Slashdot Mirror

The Committee on Oversight and Reform's webpage, linked to in the article, says otherwise: Members will solicit questions from the public via their Facebook pages to ask TSA officials at the hearing.

Where is the word "only", or even the implication of "only", in that statement? It isn't there. Congressmen aren't going to shut off their phones or stop reading email or refuse to open their mail until Tuesday just because this webpage says that comments can be sent via facebook.

Congressmen have web contact forms listed here. Did anyone jump up and down and rant about how congressmen wouldn't take phone calls or letters or regular email anymore when that page went up saying "contact your congressman here"? And did they all use "troll" and "flamebait" to mod people who told them that congressmen will still have email and phones and letters and whatever even with a new way of communication set up, like someone is doing here? I don't think so.

No, I think most rational people can see a statement that "you can do X" as meaning "you can do X", not as "Y and Z are no longer allowed." This article happens to deal with three hot buttons for slashdot (facebook, politicians and the TSA), so any possible rant material blows up into a full flame, and anyone who tries to put out the fire is modded "troll" or "flamebait" as retaliation.

The only way this conflagration could have been worse is if the article said that congressmen will accept comments about the TSA using the iPod app for facebook.

Actually Congress IS funding manned flights that will cost a LOT more than 450 mil on SLS/Orion.

In fact NASA requested more funding for commercial crew recently and less for SLS/Orion and Congress did NOT like that.

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=a2593bd3-8859-4e7d-869d-7e670a654664&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a

While I would be happy for the creators to rot in prison, this is also scary. Why should they be extradited to the US? /. commenters get outraged at mention of the megaupload folks being extradited simply because they disagree with the laws that were allegedly violating. It was the same excuse that it related to machines in the US. What makes the US so friggin' special for them to be extradited? Is what they did not illegal in Estonia? If not, then should they be prosecuted for actions they took while in a country where it wasn't illegal? If so, then why aren't they being prosecuted in Estonia, where they actually were when they did illegal stuff? If we're in one country doing business with another country over the Internet, or doing something on servers in another country, which country's laws should apply? Which country should get to prosecute?

Why so many questions? In theory these people violated laws in both counties and will be punished in both countries. Why shouldn't they? Some of this is in the treaty with Estonia, especially article 2. 419 scammers are prosecuted when caught. What makes you think they aren't?

55% of scientists identify as "liberal" while only 6% identify themselves as "conservative." [source]

I suppose you think it's pure Stockholm Syndrome, since Democrats are so very anti-science.

"Obama gutted the space program."

Do you think the Republican drumbeat of OMG LOOKIT DEFFCIT!!! had nothing to do with that?

"Democrats killed the Superconducting Super Collider."

The Democrats controlled the Senate and House when the Collider was killed. But look at the vote that killed it: Democrats were about evenly split, while Republicans voted to kill it by a margin of 31 to 13.

"Nobody on the left has a bold scientific vision like Newt Gingrich's moon base proposal."

Gingrich's moon base is not a "scientific vision." It's a bizarre geopolitical fantasy about "beating the Chinese" and proving America's undisputed awesomeness.

And when it comes to bold scientific visions, I'd put a 100% renewable grid on par with an evil moon lair. I'd put "reversing global warming" on par. I'd put a "cradle to cradle economy" light years ahead of anything Gingrich has put on the table.

The single greatest challenge we face right now is figuring out how to sustain ten billion people on this planet in comfort, while still leaving room for all the other millions of species. When confronted with this challenge, Republicans give us "drill baby drill" and weak bromides about how capitalism will fix everything, if we just deregulate enough, cut taxes enough. To find bold scientific visions, you have to look to the liberals.

Can I get some examples of main stream science denialism by democrats?

Obvious one right here. You can claim this is one both sides ignore - but like Republicans claiming to be "pro family", Democrats should be held to a higher standard when they are always claiming so vociferously to be the "pro science" party.

But there are others examples. Note, for example, that Democrats oppose scientific studies if it involves testing on animals - human embryo research, though, poses no problems for them. Democrats ignore the scientific consensus in favor of more nuclear power plants, and oppose them for mostly emotional reasons. Note also the Democrat's reliance on the Precautionary Principle for evaluating policy decisions. That idea "imposes a burden of proof on those who create potential risks, and it requires regulation of activities even if it cannot be shown that those activities are likely to produce significant harms." - that doesn't sound very scientific at all, but it's used to oppose all forms of GM food, nuclear power, and even to block research funding in the absence of the ability to prove a negative. This entirely unscientific principle was even evident in Katherine Sebelius's justification to block the availability of Plan B contraceptives over-the-counter

Oh, and then there's the Obama administration's decision to support the oil companies in the fracking lawsuit, even when their own task force had had exactly the opposite conclusion. There is even evidence that many in the current administration are guilty of scientific misconduct.

Erratum
Post date 21 January 2005
Essays: "The scientific consensus on climate change" by N. Oreskes (3 Dec. 2004, p. 1686). The final sentence of the fifth paragraph should read "That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords 'global climate change' (9)." The keywords used were "global climate change," not "climate change." [emphasis added]

In any case, here are the problems. That page explains it at least as well as any other single source. But one point should be clarified, and that is what I stated about "self-selection" because of her search terms. You see, of all the climate papers written during that period, the only papers out of the whole bunch that were likely to mention "global climate change" at all, were papers specifically about AGW, by researchers who were pushing that very same idea. The rest were simply not likely to use that phrase, either positively or negatively. It simply didn't appear.

Also, if you go looking for information on this, I would be skeptical of the website "skeptical science". It lies by omission. For example, one page devoted to AGW "consensus" states that Benny Peiser retracted his criticisms of Oreskes' essay, and it links to another source that makes the same claim. But in fact Peiser had only retracted one of his many criticisms, which had to do with the particular number of documents found in the search. He maintained all his other assertions that Oreskes did not in fact show what her paper claimed to show.

To summarize: (a) Oreskes had mischaracterized what she had actually looked for, and in fact did not explain her full selection criteria until later. (b) Oreskes could not have examined the 928 abstracts she claimed, because there were only 905 abstracts with those keywords in he ISI database. (c) Her actual search criteria were self-selecting for materials that supported her premise. This alone invalidates her findings. (d) If she had used more representative search terms, he numbers would have been vastly different.

http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/01/12/22506/

A Bush apointee fired by Al Gore from the Office of Energy research. Quelle Horreur! He kept his job in "academe".

"Happer is chair of the board of directors at the George C. Marshall Institute." so he didn't have any trouble finding a new job either.

http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/nov_2000/christ_gnostic.htm

Who was drummed out of what?

http://www.jewlicious.com/2010/10/fired-for-questioning-evolution-and-human-caused-global-warming-gavriel-avital/

This guy is an evolution denier. He lost his job as "chief scientist of the Israeli education ministry". I can't imagine how he got it.

But no mention of him being drummed out of "the academy".

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=5ef55aa3-802a-23ad-4ce4-89c4f49995d2

Hey, it's Happer again. Padding your references?

http://www.solopassion.com/node/2291

I'll have to ask Eve Kay about this. Who was drummed out of what?

Took me two seconds to find these

Really? You didn't have them bookmarked?

Seems you have indeed been living under a rock. I am not finding videos for you. I have enough to do right now.

I don't know who's under a rock, but you seem to have found a couple of slimy things that should stay there. Happer, Avital. Ugh.

Nobody being drummed out of academe though.

http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/01/12/22506/ http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/nov_2000/christ_gnostic.htm http://www.jewlicious.com/2010/10/fired-for-questioning-evolution-and-human-caused-global-warming-gavriel-avital/ http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=5ef55aa3-802a-23ad-4ce4-89c4f49995d2 http://www.solopassion.com/node/2291 Took me two seconds to find these. Seems you have indeed been living under a rock. I am not finding videos for you. I have enough to do right now.

Looking at the demographics (PDF), it looks like 222 have law degrees and 24 have medical degrees.

Apparently the Senator withdrew his support. Trying to link to his site: http://rubio.senate.gov/ shows nothing. He did make a facebook posting withdrawing support https://www.facebook.com/SenatorMarcoRubio/posts/340889625936408#!/SenatorMarcoRubio Interesting times...

Dear Mr.[redacted],

Thank you for contacting me about the internet streaming of copyrighted material. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.

On May 12, 2011, Senator Leahy (D-VT) introduced S. 968, the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property (PROTECT IP) Act. While I am supportive of the goals of the bill, I am deeply concerned that the definitions and the means by which the legislation seeks to accomplish these goals will have unintended consequences and hurt innovation, job creation, and threaten online speech and security. On November 17, 2011, I signed a letter along with Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) objecting to the bill as it is currently written.

On December 17, 2011, Senator Wyden introduced the "Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade" (OPEN) Act (S. 2029), of which I am an original co-sponsor. The bill has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee, where it is currently awaiting further review. The OPEN Act is a more effective approach to stopping foreign web sites that are found to be primarily and willfully used to infringe intellectual property rights. The OPEN Act builds on the existing legal framework used by the International Trade Commission for addressing unfair acts in the importation of articles into the United States, or in their sale for importation, or sale within the United States after importation.

Our trade laws have yet to catch up to deal with the global digital economy. The OPEN Act recognizes that the Internet has created new opportunities for foreign products to reach the U.S. market and that there is little difference between downloading a pirated movie from a foreign website and importing a counterfeit movie DVD from a foreign company. For those foreign web sites that are determined after an investigation to be primarily and willfully infringing, the International Trade Commission will issue a "Cease and Desist" order. The "Cease and Desist" order may also be served on financial intermediaries that provide services to that foreign web site, compelling financial payment processors and online advertising providers to cease doing business with the foreign site in question. This would cut off financial incentives for this illegal activity and deter these unfair imports from reaching the U.S. market.

The OPEN Act addresses the same challenges as the PROTECT IP Act, while protecting freedom of speech, innovation, and security on the Internet. The challenge of rogue web sites is one that many nation's face. The United State has always been seen as a leader on Internet issues. Laws we establish in the United States regarding the Internet are likely to be used as models around the world. And because the Internet is global in nature, it is important that we carefully consider how the laws and policies we adopt in this area may be received and translated by other countries.

Thank you again for contacting me to share your thoughts on this matter. You may also be interested in signing up for periodic updates for Washington State residents. If you are interested in subscribing to this update, please visit my website at http://cantwell.senate.gov./ Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,
Maria Cantwell
United States Senator

For future correspondence with my office, please visit my website at
http://cantwell.senate.gov/contact/

Dear Mr.[redacted],

Thank you for contacting me about the internet streaming of copyrighted material. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.

On May 12, 2011, Senator Leahy (D-VT) introduced S. 968, the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property (PROTECT IP) Act. While I am supportive of the goals of the bill, I am deeply concerned that the definitions and the means by which the legislation seeks to accomplish these goals will have unintended consequences and hurt innovation, job creation, and threaten online speech and security. On November 17, 2011, I signed a letter along with Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) objecting to the bill as it is currently written.

On December 17, 2011, Senator Wyden introduced the "Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade" (OPEN) Act (S. 2029), of which I am an original co-sponsor. The bill has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee, where it is currently awaiting further review. The OPEN Act is a more effective approach to stopping foreign web sites that are found to be primarily and willfully used to infringe intellectual property rights. The OPEN Act builds on the existing legal framework used by the International Trade Commission for addressing unfair acts in the importation of articles into the United States, or in their sale for importation, or sale within the United States after importation.

Our trade laws have yet to catch up to deal with the global digital economy. The OPEN Act recognizes that the Internet has created new opportunities for foreign products to reach the U.S. market and that there is little difference between downloading a pirated movie from a foreign website and importing a counterfeit movie DVD from a foreign company. For those foreign web sites that are determined after an investigation to be primarily and willfully infringing, the International Trade Commission will issue a "Cease and Desist" order. The "Cease and Desist" order may also be served on financial intermediaries that provide services to that foreign web site, compelling financial payment processors and online advertising providers to cease doing business with the foreign site in question. This would cut off financial incentives for this illegal activity and deter these unfair imports from reaching the U.S. market.

The OPEN Act addresses the same challenges as the PROTECT IP Act, while protecting freedom of speech, innovation, and security on the Internet. The challenge of rogue web sites is one that many nation's face. The United State has always been seen as a leader on Internet issues. Laws we establish in the United States regarding the Internet are likely to be used as models around the world. And because the Internet is global in nature, it is important that we carefully consider how the laws and policies we adopt in this area may be received and translated by other countries.

Thank you again for contacting me to share your thoughts on this matter. You may also be interested in signing up for periodic updates for Washington State residents. If you are interested in subscribing to this update, please visit my website at http://cantwell.senate.gov./ Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,
Maria Cantwell
United States Senator

For future correspondence with my office, please visit my website at
http://cantwell.senate.gov/contact/

Yeah, yeah, I know. Facebook sucks and all that. But - if you do have a Facebook account, posting a little blurb that tells your friends in your own words why SOPA/PIPA are evil, then letting them know that even a few sentence email to their congress critters goes into the balance and counts, along with the links to get hold of them helps.

To contact your representative:

https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

To contact your senator:

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

cold fjord, you should know that any given link you might provide from the senate.gov website is hardly a neutral source. The link you provided, in fact, is specifically the republican-dominated minority version of the environment and public works committee. I.e., Inouye who is beholden to the petroleum lobby. Do us a favor and refrain from using a senate resource to try and make a point as it will merely be political bullshit on one side or the other. If I were trying to bring political bullshit, I would refer you to the majority page at the same exact site. What I mean is this: please don't be a retard.

If you want to bring facts into discussion, please do find the data from those 400 (or is it 650?) scientists which proves the world is not getting warmer. As I recall, the research conducted by global warming skeptic Richard Muller (funded by the Koch family) agreed that the earth has in fact grown warmer. More here. If you can actually find such graphs, let's take a look at them and assess them base on their merits. Please don't bother linking senate.gov or the national review and I won't bother linking huffington post or moveon.org.

Outright denial of the problem without any proof or reason except some unsupportable personal conviction is particularly vile and selfish.

And here we see why the "Climate Change" nee "Global Warming" movement is so subversive and dangerous. If someone where to say, "I don't belive in Einstein's theory of relativity", he would be told he is wrong, or ignored. If someone were to say, "I don't believe in the theory of continental drift", she would be told she is wrong, or ignored. But to DOUBT or DENY climate change is sacrilege - you are vile, selfish, practically an evil doer fit to be punished. Scientists who see the data differently are in danger of losing their jobs, and funding. It has happened before. What other science acts that way? What other theory demands such fealty?

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.

Scientists Behaving Badly - More nails for the coffin of man-made global warming

So, 97% of the world's scientists are religious zealots?

No, but not all of them feel free to speak their actual opinion in the face of "consensus" that can cost you a job. And pretty much all of them need funding which tends to be funneled towards climate change research that already assumes anthropogenic global warming exists.

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.. . . .

Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears "bite the dust." (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK)

This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new "consensus busters" report is poised to redefine the debate.

Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.

the state is unquestionably expanding

By definition, New Mexico lies between the 103 W and the 109 03' parallels (mostly). The only way New Mexico could be getting wider is if the earth's radius is increasing, pushing the meridians apart. Since Arizona is bounded on the west by primarily by rivers, maybe it's the one getting wider (or Arkansas!)

Official listing of contact info (mailing address, phone numbers, and web e-mail) for US Senators:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Since any bill would have to pass both houses, and since the Representatives from your state should also have some influence on the Senators from your state you may want to contact them too:
http://www.house.gov/representatives/

Along that line:

http://sanders.senate.gov/petition/?uid=f1c2660f-54b9-4193-86a4-ec2c39342c6c

exactly! this is really the root of the problem. SOPA and PIPA are just the consequence. You can let the steam out all you want folks, but these two are passing.
I signed this, and so should you..

It's a goddamn crime that the list of those supporting this heinous, un-American tyranny is topped with giant corporations. Multinational corporations. Foreign corporations.

These foreign non-people should have absolutely no influence over the laws set by the government of the United States. The legitimate government is by, of and for the people, not the people's property like corporations.

The Constitution does not give the government any power to represent corporations. But even from the beginning the Constitution has needed amendments that spelled out for corrupt government officials the limits to its power that were not already spelled out: the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights shouldn't have been necessary, because the powers it prohibits aren't granted in the original document. But obviously it was necessary; obvious when it was written and passed, and obvious ever since as it must be constantly invoked when government reaches across its bounds. It's clear by now that we need to amend the Constitution to spell out that corporations aren't people. That they don't have rights, that the government can restrict their actions with the existing powers government has.

There is already such an amendment in the works. Closing in on 200,000 people have already signed on supporting it. You should too. If you're a person, anyway. Why suffer being a second class citizen behind corporations that aren't even people?

If you feel that way, consider signing this petition.

Clinton had a budget surplus.

If you want to give credit to government figures for the nearly balanced budget, then you have to give it to the Republicans.

One of the first things the House did in 1995 was to vote on the Balanced Budget Amendment. The bill passed the House 300 to 132. 98% of the representatives that voted against it in the House were Democrats.

The Senate picked up the bill but their 65 to 35 vote failed the 2/3rd majority needed. 94% of the representatives that voted against it in the Senate were Democrats.

The Republicans no longer take balancing the budge seriously, but back then they did. They controlled House and Senate at the time, so it was Republican budgets that were passed all through the Clinton years.

Stop listening to what the politicians are saying, and start watching what they are doing. And for fucks sakes if you are a liberal and you arent armed with stuff that you know are facts.. just shut the fuck up, because you guys are notorious for Big Lies.. for example, the guy I replied to and the army of liberals that say the exact same thing.

Perma-link to Jerry Moran's Press Release

My Kansas Senator is proposing an alternative: http://moran.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news-releases?ID=4a3d7f95-6208-445f-9e25-2f290a334938

I haven't seen any detailed legislation, but assuming it does what it says it does, it would be nice if those against SOPA could put some weight behind this approach instead.

The President has said he'll veto it; write to him and hold him to it!

I think the Americans and the ACLU are being hoodwinked.

If you believe Senator Cal Levin in his speech on the senate floor it was the Obama Administration that requested that the sections from the Bill that protected US citizens be removed.

Here is the Video Clip of Senator Levin's Speech where he says just that:
http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-detention-defense-levin-635/

Or read Senator Levin official Gov page about the speech:
http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/speeches/speech/senate-floor-speech-on-the-detainee-provision-in-the-defense-authorization-bill/

The Obama Administration has no problem with what they themselves requested it be removed!, The Obama Administration is objecting to (threatening a veto over) another section of the bill, section 1032 (see above link).

It is all over the web, just search:

obama levin section 1031 1032

Crazy stuff.

Call or contact your Senator!

Senate Contacts

Call or contact your Representative!
House Contacts

Get involved another way?
EFF is a good way

Looks like it was more than that. "Among the investigation's key findings is that the Fed unilaterally provided trillions of dollars in financial assistance to foreign banks and corporations from South Korea to Scotland, according to the GAO report. "No agency of the United States government should be allowed to bailout a foreign bank or corporation without the direct approval of Congress and the president," Sanders said."

If you want a good job vote this man OUT!

I think you mean, "vote this woman OUT".

Sure looks like...

In response to an accusation that the mentioned statements by Muller's colleague and collaborator, Judith Curry, are "lies" promoted by one biased newspaper, I offer the following:

http://junkscience.com/2011/10/30/curry-damage-control-mullers-oversell-a-mistake-not-a-new-scandal/

http://www.express.co.uk/features/view/280948/Is-global-warming-over-">Curry says no warming "for 13 years".

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100114292/lying-cheating-climate-scientists-caught-lying-cheating-again/

http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2011/10/31/berkeley-temperature-study-update-colleague-says-claim-was-huge-mistake/

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/41840

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=65364f00-802a-23ad-4994-117066e014ea

http://www.eutimes.net/2011/10/climate-change-scientist-accused-of-hiding-truth-by-colleague/

As I mentioned in the beginning, the graphs shown in some of these articles are misleading, because the time scales are completely different:

In addition, if you really need more convincing, you can go to Curry's own blog and read her comment yourself.

Yes, a petition to the White House is totally the way to get a constitutional amendment passed... Not! Petitions are great, but it's much more useful to send them to someone who can actually do something about them.

No they don't. Their staffers take care of their representation on Facebook and the like. Ted Stevens represented the most knowledgeable politician with respect to the Internet.

Nonsense. Patrick Leahy of Vermont is probably the most Internet-saavy politician currently in office (even though he's pretty much a tool of the RIAA/MPAA IP cabal). Going back to the 80's and early 90's, you had Al Gore of Tennessee, and even Conrad Burns of Montana was knowledgeable enough to co-sponsor (with Leahy) a bill to overturn Clinton-era restrictions on cryptography strength for American consumer products.

You may have been trying to be funny. If so, the joke fell flat enough that you got modded "Informative", instead.

"Informative"?"

Remember the proposed legislation mandating DRM TCPA chips on all computers years ago? Someone on slashdot linked the senate's website and contact info. It died. :-)

So instead of whinning let your senators know how you feel?

Their website is here for the American Slashdot readers. Don't know who your senators are? There is a list here including an email link.

Calling your senator is effective as well.

When contacting your senator do not mention you want to dowload illegal material or that you are just angry and think it is unfair. Mention you work in the I.T. field and are worried about negative implications and liabilitiy risks for non copyrighted or infringement uses that this bill could be abused. Mention it would harm Google's youtube service costing American jobs as they would move overseas. This bill would be costly and could cost American innovation and jobs. Mention we already have existing copyright laws in force and sites like youtube already remove copyrighted or infrindged material in a timely manner and this is nothing but a power grab.

If your senator is a democrats mention your worried about the power grab by the media companies will harm competition. If your senator is a republican mention this would increase government intervention and regulation as it would cost well into the billions of dollars of tax payer money to fund this etc. You all can be creative.

Someone mod this up for the links. I just made it easier for everyone to spend 5 minutes telling your representative how you feel. Remember if you do not pick your voice the RIAA/MPAA will. If all they hear is the RIAA/MPAA then they will vote for the bill as it shows we don't care and like being fucked over. Do your duty.

Remember the proposed legislation mandating DRM TCPA chips on all computers years ago? Someone on slashdot linked the senate's website and contact info. It died. :-)

So instead of whinning let your senators know how you feel?

Their website is here for the American Slashdot readers. Don't know who your senators are? There is a list here including an email link.

Calling your senator is effective as well.

When contacting your senator do not mention you want to dowload illegal material or that you are just angry and think it is unfair. Mention you work in the I.T. field and are worried about negative implications and liabilitiy risks for non copyrighted or infringement uses that this bill could be abused. Mention it would harm Google's youtube service costing American jobs as they would move overseas. This bill would be costly and could cost American innovation and jobs. Mention we already have existing copyright laws in force and sites like youtube already remove copyrighted or infrindged material in a timely manner and this is nothing but a power grab.

If your senator is a democrats mention your worried about the power grab by the media companies will harm competition. If your senator is a republican mention this would increase government intervention and regulation as it would cost well into the billions of dollars of tax payer money to fund this etc. You all can be creative.

Someone mod this up for the links. I just made it easier for everyone to spend 5 minutes telling your representative how you feel. Remember if you do not pick your voice the RIAA/MPAA will. If all they hear is the RIAA/MPAA then they will vote for the bill as it shows we don't care and like being fucked over. Do your duty.

Remember the proposed legislation mandating DRM TCPA chips on all computers years ago? Someone on slashdot linked the senate's website and contact info. It died. :-)

So instead of whinning let your senators know how you feel?

Their website is here for the American Slashdot readers. Don't know who your senators are? There is a list here including an email link.

Calling your senator is effective as well.

When contacting your senator do not mention you want to dowload illegal material or that you are just angry and think it is unfair. Mention you work in the I.T. field and are worried about negative implications and liabilitiy risks for non copyrighted or infringement uses that this bill could be abused. Mention it would harm Google's youtube service costing American jobs as they would move overseas. This bill would be costly and could cost American innovation and jobs. Mention we already have existing copyright laws in force and sites like youtube already remove copyrighted or infrindged material in a timely manner and this is nothing but a power grab.

If your senator is a democrats mention your worried about the power grab by the media companies will harm competition. If your senator is a republican mention this would increase government intervention and regulation as it would cost well into the billions of dollars of tax payer money to fund this etc. You all can be creative.

Someone mod this up for the links. I just made it easier for everyone to spend 5 minutes telling your representative how you feel. Remember if you do not pick your voice the RIAA/MPAA will. If all they hear is the RIAA/MPAA then they will vote for the bill as it shows we don't care and like being fucked over. Do your duty.

I wish TFA or the people who post articles about pending legislation would include the @#%^ bill number! It looks like this one is H.J.RES.37, in case any of you feel like writing your senator. (It would be delightful if we could slashdot Congress.)

I tried that. The reply was rather discouraging. I'm attempting to figure out what to say in return, and whether it would have any effect.

Subject: RE: Your response from Senator Bill Nelson
From: Bill @billnelson.senate.gov
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 10:27:50 -0400

Dear [....]:

        Thank you for contacting me regarding S. 968, the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property (PROTECT IP) Act of 2011. I am a cosponsor of this legislation. Introduced by Senator Leahy, this bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 26, 2011.

        This legislation would authorize the Attorney General or an intellectual property right owner to take action against a registrant, owner, or operator of an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities. It also provides guidelines for preventative measures to be taken by operators of nonauthoritative domain name system servers, financial transaction providers, Internet advertising services, and information location tools, with respect to nondomestic or domestic domain names.

        I appreciate the time you have taken to express your thoughts on this issue, and I will be sure to keep them in mind should the bill come to the full Senate for a vote. Please do not hesitate to contact me again in the future.

                                                        Sincerely,
                                                        Bill Nelson

P.S. From time to time, I compile electronic news briefs highlighting key issues and hot topics of particular importance to Floridians. If you'd like to receive these e-briefs, visit my Web site and sign up for them at http://billnelson.senate.gov/news/ebriefs.cfm

"A number of global warming skeptics, such as the following, assert that grant money is given preferentially to supporters of global warming theory. Atmospheric scientist Reid Bryson said in June 2007 that "There is a lot of money to be made in this... If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide'."[185] Similar positions have been advanced by climatologist Marcel Leroux,[186] NASA's Roy Spencer, climatologist and IPCC contributor John Christy, University of London biogeographer Philip Stott,[187] Accuracy in Media,[188] and Ian Plimer in his 2009 book Heaven and Earth â" Global Warming: The Missing Science."

There are counterclaims, as is to be expected. But this is hardly the only source. One of my favorite sources has been temporarily taken off the air, because too much traffic has overwhelmed the servers. :o(

You know what? I was going to give you a whole list of references, but instead I will leave you with just one more: the U.S. Senate. According to their figures, the amount that has been spent goes like this...

wait for it...

pro-AGW: $50 Billion, while the other side got skeptical of AGW: $19 Million.

Yes, that's not a mistake. $50 BILLION dollars versus $19 MILLION dollars.

And that includes industry spending.

Is that one-sided enough for you?

There are links to references and such on that page. I think my work here is done.

It was the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 Clinton and the Democratic

Nonsense.

From http://rpc.senate.gov/releases/1997/BUDDEAL2.JT.htm:

Prior to Republicans assuming control of Congress in 1995, President Clinton refused to embrace the idea of a balanced budget. Clinton's first budget called for an astronomical tax hike of $220 billion that Democrats in Congress increased to $240 billion. Clinton's first three budgets -- released in 1993, 1994, and 1995 (for FYs 1994, 1995, and 1996 respectively), left deficits of $241.4 billion, $201.2 billion, and $194 billion by his own estimation (which CBO scored at $228.5 billion, $206.2 billion, and $276 billion respectively). In the meantime he vetoed the Republicans' budget in 1995 -- a budget that would have cut taxes and been the first to have balanced since 1969. Not until election year 1996 did he even aspire to balance, producing a budget that left an $81 billion deficit in its final year.

From No, Bill Clinton Didn't Balance the Budget:

And 1993 -- the year of the giant Clinton tax hike -- was not the turning point in the deficit wars, either. In fact, in 1995, two years after that tax hike, the budget baseline submitted by the president's own Office of Management and Budget and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted $200 billion deficits for as far as the eye could see. The figure shows the Clinton deficit baseline. What changed this bleak outlook?

Newt Gingrich and company -- for all their faults -- have received virtually no credit for balancing the budget. Yet today's surplus is, in part, a byproduct of the GOP's single-minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink. Arguably, Gingrich's finest hour as Speaker came in March 1995 when he rallied the entire Republican House caucus behind the idea of eliminating the deficit within seven years.

Furthermore, we already have government run healthcare: the VA and Medicare--for vets and old people. Not only are these services popular, their more efficiently run than private insurance companies, with less administrative costs. Which lead to the absurd statement: "get your government hands off my medicare."

Excuse me when I say that I think you've been brain-washed by Fox News.

This report specifically talks about how INEFFICIENT Medicare is and makes recommendations to change that.

This USA Today article complains that Medicare funds the vast majority of residency training in the USA. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is a substantial amount of money that is not going to treatment as you said.

This report says fraud is costing in the billions. And this article says that fraud is a growing problem in Medicare costing $60 billion per year and says that fewer than 5%... that's 5% of claims are audited.

According to this Congressional Research Service report Medicare's budget is $420 billion for 2009. If $60 billion is just fraud, that means nearly 15% of Medicare's budget is NOT going to treatment not including all the rest of Medicare's expenses (funding residency, other misc overhead).

Sorry, but to say that Medicare is efficient is just plain wrong.

Literally $TRILLIONS just on the wars you Republicans lied us into, before we even get to the $TRILLIONS in bank.

You evidently got an A in false equivalence. Your GPA and your charity donations don't change the fact that your Republicanism is irredeemably stupid and evil.

Goodbye.

3. The FRS is run by the Board of Governors who are appointed by the President of the United States. The place where I work is run by the Board of Directors, who are selected by shareholders.

- The policy of the Federal Reserve to give members of the banking industry the power to both elect and serve on the Federal Reserve's board of directors creates "an appearance of a conflict of interest."

- The GAO identified 18 former and current members of the Federal Reserve's board affiliated with banks and companies that received emergency loans from the Federal Reserve during the financial crisis including General Electric, JP Morgan Chase, and Lehman Brothers.


The Sanders Report on the GAO Audit on Major Conflicts of Interest at the Federal Reserve (pdf)

Of course it's biased - it's all politics. This one by Ron Paul is less full of hyperbole, but the major contrast is knowing the whole history of this effort, the people involved, what Sanders did to the bill at the last minute, and then seeing this kind of bullcrap from Sanders totally praising himself and making wild untrue claims about what HIS version of the bill does and failing to mention what he did was basically sell out to the elites.

In fact, some of that stupidity has shown up on OWS, like cries to 'audit the Fed'. Look, idiots, auditing the Fed isn't going to do anything. The Fed is doing nothing illegal.

Without an audit of the public-private beast that is the Federal Reserve System, how would you know whether they've done anything illegal or not? I don't know if the Ron Paul's version of the audit was ever passed, but Senator Sanders got an amendment inserted into some-bill-or-another. His office has this page:

... "As a result of this audit, we now know that the Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in total financial assistance to some of the largest financial institutions and corporations in the United States and throughout the world," said Sanders. "This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you're-on-your-own individualism for everyone else."

Among the investigation's key findings is that the Fed unilaterally provided trillions of dollars in financial assistance to foreign banks and corporations from South Korea to Scotland, according to the GAO report. "No agency of the United States government should be allowed to bailout a foreign bank or corporation without the direct approval of Congress and the president," Sanders said.

-The Fed Audit

"Audit the Fed" was Ron Paul's effort to hold the Federal Reserve accountable. It was a preliminary step to ending the system whereby "Wall Street" loans the economy its money supply. If you have a dollar bill in your pocket, it's only there because someone borrowed it from a banker - the bills are printed by the treasury and purchased by the Federal Reserve at cost [2 cents?]. If you have a quarter or a dime or a Susan B. Anthony dollar in your pocket, the Fed bought these from the Mint for face value.

The initial "Tea Party" rallies were held by Ron Paul's supporters in the 2008 presidential campaign, in response to the bailouts. Paul eventually dropped out of that race, but the "powers that be" thought the "tea party jingle" would be useful to perpetuate the concentration of power.

If you're going to be post stuff that is easily checked out you should get your facts right. The members of Congress get the same health care deal as all other Federal employees, no more no less. Congressional pensions are not as you say. To quote my cite: "For example, a member of Congress who worked for 22 years and had a top three-year average salary of $153,900 would be eligible for a pension payment of $84,645 per year." I'll give you the sexual harassment one. The only members of Congress I'm aware of that get publicly funded jet rides for normal travel are the Vice President (as presiding officer of the Senate) and the Speaker of the House who is 2nd in line for the Presidency and that is at the insistence of the Secret Service. All regular members of Congress such as my Oregon Senators and Representatives take commercial jets to travel between here and DC.

Ok, Let's start with the health care deal. Check out http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/23/opinion/main6324480.shtml . You can bet, if they get it, others will too. The point is, if it is so wonderful, why the exemption. Perhaps all of those articles out there about this are just wrong? We would know if Obama really was as transparent about these things as he said he would be. Instead just yesterday I found out a couple of Congressmen want to introduce legislation to hide his stuff for many years. Used to be done with an exec order. Probably Way TMI for this discussion.
Now, for the pension bit. Look at the article you cite. It says to take the top earning three years and average it. Then the formula. Then give the example for a typical career politician, which is actually a lot closer to a typical government worker. Same text I saw in a recent class about that. That third year for a Representative would be a zero. If you want the gory details and have a beer or two, here it is http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/retirement.pdf . I called up my source on that. Turns out he was just wrong. Here's a better citation -http://www.senate.gov/reference/common/faq/retirement_for_members.shtml . You're right, I should have checked that one out better.
The one I had in mind for the flights was Peleosi. It was quite a bill. As for a security issue, that's hog wash. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/11/john-boehner-says-hell-fly-com.html . She abused it and she knows it. She also doesn't care. They are attacking General Aviation as a rich thing. It isn't. It's economical for time as well as tends to keep company secrets secret. Nothing can be done on a commercial jet other than as an executive mailing tube. You never know who is sitting next to you. Like the yatch industry they killed a number of years ago, they will probably do the same thing to the aviation industry. Remember the Yatch bit? You know, only "rich" people have them. Tax it. Rich people stopped buying them cold. BTW, according to recent stuff it seems that they may define "rich" as anyone making over $80,000. In Clinton's time I was able to defend the statement that "Rich" was making over $40,000. That was in 1993 dollars.

First, the link to the letter in the article tries to get you to sign up for some file storage service before reading the document. Here's the original from Sen. Wyden's U.S, Senate site.

The reason this isn't being submitted to the Senate for ratification as a treaty is because of a conflict between the pharmaceutical industry and the Department of Defense. The pharmaceutical industry insists that national governments not be allowed to override intellectual property laws to make low-cost drugs available to their citizens. That's in ACTA. DoD insists that they be allowed to override intellectual property laws when they want to use a technology without paying for patent rights first.

If ACTA were ratified by the Senate, it would be binding on the U.S. Goverment. This would give patent holders rights against the U.S. Government they dont' have now. DoD doesn't want that.

You need to take a look at the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). A violation of this act is a criminal matter. There have been a number of criminal cases brought by the government for TOS violations. Take a look at this article. http://econsultancy.com/us/blog/6189-can-terms-of-service-turn-you-into-a-criminal. How about this article http://www.onthemedia.org/blogs/on-the-media/2011/sep/28/senate-advocates-terms-of-use-reform-computer-fraud/. Note this quote
"Late last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved an amendment to the law that specifically decriminalizes terms of service violations." How do you "decriminalize" something that in not currently criminal? Here is the EFF article about the amendment. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/09/senate-committee-agrees-violating-terms-service-shouldnt. Here is the amendment. http://judiciary.senate.gov/legislation/upload/JEN11A19-Grassley-Franken.pdf

Your second point is moot because the ruling clearly states that the tabular data was not copyrightable and focused on the descriptions and pictures which are.

You are confusing the two aspects of the case; breach of contract and copyright infringement. The scraping was a breach of contract as it contravened the web site TOS which the court ruled is a binding contract. The display of copyrightable descriptions and pictures was ruled copyright infringement. These are separate issues in the case.

.... when opening up an account on line or when you want to perform some commercial transaction. This will flood the phone lines of the House of Representatives offices with tons of bullshit calls. Then they will see for themselves how many robo-calls are spammed and how the average consumer has no recourse to stop the madness. Once they feel our pain, they will stop and re-consider these types of bills that make my information to easy to abuse.

And just for further kicks use the phone numbers of other key offices in our government. I wouldn't go out and individually target a senator, congressman, or representative at their homes, because I'm not trying to be vindictive against their own personal privacy, but their offices are fair game.

Here is their website list of phone numbers.

http://www.house.gov/representatives/

and

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?OrderBy=state&Sort=ASC

He failed to explain why Google results always came 3rd on product comparisons though.

The entire interview can be watched here .

Don't care. I always assume that Google has a slant to their search, in their favor. I may or may not be interested in their slant, but I assume it is there. Goose & Gander, if MicroBing wants to cook, I say "Bon apetite". Maybe if Yahoo had self-favored a bit more, they might still be yodeling.

He failed to explain why Google results always came 3rd on product comparisons though.

The entire interview can be watched here .

Watching the section of the video you're referring to, he specifically answers that the reason they are third is because Google does a VERY good job at finding the ACTUAL product, versus (yet another) product comparison website. He states that if you were to use those other product comparison sites to find the same product, you will find they rank the product results (what website the product is ACTUALLY sold at) in their own method. Basically, Google does the best job, but doesn't make it the first link.

Say what you will, but I think we all know by now that Google tends to have the best search algorithms out there, mostly because they hire the best-of-the-best and because that is what the company was founded on.