Slashdot Mirror

"[MS] sure have changed their stripes in the past ten years, from a company which didn't believe in campaign contributions and lobbying in Washington DC."

Here's a peek at their stripes, so to speak. The figures include only the declared, above board transactions. Hookers, whisky, and personal blowjobs from Bill or Melinda not included:

Stanton Park Group Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2005 $20,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2001
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2001 $140,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $80,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $160,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2003 $40,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2003 $60,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2004 $40,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2004
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 1998 $280,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 1998 $320,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 1999 $300,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 1999 $320,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2000 $300,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2000 $240,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2001 $220,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2001 $220,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $180,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $180,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2005 $40,000

"[MS] sure have changed their stripes in the past ten years, from a company which didn't believe in campaign contributions and lobbying in Washington DC."

Here's a peek at their stripes, so to speak. The figures include only the declared, above board transactions. Hookers, whisky, and personal blowjobs from Bill or Melinda not included:

Stanton Park Group Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2005 $20,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2001
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2001 $140,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $80,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $160,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2003 $40,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2003 $60,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2004 $40,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2004
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 1998 $280,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 1998 $320,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 1999 $300,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 1999 $320,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2000 $300,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2000 $240,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2001 $220,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2001 $220,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $180,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $180,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2005 $40,000

"[MS] sure have changed their stripes in the past ten years, from a company which didn't believe in campaign contributions and lobbying in Washington DC."

Here's a peek at their stripes, so to speak. The figures include only the declared, above board transactions. Hookers, whisky, and personal blowjobs from Bill or Melinda not included:

Stanton Park Group Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2005 $20,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2001
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2001 $140,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $80,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $160,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2003 $40,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2003 $60,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2004 $40,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2004
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 1998 $280,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 1998 $320,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 1999 $300,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 1999 $320,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2000 $300,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2000 $240,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2001 $220,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2001 $220,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $180,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $180,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2005 $40,000

"[MS] sure have changed their stripes in the past ten years, from a company which didn't believe in campaign contributions and lobbying in Washington DC."

Here's a peek at their stripes, so to speak. The figures include only the declared, above board transactions. Hookers, whisky, and personal blowjobs from Bill or Melinda not included:

Stanton Park Group Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2005 $20,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2001
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2001 $140,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $80,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $160,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2003 $40,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2003 $60,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2004 $40,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2004
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 1998 $280,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 1998 $320,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 1999 $300,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 1999 $320,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2000 $300,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2000 $240,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2001 $220,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2001 $220,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $180,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $180,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2005 $40,000

"[MS] sure have changed their stripes in the past ten years, from a company which didn't believe in campaign contributions and lobbying in Washington DC."

Here's a peek at their stripes, so to speak. The figures include only the declared, above board transactions. Hookers, whisky, and personal blowjobs from Bill or Melinda not included:

Stanton Park Group Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2005 $20,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2001
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2001 $140,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $80,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $160,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2003 $40,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2003 $60,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2004 $40,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2004
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 1998 $280,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 1998 $320,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 1999 $300,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 1999 $320,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2000 $300,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2000 $240,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2001 $220,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2001 $220,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $180,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $180,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2005 $40,000

"[MS] sure have changed their stripes in the past ten years, from a company which didn't believe in campaign contributions and lobbying in Washington DC."

Here's a peek at their stripes, so to speak. The figures include only the declared, above board transactions. Hookers, whisky, and personal blowjobs from Bill or Melinda not included:

Stanton Park Group Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2005 $20,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2001
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2001 $140,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $80,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $160,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2003 $40,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2003 $60,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2004 $40,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2004
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 1998 $280,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 1998 $320,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 1999 $300,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 1999 $320,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2000 $300,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2000 $240,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2001 $220,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2001 $220,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $180,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $180,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2005 $40,000

"[MS] sure have changed their stripes in the past ten years, from a company which didn't believe in campaign contributions and lobbying in Washington DC."

Here's a peek at their stripes, so to speak. The figures include only the declared, above board transactions. Hookers, whisky, and personal blowjobs from Bill or Melinda not included:

Stanton Park Group Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2005 $20,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2001
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2001 $140,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $80,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $160,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2003 $40,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2003 $60,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2004 $40,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2004
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 1998 $280,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 1998 $320,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 1999 $300,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 1999 $320,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2000 $300,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2000 $240,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2001 $220,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2001 $220,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $180,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $180,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2005 $40,000

"[MS] sure have changed their stripes in the past ten years, from a company which didn't believe in campaign contributions and lobbying in Washington DC."

Here's a peek at their stripes, so to speak. The figures include only the declared, above board transactions. Hookers, whisky, and personal blowjobs from Bill or Melinda not included:

Stanton Park Group Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2005 $20,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2001
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2001 $140,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $80,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $160,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2003 $40,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2003 $60,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2004 $40,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2004
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 1998 $280,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 1998 $320,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 1999 $300,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 1999 $320,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2000 $300,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2000 $240,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2001 $220,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2001 $220,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $180,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $180,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2005 $40,000

Oops, forgot the actual link.

http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id= 263759

He optimized out a NOP from the code.

Every day is within 90 days after a terrorist attack, given that routine criminals like meth lab operators and currency smugglers are getting charged under terrorism statutes(http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0310. html#4).

Elsewhere a terrorist act is defined as anything the president says it is. "Anti-terrorism" surveillance has already targeted Quakers.

Honestly if the folks on /. aren't educated on net neutrality it really stands no chance at all. Companies are on the verge of taking such measures in both a traffic shaping fashion and in a blocking traffic to competitors fashion. An example from earlier this year would be an ISP blocking access to Vonage. The two tiered Internet will happen if net neutrality legislation isn't passed. Market forces will not stop a two tiered Internet because options for broadband access are very limited in America, usually to one or two different ISPs for a particular area. No new ISP will pop up as the result of market desire for the network access we've become accustomed to because of the enormous cost to enter the market.

This "solution in search of a problem" nonsense is the result of people not actually looking into the issue or trying to write off all concern over it as alarmism. Stop falling for their crap.

1. Prepare yourself by:
   1. Familiarize youselves with the issues at hand. Wikipedia has a good piece on the topic.
   2. Identify the specific legislation at issue, in this case the major bill in question is (I believe) S 2686 brought to you by Senators Ted (Tube boy) Stevens and Daniel Inouye. Ted has been in office for 37 years and Daniel for 43. Daniel is not the longest serving senator. Do not be fooled by the erroneous wikipedia entry stating that the bill was defeated by the Senate Commerce and Science Committee. Stevens and Inouye head that committee.
   3. You should also note the other relevant legislation especially the Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006 (HR 5417) and the Internet Freedom Preservation Act (S2917)
2. Then:
   1. Contact your Senator and ask them where they stand on Net neutrality as you do explain why neutrality is a good thing and why they should support it (see below). You can identify them online. You can contact them via e-mail, smail mail, fax, or by telephone. I myself favor the phone followed up by a letter. Over the phone you can ask questions and get more info.
   2. Contact your House Representative . Although this is a senate bill there is a house bill (H5417 above) on this issue and they had better support it.
   3. Write a letter to your local paper. It is a truism that most people in the world do not read /. Many of those people get their opinion fodder from the local newspaper, and more people read the letters to the editor than any other part of the paper. This can likely be done via e-mail and can sway a lot of minds if done right. Those minds can then in turn act for net neutrality.
   4. Tell other people. Surely you know at least one other person who hasn't heard about this threat to their ability to do business and/or just do what they want online as they always have. This person may be friends, family, coworkers, etc. It doesn't matter just tell them.
   5. Repeat the above steps as often as possible.

   In all cases be clear, firm, and polite. Net neutrality is important. Make it clear to any elected official that you will vote based upon their stance and donate money accordingly. You get bonus points if they are up for election this year (Senate).
   
   Keep in mind that you will probably not reach them directly. Most likely your call or letter will be directed to an aide. That aide's job is to tell the individual what to think about an issue. The aide will be loyal to their boss but may be more easy to sway (they don't have to appear omnicient). If you make it clear to them why neutrality is important and why a non-neutral internet will cost them then you can get somewhere.
   
   This tone also goes for letters and for the public.

1. Prepare yourself by:
   1. Familiarize youselves with the issues at hand. Wikipedia has a good piece on the topic.
   2. Identify the specific legislation at issue, in this case the major bill in question is (I believe) S 2686 brought to you by Senators Ted (Tube boy) Stevens and Daniel Inouye. Ted has been in office for 37 years and Daniel for 43. Daniel is not the longest serving senator. Do not be fooled by the erroneous wikipedia entry stating that the bill was defeated by the Senate Commerce and Science Committee. Stevens and Inouye head that committee.
   3. You should also note the other relevant legislation especially the Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006 (HR 5417) and the Internet Freedom Preservation Act (S2917)
2. Then:
   1. Contact your Senator and ask them where they stand on Net neutrality as you do explain why neutrality is a good thing and why they should support it (see below). You can identify them online. You can contact them via e-mail, smail mail, fax, or by telephone. I myself favor the phone followed up by a letter. Over the phone you can ask questions and get more info.
   2. Contact your House Representative . Although this is a senate bill there is a house bill (H5417 above) on this issue and they had better support it.
   3. Write a letter to your local paper. It is a truism that most people in the world do not read /. Many of those people get their opinion fodder from the local newspaper, and more people read the letters to the editor than any other part of the paper. This can likely be done via e-mail and can sway a lot of minds if done right. Those minds can then in turn act for net neutrality.
   4. Tell other people. Surely you know at least one other person who hasn't heard about this threat to their ability to do business and/or just do what they want online as they always have. This person may be friends, family, coworkers, etc. It doesn't matter just tell them.
   5. Repeat the above steps as often as possible.

   In all cases be clear, firm, and polite. Net neutrality is important. Make it clear to any elected official that you will vote based upon their stance and donate money accordingly. You get bonus points if they are up for election this year (Senate).
   
   Keep in mind that you will probably not reach them directly. Most likely your call or letter will be directed to an aide. That aide's job is to tell the individual what to think about an issue. The aide will be loyal to their boss but may be more easy to sway (they don't have to appear omnicient). If you make it clear to them why neutrality is important and why a non-neutral internet will cost them then you can get somewhere.
   
   This tone also goes for letters and for the public.

What [Google, Vonage, and others] would like to do is to use my pipes free. But I ain't going to let them do that."

I can tell you that Google, Vonage and everyone else who has a web presence out there already pays a bill. They're already paying to make sure that their packets get where they're going. How is it the consumers fault that AT&T can't work out a profitable peering agreement with Google's bandwith provider? I can tell you why they can't! Too many AT&T customers sending email, visiting site, etc. that aren't on AT&T's network. Since they can't keep their customers on their own network, they have agreements that let them swap traffic "for free". For example, AT&T swaps with C&W so that everyone stays connected, all the email gets through, and we can all surf where we want. What they really want to do away with is the peering agreements. They're all trying to move to an AOL-ish model where you keep your customers on your 'net and just call it "the internet", even though it's really only sites that are either hosted or cached on their network. Man, this makes the Chinese goverment look like a bunch of role models instead of the censors that they really are.

Well, I don't want anyone telling me "You've got mail!" I want a real internet connection.

I pay my bill to Verizon for a screaming fast 7MB/sec FIOSS connection. If I want to host, which is against my AUP, but I never put up anything that sucks up too much bandwidth, so they've never complained. Still, it is bandwidth that I purchase from my provider. I want to go where I want and do what I want on 'net without some damn pop up saying "Google is over it's service limit with Verizon and so your access to this site is temporarily blocked." If Verizon tries it, I'll be going back to my own T1 with an indie carrier. If the indie carrier tries it, so help me, I'll start my own wireless 'net replacement, invite everyone to join me, and make rude hand gestures at the big boys like AT&T, C&W, etc.

If you don't like this legislation, write your congressman or your sentor and tell them to get their 90 year old heads out of the sand before it's too late.

2 cents,

QueenB

The hearing itself is Available Online. It is interesting to note that no Civil Liberties groups or technically minded individuals were invited to testify. The speakers included 1 member of congress, Alberto (I want your DNA and your thoughts) Gonzales, The president of the national center for Missing and Exploited Children, and Four Bank and Credit Card executives.

Granted the hearing was before the Senate Committee on Banking Housing and Urban Affairs But if they are going to talk about what ISP's should do and what privacy people should give up to make that happen you would think that they would want to hear from the people involved.

Then again it appears from my initial reading of the other statements that Gonzales was more or less alone in his demand for other info. The statmenets of Senator Richard Shelby (Committee Chairman), and of Mr. Ernie Allen Head of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children do not mention additional data retention. Both focus on the Financial Coalition against Child Pornography.

Interestingly, rather than focusing on what new privacy-invasive efforts are needed Mr. Allan sounds an optimistic note about how successful they've been given what they have. It seems that existing information is useful and, as he points out, you can't arrest all child pornographers but you can drive them underground and through a coalition of banks refusing to transfer payments, make it unprofitable.

I am quite leery of banks monitoring my transactions for things that "look like" child porn and I'd hope they'd have a method for clearing accounts in the case of identity theft. (What kind of dumbass uses their own credit card to commit crimes?)

I may be the only one but I read this as another one of the Administrations knee-jerk dictator moments. When presented with anything they demand more retention of info and less privacy even when the people who devote their lives to fighting that thing, don't.

The choice of this committee is a bit creepy given the presence of Rick Santorum better known by the statement that the right to privacy "doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution"

He also made subsequent statmenets blaming Katrina Victims for their plight.

The hearing itself is Available Online. It is interesting to note that no Civil Liberties groups or technically minded individuals were invited to testify. The speakers included 1 member of congress, Alberto (I want your DNA and your thoughts) Gonzales, The president of the national center for Missing and Exploited Children, and Four Bank and Credit Card executives.

Granted the hearing was before the Senate Committee on Banking Housing and Urban Affairs But if they are going to talk about what ISP's should do and what privacy people should give up to make that happen you would think that they would want to hear from the people involved.

Then again it appears from my initial reading of the other statements that Gonzales was more or less alone in his demand for other info. The statmenets of Senator Richard Shelby (Committee Chairman), and of Mr. Ernie Allen Head of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children do not mention additional data retention. Both focus on the Financial Coalition against Child Pornography.

Interestingly, rather than focusing on what new privacy-invasive efforts are needed Mr. Allan sounds an optimistic note about how successful they've been given what they have. It seems that existing information is useful and, as he points out, you can't arrest all child pornographers but you can drive them underground and through a coalition of banks refusing to transfer payments, make it unprofitable.

I am quite leery of banks monitoring my transactions for things that "look like" child porn and I'd hope they'd have a method for clearing accounts in the case of identity theft. (What kind of dumbass uses their own credit card to commit crimes?)

I may be the only one but I read this as another one of the Administrations knee-jerk dictator moments. When presented with anything they demand more retention of info and less privacy even when the people who devote their lives to fighting that thing, don't.

The choice of this committee is a bit creepy given the presence of Rick Santorum better known by the statement that the right to privacy "doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution"

He also made subsequent statmenets blaming Katrina Victims for their plight.

The hearing itself is Available Online. It is interesting to note that no Civil Liberties groups or technically minded individuals were invited to testify. The speakers included 1 member of congress, Alberto (I want your DNA and your thoughts) Gonzales, The president of the national center for Missing and Exploited Children, and Four Bank and Credit Card executives.

Granted the hearing was before the Senate Committee on Banking Housing and Urban Affairs But if they are going to talk about what ISP's should do and what privacy people should give up to make that happen you would think that they would want to hear from the people involved.

Then again it appears from my initial reading of the other statements that Gonzales was more or less alone in his demand for other info. The statmenets of Senator Richard Shelby (Committee Chairman), and of Mr. Ernie Allen Head of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children do not mention additional data retention. Both focus on the Financial Coalition against Child Pornography.

Interestingly, rather than focusing on what new privacy-invasive efforts are needed Mr. Allan sounds an optimistic note about how successful they've been given what they have. It seems that existing information is useful and, as he points out, you can't arrest all child pornographers but you can drive them underground and through a coalition of banks refusing to transfer payments, make it unprofitable.

I am quite leery of banks monitoring my transactions for things that "look like" child porn and I'd hope they'd have a method for clearing accounts in the case of identity theft. (What kind of dumbass uses their own credit card to commit crimes?)

I may be the only one but I read this as another one of the Administrations knee-jerk dictator moments. When presented with anything they demand more retention of info and less privacy even when the people who devote their lives to fighting that thing, don't.

The choice of this committee is a bit creepy given the presence of Rick Santorum better known by the statement that the right to privacy "doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution"

He also made subsequent statmenets blaming Katrina Victims for their plight.

http://banking.senate.gov/

I certainly don't read where they deal with ISPs. I do see them dealing with housing, mass transit, and financial institutions (banks, credit unions, etc.) Someone tell me where it says they've got the jurisdiction over an ISP, please?

The most useful thing we can do here is to write to our Senators. If enough people write, they pay attention. Besides, you'll probably get a nice glossy photograph in the mail.

The Swiftboat ads involved people who actually served during the time that John Kerry did and desired to state their opinion of the illegitimacy of his military decorations and military service in general - exactly who do you think such statements should be coming from?

Who indeed.

One of the veterans who says Kerry wasn't under fire was himself awarded a Bronze Star for aiding others "in the face of enemy fire" during the same incident.

Elliott, who had been Kerry's commanding officer, was quoted by the Boston Globe Aug 6 as saying he had made a "terrible mistake" in signing the affidavit against Kerry, in which Elliott suggested Kerry hadn't told him the truth about how he killed the enemy soldier. Later Elliott signed a second affidavit saying he still stands by the words in the TV ad. But Elliott also made what he called an "immaterial clarification" - saying he has no first-hand information that Kerry was less than forthright about what he did to win the Silver Star.

In general, the people serving directly with Kerry would be in the position to remark on his service, except in in the cases where those people are proven liars with a political agenda.

Bottom line, the problem with the Swiftboat ads is not in their truth. The problem is the truth didn't matter--it was ALL about politics.

Think there's some question about Kerry's service? How about a guy who lost 3 limbs in the same war? How about a guy who spent a couple years as a POW? All were 'swiftboated.'

And even if the worst said about Kerry's service is true, it stills compares rather favorably to the service records for George 'stopped showing up physicals when they started giving drug tests' Bush and Dick 'I had other priorities' Cheney.

To bring it around on topic, to do business with people who make it their job to defame and disparage real American heroes does NOT fall under the guidelines of "do no evil."

Added bonus, today on senate.gov front page:

"We the People"
Celebrating the Constitution

In reality:
We the Senate
Pooping on the Constitution

Consider encouraging Democratic (and Republican - though that's unlikely) senators to filibuster this.

Senator contact list

It looks like filibusteris the only realistic option on this one.

Oh, and vote however you prefer to end this destruction of personal and public liberties in November. I'd HIGHLY suggest Democratic in most cases this election.

Ryan Fenton

The entire nam war was one big my lai, it was based on high elected official lies, backed by military "leaders", the alleged tonkin gulf attack which didn't happen. The current iraq war is another case, based 100% on lies-saddam-no attack on NYC,no ties to al queda, no WMD of note, etc. All lies, known about in advance. Every guy there right now is not following his oath, if he took one and is aware of the situation now. And every member in Congress who is not right this second working towards impeachment of the high level end-times crusader whackjob creeps who are pushing this current disaster are *also* violating their oaths. The full senate report was issued last week. With absolutely no ambiguity it says the whole deal is one big fat lie. So? Where next? It's just a "war" just mass screaming death and misery and insane profits for the globalists. Where are those oaths now?

One guy is at least trying, he actually takes his oath seriously, and can *read*. He knows he has been lied to, so, he acted according to his oath. And as expected the career oath breaking dotmil crud are trying to break him.

Nuremberg, just following orders is no excuse

Before it is too late, before they pull off another reichstagg fire phony terror attack

Don't think this will save the situation, it has just made it worse, yet people for some mysterious reason still think this will work.

No, it won't work. The system is broken. Until those demons are in prison and the whole system is cleansed of the filth, it will just keep getting worse.

1. Making poor jokes.
2. Attempting to refute the article simply because they don't want to believe it.
3. Asking What can we do?

1. The U.S. Senate
2. The U.S. House
3. Use a Google to find state and local reps.

Alternatively drop him a line through his handy email page. "If you are not an Alaskan, may I suggest that contacting the elected representatives from your own state might bring about a quicker address of your issues." -- Ted Stevens

http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/hold .htm

Its a quid pro quo type of "good old boy" agreement among those in the majority party.

1. This is an unwarranted attack on science by a reckless administration.
2. You oppose any attempts to censor science and the enforcement of environmental laws, laws that keep our air safe to breath and our water safe to drink.
3. Any elected official who doesn't come out against this will not get your vote or your money

Two US Senate Committee hearings on eco-terrorism, which specifically addressed the issue of these campaigns against researchers, were held on May 18 and October 26, 2005. Read some of the opening statements and make a note of who downplayed the severity of the problem and who didn't. (The audio of the second hearing is available on the site as well, and I would recommend listening to it.)

And wow, just look at the reaction from the self-titled nerd community. A whole 5 posts over +2.

The problems with this, as I see it, are at least fourfold:

1) The companies that want to keep the research results private have money and influence, and will likely lean on Senators and Congressmen to vote against it.

2) Someone will bring up the topic of weapons research.

3) The Bill [PDF Warning] specifically excludes research that is unpublished or rejected for publication, which boggles the mind.

4) The Bill claims that it will not materially alter the status of any copyright or patent, however I doubt the research papers' authors and publishers will agree.

I often run across the assertion that many viable embryos, suitable for harvesting stem cells, would actually have been "medical waste" otherwise. Can somebody confirm or deny this? and back it up with references?

"Each year, thousands of laboratory-facilitated embryos no longer needed in the treatment of fertility are routinely discarded." (http://hatch.senate.gov/newsite/index.cfm?FuseAct ion=PressReleases.Print&PressRelease_id=190023&sup presslayouts=true)

From (drumroll, please...) Sen. Orrin Hatch, Utah.

Many of these people were longtime Yahoo employees, and they were under no obligation to follow me,' he said. 'It was my money to do with as I wanted.'

Graft is standard business practice in China. Yahoo would be wise to consider a recent quote by Donald Rumsfeld: "You've got to be kiddding! Do you think there is gambling in the casino?"

Actually not true

Yes, it is.

I have a couple friends (and FOFs) who were there, and got sick from exposure from it still, even if it was old stuff.

"Usless as weapons" does not mean "harmless". Lots of things in this world are toxic and have to be properly disposed of. You can get sick from exposure to lead paint and asbestos, but that doesn't make them WMD's. I repeat: it's not a weapon of mass destruction if it's incapable of causing mass destruction.

Finally, if these really were WMD's, do you really think the Bush Administration wouldn't have been screaming about it from every rooftop? Of course they would have.

A certain amount of ignorance is forgivable, as Senator Fuckwit shot his mouth off about 500 chemical weapons found in Iraq. Of course, he was totally, completely wrong for reason's previously mentioned: chemical and biological weapons degrade over time. A drop of that sarin gas on your skin might have killed you in 1984, but if you'd have to liberally injest the stuff before getting a lethal dose twenty years later, it can no longer be considered a WMD. And anyone who continues to insist to the contrary, after knowing the facts, is a bald-faced liar.

I'm not so sure on that, the UW system does a lot of scientific research. Wisconsin is one of the top dairy providers in the US. We have one of the most out spoken democratic senators for individual rights http://feingold.senate.gov/.

Iowa on the other hand... Ever since MST3K wrapped up, what have they done for us?

-Rick

Well, let's take a cursory glance then.

Wikipedia (Unless you think I've conspired to make up the entry here):
"The department was created from 22 existing federal agencies in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001."
Making a single department from 22 agencies is called consolidation.

Next, distractions: An alert system which never goes off alert is not an alert system at all. It's a continuous message to be vigilant, which is not information, it's a fear tactic. What's more, there would have been a massive uproar if the government had no internal response to the hijackings, so they took existing groups and rebranded them as a single simple solution to the communication problem. Then muddied up the water with reorgs and ill-managed funding.

http://www.usmayors.org/72ndWinterMeeting/homeland report_012204.pdf

http://hsgac.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Press Releases.Detail&Affiliation=C&PressRelease_id=960& Month=4&Year=2005

these go on and on. It's the '80's Pentagon spending all over again.

Stop worrying about how I say something and actually take a look around.

Sided with Congress to force prolonging Terri Schiavo's life, against her and her husband's wishes.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/27/21395 5.shtml

Voted for Attorney General Gonzalez, who thinks the Geneva Conventions are "quaint" and supports torturing detainees who are held indefinitely without trial or access to attorneys
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php ?vote_id=3452
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4000679.stm

Voted to stop debate/prevent filibuster so Alito could be added to the Supreme Court
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_li sts/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2& vote=00001

As I post this, there is still time. Email your senator right now

(J) COMMERCIAL SOCIAL NETWORKING WEBSITES; CHAT ROOMS- Within 120 days after the date of enactment of the Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006, the Commission shall by rule define the terms `social networking website' and `chat room' for purposes of this subsection. In determining the definition of a social networking website, the Commission shall take into consideration the extent to which a website--

1. `(i) is offered by a commercial entity;
2. `(ii) permits registered users to create an on-line profile that includes detailed personal information;
3. `(iii) permits registered users to create an on-line journal and share such a journal with other users;
4. `(iv) elicits highly-personalized information from users; and
5. `(v) enables communication among users.'.

I would note that clause (i) appears to exempt political websites from this as well as school sites while clauses (iv) and (v) are entirely undefined indicating that they have neither been thought through nor are expected to be any time soon. Is a handle personal? If I use my real name is that "highly-personalized". What about if I lie?

These same issues hold true with respect to the "technology protection measure" requirement in 3.a (see text). Strictly speaking turning the computer off entirely is a technology protection measure as is a printed sign saying "Don't do bad things" or an overpriced filtering service that can be easily circumvented.

The law is bad because it leaves many aspects undefined while at the same time further restricting online activities for both children and adults. One of the known problems with COPA is that many adults cannot get things turned on. More importantly it places blame in the wrong places, and places effort there as well. It attacks the social networking sites on the assumption that a) they are entirely to blame and b) poor "technology protection measures" will prevent bad things from happening. Sexual predators exist in the real world and molest kids in the real world. If we spent more time and effort educating parents accurately (which I note this bill encourages but does not pay for) about the dangers their kids face and how best to protect them this might work out. As it is this bill is (at best) a band aid that teaches kids and parents to fear the online world not learn to protect themselves in it. It also places one further burden of censoring information on understaffed underfunded public libearies who, as a rule, exist to share information not hide it.

This is essentially an election year problem. This bill is being voted for becuase the reps think that it is free. By voting for this they can claim to have "struck a blow against online predators" even though this blow is all hot air. In my experience such things get done because the politicians think that it will a) make the

Baraka Obama has a great pdocast. The best thing about it is that it is not a lot of double talk or political speeches. It is just Sen. Obama talking about issues of the day. He sounds very genuine and although I don't always agree with him, his positions are well thought out. It is refreshing to hear an intelligent senator. http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/

Did your senator vote to help those people get cheaper gas by allowing oil drilling in ANWR? Or did he choose the convenience of caribou over the well-being of these poor people? How about drilling off shore? How about cutting the gas tax?

For God's sake, please, please, PLEASE stop dragging ANWR out as a "hippie-killer" - "see, you care more about caribou than children". It's a particularly ludicrous strawman.

This report from the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, puts the amount of oil extractable from ANWR at a range of 5.7 to 16 billion bbl, with a mean of 10.3 billion bbl.

From the testimony of the administrator of the Energy Information Administration, our 2004 daily oil demand is 20.8 million bbl/day.

Basic math gives us the result of: ANWR reserves, at the most optimistic review by professional geologists, 770 days of oil at current consumption rates.

The mean reserve calculation gives us 496 days of supply. And that won't come on line for years, as the infrastructure needs to be built from scratch.

Find another strawman.

if you would like to send a quick message to senator specter's office, go to http://specter.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Con tactInfo.Home/. he is the one of the ringleaders (from TFA) that put this ridiculous bill to congress. if you are from pennsylvania (one of his constituents), then all the better.

Let's consider what RFID is for. It is a means of broadcasting information over radio frequencies. For scanning packages in a depot that's all well and good but what about passports. At present the State Department's plan is to replace the existing bar codes on passports with RFID tags. Why?

You will still need to stand in line in order to present your documents, so this will not save time. RFID chips can be faked so false passports can still be made. Indeed seeing as hoe people will (incorrectly) believe the chips it seems that identitiy theves using fake passports may have an easier time.

The only logical uses for this is passive monitoring and funding. Passive monitoring would occur via sensors in Airport Floors, that would enable passport holders to be logged as they move about the terminal. You laugh but the feds have already begun requiring all non-us citizens to carry their passports when they fly within the U.S. and have pushed for national ID databases. Why not a requirement that you keep your rfid passport on you at all times? As is noted in the article these things can be read from 160 feet awayby special equipment. Why not? Keep in mind many of the same people in the STate department once pushed to outlaw crypo in the U.S. unless they held the keys.

Ahh you say but the feds are putting a "read-proof" screen on the passport to prevent this from happening. Perhaps so. And we will leave aside for the moment the amounts of our money they are paying to develop said screen just so they can justify the RFID tags. By the way, did anyone see any actual security benefits of RFID listed in the article or did they just claim that they exist? In any case, how likely is it that said magic screen will actually be tamper proof? If it isn't then it is nothing more than a security blanket. If it is then perhaps the scanning won't happen but only if noone can defeat it. I for one am not betting on the screen.

But suppose the screen does work. In that event there is only one actual benefit of this, large amounts of money is being given to the RFID makers. In that event it is simply a waste of tax dollars.

In either case it is a dangerously stupid idea. Now is the time to contact your Congressional Rep and your Senator to tell them that it is a dangerously stupid idea. If they hear it, it may stop. If not it will roll forward and we'll be left whining on /.

etc so that we can be tracked even when we aren't in the check-out line.

http://stevens.senate.gov/contact.cfm/

What's next? "Basic Computing History for the Incomplete Moron?"

Write to Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Vir., voted in favor of Network Neutrality in the Judiciary committee) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore., introduced the Internet Non-Discrimination Act of 2006, S 2360, in March) to tell them about Sen. Stevens comments so that when they debate on the floor, they can speak to the utter incompetence of Sen. Stevens on this subject.

Make this your July 4th pledge. I'm sure most of you have the day off tomorrow. Spend an hour and write some letters. Talking amongst ourselves will accomplish nothing.

-S

Ted Stevens was born in Indianapolis, Indiana, on November 18, 1923. During World War II he was a pilot in the China-Burma-India theater, supporting the Flying Tigers of the 14th Air Force. He received two Distinguished Flying Crosses, two Air Medals, and the Yuan Hai medal awarded by the Republic of China. Following the war he graduated from UCLA and Harvard Law School, and practiced law in Washington, D.C. In the early 1950s he moved to Alaska, at the time a territory of the U.S. He practiced law in Fairbanks, and subsequently was appointed U.S. Attorney in Fairbanks in 1953, a position he held for three years.

He transferred to Washington, D.C. in 1956 to work as legislative counsel and then as an assistant to Secretary of the Interior Fred Seaton. In 1960, he was appointed Solicitor (chief counsel) of the Department of the Interior by President Eisenhower. While in Washington, Stevens worked successfully for Alaska's and Hawaii's admissions to the Union.

Stevens returned to Alaska to practice law in Anchorage and in 1964 he was elected to the Alaska House of Representatives. In his second term in Alaska's legislature he became the House Majority Leader.

Following the death of Senator E.L. Bob Bartlett in December of 1968, Governor Walter Hickel appointed Stevens to fill the vacancy. Under Alaska law, Stevens sought election in 1970. Stevens was subsequently elected for a full term in 1972, and re-elected in 1978, 1984, 1990, 1996 and 2002.

Stevens presided over this hearing. He knows the facts of the matter quite well. This is not a case of ignorance but of deception. Sorry, it just is.

http://stevens.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Here's my letter:
-------------
Dear Senator Stevens,

I was shocked by your lack of understanding in regards to the functioning of the Internet when you spoke this past Thursday, June 29th on the issue of so-called "Net Neutrality". The fact that you voted against "Net Neutrality" based on an opinion that was born of this fatally flawed understanding is a real problem.

Please read the following article for an intelligent pro/con analysis of the "Net Neutrality". Also included in this message is an article on how the Internet works in general. Please don't vote on things you don't understand, and remember that more knowledge is *always* good.

Thanks very much,
Dale Cooper

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_Neutrality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet

Allowing the Bells and cable companies to act as gatekeepers with control over internet access would make the internet like cable. A producer-driven market with barriers to entry for website creators and preferential treatment for specific sites based not on merit, the number of hits, but on relationships with the corporate gatekeeper.

Dear Slashdot Community,
I know that the very structure of this site lends itself to keeping your comments and opinions contained within the slashdot community. However, in this case, it's not a great time to be so inward. You can take just a couple of extra seconds and make a difference with your opinions on Net Neutrality--go to http://stevens.senate.gov/contact.cfm. Write Senator Stevens a short message expressing your concerns about his lack of expertise on the subject (even his fundamental lack of understanding about what the internet is and how it works). Don't do it by calling him an idiot or otherwise insulting him. Give him a quick summary of how things actually work. Tell him what Net Neutrality *really* is and why it is important--especially to the average consumer. Then take a couple more seconds to go to http://thomas.loc.gov/, find out how to contact your House rep or your favorite senator from your state, and write a similar message explaining that you were concerned with the views Senator Stevens expressed to the Senate Commerce Committee about his lack of support for even the most basic Net Neutrality legislation. Again explain why you feel Net Neutrality is an important issue for the average consumer. This is particularly important if the Senator to whom you write is one of the other 10 members of the Senate Commerce Committee who voted against adding this minor Net Neutrality amendment to a recent telecom bill (presumably, a Republican from this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Senate_Committee _on_Commerce,_Science_and_Transportation). It will only take you a few more minutes than crafting the "perfect" slashdot comment, and it will make much more of a difference.

Best,
Chris

I was hoping to get away with just reading.
Your post is too valuable to let it go without comment IMO.

This is exactly it, at the very least everyone complaining, commenting, or irrate can write their representatives.

Recently I wrote to a senator and a house representitave regarding my concerns about the direction copywrite law is going.
At risk of exposing myself here's the response I received from the senator:
" Thank you for contacting me concerning the needs of consumers to duplicate certain copyrighted materials. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.

In 1998, Congress passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) that updated copyright laws to account for recent technological developments related to digital media and the internet. The main points of the legislation were designed to control on-line file sharing that allows consumers to enjoy digital forms of entertainment without paying for such services. The bill also increased penalties for other copyright infringements. Some people have criticized this piece of legislation for having gone too far in limiting the rights of consumers to duplicate copyrighted materials for ethical purposes.

As you may know, Representative Rick Boucher (D-Virginia) introduced H.R. 1201 on March 9, 2005 to address some of the concerns about DMCA. This bill would amend DMCA to allow the performance of scientific research, and the legal production and use of technology that circumvents copyright protections.

Under current copyright laws, authors and inventors are guaranteed an exclusive right, for limited times, to their respective writings and discoveries, as set forth in Article I of the U.S. Constitution. Fair use is an affirmative defense to a claim of copyright infringement. However, fair use is generally understood by legal scholars to be a privilege, not a right.

In assessing whether a use of a copyrighted work is a fair use, courts weigh four statutory factors: the purpose and character of the use; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for the copyrighted work.

As the uses of the Internet and other multimedia technologies continue to develop, it is essential Congress works to promote a vibrant, open system that balances the interests of consumers with those of intellectual property holders. In the meantime, please rest assured I will continue to support efforts by these parties to develop mutually-agreeable settlements that achieve a proper level of compensation and non-commercial use.
Again, thank you for contacting me. For information concerning issues being considered in the United States Senate, please visit my website at www.crapo.senate.gov. Please feel free to contact me in the future on this or any other matter of importance to you.


Sincerely,

Mike Crapo
United States Senator

MDC:JH

Learn about the Stop Over-Spending Act of 2006 (the SOS Act) at http://crapo.senate.gov./ The bill is a comprehensive reform plan that will curb out-of-control federal spending and restore discipline to the federal budget process. "

Therefore, from the character of what this Senator is saying (and btw he's the only one I really have some level of trust in, even from my own state...), there COULD be room for an actual innovative legal solution to the problem of copy write and patents in software.

WE JUST HAVE TO TELL THEM THAT WE WANT IT SOLVED!!!!! damn it.
(ok, and tell them all and tell them often enough that they don't forget/get distracted)

-ME®