Slashdot Mirror
Would John Kerry Defang the DMCA?
dave981 writes "Over at ZDNet, Declan McCullagh asks, 'Would John Kerry defang the DMCA?' Kerry's response: 'open to examining' whether to change current law 'to ensure that a person who lawfully obtains or receives a transmission of a digital work may back up a copy of it for archival purposes.' It's not clear, though, how serious Kerry truly is."
> Don't be silly, Kerry may not like Texas, but it should be able to
> survive even if he wins.
I'm not joking. Kerry and most Dems think of the War on Terror like the War on Drugs or the War on Poverty, i.e. a metaphor. It isn't. The West is now locked in a steel cage deathmatch with Radical Islam for world supremacy. Bush might be an idiot on a lot of issues, but on that one issue he 'gets it' and more importantly has the right ideas about how to win. A bit wobbly at times on the implementation details, but show me a war without some major cock ups.
Democrat delenda est
before he reinstates it
This
Along with every other goddamn senator, including the ones you voted for. Don't be a deceptive ass.
Also, your sig makes you look like an idiot. Arafat likes Kerry, so that's a reason to vote against him? What if Arafat said he liked Bush? Guess you'd have to vote for Kerry, then, huh?
Here's a hint: if you do the opposite of whatever the bad guys say, they still control you absolutely -- they just say the opposite of what they really want, and you happily do their bidding.
Good day, dimwit.
Does Kerry even know what the DMCA is?
This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.
There's no push for it.
All it takes is one judge. Let it come to a vote. The problem is that proponents of gay marriage don't want that because they know they'll lose. So they'll get judges to legislate from the bench.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
...is "If you want to hear that I will do it, then I'll tell you that I will look into it. What you don't know is that this will involve asking one or two people who already don't want to do anything about it what they think, so the long-term answer is 'No, so go away.'"...
It's typical of politicians to say that stuff, expecially if they're trying to get into office.
With John Kerry SPECIFICALLY, bear in mind that he has a very hard time giving a straight solid answer. He does not seem to have any convictions of his own. He seems to prefer changing his mind on a whim over anything. It's pathetic.
With Bush, you can like him or hate him. Either way, you know exactly where he stands on a given issue, and if he decides to do something, he doesn't back down from it just because some dolt that want his job is proclaiming that he's made a mistake. (NEWS FLASH! President Bush is human! He's going to make mistakes!)
Kerry's recent attempt to pin this weapons disappearance on Bush is one of desperation. Bush wasn't there to guard it himself. If there's anyone to blame, it's the people who were supposed to be guarding it, and if the issue was manpower, then throw their commander into the mix, too. You can't really go much further than that. Wouldn't it be interesting, if the place was supposed to be guarded by Iraqis? Whose fault would it be then?
When politicians are involved, everyone loses.
Kerry never claimed to be a pacifist. The only reason a pacifist would support him is because, in the American electoral system, voting for a more extremist candidate with whom you agree more closely makes it more likely that the mainstream candidate with whom you disagree most strongly will get elected. Given a choice between a candidate who wants to kill terrorists and a candidate who supports preemptively invading countries with no ties (before the war; don't point to people attacking an occupying force and try to convince anyone they would have come to the US to attack civilians here if they weren't busy killing our troops--you can bet that if the Russians were occupying the US any good American would become a terrorist pretty damn quick) to anti-American terrorists, a reasonable pacifist will support the first guy. An idealist might vote for Nader instead to feel good about himself, but the way our system works makes that irrational.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
1. I won't be voting for Rush Limbaugh. I will let the courts decide if he is guilty of drug possesion though, not the media. I personally can't stand listening to Rush.
2. I support the death penalty. I realize innocent men have been sentenced to death. There is no perfect world. Should we just let everyone go if we make mistakes occasionally?
3. I believe if I base my votes on things that are important to me, I am normal not "narrow".
4. I agree that "what someone else does in their own bedroom is a matter of the government." I don't want to support them with my social security payments, or require my kids to hear that its acceptable behavior for them in school.
5. my mind is not closed, but I do have convictions.
6. I also would hope that a Rape victim didn't have to punish her child by killing it for something a sick-o criminal did to her. If she doesn't want to have her child, I would hope she could give it up for adoption to a loving family that would even pay for her pregnancy. People that can't have kids are dying to be given a chance. Also, I'm not sure why Rape is the leading argument for abortion. Its been estimated that less than 1% of the abortions performed in the US are for this reason. If you feel that strongly about it, perhaps they could allow abortions for rape victims, it would be a huge improvement in my opinion.
By the way, I think that rapist should be put to death.
Fix Your Own TV - RiddledTV.com Avoid the Landfill
I am getting to get seriously modded down, and that is just a reflection of how Demoncats, er, Democrats and their supporters love to censor the media. There are currently bigger fish to fry than the DMCA. There is a good reason for the DMCA, we need to strengthen our grip on IP for the moment. It will be loosened in time, heck, it already has been loosened considerably.
I am very disheartened by what I am seeing on Slashdot. Typically, I have a lot of respect for my fellow geeks (but maybe you are not geeks, merely nerds). The problem I have is that so many people that I consider relatively intelligence are making weakly backed observations and are making uninformed comments. Do not try to speak with authority when you have not mastered a subject. Bush has not been lying (maybe a little, but we _ALL_ do to an extent). Regardless of what Kerry says, I can tell you with the utmost confidence that John Kerry would have invaded Iraq if he were president during this past term, even without 9/11.
John Kerry has done absolutely nothing in his 20 year tenure in the US Senate. During his campaign, he has acted like a prosecutor who has no evidence. He simply makes bold faced lies to the jury, and even though they are objected... the jury still has to hear it. This is an age old technique.
President Bush is certainly not a perfect man, but he has held his position with integrity. He has made decisions that are very difficult, and I am sure that I would not have done a better job, nor would anyone else. He did what any president would have had to do. The economic decline had nothing to do with George W. Bush. He has turned the economy around, and that is irrefutible. If you argue with that you are a fool. Seriously, there is documentation to support this. Whereas the opposition to this merely makes accusations. Healthcare has been horrible for years. John Kerry's plan will never, and I repeat, never be passed. It is too outlandish, and I really hope it never is passed. President Bush's plan is more realistic and addresses the root cause of the issue (many developers should understand what root cause analysis is). Republicans are none supressing minority votes... that is all speculation (and lies). In regards to terrorism, Bush did what was necessary, the public demanded it, as well as his moral conviction demanded it. We did _NOT_ rush to war, as Kerry always states, to the contrary, we probably waited too long to go to war. Us not finding WMD's is a reflection of our hesitance to go to war. Watch, they are in Syria. Also, I do not care if we ever find any WMD's... Iraq was breaking treaties that gave us permission to monitor his ability to have WMD's... how can we know if he has any or not if we cannot monitor? That, in and of itself, is enough reason to remove him from power. Heck, he should have been removed during the Gulf War, but the UN got in the way, just like they have tried to do in this conflict.
This is just all ridiculous. The Democrats are total liars, and anyone who follows them is a complete fool. The Democrats support every single issue that is questionable. They support gay/lesbain marriage (only positive for gay/lesbian community), they support stem cell research from embryos and abortion(only positive for feminists, and do not get me started on that). Questionable item after questionable item. And to top it off, the Democratic Party is becoming mroe and more socialist. If I can recall, I only know of one socialist idea that has been even remotely successful, and that is Open Source Software, and I can argue that the only reason that it has been successful is because of the capitalist economy. Further, it is not really all that socialist... in socialism, the state own everything... rather than the individual who created it.
I am tired of this, I could go on for days. Democrats are foolish. Democrats tend to be selfish, or lazy, or have no one who relies on them. Every government run system runs horribly. Look at the things that ever
Politics, Life, and More on my Aspiring for the Future
Anyone else find it ironic to see a criminal promising to crack down on criminals?
bash-3.00$ uname -a
SunOS panda 5.10 Generic sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-2
No, actually history will show that he voted against the war before he had hopes of the presidency. When Clinton dropped Kerry for the VP consideration it was because Kerry voted against the war and Clinton, and therefore the Decmorats were looking for a "pro-war" candidate. Gore ended up getting the nomination and remembering it 8 years later selected Leiberman for the VP nomination.
Gore lost and 2 years later with Kerry eyeballing the White House the "Iraqi war" vote miraculously came up again. Not to make the same mistake again that he did 11 years earlier he grabbed his nose and voted for the war. His campaign was off with the right start but fate was not with him. Far from the pro-war party of the '90's Howard Dean blasts into the primary with his anti-war message.
Now the vocal contingent is anti-war and Kerry is trapped with a vote he thought he had to make to get the nomination. Fortunetaly, fate shows up for a while and the $87 billion for troops gets a no vote. This pacifies the pacifists and Kerry gets the nomination after all.
Now, one week from the election Kerry is in a turmultous position of having to not lose the anti-war support while telling Americans that they can trust him to be "like Bush." Will he do it? If he can convince anti-war Americans that he is anti-war, and anti-terrorism Americans that the anti-war folks shouldn't trust him, he will win. If he can't keep on the tightrope however, and one side or the other realize he is just using their positions to get votes, he will lose.
I'm of the impression that he is going to fail to convince americans that the anti-war groups are wrong about Kerry. Hence, President Bush will win again.
What do you think? Did I describe what happened, or am I off the board?
Wow. Slashdot Politics really is as bad as I thought if it advocates that Kerry actually has a position. That is like saying that Bush speaks perfect english.
I'm sorry but Kerry has one consistent position: he's not Bush. Everything else that comes out of his mouth is spin. That said, Bush is the same thing: he's not Kerry and everything that comes out of his mouth is spin.
If you think for ONE MINUTE that a president might even remotely try to do something with the DCMA that involves giving citizens rights, you are an idiot. Neither of these candidates will lift a finger to help. When the bloviation, spin and pandering stops, what you have is one candidate that favors large, non-union corporations and one that favors large, union corporations. One will fix healthcare by dealing with a provider-cost issue. The other will fix healthcare by dealing with a buyer cost issue. One will pack the court with biased judges. The other will pack the court with biased judges. One changes position to popular demand. The other tries to change popular demand to his position. Oh, yeah, and both will continue to slog it out in Iraq.
Nice choice. I wish the people in this country would stop trying so hard to disagree and get a consensus already on stuff that matters. At least we all agree that we disagree that the country's headed the wrong way. Unfortunately, if bad things happen in the north, the solution is to go south, not northeast or northwest.
-- $G
No, I bet it is Clinton you really long for...
-BrentYou failed to mention that Bush never had to worry about anyone shooting at his aircraft. It must have been fun to play pilot.