Slashdot Mirror
Congressional Candidate Over P2P & DRM
Dark Nexus writes "Wired is running an article on a woman in North Carolina who has chosen to run against Howard Coble, who has come out against P2P networks. She said that she was sick of "individual rights sacrificed for big corporate politics" and is campaigning for digital rights to be preserved. A quote from her weblog: "I have put myself in the bullseye to stand up for our rights as free thinking citizens." It's about time someone stood up and tried to run against one of Hollywood's Congressmen on Hollywood's key issues." Update: 08/23 21:10 GMT by M : We're getting enough submissions of this story that we're probably going to post it on the front page.
Everybody seems to forget that their is one *big* difference between the MPAA and the RIAA. The difference is the MPAA's connection to the Mafia. If the MPAA doesn't want somebody to be elected, then that person won't be elected. The mafia will assure that.
The RIAA doesn't have as strong of a connection. Don't pass this off as my stupid speculation, this is a widely known fact.
I claim this post for uiuc.test.
VOTE!!!
If you're old enough, but not registered, do so NOW! It'll ensure paperwork is completed in time. To register, visit your local city hall or call them for more info.
Lastly, on Election Day, GO TO THE BALLOT! You'll receive a ton of mail reminding you, mostly campaign-related, but also something from your county on where to go.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
I think it's strange how arbitrary it is that congressmen can end up on commitees that have little to do with their homestate. How would a North Carolina congressman get a copyright related chair in front of one from California, Texas, New York or Washington?
Those who complain about affect & effect on
The end of the article mentions that part of the issue facing the Tech community is that we don't have financial contributors and lobby groups. What the article fails to realize is that many in the movement (at least here on /., anyway) oppose such activity as cheating and corruption.
Question: Which is more important, the end of such corruption in politics, or the assertion of digital rights?
Those who complain about affect & effect on
Considering the influence of the ??AA and other media organizations on legislation these days, I'm pretty sure that the "D" and "R" actually refer to "Disneycrats" and "Ruperticans*"
Naturally, because the candidate in question is neither Disneycrat nor Rupertican, her chances of even having a major showing, let alone a win, are already dismissed in the article, which in my opinion is a sad reminder of one of the major "facilitating" aspects of the current problems in the existing system in the US...expect to see a lot of real-world replays of the Simpson's infamous "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos" disclaimer after then next round of elections regardless of who wins...
(For the few who may read this who aren't unredeemably convinced otherwise, I should mention that in my opinion, your personal vote for any "3rd party" candidate makes MORE difference than your vote for Disneycrats or Ruperticans. Consider that a "3rd party" only needs to make a substantial showing to "influence" political policy - if the Libertarians, for example, got 20% of the vote, they certainly wouldn't "win", but "the two parties" would almost certainly moderate their policies, at least in the open, in a "libertarian direction" in an attempt to "win back" some of that chunk...also consider that your one vote for the candidate who gets a total of 10,000 votes is 100 times more influential than your one vote for a candidate who gets 1,000,000...)
*-referring to Rupert Murdoch, of course...
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
Anybody know of any good way to find out whos running for write-in or third party votes in my district? I really don't ever hear about these things on the local level.
Who is Coble's Democratic Opponent?
Anybody know where they stand on user rights?
I'm a little hazy on that myself, but Perot no doubt set up the conditions for the Contract with America and a whole lot of limited-government, more-accountability electioneering. That in turn led to the Republicans capturing the House of Representatives in 1994 (with some help from Clinton's utter cluelessness on the issues of energy policy and health care). Perot dragged the Republican party away from the Religious Right for a little while and toward a more consistent stance on limited and efficient government (rather than "limited only where it doesn't offend our preachers"); unfortunately, it has fallen back.
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
a new system of voting
This has been a test. Had this been a real emergency, we would have fled in terror and you would not have been informed.
Apparently so!
sulli
RTFJ.
Interesting that in the /. submission, her name is repeatedly danced around w/o disclosure. I would imagine that, considering her political position parallels that of /.'s, her name would be broadly displayed to raise awareness.
I was a little young then, so could you enlighten me on how Ross Perot's 20% in 1992 influenced the two parties (other than taking the majority of that 20% from the Pubs)? Not being a smartass -- it's a serious question.
... a technology that had been around for a decade or two by then and was familiar to anyone who ever bothered to go out and shop for themselves.
1. Ross Perot did not take the majority away from the Republicans. One of the very interesting things about his campaign was that roughly as many democrats voted for him as republicans. He didn't cost George Bush Senior the election, George Bush Senior cost himself the election, by being completely and utterly out of touch with America, to the point that when he visited a grocery store and saw the laser scanning bar code reader he commented on that remarkable technology that was 'making America more effecient'
2. Ross Perot influenced both parties thusly:
Democrats would discuss balancing the budget, but state that certain programs (mostly social and educational) were a higher priority.
Republicans would discuss balancing the budget, but state that certain programs (mostly defense and drug war) were a higher priority.
Ross Perot came along and discussed balancing the budget in his famous "it's time to pay the piper" manner, and stated in terms everyone could understand that nothing was more important than getting our fiscal house in order.
Although he likely wouldn't have made a very good president, he was right. And many agreed, so many that he won 20% of the vote in a two party system where voting for a third party is widely (and erroneously) equated with "wasting your vote."
It shocked both the democrats and the republicans, both of which fell over each other trying (and succeeding) in balancing the budget. The budget remained balanced until George W. Bush took office, cut taxes in a manner which was widely considered to be fiscally irresponsible, followed the events of 9/11 which led to increased spending and, and further exacerbated by the numerous corporate scandals and subsequent short-circuiting of the economic recovery which reduced revinue even more.
For several years it was Ross Perot's single campaign plank, balance the budget, that drove the agendas of both major parties, almost entirely as a result of his winning 20% of the votes and shocking both parties deeply, to the core.
Of course, after the Republican's attack dog Bucchanon sabataged and destroyed the third party Ross Perot founded we are now largely back to business as usual, with another segment of the electorate that, for a brief time, thought they could actually effect change, having joined the growing ranks of the disillusioned.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
"He's thumbing his nose at us," said Silicon Valley analyst and writer Hal Plotkin.
Actually wasn't he just picking his nose?
We would have lost the surplus anyway due to the bursting of the bubble economy; all you have to do to prove that to yourself is to look at the tax collections of the states, whether they cut taxes or not. They were also riding high on the capital-gains taxes of the .com economy, and when the .coms .bombed they went the same way as Washington; Bush II's tax cuts had nothing whatsoever do to with it, and could not have because the vast majority of them haven't even taken effect yet.
I do agree that we could be fighting the war against terrorism a lot more cheaply. The way to get rid of terrorists is to discredit the fundamentalists who need it to prop up their mind-share; we should be going after that entire segment of Asia with news reporting on shortwave and TV, education in the English language, and cultural propaganda in the form of Locke, Payne, Thoreau, Vogue and Playboy.
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
She was a lot fucking cooler when "Manilla" wasn't plastered everywhere... And userland.com with their $899 web application was a silent partner.
I like what she has to say, not the political bullshit of how the site is ran.
-Tom
And don't forget the recent campaign finance laws, made to make it harder for other parties to raise money.