Slashdot Mirror

miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure war criminal

miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure war criminal

miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure war criminal

Can you even prove he was in the room at the time it was brought up?

Hmm...let's see. Let's look at your parent, shall we?

since the fact that he voted for it is a matter of public record

And here's the record.

Unless there's something seriously wrong the Congressional Record, it looks like people did vote for this one.

You have enough interest to understand the justification for antitrust law, but boredom must have set in before you learned about its practical consequences. You've accepted the theoretical justification for something that has proven itself a failure time and time again.

The post you linked to presents a naive position: that antitrust law is a second rate solution to problems price controls could better solve. In theory, antitrust is a shield for consumers. In practice, it's always been a sword for class action law firms and uncompetitive rivals.

Read about antitrust's "biggest hits": Great Northern, Standard Oil, IBM. The actual result of antitrust is always antithetical to its purpose.

You are not required to vote in the Senate, but I checked and Kerry did vote yea .

On a more fundamental - or fundamentalist - level, we have two conflicting world views.

Hmm. I'm not so sure that they need to be in conflict.

bin-laden wants fundamentalist islamic states everywhere. The West wants pluralistic, open societies.

Okay, then I'll ask, why does the West want
"pluralistic, open societies"? Why not let the citizens of a given country determine what they want? If fundamentalist Islamic states really aren't that great, wouldn't it be better to let the people in a given country realize that, by simply working on making one's *own* non-fundamentalist country an example of a really great place to live, rather than trying to force other people to a particular world view? I mean, even if you're right, people tend to heavily resist being *made* to do something. One of the reasons that people dislike the US so heavily is because the US has its fingers in the politics of so many other countries where it really doesn't have a lot of justification being.

The original justification the US used that I can think of for global justification is in the anti-communism issue. Regardless of whether the US made a good decision, there was still *some* reason -- there was a significant mindset that for communism to work, a fully global revolution was required. As a result, the US worried that communist nations would try to produce US-based communist uprisings in the short term (note that we were in the same position, afraid of meddling, that other countries are now). With the claimed justification (rightly or not) of self-defense, the US started working hard to block the advance of communism and ensure that communist regimes failed.

However, there is no such justification for preventing Islamic fundamentalist states from existing. Said fundamentalist states do not have a particular reason for trying to cause a revolution in the United States (unless they are being threatened by the United States). Why does Al Quaeda have issues with the United States and Iraq? Iraq because the nation is heavily Islamic, but the regime forces a heavily secular government, and the United States (because of a lot of reasons, and I'm sure there are some that I'm unaware of, but a major one that the US tends to pursue opposing fundamentalist Islamic states, that there is a perception that the US does not respect Islamic values). Consider this report, or this. Given that these sorts of efforts, based on history, seem much likely to produce a long-term solution than invading countries, why are we putting so vastly much less effort into non-combat solutions?

That doesn't mean that "I'll be nice to you" policies always result in another person being nice back -- but it requires a fair amount of *something* to produce global networks of people who are willing to give their lives to hurt you.

As a senator, John Kerry may have given his vote, and as President, George Bush signed it, but these two wrote it, not Bush or Kerry. The CAN-SPAM act may be pretty bad, but Bush and Kerry didn't put loopholes into it to help their campaigns. If you're going to put political jabs into news posts, please do a little research first. :)

transport it to the ethanol plant

Hell, I'm pretty sure that most of my dad's cousins still have an "ethanol plant" hidden back behind the barn.

what you'll make your fertilizer from

spent mash, corn waste, hay. Feed it to the "fertilizer plant", get bacon whenever you "upgrade" the factory.

how you'll get your ethanol to your hydrogen plant all without using any fossil fuels...

RTFA. The unit does that for you.

Ethanol can be produced from agricultural by-products as well (such as corn-cobs and stalks, rice and wheat straw, etc.), not just whole grain. Alongside renewable natural gas, this technology could reduce farm waste and agicultural surplus problems, reduce America's dependance on fossil fuels, help balance the trade deficit, and help family owned farms stay in business while reducing the cost of energy for the end user. All good things, IMHO.

A lot of people will be crying at the demise of the oil import giants, but I am certainly not one of them.

* The web site doesn't work but what can you expect from the US Senate?

There's no proof, of course.

Neither was there proof in the recent "Tony Blair's administration cooked the books on Iraqi intelligence" BBC creative writing assignment. The fallout over the BBC's fictional journalism led to several top BBC officials resigning (one before he was canned).

The BBC, NPR in the US, NYTimes and many other forth estate entities have long given up on objective journalism, instead being acquired by leftist politicians (just as numerous political offices such as this one, this one and that one are nothing more than hired hands for wealthy elites).

Progressive/left-leaning slashdotters are going to have to open their eyes a bit on the back-stabbing of their peers in the media. It's ok when they're stabbing other victims, but when they're selling the Linux world out through their relativist journalism, it gets personal.

Opposed to intellectual property theft? Don't support the Trial Attorney Racket Protection Association of America
Disagree with patent giveways? Don't support the Country Club Empowerment Association of America
Support your own liberty!

One word: Democrats.

The pre-bust Real fortune was used to finance the US Senate candidacy of one Maria Cantwell, D-WA, former 'Senior Vice President of Consumer Products at RealNetworks':

http://cantwell.senate.gov/about/index.html

ADA 100% Liberal Voting Record, 2001
[PDF DOCUMENT]

PS: All the RIAA and MPAA types that you people hate so much are Democrats [what we out here in fly-over country would call 'Limousine Liberals'].

What about the U.S. Senate? They have senatorsname.senate.gov and the e-mail address to match that.

I believe that the US Senate has used this newly-patented scheme for assigning URLs and e-mail addresses to its members for a number of years now.

However, note that the patent also embraces e-mail to snail-mail/fax translators and things of that nature. (Of course, the senators have those too... they're called interns!)

AC.

The first thing I would do would be to learn as much as you can about the current system, find out exactly what the requirments are for filing, allowing and rejecting patents. Also read the PTO's 21st Centruy Strategic Plan to see what they are already planning on changing. It would also be good to find out if any bills are before Congress that would improve the situation.

After that, write (on real paper, sent through the old fashioned mail system) a letter to your Senators and Representavies explaining the current problems with the system and how they should be fixed, if you do find current legislation before either house that you agree with, tell them that you would like to see them vote (yes/no) on that bill.

It is important to know exactly how the current system operates before you attempt to change it. Once you know what is currently in place, you will have a much better idea of what needs to be changed, and be able to write a much more conving letter to your members of Congress.

Note that this method, with a little modification, may work for other problems that you see with US government and laws.

To summarize in a way any slashdotter can understand:

1) Learn as much as you can about the current system
2) Identify problems in current system
3) Write Congress concerning those problems
4) ???
5) Profit!!!

SCO's actions seem rather hard to distinguish from organized shake down techniques. What would it take to get a RICO investigation started? The Feds seem to have little trouble with another three-letter acronym for fraud - maybe another few months and they'll get to the latter part of the alphabet?

Or does hiring a U.S. Senator's son automatically indemnify SCO from RICO prosecution?

The senate has their own Ethics Manual which should result in penulties for "improper conduct".

From the manual: "In 1811, the Senate censured Senator Thomas Pickering for reading a confidential communication on the Senate floor, despite the fact that there was no written rule prohibiting such conduct."

Yes I saw that, but that does not change their vote which is recorded in the offical Senate record and can be looked at by anyone at http://www.senate.gov.

These guys voted for it plain and simple.


One man with courage makes a majority.

Proof is right here.

Nearly 60 Clinton nominees were not given hearings and/or votes, and others were filibustered or waited years to get their hearings.

At the time Democrats took over leadership of the Judiciary Committee in the summer of 2001, Democrats inherited 110 vacancies, and 40 additional vacancies occurred while Democrats were in charge. The Democratic Senate confirmed 100 Bush judicial nominees - 17 circuit and 83 district - in only 17 months. Presumably, nearly all 100 confirmed by the Democratic-led Senate were pro-life, conservative Republican nominees. The Democratic pace was faster and fairer than Republicans' pace since their slowdown began in 1996. Last year (2002) was the best single year (in terms of numbers of judicial nominees confirmed) since 1994.

Here is one of many counterexamples to your SCO and Microsoft, et al own the media: Boise joins SCO Shakedown. Is "shakedown" a word you would expect to find in an article bought and paid for from Forbes, a business news organization. I've read many media accounts of this; they do not just parrot lies for SCO.

We have a great ally in IBM. Even if they are only our ally by neccessity, fine. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, at least for now.

Many organizations have strong lobbies in Congress. However, it is unfortunate that this will probably not come to affect the way most of us will vote. There are too many other issues.

Also, as I continue my rant, let me link this jerk who we not long ago considered to be a puppet for some organization interested in limiting our freedom to do what we want with our computers.

I'm going to post this rant again next time something dumb like this comes up early in the discussion. We have not lost the battle before it began. SCO's lawyer is clearly nowhere near perfect and IBM has an army of lawyers and a big stake in this.

The attendees that the Sen. Coleman plans to invite are "the technology experts, the computer industry, the peer-to-peer industry, the software industry, the entertainment industry, the privacy experts and the business experts".

Which of these groups are going to argue for less blocking and IP-control technology? Which of these groups will argue that copyright is broken and that technological restrictions will make it harder or impossible to repeal copyright law?

Will any of these attendees even consider P2P as a fair-use technique? Where are the small bands, academia, librarians, and consumer advocates?

This won't be a summit, it'll be a choir preaching to itself, a kangaroo court, a stacked deck.

Hey, you Minnesota slashdotters, get writing!

"U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman plans to convene a peer-to-peer (P2P) summit within the next two months in hopes of avoiding a federally mandated response to online piracy."

However, it doesn't appear to be in his press release.

"The spasm of activity is aimed at attracting voluntary subscribers to the lawmakers' e-mail lists, "

Voluntary, my *ss...

After writing my representatives via email a few months back, one of my Senators (Lamar Alexander (TN)) saw fit to add me to his mailing list.

I guess if you choose to express your opinion on the issues, you're opting in to be spammed.

But producers of audio-playback devices are stuck with a problem: because the vast bulk of digital sound out there stored on PCs is in MP3 format, they have to support MP3, and both Microsoft and Apple are not helping by pushing users to their own particular patented formats, thus providing little incentive to support an open format. This causes problems: it encourages people to continue using the closed formats, and that in turn encourages manufacturers to only support the closed formats. This is wrong, seriously wrong, and serious issues of liberty - both personal and civil - are at stake here. For without an open format, the plug can be pulled.

This quagmire of open formats dying because they need to dominate the market before they can dominate the market 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 free and open music is important to you. Tell them that you appreciate the work being done by the open source and free software communities to create an infrastructure that will support truly free - as in liberty - music, but that if the problem of lack of commercial support for open file formats is not resolved, you will be forced to use less and less secure and intelligently designed alternatives. Let them know that SMP may make or break whether you can efficiently deploy OpenBSD on your workstations and servers. Explain the concerns you have about freedom, openness, and choice, and how patented file formats 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 open file formats.

You CAN make a difference. Don't treat voting as a right, treat it as a duty. Keep informed, keep your political representatives informed on how you feel. And, most importantly of all, vote.

CNN did a study earlier this year, to check the personal finances of American Senators. The reason behind this is, due to new campaign finance laws, if you decide to privately fund your campaign, you are not held to the free speach restrictions telling you when you may broadcast your commercials... but I digress.

At the time (Jun 13), only 40 out of 100 were millionaires, with 22 of those Republican and 18 of those Democrat. Of the same group of 40, 6 were Women and 34 were Men. The top 3 wealthiest are all Democrat.

From a blurb at the bottom, there are at least a few "common" people in the Senate... "at least 10 senators reported net worths of less than $100,000." Still a substantial salary in my opinion.

Not surprisingly, the founding fathers had a more "ogliarch" view of government. Benjamin Franklin believed that if the Senators were not given a salary, then only the wealthy could afford to spend their free time governing the nation. He was voted down, and congress instituted a salary of $6 per day.

Propenents of Open Source solutions for electronic voting systems should be concerned about this. I see no mention of this at Boxer's website, so it's hard to say exactly how this might be worded. But clearly, the process of performing and verifying such a vetting could be problematic for a distributed, volunteer development effort. Would it be just the "official" maintainers who would be subject to such constraints, or would such requirements require that patches submitted by non-vetted contributors be rejected purely on those grounds? My concern is that voting software should be evaluated and put into use on technical grounds, and in the pursuit of using the best available methods, we shouldn't be placing barriers into place which preclude the selection of well-written software.

Which one of David Kay's reports? Kay's most recent report conceded that there were NO production plants manufacturing chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Some work had been done in the lab on bacteria, but they had not been weaponised.

Kay's belief on Iraq trying to manufacture centrifuges to make enriched uranium is not supported by the IAEA or the American Department of Energy.

whether he actually had them or not, and that was never in dispute among any intel agency, even the french, russians, and germans, what we DO KNOW, is that he did have them, did use them, did have extensive programs,

All of which were destroyed by the UN after the first Gulf War. Even the supposed 10 000 litres of anthrax is nothing more than the maximum amount of liquid growth medium that could have been created from the missing stocks - all of which would have expired now.

The only thing that brought those inspections to an end was that the very same David Kay had allowed his inspection teams to become covers for British and American intelligence. The Iraqis objected to spies wondering around their country under UN cover (and can you name another country that refused to allow intrusive inspections? Here's a clue)

Kay's spent much of the last few years saying what a great idea it would be to attack Iraq (here and here and here and here and here and here) to get rid of weapons of mass destruction. So if they aren't found, it's David Kay who is going to look stupid. He's already had to do some serious back-pedalling on the nuclear programme, centrifuges, those trucks that were supposedly mobile labs

The BBC's 'Panorama' got some good quotes out of Kay. I recommend a read of the transcript.

But why blame David Kay, here is an assessment of Saddam Hussein's capabilities straight from the top:

'He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction, he is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours.'
Colin Powell. (24th February 2001)

Best wishes,
Mike.

From Bob Graham's site, the following quote is from Graham's comments on the Iraq resolution before the war, clearly reflecting US intelligence reports, recently (at that time) declassified, which stated the US would be less safe if we invaded Iraq.

Bob Graham said:

I would also like to reinforce my conviction that this resolution forces the President to focus our military and intelligence on the wrong target. A historical example, which has been used in this debate, is the example of the 1930s- that England, France and other nations would eventually join in the world's greatest alliance, slept, while Hitler's power grew.

They say that passing this resolution is the equivalent of if the Alllies had declared war on Hitler. I disagree with that assessment of what this lesson of history means. In my judgment, passing this resolution tonight will be the equivalent of declaring war on Italy. That is not what we should be doing. We should not just be declaring war on Mussolini's Italy. We should be declaring war on Hitler's Germany.

Now, there are good reasons for considering attacking today's Italy, meaning Iraq. Saddam Hussein's regime has chemical and biological weapons and is trying to get nuclear capacity. But the briefings I have received have shown that trying to block him and any necessary nuclear materials have been largely successful, as evidenced by the recent intercept of centrifuge tubes. And he is years away from having nuclear capability. So why does it make sense to attack this era's Italy, and not Germany, especially when by attacking Italy, we are making Germany a more probable adversary?

Madam President, the CIA has warned us that international terrorist organizations will probably use United States action against Iraq as an indication for striking us here in the homeland.

You might ask, what does the word 'probably' mean in intelligence speak? It probably means that there is a 75 percent greater chance of the event occurring. And the event is that international terrorist organizations will use United States actions against Iraq as a justification for striking us here in the homeland. Let me read a declassified briefing of the CIA report presented to the Select Committee on Intelligence:

"Baghdad, for now, appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or chemical or biological weapons against the U.S.

"Should Saddam conclude that U.S-led attacks could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions.

"Such terrorism might involve conventional means, as with Iraq's unsuccessful attempt at a terrorsit offensive in 1991, or [chemical and biological weapons].

"Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamic terrorists in conducting a [weapon of mass destruction] attack against the United States would be his last chance of exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him."

Madam President, in other words, odds of another strike against the people of the United States by Al Qaeda or another international terrorist group goes up when we attack Baghdad.

The President should be in the most advantageous position to protect Americans - to launch pre-emptive strikes and hack off the heads of these snakes. With the resolution before us, we are denying the President that opportunity. And we are sending confusing signals to our people and to our allies as to the sincerity of our commitment to the war on terrorism.


End quote.

Again, this is before the invasion. US intelligence thought the US would be less safe even given that Iraq may have some WMD. _______________________________________________

If everyone who reads Slashdot let their senators and representatives know they support HR 2239, it would have a much better chance of passing.

That is, if such legislature can still get past this administration... let's rally while we can!

Actually, Graham's Voter Verification Act requires openly available software. from the pdf of the proposed legislation:

Sec. 4:
(C) SOFTWARE AND MODEMS.
(i) No voting system shall at any time contain or use undisclosed software. Any voting system containing or using software shall disclose the source code of that software to the Commission, and the Commission shall make that source code available for inspection upon request to any citizen.

Actually, Graham's Voter Verification Act requires openly available software. from the pdf of the proposed legislation:

Sec. 4:
(C) SOFTWARE AND MODEMS.
(i) No voting system shall at any time contain or use undisclosed software. Any voting system containing or using software shall disclose the source code of that software to the Commission, and the Commission shall make that source code available for inspection upon request to any citizen.

The bill is S. 1933. It doesn't appear that Congress' website has the text of the legislation up yet, but I believe this link will take you there when it's up. (Congress has a weird linking scheme, so I'm not quite sure if that's a temporary or permanent link.) Now, don't Slashdot Congress, kids ... Homeland Security's just looking for an excuse to visit Cmdr. Taco. ("Now, sir, why do they people who go to this website call you by a military title? What sort of militia are you building up?")

The bill is S. 1933. It doesn't appear that Congress' website has the text of the legislation up yet, but I believe this link will take you there when it's up. (Congress has a weird linking scheme, so I'm not quite sure if that's a temporary or permanent link.) Now, don't Slashdot Congress, kids ... Homeland Security's just looking for an excuse to visit Cmdr. Taco. ("Now, sir, why do they people who go to this website call you by a military title? What sort of militia are you building up?")

Chances are, your Congresscritter and Senators voted YES!!! But to be absolutely sure:

• Congressional roll call vote
• Senatorial roll call vote

You want a person clueless enough to screw this up deciding what high-tech weapons systems DOD gets, or what NASA projects need funding, or about anything else having to do with the Internet? The Net isn't just about geeks anymore. It's the communications backbone on which governmental, military, and business communications depend. Imagine the kind of traffic the last Windows megavirus attack being normal on the Internet. Is this likely to improve its efficiency?

Will this help businesses (other than spam) function better? Would you like to be in a war zone and discover that you can't find what the hell you've been ordered to do because your inbox is full of "Penile Enlargement" messages, each in full compliance with S.877 with a real snailmail address on the bottom?

Most of us have been saying for years that our Congress is dangerously and fundamentally clueless about technology. The DMCA passed by comparable majorities. At least in areas where the voting machines aren't e-votescam hardware, we might have a chance to get rid of some of these idiots.

This is about to become proof visible even to Joe Sixpack that Congress does NOT know what the fuck is doing. IF Joe Sixpack is told what it means. The typical Internet user is Joe Sixpack now.

Don't depend on the media to get this story out.

Finally, here's the honor roll of every single member of Congress who voted NO. (there aren't any Senators who opposed this. Vote for these guys and support them, regardless of what you think of the rest of their political views.

• Honda
• Kucinich
• Paul
• Jackson-Lee (TX)
• Lofgren

If Joe Sixpack is getting 50 spams a day instead of 20, and he is informed that a law passed by his representatives made this possible, he'll get it. So as soon as this happens, tell your non-tech friends and families and co-workers.

Don't worry about the "Do Not Spam" registry, anyone who opts out of US spam will get it replaced by Nigerian and Chinese and Taiwanese spam. How long before spam ads for the "Do Not Spam" registry CD of "XX million e-mail addresses confirmed by the US Government" show upin your e-mail?

This is a unique opportunity. Don't let it go to waste.

Some of the changes are listed in a news release from Sentator Burns' website:

The final CAN SPAM Act includes changes not in the earlier Senate passed version, including increased damages up to $250 per spam e-mail with a cap of $2 million that can be tripled for aggravated violations. For e-mails using false or deceptive headers, the cap does not apply. Additionally, the revisions to the earlier bill enhance FTC enforcement authority.

This means that the House gets to vote again on the revised bill - probably after Thanksgiving

"Other portions of the funding bill eliminate annual reports to Congress on several controversial matters, such as foreign companies' involvement in the spread of weapons of mass destruction, the effectiveness of the intelligence community and antidrug efforts."

"The bill also nixes reports on how many times national security letters are used to access individuals' credit reports. "

Chances are, your Congresscritter and Senators voted YES!!! But to be absolutely sure,

Congresionnal roll call vote

Senatorial roll call vote And if your representatives voted YES, vote for ANYBODY else. This isn't just about screwing up our inboxes and the Internet itself. A Yes vote means that the representative is so dangerously and completely clueless about technology as to endanger us all.

You want a person clueless enough to screw this up deciding what high-tech weapons systems DOD gets, or what NASA projects need funding, or about anything else having to do with the Internet? The Net isn't just about geeks anymore. It's the communications backbone on which governmental, military, and business communications depend. Imagine the kind of traffic the last Windows megavirus attack being normal on the Internet. Is this likely to improve its efficiency?

Will this help businesses (other than spam) function better? Would you like to be in a war zone and discover that you can't find what the hell you've been ordered to do because your inbox is full of "Penile Enlargement" messages, each in full compliance with S.877 with a real snailmail address on the bottom?

Most of us have been saying for years that our Congress is dangerously and fundamentally clueless about technology. The DMCA passed by comparable majorities. At least in areas where the voting machines aren't e-votescam hardware, we might have a chance to get rid of some of these idiots.

This is about to become proof visible even to Joe Sixpack that Congress does NOT know what the fuck is doing. IF Joe Sixpack is told what it means. The typical Internet user is Joe Sixpack now.

Don't depend on the media to get this story out.

Finally, here's the honor roll of every single member of Congress who voted NO. (there aren't any Senators who opposed this. Vote for these guys and support them, regardless of what you think of the rest of their political views.

• Honda
• Kucinich
• Paul
• Jackson-Lee (TX)
• Lofgren

We know that bad decisions about technology by elected officials can endanger our jobs, the economy, public safety, and the lives of members of our armed forces. So far, it's just us that knows because the comprehension gap between us and Joe Sixpack is just far too great.

If Joe Sixpack is getting 50 spams a day instead of 20, and he is informed that a law passed by his representatives made this possible, he'll get it. So as soon as this happens, tell your non-tech friends and families and co-workers.

Don't worry about the "Do Not Spam" registry, anyone who opts out of US spam will get it replaced by Nigerian and Chinese and Taiwanese spam. How long before spam ads for the "Do Not Spam" registry CD of "XX million e-mail addresses confirmed by the US Government" show upin your e-mail?

This is a unique opportunity. Don't let it go to waste.

As usual, Slashdot is pissing and moaning to the WRONG PLACE. If you want the government off the back of the Internet, TELL A SENATOR. You can contact Dayton here:
Webform

Here's the URL:

http://dayton.senate.gov/webform.html

And my letter to Mr. Dayton:

Mr. Dayton,

It has come to my attention (via today's Star Tribune) that you are proposing an e-mail tax as a possible solution to curbing unsolicited e-mail (SPAM). As an e-mail administrator, I'd like to explain to you why this is a fruitless effort and, in general, a really bad idea.

Let's start with how e-mail works. E-mail is transmitted from one e-mail server to another e-mail server. On server A, the e-mail server software opens a connection to server B. There's some handshaking between the two servers, the mail is sent, error checked, and then the connection is closed. My question is of a technical nature. HOW can you tax that? There's no magical central server. In order to impose a tax, you'd have to impliment code in every e-mail server package to report to a central server. Sounds good in theory, but do you know how many THOUSANDS of e-mail server software packages are out there? Way too many to impliment.

Now, let's look at spammers. Spam is already sent with forged information, usually bounced off servers overseas. Look at the headers of some of the spam you've received lately. You'll porbably see .jp and .il domains listed as relay servers. Japan and Italy? How are you going to tax that?

Ok, now let's out the two together. My mom who uses e-mail legitimately would be taxed for each message sent. Spammers who send millions of messages a day could use a server package that doesn't report to your magical metering server, bounces messages off servers in Japan, and is then received by my mom. That's right, my mom gets taxed for no reason and the spammer goes about his business untaxed. E-mail tax is unenforceable and easily avoided. Please don't punish innocent netizens with a rediculous measure that won't work.

...about technical issues. One of the co-sponsors of the bill can't seem to get her websites working.

http://lgraham.senate.gov/

http://www.lindseygraham.com/

In fact the whole senate.gov domain isn't even working. Guess the best way to stop piracy is to stop sharing files of any kind.

Co-sponsor Senator Hatch may be bias toward media companies. After all, I'm sure he's got a lot to lose if his work was pirated.

"I'm Goin' to Pray for this Land" indeed!

...about technical issues. One of the co-sponsors of the bill can't seem to get her websites working.

http://lgraham.senate.gov/

http://www.lindseygraham.com/

In fact the whole senate.gov domain isn't even working. Guess the best way to stop piracy is to stop sharing files of any kind.

Co-sponsor Senator Hatch may be bias toward media companies. After all, I'm sure he's got a lot to lose if his work was pirated.

"I'm Goin' to Pray for this Land" indeed!

"Every nation has the right to act preemptively if it faces an imminent and grave threat. But the threat we face, today, with Iraq fails the test."
John Kerry, Oct. 9, 2002

"The resolution before us today is not only a product of haste; it is also a product of presidential hubris. This resolution is breathtaking in its scope. It redefines the nature of defense, and reinterprets the Constitution to suit the will of the Executive Branch. It would give the President blanket authority to launch a unilateral preemptive attack on a sovereign nation that is perceived to be a threat to the United States. This is an unprecedented and unfounded interpretation of the President's authority under the Constitution, not to mention the fact that it stands the charter of the United Nations on its head."
Robert Byrd, October 3, 2002

"So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. ... As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action. "
John Kerry, Jan. 23, 2003
[Kerry implies there is no imminent threat, why is he so vague though? I hate him.]

"There is clearly a threat from Iraq, and there is clearly a danger, but the Administration has not made a convincing case that we face such an imminent threat to our national security that a unilateral, pre-emptive American strike and an immediate war are necessary."
Ted Kennedy, Sep. 27, 2002

"Moreover, no international law can prevent the United States from taking actions to protect its vital interests, when it is manifestly clear that there is a choice to be made between law and survival. I believe, however, that such a choice is not presented in the case of Iraq."
Al Gore, Sep. 23, 2002

"A 'go it alone' approach where we attack Iraq without the support and participation of the world community would be very different - it would entail grave risks and could have serious consequences for U.S. interests in the Middle East and around the world."
Carl Levin, Sep. 19, 2002
[Also, Levin's quote from the main bit starts out "We begin with the common belief..." which implies he is simply making note of what line Bush is pushing.]

As for Graham, Pelosi, the Clintons or Albright.. I don't know what they have to do with the Democratic Presidential candidates... This is all about whether them Dems are hypocrites by now saying Hussein was never an imminent threat since everyone can see that they CLEARLY said the exact opposite!!! gasp! If I get bored I'll analyse Rockefeller, Waxman and the Clintons.. But, to paraphrase the Merovingian, "This is all a game.. it doesn't matter. It is a silly game."


p

"Every nation has the right to act preemptively if it faces an imminent and grave threat. But the threat we face, today, with Iraq fails the test."
John Kerry, Oct. 9, 2002

"The resolution before us today is not only a product of haste; it is also a product of presidential hubris. This resolution is breathtaking in its scope. It redefines the nature of defense, and reinterprets the Constitution to suit the will of the Executive Branch. It would give the President blanket authority to launch a unilateral preemptive attack on a sovereign nation that is perceived to be a threat to the United States. This is an unprecedented and unfounded interpretation of the President's authority under the Constitution, not to mention the fact that it stands the charter of the United Nations on its head."
Robert Byrd, October 3, 2002

"So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. ... As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action. "
John Kerry, Jan. 23, 2003
[Kerry implies there is no imminent threat, why is he so vague though? I hate him.]

"There is clearly a threat from Iraq, and there is clearly a danger, but the Administration has not made a convincing case that we face such an imminent threat to our national security that a unilateral, pre-emptive American strike and an immediate war are necessary."
Ted Kennedy, Sep. 27, 2002

"Moreover, no international law can prevent the United States from taking actions to protect its vital interests, when it is manifestly clear that there is a choice to be made between law and survival. I believe, however, that such a choice is not presented in the case of Iraq."
Al Gore, Sep. 23, 2002

"A 'go it alone' approach where we attack Iraq without the support and participation of the world community would be very different - it would entail grave risks and could have serious consequences for U.S. interests in the Middle East and around the world."
Carl Levin, Sep. 19, 2002
[Also, Levin's quote from the main bit starts out "We begin with the common belief..." which implies he is simply making note of what line Bush is pushing.]

As for Graham, Pelosi, the Clintons or Albright.. I don't know what they have to do with the Democratic Presidential candidates... This is all about whether them Dems are hypocrites by now saying Hussein was never an imminent threat since everyone can see that they CLEARLY said the exact opposite!!! gasp! If I get bored I'll analyse Rockefeller, Waxman and the Clintons.. But, to paraphrase the Merovingian, "This is all a game.. it doesn't matter. It is a silly game."


p

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) and others, Dec. 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

I've always thought the Moon would be a great place for a telescope, and he lays it all out in detail, including:

• The Shackleton crater near the south pole is so deep it never gets sunlight.
• Its rim, however, gets continual sunlight, so would be perfect for a solar-powered base
• The ice cap provides lots of water for drinking and hydrolyzing into air(O2) and fuel(h2)
• As a start, you could build a spinning-liquid telescope that points straight up, perfect for deep-field observation
• Later on, you could build a huge optical scope, or even cover the whole crater with an interferometric array
• nearby is one of the oldest, most geologically interesting craters on the moon

He does miss one trick, which is that the moon itself provides the stiff structure required for long-baseline interferometry, which would be necessary to image planets around other stars.

It's really nice to see this idea wrapped up in a neat package.

Wow, this is cool. According to the Committee's site, we could have watched a live webcast of the hearings. Too late now, though.

Anyone know where to get the transcript?

But this is a fight we have to take on locally. Find out what's used in your district. If they use black-box machines with no paper trail (virtually everyone does) then hit 'em with a big ole ream of this. Send it your city councilmember, call your Congresscritter and your Senators, bitch to your local paper, blog. Do something.

My favourite excerpts:

"I need some answers! Our department is being audited by the County. I have been waiting for someone to give me an explanation as to why Precinct 216 gave Al Gore a minus 16022 when it was uploaded. Will someone please explain this so that I have the information to give the auditor instead of standing here "looking dumb"." [source: http://chroot.net/s/lists/support.w3archive/200101 /msg00068.html ]

Or how about:

In response to a question about a presentation in El Paso County, Colorado: "For a demonstration I suggest you fake it. Progam them both so they look the same, and then just do the upload fro [sic] the AV. That is what we did in the last AT/AV demo." [source: http://chroot.net/s/lists/support.w3archive/199903 /msg00098.html ]

Or even:

"Elections are not rocket science. Why is it so hard to get things right! I have never been at any other company that has been so miss [sic] managed." [source: http://chroot.net/s/lists/announce.w3archive/20011 0/msg00002.html ]

Makes me feel all warm and gooey inside, but not in that comfortable, sated, internally glowing way. In that queasy, rumbling, internally bleeding, hosting-an-Alien-baby kind of way.

So, I'll ask it again. What are you doing with this information?