Slashdot Mirror

I agree. The true problem is not the plea bargain system, its the fact that the badly and loosely drafted CFAA passed by politicians allowed the prosecutor to file so many ridiculous charges against Aaron in the first place.

Here's a summary of the charges Aaron faced, from wiki:

On July 11, 2011, Swartz was indicted in Federal District Court on four felony counts: wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer and recklessly damaging a protected computer. On September 12, 2012, the prosecution filed a superseding indictment adding nine more felony counts.

Seth Finkelstein analysed the charges explained what it meant :-

And as I've said before - they don't like him. They really don't like him. Previously the indictment had alleged four "counts" of different legal violations each, making four felonies in total. There are now 13 felony counts in the new indictment, derived from claims of multiple instances of breaking those four laws. In specific:

Wire Fraud - 2 counts
Computer Fraud - 5 counts
Unlawfully Obtaining Information from a Protected Computer - 5 counts
Recklessly Damaging a Protected Computer - 1 count

It's beyond my pay grade to figure out how many years in prison that all could be, when taking into account the complexities of sentencing law. Let's leave it at a large scary number. Enough to ruin someone's life.

CFAA is too loosely drafted, provides for punishments grossly exceeding the nature of the crime, with no sense of proportionality and is abusive. That is the real problem.

Is this the same mod-bombing and domain hijacking Michael Sims who used to be a slashdot editor some years back?

Obligatory just-to-try-set-the-record-straight (as the summary perpetuates the common myth) Jimmy Wales isn't "the" founder of Wikipedia, he didn't come up with the idea for Wikipedia, didn't agree with the idea initially and had to be convinced, didn't come up with the name, didn't build the initial software, and didn't create the first Wikipedia community. Most of the credit for all of the above goes to co-founder Larry Sanger; in the beginning Wales acknowledged this but he has since been attempting to rewrite history by going around marketing himself as "the founder" of Wikipedia. He is at very best "co-founder".

http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/archives/001424.html

I just believe strongly in credit where credit is due, and in not taking credit for other people's work.

Had it been said as part of a competent explanation, it probably wouldn't have been picked up on. However his halting, improper explanation made it seem that he probably really did think of the Internet as being just like a sewer system, which is not at all correct.

That and the fact that his rambling was his justification to block the addition of net neutrality language to the telecom bill that he himself had 'authored' as head of the commerce committee. By demonstrating his rather poor grasp of the workings of the internet he also demonstrated that he really wasn't qualified to have so much control over it.

People laugh at Gore for saying "he invented the internet" when he really didn't say that, but Stevens has only gummed it up since then. Plus, it's ironic that, at least according to Wikipedia, Declan McCullough is an apologist for Stevens's "tubes" comment but was the first to exaggerate what Gore said for comedic effect.

He was also the webmaster of censorware.org (cofounded with Seth Finkelstein, Jaime McCarthy, Bennett Haselton, and others). He generally acted like an asshat deleted the site contents (twice) and hijacked the domain.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/mar/26/seth-finkelstein-google-advertising
"Google recently took another step along the path of surveillance as a service, launching what it called "interest-based advertising", and which everyone else calls "behavioural targeting". These are systems that collect extensive personal data, for marketing purposes. To best understand the issues,"

http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/archives/001422.html

I once upon a time worked for a statistics agency and even without names and addresses it is surprisingly easy to identify people in anonymous data, even anonymised unit record data can be deconstructed to some degree. Depending on what you want to achieve don't even need to identify them.

Marrying up these datasets and ideas would be gruesome.

Google for some reason reminds me of an Octopus, due to all the stuff they're getting involved in. It's enough to concern me, but so far not enough to convince me that any kind of intervention is required. I do, however, wish we'd stop thinking they do no evil simply because it's their motto.

I lost a lot of faith in the wikipedia editors and Jimmy Wales himself when he stood by someone who was lieing about his academic credentials.

http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/archives/001158.html

The fact that the person in question had been given a position of trust without being correctly vetted proved that the site has it flaws. Not in method but in leadership, pure and simple. The system of allowing anonymous edits is great, but the editors who have positions of power within the site must be vetted thoroughly and above all, academically qualified to decide upon the matters they do. Peer review means scientific peers, not some spotty kid studying the subject for the first time at grade school.

Maybe the Encyclopedia Britanica will get this right where Wikipedia has failed.

Who would that thought that there is a shitload of stuff out there

Things you missed: a) Sturgeon's Law
                                      b) a direct link to one of Seth's articles on a power law or unheard voices
http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/archives/000745.html
                                      c) the system you propose looks like Slashdot without an editor - K5?
                                      d) economic theory on network effects which covers a lot of this ground
                                      e) email me if you read this Bennett

One of the reasons that Wikipedia is an information battleground is the 50% chance of a scoring page first page hit on google for a given topic. See http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/archives/001381.html. By editing Wikipedia, you're adding information to Google == "The Internet" about half the time.

As long as Page Rank assigns a value to each site instead of each page, Wikipedia will get high rankings for pages that nobody links to. The assumption behind page rank is that each site has reputation can be computed globally for a site. This is generally true for most web sites, but it's obviously not so for a wiki.

Various cliques manage to control chunks of Wikipedia pages by local consensus or simply by excluding non-admins from editing. Articles on Sarah Palin or Joe the plumber were locked for extended periods of time after they came into the spotlight.

The issue is neutrality and censorship

While I don't necessarily doubt that ISPs are salivating at the pay-per-byte thing, the whole truthout.org thing is a figment of your feverish imagination, fueled mostly by your insane hatred of Microsoft. At the very least you should research your claims before using them in any sort of cuasi-authoritative way.

Go ahead and read through these and then come back and tell me that "M$" or Google or Yahoo or any ISPs are blocking *anything* related to truthout.org at all. And please don't reply to me with your name trolls or sockpuppets.

http://directmag.com/disciplines/email/truthout_blocked_censorship/

Online political group Truthout.org is crying foul over Hotmail and AOL blocking its e-mail from reaching subscribers.

But rather than conducting an internal assessment of its e-mail program to find out why it's having delivery troubles at two of the largest providers of e-mail inboxes, the organization's executive director, Marc Ash, is calling on subscribers to pressure the ISPs into delivering their mail.

http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@isoc-ny.org/msg00354.html

1. If two large ISPs independently begin blocking mail from
a given domain/IP address/network block/etc., then it's usually
a pretty good sign that there is an issue with the mail source.

http://mainsleazespam.com/collateral/truthout_org.html

truthout.org email server at IP 38.114.2.39 has been caught up in a widening list of IP space at cogentco.com blocked by spews.org, a widely used blocklist to protect against abuse from spam supporting ISPs. ...
So, while truthout.org is in no way listed itself as a spammer, the email coming from this IP appears at the moment to be caught up in a widening blocklist of cogentco.com IP space due to their inaction to stop abuse from their network by others.

http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/archives/001260.html

I saw this story earlier today. While I do go to truthout, I was not a subscriber. So I set up a Hotmail account, subscribed to truthout's newsletter, and immediately received the confirmation email from truthout. No blockage whatsoever.

In reading the comments from readers, there were claims that even emails that had the phrase "truthout.com" somewhere in the mail -- for example, I send you a mail and say "please read this article from truthout.org" -- were also being blocked. I tested this as well several times from several email accounts, both sending to and receiving from the new Hotmail account. It worked perfectly fine every time.

I even clicked on the "email this story link" in a truthout story and sent it to the hotmail account. This, of course, worked fine as well.

Truthout's credibility took a serious hit last year with Jason Leopold's reporting on Karl Rove. It seems they are about to take another. As someone who has seen the Microsoft legal team from the inside, I'd hate to think what they'll do to Marc Ash and truthout.org if these claims aren't removed and an apology issued.

>> You want to talk links? Okay. Your first one in the above post is an article about how a nutty talk show host is wrongly accusing some other nut of calling for a third nut's death. Okay... this is relevent to asshat activists how?

Its relevant because it shows an attempt to falsely attribute actions made by agent provocateurs to legitimate protesters.

>> Your third link, I agree is over-the-top. The word "terrorism" is so misused... this is a perfect example. Closing a road is not terrorism. It's ass-hattery and it's obnoxious, and these idiots are certainly guilty of conspiracy -

I fail to see how handing out maps and providing referrals for daycare constitutes conspiracy.

>> The fact is that you cannot argue based on facts so you have to make me into some sort of monster.

Just because you are mentally ill doesn't make you a monster. In fact the scientific position of mental illness directly contradicts the emotional, religious, definition of evil.

>> I'm not sick, do not have a history of mental illness, and am not the one putting up links on Slashdot to ridiculous conspiracy sites.

Please. You don't have a history of mental illness? You've demonstrated mental illness repeatedly in this thread. Consider the following:

Cognitive Disorders:

1. The belief in the absurd, illogical, and self-contradictory concept of public property: a clear exhibition of schizophrenia.
2. The belief that you have stated facts, when you have yet to state a single fact in this thread: a clear exhibition of psychosis.
3. The belief that I have not stated facts, when I have done nothing but present obvious documented facts: another exhibition of psychosis.
4. The belief that anarchists could engage in the destruction or inhibition of property. To reiterate, an anarchist is someone who believes in freedom (the absence of government), and since acts of aggression are acts of government, it is completely incoherent to believe that an "anarchist" could engage is such activities. If a person is engaged in such activities, they could not be an anarchist..Another exhibition of schizophrenia.
5. The belief that Alex Jones is a "nut" when it is empirically verifiable that he is the sanest radio host in the world. Another exhibition of psychosis.

Personality disorders:

1. The repeated resurfacing of the "clogging the roads". This of course, is the neurotic projection/extension of "the state as an extension of self" (e.g. my congressman, my roads, my courts, etc.). This emotional compulsion is the result of rage stemming from sexual impotence as has been well documented in The Mass Psychology of Fascism and numerous other works. It can be cured through either cognitive dissonance or the conscious surfacing of your deep homosexual desires for your father's penis through psychoanalysis.
2. A repeated attempt to portray your ad hominem attacks as factual statements: an exhibition of an anti-social personality.

I can also deduce a great deal more based on what you have demonstrated so far...

>> Give me one example of that website being "censored" inside the United States.

Just one? How about one hundred:

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/92.html
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/05/air-force-col-w.html
http://www.sethf.com/anticensorware/general/google-censorship.php
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2006/051006googlecensors.htm
http://www.google.com/search?q=digg+bury+brigade
http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/internet_myspace_admits_censor_pris

"But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."

The link claims that Wired magazine added "invented".

There's an excellent article I read about it; I think it's a combination of factors. By nature, a lot of geeks are raised in comparative isolation; the internet has made it even easier to surround oneself only with people who agree with you; there's a disdain for "lesser" people that comes from years of wedgies. It's part of the standard high-school rant that those damned bullies are going to be pumping your gas one day, and why on earth would a geek who's Gotten His try to better that bully's position in life?

(I should disclaim that the above is just cultural criticism, and it's very far from empirical. You'd have to be David Brooks or someone like him to think that that constitutes an actual explanation for the streak of libertarianism that runs through geek culture.)

On a less hand-wavey level, I think there's something very appealing (especially to geeks) about the idea that one can deduce the entirety of politics from first principles. (I speak here of the Non-Aggression Principle.) The problem with this, as Seth Finkelstein points out, is that it just moves the complexity to the definitions of your terms, which are beyond debatability in your edge of the libertarian tent, in much the same way as fundamentalist churches claiming that their sole authority is the bible sweep their assumptions under the rug by pretending that they're not making any. (Fred the Slacktivist has some good discussion on the topic; also here.)

Heck, I went through a libertarian phase when I was profoundly ignorant of how history actually worked. I grew out of it by the time I got to college; it looks like a lot of people never got that far.

Truly old news
http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/archives/001270.html

I got them one or two times, not long after I started. Then I criticed the then darling of the editors, micheal sims, got bitchslapped and have never had them since.

http://sethf.com/freespeech/censorware/essays/censorwareorg.php

The difference here is that this is a statement by Microsoft, whereas Gore never said he invented the internet. http://sethf.com/gore/
But I understand you were *trying* to be funny.

It was evident to me that Google censors according to "business wishes" when I started to make some fan-art in 3D of a well known character.

Funnily enough - just about every image I've made gets scooped up by Google and placed to become searchable for everyone - which is perfectly fine with me, but when I became slightly suspicious about Googles business censoring where when my fan-art images dissappeared quickly while everything else remained.

Unfortunately - it doesnt stop there!

I really wish it was only protective of its own copyrights, fair enough - but what *REALLY* scares me is when Google censors information at will - even information Id consider perfectly legal and ok for eg. my country, but it actually censors a lot of pages (and I do mean A LOT OF PAGES!) from my Country which is a Democratic country and one of Americas allies, so this is very surprising to me, but research indicates that it absolutely censors. It censors pages with interesting knowledge about computer algorithms, chemical knowledge, electronics-pages with schematics - anything that Google or its customers may find inappropriate some way or another.

If you dont quite believe it and think that I am over the top paranoid - check out http://sethf.com/anticensorware/general/google-cen sorship.php. which incredibly enough isnt censored yet, but what it says - is clear enough and it has examples for you to try

Google became too big and too powerful - such powers could surely not stay innocent forever, dissapointing - but history proves its knowledge about power corrupts - time and again!

Hardly surprising - see here

http://technology.guardian.co.uk/opinion/story/0,, 2107262,00.html

"But arguing over whether discussion should focus on the worst offender, versus a general industry indictment, can be a distraction from the need to implement privacy protections which cannot be easily ignored."

http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/archives/001218. html

http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/mt-comments.cgi? entry_id=1218

Hardly surprising - see here

http://technology.guardian.co.uk/opinion/story/0,, 2107262,00.html

"But arguing over whether discussion should focus on the worst offender, versus a general industry indictment, can be a distraction from the need to implement privacy protections which cannot be easily ignored."

http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/archives/001218. html

http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/mt-comments.cgi? entry_id=1218

Oh right - because he invented the internet... hahaha... good one, jackass

about the censorware project and former slashdot editor michael sims. Maybe now that he no longer has bitchslap access, posting the truth won't result in your ip being permanently banned.

And you're a moron.

http://sethf.com/gore/

So DARPA's invented something else now. How long before Al Gore goes on CNN to claim he invented this all by himself as well?

[*Sigh* -- not this again.]

Al Gore never claimed that he "invented" the internet. In a March 1999 interview, Wolf Blitzer asked Gore what distinguished him from one of his opponents (Bill Bradley) for the Democratic presidential nomination. Gore responded by describing how he "took the initiative" on a number of issues, including "creating the internet". In context, he was talking about his leadership in developing legislation. Unfortunately his choice of words was sloppy and perhaps smacked a bit of chest-thumping.

It's not hard to find details about the "Gore invented the internet" urban myth. A quick Google turns up lots of stuff, including the following:

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,39301,00 .html
http://sethf.com/gore/

"He single-handedly forces everyone into the digital generation"

That was Al Gore. He invented the Internet.....just ask him. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_gore#Creation_of_ Internet_speech, http://www.sethf.com/gore/)

Layne

Maybe, but only if he picks Feingold as his running mate.

But seriously, it would have to be RMS. Linus pointedly isn't trying to lead a movement (at a conference he reportedly said "I really don't like the idea of thousands of people following me. (pause) But I'd appreciate it if someone could tell me where the men's room is.").

RMS, on the otherhand, has been pointently "leading" for going on three decades now.

--MarkusQ

P.S. And what Gore actually said was: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system." Which was true.

As Vincent Cerf, said "The Internet would not be where it is in the United States without the strong support given to it and related research areas by the Vice President [Gore] in his current role and in his earlier role as Senator."

And Dave Ferber said without Gore the Internet "would not be where it is today."

And Marc Andreesen said "Gore made [Mosaic] possible with the High Performance Computing Act."

And Joseph E. Traub said "[Gore] was perhaps the first political leader to grasp the importance of networking the country. Could we perhaps see an end to cheap shots from politicians and pundits about inventing the Internet?"

See Seth's page.

Hmmm? Which article? Think for yourself, my ass. The points raised in those articles are valid criticism of libertarianism. Some of them were written by Libertarians criticising each other! Go ahead, try to refute them.

I'm waiting.

What's that? You can't be bothered to read criticisms of your favorite dogma? You might actually have to think for yourself instead of parroting back the libertarian party line? Maybe that's because Libertarianism makes you stupid.

I know it's meant as a joke, but since it's not true, it's even less funny? What do Vint Cerf and Robert Kahn say..? and A Salon.com Gore Internet Invented Article or More Gore Internet Invented, Invention Research ...don't you think?

No longer is it about organizing information, it's whether or not they want you listed.

Their track record says otherwise. In 2004, they came under fire for not removing an anti-semitic website, jewwatch.com, which was coming up as the first hit when searching for "jew". Even today, it is second only to Wikipedia.

Their argument at the time was that they were not going to block sites from their index based on content. According to that site that I linked, it was blocked in countries where the content of the site was illegal.

It looks to me like they will not block based on (legal) content, but will block people who fsck with PageRanks.

Google now censors it's search results for things that the Chinese government doesn't want it's people to read, just as it has been doing the same thing to comply with laws in France and Germany.

Here is some more information:
http://blog.outer-court.com/archive/2005-01-15-n50 .html
http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/050117-0906 38
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/general/google-cen sorship.php

So the question is, why are people so offended when Google censors for China, but think the same behavior is fine for Europe?

Yeah, tech didn't help Al Gore and he INVENTED the freakin' internet. http://www.sethf.com/gore/

Um.... you Europeans wouldn't even have the WWW if it hadn't been for Al Gore creating the Internet !

On slashdot, you can almost always assume that the use of the word "force" in a legal context is an indicator that the author is a libertarian; the afore-linked essay does a good job of explaining why it's more effort than it's worth to debunk their arguments, even though those arguments are wrong.

I know people think its funny, but what Gore ACTUALLY said was about his role as a legislator and was perfectly accurate. He wasn't taking credit for something he didn't do. Give him a break and pick on somebody who deserves it. There are lots of choices.

No this isn't a personal attack on the editors; rather it is a challenge to them to improve Slashdot by paying closer attention to the important details that the parent so thoroughly pointed out. Slashdot is good; but they can make it great with a little diligence and effort.

Not gonna happen. Have you noticed that the new editors they hire are just as bad as the guys who have been there from the start? Now I understand you start a tech blog, you have no journalism training, maybe you haven't taken any english classes since 7th grade, that's fine. Site grows, suddenly there's a million people reading your, frankly, poorly-written and irresponsible entries. So you need to hire more staff... who do you hire? Somebody who *does* have journalism training and good writing skills? Or the jerk-off who was entrusted with an important web site and pulled it offline in a hissyfit [1]? A normal site would have picked the first guy; Slashdot picked the second. More recent hires, like Zonk, make it blatantly obvious that Cmdr Taco simply does not give a crap about his own website.

[1] http://www.sethf.com/freespeech/censorware/essays/ censorwareorg.php

Thats not true. A number of sites ( like p2p forums and discussion groups, etc ) have had their DNS entries hijacked by order of the FBI and redirected to a page saying that the page was shutdown due to piracy. And these were international, non-american sites. Here is one example. This act may even be illegal, but how the hell do you prosecute a group like the FBI?

The might-makes-right attitude to diplomacy, trade, international law and everything else the USA is involved in is just as offensive and destructive when its applied to DNS and the internet as it is any other domain.

No need. The real Seth Finkelstein got Michael Sims fired earlier this year. Now all you have to fear is the ignorance of Slashdot "editor" Zonk, who quite frankly is too stupid to be evil.

Not really. But it sounds almost exactly the same as what Michael Sims, the Slashdot editor, did to the Censorware Project.

Expecting a bitchslap in 5... 4... 3...

From tfa:
Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web.

I CALL BULLSHIT!

We all know Al Gore invented teh interweb!

Uhhh, actually, you are

That's the difference between civilization and Slashdot Libertarianism - the latter places contract law above all, and holds that there really are no inalienable rights at all. Seth Finkelstein wrote a good essay about it called Libertarianism Makes You Stupid.

Had Al Gore not invented the Internet back in the 90's, we wouldn't have the current movement towards a non-reliance on a specific hardware platform.

Where's Seth Finkelstein?

Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 17:43:58 -0400
Subject: Al Gore and the Internet

Dave and Declan,

I am taking the liberty of sending to you both a brief
summary of Al Gore's Internet involvement, prepared by
Bob Kahn and me. As you know, there have been a seemingly
unending series of jokes chiding the vice president for
his assertion that he "took the initiative in creating
the Internet."

Bob and I believe that the vice president deserves significant
credit for his early recognition of the importance of what has
become the Internet.

I thought you might find this short summary of sufficient
interest to share it with Politech and the IP lists, respectively.

====

Al Gore and the Internet

By Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf
Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the
Internet and to promote and support its development.

No one person or even small group of persons exclusively "invented" the
Internet. It is the result of many years of ongoing collaboration among
people in government and the university community. But as the two people
who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the
Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a
Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to
our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.

Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his
role. He said: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the
initiative in creating the Internet." We don't think, as some people have
argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the Internet. Moreover,
there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore's
initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving
Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and
promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it
is timely to offer our perspective.

As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed
telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the
improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official
to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact
than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship. Though easily
forgotten, now, at the time this was an unproven and controversial
concept. Our work on the Internet started in 1973 and was based on even
earlier work that took place in the mid-late 1960s. But the Internet, as we
know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in
the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual
leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high
speed computing and communication. As an example, he sponsored hearings on
how advanced technologies might be put to use in areas like coordinating
the response of government agencies to natural disasters and other crises.

As a Senator in the 1980s Gore urged government agencies to consolidate
what at the time were several dozen different and unconnected networks into
an "Interagency Network." Working in a bi-partisan manner with officials
in Ronald Reagan and George Bush's administrations, Gore secured the
passage of the High Performance Computing and Communications Act in
1991. This "Gore Act" supported the National Research and Education
Network (NREN) initiative that became one of the major vehicles for the
spread of the Internet beyond the field of computer science.

As Vice President Gore promoted building the Internet both up and out, as
well as releasing the Internet from the control of the government agencies
that spawned it. He serve

I just wanted to help out with a couple of Supreme Court rulings on the subject:

Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994)
We have often recognized the monopoly privileges [of copyright] that Congress has authorized, while 'intended to motivate the creative activity of authors and inventors by the provision of a special reward,' are limited in nature and must ultimately serve the public good.

And then the Supreme Court went ahead and reversed itself in Eldred v. Ashcroft, claiming that it's Congress's job to determine whether a given copyright statute "promotes the Progress". Quotes from the opinion

Hollywood is anxious to embrace BitTorrent as a method of movie distribution, according to the father of the Internet, Dr Vinton Cerf.

Is there anyone still buying that pack of Rethuglican bulls**t?

http://www.perkel.com/politics/gore/internet.htm
http://www.sethf.com/gore/

So, who're we to believe? Some guy on slashdot, rethugican hacks, or Vint Cerf... I choose to believe Cerf.

Everyone, don't feed the troll.

No, that was Michael Sims who seems to be just a total douche bag wherever he goes (read the link for more info on his immature tirade at censorware.org).

Where's Michael?