Slashdot Mirror


Hardball Tactics For The Geek Lobby

sfjoe writes: "The San Francisco Chronicle has this story on how to effectively make the point about online freedom of speech. In a nutshell, until a legislator gets slapped around (electorally-speaking) for kowtowing to the narrow corporate interests, nobody in Congress will take online civil liberties seriously. On the other hand if, for example, Senator Disney gets his balls whacked (electorally-speaking), monstrosities like the DMCA will start getting bottled up in congressional committees. The NRA has been doing this for years and it works."

343 comments

  1. Seriously? by Warped-Reality · · Score: 1

    Isn't this kind of a statement of the obvious?

    Politicions don't really care about the corporations unless it helps them get elected. If helping civil liberties gets them elected, that's what they'll go for.

    --
    This is not the greatest sig in the world, no. This is just a tribute.
    1. Re:Seriously? by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 2

      There's a chicken/egg situation here. A politician that kowtows to corporate interest gets access to a nice fat warchest. With which they can go out and purchase expensive television ads that allow them to spin their record appropriately (as defenders of the economy, friends of the artist, warriors against crime, etc.) Public perception costs money.

    2. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No they will go for Corporations when thier brother (son-in-law, uncle, whore, bestial companion, etc.) runs them, which seems to happen a lot.

    3. Re:Seriously? by Ccochese · · Score: 1

      Well it's both actually, and more. The people who participate in the process get what they want, or at the very least they understand that they did all they could to get what they want, accept it and move on. That's the whole idea behind a representative democracy. Unfortunately, the biggest participants in our system happen to be international multimedia conglomerates with one thing on their mind: making money. If more than 50% of the US population turns out for this mid-term election, I'll be surpised as hell, pleasantly surpised though.

      --
      --w00t
    4. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Politicians do as they are told by those who hired them. The
      mulinationals is their boss, and they can ruin them (or replace them)
      at a momement's notice. The orders are from above, what the
      public thinks is almost always irrelevent.
      But I expect your response: it is the public
      who elects them. NO! The public chooses one of
      few alternatives, which one specifically they
      choose is a matter of parsonality but not of
      substance.

    5. Re:Seriously? by galen22198 · · Score: 1

      This seems like a fairly common explination of our political system, espoused by Ralph Nader, Michael Moore, and John McCain, among others. However, I often hear the accusation but seldom hear the evidence.

      I would be interested in any hard evidence of corporations controlling politicians.

      Indeed, one might say that the NRA controls Congress by giving large sums of money to politicians to buy their votes when gun-control related bills come up for a vote. And this assertion would seem to be born out by looking at the votes of those who received large sums of money from the NRA -- they most often vote along the lines that the NRA would like.

      But I wonder if there might be a different explination. Perhaps the NRA is giving money to people who it knows already share its views. Just as I sometimes give a small contribution to a political candidate that I want to win, the NRA gives vast somes of money to politicians that it wants to win. They're just bigger and more organized. But keep in mind -- the NRA, and organizations like it (hopefully to include GeekPAC) are supported by tens of thousands of dues-paying members.

      So, corporations, organizations, and hopefully the "Geek lobby" are simply conduits to organize the political desires of individuals. I can't think of anything more democratic.

      As a side note, George Will has written an interesting column about the current scheme to limit free expression in the name of "reform" of our allegedly corporate-owned political system.

  2. NRA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The *NRA* has been using this for years?

    How about the Brady Bill? Anyone remember that? Our Second Amendment rights are being chipped away every minute Congress is in session!

    1. Re:NRA? by MisterBlister · · Score: 1
      How about the Brady Bill? Anyone remember that? Our Second Amendment rights are being chipped away every minute Congress is in session!

      Maybe if one of us gets shot in the head at close range we'll aquire the political clout to get the DMCA repealed.. Any volunteers? Katz?

    2. Re:NRA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's nuts to give guns to criminals, etc., the idea of the Brady bill was a good one...even if in practice it's mostly useless...

      The NRA isn't quite stupid enough to want criminals to have easy access to firearms, after all, that kind of bad press is bad for it in the long run...no, the reason they are against OBVIOUSLY bad ideas like GUN SHOWS and that LOOPHOLE is because they, like so many orgs nowadays, have this slippery-slope idea, as you seem to...

      Basically, any progress towards smarter gun control they are against...as you seem to be with your word, "eroding". Welp, as far as I'm concerned, until the only way a bad gay can get a gun is by stealing it, we need to keep right on "eroding" away...

      I do understand their mentality though, this is completely off-topic, of course, but I'm an athiest and against display of 10 commandments, etc...silly? Maybe. A display of them somewhere in Scheboigan doesn't realy affect me, but because of that whole "slippery-slope" thing, I don't want their display to become common, hence I fight it!

      Tootles,

  3. Would you being willing to Vote Geek? by chrisd · · Score: 5, Insightful
    So it's like this, would you say to yourself "X's policies on abortion are reprehensible, but since he is for freedom on the net, I'll vote for him" and vice versa?

    That's the essence of the NRA, their membership votes guns, so the question is are there enough people to vote geek? (and pay a real membership fee)

    Chris

    --
    Co-Editor, Open Sources
    Open Source Program Manager, Google, Inc.
    1. Re:Would you being willing to Vote Geek? by InferiorFloater · · Score: 1

      No, it's more like this:

      "X's policies on online freedom are reprehensible, so run a big ad campaign against him and make sure he doesn't get reelected."

      It's more about negative reinforcement for our congressmen then about prioritizing issues.

      --

      ---------
      Get back to me when my brain starts working.
    2. Re:Would you being willing to Vote Geek? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. I know I am, and I think there are enough geek supporters out there to make an impact on an election... or spread a decent smear campaign if necessary.

    3. Re:Would you being willing to Vote Geek? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      God forbid we should have another knee-jerk single-issue litmus test for our legislators. The very reason we have sound-bite spewing, poll-driven politicians who manage to say very little of substance in the space of many pretty-sounding words is BECAUSE of single-issue voters.

      So we end up with people who are great on privacy and free speech. So what! What if they're also xenophobic anti-environmental nut cases who wanna use taxpayer money to teach kids about Jesus?

      If you only ever focus on one issue, you're going to lose out on all of the others. You also get locked into a bipolar polital spectrum on that issue, where there are only two acceptable positions on the given issue, both of which are probably wrong. Reasonable positions are unacceptable to both parties involved.

      Case in point: abortion (-1; Flamebait).

    4. Re:Would you being willing to Vote Geek? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's not how the NRA works, that's how Gun Owners United work.

      I'm an NRA member BTW.

      The NRA has 7 million people that fork over money, they are thus a powerful organization that uses that money to advertise and influence the local, state and national elected officals.

      All the stories in Time and Newsweek and sigs on Slashdot about things like the Copyright Bill and the DMCA don't get the attention of people like the buzz of a large political organization IMO.

      I might join an Organization that is a Tech PAC. And even pay money.

    5. Re:Would you being willing to Vote Geek? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I think it largely depends on the weight of the issues to the voter. If we, as voters, make online privacy, the defeat of the DMCA, etc, our priority and vote that way it will get politician's attention.

      Another thing that should happen is that more of us (and by "us" I mean the average slashdot reader - not mom and pop AOL) should actually seek office.

      Sure, it's expensive, but somebody's got to bring down jackasses like Hollings, Feinstein, Daschle, Leahy, and Biden. Not to mention Jeffords..

    6. Re:Would you being willing to Vote Geek? by MrZaius · · Score: 1

      >are there enough people to vote geek

      I would and have, but surprisingly my vote seems to have gone unheard. Mr. Brown lost every state to an anti-geek presidential candidate.

    7. Re:Would you being willing to Vote Geek? by davidcorny · · Score: 1

      "So we end up with people who are great on privacy and free speech. So what! What if they're also xenophobic anti-environmental nut cases who wanna use taxpayer money to teach kids about Jesus?"

      Well... the idea is that certain issues are generally linked together. I'd like to clearly state that I am not for simply drawing a line between "liberal" and "conservative" and then distributing all issues on either side; but one has to admit that certain issues can commonly be found on either side.

      I'd like to say I agree with you on the single-issue ordeal; but if a candidate as the one you described becomes a famous, then that doesn't mean we HAVE to vote for him or her. That's just the problem, people seem to think they only have limited options.

    8. Re:Would you being willing to Vote Geek? by Fat+Casper · · Score: 2
      I see where you are coming from, but I don't think anyone with real feelings about freedom (net or meatspace) will have reprehensible views on abortion. Of course, no one with real feelings about freedom would have voted for the USAPATRIOT act. Or the DMCA.

      Screw it, folks. I don't care if you vote geek or not; just fucking vote! We'll get better government if we vote instead of whine. I do both- voting just shows that I actually care about what I'm whining about.

      --
      I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
    9. Re:Would you being willing to Vote Geek? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that the NRA has 7 million people with guns on their members list doesn't hurt in the influence department either.

    10. Re:Would you being willing to Vote Geek? by 037 · · Score: 1
      Reading the other posts, I have to say that this is the proper direction to be arguing. If you look at the political action groups that stricke the most fear in political chest cavities (hearts being absent), it's groups with religious or near-religious fervour.

      The NRA, the Anti-abortion lobby, these people are fanatics. Political fanatics who are willing to spend a lot of time, effort, and money on nothing but a particular looney belief.

      As much as I am devoted to liberties of information and so on, it's not the sort of thing that makes me want to scream, weep, and get into a club devoted to. As much as I'd love to spend a few bucks, this isn't the actual right route.

      No one is ever going to be intimidated by a group of geeks because (and I know none of us get to hear this often, so relish it) we have a life. Compared to members of the Christian right or other highly-motivated looneys, we have a life.

      Note, for example, that the feminst lobby doesn't exactly have politicians shaking in their boots. There are more women then there are geeks. Instead of trying to beat entertainment concerns dollar for dollar, it would make more sense to spend your time and energy on campaign-finance reform. That's the whole problem here. That's the battle that needs fighting.

      --
      Everything above may well be poorly-thought out / spelled. Blame the beer, not me.
    11. Re:Would you being willing to Vote Geek? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Right. Those of us in those groups couldn't possibly have worthwhile opinions which we can articulate and back with facts. No, of course not. Clearly the only rational explanation is that anyone who disagrees with you is simply a looney.

      Fuck off.

    12. Re:Would you being willing to Vote Geek? by Netbrian · · Score: 1

      Within your needlessly knee-jerk response, you completely missed the important point made. No matter which side you vote for, no matter which issues you represent, campaign finance reform is vitally important to the success of both digital and real-world rights and voice.

    13. Re:Would you being willing to Vote Geek? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's more about negative reinforcement for our congressmen

      That's not negative reinforcement, it's just punishment. Negative reinforcement is when an aversive stimulus is switched off following a specific behaviour. Eg, the rat is in a cage with the floor electrified, the rat presses the bar, the electricity goes off --> negative reinforcement.

    14. Re:Would you being willing to Vote Geek? by CptNerd · · Score: 1

      Except now, thanks to the newly passed "campaign finance reform" laws, you are not allowed to mention the name of any candidate within 60 days of the election. Can't have the unwashed masses "illegally" supporting a challenger to the incumbent.

      --
      By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
    15. Re:Would you being willing to Vote Geek? by Alex · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "I see where you are coming from, but I don't think anyone with real feelings about freedom (net or meatspace) will have reprehensible views on abortion."

      REALLY REALLY bad example there - do you mean - "The freedom of the mother to choose" or "The freedom of the unborn child"?

      One of those two is reprehensible to EVERYONE - because everyone's definition of freedom is different.

      Alex

    16. Re:Would you being willing to Vote Geek? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are putting Leahy in the "jackass" category? He's the one blocking Hollings' bill.

    17. Re:Would you being willing to Vote Geek? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Exactly -- the original phrasing was well- chosen, because it staked out a controversial issue while deliberately omitting just what the "reprehensible" views were. You could take it either way, depending on your own bias.

      However, despite the amount of vitriol poured out by both sides, I must disagree that "one of those two is reprehensible to everyone"; it is possible, albeit rare, to recognize that there is merit in both arguments. Even if one ultimately decides that the two positions are irreconcilable, that no compromise is possible, and commits to one side or the other, it's not necessary to demonize those who take the opposite position.

      Indeed, Alex, you seem to recognize this yourself.

    18. Re:Would you being willing to Vote Geek? by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

      In politics, dough matters more than guns. 7 million x $35 a year = $245000000. Talk about heads on stakes...(though I prefer pikes).

    19. Re:Would you being willing to Vote Geek? by jafac · · Score: 2

      . .. yeah, get out there and vote! And whine. And give blood too!

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    20. Re:Would you being willing to Vote Geek? by ncc74656 · · Score: 2
      Within your needlessly knee-jerk response, you completely missed the important point made. No matter which side you vote for, no matter which issues you represent, campaign finance reform is vitally important to the success of both digital and real-world rights and voice.

      You are seriously deluded if you believe that so-called "campaign finance reform" will improve the political climate in the slightest. It's little more than an incumbent-protection racket. With the recently-passed legislation, you can't take Fritz Hollings (D-Disney) to task over his asinine legislation within 60 days of an election. If you do, you're breaking the law and could face huge fines and/or time in the Big House. His opponents can't do this either. What is needed is not more control over the election process, but more transparency. Let people say what they want (within the bounds of the slander and libel laws) and let them donate as much money as they want...but require full disclosure. If the voters knew of the millions that Hollings gets from the Hollyweird crowd, maybe they'd stop and wonder if he's really representing them or if he's been bought by others who don't have their interests at heart.

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    21. Re:Would you being willing to Vote Geek? by darkonc · · Score: 2
      It's not just a case of us voting that way: It's a case of us convincing any and everybody who will listen to us to vote that way. In the case of The Senator from DisneyLand, it might be things like geeks in his district getting themselves and their 2000 best friends to sign up for the Democratic party and denying Hollings the Democratic nomination. Then, if he makes it, jump ship to the Republicans and make sure that he loses his seat anyways.

      Similarly, every geek who cares should put up a 10-most-wanted list of senators and/or Representatives that you would like to see tossed out of office; what their riding is; and just what they've voted for that is so reprehensible.

      Giving technical support to the enemies of free speech wouldn't hurt much either.

      Oh yeah -- the double speak thing.... Make sure the people understand the principle of "an enemy of free speech". In much the same way as the NRA points out how rifles are a constitutional right. Personally, I figure that the right to get your speech distributed is somewhere above the right to shoot people.

      A lot of people really don't understand that, if it were not for the interference of the Movie lobby, standards from the '60s and '70s would probably be public domain today .... It would be legal to make copies of "American Pie" or "Riders On the Storm" if legislators had followed the original intent of the First Amendment clause which allows copyrights for a limited time . For the original congress, "limited times", comprised approximately 14 years. It's now 10 times that, and growing. This apparently infinite growth of the limited time exemption is a feature of the 20'th century and according to some, a result of the movie lobby.

      Being able to make legal copies of songs written before the birth of most of the people on this venue would probably relieve some of the pressure on current music as well. It might also allow us to legally preserve copies of early software before it becomes completely unreadable

      --
      Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
    22. Re:Would you being willing to Vote Geek? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With all due respect, neither of those positions are reprehensible to me. I really don't care about abortion one way or the other.

      Several reasons:
      -self selection; IMHO those who choose to have an abortion are, for various reasons, probably people who shouldn't breed, or would make poor parents.

      -I'm male, I can't get pregnant, (and was DAMN careful even before I got married and vasectomized), therefore the issue dosen't affect me.

      -there are WAY too many Fscking people in the world, anything that holds the population down that dosen't terminate MY life is probably a good thing.

      But, on the other hand, outside of if a woman was raped, I think everybody should pretty much be held responsible for their own actions- you got the womb, you let Bubba pop you, guess what you're doing for the next 20 years honey. If abortion become illegal then that is the law of the land. While I may think a law is stupid (eg DMCA or anti pot regulations) I am way too much of a coward to risk the consequences of breaking it.

  4. BackLog by tenman · · Score: 1, Troll

    yeah, i can see it now... the courts will become as backlogged as the patent system. There will be infrengments that lose the media they are infrenging on, before they can make it into court, and the only people that will be makeing money off of this law (as with all laws) are the phat lawyers that will take everybodies money.

    1. Re:BackLog by JesseL · · Score: 2

      What in hell are you talking about? This article is talking about geeks being more active in political issues that concern geeks, esp. with regard to raising support against politicians who act contrary to geek interests.

      --
      "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
    2. Re:BackLog by tenman · · Score: 2

      I was just say'en that I this artical made me think about how the courts could become so clogged with DMCA cases that the law itself could become impotent. the DMCA is not a that the government can't enforce because they can't catch the us, but rather they can't enforce it because the culture is such that there isn't enought court dockets to hold all of the violators on trial. I am etreamely interested in what politician are doing, and I thought that the two comments has something to do with each other.

      Sorry :)

    3. Re:BackLog by JesseL · · Score: 1

      Ah, that makes more sense now. Thanks.

      --
      "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
  5. A link to the "manifesto" by burrows · · Score: 2, Informative

    Read the manifesto here..

    Vote with your /.ing for starters...

  6. Only Half!!! by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 2
    You must have a stick and carrott.


    They do talk about providing money to candidtates that help. But, there is more than just money.

    People can question the bad candidates about their position and publically humiliate them.

    People can use the web to expose the i>bad candidates.


    And the carrot would be the publicity and assitance for the good candidtates. Money helps, but it takes more.

  7. Re:"Online Privacy" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't see an explicit right to put online privacy in quotes either, you are now sentanced to death. Good Day (Hint Supreme Court Decides the law, and they are in thier rulings)

  8. Re:"Online Privacy" by sfjoe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What makes you think that you have some inherent right to "online privacy" or "online freedom"? I don't see that in the bill of rights or the constitution itself, do you?

    Yes, I do. Go back and re-read your US Constitution. Pay particular attention to 9th Amendment. The right to privacy has long been understood to be one of the unenumerated rights.

    --
    It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
  9. I'm begging.... by mikosullivan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... please let's not call it the "Geek Lobby". Even if we use the term amongst ourselves, it just won't fly for the general public.

    --
    Miko O'Sullivan
    1. Re:I'm begging.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I suggest Natural Equal Rights for Digerati instead.

    2. Re:I'm begging.... by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 2
      The bad news is that the most effective name would probably be (gulp) "The CyberFreedom Lobby."

      I feel dirty.

    3. Re:I'm begging.... by dattaway · · Score: 2

      Sounds good to me. The name won't matter, we have our man:

      Senator Disney.

      Read the following quote what we are going to do with him, all else is irrelevant:

      When the National Rifle Association, or the Christian Coalition or Emily's List, for that matter, want action on an issue, the strategists behind those well-run groups usually pick a smart fight with one or more of their key opponents. They target their resources to just those specific races, sometimes to just one race. Rather than give 200 politicians $1,000 each, the savviest PACs instead will spend $200,000 or more kicking the bejesus out of just one single office holder.

    4. Re:I'm begging.... by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The problem is that Senator Disney's consituency is in South Carolina. We will never get enough critical mass together to threaten his lock on his voter base - not enough of the right demographic is there (and please, all 5 of you in Columbus and Charleston, don't take umbrage.)

      The person whose cage we should be rattling is in California. Dianne Feinstein. I'm a Democrat, yet I don't vote for her. She's generally vulnerable on civil liberties issues. If we could threaten her seat, it would make a lot of people sit up and take notice.

    5. Re:I'm begging.... by bravehamster · · Score: 2
      ... please let's not call it the "Geek Lobby". Even if we use the term amongst ourselves, it just won't fly for the general public.


      Why not the "Geek Lobby"? If you look around society recently, you'll find that "geek" no longer has the negative connotations that it use to. Take, for example, Comedy Centrals boring game show "Beat the Geeks" (which should be called Pop-culture Trivia Extravaganza, I mean seriously, a South Park geek? C'mon... but I digress). The "geeks" are recognized as the experts they are. And aren't ridiculed. Call it Geek Pride, call it a social movement towards a technocratic society, but there's nothing wrong these days with the word "Geek". Be proud of what you are. Embrace your trackball. Tell your friends how quickly you reached the karma cap on slashdot. Go out into the sun with your pasty-white arms raised on high and cry out to the world "I AM GEEK...WATCH ME CODE". And let the world tremble...for we are coming.

      --
      ---- El diablo esta en mis pantalones! Mire, mire!
    6. Re:I'm begging.... by einstein · · Score: 1
      The problem is that Senator Disney's consituency is in South Carolina. We will never get enough critical mass together to threaten his lock on his voter base - not enough of the right demographic is there (and please, all 5 of you in Columbus and Charleston, don't take umbrage.)


      maybe redhat could move south?
      ---

    7. Re:I'm begging.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      We will never get enough critical mass together to threaten his lock on his voter base

      Never underestimate the power of a little child pr0n.

    8. Re:I'm begging.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's so simple:

      TechPAC

    9. Re:I'm begging.... by allism · · Score: 1

      Sure, go ahead and proudly proclaim yourself a geek loudly while you go ask that girl in the grocery store for a date--and I'm not talking about the girl with no social skills and glasses thicker than yours. Let me know if she runs screaming or kicks you in the balls.

    10. Re:I'm begging.... by MeNeXT · · Score: 2
      Now this is someting we all know. We've been on the receiving end through school so we should be able to dish it out.


      Now I can say look mom I learned someting in high school...I learned how to be a BULLY

      --
      DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
    11. Re:I'm begging.... by bravehamster · · Score: 1

      Sure, go ahead and proudly proclaim yourself a geek loudly while you go ask that girl in the grocery store for a date--and I'm not talking about the girl with no social skills and glasses thicker than yours. Let me know if she runs screaming or kicks you in the balls.

      Regardless of the girl in the grocery stores' reply, my wife will probably be the one to kick me in the balls. ;)

      --
      ---- El diablo esta en mis pantalones! Mire, mire!
    12. Re:I'm begging.... by Heironymus+Coward · · Score: 1
      The person whose cage we should be rattling is in California. Dianne Feinstein. I'm a Democrat, yet I don't vote for her.

      the problem is: feinstein has the democratic nomination locked down.

      this means that the only challenge to her continued reign-of-terror would be a republican. aside from the moral problem with voting republican, they are even more beholden to corporate interests than feinstein.

      as the saying goes: democrats tell you they're on your side, then screw you over. republicans are honest about it, though.

    13. Re:I'm begging.... by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 2

      The last Republican to run against Dianne Feinstein was Tom Campbell. He was a Republican I could vote for: against the war on drugs, fiscally moderate, very secular - he's farther left than a bunch of Democrats I could mention. I'm no DLC-type Democrat, either: I vote Green when I don't vote Dem. But Feinstein has got to go: she's the kind of Democrat we just don't need. It would definitely put the fear of God (or of Geek) into both parties.

    14. Re:I'm begging.... by Aleks · · Score: 0
      >(and please, all 5 of you in Columbus and Charleston, don't take umbrage.)

      Um, that's Columbia to you, thankyouverymuch.

    15. Re:I'm begging.... by 56ker · · Score: 2

      How about the "intelligent vote" or the "people who can actually be bothered to vote so don't bother wasting your time trying to appeal to the other one's vote" - no I think the first one's catchier!

    16. Re:I'm begging.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's kidna suprizing, but I actually really only like geeks

      so there!

    17. Re:I'm begging.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TV is not real. Comedy Central does not represent real-life people.

    18. Re:I'm begging.... by styrotech · · Score: 1

      Forgive my ignorance being a non USian - Is that the same Feinstein that was into music censorship with Tipper Gore? ie a Jello Biafra comic strip bad guy?

    19. Re:I'm begging.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plus, you're going to have right-wing support and the support of the NRA in getting rid of Feinstein.

    20. Re:I'm begging.... by sconeu · · Score: 2

      I voted for Campbell. Unfortunately, I don't believe Feinstein is up again till either 2004 or 2006. Anyone know for sure?

      Campbell looked to be the best bet to unseat Feinstein. Especially compared to who they ran against her the time before... Herschenson... Feh!

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    21. Re:I'm begging.... by MsGeek · · Score: 2

      As one geek in CA, Feinstein (and Boxer, they are both 0wned by the RIAA and MPAA) is NOT getting my vote. My senatorial votes are going Libertarian the next time they stand for reelection. That way I don't dirty up my hands with the GOP nutcases and I still give my upraised middle finger to Valenti's Made (wo)Men.

      So much for moderating this thread...oh well...

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
    22. Re:I'm begging.... by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 2
      Look, I like the Green party, and I even understand the Nader vote (although anyone who votes Green in the next Presidential election is an idiot - if the Bush victory isn't enough of a lesson in the nature of compromise, maybe the LePen victory should be), and you may like the Libertarians, but that's not what politics are about. Politics are realizing that there are lots of different groups of people with different interests, beliefs and goals, and that you have to unite with enough of them to win. Democracy is always about the lesser of evils, the art of compromise, and scratching-of-backs. By saying that you won't vote against the one person who could unseat Feinstein, you have neutered yourself politically. Because if Valenti's goons win, then your middle finger is meaningless. A threat to vote 3rd party is a threat to do nothing - it doesn't scare anybody.

      Personally, I believe that a Campbell would probably switch to the Dems once elected.

    23. Re:I'm begging.... by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 2
      Plus, you're going to have right-wing support and the support of the NRA in getting rid of Feinstein.
      You really arent getting this, are you? Feinstein never had the right-wing votes. And if the anti-Feinstein vote starts to look TOO NRA and TOO right-wing, then a lot of nose-holders will vote for Feinstein (heck, I'd vote for Feinstein against a right-wing nut if he were bad enough - I know that contradicts what I said before, but I'm not going to single-issue myself to death.) What works is a moderate that can run against her, and that the most obvious difference between her and her opponent be their stand on the issues that we care about as a bloc.
    24. Re:I'm begging.... by Ziffy · · Score: 1

      the girl with no social skills and glasses thicker than yours

      That's pretty much the only kind of girl I'm interested in. I don't care for "hot" or "popular" girls. So there.

    25. Re:I'm begging.... by fwc · · Score: 3, Insightful
      That is exactly the attitude which prevents anyone from the Green or Libertarian or any other third party from being elected. There are too many people out there who think there are really only two choices and are afraid to vote "outside of the box".

      I think the first thing we've got do do is to change our election system to something else where people can really vote their conscience instead of people voting such that "their vote can count".

    26. Re:I'm begging.... by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not an attitude. It's a fact. If you really want to give 3rd parties a chance, you'll change the structure of the legislature and government to something on a European model. I used to vote Green. I've learned my lesson. I speak my conscience, but I vote for results. Consciences don't pass laws, elected officials do. And I realize that the majority of the population of this country does not share my beliefs. I can communicate them by a variety of channels, but frankly, most peoples' beliefs are the result of their interests as they perceive them, not just differences of opinion. (Is it any accident that laissez-faire economics are popular among the class of people who feel they have the most leverage in the job market? Unpopular among classes of people who do not?)

    27. Re:I'm begging.... by C4v3_7r0ll · · Score: 1

      I speak my conscience, but I vote for results. Consciences don't pass laws, elected officials do. And I realize that the majority of the population of this country does not share my beliefs.

      I speak and vote my conscience. I wrote in McCain for President last election because I thought he was the best man for the job, hands down. I can't let myself get into a mental tug of war between voting what will matter and "throwing it away." When it all comes down to it, the only right thing to do for a voter in any country of any demopublic-like government is to vote the way they feel is right. Otherwise it is all a big game and that is *not* the way it should be. In fact, the only way to stop it from being a game is to get as many people as possible to actually vote their conscience. Then the person/people who actually represents the majority view will be able to make the laws that the people want. I won't even get started on strict constitutionalism or states vs. feds rights. The nutshell is that if people vote how they want (no games) then the system will more or less work.

    28. Re:I'm begging.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      • (Is it any accident that laissez-faire economics are popular among the class of people who feel they have the most leverage in the job market? Unpopular among classes of people who do not?)

      Not surprising at all, considering the class of people who have the most leverage in the job market also happen to be the most educated and familiar with the correct role of Government in society.

      The class who don't have leverage in the job market, well, they have more time to show up at protest marches.

    29. Re:I'm begging.... by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

      Feinstein is *SUPER* anti 2nd Amendment. She *HATES* the idea of anybody other than her bodguards having guns (they pack MP5s, IIRC).

    30. Re:I'm begging.... by jafac · · Score: 2

      Campbell was an oil-industry stooge.
      But I did vote for him. Argh, I think I'm gonna be sick.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    31. Re:I'm begging.... by epcraig · · Score: 1

      And you think Gore's margin of defeat wasn't about equal to the number of Baby Boomers who can actuallly remember Congressman Gore's exchanges with St. Zappa and Jello Biafra?

      --
      Ed Craig "Who cares what you think?" George W. Bush, 4th of July 2001
    32. Re:I'm begging.... by dbrutus · · Score: 2

      Actually, what changes things in the US is to push the weaker of the two major parties into 3rd place. Most often, the race that decides that is the governor's race. A lot of patronage and a lot of structural power goes with being one of the top two. For instance, election petition numbers are usually way lower for the top two parties and you can bargain some of your patronage power for legislation either in the state or the federal legislature. After all, how many libertarians want to serve in the election commission make work system? But keeping the Republican or Democrat workers there under the Libertarian label comes at a price.

      If enough states push the Democrat or Republican parties to third party status, you will see them change the rules to be fairer to third parties all on their own.

    33. Re:I'm begging.... by bshanks · · Score: 1

      completely right. we need to switch to a runoff system to give third parties a chance.

  10. EEEEWWWWW!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bad visual. There are some things the should never be publicly discussed. And Fritz Hollings balls are one...two of them

  11. Re:"Online Privacy" by rand0mx · · Score: 2, Insightful

    because the government watching everything we do we free us from 'terror' right? i'm not willing to give up any privacy, online or otherwise. The world will never be free of terror because humans, in general, are far from civilized. Human beings killing ourselves is not something the government can control through the spying on people on the Internet or through any other means.

  12. Where's the beef? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not dig in and find out who the NRA learned this from? That's the kind of info we want.

  13. More info about lobbying tactics by phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Call 1-800-544-3746 or 1-818-882-2878.

  14. Standard American Values by theblacksun · · Score: 1
    I love the line about how much more money is involved in the IT industry that is the entertainment industry.

    And it shows. Computers are calculating nuclear blasts, while America has fallen in love with Britney Spears and pays to see wonderful works of cinematic art like "All About the Benjamins." Think of the quality difference there.

    The point is, the general populas couldn't care less, and neither do their duly elected representatives. The shit is going to have to hit the fan before anyone does anything, but with any luck on their side the gross changes will happen slowly enough that not enough people will feel obliged to take action.

    in short, we're screwed.

    --
    Ignorance kills, complacency kills, hatred kills, but usually not the ones guilty of them.
    1. Re:Standard American Values by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya, the fact that geeks represent something like 0.5 percent of the voting population doesn't help much either.

  15. definitely by Trepidity · · Score: 2

    Especially when other terms like "Tech Lobby" are so readily available and better understood by the general public. When an average person thinks "geek" they likely think either "pimply-faced kid who sits around all day playing either Diablo 2 or Dungeons & Dragons" or if they're too old to think that they think "carnival freak who bites the heads off chickens."

    Now "technology" on the other hand is a word whose meaning is mostly understood by the general public (even if the technology itself usually isn't...).

    1. Re:definitely by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 2

      There is a "tech lobby." They are the corporations of Silicon Valley. Sometimes, as in the case of the hardware manufacturers who are sick of Hollywood's insane demands, they are on the same side as the "GeekPAC." Sometimes, when it comes to preventing reverse engineering and other forms of open research, they are not. In any case, they take care of themselves.

    2. Re:definitely by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "They also wonder out loud why the $600 billion-a-year information-technology sector is letting itself get pushed around by the $20 billion-a-year entertainment industry.

      The answer to that question seems pretty obvious. The IT industry is getting pushed around because it isn't pushing back. Unfortunately, GeekPAC's proposed approach promises to continue that sorry trend."

    3. Re:definitely by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Reading the extraordinary combination of naivete and arrogance that this thread betrays, plus the wide array of partisan agendas and chips-on-shoulders that gets revealed here, it's no wonder at all. The entertainment industry is used to working crowds, used to working together, knows how to talk to people in ways that people like, knows how to be sexy, is used to working across class boundaries. I've known film producers who can quite comfortably talk with sound engineers and technical staff - the geek contempt for anyone who isn't a geek is overwhelming and obvious.

    4. Re:definitely by grahamm · · Score: 1

      the geek contempt for anyone who isn't a geek is overwhelming and obvious.
      But not as bad as most radio & TV presenters who are almost proud that they do not understand anything technical (and assume likewise for the audience) while have no hesitation about assuming that the audience is knowledgeable about the arts and culture.

  16. Congratulations... by owlmeat · · Score: 1

    First post and biggest fscking troll in one.

    --
    They stab it with their steely knives,

    But they just can't kill the beast.

  17. Put your $$$ to work for your rights by Bowfinger · · Score: 5, Insightful
    So when is Senator Hollings/Disney up for reelection, who is his opponent, and is he at all vulnerable? If he is, what's the address for a contribution?

    If even 5% of the geeks who are appalled by the SSSCA/CBDTPA sent a small check to Disney's opponent, we could turn the election. If we include a quick note explaining the contribution, our message will be loud and clear. Formal lobbying groups, public education campaigns, and all the other trappings are nice to have, but the fundamental force comes from lots of people putting their money where their hearts are.

    I think one key, however, is that Hollings must be vulnerable. If he has a token opponent, we should focus on someone else - key word being "one". Sending money to the opposing party, or to several candidates won't cut it at our level. Our pockets aren't deep enough, and we don't have enough of them.

    1. Re:Put your $$$ to work for your rights by Lothar+0 · · Score: 1

      Hollings (a Democrat) faces re-election in 2004, perfect since it's also a Presidential election, and more people are bound to go to the polls than in an off-year race. Right now, South Carolina is having a gubanatorial race with a Democratic incumbent, Jim Hodges, so look for the front-runner on the Republican side (assuming they don't win) to try to take down Hodges in 2 years.

      --
      "Anonymous Coward" is for whistleblowers, not unpopular opinions.
    2. Re:Put your $$$ to work for your rights by Lothar+0 · · Score: 1

      I meant to say, "take down Hollings in 2 years". I slap myself for not hitting the Preview button.

      *slap* Ow.

      --
      "Anonymous Coward" is for whistleblowers, not unpopular opinions.
    3. Re:Put your $$$ to work for your rights by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 2

      What other people have hinted at, I'll say out loud: a Pacific Coast or New England Republican would be tolerable. A Bible Belt Republican would be just a step to the right of the Ayatollah. I'd rather have Mickey Mouse tattooed on my forehead than vote for the encroaching Theocracy.

    4. Re:Put your $$$ to work for your rights by superflippy · · Score: 1

      You can find out more detailed information on Hollings on his page at Project Vote-Smart.

      --
      Your fantasies contain the seeds of important concepts.
    5. Re:Put your $$$ to work for your rights by jafac · · Score: 2

      It probably wouldn't be so bad as that.

      Most of these Politicians just suck up to the Christian Right. They realize, even BUSH realizes, that they're psycho fanatics. Remember the Nixon tape, recently released, where he was conversing with Billy Graham, and Billy Graham was telling Nixon about how terrible it was that the country was being run by the Jews in the media, and Nixon just humored him and said, "yeah, that's right, I believe that" in a perceptibly sarcastic tone. They want the Christian Right's money, but I don't think they seriously want those ideals. Abortion, maybe, but not a lot of the other stuff that's talked about as scare tactics. Your John Aschcrofts' you gotta worry about though. Bush uses the idealistic and simplistic Good Vs. Evil religious rhetoric, because it's convenient to manipulate the emotions of the masses. I don't believe for one second that he has a drop of actual faith in him.

      And look at the last several major Democratic front-runners. Carter, Gore, Clinton - all HARD-CORE Southern Baptists. Clinton may not have outlawed abortion, and he may have tried to suck-up to the women vote, but Reno didn't do much to improve reproductive freedom in this country - by way of standing by and doing nothing while the abortion clinic bombers ran wild. This domestic terrorism was allowed to happen, and as a result, the availability of abortions in the US declined by a sharper amount than it did under the three consecutive republican terms of Reagan AND Bush the Elder.

      Face it, the religion issue is a red-herring to distract us from the REAL issues. And it's simply a way to get money. Look at the reform party, taken over by the REAL Christian Fanatics, because they were disgusted by the republican party's non-committal stance on some of the religious issues.
      The main thing I'm worried about with the republicans, is the suck-uppage to the oil industry.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  18. Finally, a realist. by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Still, I think this guy underestimates how easy/cheap it would be. I'd donate a few bucks to such a PAC, but I'm not rich. And if we all banded together somehow, and wanted to votefuck Hollings when he's up for re-election, could we win? Imagine that we somehow come up with enough cash to mount a decent tv ad campaign. We'd still be the new guys, and they would retaliate. Does anyone believe they are somehow above lying and namecalling?

    "These hippy anarchists, aren't even from your district. Yet they want to dictate to the good people of N. Carolina who you should vote for. They want to allow dirty thieves to steal movies and games from struggling artists, bankrupting them, and stealing from you in the long run. We can't tell you to do anything illegal, but by god, if we ever see them on the street alone at night..."

    Remember folks, if you pick on one of Hollywood's bought and paid for politicians, you are **picking on Hollywood**. There is no way that we could ever do political ads that are as slick, as decietful, and unfortunately, as effective as they could. They'd have Cher saying how she supports Senator Asswad, and we'd have some finnish geek saying something that Joe Sixpack doesn't understand, in an accent that annoys him.

    The system is broken, and can't fix itself. No matter how much we help it from the inside.

    1. Re:Finally, a realist. by christfokkar · · Score: 0

      Still, I think this guy underestimates how easy/cheap it would be. I'd donate a few bucks to such a PAC, but I'm not rich. And if we all banded together somehow, and wanted to votefuck Hollings when he's up for re-election, could we win? Imagine that we somehow come up with enough cash to mount a decent tv ad campaign. We'd still be the new guys, and they would retaliate. Does anyone believe they are somehow above lying and namecalling?

      Well, in order to play political hardball you need political expertise. Open Source has some teams, like the EFF, OSI, and RSA that have legal experience now. But they are not very political.

      There was a guy on here last week from the SEIU union who was suggesting that open source could team up with a union for real political backing. Typically, the idea was pretty much ignored which is too bad because it would work. I think you are overestimating the fact that this is still pretty achievable goal, OSS just needs to pull together and line up with the right players.

    2. Re:Finally, a realist. by lunenburg · · Score: 1

      Sen. Hollings represents Disney and SOUTH Carolina, not North Carolina. We've got our own cranky old white guy, but he's retiring after this term. :-)

    3. Re:Finally, a realist. by chennes · · Score: 1

      Of course they can fight back. Of course they will fight back. But the example of the NRA is a good one - if there is enough money to make them fight on a level playing field, we stand a much better shot of winning. They can call names, but as long as we can keep running the ads, it won't matter - they aren't fighting a PAC, they're fighting another candidate. They'll probably save most of the name-calling for their "real" opponent.

    4. Re:Finally, a realist. by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 2

      Sorry. I'm in Virginia, and I'd probably even mess up who our own senators are. Not that there is much difference between one and the next. All are worthless.

    5. Re:Finally, a realist. by southpolesammy · · Score: 1


      The system is broken, and can't fix itself. No matter how much we help it from the inside.


      I disagree. Run for office yourself. If you understand the issues well enough, you ought to be in a position to make policy, and at a governmental level, we are sorely lacking these types of people.

      --
      Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
    6. Re:Finally, a realist. by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 2

      Unlikely. For one thing, the NRA is a bad example. Sure, they've fought as good a fight as they can, hell, their right is even specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

      Has it saved them? No. They're being ground down into dust, a year, a decade at a time. No candidate openly supports them, and when such a candidate finds a way of abandoning them without too much backlash, he does so.

      The other candidate, if he is on our side, is too closely associated with the PAC, for it to matter. If he isn't on our side, then he'll distance himself. In which case, we just blew several hundred thousand dollars just to look like freaks and losers, on regional TV. If you are gonna waste $250,000, you should at least have one hell of a booze/liquor party to show for it, you know.

      It really is an unwinnable fight.

    7. Re:Finally, a realist. by badvictor · · Score: 1

      So we shouldn't try anything just because they might fight back? What kind of a defitist attitude is that? Do you believe that it's not worth asking a girl out because she might say, "no!"?

      The only issue is always money. If we can get enough money, there are plenty people for hire to mount devastating campaigns against greedy politicians everywhere. If you want things done right, hire the best professionals. We can be slick, we can be clever, we can expose what Hollings wants to do, and how it will hurt "Joe Sixpack." Why in the world would we have a Finnish geek as our spokesperson? This is all targeted marketing, propaganda, and we have access to the same resources as our enemy.

    8. Re:Finally, a realist. by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 2

      Well, I'd pretty much have to ruin my life, the way that I like it, to run for office.

      Hmm. If there was even a long shot at winning, and being able to do something, that might be a sacrifice I would make.

      There is no chance. Could I trust someone else to do it for me? No. Corruption and indoctrination are far too widespread, to trust someone else not to sell out.

      But would anyone ever vote for me? Hell no. I have real opinions. People don't vote for that. I see the real problems, and sometimes I even have real solutions. No votes there either. But, just for the sake of the argument, imagine that I win, by some miracle. Maybe 1 million people accidentally vote for me due to some ballot misdesign.

      What then? Well, assume that I'm a senator, one of 100. I either have to join a party, and kowtow to the party line, or be ignored. Sure, I can cast a few token dissenting votes, that ... big suprise here... change nothing. I can be the token kook politician, fighting unwinnable battles that no one is even sure why I'm fighting. And when it's all over and done with, in 6 years, I'll never hold office again. Because one party or the other, will target my seat as easily winnable, and dump a few million on the campaign.

      The system can't fix itself. Historically, in cases where the system is broken like this, people move somewhere else, and start their own. Sometimes, they have trouble cutting the necrotic umbilical cord, but when they do, things are better for awhile. Until they turn into what it was that they ran from.

      There is no place left to run. Maybe to the stars, but how many thousand years before we're capable of that?

    9. Re:Finally, a realist. by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 2

      There isn't enough money. The days when individual citizens had enough money to do anything are long gone. Corporations are indeed, artificial citizens. Ones with big pockets. Corporations don't care, by nature, about this stuff. It sometimes seems like it, but only because their concerns overlap ours... temporarily. The tech companies don't hate DRM exactly, they just haven't figured out how to make money on it. That's a distinction that you, and the rest of the slashdot crowd should take note of.

      Joe Sixpack doesn't care. They sliced up the airwaves, and he didn't bat an eyelash. The airwaves used to be what the internet is today. There are other examples, but this kind of discussion just depresses me.

      No, I'm not a defeatist. I'm waiting for my moment to strike back (Note: Dear FBI, I'm not a terrorist, you fucktwit. This is *metaphor*). I doubt that I can do it, but there might be a technology, that would throw off the corporate yoke and refuse to ever wear it again. Time will tell.

    10. Re:Finally, a realist. by southpolesammy · · Score: 1

      Even if no one voted for you, at least your opinions would make the public view, and at the very least get a few people thinking.

      Get a few more people thinking and talking, and soon enough you have a movement, and then you run again with popular support....

      IIRC, Lincoln did this for 20 years before finally succeeding.

      --
      Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
    11. Re:Finally, a realist. by Crackerman111 · · Score: 1
      There is no way that we could ever do political ads that are as slick, as decietful, and unfortunately, as effective as they could. They'd have Cher saying how she supports Senator Asswad, and we'd have some finnish geek saying something that Joe Sixpack doesn't understand, in an accent that annoys him.

      On the other hand, Joe Sixpack doesn't really care that people are "stealing" from Hollywood. It doesn't personally affect him/her. However, I think Joe Sixpack will be really pissed off about not being able to play his music and movies when and where he wants to. Hollywood may be able to create slicker ads, but they're fighting for an unpopular view. We have the upper hand in that respect.

    12. Re:Finally, a realist. by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 2

      Lincoln did this, just slightly before that sort of politics died. I said the system was unfixable, not that I didn't think it wasn't good in the beginning.

      That isn't possible today, not by far. My opinions are echoed by too many hear, for it to have not made public view. Unless, as I believe, there is something massive blocking it. I'll leave that as an exercise in cynicism for you, to decide just what the obstacle is.

    13. Re:Finally, a realist. by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 2

      What, because of our DivX success? Not that you are thinking of that particularly, but if you aren't read up on it. It seems like we won then, didn't it?

      That wasn't the war, that was a battle. And the hollywood machine was more than willing to sacrifice some scout troops, to get a better feel for the battlefield.

      You're right, for now. Joe Sixpack doesn't care... that's what the ads are for. Maybe they'll have to temporarily soften the actual technical measures, long enough for the system to become entrenched. But lie to Joe, tell him movies will only get more expensive, unless he does something to stop it. Tell him that something is voting, for Sen. Asswad. Tell him he'll still be able to watch the movies he pays for, and that they'll only get cheaper if he votes correctly. Hell, Joe won't care that he'll never be able to do his own home movies, or write fan fiction.

      We have no upper hands, in any respect. If you want any chance of winning, remember that first and foremost. I want to win, but it's far from sure, hell, it is impossible odds. I don't make it worse, by denying the truth of that, like some do.

      Another tip. We have to somehow fight this in a way that no one has ever fought a conflict before. If we think we can fight the battles they have set us up to fight, and win, then we're screwed. And there is no better example of that, than the cliched "playing the system".

      If you want ideas, I'll help. If you want more than that, I may possibly be persuaded. But if you're on my team, I can't help but have a lousy nervous feeling, that we are utterly fucked.

    14. Re:Finally, a realist. by startled · · Score: 2

      You're right-- it's naive to think that raising money from individuals would be enough to mount an offensive against a Hollywood polititian.

      However, companies like Philips are very pissed off about laws that are aimed at wrecking their hardware market. Once a lobby is in place and has proven it is well-run and potentially effective, you'll get plenty of corporate sponsorship. As it said in the article:

      "They also wonder out loud why the $600 billion-a-year information-technology sector is letting itself get pushed around by the $20 billion-a-year entertainment industry."

      Is it a good thing that in many efforts, the lobby will have to cater toward the corporation that is giving the most money? No, but it's a hell of a lot better than DMCA+.

    15. Re:Finally, a realist. by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 2

      You still misunderstand.

      Phillips doesn't want this *now*. Because it will wreck their hardware market *now*.

      This means, not that they are against DRM in principle... corporations have no principles. It means that not only will they not profit, but they'll lose money, if it happens *now*. Give them 24 months, and they'll figure out a way to profit from it. I wouldn't be shocked if the MPAA and RIAA literally bribed them. Some sort of DRM service fee.

      The balance will change, and when it does, they'll be allied against us. If a anti-Hollywood PAC has not chance, what happens to our odds when the IT bigwigs are against us too?

    16. Re:Finally, a realist. by ealar+dlanvuli · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if thats a good sign when you feel compelled to write a note to the FBI when you make dissenting gvt statments. I think it might be an even worse sign that I completly agree with the move.

      --
      I live in a giant bucket.
    17. Re:Finally, a realist. by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 2

      Not that they'll believe me. But at least when they drag me in front of the military tribunal, I'll have some sort of proof.

    18. Re:Finally, a realist. by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 2

      I respectfully disagree. The hardware industry is making money on the consumers lust for that "killer app".

      Rip. Mix. Burn.
      "Piracy is *the* killer app."

      And it will remain the killer app. as long as the IP laws remain so draconianly skewed.

    19. Re:Finally, a realist. by slam+smith · · Score: 1

      What the hell are you talking about? There is a lot of evidence that the NRA(2nd Amendment) is what cost algore tennesse and west virginia. And thus the election. Many politicians are scared spitless of the NRA. Over the last 10-20 years I'd say the NRA has won more battles than they have lost. Especially in the states(excluding California) the NRA has been crushing its opposition. The biggest defeat the NRA had was the brady bill in 1993(I think), and they got that watered down considerably. And there is a lot of evidence that it was a rather pyrric victory for the gun control lobby. The 1994 election saw the ascendancy of the republicans.

      To see how strong they have become just take a look and see how much gun control legislation has been seriously considered by congress this term.

      p.s. just for the record. I'm currently a member of the NRA.

    20. Re:Finally, a realist. by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 2

      For us.

      For them, the killer app would be a small cut of the fees involved in DRM. Profit margins on "piracy" hardware are razor thin. Not to butcher a cliche, but if they had a nickel for every time someone pirated an MP3...

      Christ. I wish people could understand, this is important. Trust Slashdot to turn this into the world's biggest masturbation festival. "Oh no, they'd never do that. *WHACK* *WHACK* *WHACK*"

    21. Re:Finally, a realist. by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't get me wrong. I'm not a gun control advocate. I credit the NRA as having performed the best PR/political campaign that anyone could ever hope to, in the situation that they are in. But they are losing the war. Not for having fought poorly, rather for being outnumbered, so to speak.

      A single election here and there means nothing, when the sheer weight of all the rest add up over the years. And as I pointed out, you actually have a specific enumerated constitutional right on your side. Computer geeks don't have that.

      Think about it this way, it applies to both situations. Even now, children are being taught, both directly, and indirectly how evil guns are, in school. Sure, you can teach them differently, and even though you may be correct in doing so, it pushes you to the fringe. The little kid goes into class, telling everyone how his daddy says that gun control is wrong, even unconstitutional. It pushes him to the fringe. Either he stops believing what daddy has told him (NRA loses), or he continues to believe it, the slightest bit more fanatical and at the fringes, than he was before (NRA loses). Lather, rinse, repeat. And it's a cumulative effect. As a whole, this nation distrusts guns, and trusts implicitly the politicians that tell them we need to ban guns. Have you ever been labeled a gun nut? If not, start telling people what you believe, that you're a card carrying NRA member. See if it doesn't happen. Of course, you could remain quiet. But then how does it help the cause?

      Oh, and don't worry. The next step, is for them to demonize even those of you that have the sense to stay below the radar. In the next 10 years, expect gun control PR to suggest that you are all terrorists waiting to happen, simply because you believe these things, but are so secretive about it. That is, after all, the behavior of a terrorist mole, is it not? You're probably waiting for your chance to do another Okie City, is what. So, even staying quiet won't be a safe strategy.

      My god, don't believe me if you don't want. But at least see that there is truth in this. Hell, tell your other NRA members... let them know about this. Maybe there is a strategy to combat this, but only if you start soon. I look at the chessboard, and I see that you're all about 6 moves from being checkmated.

      Us computer geeks... well, we don't even have guns to shoot back with.

    22. Re:Finally, a realist. by startled · · Score: 2

      "This means, not that they are against DRM in principle."

      Who said I was talking about principles? Anything but-- I'm talking about politics. This article is about being practical, and you seem staunchly against that. Just gonna wait around until the perfect approach comes up and kicks you in the head? You'll be waiting for a while. And how is sitting on your ass more effective than working the politicians?

      You can go back and forth about how effective such a lobby would be. "You'd get money now, but not later, because the RIAA while pay them off." "Convince them they'd make more money without the law in the first place." "But the RIAA would convince them better-- they have more money." "No they don't, use some of the money your backers already donated to convince them." And so on and so forth.

      But it's obvious you're not interested in debating the possibilities of such a lobby, you'd given up from the very first post. Some people will choose not to play politics, and that's fine-- it's a hard game, and dirty. But don't try the excuse that you wouldn't be able to make a difference. That's a bunch of crap.

      "The balance will change, and when it does, they'll be allied against us." Sure, there's a good chance of that if we all just sit around and bitch in /. comments all day. Judging from what the two of us are doing, that seems pretty likely.

    23. Re:Finally, a realist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no way that we could ever do political ads that are as slick, as decietful, and unfortunately, as effective as they could.

      I don't know about that. Why not just run an ad campaign showing Hollings with an obviously photoshopped-on Mickey Mouse ears hat? Voiceover would be the typical mud-slinging, with the general gist "wants to invade your home and take your rights to record" I've seen suggested.

    24. Re:Finally, a realist. by sootman · · Score: 1
      And if we all banded together somehow, and wanted to votefuck Hollings when he's up for re-election, could we win?

      If we all went out and actually voted, then yes, it'd be a cinch. We could slasdhot any senator, any day. The problem is, it takes a long time to gather critical mass (again, look at the NRA) and even then, it ebbs and flows (1992 pissed off the NRA, they cleaned house in 1994, then in 1996 they lost all their momentum and Clinton stayed in). You have to convince everyone to become a single-issue voter, which is tough--as much as people hate the DMCA, people also have strong feelings on abortion, gun control, etc. Also, you have to somehow (and this is the hard part) move them to vote. Every year in college, someone came along and said "Last year, X students out of Y voted. Senator Z won last year by less than (Y-X) votes, so if every college student voted, he'd lose!" And every year, 4% of the population votes, and things never change. All in all, I'd love to see this happen, and if the geekpac page says on the front "we read his article and he's right!" then my check will be in the mail.

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    25. Re:Finally, a realist. by Telastyn · · Score: 1

      (personal views/opinion follows)

      I view "card carrying NRA members" with vast distrust. I view most anyone that owns more than 1 gun per adult with distrust.

      I distrust guns in general. I think people should distrust guns.

      And you know what? The government and the police have guns. This is why the 2nd Amendment exists, and why it must be protected.

      I should have the right to own a weapon, and they should never have to use it.

    26. Re:Finally, a realist. by C4v3_7r0ll · · Score: 1

      And as I pointed out, you actually have a specific enumerated constitutional right on your side. Computer geeks don't have that.

      As was previously mentioned, Computer Geeks and all Americans have the fourth, ninth and tenth amendments on their side. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . ." sounds like privacy protection to me. Since privacy in one of the hottest geek issues, we have quite a case, IMO.

    27. Re:Finally, a realist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the hell would your gun protect you from the government and police? Do you have an arsenal in your basement? Do you have a guaranteed supply of ammunition "when you have to take up arms against the gov't" and all the gun stores close? Are you trained like the army and the police?

    28. Re:Finally, a realist. by jafac · · Score: 2

      Don Phillipo: "Gee Mister **AA, that's some nice content you got there. It would be a real shame if something were to, you know, HAPPEN to it. Like if someone were to violate the licensing terms. Listen, I think we can make a deal here. We can offer you protection from these thieving pirates. For a small fee. . . "

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    29. Re:Finally, a realist. by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 2

      Don't try to maake the excuse that you were fighting the good fight from the beginning, when you miss the SINGLE good opportunity you had to win this, simply because you've wasted every bit of effort/resources by then.

      You and every other fool thinks this is a game that you can play just because it became interesting to you recently. How many suckers think they can pick the shell with the coin underneath it, even though they have to know its a scam? "But hey, I'm different!". Good luck....

    30. Re:Finally, a realist. by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 2

      Vote? Christ. I want to stop now, it's not my duty to educate all you weenies.

      This may be an important issue to me, but it is far from the only one. Which is more important? Hell, they're all nearly equally important. Do I choose this one, and 20 years from now say to myself "well, 1 out of 60 isn't too bad". Voting is my implicit validation of a system that is broken beyond repair.

      But hell, you are going further than that. It's not just my duty to vote, but to encourage others to vote? Homer said it best, with "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos".

    31. Re:Finally, a realist. by startled · · Score: 1

      You've stopped making sense. Had you been drinking when you made that post?

      Ah, well. The thread was getting too long anyway.

    32. Re:Finally, a realist. by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 2

      You accused me of not even trying. You're too foolish to not waste your efforts on unwinnable battles, and futile tactics. What more is there to say?

      I've never had a drop of liquor in my life. Strange you should ask.

    33. Re:Finally, a realist. by startled · · Score: 2

      "You accused me of not even trying. You're too foolish to not waste your efforts on unwinnable battles, and futile tactics."

      So it's futile for a group of people to band together and fight a rich, well-connected group of large corporations? That's the defeatist attitude I've seen you espousing in post after post, but I've yet to see you back it up with any evidence. The Human Farming Association's in my corner. Who's in yours?

    34. Re:Finally, a realist. by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 2

      Yes, it's futile. No, it's not a defeatist attitude. A defeatist attitude say that there is absolutely no way to win. I never espoused such a belief. I merely criticized one or two approaches to the problem, as being ineffective, and a waste of effort/resources.

      It may be evidence that you're a fool, for not being able to make that distinction.

    35. Re:Finally, a realist. by startled · · Score: 2

      I was going to quote the evidence you cited to backup your statements, but I couldn't find it.

      I find "yes it is", "no it isn't" arguments to be a waste of time in the absence of any hard facts. Do you have any? I provided a single example that seemed to contradict your position entirely.

    36. Re:Finally, a realist. by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 2

      Facts are something you have after the situation. So let's wait. 20 years from now, we can agree to meet somewhere, and I can gloat over you being a complete moron and the fact that the USA is a 1984ish police state, with all technology locked down to prevent terrorism and piracy.

      Or... I could agree with you, and be a totally naive weeny, and still have this happen. And you could be happy knowing that I wasn't intuitively predicting things you don't want to believe will happen. Would that make you feel better?

      We're on the same side, it would seem. Maybe if you'd give my ideas just a little bit of time to simmer, before dismissing them outright, it would serve you well. Can't be too cautious, can you?

    37. Re:Finally, a realist. by startled · · Score: 2

      Damn, I need to spend a bit more time working, and bit less time in /. threads. :) Okay, one more reply. Reply if you want; I'll read it but won't reply.

      You've just argued against the usefulness of supporting evidence, called me a moron and a naieve weeny (harsh, I know; don't worry, I can handle it), and said that I should give your ideas time to simmer after posting rapid replies to all of mine. Possible conclusions include you being smarter than everyone else, or just really condescending.

      Lest you think I didn't pay any attention to your ideas, I did. I went and checked up my facts on past movements of large groups of people against large corporations in the political arena (btw, Cesar Chavez's timeline is really fucking depressing: "1970: Chavez makes advances. 1972: Chavez gets fucked by the man. 1973: Chavez gets fucked by the man. 1974: Chavez gets fucked by the man.").

      Still, my argument is more or less what it was when we started this, which is: political activity wouldn't be entirely ineffective. Given the absence of anything we think would be more effective, it makes sense to spend some time fighting an intelligent political battle, or coming up with a method that would be more effective. Both choices are, at worst, much more effective that sitting on your ass watching TV.

    38. Re:Finally, a realist. by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 2

      No, I didn't argue against the usefulness of evidence. If it sounds like that, then I apologize for causing a misunderstanding.

      It sounds to me, as if you are arguing that statements made without evidence are useless. Often times they are, but never once did I misrepresent mine. Yes, there is no evidence to support this, and normally that would bother me too. But... this looks to me as if its a relatively new phenomena, and one without precedent. Corps themselves are only a few hundred years old, economies in which corps are massively dominant (and by this I mean run by committee)are probably only 50-75 years old. And even now, things are yet again different. Nothing compares. Corps have realized that there is a possibility to control things to a degree never before realized. Sure, Standard Oil could control all aspects of its business, forcing competitors into bankruptcy... but even in its (forget which tycoon this was) wildest dreams, couldn't have imagined controling when people could read books, how many times, when, where, if they can read them more than once, and prevent them from selling it to someone else. To be paid every single time someone reads it. And to do that with movies, books, music, pictures, and yes, even ideas. He would have sold off his oil business, if he thought that possible, and went into the media business. But that wasn't possible then. It is now.

      And the worst part? I don't want to be proven right. I hope I'm wrong. But don't insult me because I have to choose how to fight this, with little evidence on which is the right choice, and that I make choices that you wouldn't.

      Email me if you want to hear what method I think would be more effective.

  19. Geeks, hackers and computer users of the world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ... On the other hand, anybody not USian is going to have to either join the American Open Technology Consortium, which apparently hopes to raise and allocate funds for the purpose of educating the public and people in political office on technology related issues, in accordance with our common beliefs and ideals, or start their own group - neither of these look like they are in fact meant for 'geeks of the world...' More like America.

    In fact, they say themselves that: The focus of this organization is domestic, and so we invite groups from around the world to form OTC groups of their own.

    So... who's starting the British Open Technology Consortium? Or will they be persuaded to join the European Common Consortium? Or do we in fact need a third group which is actually for Geeks of the Whole World, In General, With No Particular Focus On Any Country? Dunno.

  20. Emphatically Yes! by frost22 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Both the article as well as the slashdot poster hit the nail on the head.

    Do It ! Please !

    You would be amazed how good political muscle can work if applied this way.

    Just take someone and (politically) string him up! And don't take Hollings - as much tempting he is as a target he's far east of seventy and probably doesn't need (or even maybe doesnt seek) another term in the Senate. Take one of his allies instead. Get one who's prominent enough to be associated with Hollings' legislation, one who is young enough to loose something when booted out of Congress (The Never Come Back), but too old already to just shrug it off and do something else. Preferably have him (or her) squeal all over the place.

    In short, inflict maximum pain. Make the guy (or the lady) an example.

    It's an old principle of Germanic Law: Justice has to be seen.

    --
    ...and here I stand, with all my lore, poor fool, no wiser than before.
    1. Re:Emphatically Yes! by Reziac · · Score: 2

      I'd suggest Diane Feinstein. She's visible, noisy, and on the wrong side of the tech argument. (And IMO, her ultimate goal is to be President.)

      Like I pointed out in a similar discussion, the geek approach won't work, because geeks don't know how the system works. What WOULD work is hiring experienced lobbyists, who know all the rules and all the inside tricks.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    2. Re:Emphatically Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As the academics say, nobody takes notice of a political lobby until they start using terrorism. Then they get noticed, and then they get what they want.

    3. Re:Emphatically Yes! by gotan · · Score: 2

      Why, Hollings is perfect i think. The reasoning here is that you make that politician a target. You run well formulated ad campaigns against him and reduce all the advantage he got from Disneys campaign money to nil, or, if possible, negative. The aim here is, to get it known, that politicians will have a hard time opposing GeekPAC/EFF/whatever, and for that one should aim as high as possible i.e. at the highest politican for that cause you have some reasonable chance to get at. Identify Hollings with the Disney-marionette pushing controlled media down consumers throats for pocketchange from the media industry, and get that point through to the people. Make him a media target when news is going slow, and especially before he wants to push one of his ridiculous bills through.

      The aim is not to demolish a politican for all times, people will have forgotten about it all in a few months anyway. The aim is to make a politician a figurehead for a (bad) cause and give him hard times about it, and that works best, the better you can identify a politician with something. If that works once, the next time he or someone else is tempted to do the industries dirty work they will think twice if it's worth all the trouble. Also by choosing when and where to pick the fight (before elections, before the bill is considered, when news is slow) it should be possible to get maximum effect for the money.

      --
      "By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
    4. Re:Emphatically Yes! by curunir · · Score: 2

      Or how about Howard Coble (R-NC)...from what I can tell, he's the one who introduced the DMCA

      --
      "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
  21. Just like the NRA? by jvollmer · · Score: 4, Funny

    The NRA has been doing this for years and it works."

    Perhaps this is the key.

    Under some circumstances, exported computers are classified as munitions. Can't we simply apply the Second Amendment to assure our freedom to use computers as we see fit?

    1. Re:Just like the NRA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes! The courts treat the second amendment just like the first--which is why convicted felons never lose their right to own a gun; no one ever needs a permit to have a gun, manufacture guns, or operate a shooting range; and there's no Department of Treasury organization that occasionally burns down newspaper buildings in their zeal to collect taxes on the printed word.

    2. Re:Just like the NRA? by jvollmer · · Score: 1

      Just remember that I'm the one who thought of it - and I'm releasing this idea under the GPL.
      Alanis Morissette would think this is ironic.

    3. Re:Just like the NRA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I can find plenty of prior art for you. I've been advocating this for ~6 years, so you'd have a tough time claiming it as exclusively yours. Heck, I never tried claiming it as exclusively mine.

    4. Re:Just like the NRA? by Xenographic · · Score: 1

      But does that mean that we have the right to /. whomever we please? :]

  22. Preemptive post... by Rothfuss · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Will the person who is going to write "send real letters through the mail... do not email... do not fax... yadda, yadda" please shut up.

    Insert obvious anthrax analysis here.

    There, now that all of that is out of the way, please continue with other more lucid points.

    -Rothfuss

    1. Re:Preemptive post... by sconeu · · Score: 2

      So fax the mofos!

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  23. 2002 targets by Rev+Snow · · Score: 5, Informative
    Representative Adam Schiff of California.

    Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska.

    They are the highest profile supporters of SSSCA who are facing election in 2002.

    1. Re:2002 targets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell is the former D.A. from Law & Order doing in California?

    2. Re:2002 targets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dunno about Schiff, but Stevens is about as vulnerable as a lump of adamantium. He's one of these small-state senators that have been around forever and GET THINGS DONE for their states. Stevens? Naah, don't waste your money.

    3. Re:2002 targets by nels_tomlinson · · Score: 2
      As another post already said, Stevens will be in office until he's ready to leave. He's been stealing your tax dollars for us for many years, and has so much power that we couldn't afford to get rid of him, even if most of us wanted to.

      Loosing our pork-barrel-power would decimate our economy. Worse than that, actually; I'm pretty sure that the Federal $s are more than 10% of the economy here. Stevens is always the first to point out that WHOEVER replaces him won't be able to bring home the bacon as effectively for many years.

      He is also a master at appealing to Alaskan voters. He knows how to fool enough of the people enough of the time, and there are plenty of single issue voters whose buttons he can push reliably.

    4. Re:2002 targets by Maskirovka · · Score: 2

      Ted stevens has the biggest airport in the state named after him. He'd probably be harder to dislodge than hollings. I live in Alaska, btw.

    5. Re:2002 targets by Rev+Snow · · Score: 1
      Like it or not, Stevens is the target for 2002. He is the only co-sponsor of SSSCA in the Senate who faces re-election this year. If you do not go after him, then you wait until 2004 to make your point.

      Yes, all the things mentioned make it hard to beat Stevens, but that makes it all the more powerful an example when we do beat him.

    6. Re:2002 targets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I say butt-fuck the good Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska...

    7. Re:2002 targets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Senator Stevens is running for Alaskan govenor, not another term in the Senate.

    8. Re:2002 targets by astroboy · · Score: 3, Informative
      Senator Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, is widely considered to have a safe seat. While it's certainly worth keeping an eye on, especially given that the ANWR drilling, which he campaigned hard for, didn't survive the Senate, he is in pretty good shape -- he won with 77% of the vote last election, and already has about $1.4 million in the war chest for this election. you'll never guess where he got it. There aren't any serious opponents.

      Schiff is a more interesting possibility. He's a rookie representative, just come from the state senate. He won in 2000 largely by spending possibly more than anyone in US history on a House of Representatives election ($10 Million (search for Schiff)). It's hard to say if he has a safe seat or not, since it's a new seat created by redistricting. Oh, and if you want another reason to dislike him, the guy he defeated went on to be chief of everyone's favourite gov't agency, The US patent office. It looks like Schiff will be facing Jim Scileppi, although you have to be skeptical of a political site hosted at attbi.com.

    9. Re:2002 targets by JordanH · · Score: 2
      • While it's certainly worth keeping an eye on, especially given that the ANWR drilling, which he campaigned hard for, didn't survive the Senate, ...

      You make this sound like a potential negative for Stevens. Drilling in the ANWR is overwhelmingly popular among Alaskans.

    10. Re:2002 targets by astroboy · · Score: 2

      Right, which is why it not going through could have potentially negative effects for Stevens.

    11. Re:2002 targets by JordanH · · Score: 1
      • Right, which is why it not going through could have potentially negative effects for Stevens.

      Maybe in a Republican primary, which Stevens probably already has locked up tight. I can just see the Democrat running on a platform of "I'll fight to open ANWR to drilling."

      No, instead, Stevens will run against pictures of Kennedy with the voice over "Stevens faught against eastern liberals to open our lands to responsible energy development." Might be good if they can find a picture of his Democratic opponent shaking hands with Kennedy of Daschle.

      At best it's neutral, and with good campaigning he could turn it into a plus. Especially if there is continued turmoil in the Middle East.

  24. please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Please, please, can i spend all my karma to get this post at a score:10?

    "Geek" is just not a good word to describe this. Slashdot users use that word so often they forget *it means something totally different in the real world*. On slashdot, "geek" means "a person of an intellectual bent who is interested in science or computer esoterica, and open to internet subculture." That's JUST to slashdotters. To EVERYONE ELSE IN THE UNIVERSE, geek means "geek". You know, a perjorative term for a person who thinks they're really intelligent but has no social skills.

    This is a problem becuase the point of a geek lobby, or of the GeekPAC that they had those stories on a couple weeks ago, is to communicate to people who don't read slashdot and don't know what "source code" is and don't know what the slashdot definition of "geek" is. Thus, if a geek lobby cannot figure out how to communicate with "the norms" in their own language, it becomes absolutely pointless. Can ANYONE come up with a better name for this? Even "open source lobby" would be better, even though it doesn't quite cover the issues at hand, because it doesn't sound so.. geeky.

    "Open Computing Lobby"?
    "Computer End-user Forum"?
    "Copyright Fair Use PAC"?
    "Americans for Consumer Freedom"?

    It doesn't matter. All i know is that in my dictionary, "geek" is defined as "a carnival performer often billed as a wild man whose act usually includes biting the head off a live chicken or snake". This is not how i want my political views being presented to society at large.

    1. Re:please by Dwonis · · Score: 2

      "Americans for Consumer Freedom" has my vote.

    2. Re:please by antirename · · Score: 1

      How about the "freedom of thought" or "freedom of moral choice" PACS? Both of those should ring well with both parties. Or, "freedom to innovate"? A geek counter to the socialists would be helpful, you just wouldn't want to call it that in today's politcal environment.

    3. Re:please by ealar+dlanvuli · · Score: 1


      "Copyright Fair Use PAC"?

      Sir, CUP is here to see you

      --
      I live in a giant bucket.
    4. Re:please by CrazyBusError · · Score: 1

      Technology Unbound PAC
      TUPAC

      Superb... 'Sir, TUPAC is here to see you...'

      --
      -Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience-
  25. Yes its not exactly great...but it works by Tranvisor · · Score: 1

    Yeah for all us idealists this seems horrible. But you know you just have to fight fire with fire sometimes. I'm sure the guy who is going to be up against Hollings next election would love such an easy ploy to play. The geek nation gives him alot of money, he reveals to the public that Hollings is an asshole. It's not exactly clean but politics is often dirty if you want to get anything done.

    If a senator is annoying you give money (lots of money) to his compititor to scare them back into line. We don't need all the little senators to care much about our issues, frankly, thats not going to happen, what we need to do is show them that the tech industry is tired of being pushed around by Disney and its ilk. We just designed the house Disney, if you don't want to come live in it, you keep all your valuable intelectual property out of it. Oh, and don't sue us because the door locks we create don't lock the consumers inside the basement, make your own god-damn doorlocks!

  26. Re:a joke! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is no one getting these jokes?

    Here's one that's more accessible to slashdot's readers:

    q: What's the best linux distro to use for an IMAP server?

    a: your mom is a filthy slut!

  27. Vote Geek? by Lothar+0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It takes a fundamental shift in ideology by the masses, not a "whistlestop tour" of geeks going from one gathering to another where maybe 50 people at most will show up, for anything to take effect. People have to change their minds about capitalism and how it does not necessarily equate democracy, not just about the evils of the DMCA or [insert hated law here]. Otherwise, the RIAA and MPAA will simply invoke the "they're stealing our stuff" BS rhetoric because most Americans are convinced that intellectual property equates physical property in terms of stealing.

    Until the bigger issues are addressed, these concerns are always going to crop up in a public that has been taught to buy into the unexamined idea of corporate priviledge since birth.

    --
    "Anonymous Coward" is for whistleblowers, not unpopular opinions.
    1. Re:Vote Geek? by ebyrob · · Score: 2

      capitalism? Corporate priviledge since birth?

      I grew up in the age of the Alien saga and grunge. No love of corporations there!

      As for capitalism? How is intellectual property a capitalistic tool? I'd figure government getting involved and creating monopolies of any kind (even copyright/patent) would be the opposite of capitalism.

    2. Re:Vote Geek? by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 2

      The fantasies of anarcho-capitalists have been so pervasive that some (US geek) people actually do think there's an intrinsic dichotamy between government and capital. When by definition capital depends on government: at the very, very mininum, to create a currency, to enforce contracts, and to enforce property laws. The nation state as we know it largely grew from the burgeoning merchant class' need to create institutions for commerce.

    3. Re:Vote Geek? by ebyrob · · Score: 2

      Excellent points.

      Of course, we're quite a ways from that minimum. For one thing, passing laws meant to prevent crime(DMCA) is light years from simply enforcing those laws. Further, governments have always had to defend against basic atrocities like murder and what not before defending mere property. This is because humans have a heirarchy of needs that they will fulfill whether it is convenient or not. When corporations begin to ignore all in search of profit, they are no longer in line with the government or the corporate world in general. Most businesspersons would agree they must have a nice world to live in for their money to be worthwhile. In fact, many feel bettering the world around them is a Good Thing.

      Lest we all forget, the fortune 500 is not the entire corporate world, in fact many many more people are employed outside than inside that particular group. The fact powerful absolutely limiting tools are more effective to very large companies than others is why monopolies (intellectual or otherwise) rarely have a positive net effect. It is also why monopolies, especially those without stringent limits, are rarely a good capitalistic tool.

  28. It's not just the NRA by deanj · · Score: 1

    It's not just the NRA either. Very single special interest group does this.

  29. Making Points Count by Baldrson · · Score: 5, Interesting
    how to effectively make the point about online freedom of speech

    Everyone and their brother has free speech as an issue.

    What "geeks" need right now is to know how to make a point about the fact that:

    1. Re:Making Points Count by BCoates · · Score: 2

      This kind of stuff is exactly why I don't like the idea of a "geek" PAC... The second it gets a little money it's going to be hijacked into a labor union (i.e. someone you pay to tell you you can't work, protection-racket style).

      And that's the last thing I need.

      --
      Benjamin Coates

      P.S. If you can't compete with the foreigners, it's time to get a new job.

    2. Re:Making Points Count by Baldrson · · Score: 2

      You're confusing "importing foreigners illegally" with "compete with foreigners". I, myself, contract with foreigners in Siberia from time to time to get cheap labor.

    3. Re:Making Points Count by BCoates · · Score: 2

      How is it illegal? They have visas...

    4. Re:Making Points Count by crucini · · Score: 2
      And this "individualistic" attitude is exactly why we are getting our asses kicked. However, it's important to have a clearly defined mission for any lobbying organization - it's foolish to assume that all "geeks" have the same agenda in all areas. I see your point there.
      P.S. If you can't compete with the foreigners, it's time to get a new job.

      Having seen the process up close, I disagree. The H1B program is used to replace normal employees with folks who are frightened for their jobs, will work long hours, and are a bit cheaper to boot. The key factor in the H1B is that it's very hard for the employee to leave the company and seek other employment in the US. If this factor were eliminated, if H1B's were converted to general work visas, the anger of computer professionals towards the H1B program would largely dissipate. Which is irrelevant, because companies would no longer be interested in the program.

      Applying free-market thinking to a transaction in which one party is legally crippled is a mistake. There's a trend for national economic barriers to be porous to corporations but opaque to individuals. Calling such a barrier "free trade" is misleading.
    5. Re:Making Points Count by Baldrson · · Score: 2

      The H-1B program is to be used only to acquire workers for domestic positions that cannot be filled by domestic labor. That clearly is not the case when there is a 40% increase in H-1B visas while IT unemployment is high and wage rates fall lower than they were at the start of the dot-boom.

    6. Re:Making Points Count by BCoates · · Score: 2

      The H1B program is used to replace normal employees with folks who are frightened for their jobs, will work long hours, and are a bit cheaper to boot.

      If, as you say, H1B is being used to expoloit workers, then that's a bad thing, I agree, and it should be reformed (allowing them to change to a similar job at a different employer would be sufficient, imho). What I have a problem with is the idea being promoted by some that H1B employees are "stealing our jobs". I admit that I read this into the parent post, I don't really know if he feels that way or not.

      I still don't know if abolishing the H1B is a good thing, though, the visa applicants seem to think it's a better deal than what they can get in their home country...

      --
      Benjamin Coates

  30. AntiDisney in SC?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...how many people from SC are perfectly happy sitting on the couch and watching TV for 10 hours (without tivo) with the cars up on blocks...

    ;)

  31. The problem with this by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is the NRA is a properly run orginization that all the members are active in permoting it and following through with the beliefs and goals of the org.

    There is NO WAY IN HELL you can get geeks,dweebs,nerds and spaz's to agree on anything. Hell when it comes down to the wire the bulk of us are too damned lazy to even write a letter to our congressperson or a letter to the editor, let alone become an activist.

    and then you try and get geeks to pay dues... Hell they wont pay for a slashdot subscription (Me included) what makes anyone believe that anyone would pay the $150.00 a year dues that would be required?

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:The problem with this by EverDense · · Score: 1

      Agreed that a lot of "geeks" are too lazy to become activists; or simply do not have the time. However, there are already technologically savvy groups lobbying against issues raised by our potential corporate overlords.

      In the U.S. there is the Electronic Frontiers Foundation.
      I myself donate to our own similar organisation Electronic Freedom Australia

      Anyone wanting to, can easily make a difference by supporting these and similar institutions.

      Just being aware of the issues at hand is a good start.

      --
      http://jesus.everdense.com/
    2. Re:The problem with this by broken_bones · · Score: 1

      I think you should be careful saying that "the bulk of [Geeks] are too damned lazy to even write a letter to our congressperson." Recently the chair of the senate commerce comittee nicely shot down Senator Hollings' latest boondogle because public outcry against it was so great. I can't say for certain who sent in all the comments against the CBD-whatever-the-hell-the-acronym-is but it sure wasn't my grandmother.

      --

      Never disturb your enemy while he is busy making a mistake.
    3. Re:The problem with this by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Senator Disney wasnt shot down by us geeks.. it was shot down by big corperate names realizing that they would have revinue impacting problems with Holling's bizzare plan.

      Technical leaders on our planet are dutifully ignored by any and all politicians.. A large company with the ability to fund a smear campain against the senators get attention...

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  32. Campaign finance reform by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I know that we're all supposed to be for reform and all, but didn't Senator McCain just make this tatic illegal?

    Get the special interest groups out of Washington!

    If GeekPAC were to target a single Senator for removal with political adverstising, like the columnist suggests, it would violate the 60-day rule in the new laws.

    Maybe those anti-Campaign Finance Reform people whining about free speech had a point after all. How does it feel to be a special interest?

    1. Re:Campaign finance reform by VP · · Score: 2

      Then run ads before the 60-day deadline, and give enough money to the oponent to run his own ads non-stop during the 60 days before the election...

      The deadline is to prevent last moment "non-campaign" ads from special interest groups after the candidate has run out of money...

    2. Re:Campaign finance reform by Rev+Snow · · Score: 1
      Emperor McCain's attack on freedom doesn't take effect until after the next election.

      So blast away at will against Ted Stevens all the way through Election Day 2002.

      How much money can it take to turn an election in Alaska?

    3. Re:Campaign finance reform by sootman · · Score: 1
      I know that we're all supposed to be for reform and all, but didn't Senator McCain just make this tatic illegal?

      The day pols stop taking money is the day the Earth stops spinning.

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    4. Re:Campaign finance reform by Napalmstrike · · Score: 0

      The bill was a ban on SOFT money. I'm sure we can still band together to donate to SenatorX's opponent.

      I suppose then, that GeekPAC will be more of an organizing body. In other words, a hitlist forum. heh heh...

      --
      I'm bored, lets go break something.
    5. Re:Campaign finance reform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All well and godd, EXCEPT, Joe Sixpack doesn't give a sh*t about the election until about 2 weeks before he votes for whoever promises to make his life easiest and doesn't make him think.

  33. Re:"Online Privacy" by Angram · · Score: 1

    If you wish to trade your right to privacy (as noted above to be in the Bill of Rights), do so for yourself. The entire country doesn't need to go along with you in this, and more to the point, the whole world. If a guy in Zaire wants to look for some sexual explicit material, what business is it of the FBI's? Heck, if I want to look for it, why should I fear "Big Brother" is watching? Terrorism doesn't stop when you monitor a communicaitons medium. Messages can be sent in as simple a way as a post on a message board saying some nonsense word, no one would know it. Also, if the groups that don't want to be watched know they're being watched, they'll simply use a different medium. Picking up a pay phone isn't all that hard to do, and no one's listening in there. All in all, online privacy is my right. Without a warrant, the government shouldn't be able to get info from any domestic server. If it's international, enter the UN.

    --

    GL
  34. Re:Reminds Me of What John Bonham Used to Say by schuster · · Score: 1

    Are you an idiot or a troll? (Is there a difference?) For those (hopefully few) who don't know, it was Bon Scott that was the AC/DC front man and John Bonham played drums in Led Zeppelin. As it turns out, both are now dead, though AC/DC continues to rock. Brian Johnson is no Bon Scott, but he's good enough to keep AC/DC hella fun to listen to.

    --
    --- Don't ever trust a woman until she's dead- B.B. King
  35. Bzzzt. Try Again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Brian Johnson is no Bon Scott, but he's good enough to keep AC/DC hella fun to listen to.

    That's Brian Jones, you dipshit!

  36. Excellent Point by Stephen+VanDahm · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Warning: this post is seeping with my political views, many of which are controversial. I'm using them as an example, not to try to convert folks or pick a fight.

    I'm from Senator Disney's home state. Hollings is a Democrat, so voting against him means voting for a Republican. In other states, this might not be a problem -- there are a lot of moderate Republicans in the Senate that I respect, even if I disagree with some of their opinions. Unfortunately, they aren't on the ballot in South Carolina. Republican politicians in the South are fucking scary. If anyone doubts this, think about Strom Thurmond (segregationist), Jesse Helms (well-known racist), and Trent Lott (pork-barelling thug). I don't know if I can vote for a Southern-style Republican after seeing what damage out-of-control conservativism has done to the South.

    In effect, saying "no" to Hollings is saying "yes" to the religious right, "yes" to corporate welfare, "yes" to the war on drugs, "yes" to irresponsible military expenditures (that, unlike much government spending, do nothing to grow the economy), "yes" to wiretapping the Internet, "yes" to mandatory censorware in libraries and schools, and the list goes on. It means saying "no" a woman's right to an abortion, "no" to affirmative action, "no" to spending money on public education, "no" to space research, "no" to any and all liberal social programs. You may not have a problem with all of these issues, but if any one of them is dear to your heart, you've got a real dilemma.

    I'm a CS student, and I hope to work in software development one day, but frankly, if I never saw another computer again, or never bought another CD, I could live a happy and rewarding life doing something else. However, I don't think I could, in good conscience, advance a destructive conservative agenda just so I can use Linux instead of Windows, or use a traditional, uncrippled PC. I'm not saying you shouldn't, I'm just saying that I can't, and that many people won't. Technology issues are important, but is it worth abandoning everything else that I believe in just to vote a few (OK, a lot of) crooked Democrats out of office? Sadly, I don't think so.

    We have a couple of choices, in my view. We can lobby in the traditional manner -- attempting to purchase influence via campaign donations. This is very expensive, and we'll get spanked by Microsoft and Disney, but maybe it will work if we generate enough public awareness. Barring that, we could just leave. I question whether other countries are still scrambling for computer programmers, but frankly, I'd go to Scandinavia or the Netherlands in a heartbeat if I could.

    I hate that this sounds so negative, but I'm pretty demoralized about the whole thing -- it would be interesting to see if someone comes up with a solution.

    Steve

    1. Re:Excellent Point by Fat+Casper · · Score: 2
      I'm from Senator Disney's home state. Hollings is a Democrat, so voting against him means voting for a Republican.

      Um... How about in the primary? Up heah in NH, our R congressman is going to take our R senator's spot. The senator is going to fight it, but it won't do him any good. The moral of the story is that you can lose an incumbent and keep the same party. Of course it helps that they're a mercenary bunch of unprincipled bastards. With some funding and some really good arguments spoon fed, finding the right candidate for the primary should be easy.

      --
      I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
    2. Re:Excellent Point by mojo-raisin · · Score: 1

      You have a valid point on some of your criticisms of Republicans, but on others, Democrats are actually the stronger offenders.

      Democrats are more likely to legislate wiretapping the internet and required censorware. I know John Ashcroft doesn't reinforce that statement, but the real power is in the US Supreme Court. And Republican nominations to the Supreme Court uphold freedom more strongly than Democrat judges (eg Scalia and Thomas).

    3. Re:Excellent Point by Malcontent · · Score: 2

      Huh? You seem to be talking about the US supreme court but somehow you have ti completely backwards.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    4. Re:Excellent Point by Stephen+VanDahm · · Score: 1

      Scalia and Thomas are extremely conservative justices appointed by Republican presidents. They are likely to do very little to support one's right to privacy.

      Steve

    5. Re:Excellent Point by einTier · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Hollings is a Democrat, so voting against him means voting for a Republican.

      In these 13 words, you've just summed up everything that's wrong with our political party. I don't care who I have to vote for, if a politican attempts to screw me over the way Hollings has, I'll vote for whomever is running against him, even if he's a cross burning pedophile member of the KKK who stands against everything I believe in. I'll vote for him no matter repulsive he is as a person, or how insane he is mentally. Why? Because it sends a message. It says "I'd rather vote for this crazy kook than vote for someone who proposes an insane bill like the CBDTPA." Besides, he'll likely get voted out next election anyway, and probably won't have any real effect as a freshman member of congress.


      Even at that, if you simply cannot vote for the Republican running against your horrible democrat, there is a third party candidate out there whose beliefs happen to coincide well with yours. Before you tell me that third party candidates cannot win, I will inform you that both current parties were not the ones we originally started out with. Hell, Mexico's president won in a country where there was traditionally one party.


      Personally, I vote third party whenever I can, because I hate the politics of both parties, and I don't find much difference between them to justify voting for one or the other. Make the system work for you.

      --
      -------------------------------------------------- $665.95 -- retail price of the beast.
    6. Re:Excellent Point by MrNipha · · Score: 2, Insightful

      These are my opinions and IANAL (I am not a Lobbiest), but I believe that we as a group can have an effect on the American electoral process if we are able to do two things well -- pick a good target, and pick a good issue.

      Sen. Hollings may be an attractive target, but he may not be a good target. A good target for a small organization is one who is vulnerable, and who has an opponent (in the primary or general election) that shares our views and is electable. A primary election is the best place to start because even if our target gets the nomination, if we make enough noise, we may be able to convince him/her that they need to re-examine their stance on issues that are important to us.

      Picking a good issue is another vital piece to the equation. I am a strong advocate of privacy, but it is an issue that is up for debate as to how much are we entitled to have, and the benefits of trading some privacy for convenience/security/etc.
      I believe corporate control over what we can do with our purchases (computers, movies, music, etc.) to be a much stronger issue to fight. Even people who have never touched a computer have likely taped an LP to listen to the music in their car, or taped a movie off of HBO for their personal video collection, or loaned a book to a friend. It is an issue that most people have had some relevant past experience that we can point out that will become illegal, and to avoid breaking the law will cost them money -- money that will go to rich corporations.

      Leaving the US for a more geek-friendly country may seem like an option (and is has to me on more than one occasion) but it is not an option for most of us, and it doesn't do anything to help solve the problem. It may even just be a delaying tactic. because once the policies are implemented in the US there are strong forces (political and corporate) for getting those policies implemented internationally.

      We have a couple of choices, in my view, give up, or do something concrete about it. The cure for becoming demoralized to to do something to raise your moral. What you or I would like to do may be outside our grasp for the moment, but doing something that is within our means is more than just a morale booster -- it is the right thing to do.
      For me, what is in my means this month is:
      1. Making a pledge to the AOTC and GeekPAC
      2. Ordering replacements for the motherboards/CPUs that I own that are based on AMD cpus, and writing emails to AMD explaining why they have lost a customer.
      3. Stop buying my wife's 5 DVDs a month at Best Buy, destroying my Best Buy credit card, and writing them to tell them how their position on Digital Rights Management prompted me to take this action.
      4. Telling everyone I know that cares to listen what I have done, and why I have done it -- not as some ego-trip, chest-beating proclamation, but as a quiet, "this is what I believe and why, and what I am doing about it" statement.

      None of these things are earth-shattering, but they are things that I can do.

    7. Re:Excellent Point by chaoticset · · Score: 1
      You are of the interesting view that one of our political parties is somehow different from the other.

      However, I have never seen any evidence to that end. I see a lot of whimpering, and I see a lot of old people pretending to have good ideas, and I see a lot of clapping and speeches.

      I have not seen any leaders in political office in my lifetime. I was born in 1979.

      Back to the point: It's called kingmaking. In games, if there are two equally skilled opponents who are superior to all the rest, they cancel out. Who is left to determine the game's outcome? The next most powerful player. The kingmaker. He decides who wears the crown; so the crown had best treat him well.

      Senator Disney and whoever might run against him are both on one side: The opposition. You just have to pick the lesser of two evils until some good shows up. That's how the game is played.

      The reality of it is more depressing than your convenient fantasy; the Republicans and Democrats are in the same party.

      --

      -----------------------
      You are what you think.
    8. Re:Excellent Point by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 2
      I'll vote for whomever is running against him, even if he's a cross burning pedophile member of the KKK who stands against everything I believe in. I'll vote for him no matter repulsive he is as a person, or how insane he is mentally. Why? Because it sends a message.
      You don't elect a message. You elect an individual, who will then go to a legislature and pass legislation that you and 400 million-odd other people have to live under.
    9. Re:Excellent Point by Happy+go+Lucky · · Score: 1
      Scalia and Thomas are extremely conservative justices appointed by Republican presidents. They are likely to do very little to support one's right to privacy.

      It helps to look at the decisions they've authored.

      There was a case, Bond v. US, in which a Border Patrol agent was performing ID checks on a bus in Texas. The agent squeezed a piece of luggage and felt marijuana. The court had to decide whether or not the squeeze constituted a 'search' requiring probable cause or other legal justification. The Court ruled that it was, with Thomas concurring. The dissent (the idea being that a squeeze doesn't require justification) was written by Breyer with Scalia joining. Who appointed Breyer? (I THINK Breyer was a Clinton appointee, but I could be wrong)

      There was another case, Knowles v. Iowa, in which an Iowa state statute was being challenged. With most misdemeanor (including traffic) violations in most states, an officer has the discretion as to whether to arrest a person or to issue a citation and release.

      There's also a legal theory called the 'search incident to arrest.' That means that when an officer makes a lawful custodial arrest, the officer can contemporaneously search the arrestee and basically everything within the arrestee's immediate area, in order to prevent the arrestee from getting a weapon or destroying evidence.

      Now, Iowa had a statute which stated that an officer could make a search, similar to the search incident to arrest, even if the officer was citing and releasing the violator. Predictably, this went to the Court. The Court ruled the Iowa statute unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment, based on the fact that it was ridiculous to have searches incident to arrest without having arrests. I'm not sure, but either one or both of the two concurred with the majority.

    10. Re:Excellent Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sympathize, but remember that the general election isn't the only time you'll be presented with a choice. You can oppose Hollings in the primary. If no alternative Democratic primary candidate is available, work to change that.

    11. Re:Excellent Point by bluGill · · Score: 2

      Remember that a freshman gets very little done in todays congress. (that would change if everyone followed my policy of Never voting for an incumbant). That and your one evil congressman still has to get a majority of 500+ others to let his evilness slide. (435 house, 99 senate, any tie breaker votes, and the president)

      So If I don't like the republocrat incumbant enough to want to assure his loss I will vote the other party. Otherwise, if they are both equally bad (the normal case where the chalanger is pretty bad) I just vote for a third party.

    12. Re:Excellent Point by jafac · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately, here is the UGLY choice we Americans have.

      Republicans or Democrats.
      Corporate Welfare for the Energy and Defense industries, or Corporate Welfare for the Entertainment industry. Or in GE's case, they have BOTH parties fighting to suck their cock. It's good to make jet engines for tanks and fighter planes, power plants, and also own a major segment of the media.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    13. Re:Excellent Point by Quadell · · Score: 1

      I hate that this sounds so negative, but I'm pretty demoralized about the whole thing -- it would be interesting to see if someone comes up with a solution.

      I hate to proceletize[*], but there are alternatives. For example, there's the South Carolina Libertarian Party. They run more candidates than any other third party, and they don't support the religious right's agenda, corporate welfare, the war on drugs, irresponsible military expenditures, wiretapping, mandatory censorware, anti-abortion laws, or any other expansion of government power.

      And don't believe the taunts of "You're throwing your vote away!". You're vote will never change the outcome of a state-wide election no matter who you vote for, but it will make a difference. And it makes more of a difference when you support a smaller party.

      [*]Okay, so maybe I don't really hate it. ;)

      --
      Don't blame me; I voted for CowboyNeal.
    14. Re:Excellent Point by ncc74656 · · Score: 2
      There was a case, Bond v. US, in which a Border Patrol agent was performing ID checks on a bus in Texas. The agent squeezed a piece of luggage and felt marijuana. The court had to decide whether or not the squeeze constituted a 'search' requiring probable cause or other legal justification. The Court ruled that it was, with Thomas concurring. The dissent (the idea being that a squeeze doesn't require justification) was written by Breyer with Scalia joining. Who appointed Breyer? (I THINK Breyer was a Clinton appointee, but I could be wrong)

      He was appointed by Bush 41, but his track record on the Supreme Court has usually put him among the left-leaning justices. He might as well have been appointed by der Slickmeister, for all the "good" he's done. (At his confirmation hearings, IIRC he wouldn't answer many questions pertaining to how he might vote in more than a few hypothetical situations.)

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    15. Re:Excellent Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Before you tell me that third party candidates cannot win, I will inform you that both current parties were not the ones we originally started out with.

      Yes, but if you recall in the last election Nader pulled just enough votes from Gore in Florida to get Govenor Fuckhead elected president.

    16. Re:Excellent Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, I think libertarians are a bit, well, libertarian! i like that the word liberal is in there, and I'm all for "let the government protect me and nothing more", but I think the perfect party would be 2 parts green party, a half part democrat and 1 part libertarian.

      The old idea about a stronger federal government appeals to me, this used to be what defined the democratic party. I'm also a fan of government doing more for us than just protecting us, I think pushing people to get educated, etc., is a good thing, and actually feeds into the protection thing, if you think about it...

      Free trade is good (too bad the green party doesn't approve - it's the future, and any econ book, ANY econ book, supports this idea).

      The green party is good for, of course, workers rights, anti-aristocracy (a BIG issue for me - believe Frank Herbert when he said, 'all societies become aristocracies (sp?)') and pro environment, along with some liberal policies that feed into libertarian ideas, but for different reasons:

      Legalize pot, let me kill myself if I wana, let women have rights, replace religion with science, invest in technology before america isn't the leader in anything besides sexual prudishness, etc., etc.

    17. Re:Excellent Point by darkonc · · Score: 2
      I'm from Senator Disney's home state. Hollings is a Democrat, so voting against him means voting for a Republican.

      You actually have a number of choices:
      The easiest one is to get a Democrat membership, and then convince your entire CS faculty to do the same thing -- then stack the primary and blow Hollings out in the Democrat primary.

      If that doesn't work, get Libertarian / Green / Pick-your-third-party membership for you and your 500 best allies, and then work for the third party... If you can get a noticable proportion of people to vote for some third party instead of Mr Hollings, it will get both his attention and the attention of others.... Please note that in a state like NC (by the sounds of it), any vote for a left-leaning third party is going to be obvious bleed from Hollings. It may not get him out of office, but it will scare the begesus out of him (and that's the whole point of the exercise).

      I don't think I could, in good conscience, advance a destructive conservative agenda just so I can use Linux instead of Windows,

      The "don't waste your vote" proclamations are really saying "voting for x is a wasted vote". That's really only true because people believe it.

      My understanding is that the Republican party started out as a third party -- and people used to say the same thing about them. If people hadn't been willing to "waste their vote", the Republicans would still be an also-ran third-party (if they existed at all). Please ignore the fact that some people might consider this a good thing. My point is that the only way to change the setup is to be willing to walk up the hill for a long while.

      Voting only scratches the surface of the difference you can make in a democratic system.

      --
      Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
    18. Re:Excellent Point by davidcorny · · Score: 1

      Actually, last I checked, after all the recounts had stopped (the ones that went on after Fuckhead assumed the presidency), Gore was still ahead. This was not even counting the votes that were thrown out.

      Besides, the issue shouldn't be who won Florida, the issue *should* be the fact that Gore won the popular vote in the nation as a whole.

    19. Re:Excellent Point by jackalvcs2 · · Score: 1

      Well if you do care I and I think I remember correctly, I believe there was a large group of people from a conservative are who turned around and didn't vote, after hearing Gore won Florida, and the election. And it was a large enough group of people to give the Bush the popular vote, Also rember Our country was found as a Republic not a Democracy. Technically the State legislators choose wich electorates vote for the president, but all states have agreed to have the state legislators choose the electorates that the majority voted for. The US population doesn't have to vote for presiden, the idea was they vote for their local legislators, and the local legislator choose the president.

    20. Re:Excellent Point by davidcorny · · Score: 1

      Well forgive me for stating this so bluntly... but I really don't care that this country was founded as a Republic. Just because it's the way the Founding Fathers wanted the country to be organized, doesn't mean it's the way it should be. Although I do agree with some of the principles this country was founded on, this country was still founded on some pretty fucked up principles. I do think that some things should be left decided the Republican way (for instance, Congress), but the president should be elected by a popular vote and not through the Electoral College.

    21. Re:Excellent Point by LemonYellow · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'm being naive, but isn't the best way to get your way politically to take a more active part? There's nothing stopping you from joining the local Democrat party and pressuring Hollings from there. Or, stand against him. You'll probably lose, but at least you'll be heard.

  37. Right. Let's make an example of someone by sl956 · · Score: 3, Informative

    The person whose cage we should be rattling is in California. Dianne Feinstein.
    That's damn right. From 1997 to 2002, she raised $22,750 from Disney (4th contributor) and $18,100 from AOLTW (7th contributor). I think GeekPAC can raise much more than that. And throwing that money on his opponent would be a good complement to grassroot actions (grin). I don't like senators to be for sale, but so it is. Then why not just buy them ?

    disclaimer: I sent my check to GeekPAC two days ago, and I'm not even an american citizen. So what are you waiting for ?
    1. Re:Right. Let's make an example of someone by Phillip+Birmingham · · Score: 2, Informative

      disclaimer: I sent my check to GeekPAC two days ago, and I'm not even an american citizen. So what are you waiting for ?

      Dude, major illegality there. They'll send it back, because GeekPAC can't take your money.

      --
      Make me aerodynamic in the evening air
    2. Re:Right. Let's make an example of someone by grahammm · · Score: 1

      Why not? I am neither a US citizen nor resident but both EFF & FSF are quite happy to take my money. So why shouldn't GeekPAC accept funding from outside the USA?

    3. Re:Right. Let's make an example of someone by bluGill · · Score: 2

      It is illegal for a non-american to influence american goverment. You could concieveably support something bad for the US, which we have enough of without you. Someone who doesn't live in the US isn't affected should a law pass that all women must concent to sex with any man at any time. Just to give an extreem example.

      Fix your problems in your own country, keep your nose out of our buisness. (that would be good advice for a lot of americans too)

      EFF and FSF are not political orginizations so they can accept your money.

    4. Re:Right. Let's make an example of someone by blibbleblobble · · Score: 2

      Surely a check is difficult to use for someone with a different currency to your own?

      have they started soliciting donations yet?

    5. Re:Right. Let's make an example of someone by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 2

      Considering how much money the US throws into elections in countries like Russia and Venezuela, this policy is so hypocri - I mean, "ironic."

    6. Re:Right. Let's make an example of someone by cyclist1200 · · Score: 1

      Mainly because, if you read the OTC action statement, they say they have not cleared the legal hurdles that would allow them to solicit funds.

  38. It doesn't matter if *we* would vote... by chennes · · Score: 1

    The question IS NOT if any one of us would vote for the opposing candidate. While it may seem only slightly different, the point is that we are not encouraging any single candidate, but rather obliterating another. There will always be some issues on which you disagree with both of them. So we are running issue-ads about one specific thing. The point is to MAKE AN EXAMPLE out of someone, so that the rest will think twice. So we're not even talking about voting for a candidate - that's just the byproduct of the smear.

  39. Finally by release7 · · Score: 1
    It's good to see someone advocating for political action. Until citizens start getting involved, things will never change.

    To compare such a group with the NRA is probably overstepping what this lobbying arm will be capable of. The NRA is well-armed with money from the gun industry. It's going to be tough to get that kind of muscle from computer geeks. I don't have statistics on the breakdown of how the NRA gets funded, but I'd say it's a safe bet that at least 80% of their money comes from gun manufacturers. Someone needs to be able to pay the lobbyists to go schmooze with the politicians and get the voice of the geeks heard. There also needs to be money for conventions to set the agenda, etc, etc.

    The groups proposes raising $200K. But honestly, just how far is that going to go? Maybe it'll cover the expenses and salary of one lobbyist for a year if we're lucky. I wonder what the operating budget of the NRA is. Anybody have an idea?

    Anyway, it's a noble idea and should be pursued further. I hope they find ways to raise some serious cash or at the very least, get geeks more politically active.

    --

    <a href="http://www.joblessjimmy.com">Work is dumb and so is Jobless Jimmy.</a>

    1. Re:Finally by thumbtack · · Score: 2

      So OK Manufacturers, code writers, divy up. At the risk sounding droll, cliche and all that stuff, "Put yer money where yer mouth is"

    2. Re:Finally by release7 · · Score: 1

      OK, where do I send the check?

      --

      <a href="http://www.joblessjimmy.com">Work is dumb and so is Jobless Jimmy.</a>

    3. Re:Finally by thumbtack · · Score: 2

      It appears that right now they can only accept pledges, You can do that http://www.thelinuxshow.com/otc.htm

    4. Re:Finally by Stonehand · · Score: 1

      I doubt the 80%, considering that the firearms manufacturers have their own lobby, and that it and the NRA have not infrequently clashed over specific details of various proposals.

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    5. Re:Finally by BCoates · · Score: 2
      I don't have statistics on the breakdown of how the NRA gets funded, but I'd say it's a safe bet that at least 80% of their money comes from gun manufacturers.

      the best i could find with a quick google has the VPC (violence policy center, basically and anti-NRA group) saying this:

      The study documents for the first time gun industry funding of NRA activities. Tax-deductible money donated by manufacturers of firearms, ammunition, and related products is funneled through the NRA's tax-exempt sister organization, The NRA Foundation. The VPC has uncovered at the very minimum hundreds of thousands of gun-industry dollars donated to The NRA Foundation. These funds are then transferred to the NRA in the form of "grants." The NRA then uses these "grants" to fund the Eddie Eagle program and other activities

      (eddie eagle program is the NRA's gun safety project for children, or as the VPC calls it, "Joe Camel with feathers")

      Which makes it seem that the NRA claims to not accept donations from the gun industry at all (although i can't find an NRA quote to that effect). That actually makes sense since the NRA's hard-line stance on gun regulation actually puts it up against gun manufacturers who would like to reach a compromise with the government in order to preserve their contracts with the biggest weapon buyer of them all, the US government.

      I wonder what the operating budget of the NRA is. Anybody have an idea?

      this:

      National Rifle Association (NRA) is the nation's largest lobbying organization for gun owners/gun industry with over 3 million members and an annual budget of $168 million (Source: The Washington Post, August 6, 2000).

      --
      Benjamin Coates
    6. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't have hard numbers either, but I've heard the NRA gets less than 20% of its money from Gun Manufacturers. This is not suprising, since the NRA has been at odds with US manufacturers a number of times. The NRA has fought for importation rights and for the selling of military surplus rifles and ammunition through the civilian marksmanship program. Niether of these stands are popular with people trying to sell NEW guns and ammunition.

      Anyway, the NRA has close to 4 million members who pay $35 a year. They have an annual budget of about $150 million. You can do the math. The truth is that money, industry or otherwise, doesn't have much to do with it, despite what the campaign finance reformers would have you believe.

      Check out: Open Secrets . The NRA, consistently listed as one of the most powerful groups in Washington, has never been in the top 50 in terms of money given. What the NRA does have is VOTERS, in the MILLIONS, who vote on a single issue. That is where their power comes from. To achieve a similar level of success, the geek community needs to vote down the line on technology issues.

    7. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't have statistics on the breakdown of how the NRA gets funded, but I'd say it's a safe bet that at least 80% of their money comes from gun manufacturers

      I'll take that bet. The real answer is surprising. The NRA and the firearms industry often clash (for example, the industry was opposed to the 1986 McClure-Volkmer act that allowed old collectable rifles and other curios and relics into the country, since they believed it would impact their business). The "political" side of the NRA (the NRA/ILA "institute for legislative action") receives nearly all of its operating budget through contributions from its members. It really is a grass-roots organization, and for all practical purposes the commercial "gun lobby" is a myth.

      Having said that, it is true that some firearms manufacturers support the NRA educational programs (such as Eddie the Eagle and other gun safety programs. And if you're opposed to Eddie the Eagle then you're either ignorant of what the program is about or you're just plain evil) and anti-crime initiatives (like Operation Exile), but those funds aren't used for political purposes. The only people I know who have legitimate complaints against the NRA are those on the far liberartian extreme who claim they are too willing to compromise what are supposed to be inalienable Constitutional rights.

    8. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The NRA is pushing 5 million members with a huge annual buget, with that said i wouldnt belive alot of the things the vpc says

    9. Re:Finally by io333 · · Score: 1

      The real strength of the NRA is that it's power and its money, come from the grass roots: Everyday working stiffs, i.e., Joe Sixpack. All other political advocacy groups are generally funded by elites. That's why the NRA is so formidable. An elite funded group has lots of $$$$ to run ads. In contrast, the NRA has millions of VOTES.

    10. Re:Finally by rc5-ray · · Score: 1

      I don't have statistics on the breakdown of how the NRA gets funded, but I'd say it's a safe bet that at least 80% of their money comes from gun manufacturers.

      I don't know either, but as an NRA member I can tell you that the lobbying and fundraising efforts are just as intensely directed to individuals. I get one or two letters per week from the NRA telling about the newest congressional bills and actions threatening the second amendment, who's sponsoring them, and what they've done in the past that's been pro- or anti-gun. Every letter and mailing includes a prepaid envelope and a solicitation for funds.

      Once or twice a year, I'll get a list of all the candidates in my region for the state and local elections, along with the NRA's recommendations and why. A couple of times per year, I'll receive preprinted letters of complaint or encouragement addressed to my congressman(woman) and both senators. All I have to do is sign, stamp and mail it.

      My point isn't to start an debate about the wonders or evils of the NRA, but to illustrate their aggressive fund-raising and lobbying efforts (and they do get results).

      Currently, the NRA is approaching 5 million members, many who will write letters, shout very loudly and open the checkbooks when they don't like what's happening. You've gotta pay up.

    11. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "I don't have statistics on the breakdown of how the NRA gets funded, but I'd say it's a safe bet that at least 80% of their money comes from gun manufacturers."

      Un-friggin'-believable. You don't have any stats, but you make some wild assed assumption, anyway. Can you spell "brainwashed-by-the-media"?

  40. It works only if... by teatime · · Score: 1

    It works only if... The politicians are up for re-election. Since there are term limits some politicians are serving their last term. One example is Diane Feinstein who is one of the main supporters of the legislation that in essence limits freedom in all domains.

    To bad we can't throw her out of office.
    I guess we just have to get on the phone and sream loudly.
    Diane Feinstein:
    Phone: (202) 224-3841
    Fax: (202) 228-3954
    TTY/TDD: (202) 224-2501

    1. Re:It works only if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One example is Diane Feinstein who is one of the main supporters of the legislation that in essence limits freedom in all domains.

      To bad we can't throw her out of office.


      Sure you can. Dead people aren't allowed to hold office, and .30-06 rounds are only about $.50 each...

    2. Re:It works only if... by teatime · · Score: 1

      true. she carries the guns she wants to limit though

      so bware

  41. Re:"Online Privacy" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well picking up a pay seems to still be a problem actually. Read Tom Clancy's clear and presant danger and it gives a really good explination of the capabilties of the US spyware center. They have all of these voice recongizers and can tell who is using what phones. they monitor and record 10% of phone conversations all the time. They can like listen to 90% of them via computer. They are listening..........

  42. Can't send real letters? Coincidence? by The+Monster · · Score: 2
    Insert obvious anthrax analysis here.
    Do I have to be a full-on Conspiracy Nut to think that it's an interesting coincidence that the Anthrax
    Scare came along to make our elected representatives afraid to open mail from their constituents
    at the very time their kneejerk reaction would be to attack our liberties in the name of National Security?

    --
    Fight Wide Posts! Put in your own line breaks. The <br> tag is your friend.

    --

    [100% ISO 646 Compliant]
    SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.

  43. Fighting Hollywood by pngai · · Score: 1

    Hollywood makes a living by manipulating people's feelings and emotions. They make a very good living at it so you'd have trouble competing with their dollars but more important, you will find it very difficult to compete with their propaganda resources. They might make TV spots with famous actors or actresses about how property rights made this country great. Or they might start casting nefarious hackers and pirates as bad guys in TV series or movies. I'm sure there's many other ways they can "persuade" public opinion on this subject in very effective ways.

    1. Re:Fighting Hollywood by multiplexo · · Score: 1
      Hollywood makes a living by manipulating people's feelings and emotions. They make a very good living at it so you'd have trouble competing with their dollars but more important, you will find it very difficult to compete with their propaganda resources. They might make TV spots with famous actors or actresses about how property rights made this country great. Or they might start casting nefarious hackers and pirates as bad guys in TV series or movies. I'm sure there's many other ways they can "persuade" public opinion on this subject in very effective ways.

      Twaddle and nonsense, if Hollywood is so fucking smart then why can't they get anyone to buy Mariah Carey's last album or go see her movie? In fact if the entertainment companies are run by these supergeniuses with evil mind control powers then why did they have to pay Mariah Carey 28 million dollars to go away? If Hollywood is so smart then why did they give Kevin Costner umpty million dollars to make WaterWorld and then, apparently not having learned anything from the experience, give him umpty million more dollars for The Postman? If Hollywood is go great at persuasion then why is it that they can't get anyone to see a movie with Shaquille O'Neil in it? Look, if you, and all of the other people who are making this "oh no, Hollywood will use their evil mind control mojo and we'll lose so there's nothing we can do" are too lazy and too stupid and just too chickenshit to do anything then just up and admit it and then log off, go back to your hovel in your parent's basement and resume jacking off to your PhotoShopped porno GIFs of a nude Seven of Nine, because the rest of us have work to do.

      Hollywood is a bunch of pussies, look how they ran scared when Joe Lieberman started talking about having hearings on movie and TV violence. As for ads I can think of some great ones to run in California against Dianne Feinstein. How about a buying lots of billboard space in Santa Clara and environs and putting up a picture of Dianne Feinstein with the caption "Dianne Feinstein, the best damn Senator that Hollywood money can buy" or "Dianne Feinstein, Saving Hollywood, screwing Silicon Valley".

      Or how about taking out ads in conservative districts, such as Hollings saying thing such as "Last year Disney released dozens of horrible filthy movies that contradict family values, and Senator Hollings took all sorts of money from them. Please ask Senator Hollings why he accepts money from these peddlers of filth and smut"?

      The point is that there is lots that could be done to hammer on these people, and hammer on them hard and make them bleed and make the people who are trying to pass SSSCA or CBTPDA think twice about it. Unfortunately pissing and moaning is not going to be a successful tactic in this battle.

      --
      cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
    2. Re:Fighting Hollywood by Pierce · · Score: 1

      Anyone know the cost for a bilboard or magazine add?

    3. Re:Fighting Hollywood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It may not be so cut-and-dried. While the corporate elite of Hollywood will be strongly behind all pro-control measures, the people who do the artistic work may not be. Look at all the musicians who oppose the RIAA on Napster, for example. Without the cooperation of the artists, the corporate elite have no propaganda power.

    4. Re:Fighting Hollywood by pngai · · Score: 1

      Could you point me to some references (URL) of "musicians who oppose the RIAA on Napster"?

    5. Re:Fighting Hollywood by pngai · · Score: 1

      http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/111/living/Burne d_+.shtml

  44. Voting records by JordanH · · Score: 5, Interesting
    If I wanted to research my Congressmen's voting record on Geek-centric issues, I'd have to do quite a bit of work.

    Does anyone keep just lists of the Bills, voting records, etc. on these issues? Opensecrets.org does this for their issues, and Common Cause publicizes voting record for their issues, but I haven't seen anything like this for Geek issues.

    Perhaps the EFF would do something like this, but I didn't find it on their Web site. Well, they are probably open to suggestions, especially with a contribution in the envelope!

    1. Re:Voting records by mcwop · · Score: 5, Informative
      Try here. It has roll call votes for congress, and lists specifc names under the yeas and naaas.

      Congress - Office of Clerk Roll Call Votes

      --

      "I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX

    2. Re:Voting records by JordanH · · Score: 1
      I knew about this, but I was just hoping for some kind of digest of just Geek issues that I could use come election time.

      It'll be hard sorting through all the various issues when the votes might be years old by the time the congressperson comes up for election.

    3. Re:Voting records by Dr.Hair · · Score: 5, Informative

      The best site on the web for looking at voting records and how various special interest groups rate politicians is Project Vote Smart.
      They also send out a questionnaire to all candidates which includes questions on tech policy. In fact the policy questions are pointed enough that the political parties were telling their candidates to not cooperate last election with Project Vote Smart. It's easier to waffle on issues when you are as amorphous as pankcake batter.

    4. Re:Voting records by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone, mod this thread to 5, people really need to see it.
      Good call JordanH.

    5. Re:Voting records by mcwop · · Score: 2

      Yes you are right. Your idea could make for a cool website. I have some server space with a little help it could be put together. You can always contact me through my site uJoda.com

      --

      "I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX

  45. Just question by squared99 · · Score: 1

    Just wondering if anyone out there knows of lobbying attempts by any technology companies to actually propose legislation to protect an open and fair market? Seems like everyday I hear a new proposal for something to tighten the screw but nothing to loosen it up.

    It would seem that even some of the big wheels would be starting to raise their eyebrows, and beginning to glance nervously over at their R&D dept, with some of the new legislations being passed they could very well be violating laws.

    Has anyone, such as the EFF, or GeekPAC approached some of these companies for funding or backing on their own legislation pushes?

    I'm not saying this isn't being done, I just don't hear about it.

  46. His constituancy by Enry · · Score: 3, Insightful

    He's not representing the interests of SC. When I think "entertainment", SC doesn't come to mind first . Based on the money he's received and the interests he's put forward, he's more suited to represent CA.

    Perhaps he should move there and represent them.

  47. Frequent flyers by crankyinmv · · Score: 0

    Yup. You heard that right. Frequent-flying geeks to the rescue.

    Wow! You bite the heads off enough chickens and you get super powers!

    --

    ---
    For your protection, a copy of this message is being sent via RFC 1149.
  48. Use for Primary Election by Tomato3 · · Score: 1

    I can understand not wanting to elect a southern republican in order to get rid of Senator Disney. But what if the effort was used to instead put forth a different democrat for that office.
    Using the money, to 'elect' a diferent democrat nominee in the primary.

    --
    Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master. -Commissioner Lal
  49. Ooooh yes, it works: AIPAC example by SysKoll · · Score: 3, Interesting
    On the other hand if, for example, Senator Disney gets his balls whacked (electorally-speaking), monstrosities like the DMCA will start getting bottled up in congressional committees. The NRA has been doing this for years and it works.

    Funny, I was just watching TV when I came accross that post. The AIPAC is dining and wining Washington's political elite at the Hilton tonight and various pols are brownnosing their generous sponsor so hard they are growing warts on their nose.

    (Note for non-US readers: AIPAC is the pro-Israel lobby dropping millions of soft-money every year onto grateful Congresscritters to influence the US foreign policy.)

    The AIPAC is one of the most efficient lobbies in the world. I think we geeks should find inspiration in its mode of operation:

    • They carpet-bomb a few influent commission members with fat checks
    • Then they run press campaigns against election candidates who rub them the wrong way.

    And you know what? It WORKS. Nobody in their right mind ever speaks against AIPAC in Washington.

    Carrots and big sticks. That's the way to deal with Congress. Collateral damages include democracy and ethics, but nobody said politics was pretty.

    If we want to nip the SSSCA insanity in the bud, we geeks have to forget about the artificial political divisions and make sure Mickey Hollings gets his testicles shoved up his big mouth at the next election. Whether his adversary is Ralph Nader or Rush Limbaugh is irrelevant, Hollings has to get his fat ass kicked and painted with "who's next?" in day-glow paint.

    If we don't do that, we developers might as well try to find a job as a data entry clerk at the MPAA's headquaters, because life as a software creator is going to suck.

    -- SysKoll
    --

    --
    Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/

  50. GeekPac and The American Open Technology... by thumbtack · · Score: 2

    Consortium

    Visit the GeekPac homepage on the Linux Show. Right now it appears they can only accept pledges, as they are not yet legally setup to solict funds. They have both memberships and donations.

    From the website:
    GeekPAC is the second proposed entity and is intended as a funding channel to directly affect the outcome of elections and legislation. The actions of GeekPAC will include (but not be limited to) the purchase of political advertising that may impact the outcome of elections or legislation and direct lobbying to congress, including the hiring of lobbyists to represent members. Further actions may include contributing directly to political campaigns of people seeking local, state or national office. GeekPAC will be a registered Political Action Committee (PAC). Under McCann-Feingold, GeekPAC will not be able to accept donations from businesses or foreign nationals. Contributions will not be tax-deductible.

  51. I agreee... How about Vote Republican? by LWolenczak · · Score: 2

    I totally agree. Why not vote republican though. Not to get in a mud slining thing, but of all republicans I can think of In office except one or two, who are really wolfs in sheeps clothing, they atleast stand for something, not just for money, and at least work for the people who voted them into office... not just collect monies for possible relections all the time.

    But, Don't vote for the party, don't vote for some idiot's political ambition. Vote for what is right, for what is good, not just for your self, but for us all.

    1. Re:I agreee... How about Vote Republican? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope they're as sold out as anyone else in DC. Want real change? Vote for parties with real principle. Libertarians and Greens come to mind as people who would make change.

    2. Re:I agreee... How about Vote Republican? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When hell freezes over will I vote Republican. Which I guess kinda makes Lumpy's point about getting us to agree...

      Which is all I really wanted to say, but I can't resist adding that standing for something is worthless if what you stand for is wrong.

    3. Re:I agreee... How about Vote Republican? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with Greens and Libs is that they are:

      1. Never going to get elected.
      2. Fucking insane.

      Libs are just anarchists with morals. Greens were so incapable of looking at the Big Picture that Bush got elected. Nader said that even if Bush got elected that there would be a backlash back to the left. Well not only has there been no backlash, but Bush is probably going to get re-elected after 9-11.

  52. 2000 could have been a great example by tony+clifton · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Dianne Feinstein was up for re-election in 2000. Despite being from San Francisco, she's probably one of the least friendly congresspeople towards technology and the internet. Her opponent was Tom Campbell, an imminently sensible pro-technology Republican. He got his clock cleaned.

    Since Feinstein's up in 2006, I'd volunteer Boxer in 2004. There's plenty of time, she's in favor of the Hollings bill, and she's a perrenially weak candidate. If the California Republicans would re-run Campbell, or someone else similar from Silicon Valley, it's be a great way of getting our voices heard.

    Is there a similarly weak Republican?

  53. Enough of "criminal" individualism!!!! by BenitoM · · Score: 1

    I agree! Degenerate so-called individualists have traded not only safety and national security for the infantile right to whine, but have pushed these new-founded rights far enough to make criminals seem like heroes. Enough! Read my URL for more information...

  54. Did everybody forget about the others? by Brendan+Byrd · · Score: 2

    Why can't you vote for another Democrat for the senate? It doesn't have to be a party issue. (Or is there something I'm forgetting about senator races vs. president races?)

  55. NRA+Geek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I keep seeing comments about how the GeekPAC should be doing things, like the NRA. From what I understand the NRA is around to help insure that the people can stop the government from pushing them around if they need to. The NRA is all for preserving the freedoms of the American people.

    Well, isn't that what GeekPAC is about as well. Why not align with the NRA, or solicite the NRA for help. Politics makes strange bedfellows, but when the goals align, why not?

  56. Two words: Jack Brooks. by einTier · · Score: 3, Informative
    Why don't you look this guy up. He was a very popular politician from Texas, and was a US Representative from 1953-1995. People in his area really thought he was going to be in office until the day he died.


    And then came along the 1994 Crime bill. In case you don't remember this bill, this was the infamous bill that banned "assualt weapons" without a good definition of what an assualt weapon was and banned gun magazines over 10 rounds. It barely passed, but passed nonetheless.


    Jack Brooks onveniently forgot who brought him to the dance and who kept him there. He voted against the bill, even though many of his constituents were either directly NRA members or sympathetic to the cause. He did not serve another term. Though no one directly said it, it was considered general knowledge that his vote on the crime bill was the critical issue.

    --
    -------------------------------------------------- $665.95 -- retail price of the beast.
    1. Re:Two words: Jack Brooks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jack Brooks onveniently forgot who brought him to the dance and who kept him there

      Thanks for reminding me about Jack Brooks. He's on the list of people who's grave I'm going to piss upon. Anybody know if he's dead yet?

    2. Re:Two words: Jack Brooks. by einTier · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hey, I actually got to be his waiter one night in 1996. I'll leave the details up to you, but let's just say it was very satisfying.

      --
      -------------------------------------------------- $665.95 -- retail price of the beast.
    3. Re:Two words: Jack Brooks. by ronfar · · Score: 1
      Hi, I'm just confused about one statement:


      He voted against the bill, even though many of his constituents were either directly NRA members or sympathetic to the cause.


      I assume you mean he voted for the assault weapons ban, not against.

      --
      All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
    4. Re:Two words: Jack Brooks. by jafac · · Score: 2

      what would have been REALLY satisfying is if HE was your waiter.

      I'll be satisfied when Diane Feinstein is my crack-whore.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  57. Learning from Granny and Joe six-shooter. by dinotrac · · Score: 2

    The author is right-right-right-right-right.

    When power is evenly split, as it is now, coalition politics come to the fore and relatively small groups -- if focused -- can make big gains.

    This is where the NRA and AARP shine. They know how to focus on the issues that matter to them. As it stands today, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have demonstrated any particular warmth to digital rights issues. Carefully targetted efforts that endanger the balance of power could generate major wins.

    Remember: all of those dollars that corporations spend aren't powerful because they're dollars, but because they help to generate votes, which politicians need if they are to retain power. Well-focused and well-targetted campaigns can get attention all out of proportion to the resources involved if they will be backed up by people going to the polls.

    That will be the real trick, given the basic cynicism of so many in the techi spectrum.

  58. Re:"Online Privacy" by Netbrian · · Score: 1

    Since when is Tom Clancy considered an authority on this topic?

  59. Entertainment industry rules Myrtle Beach... by aquarian · · Score: 2
    We will never get enough critical mass together to threaten his lock on his voter base - not enough of the right demographic is there (and please, all 5 of you in Columbus and Charleston, don't take umbrage.)

    The problem isn't the lack of the right demographic, it's still just too much of the wrong kind of money. In case you haven't noticed, Myrtle Beach is like Vegas by the Sea without the gambling- bought and and built by the entertainment industry. From the House of Blues to Broadway at the Beach, they're all there. Myrtle Beach is fast eclipsing Columbia and Charleston as SC's major metropolis. If it's not the fastest growing city in the country, it's certainly one of them. There's big, big money there, and much more on the way- and it's all enemy money.

    1. Re:Entertainment industry rules Myrtle Beach... by Yet+Another+Smith · · Score: 2

      OK quick geography lesson: Ain't no Columbus in SC. Dude prolly mean Columbia (home of Kryotech, to all you overclockers out there). Also, Greenville/Spartanburg is where a good portion of the tech-sector jobs are in SC. There's been a history of some decent moderate Republican guys coming out of there. Unfortunately, there's also a big semi-rural population of heavy-duty reactionaries lurking up there in the upstate. I'm not sure that MB is really gonna eclipse the upstate for economic activity.

      The bigger problem is South Carolina's weird politics. Its not a state that takes the advice of folks from the left coast on anything. If SC gets wind of anybody trying to tell them to do anything, they will quite happily cut off their own nose to spite the ferner. It also is notoriously slow to change its mind, and Hollings is quite possibly the longest serving junior senator in history (nobody forget Strom). Getting people to not vote for Hollings would mean giving up both Strom (who will retire at age 100 this term) and Hollings, both of whom have helluva seniority in the Senate, which equates to power. That would leave a small state with a dicey economy with no senatorial clout. They'd probably be afraid that no one would take them seriously (few do now) without at least one of thier elder statesmen running amok in DC. And its been a while since I've seen a Republican or Democrat in SC that I could really get behind. Gov. Campbell was the last Republican, and Bob Sheheen (former speaker of the state House) was the last Democrat. These days the parties are in too much control, and are running idiots that they can manipulate.

      But don't dare vote for the wrong lizard.

      --
      if ($it != $onething) {$it = $another;}
  60. This can work... by antirename · · Score: 1

    if it's a grassroots effort. People do vote based on issues they believe in. And what's the percentage of registered voters that actually vote? Relatively small numbers of dedicated people can make a difference here. The NRA is actually a very good example... I believe that not only do I have a right to bear arms, but that it is my responsibilty to ensure my own safety and my family's as well. Do you think that you can sue the local police because they didn't respond fast enough and something bad happened to your kids? Good luck. It's on you, it always has been and (hopefully) always will be. The Constitution provides for powers of the federal government, powers of the states, and rights that are associated with the citizens themselves. The nature of central government is to try to transfer the rights and powers assigned to other groups to itself. That may or may not be a bad thing, depending on the situation, but look at this particular set of circumstances. If you feel that you are morally incapable of deciding whether to make a backup of a CD, then vote for politicians that support that. If you feel that you are morally incapable, mentally incapable, phisically incapable, or otherwise inadequate when it comes to choosing whether or not to defend your family by use of force, then by all means vote for taking the choice away. Now it's not your problem, see? This sort of thing isn't going to go away. Special interest groups have always had way too much influence. Still, the NRA is trying to protect the Constitutional rights of everyone, rights that already exist under our laws. Yes, they are a special interest group. But, they speak up for people that should speak up for themselves. The PEOPLE! The media companies are trying to take away rights that exist for everyone to protect their own inabilty to adapt. Being a one-issue voter might not be the ideal, but on how many issues do you really have black-vs-white opinions on? Vote, first off... at least do that. Pick issues, you are allowed to do that and there isn't a whole lot of difference between the "centrist" Democrats and the "centrist" GOP anyway. Vote your conscience and let the individual be heard. At least vote before you bitch.

  61. Fight or not? by antirename · · Score: 1

    OK, people are talking about a PAC, no one seems to have actually started one... Let's start on now.... nothing gained, nothing lost, and a hell of a lot of organisation left to do. Still, the NRA did it, why can't you? You're not average, you don't pretend to be, and behind the scenes you can make a difference. You can reach me at dolander@bellsouth.net

  62. Geeks to the rescue... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about having some very funny commercials made by clever geeks with access to Final Cut Pro that shows some of the potential consequences of these "knee-jerk" laws. The following examples are free of copyright and I encourage anyone to use them...

    -- Did you hear the one about the guy in a duck suit, the guy in a mouse suit, and the guy in a lion suit who broke into a family's home and attested the children for copying a DVD version of the classic cartoon, "Steamcar Williams", to VHS so they could play it in their own bedroom. --

    or

    -- the one about the blind kid getting handcuffed and hauled away by dweeby looking authors because his Mom creates her own "books-on-tape" for him. --

    or

    -- a rock band breaking into the CIA and arresting agents for creating a code that could, among other things, break the encryption on their latest album (which sold 37 copies worldwide). --

    Then you get them aired on little TV stations during the morning housewife periods or maybe even during a SuperBowl. Look what it did for Apple...

  63. Show them the point by hansroy · · Score: 1

    Senators to learn the importance of free speech. How could we help teach this lesson?

  64. Re:Just question by Peridriga · · Score: 2

    Just vote Libertarian..

    The day you here a Libertarian saying that they want a regulation is the day I find a new party..

  65. Re:A link to the "manifesto" - AOTC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AMERICAN OPEN TECHNOLOGY CONSORTIUM
    which helpfully abbreviates to AOTC,

    heck - halfway through I thought I was reading about the next Star Wars film. Maybe thats the plan...
    Unite against the evil empire.., defend peace and
    justice - become a Jedi. Oh wait, hang on...

  66. Great idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a fantastic plan.

    Do not waste money trying to sway public opinion about an issue. Just spend the money punishing a single politian for thinking it's ok to be bought and paid for by the intrests of the few.

    Everyone understands that their elected representatives may be corrupt and abusing their power even if they dont understand one sylable of a description of decryption.

    You don't have to even know how to operate a computer to understand how these influence hookers work.

  67. Hollings & Microsoft? by -tji · · Score: 2
    Overall, the article was very good. But, unless I missed something, he was wrong about the Hollings' Bill mandating Microsoft.

    What really has the GeekPAC founders steamed, though, is Hollings' most recent entertainment-industry-backed proposal, which would mandate that all future home-entertainment electronic devices and computers contain "rights management" technology patented by Microsoft.


    As far as I know, the content restriction method is not developed yet (one of the huge gaping problems with the legislation).
  68. Ain't gonna happen. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We cannot even get together on something as simple and straight-forward as an Amazon boycott. (Whatever happened to the "mass" movement to deluge the amazon book 'comment' section with continual reminders about Bezo's patenting of trivial concepts?)

  69. What about this alternative? by rhadc · · Score: 1

    I know this may sound wrong, but Vote Auction might be a very effective tool on this one!

    Whether you agree with it or not, it's there.

    rhadc

    1. Re:What about this alternative? by rhadc · · Score: 1

      Shame on me! I didn't check my link.

      Here's Vote Auction.

  70. We've got it right here.. by Loki_1929 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If I recall correctly, aren't there some quarter million people who read /. daily? Many of us are computer professionals and would have no problem (at least from a financial standpoint) giving a couple hundred dollars a year or so to a responsible group who could organize and push forward with lobbying to our benefit. Assuming less one in twenty gave an average $100, you could be looking at over $1,000,000 ($100 * 10,000 people) per year. I should think this would be plenty for a small staff to maintain a single focal point where everyone concerned about their rights can keep up to date and can be informed about how to help with an organized fight to ensure our continued freedoms.

    As corny as that sounds, look at what we're facing. The DMCA, the SSSCA, they exist for one reason: money. Being elected is a great way to get rich quickly, so these people will do anything they have to to ensure they're re-elected. Attacking people like Hollings with a million dollar+ annual budget would certainly make a point. The Senator from Disney would have one heck of a time getting elected if negative adds were running non-stop for the last few weeks before the next election. When you can take down the big boys, the small fish learn quickly to sit down and shut up, and do as they're told.

    With all the high tech people that are out of work right now, I'm sure some must be reading this who have some sort of campaign/government experience who can set this up. Show me a responsible, organized effort to put a PAC together and I'll not only join and donate, I'll do everything I can to make sure other people do as well.

    --
    -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
  71. The AMA would be a better example by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 1
    The AMA may be a more powerful (i.e. better funded) lobbying group than the the NRA. It has also maintained a lower profile and slightly better image than the NRA.

    Either way, you've hit the nail on the head: are people ready to pay a real membership fee and "vote geek" to address important techological issuess? In light of the the 1 dollar == 1 vote reality of the current legislative process, it's probably time.

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
  72. Re:"Online Privacy" by chaoticset · · Score: 1
    The same thing that makes me think I have a right to general privacy: I live in a place with a constitution that guarantees it.

    If you're uneducated, I suggest you get a copy and read it. If you're merely jealous, I suggest you move.

    --

    -----------------------
    You are what you think.
  73. Re:"Online Privacy" by sconeu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Thank you. Whenever I try to make that point, nobody ever listens!

    The Ninth Amendment has to be the most underrated and most ignored by Congress (though the 10th comes close) Amendment that there is.

    Laymans Terms:

    Ninth Amendment: "We listed some rights explicitly. Even if we forgot to talk about the others, you've still got them."

    Tenth Amendment: "If we didn't say the Feds could do something, then they can't. The States and the People can."

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  74. Are you a woman? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If not, why is abortion an issue to you? A woman must be able to decide what to do with her body.

  75. Welcome to the losing team by crucini · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As soon as I saw the name "GeekPAC" I shuddered. It seems like geeks are cursed with an utter lack of communication skills - which means that they have never really observed how communication works. The name "GeekPAC" does not connote a benevolent, respectable organization speaking for computer professionals or users. Imagine if the NRA were called "GunPAC" or "GatPAC" or "PAC'n heat". The message is obviously targeted for internal consumption, and the founders seem unable to look at themselves from the viewpoint of a normal person.

    Plotkin is right - the scheme of spraying small amounts of money around randomly is not going to work. As he points out, the winning strategy is deterrence - we make an example of one legislator, and thereby get the attention of the rest.

    Ever watch a movie and find yourself wanting the bad guy to win, just because the good guy was such an ass? That's how I'm starting to feel about this "geeks vs. entertainment industry" war. I think I first felt this when geeks were protesting something (maybe the Microsoft EULA?) and a few of them showed up in Star Wars costumes. Naturally, that's what the media covered. This "GeekPAC" looks like a great way to shoot ourselves in the foot more publicly and more expensively than usual. These guys are about as competent to wage a political battle as the average lobbyist would be to admin a farm of web servers.

    The core idea is sound, of course. If computing is going to survive, we have to start paying tribute to Congress. It's that simple. Doctors pay $700 a year to the AMA, essentially to ward of legislation that would destroy their profession.

    I hope that the inevitable humiliating failure of this "GeekPAC" will not discourage geeks from seeking political representation.

    1. Re:Welcome to the losing team by bshanks · · Score: 1

      agreed. this thing should be swiftly renamed.

  76. Grassroots HOWTO by ronys · · Score: 1

    A well-written HOWTO, originally for the environmental lobby, but applicable elsewhere, may be found here.

    --
    Ubi dubium ibi libertas: Where there is doubt, there is freedom.
  77. Damn right I would - Re:Would you being willing by alizard · · Score: 1
    The alphabet soup bills being rammed up our collective asses are a threat to our jobs, to our economy, to any future our kids might have. Basically, the ultimate impact of these bills is to hold any future technology we may create hostage to whatever the hell the entertainment industry decides is in their interests, not ours.

    I am indeed willing to go single issue, to allow this issue to decide my vote if need be. Hollywood has put the survival of high technology on the line and I see no reason to take it.

    This time around, abortion and environment and civil rights have to take a back seat, the entertainment industry bought the Democratic party dirt cheap. They didn't have sense enough to buy the GOP as well. I propose we make them pay for that mistake.

    I hope I'm not the only person to have been saying in private what Hal Plotkin has said in public.

    "Growing digital rights movement needs to put some political heads on stakes -- fast" says it all.

    Fuck being polite and friendly about this. We can kick ass and take names or we can figure on moving overseas if we want to continue creating.

    I've made my choice. It's time to make yours.

    If GeekPAC figures out what its good for, we can use it to implemet our will against the Senators from Disney. If they can't, we need new organizations run by the poltically competent.

  78. why even bother...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We've managed to make software that rivals that of multi-billion dollar corporations. We can use similiar ideologies for a society.

    I fucking hate making appeals to authority - who don't really think in anyone's interest but their own. Generally their own interest is maintaining their position of authority for as long as possible while still getting away w/ doing whatever the fuck they feel like.

    This here shows the hypocrisy of having a government in a capitalist society. ProCapitalists will claim that human nature is selfishness and yet the vast majority want to maintain a government with immense power. Those 'elected' people in power aren't doing any of this for our interest - again - self-interest only.

    I personally don't identify w/ the anarcho-capitalists much, but I used this as an example of the hypocrisy of the system we're currently in. I'd like to believe that human nature is selfishness and self-preservation, but at the same time one of sharing and team work. The question is, do we want to form a society that idealizes selfish behaviour, or one that promotes cooperation?

    --
    Fact: Power tends to corrupt anyone. Even you!
    Anarchy Now!

  79. Horseshit - Re:Finally, a realist. by alizard · · Score: 1
    Still, I think this guy underestimates how easy/cheap it would be. I'd donate a few bucks to such a PAC, but I'm not rich.

    These bills are just as big a threat to the IT megacorporations as they are to us.

    Hint:In ths SSSCA hearings, Microsoft, IBM, Apple and a long list of the biggest names in high tech testified against the bill. How often are these companies on the same side of anything?

    Their VPs had to sit and take having ignorant assholes like Hollings and Feinstein accuse them of being pro-piracy, pro-terrorism, and anti-American. You don't think these companies and their executives as individuals wouldn't be willing contribute towards an effort to give these crapheads what they deserve?

    You don't think the high-tech companies of America don't want enough political power to keep the Feds out of their business and ours? This is a crusade I'd sign on to even if Bill Gates were leading it and the only candidates that could be found were Religious Right troglodytes.

    if you pick on one of Hollywood's bought and paid for politicians, you are **picking on Hollywood**. There is no way that we could ever do political ads that are as slick, as decietful, and unfortunately, as effective as they could

    You apparently are under the delusion that the only talent capable of making superior commercials in in Hollywood. Do you also believe that the only people capable of writing workable operating systems are in Redmond? If you do, what are you doing here?

    There are plenty of unknown independents in media who don't like the monopolies any more than we do. There are plenty of name musicians who know they've been screwed by major labels. I don't know we can get superior entertainment talent both in front of and behind the camera... but I am certain we can get parity.

    I'd back Courtney Love against Cher for star appeal any day... she's declared open season on the record industry. She's just the first example that came to mind... and people under 30 are a lot more likely to remember who she is than Cher.

    "It's the economy, stupid!"

    More to the point, it's them or us. If you're willing to lie there and get raped without even trying to fight, that's up to you.

    and they would retaliate. Does anyone believe they are somehow above lying and namecalling?

    And this scares you for what reason? Given equal money, the truth is easier to sell.

    Mobilization of the high tech community as a whole means we can outraise and outspend Hollywood. Our economic base is over 10x theirs, our employment base is a hell of a lot bigger.

    You think that all of South Carolina does their accounting with pencil and paper?You think there are no South Carolina Internet servers? Hey, they may be Southern but that doesn't make them Stone Age or stupid. Get the point across to them that their beloved incumbent will ratfuck their part of the national economy, he will lose.

    This isn't about the GeekPAC approach of "fighting the good fight" and being noble in defeat, this is about winning at any price.

    Our future really IS at stake this time.

    1. Re:Horseshit - Re:Finally, a realist. by plaidfishes · · Score: 1

      Make the money available. $200,000 is nice but not significant in a Senate camapign. Shoot for 5 Million at least. Sounds like a lot but it isn't. Recall the character assasination job done on Newt Gingrich involved at least $100 Million in negative ads. I hear a fair number of Intel executives who have been abused are pretty steamed. Surely, people like Mr. Groves and friends have a few loose pennies for retaliation. Particularly since it is their livlihoods too. Not to mention all of the other technology executives who might see their continued existance at stake. Even the tech workers can be a source of a couple million. Lets face it, geeks generally make plenty of money and they actually understand why its important. A hundred thousand geeks sending $20 each is a lot of political money. Remember, Hollings sold his soul to Mickey for only $300K

      Use the money.

      1) Choose a sacrificial politician. Hollings doesn't show up in November so he is out. But there were a lot of congresscritters who voted for the DCMA. Choose one.

      2)Choose the best remaining campaign manager in that district or state. By this time, most of the best are booked for the campaign but plenty are waiting for the later stages when some campaign manager gets fired. Pay him what he wants which is usually somewhere around 20% of the expenditures. Hire someone else to be the accountant responsible for filings.

      3)Make TV, signage, and radio buys. Inform the sacrificial politician that he is about to have $4 Million in negative ads run against him. Then run every one of the most nasty negative ads you can buy. Make him more hated than a child molestor. Then kick him again.

      Have a beer on election day. Win or Lose, every single politician in the country will know that you are willing to play real politics and they better damn well listen. Plus, there will likely now be a politician in office who will be known as the Senator/Congressman from the Net.

      Does this sound excessively brutal and nasty? Perhaps unamerican? Welcome to politics, a full contact sport.

    2. Re:Horseshit - Re:Finally, a realist. by alizard · · Score: 2
      I hear a fair number of Intel executives who have been abused are pretty steamed. Surely, people like Mr. Groves and friends have a few loose pennies for retaliation. Particularly since it is their livlihoods too. Not to mention all of the other technology executives who might see their continued existance at stake.

      Excellent. Let me add that TechNet,the PAC for major suits is mainly a lobbying organization intended for things like making sure H1B gets renewed...

      The high-tech community has a chance of turning our anger and fear into real political power. Who around here knows some of the suits that have had the joy of trying to explain why destructive regulation of technology is A BAD THING to clueless elected officials?

      I think they are a logical place to start passing the hat.

  80. He knows what he's talking about... by zeptic · · Score: 1

    ...coz his name is Hal.

  81. Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain by serutan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What bothers me the most about this article is that it makes tremendous sense. Using the proven intimidation tactics of groups like right-wing Christians does make sense. Kicking a few carefully targeted politicians out of office would be a good way to get their colleagues' attention.

    What's sad is that the bought and paid for nature of government in America is such an accepted fact nowadays. Apparently we finally woke up and smelled the coffee, but then all we did was order biscotti to go with it. Plotkin is suggesting throwing it right in some senator's face instead, and I think that's a hell of a good idea. I hope somebody at GeekPAC is listening to him.

  82. Hey,this is NOT hopeless. by alizard · · Score: 2
    The problem is that Senator Disney's consituency is in South Carolina.

    The people who bought his votes are from California. The entertainment industry doesn't have any sort of noticeable presence in SC. There's nothing like telling the voters that their representative has been bought by a bunch of 'furriners' to make them wonder who he's working for.

    I'd also say that there are a lot more IT professionals (if you include MCSEs) in SC than 5... if one goes into a small business in SC, one sees computers just like anywhere else in the USA.

    Speaking as a Californian, I regard targeting Dianne Feinstein as a wonderful idea.

    The problem is money in either case. I think a PAC intended for EFFECTIVE political action... one intended to turn our enemies into roadkill could get the same kind of support from both rank and file AND from manufacturers that the NRA does and gets the same kind of respect that the NRA does.

    I regared single issue politics as divisive, but I think that's the price we have to pay as a nation and a high-tech community for economic survival.

    We can consciously decide to play hardball or we can "fight the good fight" and get our asses kicked and those of us who manage to emigrate to where the new high-tech action is can discuss the "good old days" of American IT over a beer.

    1. Re:Hey,this is NOT hopeless. by jafac · · Score: 2

      I agree. I wrote Feinstein prior to the last election regarding UTICA and DMCA, and I got the "shaft" letter back - illustrating her complete support for sucking up to the entertainment industry. It's probably not the amount of money she gets, it's the perks. How can an aging woman refuse lunch with Robert Redford, or an elegant dinner party with Michael Douglas and several of the Baldwin brothers?

      I wrote her back telling her that because of her position, I could no longer in clear conscience support a candidate with such grossly unamerican ideals.
      So I voted republican.
      And I took a shower afterwards. I still feel dirty. And she won anyways. By a HUGE margin. Welcome to California.

      (btw - voting Republican in California means that you want the entire coastline to be lined with offshore oil rigs, and the air constantly filled with the stench of refineries. One thing Californians love is nature, our natural resources, the beauty of the outdoors, because the weather is quite often nice enough to actually do things outside year-round - I guess you don't care much about pollution when you're spending all your time indoors because it's 15 degrees out and 3 feet of snow - frankly, I'd MUCH rather have rolling blackouts than to hand it all over to the oil industry's exploitation).

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    2. Re:Hey,this is NOT hopeless. by alizard · · Score: 2
      If we've got money in our pockets, we can fight things like oil refineries on our coastlines and the rest of the energy industry political agenda and the Religious Right agenda with a decent chance of winning.

      The alphabet soup legislation in Congress will eliminate our ability to make this money and for practical purposes, our ability to make meaningful political statements.

      We are fortunate that at least we have one major political party taking our side on this issue because the entertainment media didn't think the GOP worth buying.

      If we're to have a chance at economic survival and probably, the survival of democracy of America, we have to hold our nose and vote our wallets. Ignore their positions on abortion, the environment, civil rights for gays, ignore everything but the issues that matter to our survival as a nation.

      Hollywood started this fight.

      Our options are to win it or to migrate to wherever else in the world high-tech industry will be moving to and watch America slide into the Third World.

      The good news: Targeting one or two key Democrats isn't going to change the balance of power all that much. It will mainly scare the hell out of those that Hollywood bought so cheaply.

  83. Re:"Online Privacy" by groman · · Score: 1

    The same thing that makes you think you have some inherent right to live safely in a world free of terror.

  84. Geek Pac?! by clickety6 · · Score: 1
    While "geek" may be a term of pride among some Slashdot readers, for the general public - which will include non tech-literate senators, the term is not so. Take the Mirriam-Webster's online defintion:


    1 : a carnival performer often billed as a wild man whose act usually includes biting the head off a live chicken or snake

    2 : a person often of an intellectual bent who is disapproved of


    Why can't they use a more imposing sounding name that would engender more respect from the public - TechPac or some such? After all, surely they fight is for everybody's rights., not just geeks?

    --
    ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
  85. The way to get the attention for these issues by getha · · Score: 1

    Exactly. The thing Hal Plotkin is calling for in his piece is not that all you /. reading geeks and IT professional (and all the rest of the internet savvy people) vote this way or that. You probably are all aware of who to vote for or not. That's not the issue.

    The issue here is all those people that don't frequent sites like /. (and more and more of the more mainstream news/media sites that are carrying stories these days denouncing these idiocies in US law), but instead are still the run-of-the-mill couch-potatoes sitting in front of their TV sets during prime-time.

    TV is still the way to go, if you want to get a message to the masses. Pay (and pay heavily) to get your ad campaign directed against one or two misguided politicians on TV during prime-time and we'll see how the voting goes.

    --


    xchg .,@
    jmp emailMe
  86. Re: Hardball Tactics For The Geek Lobby by rmohr02 · · Score: 1
    Put into English, that means members of Congress will get a small check for their campaigns whenever they vote right. The problem with that approach, however, is that sending out small checks to hundreds of politicians is like peeing in the ocean. It may feel good, but no one notices.
    Just hope the wind doesn't shift on you.
  87. Re:"Online Privacy" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, IMNSHO privacy is specifically enumerated in the 4th Amendment. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . ." is just about a dictionary definition of privacy.

  88. Biblebelt Republican by dmaxwell · · Score: 2

    True. But presumably, the Democrats would have learned their lesson and would not field an Eisner pawn against him when his term comes up. They say that politics makes strange bedfellows for a reason. If the CB??? or SSSCA or whatever they're calling it this week really really offends you then you are going to have to hold your nose and help out the other guy. At this point, I'd support an Alfred E. Neumann candidacy if it would oust Hollings, Feinstein or other scum like that.

    Another poster pointed out that the NRA doesn't really vote Republican, they vote Gun. The thing we really have to be wary of is forming alliances with other causes that are ultimately detrimental. Banding with Creationists for one term to get rid of someone like Hollings is an example of the type of thing we need to be prepared to do. There is no need to band with them for all time under any circumstances.

    We have many many values that are important to us. Politics will demand that we sometimes accept setbacks in one area to gain victory in another. I don't like it either but that's reality folks.

  89. Microsoft Patents by dmaxwell · · Score: 2

    Microsoft has 21 fairly broad patents that cover among other things, integrating DRM into an OS. The worry is that an SSSCA type law would basically make a Microsoft OS or Microsoft licenced technology the only legal way to use computers in this country.

  90. Someone needs to put up a flash game by Don'tBAWank! · · Score: 0

    ...(like the Bin Laden Liquors site) using Hollings, Feinstein, Stevens, and Schiff as targets for the "player" to throw mud on, or whatever.

  91. Flamethrowers would be nice by Don'tBAWank! · · Score: 0

    Definately flamethrowers to torch them with, on second thought.

  92. The usual mistake by hey! · · Score: 2

    This guy has put his finger on the usual mistake that geeks have when dealing with people in power, from PHBs on up to senators. They try to use facts and reason. Skillful politicians don't view the process as one of informing anyone, its about getting what they want.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  93. Macho Youth vs Cunning Age by H-1B_visas_suck · · Score: 0
    They convinced you youngsters to go to war in decades past, and you went, like cannon fodder, to your deaths in so many wars. All they had to do was brainwash you into thinking that dying in their wars (manufactured to sell their munitions) was the Right Thing to Do.

    And now they have a new war. The Low Wages Labor War. The game is afoot, once again. This time, there is a new batch of propaganda, tapping into racial guilt (that is why they use the Indians as the front for imported labor--dark skins).

    You dicker when you buy a car, so that you can work less hours, or put more of the money from your labor into other things, instead of the car. But you cannot grasp the logic that you should dicker with your labor costs, too.

    Ah, callow youth....

    --

    This post is protected under the DMTA (Digital Millemium Trolling Act). It is illegal to moderate it as a troll.

  94. Astroturfing? by H-1B_visas_suck · · Score: 0

    Fake grass roots support cooked up by the tech industry so that they can sell more computer hardware to swap files etc.

    --

    This post is protected under the DMTA (Digital Millemium Trolling Act). It is illegal to moderate it as a troll.

  95. KKK by WinPimp2K · · Score: 1

    Just tell everyone that Hollings is a tool of the Korporate Kopyright Kartel instead of referring to him as the "Senator from Disney"

    --

    You either believe in rational thought or you don't
  96. Take one out by Publicus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Instead, to stem the tide, GeekPAC, or some other similar organization, needs to make an example out of someone in Congress, and do it quick. When the National Rifle Association, or the Christian Coalition or Emily's List, for that matter, want action on an issue, the strategists behind those well-run groups usually pick a smart fight with one or more of their key opponents. They target their resources to just those specific races, sometimes to just one race. Rather than give 200 politicians $1,000 each, the savviest PACs instead will spend $200,000 or more kicking the bejesus out of just one single office holder.

    I say Diane Feinstein. She'd be a great one to be made an example because she's thought of as such a leader in Congress on this stuff.

    --

    My Karma was at 49, then they switched to words. All that work for nothing!

  97. Where do I send my $500 checks to throw them out? by emil · · Score: 2

    A nice radio ad as outlined in the article would be great.

  98. I'll take that bet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd say it's a safe bet that at least 80% of their money comes from gun manufacturers

    Sounds like free money to me. Where do I collect? Almost, if not all, of NRA money comes from individuals.

    I'm not one of them. I prefer Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

  99. *Snort* by Dragoness+Eclectic · · Score: 2

    Checking the VPC site for NRA-info is a lot like asking Microsoft about the effectiveness of Linux. They will both lie and cheat to smear their primary enemy. Trust nothing you find at that website; they are proven liars.

    --
    ---dragoness
  100. Write to them! by sootman · · Score: 1
    From the site: Be clear that we are NOT collecting monies at this time; just suggestions and pledges of support.

    So do both-- write to them, expressing your support *and* asking them to change their plans.

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  101. "Look at you evil cyberterrorists... by Lethyos · · Score: 2

    ...plotting on your little web page to overthrow politicians of our grand, glorious, and noble government. You should all be ashamed of yourself for adopting such anti-authority views and attacking such core institutions like Disney. They are a good, reputable company and if they need a little help from the government to keep entertaining our youngsters, I say give it to them!"

    Draw your own conclusions.

    --
    Why bother.
  102. Re:"Online Privacy" by cyclist1200 · · Score: 1

    Read the 10th Amendment:

    Amendment X
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

  103. Re:"Online Privacy" by cyclist1200 · · Score: 1

    Also read the 9th:

    Amendment IX
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

  104. Re:"Online Privacy" by cyclist1200 · · Score: 1

    More to the point, since when is "Clear and Present Danger" considered nonfiction?

  105. 2006 by Kevbo · · Score: 1

    you can find that stuff here:
    vote-smart

    --
    In Vino Veritas
  106. That's my point exactly!!! by allism · · Score: 1

    You're only interested in GEEKS. There's no breaking out of or into the subculture. No wide acceptance of geeks as humans, let alone attractive, desirable humans, same as you are not interested in someone who doesn't have and cherish the qualities you hold dear. You wouldn't give them the time of day and vice versa.

  107. Anybody actually talk to geekpac? by alizard · · Score: 2
    I've been in touch with Geekpac. Based on my discussion with the guy at the other end of the geekpac contact address, they simply have absolutely no clue about the political process. .

    The idea that knowing how the political process works if one wants to do anything with it means putting in the kind of study and intellectual labor that understanding the difference between BSD and Linux does is something that my discussion with them shows me that they just don't get.

    They have the delusion that reasonable discussion with reasonable people who are focused on solving the real problems of America will get us what we need to survive as a technological economy. It's way too late for 'constructive engagement'.

    This isn't a matter of taking advice from the wrong people, it's sort of obvious that they didn't have sense enough to buy any clue from anybody competent.

    Since they don't have the clues they need, they need to buy them from somebody like James Carville or Richard Reed. There's a war on, guys and gals. We are losing it.

    They're well intentioned idiots at best. In fact, the term "useful idiots" would probably be fair. When I say useful, I don't mean to us.

    At best, they'll raise money from a few equally clueless geeks who want to "fight the good fight"... they may even be able to visit a few elected officials.

    With the same impact high-tech "dog and pony" shows of the sort various high-tech megacorps gave Congresspeople before they discovered that in order to buy influence, they had to spend actual money. The "geeks" will be treated with politeness and respect just as their high-tech corporate predecessors were. And will be forgotten right after they leave.

    Forget "fighting the good fight", this is a win at all costs issue. We can afford to elect a few people who'll vote right on this issue and who vote "wrong" on everything else. I'm telling my gay friends that if they have to vote for Jesse Helms (assuming he's opposing Hollings) against a Disney supporter, hold their noses and vote for him. I'm telling women and pagans to do the same.

    There is a place for peace, love, and brotherhood in all this. For instance, to make this work, Microsoft has to be brought on board. If the thought of this makes you want to puke into your keyboard, get it over with.

    "Only a fool fights in a burning house."
    some Klingon from the original StarTrek

    Hey, guys, Hollywood has set our house afire.

    With money in our pockets, we can fight the people we might regret being associated with in order to win on the environent and human rights other than the ones regarding our ability to use our computers and the Net. (they screw us on CBDTPA, we can break them after we make them)

    We must have effective political representation. Geekpac ain't it and in my judgement, can't be turned into an effective political force. The name itself should have been a dead giveaway to anyone thinking of participating. They do understand the issues. It's the what the hell to do about it that they don't get and probably can't.

    If a viable group interested in effectively fighting Hollywood appears, I'll be happy to join and promote it. Viable means among other things, access to the checkbooks of Silicon Valley millionaires who will have to do business anywhere but the USA if they want to keep working if the "alphabet soup" bills are allowed to become law. While perhaps some would prefer having an excuse to retire, those who know what's going on are probably looking for an effective way to come out and fight.

    Geekpac probably won't get a single cent out of the people we need most to make high-tech a credible political force. Tim Draper (Silicon Valley major VC player) got his own ass kicked by trying the reasonable approach with a voucher initiative. He lost $20M(estimated) and the election.

    If anybody who has connections to Silicon Valley money would like to work them on behalf of our common survival in the form of a PAC/mass action political organization, my e-mail address is here, use it.

    This time, I'm sure that the money is out there. Ask any of the major corporate suits who got reamed by Hollings and company in the hearings discussing SSSCA. I'm sure they'd love to get a piece of the Senators who harassed them.

    That's something Geekpac isn't set up to do for them and for us and I'm certain they know it.

    Geekpac has done an excellent job of defining the issues in more or less comprehensible form. The heavy lifting has got to be done by political operatives capable of simplifying their points into sound bites.

    If Geekpac is really the best the high-tech community can do, figure out where Microsoft and Sun and IBM will be moving and if need be, learn the native language.

  108. 'Technocratic Lobby' ? by Martin+Spamer · · Score: 2

    not call it the "Geek Lobby".

    Whilst I support the move to reclaim the words Geek & Nerd and desensitise their insulting connotations. I've always liked the word Technocrat, it presents a very positive position of exercising power through technology the very idea we are seeking to instil.

    How do people feel about the 'Technocratic Lobby' ?

  109. third parties by PerlGerl · · Score: 1
    > In these 13 words, you've just summed up everything that's wrong with our ...

    ...two-party, winner-take-all political system.

    Part of the problem is the electoral system. It needs reform. There are better processes: IRV (instant runoff voting); approval voting and PR (proportional representation for multi-candidate legislative districts); the use of NOTA (none of the above) on ballots; etc. See http://ny.lp.org/issues/election_reform.htm for more info about those.

    Yes, Libertarians and other third parties have what you like about the D's (certain freedoms) and what you might like about the R's (fiscal responsibility). For the most part, they just mean what the Republicans say but don't implement: smaller government, true freedom--'hands-off' of anyone not hurting anyone else. But Libertarians recruit at Gay Pride and Marijuana Marches (May 4th, worldwide!), which is how it's so easy to tell them apart from Republicans/Conservatives. They are also 100% with the 'geek lobby' on cyber and privacy issues, unlike either of the two major parties. They don't want to tax OR regulate the internet.

    It's NOT hopeless or out of your control, which is the sense I'm getting from this thread. Get active. Get involved. We are fortunate to live in the age of the Information Revolution--don't waste it.

    For those who trend communist (voluntary, hopefully), go Green. Otherwise, support your local Libertarian Party (in the U.S., Costa Rica, and other counties), which is the closest thing to anarchism that you can vote for.

    http://www.lp.org/
    http://www.gpus.org/

    Please--our future depends on it.

    1. Re:third parties by jackalvcs2 · · Score: 1

      It is good to see other libertarians in this world

      "If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your
      arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." --Samuel Adams

  110. Why is it that corporation have ANY political say? by SirGeek · · Score: 1
    They don't get to vote, why should they be able to donate even $ 1.00 to politicians ?

    Doesn't that violate our constitution in some way ? They are non-voters influencing our elections/voting processes (shouldn't this fall under the same rule as a foreign government donating to a politician's election campain ?).

  111. Re:Why is it that corporation have ANY political s by belg4mit · · Score: 1

    And if you have to, to get the ball rolling,
    'multi-nationals' vs. 'foregin governments'.

    --
    Were that I say, pancakes?