every possible ten-character-or-less username at a given domain, a spammer can just bounce his list off the do-not-spam list server for confirmation. If anything, this makes getting valid addresses substantially easier.

The do-not-call database only works because it's no easier to exploit than a simple sequential war dialer attack, and expensive for international operaters to make telemarketing calls from outside U.S. jurisdiction. Attempting to apply the same solution to a fundamentally different medium is completely unworkable.

Spam is different

Well, at least you get that. Now, apply that knowledge.

because the marginal cost of sending additional solicitations is virtually zero. To the spammer, that is. The entire infrastructure for this enterprise is subsidised by other people:

This is a common oversimplification. Except in cases of utilization of open relays - something we already have a marginally workable technical solution for dealing with - this isn't entirely true. The spammers still need a few servers on their end with which to send out the mail.

They used to need bandwidth, too, but that's gotten so cheap that it's not even worth talking about. Again, though, there's a technical solution: Broadband ISP's need to be more vigilant about their customers' behavior.

(
Yes, this includes blocking port 25 for dialup customers. I know this is an unpopular notion here on /., but it's something that I happen to agree is necessary. If you want to run a business off the end of a connection, you should get a real business connection. The reduction in spam volume that would come from simply prohibiting mail servers behind dynamic connections is too large of a win to ignore.

Computer games can affect people on many different levels. There's the meta-effect, where a person sees something occur in a computer programmer and thinks "What the blazes?" and is inspired to work out how it works, how it can be replicated, how the technique can be used in other applications. There's the deliberate effect, where a game can promote a point of view or a a view of the world that makes someone's mind click and say "I understand that". The great strategy games, with Sid Meyer standing proudly in the center, have influenced me there, but other, more ordinary games, can often influence in much the same way. Games can also mentally challenge - Lemmings taught us to solve puzzles in real time, adventures did similarly, and the games that have followed Doom and forerunners like Hired Guns have provided us with a new level of real time problem solving.

The mind is exercised by those flashes of light on screen. Like a lightbulb appearing over one's head, computer games can illuminate the dark crevises of the mind, putting them to work for all of us. Unfortunately, not everyone sees the world that way. Efforts are often made to discredit computer gamery as a mind device. Attacks from procensorship groups are common, and while the games industry is not yet as heavily regulated (voluntarily or otherwise) as, say, the movie industry, it's merely a matter of time. Already computer games are typically more regulated than the music industry, and without an RIAA like organization to defend computer game manufacturers, that trend is likely to get worse. Indeed, whereas the RIAA, and Hilary Rosen, has done an astronishingly successful job of countering lobbying to censor music through a combination of token solutions ("Parental Advisory" labels and such) and aggressive pro-speech counter lobbying, the ASPA and ESPA and other similar groups have gone far beyond even the MPAA on self-labelling and have done little to promote the notion that games, like music, films, and literature, are a form of speech; indeed that you cannot "censor" without there being speech to censor.

The games industry lacks an affective defender, and without one, attacks on "violence" and sex in computer games will continue until a legislative disnification of games becomes inevitable. The choice between Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo will become a fight where only the names are different.

This quagmire of games becoming censored in the absense of an affective lobbying organization which becomes more unlikely to be effective as games become more and more censored will not disappear by itself. Unless people are prepared to act, not just talk about it on Slashdot, nothing will ever get done. Apathy is not an option.

You can help by getting off your rear and writing to your congressman or senator. Tell them that computer games are a form of speech, that they impart ideas and ways of thinking, and that they inspire people to do things they'd otherwise never do. Tell them that you appreciate the work of groups like the ASPA and ESPA to combat attempts at censorship by the imposition of voluntary ratings but that if groups like these continue to fail to focus on the speech aspects inherent in computer games, and as such games merely become more and more neutered, you will be forced to use less and less secure and intelligently designed alternatives. Tell them that you believe the world would be a better place with more groups following the lead of successful free speech lobbyests like the RIAA. Let them know that SMP may make or break whether you can efficiently deploy OpenBSD on your workstations and servers. Explain the concerns you have about freedom, openness, and choice, and how censorship everywhere, in computer games a

There were also 40 PED related reports collected by the International Air Transport Association (IATA). The PED most frequently suspected as a source of interference was laptop computers, 16 times out of 40 or 40%. The most frequent aircraft system affected by a suspected PED interference source was navigation, 27 times out of 40 or 68%. In three of these cases, the suspected PED was turned off to verify that the aircraft system anomaly went away and then turned on to confirm that the PED was actually the source of the interference.

My understanding of this has been that the frequency of early cell phones interfered with the wireless control of the hydraulic system in some model commercial airplanes. In other words, we still are living with legacy rules like the federal excise tax on telephones imposed to pay for the Spanish-American War and not repealed until 2000.

Cellular systems are supposed to negotiate connections between cells and phones and do roaming anyway. The system associates you with the cell with the strongest signal that has open channels, yes? So why would being able to associate with more represent a huge problem for the network. I don't buy this argument since it's always sold as a safety issue for aircraft.

Even if I'm out to lunch on the hydraulic control systems (modern aircraft are typically fly by wire or fly by remote or combination), I can see harmonics or too powerful signals on other frequencies easily representing a safety-of-the-ship issue.

their unjust monopoly on music distribution

In what way is it unjust? It's an ancient right, guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8), and established via statute in Title 17 of the United States Code. The RIAA owns the exclusive right; this is a Government-sanctioned monopoly, and has been since the 18th century. See the Constitution and the United States Code.

For you Americans out there who plan to talk with their Senators & Representative (or staffers thereof), it'll probably be a good idea to tell them the problem is with

DARPA Grant F30602-01-2-0537,

After the phone calls (or instead of, for The Majority Of The World), send money to the OpenBSD donation site (It's the third ``purchase'' from the top). You can even buy yourself a goodie or two while you're there.

My money's on the way already. I wonder how much of the grant we can replace. Now for those phone calls...

Best wishes,

Max Hyre

I do know two things about the true motive of the war:

• It has something to do with Israel.
• It has something to do with oil.

You're very close. I'll give you a hint.

Dick Cheney used to be the CEO of a company called Halliburton. Cheney is still receiving large payments from that company. Halliburton has a subsidary called Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR).

KBR was recently offered a contract for putting out oil fires in Iraq, without Congressional approval. The contract has an estimated value of $7 billion, but has no maximum "ceiling" cost. These types of contracts are normally discouraged in the Executive Branch, as they are quite prone to cost padding.

KBR has also recently been awarded other lucrative contracts related to post-war construction in Iraq. These contracts were awarded after KBR was fined $2 million for excessive charges in prior government contracts. KBR and Halliburton also did millions of dollars of shady business with Saddam Hussein in the 90's (while Dick Cheney was at the wheel).

Why would the White House start a war, then in the ensuing chaos award lots of money to companies which in turn are paying money back to those in the White House? Hmmm...you tell me.

I've only scratched the surface here; Representative Waxman gives some more information at http://www.house.gov/reform/min/inves_admin/admin_ contracts.htm. The Houston Chronicle has a decent story about recent developments.

Wrong, sir. I direct you to 18 U.S.C. 1029 http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?get doc+uscview+t17t20+589+1++%28%29%20%20AND%20%28%28 18%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20AND%20%28USC%20w%2F1 0%20%281029%29%29%3ACITE%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%2 0 which clearly states that if someone defrauds any person(s) for an aggregate value of $1000 or more over the course of a year, said person is liable for very severe fines and prison time. That's just federal law, various states also have credit fraud laws. I suggest you check your facts before you start rambling off weird misconceptions. It took me 3 minutes to track down that law. There are many others that I will not spend time to find.

I wrote my representative

Have you?

Write to your elected representatives. Do it now.

-S

Left or Right or Wrong, it doesn't matter. Okay, so Republicans ultimately favore life over liberty, and Democrats ultimately favor liberty over life (this is an oversimplified generalization given the comments I've read here so far). Neither is more admirable than the other, and the constant bickering between the two sides is exactly what our system of government is designed to facilitate.

The result is a continuous national awareness of threats to both our lives and liberties, and therefore the best possible protection of either given assaults on the other. Sure, the balance fluctuates, but it is exactly that flucuation that keeps us aware of our political discontents. Isn't this exactly what we want?

NOTICE ON MAIL DELIVERY TO US CAPITOL
Because of the discovery of biological contaminants at the Capitol complex in early October, normal mail deliveries to offices in the House of Representatives were suspended. Months later, new screening policies have been implemented. Still, normal mail service has not yet fully resumed.
Despite this inconvenience, please be assured I greatly value your comments and feedback.
If you have an urgent matter, please consider contacting any of my three offices by telephone.

NOTICE ON MAIL DELIVERY TO US CAPITOL
Because of the discovery of biological contaminants at the Capitol complex in early October, normal mail deliveries to offices in the House of Representatives were suspended. Months later, new screening policies have been implemented. Still, normal mail service has not yet fully resumed.
Despite this inconvenience, please be assured I greatly value your comments and feedback.
If you have an urgent matter, please consider contacting any of my three offices by telephone.

The time to act is now folks. Here is how to contact your representative/s.

Getting feedback to companies like DirecTV is a tricky situation as it's rarely easy to determine who the information should go to. As if this isn't enough, for the most part any large company has little chance of telling apart sincere customer requests from background noise. If many customers suddenly demand a product be released, or another dropped, what's to say that this isn't because of a mention on talk radio, or because of the behaviour of a competitor?

This quagmire of companies being unable to ask all the questions they need, and of customers being unable to provide the kind of feedback giant corporations need to continue to provide quality goods and services at affordable prices will not disappear by itself. Unless people are prepared to actually act, not just talk about it on Slashdot, nothing will ever get done. Apathy is not an option.

You can help by getting off your rear and writing to your congressman or senator. Tell them that choice, quality services, and economical pricing is important to you, and that you worry that many businesses are crippled by being unable to understand what it is that their customers want. Tell them that you appreciate the work being done to promote loops of feedback, through clearly marked feedback email addresses and constant customer surveys but that if corporations continue to be unable to supply you with what you want and need because of a lack of awareness, you will be forced to use less and less secure and intelligently designed alternatives. Let them know that SMP may make or break whether you can efficiently deploy OpenBSD on your workstations and servers. Explain the concerns you have about freedom, openness, and choice, and how poor communications, bad feedback loops, and talk radio harms all three. Let them know that this is an issue that effects YOU directly, that YOU vote, and that your vote will be influenced, indeed dependent, on their ability to make giant, unaccountable, corporations provide the goods and services that make this country great.

You CAN make a difference. Don't treat voting as a right, treat it as a duty. Keep informed, keep your political representatives informed on how you feel. And, most importantly of all, vote.

I'll agree that was the INTENTION of kyoto. Perhaps a better way of stated that would have been:

"The fact is Kyoto has been bent by France and Germany to allow Europe an economic edge over the United States and provide an opportunity to paint Americans as greedy monsters."

And the word "fact" here is wrong. I should have indicated that its what I believe based on France and Germany's posturing during the November 2000 at The Hague. Why would they posture to limit the US's ability to count carbon sinks and limit the US's ability to use emissions trading?

Did you read your source? I seriously question it. They base the conclusion on a study of expected effects on ITAILY. I'm sure Kyoto would have little effect on ITAILY -- it's economy is already in the toilet. I SERIOUSLY question the conclusions brought there. Also note that the study was CONDUCTED in ITAILY.

I'm a little more comfortable letting a study conducted for the House of Representatives decide the fate of Kyoto rather than one done in Itaily... As HERE.

So yes, Bush ahd a LOT to do with this particularly foul piece of legislation.
Fact: PATRIOT enjoyed nearly unanimous support in congress. The Senate had only one vote against PATRIOT (roll call here). The House had four votes against PATRIOT.(roll call here). Incidentally, one Democrat and four Republicans voted against PATRIOT.

In other words: the left have as much to be ashamed of on this one as the center and right. Stop being a political shill and start thinking for yourself. Bush-hating and liberal-bashing are two sides of the exact same coin: substituting soundbites for substance. Don't accept the "party line" because 9 of 10 times it's horse poo-poo.

$G

Here.

Or here.

Regardless though, one one should be surprised. This is from an administration that employees criminals like Poindexter. The US is also in a war, and has regarded itself as being in one since the September 11 massacre. To win wars, civil liberties are infringed upon.

You can be upset, but don't pretend to be surprised.

Like this one? We'll have to wait and see, I doubt this one is going to make it these days.

"The ACLU is all against school prayer"
The ACLU has sued to ensure students are allowed to pray in school, as well as to ensure they are not required to.

"and for the removing of "under God" in the constitution."
I doubt that, as "under God" does not appear in the consitution
Perhaps you should have spent less time praying in school?

What about your claims here, actually?

So far, you produce two alleged `lies'. The first is the fact that parts of a document produced by the British government and passed on by ours was plagiarized. Not `wrong', mind you. Not `unbacked by evidence'. Merely copied. While this is clearly sloppiness on the part of Blair's government, it has precious little to do with Bush, and is not a `lie' in any case.

Likewise, although the intelligence leading to the assertion that Iraq had already obtained uranium from South Africa turned out to be bad -- something we immediately pointed out when it became clear -- this is hardly a `lie'. Saddam's attempts to get uranium from a wide range of sources, including in Africa, are well documented, not least in the 12,000 page dossier which he himself provided to the UN. More information on this can be found in the testimony of David Kay, former head of the UN weapons inspection program in Iraq. If he did not get it in this case, we can be glad that our information was bad -- but that does not make it `a lie'.

While the concept of `anticipatory self defense' is well-enshrined in international law, this is rather beside the point in Iraq, where the ceasefire ending the first gulf war explicitly authorized military action if Iraq did not comply with the UN resolutions demanding disarmament. Of course, you chose not to respond to this point. Were the UN Security Council to issue a resolution withdrawing this authorization (and withdrawing resolution 1441's explicit call for `serious consequences' if Iraq did not `immediately' comply), then you could talk about this war going against the will of the UN. Until then, we are doing exactly what the UN called for in seventeen resolutions over twelve years.

We are also, of course, acting to disarm a tyrant armed with WMD who has well-documented ties to those who attacked us on September 11.

But let's go through the alleged `lies' you point to, anyway:

• Aluminum tubes -- your source for the claim that the Bush administration lied is ... Madeleine Albright?! That doesn't even pass the laugh test, but if you want the other view, go read the testimony of David Kay, former head of the nuclear inspections program in Iraq.
• weeks not months -- even the article you point to notes that Cheney said `weeks, not months if no complications arise', and of course the administration has never said that the war would be easy, or necessarily short. On the contrary, the administratin has repeatedly said that `the only sure thing in war is sacrifice', and that the war will go on `as long as it takes'. On the other hand, since it has currently been less than two weeks, you are mighty quick to assert the war will take `months' in any case.
• `Iraq was actively trying to acquire uranium' -- again, go read Kay's testimony above, and go read Hans Blix's statements to the UN, which confirmed that Iraq was indeed attempting to acquire uranium. No one, not even the UN is denying that Iraq has tried to get uranium. Initial reports that they had gotten some from South Africa turned out to be incorrect, sure, but even Iraq's own declaration to the UN on December 7, 2002 acknowledges their attempts to get uranium.
• the coalition -- again, dozens of nations have quite vocally voiced their support for Operation Iraqi Freedom, not least eighteen of the nations of Europe in open letters. Over two dozen have provided hard support, including the UK, Spain, Australia, the Netherlands, Denmark, Poland, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, and many more. Dozens more have voiced support openly for the war. So what, exactly, are you claiming is `a lie'? Eh?
• the 51st division -- in the early days of the war, the entire senior leadership of the 51st surrendered to allied troops, and the rest of the division disbanded. Since then, many troops from the division have re-appeared in fighting, often against their own will, propelled by Fedayeen officers with guns to their heads and to the heads of their families. Even the Arab media are reporting that many of those fighting are being forced to do so under threats to themselves and their families. So again, what are you claiming was `a lie'?
• Umm Qasr -- likewise here, allied troops took control of this town very early, but later Fedayeen militiament dressed as civilians opened fire at several points in the town. Although existing only in cut-off pockets, some of these units took a few days to clear out, primarily due to our own concern to minimize harm to bystanders and to the town. What are you claiming is `a lie' about this?

Then who was in favor of the USAPATRIOT act?
Everyone but Russ Feingold (D) in the Senate. Four Republicans voted against in the House (I guess the right was the smallest bit more opposed). There were a total of five votes against Patriot - four "right wing" and one "left wing".

Is it a coincidence that Darrell Issa is the rep from the 49th district in California which is home to CDMA developer Qualcomm?

sorry to get on my soapbox, and I know I've already said this here, but I want to know if anybody else has noticed this.

Does anyone think that video games made Bush, Saddam Hussein, or bin Laden what they are today?

1) C&C: Intro starts with player flipping through TV channels on cable and then seeing a building blow up with a voice over about the Nod Terrorist Organisation.

War Against Terror: Begins with 24 hour coverage of the 9-11 attack.

2) C&C: Immediately after the intro you hear two conflicting voices and are forced to choose a side.

War Against Terror: "Let those who harbor terrorists know they and the terrorists themselves are our enemies, without distinction. America has the will and the resources to defeat you. We are a determined and rich nation with clever and resourceful people. We will also need and we demand the assistance of every government in the world to help us. Whoever does is our friend and whoever does not will be considered to be our enemy."

3) C&C: involves grey troops fighting in tall snowbound mountains, or sand coloured troops fighting in the deserts.

War Against Terror: Footage of Afghanistan mountain campaign, and desert footage of south-central iraq.

4) C&C: American side has one General Shepard who guides you through the missions, until he disappears for a while because the UN hates him.

War Against Terror: The CNN has Gen. Don Shepherd to guide you through the hunt for Bin Laden. Until the USA goes for unilateral action with its coalition of the willing and the world hates us.

5) C&C: All this bloodshed for a rare natural resource which promises untold power to whoever controls it.

War Against Terror: hmmm. you're right. Self Defense.

6) C&C: The Big Bad is an elusive terrorist (who may or may not have been killed in his underground lair when bombing made rocks fall on his head) called Kane.

War Against Terror: The Big Bad is an elusive terrorist (who may or may not have been killed in his underground lair when bombing made rocks fall on his head) called Osama.

7) C&C: New weapons every successful mission.

War Against Terror: MOAB. Stryker. SA80-A2.

8) C&C: We will use cleansing Nuclear Fire.

War Against Terror: Oh no. Just find the silver crate and get the hell out of there.

9) C&C: the sequel, red alert, has Kane controlling Stalin.

War Against Terror: "As a young man, Saddam Hussein admired Hitler's system of government. Stalin and his totalitarian model became Saddam's exemplars. Saddam tailored his system along Nazi and Stalinist lines, though it had a number of new features as well. In keeping with Nazi ideals, Iraq's Ba'th system had four main pillars: totalitarian ideology, single-party rule, a command economy (nominally socialist), and firm control over the media and the army."

10) more to come. remember: there are at least two endings, to promote better replay value.

Does anyone think that video games made Bush, Saddam Hussein, or bin Laden what they are today?

1) C&C: Intro starts with player flipping through TV channels on cable and then seeing a building blow up with a voice over about the Nod Terrorist Organisation.

War Against Terror: Begins with 24 hour coverage of the 9-11 attack.

2) C&C: Immediately after the intro you hear two conflicting voices and are forced to choose a side.

War Against Terror: "Let those who harbor terrorists know they and the terrorists themselves are our enemies, without distinction. America has the will and the resources to defeat you. We are a determined and rich nation with clever and resourceful people. We will also need and we demand the assistance of every government in the world to help us. Whoever does is our friend and whoever does not will be considered to be our enemy."

3) C&C: involves grey troops fighting in tall snowbound mountains, or sand coloured troops fighting in the deserts.

War Against Terror: Footage of Afghanistan mountain campaign, and desert footage of south-central iraq.

4) C&C: American side has one General Shepard who guides you through the missions, until he disappears for a while because the UN hates him.

War Against Terror: The CNN has Gen. Don Shepherd to guide you through the hunt for Bin Laden. Until the USA goes for unilateral action with it's coalition of the willing and the UN hates us.

5) C&C: All this bloodshed for a rare natural resource which promises untold power to whoever controls it.

War Against Terror: hmmm. you're right. Self Defense.

6) C&C: The Big Bad is an elusive terrorist (who may or may not have been killed in his underground lair when bombing made rocks fall on his head) called Kane.

War Against Terror: The Big Bad is an elusive terrorist (who may or may not have been killed in his underground lair when bombing made rocks fall on his head) called Osama.

7) C&C: New weapons every successful mission.

War Against Terror: MOAB. Stryker. SA80-A2.

8) C&C: We will use cleansing Nuclear Fire.

War Against Terror: Oh no. Just find the silver crate and get the hell out of there.

9) C&C: the sequel, red alert, has Kane controlling Stalin.

War Against Terror: "As a young man, Saddam Hussein admired Hitler's system of government. Stalin and his totalitarian model became Saddam's exemplars. Saddam tailored his system along Nazi and Stalinist lines, though it had a number of new features as well. In keeping with Nazi ideals, Iraq's Ba'th system had four main pillars: totalitarian ideology, single-party rule, a command economy (nominally socialist), and firm control over the media and the army."

10) more to come. remember: there are at least two endings, to promote better replay value.

Since we all know what the DMCA is, would be to have a link or two to the TEACH act for those of us who dont know what its about

The house...
www.ala.org/washoff/teach.html

Couldnt find a good senate one... but thats a start

Here is the testimony of the head of the National Restaurant Association before the House Judiciary Committee complaining about the practice.

Anyway, those in the Austin, Round Rock area, call him: 512-246-1600 and politely express your opinion.

By reading his Congressional webpage, it seems that he has actual physical offices in College Station and Round Rock, Texas.

Now I don't know, but with Round Rock being just up the road from the Univ. of Texas in Austin and Texas A&M Univ. in College Station (Texas' two largest Universities), and with about 45,000 students EACH in those, do you suppose he would get re-elected to office if this news got out across those campuses?

Hmmmm... now here's a test to see if the Slashdot Effect CAN really make a difference in Politics! LOL!



-- I only post as A.C. because I'm more of a Procrastinating Anonymous Coward! LOL

Is here

Register to Vote.

Agreed. And at any rate the idea that GWB could be undertaking war as a business venture is absurd. The inbound estimate for the price of war against Iraq is 100 billion - 200 billion dollars. Given that the outcome of war is extremely uncertain (i.e., no one can predict whether oil companies will benefit or be harmed from this action), that is a horrible business gamble by any stretch of the imagination.

Fries

Toast

Kissing

Horns

Ticklers

Doors

Polishing

Y'all should go hang with loony old Bob Ney.

T&K.