Slashdot Mirror

But as time has gone on, while we've become more reliant, dependent, and expectant, of technology, the technology itself has become no more practical. The integrated device is far away. While systems like the Nokia 9500 have gone so far, the fact is we can't rely upon such technologies for everything. Just entering text into any mobile device, for instance, remains a pain, a crucial barrier to the integrated digital world.

In some ways, the question may be raised: is this the direction we want to go in? The truth is, yes it is. We're expected to have this degree of communication because the world is becoming more complex, because as we gain efficiencies through our increased knowledge, we find ourselves having to manage the data flow.

And so, right now, we have to lug laptops around, with wifi and bluetooth connections, and cellphones, and iPods. Will this end? It has to. Because unless it does, we'll never be able to realise the next step of total information connectivity. Our ability to learn, and to take advantage of the information available will be decreased.

This quagmire of people being unable to take advantage of information while the technology itself remains a hinderance will not disappear by itself. Resources need to be devoted, and unless people are prepared to actually act, not just talk about it on Slashdot, nothing will ever get done. Apathy is not an option.

You can help by getting off your rear and writing to your congressman or senator. Tell them that there has to be a nationwide program that provides technology at the point of need, ensuring total connectivity. Tell them this is important to you. Tell them that you appreciate the work being done by good, American, companies from Cingular to Motorola, from IBM to Dell, from Apple to Microsoft to support you with the technology you need in your life but that without a government mandated technology supply, ensuring those who need information can get it without the need to lug around laptops, you will be forced to use less and less secure and intelligently designed alternatives. Explain the concerns you have about freedom, openness, and choice, and how a government program of technological availability will help all three. Let them know that this is an issue that effects YOU directly, that YOU vote, and that your vote will be influenced, indeed dependent, on their policies on funding such a network.

You CAN make a difference. Don't treat voting as a right, treat it as a duty. Remember, it was thanks to ordinary people like YOU that we are now seeing such innovations as SMP in OpenBSD. Keep informed, keep your political representatives informed on how you feel. And, most importantly of all, vote.

Second: write a letter mentioning that you are a taxpayer and a voter (even if you are not) and that you want them to oppose the "Digital Content Protection Act of 2006." You can even add that as a hard working taxpayer, time-shifting programs whenever and however you want is an important quality of life issue for you.

Thinking about not voting Libertarian? Read the bill or look at any of the other abuses of government's power, before you drink the cool-aide.

Bill Clinton wasn't impeached.

Correction on the email:

http://feinstein.senate.gov/email.html

I wouldn't consider plugging any of the politicians enjoyable.

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/ senators_cfm.cfm
that'll get you ALL the contact info.

Better yet,lets all write that communist witch feinstein and tell her what a hairy chested moron she is.I'm so sick of all this bullshit social(ist) concience these self proclaimed expert democrap senators exhibit.Theyre hardly qualified to run a merry-go-round let alone legislate for the U.S..Write to the B*tch daily,profess her mistakes,how you would do it.Tell her why she is unqualified to do anything.Send her some limbaugh philosophy,send her some porn,send her email to every misogynistic porn site you can think of.Send her packing.
Feinstein, Dianne- (D - CA) Class I
331 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3841
http://feinstein.senate.gov/email.html

While we're at it.........
Feingold, Russell D.- (D - WI) Class III
506 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5323
E-mail: russell_feingold@feingold.senate.gov

Another clown that makes you realize 2 out of 3 really is bad.
Kennedy, Edward M.- (D - MA) Class I
317 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4543
http://kennedy.senate.gov/contact.html

Boxer, Barbara- (D - CA) Class III
112 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3553
http://boxer.senate.gov/contact

Since she's on a listening tour...
Clinton, Hillary Rodham- (D - NY) Class I
476 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4451
http://clinton.senate.gov/contact

Oh hell with it,fix up a form and mail it to them all just like they do to the Republic*nts

Better yet,lets all write that communist witch feinstein and tell her what a hairy chested moron she is.I'm so sick of all this bullshit social(ist) concience these self proclaimed expert democrap senators exhibit.Theyre hardly qualified to run a merry-go-round let alone legislate for the U.S..Write to the B*tch daily,profess her mistakes,how you would do it.Tell her why she is unqualified to do anything.Send her some limbaugh philosophy,send her some porn,send her email to every misogynistic porn site you can think of.Send her packing.
Feinstein, Dianne- (D - CA) Class I
331 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3841
http://feinstein.senate.gov/email.html

While we're at it.........
Feingold, Russell D.- (D - WI) Class III
506 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5323
E-mail: russell_feingold@feingold.senate.gov

Another clown that makes you realize 2 out of 3 really is bad.
Kennedy, Edward M.- (D - MA) Class I
317 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4543
http://kennedy.senate.gov/contact.html

Boxer, Barbara- (D - CA) Class III
112 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3553
http://boxer.senate.gov/contact

Since she's on a listening tour...
Clinton, Hillary Rodham- (D - NY) Class I
476 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4451
http://clinton.senate.gov/contact

Oh hell with it,fix up a form and mail it to them all just like they do to the Republic*nts

Better yet,lets all write that communist witch feinstein and tell her what a hairy chested moron she is.I'm so sick of all this bullshit social(ist) concience these self proclaimed expert democrap senators exhibit.Theyre hardly qualified to run a merry-go-round let alone legislate for the U.S..Write to the B*tch daily,profess her mistakes,how you would do it.Tell her why she is unqualified to do anything.Send her some limbaugh philosophy,send her some porn,send her email to every misogynistic porn site you can think of.Send her packing.
Feinstein, Dianne- (D - CA) Class I
331 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3841
http://feinstein.senate.gov/email.html

While we're at it.........
Feingold, Russell D.- (D - WI) Class III
506 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5323
E-mail: russell_feingold@feingold.senate.gov

Another clown that makes you realize 2 out of 3 really is bad.
Kennedy, Edward M.- (D - MA) Class I
317 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4543
http://kennedy.senate.gov/contact.html

Boxer, Barbara- (D - CA) Class III
112 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3553
http://boxer.senate.gov/contact

Since she's on a listening tour...
Clinton, Hillary Rodham- (D - NY) Class I
476 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4451
http://clinton.senate.gov/contact

Oh hell with it,fix up a form and mail it to them all just like they do to the Republic*nts

Better yet,lets all write that communist witch feinstein and tell her what a hairy chested moron she is.I'm so sick of all this bullshit social(ist) concience these self proclaimed expert democrap senators exhibit.Theyre hardly qualified to run a merry-go-round let alone legislate for the U.S..Write to the B*tch daily,profess her mistakes,how you would do it.Tell her why she is unqualified to do anything.Send her some limbaugh philosophy,send her some porn,send her email to every misogynistic porn site you can think of.Send her packing.
Feinstein, Dianne- (D - CA) Class I
331 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3841
http://feinstein.senate.gov/email.html

While we're at it.........
Feingold, Russell D.- (D - WI) Class III
506 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5323
E-mail: russell_feingold@feingold.senate.gov

Another clown that makes you realize 2 out of 3 really is bad.
Kennedy, Edward M.- (D - MA) Class I
317 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4543
http://kennedy.senate.gov/contact.html

Boxer, Barbara- (D - CA) Class III
112 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3553
http://boxer.senate.gov/contact

Since she's on a listening tour...
Clinton, Hillary Rodham- (D - NY) Class I
476 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4451
http://clinton.senate.gov/contact

Oh hell with it,fix up a form and mail it to them all just like they do to the Republic*nts

Call your senator.
Tell them what you think this bill will do. And mostly why you won't vote for the again or contribuite to their campaigns.
(It is the only thing you can do, unless you are a freelance lobbyist that wants to work pro-bono for slashdotters.)

Here is their contact information.

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

Here are her numbers:

DC: 202-224-3841
SF: 415-393-0707
LA: 310-914-7300
SD: 619-231-9712
Fresno: 559-485-7430

Or you can e-mail her here:
http://feinstein.senate.gov/email.htm

That does it. You just lost my vote.

Californians can and should let her know here.

While I agree with where you're coming from, I must unfortunately call "bullshit" on this +1 Insightful character of the senator. I believe the situation would more likely go:

RIAA CEO "We must make it harder for these people to get streaming music, as opposed to CD's."

Senator "...Streaming...?"

RIAA CEO "Mr Senator, please accept $10,000 as a donation to your next election".

Senator "Oooh, greenie shiny..."

RIAA CEO "Oh and speaking of, maybe we can help the process by banning all streaming media"

Senator "...streaming...?"

RIAA CEO "Oh look another check for your campaign finance. Is $20,000 good?"

Remember, with very few exceptions, the majority of senators (and, for the most part, U.S. politicians in general) are, basically, old droolbags who "look" and "sound" the part. Image is everything, philosophy is just a stream of buzzwords and party ties. I'd be very surprised if more than five of them knew what CBR and VBR stood for, or what the general process of each is (and this is hardly rocket science).

Heck, I'd be surprised if a single politician even knew what ROT-13 was, much less how to decode it ("wait... you mean I click the... wait wait... file... edit? no no, wait... okay... so I go to 'decode, RTF, I mean, 'ROT-13''... wait, but how do I know when the file is 'ROT-13'?").

Anyway, with the above corrections, I'd say the scenario is more than likely. The Californian Feingold has always struck me as a particularly nasty old witch, but I can't exactly recall why at the moment. Probably some dumbshit Tipper Gore "save the children" routine -- oh, maybe she was the one who started the "NO BAD VIDEOGAMES TO MINORS MUST 'PROTECT' ALL CHILDREN!!!1!" bill in California? Eh, whatever. Fucking cunt. I'd throw her to the lions if this was a truly Roman Democracy-No-Wait-Republic-I-Mean-Democracy-I-Mean -Fuck-It-Where's-That-Julius-Guy-Let-Him-Run-The-D amn-Show. : D



yes, called a Democrat a "fucking cunt"... probably get -1 flamebait from the do-meaning well-gooders in a heartbeat... so much for an "alternative" party - demoncrats can be just as bugfuck robotic as repubicans

I think we need some sort of blacklist where we keep track of these politicians, and come election time, vote these n00bs out of office.

Nowadays, there's no way to legally replicate such marvellous accomplishments as our fathers bequeathed to us. No more Hoover Dams, no more offshore drilling,

What's Frist have to do with this?

"After 9/11 the gov. should've just let the US economy go through a recession"

But wait ... we did, didn't we? I distinctly remember the Democrats telling us that George Bush was presiding over the worst economy since Herbert Hoover.

DEMOCRATIC POLICY COMMITTEE: "The Bush Economy in 2005: Middle-Class Squeezed, Future Prospects Undermined"
http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_na me=sr-109-2-1

FORBES: "Kerry's uses 'misery index' to hit Bush on economy"
http://www.forbes.com/markets/newswire/2004/04/11/ rtr1328567.html

Surely it must have been true, right? I saw it on TV!

  - AJ

(Oblig Disclaimer: Economically, I think both parties suck.)

Wonderful group you share your opinion with regarding Crichton

It is sad how many people actually believe that Crichton writes with a foundation of solid scientific evidence. It is obscene the manner in which distorted facts get bootstrapped into the datastream by faux public policy organizations.

It is pitiful that the State of Oklahoma offered compelling anecdotal evidence indicating the fallaciousness of intelligent design when they elected Jimmy Inhofe to the Senate.

Inhofe is to a very large degree responsible for Crichton's elevation into the upper level of global warming debate. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, he held a hearing on September 28, 2005 titled "The Role of Science in Environmental Policy-Making", and gave Crichton top-billing as the first speaker.

The last speaker of the hearing was David B. Sandalow, The Brookings Institute's Environmental Scholar, who had previously published a harsh critique of Crichton's environmental views in January, 2006. The Brookings Institute's synopsis of it reads:

"How do people learn about global warming?

That--more than the merits of any scientific argument--is the most interesting question posed by Michael Crichton's State of Fear.

The plot of Crichton's 14th novel is notable mainly for its nuttiness--an MIT professor fights a wellfunded network of eco-terrorists trying to kill thousands by creating spectacular "natural" disasters. But Crichton uses his book as a vehicle for making two substantive arguments. In light of Crichton's high profile and ability to command media attention, these arguments deserve scrutiny.

First, Crichton argues, the scientific evidence for global warming is weak. Crichton rejects many of the conclusions reached by the National Academy of Sciences and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--for example, he does not believe that global temperature increases in recent decades are most likely the result of human activities. In challenging the scientific consensus, Crichton rehashes points familiar to those who follow such issues. These points are unpersuasive, as explained below.

Second, Crichton argues that concern about global warming is best understood as a fad. In particular, he argues that many people concerned about global warming follow a herd mentality, failing critically to examine the data. Crichton is especially harsh in his portrayal of other members of the Hollywood elite, though his critique extends more broadly to the news media, intelligentsia and general public. This argument is more interesting and provocative, though ultimately unpersuasive as well."

Full Op/Ed - David B. Sandalow, 'Michael Crichton and Global Warming", The Brookings Institution, January 28, 2005

Inhofe himself is compelling evidence of American Conservatism's continuing decline. The Sourcewatch Article about Inhofe states that:

On April 28, 2004, Inhofe was honored by the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy -[*]

The Annapolis Center actively argues against the idea that global warming is the result of burning fossil fuels. They also advocate increased logging for better forest health and question rising mercury levels among other things. The Annapolis Center is funded primarily by the National Association of Manufacturers. The Center's founder and COO, Richard Seibert was a former

Wonderful group you share your opinion with regarding Crichton

It is sad how many people actually believe that Crichton writes with a foundation of solid scientific evidence. It is obscene the manner in which distorted facts get bootstrapped into the datastream by faux public policy organizations.

It is pitiful that the State of Oklahoma offered compelling anecdotal evidence indicating the fallaciousness of intelligent design when they elected Jimmy Inhofe to the Senate.

Inhofe is to a very large degree responsible for Crichton's elevation into the upper level of global warming debate. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, he held a hearing on September 28, 2005 titled "The Role of Science in Environmental Policy-Making", and gave Crichton top-billing as the first speaker.

The last speaker of the hearing was David B. Sandalow, The Brookings Institute's Environmental Scholar, who had previously published a harsh critique of Crichton's environmental views in January, 2006. The Brookings Institute's synopsis of it reads:

"How do people learn about global warming?

That--more than the merits of any scientific argument--is the most interesting question posed by Michael Crichton's State of Fear.

The plot of Crichton's 14th novel is notable mainly for its nuttiness--an MIT professor fights a wellfunded network of eco-terrorists trying to kill thousands by creating spectacular "natural" disasters. But Crichton uses his book as a vehicle for making two substantive arguments. In light of Crichton's high profile and ability to command media attention, these arguments deserve scrutiny.

First, Crichton argues, the scientific evidence for global warming is weak. Crichton rejects many of the conclusions reached by the National Academy of Sciences and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--for example, he does not believe that global temperature increases in recent decades are most likely the result of human activities. In challenging the scientific consensus, Crichton rehashes points familiar to those who follow such issues. These points are unpersuasive, as explained below.

Second, Crichton argues that concern about global warming is best understood as a fad. In particular, he argues that many people concerned about global warming follow a herd mentality, failing critically to examine the data. Crichton is especially harsh in his portrayal of other members of the Hollywood elite, though his critique extends more broadly to the news media, intelligentsia and general public. This argument is more interesting and provocative, though ultimately unpersuasive as well."

Full Op/Ed - David B. Sandalow, 'Michael Crichton and Global Warming", The Brookings Institution, January 28, 2005

Inhofe himself is compelling evidence of American Conservatism's continuing decline. The Sourcewatch Article about Inhofe states that:

On April 28, 2004, Inhofe was honored by the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy -[*]

The Annapolis Center actively argues against the idea that global warming is the result of burning fossil fuels. They also advocate increased logging for better forest health and question rising mercury levels among other things. The Annapolis Center is funded primarily by the National Association of Manufacturers. The Center's founder and COO, Richard Seibert was a former

Wonderful group you share your opinion with regarding Crichton

It is sad how many people actually believe that Crichton writes with a foundation of solid scientific evidence. It is obscene the manner in which distorted facts get bootstrapped into the datastream by faux public policy organizations.

It is pitiful that the State of Oklahoma offered compelling anecdotal evidence indicating the fallaciousness of intelligent design when they elected Jimmy Inhofe to the Senate.

Inhofe is to a very large degree responsible for Crichton's elevation into the upper level of global warming debate. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, he held a hearing on September 28, 2005 titled "The Role of Science in Environmental Policy-Making", and gave Crichton top-billing as the first speaker.

The last speaker of the hearing was David B. Sandalow, The Brookings Institute's Environmental Scholar, who had previously published a harsh critique of Crichton's environmental views in January, 2006. The Brookings Institute's synopsis of it reads:

"How do people learn about global warming?

That--more than the merits of any scientific argument--is the most interesting question posed by Michael Crichton's State of Fear.

The plot of Crichton's 14th novel is notable mainly for its nuttiness--an MIT professor fights a wellfunded network of eco-terrorists trying to kill thousands by creating spectacular "natural" disasters. But Crichton uses his book as a vehicle for making two substantive arguments. In light of Crichton's high profile and ability to command media attention, these arguments deserve scrutiny.

First, Crichton argues, the scientific evidence for global warming is weak. Crichton rejects many of the conclusions reached by the National Academy of Sciences and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--for example, he does not believe that global temperature increases in recent decades are most likely the result of human activities. In challenging the scientific consensus, Crichton rehashes points familiar to those who follow such issues. These points are unpersuasive, as explained below.

Second, Crichton argues that concern about global warming is best understood as a fad. In particular, he argues that many people concerned about global warming follow a herd mentality, failing critically to examine the data. Crichton is especially harsh in his portrayal of other members of the Hollywood elite, though his critique extends more broadly to the news media, intelligentsia and general public. This argument is more interesting and provocative, though ultimately unpersuasive as well."

Full Op/Ed - David B. Sandalow, 'Michael Crichton and Global Warming", The Brookings Institution, January 28, 2005

Inhofe himself is compelling evidence of American Conservatism's continuing decline. The Sourcewatch Article about Inhofe states that:

On April 28, 2004, Inhofe was honored by the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy -[*]

The Annapolis Center actively argues against the idea that global warming is the result of burning fossil fuels. They also advocate increased logging for better forest health and question rising mercury levels among other things. The Annapolis Center is funded primarily by the National Association of Manufacturers. The Center's founder and COO, Richard Seibert was a former

I don't know where the 400 million source is, but- that's couldn't cover more than a month or two over a single year
so- in two years, 800,000 per person caught.
see below, FY 05 budget for US-Visit was 340million (for one year) which is 10mill more than the prior year

http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=1034& wit_id=2961

US-VISIT Budget Requests In FY 2003, CBP processed 412.8 million passengers and pedestrians arriving in the U.S. - 327 million at land borders, 70.8 million at international airports, and 15 million at sea ports. The FY 2005 budget seeks $2.7 billion for border security inspections and trade facilitation at ports of entry and $1.8 billion for border security and control between ports of entry. This includes $10 million for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles testing and $64 million for border enforcement technology, such as sensors and cameras. The FY'05 budget provides $340 million for US-VISIT, an increase of $10 million over the FY 2004 funding. Only one month old, US-VISIT has successfully and efficiently recorded the entry of 1,114,119 passengers and the exit of 3,067 travelers without causing delays at ports of entry or hindering

Them I forgive; they're senators, not technologists. But note this well:

As Cresanti pushes to expand the scope and scale of software patents, he knows full well that the term "intellectual property" is problematic at best and outright deceitful at worst. As rms said, when people use this term they are either confused or attempting-to-confuse-you.

The senators are confused. Cresanti is a propagandist

Call AND fax your congressman and senators. Ask to speak to the staffer who deals with either telecommunications or consumer affairs issues. Tell them, nicely, that you have a problem with these regs, and they need to step up. Hard as it is to believe, for the most part, these people really try to listen to their constituents.

House web site: http://www.house.gov/

Senate web site: http://www.senate.gov/

Don't bother mailing, because letters sit in a warehouse for months waiting to get checked for anthrax.

1. supported this administration for other reasons.
2. Have faith in the "Power of the market" to do what is
           desired
3. THink that Politics is someone else's problem.

And consequently way beyond the capacity of our govt. to process. Here's the Commerce Committee's meeting on spectrum reform:
Link

the potential of shared-spectrum tech did not even come up. Instead we got Mr. White of the "Progress and Freedom Foundation" repeatedly telling the committee that the electromagnetic spectrum is just like real estate.

Mr. White, congress, and friends: the spectrum is not just like real estate.

You've got a good memory...

Unfortunately, they know that the best value they can give to the tools they provide is to make them free. But as long as the tools are free, there will always be those parts of society that do not contribute to the costs of their creation. And, unfortunately, that's not a minority of people. When was the last time YOU gave money to OpenBSD?

This quagmire of people being unable to develop that that should be free will not disappear by itself. Resources need to be devoted, and unless people are prepared to actually act, not just talk about it on Slashdot, nothing will ever get done. Apathy is not an option.

You can help by getting off your rear and writing to your congressman or senator. Tell them that critical free software is important to you. Tell them that you appreciate the work being done by the OpenBSD and GNU teams to support you with the software you need in your life but that if cheapskates keep refusing to contribute to the projects, ensuring people like Theo are not forced to hold down proper jobs, you will be forced to use less and less secure and intelligently designed alternatives. Explain the concerns you have about freedom, openness, and choice, and how a lack of money for Free Software harms all three. Let them know that this is an issue that effects YOU directly, that YOU vote, and that your vote will be influenced, indeed dependent, on their policies on funding Free Software.

You CAN make a difference. Don't treat voting as a right, treat it as a duty. Remember, it was thanks to ordinary people like YOU that we are now seeing such innovations as SMP in OpenBSD. Keep informed, keep your political representatives informed on how you feel. And, most importantly of all, vote.

Yeah, he even raised a fuss as it turns out. Good for him. Let's see if the party lets him run for president. As these people go, he seems pretty clean.

We do have interesting abberations in candidate platforms every once in a while. For example, Senator Chafee describes himself as a "pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-Bill of Rights Republican". Well, this is closer to being a libertarian than either a democrat or republican, but he never would have won that way.

I am aged 18, and this post will contain exactly 1 (one) instance of the word "lol"-there.

First, I cannot give support to a group who makes a claim against legislation without quoting the legislation; in this day and age, they should link directly to the bill, or at least the press release. I have this same issue with the NRA, MoveOn, Michael Moore, and just about every other "grassroots" organization.

That aside, the main point of the Video Game Voters Network as it stands appears to be the defeat of The Family Entertainment Protection Act* (Wiki), whose main purpose is Government enforcment of ESRB ratings. I, for one, support (mostly) the ESRB ratings, and do not believe that 12-year-olds should have access to Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. And yes, I have seen 12-year-olds purchase GTA at my local Gamestop (pre-Hot Coffee). I informed the manager that I would never again purchase a game at their store, left, and have never again set foot in any Gamestop.

The problem with the Gaming industry isn't the fear of Government regulation or "oppresive" laws, which don't even punish the developers or gamers, but retailers, and Clinton et al aren't out for the total abolishment of The World As We Know It(tm), but rather out to protect the children of their constituencies. Thus, the Video Game Voters Network shouldn't be out to oppose this legislation, but instead, should be organizing boycotts of EA for re-releasing every Sports games with questionably "better" graphics and AI, much less their employer-practices.

Another anti-business Clinton appointee throwing his weight around, it looks like.

Why is it that Republicans continually spout lies and bullshit when something happens that they don't like and turn the story around to blame the Democrats for it? What is it that you're always angry and pissed off?

Without even bothering to check the facts you instantly blame Clinton, hoping that if you say it with enough conviction people will blindly believe it.

It is blind moronic sheep like yourselves that voted in this insane government, and believe their made up reasons for starting a war. With a straight face you say that Republicans are for small government and spending cuts while Democrats are for big government and spending increases when the facts show the complete opposite!

I'm sick and tired of this propagandist bullshit spewed by Republicans. Republicans need to collectively get their heads out of their asses before they suffocate and take the rest of us with them.

I don't think anyone here of a liberal stripe would argue that things wouldn't be better under Gore/Kerry/etc. What CyricZ and like minded /.ers are saying is that on many key issues there is no substantive difference between the Democrats and Republicans.

Examples:

USA PATRIOT Act renewal
Bankruptcy "reform"
Highway Pork Bill

I can come up with more examples if you like.

Notice we are not saying the Republicans and Democrats are the same. We are saying that they are close enough to warrant voting for someone other than them.

I don't think anyone here of a liberal stripe would argue that things wouldn't be better under Gore/Kerry/etc. What CyricZ and like minded /.ers are saying is that on many key issues there is no substantive difference between the Democrats and Republicans.

Examples:

USA PATRIOT Act renewal
Bankruptcy "reform"
Highway Pork Bill

I can come up with more examples if you like.

Notice we are not saying the Republicans and Democrats are the same. We are saying that they are close enough to warrant voting for someone other than them.

I don't think anyone here of a liberal stripe would argue that things wouldn't be better under Gore/Kerry/etc. What CyricZ and like minded /.ers are saying is that on many key issues there is no substantive difference between the Democrats and Republicans.

Examples:

USA PATRIOT Act renewal
Bankruptcy "reform"
Highway Pork Bill

I can come up with more examples if you like.

Notice we are not saying the Republicans and Democrats are the same. We are saying that they are close enough to warrant voting for someone other than them.

Senator Russ Feingold voted against the original USA PATRIOT Act and still has quite wide support here in Wisconsin (52% of residents would like to see him run for president). Why? Because he's a great Senator. He's had hundreds of meetings with the public, doesn't simply toe party lines, and does lots of genuinely great stuff. Maybe if more politicians had some merit besides their images they wouldn't have to worry about what things would look like and could focus on what things would work.

Here's a statement he made on this act: http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/06 /02/2006215.html

Patriot Act Official Vote listing

Pindicks everyone of them. Perhaps if there were some technologists, scientists, etc., in the Senate and the House we'd get a more representative body for the People? Stop voting Democrat and Republican. Vote Libertarian, Independent or whatever party that doesn't continue this glorious burden.

There are 10 true patriots out there

So you know who to vote for in the next election, here's the list of those ten:

NAYs ---10
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Byrd (D-WV)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Murray (D-WA)
Wyden (D-OR)

And not voting:
Inouye (D-HI)

The link:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_li sts/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2& vote=00029

Check out the senate roll call [www.senate.gov] for the vote breakdown. Here's the only 10 senators with enough guts to stand up for america's civil liberties: Akaka (D-HI) Bingaman (D-NM) Byrd (D-WV) Feingold (D-WI) Harkin (D-IA) Jeffords (I-VT) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Murray (D-WA) Wyden (D-OR) I realize some other senators were trying to compromise and we don't live in a perfect society and blah blah blah. But this was just too important of a vote to play political games. If you're against the Patriot Act, these 10 people are the only incumbents who deserve your vote this November!

This may not be what you're talking about, but it is what I'm talking about. And, in fact, it appears to be what the bill is talking about, at least in part. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the bill itself on-line, but I did fine the press release: "Not being allowed to create a priority lane where content providers can buy quicker access to customers, while those who do not pay the fee are left in the slow lane;" I'm suggesting that this applies as equally to content providers paying for QoS as it does for them paying for filtering by source.

It's really long, but he's toward the beginning of it. Good stuff: http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/witnesslist.cf m?id=1705

Everyone, please understand how extremely easy it is to contact your senator to voice your opinion regarding this. http://www.senate.gov/

In the upper right hand corner is a "Senator search". Click the state you live in and your two senators websites will be listed. Most (if not all) of the senators are available via email. Voice your opinion in a calm professional manner.

Too many people sit back and watch democracy happen around them. If every single person who read this story voiced their opinion about it to their senator (whether they agree or disagree), there would be tens of thousands of emails (as oppossed to maybe a couple hundred).

It's just to easy to voice your opinion to your senator these days. You would be throwing away a huge opportunity if you didn't.

Senator Ron Wyden, D-OR, has proposed quite a bit of legislation regarding technology topics. The CAN-SPAM Act was proposed (later passed and signed) by him and another Senator; other legislation proposed includes protecting consumers from spyware, making permanent a ban on the taxation of Internet access and sales over the Internet first put into place by Wyden in 1998 (but set to expire in 2007), and protecting consumers' right to fair use of digital media.

Senator Ron Wyden, D-OR, has proposed quite a bit of legislation regarding technology topics. The CAN-SPAM Act was proposed (later passed and signed) by him and another Senator; other legislation proposed includes protecting consumers from spyware, making permanent a ban on the taxation of Internet access and sales over the Internet first put into place by Wyden in 1998 (but set to expire in 2007), and protecting consumers' right to fair use of digital media.

Senator Ron Wyden, D-OR, has proposed quite a bit of legislation regarding technology topics. The CAN-SPAM Act was proposed (later passed and signed) by him and another Senator; other legislation proposed includes protecting consumers from spyware, making permanent a ban on the taxation of Internet access and sales over the Internet first put into place by Wyden in 1998 (but set to expire in 2007), and protecting consumers' right to fair use of digital media.

Senator Ron Wyden, D-OR, has proposed quite a bit of legislation regarding technology topics. The CAN-SPAM Act was proposed (later passed and signed) by him and another Senator; other legislation proposed includes protecting consumers from spyware, making permanent a ban on the taxation of Internet access and sales over the Internet first put into place by Wyden in 1998 (but set to expire in 2007), and protecting consumers' right to fair use of digital media.

Senator Ron Wyden, D-OR, has proposed quite a bit of legislation regarding technology topics. The CAN-SPAM Act was proposed (later passed and signed) by him and another Senator; other legislation proposed includes protecting consumers from spyware, making permanent a ban on the taxation of Internet access and sales over the Internet first put into place by Wyden in 1998 (but set to expire in 2007), and protecting consumers' right to fair use of digital media.

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