Slashdot Mirror

If you live in the US, write your appropriate federal representatives (using an actual physical letter is still more likely to get noticed than an email I believe) and ask them to support the "Secure Data Act" which is designed to stop exactly this (the use of NSLs and other things to mandate backdoors and compromises in software)

See http://www.wyden.senate.gov/ne... for details of the bill and get behind it (and spread the word about it). Is it perfect? No. But it (at least to my non-lawyer reading of the relavent info) seems to be a good place to start.

Honest question. Why would Republicans not support this bill?

Good question. And completely unanswerable based solely on the description of the bill here on /.. (How DO you properly end a sentence that ends with '/.'?)

But if you read the bill (pdf), you might find some clues. For example:

(a) IN GENERAL. -- Except as provided in subsection (b), no agency may mandate that a manufacturer, developer, or seller of covered products design or alter the security functions in its product or service to allow the surveillance of any user of such product or service, or to allow the physical search of such product, by any agency.

How broad can you get with your paintbrush? An interesting interpretation of this might be that the FCC regulations for emissions no longer apply, because a cellphone can be "surveilled" by following the signals it emits using the FCC standards. E911 info is FCC mandated surveillance, as well, in very broad terms.

Maybe the "exception" paragraph?

(b) EXCEPTION. -- Subsection (a) shall not apply to mandates authorized under the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (47 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).

So this law is already watered down by CALEA. And what is a "covered product"? Here you go:

(2) the term "covered product means any computer hardware, computer software, or electronic device that is made available to the general public.

Emphasis mine.

Or maybe it will be voted down when it becomes an amendment, as it was in the house?

In the House of Representatives, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) took up the issue of government encryption rules earlier this year. She passed an amendment to the annual defense funding bill ...

She didn't actually pass the amendment, she proposed the amendment and the house passed it. In any case, it was a rider to an otherwise unrelated bill. It is a standard ploy to attach unrelated things, and when one side votes against the part they don't like, they get painted in pubic as being against the other part they could accept. That's why there is talk of a "line item veto" from time to time, to remove the President from the "all or nothing" game.

Or maybe they'll vote against it because of what it is: a political game played by a master gamesman, who chose now to do something when he could have done it long ago. All this NSA stuff that got leaked -- he knew it before it got leaked. He's on the committee that has regulatory oversight to that agency. Did he do anything when he found out what they were doing? No.

Actually, the bill text says "no agency may mandate...", so it ought to cover the DHS and NSA as well.

However, since most (all?) government-induced vulnerabilities so far have been "suggested", rather than "mandated", I'm unsure how effective this bill would be.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=2&vote=00282

That's cool... is there some sort of OKCupid interface to it yet, so you can see which representatives match your interests the best, and alerts you when they vote against what you say you're interested in?

Bills are not that simple. By the time they are entered into THOMAS for tracking they have already been through many different groups. Lots of fun little additions have been made. Also by design it is extremely difficult to track down who added what and when; there is no button to track down the details of an individual line like you get with version control; it becomes "these were attached by someone" rather than "Sen. Johnson added line 47 requiring additional oversight, then Sen Smith modified line 47 to remove the oversight". Common citizens do not see the change log, they are only allowed to see specific checkpoints.

Critically, these are NOT little 10-line precise changes. Instead, this is a bill that adds some limits to NSA spying, and a bill that re-authorizes the patriot act, and a bill that gives the Attorney General the ability to rubber stamp "emergency production" of business records acquisition without a judge, and a bill that grants immunity ("liability protection") to those who hand over records without a court order, and a bill that pays people under the table for giving information to the government if they bypass the courts and just hand it over, and a bill that allows the DNI and AG to bypass the requirement to declassify information, that is, a bill to decrease transparency and remove important data from federal reports. And more.

It is 7000 words and 46 pages. Many similar bills exceed 100 pages. Some bills, especially those with critical financial items, grow into the thousand page range with all kinds of ugly growths attached.

Hooking that up with an OKCupid style is quite difficult. Did they reject it because of the NSA spying portion? Did they reject it because of the pen register changes? Did they reject it because of the declassification portion? Did they reject it because of the additional ability to bypass the courts? Did they reject it because it re-authorizes the USA PATRIOT act?

Trying to match it more in an OKCupid style, you may really like the beautiful eyes, but find the cluster of moles and cracked teeth rather ugly, the personal history of high school dropout insufficient, the three aborted teenage pregnancies and collection of STD's rather bothersome, and the extensive criminal history and drug additions are not exactly spouse material ... but those eyes, they are really quite lovely.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=2&vote=00282

That's cool... is there some sort of OKCupid interface to it yet, so you can see which representatives match your interests the best, and alerts you when they vote against what you say you're interested in?

I dunno, it looks like there were 58 senators looking to limit surveillance and 42 who wanted to continue things as normal. If you look at the vote.. it is kinda hard to not say one party did it... when it very much looks like one party is stopping this from moving forward.

Here's the link: http://www.senate.gov/legislat...

From a quick scan of the yeas and nays, I only found one Democrat who voted against it and four Republicans voted for it.

A couple more Republican's voted against it than Democrats.

"insightful"?

If you look at the data (scroll down to "grouped by vote position", all but three Republicans voted against it, and all but one democrats in favour of it. So, a lot more than "a couple".

You seem to be one of those "stupid" voters fooled by Obamacare's contortions and obfuscations.

Where the fuck were Harry Reid and the Dems the last six years on this?

Reid calls a vote on this NOW?

BULLSHIT.

Reid's a SLIMY bastard. Look how he horse fucked Landrieu. Calls a vote on Keystone purportedly to help Landrieu in her runoff, and it loses by one vote with Reid voting AGAINST it.

A couple more Republican's voted against it than Democrats.

"insightful"?

If you look at the data (scroll down to "grouped by vote position", all but three Republicans voted against it, and all but one democrats in favour of it. So, a lot more than "a couple".

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=2&vote=00282

As you can see, it was pretty much along party lines.

No no no no.
See, you dont get to intentionally create a problem, and then use the problem as your proof that it doesnt work; It doesnt work because of your sabotage, not because of inherent qualities. Self fulfilling prophesies that you brought about are not proof of dysfunction.

Your proof is an oft repeated myth which has no actual connection to actual USPS finances.
Also, the USPS, and their employees, are not funded by taxpayer dollars.
So you're wrong about that too: we're not on the hook.
None of the taxes you pay during the year go to the USPS.
It is soley funded by the fees they take in, whether its from selling stamps or shipping packages.

Further, the USPS could be made even more profitable by bringing back Postal Banking. Most other nations have it.
And we used to too. It provided banking services for those the banks refused to provide service too. And still do. (Ah....the free market...)
When Postal Banking went it away it was replaced by the notoriously awful payday lenders, which is a lbight upon the earth.

Oh, but dont take my word for any of it.
Simple actual research from primary documents, such as the USPS financial report (I've read it, have you? Guessing not, or you wouldnt have linked to that about.com article) would find all this for you.

None of this would mean much if the prevailing myth about postal finances were true – that the Postal Service is losing billions of dollars a year delivering the mail because everyone’s on the Internet, taxpayers are on the hook for this, and so drastic cuts are needed.

Here are the facts: The Postal Service isn’t funded by taxpayers; it earns its revenue by selling stamps. And it’s operationally profitable. Last year it had a $623 million operating profit; the first quarter of fiscal year 2014 produced $1.1 billion in black ink.

[..]the overall loss was due to congressional mandates, particularly a requirement that the agency pre-fund retiree benefits to the tune of about $5.6 billion per year.

[..] the Postal Service would have recorded a net profit of $600 million without the annual payment

The USPS is the only quasi-government agency to be ordered to pay a part of its earnings into the U.S. Treasury in order to hold budget deficits down. Its leaders have been trying for the past seven years to get this unfair payment removed, but have so far been unsuccessful due to the Tea Party/Republican politics in Washington.

elsewhere: the 2006 congressional mandate that the USPS pre-fund future retiree health benefits for the next 75 years, and do so within a decade — an obligation no other public agency or private firm faces. The more than $5 billion annual payments since 2007 — $21 billion total — are the difference between a positive and negative ledger

The new USPS Financial Report issued Friday further validates the claim that the Postal Service is neither broken nor in crisis. Excluding the pre-funding expense the USPS has turned a $660 million profit delivering mail in fiscal year 2013. Showing again that Senator Carper, Senator Coburn and Congressman Issa are manufacturing a postal financial crisis as an excuse to dismantle it. Standing in their shadows are vultures named FedEx and UPS.

http://www.carper.senate.gov/p...
http://watchdog.org/135210/pos...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
http://www.wausaudailyherald.c...

I don't think Obama needs to worry about the veto hurting the Democrats in 2016. His veto count so far is 2, a lower count than any president since James Garfield in 1881. (In comparison GWB vetoed 12 bills, Clinton 39, GHWB 29, Reagan 39.) This is mostly a consequence of the filibuster used to cut off the flow of legislation that reaches him- which effectively raised the required vote count from 50 to 60 during his term. But now, more stuff is now going to percolate through Congress and reach his desk, including some unpopular, corrupt shit that will scare the public. Before, he simply hadn't been given many bills to veto; now he's going to be tested. Even if he only vetoes one bill in the next Congress, that's going to be enough to elicit nuclear head explosions on Fox, so he might as well add a few dozen without having to worry about any additional meaningful repercussions. Hopefully he won't cave as usual.

We need to do several things to be truly energy independent:

5. Build pipelines to transport oil cheaply (XL Pipeline needs to happen, Canada is a huge ally and trust worthy)

http://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/markey-presses-transcanada-to-bar-exports-of-keystone-xl-oil-refined-products

Previously, then-Representative Markey challenged TransCanada on this question at a hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee on December 2, 2011. There he asked Alexander Pourbaix, TransCanada's President of Energy and Oil Pipelines, whether he would commit to including a requirement in TransCanada's long-term contracts with Gulf Coast refineries, as a condition of shipping, that all refined fuels produced from oil transported through the Keystone XL pipeline be sold in the United States. In response, Mr. Pourbaix stated "no, I can't do that."

Here's the clip from the hearing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VucRPHJtvGU&t=2m55s
It's a bit painful to watch TransCanada's President of Energy and Oil Pipelines get beaten up for his ridiculous claims until he's finally forced to say that he won't make any legally enforceable commitment to improving the USA's energy independence.

You must be thinking of a different bill: http://www.senate.gov/legislat...

True and I wasn't trying to imply there was. I just hadn't thought about yours a possible solution. I think the next time I write my elected officials on the subject I will offer both, especially since one of my Senators was responsible for the introduction of legislation that would have automatically bumped up the number of H1Bs if the cap was met up to some ridiculous amount.

True and I wasn't trying to imply there was. I just hadn't thought about yours a possible solution. I think the next time I write my elected officials on the subject I will offer both, especially since one of my Senators was responsible for the introduction of legislation that would have automatically bumped up the number of H1Bs if the cap was met up to some ridiculous amount.

True and I wasn't trying to imply there was. I just hadn't thought about yours a possible solution. I think the next time I write my elected officials on the subject I will offer both, especially since one of my Senators was responsible for the introduction of legislation that would have automatically bumped up the number of H1Bs if the cap was met up to some ridiculous amount.

The Famous Senate Restaurant Bean Soup Recipe

2 pounds dried navy beans
four quarts hot water
1 1/2 pounds smoked ham hocks
1 onion, chopped
2 tablespoons butter
salt and pepper to taste

Wash the navy beans and run hot water through them until they are slightly whitened. Place beans into pot with hot water. Add ham hocks and simmer approximately three hours in a covered pot, stirring occasionally. Remove ham hocks and set aside to cool. Dice meat and return to soup. Lightly brown the onion in butter. Add to soup. Before serving, bring to a boil and season with salt and pepper. Serves 8.

You are correct, they like it with a lot of pork. /snrk

Ernestine, is that you?

Maybe the perfect person to point out this absurdity to Congress would be that Technician in background.....Al Franken. Too bad he hasn't gone on to a position of any prominence.

a Senator who might actually do good for the general public for once and not solely for a limited cadre of corporations? no, there's no way someone like that won't make it far in DC!

Ernestine, is that you?

Maybe the perfect person to point out this absurdity to Congress would be that Technician in background.....Al Franken. Too bad he hasn't gone on to a position of any prominence.

States with the healthiest job situations were the first to increase minimum wage.
Inconceivable.

Well, it should be noted that only 5 of the states that raised the minimum wage this year have a Gross State Product per person above the national average (Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Washington, Colorado). The other 8 have below average economies, but are still gaining jobs at a faster rate. Also if you look at the job growth in 2013, these 13 states may have outperformed the average by 0.065% but they are on track to beat the average by 0.3554% this year.

So it looks like these states do not have the healthiest job situations, but still performed better than those who did not raise the minimum wage (by this ridiculous metric that is).

A better metric is comparing how job growth is growing or stalling. The four states with the highest minimum wages are California, D.C., Oregon, and Washington, who all have minimum wages about $9 per hour. Of those four areas, job growth has slowed by 27% on average year over year (comparing June 2013 - May 2014 to June 2012 - May 2013). If you look at the four states with the lowest minimum wage (Arkansas, Georgia, Minnesota, Wyoming), their job growth has grown by 26% on average year over year. So if you want to compare the trend of job growth increasing or decreasing, it looks like raising the minimum wage does hurt significantly.

source

Hilarious. You know little about how bills get to the senate floor for a vote, do you? Here, let me help you: http://www.coons.senate.gov/learn/bills/. The Senate majority leader has almost nothing to do with what bills get voted on in the Senate. So your anger is quite misplaced, and probably should be directed at all the people who have elected a democratic majority to the Senate. But that would mean that you would acknowledge that you are a minority in some areas, and can't just ram your ideology down other people's throats.

I find it also exceptionally hilarious that this attack is coming from the Tea Party, considering that they are nominally libertarian. Buffet, Gates, and Adelson ARE their masters of the universe - at least, they would be, if the Tea Party or the libertarians had any sort of consistency in their beliefs. Instead, this diatribe exposes them for what they really are: run of the mill politicians who are just more xenophobic and nativist than the other politicians. Economically, they are just like the unions that they hate: upset when someone with more money than them uses that money in a way that they dislike.

Sessions can go fuck himself with a chainsaw.

According to the bill a threat is anything which is anything which is part of an unauthorized effort to deny access. Netflix streaming which inadvertently leads to a denial of access would not be part of an effort to deny access.

Here is the bill.

http://www.feinstein.senate.go...

Thanks for the link....
I think Feinstein is missing a detail.
A better approach might be to reserve bandwidth for demand use by state
and local government. Sure this is a glass half full/ half empty thing but
it is important to identify what services we wish to protect from denial of
service.

I have not checked the math and details but "sbrook" on a forum noted:
"Remember that through that same cable you have to push a lot of TV channels and
Radio channels, Digital phone and internet.

"The top frequency is about 900 MHz, so that gives you just shy of 1500 channels
times 42 Mbps would be the theoretical max down a single coax ... absolutely
stunning! But you've got to share upstream channels.

"Now depending on the company, you might have about 100 to 500 customers passed
by a single coax. (More TV etc channels, few customers) But in theory you could
have 600,000 customers on one coax ... wouldn't work too well though!"

My point is the cable providers give themselves almost 1500 channels to deliver their content
and only eight or so for other content providers like Netflix.

A law needs to look at the 1500 channels as a single pool and if bandwidth is
to be throttled the eight that the likes of Netflix use can only be throttled
if the 1500-(8+4) used by my provider for their content are throttled in a like
manner.

Yes behind the cable is optical and other hardware but no one discusses
the fundamental lack of cross sectional bandwidth possibilities that modern
network provides. All conversations are centered on the one to many service
model where the internet design was many to many with multicast tossed
in later for the one to many case.

This single minded power centric ego centric flawed thinking by regulators
and legislators needs to be changed (by education) and IMO is
at the heart of most of the stupidity we see.

According to the bill a threat is anything which is anything which is part of an unauthorized effort to deny access. Netflix streaming which inadvertently leads to a denial of access would not be part of an effort to deny access.

Here is the bill.

http://www.feinstein.senate.go...

Here is Minnesota it is probably also sexist thanks to Amy Klobuchar. The linked is to her news release on expanding H-1B visas.

Now if only we could get names of lawbreakers out of government agencies. I know it will be a cold day in Hell before that happens, but it would be nice

For starters:
http://www.house.gov/represent...
http://www.senate.gov/general/...

You would think the banks would have an obligation to protect investors' money.

Banks were securitizing the bad loans and selling them off immediately.
They protected their investors money, it's the poor assholes who bought those fraudulently rated AAA bundled loans that weren't protected.

The people who want to blame this on government housing policy or sub-prime borrowers are the financial equivalent of climate change deniers (yes, I'm talking about the GP).
All of the official reports blame widespread fraud on the part of lenders.
Anyone who disagrees with this is in an alternate universe.

This was written in 2009 by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland:
Ten Myths about Subprime Mortgages
http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/commentary/2009/0509.cfm

This is the Senate Oversigh Report from 2011:
Wall Street and the Financial Crisis: Anatomy of a Financial Collapse (646 pages PDF)
http://www.hsgac.senate.gov//imo/media/doc/Financial_Crisis/FinancialCrisisReport.pdf

This is the Congressional Report from 2011:
The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report: Final Report of the National Commission on the Causes of the Financial and Economic Crisis in the United States
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-FCIC/pdf/GPO-FCIC.pdf (663 pages PDF)

They lay out in extensively footnoted detail who was responsible and who wasn't, but I'll save you the trouble of reading them:
The collapse was caused by weak regulatory controls, conflicts of interest in the banking sector, lending fraud, credit ratings agencies' fraud, massive failures in risk management by the financial sector, and insufficient capital reserves.

These financial deniers need to cite legitimate research that supports their position.
At the bare minimum, supporting documents would need to lay out (with numbers) what deserves the blame.
Because the official reports say things like

Research indicates only 6% of high-cost loansâ"a proxy for subprime loansâ"had any connection to the [1977 CRA] law. Loans made by CRA-regulated lenders in the neighborhoods in which they were required to lend were half as likely to default as similar loans made in the same neighborhoods by independent mortgage originators not subject to the law.

The facts are out there, if only you'd look past the media noise machines.

Too many web sites which run ads are buying them through a chain of multiple resellers. Under current law, the web site running the ad can usually disclaim responsibility for hostile ads. That may change. The article is about testimony before the U.S. Senate's committee on homeland security.

The site that displays the ads should be held responsible. Sites which run ads would then need to protect themselves by legal and technical means. For example, if you run ads on your site, your contract with the advertising provider should provide that they will indemify and defend you should a bad ad get through.

Ok we did this once 12 years ago and got DRM legal requirements non voted on. We can do this again.

For American Slashdotters:

1.) Tell the FCC what you think in polite terms and why it is a bad idea for business, consumers, and innovation?

2) Go to to your house of representatives website and use the zip code finder in the upper right hand corner. If your personal representative has a (R) in his or her name mention how you worry about the government overstepping its boundaries and ruining the largest emerging economic trend in history. Mention this FoxNews article, where Republicans are urging the FCC to bud out. If you work in the IT industry mention how you will be impacted and how unregulated internet led to the greatest economic expansion in history in the late 1990s.

If your representative has a (D) in his or her name, tell them how it will unfairly impact consumers and force unfair monopolies more power and ruin innovations with services like Netflix. Mention economic impacts as well. Use Netflix as an example of something that used to work until a few months ago and cite sources where L3 admitted it was being bottlenecked on purpose.

Also both parites are under the assumption that the internet worked just fine without net neutrality and we still had the largest explosion of GDP growth in history. So why change (Mega Telecom sales pitch). So inform them that they were regulated beforehand and this time it is different.

Remember it is not about adding new rules that were never needed. It is about preventing new rules that are not in your emails regardless of parties to counter the
FUD of the telecom lobbyists

3. Let the Obama know how you feel? Yes, he does read email and hand written letters every night. Perhaps seeing a large push in volume all angry about this may get his attention?
4. Let your senator know? Copy and paste the email you sent your congressman if he or she is of the same party. If not emphasize free market if he or she is a (r) and consumers and monopolies if he or she is a (D).

Be polite and factual as possible. Yes they are corrupt, but many are inept and get all their FUD from lobbyists. Mention we never had anything like this to counter the fud this is socialism to have the same lane and this is a fast enabler not something that slows regular traffice down yada yada. Mention your IT background too to build credibility.

If enough people whine it may delay or cancel the vote.

We all know this is BS. But we also know the FCC doesn't have much backbone. U.S. folks, please show them your support:

http://www.fcc.gov/comments
http://www.fcc.gov/complaints
http://www.fcc.gov/discuss

You may also write your senator or member of congress:

http://www.senate.gov/general/...
http://www.house.gov/represent...

Comments or complaints sent to any of the above may do a lot more good than any posted here.

That doesn't make any sense. At all. Article 2 section 2 of the constitution specifically says a treaty must have 2/3rds approval from the senate. The purpose behind this is that each of the states gets a say in it. I mean look at the history of treaties in the US:

https://www.senate.gov/artandh...

Every treaty in the history of the US that hasn't been given 2/3rds vote in the senate has stalled, except just the one Hollywood paid for.

Just to throw out a few other things that you can / should do:

A petition to sign.

An email address that the FCC has set up for public comments on this issue.

Contact information for your congressional representatives.

Just be clear about what your position is. As in the parent example - ask for ISPs to be reclassified as common carriers. If all you do is say that you're in favor of a neutral Internet, or network neutrality, they'll be free to interpret that any way they like.

2. The canadians can build their own export facilities in Canada entirely bypassing the US. The canadians already take your position as a betrayal of our shared economic arrangement. The deal was that we'd provide certain assets to them and in return we got first bid on resources. You've made liars of us and the canadians are not happy about it.

http://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/markey-presses-transcanada-to-bar-exports-of-keystone-xl-oil-refined-products

Previously, then-Representative Markey challenged TransCanada on this question at a hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee on December 2, 2011. There he asked Alexander Pourbaix, TransCanada's President of Energy and Oil Pipelines, whether he would commit to including a requirement in TransCanada's long-term contracts with Gulf Coast refineries, as a condition of shipping, that all refined fuels produced from oil transported through the Keystone XL pipeline be sold in the United States. In response, Mr. Pourbaix stated "no, I can't do that."

Go ahead, build your own export facilities and ship the stuff to China.
I'd much rather Canada not externalize the environmental cost of that infrastructure onto the USA.

You get that far and totally miss the rest.

I didn't have to go very far from your first insulting sentence to understand that you either didn't read TFA, or you didn't comprehend what you read. Fact is, your *second* sentence indicated as much.

I'll try it to help you again - The whole reason why they are answering the question is so they can twist what they say and they aren't safe and close them.

I'm not 100% sure what that sentence means. Too many theys. Looks like your writing skills are on par with your reading skills.

It won't be about the most severe earthquakes, they'll say that they are unsure if their reactor can withstand any earthquake.

The plants are *already in compliance* with the old earthquake estimates. Jesus. Maybe you should try reading the article one more time.

You don't want radioactive drinking water/air/children, do you? Think of the children!

I know you think I'm either nuts or have no clue. I'm trying to give you a clue. I've been watching this for decades. Matter of fact, watch Senate hearings tomorrow. They're confirming another environmental wacko. Right here - http://www.epw.senate.gov/publ... . They will ask her about economic impacts, something they clearly want to cause the most impact with. Look forward to brownouts next summer as coal & nuclear plants go offline.

None of the above ranting has fuck-all to do with anything I've written in this thread. And trust me sonny, I have a clue. I certainly don't need one from someone who's rabidly foaming at the mouth about some imagined no-nuke boogeymen.

I don't think you understand what you were reading (99.9% of the US population). They told the NRC that they can't withstand the most severe earthquake.

Sigh. I know what I read, do you? Here, let me help you. From the first sentence of the forwarded article:

"Owners of at least two dozen nuclear reactors across the United States... have told the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that they cannot show that their reactors would withstand the most severe earthquake that revised estimates say they might face..."

Later in the article:

"Richard S. Drake, a structural engineer with Entergy...said the plants had far thicker concrete and steel than the minimum required. Thus, he said, they could probably withstand far bigger challenges than their licenses specified. But on the basis of engineering analyses already in hand, Mr. Drake said, 'I just can’t say, It looks good from here. We’ll have to crunch the numbers."

So according to TFA, the plant owners are not saying they can't withstand the most severe earthquake under the revised estimates, as you claim. They are saying they don't know whether the plants can withstand the most severe earthquake without further (expensive) studies.

So it looks to me like you not as good a reader as you think you are - unless you think reading shit that isn't there qualifies as literacy.

We need more nukes, not fewer.

Nice job. At least you got that right.

You get that far and totally miss the rest. I'll try it to help you again - The whole reason why they are answering the question is so they can twist what they say and they aren't safe and close them. It won't be about the most severe earthquakes, they'll say that they are unsure if their reactor can withstand any earthquake. You don't want radioactive drinking water/air/children, do you? Think of the children!

I know you think I'm either nuts or have no clue. I'm trying to give you a clue. I've been watching this for decades. Matter of fact, watch Senate hearings tomorrow. They're confirming another environmental wacko. Right here - http://www.epw.senate.gov/publ... . They will ask her about economic impacts, something they clearly want to cause the most impact with. Look forward to brownouts next summer as coal & nuclear plants go offline.

The Senate may concur with amendments as with other bills.

Which is exactly what was done: S.Amdt. 2786 to H.R. 3590.

What surprises me about this story is that I thought all that data had to be disclosed already. How stupid is it that we have regulations based on data that's isn't made available for independent verification?

They have been asking that the private medical data of everyone whose medical records were used during the evaluation of soot and particulate rules for the Clean Air Act be made public. The authors of those studies don't have the authority to release that data, neither does the EPA. Though I'm certain the GOP would love to berate the EPA publicly for betraying patient confidentiality if they did disclose that information

http://www.epw.senate.gov/publ...

Catch-22. Reveal the data and you break the law. Don't reveal the data and the needed regulation won't happen.

It would put a stop to basing EPA laws on human medical science, since you would have to get everyone whose medical records were used in the study (or their estates) to make their records public. That's what the GOP is asking for:

http://www.epw.senate.gov/publ...

What surprises me about this story is that I thought all that data had to be disclosed already. How stupid is it that we have regulations based on data that's isn't made available for independent verification?

They have been asking that the private medical data of everyone whose medical records were used during the evaluation of soot and particulate rules for the Clean Air Act be made public. The authors of those studies don't have the authority to release that data, neither does the EPA. Though I'm certain the GOP would love to berate the EPA publicly for betraying patient confidentiality if they did disclose that information

http://www.epw.senate.gov/publ...

Before you spend all that time promoting private gas companies as responsible businesses, quickly responding to leaks, perhaps you should read the most recent research on the topic.

http://www.markey.senate.gov/d...

Those companies you are talking about allowed 69 billion cubic feet of gas to escape into the atmosphere in 2011. They don't care to stop it because they can pass those costs on to their consumers, and that's easier than repairing the old cast iron pipes carrying the gas. That's the exact same thing you are complaining about with regard to your local water company, you just didn't bother to know or Google for a few seconds and learn that the gas companies do the exact same thing.

> people the right to know what their FICO score is.

You're wrong again. You do not have the right to know your FICO score. Fair, Isaac, and Company has no legal requirement to tell you their score. You do have the right to a copy of your credit report, but the FICO score is something else entirely.

Since July 21, 2011 Americans have had a legal right to know their FICO scores but it is lenders, rather than Fair, Isacsson & Co, who are legally required to tell them. http://www.markudall.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1263

Any time your FICO score or other generated credit score is used in a decision by a lender to deny you credit or just offer you poorer credit terms, the lender is legally required to tell you the score they used. NOTE that this means they have to tell you the actual credit score value they used even if it is one of the industry specific scores that FICO has never been willing to disclose to consumers who buy from myfico.com!

Most of the elected represenititives need a bit of encouragement. Let your member of the US house know you would like them to support theses efforts. Also do the same for your senators.

Mann has a record of being evasive about the data and methods used. Are you willing to certify that what you found are the complete and accurate set of data, models, and code used to produce the results that Mann published on? Is any data he excluded noted? Is the methodology in there?

THE HOCKEY STICK REVISITED - A Tale of Obstruction (2003-2004) I suggest reading the entire section "A Tale of Obstruction (2003-2004)" at the web page, it is a sordid tale.

Michael Mann And The ClimateGate Whitewash: Part One

Sometimes being simple isn't good enough. Mann has a record of being evasive about the data and methods used. Are you willing to certify that what you found are the complete and accurate set of data, models, and code used to produce the results that Mann published on? Is any data he excluded noted? Is the methodology in there?

THE HOCKEY STICK REVISITED - A Tale of Obstruction (2003-2004) I suggest reading the entire section "A Tale of Obstruction (2003-2004)" at the web page, it is a sordid tale.

Michael Mann And The ClimateGate Whitewash: Part One

The judges know that a true adversarial process is not on the table - and never will be. They aren't calling for real reform. Mostly they are worried about their workload. This is all spelled out in the actual document which you can get here They don't want an advocate or adversarial process, because it wouldn't change anything.

Here is the full quote: "The participation of a privacy advocate is unnecessary and could prove counterproductive in the vast majority of FISA matters, which involve the application of a probable cause or other factual standard to case-specific facts and typically implicate the privacy interests of few persons other than the specific target. Given the nature of FISA proceedings, the participation of an advocate would neither create a truly adversarial process nor constructively assist the Court in assessing the facts, as the advocate would be unable to communicate with the target or conduct an independent investigation. Advocate involvement in run-of-the-mill FISA matters would substantially hamper the work of the Courts without providing any commensurate benefit in terms of privacy protection or otherwise; indeed, such pervasive participation could actually undermine the Courts' ability to receive complete and accurate information on the matters before them."

Of course, we already know the courts are not getting complete and accurate information, and they rubber-stamp orders anyway.

Reuters coverage in 2011. Congressional testimony from 2011 describes a 13,000 foot tunnel.

Trenchless technology marches on. Microtunneling is getting easier. This gear is normally used to avoid digging up streets.

> And? Check the official vote rolls [senate.gov]. He didn't vote for it. His name isn't even in the list. Want to try again?

Please try to get the facts correct.

The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (also called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008, H.R. 6304

The roll call is here:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00168 (vote 168 not 236 which you linked to)

His name is on that list from 2008. You linked to the extension vote in 2012...of course his name isn't on it as a voting SENATOR.
Obama's the PRESIDENT at that time.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

And yet I have citations backing me up where he made campaign promises to end the wiretapping and statements from his own spokesman talking about how he would support filibustering the immunity. I think I very much do know what I'm talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FISA_Amendments_Act_of_2008

And? Check the official vote rolls. He didn't vote for it. His name isn't even in the list. Want to try again?

The DNC just said that presidental appointments no longer need 60 votes, it only needs 50. There is nothing stopping them from doing the same with treaties.

We have gotten to the point where the two parties no longer prevent each other from doing stupid things, if the House is not involved the DNC can do whatever they want. Glad you all voted the way you did in order to make this possible!

Nope, that is incorrect on a number of levels.

There is not, nor ever has been, a requirement for 60 votes to confirm an appointment.
Nor is there a requirement for 50 votes. The requirement is for a majority of present members assuming that a quorum is present.
This is in the Constitution and cannot be changed without a constitutional amendent

Ratifying a treaty is also in the constitution, and requires a two thirds vote.
This is in the Constitution and cannot be changed without a constitutional amendent

You may be thinking of the cloture rule to break filibusters. This is NOT in the Constitution.
This is part of the Senate rules that the Senate can change at any time - it's their rules.
The cloture rule to break filibusters was introduced in 1916, and it was set to two-thirds of the full senate.
The vote was changed to require 60 in 1975.
Now it's changed to 50 votes.

Senate rules:
http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%26*2D4QLO9%0A

The House has its own rules (set in 1842) that prevent filibusters so they don't have this self-inflicted problem.

While it may have less than the full effect of legislation...I recall a reference to BTC having already been cleared for campaign finance. Here are the links if you want to listen to the meetings (4hrs) to clear this up. My impression was the idea seemed to enliven the interest (and debate) from a politician's viewpoint. 11/18/2013 - http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/hearings/beyond-silk-road-potential-risks-threats-and-promises-of-virtual-currencies 11/19/2013 - 3:30-ish - http://www.banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Home.Home Seemed fairly clear to me the statement of this Senator may be in oppositely indicative. It is also clear that there is a lot of confusion in this arena...but I tend to believe a donation is still a donation...and that donations will not be suppressed. Just my opinion...you be the judge.