Slashdot Mirror

Mike Gravel has also consistently received close to zero media coverage. Besides a couple appearances on early debates, where he received very little speaking time compared to the media favorites, his campaign has been completely ignored.

This nearly universal media blockade has far more effect than you might realize. When a candidate is invisible to the public, is it any wonder the name recognition and association stays so low?

As well, if you might doubt that some people/companies are making an explicit effort to weed out these "spoiler" candidates from the beginning, take a look at this:

New York Times/CBS NEWS Public Opinion Poll Bias

"Obviously, this software will do squat."

How dare you say such a thing?

Our nation faces its greatest challenge since the Commies invaded our preschools in the 1950s, and all you can do is criticize the bravest defenders of the flag?

I can scarcely bear the thought that, as we speak, people across the nation are acting in an unregimented fashion.

Could you imagine the ensuing chaos were citizens to suddenly, say, begin walking with non-uniform gaits? Or worse, if they were to stop walking altogether to perform music or to speak -- without even obtaining the proper license? Heaven preserve us!

I offer pedestrians this handout to warn them of the danger, but there is only so much one man can do. What are you doing to help?

This is what I leave in my luggage.

Here is a link you can use to report suspicious behavior > http://www.safetystate.com/ .

http://safetystate.com/ss.cgi?action=material&id=2 3

"a lot of the behaviors listed are not out of the norm for college students."

And what does that tell you? >>> http://www.safetystate.com/

Surveilance society. My favorite!

http://www.safetystate.com/

http://www.safetystate.com/

Citizen, welcome! http://www.safetystate.com/

This guy is un-American. We need to torture people to find out information important to the war on terror. This guy should have taken the following poster

http://safetystate.com/ss.cgi?action=material&id=4 3

And put it on his cubicle, because in the end we are trying to save the children
http://www.libertypark.org/images/children%20pics. ..awana%20004.jpg

we wouldnt want these children to be harmed by terrorists just because we didnt have the fortitude to torture them.

These terrorists were caught on the battlefield, even as close as the United States, and they should be tortured until they break and tell us all they know!

More importantly, against the books they protect.

"Instead of criticizing, please, take a moment to say thank you next time."

Thank you for that link.

It seems that every time I travel, when I get to my destination, I have a little note in my luggage from the TSA saying, "We searched your bag." I've been trying to think of something to do next time I travel.

This will be perfect. Thank you very much.

As our enterprising leaders promote mandatory travel checkpoints, screening and recording every citizen who arrogates to move faster than bicycle-pace, I can practically feel myself tingling with safety.

How dare you joke about their ineptitude? Don't you realize that every dollar spent on Homeland security is a dollar that otherwise would have gone to some terrorist who snuck through the border and stole a job in preparation to launch a dirty nuclear bomb in the middle of a preschool, for God's sake?

Instead of criticizing, please, take a moment to say thank you next time.

The problem with Total Information Awareness is that the public (a.k.a. the terrorists) became totally aware of the program.

Now that the terrorists have infiltrated even suburban households in their quest of destruction, it's important to draw a greater distinction between the good-doers (such as government workers, Congressmen, jail wardens, etc.) and the evil-doers. When choosing names like "Total Information Awareness" we should take that into account. For a replacement name, I nominate "Patriotic Anti-Terrorist Child Protection Program." That's something we can all stand behind with pride.

For you surveillance critics, I have only this to say:
What are you so afraid of?

If the security is beefed up, then you have less reason to worry if the laptop that your company gave you got stolen. It would be a lot harder to access that system. With the recent rash of Credit card data that went missing this isnt a bad thing.

You do realize that DRM does nothing to aid actual security that couldn't be done better with user-controlled encryption? DRM is solely about preventing a computer's operator from performing certain types of operations on that computer. If you've done some programming, you'll realize that in every such "legitimate" example of DRM, it's actually easier and more secure to code the app as a client-server system, entirely encrypted and with per-user permissions on access to the server's data.

With things like your taxes and banking details, DRM won't make your records any more secure; if that were the goal, they'd just be encrypted on your HD under your personal control, and the hardware DRM would function based on personal encryption keys that you personally possessed. This is not how any DRM system in production works.

The sole actual purpose of actual DRM is to create a special class of theoretically impossible computations for the computer someone else buys, in order that self-appointed censors can exercise prior restraint on actions of users.

This argument is about whether spy agencies (i.e., agencies without public oversight) should be permitted to target U.S. citizens.

As you and I know, these spy agencies truly have our best interests at heart. Their agents may have been raised differently, with different interpersonal experiences as you say, but who are we to distrust an axe murderer when he's only treating others as he was taught to treat them? If he believes that spying on me is in my best interest, I fully support his position of extrajudicial power.

I find the points you've raised to be refreshingly honest. Indeed, as you imply, if there is ever the slightest possibility of any U.S. citizen cooperating with a foreign body, we should empower our international spy agencies to surveil and eradicate all potential invaders (who, logically, consist of all U.S. citizens).

Thank god for a voice of reason in post-911 world, where we must realize that we are always at war, and will always be at war, and we must sacrifice our freedom to defend our liberty.

You should show more respect for the selfless officials who understand that the average citizen is a terrorist. If they didn't take it upon themselves to regulate your movement, who would defend America against wild travellers moving about in an unchecked manner?

http://safetystate.com/ss.cgi?action=material&id=2 7

You should have more faith in our benevolent overseers. Sure, they might act all sneaky and underhanded, but they're only trying to do their jobs.

I think you're just looking at it the wrong way.

Well, there you have the problem.

We've got so many humans in the world, so many thieving, conniving proletariat brains thinking without corporate oversight, that there's no easy way for the legitimate, financed inventors to make a profit.

Where would we be if you went around willy-nilly using any idea that struck you as useful? I'll tell you: a hellish chaos of untended progress and distributed profit.

Software Patents: Because Extortionists are People Too

"You won't be held for any length of time without good reason, and the fact is that you're completely wrong about holding people without charging them."

Package tracking doesn't require the type of sender identification which is being proposed.

You can just attach a unique serial number to each package, then give a receipt with the number to the sender. The sender may then track the package using that serial number.

The "convenience" aspect serves the purpose, in this case, of misleading people into thinking their names and addresses are required to provide letter tracking service. The sender information, because irrelevant for this service, is needed only for other purposes. It is up to you to guess what those purposes are.

Citizens for Surveillance

Sure, you may joke, but there's an important reason for government surveillance of consumer habits.

Terrorists are everywhere. Yes, even in your breakfast cereal. Did you ever doubt it when they started checking supermarket discount records?

Now you tell me: who's going to protect you when terrorists hitch a ride straight to your basement in that new Sears washer box?

http://safetystate.com/ss.cgi?action=material&id=2 3

They're not concentration camps; they're freedom camps. I'm sure the government was just trying to correct this mistake on Austin's part. Your hesitation to agree is understandable -- and even permissible as long as you don't take it too far -- but unofficial terminology will only serve the enemy.

You know, I've come to wonder what issues people really honestly have with DRM.

DRM is Digital Rights Management. It manages your rights.

DRM does nothing for the person whom it is controlling. People often point to encryption as a benefit of DRM, but encryption (real, secure encryption, not the kind where you trust one company to keep your secrets for you) has no need for DRM to work well. DRM exists solely to allow remote control over what end users can do with their computers.

You ask why people don't like DRM. It decides what you can and cannot do, enforced by the power of legislation that makes felons of violators. But -- and this is where it gets important -- it isn't managing your rights according to what's legal. It's managing your rights according to what the companies owning/subscribing to the system decree.

This means that you can try to do something that is totally legal, and DRM can block you before the fact. If you try to bypass it to do something which is completely legal, you're a criminal anyway due to the anti-circumvention laws.

The benefits of DRM for laymen:
http://safetystate.com/ss.cgi?action=material&id=7

http://safetystate.com/ss.cgi?action=material&id=2 3