Slashdot Mirror


Bill Would Tie Financial Aid To Anti-Piracy Plans

theodp writes "The MPAA is applauding top Democratic politicians for introducing an anti-piracy bill that threatens the nation's colleges with the loss of a $100B a year in federal financial aid should they fail to have a technology plan to combat illegal file sharing. The proposal, which is embedded in a 747-page bill, has alarmed university officials. 'Such an extraordinarily inappropriate and punitive outcome would result in all students on that campus losing their federal financial aid — including Pell grants and student loans that are essential to their ability to attend college, advance their education, and acquire the skills necessary to compete in the 21st-century economy,' said university officials in a letter to Congress. 'Lower-income students, those most in need of federal financial aid, would be harmed most under the entertainment industry's proposal.'"

425 comments

  1. But don't worry ... the democrats are in control by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So no worries right ? After all they're socialists. Using the governments power to mandate good behavior is very un-social right ? And forcing centrally made decisions upon everyone in the country is very unlike the democrats, right ? Oh wait ...

    Don't worry democrats won't let you down (*cough*)

  2. Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe the obvious reply is "wtf?"

  3. The United States is throughly corrupt. by Ckwop · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is shocking. I really mean that in the full sense of the word. This has completely and totally shocked me. It's not necessarily the actions the media-industry that have disappointed me; that was no surprise and this sort of behaviour is totally expected of them.

    It's the out-and-out corruption of the people who hold office. They don't even try to conceal the fact they're bought and paid for. It's completely obscene. There is no way that any rational politician would draft such a proposal.

    What the hell do you do about it? Like the United Kingdom [1] you have a first-past-the-post system of electing government. What this means is that you have two parties who exchange power at regular intervals with very little prospect of a third, forth or fifth party getting in to the running.

    In my view, this is no improvement whatsoever on the aristocratic feudal system that the whole American enterprise was meant to fix. In the United Kingdom the Catholic aristocracy and the Protestant aristocracy fought for political supremacy down a number of centuries.

    You might have different names for them, "Republican" and "Democrat", and their values are different to our aristocrats but the mechanics are fundamentally the same. I mean, you're on your second aristocrat from the Bush family and you're likely to get your second helping of from the Clinton family. Without wanting to flame-bate: Does that sound like the American dream to you?

    Once you have accepted the difficult fact that you are under the thumb of two aristocratic bodies then corruption is essentially impossible to eliminate without a revolution. Corruption just comes at twice the price.

    How we fight them? I am not an expert on the political structure of the United States, but could the recent Real ID rebellion be expanded in to a more protracted battle? I broadly think that the threatening the cut of funds to a state to ram through some policy decision from Washington offends the nature of the Constitution. If the forefathers wanted an Omnipotent Congress they would have adopted a Parliamentary system like our own.

    In a sense, Congress has exploited a hole in the Constitution via a broad interpretation of the Interstate Commerce clause and using the stick of withholding funds to pressure state legislatures.

    I think the states are the solution to this problem but it will require radical swift action to succeed.

    Simon

    [1] - I want to preface it with this comment with this - our country is no better and everything I say here can be said of the United Kingdom.

    1. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by aurispector · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You must be young because this kind of crap has been going on for ages. The worst part is that while the people are saying the bush presidency has been a catastrophe, congress is really the one to blame.

      The only difference between the crap going on now and in previous eras is that all the easy ways of cheating have been used up, so congress has to push the envelope in order to serve their corporate masters.

      Nobody in congress is serving the interests of the people. Even Ron Paul is more interested in ideology. I'm tired of visionaries; I want someone practical.

      --
      I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
    2. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1, Insightful

      you have a first-past-the-post system of electing government. What this means is that you have two parties who exchange power at regular intervals with very little prospect of a third, forth or fifth party getting in to the running.
      It means nothing of the sort. And the UK system isn't much like the US one either. Where's the UK electoral college, for one?
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by Daimanta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Politicians ARE practical. It is very practical to line your pockets with money when you have some power.

      Ideology is what makes a society better(or worse, depending on your pov).

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    4. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by Reverend528 · · Score: 1

      Why did you use a footnote for a preface? That does not make sense.

    5. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by ZombieWomble · · Score: 1

      Where's the UK electoral college, for one? I think the Queen would object a little if we set about putting together the mechanisms for the election of a president. GP was comparing elections to Parliment with elections to Congress/Senate.
    6. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by aurispector · · Score: 1

      What I mean is ideology is useless if it doesnt serve the interests of the people. When the economy finally implodes and everyone is out on the street, we MIGHT see real change if the american people havent been so thoroughly sheepified that they realize a revolution is the only real solution.

      Thomas Jefferson said it first.

      --
      I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
    7. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the fuck is a "parliment"? I don't think either the UK or the US has one.

    8. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by ZombieWomble · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's a typo. From what I've seen on the internet, both the UK and US are chock full of them.

    9. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by thue · · Score: 1, Interesting

      IMO the US needs to switch to some form of proportional representation, which would make it possible for new parties to establish themselves.

      Right now a party needs a plurality in a district to get a representative, which sets the bar for entry very high. With proportional representation a party with 5% national support spread out over the whole nation would still be represented.

    10. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by doggod · · Score: 1

      How we fight them? My current favorite is http://downsizedc.org/.

      They take the position that since the structure for people to enter the political game (elections) is, as you say, totally rigged, there's no point in expending effort in it. Instead, they have set up a system for steadily, incrementally hammering away at the quasi-royalty in power to bring about change.

      Interestingly, it seems to be working so far, and the bigger they get the more it's working.
    11. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by FlyingSquidStudios · · Score: 1

      The last time I remember a third party candidate getting more than 5% was Ross Perot. I can't think of many before him. Nader didn't do it despite all the rallying... so I don't see that forming a multi-party system.

    12. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by HalAtWork · · Score: 1

      Like police and other officials in authority, shouldn't the government not accept funds that go to individuals, but use any money given to them for example to pay off the debt or to reduce taxes or to give grants? Shouldn't the president live on minimum wage, if that's only what's necessary to live? Shouldn't the president be monitored by the people 24/7 to make sure they're doing a good job, to keep our interests at the forefront? The president is a public servant, so shouldn't their lives be dedicated to the public they are serving for the period of time that they are in office? After they are out of office, why do they still receive salaries? If all of this stuff didn't happen, then maybe the person who would take the job would do it because they really want the job badly, and not because of any other incentives, as there should be no other incentives. For the person that's supposed to run the country, shouldn't they do it out of purely wanting to improve things and wanting to be in that position?

      When a company tries to attract employees, they try to foster an environment that would be best for who they want. Look at Google, for example. They give their employees time to tinker with hardware and software that geeks would wet their pants for, so they attract bright minds that would work there even if there wasn't a high salary (but you gotta live). There's a lot of stuff I really don't get about the government. To attract a good president for that position, shouldn't they have to live by the rules they set (i.e. minimum wage is supposed to be enough for the cost of living, and why should the president live in a medium that isn't equivilant to that of the average american?), and shouldn't they have to want to do well in that position (i.e. their incentive to get into that position is to change things for the better, not to get paid and have it made in the shade)?

      The environment we have created for president and I guess for a lot of the federal government is not condusive to what they are supposed to accomplish. It's more like dropping some people off at playland... I believe that they're severely out of touch with reality because they don't live like real people and aren't subject to real conditions with real consequences, and they don't have enough of a stake in normal every day lives that they would want to protect normal every day lives, or think about how people live and how to improve the situation for citizens.

      Am I making sense? Cause honestly I can't even believe the government exists as-is today... considering what they are supposed to stand for and considering what would be ideal for the people and also considering many of the people we consider heroes in political history and the history of creating the american dream and what it's supposed to stand for.

    13. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by DBCubix · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Bull-Moose party had a pretty good showing of 27% of the vote, but then that was 1912. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Party_(United_States,_1912)

      --
      I called it a mighty Sperm Whale, she called it Finding Nemo.
    14. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because they had a popular former president running as a candidate.

    15. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by darjen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That sounds all well and good, but IMO the only real way to fight them is to hit em where it hurts - their pocketbook. In other words, stop paying taxes to the federal government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_resistance The more people who resist, the more they will have to change their utterly, completely corrupt policies. How can you honestly say it's working when crap like this story keep coming up? Don't get me wrong, I love Ron Paul, and contributed to his campaign, but I still don't think it's possible to place any faith in honest politicians to really change things.

    16. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by Daimanta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Revolution is a nasty and bloody business that only needs to be used as a last resort. Simply vote out the old parties and vote in new parties. If that doesn't happen people are so lazy tata even a revolution won't help.

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    17. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by garbletext · · Score: 1

      3rd party candidates receive few votes because people know that a 3rd party vote is a wasted vote due to the FPTP system. Changing this system would allow people to seriously campaign under a 3rd party banner without it being a joke.

    18. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by MrSteveSD · · Score: 1

      Nobody in congress is serving the interests of the people.

      Quite true, and it's annoying that the media do not address this side of things. They either talk about Republicans or Democrats but never the issue that neither really serve the peoples interests.
    19. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by FlyingSquidStudios · · Score: 1

      I think you have far too much faith in people. I have time and again encountered people who don't understand politics and aren't all that interested, so they just vote for whoever their family voted for. Yes, there are many intelligent voters out there too, but the majority of sheeple who vote do it because they think they're supposed to, not because of any deep thought-out political process.

    20. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by garbletext · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Come on. Tax resisters are way out on the lunatic fringe. No appreciable percentage of the population is going to resist paying taxes as long as there's serious penalties for it, like jail time. And your argument about "hitting them where it hurts," only makes sense if a large number of people do this. how can you say that a method for changing the system is "the only real way," if it has never worked and has no prospects of doing so soon?

      If you honestly believe in, support, and practice tax resistance, would you be willing to send a petition, signed by you and other supporters, stating that you do not pay federal taxes to congress, and CC it to the IRS?

    21. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by Felix+Da+Rat · · Score: 1

      How to fight them is a difficult issue. Most people can not because, as you have pointed out there are only the two choices, on the Federal level. The problem is that what was supposed to be a minor almost Administrative group has become much too large and powerful. From your post I'm assuming that you are European, probably from the UK. Imagine if the EU started trumping the local laws in any of it's member nations. Those member nations would go ballistic. Until it has been around for a long enough time that everyone starts to think of themselves as 'I'm European, from Germany'. That's pretty much what's happened here, and is both the cause and solution for how to fight that.

      The states need to reclaim their power from the federal government, but it's a huge battle to do so. People no longer see as much value in state elections as they do in the federal, and that level of apathy allows for the status quo to continue or even deteriorate. I expect that over time, we'll see more efforts like the 'Free State Project' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_State_Project; like minded people trying to change the local, then state governments to constrain the federal.

      But onto the topic of this post; the ramifications of this are truly sickening. On the bright side, with employers only accepting people with a college degree, we might start to see more manufacturing start up in the US again. And that means of course their will be even more people eligible for joining the military. Might as well make that part of the bill, 'Get caught downloading music, go and fight'.

      I'd love to say this would ruin all the RIAA's future lawyers and politicians, but the money will come from their families, so it doesn't really matter. I'd bet that more people (at least middle class or so) will do what my father did for me; sent me overseas for university, with federal financial aid. Not that that will count for much with the dollar in it's state, but at least it'll be some help. Until that loop hole gets closed down and financial aid is only good in the US.

      I don't really have any conclusions to draw from this, but people need to get more involved in their states politics, and not just for their federal representatives. Research places with a state political climate you like. This legislation needs to be fought, so call your reps in D.C.. If you have kids, start them learning another language, it's educational and FUN! If you have kids, ask if you need a plasma TV, or can you sock more of it away for their educations.

    22. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by darjen · · Score: 1

      Resiting taxes because of corrupt government is not "lunatic fringe". There is a long tradition of this... even practiced by Gandhi. Of course it makes more sense if more people do it. Get enough people involved, and what could the IRS do? Throw millions of people in jail? Democracy itself only functions (poorly I would add) because enough people believe in it. So if enough of us start advocating resistance, it might force these sleaze bag politicians to reconsider what they are doing. Might be more effective than these fluffy orgs like "downsize dc". And there are many methods of tax resistance, including self employment and not filing a return. I am researching what I can right now, and am willing to consider changing how I work in the future.

    23. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by Wildclaw · · Score: 1

      The electoral college is pretty meaningless and only affects the election of least concern when it comes to election reform. Yup, you heard me right. It is useless to try to reform how the president is elected. Any political election that involves selecting a single person becomes nothing more than a popularity contest. It doesn't matter how you count and weigh the votes. The problem is that there is only one person being elected and he is supposed to represent all the opinions of the people, which is impossible.

      Unfortunally the US as well as the UK if I understand it correctly uses single person elections to elect the Parliment/Congress/Senate also. Each availible spot is regionally divided and turned into meaningless popularity contests. Even if a party represents the opinion of 10% of the population they will get 0% of the representation if they are spread geographically evenly. Representative elections where the percentage of votes from the whole nation is used are much more democratic in that they allow the selected representatives to more accuratly represent the people and allow for minority views to get a word in.

      There is of course still other problems with representation. For some reason it is assumed that rich/well-educated people are better at representing the people, which from my experience is a severly flawed idea. If you elect rich, well-educated people you will get laws that cater to rich, well-educated people. That kind of corruption is exactly what is happening in the US.

      Personally I think that randomocracy is the way to go for getting representatives that represent the people. Still, it is also possible to make traditional systems better by limiting the time that any one politician can serve, removing the idea of career politicians.

    24. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by jo42 · · Score: 1

      Young padwan, you have forgotten The Golden Rule:

      He Who Has The Gold, Makes The Rules.

      In this case, the MPAA has The Gold (AKA $$$$$$$$), thus they get to make The Rules...

    25. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by Sierpinski · · Score: 1

      Revolution is a nasty and bloody business that only needs to be used as a last resort. Simply vote out the old parties and vote in new parties. If that doesn't happen people are so lazy tata even a revolution won't help.

      I'm not advocating a revolution, but "simply voting out the old parties" is a lot more difficult than it seems. There are WAY TOO MANY un(der)-educated, poor, uninformed, "brainwashed" people out there who vote along party lines (ie all those red states that they don't even wait for results to fill in during the election) to ever 'simply vote out' anything.

      In my opinion, there are two enemies to political progress. Religion and ignorance. Sometimes these go hand-in-hand, sometimes they don't. Until we rid the political process of those two elements, at least from a majority, this will continue.

      In the last presidential election, both myself and my wife (who has NEVER voted before, that's how strongly she felt about not letting Bush win) stayed in line for several hours to get to vote. While in line, we overheard the guy behind us, in a very "hillbilly" accent say "I dun care who gets ta be president, I jus' dun want dem gays ta be able ta get married." It was then I truly saw the fault in the current system of government and election process. It was the epitome of uneducated, ignorant bias that will condemn this country for years to come.

      It very much made me want to follow a friend of mine to live in Canada.

    26. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Imagine if the EU started trumping the local laws in any of it's member nations.

      You don't have to imagine it. It actually happens (although the mechanism is a bit different: The nations are required to change their law to comply with the EU rules).

      Those member nations would go ballistic.

      I see little evidence for that.
      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    27. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      In what country have you been living or on what planet for that matter? Is there some invisible third or fourth party that is not beholden to corporate bribes or a revolving door career path? Oh wait, there are! And they are indeed invisible!

      "Simply vote out the old parties and vote in new parties"??? You've got to be joking (you probably are and your sarcasm, subtle as it may have been, escaped me). There are no "new parties" to vote for and there haven't been for a long time. So its not simply a matter of laziness, we're just used to being well-fed sheep. This explains why we can tolerate a president with a ~20% approval rating and an entire congress with a ~10% approval rating without any widespread civil unrest; because despite a few setbacks in our unrelenting quest for satiety, we're still being fed (for the moment).

      Protest (the only means we have at this point to be heard) gets ignored or seldom reported. If we do hear about it, its because they are attacked by cops and it is later reported that the protesters turned violent in an attempt to delegitimize the very reason they were protesting. There is no voice, there is no vote, and there is no representation. There is corruption and the selection of our leaders by corporate interests. We've taken fascism to a whole new level. Our fascism at least provides people with an illusion that there is choice when in fact there is none.

      The greed of our kleptocratic masters is hampering our ability as a society to address serious problems that will be crashing down on us (or already are) in the very near future:
      • Our unsustainable economic practices that will inevitably lead to the dissolution of the middle class and the elimination of much of the wealth this nation has built up over the last 60 years.
      • Peak Oil. Many have stated that this has already occurred. This is very bad and there is no contingency in place except for rations, price fixing, and market manipulation. Alternatives have not been sufficiently studied, tested, or explored for any sort of large-scale implementation
      • Global Climate Change. At least in this case, the states themselves are starting to see the federal government as an emperor with no clothes and are taking action themselves. Unfortunately we've already gutted most of the planet and its no longer enough simply to "reduce greenhouse emissions". There must be a significant effort to begin restoring ecosystems and there must be a push towards more sustainable and environmentally-friendly living arrangements.
      • Fresh Water Depletion. Not so much a problem for the US yet, but it is fast becoming one. What ever happened to the story about North Georgia being nearly out of fresh water? Isn't it getting a bit close to zero hour? Where are our leaders with at least proposed solutions? Where's the media, reporting on the story?

      I'm not even going to mention the myriad near-term problems (like health care, Social Security, and ongoing war) that desperately need to be addressed for they are far overshadowed by the civilization-altering ones I've listed above. We can't even get these relatively simple problems solved (in essence, much of it is simply balancing our national checkbook) because of rampant greed and corruption.

      But since addressing any one of these issues poses a threat to corporate profits, they simply aren't worth addressing. In other words, our current crop of politicos and corporate overlords are a threat to our very survival. I don't know about you, but when someone threatens my life as well as the life of my family, whether by avarice or by threat of violence, a line has been crossed and action must be taken.

      I think revolution is becoming more and more necessary.
    28. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by vcalzone · · Score: 1

      That's completely ludicrous. You don't solve anything by not paying the federal government, you just really, really risk jail time and completely obliterate funding for anything worthwhile. The government is not some mystical entity, it is us. Treating it as if it is some kind of outside force that we have no way to influence is not only inaccurate, it is the very thought process that these people feed upon. As long as people think that it's impossible to fix what's wrong with this country, they can do whatever they want.

    29. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by yada21 · · Score: 1

      In my opinion, there are two enemies to political progress. Religion and ignorance.
      And vested interest's. Three. Three main enemies to political progress.
      --
      I will have a sig when the market demands it.
    30. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can you be suprised by the congress, when they are elected by people who's continued learning is completely controlled by the entertainment industry. After you're out of high school, all of your learning about civics comes from the entertainment industry. Yes, Fox News and CNN are both entertainment.

    31. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm tired of visionaries; I want someone practical.
      Then vote for one.
      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    32. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by darjen · · Score: 1

      Your kind of mentality is exactly what they expect from people. They that people like you won't try to stand for anything that's right, thus allowing them to do whatever they want with your money. As far as I'm concerned, they do next to nothing that is actually worthwhile. And considering they are using your money to kill innocent people in Iraq, it actually becomes a moral imperative to stop them. Unless, of course, you just don't care what they do, like 50% of this country. The government is not us. It's whoever has enough money to get elected.

    33. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by vcalzone · · Score: 1

      So support candidates who push for true campaign finance reform, term limits, or whatever else could clean up Washington. It's been done before and it can be done again, but the first step is to stop thinking that not caring and not supporting the government will do anything except bring the worst kind of people into power. WHether you believe it or not, there ARE other people in the world who want change, and some of them actually run for office instead of just bitching and campaigning for stupid causes that will never work. Take a look at the last eight years and take a look at Al Gore and try telling me again that it doesn't matter who gets into office. Refusing to pay taxes assumes that the people in office aren't too corrupted by the system to accept change, and that's a false assumption. When people stop supporting the good candidates, all that's left are the people who support the bad candidates.

    34. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 1

      Even Ron Paul is more interested in ideology. I'm tired of visionaries; I want someone practical.

      This is meaningless garbage. Without principles, there is no way to form a coherent structure of policies. "Practical" is what gets us such amazing policies as a law that requires people to buy health insurance as "health care reform".

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    35. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by darjen · · Score: 1

      If Al Gore were in office, your money would still be used to kill innocent people. After seeing how "business as usual" works in Washington for the past 28 years of my life, I have to respectfully disagree that it is capable of changing within. When you think about how so-called top democrats are supporting bills like this, and how they are nothing but paid thugs for the RIAA, I don't see how you can say otherwise. The candidates sponsoring this bill are the ones people elected to office. They are the same ones who repeatedly get elected to office, year in and year out... despite pulling this type of crap. It's time to stop funding this nonsense.

    36. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the JEWS, stupid...
      The 'chosen' are getting scared now, they might have to actually do some manual labour in the future, and we can't have that, can we?
      I wonder how many Jews are working in construction? (I mean PHYSICALLY building things, not overseeing their 'cattle'...)
      Isn't that odd.
      And 50% of abortion clinics are owned by JEWS... surely it couldn't have anything to do with their sick desire to cut up living babies (their own included), could it? Say it ain't so...

      The JEWS will stop at nothing to screw you and me over, and it's exactly what they're doing with their shit music 'industry'. As for Hollywood, don't get me started. 99% of films produced in Hollywood are bullshit.

      The laughable thing is that the JEWS are acting as if their 'music' is worth anything in the first place! Most of it is dross, of the lowest common denominator.

    37. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Voting might help too. If enough people do it....

    38. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by vcalzone · · Score: 1

      Look, I'm deeply, deeply disappointed with the performance of this Congress. We need ways to get these corrupt individuals out of office and new ones in. But I think refusing to pay taxes won't really affect them nearly as much as finding ways to eliminate their job security. We came close to pushing one of the bad ones out with Lieberman. If we'd succeeded, we would have scared a great deal of people into paying attention. Notice what happens there? We need more participation in the system, not less. Gandhi didn't live in a representative government. We do. In the best case scenario, what you are advocating would be meaningless. Most likely, though, the kind of crisis you want to bring about would lead to a dictatorship. Oh, and thinking that people would actually invest the money from taxes instead of feeding it back to the corporations is the most dangerously naive thing I've ever heard. All that would happen would be that the public services that are already woefully underfunded would continue deteriorating, and I'm sure that there are plenty of companies that would be quite happy to sponsor highway maintenance, public education and more. They'd just want a little bit of advertising is all.

    39. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by dryeo · · Score: 1
      The weirdest part in the parents post to me is this line

      stayed in line for several hours to get to vote How the hell are things going to change when it takes hours to vote? You'd have to be pretty motivated, like the guy who really doesn't want gays to marry.
      I'm in Canada, voting means standing in line for a couple of minutes. I doubt very much I would continue to vote if it took hours.
      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    40. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by IAmTheDave · · Score: 1

      I'm tired of visionaries; I want someone practical.

      The "someone practicals" are not those who top leaders want in power - they aren't puppets. They aren't yes-men. So keep them off the ballot, don't lend a hand in their campaigns. Instead, spend millions and millions on ad-spots for those that know how to take direction from party leaders, and are happy to give up their morals, ethics, even self-identities for a condo in DC. And the sheep that are the voting public follow their directions as well, voting in to power who they are told to. (And heck, if that doesn't work, just rig the election.)

      Everyone wants someone more idealistic in office. But no one - including the voting public - will let it happen.

      --
      Excuse my speling.
      Making The Bar Project
    41. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by darjen · · Score: 1

      The most meaningful thing we can do to their job security is remove their source of funding. More participation won't change the system in any way. There will simply be more people taking part in the corruption. There's no basis whatsoever for you to say that not paying taxes would lead to a dictatorship. That's is just ridiculous. And paying taxes sure has helped our current crumbling infrastructure. Get real, voting isn't gonna solve anything. Expecting government to spend taxes wisely is the most dangerously naive thing I've ever heard. They obviously haven't been spending our taxes on keeping up bridges. Why would they start now? If you're willing to continue having innocent blood on your hands, by all means keep enabling the people who are doing the killing by giving them your money.

    42. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by sowth · · Score: 1

      Sorry to burst your doom and gloom phantasies, but things aren't as serious as you make them out. Maybe you have been overtrained by the scare tatics of the government and the public school system.

      1. unsustainable economic practices - Yes, everyone spends too much, but when they bottom out, they won't be poor as in third world country, they'll just be poor compared to their rich neighbors. Unless they become homeless (houses don't up and disappear), I doubt they will have to worry about colera, freezing to death, or starvation like many do in real poor countries. They may have to work at taco bell, walk to work, prepare their own food, and such, but most won't have real problems. The real problem here would be how most of us Americans are trained to be superficial, spoiled and materialistic. Just because you can't buy some new toy or a really nice car isn't the end of the world.
      2. Peak Oil - many have been saying we are going to run out of oil since the '70s. I doubt we will just up and "run out" one day. More likely the price will slowly increase over time. In fact, I don't think the price of gas has gone up much more than the price of inflation. At any rate, the worse case senario, you may have to buy a more fuel efficient car or walk, and maybe purchase products created closer to home. Once the price of gas becomes more onerous, other forms of energy will start to be used.
      3. Global Climate Change - assuming this isn't someone's miscalcuation or imagination (there was a time not too long ago "scientists" were saying the planet was going to freeze), who is to say for sure it is caused by humans or humans can do anything about it? I heard the sun is at a point where it is getting hotter. How do you expect to change that? What about volcanos? Reducing pollutants is a good idea, but you should also prepare yourself for global climate change too. (How about somebody find a way to convert this heat into some other useful form of energy?) The Earth has gone through many climate changes. Don't expect to magically stop these changes.
      4. Fresh Water Depletion - sea water can be converted to fresh water. If a great need for water arises, they'll just do as they do in Saudi Arabia.
      5. health care - if it wasn't run by a communist "insurance" system, then it probably wouldn't cost so damn much. Insurance is only optimal when an event is unlikely to happen to you specifically. Things would work better if everyone had insurance in case of a catastrophic medical problem, and payed themselves for day to day things, such as checkups and cold/flu.

        And no, the government would not handle it better. Because of my kidney failure/strokes, I am on Disablility, Medicare and Medicaid. I have seen how the government handles medical care. It sucks especially because if you want/need anything extra medical wise (or something they denied) and are able to pay yourself, you aren't allowed to have it or they'll declare you don't need Medicare (or whatever) anymore, and they'll take it away. All subject to changing policies and whims of bureaucrats, which you can never predict or know for certantiy beforehand. So you have to live in fear the rest of your live hoping they don't take away the treatment(s) you need to live. Yeah, they will probably keep you barely alive, but you won't have much freedom with your medical care either. I don't see any way to fix this. Bureaucrats are how governments do things. No one has come up with a better model for such huge organizations...and how do you police the cheaters?

        Look at the retirement program. Even if you are retired and most certainly earned those medical benefits and social security payments, they treat it like welfare, and take it away if you make too much spare cash on the side--so you don't have to eat dog food. This is really how it is, I used to work for a temp agency and I talked to quite a few old people who where in this situation. Who would really want to live like this?

    43. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by Dracophile · · Score: 1

      Like the United Kingdom [1] you have a first-past-the-post system of electing government. What this means is that you have two parties who exchange power at regular intervals with very little prospect of a third, forth or fifth party getting in to the running.

      We get a similar result with full preferential (instant-runoff) voting in Australia. I suspect we live in two-party systems because enough people think that we live in two-party systems. Even here in Australia, with preferential voting, some people still think that a first preference for an "alternative" (not one of the two major parties) candidate is a wasted vote.
      --
      Athy, athier, athiest.
    44. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by YodaYid · · Score: 1

      Arianna Huffington wrote a whole book on the topic in 2000 (well before Bush): How to Overthrow the Government. It's a fantastic read.

    45. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by bogjobber · · Score: 1
      What the hell do you do about it? Like the United Kingdom [1] you have a first-past-the-post system of electing government. What this means is that you have two parties who exchange power at regular intervals with very little prospect of a third, forth or fifth party getting in to the running.

      In my view, this is no improvement whatsoever on the aristocratic feudal system that the whole American enterprise was meant to fix. In the United Kingdom the Catholic aristocracy and the Protestant aristocracy fought for political supremacy down a number of centuries.

      [1] - I want to preface it with this comment with this - our country is no better and everything I say here can be said of the United Kingdom.

      If you don't know very much about the history of the US, you may think this is an accident. It's not. Basically the American government was created as an extension of the English-style government. There really was no intention to "fix" the aristocratic nature of government. They thought the English system was the best in the world. Other than federalism[1] the US has the same basic governmental system as England circa 1776 but with a greater legal guarantee of civil rights.

      The president = the king, the house of representatives = the house of commons, the senate = the house of lords, very similar judiciary, etc. If you keep that in mind, it's really no surprise that the US and UK have very similar political climates, they basically arise out of the same system.

      [1] Federalism is obviously an important difference between the two. In this conversation I don't think it's relevant, however, since the federal government has grown in power over the years and people outside the US (and a surprising amount inside) see the US federal gov't as being synonymous with all government in the US.

    46. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 1

      I'd sure like to see where those "legislators" get their political contributions from.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    47. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by Moofie · · Score: 1

      That's simply absurd. The republicans and democrats control the mechanism of democracy in every county in the US. Why on earth would they ever permit somebody else to win?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    48. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by siriuskase · · Score: 1

      That's another thing about US elections, the elections are run by the politicians in power. Districts that support the party in power generally have much quicker lines. There is so much wrong with the election process, it's hard to figure out where to start to fix it. But, the people in power are barely interested. Both parties like the system as it is and will never focus on problems such as "first past the post" or even the Electoral College. They'd rather focus on stuff like Gay Mariage that most people don't care about at all, but the ones that do, are quite vocal. At this time, most people have no say in the Presidential Poll, at least not with a vote. Money is the only vote that matters. Congressional and Senate elections aren't much better. Because committee assignments are based on senority, it is better to vote for your incumbant and have some power than vote for the new guy. Freshman have no power until they conform to the system and become incumbants.

      --
      If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
    49. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by aurispector · · Score: 1

      "Vested interests" include our current two party system and their corporate masters. The republicrats do not serve the interests of the citizenry.

      We don't even hear about candidates from our two main political parties. Why shouldn't they be given time during the debates. It's shameful how the message we hear is controlled, sanitized and spun. The US is so far in debt we will never get out. The dollar is crashing and our financial preeminence has passed to the chinese. All congress does is spend more and more yet nobody talks about the consequences.

      --
      I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
    50. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by Sierpinski · · Score: 1

      And vested interest's. Three. Three main enemies to political progress.

      I stand corrected, there are three. I agree completely.

    51. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      So because corruption has been going on for a long time we shouldn't be angry at it's existance or try to stamp it out?

      I think the problem is that we need a visionary with practical pursuits in mind. Someone that can look at the problems and systematically attack and fix them. We need to stop arguing over stupid crap, selling out to the highest bidder, and thinking only about ourselves. Every problem can be fixed if we only make some actual effort to do it with our brains and our hands instead of going by emotion and opinions.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    52. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by LocalH · · Score: 1

      And greed for power. Our four...no...amongst our enemies to political progress are such things as religion, ignorance, vested interests, and greed for power...I'll come in again.

      --
      FC Closer
    53. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by Sonic+McTails · · Score: 1

      Winston Churchill said it best: "The biggest argument against democracy is a five minute discussion with the average voter."

      --
      This signature was left intentionally blank.
    54. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1
      And apathy. Four. Four main enemies to...

      Noone expects the Spanish Inquisition!

      :P

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    55. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by Teriblows · · Score: 1

      mostly a 3rd party is a waste of time. a party that represents even less % of the people holding presidential power? great idea..... why not 4 parties? 5? 6? why not have one party per voter, thats the only way to have real representation. massive numbers of parties only results in coalitions to get things passed and coalitions are just parties by default really. and so its really its the same thing. the reality is compromise. unless you are dictator no governments going to 100% represent you.

    56. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by Tjp($)pjT · · Score: 1

      You might have different names for them, "Republican" and "Democrat", and their values are different to our aristocrats but the mechanics are fundamentally the same. I mean, you're on your second aristocrat from the Bush family and you're likely to get your second helping of from the Clinton family. Without wanting to flame-bate: Does that sound like the American dream to you?
      John Adam, John Quincy Adams... Yep seems pretty American to me. Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, yep, cousins that they were, hmmm John F Kennedy, Teddy Kennedy (Teddy just has certain fears, he still weilds huge amounts of power in Washington circles). There are lots more. The American way was originally such that land owners were the preferred class. After 200 years we are finally moving a bit closer to equality, but it is still easier to be rich than poor. And no matter what I can say bad about the US I still like it better than anywhere else. But we pick and choose what freedom we fight for and those rights we are willing to lose around the world. Eventually even the most repressed cultures find the population is the real power. Sometimes it takes quite a few generations. The problem in the US is we started giving up power in exchange for security at the individual level and then discovered the government can't keep an individual secure. Or a border for that matter.
      --
      - Tjp

      I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!

    57. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Even if a party represents the opinion of 10% of the population they will get 0% of the representation if they are spread geographically evenly.
      The problem with a PR system is that it gives disproportionate power to small parties. Imagine the scenario under PR where you have a centre left party (like UK Labour, German SPD) with 49% of the vote. You have a centre right (UK Conservatives, German CDU) also with 49%. Some random wingnuts have the rest. Who really holds the power in that situation? Horse-trading doesn't do it justice.

      This was a hypothetical example, but it happens. Italy was notorious for it a few years back, and Belgium has had a hung parliament for months now.

      If you elect rich, well-educated people you will get laws that cater to rich, well-educated people.
      I'm not sure that's entirely true, but it's still better than being governed by rich, uneducated people, isn't it?
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    58. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Each availible spot is regionally divided and turned into meaningless popularity contests
      Doesn't any election come down to a meaningless poularity contest? Whether you're voting for a constituency MP or a party under a PR system, it's the same - you vote for who/whatver tells you what you want to hear. I hadn't thought of it like that, it's kind of depressing.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    59. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by doggod · · Score: 1

      Voting might help too. If enough people do it.... That's of course true -- theoretically. But the practical matter is that with the electoral system rigged as it is, the chances of someone with a vision of America that was outside the canonical one promoted by Corporate America actually being elected are, for all intents and purposes, zero.

      Elections rigged? Yes, sorry, they are -- unbeknownst to the vast majority of the sheep who graze only in the pastures provided them by the corporate news giants. A recent, egregious example is the "Bi-partisan Campaign Reform Act", the constitutionality of which has now been ratified by a slim majority of the Supreme Court. Among other things, it provides that if, within 90 days of a Federal election, you go on a forum such as this and write something for or against a candidate, you will be guilty of a Federal felony and, should you be caught, will be jailed and fined.

      The "mainstream press", meanwhile, is not subject at all to this law -- surprise, surprise. So they can pour carloads of ink onto paper promoting the Demopublicans who pass laws favoring them without having to worry about being blindsided by us "little people" who might sneak in someone who was not a part of the game. That's why they called it "bi-partisan". Not "tri-partisan" or "multi-partisan". Get it?
    60. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      While I'm very glad I don't live in the US with their one-step-removed-from-a-one-party political system, it is still a democracy. So if you get enough people together to vote (yes, getting those people together might be difficult or even potentially illegal depending on how you do it), you can elect a candidate who will make the changes you desire.

      Note that gathering a bunch of people together for a tax revolt is definitely illegal, no matter how you go about it.

    61. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by doggod · · Score: 1

      I didn't and don't dispute the point that electing someone outside the network of corporate-approved candidates is technically possible. My point was and is that it is, as a practical matter, highly unlikely -- to the point where the odds of success make it hardly worth the bother of trying.

      I do perhaps dispute the point that a system which rigs the electoral process to the point it has now reached in the U.S. can legitimately lay claim to the definition of a "democracy" however.

      Of course, nearly all countries call themselves "democracies" inasmuch as it has become something of a mandatory buzzword for global acceptance. Illustrative example: the now-defunct "German Democratic Republic".

      While the USA will no doubt go on calling itself a "democracy" for time immemorial (even though it never really was -- it was structured as a constitutional republic, with only some democratic elements thrown in), a careful observer will look beyond the labels and decide independently what is and isn't a "democracy" in fact.

    62. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by Thaelon · · Score: 1

      While I'm very glad I don't live in the US with their one-step-removed-from-a-one-party political system, it is still a democracy.
      No, it isn't. It's a republic. And our representatives mostly represent those parties that pay them the most.
      --

      Question everything

    63. Re:The United States is throughly corrupt. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Democracy:

      1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
      2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
      3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
      4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.
      5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.

      From Dictionary.com.

      A republic is a state in which the position of head of state is not a hereditary ruler. Supposedly a republic should ALSO be democratic, that is, the ultimate power rests in with the body of citizens.

      The US is a republic (the president is not a hereditary position) and is also democratic - the people exercise political power through voting. Canada is democratic, but it is not a republic because the head of state is the queen, which is a hereditary position (Canada is a constitutional monarchy).

      The words republic and democracy describe different things, so there's no conflict with a country being both, despite what the Civilization games teach us. In fact, according to the definition of republic, real republics are supposed to always be democratic.

  4. That's why they are politicians and you are not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They find ways to cut education spending and make it look like it's someone else's fault.

    1. Re:That's why they are politicians and you are not by StarvingSE · · Score: 1

      This move just goes with my belief that the US government truly wants the American population to become less educated. Ignorant people are much easier to manipulate and control then people who think for themselves.

      --
      I got nothin'
    2. Re:That's why they are politicians and you are not by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Hey, Stalin already knew it and Pol Pot took it to the extreme.

      And people think politicians don't learn from history...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  5. Not that big a deal. by WK2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We already knew that the MPAA would want something like this, and that they are willing to draft congressional bills. We also knew that plenty of politicians, including democrats, are owned by them.

    This is only a proposal.

    --
    Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
    1. Re:Not that big a deal. by mw13068 · · Score: 1

      Ok. Bend over. I'll just put the tip in.

      What? It's just a proposal.

    2. Re:Not that big a deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly - this isn't going to become law anytime soon. A couple of representatives are trying to show that they're tough on piracy. Welcome to American politics.

      Wake me up when they're actually passing bills like these, proposing nasty constitutional amendments, or doing something monumentally stupid like giving the executive branch special emergency powers.

  6. Yep, take the internet away from US control! by Teun · · Score: 4, Funny

    If this isn't the perfect example why nations like China and Russia want control of the internet not to be with the US, now you can't even trust them Democrats!

    ;)

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  7. 747 pages? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I find the page count to be more ridiculous than the proposal itself.

    1. Re:747 pages? by Palpitations · · Score: 5, Insightful

      For those keeping track, the PATRIOT Act was only 342 pages (PDF warning) - and wasn't really read by anyone who signed off on it because it was long, had a nice name, and there was a sense of urgency to pass it.

      I get the feeling that with more than twice the pages and a nice name attatched to it (College Opportunity and Affordability Act), this will get a similar reception. "Oh, well, it has a nice name - and it's far too long to bother reading and understanding... Plus, if I vote against it I'll be mentioned as voting against opportunity and affordability for students!"

      Sad, but true.

    2. Re:747 pages? by russ1337 · · Score: 1

      i I get the feeling that with more than twice the pages and a nice name attatched to it College Opportunity and Affordability Act this will get a similar reception. "Oh well it has a nice name - and it s far too long to bother reading and understanding... i
      " Do they put the proposed bills online for constituents to read and comment on? Heck, a system with a kind of 'dig' where important clauses can be 'thumbs up'd' to the top so they get the attention they deserve would be great.

      [sarcasm] As long as industry draft the bills, and the people in power sign off on them, and you continue to elect people that do not read the legislation that they are voting on... this must be the system that you want. [/sarcasm]
    3. Re:747 pages? by StarvingSE · · Score: 1

      My guess is that this particular bill will be shot down, but congress needed to propose it to show that the MAFIAA's bribes are being put to good use. The actual meat of this bill will most likely be tacked onto something that is sure to pass, like spending bills for the war in iraq.

      --
      I got nothin'
    4. Re:747 pages? by Palpitations · · Score: 4, Informative

      Do they put the proposed bills online for constituents to read and comment on?> Meet Thomas.
    5. Re:747 pages? by FudRucker · · Score: 1

      they need those 747 pages to BBQ all the pork within...

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    6. Re:747 pages? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tl;dr

    7. Re:747 pages? by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      My guess is that this particular bill will be shot down, but congress needed to propose it to show that the MAFIAA's bribes are being put to good use. The actual meat of this bill will most likely be tacked onto something that is sure to pass, like spending bills for the war in iraq.

      At 747 pages, there's bound to be something in there that the politicians like, so expect this to pass. All that needs be done is an intern showing them the passage that their psycological profile is most likely to identify with, and it's a done deal. The problem with this kind of legislation has always been the tailgating of pork and landmines onto otherwise seemingly harmless legislation. See the Real ID provisions of the $80 billion spending bill supposedly for body armor for the troops in Iraq passed in, what, '05? To the best of my knowledge, the troops are still waiting for that body armor to show up. Likely, the contractor providing the armor is still collecting the payments even though they haven't delivered.

      At 747 pages (no, I haven't read it yet), it's liable to be chock-full of corporate welfare goodness, and even though there might not be any teeth in it at the moment, someday the Secretary of Media Appeasement will say 'Damn, the media isn't getting its federally legislated profits on time, we'll have to bust down some doors and shake down the people." It's only a matter of time.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    8. Re:747 pages? by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 1

      Why do they have to give bills names? Why not just leave it as a number?

      What is next? A bill doing the same for welfare recipients? Can you imagine a bill to would require people on welfare to have their Internet monitored by their ISP to ensure they aren't pirating? Or maybe we could require any public k-12 school, receiving federal aid, to do mandatory locker checks for drugs?

      Thank goodness that financial aid can be used while living off-campus. Thank goodness you can just get your own ISP at college, instead of surviving off the college's sluggish network.

  8. go figure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is so typical of politicians these days,out of control presidential branch,economy going to hell,environment following, I know lets vote on a bill that gives the MPAA just what they want

  9. When in doubt... by whisper_jeff · · Score: 1, Interesting

    When in doubt, punish everyone - students guilty of illegal downloading and hardworking students who've never downloaded a thing in their life and need loans and grants to be able to afford to go to school alike. Yeah. Great idea that.

    1. Re:When in doubt... by hlope003 · · Score: 1

      This has to be the greatest idea in US history...NOT.. its true politicians are only interested in lining their pockets with money. So much so, that they are willing to punish hard working students, who may have never downloaded illegal media.

    2. Re:When in doubt... by skeeto · · Score: 1

      So students who download files illegally are not hardworking? Also, you make it sound like the act of breaking a law is unethical and wrong, which is simply not true.

  10. Re:But don't worry ... the democrats are in contro by pallmall1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Looks like we've been fooled again.

    --
    3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
  11. As to be expected... by Palpitations · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From the office of naming-things-for-exactly-the-opposite-of-what-they-do:

    This is part of the "College Opportunity and Affordability Act". Mmhmmm. Because the rising cost of higher education, coupled with a failing economy, additional costs for universities, and a chance to deny students financial aid really gives more people opportunities and certainly makes it more affordable.

    The United States is in a race to the bottom. Every great empire falls - I just wish I wasn't stuck in the middle of this one. I'm just glad I'm about to start learning a second language (I know a bit of Spanish, but not enough to call it my second language). Hopefully I'll be able to jump ship before it goes under.

    For many years, I've heard the chants of the "if you don't like it, leave!" crowd. For a long time, I fought back. I believed that the right thing to do if you loved America was to not leave, but to fight for a better nation. I'm afraid I've lost that faith. Unless things drastically change over the next few years, as a freedom loving individual, I'm sad to say I'll have no choice but to leave and watch the country implode from the sidelines.

    1. Re:As to be expected... by elixin77 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's really sad that this nation has come to this. The US has never had a decent congress ever since the mid 60's at the latest; most of the representatives and senators are corrupt, doing everything in their power to remain in office, and not getting a damn thing done. Me and my girlfriend are sick of this bullshit. I used to believe that congress was there "for the good of the country," and all that bullshit. Now, congress is "how much money can I make on top of my already ridiculous income?" We've both given up on this country, and we are moving as soon as we can afford to. I'm sick of this nation. I used to love it, now I despise it. I think I'm starting to understand why the world hates us...

    2. Re:As to be expected... by abirdman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      From the office of naming-things-for-exactly-the-opposite-of-what-they-do:

      That is a deep observation. I've been noticing this more and more lately, and also something else which is related. By giving the bill a false name, when the vote comes to the floor the media can accuse the people who vote against it of voting against "College Opportunity and Affordability." They did the same with the SCHIP bill-- vote against the bill and you're automatically tagged as "against health insurance for poor children," even though you may have been voting against it because it would hurt the current health insurance system (or the economy) in general. This is so blatantly cynical it is sickening, and it rings vaguely of 1984 newspeak.

      --
      Everything I've ever learned the hard way was based on a statistically invalid sample.
    3. Re:As to be expected... by berashith · · Score: 1

      the double plus affordable college opportunity bill will be on the floor next week.

    4. Re:As to be expected... by arethuza · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "rings vaguely of 1984 newspeak" Vaguely? The only thing that was inaccurate about 1984 was the date.

      "War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength."
    5. Re:As to be expected... by canUbeleiveIT · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Clear out your headgear, this isn't about GWB. For that matter it not really about any particular political party. It's about a corrupt system where rich people are allowed to buy politicians.

      Of course the Democrats are going to be in on this one--they are owned by the electronic media, as the Republicans are owned by big oil. So, don't get on ole George; he's just doing what his masters want, just as the Democrats will do what their masters want.

    6. Re:As to be expected... by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      Well, if you're thinking about that 2nd language, consider chinese (mandarin). That's apparently the rising empire. They have the numbers, and now the're getting some quality, too: some of the best students at my uni are from china. Sure, there are many woodheads, too, but I'd say the chinese guys are pretty good. I am amazed at the thought of what 1.5 billion people can churn out in terms of talent, given the correct education infrastructure. Amazed and worried.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    7. Re:As to be expected... by Palpitations · · Score: 1

      This is so blatantly cynical it is sickening, and it rings vaguely of 1984 newspeak. Recdep views this as malreported. Please proceed to the nearest joycamp.
    8. Re:As to be expected... by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is that the reason they can name things like this is because the media does not call their bluff.

      Media is only 'title-deep', as it seems. What the politicians are doing is a cost/benefit analysis. When the media is so broken, that a blatantly obvious example of Orwellian doublespeak does not get immediately called out as such, with all the consequences, public shaming, carrier-ending weight of a media shitstorm then the media is terribly broken and generally the people shouldn't rely on the media as much as to receive a single, simple factual information like yesterday's date. When the media is so bent that the elephant in the room does not get called out by definition it HAS TO resort to falsifying and lying to cover up the fact that the elephant is in the room.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    9. Re:As to be expected... by Palpitations · · Score: 1

      I was thinking about Dutch or Swedish actually. I have a few friends who are fluent in both, and having someone to converse with and get corrections from should make things much easier.

      In addition to the little bit of Spanish that I learned, I also took a year and a half in Japanese in high school... Along with that, I did learn a bit of Mandarin from an old friend of mine. Most of the Chinese is lost for me now - the only phrase that comes to mind has to do with asking Asian girls for a BJ ;)

      I may not have learned much Mandarin, but at least the parts I remember are useful.

    10. Re:As to be expected... by Justin+Ames · · Score: 0, Troll

      But were would you go? What other countries even provide the kind of freedom we enjoy here now? We are losing our freedoms here, but what other country could take the place of the US? The closest thing I could think of would be japan, which is pretty free when you are an american living there (but much less free for japanese people, or any asian-looking person for that matter).

    11. Re:As to be expected... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DRASTICALLY. As in: private individual donations $5000 max to each party and/or candidate, adjusted annually for inflation. Corporate donations: $1000/yr to each candidate. Corporate donations to parties: banned. Union donations: same. Any type of organizational donations: same. Provide $x per vote to the political parties that get above a certain threshold of votes. Yeah, it hurts to think of paying tax dollars directly to politicians for votes, but they're going to mess around with our money anyway. The basic idea is to level the financial playing field to keep individual voter donations relevant, and curb the influence of massive corporate and organizational donations.

      And if candidates say they can't run a campaign on that limited donation level: TOO BAD. They can do it on the cheap. Historically people still got elected on far less money than is typically used today.

      Unfortunately it would probably take a constitutional amendment in order to get such a law passed in the USA, and it would be a rare politician in power that would agree to it. But if you think it's impossible to do, it has been done in other countries.

    12. Re:As to be expected... by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hate to tell you, but it ain't much different elsewhere.

      After WW2, my home country was destroyed. Economically, socially, politically. But we had one thing we lack severely today: Top grade politicians. Many of them returning from concentration camps (and there finding out that their political opponent ain't so bad after all, he was there with them). Our president gave a stirring speech for Christmas 45 which still gives you shivers when you hear it. Basically, he said he got nothing to give. There ain't anything. There's no food, no coal, no clothing, no housing, but please, please believe in this country.

      People listened. And people did. People believed in their politicians and people believed in themselves. They took up the task and rebuilt it, and today we're one of the top countries of the world.

      Those were also the people who held the country together when Russia and the US were trying to tear it apart. One of them died in office, quite literally, because offered the choice between recovering his health and continuing his work he chose the latter, knowing that Molotov would not negotiate with anyone but him.

      Politicians are role models, whether they want to be or not. If you got good, honest, upright politicians who lead the country with example, people will follow suit. Nobody would dare living on social wellfare because it would be socially inacceptable to do that if you could work.

      Crooked politicians produce crooked people. Because, hell, if he can do it, why can't I? Besides, he's raking in a few millions, where's the damage if I get a few hundred bucks from a little tax evasion or illicit work?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    13. Re:As to be expected... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fixed: rings vaguely of 1984 doublespeak.

    14. Re:As to be expected... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Well, the most likely outcome would be that the "$x per vote to the political parties" bit gets approved, while the limitations on private/corporate donations don't get approved ...

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    15. Re:As to be expected... by abirdman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're spot on about the media caving in. In this case there's an interesting twist-- the major US media outlets are all parts of conglomerates that also own record and movie companies. They are all aware that reporting this kind of shenanigans would be against their other business interests. C|Net can report it, and Slashdot can bring it to people's attention, but you won't see it on cable or the networks or in the major city newspapers, because they're all paying into the MPAA and RIAA.

      This makes Ron Paul's proposal to abolish the Department of Education seem very wise indeed!

      --
      Everything I've ever learned the hard way was based on a statistically invalid sample.
    16. Re:As to be expected... by tom's+a-cold · · Score: 1

      We've both given up on this country, and we are moving as soon as we can afford to.
      Seen the value of the dollar lately? We've considered that too but have instead decided to tough it out.

      Anyway, the best thing that could happen from the point of view of academic freedom is for universities to lose federal subsidies. Otherwise they become echo chambers for political fads rather than places where relatively independent research is done. This is just another case where big gifts from the government come with plenty of strings. It's hard not to take the money, but once you do, you're in a dependent relationship.

      --
      Get your teeth into a small slice: the cake of liberty
    17. Re:As to be expected... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the media's defense, the elephant was wearing a fake mustache.

    18. Re:As to be expected... by goldspider · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I find it amusing how Slashbots consider restrictions on their ability to share media (which they disparage in the next breath as garbage) such an egregious invasion of their civil rights. It's so juvenile!

      There are certainly plenty of things to complain about these days. Not being able to copy the latest Britney Spears album is not something you should be getting so worked up over.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    19. Re:As to be expected... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well as someone famous once said, the US was the only society to go from primitive to decadent without going through civilisation.

    20. Re:As to be expected... by coolGuyZak · · Score: 1

      I'm beginning to believe that the first thing we should do to reform politics is to ban candidates to political offices from making any form of video during their run. The only televised appearances they'd be able to make are during a debate (no interviews, etc). They can spend that money trying to appeal to us through less emotional, more intellectual (or at least more thought-prone) media.

      The main reason I want this, though, is to keep political mudslinging from polluting my consumerism. :-p

    21. Re:As to be expected... by CrazedWalrus · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's that so much a "civil rights" complaint as the fact that this bill seems so blatantly on the dole. When I read the summary, my first thought was that now we get to see the reactions of all the people who saw the Democrats as the Second Coming, Godsends and Saviors of the Free Lands. Welcome to the new boss, same as the old boss.

      I wonder when people will learn that any sufficiently large and powerful party or organization will invariably be corrupted -- Democrats or Republicans, Church or State. The only way to fight it is to always vote against the incumbents in the primaries, but even that would only work if everyone did it.

    22. Re:As to be expected... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By giving the bill a false name, when the vote comes to the floor the media can accuse the people who vote against it of voting against "College Opportunity and Affordability." They did the same with the SCHIP bill While I agree that many bills appear to be misnamed, I think SCHIP is a bad example: it's a bill that intends to provide states with money for children's health insurance. There may be valid reasons to vote against such a thing, but the name of the bill seems reasonable (I suppose you could have named it the Communist Plot to Destroy American Health Care, but CPDAHC is so unpronounceable).

      A better example might be the Healthy Forests Initiative, which really doesn't have anything to do with maintaining the health of forests, but instead concerns (charitably) reducing property damage from wildfires, or (less charitably) opening national parks to logging companies.
    23. Re:As to be expected... by jtok202 · · Score: 1

      I unfortunately feel that the idea of watching the country devolve from the outside is a much more favorable position than the one that i'm in right now. I am glad I have been able to learn a bit of dutch, german, and spanish and will be leaving for other countries as soon as I get done with my federally funded education. :)

    24. Re:As to be expected... by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      I've been tempted to leave the US to it's own self destruction and just go elsewhere. I feel that my influence would be greater if I moved to a smaller country.

      America is to corrupt to save I think. The government is bad enough but the average citizen is what is really to the point of being beyond saving. Those people in the "if you don't like it, leave!" crowd are only one example of what is making America suck. The people, as a whole, just don't really care if it sucks. Either they live in a delusion of their ideal America and think that it's real, they're stupid, or they're to lazy and immoral to give a shit.

      I think America could only be saved if a large part of the population got both intelligence (and the ability to use it) and religion (or decent morality of some kind) - two things that often don't go together in our culture. To really be sure of success the same people would have to grow some balls and not be afraid to be brash and stand up for themselves and what needs to be done. Without these, the US is doomed. I'd say it's pretty much fscked and without hope.

      If only I could count on the US not dragging the world down with it when it goes down. If so I'd just find a nice tropical country with good beaches and a low cost of living and move. :)

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    25. Re:As to be expected... by DesScorp · · Score: 1

      "The United States is in a race to the bottom. Every great empire falls - I just wish I wasn't stuck in the middle of this one."

      No one is making you stay. Delta's ready when you are.

      "Unless things drastically change over the next few years, as a freedom loving individual, I'm sad to say I'll have no choice but to leave and watch the country implode from the sidelines."

      As a "freedom loving individual", unless you're withdrawing from the modern world and choose to live in a cave in Tibet somewhere, you're going to be no more "free" any where else in the world.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    26. Re:As to be expected... by Palpitations · · Score: 1

      I've long advocated that the US be split into several separate countries. I'm most interested in Cascadia, but I think there are several other divisions that could be made that would benefit everyone.

    27. Re:As to be expected... by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      I don't think the US really needs to be split. What needs to happen is for power to move away from the federal government and back to the state governments. The federal government has grown way to strong. Issues that should be solved at a local or state level are being addressed at a national level. Conformity is being expected rather than letting different states try different things.

      Regardless, it won't make a significant difference so long as the citizens don't care. People have to be intelligent and moral and willing to stand up for what needs to be done - then they have to care enough to actually think issues through and act on them. Without a majority of these people, democracy cannot function.

      I don't mind my friends that have different ideas than me if they are intelligent and have thought the issues through. What I mind is my friends that just take a party stance or jump on some bandwagon without really understanding the issues. The first group offers useful dialog on the subjects at hand and a healthy compromise can be figured out that benefits us all. The later shouldn't be allowed to vote or participate in dialog because they are shrill and aren't accomplishing anything. Sadly, most people, in the US at least, are like the later group of my friends. They don't really care enough to think on their own or participate like adults.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    28. Re:As to be expected... by Justin+Ames · · Score: 1

      I see I got a troll mod, but I was genuinely asking the question. I really would like to know...

  12. I Hope They Pass It! by BlueStrat · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I hope they DO pass this, and I hope a large number of colleges and universities refuse to comply, and many thousands of students lose their grants and aid. This is just the sort of wide-reaching, shocking, horribly unjust-seeming PR disaster that needs to happen to wake up Joe Citizen to what the *AAs and their paid-for lackeys in Congress are doing. Hopefully, this will start an upheaval against all laws that appear *AA-influenced, including the insane copyright length extensions.

    I know, I know. Fat chance. One can dream, though.

    Cheers!

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    1. Re:I Hope They Pass It! by rucs_hack · · Score: 1

      What of the individuals who's futures would be irreparably harmed if this were done? Not everyone can survive even a short term reduction in money at college.

      If this passes you might see an upsurge in US students choosing to study abroad. Over here in England we have had a wonderful boom in Chinese students since the US decided, post 9/11 to start making it hard for those students to study in the US. Beats me why they did this, but my university has profited mightily by it, and we are not alone.

    2. Re:I Hope They Pass It! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is always an appealing strategy, but when
      has this ever worked? It is especially bad
      to try it in any context which involves
      legislatures, because the legislative
      process is expecially bad at follow-through.
      When we expect the obvious bad result to
      happen, and a legislative response, the
      lawmakers will have moved on to some other
      "urgent" issue.

    3. Re:I Hope They Pass It! by calebt3 · · Score: 1

      I would bet that the *AA's won't even get mentioned in the news in relation to that upheaval.

    4. Re:I Hope They Pass It! by MichailS · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, I guess it would only create a larger amount of uneducated ignorants who spend their time watching NASCAR and think that whatever bills fly around are probably good and just, because their favourite anchorman said so in some show sponsored by MPAA, and that it is traitorous to the american way to think otherwise.

      I would postulate that increased education is a better protection against being owned by Big Money.

    5. Re:I Hope They Pass It! by JK_the_Slacker · · Score: 1

      As one of the aforementioned college students, I humbly protest your opinion.

      --
      I'm waiting for a "-1 somepeoplejustshouldn'tgetmodprivileges" meta-moderation.
    6. Re:I Hope They Pass It! by cliffski · · Score: 1

      so you think students should choose a university based on which one will help cover their asses the most once they get caught downloading copyrighted material?
      wow. Personally, I'd rather employ someone who had realized university and college was about study, rather than maxing out your ipod with songs you haven't paid for. I think most employers feel the same way.

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    7. Re:I Hope They Pass It! by orlanz · · Score: 1

      Either way is fine. If the universities do comply, Congress will sit there scratching their heads wondering why cost of tuition has gone up. And then sit there farting on how to increase funds to it. The Republicans will shell out more bonds (hurts future generations), and the Democrats will raise taxes (hurts current generations). Then they will sit there blaming each other.

      IMO, this is the main problem with Congress. They have millions to spend on PR managers, but spend crap on Economists who would have clearly told them this is a lose-lose-lose situation. If tuition increases (lose) or students can't get as much from grants (lose), do you really think college students will have the "extra" cash to spend on Music (lose)? Hummm, alternative... copyright infringement maybe.

      And the US citizen is to blame too. Cause when they see that stupid ad of Congressman X voted against the "College Opportunity and Affordability Act," they automatically go OMG! Never voting for him again!

    8. Re:I Hope They Pass It! by qzulla · · Score: 1

      Or maybe they don't want to lose their grants because a roommate did the dirty deed.

      qz

    9. Re:I Hope They Pass It! by rucs_hack · · Score: 1

      I don't think that at all. What I think is that fiscally punishing students in order to protest an unreasonable bill is going too far. That is, if you read the parent I replied to, the point I was making.

      Anyway, people who raped the bandwidth at my uni by file sharing all the time were a real pain, I worked from my room, ssh'ing into my ten lab machines (Mmm, post grad goodness), and when the network slowed because some jackass (or hundred of jackasses most of the time) was trying to get some mp3's, it really annoyed. This is the UK though, so they got kicked off the network if caught, that's all.

    10. Re:I Hope They Pass It! by goldspider · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Nothing gets America's attention anymore quite like "What? The gub'mint ain't gibbin me my money??"

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    11. Re:I Hope They Pass It! by rachit · · Score: 1

      If a large number of universities ban together to publicly boycott this, there is no way the govt will actually try to enforce this law.

    12. Re:I Hope They Pass It! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is exactly how the first American Revolution got started. The King of England enacted law after law that oppressed the colonists, until they'd had enough. Anybody who thinks it can't happen again is kidding themselves, it's a fundamental part of who the Americans are. I'm posting AC for obvious reasons.

  13. Lower income and.... by iknownuttin · · Score: 2, Interesting
    FTFA: "Lower-income students, those most in need of federal financial aid, would be harmed most under the entertainment industry's proposal."

    Middle class too! And, WTF, I understand now that any sort of drug offense, you lose your financial aid, student loans are getting harder and harder to pay, and if you have any sort of bad luck and you're stuck with those loans forever - can't get out of them with bankruptcy!

    Why don't our politicians just come out and say "No more financial Aid!"

    The meritocracy in America is continually being eroded away by special interests.

    --
    I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
    1. Re:Lower income and.... by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      If you want all the illegal immigrants to be kicked out of the country then the rich folk need a new lower class. As such, people who would have gone on to become scientists and doctors will now be cleaning shit for the rich. Its simply a price you must pay for freedom.

    2. Re:Lower income and.... by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 1

      Well I know from personal experience how hard it is to pay the loans back... 60k in debt & I earn 30k/year, which is higher than average for my area, but the cost of living isn't _that_ low. So the government takes ~25% (federal, state, & local), I'm state mandated to a fixed 7.5% pension program (which is 10% after taxes are taken out). Leaving me about 20k left to live on... Then have my loans want 10k of it every year... And I'm expected to live how...? I'm required by being on call to own both a cellphone and a car for my job, that doesn't leave much of anything left...

      --
      we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
  14. Its quite fun to watch... by JackMeyhoff · · Score: 2, Interesting

    .. America destroy itself from within :)' Easiest victory ever.

    --
    http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
    1. Re:Its quite fun to watch... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod the parent flamebait if you must; he's nevertheless given you something to think about.

      Every time I see a headline like this, I imagine those fabled terrorists reading it with glee. "Look! It worked! All we have to do is rattle their cage a little (9-11) and they cannibalize each other!" Indeed, a pathetically easy victory for anybody who doesn't like America. The country falls over like a sack of blubber with no brain that can't keep itself stable.

      Well, pay no attention. Just keep maxing out those credit cards, watching FOX news, and praying to your plastic Jeezus. And deserve what you get.

  15. Re:But don't worry ... the democrats are in contro by jellomizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well in reality Bush is more Democrat then Republican... The reasons Democrats hate him is the majority of Democrats are Liberal Bias too. But Bush is Neo-Conservative, So it is all the big Government of the Democrats with the Neo-Conservative values. You listen to the rants some of the people do like on Digg, about Bush and you read what they should do. It is almost like reading from the Republican Guideline book... They just don't realize it because hatred of Bushes "Ethical Views".
    Republicans can be Against Big Business, Pro-Choice, Pro-Gay, Anti-War, Against Dethpenality... It is just that most of them arn't.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  16. haha by ramul · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So it sounds like a lobby group is bribing politicians to blackmail universities to catch students who are copying songs. am i interpreting this properly?

    1. Re:haha by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      How's this insightful? He's just stating the obvious.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  17. So don't Pirate Materials? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's easy to live life without actively pursuing western media culture.

    1. Re:So don't Pirate Materials? by berashith · · Score: 1

      dumb fucking anon coward troll...

      It isn't so easy to live without a degree, and it is very difficult to get a degree without loans. IF the only options for locations to get the degree for some people becomes East City Janitorial and Tech College, there will be no perceived value to the degree.

      Those who can afford their own ride already will be fine, and the gap just got enormous.

      All of this is pure speculation, but likely and obvious. Whichever scumbag in DC decided to slip this in with no consideration for so much of the population should be the first against the wall.

    2. Re:So don't Pirate Materials? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does that have to do with the parent's comment? The problem here is illegal file sharing. If people stopped doing this, then there would be no problem. Instead, precious bandwidth is wasted on ill gotten leisurely media.

    3. Re:So don't Pirate Materials? by berashith · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The relevancy lies in who is committing an action, and who is being punished for it. The assumption that all students are stealing is absolutely absurd. All students will lose their loans and aid because some are downloading perceived stolen music. The math doesn't add up. As soon as some universities started pointing out flaws in finding the exact student by IP in the shotgun approach, the laws suddenly shift to the entire campus.

    4. Re:So don't Pirate Materials? by iamwahoo2 · · Score: 1

      No, the problem is that a federal legislator was bribed into thinking that it is the universities' job to play media policeman without funding to do so. The file sharing problem is so small that universities should not be concerning themselves with it. It is a waste of time and resources.

  18. Quoting Lewis Black by denzacar · · Score: 5, Funny

    A republican stands up in congress and says 'I GOT A REALLY BAD IDEA!!'
    and the democrat stands up after him and says 'AND I CAN MAKE IT SHITTIER!!
    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  19. This is GOOD, and while we're at it... by dpilot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Universities should forfeit their federal financial aid if they don't go along with a few other problems:

    Abstinence-only approach to sex education, STDs, and birth control.

    Just say NO! to drugs.

    O heck, that's enough. It's not worth trying to think up any more.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    1. Re:This is GOOD, and while we're at it... by Dutch_Cap · · Score: 1

      How about: Don't ask, don't tell.

    2. Re:This is GOOD, and while we're at it... by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, but I think you just gave me a great idea. Schools should apply the same strategy to filesharing that they use on drugs and sex: Tell the kids to "just say no" and leave it at that.

      Hey, worked great with drugs and sex, right?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:This is GOOD, and while we're at it... by the.Ceph · · Score: 1

      Just say NO! to drugs.

      If you been arrested for a drug related offense you are not applicable for federal financial aid for a certain period and it significantly increases your chances of never recieving any support, which really sucks if you're trying to turn your life around. AFAIK this doesn't apply for other misdemeanors or even felonies.

    4. Re:This is GOOD, and while we're at it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about "Intelligent Design". They should have to teach that too! And since the majority of Americans are Christian, that shouldn't be a problem!

      It's time to kill science where it starts, at the nation's colleges and universities! :)

    5. Re:This is GOOD, and while we're at it... by dpilot · · Score: 1

      To be honest, I thought about it. Then I decided it would take the post too far into the "left wing diatribe" category, figuring it might have more legs with less content.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    6. Re:This is GOOD, and while we're at it... by dpilot · · Score: 1

      Personally, I think we should end the War on Drugs, and treat them just like alcohol and tobacco. I don't like them, but right now it seems to me that the collateral damage is just too great, and the cost too high. Drugs ruin a life, but as you say, today's penalties for possession and use ruin a life, too.

      I guess IMHO the only good thing the War on Drugs does is fun some corporate welfare, and let some folks feel Righteous.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    7. Re:This is GOOD, and while we're at it... by antibryce · · Score: 1

      What's amusing is that one of your examples has already happened. You can't get federal financial aid if you have a drug conviction.

    8. Re:This is GOOD, and while we're at it... by dpilot · · Score: 1

      I fear amusing is only the right word if you're not one of those people. I thought/wished that part of the purpose of drug laws was to steer them away from drugs, and to help them leave them behind. This kind of thing is almost as ruinous.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    9. Re:This is GOOD, and while we're at it... by antibryce · · Score: 1

      oh I agree 100%. I only meant "amusing" in the "you said that implying it was in our future when in fact it's already happened" sense.

      I'm not sure how people who support the "war on drugs" can even rationalize this crazy step. Wouldn't it be better to give financial aid to people trying to turn their life around?

    10. Re:This is GOOD, and while we're at it... by dpilot · · Score: 1

      There is an interesting mix of people at work, some left-leaning, some right-leaning, and some who seem apolitical.

      A few years back, the context was appropriate and I mentioned the idea in front of one of the apolitical types, and it "insulted his sense of correctness and dignity in the world." My estimation of his response, not his words. I also have some friends who are by all other measures quite left-leaning, but they don't believe in handouts, (or your "financial aid") and people should "lift themselves up by their bootstraps." If we ever discuss it again, I'll mention that either, "It's hard to pick yourself up by your bootstraps when you had to sell them to buy food/cover medical bills/etc." (or "when someone has their foot on your neck.")

      I've grown to believe that while government should be composed of principled people, principles themselves in government frequently are a very dangerous thing. People can do things "for principles" that they wouldn't ordinarily do, and governments can be even more so.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  20. Email the bill's sponsor - George Miller by Morky · · Score: 4, Informative

    George.Miller@mail.house.gov

    1. Re:Email the bill's sponsor - George Miller by Morky · · Score: 3, Informative

      Oh, and Ruben Hinojosa doesn't list his email address, but his Washington office phone number is available: 202-225-2531.

    2. Re:Email the bill's sponsor - George Miller by supertall · · Score: 1

      Identifier is H.R.4137.

    3. Re:Email the bill's sponsor - George Miller by pkulak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, email your own representative. If they are not from your district, they have no responsibility to you at all. Here's what I sent off to DeFazio:

      I just wanted to point out a section of the current Higher Education Act Reauthorization:

      http://edlabor.house.gov/bills/HEAReauthorizationText.pdf

      On page 411 it states:

      "Each eligible institution participating in any program under this title shall... develop a plan for offering alternatives to illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property as well as a plan to explore technology based deterrents to prevent such illegal activity."

      I am strongly opposed to this language. Schools should not be blackmailed by MPAA and RIAA lobbyists into performing law enforcement duties. Thank you very much for your time!

  21. Re:But don't worry ... the democrats are in contro by aurispector · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Meet the new boss...Same as the old boss...

    --
    I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
  22. Open Letter by Kris_J · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Dear America,
    Keep it up!

    Love,
    Your competitors in the rest of the world.

    I wonder if this is how the British Empire collapsed too.

    1. Re:Open Letter by 15Bit · · Score: 4, Interesting
      > I wonder if this is how the British Empire collapsed too.

      Nah, in that case there were third parties involved - we didn't shoot ourselves in the foot (though arguably we may have assisted in the act). In this case the US is implementing a divide and conquer approach on itself - its purely a domestic issue. However, for those of us who live abroad, i would like to recollect the wise words of Napolean - "Never interrupt your enemy whilst he is making a mistake."

    2. Re:Open Letter by Znork · · Score: 1

      "I wonder if this is how the British Empire collapsed too."

      At the very least it's very close to how the Soviet Union collapsed.

      Corrupt politicians supporting state granted monopolies while the economy gets less and less competetive, and labour is shifted into non-producing roles such as marketing, administration and legal.

    3. Re:Open Letter by UnxMully · · Score: 1

      Dear America, Keep it up! Love, Your competitors in the rest of the world. I wonder if this is how the British Empire collapsed too.

      No, the British Empire didn't collapse, we gave it away. Well, before anyone took it away.

      Oh, I see what you mean.

    4. Re:Open Letter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Never interrupt your enemy whilst he is making a mistake."


      Ah, so this is how the US is protecting its citizens from terrorist attacks!

      Hope they've told that saying to the terrorists though...
    5. Re:Open Letter by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Actually, in a way it was exactly how the Soviet system collapsed.

      Corrupt politicians who lost support of their people, with everyone trying his best to milk the country, from the top echelons of the nomenclatura down to the last worker, simply because nobody really believed in the country anymore and only wanted his own benefit. Schools that taught you more about Marxism/Leninism than something you could actually use in your job (now, while US schools don't directly indoctrinate you (yet. Corporations are on it), keeping you out of school should accomplish the same).

      Companies that did their best to hide that they didn't produce up to an unrealistic plan isn't far away from middle management tweaking the numbers to claim irreal revenues required by upper management. Crappy products, due to outdated production methods and unmotivated workers aren't much different from crappy products due to cutting cost past the point where quality erodes.

      The list goes on.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:Open Letter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but it is eerily similar to the way the Roman Empire collapsed.

    7. Re:Open Letter by trawg · · Score: 2, Funny

      I am extremely concerned about what will happen to America's output of music, movies and TV shows in the event that it falls apart. While the gradual decline in their civil liberties, freedoms, rights, etc is fascinating, if it affects my TV watching I'll be disappointed.

    8. Re:Open Letter by jrcamp · · Score: 1

      However, for those of us who live abroad, i would like to recollect the wise words of Napolean - "Never interrupt your enemy whilst he is making a mistake."

      In case you missed it, we're in a globalized economy. This means problems in one country can have negative consequences for another:

      Banks hit again as HSBC prepares to reveal more sub-prime losses
    9. Re:Open Letter by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

      I wonder if this is how the British Empire collapsed too.

      You are comparing apples to oranges here. First of all, assuming you have an ounce of objectivity, the USA is not by any stretch of the imagination an empire. The USA controls itself and a handful of islands in the Caribbean and Pacific. That's it. While the USA certainly likes to project its power elsewhere (ie. Iraq), it in no way controls other countries. It might like to control them, but it does not do so. Puerto Rico has been told multiple times that they they may choose to become an American state, an independent country or continue the current relationship with the USA. They have consistently chosen to continue the current relationship as a US territory, but it was their choice to do so. Cuba and the Philippines were both former US possessions that are independent countries.

      As they said, the sun never set on the British Empire. Look it up in Wikipedia. It spanned the globe. They were everywhere. The problem was that the Brits weren't very enlightened colonial rulers. They looked down on all the non-Europeans and kept them down. For example, while the Gurkhas were one of the most respected fighting forces in the British Army, no Gurkha could rise above the rank of major in the British Army. After all, can't have one of those dark skinned people becoming a colonel or more, can we? Hong Kong was never allowed any say in its local government. The death penalty was legal in Hong Kong for a long time after it was outlawed in Britain. It was only when the Brits realized that China would not extend the lease over the New Territories that Britain finally began to allow the locals to vote for their own government and outlawed the death penalty. After the Brits signed the deal to handover Hong Kong to the Chinese government, it told the roughly 6 million people living there "By the way, you won't be getting British passports before we pull out unless you happen to be rich. We can't have you filthy beggars coming over to the UK and mucking it up, can we?" In contrast, long before Portugal signed a similar deal to handover Macau, the locals had been allowed to elect their own legislature and the death penalty had long been abolished. Portugal told all Macau residents that as far as they were concerned, they were all Portuguese citizens as residents of Macau and any who wanted to could apply for Portuguese passports prior to handover. See the difference? Britain also had various parts of the empire that were just about in open rebellion to gain independence. Kenya was one such place in the 1950s. During WWII the Japanese promised independence to India if they would kick out the British so to counter that, the Brits reluctantly made an offer of post war independence to India in exchange for not helping the Japanese. It became basically impossible to maintain the British Empire. India was promised independence and all of Africa under British control wanted it too. The only way this analogy would work is if a place like Puerto Rico wanted independence and the US government denied it, which is absolutely the opposite of what has happened.

  23. File sharing: the new "weed" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It's official now: file sharing is the new "weed." The penalties for file sharing are rapidly growing, with small impact on how many people actually do it. This should sound familiar, as it is pretty much the same historical track taken by marijuana laws. File sharing isn't quite as far along in the process, but there will be a "War on Piracy" soon enough.

    Marijuana laws are generally an easier sell, though, since you can directly see the effect of drug abuse on a person. (Especially if you trot out some of the worst potheads for shock value...) Copying files from other people doesn't turn you into a slack-jawed idiot, unless you count some of those fools who wear an iPod all the time.

    1. Re:File sharing: the new "weed" by Palpitations · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, I don't know. I've seen some pretty crazy arguments about filesharing, but I don't know that I've ever seen a quote that quite rivals this one.

      "With all the press present at this flamboyant murder trial in Newark New Jersey, in 1938, the pharmacologist said, and I quote, in response to the question "When you used the drug, what happened?", his exact response was: "After two puffs on a marijuana cigarette, I was turned into a bat."

      He wasn't done yet. He testified that he flew around the room for fifteen minutes and then found himself at the bottom of a two-hundred-foot high ink well"

    2. Re:File sharing: the new "weed" by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You know that this will only be believed by anyone who's never ever seen weed, not even talking about actually smoking it.

      That's what's wrong with society. People believe the biggest, most idiotic crap as long as it fits into their world view.

      I wouldn't deem it impossible that we'll soon see some kind of connection between high school shootings and filesharing. You know, those games and films that are "outlawed" being only available through P2P and that's how those kids got them.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  24. Second amendment by boristdog · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's times like these when I am REALLY glad the second amendment to our constitution is still fully in force.

    1. Re:Second amendment by XiX36 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because you can take out a carrier battle group with a deer rifle? Good luck with that.

      --
      Insert witty sig here.
    2. Re:Second amendment by jpfed · · Score: 1

      Of course not- it's because he can use his deer rifle to get a college education.

    3. Re:Second amendment by Pantero+Blanco · · Score: 1

      Because you can take out a carrier battle group with a deer rifle? Good luck with that.


      "Hey guys, some rioters are in a firefight with the cops and ATF in Atlanta. Go level the city."
    4. Re:Second amendment by Wes+Janson · · Score: 1

      Is it? The whole point of the 2nd Amendment was to make the civilian population a credible deterrant against internal or external threats. Technology has advanced, but truly effective weapons of war are out of the hands of everyone but the government. Fighter-bombers, SSBNs, and main battle tanks are all beyond the financial and technological capabilities of private individuals. And the few significant exceptions to that are uniformly either heavily regulated or outright prohibited. Not many people realize that possession of surface-to-air missiles, for instance, is completely illegal for anyone but the government (or its agents), anywhere, for any reason, period. We can thank a 2004 anti-terrorism bill for that (which also helped protect us from the terrorist threat by outlawing nuclear and chemical weapons).

      We can keep our rifles, because in the end they're never going to win against outright tyranny. When a modern military truly decides to roll over and quash resistence, nothing much is going to stop them but another modern military. Replace the U.S. military in Vietnam and Iraq with the Nazi Wehrmacht, and things would be concluded very quickly-although the glass fields would continue to glow faintly for a while.

    5. Re:Second amendment by shiftless · · Score: 1

      Haha, well, the carrier battle groups aren't too much of a threat floating out there in the ocean.. the main threat would be from the fighters carried on-board. Then again, what kind of threat are they to a groups of rebels in Kansas? Sure, there are land-based fighters that could attack Kansas, but consider that those fighters are based out of somewhere. They have to land eventually. On land, they can be attacked and even captured. Hard to do if you're just a small group of rebels, but if you enjoy say 20-30% popular support, or more, then it's pretty much a lost cause for the powers that be. You can't kill a carrier battle group with a rifle or handgun but you can sure can ambush a group of soldiers or invade an Air Force base. If you got buddies with assault weapons permits then you have even more effective goodies to choose from. Combine this with the vast multitude of homemade weapons and IEDs that you can construct, and you can be a formidable opponent.

    6. Re:Second amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, even deer rifles work very well when you want to take out the land-lubber families and friends of the sailors in a carrier group directly attacking U.S. citizens in the United States, starting with the commanding officer's, and working down the ranks.

  25. Collective Guilt Calls for Collective Punishment by DingerX · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Isn't that how it works?

    Hey, I hear some congressmen are taking bribes. The next time that happens, let's seize the assets of every congressman and garner their wages for ten years to come.

    Ooh, and all this can go away if the Universities pay Audible Magic. Now, they wouldn't have anything to do with the current RIAA shakedowns, would they?

  26. Democrats are socialists? by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you think democrats are socialists, you have some really screwed up vision of what it means to be a socialist. From a european view, the democrats are right wing, just a bit shy of being extreme right wing (neo-nazi). Republicans would come dangerously close to extreme right wing.

    The most liberal democrat would still be considered a right-winger.

    A true socialist believes in universal healthcare, a minimum wage that you can support a family on, maximum working week, state funded education for everyone, unions (not US style unions), equality, taxing the rich to support the poor.

    Not exactly stuff the democrats seem to care about. No, not even hillary.

    To be fair, the US is a totally different culture then western europe. You made your system work, we made our system work. One of the biggest culture clashes is that neither side seems capable of understanding that the other side LIKES their system.

    If you tell the swedes that they are insane that they have their working population support a segment that could work but doesn't, they wouldn't understand what you are on about. They think their welfare system makes for a nice place to live in. If you told a working american that X% of his taxes went to a career student the ceiling would hit the roof.

    The french LIKE their huge goverment system.

    One of the most serious errors you can make in the world is to try and force your countries system on another (Oh yeah, Iraq is a very definite example of this.)

    But even so, allowing democrats to be called socialists is going to far, just because they make up the US political left, does not make then socialist. By european standards they would definitly be on the right end of the spectrum and be dangerously close to the far right.

    Far right is NOT extreme right, it is the difference between being loving your country, and hating foreigners.

    IF the US has a problem (IF, it is kinda like saying, Oh Bill Gates is no longer number 1, he is in trouble, I would like to have his troubles) it is that its two party system has resulted in people having a choice between a moderate right winger who leans a bit to the left and a moderate right winger who leans a bit to the right. The end result is that whichever you pick, you get a compromise candidate who is always a rightwinger trying to appeal to both leftish right wingers and right wing right wingers.

    That doesn't leave a lot of room for trying a new direction. The dems can't go to the center, for fear of alienating the right wing, and the republicans can't go to far too the right for fear of alienating the moderates on their side.

    From a EU perspective it is often very hard to spot the difference between US presidential candidates.

    But make no mistake, none of them is a socialist. Read up on what it means and you might see why the US can never go for it. It ain't in your countries culture. An american would recoil at the state providing for him from grib to grave. In the EU, we thing that is nice and exactly what we have goverment for.

    (Please note I am being very generic here, so please don't tear my head off because you live in the US and are a communist or you live in the EU and want bushes baby).

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Democrats are socialists? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The french LIKE their huge goverment system.
      Incorrect. A lot of them - in particular, the unemployed who get paid for doing nothing and large numbers of public sector workers who get paid for doing very little - like the system.

      Far right is NOT extreme right, it is the difference between being loving your country, and hating foreigners.
      Far or extreme right are subjective terms depending largely on what your own views are. To a communist, the centre appears extreme right.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re:Democrats are socialists? by Nazlfrag · · Score: 0, Troll

      The french LIKE their huge goverment system.

      Incorrect. A lot of them - in particular, the unemployed who get paid for doing nothing and large numbers of public sector workers who get paid for doing very little - like the system.

      Irrelevant. The majority of French voters like their system. That's called a democratic republic in action.

      Far right is NOT extreme right, it is the difference between being loving your country, and hating foreigners.

      Far or extreme right are subjective terms depending largely on what your own views are. To a communist, the centre appears extreme right.

      To any outsider, the US political system appears far right. The fact you think the rest of the world are communists is again irrelevant.

    3. Re:Democrats are socialists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it's the majority of French voters now, is it? So you admit you lied when you said they all did.

    4. Re:Democrats are socialists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How else would you decide it? Would you have an executive vetoing the decisions that the majority wouldn't stand for instead? That's hardly a democracy.

    5. Re:Democrats are socialists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This childish detraction technique is one of the major problems with the American political system^W^W^H's. You think that if you can find one place where there's an inaccuracy, it can be spun to be a "lie", so therefore your opponent must be lying all the time.

      Grow the fuck up.

    6. Re:Democrats are socialists? by nurb432 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      "A true socialist believes in universal healthcare, a minimum wage that you can support a family on, maximum working week, state funded education for everyone, unions (not US style unions), equality, taxing the rich to support the poor.

      Not exactly stuff the democrats seem to care about. No, not even hillary."

      Ummm you have just described the hard core democrats, including Hillary.. haven't you been paying attention?

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    7. Re:Democrats are socialists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "A true socialist believes in universal healthcare, a minimum wage that you can support a family on, maximum working week, state funded education for everyone, unions (not US style unions), equality, taxing the rich to support the poor.

      Not exactly stuff the democrats seem to care about. No, not even hillary. "

      This is EXACTLY what the Democrats believe in.

    8. Re:Democrats are socialists? by butlerdi · · Score: 1

      Not exactly stuff the democrats seem to care about. No, not even hillary.

      especially Hillary

      --
      "If the King's English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!" -- "Ma" Ferguson, Governor of Texas (circa
    9. Re:Democrats are socialists? by bmajik · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The real meat of your _very_ long diatribe is the claim that most Europeans prefer a more socialized system than most Americans.

      Trying to posit any of these terms as absolutes is kind of silly. When an American talks about how such and such person is socialist, it's assinine of you to correct them based on some universal dipstick of "socialismness". It's sufficient for the assumed context to be "more socialist than I prefer" or "most socialist than the contextually relevant alternative".

      Now it's interesting that you go on about what "real" or european socialists are for and how no democrats are for that. As pointed out in some other responses -- you should pay more attention. The 2008 Democratic field have all promised to raise taxes and to further socialize the US healthcare industry. Most democrats are pro-Union, pro minimum wage increase, etc.

      Relative to the American center, most democrats _are_ more socialist than our own national history, and ARE more socialist than "the other guys".

      I think that both the democans and republicrats are far too socialist _and_ facist for my tastes, but I consider myself a libertarian.. a concept totally unfathomable to much of Europe, apparently.

      It's not like Americans are against people being able to support their families, or unemployed people not dying in the streets, or people being able to better educate themselves. It's more like... as individuals we all want some say in to what extent we support those aims or in what manner we implement them. Libertarians especially find that government sucks at pretty much everything worthwhile and exceeds at pretty much everything reprehensible, and so the answer is always some variation of "less government, more individual choice".

      I hope you're right about socialism "just not working" in our country, but to many of us, at least half of the politicians are pushing us strongly in that direction, and many citizens are following along. My own personal opinion is that the US is the last stronghold for free thought and individual liberty left in the world, and that it's slipping away more and more each day.

      It's not like other places are bad to live.. it's that other societies have already decided to have fewer individual freedoms (at least, theoretically) to "gain" other things. At least in the case of Germany, it looks like the germans got a lot for what they gave up... i really enjoyed my time there and its not like people walked around sulking over their high taxes or lack of firearms ownership :)

      --
      My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
    10. Re:Democrats are socialists? by Palpitations · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I couldn't agree more... That said, at the extreme ends of both parties you'll find some interesting choices.

      Whether it's Kuninich or Gravel on the left (both of whom are bat-shit insane if you believe the hype - and both of who are probably the best thing that could happen to America), or Ron Paul (the closest thing to a true Republican running, instead of the neo-con asshats that dominate the party).

      I hate the two-party system we have, and would love to see proportional representation and a condorcet voting system put in place nation-wide... But really, I think even if we just went from a 2-party system to a 4-party sytem (Democrats and Republicans as they are generally accepted, plus "progressive democrats" like Kucinich and Gravel, as well as a more Libertarian party like what Paul represents), and if all parties were given the same attention my the main stream media and voters in general, a lot of people would be surprised at the results.

      Voting in America is viewed by so many as choosing the lesser of two evils... And when the two evils have so much in common, well, it's not much of a choice unfortunately. A little diversity in the field would do wonders, and I have a feeling it would drastically change the political scene. Of course, that's exactly why those who are entrenched in the system as it stands will never allow a change in the status quo.

      About time for a revolution if you ask me.

      Now if you'll excuse me, I need to get back to my daydreams of a Kucinich vs. Paul election.

    11. Re:Democrats are socialists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From a EU perspective it is often very hard to spot the difference between US presidential candidates.

      But make no mistake, none of them is a socialist. Read up on what it means and you might see why the US can never go for it. It ain't in your countries culture. An american would recoil at the state providing for him from grib to grave. In the EU, we thing that is nice and exactly what we have goverment for.


      Back during the Bush/Gore race, it was hard for me as a US citizen to spot a difference. Do you want to know why I picked Bush over Gore then? Gore's VP wanted to content restrictions on video games. That was the little thing that made me slide to Bush. For the most part, I've been pleased with Bush. I can't say that I've been pleased with Congress though.

      I have read up on the socialist movement in the US. Do you really want to know why we aren't just as socialist as the EU? The FBI and the "Red Scare" that the Soviets were invading the US through our politics. This was some time in the period between WWI and WWII. The US government and those in power did everything in their ability to stamp out socialists/communists and view points that they didn't like. Advance about 80 years and this is what you get.

      I'm kinda surprised that we've not used the war on terror to purge political enemies yet. I think that's the main reason the democrats went with the War on Iraq to begin with.

      It was taking us years to get over our collective anger at 9/11. Honestly, I could have cared less, but I knew we'd invade and beat the crap out of the country that we blamed for 9/11 regardless if it was the right country. I knew when 9/11 happened. Heck, I think half the US and most of Europe knew that was what would happen.

    12. Re:Democrats are socialists? by Smallpond · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hillary gave up on on universal health care and is back to an insurance-company based plan, just as corporate America requested.

      The current minimum wage is $5.85 per hour. I can't see that supporting a family.

      Maximum work week and state funded education are, of course, both under assault from the Conservatives, but likely to remain in place for the next few years.

      No government fully supports unions, too much danger of losing power to them.

      Equality is a meaningless concept. I don't believe that it is within human nature. The Episcopal Church is about to split over election of a gay bishop. Too bad there isn't a religion based on tolerance and love of others.

      Taxing the rich. That 35% tax bracket on the income over $350,000 a year is probably putting a real crimp in their lifestyle. Of cource, if all their earnings are in capital gains, it's just 15% - lower than most wage earners.

      Finally, you called Hillary a "hard core Democrat". Check your talking points, you are supposed to be claiming that she has no consistent views.

    13. Re:Democrats are socialists? by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. 51 wolves and 49 sheep deciding what to have for lunch.

      Though it's debatable whether a majority in France do favour the current system. Even when governments have been elected with a mandate to reform the public sector, they've been blocked by strikes and violent protests. That's mob rule, not democracy.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    14. Re:Democrats are socialists? by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      The overwhelming number of people working minimum wage jobs are teens and part-time employees who aren't supporting a family. Once the knucklehead leftists realize that there are millions of jobs out their for high school students and second income house-wives, they'll drop this stupid notion that you can't support a family on minimum wage.

    15. Re:Democrats are socialists? by Hognoxious · · Score: 0, Troll

      To any outsider, the US political system appears far right.
      Any outsider? Really? Ever heard of Burma? What about Zimababwe, or Russia?

      The fact you think the rest of the world are communists is again irrelevant.
      Lucky I never said it, then. You might want to google for 'analogy' when you've a minute.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    16. Re:Democrats are socialists? by SnowZero · · Score: 1

      A true socialist believes in universal healthcare, a minimum wage that you can support a family on, maximum working week, state funded education for everyone, unions (not US style unions), equality, taxing the rich to support the poor. I think you're being unfair. US Democrats love to talk about all those things. That's got to count for something, right?

      True, they are only as real as Bush's vision of a peaceful middle east democracy brought about by force.

      How about a party candidate who's willing to set realistic goals and do what (s)he says?
    17. Re:Democrats are socialists? by The+Spoonman · · Score: 1

      One of the biggest culture clashes is that neither side seems capable of understanding that the other side LIKES their system

      Um, no. We don't like our system, we're forced to live under it. Most of us would prefer a more European system, the problem is Americans have been "trained" that such systems are complete failures and the system in the US is better than anywhere else in the world. They ignore all of the statistics showing the US falling behind everyone else in terms of education, healthcare and standard of living because "it's the best system out there!" People like me who believe the US Constitution should be thrown out in its entirety and replaced with something more modern are shouted down as "un-American" despite the fact that our system has failed and we're well down the path forged by the Romans.

      --
      Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
      http://www.workorspoon.com
    18. Re:Democrats are socialists? by 15Bit · · Score: 1
      > How about a party candidate who's willing to set realistic goals and do what (s)he says?

      You won't find that in any of the systems.

    19. Re:Democrats are socialists? by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      From a EU perspective it is often very hard to spot the difference between US presidential candidates.

      Trust me, those of us with our boots on the ground here in the States think pretty much the same thing. A meatpuppet is a meatpuppet, and the only thing that seems to change on them is the makeup they use when they spin their 15 second sound bytes.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    20. Re:Democrats are socialists? by jamstar7 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I hate the two-party system we have, and would love to see proportional representation and a condorcet voting system put in place nation-wide... But really, I think even if we just went from a 2-party system to a 4-party sytem (Democrats and Republicans as they are generally accepted, plus "progressive democrats" like Kucinich and Gravel, as well as a more Libertarian party like what Paul represents), and if all parties were given the same attention my the main stream media and voters in general, a lot of people would be surprised at the results.

      I'd love to see the Electoral College phased out, but with all the screaming about voting machines here in the States, I really don't know what to replace it with.

      Back in The Day, states used to pick their senators based on the laws of that state. Didn't necessarily mean by popular vote. Maybe we should just have ballots marked Republican/Democrat/Libertarian/Green/Lunatic Fringe instead of a candidate's name, have the parties post and advertise their platforms, and just vote by party, then let the party bigwigs decide who's going to be the meatpuppet when it's done. How much worse for things could it get?

      About time for a revolution if you ask me.

      Good thing you still have your First Amendment right of Free Speech. Oh, wait...

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    21. Re:Democrats are socialists? by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      "A true socialist believes in universal healthcare, a minimum wage that you can support a family on, maximum working week, state funded education for everyone, unions (not US style unions), equality, taxing the rich to support the poor."

      You've just described most democrat initiatives actually. I do read the news you know. I mean do you just blatantly and knowingly lie here, or what am I supposed to think ?

    22. Re:Democrats are socialists? by StopKoolaidPoliticsT · · Score: 2, Informative

      People like me who believe the US Constitution should be thrown out in its entirety and replaced with something more modern are shouted down as "un-American" As the Constitution is the basis for the entire United States government, by definition, if you reject the Constitution and want to replace it with something more modern/European, you are un-American and more pro-European.

      I also reject your claim that "most of us would prefer a more European system." Citations or it's just your desires being projected onto everyone else to bolster your internal support for your ideology. Also, "statistics showing the US falling behind everyone else in terms of education, healthcare and standard of living" is the result of government meddling, not the result of too little government interference. Each of those standards have steadily decreased as government interference increased.
      --
      Stop Koolaid Politics
    23. Re:Democrats are socialists? by viracochas · · Score: 1

      As a European who would best be described as libertarian, I can tell you it's not totally unfathomable. But not a popular position and no real formal representation. The political goalposts are different, and in terms of civil rights in the UK the libertarian issues are often best represented on the (far) left. The crushing bureaucracy and ceaseless boundary-pushing legislation of Labour will reach a crux soon I believe - we have hit $8.20/gallon, nationalised healthcare is a financial black hole, biometric ID cards are a year off, and the current cabinet want to draft a written UK Constitution.

      We are far too passive as a population. Still, let them try and come to take my fingerprints.

    24. Re:Democrats are socialists? by goldspider · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But of course, both major parties have engineered the system to neatly exclude any serious opponent to their way of rule. It isn't random circumstances that got the Libertarian and Green candidates in the 2004 election ARRESTED FOR TRYING TO PARTICIPATE IN A PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    25. Re:Democrats are socialists? by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 1

      well said. Couldn't have said it better myself. They can pry the Constitution from my cold, dead, libertarian hands. If I'd mod points, you'd get my vote.

      For the cheap seats and morons who haven't lived long enough to appreciate what the Constitution MEANS to ALL OF US:

      THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT SUBJECT TO BEING THROWN OUT. PERIOD. Get that? I'll overthrow the entire government before my beloved Constitution gets TOUCHED. As a matter of fact, the Constitution PROVIDES for us the ability to remove our government when they no longer represent us. Read some Jefferson and you'll see what he meant by all of it. it's not unconstitutional to tell the government to pack in... the government wants you to BELIEVE that... but the Founding Fathers knew that we would need to clean "house" so to speak and left MOST of the power to the people, by which we've been systematically violating our own Constitution by allowing the government to "assume" the roles ORDAINED to us by our creator (god, buddah, the astronaut, whatever...) and NOT subject to negotiation.... nor are they subject to capitulation _to_ the government in order to "protect" us. The 2nd Amendment protects us... because an ARMED populace is a STRONG populace. But I digress... sheesh, these moronic children need to READ their Constitution before even considering tossing it out.

      The Constitution _IS_ our bedrock... it _IS_ America. Without it, we might as well be European... hell, let's just apologize for that whole revolution thing and become a bigger group of colonies again!

      Morons. Really.

      --
      It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
    26. Re:Democrats are socialists? by insertwackynamehere · · Score: 1

      I'm not quite sure why this is flamebait, and also, nice website, I wrote the Slashdot.org article on uncyc :)

    27. Re:Democrats are socialists? by The+Spoonman · · Score: 1

      As the Constitution is the basis for the entire United States government, by definition, if you reject the Constitution and want to replace it with something more modern/European, you are un-American and more pro-European.

      And, your point, besides flawed, is? The Constitution was written over 200 years ago by people who had no concept of the issues faced by a modern society. Beyond that, it's now ignored on a regular basis by the "elected" officials so it is meaningless. The real basis of the US government is that real Americans value freedom above all else, and the Constitution no longer provides that freedom. It's time for a change.

      "most of us would prefer a more European system." Citations or it's just your desires being projected onto everyone else to bolster your internal support for your ideology

      Do your own research. I don't think it would be hard to find stats showing most people want some form of universal health care (or at the very least GOOD healthcare or even AFFORDABLE healthcare), better wages, more free time and more freedom. The problem is, they've been brainwashed to think "America good, everyone else bad". The European systems emerged after ours and were able to see the many, many, many, many flaws in our system and correct them and improve their own. Are they perfect? Hardly, but they're obviously working better than ours.

      Each of those standards have steadily decreased as government interference increased.

      In the US, yes. In other countries, government "meddling" has caused those stats to go up. Why? Couldn't tell you. I suppose it's all part of a vicious cycle: reduce education, people have less and less of a clue of how to better themselves and their society, people vote for morons who are "prettier" than the others (Gee Dubya being the exception, but since he got in by massive fraud, we can let it slide), the morons vote for lower education standards, people have less and less of a clue...then they end up using ad hominem attacks like "you're un-American" on Slashdot. The proof is in the posting.

      --
      Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
      http://www.workorspoon.com
    28. Re:Democrats are socialists? by antibryce · · Score: 1

      When speaking of revolutions I find two quotes always provide insight:

      "Then how can you speak of a final revolution? There is no final one. Revolutions are infinite." - Yevgeny Zamyatin, from the book We

      "Every revolutionary ends up by becoming either an oppressor or a heretic." - Albert Camus

    29. Re:Democrats are socialists? by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      I think you're being unfair. US Democrats love to talk about all those things. That's got to count for something, right?

      All
      those things? Just how many Democrats have come close to supporting true universal health care, much less max working weeks, state funded education, and having the minimum wage be high enough to support a family?

    30. Re:Democrats are socialists? by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      Back during the Bush/Gore race, it was hard for me as a US citizen to spot a difference.

      Maybe, if you were an idiot at the time.

      Gore's VP wanted to content restrictions on video games.

      You can find 10 luddite Republicans for every luddite Democrat.

    31. Re:Democrats are socialists? by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      To be fair, the US is a totally different culture then western europe. You made your system work, we made our system work. One of the biggest culture clashes is that neither side seems capable of understanding that the other side LIKES their system.

      No, Americans don't really like our system. They've just been snowed by decades of Republican propaganda and a pro-corporate media.

    32. Re:Democrats are socialists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've just described most democrat initiatives actually. I do read the news you know. I mean do you just blatantly and knowingly lie here, or what am I supposed to think ?

      No, he didn't, you're just completely full of shit about every point with the (sometimes) exception of UHC.

    33. Re:Democrats are socialists? by StopKoolaidPoliticsT · · Score: 1

      And, your point, besides flawed, is? The Constitution was written over 200 years ago by people who had no concept of the issues faced by a modern society. My point isn't flawed, your ideology is. Either you support the Constitution (the embodiment of American ideals) or you don't. You want to scrap the entire thing to become Europe. America fought a war for independence because we no longer wanted to be an annex of Europe. If America sucks and Europe doesn't, go to Europe where you'll fit right in.

      Further, those brilliant people who wrote the Constitution knew that they couldn't foresee everything America would face... and in their infinite wisdom, gave us a method to change the fundamentals of the government if we needed to. That process is known as amending the Constitution.

      And what is it that our founding fathers shunned about Europe? They disliked powerful, centralized governments dictating what tools they were allowed to have access to, to whom and where they could ship their exports, what taxes they would have to pay, etc. Any time the government takes money from you, even under the guise of providing for you, it is taking your freedom away. The last thing American ideals support is a centralized government that could tell you when you could get health care (as well as what can be treated and who you have to see), control of the education of their children or allowing the government to steal from Bob to give to Joe.

      Beyond that, it's now ignored on a regular basis by the "elected" officials so it is meaningless. The real basis of the US government is that real Americans value freedom above all else, and the Constitution no longer provides that freedom. It's time for a change. It is ignored because we, the people, no longer wish to hold politicians accountable. It's got nothing to do with the Constitution and everything to do with a disinterested, uneducated, lazy population. People vote for the party and they vote who is going to tax someone else to give them something "for free," the notion of voting for what's best for the country died decades ago.

      Do your own research You made a claim... I called your bluff. Show me the source your stats, which you must surely have at hand to make such a claim.

      I don't think it would be hard to find stats showing most people want some form of universal health care (or at the very least GOOD healthcare or even AFFORDABLE healthcare), better wages, more free time and more freedom. Polls are pretty bogus and you can make a poll get the result you want, regardless of what people really believe. Ask someone who is lost in the woods and starving if they think the government should be able to track them any time, anywhere they go if it means being able to rescue them and chances are, you'll get them to say yes. By the way, precisely because the people can be so easily persuaded, is why we have a limited republic with divided powers instead of an omnipotent direct democracy.

      people vote for morons who are "prettier" than the others (Gee Dubya being the exception, but since he got in by massive fraud, we can let it slide) The fact that you're still arguing about it after 7 years shows exactly who the moron is... you understand neither the SCOTUS decision nor the idea of why selective recounts violate the Fourteenth Amendment

      then they end up using ad hominem attacks like "you're un-American" on Slashdot. It's not an ad hominem if it accurately describes you... calling me "caucasian" isn't an ad hominem. Calling a fish "aquatic" isn't an ad hominem. Calling someone who believes the Constitution should be burned so we can be like Europe "un-American" isn't an ad hominem. It's a description of who you are. You may not like the term, but it is accurate. As for Slashdotters calling you un-American, that should tell you something... this site isn't exactly the Free Republic.
      --
      Stop Koolaid Politics
    34. Re:Democrats are socialists? by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      ? The amount of cognitive dissonance in those last two sentences is amazing. In the latter sentence you basically say that the opinion of those voting politics in one country is irrelevant. While in the former sentence you say that every body else's(read europe's) opinion somehow matter.

    35. Re:Democrats are socialists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The most disturbing part here is that the arrests may not be illegal. The debates some how manage to be privately-operated events.

    36. Re:Democrats are socialists? by sco08y · · Score: 1

      From a european view, the democrats are right wing, just a bit shy of being extreme right wing (neo-nazi). Republicans would come dangerously close to extreme right wing.

      Bullshit. Europe is notably left of America, true, but they also have plenty of far-right groups that David Duke would be at home in. Just look at the debate over Muslim immigrants in European countries and the nakedly racist anti-immigrant sentiment it has stirred up. Contrast that with America where even immediately after 9/11 the president called for tolerance.

      Everything that makes Europe a welfare state, massive taxation (especially the VAT), socialized health care, heavy union influence, no gun rights, are all things the Democrats would *love* to implement in the States.

      Furthermore, Europe has heavily statist tendencies that neither party in America has called for, such as mandatory national IDs and secret police. All the things that policies like PATRIOT are supposedly doing in the States have been done in Europe for years. And while America has the death penalty, countries like France have a prison suicide rate that dwarfs even China's (per capita) use of the death penalty. At least the death penalty is subject to due process and public scrutiny!

      You made your system work, we made our system work.

      It broke down rather famously in Europe War I and Europe War II. And you're terrible neighbors.

    37. Re:Democrats are socialists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'll get chastised by Americans on this thread. Americans traditionally can only understand political systems under a two-dimensional space: one dimension is the degree of social liberalism, the other is the degree of economic liberalism. That's how they're taught in political science classes.

      Obviously, that analysis framework only serves to explain their own system and they often have insurmountable difficulties to appreciate alternative views of economic and political systems. Talking about Socialism to an American audience is, as you rightly pointed out, useless because their ethos is more uniform that they'd like to admit ("democrats and republicans are all right-winged") and the concept of European left just sounds morally wrong under that ethos.

      So, expect getting shot by your fellow /.ers here.

    38. Re:Democrats are socialists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Americans don't really like our system. They've just been snowed by decades of Republican propaganda and a pro-corporate media.

      No, Americans don't really like our system. They've just been snowed by decades of Republican and Democratic propaganda and a self-serving media.

      There you go, I went ahead and fixed that for you.

    39. Re:Democrats are socialists? by Monsuco · · Score: 1

      A true socialist believes in universal healthcare, a minimum wage that you can support a family on, maximum working week, state funded education for everyone, unions (not US style unions), equality, taxing the rich to support the poor.

      No, not even hillary.

      We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good. ~Hillary Clinton.
      I certainly think the free-market has failed. ~Hillary Clinton
      It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few...and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity. ~Hillary Clinton

      Socialistic enough for ya?
      No? This fits the taxing the rich to support the poor. As for universal healthcare, Hillary tried to force that little shitwad down our throats during her husbands presidency. We have universal education. In fact there are European nations with more privatized education than us, some of them have vouchers. Hillary has wanted to raise the minimum wage to a "livable wage" or at least that is her word for this bullshit. We haven't got a formal maximum workweek but we have overtime. We have got Unions, they just are not competitive any more. Also socialist DO NOT support equality, why is there such a massive lack of equality in collectivist countries? They claim they support equality but why does collectivism always seem to widen the gap between rich and poor.

      The french LIKE their huge goverment system.

      So they elected a president who promised to cut back on their government why? (not just small cut backs, big, massive ones.)

      IF the US has a problem (IF, it is kinda like saying, Oh Bill Gates is no longer number 1, he is in trouble, I would like to have his troubles) it is that its two party system has resulted in people having a choice between a moderate right winger who leans a bit to the left and a moderate right winger who leans a bit to the right. The end result is that whichever you pick, you get a compromise candidate who is always a rightwinger trying to appeal to both leftish right wingers and right wing right wingers.

      Our parties are far weaker in structure her. Members of congress (especially Senators but plenty of representatives, the Senate allows for individual actions such as filibustering to let 1 stand in the way of 99 and lacks formal structure but even the House has less party line voting than in your average parliament.) vote against party all the time. Liberman supports the war and was thrown out of the Democratic Party for it, Ron Paul is essentially a Libertarian but is registered as a Republican and strongly opposes the war, the whole Gang of 14 consisting of 7 Dems and 7 GOP members worked together to stop their parties. The 7 Dems stopped their party from filibustering Bush's Supreme Court nominees and the 7 GOP members stopped their party from using the Nuclear Option to prevent debate. In Europe most people always vote for their party and most are registered to one (or at least in the UK). In the USA, 1/3 or so of the population is independent and people frequently vote for members of the other party.

      That doesn't leave a lot of room for trying a new direction. The dems can't go to the center, for fear of alienating the right wing, and the republicans can't go to far too the right for fear of alienating the moderates on their side.

      The Dems did go to our center with Bill Clinton, but now they are going further left? The trick doesn't work with the GOP, because the GOP tends to have a more stable base (the GOP's base consist of many older people and older people turn out far better than younger ones. People tend to get more conservative as they age. People younger than 30 rarely seem to bother voting, and more younger people are liberal, a generalization but you get the idea.

      From a EU perspective it is often very hard to spot the differen

    40. Re:Democrats are socialists? by whogben · · Score: 1

      "Equality is a meaningless concept. I don't believe that it is within human nature. The Episcopal Church is about to split over election of a gay bishop. Too bad there isn't a religion based on tolerance and love of others." Maybe there is, it might be one of the two halves that are splitting.

    41. Re:Democrats are socialists? by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      Polls are pretty bogus and you can make a poll get the result you want, regardless of what people really believe.

      So, first you ask him to cite a source, then you tell him that whatever source he cites is probably bogus. Which is it? Want some cake with your cake?

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    42. Re:Democrats are socialists? by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      actually, that is called cowardice, by those people that want a system changed. If you are only willing to push a button in a voting booth and not take to the streets and actually "do" something to support those you put into office, you are gonna always be rolled over. the reason mobs are allowed to rule isn't because they have more power; it's because they are the ones willing to fight for what they want. Look at how the US was slowly falling to the religious nutjobs.

    43. Re:Democrats are socialists? by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1
      Yeah, and there aren't zillions of poor Hispanic / Black / Asian single parent families suriving on the minimum wage in every city in the USA (and the UK, for that matter).

      It's just a matter of luck that I get around $80,000 per year for programming - if anyone could do it, I'd be on minimum wage too.

      To go back on topic - if most of the population is on minimum wage, with little or no disposable income, where are the **AA going to get their income from?

      Hell, if it was me, a $20 per hour minimum wage and a properly redistributive tax system (even if it costs me more) would be the way to go.

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    44. Re:Democrats are socialists? by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1
      $8.20?

      Which bloody garage is selling petrol at 90 pence a litre?

      Petrol is $9.44 a gallon here in Aldershot, and it's all the fault of Gordon fucking Brown and his Bush loving chums, with their 'Papieren, Bitte' attitude to us poor voters.

      Unless, of course, the US gallon is inferior to the Imperial...

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    45. Re:Democrats are socialists? by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1

      They can pry the Constitution from my cold, dead, libertarian hands. If I'd mod points, you'd get my vote.

      I have mod points today, but I'm British, and won't mod a discussion on US politics.

      Having said that, can we borrow your Constitution, please? It, plus the Bill of Rights, provide the best basis for a civil society that the world has seen, if protected by a strong and independent judiciary.

      We in the UK have (more or less) the required judiciary - all we need is a proper constitution to rein in the excesses of the elected dictatorship, and the 2nd Amendment would be a big step forward in a country where I currently can't even carry a handgun without the threat of a 5 year sentence.

      Damn Colonials - you got it right two centuries ago, and I envy you your Constitution despite what you have let the Neocons do to it.

      :P

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    46. Re:Democrats are socialists? by Teriblows · · Score: 1

      "Hillary gave up on on universal health care and is back to an insurance-company based plan, just as corporate America requested." theres a difference between his characterization of does not care and being realistic. she saw what happened the last time she went for universal healthcare. remember? you want to hand the republicans power for another 8 years? as for that guy characterizing everyone in the us as right wing being modded to "insightful" 5 points, somethings seriously wrong there. it couldn't have been more simplistic or stupid of a post.

    47. Re:Democrats are socialists? by Teriblows · · Score: 1

      whipping out the strawmens again? just more simplistic drivel claiming intellectual superiority over americans. have you taken political science courses in both europe and america? i'm sorry, but talk radio isn't a political science course you know. anyways, we have incredible problems with universal healthcare because we have a broken immigration system. we rely on illegals for cheap labor, and they are protected both by political greed and fear of being perceived as racist if you do anything about them. and so our border remains porous and floods of illegals come and put massive strain on our government resources. although illegal immigrant advocates like to claim they pay taxes, they never include the fact that low wages = low taxes and they don't even pay for a fraction of the cost of the services they and their families consume. now add universal healthcare as an additional lure for illegal immigration and cost. our fall back medicare and such systems are already under financial strain, a universal healthcare system would be broken on day one. and so the collusion between ethnic pressure groups, white guilt, political correctness and corporate greed continues to keep our immigration system in shambles..and uhs a fantasy.

    48. Re:Democrats are socialists? by kthejoker · · Score: 1

      Honestly, who makes minimum wage in this country any more? Who can attract workers at minimum wage? We're at one of the historically lowest levels of unemployment in history.

      Even Taco Bell pays $7.50 an hour + benefits. Minimum wage is not what the government says it is, it's what the market says it is.

    49. Re:Democrats are socialists? by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 1

      Not to mention, as Jefferson said, supported by a free and independent press.

      Amazingly enough, you, being British, can see the value of our Constitution (and yes, the Neocons should all be shot for mucking with it... or at the least, trying to avoid its limitations on their power...) and yet, our OWN CITIZENS cannot. It amazes me to no end that people would consider going on without our beloved Constitution...

      Call me nutty, call me idealistic, call me late for dinner... but I believe in the Constitution... I cherish it as the foundation for my life as a free man, and I will fight to the death to defend it, from all threats... foreign AND domestic. I believe in it so strongly, that I cannot imagine life without it... not because it tells me that I am free, but because I _AM_ free, and the Constitution lets tyrants and thugs know that I am the captain of my own destiny. I do not need the Constitution to tell me my freedoms, but I do need the Constitution to remind those who would take those freedoms away what shaky ground they would be treading if they even _thought_ about trying to take those rights from me. I grant, as a free man, the government to exist. NOT the other way around... as certain candidates and politicians have so arrogantly suggested.

      If only we had more people who believed in the foundation the Constitution provides, we'd not have so many people so eager to symbolically relenquish rights that the government has no business taking.... (nor ability, but that's another conversation.)

      --
      It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
    50. Re:Democrats are socialists? by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Libertarianism is exactly the same we call liberalism in Europe. I guess that's why you haven't spotted it. It is pretty common, and has much bigger parties than in the US.

    51. Re:Democrats are socialists? by JCSoRocks · · Score: 1

      When is it finally going to dawn on people that minimum wage is the biggest piece of garbage ever? Nothing causes inflation like minimum wage. It's amazing. Here in Oregon we have an absurd law that increases minimum wage at the start of the year, every year. Guess what happens at the start of the year, every year? That's right - the cost of practically everything goes up. Groceries, movies, fast food - you name it.

      Why? because those businesses all employ minimum wage workers; when their costs go up, they increase prices. They either can't afford (as is usually the case with most small businesses), or they aren't willing to make less profit so they pass the cost onto the consumer. What's that mean? It means everyone that's making more than minimum wage gets totally screwed. Their paycheck didn't increase and now they're paying more for the exact same crap they bought yesterday. And of course, everyone that's still making minimum wage can't buy any more garbage than they could the day before because the cost of everything increased just as much as their paycheck. WAKE UP PEOPLE. Minimum wage is NOT the solution to any question unless it's "how do we devalue the dollar?"

      --
      You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
    52. Re:Democrats are socialists? by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      I like what I've read about the Universalist Unitarians. If I were looking for a religion, that's the first I would visit.

    53. Re:Democrats are socialists? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "A true socialist believes in universal healthcare, a minimum wage that you can support a family on, maximum working week, state funded education for everyone, unions (not US style unions), equality, taxing the rich to support the poor.

      Not exactly stuff the democrats seem to care about. No, not even hillary. "

      I think you might need to listen more and study up on Hillary, she is almost the embodiment of what you've just described as a socialist. Universal healthcare? What do you think her first efforts (failed thankfully) were when her hubby was president? She tried to socialize healthcare. They keep wanting to raise minimum wage. I disagree with that, min. wage jobs are for High School And College students...it was never meant to be a living wage, you're supposed to get educated and get out and get a 'real' job. Anyway, I'm getting sidetracked, but, the Dems. and Hillary definitely meet most of your definition of a socialist.

      The US was built on the individual....individual accomplishment and self sufficiency were what built this country to where it is....but, unfortunately, those ideals are getting watered down, and socialism is trying to creep in, as generations get complacent...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    54. Re:Democrats are socialists? by hondo77 · · Score: 1

      I would love to see Dennis Kucinich vs. Ron Paul. Wow, an election that would actually be interesting.

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    55. Re:Democrats are socialists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either you support the Constitution (the embodiment of American ideals) or you don't.
      Is it patriotic to want to change the Constitution or should patriots want to keep it the same? Is it patriotic to support changes that have been made or to consider them corruptions of the Constitution?

      Suppose we want to change the Constitution to become more like Europe. If changing the Constitution isn't unpatriotic, why is changing the Constitution unpatriotic?
    56. Re:Democrats are socialists? by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and there aren't zillions of poor Hispanic / Black / Asian single parent families suriving on the minimum wage in every city in the USA (and the UK, for that matter).
      This is the lie they want you to believe. The overwhelming number of minimum wage jobs are held by students and people who CHOOSE to work part-time. If you go to work for a few years and keep your nose clean, it's your own fault if you are *stuck* in a minimum wage job.
    57. Re:Democrats are socialists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Americans traditionally can only understand political systems under a two-dimensional space: one dimension is the degree of social liberalism, the other is the degree of economic liberalism. That's how they're taught in political science classes. Uh no, you're just an easily demonstrable *idiot*.

      Goods and services can only be transferred by two ways: A.) Free voluntary consensual trade B.) Violent forceful non-consensual theft/rape.

      It's doesn't matter what "name", or what "side" you artificially label a political party. Reality is you're for voluntary freedom, or you're for forceful violence. And you, along with most of the Democratic and Republican parties are just an intolerant STUPID thug. As DUMB as any religious fundamentalist you would rail against. Either that, or you are a LIAR, intentionally spreading falsehoods that there is "extra dimensions" between voluntary and non-voluntary.
    58. Re:Democrats are socialists? by StopKoolaidPoliticsT · · Score: 1

      Because I'm interested in his source to see if the poll questions were leading or if they were fair? I said that it's possible to make polls say whatever you want them to say, not that 100% of polls are wrong.

      --
      Stop Koolaid Politics
    59. Re:Democrats are socialists? by StopKoolaidPoliticsT · · Score: 1

      Is it patriotic to want to change the Constitution or should patriots want to keep it the same? Is it patriotic to support changes that have been made or to consider them corruptions of the Constitution? That depends on the change... would it be patriotic to America to amend the Constitution to turn the government into a theocracy? Would it be patriotic to America to amend the Constitution so that the federal government controls every facet of your life? Those ideas strive directly against the ideology this country was founded on... and thus would be unpatriotic.

      If someone wants to live under the European ideology, nothing is stopping them from going to where it's already provided. For as much as some American Slashdotters bitch about how evil America is, you don't see a whole lot of them moving, do you? Sure, some do... but most people know they actually have it pretty well here and just want to whine because they don't get to impose their ideology on everyone else.
      --
      Stop Koolaid Politics
    60. Re:Democrats are socialists? by Copid · · Score: 1

      Why? because those businesses all employ minimum wage workers; when their costs go up, they increase prices. They either can't afford (as is usually the case with most small businesses), or they aren't willing to make less profit so they pass the cost onto the consumer. What's that mean? It means everyone that's making more than minimum wage gets totally screwed. Their paycheck didn't increase and now they're paying more for the exact same crap they bought yesterday. And of course, everyone that's still making minimum wage can't buy any more garbage than they could the day before because the cost of everything increased just as much as their paycheck. WAKE UP PEOPLE. Minimum wage is NOT the solution to any question unless it's "how do we devalue the dollar?"
      1) I don't think that an increase in wage levels leading to an increase in prices in general is a surprise to anybody (at least, not to anybody making a meaningful contribution to the minimum wage debate).
      2) I think that your assessment of the numbers is off. It's very unlikely to be the case that the people making minimum wage gain nothing while the people who make more than minimum wage get screwed. If that were happening, you'd be describing a net increase in profit margins for most firms, caused by nothing more than an increase in the price of cheap labor. The net result is more likely to be that goods whose input is cheap labor increase in price slightly while minimum wage laborers end up being better off (if they don't lose their jobs). That money comes out of some combination of the profit margins of the firms that employ them and (as you pointed out), non-minimum wage workers paying more for the same goods.
      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    61. Re:Democrats are socialists? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      And ... right on cue , a little background here. Last time I checked, 1.6 million is not a majority, but they're holding the the rest of the country to ransom (again).

      For those who don't speak French, basically the Rail Unions are on strike for better pensions. All well and good, except for ther fact that it's all the other workers (especially in the private sector, many of whom have considerably worse pension arrangements) who'll foot the bill.

      So much for Nazlfrag's "democratic republic in action". He probably couldn't even point to France on a map.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  27. Carrot and Stick by 15Bit · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Its the same approach western countries have been applying to overseas aid for decades. "We'll give you this heap of money every year IF you do some stuff that we want". The stuff they want of course, is trade concessions. And, after a few years continuation of the yearly aid involves some inflation of the "IF" clause. Pretty standard, even though its thinly veiled extortion.

    In all cases the problem is how government and business mixes, because they should at least try to maintain some semblance of separation. For foreign stuff they will usually try to claim its for the benefit of both local and american "industry" in a general sense, rather than for the benefit of just one specific company (even if its a lie people don't tend to notice cos it happens abroad, or they ignore it cos they get cheap products as a result). In this case though, the extortion is domestic, with a specific private industry leveraging their business goals onto public institutions via manipulation of federal legislation. Having industry write the laws they want in this way doesn't just undermine the basic concepts of democracy and accountability, it leads long term to a stagnant and non-competitive economy (cos the big industries write laws to stifle competition). In that sense it is actually not in the general interests of industry to be able to write their own laws, because it will lead to even the law-writing industry being uncompetitive on the international stage.

  28. Instead of bitching about this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of bitching about this, can someone do the following:

    1. How do I find who to write to in congress about what my representative is doing on this matter?
    2. Is there a way to get in touch with college student organizations across the country to inform them of this?
    3. Is there a way to contact local news stations and ask them to cover this story?

    1. Re:Instead of bitching about this... by Reverend528 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How do I find who to write to in congress about what my representative is doing on this matter?
      Unless you can afford to outbid the MPAA, you probably don't have a representative in this matter.
    2. Re:Instead of bitching about this... by abirdman · · Score: 1

      This site will help to contact your representative. This one will work too, and I think it will find senators as well.

      Google is our friend! And apparently non-partisan. Yessss...

      --
      Everything I've ever learned the hard way was based on a statistically invalid sample.
    3. Re:Instead of bitching about this... by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      there are other ways of controlling the MPAA. in particular waterboarding sounds like a good start.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    4. Re:Instead of bitching about this... by Wes+Janson · · Score: 1

      Once again I wish there were a "Mod Parent Up +10,000", because that's about the most, and the only, important message to be made here. The reality is, whoever has the money wins. And in a contest between an organized and ruthless multi-billion dollar industry, and tens of thousands of disorganized, scattered, apathetic individuals, the fight doesn't even merit the name.

  29. Stealing from the poor, giving to the rich... by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

    Not sure how much this really "just" demanding filter related IT campus, versus really grabbing for mass extortion of (poor) students' funds with some kind of blanket tax when filtering fails on a few, but it is pretty bad either way. The Pell students represent the lowest income where each dollar is going to be a serious item. Stealing from the poor(est) students, perhaps killing the golden goose for many, for shame... We know who the real economic terrorists are. Just wish we could arrange that holiday at Camp X-ray for them.

    1. Re:Stealing from the poor, giving to the rich... by Ada_Rules · · Score: 1

      The Pell students represent the lowest income where each dollar is going to be a serious item. Stealing from the poor(est) students...deleted

      Now there is some double speak. The rich/middle class have money taken from them at gun point in the form of taxes-some of which is given to the poor. Now, we are still going to be taking away the money at gun point from the rich/middle class and give less of it to the poor and we define that as stealing from the poor....Sweet. And I thought only congress talked like that.

      --
      --- Liberty in our Lifetime
    2. Re:Stealing from the poor, giving to the rich... by usul294 · · Score: 1

      This goes for all federal loans and financial aid. Anyone can get federal Stafford loans for up to $10,000 a year. 98% of people at very expensive private schools rely on some sort of financial aid to go, that according to a friend's student newspaper. Something like this hurts everybody.

    3. Re:Stealing from the poor, giving to the rich... by Glonoinha · · Score: 1

      Actually the money is taken at gun-point from the rich / middle class and loaned to the poor, who then get college degrees with which they get real jobs and become middle class, pay that loan back with interest, and pay massive taxes on their own thus reducing the tax burden on the original rich/middle class.

      I originally got about $9,000 in student loans getting my undergrad degree. Paid ALL of it back, at about 6% interest, over the course of about 8 or 9 years. Worked my way up to a decent job, and I have paid $12k~$15k in income taxes per year every year for the past 5, with lesser amounts before then. I figure the $9,000 money 'given' to a poor kid to go to college has paid back in spades - it was paid back 106% the first 8 years and has paid back over 100% per year since then. If all tax revenues were invested in ways that paid back 100% after 8 years and 100% PER YEAR thereafter, forever - well do the math.

      --
      Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
    4. Re:Stealing from the poor, giving to the rich... by Ada_Rules · · Score: 1

      Actually the money is taken at gun-point from the rich / middle class and loaned to the poor, who then get college degrees with which they get real jobs and become middle class, pay that loan back with interest, and pay massive taxes on their own thus reducing the tax burden on the original rich/middle class.

      Slashdot - We respond to more full articles and posts without reading them before 8:00 than most communities do all day.

      Parent that I replied to (and quoted) said: "The Pell students represent the lowest income". The pell grant program is not a loan program. It is a grant that you do not pay back.

      To be clear here neither the original article, the parent I replied to nor even my reply is really a comment on the "goodness" of the programs that are being impacted. We are however discussing the impacts of cutting off this funding in certain cases. I am just arguing that we should avoid the doublespeak that we criticize leaders for using.

      Note in the interest of full disclosure:

      The original full article is talking about both student loan and Pell grants being impacted.

      I received some Pell grant money when I went to college.

      --
      --- Liberty in our Lifetime
    5. Re:Stealing from the poor, giving to the rich... by internetcommie · · Score: 1

      So you are suggesting that helping kids, including poor kids, to get a college education actually pays off for EVERBODY??
      More or less, of course.
      But if it really was like that, wouldn't politicians want more people to get a college education so they could get better paid jobs and pay more taxes so the politicians have more to pay off their corporate owners? Or, maybe the truth is that the corporate owners want people to remain uneducated so they believe that downloading really is killing the media industry and in addition they want cheap and ignorant workers who will accept low pay so they can make larger profits with smaller handouts from the politicians?

    6. Re:Stealing from the poor, giving to the rich... by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

      Assuming that there is a legitimate public purpose to the Pell program, without engaging in the Constitutional/philosophical debate on that part, one still is confronted with the potential jeopardy, of say 2 * $10/mo*9mo = $180/yr (RIAA+MPAA demands?), that might be out of some economically marginal kid's last $100. College aid nominal cost numbers are often $1000-$2000-$3000 short of full costs. One could say stress such kids more for the extra $180, never minding the other elemental injustice of all kids paying for some kids downloading. Some % kids won't. (My kids have purchased CD/DVDs, legally imported, when returning from overseas and explicitly declared to Customs and closely inspected). I would rather (a) make sure the kid has best chance of completion with the money granted, (b) I don't want to pay 110% for a new "improved" **AA extortion fees included Pell program, (c) I think a *lot* the **AA threats and propositions are of extremely dubious legal nature and the related publishers have abused the literal Constitutional provisons (don't get me started). I am absolutely sure the organizations are of the type I would not voluntarily do business with, and would order off my property (ahem) if they bothered me, or mine, without *proper* papers.

  30. Typical Federal Extortion by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    They do the same thing with federal funds for roads ( for example ).

    "if you want your citizens taxes back, you will go ahead and agree to do waht we cant constitutionally enforce in the first place" "if you dont, well we will keep the money and you will have to fund the repairs yourself. Oh, and we can mandate that you repair them. Have a nice day"

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Typical Federal Extortion by Maestro485 · · Score: 1

      My father brought up an interesting point with regards to the feds withholding state road funds: if the states are being denied money on the condition of compliance, why not just suspend all federal tax payments?

      If the feds can deny money, surely the state can simply not pay any taxes to the federal government to recoup the cost (and probably a lot more).

      If only the people in charge weren't such spineless shills.

    2. Re:Typical Federal Extortion by belg4mit · · Score: 1

      Umm no. the states don't pay the feds. Feds and states tax the people. Feds transfer some of their take to
      states for various things like Medicare, roads, etc. So how exactly are the states supposed to do anything
      here? Given their citizens permission to not pay federal taxes? Brilliant!

      --
      Were that I say, pancakes?
    3. Re:Typical Federal Extortion by Maestro485 · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't be that bad of an idea. Regardless, there must be some way for a state to exercise defiance to a corrupt federal government in a meaningful way.

    4. Re:Typical Federal Extortion by rk · · Score: 1

      A state could possibly make it much harder to collect income taxes if they passed a law that made working for the IRS a felony and actually had state troopers and sheriffs enforce it.

      Of course, for it to get to that level, it's pretty much on and you're well on your way to a genuine civil war.

  31. Re:Fgggnmeh by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    I guess filesharing doesn't nmean much to you, does it?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  32. Scuttling education for the sake of entertainment by unity100 · · Score: 1

    revenues. If it has come to this level, it classifies as not an anti-piracy push, but an assault against the nation itself.

    people ARE going to go on with file sharing. cut the grants if you dare. in 20 years you will be trying to teach english to chinese college graduates you imported from china because american colleges are putting out pathetic amounts.

  33. Another proposed item back in the '80's by RedneckJack · · Score: 0

    Back in the 1980's, some group financed by GEICO Insurance proposed banning radar detectors. The group was known as GUARD (Groups United against Radar Detectors). They succeeded in getting them banned from military bases. They also proposed to get radar detectors banned by colleges/universities by using the same method - withholding federal money like this current bill. This was back in the days of 55 mph national speed limit. I noticed a lot of cars had radar detectors in that time. The rule they wanted was the ban on the use and possession.

  34. Hey, Bush haters: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    aren't you happy the Democrats are in power, now? rotflmao!

  35. Democracy? by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For a while now I have gotten the feeling that the united states is less of a democracy of the masses and more democracy of the rich. Laws such as these further help create an underclass serving the needs to of those with the money an influence. It also helps to further decimate an already fragile and poorly funded education system. Its hardly surprising that there are so many immigrant researchers, since with the education system with they way it is from K12 to university we don't have much better to offer. More money is channeled into the symptoms of the a badly run education system and society, that into what cause the problem.

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    1. Re:Democracy? by Palpitations · · Score: 1

      The modern US political system as an easily digested scoresheet:

      Democracy - 1
      Republic - 5
      Xenophobic - 50
      Oligarchy - 75
      Plutocracy - 100

    2. Re:Democracy? by cliffski · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      why do you assume everyone hurt by illegal filesharing is rich? does everyone at a software company who gets laid off because everyone pirated the product instead of buying it, automatically become 'rich' and 'evil' and 'corrupt' because they happen to work in an industry that produces digital content?

      This bullshit that filesharing only hurts millionaires is complete and utter nonsense. It hurts everyone in an industry that produces anything that can be encoded digitally. Thats a lot of people, many of them on low wages.

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    3. Re:Democracy? by buxton2k · · Score: 1

      For a while now I have gotten the feeling that the united states is less of a democracy of the masses and more democracy of the rich.

      I think the word you're looking for is oligarchy, or more specifically plutocracy.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy]
      [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy]

    4. Re:Democracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats a lot of people, many of them on low wages.


      I put it to you that many service staff are on low wages, and the people who produce this digital material are not.
  36. I thought government's job was to police by lena_10326 · · Score: 1

    Not universities.

    Forcing universities to police crimes they don't commit and cannot stop or pay a subscription fee ($$$$) sounds an awful lot like blackmail (mafia). In the end, all universities will end up just paying the subscription due to the ever present threat of a student simply tunneling peer-to-peer traffic through standard web protocols.

    Tying funding to regulation completely unrelated to the industry is yet another bad precedent (as well as punishing the innocent along with the guilty as others mentioned).

    --
    Camping on quad since 1996.
  37. time for a final solution to the mafiaa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    someone needs to kill them. no more tricks. no more legal tactics. they deserve death for even attempting to do this.

    harsh yes. but look what they are doing to the future of this country. they will ruin the future to save their own greedy asses and keep their obsolete business going.

    enough is enough.

    unfortunatly i dont give a crap enough to kill them. this country isnt worth the risk anymore. land of the free, home of the brave. greatest country on earth. not anymore. we are a nation ruled by corporations and clogged with bureaucracy.

    its just so damm sad. at least i wont live long enough to see the future this kind of crap creates.

    1984 was off by about 30 years.

  38. Re:But don't worry ... the democrats are in contro by McFadden · · Score: 1

    Looks like we've been fooled again.
    There's an old saying in Tennessee... I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee... that says, fool me once, shame on... shame on you. Fool me... you can't get fooled again.
  39. As long as they apply shotgun punishments equally! by ibsteve2u · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ok, pass this bill. That is, as long as it has a paragraph that states that if any member of the MPAA is caught evading taxes or any other law, every member of the MPAA is imprisoned.

    --
    Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
  40. Which will win? Think of the children.. or MPAA? by lena_10326 · · Score: 1

    Just curious which "argument" will win. Since college students are technically children (youngins still dependent on parents), "Think of the children!" could apply here given the inevitable sad sob stories due to spring up detailing poverty stricken students losing their college funding and forced to go back to work at McDonald's for life.

    --
    Camping on quad since 1996.
  41. Welcome to Supercapitalism by beringreenbear · · Score: 1

    In a nutshell, this has nothing to do with which party is in power. The political price for access has been paid and the corporate masters want legislation that gives them a competitive advantage. The *IAA both know that there is nothing they can do about overseas duplication, and that, in the end, there is nothing they can do about "copy sharing piracy" (Notice the quotes, all you literalists. I quote because semantically you're right. It's copyright infringement. Piracy involves theft of actual goods. Now go troll someone else's post.)

    This law is all about the horse-trading that goes on in Congress, and political party makes no difference. Members of Congress need enormous amounts of money to effectively run for their offices. Here, in Indiana, I would need $15 dollars to mount a plausible bid against my Congressman. I'd need twice that much to run for Senate. That level of fund raising comes at a cost. Namely access and quid pro quo. I need the same amounts to keep my office as I spent to get it, adjusted for inflation. And I can't do anything politically without seniority, so I have to stick around in Congress for a while.

    The solution is a mix of term limits, public funding of elections, and a shorter election season. None of these will happen because the political will simply isn't there. In the meantime, corporations will just buy market advantage in legislature. The *IAA want you to buy their product. They aren't above forcing you by getting their pets to enact laws.

  42. Re:But don't worry ... the democrats are in contro by WedgeTalon · · Score: 1

    Exactly. All of these NeoCons are more "down" than "right", and most Dems these days are leaning "down" too, though they are still more true to their liberal roots than Reps are to their conservative.

    And what is this NeoCon/"down" position called? Authoritarian.

    This is why people are so confused by Ron Paul and asking if he's running in the right party. He may lean Libertarian ("up"), but he's more Republican than any of those other bozos.

  43. Anything the MPAA are "applauding" is bad by Doug52392 · · Score: 0

    You know anything the MPAA are "applauding" is bad news for everyone. Why doesn't every single person in every single collage in the US start illegal downloading? I have realized over the past few weeks that the legal system is destroyed. It could be repaired, but no one wants to repair it becuse that would mean they cant sue people for millions of dollars for no reason, or flood Congress to get pointless laws passed that punish everyone.

  44. Meh by WPIDalamar · · Score: 1

    Anyone actually read the bill? There's 2 things it says.

    1) If they choose to, Schools can spend grant money on technologies to prevent illegal file sharing.

    2) Schools must submit a description of their plan for dealing with illegal file sharing. It says nothing about what the plan must be. So a "We respond to all DMCA takedown notices." could be the extent of their plan.

    If there's a piece I'm missing please let me know.

    1. Re:Meh by shark72 · · Score: 1

      I haven't yet read the entire bill, but the first paragraph of TFA calls out another requirement:

      New federal legislation says universities must agree to provide not just deterrents but also "alternatives" to peer-to-peer piracy, such as paying monthly subscription fees to the music industry for their students, on penalty of losing all financial aid for their students.

      Therein lies a problem. Responding to all DMCA requests? Sure, the universities should be doing that anyway. Yes, yes, I know -- the greedy movie studios and film companies might not deserve the same protection as other copyright holders, but since we're all so busy quoting 1984, let's remember what Orwell's pigs wrote on the barn wall. Some copyright holders aren't more equal than others.

      But providing an "alternative" program might be a needless waste of time and money for a small private liberal arts college where the IT staff is two guys. And, alternative programs may largely be a panacea. There's one constant about pirates: they'll always rationalize what they're doing. The "alternative" program could be a service with two billion songs in uncompressed, DRM-less format for $10 a month, and many people I know would still find a reason to use BitTorrent instead.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    2. Re:Meh by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, then

      1) What else can they do? Develop their own "file sharing prevention tool", of course at their own expense instead of buying one that's "approved", and buy it for grant money? What road will the average college take, what do you think?

      2) What makes you think that the response to the plan is not "this is not enough" until the MAFIAA is satisfied?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  45. My email to him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Dear Mr. Miller,

    I find your and Ruben Hinojosa's recent amendment to College Opportunity and Affordability Act, which would require colleges to implement Peer-to-Peer (P2P) controls as a precondition for federal funding, to be utterly despicable.

    Apart from the arguments in defense P2P itself, such as the complete inadequacy of technology to differentiate between legal and illegal content, the individual rights of college students to be free from such totalitarian controls, and the total disproportionality of 'solution' to 'problem,' the most disgusting factor about this is as follows: like most MPAA- and RIAA-favorable legislation, the legislation is so lopsided and so utterly irrational as to force an assumption of corruption and quid pro quo financial-support-in-exchange-for-legislation. The fact that you hid such an amendment in an appropriations bill shows that you knew how lopsided and unlikely to pass the legislation was on its own. To put it simply, the only rational conclusion is that you have accepted money or support in exchange for introducing this amendment.

    I would just like you to know that your constituents, and anyone else in the country (and even world) who cares to look, can see quite clearly that this is a corrupt act. You are corrupt. I am condemning you. And I and others are now doing so in public forums. You are not worthy of serving your people.

    Good day,

    Anonymous

  46. /. Politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm remembering now why I come to to Slashdot for Tech News and not measured and intelligent political discourse...

  47. Jeeze by ilovegeorgebush · · Score: 1

    I find it truly astonishing that in today's world, a collection of Industry-leading corporations (i.e. the members of the MPAA) can even have the slightest affect on something so distant in relation to its primary purpose - that a collection of movie companies can affect the outcome of the nation's further educational establishments.

  48. Their only hurting the global economy... by Doug52392 · · Score: 0

    If they bring down all the collages, wouldn't that crash the entire economy? Without federal aid, people would drop out of collage. If enough people do, it would have disastrous effects on the global economy due to the shortage of people elegable to work in high-paying jobs. If that would happen, the MPAA would loose the only people that do not hate them: the government. You know, the federal government could decide that they are plotting to crash the economy and deem that "terroristic" and arrest the MPAA...

    1. Re:Their only hurting the global economy... by Glonoinha · · Score: 1

      Hah. Yea that's 100% true, but think about all of us that already have an education and skills - we're going to be RICH!
      Somehow I don't think I've thought my cunning plan all the way through, but it sure looks good on paper.

      --
      Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
  49. What YOU can do about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's an excerpt from an email "CALL TO ACTION" message sent to members of EDUCAUSE by it's vice president, Mark Luker.

    Please call (do not write or email) the offices of the House Committee on Education and Labor. Time is short. Markup is this coming Wednesday, November 14, at 9:00 AM.

    WHAT YOU CAN DO:

    Call, do not write or email, as many of the Committee Members as possible, and express your strong opposition to this proposal. You can find a list of all the Committee members and their phone numbers at .

    When calling, ask for the staff member in charge of higher education and leave a voice mail if necessary. Call back later and try to speak directly with a staff member.

    For copies of the relevant legislative language and template responses for your use, please see .

    Thank you for your help!

    Perhaps an analog slashdotting will get the message across.

  50. It Really IS NOT that big a deal. by ubuwalker31 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    SEC. 487. INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE INFORMATION FOR STUDENTS.

    (a) DISCLOSURE OF POLICIES AND SANCTIONS RELATED TO COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.
    --Section 485(a)(1) (20 U.S.C. 1092(a)(1)) is amended-- ....
    "[incorporate] institutional policies and sanctions related to copyright infringement
    (i) including--distribution of copyrighted material, including unauthorized peer-to-peer file sharing, may subject the students to civil and criminal liabilities;
    (ii) a summary of the penalties for violation of Federal copyright laws;
    (iii) a description of the institution's policies with respect to unauthorized peer to-peer file sharing, including disciplinary
    actions that are taken against students who engage in unauthorized distribution of copyrighted materials using the institution's information technology system; and
    (iv) a description of actions that the institution takes to prevent and detect unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material on the institution's information technology system.".

    ---

    So, basically, the way I read this, the legislation is a hat-tip to the MPAA...but it has absolutely no teeth. It requires colleges to basically hand out a pamphlet about the "evils of file-sharing" and to have some sort of INTERNAL system up to punish file sharers and an INTERNAL technological system to prevent unauthorized file sharing. Effectively, if the MPAA comes to the University saying "give us the names of the students", the college can say "we have disciplined the student internally, and it won't go on his record, and now go away, so we can finish educating our student without the interruption of a lawsuit."

    Of course, this proposed bill (which hasn't even hit THOMAS yet) completely ignores the fact that the university might use peer to peer file sharing to exchange free software for classes, for students to exchange pictures of extra-curricular activities, scholarly collaboration, or use of bittorrent or file sharing technologies for medical doctors to be able to help isolated Tibetan doctors perform complicated surgeries, etc.

    1. Re:It Really IS NOT that big a deal. by djcapelis · · Score: 1

      "Of course, this proposed bill (which hasn't even hit THOMAS yet) completely ignores the fact that the university might use peer to peer file sharing to exchange free software for classes, for students to exchange pictures of extra-curricular activities, scholarly collaboration, or use of bittorrent or file sharing technologies for medical doctors to be able to help isolated Tibetan doctors perform complicated surgeries, etc"

      To be fair, the bill explicitly specifies *unauthorized* peer-to-peer filesharing. Which, while I haven't looked carefully to see if they define that a bit more explicitly, can imagine it probably means that uses of peer to peer technology authorized by the copyright holder to exchange their data aren't affected in the least. I believe this would include all the usecases you have in mind...

      --
      I touch computers in naughty places
  51. Re:What YOU can do about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gah! Here are the relevant documents omitted above:

    Committee Members phone numbers: http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/phone.pdf

    Legislative language and template responses: http://www.educause.edu/p2pfs

  52. Sad by jav1231 · · Score: 1

    This is truly sad. A university is shouldn't be asked to participate in corporate shenanigans like this.
    What they should be doing is pulling funding from universities like U of Delaware for requiring students to adopt the idea that all whites are racists (among other things). Link: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58426
    They've since stopped this program but why aren't heads rolling over this?

    1. Re:Sad by TerranFury · · Score: 1

      The article you linked to quotes the following "from the university's Office of Residence Life Diversity Education Training documents:"

      A RACIST: A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. 'The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities, or acts of discrimination

      This is so over-the-top that I have a little bit of a hard time believing that anyone truly planned on presenting it as an official university position to students. It's quite simply so absurd as to be laughable.

      It is -- ironically -- a completely anglo*-centric view which completely ignores so much of the world's diversity! It's as though the author of this bogus 'definition' was not aware that a world exists outside the United States. Is it not racism when Huttus kill Tutsis for their genealogical lineage? Or when, in India, Brahmans abuse Sudras? What about the treatment of Filipinos in Japan?

      The author does later refer specifically to the "U.S. system" but only after making incorrect statements, in her zeal to vilify whites, like "A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system." If she hadn't been in such a hurry to demonize white people, she could have made supportable statements like "A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race," without limiters, but she didn't.

      I am also annoyed by the assertion that "[people of color] do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities, or acts of discrimination." Besides reeking of self-victimization, it strikes me as only true in particular classes of situations. While in college, a few white people I knew (and I) naively entered interracial relationships; we saw firsthand, unfortunately, that other classes of situations exist in which "people of color" very much do have that ability. The experience taught me racism I wish I had never learned.

      (* I abuse the prefix 'anglo' here in the same way that lesser race theorists commonly do, using it to mean 'white' rather than acknowledging that it refers to a particular ethnic group (the English) which is small in relation to the much larger class of 'Caucasians,' and indeed does not even refer to the majority of people (Scots, Irish, Welsh) traditionally inhabiting the British Isles.)

      But look what's happening here. I responded, immediately, with annoyance and elevated blood pressure. Yet this is too pat, too simple. The statement is too absurd, almost as though designed to provoke this response in me. That's what makes me wonder at its authenticity. Because any intelligent person would know that a statement like that could only have such a harmful result, and no university truly interested in improving race relations would make such a statement.

  53. Good point by Cheesey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The parallels are striking:
    (1) Both are essentially unenforceable laws,
    (2) Which many people are guilty of breaking.
    (3) Both are victimless crimes.
    (4) They can be used as "catch all" laws in cases where no actual crime has been committed.
    (5) Demonisation tactics have been used in both cases, from "Reefer Madness" to the "You wouldn't steal a $PHYSICAL_OBJECT" ads.
    (6) There is a massive disparity between the penalties and the harm caused in both cases: a conviction can ruin your life, get you fired or thrown out of college, and unable to get a job.

    The only difference is that people choose to be involved with drugs, whereas people can be pirates without even realising it. Evidence of piracy might be a small violation of an EULA, or an MP3 file that your friend sent you and you forgot to delete. Future police forces might be able to arrest, charge and convict almost anyone for piracy, ruining their lives before they can say "police state".

    --
    >north
    You're an immobile computer, remember?
    1. Re:Good point by cliffski · · Score: 1

      don't try and water down piracy as 'a mate emailed me an mp3 and I didn't delete it'. That's bullshit. the problem the MPAA and RIAA have with universities is kids running bittorrent clients 24/7 downloading thousands of songs and movies. To pretend its some evil persecution of poor innocent kids being sent emails is just embarrassing bullshit and shows that the majority of people who defend filesharing are just in total denial.
      If students are so worried about funding, has it ever occurred to them that maybe they should be studying, rather than spending all their time downloading copyrighted content?

      Go on, mod me down because I don't believe the slashdot group think crap about copyright being evil.

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    2. Re:Good point by coolGuyZak · · Score: 1

      (7) Both hamper the profitability of media barons (See: William Randolph Hearst, et. al.), leading to
      (8) Both forms of persecution being driven by mass media.

    3. Re:Good point by Azuma+Hazuki · · Score: 1

      You know, as much as I want to kick Ayn Rand in the balls (yes, I am certain she has a pair in there somewhere, like Ann Coulter), that line from Atlas Shrugged about creating a nation of criminals has never rang truer than in the last half decade. And about 5 years ago I would have been surprised that the Democrats sponsored a bill like this, but now I'm not. At all.

      --
      ~Eien no Inori wo Sasagete~ Searching for my Hatsumi...
    4. Re:Good point by Cheesey · · Score: 1

      You probably feel that my claim that piracy is a victimless crime is inaccurate, and you are right about that. I wrote that without considering the reason why I don't pirate software any more: specifically that I wouldn't want anyone to pirate my software. Do as you would be done by, etc. The analogy with marijuana prohibition is not complete because of that.

      What appeals to me about the analogy with prohibition laws is (a) the disparity between the punishment and the crime, and (b) the fact that almost anyone could technically be prosecuted for piracy. It's very hard to eliminate all "pirate media" from your home, so strong anti-piracy laws with massive penalties are an excellent tool for ruining people's lives. I know people who never paid for their copies of Windows and Microsoft Office, but nevertheless do not approve of piracy. They are simply unaware that they are technically pirates.

      --
      >north
      You're an immobile computer, remember?
    5. Re:Good point by cliffski · · Score: 1

      wtf is so hard about not pirating stuff? its not like piarted software jumps through your chimney while you sleep for fucks sake. And its not that 'anyone' can be prosecuted for marijuana laws either. Try prosecuting me, I've never touched the stuff. don't extrapolate to 'everyone' from your group of friends.

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    6. Re:Good point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try prosecuting me, I've never touched the stuff.

      A friend leaves a baggy in your car without you knowing. You're pulled over for a tail light out by the K9 unit, done. Hey, it's your bad luck and in some places, even if you're not convicted, your car may be confiscated anyway. Unless, of course, you can mind read all your friends or anyone you let in your car. That's a fun world to live in. Good times.

  54. Losing the help I need by arhhook · · Score: 1

    I am sophomore in college student attending school in the United States. Without the help of financial aid, I would not be attending school. Unfortunately, my parents cannot afford to help me out with my tuition and expenses. I have divorced parents; my mom is chronically ill, and my dad doesn't make enough to be able to help me.

    I will probably be the first to be harmed by this proposal, if it goes through. I have tried to get financial aid, although I can only get about 1/7 of what I actually need. The rest is my life savings of having to work since I was 13 and what I am making working during school. If this does go through, I will not be able to finish my college career in 4 years, I might have to take some time off to work and save up, giving the next kid (who is lucky enough to have the money to finish school) a degree much faster at a younger age, putting him straight on top of the competitive age.

    This is so unfortunate that our country is more concerned with copyright laws, etc, rather than our own students' well-being and their ability to learn the skills needed to be successful in the 21st century. After all, we will rule the world some day.

    It's not a lack of willpower for some students to finish school; we're not all lazy and we do give a shit about what's going on. I guess our needs aren't heard very well...

    1. Re:Losing the help I need by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      That's why I deem our system in Europe superior. Tuition until university is free, university costs about 800 bucks a year (plus books and supplies, but still a steal compared to US universities), and from what I've heard our degrees are quite sought after internationally (a fair deal of our graduates move to the US, actually).

      You might want to look into the option to study abroad. Yes, language barriers exist, but there are actually courses here now that target foreign students (i.e. done in English), living expenses are fairly cheap, part time labour is plentiful (we got a lot of upstart companies that need cheap, computer-savvy people), and as a bonus you got low crime rates and good health coverage.

      Btw, we're hiring and looking for students...:)

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  55. Talking points for calling your reps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here are talking points issued by EDUCAUSE on this matter. If you are unsure of what to say when you call your representatives, these may come in handy.

    Talking Points
    Concerning changes to the House "College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007" as introduced November 9, 2007.

    The House bill to reauthorize the Higher Education Act (HEA), "College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007," addresses the problem of copyright infringement on campus networks in two parts. The higher education community supports the first part that deals with disclosure of institutional policies and opposes the second part that requires campuses to develop new institutional plans for addressing infringement on their networks.

    Part one occurs in Sec. 485, DISCLOSURE OF POLICIES AND SANCTIONS RELATED TO COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.--Section 485(a)(1) requires institutions to report to their students annually on their policies and practices with respect to copyright infringement on campus networks. This is the same provision included in the Senate HEA bill and the higher education community supports this provision.

    Part two occurs in a new SEC. 494 (A), CAMPUS-BASED DIGITAL THEFT PREVENTION, which requires that all institutions eligible for financial aid under Title IV "(2) develop a plan for offering alternatives to illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property as well as a plan to explore technology-based deterrents to prevent such illegal activity." These requirements are unacceptable and the higher education community urges that this section be removed from the bill.

    Campuses that offer legal downloading services typically must charge a student fee to cover the expense. Taken across all campuses, this practice could represent a transfer of over $400 million annually from higher education to the entertainment industry while raising the cost of higher education.

    Most colleges and universities have already considered offering legal, online music or movie services. Their students, however, have often told them they do not want to use or pay for these services because they do not carry musicians that the students want, do not work with Apple iPods, etc. The failure of industry to create and offer attractive downloading services should not lead to a federal solution in which colleges and universities must bear an additional financial burden so that industry can sell more of these services.

    Today's technologies to deter copyright infringement on college and university networks are expensive, do not solve the problem, and fail to meet basic requirements identified by higher education community experts in a workshop of the Joint Committee of Higher Education and the Entertainment Community on April 19-20, 2007. Installing deterrent technology now at every campus would require an even larger increase in the cost of higher education.

    The higher education community is already working with the entertainment industry to explore technology-based deterrents as planned in the next steps of this workshop.

    Campus networks are a small fraction of the copyright infringement problem. The MPAA estimates that 18.4% of copyright infringers are college students and that they are responsible for 44% of revenue lost to copyright infringement. These figures are inaccurate and overstate the case. Yet even by these figures, since less than 20% of college students live on campus and use the residence hall networks, this means that less than 4% of the infringers are using campus networks, and they are responsible for less than 9% of the losses. Over 91% of the claimed losses are on commercial networks. While solving this small part of the problem on campus networks would be desirable, any solutions will be partial, difficult, and expensive, and will only move the problem elsewhere. Campus networks should not be singled out with respect to commercial networks when addressing copyright infringement.

    We oppose the provision in part (2) of section 494 (A) and urge that it be eliminated.

    1. Re:Talking points for calling your reps by Wes+Janson · · Score: 1

      Who was the official who made the statement not that long ago, along the lines "The peculiar notion has arisen amongst corporations that the past profitability entitles them to government protection of future profitability?" For the life of me I can't find anything on Google, and I recall reading that quote several times not too long ago. Anyone?

    2. Re:Talking points for calling your reps by Wes+Janson · · Score: 1

      Aha! Heinlein FTW:

      There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years , the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped ,or turned back, for their private benefit.
      -- The Judge in "Life-Line"

  56. Please continue to destroy yourselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Keep on like this and in 30 years we'll be hiring your uneducated millions to clean our toilets. You'll be the new Mexico to China, India and Europe. Your business leaders won't be American, they'll be our well educated elite, the products of a system that realises the best investment for the future is high quality education of the next generation.

    Signed, the rest of the business world.

    Wake up America.

  57. Re:But don't worry ... the democrats are in contro by spud603 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Political parties change. If most Republicans are neo-cons, then the Republican party is a neo-conservative party. The sooner people realize and accept this, the sooner we'll stop electing fascists (yes, look it up) like GW Bush simply because of his party. "I've always voted Republican" is not a reason to do so again.

  58. Who the real terrorists are? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real terrorists are the towelheads killing our children. If you think it's anyone else, you're as bad as they are. Get behind Bush!

  59. If you didn't vote Libertarian you ASKED FOR THIS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Federal financial aid whether it's in the form of grants or loans is unconstitutional. As a result the government is using it to protect an unconstitutional government protected monopoly commonly known as the MAFIAA.

    Remember, the government giveth, the government taketh. In other words, the government gives they can take it away. They can tie the pell grants and student loans onto anything they see fit such as forbidding the following rights that is laid out in the constitution
    • Right to exercise free speech
    • Freedom of religion
    • Freedom from religion
    • Right to bear arms, such as you can't own a firearm if you want financial aid


    That is what you get when you vote Republicrat or Democan. You ask for an intrusive, activist government that will eventually eliminate all of your rights that is laid out in the constitution when you vote Republicrat or Democan.
    _______________________________________________________________
    A vote against a Libertarian candidate is
    a vote to abolish the Constitution itself.
  60. Anyone still claiming there's a difference? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    So the Republicans screw the poor by offering large tax cuts for the rich while at the same time eliminating social programs, if you want to live, either work three jobs or join the army. The Democrats eliminate your chance for higher education by using gunpoint tactics against colleges.

    Anyone here able to tell me the difference between those parties? Let's assume I was poor in the US, who should I vote for? What party does actually try to better my situation?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Anyone still claiming there's a difference? by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Well, one will make you work for your handouts (which you will probably never attain) and the other just gives you handouts (which does nothing for you in the long run). Call me a cynic, but you are screwed.

    2. Re:Anyone still claiming there's a difference? by argent · · Score: 1

      Judging by recent administrations, Democrats are the the conservative ones with the balanced budgets, and Republicans are the activists spending money on dubious programs.

  61. The real effect by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 2, Informative

    Students would just transfer to a school that did filter internet content and thus one that could offer financial aide. I was in university when napster was first released. I really wished they would have blocked it. All of the network band width disappeared overnight. I used to send data from the physics lab back to my dorm room file server. That became almost impossible after napster. IF illegal activities are preventing legitimate learning from taking place, it should be blocked. Now, I'm not looking forward to stupid filters ala comcast that cant tell the difference between a linux iso and Britteny spears albumn. I fear thats what everyone would end up with. But you really have to blame the pirates for that.

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    1. Re:The real effect by jayrow · · Score: 1

      "But you really have to blame the pirates for that."

      Give me a break. I didn't realize college students were akin to my high school football team - when one of you screws up and everyone does a lap. Piracy isn't even the real issue with this story - it's about a government gone completely into the pocket of the corporations that employ them. I know it's not a new story, but it is one of the most blatant. Buried in this 700+ page behemoth of a bill lies this nefarious little troll that essentially says: "Do what the Motion Picture and Recording Industries want you to do or this government will ruin your education." At the very least it would force you to go to another university that gets in line. Why the hell is this a real issue? We have problems in this country (and with our foreign policy) that go waaaay beyond this. Our economy is not in a sh*thole because of piracy. Our budget isn't out of control because of piracy.

      Piracy is not our problem. The people who tell us it is are our true problem.

    2. Re:The real effect by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      Yeah thats not wrong, but this is what happens when you have a gridlock on the major issues of the day we can fix ( the war, Immigration) and the ones we do agree on we can't do anything about ( price of oil, housing market problems) we do what everyone can agree on and do ( Which often happens to be what lobbyists tell both sides). Now having said that, I happen to think that our universities should be holding students to the highest moral standards as well. And my moral standards I specifically mean having a strong, enforceable honor code and a well rounded liberal arts education teaching them the basics of civilization ( art, government, science/math, philosophy, ethics). That honor code would extend to piracy as well as plagiarisms. Now, there would have to be some routine network bandwidth monitoring that would detect gross abuses of network policies which might result in further investigations into violations of the network use honor code. Thats what I would do, if I were omnipotent.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    3. Re:The real effect by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      I was in university when napster was first released. I really wished they would have blocked it. All of the network band width disappeared overnight. I used to send data from the physics lab back to my dorm room file server. That became almost impossible after napster. Sounds like you had some really shitty network engineers. QoS has been around for quite some time...
      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
  62. Only one thing left to do kids.. by themadplasterer · · Score: 1

    "Turn on, tune in, drop out."

  63. Deliberately vague wording? by memorycardfull · · Score: 1

    I'm no lawyer, but as far as I can tell this is the relevant passage in this Bill, which seem to be amending requirements on institutions receiving Federal education money: (10) the support of efforts to establish pilot programs and initiatives to help college campuses to reduce illegal downloading of copyrighted content, in order to improve the security and integrity of campus computer networks and save bandwidth costs; What is the definition of "support?" Who determines the nature and details of the "pilot programs and initiatives?" This seems to me to be an incredibly vague basis for denying financial aid. If the "initiatives" are to include content filtering on university networks, this seems to me to be federally imposing censorship duties on colleges and universities. I love this country! If as implied in the CNet story, "initiatives" is to include compulsory purchase of content to somehow sate their students hunger for copyrighted material, what is there to say but WTF? How is this not extorting money from universities to give to the RIAA and MPAA? How does this help higher education? If the problem is a sense of entitlement to free content, how does this really address rather than aggravate the issue? Best to leave things vague so that the details of compliance are left to the Feds. There seems to be no "letter" in this law that would allow any institution to make it's own determination of compliance. The spirit of the law is this: "Play ball, or else!" The ballgame in question looks to be letting the entertainment industry dictate policy and expenditures to higher education. What could go wrong there?

  64. Re:But don't worry ... the democrats are in contro by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Trust me, nobody in Europe who actually has seen what a socialist party is like would consider the Democrats socialist. If anything, they're centrist.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  65. Remove them from their committees by RockoTDF · · Score: 1

    The thing I find the most appalling about this is that the two Senators who added this to the bill are on the higher ed committee! Their purpose is to protect and assist higher education and students, not to hurt it.

    I wonder how long it will be before someone does something violent to the MAFIAA....

    --
    There is more to science than physics!

    www.iomalfunction.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Remove them from their committees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They already are, they are called the Palestinians, Lebonese, Iranians and Serians ....

  66. EFF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone else notice the EFF web site is down?

  67. Re:The United States media is throughly corrupt. by CustomDesigned · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nobody in congress is serving the interests of the people.
    Quite true, and it's annoying that the media do not address this side of things. They either talk about Republicans or Democrats but never the issue that neither really serve the peoples interests. That's because the fourth branch of US government is a one party system. (Although the internet has a chance of changing that if it doesn't get locked down soon.)
  68. I'm glad our representatives help the people! by XiX36 · · Score: 1

    I attend a community college as a non-traditional student. Due to events that happened to my family when I was in highschool I had to drop out and get a job to help support my family. I recently returned to school going part time, and I can only attend college because of financial aid. I used to hate school but I love college and am happy to say that my gpa is 3.87. My college has a high number of non-traditional students going there, meaning those over the age of 25 who are returning to school. Now I mention all of this to say that there is generally a large number of regular students who come in because their parents have made them, and they usually last a semester before they drop out. The majority of these students come from middle and upper-middle class backgrounds. These students spend a lot of time just messing around on their laptops in lobby areas, playing music and games and so on. If some of these students are using the university's network to download some song, this bill then means I can't afford to go to college anymore. Yup that makes sense. I know several students who do not even own a computer of any sort, and also are 100% reliant on financial aid to afford going to classes. This type of bill would eliminate from college many students who want the opportunity to go, just because some fuck-offs want to download some music rather than attend class because daddy will stop payments on their shiny new car if they aren't enrolled. This is a mean-spirited bill harming those who generally cannot stand up for themselves: us poor folks who work hard but haven't had the opportunities for advancement due to unfortunate circumstances. How anyone can suggest this bill does anything to "help" financial aid is beyond my comprehension. We live in a society where those at the top of the economic pyramid issue dictates that harm the majority that is not lucky enough to have hundreds of millions and billions. Copyright infringement is a problem, but I think it has less to do with university students downloading stuff than it is the fact that people have a lot less disposable income than they have had in the past. There also is the issue of price gouging by media corporations where the price of cds has remained relatively the same regardless of the drop in the cost of production since the time when cds were first introduced. I also do not believe that all this bullshit about paying the artists is true, and I would like to know what percentage of a sale of a CD, or more importantly how much of these fines and such imposed on copyright infringers the average artist gets. This legislation just makes me angry and yet more cynical. We really have lost our way as a nation when the sense of civic responsibility goes so far away that our elected leaders blatantly create legislation that only benefits a tiny segment of the population that needs the least at the expense of those who need the most help. Its rather hard to "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" when you can no longer get an education. . .

    --
    Insert witty sig here.
  69. I don't think the Bill says this... by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

    I'm reading the linked PDF file, and I don't see anything about requiring colleges to do anything to P2P sharing. The closest I can find is section 487 which says that colleges must list P2P file sharing in their policies about illegal activities. It's kinda unclear because the bill lists modifications to the existing 1965 bill with stuff like "insert an 'and' and delete the semicolon then add the word 'P2P file sharing' ..." But I don't see anything that says they must take any particular action on file sharing. What they added seems completely pointless B.S. There's already a lot about copyright in the bill, but 99% of it is about illegally copying educational materials.

    Can someone clarify this for me? Where is the section we should be concerned about?

    1. Re:I don't think the Bill says this... by MobyDisk · · Score: 2, Informative
      Nevermind, answered my own question.

      Section 494:

      1 ...develop a plan for offering alternatives to
      2 illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of in-
      3 tellectual property as well as a plan to explore tech-
      4 nology-based deterrents to prevent such illegal activ-
      5 ity...
  70. You people have the power... by jomcty · · Score: 1
    If you really want the system to change, everyone needs to stop buying music, going to movies, renting videos, watching television, etc. for at least a year. This would not be all that hard to do and the entertainment industry would be forced to reevaluate the business models.

    The revolution would not be televised because no one will be watching.

  71. And the missing subject line is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Change campaign finance laws ..."

    Sigh.

  72. That what they want you to think by cyberformer · · Score: 1

    You can actually can have some influence over politicians. The two-party system means that waiting until the general election is probably too late, but there are primary battles going on all over the country at all different levels. Find someone who isn't corrupt and vote for them over the incumbent.

    In the case of this bill, contact your congresscritters and tell them what's wrong with it. The most important are the people on this list, as they're the members of the education committee that's nominally responsible for it.

    CNET just wants people to think "Democrats= bad" (and more generally "government=bad"), so TFA doesn't bother to say *who* these "top Democratic politicians" are, but it turns out there are only two of them so far:

    George Miller (CA 7)
    Ruben Hinojosa (TX 15)

    They are clearly hoping to get a lot more co-sponsors and eventually a veto-proof majority, because the bill is mostly about money for education and most politicians like to be seen as helping kids. But it's still an early draft, so there's a good chance of getting the RIAA stuff taken out.

  73. embedded in a 747-page bil by FudRucker · · Score: 1

    i wonder what all is in this pork smelling tree sized truck load of paper...

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  74. I seem to remember Ralph Nader... by absurdist · · Score: 1

    ...saying much the same thing during the 2000 election. Well, things have gotten worse than most of us could have imagined, and the populace hasn't risen up en masse to hang the bastards from lightposts yet. This will barely register on Joe Citizen's radar, because, if this bill passes, either universities will challenge it in court, or roll over immediately. They won't let that kind of money get away.

  75. Not with a weak dollar... by FatSean · · Score: 1, Troll

    School is expensive enough in the USA, I don't think these grant-supported US-citizens would be able to afford schooling in England.

    The conspiracy nut in me wonders if this is an effort by faith-based right-wingers to drive more and more people away from higher education. Get the kiddies early with stories of Sky Daddy, and keep them from experiencing crazy new ideas...where's my tin foil?

    --
    Blar.
    1. Re:Not with a weak dollar... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think these grant-supported US-citizens would be able to afford schooling in England

      I don't know much about the level of difficulty of college in England, but I suspect many of these US citizens wouldn't be able to stay in college in England. (At least, I hope, for the future of England, that that is the case.)

  76. Congress is Nasty, but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Congress deserves their share of the blame for sure. Don't let that fact make you lose sight of what's going on in the executive branch: torture, illegal spying and surveillance, tax-funded propaganda, etc. Congress has failed to put a stop to this stuff, which is inexcusable and outrageous. But Bush chose to engage in those activities of his own free will, and should at the end of the day be held responsible for his actions.

    In short: Congress is full of scumbag politicians, but comparing them to Bush is a Godwin-esque use of hyperbole.

    1. Re:Congress is Nasty, but.... by aurispector · · Score: 1

      Meh. Congress could do something if they had any balls. Or ethics. Blaming Bush only addresses half of the problem. Electing a democrat won't bring any real change. Just a different flavor of scum.

      --
      I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
  77. Re:But don't worry ... the democrats are in contro by morari · · Score: 1

    Oh gosh. I [i]wish[/i] we had a Socialist candidate make it far enough along the process to vote into office. Wait, you mean that's why we have a two-party system to begin with? You mean it's to keep out ideas that might work for the people? What, you mean voting doesn't matter much anyway, not in a congressional republic at least?

    --
    "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
  78. Dems pissing me off by stewbacca · · Score: 1

    Man, I align with the dems on nearly every issue on the planet, but initiatives like these are what make me fail to put a check mark in the Democrat party affiliation box when I registered to vote 20 years ago. Yeah, this is a GREAT idea dems; make it HARDER to get an education and let people fall further behind in life just because they happen to download a few songs...

  79. What a blunder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought I read RIAA until I hit Democrat then realized it said MPAA. So now maybe all you Republican bashers can wake up and smell the coffee and realize the Dems are no better. So what they want is for SCHOOLS TO INCUR ADDITIONAL COST AND EFFORT TO PROTECT HOLLYWOOD. The Republicans should be down on their knees thanking whomever for this. They can now go to the colleges and let the kids know how the Dems want to take away their grants and loans to protect the Hollywood machine and their $20 million a picture actors.

  80. Re:As long as they apply shotgun punishments equal by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Oh, catching a MAFIAA member breaking copyright law would already be enough, given a few recent "surprises"...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  81. Re:But don't worry ... the democrats are in contro by stewbacca · · Score: 1

    Any Republican who "always voted Republican" isn't a real Republican anyway: a Conservative, probably, but not a Republican. All Conservatives are Republicans but not all Republicans are Conservative (or something like that).

  82. Re:Which will win? Think of the children.. or MPAA by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    When was the last time you heard a sob story about a "criminal" being forced to live under the bridge?

    Don't worry, this will be twisted around long enough until everyone believes that those college kids who engage in filesharing are hardwired as criminals and we should be glad they were found already in college when they were filesharing instead of later when they slay old grannies.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  83. Fuck Them. Fuck Them ALL. by EdIII · · Score: 1

    I see a lot of posts about the law and about how stupid and fucked up the RIAA and MPAA is.. blah blah blah. Tell me something new. 1) Our country is totally fucking corrupt and run by special interests and 2) We are racing towards the bottom faster than anything in the history of mankind except maybe the shit storm at Pompeii.

    Let them pass this bill. What it should do is force the Universities to do what they should be doing NOW. Cutting the internet off for all those little fuckheads that want to screw around instead of being there to learn. Education in this country has been going into the crapper.

    IMO this is mostly about manners. You don't go into someone's house and start messing with their shit. If you attend a University, you don't go messing around with and fucking up their internet. It will take another 25-50 years for this to sink into people's heads about how manners, conduct, personal space, and ethics CAN and DOES apply to cyberspace. There are some things that will get you bitch slapped or worse in real life, cyberspace should not be any different. If you came into my house and starting installing programs, moving data around, running p2p connections on your laptops you would get your ass kicked. It's like pissing all over the bathroom, leaving a floater, not lighting a match and then just leaving the door open. You would be outside my front door real fucking quick picking my shoe out yo ass.

    It's not so common, common sense.

    The universities need to isolate and protect their internet that is being used academically such as staff email, research programs like Folding@Home, etc. It needs to not be filtered, but to be *secured*. There is a difference. Authorized staff and students can have access, but only for authorized work and programs. Just like companies that will shitcan you for looking at porn and check outgoing communications for data leaks, universities need to do the same.

    As for the fuckheads, the university needs to SELL or SUBCONTRACT internet connections to the students and the dorms. T-Mobile Hotspot, DSL, or cablemodem connections in the dorms. No reason why students cannot get vouchers or discounts or whatnot. Selling and/or subcontracting would SOLVE THE PROBLEM FOREVER. It is no longer in the universities hands how the students are using their paid for internet connections. That is between an ADULT, a CONTRACT, and an INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER. There are already methods that exist for companies to go after individual citizens that doing something *illegal* on the internet. ISP's are already doing packetshaping, etc.

    Universities should not be in the business of providing free internet to their students (regardless of what a student pays in tuition). They don't provide free cellphone service or tv, why should they be providing internet for entertainment purposes? By removing the internet, securing it, and isolating it they remove the argument completely. It really has nothing to do with them anymore and is no different then a student's cellphone service. You cannot hold a university liable for cell phone communications a student makes on campus. Just the same, you cannot hold a university liable for a student's use of any outside service provided by a company.

    This would not harm any university student either. Their studies would not be affected. They can go to their departments and use the hardware and software with no problems and *if* for some reason they need to connect to it from the outside they can VPN right into it. I used a dial-up connection from home to log into my university and compile my C++ projects when i went to college 12 years ago. No reason that a student cannot use similar technology (VPN's work quite well). If a student needed to perform research then he/she could go to the library (what a concept) and even use the systems there. That can be a controlled environment. Another thing to consider is ...... not everything a student does on their computer/laptop REQUIRES AN

  84. TIME TO STAND UP TO FIGHT ... DO NOT YIELD by soccer_Dude88888 · · Score: 0

    12 out of 100 JEW senators are democrats.

    90% of U.S. Jew population vote democratic.

    MPAA along with RIAA are controlled by Jews, same as rest of the Hollywood.

    And now these hoodlum using oppressive tactics to secure their income by destroying our educational system.

    HEIL HITLER! SIEG HEIL! SIEG HEIL! SIEG HEIL!

  85. Incomprehensible by deblau · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Since when has it been the responsibility of Congress to enforce a private property right? If the MPAA or RIAA wants to sue, the law gives them that power, on exactly equal footing with any other copyright holder. Is Congress next going to pass a law that forces recording studios to provide detailed audits to their artists to ensure that the artists aren't screwed on revenues?

    You can't have it both ways.

    --
    This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
    1. Re:Incomprehensible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't have it both ways. Of course you can if you have enough money to buy politicians in bulk.
  86. Re:But don't worry ... the democrats are in contro by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

    It's the other way around.

    I'm conservative, but I wouldn't say I am republican. I vote libertarian as much as I do republican / democratic.

  87. Re:But don't worry ... the democrats are in contro by stewbacca · · Score: 1

    That's how much the current administration has trashed my concept of what being a Republican means. To me, the worst thing you could call me is a conservative, but I'm proudly Republican. Weird eh? Whatever happened to the real Elephants I wonder...

  88. Re:But don't worry ... the democrats are in contro by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 0

    And George W Bush, starting an illegal war in Iraq wasnt "using governments power to mandate good behavior" ?

    Get your terms right. Its not socialism. Its Fascism. The government serves the rich, and itself. It is out to make money and wield its power to make money. It does favors for the rich that need military force, and legal force to maintain their market dominance. The worst thing is examples like this, where the government uses the people's money, to punish the people in the interest of the rich.

    Our government will eat our country alive, as long as its serving wealthy people's interests. Do not be fooled and think the corporations are American companies. They are multinational companies now, and they can leave ours on a heart beat, leaving us dead in the water if they so chose. These businesses have no interest in the well being of our country. They are not loyal to us, and they own our government... so our Government is not loyal to us.

    America sucks, and it is that simple. I lived in America my whole life, and to see it change the way it has... is sad. We've streamlined our society into a working class society where the working families can not even afford to live her on the wages they are paid. The days of dad bringing home the paycheck while mom raises the family are over. Now Mom and Dad bring home 2 paychecks or more to barely survive. This governments fault. They continue to sell out the well being of our people at every chance they get.

    Dont expect it to change, they have rigged the election processes as well. Both parties are the same and represent the same people, the rick. Have a nice day.

  89. Re:Fuck Them. Fuck Them ALL. by Pranadevil2k · · Score: 1

    From the government: Hello EdIII. We recently heard that someone pissed all over your bathroom, left a floater, didn't light a match, and then left the door open. We are glad to hear that you've taken action against this individual! However, we must note that you did nothing to prevent these actions, such as leaving a sign up in your bathroom saying "Please don't piss all over my bathroom," or install piss-detecting sensors that can stop someone from pissing in your bathroom. We are sorry, but because of your failure to comply with the Freedom to Pee act of 2007, we'll have to shut off your power. However, you can forego this consequence if you pay the Plumbers Association of America $900 per offense.

  90. More reason to doubt authenticity. by TerranFury · · Score: 1

    I noticed that this website (1) harps on "free speech," and (2) has articles about (a) "anti-God professors," and (b) "Christianity and the American Commonwealth." This marks it to me as a conservative propaganda outlet, with articles written by paranoid people. I suspect that, if the document is real [which may not be true], then it never made it past University sanity-checkers.

    We need cool heads to deal with race.

    1. Re:More reason to doubt authenticity. by jav1231 · · Score: 1

      Dude this was carried nationally. It's not only true there are a lot of sordid details on this. Not only was in print, administrators would interview students to gage their responses. It was only after a student basically told them "it's none of your business when I realized my sexual identity" that this started coming to light. Look, FIRE may be a conservative organization but if you read the cases they bring to light they are largely things ANY Free Speech lover can get behind. In this case, the University attempted to defend not only the above "definition" but the entire program only to shit-can it later.
      Just as not every left-leaning source can be discounted neither can every conservative source. Truth often comes from sources we don't particularly agree with. This is how minds are changed.

    2. Re:More reason to doubt authenticity. by TerranFury · · Score: 1

      Hm. I can't find a mainstream source citing this incident. Everything is FIRE or a blog linking to FIRE (or, there is one CNN transcript, but it's from some over-the-top "conservative" commentator.)

      That said, I'll grant you that it's plausible. While at school, as I noted in my previous post, I definitely met bigots who I could imagine spouting that sort of thing.

      One of the most wonderfully ironic (sad, really) examples was the guy who dated my roommate. My roommate and I were pretty close, so, besides having firsthand conversations with the boyfriend (who I liked at first, actually), I learned more about this after they broke up. Anyway, this boyfriend-of-roommate was an Asian guy who, it slowly became clear, kind of hated white men. The irony was that not only was my roommate white; most of this Asian guy's exes were white too. Funny how that worked.

      I'm just glad he didn't give my roommate AIDs. There was a scary time when we found out that Asian-guy's ex had just tested positive. Naturally, my roommate was scared out of his mind; he went into a deep depression for a long time until he could get tested. Thank God neither of them had it. Thank God.

      Anyway, I'm getting off topic. The point is, I do know that the type of people who'd say this stuff with a straight face do exist.

    3. Re:More reason to doubt authenticity. by jav1231 · · Score: 1

      Glad your friend was okay!
      I would challenge you to ask yourself why this didn't get the kind of coverage it should have. Yes, CCN covered it and some commentators. It didn't get the kind of national coverage it should have, only blurbs. That doesn't negate or cheapen it at all. I generally don't trust the media to distribute information, especially like this. It's easy to authenticate and could be followed up on easily. What's more it strikes at the core of Free Speech.
      I'm a conservative. That doesn't mean I agree with everything this administration does. It doesn't mean I think everyone else should die. It doesn't mean anything more than I am a strict constitutionalist. That said I long for the days when both parties kept each other in check and often complimented each other in the things I agreed with. This administration has taking liberty with our privacy and individual rights and I don't like that. They should be challenged. The problem today is that rather than do that the parties on both sides latch on to these things as power-plays. And we the people suffer for it. We're asked to choose our sides and are expected to have this fierce loyalty.
      So I'm getting off track too. I'd just say look at many sources. The media is the third party with their own agendas for and against. It's incumbent on us to try to mine the gems of truth as they come as they are not always apparent.

  91. blind public by celle · · Score: 1

    Has anybody noticed that alot of the MPAA/RIAA are foreign(key word) owned corporations that are trying to manipulate the US government. Many from the same directions as the last world war. Aren't there laws in this country preventing foreign manipulation. If there isn't then maybe those foreign corporations and their host countries should be handled the same way as the last time but with a little less sympathy after they get pounded to near extinction. Wake up america, you have nothing to lose except your future. That's assuming the government hasn't given it away already.

  92. ALSO SEND a message to his CONSITUENTS by InvisblePinkUnicorn · · Score: 1

    Here are the emails for the county officials and city council for the largest cities in his district. Make sure to send Blind Carbon Copy (BCC) so they might actually read it.

    Subject: George Miller hides language in H.R.4137 that would remove federal funding from colleges unable to stop file-sharing

    BCC: LDare@cao.cccounty.us, pburk@contracostatv.org, cwamp@contracostatv.org, bkondylis@solanocounty.com, ceward@solanocounty.com, jfsilva@solanocounty.com, mpalmaffy@solanocounty.com, JPSpering@solanocounty.com, sgoerkeshrode@solanocounty.com, cmcook@solanocounty.com, jmvasquez@solanocounty.com, pknelson@solanocounty.com, mjreagan@solanocounty.com, FCZaragoza@SolanoCounty.com, cao-clerk@solanocounty.com, bwagenknecht@co.napa.ca.us, mluce@co.napa.ca.us, ddillon@co.napa.ca.us, bdodd@co.napa.ca.us, hmoskowite@co.napa.ca.us, Diane_Holmes@ci.richmond.ca.us, natbates@comcast.net, tom.butt@intres.com, Lopez.Ludmyrna@comcast.net, johnemarquez@aol.com, elirapty@aol.com, harpreet.sandhu@comcast.net, tony_thurmond@ci.richmond.ca.us, Maria_Viramontes@ci.richmond.ca.us, aevenson@ci.pittsburg.ca.us, mayor@ci.vallejo.ca.us, jdavis@ci.vallejo.ca.us, tpearsall0285@aol.com, sgomes@ci.vallejo.ca.us, tbartee@ci.vallejo.ca.us, hsunga@ci.vallejo.ca.us, garycloutier@sbcglobal.net, citycouncil@ci.concord.ca.us

    Dear Sir or Madam,

    News source: http://www.news.com/2102-1028_3-6217943.html?tag=st.util.print

    Bill source: http://edlabor.house.gov/bills/HEAReauthorizationText.pdf

    This is unbelievably unconscionable and corrupt on the part of your elected representative. The MPAA is applauding Rep. George Miller for introducing an anti-piracy bill that threatens the nation's colleges with the loss of $100 Billion a year in federal financial aid, should they fail to have a technology plan to stop illegal file sharing.

    The proposal, which is embedded in a 747-page bill, has alarmed university officials. "Such an extraordinarily inappropriate and punitive outcome would result in all students on that campus losing their federal financial aid -- including Pell grants and student loans that are essential to their ability to attend college, advance their education, and acquire the skills necessary to compete in the 21st-century economy," said university officials in a letter to Congress. "Lower-income students, those most in need of federal financial aid, would be harmed most under the entertainment industry's proposal."

  93. Re:But don't worry ... the democrats are in contro by JebusIsLord · · Score: 1

    Now I'm a Canadian, but watching your news once in a while... aren't most republicans pro-gay? I sure hear a lot about them flaunting it.

    --
    Jeremy
  94. RIAA / MADD by Nonillion · · Score: 1

    Man, this reeks of the same methods MADD uses to force states to enact MADD's insane, Draconian and Stalinistic DUI laws. It's no suprise that MADD has used money and political embarrassment to get their way. And now it seems the RIAA has taken on MADD's legal tactics, un-fucking believable.

    --
    "I bow to no man" - Riddick
    1. Re:RIAA / MADD by Nonillion · · Score: 1

      I guess that should be MPAA......

      --
      "I bow to no man" - Riddick
  95. That's why Fed subsidies are a poisoned gift by ericferris · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That story is a very good example of why Federal subsidies are a poisoned gift. An entity starts accepting money from Washington. It starts living above its means. Then D.C. can force the entity to toe the line on whatever matter the lobbyists du jour have sold to Congress, otherwise, no more free money!

    Federalization of education is not a good idea. Power should be closer to the universities. Tuitions should reflect actual costs.

    Besides, providing more funds to the universities has only resulted in jacking up tuition costs. I don't see an increase in degree quality or research results.

    We need the universities to get their snout out of the Fed feeding trough. If all Fed funds were cut, more liberty and responsibility would result, which is always a good thing.

    --
    Fantasy: http://ferrisfantasy.blogspot.com/
    1. Re:That's why Fed subsidies are a poisoned gift by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There Was a H U G E increase in education funding from the early 60's, I suppose congress percieved a national need for more skilled people, a broader and deeper talent base. Now obviously the need has gone, Space Race WON, Cold War WON, Computers Invented USA, ICANN in USA, Smartest Bombs, USA, Cruise Missiles, USA, Stealth technology, USA. No need to reinvest in the intelectual capital of the nation. There are ways of cutting funding without saying you are cutting investment.

    2. Re:That's why Fed subsidies are a poisoned gift by FunWithKnives · · Score: 4, Informative

      If all federal funds were cut to my university, I would lose my grants. Being that I do not have a rich mommy and daddy to pay my way, that would mean that I would need a full-time job to go along with my part-time job, just to have any possible chance of paying my tuition in full. Somehow, I think that working 55 hours a week would cut into my GPA a bit.

      I don't know exactly what your definition of "liberty" is, but it sounds rather like slavery to me; and if someone needs to work 55 hours a week and somehow balance a course-load along with that in order to be "responsible," then they obviously aren't mature enough in the first place. I certainly have no trouble being responsible, even with my "snout" in the Federal government's "feeding trough," as you put it.

      --
      "We may face a scorched and lifeless earth, but they're accountable to their shareholders first."
    3. Re:That's why Fed subsidies are a poisoned gift by ericferris · · Score: 1

      Thank you for answering. I am aware of the research benefits from Federal grants: I worked on such a project myself -- one of these where you have papers and patents but where the real interesting stuff is presented in Tempest-shielded conference rooms under Need to Know. And of course there was ARPANET.

      Nobody in his right mind will contest that some very good projects came out of *grants*. These are not *subsidies*. The difference is that subsidies go to a general fund, allowing universoties to spend money as they want and indulge into luxuries such as staff that they can't really afford and department for which enrollment doesn't justify the budgets. Once you're in that trap, you are condemned to forever please the providers of subsidies.

      That's very different from having students and staff on a time-limited grant for a specific work.

      I hope I cleared any ambiguity.

      --
      Fantasy: http://ferrisfantasy.blogspot.com/
    4. Re:That's why Fed subsidies are a poisoned gift by Renraku · · Score: 1

      Alright, less people to go college, more people earn less, more people have less money to spend on entertainment, so they download it for free.

      So the piracy group can say, "You're doing it wrong! Make it a felony! Its not going to stop otherwise!"

      --
      Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
    5. Re:That's why Fed subsidies are a poisoned gift by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that would mean that I would need a full-time job to go along with my part-time job, just to have any possible chance of paying my tuition in full. Somehow, I think that working 55 hours a week would cut into my GPA a bit.

      Or you could take a year off for some "cultural enrichment" while you dodge bullets in Iraq for Uncle Sam so that he will pay for your college when you get back...if you get back that is. Seriously though, I do have some sympathy for your situation, having been a college student myself at one time, but it is also true that just because you can get into an ivy league or private school doesn't mean that the people are obligated to pay your full ride. I went to a public university which was less expensive because I didn't qualify for a grant and it was all that I could afford (just barely). Sometimes I think that students need to take another look at their tuition payments and ask if there is really value there for their money. Is a Harvard education worth the price? For a lot of majors and degrees the answer is IMHO quite emphatically "No".

  96. Re:Fuck Them. Fuck Them ALL. by 15Bit · · Score: 1
    > As for the fuckheads, the university needs to SELL or SUBCONTRACT internet
    > connections to the students and the dorms.

    They actually did that to the phone systems in the university residences where i was (in the uk). Unfortunately the provider realised they had a lockin monopoly and charged extortionate rates accordingly. Indeed calls from landlines were so expensive that it was cheaper to buy a mobile (this was in the 90's). The system lasted one year and the university had to renegotiate the contract because so many people complained. What you are suggesting is essentially the same, and will have the same result: One supplier will get a monopoly and will screw students accordingly. This is unacceptable.

    However, i do agree with your (poorly communicated) core point that the function of a university is to educate, not to provide a playground for students. However, the internet is a core tool of modern education, whether you like it or not. With lectures provided online, coursework submitted electronically and much practical and research work done via the internet, a connectionless student is at a severe educational disadvantage. In the 12 years since you (and i) went to university things have changed, and a dialup command-line connection is simply not enough. Nevertheless, i agree that it is not the duty of the university to be paying huge bandwidth charges for people to download music/movies etc, even if they come from a legal source. However, the solution here does not include subcontracting. I would remind you that the university is an ISP, and has all the legal obligations and rights that come with this. THEY can filter traffic and block services, and THEY can cut you off if you break their terms of service (and you have to sign them before you get a connection), so really the problem is that the universities are not writing and enforcing their own policies effectively.

    > It will take another 25-50 years for this to sink into people's heads about how manners,
    > conduct, personal space, and ethics CAN and DOES apply to cyberspace.

    Does these good manners apply to you also? If so, i suggest you re-read your own post and make appropriate changes to your writing style. You can begin by redefining "good manners" to exclude poorly articulated ranting, the sweeping generalisation that everyone with more money than you is a "rich spoiled brat", and liberal use of the words "fucked", "fucking", "fuckheads" and "shit".

  97. We need to raise the stakes by oliphaunt · · Score: 1

    The penalty for corruption in public office shoud be death. Nasty, 14th-century-style, public execution. They fuck with our country, we should make sure they're fucking with the best. Bob Ney should have been gutted and then hung by the neck on the Washington mall- that would have gotten some attention. Cunningham, DeLay, "Cold Cash" Jefferson- ditto. Those caught paying bribes should be burned alive. Those caught TAKING bribes should be literally crucified. Leave the bodies to rot and let the crows have the eyes.

    --




    Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
  98. Re:But don't worry ... the democrats are in contro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're politicians. Money can buy either party, and the record labels, Bill Gates, and Adobe have a lot of it.

  99. Re:But don't worry ... the democrats are in contro by letxa2000 · · Score: 1

    Indeed. And Slashdotters thought Republicans were the only bad guys. A a few more eye-opening stories like this before the 2008 Election and the Republicans could carry Slashdot--granted, it's good for zero electoral votes... but still.

  100. As to be expected...Pessimists for president. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The United States is in a race to the bottom. Every great empire falls - I just wish I wasn't stuck in the middle of this one."

    Well the gloom and doom department has always been saying that. I chalk it up to constant indigestion of mass media and "birds of a feather" websites. Try living outside your bubble and while everything isn't hunky dory. It isn't the sky is falling either.

    "For many years, I've heard the chants of the "if you don't like it, leave!" crowd. For a long time, I fought back. I believed that the right thing to do if you loved America was to not leave, but to fight for a better nation. I'm afraid I've lost that faith."

    And one can lose their figure by a constant indigestion of fast food. Why think that doesn't apply to a mental diet?

    "Unless things drastically change over the next few years, as a freedom loving individual, I'm sad to say I'll have no choice but to leave and watch the country implode from the sidelines."

    There's an implicit "grass is always greener on the other side" to your position. Care to live a life of constantly running?

  101. Re:Which will win? Think of the children.. or MPAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Think of the children? Try thinking of your future. The people in college/university will be your future doctors, engineers, teachers, craftspeople, etc etc. If this bill goes through and colleges and universities are regularly fucked over by it, you may start seeing a shortage of talented workers in the future.

  102. Re:Fuck Them. Fuck Them ALL. by EdIII · · Score: 1

    My good manners do not by default extend to my choice of words and language. That is what I would consider a component of "real life". My choice of writing style in this case, may be construed as bad manners, but does not have anything do with how I used it in context. I am simply referring to how people conduct themselves in another person's home compared to how they conduct themselves in another person's private cyberspace. It is not an analogy, it is something that is directly related to each other and is in fact the same. Most people seem to not be aware of it just yet. I know a very fine and upstanding British gentleman that has impeccable manners, yet will use my families computer at will and install anything he likes. It is simply something he is unaware of. He treats the computer as an appliance and does not realize that it's installed programs, data, desktops, configurations, settings, etc. are actually components of a very real digital reality, aka cyberspace. Your personal cyberspace is always with you, just as your own personal space. Incredible amounts of data about individuals are kept online and whether or not one is aware of it, they have a presence in cyberspace personally as well as publicly.

    I would say that this is a public forum and as such, I chose my language as i see fit. If that offends somebodies sensibilities, I am not sorry. I understand your sensibilities and I applaud them, but they are not necessarily my own. My usage of profanity in and of itself does not detract from my message or make it "poorly communicated". A diamond in a pile of "poopy" is still a diamond. Not that my own take on the situation could be construed as so valuable as a diamond mind you :)

    To address your points, which are valid:

    1) Monopolies and price gouging by service providers - Since this problem resides solely in the US (The topic being US Law), those problems will work themselves out within the market and the laws that govern them. I believe that multiple providers could gain entry to these new markets and that Universities could not single out a single provider. If the University does not sell this themselves (making them the sole ISP), then they need to open it completely to the outside market. Remember, the point of this topic is the US government taking away funds based on the performance and policies of a University providing internet for entertainment purposes. That could not happen to a corporate internet provider. I believe that by having a standard ISP contract and charging for the service, and certainly by opening it up to outside providers, the Universities could get rid of their liability, bypass these laws, and safeguard themselves against being strong armed by special interest groups and government funds.

    2) University students need internet as it a core tool of modern education - Not true. Not totally. Online lectures, submitted coursework can all be done on an intranet. Outside host addresses don't need to be accessed from within a universities own networks by students outside of classes and labs. Students outside of the University are completely unaffected. Anybody outside of the campus grounds will be using a separate ISP to access the University and therefore are completely beyond the scope of this topic. As for the research work being done (the only real need for outside host address access), this can be done by the use of the library or controlled machines, kiosks, etc. within the University. They are controlled and can stop programs and services from being installed, etc.

    The real issue that I am trying to make is that Universities do not need to provide access to host addresses outside of the University for students PERSONAL MACHINES. I believe that providing this is detrimental to the University as a whole. It creates an environment in which activity like p2p file sharing can take place on campus grounds. Since we know the unconscionable and complicit behavior of the RIAA, MPAA and other like minded groups along w

  103. hittin tha treez like: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono

    scientologist peice of shit............

    1. Re:hittin tha treez like: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:hittin tha treez like: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Have you ever know and Communists personally?'
      'Oh yes, lots of them and CIA men too..'
      'Are you witholding anything?'
      'I don't think so.'
      'That reads.'

  104. Re:But don't worry ... the democrats are in contro by sowth · · Score: 1

    Heh. Gotta love when someone tries to explain away something which doesn't fit their Republican/Democrat, liberal/conservative model. Very entertaining.

    Maybe you can explain to me how a turkey is either an elephant or donkey.

  105. Re:But don't worry ... the democrats are in contro by JohnnyLocust · · Score: 1

    Well in reality Bush is more Democrat then Republican...

    That must be the reality where evil counterparts have little, pointy mustaches.

  106. Re:Fuck Them. Fuck Them ALL. by EdIII · · Score: 1

    Nice :)

    I won't have to pay though. I flushed all the evidence away

  107. Practicality by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 1
    Heh, that may be the most insightful comment in this entire discussion.

    I've had so many arguments with people about politics, all because they simply couldn't fathom the simple fact that most top-level politicians are NOT idealists; they just want to make themselves and their cronies wealthy. Looked at from that perspective, almost every single thing that the Republicans and Democrats (and Tories and Whigs and Liberals and Progressive Conservatives and NDP and so on) have done over the years, no matter how apparently stupid it was, makes perfect sense.

  108. Alexis de Tocqueville once said by TheGoodSteven · · Score: 1

    "The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."

  109. Why not murder? by etnu · · Score: 1

    Why don't they tie financial aid to a plan to reduce murder, rape, child molestation, TERRORISM (shit, they might try that one), or anything else?

    ANY politician on board with this legislation is a corrupt piece of shit who deserves to go to prison.

  110. Something to chew on by nanowired · · Score: 1

    Americans these days are too complacent. They've got their Reality TV shows, and their "Desperate house Wives". Nothing short of the Government shutting off their TVs for them is going to make the average american sit up and go, "What the *bleep* happened to our country?!" No sir, now that all of the things that were MEANT to be kept out of the government are involved, everythings gone to heck. Big business, the churches(Separation of Church and state is a TWO way street), anything else you can shake a stick at... the government no longer works for the interest of its people(the select few do not count), therefor it is broken. I need to find a copy of the Magna Carta.

  111. Re:But don't worry ... the democrats are in contro by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

    Well in reality Bush is more Democrat then Republican...

    Bullfuckingshit.

    The reasons Democrats hate him is the majority of Democrats are Liberal Bias too.

    Bullshit. The Democrats are an extremely conservative party. That they look liberal next to the GOP tells you how far to the right they have gone.

  112. H.R. 4137 by statemachine · · Score: 1

    I wish people would include the bill number when writing articles (any website or newspaper, not just /.). It makes it much easier to reference when talking to your Representative or Senator.

    My source for the number (in case it's somehow wrong): http://republicans.edlabor.house.gov/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=326

  113. Maybe this isn't such a bad thing... by crossmr · · Score: 1

    One of two things are going to happen here. This will cripple the economy as universities stand up to the government and the MPAA and more and more people will become unskilled. Eventually the economy will completely collapse and the country will be thrown in to chaos causing them to start over. Hopefully this time they'll do a much better job of it.

    Alternatively the government will become so corrupt and controlling even china will take a step back and think "Hmmm maybe its time we invaded and spread democracy".

  114. It's even worse than you think by YodaYid · · Score: 1
    From the lead and first paragraph of TFA (emphasis mine):

    New federal legislation says universities must agree to provide not just deterrents but also "alternatives" to peer-to-peer piracy, such as paying monthly subscription fees to the music industry for their students, on penalty of losing all financial aid for their students.
    This is sick.
    1. Re:It's even worse than you think by ubuwalker31 · · Score: 1

      Of course, if you RTFLegislation, it says nothing about universities having to provide alternatives.

    2. Re:It's even worse than you think by YodaYid · · Score: 1
      I'm not sure how to cite this properly, but here goes (page 412 in the PDF):

      SEC. 494. CAMPUS-BASED DIGITAL THEFT PREVENTION. (a) IN GENERAL.--Each eligible institution participating in any program under this title shall to the extent practicable-- ... (2) develop a plan for offering alternatives to illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property as well as a plan to explore technology-based deterrents to prevent such illegal activity.
      "Technology-based deterrents" are of course software packages promoted by the RIAA. Seems pretty clear (and pretty bad) to me...
  115. Indeed, the Visigoths are at the door! by Calledor · · Score: 1

    No but seriously you are wonderfully depressed and that is fine. You've got this idea that America was a great worldwide empire, like Britain or Rome. Not so much. Frankly if any of the scholars in the declining years of Athens or Rome were to read what you just wrote and understand it in all of it's context, you would be beaten by a man in a robe.

    What exactly do you think is going to happen in America, based on recent events, that is WORSE than anything else in the country's history. Do you fail at reading about things before you were born? "The dollar is going down! Shitshitshitshit! I can't buy cheap electronics from Asia anymore! My European candies and home appliances! MY IKEA STORE!" Because the Great Depression, Oil Embargo, civil rights struggle, COLD FUCKING WAR, and all of that shit, oh, well that was nothing but a challenge. We keep a retard in the white house for 8 years and float a congress of Ben Dovers and suddenly the ties that bind are sundered and people will take to the streets to tear down the foundations of government and society. You my friend need to drink more, because the only thing that is really going to fuck us up is people eating their own paranoid shit. Newsflash, people on the street think Bush is an ass and the war is Vietnam II, but they aren't exactly making FALLOUT shelters.

    When Britain, Rome, and all of those wonderful empires ate it, they lost colonies, kingdoms, huge resources that they had poorly managed for their own benefit. Unless you believe that illegal immigrants are going to turn barbarian invader, and let me tell you that makes a ton of sense for people who send home pay in cashy american dollars, you are gagging on your own crap.

  116. Re:Collective Guilt Calls for Collective Punishmen by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 1

    Ooh, and all this can go away if the Universities pay Audible Magic. Now, they wouldn't have anything to do with the current RIAA shakedowns, would they? Very astute, DingerX.
    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  117. Better Dead than Democrat by tjstork · · Score: 1

    the sooner we'll stop electing fascists (yes, look it up) like GW Bush simply because of his party. "I've always voted Republican" is not a reason to do so again.


    Have you even read the original post? It's not George Bush that is totally getting blown by the recording industry. It's not George Bush that introduced legislation to tie student loans to anti-piracy?

    Hey, I guess some people really do believe that slavery is freedom (aka known as socialism).

    --
    This is my sig.
  118. How does this even matter? by pat+mcguire · · Score: 0

    I'm a student at Columbia University and the current methods of the *AA's have been totally successful. Granted, the campus is more or less the number one target, as it's high profile and the Administration bends over backwards to help enforce whatever demands they make, but the current method seems scalable enough that they don't need to have these subscriptions as a form of protection payment - the current way of things has much less overhead and has to make them more money. Every month, the school gets a new round of letters threatening doom and gloom and helpfully passes them on to the student victims, who then pay something around two or three thousand to make the problem go away. Considering that this has happened to hundreds of students, they're making tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars off of fines from us alone. They should go the way of the patent troll and just forget about legitimate business altogether.

  119. Re:But don't worry ... the democrats are in contro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who ever said that?

    Who ever, ever said that?

    I am so fucking disgusted with you lying Republicans.

    Fact #1: The Democrats suck.
    Fact # 2: The Democrats suck less than the Republicans.
    Fact # 3: Slashdotters want a political party in office who suck less than the party that is there now. Right now, that means Democrats.

    The only people who ever, ever post on Slashdot anything about the Democrats being perfect are the Republicans who post fallaciously claiming that other people are averring this.

    Nobody is averring that Democrats are perfect - except for you. Democrats suck - yes, we all agree with that, stupid.

    But if you are too blind to see that Democrats (albeit, while still sucking) are BETTER than Republicans, especially after the experience of the past 7 years, then you are certifiably bat-shit crazy.

  120. Cognitive Dissonance! by n6kuy · · Score: 1

    I thought it was the evil, rat-bastard Republicans that were in the back pocket of the MAFIAA..

    --
    If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
  121. Re:But don't worry ... the democrats are in contro by aurispector · · Score: 1

    Why do we only have two choices? Think about it...

    --
    I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
  122. So if this passes... by blacklagomorph · · Score: 1

    does this mean I'll be able to witness a real college riot complete with fire hoses? College students have gotten so apathetic with important issues lately maybe an issue close to home will wake them up and bring back the protests of the 60s.

  123. Innovation failure == Skill shortage by MrKaos · · Score: 1
    So now the MPAA/RIAA entities think protecting their failing business model should be held above the interests of all business. I still don't understand how a 60 billion dollar a year industry (entertainment) can push around a 600 Billion dollar a year industry (IT) by continuing to lobby for laws that stifle innovation in IT. Now they are so desparate that they are prepared to lobby for laws that open the doors to attacking educational institutions that are suppliers of skilled labour to ALL sectors of industry. Has anyone pointed this out to your congress? As I'm sure they will attempt to do it in my country too.

    One day business will start to realise that the desparation of this industry is a threat to commerce, not just music consumers, because one day this industry will be gone and all we will be left with is a legal framework that makes our economies harder to adapt to change.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  124. More Quoting Lewis Black by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

    "Republicans and Democrats, working together ... and the only thing worse than a Republican, or a Democrat, is when these little pricks work together!"

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  125. They are not the same! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The democrats wear BLUE ties, and have a donkey for a mascot. HUGE difference.

  126. "alternatives" to peer-to-peer piracy by mnemotronic · · Score: 1

    Free, unlimited usenet access for one and all would be a good alternative. It's more of a client-server piracy system.

    --
    The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
  127. Re:But don't worry ... the democrats are in contro by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

    Bullshit. The Democrats are an extremely conservative party. That they look liberal next to the GOP tells you how far to the right they have gone.
    I'm glad somebody here gets that. The Republicans are a far-right party and the Democrats are merely a right or center-right party. Dennis Kucinich (for example) is seen in America as being an ultra-left-wing fringe nut, but in the international scheme of things, he's actually fairly moderate.
  128. Wow I am glad people like you don't run my school. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At Rugers, there is TV in all the dorms and everyone that comes to the school and is a current student has access to the internet. Bandwidth is not an issue because we have decent, responsible people in charge of it. They do kick top talkers offline - but only because they raise bandwidth costs for the school. And you could never have policy where the school is only on an intranet. I have taken too many classes that need the online homework done out on the internet. And yes, the file sharing system in the dorms does not talk to the internet.

  129. Re:But don't worry ... the democrats are in contro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, that's easy. Because we haven't gone in one direction or another so consistently that we killed the other direction and left room for something new to arise from its ashes.

    Here's my proposal - let's just vote Democrat and nothing but. Let the Dems become the most conservative party, and anything more conservative non-existent. Then a new choice will spring up even further to the left than the Dems, and we'll be moving in a better direction.

    Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

  130. Re:But don't worry ... the democrats are in contro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, there are 2 batshit crazy right-wing parties running this country into the ground. Happy now?

  131. Bill by buddard · · Score: 1

    Someone should talk to Bill, he's always trying to pull stunts like this...

    --
    B$
  132. And we wonder... by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    And we wonder why it has become necessary to offshore so much technology work - it has become more important to protect "Baby got Back" from piracy than to educate our best and brightest. This is just a roundabout way to completely shut down schools that do not comply. It's really a totalitarian move on the part of the government, and sadly this is the direction the US has been moving in for a number of years.

  133. Democrats by BECoole · · Score: 1

    Hehe. Yeah, they are going to take care of your healthcare too. Haha.

  134. DON'T SCREW TIH KID'S MONEY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just don't do it. DUMBASSES... You'll be screwing with a lot of innocent people's money!

  135. Re:But don't worry ... the democrats are in contro by RetardsForRonPaul · · Score: 1

    Please. We all know the Dems are in the pocket of Hollywood. It's an order of magnitude less evil than being in the pockets of Big Oil.

    Of course, Bush just found his veto pen. Surely he has your interests at heart, and will veto this bill should it appear on his desk.

  136. For all the hue and cry... by RetardsForRonPaul · · Score: 1

    How many wrote their congresscritters when financial aid was being taken away from people who have a drug conviction? This pales in comparison, in my mind. That said, I'll be writing some letters today. This is absurd.

    1. Re:For all the hue and cry... by DigitalSorceress · · Score: 1

      You know, you have a point...

      Let's see... someone has a drug conviction, does their time, and decides to clean up their act and get a degree to become a more productive member of society: "Oh, sorry, you got convicted for a drug offence, you can't go to school - just go back to chasing that high or dealing that dope - you're worthless for anything else."

      Now, we can take otherwise law-abiding folks, throw THEM in jail for a little file sharing (cummon, you know the entertainment industry would LOVE a "war on piracy"), then deny them the ability to get a degree and thus have a chance at a decent job (where they could AFFORD to buy lots of music in the future).

      BRILLIANT! wow, we really CAN recreate the worst of medieval feudalism in America. Combine this with all the terror watch lists and domestic surveilance, and we can make it have an East German Cold-war feel too!

      ~sigh~

      --

      The Digital Sorceress
  137. Re:But don't worry ... the democrats are in contro by hey! · · Score: 1

    Funny how Republicans discovered that when Bush's popularity dropped into the Nixon basement. I heard a completely different argument from my Republican friends in the 2004 election. And this doesn't explain the antics of the Republican Congress either, who were pretty hand in glove with the Administration. Perhaps Real Republicans should consider starting a new party.

    With respect to being "no difference" between the Republican and Democratic congress; that's clearly not true. "Not enough" difference is closer to the mark. Maybe the difference between unrepentant sinners and hypocrites.

    This situation is not surprising though. We've got plenty of people up in arms about immigration, or gay rights, or the minimum wage. Where is the outrage over undue corporate influence? Over corruption? Over the failure to protect the right of free speech against corporate intrusion?

    Nowhere, because the people haven't risen up and chosen sides on those issues -- yet. We're too focused on the sides we have already chosen. More than we ought to be.

    It's funny to hear the Republicans demonizing Hillary Clinton, because to our ears she sounds the most like a Republican of our leading candidates. Compare her to Edwards, who is doing his best to channel RFK. We're lining up behind her because, despite her negatives, she's running a smart campaign and has raised more money than God, and we're looking forward to see her use it to wipe the smirk off your faces. On the other hand, we don't much like her, because she doesn't speak our values. She's trying to play a Democratic game within a Republican frame, and while true believers on either side see through this, some of us are banking on her getting enough independents and Republican women with this strategy to go over the top.

    You see, we really want you guys beaten in 2008; we don't want you to get any more Supreme Court nominations. So some of us will hold our nose and hypocritically support a candidate who doesn't really speak our values, just like we'll be seeing hypocrites on your side singing the praises of Giuliani, who we detest as irrationally as you detest Hillary.

    And when we're done throwing out the old bums in 2008, maybe we should start looking for a new party too.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  138. Re:But don't worry ... the democrats are in contro by flitty · · Score: 1

    W.T.F. Hollywood is almost as evil as big oil? Show me a story where Hollywood employs slave labor and hires mercenaries to burn villages through burma to build their pipelines, and i'll begin to see the correlation.

    Oh, and bush won't veto anything unless god tells him to, or unless it increases spending on anything other than the war. I have a hard time seeing him veto Pell grant CUTS. Asshat.

    --
    Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
  139. Two observations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Is the music industry of such vital "national security" importance that Congress would risk the nation's future by cutting off the last mile of our educational system?
    2. For everyone who has complained about the Republicans being in "big corporate's" back-pocket, I hope you're enjoying this wake-up call!

  140. No ballz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All the hopes I had for Democrats being in control are gone.

    It's ok to start illegal wars of choice, it's ok to squander billions upon billions of dollars in public funds, and it's ok to illegally imprison people (including US Citizens), and it's ok to torture prisoners (so long as you don't call it torture).

    But heaven forbid some college student listen to a copy of Coldplay he didn't pay for.

    I had high hopes, once upon a time. Now we just see the Republican's culture of corruption replaced by the Democrat's culture of meakness. It's the same old division of labor: Republicans steal and destroy, and the Democrats forgive them.

    The only solution I can see is to kick out all the "institutional" Democrats, and replace them with Liberals possessing balls. The Republican party is, obviously, beyond redemption: the entire ethos of being a "conservative" is both morally and fiscally bankrupt on every level. You can't reform a party based on corruption and a fundamental hatred of America.

  141. Thats right, shaft the low income students... by Bert64 · · Score: 1

    So as if life wasn't hard enough for poor students, they have a choice between losing their grant money, or losing the ability to easily pirate media.
    These students are POOR, they won't buy your media if they can't pirate it at college, they will either pirate it elsewhere (possibly putting money into the hands of organised piracy groups) or simply do without. They can't afford to pay the excessively high prices for this stuff, so you are just making life even harder for people who are already short of cash and often experiencing life away from home for the first time.

    The one good thing that could come out of this, is that it could encourage colleges to promote the use of free software.
    When i was at college, the only way most of us could afford all the software we used on campus and needed for our courses, was to pirate it. If the college were to provide it to us for free on DVD that would make life much easier.

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  142. Countermeasures by Tjp($)pjT · · Score: 1

    Universities can add a portion to their software licenses that prohibits abuse of process, etc. by users of their software or derivatives by or in benefit of the MPAA organization and members. Seems simple enough to counter the MPAA threat with provision for MPAA paying all the bills if the college is sued. A lot of software comes out of the University system that is used in or the basis of software used in the movie industry. From project planning, special effects, accounting, forecasting, research, etc.

    --
    - Tjp

    I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!

  143. Nope, tax resistance won't work. by Sowelu · · Score: 1

    What could the IRS do about tax resistance? Well, for one thing, they wouldn't have to throw people in jail, they could just confiscate tax resister's assets. Set a punitive rate of 4x what you owe (or more, I don't know what the real laws are); anyone who doesn't want to lose their house will comply, as will anyone who wants their kids to go to college. It's not like saying "No I won't give you taxes" will keep the IRS from collecting it involuntarily. And remember, people who have a lot of money--the ones that you most want to resist--have the most to lose.

    1. Re:Nope, tax resistance won't work. by darjen · · Score: 1

      Like I said, if there were enough people resisting them they might have a hard time enforcing anything.

  144. USian guys: you don't know what socialism is. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Your political landscape is so far biased towards the right that the democrats would be rabid right wingers in any other country.

    It wasn't always so, but it is now.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  145. If,if,if. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    The way to hell is paved with good intentions.

    Get involved in local politics, forget about grandiose idiotic ideas. You can implement those only when you have a real power base.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  146. Re:But don't worry ... the democrats are in contro by tubapro12 · · Score: 1
    It doesn't really matter where the politicians are in political spectrum as long as our politicians are as easily bought as a box of cigs in Japan. As the great book(let) says:

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form more wealthy Aristocracy, [...] do relinquish our Rights and Property to the Government of the United States of America.