Slashdot Mirror


Gator CPO at the Department of Homeland Security

pcidevel writes "D. Reed Freeman, the "Chief Privacy Officer" of Claria Networks (formerly Gator), the creators of the pervasive spyware package GAIN, has been appointed to the Department of Homeland Security's "Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee"."

846 comments

  1. EULA by xsee · · Score: 5, Funny

    Really. Spyware? You dont read ALL the license agreement?

    1. Re:EULA by Janitha · · Score: 1

      Talk about Irony

    2. Re:EULA by d474 · · Score: 1

      Talk about Corporate Fascism

      --
      Authority questions you. Return the favor.
    3. Re:EULA by caryw · · Score: 1

      I hope the government reads the fine print on his contract before hiring him.
      Asshole probably wrote the EULA's for Gator.
      --Fairfax Underground: Where Fairfax County comes out to play

    4. Re:EULA by randallpowell · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Perfect. The person in charge of a large spyware company is in charge of network security for our nation? What is next? A promoter of torture as Attorney General?

    5. Re:EULA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Perfect. The person in charge of a large spyware company is in charge of network security for our nation? What is next? A promoter of torture as Attorney General?

      How about a deserter as Commander in Chief?

    6. Re:EULA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Fox, guard that henhouse!"

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

      How about a promoter of Death Squads head of our National Intelligence? Or one of Saddam's ex-thugs President of Iraq?

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

      A promoter of torture as Attorney General?

      No thanks, already have one.

    9. Re:EULA by obdulio · · Score: 1

      A promoter of torture as Attorney General?

      You already have what you asked for....

      --
      PENAROL: Seras eterno como el tiempo y floreceras en cada primavera.
  2. uh.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Are you fucking shitting me?

    1. Re:uh.. by jkmiecik · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      This is the Bush administration.

      That being said: No, no they are not. /we're fucked

    2. Re:uh.. by Vo0k · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, uh...

      My suggestions:
      Hannibal Lecter for the national food and agriculture comission.
      Osama Bin Laden for air transport dept.
      Saddam Hussein for human rights jury.
      Michael Jackson for child abuse prevention network CEO.
      And of course Bill Gates for president of ISO.

      --
      Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
    3. Re:uh.. by d474 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A former Corporate data gatherer of consumer information being appointed to "Data Privacy" Czar?

      Why, that would be like appointing a Torture Advocate to Attorney General...oh wait...Alberto Gonazales

      That would be iike appointing a person that misadvised a Nation to start a war that broke down International Relations to a postion that requires her to Strengthen International Relations...oh wait...Condeleeza Rice

      That would be like having a former CEO of company that derives it's revenue from war be elected to a political office that can Strongly influence War Power making decisions...oh wait...Dick Cheney

      To answer your question, no they aren't shitting you. They are shitting ON you. All of us, actually.

      --
      Authority questions you. Return the favor.
    4. Re:uh.. by coolcold · · Score: 1

      and RIAA whole team in charge of copyright laws

      --
      I am harvesting funny/good quotes. Please help by putting them in your sigs :)
    5. Re:uh.. by mrjb · · Score: 5, Funny

      ...And George W. Bush for president of the USA.

      --
      Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
    6. Re:uh.. by randallpowell · · Score: 0

      Steve Ballmer's sweaty armpits shouting "Freedom!" a thousand times as Secatary of State.

    7. Re:uh.. by jim_v2000 · · Score: 1

      That would be like someone spouting the same my-gy-lost-so-bash-Bush nonsense that's been going around for 3 years...oh wait...the parent poster!

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    8. Re:uh.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, great comeback. You sure showed him!

    9. Re:uh.. by blackest_k · · Score: 1

      when i read your post I laughed, If i hadn't I would have cried

    10. Re:uh.. by lachlan76 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And Richard Stallman for the head of USPTO.

    11. Re:uh.. by meadowsp · · Score: 2

      So which of his statements isn't true (or is nonsense) then?

    12. Re:uh.. by hkmwbz · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Guess he doesn't feel like backing up his comments. The important thing is that he got to bash someone who wrote the truth about Bush! And as we all know, if it's negative and it's about Bush, it's "nonsense"!

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    13. Re:uh.. by SlashdotMeNow · · Score: 1

      Oh my god. I can't remember the last time I actually laughed out loud at a slashdot comment. Thanks!

    14. Re:uh.. by notAyank · · Score: 1

      me neither! that was classic.

    15. Re:uh.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus man dont give them any ideas

    16. Re:uh.. by internic · · Score: 2

      We "bash" Bush because he is doing a bad job as a president. Unfortunately, a large portion of the populous is still ignorant of the facts, so he got reelected, but pointing out where the government goes wrong is still an important duty, not just during election time. This has nothing to do with "my guy lost"; this has to do with the fact that truth and liberty lost in the 2004 election.

      Here's hoping they make a come back.

      --
      "You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
    17. Re:uh.. by hkmwbz · · Score: 2

      Why aren't you responding to any of the comments to your post? Instead, your Bush-loving friends mod people -1 flamebait for pointing out things that are unpleasant to be faced with?

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    18. Re:uh.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, at least you could offer the courtesy of wiping their asses for them. Evidently, like the "tub girl", we must like it a lot. We keep on voting for the "shitters" every election.

    19. Re:uh.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and your guy has lowered taxes on the rich, thrown the whole country into deficit hell, has been caught lying to and manipulating the American people on numerous occasions. These lies have funnelled billions of dollars into his buddies' pockets, gotten almost 1500 American kids killed (and rising), completely trashed our environment and weakened our civil liberties to a perilous level.

      If you really think Bush is "your guy" and you don't run a Fortune 500 company, please kill yourself immediately or, at the very least, don't ever go near a voting booth again.

      Fucking moron.

    20. Re:uh.. by jim_v2000 · · Score: 1

      I have this thing I do called sleep. When I get done with that, I go this other thing called a job.

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    21. Re:uh.. by jim_v2000 · · Score: 1

      We "bash" Bush because he is doing a bad job as a president.

      An opinion of yours, one that I do not share.

      Unfortunately, a large portion of the populous is still ignorant of the facts, so he got reelected

      The facts? Ok. About WMD in Iraq, see here. For a LONG time the US knew that Saddam was hiding weapons. Before Bush even took office, Kerry was talking about WMD and Saddam.

      Instead of trying to tout this as Bush lying, you SHOULD take a look at the evidence, which says that THERE WERE WMD IN IRAQ before we got there (He had them, and used them on the Kurds.), ask yourself, where the hell did all Saddam's WMD go? Maybe Syria?

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    22. Re:uh.. by TupperTrenine · · Score: 1

      Might want to hop off the bandwagon there, it tends to burn quite nicely later on

    23. Re:uh.. by internic · · Score: 1
      "[That Bush is a bad president is] An opinion of yours, one that I do not share."

      I don't have any illusion that everyone agrees with this position. My point was that your claim that people only talk about this stuff because of a "my-gy-lost-so-bash-Bush" mentality is false (and rather silly). I don't think everyone who supports Bush does so out of mindless jingoism (which would be an equally silly idea), but as the study I pointed to shows, a lot of people who voted for him didn't know some very relivant facts. So yes, I think many (but not all) voted for him partially out of ignorance.

      "...look at the evidence, which says that THERE WERE WMD IN IRAQ before we got there (He had them, and used them on the Kurds.)"

      I haven't read the 2002 CIA report, but the following is from the 2004 CIA report:

      "ISG has not found evidence that Saddam Husayn possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but the available evidence from its investigation--including detainee interviews and document exploitation--leaves open the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq although not of a militarily significant capability."

      So there it is, it's possible, but there's no evidence. I would say that, as the report indicates, it seems doubtful but not impossible at this point that there were ever significant stockpiles of WMD in Iraq in the period immediately preceeding the war, but at that time the idea that Iraq had WMD was certainly plausible. Whether there were WMDs, though, is not really the point.

      The reason many of us are angry with the Bush adminstration is that they presented claims about WMD as quite certain, when they were often based on extremely dubious evidence. They asked us to trust that the classified intelligence to back these claims was sound, and they betrayed that trust. One much discussed example of this was the case of the aluminum tubes, supposedly for use in refining uranium. It wasn't just that this turned out to be wrong but that it was widely known to be highly dubious in the intelligence community even before the claims were being made, as has been documented in many major news outlets, e.g. the Washington Post. Bush claims like, "Intelligence...leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised," completely misrepresented the sketchy evidence. The "lie" was not saying that Saddam had WMD, it was the "sound" evidence that was known to be faulty and the claims that there was "no doubt". Even if there actually were WMD, these would not cease being falsehoods.

      I put lie in quotes, because I haven't seen conclusive proof that Bush intended to deceive people. He made unjustified claims, falsehoods, to congress, the American people, and the soldiers who went over there (some never to return), whether he did so out of an intent to deceive (i.e. he lied) or out of incompetence is not clear, but either is unacceptable in a president. That's what I'm talkning about.

      Again, this has very little to do with Kerry, his loss in the election, and what he may or may not have said (which I can't judge with no knowledge of details or context). What we are saying is that Bush has failed his country, a statement that has nothing to do with anyone but Bush and his administration.

      --
      "You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
    24. Re:uh.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now thats just being silly, at least the other examples are somewhat realistic....

      oh wait.

    25. Re:uh.. by d474 · · Score: 1
      Your comment should be modded WAY up as informative.

      The way I like to sum this whole argument up is like this:
      1. The Bush Administration's criteria for standards of evidence concerning WMD were much lower than the standards of evidence are for UFOs.


      2. If the Bush Administration gave the same weight to UFO evidence as they did evidence of WMD in Iraq, Bush's State of the Union address would have announced that UFOs are Extraterrestial Alien Lifeforms.
      --
      Authority questions you. Return the favor.
    26. Re:uh.. by d474 · · Score: 1

      It's going to get a lot worse before it gets better. But we will prevail; the truth is on our side.

      --
      Authority questions you. Return the favor.
    27. Re:uh.. by d474 · · Score: 2

      That's bullshit that YOU get modded flame and the dickhead that got personal with me didn't. Thanks for steppin up anyway.

      --
      Authority questions you. Return the favor.
    28. Re:uh.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Some guy on some poorly designed independent website says that some journalist guy in Syria knows where they are." Yup, that's bulletproof.

      How about some legitimate proof there, buddy? Even the more intelligent ones on your side do nothing but parrot the drivel spewed out by the Republican propaganda machine.

      Look, if there were any plausible evidence about the location of the WMD's, don't you think that it would have come out during the 2004 presidential campaign? Don't you think Bush would have been waving it around like he was in the flag corps? Notice that the administration no longer even talks about WMD's--it turns out that we were just bringing freedom to the poor, oppressed Iraqi people the whole time!

      Do you really believe this bullshit? Seriously?

  3. The Onion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Jeez, with a headline like that I thought I was on the Onion for a second there...

    1. Re:The Onion by caryw · · Score: 2, Informative

      No not The Onion, Salon. Which isn't much better.
      And I guess it's true as CNET has picked up the story too.
      He is apparently a Law Professor and teaches a class on The Regulation of Advertising.
      My question is how can somebody such as himself be associated with a company like Gator that tries their best to trick consumers?
      - Cary
      --Fairfax Underground: Where Fairfax County comes out to play

    2. Re:The Onion by anthropolemic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Coming from the administration that pushes the USA PATRIOT Act as a safeguard of liberty, hiring somebody who I'm sure has plenty of experience tiptoing around privacy rights in the Homeland Security Department is hardly unprecedented.

    3. Re:The Onion by luvirini · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Quite simple: Your privary rights with homeland security are about the same as you have with gator. Except that there is no way to uninstall Homeland security sort of total political shift. I am sure next year the easy wiretapping laws will include all PCs and that any company supplying an operating system or other sofware has to provide lawenforcement witha backdoor that does not require court orders to use. Thus: Spyware delivered by windowsupdate.

    4. Re:The Onion by MerryGoByeBye · · Score: 1

      Er, care to elaborate on what's wrong with Salon?

    5. Re:The Onion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are a treasonous, anti-American publication that is helping the terrorists and destroying the country, i.e. they're more concerned about trivial matters like human rights and the Geneva Convention than they are about going after the terrorists in Iraq that attacked us on September 11. They refuse to understand that Constitutional amendments* sometimes need to take a back seat to ensuring the security of the American homeland.

      * Even prime numbered amendments excluded.

    6. Re:The Onion by randallpowell · · Score: 1

      If Bush is so concerned about catching terrorists, why is bin Ladin still at large while Bush to taking an easy trip to Europe?

    7. Re:The Onion by sexistentialist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People here are starting to look like the Grunts in Halo, running around with their hands above their heads, screaming, "the demon is here!"

      While I agree that the appointment is disturbing, it doesn't mean that the government is going to install spyware onto every machine and start doing as they see fit. How many of you use some technology (Norton, AdBlock) to limit the amount of advertisements and popups you receive during the day? How many people do you think sniff the traffic coming off of their machine and make sure it's all as expected?

      The instant that something appears on your PC someone else will know about it and there will be an endless number of FAQs on how to make it benign.

      Remember that we're in the US, but PCs are global. You may find yourself feeling grateful to the hacker/cracker/crypto community at large for the work they'll be doing in the future to protect your privacy.

      --
      Adrian Goins - President / CEO
      Arces Network, LLC
    8. Re:The Onion by Major+Lame+Brain · · Score: 1

      Hmmm. I'm guessing this is intended as irony. I always thought it was our constitution (and all it's ammendments) that should be protected. Giving up those rights in order to protect ourselves is like blowing up your home to prevent thieves from robbing it (effective but self-defeating).

      And in case anybody actually thought you were serious, there were no "...terrorists in Iraq that attacked us on September 11." They were nearly all Saudi.

      This has got to be a troll (you definitely got me). "...trivial matters like human rights and the Geneva Convention..." is great. I'm afraid there really are plenty of people in the U.S. who believe this FUD, though.

      --
      I report to Colonel 2.6.1 and General Chaos is his boss.
    9. Re:The Onion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet another reason to switch to non-proprietary operating systems.

    10. Re:The Onion by GileadGreene · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's kind of disturbing just how many headlines in recent years have seemed like they came straight from the pages of the Onion. It's a bad sign when the satirists get out-done by the bizarreness of the "real world".

    11. Re:The Onion by quarkscat · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ooohh! (temporarily removing tinfoil hat to put
      on the beefier 3.0 mil copper skullcap w/ground)

      And what makes you think that the great bargain
      that MSFT got from the Ashcroft DoJ didn't already
      have secret provisions for a law enforcement back-
      door into their OS(es)? When the regime changed
      hands in 2001, MSFT got off with a slap on the
      wrist that they practically wrote themselves. And
      when the DHS was formed, MSFT was rewarded with
      a huge contract with DHS (in spite of warnings
      from independent security experts to the contrary).

      The appointment of the Gator CPO to their (DHS)
      security commission merely underlines the melding
      of government and corporate America into the same
      mindset - spy on everyone, colate data, and share
      all datasets between government and industry.
      CARNIVORE has (reportedly) gone away, replaced
      with COTS software (from where?). Dubya and the
      "neo-cons" in Congress have repeatedly supported
      large corporate interests over "free enterprise",
      as well as the greater public good. The United
      States Supreme Court basically overturned the
      USA's democratic (by/of/for the people) republic
      in 2000 in favor of corporate interests - its
      called Corporate National Socialism (by/of the
      corporation, for the people).

      A new revolution at the voting booth (presuming
      they're not all Diebold electronic voting
      machines by the time the people wake up to the
      danger), is the only way to turn this "ship of
      state" back on course.

      But I'm not particularly hopeful.

      Meehh! (adjusts anti-DHS 3 mil copper skullcap
      to fit the original tinfoil hat on top...)

    12. Re:The Onion by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      It would have to be irony, because anyone saying that seriously would NOT have figured out the "even prime-number" exclusion that was mentioned.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    13. Re:The Onion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean this backdoor, http://tinyurl.com/62rbj ?

    14. Re:The Onion by miu · · Score: 2, Interesting
      People are running around screaming because this move shows such utter contempt for the privacy of American citizens. Conservative thought has been trying to popularize the erosion of privacy rights for some time now, but this appointment is an actual move and not just more rhetoric. Bush is announcing that the position taken by the spyware companies is the correct one as regards your privacy.

      DRM "security" initiatives, anti-reverse engineering laws, click-through-EULAs being a legal contract, and other bits of centralized control over your computer might make it so that you can't legally discuss what your own computer reports about you. The recent moves to limit freedom of information by conservatives make the possibility of tuning into the "global hacker scene" to stay informed about PC internals illegal too.

      --

      [Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
    15. Re:The Onion by sexistentialist · · Score: 1

      So who are the 50% of people who voted him back in?

      There are some basic things going on here which are rooted in psychology. First of all, the amount of information which is being presented to people has grown exponentially over the last X years (pick any number > 5 and it's a true statement). Those of us who grew up in the information age have an easier time processing this than others who are older. (Not a slam on all people older than me, but I know that my parents have a tough time and my grandparents are hopeless...)

      When presented with more information than it can handle, the human mind will panic and look for the easiest way to deal with it. For most people this starts out as denial and progresses into other states.

      Government has come along and said, "You can't take care of yourself anymore because the whole world of evil and terror is standing outside of your doorstep. Let us handle it for you -- you can trust us," and people are willingly giving up anything that they can in order to feel safe.

      This is the problem at hand. People feel powerless to protect themselves, so they'll give up everything to get a sense of security. Perhaps that is where people should be directing their efforts for change instead of at the brick wall of an administration who has openly said that they don't care what any of us think.

      --
      Adrian Goins - President / CEO
      Arces Network, LLC
  4. WTF by charlieb0y · · Score: 1, Redundant

    I have nothing more to say.

  5. First Post by Da+Twink+Daddy · · Score: 1

    First Post BTW, This is really ironic. How can the person most affiliated with privacy invasion be good at data integrity?

    1. Re:First Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Know your enemy!

    2. Re:First Post by brilinux · · Score: 1, Insightful

      For the same reason that the military loves defectors during war; tbey can tell you how the other side operates, and therefore how to prevent their attacks.

      This almost seems like a good idea.

    3. Re:First Post by somethinghollow · · Score: 1

      Don't be naive in your attempts to get first post (which you missed by a relatively long shot). How many hackers turned into security consultants? Plenty. People who invade privacy should know how to counter their own tricks, and figure out other ways that it could be done and prevent those.

      What I want to know is why should I / we trust him when he has done wrong to a very large portion of the US population.

    4. Re:First Post by rd4tech · · Score: 4, Funny

      no, there are some times when you want things done righ the first time, like an surgeon operating, or food testing, or sex...

    5. Re:First Post by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      This person isn't a defector as they still work for gator.

    6. Re:First Post by timeOday · · Score: 1

      What I want to know, is this guy really a defector... or a mole?

    7. Re:First Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > First Post BTW, This is really ironic. How can the person most
      > affiliated with privacy invasion be good at data integrity?

      In other news, Michael Jackson has been appointed head of child welfare, Darl McBride as new leader of the FSF, Pamela Jones will be stepping down as editor of Groklaw to give way for Rob Enderle and Maureen O'Gara to take the reigns, and Saddam Hussein will be taking over as the UN's Human Rights leader.

    8. Re:First Post by rs79 · · Score: 1

      "For the same reason that the military loves defectors during war; tbey can tell you how the other side operates, and therefore how to prevent their attacks."

      Other than the fact if he has a low enough moral barometer to do what he did it's doubtfull he should be doing what he's doing.

      "Why'd you ask this guy"

      "Everybody else just laughed at us and said no"

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    9. Re:First Post by rtb61 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How about this instead, who better to fullfill that role at Homeland Security, after all they want to invade the privacy of as many people as possible and get away with it. This nasty fellow has already managed to do just that at a private company, just imagine what he will be able to achieve working for that particular government agency.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    10. Re:First Post by Senjutsu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This might almost make sense if this guy had served in a technical capacity with Claria/Gator, but here's his job description, from a press-release they put out upon hiring him:

      Claria Corporation, www.claria.com, today announced that D. Reed Freeman, Jr. will assume the position of Chief Privacy Officer and Vice President of Regulatory and Legislative Affairs for the company. Mr. Freeman, a partner in the Washington, D.C. law firm Collier Shannon Scott, PLLC, will spearhead Claria's continued commitment to industry-leading online advertising privacy practices. He will also represent Claria's interests both in Washington and internationally, coordinating Claria's efforts on policy matters.

      In other words, he's a lobbyist. He knows fuck all about the inner workings of spyware software, and this isn't at all analogous to hiring an ex-hacker to evaluate your security.

    11. Re:First Post by dubdays · · Score: 1

      What I want to know, is this guy really a defector... or a mole?

      I vote "weasel" myself.

    12. Re:First Post by blowdart · · Score: 2, Funny

      Homeland Security Launches Privacy Integration Initiative

      For Immediate Release
      Office of the Press Secretary
      Contact: Donald Tighe, 202-282-8010
      February 24, 2005

      The Department of Homeland Security today announced new software to enable citizens to protect their personal data. The software, provided by a committe member's company, will enable personal information security by centralised all your information, including browsing habits, emails, credit card numbers, documents, spreadsheets and those jpgs of your ex you keep meaning to put on flashyourrack in one central location.

      The software will also protect you from those mean advertisers who advertise things you shouldn't see like cheap generic drugs, stores other than Walmart and communist computer operating systems by replacing those ads with good old american advertising, including links to your local church Landover Baptist.

      Installation of this protection software will become mandatory under the new CAN-PRIVACY act introduced by big business^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hyour benevolant rulers.

    13. Re:First Post by damian+cosmas · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In other words, he's a lawyer. Presumably, his job was to either keep them from getting sued, at which he failed, or sue anyone who libels them, which seems to have succeeded. At least Homeland Security has Sovereign Immunity to fall back on.

    14. Re:First Post by Drexus · · Score: 1

      If he is a partner in a law firm... it's all bad news! Nothing worse then a lawyer in power. Putting a lawyer at the top of the food chain gives him the ability to exercise his shady ploys with the extensive credentials on how to work the legal system in his favour. He doesn't have to buy the police, he will own the courts! Once he owns the courts, he will own anything we touch... there will be no privacy! He will be able to walk into anyone's house without our knowing so. He can align things legally and commercially in his favour! Oh boy is Claria happy with him! He will open up all the doors for them!

    15. Re:First Post by jgercken · · Score: 1

      That is only half the point. Someone who is willing to work for such a slime ball company has displayed their willingness to promote/defend the unethical (read: "evil") activities of whatever institution is paying them.

      Sadly, sticking to your convictions of what's right and wrong, and maintaining one's integrity isn't very prevalent in the Administration.

      --
      Never ascribe to malice what can be adequately attributed to ignorance. -Napoleon
    16. Re:First Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he is a partner in a law firm... it's all bad news! Nothing worse then a lawyer in power. Putting a lawyer at the top of the food chain gives him the ability to exercise his shady ploys with the extensive credentials on how to work the legal system in his favour. He doesn't have to buy the police, he will own the courts! Once he owns the courts, he will own anything we touch... there will be no privacy! He will be able to walk into anyone's house without our knowing so. He can align things legally and commercially in his favour! Oh boy is Claria happy with him! He will open up all the doors for them!

      I take it you don't know that historically in both state and federal legislatures the vast majority of representatives have been lawyers before said representatives entered politics.

      Not that I'm really arguing your concerns....

    17. Re:First Post by runamok1 · · Score: 1

      I posted a few minutes that this only makes sense because if they are "hiring a thief to catch a thief".

      I don't think just the technical aspect is the only knowledge that is important though.

      I think knowing how to "follow the money" to find out who is PAYING for all this spyware to be installed on people's computers and cut it off at the source is actually more useful.

      The technical side is just an arms race between the spyware authors and the anti-spyware folks. Some of the things I have seen recently have their hooks so deep into the OS it's ridiculous.

      Just his contact list might be an interesting thing to see.

      The question is whether he is a "stool pigeon" on his former industry or more of a double agent working at LETTING these spyware companies continue business as usual.

    18. Re:First Post by MrResistor · · Score: 1

      Sadly, sticking to your convictions of what's right and wrong, and maintaining one's integrity isn't very prevalent in the Administration.

      Now, that's not fair! They're great at sticking to their convictions of what's right and wrong as long as it involves someone else's bedroom!

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
  6. In other news by techsoldaten · · Score: 4, Funny

    In other news, Dr. Jack Kevorkian has been appointed National Director of Health and Human Services, Kenneth Lay was appointed Director of the Treasury and Bill Gates was appointed CIO of the whole Federal Government.

    M

    1. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      There just aren't enough mod points in the world :)

      /tips hat

    2. Re:In other news by deglr6328 · · Score: 5, Funny

      *POP* "Did you know your country might be infected with TERRORISTS? You can help to protect your country by downloading policestate V2.0 from GovSoft today! Click here now!"

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    3. Re:In other news by britneys+9th+husband · · Score: 2, Funny

      Mike Tyson will be the president of NOW, David Duke will be president of the NAACP, P&G/Gillette have hired the Slashdot editorial staff as consultants to help them eliminate redundancies, and after his term in office is up, George W. Bush will become president of Mensa.

      --
      Hear recorded Slashdot headlines on your phone! New service beta testing. Just call (248) 434-5508
    4. Re:In other news by identity0 · · Score: 2, Funny

      But at least our new Homeland Security chief, Mr. Bin Laden, seems to know a lot about terrorism. He and the new Central Intelligence Agency director, Jenna Bush, might really win the War on Terror! White House Press Secretary Michael Moore said so, it must be true!

      I only hope that our new Drug Czar and DEA director, Mr. Cheech and Mr. Chong, will be as successful in their fight against those scummy potheads.

    5. Re:In other news by TGK · · Score: 2, Funny

      Shouldn't I have to punch a monkey or something first?

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
    6. Re:In other news by codecracker007 · · Score: 1

      ....and lavasoft filed for bankrupcy after the department of homeland security released a statment that installing lavasoft's vicious software Ad-Aware undermined the security of the citizens. They also suggested that all copies of Ad-Aware be uninstalled and destroyed.

      --
      7-8-9-10-0
    7. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering the pervasiveness of M$ junk in governments, the idea of Bill Gates as CIO for the government is probably already true...

    8. Re:In other news by Halvard · · Score: 1

      This really is very funny. I believe you are an American, having skimmed through your most recent journal entry and your listed home page. But come on, you've got to be pretty reasonably informed, what with your journal the the home page.

      Or maybe you are one of those "dangerous Canadians" that we've secured our borders against :-)

      The heads of Executive Departments are called Secretary with a capital S. And there is no CIO. If you were pointing out that as part of the humor(1) Conservatives seem to forget that government isn't a business supposed to be efficient as a protection against tyrrany, (2) the current administrations, conservative libertarians with a little l seem to think that the goverment is a business or (3) that Bush couldn't come up with anyone's correct title except for maybe his own or Condie's, than mea culpa!

    9. Re:In other news by hungsolo · · Score: 0
      Obl. Back to the Future quote:

      Doc: Who's the President in 1985?
      Marty: Ronald Reagan.
      Doc: Ronald Reagan...the actor? Who's Vice President? Jerry Lewis? I suppose Jane Wyman is the first lady. And Jack Benny is secretary of the treasury. I've had enough practical jokes for one evening. Good night, future boy.

    10. Re:In other news by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Bill G might not be a bad choice as "CIO" of the federal government. Why? Because then he might (-might-) be more likely to actually be out for our interests.

      Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if Bill G decided to one day run for president. He's still fairly young, hasn't made too many overt political stances that would conceiveably harm him, is a "great humanitarian" and is quite world conscious. That, and he'd probably be more likely to help balance the budget and bring us back into the black than the current breed of politician. Only time will tell...

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    11. Re:In other news by goon+america · · Score: 2, Informative

      Geez, that's like appointing Gale "mining & timber" Norton Secretary of the Interior, John "no nickname needed" Ashcroft as Attorney General followed by Albert "what Geneva Conventions?" Gonzales, Condoleeza "lies to Congress" Rice as Secretary of State, a bunch of oilmen in charge of energy policy, topped off by someone as smart as George W. Bush as the President.

      Wow, that would be one crazy, mixed-up dreamworld!

    12. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny you should mention Ken Lay. He wasn't appointed to anything himself, but did hand pick the head of FERC.

    13. Re:In other news by Sn_wC_t · · Score: 1

      no, you have to show him your mams!

    14. Re:In other news by buttahead · · Score: 1

      and the pope of NAMBLA?

  7. Agreed. by hot_Karls_bad_cavern · · Score: 2

    Who is responsible for this appointment? This is just ... wow.

    1. Re:Agreed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Who is responsible for this appointment?"

      Who would have guessed the current administration would make such an appointment?

  8. Hmm... I've an analogy for this... by Svartalf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Isn't this like putting a fox in charge of the security for a henhouse?

    Honestly... DHS doesn't need to be worrying about this sort of tripe- they've got bigger fish to fry. Why in the HELL are they bothering with this when the things they're doing right at the moment wouldn't have done a damn thing to prevent 9/11 from occuring and wouldn't prevent a repeat?

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  9. what a joke! by grimholtz · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ex-GAIN employees in the "Integrity Advisory Committee"??? That's like Richard Stallman working for the Patent Office!

    1. Re:what a joke! by rd4tech · · Score: 1

      "Ex-GAIN employees in the "Integrity Advisory Committee"??? That's like Richard Stallman working for the Patent Office!"


      ssshhh.. quiet...

    2. Re:what a joke! by luvirini · · Score: 4, Funny

      Good idea, we need to start a campaign to get him appointed as Commissioner for Patents in USPTO.

    3. Re:what a joke! by Storlek · · Score: 1

      That might be a good thing. I'm certain we would see a lot fewer stupid patents approved if someone like him was in charge.

      --
      Bears don't normally eat things that talk and move backwards.
    4. Re:what a joke! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ex-GAIN employees in the "Integrity Advisory Committee"??? That's like Richard Stallman working for the Patent Office!

      I'd say it's more like hiring L0pht to protect you from hackers.

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

      I guess they are using the "it takes a crook to catch a crook" strategy.

    6. Re:what a joke! by HoneyBunchesOfGoats · · Score: 1

      You know, after this, I wouldn't be so surprised...

    7. Re:what a joke! by randallpowell · · Score: 0
      That's like Richard Stallman working for the Patent Office!

      At least it wouldn't be so broke that would allow me to patent the grants of patents or patent texts that reveal religious doctrine.

    8. Re:what a joke! by noims · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Ex-GAIN employees in the "Integrity Advisory Committee"??? That's like Richard Stallman working for the Patent Office!

      Exactly.

      That's why I can actually see the wisdom in this. While I do think it's an awful thing, I believe that no committee making these kinds of decisions should be one-sided.

      The question is, what are the leanings of the other members of the committee? One post seems to imply that 'we' should be happy with them.

      In other words, the fox should advise on the security of the hen-house since the alternative is the farmer having 100% control, and sometimes you're the fox!

      Cheers,
      Noims.
      --
      This is not the greatest sig in the world. This is just a tribute.
  10. When they called him to tell him the news... by rd4tech · · Score: 1

    ... it was one heck of a smile ...

  11. In other news... by EEBaum · · Score: 4, Funny

    Governor of New Jersey to head Environmental Protection Agency

    Oh, wait...

    --
    -- I prefer the term "karma escort."
    1. Re:In other news... by dauthur · · Score: 1

      And if you stay tuned to the 6:00 news, you'll catch a glimpse of the new Gay Rights leader, Varg Vikernes.

    2. Re:In other news... by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      Even funnier: Kerry almost won!

      51% of voters are idiots and 49% are morons. The Dems don't want to eliminate stupidity in government, they just want to shift it around.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    3. Re:In other news... by randallpowell · · Score: 0
      The Dems don't want to eliminate stupidity in government, they just want to shift it around.

      Wait a minute! You can't shift intelligence in government if it isn't there. Next time, vote Green.

    4. Re:In other news... by GPLDAN · · Score: 1

      It's the irony administration. Executives of logging companies sit on forestry committees, executives of chemical companies work on clean water legislation, coal company lobbyists sit on clean air legislation committees, the EPA is gutted. Scientists that note the irrefutable proof that global warming is upon us are either silenced forcibly or fired.

      I was saw a re-run of Goodfellas last night. I kept thinking, these guys - they have nothing on today's white collar criminals. Just dumb hoods compared to the well oiled corruption machines that pervade the Bush administration. There is no FBI to stop these guys.

  12. Wow by opusman · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Yet another front page ./ story of massive importance to the whole world!

    1. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But even the world finds this story quite ironic...

    2. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      without going into how slashdot is a US based site and how it explicitly says that in the FAQ, this issue does have potential ramifications to the rest of the world, seeing as many countries follow us and what we do.

  13. Makes sense (in a sick sort of way) by Javert42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Who knows more about data privacy than somebody who has compromised the privacy of millions?

    --
    =\/\/= If it's too loud, turn it down.
    1. Re:Makes sense (in a sick sort of way) by luvirini · · Score: 1

      Well, yes true in one sense. It is the same argument that anti-virus companies use to hire virus writers, and companies emply crackers. But in any of these cases there is the implisit understanding that the bad activities have ended and the person in question knows that they were bad and is willing to work for good instead. In this case this does not seem to be the case. Also the fact is, even with repenting, I would never fully trst such a person.

    2. Re:Makes sense (in a sick sort of way) by bigberk · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Who knows more about data privacy than somebody who has compromised the privacy of millions?
      I see what you're getting at, but I really don't think it applies in this case. Sure, blackhats / crackers make excellent security professionals who can apply their skills positively. But note that these are always people who first and foremost were interested in technical skills and intellectual stimulation from pushing security systems.

      On the other hand, the people who go into the field of marketing have one well defined goal: to manipulate and deceive consumers for profit. I have studied alongside these people when I made the huge mistake of wanting to take some marketing courses. The ideas I learned and people I met literally made me sick to my stomach.

      I do not know a single marketing person who is in it for academic interest -- those people tend to be psychologists. Marketers are business oriented and highly profit motivated to the extent where everything else (privacy, ethics, environment, culture) take back seat. These people sell their souls in pursuit of money.

      You might think I'm exaggerating. But look at the specific people in question. Who works at DoubleClick or Gator, unless they have a genuine professional interest in the wide reaching manipulation of the public for profit sake? I really have zero confidence in these people's s ability to make an honest, well meaning effort towards the rights and privacy of consumers and citizens.
    3. Re:Makes sense (in a sick sort of way) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And of corse, by your resoning, who better to guard my bank account info than the thief walking down the street.

      moron!!!!!!!!!

    4. Re:Makes sense (in a sick sort of way) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was his point, idiot.

    5. Re:Makes sense (in a sick sort of way) by dAzED1 · · Score: 1
      ok, listen. This guy is a corp type. He was a vice president there. That means he made management decisions.

      What we have here is not someone who is able to do it, but someone who is willing to direct others to do it.

    6. Re:Makes sense (in a sick sort of way) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, what you're saying is, he's an incompetant boob, who has been promoted way beyond his capabilities? Gosh, THAT sure makes me feel sooooo much better.

    7. Re:Makes sense (in a sick sort of way) by dAzED1 · · Score: 1

      uh, explain to me how you gleened anything remotely like that from what I wrote? I have no idea how good of a vice president he was. Do you think he's supposed to do *coding* in that group?

    8. Re:Makes sense (in a sick sort of way) by internic · · Score: 1

      Well, I think the more important thing is that people hire reformed crackers as security professionals. I think very few people would advocate hiring a black hat while he's still breaking into systems regularly. If this guy still works for Claria/Gator, then he's complicit in their ongoing invasion of privacy.

      --
      "You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
    9. Re:Makes sense (in a sick sort of way) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      T-Mobile has "compromised" more privacy of individuals than Claria/Gator has.

      "Oh no, they're advertising so they're evil"

      You guys are retards...

    10. Re:Makes sense (in a sick sort of way) by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      This isn't about the rights and privacy of consumers or citizens. It's about protecting the interests of our great institutions of government and business from the citizens. This is the perfect person for the job. He will collect information for the government and for Gat..I mean Claria. Anyone who thinks this is to protect the rights and privacy of consumers or citizens is deluded and naive.

      --
      What?
    11. Re:Makes sense (in a sick sort of way) by nytmare · · Score: 1

      The title of "Chief Privacy Officer" recently adopted by many companies isn't about technical supervision, it's about public relations. No doubt his job at Gator was to make it appear on the surface that they care about the public's privacy, while they do their dirty work under the surface. What are the odds he'll be doing the same type of work in his new government position?

  14. talk about oxymoron by bersl2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee"

    "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."

    1. Re:talk about oxymoron by bersl2 · · Score: 1

      Let me preempt my fellow grammar nazis by saying that '"Chief Privacy Officer" of Claria Networks' would probably be an oxymoron.

      I did mean to change the subject, but I forgot to after I checked the specifics of the definition of the word.

    2. Re:talk about oxymoron by luvirini · · Score: 2, Informative
      newspeak anyone? http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/

      oh and they do also have a section on modern newspeak not only the Orwell version.

    3. Re:talk about oxymoron by Barlo_Mung_42 · · Score: 1

      Seriously scary stuff. The people in the current administration just amaze me.
      That they would reward a dirt pile like this with an appointment just shows how blind they are to the real world. As long as their ivory tower is kept clean they are happy.

    4. Re:talk about oxymoron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot "sharing is stealing".

    5. Re:talk about oxymoron by dnoyeb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      On the surface one could make the argument that having 1 in 20 be an actual privacy violator could add insite on how to protect privacy.

      But That is awefully surprising from such a 'spiritual' administration. I would think they would value what is in someones heart over what is in his head. If he means bad, he will figure out a way to do bad. It does not matter what job you put him in...

    6. Re:talk about oxymoron by albanac · · Score: 1
      "Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee"
      "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."

      ... Bush is president.

      ~cHris
    7. Re:talk about oxymoron by minerat · · Score: 1

      We are at war with Oceania. We have always been at war with Oceania.

      --
      ...and you've eaten your pen. simply stunning.
    8. Re:talk about oxymoron by Darby · · Score: 1

      But That is awefully surprising from such a 'spiritual' administration. I would think they would value what is in someones heart over what is in his head. If he means bad, he will figure out a way to do bad. It does not matter what job you put him in...

      Right.
      Except anybody who spent ten minutes reading up on what Jesus actually said would know that Bush stands firmly against pretty much everything.

    9. Re:talk about oxymoron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ketchup is a vegetable.

    10. Re:talk about oxymoron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please take away minerat. AS everyone know we are, and always have been, at war with East Asia :_)

    11. Re:talk about oxymoron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      friend, that is soo - like - 19 years ago.

      we don't have MiniLuv, MiniPax, or MiniTruth. we have... [###ath0... NO CARRIER...]

  15. I don't know what to say. by DAldredge · · Score: 0

    For the first time in quite a while I am speechless (and those that know me know I do not know how to shut up) :)

  16. Give the government a Guiness... by starX · · Score: 1

    ...and call them brilliant. Any guesses as to whom will be invited to help co-author the next version of the DMCA or USAPATRIOT act?

    1. Re:Give the government a Guiness... by Withigo · · Score: 1

      Why the obvious choices are Dan Glickmanfor the former, and a very special joint collaboration of James Dobson and Pat Robertson for the latter!

  17. Re:Hmm... I've an analogy for this... by geekboy642 · · Score: 0

    Isn't this like putting a fox in charge of the security for a henhouse?

    No, it's more like putting Bill Clinton in charge of a whorehouse.

    --
    Just another "DOJ fascist authoritarian totalitarian bootlicker" -- Zeio
  18. one of the two by Syini666 · · Score: 1

    I don't know if this should make me afriad that such people are advsing the DHS(see also: Gestapo) or laugh that they can't find someone better stuited to the position?

  19. Suprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, I can't think of anyone better qualified to invade the privacy of the American Public.

    He was probably appointed because of the vast amount of data they already have.

    And people still laugh in ignorance when they here the term CEO President when talking about Bush.

  20. Wolves in the Henhouse by glowimperial · · Score: 1

    I can't imagine the pool of hires they had to be looking at for the position that would make any of GAIN's employees be the ideal candidate for any position in Homeland Security.

    1. Re:Wolves in the Henhouse by luvirini · · Score: 1

      He was probably the only person with any sort of degree and even remotely connected experience crazy enough to take the job.

  21. Sounds like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the terrorists have won.

    1. Re:Sounds like... by luvirini · · Score: 1

      You become partly what you fight.

  22. April fools? by adolfojp · · Score: 1

    Hey! What happened to march!?

    Adolfo

  23. First DoubleClick, and now Gator by kennyj449 · · Score: 1

    I do have to wonder... what on earth does the word "privacy" have to do with this? I've seen some bad misnomers before, but not so bad as this.

  24. Perfect match by wannabgeek · · Score: 1, Interesting

    He seems like the perfect choice for me for this administration. After all, he can do with technology what the government has been trying to do through legislation - making it easy for the government to spy on people.

    --
    I'm much more funny, interesting and insightful than the moderators think
  25. Hmm... I've an analogy for this...What's in a name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe we should title this story as "Gator at the gate"?

  26. Tell me this is a joke by bigberk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If this is for real (and I do trust Salon) this falls into the O.M.F.G. category. Someone slap me.

    I recently listened to a documentary on CBC radio about pervasive irony in today's world. It was an interesting program because they were suggesting that the political scene these days is like a living satire. It's just too weird... and this news about a spyware marketer being appointed to a privacy committee is just insane. I see four fingers!

    1. Re:Tell me this is a joke by grozzie2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This actually makes a lot of sense. DOHS is not about protecting your privacy, it's about invading it. They have hired the experts.

    2. Re:Tell me this is a joke by bigberk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I absolutely adore the use of terms like "privacy officer" when describing these people. I see the irony but I'm starting to become concerned that the public may not anymore. People, the Orwellian world is here now and it's so obvious that it's worth reflecting on it for a moment. doublespeak is the twisting of language such that a phrase really means something quite different. Such terms become generally accepted by the public. Invading countries: war, invasion == spreading democracy. War is peace. See? Increasing monitoring of citizens in America, skyrocketing budgets for spy agencies and we are told that everyone is enjoying increasing freedom. Police state == freedom. It's quite beautiful in a way, the way ideas are twisted. Perhaps language is becoming a weapon...

    3. Re:Tell me this is a joke by doublem · · Score: 1

      And here I am without mod points.

      --
      "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
    4. Re:Tell me this is a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      /me slapsbigberk with a trout

    5. Re:Tell me this is a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There... Are... 4.... Liahghts!

    6. Re:Tell me this is a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it doesn't make sense. They didn't hire him as an expert, he's the chief.

    7. Re:Tell me this is a joke by Mr.+No+Skills · · Score: 1

      I forget where this comes from, but "the world is full of irony for the stupid".

      Don't we work in an industry that for a _long_ time has hired people that broke into systems as security consultants? Isn't there a common theory of "who knows more about -a thing- than someone that has -ripped apart a thing-"?

      I'm not proposing that this person is the right one for the job, but I don't think this is a huge story or "pervasive irony". It might just be:

      1) Creative hiring, to get someone that knows how to circumvent common systems.
      2) Incorrect hiring, someone didn't check references.
      3) Bad hiring, no one else applied for the job.

      --
      Sleep is for the Weak
    8. Re:Tell me this is a joke by doublem · · Score: 1

      So, which link is the documentary?????

      I can't seem to find a link on the front page that looks like it could be the one...

      --
      "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
    9. Re:Tell me this is a joke by Madoc+Owain · · Score: 1

      The appropriate quote is, from the Cardassian interregator to Picard: "No, you must be mistaken. There are FIVE lights."

  27. In the immortal words of Socrates... by LMCBoy · · Score: 0

    "you have got to be effin' kidding me."

    --
    Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
  28. There's No Bottom by Ray+Radlein · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I miss those heady days of yore, when there was still room for more outrage in my life. When I could stil be surprised by new examples of indifference, incompetence, and outright evil.

    These days, I am no longer surprised at no longer being surprised by the ghastly things this Administration routinely does.

    1. Re:There's No Bottom by antic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wish I had mod points for you Ray. I, like you, (and as The Onion would say) can no longer believe this shit.

      I couldn't make up a story this ridiculous, yet it's true. Go world, go.

      --
      'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
    2. Re:There's No Bottom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The ugly fact is that it is not just this administration. At first glance it is. However, I would say that it is "Big ". Unfortunatly, this does not follow mere party lines (and one could say that the whole American way should go out the window due to political views).

      People in political "power" are put there due to money and thier interests. Proponents with money back them up and therefore are what govens the collective "us".

      The true out is not a revolution. The true out is indi-thought.

    3. Re:There's No Bottom by Monkelectric · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Yea, what is WITH this "fox guarding the hen house" complex the bush admin has?

      We have oil execs writing our energy policy, privacy invaders writing our privacy laws. Drug companies writing our drug-company laws... It's absolute madness.

      Are there any bushies out there who can defend this and tell me why I shouldn't be having a fit?

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    4. Re:There's No Bottom by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      I generally don't post comment about USA politics but how this thing differs from making Miss Rice state secretary, aka foreign minister?

    5. Re:There's No Bottom by Mr.Progressive · · Score: 1

      You must be suffering from Liberal Outrage Fatigue.

      I've got it too.

      --
      Okay, so a philosopher, a philologist, and a philatelist walk into a bar...
    6. Re:There's No Bottom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
      Are there any bushies out there who can defend this and tell me why I shouldn't be having a fit?

      Well, the reasons are very complicated. First of all it is a good strategy because -

      Hey look over there, gays undermining the biblical foundation of marriage!

    7. Re:There's No Bottom by lewp · · Score: 1

      Mars, bitches.
      And no gays settlin' down.

      --
      Game... blouses.
    8. Re:There's No Bottom by rhizome · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse.

      --
      When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
    9. Re:There's No Bottom by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Are there any bushies out there who can defend this and tell me why I shouldn't be having a fit?
      Why ask the Bushies? While I personally don't like the Bush administration a lot, I do know that this sort of thing goes on in pretty much every government. Most governments have nepotism, favours for friends, one-hand-washes-the-other, corruption, special interests and hunger for power at their roots. Democrat, socialist, green, communist or liberal governments are no exception.
      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    10. Re:There's No Bottom by mpe · · Score: 1

      The ugly fact is that it is not just this administration. At first glance it is. However, I would say that it is "Big ". Unfortunatly, this does not follow mere party lines (and one could say that the whole American way should go out the window due to political views).

      Or that "party lines" are an illusion or even that different parties have the same lines.

      People in political "power" are put there due to money and thier interests. Proponents with money back them up and therefore are what govens the collective "us".

      If you are in the business of buying politicans then the fewer (effective) political parties the easier things are.

    11. Re:There's No Bottom by mpe · · Score: 1

      I generally don't post comment about USA politics but how this thing differs from making Miss Rice state secretary, aka foreign minister?

      Was she in the business of annoying the rest of the world before she was appointed though...

    12. Re:There's No Bottom by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      Wonder how I know her name for years? :)

      She could be a good defense minister attacking stuff etc. :)

      Foreign ministers deal problems with diplomacy. So one of the architects behind post sep 11 policy (Iraq etc) became diplomat.

      World is much more dangerous now.

    13. Re:There's No Bottom by BlueHands · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Democrat, socialist, green, communist or liberal governments are no exception. but they should be.

      --
      I mod everyone down who says "I'll get modded down for this." I hate to disappoint.
    14. Re:There's No Bottom by Angry_Admin · · Score: 1

      Are there any bushies out there who can defend this and tell me why I shouldn't be having a fit?

      no, but thankfully I'm not a "bushie".

      --
      Wait a minute. I got it. You could play with your magic nose goblins.
    15. Re:There's No Bottom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh come on.

      GW bush has been playing this game his entire life. Look at his professional record, he has DESTROYED every company he has touched. His oil company drilled so many dry well it is not funny.

      Oh and GW hand picked all his people at every company he destroyed.

      The man is a utter and complete MORON. which says quite a bit about the voters of the United States of America

    16. Re:There's No Bottom by Surur · · Score: 1


      Isnt America supposed to be better?

      Or did I just swallow that myth with my Saturday morning TV.

      Surur

      --
      Information is the location of things. Computation is moving things around.
    17. Re:There's No Bottom by One_6453 · · Score: 1

      And there in lies the problem.If we can no longer be outraged where will we find the energy to go out there and make a change? Like another poster said...This is what u get for not rioting in the streets when diebold is chosen to count your stinking votes.

      Go ahead change the channel....

    18. Re:There's No Bottom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apathy save us all

    19. Re:There's No Bottom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who better to protect your privacy than somebody who knows all about violating it?

      I'm surprised you didn't think of that yourself, but then us Bushies are intellectually superior, ask any of us.

    20. Re:There's No Bottom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't look for bushie defense here. They tend to reflect our low-tech population.

    21. Re:There's No Bottom by mpe · · Score: 1

      Foreign ministers deal problems with diplomacy. So one of the architects behind post sep 11 policy (Iraq etc) became diplomat.

      Thing is that the US Government wanted to invade Iraq before then...

    22. Re:There's No Bottom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod this as off-topic or trolling if you'd like, I don't care, I'm posting AC, but I really feel that more people need to RE-READ this document. Want to talk about "days of yore"... here you go:

      Amendment I

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

      Amendment II

      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.

      Amendment III

      No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

      Amendment IV

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      Amendment V

      No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

      Amendment VI

      In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

      Amendment VII

      In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

      Amendment VIII

      Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

      Amendment IX

      The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

      Amendment X

      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

    23. Re:There's No Bottom by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      You are quite correct. The only way to solve this problem is to reduce the size of government. The government should basically have a very short list of things to do, aside from setting policy in accordance to the wishes and goals of the citizenry; It should maintain the public defense, handle adjudication between states, and people and states, and it should maintain infrastructure which includes the environment. If the people want it to, it should also handle things like the health of the citizens. Since people don't seem to provide for themselves, national health seems like an idea that can help all of us (whether we want to pay for it or not...) Finally, it should work with other nations to achieve these goals.

      Unfortunately, the government does all kinds of other things too, and it is allowed to run without any real oversight, so it is horrendously large and inefficient. Consequently, there is a lot of room for graft. The smaller the government, the less graft we will see...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    24. Re:There's No Bottom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Insightful"? WTF?! That doesn't even make any sense! If all we had were foxes, we wouldn't even know what a hen was. Everything would look like a foxhouse.

    25. Re:There's No Bottom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The man is a utter and complete MORON. which says quite a bit about the voters of the United States of America
      You mean half of the voters. Which was only about 30% of eligible citizens.

      Hey, we have to cling to what small hope we have...

    26. Re:There's No Bottom by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1

      Huh?

      Toke toke pass, man, toke toke pass.

      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
    27. Re:There's No Bottom by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1

      That's oldthink.

      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
    28. Re:There's No Bottom by nickos · · Score: 1

      "The only way to solve this problem is to reduce the size of government."

      No, because then unelected corporations take over those areas. The real problem is that the USAs "winner takes all" voting system (which awards 100% of the representation to a 50.1% majority) leads to a political system which does not fairly reflect the wishes of the voters.

      Proportional representation is what we should be arguing for, not smaller government (and more unelected corporate power). Compare the US with Scandinavia to see what I mean...

    29. Re:There's No Bottom by bluGill · · Score: 1

      Who knows anything about energy policy other than oil (and coal and...) execs? Who knows anything about privacy other than privacy invaders? Who knows anything about drugs other than drug companies?

      Seriously, I know gas prices affect me, but I don't know enough about energy policy to write a good one. In fact my knowledge of the issue is so small that an oil exec will write a better policy than me. Now I could get the information to write a good policy, but it would take several years.

      The question should be how to we keep the experts from using their knowledge to screw us.

    30. Re:There's No Bottom by Zphbeeblbrox · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the question you should be asking is why oil execs and drug companies can't do a good job at writing those laws? Is it because they are automatically evil because of their jobs? Or are you just making snap judgements based on no fact?

      --
      If you see spelling or grammatical errors don't blame me. I tried to preview but IE here at work borked the CSS
    31. Re:There's No Bottom by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I agree that proportional representation would be a good thing but paring government down to essentials is a necessity. The government is there to maintain the playing field; the corporations are capable of providing the services we expect through a combination of regulation and competition.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    32. Re:There's No Bottom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not going to look if they don't have bright, shiny, colorful balls...er...ornaments.

    33. Re:There's No Bottom by runamok1 · · Score: 1

      Actually this is one of the few threads bashing the Bush administration where I have not read even *ONE* comment by a "bushie".

      Sort of tells you that maybe even they can't explain THIS one.

    34. Re:There's No Bottom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot. Go away.

    35. Re:There's No Bottom by Alsee · · Score: 1

      You missed a big one...

      Publishishing industry lawyers writing our copyright laws, which they have literally been doing for decades.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    36. Re:There's No Bottom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the problem is that these executives will have ample opportunity to help themselves at the expense of the public. The smart thing to do in situations like this is to eliminate potential conflicts of interest--if you put the proverbial fox in the henhouse, it's going to eat the chickens. Which is great for the fox, I'm sure, but not so good for everyone else involved.

    37. Re:There's No Bottom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If "all we have are foxes", that means there's not one single person he could have chosen that wasn't famous for having trampled on privacy. I think there are an abundance of more appropriate people for the task. Do you really think that all we have are foxes, or is that just the best excuse you could come up with?

    38. Re:There's No Bottom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It could be worse. They could let the Sierra Club write the energy policy and we'd all be riding bicycles.

      Seriously, you have to have EXPERTS in the field advising the people who actually write the laws (congress critters). Most congress critters (both parties) are lawyers who have no expertise in anything except how to line their pockets with our money. The few who have expertise in a field other than law are ignored.

      I know the majority of slashdot readers are left of center and truly hate the president, but he was elected by a majority of the voters (something even king Clinton never achieved). We got what we wanted and you didn't. Now shut up whining.

      Funy how all these years the Dems have been calling Republicans the haters and now we know the truth. Nobody hates like a Democrat loser.

      If you want to win again, you'll have to come up with better ideas. So far with Bush I see an improved economy, no terrorist attacks on the U.S., and two wars won. I'm not complaining a fucking bit.

    39. Re:There's No Bottom by Alari · · Score: 0

      When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse.

      ... or a vixen. ;)

      --
      I use Windows... like a two dollar wh.. why don't I just go ahead and not finish that sentence.
    40. Re:There's No Bottom by Zphbeeblbrox · · Score: 1

      first you are going to have to prove who is the fox and then you will have to prove the fox actually will eat the chickens. Otherwise you just made an interesing allegory with no real application.

      --
      If you see spelling or grammatical errors don't blame me. I tried to preview but IE here at work borked the CSS
    41. Re:There's No Bottom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've been read Anne Coulter again, haven't you? Moron.

  29. It's 9 AM over here by jabagi · · Score: 1

    and this seems like a joke.. A very stupid joke......

    --
    Can someone tell me what this "Sig" box is for??
  30. Maybe by zaxios · · Score: 2, Interesting

    the Administration thinks that keeping her out of the marketplace is the best thing they can do for data privacy. Or maybe this is a dream.

  31. CNET News.com by geekboy642 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Salon.com requires a soul-sucking registration link.
    Here's CNET News.com's version of the story:

    Adware maker joins federal privacy board
    Published: February 23, 2005, 5:19 PM PST
    By Declan McCullagh
    Staff Writer, CNET News.com
    TrackBack Print E-mail TalkBack

    An executive from Claria, formerly called Gator, will be one of 20 members of the committee, the department said Wednesday.

    "This committee will provide the department with important recommendations on how to further the department's mission while protecting the privacy of personally identifiable information of citizens and visitors of the United States," Nuala O'Connor Kelly, the department's chief privacy officer, said in a statement.

    Claria bundles its pop-up advertising software with ad-supported networks such as Kazaa. Recently, the privately held company has been trying to seek credibility by following stricter privacy guidelines and offering behavioral profiling services to its partners.
    In an e-mail message to CNET News.com, Kelly defended the inclusion of a Claria representative on the committee. "I am proud of, supportive of and grateful for those individuals in the public and private sector who are willing to take on the hard tasks, fight the good fight, and who surprise us with creative, fresh and unconventional thinking, and who make change where change is needed through their hard work and personal dedication," Kelly said.

    In the past, Claria's pop-up ad software has riled some users who claimed it was annoying, installed without permission, and not easy to delete. Publishers also were irked about pop-up ads for a rival's product appearing next to their own Web sites. Catalog retailer L.L. Bean sued Gator for alleged trademark infringement.

    Claria's representative on the Homeland Security privacy board is company Vice President D. Reed Freeman, a former Federal Trade Commission staff attorney. Other members include executives from Intel, Computer Associates International, IBM, Oracle and the Cato Institute.
    Kelly said Freeman will "bring his courage and conviction to the board, and will contribute productively--and constructively--to the board's and the public's dialogue on privacy and homeland security."

    The committee is tasked with providing "external expert advice to the secretary and the chief privacy officer on programmatic, policy, operational and technological issues that affect privacy, data integrity and data interoperability."

    In February 2003, Gator settled a high-profile case brought by The Washington Post, The New York Times, Dow Jones and other media companies. Terms of that deal were quiet, but Claria appears to have stopped delivering pop-ups to those publishers' sites.
    Claria did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    CNET News.com's Stefanie Olsen contributed to this report.

    --
    Just another "DOJ fascist authoritarian totalitarian bootlicker" -- Zeio
    1. Re:CNET News.com by Raul+Acevedo · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Salon.com requires a soul-sucking registration link.

      Oh please grow up.

      It may come as a complete shock to some people here, but some companies have to make a living somehow. And some of those companies, like Salon.com, have been struggling for quite a while and are not hyper-rich media conglomerates who can afford to not try whatever they can to make an honest living.

      You do not have a God-given right to free content provided at the expense of the work of others. (And no I don't care if Salon.com didn't write the original article, they provide plenty of home brewed articles and opinion which I think are totally worth it.) Deal with it.

      --
      In a real emergency, we would have all fled in terror, and you would not have been notified.
    2. Re:CNET News.com by ceeam · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      I wonder why all those companies do that when I "register" for millionth time as Bard Simpson or Fugg Ovv from Angola. What does it gain(huh?) them except pissing off their visitors is behind me. Thank goodness for "Bug-Me-Not" FF plugin, though it does not work 100% of when I need it of course.

    3. Re:CNET News.com by DenDave · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      You do not have a God-given right to free content provided at the expense of the work of others

      Dude, how about /. ? That's free ain't it? Anyway,I disagree, I, and many many others agree that information should be free but then again.. we may all be wrong, you may be right.. but homey don't play that ...
      --
      -if at first you don't succeed, stay the heck away from paragliding.
    4. Re:CNET News.com by Bin_jammin · · Score: 1, Troll

      Absolutely. And while I'm at it, why not turn off my firewall and start downloading risky files from the dark corners of the internet, hoping to gain more spy/adware. After all, spyware and adware coders are just trying to make a buck, why don't I help them out a bit too?

    5. Re:CNET News.com by packeteer · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      You do not have a God-given right to free content provided at the expense of the work of others.

      Maybe not in exactly those words but i thought that was the point of the internet. If you want to make money for providing a news service maybe the internet is not a good option for you. Before the internet was commercial it was all about free exchange of information. Honestly i wouldn't care if all the ad-supported content left the internet. I am sure if this happened someone would step up and provide all the worthwile information for free.

      --
      unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
    6. Re:CNET News.com by im_not_jose · · Score: 1

      :p That's rich... coming to /. (a free site) and rattle on against some comment someone made about a website that requires you to register to access content. What next? Bringing bigmacs to a vegan get-together or a bottle of Absolute vodka to a birthday party for a 10 year old muslim boy? As Dr. Evil says... *zip it!*

    7. Re:CNET News.com by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It may come as a complete shock to you, but companies don't have a God-given right for profit.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    8. Re:CNET News.com by Xunker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "...coming to /. (a free site) and rattle on..."

      Whoa there, sparky.

      Since when is Slashdot free? Not since around 1998.

      Being subjected to ads and having them hit your eyeballs is a form of payment. You pay for Slashdot. Say it again.

      --
      Hilary Rosen's speech was about her love of money and her desire to roll around naked in a pile of money.
    9. Re:CNET News.com by Atrax · · Score: 1

      Salon.com requires a soul-sucking registration link.

      No it doesn't. the linked story is from their RSS feed. And if you want it in graphical glory, just take a day pass.

      --
      Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
    10. Re:CNET News.com by wcdw · · Score: 1

      It may come as a complete shock to some people here, but some companies have to make a living somehow.

      That's a perfectly valid point, although somewhat of a non sequitor. There is no profit to be made in acquiring 'dummy' registrations, and damned little to be made in sending spam to those who got sucked in because they didn't know to lie outright.

      If I like a site, I'll register there. If I just want to look at something on the site, and I HAVE to register, I'll use BS information and - if confirmation is required - a throwaway e-mail address.

      Now, keeping all the phony information in the database can become a non-trivial expense, particularly if the site is using a database which doesn't scale well, and suddenly has to transform to something more capable. Ditto for sending spam and dealing with the resulting bounces.

      Cleaning the database is decidedly non-trivial, and many companies make a good living just doing 3rd-party database scrubbing.

      Clearly salon.com chose to publish the information in question. And clearly it is not to their benefit - in many ways - to require that you sign in at the front desk. (I sometimes do meals-on-wheels deliveries, and some of these buildings will drive you freaking nuts -- a very apt analogy for comparable sites. All I want to do is deliver some freaking meals, for chrissake.)

      So why hassle someone who provided an overall benefit for many of us by pointing out an alternate link? Because you disagreed with his turn of phrase? I just don't get it.

      --
      If you're not living on the edge, you're just taking up space!
    11. Re:CNET News.com by Ucklak · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      You could browse as a googlebot and get in that way without registration on most sites.

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    12. Re:CNET News.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      By all means - the point was you're consuming the salon.com article so you should play along with their business model. If you want gator's features you have to play along with theirs. But if the spyware doesn't add anything then why bother?

    13. Re:CNET News.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am sure if this happened someone would step up and provide all the worthwile information for free.

      Oh? Who? How would they cover their costs? What's in it for them?

    14. Re:CNET News.com by WoodieR · · Score: 1

      but why do they ned so much of my personally identifiable information ?

      --
      Question Authority before IT questions You ...
    15. Re:CNET News.com by xSauronx · · Score: 2, Insightful
      the information should be free....but someone has to pay money to serve it to you and that costs them. some places use ads, some places require a fee, some may do a mix of both.

      and /. doesn't run on magic, they have ads...and even an optional subscription service. i registered to post here....and so did you.

      --
      By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
    16. Re:CNET News.com by 10Ghz · · Score: 1
      Dude, how about /. ?


      What the hell does Slashdot have to do with this? Or do you think that since Slashdot (and some other websites) offer it's contents for free, everyone else must do it as well.

      If some website wants to display it's contents to everyone for free, they have that right. But that doesn't mean that ALL websites are required to do so. If some website decides to require registration or even sell the content, they have that right.
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    17. Re:CNET News.com by Colonel+Cholling · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Honestly i wouldn't care if all the ad-supported content left the internet.

      Would the author of this post, and everyone who modded him "Interesting," please look up at the top of your browser window and tell me what you see?

      --

      I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
    18. Re:CNET News.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
      /. doesn't run on magic, they have ads...and even an optional subscription service. i registered to post here....and so did you.

      Your right, it runs on goat.. never mind..
    19. Re:CNET News.com by e133tc1pher · · Score: 1

      So by posting a CNET version of a story, solon.com's content is bieng "freed" in which way shape or form?

    20. Re:CNET News.com by BobPaul · · Score: 1

      Salon.com requires a soul-sucking registration link.

      Dude... the link was to salon's RSS feeder... there was no registration when I clicked on the link, and I haven't been to salon's website in months (that is, two reformat's ago.

      Secondly, a simple <a href="http://news.com.com/Adware+maker+joins+feder al+privacy+board/2100-1028_3-5587653.html?tag=nefd .top">CNet also has it, and I like them better because of reason X</a> probably would have been more appropriate (unless you're worried *.com.com.com is going to cave under the pressure.

    21. Re:CNET News.com by daremonai · · Score: 2, Funny
      Being subjected to ads and having them hit your eyeballs is a form of payment. You pay for Slashdot.
      No, actually, you pay for it. (I never see any ads.) Oh, and thanks!
    22. Re:CNET News.com by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      That's the price they've decided to set. It's easy - if you think it's worth it, pay the price. If not, go elsewhere.

      That's the way it works with everything else, why should it be different with content on the Internet? Just because it's easier to swindle the other party (by providing fake information)?

    23. Re:CNET News.com by cyclop · · Score: 1

      Ever heard of projects like Wikipedia? (just to point at the most obvious example)

      --
      -- Patent no.123456: A way to personalize /. comments with a sig attached to the end.
    24. Re:CNET News.com by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Not only that, but I imagine a lot of companies use the demographic information entered, even though much of it will be suspect.

      Maybe 5 years ago, there was some reliability. Now I see people putting in "a" or "b" into address lines, choosing the first dropdown, any old date for DOB.

      If companies just want an email address for a newsletter, and offer people the option to put details in, the reliability is likely to go up. Some people will just go ahead and put it in.

    25. Re:CNET News.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you think it's worth it, pay the price. If not, go elsewhere.

      No thanks. I'll just swindle them.

    26. Re:CNET News.com by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It may come as a complete shock to you, but companies don't have a God-given right for profit.

      But they do have the right to not be your slaves. If they produce something, and set the terms by which they're willing to let you use it, they do have the right to expect you to honor those terms. If you think the content is important enough, you'll respect them. If you won't respect them, then hopefully you have enough personal integrity to not steal the content.

      No one has a right to profit. They have the right to earn (or pursue the earning of) that profit. If what they have to sell (subscriptions, ad-space on their web sites, whatever) isn't interesting enough to generate a profit, then so be it: they've failed.

      I'm always puzzled, though, by the people who claim to respect the source of information enough to want to consume it, but don't have the same respect for the source's wishes about how they're offering it. It's like saying you love a particular chef's cooking, and sit down to eat his meal, and they say (when you're done) that there's just this one little thing you don't like about the chef: that he only prepared you that meal because of an expectation that he'd be paid for his time, efforts, and overhead. He has no "right" to a profit in his career as a chef, only the right to expect you to hold up your end of the transaction when you choose to do business with him. Same goes for authors, musicians, and film makers. Don't like the deal? Then don't participate. Love someone's work but not their terms? Then admit that you don't really love that peron's work (because part of their work is the mechanism by which they make a living - that's a choice they've made, and it's part of their effort).

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    27. Re:CNET News.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm amazed that an off-the-cuff remark generates a knee-jerk response such as this. I'm even more amazed that the unwashed masses modded this +5 insightful. I'll feel PROUD of the -1 Troll or -1 Flamebait I get if it comes from the same crowd that modded you Insightful.

      Maybe next time we can stick with the meat of the comments and not generate massive threads on off-the-cuff remarks.

    28. Re:CNET News.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      please look up at the top of your browser window and tell me what you see?

      nothing

    29. Re:CNET News.com by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      a) if they modded him, they can't post in the same forum.

      b)"Gator CPO at the Department of Homeland Security - Mozilla Junglecow"

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    30. Re:CNET News.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's wrong with consuming a cnet.com article and playing along with their business model instead? Likewise, if I want features similar to gators (if there are any, I have no idea..) why shouldn't I pick another application that gives me those without the spyware?

      Maybe just maybe, if you have business model as broken as those you deserve to starve to death. Ins't that what market forces and capitalism are all about?

      Going a bit further, if your business is so vulnerable to even an illegal activity that is extremely common (that is, the law isn't really honored in this respect by the people), perhaps it is another sign of a flawed model?

    31. Re:CNET News.com by miskatonic+alumnus · · Score: 1

      Aleister Crowley said it best, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."

    32. Re:CNET News.com by Jagasian · · Score: 1

      Seriously, what am I supposed to see? I am running Firefox and popup blocking and adblock... so I don't see any ads, if that is what you were referring to.

    33. Re:CNET News.com by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Aleister Crowley said it best, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."

      Well, you may be accurately quoting him... but it's a little hard (from context) to know if you're endorsing that view, or simply being ironic.

      If "do what thou wilt" is a legitmate philosophical approach, then "I can do what I want to prevent you from doing what you wilt" is also valid. That's the Wild West, and not particularly helpful. Thriving, knowledge-powered cultures don't rise up from that sort of chaos. Rational, liberty-centric rule of law (both criminal and contractual) and the expectation of its enforcement, is the lubricant of civilization and the foundation of prosperity, risk-taking innovation, and everything else that spools off things like antibiotics, video games, longer lives, healthier children, art, refridgeration, and slashdot. "Do what thou wilt" leaves lots of room for the Taliban, political correctness, and mob rule.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    34. Re:CNET News.com by fire-eyes · · Score: 1

      A blank space. Thank you, adblock.

      --
      -- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
    35. Re:CNET News.com by ArgieNomad · · Score: 1

      IF they are really using that particular bit of data, they can sell an extra dollar to companies in Angola wanting to advertise on their site. That, and a bit of news: portals are identifying IPs and translating that to country for their demographics for many dog years now. So go ahead Smarty, register as if you were from Ghana if you like to. I think it's about trying to find a balance between the accuracy of IP2country and what registering users declare.

      --
      I just read /. for the sigs
    36. Re:CNET News.com by stecoop · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nope an even better solutions is bugmenot and mailinator. Fill out the form giving really goofy information and for the email address use the (companysite)@mailinator.com. If the company have a confirmation link just check it at mailinator with the login of the compnaysite. Save the information to bugmenot and share the joy. I think there should be a profit step somewhere.

    37. Re:CNET News.com by miskatonic+alumnus · · Score: 1

      Let me put it this way:

      Many corporations tend to follow a strategy of optimization --- minimizing costs (by reducing the number of employees, working the remaining employees off the clock, denying benefits) and maximizing profits. They obey the law, when it is to their advantage.

      Governments work the same way. The ultimate goal of many of our representatives is to line their pockets, and reduce our liberties in order to protect their power and wealth. Once again, they obey the law when it suits their purposes.

      I have modified my behavior accordingly --- monkey see, monkey do. I obey the law when it suits my purposes, and break it when it suits my purposes and there is minimal risk of being caught.

    38. Re:CNET News.com by Yanni85 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There are definitely people who take stuff like this site for granted. Everything has to be paid for somehow and ad supported is one way to do this if people don't want to pay a subscription fee. However, there is a very large difference between an ad at the top (though I would much rather they used the even less obtrusive google ads, which I actually don't block) and popup ads which not only infect your computer (or result from infections) and are a huge annoyance.

    39. Re:CNET News.com by halivar · · Score: 1

      Nothing. I use Firefox.

    40. Re:CNET News.com by Ucklak · · Score: 1

      Referring to the parent post, bugmenot doesn't work all the time. In those cases bugmenot doesn't work, use Googlebot user agent and you'll get in {YMMV}.
      It works for me.

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    41. Re:CNET News.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You pay for Slashdot"

      Ahhh, you must be from America.

      I'm from Soviet Russia. And in Soviet Russia....well, you know....

    42. Re:CNET News.com by mdmarkus · · Score: 1

      Something i'd rather not see...

    43. Re:CNET News.com by utlemming · · Score: 1
      If you want gator's features you have to play along with theirs."

      Well, I would agree with you. But very few spyware/adware procurers only have the spyware/adware active for the time that you are actually using the product. Further, the programs are so invasive that they usually invite another friend to play. Before you know it, there is an orgy of resource consumption of spy/adware going on in your machine. All you did was download one program, that downloaded other programs. While some spy/adware programs actually disclose the fact that some adware will be downloaded, very few spell it out in plain english and bury it in the 15 page EULA.

      --
      The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
    44. Re:CNET News.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or help bugmenot work, create a new login/password combination, and submit it to bugmenot. Damn, people expect everything for free...

    45. Re:CNET News.com by Colonel+Cholling · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Seriously, what am I supposed to see? I am running Firefox and popup blocking and adblock... so I don't see any ads, if that is what you were referring to.

      Thank you to you and all the other clever people who bragged about your ad-blocking software. Please remember that the poster I quoted said he "wouldn't care if all the ad-supported content left the internet." The mere fact that there are ads there for your oh-so-marvelous Firefox to block means that Slashdot is, in fact, "ad-supported content." Hence the poster, and those who agreed with him, wouldn't mind if Slashdot disappeared. But they like it enough to read it and post here.

      --

      I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
    46. Re:CNET News.com by Acer500 · · Score: 1

      You reminded me of something...

      Some time ago, I was cleaning a relative's computer of spyware, and deleted a program called Gator Wallet or something...

      The owner of the computer was very upset, as that was the program she used to store her passwords.

      So yes, there are people that do want some of Gator's features (but probably don't want the ad infestation).

      Me, I wouldn't trust a Gator program with my passwords. But YMMV.

      --
      There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
    47. Re:CNET News.com by badmammajamma · · Score: 1

      You do NOT have to register to read articles at salon.com. You DO have to get a "day pass." To do this requires you watch a 30 second flash commercial. There is NO REGISTRATION INVOLVED WHATSOEVER.

      All you have to do is go to salon.com, click on the Free Day Pass link. Watch the stupid commercial, and voila! You have full access to the site for the day.

      --
      Any man who afflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them misunderstood. -- H. L. Mencken
    48. Re:CNET News.com by Emporerx · · Score: 1

      Hoooo.(Wipes brow) You know, I was a little worried for a minute there. Actually, very worried. Then I realized I was reading this article in Firefox from my mandrakelinux box. So, until they start making me use GovSoft(c), I guess I'll be all right.

    49. Re:CNET News.com by SunFan · · Score: 1

      You do not have a God-given right to free content provided at the expense of the work of others.

      One thing I find interesting about registration-only news sites, is that they somehow feel their news is more worthy than all the hundreds of other news sites. They really think I should take time to register on a site I probably won't visit again for a long time. So, instead of me reading one story and seeing some of their advertising space, I just close that broswer tab. No story for me (it isn't a big deal, really), and no advertising for them.

      There are so many news sources, that my daily intake of news certainly doesn't suffer for it.

      --
      -- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
    50. Re:CNET News.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Part of the problem is that websites are not using the data in the smartest way. If they're interested in seeing users in a certain area, a quick reverse IP lookup can place them in X country - hell, sometimes in the right city. Personally, I don't think they deserve anything but a zip code. I have a db of all the zip codes in the US where I can place what city, state, county and long/lat coordinates of said zip. If they want a street address, they're selling something to someone.

      Its just like the government forms you fill out. You give your Sex, B-day, etc. Then later, you are asked "Are you a male born after 1952......".

      Places are being stupid about the data. I have a website at which I'll be requiring registration for EXTRA content, but it won't be all the stupid stuff like your address, birthdate, etc... Its a simple way for me to track users without having to worry about cookies and just to be able to see where they are coming from in the US (read: zip code) or if they're in the world - I just want the country.

    51. Re:CNET News.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see an ad on slashdot if that's what you're refering to. I heart Adblock.

    52. Re:CNET News.com by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      Actually, while he's accurating quoting Aleister, he's sorta missing the point. Aleister wasn't saying 'You should do whatever you want', he's more saying 'Doing whatever you want is all that exists'.

      It's not some sort of incitment to anarchy, it's the claim that everyone is completely free, and there is nothing else. Everyone who thinks they aren't free to do whatever they want is simply mistaken.

      So, yeah, the quote is accurate, but the sentiment isn't really.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    53. Re:CNET News.com by Joules+Burn · · Score: 1
      Perhaps the problem isn't the money at all, but the problem is that they can't be trusted with the information we have to give them. We have to exchange personal data in order to conduct a transaction over the net. As far as I'm concerned that information should never leave their business. Unfortunately they seem to be of the impression that once they find out anything about me, it becomes a salable public item. Who I do business with and what information we exchange is no ones business but mine, and only theirs for the puposes of transactions with THEM, nothing else. Their business(news sites) is delivering content, not building and selling dossiers on their customers. At least that's how they present themselves. If thats not the case they should be upfront about it and I'll just avoid them altogether.

      If they took cash anonymously perhaps they'd fare better. But that's pretty damn difficult to do on the net and unfortunately businesses in general have destroyed most trust(at least mine) with their secret backroom info selling deals.

      The only thing slashdot required was an email address, otherwise I'd not be here either.

    54. Re:CNET News.com by CDMA_Demo · · Score: 1

      Is something wrong with the moderator?

    55. Re:CNET News.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He provided an alternate source. Deal with that.

      Cutting and pasting the original article is not "providing an alternate source", moron.

    56. Re:CNET News.com by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Actually, while he's accurating quoting Aleister, he's sorta missing the point. Aleister wasn't saying 'You should do whatever you want', he's more saying 'Doing whatever you want is all that exists'.

      It's not some sort of incitment to anarchy, it's the claim that everyone is completely free, and there is nothing else. Everyone who thinks they aren't free to do whatever they want is simply mistaken.

      So, yeah, the quote is accurate, but the sentiment isn't really.


      OK, that makes more sense - and raises the issue of consequence. You can do what you want, but you'll also wind up wearing it. Rule of law (etc) is just a common framework that spells out collectively defined consequences. But you're right, that doesn't imply lack of freedom to act, just lack of freedom from consequence. Which is a good thing.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    57. Re:CNET News.com by spongman · · Score: 1

      but they do have the right not to be forced to take a loss.

    58. Re:CNET News.com by miskatonic+alumnus · · Score: 1

      I believe my sentiment was spot on. Thelemic doctrine is to follow the path of your choosing; that is, to follow your will. I have my own moral compass. I do not feel obligated to abide by laws set down by Gods or men --- especially laws I had no part in creating. Wherein lies their authority? The "Rule of Law" as a social contract to keep us from killing one another is one I'm willing to agree to. However, when it is used as a tool by a privileged few to concentrate financial and military power, I am no longer bound by it.

    59. Re:CNET News.com by Jagasian · · Score: 1

      If slashdot disappears, people will just go back to talking about nerdy things on Usenet. Just because they will read slashdot doesn't mean they will care much of they read the same stuff, but on Usenet.

    60. Re:CNET News.com by RichiH · · Score: 1

      And it might come as a complete shock to you that many people just don't like to sign up. Forget those 30 email addresses everybody has these days, forget spam filtering. The truth is, the web conditions us not to reveal too much info (in this case, any info at all) and that's just that. They have every right in the world to advertise or require people to sign up. But i have the same basic right to avoid their site just Because. Never mind that i probably would not visit that particular or any other given random site again. Ever. Side note: I could view the article without signing up or adds. Perhaps due to using Konqueror, but what do i know. I just hate these holier-than-thou attitudes. (On both sides, anti-ad zealots!)

    61. Re:CNET News.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey dumbass, he didn't copy and paste the ORIGINAL article from salon, he pasted the cnet version.

    62. Re:CNET News.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see nothing at the top of the page. Nothing because I deny virtually all internet advertising I come across either through the built in image blocker in Firefox, Adblock or through the windows host file.

    63. Re:CNET News.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And he didn't say that was the source. Reading for comprehension helps. Well, it helps some people.

    64. Re:CNET News.com by dacoto · · Score: 1

      I have an idea, as a beta test for whatever apps that homeland security comes up with to monitor everyones activity use only politicians. Then once they work the bugs out and after they have really scared some of our gov. officials see how soon they use this on the public.

      --
      Open Source, Open Formats, Open Doors, Open Your Mind "Break On Through to the Other Side" The Doors
    65. Re:CNET News.com by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have my own moral compass.

      OK. Just as long as your moral compass doesn't make you feel comfortable making me do things against my will, we'll get along fine.

      I do not feel obligated to abide by laws set down by Gods or men --- especially laws I had no part in creating. Wherein lies their authority?

      So we should re-invent the Constitution or our legal framework every time someone is born? No: we use the Constitution's built-in flexibility to allow us to adapt it if need be, but we honor the basic concepts of liberty regardless. That concept doesn't require continual re-invention, and is pretty damn universal. There's no need to ask "by what authority" here... the whole point is derive laws from the fundamental foundation of liberty and reason. Not all legal constructs are as well grounded that way as they should be, obviously, but just because the larger picture came into being before you were born and didn't get your initial blessing doesn't mean that the rest of us should have to worry that you're a loose canon without any thought towards civilized behavior. It isn't just the we-all-agree-we-can't-just-kill-anyone shared principle, here... it's the practical use of the knowledge that most people around you are thinking the same thing.

      The "Rule of Law" as a social contract to keep us from killing one another is one I'm willing to agree to. However, when it is used as a tool by a privileged few to concentrate financial and military power, I am no longer bound by it.

      Meaning, you reserve the right to kill rich people just because they're rich? Or, you think that rich people have somehow gained the legal right to kill you? If what you mean is that OJ Simpson got away with murder because he had more expensive lawyers than you or I could afford, well, that's not much of a reason to say that therefore laws don't apply to you, and what the heck, I might as well pirate DVDs.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    66. Re:CNET News.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gator CPO at the department of homeland security- mozzilla firefox.

      Oh, you mean an ad? Buzz, nope, most people who use mozzilla use adblock.

    67. Re:CNET News.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you don't even have to do that, with flashblock. Just wait 30s until th read article link comes up.

    68. Re:CNET News.com by pipingguy · · Score: 1


      Slashdot is just a pump that is primed daily by the owners. The pumped fluid (content) is supplied by the readers in the form of comments.

    69. Re:CNET News.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      those two sites...bugmenot...etc., sound like
      sites that I would NOT surf outside of Linux.

    70. Re:CNET News.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      salon just shows you an ad and then redirects you to a page that sets the registration cookie. you can go to it directly to circumvent the ads.

      http://www.salon.com/news/cookie.html

      that will set a cookie that will give u access to the site for the day.

      talk about lame design.

      -rob

    71. Re:CNET News.com by buttahead · · Score: 1

      as long as your moral compass doesn't make you feel comfortable making me do things against my will

      like wearing a seat belt or a helmet? like carrying a pocket knife or screwdriver on a plane. telemarketing? fishing without a license?

      we use the Constitution's built-in flexibility to allow us to adapt it if need be, but we honor the basic concepts of liberty regardless

      like providing the felxibility to enfore silly laws describe above?

      doesn't mean that the rest of us should have to worry that you're a loose canon without any thought towards civilized behavior

      worry all you want... no law against that, last I checked.

      Or, you think that rich people have somehow gained the legal right to kill you?

      seen any of the folks we've (as a united nation) killed recently? war, the country that can afford to spend more, wins. rich people somehow _do_ have the right to kill others.

      I might as well pirate DVDs

      you said it... not me. you have been reported to the proper authorities, as it is my god given right to do so. hope you saved for a good lawyer.... the mpaa has loads of cash to hold up their side of the court battle.

    72. Re:CNET News.com by buttahead · · Score: 1

      that should have been "described", "war;" "more ", and riaa, respectivly.

    73. Re:CNET News.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know your right there is no god given right to free content. The problem is, it was the only link in the parent post. Why should being a reader at slashdot require us to "sign up" at third party sights to increase thier revenue?

      Is this really a question of not wanting to give your birht rights away to view it or is the real crux of the matter having to do with the way it is posted on the front page of slashdot? I don't think having to give any personal information away is an option. It shouldn't be neccesary. i liken those requiring it to people trying to steel little old ladies retirment checks wiht inflated home repair bills or some invesment scheme. They all may be legal, they all are forms for someone to make money bcaue they aren't rich and they all seem to be "not right" There are other ways to make revenue.

    74. Re:CNET News.com by Xunker · · Score: 1

      Actually, that's wrong too -- you simply paid in a different way. It cost you time to install that plugin, however small amount it was. You still paid, it just probably didn't benefit Slashdot.

      It's a zero-sum game we're playing, choombata.

      --
      Hilary Rosen's speech was about her love of money and her desire to roll around naked in a pile of money.
    75. Re:CNET News.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't let them suck my soul. I have a throwaway webbased email address (that will now hold 1 GB worth of nonsense thanks to gmail) and a standard set of bogus demographic data I use. Sites that "require" registration think I am widowed female born in 1919 who lives in zip code 90210. When I find online content that I use regularly, I'll read their privacy policy *carefully* and then register. For the most part, "free" content providers have a pretty poor track record of rigorously protecting personal information (even paid ones, for that matter). Which is why I give it up reluctantly....

    76. Re:CNET News.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Dude, how about /.

      Dude, what about my rug?
  32. Not Suprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee"

    AKA: The Department of Homeland Security wants to invade the Privacy of the American Citizens to collect Private/secret data on American's Private lives. All this to Strengthen the Integrity of of US Spying on it's citizens. To be advised by the people who know most about invading privacy.

    Have a happy 4 years.

  33. Next thing you know... by flint · · Score: 1

    someone will make John Aschcroft Attorney General

  34. In other news... by cyberman11 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    George Bush re-elected president. Ha ha ha ha. Oh wait...

  35. First Paris Hilton gets hacked and now THIS? by ABeowulfCluster · · Score: 2, Funny

    I will NEVER trust my computer to keep anything safe. I can see homeland security buying Google just to do data mining.

  36. Claria has a Chief Privacy Officer? by Garabito · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It sounds as authentic as The Ministry of Truth.

    Actually, "Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee" sounds much more like Ministry of Truth.

    1. Re:Claria has a Chief Privacy Officer? by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      Actually, "Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee" sounds much more like Ministry of Truth

      Sounds a lot to me like their IT Security Dept.

    2. Re:Claria has a Chief Privacy Officer? by bigberk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm actually very relieved that slashdot readership recognizes, as I do, the intense parallels to Orwell's 1984 (Newspeak, doublespeak, etc.) This is encouraging as right now our society is still free thinking enough to see the attempts at manipulating us for what they are -- ridiculous lies to the public. There is cause for concern though, this is how it starts, and by the time it has caught on (unchallenged) people are no longer aware of the daily irony, and satire turns into daily life.

    3. Re:Claria has a Chief Privacy Officer? by Ziviyr · · Score: 1

      I'm actually very relieved that slashdot readership recognizes, as I do, the intense parallels to Orwell's 1984 (Newspeak, doublespeak, etc.)

      Doublethink you mean?

      We've always been at war with privacy...

      --

      Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
    4. Re:Claria has a Chief Privacy Officer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm actually very relieved that slashdot readership recognizes, as I do, the intense parallels to Orwell's 1984 (Newspeak, doublespeak, etc.) This is encouraging as right now our society is still free thinking enough to see the attempts at manipulating us for what they are -- ridiculous lies to the public.

      As if that was any different the last 4 years. But when the next elections are near the republicans will tell americans again they will lower taxes again and most of the americans will say "yea" ...

    5. Re:Claria has a Chief Privacy Officer? by CYBER_Aeon · · Score: 1

      Not to mention with the sudden shift of attention from Bin Laden to Saddam Hussian....

      Wait, are we still at war with Eurasia?

    6. Re:Claria has a Chief Privacy Officer? by boingyzain · · Score: 1

      Sure, the slashdot crowd is aware of all these things happening, but we're all but powerless to stop it. The majority of people in America don't even know what GAIN is, much less care.

      To chemists its Fe-y, to the rest of us its iron-y...

  37. Re:Hmm... I've an analogy for this... by FireballX301 · · Score: 1

    The government's gotten all paranoid about this kind of stuff recently, what with the very recent and very publicized hacker attacks.

    And although your analogy is for the most part valid, wouldn't a fox know how another fox would get into the henhouse? Where do you think we get most 'security analysts'?

  38. Private governments by dauthur · · Score: 1

    Soon, he'll be able to run for President, if you use the current intellect climate as a gauge for next election's candidates. This is absolutely rediculous; Someone who can invade millions of computers in wonderfully covert ways under buckets of guises is appointed a chair in the government as a data securitist? Disgusting.

    What's next? I'll be appointed "National Operation Flashpoint Advisor" simply because I'm slightly good at something completely unproductive and irritating to others?

  39. Time to Switch! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So this is how they've decided to find would-be terrorists.
    I assume there's a nice Gator surfing profile available for each 911 attacker. If you happen to fit it, be prepared for a nasty surprise visit in the middle of the night.
    If your hobbies include steganography or encryption, think about switching to an abacus quick.

  40. Ineffective by Camel+Racer · · Score: 1

    If the goal of the appointment was to find someone ineffective, then this is the guy to appoint. I'm only sorry that he was appointed to the position of Federal Bureau of Outsourcing or Department of Squashing Consumer Rights.

    --
    Anybody can work under ideal circumstances. -- Jeff K. (January 4, 2001)
    1. Re:Ineffective by randallpowell · · Score: 1
      Federal Bureau of Outsourcing

      We have that. It's called U.S. Department of Labor.

  41. Only in America by AmoHongos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A spyware company has a "chief privacy officer?!" What's next, a security-obssessed government that makes us less secure? Oh, wait...

    Seriously, though, I can almost see the logic in this appointment. One thing spyware companies know is computer security. They defeat it all the time. I'm surprised the fine folks from Cool Web Search weren't appointed.

    On the other hand, the more cynical side of me sees how reminiscent this is of early 20th century American politics, when the government appointed Big Business leaders to commitees on workers' rights. Money and connections will buy you anything.

    1. Re:Only in America by Zevets · · Score: 1

      In other news, the security chief of Microsoft's has been named to the DHS's internet security commitee. My god, some things just make me angry. And even madder that 51% of America could vote for this administration.

      --

      Mod Wisely.

    2. Re:Only in America by TorKlingberg · · Score: 1
      A spyware company has a "chief privacy officer?!" What's next, a security-obssessed government that makes us less secure? Oh, wait...
      Seriously, though, I can almost see the logic in this appointment. One thing spyware companies know is computer security. They defeat it all the time.

      I would somehow understand them if they hired tech people from spyware companies. But what is a former "chief privacy officer" of such acompany good at except telling lots of lies to the press and public?

      Oh, I think I understand the appointment now.

    3. Re:Only in America by demachina · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "What's next, a security-obssessed government that makes us less secure?"

      Reference the rhetoric from great Britain this week. They are in the run up to an election and Blair is fighting for his life. Blair apparently took some pages out of the Bush play book and it makes it so transparent when you see another government doing exactly the same thing the Republican's just did, stoke massive fear right before an election to win reelection.

      - Tony Blair quotes: "Nothing must stand in the way of protecting the security of our people."
      - They are trying to ram through yet another variant of the Patriot act "The Bill introduces "control orders" which will enable the Home Secretary to stop terror suspects travelling or using phones and the internet - without the need for a trial.". It may allow indefinite home detention of anyone the Home Secretary unilaterally decides is a threat to security.
      - Before the House of Commons Blair said: Britain was facing "terrorism without limit" and "those considerations of national security have to come before civil liberties however important they are".

      The cynics in the crowd suspect Blair's party is doing the same thing the Republican's did with he Patriot act to the Dems, they have to vote for it no matter how onerous it is or Blair's party will accuse them of being soft on terrorism. So either the party in power gets sweeping new powers or they make their opponents look weak and take a potential bath in the election.

      Its amazing this works because me, given a clear choice, I'd vote for the party protecting my civil liberties over ineffective security laws.

      --
      @de_machina
    4. Re:Only in America by AmoHongos · · Score: 2, Informative

      On that topic, have you seen The Power of Nightmares? Great BBC documentary, which is available on many torrent sites. According to the documentary, the "terrorist threat" is mostly a hoax dreamed up by American neo-conservatives. Leo Strauss, who inspired the neo-con movement, said governments should give people something to fear if they want to bring them together.

    5. Re:Only in America by enosys · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why the UK government is acting as if something changed for them on 9-11. The IRA and related organizations had attacked many times before that. Those threats had been dealt with in various ways. The UK wasn't attacked on 9-11 and al-Qaeda isn't focused on the UK. What was really new?

    6. Re:Only in America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those Irish guys don't have brown skin...

    7. Re:Only in America by AmoHongos · · Score: 1

      But Bush didn't even have 51% of America! He won 51% of the popular vote, but only about 50% of Americans voted. In other words, only 1 in 4 Americans liked him enough to reelect him.

  42. It's official now. by Tethys_was_taken · · Score: 4, Funny

    All your base are belong to Claria.

    1. Re:It's official now. by luvirini · · Score: 1

      well Computer Associates lists Gator as rapidly spreading. http://www3.ca.com/securityadvisor/pest/ do you suppose thet knew of this appointment beforehand?

    2. Re:It's official now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All your database are belong to spyware.

  43. do something about it... by epanastasi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All I see posted are stupid remarks about how ironic this is... but nobody seems to want to do anything about it.

    /. has enough people reading it to destroy the bandwidth of half the servers out there, but it looks like nobody is going to take this as a serious threat to privacy and call up their congressman or write a letter/email to major news networks, or anything else that will change things...

    It's a sad day seeing this article exist, but it will be an even sadder day when 90% of these comments are scored "Funny" and we are doomed to sit idly by our world is taken away from us... thanks guys, i appreciate it.

    1. Re:do something about it... by luvirini · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, the thing is. Too many people who read ./ are cynics. As it seem to be the normal thing for anyone who actually thinks about the world. I think quite many people here used to be fired up by things when they were young, but lost that fire when the world just got crazier and crazier. That was actually my path, and judging by the comments modded insightfull in general, things that have highest probability of being modded that are cynically-insightfull.

    2. Re:do something about it... by shanen · · Score: 1
      Just the natural state of American politics these days. For example, there used to be this thing called "truth" and they used to make an issue of it. These days the new issues are "betrayal" by friends who expose that ugly old truth. There used to be something called "journalists", but now all we have are "evil attack blogs" with more of those ugly old truths.

      Why shouldn't we have this scammer in charge of our "data privacy and integrity"? After all, he's the expert in violating our privacy. Just another fox guarding the henhouse. Given that he got the appointment, it's safe to guess which grand old party he donates to.

      Move along now. Nothing to see here.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    3. Re:do something about it... by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 5, Insightful
      And what would you have people do? Lots of us DO email, write, and telephone our representatives. But no letter, phonecall, or email has even a fraction of the power that a $10,000 "campaign contribution" does.

      Campaign contributions mean that political representation goes to those with the most money to donate. Democracy died long ago.

    4. Re:do something about it... by bigberk · · Score: 4, Funny
      All I see posted are stupid remarks about how ironic this is... but nobody seems to want to do anything about it.
      Sorry man, I'm Canadian and this one is your problem. Trust me, it looks ten times as ironic from this side of the border. (waves) hi!
    5. Re:do something about it... by Vo0k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Already happened. Face it: We lost it already. No amount of calling will supersede a well placed "donation". No amount of cries will change the fact that the people at power will take really good care that ALL the presidential candidates sit deep in their pockets, and no matter who gets elected, power remains in the same hands. Democracy is dead, elections are just a meaningless circus for entertainment of the public, the real power is at hands of those with real money.

      --
      Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
    6. Re:do something about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      read the fucking article you paranoid fuck. this guy is on an advisory committee with several other people (why not nominate RMS?), not in charge of anything. If you wanted to know how the blackhats are getting into your system, why wouldn't you hire a blackhat to show you how?

    7. Re:do something about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that he got the appointment, it's safe to guess which grand old party he donates to.

      Do you seriously think the Democrats would be doing a better job of serving the American people? They're corporate whores too, just to a (somewhat) different bunch of corporations.

    8. Re:do something about it... by Mac+Degger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is sadly too true: the moment campaign contributions were classified as 'free speech', the rich people effectively had more than one vote, and democracy as most people understand it these days has gone down the toilet in the US.

      With all the wierd shit going down, I really don't get why there hasn't been more demonstrations or even a revolution across the pond...

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    9. Re:do something about it... by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1

      Good old Douglas Adams wrote it correctly.

      Bush is some kind of Zaphod Beetlebox without goodwill and humour.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    10. Re:do something about it... by reidleake · · Score: 1

      I wave back and consider bringing my family up there to join you. In a few years of "Global warming is as silly as evolution" thinking, it win't be too cold there any more. Canada rocks! Yeah, yeah, off topic, I know.

    11. Re:do something about it... by randallpowell · · Score: 0

      I email my guys till the email servers dies. All I get are letters saying that they promote religious freedom, privacy, 90's patent standards, and no, they aren't gay nor do they plan to resign in shame. That is what I get for living in a state that loves Republicians.

    12. Re:do something about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      assassinate whom?

    13. Re:do something about it... by notAyank · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You guys, you have the right to bear arms. For some reason you mostly seem to think it's the right to bear arms against your fellow citizens. It's not. It's the right to bear arms against tyranny of government. Am I ringing any bells?

    14. Re:do something about it... by BlueHands · · Score: 2, Funny

      I see that the cold of the north is only exceded by the coldness in your soul. Wanna come work for our goverment?

      --
      I mod everyone down who says "I'll get modded down for this." I hate to disappoint.
    15. Re:do something about it... by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because a bunch of hicks with hunting rifles are a real threat to the government. The right to bear arms is meaningless in this age of tanks, attack helipcopters, and night-vision-equipped infantry wearing body armour. If the second amendment granted any genuine power, it would have been scrapped decades ago.

    16. Re:do something about it... by hairykrishna · · Score: 1
      Yep. There you've summed up why you're all screwed over there in the once great US of A. Over here in the UK I have watched with amazement as your country has been stolen from you by a bunch of money grabbing scum. We've got it pretty bad with old "Teflon Tony" but at least he seems to be acting in the interests of the general population some of the time.

      I recommend that you all begin putting pressure on congressmen and exercise your right to peaceful protest before they take that away too.

      --
      "Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
    17. Re:do something about it... by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I really don't get why there hasn't been more demonstrations or even a revolution across the pond...

      Because 90% of us are mindless sheep. Doing exactly what our leader tells us.

      Americans on average are the stupidest population center on this planet. We send our kids to schools that are ineffective, graduate young adults that can not read, we have a 68% return rate on our "rehabilitated criminals" and the typical american is driven into a furvor of fear and convinced that driving an unsafe huge vehicle makes us safer.

      We are complete and utter MORONS. I hang my head in disgust every day at what I see my fellow americans say and do.

      What makes you think that this nation of very stupid sheep that takes what is fed to them as 100% truth would have the guts and desire to rise up and force change??

      we are too comfortable with our 8mpg SUV's out 2500+sq foot houses and our 300 channel cable tv telling how scary it is outside and we should stay in where it is safe.

      The governemtn is protecting us, why should we question them?

      I'm going to go puke....

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    18. Re:do something about it... by tardibear · · Score: 1
      And what would you have people do? Lots of us DO email, write, and telephone our representatives. But no letter, phonecall, or email has even a fraction of the power that a $10,000 "campaign contribution" does. Campaign contributions mean that political representation goes to those with the most money to donate. Democracy died long ago.

      Well, Mozilla raised $250,000 for the New York Times Firefox ad in a matter of days. Just think what a $250,000 "campaign contribution" could do - if only we could all agree on a "message" ...

    19. Re:do something about it... by notAyank · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, I'm not so sure about that. Of course, if you ever do resist your government in the name of freedom (real freedom, not the current administration's definition of it) you will be branded terrorists. With respect to your comment about "hicks": I used to think that American militia groups were out of their minds. Now I'm beginning to wonder.

    20. Re:do something about it... by dustmite · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But (assuming the election weren't rigged), the American people voted this administration into power again. The American people chose for things like this to happen to them (all of these things have been crafted by the current administration, and I somehow doubt things would be going down the same, or half as badly, if the election had gone the other way - remember that none of these things are necessarily "inevitable", they're highly dependent on who is in power, there have been many similar 'low points' during the previous century and it is possible to come out of them if you're not so complacent that you just accept things as inevitable). I think most people are simply uninformed, and don't care that they're uninformed. Thus one must conclucde that the root cause of the problems here is that majority of the American public are not competent enough to choose their leaders properly.

    21. Re:do something about it... by Vince+Mo'aluka · · Score: 2, Informative
      Campaign contributions wouldn't mean jack if government was strictly limited in power. The lobbying industry (think about that for a second -- there is an entire industry dedicated to bribing government) only exists because government is exploitable.

      Until government is held to strict limits on power, there will be a permanant line of crooks waiting for their turn to exploit that power (both inside and outside the political circle). That's not theory -- that's simple reality. If you favor big government, give yourself a pat on the back, because this is it.

      --
      You took his stuff. You pound him.
    22. Re:do something about it... by Vince+Mo'aluka · · Score: 1
      Let's think about this for a second.

      Money buys government. (My emphasis.)

      Stop right there. Before we even consider where the money comes from, could there possibly be a problem with the fact that money buys government? If so, where exactly is the problem? Is it rooted in the permanent line of crooks waiting to exploit government? Or is the problem rooted in the fact that government is exploitable in the first place?

      The root of the problem is that government is not held to strict limits on power. Until that day, government will be exploitable. For those who favor big government, stand up and be proud, because this is big government in all its glory.

      --
      You took his stuff. You pound him.
    23. Re:do something about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's Beeblebrox.

    24. Re:do something about it... by Kombat · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Just wanted to add that I think you're absolutely right. Why don't we ask the folks at Waco or Ruby Ridge how their "resistance" to what they perceived as a tyrannical government worked out? In order for a revolution to succeed, you'd need to organize folks en-masse, and that won't happen, because the government-controlled media channels will portray your movement as a fanatical religious organization, or a group of terrorists. Why would Suzy Soccer Mom point her Glock at the government when CNN is telling her that a bunch of "freedom-hating gun nuts in Texas" are fighting the BATF? She won't. No one will.

      --
      Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
    25. Re:do something about it... by Kombat · · Score: 1

      We [...] graduate young adults that can not read

      I call shenanigans. I submit that there is not one single individual in the United States who holds a valid, accredited high school graduation certificate who is functionally illiterate.

      I agree with the spirit of your post, but there's no need to exaggerate and throw out complete and obvious lies. It hurts your credibility, and detracts from the impact of your main point.

      --
      Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
    26. Re:do something about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Naw, you guys have shitty health care crappy benefits, and well, quite frankly, you stink. Ya really need to try showering

    27. Re:do something about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The American people chose for things like this
      > to happen to them ...
      > Thus one must conclucde that the root cause of the
      > problems here is that majority of the American
      > public are not competent enough to choose their
      > leaders properly.

      The alternatives to choose from were both lousy. It was like choosing between a pile of shit and a pile of vomit.

    28. Re:do something about it... by SlayerofGods · · Score: 1

      It all depends on what's in your letter; you have to know how to work the system.
      If your letter starts off with 'If you ever want to see your family again' or 'I have pictures of you' it's sure to get their attention more then any campaign contribution.
      It's all part of the circle: threats, bribes, and blackmail.

      --

      Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
    29. Re:do something about it... by Vo0k · · Score: 1

      Do you REALLY believe things would be much different if Kerry was at power?
      Sorry, the elections don't have to be rigged. The elections are plain meaningless. The corruption happens at the moment of nominating the candidates, where people have really little influence, you are given a small set, usually two candidates that differ only on the surface. Which one you choose is mostly meaningless. Real democracy and American Democracy is like "how would you like to have sex?" and "do you want to be screwed in the ass or in the mouth".

      --
      Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
    30. Re:do something about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cynical?! What a load of crap!

    31. Re:do something about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are lazy.

      Post a link that we can click on that makes the problem go away. Like a mailto:yourcongressman or something.

      We WILL do that, with all the glory of the /. effect. Otherwise, we'll just bitch and moan as usual.

    32. Re:do something about it... by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      And you honestly think things would have been different under Kerry?

      I've got news for you. They might not have been friends, but Bush and Kerry are both part of the same elitist segment of society which has so much money there is little perspective on actual worth or value. The common man (that is, anyone that needs to work for a living, at all) is looked down on as simple and gullible, weak-spined and someone to be led.

      Hollywood (overall) thinks this way. Washington thinks this way. While their presented political views might varry as to what they want the public eye to see, their goals are the same: tell the public things the public wants to hear, so that they themselves can shape society to be more befitting to their way of life and that of their progeny.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    33. Re:do something about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > none of these things are necessarily "inevitable", they're highly dependent on who is in power,

      Aren't you a cute little optimist.

      Whether it's for Homeland Security (R) or for the Greater Good (D), your cute little habits that you think of as "rights" must be removed.

      Fight it, and you'll get a mudhole stomped in your ass. Invest in whichever companies are politically favored, and you'll do fine. Ignore it, and eat dog food during your retirement. Your choice.

    34. Re:do something about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I beg to differ

    35. Re:do something about it... by AbbyNormal · · Score: 1

      So move. Save the other 10% of us the hassle of hearing about the "Sky is Falling" every five minutes. Check. Got it. Thanks.

      Suv= Bad.
      Big House=Bad.
      Cable TV = Bad.

      Thanks for the tips! If you don't like it, do something about it. Move to another country. The grass is always greener there.

      Posting on Slashdot continously, is going to do what exactly?

      Try and not use the "We" so sporadically throughtout your messages.

      --
      Sig it.
    36. Re:do something about it... by Politburo · · Score: 1

      That link says nothing about high school graduates.

    37. Re:do something about it... by TheSync · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Americans on average are the stupidest population center on this planet.

      The following countries have lower average IQs than that of the US (which is 98):

      Canada 97 Czech Republic 97 Finland 97 Spain 97 Argentina 96 Russia 96 Slovakia 96 Uruguay 96 Portugal 95 Slovenia 95 Israel 94 Romania 94 Bulgaria 93 Ireland 93 Greece 92 Malaysia 92 Thailand 91 Croatia 90 Peru 90 Turkey 90 Colombia 89 Indonesia 89 Suriname 89 Brazil 87 Iraq 87 Mexico 87 Samoa (Western) 87 Tonga 87 Lebanon 86 Philippines 86 Cuba 85 Morocco 85 Fiji 84 Iran 84 Marshall Islands 84 Puerto Rico 84 Egypt 83 India 81 Ecuador 80 Guatemala 79 Barbados 78 Nepal 78 Qatar 78 Zambia 77 Congo (Brazz) 73 Uganda 73 Jamaica 72 Kenya 72 South Africa 72 Sudan 72 Tanzania 72 Ghana 71 Nigeria 67 Guinea 66 Zimbabwe 66 Congo (Zaire) 65 Sierra Leone 64 Ethiopia 63 Equatorial Guinea 59

      You can also see from mathematics tests that the US is not the stupidest population, but above the international average for mathematics achievement as well.

      Of course, the US may still be stupid, but it isn't like there are a lot of people less stupid outside of the US.

      Some European countries may have higher IQs and Math scores than the US, but they have real problems in understading basic economics ;)

    38. Re:do something about it... by CTachyon · · Score: 1

      Personally, I think that the people are uninformed, and just don't realize how uninformed they are. The political duopoly here in the US has cemented itself in, and they deliberately encourage voter ignorance by trying to polarize debate into "us vs. them". This distracts the voters long enough that they can pull crap like gerrymandering and big-money bribery ^W^W campaign fundraising.

      --
      Range Voting: preference intensity matters
    39. Re:do something about it... by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1

      You are dead wrong. I'm a literacy tutor, and the overwhelming majority of students our council works with are high school graduates.

      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
    40. Re:do something about it... by atomic_toaster · · Score: 1

      You also have to take into account that a lot of the readers of /., like myself, are not American. We have no say in how the US is run, and very little influence in the States short of attacking you with all of our military might -- and hey, I'm Canadian, we have more submarines in the West Edmonton Mall than we do in our navy.

    41. Re:do something about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you whiners would ORGANISE and fight you'd get somewhere!
      The National Rifle Association regularly spanks well-funded Leftists who want to take away our Second Amendment rights, which is why I joined it.
      The real power is in the hands of those who organise, not those who bleat from their mothers basement.
      Bitches...

    42. Re:do something about it... by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      The American people chose for things like this to happen to them

      This statement is backed by the incredibly naive assumption that John Kerry would have done things differently. Perhaps you folks have forgotten about the Clinton era...

    43. Re:do something about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ignorance of the american public is not a cause but a symptom. Clearly, we're all genetically alike, so there is something wrong in the environment in the US. I mean, blaming the people isn't going to get you anywhere. Why are Americans apathetic? Because the system doesn't work for them. We don't feel empowered as a whole. The government is set up to keep us divided amongst ourselves, and so apathy is a natural result for someone outside the political system. You're just a "registered voter". As for not being competent to choose, I think that the people who give us our news and media are pleased to keep that priviledge to themselves, and so why should they bother to present us with salient, meaningful views on our political process? It's easier to make money with 'spin' than with fact anyway, so the capitalist system, while not itself a problem, feeds into the ignorance problem quite nicely.

    44. Re:do something about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't like it, do something about it. Move to another country.

      You know what? I did, and while the grass isn't really greener my quality of life is much better :)

    45. Re:do something about it... by smackmywhammy · · Score: 1

      Golden rule: He who has the gold, rules.

    46. Re:do something about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you mean "us", paleface?

    47. Re:do something about it... by Darby · · Score: 1

      Just think what a $250,000 "campaign contribution" could do - if only we could all agree on a "message" ...

      I vote for a big fucking bomb that we drop on Washington.

    48. Re:do something about it... by chrisopherpace · · Score: 1

      Guerilla warfare was what the Americans first used against the British.....

    49. Re:do something about it... by baerm · · Score: 1
      I call shenanigans. I submit that there is not one single individual in the United States who holds a valid, accredited high school graduation certificate who is functionally illiterate.

      I submit that you may technically be correct. Here is a link

      http://www.nifl.gov/nifl/faqs.html, also, http://www.nifl.gov/reders/reder.htm
      is pretty cool.

      anyway, from a 1992 U.S. study,

      ...Between 21 and 23 percent of the adult population, or approximately 44 million people, according to the National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS), scored in Level 1 (see description above)...

      ...More than 60 percent didn't complete high school...

      ...Almost all adults in Level 1 can read a little but not well enough to fill out an application, read a food label, or read a simple story to a child...


      Level 1 is the lowest level (most illiterate?), I don't believe level 2 would actually qualify as a 12th grade reading level either. I think level 3 is considered basic literacy, but I'll ignore the 50 million or so people in level 2 anyway.

      The number above is actually 62 percent according to the 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS). So the number of illiterate high school graduates is 44mil * .38, which is a bit under 17 million.

      So you're right!, there is not one single individual illiterate high school graduate, there are literally millions of them....
    50. Re:do something about it... by jbloggs · · Score: 1

      please... stupidity is universal and knows no cultural bounds.

    51. Re:do something about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      All I see posted are stupid remarks about how ironic this is... but nobody seems to want to do anything about it.

      Bush was doing this kind of thing before the election and he had a clear victory. The people of this nation don't care and my representatives know it. Nothing's going to change until Bush does something that's unacceptable to the conservatives in the country. Conservatives now lead this country and control all three branches of government. I have no power, because they don't need my vote to keep theirs.

      It's a sad day seeing this article exist, but it will be an even sadder day when 90% of these comments are scored "Funny" and we are doomed to sit idly by our world is taken away from us... thanks guys, i appreciate it.

      And what have you done? Other then whine.

    52. Re:do something about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Bush is some kind of Zaphod Beetlebox without goodwill and humour.

      I'm pretty sure he doesn't have an extra head or extra arms, but you never know for sure do you.

    53. Re:do something about it... by jgercken · · Score: 1

      Whatever absurd legislation this Administration comes up with, Canada will eventually be pressured into adopting so go ahead and laugh now.

      --
      Never ascribe to malice what can be adequately attributed to ignorance. -Napoleon
    54. Re:do something about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are quite wrong. This is the WORLD's problem. Time to put away the Mooseheads, pal.

    55. Re:do something about it... by Acer500 · · Score: 1

      What, you expect me to write to José Mujica?
      http://www.parlamento.gub.uy/palacio3/index.htm

      Believe me, I would have voted in the US elections if I could (and most everyone here feels that way).

      --
      There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
    56. Re:do something about it... by Entrinzikyl · · Score: 1

      Actually, the people do still have a power. Here's a hypothetical situation: Say a politician has 50 potential voters, and one of those voters donates a few thousand dollars to encourage him to vote a certain way on an issue. Upon hearing this, 40 of the voters write a letter saying that they will not vote for him in the next election if he sides with the one wealthy voter. Which way do you think the politician will go? A politician's elected office is more important than the money he receives, because it is the office that allows him to get this money. Politicians can get away with what the people allow them to get away with, and no more. To often, people fail to realize this and resort to the old diatribe of "There's nothing I can do." People need to realize that the current administration is in power because yes, the majority of the country voted that way. That means at least half of the country thinks its views are being represented. Change will only come when they realize that's not the case.

    57. Re:do something about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thus one must conclucde that the root cause of the problems here is that majority of the American public are not competent enough to choose their leaders properly.

      Think about what you are saying here.. Democracy is all about what the majority of the people want. Whether or not the minority sees something that the majority doesn't, it's the majority that counts! The majority, no matter how uninformed, are what makes up the country. If you disagree with the majority of a democratic country, then you can either suck it up, or find another home. Would you rather a minority choose the leaders?

      In short, Democracy = will of majority. If you disagree with the will of the majority, you need to find another form of government.

      Come on...

    58. Re:do something about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the worst form of big government - the unaccountable sort. The one purchased by rich corporations who have 'won' the game that is capitalism. The one truth that no one seems to be willing to acknowledge about capitalism is that, eventually, someone gets all the cookies. Once they have all the cookies and wield significantly more influence in public life, then you cease to have a free market.

    59. Re:do something about it... by runamok1 · · Score: 1
      So true... And I'm guilty too. But I agree that we are all seeing things happen in our country that literally drive us nuts and the majority of our fellow citizens don't even blink. It's easy to lose hope. I was shocked that Bush won. I think I'm still in denial.

      So here you go:
      Senators of the 109th Congress (info you could have found with google in .039 seconds)

      I need to get off my ass and write some letters or something. Perhaps just to give myself the right to bitch when things stay the same. Damn. There's that cynicism again.

    60. Re:do something about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and you're forgetting the fact that the iq test was created to test the level of retardation in mentally handicapped people... never to measure intelligence, because we don't even have a definition of intelligence we can agree on. so shut up, already.

    61. Re:do something about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get real... this will harm all af us... there are no borders on the Internet...

    62. Re:do something about it... by syphax · · Score: 1


      (think about that for a second -- there is an entire industry dedicated to bribing government)


      This is the best small-government argument I've heard in a long while. And I'm a big-government northeast liberal.

      --
      Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories
    63. Re:do something about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      ... and you're forgetting the fact that the iq test was created to test the level of retardation in mentally handicapped people... never to measure intelligence, because we don't even have a definition of intelligence we can agree on. so shut up, already.

      Actually, the Benet IQ tests were made by an educator in France to test whether students actually learned the knowledge and skills that they were expected to know at a given age level. Later it was adopted by a somewhat xenophopic social darwinists in 19th century America who wanted to use it to test potential immigrants for mental retardation, to use as grounds to deny them immigration.

    64. Re:do something about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Before I start, for reference, my IQ has never tested below 150 (and that includes some weird American tests where I had to work with bronze-age units like quarts and ounces).

      Where did these numbers come from? Do you have any idea how many people you have to test to be able to determine something to with statistical reliability to 1%? Or the costs of finding a random sample in half the countries in that list?

      IQ as a measurement isn't nearly valuable enough to visit Sierra Leone, never mind correctly test 1000 evenly distributed people there. So even if there was some attempt to test thoroughly, I doubt it was honest.

      By the way, who beat you guys? (I'm assuming you're American) Should we assume it's all of the hundred-odd countries not on the list?

    65. Re:do something about it... by OmegaBlac · · Score: 1
      Where did these numbers come from?
      I'll assume that TheSync gathered that information from this link Average IQ of Countries. Google to the rescue again. ;)
    66. Re:do something about it... by quantax · · Score: 1

      Funnily enough, I used to think like this but then I went out and talked more with Europeans and came to a (ultimtely unsurprising) conclusion: people are mostly the same everywhere, and stupidity is pretty well distributed! I can carry the same topic of conversation with a redneck from Texas and an America-hating european, and the the one thing they both share is a perpensity for making sweeping generalizations about the other; for this reason, I reject them both. For every European that had some relevant, intelligent thing to say about America, 4 others would spout stuff I would rank no better than the redneck who shouts, GOD BLESS AMERICA, ITS OUR WAY OR THE HIGHWAY! This is the case in America, and its the case elsewhere; thus is the nature of humanity. People tend to make massive generalizations (see, I just made a couple myself) and use them to justify their opinions. In conclusion, just remember that people are people, regardless of their country, religion, race, or sexuality. Once you forget this, you are no better than the 'unwashed masses' that you scorn.

      This is not to say critisim is unfounded or unwanted, if anything I love a good debate about how nations conduct themselves, but do everyone a favor and leave your sweeping generalizations at home. Additionally, your contempt for your fellow Americans is somewhat amusing as unless you live in a wooden shack in the middle of no where, hunt/gather your food, sew your own clothing, and reject all modern technology (in short, be 100% self-effecient), your mere existence contributes to the very system you lament; such is the paradox of the societies we claim to be disgusted by.

      --
      "What can a thoughtful man hope for mankind on Earth, given the experience of the past million years? Nothing." -Bokonon
    67. Re:do something about it... by _am99_ · · Score: 1

      IQ is not everything.

      "Fair and balanced" would not be a sustainable slogan for a media organization like Fox news in any other country. Well maybe they would get away with the label, but people wouldn't actually buy it like they do in the US.

      To me, this appointment, and most other US political activity, represents the failure of capitalism (at least morally).

      To the world, it is just another line on the long list of hypocritical actions taken by the US government.

      And the last thing the administration and its cronies want is real debate on anything. I suspect that they will get there wish.

    68. Re:do something about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You DO know that 100 is the average IQ, right?

    69. Re:do something about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are complete and utter MORONS.

      I doubt that has anything to do with it. More likely it's because we are all either civil, or cowards. I take that back, actually. We're both.

      Those of us who proudly display our right to bear arms against tyranny in any form (especially the "social tyranny" of other people having their own opinions) are usually the same ones who attack their opponents with FUD, misinformation, defamation, or just plain yelling. In short, every weapon in the human arsenal except violence. These people are cowards. They run up a tree and shout about vague "threats" until other people start to believe them out of pity.

      Which brings me to the rest of the Americans - the ones who proudly tout their right of free speech, yet will not speak up en masse when someone in the government blatantly lies. These people are overly civil. They are willing to concede to the beliefs of others, and even defend others' rights to hold those beliefs. As long as someone else claims to be acting on a belief, they will defend it on principle - regardless of whether that person is leading us to hell in a handbasket.

      Now, when a bunch of the civil people start to lose their well-managed cool and form a protest, the cowards write a column in a national paper calling them idiots, racists, and retards. The civil ones look upon this insult with an insanely measured stance, thinking "well, I guess you could look at it that way. Oh well. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it."

      The civil people are stifled by the immeasurable task of dealing with the opposing opinion, and the cowards are secure in knowing that they've won the yelling match (which is all they ever cared about.) The threat of revolution has been averted. No one has done anything - except for the near-invisible thieves who used the yelling match as a distraction while they legislated all the government's money into their bank accounts. And the grand cycle of democracy continues.

    70. Re:do something about it... by Suddenly_Dead · · Score: 2, Insightful

      By stupid, I doubt he means by one of the common defintitions of intelligence (The validity of IQ tests, especially comparing across nations and cultures, is highly questionable anyways. Different people and cultures value different things in their "intelligent" people, and even slight wording changes on IQ tests that should have nothing to do with what is being tested can have an effect on the score across cultural and racial boundries. I'll just drop the "IQ tests suck" thing for now though.)

      I'm thinking he is referring more towards "common sense", "ignorance", "critical thinking", and such things that are critical, but often downplayed compared to intelligence.

      I mean, people can have an above-average IQ, but still be completely bigoted and racist. Some people might call such a person "stupid". Some criminals have above average IQs, but if they're caught, someone will inevitably call him "stupid".

      I know there are people with above average IQs that have political (or other) opinions based solely on what they hear on a single TV station, without any critical thought, or from a misguided friend. I would personally call that "stupid", but it doesn't mean that they literally have a low IQ.

    71. Re:do something about it... by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm using the word hicks in the general sense. North America was founded by hicks, be it greasy-fur-trapper hicks in Canada or religious-schizo hicks in the US. We's all hicks in this great land. I say embrace it, crack a beer, and stroke your shotgun lovingly.

    72. Re:do something about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hence, "all land-holding white males are created equal."

    73. Re:do something about it... by Vo0k · · Score: 1

      A politician's elected office is more important than the money he receives, because it is the office that allows him to get this money.

      Unless he plans to retire. "Okay. End of playing a nice daddy that gives candies to kids. Time to harvest the profits and make use of them."
      Say, Bush can't be elected a president again. What does he have to lose?

      Plus the politician will invest half of the bribe into silencing the press, getting the next campaign, will donate 10% of it to some charity and get the press to shout about it, so he loses the 40 voters and gains 100 others.
      If the US society wasn't so clueless (choosing someone because of the looks, of the way he speaks or how his commercial clips look like) this strategy will work. Your informed vote choosing someone worthy won't outweight 10 votes of morons cheated into thinking some bastard will make their live easier.

      --
      Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
    74. Re:do something about it... by Vince+Mo'aluka · · Score: 1
      Of course, what we have in the US isn't capitalism -- not by a long shot. Capitalism is founded on voluntary association. The bigger the government, the less voluntary association, and therefore the less capitalism.

      Considering the size of the US government, the idea that our economy is capitalist is almost laughable. What we have is a bastardized version of capitalism, where the state is heavily entangled in the market.

      --
      You took his stuff. You pound him.
    75. Re:do something about it... by TheSync · · Score: 1

      Examine US states that voted for Bush and their IQ levels.

  44. In the dictionary ... by xeniten · · Score: 1

    under irony it says "see irony."

    --
    Romana: "How did you know?" Doctor Who: "Ah, well, knowing is easy. Everyone does THAT ad nauseum. I just sort of hope"
  45. Appointing a fox to watch the henhouse. by Dark+Coder · · Score: 1

    As incredulous as it may sound, this appears to be an asinine (sub)cabinet appointment.

    Maybe it takes a spy-meister to sit on the other side of the table to deal with this illusive dilemna.

    On a slight off-topic (and a risk of karma-whoring...) Simply put, if the software industry only (and only if) just tighten up their security vulnerabilities to the point of "none.", then (and only if then) we wouldn't need this haberdashers.

    (sigh).
    ---
    Make software industry accountable; abolish click-thru EULA that gets automatically enforced once the shrinkwrap is removed. How can one read this EULA before opening it?

  46. Pulling pranks at the DHS by Frodo+Crockett · · Score: 1

    Okay, who's gonna be the first to install Gator on Freeman's office computer?

    --
    "The newly born animals are then whisked off for a quick run through a giant baking oven." --heard on Food Network
    1. Re:Pulling pranks at the DHS by Blethrow · · Score: 1

      Oh, that just _must_ happen.

  47. What's next? by Rocketship+Underpant · · Score: 1

    What's next? Bill Gates joining the Free Software Foundation and Steve Jobs becoming a model for plaid work shirts?

    --
    He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
  48. Rewarding incompetence, as usual by godless+dave · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What do you expect? George Tenet got a medal for being wrong about WMDs in Iraq; Paul Bremer got one for ignoring warnings about the Iraqi insurgency; and Condaleeza Rice got promoted for ignoring warnings about Al Qaeda and being wrong about Iraq. This administration rewards incompetence and duplicity while punishing competence and honesty.

    --
    "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." -
    1. Re:Rewarding incompetence, as usual by guet · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You forgot to mention

      Bush was re-elected having lied to his people and the world about the real reasons for Iraq, American systematic use of torture (at Guantanamo Bay) and ignoring the opinion of the rest of the world on a whole load of issues. Not to mention encouraging xenophobia and jingoism.

      This administration has been rewarded for incompetence and duplicity while punishing competence and honesty.

    2. Re:Rewarding incompetence, as usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah nice troll, but what about the freedom he handed to the Iraqi people? What about the removal of a dangerous man from power, who was a substantial threat to the rest of the world? Remove that silly tinfoil hat and jump off that bandwagon you're on.

    3. Re:Rewarding incompetence, as usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you call it incompetence? Don't assume their claims equal what they believe. Fooling 51% of the population of a democracy is usually a success.

    4. Re:Rewarding incompetence, as usual by rainman_bc · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes, but Bush's lies were obvious. That's the sad part, that > 50% of your country didn't care that they were lied to. (don't try to feed me BS about non-voters here)

      but Clinton shoving a cigar thing in a chubby intern is horrible and we need to attempt to impeach him.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    5. Re:Rewarding incompetence, as usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      What about the removal of a dangerous man from power

      I thought he was reelected?

    6. Re:Rewarding incompetence, as usual by randallpowell · · Score: 0

      Why couldn't we do that in the first Gulf War? Oh yeah, UN. First Bush lacked balls and imagination to use SpecOps or to have "accidental" launches of experimental missiles.

    7. Re:Rewarding incompetence, as usual by godless+dave · · Score: 1

      "Freedom" in Iraq? Saddam a "substantial threat"? More obvious lies.

      --
      "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." -
    8. Re:Rewarding incompetence, as usual by hachete · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your Bush administration rewards loyalty to Bush. That is all. Anything else is purely secondary. An administration of sycophants, toadies and suckups. Truly, what an example to set the world and the kids of today.

      --
      Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
    9. Re:Rewarding incompetence, as usual by tonyrb · · Score: 0

      That's actually pretty funny...you are so sure Bush lied that... Hmmm...since we really don't have the exact complete story and what exactly Bush may have said or intended except for a very biased media's coverage, then I'd step away from the lie button. A lie would mean deliberate attempt to deceive and well, unless you KNOW for sure as in personally knowing the whole story, I'd suggest anyone with the mentality that says Bush lied, might want to really think it through...Were you in every conversation, every meeting and have access to every bit of information the President had? Well, if you didn't then, I'd be hard pressed to even see how you could remotely accuse him of lieing. And I don't think the media has access to all that as well, and even if they did, they have proven in many situations to be very blatantly biased in this arena.

      You know, we do have freedom of speech and yes people can rant all they want about anything, so complain to your hearts content...just don't be surprised that when you get what you want you will be ending up living in a world full of chaos, no freedom, and the opposite of what you think you would be getting if God, Righteousness, Justice, and Truth are taken away. Just because the world wants something doesn't mean it's right.

      So go ahead, hate me, bash me for being "right" minded, I really don't care actually. Nor would I expect anything else from this world really. It's sad, but true. The only love that is true love comes from God, period. But I didn't intend on a sermon, just wanted to put a little light on the subject and give some ideas for thought.

      Oh and to speak to the moral issue with Clinton...I'm sorry but if someone is willing to go against the covenant he made with his wife, why would I trust him to keep any other promise or covenant? If he is willing to throw out his trust with his wife, he shows his character very plainly. It is in the private lives of men that men are made not in the public eye...who you are when no one is looking is who you really are. At the same time there is a need to give grace and forgive...I don't hate Clinton, he just made some poor decisions and hopefully has learned something through it, but trust is not regained so quickly. Oh and by the way, you can love someone without agreeing with them or condoning what they do unlike popular opinion and the "teaching" of "tolerance".

    10. Re:Rewarding incompetence, as usual by jim_v2000 · · Score: 1

      I like the way you talk. :)

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    11. Re:Rewarding incompetence, as usual by randallpowell · · Score: 1

      just don't be surprised that when you get what you want you will be ending up living in a world full of chaos, no freedom, and the opposite of what you think you would be getting if God, Righteousness, Justice, and Truth are taken away. We're aware of the dangers of Evangelicals. The only love that is true love comes from God, period. I'm freaky but that is too much. I'll stick with my gf. you can love someone without agreeing with them You never been to one of my family's holiday get togethers, have you?

    12. Re:Rewarding incompetence, as usual by tonyrb · · Score: 1

      Yes truly a great example you are setting...let's see...bigotry, hate, and hmmm...lies...

      None of what I am hearing as bashes on Bush actually has any basis on reality, but conjecture and opinion that seems very fueled by hate of someone you don't even know personally.

      Let's face it the only reason people bash Bush is because of what he is standing for in the world...Of course Bush is not perfect like any man and no I don't agree with everything he does, but I don't hate him.

      You sure seem pretty convinced that you know the truth about Bush and his motives...might want to open your mind a bit and actually look at reality and look at the facts...unless you know every behind the scene story and each person personally and their motivations, you probably are going to have a hard time actually KNOWING the actual truth.

      It's easy to jump to conclusions when it is so popular and almost encouraged to do...it takes a bit more grit to not follow the road well traveled.

    13. Re:Rewarding incompetence, as usual by randallpowell · · Score: 1

      I hate Bush for being a drug addict with a drinking problem and claims to have been saved by a 2000 year old dead guy. That is what got him re-elected. I hate how messed up he is yet claims to be fine now that he read the Bible.

    14. Re:Rewarding incompetence, as usual by godless+dave · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is not conjecture or opinion that Bush and people working for him lied about WMDs in Iraq and Iraq aiding al Qaeda. It is an established fact. Remember the claim about getting uranium from Niger? The aluminum tubes? The alleged mobile weapons labs? I do bash Bush because of what he stands for in the world: imperialism, arrogance, and most of all for unnecessary war. But I also bash him for lying and for being stupid.

      --
      "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." -
    15. Re:Rewarding incompetence, as usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excuse me, what part of Bush's denying marijuana use was truthful? Ridiculing Gore for admitting use makes Bush a hypocrite as well.

      Oh, you weren't talking about that. Well, can we at least state that Bush's portrayal about Iraq was disingenuous? I mean if a researcher decided to omit information that was contrary to his position, he would be discredited and ignored. Or are you saying that tobacco companies were acting in good faith when they ignored that there product might be linked to cancer? Since no one was privy to any of these instances, they should all be ignored. Or we should wage war.

      So you were there when Clinton supposedly banged his intern, which gives you the right to judge? And the same media bias that applies to Bush doesn't seem to apply to Clinton, so we should trust the media's account of what Clinton did?

      Further, to point out these inconsistencies is somehow contrary to "God, Righteousness, Justice, and Truth(TM)". It must be a terrible burden that you bear.

      And please don't parade "God's Love" like some crackwhore looking for a fix. I tend to think god is beyond such petty partisan politics, and it demeans my relationship with the eternal.

      You sir, are blind.

    16. Re:Rewarding incompetence, as usual by loraksus · · Score: 1

      Oh and to speak to the moral issue with Clinton...I'm sorry but if someone is willing to go against the covenant he made with his wife, why would I trust him to keep any other promise or covenant? If he is willing to throw out his trust with his wife, he shows his character very plainly.

      You mean like Newt Gingrich? Well, hell, that's not the same. His wife had MS and was old and stuff...

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
    17. Re:Rewarding incompetence, as usual by fossilstar · · Score: 1

      Were you in every conversation, every meeting and have access to every bit of information the President had? I also wasn't present when brachiopods diversified in the Cincinnatian, so I guess that's your evidence against evolution?

      --
      "Support our Oops."
    18. Re:Rewarding incompetence, as usual by HangingChad · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I'm always amazed when Bush supporters act like they're part of some noble cause, some grand struggle that takes them down the road less traveled.

      Regardless of his motives you can let the results speak for themselves. We've spent 300 billion on a war they told us would cost 50 billion at the most, supposedly for WMD's but there weren't any. And we're still sinking 4 billion a month into that hole with no end in sight. The No Child Left Behind act was based on the Houston Miracle, which later turned out to be faked data. Since Bush took office we've seen our government go into massive debt, seen more American jobs shipped overseas than any other time in the history of the country, we've watched our personal liberties and freedoms disappear and watched our relationship with foreign allies and our position in the world deteriorate.

      For those who claim the mantel of Christianity this administration certainly has no love of the truth. They lie because they're being true to their character when they do so.

      Perhaps it's you who should think about re-examining your committment to the truth.

      --
      That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    19. Re:Rewarding incompetence, as usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what about the freedom he handed to the Iraqi people?

      Doubleplus good! Into the memory hole with all the WMD talk, mushroom clouds, uranium from Niger, and all the rest.
      Fact is, Bush lied to whip up public support for the Iraq invasion, just like Johnson lied about Tonkin. All the rhetoric in the world doesn't change that.

    20. Re:Rewarding incompetence, as usual by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      A lie would mean deliberate attempt to deceive and well, unless you KNOW for sure as in personally knowing the whole story,

      Let's take a Walk down memory lane

      Of noteworthy quote "The absence of any explanation for the gap between the statements and reality only increases the sense that the President's misstatements may actually have been intentional lies."

      Furthermore: To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."

      How many lives were lost because Clinton put a cigar tube into a fat intern?

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    21. Re:Rewarding incompetence, as usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Snicker) a 30yo buddhist convert living with his dad... Yea Im sure youll stick with your 'gf'...

    22. Re:Rewarding incompetence, as usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "seen more American jobs shipped overseas than any other time in the history of the country"

      Don't be a total jerk. There was no other time in the history of the country that this was possible.

      Your last two paragraphs are gibberish. You could have left it compelling, but instead you just piled the crap on the end of a good argument.

    23. Re:Rewarding incompetence, as usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has always been possible. America was founded primarily on shipping jobs overseas. Remember the colonies and all that crap?

    24. Re:Rewarding incompetence, as usual by cstam · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but are you implying that George Bush is a better president or a better person than Clinton, that is complete blind ignorance. Granted, a married man getting a little head from an intern is not of moral virtue, but isn't that something that Bill and Hillary should work out, not you and your "morals" (read "invisible friend"). Oh, wait, bill and Hillary did reconsile, but for some reason you still hold a grudge. I think you are just looking for a reson to dislike one of the greatest presidents in history. And don't even consider comparing Clinton's ethics/morals to G Bush. Bush has admitted to using marijuna, cocaine and has been convicted of driving while intoxicated on more than one ocassion, and that's just what his dad couldn't cover up for him. This is the type of man you'd rather had leading our nation? A drug user and an alcoholic who can't realize when his judgement's impaired (ah, now I see, his decision making makes more sense). But I'll bet you're still mad at Clinton because he may or may not have inhaled. When Clinton made his mistake, was he endangering the lives of others? And on the issue of tolerance, are you wearing blinders?!?!?!?!? George bush has proven to be one of the most intolerant and immoral presidents ever, see policy on same-gender weddings, numerous executions of mentally handicapped, etc. I think you need to open your eyes and start looking at the facts for yourself...actually, that's something you and Bush should do, because again he has admitted to only listening to his cabinet's opinion (people he appointed, mind you) and has never actually made a decision by looking at the facts himself. Yes, it was a sad day when he got re-elected and it just goes to show you that the majority of my fellow citizens are as blind and ignorant as you appear to be.

    25. Re:Rewarding incompetence, as usual by spookyfluke · · Score: 0

      [sarcasm]Yeah, but look on the bright side... Gay marriage isn't legal.[/sarcasm]

      --
      you.bases.each{|base|base.are_belong_to=us}
    26. Re:Rewarding incompetence, as usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see how bush is connected with jobs going overseas, he didn't give any incentives for job lose. If he had put a terrif on exporting jobs overseas (which he somewhat did by closing tax loop-holes on americans working overseas) you would see asia raising export terrifs on the product currently made in asia. This would lead to an increase in product price through extra cost of manufacturing in america. If AMD had to pay the extra cost of american workers you would see a rise in prices. You would than bitch at how computers have become more expensive, and how american policy is deteriorating our relationship with asia, which would impose terrifs of its own. The question really is if you want to pay more than double for the products you currently buy. By imposing terrifs on goods (which is the only way you can stop export of jobs without directly pumping money into a company) would start a terrif war with asia. If anything american public education is to blame for the current export of jobs, through the past few decades america has slipped when it comes to education and increased in ignorance. I do not support the war in iraq, but in my opinion that is one of the few downfalls of bush, not jobs. In conclusion job exporting would have happened even if gore was president.

      Perhaps you should stop cutting and pasting kerry's election speeches and stay on topic. Let's elect Ron Jeremy to the FCC `06. :)

    27. Re:Rewarding incompetence, as usual by grolschie · · Score: 1

      This administration rewards incompetence and duplicity...

      So does the voting public by re-electing GWB. :-)

    28. Re:Rewarding incompetence, as usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This administration rewards incompetence and duplicity while punishing competence and honesty.

      QFE

    29. Re:Rewarding incompetence, as usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      U-S-A!!!
      U-S-A!!!

    30. Re:Rewarding incompetence, as usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your argument is specious (noun) 3 : having a false look of truth or genuineness.

      Let's face it the only reason people bash Bush is because of what he is standing for in the world...

      Wrong. I hate Bush because he's a fucking murderer. I've hated him ever since he was in Texas. While governer, he mocked a lady on death row, saying "Pwease don't kwill me!" before he signed her death sentence. That's why I hate that evil criminal faggot fuck.

      You sure seem pretty convinced that you know the truth about Bush and his motives...

      I realize you're talking to someone else here, but personally, I don't judge Chimpy McBush by his "motives". I couldn't give a shit fuck about why that faggot does what he does. He's ruining America -- that's what I care about, and that's why I want to see him forced out of his position, as well as all the other faggot neocon asshole dickhead cock suckers. Fuck those little bitches in the nose with a giant purple dildo.

    31. Re:Rewarding incompetence, as usual by tonyrb · · Score: 0

      Well, have fun hating, it definitely won't help your health any...might help to open your mind a bit to a little more information than what is being vomited from certain very biased sources...

      What you just stated as established fact is actually just your opinion. Not that I know what the truth is in this situation, but I sure am not going to stake my life on it being either the extreme left view or the extreme right view, it is most likely somewhere in between.

      As for your statement of him being stupid...wow, you must be a very insightful person that knows everything about him and his mental make up...You are the most amazing person I have ever met! Your opinion is so full of life and truth and concrete facts that you must be the most brilliant, insightful, educated person on the planet! Sorry I couldn't help but put a bit of sarcasm in there...but really I think you've gone a bit out of your league on that judgment.

    32. Re:Rewarding incompetence, as usual by tonyrb · · Score: 0

      Hmmm...that's funny, Bush supporter? Actually I would like to say I am a Truth supporter more than Bush supporter. Oh and if you really want truth, your not going to find it in the current media especially in the extreme left and right media channels.

      I'm not saying I even know what the true story is, and it is probably somewhere in between rabid Bush supporters' views and the extreme liberals' views. I'm not even trying to "support" Bush, shoot he doesn't need someone defending him.

      The whole reason I posted was to try to get people to actually think about what they think and how they come to conclusions. All I am hearing from the majority of posts bashing Bush and well anything that would put a word in edgewise pertaining to God, and morals, etc. is a vomit of the same hate, anger, bigotry, and slander that that view (I guess if you'd have to put a label on it is the "extreme left" liberal view) is accusing the "right" view to have. And frankly I can't stand labeling people either. But in order to put some context in what I'm saying I had to.

      Shoot, I don't agree with a lot of the "right" view myself. There are two extremes and neither of the extremes are right. As a matter of fact both extremes are coming from the same spirit/mindset--hate, anger, devision, rage, malice, pride, religious pride, etc. Hmmm, now doesn't that paint an interesting picture? Both sides are being manipulated from the same source.

      Oh an yes there is more to this life than just what you can see, smell, taste, and touch or measure. Our reality is far more interesting than you can imagine...a spiritual reality is not just old wives tales and fringe thinking, it is real. We are composed of far more than just mind and body, we also have a spirit, but I will not go there, that would be a very long post and very much off even the off topic of pointing out the source of all the bashing.

    33. Re:Rewarding incompetence, as usual by obdulio · · Score: 1

      Are you talking about the same freedom that you gave the chilean people when you overthrow Allende?

      The same that Saudi Arabia and Egipt have?

      Nicaraguan people under Somoza? Cubans under Batista?

      Nice idea of freedom americans have

      --
      PENAROL: Seras eterno como el tiempo y floreceras en cada primavera.
    34. Re:Rewarding incompetence, as usual by 1lus10n · · Score: 1

      "Just because the world wants something doesn't mean it's right."

      Couldnt have said it better in light of the recent elections. The majority of the american people wanted something that is completely fucking moronic.

      "The only love that is true love comes from God, period."

      The only love that is true love comes from Satan, period.
      The only love that is true love comes from yourself, period.
      The only love that is true love comes from hookers, period.
      The only love that is true love comes from the sun, period.
      The only love that is true love comes from being true to yourself and using your brain, period.

      Its funny how something can be used to push a certain group think moral. God is your decision, dont try to tell people it does or doesnt exist or involve's love. Taking a look around this world (really you need not look any farther than the whitehouse) I think that god is either dead, never existed to begin with or is a petulant spoiled fucking brat who needs a damn spanking. None of which inspires me to have faith in such a being.

      Speaking of faith you might want to learn the meaning of the word. You dont have proof of anything, thats why it takes faith to believe. Generally speaking its very similar to being insane.

      --
      "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
    35. Re:Rewarding incompetence, as usual by tonyrb · · Score: 0

      I don't think it was just because he read the Bible and that is not his claim anyway. He said he had an encounter with Jesus...not just reading the Bible. Shoot just reading the Bible will do nothing for you unless you actually are looking earnestly for God. So many people think that being a Christian is just reading the Bible and doing what it says. That is not a Christian. Yes that is religion and will just make you depressed and not have much life. And being a Christian does not make you perfect, we still are human and make mistakes, but it is a process of perfection that is only finished when we see Christ face to face. So yes Bush is not perfect. Nor am I.

      And I will not judge if he actually accepted Christ or not, I can only go with what he professes and see what he lets people see of his personal life. I don't know his heart, only God knows that.

      I've known a few drug addicts and people with drinking problems that have been delivered of those issues because of a touch from Jesus. It is not some stupid story or made up thing. I know them personally and have seen their lives and see the change. So yes I can believe that this happened with Bush or anyone else that would share this type of story.

      Yes I am a Christian as much as I hate to actually use the term today, since it has been completely muddled with a lot of people that call themselves Christian but seem to definitely not have any understanding of what it means to have a relationship with God. And no Christianity is not a religion as popular belief would think it, nor is it a philosophy or moral code. and unlike what you said above about Christians follow a 2000 year old dead guy, Jesus is not dead...He is in fact quite alive, of course you've heard the account of the cross, but then you'd also have heard the account of Him resurrecting, oh and just so you know resurrection is not some hogwash dim minded senseless hope or make believe thing, there are actual factual real life accounts in the 100s today of people being resurrected by the power of Jesus Christ. I've seen it with my own eyes as a matter of fact.

      I have seen God change my life radically as well, but anyway, if you want to hear more of my experience with God and my testimony, read my journal. I'd post it here, but it would be a bit off topic, although it answers your reply nicely.

      So, flame me or call me a freak, I really don't care. That doesn't change the fact that I actually care about all you people that are posting on Slashdot regardless of your religion or beliefs.

      I'm tired of living with my head in the sand and trying to hide my faith because I might offend someone. You can choose to be offended or not, that is your choice.

      I am not shoving something down someone's throat. You can say, Hmmm...there might be something there, or you could say, I don't believe it. It's is your choice. That is one of the nice things about America and true freedom. Not this political correctness crap that is trying to keep people locked into a straight jacket of fear and control. Anyway, end of rant. I'd be lucky if this post actually gets through anyway.

    36. Re:Rewarding incompetence, as usual by moof1138 · · Score: 1

      'Jerk' is awfully strong language, even if his point isn't entirely correct. If he'd changed it to 'lost' instead of 'shipped overseas' it would have been fairly correct as Bush also is the first administration since Hoover to have our employment figures show a net job loss in his term. This administration also did praise outsouring overseas, and they do support it, and this has eroded a *lot* of middle class jobs.

      --

      Hyperbole is the worst thing ever.
    37. Re:Rewarding incompetence, as usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is Bush/Republican standard operating procedure. They destroy institutions by appointing loyalists who put the Bush agenda as their only goal. This was done to both the FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and FEC, the Federal Election Commision.

      FERC let Enron and other (mostly Texas based) energy traders run wild. When the effectivly unregulated industry whent bankrupt, they blocked all efforts for the states to get any refunds as a result of illegal trading. Califorina, Washington and Oregon all got locked into long term contracts at inflated prices. When the states tried to end these contracts because they were set up in an illegally inflated market, FERC said the the contracts were valid. Their effective position was the the energy companies stole the money fair and square, so they should be allowed to keep it. It was only recently that an appeals court decided that the contracts were not enforcable because the energy companies lied. The result proved FERC wrong, and many of the companies suddenly settled for hundred of millions of dollars. Even so, there is still litigation and more money may be recovered. FERC us still trying to let theiving energy companies to keep hundred of millions of dollars in ill gotten gains.

      FEC did something very similar during the 2000 election fraud in Florida and other southern states. Republican officials and the Republican party were sued for keeping black people from voting. They signed consent decrees, and the same kind of illegal activity showed up in 2004. The only reason that it was not a repeat was that the Democrats and civil rights organizations closely monitored polling, and there were still problems. Bottom line is that the Republican party has complete contempt for the law and the democratic form of government. They aren't even really capitialists, they are plutocrats/kleptocrats (look it up). Bush and his cronies are complete corrupt.

    38. Re:Rewarding incompetence, as usual by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      It is not conjecture or opinion that Bush and people working for him lied about WMDs in Iraq and Iraq aiding al Qaeda.

      Actually, it is, because as far as you know, Bush's people lied to him about there being WMDs in Iraq, and he took us in their in good faith. I don't know if that happened, but I've seen no evidence it didn't.

      I might add that before we went in, I thought we'd find WMDs and was quite surprised that we didn't. Not because Bush said they were there, but because Sadam was running such a good bluff that he had me fooled. Maybe he fooled Bush so well he ended up bringing on the very war he was trying to prevent. Do you know that isn't what happened?

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    39. Re:Rewarding incompetence, as usual by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1
      saved by a 2000 year old dead guy.

      Tolerant buddhist making fun of other peoples beliefs?

      --
    40. Re:Rewarding incompetence, as usual by leecn · · Score: 1
      That is one of the nice things about America and true freedom

      true freedom... yeah right

    41. Re:Rewarding incompetence, as usual by Qrlx · · Score: 1

      The fact remains, there was no credible evidence establishing a WMD program in Iraq. It's well documented that the British dossier was "sexed up" and the American intelligence was cherry-picked to support the WMD conclusion. And when that wasn't enough, the CIA report was re-worded to be less "vague" on the point of WMD, despite the fact that the intelligence was, in fact, vague.

      It looks like you've been fooled twice, first by Saddam, then by Bush.

      Why exactly are we on a first name basis with Saddam, anyway? I've never understood that.

    42. Re:Rewarding incompetence, as usual by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      It looks like you've been fooled twice, first by Saddam, then by Bush.

      No, because what Bush said about WMDs had nothing to do with my belief. Saddam Hussein's actions were what fooled me, because he acted exactly like I would have expected him to if he really had them.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    43. Re:Rewarding incompetence, as usual by Qrlx · · Score: 1

      I kinda like the theory that Saddam actually believed he had the WMDs... I mean, would you want to be the general to tell him, ah, about those WMD you see, we're gonna need another five years...

      I don't believe that's what happened, Saddam was intimately involved in the decision to abandon the WMD program after the Gulf War, but still it's a theory I've heard presented by apologists.

      What exactly did Saddam do that made you think he had them? Deny that he had them? That sets up a bit of a Catch-22, don't you think? And in fact that's exactly how it played out before the invasion. If Saddam admits he has WMD, that's grounds for invasion. If he doesn't admit he has WMD, he's lying. It was a self-fulfilling prophecy, circular logic at it's finest.

      Isn't it interesting that everything Saddam said about his WMD program is true and everything Bush told us is a lie? Ushers in a whole new era of moral relativism.

    44. Re:Rewarding incompetence, as usual by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      What exactly did Saddam do that made you think he had them? Deny that he had them? That sets up a bit of a Catch-22, don't you think? And in fact that's exactly how it played out before the invasion. If Saddam admits he has WMD, that's grounds for invasion. If he doesn't admit he has WMD, he's lying. It was a self-fulfilling prophecy, circular logic at it's finest.

      No, what Hussein did was refuse to let the inspectors in so that they could see for themselves that he was clean. He threw the earlier inspectors out, and even when he agreed to let them back, he kept stalling, putting barriers in their way and doing everything he could to look like a man with something to hide.

      His denial that he had WMDs, although true, was unconvincing under the circumstances. Combined with his actions, it looked like he was pretending he'd complied with the orders to get rid of them, but hadn't. Of course, what he was probably doing was bluffing to make it look like he still had them, while telling the truth that he didn't. For me, probably for many others and possibly for President Bush, his bluff succeeded all to well.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    45. Re:Rewarding incompetence, as usual by Qrlx · · Score: 1

      Well, I can see we have divergent opinions on this one. The UNSCOM weapons inspectors were infiltrated by CIA spies, setting up listening posts at military bases all across Iraq. Saddam got wind of this and kicked them out. Would you let spies back in your country? Fool me once...

      But that's not really all that relevant. The whole point of intelligence is that we don't have to take these people at their word. And the intelligence we had was only a slam-dunk after Cheney's office got done with it. Neither State nor CIA (nor the British) had conclusive findings in their original reports. The reports were re-worked by an Administration that needed a "slam dunk" to sell this war.

      In the wake of 9/11 the claim that our old enemy (and older ally) Saddam had WMD was just what the doctor ordered! It provided the justification to launch the PNAC war to reshape the Middle East in our image. (Though, I'm not sure why they went through all the fuss, Congress completely abdicated their responsibility shortly after 9/11.)

      Remember that other claim? That Iraq had UAVs equipped with chemical weapons sprayers, capable of reaching NYC? Completely laughable. Yet peeople believed it. As one fictional character put it "Fear is the mind-killer." Fear of the WMD Boogey-Man named Saddam has made American minds pliant and susceptible to reprogramming in accord with the New World Order.

    46. Re:Rewarding incompetence, as usual by godless+dave · · Score: 1

      Bush's people lied to him about there being WMDs in Iraq, and he took us in their in good faith. If that's the case then he's even stupider than I think he is. The evidence Bush's people were giving him (and us) was debunked by experts almost as soon as it left their mouths. I know he doesn't read newspapers, but as the president I expected him to listen to the CIA, DIA, State Department, and UNSCOM. I might add that before we went in, I thought we'd find WMDs and was quite surprised that we didn't. I'm sorry to hear that. I suggest expanding your news sources beyond Fox and CNN. Personally I believed the UNSCOM inspectors when they said there was no evidence of WMD stockpiles or ongoign programs, and am one of the millions of people who was NOT surprised we didn't find WMDs.

      --
      "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." -
    47. Re:Rewarding incompetence, as usual by godless+dave · · Score: 1

      Aside from the spying issue, I think Saddam resisted the inspections for the simple reason that he didn't want to appear to be capitulating to foreign governments. As for the claim that Saddam obstructed the inspectors after they were allowed to return in 2002, this is actually more Bushite propaganda. UNSCOM said he was mostly cooperative. Granted, it was the threat of military force that got him to let inspectors back in in 2002. As a political science professor told me once, the THREAT of force is power, the USE of force is not.

      --
      "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." -
  49. Re:Hmm... I've an analogy for this... by luvirini · · Score: 1

    Preventing things like terrorism is basically impossible. One can try to make the probability of success low with many methods, starting at international politics and ending with properly trained policeforces.

  50. Huh? by Loonacy · · Score: 2, Funny

    April Fool's isn't for a few more weeks. The ed's need to check their calendars.

    1. Re:Huh? by Atrax · · Score: 1

      April Fool's day must be early this year by common consent. I got sent this this morning

      --
      Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
  51. Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos by astrashe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    At least they're being up front about this. They back the companies that are screwing us out of our privacy over the consumers every chance they get. That's what they stand for.

    As outrageous as this is, it's not nearly as bad as the prescription drug bill that prevents them from pushing the pharmaceutical companies for better prices.

    I hope the story is big enough to be spun by the talk radio crowd. I'd love to hear how they'd defend it.

    1. Re:Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos by Frodo+Crockett · · Score: 1

      I hope the story is big enough to be spun by the talk radio crowd. I'd love to hear how they'd defend it. I've got news for you: the "talk radio crowd" won't defend something like this.

      --
      "The newly born animals are then whisked off for a quick run through a giant baking oven." --heard on Food Network
    2. Re:Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The talk radio crowd will defend in words of one syllable any action undertaken by the GOP.

  52. This is a good fit by grozzie2 · · Score: 3, Funny
    I dont see why you folks are surprised, this is a very good fit. DOHS wants to gather up and categorize the data on every person in the USA. They have hired an expert in the field. It'll probably take a few months to get this new program rolling, but it's a pretty good bet, if you visit a .gov website in the near future, you are going to see the pop up asking you to accept installation of an activeX. That is, until they get microsoft to ship out the update telling all windows the world over that .gov websites are trusted, and dont bother pestering computer owners with warnings about such things on .gov sites.

    Mr freeman probably thinks he's arrived in heaven. he gets to keep on doing what he's best at, the spyware business, but this time it's for the government, so no more hassles from all those pathetic anti-spyware whiners.

    1. Re:This is a good fit by Jack+William+Bell · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No shit. My first thought was "This is a joke, right?"

      My second thought was "Unless they intend to load up every computer in the world with CIA approved spyware that is..."

      --
      - -
      Are you an SF Fan? Are you a Tru-Fan?
    2. Re:This is a good fit by darkstar2a · · Score: 1

      Quite possibly the secretive nature of GAIN is seductive to DOHS. Maybe they've plans to put a new search bar at the bottom us the screen. One that lets DOHS monitor you across MUTLITPLE sysstems.

    3. Re:This is a good fit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dont matter. Every firewall I touch blocks ALL active X by default.

      works great. eliminates that huge security hole.

      although I will probably get the death sentence for blocking a government activeX control.

    4. Re:This is a good fit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Great thing that my Mac doesn't do shit with ActiveX, therefore they will be unable to secure my information :)

      Yet another reason for me to NOT use Microsoft Windows based machines...

      I can see it now (fast forward 2 years):

      (Hushed Courtroom)
      Judge: All Rise
      (everyone rises)
      Judge: You maybe seated
      (everyone sits)
      Judge: We are here today Mr. Smith because you have been charged with being a terrorist operative, how do you plead
      Mr. Smith: (Firmly) Not Guilty your Honor.
      Judge: The complaints says that your personal data is not registered with the department of homeland security
      Mr. Smith: That is corredct your honor.
      Judge: Well sir, this data is vital to national security, how is it that you have not given yours?
      Mr. Smith: You see your honor, One way that the DOHS collects this information from spyware installed via an ActiveX control on a Microsoft Windows-based PC. I don't use a Windows-based PC, I use a Mac, therefore I am unable to install the DOHS Spyware. Another way that the DOHS collects data is via Credit Card transactions, and I do not use credit cards. I prefer to make all of my purchases using the barter system in which I either trade something I have for something I need, or I perform a service and receive the item(s) in trade for my services. I don't have a bank account, because the DOHS collects information from there as well. I also do not pay taxes, as I have no "income" since I do not get paid any salary/wages from the fruits of my labor. It works out pretty well for me, and makes my life pretty simple.
      Judge: I see Mr. Smith, so you are indeed a terrorist, because everybody knows that Bank accounts, Credit cards, a full-time job that pays real money, and taxes are a neccessity these days. Therefore I I am sorry to say that I find you GUILTY AS CHARGED. Sentencing will be held in 2 weeks. The defendant shall be remanded to the county jail during this time with no bail/bond possible. Bailiff, please remove the defendant from the courtroom. Heh

    5. Re:This is a good fit by Albio · · Score: 1

      The problem is that he is probably not as qualified as his title suggests. Although biased, I think a technical person would be more useful.

    6. Re:This is a good fit by davecrusoe · · Score: 1

      With luck, antispyware software plugins will simply mark all .gov sites as "spyware," and return the user to /.

  53. CWRU Innovates First! by ximenes · · Score: 1

    My university totally beat the government on this one. We hired the dude from Doubleclick to be chief privacy officer on campus. I believe all the same ironies apply equally well.

  54. Wow. by msjacoby · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Just wow. That's it. Wow.

  55. When the fuck are you going to wake up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This administration is pure dag-nasty evil.

    You either voted for it, or you rolled over like a puppy with a milkbone when the election was stolen again.

    You have forgotten what revolution is.

  56. Umm.. yea.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what does this make? Like bonehead Bush manuever # 385? If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and smells like a duck.. then its a bonehead president who is either a) clueless b) willfully seliing out c) doesn't care as long as his 'chosen folk' are unaffected.

    All the Bush apologists wanna come out and start screaming everyone here is biased again?

  57. Nuala O'Connor Kelly? by js7a · · Score: 4, Informative

    The D.H.S.'s own "chief privacy officer" used to work for DoubleClick.

    1. Re:Nuala O'Connor Kelly? by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      And ex-RIAA chief Hilary Rosen was sent to Iraq to write their intellectual property laws.
      At least it kept her from writing laws here.

    2. Re:Nuala O'Connor Kelly? by aej17 · · Score: 1
      Prior to her beginning her government career, O'Connor Kelly served as Vice President-Data Protection and Chief Privacy Officer for Emerging Technologies for the online media services company, DoubleClick.
      "Online media services", yeah, that's one way of putting it. These people are beyond contempt. Someone upthread mentioned how cynical people here at /. seem to be. I'm not sure what other reaction would be sensible, in light of the types of stories which seem to flow more and more freely every day.
    3. Re:Nuala O'Connor Kelly? by hkmwbz · · Score: 2, Funny
      You know, people get kidnapped and beheaded in Iraq.

      Not that I'm suggesting, insinuating or supporting anything, of course.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    4. Re:Nuala O'Connor Kelly? by Wannabe+Code+Monkey · · Score: 1
      The D.H.S.'s own "chief privacy officer" used to work for DoubleClick.

      I tried to warn you all back in august when this happened by submitting a story on Kelly's appointment, but noooo, my story was rejected...

      stupid editors...

      --
      We always knew Comcast was corrupt, here's the proof: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1909890&cid=34545432
  58. In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... Dracula has been put in charge of the blood bank

  59. "member of a committee" != director. by ABeowulfCluster · · Score: 1

    "An executive from Claria, formerly called Gator, will be one of 20 members of the committee, the department said Wednesday." http://news.com.com/Adware+maker+joins+federal+pri vacy+board/2100-1028_3-5587653.html

  60. How long untill.. by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 1

    How long untill we hear "Gator must be installed on all PCs before they are shipped so we can check for terrorist activity"?

    I mean could you pick a worse guy to be in control of this sort of information!?

    --
    I like muppets.
    1. Re:How long untill.. by fossilstar · · Score: 1

      Not long at all. Only they won't call it Gator/GAIM. It will be "FreedomAssist" or "FreedomShopper" or "FreedomPlus" or something like that.

      --
      "Support our Oops."
  61. What the heck is going on at homeland security. by killjoe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They hired a deputy CIO who did not have a degree. More accurately she had a degree from on a non accredited diploma mill check it out it looks like a church.

    Normally I'd have no problems with a deputy CIO not having a degree but apparently the dept of homeland security did not check out their deputy CIO carefully enough and now they had to "put her on leave".

    Now we find out they are putting the fox in charge of the hen house.

    Something is seriously askew at this dept. How can we trust these guys to safeguard our country when they have shown such awful judgement?

    --
    evil is as evil does
    1. Re:What the heck is going on at homeland security. by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1

      You can't.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    2. Re:What the heck is going on at homeland security. by unitron · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The really freaky thing about that Computerworld article is that she was webmaster for the Clinton Whitehouse *and* involved in a controversy then. How did she get that job with the Democrats and then survive the Republican takeover of the executive branch? Does she have some serious dirt on both parties?

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    3. Re:What the heck is going on at homeland security. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      For what it's worth, she's long gone. Thank god.

    4. Re:What the heck is going on at homeland security. by dameron · · Score: 1
      he was webmaster for the Clinton Whitehouse *and* involved in a controversy then. How did she get that job with the Democrats and then survive the Republican takeover of the executive branch?


      Easy, she's the only one with the password. They couldn't fire her.

      -dameron

    5. Re:What the heck is going on at homeland security. by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      maybe she has what sailors call "a friendly port"

  62. In other news... by AmoHongos · · Score: 2, Funny

    Bonzi Buddy is soon to be carved into Mt. Rushmore.

  63. What they're not mentioing... by Hamster+Lover · · Score: 2, Funny

    is the mandate of "Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee" is keeping this information from the public, not protecting the public's information.

  64. YOUR ALL NUTS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Living in Canada, it's like you guys are an evil siamese twin we can't get rid of. Now elect Bill Gates as President so we can all get armageddon over with.

  65. The American way. by MuckSavage · · Score: 1

    That's awesome. Part of a group that is considered one of the worst spyware/adware companies ever, and give him a nice fat cushy government job "protecting" americans' privacy. I am in the wrong fucking line of work.

  66. april fools day? by bvdbos · · Score: 1

    Guess my biological clock runs wrong, must be the first of april... Though Holland plays a somewhat dubious role in the European patent-schandal I am really glad my privacy isn't accounted for by spyware-makers....

  67. Re:Hmm... I've an analogy for this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't you read the dept of this post bitch?

  68. and in other news by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Mr. Osamma Bin Ladin is appointed the head of the homeland defence department.... I mean, who better to tell us how a terrorist thinks?

    --
    Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    1. Re:and in other news by luvirini · · Score: 1

      No no.. he works as a consultant for them... consultants are never promoted to heads of organisations, the maximum they can hope for is advisory boards.

    2. Re:and in other news by drgonzo59 · · Score: 1

      Why was the poster moderated as a troll?. It was a valid (and funny) use of hyperbole. Do moderators even read the context or even know what a hyperbole is? They only hope is that meta-moderation system works.

    3. Re:and in other news by Ingolfke · · Score: 2, Informative

      Freeman is an expert in privacy law, was only recently appointed to his VP spot at Claria (less than 1 year ago), and it makes sense to have representation from this segment of the market on this 20 person panel. Claria and other similar companies have a legal business, as annoying as we may find it, so it makes sense to include them in the discussion. If they're view isn't understood early on, then it's likely that once any legislation is implemented they'll sue and tie the whole thing up in the courts. This should raise some eyebrows, but that's about it.

    4. Re:and in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mr. Osamma Bin Ladin is appointed the head of the homeland defence department.... I mean, who better to tell us how a terrorist thinks?

      Assuming he is still alive... Anyway the US Government probably knows plenty about how terrorists think. They support and train enough of them!

    5. Re:and in other news by Quothz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Claria and other similar companies have a legal business
      I disagree. They just haven't been shut down yet.
      To wit: Let's say I call up a particularly dim secretary at IBM. I claim to be with a consulting firm, and need access to certain files. This person gives me the password to his or her boss' account. I log in and copy everything I can get my hands on.
      When tried, I explain that I had permission from a company representative to take those files. This would probably not go over well.
      Claria uses similar tactics, taking advantage of stupid people by making vague statements, in order to gain access to private information. In my mind, there's little difference. EULAs require a greater level of literacy than many computer users possess; taking advantage of this fact is, in my opinion, not a legal method of doing business.

    6. Re:and in other news by PacketScan · · Score: 1

      This is what it amounts to.

      -Who are you going to pay off today?

    7. Re:and in other news by new+death+barbie · · Score: 1

      *gasp*

      THAT WAS YOU???

      --

      It's supposed to be completely automatic, but actually you have to press this button.

    8. Re:and in other news by Vexar · · Score: 1
      If you ask Teddy Kennedy, Osama Bin Laden was also recently elected Senator from Illinois! There's a great sound byte of Senator Kennedy befouling Obama's last name to this end.

      Appointing this crack from Gator/Clarita is astounding. This decision shines as brightly as the knee-jerk reaction to having people take shoes off at the airport.

  69. Can someone post his personal info? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...since he already knows where WE live.

  70. Just in case anyone cares... by galvanash · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...who this guy actually is:

    http://profs.lp.findlaw.com/privacy/freeman.html

    Looks like this guy is a well established lawyer with alot of FTC connections. He also specializes in privacy law, which means his job is to figure out every loophole available to help his clients exploit it thouroughly. ;)

    --
    - sigs are stupid
    1. Re:Just in case anyone cares... by Duke+Boo+Boo+of+Ouch · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Hell yeah. Informative to the core.

  71. Most united ever? by NerdConspiracy · · Score: 1

    Usually I'd expect at least one attention seeking asshole saying "Well, this is actually a good thing because "

  72. It's all a bunch of bullshit if you ask me... by Skudd · · Score: 1

    Not only the story itself, but...

    But even though the original Gator software can be considered one of the original plague carriers of the spyware blight -- be careful about calling it that. The company has repeatedly threatened its critics with libel lawsuits for dubbing it "spyware."

    Guess what? GATOR IS SPYWARE!!!
    Guess what else? I FEAR MY PRIVACY EVEN MORE!!!

    How are they going to sneak into my house now? Mail? Phone? TV? Oh wait, they already have.

  73. RMS might be helpful by r6144 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Given his enormous software knowledge, RMS can probably identify more prior arts in patent applications than the average patent examiner, thus striking down more of these applications.

    Unfortunately, I think quite a lot of patent applications cover ideas that any expert can think of in three hours but were never used before because no one apart from the applicant bothered to use them, which means they probably have no prior art. A patent examiner cannot do much more than an ordinary citizen when the problem lies in the law itself rather than its enforcement.

    1. Re:RMS might be helpful by luvirini · · Score: 1

      Well a chairman or other leading post can influence the internal policies of an organisation like that to a high degree, well atleast until kicked out.

  74. Could be worse by truesaer · · Score: 1

    All the Iran Contra guys like Poindexter were complicit the in the deaths of many many people. As unbelievable as this is, I find some of his past appointments to be much much worse.

  75. The United States... by karnat10 · · Score: 1

    ...history's first corporatocracy

    vomits

    --
    GAIN IS SPYWARE

  76. Committee member list by Frodo+Crockett · · Score: 5, Informative
    From the DHS itself:

    Members appointed for the inaugural term of the DHS Privacy Advisory Committee are:

    Joseph Alhadeff, Vice President and Chief Privacy Officer, Oracle Corporation, Washington, DC

    Ramon Barquin, President, Barquin International, Bethesda, MD

    J. Howard Beales, Associate Professor, The George Washington University, Arlington, VA

    D. Reed Freeman, Chief Privacy Officer and Vice President, Claria Corporation, Arlington, VA

    James W. Harper, Editor/Executive Director, Privacilla.org & Director of Information Policy Studies, Cato Institute, Washington, DC

    Kirk Herath, Chief Privacy Officer & Associate General Counsel, Nationwide, Columbus, OH

    David A. Hoffman, Group Counsel and Director of Privacy, Intel Corporation, Hillsboro, OR

    Lance Hoffman, Distinguished Research Professor, The George Washington University, Washington, DC

    Tara Lemmey, Chief Executive Officer, Lens Ventures, San Francisco, CA

    Joseph Leo, Vice President, SAIC, Vienna, VA

    John Marsh, Distinguished Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law, Winchester, VA

    Joanne McNabb, Chief, Office of Privacy Protection, California Department of Consumer Affairs, Sacramento, CA

    Charles Palmer, Department Group Manager, Security, Networking & Privacy, IBM Corporation, Yorktown Heights, NY

    Richard Purcell, Chief Executive Officer, Corporate Privacy Group, Nordland, WA

    Paul Samuel Rosenzweig, Senior Legal Research Fellow, The Heritage Foundation, Washington, DC

    John Thomas Sabo, Manager, Security, Privacy, and Trust Initiatives, Computer Associates, Herndon, VA

    James Sheehan, General Counsel, Milton Hershey School, Hershey, PA

    Lisa Sotto, Partner, Head of Regulatory Privacy & Information Management Practice Group, Hunton & Williams, New York, NY

    Michael Turner, President and Senior Scholar, Information Policy Institute, New York, NY

    Samuel Wright, Senior Vice President, Government Relations, Cendant Corporation, Washington, DC

    I can't say I like Freeman being on the committee, but a quick glance at the rest of the list makes me feel a lot better.

    --
    "The newly born animals are then whisked off for a quick run through a giant baking oven." --heard on Food Network
    1. Re:Committee member list by IceRa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Looks like they need some sort of "black sheep" in the committee. Or a dim candle around all these bright ones...

      Greetings, Ice

      --
      Sig? Where I go, I don't need ... sigs.
    2. Re:Committee member list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm...the board is represented by members of companies/institutions that on the flip side of privacy breaches, namely SAIC and George Mason University

    3. Re:Committee member list by Jacco+de+Leeuw · · Score: 1
      J. Howard Beales , Associate Professor, The George Washington University, Arlington, VA

      I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!

      --
      -------
      Warning: Slashdot may contain traces of nuts.
    4. Re:Committee member list by fossilstar · · Score: 1

      What kinds of scumsucking animals are so completely lacking in ethics that they'll sit down and work cooperatively with a spyware creep? Well, there's the list. "People who associate with disseminators of spyware." I'd have to be physically restrained.

      --
      "Support our Oops."
    5. Re:Committee member list by michaelggreer · · Score: 1

      but a quick glance at the rest of the list makes me feel a lot better

      I can't say it makes me feel better. What about some privacy advocates? EFF? Most of these are right-wing think tank folks. Looks more like a group that can organize the collection of private information than protect it.

      I have to assume you were kidding...

    6. Re:Committee member list by sirenbrian · · Score: 1

      It'd be interesting to know the opinion of the other committee members to having Mr Gator in their ranks.

      --
      Brian Smith "Jokers and aces, bruisy and blackfern" - Steve Kilbey, Day of the Dead.
    7. Re:Committee member list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      a quick glance at the rest of the list makes me feel a lot better.
      Why? Do you know anything about any of them, apart from their titles? Do you know where any of them stand on any specific security issue?
    8. Re:Committee member list by demachina · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Joseph Alhadeff, Vice President and Chief Privacy Officer, Oracle Corporation, Washington, DC"

      Excepting Oracle is one of the leading companies advocating development of massive all seeing, all powerful databases by the government to make us all "safe". They obviously have a conflict of interest because they make money from most of the big databases that are used to collect information about us and violate our privacy. They have been circling like sharks since 9/11 pushing agencies like Homeland Security to create national security databases using Oracle software.

      "James W. Harper, Editor/Executive Director, Privacilla.org & Director of Information Policy Studies, Cato Institute, Washington, DC"

      The Cato Institute is a Libertarian group which you might think is a plus for a data privacy committee but its main goal is to eliminate all barriers to profitability for big corporations. If there is profit in it they will see your data privacy down the river in a heartbeat. Its founder Charles Koch own Koch oil, a very big but somewhat obscure oil company with close ties to Bush/Cheney (like all big oil companies), and a notorious pollution record. They were facing massive pollution fines in the Clinton era but they all miraculously disappeared when Bush siezed power in 2000.

      "Tara Lemmey, Chief Executive Officer, Lens Ventures, San Francisco, CA"

      Don't know anything about this one but her mission statement is a trippy exercise in babbling buzzwords, but note especially "From information as property to information as profit" which sounds kind of bad idea for a data privacy committee. She was President of EFF at one time but it kind of sounds like she saw the light and is pursuing profit over freedom at this point:

      "LENS brings you passionate, knowledgeable, insightful voices that weave context for the conversation of change. From the latest announcements in biotech to the current zeitgeist in national security. From information as property to information as profit. From the changing architectures of our urban landscape to the changing architectures of our global networks. Leaders from government, science, academia and industry converge and cross-pollinate a broad range of topics and disciplines to bring your audience a full spectrum view unlike any other."

      "Paul Samuel Rosenzweig, Senior Legal Research Fellow, The Heritage Foundation, Washington, DC"

      Heritage Foundation is another right wing think tank, and major Bush backer. If you want to see one reason the right is kicking the left's ass its all these very well heeled right wing think tanks that specialize in telling politicians and the media how to think.

      "Joseph Leo, Vice President, SAIC, Vienna, VA"

      They've starred several times on Slashdot recently. Someone stole a poorly secured computer with social security number for pretty much every employee who ever bought stock in the company.

      They were also a key player in the FBI's trilogy project, to computerize the FBI's case files, which after $170 million dollars is most probably going to be scrapped because it was apparently useless.

      All in all they are just a big government contractor and they do massive amounts of work for the Pentagon and intelligence agencies and as such probably tread on your privacy as much as Gator, and probably more insidiously.

      Think they are a playe rin electronic voting too.

      --
      @de_machina
    9. Re:Committee member list by demachina · · Score: 1

      "Ramon Barquin, President, Barquin International, Bethesda, MD"

      This guy sounds pretty qualified though he is a big advocate of data warehousing, especially by the government:

      "President and CEO of Barquin International. He is a former IBM executive and an internationally known expert in the field of knowledge management. Dr. Barquin co-founded and was the first President of the Data Warehousing Institute, the leading professional organization in the field. He also founded and heads the Computer Ethics Institute.

      An electrical engineer and mathematician by training, Dr. Barquin has taught at MIT, the University of Maryland, and the Chinese University of Hong Kong. He edited the Prentice Hall series on Data Warehousing, co-edited two books on Knowledge Management in the public sector, and has published over 100 technical and management articles on information technology. He organized and chaired the E-Gov Knowledge Management conferences in 2000 and 2001, and has conducted executive seminars in electronic government and knowledge management for the Brookings Institution."

      "J. Howard Beales, Associate Professor, The George Washington University, Arlington, VA"

      Beale, sounds like a good choice. He headed the Consumer protection bureau of the FTC and blessed us with the "Do Not Call" list which rates him high in my book. Also is pretty keen on fighting spam.

      Lance Hoffman, an academic, seems like a good choice though you would have to read some of his work to be sure.

      --
      @de_machina
    10. Re:Committee member list by demachina · · Score: 1

      "Richard Purcell, Chief Executive Officer, Corporate Privacy Group, Nordland, WA"

      This guy is apparently Chairman of the board of TRUSTe which doesn't exactly have a stellar privacy record with Slashdot in the past as shown here and here though these transgressions were a while ago.

      "Michael Turner, President and Senior Scholar, Information Policy Institute, New York, NY"

      I think this is another think tank. Not sure where they stand politically. They are spot on with the Republican's on tort reform, have interests in oursourcing, credit reporting among others things.

      --
      @de_machina
    11. Re:Committee member list by knuth · · Score: 1
      Samuel Wright, Senior Vice President, Government Relations, Cendant Corporation, Washington, DC

      Cendant has been a client of Claria (formerly Gator). At one time, Cendant was one of Claria's top twenty advertisers.

  77. I'm just SOOO disgusted by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is what you get for not rioting in the streets when they announced that companies like Diebold were 'counting' your stinking votes.

    --
    Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    1. Re:I'm just SOOO disgusted by AKnightCowboy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      This is what you get for not rioting in the streets when they announced that companies like Diebold were 'counting' your stinking votes.

      Nice troll, but it's not like the votes were shipped off to Diebold headquarters to be counted in secret by their CEO. If there was a conspiracy to defraud voters it would've never stayed secret in such a large company. Not everyone at Diebold is a conservative you know.

    2. Re:I'm just SOOO disgusted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Er... the voting machines were completely insecure. Anybody could have tampered with the votes, not just Diebold. Diebold is merely the organisation whose negligence made it possible.

    3. Re:I'm just SOOO disgusted by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

      Some countries like to remain a little more dignified. Rioting and protesting get old once you get over the age of 17. They achieve nothing and make you look like a fool. Sure they break out every now and then, but peaceful protests are just as effective and are taken more serious. Peaceful protests also don't make you look as foolish. Regardless, there are better ways to make points then to protest in any form (protesting is kind of like stomping your feet as a child). But on to the topic at hand... Diebold first of all didn't control anywhere near every machine, in fact it was a relatively small percentage. I personally think that they shouldn't have been used at all, but honestly to crack the machine you typically had to do things that you could only get away with in the privacy of your home (due to either the time it takes or some other factor). There could have been a better method, but its not an easy task to redeploy thousands of voting machines.

    4. Re:I'm just SOOO disgusted by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
      The tent cities like in the Ukraine and Lebanon would have been fine -- something more than just the quiet, "Oh gee. it looks like our votes can get hijacked by these machines." was (and still is) desparately needed.

      When so-called elected officials accept the premise that a machine capable of delivering vote counts 5 times the number of voters, won't miscount your votes and don't need any sort of verifiable audit trail, something is seriouly stinky in Denmark (not to mention Detroit).

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    5. Re:I'm just SOOO disgusted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Not everyone at Diebold is a conservative you know.


      As an ex-employee I say: you are mistaken.
    6. Re:I'm just SOOO disgusted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If there was a conspiracy to defraud voters it would've never stayed secret in such a large company

      So you're saying we should just trust them? As you point out, it's unlikely that there was massive fraud. Personally I beleive that Bush won fairly. However I should be able to know that he won fairly. Because of Diebold's insistance on using closed source, non-verifiable machines, we have to take the election results as a matter of faith. That is unacceptable.

    7. Re:I'm just SOOO disgusted by AKnightCowboy · · Score: 1
      Er... the voting machines were completely insecure. Anybody could have tampered with the votes, not just Diebold. Diebold is merely the organisation whose negligence made it possible.

      Yet the implication is that there was an organized conspiracy to employ Diebold to defraud the public. That is simply false.

    8. Re:I'm just SOOO disgusted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I rioted in the Free Speech Area.

    9. Re:I'm just SOOO disgusted by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

      This is what you get for not rioting in the streets when they announced that companies like Diebold were 'counting' your stinking votes.

      Really. We were fools to actually believe that the company responsible for designing and building many of the ATM terminals we use reliably every day had any business designing and building electronic voting machines!

      Nut up or shut up, loon. If you have proof that Diebold machines were used to compromise the election results, Bev Harris would love to know about it, and plenty of Congressmen on both sides of the aisle would love to know about it. Please note that a plausible, well-constructed theory alone is not proof, and an anecdote you heard about third-hand via some guy's blog is not proof.

    10. Re:I'm just SOOO disgusted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There were plots to dick with the vote by both sides (as always), but especially so by "conservatives" this time around. However, to my knowledge none of the plots had anything to do with Diebold.

      For example, members of the GOP went to college campuses on voting day in key states to tell students that if they didn't register/live in the area they were voting in, their vote would be challenged. This was a lie, the truth being that these students simply need request a provisional ballot. Despite how much of a difference this made in the end result, it's still lame and shows just what type of "agenda-mongers" the supporters of this administration are.

      Another example is the fact that gay marriage was on the ballot in key states (but not states that were obviously going to bush, such as Texas) in an attempt (which worked) to bring out gay-hating voters. Genius!

      ANOTHER example is the groups offering to register people, only to rip up registration forms for those planning to vote Democrat....

      It's a lot of little, "right under our noses", plots that added up. The manipulation of voters during this election blew me away. I'd have to say that this administration narrowly beats out Microsoft for the FUD perpetuation award.

    11. Re:I'm just SOOO disgusted by d474 · · Score: 1
      "...it's not like the votes were shipped off to Diebold headquarters to be counted in secret by their CEO."
      Good point. It would be impossible to ship all those votes to Diebold HQ.

      Unfortunatley, it would also be unnecessary. You see, there is this thing called "Computer Networking" where 2 or more computers can "link" together to virtually "ship" or "exchange data" over wires. All that would be required is for someone (not necessarily the CEO) to connect the vote counting servers to either a modem or an internet connection to gain access to the vote counts. United Parcel Service ("UPS") need NOT be involved!

      Why am I telling you this? Surely you are connected to one of those computer networks in order to post to Slashdot.

      Hey, waaaait a minute. Are you playing stupid with me!? Damn it! I always fall for these flamebaits. Hook, line, and sinker.
      --
      Authority questions you. Return the favor.
    12. Re:I'm just SOOO disgusted by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
      A former girlfriend of mine worked as a bank teller, then as a customer service rep. She says that she always, always, ALWAYS gets a reciept for any transaction she does on one and then compares that to her bank statements afterwards.

      These are also machines that, in their first generation, gave out too many bills to people and did all sorts of other things wrong -- and that's without a structural incentive to put hooks and backdoors in.

      The diebold voting machines have, on occasion managed to count 10 times as many votes for a candidate as there were voters. The people in charge scratched thir heads and came up with a more plausable set of numbers. Is there any solid proof that the new numbers are actually what was voted in those booths?

      Is their any actual proof (besides the "oh, you can trust us, we're law abiding republicans declarations of the various companies that there is, in fact, no way to add an easter egg or back-door which allows people to modify votes either on the fly or when loading the voting software?

      The software has already proven itself broken.

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
  78. Talk, Write, Shout, Complain! by ericandrade · · Score: 2, Insightful

    America is f*ked if smart people dont stand up for their country.

    Very stupid people are calling the shots

    1. Re:Talk, Write, Shout, Complain! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      In a democracy you really do get the government you deserve, and the masses are morons. Ma and Pa Kettle hate fags, believe freedom should have limits, consider Ann Coulter an intellectual, think all muslims are terrorists, believe that Iraq had something to do with OBL, think supporting Israel is in agreement with God's plan as laid out in the Bible, and would probably lynch Noam Chomsky if they ever got their hands on him.

    2. Re:Talk, Write, Shout, Complain! by mboverload · · Score: 1

      Hello Canada

    3. Re:Talk, Write, Shout, Complain! by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      Hello Canada

      On behalf of Canada, please, stay away if you're from the middle part of the country that voted for Duya. We have enough Christian Fundamentalists, and need not any more.

      And you can keep your lawyers too.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    4. Re:Talk, Write, Shout, Complain! by randallpowell · · Score: 1

      True. As long as Evangelicals and other Christians listen and do as ministers tell them, we're screwed. We need to promote critical and free thought in schools. It may slow down the destruction of our society and maybe the world. All over some bullshit chapter from a book.

    5. Re:Talk, Write, Shout, Complain! by kuzb · · Score: 1

      Granted, but then at least you're not living in a dictatorship. Sure looks like that now! The sad part is, many people think it *is* a democracy.

      What the US really needs is some way for these idiots to be held accountable for the gross lapses in judgement, and self-serving decisions. If I had my way, it'd start with Bush and work it's way down.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    6. Re:Talk, Write, Shout, Complain! by e133tc1pher · · Score: 1
      America is f*ked if smart people dont stand up for their country. Very stupid people are calling the shots
      Plato would be proud of you son : )
    7. Re:Talk, Write, Shout, Complain! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, the smart people are looking for greener pastures elsewhere.

      It does little good to stand up for your country when 50% of your contry believes Saddam had something to do with 911.

      I mean the votes were tallied. This is what people want. Who am I to deny them this?

      I just refuse to go down on a sinking ship.

    8. Re:Talk, Write, Shout, Complain! by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1
      True. As long as Evangelicals and other Christians listen and do as ministers tell them, we're screwed.

      oooohhh the Evangelical boogy man is out to get you... If only christians would dump their beliefs than maybe we could all get along... I love green party tolerence... We tolerate color, gender, sexual lifestyle, but damn you if you hold a belief which is not an 'im ok youre ok' one..

      --
    9. Re:Talk, Write, Shout, Complain! by leecn · · Score: 1

      shut the fuck up and go burn some witches

    10. Re:Talk, Write, Shout, Complain! by miu · · Score: 1

      Bush and Co. are all about the lose of accountability. They are working very hard to convince people that information about how government is run should be secret - the obvious real reason for that is to make it impossible to hold them accountable for anything.

      --

      [Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
    11. Re:Talk, Write, Shout, Complain! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for adding to the conversation moron..

  79. Bad analogy... by Svartalf · · Score: 1

    Stallman working for the Patent Office would be preventing stupid software and business process Patents- it wouldn't be preventing Patents in general.

    The better analogies would be putting a fox in charge of the henhouse or of putting the wolf to shepherding the sheep- if you're talking about the Spyware people in charge of privacy and private information security.

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  80. Minister of Funny Walks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Recruiting Flaw, big time. Heard of false positives?
    GAIN was successful in many ways in sleezing information, but accuracy was never an attribute.

    But many wisecracks populated its database(s) with false and crazy data that even Nigerian scam artists would laugh at. For marketing and spam, this was good enough.

    DHS would be criminal to act on data from such notoriously bad sources, if that is an objective. Sounds like ther new motto is "more is more, and bugger quality"

    Longer term, whatever scam they are aiming at, there is a growing core of P2P private virtual nets, and competent firewalls, meaning bulk harvesting of trends is getting harder.

    If OTOH , said person will be hunting spammers, go for it. If DHS fined the spammers, and kept the loot, their budget worries would be over, and could afford a minister of Funny Walks.

  81. Re:Hmm... I've an analogy for this... by Svartalf · · Score: 1

    The stated goal is to prevent them. One can largely prevent them from happing by raising the bar on the overall cost to achive their goals so that they'll pick easier targets other than the US. What the DHS is currently doing doesn't even touch on making soft targets hard ones. And they seem to be overly focused on things that plain flat don't matter in the overall scheme of things. It's disturbing to say the least that they're worrying about a "virtual border" and pissing away 2 billion on this boondoggle that won't do anything to deter attacks. What would happen if they, say struck at an oil refinery instead- pretty damn spectacular and high overall payoff for a low cost to them right at the moment- and these places tend to have security like the Keystone Kops. You don't see the DHS worrying about those sorts of things right at them moment.

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  82. HOW DARE THEY DUB THEE SPYWARE! by aleatory_story · · Score: 3, Funny

    "...even though the original Gator software can be considered one of the original plague carriers of the spyware blight -- be careful about calling it that. The company has repeatedly threatened its critics with libel lawsuits for dubbing it "spyware.""

    Of course Gator isn't "spyware!!!" It is a perfectly fine way of business. Excuse me, I'm off to break into homes, hide, and pop up out of nowhere to sell viagra and insurance. Maybe I'll bug some phones for marketing information while I'm there.

    --
    Whatever you may be sure of, be sure of this: that you are dreadfully like other people. - James Russell Lowell
  83. And by einhverfr · · Score: 1

    I have hired the local foxes to guard my henhouse.

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  84. are they mad? by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    D. Reed Freeman, the "Chief Privacy Officer" of Claria Networks (formerly Gator), the creators of the pervasive spyware package GAIN, has been appointed to the Department of Homeland Security's "Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee"

    AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeee!

    *thud*

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  85. Re:Hmm... I've an analogy for this... by Penguinshit · · Score: 1


    or putting George Dubya Bush in charge of a crackhouse.

  86. Always one 'tard in the crowd... by Svartalf · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    A fox in the henhouse is one thing.

    Putting it in charge of it is a completely different ballgame.

    If you can't tell the difference, I suggest you leave off posting because you're not smart enough for it.

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    1. Re:Always one 'tard in the crowd... by rainman_bc · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually, let's get technical. It's one fox, along with a team of hens guarding the henhouse.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    2. Re:Always one 'tard in the crowd... by 7-Vodka · · Score: 1

      if you're going to get picky, it's actually a fox *in charge* of the team of hens guarding the hen house.

      --

      Liberty.

  87. I hope he sues slashdot for calling it spyware by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
    Hopefully slashdot would refuse to back down and we could actually litigate his claim that his spyware/malware app is really a legitimate program. (I'm expecting that, between donations to slashdot and crossover from groklaw, we could beat their lawyers into papershredder mulch.)

    I don't know if it would be enough to embarass Bush into backing down from having someone like this as part of DHS but it would, at least, make me feel better.

    This news seems to have reduced me to a ranting maniac.

    --
    Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    1. Re:I hope he sues slashdot for calling it spyware by Skudd · · Score: 1

      I'm already trying to see what happens with my blog.

      My theory is that they have a bot that searches for documents containing the words "GAIN", "Gator", and "Spyware". We'll see if and when they try to come after me. Big corporations have always taken a stab at the little guy. Maybe I'll get some sort of compensation. Maybe I'll go to jail.

    2. Re:I hope he sues slashdot for calling it spyware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't care about someone's blog. They only care about sites that have a big audience and have a chance to impress alot of people that their product is something they do not want.

    3. Re:I hope he sues slashdot for calling it spyware by Skudd · · Score: 1

      We'll see. I'm testing a theory here.

  88. Re:Hmm... I've an analogy for this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That sounds like a great idea to me. Who wouldn't go want to go to a whorehouse run by a former president?

    Then again, I guess things wouldn't be so great if he were in charge of hiring.

  89. I get it by Brandybuck · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I get it. It's like when a company hires a black hat to help them figure out where the holes are so they can plug them...

    --
    Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    1. Re:I get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Set a thief to catch a thief? I think you credit Bush et al with too much intelligence, too much integrity, and too much care for the average American citizen.

    2. Re:I get it by TheSync · · Score: 1

      Are they going to hire Kevin Mitnick next???

  90. Re:Hmm... I've an analogy for this... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Insightful
    You are part of the new "ownership society". This means your status of 'citizen' is now exchanged for the much more valuable cosideration as 'customer'!

    I'm sure you'll appreciate the opportunity to abandon 'community' for 'market', once you see the incredible opportunity it affords for profits! Besides, we have already managed the deal for you!

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  91. actually . . . by edward.virtually@pob · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    he fits right in with rice and gonzales and the rest of the bush crew of evil incompetents. after all, if a man who endorses torture can be attorney general, why not a spyware criminal in charge of computer privacy. if you voted for bush, you deserve everything you're getting. if you did't, you shouldn't be surprised anymore. just wait until he repacks the supreme court and illegalizes abortion again.

    1. Re:actually . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gonzales did not "endorse torture" and Dr. Rice is a very competent and accomplished African American woman, how dare you make such a bigoted statement about her.

      Abortion kills a living, beating life, why do you endorse murder but at the same time put down this non-existent torture?

    2. Re:actually . . . by PenGun · · Score: 0

      Ah ha ... the truth is flamebait. A water, land-mark for sure. Give your head a shake, it needs it.

      PenGun
      Do What Now ??? ... Standards and Practices !

    3. Re:actually . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The lie was the one marked flamebait, not the truth.

    4. Re:actually . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who gives a shit that she's black? And being competent means that you do your job well. National Security has certainly been fucked over by that cunt. She's a liar.

      The slaughterhouse kills lives too, but them ribs are tasty. Why am I supposed to give a fuck about the concept of "every life is important!"?

      They aren't.

    5. Re:actually . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Racist bigoted moron!

    6. Re:actually . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um...because he thinks she's evil, and she happens to be black, he's a bigot? What, are black women automatically super-competent or something? He made no disparaging comments about race, just about Rice. You dragged race into it.

    7. Re:actually . . . by edward.virtually@pob · · Score: 1

      on gonzales, see here and elsewhere. on rice, see here and elsewhere. rtfn. stfu.

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

      Racist.

    9. Re:actually . . . by edward.virtually@pob · · Score: 1

      incorrect. while i did not agree with colin powell's policies, he was competent and not dishonest. and before you reply with "sexist" next, note that the most ardent critic of rice was barbara boxer.

  92. Department of Irony by ProjectMayhem · · Score: 1

    In related news, Osama bin Laden was appointed Secretary of Homeland Security and the Department of Labor has announced that Walmart CEOs will be in charge of all new labor regulations. When the fox runs the hen house, you're life becomes easier. You don't have to feed the chickens anymore right?

  93. Re:Hmm... I've an analogy for this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why single out FOX? CBS, ABC, NBC, they're just as reckless.

  94. And people wonder why... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And people wonder why HST blew his brains out.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:And people wonder why... by drgonzo59 · · Score: 1

      Exactly! I'd buy you a beer for that comment.

      "We can't stop here. This is bat country." -HST

    2. Re:And people wonder why... by flynns · · Score: 1

      Who's HST?

      --
      'If you're flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit.'
    3. Re:And people wonder why... by Juanvaldes · · Score: 1

      Hunter S. Thompson most well known for "fear and loathing in las vegas"

    4. Re:And people wonder why... by jhalme · · Score: 2, Funny

      And people wonder why HST blew his brains out.

      What? I thought Mike broke the Hubble?

    5. Re:And people wonder why... by fossilstar · · Score: 2

      I thought that if it ever came to something like that, that he'd take a few RepubliNazis with him. You know, go down in a hail of gunfire while committing an assassination. Thompson once believed in picking up a gun (or a pen, depending on the situation) to defend his country, but I guess he figured that at this point, it's not even worth defending.

      --
      "Support our Oops."
    6. Re:And people wonder why... by Anonymous+Codger · · Score: 1

      Harry S Truman blew his brains out? That's news to me.

      --
      No sig? Sigh...
    7. Re:And people wonder why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would he want to create martyrs for the conservatives to worship?

    8. Re:And people wonder why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, he did it because he was getting old. Thompson wanted to go on his own terms, before he was an invalid(which, btw, he was heading toward having just received a hip replacement). He wanted to go at a high time in his life. So, after having done fairly well on his last book, finding that there are others out there to take up the sword, he off'ed himself.

      I, for one, think it quite honorable. Then again, I'd wager a large sum of money that Dubya knew all along that there were no WMD in Iraq and that he has simply changed his red herring for a new one(humanitarian reasoning). That fucker and his troupe of Nixonites has never had a humanitarian bone in their collective body; why the hell would anyone believe that they had grown one suddenly after a reelection?

      I may be along for the ride, but I'm getting fairly annoyed at the choice of radio station the driver has picked out.

    9. Re:And people wonder why... by Tackhead · · Score: 2, Insightful
      > And people wonder why HST blew his brains out.

      Today's real headlines are better than anything HST or Onion can possibly come up with. He achieved his life's work: when the going got weird, the weird turned pro.

      Look for the upcoming Dan Goldin autobiography HUBBLE: Fear and Loathing in Low Earth Orbit, coming soon.

    10. Re:And people wonder why... by ralphus · · Score: 1

      Someone has obviously missed the whole point if they can call Hunter liberal or pussy. SFTU troll. Hunter had more guns than god, lived on the edge for all 67 years and railed on politicans from either side of the spectrum if they were swine.

      --
      Revolutions are never about freedom or justice. They're about who's going to be top dog. -- Kilgore Trout
    11. Re:And people wonder why... by flynns · · Score: 1

      Ahh, thank you.

      --
      'If you're flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit.'
    12. Re:And people wonder why... by harley_frog · · Score: 1

      Until the other day, the only book I knew Hunter S. Thompson wrote was Hell's Angels.

      --
      It's all fun and games until someone loses the key to the handcuffs.
    13. Re:And people wonder why... by rs79 · · Score: 1

      "And people wonder why HST blew his brains out."

      But before he did...

      http://ctr.vrx.net/hst/

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    14. Re:And people wonder why... by rs79 · · Score: 1

      "67 years"

      Or 65. Nobody knows for sure. Not even Hunter.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    15. Re:And people wonder why... by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      His publisher made him do it.

      --
      What?
  95. This belongs in the... by Edward+Teach · · Score: 1

    Are you FUCKING INSANE? department.

    --

    Setting his threshold to 5, Sparky eliminated most of the trolls on /.

  96. Do something? by Duke+Boo+Boo+of+Ouch · · Score: 5, Informative

    So, for those who would like to take the initiative to tell these fuckers something: Email: privacy@dhs.gov Phone: 202-772-9848 Fax: 202-772-5036 It might matter, it might not. But writing an email and picking up the phone is easy as hell. I'll take both, thank you.

    1. Re:Do something? by gabbarbhai · · Score: 1

      Eh. I'm going to eFax them ;)

    2. Re:Do something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My bank account isn't big enough to attract their attention.

  97. Re:Hmm... I've an analogy for this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sounds like a normal govt bureaucracy to me.

  98. Re:Hmm... I've an analogy for this... by Sethus · · Score: 0

    I know what you mean, but there's also something else that doesn't make too much sense. Why put the Vice pres of a company on this committee, what would he know about security anyways? (I'm not talking about the double standard of hiring some one from a company that we all would like to see burnt to the ground, rather I'm unclear on his specialization and what the hell that would do in a Homeland security committee).

    --
    Posting with out proof reading since 2001.
  99. /. headers broken? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are /. headers broken or is it just this NAV or XP?

    btw. /. does not degrade gracefully with css missing

    1. Re:/. headers broken? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      /. is broken here as well. Linux and firefox, as well as my XP laptop.

      Hurry the fuck up and post some more dupes!

    2. Re:/. headers broken? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they got hacked! view the source on the main page.

    3. Re:/. headers broken? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What am I looking for? It is fucked... plus the bunch of crap at the bottom...

      Was it a simple hack where someone figured out how to screw over /., or did someone own /.?

      I'd certainly put something up for the masses if I owned /.

      Imagine all the views...

    4. Re:/. headers broken? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the gzip file is broken. i can't unzip it here.

  100. maybe...just maybe... by McBeer · · Score: 1

    Maybe this could be a good thing. Hiring ex-hackers/virus writers seems to work for security companies. The idea could possibly transfer to other fields.

    --
    Hikery.net - The best hiking site ever. Made by yours truly.
    1. Re:maybe...just maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe like hiring a serial rapist to babysit in your house...sure it makes sense

  101. It's a kleptocracy!! by johansalk · · Score: 5, Insightful


    "I am proud of, supportive of and grateful for those individuals in the public and private sector who are willing to take on the hard tasks, fight the good fight, and who surprise us with creative, fresh and unconventional thinking, and who make change where change is needed through their hard work and personal dedication," Kelly said. Kelly said Freeman will "bring his courage and conviction to the board, and will contribute productively--and constructively--to the board's and the public's dialogue on privacy and homeland security."

    What I find most outrageous is such talk typical of this administration to lie, and lie, and lie; So now a software that installed itself without permission, was not easy to delete, and annoyed the hell out of people is something to be praised for and proud of as testimony of "courage and conviction", "willingness to take on the hard tasks", "willingness to fight the good fight", "creative, fresh and unconventional thinking"?

    What about thieves? They're pretty much the same; are we going to admire trespassers and looters?

    Damn this kleptocracy; damn it!

    1. Re:It's a kleptocracy!! by randallpowell · · Score: 1

      I call it a reason to switch to Linux.

    2. Re:It's a kleptocracy!! by loraksus · · Score: 1

      They, uh.. did that whole medals thing for being incompetent about a month ago. Don't know if you remember.

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
    3. Re:It's a kleptocracy!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, first thing i said to myself after reading the headline was, wtf. its like lobbying, but actually helping make the decisions- or having a wanted criminal in our supreme court.

    4. Re:It's a kleptocracy!! by gcatullus · · Score: 1

      The sentiment of the parent is dead on, but how can you sink to partisan jabs? While Bush has definitely done things poorly, it demeans your arguement when you place the blame on "this administration". Argue that it is a dumb idea for anyone to have a gator rep on the council, but ad hominem attacks weaken what you say.

      Do you actually think that under a different administration things would be different? Maybe if Badnarik had been elected, we might have seen a shake up in Washington.

    5. Re:It's a kleptocracy!! by runamok1 · · Score: 1

      The first thought I had was "let's get the wolves to guard the sheep".

      I feel like I'm living in an Ayn Rand Novel. Her overbearing examples of how things SHOULDN'T work seem to rule these days.

      Maybe this is a similar philosophy of "use a thief to catch a thief" or in geek terms "hire a 'blackhat hacker' by a security/anti-virus company"? But I doubt they thought that much.

      Our country is becoming a parody of iteself.

  102. Its all perfectly clear. by PopeAlien · · Score: 2, Funny

    Why it makes perfect sense.

    its all done for your own good! for freedom!

    actual freedom may not be exactly as shown. privacy not included.

  103. A most appropriate placement by heretic108 · · Score: 1

    Privacy is a privilege temporarily granted by the State in times of peace, and may be rescinded at any time the State deems appropriate.

    The appointment of a Gator executive is a perfect fit.

    Computer users in the US be warned - any attempt to remove the new HomeSecure WebAssist software from your PC will be viewed as an act of terrorism. You will be arrested as an enemy combatant and incarcerated at Guatanemo Bay.

    --
    -- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
  104. You forgot one: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ahmed Chalabi as finance minister.

    Oh.. nevermind.

  105. this is your lifez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    but you will be secure with the gouvernment in every machine on the planet as long as you agree to said gouvernment's policies and the next one that will follow it.

  106. WHAT? by hussain · · Score: 0
    Hey. You're a good month short of April 1st.


    What gives?

  107. This has been on the radar for a while by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    This kind of development never just appears one day out of nowhere, there is a common propaganda cycle that lets you spot them coming early. These ideas are introduced into the neo-con consciousness and stay mostly out of sight at first. A faux consensus develops as the followers develops an opinion they have been fed - such as "freedom of the press should be limited", "privacy is not a guaranteed right of US citizens", "freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion", "Iraq is a clear and present danger to the US", etc. This also gives them a chance to develop a list of debate points and distraction/mudflinging techniques specifically for the new belief.

    So to anyone who has been paying attention to conservative thought for the last couple years, an appointment like this makes perfect sense - it is intended to further erode privacy rights in the US. The belief that only the rich and powerful have a right to privacy has become a neo-con article of faith.

  108. Correct. by Polarism · · Score: 1

    Sadly not enough people realize this.

    --
    All your base are belong to Google.
  109. Well, look at it his way by Tim+C · · Score: 1

    Who knows more than him about the various ways to infringe on people's privacy and data integrity?

    We hear about (in)famous [h|cr]ackers being hired as security consultants from time to time, which is generally lauded as being a good idea due to their experience on the other side of the fight. How is this any different?

    He may not have any technical skills (although of course he may), but if anyone knows the law, the loopholes and how to push the legality of this sort of thing right to the line and beyond, it'll be him.

    I'd rather he were being paid to enforce the law than skirt around it...

    1. Re:Well, look at it his way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd rather he were being paid to enforce the law than skirt around it...

      You don't get it. He's being paid to help them skirt around enforcing the law.

  110. Really pathetic... by OblivionExpress · · Score: 1

    That fucker [Reed Freeman] ought to be in jail, not running a high position post in our government. It seems that the U.S. government continues to take the country down the toilet...

    --
    Where does information go after it has been erased?
  111. Re:Hmm... I've an analogy for this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You be one big fag. Do you always take it the rump?

  112. Re:Hmm... I've an analogy for this... by randallpowell · · Score: 0

    Crackhouse? I thought it was a liquor store. Oh well, at least Jesus saved me.

  113. so this is a good time to not live in the US by nietsch · · Score: 1

    That gives me the right to lauugh in your faces for not doing anything about it. 40% of you voted your gouvernement in power (or was it 30%, the rest could not be bothered to vote).
    Now learn up on how you can influence your gouvernment and do it! write to congres(wo)men, vote for parties that favour election reform.
    It is the only chance you have.

    Maybe I will send a card to prison america soon :)

    --
    This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
  114. Nice Troll by NickFortune · · Score: 3, Interesting
    So they make an income from the registration details they take? By selling them on to marketers, one assumes. I'm afraid that like the GP, I'm no fan of spam-for-content as a business model.

    I will grant the right of Slaon to supply content under terms of their own choosing. I will grant that if we dislike those terms we are free to go elsewhere instead - as in fact I do.

    However I do not enjoy registration pages, and see no reason I should be required to enjoy them. Nor do I see any reason why any of us should be required or even expected to approve of a business model that is based upon supplying personal information to spammers, mass-marketers and other spies.

    The issue of "hyper rich media congolmerates" is a red herring. there are many sites that provide qualiy content without requiring registration. Others (the New York Times springs to mind) undoubtedly fall into that cateory and yet still collect such information. I do wonder why anyone would spread such FUD. I can only assume that given the topic of the OP, the shills and astroturfers are out in force today.

    To summarise: I don't like registration screens, I am never going to like registration screens, and I shall continue to publicly disapprove of them as I see fit.

    Maybe you should learn to deal with it.

    --
    Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
    1. Re:Nice Troll by zootm · · Score: 2, Informative

      As the sibling post points out, you've mistaken Salon.com with the "Mandatory Free Registration" sites of the likes that bugmenot complains about. Salon.com is a pay-for-content service and the only free option is to watch a small animated ad for a free "day pass". This is not the same at all. There's no personal information needed (at least not the last time I was there).

    2. Re:Nice Troll by sapgau · · Score: 1

      Amen. Thank you, my thoughts exactly.

      /Please mod parent up.

    3. Re:Nice Troll by swimin · · Score: 1

      I think Gator can solve your issue with registration screens.

    4. Re:Nice Troll by Raul+Acevedo · · Score: 2, Insightful
      So they make an income from the registration details they take? By selling them on to marketers, one assumes.

      You can't assume that. There are many valid, non-evil reasons companies really want demographic information. They want to know their customer base so they know how to design their web site and products to best tailor their customers. Sure, some companies are slimy about it, and that sucks. But any company that expects to survive wants to know their customers as much as possible.

      approve of a business model that is based upon supplying personal information to spammers, mass-marketers and other spies.

      That's an invalid assumption. Understandable, since unfortunately it happens, but that's not always true. Not all marketing is Evil. Not all ads are Evil.

      To summarise: I don't like registration screens, I am never going to like registration screens, and I shall continue to publicly disapprove of them as I see fit. Maybe you should learn to deal with it.

      No problems here. I'm not saying you have to like it; heck I'm not crazy about it either, and believe me, I hate the over-marketization of our society. All I'm saying is that it's not necessarily evil, and any knee-jerk reaction that all ads/registration/marketing are Evil is naive.

      --
      In a real emergency, we would have all fled in terror, and you would not have been notified.
    5. Re:Nice Troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What happens if all this registration data thats used for demographics and other non threatening stuff gets hacked and is exposed to everyone that does want to use it for spam and identity theft? does it make sence in this day to offer personal information to any site?

      How do we know thier security model is any better then choice points?

    6. Re:Nice Troll by NickFortune · · Score: 1
      So they make an income from the registration details they take? By selling them on to marketers, one assumes.

      You can't assume that.

      I rather think I can. It was your post that suggested a revenue stream from registration data. I don't know of any other way of making money from such data. I can sympathise with a company's desire to understand its customers better, and in that respect it's rather sad that modern market practices have so poisoned the well for them. But when we're talking about turning other people's personal data into cash, whoops! My sympathy just evaoporated.

      a business model that is based upon supplying personal information to spammers, mass-marketers and other spies.

      That's an invalid assumption.

      I can see how it might come over that way in context. So let me rephrase: I do not approve of any business model based upon supplying personal information to marketers, and I do not feel that I should be required to condone such a model, either explicity, or implicitly by keeping silent about my dislike. I make no assumptions about the model used by any specific site. However, if a company elects to gather my personal data, I shall not presume that they do it with my benefit in mind.

      Consider it a declaration of policy.

      Not all marketing is Evil. Not all ads are Evil.
      Ads are a separate issue. I could go on about them at great length, but let's stick to the collection and abuse of personal data where we're at least borderline on-topic ;)
      I hate the over-marketization of our society. All I'm saying is that it's not necessarily evil, and any knee-jerk reaction that all ads/registration/marketing are Evil is naive.
      And yet, if a practice becomes considered abhorrent through persistent and unrepentant abuse, possibly by a very active minority, how then are the majority that abhor such a practice to comminicate this to the practicioners?

      The poster that you told to "grow up" and to "deal with it" was offering valuable feedback to the marketing industry. If they want this channel to remain open rather than clogged with registrations for (say) Wile.E.Coyote of Mozambique, then they need to clean up their act.

      Unfortunatelt, this being the ad industry, I suspet they're more like to try and change public perception of the issue - thereby digging a deeper hole for themselves in the long run.

      --
      Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
    7. Re:Nice Troll by Raul+Acevedo · · Score: 1
      I rather think I can. It was your post that suggested a revenue stream from registration data.

      When I said "they need to make money" I did not mean to imply they sell their registration data. I meant that they use such data to better understand their customers, which allows them to make more money.

      I do not approve of any business model based upon supplying personal information to marketers, and I do not feel that I should be required to condone such a model, either explicity, or implicitly by keeping silent about my dislike.

      I'm with you on that one.

      However, if a company elects to gather my personal data, I shall not presume that they do it with my benefit in mind.

      This is I think where you make a mistake... as I said previously, unfortunately you have much valid basis for that, but it doesn't apply to everyone, or all situations. I've worked closely (as a software engineer) with enough marketing people to see both sides of the coin.

      The poster that you told to "grow up" and to "deal with it" was offering valuable feedback to the marketing industry.

      Maybe. Such knee jerk reactions can be valuable, but they can also just be ignored as naive. In the poster's case, it was definitely an ignorant reaction, as Salon doesn't require registration, they require you to view an ad. (I'm happily subscribed to Salon, so I don't normally get that, but my recollection from the few times I go to their site on a new computer is that you see an ad, not a registration page.)

      --
      In a real emergency, we would have all fled in terror, and you would not have been notified.
    8. Re:Nice Troll by NickFortune · · Score: 1
      Well, since you seem to be defending Salon.com rather than advocating sleazeball marketing methods, I think we're pretty much in agreement.

      As regards collecting personal data to better serve your customer base... I'm not sure how well that works. In the offline world this sort of customer profiling seems to have led to the brutal homogenization of televison. They keep tweaking their output to give us what they think will attract new viewers, and what we end uop getting is bland mind numbing pap. Other media aren't far behind, either.

      Online however, there's a chance for niche sites to flourish with a relatively small market share. I'd be happier for a site to follow their own vision and to attract readers based upon that vision, rather than have them endlessly second guess what I want. There are a gazillion portal pages out there that already do thisI visit Yahoo! once in a blue moon, mainly because I can remember when it used to be good :( However, I'd hate to see yahoo become the model for the web of tomorrow.

      A registration screen is most likely to drive me away from a site. If I absolutely have to go there, I'll enter misleading data because even if the company is trustworthy they could get hacked, bought out by SpammyBastards Inc, go bust and have their data sold off as equity...

      I can't see a single way that giving them my data can benefit me, and many ways in which it potentially harms me. Registration screens considered harmful, QED.

      --
      Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
  115. Re:Hmm... I've an analogy for this... by gl4ss · · Score: 1

    well, this way they get to see all the private data of anyone who is both clueless and looking for pron on the net(and everybody is so..). and they think that they could prevent something if they could magic mine that somehow.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  116. Re:DOOM DOOM DOOM! by randallpowell · · Score: 1
    But emailing Bush doesn't do anything either so he must be a peon by your logic.

    No matter what, I can't convince him to: ban marriages between cousins (I live in a red state), admit he is gay, pimp slap Rice like a ghetto ho, attend AA meetings, resign due to lack of intelligence, and visit the Iraqi frontlines.

  117. It's not so bad by jim_v2000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    GAIN acually happens to be one of the less malevolent pieces of adware. It does not install itself, it doesn't do pop-ups, it doesn't hijack your machine. It's a legit piece of advertising that software authors use to make money off their programs. (Kazaa for example) If you don't want it, read your EULA's before installing those free screen savers.

    --
    Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    1. Re:It's not so bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > one of the less malevolent pieces

      So, that makes it perfectly alright, then?

    2. Re:It's not so bad by Cylix · · Score: 1

      Sure sure,

      They just turn a blind eye when someone else begins installing their software via browser exploits.

      How soon we forget transgressions of the past.

      --
      "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
    3. Re:It's not so bad by Cylix · · Score: 1

      Geez, I should have posted a link to my post when this happened. Ah slashdot... storing my memories for me when I get too old to recall.

      Look here ma

      --
      "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
    4. Re:It's not so bad by jim_v2000 · · Score: 1

      Yes actually, because YOU have to install it. IMHO, if the EULA mentions installing adware and you still install it, then that software is legitimately on your machine. It's not any different than any other software you install. Quit being so dead set against software authors making a buck off their creations.

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    5. Re:It's not so bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great! So now we have the Bush apologists supporting spyware!!

  118. Donations versus people by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

    Donations buy TV time. TV time may or may not translate into votes.

    If a congresscritter suddenly gets ten or twenty obviously independent letters on the same subject, don't you think s/he will realize that it may matter next Election Day? They're pretty immune to "click to send this letter" campaigns but if you've written a letter instead of copying it, somebody will read it.

    Money only works if the voters don't care. Campaign money can prevail over a bunch of cynics who stay at home, but it's no match for the villagers when they organize and storm the castle.

  119. DON'T SHUT UP!!! by torpor · · Score: 1


    Americans, RISE UP!!! YOUR COUNTRY IS BEING USURPED FROM WITHIN!!!

    Silence is What They Want.

    Note to Mods: NOT A FLAME, NOT A TROLL!!!!!!

    --
    ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    1. Re:DON'T SHUT UP!!! by Colonel+Cholling · · Score: 3, Funny

      Note to Mods: NOT A FLAME, NOT A TROLL!!!!!!

      Mod1: Hey Phil, you see that post from the guy telling Americans to rise up?
      Mod2: Yeah, I was just about to mark it "Flamebait."
      Mod1: And I was gonna mark it "Troll." But check it out: it says "Note to Mods: NOT A FLAME, NOT A TROLL!!!!!!"
      Mod2: Yeah, in all caps.
      Mod1: And with no less than six exclamation points.
      Mod2: And when you've been on the internets as long as we have, you know that anyone who uses all caps and multiple exclamation points just has to be sincere.
      Mod1: You certainly do, Phil.
      Mod2: I'm marking this one "Informative."
      Mod1: And I'm marking it "Insightful."
      Mod2: It's a good thing he told us how to moderate his own post, or we could have made a huge mistake.
      Mod1: You're certainly right about that, Phil.
      Mod2: I think I'll start using heroin.
      Mod1: Courtney Love said it makes you cool and moody.
      Mod2: She certainly did. (Dies of overdose.)

      --

      I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
    2. Re:DON'T SHUT UP!!! by torpor · · Score: 1

      Mod2: And when you've been on the internets as long as we have, you know that anyone who uses all caps and multiple exclamation points just has to be sincere.


      coz, y'know, life is absolute.

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
  120. How about a google bomb? by peachpuff · · Score: 1

    Not as a prank, but as a way to make sure that people know about this guy. I nominate "federal pop-up man."

    --
    -- . . ramblin' . . .
  121. Extreme conflict of interest in the US government by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 0, Offtopic


    Conflict of Interest: Two men, whose family and business associates and friends have extensive investments in global oil businesses, are president and vice-president of the entire U.S. government.

    Using dishonest means, these men convinced U.S. taxpayers to pay for killing people in Iraq. What has been accomplished there? The killing under Saddam was less than the killing under George Bush.

    One thing that has been accomplished, however, is that the profit from oil contracts involving Iraq has been shifted from Saddam to U.S. companies. This was accomplished while minimizing the support for U.S. troops.

    More about the extreme conflict of interest in the U.S. government: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government.

  122. Bush's father: Business relationship w. bL family by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1


    "If Bush is so concerned about catching terrorists, why is bin Ladin still at large while Bush to taking an easy trip to Europe?"

    Why did Bush's father have a business relationship with one of bin Laden's brothers? Why did Bush invade Iraq, when most of the attackers were Saudis, like the bin Laden family?

  123. Banana Republic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sheez... Is the grand ole US turning into the biggest banana republic of the planet? These people should be the ones in the crosshairs of any 'data privbacy and integrity' related governmental body, not at the helm of it! So what shiny new laws are these fine folks going to create I wonder?

  124. What'sup with Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why can't anyone here in the Uk get slashdot frontpage articles, numerous people are complaining.
    I have also noticed lately that no matter how many times you try to go to google.com it keeps going to google.co.uk, is it a homeland security, anti-terrorism thing or are we just becoming like China or is it some darkforce from beyond?

  125. Dude! HST isn't funny yet! by Baloo+Ursidae · · Score: 1

    You should have gone with the AIDS joke instead...it hasn't been 22.3 years since HST died yet.

    --
    Help us build a better map!
  126. In the news today ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Paris Hilton appointed on the "Departement to revise Sexual Education". From the words of Clarissa Biggot, "Paris is well known for it's commitment to keep her body a sanctuary that no-one but her beloved (and caring) husband might see. We are sure she will be able to transmit her beliefs to the young americans".

  127. Orwell Not Spinning by orn · · Score: 1

    Orwell's not spinning in his grave, he knew it was coming.

    Ministry of Love?

    No, Ministry of Data Privacy. What a fucked up country we (some of us, anyway) have.

    --
    1. 2.
  128. Where do you think Osama is hiding? by tgd · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Mail room, or something, at DHLS. Last place anyone would find him, it seems.

  129. In other news.. by bigattichouse · · Score: 1

    In todays Berlin Post, Herr Heinrich Himmler has accepted a post as US government secretary of petting zoos and kindergarteners. In a way I can only hope that Bush is this malicious, If he isn't this only furthers the idea that he is completely oblivious of what is going on around him.

    --
    meh
  130. Hire a Master Thief to protect your jewels ... by WoodieR · · Score: 1

    is that not the old saying ? how totally appropriate that he actually ends up at the top - Homeland Security for you, our southern neighbours ...

    --
    Question Authority before IT questions You ...
  131. HOmeland security data by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

    What do you think the chances of this guy selling sensitive homeland security secrets and private data on citizens to Claria?

    After all many companies would pay a premium price for such data mining information.

  132. So let me get this straight by CSMastermind · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The resume's for our top leaders look something like this: George W. Bush: Served one term as the THIRD most powerful man in Texas politics and his dad was president..............elected president Dick Cheney: Former CEO and adviser during the NIXION years......elected vice president Personally I'd think these two are alittle more of a worry than them letting the a spyware guru into office. You're not going to change the minds of your politicans, how about you smack the hell out of the people who voted for Bush????? If 50% of the people think he's qualified to be president than I'm willing to bet that we have bigger problems than who he's appointing.

  133. Dare to be a doubting bastard by hey! · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No, no, this is the attitude they want you to have. Apathy. The basic strategy is simple: scare and discourage. Scare the people who don't think. Discourage the people who do. The more apathetic the thinking people get, the farther they can stretch the bucks they spend to lead the sheep to the slaughterhouse.

    At the very least, stand up and make them spend a little more money and work a little harder. Don't whine, find a way to stick a thumb in their eye when they're leading you to the gallows.

    The great thing about money is that it gets fast results. But it is not invincible. Sometimes, the people will just stop believing. It may take time, but, the opinion manufacturers know it will take much longer if they can expunge the kernels of doubt from the population -- kernels around which opposition can crystalize.

    We, few, we band of brothers. If you're the kind of person who is daydreaming about running to Canada, I don't want you on my side in this fight.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  134. Registration? by AlgoRhythm · · Score: 2, Informative

    I don't like registration screens either, but I've never had to register to read Salon ... I just have to look at an ad for 20 seconds then I get to read all I want on their site for free.

    Have you ever even gone to Salon.com?

    1. Re:Registration? by NickFortune · · Score: 1
      I'm not taking issue with salon.com so much as the "Oh grow up!"/"Just deal with it" attitude of the poster, and the presupposition that the more distasteful aspects modern marketing are somehow both laudable and unavoidable.

      It's not about Salon.com.

      --
      Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
  135. Oxymoronic Government Agencies by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 1

    Here's all my information, government. I trust that you will keep this information private.

    --
    You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
  136. Life without slashdot? by BobPaul · · Score: 1

    Honestly i wouldn't care if all the ad-supported content left the internet.

    I'm not sure I could handle a life where ALL of the ad-supported (ie Slashdot) content left the internet...

  137. This makes sense. by njfuzzy · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Looked at the right way, this makes a strange kind of sense.

    For instance... People with Philosophy degrees are often hired as "Ethicists" for corporations. Their job is to interpret ethics for the company. In some cases, this means keeping the company on the right side of the line. However, for some companies, it simply means finding ways to justify what the company wants to do to begin with. Guidance, or spin.

    So, take a look at the Department of Homeland Security. Do you think this is the kind of honest-natured ministry that wants to make sure it does the right thing regarding our privacy? Or the kind of Orwellian agency that wants to have a way to say it respects privacy, and does whatever it wants?

    Guidance, or spin?

    This guy is there to help teach the feds how to lie to us about how much our privacy is respected in this country. All of the sudden, it makes sense.

    --
    My Photography - http://ian-x.com
    The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
  138. Brilliant or Stupid? by Aumaden · · Score: 1

    I'm trying to decide whether this is brilliant (as in "it takes a thief to catch a thief") or sheer stupidity (as in a "fox guarding the henhouse").

    1. Re:Brilliant or Stupid? by dtfinch · · Score: 1

      If it was the former, they could have found someone better. There are much more insidious spyware programs out there, and people with much better knowledge of them.

      I'm guessing they saw the words "Chief Privacy Officer" on this guy's resume and hired him on the spot.

    2. Re:Brilliant or Stupid? by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > I'm trying to decide whether this is brilliant (as in "it takes a thief to catch a thief") or sheer stupidity (as in a "fox guarding the henhouse").

      You got brilliance and stupidity mixed up. From the fox's perspective, hiring a fox to guard the henhouse is brilliance.

  139. I did riot, by RehabDJ · · Score: 0

    but after standing in the middle of the street yelling at the capital for hours, I began to think my riot might have more affect if someone else joined me.

  140. Thieves are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...merely aggresive entrepeneurs.

  141. It's not April 1st yet, is it? by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    Because this has got to be a fscking joke..

  142. Bush presidency in microcosm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This one event reflects the entire Bush presidency in microcosm - wrong-headed, stupid, happy to put the interests of business over people, and utterly oblivious.

  143. I think I express the collective opinion of slashdot when I say WTF SOMEBODY SHOOT THESE IDIOTS!

  144. Their GAIN... by noidentity · · Score: 1

    ...is our loss.

  145. Bush Administration by The+Ape+With+No+Name · · Score: 1

    this is brilliant (as in "it takes a thief to catch a thief") or sheer stupidity (as in a "fox guarding the henhouse").

    Assume latter.

    --
    Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
  146. We already have a system for preventing 911 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Its called NORAD, & its been in place since the early 70's

    However, on the morning of sept 11 2001, NORAD was given orders to stand down for some sort of "military excercises" which is unprecedented.

    Strange coincidence wouldnt you say?

    1. Re:We already have a system for preventing 911 by stinerman · · Score: 1

      If I'm not mistaken, there were supposed to be drills that day to prepare for a terrorist attack involving kamakaze pilots.

      There is an interesting (but rather suspect) timeline available

  147. Opposite by northcat · · Score: 1

    Has anyone stopped and considered the possibility that they might have appointed Gator's CPO so that they can more efficiently collect more information about people and actually harm people's piracy? I mean, the "Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee" might actually be formed to spy on US people's lives. Kinda like calling DRM, Digital Rights Management instead of Digital Restrictions Management.

  148. This is NOT funny... by piotru · · Score: 1

    ...And your comments make me more sad than the original news.
    It looks like the Americans have been seriously insulted. So sad, that the only post here calling for positive action was drowned in stupid jokes and whining. Sorry guys, but those who hopelessly whined are already demoralized into Bush's puppets...
    For a tutorial about dealing with election cheating, look to Ukraine. Things _can_ be changed. Camping in Washington, anyone?
    (INaA - I'm Not an American)

    1. Re:This is NOT funny... by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 3, Insightful


      The Ukraine?

      I have news for you. The Ukraine election was rigged by the US to put its puppet in charge to further its goals of forcing Russia and China back into a Cold War with the US.

      No, I'm not joking. Read up on the Ukrainian challenger and who his supporters were and their connections to the US and Russian oligarchs.

      There is NOTHING US citizens can do about the US government - unless they're prepared to pick up a gun - which they're not because they're too brainwashed and submissive after two centuries of bullshit about "American democracy". The state is the state and this is the way all states behave.

      You want to do something about it. Advance the rate of technological progress - especially nanotech - so I can obtain the tools I need to provide a Final Solution to these morons.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    2. Re:This is NOT funny... by Prune · · Score: 1

      There's no way to avoid such a "Final Solution" from sooner or later being applied to everyone, even if some get a head start. Face it, progress is making it easier and easier for a smaller and smaller group to do more and more death and destruction. Take that to its logical conclusion. The only thing one can do is enjoy whatever time one has left.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    3. Re:This is NOT funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Silly people like you will stay on earth when the nanotech revolution comes and complain about the fighting before you die a horrible death. The key is to leave before the world is either grey goo or rebuilt by machine intelligence.

    4. Re:This is NOT funny... by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1


      Actually the key is to BE the machine intelligence - that is HOW you get to leave AFTER turning the world (well, not the world, just the idiot monkees) into grey goo...

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    5. Re:This is NOT funny... by piotru · · Score: 1

      Actually, Mr. Yushchenko had declared withdrawing of Ukrainian soldiers from Iraq...
      So much for correcting your mistake.

  149. What's the world coming too? by neypo · · Score: 0

    I have been in the 'anti spyware business' for well over 2 years, this isn't the worst i've seen but it's damn bad. Whats next? Does the NSA Plan on hiring Louise Vitte, Alex S. Hatkinson and Serge Stepantsov -- the guys who made CoolWebSearch? By far the most annoying piece of spyware on the planet that has kept coders hard at work trynig to slve the hundreds of exploits they employ. This just in, people suck.

  150. Punch a Monkey by nlinecomputers · · Score: 4, Funny

    No the Secret Service will stop you if you try that.

    --
    Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
  151. To paraphrase by rikkards · · Score: 1

    You need a thief to catch a thief.

  152. Big Brother is Double Plus Good by gelfling · · Score: 1

    Hmm a partisan flunkie appointment of a spyware maker to guard our privacy.

    Excuse me while me and Julia make love one last time before the Inner Party members come to put the rats on us.

  153. Re:Hmm... I've an analogy for this... by kalidasa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not customer, consumer. A customer expects service. A consumer just devourers whatever is shoved down his throat.

  154. Re:Bush's father: Business relationship w. bL fami by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do you whiny liberals keep pathetically harping on the same tired issues that have no effect on current events rather than trying to morph your political goals into something more agreeable to the majority of the population for next time?

    Beating a dead horse doesnt count.

  155. Write your Congressman NOW by SpacePunk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Here is what I sent mine...

    Dear Congressman Pearce;

    I came across the article at http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2005/02/23/ gator/index.html?source=RSS on how D. Reed Freeman, the "Chief Privacy Officer" of Claria Networks (formerly Gator), the creators of the pervasive spyware package GAIN, has been appointed to the Department of Homeland Security's "Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee".

    I find this of extreme concern for the security of the citizens of our country. It is also a concern that the 'privacy officer' for the DHS is a former minion of Doubleclick which is also a spyware company. This is like appointing David Duke to a committee on minority rights, Mike Tyson appointed to a committee on womans right, Michael Jackson appointed to a committee on childrens rights, or the proverbial fox being in charge of the henhouse. Can we now expect DHS to craft sofware that installs itself on our machines without or knowledge? Can we expect our data privacy to be safe from unlawfull government search? This is a real and present concern. The last thing the citizenry needs is for people with a known track record of being involved in privacy violations to be in such positions. The very fact that these people are where they are now within the DHS points to the process being broken, and perhaps it can also be said that the DHS has been infiltrated by persons without the citizens best interests in mind. In advance, your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.

    1. Re:Write your Congressman NOW by mr.newt · · Score: 1

      I really like your letter, so here it is without typos (not trying to flame you, but people who copy your letter will be taken more seriously if it is free from typos):

      Dear Congressman Pearce;

      I came across the article at http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2005/02/23/ gator/index.html?source=RSS on how D. Reed Freeman, the "Chief Privacy Officer" of Claria Networks (formerly Gator), the creators of the pervasive spyware package GAIN, has been appointed to the Department of Homeland Security's "Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee".

      I find this of extreme concern for the security of the citizens of our country. It is also a concern that the 'privacy officer' for the DHS is a former minion of Doubleclick which is also a spyware company. This is like appointing David Duke to a committee on minority rights, Mike Tyson appointed to a committee on women's rights, Michael Jackson appointed to a committee on children's rights, or the proverbial fox being in charge of the henhouse. Can we now expect DHS to craft software that installs itself on our machines without our knowledge? Can we expect our data privacy to be safe from unlawful government search? This is a real and present concern. The last thing the citizenry needs is for people with a known track record of being involved in privacy violations to be in such positions. The very fact that these people are where they are now, within the DHS, points to the process being broken; and perhaps it can also be said that the DHS has been infiltrated by persons without the citizens' best interests in mind. In advance, your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.

    2. Re:Write your Congressman NOW by SpacePunk · · Score: 1

      Thanks, but I doubt I'll be graded on my grammar skills. I'm just hoping they replace 'Pearce' with their own Congressmans name, change the wording around, and generally give it a bit of originality. Otherwise it would look like a letter writing campaign.

    3. Re:Write your Congressman NOW by mr.newt · · Score: 1

      hoping they replace 'Pearce' with their own Congressmans name

      Hehe, yeah.

      Otherwise it would look like a letter writing campaign

      It'd be nice if it were a letter writing campaign.

    4. Re:Write your Congressman NOW by SpacePunk · · Score: 1

      Those usually don't get in under the wire.

  156. Thats nothing, look who they made President!!1 by tod_miller · · Score: 1

    Wow, Spammers have now gone into gov...

    we are all so fucking screwed.

    --
    #hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
  157. That ended with the Civil War by nlinecomputers · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The 2nd amendment was intended to provide arms for State Militia. The States had the right to leave the Union and they had the right have State run armies to protect us from the Federal Government. Lincoln's illegal war changed that.

    --
    Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
    1. Re:That ended with the Civil War by Evil+Poot+Cat · · Score: 1

      'Ah, yes. The "War of Northern Aggression." An "illegal" war. When the godless Yankee hordes did rape and pillage the fair, gentile, Southern Way of Life (tm). The natural-born right of our accepted ranks to claim domain, replaced with the chaotic squalor of democracy. Were it not for Jim Crow, we would have lost everything...'

      This, of course, would imply the Republican Party has been waging illegal war nearly since its inception, and for much the same reasons.

      The worst part is, parent's line of bullshit was modded up. :/

      Bleh.

    2. Re:That ended with the Civil War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Were it not for Jim Crow, we would have lost everything...'

      Judging by this sentence, I gather that you buy into the fairy tal^H^H^H^H historical account that the mean old South wanted to leave the Union b/c we wanted to keep our slaves, while the virtuous Yanks were opposed to such a morally repugnant practice.

      I find it fascinating to see how many Americans are convinced that American wars are fought to defeat Evil (TM). In the known history of war, how many aggressors actually attack based on a perceived moral imperative? I don't mean the rhetoric the leaders use to align the populace behind the war effort, I mean the actual reasons these leaders decide to go to war. History shows that most wars, even the Christian Crusade to 'liberate the holy land', had much more to do with powerful people deciding they wanted to take something (money, land, power, etc.) away from somebody else.

      But hey, this is America!! We are a nation founded on principles and values. Its not like we decided to revolt against England b/c of money (taxes) and power (representation)! We only took the land away from Naitive Americans (slaughtering most of them in the process) because it was our "manifest destiny", i.e. God wanted us to. OF COURSE the North attacked the South to make them give up their slaves, not b/c the North needed the raw resources the South had.

      I mean, after all, Lincoln didn't pass the Emancipation Proclamation in an attempt to get black southerners to rise against the Rebels, and because of political pressure from black Yanks. No, he passed it because it was the legislative declaration of the moral necessity for the war. That is why it was passed so late in the war, and only outlawed slavery in the rebellious states! Yep, it was so important to end slavery that it was necessary that Sherman attack the civilian population of several states, using what would today be considered "terrorist tactics", burning such "military objectives" as farms and towns. But ending slavery wasn't important enough to risk alienating Union states that supported slavery!

      Sorry to rant like that, it just REALLY annoys me to see ignorant asshats that know nothing about a subject declare "The winner of the conflict, who also happens to be the initiator, said they only initiated the conflict b/c <INSERT MORAL HIGH GROUND>, so it must be true." Even when we have almost 150 years perspective in which to view the actual circumstances of the conflict.

      This, of course, would imply the Republican Party has been waging illegal war nearly since its inception, and for much the same reasons.

      I don't know about illegal, or much care, either (the victors get to make the laws), but the US Government (see, I am bipartisan) has been waging IMMORAL wars pretty much since its inception.

    3. Re:That ended with the Civil War by nlinecomputers · · Score: 1

      You need to learn more history. The Civil War had very little to do with slavery. It was a war of Taxation. Import and Export Duties. And Mercantilism.

      Lincoln was no fan of abolishing slavery. He favored colonization. Rounding up all the Negroes and deporting them to any place other then North America.

      Let me suggest a book for you to read. The Real Lincoln. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0761 526463/qid=1109269327/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-4419 992-8711354?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
      It does hold an anti-Lincoln bias but it does site it's sources which are from both sides. I'd read them as well.

      Slavery was an abomination that the south should be ashamed of. But Lincoln was no Saint. I don't think it was worth killing 1/10 the population of the United States just to stop slavery. I don't think suspending habeas corpus, waging war on civilians, deporting a Congressman, cannoning draft rioters in New York, devaluing the dollar, sending Federal Troops in to Northern Newspapers to stop presses, running a secret police force that routinely "disappeared" people, and bombing and burning whole cities to the ground was worth it.

      Meanwhile every else in the world slavery was been abolished peacefully. People were paid to end it.

      I don't know about you. But I'd say we got overcharged.

      --
      Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
  158. Isn't this like by hackhound · · Score: 1

    appointing a lit match to be in charge of fire control?

  159. Who appointed him? by Andy_R · · Score: 1

    ... and how do we get them sacked / made into a laughing stock?

    --
    A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
  160. conflict of interest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is like Larry Flynt of Hustler fame joining a federal board on decency policy.

  161. To Paraphrase The Wizard of Oz by JLavezzo · · Score: 1

    D. Reed Freeman, are you a White Hat hacker or a Black Hat hacker?

  162. I've got one!! by Cigarra · · Score: 1

    ...Frank Abagnale for check fraud detection at the FBI?
    Oh, wait...

    --
    I don't have a sig.
  163. As if we didn't need any more proof.... by big-giant-head · · Score: 1, Funny

    That George W is an Anti-Christ....

    not THE anti-christ, but a forerunner, kind of a prototype.

    --

    So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
    1. Re:As if we didn't need any more proof.... by vertinox · · Score: 1

      not THE anti-christ, but a forerunner, kind of a prototype.

      I would hope so. We Satanists were kind of dismayed that we got a complete retard to lead the armies of darkness during the last days of man.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  164. Re:Hmm... I've an analogy for this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [i]Wouldn't prevent a repeat?[/i]

    With the laws passed over the last few years, A repeat would only give them more power, physically and politically.

    Do you think they actually care about preventing a repeat?

    Especially when they took out so many stops the first time around.

  165. didn't you get the memo? by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Adultery is a sin greater than any other, even mass murder!

    Seriously, this country is so fucked. There are so many people, mostly pretty extreme religious folk, who listen to anything Bush says as long as he sprinkles his speaches with the words "God," "Faith," etc. Oh, and don't forget, "crusade!"

    It doesn't matter that he's lied. It doesn't matter that the VP's former company is given illegal no-bid contracts. It doesn't matter that the new AG is a supports the use of torture. There is nothing they can do that is evil enough to make the religious right turn away.

    --
    Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
    1. Re:didn't you get the memo? by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      Ironic isn't it? How selective the religious right is about which Christian values it respects. Faggots marrying? No Way! God said it's wrong! Mass murder? No problem! God has chosen Bush

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    2. Re:didn't you get the memo? by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 1
      That was one of the big pulls getting people to the polls. Stop the fags from getting married... It's quite remarkable, actually, when you think about it. So many millions of people "brainwashed" into believing that homosexual marriage is more dangerous for the country than having a man like Bush in control of the armed forces. All in the name of a religion, Christianity, started by a man who literally preached tolerance and compassion even for those considered to be despicable sinners.

      --
      Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
    3. Re:didn't you get the memo? by The+Pagan · · Score: 1

      I read somewhere that in China one is not allowed to study religion until they reach the age of 18. After the last election I am in favor of a similar ban here.

      It amazes me how many people in the world (not just the US) believe that some guy or gal in the sky can actually affect their lives. They make decisions based on that hypothesis every day. It is impossible to design a test to prove or disprove the hypothesis so I make my decisions based on what facts I can gather in a controlled society. What scares the bejesus out of me is the fact that our leader is consulting his particualr guy in the sky before making decisions that affect me and the rest of the nation. What if it is the wrong guy in the sky?

    4. Re:didn't you get the memo? by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 1
      Frankly, I don't think Bush consults God or Jesus before making decisions. It seems to me that he simply uses their names as a tool to gather support for furthering his own agenda.

      The alternative to that theory is that he really does believe his own bullshit and is very, very insane.

      I'm not certain which is worse.

      --
      Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
  166. Re:Bush's father: Business relationship w. bL fami by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Beating a dead horse doesnt count. So you accept the parent posters points, you just don't want to hear them anymore?

    Now who's whining?

    Oh and beating a dead horse is perfectly reasonable if he's still in the Oval Office...


  167. This Just In by qwerty75 · · Score: 1

    Larry Flint was appointed today to the Department of Decency and Family Values.

    "His dedication and hard work makes him the perfect choice for this position. Sometimes he even worked on Saturdays."

  168. i guess it depends on one's perspective... by Svet-Am · · Score: 1

    i guess on the one hand you can take the argument "it takes one to know one" in that who better to know what to watch out for than someone who's made a career out of invading people's privacy. but, thenm if that was the case, why not appoint kevin mitnik to this position?

    on the other hand (and i imagine this is the most prevalent on slashdot), isn't this a bit like making the fox the keeper of the henhouse? wouldn't it be a bit *too* easy to (since he's in a position of influence) lobby for looser (or no) restrictions on spyware and adware?

    --
    [move .sig! for great justice, take off every .sig!]
  169. Death of the anti-spyware laws by doublem · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Of course, the anti-spyware laws will now die before coming to a vote, as spyware is the new way to protect our safety.

    Now I understand what the government meant by increasing the data they gather.

    Linux probably WILL become illegal soon, as it's very nature means you could remove the government back doors if you wanted to.

    I'm not sure The Shrub could have come up with a more effective way of announcing what he thinks of privacy concerns without installing two way TV sets in every home and declaring himself the be our big brother.

    Crap.

    Time to move to Canada.

    --
    "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
    1. Re:Death of the anti-spyware laws by rs79 · · Score: 1

      "Time to move to Canada."

      A friend of mine who moved here from the US called yesterday to say he finally has landed immigrant status. It's taken him 3 years. It's like that, it really is.

      Better get started.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    2. Re:Death of the anti-spyware laws by doublem · · Score: 1

      Three years?

      Compared to the US that's DAMN fast.

      Man, I feel better already!

      --
      "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
  170. The question then is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What are any of us going to do about it? We log on to slash dot, complain and whine about the undermining of our rights and security, but do we vote? Do we write to congress? Do we call our senator to voice our opinion? Do we do ANYTHING other then moan and complain and then say "oh-well, back to HALO"

    I recently read that most congressmen consider one letter from a constituent to represent 1000 opinions from their district.

    Guess how many congressmen probably read Slashdot...

  171. Unlike, say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clinton and his associates who were always embroiled in legal or ethical battles. It's not just Bush. It's every career politician.

  172. YRO? by rscrawford · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't this one be put into the "Humor" section?

    --
    -- The reason it's called the right wing? Irony.
  173. Sorta like hiring a hacker by doublem · · Score: 1

    Sorta like hiring a hacker to build your security policy?

    Ever read "The Art of the Steal" or "Catch me if you Can"? Great books, even if the movie made on the latter was kinda blah.

    --
    "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
  174. Biblical Marriages by doublem · · Score: 1

    Wait a second...

    the Marriages described in The Bible allow men to have as many wives as they can afford, concubines, especially if they can't get an acceptable heir out of one of the wives, and the women are treated as property with no rights of their own.

    So I guess if I wanted to have a "Biblical" marriage, I'd have to be a particularly unpleasant polygamist Mormon.

    Oh, and kick each wife out of the house while she's having her period, because she's unclean.

    And kill any of them who cheat on me.

    Man, this "Biblical Marriage" thing sounds like far too much work, expense and surveillance. I'll stick with my current marriage. This whole "Equal Partner" thing works much better in my opinion.

    And as a side note, in my experience, Lesbian couples have FUN weddings. Far less stuffy and more fun than the normal "Church, white wedding, reception at a bad event center".

    --
    "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
    1. Re:Biblical Marriages by jallen02 · · Score: 1

      Their weddings may be more fun because the average length of a gay/lesbian marriage is much shorter than your typical hetero marriage. Though most hetero marriages are pretty sad affairs too.

      My wedding was at a golf course with lots of beer for those who wanted it. It was quite fun :-)

      Jeremy

    2. Re:Biblical Marriages by doublem · · Score: 1

      ... the average length of a gay/lesbian marriage is much shorter than your typical hetero marriage.

      I'm not quite sure where that statistic could come from, given the fact that gay marriages haven't even been legal for very long. Even then, they're not legal in many places. The sample is very small at this point

      Do you have any references for that stat?

      --
      "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
    3. Re:Biblical Marriages by primordial+ooze · · Score: 1

      Their weddings may be more fun because the average length of a gay/lesbian marriage is much shorter than your typical hetero marriage.

      Yeah, none of the legal marriages of any homosexuals with whom I am personally familiar have lasted longer than, hmmm, nine months and six days...so far! ;)

      Or perhaps you meant "wedding" when you said "marriage"? Because my wife and I have been to three weddings between same sex couples since last May and two were as long as any high-church hoohaw that I've ever been to (and as a Catholic, I've been to some doozies). Mostly because so many of the couple's family and friends wanted to be part of the event!

      So far the gay weddings have been more fun than average - or maybe it'd be more accurate to say - expressively joyful. Probably because, given the socio-political context in which they are taking place, they have been enhanced by particularly synergistic feelings of both emancipation and inclusion.

      Having said all that, I too will defend the ability of heteros to have fun weddings - My wife and I were wed on a small island off the coast of Maine, outside under an oak tree and a clear September sky, with a couple hundred of our dearest loved ones, eating amazing food, listening to tunes spun by my bro-in-law and enjoying nearly 60 gallons of home-brewed beer. Five years later we still get compliments (and requests for more home brew).

    4. Re:Biblical Marriages by jallen02 · · Score: 1

      I am bad for using the term "Marriage". I mean commitment to a partner for life. I have no clue and I don't have time to dig up the stats so take what I am saying at face value. But from what I recall reading the average "lifelong commited" monogamous relationship among gays don't last very long. Its part of why STDs are more prevalent and the medical folks label it an "risky" lifestyle. Not that I agree with any of it, but assuming that is a fact its an interesting one.

      Jeremy

    5. Re:Biblical Marriages by doublem · · Score: 1

      In which case, comparing it to heterosexual Marriages is an Apples to Oranges scenario.

      I'd like to know what the statistics are on "lifelong committed" monogamous relationships in Hetero couples versus Gay couples. I'd also like to see early death due to AIDS taken into account.

      Just from what we've discussed, we could be looking at gay relationships ending sooner than hetero couples because of AIDS.

      We could also be looking at someone comparing gay relationships in general to heterosexual marriages. If you leave out all the heterosexual couples who have what they call a "lifelong committed" monogamous relationship at one point, yet break up before getting married, you're tossing the usability of the statistic out the window.

      I don't think we can have a really useful statistic in this regard for another generation at least. Gay relationships are under a lot of social pressure and stress that heterosexual relationships are not. A certain amount of the gay breakups are going to be related to that.

      --
      "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
    6. Re:Biblical Marriages by Coulson · · Score: 1

      I am bad for using the term "Marriage". I mean commitment to a partner for life.

      Wow, that's really not a slip-up you want to make if you're arguing against gay marriage. As soon as you equate "marriage" with "life partner", you've proven their point.

    7. Re:Biblical Marriages by almightyjustin · · Score: 1
      I have no clue and I don't have time to dig up the stats so take what I am saying at face value.

      So, in other words, you're talking out of your ass and no one should pay attention to you?

      --

      Omnes arx vestrum sunt adiuncta nobis.

    8. Re:Biblical Marriages by jallen02 · · Score: 1

      No. I did read it, but that doesn't mean what I remember is correct since its not something I even really am concerned with. People are free to do what they want. I was just pointing out that the medical communities consider it an "at risk", or "riskier than average" lifestyle.

      FWIW, thats all I am saying. Honestly, anything that does not directly interfere with my pursuit of life, liberty and happiness is fine by me. I am just making a point that there are more STDs out there in gay/lesbian communities.

      Jeremy

    9. Re:Biblical Marriages by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      So, if a hetero coule lives together, then breaks up, they don't count against the "divorce rate." but if the same thing happens with a gay couple, that counts against them.

      Also, please enlighten us as to the prevalance of STDs in lesbians. Perhaps it is that anal sex is more likely to transmit disease than vaginal sex which results in the numbers you are seeing. Note, that has nothing to do with changing patners more often.

      Not that I agree with any of it, but assuming that is a fact its an interesting one.

      Just to let you know, none of the "facts" you presented are facts. They are correlations that have (most likely) been purposefully manipulated in order to prove a position. As soon as they recognize the obvious problems with the types of statements you made and correct for the obvious confounding factors, then we can see what, if any, are the real differences.

      And if you don't agree with any of it, why are you repeating it? It seems to me that you would agree to want to spread the information, but want to just toss in a qualifier so that you don't get accused of being a homophobe or such. Not that I'm saying you are, but that it looks like you are going out of your way to avoid that issue.

    10. Re:Biblical Marriages by lewp · · Score: 1

      Physicians consider male gays specifically "at risk" because intercourse for these individuals essentially means anal sex (a behavior many physicians consider risky), not because of lack of commitment between partners. Lesbians, AFAIK, share no such designation.

      As far as I know, there is no evidence to indicate that either straight or gay individuals are more or less committed in long term relationships. If there is, I'd like to see it, and you can chalk it up to my ignorance on two fronts: 1) I'm not gay and 2) I think marriage (well, at the very least modern marriage) is a hilarious load of bullshit.

      Comparing gay "life partners" to legal marriages is about as blatantly unfair as you can get. A buddy of mine is "married", but has been separated from his wife for over two years and freely sees other women. I'm sure any study of "life partners" would have considered that relationship over two years ago.

      --
      Game... blouses.
    11. Re:Biblical Marriages by jallen02 · · Score: 1

      The argument as I presented it is pointless. I was just trying to relay something I read, but I shouldn't have because: A.) It wasn't a valid comparison B.) The way I presented was more opinion than anything. So I will just say what I am thinking. I don't know that I can enlighten you about anything. I really only have my opinion based on simple observations and some studies I read that pointed out this correlation (whatever it proves, IF nothing).

      Quite honestly I don't agree with the life style. It is not for me. I am biased towards "traditional" family values (its to bad christians have hijacked this terminology to have religious overtones). I have friends who are gay. They KNOW I don't agree with what they do. But I would never for a second interfere with someone elses pursuit of fundamental happiness and freedom. As long as what they do does not hamper anyone but the parties that decided to be involved.

      AIDS is way to prevalent in our country given our degree of development. Our healthcare system is already straining due to people who can't pay their bills. Eventually the really sick can't work, can't afford insurance. If this really does cost tax dollars then its a bigger issue. Its pretty simple and it goes beyond anything but the simple question of "does this lifestyle burden society beyond what is currently expected and planned for?" If the answer is "no" then I am ok with it and I am only against it in opinion. If the answer is ultimately found to be "yes", then there needs to be additional efforts taken to help these people understand. And it goes WAY beyond gays/lesbians. Its any kind of promiscuous sex that can result in transmission/spread of STDs. Or really just any choices people actively make that result in others being responsible for their poor choices.

      So I just don't want to go into this with a complete rubber seal of approval. People make choices, and some of the time those choices have consequences that may affect other people.

    12. Re:Biblical Marriages by Hard_Code · · Score: 1

      "I'd like to know what the statistics are on "lifelong committed" monogamous relationships in Hetero couples versus Gay couples."

      And I wouldn't like to know. I don't give a fuck which one is "more moral" than the other. Government doesn't have a place saying who can have relationships with whom, and handing out "licenses" to do so no less! Do we have free speech "licenses"? Do we have to go to "free speech counseling" when we aren't good enough "free speech"ers? Nobody needs a "license" from the government to have any sort of relation with someone else.

      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    13. Re:Biblical Marriages by doublem · · Score: 1

      Don't go putting words in my mouth.

      I never said anything about the morality of gay marriages. All I did was question the accuracy of the claim that gay relationships don't last as long as hetero relationships. I've seen no real evidence either way, and the claim sounds like a load of propaganda from some individual or group whose against gay marriages.

      I know such statistics do not yet exist, and was asking for them in part because I honestly believe gay relationships are, at the human level, no different than hetero relationships, and I have no fear of such statistics being brought to light.

      I was also asking for them in order to try and define, at least for the thread, what constituted a fair comparison. It's frightening the kinds of comparisons many anti-gay marriage activists will engage in to push their ideas across.

      --
      "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
    14. Re:Biblical Marriages by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      "allow men to have as many wives as they can afford, concubines, especially if they can't get an acceptable heir out of one of the wives, and the women are treated as property with no rights of their own"

      Actually this was all forbidden, though, strangely, people did what they wanted to do alot of the time. Strange that they still do this today as well. It's almost as if the Bible was written about real people when you look at it.

      If saw the meaning of the Bible you would see that one of the overarching themes of the book is that humans create their own suffering by violating the wishes of God. Polygamy and adultery were not "allowed", and if you fully read the stories where they are described you see that they have consequences. Just like in daytime TV.

      As for treating women as property, again you seem to confuse what was proscribed by God and the actions of men. They are two different things. Maybe you make the mistake of thinking that the people described in the Bible are all avatars of God rather than humans with flaws and problems, like all the rest of us.

      Funny you mention "Equal Partner." The Bible is filles with statements on equality and inequality. Whether it be intrinsics, aptitude, training, knowledge, prowess, posessions, or training of some kind, we all have things that make us unequal to those around us. To create artificial equality is to disregard that which makes us individual and to cast aside what can make us worthwhile. There are overtones and undercurrents of this theme throughout the whole book. Check out this quote "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female." This is directly referring to the perpetual status of inequality on the planet and pointing to a situation where mankind is finally freed from these restraints. Don't try to read too much into it however, this one gets a little tricky without some systematic theology.

      Suffice it to say, if you had read a little deeper into the Bible's stance on how a married man and woman should interact you would have seen that the structure defined in the Bible is symbiotic, with each partner basing their mode of operation toward, and classification of thought of, their partner on a set of principles that makes the individual consider their partner and the principles of virtue first in their interaction. A bit wordy and maybe hard to grasp, but we are talking about something that is an outgrowth of an underlying thought system that takes the whole Bible to describe it. The result is that each partner in the union has a sphere of influence, complete with authority and responsibilities that is unique to that partner. The symbiosis of action and thought meld the two in to one unit. Thus the phrase, "one flesh" heard in the ceremonies. Equality starts to break down when you consider your partner part of your own body; when you see them as an extension of yourself and vice versa, and when you see yourself as belonging wholly to them and them to you. And not only belonging in the posession sense, but in the responsibility sense, in that you are responsible for their growth, health, and wellbeing in every decision and thought that you have.

      I find it quite interesting that you know some of the content of the Bible but lack all of the context and meaning.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    15. Re:Biblical Marriages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Traditional family values", by definition, has religious overtones. "Traditional" American families are religious, and almost every value held to be "traditional" has come from church doctrine initially.

      Any non-religious "traditional" family values are, almost exclusively, shared by both gay and straight Americans alike, and are probably more accurately described as "common sense".

      AIDS is, pretty much irrefutably, a larger problem within the gay community than within the rest of society. Of course, it is still a major problem for society as a whole. Given the (documented) much higher average income of gay households (and yes, there are reasons to explain this), the fact is that the people stiffing the hospitals are less likely to be gays than straight junkies or other non-gay elements of the population.

      You can disagree with the lifestyle if you want, of course. But please stop trying to make poorly-conceived arguments for your point of view. You just don't like it, plain and simple. Admit it, and move on.

    16. Re:Biblical Marriages by jallen02 · · Score: 1

      I thought I did just admit it and move on saying that my argument as presented was pointless ;) How much more of an admission do you expect on slashdot?

    17. Re:Biblical Marriages by shrubya · · Score: 1

      Stupid dork. STDs are by far LESS prevalent among lesbians than among standard heteros.

      Lots of gay men are promiscuous. The parent poster wasn't talking about them, so STFU.

    18. Re:Biblical Marriages by doublem · · Score: 1

      I find it quite interesting that you know some of the content of the Bible but lack all of the context and meaning.

      I notice something we both have in common. We each fall prey to a common intellectual failing. We both automatically assume that anyone who has a different interpretation of something must be wrong, and therefore must not understand the context as well as we do. The issue isn't which of us understands more of the Biblical context, but what cultural context we personally have form our respective pasts.

      Ultimately, you missed a point of humor I was trying to make. I wasn't expressing my own views, but trying to mock the crowd who've been claiming that gay marriage is against God's will and using verses from Leviticus to prop up their claim., despite the debates between Peter an Paul about the need for Christians to follow "Jewish" laws. While the specific debate, if memory serves, was about circumcision and dietary laws, it's often applied to most Jewish purity laws.

      Most of the marital equality you speak of is from New Testament writing, and another thing I was trying to mock with my earlier post was the fact that many "Christians" ignore New Testament Grace and ideals, replacing it with Old Testament rules and patriarchy.

      Remember, while the interpretation you described of Marital Equality can be defended Biblically, there were and are many people who argue women shouldn't work, vote or even cut their hair, and all of them can quote passages that support that idea. There are also entire denominations who argue that women should always be subservient to their husbands, with some groups going so far as to assume women aren't even entitled to offer their own opinions. All of them have Biblical justifications for this, and can twist and weave the context to support their arguments.

      For every person who ignores the passages about women being subservient to their husbands (Like you and I from the sound of it) there are people who consider the phrase "One Flesh" to be entirely about maintaining sexual fidelity, completely ignoring any possible "Equality" connotations. One explanation I've often heard is that God made Eve out of Adam's rib so he would know to keep her under his arm and protect her. Many argue that it's the husband's responsibility to "protect" his wife and for all intents and purposes treat her like a child with slightly more responsibility than the other kids. I think such an idea is total and complete bunk, but then I'm not a member of the Promise Keepers either.

      --
      "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
    19. Re:Biblical Marriages by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      I didn't miss the point of the humor, it just kind of fell flat for me. This is most likely due to hypersensitivity on my part to the drastic and gross misinterpretation of the Bible that is prevalent in churches and secular places alike.

      When you study the whole Bible from the original languages and also study systematic theology it is very difficult to ignore things that directly contradict the scriptures. Much of what is espoused as doctrine from the mouth of God is actually just people inserting their own opinions into the cracks between the English translation and the original Greek, Hebrew, etc. Getting down to the very basics of things tends to eliminate alot of the ambiguity, however, I find it intersting that many of the most vocal people never get to this step.

      On a doctrinal note, Grace is not a New Testament ideal. It is the policy of God toward mankind and is part of God's immutable character. It existed in the Old Testament and is a part of every story, law, psalm, and parable therein.

      Also, I do not ignore any part of the scripture. However I also do not read the English words, extract their meaning, and then stop there.

      As for the "rib" thing. The answer is quite simple. God had already created life once. He did not have to perform that miracle again. As for any metaphors of how a man should treat a woman because of this relationship, I would think that they are superceded by the various DIRECT decrees that are illustrated and spoken throughout the Bible about how to treat people in general, not just women.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
  175. There is only one thing to say. by Sergeant+Beavis · · Score: 1

    WTF!?!?!

    --
    There is nothing inherently safe about liberty. That's why so many people died protecting it.
  176. The true nature of our problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whoa whoa, hang on. It's easy for an uppity European (was that redundant?) or other outsider to make remarks on our political system and dismiss the voters as "irresponsible low-tech conservative christians with a penchant for NASCAR."

    That said, I agree that Bush is a money-grubbing puppet of a human being. But they ALL are. Look at what our choices were this past year. Bush 2.0 or John-frickin'-Kerry. An even richer man who couldn't stand solidly on any position; he flip-flopped time and again just to secure votes.

    The REAL problem is with our system, and I emphasize this strongly. First and foremost, we have no control over who decides who the candidates for presidency are. And, truth be told, to run independent, you have to be rich to afford a campaign, and that would be little more than voting directly for the special interest group itself. So we're left with rich white guys or rich white guys hand-picked by rich white guys.

    And don't forget that we're not voting for the candidate in reality. We're voting for the majority vote in our state, which in turn is a suggestion for our representatives in an elite Electoral College (an unnecessary institution IMHO). While you would assume that said representatives would vote accordingly based on this information, this is not always the case, nor is it required. (Granted in this last election, THAT would have been a benefit)

    But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

    1. Re:The true nature of our problem by sapped · · Score: 1

      But they ALL are. Look at what our choices were this past year. Bush 2.0 or John-frickin'-Kerry.

      There were other choices. Seriously. People must get past this mentality of "my vote will be wasted". If you start voting for the person that you even remotely "like" as opposed to the current setup where people keep voting to ensure the person they "dislike" the most stays out then things will change. Maybe not the first election or even the second election, but it will change eventually.

    2. Re:The true nature of our problem by nickos · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but things will never change under the current system - the current system is broken.

      How can a system which awards 100% of the representation to a 50.1% majority be fair? An alternative system called "Proportional representation" is much fairer and has been shown to work in one form or another in many countries throughout the world. If 10% of the electorate vote for the Greens or the Libertarians shouldn't that percentage be reflected in the corridors of power?

    3. Re:The true nature of our problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can a system which awards 100% of the representation to a 50.1% majority be fair? An alternative system called "Proportional representation" is much fairer and has been shown to work in one form or another in many countries throughout the world. If 10% of the electorate vote for the Greens or the Libertarians shouldn't that percentage be reflected in the corridors of power?

      I can see that working in a legislative body, but not for the U.S. President. Unless you are trying to propose the occupancy of the White House be turned into a kind of time-share.

    4. Re:The true nature of our problem by John+Newman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Like the other respondant pointed out, PV isn't practical for the Presidency, and I never liked how it takes the power to select individual representatives away from voters. You vote for a party, not a person, and the party gets to select which person goes in, even you think that particular person is a scumbag. So I'm sure it works fine for parliamentary systems, but it wouldn't here.

      Instant run-off voting, on the other hand, might instantly cure the worst of what ails our system. The two-party duopoly is the source of almost all things bad, and, together with winner-take-all electoral votes, it guarantees that no 3rd party will ever win the Presidency. IRV turns the system on its head by eliminating the fear of "throwing away your vote". It would break the duopoly, and make the system much more fluid again. And since voting rules are defined state-by-state, there's at least a snowball's chance in hell of getting a few states to try it.

    5. Re:The true nature of our problem by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      If the rich guy doesn't get the vote, he doesn't get in. It's that simple. We created the system. It is indeed OUR fault. It's OUR fault for voting for the rich guy. It's OUR fault when he wins the primary, and then it's OUR fault when he wins the election. There's absolutely nobody to blame but the guy in the mirror. If all it takes is money to win an election, then blame the voter for being a sucker, because that is what he is.

      --
      What?
    6. Re:The true nature of our problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole flip-flopping thing was an invention of the Republican propaganda machine. Granted, he made an easy target, because his views were appropriately complex and nuanced. Can you name one specific instance where Kerry actually changed his stance on something? Just one?

  177. Donations? by gr8_phk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's funny. Geeks will donate $300,000 to advertise thier web browser... But they can't organize a lobbying group to represent them in washington. Sure, the EFF tries to do good things, but mostly after there is a problem. The FSF only tries to stay afloat and stop GPL violators. Where is the free software political action in America? The money is there.

    1. Re:Donations? by Vo0k · · Score: 1

      $300.000? How do you think, how much would getting such a group to be efficient cost? Any of the $10mln+ companies could sweep such a group under the rug.
      Sorry, but $300.000 is a puny amount when it comes to business and even punier when it comes to politics.
      Just to think, the Firefox ad in the NYT was a Big Thing for us. For "nonprofit organization rates". How many businesses place their ads in NYT on daily basis, for commercial rates? How many consider that normal, daily business practice, one of hundreds of ads they place in media worldwide? How are we placed compared to them?

      --
      Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
  178. It just amazes me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    at how consistantly this Administration can hire the absolute "wrong" person for a given job.

  179. It isn't what we have-it is what we DON'T by gosand · · Score: 1
    we are too comfortable with our 8mpg SUV's out 2500+sq foot houses and our 300 channel cable tv telling how scary it is outside and we should stay in where it is safe.


    I couldn't agree more. I think a major problem is that this country is too big. It is too big to comprehend for most people. We don't ever have to leave our comfort zone. Many people rarely leave their state, let alone their country. They don't see the rest of the world, and rely on TV to feed them their information. Or they just don't receive any information at all.


    We have been taught to just care about ourselves. Therefore, if something doesn't greatly affect us, it is not worth our time to worry about it, let alone do anything about it. We are a sound-bite, fast-food nation. We are more concerned about who is dating who in Hollywood than what our government is doing. The things you point out (SUV, big houses, TV) are all bad, but they wouldn't be if we balanced it with an ounce of intelligence about the outside world. These will not be our downfall, it will be our ignorance, apathy, hubris, and general disdain for those who are not from the US. It isn't about what we have - it is about what we don't have.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  180. We're foxed... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1
    ... not that the fox has the henhouse key...

    He must say "Hmmm! Look at all the chickens, ripe for the plucking"...

  181. Re:Hmm... I've an analogy for this... by hungsolo · · Score: 0

    Exactly. I was reading Texas HB 789 last night trying to figure it out, and nowhere in the text does the word citizen appear. It's always consumer.

  182. Holy f'ing christ on a crutch. by doppleganger871 · · Score: 0

    @#$%&!@*!@&&#&@!!$&@!#$!&#@$*$%)*@$%*@$&%(@$*&%,.. .

    Damnit. That's like hiring crackheads to work to bust crackwhores.

  183. Hardly astounding by gone.fishing · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    We have a Republican President and a Republican House, and a Republican Senate. They don't give a rip about things like civil rights or privacy. As long as someone can make a buck, it's allright by them. Unless of course, it costs them money.

  184. Nice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dr. Troll, paging Dr. Troll, please pick up the green courtesy phone.

    Honestly, sweetie, have you been keeping tabs on your recommended Prozac dosage?

    I'd prefer a whiny post to that of a raving maniac. There's a reality check for ya.

  185. Contact DHS, here's the URL by waynegoode · · Score: 3, Informative
    Complain to DHS about this travesty. Here is the web page that lists operator phone number, comment line phone number, address and has a web form to contact them. The email subject options don't list complaints/concerns. Maybe this fits the "Security Threat" option. The security of my privacy is being threatened.

    If all the Slashdot readers called or filled out a form, we might make a difference. Even if nothing changes, at least DHS will know people are aware of this ridiculous act.

  186. One Word by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    ACK!

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  187. What you say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having a spyware master in charge of DHA Privacy?

    That's as absurd as having a terrorist sponsoring country such as Syria on the UN Security Council!

    Oh wait a minute, that's already been done....

  188. Re:Hmm... I've an analogy for this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Um because the war on terror is not about getting terrorists but terrorizing the American people?

  189. Re:Extreme conflict of interest in the US governme by dingDaShan · · Score: 1

    Conflict of Interest: Two men, whose family and business associates and friends have extensive investments in global oil businesses, are president and vice-president of the entire U.S. government. Using dishonest means, these men convinced U.S. taxpayers to pay for killing people in Iraq. What has been accomplished there? The killing under Saddam was less than the killing under George Bush. One thing that has been accomplished, however, is that the profit from oil contracts involving Iraq has been shifted from Saddam to U.S. companies. This was accomplished while minimizing the support for U.S. troops. I don't see how that comment has anything to do with adware... A guy that worked for an internet company that used adware gets to be on a homeland security board... How is that corrupt? The guy knows a lot about the internet and internet advertising. He could definitely provide insight into more malicious forms of web advertising. Maybe people should look at both sides of an issue before accusing the current administration of various misdeeds and acts of tyranny. "These dollars don't make cents to me no more"

  190. Settle Down, Everyone... by goofyspouse · · Score: 2, Informative

    From the FA, it is made clear that this guy is just one of twenty people appointed to be on a committee.

    Hopefully it will be an opportunity for the bastard to be allowed just enough rope to hang himself. In other words, the more visible he is while being an idiot, the more people know he is an idiot.

  191. Re:Hmm... I've an analogy for this... by tigerflag · · Score: 1

    Love your sig!

  192. More URLs with contact info by waynegoode · · Score: 2, Informative
    DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties This page has phone, address & e-mail (not a web form). This might be a better place to complain.

    Contact your elected representatives

  193. Disgusted? I'm frightened! by paroneayea · · Score: 1

    Press release:
    The Department of Homeland Security Corporation has recently released new Terror Alert (tm) software, which all U.S. citizens must mandatorily install on their home computers. This software monitors a users' browsing habits to determine what type of scare tactics are best appropriate for that user.

    For the user's convenience, any browsing to terrorist-affiliated websites (like salon.com) will be reported instantly to the government, and the user will be notified that they must remain still until police arrive, cannot call the media, and have no rights under the PATRIOT act, and to have a nice day.

    Some Free Software and Open Source advocates were complaining, "Hey wait, I run GNU/Linux! This software only works for Mac and Windows!" Department of Homeland Security Co. officially responds, "Oh yeah? Go get an operating system not run by communists!"

    ----

    *bangs head against wall*
    WHY? WHY DO WE LET THESE THINGS HAPPEN TO US?

    --
    http://mediagoblin.org/
    1. Re:Disgusted? I'm frightened! by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      *bangs head against wall* WHY? WHY DO WE LET THESE THINGS HAPPEN TO US?

      I don't know, but once more I'm happy to live in Europe. This might sound like trolling, but if it wasn't for the way the USA are acting lately I'd never appreciate the EU (and the German tendency to instinctively say "no") as much as I do.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    2. Re:Disgusted? I'm frightened! by d474 · · Score: 1

      ...and remember what our honorable and fierce leader, President George W. Bush once said:
      You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists.

      Eloquent words. A diamond sparkle of wisdom...**needle drags across record** HEY!! Did that moron realize that he had just defined nearly 50% of the USA as terrorists? Less than half the country actually voted for him and so were "agaist him". No wonder his "approval" rating soared to 90% after he said that. Everyone was scared shitless that bastard would have us hog-tied and beaten silly with a fly swatter!

      --
      Authority questions you. Return the favor.
  194. Homeland Security goes Spying? by kiehlster · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Doesn't this sound more like Homeland Security trying to break into everyone's computer to spy on possible "terrorist" activities using spyware. This may sound like nice fit maybe because of the knowledge of computer vulnerabilities that Freeman knows privacy. But that's the thing -- he knows privacy, and how to get around them.

  195. Governments should avoid the appearance of COI. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1, Insightful


    In a properly run government, even the appearance of conflict of interest would be avoided.

  196. New Dictionary Needed by Lodragandraoidh · · Score: 1

    Fox, meet Hen-house...

    So we need a new dictionary:

    Privacy=Observation
    Good=Bad
    Sane=Insane

    --

    Lodragan Draoidh
    The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
  197. Evil Bastard Meets Jackass Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe the Dept. of Homeland Security should hire Osama Bin Laden to learn how to prevent another 9/11.

    Idiots.

  198. why do i work for these bastards again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wtf, man?! i guess you really do have to be a complete arse-monkey to get ahead.

  199. (OT) Firesomething by tepples · · Score: 1

    - Mozilla Junglecow

    Are you using an outdated version of official Firefox that lacks the latest security fixes, or has Firesomething been updated to work with fox 1.0?

    1. Re:(OT) Firesomething by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      From:
      http://www.cosmicat.com/extensions/firesomething/

      "Compatible with Mozilla Firefox 1.0PR."

      And it works with 1.0 as well. That reminds me, I've been meaning to hack the hell out of those lists, to make them far more amusing. I mean, animals are nice, but think of the potential for causing log-reading admins to crap/wet themselves...

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
  200. Re:Hmm... I've an analogy for this... by Darby · · Score: 1

    Where do you think we get most 'security analysts'?

    From a grad school class where they got their first real look at a computer. They were trained in some basic social engineering techniques, given a few automated root kits, put in a nice suit and sent out.

    At least that describes the ones I've seen coming into the financial institution I work at to do penetraton testing.

  201. The business of GOP is Big Business. by Tungbo · · Score: 1

    Surely it is not a shock to you that a Republican administration would favor a corporate view point by appointing corporate voice on such a panel. Such cases of appointing the fox to guard the hen house is much more common among Republican administrations. It is hardly partisan to point out that the current administration is acting consistently with its historically stated policies. If you voted for this adminstration, you should have expected to see such appointments.

  202. UN by sita · · Score: 1

    Maybe Tunisia heading the UN Human Rights Committe?

  203. OT: sig question by EvilStein · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Dude, I didn't see any ads to click on.. at least, they're not showing up in Safari. :|

    1. Re:OT: sig question by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      Yeah, fcking google cancelled my account recently. They claimed my clicks were false. AFAIK, none were. Ironic, because I've never clicked from my own IP. (I admittedly did click from work though once in a while, but it was bloody well NAT'd)

      Truth is, I might write some windows executable or a shell script something that goes and randomly clicks ads without a user knowing. Then again I'm really lazy and will probably find something better to do before I ever finish lol.

      I need to change my sig.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  204. Re:Extreme conflict of interest in the US governme by frishack · · Score: 1

    The killing under Saddam was less than the killing under George Bush.

    You sir, are an idiot; or a teen who gets his political info from MTV.

  205. Re:Hmm... I've an analogy for this... by Danny+Rathjens · · Score: 1

    "You are a true believer. Blessings of the State; blessings of the
    masses. Thou art a subject of the Divine, created in the image of
    Man, by the masses, for the masses. Let us be thankful we have
    commerce. Buy more. Buy more now. Buy. And be happy."
    -- Confession booth blessing, _THX-1138_

  206. About "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos" by Karhgath · · Score: 1

    Slightly OT.

    I don't understand if you realized, but that particular Simpsons eps was to showcase that people were stupid enough not to vote for a third candidate instead of Kodos and Kang. That line "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos" just shows that they were really stupid into thinking a vote for Kodos would have change anything.

    So, yes, you are to blame, whether you voted for republicans or democrats. Don't try to make yourself feel better because you didn't voted for Bush, but voted for the democrats.

    Had to let it out, sorry, heh.

  207. OT: Your sig by sconeu · · Score: 1

    Hope you don't mind, but I'm using your sig over on Groklaw.

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  208. What are you talking about? by 955301 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    These guys aren't liberal, they're not politicians, and nobody really knows what the majority of the population agrees with, so don't spout of as if you do.

    Notice that agreement from the majority of the voting population is not the same as the population in general. Besides that, it is far more respectful to have your own opinions and actually base them on facts, even if they have been known for a while, than to preach your blinded, pseudo-conservative, distracted, herd mentality.

    silly ac. To suggest that past events have no affect on the future...

    --
    You are checking your backups, aren't you?
    1. Re:What are you talking about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The majority that matters has well known views on the subject, since they reelected him, so I think their view is pretty obvious if you apply a modicum of intelligence and common sense, rather than blindly jump in to defend a fellow whiny-ass.

      The non-voting population really has no room to complain (or anything else really) in a democracy, unless they're being denied their right to vote. If they're not being denied their right, then their inaction is de facto acceptance of the current situation; doesnt stop them from whining constantly of course, as if whining ever did anything but piss off men (and women) of action.

    2. Re:What are you talking about? by 955301 · · Score: 1


      Having a life in the US entitles anyone in the country to complain. It's called citizenship, silly ac, and it doesn't go away if you aren't available on a single day every four years to stand in a line. Besides, the presidency and the federal government have been fabricating a need for the overbloated existence since before the civil war.

      And I hardly call standing in a line now and then action. Men of action don't speak anonymously.

      silly ac.

      --
      You are checking your backups, aren't you?
  209. Gives new meaning... by frdmfghtr · · Score: 1

    ...to the term "spyware."

    --
    Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
  210. Wow, Dejavu by Cytlid · · Score: 1

    This reminds me of the time in middle school, the girl's gym teacher was named "Mr Raper".

    --
    FLR
  211. this must be a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This can only be a joke. D. Reed Freeman was helping run an organization that violated data privacy by any standards and was involved in major bribery.

    Has our government turned from covertly to overtly corrupt? What a shame for our once truly free and democratic country!

  212. CEO President by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 2, Informative

    I wouldn't mind having any long-run successful CEO like Bill Gates become president. I do however mind having an unsuccesful CEO as the current president.

  213. DHS - Dumbass of the day by smakx · · Score: 1

    This is an official announcement that the DHS has won my highly-coveted 'Dumbass of the Day' award for 2-24-05. This distinction is usually awarded to random fellow drivers I encounter on my often death-defying commute home. If you ever get to feeling stupid, just hop in your car and drive around for a confidence booster. More on topic (moron topic?) - Awarding scum-bag adware jerks with high paying govt. jobs is not why I pay my taxes. I guess the right-wingers in charge like to surround themselves with like-thinking individuals. In any case, the award still stands - congratulations.

  214. The next thing you know ... by binaryfeed · · Score: 1

    ... Henry Kissinger will be awarded the Nobel Peace Pri ... oh, wait. :-(

  215. The Peter Principle explained by mattr · · Score: 1

    I was feeling that exhilirating whoosh of wind going through your stomach and out your back that you get when you are flying downwards in a roller coaster. Another poster said it, I miss being surprisable.

    But on the other hand now it is easy to understand why people in other countries talk about a decaying American empire.

    At first reading the thread I thought "Well, maybe if you are thieving the Bad Guys then you are a hero". Then I revised that, and imagined a post saying "The world will be saved by a keylogger built into tetris (or minesweeper, or solitaire) that you keep on the screen all the time".

    But now I think it has come full circle and I think I "get it".

    This is the government the American people asked for. The system is built so that the guy with the biggest moneybags wins the election, and when you go about as far as you can go up the slope with that metaphor, you get a demagogue like George Bush.

    (I never met him, but I just don't trust his smile, even if he is sincere sometimes and playing a ruthless game like lots of politicians. Nothing against republicans or even rich guys, or Bush personally, he's very successful in terms of surviving and winning evolutionarily speaking, but it just seems like a bad example.)

    Flash back to 2003, when the "Signs of the Times" were clear.

    You see, with Bush at the top and people he likes set up around him, with "team players" rewarded regardless of merit, this general nudge-nudge wink-wink cronyism idea must percolate down the ranks progressively. Their staff hires people according to the same concept. You can read more:

    "This is Bush's America, the Peter Principle writ large: not so much an avoidance as a hatred of competence -- a culture and a national economy of meritopathy..." quoted from skimble in 2003. Search google for "Peter Principle" and "cronyism".

    I think this is where the tire hits the road, so to speak, and anyone who cares about reality is roadkill. The reality seems to be that there is no defense against funded jihadists or bioweapons, and the purpose of gaining power is to make tons of money and dish out tasty PR. This is the government the American people wanted.

    The voting majority currently is a bit more numerous than those who think like typical slashdot posters. Whether they have been fooled, fooled themselves, just love the best looking smile, or honestly think they need a guy who goes for the jugular regardless of what it may cost (I think this last one is a biggie in post-9/11), this is how the dice fell and the system has been well engineered to be frictionless for whomever is currently in power.

    I'm not sure it will be easy to fix although conceivably this could be a cyclic thing, but it is just as likely that the buck will stop here, Asian economies will stop buying U.S. debt, China and India will get richer, and the general U.S. populace will wait like mute cows to be fed more pap whether it is by the corporate media machine directed by their own elected representatives or the one purchased by those to whom they sold out. I keep imagining good old American can-do will win out when nanotech really takes off but you know what? Other countries learn real fast and the only thing going for the U.S. is a relatively good-sized population.. more Nobel laureates and Olympic medals that way. But my stomach is telling me the roller coaster is still accelerating.

  216. Democrats are MPAA-friendly as well by tepples · · Score: 1

    But (assuming the election weren't rigged), the American people voted this administration into power again.

    Do you claim that Kerry wouldn't have done the same thing? Fritz Hollings, the Senator from Disney, is a Democrat, and President Clinton's administration is said to have written the DMCA that the 105th Congress passed.

    Or are you talking about a third party? When was the last non-Republican non-Democrat elected as POTUS?

  217. Re:Extreme conflict of interest in the US governme by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 1

    ...The killing under Saddam was less than the killing under George Bush...

    You are kidding right? Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of his own people, and tens of thousands from neighboring countries.

    Get your facts straight.

    --
    So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
  218. Re:Extreme conflict of interest in the US governme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't see how adware and internet advertising has any relation to homeland security. Care to expound on this?

  219. Re:Hmm... I've an analogy for this... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

    But "bad" customers can be dropped - and some markets considered "not worth servicing".

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  220. In response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot users collectively shit a brick.

  221. what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pickpockets are trying to make a buck too. So that justifies my smashing store windows and taking whatever I want.

  222. Yes! Incompetence ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > How did she get that job with the Democrats
    > and then survive the Republican takeover
    >

    It's called incompetence. It's the specialty of all U.S. government bureaucrats, and it reigns supreme.

  223. Um... by arodland · · Score: 1
    <gottfried type="gilbert">WHAT THE FUCK!</gottfried>
  224. Re:Extreme conflict of interest in the US governme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe not under George Bush Jr, but if you include both Senior and Junior, you will get pretty close.

    Remember to include the number of Iraqi soldiers and civilians that died in the first and second wars, and the people who died as a result of the sanctions instituted under George Senior. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed in the first Gulf war alone.

  225. Re:Dude! HST isn't funny yet! by altek · · Score: 1

    I really don't believe that the author of that post intended humor...

    I'd say something more along the lines of dry cynicism.

    RIP Hunter...

    --
    THE MAGIC WORDS ARE SQUEAMISH OSSIFRAGE
  226. Suprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Saddam's Iraq and Lybia can serve on the UN's human right committiees this is news worthy because??

  227. This just in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps language is becoming a weapon...

    Language has ALWAYS been a weapon, at least for those that know how to wield it effectively.

  228. Already at 5. Wish it went to 6. by sulli · · Score: 1

    Best comment EVAR.

    --

    sulli
    RTFJ.
  229. Registration is for cheapskates by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

    So they make an income from the registration details they take? By selling them on to marketers, one assumes. I'm afraid that like the GP, I'm no fan of spam-for-content as a business model.

    Then don't register.
    I just paid my $30 or whatever it was and never see any ads or get any spam. I figured it was worth it, since it's less than a dime a day or so, and I don't simply expect everybody to work for free.

  230. Re:Hmm... I've an analogy for this... by iminplaya · · Score: 1

    I think this might apply here also.

    --
    What?
  231. Obligatory 1984 Reference by MonkeyGone2Heaven · · Score: 1


    Referring to torture and the Attorney General
    in the same sentence is double-plus ungood.

  232. It's a [admiration society] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "What about thieves? They're pretty much the same; are we going to admire trespassers and looters? "

    Why not? We admire digital pirates.

  233. THINK ABOUT IT by shpoffo · · Score: 1

    His appoointment could easily be more along the line sof CIA/Microsoft collaboration. Consider the position of a company that supports software piracy; who si going to use it? "Criminals"!! If you have an interest in tracking criminal-types, including potential dissidents & terrorist then, gee, do you think they're going to cough up bucks to buy their software from the commercial vendor? No - they're going to download it via a P2P or other sharing network. Regardless of whether you can think of reasons why a 'criminal' wouldn't - the above line of logic is still quite reasonable from the game-theoretical perspective.

    I'll punctuate it by sharing that 'terrorists' have already used various forms of spam to communicate. If one controls the biggest spyware house then it may be akin to owning the land that foxholes are built in.

    ....or I'm reading ahead of the time, and he's just been appointed as a Black-hat.

    But to say it again - one can control the illegal trafficking venues by becoming the "Master Criminal." The CIA did this with heroin / cocaine in the earlier half of the 20th century just as the British did it with tobacco.

    Really - it's not even a quiet pattern.

    .
    -shpoffo

  234. Holy brown shorts! by cmdrwhitewolf · · Score: 1

    Man, with Mr. Freeman on the Department of Homeland Security's docket, simply disappearing back to MEATSPACE just became a *whole lot* more appealing...

    --
    [Now, I'm off to lift my le... Um, visit... at another place.]
  235. Re:Extreme conflict of interest in the US governme by soupdevil · · Score: 1

    That's not a fair comparison. Sadaam had decades of rule. Bush is doing his best to catch up, but he has only had five years.

  236. From my ACLU card . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whitehouse switchboard: 202 456 1414
    U.S. Senate: 202 224 3121
    U.S. House of Representatives: 202 225 3121

  237. Not evil? by SteveXE · · Score: 1

    We can only hope this guy isnt TRULY evil, since before he was being paid to spy, and now he's being paid to find ways to stop spies? The problem is, once a corporate guy always a corporate guy, always looking for the next buck.

  238. Mod Parent by acidrain69 · · Score: 1

    Mod Parent -1, Bush apologist who can't respond to valid facts.

    --
    -- Having a Creationist Museum is like having an Atheist place of worship
  239. Cronyism by minion · · Score: 1

    "D. Reed Freeman, the "Chief Privacy Officer" of Claria Networks (formerly Gator), the creators of the pervasive spyware package GAIN, has been appointed to the Department of Homeland Security's "Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee"."

    Ahh, good ole' Cronyism. You sure wouldn't want to appoint someone with a legimate, moral background to a government agency.

    --

    -- If we don't stand up for our rights, now, there will be no right to stand up for them later.
  240. Re:Bush's father: Business relationship w. bL fami by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sorry, were you trying to quote the other AC with additional statements attributed to him that he didn't make? Or are you just too retarded to use an html tag properly?

  241. Spyware delivered by windowsupdate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let them. Let them do it. It may be the spark needed to push linux developers into makeing something the AOL zombies can use. If you think that's a good thing, you might as well encourge them to do it. There is a principle element that must not be overlooked. Hackers. Hackers will always win. Pass whatever law you like, Rule 1 is "The Hackers will always win." Rule 2 in case you wondered is, "People will always do what they want to with computers." Surge's Rules

  242. Where did this Freeman come from? by alphabet26 · · Score: 1

    (Pan into Claria's Vice President D. Reed Freeman office. He's sitting at his desk putting the finishing touches on Gator II, and looks at his watch.)
    Boy it's late, look at the ...
    (In a flash G-man from HL2 shows up in front of him and everything freezes.)
    Time, Mr. Freeman? Is it really that time again? It seems as if you only just arrived. You've done a great deal in a small time span. You've done so well, in fact, that I've received some interesting offers for your services.
    Ordinarily, I wouldn't contemplate them... but these *are* extraordinary times.
    Rather than offer you the illusion of free choice, I will take the liberty of choosing for you... if and when your time comes round again. I do apologize for what must seem to you an arbitrary imposition, Mr. Freeman. I trust it will all make sense to you in the course of... well... I'm really not at liberty to say. In the meantime... this is where I get off.
    (They both disappear, and are teleported to Homeland Security headquarters.)

    Geez, how disturbing is that?

    --
    -AlPhAbEt
  243. You are joking right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't forget that Diebold ATMs are the ones that caught the Welchia/Nachi worm. I wish I didn't have to trust them, but my bank uses them, and it's not like I have my choice of ATM manufacturers with other banks.

  244. Did you vote for bush? WHo the heck voted bush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have not meet anyone yet who has voted for bush? now this leeds me to the big question how the heck he win twice?

  245. Is it just me... by Ravenscall · · Score: 1

    Or is this akin to appointing Osama Bin Laden as Secretary of Homeland Security?

    --
    You say you want a revolution....
  246. a FACA committee is not a part of the DHS by Flyin'+Low · · Score: 1

    I'm not in any way defending this guy's viewpoints or the spyware he's created, which is one of the most heinous bastardizations of free enterprise I've ever met. Nor am I defending Bush or the Motherland Defense Dept. But - this guy is _not_ in DHS. As the salon article's link to dhs.gov states, he's been chosen to be on a "Federal Advisory Comittee." This is a specific type of group, that when chartered by a Fed. agency, is required to have folks representing all possible stakeholders, and has all sorts of open testimony, rotating membership, and other sorts of rules (see http://www.redlodgeclearinghouse.org/legislation/f aca2.html). He is just one of many voices (others are from IBM, academia, etc.) that will report the "public's" point of view on certain issues that will be specified in their charter. So... it sucks that they picked *him* from 129 applicants, but it would suck more if they didn't (pretend to) listen to the public/businesses at all. PS... what's happening to me!? I've only been in DC for 3 months!

  247. or making Roland Piquepaille a Slashdot Editor... by Rastan_B2 · · Score: 0, Troll

    or making Roland Piquepaille a Slashdot Editor...

  248. There is another way to take action by teneighty · · Score: 1

    You're forgetting one other thing that is powerful enough to force a government to change its decision against their will:

    The media.

    This is an awesome story for the mainstream media. It's one of the most incredibly stupid political decisions this administration has made (and it's sure made a few). How can we get this story into The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and the like, replete with all the irony of this situation? This story could seriously undermind the administration's credibility and cause people to take a much harder look at the people being appointed.

  249. Re:Hmm... I've an analogy for this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know, it makes me wonder what purpose consumers actually serve, then?

    If all consumers do is funnel their money to big business, why are they needed? They generally work for big business and get their money from big business. Wouldn't it be a lot more efficient if big business just kept all their money and distributed consumables directly? Then they could roll in all their money instead of loaning it out for two week intervals.

  250. Re:talk about oxymoron Finnish It, Dammit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We will ALWAYS BE at war ....

  251. Apparently... by Ogman · · Score: 1

    ...his integrity was misunderestimated.

    --
    But Officer, I DID read the f**king article!
  252. There will be Karma.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're right, the voting public put their seal of approval on the incompetent bastards. There will however, be payback a.k.a. karma. When the US economy is destroyed, you'll suddenly find out that NO ONE voted for Bush. Just like when Nixon left office.

    The Rebublican version of economics is like living off credit cards and assuming you never pay them off. The debt load will not support a working economy and a whole lot of people are going to be unemployed/under-employed with no health care, no law enforcement, fire fighters or public services. Just look at what gets cut in the Bush budget and see if I'm right.

    The only question is who will they blame. Do you think that it will work to try pin it on Clinton and the Democrats? Remember, the public has the memory retention of a goldfish. At some level I must admit I'm looking forward to the crows comming home to roost, except that those of us who oppose Bush and all he stands for will still get screwed like everyone else.

  253. I filed a FOIA request today by Lovejoy · · Score: 1

    to get to the bottom of how this happened.

    http://blogs.oc.edu/ee/index.php?/dlovejoy/a_bee _i n_my_bonn/

  254. Jesus Christ by psyph3r · · Score: 1

    That's it....I am moving to Canada. If anymore of the GOP's corporate whores get any more positions, this country might start "downsizing" its population because the country isn't making a profit. The first to go is all the people in the 0 to 10% tax bracket, and since they only think short term, they won't realize that their rich asses don't pay taxes and the US will go bankrupt. Either that or it will be "merged" and disassembled into some kind of Slavic tiny nation region from hell.
    However, I don't think it has anything to do with the country making a profit....mostly just the administration. But hey! At least they can't blame the national debt on piracy :D.

    We will continue down the drain as long as bush runs this country like a hostile corporation going down in flames, attacking anything that might go against it (SCO)

    1. Re:Jesus Christ by psyph3r · · Score: 1

      sarcasm was dripping from that post if you didn't notice...

  255. You think you got problems now? by milette · · Score: 1

    If you think you have problems now -- just imagine if that mole is able to tap into the database Homeland Security has... Talk about getting the fox to run the chicken coop.

    Spam will be the least of your worries when every advertiser with the money to buy it has access to data about you that you may not even know about yourself.

    Of course, the US government would > do anything like that (would they)?

    I'll try to remember that the next time I'm visiting the USA and need to provide fingerprints, retina scan and details about my personal life -- just for the pleasure of doing some shopping south of the border... ;)

  256. Most citizens of the U.S. don't understand... by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1


    Most citizens of the U.S. don't understand the violence of their government.

    If you consider the history of the 24 wars since WW2 the U.S. has started, all of them have resulted in destabilization of the target countries. That destabilization has resulted in more deaths than the U.S. government killed directly.

    The U.S. government has killed directly perhaps 3,000,000 people since the beginning of the Vietnam war. However, an informed person comes to the conclusion that the total number of deaths as a result of U.S. government action is perhaps 11,000,000.

    The U.S. government is talking about the "end" of its war, but there will be a lot more killing in the next 2 decades that has its root in what is happening now.

    1. Re:Most citizens of the U.S. don't understand... by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 1

      And how is that relevant? The Original post(er) made the blisterinlgy stupid comment that the US had killed more Iraqis than Saddamn Hussain did, which is patently bullshit.

      --
      So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
  257. Re:Extreme conflict of interest in the US governme by teslafreak · · Score: 1

    Offtopic, big time. Infact, it's a shame there isn't a moderation button for "blast clean off the face of the internet". I could leap into a big spill about how wrong you are, and how skewed your information is, but i think the facts quite well speak for themselves, you should look at them sometime.

  258. Let me guess your position: by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1


    Let me guess your position: 1) You are right. 2) But you didn't read any of the 35 books listed in the linked article because you don't need to, you are right. 3) The corruption of hiring someone known to be willing to do things adversarial to the common good has no connection with the corruption of two people with oil interests starting a war in which the major thing accomplished is to shift oil profits from people inside Iraq to people inside the United States.

    1. Re:Let me guess your position: by teslafreak · · Score: 1

      1) Yes I am. 2) No I didn't, I prefer to get my information from multiple sources so that I may reason out what is is actual information, and what is merely the writer's "slant" on things. This can be done more efficiently through T.V. and the internet. 3) Linking a person known to be adversarial, with another person as such, although somewhat on topic, is a stretch. Especially consider that you use, as said before, baseless information. Contrary to what many believe, the war isn't about oil. I would support an attack there if we didn't even get oil from there. We are doing people a favor, most of them know, and acknowledge that, and that is fact, there is video documentation of that. Sad you don't know it.

    2. Re:Let me guess your position: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. No, you're an opinionated Jingoist.
      2. You are one of many who doesn't bother to check the facts that might conflict with your opinions. Much like the morons that send emails stating Target is a French owned company or the Koran predicts the WTC disaster on 9/11.
      3. That very link is why we imprison people in Cuba. Contrary to what you have been misinformed of and Jingoisticly regurgitate, the war in Iraq has nothing to do with Freedom. It does, indeed concentrate on the oil intrests of the Middle East, but also, is concentric to the Israeli interests. (You were aware that that Ariel Shoron is a mass murderer, he makes Saddam look like a Pacifist.) Time for you to do some research or continue to be a moron.

  259. IRV is okay, Approval is better by frankie · · Score: 1

    I hate the way that IRV advocates like to say there should be more than two choices in the voting booth, yet they are only willing to consider two choices for voting systems.

    Yes, IRV is slightly better than Plurality. But if you're going to bother with complex ranked ballots, you may as well go whole hog with Condorcet. IMO, Approval Voting beats IRV by a wide margin and is several-fold simpler to implement.

  260. Look at the number per year. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1


    What needs to be measured now is not the number of Iraqis killed, but the average number per year. The U.S. is well on its way to beating Saddam in the long run. Remember, every war causes destabilization that last sometimes a hundred years or more.

    Remember that the U.S. government does not keep information about how many people it has killed.

    1. Re:Look at the number per year. by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 1

      In that case, Europe has a LOT to answer for. If you are looking at the overall total, the US is a Johnny-come-lately to the game of global genocide.

      And your point *still* isn't valid, you can't hold the present administration (or kings/queens of other countries) accountable for the deeds of past ones.

      Shall we hold Bush accountable for what Carter did? SHall we hold Italy accountable for what Rome did during the Crusades?

      Nonsense.

      --
      So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.