Slashdot Mirror

They also manufacture BST, the hormone used to produce more milk from cows. It's on their website.

I submitted this articleto Quorum a few days ago. You might find some of the links interesting.

Yes, I believe that a company that shows disregard for human life should be de-commissioned. Or their executives hung from a tree. Something like that.

They also manufacture BST, the hormone used to produce more milk from cows. It's on their website.

I submitted this articleto Quorum a few days ago. You might find some of the links interesting.

Yes, I believe that a company that shows disregard for human life should be de-commissioned. Or their executives hung from a tree. Something like that.

On Quorum.org [quorum.org] we were having this discussion [quorum.org] just yesterday. Part of the discussion talked about how to get casual viewers involved and participating in a community site. There were some other things discussed, go and take a look.

On Quorum.org [quorum.org] we were having this discussion [quorum.org] just yesterday. Part of the discussion talked about how to get casual viewers involved and participating in a community site. There were some other things discussed, go and take a look.

an interesting discussion started by Scott Reents (an online activist interviewed here on slashdot last year). It asks the question, "Does anyone out there feel the Internet is narrowing your worldview?"

• Investing "$400 million to create and maintain more than 2,000 community technology centers every year" (georgewbush.com, 9/23)
• a "five year extension of the Internet tax moratorium" (georgewbush.com, 9/23)
• Expanding efforts to bring government services onto the Internet (georgewbush.com, 9/23)

btw, please consider giving to the non-profit that I have founded Quorum.org. You may remember reading about it in an interview here on slashdot with my partner, Scott Reents. Happy Holidays all!

1) War on Drugs

The Candidate Comparitor on Quorum gives these answers:

Gore wants to expand federally sponsored drug education and drug treatment programs and support programs to provide prison inmates with drug and alcohol addiction treatment

Bush wants to improve drug interdiction and subsidy programs to reduce drug export from abroad (georgewbush.com, 9/23), support character education in schools, drug prevention programs in communities, and faith-based drug treatment programs (georgewbush.com, 9/23), and prosecute as adults, youths accused of a felony.

2) Minority Religions...

Wow, you really want to get people pissed off at them, don't you?

3) Why give a tax cut?

Because the government has spare money and the people want some. Since one of the candidates is giving away free money, the other one is required to. "If you vote for me, I will personally hand you a fresh, crisp, $100 bill..." Oddly enough, it works.

4) electoral reform

Isn't the electoral college system written into the constitution? Last time I checked, a presidential race was no time to fly in the face of tradition. Besides, both the Republicans and the Democrats rely on the Electoral College to convince people that third-party votes are throw-away votes.

Again, from Quorum, here is how they stand out on other election reform issues:

Gore wants to:
o Require full disclosure of funding sources of issue advocacy commercials which appear within 60 days of an election
o Ban unregulated soft money campaign contributions to political parties or committees
o Prohibit Political Action Committee (PAC) contributions to candidates for federal office
o Strengthen and enforce legislation that encourages full and timely disclosure of campaign finance information

Bush wants to:
o Require unions to get members' permission before using union dues for political advocacy
o Increase the amount individuals are permitted to contribute to federal campaigns
o "Supports instant disclosure of campaign contributions" (georgewbush.com, 9/23)
o "Supports banning 'soft money' contributions from labor unions and corporations" (georgewbush.com, 9/23)

5)How Do You Feel About Intellectual Property?

Honestly, I'm still on the fence about this one myself, and I think there are at least a dozen issues that are wrapped up in this one question, each which should be addressed separately.

6) Encryption....

The current politicians have the issues so screwed around that talking pro-encryption is like talking pro-drugs or pro-terrorism. I can understand why they wouldn't want to respond to this one.

7) Rising Political Protests

Oh, so you'd want them to bite the hand that feeds them, eh? Just because the World Trade Organization violates our constitution by handing lawmaking power to an extra-national organization is no reason to be concerned. They really have the people's best interests in mind (assuming handing money to large corporations in is our best interest)

8) Asteroid Defenses

I have a friend's daughter that insisted that she should be able to take my mint-condition, still-it-its-box Buzz Lightyear off of the shelf and play with it. "It's a toy" she said "what good is it if you don't play with it."

Unfortunately, building anything that could protect us from asteroid would also mean creating something that could reduce most small countries to a smoking hole in the ground. I have no problem with this, but I'm afraid that many military types might just feel a need to take it off the shelf and play with it.

9) The Future of the Country, and of Humanity

Ok, this one is going just a little too far. Not only do you want the candidates to solve all of your problems, you want them to hand you the meaning of life? Presidents aren't supposed to give you the meaning of life - that's what Popes are for. They're just supposed to make your meaning of life possible.

If you really need it, the answer is 42. Just don't go asking for the question.

Mythological Beast

1) War on Drugs

The Candidate Comparitor on Quorum gives these answers:

Gore wants to expand federally sponsored drug education and drug treatment programs and support programs to provide prison inmates with drug and alcohol addiction treatment

Bush wants to improve drug interdiction and subsidy programs to reduce drug export from abroad (georgewbush.com, 9/23), support character education in schools, drug prevention programs in communities, and faith-based drug treatment programs (georgewbush.com, 9/23), and prosecute as adults, youths accused of a felony.

2) Minority Religions...

Wow, you really want to get people pissed off at them, don't you?

3) Why give a tax cut?

Because the government has spare money and the people want some. Since one of the candidates is giving away free money, the other one is required to. "If you vote for me, I will personally hand you a fresh, crisp, $100 bill..." Oddly enough, it works.

4) electoral reform

Isn't the electoral college system written into the constitution? Last time I checked, a presidential race was no time to fly in the face of tradition. Besides, both the Republicans and the Democrats rely on the Electoral College to convince people that third-party votes are throw-away votes.

Again, from Quorum, here is how they stand out on other election reform issues:

Gore wants to:
o Require full disclosure of funding sources of issue advocacy commercials which appear within 60 days of an election
o Ban unregulated soft money campaign contributions to political parties or committees
o Prohibit Political Action Committee (PAC) contributions to candidates for federal office
o Strengthen and enforce legislation that encourages full and timely disclosure of campaign finance information

Bush wants to:
o Require unions to get members' permission before using union dues for political advocacy
o Increase the amount individuals are permitted to contribute to federal campaigns
o "Supports instant disclosure of campaign contributions" (georgewbush.com, 9/23)
o "Supports banning 'soft money' contributions from labor unions and corporations" (georgewbush.com, 9/23)

5)How Do You Feel About Intellectual Property?

Honestly, I'm still on the fence about this one myself, and I think there are at least a dozen issues that are wrapped up in this one question, each which should be addressed separately.

6) Encryption....

The current politicians have the issues so screwed around that talking pro-encryption is like talking pro-drugs or pro-terrorism. I can understand why they wouldn't want to respond to this one.

7) Rising Political Protests

Oh, so you'd want them to bite the hand that feeds them, eh? Just because the World Trade Organization violates our constitution by handing lawmaking power to an extra-national organization is no reason to be concerned. They really have the people's best interests in mind (assuming handing money to large corporations in is our best interest)

8) Asteroid Defenses

I have a friend's daughter that insisted that she should be able to take my mint-condition, still-it-its-box Buzz Lightyear off of the shelf and play with it. "It's a toy" she said "what good is it if you don't play with it."

Unfortunately, building anything that could protect us from asteroid would also mean creating something that could reduce most small countries to a smoking hole in the ground. I have no problem with this, but I'm afraid that many military types might just feel a need to take it off the shelf and play with it.

9) The Future of the Country, and of Humanity

Ok, this one is going just a little too far. Not only do you want the candidates to solve all of your problems, you want them to hand you the meaning of life? Presidents aren't supposed to give you the meaning of life - that's what Popes are for. They're just supposed to make your meaning of life possible.

If you really need it, the answer is 42. Just don't go asking for the question.

Mythological Beast

The problem I have with this Katz article, like the problem I have with many Katz articles, is the implication of inevitability. The Internet could have a democratizing influence, but is by no means assured.

For example, Katz talks about the "taverns", "town halls" and "churches" that exist on the Internet. But a serious concern is the extent to which these spaces are true public spaces, in the sense that they reflect the true diversity of public opinion. The Internet is at least partly attractive because it allows people to only encounter the information, people and ideas that they want to, to filter out what they might consider noise, to exclude those views that they find distasteful. But this is dangerous. In the real world, the messiness of randomness and shared physical spaces -- like the guy handing out pamphlets in the town square or your neighbors' diatribes at the school board meeting, or even the 30 minutes of Tom Brokaw on television -- keep us from truly blocking out information and viewpoints that we don't have a natural affinity for.

My question is, does the Internet truly promote public conversation, or does it promote private conversations among groups of like-minded people (e.g., slashdot users)? And if it is the latter, what are the implications of this for the strength of our national community? And, if we recognize that this would be, ultimately, bad for democracy, how can we encourage the development of true public spaces? Rolls http://www.quorum.org

Check it out and see what you think. (You should try registering to see what info we use in our collaborate filtering and then try "encouraging" or "discouraging" articles.

This means that more than twice as many people will use the Internet as an election resource than will buy books, download music from Napster and trade stocks online combined.

My point is that if you're looking for critical mass, it's already here. But if you're looking for politicians and the government to lead on this one, you're looking in the wrong place. It's up to us collectively to set a high standard for how the Internet gets used for political communication, to make sure that it doesn't end up like Television, The Sequel. 2000 is a unique opportunity. By 2002, most people's expectations of what the "political Internet" is will have already been set.

Interested? Check out my personal effort to help set that standard, or email me and I'll point you to other like-minded folks who are doing good stuff in this area.

I see a similar issue here in academia. They shouldn't focus on commercial appplications because the market is good at that!! Instead, they should be focusing on studying what the VC's and commercial enterprises don't want to do but that would benefit the public good.

I don't the outcome of the commercialization trend is inevitable. Money is a means, not an end, and we can choose to value academia, education, democratic space, . But if we don't speak out, like Katz has done, and actively challenge this trend, it is certainly threatening much of the non-profit sector.

Michael Weiksner, founder of Quorum.org a politics forum w/open editorial control