Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: senate.gov

Stories and comments across the archive that link to senate.gov.

Comments · 2,348

  1. Re:Oh, lookie here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on White House Demands Encryption for Sensitive Data

    Mmhmm, Google .Gov dragged up more. Using the keywords supplied by the .PDF, I search for "for official use only" and got this and this. The first is interesting because it was a testimony before the Senate committee in 2001 or 2002 and has the four-star general in charge of the Pacific Command briefing on North Korea. The second has the general in charge of SOUTHCOM, who oversees Guantanamo Bay. While it does not state these are classified, it does state they are for official use only and are not intended for the public until released by the Committee.

    I know these posts are hidden, but hopefully someone'll find 'em and give 'em a befitting rating. Come on, you little Slashdot snoopers, you know you love this.

    General Craddock: "I recently directed an investigation into allegations of questionable conduct made by members of the FBI. That investigation is ongoing."

    OOPS!

    Take off the last part of the URL related to SOUTHCOM, and it asks for a username and password. Guess I wasn't supposed to look.

  2. H.R. 5252 is not an amendment. It's the bill. by Urgru · · Score: 5, Informative · on Amendment To Kill Broadcast and Audio Flags

    H.R. 5252 is the House telecom bill, sponsored by Rep. Barton. It's been passed by the House and referred to the Senate Commerce Committee for consideration. The Senate Commerce Committee is marking up the Barton bill ... sort of. It's common practice in Congress to take a bill from the other bodt, strike everything after the enacting clause, and insert new text. This is important because the House and Senate can only go to conference to resolve differences on a piece of legislation that both have passed.

    The very first thing the committee did at markup was strike everything and insert text derived from S. 2686, a bill introduced by Senators Stevens and Inouye (the chair and ranking on the committee, respectively) earlier this year. The text they're working from isn't identical to S. 2686, because the members and their various staffers negotiated changes after that bill was introduced, but it is much more closely relatved to the Senate bill than the House bill that they're supposedly amending.

    So ... Sununu has an amendment to the substitute that would strike the flag language. His amendment is NOT H.R. 5252.

    Anyone crazy enough to want to listen to the Senators do their thing can hop onto the committe website and read Sen. Stevens' opening statement, or listen to the markup. It's a realplayer video stream captured from internal Senate TV, but is actually audio only (no cameras were in the room). The markup starts near the 23 minute mark. Opening statements from the various members last until an hour and 20 minutes in, at which point the markup starts in earnest.

  3. The internet is for consumer level production too! by grumpygrodyguy · · Score: 2, Interesting · on Dueling Network Neutrality Commentary on NPR

    The congresscritters claim to be examining this issue fairly on behalf of the consumer. Here's the response from my representative after signing the google petition:

    Dear Mr. xxxxxx:

                        Thank you for contacting my office regarding the issue of internet neutrality. I appreciate your thoughts on this subject and the opportunity to respond to you.

                        Net neutrality is the philosophy that internet service providers (ISP's) should not be allowed to prioritize content and services (particularly video) that come across their "pipes". I believe there is a need to strike a balance between preventing interference with internet traffic, while allowing the ISP's to continue to invest in this nation's internet and telecom infrastructure. Ultimately, I think it is important to provide equal access for these consumers and a balanced playing field for all involved. I appreciate your thoughts on this subject and will keep them in mind as legislation comes before the Senate for consideration.

                        Thank you again for contacting me. Please visit my webpage at http://isakson.senate.gov/ for more information on the issues important to you and to sign up for my e-newsletter.

    Sincerely,
    Johnny Isakson
    United States Senator

    For future correspondence with my office, please visit my web site at
    http://isakson.senate.gov/contact.cfm

    This same argument was used to deregulate california power companies in the 90s so they would have incentives to build more power stations, it didn't work. Rolling blackouts(or in this case poor service based on your packet identity) on the internet will not 'benefit consumers'.

    The government should rigorously regulate the telecoms to _ensure_ best access for _all_ consumers, as well as allowing new technologies like youtube.com a chance to grow. I'd much rather see my tax dollars subsidizating of faster routers than supporting more bloodshed in Iraq.

  4. The internet is for consumer level production too! by grumpygrodyguy · · Score: 2, Interesting · on Dueling Network Neutrality Commentary on NPR

    The congresscritters claim to be examining this issue fairly on behalf of the consumer. Here's the response from my representative after signing the google petition:

    Dear Mr. xxxxxx:

                        Thank you for contacting my office regarding the issue of internet neutrality. I appreciate your thoughts on this subject and the opportunity to respond to you.

                        Net neutrality is the philosophy that internet service providers (ISP's) should not be allowed to prioritize content and services (particularly video) that come across their "pipes". I believe there is a need to strike a balance between preventing interference with internet traffic, while allowing the ISP's to continue to invest in this nation's internet and telecom infrastructure. Ultimately, I think it is important to provide equal access for these consumers and a balanced playing field for all involved. I appreciate your thoughts on this subject and will keep them in mind as legislation comes before the Senate for consideration.

                        Thank you again for contacting me. Please visit my webpage at http://isakson.senate.gov/ for more information on the issues important to you and to sign up for my e-newsletter.

    Sincerely,
    Johnny Isakson
    United States Senator

    For future correspondence with my office, please visit my web site at
    http://isakson.senate.gov/contact.cfm

    This same argument was used to deregulate california power companies in the 90s so they would have incentives to build more power stations, it didn't work. Rolling blackouts(or in this case poor service based on your packet identity) on the internet will not 'benefit consumers'.

    The government should rigorously regulate the telecoms to _ensure_ best access for _all_ consumers, as well as allowing new technologies like youtube.com a chance to grow. I'd much rather see my tax dollars subsidizating of faster routers than supporting more bloodshed in Iraq.

  5. I Called My Senator Again to See if It Was Delayed by Yogler · · Score: 1 · on Broadcast Flag Sneaking in the Back Door

    ... but their office was closed; I'll call again in the morning. In the meantime, does anyone know how we would find out? My dad and I are looking on http://senate.gov/ but we're not really finding anything.

  6. Find your senator by Anomalyst · · Score: 1 · on Broadcast Flag Sneaking in the Back Door

    Just replace "IL" at the end with your two letter state abbreviation

    http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/ senators_cfm.cfm?State=IL
    BTW: IL returns:

    Durbin, Richard- (D - IL) (202) 224-2152
    Obama, Barack- (D - IL) (202) 224-2854

  7. Re:You have your problems mixed up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny · on Broadcast Flag Sneaking in the Back Door

    The problem is that legislators work for only the people that vote for them, not the other way around. Are you the Senator from California, home of Hollywood? Gee, I wonder how you stand on extending copyright terms. The representative from Iowa? Please, don't surprise me on your position on increasing farm subsidies. A Congressman from Texas? What, you voted for tax breaks for energy companies? Shocking.

    I had no idea that Alaska was such a media powerhouse.

  8. Re:Public Comment? by toleraen · · Score: 2, Insightful · on Broadcast Flag Sneaking in the Back Door

    Well, as the above poster said, doing whatever you can to draw attention to yourself and get your point across. Gotta make sure it's done in a positive way though...somehow your message probably won't look so good as you're ranting it on the way to gitmo.

    Seriously, if a senator (err, their assistant) starts reading a ton of mail saying "hey, this sucks, this is why, vote that sucker down" (word it better), they're going to take notice. While they are not likely reading their own messages, I would be willing to bet that their assistants would bring up issues that are getting a lot of notice. If this issue isn't terribly time-sensitive, send a snail mail to their office. If it is (like this one), send an email. Get your friends to send an email. Have your friends get their friends to send soem mail. That's how you get noticed. If you sit and do nothing, no one's going to notice. Gotta give those interns something to do. Just google your senator, you shouldn't have any trouble finding their contact infos.

    Of course, if your senator kicked as much ass as mine does, all you'd have to do is send them a thank you note.

  9. if you'd like to contact them on-line: by yagu · · Score: 4, Informative · on Broadcast Flag Sneaking in the Back Door

    For those who would like to contact these people on-line:

  10. if you'd like to contact them on-line: by yagu · · Score: 4, Informative · on Broadcast Flag Sneaking in the Back Door

    For those who would like to contact these people on-line:

  11. if you'd like to contact them on-line: by yagu · · Score: 4, Informative · on Broadcast Flag Sneaking in the Back Door

    For those who would like to contact these people on-line:

  12. if you'd like to contact them on-line: by yagu · · Score: 4, Informative · on Broadcast Flag Sneaking in the Back Door

    For those who would like to contact these people on-line:

  13. if you'd like to contact them on-line: by yagu · · Score: 4, Informative · on Broadcast Flag Sneaking in the Back Door

    For those who would like to contact these people on-line:

  14. if you'd like to contact them on-line: by yagu · · Score: 4, Informative · on Broadcast Flag Sneaking in the Back Door

    For those who would like to contact these people on-line:

  15. if you'd like to contact them on-line: by yagu · · Score: 4, Informative · on Broadcast Flag Sneaking in the Back Door

    For those who would like to contact these people on-line:

  16. if you'd like to contact them on-line: by yagu · · Score: 4, Informative · on Broadcast Flag Sneaking in the Back Door

    For those who would like to contact these people on-line:

  17. if you'd like to contact them on-line: by yagu · · Score: 4, Informative · on Broadcast Flag Sneaking in the Back Door

    For those who would like to contact these people on-line:

  18. if you'd like to contact them on-line: by yagu · · Score: 4, Informative · on Broadcast Flag Sneaking in the Back Door

    For those who would like to contact these people on-line:

  19. if you'd like to contact them on-line: by yagu · · Score: 4, Informative · on Broadcast Flag Sneaking in the Back Door

    For those who would like to contact these people on-line:

  20. if you'd like to contact them on-line: by yagu · · Score: 4, Informative · on Broadcast Flag Sneaking in the Back Door

    For those who would like to contact these people on-line:

  21. if you'd like to contact them on-line: by yagu · · Score: 4, Informative · on Broadcast Flag Sneaking in the Back Door

    For those who would like to contact these people on-line:

  22. if you'd like to contact them on-line: by yagu · · Score: 4, Informative · on Broadcast Flag Sneaking in the Back Door

    For those who would like to contact these people on-line:

  23. if you'd like to contact them on-line: by yagu · · Score: 4, Informative · on Broadcast Flag Sneaking in the Back Door

    For those who would like to contact these people on-line:

  24. if you'd like to contact them on-line: by yagu · · Score: 4, Informative · on Broadcast Flag Sneaking in the Back Door

    For those who would like to contact these people on-line:

  25. if you'd like to contact them on-line: by yagu · · Score: 4, Informative · on Broadcast Flag Sneaking in the Back Door

    For those who would like to contact these people on-line:

  26. if you'd like to contact them on-line: by yagu · · Score: 4, Informative · on Broadcast Flag Sneaking in the Back Door

    For those who would like to contact these people on-line:

  27. if you'd like to contact them on-line: by yagu · · Score: 4, Informative · on Broadcast Flag Sneaking in the Back Door

    For those who would like to contact these people on-line:

  28. if you'd like to contact them on-line: by yagu · · Score: 4, Informative · on Broadcast Flag Sneaking in the Back Door

    For those who would like to contact these people on-line:

  29. if you'd like to contact them on-line: by yagu · · Score: 4, Informative · on Broadcast Flag Sneaking in the Back Door

    For those who would like to contact these people on-line:

  30. if you'd like to contact them on-line: by yagu · · Score: 4, Informative · on Broadcast Flag Sneaking in the Back Door

    For those who would like to contact these people on-line:

  31. I wrote Joseph Lieberman (CT) by C_Kode · · Score: 5, Informative · on Net Neutrality, Schlocky Salesmen vs Monopolist Plumbers

    I just got a responce today:

    June 20, 2006

    Mr. XXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

    Dear Mr. XXXXXXX:

    Thank you for contacting me with regard to the issue of net neutrality. It was good to hear from you.

    The principle of net neutrality suggests that data from all Internet content providers should be treated equally, regardless of provider or content. In recent months, broadband service providers, including cable, telephone companies, and wireless providers, have expressed a desire to charge Internet content and application providers, such as Google, eBay, Amazon, and Vonage, for delivering content to Internet consumers.

    Net neutrality is one of many issues that have been the subject of hearings held by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation as it prepares to advance telecommunications reform legislation. Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-AK) has scheduled a meeting for June 22, 2006, where details of his proposed legislation will be debated among members of the Committee. Furthermore, you may be interested to know that Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) introduced legislation, the Internet Nondiscrimination Act of 2006 (S. 2360), aimed at codifying the concept of net neutrality. According to Senator Wyden, S. 2360 would prohibit network operators from charging Internet content and application providers for faster delivery to consumers or from favoring certain content. Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Byron Dorgan (D-ND) have introduced similar legislation, the Internet Freedom Preservation Act (S. 2917). Both of these bills are pending consideration by the Commerce Committee. To keep track of future actions on this legislation, you can go to the "Bill Tracking" service at http://lieberman.senate.gov/issues/resources.

    I strongly support efforts to promote broadband deployment, but we must remain vigilant to ensure that congressional efforts to promote deployment by reforming telecommunications law maintain the openness of the Internet that has fueled economic growth and has reinforced our nation's commitment to free speech. Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind should legislation affecting net neutrality come before the full Senate for debate. I also want to review the materials and testimony from the Committee hearings and actions. My official Senate web site is designed to be an on-line office that provides access to constituent services, connecticut-specific information, and an abundance of information about what I am working on in the Senate on behalf of Connecticut and the nation. I am also pleased to let you know that I have launched an email news update service through my web site. You can sign up for that service by visiting http://lieberman.senate.gov/ and clicking on the "Subscribe Email News Updates" button at the bottom of the home page. I hope these are informative and useful.

    Thank you again for letting me know your views and concerns. Please contact me if you have any additional questions or comments about our work in Congress.

    Sincerely,

    Joseph I. Lieberman
    UNITED STATES SENATOR

  32. I wrote Joseph Lieberman (CT) by C_Kode · · Score: 5, Informative · on Net Neutrality, Schlocky Salesmen vs Monopolist Plumbers

    I just got a responce today:

    June 20, 2006

    Mr. XXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

    Dear Mr. XXXXXXX:

    Thank you for contacting me with regard to the issue of net neutrality. It was good to hear from you.

    The principle of net neutrality suggests that data from all Internet content providers should be treated equally, regardless of provider or content. In recent months, broadband service providers, including cable, telephone companies, and wireless providers, have expressed a desire to charge Internet content and application providers, such as Google, eBay, Amazon, and Vonage, for delivering content to Internet consumers.

    Net neutrality is one of many issues that have been the subject of hearings held by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation as it prepares to advance telecommunications reform legislation. Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-AK) has scheduled a meeting for June 22, 2006, where details of his proposed legislation will be debated among members of the Committee. Furthermore, you may be interested to know that Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) introduced legislation, the Internet Nondiscrimination Act of 2006 (S. 2360), aimed at codifying the concept of net neutrality. According to Senator Wyden, S. 2360 would prohibit network operators from charging Internet content and application providers for faster delivery to consumers or from favoring certain content. Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Byron Dorgan (D-ND) have introduced similar legislation, the Internet Freedom Preservation Act (S. 2917). Both of these bills are pending consideration by the Commerce Committee. To keep track of future actions on this legislation, you can go to the "Bill Tracking" service at http://lieberman.senate.gov/issues/resources.

    I strongly support efforts to promote broadband deployment, but we must remain vigilant to ensure that congressional efforts to promote deployment by reforming telecommunications law maintain the openness of the Internet that has fueled economic growth and has reinforced our nation's commitment to free speech. Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind should legislation affecting net neutrality come before the full Senate for debate. I also want to review the materials and testimony from the Committee hearings and actions. My official Senate web site is designed to be an on-line office that provides access to constituent services, connecticut-specific information, and an abundance of information about what I am working on in the Senate on behalf of Connecticut and the nation. I am also pleased to let you know that I have launched an email news update service through my web site. You can sign up for that service by visiting http://lieberman.senate.gov/ and clicking on the "Subscribe Email News Updates" button at the bottom of the home page. I hope these are informative and useful.

    Thank you again for letting me know your views and concerns. Please contact me if you have any additional questions or comments about our work in Congress.

    Sincerely,

    Joseph I. Lieberman
    UNITED STATES SENATOR

  33. Porn by 4D6963 · · Score: 1 · on Google to Launch Government Search Site

    Too bad they don't have a US Gov Image Google search as well, would have loved to see what "porn" would have returned. However a text search on "porn" returns almost only stuff about "child porn".

    It also teaches you about interesting things, such as Dial-a-Porn, that porn will damage you and your whole family, that PORN can be a bad disease, that Porn can be a last name, or even that P2P actually means Porn-to-Porn (notice the name of the poster btw)

    Google taught me new things again today!

  34. Senate Experts by kbielefe · · Score: 1 · on Senators, ISPs, and Network Neutrality
    If you get all your political news from the media, you are missing out on the great sources of information that senate committee hearings are. Sure, lobbyists with questionable experts might have started the ball rolling on this legislation, but as usual, the list of (I believe unpaid) experts who testified at the committee hearing on the subject is impressive:
    • Mr. Vinton Cerf
      Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist, Google
    • Mr. Walter McCormick
      President and CEO, United States Telecom Association
    • Mr. Jeffrey Citron
      Chairman and CEO, Vonage
    • Mr. Kyle McSlarrow
      President and CEO, National Cable & Telecommunications Association
    • Mr. Earl Comstock
      President and CEO, CompTel
    • Mr. Kyle Dixon
      Senior Fellow and Director of the federal Institute for Regulatory Law & Economics, The Progress & Freedom Foundation
    • Mr. Lawrence Lessig
      Professor of Law, Standford Law School
    • Mr. J. Gregory Sidak
      Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
    • Mr. Gary Bachula
      Vice President for External Affairs, Internet2
    You can disagree with the end decision all you like, but it's pretty hard to look at the above list and claim that Senators don't have all the information they need about every angle of the issue. Believe it or not, smart people can get expert advice and still come to a different conclusion than you.
  35. Re:Lawmaker blacklist by sjbcfh · · Score: 1 · on New IP Treaty Looming?
    Does anyone know of an idiot lawmaker blacklist? If none exists, I propose starting one.


    I found two of them for the US. One here, and the other one can be found here.

  36. The senate by Gaccm · · Score: 1 · on U.S. House Rejects Net Neutrality

    As it mentions at the bottom of the article, this still needs to pass the senate. Specifically, the committiee on communication, science and transportation. Here is a list of the members, please contact them with your opinions as there is still time.

  37. Video of the Full Committee Hearing Available by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative · on U.S. House Rejects Net Neutrality

    FYI,

    A Video of the Full Committee Hearing is Available
    http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/witnesslist.cf m?id=1705

  38. Re:Good for Brin! by j_snare · · Score: 1 · on Google Admits Compromising Principles in China

    So you're one on the..what 25% left?
    Nope. I didn't say I *approve* of what the idiot has done, but I would still vote for him if I had to choose between Bush or Kerry. For me, it's the choice of two evils.

    Wow. So you really think freedom is a dead concept and fascist theocracy is the only way to go?
    Right. So now that you understand exactly what I believe based on the fact that I would vote for him over a person who *tells* me his policies are completely against what I believe. Right.

    No, I think freedom is something we need to get back, from both of these idiotic parties. I don't believe that the government is fascist, though we are starting to head that way, which is a concern. And we're not at a theocracy, though again, we get pretty close sometimes. Fortunately for us, these sort of changes happen over a lot longer period than just a couple years. But I guess that doesn't matter since you think Republicans have been doing this ever since Reagan though.

    Can you come up with a actual reasonable mechanism by which this would even have been possible?
    Kerry would have been under constant attack by the media with an extremely hostile congress that would have not allowed him to do anything.

    Not particularly. I obviously don't see Bush in quite the same light as you, so anything I would be concerned with about Kerry would not be as serious as you believe Bush's transgressions. I had a choice between two evils. One evil was pretty plain about what he wanted to do, and thus could hopefully be countered. The other one "had a plan", but never seemed to tell you anything else about that plan, and acted in such a way to make me believe his plan was against what I would *ever* want. Both of them believed and went with almost the exact same ideas on virtually everything, just had pretty talk one way or the other.

    I *do* however take exception to your idea that Kerry would have been under attack by the media considering that the media is generally very liberal. My wife and several others that I know that work in the media confirm this to be true, even in a wildly conservative area.

    As far as Congress, it's not exactly overwhelmed by conservatives. According to the party divisions in the Senate (http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item _and_teasers/partydiv.htm), we've had both parties at 5 or less above or below 50 since the democrat Senate of 97. The house of representatives is even closer (percentage-wise). According to http://clerk.house.gov/histHigh/Congressional_Hist ory/partyDiv.html the biggest difference is the most recent house, at 53.33% Republicans and 46.4% Democrat. That's not exactly overwhelming either. We've had the minority pass things easier with smaller minority numbers.

    Seriously, come up with a possible way he could have been worse.
    the fact is that he couldn't possibly have been worse no matter how much he tried even if being worse was his sole goal to which he directed mammoth effort. He would have been checked *hard* by the congress.
    Bush has not been subject to any oversight whatsoever since the Republicans are loyal only to their party. They do whatever he tells them where they wouldn't have done shit that Kerry asked merely due to the fact that he's in a different party.
    Umm... Right. Maybe you can cite a few examples on this. I certainly don't believe so, since there's plenty of bickering and dealing by both parties in every case that I know of. The only time it seems to be "whatever the President wants, no questions asked", is in the case of war powers. It's stupid, but politicians seem to be hesitant to "not support our troops" or whatever. Maybe some day a politician will grow a backbone. Unfortunately, we're stuck with the guys we got in there for the moment.

    W

  39. Re:Freedom of Speech trumps DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting · on DRM and Democracy
    A few years ago, then-Intel-VP Leslie Vadasz testified before Congress about DRM. One of the things he said was that Intel had been approached by people in the content community who wanted to be able to restrict devices so that you could not forward any content -- including home video -- without their approval.


    We have rejected some of the more onerous controls that have been advanced by the content community, such as:

    Playback controls, which could require devices to inspect all digital content and prevent playback of any content which is not approved by Hollywood.


    So: "Hollywood, may I have approval to forward a copy of my home videos of my newborn to my mother?" And they could say "No" or charge a fee for their permission!!! That was too much even for DRM arms supplier Intel to stomach.

    The moral of the tale? Keep in mind that the people who asked for this sort of control over your life and your works are still around -- and probably still eager to gain this sort of unwarranted power.

    Reference: http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/022802vasdasz. pdf
  40. Is this really the worst? by Enderandrew · · Score: 1, Insightful · on The Worst Bill You've Never Heard Of

    Worse than http://www.fcc.gov/telecom.html

    Worse than http://akaka.senate.gov/akakabill-b.html

    I think the title is a bit melodramatic. There are tons of truly wretched bills that get passed every day. As it stands, downloading music that you didn't pay for is considered illegal in this country anyway. This new bill only clarifies the existing position by making you have licenses for every version of a song you have. I think it is silly. I don't think it is the worst thing Congress has done.

  41. Re:LOL on Exogenous Factors by A*OnYourA** · · Score: 2, Informative · on Net Neutrality: Lobbyist McCurry Raises Ire

    Oil prices have risen because the 6 oil companies that control our government have cut down production. No new oil refineries have been built in the US since 1976. We are at an 8 year high in supply for oil, we just don't refine it!

    A congressional investigation uncovered internal memos written by the major oil companies operating in the U.S. discussing their successful strategies to maximize profits by forcing independent refineries out of business, resulting in tighter refinery capacity. From 1995-2002, 97% of the more than 920,000 barrels of oil per day of capacity that have been shut down were owned and operated by smaller, independent refiners. Were this capacity to be in operation today, refiners could use it to better meet today's reformulated gasoline blend needs. Profit margins for oil refiners have been at record highs. In 1999, for every gallon of gasoline refined from crude oil, U.S. oil refiners made a profit of 22.8 cents. By 2004, the profits jumped 80% to 40.8 cents per gallon of gasoline refined. Between 2001 and mid-2005, the combined profits for the biggest five refiners was $228 billion. - Public Citizen

    If you look at these oil companies investor reports, you will see it is price gouging. Take Exxon/Mobil. Last year as a share of capital investment, Exxon Mobil made a 46% rate of return on it's US oil operations, a 59% profit margin on it's US oil refining, totalling $36 billion. They love reporting this information to their investors. While a barrel of oil costs $20 to make, they turn around and sell it for $70.

    It's a myth that Saudis or some organization sets these prices. The prices are set on energy trading markets. Back in 2000, Enron lobbied hard for the "Commodities Futures Modernization Act." Look it up. It deregulated the energy trading exhanges, meaning over half of the trades are unregulated. When the oil companies are the main ones throwing money around on these exchanges, it's easy for them to hike up the price.

    As for the Democrats, yes they do receive money. But if you look at the percentage of campaign contributions going to Republicans, Republicans receive 4 times as much money from oil companies than democrats. That means Republicans should be hung 4 times as high for making consumers deal with this BS.

    See Tyson Slocon's testimony before the Senate:
    http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/ articles.cfm?ID=13912
    Oil Refiners:
    http://wyden.senate.gov/leg_issues/reports/wyden_o il_report.pdf
    http://69.63.136.213/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/el ectricity/Oil_and_Gas/articles.cfm?ID=11829
    http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/printer_100605I. shtml
    Campaign Contributions:
    http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?In d=E01
  42. Re:Quick question. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative · on BitTorrent's Bram Cohen against Network Neutrality

    Here is your reference: Wisconsin Senator Robert W. Kasten Jr., Judge Jim Gray, Libertarian opponent to CA Sen. Barbara Boxer, Wyoming Senator Craig Thomas in a Senate statement, The Reason Magazine, and probably more.

  43. tolerance and attraction are 2 different things by vague_ascetic · · Score: 2, Informative · on Google News, Censorship or Responsible Journalism?

    But if you want to talk about strange attractions:

    General Taguba's Non-Classified Part of his Abu Ghraib abuse report given to the Senate listed the following abuses, amongst many others:

    the intentional abuse of detainees by military police personnel included the following acts:

    • Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees;
    • Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing;
    • Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time;
    • Forcing naked male detainees to wear women's underwear;
    • Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped;
    • Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture;

    In addition, several detainees also described the following acts of abuse, which under the circumstances, I find credible based on the clarity of their statements and supporting evidence provided by other witnesses:

    • Pouring cold water on naked detainees;
    • Threatening male detainees with rape;
    • Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.

    Yet after this testimony had been given, Senator Inhofe (R-OK) stated on the Senate Floor, for the record:

    "I -- well, first of all, I regret I wasn't here on Friday. I was unable to be here. But maybe it's better that I wasn't, because as I watched the -- this outrage, this outrage everyone seems to have about the treatment of these prisoners, I was, I have to say -- and I'm probably not the only one up at this table that is more outraged by the outrage than we are by the treatment."

    This reprehensible piece of unAmericanism is still published on the Senate Republicans' Official Website.

    So with the new marriage law vote set for June 6, contemplate this bit of republicanism; it is a horrible sin for two guys to fall in love and play each others butt bongos, but the Republican Senators are so down with the use of sodomy with a foreign object as a interrogatory methodology that they allow Inhofe's ugly remarks to be served from their collective website.

    This message has been sposored by:

    The Official Abu Ghraib Interrogator's Model
    Chemical Light Stick of GOP Enlightenment *

    *(All Models of The Chemical Light Stick of GOP Enlightenment
    are registered trademarks of the RNC, and are protected by
    the RIAA, DMCA, MPAA, DoJ, SCOTUS. Don't even think about it,
    because the Queer Eye of the Santorum Guy is always watching too.)

  44. Okay all you Libertarians, listen up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on 130 Filesharer Homes Raided in Germany

    So this is what happens when you buy this rhetoric that the conservatives represent laize faire politics. That's bullshit. Like the Bush administration, Merkle represents big money and this news clearly demonstrates that fucking over the public in a shakedown for big business is clearly not an issue for these conservative pricks.
            So, let's not hear about how the left is where the problems are coming from. Sure, in the U.S. Diane Feinstein and a few others have sold out the public's interests in these matters but that doesn't mean the Republicans represent an alternative. If you're a California voter, I suggest you write to Feinstein and tell her you don't appreciate her selling out her constituents for a few bucks on such an important issue. But voting conservative is not the answer.
          Merkle has shown her hand and it is up to the German voters to slap that hand by voting her out of office.

    If you're a California voter, start setting things straight right now. The Democrats cannot be a valid alternative to the Republicans if they not only support but seek to tighten the absurdly outdated copyright regime in place in the US today.

    The following two California politicians drafted the PERFORM Act among other efforts to tighten the copyright noose.

    Blurb about the PERFORM Act.
    http://www.rwonline.com/dailynews/one.php?id=9011

    But beyond the PERFORM Act, contact these people and tell them directly that non commercial sharing of copyrighted material is NOT theft. Tell them their job is to leave the citizen's private Internet communications alone and that their job is to support the private non-commercial communication rights of their voters not to win favors from industry groups. Let them know that the alternative is to lose in the next election. Speak up!

    Senator Dieane Feinstein
    202-224-3841
    202-228-3954
    http://feinstein.senate.gov/email.html

    Representative Howard L. Berman (D - 28)
      202-225-4695
      202-225-3196
      http://www.house.gov/berman/contact/

    And yeah, I'm posting anonymously. But that's the whole point here. I should be able to post anonymously and all of our Internet communication should be anonymous and private. Let's make it so.

  45. Re:In the spirit of bad slashdot analogies, by ScentCone · · Score: 1 · on The AT&T Whistleblower's Evidence

    Excuse me but your sense of time and my sense of time appear to be different. These domestic warrantless spying programs were instituted by the Bush administration AFTER 9/11 and AFTER Pelosi left the Select Committee

    Ok, let's try again. here is another bit for you. In February of 2002, the senate announced their joint inquiry into the intel shortcomings prior to 9/11. The inquiry was announced by the members of the select committe, including the ranking democrat on that committee, Nancy Pelosi, who was still a member at that time, just as she was during the NSA briefings earlier in the fall. Wishing that a senior democrat wasn't tuned into this doesn't make it so. She was right in the thick of it, and was one of the eight people that the administration designated as those that would be briefed on the realigned intel work right after 9/11.

  46. Start a minor riot behind Certain closed doors? by abb3w · · Score: 3, Informative · on The AT&T Whistleblower's Evidence
    The small committee briefed on these NSA programs is prohibited from discussing the programs anywhere outside the briefings. So what is a committee member to do if they have concerns?

    If sufficiently concerned over the issue, raise the issue on the floor of the house in question, before the entire house in secret session. While there are potentially serious repercussions to such a move, up to censure or expulsion from that house (subject to the internal rules), that's the most that can happen. Congresscritters have a constitutional immunity from prosecution by any other body for anything they say there. (Article I, section 6: "for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place".)

    If done in the Senate, one need merely find an amenable party member willing to trustingly second a Rule 21 motion to raise the issue with some deference to secrecy, which may help prevent expulsion. In the House of Representatives, secret sessions are governed by Rule XVII, clause 9, and it looks like you don't even need a second to close the House. Technically, I suppose a sufficiently pissed member need not even close their house to secret session before starting the debate... but that likely would make the consequences under internal rules much more serious.

    Of course, while outright expulsion would be unlikely for a closed session debate (takes too many votes, and is too likely to make an instant political martyr), there's a real risk of losing the committee seat, along with any others held; it's also not exactly the sort of thing that engenders future interbranch co-operation, or comprehensive briefings to the oversight committee. The current White House would throw a howling excretory tantrum. However, I would hope that my elected officials would know when to start making a stink. This needed a stink a long time ago (or, less preferably, a change in the law before the laws got broken).

  47. Re:Yes!! That's it! That's it!! by sm62704 · · Score: 1 · on Telecoms Facing $50 Billion Lawsuit for Wiretaps

    Fewer than 4,000 Americans were killed by terrorists in the last ten years, including OK city (which I think was a year earlier than ten years ago but we'll include it anyway). Let foreign governments worry about foreign cities being bombed, OK? My taxes are too high as it is.

    37,280 Americans died from auto accidents in 1997 alone.

    In 1992, 80,000-150,000 people died from medical malpractice (link is to some law firm that came up with the first Google search, this is Google's HTML cache of a PDF. Wikipedia had no result).

    Clearly, we should ban automobiles and medical doctors.

    Here's another statistic for you: 100% of all people die. It might as well be by a terrorist bomb as a cigarette, a McDonald's hamburger, or a cell phone wielding bimbo in an SUV. One way or another you're going to die.

    Whether or not you will live free beforehand is another question entirely.

  48. Re:And? by ccady · · Score: 1 · on The NSA Knows Who You've Called

    A sibling points out that the Senate vote for the USA PATRIOT Act was 98 to 1 (with one abstention) and the lone holdout was Sen. Russ Feingold. In the House, though, the vote was less lopsided: 357 to 66.

  49. Re:Why I'm ashamed to be an American in the 21st c by Dachannien · · Score: 5, Insightful · on Bethesda Responds To Oblivion Re-Rating

    Want video game developers to be free to work in their craft without the fear of government interference? Well, I hope you don't plan on voting for Hillary in 2008.

  50. Re:Won't make it out of committee by boxfetish · · Score: 1 · on Net Neutrality Bill in Congress

    Please! Write/email your congressperson and senator and tell them to support this legislation!

    You can easily submit an email or find their mailing addresses here:

    http://www.house.gov/writerep/

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

    They pay more attention to written and mailed letters than email, but, there is no reason that everybody can't take a few minutes of their time to fill out a webform/email telling their reps to support this effort.