Slashdot Mirror

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

The entire interview can be watched here .

Republicans [...] NCLB and such

That's strange, I remember NCLB receiving extreme bipartisan support. Before you bring your stupid partisan politics into a conversation, make sure you know what the hell you're talking about.

(Disclaimer: I don't affiliate with "either" party, and despise our bipartisan system and people blaming "Republicans" or "Democrats" when really they're all to blame.)

Quite frankly, I think we need to look at revenue before we even consider looking at aggressive spending cuts. Granted, the two may go hand in hand, but the amount of money we're losing to corporate tax loopholes and subsidies is staggering. Note: when I say losing, I don't just mean revenue we aren't collecting, but money being paid out in refunds to some of the largest corporations in the country/world. Here's a little food for thought on the subject.

http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=67562604-8280-4d56-8af4-a27f59d70de5
http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/executive_excess_2011_the_massive_ceo_rewards_for_tax_dodging
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html

You should write your congress critter about it.

Here is how they voted

http://mikulski.senate.gov/contact/

BTW, she's also got a crabcake recipe on her site. That scores points in my book...

-S

It should score points! If it's in the hand of "Babs" Mikulski, it's a done deal. She is a major supporter of NASA and utterly relentless. The Webb telescope will launch if she has anything to say about it.

http://mikulski.senate.gov/contact/

BTW, she's also got a crabcake recipe on her site. That scores points in my book...

-S

http://sanders.senate.gov/

The US taxes companies' dividends but not interest paid on debt, stock buybacks, or executive compensation. As a result, most companies don't pay dividends and borrow too much.

I can think of a handful of companies that got into trouble from borrowing too much: AIG, Lehman Brothers. (Chrysler and GM's troubles, I think, stemmed more from not getting their money's worth out of the inflated union wages they were paying.) There are far more companies in the opposite situation: they're sitting on large piles of cash, and would like to hire more workers, but not in the current climate. Read what Steve Wynn has to say about that, for example: http://bit.ly/nL3rIQ

Government's borrowing addiction is a much more serious problem than corporate borrowing. National debt is $14.3 trillion, and on track to rise to $22.2 trillion under the recent "deficit reduction compromise" (see http://paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=280 ).

We have no clue how to run a post-oil world with 6 billion people

Somebody has a clue. For a Big Idea about a new source of energy, go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Criswell

One more thing you may have missed in all the political theatre is that the Senate Democrats filabustered their own bill!

http://paul.senate.gov/?id=275&p=press_release

The debt deal was a manufactured crisis and everyone except the poitical class lost.

Table 8 aggregates total dollar transaction amounts by adding the total dollar amount of all loans but does not adjust these amounts to reflect differences across programs in the term over which loans were outstanding. For example, an overnight PDCF loan of $10 billion that was renewed daily at the same level for 30 business days would result in an aggregate amount borrowed of $300 billion although the institution, in effect, borrowed only $10 billion over 30 days. In contrast, a TAF loan of $10 billion extended over a 1-month period would appear as $10 billion.

This, without further documentation, demonstrates that the $16 trillion figure isn't mean what people parrot it to be. As in, $16 trillion was never loaned out as such, money has been flowing back and forth with the total outgoing transaction amount being $16 trillion, something entirely different.

Here's the report:

http://sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/GAO%20Fed%20Investigation.pdf

Feel free to read it.

I read enough to get my blood boiling as this topic always does.
[rant]
For all the world ICE looks like a puppet for the RIAA / MPAA and operates with little to no oversight or recourse for those they choose to target. It should be front page news that domains are being seized with nothing more than a bit of false/misleading testimony from an ICE agent, and a signature from a judge that knows nothing about the inter-webs and the magical tubes that are stealing things. All this is going to do is make honest businesses fear having their domain and servers under US jurisdiction.
Hosting with we-dare.net or other offshore locations is going to become par for the course for small upstart companies ("engines of the economy") until they get acquired by google or microsoft and have an army of lobbyist, lawyers and a patent trove to fend off the bull shit that now stands between a good idea and the marketplace in the US.
[/rant]
It gives me hope that people like Sen. Wyden are out there fighting the good fight though...

The yucca mountain plan was light years better than any other waste storage plan (especially the highly insecure on-site storage we use today). Anyone in congress who thinks we need to "get a panel of scientists together to brainstorm some ideas" is someone cloaking a political objection in "science". It's a real shame Yucca was aborted, especially since the christing facility has already been built.

I wonder if things would be different if the current senate majority leader had retired a few years ago. Oh, and if Steven Chu didn't toe the line on stuff like this.

You know, an awful lot of tea partiers were quietly grumbling about Bush Jr, Clinton, Bush senior and Reagan, but didn't feel the urge to actually do something. Tripling the deficit is pretty big reason for people to start doing something. Obama can't even deny some responsibility for the 2009 budget since he voted for it as a senator on a nearly party line vote.

Is it just me or are these lawsuits just getting more and more ridiculous? What will it take before patent laws are thrown out the window and replaced with something sane? I'm waiting to see companies go bankrupt and lives be destroyed over this idiocy. I expect people won't actually wake up until some distraught small business owner goes postal and slaughters a bunch of people.

I've said this before on slashdot, and I'll say it again here: the problem with software patents will not go away unless people contact their lawmakers and demand change in the patent system. Especially if you live in Minnesota, New York, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Oklahoma, Utah, or South Carolina. Because if so, your senator sits on a very important committee: U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law. But no matter what state you are in, your senator or representative does listen to constituents who contact them, moreso when you call or visit. Letters do work, too, but admittedly it's less effective than meeting in person, or a phone call. (If you do write, make it handwritten - they pay attention to the effort.)

If we can get several of these senators to understand how "software" patents are stifling innovation of American technology companies, how US companies are spending so much time and money fighting "software" patents when those resources could go to R&D, then the subcommittee can take action. Contact your senator's office, and voice your concerns over "software" patents. Note that you don't actually have to speak with your senator - ask to speak with the staffer who usually deals with technology issues. An alternate contact might be their State Director.

Ultimately, changing how the USPTO considers "software" patents will require a change in law. The right place for this to start is with your congressperson. Remember: it's the job of your senator or US representative to listen to you and bring your concerns to the floor. All it takes is a phone call.

But I know it's oh-so-trendy for people to say "by congresscritters only listen to cash in their pocket" (these people are giving up) and I expect the inevitable followup.

Not sure about all that, but ICE is definitely shaping up to be a puppet for the RIAA / MPAA and operates with little to no over-site.

The most revealing info I've seen is the responses from ICE and the DOJ to a pointed letter by Sen. Wyden sent the Obama administration here. (This letter was covered back in feb on slashdot here).

I sent my senator a short message detailing many of these concerns about the PROTECT-IP bill. You might be interested in her response.... WARNING: Don't read any further if you still have hope that senators can understand and address technology issues....

Dear Friend:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Federal Communications Commission's actions relating to the openness of the Internet. I welcome your thoughts and comments.

The Internet is a valuable tool that facilitates business, education, and recreation for millions of Americans. In 2009, an estimated 198 million Americans had access to the Internet. I am committed to ensuring that consumers continue to benefit from the Internet as an open platform for innovation and commerce.

Instrumental to the success of the Internet is the long-standing policy of keeping the Internet as free as possible from burdensome government regulations. Increased investment in upgrading and expanding America’s communications infrastructure, and, in particular, new broadband networks, will ensure that all Americans have access to affordable high-speed Internet. However, in my judgment, intensified regulation of the Internet, such as government-mandated treatment of data, would stifle competition and would decrease the incentive for network operators to invest in critical infrastructure.

The case for additional broadband regulatory authority, or “net neutrality,” has not effectively been made. Broadband investment began to truly flourish when the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) made a decision in 2002 to remove advanced communications technologies from the antiquated common carrier regulatory framework. However, advocates of a larger regulatory footprint have continued to call for net neutrality since 2006.

Unfortunately, the FCC chose to respond by beginning a new proceeding that would reverse the 2002 decision to treat advanced communications services with a "light touch" regulatory approach. On December 21, 2010, by a 3-2 vote, the FCC adopted new rules meant to impose a net neutrality regime on broadband services. I believe these new regulations represent an unprecedented power grab by the Commission to claim regulatory jurisdiction without Congressional authority. This FCC action threatens investment and innovation in broadband systems, places valuable American jobs at risk, and may subject communications companies to new legal liability in the management of their networks.

In response to the FCC's heavy-handed order, I intend to explore every option available to me to keep the Internet free from such burdensome regulations, including introducing a resolution of disapproval in an effort to repeal the new rules. As the Ranking Member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, which has jurisdiction over the FCC, I will continue to work to prohibit further net neutrality-based regulations.

I appreciate hearing from you, and I hope that you will not hesitate to contact me on any issue that is important to you.

Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator

284 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-5922 (tel)
202-224-0776 (fax)
http://hutchison.senate.gov/

PLEASE DO NOT REPLY to this message as this mailbox is only for the delivery of outbound messages, and is not monitored for replies. Due to the volume of mail Senator Hutchison receives, she requests that all email messages be sent through the contact form found on her website at http://hutchison.senate.gov/?p=email_kay .

If you would like more information about issues pending before the Senate, please visit the S

I sent my senator a short message detailing many of these concerns about the PROTECT-IP bill. You might be interested in her response.... WARNING: Don't read any further if you still have hope that senators can understand and address technology issues....

Dear Friend:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Federal Communications Commission's actions relating to the openness of the Internet. I welcome your thoughts and comments.

The Internet is a valuable tool that facilitates business, education, and recreation for millions of Americans. In 2009, an estimated 198 million Americans had access to the Internet. I am committed to ensuring that consumers continue to benefit from the Internet as an open platform for innovation and commerce.

Instrumental to the success of the Internet is the long-standing policy of keeping the Internet as free as possible from burdensome government regulations. Increased investment in upgrading and expanding America’s communications infrastructure, and, in particular, new broadband networks, will ensure that all Americans have access to affordable high-speed Internet. However, in my judgment, intensified regulation of the Internet, such as government-mandated treatment of data, would stifle competition and would decrease the incentive for network operators to invest in critical infrastructure.

The case for additional broadband regulatory authority, or “net neutrality,” has not effectively been made. Broadband investment began to truly flourish when the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) made a decision in 2002 to remove advanced communications technologies from the antiquated common carrier regulatory framework. However, advocates of a larger regulatory footprint have continued to call for net neutrality since 2006.

Unfortunately, the FCC chose to respond by beginning a new proceeding that would reverse the 2002 decision to treat advanced communications services with a "light touch" regulatory approach. On December 21, 2010, by a 3-2 vote, the FCC adopted new rules meant to impose a net neutrality regime on broadband services. I believe these new regulations represent an unprecedented power grab by the Commission to claim regulatory jurisdiction without Congressional authority. This FCC action threatens investment and innovation in broadband systems, places valuable American jobs at risk, and may subject communications companies to new legal liability in the management of their networks.

In response to the FCC's heavy-handed order, I intend to explore every option available to me to keep the Internet free from such burdensome regulations, including introducing a resolution of disapproval in an effort to repeal the new rules. As the Ranking Member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, which has jurisdiction over the FCC, I will continue to work to prohibit further net neutrality-based regulations.

I appreciate hearing from you, and I hope that you will not hesitate to contact me on any issue that is important to you.

Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator

284 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-5922 (tel)
202-224-0776 (fax)
http://hutchison.senate.gov/

PLEASE DO NOT REPLY to this message as this mailbox is only for the delivery of outbound messages, and is not monitored for replies. Due to the volume of mail Senator Hutchison receives, she requests that all email messages be sent through the contact form found on her website at http://hutchison.senate.gov/?p=email_kay .

If you would like more information about issues pending before the Senate, please visit the S

Now's the time to put your money where your mouth is Slashdotters. Time and again we bemoan on this site that our politicians (in the U.S.) piss our tax dollars away on pork-ridden bills and unnecessary defense spending at the expense of science. Now is the time to let Congress know just how important we nerds find science like the JWST to be. There are at least two open letters to Congress written by folks on the internet. They can be found here and here.

You can find your Congress-critter's mailing and contact information here and here.

It won't take you more than 10 minutes to print on of those letters, fold it up, stamp it, and mail it to your representative or senator. We 'dotters bring down entire websites when we care enough about an issue to RTFA. Now is the time to bring Congress's mailroom to a standstill by declaring, in one unified voice, "You won't ransack our science research anymore!"

If we can afford two wars in the Middle East, Medicaire, Medicaide, and tax cuts for the rich assholes who are driving this country into the ground, then we can afford to build this telescope, not just for America, but for the continued progress and exploration of humanity in general.

No, the biggest problem with Yucca Mountain is Harry Reid. He doesn't want it opened, and he has a high enough position in congress to make sure it does not. Here is his statement, saying how proud he is that it was finally shut down.

Currently he is trying to find an alternative use for Yucca Mountain, in order to make it even harder to open again once he leaves office.

All these well-thought out posts, and not one Senator or Representative will ever see them.

  Come on people, bitching on slashdot will NOT fix this.

Write your Representative:
https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

Write your Senator:
http://www.senate.gov/reference/common/faq/How_to_contact_senators.htm

This concept originated with scientists, has been vetted by scientists, and is accepted as something between the leading theory and established fact by every national and international science body on the planet.

Since you want something a bit more evidence based...

How about one of the most decorated French geophysicists, Claude Allegre, converting from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a climate skeptic. Article link: Renowned Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming – Caps Year of Vindication for Skeptics?

How about some senate reports discussing Dr. Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” study being flawed, specifically refuting some of its most often-cited conclusions. Article link: INHOFE SAYS NAS REPORT REAFFIRMS ‘HOCKEY STICK’ IS BROKEN

A series of links to Senate reports on global warming: Article link: Hot & Cold Media Spin Cycle: A Challenge to Journalists Who Cover Global Warming

Again, don't think this means that I'm all for neglecting the environment. Conservation in general seems to be a good idea, even if the environment weren't an issue. Why waste anything? I'd prefer not to strip mine mountains and ruin the natural beauty of the land. I find value in minimizing the impact of people on the environment even without factoring in possible environmental impact. The major issue I have with the environmental alarmist is that they are presenting their evidence as though it is fact when it is really just a theory (that may or may not be correct).

Mij

This concept originated with scientists, has been vetted by scientists, and is accepted as something between the leading theory and established fact by every national and international science body on the planet.

Since you want something a bit more evidence based...

How about one of the most decorated French geophysicists, Claude Allegre, converting from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a climate skeptic. Article link: Renowned Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming – Caps Year of Vindication for Skeptics?

How about some senate reports discussing Dr. Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” study being flawed, specifically refuting some of its most often-cited conclusions. Article link: INHOFE SAYS NAS REPORT REAFFIRMS ‘HOCKEY STICK’ IS BROKEN

A series of links to Senate reports on global warming: Article link: Hot & Cold Media Spin Cycle: A Challenge to Journalists Who Cover Global Warming

Again, don't think this means that I'm all for neglecting the environment. Conservation in general seems to be a good idea, even if the environment weren't an issue. Why waste anything? I'd prefer not to strip mine mountains and ruin the natural beauty of the land. I find value in minimizing the impact of people on the environment even without factoring in possible environmental impact. The major issue I have with the environmental alarmist is that they are presenting their evidence as though it is fact when it is really just a theory (that may or may not be correct).

Mij

This concept originated with scientists, has been vetted by scientists, and is accepted as something between the leading theory and established fact by every national and international science body on the planet.

Since you want something a bit more evidence based...

How about one of the most decorated French geophysicists, Claude Allegre, converting from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a climate skeptic. Article link: Renowned Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming – Caps Year of Vindication for Skeptics?

How about some senate reports discussing Dr. Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” study being flawed, specifically refuting some of its most often-cited conclusions. Article link: INHOFE SAYS NAS REPORT REAFFIRMS ‘HOCKEY STICK’ IS BROKEN

A series of links to Senate reports on global warming: Article link: Hot & Cold Media Spin Cycle: A Challenge to Journalists Who Cover Global Warming

Again, don't think this means that I'm all for neglecting the environment. Conservation in general seems to be a good idea, even if the environment weren't an issue. Why waste anything? I'd prefer not to strip mine mountains and ruin the natural beauty of the land. I find value in minimizing the impact of people on the environment even without factoring in possible environmental impact. The major issue I have with the environmental alarmist is that they are presenting their evidence as though it is fact when it is really just a theory (that may or may not be correct).

Mij

You mean, he hasn't complied with WPA? Because the fraud part is extensively documented.

That's a great example, and it shows why we (as a slashdot community) need to contact our Senators and Representatives now about software patent reform! Especially the Representatives, since that's where the America Invents Act currently is up for vote.

My advice: if they aren't willing to take action now (because AIA is about to go for vote, so they don't want to change it) ask them to support a procedural change with the USPTO. See my other post on that. If the AIA passes, the USPTO is supposed to propose new rules and guidelines for review, etc - and review is our next opportunity to fix software patents. Community Review (where the USPTO can proactively poll other industry experts if a software patent application seems "new" or if it's "obvious") is one idea.

The key point, though, is that your Representative or Senator knows his/her constituents are paying attention to software patents. When they know the voters at home care about it, the politicians start to care about it.

But in general, if you live in Minnesota, New York, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Oklahoma, Utah, or South Carolina, you need to talk to your Senator's office about technology issues. Why? Because your Senator is on the Senate Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law. Technology is a subject your Senator is very sensitive to right now.

No... no they're not. They are interested in how much money they can get from their campaign "donors" to vote one way or the other.

I call BS on that one. Have you actually talked to your Congressperson? They do want to hear from you.

Maybe I'm lucky. I live in Minnesota, so I have Senator Al Franken: privacy, net neutrality. I actually met him a few times, which is what got me interested in doing something about software patent reform. Al made a great comment to me: "It's your job (constituent) to tell me what's important, and my job (Senator) to go do something about that in Washington - but first you need to let me know what's important."

And true to form, when I contacted his office, they listened to me. At my first contact, I spoke with the office's state director. Then I got to meet the constituent affairs person. That led to a conversation with the office's lead counsel on patent issues, and who works with Al on the Senate Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law. Everyone was very helpful, and very engaged with what I had to say. His office is the one that pointed out the USPTO RFC to me - I had missed it. (USPTO web site is hard to navigate.)

Don't be defeatist with your "They are interested in how much money they can get from donors" attitude, and do something about it. On Slashdot, we've been bitching about software patent reform for years (and I have a low UID). Finally, now we have a window of opportunity. Don't lose it!

Or better yet Comrade, prosecute them in the Hague for crimes against humanity for daring to be skeptical about it. Maybe we could outsource it to the PRC, they seem to be pretty good at that kind of thing; hey, the prison thing would be easy for them to manage. $0.40 for the .38 cal bullet...

Hey, we can even call them Deniers, to build an association between Holocaust Deniers and Climate Change Deniers. That'll make it easier to round them up and send the out for re-education or for the tough cases "Carbon Sequestration;" (now, where did we leave all that Zyklon B?? I just saw it...) for the Father La.. errr, for Mother Earth!!

Oh, wait, (no) (one) in the (west) would want such a thing! I'm sure they're just Rethuglicans... uhm, never mind.

Already done, my friend: http://klobuchar.senate.gov/emailamy.cfm?contactForm=emailamy&submit=Go

Here's the Senator who submitted the bill. Is that "working for the people" or wasting time?

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

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00089

I'm sure it's not terribly mobile-friendly nor is it organized particularly well, but the information is out there. They should publish this data over some sort of API so we can make it presentable (whether as an app, a mobile site, or a stack of printouts), but unfortunately I can't fault them for not providing the data at all.

The piece about getting info on the Senator's stance on various issues is interesting. They should digitize that and then replace all of these guys with a small shell script.

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

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00089

I'm sure it's not terribly mobile-friendly nor is it organized particularly well, but the information is out there. They should publish this data over some sort of API so we can make it presentable (whether as an app, a mobile site, or a stack of printouts), but unfortunately I can't fault them for not providing the data at all.

The piece about getting info on the Senator's stance on various issues is interesting. They should digitize that and then replace all of these guys with a small shell script.

WTF, this is exactly what has been missing.

How has it been missing? Chambliss, like almost every other Senator and Representative, already has a webpage with all that information already. This app is just some lame repackaging of his webpage and a call feature.

Why do I get the feeling if Chambliss was a D, people would love his embrace of technology?

Because you're an idiot?

I am already working for "software" patent reform. I live in Minnesota, and this morning I visited with Senator Franken's office, discussing "software" patent reform. Sen. Franken is also the Chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law, so this is a topic he's paying attention to.

The America Invents Act is already in progress, so the reality is that Congress won't have the appetite to pick up the patent topic again in the next few years. So I'm afraid that the window has closed to get a law to enact "software" patent reform. Temporarily, anyway. This is unfortunate, since AIA doesn't really address any issues related to "software" patents or patent trolls.

However, it is possible to have a procedural change made with the USPTO. So I'm working that angle now.

To do that, we need to build popular support, enough voices that the Subcommittee will hear. As cheesy as it sounds, that means we need your help to contact your Senator's office and voice your opinion. Seriously, call their office, write them a letter (handwritten carries the most impact, but typed will do), or visit them in their office. Ask your Senator to push for "software" patent reform. Have some examples of "software" patents handy, and feel free to make a suggestion for how to fix the system. I think the citizen review method is a workable option. I've been discussing this topic with Sen. Franken's office for a while now, so if you don't have a particular suggestion to offer, ask your Senator to see what Sen. Franken is up to. I'm not kidding, they do listen to that. You can reference Katie Topinka, in Sen. Franken's Minnesota office, as the staffer who's closest to this. I'm working with her on this (and hopefully she won't mind me mentioning her name.)

If you live in Minnesota, New York, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Oklahoma, Utah, or South Carolina, note that your Senator is already on the Subcommittee for Privacy, Technology and the Law. This is a topic they will listen to.

The best advice I have heard in politics is that it's your politician's job to listen to you and to take that back to Washington to get it done. I'm lucky that my Senator actually does this. That's why if you don't feel your Senator will listen to you on "software" patent reform, you need to send them to Sen. Franken, because he will work on this. And Senators do talk to one another, even across the aisle.

I am already working for "software" patent reform. I live in Minnesota, and this morning I visited with Senator Franken's office, discussing "software" patent reform. Sen. Franken is also the Chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law, so this is a topic he's paying attention to.

The America Invents Act is already in progress, so the reality is that Congress won't have the appetite to pick up the patent topic again in the next few years. So I'm afraid that the window has closed to get a law to enact "software" patent reform. Temporarily, anyway. This is unfortunate, since AIA doesn't really address any issues related to "software" patents or patent trolls.

However, it is possible to have a procedural change made with the USPTO. So I'm working that angle now.

To do that, we need to build popular support, enough voices that the Subcommittee will hear. As cheesy as it sounds, that means we need your help to contact your Senator's office and voice your opinion. Seriously, call their office, write them a letter (handwritten carries the most impact, but typed will do), or visit them in their office. Ask your Senator to push for "software" patent reform. Have some examples of "software" patents handy, and feel free to make a suggestion for how to fix the system. I think the citizen review method is a workable option. I've been discussing this topic with Sen. Franken's office for a while now, so if you don't have a particular suggestion to offer, ask your Senator to see what Sen. Franken is up to. I'm not kidding, they do listen to that. You can reference Katie Topinka, in Sen. Franken's Minnesota office, as the staffer who's closest to this. I'm working with her on this (and hopefully she won't mind me mentioning her name.)

If you live in Minnesota, New York, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Oklahoma, Utah, or South Carolina, note that your Senator is already on the Subcommittee for Privacy, Technology and the Law. This is a topic they will listen to.

The best advice I have heard in politics is that it's your politician's job to listen to you and to take that back to Washington to get it done. I'm lucky that my Senator actually does this. That's why if you don't feel your Senator will listen to you on "software" patent reform, you need to send them to Sen. Franken, because he will work on this. And Senators do talk to one another, even across the aisle.

Here, try this version: Senators stating they are illegal is an outright lie and also a violation of the first amendment. See how adding just one word which was implied anyway makes the sentence clear? See if you can do this for yourself in the future, I won't always be here to help.

Kind of went over your head, eh?

The nonsequitur is, making the statement that Senators saying these are illegal is a lie and a first amendment violation is a nonsequitur when no such statement was made.

You should probably have read the letter before you tried to be condescending: http://lautenberg.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=332100&

however, where is the petition to have this shut down? posting it up on /. would be a great idea....

How about http://klobuchar.senate.gov/emailamy.cfm http://cornyn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=ContactForm and http://coons.senate.gov/contact/ to start. I am in Texas, so I called Cornyn. Slashdot em!

however, where is the petition to have this shut down? posting it up on /. would be a great idea....

How about http://klobuchar.senate.gov/emailamy.cfm http://cornyn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=ContactForm and http://coons.senate.gov/contact/ to start. I am in Texas, so I called Cornyn. Slashdot em!

however, where is the petition to have this shut down? posting it up on /. would be a great idea....

How about http://klobuchar.senate.gov/emailamy.cfm http://cornyn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=ContactForm and http://coons.senate.gov/contact/ to start. I am in Texas, so I called Cornyn. Slashdot em!

Most "Duh" research isn't "Duh" at all. It only sounds that way because of the atrocious state of science reporting in the popular press. Challenging, technical research has to be translated into terms regular folks can understand, and that often means making ridiculous comparisons or analogies, or just giving an explanation of the research so dumbed down that the researchers themselves would hardly recognize it.

Another contributing factor is the political motivations of people with large audiences who don't know better. For example, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) released a "report" making fun of a number of studies supposedly representing wasting spending on stupid research. It turns out his examples are actually pretty nuanced and important after all--hardly "duh" science.

The general population just isn't equipped to judge which research is important and worth spending money on. That is exactly why we have organizations like the NSF to evaluate grant proposals for us.

• No matter what harm is caused in pursuing action under this legislation, the companies and individuals initiating the action are completely immune from suit. So damages cannot be recovered (possibly even if it's later proven that the original action was erroneous.)
• Section e: Unlike DMCA, there is no defense permitted prior to compliance. The site first must be taken offline, then and only then can the owner/registrar/operator file to modify/suspend/vacate the order. No provision is made for the timeliness of any related follow up, so it could get stuck in the court system for as long as any other request.

We can all sit and complain about it here, or we can contact the offices of our senators; and try to spread the word for others to do the same. (No, e-petitions don't count and form letters seem rarely to be effective. Take five minutes and at least compose an original email.) If you want this to get some more mainstream coverage that's in your power too - you will find that "letters to the editor" of your local newspaper still has a surprisingly high readership.

You can get the roll call votes here
House: here
Senate: here

It's not just about copyright. Sites whose only function (or just about) is related to trademark violations or is about helping people get around DRM would be targeted by this law too, if it passes. Look at the definitions section (Sec. 2, par. 7.a.ii and ii).

Sen. Ron Wyden says it's worse than you know.

So he went ahead and voted for it. Makes total sense.

Senate Vote Results

House Vote Results

See which way your congressman voted on this issue:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313#position

Spoiler: Feingold (D-WI) voted Nay, and Landrieu (D-LA) did not vote. The other 98 voted Yea.

Here is the official roll call, btw:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00084

As noted, the name of the bill is completely unrelated because they took the unrelated bill and completely replaced it with the patriot act renewal. This is the type of practice that happens all the time. Running the congress app on my android has opened my eyes to the shenanigans that are pulled daily. Our government is a sham, folks.

Anybody have a list?

Here's the list. You can filter by state with one of the links at the top. Three cheers for both of my state's senators voting nay. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00076

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00084

People who dismiss Iraqi - AlQaida connections pre-Iraq invasion are ignorant of the facts. While it is true that US forces in Iraq brought thousands of jihadi's there to fight them, Zirqawi and his wing of Unity and Jihad (later renamed to AlQaida in Iraq) were already there

Ignorant of what facts? Sources?

There are terrorists in every country of the world including the US. The key issue is not were terrorists present but what if any state support do they enjoy.

According to the CIA Zarqawi activly refused to join with Osama on a number of occassions until quite a number of years later. He had his own terror group and did not have the same views on the Northern alliance.

Sources speak louder than words so here they are:
  http://intelligence.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=298775

See pg 90
http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf