Slashdot Mirror

Jim Madison writes: "Today, the Department of Commerce's United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced that it is soliciting public comment in a Federal Register notice on the databases it uses to find prior art relevant to its examination of software-implemented business method patents. We've discussed this topic ad naseum, so here's an opportunity to make sure that policy-makers understand our perspective. Maybe slashdot mgmt. could even forward the top rated comments to them directly!"

And an unnamed reader points out that tomorrow is the due date for comments on the Interim Report of the Second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process, which "has some crazy suggestions such as reserving domains using pharmaceutical names and bolstering the claims of commercial entities against 'cybersquatters.'"

Jim Madison writes: "The General Accounting Office (GAO) has issued a report today 'Internet Privacy: Implementation of Federal Guidance for Agency Use of "Cookies".' In it, they recommended that Federal agencies abide by a four point standard for the use of cookies: (1) clear notice (2)compelling need (3) public stated privacy safeguards for tracking info, and (4) approval by agency head. Only 8 of 65 agencies they checked in the study use persistent cookies, of which 4 did not even have privacy policies and none met the entire 4 point test. All agencies have agreed to comply; it sounds like a step in the right direction to me at least. What's the harm in the government collecting that info anyway, right?" Personally, I think the government should have to ask nicely before gathering any information via cookies, like Sen. Robert Torricelli has proposed for private firms. Other than that, these guidelines seem blandly sensible.

nd writes: "Harry Browne has agreed to a roundtable discussion with everyone in a Kuro5hin Feature. He'll be responding to messages himself under his own account." It's been going on for a few days now, and is an amazing look at the future of political coverage. Reflecting a sentiment I hope is accurate, Jim Madison writes: "Despite the apathy, I think slashdot's members are actually quite well-informed, politically speaking. Our friends, however, are not. According to this article, 25% of citizens 18-24 cannot name both major party presidential candidates and 70% cannot name their running mates. Wow. This discussion at Quorum.org (disclaimer: a site I co-founded) questions whether online forums (like this one) can help make politics more accessible or whether it's going to take structural change in Washington before it gets any better. What's the point of the $200 mm spent on advertising if they can't even get unaided brand recall?" For whose pathologically opposed to the letter "W," CaptainZ asserts that "This guy [Jamin Raskin] over at MSN has a pretty good article about how Nader and Gore can both 'win.'" Finally, wallstrum writes with word of yet another worthy candidate (still, I'm more of a Quimby man).

nd writes: "Harry Browne has agreed to a roundtable discussion with everyone in a Kuro5hin Feature. He'll be responding to messages himself under his own account." It's been going on for a few days now, and is an amazing look at the future of political coverage. Reflecting a sentiment I hope is accurate, Jim Madison writes: "Despite the apathy, I think slashdot's members are actually quite well-informed, politically speaking. Our friends, however, are not. According to this article, 25% of citizens 18-24 cannot name both major party presidential candidates and 70% cannot name their running mates. Wow. This discussion at Quorum.org (disclaimer: a site I co-founded) questions whether online forums (like this one) can help make politics more accessible or whether it's going to take structural change in Washington before it gets any better. What's the point of the $200 mm spent on advertising if they can't even get unaided brand recall?" For whose pathologically opposed to the letter "W," CaptainZ asserts that "This guy [Jamin Raskin] over at MSN has a pretty good article about how Nader and Gore can both 'win.'" Finally, wallstrum writes with word of yet another worthy candidate (still, I'm more of a Quimby man).

Okay, we've gotten about a billion (or at least a few hundred) requests for this: a chance to subject U.S. presidential candidates to a Slashdot grilling. As usual with our interviews, please post your questions below. 24 hours after this notice, we'll select 10 of the highest-moderated ones and send them to some of the highest-profile people running for the U.S. presidency this year to answer or ignore as they choose.

We are sending questions to the following candidates (listed in alphabetical order by political party affiliation):

• HOWARD PHILLIPS (Constitution Party)
• ALBERT "AL" GORE, JR. (Democratic Party)
• DENNIS I. "DENNY" LANE (Grassroots Party)
• RALPH NADER (Green Party)
• HARRY BROWNE (Libertarian Party)
• JOHN S. HAGELIN (Natural Law Party)
• EARL F. DODGE (Prohibition Party)
• PATRICK J. "PAT" BUCHANAN (Reform Party)
• GEORGE W. BUSH (Republican Party)
• DAVID E. McREYNOLDS (Socialist Party)
• MONICA G. MOOREHEAD (Workers World Party)

We'll post answers as they come in.

Meanwhile, quorum.org is doing a similar, Slashdot-style interview with senatorial and congressional candidates in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. If you live in those states, you might want to check it out. We've been talking back and forth with Scott Reents of quorom.org about all of this for months, and we're curious to see the difference in the kinds of questions he gets from his "general audience" readers and those we get from the net-hip, tech-aware Slashdot crowd.

So ask away, and let's see what happens.

Update/note: We will not select questions addressed to a single candidate. We are sending the same 10 questions to all candidates. - Robin