Broadcast Flag Sneaking in the Back Door

Obviously... by demongeek · 2006-06-21 08:48 · Score: 5, Funny

Aside from the fact that it has no business being in that bill

Obviously you must be new here...

Re:Obviously... by IAmTheDave · 2006-06-21 09:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

Obviously you must be new here...

Because I'm not - and I hope no one else is - surprised in the least. I'm actually surprised it's attached to a telecommunications bill at all. I expected that the oft-defeated broadcast flag would be snuck through in a farm bill, or a bill that feeds homeless children (you wouldn't vote against a bill that feeds homeless children!!)

Washington sucks. Once an idea is shot down, it shouldn't be legal to attach it to another bill. Why did line-item veto's fail again?

--
Excuse my speling.
Making The Bar Project
Re:Obviously... by DigitalRaptor · 2006-06-21 10:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

Nothing should be attached to any bill. Every issue should have to stand on it's own merits.

And there should be a law that any time a new bill is passed, 2 old bills / laws have to be removed. That way government is ever-shrinking instead of ever-growing.

Washington sucks big time...

--
Lose Weight and Feel Great with Isagenix
Re:Obviously... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-06-21 10:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why did line-item veto's fail again?

Because in a "Feeding Homeless Children Act," the broadcast flag provision wouldn't be the line veto'd.
Re:Obviously... by Cadallin · 2006-06-21 10:37 · Score: 4, Interesting

That second part is really kind of silly, better would be if all legislation had to have a Constitutionally mandated and specified sunset clause. Then all legislation would be like the federal budget, having to be periodically checked over. If it was 6 years or something similar (same as senatorial terms). Also it would help to remove cruft from the law books. On the other hand, it does make certain things rather volatile, but that might actually be a good thing.
Re:Obviously... by pla · 2006-06-21 10:38 · Score: 1

Because in a "Feeding Homeless Children Act," the broadcast flag provision wouldn't be the line veto'd.

Plus-fucking-five insightful!

Don't hide behind AC for comments like that, take the credit you deserve!
Re:Obviously... by patternmatch · 2006-06-21 10:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

Why did line-item veto's fail again?

I think it was because it would give the executive branch too much power. Not a bad reason, actually...although it would be nice to have a line-item veto that could only be used if the item being line-vetoed was demonstrably unrelated to the legislation.
Re:Obviously... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-06-21 10:49 · Score: 2, Informative

Line-item Veto, from wikipedia:
The President of the United States was briefly granted this power by the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, passed by Congress in order to control "pork barrel spending" that favors a particular region rather than the nation as a whole. The line-item veto was used 11 times to strike 82 items from the federal budget by President Bill Clinton.
However, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas F. Hogan decided on February 12, 1998 that unilateral amendment or repeal of only parts of statutes violated the U.S. Constitution. This ruling was subsequently affirmed on June 25, 1998 by a 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Clinton v. City of New York.
Re:Obviously... by mOdQuArK! · 2006-06-21 10:56 · Score: 3, Interesting

And there should be a law that any time a new bill is passed, 2 old bills / laws have to be removed.

I think I mentioned this idea in another thread, but _my_ daydream proposal is to limit the total # of words in all valid laws to some maximum number N (where hopefully N is something reasonably small). When a legislator proposes a change to the laws (either by adding new ones or amending existing ones), the change would have to result in the total # of words fitting under the limit, otherwise the change will be rejected.

You'll also have to fit all of the agency regulations under the limit (otherwise the legislators would just shift all the verbiage into the various agency regulations.)
Re:Obviously... by Kadin2048 · 2006-06-21 10:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

Well what would be better was if the Constitution just specified that all legislation on a bill had to contribute to a single core purpose, and that the purpose couldn't be overly vague (to keep the purpose of every bill from being "Making the United States a Better Place"). That way the Supreme Court would have the ability to just delete anything that got attached to a bill that it wasn't supposed to have been attached to. It wouldn't solve the problem altogether (and might make it worse -- politicians would just take lots of crap on and let the courts figure it out), but it wouldn't hand that much extra power to the Executive.

I guess at the end of the day it just depends: would you rather give more power to the President or to the Justices? Historically, the latter seems to have made a lot less total boners, but that doesn't mean they will continue to do so.

I also think that the USSC should have automatic review of all new laws passed, without having to wait for a challenge case, but that's a separate issue.

--
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Re:Obviously... by R3d+M3rcury · 2006-06-21 11:14 · Score: 5, Informative

Why did line-item veto's fail again?
Well, it's actually a pretty funny story.

Remember, the line-item veto was part of the Republican "Contract with America" back in '94, I think. It was going to control spending by giving the Executive branch some control over congressional spending. Personally, I thought this was funny. It was essentially the Republicans playing the pitiful role of the serial killer pleading with the cops to make him stop. "Please! Stop us before we spend again!"

It passed easily, once Republicans had control of the House and Senate. It was signed into law by President Clinton. However, the first time he used it, the Republicans whose spending additions got dinged immediately ran to the Supreme Court to petition that the line-item veto--that they voted for--was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court agreed and struck it down.

This is why I laughed when President Bush mentioned the line-item veto recently, since it was his party that brought it up initially, passed it into law, and had it struck down.
Re:Obviously... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-06-21 11:44 · Score: 0

This educational moment brought to you by politicians...scum-sucking retards since before you were born.
Re:Obviously... by Crazyscottie · 2006-06-21 11:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

And there should be a law that any time a new bill is passed, 2 old bills / laws have to be removed. I love this idea, but I think it would take a long time to have any noticeable effect. The only change would be the lack of publication of those "silly laws" books (e.g. a law that prohibits tying an alligator to a fire hydrant).

--
Just because it can't be explained doesn't mean it isn't true. Science fits into reality... not the other way around.
Re:Obviously... by trickonion · 2006-06-21 11:46 · Score: 5, Interesting

Okay, here is something like this in action. I live in WA state, and I love to read constitutions (yes yes my state is the one that make online poker illegal, regardless).
Refer to our constitution here, specifically section 19
http://www.courts.wa.gov/education/constitution/in dex.cfm?fa=education_constitution.display&displayi d=Article-02

SECTION 19 BILL TO CONTAIN ONE SUBJECT. No bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.

that's the good shit maynard, some congressman with some balls needs to make that Amendment 28 (after pinning some stupid shit to the proposed amendment, cause Washington appretiates irony)

--
I got you an Andes mint, but it melted in my pocket
Re:Obviously... by arborlaw · 2006-06-21 12:03 · Score: 1

Washington sucks. Once an idea is shot down, it shouldn't be legal to attach it to another bill.
Well, an "idea" is not a bill. There are many ways to implement an idea in legislation: some of which scratch certain backs, and some of which scratch others. Nice idea though!

--
a r b o r l a w -- legal blog for entrepreneurs and small business
Re:Obviously... by guywcole · 2006-06-21 12:14 · Score: 4, Funny

Ok.
Re:Obviously... by Lord+Kano · 2006-06-21 13:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

Washington sucks. Once an idea is shot down, it shouldn't be legal to attach it to another bill. Why did line-item veto's fail again?

It was an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers. It gave the president too much power. It made it too easy to craft obfuscated legislation.

Lets say that a bill provided 100 billion dollars of funding to be distributed as following.

80 Billion dollars to middle school education.
19.9 Billion dollars to Medicare supplements.
and "The remaining balance to weapons development"

It would seem that weapons development would get 100 Million dollars.

If a president line item vetos the first item, the "Remaining ballance" becomes 80.1 Billion dollars. Line item veto was a BAD idea and it should have been stricken down.

LK

--
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Re:Obviously... by Thing+1 · 2006-06-21 14:12 · Score: 1, Offtopic

OT: I've watched "at the end of the day" rise from somewhat silly to a Power Statement(TM) in about a year and a half. Perhaps two years.

I still think it's silly: at the end of the day, you're a dollar richer. At the end of the day, you're fucking tired and probably drunk. At the end of the day, tomorrow's still a day away. At the end of the day, it's too dark to see. At the end of the day, you're in bed (hopefully not alone).

It has replaced "the bottom line" which doesn't make sense: when has accounting gone out of style to upper management?

Perhaps it's just bundas that have gone out of style? Americans are enamored of tits anyway, so perhaps it's just a different way of continuing the metaphor "we're all gonna get laid!"?

And that brings me nicely back on topic: sneaking in the back door must be what went out of style. For everyone except politicians, that is.

--
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Re:Obviously... by Nimey · 2006-06-21 15:34 · Score: 1

An alternate explanation is that with the LI-veto, a president can grief a congressweasel he doesn't like--vetoing whatever bits of a bill that the 'weasel sponsored, and so on.

I, for one, don't want Fuckwad to have any more power than he's already illegally grabbed.

--
Hail Eris, full of mischief...

E pluribus sanguinem
Re:Obviously... by AnyoneEB · 2006-06-21 16:24 · Score: 3, Informative

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

The Congress need not have anything to do with a new amendment. In fact, if the amendment is going to restrict the power of the Congress, then it is ridiculous to expect them to propose it. If you want it to happen, then talk to your state legislature. It is a lot easier to get heard by a more local representative anyway. Good luck, you will need it.

--
Centralization breaks the internet.
Re:Obviously... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-06-21 17:05 · Score: 1, Interesting

What I think would be better is a Constitutional requirement that a bill outline its intended effects and if those effects are not achieved (or significant progress made) by a certain deadline, the law is automatically repealed. Just for fun you might throw in the requirement that concerns of those opposed to the bill be added with a promise that X, Y, and Z will not happen as a result of the bill. If X, Y, or Z does happen the law is automatically repealed. You specify that a non-partisan analysis of the bill's effects shall be conducted by an agency like the GAO or CBO at least every two years, and if it is not performing as promised ... yep, repeal.
Re:Obviously... by isorox · 2006-06-21 21:14 · Score: 1

better would be if all legislation had to have a Constitutionally mandated and specified sunset clause.

Then lawmakers would spend all their time arguing and renewing things like murder, carjacking etc. Every time murder comes up for renewal there would be the same arguments over abortion and euthanasia, not to mention dozey woman plowing into busstop doing makeup at 75mph in her SUV
Re:Obviously... by Firehed · 2006-06-21 21:24 · Score: 1

The whole reason we vetoed the line-veto is so we could keep pulling shit like this. Any idiot in politics can say "oops! I guess I should have read the whole thing first" and get away with it, it's a bit harder to escape the fact that you voted outright for something that your entire voting populace hated.
I'd vote against a bill that fed the homeless children if it had something irrelavent attached, whether or not I agree with it. Anyways, nobody Cares about The Children anymore, it's all about Stopping The Terrorists. Of course, we shouldn't be able to tack a law onto a spending act, regardless of how the two are or are not related.
What happened to those campaign contribution limits, anyways? Stop the corruption before it starts. Hell, just stop campaigning entirely - just stick a little pamphlet in the voting booth that says what each candidate's stance is on various issues. You know... lose the popularity contest that political races are today, and make it about values like I'm sure it must have been at some point in the long-forgotten past.

--
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
Re:Obviously... by takeya · 2006-06-21 23:41 · Score: 1

Exactly why the president AND the supreme court need line-item veto power. One ruling could set a precedent that the content of a bill, including line items, must reflect the original intent of the bill.

Frankly, I'd prefer all of congress die painful deaths, with a few exceptions.
Re:Obviously... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-06-22 01:26 · Score: 0

Don't confuse federal laws with state and local laws.
Re:Obviously... by Hatta · 2006-06-22 02:01 · Score: 1

I expected that the oft-defeated broadcast flag would be snuck through in a farm bill, or a bill that feeds homeless children (you wouldn't vote against a bill that feeds homeless children!!)

This is a republican government, of course they would. The appropriate place for this provision is attached to a war appropriations bill.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Obviously... by Gr8Apes · 2006-06-22 02:12 · Score: 1

Why did line-item veto's fail again?

And with this administration sponsoring this clause, how would a line item veto help?

--
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Re:Obviously... by Hatta · 2006-06-22 02:14 · Score: 2

Nothing should be attached to any bill. Every issue should have to stand on it's own merits.

That's a little hard to enforce, how do you define a single issue?

And there should be a law that any time a new bill is passed, 2 old bills / laws have to be removed. That way government is ever-shrinking instead of ever-growing.

A nice idea, but a little hard to implement in practice. A good way to ensure (1) that there's a reasonable number of laws AND (2) that nothing sneaks in that shouldn't, is to require that each and every congress person read and understand each and every bill that gets voted on.

If you're not reading and understanding the bill, you have no business voting on it. If you have no business voting on bills, you have no business being in congress. So lets have a pop quiz before every vote. Congresspeople who fail too many or don't show up get kicked out on their ass and their state has to send someone who cares enough to serve the public.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Obviously... by KDR_11k · 2006-06-22 02:15 · Score: 1

A statement of intention would be great, especially if judges were allowed/forced to take them into account when interpreting laws so no law would be used for something it wasn't meant for (remember the DMCA abuse?). OTOH they'd probably get marketers or lawyers to write those and the result would be useless to everyone.

--
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Re:Obviously... by Macthorpe · 2006-06-22 02:47 · Score: 1

Because there's nothing confusing about having 3 different sets of laws at all.

--
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
Re:Obviously... by Garrett+Fox · 2006-06-23 02:49 · Score: 1

The Republicans passed it after the 1994 election victory, but the Supreme Court shot it down.

The Pennsylvania Constitution has a sensible rule (Art. III, Sec. 3): No bill shall be passed containing more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title, except a general appropriation bill or a bill codifying or compiling the law or a part thereof.

Then again, it also says only those who believe in God have a guaranteed right to hold public office.

If we had a federal equivalent of PA III.3, Congress would still put all kinds of stuff into spending bills and budgets, but it would at least limit Congress' ability to do so with a Feeding the Homeless Children Bill.

--
Revive the Constitution.
Re:Obviously... by dfries · 2006-06-25 08:26 · Score: 1

How bad would the Digital Millennium Copyright Act become if the media companies knew it was mandated to be upgraded every few years?

Heh... by nbannerman · 2006-06-21 08:50 · Score: 2, Funny

Nothing to see here. Please move along.

Slightly prophetic of slashdot, given the article!

According to this article... by GonzoTech · 2006-06-21 08:51 · Score: 5, Funny

... As DC Circuit Judge pointed out at oral argument, the broadcast flag regulation would give the FCC the authority to regulate washing machines, if they were connected to a home network.

So I won't have to do laundry anymore? Why is this a bad thing?

I'm all about pushing this bill through now!

--
"Snatching defeat from the mouth of victory on a daily basis."

Re:According to this article... by stratjakt · 2006-06-21 09:02 · Score: 5, Funny

You're unduly optimistic. They would mandate laundry, and if the far-lefties got in charge, they'd mandate that we all do China's laundry in a poorly thought out effort to reverse past stereotypes.

--
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Re:According to this article... by GonzoTech · 2006-06-21 09:08 · Score: 5, Funny

I'm very optimistic. Laundry would be mandated, yes.. but, once the liberals get us to the point of doing China's laundry, the conservatives will outsource it to India. Now that my friend, is optimism! I can see it now: India, home of the home network controlled laundr-o-mats!

--
"Snatching defeat from the mouth of victory on a daily basis."
Re:According to this article... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-06-21 09:08 · Score: 0

and if the far-lefties got in charge,
What do you have against left handed people?
Re:According to this article... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-06-21 09:11 · Score: 0

You mean the Federal Communications Commission gets to regulate things that communicate? Say it ain't so!

Seriously, no shit the FCC would be able to regulate washing machines assuming that washing machine COMMUNICATED with other stuff on a network. Yes, if your washing machine communicates via a network, the FCC would be able to regulate it.
Re:According to this article... by stratjakt · 2006-06-21 09:19 · Score: 2, Funny

They are inherently evil, the word sinister is even derived from "sinistra", meaning left-handed.

--
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Re:According to this article... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-06-21 09:42 · Score: 0

Since you appear to be all in favor of the concept, how about if the FCC regulates the machines on your network, and leaves mine the hell alone?
Re:According to this article... by The+Angry+Mick · 2006-06-21 09:56 · Score: 1

You're unduly optimistic. They would mandate laundry, and if the far-lefties got in charge, they'd mandate that we all do China's laundry in a poorly thought out effort to reverse past stereotypes.

Ah, yes, but if the far-righties stay in charge, they'll soon mandate that we do corporate America's laundry . . .

--
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
Re:According to this article... by cuantar · 2006-06-21 10:24 · Score: 1

No, they'd mandate that women do corporate America's laundry. Oh, and blacks, hispanics, and non-Christians have to do their laundry by hand. Wearing day-old clothes will subsequently be made illegal under some churchy morality law.

--
Legalize it.
Re:According to this article... by EvanED · 2006-06-21 10:29 · Score: 2, Informative

Oh really? Which of the following powers allows the FCC to regulate my washing machine's communication?

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings

Because that's all the congress (theoretically) has power to do...
Re:According to this article... by Nimey · 2006-06-21 15:43 · Score: 1

The FCC is part of the executive branch. Your point stands, however.

My guess is that they'd sneak it in as regulating interstate commerce, like they've done so many other things.

--
Hail Eris, full of mischief...

E pluribus sanguinem
Re:According to this article... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-06-21 20:34 · Score: 0

With our trade deficit to China, our kids will be doing their laundry just to pay off their parents' debt.

doesn't feel like it by yagu · 2006-06-21 08:51 · Score: 4, Funny

Doesn't feel like it's going in the back door.

-Ben Dover

No, all seriousness aside, I see this eventually being a great bill for me as I would soon be able to divest myself of all of my technical artifacts and once again be a free human being. I can eBay my tivo (maybe), my comcast box, get rid of all of my mp3 players.

I once again spend time bike riding; canoeing; horse-back riding; picnicking; sightseeing; hiking; (starting to sound like a Tampax commercial, isn't it?)... all things I used to do in bulk and before I turned into a skinny pasty-skinned freak in front of my computer all day long.

God Bless you Senator Stevens!

Re:doesn't feel like it by voice_of_all_reason · 2006-06-21 09:12 · Score: 1, Interesting

Or assuming we don't pass a law like Japan making the sale of used electronics illegal after X years, simply keep your device as-is!. Unless you're technologically inclined/motivated enough to find backdoors.
Re:doesn't feel like it by misleb · 2006-06-21 09:19 · Score: 1

Wow, you actually *turned into* a pasty-skinned freak in front of your computer all day long? I though we were all born that way.

-matthew

--
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
Re:doesn't feel like it by Karl+J.+Smith · 2006-06-21 09:19 · Score: 5, Interesting

You may be kidding. I'm not. I've got lots of (legally purchased) games, movies, cds, etc. I looked at all the money I could be spending on a new HDTV, PS3, Blue-Ray, HD-DVD player, etc. They're all more hassle (due to DRM, crippled HDMI outputs, not-working-on-Linux, etc.) than fun for me at this point. After the Sony CD rootkit fiasco, I stopped buying Sony products. Even people I know with new Macs (that they like) are starting to complain that they're on machine #4 of 5 for their iTunes limit, and it seems like they didn't really buy any songs after all.

My solution: I bought a skin-on-aluminum frame folding kayak instead. Geek factor - high. DRM factor -low. No monthly upgrades to keep track of. I can do anything I want to modify it without any silly broadcast flags. All fun.

Congratulations media companies - you declared war on your paying customers and I surrendered. I won't buy your products any more, I'll do something else instead.
Re:doesn't feel like it by StikyPad · 2006-06-21 09:26 · Score: 4, Funny

That's just because Mike Cox is so small.

--
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Re:doesn't feel like it by StikyPad · 2006-06-21 09:32 · Score: 5, Funny

And let that be a lesson to everyone to make sure you've checked the Post Anonymously box before you click submit.

--
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Re:doesn't feel like it by liak12345 · 2006-06-21 09:32 · Score: 0

Yes, you can ebay it... assuming you're allowed property rights on the technology you own and are not just licensing it with a non-transferrable contract.
Re:doesn't feel like it by Anonymous Coward · 2006-06-21 10:29 · Score: 0

I made the same mistake about 10 minutes ago. ;)
Re:doesn't feel like it by Anonymous Coward · 2006-06-21 10:45 · Score: 0

Me too.
There were a couple of games that I really would like to buy, but I didn't because they were protected with Starforce. The copy protection program that rendered my CD-Rom burner useless so I bought a new one that could play/burn DVDs(yes i know I am behind, after playing with laserdics, I lost interest in the home theatre thing).
I figured that I could connect my PC to my TV and watch the DVDs there. But some copy protection scheme won't allow TV out to be enabled when playing DVDs. So I am not buying any movies.
It is not that I can't afford a cheap DVD player but all these protection schemes, for the games and DVDs ar e just making life harder for those who are not interested in copying them.

I could find the games somewhere on the net and download them, which I didn't.
I could easy rip the DVDs and play them or install a program that would remove the copy protection bit, or buy a player but I only would watch 2-3 movies pr year anyway.

But I decided that there were other things in life I'd rather spend my money on than all that crap. So instead of using my money on computer parts, movies etc, I sign up for all the trackdays I can and go racing in my car there. It is not a super car but I get more fun out of my money, spending them on semi-slicks and new spare parts(brakes). I also get to do something totally different than what I normally do, sitting in front of a computer.
Re:doesn't feel like it by Anonymous Coward · 2006-06-21 10:54 · Score: 0

It does sound like paradise, but, unfortunately, it's only a matter of time before the logic behind the "broadcast flag" is extended sufficiently to require brain implants that limit your ability to view and remember copyrighted landscapes, architecture, and people without first paying for a proper "viewing license" and, optionally, a "memory copy/archive license", as well as a proper FCC-controlled "broadcast license" if you want to talk to other people about what you saw, or draw an artistic rendering of what you saw (i.e. an "artistic license").

Just remember there are heavy fines if you talk about it in language that is too "colorful", especially if before 9pm local time.
Re:doesn't feel like it by mrchaotica · 2006-06-21 11:55 · Score: 2, Informative

Even people I know with new Macs (that they like) are starting to complain that they're on machine #4 of 5 for their iTunes limit, and it seems like they didn't really buy any songs after all.

Don't tell them (since it's good that they're upset about DRM), but it's possible to deauthorize an old computer before getting rid of it by using the Prefernces screen in iTunes. If they no longer have access to the computers, it's also possible to reset the iTunes account to zero authorized computers and start over through Apple's website. That can only be done once a year, though, so they shouldn't do it until they actually have hit the limit and want to authorize their 6th computer.

--
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Re:doesn't feel like it by nEoN+nOoDlE · 2006-06-21 12:10 · Score: 1

I don't know whether to laugh at you or envy you. Sure, you admitted you have a small penis... but you also got +8 mod points.

--
Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
Re:doesn't feel like it by SuperMog2002 · 2006-06-21 12:44 · Score: 1

Alas, 8 mod points worth no karma.

--
Sunwalker Dezco for Warchief in 2016
Re:doesn't feel like it by paedobear · 2006-06-21 13:15 · Score: 3, Informative

That law was actually passed for a nominally sensible reason, in that a lot of the older electronics had dodgier power supplies, coupled with the fact that the wiring in Japan tends not to be great (there are 3 seperate line-breakers on the circuit-box in my flat, but everything seems to be on one circuit. And it's VERY easy to overload it...) meant that the banning old electronics (everything made before 2001, not everything made more than x years ago - it wasn't a rolling ban) seemed to be a health-and-safety issue. The law ended up pissing off enough different groups of people that it ended up having no practical effect though.
Re:doesn't feel like it by Karl+J.+Smith · 2006-06-21 13:20 · Score: 1

Most of my upcoming trips are in Canada. :) On the plus side, a new national monument was just created as a nice sugar coating - http://ww4report.com/node/2110 On the minus side, Vancouver Island now has Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning (Red Tide), possibly due to cruise ships from the US, but largely due to warming temperatures - http://www.alaskareport.com/shellfish10026.htm

But yes, I get your point. I'm not giving up the fight on either front (DRM and environment) and am working on it as I can, and have worked on it in the past (with time and/or donations). Part of the point of the folding kayak is that I won't have to drive it everywhere, but can use electric dam-powered (salmon-powered) trains to get around.
Re:doesn't feel like it by Cheapy · 2006-06-21 15:04 · Score: 1

So that means you didn't surrender, but defeated them.

Atleast in battle. The war is still raging.

--
Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
Re:doesn't feel like it by voice_of_all_reason · 2006-06-21 17:37 · Score: 1

Thanks, +1 informative.

Looks like my source was a little biased.
Re:doesn't feel like it by TwilightSentry · 2006-06-22 05:09 · Score: 1

a skin-on-aluminum frame folding kayak instead. Geek factor - high.

So it runs Linux?

No?

Does it at least have a big Tux decal on the side?

--
How to enable garbage collection on a system without protected memory: #define malloc() ((void *) rand())
Re:doesn't feel like it by Karl+J.+Smith · 2006-06-23 10:23 · Score: 1

Yes, it does run Linux, with a garmin GPS mounted on it. Although technically, it doesn't run it *yet*, but it will:

http://zgp.org/pipermail/linux-elitists/2006-April /011522.html

How to tell when there is a problem... by dubmun · 2006-06-21 08:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

with our legal system: When random crap like this DRM can get implanted in the middle or a totally unrelated bill.

Has anyone contemplated legislation to stop this from happening?

--
(end of post)

Re:How to tell when there is a problem... by The+MAZZTer · 2006-06-21 08:54 · Score: 5, Funny

No, because then they'd just sneak DRM into that bill too!
Re:How to tell when there is a problem... by nbannerman · 2006-06-21 08:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

One of the obvious differences between the US system and the system here in the UK is that bills are typically introduced on a single issue. Amendments are discussed and then voted upon, but it is rare to see seemingly unrelated points being tacked on to bills.

As for legislation being introduced, the ruling party has no interest in introducing measures to curb it's own power, so I can't see how you'd get such a thing to pass.
Re:How to tell when there is a problem... by GonzoTech · 2006-06-21 08:56 · Score: 1

As mentioned earlier above our posts... "You haven't been here long, have you?"

--
"Snatching defeat from the mouth of victory on a daily basis."
Re:How to tell when there is a problem... by FudRucker · 2006-06-21 09:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

because that is the nature of governments to usurp more power at the expense of its citizens either by force or deception...

--
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Re:How to tell when there is a problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-06-21 09:05 · Score: 4, Informative

Not at a national level. In the state of Minnesota, there is a well-upheld part of the constitution dictating that all state laws must be written on bills covering a single subject. For example, a law castrating the ability of law enforcement to deny gun permits was tossed out because it was appended to unrelated legislation. (Of course the folks who think that everybody should have a right to a concealed carry permit got it pushed through as it's own law the next year.) But the idea is there --- thou shalt not embed earmarks at 1:32AM. It also makes it harder to weld on controversial bits to slam-dunk bills.
Re:How to tell when there is a problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-06-21 09:17 · Score: 0, Offtopic

a law castrating the ability of law enforcement to deny gun permits was tossed out because it was appended to unrelated legislation. (Of course the folks who think that everybody should have a right to a concealed carry permit got it pushed through as it's own law the next year.)
Law inforcement ( and their unions) are out to make their jobs even easier - for one.
Two, they want to hide their incompetance. I for one, live next door to someone who actually got the name and address of someone who broke into his truck and stole his checkbook (the idiot theif used his own ID to use a check - store clerk called neighbor to verify - neighbor says its theif - clerk takes down info), the cops just said, "We don't know when we can get to it, but we'll make a report."
Excuse me! What the fuck happens when someone breaks into your fucking house!?! "We'll make a report."
Fuck you! I want to protect myself! Fuck you and your stupid cushy jobs - cops!
I really wish my neighbor would come forward about this! But I think the Police Unions would just crush it with their lobbyists! - Which I don't think the Cops should be allowed to lobby our lawmakers since they are the excutive branch and it would be in their best interests to take all of our rights away so that they can spend all of their time in the donut shop, weight room, or the shooting range with their Clint Eastwood movies!
Re:How to tell when there is a problem... by to_kallon · 2006-06-21 09:22 · Score: 1

i'd love to mod the parent, but i can't decide whether it should be funny, inciteful, or horribly depressing because it's true.

--

The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it.
-Oscar Wilde
Re:How to tell when there is a problem... by alshithead · 2006-06-21 09:31 · Score: 1

Right...who's gonna pass the bill? The congresscritters who are in the pockets of big business? I'm not sure what the solution is at this point. The only way to get elected seems to be by quid pro quo with special interests who have lots of money. Where are the candidates who actually care about our Bill of Rights, our Constitution and it's amendments, and the people they were created to protect?

--
I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
Re:How to tell when there is a problem... by jZnat · 2006-06-21 09:31 · Score: 1

Same goes for Illinois. I'd like to see some of the several finer points of at least the Illinois Constitution (as well as other states', but I'm not familiar with many others) adopted in the US Constitution as an indicator of progress in the right direction.

--
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
Re:How to tell when there is a problem... by Moofie · 2006-06-21 09:43 · Score: 1

What makes you think that lawmakers want to have simple laws?

--
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Re:How to tell when there is a problem... by Arcane_Rhino · 2006-06-21 09:57 · Score: 1

It could be done in the USA as well. It just means that Congress as whole would have to behave rationally, ethically, and without hidden agendas (aka $$$).
Ahaha hahaha hahahahahaha
Oh God... I crack myself up.
Re:How to tell when there is a problem... by Amouth · 2006-06-21 10:02 · Score: 1

you my friend .. are why we need a saddy truthfull mod..

--
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
Re:How to tell when there is a problem... by burndive · 2006-06-21 10:42 · Score: 1

inciteful
Truth ought to incite us to action.

--
...because "hacker" sounds way sexier than "code drone."
Re:How to tell when there is a problem... by mrchaotica · 2006-06-21 11:58 · Score: 1

Obviously, the solution would be to tack it on to the next PATRIOT act or something. : )

--
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Re:How to tell when there is a problem... by Shimmer · 2006-06-21 13:36 · Score: 1

Has anyone contemplated legislation to stop this from happening?

Yes, and it's hidden in a bill establishing July as Grapefruit Month! (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

--
The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
Re:How to tell when there is a problem... by TheSpoom · 2006-06-21 15:10 · Score: 1

Error: You may not view this bill as you are not a member of the Republican or Democratic party. Please try again after giving at least $25,000 in campaign contributions.

--
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Re:How to tell when there is a problem... by BoberFett · 2006-06-21 15:13 · Score: 1

Indeed. So rather than sneaking an unwanted 1/2 billion dollar stadium into an unrelated bill, they do it out in the open so everyone knows they just got reamed.

Either way, my ass still hurts.
Re:How to tell when there is a problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-06-22 00:41 · Score: 0

Pretty much. The stadium bill is an even stinkier piece of work than you indicate -- a state bill that says the county doesn't have to ask the voters for permission to raise the county tax? I'm not a resident of the MSP metro, so the whole idea of supporting NBA/NFL/NHL/MLB with tax money seems, at best, retarded. I adore amateur sports excluding the pseudo-amateur stuff the NCAA has become. I support *local* amateur sports with donations and gate fees. I gave up watching MLB after the strike. I gave up NFL after realizing how much more important it is to spend time throwing the ball around with my kids. Mostly dumped the NBA after the end of the classic Bird/MJ/DrJ era; fully dumped the NBA after Jordan retired (the first time). I've left and I don't think I'll ever come back.

You know you got reamed, now remember to get up off your reamed posterior and vote.

Sneaking? by stratjakt · 2006-06-21 08:52 · Score: 5, Interesting

If it was being snuck in how'd you all find out about it?

" I would like to add an amendment to the bill, 100 million dollars for the perverted arts. ..."

I say so what, let them pass it into law. Not letting people watch TV or listen to Radio can only server to raise the average national IQ. They should tack it into the next education bill, "No Child Left To Sit On His Behind"

I don't give a fuck anymore if I can or can't Tivo "CSI: Des Moines" in 1080p resolution.

But that's just one little bear's opinion.

--
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!

Re:Sneaking? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-06-21 10:08 · Score: 0

CSI: Des Moines, like the rest of CBS hidef shows, are only presented in 1080i. There are no 1080p broadcasts to date.
Re:Sneaking? by Vancorps · 2006-06-21 11:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

Yeah, everyone was smarter back before TV and there was no such thing as thalidomide babies and lake Michigan never caught on fire. They also fought their wars like men standing in a line and marching toward the enemy firing their weapons taking the hits.

Regardless of what you think about TV/Radio stupid people have always existed and always done stupid things. People today are generally smarter than the times before tv. Look at the number of people who can read today versus the number who could read in the 1950's.

Of course you never underestimate the stupidity of a crowd of people. Even the smartest of people can turn into complete idiots when you put them into a crowd and that's largely regardless of the intelligence of the crowd.

With all that said, sneaking is trying to attach an ammendent to a bill which has nothing to do with the bill in the hopes it will get passed because people actually read the bill to begin with. Some representatives are apparently doing their jobs, or at least their aids are. Look at the PATRIOT Act and the number of legislators that never even read the thing much less describe how it affects us to this day.

I too don't give a fuck if I can tivo CSI, I don't get that wrapped up in TV although I sure as hell want to retain my freedoms so in the future if I do care I'll be able to.
Re:Sneaking? by Oxyrubber · 2006-06-21 12:15 · Score: 1

If it was being snuck in how'd you all find out about it?
"Sneaking in" doesn't mean it will never be found and announced. It means that the INTENT is to keep press coverage and word-of-mouth to a minimum in an effort to sneak the bill/rider through quietly.
Not letting people watch TV or listen to Radio can only server to raise the average national IQ.
I might ordinarily agree with you here, but I don't. A broadcast flag will in NO WAY prevent people from watching TV altogether. It will likely annoy those who keep ahead of the tech curve in regards to A/V equipment ("early adopters"). IMHO, these people are typically smarter than the average and they are more likely to stay smarter if they can avoid the brain-rotting advertising and speed through those few shows they do watch.
A broadcast flag does not prevent your average American from continuing to watch Jerry Springer, infomericals, or anything "Fair and Balanced".

-- And I quit watching CSI after they past over Johnny Drama for CSI Minnesota.

--
"If God had wanted us to vote, he would have given us candidates." - Jay Leno

You know... by One+Childish+N00b · 2006-06-21 08:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

You know, it would be nice, just once, for those we entrust with ensuring the country is run for the good of it's people actually worked for the people who vote for them, rather than constantly trying to sneak pieces of legislation into any bill they can in a bid to force it through because it is clearly so unpalatable to everyone else that every time anyone spots it in the wild they beat it to death and chuck it to the kerb?

What must happen before the people we elect realise that when a piece of legislation is slapped down as often as this one has been, that the people don't want it, and that if the people don't want it, it shouldn't be a "tough shit, we'll just try again when you look the other way" thing? (and before you answer, I already know the answer - campaign 'donations' matching those the media companies chuck at them - when did democracy turning into 'the rule of those who can buy the elected rulers the biggest, most expensive lunch'?

--
Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.

Re:You know... by johneee · 2006-06-21 09:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

It always seems so strange to me that politicians would do that.

I mean, (and I don't mean for this to become a "rah rah Canada" post) it doesn't seem to happen here, and I have to wonder what we're doing differently to make this kind of thing not happen. And why nobody in the US has ever done anything about a practice that really does smack of the worst kind of dirty and underhanded politiking.

I think getting rid of this piggybacking practice would really do wonders to start to change people's opinion of the political process. But perhaps that's just my simple-minded naivety.

--
- ------- There are ten kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who... Huh?
Re:You know... by bsartist · 2006-06-21 09:02 · Score: 1

when did democracy turning into 'the rule of those who can buy the elected rulers the biggest, most expensive lunch'?
Was it ever anything else?

--
Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
Re:You know... by DesertWolf0132 · 2006-06-21 09:03 · Score: 1

Amen and haleluiah! I have spent most of the day on various newsgroups and have seen similar distaste all over the web. I say we revolt! Lets take our countries back from their current regimes and form a new world order! The geek shall inherit the earth!

--
No animals were harmed in the making of this sig.
Well, there was that one puppy, but he is all better now.
Re:You know... by voice_of_all_reason · 2006-06-21 09:06 · Score: 4, Funny

You know, it would be nice, just once, for those we entrust with ensuring the country is run for the good of it's people actually worked for the people who vote for them

But they do. Big business votes for them -- assuming they push the right bills.

You don't seriously think they actually count all those ballots every four years, do you? Nah. They just invite GM and Microsoft and Exxon (etc) to the secret White House Underground Command center and discuss all nice and civilized who's turn it is in the Captain's Chair.
Re:You know... by Chabil+Ha' · 2006-06-21 09:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

"You know, it would be nice, just once, for those we entrust with ensuring the country is run for the good of it's people actually worked for the people who vote for them..."

You are coming from a false presumption--that the majority of their constituents do not want the broadcast flag. Many people don't even know who their elected officials are--much less what a broadcast flag is and what it means to them.

I think sometimes here on /. we assume that the stories we read have the same relevent meaning to the rest of the populace. Sure, it's news for nerds. Stuff that matters...to nerds. It's like RSS discused in the Neilsen interview today. Ask the jow blow user what RSS is and they probably don't know. Ask 'em what a news feed is and they probably still don't know, but it's more meaningful than some obscure acronym meaning Really Simple Syndication.
</Stepping off of soap box>

--
We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
Re:You know... by OldManAndTheC++ · 2006-06-21 09:15 · Score: 2, Funny

when did democracy turn into 'the rule of those who can buy the elected rulers the biggest, most expensive lunch'?

Answer: July 4, 1776

--
Soylent Green is peoplicious!
Re:You know... by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · 2006-06-21 09:40 · Score: 1

>when did democracy turning into 'the rule of those who can buy the elected rulers the biggest, most expensive lunch'?

It got really bad around 1960.

Before then, only corrupt politicians took bribes.

After that, everyone knew that elections were decided by torrential spending on TV ads. Then anyone who wanted to win, even if not corrupt ahead of time, had to "raise money".
Re:You know... by Yo+Grark · 2006-06-21 09:41 · Score: 4, Informative

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_1236.aspx

Oh yeah, in Canada. They'd never get a bylaw through that would Ban:

Toys with electric motors
(explain THIS to a powercar kid)
Prohibited: 9pm-7am, and before 9am on Sundays and stat holidays.
Loudspeakers or other amplification devices

Prohibited: 11pm-7am and before 9am on Sundays and stat holidays.

Release or venting of air, steam or other high pressure noise creating material
(But that's when I have all the good fights with my wife!)
Prohibited: 11pm-7am and before 9am on Sundays and stat holidays.

Loading or unpacking containers of materials
(You listening people who move in too late over a weekend?)
Prohibited: 11pm-7am and before 9am on Sundays and stat holidays.

Using any power-driven device Prohibited: 7pm-7am, and before 9am on Sundays and stat holidays.
(Sorry Granny, You have to walk)
Power tools, lawn mowers, (excludes snow blowers)
(WTF, you're ok with Snowblowers which are 10 times as loud, but I can't get cracking on a backyard project on the few days I get free time?)
Prohibited: 9pm-7am and before 9am on Sundays and statutory holidays.

Security alarm running for more than 5 minutes.
(Crooks will LOVE this one)
Prohibited: at all times, seven days a week.

Vehicle repairs
(Sorry hobbyist, you can't work in your garage until everyone's at work. You have a job too? Oh boo-hoo)
Prohibited: 9pm-7am, all day Sunday and statutory holidays.

Playing loud music
Prohibited: 11pm-7am, and before 9am on Sundays and statutory holidays

Now this is how I see it. Most people like me who have projects to do around the house and in the backyard NEED stat holidays to actually get to the projects. I can't believe the government went and snuck this into a completely separate bylaw brought up by old people who hated barking dogs.Yeah, this would NEVER happen in Canada.

Yo Grark

--
Canadian Bred with American Buttering
Re:You know... by spun · 2006-06-21 09:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

Pshaw. Just because they don't know about the issue doesn't mean they wouldn't care if they did know. I have explained this issue to non technical people, and everyone I have talked to about it (okay, less than a dozen non-nerds) is against it once they understand it. People don't like being screwed out of things they have become accustomed to. Just because your date used rohypnol and you didn't realize you were being screwed doesn't mean it wasn't rape.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:You know... by ch-chuck · 2006-06-21 09:52 · Score: 2, Interesting

I pledge alliegence to the broadcast flag of Disneyland of America.
And to the Corporation, for which it stands, one media conglomerate, indominable,
under Mickey, With movies and fast food tie-ins for everyone.

--
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Re:You know... by Wildclaw · 2006-06-21 10:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

A big part of it is the result of the "Elite" mindset where the common citizen is seen as stupid and needs someone smarter and more intelligent to decide for him. The most common argument used to support this theory is "The tragedy of the commons"

Instead you get the opposite, "The tragedy of the wealthy", where all those not rich gets hurt by the decisions of the few rich in power.
Re:You know... by wish+bot · 2006-06-21 10:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

Some of us - you know - need or expect some uninterrupted sleep after 11pm or before 7am without some random jock sawing up bits of steel outside our windows.
It's because of inconsiderate yobs like you that these laws are passed in the first place. If you had an ounce of respect for anyone other than yourself, and maybe discussed or negotiated with your neighbours for the few days you felt possessed like a madman to be working on 'projects' in your yard before 7-fucking-am, then the world would be a better place with LESS restrictions.

--
lemonade was a popular drink and it still is
Re:You know... by Baki · 2006-06-21 11:08 · Score: 1

What must happen? These people should be executed for high treason.
Re:You know... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-06-21 13:39 · Score: 0

And it's because of yobs like you that governments pass more and more laws dictating what we are and are not allowed to do. After all, if we can pass laws merely because it may sometimes prevent inconvenience to others - while at other times completely unnecessarily inconveniencing a person who actually wants to be productive, rather than a lazy ass, on a Sunday or holiday - then why not pass laws that would generate more revenues for companies or make the governments job catching criminals easier or prevent the citizenry from eating foods that may eventually lead to negative health consequences, etcetera? Convenience is about as petty a thing as you can legislate, so excuse me if I think you're an asshole for trying to justify it and only hope your government invades your life ten times more than you want it to invade others'.
Re:You know... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-06-21 15:20 · Score: 0

It's inconsiderate yobs like YOU that make everyone else's lives miserable. You want to sleep? Buy earplugs. Double-glaze your windows. Put insulation in your walls. Move to the country. It's not a basic human right to live in silence. Supporting legislation that limits what shift workers or hobbiests are allowed to do in their own homes in their own time shows no respect for the people around you.
Re:You know... by ObsessiveMathsFreak · 2006-06-21 21:47 · Score: 1

I can't believe the government went and snuck this into a completely separate bylaw brought up by old people who hated barking dogs.

Offtopic, but you've clearly never been faced with a barking dog. I've lived close to several.

It depends on the individual dog. Some will never bark at all. But some dogs can and do bark for hours. I once had a dog bark outside my window for five straight hours. Wuf....Wuf.....WoW WoW WoW WoW WoW, Wuf.... It was that low, deep, window penetrating bark that only a big dog can make. To this day I have no reason what it was barking for. My guess is it probably knew it was pissing everyone off and just didn't care. I'm serious.

It wasn't so much the noise that got to me. I once lived under a flight path for Antonovs. It was the repetition. I thought for the longest time that it was some kind of loudspeaker playing a looped tape. Wuf....Wuf.....WoW WoW WoW WoW WoW, Wuf.... This dog would hit the exact tone, pause and duration on each and every single loop. Over and over. Most nights it would finish in about an hours. Some nights it could go on longer, much longer.

I seriously contemplated killing the wretched beast. I'm not a callous person. I like animals better than people. But after a few weeks of this, frankly the dog had almost lost its right to live in my mind. I thought about poisioning some meat or just feeding it chocolate, but in the end, I realised that this would probably not kill it. It would likely only change its nightly calls to something more annoying.

In the end, the dog just stopped. My opinion is that the owner's spouse finally cracked and either had it put down or its vocal cords removed. Either way I don't care. I like animals, but that dog had it coming.

So if you're one of these people that thinks complaints about dogs barking are spurious, please do the following. Record a dogs choral bark. Just one loop. Make an hour long tape of just this one chorus. Now, play it, not too loud, just low enough to be heard, at the foot of your bed for an hour just after your head hits the pillow. Then protest at anti-dog barking laws.

--
May the Maths Be with you!
Re:You know... by Sigg3.net · 2006-06-22 01:54 · Score: 0

That is, after they've prodded it from Balmer's shaking hands.
*ducks*

--
Defining Statistics and Social Research
Re:You know... by gfreeman · 2006-06-22 02:42 · Score: 1

I don't see a problem with some of those.

If you're power-tooling your new deck before 7am, then your neighbours will happily staple your scrotum to your ass.

After 5 minutes of alarm ringing, a crook could be 5km away. If no-ones called the cops in those 5 minutes, too bad. After 5 minutes of WHOOP-WHOOP, please - SHUT THE FUCKING THING UP.

I agree the "no vehicle repairs on stat holidays" is stupid though.

--
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
Re:You know... by Yo+Grark · 2006-06-22 03:03 · Score: 1

Let me qualify.

This is mainly to complain about it being prohibited ALL DAY SUNDAY AND STAT HOLIDAYS.

Are you trying to tell me YOU'VE never done a noisy thing (Like cut your grass) on a sunday or stat holiday? What about playing music on father's day in the backyard BBQ?

Of course I'm not running powertools pre-7am or even 9am, I like to sleep in too ya'know.

Yo Grark

--
Canadian Bred with American Buttering
Re:You know... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-06-22 03:09 · Score: 0

Thomas Hesse, President of Sony BMG's global digital business division asked "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"

Just sayin.
Re:You know... by MotherSuperior · 2006-06-22 17:08 · Score: 1

And some of us need or expect sleep between noon and 8 PM. Just because you work a 'normal' shift, doesn't mean you get to be the only one entitled to things like hobbies. I work a 9-5 myself, and have no interest in cutting steel, or any of that - I'll stick to WoW, and all that other nerdy crap. But really, now. What a pompous thing to say. When I was working a swing shift, I didn't much care for the fact that people were mowing their lawns at noon. Just because you work a 9-5, doesn't mean your needs and interests are more important than someone else's. Let us know if you have the same opinion when your life is in the hands of a late-night Trauma surgeon who didn't get any sleep that day, because of your Sunday afternoon tailgate party.

--
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine...

Gee... by Billosaur · 2006-06-21 08:55 · Score: 4, Funny

I don't remember this from Schoolhouse Rock.

--
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network

Re:Gee... by Tweekster · 2006-06-21 09:01 · Score: 3, Funny

This one seems more fitting: http://www.esquilax.com/flag/simpsons.shtml

--
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
Re:Gee... by stratjakt · 2006-06-21 09:35 · Score: 1

Not really, this isn't a constitutional amendment.

--
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Re:Gee... by Tweekster · 2006-06-21 09:45 · Score: 1

Couldnt be troubled to read the lyrics eh?

--
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
Re:Gee... by stratjakt · 2006-06-21 09:48 · Score: 1

Simpsons did another schoolhouse rock parody, other than the "amendment to be" one?

Or did you link to the "100 million dollars for the perverted arts" quote, in which case, why not just paste that one line gag into your post?

--
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Re:Gee... by Tweekster · 2006-06-22 02:40 · Score: 1

That andy about how they force senators by calling them gay, how all kinds of crazy things can go in now. etc There was a number of things that fit bills as well as amendments.

--
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
Re:Gee... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-06-22 06:49 · Score: 0

I think the problem is that the song you linked to is critical of the flag-burning amendment that the Republicans are trying to get through congress. If you link to anything critical of Republicans then you can expect someone to pick a fight with you.

Public Comment? by Unlikely_Hero · 2006-06-21 08:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but I've never been able to find how to "publically comment" on these bills.
Not to mention, I have a strong feeling that the congresscritters probably don't even read the comments. How can we forcibly say to congress that we don't want this passed? (before anybody says writing them, etc, you really think they read the letters?)

--
Happiness does not come from having much, but from being attached to little.

Re:Public Comment? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-06-21 09:00 · Score: 0

I thought that's what your second amendment was for
Re:Public Comment? by voice_of_all_reason · 2006-06-21 09:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

How can we forcibly say to congress that we don't want this passed?

Nothing says "hay guys, listen up!" like a vest that goes BOOM.

(you did specify "forcibly", which is a funny word to use. Since force is also the reason laws are obeyed.)
Re:Public Comment? by Fallingcow · 2006-06-21 09:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

At this point, it looks like they're going to be tenacious enough with this thing that it'll pass eventually.

Get someone to write it in to enough unrelated bills, and it'll pass.

We'll never get enough interest in the issue to counter a determined, monied, well-connected foe like this one.

Honestly, 50%+ of the electorate is too dumb to understand this (or has so little understanding of the supporting concepts behind it that it'd take WAY too long to bring them up to speed), and another 48-49% just don't care, or at least they don't care enough to make it an issue in an election.
Re:Public Comment? by erroneus · 2006-06-21 09:06 · Score: 1

Well, publicity for starters...

Actually, I'd like to know the answers to the question you pose as well.

But publicity was the first thing that came to mind and then I started thinking... something that the world could see. Then I got to thinking about Google maps and Google Earth. I recall seeing where someone had made a huge copy of a Maxxim magazine cover visible to Google Earth. Other advertisements are also available as well from what I hear.

How about organizing such a Google snapshot protest where people wear clothes of a specified color set and are arranged somewhere in a pattern, say letters, words, images, whatever and get Google to participate by grabbing that picture and adding it to their databases? I think SOME protests would definitely appear on the news and would certainly be a message that all the world could see. I doubt we'd have much trouble finding volunteers to stand in place long enough for a protest picture either.
Re:Public Comment? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-06-21 09:09 · Score: 0

I've heard the FCC listens to form emails sent out by one group. Maybe you could talk to them about how they do it since you don't seem to want to write to someone.
Re:Public Comment? by bergeron76 · 2006-06-21 09:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

Writing _does_ work. Political Leaders know that for every letter they receive, there are 20,000 (or some other number more appropriate for their district) other people that feel the same way. It's just the person that wrote the letter felt strongly enough about it to write the letter.

Emailing them may work also, but I don't think it has the same significance as a letter in hand.

--
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
Re:Public Comment? by toleraen · 2006-06-21 09:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well, as the above poster said, doing whatever you can to draw attention to yourself and get your point across. Gotta make sure it's done in a positive way though...somehow your message probably won't look so good as you're ranting it on the way to gitmo.

Seriously, if a senator (err, their assistant) starts reading a ton of mail saying "hey, this sucks, this is why, vote that sucker down" (word it better), they're going to take notice. While they are not likely reading their own messages, I would be willing to bet that their assistants would bring up issues that are getting a lot of notice. If this issue isn't terribly time-sensitive, send a snail mail to their office. If it is (like this one), send an email. Get your friends to send an email. Have your friends get their friends to send soem mail. That's how you get noticed. If you sit and do nothing, no one's going to notice. Gotta give those interns something to do. Just google your senator, you shouldn't have any trouble finding their contact infos.

Of course, if your senator kicked as much ass as mine does, all you'd have to do is send them a thank you note.
Re:Public Comment? by stratjakt · 2006-06-21 09:42 · Score: 1

I say let them pass this super-shit version of it, as it's the most likely so far to get struck down by the Supreme Court......... Now and forever.

--
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Re:Public Comment? by Kadin2048 · 2006-06-21 09:53 · Score: 1

I thought that's what your second amendment was for
That's how you say "we didn't want that passed." It's more of a tool for retrospection.

--
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Re:Public Comment? by StikyPad · 2006-06-21 09:53 · Score: 1

Yep. That's Public Choice Theory in a nutshell.

--
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Re:Public Comment? by Ahnteis · 2006-06-21 10:02 · Score: 1

Too DUMB? Too ignorant maybe, but it's just useless ego-fluffing to think that everyone "else" is too dumb.

Which agriculture bills affect the farming in your state? What about the changes to big-business finance? How will those affect home financing for persons in the (whatever type of housing you don't own/rent)?

Expecting all voters to be informed about everything is just plain silly. That's why those concerned and informed have to voice their opinions to both the legislature, and the populace. Otherwise, lobbyists will rule. (I mean more then they do.)
Re:Public Comment? by evilviper · 2006-06-21 10:10 · Score: 1

Emailing them may work also, but I don't think it has the same significance as a letter in hand.

They don't EVER get a letter in hand anymore. Since the anthrax thing, postal mail is scanned into a computer, and e-mailed to them.

Several senator's websites specifically say, if you want a quick reaction, e-mail them. Even an over-night letter may take several days to get to them.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:Public Comment? by ntk · 2006-06-21 10:11 · Score: 4, Interesting

>
> At this point, it looks like they're going to be tenacious enough with this thing that it'll pass eventually.
>

Well, bear in mind that the lobbyists have been trying to get this into the books for years, and still haven't succeeded. And there is a time limit for the broadcast flag law. If they can't get it passed before the analog cut-off date (or the point at which a large number of voters have broadcast flag non-compliant digital TV technology), there's simply no point in continuing to lobby for it.

In general, the longer time goes on, the harder it is to get a bill passed. You're not the only one thinking "My god, are they trying to get this through again?". Staffers in Washington feel the same way. If they can't get this through this year, in the words of one knowledgeable Washington commentator, "it'll be postponed until next year. Which is to say, never".

There's also the question of opportunity cost. The more effort the entertainment industry has to spend on each of the laws it tries to pass, the less it has to pass other, draconian bills. If the broadcast flag had passed on one of the other occasions that it was attempted, the MPAA would be free to throw all its weight on analog hole legislation by now. Politicians are waking up to the fact that these regulations are unreasonable -- and that there's more political capital lost to appearing to kowtow to special interests than they thought.
Re:Public Comment? by Baricom · 2006-06-21 10:40 · Score: 1

Would you please kindly tell your esteemed senator to get his butt into gear and run for President already?

Thanks :)
Re:Public Comment? by kcbrown · 2006-06-21 10:59 · Score: 1

I say let them pass this super-shit version of it, as it's the most likely so far to get struck down by the Supreme Court......... Now and forever

You mean like the CTEA (Copyright Term Extension Act) of 1998 was struck down? Or how about like how the DMCA was?

You have far too much faith in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court isn't going to do shit about any of this.

--
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
Re:Public Comment? by kcbrown · 2006-06-21 11:02 · Score: 1

Writing _does_ work.

Is that so? Got any evidence to back it up? I'm not talking about evidence surrounding bills that the politician could realistically go either way on, I'm talking about bills that the politician is getting paid a lot of money to pass.

I bet you won't be able to find a shred of evidence backing your assertion up, at least for the bills that really matter.

--
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
Re:Public Comment? by Fallingcow · 2006-06-21 11:34 · Score: 1

Too DUMB? Too ignorant maybe, but it's just useless ego-fluffing to think that everyone "else" is too dumb.

OK,

a) you've obviously never lived in the Midwest, and
b) there's an "or" in that parenthetical

So, I said that 50% of the population is too stupid OR too ignorant of the technology and other factors of which knowledge is required to understand why this is bad. Half or more of that group (as long as I'm pulling numbers out of my ass) probably fall in to the latter category, but a very much non-zero percentage of the population truly is too damn dumb to understand this well enough to form a meaningful opinion, no matter how much explaining is done. The same is true of most political issues.

As for my a) above, it's not that people in the Midwest are somehow born dumber than everyone else--nor are ALL of them (us) dumb--but 30+ years of ignorance becomes its own kind of stupid.
Re:Public Comment? by carpevita · 2006-06-21 11:57 · Score: 0

Nothing says "hay guys, listen up!" like a vest that goes BOOM.

Did people really mod this "insightful"?
Re:Public Comment? by stinerman · 2006-06-21 12:39 · Score: 1

That might be true if you have a representative in a competitive district. Those of us who don't are literally wasting electricity by letting our representatives know where we stand on a particular piece of legislation. Districts are so horribly gerrymandered that the incumbent politician is all but re-elected after he/she wins his/her primary. They've already decided how they are voting on about 99% of the bills before they even hit the floor. This is obviously less of a problem in the Senate where there is no redistricting.
Re:Public Comment? by mrchaotica · 2006-06-21 13:08 · Score: 1

I doubt we'd have much trouble finding volunteers to stand in place long enough for a protest picture either.

You'd have to somehow find out in advance when your target area was due to be re-imaged, since they only update those photos every couple of years (at least, the ones of Atlanta are demonstratably several years old, due to all the new construction and stuff going on around here). Also, once the picture was finally taken, you'd have to wait and hope that Google would buy it and use it.

Google may be growing quickly and buying up dark fiber, but it's not launching its own satellites yet!

--
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Re:Public Comment? by voice_of_all_reason · 2006-06-21 17:30 · Score: 1

All other issues aside, terrorism against the US has certainly and undoubtedly achieved that key goal: creating awareness of their respective cause.

If our people were composed of sterner stuff -- say, in the previous example, the congressmen simply refused to hear the man out and all got up from their seats to take him down -- the act would be without any real benefit. Funny, the people on flight 93 solved their own problem as well as prevented further damage. How many times do you hear about that particular incident? Which group is getting the bigger memorial?
Re:Public Comment? by F.Prefect · 2006-06-22 04:28 · Score: 1

Emailing them may work also, but I don't think it has the same significance as a letter in hand.
I used to think that too, until I sent email to my Representative (Jay Inslee) regarding the network neutrality provisions in the COPE Act. He actually said in his response:
I encourage you to contact me via email, telephone, or fax, because security measures are causing House offices to experience delays in receiving postal mail.
Turns out that these days, snail mail is the least-preferred method of communication with your elected officials. Maybe it has slightly more psychological impact, maybe not, but if it doesn't get there in time then it has no impact at all.

--
--Ford Prefect

Sneaking in the Back Door, huh by Skadet · 2006-06-21 08:57 · Score: 4, Funny

...Sneaking in the Back Door

I tried that once. My girlfriend didn't appreciate it.

--
Sony ha

Re:Sneaking in the Back Door, huh by One+Childish+N00b · 2006-06-21 08:59 · Score: 4, Funny

The sad thing is that is a far more apt metaphor than you probably realised...

--
Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
Re:Sneaking in the Back Door, huh by Anonymous Coward · 2006-06-21 09:36 · Score: 0

That's funny. She didn't seem to mind when I tried it.
Sorry buddy, that was too easy.

Thanks! And keep the alerts coming! by erroneus · 2006-06-21 08:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

We all need to know about this stuff each and every time. And for anyone who is in this particular senator's constituency, I urge you to send a strongly worded letter (complete with a copy of voter registration if you have it) that he is INDEED being watched and that it will be made clear and obvious to all where his money is coming from and what laws it is being used to pay for.

I believe all of congress and the senate need a wake-up call when it comes to these practices. They should all be put on notice that there are people who are watching, and the numbers are growing.

You know what? by grasshoppa · 2006-06-21 08:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

I say let it. Let's vote in all this DRM and sneaky sneak violations of rights in the name of corporate interests. It's a lesson we are bound and determined to learn the hardway, so let's get this over with.

--
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!

Re:You know what? by Volante3192 · 2006-06-21 09:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

Seriously, the public outnumbers congressmen around 525,000 to 1.

Time for some civil disobedience. The jails can't hold all of us if we break this crap. Courts would be tied up for eons, putting precious patent cases on the back burner even if they DID start waving jail time. Citizens that actually have clout would get burned eventually.

I'm getting very comfortable with the idea of letting Congress passing whatever crap the corporate culture pushes under their noses because eventually a substantial portion of the public will get pissed off and force them to change.

To paraphrase Gandhi, "535 Congressmen and assorted CEOs cannot control 280 million Americans if those Americans refuse to cooperate."
Re:You know what? by giorgiofr · 2006-06-21 10:19 · Score: 1

280 million americans have no weapons to use against the government-owned army, thanks to the laws you like so much.

--
Global warming is a cube.
Re:You know what? by Volante3192 · 2006-06-21 10:28 · Score: 1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qissa_Khwani_bazaar_m assacre

Who needs weapons?
Re:You know what? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-06-21 10:35 · Score: 0

279,999,999...
Re:You know what? by EvanED · 2006-06-21 10:37 · Score: 1

280 million americans wouldn't have any weapons to use against the army even if you could have any weapon you wanted. What could you set up that would defend against a cruise missile?
Re:You know what? by kcbrown · 2006-06-21 10:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

To paraphrase Gandhi, "535 Congressmen and assorted CEOs cannot control 280 million Americans if those Americans refuse to cooperate."

They can if they have control over a modern military with a few hundred thousand troops and lots of big guns.

And don't give me that bullshit about how the military won't be willing to fire on its own civilians. Thousands of years of history have shown otherwise, and there's no reason at all to believe that the U.S. military is so special that it's an exception.

--
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
Re:You know what? by Dunbal · 2006-06-21 11:16 · Score: 1

And don't give me that bullshit about how the military won't be willing to fire on its own civilians. Thousands of years of history have shown otherwise,

So according to you, there has never been a revolution? The millitary is ALWAYS better equipped than the civilians, yet revolutions still happen when commanders get wind of which way this new wind is blowing, and how they can stand to gain from keeping their troops conveniently away from town while the revolution happens, in exchange for quite a lot of power in the new government. At least until the first round of purges.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Re:You know what? by FusionDragon2099 · 2006-06-21 11:52 · Score: 1

The Statue of Liberty. You don't think the government would blow up a landmark with the whole world watching, would you?
Re:You know what? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-06-21 12:12 · Score: 0

I modded this down, but I had to pick Overrated because there wasn't an option for (-1, Retarded).
Re:You know what? by kcbrown · 2006-06-21 12:14 · Score: 1

In other words, what you're saying is that once the guys in power lose control over the military, it's over. Yes, I agree.

As long as the military is willing to work for the guys in power, a revolution will never succeed. Since, in this case, the guys in power have all the money, I see little reason to believe that the U.S. military will side with the guys who want real freedom.

Name me one revolution in the last 50 years against a government with a modern, well-equipped military where the revolutionaries didn't either convert said military to their side or get major outside military help. Bet you can't.

The American Revolution worked back in the 1700s when the average civilian's firepower was at least within a factor of two or three of the average soldier's. Back then, how many people you had on your side mattered. But today the disparity is on the order of thousands to millions to one (depending on what weapons you want to count) against the civilian. A civilian uprising simply can't win against that kind of firepower, because today it doesn't matter how many people you have on your side -- what matters is how big your guns are. And big guns are expensive. So expensive that only governments can afford them. Which by definition means the civilians won't have them. Which means the civilians can't win an armed conflict (a.k.a. violent revolution) against a well-armed government unless the well-armed government suddenly isn't so well-armed.

Thanks for making my point for me.

--
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
Re:You know what? by TLouden · 2006-06-21 12:25 · Score: 1

I can't help but agree. It's a bloody pain to keep fighting this (how often is the same fucking broadcast flag snuck into something?). Further, it's being fought by mostly geeks and informed persons (minority of the US). Those persons can most easily find loopholes and alternatives if [when] this passes. Then, the majority will learn the hard way and start fighting with us. Yes? Try protecting somebody by silently removing threats, then try allowing those threats to show themselves, you'll see what's easiest.

--
-Tim Louden
Re:You know what? by epee1221 · 2006-06-21 13:01 · Score: 1

And how many dissenters can you fit in there?

--
"The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
Re:You know what? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-06-21 13:10 · Score: 0

279,999,998...
Re:You know what? by epee1221 · 2006-06-21 13:11 · Score: 1

And of those 280 million, how many don't own guns only because they can't?
I only know one person who doesn't own a gun for legal reasons, and it's probably a law you'd like to keep (deals with mental health).

--
"The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
Re:You know what? by TheoMurpse · 2006-06-21 18:16 · Score: 3, Interesting

And don't give me that bullshit about how the military won't be willing to fire on its own civilians. Thousands of years of history have shown otherwise, and there's no reason at all to believe that the U.S. military is so special that it's an exception.
I'll agree with you on this; the military would simply send soldiers from NY to CA, from CA to TX, and from TX to NY. These staters don't see the respective states as the same people anyways. A New Yorker would be much more willing to shoot someone who lives over a thousand miles away rather than someone who may be a neighbor. I think the Romans used to do this to quell uprisings, but I'm not sure. However, it would be nigh impossible to truly occupy and be victorious over a state like Texas, where so many residents possess multiple guns. You think Iraq is bad? Try taking a state full of your own citizens, armed more heavily than Iraqis, with a better health infrastructure than Iraqis. I'd be willing to bet that Texans on the whole are better-trained as well, what with many of us growing up really using our guns on a weekly basis to hunt and kill (admittedly not humans).

I'll admit that I really have no idea about the training of the average Iraqi, but I'd be willing to bet that more Texan women can use a gun than Iraqi women due to religious practices. Texas is also larger than the whole of Iraq by a good 100,000 km^2 or so.

Just chalk this whole post up to statist pride ;)

Mod parent up! by khasim · 2006-06-21 09:00 · Score: 5, Interesting

As for legislation being introduced, the ruling party has no interest in introducing measures to curb it's own power, so I can't see how you'd get such a thing to pass.

So, Party A passes a law to curb this ... and abides by that law.

Eventually, Party B becomes the majority ... and they pass a law allowing it again.

So ... because Party A was "good", they don't get all the benefits (attaching riders to unrelated bills to make campaign contributors happy) but they do get all the responsiblity.

A two party system sucks. This will, eventually, always happen.

Re:Mod parent up! by Haeleth · 2006-06-21 09:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

So, Party A passes a law to curb this ... and abides by that law.
Eventually, Party B becomes the majority ... and they pass a law allowing it again.

I thought you Americans had a neat system specifically designed for making laws to limit government power, whereby a law could be passed which needed more than a mere majority to overturn, making it more resilient to power shifts. It's called the Constitution.

I guess the problem there is that you need a supermajority to get an amendment made in the first place... :/
Re:Mod parent up! by dgatwood · 2006-06-21 10:08 · Score: 5, Interesting

Well, you need a supermajority, but not necessarily at the federal level. If you can get two thirds of the state legislatures to call for a constitutional convention, you can bring in an amendment in that way. This probably just requires a simple majority in at least 34 state houses. It would probably be a lot easier to conveince the state government to rein in the feds than to convince the feds to do it themselves....

Just because it hasn't ever been done doesn't mean it can't or won't be done if the federal government takes things too far....

--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Re:Mod parent up! by dgatwood · 2006-06-21 10:10 · Score: 1

Err... convince....

--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Re:Mod parent up! by EvanED · 2006-06-21 10:32 · Score: 2, Informative

I guess the problem there is that you need a supermajority to get an amendment made in the first place.

You need a lot more than a supermajority...

You need a supermajority of both houses of Congress to even send it out to the states. After that, it needs to be ratified by, uh, a super-duper majority of the states (3/4, which is greater than the 2/3 supermajority).
Re:Mod parent up! by kcbrown · 2006-06-21 10:46 · Score: 1

I thought you Americans had a neat system specifically designed for making laws to limit government power, whereby a law could be passed which needed more than a mere majority to overturn, making it more resilient to power shifts. It's called the Constitution.

Where have you been? The Constitution hasn't mattered for the past 20 years. Even the supreme law of the land (the Constitution) has only as much power as those who actually control the guns (and thus are charged with enforcing the law) are willing to give it. And these days, the government, which includes the military, only pretends to uphold it. Even that is changing: the government is getting bolder by the year. Soon, they'll dispense with the Constitution entirely, because at that point nobody will be able to do anything about it. We're already very, very close to that point.

--
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
Re:Mod parent up! by smaddox · 2006-06-21 12:28 · Score: 1

The problem is, things will never be taken "too far".

Things will slowly get worse and worse, but no one will know the difference, because when they grew up, things where only slightly better (or where they worse? I mean, sure we had more freedom, but we didn't have all these great gadgets).

The point is, you can't just sit back and say, "That is horrible! If they try one more thing, then I'm going to take action!" over and over and over and over again. You have to act!

Now I'm going to go back to reading slashdot and and playing video games.

Please Do Something About This Right Now! by Bruce+Perens · 2006-06-21 09:01 · Score: 5, Informative

The Committee markup of this bill is on Thursday, and your
Senator is on the Commerce Committee. One last push from
you could get Congress to remove the entertainment industry
mandates from the bill.

IF YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES

Please call your Senator (numbers below). Here's a sample
script:

STAFFER:
Hello, Senator Lastname's office.

YOU:
Hi, I'm a constituent, and I'd like to let the Senator know
that I don't think the broadcast and audio flag provisions
belong in S. 2686, the Communications, Consumers Choice and
Broadband Deployment Act. These are anti-consumer
provisions, which would give the FCC far-reaching powers,
and give the entertainment industry a dangerous veto over
new technologies. I hope the Senator will insist on
excluding these provisions on Thursday.

STAFFER:
Okay, I'll let the Senator know. Thanks.

Chairman Ted Stevens (AK), (202) 224-3004
John McCain (AZ), (202) 224-2235
Conrad Burns (MT), Main: 202-224-2644
Trent Lott (MS), (202) 224-6253
Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX), (202) 224-5922
Gordon H. Smith (OR), (202) 224 3753
John Ensign (NV), (202) 224-6244
George Allen (VA), (202) 224-4024
John E. Sununu (NH), (202) 224-2841
Jim DeMint (SC), (202) 224-6121
David Vitter (LA),(202) 224-4623
Co-Chairman Daniel K. Inouye (HI), (202) 224-3934
John D. Rockefeller (WV), (202) 224-6472
John F. Kerry (MA), (202) 224-2742
Barbara Boxer (CA), (202) 224-3553
Bill Nelson (FL), (202) 224-5274
Maria Cantwell (WA), (202) 224-3441
Frank R. Lautenberg (NJ), (202) 224-3224
E. Benjamin Nelson (NE), (202) 224-6551
Mark Pryor (AR), (202) 224-2353

IF YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE:

Go to our Action Center, and send a letter to your Senator
explaining why he or she should insist on the removal of the
flags:
<http://action.eff.org/site/Advocacy?id=223>

Text of the Bill:
<http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s10 9-2686>

To learn more about the broadcast flag:
<http://www.eff.org/broadcastflag>

To learn more about the audio flag:
<http://www.eff.org/IP/digitalradio>

From EFF

--
Bruce Perens.

Re:Please Do Something About This Right Now! by Picass0 · 2006-06-21 09:07 · Score: 1

bookmark
Re:Please Do Something About This Right Now! by stratjakt · 2006-06-21 09:10 · Score: 0

Why do you hate america?

Does the rising popularity of reality TV not convince you as to just how damaging it is to peoples brains? Meth addicts are more coherent than "Fear Factor" fans. If you aren't familiar, it's a show where you watch people eat worms, and perform various Jackass-esque stunts.

If you want to witness first hand, the damage that long term TV usage can cause, drop by the next Star Trek or Star Wars or Star Gate or Star Man convention. What you see will not be pretty, and can emotionally cripple you permanently.

Quit trying to derail our childrens' train of thought, and join me in a campaign to make the broadcast flag manditory on all broadcasts, and to expand its scope to also restrict viewing of any sort.

In a perfect world, all future television sets should be shipped without any sort of viewing screen or speakers.

For centuries, the noble art of the puppet show was all humanity needed for entertainment.

--
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Re:Please Do Something About This Right Now! by kpainter · 2006-06-21 11:44 · Score: 1

I would call but my Senator is Barbara Boxer and I don't think I could call her office without barfing all over my desk.
Re:Please Do Something About This Right Now! by Neil23 · 2006-06-22 05:41 · Score: 1

A good link for the Senate Commerce Committee is Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Membership, which is from the only on-line listing of ALL the Congressional Committees and Subcommittees in one place at Committee membership lists, which is part of Writing Congress - everything you need in one place.
(I'm working on major expansion plans for the next session, after the election . . .)
Re:Please Do Something About This Right Now! by Kadin2048 · 2006-06-23 03:21 · Score: 1

I called my Senator yesterday, and I can confirm that the interaction with his staffers was exactly like the script above.

I called, some kid answered, I said I was a constituent looking to express my feelings about a bill to the Senator, he asked me what about, I gave my little spiel, he said 'Thanks for your opinion,' we hung up.

Whether it'll have any effect, I have no idea ... but short of sending a lot of money in a paper bag, it's the best thing I can think of at the moment.

Anyone know when we'll know the results from the committee?

--
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Re:Please Do Something About This Right Now! by Bruce+Perens · 2006-06-23 14:17 · Score: 1

Who was it who said "Politics is the art of sitting down with people you despise"? Make the call.

--
Bruce Perens.

Politicians must hate the internet by Serveert · 2006-06-21 09:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

Nowadays when you try to sneak something like this in the rascally public can learn about it in a matter of minutes. :(

--
2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.

Re:Politicians must hate the internet by MrSquirrel · 2006-06-21 10:10 · Score: 1

That's why they want net-neutrality to go bye-bye.
TelCo/Gov't Fuckbuddies: "Oh, you mean your anti-facist website can't get any bandwidth? Good, that means the laws we make to keep ourselves powerful are working! Mawahahahahahahahha *commence gross 'back dooring' of 'bills'*"

--
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.

How does this help Alaska? by hambonewilkins · 2006-06-21 09:03 · Score: 4, Informative

Someone please remind me how this, alongside his plans to have the FCC regulate cable television, help his constituents in Alaska? I know there's a lot of scum out there, but Stevens has got to be one of the biggest Senators For Hire I've seen in a while. In the industry I follow, Stevens' bullying work on PET imaging (positron emission tomography) is truly stunning. How many PET centers/suppliers/manufacturers do you think there are in Alaska?

What a corporate tool.

--

God Bless America. Why? Did it sneeze?

Re:How does this help Alaska? by John+Miles · 2006-06-21 09:54 · Score: 1

In the industry I follow, Stevens' bullying work on PET imaging (positron emission tomography) is truly stunning.

It's pretty OT for this thread, but did you read the recent piece in The Economist that talked about the FDA's unreasonable foot-dragging policy towards PET? I agree that Stevens is a pork-hounding, industry-shilling asshat of the first magnitude, but unless I'm missing another critical side of the story, his work on PET has probably already saved hundreds if not thousands of lives.

Unlike the broadcast-flag case, it's not clear whose interests were served by the FDA's prior policy of treating chemically-well-understood radiotracers like investigative drugs.

--
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
Re:How does this help Alaska? by jonwil · 2006-06-21 11:36 · Score: 1

I expect that, like Orrin Hatch (I think), this senator is being picked not because he has constituants in his electorate that will benifit but because he is someone who has such a stable position (i.e. there are so many people who aggree with his views on stuff like abortion, gay marrage or whatever else that there is little chance he will get voted out so he doesnt need to care about his other constituants and can do whatever will get him the most bribes)
Re:How does this help Alaska? by hambonewilkins · 2006-06-22 02:02 · Score: 1

I work in the medical device industry and used to cover imaging (I just read the economist piece). Essentially, the inventor of PET is Stevens' best friend, Michael Phelps (they have all these pictures of them fishing together, etc). Stevens is trying to expand the usability of PET to boost his friend's business. The problem with PET isn't approval by FDA, since it is approved for a variety of imaging uses (and it sounds like they blow out of proportion the entire approval process for PET), but reimbursement, ie CMS payment. In the one case I'm referring to, Stevens was pushing very hard to get CMS to cover the use of PET for Alzheimer's.
The only snag? The American Alzheimer's Association was against it. I'll repeat that: against it. The science on PET detecting Alzheimer's disease was so bad, that pretty much no one saw the purpose of using PET to detect the disease. Further, because the science behind it was terrible, the results could be false-positive/negative and give patients false-hope/false-despair. In addition, the organization pointed out that detection is not the issue, since there is currently no cure for alzheimer's. And thus, the money spent to reimburse this silliness could better be spent on drugs or other diagnostics.
Despite that, Stevens pushed it through and now CMS reimburses limited PET for Alzheimer's.
PET is an incredibly small subsegment of the total imaging world, and usually other modalities are better than it. It has uses, sure. But under Ted Stevens, it has been pushed into areas it doesn't belong, seemingly solely to benefit his friend, Michael Phelps.

--

God Bless America. Why? Did it sneeze?
Re:How does this help Alaska? by John+Miles · 2006-06-22 04:33 · Score: 1

OK, thanks -- I see what you meant. The Economist piece just talked briefly about the bureaucratic hassles associated with licensing tracer compounds for clinical use; it didn't mention anything about Alzheimer's. Sounds like some of Stevens's PET advocacy had a legitimate purpose, while some of it was just his usual pork-belly cronyism in action.

--
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.

Worst Congress Ever by Stalyn · 2006-06-21 09:03 · Score: 3, Interesting

They spend days arguing about Gay Marriage instead of Energy Policy. They refuse to do anything about Immigration. They vote down the Voting Rights Act in committee, they vote down Net Neutrality. Then they resort to what could be deemed "political masturbation" when they argue about resolving Iraq.

Seriously I know the Dems aren't much better but the only other alternative is to lynch them all. Which is getting more appealing everyday. Yeah.. yeah 3rd parties, well I wish getting voted in America had nothing to do with money but it does. 3rd parties will never succeed until either the average US citizen gives a crap or we publically finance campaign elections. Both will never happen. Maybe I'll just move to Sweden.

--
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend

Re:Worst Congress Ever by tomhudson · 2006-06-21 09:16 · Score: 5, Interesting
Reform the process:
1. Politicians salaries capped at the AVERAGE income of their consitituents. This way, its in their best interests to make sure that people have decent jobs, with decent incomes. Also, when a recession hits, they'll also feel some of the pain, instead of being insulated from it.
2. Spending of $0.50/voter maximum for any election.
3. No contributions from business.
4. Maximum contribution of $1k/year from any voter, to be split among ALL contributions they make to all politicians.
5. No more voter registration along party lines. Either you're elligible to vote, or not. Who you vote for, what party you want to be aligned with, etc., are all your own bloody business.
6. Designate certain bills as "government confidence" votes. If the bill (budgets are good for this) isn't passed, the government falls, and a new election is held.
Re:Worst Congress Ever by thisissilly · 2006-06-21 09:37 · Score: 1

Minor changes:
1. Politicians salaries capped at the MEDIAN income of their consitituents.
3. No contributions without voter registration info attached. If you cannot vote in a given election, you cannot contribute to those election campaigns.
7. Bring back the Fairness Doctorine
Re:Worst Congress Ever by Stalyn · 2006-06-21 09:43 · Score: 1

They all sound like good ideas but they will never happen. The *people* just don't care enough. If you think Congress will reform themselves... you must be new here.

--
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
Re:Worst Congress Ever by Kaa · 2006-06-21 09:44 · Score: 1

1. Politicians salaries capped at the AVERAGE income of their consitituents. This way, its in their best interests to make sure that people have decent jobs, with decent incomes. Also, when a recession hits, they'll also feel some of the pain, instead of being insulated from it.

Incentive for (much) more pork.

2. Spending of $0.50/voter maximum for any election.

Big First Amendment problems.

3. No contributions from business.

More big First Amendment problems.

4. Maximum contribution of $1k/year from any voter, to be split among ALL contributions they make to all politicians.

Yet more big First Amendment problems. Besides, do you really think this mess is all because of election campaign contributions?

5. No more voter registration along party lines. Either you're elligible to vote, or not. Who you vote for, what party you want to be aligned with, etc., are all your own bloody business.

Um. It is already. Your "party" registration and the way you vote are entirely unrelated.

6. Designate certain bills as "government confidence" votes. If the bill (budgets are good for this) isn't passed, the government falls, and a new election is held.

That comes from a different political system -- one where the head of the government comes from the leading party in the legislature. The USA's political system is not like this at all.

--

Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
Re:Worst Congress Ever by SydShamino · 2006-06-21 10:01 · Score: 2

# Politicians salaries capped at the AVERAGE income of their consitituents. This way, its in their best interests to make sure that people have decent jobs, with decent incomes. Also, when a recession hits, they'll also feel some of the pain, instead of being insulated from it.

This won't work - it means they'll bring home more bacon to pad their consituents, or they'll bail to the private sector sooner / for less. Seriously, it isn't easy to be elected if you aren't independently wealthy or in a job you can pick up and drop at your leisure - lawyer, public relations, corporate figurehead. Cutting political salaries will just make this worse.

I'd rather increase congressional salaries dramatically, and even pay them for a few years after they leave office, and then A) ban them from lobbying congress for 10 years after leaving office, and B) prevent them from being hired by any company who benefitted from their legislation for 2 years after leaving office.

# Spending of $0.50/voter maximum for any election.

This one will never work, due to the first amendment.

# No contributions from business.

Other respondents say this won't work due to the first amendment, but I think it can, because the first amendment does not support businesses, because businesses are not people, contrary to the way the judiciary has interpreted it for the last 100 years. If it was fixed so that the speech of a corporation (or those acting on paid behalf of a corporation) were limited to non-fraudulent advertisement, we'd be in a lot better shape. If the first amendment does stand against this, I'd modify the constitution.

# Maximum contribution of $1k/year from any voter, to be split among ALL contributions they make to all politicians.

First amendment violation, and not a good idea, either.

# No more voter registration along party lines. Either you're elligible to vote, or not. Who you vote for, what party you want to be aligned with, etc., are all your own bloody business.

Sure.

# Designate certain bills as "government confidence" votes. If the bill (budgets are good for this) isn't passed, the government falls, and a new election is held.

Sure.

--
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Re:Worst Congress Ever by Kadin2048 · 2006-06-21 10:05 · Score: 1

You probably wouldn't want to cap salaries at the median income of their constituents, because the effect that would have would just be to ensure that no average person would ever be able to (or want to) go into politics. Instead only the independently wealthy who had gotten bored with accruing money and decided to try accruing power would be able to run for office, because they'd be able to support themselves.

That's the reason why full-time politicial jobs are paid to begin with. If they weren't, only the rich would have them. This was a pretty common practice in other countries in the past as a way of keeping the riffraff out of powerful offices -- make sure that it cost a lot of money to inhabit that office, and don't pay them anything. (Here in the United States we've basically gone down that road, just with campaign donations instead of direct salary.)

Note that I'm not saying that rich people can't make good politicians -- people who've made their money honestly may in fact be quite bright, and may have a lot to bring to the table. But making money a requirement in order to hold office probably isn't going to help make the system representative.

--
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Re:Worst Congress Ever by tomhudson · 2006-06-21 10:14 · Score: 1

RE: Freedom of speech and campaign contributions ... while its true that "money talks", restricting campaign contributions is not restricting a person's freedom of speeh. They're free to continue to say what they want. They're just not free to buy certain things, like a politicians' vote. As for business being banned, businesses aren't people, and don't have the same rights.
Now while capping income would make you think that it would create incentives for more porkbarrelling, the truth is that it would be the least efficient way to raise the politicians' income; real economic growth (as opposed to pork) works better, because the pork also raises the individuals tax share, whereas real economic growth grows the tax base, reducing the individual tax share.
In other words, it becomes a pork disincentive.
Re:Worst Congress Ever by not-enough-info · 2006-06-21 10:15 · Score: 1

Politicians salaries capped at the AVERAGE income of their consitituents. This way, its in their best interests to make sure that people have decent jobs, with decent incomes. Also, when a recession hits, they'll also feel some of the pain, instead of being insulated from it.

Almost, but not quite. I believe you want MEDIAN income.
Otherwise you run into problems in certain places. Take for example, I don't know, King County WA...

--
---k--
</stupid>
Re:Worst Congress Ever by tomhudson · 2006-06-21 10:19 · Score: 1

Porkbarrel projects would increase the taxes on the locals, whereas promoting real economic growth would lower the tax share for individuals. Politicians would come out ahead $$$ with less pork, not more.
As for increasing their salaries, already its attracting the wrong kind of people - the "carer politician." Better to get people into politics because they're mad as hell and not going to take it any more.
Even better - choose your leader by lottery - the loser is the "elected official." After all, even a random group culled from the population couldn't have done as bad as the current crop. They would have at least had SOME contact with "real people," and not just the political chattering class.
Re:Worst Congress Ever by tomhudson · 2006-06-21 10:25 · Score: 1

That's why the spending cap. It won't matter if you have millions, if you can't spend them in an election. Also, since you'd only be able to donate $1k to your own campaign, how much money you or some corporate sponsor has is irrelevent.
We've done it here. Per-voter spending limits. Donation limits. Disclosure of donors lists and amounts donated. Absolute bans on all forms of corporate contributions (money and in-kind). And we still use a paper ballot, and the votes are counted by people from the winner and the runner-up from the previous election, in view of election officials so that any disputes can be settled or, if not possible, noted for further action.
Re:Worst Congress Ever by kcbrown · 2006-06-21 10:35 · Score: 1

Politicians salaries capped at the AVERAGE income of their consitituents. This way, its in their best interests to make sure that people have decent jobs, with decent incomes. Also, when a recession hits, they'll also feel some of the pain, instead of being insulated from it.

No, they'll just get their money through more "discreet" channels. And then they'll be beholden to the guys with the most cash, just as they are right now.

If you really want to fix this, you make the politician's compensation a single lump sum, to be collected at the end of his first term, that's so large that he'll be set for life, with one condition: he has to survive at least one term. Then you just do something to make it easy for the electorate to throw the guy out of office before his term is up, to give him a ton of incentive to make the electorate happy for at least one term.

Do that and everyone who is eligible will have a huge incentive to run, which means you'll see a whole pile of fresh blood competing for the position. Furthermore, the incumbent won't have much incentive to remain an incumbent unless he truly enjoys the job, because he's already got his payout at the end of his first term.

Designate certain bills as "government confidence" votes. If the bill (budgets are good for this) isn't passed, the government falls, and a new election is held.

Nice, except for one problem: no bill would be thusly designated, because none of the politicians would be stupid enough to do so. Hmm...unless you make such designation of at least one bill a prerequisite for the politician to get his big payout at the end of his term...

--
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
Re:Worst Congress Ever by tomhudson · 2006-06-21 10:50 · Score: 1

In many areas, a budget bill is considered a vote of confidence in the government. After all, if you can't pass the budget, how can you govern?
A lump sum at the end of the term, upon re-election, is a good incentive to please the people. The problem is that we don't often hear about crooked scams until after the incumbent gets tossed out ...
Politicians ... can't live with them ... can't shoot them ...
Re:Worst Congress Ever by Anonymous Coward · 2006-06-21 11:24 · Score: 0

Furthermore, the incumbent won't have much incentive to remain an incumbent unless he truly enjoys the job, because he's already got his payout at the end of his first term. Wrong. Do you think politicians are in it for the salary? You're sadly mistaken. $165,200 sounds like a lot of money to you and me, but many (most?) of them already come from money. They're in it for the power. They use that power to build their personal empires, of course, but the salaries are such a small part of that.
Re:Worst Congress Ever by NoMaster · 2006-06-21 11:33 · Score: 1

No more voter registration along party lines. Either you're elligible to vote, or not. Who you vote for, what party you want to be aligned with, etc., are all your own bloody business.
This is one of the things about the American political / electoral system which seems just crazy to an outsider - the whole "registered Democrat / Republican" thing. I know it's not compulsory, I know it's not done in every state, and I know it's (supposed to be) only used for your strange system of Primaries etc. But do you really not see how it's not too far removed from wearing a (cue Godwin...) Jewish Star?

Want to vote in Party elections? Fine, go join that party, separately, off your own back. It's something which has no place on a supposedly impartial electoral roll...

--
What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
Re:Worst Congress Ever by Anonymous Coward · 2006-06-21 11:37 · Score: 0

By mode of comparison, and to show that changes can work, Canada currently has #4, #5, part of #3, and sometimes #6. As of 2003 we have limits on #3 -- $1000/yr maximum corporate donations and donations from other organizations (unions, etc.). And that includes not only cash, but "in kind" donations of services and such. #4 is also new (2003), but the limit is $5k/yr, and if you donate more than $200, your name and address gets published on a list of contributors. Everything is indexed for inflation, so the numbers are currently a few percent higher.

#5 has been around for decades. Hell, we don't even have to *register* to vote. Someone comes around to every household and *enumerates* voters, and if you check a little box on your income tax form, the information gets added to the voter registration list automatically.

#6 is there when it is a minority government (i.e. the government in power doesn't have a majority of votes in parliament). Some bills are considered "confidence" issues, such as the budget, and sometimes other bills. Governments can designate bills as "confidence issues", in which case the government will fall if the bill doesn't pass. This is more useful than it seems -- e.g., if the public support is behind the bill, but opposition parties want to vote it down, they have to risk the wrath of the public if an election is forced. Unfortunately, minority governments aren't all that common or stable, and if a majority government exists, they can pretty much ram through anything they like, if people vote on party lines. Fortunately, the last two governments in Canada have been minority governments ;-)

One big compromise came out of the election legislation that was passed in 2003: increased funding of political campaigns from taxpayer funds. Yes, that's right, we PAY politicians to campaign. Sounds nuts, doesn't it? It gets weirder: Every vote a party receives in an election is worth $1.75, if the party gets 2% of the vote nationally, and 5% in a given riding/constituency. It is a strange, but somehow appropriate, feeling that even if the party you vote for loses, you still have sent them $1.75 for the next campaign. Also, notice that if election turnout is generally poor, then ALL the parties will have a financial problem.

All this apparently means the federal election campaigns are close to 90% funded by the public. It sounds ridiculous, but I think most people consider it the lesser of two evils. The politicians are forced to either get more grassroots-level small donations, or live within the modest amount of money that taxpayers provide them.

It is interesting to think about what election reform along these lines would do to campaigns in the US.
Re:Worst Congress Ever by Kaa · 2006-06-21 11:57 · Score: 1

...restricting campaign contributions is not restricting a person's freedom of speeh. They're free to continue to say what they want. They're just not free to buy certain things, like a politicians' vote.

Not that simple :-) Are individuals free to buy TV time? to place ads/statements of their own choosing? Once you get done plugging all the loopholes, the First Amendment problems will be really obvious.

real economic growth (as opposed to pork) works better, because the pork also raises the individuals tax share, whereas real economic growth grows the tax base, reducing the individual tax share.

Pork: I get the Federal government to build, say, 10 bridges and a couple of federal prisons in my constituency. That's money from the outside flowing in plus new jobs paid for with federal money. The tax base is growing :-)

Besides real economic growth does not reduce the individual tax share, because the government's appetite for money does not stay constant over time and, in fact, heavily correlated with that economic growth...

--

Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
Re:Worst Congress Ever by R3d+M3rcury · 2006-06-21 12:00 · Score: 1

Some interesting ideas.

Politicians salaries capped at the AVERAGE income of their consitituents.
Actually, I'd change the way they are paid entirely.

Senators are there representing the State. Thus, they should be paid by the State Government, not the Federal Government. How their pay gets decided will be up to the state. Maybe the Governor decides. Maybe it gets voted on in the state government.

For example, Senators will complain that they have to keep two houses--one in Washington, one in their home district. Thus, they need more money for this. Solution: Have the State buy them a house in Washington. Problem solved. "We don't have to pay you so much now, because we're paying for your house. And, if you get voted out, we'll move someone else into the house."

It might be trickier to have Representatives work the same way, I'll admit. There are some pretty poor districts, so it might be best to let the states pay for the Representatives as well, I'll admit. But I'd take the pay away from them entirely and move that closer to the people who are sending them. Heck, if nothing else, somebody might use it in their campaign: "Better Representation at Half the Price!"

No more voter registration along party lines.
Well, I'm not sure how it works. I think the government stores this information if you supply it and will provide it to the party. I don't have a problem with voter registration drives sponsored by political parties. I convinced my roomate to register to vote via some drive by the local Republican party. However, she registered as an independent.

Actually, speaking of political parties and congress, here's one of those little money-saving things I'd like to see enacted. The Senate and House Majority and Minority Leaders and Whips get more tax-dollars to run their offices than the typical congressman. Now, last I knew, there was no such position in the government as "Senate Majority Leader." The parties decide this. That's fine--political parties can do what they want to. But not with my tax dollars. If the Senate Majority Leader needs more staff to run his office, let the Republican or Democratic Party pay for it.
Re:Worst Congress Ever by tomhudson · 2006-06-21 12:48 · Score: 1

Here in Québec we've banned ALL corporate and union donations - individuals only, and it has to be from their own funds. We went from the place where "vote early, vote often" and "dead people are voters too" to one of the most transparent processes.
Violate those rules, and you'll see your name in the news, as well as being banned from office for 5 years.
Re:Worst Congress Ever by tomhudson · 2006-06-21 12:54 · Score: 1

Not that simple :-) Are individuals free to buy TV time? to place ads/statements of their own choosing? Once you get done plugging all the loopholes, the First Amendment problems will be really obvious.

Well, there's a difference between free speech and buying advertising. Up here, anyone attempting to do an end run around the spending rules on elections is going to get hauled before the regulators. Editorial comment, letters to the editor, etc., are all free speech, and thus not under the regulations ... buying paid political ads or advertising to influence the outcome of an election is different - its not considered free speech if you have to pay for it :-)
It may sound overly-restrictive, but lets face it ... the alternative wasn't working, and if you're going to reform the system, why not go whole hog?
Re:Worst Congress Ever by tomhudson · 2006-06-21 13:02 · Score: 1

You know, those housing ideas are great. And having the individual states pay their representatives in both houses would certainly emphasize that the voter is paying the tab, not "gubbiment".
The houses at the capitol could be like mini-embassies for each state. Less privacy to do "dirty deals", etc.
Re:Worst Congress Ever by Nimey · 2006-06-21 15:27 · Score: 1

# Spending of $0.50/voter maximum for any election.

This one will never work, due to the first amendment.

Money is not speech. You are perfectly able to speak out without money.

--
Hail Eris, full of mischief...

E pluribus sanguinem
Re:Worst Congress Ever by thePowerOfGrayskull · 2006-06-21 15:39 · Score: 1

$1k/year/voter -- make that $10/year/voter, and we're getting somewhere.
Re:Worst Congress Ever by AnyoneEB · 2006-06-21 16:35 · Score: 1

3. No contributions without voter registration info attached. If you cannot vote in a given election, you cannot contribute to those election campaigns.
So, relatives who live out of state are not allowed to help their family in a Congressional election?

--
Centralization breaks the internet.
Re:Worst Congress Ever by megaditto · 2006-06-21 19:45 · Score: 1

3. No contributions from business.

I am pretty sure that's already done in Texas. Isn't that how 'the Hammer' got in trouble? Using corporate money for local elections in TX?

Also, as I recall there is a $2,000/person limit of presidential election donations, so there seems to be no First Ammendment problem there either (I could be wrong on this one).

--
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
Re:Worst Congress Ever by dtsazza · 2006-06-21 23:02 · Score: 1

If you really want to fix this, you make the politician's compensation a single lump sum, to be collected at the end of his first term, that's so large that he'll be set for life, with one condition: he has to survive at least one term. Then you just do something to make it easy for the electorate to throw the guy out of office before his term is up, to give him a ton of incentive to make the electorate happy for at least one term.
No, no, no, no, no. A vast number of bad political decisions are motivated by the desire to improve publicity ratings. Probably more so here in the UK than in the US, but the concept still holds. If you're to make "good" political decisions (especially w.r.t. any kind of institutional reform), you often have to think a fair way in the future. And with most things that offer a long-term benefit, they don't look so good in the short term.

I already feel that we have too much short-term thinking, with parties simply trying to stay in power through the next election, rather than looking at the nation and thinking of ways to improve it wholesomely. Telling a politician that he won't get paid unless he can prove himself to be popular means that no more daring or long-term policies get passed - it's all popular fluff.

Which I suppose links back to the root problem of a democracy... that most people are idiots. Perhaps not idiots per se - I respect people that value and prioritise other things than me - but they often fail to link cause to effect. Especially on a national political level. As a result, they are unable to make an accurate, rational decision on a policy's advantages and disadvantages - and it all comes down to spin. More specifically, culture has recently led people to "demand things now" - and they'll support shooting yourself in the foot for short term gains every time.

Everyone is entitled to have a say and to protect his own interests - but not everyone is capable of doing so. I know it's like being between a rock and a hard place, but sometimes you've just got to give the politicians the ball and let them run with it - give them sufficient guaranteed time so they can implement more comprehensive policies.

--
My, that was a yummy potato!
Re:Worst Congress Ever by dkf · 2006-06-22 00:29 · Score: 1

Pork: I get the Federal government to build, say, 10 bridges and a couple of federal prisons in my constituency. That's money from the outside flowing in plus new jobs paid for with federal money. The tax base is growing :-)
What about the income of all those prisoners. All those very low income people are going to knock that average down...
But in general, if the actions of a politician are increasing the number of jobs available to their constituents, that politician is doing his/her job. Moreover, pork is less effective at this because it takes jobs and money away from other constituencies (making it harder to attract the support of other politicians for the measure). Supporting real growth is definitely better, especially if the politico intends to get reelected.

--
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Re:Worst Congress Ever by chihowa · 2006-06-22 06:17 · Score: 1

Where's the problem?

--
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
Re:Worst Congress Ever by AnyoneEB · 2006-06-22 14:21 · Score: 1

I was just pointing out one possible opposition to your proposal. Only allowing registered voters to donate to campaigns could have an interesting effect on campaigns. Then again, companies would probably just find loopholes and donate through registered voters somehow.

--
Centralization breaks the internet.
Re:Worst Congress Ever by SydShamino · 2006-06-26 04:27 · Score: 1

As for increasing their salaries, already its attracting the wrong kind of people - the "carer politician." Better to get people into politics because they're mad as hell and not going to take it any more.

I see no evil in this. Is it any worse than a "career doctor" or a "career engineer"? Not everyone wants to change professions so dramatically in life - which again leads to only lawyers and business leaders being politicians, because those are the only jobs somewhat close to politics.

Besides, when and if I chose to go into politics, my engineer career would be over. I would no longer remain skilled enough for design positions, and having a political job on my resume would probably be a black mark when interviewing for any technical position. In other words, if I chose to go into politics, and I didn't want to aim for a cushy PR/lobbying job when I left, politics would have to be for life.

--
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Re:Worst Congress Ever by tomhudson · 2006-06-26 05:01 · Score: 1
The problem with that attitude is what's given us today's situation:
1. If you want to be a teacher, go to school and fill your head up with teacher stuff
2. If you want to be a doctor, go to school and fill your head up with doctor stuff
3. If you want to be a mechanic, go to school and fill your head up with mechanic stuff
4. If you want to be a politician, go to school and fill your head up with shit
... after all, its not like you're even going to be expected to READ the stuff that you vote on, never mind understand it ...

if you'd like to contact them on-line: by yagu · 2006-06-21 09:04 · Score: 4, Informative

For those who would like to contact these people on-line:

Re:if you'd like to contact them on-line: by adam.dorsey · 2006-06-21 09:57 · Score: 1

Just sent Mr. Rockefeller a message.

Transmission Follows:
---
Dear Senator Rockefeller,
I am a computer technician at WVU. I am also a computer geek. Like most computer geeks, I don't like when my electronics don't work. There is a portion of S.2686 that regards a mandatory "broadcast flag" for television and radio transmissions. The purpose of this flag is to force any recording device to not record a program that contains this flag. I am a firm believer in the concept of fair use. This portion of the bill would essentially kill the fair use of VCR's, Tivo, and other recording devices I am very fond of. Please, please, please don't let the entertainment industry screw us over. They can make plenty of money without this sort of cheating.

Thank you,
Adam Dorsey
---

Everyone whose Senators are listed should do this. At least we can legitimately say we did our part.

--
You are still innocent until proven guilty. What's changed is what they do to innocent people. - notnAP, #26891325
Re:if you'd like to contact them on-line: by shdragon · 2006-06-21 10:01 · Score: 1

Word.

Thanks for the list. I just emailed my senator (Kay Bailey Hutchinson) about this issue.

--
"...we dont care about the economics; we just want to be able to hack great stuff."
Re:if you'd like to contact them on-line: by ntk · 2006-06-21 10:01 · Score: 3, Informative

Hey, Danny from the EFF here. In this case, you should call them, as a message or email probably won't reach them in time for the Thursday vote.

Power Sucks by Doc+Ruby · 2006-06-21 09:07 · Score: 1

Nature abhors a vacuum, and power vacuums suck hardest. Without decent legislation to fill the slot that defines value conflicted between different interests, bad legislation will always return to fill it.

It's obvious that the Republican government insists on the maximum corporate legislation possible, and the minimum personal freedom. It's clear that just stopping corporate laws isn't enough to protect our freedom from being destroyed by the government, instead of protected. We need to insert "broadcast flag" laws into the books that prohibit them from interfering with our rights.

The EFF needs to write copyright laws that specify when they can be used and what they mean in practice and in the courts. Like any good lobbyist these days, they need to get politicians to adopt the "language" defining DRM to protect only legitimate rights and privileges. It should be cheap and easy for the EFF, as minimal DRM power is popular and just. In fact, the EFF will be doing politicians a favor by packaging popular public interest in a format that can be easily shown on TV and in newspapers, for maximum fundraising and campaigning effect.

--

--
make install -not war

Re:Power Sucks by Dachannien · 2006-06-21 09:18 · Score: 2, Informative

It's obvious that the Republican government insists on the maximum corporate legislation possible, and the minimum personal freedom.

This must be why Republican Senator John Sununu is our avatar on the committee for removing the broadcast/audio flags from this legislation.

You have to understand that copyright is not a partisan issue. This is why no openly partisan organization should get involved in the debate over these matters (such as MoveOn.org did with network neutrality, killing any chance of Republicans supporting that issue).
Re:Power Sucks by Bent+Mind · 2006-06-21 09:43 · Score: 1

This must be why Republican Senator John Sununu is our avatar on the committee for removing the broadcast/audio flags from this legislation.

Interesting... Sounds like this senator frequently opposes the Republican party. It makes me wonder why he would want to maintain membership in that party.

--
Request a Linux Shockwave player here: http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/wishform/
Re:Power Sucks by Doc+Ruby · 2006-06-21 09:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

"maximum corporate legislation possible "

Sununu is defending his "constituent" (briber^Wcontributor) telco corporations from liability for the broadcast flag. That doesn't make him wrong to oppose the flag, it just makes it less obvious which corporate legislation he insists on. If he insisted on copyright holder laws, he'd get less "support" from telcos. If he really protected consumers, he'd replace the broadcast flag legislation with other legislation that blocks it, rather than leave the vacuum. The vacuum gives Sununu an issue to bargain with the telcos in the future.

I'm not talking about a "partisan issue". I'm talking about a partisan government. Republicans control the government so exclusively that they exclude Democrats from even debate, or even reading the bills before votes. With that power, Republicans insist on the maximum corporate legislation possible - with possibility defined mostly by conflicts between corporations over "market access", without any regard to the people we elect them to protect.

Republicans already have taken the telco position against Net Neutrality, despite its obvious rigging the market for telcos. If MoveOn, which depends on Net Neutrality for its existence in face of telco power, didn't oppose it, the Republicans would have found their common interest with telcos even easier to execute. Shutting out MoveOn from such political activism is the result of abandoning Net Neutrality. Republican kneejerk "enemy's enemy is my friend" is the hallmark of what's wrong with their control of the government.

--
--
make install -not war
Re:Power Sucks by John+Miles · 2006-06-21 10:05 · Score: 1

We need to insert "broadcast flag" laws into the books that prohibit them from interfering with our rights.

The basis in law is already there; it's just universally ignored.

Congress's mandate is to enforce copyright for a limited time. To the extent that a DRM implementation does not provide for an automatic, guaranteed expiration date, it cannot be enforced through copyright-related legislation.

That is perhaps the most direct route to having the DMCA ruled unconstitutional. Someday, someone will explain to me why no one has ever pursued this argument in court. (It might be a question of legal standing; i.e., until someone has actually been unable to access content because of a 70-year-old DRM scheme, nothing can be done by the courts. If that's true, wow... I guess that's what we get when we let lawyers design complex systems.)

--
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
Re:Power Sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2006-06-22 05:04 · Score: 0

Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure that argument has already failed once. Don't recall the details, just that I followed a link posted here maybe 2 months back. The outcome was basically that our out of touch courts decided that our bought and paid for legislators' definition of "limited time" to mean "forever minus a day" was OK. It's stupid and it's flaunting both the Constitution and the rights of over 280 million Americans.

To say this'll be fixed when somebody "important" is hurt is also naive. Who hasn't heard of special exceptions (ie former PA senator Tom Druce can murder and commit insurance fraud, but only get 2 years AND actually be entertained on the belief that house arrest while appealing should count towards that time)? I really believe it's going to come down to an uprising that find the political class in the same situation as European Jews before and during WW2.
Re:Power Sucks by Alsee · 2006-06-22 07:37 · Score: 1

You have to understand that copyright is not a partisan issue. This is why no openly partisan organization should get involved in the debate over these matters (such as MoveOn.org did with network neutrality, killing any chance of Republicans supporting that issue).

Hmmmmm.....

I wonder if we can get MoveOn.org to publicly support the Broadcast Flag legislation.

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Re:Power Sucks by Dachannien · 2006-06-22 18:22 · Score: 1

If he really protected consumers, he'd replace the broadcast flag legislation with other legislation that blocks it, rather than leave the vacuum.

What good would that do? Congress could just turn around next year and pass a law making it mandatory, regardless of what gets blocked this year.

Also, you talk about the Republicans as if they all have hearts as black as coal while Democrats are pure as the driven snow. It's not like that at all. On both sides of the aisle, they're all self-serving money-grubbing politicians, and it's silly to tear down only the one side when there's plenty of blame and criticism to go around, especially when the issue at hand doesn't follow party lines at all (note that the only person to sing high praises of the Broadcast Flag during Thursday's markup was Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California).

Bickering over partisan maneuverings is pointless, because once the Democrats end up in power (and eventually they will), they'll pull all the same stunts the Republicans are doing now.
Re:Power Sucks by Doc+Ruby · 2006-06-23 01:22 · Score: 1

When there's an existing law, it's harder to pass a new one to replace or revise it. Those who already passed it and those voting on it can say "Congress has spoken" instead of "let's try this for starters, and get it right later". Because most of the process isn't the structure (which of course does allow for revision), it's the rhetoric.

And no I don't talk about Republicans and Democrats as if they're totally different. But you are talking about them as if they are exactly the same. The fact is that when Democrats ran Congress, or even the whole government, they did not do the things we're getting from the Republican government. Like the Iraq war, our $9-45 TRILLION debt, shredding every amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Boxer represents Hollywood, which wants to own all content forever. She also represents Silicon Valley, some of which is just like Hollywood, some of which wants content to flow unimpeded - but which doesn't have the same power as the Hollywood that controls what's on our TV and movie screens already. If the Republican government actually let Boxer and other Democrats do anything but stand up and talk (like actually negotiate the content of the bills), it would matter what they said. Just like it used to matter what Republicans said, even when their minority was smaller than the current Democrats', because Democrats didn't abuse the rules to shut them out.

--
--
make install -not war

Re:Thanks! And keep the alerts coming! by voice_of_all_reason · 2006-06-21 09:08 · Score: 4, Funny

I urge you to send a strongly worded letter

Screw that, I'm sending a horse's head.

Business as ususal by nurb432 · 2006-06-21 09:08 · Score: 1

This is how politics work. Nothing new here.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

Nothing short of a revolution by roman_mir · 2006-06-21 09:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

Nothing short of a revolution can change the status quo.

The revolution must be then used to dump the current laws and remove those, who are currently in power, and update the constitution to include the new realities and possibilities and to prevent as much as possible of this degradation of human rights and of this invasion into individual freedoms.

Of-course it is the most important job of the corrupt government to prevent such a shakeup by all possible means including dumbing down the population, removal of all individual rights and even responsibilities (those who understand their responsibilities also insist on their rights,) introduction of laws that take away all freedoms that really matter and nurturing the environment of conspicuous consumption, which is enough to satisfy the current bodily needs and to substitute any mental needs/activities.

As it is right now television is great for mass control and the Internet is terrible at it. What the US government doesn't understand is that by creating tight regulations around usage of the TV programs, they are just pushing people to use more of what the Internet offers. If I was the government, who wanted to keep tight control over population, I would promote more cheap and accessible TV for everyone and would discourage usage of the Internet.

Maybe the equation will balance itself out, or maybe those in power will try to control the Internet in the same manner as the TV (this will be much harder.)

The Internet can lead to organization of opposition and may even be able to provide the means to conduct something of a revolution for the future generations.

--
You can't handle the truth.

Re:Nothing short of a revolution by mcpkaaos · 2006-06-21 09:31 · Score: 1

and update the constitution to include the new realities and possibilities and to prevent as much as possible of this degradation of human rights and of this invasion into individual freedoms.

The Constitution is fine. We don't need anyone to change it; we just need to start upholding it.

--
It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
Re:Nothing short of a revolution by Goblez · 2006-06-21 09:35 · Score: 1

While I agree, steps are already being taken to limit the neutrality of the internet, so don't think that they aren't already thinking of that next step. And the distaste that communities like this one feel from the consistanly amoral techniques they implore are also part of their plan, to get those that understand what they are doing to become so fed up that they don't care anymore.

--
- Kal`Goblez
Re:Nothing short of a revolution by roman_mir · 2006-06-21 09:40 · Score: 1

I am not an expert on the US Constitution, I live in Canada. But from what I see, the US Constitution allows too much interpretation. Maybe it is fine for a short period of time, but not fine once people, who start giving their own interpretation to the writing come into play. I think the modern constitution should have more failsaves, more specific cases. Also I bet the writer of the old text could not have anticipated the kind of technological advances that are prevalent now, that allow the government to abuse their powers so much. The world has changed in the past couple of hundreds of years, there are too many new concepts and too many lawyers. Even if you could kill all lawyers right now and start from a clean slate, you could not guarantee that the inertia of bureaucracy wouldn't lead to the same outcome.

No, I think the Constitution should be refactored to better model the new reality.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:Nothing short of a revolution by bill_kress · 2006-06-21 09:41 · Score: 1

I kinda agree. I think we're due for a depression followed by a revolution kind of like in the 30/40's if we're lucky, if not it'll be a violent one then I think the whole world may be in trouble.

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.--jfk

Does anyone think our "Democratic" system in the US could still be doing it's job, creating a peaceful revolution every 4-8 years?
Re:Nothing short of a revolution by adam613 · 2006-06-21 09:46 · Score: 1

I don't think the founders of US government expected it to last nearly long as it has.
Re:Nothing short of a revolution by roman_mir · 2006-06-21 09:53 · Score: 1

steps are already being taken to limit the neutrality of the internet - you are right of-course, but what is interesting is that this creates more opportunity for the technical community to work together as a group on creating a Supernet (I call dibs on this word :) on top of the current Internet or even a parallel Freenet ;) of some sort. In principle the current technology allows creation of any number of independent networks for communities. The more the governments try to control the official Internet, the more control they will lose over the unofficial/secure networks.

And the distaste that communities like this one feel from the consistanly amoral techniques they implore - you mean immoral of-course.

are also part of their plan, to get those that understand what they are doing to become so fed up that they don't care anymore. - I think people can in principle stop caring about things they cannot change, like the broadcast flags in TV sets, but I think this will actually promote innovation for the sake of Freedom (sort of like GNU, I don't like some things that RMS talks about, his stance on non-free software for example, I should have my right to build non-Free software, but he is right about the need for Free software. Same idea applies here.)

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:Nothing short of a revolution by evilviper · 2006-06-21 09:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

Nothing short of a revolution can change the status quo.

Yes, a revolution is the perfectly rational thing to do, in the face of being unable to copy media with your home-made tivo. That was why they wrote The Declaration of Independence in the first place, wasn't it?

I mean, sure, a few million people will have to die in the revolutionary war, and it will throw the country (and yes, the world) into a depression unlike any that has been seen before, but that's a small price to pay for my satellite radio copies.

The alternative... starving the media companies by NOT BUYING ANYTHING FROM THEM AGAIN, is too horrible to even contemplate. You can't expect me to watch PBS. I'm not an animal!

And don't even discuss the idea of voting against those senators (like Feinstein, CA) who have been the most corrupt politicians for years. I mean... VOTING?! Good God man! Don't you dare suggest it.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:Nothing short of a revolution by roman_mir · 2006-06-21 10:14 · Score: 4, Interesting

I think it is more difficult than that, if anything, the current US government is at least very strong millitary speaking. They are not about to allow an armed revolution to take place.

That is why they are working on the terrorist laws and removal of all of the Freedoms. The terrorists are a great excuse to turn an entire country into one giant prison cell.

The soldiers in the millitary of-course should be recruited from the lowest classes of the population, so that they could be controlled easier and rewarded in a cheaper kind of way.

What will bring down this government? Will it be wars with external enemy, kind of wars that the general population will not be comfortable with?

Here is one possible future of the US:

A giant WAR machine driven by corporate interests. Cannon fodder recruited from the poorest classes, easily satisfied by a few handouts and a promise of pensions. Social structure that is falling appart: growing taxes, inflation, growing oil prices, more and more expensive healthcare. The widenning of the gap between the rich and the poor.

What happens next in an environment, in which those in power don't believe they have any obligations to the nation, but only have obligations to the highest bidder - corporations? The country's economy will start to fail, the millitary will be used for corporation profit regardless of the concern for the country, because corporations are international and have no loyalty to any nation at the same time. The country will become one giant prison with a very powerful war machine. Where will this lead? Well, if history teaches us anything, it is that those who command the millitary have the power.

It will take one strong millitary leader, and the country will become a dictatorship that will start a war to 'improve' the declining quality of life. By then the county will lose most production capability that is not aimed at millitary purposes. Why wouldn't this country attack other successful economies? Strong millitary leaders don't last though, and this one may fall and give place to a committee of some sort, who will try to rebuild the republic. All of this will be accompanied by years of economical degradation and depression.

But the US is big and there are plenty of needs to be satisfied, and it will be small businesses that will have to satisfy them.

You can see that I believe that things happen in cycles because anything that is too linear creates great disbalance and cycles allow to balance things out on a long enough time scale.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:Nothing short of a revolution by Arcane_Rhino · 2006-06-21 10:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

...the US Constitution allows too much interpretation...

I disagree. Accepting that it was written in the vernacular of its time, I think it is very clear. It clearly delineates Federal responsibilities, outlines the specific personal (popular) liberties that shall not be abridged by the States or the Federal Government, and leaves the rest to the States, specifically, local populations.

The trouble is that it has been ignored and changed (mostly ignored) in the last 150 years (particularly the last 50) to enable an domineering Federal Government.

I am not sure writing a new constitution so it can be ignored as well will be of any use.
Re:Nothing short of a revolution by Anonymous Coward · 2006-06-21 10:21 · Score: 1, Insightful

Yes, a revolution is the perfectly rational thing to do, in the face of being unable to copy media with your home-made tivo. That was why they wrote The Declaration of Independence in the first place, wasn't it?

Well, actually, they wrote it because some Boston businessmen had to pay a little extra for tea and stamps. Kinda puts things into perspective if you think of it that way.
Re:Nothing short of a revolution by roman_mir · 2006-06-21 10:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yes, a revolution is the perfectly rational thing to do, in the face of being unable to copy media with your home-made tivo. That was why they wrote The Declaration of Independence in the first place, wasn't it? - let me be perfectly clear on this: I don't care about media controling mechanisms, I actually believe DRM can be a good tool for certain tasks. I am not really talking about the broadband flag here either, I am talking about degradation of human rights and freedoms that we have been observing for the past decades.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:Nothing short of a revolution by Anonymous Coward · 2006-06-21 10:30 · Score: 1

Wasn't sure which comment I wanted to reply to here, lots of places this comment could have gone to reply.

Anyway, I like the fact that you are finally trying to grasp the whole situation. Very few people can grasp the whole of it all, but I will predict something that has happened to me, will happen to you.

First of all, your not going to grasp the entire situation and were not talking about just DRM here. You can grasp most of it if your vigilent. But your not going to have every answer for every problem, that's how big these problems are, you just can't get it all, there isn't enough time in a 24 hour day to stay on top of it all. Add to this the ought right lies , the political spin, the secrecy, and you are well on your way to madness.

Yes madness.

This fucking situation is madness.

Pick about any area, any topic, and the PNAC, GOP, NWO, Globalists (whatever you want to call them) are into every area, every topic, they have infiltrated everything.

At this point, anything I hear that comes from the Capitol, I know is the exact opposite of what they say. If they say, tonight the sky will be black, then you know the sky will truthfully be white.

It's lie after treasonous lie, the beheading of our constitution and bill of rights, the theft of our tax dollars via the Iraq war, the give-a-fuck-ness of Katrina victims.

It goes on and on and on and on.

The sad fact is most Americans, don't have time to stay on top of their local election precints, or officials (sic) or elected (double sic) officials, they are too busy trying to hone out a living.

With *ALL* media being corporate (All except Public Access (PEG) TV) your never going to get journalists to put any checks into this dilema. It's against their corporate interests.

Ask yourself why do you believe the "Official Story" about 911?
Is it because you feel guilty that the US treats people bad?

You can't even ask that the official story prove itself.

Electronic elections a total Media blackout.

When you say they push folks from TV to the Web, that may be true, but in the bigger picture, the web is now being controled as well. Just look every day there's some new crap bill or amendment to destroy privacy or force some bullshit on otherwise happy blogs, bbs's and other websites.

take the one bill in New Jersey where they want anyone posting to a "public forum" to have full contact, real name, real address, real phone. Fuck man my software can't even DO THAT SHIT, it was designed NOT TO DO THAT.

They want us to hack our code, and add some tables, and fields for this shit? And then what if it got stolen? What then?

It's more like they plan to have it get stolen. We get screwed and sued and they get more input for their giant illegal database.

Hell my ID is now stolen, thanks to the fucking

Department of Veterans Affairs
Philadelphia, PA 19255-1498

Dear Veteran:
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has recently learned that an employee took home electronic data from the VA, which he was not authorized to do (snip)

In short MY ID is now stolen.

The only hope left is to get rid of these fucking electronic voting machines and the people that run them, and then regain democratic control of the house and senate. Yes Democrats. I don't care if your a republican, the question for your next candidate should be real simple, just like the libertarian test (do you like the right to bear arms.) This test comes down to really one or two questions

If elected will you impeach this president? Yes or No
Will you protect the constitution against domestic enemys? Yes or No

nothing else (besides getting rid of electricity in our elections) matters anymore.

The troops will be in Iraq indefinetly until this happens.

Oh they say they are rolling back the troops, but the fact is this current facist government has NO PLAN to leave Iraq. Their plan is to stay there
Re:Nothing short of a revolution by jez9999 · 2006-06-21 10:31 · Score: 3, Interesting

Well I think the revolution leading to the Declaration of Independence was largely sparked by having to pay taxes. Significantly more serious than the loss of freedom to use your digital media, and the monopolistic prices you have to pay for it? I think many would say no, especially when media is so important to many in this day and age.

--
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Re:Nothing short of a revolution by Cadallin · 2006-06-21 10:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

Exactly what about "A giant WAR machine driven by corporate interests. Cannon fodder recruited from the poorest classes, easily satisfied by a few handouts and a promise of pensions. Social structure that is falling appart: growing taxes, inflation, growing oil prices, more and more expensive healthcare. The widenning of the gap between the rich and the poor.
What happens next in an environment, in which those in power don't believe they have any obligations to the nation, but only have obligations to the highest bidder - corporations? The country's economy will start to fail, the millitary will be used for corporation profit regardless of the concern for the country, because corporations are international and have no loyalty to any nation at the same time. The country will become one giant prison with a very powerful war machine."
HAS NOT been true for the last 30 years or so? That's exactly how it is RIGHT NOW. Of course the USA has always had these tendencies. It's important to note how many the wars in our history are driven by either: corporate business interests, or impending bank failure; and that's going all the way back to 1800.
Re:Nothing short of a revolution by Chowderbags · 2006-06-21 11:49 · Score: 3, Interesting

Oddly enough, the British government actually *reduced* taxes on tea (eliminating the usual colonial tax in the American colonies), to undercut merchants and smugglers so the British East India company could have a monopoly. However, they started to crack down on people not paying their taxes, and that combined with the large number of smugglers who made their living selling tea, led to the Boston Tea Party.

So in effect, the government, in an attempt to grant a total monopoly to a floundering company, created seemingly decent legislation that didn't seem too harmful, yet people doing an illegal act started a revolution because they didn't like it. It's happened before, what's to prevent it from happening again?
Re:Nothing short of a revolution by evilviper · 2006-06-21 13:25 · Score: 4, Informative

Well, actually, they wrote it because some Boston businessmen had to pay a little extra for tea and stamps. Kinda puts things into perspective if you think of it that way.

It would if it were true. Try to find "tea" and "stamps" in the Declaration. That's the half-bullshit Disney-ized version of US history.

You should really actually read it some time:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

Yeah, the tea was clearly the important part. It couldn't have been the large numbers of soldiers taking over homes, and quite literally getting away with murdering anyone they chose.

And, while I'm at it, it also explicitly says: Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:Nothing short of a revolution by Nevyn · 2006-06-22 02:39 · Score: 1

Well I think the revolution leading to the Declaration of Independence was largely sparked by having to pay taxes.

Yeh, phew ... I'm so glad I don't have to do that anymore.

--
ustr: Managed string API with ave. 44% overhead over strdup(), for 0-20B

US Senate is anything but for the people. by Shivetya · 2006-06-21 09:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

These people are professional politicians. They are beholded to special interest groups. They only acknowledge the people who voted for them every 6 years. When the 17th Amendment effectively removed the appointment of Senators by State Legislatures if started a downward spiral. Now they were not beholden to the State they served and soon they became even less enamored with following the direction their state took. Now they care little what the people in each of their respective states thinks. Its all about amassing personal power and reelection. They serve those who line their pockets.

This isn't to say they are all bad. There are some true Democrats and Republicans in the Senate. They are just outnumbered by those who serve neither people or party. They are quite willing to sell our rights to the highest bidder. They will make sure to excuse themselves from any law they feel like for they no longer see themselves as the people. They are above us and the laws they pass show this belief.

To me Bush's biggest fault isn't the Iraq war, its not standing up to the Senate and using the veto power of the office to protect the people from abuses of power like this bill. They will continue to strip our rights while at the same time taking our money and building legacies for themselves. What is worse is the media will support them and many will have their anger directed at corporations and such while the true theft occurs in our halls of power.

The only way to reign in the power of the Senate is through your state legislatures. They can effect many changes. However the Congress has show quite a disregard for the 10th Amendment and managed to use the courts to effectively take power from the states who are the people.

So, do you know your Senators? Your district's representative? Send them teabags, send them letters, send them e-mail. Show up at their "townhalls" and give them an earful. How many had to resort to Google just to find out who represents them???

--
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.

Quid pro quo for the bridge to nowhere by DanTheLewis · 2006-06-21 09:18 · Score: 2, Informative

He really wants that frigging bridge.

--

Q: What did the comedian say to the crowd?
A: If I knew, this joke would be funny.

Re:Quid pro quo for the bridge to nowhere by hambonewilkins · 2006-06-21 09:36 · Score: 1

Oh yeah (cue the defiant "no!" speech following Hurricane Katrina). However, even that stupid-ass bridge "benefits" the people of Alaska. He's bringing sweet, sweet pork home. This broadcast flag in no way acts in their interest. Presumably with no major television producers in Alaska we can assume it isn't what his constituents want as it doesn't benefit them in any way.

--

God Bless America. Why? Did it sneeze?

You have your problems mixed up. by Stickerboy · 2006-06-21 09:18 · Score: 5, Informative

The problem is that legislators work for only the people that vote for them, not the other way around. Are you the Senator from California, home of Hollywood? Gee, I wonder how you stand on extending copyright terms. The representative from Iowa? Please, don't surprise me on your position on increasing farm subsidies. A Congressman from Texas? What, you voted for tax breaks for energy companies? Shocking.

You may find it absurd that anybody would support the oil companies (THEY MUST HAVE BEEN BRIBED!), but then have you lived in an oil-rich state? Some Representatives have the fortunes of large portions of their constituency revolve around those of the oil companies.

It's called Bringing Home The Bacon. And that's exactly what most of those legislators were elected to do, and they are very, very good at it. Bring money to your district; keep money in your district; punish competitors in other districts/states/nations.

The quid pro quo game, which allows everybody to Bring Home The Bacon, is why you get stupid crap like the broadcast flag inserted everywhere. If Senator Stevens can promise an appropriate number of other Senators that he'll vote for their own Bacon, eventually it'll get passed.

--
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Re:You have your problems mixed up. by kcbrown · 2006-06-21 10:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

The problem is that legislators work for only the people that vote for them, not the other way around.

You wish.

No, legislators work for only the people who made their election possible. That's not the voters, the voters are just pawns who must choose from the choices presented to them. No, the legislators work for the corporations, particularly the ones who control the media, because he who controls information controls everything.

There is no solution to this short of violent revolution, and violent revolution simply cannot work against a modern, well-equipped military. That means it simply won't succeed even if a reasonable number of people are stupid enough to band together and try it -- it'll only get them and their families killed, which will work nicely towards removing the tendency to revolt from the human gene pool.

It's time to face reality, folks: we've lost, and lost for good. All we're doing now is slowing the slide into darkness and despair, and not even slowing it by much.

--
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
Re:You have your problems mixed up. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-06-21 12:22 · Score: 1, Funny

The problem is that legislators work for only the people that vote for them, not the other way around. Are you the Senator from California, home of Hollywood? Gee, I wonder how you stand on extending copyright terms. The representative from Iowa? Please, don't surprise me on your position on increasing farm subsidies. A Congressman from Texas? What, you voted for tax breaks for energy companies? Shocking.

I had no idea that Alaska was such a media powerhouse.

Re:Business as usual by Anonymous Coward · 2006-06-21 09:21 · Score: 0

No. Politics is breaking into someones house, blowing away with a pistol the lower jar of the wife,
shooting the teenage daughter into the stomache and then gang raping her while she lies there moaning
in pain, holding hear six year old sister in the bath tub under water while sodomizing her from behind
all the while making the malcreant watch and then just swinging a metal bar at his head,
burning down the house with the bodies in it and then sending in people to take care of the
investigators or just putting a stop to the investigation with a phone call. That's politics, what you mean
is the show they put on for the cattle. I'm not trying to offend you with gruesome details here,
I'm just telling you what's "usual" in the business.

Keep working to defeat it... by rdean400 · 2006-06-21 09:24 · Score: 1

Big Media only has to win once to get their onerous scheme enacted.

Re:Keep working to defeat it... by stratjakt · 2006-06-21 09:37 · Score: 1

The supreme court only has to strike it down once to eliminate it now and for all eternity.

And they don't campaign, and thus dont get millions in donations from the entertainment industry.

Checks and balances, chum, checks and balances.

--
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!

Naaaaaar! by DoktorSeven · 2006-06-21 09:31 · Score: 2, Funny

The Pirate Party of America will keelhaul those scurvy scoundrals for takin' away arrrrrr libarrrrties!

--
This is a sig. Deal with it.

Not to worry, you already have to have papers by WillAffleckUW · 2006-06-21 09:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

under our new Department of Freedom, you're required to carry papers and be subservient to the Party Police, here in America.

So a Broadcast Flag being implemented through back-door legislation is the least of your worries.

I'd be more concerned by the fact that your library records are already being given to the Department of Correct Thinking ...

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --

Re:Not to worry, you already have to have papers by Anonymous Coward · 2006-06-21 09:44 · Score: 2, Funny

I don't know who these Party Police think they are, but I for one will not stand idly by while they endanger our right to party.
Re:Not to worry, you already have to have papers by claytongulick · 2006-06-22 02:03 · Score: 4, Informative

Speaking of library records, my wife just had some fun at our public library.

She was taking our kids to a "Mad Science" event held at the local library. We like to do these kinds of things for the kids, to get them out and doing fun/educational things during the summer.

All over the library were signs that read "You MUST have a library card to enter these premises" "All children MUST have a library card to attend the event" etc...

Then there was this long line where in order to go into the room where the guy was giving the show, you had to present your card to a clerk. They were *literally* turning away six year old kids who were crying, whose parents had driven them all the way out to attend a *public* event.

What kind of post-911 society are we living in where you must present "papers" to attend a public event? And before you say "its only a library card", understand that you can't get a library card without giving all sorts of personal information, including address and identification/drivers license etc...

The librarians (in that library) have completely forgotten about what the purpose of a library is... and are more concerned with budget and control and policing than the free distribution of information.

Why even have the event? What sort of twisted person decides to turn away crying children from a public educational event because they can't show ID? Its not like they were giving away prizes or anything, it was just a bunch of kids sitting in a room watching a guy give a show on science.

Unfortunately, this is symptomatic of a much larger problem. Today, it seems that every low level beaurocrat or middle manager has taken it upon themselves to be the enforcing arm of our post-911 fear-thy-neighbor police state.

Why is it so important that the kids show ID? Is it because the library is funded based on how many library cards are issued? Or are they trying to prevent a terrorist from sneaking in to the mad science show disguised as a six year old child? I can see the latter point, I mean, I think the guy did do an simulation of an erupting volcano as part of the show, and we wouldn't want to give the TERRORISTS any ideas would we? I mean, imagine what could happen if we gave them unfettered access to Alka-Seltzer. It would be chaos.

I think the reason that this bothers me so much is because it is such a strong indication of how sick our society has become.

I mean, hell, librarians are supposed to be our first line of defense against this sort of stuff.

--
Drinking habits can be dangerous. You can choke on the cloth and the nuns will wonder where their clothes are.
Re:Not to worry, you already have to have papers by Spaceman40 · 2006-06-22 03:58 · Score: 1

Absolutely. You've got to fight for it. *deadpan*

--
I [may] disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Can't ... Keep ... Up ... by cpu_fusion · 2006-06-21 09:36 · Score: 1

Every day there's a new bill or sneaky ammendment trying to deliver a payload of graft into our congressional agenda.

I just can't keep up any more.

Would somebody please write an application to keep up with this crap for me automatically?

Apple could do it and call it "iCantFuckingBelieveTheseCrooks".

Re:Can't ... Keep ... Up ... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-06-21 20:01 · Score: 0

One way: take rifle and shoot a congressman.

Never shoot another one.

You will never be found.

Someone else take a rifle and shoot a congressman.

Repeat as necessary.

You will run out of congressmen before people.

I'm sorry :( by rhfb · 2006-06-21 09:36 · Score: 1

Sorry for my state (Alaska) for electing this tool. If I had my say neither him, nor his new partner in crime (his old buddies daughter became our second senator after pa Murkowski became governor) would be representing me. Already sent a letter to both of them, whole lot of good that will do.

we've been down this road in the 90s by Anonymous Coward · 2006-06-21 09:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

The Washington Post and New York Times were given large chunks of the spectrum in 1993 if they were silent about NAFTA and GATT. It was an easy deal.

Similarly, the media is silent now about this monkey business, because they expect to profit immensely by the broadcast flag and other crap.

They'll choke to death on these flags, of course, just like those spectrum licenses are almost worthless (look at the ratings of CBS news).

OT: Aluminium Kayak by Kadin2048 · 2006-06-21 09:49 · Score: 1

Just out of curiosity, and because I'm in the market for one, what kayak did you buy? And what do you think of it, compared to the more standard fiberglass/plastic ones?

--
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."

Re:OT: Aluminium Kayak by Karl+J.+Smith · 2006-06-21 11:58 · Score: 1, Offtopic

Feathercraft Kahuna. I love it.

http://www.feathercraft.com/

It goes on planes, in trains, in your trunk or in its backpack. These things are just incredibly well designed - RF-welded urethane skin (no leaks), internal sponsons, hatches that work like drybags and a seat that's super comfortable. The aluminum frame is beautiful, and has neat tricks like using two of the deck bars as a lever to tighten the other frame pieces before they're put in place.

My girlfriend (who also got one) had previously paddled fiberglass boats and thought that folding kayaks were silly and no good. She said something like "why would anyone want one of those?" When I asked her what specific reasons she had against it, she couldn't come up with anything other than "well, that's what everyone says". We embarked on a kayak-testing plan over a couple of months testing lots of kayaks at various demo days and symposiums and renting/demoing kayaks from local dealers. These were all fiberglass boats. I got her to try a Feathercraft when she was in Seattle for work near Folding Kayak Adventures (http://www.foldingkayak.com - tell them I sent you). Her response after trying two of them in 2-3 foot waves on Lake Washington (and just after trying lots of different fiberglass boats) was "why would anyone ever want a rigid boat?". The sensation of being in it is like being gently cradled in a hammock while floating along. It's fun. Once we had it narrowed down to Feathercraft we spent 2 days at a symposium trying every model they make multiple times to figure out which one to get. With unlimited funds, I would get more than one. :)

If you want one that's more rollable, try the new Wisper. I wanted one with a deployable rudder since they're cool (Feathercraft came up with the first flip rudder that's now used on lots of kayaks) and I also wanted to use it with a downwind sail. The clip-on skeg on the Wisper works, but is less-than elegant (you should be able do all your non-sail turns without a rudder or skeg, anyway). You don't have to put the rudder on the Kahuna on days you don't need it. A Feathercraft employee I spoke with at a symposium (he makes them - they're all made by hand) who has his pick of kayaks to take out and use whenever he wants said that the Kahuna was his previous favorite, but now he uses the Wisper all the time.

I've also test-paddled the Khatsalano. It was even more fun, in a 'oh-my-god-this-is-fast-and-tippy-and-I-can't-stop -grinning' kind of way. I decided that the Kahuna was a better all-around kayak for trips (easier to pack), but that a Khats could be in my future for insanely fun day-trips (or with carefully packed gear in tiny dry bags) once my skills were up to it. We took a class from a local BCU (British Canoe Union) 4-star coach who has a friend with a Khatsalano. His opinion: It's a Real Kayak(tm). Traditional kayaks are skin-on-frame, after all. See http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~walpole/kayaking.html for lots of pictures.

See also Ralph Diaz's book on folding kayaks (The Complete Folding Kayaker), and the web site http://www.foldingkayaks.org/

Comparisons to plastic boats: Plastic boats are cheap. If you bang them into rocks you don't care. But they're cheap and get brittle over time, and are heavy. They also get dents. Aesthetically, they're kind of blah. But cheap. Repairing holes polyethelene is a pain. Roto-molded boats are most common, but companies like Eddyline are making weird plastic/fiberglass hybrids.

Fiberglass boats: Before the 1950's everyone used wooden-framed folding kayaks in trains. After the 1950's, fiberglass took off. They're light and strong. Kevlar is ligher and stronger. A nice boat costs arond US$3000. This is the same price as the Feathercraft Kahuna fully tricked out. You don't want to bang your fiberglass boat into rocks, either. It's pretty easy to repair.

Wikipedia had these news 1½ months ago by Gnavpot · 2006-06-21 09:55 · Score: 1

Excerpt from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_flag:

On May 1, 2006, Sen. Ted Stevens inserted a version of the Broadcast Flag into the Net Neutrality Bill. The draft section can be seen here [2], and the full text of the bill here [3]

It seems that this info was added to the article on May 2, 03:19.

So the NEWS SITE Slashdot ran this story after 1½ months, while something as static as an encyclopedia was updated with the same news after only 1 day.

Blame Alaska by DanTheLewis · 2006-06-21 09:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

This broadcast flag in no way acts in their interest. Presumably with no major television producers in Alaska we can assume it isn't what his constituents want as it doesn't benefit them in any way.

I agree with you; like I said, he gets the bridge to nowhere, he sneaks in the broadcast flag for someone else. It's the pork fat that greases the engines of democracy.

What I find even weirder (trans: more hypocritical) about this is that Stevens dissed on the broadcast flag in the January hearings. Stevens, we hardly knew ye.

Your fault, Alaska! Your fault!

--

Q: What did the comedian say to the crowd?
A: If I knew, this joke would be funny.

Re:Public Comment? email vs dead tree by onkelonkel · 2006-06-21 09:57 · Score: 1

Here's a naive question. Does anybody have a rational explanation why a paper copy of a letter would have more significance than an electronic copy? Does the act of printing, stuffing into an envelope and mailing really add that much more meaning?

--
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.

So THAT's how it works. by Ahnteis · 2006-06-21 09:58 · Score: 1

I thought they just had a bidding auction with Diebold.

=(

Re:So THAT's how it works. by Cadallin · 2006-06-21 10:43 · Score: 1

That's new though, only been that way since 2000.

The whole bill stinks by SuperKendall · 2006-06-21 09:58 · Score: 2, Informative

If you follow the link from the main article you find an even more interesting article laying out other problems with the bll. Not only does it bring back the broadcast flag but it also really doesn't do anything to help Net Nutrality in the first place!

If you have senators on the comittee don't just tell them about your dislike for the broadcast flag, tell them the whole bill needs to be scrapped.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Physmail useless if time sensitive by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · 2006-06-21 09:58 · Score: 1

Ever since the anthrax letters, physmail to Congressentities has been subject to long inspection delays. Email or fax are the only ways to get written communication there in the same week/month. Phone calls carry less weight, as far as I know.

Writing your politician by Kadin2048 · 2006-06-21 09:58 · Score: 1

The nice thing about writing a paper letter is that generally you get a paper response back, which I have yet to get from the numerous emails I've ever written. At least with my paper letters, I know some junior staffer's intern's assistant actually opened the envelope and skimmed enough of what I wrote to determine the issue at hand, pick the form letter response out of the pile, and mail it back to me. (Naturally not paying for the postage, but that's government for you.)

What gets me about this issue is that we apparently only noticed it a day before it's going into committee for discussion. That seems rather odd -- most bills have a longer period of public comment before they make it to a committee.

I'm not sure whether this means that the bill is on a fast track or not, and if it is, whether it's on the fast track to passage, or if somebody is trying to bury it in committee extra-quick as a way of deep-sixing it.

--
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."

lawsuit and investigation by Anonymous Coward · 2006-06-21 09:59 · Score: 0

while it's pretty compelling thqat this senator took some form of a bribe, a proper grand jury indictment would get to the bottom of it.

this weasel senator should be sued for abuse of process, and even bad faith representation, as well as possible breach of fiducuary duty to his constituents (if he made promises)

while there are strong protections for senators who want to bring laws to the table, this is clearly an abuse of such protections.

it is obvious that the voting public does not want these measures adopted. the question is whether a wealthy minority will be able to pervert the democratic process to their business interests. these senators will get away with it, because if the bill doesnt pass, nobody will remember them, and if it does, they will have cash for life. they need to be taught a harsh lesson, with possible prison time, being disbarred from the senate, and civil liability for trying to pass laws in bad faith, when they know that is not what the public or government wants. this is the only way they will learn to turn down bribe/campaign money; if it is too risky to touch. the average senator needs to pull in ~35,000 usd every DAY, to cover the costs of staying in office. do you think the anti broadcast flag / fair use rights groups can afford this?

what needs to be done is to have some new politicians, who campaign hard on such freedoms, even those that will promise a new bad faith law to govern underhanded, possibly fraudulent lawmaking. one rule of thumb is that if it has already been defeated by the courts, then they should not be allowed to create a new law, but that is very problematic.

all of these dmca type laws are a crock of shit anyway. the only thing that is needed is a good court ruling to strike them down... remember the "congress shall pass no law" part? a good legal team should be able to set precedents and deal with most of these laws.

Bart's Comet by pkulak · 2006-06-21 10:00 · Score: 3, Funny

Kent: With our utter annihilation imminent, our federal government has snapped into action. We go live now via satellite to the floor of the United States congress.

Speaker: Then it is unanimous, we are going to approve the bill to evacuate the town of Springfield in the great state of --

Congressman: Wait a minute, I want to tack on a rider to that bill: $30 million of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts.

Speaker: All in favor of the amended Springfield-slash-pervert bill? [everyone boos]

Speaker: Bill defeated. [bangs gavel]

Kent: I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy simply doesn't work.

That's why they want to kill net neutrality by spun · 2006-06-21 10:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm pretty sure that if politicians enact laws allowing backbone providers to decide what data passes over their backbone and how fast, it will take at least ten minutes to load any page critical of said politicians.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton

HOWTO: Call your Senator by Wylfing · 2006-06-21 10:11 · Score: 5, Informative

I just did it. Here is the HOWTO:

Step 1: Go to www.senate.gov and look up your 2 senators. There are 2, and you need to contact both of them.

Step 2: I like to prepare for an important call by taking 3 deep breaths and reminding myself that I am in control. Sometimes I drink a shot of vodka, because I know I am little more loudmouthed that way, and in this case that is a good thing. (Trust me, my brother was a Senatorial aid for a long time. Loudmouths get attention.) These calls are actually extremely easy to make -- the aids get these kinds of calls all the time -- so there is really nothing to worry about, but I prepare anyway to make sure I am a calmer and/or prepared to be loudmouthed.

Step 3: Make a note of the bill. In this case, it is S.2686. This is very important.

Step 4: Make a note of why you are objecting/agreeing to the bill. In this case, you are objecting because there is a rider regarding the broadcast flag. That is all you need to say: "I object to this bill because there is a rider having to do with the broadcast flag." The good Senator will do the rest.

Step 5: Dial the number of each Senator and an aid will answer, e.g., "Hello! Senator Kohl's office!" they will say in an alert-sounding voice. Your immediate response should be: "I am a long-time supporter of Senator X, but I would like to voice my objection to a bill that is before the Senate." It doesn't matter whether you have supported this Senator or not, just say that you did. Nobody knows -- it's an anonymous system.

Step 6: State the name of the bill you are objecting to: "I am opposed to bill S.2686, because there is a rider having to do with the broadcast flag. I am very much opposed to that."

Step 7: The aid will ask you for your name and address. The reason they do that is to verify whether you can actually vote for the good Senator or not (oddly Senate offices from, say, Texas get calls from Idaho, so they want to filter that). Give them accurate information. It's not a harm in this case.

Step 8: Thank the aid for their help. They will probably thank you too.*

Step 9: Bask in the knowledge that you helped democracy.

*Despite the fact that the aids get 2,000 calls per day voicing all kinds of f'd up opinions, as long as yours is stated clearly and has specifically to do with a certain bill and this specific Senator, the aid will form an opinion about that bill, and will communicate that opinion to the Senator. I kid you not, this system works, just pick up the phone and call.

--
Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.

Re:HOWTO: Call your Senator by DamnStupidElf · 2006-06-21 20:03 · Score: 3, Interesting

Step 0: Read the bill first!

Specifically section 454.c.1.B which requires that a review board create regulations that respect fair use for audio broadcasts. I don't see a reference to a video broadcast flag being enacted by the bill, just a requirement for commissions to make some more rules. It also recommends that the commission investigate abuses of Internet routing under Title 9: "Net Neutrality". The commission will be composed of IT, software, recording, broadcasting, satellite, and consumer electronics industries along with public interest organizations. If anything it's just a wrapper bill around a process to actually work on issues like DRM and net neutrality, not specific regulations.

If anything, I wonder if the submitted article isn't just a shill trying to marginalize rabid Internet users who will oppose any legislation based on hearsay with no references to specific sections of the bill. If you call your senator and claim they are trying to enact a broadcast flag, your senator will not listen to you the next time you call because you obviously did not take the time to actually look at the bill.

I am opposed to bill S.2686, because there is a rider having to do with the broadcast flag. I am very much opposed to that."

This is a perfect example of rabid, unguided sensationalism. What exactly do you oppose? Would a bill making the broadcast flag illegal fall under that broad statement? More importantly, are you opposed to the broadcast flag in particular, or DRM that prevents fair use in general?

If I was going to try to call my Senator (who happens to be Stevens) the night before a vote, I might try to make a reasoned argument instead of something a staffer will autoreply to. As it is, I don't see any terribly bad things in the bill. On the other hand, Stevens also introduced that bastard child of the DMCA, the SSSCA... He got a long email about that one.
Re:HOWTO: Call your Senator by Anonymous Coward · 2006-06-21 20:29 · Score: 0

Step 5: Dial the number of each Senator and an aid will answer, e.g., "Hello! Senator Kohl's office!" they will say in an alert-sounding voice. Your immediate response should be: "I am a long-time supporter of Senator X, but I would like to voice my objection to a bill that is before the Senate." It doesn't matter whether you have supported this Senator or not, just say that you did. Nobody knows -- it's an anonymous system.

Lying is wrong. This is a small lie, so obviously it is not as big a deal as some things. But it is still wrong.

Also, somebody does know: you, yourself. And God knows about it too. But as the atheists say, you don't need to believe in God or gods to be a moral person, so perhaps you can manage without that point.
Re:HOWTO: Call your Senator by Anonymous Coward · 2006-06-23 22:32 · Score: 0

Oh fucking well. God hates us all, like I care what he thinks. It's for a damn good cause, the media associations have lied a hell of a lot more than any of us ever will, and the ends justify the means anyway.

And before you go attacking atheists, I am a sort of Christian. A terribly warped version of Christianity, yes. But how else do you reconcile the historical accuracy of the Bible with an angel with no free will apparently managing to choose to fall from God's "grace?"

Timeout by _damnit_ · 2006-06-21 10:12 · Score: 1

Go to your room! Until you learn to share airwaves with everyone else, you can stay in your lead walled room with no TV or computer Mister!

--

_damnit_

It's my job to freeze you. -- Logan's Run

Flags for Orphans.... And broadcast flags for all? by SirDrinksAlot · 2006-06-21 10:15 · Score: 1

The House will now consider the Flags for Orphans and Broadcasts bill...

Krusty would be proud.

No by Anonymous Coward · 2006-06-21 10:17 · Score: 0

This is a different bill!

Don't Just Complain on /. - DO SOMETHING! by Yogler · 2006-06-21 10:18 · Score: 4, Informative

Farther on down the comment list, there is a comment with a simple script and a list of who to call. It took me all of 45 seconds to call my senator.

Don't just complain. Do something. It's your right, and it's your duty.

Re:Don't Just Complain on /. - DO SOMETHING! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-06-22 03:26 · Score: 0

And the senator thinks: Just ignore #984129, I've got enough support.
Re:Don't Just Complain on /. - DO SOMETHING! by dch24 · 2006-06-22 09:58 · Score: 1

I just called my Senator. Apparently the decisions that were going to be finalized today have been postponed until next week. This means there's more time for anyone and everyone to contact their Senator and express their opinion. The intern I spoke with on the phone was very helpful.
However, I am not certain this information is correct, since the decision is so new. Please post a reply if you know more about whether the subcommittee voted today or postponed for a week. Thanks!

Face it... by IWannaBeAnAC · 2006-06-21 10:27 · Score: 0, Troll

Face it, they are never, ever going to give up on this. You Americans should just bend over and take it. Resisting will only make it more painful.

Already There? by nurbles · 2006-06-21 10:41 · Score: 5, Interesting

I regularly use XP/MCE to record StarGate and DrWho on SciFi channel with no problem. A few weeks ago, Media Center stopped recording the first half of the DrWho season finale about 30 minutes into the episode. XP/MCE logged a reason of:

Doctor Who was not recorded.
Recording of this content is prohibited by the content provider.

So far, that was the only episode this has happened with, but XP/MCE flatly refused to record the episode on any of its repeat airings, citing the same reason. Since then, XP/MCE has recorded the second half episode and some repeats without a problem. I'm wondering if this might've been a test of the infamous broadcast flag or if there's something worse afoot in the part of Microsoft that is beholden to the Hollywood Nazis.

Re:Already There? by BobSutan · 2006-06-21 14:10 · Score: 1

One possible solution is to wipe your XP/MCE and reload with MythTV or something like it and see if you still have the same problem.

--
"On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
Re:Already There? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-06-21 14:52 · Score: 0

Do you use Windows Update?
Re:Already There? by isorox · 2006-06-21 21:10 · Score: 1

XP/MCE

Certainly sounds liek a Linux app, but I've not heard of it. How does it compare to MythTV?

Recording of this content is prohibited by the content provider

Recompile it (or set the conf file) to ignore content-provider flags.

My mythtv box recorded Dr Who fine last week. Sadly. Had a problem the other week when the football overran by half-an-hour though.
Re:Already There? by nurbles · 2006-06-21 22:30 · Score: 1

XP/MCE == Windows XP / Media Center Edition

It includes DVR software that understands the dual tuner that came with my computer, among other things.
Re:Already There? by isorox · 2006-06-23 05:38 · Score: 1

It includes DVR software that understands the dual tuner that came with my computer, among other things.

Other things like not record programs you want to record? Sounds great.

And you my friend... by burndive · 2006-06-21 10:44 · Score: 1

saddy truthfull

... are why we need a spell checker.

--
...because "hacker" sounds way sexier than "code drone."

Re:And you my friend... by Amouth · 2006-06-21 11:13 · Score: 1

any i would be happy to use one if they implemented it.. but other than that.. well i never have been good at spelling..

--
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
Re:And you my friend... by Danga · 2006-06-21 11:49 · Score: 1

"any i... well i never have been good at spelling."

and you did it again, you are correct.

--
Hey, there is only one Return and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi.

Bought and paid for by doodlebumm · 2006-06-21 10:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

Congress will never enact a line-item-veto, nor get rid of these attachments to bills. That is because they cannot guarantee to the corporations that buy them (the congressmen and senators) that they can get something passed. You can't line your pockets if you can't get elected. You can't get elected if you don't have campaign contributions. You can't get campaign funding if you can't guarantee getting a bill passed for some group/corporation. You can't guarantee if you can't deliver crap through the back door. Evil men have taken a well designed system (what the founding fathers created) and perverted it into a sickening mess.

The only way to get rid of the current corrupted system is to vote out EVERYONE in Congress, and vote in just about anyone who's platform promotes campaign reform, line-item-veto, Congressional term limits, and (my one of my personal favorites) no salary raises for congressmen currently in office (they only go into effect for the next guy to take the office - nobody in government should be in charge of their own salary). Then if they don't follow through, recall or vote them out in the next election.

Re:Bought and paid for by Talchas · 2006-06-21 11:02 · Score: 3, Interesting

no salary raises for congressmen currently in office (they only go into effect for the next guy to take the office - nobody in government should be in charge of their own salary)
This is not only currently law, but part of the constitution. See the 27th amendment. Unfortunately they ignore this repeatedly with by calling it a cost of living adjustment, and the courts back them.

--
As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century,free flow of information is the only safeguard against...
Re:Bought and paid for by Chowderbags · 2006-06-21 11:06 · Score: 1

He specificly pointed out the effect of the 27th ammendment. However, he noted that it shouldn't be based on the next election, but on an entirely different senator being elected (i.e. an incumbent doesn't get a payraise that he voted for).
Re:Bought and paid for by Talchas · 2006-06-21 11:32 · Score: 1

He specificly pointed out the effect of the 27th ammendment. However, he noted that it shouldn't be based on the next election, but on an entirely different senator being elected (i.e. an incumbent doesn't get a payraise that he voted for).
Looking over it more carefully, I do see the implication that it would have to be a different senator. However I don't see a mention of the current system which might at least sorta work w/o the COLAs.

--
As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century,free flow of information is the only safeguard against...
Re:Bought and paid for by zCyl · 2006-06-21 11:44 · Score: 1

(i.e. an incumbent doesn't get a payraise that he voted for).

Voted "on". (Or better yet, was in office during the passage of.) Be careful not to leave a loophole. ;)
Re:Bought and paid for by absoluteflatness · 2006-06-21 12:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

Congress will never enact a line-item-veto

Congress did enact a line-item veto, during the Clinton administration. The first time he tried to use it to get rid of some frivolous spending item, the state in question (New York I think) brought suit, and the line-item veto was struck down by the Supreme Court as violating the doctrine of separation of powers. In my opinion, that's the correct decision, since it essentially gives the President some amount of direct control over the contents of individual bills.
Re:Bought and paid for by Jeremi · 2006-06-21 12:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

The only way to get rid of the current corrupted system is to vote out EVERYONE in Congress, and vote in just about anyone who's platform promotes campaign reform

Hm, you forgot (or at least didn't mention explicitly enough for my taste ;^)) the most important thing: public campaign financing. Seriously -- running for elections is a required part of any politician's job, and any system that requires candidates to campaign but doesn't give them the resources to do so is doomed to corruption. It's like a 3rd world country hiring policemen but then not paying them enough to be able to buy food or equipment -- the honest people will quit because they aren't able to do their jobs, and the dishonest people will find "creative" ways to get the money, and we are back where we started.

And just to head it off the "why should taxpayers have to pay for lousy elections?" response ... the answer because someone is going to pay for the elections, and the candidates who win the elections are going to be serving the interests of that party. So that party ought to be us, the taxpayers.

--

I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Re:Bought and paid for by guywcole · 2006-06-21 12:26 · Score: 1

A. The line-item veto would not affect congressional spoiling. In the incestual pit that is D.C., the President doesn't want to annoy every legislator on the other side of the aisle. He needs their votes elsewhere. The things that will get line-item veto'd will be symbolic (Clinton won't fund research into medicinal prayer, Bush won't fund stem cell research). All other pork will continue as usual. B. Congressmen can't raise their own pay. All pay increases take effect at the beginning of the next term. If you don't like the pay raise, you can vote them out before they get it. C. Comp sci people are really good at designing systems and evaluating their security and hackability. Why do you think that complexity makes computer systems more vulnerable and political systems less? More rules just create more hidden vulnerabilities for hacking, and politicians will have more ways to become corrupt without appearing so.
Re:Bought and paid for by Anonymous Coward · 2006-06-21 12:26 · Score: 0

Amen to that brother!
I have been telling people for years we need to clean house up in DC. Every Representative and Senator should be kicked out. This would get rid of the Ted Kennedys and the like. These guys are so corrupt it's unreal. Stevens had been bought and paid for many times over. The only problem is that we have to get rid of all the staffs too! They are the ones who slip these provisions into the bills, most representatives don't even read the bills they are promoting, they just put their names on it. I have given up on these people. They set up automatic pay raises for themselves, unless they vote against it! Then they don't even record the vote, it's a voice vote so that they can't be held up for the crooks they are. When I vote I just select anyone who isn't the incumbent. But they keep coming back!!!!
Re:Bought and paid for by RareButSeriousSideEf · 2006-06-21 14:02 · Score: 5, Interesting

A line item veto doesn't give the President any more direct control over the contents of bills than a total veto does. Congress retains the power to legislate that line item in another bill. When invoked, the line item veto simply forces a majority in congress to explicitly validate what some legislator wanted to have quietly enacted on the merits of another issue.

By the same note, the way riders are currently used in practice essentially gives congress an end run around the Presidential veto, by holding important or popular legislation hostage to distasteful items that are completely unrelated to the main issue a bill addresses.

A fair compromise would be to limit the line item veto's power with a test of how integral the item is to the purpose of the bill. A President shouldn't use such power to redesign the main provisions of a bill, but given today's congress, I would take that defect over the current situation.

--
Pi Ran Out
Re:Bought and paid for by kassemi · 2006-06-21 20:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

Simple solution - Pay congressmen the federally mandated minimum wage.

--
What the hell's a "gewie?"
Re:Bought and paid for by Anonymous Coward · 2006-06-21 22:30 · Score: 1, Insightful

That's really going to take away their incentive to sell out to big business. Personally I'd make sure they were well rewarded, but were forbidden from taking any job as a lobbyist or with any corporation that funded their campaigns for five years after leaving office.
Re:Bought and paid for by dada21 · 2006-06-22 00:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

Terrible idea. Campaign finance reform only creates cronyism and preferential treatment of a select few (2 party system). How I spend my money is how I express myself, and it should be completely unregulated. There are 3 reasons why we have a 2 party system: 1: the debates are closed, 2: the money that is acceptable in a campaign is heavily regulated to prefer the 2 main parties and 3: it is harder to get a third party candidate on a ballot in terms of ballot signatures.

Campaign finance has only made it harder to get rid of incumbents, not easier. Don't think that taxpayer funded campaigns would make a difference -- we already live in that world, and it is a failure.

I don't believe in campaigns anyway... Just vote like I do.
Re:Bought and paid for by quantum+bit · 2006-06-22 02:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

By the same note, the way riders are currently used in practice essentially gives congress an end run around the Presidential veto, by holding important or popular legislation hostage to distasteful items that are completely unrelated to the main issue a bill addresses.

Any president who wasn't a spineless pawn of a political party wouldn't let himself be held hostage by that. A smart one would turn it around and hold the pork barrelers hostage.

The proper response is to have a strict policy of "Any bill with unrelated crap attached gets automatically vetoed. No exceptions.". Given the current way Congress likes to operate, that would mean that everything would be vetoed and the government would come to a screeching halt unless they shaped up.

A good speech is all it would take to have the public on the side of the ballsy president for standing up to the political machine. If somebody did that they would sure as hell have my vote...

Unfortunately in a two-party system it would never happen.
Re:Bought and paid for by NeuroAcid · 2006-06-22 03:40 · Score: 1

that would mean that everything would be vetoed and the government would come to a screeching halt unless they shaped up.
The government coming to a screeching halt is a good thing. The less it does the better.

--
"I don't need drugs to enjoy this, just to enhance it" - Otto
Re:Bought and paid for by RareButSeriousSideEf · 2006-06-22 05:46 · Score: 1

Sure - give me a John Galt to vote for in the Presidential race and I'm all over it.

Until then, our political system should be able to operate to the benefit of the citizenry in the absence of an Executive Branch that's extraordinarily ballsy & possessed of an unwavering resolution to dismantle the pork-barrel system.

--
Pi Ran Out
Re:Bought and paid for by Walter+Carver · 2006-06-22 06:23 · Score: 1

Damn right. Or making a law to fobid compaign, let the people be interested about the candidate. But who is going to force this law?
Re:Bought and paid for by wyohman · 2006-06-22 11:18 · Score: 1

We already have terms limits. They're better known as votes! If you vote for a scumbag, you deserve what you get. I don't need the government to tell me who I can't vote for.

Cheers.
Re:Bought and paid for by TrekkieGod · 2006-06-22 15:19 · Score: 1

Campaign finance reform only creates cronyism and preferential treatment of a select few (2 party system). How I spend my money is how I express myself, and it should be completely unregulated.

And your preferred method doesn't give preferential treatment? "Your" money to spend comes in from one or two ways. Either you are ridiculously wealthy, in which case it gives preferential treatment to the wealthy, or you are getting money donated to you from interest groups, in which case said interest groups are going to donate money to candidates they think can actually win, ie, one of the two parties (and it really doesn't matter which one, because this system encourages the candidates to compete for the money, which they do by having views that are closer to what the donating party wants).

This would be my idea of financial campaign reform. You can't campaign at all. The government provides these web servers payed for by tax payers and every candidate gets the same amount of web space. Indicate your plans and merits in that page, and voters should go there in order to do their research.

Before people complain about how certain voters don't have access to the internet, remember that not everyone has access to TV's or radios either. With internet, you can go to your closest public library.

--
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
Re:Bought and paid for by Garrett+Fox · 2006-06-23 04:03 · Score: 1

"Any bill with unrelated crap attached gets automatically vetoed. No exceptions."

That by itself would almost make me vote for whoever said it!

--
Revive the Constitution.
Re:Bought and paid for by dada21 · 2006-06-25 12:50 · Score: 1

I believe that the problem has nothing to do with money -- this is why we will disagree and there is no point in trying to agree. Money does not corrupt, ever. It can't corrupt. Money is merely a store of time to be redeemed in the future to save you time. You spend money so you don't have to build something or do something yourself. Money can't corrupt.

Only power corrupts. Power corrupts terribly when it is POLITICAL power. Corporate power is NOT corrupting UNLESS it is united with political power. There are no bad capitalist companies, there are only bad companies that are united with the State for preferential treatment.

You want to fix the system? Start hanging politicians who violate their oath to uphold whatever Constitution they're supposed to protect. The U.S. Constitution should see a Congress that meets 2 weeks a year and _does no harm_ but what we see today is complete ineptitude by the voting masses. I don't think voting makes the difference -- the power to do whatever a politician wants is the REAL problem.

Forget campaign finance reform, how about following-the-Constitution reform?

Line-item vetoes would make vetoing too easy. by ThinkingInBinary · 2006-06-21 10:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

Why did line-item veto's fail again?

Because otherwise legislators would have no way to sneak their otherwise unpassable legislation into other bills and get it passed. It's akin to a filibuster in that it is an annoying thing to do practically, but the ability needs to be there for the rare cases when it's the only way to get something done. (I would argue, though, that filibusters are used for useful things, while sneaking unrelated amendments into bills is rarely used for anything that isn't evil.)

I agree with a sibling post that says line-item vetoes should be allowed if the line item is unrelated to the bill itself. I would go as far as to say that amendments to a bill should be required to be related. If they're not, they simply don't belong there. End of story.

--
ttuttle is a rankmaniac

Re:Line-item vetoes would make vetoing too easy. by gtwilliams · 2006-06-21 11:21 · Score: 1

I would argue, though, that filibusters are used for useful things

Not recently.

--
Garry Williams
Re:Line-item vetoes would make vetoing too easy. by mabhatter654 · 2006-06-21 13:01 · Score: 1

The flip side to that is that we work hard to get something good passed by bundling it with something a little friviolous... then the Prez vetos the good part we all told our critters to vote for.. Line item veto cuts both ways.
Line item veto works for states because it is fairly limited.. in my state it only covers spending bills, it's not a broad thing... of course we have a state constitutional amendment that the Governor MUST pass a balanced budget every year. It usually means every year somebody get's pissed off because they don't get what they planned on...

Re:Why did line-item veto's fail again? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-06-21 10:50 · Score: 0

Double standards.
Because Clinton ended up with it. As soon as he used it, they killed it with the line that the president shouldn't have that much power. Now they are promoting it again and the president has near dictator level powers-- its the SAME people too! If Gore was president, he would not have gotten (or tried to grab) this much unsupervised power.

Doesn't belong?!? by NobodyExpects · 2006-06-21 10:59 · Score: 2, Informative

the oft-defeated broadcast flag DRM scheme is being sneaked into Senator Steven's Telecommunications bill. Aside from the fact that it has no business being in that bill

What do you mean that the broadcast flag isn't related to the telecom bill? Aren't you the nation that passed the DCMA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) that covers the highly related issue of double hulling US registered ships?

Re:Doesn't belong?!? by Kichigai+Mentat · 2006-06-22 03:39 · Score: 1

Ahh, yes, the infamous Senate Bribe trick: "If you want to pass this bill [that does everything YOU want it to, like improving education, fixing MediCare, repairing Social Security, and basically insuring the existence of the US], then I might as well sneak in these few 'little' things. If they don't like these little changes, then they'll have to strike down the bill, and swallow everything they wanted." I write a bill you like, you pass these little things I want.
I can imagine the lobbiests running down the halls of Congress, lugging over-stuffed carpet bags jammed with cash. You just know a lot of money is changing hands on this one.

--
Rawr

Broadcast flag. by PrefersVMS · 2006-06-21 11:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

OK. quit griping. quit flamin'. DO something constructive. How about going over to the EFF site https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?JServSessionI dr003=0qdwvz7h91.app6a&cmd=display&page=UserAction &id=223 Fill in the info, and send it off. If all of us would do this EACH AND EVERY TIME Hollywood tried this, it just might make someone sit up and take notice. Although I did add a few sentences that I'm sure will make my Senators & Representatives sit up and take notice. If they don't stop monkeying around and playing buddy-buddy to these repressive ideas, then perhaps it is time to recall all of the senators and representatives from Washington. Put limitations on terms -- no more than 8 years of service. Not just continous or fragmented, but total years of service. No more big cars. No more living in mansions. No more junkets. No more "special" retirement fund -- they get social security, just like the rest of us. No more special privileges. Perhaps a pay cut back to realistic levels. You get the idea. If they want us to swallow their bull, then they will have to face the consequences. YOU. The voting public have the power AND the inclination to affect change. If you don't take action? Then Hollywood wins. So quit your whining and do something about it.

give the FCC authority by Mateo_LeFou · 2006-06-21 11:02 · Score: 1

This cracks me up because the same people opposing Net Neturality with their "hands off the internet" BS are right here, front and center, saying "hands on every device that can access the internet!"

--
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love

Re:give the FCC authority by Jeremi · 2006-06-21 12:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

This cracks me up because the same people opposing Net Neturality with their "hands off the internet" BS are right here, front and center, saying "hands on every device that can access the internet!"

Who are these people you are referring to? AFAIK the net-neutrality advocates and the broadcast-flag advocates are entirely different groups.

--

I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.

Found it! by Mateo_LeFou · 2006-06-21 11:04 · Score: 3, Funny

"To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;"

Arrr! Foiled again, mateys.

--
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love

Re:Public Comment? email vs dead tree by NoMaster · 2006-06-21 11:12 · Score: 1

Does anybody have a rational explanation why a paper copy of a letter would have more significance than an electronic copy? Does the act of printing, stuffing into an envelope and mailing really add that much more meaning?

Because any fool, as often evidenced by this very forum, can type something on their computer and hit the "Send" button. It takes next to no effort at all - hell, I've sent this just by sitting on my arse for a few minutes and wiggling my fingers.

Going to the effort of finding pen, paper, envelope, stamp, composing it, writing it down, and sending it indicates the person writing cares just that little bit more about the issue - maybe just that little more necessary to reconsider their vote at election time.

Same thing goes for spelling - a correctly spelled (& gramatically correct!) letter indicates the person has either (a) a better, wider education than most, or (b) a decent computer with spellchecker, the nous to use it, & the even more nous required to know when it's wrong ;-)

I sometimes wonder how many people who have raved against things on /. have held their beliefs for longer than the time it takes to read the comments? I know myself that, while there are certain brands of hardware I remember not to buy because they've fscked over the GPL, Linux, or customers in the past, there are also other issues I've felt strongly about until they've scrolled off the bottom of the page...

--
What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?

Wow. by ClioCJS · 2006-06-21 11:28 · Score: 1

I would like to subscribe to your newsletter. Seriously.

--
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com

2% even. by ClioCJS · 2006-06-21 11:32 · Score: 1

It was a 2% tax rate they revolted over! We pay fifteen times that now!

--
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com

ABOUT BLOODY TIME! by plasmacutter · 2006-06-21 11:42 · Score: 1

they must be really desperate at the EFF and publicknowledge because most of the slashdotters who have been tracking this have known about this sneaky little rider for ages.

why the hell dont they release this stuff earlier to allow for sustained call-in campaigns?

--
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!

Congress == Techie Amatuers by Palal · 2006-06-21 11:49 · Score: 1

Do you ever get the feeling that people in congress are techie amatuers trying to collectively build a windows box without realizing the consequences of their work?

--
-Palal

Futile. by Wolfkin · 2006-06-21 11:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

The good guys have to succeed every time. The bad guys only have to succeed once. Eventually, the good guys will fail.

It's important to internalize that enough to prepare ahead of time for when whatever you want to do ("X"; it doesn't matter what "X" is) becomes illegal.

--
Property law should use #'EQ, not #'EQUAL.

Re:Why did line-item veto's fail again? by zCyl · 2006-06-21 11:54 · Score: 1

Now they are promoting it again and the president has near dictator level powers-- its the SAME people too!

What's ironic is that they could just as easily prohibit amendments to bills which add content unrelated to the topic of the bill, or set an upper limit on the size of a bill. After all, congress would only promote the line item veto as a means of restricting the stupidity of congress, so why not congress just change its procedures to produce less stupidity in the first place?

If they make many more much smaller bills with less bundled crap, then this would be the equivalent of line item congressional voting. It would be like the government actually passing each law based on its own merits, rather than by what other laws are filed in the same drawer...

Average is too low by grahamsz · 2006-06-21 11:57 · Score: 1

Politicians need to be paid a generous salary, and then be prohibited from taking

a) other jobs
b) investments in companies - upon entering office they'd be forced to move their investments into diversified funds
c) money from any entity that can't vote for them

I feel we still need something to stop them taking pork jobs after leaving office. Perhaps they should be prohibited from taking above-median-income positions in any industry which they introduced legislation for.

Re:Average is too low by tomhudson · 2006-06-21 12:57 · Score: 1

The taking of pork jobs after leaving office is a real problem. It doesn't pass the "smell test." Perhaps we need a "reverse-means" test - if you have too much money, you can't run for office, because your decisions will be influenced by how it will affect your portfolio/assets/etc.

The last straw by coop247 · 2006-06-21 11:58 · Score: 1

Damn you government!!!

You can tap my phone line and monitor my internet usage, I don't like it but I'll survive. But don't you dare mess with my precious TV.

TV!!! Teacher, mother, secret lover. Come family, lets bask in TV's warm glow.
Courtesy of Homer...

--
//TODO: Insert catchy phrase

Vote out all but one by TimmyDee · 2006-06-21 12:11 · Score: 1, Informative

Feel free to vote out everyone in Congress except Russ Feingold. He's the one Congressman that fits your bill.

--
Per Square Mile, a blog about density

Umm...I think you missed something by Bonewalker · 2006-06-21 12:16 · Score: 2, Informative

According to wikipedia, more Democrats opposed the line-item veto than Republicans. Oh, and it was passed into law in 1996, not 1994.

A basic Google search leads us to the following, and quite specifically names those opposed to the bill in 1997.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-item_veto

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_Item_Veto_Act_of _1996

So, before you go bashing the Republicans, you might want to get everything in order, and...make sure you are right.

Good day, Sir.

Re:Umm...I think you missed something by R3d+M3rcury · 2006-06-21 13:18 · Score: 3, Interesting

According to wikipedia, more Democrats opposed the line-item veto than Republicans.
...and your assumption is that this is a bad thing?

Like I said, I'm not a big fan of the concept. I would rather these people do the job that I'm sending them to Washington to do. Currently, there's the agreement in Washington--I'll support your pork if you'll support mine. What Congress is trying to do is make sombody else the bad guy. "Well, gosh, I tried to get everybody in America to pay for the Ball of Twine Museum in my district. Unfortunately, that mean ol' President vetoed it. Blame him, not me!"

This is their responsibility. If they abdicate it, then why the hell are they there?

Oh, and it was passed into law in 1996, not 1994.
Fair enough--I was going off of memory. I remember that the line-item veto was part of the Republicans' "Contract With America" back during the elections. When they passed it, I don't know.
Re:Umm...I think you missed something by Anonymous Coward · 2006-06-21 16:15 · Score: 0

You have polished off his minor innacuracies, but the main points stand.
Re:Umm...I think you missed something by Bonewalker · 2006-06-22 02:19 · Score: 1

However, the first time he used it, the Republicans whose spending additions got dinged immediately ran to the Supreme Court to petition that the line-item veto--that they voted for--was unconstitutional. (Please point me to a reputable site that will back this up, so that I may further my understanding of the Republican party.)

This is the offending sentence, folks. Parent proposes that it was Rep. who wanted the law, got it in, then wanted it out the first time Clinton used it. Sorry, but according to the wikipedia articles, it was the Dems who wanted it out just as soon as it was passed, and they fought twice to remove it, all while their Dem. president was happily using it.

So, I think it is a very misleading, if wikipedia is accurate, to say that the Rep. changed their minds as soon as it was used against them. Otherwise, I have not quarrel with his statements, but to bash Rep. by claiming they wanted to have their cake and eat it to just isn't fair if they didn't really do that.

I mean, really, it seems the whole point of Parent's post is to bash Republicans...and while it may be appropriate to do so, one should definitely have their facts straight.

Mod Parent Up, please. by mr_mischief · 2006-06-21 12:30 · Score: 4, Interesting

I've been saying this for years.

One bill, one purpose. One bill should be able to do any of these things:

1. regulate one certain narrowly defined type of behavior, including punishments for it and including assigning a specified portion of tax revenues to enforcement of the regulation (or the buidget appropriation for it)

2. set up one certain narrowly defined helpful government program, including assigning a portion of tax revenues to it (or budget segment)

3. honor one person or group of people, including assigning a portion of tax revenues to cover whatever announcements, plaques, monuments, or whatever are deemed necessary

4. give Congress or other federal employees raises which come due after the end of each Congress member's respective term (No one should be able to give a raise to a buddy in some bureau while the Representative or Senator is still guaranteed access to power.)

5. Give Congress longer vacations, effective immediately. It's become obvious we're usually better off when these misanthropes aren't busy exerting their might as pocket monkeys of the big corporations, anyway.

6. ban lobbying by professional lobbyists. ban corporate-paid Congressional fact-finding trips. Ban the peddling of influence altogether, under penalties of imprisonment and fines. Imprison the Congress member along with the lobbyist if this is broken. If these yahoos start going to jail for listening to their wallets, maybe they'll start listening to their consitutents like they should be doing.

Re:Public Comment? email vs dead tree by stinerman · 2006-06-21 12:31 · Score: 1

Because of the anthrax scare, snail mail to your representative is not the best way to go. The USPS usually ends up delaying your letter by at least a week because of the extra checks. The best way to go to get your voice heard is the following:

1) Campaign contribution
2) Call
3) Email/web form
4) Snail mail

Umm...no he didn't by BoiseAlf · 2006-06-21 13:04 · Score: 4, Informative

First, the parent suffixed the first statement (about being 1994) with "I think." Second, the parent implied that more Democrats opposed the line-item veto by saying that "it passed easily, once Republicans had control of the House and Senate" which would imply that the Republican Party wanted it. 1994 vs. 1996 doesn't matter - the point was the Republicans thought the line-item veto was a great idea, passed a law, and then cried to the Supreme Court when Clinton used it. And now, our Republican President has mentioned it again...

Anyone else misread this as... by SonicSpike · 2006-06-21 15:15 · Score: 1

...'broadcast fag sneaking in the backdoor"?!?!?!

All of the sudden I had horrid visions of Lifetime Networks creating a channel rebroadcasting 'Queer Eye for the Straight Guy' 24 hours a day! :-(

--
Libertas in infinitum

My elected official was redistricted by moller · 2006-06-21 16:54 · Score: 1

I used to be represented by Louise Slaughter - NY (D). Now I'm represented by some guy who lives 90 miles away in a different city because the districts in New York were redrawn to benefit the Republicans. It's absolutely astounding to look at the shape of the district I'm in, it's most of Syracuse with a tiny strip stretching all the way across the southern border of Lake Ontario and stopping just west of Rochester. It's like a pot with a meter long handle.

Of course I generally vote Green anyways.

Sununu Ammendment to strike flag! by Symbiosis · 2006-06-21 17:18 · Score: 2, Informative

Looks like Senator Sununu is proposing an ammendment to strike the broadcast and radio flags from the bill. Call up your Senator and get them to support it!

http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/479

--

-------------------------------------------
I like nonsense, it wakes up the brain cells.
-- Dr. Seuss

...holy Constitutional recursion Batman! by srussia · 2006-06-21 22:15 · Score: 1

Well what would be better was if the Constitution just specified that all legislation on a bill had to contribute to a single core purpose, and that the purpose couldn't be overly vague

A Constitutional amendment stipulating that all legislation must "contribute to a single core purpose" and that such purpose must "not be overly vague" would itself:

1) violate the stipulation of "contributing to a single core purpose"; and
2) be "overly vague"

--
Set your phasers on "funky"!

Why, oh why ... by Ihlosi · 2006-06-22 00:42 · Score: 1

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of ...

... does this line seem so familiar. I can't put my finger on it. It couldn't have to do anything with things that happened during the last few years, could it ?

Re:Why, oh why ... by Guuge · 2006-06-22 06:35 · Score: 1

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
While we're at it, these look awfully familiar too. Is it time to raise the flag of revolt?

Good points. by Kadin2048 · 2006-06-22 01:39 · Score: 1

The Constitution itself (nor amendments to it) wouldn't have to abide by either of those two rules; else the effect would be to create a rule that could never be changed, which IMO is anathema to our system of government -- part of the idea behind our Consitution is that it can be changed (with intentionally great difficulty) over time.

The form this rule I'm proposing would take would be a Constitutional amendment, which regulated how regular Congressional bills and legislation had to be handled. It would not affect future Constitutional amendments, or revise the interpretation of the Constitution, or have a retroactive effect on laws already passed (as much as it would be nice to go through and strike down everything that's ever been pushed through as a rider on another bill, I think that would upset too much settled law). So "vague" Constitutional amendments could still be passed in the future, unaffected by this rule: I don't think this is a big problem, because so few Amendments get passed anyway, and there's already an established framework for working out vagueries in its intent. Plus, sometimes a certain amount of vagueness is desirable, since it allows the Supreme Court a little interpretive leeway in response to prevailing public opinion and keeps the legislature from 'thrashing' the Constitution with contradictory amendments every few years/decades (which is I think what would happen if the USSC didn't have the interpretive power that it does as a result of Constitutional vagueness; of course we could debate this all day, and I'm open to the possibility that maybe this isn't a good thing).

But you are correct, there is a certain amount of hypocrisy inherent in such a rule, however that doesn't necessarily mean that it wouldn't work. I don't think it would ever get passed for other reasons, but the lack of internal consistency isn't what would kill it.

Actually your point #2 could probably be rectified by coming up with a better definition of what "vague" means and spelling out exactly how 'overly vague' a law could or couldn't be. And I'd argue that the rule would itself contribute to a single core purpose: the purpose being to eliminate bad laws tacked on as riders to hard-to-kill bills. That's a pretty singular purpose, and passes the rule's own test.

--
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."

Re:Obviously...line item veto? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-06-22 03:22 · Score: 0

You want to give the most abusabal executive power to the most abusive presidential executive in our history? Are you *^#*$^* nuts? The dude hasn't even mastered the "full bill veto" yet, and now you expect him to READ these bills and veto them line-by-line???? ROTFLMAO

Our founding fathers would have approved... by wikthemighty · 2006-06-22 03:58 · Score: 1

...or at least some of them, including Jefferson would have. He never envisioned our government in it's current form lasting so long, that it would be redone in X number of years.

Problem is that if you simply sunset legislation, the government would just gear up towards continually putting things back in place, which would just waste a lot of time/resources. Imagine the same old crap plus half of their time spent reintroducing the stuff that's just expired (or just about to.)

--
"There are people who do not love their fellow human being, and I _hate_ people like that!" - Tom Lehrer

Re:Our founding fathers would have approved... by falconwolf · 2006-06-22 06:23 · Score: 1

Problem is that if you simply sunset legislation, the government would just gear up towards continually putting things back in place, which would just waste a lot of time/resources. Imagine the same old crap plus half of their time spent reintroducing the stuff that's just expired (or just about to.)

The good thing about this though is that if they have to go through all of these laws again they won't have the tyme for new laws. That or they may be a little more careful about laws they enact.
Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?
Re:Our founding fathers would have approved... by thelenm · 2006-06-22 08:03 · Score: 1

Imagine the same old crap plus half of their time spent reintroducing the stuff that's just expired (or just about to.)

This was meant to describe sunset legislation, but what a great description of reelection campaigns. Except I think campaigning for reelection probably takes more than half of their time, and definitely more than half of their attention.

--
Use Ctrl-C instead of ESC in Vim!

Danger, Will Robinson, danger! by Lord+of+Hyphens · 2006-06-22 04:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

If you can get two thirds of the state legislatures to call for a constitutional convention, you can bring in an amendment in that way.

Ever notice that there's no stipulations as to exactly what can happen at a constitutional convention? At all? It feels like we're just handing our Constitution over to the delegates and saying "do whatever."

Personally, I think that's one of the reasons why that "second route" to an amendment has never been used... ignoring the fact that you'd need a lot more political firepower to get 3/4rds of the state legistlations to do anything (and IIRC, it is 3/4 of legistlatures).

--
"I've spent my whole life figuring out crazy ways to do things. It'll work." -- Montgomery Scott, "Relics"

Find your senator by Anomalyst · 2006-06-22 04:41 · Score: 1

Just replace "IL" at the end with your two letter state abbreviation

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/ senators_cfm.cfm?State=IL
BTW: IL returns:

Durbin, Richard- (D - IL) (202) 224-2152
Obama, Barack- (D - IL) (202) 224-2854

--
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.

Re:Public Comment? email vs dead tree by onkelonkel · 2006-06-22 06:23 · Score: 1

Interesting way of looking at it - if I do it the old-fashioned way, I must really care.

For me, what takes _all_ the effort, is the act of writing. That is, organizing my thoughts, putting them into words, and then editing, revising and re-arranging them into a (hopefully) coherent whole is very hard for me. I do this on a computer, just like anybody else would. Having done this, I can either a) look up an email address and hit send, or b) look up a physical (snail mail) address, print it on a label, print and sign my letter, and drop it into the mailbox (No stamp required to mail your MP in Canada). Neither option will materially affect the total effort.

As far as handwriting goes, I haven't hand-written anything longer than a grocery list in 25 years. My handwriting is pretty illegible; I certainly wouldn't subject anybody else to having to decipher it. It seems deliberately and calculatedly archaic to hand write a letter. If I write on parchment with india ink and a crow feather pen, and then have it delivered by stagecoach, would my message have yet more impact?

Seems like we are favoring style over substance, or the medium over the message.

--
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.

I Called My Senator Again to See if It Was Delayed by Yogler · 2006-06-22 10:26 · Score: 1

... but their office was closed; I'll call again in the morning. In the meantime, does anyone know how we would find out? My dad and I are looking on http://senate.gov/ but we're not really finding anything.

Re:Thanks! And keep the alerts coming! by Hyperhaplo · 2006-06-23 05:21 · Score: 1

Don't send the head.. send the ass

--
You have a sick, twisted mind. Please subscribe me to your newsletter.

Subject by Legion303 · 2006-06-23 15:34 · Score: 1

Ted "Bridge to Nowhere" Stevens is doing something sneaky? Stop the presses!

Slashdot Mirror

Broadcast Flag Sneaking in the Back Door

364 comments