The Worst Coders In Washington

spooky writes "The American Open Technology Consortium, 'a nonprofit organization of technologists who have joined together to educate lawmakers and regulators about technology -- especially in regards to The Internet' has compiled a list of the lawmakers responsible for eight bad internet laws. They say, 'These bad coders and their backers have done more damage to computing, the Internet and freedom than all the virus authors, spammers and crackers combined', Do you agree? Did they miss anyone?"

Comments

thank the GOP for this mess

[kraksmoka]

Just remember tomorrow all you techies. When you're at the poll, Just Say No to the conservative right. They are the true enemy. All of these bad laws have been under their watch in Congress. Throw the bums out!

apply flames here:

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[EvanED]

Regardless of this being flamebait, he's right, at least if this site is to be believed: only 18 of the 93 people on the list (assuming I counted right; in any case it's a very small portion) are democrats. Furthermore, only two of the 25 worst offenders are democrats. The rest are republicans.

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[Anonymous Coward]

Evidence that moderation really works. Parent had a +1 score.

Like you're one to vote on the issues with that party line.

Not all "techies" are Democrats. Sheesh. And the reality is, this is not a partisan issue, no matter how much you want to make it be. That was, after all, part of the point of the AOTC listing. There are reps from both sides of the fence; they're all getting paid off.

But, partisans be partisan. Oooo, ooo, economy--some say, "see, Bush's fault!" Reality is, Bushie ain't doing much now (I think he should deregulate markets more, but noooo) for future improvement and present perception, but the current economic climate is not his "fault" in a cause-effect relationship. Heck, given most bubbles were from the Clinton era with a Republican congress, both didn't incite much help or further development. Economists have said again and again that what the present adminitration does in the current term has little effect on the current term.

Then again, the right wing conspiracists are probably all saying the media is run by liberals and the economy is tanking because all the rich leftists pulled their money out of the markets causing the current climate (and hence forcing the political climate change). And someone's probably saying that he'd bet those lousy liberals colluded with the west coast dock workers too!!!

Meanwhile, the left wingers are probably saying that the lower interest rates favor businesses, although it probably favors the housing market even more such that more folks are buying homes (and conversely argued, getting screwed because of generally rising property taxes which they shell out in full whether they have a loan or buy outright).

Lovely this world of politics. I'll vote on the races, not the party line. The party line is what causes alignments to occur between politicans and groups (i.e. special interests), so I'll vote on the issues, hoping that in the chaos of a mixed political body, it'll be more difficult for such "legal limits over free market competition alignments" to occur.

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[Bartab]

Oh really? Who signed DMCA into law again? CDA? NET?

All Clinton.

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate stupidity.

Whenever someone just selectively grab bills and laws then THEN tries to apply correlations to party, you're going to get a skewed outcome. (It's selective by the shear nature they they picked the "worse" bills, which is still subjective.) And then someone, like you or the parent poster, will come along and, without a thought, say "See!" Look, if they had added prominant copyright bills, the democrat margin would be higher than the current 20% margin. And if Clinton hadn't signed the DCMA or Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, this would be a voided question.

And you don't even pretend to take into consideration that the overall current representation count is Republican, due to the dominance in the house, which OF COURSE is going to more Republicans being mentioned.

And OF COURSE if campaign donations from special interests continue to be legal, the media companies are going to shower those representatives in a position of getting bills passed, which in the Senate are Democrats, and in the House are Republicans, which is going to FURTHER push it to the Republicans (as they controlled the Senate until the flip of the one rep, control the House, and are in control at the last lawmaking step, the Presidency). Rest assured, if Dems were in power in the House, the special interests would be showering them with money, and more so if Gore had won.

These bad laws have NO POLITICAL ALIGNMENT because neither party has a strict or well-founded policy or issue guidance on them.

The reality is, the parent post is flamebait because voting should not be strict party lines, not even based on money the person receives, but on the issues and past voting record of the House or Senate rep that you have in front of you. And don't even pretend a web page analysis is going to be really all-encompassing or relevant to what occurs in your local races. Hell, this is just the federal level (we've already seen state laws creating an effect).

Finally, the fact is, both parties screw you. You have to look at WHO in the party does what. If you vote on party lines, all you do is push party alignment on the issue. I don't want another NRA/Republican alignment. If "techies" (what the fuq is a techie really, and when did they all suddenly vote liberal?) were one and did all vote liberal, all the special interests will simply fund Republicans, and vice versa. Don't help them align. Vote on the issues and the voting record, and look at campaign donations to then add relevance to your decision.

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[Ryan Amos]

GOP is in bed with big business, the Dems are in bed with the labor unions. This is the way it's always been. This is more partisan politics than anything. Yeah, the GOP writes some pretty nasty bills, but the democrats write equally nasty ones (gun control legislation, etc) they just don't involve the internet.

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[helix400]

he's right, at least if this site is to be believed

That's the problem with any policital report with a massive bias such as this one. Generally, their reports are meant to persuade people into their political views, not into reporting facts. Take such groups as Amnesty Intl (super-duper left extremist), or NRA (right extremist). They always release reports that throughly analyze data to eventually show that they're right!

In this case, its obvious that their opinions lean towards the left. Its also no surprise that their opinions end up showing they disagree with Republicans. That doesn't matter though, they didn't mean for their report to be politically neutral, they're activisits. They're explaning something they're passitionate over. Therefore, we shouldn't draw any conclusions, such as Republicans write bad internet laws, from this report. And now I'll be modded down to -1 Troll since I've shown I'm a somewhat conservative poster on slashdot.

-----
Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others! -- Kodos

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[Anonymous Coward]

DON'T GET STUCK IN THE RIGHT-LEFT PARADIGM. The problem is that these laws are one more step by the globalists (Clinton, Bush, Ted Turner, Alan Greenspan, David Rockafeller, and the list just goes on and on and on) for further control over us... We've already seen the Bill of Rights pretty much desecreated and this is just icing on the cake.

InfoWars.com

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[StevenMaurer]

The real question is: do you think G.W. Bush would have been less supportive of these anti-free speech laws? Or would he have been more so? Would there have been even more draconian measures stuck into them?

And which party was pushing the most for these corporate welfare bills? Do you think it was the Democrats? Seriously?

Just because Clinton didn't have a perfect 100% voting record doesn't mean we shouldn't give him credit for the 90% record he did have. Compared to our current President, who seems willing to destroy America's freedoms in order to "save" it, he was a strongly positive influence.

I'm just sorry so many Americans are so inattentive to the issues, they allow their precious liberties to be whittled away.

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[nicodaemos]

I consider myself more in line with Republicans than the Dems, but I find myself p*ssed as hell with the Republican party lately.

According to Open Secrects Microsoft was the third largest contributor to the Republican party in 2002. They were the fourth largest contributor in 2000 -- right before the Justice department coincidentally bent over and let Microsoft continue their monopolistic ways.

On the flip side, Microsoft doesn't even rank in contributions to the Democratic party in 2000 or 2002.

Bush is an intellectual lightweight who has a Saddam fetish carried over from his father ... all at a time when the average american is more concerned about their jobs and now paltry retirement accounts.

I'm a Republican, but my party has lost its way. Even though I'm a very highly compensated high tech professional - I don't believe this party is currently in line with my goals, values and beliefs.

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, it's all corrupt and there is nothing we can do so don't think and don't vote and just complain and so it's not your fault if bad things happen.

Bullshit.

The Labor Unions and the Democrats aren't trying to take away your civil rights. The Republicans ARE - and they're doing it because it makes it easier for them to pick your pocket. How craven and sick is that?

Oh, that's right. You can't see it because you're distracted by your shiny shiny handguns.

Nevermind. Carry on destroying our democracy. Thanks for not participating.

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[kraksmoka]

nice rant boy. look dude, you vote the issues, sad fact is, the politicians vote the party line, with little exception. alignments with special interests? we ARE a special interest, or are you planning on voting for "trustworthy" computing. please excuse Fritz Hollings, he is from south carolina (hope i've offended some special interest with the upcoming) and since Strom Thurmond is so old, he's not sure what planet he's on, SOMEONE has to stand up from South Carolina for Ignorance and Stupidity.

bottom line, i can find very little good in the Compassionate Conservative agenda. lets face it, the reason they're compassionate is cuz they are stepping on %80 of the country with their corporate shill policies.

however, if John McCain runs for Prez again in '04 i might switch party affiliations SOLELY for the privelege of voting for him in the primary and general elections.

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[kraksmoka]

nothing wrong with moderation, unless your last name is Bush. then it's the deathnell, W figured that one out. notice how conservative he got, and how fast, once he was done fooling the minority of the electorate about his true concerns; being in no particular order: big oil, daddy's rep, jeb's re-election (voted for McBride already!) and breaking that unsightly wall between church and state.

personally, i consider myself moderate left. not only don't i trust the GOP's intentions, nor words, but they have consistently had a penchant to go one up on the Donkey dandies. forget tax and spend liberals. they go for TAX CUT AND SPEND! what planet do they come from????? oh wait, i forgot, jesus loves them, and they get a big credit card with our fortunes every so often to pay haliburton, or maybe see a Rangers game. Priceless . . . . . .

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[kraksmoka]

unfortunately, voting on the issues is what has put us here today. why? because the issues have lost relevance to the majority of voters. they're above people's heads. not to mention, it doesn't matter much who you vote for in the GOP (EXCEPT JOHN McCAIN), they're main issue is favor big business, screw you. ironic that they're Pro-Life, isn't it? i figured it out tho. they need someone to step on, might as well be you.

that didn't quite come out right dude, i don't mean it as a personal attack against your comments, but you know what i mean.

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[kraksmoka]

its called politics, and in case u didn't know this, the president didn't draft the laws, and couldn't stand up to the GOP controlled congress just whenever he pleased, he played his cards as best as possible. oh yeah, did u forget, a little something called a surplus? Bush changed accounting rules in the white house b4 9/11 to make an artificial one after his stupid tax cut. the presidential budget is where the executive power really lies, and clinton used the cash like a bunch of money bags to beat down the GOP. jeezus, what a long reply to a short post.

good job moderators

thoughtful post

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[kraksmoka]

-1 psycho troll

go take your .357 S & W and find some better planet to use it, like Columbia.

please someone moderate this bitch off ./ , i would, but have already posted (like alot) and can't myself in this post. i'l find the rest of yours tho dude, i promise.

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[kraksmoka]

agree with the top, but i've never heard of a "Nasty gun control law"? lets face it, guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people. sure beats the hell out of a baseball bat for most people. what's etc.?????

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[Anonymous Coward]

if anything, bush has been more moderate in office than most ppl expected. (Course if you are a liberal, you will never be happy with bush cause he isnt going to rubber stamp everything you want.)
Look at all the compromises he gave on education and labor disputes. Too much in some peoples minds, but Democrats continue to gripe, even though they got nearly everything they wanted.
Truth is, bush has had to compromise certain core platforms of his to get others past. If you paid any attention to the 2000 campaign you might have remembered that.

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[Anonymous Coward]

Take such groups as Amnesty Intl (super-duper left extremist) Nice troll son! I guess that's why they never condemened the old Soviet Union, or the People's Republic ... oh wait.

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[Anonymous Coward]

That is not toooo surprising considering that is about the time the DOJ went after them with a flame thrower. The DOJ wanted to cleave up their company! With no real plan of why. The DOJ at that time was controlled by a democrat. MS figured out the enemy of my enemy is my friend... MS figured out the hidden tax. Pay or die...

Just remember what you see about ANY politics is usually distored by the one telling you. Because you dislike MS you blame the GOP. You have distorted your own view for that.

Remember most statistics can be changed by the smallest of things. The data that would be most interesting to see would be WHO voted for those bills.

Bush is also about the only president that I have been able to understand. He doesnt talk about bubbles, shields, or twinkly lights. He seems to do what he says he was going to do. Which is frankly somewhat refreshing. However it has the effect of making him seem less visionary. But we do not need visionaries. We need people who can make good decisions...

The thing that ticks me off is that most of what we see going on is a distorted view. Take 'the market'. When everything was growing and growing with NO fundamentals to show why. The media was a feeding frenzy of 'new market'. Now that the real truth to the mater was that it was a raping of the market by some shady dudes. Its the 'dot-com bust'. Yet during this time where was the SEC? They were getting budget cuts and told not to touch companies. We hear NOTHING of that. We here that its the tax-cuts fault, or post 9/11's fault. Whu!? These companies had no real rules that helped people. And the SEC was just letting them do it. Yet we get this wierd distorted view of it.

Also remember its not JUST the GOP that is playing this game. In my state the other party decided that they were going to have a tough time getting re-elected. So they decided to redistrict. There were districts that were 20 feet wide (about the min). There were other districts that were 10 counties wide. There were some VERY pissed people on both sides. Then the Gov who didnt get his lottery decided to pout and took it out on all the cities to make up for his incresed spending to the tune of several billion. It was to make up for a HUGE short fall because he wanted a lottery and didnt think it through of what if he didnt get that lottery passed.

I dont like what the GOP does sometimes also but the other party seems just as loony if not more so sometimes. And both sides seem to forget that its MY hard earned money they are spending over there. Course they cant tell you exaxtly where it is or how much they got... But somehow they know they are overbudget?!

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[bnenning]

Compared to our current President, who seems willing to destroy America's freedoms in order to "save" it, he was a strongly positive influence.

Are you kidding me? Who came up with the Clipper chip? Who defended the blatantly unconstitutional crypto restrictions that could make you a felon for typing 4 lines of Perl? (Little-known fact: Ashcroft opposed those restrictions). Who tried to use the OKC bombing as a pretext for censorship? Who presided over the largest ever increase in arrests of nonviolent drug offenders?

I'm just sorry so many Americans are so inattentive to the issues, they allow their precious liberties to be whittled away.

Actually, it seems like too many Americans don't care about their liberties if they're being taken away by the party they voted for. I'm perfectly willing to stand up and say that Bush is wrong on things like the Patriot Act and the drug war. I would hope that liberals could do the same and realize that the Democratic Party is no friend of civil liberties either.

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[spirality]

People continue to mention the NRA, (who actually provides online service), in a negative light here. However, the NRA is probably the staunchest supporter of the Constitution, especially the First and Second Amendments.

I'll leave the Second Amendment out of this discussion, as this discussion is definitely a First Amendment issue.

It seems to me that the Democrats are most aligned to the anti-freedom agenda. Unless I am mistaken, all of the mentioned bills that actually became laws were signed by a Democratic president. Wait, don't mention all of the violations of my right to bear arms that he signed into law. Oh yeah, right, we aren't talking about the Second Amendment.

That Clinton signed these bills may be a mere conicidence though. I suspect that ignorance, (or maybe something much more insidious), rules the day with technology laws. Most of the people in office are older and because of that I think have a lesser understanding of technology. For God's sake, Al Gore thought he created the Internet!

Also, you'll notice that the DMCA, which is probably the most oppressive bill on the list had support from both Republicans than Democrats. You'll also notice that COPA had a much larger Republican sponsorship. I would say this was probably because their constituency is made up largely of religious zealots. All I can say is thats the part of the Republican party that reeks. Well, that and their environmental record.

In the end all of this comes down to freedom so I would urge you to support freedom in all flavors. You can't say "take their guns", but "I want to keep my speech". If you do, our rights will be whittled away one by one until we have nothing.
We must pay the price of freedom, responsibility for our own actions, and HARSH penalties for those who shirk reponsibility. The Republicans usually have that right.

All that aside, we are being sold out. Here's how:

The media, which is owned by big powerful companies is supposed to watch the government for abuses. However, the parent corporations of these media outlets have been pursuading our government toward abuse. Because of this the media has a huge conflict of interest. (This is obvious right?). This could be why we don't hear about these things on the nightly news.

Corporations are poised to steal our whole political process. They are doing a very good job of it already. All I ask you is, what have you done about it today?

Are there any issues that are universal in the Slashdot community besides what is pushed by the EFF, and GNU? (If even these are?) I known we are not all Libertarians. I'm not anway, and based upon other peoples comments, there are others who are not. However, how do you all feel about the first section first section, of the Libertarian Platform, entitled "Individual Rights and Civil Order"? You can reply here or email me about this directly. Maybe we can have a little more organization. I think that most of us here are pro electronic freedom and pro electronic privacy. What else matters? The link above describes much of what I believe. I remember reading it and saying, yeah, yeah, they've got it. Then I read the part on economics... ouch.

Thats my three cents.

-Craig

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[superyooser]

I was going to write a little satire in response to your statement that conservatives are the real enemy. Then I realized that your beliefs are every bit as absurd as any sarcasm I could come up with. The humor would've been lost.

Look, we are living in historic times. The opening shots of World War III may have already occurred. (It's hard to interpret history when you're in the midst of it.) Conservatives are trying to cajole the nation into doing what must be done for our survival. Liberals are aligning with Stalinist dictators. Democrats are campaigning from Baghdad, apparently holding a solidarity rally with Saddam Hussein, a supporter of al-Qaeda and a bona fide terrorist himself. ..... And you're telling me that whoever supports the Communications Decency Act represents the biggest evil in the world?! This is why I have trouble taking any this DMCA/CDA/COPA/CBDTPA controversy seriously. It's blown up so big that I tend to shrug off the whole thing out of incredulity. Besides, anything that puts liberals in tizzy must be good. :-)

The CDA et al are peanuts compared with the towering issues of our time. National security, economic policy, and social security should be receiving far more of our attention. (I know this is /., but we are talking about real life elections.) The relevance of the first two issues should be obvious, but SS is important too and not just to old people. If current policies remain, income taxes will have to be increased to 50% to keep SS afloat. How's that for being consumer friendly? You'll have nothing to buy anything with after making your necessary expenditures. We'll be facing a colossal economic disaster if SS isn't fixed.

If the topic of this story is a major political concern to you, ask yourself whether it's in your best interest to be a single-issue voter based on this. Don't get tunnel vision. There are many important issues out there.

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[Anonymous Coward]

To quote the other guy, I hate stupidity. I also dislike someone citing rant when at least an argument is presented. You didn't even pretend to present one, just that you are liberal, rah rah.

The mere fact that you believe that I'm for trustworthy computing, with no evidence whatsoever to support that, is your inability to believe that the "conservative agenda" has other ideas (can you even name them? doubtful).

btw, Strom is done, clueless one. Not only that, you seem wholly ignorant that Strom broke party lines due to ideology changes in the past...he switched parties based on the political climate, so he's probaby the worse example you could cite. iow, at least he had a clue and survived. You, you couldn't even look up the guy's history. Although I agree on your other minimal point, that his constituency is one of shallow thinkers.

You don't seem to even know the current ongoing races, much less can see a difference between political climate and party lines. To you, they are one of the same. The mere fact that you believe this and continue to do this means NOTHING WILL CHANGE. And that, sir, was my bloody point. But you didn't care to think and just wrote it off as a rant.

So, you WILL vote on party lines, and this discussion will continue until party lines and flamebait (which you continued) does, and the difference between party ideology will find no adequate solution. Hence, the bad laws legitimately passed by concensus, under a then Democrat for president, and SIGNED BY HIM will continue.

btw, McCain was also on that list.

And as to the 80%, NJ dumped into oceans, took gambling to fun new levels, and raised toxicity levels of the surround area. They're called the Garden State. And they have been and continue to be Democrat. So before you bitch about whose party's corporate policies screw us over, you need to open your eyes and try to take in a fair view. You realize there are representatives on both sides that took advantage of corporate sponsorship, still do, and WHO YOU PROBABLY VOTED FOR because you voted on those dear party lines. So instead of saying you won't stand for it, you say, "It's okay, as long as your on my side." And, therefore, you don't have a leg to stand on what the conservatives do the same.

btw, your 80% of the population gets stepped on is a bleepin joke. First of all, the figure is usually cited 90/10, not 80/20, but either way, they're both bullshit stats. The last time the 80% had time to play in the late 90s, they blew their equity largely due to the corporate misgovernance due to BOTH parties--the liberals looked the other way when it was happening, and the Republicans scratched their asses when they found out. You want to blame the latter for the entirety, go ahead, but you'll still stay in that misgotten 80% anyways because you fail to vote on party lines, instead of weeding out those that actually played a hand in the misgovernance. After all, when you vote on party lines, the bad apples on your side just keep doing what screwed you over anyways.

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[DAldredge]

If supporting the 2nd adm makes the NRA (right extremist) what does that make people that support the other 9 adms in the Bill of Rights?

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[DAldredge]

But you forget the 2nd adm. You know the one that says we have a RIGHT to have guns.

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[kometes]

Saddam Hussein, a supporter of al-Qaeda and a bona fide terrorist himself.

Your opinions are highly colored by your sources of unreliable information.

Who told you that Hussein was a supporter of al-Qaeda?

Why would someone tell you that a secular military dictator under buzzing US aircraft would align himself with a radical religious army that the US is itching to spank?

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[Anonymous Coward]

How conservative he got? You're kidding. I'm conservative, and I'm surprised how middle ground he's been. You want to talk "how conservative he got", look at Ashcroft. That was a flip; hell, Ashcroft's too conservative.

Bush changed his position on stem cell to that of middle ground. It's still right wing agenda, but hardly what his party really expected from him.

His tax cut plan was not what his party really wanted either. Personally, I think he should cut another 1% off the $135,000+ or whatever area while giving a drastic deducation to the middle class, then in 2003, do the cut he originally did.

He did nothing to the wall between church and state. It's still there, intact. He simply asked that churches be treated, well, like atheists, basically like everyone else. That's not establishment of religion. And I will venture and say that I can gauge this a bit better than you, because although I'm a conservative, I'm an agnostic, and I get damn touchy when I feel that separation is being truly threatened (for example, I don't believe the pledge as modified in the 50s is legal and believe the 9th circuit's opinion was the correct one; I believe that prayer on the floor before proceedings is unconstitutional).

Now, as to his economic policies currently, I agree with you. He hasn't done enough, and he's approached it badly (mainly, he doesn't have a policy except "hands off", if that is a policy). I haven't a clue what he's doing on this, although I think it's evidence that he strategized well. I'm giving him another year, at which point if he doesn't have a plan, he's ignoring it and that's unacceptable, or he will have a plan and I'll evaluate that. Personally, at this point, I think he's biding his time, which may prove to be correct thing politically, but not economically.

As to being pro business, he is, but I think what he did with the dockworkers a) was the right decision (although it bit him in the ass because they had an agreement at the time he announced) and b) eventually paid off anyways (businesses did not suffer as much as a lockout (it wasn't a strike) and the union and owners still came to an agreement). Also, he's shown that he'll stand up for social policies--I forget the details (and couldn't find a good source to remind me), but he seemed to have told the pharmaceutical industry to shape up or face regulation (although that's probably more due to getting votes given the growing strength of the demographic the AARP represents).

The only things that he's showed to be true conservative (towed the part line, if you will) is the war deflection (father's policies; stupid; focus on one enemy, not 2, now you've got 3 with North Korea being a spoiled child and wanting attention), the typical policy regarding condoms in schools (I agree with the conservative stand on that), and abortion funds (personally, I'm on the fence on that one anyways, aka moderate). And that he supports Ashcroft--I think Bush should have forced his resignation--not sure why he likes him, except as a political tactic (Ashcroft definitely keeps the conservative right aligned so Bush doesn't get his hands dirtier with them).

As to Jeb and McBride, McBride isn't really much of a candidate. He seems more like a puppet. Jeb at least seems to try (and messes up then gets lots of press coverage, not due to the messup but largely due to being Prez's brother). I see you took advantage of that Florida voting law change which allows you to vote ahead (unless you did absentee). Then again, given you only have the choice between Jeb and McBride speaks to the nature of voting on political lines--it stinks, it doesn't work, and you get crap for choices.

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[Anonymous Coward]

Strict limitation of governance, maybe?

See, those that say they support the 9 other amendments rarely have the same view or concept of what those 9 other amendments or, rather, all 10 of the Bill of Rights in their entirety stand for literally and stand for in principle.

Well, there is one thing--each believes that his version is the right one; that they think that they support them in their truest form.

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact is, Clinton had a CLEAR opportunity to strike it down. He even had the right political climate. He didn't.

As to what Bush would have done, he would have signed it BUT I doubt he would have been given the chance to. It wouldn't have passed the Senate due to the volatile first few months, then the concern of 9/11, or now with the dot bust and economy concerns and strength of people looking at each new law (look at what happened to HR5211; although you could legitimately say that the reason we pay attention now is due to the passage of the DMCA and its known consequential effects).

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't care about the voting record if he wasn't 100% right. Thing is, Clinton screwed up on the 10% record that MATTERED and impacted this arena.

In my mind, he and the then Republican congress caused this economic downturn by regulating it. Bush might not have been better, but the mere fact is, it was Clinton's decision and opportunity to prevent it, not Bush's. The latter is shear albeit legitimate speculation. The former, what Clinton did, actually occurred and is what we are living with.

And with HR5211, it was stopped for now, if that's any indication--Bush would probably sign it, but given the economic and political climate, I don't think this sort of thing (or if the DMCA was introduced last year) would have seen the floor of either house or senate.

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[fearincontrol]

I'm sorry, but I can't resist a reply to this. Your accusations are absurd! Let me just take a few: The opening shots of World War III may have already occurred. (It's hard to interpret history when you're in the midst of it.) Conservatives are trying to cajole the nation into doing what must be done for our survival. Trying to do what is neccesary for our survival? And who exactly defines 'what is neccesary for our survival?'... For all we know attacking Iraq could be the downfall of the United States. Please don't make baseless claims that the conservatives are doing 'what is neccesary for our survival. Not to mention you don't provide one iota of support for your claim. I'll be happy to both listen to and aknowledge whatever points you would like to make, but only if you have a clue what you're talking about. Until you prove you do, I'll assume you don't. Democrats are campaigning from Baghdad, apparently holding a solidarity rally with Saddam Hussein, a supporter of al-Qaeda and a bona fide terrorist himself. Holding a solidarity rally with Saddam Hussein? LOL. I seriously doubt you could find anyone in a public office in the United States who supported Saddam. Some of them may not be anxious to sacrifice thousands of American lives for a war we may not even need to fight, but assuredly they aren't 'in bed' with Baghdad. Not to mention that there is no proof, NONE, that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with Al Qaeda. Now, whether or not he's a terrorist... probably. It depends on your definition, but some of the things he's done to the Kurds were terrible. I hardly support him. The relevance of the first two issues should be obvious, but SS is important too and not just to old people. If current policies remain, income taxes will have to be increased to 50% to keep SS afloat. I'd like to see a bit of proof of this. Because there really isn't any. No one at this time has even a remote idea exactly what's going to happen. As a final parting note, please, I'm sure we'll be happy to debate you on your right-wing ideals --- just try to support them. Unsupported, biased, non-factual statements presented as facts tend to destroy your credibility.

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[fearincontrol]

Dangit, my spacing got messed up... blah. Oh well.

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[electroniceric]

This is a really interesting post, both content-wise as a benchmark (to use a relevant term of art) of Slashdot.

Content-wise it's interesting not just becaue the poster knows his/her sh*t, but also because it highlights an approaching conundrum - lawmakers all over the US of A love to tout the technology sector as this great engine of economic growth, but clearly have very little understanding of how their actions affect the climate for the tech sector. It's not as simple as tax or don't tax, regulate or don't regulate in tech, and that confounds the parties' standard platitudes. So as the parent eloquently points out, there is not yet alignment of the parties with a particular stance on technology legislation, a state which begs techies to step into politics.

As for this:

Finally, the fact is, both parties screw you. You have to look at WHO in the party does what. If you vote on party lines, all you do is push party alignment on the issue. I don't want another NRA/Republican alignment. If "techies" (what the fuq is a techie really, and when did they all suddenly vote liberal?) were one and did all vote liberal, all the special interests will simply fund Republicans, and vice versa.

Your cynical attitude towards politics in general prompts me to think that you're American (as am I), and it makes me sad. Of course both parties screw you, at the same time as their handing you manna. That's how power and politics have worked since the dawn of time. The military-industrial complex (definitely bipartisan, everyone wants a a lab or a military base in their district) begat DARPA and university network research begat the internet. At the same time, the military-industrial complex strengthed corporate hegemony which begat absurdly restrictive views of ideas as physical property begat DMCA. All brought to you by the same two parties, and quite likely the same cohort of politicians, or at least their proteges.

Don't help them align. Vote on the issues and the voting record, and look at campaign donations to then add relevance to your decision.

Interesting idea that well informed voters will help depolarize politics. I hope it's true, and I certainly support your claim that one should vote on issues, not a party line. I think a few more parties, a few new estates, like the "mythical" techies (who have a reputation for peppering their speech with slogans like "I hate stupidity", and fancying themselves independent thinkers), and perhaps some refined approaches to things like regulation will also help reduce some of this polarization.

To finish my other point... as a cultural milestone, these posts also interesting - just glancing through the responses shows that the site has succeeded in attracting politically knowledgeable people who have learned about tech, or vice-versa. I only hope that this crossover continues, and carries into other kinds of issues, like poverty, equality, and the environment.

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[superyooser]

I assume you meant to reply to me and not to kometes. I don't back up my claims when they're based on what I consider to be common knowledge. Well... now that I think about it, the 50% figure definitely isn't common knowlege, but I don't remember where I heard it. It must have come from a source that I trust since I remembered it. More on this later...

The main point about Democrats is that they appear to be doing more that encourages terrorism than that which prevents it. They appear to view conservatives as greater enemies than terrorists whose primary goal in life is to destroy us. True, my statement about the solidarity rally with Saddam was a little over the top (I'm glad you laughed), but the effect of what Democrats are doing really does help Saddam's regime at our expense.

For all we know attacking Iraq could be the downfall of the United States.

Restraint is a sign of weakness and is a big, bright GREEN LIGHT for groups waiting to attack. Cowardice to use our own weapons is akin to self-disarmament. It does nothing but embolden our enemies. Based on what we know, a more accurate prediction would be that failing to attack Iraq would lead to the downfall of the United States. "The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence."

The preceding quote is from the Bush speech to the U.N. two months ago. Click on the link above, and you can read the transcript, listen to the audio, or watch the video. It was all over the news. This is what I mean by common knowledge. I don't have time to deal with willful ignorance or categorical disbelief of information that you don't want to believe. A Slashdot post is just a Slashdot post. I don't have the time to compose a comprehensive dissertation on National Security & Terrorism complete with footnotes and full bibliography section. When I say things like I did in my previous post, I'm expecting readers to recall information that they should already have stored in their memory. If you don't have that store of knowledge to pull up, then you're not getting (or refusing to receive) all the facts. I didn't state any opinions that aren't in the mainstream, so there was no pressing need to direct you to supporting information.

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[fearincontrol]

I don't back up my claims when they're based on what I consider to be common knowledge.
Common knowledge according to whom? It depends largely on who you ask. Some people might give credibility to your 50% number, some might say it is too low, some too high. The point is that there is no definite proof... No common knowledge either. I'm hardly ignorant, as you seem to want to portray me. As for the Bush quote, he is in full support of a war with Iraq. of course he's going to say that refusing to attack Iraq will be the downfall of the US. That's still his OPINION. He can't prove that, nor is it neccesarily true just because he's the president. After all, a democrat could be president too, and you hardlining conservatives dismiss everything they say out of hand. The same is true for Bush. He's not neccesarily right because he's the president.

Restraint is a sign of weakness and is a big, bright GREEN LIGHT for groups waiting to attack. Cowardice to use our own weapons is akin to self-disarmament.

I beg to differ. Quite a large percentage of attacks are in retaliation for US action in the general region that that terrorists come from. I hardly think restraint is a bad thing in this situation, especially considering the fact that the international community has yet to endorse the war on Iraq. Though some people may favor saying ,,!,, to the rest of the world, others believe that keeping a good standing with the rest of the world is probably a good idea. I happen to be one of those; I think completely disregarding the will of the international community here could lead to serious counter-action against the US.

The main point about Democrats is that they appear to be doing more that encourages terrorism than that which prevents it. They appear to view conservatives as greater enemies than terrorists whose primary goal in life is to destroy us.

I don't think this is true at all. Though the democrats are more cautious about going to war, they aren't endorsing or supporting terrorism. There's a difference between caution and endorsement. It's not even one of those fine-line scenarios.

As the proverbial saying goes: Discretion is the Better part of valor.

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[Anonymous Coward]

Hehe... yeah, "common knowledge".

It was "common knowledge" in Germany in the late 30's that the Germans were a "superior race", and that the Jews were a plague on their economy.

To me, hey... "common knowledge" is that water is wet, the sky is blue (ok, its an atmospheric effect... air is clear), and that if I put my hand on a hot stove.. I'll get burned! ... on the flip side, I don't consider what the government tells me or the news media tells me (based on government "leaks" or press conferences) as being "common knowledge". I take it more as "common brainwashing". Tell enough of the people your story often enough, repeatedly ad-nauseum, and they'll start to repeat it as "common knowledge".

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[gl4ss]

how is the system in usa for voting?

here, at least, we have this system that every vote you do for a party(or vote-alliance, which smaller parties can make) counts as well towards other people in that party, in fashion that the man/woman getting most direct votes in a party gets all the votes gone to the party, and the next one gets a little less and so on. i guess in 2 party system you would be kinda screwed with this anyways... this makes it possible for few independant people to get into parliament too, through vote-alliances with other independant people.

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[Allnighterking]

Oh... you mean like Diane Fienstien Democrat Senator from California.... Just goes to show just because your constituants make thier living off of High Tech, is absolutely, no reason, to take care of them when Disney offers so much more... (under the table.) It ain't the Replicrats or the Demopublicans... (something like that, they are too much alike) it's those who are foolish enough to believe that voting for one party or the other is the answer. No if you want change vote for whomever isn't in office, (party and person).... Remember in the great Tradition of the Florida Electoral system.. Vote Early and Vote often.

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[glesga_kiss]

if campaign donations from special interests continue to be legal

Personally, I believe that any politician that recieves these bribes should be made to wear a badge for each of the companies/groups that made a donation. Then you will always know where they are coming from.

"Senator Smith was brought to you this evening by AOL, suppliers of Internet access & pop music, and Shell Oil, screwing the Arabs so you can drive SUVs" ;-)

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[Anonymous Coward]

Vote Democrat for Great Justice!

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[Anonymous Coward]

if this site is to be believed: only 18 of the 93 people on the list (assuming I counted right; in any case it's a very small portion) are democrats.

Most of these people (both Democratic and Republican) are no longer in office. Sonny Bono is the most obvious example.

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[carlos_benj]

I believe that prayer on the floor before proceedings is unconstitutional.

I've always found this an interesting position in that those who wrote the constitution didn't seem to have a problem with it.

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[Anonymous Coward]

So, my right to own a shiny, shiny handgun is not a civil right?

Labor Unions want nothing more than a piece of your paycheck, like all other Democrats they think a grand utopian scheme would be to have a government that does everything for you. Feeds you, clothes you, wipes your arse...etc.

If you want to live in a spoon fed society where you are shielded from reality be my guest. The rest of us however do not need someone telling us what we can or can not do as responsible adults.

If I want to own a fucking howitzer and put it on my front lawn that is my god given right. It is not your place to tell me what I should be doing with my money or who I should be helping out. If momma crackwhore doesn't wanna work and have 14 babies, then fuck her. Let her and her babies starve to death on the streets. If you want to make something of yourself, there is opportunity here in the US, if you'd rather go live in the ghetto on welfare, fuck you. We should end welfare and force the leeches of society to go out and find meaningful emplyment rather than sitting around living off of my paycheck.

Regards,
Anaonymous Choward

They know what they're doing.

[mazarin5]

Unfortunately, it seems that most lawmakers know exactly what they are and have been doing, and that's why they've been so devastatingly effective. Keep in mind, they're policymakers and politicians, and campaign donations are alway welcomed.

Re:They know what they're doing.

[NickGXZ]

It also seems that they might not know dick about what they are doing. Mind you, most of the lawmakers on Capital Hill are old fashion, and might be afriad of this new tech. They may not know how to handle it the right way, and will panic which will lead them to approve of a unfair law. How do you think the DMCA was able to pass?

Re:They know what they're doing.

[kraksmoka]

thank McCain for the campaingn finance attempt. its the money that makes the monkey dance, and those GOP boys sure do dance to a slightly droll, 60 beats per minute corporate tune.

some hope lies in a few laws introduced at the end of session this year for consumer protection. that means that at least a few lawmakers (why has that become such a dirty word) ar e noticing that they have a constituency. i said noticing. we haven't finished paying for them yet. one day . . . . .

Re:They know what they're doing.

[jasonisgodzilla]

They know exactly what they are doing. They are selling their votes and influence to get money to further their influence and power. Most of these people are wealthy and the only thing they care about is getting more power and more money. They don't give a shit how some bs law affects us, because they are the power structure and they have money, so the laws dont really apply to them anyways.

Re:They know what they're doing.

[JWW]

Just wait until 60 days before the next election.

What happens then if the CBDTPA comes up for debate then?

It doesn't matter how much money the EFF has, they won't be able to run an issue ad.

Complain all you want about laws that limit code as speech, but don't stand and cheer laws that limit speech as speech.

Re:They know what they're doing.

[Anonymous Coward]

>How do you think the DMCA was able to pass?

Don't be so naive. Follow the money.

Re:They know what they're doing.

[bnenning]

It doesn't matter how much money the EFF has, they won't be able to run an issue ad.

With any luck at all, the Supreme Court will have struck down campaign finance "reform" by then. I'll be surprised if it isn't a 9-0 decision; it's even more of a slam dunk than the CDA.

stevens

[Maskirovka]

For the record, senator Ted Stevens (who co-sponsored the CBDPA if up for re-election tomorrow. He doesn't have any serious opposition though...

Re:stevens

[pnatural]

He doesn't have any serious opposition though...

He never has, and he never will. In a small (population-wise) state like Alaska, it really pays to have as much seniority as the Alaskan congressional delegation does. We've had the same congressional delegation as long as I can remember... 20 years at least.

Full disclosure: I'm an Alaskan, registered voter, and I vote Republican (I consider myself anarchist-come-libertarian-but-still -very-pragmatic :) I oppose DMCA and all that crap, but tomorrow, I'll vote for Stevens. Right, wrong, or indifferent, it's more important for me to have my state, a very small and often forgotten place, to wield some degree of power in Washington.

Re:stevens

[Pyperkub]

How did this get a 5? I may be flamebait, but still...

Re:stevens

[Oscillatory]

One solution in that case of unopposed races is to support a write-in candidate with a specific view on the particular issue that bothers you: no chance to prevent them from winning (most likely), but you can send a message if enough people register their dissatisfaction.

I suppose it's too late for this years election in this case for a registered write-in candidate, but as an example here's what the anti-war movement is suggesting here in MA wrt our unopposed senate race.

Re:stevens

[pnatural]

Die.

You're welcome to try, but instead, I think you'll sit in your parents basement, whine and snivel, and continue to spew your self-righteous crap, all the while posting to ./ as an AC.

Fool.

Re:stevens

[chthon]

You know you're in the largest state of the Union, when you're anchored down in Anchorage...

Re:stevens

[3-State Bit]

It's more important for me to have my state, a very small and often forgotten place, to wield some degree of power in Washington.
Fuck you! It's the largest state in the U.S. I wish I had a state that large--but all you do is complain about it. Spoiled brat.

Re:stevens

[pnatural]

What map are you looking at? All the maps I saw in school clearly depict Alaska as a very small state. No bigger than, say, Washington or Oregon.

That's a joke of course, maybe you'd understand what I meant by "small" if you read the whole comment -- small as in population.

But fuck you, too!

Re:stevens

[3-State Bit]

I know, I was just teasin' :)

Re:stevens

[Maskirovka]

How did this get a 5? I may be flamebait, but still...

because I have a bewolf cluster of natalie portman cruisers. How else?
:P

Did they miss anyone?

[JohnnyBigodes]

Well... how about a few thousand Windows programmers?
(an obvious choice, I know, but still true :)

Re:Did they miss anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

The 'code' in the article refers to legal code and laws, so Windows programmers wouldn't be a part of it. Microsoft as a whole would though, since they're writing their own laws...

Re:Did they miss anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude. The article was about bad laws made in Washington, and comparing bad laws to bad lines of code was a metaphore that had little to do with the article.

I would like to propose a slashdot rule: Anyone who has not read the article must prepend the comments with IHNRTA (I have not read the article).

Re:Did they miss anyone?

[EvanED]

Why is sarcasm so hard to spot when it's in print? I've taken many printed things seriously that weren't meant to be, but I at least saw that that was just a joke...

Re:Did they miss anyone?

[tpv]

The super-parent post wasn't actually employing sarcasm.
</pedant>

Re:Did they miss anyone?

[EvanED]

Actually that depends on whether the poster intended the post to be a criticism of MS; I suspect this is the case, which would make it sarcasm.

Re:Did they miss anyone?

[gli]

Maybe you are trying to be funny. But it isn't. I don't know why people think MS programmers are stupid. True MS code often have bugs, but this has been improving a lot. Is linux bug free from the first release? If you think you are so smart, try come up with some software at the scale and caliber of the Office suite and such, I bet ya'll have some fun with that. There are some damned smart people in Microsoft. Take a look at SIGGRAPH's annual proceedings and you'll spot quite a few papers from Microsoft research. And I would say the top software engineers in MS are no doubt among the top programmers in the world. I don't like MS, and I agree and believe in the free software paradidgm strongly. I use Debian most of the time home. But the kind of attitude of the original poster are just absurd and only shows ignorance.

Re:Did they miss anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

...and MySQL programmers...

Re:Did they miss anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's an old CompSci joke:

Q: "Do smart people necessarily produce good code?"

A: "No, they don't - just look at how many smart people Microsoft employ."

Within microsoft, the marketers outrank the coders, shoddy and unfinished code is the norm in shipping products.

Re:Did they miss anyone?

[vrai]

Any coding team that spent over a year debugging a piece of code, and still ended up with over 65K bugs is not smart.

Smart coders a) don't produce many bugs in the first place, b) are actually capable of finding and removing them.

The Microsoft coders are of average quality. Fine when produce small applications, but woefully lacking in abilty as far as producing large software engineering projects are concerned. The fact that a significant number of them work with Visual Basic is evidence enough.

Re:Did they miss anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

--sarcasm mode on--

People forget to use the right set of tagz...

--sarcasm mode off--

(it's a joke, people!)

Chicken and the Egg

[Vaulter]

I always wonder about articles like this. Who is worse, the people who abuse privileges/freedoms, or the people who limit the privileges/freedoms to curb the abuse.

Maybe if so many script kiddies/ warez'ers/ napsterites hadn't gone so fscking overboard downloading/spamming/sharing, the legislations wouldn't have any backing. It would be too much bother for so little.

But, unfortunately, the masses found out, and spoiled for the rest of us.

Re:Chicken and the Egg

[Anonymous Coward]

Unauthorized use of the internet will be considered abuse and will be punished by jailtime.

Re:Chicken and the Egg

[sweetooth]

That doesn't make the legislators any more right than the abusers. We can have a direct effect on the legislators while it is much harder to have a direct effect on the abusers you list. Beside, if you compare many of these representatives voting records with other bills you will find that they don't just push bad tech laws, many of them push bad laws in general.

Re:Chicken and the Egg

[Anonymous Coward]

OR perhaps the internet just revealed the flaws in the existing laws...

do you really think people are EVER going to refrain from sharing information?

It's going to be like the War on Drugs, except it'll take away the rights of white people too.

Re:Chicken and the Egg

[Vaulter]

It doesn't make the legislators right, but it gives them 'the' right.

Drunk driving wasn't made illegal until it became a problem with people getting killed left and right. Were the people who outlawed it 'bad'?

I know, it's a little overboard on the comparison, but...

Re:Chicken and the Egg

[Anonymous Coward]

feh.. don't use examples of laws passed to save human life. Maybe the RIAA/MPAA would equate copyright law with drunk driving laws but let's not do it ourselves.

Re:Chicken and the Egg

[jedidiah]

Drunk driving directly addresses the negative behaivor in question. Most of these heinous anti-tech laws do not.

A more accurate comparison to draw would people advocating a second prohibition in order to deal with drunk driving.

Re:Chicken and the Egg

[sweetooth]

Actually your comparison doesn't fit. Drunk driving is potentially deadly. Which is one of the biggest reasons it's illegal. The only harm that comes from the above listed actions is going to be monetarily. Passing draconian laws simply because the legislators are uninformed or because thier pockets are being lined is not acceptable and we should let them know that. This goes for all types of laws not just tech laws. Yes, there are going to be times where actions occur that require legislation after the fact to curb the problem (of course you can debate this too). However, in this case we are going to put handcuffs on a 500 billion dollar industry for the sake of a 50 billion dollar industry. Does that make any sense? It doesn't to me. I spoke with a senetor for my state on Saturday night while at a college convention for my wife. During the discussion I asked how she made most of her voting decisions and I was told that in many cases she only had basic information returned to her from her staff. Summaries. How can you possibly make a good, educated decision from a summary?!?! She couldn't answer that with anything better than "The best I can."

Re:Chicken and the Egg

[4of12]

Who is worse, the people who abuse privileges/freedoms, or the people who limit the privileges/freedoms to curb the abuse?

Answer: They're both bad.

Yes, people who use their computer power to subvert copyright are bad. They ought to be punished accordingly, but certainly not punished for exercising fair use doctrines.

But that obnoxious behavior by various individuals is no justification for bad blanket legislation that stomps on liberties in an attempt to curtail bad behavior.

It is just as irresponsible for legislators to pass computer laws like these as it is for them to solve problems such as theft and burglary by mandating a police state and requiring everyone to present an internal passport on demand and to show signed receipts for all goods in their possession.

Of course in the U.S., with the way things are going with the "Patriot" Act, perhaps there is some consistency there...

Re:Chicken and the Egg

[GuruJ]

Technology + legislation is a dangerous combination, because it allows automatic enforcement of laws against people.

Compare the process of issuing a speeding fine in the 60s (policeman chases down the person, makes him stop, gives ticket) to today (camera: *click*, infringement notice arrives in the mail 5-10 working days later).

Copyright laws were acceptable in 'the old days' because each abuse had to be discovered individually. Now, bots can send out infringement notices to thousands of websites without a single human interaction. Things get even scarier when you consider the TCPA/Palladium platform, with punishments (ie. infringing material deleted) being potentially handed out automatically.

Online rights require a set of rules that are more flexible, not more rigid. We just haven't worked out what they should be yet.

Re:Chicken and the Egg

[JohnnyBigodes]

Maybe if so many script kiddies/ warez'ers/ napsterites hadn't gone so fscking overboard downloading/spamming/sharing, the legislations wouldn't have any backing.

And who can assure that these laws would not be created/enforced/whatever anyway? The big corps and government sell-outs (read: whores in Armani suits) know all too much on many ways to milk a given cow.

It would be too much bother for so little.

As the saying goes, "the chicken fills the belly grain by grain". Plus, I really don't think it was the script kiddies/warezers/whatever that made them notice, because those always existed. This "problem" came into the spotlight because the average Joe was downloading music and "hurting business" (average Joe is a "terrorist" nowadays). That is, presuming they wouldn't just jack up the 'net laws anyway, which I whole-heartedly think they would. Every possible source of revenue (especially steady ones) is welcome.

Re:Chicken and the Egg

[LoRider]

Who is worse, the people who abuse privileges/freedoms, or the people who limit the privileges/freedoms to curb the abuse.

That's easy, the ones that attempt to limit privileges/freedom. Less freedom is always bad. Freedom comes with a cost, people will abuse it. Just because someone abuses freedom doesn't mean I don't deserve the right charish my freedom and love every minute of it.

I never understand people who wish to remove freedom under the guise of protecting it. If the freedom no longer exists, there's nothing to protect.

No one ever said living in a free society would be perfection and trouble-free. Every once in a while some jackass will say something that pisses you off, you can either some something back or go home and cry about it - you can't take away their right to say it though.

Freedom for everyone or freedom for no one.

Re:Chicken and the Egg

[EvanED]

Ah, but there's a difference. Laws that punish misbehavior rarely restrict freedom. For instance, few people (at least outside of /.) would argue that pure copyright laws are unjust. They serve a very valid and necessary purpose: protecting someone else from stealing your work and thereby depriving you of what you should be earning. So legislators limited our "freedoms" (if you want to call distributing someone else's work a freedom) by making it illegal to distribute someone else's work. it addressed the problem without overstepping it.

Now look at the DMCA. This was again intended to curb distribution of pirated material, but it does so by making it illegal to carry out activities that often lead to illegal distribution. This again would be fine if the only reason to do what it makes illegal was to pirate things, but that's not the case. The DMCA was an *overreaction* to the problem of piracy, restricting rights that are not related to any wrong activity. For instance, I cannot use a clip from a DVD in a presentation I am doing--something that SHOULD be protected under fair use laws--without breaking the DVD's encryption, and thus violating the DMCA.

Overreacting to the problem in this example was just as bad as the problem they were trying to stop. This is even more true in the case of the DMCA as it would have only taken one small clause to limit its coverage to further stopping piracy. Just add a "This act is by no means meant to limit fair use rights; such use should not result in the penalties set forth in this act." That should suffice.

Re:Chicken and the Egg

[ubrayj02]

Maybe if so many script kiddies/ warez'ers/ napsterites hadn't gone so fscking overboard downloading/spamming/sharing, the legislations wouldn't have any backing.

But, unfortunately, the masses found out, and spoiled for the rest of us.

It is debatable whether or not people have actually "stolen" anything by downloading/spamming/sharing, etc. Most peoples' intuition with respect to theft relies on a material object being taken. It is debatable whether or not copying a piece of information (in the most general of cases) and disseminating it (without the consent of it's author, and with/without payment in exchange) should be a crime in the first place. It so happens that theft in the physical world of objects and property works to the disadvatage of many people - and so it is rightfully considered "theft". However, it remains to be shown whether or not some civilization-wide practical disadvantage comes about through unauthorized, unpaid for, file copying and sharing.
Before blaming "the masses", maybe one should look at whose interests are being served - who is ruining what? Is it the case that downloading this stuff creates a horrible problem for our society? Or is it the case that it does nothing, or possibly makes things better?
What was ruined? If you are referring to your ability to download copyrighted material, then the blame lands squarely on the legislators who wrote the laws, the courts who upheld them, the police who enforced them, and the companies and individuals who lobbied/paid for this legislation.

Re:Chicken and the Egg

[lostboy2]

Who is worse, the people who abuse privileges/freedoms, or the people who limit the privileges/freedoms to curb the abuse.

Hmmm... interesting question and responses. Just out of curiosity, how many people support gun control? If, say, the US gov't were to propose a law banning semi-automatic rifles (like the one used by the DC/Maryland sniper), I wonder how many /.ers would support it?

Re:Chicken and the Egg

[Keepiru]

I don't entirely follow how automatic enforcement is a bad thing. This may be an urban legend, but I read that cops in a California city opposed Photo Radar. Why? Because it kept sending tickets to cops that were speeding off duty.

Sometimes justice being blind and automatic is a good thing.

(sometimes it's not, as in the case of "zero-tolerance" laws in public schools that expel an A student for having a paring knife in her car)

Re:Chicken and the Egg

[hebertpa]

The ends do not justify the means. I know a way to stop all hate, poverty, and hunger. Its reall easy all you have to do is, kill them all. Thats the means to do it. even though what you they want to stop on the internet gets done doesn't mean the way that they want to do is correct.

Re:Chicken and the Egg

[shepd]

>Maybe if so many script kiddies/ warez'ers/ napsterites hadn't gone so fscking overboard downloading/spamming/sharing, the legislations wouldn't have any backing. It would be too much bother for so little.

But I say this:

Without so many people going "overboard" using napster, etc. we wouldn't have the multitudes of people who hate the DMCA, et al. And the more people on our side, the easier these laws are to strike down.

Right now I can strike the fear of God into any teenager who's getting close to voting age by telling them that because of the current government you could be Hacked, Investigated, and sent to jail without due process in the USA because music companies suspect you of being a pirate when you use KaZaa.

Fortunately, myself being in Canada, this simply puts them off living in the USA. But, if I were in the USA, I can imagine this would be more serious.

Any other topic to do with government and laws, though, and I'd be shrugged off.

IMHO, going public with all this technology was the best idea yet.

Re:Chicken and the Egg

[LoudMusic]

Maybe if so many script kiddies/ warez'ers/ napsterites hadn't gone so fscking overboard downloading/spamming/sharing, the legislations wouldn't have any backing. It would be too much bother for so little.

That's pretty much how anything goes these days. Or ever, for that matter. People, sheep as we are, find something neat and abuse it until it is no more.

Moderation is the key to all things.

Re:Chicken and the Egg

[blueskies]

"Who is worse, the people who abuse privileges/freedoms, or the people who limit the privileges/freedoms to curb the abuse." Easy, the people who limit freedoms.

They should know better. They have been elected to uphold the constitution which provides for both a limited term on copyright and freedom of speech.

It's like asking who is worse, the teachers that break rules or the students? And it should be clear that the teachers are supposed to be the role models.

Re:Chicken and the Egg

[kavau]

Let's compare two seemingly different issues: Guns and Software.

Thousands of people are killed with guns in America each year. Clearly guns are a huge threat to public safety in our cities. Should we restrict guns, or even outlaw them? Even mentioning this possibility infallibly generates huge outcries about "taking away our freedom", "constitutional right", and so on. The issue is one of freedom vs. safety. Freedom wins.

On the other hand, American corporations loose millions of dollars each year to illegal copying of software, music, movies etc. over the internet. Should we restrict the internet therefore? Now the issue is one of corporate profits vs. freedom. Profit wins.

The fact that America chooses freedom over safety in the first scenario, but chooses profit over freedom in the second scenario paints a very gruesome picture of our society:

Profit has highest priority, followed by freedom. Only then comes human life.

Money is more important than life.

Does anyone else think this is scary? I hope it's not just me.

Re:Chicken and the Egg

[ImaLamer]

Napster Napster Napster Napster !

If illegal music distribution** hadn't taken off on the mainstream we wouldn't have half the problems we have now.

I mean, when I heard of napster for the first time I thought the Internet would just get shut down the next day. Obviously it didn't, but it is happening slowly.

The problem is people in D.C. don't understand that sometimes innovators appear as outlaws. We could have done this whole P2P revolution a different way, we didn't have to force it on everyone... ...I'm glad about it though

**(you do need a contract to distribute music that is under copyright. I guess that the real people fighting P2P isn't the RIAA per se, it's music outlets, Media Play, Mom & Pop's, Best Buy, etc. When those die the RIAA will just adopt a P2P scheme)

Re:Chicken and the Egg

[Darby]

This may be an urban legend, but I read that cops in a California city opposed Photo Radar. Why? Because it kept sending tickets to cops that were speeding off duty.

My cousin is a San Diego detective, and while he didn't say anything about his position on them, he told us as a joke that the captain was pissed at the cops because of that.

I'm opposed to them because they were run by a private company who shared in the profits from them. They decreased the yellow light time to boost profits, and accidents increased something crazy like 150% at just those intersections.
Studies showed that an even longer yellow time than was normal before the cameras would decrease accidents a pretty good percentage at the cost of ticket revenue.

I just don't think "whatever the market will bear" is an appropriate philosophy for my government to adopt.

Re:Chicken and the Egg

[lobrow]

I think you will find there is profit in guns also.

The real equation is profit comes first, everything else last. But thats stating the obvious.

Re:Chicken and the Egg

[jratcliffe]

Of course, remember that violating copyright has also become much easier and more automatic (80s: find someone you know who has the tape, convince him/her to loan it to you, find a dubbing deck, spend 1hr making an imperfect copy, return the original. 00s: fire up Kazaa/Morpheus/etc, click on song hosted by complete stranger, download near-perfect digital copy).

Re:Chicken and the Egg

[Anonymous Coward]

Now look at the DMCA. This was again intended to curb distribution of pirated material, but it does so by making it illegal to carry out activities that often lead to illegal distribution. This again would be fine if the only reason to do what it makes illegal was to pirate things, but that's not the case. The DMCA was an *overreaction* to the problem of piracy, restricting rights that are not related to any wrong activity. For instance, I cannot use a clip from a DVD in a presentation I am doing--something that SHOULD be protected under fair use laws--without breaking the DVD's encryption, and thus violating the DMCA.

Overreacting to the problem in this example was just as bad as the problem they were trying to stop. This is even more true in the case of the DMCA as it would have only taken one small clause to limit its coverage to further stopping piracy. Just add a "This act is by no means meant to limit fair use rights; such use should not result in the penalties set forth in this act." That should suffice.

Alternatives to the DMCA that would have limited anti-circumvention penalties to cases of copyright infringement were available in both House and Senate when the DMCA passed.

The Congress passed and the Clinton Administration backed the Orwellian version favored by the motion picture industry. That's the one that lets industries make up their own "crimes" / exceptions to copyright law by just adding "technological protection" -- a delegation of power that Congress does not have, to groups who have a vested interest in outcomes that are against the Constitution's public interest goals.

MPAA spokesman Jack Valenti ("VCR is to the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman alone") said just before the DMCA passed(paraphrased) that any law that did not outlaw all circumvention in all cases would not be "acceptable."

Re:Chicken and the Egg

[ronabop]

Drunk driving is not deadly, unless you've had so much to drink you die at the wheel while waiting for a stoplight.

Running into people, crashing cars, etc, is much more deadly, but it's not the same thing, is it?

Until the US can intelligently think about such silly 'slippery slope' arguments, every thing that could have fatal consequences, based on correlative, not causative, statistics, is up for grabs.

Let's apply that same enlightened thinking of 'drunk driving is deadly" to other items, shall we?

Linux/BSD users are (or will be) crackers, and should be in jail.
People who express anti-government opinions now are future terrorists, and should be in jail.
If you have a single illegal mp3, you are probably a future multi-billion-dollar-pirate, and should be in jail.

By all means, punish those who commit crimes against others, but to arrest someone *only* for drunk driving is to arrest them for future-crime, for the "potential" and "likelihood" of harming others.

I live in AZ, where 'drunk driving' is one (1) beer before driving. And I use good computers, which tend to kill less people than cars, and I own a handgun.

Three strikes against me on future-crime, I guess.

-Bop

Re:Chicken and the Egg

[rednaxel]

I always wonder about articles like this. Who is worse, the people who abuse privileges/freedoms, or the people who limit the privileges/freedoms to curb the abuse.

Actually, this is the classic left-wing / right-wing dilemma. The right-wing defends the freedom above the equality (thus allowing abuse), and the left-wing defends the equality (thus reducing privileges). Of course it is not an all-or-nothing situation: think about it like a pair of connected sliders. When you increase the freedom (privileges) you end up reducing equality, and vice-versa.

It's up to you (as group of people) to choose between the two, or which one you care most. The history has shown that is impossible to get both at highest levels. Recommended reading:

Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction
Norberto Bobbio
Translated and introduced by Allan Cameron
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1996
124 pages ISBN 0-226-06246-5 (pb)
Google search

Re:Chicken and the Egg

[demigod]

For instance, few people (at least outside of /.) would argue that pure copyright laws are unjust.

I see that as a problem. I think we should argue (to use your term) this very point and not just assume it as a given.

The thing that brought us here together (open source software) is based on a completely different view. You talk about "deprived earnings", maybe it's a simple as this;

Copyright maximizes creators earnings.
Copyleft maximizes the benefit of the creation

Which do "we" want? I don't know, but it seems you don't even want to have the discussion.

Re:Chicken and the Egg

[Scott Treppa]

This is a bit off topic, I apologize.

They serve a very valid and necessary purpose: protecting someone else from stealing your work and thereby depriving you of what you should be earning.

Here is a speech by Thomas Babington Macauley. it's very good.

You say "stealing your work". The founding fathers understood then what some do not understand now. Our ideas are not property. However, as an incentive to put down your ideas to paper (or CDs, canvas, etc.) we let go of our right to copy information for profit to allow the creator to have a temporary monopoly.

So yes, the constitution (not just legislators), limits our absolute right to copy information for profit by granting the creator a monopoly on his/her/its creation.

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. It is by this mantra that laws should tested against.

• You have the right to life.
• You have the right to do what you wish(liberty) so long as it does not violate my right to life.
• You have the right to pursue happiness so long as it does not violate my right to liberty or my right to life.

So, does my right to pursue happiness by creating a record and selling it through a publisher override your right to copy that information for profit? No. It fails the check. However, the founding fathers understood that without incentive only the very dedicated and possibly rich (because they can afford to just create art, music, whatever and not worry about an income) would be in a posiiton to create. So in order to encourage innovation for the public good they created copyright law. It is my opinion that the "Recording Industry" and others like them that have overstepped their bounds and have created an atmosphere where your right to copy information is less important than someone elses right to profit from information.

So what we have now is a situation which is counter to what the founding fathers had in mind. Right now the RIAA and its ilk would like things to stay the way they were. In the past a normal person could not copy information in the form of music so well. You had to have expensive machines to make perfect copies. Now, because of innovations in technology, we CAN FINALLY make perfect copies of music, movies, etc. What is the RIAA's response? They want to curtail our right to copy because they are too lazy, or stubborn, to innovate themselves! They do not want to invent a new model for the 21st century and are putting pressure on legislators to make sure it will not be necessary. Or as is quite possible they are simply holding out until they DO find a new model themselves. Thus using law to give them enough time to figure something out, and no doubt paying to have the laws repealed once they do figure it out.

Re:Chicken and the Egg

[taphu]

Who is worse, the people who abuse privileges/freedoms, or the people who limit the privileges/freedoms to curb the abuse.

First of all it is impossible to abuse a freedom (as opposed to a privilege). But that's besides the point. The real point is that copyright itself is a privilege that has been greatly abused. Furthermore, the central concept of a Democracy is "millions of people can't be wrong" (or rather, "a majority can't be wrong"). The very fact that so many people do it means that the behavior is not radically antisocial. At lease according to the Democratic philosophy.

On another note, Democracy and Freedom are not synonymous. Remember folks, the majority must be in favor of freedom, which it obviously isn't in this case (for good or ill).

Nope, the other Washington, kids

[echucker]

Sorry to disappoint, but they're not talking about Redmond. ;-)

Worst coders in Washington?

[kbielefe]

Most slashdotters would probably say Microsoft.

Oh, you mean the other Washington.

Re:Worst coders in Washington?

[kbielefe]

Isn't it great when 20 people have the same thought at the same time (within the time it takes to type a post after reading the existing posts)? I've been having fun for the last hour watching this post's parent alternatively modded up as funny and down as redundant. Is there a catchy name for that effect? If not, I think we should invent one.

partisan hit piece?

[Anonymous Coward]

Looking at the list of congress critters, one might believe republicans deserve full blame.

Except, of course, that each bill needed a majority vote to pass, and each was signed into law by Bill Clinton, the only person that could have single-handledly stopped them.

Those that voted for the bills (many of whom are democrats) deserve just as much blame as those that authored or introduced them.

Re:partisan hit piece?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why was this moderated as a troll?

Re:partisan hit piece?

[Anonymous Coward]

Frankly, if you're a president, it's not always smart to veto a bill, even if you disagree with it. Some times, it's political suicide. I wouldn't say it was here, but it is entirely possible that there were other reasons why he didn't oppose it.

Re:partisan hit piece?

[Anonymous Coward]

And that's why (see flamebait comments above, the first thread in this story) why if people just use this partisanly (namely, vote Democrat! it seems), this just continues. Vote according to the voting record and issues, not the bloody party line.

Re:partisan hit piece?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except as another poster pointed out. Clintion could have only delayed them.
Once the president vetos a bill it goes back to the congress and both sides hold another vote and if they still have majority backing for the bills, the presidents veto means nothing.

What a surprise ...

[BabyDave]

Yet another anti-MS story on /.

What? Washington DC? Where the heck's that?

Re:What a surprise ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. Constant, mindless MS bashing gets tiresome.

However many of the readers here have used microsh*t in the past got tired of memory leaks, crashes, and constant upgrade costs (upgrades to developement environments, upgrading windows, upgrading server software) and have found other alternatives like linux.

The number of windows users far outnumbers linux users and slashdot is one of the places in the world where we open source advocates congregate. When you visit slashdot you should expect some anti_MS stories, and if this bothers you then go somewhere else.

Re:What a surprise ...

[Anonymous Coward]

However many of the readers here have used microsh*t in the past got tired of memory leaks, crashes, and constant upgrade costs (upgrades to developement environments, upgrading windows, upgrading server software) and have found other alternatives like linux

Apparently you havent actually used linux much. It can be just as leaky just as flakey and will crash JUST as much. Upgrades to gcc/glib/xwindows/kernel etc. Linux has a much cooler thing about it in those bugs usually only last a few weeks before they are squashed. But you are constantly upgrading it. Windows is closed source and Linux is open source. Which is better? WHO CARES! Does the damn thing let me get my freeking work done? Can I play a few decent games on it?

The funny thing about most MS bashing is you can never pin a person down on WHY they hate MS. Its just 'cool' to do so. Usually its the they compete in anti-competitve behavior. My those are big words. SO WHAT?! Many many many companies do this. Do you think MS just dreamed up those practicies. No they learned them the hard way at the snap of IBM, Sun, Novel, Intel, and others. They learned and became a master sith-lord in the art of the corprate licence agreement. Not only are they good at it, they have used it to excel (hehe). They are learning another leason right now. Do NOT piss off the majority of the Corp customer base. They may decide they dont need win xp this year OR next... Its the main reason we use desktops at work instead of a IBM/SUN/SGI mainframe. Not because one or the other is better. It is because one had support agreements that made corps bleed money...

Re:What a surprise ...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the building where they are working on Windows DC of course.

The list

[_damnit_]

I am so very glad that my Representative and Senators were not on the list. I am surprised to see that Fritz (Hollings) is not at the top of the list. I guess it doesn't count that he just proposes more crap than everybody else, eh?

The Worst Coders In Washington

[Anenga]

Found them

Re:The Worst Coders In Washington

[Anonymous Coward]

They went thattaway!

Exit, stage-left! Yoink!

too bad

[bilbobuggins]

AOTC doesn't have a press office. Some day we will. Meanhile you can contact our President, Doc Searls, at doc@ssc.com.

sigh
with a public presence like this, it's just one more well-intentioned group blowing a lot of air without making a sound...

Quick Summary

[fizban]

93 Worst offenders.

74 - Republican
19 - Democrat

Consider yourself informed. We live with a two-party system (mostly). One of them is more consumer friendly than the other. Vote accordingly.

Re:Quick Summary

[dh003i]

Remember that Bill Clinton -- the gift of god to Democrats -- gave his blessings to the DMCA; he didn't oppose it, he didn't criticize it, he didn't veto it.

Remember that the DMCA was passed almost unanimously by both Democrats and Republicans, as was the 1998 Copyright Extension Act; likewise with almost all other draconian anti-consumer intellectual property laws, and digital laws.

Re:Quick Summary

[Anenga]

"I vote for a third party!"
"Go ahead! Throw your vote away!"

Re:Quick Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm only counting 8 votes for the DMCA, and somehow I don't think thats enough for it to pass the house and senate. These numbers are pretty incomplete, so before jumping to such statistical conclusions, you might want to get the full data set

Re:Quick Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter which party these sleazebags work for.

Every party has its own lobbyists, just pick which one gets to rape your wallet today.

Re:Quick Summary

[dattaway]

I remember something far worse: he signed an executive order stating encryption would aid terrorists and should be criminalized. Now look at how insecure our communications hardware is today due to that wisdom.

Re:Quick Summary

[mojowantshappy]

I wonder how considerably the nerd vote is anyways ;-) but yeah, i agree completely. hehe, nerd vote.

Re:Quick Summary

[fizban]

Very true, but I never said Democrats aren't evil. I'm just pointing out who's more evil.

However, telling a democrat lawmaker that a law is anti-consumer garners much more of a concerned response than telling a republican lawmaker the same thing.

But, in the end, it's all about the money. Which is why I'm planning to move to another country... :-)

Re:Quick Summary

[dh003i]

I also find your party-line voting suggestion to be harmful.

Voting along party lines is only for idiots, and will invariably produce undesireable results.

You can only vote along party lines if you agree with *everything* that a party stands for; even then, its not safe, because many Republicans deviate from the Republian platform, likewise with many Democrats. I consider myself Libertarian, but that doesn't mean I can just vote for any Libertarian who runs...why? Because there's some thing in the Libertarian platform I disagree with, and I don't know which tenants of the Libertarian platform someone is going to stick to.

The only way to vote intelligently is to research the candidates thoroughly and decide if you like what they stand for, or if you don't. You'll never find a candidate who you agree with completely; the idea is to vote for the one who's positions and actions are the closest to those you have or you'd take.

Voting along party lines for Democrats might be good in one state, regarding digital freedoms and intellectual property. But in Utah, it might elect Orin Hatch -- a pro-Napster, pro-technology, anti-IP (in its current form) Senator (R) -- out of office.

The best thing to do is to figure out what each candidates positions are on various issues. Attention should be paid to what they say they will do, but you should take that with a grain of salt. More important, is how did they vote on various bills. Firstly, look at their attendance record for voting on bills. If they're absent on half of them, they're not good Senators or Representatives. For those they did vote on, did they vote as you would have? Make a simple list like such. +1 is assigned for voting as you would voe, -1 for voting against your wishes. Add appropriate weights for things which you consider more important.

It is the kind of party-lines thinking that the parent advocates which is a major problem in our system, and why the wrong people get elected; its also part of why third parties -- though usually being superior -- are kept off the voting ballot and rarely elected.

I used to think like the parent, when I was a teenager. I thought of myself as a Republican. However, as I grew older (hence smarter), I realized that I disagreed with the Republican platform on many things which were important to me (i.e., abortion, prostitution, drugs, stripping, euthanasia, gay rights, and religion).

Don't be locked into the "I'm a Dem/Repub" mentality. Determine what your position is on the issues, and vote for (s)he who's closer to that position by in what they say and what they've done.

Re:Quick Summary

[Spamuel]

That figure is meaningless until you've figured out how many Republicans and Democrats voted for the bills.

Re:Quick Summary

[GigsVT]

0-Libertarian.

Consider yourself informed.

&ltsoapbox&gt
A Libertarian would never pass any law to stifle the Internet, and would never let the government pass protectionist laws for corporate lobbies.
&lt/soapbox&gt

Just a note, John Warner is facing Libertarian Jacob Hornberger in Virginia in tomorrow's elections. John Warner is going to win, no Democrat is running.

This is a good chance to show your support for Libertarians if you are a Democrat, or a Republican, but you agree with what the Libertarians are saying about a lot of things. Your vote will almost definitely not change the outcome of the election, but rather than not voting in the race, why not send the politicians a message that they need to wake up and start listening to the people, or they risk losing to Libertarians.

A 10% Libertarian vote in this election will do just that. So hey, nothing to lose, just do it!

Re:Quick Summary

[bcboy]

> Remember that Bill Clinton -- the gift of god to Democrats

*cough* *cough* *cough*
What?

Don't confuse rabid Clinton hating by Republicans with approval by Democrats. The fact that we don't hallucinate murders or hold him responsible for the criminal actions of conservative corporate CEO's -- as Republicans have -- doesn't mean we actually like him much.

Re:Quick Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to burst your bubble or anything, but wasn't the DMCA introduced by Democrats (signed by a Democrat president, at least)? And isn't Hollings a Democrat too?

I think both parties are corrupted, and will do pretty much whatever their campaign sponsors want them to.

I'd personally recommend voting for one of the other parties if at all possible. Or vote to keep the Senate and House at about 50% Democrat and 50% Republican and keep the idiots fighting about just how to eliminate our rights, rather than one side pushing through DMCA-style bills relatively unopposed. Or if you want to vote for a Democrat or Republican candidate, make sure you know what their personal voting record and/or opinions are about things, rather than vote blindly based on whose party has the fewest idiots. Voting the next Hollings into office because his party has a "better" record is pretty stupid.

Re:Quick Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Most democrats consider bill clinton "The Best Republican President we ever had". The truth is, the political climate has shifted so far to the right that most of the mainstream liberals are somewhere in the center. But seriously, look at those numbers:
rez@service01:~$ cat t | grep R- | wc -l
74
rez@service01:~$ cat t | grep D- | wc -l
19
(lazy mans way of counting)

They don't lie. I'm so sick of everyone pissing and moaning about Gore's infamous "I invented the internet". Why? Because its not a direct quote, he's never said it and not a single republican whose ever quoted it infront of me could come up with proof its a direct quote. I even saw it used on slashdot today... How shameful.

Yes, Micheal Moore has it right: Democrats and Republicans are essentially the same. They're two groups who control our government with the backing of big business. The difference is the extent they're willing to sell their souls to industry. And whilst near 80% of the republicans sold out on thw issue of internet rights (free speech, fair use etc) only 20% of the democrats did. So maybe I am a troll, maybe this is flamebait but still - the numbers don't lie!

Re:Quick Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Democrats are hardly consumer friendly. They keep taxing us to death, and taxes take away from our descretionary income. The less money we have, the less consuming we can do. Talk about anti-choice.

"Look at 'em. We're going to tax their ass off." - whispered by Walter Mondale to Congressman Dan "Rosty" Rostenkowski on stage at the 1984 Democratic National Convention, as he gazed out at a sea of cheering Democrats

Re:Quick Summary

[Jason Earl]

What? You think that money doesn't play a role in politics in other countries? That's hilarious.

Most of the people that I have seen complaining about U.S. politics are folks that never bother to vote. People that vote realize that there is a lot more to a successful campaign than spreading money around. Don't believe me, get involved in your local political scene.

Re:Quick Summary

[Angst Badger]

Remember that Bill Clinton -- the gift of god to Democrats

This Democrat didn't think he was the gift of god. I thought he was a dangerously immature jerk who sabotaged liberalism in general by smearing it with his outrageously stupid public behavior. His primary contribution to history was making Rush Limbaugh seem reasonable by comparison. Now we're stuck with a public that has swallowed the Prime Directive of the GOP: "Having lots of money makes people virtuous and trustworthy."

Re:Quick Summary

[bperkins]

Appened is an ugly perl hack job that counts up who's responsible for what. I was interesed int he two types of bills, the "What About The Children?" (watc) type (CIPA,COPA and CDA), and "In The Pocket Of The Media" (itpotm) (P2P, DMCA and CBDTPA).

Total: D:19 R:74

Sponsored more than one:2 R:7

Sponsored the DMCA D:3 R:7

itpotm D:9 R:9

watc D:11 R:69

If I haven't made any mistakes, You can see that the republican party is mostly responsible for watc bills, while the Dems are more responsible for the itpotm bills, in fact, given a Republican majority in the House, the Dems have more than their fair share. I believe this is because the media centers are primarily democratic.

OTOH, Republicans are more responsible for the DMCA, which is the most egregious of them all.

Just cat the list of reps to the program to get a tally, if the program gets confused it will stop.

#!/usr/bin/perl -n
#Make sure you don't put in any extra space
# or the program will quit
1; /\(([DR])\-.* (\d) bill/||die;

$party=$1; $b=$2 ;$foo{$1}++;$_=<>;
($2>1) && $morethan1{$party}++ ; /DMCA/&&$dmca{$party}++ ;
(/P2P/||/DMCA/||/CBDTPA/)&&( $MPAA{$party}++ );
(/CIPA/||/COPA/||/CDA/)&&($watc{$party}++) ;

END{
print "bad D:".$foo{D}." R:".$foo{R}."\n";
print "very bad D:".$morethan1{D}." R:".$morethan1{R}."\n";
print"dmca D:".$dmca{D}." R:".$dmca{R}."\n";
print"itpotm D:".$MPAA{D}." R:".$MPAA{R}."\n";
print"watc D:".$watc{D}." R:".$watc{R}."\n";

}

Re:Quick Summary

[kingbill]

I think I must have missed something here. I'm a Utahn who supported Hatch in the 2000 election, but decided not to support him when I discovered he was the sole sponsor of the DMCA in the Senate. I wrote him a few letters about technology and copyright laws and all I got back were letters saying "That's why I sponsored the DMCA." What has he done that was so friendly to technological freedom. The truth is hatch is in for life in Utah, and it makes little difference, but I'd like to know why I should support him in the future since that seems to be a prevalent opinion.

Re:Quick Summary

[rTough]

Let's hope that's not anywhere here in Europe.... The countries in EU is currently working on how to change legislation in order to match a proposal for the European Comission from last year I think. It's pretty much a DCMA for Europe.

A plan to incorporate this piece into existing law should be place in every EU country by 22'nd of november. For once it seems like were late here in Sweden, but unfortunatly I don't think it's beacuse they are thinking about how to do it. If you take a look at how we implemented this type of legislation before (PUL) it will pretty much be the the most hardline implementation of the law possible.

And since there haven't been much of a discussion in this issue, I would probably think that Europe will be lost some time next year.

I think I'm staring to understand what drives some young people to use force, instead of the normal political way (voting). One can't help starting to feel a bit tired of not getting any attention. But then again one probably should try again.

So, if you're thinking of moving away from DMCA atleast Europe shouldn't be one of your choices.

PS. I is a bit late I didn't have the time to search for references to either the upcoming legislation or the Swedish implementaion of Personal information on the Net (PUL) so if someone would like to fill out the blanks please do.

Re:Quick Summary

[PaganRitual]

whatever you do ... DONT MOVE TO AUSTRALIA ... we have tried to implement all sorts of those type of bullshit laws ... and besides, john howard wants us to be like a cross between australia was 60 years ago, and america now ... oh yeah, and if you ever want to play a 'mature' game over here unedited (eg gta3) forget it ... the bunch of ignorants at the OFLC mindlessly ban or demand the censoring of anything that involves beating up people for money (gta3) or even a hint of breast action (bmx xxx)

Re:Quick Summary

[rleibman]

So, by your measurement, only 25% of democrats are only as bad as republicans. That still makes 25% percent of them bad, not good numbers to base a decision (if you are the kind of sheep who votes a straight party ticket just because your dady voted that way).
Stop deceiving yourself. There's NO essential difference between democrats and republicans: tweedly-dum, tweedly-dummer.
The republicans have done little to stop the growth of government in the economic sector. The democrats have done little to stop the growth of government in the corporate or social sector. They are THE SAME.

Vote for a party with consistent principles.

Personally I vote libertarian, but would not blame you for voting green, socialist or any third party with a platform that stays put and doesn't change with the polls.

Re:Quick Summary

[dh003i]

My basic point was that both parties (considered as a whole) are evil from everyone's pov in that they represent corporate interests and the IP industry (software, movies, music, etc) more than their constituents. However, despite the flaws of the way both parties act (most aggregious is the way they've conspired to keep 3rd parties off the ballot, thus preventing any real chance), some individuals in each party stand out as different.

I particularly like Orin Hatch (R) and Rick Boucher (D) as stand-out guys who support some sanity; i.e., oppose the neverending expansions in both the scope and duration of intellectual property, and oppose alot of the anti-consumer anti-digital rights laws, such as the DMCA.

Most Libertarians tend to be good on almost all the issues I'm concerned with, though being a little bit cooky on some issues (as much as I hate taxes, we do need taxes in society).

The point is that people shouldn't vote on party lines. Anyone who agrees with all of the tenants of one party is a zealous idiot who's obviously never thought a minute in his or her life, and shouldn't be voting anyways. Even such a idiot shouldn't vote along party lines, because not all Republicans stick to the tenants of the Republican party (refer to mavericks like Hatch and McCain).

People should look at what each candidate has done in his or her past, and compare that to what they say they're going to do in the future. If these two things don't mesh, they're liars and you shouldn't vote for them. If they have a history of defaulting on campaign promises (more-so-than usual), then they're liars and you shouldn't vote for them. If what they say they'll do and what they do matches up, and if you agree with them, then you should vote for them. If what they say they'll do and what they do matches up, and if you disagree with them, then you shouldn't vote for them.

Proper voting is all about finding the (wo)man who's positions on various issues match your's as closely as possible, accounting for what you think is important.

Here's a brief an incomplete checklist for myself:

1. Abortion. I'm 100% Pro-Choice all the way, and support the right to choose at any time during a pregnancy (though I think that if its late, modern technology should be used to keep the fetus alive). I won't vote for anyone who doesn't support the absolute right to choose, without any hindrance from doctors or husbands/boyfriends, for at least the first trimester.

2. Prostitution. I support the right of a (wo)man to be a prostitute. Her body, her choice, as with abortion. Unfortunately, because our politicians both Democrat and Republican have been brainwashed by Christians, few of them support the right to prostitution. This is why I'm glad for Libertarians. In practice, I'll vote for whoever I deem most likely to be concerned with prostitutes rights, and who-ever's most likely to take steps towards legalizing what should be a basic freedom.

3. Euthanasia. This is one I'm adamant about, and one of the few issues for which I have no tolerance of the opposite side of the idea. I won't vote for anyone who is against euthanasia. My grandmother's brother (my great uncle) died a horrible death, suffering excruciating pain, as cancer paralized him. I hope that anyone who is against euthanasia meets a slow ending as horrible as they'd inflict on those who want to end their lives. Perhaps if Ronald Reagan had known he was going to spend his last years as a babbling moron who doesn't even remember he was President, he'd have supported the right to euthanasia.

4. "Animal rights". I hate this crap, especially the extreme positions espoused by PETA. I consider these animal-rigths nutcases to be just as fanatical as the anti-choice fetus-freaks. They prove my case by engaging in the same type of activity that anti-choice people engage in: blowing up buildings, breaking and entering, and other illegal activities. I don't give a flying fuck if an animal feels pain because of some experiment, or even if some angry person throws a dog out of a car into an oncoming traffic lane. Doesn't mean I'd be cruel to animals; cruelty without cause is stupidity, as Erwin Rommel once said.

5. Intellectual property. I support the drastic scaling back of both the scope and duration of all current forms of IP. I also think that many things currently covered by IP shouldn't be. If a candidate agrees with me on this issue (i.e., Orrin Hatch, Rick Boucher) that's a big plus. If they disagree with me, its a big minus. Again, this is an area where both parties have been bribed and blackmailed by special interests; this time, its the corporate interests. This is part of why I consider myself to be a Libertarian.

6. Digital freedoms. Tied into #5. I'm also against any restriction of our digital freedoms; refer to the anti-P2P bill by Fritz Hollings. The right to privacy and freedom of speech should be just as sacred online as it is in the real world.

7. Freedom of speach. I strongly support the right to freedom of speach. Thus, I am against any censorship laws (especially the vague "community standards of decency and properiety"). I am also against defamation laws, which only serve as tools of the rich to silence criticism.

8. Privacy. Again, I strongly support this right, both online and in the real world. I believe that new Amendments need to be passed to clarify the strong position of freedom of speach and privacy; the founding father's never imagined infra-red privacy-violations. They had a non-resolutional agreement, because these issues never arose in their time. In all cases, intrusions on privacy must be supported by a court order with good cause.

9. Clarity of the law and shortness of the law. Laws are vague because they use bullshit pretentious language and are written by lawyers to be understood by lawyers only. The tax code is some 29,000 pages long. Laws should be short and clear. They should be perfectly understandable by any literate person within a standard deviant of the average intelligence level. What politicians and lawyers have done is conspire to make laws impossible to understand by the average person, requiring fees to lawyers to interpret and understand it. Also, some laws are so poorly written that their exact meaning isn't even known by the best lawyers. Thesea are all bad laws and should be stricken immediately. We shouldn't wait until someone's head is on the chopping block to decide what a law means or if its constitutional (that's basically the way our current system works). Also immoral and unconstitutional is the way that politicians can now draft laws for specific individuals or groups of people. Refer to The Case Against Lawyers by Catherine Crier. Critics disparge it for being a "laymans" treatment of the topic; but they're the same evil lawyers who want everything written so that only lawyers can understand it.

10. Our constitutional system. As alluded to in #9, our current system is messed up. We have to wait until someone's life is on the line before we can decide if a law is constitutional. What bullshit is that? The minute a question arises about the constitutionality of a law, it should be challenged in court. This is the way it works in Germany, and its very good. Unclear laws should immediately be strucken down by courts. If two lawyers need to debate about what a law means, its unclear and unconstitutional, and should be struck down. Void for vagueness. The right to choose was only affirmed after Roe had already had her child; thus, after that right had been denied her.

11. Taxes. We already pay enough money to the government. If that's not enough, too bad. The government always whines about how its needs arent' being met. Cut some of your needs. Don't punish citizens because government officials are too incompetent to get results with the enormous amounts of money we give them. Also on taxes, I support eliminating this lawyers tax-code, and replacing it with a one-tax system: you get taxed on your income alone. Nothing else. This would save billions in paperwork and IRS investigations. It would also save taxpayers, because they wouldn't have to either hire lawyers or spend hours deciphering tax forms. The amount of taxes you pay should be directly proportional to the percent of the national GNP that you account for. If you account for twice as much as the GNP as the next person, then you should pay twice the percentage tax as they do. Thus, the income tax you should pay should be proportional to $earned * $earned/GNP.

There are many others, but the point is, I know exactly what my position is on each issue, and vote for the person who's closest to my overal political outlook. Other people should do likewise. That requires making a list of the issues and figuring out (and re-evaluating regularly) what your position is on each issue.

Re:Quick Summary

[rleibman]

Thank you. I couldn't have said it better myself (though I tried before reading your post.) rleibman Libertarian Candidate, California State Assembly

Re:Quick Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

America is a multiparty system. The two dominant parties control the system and they will not give up that control. The _only_ peaceful change will occur after people start voting for third party candidates.

Re:Quick Summary

[mverrilli]

They don't lie. I'm so sick of everyone pissing and moaning about Gore's infamous "I invented the internet". Why? Because its not a direct quote, he's never said it and not a single republican whose ever quoted it infront of me could come up with proof its a direct quote. I even saw it used on slashdot today... How shameful.

I'm not a fan of Democrats, but the quote is:

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system." -- Gore March 9, 1999 ...and obviously he isn't saying he invented it... just that he had some role in creating it. (Although he makes it sound more than it probably was, IMO).

Re:Quick Summary

[Bob Vila's Hammer]

One of them is definitely more consumer friendly than the other.

Free blowjobs are the epitome of friendly consumerism.

Re:Quick Summary

[drinkypoo]

A Libertarian would never pass any law to stifle the Internet, and would never let the government pass protectionist laws for corporate lobbies.

A Libertarian would never pass any law to promote the internet, and would never let the government spend funding on such a venture. As such, if the world were in the hands of the libertarians, we wouldn't have had one at all until it became so obvious and cheap that companies would have put one together themselves.

Which means, it still might not be there.

Re:Quick Summary

[squiggleslash]

Yeah, I agree with that pretty much. I'll vote for you.

Oh, damn, you're not standing? ;-)

Re:Quick Summary

[bnenning]

The truth is, the political climate has shifted so far to the right that most of the mainstream liberals are somewhere in the center.

I only wish. What on earth are you basing this on? Democrats and Republicans are rushing to create new entitlement programs for prescription drugs, Bush worked with Ted Kennedy to create a massive federal education bill, and government spending as a percentage of GDP is perpetually increasing.

I'm so sick of everyone pissing and moaning about Gore's infamous "I invented the internet".

So am I, because it diverts attention from more serious matters such as his cheerleading for the Clipper Chip and cryptography bans. Likewise I was annoyed with the Clinton/Monica fiasco because it diverted attention from his possibly criminal dealings with China (and as we know now, his ineptitude with North Korea).

Re:Quick Summary

[Linux_ho]

Remember that Bill Clinton -- the gift of god to Democrats -- gave his blessings to the DMCA; he didn't oppose it, he didn't criticize it, he didn't veto it.

Remember that the DMCA was passed almost unanimously by both Democrats and Republicans...

The DMCA was passed 100% unanimously in the senate, IIRC

Re:Quick Summary

[bnenning]

They don't lie.

Yes, they do. Look at how many Republicans are on the list only for co-sponsoring COPA. Certainly this is not admirable, but counting each of them as equal in badness to Fritz Hollings is just a bit misleading.

Re:Quick Summary

[Dolly_Llama]

rez@service01:~$ cat t | grep R- | wc -l
74
rez@service01:~$ cat t | grep D- | wc -l
19

Hey, it's Unix! I know this!

Re:Quick Summary

[DAldredge]

If you included all that voted for the DMCA it would make the D's look as bad as the R's.

Re:Quick Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, as I said to another poster, why would Clinton veto it, if he knew that it would still be passed into law anyway? Of course, looking at that post, you either don't reread what you write, or you don't know much about the U.S. government(which is ok, if you're not an American). Let's say Clinton vetoed it, it goes back to congress, where there is another vote, as long as there is a 2/3 majority, the law is passed, since it was passed almost unanimously, of course it would've become a law. Now, if you were President, would you veto a bill that would pass anyway, hurting your political career(yes, I know, he did some other stupid stuff that hurt it for him), or agree, and save face? Personally, I don't like cutting off the nose to spite the face.

Re:Quick Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Hate to burst your bubble, but al gore's quote is direct.

Re:Quick Summary

[Skjellifetti]

One of the reasons why I am not a Libertatrian is that there are too many like you -- absolutists who do not understand that the world is full of complex shades of grey and not just black and white. You sound too much like the far right and far left fanatics who put ideology and theory above anything else.

Take the prostitution example. How many prostitutes have you met who chose to become prostitutes voluntarily. For many (most?) they had no choice at all because they have abusive boyfriends or employers who forced the choice on them. So, ya, sure a woman should be able to "choose" prostitution. Except the police can't control abusive spouses in most places, so why do you think we can here?

Re:Quick Summary

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

You've given me a cool idea.

www.howdoivote.com

It's a list of bills that each candidate in your area voted on, and radio buttons for yay or nay. Oh - and a plain-english version of each of the bills. You can choose to count absents as a -1 or a 0. Click submit, and the selections of the candidates is compared to yours, and you get told how to vote (with a "view results" button for those busybodies who want to know why). This would cause some trouble for people who haven't been elected before, but between two experienced politicians, it might work well.

Re:Quick Summary

[dh003i]

Human rights are absolute. And yes, they mean putting ourselves at risk sometimes. There may be shades of grey, but that doesn't mean we can't have a solid position on what is right and what is wrong. Shades of grey do not justify a legal system which impossible for the average person to understand, which is written by and for lawyers to make the best of. What justifies making some dying person suffer because of your morality? But that's my opinion, and I vote based on it. Realize it or not, everyone -- if you pin them down -- is an absolutist. They have a particular opinion on something and stick to that firmly until convinced otherwise.

And lets be frank, I'm not talking about some pie-in-the-sky ideology; I'm talking about things which would work easily. Its not fanatical to ask for clear laws, and to ask that the government respect our right to do with we will with our own bodies, so long as we don't harm others (refer to prostitution, stripping, abortion, euthanasia, gay-rights). What's fanatical is this Christian war against our right to our body on all fronts. Everywhere you turn, Christians are against our right to body. They don't want homosexuals to be able to carry out their relations. They don't want prostitutes and strippers to engage in their profession. They want to prevent dying people in constant pain from ending their misery. Some of them even want to prevent a man and a wife from having non-reproductive sex. They want to turn women into walking incubators by forcing them to give birth, which is the equivalent of rape, and no better than what's done in China, where some women are forced to have abortions. Everywhere you turn in matters of the body, Christians are the enemy of happiness and the friend of misery. Sufficed to say, the religious right is the reason I'm not a Republican. Also sufficed to say, the nutcases at PETA (among many other reasons) are enough to prevent me from being a democrat.

I never said that prostitution should be unregulated and you're criticisms of it in and of itself are absurd.

How many prostitutes have you met who chose to become prostitutes voluntarily.

I'm not speaking in terms of the desireability or lack-thereof of the profession. Ideally, everyone would like to make a living doing something like writing books as Crichton does, which offers lots of money and little stress.

How many people do you know who wanted to become strippers? or janitors? or trashmen? or waiters? or life-time employees of McDonalds saying "do you want fries with that?"? Prostitution is just one among many choices. It has advantages (i.e., much higher pay for the same amount of time) and disadvantages (i.e., social stigma by Christian zealots). You seem to be saying that it should be illegal because its undesireable. Firstly, its desireability is a matter of opinion -- some people might like it. Secondly, many professions are undesireable. Even if a prostitute is a prostitute because (s)he doesn't have much in the way of intelligence, so what? (S)he's making use of his or her gifts. If someone's pretty (or sexually talented) why shouldn't they use that to their advantage. I'm a researcher and not a star in the NBA. Why? Because I'm not particularly physical and I don't have a good aim.

Sure, some women are forced into prostitution by the external actions of others. That doesn't mean we illegalize prostitution. That means we illegalize the types of abuse that allow one person to force another into becoming a prostitute -- i.e., violence, assault, threat of violence, etc. More than a hundred years ago, women and children were put in sweatshops and treated cruelly to make garmets. Did that mean that the government should ban the making of garmets (clothes)? No, of course not, what a stupid idea. That meant the government should ban sweat shops.

The reason police can't control abusive spouses is because women refuse to step forward. Yes, when you allow yourself to be victomized and even protect your victimizer (as many battered wives do) its hard for the police to prosecute that person and protect you.

And if police can't control abusive spouses, how is banning prostitution going to help them? Its not. Its only going to hurt those who were forced into it, according to you, because now they'll be abused by their husbands and ran through by our legal system. Stop trying to say you're banning prostitution for the sake of the prostitutes. Putting someone in jail for an activity which doesn't hurt anyone is not helping them.

If you want to help prostitutes who are abused, raped, or forced into the profession, then you should be working to stop such instances of abuse, not trying to ban prostitution. An abused wife might be forced into stripping, waiting tables, or any other "undesireable" profession (in her view) by her spouse; that doesn't mean we should ban those professions. That means we should illegalize such spousal abuses and enforce these laws as best we can.

The arguments against legalized (and regulated -- obviously protection should be required, as should std-testing) prostitution just don't hold up. You're argument that we illegalize it to protect the women is flawed; we can protect the women by other means, and putting someone in jail for something which harms no one is not "protecting them". The feminist argument that it degrades women is hogwash: some women find it offensive, other's don't. In no case, does the actions and decisions of one woman reflect upon another. Nor is it logical to say that just because some women choose to be prostitutes, that degrades all women in the eyes of men. If you're a feminist and you have a problem with prostitution, then choose another profession; but don't violate other women's rights. The Christian arguments are so unworthy they're not even worth mentioning any further.

Re:Quick Summary

[OneEyedApe]

Your commentary would undoubtably piss off both the right, the left, and a great deal of moderates. But I have just one thing to say: Thank You. It is a great comfort to know that there is at least one person out there who really thinks, and tries to find a reasonable and practical point of view.

Re:Quick Summary

[AnotherScratchMonkey]

A Libertarian would never pass any law to promote the internet, and would never let the government spend funding on such a venture. As such, if the world were in the hands of the libertarians, we wouldn't have had one at all until it became so obvious and cheap that companies would have put one together themselves.

But you would be free to spend the money you save in taxes on an internet. Or are you so cheap and so sure that the internet is a bad idea that you wouldn't invest?

And notice all the big commercial companies that are investing in development of free software.

The Internet didn't really take off until someone figured out a way to distribute pictures on it for the couch potatoes. And I'd estimate that a large fraction of those pictures are porn. Thank Larry Flynt, not Uncle Sam, for the Internet.

Re:Quick Summary

[DIGITAiLor]

It would rock if candidates were required to answer an issues survey before race entrance, which would then be posted online. Then selfless guardians could actually follow the pols actions on the issues and post accordingly. You could even caluculate a hypocrisy factor! Anyone know of implementations of this? I'd love to have more info than horrible campaign ads and biased media outlets...voting tomorrow would be much more fun if I could get geeky on it with info!

Re:Quick Summary

[crucini]

And whilst near 80% of the republicans sold out on thw issue of internet rights (free speech, fair use etc) only 20% of the democrats did.

In that case, you should be able to name at least one Democrat who voted against the DMCA or the CTEA.

Re:Quick Summary

[sroddy]

Not so fast...

The Democrats receive WAY more funding from the entertainment industry. I hate people that grab one issue and then run only with that one issue and never look at the big picture.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.as p? Ind=B02&recipdetail=A&sortorder=U&Cycle=Al l

Personally, I am a registered Libertarian, but I vote Republican. The Democrats have done far more damage to this country than the Repulicans. The Democrats are the reason I am paying for all of the unemployed asses and their grandmothers damned doctor bills. When the Democrats leave my paycheck and my guns alone, I will vote Democrat. Until then, fuck 'em.

Re:Quick Summary

[evilpenguin]

While I agree with you that party line voting produces generally undesirable results, this election more than any other is a possibility for massive change. Voter turnout may be as low as 30%. That means that a mere 15% of adults eleigble to vote will select the winning candidate. Unless you are non-voter and you can get another non-voting friend to join you in voting for a third party. If you are of a conservative bent, go Libertarian or Constitution party. If, like me, you have a more liberal bias, go Green party. If just 3 in 10 non-voters turns out for a third party, there would be a new majority party in the house.

The major parties could certainly use a shock like that.

So, please, do not sit idly by, even if you haven't done the homework the parent poster suggests. You have the power. Check the web site for your local newspaper. You can probably learn enough to make reasonable decisions from those capsule descriptions of candidates and races. You can follow through to the actual candidate web sites.

Political parties were originally created to allow voters who knew nothing about the candidate to make a vote. This worked for many years. It fails utterly today because the modern process of "audience research" used to create a candidates "principles" produces Democrats who look vaguely Republican and Republicans who look vaguely Democratic. I'm fortunate to come from a state with a long history of maverick (some say bizzare) politicians (Minnesota). We've had multiple third-party legislators and governors. Our Democratic party is called the DFL as a result of a merger between the Democrats and a third party called the Farmer/Labor party. We know full well that the "election scientists" can be dead wrong. The nationally famous election of Ventura was preceeded by the much less known election of Arne Carlson, a Republican, who was elected by a last-minute write-in campaign. That's right. Jesse Ventura's predecessor was elected (the first time) on a write-in.

We know nothing is impossible and every vote counts. It really does. I know from several years off and on with /. that there are a lot of political issues that mean something to people on this forum. If you care about Free Software or the DMCA, DRM, better roads, prescription drugs, anti-terrorism, encryption, privacy, preventive detention, human rights, liberty, free speech, anything where the power of the state may intervene for or against your interests, then you should vote.

Voting is your most powerful, if also your bluntest instrument. You should do more than vote, you should write to your office-holders about those aforementioned issues. But don't throw away your most powerful tool just because you don't like the choices, or don't feel you are as informed as someone says you should be. If you really feel that way, promise to do better next time. The whole House is up again in just two years, and if you're voting for a senator, he or she will be up again in six. Term limits? We don't need 'em if you will VOTE. We have term limits. They're called elections. If, as I said way back in this rant, only 15% of the citizens are choosing our government, why are we surprised that our government isn't living up to our expectations? Change that number!!

Re:Quick Summary

[ProfessorPuke]

A Libertarian would never pass any law to stifle the Internet, and would never let the government pass protectionist laws for corporate lobbies.
Nope, Libertarians wouldn't pass any laws at all. In fact they'd defer any but the most fundamental ("force 'n fraud") regulations to private-sector agreements.

That means corporations wouldn't have to lobby for restrictions and go through the motions of democratic involvement- they could just write the "laws" directly.

Seriously, government created copyright was only needed because it's a better alternative than corporate-copyright. Major publishing houses could enforce their own brand of IP by making you buy a "club membership" before purchasing any books. As you sign up, you contractually promise never to copy or resell (or maybe even share) anything they give you. Violation means a stiff fee, revocation of the license, and maybe a blacklisting from other publishers. And of course the cost of this enforcement is passed on to the customer.

Why should publishers make such contracts anything but indefinite? No expiration from copyright into the public domain- if the contract expires or is invalidated, you'll just have to destroy your copies (as they were now obtained by fraud).

Yes, there'd be some free-market pressure to keep the licenses tolerable. The same kind of pressure voters/consumers apply to congress/companies today.

Libertarians are no panacea. In practice, their solutions will wind up to be effectively identical to what a liberal democracy would do (with the same levels of resources and technology). There may be a +/- 5% margin of difference, but we can't predict if that small factor would be for good or ill.

(The "capital L" Libertarian movement is infeasible utopianism, nonetheless I've often supported them, because Congress deserves a reminder that we still value liberty)

Re:Quick Summary

[Xuther]

Thanks for posting the breakdown, that's a lot more informative than the original parent post.

Mod parent up!

Re:Quick Summary

[Rogerborg]

An admirable strategy, but there's one flaw. Your carefully researched vote counts for exactly as much as the one by the guy that voted Republican because his daddy whupped the tar of out him for asking why Democrats weren't better. Or as much as the women that voted Democrat because she believes they'll give her more money for her tribe of little miracles (Destiny Savanah, Connor Storm, Shoshwana Madonna, Keanu Misisssipi [sic])...), or the guy that was drunk, or the woman that couldn't remember which one favoured taxing her SUV less...

The problem with democracy is that it relies on the average person, and Slashdotters (with a few exceptions) are above average. For every one of us bulging brains, there's a herd of sub-100 IQ goobers, each and every one of whom has a vote that counts just as much as ours.

If you want to know why we've got a system that returns the second worst candidate, as yourself who exactly it is that's shouting advice at the tiny people on WWF, Jerry Springer and Oprah. Registered voters, that's who.

Re:Quick Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

7. Freedom of speach. I strongly support the right to freedom of speach.

See, this is why we need more taxes: so that we can teach people like you how to spell one-syllable words.

Re:Quick Summary

[GigsVT]

What are you talking about? Copyright is in the constitution, and therefore a Libretarian government would support it.

Re:Quick Summary

[poot_rootbeer]

A Libertarian would never pass any law to promote the internet, and would never let the government spend funding on such a venture.

A Libertarian would never pass any law, because even when they do get elected they're pretty much ineffectual. The major parties don't pay any mind to a lawmaker who doesn't "play the game".

If you're fed up with "the game" too, by all means vote Libertarian. But just keep in mind that the party has been around for 20 years, and it will be at least another 20 before it gains enough legitimacy to actually have an effect on lawmaking.

Re:Quick Summary

[ProfessorPuke]

I don't know where you get the idea that "capital L" Libertarians support the constitution. Maybe these "Libretarian"s you speak of are a subtle variant of Libertarians.

The lowercased word, as found in your dictionary, means "a supporter of personal freedom".

The uppercased word means either a vague political movement or an American political party.

The names of political parties are mostly just branding- the dictionary definitions of "republican" and "democrat" have little to do with the partys' platforms- no moreso than products called "Zest", "Brawny", or "Coca-Cola" really describe what you're buying.

If you have some other definition of "Libertarian" beyond what is presented on those 2 websites, then I guess we're talking about something else, and you can stop reading here (but I suggest you stop using terms that others will misunderstand).

Now, Libertarian Party candidates might claim they support the Constitution- or rather that they will obey the Constitution, until such time (in a distant, imaginary future) when they have sufficient national majority to pass amendments to re-write it to their liking.

But if anything, they just support the first line of the Declaration of Independence, which is paraphrased on
their statment of principles. Reading that page, you can find this line in principle #2:

we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain

This is in conflict with a number of parts of the consitution, such as "Congress shall regulate commerce with foreign nations", or Amendment V,
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
which, by requiring it to be compensated, implicitly permits confiscation and eminent domain.

The copyright clause of the Constitution is also a form of "government interference with private property", and thus something Libertarians will oppose. If they consider "Intellectual Property" to be property, and covered under their principle, then the "for a limited time" statement amounts to a declaration of intent to eventually confiscated and nationalize said property. They won't support the Constition on that score.

Or, if a particular Libertarian decides "Intellectual Property is a fiction of the state, and my government will have no part of it", then there's principle #3: ...we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form

and platform #10:
We defend the rights of individuals to unrestricted freedom of speech,

That means they don't want the government telling you what you can't print. So then they don't want the government telling me that I can't reprint some author's works without his say-so.

Of course, "Libertarians" always support your right to abridge your own rights via contract. Which is why in a hypothetical Libertarian world, corporations would be able to write their own virtual-copyright law, in the form of a giant web of publisher-to-consumer contracts.

I could go on and on, and any of these principles and platforms could be argued either way, but the fundamental point is that just because something's in the US Constitution doesn't mean the Libertarian Party will support it. Whether that's good or bad is up to you.

Re:Quick Summary

[Rakarra]

Yes, Micheal Moore has it right: Democrats and Republicans are essentially the same. They're two groups who control our government with the backing of big business. The difference is the extent they're willing to sell their souls to industry.

And also which industries they're willing to sell to.

Re:Quick Summary

[lordaych]

Did I miss something, or did you just imply that electing Orrin Hatch "out of office" would be a bad thing, while in the same post imply that you are against the restriction of civil liberties insofar as people are entitled to use drugs, see hookers, be gay, and so on and so forth? If you uphold these civil libertarian viewpoints, you should be appalled by the fact that Orrin Hatch was behind the so-called "Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act" that deigned to outlaw all information regarding the manufacture, production, and consumption of legal drugs. This is the same Orrin Hatch who staunchly defends the "health food supplement" industry, which has killed far more people than marijuana ever will thanks to the fact that people completely misunderstand the simple fact that "herbal supplement" does not necessarily mean "harmless substance." In essense he is against all illegal drugs (though he veiled it behind "methamphetamine") while he stands behind legal but arugably equally dangerous substances such as ephedra and yohimbe (combine those two and watch your brain go pop). Orrin Hatch is a fucked up old buffoon, regardless of his views on IP laws and whatnot.

Re:Quick Summary

[lordaych]

Correction: 'If you uphold these civil libertarian viewpoints, you should be appalled by the fact that Orrin Hatch was behind the so-called "Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act" that deigned to outlaw all information regarding the manufacture, production, and consumption of il legal drugs.'

Re:Quick Summary

[Corporate Gadfly]

|> rez@service01:~$ cat t | grep R- | wc -l
|> 74
|> rez@service01:~$ cat t | grep D- | wc -l
|> 19

| Hey, it's Unix! I know this!


Maybe. It seems like it's Unix where the OP likes to waste processes. He could have done the same with:

grep R- t | wc -l

American ./ers unite

[sprprsnmn]

With the election being just around the corner, this is the chance for we the people to show those we allow to run our country how we feel we should be ruled. Nothing will put a stop to these bills faster than votes in the other candidate's ballot box.

No offense to those not US citizens. In fact, use my state (LA)'s motto (vote early, and vote often), and vote too, esp. if you are dead!

Re:American ./ers unite

[shatfield]

Just because you get more votes, doesn't mean you win.

It usually comes down to how much money is involved.

It's all about the Benjamins.

Re:American ./ers unite

[M.C. Hampster]

Just because you get more votes, doesn't mean you win.

You moron, that's exactly how one wins a congressional seat. You can try to sound real witty and "in the know" with stupid comments like "It's all about the Benjamins", but you still sound like a moron.

Re:American ./ers unite

[DeltaSigma]

Well he fooled me. I thought he was in the know.

I have an excuse though!

I was in a state of confusion trying to figure out what a dotslasher is. Are they our arch-nemesis or something? Does microsoft run a dotslash website?

Re:American ./ers unite

[shatfield]

I used to think that it was all about the votes -- you know, people come in, write on a peice of paper (or punch out a little hole). Then the papers were all gathered up and tallied.. whoever got the most votes wins. Right?

Welp, not true. Gore got more votes than Bush did. Bush's buddies in government elected him. It certainly wasn't the people of the United States.

Yes, it really is all about the Benjamins

Re:American ./ers unite

[M.C. Hampster]

Welp, not true. Gore got more votes than Bush did.

BZZZT, try again. I said that congressional races were determines by the majority of votes. Obviously, the Presidential campaign is not the same way. We all know that the electoral college elects the President, with the states selecting different ways to pick those electors (some have take all slates of electors, others allocate them based on counties, etc.).

I realize for Bush haters that is a tough reality to swallow, but alas, it is true.

Follow the Money

[lildogie]

When will we ever learn the lessons that Microsoft has to teach us?

Microsoft Justice(TM) and Microsoft Congress(TM) are the market leaders. More people pay more money for Microsoft Government(TM) products than any other brand.

Don't be fooled by the also-ran brands. You'll find that you'll end up thinking harder and making more decisions with those so-called "open", no-owner forms of representation.

If the legal corruption problems with Microsoft-based government were as bad as they're made out to be, why are Microsoft Government(TM) products raking in so many profits?

Go with the market leader!

Internet Laws by Politicians

[Anonymous Coward]

It still strikes me as odd that politicians can create laws that govern so much of what goes on through the internet, when they have no knowledge of it themselves. I feel like they are trying to regulate it in a similar way as television. However, the internet isn't just in the United States. It's also throughout the whole world. How can we decree what other countries must follow? This is a conondrum that needs to be addressed in it's own arena, separate from the real world, because it is not the real world. If politicians are able to expand their powers through limiting action on the internet, then what's to stop them from gradually throwing out the constitution altogether?
Besides that, I feel that there is too much trust when it comes to the internet. I don't trust media companies, why should they have the right to hack into anyone's computer? I really hope that people are able to keep ridiculus laws from being enacted that are only made by the politicians as ways of gathering support (and money) when they are so far reaching (As the article says). Well. I guess I agree with them.

Re:Internet Laws by Politicians

[FatRatBastard]

It still strikes me as odd that politicians can create laws that govern so much of what goes on through the internet, when they have no knowledge of it themselves.

It is the nature of politicians: they don't know a lot of stuff (granted, in the grand scheme of things neither do I, but I'm not empowered to pass legislation directly).

That's why I love gridlock. Let the bastards argue all day and all night. The less laws they pass the better.

Re:Internet Laws by Politicians

[Anonymous Coward]

It still strikes me as odd that politicians can create laws that govern so much of what goes on through the internet, when they have no knowledge of it themselves
Not just the internet. Any technology from the last decade. They're not engineers, and they're not prepared to understand technical issues. Not that most engineers I know would be able to handle the full gamut of lawmaking. All the same, we need to do our best to educate our representatives about how these things are such bad ideas. Otherwise they'll just follow the money and doom us to a world that just sucks a bit more.
-Thorn

Re:Internet Laws by Politicians

[Anonymous Coward]

Silly rabbit, the US controls the internet AND the world. If they do not adhere to our rules then we will crush them!!!

Re:Internet Laws by Politicians

[demo9orgon]

Hey, does the original poster of this work write for a term-paper mill? Thank you for your contribution to...this intercourse.

It still strikes me as odd that politicians can create laws that govern so much of what goes on through intercourse, when they have no knowledge of it themselves. I feel like they are trying to regulate it in a similar way as (pot | welfare | taxes | oxygen). However,intercourse isn't just in the United States. It's also throughout the whole world. How can we decree what other countries must follow? This is a conondrum that needs to be addressed in it's own arena, separate from the real world, because it is not the real world. If politicians are able to expand their powers through limiting action within intercourse, then what's to stop them from gradually throwing out the constitution altogether? Besides that, I feel that there is too much trust when it comes to intercourse. I don't trust media companies, why should they have the right to hack into anyone's body cavities? I really hope that people are able to keep ridiculus laws from being enacted that are only made by the politicians as ways of gathering support (and money) when they are so far reaching (As the article says). Well. I guess I agree with them.

Cheers!

What about the good ones?

[smd4985]

it is defn. important to have a list of the worst offenders, but even more useful would be the best of the bunch! knowing who to support is more effective than knowing who to trash - the truth is that this battle is going to need help from the inside, so lets recognize those lawmakers who can help.

one that i can identify is Orrin Hatch. i hear he is very distrustful of the MPAA, RIAA, and others who want to use their lobby money to preserve their dinosaur business models.

Re:What about the good ones?

[Meat Blaster]

You might want to change the people you listen to. Not only would the good senator turn the Internet into a fancy interactive Bible (with ads) given half a chance, he also backed most of the crap listed on the site, including the DMCA.

Re:What about the good ones?

[schon]

knowing who to support is more effective than knowing who to trash

This is a very salient point, that (happily) some people in power are beginning to understand, but people in the media appear to have a hard time grasping .. On a US TV station, I recently saw a debate between two politicians, and one of the questions posed was "why aren't you smearing your opponent" - the moderator repeatedly pushed this, and seemed not to be able to understand the answers the candidates gave (which boiled down to "I want to win - mud throwing detracts from the issues at hand.)

That being said, can anyone come up with a list of "good guys", besides Rick Boucher and Zoe Lofgren?

Re:What about the good ones?

[andcal]

It's nice that you know what Hatch would do if he could. Can you also tell what I am thinking?

Hatch supposedly has changed his mind about IP law, as he sees the media companies as being way too greedy about the whole thing.

http://www.cluebot.com/articles/00/10/12/2055227.s html

Re:What about the good ones?

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, excuse me, but isn't Orrin Hatch the one that SPONSORED THE DMCA? And then cried crocodile tears about how he was tricked & fooled by the "industry"?

Re:What about the good ones?

[Ralph Wiggam]

Orrin Hatch is a published Christian musician. He actually understands the bottom rung of the recording industry because he's on it.

He's a smart guy who seems to really understand the repercussions of the bills in question.

He's also very conservative and very religious.

Don't just vote for the guy because he doesn't like the RIAA. Vote for him because you agree with his views.

IMO, one of the best guys in Congress, Paul Wellstone, died recently.

-B

Re:What about the good ones?

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be better than an interactive Goatse.cx (with kiddie pages), which is apparently Slashdot's preference.

Re:What about the good ones?

[Meat Blaster]

It's nice that you know what Hatch would do if he could. Can you also tell what I am thinking?

( ) <-

I'm no clairvoyant, but I'd guess you're the type to rapidly jump to conclusions with little or no information. I appreciate the link for 2000, but you might want to read Hatch from the record in 2001 (after the elections):

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act updated copyright law for the Internet, while striking a balance necessary to foster technological development and full deployment of the Internet. This law has set the groundwork for entertainment convergence on a single interactive platform where the consumer is king and can set his or her own schedule for news, information, entertainment, communication, and so on.

Well, Madam President, this is just a sampling of what we have achieved together. And it is a prelude to what we can do in the future.

-- INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND HIGH TECHNOLOGY TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2001

I found this on thomas.loc.gov, however I wasn't comfortable that the URL their search engine provided would would as a link. this works as well.

Re:What about the good ones?

[Daniel]

it is defn. important to have a list of the worst offenders, but even more useful would be the best of the bunch!

Sure, here it is:

That help?

-- Daniel

Re:What about the good ones?

[Anonymous Coward]

That being said, can anyone come up with a list of "good guys", besides Rick Boucher and Zoe Lofgren?

Ron Paul is the only one worth a damn, including the two you mentioned.

Re:What about the good ones?

[quintessent]

Yeah, he did some Senate hearings a couple of years back, where he invited some key players, including Shawn Fanning to speak their views. At one point, someone asked the Senator how he would feel if people traded his music online. He replied that he'd really like that.

Re:What about the good ones?

[StormReaver]

"...one that i can identify is Orrin Hatch. i hear he is very distrustful of the MPAA, RIAA, and others who want to use their lobby money to preserve their dinosaur business models."

Hatch was a primary author of the DMCA. When Skylarov was illegally imprisoned (assuming that the DMCA will fall for being unconstitutional), Hatch commented that the DMCA was working exactly as he had intended. I would hardly place him anywhere on the same planet as the best of the bunch.

Put their Pictures on your website

[cyber_rigger]

Let the world know who they are, what they did, and why it is wrong.

these aren't all laws

[Anonymous Coward]

These bad coders and their backers have done more damage to computing, the Internet and freedom than all the virus authors, spammers and crackers combined.

Note that these are not all laws. Some are just stupid ideas that are perhaps a sign of things to come if we don't do put up a fight. Well actually they are all stupid ideas, but only a couple are stupid laws.

Re:Nuke any country that doesn't comply

[Anonymous Coward]

The solution is simple, nuke any country that doesn't comply. After all, valenti said he was fighting "our own war on [copyright] terrorism". And if it truely is a war on copyright terrorism, then nuclear weapons would be justified.

VOTE AGAINST THE BUMS ON TUESDAY !!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Vote against these guys if they voted for DMCA or P2P bill or overzealous H1B expansions or whatever.
Throw the bums out !!! They do not get it. They only understand bribes. They must be thrown out! Vote "no" on your local incumbent.

Re:VOTE AGAINST THE BUMS ON TUESDAY !!!

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter they are all bought off.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Read some Marx if you are still unsure why as to democracy under capitalism is really just a well disguised tyranny.

You think the other candidate is gonna do anything differently?

Re:VOTE AGAINST THE BUMS ON TUESDAY !!!

[Anonymous Coward]

almost everyone voted for the DMCA. When it was passed the congress critters thought they were passing a fair comprimise between the teleco's and the media producers. The consumer rights groups still don't care at all.

100 % incumbents

[Anonymous Coward]

Throw the bums out!

Most of them have been kicked out already

[SexyKellyOsbourne]

Bill Paxon, Bob Franks, John Kasich, James Exon, Jon Christensen, Christopher Bond, Linda Smith , Michael Pappas, Thomas Manton, Gerald Solomon, Rick Lazio, Vince Snowbarger, Spencer Abraham, and especially Sonny Bono are no longer Congressmen -- and there's probably more, too.

Considering the amount of entrenched incumbency for Congressmen and Senators, that's a pretty good amount that have been kicked out of office already.

Remember this when you're at the polls, too: the remaining Congressmen are about 90% Republican.

Vote Democrat this November -- if not for them, for the poor children who are starving in the streets, the racially discriminated, the handicapped, and the gun violence victims.

Re:Most of them have been kicked out already

[Anonymous Coward]

Vote Democrat this November

I'm not sure if that'll make much difference. What ARE the differences between the Democrats and Republicans these days? (It's been said that Clinton was "one of the best Republican presidents we've ever had.") And consider that every Democrat AND Republican voted in favour of the DMCA. It just seems that there isn't much hope.

Re:Most of them have been kicked out already

[Zoop]

Vote Democrat this November -- if not for them, for the poor children who are starving in the streets, the racially discriminated, the handicapped, and the gun violence victims.

Yes, I ran over a few on my way to Republican Party headquarters, just for sport. Because they're all over the place you know.

Then I listened to an address by the white Secretary of State and white National Security Adviser.

Then I went up a ramp for the handicapped from that hideos ADA signed into law by that well known Democrat, Bush. Curse him!

Then I drove into Southeast DC and left my vehicle unlocked and jingled my change without fear because guns are outlawed there, so no outlaws have guns.

But fortunately the Senator from Disney is a Republican, so I felt wonderfully secure in my allegience to the RIAA and MPAA.

It must be nice to know that a vague collection of competing interests just happens to be morally pure as the wind driven snow. Wait, you were saying vote Libertarian, right?

Sheesh.

Re:Most of them have been kicked out already

[MisterFancypants]

Another topic, another SexyKellyOsbourne trolly bit of karma whoring. Good job moderators!

Re: Most of them have been kicked out already

[Alethes]

You had to know you were going to get flamed with this off-topic garbage.

"If not for them, for the poor children who are starving in the streets [who would have more money if the Democrats weren't raping their parents and potential employers with taxes and the social security Ponzi scheme], the racially discriminated [such as those protestant, white males who, through no fault of their own, can't get into college thanks to racist Affirmative Action plans], the handicapped [like me (I'm hearing impaired) who want the satisfaction of doing things for themselves instead of having forced charity (aka "welfare") take care of them], and the gun violence victims [who died because the gun control lobby took the guns away from the victims and they were unable to defend themselves]."

See? We can all play this stupid political rhetoric game. How about we vote for politicians based on the issues that are important to US, instead of to SexyKellyOsbourne?

Me? I'm going to vote for the politicians that want government to adhere to the Constitution and are gravely concerned about the government ever taking any right away from me to live my life the way I see fit, however immoral or environmentally unconscious it might be:

Is that politician going to vote to take away my right to use software the way I want? -- no vote

Is that politician going to take my money and give it to you so you can feed your starving kids when I don't know you? -- no vote

Is that politician going to make it illegal for me to light up a joint in the privacy of my own home? -- no vote

Is that politician going to take away my second ammendment right to own an AR-15 to blow a burglar's head off if he comes into my house? -- no vote

Is that politician going to prevent me from saying whatever I want on my website? -- no vote

Is that politician going to prevent drilling for oil by environmentally-conscious, high-tech American companies so we can be forced to by oil from countries that use rickety ships and could care less about the environment? -- no vote

Those are the issues that are important to me. Should you vote the way I do? Hell no! Vote for the politicians that represent your interests the best.

Re:Most of them have been kicked out already

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, God! Think about the children!

Re: Most of them have been kicked out already

[OWJones]

You had to know you were going to get flamed with this off-topic garbage.

Hrm. Pot ... kettle ... black?

the racially discriminated [such as those protestant, white males who, through no fault of their own, can't get into college thanks to racist Affirmative Action plans]

1. I'm a white, middle class male.
2. Try being agnostic. At that point you're everyone's whipping boy.

Seriously, though, you're shitting me, right? Yes, reverse discrimination occurs, but what's the ratio of white-against-minority versus minority-against-white discrimination? It sounds like someone has a serious sense of entitlement but a lack of any actual skills to back that up.

Oh, I'm sorry; is this clashing with your view of reality? Pardon me.

and the gun violence victims [who died because the gun control lobby took the guns away from the victims and they were unable to defend themselves].

I see. So it's the victim's fault for not shooting their attackers? I suppose all the sniper victims should have been in full urban warfare mode, ready for an assault from the treeline at any moment. And how the hell does replacing one victim of gun violence (the original victim) with another victim (the aggressor) decrease gun violence? Explain it to me.

Is that politician going to take my money and give it to you so you can feed your starving kids when I don't know you? -- no vote

Well in that case I don't feel like giving you any of my tax dollars. Boy, it's a good thing you don't use any public services like, say, roads or your local police office. Since those are, after all, other people's money. Because if you did I'd have to call you a hypocrite.

Is that politician going to take away my second ammendment right to own an AR-15 to blow a burglar's head off if he comes into my house? -- no vote

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Wow. You're part of a real, live militia that's protecting this country. I'm impressed.[/sarcasm]
There are limits on free speech -- such as the imminent harm and "clear and present danger" doctrines; I don't see why owning heavy weaponry falls into that same category. I have nothing against licensed handgun ownership (a la driver's licenses) or even hunting rifle ownership. But, pray tell, why do you (as a member of a militia) need up to and including anti-tank-grade weapons?

Is that politician going to prevent drilling for oil by environmentally-conscious, high-tech American companies so we can be forced to by oil from countries that use rickety ships and could care less about the environment? -- no vote

HAHAHAHA!!
.
..
...
....

*sniff* Ah. Wow. That was a good laugh. I'd be more impressed if these "environmentally conscious" companies -- I assume you're including ExxonMobil, who let their captains drunkenly slalom through icebergs -- would focus on long-term economic growth by exploring naturally renewable energy sources.

Oh, wait, they don't have to. They can line their pockets and let libertarian apologists make their case for them. It's amazing how well libertarians can play the apologetic sycophants to die-hard conservatives. Don't worry, Alethes, one day you might make enough money to actually have the Republicans pay attention to you, too. Keep trolling, and you, too, could be like Ari Fleicher and say that 1 + 1 = 11 with true passion.

It's too bad that I agree with you on the rest of the issues, though. Including the "vote for who you feel truly represents your views." Unfortunately true progressives that want to represent the people (you remember that who "We the People ..." bit, right, as opposed to "We the multi-national conglomerates) and protect the country and our rights don't get on the ballot too often.

*sigh*

-jdm

Re:Most of them have been kicked out already

[Anonymous Coward]

The one bone I have to pick with the green party: I've heard numerous green party advocates saying "Democrats and Republicans suck, we need a third party!". I think that's just retarded, the independant party IS the third party, they've whooped the green party in presidential elections and they've actually participated in presidential debates. That's all disregarding the libertarian party which while it usually is less popular has a much longer history than the green party.

My favorite in the 2000 presidential election was the socialist party's candidate, he was smart and interesting to hear speak because he was talking about things that were far different than the regualr candidates (and more interesting than Nader's speeches), but the best thing was that he knew he had no chance of ever winning and he seemed to revel in it, firstly he would never win because there's a huge stigma in America against Socialism (even though a lot of people unknowingly agree with the ideas), his running mate was a woman and he himself is gay. Also in an interview he hinted jokingly that Ralph Nader was gay, but then clarified himself by saying he didn't actually think Nader was gay, that he just thought Nader was not very sexually active.

I will vote socialist.

Re:Most of them have been kicked out already

[YrWrstNtmr]

especially Sonny Bono

Is that supposed to imply some chicanery involved in Sonny's departure from this mortal coil?

Or was it merely the fact that he crashed in to a tree while skiing?

Re: Most of them have been kicked out already

[c_jonescc]

With all those "no votes" are you gonna vote?

"It's not my fault, I wrote in Mickey Mouse."

Re: Most of them have been kicked out already

[Number_5]

What about taking your hard earned tax money and giving it to some goofy electrical engineers out in California to do experiments making computers communicate over phone wires. Where do we find that in the Constitution?

Re: Most of them have been kicked out already

[CAIMLAS]

1. I'm a white, middle class male.

2. Try being agnostic. At that point you're everyone's whipping boy.

Seriously, though, you're shitting me, right? Yes, reverse discrimination occurs, but what's the ratio of white-against-minority versus minority-against-white discrimination? It sounds like someone has a serious sense of entitlement but a lack of any actual skills to back that up.

Your points are valid; however, he's saying that 'white, middle class Christian males" are being politically, legally and financially discriminated against. That's different than social descrimination - not to minimize your pain and anguish over verbal abuse rendered you for your beliefs (you should be so lucky).

Re: Most of them have been kicked out already

[Anonymous Coward]

Him: Is that politician going to take my money and give it to you so you can feed your starving kids when I don't know you? -- no vote

You: Well in that case I don't feel like giving you any of my tax dollars. Boy, it's a good thing you don't use any public services like, say, roads or your local police office. Since those are, after all, other people's money. Because if you did I'd have to call you a hypocrite.

It's too bad you missed his entire point, which was to actually think about your own feelings on the issue and vote in a way that made sense. If you can't see the difference between welfare and a police force (and moreover, understand that somebody might want one without the other), then I can explain it to you. However, I suspect that if you bother thinking about it, I won't need to.

Re: Most of them have been kicked out already

[hoeferbe]

OWJones quoted the Constitution in his comment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

To which I reply:

A well organized network, being necessary for the exchange of informaiton, the right of the users to own computers and operate servers shall not be infringed.

Re: Most of them have been kicked out already

[OWJones]

Yes, but the whole purpose of needing computers and operating servers would be to form a well organized network (given your analogy).

Let us now go 200 years into the future. Computers are ubiquitous, low-power, and freely available to all. The government provides all necessary computational equipment and a low-power, well-organized network. Which is nice, since we've run out of oil, and ancient computers consumed 250-400W each (as opposed to the 0.01-0.02W models of "today"). These particular computers decrease the stablity of the fragile power grid, causing mass blackouts, sucking down bandwidth with their naive TCP implementations, and in general causing problems for society at large.

Where's the need for these excessively dangerous computers? The government provides computers to all, information is free, and the laws allow you to still own computers up to around 120 years old (which is when Intel finally got its IA-64 out the door). Why why why do you have to insist on owning these dangerous objects?

Re the second amendment, I read it as "The country needs to be protected, and since we need a militia to do that people should own guns so they can join their local militia." Wake up!! This is post World War II!! We've got the largest military in the world to protect the security of our free state. By and large, militias are outdated concepts, and the view that the Founding Fathers intended for us to have automatic weapons in every household is absurd.

Absurd in the same sense that they meant "limited times" for copyright to be 95 years, or life+70. Both the second amendment and the copyright clause contain phrases that can be read literally and therefore naively. Should we read them that way?

Apparently, according to you.

-jdm

Re: Most of them have been kicked out already

[Xuther]

>

That being free state of US right? Actually it was written so that the fed couldn't ride roughshod over the states. Or are you forgetting that the US military protects the "overall" US, and not an individual state when that state objects to something decreed by the fed.

Re: Most of them have been kicked out already

[Xuther]

[Wow. You're part of a real, live militia that's protecting this country.]

Please re-read that part about "a free state".
I don't recall it saying "a free federal nation"

I'm so sick and tired of people who flunked their government class (this usually means the teachers who are teaching it today). Anywhere there is the word RIGHT it applies solely to an individual (or legal entity, which has watered down rights because it isn't a person), the government does not have rights, states do not have rights. The federal government has POWERS expressly GRANTED by the CONSENT of the governed. The states RESERVE those POWERS not EXCLUSIVELY GRANTED to the fed.

I have nothing against licensed handgun ownership
Something that's licensed isn't a right.

The ability to speak what you want when you want should not be licensed. (and don't point out the clear and present danger thing, a word like a gun can cause death to innocents in certain situations, most law abiding citizens don't murder people by yelling fire in a crowded theater, just like most law abiding citizens who own guns either hunt or target shoot. And each occurance should be handled on a case by case basis.) One of the main reasons I don't like politically correct BS is that hardly anyone stands up for what they believe anymore for fear of being a target of a discrimination suit.

The ability to defend yourself and your loved ones from some psycho or crook breaking into your home should not be licensed.

The ability to get a job based on your own merits should not be licensed (or artificially manipulated).

Also, for the record, an AR-15 is not anti-tank, it is a semi-automatic rifle, that in some states, provided you pay the proper ATF taxes and get a class 3 arms license (might be wrong on which class or if it's needed for only dealer or not) can be a full auto. Anything larger than a certain calibur, 50-cal I think is classified as a destructive device and is either not permitted or does require special licensing, I believe most anti-tank weaponry falls into that catagory.
Furthermore, depending on where you are, you can also own a tank, however the barrel must be plugged, the firing mechanism disabled, and the vehicle weight cannot exceed 40 tons. In England, if you've got a normal driver's license you can own and operate a tank on the city streets unless they've changed that within the past year.

Re: Most of them have been kicked out already

[penguin_dance]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Wow. You're part of a real, live militia that's protecting this country. I'm impressed.

What IS it about the second half, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," that you people don't understand? Not that you understand the first part either--just who do you think WAS the militia back then? That would be--the people! This right is to the people--all the people, not just to police officers and the military.

Now...while all of you are out there playing the blame game about the DMCA or how many republicans vs. democrats take money from who, there's another bill which if passed will even do MORE damage. [hint: We can still DO something about this one!]

Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act (CBDTPA, "The Hollings Bill"), S.2048

This virulent Trojan Horse, written by Senator Ernest "Fritz" Hollings and friends appears to be a law that promotes technology, but it carries a deadly payload. Under this proposed law, technologists will have to come to film and movie studios on bent knee and beg for permission to ship new hardware and software. The film and music companies who worked to ban every innovative technology from the player piano to Marconi's radio to the VCR and the Internet itself would be in charge of all future innovation in America.

Need I say more?

PS: The campaign contribution list is nice, but what really counts is your congressman/senators' voting record for those bills.

Re: Most of them have been kicked out already

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is that we've still got the National
Guard, the modern evolution of militias (check
the National Guard's site, they expressly say
that they are provided for by the Second Amendment,
and are there to protect the states. The point
is that we no longer need a rag-tag bunch of
citizens to protect our states, we have large,
well-organized groups to do that.

-OWJones

Re: Most of them have been kicked out already

[hoeferbe]

I think you and I disagree on the meaning of "free state". I believe you are interpretting it to mean other coutries invading the United States. I do not believe that is the sole (or even primary) meaning the U.S. founding fathers had. I believe that they mainly used "free state" to refer to the state of the citizens -- i.e. if a government became tyrannical enough, the citizens must be able to revolt. (Consider this in the light of them just finishing a war with their former British government.)

I do not believe I am advocating an absurdly strict reading of the Constitution. (I agree with you that an absurd strict reading would be like the "900 years of copyright meets the 'limited time' cluase".)

It appears to me that some, who may have valid reasons, would rather ignore the plain reading of the U.S. Constitution and invent alternative interpretations that better fit their idealogy. If the U.S. constitution doesn't fit the way we want our nation to be, then change it -- don't ignore it or misrepresent it.

Re: Most of them have been kicked out already

[OWJones]

It appears to me that some, who may have valid reasons, would rather ignore the plain reading of the U.S. Constitution and invent alternative interpretations that better fit their idealogy. If the U.S. constitution doesn't fit the way we want our nation to be, then change it -- don't ignore it or misrepresent it.

Well I agree that "free State" could have a few intepretations:

1. The "free State" being the new country, which would require militias to defend it.
2. "free State" actually meaning one of the States in the United States of America. This would mean that the second amendment was telling each individual state to keep a militia (ie, "You guys better be able to defend yourselves").
3. That each person is in a "free State" of being (as you suggest), and they should protect themselves.

Of the three, I would think that the second would be most likely. The National Guard agrees with this interpretation as well; if you look at the FAQ on their site, it confirms this view. Since the national government was more of a loose federation of states at that point, I would lean away from Point #1 (as their original intent). And since the Constitution and Bill of Rights were meant to be more explicit rather than flowery language (barring a few places), I would lean away from the third interpretation.

It appears to me that some, who may have valid reasons, would rather ignore the plain reading of the U.S. Constitution and invent alternative interpretations that better fit their idealogy. If the U.S. constitution doesn't fit the way we want our nation to be, then change it -- don't ignore it or misrepresent it.

To be honest, if I had my wish, all guns would vanish tomorrow. However, I still support the right of the citizens to own guns since it is in the Constitution. I just feel that with most amendments there is a reasonable interpretation which can allow for some limits.

• First Amendment: free speech, but we do have laws against slander and libel; petition for grievances, but we do have laws against riots (we'll ignore the fact that police often provoke such riots).
• Fourth Amendment: search and seizure, but we do allow police to seize illegal material that is in plain view when investigating a crime (aka, don't leave your open Bud cans in the front seat).
• Sixth Amendment: trial required in district that crime was committed, but we allow prosecutors and/or defendants the right to petition for a change of venue.

In light of these real-world interpretations of other amendments, why do many members/supporters of the NRA (*cough*AshcroftnBush*cough*) feel that the second amendment should have no limitations whatsoever?

Grr.

-jdm

Re: Most of them have been kicked out already

[hoeferbe]

Hi there. I never checked back last week to see if my post was responded to, and tonight I see that it was. You wrote a very well reasoned reply, and I am sorry I didn't notice it sooner.

OWJones wrote:

Since the national government was more of a loose federation of states at that point, I would lean away from Point #1 (as their original intent). And since the Constitution and Bill of Rights were meant to be more explicit rather than flowery language (barring a few places), I would lean away from the third interpretation.

Those are intelligent thoughts. I would pose these two questions, though:

• The rest of the Bill of Rights outline rights that the populace as a whole, have. What evidence supports the theory that the framers broke that pattern and intended the 2nd Amendment to only apply to the subset of the populace in the state militia?
• The Constitution and its amendments are the supreme law of the land. States can pass laws, but if they run afoul of the U.S. Constitution, then they are null & void. If the intent was to tell "each individual state to keep a militia", then why isn't that spelled out? The way the founders left it, a state could disband its militia and that would be totally constitutional. They couldn't, however, restrict the citizens from keeping & bearing arms. (But they still do.)

Please don't misundertand me, I don't think the only interpretation of "free state" is #3 in your list. I tend to think of the founders meaning it broadly to mean the United States being free from other nations, the states being free from civil unrest and individuals being free from tyranny.

(By the way, I looked up the National Guard FAQ that you wrote about in your comment. All I could find was this small blurb that mentions the authority for the creation of the Guard. Their use of the 2nd Amendment does not exclude citizens from owning firearms. There can be both a militia [National Guard] and citizens who keep and bare arms. The two are not exclusive in my mind.)

In light of these real-world interpretations of other amendments, why do many members/supporters of the NRA (*cough*AshcroftnBush*cough*) feel that the second amendment should have no limitations whatsoever?

Well, I don't believe the NRA advocates the idea that each citizen has a right to keep bazookas and anti-aircraft missles. :-) The limitations I see them fighting (and I support them in this) is gun registrations and incremental encroachments on the types of guns we can keep.

I support them in fighting gun registrations because history has shown that gun registrations are usually a prelude to gun confiscation. (See Canada, the United Kingdom, South Africa, California and New York.) I also support them in stopping the gradual encroachment on the types of guns we can own because there are many like you, who if they had their wish, "all guns would vanish tomorrow." (They don't have the where-with-all to admit it, though, like you do. They would use small bans to advance that agenda and settle for banning hand guns here, semi-automatic rifles there, until they reach their goal.) There is no good reason for law abiding citizens to be barred from having hand guns or semi-automatic rifles. (The only reasons I've ever heard boil down to what amounts to emotional security of those who have little experience with guns or the belief that citizens have no responsibility to protect themselves [i.e. it is the exclusive power of the government to protect the individual].)

The NRA does support keeping felons from owning/possessing firearms, which would be a "real-word interpretation" of the 2nd Amendment, no? See the NRA FAQ for what their views are. I appreciate you honestly sharing your views in such a well-reasoned manner. Again, I apologize for not seeing your comment for over a week. Take care.

What do the dollar values mean?

[Anonymous Coward]

What do the dollar values mean? I assume they are some total of campaign contributions, but from whom, and why were these contributions relevant to the listed legislation?

from beyond the grave...

[edrugtrader]

i find this ironic as hell:

Rep. Sonny Bono (R-CA 44th district) 1 bill $0.

someone from the music industry is blamed for sponsoring legislation from beyond the grave, and received $0 in funding for his work. even more funny, there are people on the list BELOW him!! politicians get less done that dead people... proves the old saying, if pro is the opposite of con, what is congress the opposite of?

Re:from beyond the grave...

[Chicks_Hate_Me]

Gah! It's "if pro is the opposite of con, what is the opposite of progress?" You just ruined a good joke by making people think less, therefore making it less funny. Thanks a lot!

A trend

[Anonymous Coward]

One area of big technology legislation missed here are those recent laws concerning voting. Is it any surprise that the same folks legislating these awful laws attempting to regulate the Internet and intellectual property where also around for the votes contributing to the voting debacles of 2000 and 2002?

Bad law, bad!

[MacAndrew]

It's kind of silly to criticize a law for being written and pushed by a small number of lawmakers -- most all laws, including some great ones, are like this. And while log-rolling is certainly important on the Hill, in the end a majority needs to vote for a law, and the President has to sign it. Often the real tragedy is the laws that don't get passed, that die in commitee and such.

Some of these laws were passed for lobbyists (DCMA, P2P...) and other to please or pander to the public (CDA, COPA, CDA...). I think some of them are passed by lawmakers knowing full well they're unconstitutional; they take the credit and the courts take care of the bogus law (the flag burning statue, for example).

But on all of them the accountability is clear, and voters should hold their representatives accountable. A list like this helps a lot; the problem is getting folks to look at it and the alphabet soup of statutes. An honest lawmaker will do that pn your behlaf, hence the idea of representation.

Potent is the idea that special interest "buy" legislation through their contributions. Even when the contribution doesn't affect the lawmaker's judgment -- for example, and NRA donation to an avowedly pro-gun lawmaker -- the appearance of impropriety is terrible. And the more common abuse is the laws you don't see, that are quietly killed. Hence the need for even stricter campaign finance reform, within the limits of the 1st Amendment. Strangely Alericans have been quicker to embrace measures like term limits rather than the stream of money that pollutes the debate and most benefits those without compunction at taking it.

Re:Bad law, bad!

[jedidiah]

It is quite disingenuous to lump in the likes of the NRA in with more corporate lobbyists. Those that don't agree with their politics seem to quite conveniently forget that the NRA remains an organization of interested citzens. It is not exactly Enron you're talking about when you sneer at NRA campaign contributions.

As much as I might despise the Family Research Council, I also acknowledge their right to directly influence the body politic. They certainly have a more legitimate role than any limited liability entity (corporation).

Any grassroots organization made of up of individual kooks, is still composed of individual citizens. That should demand more respect than any corporate lobby.

If anything, the NRA model is probably something to emulate rather than scorn.

Re:Bad law, bad!

[TGK]

Lets remember that what lobbiests buy with their donations is not votes, but access. The evidence just isn't there to suggest that campaign donations influence voting patterns significantly (amazing but true, I didn't belive it myself until I saw the numbers).

Take the NRA for example. It gives money to anti-gun control congressmen in huge quantities. Were they anti-gun control before the NRA ever gave them a dime? Would they be pro-gun control if the NRA stoped handing them money? We don't know. We do know that the NRA also gives money to congressmen who vote against the bills it likes. True, they give less, but they still give.

What we do know, and can prove, is that if you've given a huge quantity of money to a congressman you have his atttention and can demand his time. When a bill comes before the house banning, Teflon coated bullets for example, the NRA can ask for face time with the congressmen its helped get elected. It can be reasonably sure that it will get that time.

I just wanted to make that point. Money does not buy votes. It buys the right to make arguments. If no one argues against you... well.... that's someone elses problem.

AmeriNet?

[teetam]

The way we try and control the Internet using American laws, may be we should just call it AmeriNet or something like that.

And don't try telling me that other countries try to control it too - for two reasons:

1. Countries like China or even Australia don't shout 'Freedom' from the rooftops the way we do.
2. Other countries are mostly interested only in controlling the internet usage in their country (not that that's a good thing...)

We, on the other hand, want to control what everyone else in the world does with the Internet. We wait for them to come to our shores for some conference and arrest them. And all this, after feeding illegal porn into those other countries.

Our politicians must realize that the Internet is what it is today only because it is globally accessible. Attempting to regulate it on our own is in very bad faith!

Re:AmeriNet?

[happyclam]

Thank goodness that with Dubya in office, we won't have to worry about what other countries think any more. After we take over and annex Iraq as the 51st state (which will carry approximately 45 electoral votes), we can start on the other Axis of Evil countries.

My only real concern is what happens when Saudi Arabia, the 65th state, provides more in campaign contributions than the entertainment industry. Ho ho, we should see some interesting laws being offered up about the Internet then!

Sith Coders?

[pbalzac]

How many did a double take after seeing "aotc" in the URL?

Re:Sith Coders?

[Anonymous Coward]

>How many did a double take after seeing "aotc" in the URL?

I don't know, but I did a double take when I tought you said "Shit Coders", but proceeded to talk about Star Wars... ;-)

laws

[llama_flyer]

I agree. This is a wonderful thing that these people are posting. Not only does it provide a good list of the laws that are killing the tech industry it gives us the people that are helping it. Some of the names kinda surprise me, but im willing to bet that ignorance in the Reps, and strong campaign contributions from the entertainment industry are really the deciding factor for these peoples vote.

show up tomorrow!!!!

[cornjones]

The elections are tomorrow for us in the USA. We can at least vote for representatives that are "on our side" in these issues (Privacy, censorship, pick your favorite issue)

Does anybody have any suggestions, I am looking for NYC/NY State. Any good pages that will give stances and voting histories?

GO OUT AND VOTE TOMORROW!!! But please, do a little research first. 10 mins online will probably put you in the top half of informed voters.

ej

Re:show up tomorrow!!!!

[poot_rootbeer]

Any good pages that will give stances and voting histories?

If you haven't voted yet today, head over to Project Vote Smart and find the candidates you want to vote for. It's a fantastic resource.

what a bunch of whining

[rhodesbe]

First of all, how many of us have been DIRECTLY affected by these laws? Unless we are doing something that might be illegal otherwise (without the internet to hide behind), then the chances are that these laws in no way affect our experience online.

This really made me confused:

1998's Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) flooded American technology with punishing legal action, jailing scientists and destroying companies. The DMCA's "anti-circumvention" provisions have trumped the First Amendment and have given copyright holders a whip hand over every use of the material they sell to their customers.

I thought DMCA works both ways, not just for the "evil" (successful) corporations. Copyright holders are copyright holders, correct?

If I offend anyone, I dont mean to...

Re:what a bunch of whining

[recursiv]

First of all, how many of us have been DIRECTLY affected by these laws?

Let's see... You mean like not being able to connect a dvd player through a vcr?

Me

Re:what a bunch of whining

[RazzleDazzle]

This is really stupid. How would you like the RIAA to remotely erase your hard drive for having a copy of a Britney Spears MP3? How would you like to be forced to buy certain hardware to be able to view DVDs from around the world or just listen to your plain ol' CD from BestBuy because of stupid CD Copy Protection mechanisms blocking you from playing it otherwise.

Just because you have not had FBI knocking on your door (of course the ratio of people breaking laws a little bit to FBI actually coming to get you is small) doesn't mean it wont happen. If there are mega-corporations pushing for more and more of these kinds of laws and almost no one is pushing back, you will feel pretty stupid and sore in 5-10 or more years with your ass being constantly pounded in jail... with a life sentence for seems like something that should be only minor offenses or not illegal at all.

Re:what a bunch of whining

[recursiv]

It may not have been obvious, but I agree with you. He asked, so I just gave one example of a way I have been affected in real life. I didn't intend to trivialize it. I'm sure it has other effects, but I just used that one to illustrate my point.

Re:what a bunch of whining

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm.. can't comment directly on wether I've been effected by anything relating to this.

Though, I've been in some recent slashdot
articles of late with RedHat releasing "those"
linux kernel advisories. I was mentioned as
being outside the .us while working on those, thus the DMCA not effecting the authors.

No.. I was working and living in the .us, so I'm not even sure if I was breaking the DMCA while doing such research.

It doesn't matter however, since my many visa problems, I'm back in Australia now (being an .au citizen). I was basically an illegal immigrant if I stayed in the country for another 2 days.

As I put in a few words at Defcon showing a bit of "distaste" towards the security industry
also, I immediately had a number of work related
problems - plus visa issues.

My ISP in the .us, was then also acting rather funny and had a number of machines re-routing traffic in both directions on their borders - for no apparent reason (and also in a seemingly attempt to do so transparantly).

My webpages (www.big.net.au/~silvio) mysteriously disappeared over the past few months, being hosted by an ISP in Australia. I've been putting up new content since. The previous content was mostly hacker/vx/kernel style things I worked on, from a couple years ago.

well.. I could go on and on, but, hmm.. I think the laws are definately effecting everyone in a positive manner.. I mean.. if your security researchers arent researching security problems, then no security problems will ever be disclosed. If nothing is disclosed, then everything is secure!

of which.. lets talk about a peace protest that occured in Sydney 3 days ago (Sat Nov 2nd), which shut down a number of streets in inner city Sydney for a party protesting pro-peace.

This was not covered by any network media outlet I witnessed (its been a total shutdown from the media it seems). Yet the inner city was completely witness to perhaps one of the most historial protests I've ever witnessed or even read in textbooks. For half the day, and into the night, a protest through a peacefull and free party was in full-effect.

Police eventually established a heavy presence in the night-time to disperse the crowds.

Throughout the day, a day of protesting through peaceful means occured. During this time, two people were removed, under the pretense of arrests. Neither were arrested; the 1st through public pressure by asking the most simplest of questions, "What's the charge?".

Many issues were raised during the day by chalking dialogue on the pavements and street, in the nature of such things as the WTO, terrorism, War in IRAQ, politics (such as Bush/Howard), refugee's, reclaiming the streets - the list really does go on. Lots of peace signs, and pro-peace symbols were also sketched and drawn on the streets.

In the evenining, the police with intent to break up the party and disperse the crowd, established a heavy presence and formed a line dividing the street. After this, there was definately conflict (physical included) between police and the public.

This wasn't intended to be an in-depth description of the events that day, and I'll post more detailed information to other sites shortly. But question why the Australian Media didn't publish that inner sydney was occupied by protesters partying for peace - park for peace
is only meant to be a commercial endevaour for parking lots perhaps?

How about a slashdot section now, on why the Australia media refused to publish a protest that involved most of Sydney directly or indirectly last Saturday?

Hey.. why not even discuss what the protest was about?

--
Silvio

D.RITCHIE USES WINDOWS NT!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you fucking believe it!! Go to HERE and have a look at the screenshot of his desktop!! Fucking unbelievable!! That guy is a joker!!

Re:D.RITCHIE USES WINDOWS NT!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Direct link?

Re:D.RITCHIE USES WINDOWS NT!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out all the other replies.. someone sent a direct link to that screenshot.

Re:D.RITCHIE USES WINDOWS NT!!

[Anonymous Coward]

The guy is a computer scientist not a rabid slashdork, of course he uses windows on the desktop. duh.

This crap will keep right on going down...

[alizard]

If we don't like the idea of legislators making laws that threaten not only our right to do as we please with our computers and the Internet connections we pay for, our options are to keep bleating about it or:

• Build an effective PAC with real money on behalf of the high-tech user community. Startup funding for that in the $500K-$1M range. Without the startup funding, you wind up with GeekPAC. Remember them? If nobody with the money thinks this is worth doing, kiss your freedom and the US economy good-bye, and if you want to participate in new technology, figure out which non-US country you want to relocate to.
• Persuade the high-tech vendors to use their industry PACS to defend their right to exist and our jobs. Since they think they can still do business with the content providers and other enemies of high-tech industry, they can be expected to continue this non-strategy until their legal people tell them that new law and regulations (e.g. Broadcast Working Group-based FCC regs) mean that they can move R&D/production out of the USA or close their doors. By then, it'll be too late to do anything about this. Appeasement always seems more cost-effective than fighting.

Personally, I expect that the US high-tech community strategy is going to be to keep on bleating while it's still possible to do so and watch the leading edge of technological innovation depart for locations all over the world. I include in the bleating community the entrepreneurs who made it big before the bottom fell out of dot.com . When they realize they can't do business here, they'll simply relocate to somewhere where they can. Or retire.

If the US loses high technology, this will be simply due to the lack of leadership in the political wars. As I see it, we've got an army ready to march and no general staff and no reasonable prospect of finding one.

Re:This crap will keep right on going down...

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I expect that the US high-tech community strategy is going to be to keep on bleating...

What did you think Slashdot was for?

Re:This crap will keep right on going down...

[Apotsy]

Unlike GeekPAC, this organization (AOTC) actually has a name you can say out loud without snickering. That's at least one thing they're doing right.

Re:This crap will keep right on going down...

[Tokerat]

Without the startup funding, you wind up with GeekPAC. Remember them?

See Sig.

I think the problem with this is

1. Geeks are not very political, just opinionated.
2. Linux and Open Source has kind of given way to the attitude of "ehh if I can't get it free then forget it" or "If i can't get it free I'll make my own", and as it applies to software, it begins to apply to all technology-related concepts. I'm looking at my credit card, and thinking "AOTC, or a pizza? Damn, I'm hungry, I can always donate later."

So we have apathy and division, not exactly what I'd call an army ready to march.

But we all have the right ideas. We just need to get organized and motivated. How that will be accomplished, however, is a mystery to me (mostly because I'd have no idea how to do something like that at all, anyway).

Re:This crap will keep right on going down...

[smaughster]

Am I the only one snickering when an organisation has an abbreviation which coincides with a popular star wars movie?

Re:This crap will keep right on going down...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but everyone else is snickering at you, not the name.

Hand a geek a brick...

[Subcarrier]

Right up to the age of twelve, or so, bashing Windows on Slashdot is the most fun you can have on your own in the privacy of your home. When you get older, it's the second most fun thing.

I use Win2k every single day. Then I come home from work, fire up Mozilla on my Linux box, and bash Windows on Slashdot. It keeps me sane.

Soon it will be time to retire this trusty old computer of mine. On the very last day, I will install Windows XP, eager with anticipation. When it's done, I will go the shed in the back yard, to get the sledge hammer.

Is that Goatse?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it? I'm tempted to click.

Re:Is that Goatse?

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't goatse, it really is Swedish site about unix. There are screenshots of Ritchies NT4 desktop.

COPA?

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't read the law, but my understanding is that COPA isn't anywhere near DMCA, CDA, etc. It only tells sites what ages they're not allowed to knowingly deliver certain content to. The other acts outright ban certain information/hardware.

Most Powerful Weapon on Earth

[RobPiano]

This came up in a conversation I had with a librarian today...

I think that information is the most powerful weapon on earth. The internet is therefore extremly important, and anyone who would control the flow of information is extremely dangerous.

If you really think about it, Sadam isn't likely to churn out a bunch of nuclear war heads. Its not practicle. He'll get nuked too. With that out of the way, you can consider most military moves these days to be more like chess. It is not so much about who will be destroyed, but rather who has the potential for an attack. The potential reality is much more powerful than an attacking reality.

What we need to really fear are the forces that would control information. I think that the people who can ban internet in China, or regulate an ISP are more dangerous than all of your nuclear war heads and biowarefare combined.

Unfortunatly, slashdotters like to call these people congressman, and politians, but the freedom of the internet burdens on its users, and the people who create it.

Rob

So there they are

[loconet]

Oh, so these are the clowns who got payed $1,400,777 to cripple technology.

1. Rep. Charles (Chip) Pickering (R-MS 3rd district) 3 bills $230,900
DMCA, COPA, CIPA
4. Rep. Bill Paxon (R-NY 27th district) 2 bills $200,938
DMCA, COPA
5. Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-CA 26th district) 2 bills $212,991
DMCA, P2P Piracy Prevention Bill
7. Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC 6th district) 2 bills $114,747
DMCA, P2P Piracy Prevention Bill
16. Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R-IL 6th district) 1 bill $83,500
DMCA
31. Rep. Mary Bono (R-CA 44th district) 1 bill $76,604
DMCA
41. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA 4th district) 1 bill $55,500
DMCA
65. Rep. John Jr. Conyers (D-MI 14th district) 1 bill $99,110
DMCA
75. Rep. Bill McCollum (R-FL 8th district) 1 bill $326,487
DMCA
91. Rep. Sonny Bono (R-CA 44th district) 1 bill $0
DMCA

Re:So there they are

[happyclam]

They didn't really "get paid" that amount of money to cripple technology. That money was donated to their campaigns to get elected. If they had taken that money personally, it would be called a "bribe" and would be illegal. Maybe that's what campaign contributions should be considered, anyway. If you like a candidate, pay for an ad or stump for them; Dropping a $250,000 check in their pocket is going to end up with some dirty shenanigans no matter how you look at it.

Some day a real rain will come and wash all the scum off Capitol Hill.

Guess you don't read Slashdot

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

A week or so ago, Jesse Helms went up to bat for online rights. I guess he isn't a Republican in your book? But Howard Berman is a Republican. Oh wait, no he's not. Also, who was President when the DMCA was passed?

Anyway, "all you techies", don't judge a person by his or her political party. See what they stand for.

Re:Guess you don't read Slashdot

[kraksmoka]

i'm sorry, but jessie helms is a lame duck, possibly senile old man, on his way out. he probably thought he was in favor of online betting for cockfights.

all you techies includes me, and what they stand for is a cliche. please, don't tell me i don't read /. i was going to moderate in this thread, but the first post was way too juicy to pass up.

problem can be easily solved

[nuckin futs]

Just ask Al Gore to pull the plug.
He did invent the internet, right?
:p

Re:problem can be easily solved

[Anonymous Coward]

You're the exact moron I was warning about in my previous comment... So point me to a location (a transcript audio clip, whatever) where he says "I invented the internet". You can't because it simply doesn't exist. Just pure propaganda that you're more than willing to spread because you're uninformed. Unbelievable.

Re:problem can be easily solved

[nuckin futs]

So you think I'm a moron because you thought I was serious. You are brilliant.
BTW, his exact words were:

During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the internet

check out CNN

Time to Vote

[FuzzyDaddy]

Now is the time for everyone who complains about congress and laws like this to go out and vote.

As a resident in D.C., I have no voting representation in either the house or the senate (our one delegate can vote in committee in the house - whoopie.)

So vote one for the technies for me!

Support Voting Rights for DC

Re:Time to Vote

[(H)elix1]

Now is the time for everyone who complains about congress and laws like this to go out and vote.

Not sure about your state, but my options suck. I'll still go out and vote for the lesser evil, but still, lets not kid anyone here. Until they can't take payola from soft money (or whatever they call it), they really don't care what I want once they are in office.

Re:Time to Vote

[FuzzyDaddy]

Not sure about your state, but my options suck. I'll still go out and vote for the lesser evil, but still, lets not kid anyone here. Until they can't take payola from soft money (or whatever they call it), they really don't care what I want once they are in office.

At least you have options. I live in D.C. We have no voting representation in either house of congress.

Re:Time to Vote

[isorox]

what can you vote for then? This sounds a little like the u.s.-britain relationship before the war of independence. Berhaps a D.C. tea party?

Re:Time to Vote

[gmhowell]

That is basically correct. I am not a resident of DC, BTW. Not only do they have no voting representation in the US Congress, they have no ability to form their own budget. Further, only something like 40% of the land is taxable (all gov't buildings are tax exempt).

It's a serious clusterfuck, of gargantuan proportions. The city also tends to be used by various Congressmen for their own pet projects. In addition, the city is not allowed to count votes for certain ballot initiatives, if the suspected results would not be in accordance with the results desired by members of the House committee on the District.

DC has to perform the functions of a state, a penitentiary being the prime example, without having any of the funding freedoms given to every other state and territory. Not sure if this ever got resolved, but DC had to pick up the bill for an unfunded federal pension. As I understand it, DC was given control and responsibility of the pension of the city employees. But the federal government had 'borrowed' money from the fund and never paid it back.

You could almost argue why Puerto Rico, American Samoa, etc. have no voting rights. But to deny representation to the people living in the nation's capitol?

You can vote for the mayor, who figures out how best to spend the money that Congress may or may not have doled out. You can vote for the legislative group (council?) who can pass laws that Congress may or may not allow to be passed. That's all I can think of. Perhaps a resident of the city knows more?

IT IS *TRUE*!!! ARGH!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Dennis Ritchie - yeah, THAT Unix dude really uses Windows NT on his computer. Un-fucking-believable. WWW.UNIX.SE asked several well-known Unix guy to send a screenshot of their desktops. Dennis Ritchie sent his. HERE is the straight link to that picture. I'm kinda devastated to see this!!

Re:IT IS *TRUE*!!! ARGH!!

[Anonymous Coward]

uh.. right.. he's using like 75% of his desktop to run plan9, and we're bitching cause he's doing it w/ windows?

I think you're all just jealous that you lack his l33t plan9 skillz.

I'm going to make my own bill.

[Anonymous Coward]

Whenever you watch a movie in a theater you are committing a crime. You only paid for the right to view the movie once and yet you watch with TWO eyes. When my new bill passes you all will have to pay for each eye to view the movie or wear a mandatory eye patch. Keep in mind if you watched a pirated movie with both eyes open you will have committed the crime twice! In a "three strikes, you're out" state like california watching 2 pirated movies will count as 4 strikes and will require a life sentence. Seeing a pirated movie and also seeing its reflection will also count as four stikes. In the new empire the rule will be "don't make eye contact."

Not so fast

[nexex]

Hmm,

Representative Howard Berman's (D-Cal.) P2P Bill

This virulent Trojan Horse, written by Senator Ernest "Fritz" Hollings (D-NC)

President Clinton signed into law a new "sequel" to the unconstitutional Communications Decency Act.

DMCA co-sponsored by Mr. CONYERS(D-IN), and Mr. FRANK (D-Mass)

If anything, Democrats and liberals are just as much a part....

Re:Not so fast

[Anonymous Coward]

Err... Hollings is the old coot from *South* Carolina. We in North Carolina have our own coot -- Jesse Helms.

Re:Not so fast

[Glytch]

Oh, please. Democrats are not liberals. Just milder conservatives.

Re:Not so fast

[sv0f]

If anything, Democrats and liberals are just as much a part....

Then why is the list 80% Republicans and 20% Democats?

thats useful

[Anonymous Coward]

It would have been nice if they included some way to show which of these sellouts are already kicked out of office.

I notice at least 3 of these guys from my general area are history at this point...

They should make like a list of who still needs to get voted out of office.

Like most wanted out of office list or something.

Why did the Constitution cross the road

[Anonymous Coward]

To be p*ssed on by conspiring short sided businessmen and greedy politicians (like Phil Gramm) collaborating to destroy a free market.

Who is worse, the people who abuse privileges/freedoms, or the people who limit the privileges/freedoms to curb the abuse.

You have been deceived. See "Keynes", and the Creature From Jeckyl Island. Turn off your teevee for a night eh?

Ya, ya, ya... the Dems' invented the internet

[ChaosMt]

Yup, Al Gore invented the term "Information Superhighway" in order to explain to his politicial peers the importance of the internet from a legislatures point of view. See, all congressmen love highway projects; take a whiff and smell the pork. This turn of phrase was very clever.

However, I have to take issue this comment in the assumption that these bills are partisan and party driven. Not so. Since, in the eyes of washington, these are minor issues that registered voters don't care enough about to swing their vote, these bills and actions are up to the highest bidder. True, you will find certain types of people, committees and companies tend to have a favorite flavor of congress critter, but that doesn't really make this partisan.

What I'm really saying is, don't vote with your party; vote with your mind. Do your research about what you care about. Look up who their legislative advisor is - get to know him/her. Drop a $1,000 donation to the ones you like, and I your voice with DEFINATELY get heard, and you WILL get to actually talk to the congressman or any memeber of their staff. Ya, I know it's all corrupt and wrong, but politicial donations can be a good insurance policy sometimes.

Yes, it does!!

[MasteroftheVoxel]

Yes, it's right here.

I don't know why they are complaining so much, I thought Episode 1 TPM was much worse.

Out of date list

[Skjellifetti]

Rep. John R. Kasich (R-OH 12th district) left the House in 2000 after running for President. One of his former aides (Pat Tiberi IIRC) now holds the seat.

The tone of the article

[mattsucks]

I read the article, as I'm sure everyone else did (ha!). An observation:

Does anyone else think that the AOTC might have a better chance of getting their point across if the article didn't read like something straight out of Conspiracy Theory? I expected some insight, some indepth discussion about WHY each bill was bad and WHAT chilling effects on various technology areas it might have. Instead, I got FUD. And, no matter how well-intentioned, FUD == FUD.

Re:The tone of the article

[mattsucks]

(i reply to my reply - what a loser) ... and does anyone else think that the acronym "AOTC" was carefully chosen for its geek appeal?

To be fair...

[Meat Blaster]

To his credit, Hatch has in the past come out in favor of Napster (per the grandparent's argument that he's not necessarily pro-MPAA/RIAA). My point is that the subjugation of the Internet by those entities is only the latest battle for the ideals of the Internet.

Another war that has been going on periodically is over so-called 'obscenity', which means different things to different people and, when banned, is subject to wildly different interpretations, and it's this one that I'm referring to. I file Senator Hatch under the category "An enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend", because it wasn't that long ago that he was trying to wipe servers off the WWW with legislation. (1, 2)

The Internet "AS IS"

[Anonymous Coward]

The internet, "as is" rocks! What a great thing!
Nobody has been able to bring it down. Now, if we can afford it, we can get the internet, in full color on our cellphones, of all things. Thanks to Opera, Netscape, Microsoft (Yes, microsoft), All the Linux folks, Arachne (Yes, arachne) and all the others that... (Oh, did I forget AOL?) have brought us this... (And don't forget Mosaic, the granddaddy of MSIE) wonderful toy... (Don't forget all the reasonably priced PC makers) That we all know and love... (And don't forget our local ISP's) and cannot do without. Remember, no /. without the Internet!

donkeys are as bad as the elephants

[Anonymous Coward]

Screw both the Democrats and Republicans. Both of them listen only to their corporate masters.

If you are left/liberal, concider voting Green. If you are right/conservative, concider voting Libertarian. If you aren't sure where you are, don't like those choices or there isn't an alternative candidate running in the race you are voting, vote against the incumbant.

As for me, I'm voting Green where there's a Green candidate, Libertarian if there isn't a Green, and against the incumbant if neither a Green or Libertarian is running. If there's no Green, Libertarian, or incumbant to vote against, I'll vote for myself on a write in ballot.

Re:donkeys are as bad as the elephants

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll vote for myself on a write in ballot

And you spell your name "Anonymous Coward"?

Re:donkeys are as bad as the elephants

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you are somewhere in the middle, there is always the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party. (No, I'm not being serious.)

I'm a Republican

[DanEsparza]

I admit it.

I'm a Republican.

You can bet I'm going to be calling a few of my 'friends' in Washington in the near future -- I'm ashamed of this showing.

I became a Republican because I believe in the values of rugged individualism, less government, and more personal responsibility. This is a poor showing (to say the least) of these values.

Re:I'm a Republican

[sconeu]

I became a Republican because I believe in the values of rugged individualism, less government, and more personal responsibility.

May I suggest the Libertarian Party?

Re:I'm a Republican

[clueless_penguin]

I admit it.

I'm a Republican.

The first step is to admit there is a problem ;)

This is a fine example...

[Dark Lord Seth]

... which shows that democracy as it is (not just in the US, I would not be surprised if we Europeans would havce to endure the same things as well in a few years) has horribly failed due to human incompetence and greed. I hope for you Americans that every dumb law will be dropped for something fair to the people, the monopolies and the goverment itself.

Re:This is a fine example...

[Maul]

If you don't want to endure this in a few years in Europe, get on your politicians' cases now about how you don't want to see these BS laws make their way over to your part of the world. And be watchful of the proposed laws you see coming your way.

The DMCA was passed fairly silently here. Even most people who hate the thing now didn't know what it was until after it was too late.

The Party Line

[Lucas Membrane]

>> Voting along party lines is only for idiots

When a Republican, Teddy Roosevelt was once attempting to give a speech, but was repeatedly interrupted by a vociferous opponent shouting "I'm a Democrat." Roosevelt lost patience and deviated from his text to ask the heckler, "Why are you a Democrat?"

"Because my father was a Democrat and his father was a Democrat."

"If your father was a jackass and his father was a jackass, would you want to be a jackass?"

"No, I'd be a Republican."

Very few democrats can code.

[Anonymous Coward]

Libertarians can't code at all.

...including the Small Webcasters Act.

[ChiefPilot]

According to http://www.aotc.info/ the Small Webcastres act was PASSED in the House (controlled by Republicans) but KILLED in the Senate (controlled by the Democrats). Oh well, I vote Libertarian and Green Party anyway.

"The lesser of two evils is still evil" - Ralph Nader (and many others)

Re:...including the Small Webcasters Act.

[operagost]

How can you vote for both Libertarian and Green? To simplify, Green loves tons of regulations on corporations, Libertarian doesn't like regulations on anything, period.

Wait a sec -- CA#44?

[Anonymous Coward]

31. Rep. Mary Bono (R-CA 44th district) 1 bill $76,604 -- DMCA ...
91. Rep. Sonny Bono (R-CA 44th district) 1 bill $0 -- DMCA

How could they have both voted in favor of the DMCA? Last I looked, Mary took over for Sonny after his untimely demise. Regardless, districts don't generally get to vote twice. Not even when they're from CA.

No man is an island

[coyote-san]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, but in reality whoever you vote has to work with Congress as a whole. When the balance is close, you may be better off voting for the less desirable local candidate so you have a more desirable national party.

This is especially true this year. Control of the Senate may hinge on a single election, and you have to trade off the consequences of voting for the "good" candidate, but putting the "bad" party in control of the Senate, vs. the "bad" candidate and putting the "good" party in control.

Re:No man is an island

[Jonny Ringo]

Bull shit. Your attitude is exactly why NOTHING will change. Every election for that matter is a attempt to "control the senate". Try voting for the candidate that you actaully think is good (you'll feel better about it). If we all change we will finally be able to see how much better this country could actually be.

What should EU high-tech advocates do?

[alizard]

... which shows that democracy as it is (not just in the US, I would not be surprised if we Europeans would havce to endure the same things as well in a few years) has horribly failed due to human incompetence and greed. I hope for you Americans that every dumb law will be dropped for something fair to the people, the monopolies and the goverment itself.

The UK RIP, Council of Europe Cybercrime Treaty, and EU support for American DMCA law demostrates that even with the removal of major corporations from the political campaign funding process, EU politicians are just as capable of stark idiocy as that which US politicians have been paid off to commit. The bad laws you fear are already on the way via pressure from the USA. The good news is that EU governments are heading towards Open Source, which means they aren't necessarily fanatically opposed to good ideas.

The EU, among other places, has an opportunity to seize technological and incidentally, military leadership from the USA in the long run, by simply refusing to pass bad anti-technology laws because the US government and entertainment industry and Religious Right wants them passed.

Getting politicians to do nothing shouldn't be all that difficult. If I were in the EU and trying to get politicians to refrain from passing bad laws on technology and the Internet, I'd be asking questions like:
"Why does [insert your country's name here] need to pass a law which only gives advantage to the USA entertainment industry? Isn't it more important to protect our high-tech industries from them?"

"If America is bent on giving up its high tech leadership with laws like [insert bad US law that your nation seems to be trying to copy] shouldn't you be supporting our high-tech industry by not imitating the worst ideas of Washington, DC? Do you want us to have to buy leading-edge high tech from China, Taiwan, and India in the future? Why should we level the playing field for America when its problems are of its own making?"

Re:What should EU high-tech advocates do?

[maniac1860]

refusing to pass bad anti-technology laws because the US government and entertainment industry and Religious Right wants them passed.

So...what anti-technology laws does the Religious Right want passed that actually have any chance at getting passed. Please exclude laws spearheaded by Lieberman, since that would make them laws come form the Religious Left. Also note that the Religious Right doesn't exist as such in Europe.

Re:What should EU high-tech advocates do?

[alizard]

Internet censorship legislation like CDA and COPA, of course.

Internet censorship is the kind of bad idea that has an unpleasant tendency to spread even without US help, but it spreads a lot faster with the US government encouraging other countries to adopt it for themselves and to help them enforce ours.

Re:What should EU high-tech advocates do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, 'doing nothing' is extremely hard in politics.

If you're in .uk (as I guess from your examples), you may remember, e.g., the Dangerous Dogs Act? The increasingly draconian restrictions on firearm licensing? The positively Orwellian 'Prevention of Terrorism' acts, the Kafkaesque treatment of 'paedophiles' the Computer Misuse Act? The intellectually bankrupt argument for road pricing? The murderous wars our present government conducted against Yugoslavia and Afghanistan?

Whenever some 'newspapers' publish a big enough story about - well, pretty much anything really - democratic politicians feel an overwhelming urge to be seen to be 'doing something'. What that 'something' is, and whether it will do any good or vastly greater harm, is not important. All that matters is that 'I'm against this Bad Thing, and anyone who opposes me is clearly for it!'

How did this proganda get modded so high?

[UncleAwesome]

Vote 3rd Party

It is quite obvious that the democrats are too short sighted on fiscal issues and republicans are too controlling on social issues. Sadly both are influenced by whoever gives them the most money(Few exceptions...McCain,Feingold). Both parties tend to oversimplify the issues. Nothing short of the rise of different parties will rid this nation duopoly on government. How in the world is it possible that the population for the most part only have two strains of political thought?

Do not vote Democrat just for the sake of voting Democrat. It would be too ridiculous.

Mudslinging

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

Now that was a terrible comeback. I point out a couple of facts and you retort w/ insults about someone who actually did stand up for our rights. I will tell you that you don't read /. since you obviously missed the article about Jesse Helms. Whether a Republican or Democrat, the most important thing is where they stand on the issues most important to you. The "all you techies" refers to your previous point. However, it's good to see many of us techies are seeing the flaws in your arguements.

Go ahead!

[Inoshiro]

Throw your vote away on a first-party candidate.

The only real change in the system will come about if people vote third party.

I've got one....

[Anonymous Coward]

How about yo-yo mod?

One other piece of Legislation

[SupahVee]

There is one other heap of legislation that should get mentioned, and when we look back 10 years from now at the shell the internet has become, paying for every 0 and 1 by the cent, remembering when there were more ISP's than just Aol, Earthlink, and MSN, that we should thank that bastion of integrity, Bill Clinton, for signing into law the Telecommunications act of 1996. Remember, this is the law that allowed free reign of the Baby Bells to walk all over the competition, all the while claiming that they were opening up their networks to Covad, et. al. The same law that allowed the cable companies to lock anyone they chose out of the high speed market, while the phone companies were forced to let anyone who wanted to use their networks, not that they made it easy to do so. The same law that allowed for the beginning of the massive fiber rollouts from companies like WorldCom, Global Crossing. Which of course begat useless VC funding (remember Pets.com?) due to anyone thinking that that internet thing was the answer to all their prayers for a new yacht, house, whatever. Hell, you can still see the glut of MBA's in the market for C level jobs. We all know what happened next, that famous bubble popped, and left thousands of tech workers out of jobs. And while we like to jab at MCSE's everywhere, they didnt deserve to be outright fired just because their CEO's had to choose between 10 good employees, or their own over-inflated salaries.

I spent 8 MONTHS out of work, with a mortgage and an infant, because the CEO of my company couldnt stand the thought of not living in the lap of luxury at almost 300 grand a year. And while I know that wasnt the Telecommunications' act fault, the blame does lie there for planting that huge seed of outright GREED in the minds of the people like her.
Yep, it was definitely such a prudent move on ol' Billy boy's part to let the companies in control of the most important technology of the next 20 years run amok. Wise move, Bonehead.

Re:One other piece of Legislation

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey it wasn't bills idea, he just signed it. The republicans are the ones who dreamed up the whole scheme. And judging from the fat bank account and huge mansions of the CEOS that got rich off it i'd say mission accomplished as far as their plans are concerned.

Re:One other piece of Legislation

[/dev/trash]

I spent 8 MONTHS out of work, with a mortgage and an infant, because the CEO of my company couldnt stand the thought of not living in the lap of luxury at almost 300 grand a year. And while I know that wasnt the Telecommunications' act fault, the blame does lie there for planting that huge seed of outright GREED in the minds of the people like her.

What stopped you from looking for another job BEFORE you were laid off? Why is it that the CEO making 300k a year was no problem when you got hired but is suddenly an issue when you get laid off?

Last time I checked...

[Karl Cocknozzle]

DMCA co-sponsored by Mr. CONYERS(D-IN), and Mr. FRANK (D-Mass)

Last time I checked John Conyers was from Georgia...

Re:Last time I checked...

[chazzf]

And the last time I checked John Conyers was from Michigan, has been for some three decades now...

Re:Last time I checked...

[Anonymous Coward]

And the last time I checked John Conyers was from Guam, has been for some seven centuries now...

Libertarian for CA Gov ?!?

[Pyperkub]

If ever there was to be a time in California when a 3rd party candidate had a chance to do some damage it is this year.

Unfortunately, even though both Simon and Davis are idiots (or worse, criminals), absolutely none of the 3rd party candidates have anything to offer, and most (including the Libertarian candidate), seem to be even bigger idiots than the aforementioned idiots.

Re:Libertarian for CA Gov ?!?

[sconeu]

Yep. The CA Libertarian Party has rescinded it's endorsement of the ballot candidate, and recommended a write-in for Art Olivier instead.

The Real Issue at Hand

[stryc9]

These laws really suck. But I think a lot of us are missing the real issue at hand here. It is not that the bad code mentioned in the article would stifle the growth of technology and the internet, it is not that they affect our daily internet/pr0n/piracy binges, nor is it the fact that people with no real knowledge of the technology are making/passing them. The real issue is that although the majority of the american population does not want these laws to be passed a few people with a lot of money are making it happen. Democracy my ass!! And what can we 'the people' do about it?? Nothing.
I am glad I am presently living/working in Canada. Maybe I will stay here ;)

Re:The Real Issue at Hand

[ProfessorPuke]

The bulk of people (call them America's consumers, more than voters) are quite happy with the way things are. They like their creative needs to be fulfilled by professionals employed by a handful of corporations.

They want 90% of prime-time TV to be conflicted cops or wacky families.
They want to pay for new movies about 20 year-old spaceships and 70 year-old superheros.
They want pop music divided into exactly 3 genres (white men, white girls, and other).

Maybe you and I don't like what centralized monopoly control is doing to popular culture. But empirical tests show that the public (of the US, and most of the wealthy world) is just fine with it.

Yes, mobs of teens wish they could download mp3s and divxs for free, and cry when that's taken away. That's the biggest potential support source for anti-intellectual property agitation. But their support for file sharing will dry up if once they figure out that their favorite creators will alter or reduce their output with less financial incentives.

Their hearts may want to copy, but they won't be able to stand on the street corner and justify anything that stops the "performances" of their "artists".

When it comes time to vote on laws, they'll support DRM, "because its right for everyone to pay for Hollywood's work" (even though secretly they plan to go on "stealing" for a while- "but just me, no one else will do this, so I'm not hurting much"). In the same way, lawmakers once prohibited alcohol "because it's obvious, no one should drink", but the majority privately broke the law they'd supported in public.

Regardless of whether or not you believe alternative revenue models are feasible for the entertainment content business, they'd never support the same kinds of "creative products" being produced now. And the public, stuck on a treadmill of "more, bigger, flashier", can be convinced this is what they want.

Someday there'll be a painful period of "Prohibition", where an unlucky minority are punished for DMCA/DRM infractions that everyone does. If we're lucky, this will be a wakeup call leading to a rollback of IP's recent empowerments. If not, then those martyrs will just be the last gasp of freedom before we all get Nielsen chips implanted in our heads.

West Wing goes slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. Arron Sorkin's hopped up on crack again and is posting to slashdot! Isn't the West Wing enough of a soap box for you?

End the Madness

[Anonymous Coward]

To find out how to throw off the chains of oppression and live without explotation read this Freedom HOWTO.

Here's another article I keep bookmarked...

[Pyperkub]

... on this topic (Law and the loss of Internet Freedoms):

http://www.suck.com/daily/2000/09/08/

Realistically, the Politicians are clueless, and the big media lawyers are paying for the politicians and writing the laws in this arena. It won't change until campaign finance is cleaned up, and that is really unlikely.

Seattle

[ImaLamer]

Don't worry, I figured they meant Washinton state also... my vote would be for Microsoft programmers as well.

Contest?

[Pseudonymus Bosch]

Do they have Obfuscated Lawmaking Contests?

Re:Contest?

[Anonymous Coward]

Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bush

Funny thing is, he was talking about the democrats...

Paranoia?

[MacAndrew]

Um, if you read what I wrote you'll see that I did NOT criticize the NRA. I said they are (among other things) a lobby (true) and that they give money to pro-gun Congresspeople (true).

No scorn for the "NRA model," just for $$ in politics.

Two Words: Duverge's Law

[k_187]

In a state with single member plurality districts (SMPDs), which is to say, one canidate is elected by simply having more votes than everybody else, not a majority, the total number of Effective political parties will equal two.

Lets assume that in the first ever election in a district there are three parties, named A, B, and C, and A is liberal, B is moderate leaning liberal, and C is conservative. Results come in and A recieves 30%, B 30%, and C 40%. The canidate from C will then have won. Come next election, because A and B have similar intrests, they will comprimise so their common intrests can be expressed, and some of their individual ones can as well. Then, assuming that there are no major changes in the electorate between the two elections, the new proto-A & B party-D will have 60%, and will defeat C, with its 40%.

A third party on either side of the political spectrum will only serve to marganalize the the larger party, as we saw in Flordia (which is the most prominent example I think) during the 2000 presidental election. If Nader had not been running, his votes would have presumable gone to Gore, as he is closest to Nader ideologically. Gore would have won, and we'd be in a marginally different situation today.

Re:Two Words: Duverge's Law

[Isle]

Hrmmph. No, it explains why you have just two parties in America, not why we have more most other places.

Just miss ONE important concept: Election alliances.

If you live in a country that values the oppion of the people and hates to see votes go to waste, this is a very common concept. Basicaly the two parties A & B would sign the alliance, meaning that whoever gets the most votes gets the votes of both parties. (votes lost in one party are moved to strengthen the other). Not only can it be used in plurality elections like you president, but it can be used in candidate elections as well. A gets votes enough for 23.4 candidates and B enough for 13.7. A lost votes 0.4 and 0.7 are then solved in the alliance and B gets the extra 0.4, and can thus get a total of 14 candidates. The bonus for A is that the otherwise lost votes goes to strengthen his allies and not his enemies.

Re:Two Words: Duverge's Law

[Ubernutter]

Ok boys,

Please remember that unlike in Western Europe, you DO NOT have direct electoral representation at the Presidential level. Your President is elected by people, elected by the voters. This distorts and exacerbates the two party squeeze. In Europe we have numerous third parties and coalitions, and if the same can be said of Canada I would suspect that they don't have your f*cked up electoral college either.

Re:Two Words: Duverge's Law

[finarfinjge]

One Word: Canada. Our system is an 'SMPD' system though we call it first past the post. We have had, in most jurisdictions, three parties for many decades. Federally we currently have five. Obviously there is an error somewhere in your logic or there would only be two parties in Canada.

Re:Two Words: Duverge's Law

[Lozzer]

Thats grossly oversimplified handwaving. It may be close to reality in a system where the politicians desire for power is overwhelmingly greater than the desire for service, but I live in the UK, and I'm pretty sure at all the elections I've been alive for, three political partys have won seats in England. Other regions have seen greater diversity as nationalist parties have also won seats. Each seat is elected by a strictly first past the post system. There is no proportional representation.

Please explain

[Binarybrain]

Are these politicians running this term or not?

Ignoring Canada and everything else.

[Inoshiro]

NDP, Liberal, etc..

Coalition governments. Try reading about them. You'll see that law doesn't apply, except in your two-party system.

And if you didn't realize it, Gore is not a solution. Tipper Gore went after music in the 1980s, saying that everyone should listen to U2 -- it would make the world a better place to do that. The Gore family has been doing a lot of evil. Jello Biafra spoke at length about it. Go get an update on Alternative Tentacles.

Don't believe the lies about Gore, he's just as bad as Bush.

Re:Ignoring Canada and everything else.

[k_187]

Growl, I haven't had to remember this stuff since Intro freshman year. No, the two party system is a result from the election system. As I stated, the US has Single member plurality districts. Canada and other places MPs are elected by proportionallity. IE, the party will give the election board a list of potential canidates, then seats are given by the total number of votes across the whole country, not the individual district.

Yes, Gore is not a solution, but Jello Biafra isn't exactly a voice of moderation either. Canidates, especially in presidential, must campaign on incredibly moderate views as most of america is moderate, the fringes are only important in primaries and fund raising. And I voted for Bush, I only mentioned Gore to illustrate the only way a third party can get their prefrences expressed in a system with SMPDs.

Re:Ignoring Canada and everything else.

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

Canada and other places MPs are elected by proportionallity. IE, the party will give the election board a list of potential canidates, then seats are given by the total number of votes across the whole country, not the individual district.

Sorry - simply untrue. We've got (approximately) the same system as you guys. One candidate from each party in an area. Person with the most votes wins.

Vote splits are a problem, as you say. But they don't neccessarily lead to parties merging. We've had a merge between two of the more right-wing parties happening for the past four years or so, with very little progress.

Re:Ignoring Canada and everything else.

[k_187]

What do you think the mergers of the similar parties are? I never said that this would solve stand stills in government, just that two smaller parties would join to form a larger party. Vote splits are a result of the other problem with SMPDs, that a MP or congressman is not responsible to the party orginization but to their constituancy (or campaign contributers, but that's picking nits in this contest), meaning that while Party ID may have something to do with how an MP votes, it isn't set in stone as it is in other countries (IE. the UK)

Kasich Isn't in Congress Anymore

[mrkurt]

Rep. John Kasich isn't in Congress anymore (thank the Lord)-- I don't know why he'd still be on AOTC's list. I live in the district next to his in OH. I really don't think it's about Democrats or Republicans-- it's about who's taking campaign cash from whom. And, who's on the cluetrain (maybe very few in Congress).

The labor unions are.

[DAldredge]

In quite a few states if you work in a Union shop, you have to pay dues to that Union with no choice in the matter. Including having the union take your dues and use them to campaign against issues you agree with.

This isn't picking your pocket?

Re:The labor unions are.

[DAldredge]

In quite a few states if you work in a Union shop, you have to pay dues to that Union with no choice in the matter. Including having the union take your dues and use them to campaign against issues you agree with.

This isn't picking your pocket?

Mods from last post: Moderation Totals: Offtopic=2, Total=2.

I just love it when people mod down something they disagree with because they don't have the guts to discuss it.

A LOT is to words.

[Anonymous Coward]

A LOT is two words.

Dump Morella - Congressional District 8 Maryland

[Anonymous Coward]

Dump Connie, she's clueless and takes money
from these clowns. From opensecrets.org ...

Microsoft Corp $2,000
EDS Corp $3,000
Global Crossing $500
AOL Time Warner $2,000
Walt Disney Co $1,000
Republican Main Street Partnership $5,000
etc.

Time to dump the incumbent.

Senator from Disney

[mikeboone]

But fortunately the Senator from Disney is a Republican...

If you're referring to Fritz Hollings of the SSSCA fame, he's actually a Democrat. But I'm not sure there's really a difference anyway.

Re:Senator from Disney

[Yet Another Smith]

I think Zoop engaging in a little irony there. The National Security Advisor and Secretary of State aren't white either. I think what our bright young friend was trying to say was that the voting Democratic 'for the poor children who are starving in the streets, the racially discriminated, the handicapped, and the gun violence victims,' was a little specious, given that minorities are represented at the top levels of government, that gun control has not necessarily correlated with crime-reduction, and that top-level Democrats are all about whoring themselves to Hollywood at the little guy's expense (not only Hollings, but also Gore - who killed DAT to get the 'parental advisory stickers for his wife, Tipper).

To sum up, tear-jerking in support of the Democratic Party has been met by a cynical laugh.

The mystery revealed

[alizard]

That's why one or a small number of people need to come forward with startup funding and a useful PAC won't happen otherwise. The reason for the small number is to keep arguments on what has to be done to a minimum, to allow focus on specific goals. The $5 and $10 and $100 contributions will come later, and if you want this to work, open your checkbook when the hat gets passed your way in the increasingly unlikely chance that this will actually happen.

What does the startup funding needs to be spent on? Mainly infrastructure and professionals. We can't depend on volunteers to come forward with the right expertise, the expertise largely doesn't exist in our community. We can't expect people to do the jobs we need full-time ... forever to have done without paying them to do it. To start with, not necessarily in this order, what's needed is:

• A DC office in a "good" area. Among other things, to get the message across to politicians that the organization is for real.
• Top bracket political lobbyists. When the organization is legally ready to collect and disburse contributions, we need people who know what they're doing to go and who are known to Capitol Hill and tell the politicians what they need to do for us to get our support.
• A Website capable of handling lots of traffic.
• A high-traffic web-to-fax gateway of the sort the ACLU, NRA, etc. has to allow us to communicate with our Congresscritters and the White House via point-and-click on issues of interest to the community.
• Legal professionals to navigate the intricacies of registering as a Federal PAC and to comply with state and federal law on political fundraising and spending.
• Political organizers / campaign consultants with at least real state-level experience. The organization is going to have to mobilize our community when it needs to be. Get our people to sign up for the mailing list so we know when Congress needs to be contacted, get our people into the field to volunteer for the political campaigns of our friends, make campaign commercials to help our friends and nail our enemies, etc., etc., etc.
• Staff to analyze new legislation and figure out what's of major interest to us, to make sure the e-mail and snailmail gets answered, to make sure that current information goes up on the Website and mailing list. This must be run by someone with relevant experience.
• A merchant credit card account capable of handling lots of small donations.
• A video production facility capable of broadcast-grade work if this can be fit into the budget.

This must be done before a single dollar is raised to help or fight a political candidate, before a single fax for or against a bill is sent, and this list is hardly complete.

I don't think the problem is lack of interest, I think the problem is that... you're angry about CBDTPA. Without a credible organization that's ready to help our political friends (and given serious contribution money available, I guarantee we can make friends in Congress) and attack our political enemies that you can give money to, who will tell you who our political friends are so you can vote for them or volunteer to work for them, who will send you e-mail to let you know that it's time to hit the fax gateway to tell your Congresscritter how you want her to vote, just what the hell can you do other than to bitch and moan in places like this? Start a GeekPAC without funding or the knowhow needed to be effective? Write your Congresscritter a letter without a multi-kilobuck check enclosed?

The people with the money would rather spend it on wiring their houses for home entertainment as earlier articles here have discussed and invest in projects which probably can't be completed in the USA if laws and regulations under discussion become real.

I know where many of the professionals mentioned above can be found, a fact that doesn't really do either me or us a whole lot of good without the funding to put them to work.

Re:The mystery revealed

[Tokerat]

Very well put. +1 Virtual Informative for you., and I agree wholeheartedly.

So how can we begin then? This obviously isn't hopeless, we just need some large money pool... Would the Linux dirsto Co's want in on this? Who else has large sums of money?

That's a rather depressing thought...

Re:The mystery revealed

[alizard]

Red Hat put a good big chunk into Public Knowledge (Yet Another 501(c)3 non-profit) recently in the apparent hope they'd get something going.

One big problem in this context is that the people who have real money and are giving are giving to the organizations like EFF, CDT, Public Knowledge, etc... which gives them tax deductions and a feeling of doing something worthwhile, which in fact they are. However, they will not and can not solve either our political problems or theirs. Tax deductible non-profits not only can't make political contributions, but can't even publish voter guides. These groups have been around ever since the first threats to our rights have been visible, and we're still looking down the barrel of stuff like CBDTPA and BWG, etc.

We need political organizers and lobbyists who can write big campaign checks with our money to back them, not more public-interest lawyers.

While I can't honestly call them part of the problem, neither are they part of any solution which will keep technology viable in the US. No matter how much money is given to these groups, not one politician is going to have his mind changed by this.

The legal battles need to be fought, but without a PAC with enough power to reshape the political landscape, court victories are going to be ultimately meaningless. At least not in terms of keeping technology jobs in the USA.

If I knew the answer to your question, I would already have hit them up for this. Explore your own personal and industry connections is all I can really say, and that's all I can say to anyone else who reads this who isn't in a position to personally write the check needed to get this rolling or pass the hat among a handful of friends / business contacts to do this.

Re:The mystery revealed

[Anonymous Coward]

How many people read /.? What if we each put in 5$? Think about it.

thank you

[rhodesbe]

for not being an a$$ when replying, it makes discussion much easier.

Again, as I said in the parent, If you are not doing anything illegal in the first place, then you have nothing to worry about. Don't pirate other people's stuff. It doesn't matter how much money they already have. Open source is great, but has limited potential for the simple reason that people have to eat sooner or later.

How would you like to be forced to buy certain hardware to be able to view DVDs from around the world or just listen to your plain ol' CD from BestBuy because of stupid CD Copy Protection mechanisms blocking you from playing it otherwise.

If these companies want to acknowledge "fitness of merchantability" (ISO 9002:2002, et. al.) requirements, then they will not render their products trash with unstandardized copy protection. These companies want to sell CD's, not kill the entire industry with specialized player/media matching. Hell yes the industry should be entitled to protect their stuff.

As far as going to jail for life for my pirated Britney Spears .mp3 (ROTFLMAO), lawyers rule this country and nobody will agree with frivoulous sentancing, just as no one spills coffee in their lap and ends up a millionaire. (It gets overturned, eventually...)

Kind if like the DMCA nursery rhyme

[Skevin]

Jack and Hill[ary]
proposed a bill,
We thought it'd never hold water.
Jack broke down
A Senate clown,
Then bent us over backward.

Original verse by Skevin, 2002
All rights reserved
Any unauthorized reproduction of this verse or reverse-engineering of the provided security protocol key (AKA rot13) will result in retaliation by excessive force to the maximum extent of the law (that is, the law of any backwater third world country of our choice).

Skevin

Another DumbAss(tm)

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people who are shot and killed are not shot by snipers. Check the statistics.

85% of unarmed victims who survive shootings say they could've defended themselves if they'd had a gun. Again, check the statistics instead of the MTV / CNN brainwashing.

And who gives a FUCK if we trade an innocent victim for a dead robber or rapist?

Re:Another DumbAss(tm)

[OWJones]

I said I have nothing against handgun ownership and the right of ordinary citizens to own them. I just said I don't see why people need sniper rifles, hollow-point bullets, and anti-tank-grade weapons. And last time I checked, 100% of sniper victims are shot by snipers with sniper rifles. I also don't see how trading one gun death for another lowers gun violence (which is what the parent posted advocated).

Besides, I read a diverse cross-section of news sources. CNN and their ilk are the tabloids, which I ignore. So where is your 85% figure from, Mr Anonymous Coward?

And I'm glad to see you know for a certainty that all criminals deserve to die, and have solid statistical facts to back it up. I wouldn't want any anonymous people with fuzzy from-an-NRA-pamphlet morals clouding the debate.

-jdm

Re:Another DumbAss(tm)

[LtOcelot]

Hollow point bullets are generally the best choice for self-defense with a handgun; they have more stopping power and less penetration, which means less chance of shooting through the target or a wall and possibly hitting something you didn't want to hit.

Rifles aren't generally a great choice for self-defense, but they aren't a prevalent choice among criminals, either.

Re:Another DumbAss(tm)

[Oggust]

I just said I don't see why people need sniper rifles,

You said earlier that you had no problem with hunting rifles. Where do you draw the line between those and sniper rifles?

[...] and anti-tank-grade weapons.

I'm no expert, but I thought those were illegal for private use already in the USA?

And last time I checked, 100% of sniper victims are shot by snipers with sniper rifles.

Really? So either the people who got shot in DC lately were not shot by a sniper, or you consider that gun to be a sniper rifle? Again, what exactly do you consider to be a sniper weapon?

/August.

"East Coast Coders" indead...

[Woodie]

I take objection to the term "East Coast Code"... First off, I note that only one rep from either CT or MA voted - and for one bill each. The rest of the states in New England (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island) no reps voted for any of the bills. Many votes came out of NY and FL - not too suprising considering the hold that media magnates have there...

I see a whole bunch of votes from CA reps, a few from WA, and a bunch from TX. I'd say one should look in their own back yard before resorting to regional tarrings. The fact that DC is on the East Coast has little to nothing to do with how these bills were legislated; Look where the lobbiests come from - NY, FL and CA - the media hotspots. Plus a good sprinkling from the mid-west, where country is king!

Oh yeah, I forgot, the west coast is where all innovation happens, at least until the bean counters and jackdaws out on the east coast get ahold of it.... ;-)

Kansas

[macdaddy]

Well at least I can say that my state isn't contributing to this shit. Oh wait. Dammit! #24 is from Kansas. Son of a bitch. Well we almost had a clean slate. And we're even fighting MS.

You know what I'd like to see? I'd like to see a website geared towards techs and gear-heads that rate politicians on their tech stances. I would love to see that actually happen. I'd love to know which of the people I'm supposed to vote for tomorrow would do the least to screw me and my tech job. I'd like to see it cover all US states and Fed openings. I think it would be a great thing. If we had volunteers from other countries that would like to compile and contribute data, I think they should be more than welcome to have a site for their country. Thoughts? Suggestions? I'd really like to see this happen. Something like this could help me tomorrow because all the possible people to vote for sounds like absolute dumbasses. You would not believe the mud-slinging on my radio right now. Sheesh.

Re:Kansas

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as politicians rely on private money to run for office and you aren't the guy with the money, plan on getting screwed.

Re:Migration path isn't everything.

[McNihil]

So what? He is using an NT4 as a GUI terminal nothing more. Notice the ssh icon...

Really he could have a couple of thousand UNIX hosts on his fingertips.

Ahh.

[Inoshiro]

So it's a basic flaw within the US elections system that grinds towards deadlock at 2 parties? Sounds like something that needs to be fixed.

I don't accept voting against Bush purely to vote against Bush as any beneficial solution, since it doesn't directly speak to the candidate. There is always a third-party.

Prez CAN'T veto a bill passed by voice vote

[yerricde]

Who signed DMCA into law again?

President Clinton could not have prevented the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act or the Digital Millennium Copyright Act from becoming federal law in the United States. Both bills passed the House and Senate by "unanimous consent", which means that there wasn't even enough opposition to force a roll call vote (at least 20 percent), and each house voted on the bills by voice (AYE, NO, the ayes have it). Such a voice vote implies at least 81 percent support in each house.

If the President vetoes a bill, it goes back to the House and Senate for a roll-call vote, and if each house has 67 percent support for a bill, the bill passes over the President's veto. Thus, whether or not Clinton signed either of the bills has no bearing on anything important.

Re:Prez CAN'T veto a bill passed by voice vote

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but a roll call vote puts their action into the congressional record, where it can be held against them (by voters, lobbyists, the corporations who own their @$$, etc.). A voice vote gives them plausible deniability. If the prez vetoes those bills, then congressfolks has must publicly admit how they voted on the issues. More mud for the next round of attack ads :^p

Re:Prez CAN'T veto a bill passed by voice vote

[KUHurdler]

I think if you look closely you will find many bills that went to the president with a unanimous (or at least high majority) vote, only to be vetoed.

They never made it to a vote in the senate or house again. So your logic is flawed.

Bono vs. Bono

[yerricde]

Tipper Gore went after music in the 1980s, saying that everyone should listen to U2

At least in that case, everybody would be following the right Bono, not the wrong one who would later hit a tree.

I Only See Six Laws

[Captain Chad]

Maybe I'm not counting correctly, but they refer to eight laws and then list six.

Nope. The list is incomplete.

[Anonymous Coward]

For example, the DMCA passed the Senate by a 97-0 vote. Plenty of Democrats were conveniently left off the list.

That's just ONE example.

Re: trading gun deaths

[Anonymous Coward]

Mathematically speaking, you lower the expected number of gun deaths, assuming that the "burglar" has a higher probability of committing future gun deaths than his victim.

VA Senate race

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a pretty safe bet, I assume, that Warner didn't debate Jacob Hornberger.

Jacob would have kicked his ass big time.

Interesting...

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting how, looking at the list of our "representatives" at the end of it, that the Republicans seem to outnumber the Democrats by like 10-to-1.

Do they represent us, the *people*, or the power of big businesses who line their pockets with $$?

We don't vote people into office; we vote them out

[semios]

This is an excellent page, the only problem is if you want to print the page and take it with you to the polls it's over 5 pages long.

So I took the contents of the blog and created this page that allows you to filter the representatives of your particular state. Making it easy to take with you to the polls and stick it to your states representatives.

RE: Comic Book Man

[Rareul]

Loneliness + Cheesburgers is a dangerous mix.

?sp

Privacy Prevention Bill...

[Shao Ke]

I read the read the Piracy Prevention Bill as Privacy Prevention Bill...
Whew....

SexyKellyOsborne Is A Troll

[SexyKellyShutTheFuck]

that's great, you marked me as a friend, you have just as little life as me

Pfff Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

With their stupid laws. Fortunately the real cool software can be made in other countries like OpenBsd from Canada.
Daim

Re:We don't vote people into office; we vote them

[brett42]

The sad thing is that almost everyone in Congress who runs for re-election will win. Unless they do something incredibly stupid, incumbents have every advantage in congressional elections, and most voters probably haven't even heard of, much less care about, the DMCA.

If you feel the need to learn who is buying your representatives, opensecrets.org is a useful site. I think this is where the article got it's data from.

OMG AL GORe ReADS SLASHDOT!

[Anonymous Coward]

So you are al gore? Whaddaya doin on slashdot?

AOTC?

[NoseyNick]

Always used to stand for "Attack Of The Clones" :-)

How odd

[MoFoQ]

Usually, Republicans are the ones in for the quick buck but from the looks of it, most of the Republicans on the list supported the Child Online Protection Act, which had a notable motive but wasn't executed right while most of the Democrats voted for the ones that had a monetary motive aka the right-to-buttf*ck-consumers-bills. Hell, look at California's own Feinstein with almost $400,000. I voted against her every time and yet that b^Hwitch is still here. (same goes for the one b^Hwitch).

Divide and conquer?

[NigelJohnstone]

Sounds like your trying to split the opposition to these bills.

Re:Quick Summary.... I demand a recount!

[Xuther]

Could you count that again? This time not counting COPA/CIPA as many of those bill's supporters were probably roped in on the premise of protecting children from being victimized in/"by exposure to" kiddy porn. Unlike DMCA/CBDTPA which are written solely for the benefit of media giants/etc, I think that while written wrong/overbroad CIPA/COPA may have had good intentions behind it.

Though as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

As far as being consumer friendly, I'd see how many of each voted for DMCA/P2P piracy/CBDTPA before deciding that.

It's Election Day

[epcraig]

Did your represntative vote for the DMCA?

Have you voted your opinion of that vote?

Did nobody else notice...

[Anonymous Coward]

... that the article only lists six of these 'eight bad Internet laws'?

Looked in vain for the name of "Murkowski", immortalised in my memory by well over 10,000 spams...

Groan.

[c.emmertfoster]

So now I'm sitting here, alone, uh, talking to myself. That's chaos.

Or better yet: Hold on to your butts.

It's way too early in the morning for this.

Could have used this yesterday

[Anonymous Coward]

We are voting for some of these guys today! This list would have been more useful if posted last week.
Also note how little money (really) it takes to buy these guys. Compare the cost of the damage they do with the pittance they recieved.

Yes they do.

[El Camino SS]

Its called the US Senate.

Worst programmer in Washington?

[Anonymous Coward]

One name for you all:

Edward Enloe

I'm with you, OWJones, I love these guys

[Interrobang]

They believe in the death penalty for break&enter...without benefit of due process. (As in Is that politician going to take away my second ammendment right to own an AR-15 to blow a burglar's head off if he comes into my house?) These are also the same folks who are so upset with the gubmint when they lock away people (with or without mind to executing them) without formal arrest, trial, and due process.

Lovely 'civilized' society these people envision, innit?

There are cures

[Anonymous Coward]

Parliamentary systems would seem to have a similar problem, but in practice don't - at least in Britain, Canada, Australia and so on, there are a number of parties (Canada's opposition party is only about 15 years old, the party that founded the country has the smallest number of seats), even though they have SMPD electoral systems.

A parliamentary system seems to bypass this problem by being chaotic (either mathematically or just 'cause it really is chaotic). Rather than have "government" (the executive) separate from the representatives (modelled after the British monarchy, prior to democratic reforms, but with an elected president replacing the hereditary monarch), in parliamentary system the representatives choose the government head - as a result, the government is consistantly accountable directly to the parliament (usually daily during question period). Although the Prime Minister could theoretically be anyone in the country, in practice it's the leader of the party with the majority of representatives - the Prime Minister must be continually responsible to the representatives in the running of the country in exchange for their support (Margaret Thatcher failed to do this, and was replaced by the party - without an election).

Another alternative (also used in Australia and New Zealand, for example) is preferential ballots. Simply, you rank your choices. This ensures that your vote isn't "wasted" if your first choice doesn't get in. For example, in the last U.S presidential election, Nader supporters could have voted for Nader, with Gore as a second choice, while Buchanan supporters would probably have picked Bush as their second choice. This can be done either by expressing the choices on the ballots directly (as Australia does), or with run-off elections if one candidate doesn't get more than 50% in the first (France does this, if you recall the most recent election where the left vote was split, giving an extreme rightist second place - it gave voters a second chance).

Finally, proportional representation consists of parties submitting a list of candidates for all the seats, in order of preference. During the election, people vote for their preferred party, rather than individuals, and if 40% vote for party A, then the top 40% of that party's candidates get seats, and so on - parties with even 5% of the votes could still get representatives (giving that 5% of the population (who may believe Elvis is alive) a say). This only works for electing representatives, not government leaders - you still need either a direct vote, or a parliamentary system (most countries use various types of hybrids). However, this allows minority parties to exist (and be noticed as they do their work representing their supporters), giving a larger field of presidential candidates later.

The U.S system is extremely impressive for how well it works, considering it was basically the first. Compared to more modern systems, it has many problems. I'd think preferential ballots are the single reform that could do the most good (and doesn't need major changes in the electoral system - it just changes they way ballots are counted, everything else can remain the same).

Last Post!

[alpg]

(German philosopher) Georg Wilhelm Hegel, on his deathbed, complained,
"Only one man ever understood me." He fell silent for a while and then added,
"And he didn't understand me."

- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...