Slashdot Mirror

If 25 States declare a law "unconstitutional" then that law should be null.

If only there was an institution where the states could have a voice on Federal legislation.....

with out authorization it is credit card fraud among other things that a DA will throw at me. If a business gives my information to a third party and the third party charges my credit card then that's just sharing? I need to start up a couple of businesses.

Apparently social gaming is a great business model for this kind of crap. The mentioned retailers get you after you make your purchase but when you need more resources in Farmville or Mafia Wars on Facebook:

In games like Mafia Wars, Farmville, YoVille and Vampires Live, you know, some of the major sources of all those garbage announcements cluttering up your Facebook, players compete to complete missions and level up. By leveling up, you can complete more difficult missions and fight off weaker opponents. You can wait for your various energies to regenerate naturally over time, or you can purchase with real money in-game boosts. Or, you can complete various lead generation offers, many of which are of the "answer page after page of questions and opt in and out of receiving various kinds of spam" variety. Some of them install malware and adware that is impossible to remove. And some of them secretly subscribe you to monthly recurring $9.99 credit card charges.

Don't ever put your credit card information into Facebook or a Facebook app. Social Media is rife with crap like this. Right about now we should be asking when we'll get to see the findings in the the federal probe that set out to address shoddy "business practices" like this and what is being done about it now that we know about it?!

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that every proposed law has to be published first and being discussed by the public

This is how it should be. Default of 3 months review by public eyes before final decision. Fat chance of that happening.

WHAT?!? Do you really think that much is being hidden? Almost all legislation already spends months going through committees, and once a bill is introduced (i.e., before it goes through months of committee bureaucracy), it's available to the public. Take a look at http://www.house.gov/ and http://www.senate.gov/ to see what's currently being considered.

Sure, there are last minute amendments and other things, but the vast majority of legislative text is already available for months for anyone to review by "public eyes before final decision."

You know what the problem is? Nobody cares enough to dig through the mountains of pages of proposed legislation... not individuals, not the media, and certainly not most Congressmen (sometimes even those sponsoring the bill). Since the advent of CSPAN most Congressmen aren't paying attention to debate in the chamber -- they're wheeling and dealing in their office, with CSPAN on mute in the background. That's what "public access" to the live actions of Congress has gotten you.

The only people who read bills are generally the minor staff lawyers who draft them. Do you want things revealed before "public eyes"? Fine. Go to the websites yourself, start reading bills, and when you see something interesting, start blogging about it. Get a couple hundred people doing this, and maybe Congress will pay attention. But stop with the conspiracy theories about Congress -- if you don't know what legislation is under consideration, that's your own fault.

In the U.S., we get access to government data by default when it's convenient.

When it is not, we get stiffed. Witness the ACTA fiasco. And we will get stiffed on this one if we don't keep up the pressure, and get Congress out of the habit of passing legislation they can't even bother to read.

England still has an Official Secrets Act far as I know. How's that working out for ya?

If it's any consolation, we don't bother with that in the U.S., really. We just fight it out in the courts.

Yeah, cause it was that hugely liberal president and Congress that overwhelmingly passed the Patriot Act that has been the progenitor of all of these stupid policies to follow. Oh wait, you mean it was a Republican president and Republic-controlled House and Senate that passed such policies?

The Senate was controlled by the Democrats when the Patriot Act passed. You may recall that sometime during the summer in 2001 Senator Jim Jeffords left the GOP and decided to caucus with the Democrats. He broke the 50-50 tie that had given the GOP control of the chamber (via Dick Cheney's tie breaking vote) and made Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD) the majority leader.

The Democratically controlled Senate then passed the patriot act by a vote of 98-1. Every single Democrat but two voted for it. Feingold voted no and Landrieu didn't vote at all.

Just admit that the Democrats really aren't any better on civil liberties than the GOP.

This is an excellent suggestion, but not quite complete. Do not just complain. Ask for instructions on how to change the setting back to what it was. Under no conditions should you accept that it can not be done. You could change it yesterday, so you must be able to change it today, right? Be nice to the poor guy on the other end of the line. He is not at fault. But, when he says you can't change it kindly say that you believe he does not know how, and then demand to talk to a senior technical person so you can get your phone working again. Stay on the phone as long as possible and talk to as many people as possible.

After you call Verizon and complain you *must* then call the FCC. You can find the number at http://esupport.fcc.gov/complaints.htm?sid=d1e640&id=d1e697 or just 1-888-225-5322 if you trust me :-) Then, you call the senators and your representative. You find your senator at http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm and then your representative at http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/mcapdir.html

Calling Verizon costs Verizon money, but it will not force them to change their actions. Calling the FCC forces the agency that regulates Verison to take notice of what Verizon has done. If the FCC doesn't get complaints they are not forced to "notice" the problem. Calling the Senate and the House of representatives makes sure that the people who make the laws that govern Verizon notice that the people who vote for them are not happy with the laws that govern Verizon. Believe it or not, no matter how large a bribe ... OK "campaign contribution" your elected officials have been paid by Verizon (each and everyone of them has been bribed by Verizon) they will take action if they think it will affect their ability to stay in office. You see, no matter how much money Verizon can give them, Verizon can not vote for them. And the elected bastards know one thing, if they do not get elected they get no more goodies from Verizon and the rest of the megacorps.

And, Ya'know, if you are just feeling mean, call Microsoft support and ask how to turn off Bing on your phone. It is their product, they should know, right?

The idea is to make this policy change as costly for Verizon as possible. That means you make them pay to handle your calls and you make them pay even more by generating bad feelings toward them in the Senate and the House.

Oh yeah, I nearly forgot. If you want to call and leave a comment for at the White House for President Obomo, 202-456-1111 or, if you do not trust me as you should not, you can find the number here http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact. You can also send an email from there.

Stonewolf.

Why isn't this information listed at the top of the page on Slashdot?

I dunno, McCain hasn't been very supportive this year or in the past. He voted no on restoring the already cut funding, and has listed 2 NASA projects that were given a boost from stimulus money as pork projects. This included non HSF projects.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00340
http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=41c9dff7-2318-4777-ab6a-73a0841cefe0

Will Obama be any better? I don't have my hopes up since when he was campaigning he had on his website delaying CxP for funding education. Only time will tell I suppose.

I dunno, McCain hasn't been very supportive this year or in the past. He voted no on restoring the already cut funding, and has listed 2 NASA projects that were given a boost from stimulus money as pork projects. This included non HSF projects.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00340
http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=41c9dff7-2318-4777-ab6a-73a0841cefe0

Will Obama be any better? I don't have my hopes up since when he was campaigning he had on his website delaying CxP for funding education. Only time will tell I suppose.

One problem with this analogy is that it's not just one "doctor" that's saying "operate", it's thousands . How many more "second opinions" do you want before you accept that perhaps you actually need an operation? Are all those doctors quacks, every one of them?

Here are some "second options" :

• Heidelberg Appeal http://www.sepp.org/policy%20declarations/heidelberg_appeal.html
• Leipzig Declaration http://www.sovereignty.net/p/clim/leipzig97.htm
• Oregon Petition http://www.petitionproject.org/
• Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/UN_open_letter.pdf
• US Senate Minority Report http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9
• Copenhagen Climate Challenge http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/

Are all those doctors quacks, every one of them?

Just for the record here, here is what I could find on the US Tax incomes:

Year US Tax Income ($M) GDP ($B) Tax/GDP
2009 $1,398,542 (a) Not Available ---
2008 $1,602,823 (a) Not Available ---
2007 $1,571,322 (a) Not Available ---
2006 $1,478,945 (a) $11541.614 (b) 0.128140224
2005 $1,339,363 (c) $11163.759 (b) 0.119974200
2004 $ 998,328 (c) $10822.914 (b) 0.092242970
2003 $ 925,477 (c) $10466.951 (b) 0.088418967
2002 $1,006,389 (c) $10095.771 (b) 0.099684214
2001 $1,145,414 (c) $ 9910.034 (b) 0.115581238
2000 $1,211,749 (d) $ 9887.749 (b) 0.122550542
1999 $1,064,160 (d) $ 9671.089 (b) 0.110035178
1998 $1,017,274 (d) $ 9237.081 (b) 0.11012938

(a) source: http://www.fms.treas.gov/bulletin/b2009_4fd.doc
(b) source: http://forecasts.org/data/data/GDPC96.htm (c) source: http://fms.treas.gov/bulletin/b45.pdf
(d) source: http://fms.treas.gov/bulletin/b42.pdf
This, combined with historical information about Congress:

Year House Maj.(e) Senate Maj.(f)
2009 Democrat even
2008 Democrat even
2007 Republican Republican
2006 Republican Republican
2005 Republican Republican
2004 Republican Republican
2003 Republican Republican
2002 Republican even/Democrat
2001 Republican Democrat
2000 Republican Republican
1999 Republican Republican
1998 Republican Republican

(e) source: http://clerk.house.gov/art_history/house_history/index.html
(f) source: http://senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm

We also note that this is *not* spending, but simply tax income. Keep in mind we should expect that tax income should lag tax law by about a year for the tax law to take effect. The GDP steadily rises, so the main difference is the tax income (total dollars). As a nation, the US tends to hang out around 11%-12% Tax/GDP ratio. There were some low years (2002-2004) which seems to align (with said lag) with the Democratic control of the Senate, although it could also be blamed on the "Bush Tax Cuts" (2001, if I recall correctly).

Short answer, looking at a president, a congress, a party, etc. is potentially a myopic view.

"Er, why do you care about Watts' motives? Aren't the points raised on his site serious enough to merit consideration?"

When they were new they did merit consideration (see: McKyntre,et al), however it's now clearly disingenious to say they haven't been considered and debunked in the litrature.

In other words, the widely debunked points on his web site make me wonder about his motivation for keeping them up. IMO his strong connections to those particular lobbyists goes a long way to explaining his motivations.

But the kicker is he is claiming that the globe is cooling to the US senate based on temprature records he has long claimed are virtually useless.

So which is Mr Watts? Is the temprature record crap or is there a cooling trend? - logic dictates you can't have it both ways.

He wasn't president at the time, but he was a senator and he did vote in favor of it.

But it's not just college loans. our entire culture has shifted so far toward individual wealth and away from the common good. The 28/40 year republican rule in the country has pretty much decimated civic values, put us 12 trillion dollars into debt (almost all of it in republican administrations)....

The richest people WANT to see high interest rates on the poor. That's how they make their money. Investing. As far as they are concerned, the higher the better. If a student will pay 8.4% interest, then they are a lot more likely to give him money than the guy only willing to pay 3%. And the more wealth is concentrated in the hands of the rich, the easier it is to raise interest rates to the absolute maximum possible.

The fact is that the free market systems we all love, start to fail at some time. It's always cheaper to pollute the stream, pass debt on to future generations, and screw the poor. It's more expensive to treat the water, raise taxes, and educate and help the poor.

The truth is we need to raise taxes on the wealthy and start putting money back into the common good like an educated public and public infrastructure instead of idiotic private McMansions.

Let's start with the idiotic low taxes on capital gains and the social security tax cap...Rich people pay FAR less of a tax percentage than the middle class, and the middle class is unbelievably ignorant of it. How many of you knew that there is a 13% Social Security tax that ENDS when you make over $106,000? The richest person in the world (Warren Buffet) pays a lower percentage in tax than his secretary? The rich don't even pay tax on money made through stock appreciation, until the stock is sold? But the wage guy has to pay every year?

It's gotten ridiculous, and the public needs to demand that taxes are raised...The rich will fight it tooth and nail and use all sorts of scare tactics and , but that's the only way things are going to get better....and the rich will NEVER do it voluntarily.

Write to your congressman..ask him to raise taxes...especially on the wealthy

http://www.house.gov/

http://www.senate.gov/

he problem is that mathematical rigor is absent from most environmental studies. This is kinda surprising. For a good overview see this site: http://www.climateaudit.org/

And to counter that site see this one: Climate change: A guide for the perplexed. Who should I believe those I can check the qualifications, if they are qualified, or those I don't know the qualification of? All I could find out about Steve McIntyre was that he was a Canadian computer analyst not a climatologists, meteorologist, or had another degree that qualified him to label scientists with the qualifications they are wrong. It says he "won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious "hockey stick" graph" however one of the myth "New Scientist" debunks is the The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong. And notice how that article was updated at "18:03 04 September 2009".

Quite a few highly regarded studies uses statistically dubious methods.

What is dubious is that Steve McIntyre has greater qualifications over the climate than climatologists.

Falcon

Twenty-eight United States Senators voted against the Iraq War in 2002. Obama was not one of them, as he was not a senator at the time.

Anyway, do you have a reference for Yoran's statements on weak Windows security? I must have chosen the wrong keywords when I looked for them.

Read his congressional testimony here:

http://kyl.senate.gov/legis_center/subdocs/022404_yoran.pdf

Note the frequent mention of specific Windows threats, something you will find few government people doing. Many trade press publication will often mention a new threat without regard to specific OS dependencies (and 99% of the time it's Windows). The company goes to great lengths to make sure its names aren't taken in vain in public.

He has been associated with user groups that are critical of Windows, but my guess is that his true feelings on the subject are uttered mostly off the record.

http://www.viruslist.com/en/news?id=764

http://radsoft.net/rants/20090318,00.shtml

In any event, the hiring of a former Microsoftie is the main issue here. Is he required to divest his stock options? I don't see that spelled out.

You can find your Senator here:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

And your Congressman here:

https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

I wrote them a note like this, and you can copy it/use it/change it. Whatever you like.

I support the Open College Textbook Act of 2009!

Open formats for education works derived from taxpayer dollars is essential for the longevity of information. Non-open formats such as .doc (MSWord) are subject to software changes and incompatibility issues. Open formats like .odf (Open Office) and .pdf (Adobe) allow the data to be accessed for countless decades.

Information paid for with taxpayer money should be made freely available to the taxpayers!

I keep a list of who proposes good laws and bad laws. This one was introduced by Senator Richard J Durbin. I'm adding him to my good list.

Durbin for president?

Full text of the JUSTICE Act at http://www.eff.org/files/HEN09874.pdf or http://www.juliansanchez.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/JUSTICEAct.pdf

EFF's) blog post on the bill http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/09/eff-supports-justice

Feingold's press release http://feingold.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=317927

My Dailykos diary http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/9/17/19226/5990

Facebook "Pass the JUSTICE ACT" group http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=134538932549

Seriously though, the opinion you express here points out a serious problem in America, a lack of faith or trust in law enforcement officials. While it would be possible to reasonably argue that this lack of trust is warranted or not, no rational, well informed person could claim that you don't have some justification to feel the way you do. Every once in a while I tell some recent cop horror story to my Swiss wife, and her jaw just drops. It's almost impossible to believe the kind of behaviour that police engage in, without repercussion, in America.

• cop strangles kid for skateboarding
• cop chokes (and kills) a man suspected of swallowing drug
• cops defend shooting 92 year old woman

The above are just a few examples that came to mind. I can't recall a week going by without some similar tragedy occurring somewhere in America. I think it's no coincidence that so many police brutality and murders by police officers occur in botched drug raids. It's a pretty well understood phenomenon how much the "war on drugs" has twisted and corrupted cop culture, much as alcohol prohibition exacerbated corruption back in the twenties. It creates an "us vs them" mentality for both cops and citizens of inner city neighberhoods. I think the problem was documented most poignantly in a work of television fiction, "The Wire".

The solution however is not looser gun laws, arming yourself, vigilante groups, or any other loony-libretarian nonsense (by loony-libretarian i refer to libretarian extremists, as opposed to rational thinking people with a libretarian mindset). The solution is better policing of our police, reform of the criminal justice system (please support Jim Webb's reform efforts, and drug-prohibition repeal. There are a number of politicians and citizens group working on the issue, so I suggest you please join us and lend your efforts.

here are 4 reputable scientists who disagree with the consensus:

Richard Lindzen
Pat Michaels
Roy Spencer
Roger Pielke Snr

There is a whole page of them on that most hidden of sites, wikipedia. The page of scientists who oppose the consensus is worth looking at for getting some names. Then go and see what they say, wikipedia falls over on this because there is an edit war that is dominated by alarmists, so it can be difficult to see what they actually say themselves.

There is also a list of 650 or so scientists who disagree with global warming alarmism, the Senate Minority list has them.

They may be wrong, but there are way more than 3 scientists who are prepared to go on the record and speak out against global warming alarmism.

It's usually a bad idea to quarrel with somebody's religion, but what the hell:

One or two scientists disagree

I may not "know more that people who've spent their life working on the problem", but it appears I share my skepticism with many such people:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072E-802A-23AD-45F0-274616DB87E6
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/06/29/an-inconvenient-voice-dr-alan-carlin/
http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf

Assuming these guys are 'white hats', and they are not _necessarily_ the most able or l337 hax0rs out there, then why has someone not already attempted to take the internet down in 30 minutes already? For, say, 1 million dollars? I call hubris..

The statement was made in 1998 when security was extremely lax with a majority of the hacking community residing in the west.

The Constitution's wording is ambiguous on this point, but seems to treat "intellectual property" as a privilege rather than a fundamental right. The theory echoes Jefferson's argument that ideas are like a candle-flame, such that "he that lights his taper from mine" doesn't diminish my supply of light ... We've lately been treating IP as more like a right.

That we've been treating IP like a right is hardly surprising if you pay attention to the conversations of those who have power (politicians, business leaders, think tanks, etc.). A random example:

Dear Mr. President:

Protecting intellectual property (IP) rights has been a fundamental concept in the United States since the Founders provided Congress with the power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" in the Constitution. Today, America's commitment to strong IP protection has yielded astounding results. Not only do industries based on IP employ 18 million Americans, but they also account for more than $5 trillion of the nation's GDP, and more than half of all our exports. ...

Maintaining strong IP rights is essential to economic growth and continued innovation, and protecting IP rights will not only improve the world's development but America's as well.

Sincerely,

Evan Bayh
Orrin G. Hatch
Robert F. Bennett
Debbie Stabenow
Charles E. Grassley
Arlen Specter
George V. Voinovich
John Thune
Judd Gregg
David Vitter

No point in getting excited seeing the names of the folks signing the letter as they're the same words and thoughts expressed by just about everyone when the subject of IP rights comes up.

The point here is that with $5 billion at stake, Jefferson's notions of candle flames seem almost quaint. As do moral theories.

He sounds more like a bitter republican. Not a single republican voted to strip the immunity out of the bill either:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00015#position

Only English speakers would be so arrogant as to need to be told this.

ORLY?

http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=EnEspanol.Home

I'm a lot more tired of the filthy roundeyes trashing the place.

Oh, go fu... Never mind. Not even worth arguing with whatever fetish you have w/ japanese culture. I had a friend like that growing up. It's so incredibly racist- but it sounds like you found the place you were looking for.

How can you live your life knowing that everyone around you looks down on you just for the color of your skin? Or do you just ignore that?

Sorry for ranting but this isn't the first holier-than-thou post I've seen from you arguing about how rosy things are in japan. One look at their crammed trains makes me want to crawl out of my skin, I don't care how 'polite' their culture is.

-b

how about the NASA PhD's who say the earth is already cooling again and CO2 concentrations lag 6 months behind temperature change, indicating the temperature change is causing the rise in CO2, not the other way around?

or the veritable explosion of dissenting climate scientists?

Go ahead, believe a self promoting politician ;) Of course the cooling is an even bigger problem than the warming because we won't be able to grow enough food within 20 years.

from http://www.drroyspencer.com/

"The Central Question of Causation

I believe that the interpretation of the Vostok ice core record of temperature and CO2 variations has the same problem that the interpretation of warming and CO2 increase in the last century has: CAUSATION. In both cases, Hansenâ(TM)s (and othersâ(TM)) inference of high climate sensitivity (which would translate into lots of future manmade warming) depends critically on there not being another mechanism causing most of the temperature variations. If most of the warming in the last 100 years was due to CO2, then that (arguably) implies a moderately sensitive climate. If it caused the temperature variations in the ice core record, it implies a catastrophically sensitive climate.

But the implicit assumption that science knows what the forcings were of past climate change even 50 years ago, let alone 100,000 years ago, strikes me as hubris. In contrast to the âoeconsensus viewâ of the IPCC that only âoeexternalâ forcing events like volcanoes, changes in solar output, and human pollution can cause climate change, forcing of temperature change can also be generated internally. I believe this largely explains what we have seen for climate variability on all time scales. A change in atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns could easily accomplish this with a small change in low cloud cover over the ocean. In simple terms, global warming might well be mostly the result of a natural cycle."

which coupled with this article, is pretty convincing.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Since this is a cause which has nothing to do with man, and is also cyclical it's breaks most of the "theories" of man made climate change.
Inconvenient truth? How about convenient mass stupidity? Al Gore has played ya'll and it went like this:

1. cause hysteria
2. create environmental companies
3. profit!

The results of a survey of climate scientists, conducted by the US Senate Committee on the Environment & Public Works revealed that less than half of climate scientists believe that the climate change has primarily anthropogenic cause any more and that number is shrinking very quickly.

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3

"
Israel: Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards. âoeFirst, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!â

Russia: Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled âoeThe Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth.â âoeEven if the concentration of âgreenhouse gasesâ(TM) d

How is that Obama's fault?

I think the grandparent was referring to party monopolies in general, not just Democrats. That's debatable, and in any case you are right that the bailout came from Bush and a Democratic congress...

But Obama's not innocent, and he and the Dems showed plenty of post-election support.

Some things the Senator needs to understand ...

Might I remind you that this is the same Senator Orrin Hatch who

• is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committe
• wanted to destroy file trader's PCs
• headed the Senate panel on copyright and patents
• may be a pirate himself

Combine those first two points and I wager that your comment not only falls upon deaf ears but might instead cause him to laugh. This guy's got a long history and he's been very successful doing it.

"From 1992 to 2003, the lowest percentage of overturned appeals was 68 percent. The highest was a telling 95 percent. The average percentage of Ninth Circuit Court decisions overturned by the Supreme Court during this time was 73.5 percent as compared to an average of 61 percent by the all the other circuit courts of appeal combined."

http://crapo.senate.gov/issues/crime_law_judiciary/ninth_circuit.cfm

Constitutional issues aren't so hard. They boil down to this: what part of "shall not be infringed" is difficult to understand?

Well, considering "shall not be infringed" is only mentioned one time in the Constitution and Amendments and that's only in the 2nd amendment, I'd say you've already failed the boiling down test in an objective fashion.

But aside from that, take the first amendment and the wording "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech." Is making it illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater an abridgment of freedom of speech? In the narrowest terms, absolutely. In practical terms, no. That's the easiest example I can point that society in general doesn't want a literal interpretation of the Constitution.

Well, that second amendment is one of the more important ones and it gets infringed all of the time, mostly by folks who seem to think it was put in place to guarantee your ability to hunt deer. Though, you can take me too literally. To me, "this shall not be infringed" and "Congress shall make no such law" are two different ways of saying the same thing. I suppose if you just really want to feel "right" by taking a cheap shot at me, then okay, in the most literal possible sense you are correct, but you really aren't addressing my point and I think you know it.

My point is that the Constitution and its application can be very easy to understand, particularly where the Bill of Rights is concerned. Any ambiguities in its interpretation should be decided in favor of the people at the expense of the government. Any question about whether the federal government is allowed to do something? Then the answer is no. Any question about whether this law might infringe someone's civil rights? Then it should be struck down. Simple. It's just that, as I said, there are interests that don't want it to be simple. One easy example is the War on (some) Drugs and the asset forfeiture laws, whereby your property can be seized with no due process and without you ever being charged with any crime (that's right, here in America this happens). If that isn't unconstitutional, I don't know what is, yet it remains legal today because you have some very clever people who create a great deal of complexity that allows room for this ever seem legitimate. Anytime you want to address my real point, feel free.

About the "fire in a theater" issue, that's held up as a classic example of limited rights but it's never really questioned. It's almost as though it's sacrosanct. It's surprising to me that no one considers that maybe the goal should be a society where people aren't so panicky and group-oriented. That way, if people are in a theater and someone near you yells "FIRE!", you would look around and see whether you smell smoke, whether you see flame, whether you see any evidence of it, before stampeding. Assuming your five senses are intact, the guy who's a couple rows away from you isn't likely to unambiguously detect a fire in an enclosed space without you also noticing whatever it was that he noticed.

That is, I'd blame the people who panick and stampede like a bunch of animals before I'd blame the person who said something that didn't need to be believed. I realize that the law does not agree with me, but understand that many aspects of law seem designed to protect an unwritten "right" to be a mindless jackass. Why else would a burglar ever be able to successfully sue a homeowner because he fell and hurt himself while he was trying to rob the place? Why else would a homeowner ever fear prosecution for shooting an armed intruder when there's no question that he broke into the home?

Constitutional issues aren't so hard. They boil down to this: what part of "shall not be infringed" is difficult to understand?

Well, considering "shall not be infringed" is only mentioned one time in the Constitution and Amendments and that's only in the 2nd amendment, I'd say you've already failed the boiling down test in an objective fashion.

But aside from that, take the first amendment and the wording "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech." Is making it illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater an abridgment of freedom of speech? In the narrowest terms, absolutely. In practical terms, no. That's the easiest example I can point that society in general doesn't want a literal interpretation of the Constitution.

There are tens of thousands critics, and hundreds alone that had their research 'used' by the IPCC in it's report who have come out and talked a ton of shit about the UN and the IPCC for fraudulently presenting their data and studies as supportive of climate science. You can read numerous quotes here [senate.gov] from those who criticize the religion of climatechange/global warming (manmade mind you, as the climate is ALWAYS changing)

John Christy slaps Hansen around a bit in this interview as well.

God forbid someone in the VA-MD-DC area belongs to a group used for professional networking! As we all know, most non-profit professional groups have no sponsors whatsoever.

Also, who's to say he's not qualified to do the job just because of being labeled not a technologist back in 2005? Maybe what is needed for a CTO position is someone who understands how government and policy is applied (see MPP degree reference) to solve problems, and how the application of technology is a key factor?

I do agree, though, some questions about the Prescription Monitoring Program would be warranted.

But really, with the tax problems of other appointees, maybe most of this stuff is seen as small potatoes. If you don't agree, though, feel free to contact someone on the committee. The hearing starts on Tuesday.

God forbid someone in the VA-MD-DC area belongs to a group used for professional networking! As we all know, most non-profit professional groups have no sponsors whatsoever.

Also, who's to say he's not qualified to do the job just because of being labeled not a technologist back in 2005? Maybe what is needed for a CTO position is someone who understands how government and policy is applied (see MPP degree reference) to solve problems, and how the application of technology is a key factor?

I do agree, though, some questions about the Prescription Monitoring Program would be warranted.

But really, with the tax problems of other appointees, maybe most of this stuff is seen as small potatoes. If you don't agree, though, feel free to contact someone on the committee. The hearing starts on Tuesday.

A critic? There are tens of thousands, and hundreds alone that had their research 'used' by the IPCC in it's report who have come out and talked a ton of shit about the UN and the IPCC for fraudulently presenting their data and studies as supportive of climate science. You can read numerous quotes here from those who criticize the religion of climatechange/global warming (manmade mind you, as the climate is ALWAYS changing)

Jeeze what the hell man, we elected a socialist so you guys would stop hatin' on us.

Presumably you're Icelandic, as Iceland's the most recent country I know of to have elected somebody from a political party somebody could conceive of labeling as "socialist".; you're certainly not from the US, unless you're completely insane, as nobody sane from the US would assert that the US had recently elected a socialist (the last time I know of that a socialist was elected in the US was back in 2006).

To build a new data center for the Social Security Administration all you need is $200M for immigration lawyers to draft legislation to lift the H-1b cap, $200M to buy Congressmen to pass it

I really don't get your point (or the joke, if there is one), but it's worth pointing out that influencing elected officials doesn't cost millions (short of large scale lobbying campaigns). If you glance at the political contributions received by influential politicians, you'll see amounts that are generally small.

To take one influential and well monied example, Chuck Schumer largest contributor was Citigroup. Obviously, the subject of how money gets collected and targeted is more complicated, but you can go down the list and see for yourself how most contributions are in the thousands or tens of thousands of dollars.

Now if you want to complain about the corrosive influence of money, stop to consider that the cost of a campaign (read "keeping your job") can be more or less attributable to voters needing TV commercials (non free in the US) to be informed and persuaded. Like most things, the cause and solution to most problem are found in the mirror.

This is one of the key things me and my local linux user group recommended.
http://www.healthreform.gov/communityreports/new_jersey/new_jersey_08002.html

Contact Your Senator and show your support!
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Our summary was:
        * create/maintain/update a fully free and open source electronic health record system
        * mandate their electronic health record system to be taught in medical and nursing schools
        * mandate an open and freely implementable patient record communication standard
        * mandate a national medical identification number and prohibit the use of and storage of Social Security Numbers in any health care system

I haven't read any that got through the peer review process with out being found false.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674E64F-802A-23AD-490B-BD9FAF4DCDB7

As long as gobs of scientists are saying global warming hysteria is, at present, unfounded, I have to assume that you are full of crap. Well, unless "peer review" means pulled out of your own personal ass.

"No-one gives a shit about warning signs dude."

Perhaps that's because organised astroturfers have conviced many people science doesn't apply to AGW.

The fact that the first hit on a google search for 'icecap "global warming"' is the icecap.us site would indicate your pessimisim is warranted. I actually had someone reply to me the other day who said something like "you don't get to quote Nature and Science as evidence for AGW because they are not statisticians".....sigh.

Government/AT&T summary?

Gov: We want to tap into all your lines.
ATT: Um... is that legal?
Gov: It is now, here is the Executive Order giving us the authority.
ATT: Ok, here you go.
Gov: *evil laughter?*
ATT Employee: Wait a minute, I feel like this violates privacy rights!
Gov: No! We have the authority!
Public: *outrage*
Public: Sue AT&T!
ATT: Wait what? It was *legal* according to the Executive Order!

Unlike most of Slashdot, I think AT&T should be let off the hook. Technically, it *was* legal for them to allow this under the Executive Order. Instead, we should be pursuing the Bush Administration for making the Executive Order in the first place.

Obama realized this in 2008 and has spoken about it, and even voted yes on the July 08 senate bill that was about Immunity for telecoms and instead investigating the government. The Obama Administration is still considering a Bush Administration investigation, though Leahy's 'truth commission' (torture not wiretaps) is apparently a stalled idea. Obama has not publicly supported the idea since becoming President, leading some to question his commitment to pursuing any of the potential Bush Administration crimes.

Republicans have obviously opposed the investigations, apparently threatening to filibuster various Obama nominations.

For both sides, it would probably create a lot of political ill-will at a time when bipartisanship is needed.

I'll wait and see what *actually* happens though before I solidify my opinions.

Truth Commission links:
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200902/020909a.html
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=3686

Government/AT&T summary?

Gov: We want to tap into all your lines.
ATT: Um... is that legal?
Gov: It is now, here is the Executive Order giving us the authority.
ATT: Ok, here you go.
Gov: *evil laughter?*
ATT Employee: Wait a minute, I feel like this violates privacy rights!
Gov: No! We have the authority!
Public: *outrage*
Public: Sue AT&T!
ATT: Wait what? It was *legal* according to the Executive Order!

Unlike most of Slashdot, I think AT&T should be let off the hook. Technically, it *was* legal for them to allow this under the Executive Order. Instead, we should be pursuing the Bush Administration for making the Executive Order in the first place.

Obama realized this in 2008 and has spoken about it, and even voted yes on the July 08 senate bill that was about Immunity for telecoms and instead investigating the government. The Obama Administration is still considering a Bush Administration investigation, though Leahy's 'truth commission' (torture not wiretaps) is apparently a stalled idea. Obama has not publicly supported the idea since becoming President, leading some to question his commitment to pursuing any of the potential Bush Administration crimes.

Republicans have obviously opposed the investigations, apparently threatening to filibuster various Obama nominations.

For both sides, it would probably create a lot of political ill-will at a time when bipartisanship is needed.

I'll wait and see what *actually* happens though before I solidify my opinions.

Truth Commission links:
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200902/020909a.html
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=3686

Much of the hearing today focused on what transpired during an April 15, 2008, interview with the key witness, Bill Allen. During that interview, according to notes taken by two of the prosecutors, Allen said he did not recall talking to a friend of Stevens's about sending the senator a bill for work on his home, according to Sullivan.

Under oath at trial, however, Allen testified that he was told by the friend to ignore a note Stevens sent seeking a bill for the remodeling work.

"Bill, don't worry about getting a bill" for Stevens, Allen said the friend told him. "Ted is just covering his [expletive]."

Ok, so we have Ted Stevens asking for a bill on the remodeling, like he should. But it sounds like one was never received or produced. So what was Stevens convicted of?

After a month-long trial, Stevens was convicted of not reporting on Senate disclosure forms that he accepted about $250,000 in gifts and free renovations to his home in Girdwood, Alaska. Most of the gifts and free remodeling work were supplied by Bill Allen, chief executive of Veco, a now-defunct oil services company.

Ok, regardless of whether or not an invoice was ever produced, the Senate is required to report things like this on their financial disclosure forms so that under the table payments can be discovered. It still sounds like he's guilty for failing to put "I just got these bitching additions to my house from this contractor for $0." Which should spark an investigation.

My point is whether they find him guilty or not, he failed his duties as a senator. It's a shame the prosecution botched this case and withheld that evidence from the court as he's still guilty of failing to disclose this information publicly on his financial disclosure form.

If it weren't the procedural flaws in the prosecution's case it would have likely been something else getting the conviction overturned. Stevens is way too wealthy and politically connected to be punished for any crime.

Much of the hearing today focused on what transpired during an April 15, 2008, interview with the key witness, Bill Allen. During that interview, according to notes taken by two of the prosecutors, Allen said he did not recall talking to a friend of Stevens's about sending the senator a bill for work on his home, according to Sullivan.

Under oath at trial, however, Allen testified that he was told by the friend to ignore a note Stevens sent seeking a bill for the remodeling work.

"Bill, don't worry about getting a bill" for Stevens, Allen said the friend told him. "Ted is just covering his [expletive]."

Ok, so we have Ted Stevens asking for a bill on the remodeling, like he should. But it sounds like one was never received or produced. So what was Stevens convicted of?

After a month-long trial, Stevens was convicted of not reporting on Senate disclosure forms that he accepted about $250,000 in gifts and free renovations to his home in Girdwood, Alaska. Most of the gifts and free remodeling work were supplied by Bill Allen, chief executive of Veco, a now-defunct oil services company.

Ok, regardless of whether or not an invoice was ever produced, the Senate is required to report things like this on their financial disclosure forms so that under the table payments can be discovered. It still sounds like he's guilty for failing to put "I just got these bitching additions to my house from this contractor for $0." Which should spark an investigation.

My point is whether they find him guilty or not, he failed his duties as a senator. It's a shame the prosecution botched this case and withheld that evidence from the court as he's still guilty of failing to disclose this information publicly on his financial disclosure form.

Get back to us when you have looked under the rug and asked one for their name, hypothisis and evidence. Don't forget to check the couch there could be a couple hiding there as well.

How about the 400 scientists who published a report and submitted it to the us senate?

Don't mean to troll here but you seem to have an informed opinion and I'd like to hear it. I often thought this report smells of media spin.

I can't believe you were modded (5, Interesting) because your information retrieval skills are pathetic and weak! Wait...yes, I can. Anyway, behold!

A cursory search of relevant sources (i.e. senate.gov) would have revealed: a press release detailing all of this on the website of Senator Snowe and Senator Rockefeller, and another press release on the website of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, which contains a quote from the very organization that posted the text of the bill. Maybe the CDT has a sense of humor, but you can be sure that the Senate Committee on [...] does not.

I can't believe you were modded (5, Interesting) because your information retrieval skills are pathetic and weak! Wait...yes, I can. Anyway, behold!

A cursory search of relevant sources (i.e. senate.gov) would have revealed: a press release detailing all of this on the website of Senator Snowe and Senator Rockefeller, and another press release on the website of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, which contains a quote from the very organization that posted the text of the bill. Maybe the CDT has a sense of humor, but you can be sure that the Senate Committee on [...] does not.

I can't believe you were modded (5, Interesting) because your information retrieval skills are pathetic and weak! Wait...yes, I can. Anyway, behold!

A cursory search of relevant sources (i.e. senate.gov) would have revealed: a press release detailing all of this on the website of Senator Snowe and Senator Rockefeller, and another press release on the website of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, which contains a quote from the very organization that posted the text of the bill. Maybe the CDT has a sense of humor, but you can be sure that the Senate Committee on [...] does not.