Slashdot Mirror

More important than whether the candidate is Republican or Democrat, is that incumbents tend to win.

And that incumbents tend to get more of whatever money it is that is being given.

[Your arguement is diluted by using emotional labeling like "stolen", "fat cats", and sarcasm "shock, shock". Leave such tactics to the professional demagogues.]

More important than whether the candidate is Republican or Democrat, is that incumbents tend to win.

And that incumbents tend to get more of whatever money it is that is being given.

[Your arguement is diluted by using emotional labeling like "stolen", "fat cats", and sarcasm "shock, shock". Leave such tactics to the professional demagogues.]

Judging by these stats, money shouldn't have been an issue in the congressional races last fall, as it would appear that the dems raised as much or even more money than republicans, but still lost seats, which would suggests that, shock shock, voters voted on issues, not that the campaign was bought by a bunch of WASP republican fat cats. Looking over the big donor listthe top 10 dem donors raised $68,070,894, in mostly stolen money (Labor union contributions do not reflect the political ideologies of their members) while the top 10 republicans raised a whopping $32,783,289, or less than half what the democrat big donors gave

Judging by these stats, money shouldn't have been an issue in the congressional races last fall, as it would appear that the dems raised as much or even more money than republicans, but still lost seats, which would suggests that, shock shock, voters voted on issues, not that the campaign was bought by a bunch of WASP republican fat cats. Looking over the big donor listthe top 10 dem donors raised $68,070,894, in mostly stolen money (Labor union contributions do not reflect the political ideologies of their members) while the top 10 republicans raised a whopping $32,783,289, or less than half what the democrat big donors gave

Here's a brief rundown of his contributors, looks like a run of the mill democrat stooge for labor unions, trial lawyers, and the entertainment industry.

Guess who is developing this system ?
Seisint
guess who is the number 12 campaign contributer to the republicans ? who just got awarded
1.6million (with more to follow)

Seisint

enjoy because its not like anyone will do anything about it, oh except vote them in again

Guess who is developing this system ?

Seisint

guess who is the number 12 campaign contributer to the republicans ? who just got awarded 1.6million (with more to follow)

Seisint

im not American but it looks like your goverment is doomed to failure with all this corruption, and people wonder why the dollar aint worth shit

enjoy cos you aint gonna do anything about it, oh except get poor while Bush and his buddies ensure they will never have to work again in their lives EVER

i want to feel sorry but i can't

According to her campaign contributors in 2002, no software corporations have any vested interest in her. I think is a good thing that she's doing something for the consumers for once instead of for the companies/people that support her. On the other hand... SBC did donate quite a bit, maybe she's just trying to cut down their bandwidth costs by cutting down on all of the spyware thats used...

• Telecom companies are obtaining a lot of information from their streams that would become more widely known, and therefore discount the market-edge value, if some sort of effective publically available intelligence futures market existed.
• Telecom companies are particularly heavy users of foreign workers and contractors. It is naive to presume that hostile foreign interests would not exploit this opportunity.

Sen. Wyden's contributors seem dominated by Pacific Northwest securities firms. The main possibility for conflict of interest here is that such firms have access to market data from the Pacific Rim, including Muslim countries and China via Hong Kong, that might be devalued by accurate forecasting via a publically accessible intelligence market.

• Telecom companies are obtaining a lot of information from their streams that would become more widely known, and therefore discount the market-edge value, if some sort of effective publically available intelligence futures market existed.
• Telecom companies are particularly heavy users of foreign workers and contractors. It is naive to presume that hostile foreign interests would not exploit this opportunity.

Sen. Wyden's contributors seem dominated by Pacific Northwest securities firms. The main possibility for conflict of interest here is that such firms have access to market data from the Pacific Rim, including Muslim countries and China via Hong Kong, that might be devalued by accurate forecasting via a publically accessible intelligence market.

Here's some.

Bills become a lot cheaper when you wear the face of Uncle Sam.

As opposed to the previous administration who signed into law the DMCA and had the most pro-censorship bored housewives club (Tipper Gore) - not to mention Censorship Joe Lieberman himself. Also note who the media companies are cozying up to. Hint: it ain't the Republicans.

No offense, but yours is as well :) PAC's can only donate 5,000$ to a candidate. Yes they can give 5,000 to a bunch of candidates, but your scenario above wouldn't pass the FEC. OpenSecrets for more finance basics.

Another interesting link about contributions; here.

A qoute from the page:
The union has also been a strong supporter of proposals to lift federal regulations and allow regional telephone companies to enter the long-distance market and offer high-speed Internet access.
This particular union was in the "top 10" contributors in 2002.

Look here to see where big media really puts it's money.

This might help. Also, one of CC's big wig worked on Bush Sr.'s campaign (forgot name, heard on today's FreshAir).

Powell's son, Michael, was the only commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission who advocated letting the AOL-Time Warner deal go through without scrutiny. President Bush recently named Michael Powell chairman of the FCC.

This is simply not true. The Republican Party leans heavily on large donations from individuals. These individuals generally are in the financial "upper crust", and generally benefit financially from a Republican administration (massive tax cuts, etc.).

The Republican Party is geared towards saving people money. This is the key issue for Republican politics, regardless of all the morality bullshit they spew. If you're greedy, you vote Republican, whether it's for an end to the estate tax or a $300 tax refund loan.

Looking at this year's race, GWB has 6996 contributors under the $2000 limit, compared to Dean at 8662. A difference of less than 1700 contributors isn't really that ground breaking, especially seeing as the campaign cycle hasn't gone into full swing yet.

The dirty little secret is GWB, and republicans in general, actually do better at collecting numbers of small donations than the democrats do. The vast majority of democratic hard money come from large donations by people in the entertainment and legal fields whereas republicans do better in the flyover country that the democrats often like to ignore. Yes... Dean has more non-limit contributors than GWB right now, but remember that 101302 figure at the end of the 2000 cycle as the election season begins to brew.

'How much money does Microsoft spend on each minister' In the case of the US, check out opensecrets.org There are no conspiracies, it's all pretty obvious. Of course, some people are actually more productive on a non-linux os, but I think a lot of that has to do with their training, which may have been focussed on M$ (and wonder why)

It's just that Republicans are often the most egregious offenders.

Interestingly enough, it's really the left that controls the airwaves. While pundits may point out the rightist tabloids on MSNBC and FoxNews, far more of televised news is left-leaning. What's especially interesting is that a lower post mentions that Fox has already acquired enough airspace that would put them over the limit if the cap is removed. You would think the right would be more in support of letting one of their few friends get a little more elbowroom.

Of course, as it was noted in a later post, the administration is only fighting against the right to own more TV stations, not to own more radio space. And a quick look over at opensecrets notes that the only direct donations Clear Channel has made to political committees has been to the Republican side...

The fund raising statistics from 2002 would suggest otherwise

The study also found that Democrats were far more reliant than Republicans on deep-pocketed givers in the 2002 election cycle, and were much less successful than the GOP at raising money from donors giving small amounts. The findings were released today at an event launching the Center's comprehensive study of the effects of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly called the McCain-Feingold law.

I submitted this yesterday and it was rejected, and I even included this important link regarding who funds Howard Berman.

1 Walt Disney Co $32,000
2 AOL Time Warner $29,050
3 Vivendi Universal $27,341
4 Viacom Inc $15,000
5 News Corp $11,750
6 DreamWorks SKG $11,000
7 American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees $10,000
7 National Assn of Realtors $10,000
7 Service Employees International Union $10,000
7 William Morris Agency $10,000

Nice top 10 eh?

• Conyers

  Mostly cable companies.

• Berman

  Disney, AOL, Vivendi, Dreamworks...

US bribery law is politician friendly, but a politician can slip up. There's no lower limit on a bribe. One movie ticket, go to jail. So watch those guys. Find one direct payment or gift, and they're toast.

18 USC 203

• Whoever -

  (1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent -

  (A) to influence any official act; or

  (B) to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or

  (C) to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person;

  (2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:

  (A) being influenced in the performance of any official act;

  (B) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or

  (C) being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;

  (3) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, or offers or promises such person to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent to influence the testimony under oath or affirmation of such first-mentioned person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or with intent to influence such person to absent himself therefrom;

  (4) directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity in return for being influenced in testimony under oath or affirmation as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in return for absenting himself therefrom; shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

• Conyers

  Mostly cable companies.

• Berman

  Disney, AOL, Vivendi, Dreamworks...

US bribery law is politician friendly, but a politician can slip up. There's no lower limit on a bribe. One movie ticket, go to jail. So watch those guys. Find one direct payment or gift, and they're toast.

18 USC 203

• Whoever -

  (1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent -

  (A) to influence any official act; or

  (B) to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or

  (C) to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person;

  (2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:

  (A) being influenced in the performance of any official act;

  (B) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or

  (C) being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;

  (3) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, or offers or promises such person to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent to influence the testimony under oath or affirmation of such first-mentioned person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or with intent to influence such person to absent himself therefrom;

  (4) directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity in return for being influenced in testimony under oath or affirmation as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in return for absenting himself therefrom; shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

OpenSecrets is a great resource, and it's useful to not trust the article and actually look for yourself. The notion that Conyers gets 25% of his money from "Hollywood" struck me as odd, since he represents Detroit.

In 2002 (last election), he got $49,859 from TV/Movies/Music, out of over $400,000 raised.
In 2003, he's gotten $2,860 out of $104,000.

Looks like he's gotten more like 10% of his money from the entertainment biz, not 25%. Do the /. editors actually do any fact checking before they post???

You looked at the wrong stat. You looked at the PAC contributions only. Politicians are bought also by individual contributions...

Top Industries supporting Berman lists TV/Music/Movies as #1 with roughly 25% of all contributions made to the "honorable" Howard L. Berman (for sale for highest bidder).

Proletariat of the world, unite to kill politicians who've been bought

Because the USA is based on government of the corporate, for the corporate, by the corporate. Big business interests want to get rid of all spam except for their own, so that their "legitimate" advertising messages will be unimpeded by all the other junk. Hence, they strive to craft laws that will hurt Alan-Ralsky-types but not DMA members.

Requiring true opt-in will never pass the US Congress.

Total soft money contributions made by Microsoft for the 2002 election cycle:

Republicans: $1,890,401
Democrats: $800,343

Source

Microsoft is already using money to influence politics, and they favor Republicans 2-1... you think they can give Bush a few hundred "extra" Florida votes if he needs them?

The reason just windows is because that as much as we hate it, we are in the minority of computer uses, they are not going to Bata test a new technology on a system that only a maximum of 5% of computer users will have.

If Sherlock was someones open source/free software, then it would not be distributed and "integrated" into the OS. Thus both apps would have to compete on fair grounds. On OS should be a totaly open and application agnostic foundations. An OS needs to have all of its internals available for anyone to build upon and not as a means for a monopoly to take over another part of the playing field. Look at how much MS is controlling and how much more they are taking. They "integrated" a browser to suck up that market and broke away from being standards compliant to lock 90% of the desktop market into using thier browser. They are now "integrating" media player to steal the market way from WinAmp and RealPlayer. They have now purchased an anti-virus app to "integrate" into the os to kill off McAfee and Norton. The sad thing is that Norton and McAfee have put all thier eggs into the MS platform and then MS does a move like this and will render Norton's and McAfee's offerings almost worthless. This is the major problem with a monopoly and this is why I don not support them. I am amazed at how many people continue to be blind to this fact. If people started moving to an OS that was open and agnostic to what applications a user wants to run, then the hardware and software vendors would follow and have thier products on those platforms in no time. They will go where the demand is. For the most part they have stayed with the MS platform because of the monopoly. Every new consumer PC that has been sold for years has only been allowed to have an MS OS on it. MS will not stop until they own every major IT market or we stop them. The government will not stop them because all MS has to do us up thier bribes like they did during thier anti-trust case and they will be fine. Start to learn Linux and/or *BSD now. Get your friends and family members to do the same. Email hardware and software makers demanding support for Linux/*BSD. This is the only way to bring choice back.

I am truly shocked at the level of clulessness that lawmakers show with regard to spam. Or maybe it's not so much cluelessness, but rather shrewd cunning in being able to pass what amount to pro-spam bills under the guise of anti-spam measures.

First of all, the "opt-in" vs "opt-out" debate was cute and everything in 1997 when we didn't get more than a handful of spam, but it's embarrassing that anyone is seriously maintaining that there's a need for debate on this issue. Opt-out roughly translates to "anyone can spam the living hell out of you and get off scott-free." The notion that it should be OK to send ANYTHING unsolicited, regardless of its advertised removal procedure is simply ridiculous. Imagine if just a fraction of every business (in the US alone) that wanted your attention sent you an email - email would instantly become useless. But on top of that, rule 1 of spammers is that spammers lie, and hence the burden of trust must NOT be on the end user to trust that the spammer will do what they're supposed to with those removal requests. Sure he'll remove you, from list 12499-B, but add you to lists 12499-C through -Q. Hey, it's a "functioning opt-out procedure", whaddya whining about? Only someone that is either clueless or is backed by advertising money would advocate something as idiotic as "opt out" as federal policy.

Next is the notion that it's okay as long as you put some token in the subject or promise not to fake headers. Here's where I make some bad joke that ends with "...and which one picks up the $100 bill first? The man-hating dyke, because Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and Spammers That Give A Shit About Not Forging Headers are all FIGMENTS OF YOUR IMAGINATION." But seriously, this [Adv] subject line stuff is a joke. First of all, it's a bad way to filter spam because you have to accept the entire message in the DATA section before you can reject it, as opposed to rejecting it based on blacklists or other details of the "RCPT TO " phase. In other words it still costs your mail server bandwidth, time, and space. Additionally, this whole "put a tag so we can block it" makes the implicit statement that EVERYONE wants to block this unsolicited swill... which pretty much means that no marketer that wants to play by the rules is ever going to spend the time, effort, or money to send out email that's been self-immolated in such a way, and no spammer is going to give two shits about what he is or isn't supposed to be doing, otherise he wouldn't be a spammer. Therefore, adding "[Adv]" is a completely worthless idea, a conclusion that most clueful people made, about, oh, 5 years ago.

On top of that, I would really like to see any of these US lawmakers do something about the anonymous proxies strewn about Korea, China, Argentina, Brazil, Nigeria, and a handfull of other third world places. "Forcing" spammers to not forge headers is like "forcing" a mugger not to stick a knife in your gut and rob you when you stroll down a dark back-alley street with a huge wad of cash bulging out of your pocket.

What other inane things have congress-critters proposed? A national do-not-email list? Oh that's rich. Did the idea that it could be abused ever once cross their mind? Don't even get me started on this "prior business relationship" loophole either. It's not so much a loophole as a gigantic gaping gash. They've been playing that game for years already: "At some point in time you visited some web site of some affiliate of ours, and therefore this is a previous business relationship." Uh-huh. Riiiight.

Here's the point of this rant. I'm glad they can at least recognise the need for action but their attempts to do anything about it are so pathetically awful that I'm GLAD no such laws have passed. In my opinion, the best way to effectively combat spam is to force ISPs to enforce their own AUP's/TOS's. Spammers pay good money for so-called

"Internet access in every house would allow such things as daily referendums on public issues."

How do you say "CowboyNeal" in Estonian?

Seriously, I don't seen the Internet per se being the right kind of computer network to hold such referenda. It's entirely too insecure to do anything binding with. Or do they want a few thousand astroturf votes from outside the country? From an e-mail account from kremlin.ru, perhaps?

"It makes transparency in government much more desirable, due to citizens' ability to check up on government business instantly over the Internet."

The ability to do so is a very different thing from the desire to do so. For example, just because there are a hundred million registered voters in the US doesn't mean they all vote. Lots of information about politicias in the US is available online (even without this "GIA" publicity stunt), but most of the USAians reading this have probably never heard of OpenSecrets.org.

The Internet in and of itself doesn't change the face of politics. It's what is actually done with it that's important.

"It could even do away with "representative government" (dictatorship where you elect the dictators) altogether."

Your attitude is an example of why the Internet won't change much in politics for a long time to come. If you're this apathetic about your ballot to begin with, can you even be bothered to look up information on the candidates?

And if you still don't like your ballot, put your own name on it. It's not that difficult.

"altogether. The possibilities are endless."

That doesn't mean those possibilities will actually be explored.

"Instant mass-communication allows the ultimate form of democracy. It's still in its infancy(.)"

What, was speed-of-light radio not "instant" enough for you? Satellite communications for live reports from the other side of the planet? Any number of sources of information that are updated a heck of a lot more quickly than Joe's Blog?

"When it's finally achieved, people will look back upon the current systems of government just as we look back upon feudal fiefdoms in the middle ages."

Think about how many centuries went by between the development of Gutenberg's press and the rise of modern democracy. Then try saying that statement again with a straight face.

Or was "Common Sense" the second book ever printed, right after the Bible?

"And from that perspective, yes, it would be viewed as a basic human right, just like freedom of speech and universal sufferage."

In most parts of the world, "freedom of speech" is something granted to you by your government, which hardly sounds like a "basic human right" to me. And as for universal suffrage being a "basic human right," I don't see the UN up in arms about the way so many democracies prevent convicted felons from voting.

Funny you mention that. Because I did look it up myself and your findings don't really match the numbers. Microsoft is the #1 contributor for Computers/Internet donors.

They are listed as contributing 59% to Republicans and only 41% to Democrats. In 1996 before the antitrust trial began they donated 54% to Democrats and 44% to Republicans. Before that it was even more extreme, in 1992 donating 77% to Democrats and 20% to Republicans. In fact, during the antritrust trial in 1998 they donated 64% to Republicans and 36% to Democrats.

So in a 2 year time span, from 1996-1998, when the antitrust trial began, there is a massive shift of funding, as the Republicans received almost an 800% increase in funding from Microsoft.

But the antitrust trial couldn't possibly be to blame for such a dramatic shift in funding. It must be a complete coincidence.

Dak

If you look it up yourself, Microsoft's contributions doesn't rank anywhere near the top compared to other donors. In fact, they contribute fairly evenly to both parties.

More mindless drivel on slashdot.

Softmart

Note that Micro$loth is on the top of the list of donors.

If you actually believe that a letter from you and a letter from Microsoft have the same weight in determining how Senator McCain votes on any specific issue, you're as clueless as the rest of your post shows you as.

The fact that you got moderated up to 5 is a demonstration of why I expect the US high-tech community to lose its freedom to create in the long run and why the laws Hollywood wants, it's going to get. Geeks think of themselves as "above" the political process, and more importantly, above bothering to find out how it works. They actually take your ideas pulled out of some half-assed memory of a high school civics class seriously

Ask the guy at MS who wrote the check to McCain, "populist hero". He knows how the process works.

You obviously don't.

This bill actually has a chance to pass, as Hollywood needs a way to strip-mine the public domain, too, and it enables the content industry to keep anything with possible commercial value while work of anybody else goes into the public domain, for our use, and theirs.

Note the name of the sponsors. They aren't exactly known for being our friends.

Yeah, young turk 10 years ago when he rode into
town on Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America".
If he really believed in Term limits, he'd have
moved on by now. Microsoft owns this guy
click here and explode the Communications/Computer Equipment and Services widget. They paid him
to vote against American tech workers.

Dump Doolittle. Dump Lofgren.

It's not about smart, it's about money. The "good guys" generally don't have the money to take on the "bad guys". The "bad guys" are "bad" because they have money - LOTS of money. The "good guys" are "good", generally, because they don't.

Certain americans, with the diplomacy that we have come to expect from them, demand that french people remember that we owe them our freedom. We let them know, we do remember the legacy those dead in Normandie have granted us.
BUT
This remind me of a happening at home when I was very very young. Once I came to dinner and I had washed my hand without having to be told to do so. I looked up at my dad across the table and claimed "look dad, I washed my hands!" he looked at me very severely and said "you don't want me to congragulate you for something totaly normal, do you?".
You came to our rescu against an enemy of freedom. that is the normal course of action. There is nothin grand about it. period.
ANYWAY
Our memory is not as selective, or so it seems, as yours. We do not forget that in 1940, on french roads, the heavy trucks that were dragging people to the slaughterhouse were powered by Ford and GeneralMotors, nor that the Messerschmiit were running on GeneralMotors engines. finaly we do not forget that the IIIrd Reich could not have been born and prospered if not for the investissement done in germany by the biggest US industrials, acting as they were doing this for peace, although as always they were working for the money, as always. "world peace through world trade", had said Thomas Watson, IBM, american, yes, but nazi at heart, and decorated by hitler himself of the German Eagle.
Must I quote Charles Lindberg, decorated also by hitler himself, or Joseph P.Kennedy, father of the president, whom did not loose money with his freindship with the reich and the contribution given to Hitler.
No rest assured, americans, we have not forgotten. Those of us that were in the basement in Caen, Saint-Lo and other normand town, we do not forget how the american army bombarded any and everything from 10throusand feet. Many were those who were freed at that very moment.
But still we thank you.

The Old Europe has a long history, each page of this history is stained with blood and tears. Yours, Americans, is much shorter, and no doubt, although your frequetly quote the bible, you have not yet assimilated the universal message that solidarity is much more efficient thatn struggle. It will come with time, no doubt, when you will have suffered (I actually thought that 9/11 would be the turning point). I sincerly wish to americans that this thruth does not come to late, that you will not have to pay the heavy price for your warly thoughtlessness.

But once again, we thank you for your 1944 intervention. It answered those of La Fayette, of Rochambeau, of the french troupps whom in 1778 came to help you /become/ the USofA.
there is one tiny difference though.
We came at the very start of the conflic, without having ever helped your adversaries.
In 1917 and 1942 it toke you 3 years to run to the human rights' rescue, after having helped hitler humiliate your friends.

+++++++
having said that, I am completely aware that TODAY 95% of the weapons that exists today are made and sold by the 5 top coutries in the UN (that means France and US and others)
I am ashamed of it, are you?
+++++++

now about saddam hussein, we never said "saddam is not a mass murderer" we always said, the UnitedNations' policy for desarmement /is/ working, the war "for mass murder weapons" is not necessary.
And time has proven us right since thou still haven't found any weapons.
WE NEVER said that saddam was not ma mass murderer. we agree with you when you say he had to be removed for the GREATER GOOD of the iraqi people. but please don't tell me you did that: you didn't. you did it for money as usual and always. but still it is a good thing for the iraqi people (that saddam's gone, i mean, not that /you/ did it).

not do you understand this? we are not criticizing what you did but WHY you did it.
you USofA do not use your power with responsibilities, you use it for YOUR OWN GOOD.

.

Sure, I'll pay their salary. Six dollars per day, and not a penny more. That will save me 86 cents on the dollar. And if that's not enough, then I question whether their motives are to serve or be served. You'll also note that this will prevent most lawyers from having a financial interest in Congress, because the position's compensation is lousy, and with special interests spread 1/10 as thin, for $5640 in contributions (on average); that's a lot less profit there. Then the rest of the year, Congressmen can hold jobs where they produce something other than red tape.

Yes, this is a great idea, that is certain to be implemented in the near future, in Fantasyland.

From the TV/Movies/Music Industry?

Naw I didn't think so. Every single time one of these stories comes up there is always a congressman taking a payoff.

Restore balance in copyright law and the problem will fix itself.

Isn't the FBI stretched really thin as it is? Unless a lot of money is involved, they won't look at you twice. Are they going to run down every college student in the country who is sharing a few MP3's? No.

These people are all living in fantasyland. The senators keep it quiet because they know there will be a backlash. Berman is already saying "It's not my bill. It's his." The RIAA shows their idoicy by touting this bill that they haven't even read! Looking at his top contributors, I don't see the entertainment industry on there. Maybe he wants to get on their payroll?

I think the stealth with which this bill was put out indicates that the senators know that this type of legislation could damage their careers, but they want to keep the soft money coming in and keep writing up this crap.

The correct link for opensecrets.org is http://www.opensecrets.org. Obviously not an intentional mistake by parent.

Hatch was trying to play "good cop" today against his "bad cop" role yesterday. He's now telling us "We won't destroy your computers if you only do what my masters at the *AA organizations tell you."

This is crude blackmail and deserves all the negative publicity, fair or unfair that can be used to embarass him.

Of course, what's really needed here is a high-tech vendor community willing to stand up to an entertainment industry 1/10 it's size and say:
"We can outspend what you're paying for politicians by a factor of 10 out of petty cash until hell freezes over. Our lobbyists start today. The ads attacking any of your polticians that stay bought by you start running in 10 days.

Rip, mix and burn is going to be the law of the land and there isn't a damned thing you can do about it except hope we let you keep your golden parachutes when we buy your company at 5 cents on the dollar next year."

Of course, if a real high-tech community PAC with $1M or so of startup funding had been put together by last year, we wouldn't need to be hoping the high-tech vendors finally grow a backbone, our people would instead be talking to Congress about rolling back the DMCA.

Of course, this would require the high-tech community to give uo our perverse fascination with political voluntarism and our collective demand that any money given to activism must also be tax-deductible, and for those of us who managed to make a fortune during the dot.com boom and kept it to be willing to part with $1M startup funding to make it work.

In other words, it means that some of us would have to be willing to do more than whine on slashdot. Worse, some of us would have to put in some real money in something that isn't going to bring in megaprofits in 5 years, but might make it possible for all of us to work on advanced technology in the Western World in 5 years.

You know and I know that that's not happening, either.

At this point, I think our best hope is that the *AA organizations get what they ask for. What happens if they fry 1,000,000 computers in the course of the most interesting hour of Net time since it got started? How many will be badly secured VIP home computers?

They fry the wrong 1,000 computers and "immunity" or not, the major label CEOs can't run far enough, fast enough, of long enough to escape the consequences.

For instance, what if a dozen Fortune 50 CEOs have to use their cell phones to call their lawyers from home because their computers and their e-mail isn't working only find out that the RIAA and the label CEOs and the black hats immune to lawsuits because Congress made them that way? How do you punish a billion dollar company if you run a $100B company? What if you want to punish some Congresscritters?

Be assured that they'll think of something.

This time, you made the stupid mistake.

Hatch got $175K from the entertainment industry. Do you think he accepted it by accident?

Hatch's remark was NOT a mistake.

Statements like that are made in the hope that the consumer electronics industry and the high-tech community can be crudely blackmailed by threat of insane government action into doing what we are told. That is part of what the *AA organizations are buying from him.

This time around constitutes an exception. Everybody makes stupid mistakes once in a while, and I hope Hatch manages to pull a course correction on this issue pretty soon.

No, this time does not constitute an exception. Orrin was also the sponsor of another misguided piece of legislation that maybe you've heard of, the DMCA.

Orrin has taken over 175K so far just this year from the TV/Movies/Music lobby

Orrin is one of the WORST congressmen this country has EVER had. Bought off like every other congressman but he apparently is not only paid off but stupid about the legislation that he introduces.

Now jensend, as a constituent I suggest that you get informed on these issues that your idiot congressman makes the rest of the country suffer for.

from the TV/Movies/Music industry? I didn't think so......

First he brings us the DMCA and now this....

1. HealthSouth Corp $38,255
2. Pfizer Inc $34,000
3. Qwest Communications $29,000
4. Metabolife $27,250
5. AT&T $25,499
6. Torchmark Corp $25,000
7. AOL Time Warner $24,000
8. GlaxoSmithKline $21,000
9. Novell Inc $20,500
10. SmithKline Beecham $20,499
11. Oracle Corp $19,750
12. Global Crossing $19,500
13. Verizon Communications $19,500
14. Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America $18,775
15. Viacom Inc $18,750
16. Schering-Plough Corp $18,000
17. Bear Stearns $17,750
18. SBC Communications $17,500
19. Merck & Co $17,440
20. Rexall Sundown Inc $17,000
21. Walt Disney Co $17,000