Slashdot Mirror
FCC Claims Regulatory Power Over Home Computers
Pointing to Assistant Professor of Law Susan Crawford's blog, iman1003 writes "The FCC has filed a brief where it claims regulatory power over all instrumentalities, facilities, and apparatus 'associated with the overall circuit of messages sent and received' via all interstate radio and wire communication according to a blog published by Susan Crawford. The blog can be found here and the brief here (in PDF format). Kind of scary if you ask me." Ars Technica has good commentary on this, also referencing Crawford's findings.
When they pry it from my cold, dead fingers!
Dear FCC... PISS OFF!
-=sig=-
"Congress hasn't said that we DON'T have the power to do this, so we're going to go ahead on the assumption that we do."
Uhhh, that's not the way the government works. A government agency must be given the authority to regulate by Congress, which is ultimately accountable to the People. A government agency can't just do whatever the hell they please just because they feel like it. They must have a mandate and be granted Congressional authority to do so.
All Your Computers Are Belong To Us
The Cure for 1984 is 1776
If there is one industry that does not need regulated, it's the computer industry. We are doing fine without you. Kind of makes you wonder what the state of radio, telecommunications, etc... would be without the FCC locking us into paradigms that are literally older than most of the people reading this message.
Get the hell out FCC we don't want or need your help.
-- the entire computer industry
-- $G
another step in regulating voIP may be a driving instrument behind this.
http://dont.spam.me.anymore.com
Fuck you very much the FCC, Fuck you very much for fining me, Five thousand bucks a fuck, So I'm really out of luck, That's more than Heidi Fleiss was charging me. So fuck you very much the FCC, For proving that free speech just isn't free. Clear channel's a dear channel, So Howard Stern must go. Attorney General Ashcroft doesn't like strong words and so, He's charging twice as much as all the drugs for Rush Limbaugh, So fuck you all so very much. So fuck you very much dear Mr Bush, For heroically sitting on your toosh. For Halliburton, Enron, all the companies who pale, Let's send them a clear signal and stick Martha straight in jail. She's an uppity rich bitch, And at least she isn't male, So fuck you all so very much. So fuck you Mr Dickhead Cheney too, Fuck you and fuck everything you do, Your pacemaker must be a fake, you haven't got a heart, As far as I'm concerned you're just a pasty faced old fart. And as for Condoleeza, she's an intellectual tart, So fuck you all so very much. So fuck you very much the EPA, For giving all Alaska's oil away, It really is a bummer, When I can't fill my hummer, The ozone's a no-go zone now that Arnold's here to say, "The Nuclear winter games are going to take place in LA," So fuck you all so very much. So what the planet fails, Let's save the great white males! And fuck you all so very much
but the FCC is heading right to the crapper. Michael powell needs to resign and let someone else more qualified do the job. if only he was 1/4 the man his father is.
I can't tell if you're serious or not. You can go to any other news source for *TEH HOLY WAR ON TURROR* 24/7... I'd rather not be bombarded with war coverage from every direction.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the FCC??!
Witness the FDA's attempt to regulate tobacco. There is no authority for them to do so, yet they are still trying to assert regulatory authority over tobacco. Say what you will, there's no authority for that to happen.
Curb CO2 emissions: Kill yourself today!
So if the FCC has regulatory domain over PCs, does that mean they're the ones to contact so i can download Janet's Titty Shot ? If they can regulate the content on Radio, Television, Print and Cable, does that mean they're willing to step up to regulating content on the Internet? Ha! Will I have to get an "Internet User License" like ham/cb hobbyists? Does that mean my TCP/IP driver will require little stickers of FCC compliance like my modem does? Just when I think that the economy is really suffering, and begin to stress about layoffs and outsourcing, I re-assure myself that beuracracy always grows, and so creates a never ending employment trough. I should start studying for my GSA exam.
The only PT Boat Journal on the web: http://www.PT171.org
The regulatory power should mean the power to regulate our equipment so it wouldn't break the infrastructure and other equipment, or jam the spectrum in the case of wireless communication. It shouldn never mean anything more than that. Specifically, it should mean that our modems cannot send high voltage down the line and the prohibition of DOS (a digital equivalent to spectrum jamming) but should never mean which software do we use and how do we use it, provided it does not damage other equipment, and equipment only. In that context we should have nothing to worry about, though of course every regulatory body tends to increase its power way beyond what is reasonable, if it itself isn't regulated as well. What we need are better checks and balances, not more legislation.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
Shame that the head of the FCC doesn't have the same grace, dignity, honour and intelligence as his father.
Save us Howard Stern!
What I'm interested in is would the FCC would start cracking their whip on consumers/business?
the only way to stop the idiotic FCC is to get your senator to do something about it. it's sad that something as retarded as this would even come up. Let's just forget the damn constitution and bill of rights.
1984 started in 1776 (a new order has begun), had a major coup in 1913, put into practise in 1933, went worldwide in 1945.
The first part of the 20th Centuary the Bush family bankrolled the Nazis (union bank). The first part of the 21 centuary and the Bush family has more power the nazis could ever dream of.
You should have to take a test and obtain a license to get an IP address, before you can spew into the ether(net), just like for radio. The test should cover things like installing anti-virus, de-worming and spy-catcher software, turning on firewalls and the proper way to deal with attachments from strangers. Especially if you insist on using low quality, consumer grade software like Windows.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
existential duty
Please, tell me more about these existential duties.
I don't read or respond to AC posts
The FCC has authority over the *transmission* of signals in most wireless frequencies and at some power levels. The FCC has authority over the *transmission* of signals over the phone lines. The FCC has absolutely no, zero, zilch, nada authority over *MY* PC.
Authority over Cable companies, for instance, is also held by local communities.
This same FCC that doesn't bother to even *look* at how broadcasters are misusing their licenses? (to quote an oft-quoted phrase) They can pull my OPEN SOURCE, PRIVATELY OWNED AND OPERATED PC out of my cold dead hands.
And this is the party that claims to get Government off the people's backs? The founding fathers' dust would roll over in their graves, except the FCC probably claims juridiction over that as well!
Stop posting here and WRITE to your congressional representatives.
Congress defines the mandate of the FCC, and without your input, all they hear is the clatter of change from the entertainment lobby.
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
1. Ignore the whole thing and wait for FCC to really do something. 2. Everybody writes a letter to FCC and requests that they provide you with sufficient information about what to do. Even though alternative 1 would be the most likely, alternative 2 will be more fun, just to see FCC unable to do anything due to the workload it creates to handle all mails. :-)
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
.... at least the terrorists can't come and get the few remaining freedoms that you have left.
this is all about greed. If I pay for hdtv and I want to record something shouldn't I be able to and play it as many times as I want and as long as I want - just as long as I am not selling it or trying to profit from it. And can't I view with my friends that aren't as fortunate to have HDTV. After all they are my friends. I pay for hdtv so I can recieve the signal and so once I have it received it isn't mine to do with as I please. Isn't that why I am paying for it? As long as I am not trying to sell it or make a profit I should be able to keep a copy of it on cd as long as I live. I guess not though - they want us to pay for it everytime I want to watch it. - this is nothing but pure greed plain and simple.
I'd say it would apply if you have wireless broadband only, or if you like to download pretty pictures to your phone. I don't think their mandate would extend to things like a home LAN. The statement is very broad though. i can see expensive litigation over this. Lawyer's love broadly worded laws.
Ok so i RTFBrief & RTFBlog and i jus wanna make sure i understand, the only reason the FCC claimed my TV and possibly computer was so as to not allow ppl to record shows watched on TV? This is merely to justify their implementation of the Broadcast Flag system? So the FCC defered to corporations that want their programming watched only when they want to broadcast it? Well hasnt this been happening for years with VCRs? Why didnt they do something about that? Or is just because we have the technology to do it now, and filesharing is such a problem? Well in a world where everything has a price, this is what happens. Nothing is free any more folks, accept it and change the channel because you wont get to see this program every again, unless the 5:00am slot is looking a little bland tomorrow.
...and it should be known by now
Jan, 25th 2005:
The FCC announces that all computer equipment sold in the USA must now incorporate CCC (Complete Control over Content) technology.
CCC is, by the most incredible coincidence, almost equivalent to Microsoft/Intel Palladium specifications.
Early Feb. 2005:
Dell, IBM, HPaq and most other computer manufacturers quickly announce their support for the initative and the tech industry goes into an orgy of upgrading. All machines not incorporating CCC are then outlawed and/or barred from connecting to the Internet.
Dec. 2005:
FCC, in its capacity as Internet regulators, introduces the "Great Homeland Firewall", which bars USA citizens from connecting to foreign sites deeemed dangerous and/or terrorist. Some people note that Democratic blogs also appear to be rejected by the FCC Firewall.
Liberal cries about "freedom of the press" and "right of information" are promptly dismissed by Fox News and Republican lawmakers as "treasonous" and "unpatriotic".
In 2008, after successfully repelling the 22nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, President George W Bush is triumphantly re-elected as President for a 3rd term.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
OK, who are all the assholes that voted for Bush? This is only the start, folks. We were all given the chance to change America, yet that chance wasn't taken. Welcome to the Powell age.
Howard's right...
And, whether we like it or not, the Federal Communications Commission does have regulatory authority over interstate communications. It was set up specifically to regulate interstate communications.
The question (and the lawsuit) is, does this authority extend to what is done with a broadcast after it has been transmitted and received?
Best Slashdot Co
Don't expect the world to hold your hand everytime your president has problems with telling right from wrong. hell i don't expect other countries to remove tony blair for me i and others will do it at the next election. This is the direction that your fellow citizens wants to take it is up to you to sort them out not us.
Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.
Or the Eastern theory of extreme yin becoming yang, extreme yang becoming yin. It's hard to understand.
More is sometimes less, less is sometimes more. The danger is that by trying to be more, agencies like the FCC end up having their authority weakened. People will not take their policies, and other policies seriously. The more they do to try to crack down, the less effective they become. This is a proven fact, at least in theory.
I guess you'd better buy any hdtv equipment at the mid 2005 'non compliance' sale. I always find that early generations of any given new technology are easier to use because they have fewer copyright type restrictions on them.
So if the FCC has authority over all this stuff, does that mean everyone has to take down their porn during prime time?....
-- Fugacity: Confusing chemists since 1908
I won't be buying my PC from the US.
More importantly, this affects all of us because of the economies of scale. If unencumbered equipment can't be sold in the US, it will be at least more expensive elsewhere as a massive potential market is cut off. Think of the Taiwanese motherboard industry being forced to produce two models - one DRMd for the US and the other unrestricted for non-US use.
Yes, even as a non-US resident, I care deeply about the foolishness going on in the US. If only I knew what to do about it, besides donate to the EFF...
So, if someone starts receiving radio broadcasts on their braces, is the FCC going to start regulating orthodontia?
Wouldn't it make more sense to simply regulate the actual devices responsible for communication, such as modems and ethernet cards? I mean, a computer doesn't necessarily have to be connected to a network, and therefore can't always be subject to FCC regulation.
This may be the one that ends up regulating internet radio.
...let's all call the FCC with complaints about viruses/worms/crackers/etc. They should be able to "regulate" it.
FLR
OT, but admittedly, the 22nd amendment is flawed. True that fresh blood in the Whitehouse is a good idea, it's a bad idea to have Presidents who are only focused on an 8 year term.
Dubya doesn't care about the budget defecits because he's not going to have to be the one to deal with them down the road. Kinda sad, but there's a disincentive to be long term focused.
IMHO, the 22nd amendment should be repealed.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
With a link to the song.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Wake me up if this request is actually granted, then I'll start to worry. Until then, I'll let the courts do their job.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
They better not take my good free cable away from me.
I will be pissed if they turn The Shield ino NYPD Blue (which is apperently pushing the limits of broadcast TV).
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
What we needs in Bush's US are some Constitutional Rights Zones, sort of like his Free Speech Zones. You know, places set up by the federal government where we could use our guns, use our property in the way we want to, and make unpopular political speeches with impunity.
Yeah, this was both troll AND flamebait, but it still needed to be said!
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Why all the resistance? Don't you realize that control over the home PC will put to screws to terrorists, internet predators, pornographers, evil file sharers, newly criminal spammers, and self-absorded forum trolls? After all this is the people's internet and we must protect the children. We must protect those who do not wish to experience indecency. end sarcasm
And you will find that they are covered anything that can cause RF is under the FCC rules. This is nothing new. you will see a FCC notice on all electronic devices you buy and it will state it is in part 15 aka Must accept interfernce and Must not cause interfernce.
The brief discusses the requirement of the broadcast flag in digital television; something Congress implicitly allows. Congress gave the FCC authority over all interstate radio and wire communication, and gave them sufficient latitude to use its authority. Accept that your computer is bound by FCC regulations which are given tacit support by Congress who has tacit support of the majority (50.1 percent at least) of voting Americans.
The bottom of my laptop has an FCC number. It also has numbers allowing operation in countries I'll probably never visit. Your computer is already regulated.
When briefs are filed in court, they typically focus on one legal issue. This issue appears to involve broadcast flags on Digital TV. Courts are supposed to address only substantive issues the parties are in conflict over.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
"since most electrical gear states that it will accept harmful interference, from the fcc, and the device will cause no harm to other devices, or something like that, that is why anything electrical that you own can get turned off remotely"
not sure i would agree with the above theory call it, such theory is only a subject of my research and as such i'm unable to talk about it at great length, as i'd not want to appear ignorant
Interstate communications?
Are you sayign they have not jurisdiction over intrastate communications?
I.e. if I set up a radio transmitter that doesn't got across state lines, then they have no say?
it may be blatant karma-whoring, but this link needs more attention ;-)
Re-Write THEIR OWN CHARTER? Where did that come from???
Congress and the regulatory agencies are always stepping over their bounds. That's why we have the courts around to bitch slap them when they do.
But after reading the article, this looks more like the FCC is trying to interpret the law.
Maybe the brief linked to in the posting was the wrong one.
...
... IANAL
There is a mention of associated with the overall circuit of messages sent and received but it is just a small quote.
From the PDF brief
The issues presented here are:
* Whether the FCC reasonably concluded that the Communications Act provides authority for it to adopt broadcast flag rules.
* Whether the particular rules the Commission adopted were reasonable and supported in the record
* Whether the rules conflict with copyright law.
Although the expansion of FCC authority is of valid concern its neither the topic of, nor addressed in, the brief mentioned.
But
This is supposedly why checks and balances exist. The president may forget the long term issues maybe, but congress shouldn't.
Your theory only works if people take it up the butt without fighting back.
Candy-Coated Knowledge
A PDF can be found here http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf Read it and weep.
Dubya doesn't care about the budget defecits because he's not going to have to be the one to deal with them down the road. Kinda sad, but there's a disincentive to be long term focused.
Hell, he didn't care about it four years ago. Too busy doing whatever the hell he does.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
If they interpret their 'power over' as having the authority to enforce standards, and to prevent others from stepping all over the infrastructure, then I'm all for it.
Its pretty much been shown that companies, left to their own devices produce a lot of incompatible chaos in their attempt to be the only guy on the block.. And the private citizen does not wield enough power to prevent it..
not that I'm 'pro government', but sometimes a 3rd party is needed to keep things from getting out of hand..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Just wait until Microsoft finds out that all these broadcast flags will render their Media PCs functionally useless.
They will spring from Redmond by the thousands screaming broadcast flags are stifling innovation.
Maybe. Just maybe their monopoly might make a difference. But then again if they get a cut of the fee broadcasters will somehow try and extract for viewers for "recording" their favouriate televsion show instead of buying them on DVD at Best Buy then you all screwed!
And they call me a priate for sharing music!
The majority of people seem to be quite happy to bend over and take it up the ass, just as long as it means they don't have to engage their grey matter. :o/
Anyone remember the "Patriot" Acts?
If any of you have been PAYING ATTENTION to your computers, you will find that ALL of them have an FCC logo on them indicating that they have passed certifications. Every computer must pass under part 15 regs, and if it connects to a phone line, it must also pass under part 68 regs. Thus has it always been.
www.wavefront-av.com
If you read the article this only applies to computers with TV turner cards. But regardless this is still the FCC overstepping their bounds.
There's no shame in being a pariah. -Marge Simpson
The real issues are interference and interoperation. The FCC has long been accepted as being in charge of layer 1 - the physical stuff. But in another way of thinking, one could consider DDOS attacks to be analogous to RFI. I'm not saying it's a perfect analogy, but it's certainly one that could be sold to a bureaucrat, maybe even to a legislator. So by this reasoning, the FCC may be trying to extend their authority into layer 2 and even layer 3, in order to meet their real requirements of interference and interoperation.
Now think about how they implement their authority over layer 1. There are things like FCC Type Acceptance, FCC Classes, and FCC Certification. You know that modem that operates over controlled wires, or that transmitter that operates over controlled frequencies... You can't TOUCH them without a LICENSE. So far, so good. If you touch it, you may change its operation, and make it cause interference. The device's FCC Type Acceptance is to guarantee that it will interoperate correctly. Your FCC License is supposed to guarantee that you know how to touch the device without breaking its FCC compliance.
Now extend that to layer 2. That means the FCC owns your ARP, and the bottom of your TCP stack. No more compiling from source without an FCC License, in fact you'd probably need signed modules. For that matter, you'd need a layer of the OS that guarantees that you can't load anything other than FCC certified modules for layer 2 - unless you've got an FCC License.
Now extend that to layer 3.... and the FCC owns the rest of your stack. And the part of the OS that checks its FCC signature and loads it.
This sounds terribly heavy-handed, but the Internet has become enough of a mess that the general public might well accept it. I see several major issues here:
1: Do the FCC and Congress realize what it *really* means to regulate PC communication. Do they understand that it also means requiring DRM Operating Systems to guarantee that an FCC Type Accepted stack is loaded.
2: What will licensing look like? How expensive will it be, and will it be truly knowledge based, or more interface based. (like MSCE) Will there be some sort of "Amateur Internet" equivalent to "Amateur Radio" and what will its requirements and capabilities be.
3: Will the Corporate Linux presence really care about ANY of this, because they'll just license their developers.
4: Finally, to they even understand that NONE of this MATTERS, because you don't stop DDOS or spam at layers 1, 2, or 3, anyway. To really stop DDOS and spam, you need to FCC certify *every single executable* that can connect to the stack, and that includes networked games.
4a: In reality, this probably means inserting the layer 3.5 shim, that *attempts* to police network connections, and prevents direct communication to layer 3. Of COURSE we all know how well that would work in practice, that it would preserve performance, as well as stop DDOS and spam.
As for anti-regulatory philosophies of Republican administrations, I don't buy it having any bearing here. In practice, I see two pieces of anti-regulatory agenda, owning weapons and making money. Allowing FCC increased domain over PCs does not directly affect either of those, so it could well happen. In fact, including FCC certification probably improves corporate control/profitability, so that's a plus.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Just wait till the MPAA and RIAA uses the FCC to fine computer users just like they get the DOJ and FBI to riad Direct Connect Hub operators houses again
Even if we accept your premise that the software/hardware industry needs regulation, the proper venue for such regulation is the Federal Trade Commission, not the Federal Communications Commission. Your complaints about business practices clearly fall under the category of trade regulation.
All your base as belong to us
Online backup with Mozy, sounds like Ozzie, but more!
Ummm.... As a philosophy major, I'm happy to discuss the relative merits of Rationalism vs. Empiricism all day long, but I think even Descartes would have a problem with a statement like that.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
/me 's head explodes trying to wrap it around that sentence.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
For sure, the arguments for the 22nd amendment are as strong as those against it. 20 years of Reagan would have been a bad thing, but 20 years of Clinton would have been pretty good.
I mean, a president with a 20 year plan wouldn't ever see reelection for a second term. Given the rising debt, someone with a long-term focus wouldn't be a bad idea.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
"The brief discusses the requirement of the broadcast flag in digital television; something Congress implicitly allows."
*IF* congress should decide that fair use can be taken away by a technical measure mandated by Congress, *THEN* the FCC would have the implicit right to dictate the technicallities of that measure.
To put it a different way, suppose the vehicles department decided all vehicles should have speed limiters set at 10mph. Setting speed limits is not within the vehicle depts remit, but yet the effect is the same. Has congress therefore given them implicit right to set speed limits?
Lets take it further, they decide that cars must have a driver weight sensor so that only people less than 150kg can drive. Has congress implicitly given the vehicle regulator the right to stop fat people driving by setting their remit to dictate car standards?
All your decency are belong to me.
Seriously, though, WTF? This is a huge stretch beyond their authority. I'm talking Reed Richards here.
Isn't tobacco a food and a drug? You injest it, and it contains chemical stimulants, along with other nice substances.
FDA's Mission Statement
The FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation's food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation. The FDA is also responsible for advancing the public health by helping to speed innovations that make medicines and foods more effective, safer, and more affordable; and helping the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use medicines and foods to improve their health.
If there's a product which clearly falls under a government agency's mandate, but doesn't because of political machinations (bribes, intimidation, and lies), it's tobacco.
"Fuck the FCC!"
--- Ban humanity.
I believe Eric Idle put it more succinctly- go download FCCSong.mp3 from that link. (Be warned, there's about 5million in fines worth of F-bombs in the song... :-)
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Well, until the recent VOIP ruling. I think that is more dodgy than the broadcast flag.
Best Slashdot Co
No, the 22nd amendment should be expanded to include Congress. That way, everyone's in the same boat.
You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
Let's blame Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan, Carter ...
... I guess we'll just have to settle for the chump in chief then, won't we?
Oh wait, what's that, you say those guys aren't in power any more and some are actually dead?!?
Well shucks
Infuriate left and right
It worked for Goebbels, and now it's working for Rove.
And, as far as computers go, people do take it up the butt without fighting back. Why do you think most of them use Windows?
You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
But where's the long-term focus? Don't you want leaders who focus more on the long term? The debt has really spiraled out of control in America. America needs leadership with a focus on the long term.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
...to remove tony blair for me i and others will do it at the next election
Have you been following the opinion polls? Even the most of the Tory MPs have resigned themselves to losing next time. About 2/3 of Tory voters expect them to lose.
Note that this is not intended as a defense of Labour (personally I'll probably vote Lib Dem), just to point out that Labour will almost certainly win by default because the Tories are still seen as being unelectable by most people...
Pray tell, in what facility do you keep your PC?
Is it your house?
This new position gives the FCC the authority to regulate it.
I voted but the rest of the country voted for corporate power over their own rights. You made your bed now lay in it.
The religious right loves FCC domination of free speech, until it burns them of course.
No, America needs Congressmen with real world experience. The way we're running the federal government is no way to run a business or even a household. Going into debt to pay for things you don't need is stupid.
You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
Bush took you sheep for a ride..
I was going to vote Lib Dem in the next GE but then a Lib Dem Lord went and spoilt it all by introducing a nanny-state Bill that tells parents how they should discipline their children. Even Blair didn't have the balls to try that. I don't know if I can bring myself to vote for a party that supports a nanny state idealogy.
I won't be voting Labour or (God forbid) Tory though. If not Lib Dem maybe I'll shoot for the Greens..
The U.S. Executes unarmed, injured civillians (seen the news today?)
He wasn't a civilian, he had been firing at the troops. That doesn't make it any less of a war-crime though.
Someone in the US armed forces need to take a long hard look at their psychological screening while they're at it. What sort of fucked up shit for brains shoots an injured man in the head at point blank range? Fucking loony tunes.
Bush reinvents politics with the "November Surprise": after clinging to any person, position or propaganda necessary to win re-"election", he drops his cabinet and any pretense at "smaller, less intrusive government". Look on his work, ye Republicans, and despair!
--
make install -not war
You are wrong. True a million dollar (either legal, or undiscoverable illegal) contribution speaks loudly.
However money is just a means to an end: votes. Nothing speaks louder than votes. So when I write congress knows I care. They know I will be watching this issue. If I don't like the response I will vote for someone else. Because I care about the issue I'm likely to tell people about it. Sure I can only talk to 100 people myself, but because they see me face to face, those people are more likely to respond to me than to a television ad. So when I write they have to worry that I represent more than one vote against them. That can be a large factor.
because if they don't, you'll be invading iran or syria next year.
We can only hope.
Here's a deep one for ya:
Anyone notice how the government is slowly using laws about technology to gain more and more control over the populace?
Pretty soon you won't even be able to 'buy' something. Everything will be 'rented'.
I think its time for what will be known as a Consumers Constitution.
We need a formal mandate that will state that corporations cannot fuck with us like they have been. Same goes for the Government.
Funny, knowledge is power. If us geeks have the knowledge to run/make all the gear, then why the fuck aren't we the ones telling THEM what to do (like SHOVE IT)?
The FCC doesn't care about anything but perpetuating its power. Digital TV was originally required to be phased in during the 1990s, but let broadcasters off the hook rather than force them to invest money in their future during the huge boom with its record profits. Now, during the unending bust, under corporate Bush, they wouldn't dare threaten the broadcast corporations that manage their political news. Yet meanwhile, the Internet blows away the FCC's only true mandate: a central signal namespace registry. So they've invented lots of new "mandates", including this PC grab. Welcome to real spyware: NSA viruses that enforce FCC content and usage rules. Feeling good about a born-again christaliban at the top of the pyramid?
--
make install -not war
and that's the one we got to see....
Q: remember Abu Greib? what did the U.S do about that?
A: they banned cameras.
As far as ISPs go, ever run tracert? Packets cross state lines frequently, even on communications going from one part of a state to another.
Best Slashdot Co
That way they can't control me...hey if it works for Howard Stern
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
and i can only hope that idiots like you get drafted to go die there
That's the beauty of secret sources of information. They can't speak up. Intell could have been 100% accurate, or 100% wrong. If records are kept and not destroyed or lost over time long enough for them to be declassified yet short enough for an investigator to still care, then maybe we'll find out. So, the public will never know, at least not in a meaningful time scale.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
You know things are bad when the above comment (while certainly on track with its predictions) is moderated "Insightful" rather than "Funny".
I think Bush is a great leader and visionary. He belongs in the White House, and the same can't be said of his opponent. I believe he approves of this message.
whether or not he's actually got anything to do with it.
Or, if you want to sound like an exceptionally smart slashbot, you blame it on Dick Cheney and Karl Rove.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
You left out the birth of skynet.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I hereby declare, that I have regulatory powers over the FCC.
Objections?
I didn't hear any, so it must be ok. FCC it's time for a timeout. Go sit in the corner and think about what you've done.
Or maybe I should go my dad's route? FCC, bring me my belt.
After the Iraq debacle, we re-elect GW with an even stronger margin, and give him a solid majority in both houses.
So might as well go nuts! It's clear the American public don't know or care about anything that doesn't have to do with Gay marriage, abortion, or stem cells. It's time for a good ole fashioned land-grab on civil and regulatory liberties.
Blog it, for whatever reason they seem to look at the blogs now. Why don't every one of you that has a blog or is on one write a simple note about it. Maybe it will actually work to change this abomination. Remember the Republicans are in power so talk in terms of money and family values not human rights or freedom.
I wonder whether the FCC will make us register our computers, like the way the former USSR did with typewriters. Everyone had to submit a sample page to the KGB.
Yeah, just like Bush was going to suspend the election, right? You may want to recalibrate your tinfoil.
yin, among other things, represents being passive, remaining still. restfulness - couch potatoes could be called "yin".
yang, among other things, represents being active, moving (something like running or playing soccer is yang) - in the summer, when it's hot, you are in a "yang" environment, and your watchband fits tighter as your body "expands" and becomes more yin as a reaction - in the winter, you are in a "yin" environment, and you watchband loosens as your body contracts and becomes more "yang" as a response. It goes on and on. In the tropics, the warm (yang) environment produces big juicy (yin) fruits (papayas, pineapples, grapefruits, etc..). In colder climates, the fruits are smaller and less juicy (more yang) - currants, raspberries, apples.
Of course, yin and yang represent other things as well - sugar is yin, salt is yang, competitiveness is yang, cooperation is yin - the list goes on and on.
One example would be if you became extremely yang, and ran 15 miles in an effort to lose weight rapidly. You would find yourself, if you weren't "in shape", if you were being excessively yang, you would find yourself exhausted and resting - as motionless as a couch potato. In this way, extremely active (perhaps excessively active) yang becomes an extremely exhausted, rather motionless yin.
Civilizations rise and fall - a carbon-based life form grows and then the process reverses and it starts to wither and die. War inevitably, eventually, at some point, leads to peace, just like peace, eventually, inevitably, leads to war.
I doubt that in western philosophy it's as prevalent of a theory - well, actually, Aristotle in his "Rhetoric" (I think it was Rhetoric) talks about anger being a form of pleasure, but if you are angry all the time it becomes a bad habit and a form of licentiousness - if I remember that one correctly. Excessive pleasure becomes a vice. Or something like that, probably need to brush up on my Aristotle.
Perhaps a better way to look at it is that yin creates yang, and yang creates yin - they are interconnected, one cannot exist without the other.
If an authority creates rules that are extreme in a particular way, then there will inevitably be a fallout to compensate for that extreme behavior. Our Western sciences and physics might not be able to explain it, (yet) - but if you look all around you, you will see that this is the way that things work. The fact that EFF is suing them is already a sign that there is a reaction to it.
All I'm saying is that our legislatures need to realize that "cracking down" has unintended side effects, and that those side effects need to be evaluated before going to such extreme measures. If no one takes the FCC seriously, and just follows the rules in a robot-like fashion, it will weaken the cultural aspects of our society and we will all be content to watch the same famous actors over and over and over again, and our intellectual capacity to enjoy true art and expression will be diminished.
Or something like that. I would not be surprised if five element theory has no credibility whatsoever in an erudite western world, but the concepts are real, and until you "get it" you don't see that, at least in an abstract sense, the concepts work. But that's often called quackery and alternative medicine and naturalistic fallacies for natural remedies and so forth.
I would suggest that authoritative bodies should try to exercise moderation when it comes to criminalizing the activities of 60 million people, because extreme tactics are bound to backfire (no one is going to take them seriously).
Because in theory, nobody takes a word DEA says seriously. In fact, we continue to take their guns very seriously.
It is always better to be feared than loved. Or even respected. And remember, the eighth layer of the stack is always "Political".
...and die. Actually, I kind of like the idea of information/culture war. it's FUN! and it we get to see uptight christians and heartless federal slugs (such as those in the FCC) get up-in-arms. i love that. sooner than later people (the real kind) are going to start novel ways to fight back against information oppression. hooray!
I have a digital satellite system now. It has no broadcast flag support. Somehow, content manages to get sent over it without unleashing a plague of locusts or whatever it is the FCC thinks might happen without a broadcast flag.
Why in the world would I want to cough up more money to recieve over the air DTV broadcasts that tell me what I may or may not record and/or where I can watch what I do record when I have a perfectly adequate system now? I grew up watching analog TV, and my brain learned not to percieve the imperfections in the signal unless I compare side by side. I watch television for content, not for the presentation. Beautifully rendered crap will lose out to sorta decently rendered but good programming every time.
Short summary: Beautiffly rendered end-to-end digital video with restrictions has a lower value to me than sorta decently rendered but unrestricted video with analog steps. This is because the change will restrict access to the content (which I care about) in exchange for quality rendering (a distant second concern). As a rational consumer, I will not spend money in order to have a net negative value.
If the FCC wants me to switch, they'll have to give me some incentive to do so. That is they'll have to INCREASE my access to quality content. Since in their entire history, they've demonstrated no will or ability to improve the quality of content in general, and they are now focused on degrading my level of access to the existing quality programming, they're destined for failure.
I hate to turn your dream into a nightmare, but all of my experience screams that this claim has nothing to do with the broadcast flag. It's a naked power grab to control the internet within the US, cloaked in the semi-defensible argument that it's merely ensuring that the (controversial itself) broadcast flag is enforceable.
Consider this: our theocracy has resumed obscenity prosecutions. The defense, in a nutshell, is that the "community" that establishes "community standards" no longer exists in the era of the internet - the porn palace is not some seedy theater that you need to keep your kids from, it's a consumer viewing porn (via subscription, encrypted channels or the internet) in the privacy of their own home. The alternative is to allow the most repressed community in the country to define what's acceptable for the rest of the country.
Maybe this defense will succeed. Maybe it won't. But if it succeeds the feds won't have much authority to go after porn sites - or anything else that offends them. (I'm especially concerned about a latter-day Pentagon Papers case. There's a staggering disconnect between what this administration claims is true and what's the ground reality... and the incoming cabinet and Congress looks like it's moving even further into fantasyland.)
Enter this brief. Even if the government loses this obscenity case, the FCC can step in and say that it's shutting down any site containing "obscene" material as it, alone, defines it. There's far, far too many sites to monitor manually so they'll undoubtably turn to secret lists like the kiddie filters - and besides hard and softcore porn we'll undoubtably discover that the filters block breast cancer and chicken recipes, sites that discuss your rights under the Bill of Rights (except for the second, oddly), the Constitution itself, websites critical of the incumbent president or supportive of the challenger....
In these circumstances, discussing and criticizing The List itself will undoubtably be verboten. That might give the nasty porn guys (and liberals) ideas on how to circumvent the restrictions.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
First they want to show more and more commercials, to the extent that they make up over 50% of the content, then they dive head-first into reality TV.
I don't mind shows like Survivor. I don't watch them, but that's me. My problem with reality TV is that it dominates the TV landscape to the extent that there is no longer anything for me to watch. They're slowly coming to the realization that not only am I not alone, but after they've made their quick buck, nothing they've produced is re-runable. No syndication, no more money.
How much money has been made on "Bewitched" over the past 40 years? Can you see the networks showing reruns of Survivor even five years from now, let alone on Nick At Nite in 2044? Disposable TV costs the networks money, and the jeniuses who run the networks are finally coming to realize that. Too bad most real TV fans have switched to HBO.
Republicans are idiots.
It'd keep the clueless n00bs out, by requiring a level of knowledge/competence just to sign on.
Only outlaws will have mice
Find coupons in Greeley
Not to mention that a huge chunk of people are Baby Boomers who don't understand computers (and so can't understand the implications of this), are scared of them to begin with, and on top of all that are scared about "ter'rists" using them!
I can imagine lots of old people vocally supporting this!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
"corporations cannot fuck with us like they have been"
Funny how corporations, which sell you stuff, which you buy freely, are "fuck[ing]" with you when they sell you stuff, which you buy freely.
"Same goes for the Government."
That I'll give you.
...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Here's the letter I wrote my rep:
.blarg.
Don't know about the grandparent troll, but I intend to eat tonight. Then I will likely defecate, and perhaps bathe. After that, I will consider my existential duties largely complete for the day. Probably I'll get drunk.
(Score: -1, Stupid)
Fuck those sand niggers.
The referenced FCC doc is a response to petition. In it's response the FCC supports it's regulatory jurisdiction with past 'pro-consumer' rulings. Examples:Closed caption capability, All channel capability. These are required in TV receivers and have nothing to do with current president or conress. The libertarians have been telling you all along that the govt. can justify doing things you don't like by applying the same arguments used to support the things you wanted them to do. It's the same old story, 'majority rules' is great until you're in the minority. The govt. protection of consumer advocates gave the FCC most of it's ammunition here, not GWB.
Technically the ATSC flag is optional for the broadcaster and does not prevent copying. It prevents multiple copies. Requiring it in a DTV capable receiver applies to DTV receivers, even if they are installed in computers. It's still up to the broadcaster to turn the flag on and off. If you want to get around it anyway, gnuradio will decode ATSC broadcasts, is open source, and you can disable the flag at your end. What you say, the FCC will require the flag in the receiver so how can I do this? Flag is required for digital receivers. gnuradio uses an analog receiver and decodes the ATSC on your PeeCee.
The flag will do nothing to prevent hard core (read 'beyond the shrink wrap') radio/TV hackers from removing the flag.
I have not read the specifications, but I would not be surprised if it were pretty simple to reset the flag in the allowed first generation copy. Resetting the flag in each subsequent copy would effectively disable it. Anyone looked at this?
Now I'm the grandest Tiger in the Jungle!
The FCC is claiming the right to regulate "all interstate radio and wire communication," not only wireless. (read the fine PDF cited above)
CB doesn't require a license anymore; you just have to use certified gear and there are rules which someone can complain to the FCC if you break.
I think the risk of the FCC regulating PC and ATSC tuner card makers and ISPs is worse than requiring internet licenses for individuals. I think they got out of CB licensing because it was too much of a pain in the ass & didn't generate enough revenue (I remember $5 licenses ca. 1975). There was no ARRL to handle the paperwork.
Worst case scenario: ISPs are required to install "smart filter/search" Echelon-like systems that watch for "pirated" content and snuff it while also giving a "kill switch" instant DMCA-takedown mechanism for MPAA-paid mercenaries to use.
I HEAR lots of old people vocally supporting this. Non-techies and baby boomers won't even listen to explanations of why they shouldn't support it...
...as it is instightful, but also calls total partisan bullshit that is becoming so damn tiresome now. Perhaps it was a bad idea for /. to start a politics forum during the election becasue it seems to have drawn the Bush-bashing trolls out from under their mold-infested rocks, which brings on the wrath of a small but vocal minority of shrill Bush-apologists.
The parent poster is right. The US government has been asleep at the wheel since Carter...hell it's been longer than that. It's the same with Canadian govenrment too--They've been asleep for over well over 20 years too. The public that bother to get politically involved tend to focus too much on partisan posturing and let the bureaucratic lunatics run the asylum (the European governments are falling quite out of touch too). It hasn't mattered which party has held power--all the administrations were acting in a self-interested manner.
Thing is, it is still a democratic society and democratically elected governments have the authority to call the shots over the mandates of these regulatory agencies. The problem with the FCC, CIA and others is that they were given vague or broad mandates. The FCC is just acting like a "good" bureaucratdoes--interpret its mandate to the broadest extent to justify its existence and ever-increasing budget (kind of like how three-year-old children behave). Congress has to get off its collective ass and set boundaries. Won't happen easily though because even though RIAA and MPAA member corporations can't vote, they sure make good campaign funders.
IIRC, the FCC's original goal was to ensure that radio broadcasts stayed within certain boundries. A radio station would not be allowed to broadcast on a CB frequency, for example. If somebody finds out that there are broadcasts where there shouldn't be, the FCC fines the broadcaster. This makes sure that there is very little interference in certain spectrums.
So, how is licensing a radio station a means to this end? How is the broadcast flag a means to this end?
The FCC's other main task is to regulate and enforce telephone communication protocols. However, these protocols are so entrenched now that a telco trying to change them would be commiting suicide. So, I don't even think that this responsibility needs to be beared by anybody.
As for "decensy"(sp?), I can't for the life of me figure out how the FCC arrived at the conclusion that it could regulate that. This is the job of the market, or, at the most, local and state government.
OH NOES!!! IT APPEARS YUO DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY FOR DIS HERE PIZZA! WAHT EVER ARE YOU GOING TO DO!?!?
Executive, Legislative, Judicial, Law Enforcement, Media.
Insane debt and insane fiscal policy and insane war crimes and insane sacrilege and insane police state and insane big government.
This is what your country looks like on Republicans.
... after all, these are the fuckwits trying to push BPL...
we're all screwed!
FCC, in its capacity as Internet regulators, introduces the "Great Homeland Firewall", which bars USA citizens from connecting to foreign sites deeemed dangerous and/or terrorist. Some people note that Democratic blogs also appear to be rejected by the FCC Firewall.
... and I really think I'm being optomistic, here. We could be out the last of our rights by the end of the next congressional term, the way things are going.
In all seriousness, this past weekend I had an interesting conversation with an expat couple my girlfriend knows, who have been living on a houseboat in France for the last several years (and who flew back to the states to vote).
They told us about how millions of American expats the world over were trying to contact their friends and associates in the United States, to coordinate their political efforts via web sites in the US, etc. only to have their emails bounce relentlessly, and the websites in the US be unreachable for weeks at a time. Phone converstations with friends revealed that these websites were, interestingly enough, perfectly reachable from within the US.
(Cue right-wing zealot's dismissal of "foreign" ISPs and "shoddy unamerican technology").
Of course, the problems all went away one day after the election.
These were not isolated incidents. They were widespread and widely documented.
I'm not sure what to make it (and I expect a dozen or so responses from Republicans denying, dismissing, or attempting to legitimize what appears to have been a concerted effort at blocking communications between US citizens by someone in a position to do so), but I do think it is very interesting that the blocking that is occuring is in the opposite direction you and most of us have assumed it would be. To our knowledge (bit honking caveate there) we aren't being blocked from obtaining information abroad, but folks outside the US are being blocked from obtaining information within the US, or contacting people via email/chatrooms/online fora within the US.
I can imagine several reasons why the powers that be might want to do this. None of them are good, and most are very chilling indeed.
In any event, it appears infrastructure similiar to China's Firewall is already in place, and may have been actively deployed for political purposes already. In context with other developments (Diebold election debacles, the mainstream press in an unashamed curry-for-favors frenzy with the current administration to the point of refering to the appointment of the man who presided over the Abu Graib scandal and authored a memo on how the Geneva convention shouldn't be applied to prisoners as attorney-general, the FCC asserting regulatory control over all things digital, and so) I'm inclined to revise my timetable for the complete decline of the US from 10-20 years to 1-3 years
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
should have read:
the mainstream press in an unashamed curry-for-favors frenzy with the current administration to the point of refering to the appointment of the man who presided over the Abu Graib scandal and authored a memo on how the Geneva convention shouldn't be applied to prisoners as attorney-general, as a moderate and uncontroversial choice in direct opposition the objective fact ('moderate' may be subjective, but 'uncontroversial' is certainly contrary to the objective fact that he has been and remains a controversial figure, and a controversial appointment)
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Corrupt Bastards!
The test should cover things like installing anti-virus, de-worming and spy-catcher software, turning on firewalls and the proper way to deal with attachments from strangers.
With a whitelist - no attachements from strangers on my FreeBSD box.
Wanna bet your 'test' covers windows and not FreeBSD? What ya trying to do? Force me to subsidise Windows just so I can get on the internet?
Bah, your plan is a non-starter
Section. 8. Clause 3 The Congress shall have Power To...regulate Commerce ... among the several States, and it has chosen to have the FCC handle the regulation.
Best Slashdot Co
abolish every institution that infringes on any constitutional right... oh wait we wouldn't be left with anything...
Get your torrents...
In other words, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by posting that quote. Care to elaborate?
We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
Dubya doesn't care about the budget defecits because he's not going to have to be the one to deal with them down the road.
Oh yes he will and oh yes America will and oh yes you will. If you cannot deal with reality, it will deal with you instead, dramatically.
Yeah, where does Ahnuld fit in all this?
What is off topic about discussing effectiveness of congressional communication when the topic is legislative activism?
I've read the FCC brief and I am schocked. The FCC seems very ill-informed and would be seriously overstepping its legal boundaries. Let's watch this case closely but I am sure that any sane judge will rule against such an attempt by the FCC to purposely ignore public opinion and try gaining even more power. Fact is that nowadays the FCC is an almost obsolete organization and it seems they are trying to justify their existence by any means.
Why don't I ever hear this much discussing on how pro-gun sites are firewalled at schools?
There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
after all, they can be used by terrorists too!
i am so very tired....
The Slashdot title claims "FCC Claims Regulatory Power Over Home Computers"
... messages sent and received' via ... wire communication."
The Slashdot description claims that the FCC claims "regulatory power over
Those are not the same thing. Please, dear slashdot, consider prioritizing factual headlines over eyecatching ones.
You're much better off always telling the truth, and alarming people a little, than consistently misleading people and alarming the hell out of em, when there's little to be afraid of.
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
Congratulations. You have the command of grammar of a fifteen year-old. At least corporate lobbyists have taken a class in basic English style.
yea right. Like they'll ever be able to control internet communications. We is free baby
You are right about the process; however, the statistics DO make a difference, and a written letter is worth more than an email by like 1000 times. I think a letter was 6 times a phone call... I guess it depends on the rep.
Although if king george wants it, you are out of luck no matter who your rep is. I should not need explain this here.
Guns isnt really an issue, and neither is abortion.
The GOP does what it needs to do to keep those two large wings happy. It actually helps them to have some gun regulations and legal abortions---it motivates their base more than if they really did something about those issues. They throw out some chicken feed now and then when under some pressure.
Take that last weapon ban for example, most sane people...hell crazy people would have saved it. But bush let it die because the NRA demanded it during election time; otherwise he'd might of saved it. (or so some of his followers say)
Me, I think he would have killed it.
Fear feeds bush's power.
One person's vision is another person's nightmare
"dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope"
Even if they would ban this, there is still a plenty of ways to obfuscate the communication to hide it from automated snoops, and there are also ways to masquerade data as something entirely different; eg. as a video stream from a webcam, or a bidirectional UDP traffic of a multiplayer game.
If they want to deploy technical solutions on us, we will do what we know the best: technical countermeasures. If they want a war, they can get some 4G one.
I think you meant,
"In 2008, after the passage of the 28th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, President Schwarzenegger is triumphantly elected as commander-in-chief of the United States in a landslide election, ushering in the era of Total Information Awareness."
The scary thing is, you know it could happen... ph33r.
That cost is that after a limited time, copyright expires, and the work is then public domain.
If you think a 20-year extension every 20 years is "limited", then please do not post on Slashdot again until another copyrighted work actually does enter the public domain through expiration of copyright.
Probably because even the UN frowns upon guns.
It's trendy now to think we're near some utopian world where the need for "legacy" weapons is unnecessary.
We can't have our children being brainwashed by the minority terrorists.
</tongue-in-cheek>
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
So much for the 10th amendment. Internet isn't even in the constitution. It it's not between states then they can't touch it.
Are you talking about the so called assault weapons ban that was really the 'how it looks not how it works ban'?
That was pure show to 'be doing somthing about crime' when in reality it did nothing of the sort. Not that banning guns is eigther constitutional or anti-crime (it's actually pro-crime, the only people you disarm are law abiding ones).
Mycroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
Better yet change it so the number of electoral votes need to remain in office goes up for each re-election attempt. This is just spot brainstorm and not thought out really, but it not focus the president a little more on the will of the people? Then again we might not want a president who jumps to the slightest trend or spends so much time trying garner votes for next time the whole thing becomes a joke.
Mycroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
I would think not having to worry about re-election gives the statesmen a chance to do just that and not worry about the short term, eg re-election and campaining for it.
On the other hand it means the crap poloticians can feather thier own nest at everyone elses expense without worring about loosing the next election because they don't get to run.
Mycroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
They still have to fear a no-confidence vote though... Hasn't that occurred twice in US history?
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
No confidence vote? are you refering to impeachment? AFIAK no-confidence votes are part of european politics, not really a US option. For federaly elected jobs (president and congress) you are in untill your term ends and then you have to get re-elected. Though for crimes you can loose the job if impeached.
AFAIK the closest to a no-confidence vote is the vote to retain judges some states have.
Mycroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
"The president may forget the long term issues maybe, but congress shouldn't."
They're not supposed to, at least not the House with its two-year terms. The Framers didn't visualize single-member districts and computational statistics that allow jerrymandering individual city blocks. There's supposed to be an extremely high turn-over rate as voters elect issues instead of names.
"No, the 22nd amendment should be expanded to include Congress. That way, everyone's in the same boat."
And you think the major political parties are entrenched now? If you can't get re-elected on name recognition, you'll need to suck up even more to the party that controls your jerrymandered district to get elected.
Entrenched members of Congress and a low turn-over are not the problem, only the symptom. The problem is the districting process. IMO, the solution is non-partisan districting (like IA) or, better yet, multi-seat districts.
At the bottom of the