Slashdot Mirror

Yeah, the US is REALLY cracking down hard, isn't it?

Los Angeles-based Flexilis set the world record for transmitting data to and from a "passive" radio frequency identification (RFID) card -- covering a distance of more than 69 feet. (Active RFID -- the kind being integrated into foreign passports, for example -- differs from passive RFID in that it emits its own magnetic signal and can only be detected from a much shorter distance.)

She is not on the "opposing side" of anything except common decency. Pat sold her soul to the publishing industry years ago. She's the public face of the anti-library movement that would love to eliminate print ownership entirely and switch to a pay-per-read model.

Claiming that Pat Schroeder still holds true to any of her former progressive Democratic views is like saying Arianna Huffington is still a Republican.

With Melinda Gates (Bill Gate's wife) on the Washinton Post's Board of Directors, I'm not at all suprised by this attack on Google.

We would be interested in speaking to any California residents that have experienced this problem before the EULA was changed. We have looked at many DRM cases and Sony went too far with this particular scheme. You can contact us at gw@classcounsel.com or by visiting our web site at http://www.classcounsel.com./

I haven't posted on Slashdot in a while, but this is somewhat important. I couldn't agree more with the parent poster. I have therefore written the following email to all my immediate family and friends, declare my intent to boycott all Sony products.

My Email is as follow:
"
Enough is enough.

Sony BMG (Music studio) just put a "Rootkit" into some of their music CD's

Here: (http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2005/ 11/sony_raids_hack.html)
Here: (http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/79450/sony-drm-burrow s-into-rootkit-code.html)

Of course none of the traditional news outlets are covering this story.

A rootkit, is a program which is very difficult to detect (most anti-virus software will miss it), because it essentially hides itself from the rest of your computer's systems. It is a program which is traditionally used by evil hackers to gain control of your computer and either prevents it from working properly or spies on you.

In Sony's asinine attempt to "prevent" music piracy, they have decided that they have the right to take over your computer in the process and monitor your every action.

Fortunately, they depend on consumers to fund their evil business model. So from this point on, I will not buy, purchase, or recommend another Sony product for as long as this continues. We as consumers do NOT owe Sony anything. They do not have the right to monitor our every electronic action.
"

From the Washington post:
Full page: http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/sec...raids_hack.h tml

"As long as the attacker's file begins with that prefix, it will go undetected by most antivirus programs out there," Hypponen said. He added that installing the Sony program on a machine running Windows Vista -- the beta version of Windows' next iteration -- "breaks the operating system spectacularly.

So.. Not only does it embed itself in current versions of windoze, but it seems to whack the upcoming Vista(Longhorn). Gee.. Ya think that would be a 'problem' for folks a few years from now when they play those CD's on their shiny new computers?
This is what happens when you get this 'low level' regarding wedging drivers so close to the core.

And ya think MS would 'work with sony' to 'fix' this?
Such a collaberation would be prima facia evidence that MS is just as evil regarding DRM. But then again, we already know this regardless. MS DRM and their 'trusted computing' is a joke. Yet, if they were to modify low level driver to 'accomodate' Sony's ROOTKIT, thats just going TOO FAR. Obviously performance and stability would still be taking a back seat to MS's so-called 'security initiatives' of last year.
Again... Its an evil web Sony is weaving. I'll be very curious as to what MS will do about this regarding Vista. Will they go for stability and simply advise everyone not to load that Sony junk at risk of whacking the machine? Or will they 'accomodate' Sony by patching the native MS drivers to 'work with' a single, particular,specific and narrowly defined Rootkit?
Let the games begin!!

What The Washington Post did was create a co-publication called "Express" that's targeted at subway commuters:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/express/

It's a small free newspaper, containing only brief news stories. It's got all the sections of a normal paper Top Stories, World, Local, Classifieds, Entertainment, and puzzles. But it's a mini-newspaper about half the physical size of a normal one so it's more suitable for reading on a crowded train. I can usually read everything on my way to work, and solve the Sudoku on my way back (unless I screw up). They have people at every metro stop giving them out to everybody, and I mean everybody. Express papers outnumber all other regular papers in any subway car by at least 20 to 1. They must make more than enough money off ads to cover all the costs because of the high readership. They don't have to compete with online services anytime soon, and it gives WP an audience that wouldn't normally buy a newspaper for their ride to work. There's even a few copycats in the area now so they must be on to something.

It's this kind of adaptation that will make newspapers survive.

ap article is the best non-subscription one i could find

"There's only one thing more important than money _ and that's lives"

Quoted in the Washington Post, 10/20/05 in an article about a $3 billion dollar federal subsidy to ensure that the poor in this country can afford digital television. (There ain't enough money for bread, but there's enough for Beavis and Butthead).

A request for clarification to Sen. McCain's office was ignored. Other Senators refused to distance themselves from the remark.

But, but, but... if we get rid of pork barrel projects how will senators in powerful positions be able to keep their bribes^H^H^H^H^H^Hcampaign contributions coming in?!? Man, you REALLY don't understand American politics!

If anyone is curious check out: Two Bridges Too Far

Basically, Ted Stevens is a putz.

At the same time, GE promised to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of its factory operations 1 percent by 2012. Without the initiative, those emissions were expected to increase 40 percent, the company said.

Um, right.

Perhaps you should read this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2005/10/23/AR2005102301352.html

There has been no assertion that Mr. Wilson lied.

Here is the standalone version of the site Weekly Radio Address. Not once during the Clinton administration did they send a cease and desist letter to the parodies aired on the Rush Limbaugh show. Looks like The Onion isn't the only thing that's thin skinned.

These guys better not try that in Washington.

Actually the latest data predicts that 2005 is on track to beat 1998 and be the hottest year ever recorded, or at the very minimum be the 2nd or 3rd hottest.

Most major news organisations have run a story on the various reports, e.g.:
The Washington Post
Reuters

Well, Slashdot has not reported this yet ;-) Vaccine Appears to Ward Off Bird Flu Bird flu vaccine trials to begin Low-dose bird flu vaccine tested on humans

Please read the list again - its about 150.. I have no idea how you came up with only 12.

Ok if you dont like that site, how about the Washington post?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2005/07/18/AR2005071801326.html

Richard Cohen writes:

Of course, it is not the entire Muslim world we are speaking of, just a portion of it and just a tiny percentage of worldwide Muslims. But the figures for Iraq alone are appalling -- about 400 suicide bombings since the U.S. invasion in March 2003. Even if the number includes a preponderance of foreigners -- Saudis in particular -- it would have been hard at one time to conceive that there were so many people willing to end their own lives, not to mention those of others, particularly children.
---

He didnt even mention Palestine, Bali, Chechnya etc.

But hey, we can throw around figures back and forth all day long.. Different sites all cite diffrent numbers.. but the key point is that its a lot - and, as I've said repeatedly, the majority of the bombers were Muslim and or/Middle Eastern. Giving examples around the world of other groups who have used them does not negate the fact that MOST bombers are Muslim. Thus, the stereotype is well founded.

Stereotypes do not imply that each and every single person must fit the type - only that there is a perponderance of examples to create the image in peoples' mind in the first place. I'd say that definately applies in this case.

It's like the stereotype of black or Mexican gang-bangers or white serial killers.. Are there examples that don't fit the bill? yes of course, but usually in America gangers are black or Mexican and serial killers are fucked up white guys

Better a live (paying attention!) one than a DEAD one - like the argument you're presenting.

Ooo! Ooo! Mud Slinging, mud slinging! Never mind the fact that I corrected an outright incorrect statement, I'm actually "presenting a DEAD argument!" I love this logic! It's so screwed up, it would take a Scientologist to sort it out!

As for those little things called facts clouding your argument - you are absolutely correct! Must be why you're avoiding them.

Really? I'm avoiding facts? The facts are that the parent replied to another AC stating that "none of those people started a war with Iraq". The HARD FACTS of the vote record say differently. 77 members of Congress (including Kerry, Lieberman, and Clinton) all voted to give the President the authority to wage war. They didn't have to do that. They could have struck it down and ask the President for more info. But they didn't.

The FACT is that John Kerry then tried to get out of his vote. Not by apologizing for a mistake, but by stating that he "Voted against the War in Iraq." Except, he voted against the war in 1991, not 2002! Only after the truth came out did he backpedal and state that he was "duped." Which he then flip-flopped on again, stating, "Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have."

So if it was the right decision, why didn't he and others vote to support the troops?


Before:
"But I don't think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We're not going to cut and run and not do the job." -- John Kerry on the $87 billion dollars spent to rebuild Iraq and support our troops in Iraq, 9/14/03

After:
"I'm proud to say that John (Edwards) joined me in voting against that $87 billion..." -- John Kerry, 7/12/04

"I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." -- John Kerry, 3/19/04

How the hell do you "vote for" something before you "vote against" something?

FACT: The Bush administration, along with their friend Blair presented false documents and BS information to persuade the vote to go their way.

This is, unfortunately, irrelevant. Unless you can prove that Bush and Blair knowing provided false documents, you've got no case. They could be just as duped as all those democrats screaming for war. If you can prove such an accusation, then I suggest you grab the ear of your local congress-critter. They would be happy to impeach the President.

Even so, I'm afraid that doesn't absolve congress of its responsibility. The US was not directly threatened by Iraq's possestion of WMDs. Either congress believed that Iraq would fund terrorists and was a threat to national security, or they didn't. Perhaps they were looking at these reports?

"Saddam Hussein would pay $US25,000 ($47,000) to the family
of each suicide bomber as an enticement for others to volunteer
for martyrdom in the name of the Palestinian people."

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/03/25/10170047 66310.html

"The party estimated that Iraq had paid out $35m to Palestinian
families since the current uprising began in September 2000."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm

Votes that supported Bush's wargasm aren't exactly legitimately given when they had to be LIED TO to get them.

FACT: The people of the United States confirmed Bush's decision by voting him into office for a second term.

One (of many available!!) example - From the Downing Street Memo: Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through mil

Schroeder is president of the Washington- and New York-based Association of American Publishers, sponsor of the event. Like a nurturing shepherd, she moves gently among her flock. But when she talks about threats to the group, she stiffens her back.

And who, you might be wondering, is giving Schroeder and her publishers such afright?

Librarians, of course.

No joke. Of all the dangerous and dot-complex problems that American publishers face in the near future -- economic downturns, competition for leisure time, piracy -- perhaps the most explosive one could be libraries. Publishers and librarians are squaring off for a battle royal over the way electronic books and journals are lent out from libraries and over what constitutes fair use of written material.

Grossly oversimplified: Publishers want to charge people to read material; librarians want to give it away.

"We," says Schroeder, "have a very serious issue with librarians."

How are we supposed to be the "final arbiters" on IP when aside from global invasion and war we're utterly incapable of forcing our laws on anyone else?

A dictatorship by the majority is still a dictatorship, any way you slice it. That's one of the reasons the U.S. is a REPUBLIC, not a democracy, because democracies suck dick if you aren't one of the happy majority.

No, most Americans aren't at all interested in spreading democracy, no matter what bullshit you've been spoon-feeding yourself. The U.S. government isn't all that interested in it, either. Certainly the Saudis and Kuwaitis could attest to that.

The ease with which you seem to think it's okay for a group of nations to impose their will on the rest of the world, yet somehow think this is completely different from a single nation doing the same thing, is what bothers me. Not to mention the fact that your'e suffering from the delusion that the U.S. is even capable of attempting this feat, outside of easily-whipped little countries like Iraq.

Just another bitter European, I see. If it were the EU doing this you'd no doubt claim it was just and appropriate. What you're pissed at isn't that the U.S. has power, but that your nation doesn't have that power.

Try sucking it up and dealing with it. Europe had it's time in the sun - centuries of time - and now that time is over, and it ain't coming back. That's just the way things are.

Seems RCN news is down, why they picked the small fry for the article link, I don't know, here's the washingtonpost.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A patent dispute over prepaid cellular telephones threatens to disrupt service to millions of prepaid wireless customers at several U.S. carriers, including Cingular Wireless.

A federal judge in Boston granted an injunction on Monday against Boston Communications Group Inc., which sells customer management services for prepaid wireless telephones to a number of companies, including Cingular and Alltel Communications Inc.

The court had previously ruled that Boston Communications had infringed on two patents held by Freedom Wireless Inc., and has awarded Freedom Wireless $128 million in damages. Last week, the court added $19.7 million to the award for interest on lost royalties, and said it would explore further damages.

Under the injunction, wireless companies that use the BCGI prepaid wireless services must stop selling them. The companies have 90 days to continue serving current customers, during which they must pay royalties to Freedom Wireless.

BCGI said that the injunction could affect service to 3.1 million prepaid customers, including 400,000 at Cingular, representing 70 percent of its total revenue. It has asked the judge to stay the injunction while it files immediate appeals.

Cingular Wireless spokesman Mark Siegel said the injunction does not apply to the "vast majority" of Cingular's prepaid wireless customers, who use a different type of network technology. He said Cingular would also seek a stay of the injunction while it appealed the case.

"We intend to continue to provide service to all prepaid customers, including those on the BCG platform," Siegel said. He declined to say what steps Cingular might take if the injunction is not lifted.

A spokeswoman for BCGI could not immediately say who the other affected carriers were. The company has sold services in the past to a variety of carriers, including Alltel Corp. and Nextel, now a part of Sprint Nextel Corp.

Cingular Wireless and AT&T Wireless, which Cingular bought last year, were co-defendants in the suit against BCGI. Verizon Wireless was also a co-defendant but reached a settlement with Freedom Wireless before the trial began earlier this year.

I mean, really, various on-line resrouces even tell us where the bars are that the congressional staffers hang out at!! What would this country do if the Senators and Representatives had to read those thousands of pages of documents themselves!?

I don't even want to think about what would happen if the terrorists thought about using THIS map.

Think carefully about giving up your freedoms; you won't get them back.

>>So are you resigned to the fact that Michael Griffin's successor
>> is going to do another mea-culpa in 20 years? The space
>>elevator will be flying on by, and NASA will be stuck with their
>> tiny little rockets and lunar landers.

>Well, NASA will continue to do what they've always done,
>which is to provide employment.

According to the Associated Press as reported by the Washington Post, at least 300 jobs will be lost at NASA's Jet Propulsion Labratory. So apparently they haven't always done that. But hey, positive spin eh?

When inflation is running over 3% and rising, a 2% pay raise is a real pay decrease. That is a real economic loss, and yes, that is a real "so called cut."

You see, this supposed "liberal world" you reference is really the real world, not a state sponsored "news agency."

And that is exactly why this administration has driven our economy into the ground. They spend like FDR and Lyndon Johnson on a drunken bender. This administration has single-handedly made the Great Society look like a drop in the bucket. The amazing thing is how fast they did it, because the deficit got huge (remember those days worrying about how the budget surplus was going to be spent?) well before 9/11, so don't give me this 9/11-Iraq crap. This administration has been the most fiscally irresponsible administration in history. Huge budgets coupled with massive tax cuts; duh, what do you think is going to happen? The only amusing thing is to see the Reagan Republicans get hot under the collar seeing the havoc this president has wrought on the smaller government, smaller spending philosophy Republicans used to hold in high esteem. When they control the White House and both sides of The Hill, it is amazing how the truely stupid and/or mindless sheep (such as you) still blame Democrats for anything.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A649 74-2004Jul20.html
Posted July 21, 2004 on the Washington Post

"A key congressional subcommittee slashed President Bush's NASA budget request by more than $1 billion yesterday, dealing a sharp early blow to the administration's efforts to set in motion an ambitious plan to send humans to the moon and Mars." ...oh wait, I hate Bush. Please, forget I ever posted this; he actually prepares the entire NASA budget in a locked room without any help.

Considering that Media Research Center (mrc.org) bills itself as "The Leader in Documenting, Exposing and Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias", I think they may have an axe of their own to grind. The fellow running the place was also responsible for the manufactured outrage over TV indecency (y'all remember Janet Jackson's nipple, right?)

On your other link, I can't figure out what's being claimed. Is it that the soldiers were "coached" or that they were "pre-screened"? All I see is Scott McClellan denying everything. Now, the administration's habit of appearing only for military audiences or for folks who've signed loyalty oaths... well, that's a bit more troubling.

Cheers - that was extremely interesting, but hardly conclusive.

Taking your links one-by-one:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/05/iraq.mai n/
"U.S. Marines and Iraqi soldiers have uncovered a 503,000-square-foot underground insurgent hideout in central Iraq containing large stores of weapons, ammunition and supplies" - no WMDs there. I don't think anyone's trying to say Saddam didn't have underground facilities, but "Eek, he may have a few holes in the ground!" isn't doing anything bad, and the reason Bush gave for invading - WMDs (and terrorism!) were. No WMDs here, so it's pretty irrelevant. Finally, even worse, "it is not yet known if the bunker was built by Saddam Hussein's regime or if the insurgents created it from the remnants of the quarry".

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/cia/199605 17/cia_65175_65173_01.html

Direct quote form the article: "Subject: UNDERGROUND FACILITIES IN IRAQ
Not Finally Evaluated Intelligence... CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
WARNING: INFORMATION REPORT, NOT FINALLY EVALUATED INTELLIGENCE".

Given the extremely dubious information typically initially reported in situations like this, and the humongous warnings plastered all over the report, isn't it just possible that this was an inaccurate initial report, that was perhaps proven wrong by later intelligence or analysis?

Wait a moment - I just noticed... This dates from January 1991 - it's from before the first gulf war. Saddam was known to have (and have used) chemical weapons (which, guess what, he got from the USA, amongst others - fourth paragraph). However, in the aftermath of the Gulf War, he was instructed to destroy all chemical and biological weapons, and cease any production or research of future ones. No-one's denying he had (and used) them fifteen years ago, but he was forced to destroy the lot, and this is simply not evidence that he still had them in the Gulf War II.

Did you not notice the date, or was this intended to be deliberately misleading? I don't mean to call your integrity into question, but so far you're 0 for two.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

I'll see your Fox News link, and raise you a statistically-proven right-wing propaganda bias: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News#Controversie s_and_allegations_of_bias
(Particularly the paragraph "Reports, polls and studies").

Hell, I'll also raise you a direct quote from the article: "However, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the results were from a field test, which can be imperfect, and said more analysis was needed. If confirmed, it would be the first finding of a banned weapon upon which the United States based its case for war". so, if Even Rumsfeld is casting doubts on the authenticity of the results, show me the article where it's confirmed, or I'll have to disregard this as a credible piece of evidence.

Oh, and if you want to dispute Fox's known and pronounced right-wing bias, please, please, please also read this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html

"Monday's early morning raid found 11 precursor agents, "some of them quite dangerous by themselves," a military spokesman, Lt. Col. Steven A. Boylan, said in Baghdad". This is very different to finding actual w

What pisses off people who believe in intelligent design is not people who don't believe in intelligent design, but people who are trying to completely erase their beliefs from the curriculum.

... and people trying to erase intelligent design from the curriculum are just as close-minded and just as guilty of forcing their beliefs on others as those who try to erase evolutionary theory from the curiculum

Then again, success or failure of a marriage is more or less a science now. :-)

Stop attatching political affiliations with every idea, and stop treating people with disdain simply because they have opposing views to yours, it simply implies ignorance on your part.

As far as huge underground bunkers go, read this(present evidence) and this(past evidence).

As far as chemical warfare goes, read this(present evidence), this(more present evidence over a year later), and this(past evidence).

If you're still too stubborn to admit that my original response might have an ounce of validity, go read about Iraq's previous tactics in recent wars... the U.N. told them to be good and Iraq ignored them, what made you think that Iraq all of the sudden became this nice little peaceful nation over a decade of time? Saddam had it coming.
Regards,
Steve

That $300 million will go to finance the Bush administration's War on Pornography, which is now one of the top priorities in the Justice Department. I'm sure that money will be used to hire staff and lawyers to draw up vague "obscenity" charges against anyone distributing any form of pornography in the U.S.

As a fiscal conservative, I'm ashamed to say that I voted for Bush and did not see this coming. Laugh if you will, but I honestly thought politicians had given up policing the bedroom. Apparently not. (And don't give me any partisan crap, many Democrats would love to kill off porn as well...)

With the current government in power in the USA, much credence is being given to fronge religious peoples. It is quite possible considering the new Justices being appointed to the SCOTUS would change the flavor of the court and result in challenges to pornography protection being successful!

Perhaps this is what concerns the EU? Have you not heard of the "anti-obscenity" squad/taskforce/whatever being put together by the FBI? Google "War On Pornography" if you don't like my sample here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2005/09/19/AR2005091901570.html

Personally, I'd rather be forbidden to use racist speech on the internet than to be forbidden pornography! Racism hurts people and divides societies, pornography does not despite all the complaining from the moralizers.

And still other times competition might be good for the consumer on the face of it but the companies drive themselves into the ground in the process (the airline industry) and the customers/taxpayers get to pick up the pieces.

Name one prediction that has come to pass.

Here's the one I was talking about: link. Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Also, I'm not aware of any competing theories.

Couldn't it merely be that instead of a common ancestor, we have a common creator?

Who cares? You can't test that, falsify it, or make predictions based on it.

I am talking about the offical government position of a "core EU" nation (germany). In case you have been living in a bubble read this .
 
  if you are too lazy to click:


"The American president closes his eyes to the economic and human damages that are inflicted on his country and the world economy by natural disasters, like Katrina, through neglected climate protection," Trittin wrote in his opinion piece, which was published Tuesday. "When reason finally reaches the headquarters of the climate polluters, the international community will need to be able to extend a hand with an elaborate proposal for the future of international climate protection. The German government stands ready for this."
.....

Neither Schroeder nor Fischer distanced themselves from Trittin's remarks, which were still reverberating Thursday.


Ah such kind words.

"eminent domain" is for public infrastructure. A freeway, A national park, a dam, etc.

Guess you missed the memo - the Supreme Court made in ruling in June that vastly expanded eminent domain. From the Washington Post:

"The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that local governments may force property owners to sell out and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted and the new project's success is not guaranteed."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2005/06/23/AR2005062300783_pf.html

What were seeing here is "politically connected" car dealerships, convincing local city governments to declare your house a "blight", have it demolished and give you what "they think" is fair compensation, so that the "privately owned" dealership can now expand its parking lot onto what used to be your property.

None of this back-dealing necessary anymore. The corruption is now institutionalized and the law of the land. If something other than what you're doing on your property might generate more tax revenue or might somehow benefit the public - more big box stores appear to be mostly what they have in mind - local governments can now force you to sell the property. No blight or back-alley deals necessary.

We agree that DNS should change to get out from any government control. Probably because we also agree that the US government is headed by a guy who "has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution" (when we all agree with George Will, if for different reasons, the government must really be broken). We also agree about freedom and the unacceptability of bureaucratic limits on it.

So it's only to be clear that we don't have to agree on everything to agree on how to change DNS that I correct your downplaying the US use of force to keep DNS under its control. The US is not defending its control of DNS on the basis of consensus of the other, international, parties to the DNS system. It's not defending its control on the basis of effective operations. It's defending its control, supported by many American voices in this thread, on the basis of "you can't take it from us, regardless of who's right". Backed by American political, economic and military force. Sure, we've got technology and personnel on our side, too, but that's not what we're defending our control with. The fact that others in the UN are using international politics and UN rules to make a change amounts to "force", of a kind, also. But it's not the kind of force the US is using to keep control. Because their complaints are legitimate - the US has earned their concern. And even Americans ought to be concerned that our government, or a subsequent one (in the continuous decay of principled organizations common to all epochs). When the Secret Service confiscates a highschool student's mild Bush protest poster preparatory to preparing an indictment, we all have to ensure government, even our own, doesn't destroy the institutions upon which we depend for daily life. Including, but not limited to, the Internet. In those cases, we're all in the same boat as the "international community", and face the same unjustifiable, but backed by force, enemy of our rights. The difference is that we Americans are responsible for maintaining that risk.

ICANN is contracted by the Department of Commerce, which is controlled by -- you guessed it -- Congress. Congress has several times in the past tried to make laws governing Internet content (Communications Decency Act, anyone?). Fortunately, thanks to a sane supreme court, the law was struck down and freedoms were preserved. Unfortunately, however, the Supreme Court isn't guaranteed to remain sane, and I (along with a not insignifican percentage of Americans, and most other people in the world) don't really trust the president to appoint non-wingnuts.

Also, just because political speech is generally protected at the moment doesn't mean our freedoms aren't being eroded. Certain political parodies can result nowadays in run-ins with the police. And if you're a member of the press, Don't try to take pictures of coffins coming home from Iraq. Oh, and if you try to pull any of that peaceful protest stuff where news cameras might see you near the president, don't be surprised if the police escort you off to a 'free speech zone.'

This gets its own paragraph because it's particularly worrisome.

As for other expression involving consenting adults, take a look at the War on Porn, for instance. Porn may not be political expression, but it is expression nonetheless, and tax dollars are being wasted trying to stamp it out because some people disapprove of it on religious grounds. That's to say nothing of the fact that in Texas, anal sex (once again between consenting adults) would still be illegal (yes, on religious grounds again) had the Supreme Court (which, again, isn't guaranteed to remain sane) not stepped in. Sex toys are still illegal in Alabama... what non-religious reason could there possibly be for banning them?

Also, the United States isn't one to talk about human rights violations (is it really just a few soldiers acting on their own, or does it go all the way to the top?). Or internment camps.

Other countries may also be nervous about our constant attempts at setting up massive surveillance networks.

You're right on a few counts: China and Cuba are a lot worse than we are. Also, European anti-hate-speech laws are a violation of free speech. That does not excuse this country's conduct. As long as we aren't the most free country in the world, America has a problem. Say it with me.

America has a problem.

The rest of the world sees it. Half of us see it. We're just not responsible enough to handle control of the internet right now.

ICANN is contracted by the Department of Commerce, which is controlled by -- you guessed it -- Congress. Congress has several times in the past tried to make laws governing Internet content (Communications Decency Act, anyone?). Fortunately, thanks to a sane supreme court, the law was struck down and freedoms were preserved. Unfortunately, however, the Supreme Court isn't guaranteed to remain sane, and I (along with a not insignifican percentage of Americans, and most other people in the world) don't really trust the president to appoint non-wingnuts.

Also, just because political speech is generally protected at the moment doesn't mean our freedoms aren't being eroded. Certain political parodies can result nowadays in run-ins with the police. And if you're a member of the press, Don't try to take pictures of coffins coming home from Iraq. Oh, and if you try to pull any of that peaceful protest stuff where news cameras might see you near the president, don't be surprised if the police escort you off to a 'free speech zone.'

This gets its own paragraph because it's particularly worrisome.

As for other expression involving consenting adults, take a look at the War on Porn, for instance. Porn may not be political expression, but it is expression nonetheless, and tax dollars are being wasted trying to stamp it out because some people disapprove of it on religious grounds. That's to say nothing of the fact that in Texas, anal sex (once again between consenting adults) would still be illegal (yes, on religious grounds again) had the Supreme Court (which, again, isn't guaranteed to remain sane) not stepped in. Sex toys are still illegal in Alabama... what non-religious reason could there possibly be for banning them?

Also, the United States isn't one to talk about human rights violations (is it really just a few soldiers acting on their own, or does it go all the way to the top?). Or internment camps.

Other countries may also be nervous about our constant attempts at setting up massive surveillance networks.

You're right on a few counts: China and Cuba are a lot worse than we are. Also, European anti-hate-speech laws are a violation of free speech. That does not excuse this country's conduct. As long as we aren't the most free country in the world, America has a problem. Say it with me.

America has a problem.

The rest of the world sees it. Half of us see it. We're just not responsible enough to handle control of the internet right now.

into participating in the military-industrial complex.

Meanwhile, George W. Bush proclaims the spread of
democracy.

Wake up, Amerika, and smell the insidious agenda of BushCo.

Regards,
K. Grout, C.T.O.

Clinton was impeached for a blowjob.

You could at least toss a nod of acknowledgement at reality while racing past it.

Clinton was impeached for perjury, obstruction of justice, and suborning the perjury of a witness in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case. The fact that the witness had polished the presidential knob was a detail of the offense (being one thing lied about), but not the basis of any of the charges (there were four articles of impeachment, two of which passed).

I would prefer that he had been impeached for serial rape, but justice is such a gauzy notion. No one on the committee voted on the substance of the charges anyway (1st article 3rd article). Direct and unequivocal admissions of guilt are apparently not enough to convince some people

On the other hand, teeming hordes of frothing moonbats have yet to produce any substance behind the charge that Bush lied to get us into Iraq. They just like it because it makes people get mad without thinking. So no, there's really no comparison.

plus he's nominating his own personal lawyer with NO experience as a judge

It was mainly Dems who appealed to Bush to nominate someone to the court from outside of the system in the first place. Meirs was recommended by Harry Reid himself, and he's endorsed her nomination. After the Roberts process somehow resulted in 22 votes against, I don't think Bush had any choice but to select someone with no judicial record.

Clinton was impeached for a blowjob.

You could at least toss a nod of acknowledgement at reality while racing past it.

Clinton was impeached for perjury, obstruction of justice, and suborning the perjury of a witness in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case. The fact that the witness had polished the presidential knob was a detail of the offense (being one thing lied about), but not the basis of any of the charges (there were four articles of impeachment, two of which passed).

I would prefer that he had been impeached for serial rape, but justice is such a gauzy notion. No one on the committee voted on the substance of the charges anyway (1st article 3rd article). Direct and unequivocal admissions of guilt are apparently not enough to convince some people

On the other hand, teeming hordes of frothing moonbats have yet to produce any substance behind the charge that Bush lied to get us into Iraq. They just like it because it makes people get mad without thinking. So no, there's really no comparison.

plus he's nominating his own personal lawyer with NO experience as a judge

It was mainly Dems who appealed to Bush to nominate someone to the court from outside of the system in the first place. Meirs was recommended by Harry Reid himself, and he's endorsed her nomination. After the Roberts process somehow resulted in 22 votes against, I don't think Bush had any choice but to select someone with no judicial record.

When Moon's coronation is complete the SCOTUS will turn over permanent presidency to him and the Bilderberger overlords.

I have real links:
 

• • http://gadflyer.com/articles/?ArticleID=131
    
  • http://www.iapprovethismessiah.com/2004/06/this-re ally-happened-at-senate-office.html
    
  • http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/06/21/moon/ index_np.html
    
  • http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A619 32-2004Jun22.html
    
  • http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19- 2004Jul20.html
    

You see, Scientology or "PSI-entology", is a front for the "one world government" plans that Moon is a key agent for. The Tom Cruise movies they use to warp American values are secret PSI weapons that are devised by Moon's PSI research arm, the "Church" of PSI-entology. Oprah and Dr. Phil are two operatives working against middle America, which is why they performed oral-sex on Schwarzenegger on live TV - at the orders of Moon himself.

"I do not know" say the Great Bells of Bow
"Here comes a Candle to light you to Bed
Here comes a Chopper to Chop off your Head
Chip chop chip chop - the Last Man's Dead."

When Moon's coronation is complete the SCOTUS will turn over permanent presidency to him and the Bilderberger overlords.

I have real links:
 

• • http://gadflyer.com/articles/?ArticleID=131
    
  • http://www.iapprovethismessiah.com/2004/06/this-re ally-happened-at-senate-office.html
    
  • http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/06/21/moon/ index_np.html
    
  • http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A619 32-2004Jun22.html
    
  • http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19- 2004Jul20.html
    

You see, Scientology or "PSI-entology", is a front for the "one world government" plans that Moon is a key agent for. The Tom Cruise movies they use to warp American values are secret PSI weapons that are devised by Moon's PSI research arm, the "Church" of PSI-entology. Oprah and Dr. Phil are two operatives working against middle America, which is why they performed oral-sex on Schwarzenegger on live TV - at the orders of Moon himself.

"I do not know" say the Great Bells of Bow
"Here comes a Candle to light you to Bed
Here comes a Chopper to Chop off your Head
Chip chop chip chop - the Last Man's Dead."

My guess is that Miers is not necessarily going to be as conservative as some people might think. In fact, she may turn out to be a bit more liberal than several prominent Republicans might like. Of course, like you said, you can never tell what a person is going to be like once they are confirmed and on the bench until they start deciding cases.

And to follow on with your comment about David Souter, a Reagan apointee, Anthony Kennedy, once voted on a case a certain way because he felt it was the "conservative" way to vote. Then, having been tasked with writing the majority opinion, he realized what he was writing wasn't what he truly felt, and ended up changing his vote and swinging the case in the other direction.

Ford never expected Justice Stevens to become as liberal as he is either.

Hardly.

The linked article (a piece of legitimate journalism) should be unbiased, the headline need not be. Perspective is important as it creates an environment in which intelligent discussion can gestate. Rather than merely squelching what you perceive as bias with a random slew of generalizations, perhaps you should understand the issue at hand:

P2P filesharing. The two stances? Copyright infringement vs. legitimate music acquisition.

Why isn't it a big deal? The smaller labels aren't complaining about filesharing...independent artists aren't complaining...it seems only major labels care. Most artists on those labels make only 7 to 8 points on CD sales anyway, so they don't profit. If music sales decline (and a number of studies have shown that P2P does not harm, and may even boost sales, as shown here, here (PDF), and here, just to name a few) then the artists really don't feel the hurt, as they profit mostly from merchandising and live shows. Both of those require fans. Thus, the more people to hear their music, the more likely they'll sell out a show, or sell more merchandise, and thus profit. This is why more and more artists are endorsing file sharing. If you understand the real issue of corporate control (Infinity, Clearchannel, and Viacom control the vast majority of radio in America, as well as venues, and where I live in Cleveland, Clearchannel owns all of the billboards), then you will notice that a bias here isn't so bad.

Arists need an audience to exist. If they are not on a major label and thus can't get airplay, how can they find an audience? (hint, the answer is filesharing).

Rash generalizations and non-sequitors do little to address the issues and, rather than bias, are what paints Slashdot in a poor light and keeps it from being taken seriously as more than a niche geek site with very rigid agendas and a strict groupthink policy.

The U.S. is pro-democracy, but only insofar as democracy is a means to guarantee a liberal and limited government. The UN is anything but, because of its member states, who are far more willing (indeed eager) to regulate, limit, and filter the internet. Other nations already have a voice--they just don't have ultimate control. And that's a good thing.

The U.S. is pro-democracy? - only insofar as it serves their intentions by giving it lip service. Historically the USA has been for Democracy only when the democratic process results in a government they find pliant or tolerable.

Our current pretender, Mr. Bush is allied with Musharraf, the Pakistani dictator who overthrew a democratically elected government. The Bush Admin has expended great efforts stretching the truth about N.Korea, Iran and Iraq, while hiding the truth about Pakistan's exportation of nuclear tech to other countries. Up until recently the Bush Administration was happy to ally with one of the world's present day devils, Uzbekistan's Karimov, and even after last May's Uzbek government's Andijon massacre of their protesting citzenry, which was described by one of the protestors with "They shot at us like rabbits", equivocated before supporting the EU demand for an International Inquiry. While this was going on, they had actively tried to destablize Chavez in Venezuela, who won his election. Then there is the Abdullah love pecks.

Are these allies of ours liberal and limited governments? The only reason the Bush Admin presently loudly touts democracy, is that it's the only even half-assed rationale left for Bush's War Upon Iraq. It certainly wasn't waged to get our real enemy, the 911 perps, many of whom have licked their wounds received from Afghanistan battles up in Pakistan.

And this is only our present Administration. The Pro Democracy spin is hype. The American Government is comprised of powermongering control freaks, the truth notwithstanding.

Yeah, so The USA is better than the Dynastic Maoposeur gang's Great Firewall of China, and mainliand's i-net policy of Hu owns Yu; so all your posts are belong to the People's Republic, but the US government is still insidious, and still without a clue. I was spooked to see how a weird-assed robot with a dot mil DNS resolution made a jump across two web domains on a previously invisible thread, in the temporary weblogs, only to have both providers(1 UK and 1 US based) erase its tracks on the permannent logs. Especially since the pages had nothing whatsover to do with "terrorism". One was a satire about Mike Savage's and Alan Ginsburg's frolicking relationship from the past, and the other some political cartoons.

The great terrorist hunters of the Naval War College , investigating adolescent humour poking fun at right-wing homophobia in their herculean attempts to probe and root out the evil doers. They aren't called Rear Admirals for nothing; In The Navy...

The USA politicians want control of the internet only for the sake of control, and for the advantages they can then provide to their cronies.

"Stem cells are not banned at all, billions of dollars have been spent on stem cell research in the US."

Oh, so Christofer Reeves didn't fight at all then. I should have been more clear, embryonic stem cell research.

"For the CDC and condoms, maybe you could actually look at what they say, from their website: Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing transmission of HIV,"

http://democrats.reform.house.gov/features/politic s_and_science/example_condoms.htm

"I hear the word fuck all the time on tv, I see nudity all the time on tv. Not during the day on broadcast or public channels though, but I can still hear fuck and see tits if I want."

Yes, you can watch it all you want. But that's not freedom. Freedom is when people can say fuck, in the daytime, on public airwaves. You may not like it, but you should fight for.

"Kansas may be having a dicussion right now about Intelligent Design, but thats a discussion that the people of Kansas will vote on and decide, not some religious decree from a religious dictator (for the record I think ID is stupid and should not be taught), even if it was taught, thats only Kansas and parents do not have to send their children to school, they can teach them at home, or at a private school."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2005/08/02/AR2005080201686.html

It's not only Kansas. Ye olde DUBBYA, has made som funny remarks. But otherwise we have the same opinion about Kansas I think.

"For you're Georgia claim, perhaps you should read the news(or at least use google): Judge: Evolution stickers unconstitutional, "

I am well aware of this ruling. Thank the FSM (http://www.venganza.org/ ) for that. My point was to show that these kind of decisions happen over and over again, and not all are overturned.

"and yes, half the country is against abortion (I am not) and for freeing the Iraqi people and death penalty (I am). "

Good, you are not as hypocritical as most. But stop using the term "freeing the Iraqi people". They are being sent to the same prisons and being tortured by the same people as during Saddams rule. Only difference is that nothing works in Iraq right now, since it's all been bombed.