Slashdot Mirror


ACTA To Be Signed This Weekend

We've been following the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement for over three years, from its secretive beginnings, to the controversy and debate that followed, and to the document it eventually evolved into. Now, Japan has announced that the agreement will finally be signed on Saturday during a ceremony that follows an anti-piracy symposium on Friday. "The negotiation has been carried out among Australia, Canada, the European Union and its Member States, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland, and the United States, and reached a general agreement at the negotiation meeting held in Japan in October 2010, followed by the completion of technical and translation work in April 2011. ... The signing ceremony will be attended by the representatives of all the participants in the ACTA negotiations, and those that have completed relevant domestic processes will sign the agreement. The agreement is open for signature until May 1, 2013."

277 comments

  1. Re:Obama 2012! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    and the republican candidates would've been better? president is a figurehead, don't' be a fool and think he's anything else.

  2. sigh by Dyinobal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well damn someone pass the lube I guess it's that time again.

    1. Re:sigh by cosm · · Score: 0

      +1 Sad and Hilarious Insight

      --
      'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
    2. Re:sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I find it hilarious that Korea is on the list of supporters. I've been there and seen their stores. Everything is a ripped version of the original content with badly printed covers in black and white that vaguely resemble the original label.. I can only imagine how bad it is in China. You're probably more likely to see 14, three dollar copies of "Turansfoma Tree" in sharpie on a DVD than find an actual BluRay...

      Doesn't matter though.. That's not really what it's all about.. It's about taking money from you...

  3. meanwhile in Mexico by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Mexican Senate has already voted to not let president sign ACTA, yet, mexican IP officials and the content industry local representatives frequently make public statements about Mexico signing ACTA.

    They will be at the Japan's signing ceremony as witnesses, but a few congress members haven't officially informed about recent developments concerning ACTA.

    It's still as obscure as it was at the begining of the negotiations.

    1. Re:meanwhile in Mexico by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The likely want a few concessions from the U.S. to help them fight their Narco war.

    2. Re:meanwhile in Mexico by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More concessions? Like the US ATF agents letting thousands of guns be walked over the border into Mexico to be put into the black market? That kind of help?

    3. Re:meanwhile in Mexico by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      You know, this is how any business can turn out for anybody in Mexico (there is a link there in the first paragraph, don't click it unless you have a stomach for seeing what the real consequences of war look like).

      I don't believe any politician or policeman or journalist (whoever is still alive) can just ignore what the drug cartels actually want from them, and cartels MAY actually have a position on copyright, believe it or not, I am not sure what that position is exactly (and it's likely that they even make money on pirated software), but I am sure politicians there cannot easily dismiss those possible positions.

  4. ...like we needed a hole in the head. by shoutingloudly · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Don't be shocked if this follows the pattern laid out in the case of the WIPO anticircumvention treaty. It did not require anything nearly as strong as the DMCA, but the content industry kept waiving it in congressional faces, demanding that we pass something far too draconian to be justified by the treaty we had actually signed. In principle, this is set up to be in line with extant US law, thus not requiring a full Senate confirmation, but I wouldn't be shocked if (a) the content industries rammed down much stronger interpretations down other countries' throats, and (b) they then came back to the US and demanded that we "harmonize" with these stronger interpretations.

    1. Re:...like we needed a hole in the head. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Somehow I think the a long term goal of the ACTA is so the lawyers and IP holders can outsource to someplace like Mexico or japan and extradite Americans or Europeans for petty internet downloading/uploading.

    2. Re:...like we needed a hole in the head. by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Sadly, that is pretty much exactly what will happen.

      ACTA has been more or less authored by the content industry ... and all of us who aren't in the US are getting this rammed down our throats. There's no public consultation, and they won't release the text of this for the most part.

      But you can bet your ass this will be used to force really excessive controls on the rest of the world (at the behest of the US content industry), and then it will be brought back to your own lawmakers with a "see, we need to be on par with everyone else".

      Trust me, the US at this point has more or less under threat of trade barriers forced everybody to accept this treaty, and now it will turn inward. This has become SOP for US copyright issues over the last few years.

      I suspect as of when this becomes law, ripping a CD or DVD I bought will be something I can go to prison for. It's like colonialism, but with treaties and secret back room deals.

      Thanks a lot, your leaders are screwing us all over in favor of preserving the profits of the multinationals they work for. I doubt very much there is any balance to preserve fair-use and other rights we've always enjoyed.

      America has been reduced to a nation of lawyers.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:...like we needed a hole in the head. by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      and all of us who aren't in the US are getting this rammed down our throats

      All of us who *are* in the US are getting this rammed down our throats too.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  5. Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Has anyone heard about this in the Canadian media? No.

    Is Herr Harper going to have it signed anyways? Of course. No need to discuss with the plebes what rights are being signed away. The elite have already been consulted.

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

      Hail Harper! Hail Harper! Hail the size of baseballs on Harper!

    2. Re:Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Is there some country where this has been discussed with the public, and they did favor it?

      Not that you shouldn't be pissed that your particular government joined in, but damn does this thing stink every way you look at it.

    3. Re:Canada by Patch86 · · Score: 2

      A brief search on the BBC reveals that they do talk about it- rarely.

      Last article that mentions it (in passing): 21/09/2010.
      Before that: March 2010.
      Then: April 2009.
      Then: July 2008.

      And all the articles seem to be written by the same two columnists; not exactly by the current affairs journalists.

      Like you say; it stinks.

    4. Re:Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Old Stevie is looking more and more like a corporate tea party lapdog. The old Progressive Conservative party was not nearly as right wing as the current crew. Omnibus crime bill insisting on long jail terms and 'tough on crime' policies even though the crime rate hasn't been this low since the early 1960's (and billions spend building new prisons even though everyone says its a waste of money), billions wasted on the stupid stupid G20 summit (and for fiscal conservatives, there is no accounting where all the money went), basically in bed with any large corporate interest including "pollute till you drop", "aesbestos, a nice light snack", "big oil, try some today", and now "wipo, since copyright, like other rights, is a salable commodity anyway". Unions can be legislated back to work "for the good of the economy" time and time again. Its going to be a really bad 5 years, followed by another year where all the crap laws they introduce get repealed.

    5. Re:Canada by doccus · · Score: 1

      Um.. I can't remember a single instance of a 'crap law' ever *being* repealed.. once they pass these lemons, we're stuck with them.. and 'tough on crime ' always occurs around election time, and usually only amounts to criminalizing more activities, or longer sentences.. giving someone 300 years instead of 200.. because after all, it's not like our courts are busy, and our prisons overcrowded.. I'm sure we've got enough room for up to half our population, Yup.. that'll work.. after all , there's no economic crisis happening, and there's plenty of unemployed folks to apply for prison guards, or 'paid informants' to rat out their pot smokin' granny. Ain't Democracy grand?

  6. Re:Obama 2012! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Historically the Democrats have been more in bed with the entertainment industry. Obama has hired a good number of former RIAA officials/lawyers to work in his administration. It's pretty depressing, actually.

  7. Yeah, so... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... how's that 'representative democracy' working out for 'ya? Feel represented yet?

    /me :braces for authoritarian collectivist downmod:

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:Yeah, so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      authoritarian collectivism is here to stay. I am happy because I am told I have freedom.

    2. Re:Yeah, so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A treaty has to be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate in the USA. Obama can't sign crap. . . legally that is. . . let's see what the Constitutional Law Professor does now. *rolleyes*

    3. Re:Yeah, so... by Greyfox · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You mean the 2/3rds of the Senate that gets tens of thousands of dollars donated to their campaigns from the entertainment industry every time election season rolls around? Yeah, I'm sure those guys will put up a fight.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    4. Re:Yeah, so... by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      I am happy because every time I test this hypothesis, it is consistent with what I'm told.

      Or perhaps I'm too authoritarian to accept without critical thought the largely unfounded contradictions of random people on the internet?

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    5. Re:Yeah, so... by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      Which third of senators are you expecting to put up a fight? Are you expecting the Democrats to rise up in rebellion against their President? Or are you expecting the Republicans to take a sudden lurch towards lax international property law, against the will of some of the US' biggest businesses?

      Write to your representatives and let them know how you feel; but don't expect much.

    6. Re:Yeah, so... by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Right, go ask 10 random people on the street what they think should happen to copyright law, and see how many of them care. When no one cares, then the people who do care tend to get their way (which is, artists and recording industries. What, you don't think artists want longer copyrights? Don't be naive, they are like the rest of us and would gladly take more money).

      Representative democracy only works when people pay attention to government, and vote accordingly. When was the last time you voted or even contacted your representative based on copyright? I never have. Maybe I should, but there are other things I care about more.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re:Yeah, so... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      I'd be more inclined to believe the Republicans would block it. They have a preexisting reason to disagree with things that they support, and in general they have less to gain. The states that have large entertainment industry backing are predominantly democrat. Both parties are in the pocket of big business interests, but they're not always the same big business interests...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    8. Re:Yeah, so... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      What, you don't think artists want longer copyrights?

      Depends on who you count as 'artists'. If you include writers, then actually most of us want shorter copyrights. It gives us a much stronger bargaining position with our publishers if they keep needing more new material because they're unable to make profits from huge back catalogues. Most writers only get a tiny trickle of royalties from books over 10 years old, but for the publishers that's a huge number of small trickles with almost no associated costs.

      I suspect it's similar for musicians. If the labels weren't able to keep milking records from the 60's-80s then they'd have a lot more of an incentive to look for new artists to sign...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    9. Re:Yeah, so... by myowntrueself · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Representative democracy only works when people pay attention to government, and vote accordingly. When was the last time you voted or even contacted your representative based on copyright? I never have. Maybe I should, but there are other things I care about more.

      Most people vote based on what they are told by the media. A minority of people vote based on properly informed and developed opinion.

      Democracy is subject to the same 'forces', the same social manipulations and psychology, that underlie advertising. Advertising works and is well worth the billions that are spent on it. Advertising works just as well for 'informing' the public on how they should vote as it does for getting products off of the shelf.

      Therefore 'representative' democracy will always be representative of the will of easily manipulated people who are fed false information. Well-informed political debate and dialectic are kept as far away from democracy as possible.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    10. Re:Yeah, so... by rmstar · · Score: 1

      ... how's that 'representative democracy' working out for 'ya? Feel represented yet?

      So, what do you suggest? Representative democracy might have its problems (which are fixable to some extent by tweaking its structure), but the alternatives are worse.

      i.e. what was your point? Do you want monarchy?

      I don't understand why you were modded up that much.

    11. Re:Yeah, so... by roman_mir · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Ron Paul.

      That's why you vote for Ron Paul who is very specific about States being more autonomous (because the federal government has no authority for pretty much anything it does at this point), and thus having more competition between government laws and Congressman/Senators should really live in their States now, with all the technology they must not be allowed to live in Washington DC and to do their business there. They should be required to live in their States, where people have more direct access to them AND this would force the lobbyists to come to every one of the States, to go visit 50 States (or at least half), and this would be more obvious and easy to track and to see how a Congressman/Senator changes his mind once the path of a lobbyist goes through his State.

    12. Re:Yeah, so... by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Selective suffrage.

      But as usual I guess people will shoot me down for daring to suggest that some people shouldn't be allowed to vote. How horriffic.

    13. Re:Yeah, so... by Swanktastic · · Score: 1

      That sentiment doesn't really pass the economics sniff test. The publisher is going to pay you a percentage of the lifetime value of your work. If the lifetime value goes down via shortened copyright time, they're going to pay you less...

    14. Re:Yeah, so... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Selective suffrage [rationalskepticism.org].

      But as usual I guess people will shoot me down for daring to suggest that some people shouldn't be allowed to vote. How horriffic.

      In general, when considering whether "some people shouldn't be allowed to vote", the first people to be put on the list of "not allowed to vote" should be the ones who favour the idea that "some people shouldn't be allowed to vote".

      Or did you really mean "some OTHER people shouldn't be allowed to vote"?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    15. Re:Yeah, so... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      And what big business would be against ACTA? At best, it could move a senator to the "don't care" category, but certainly not to the "opposed" position.

      For that, he'd have to have the interests of the people in mind.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    16. Re:Yeah, so... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Any ISP, any electronics manufacturer, and any software vendor stands to have their costs increased and potential product lines curtailed by ACTA. A company like Google, for example, stands to make a lot of money from weaker copyright and spends a lot on lobbying.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    17. Re:Yeah, so... by jtseng · · Score: 1

      Representative democracy is working just fine - for those with money for buying off^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^hlobbying politicians.

      --

      Sanity.html - Error 404 not found

    18. Re:Yeah, so... by bidule · · Score: 1

      What, you don't think artists want longer copyrights?

      Depends on who you count as 'artists'.

      I think he meant con-artists.

      --
      ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
    19. Re:Yeah, so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn. You're right! If you lose freedoms that you yourself rarely exercise, that means you didn't lose anything at all! TSA, ridiculously draconian anti-piracy laws... I'm sure this will only affect other people. So, really, who cares?

    20. Re:Yeah, so... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Most people vote based on what they are told by the media.

      So do you, unless you are one of those people who votes based on black helicopters and other conspiracies that no one ever reports.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    21. Re:Yeah, so... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      If the labels weren't able to keep milking records from the 60's-80s then they'd have a lot more of an incentive to look for new artists to sign...

      Doubtful. They could still keep milking them, the only difference would be they wouldn't need to pay anything to the artist.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    22. Re:Yeah, so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if the companies didn't make the artist in the 60s-80s sign away their rights to the song ;p

    23. Re:Yeah, so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's collectivist in a system where most resources are owned by less than 1% percent of the world's population?

    24. Re:Yeah, so... by drb226 · · Score: 1

      What, you don't think artists want longer copyrights?

      I'm pretty sure most of them are satisfied that it lasts their whole life. Life plus X years is probably meaningless to most of them. (Hooray, my great-grandkids can still extort money out of people for this piece of "art" that I made 60 years ago? I'm pretty sure J.R.R. is rolling in his grave.)

    25. Re:Yeah, so... by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Right, go ask 10 random people on the street what they think should happen to copyright law, and see how many of them care. When no one cares, then the people who do care tend to get their way (which is, artists and recording industries.

      Which is why you don't frame ACTA as a copyright law. Copyright is a boring thing.

      You frame it in the way it would affect people's lives. Things like "Anti-iPod law" and the like. Things that they do that they won't know is illegal to do.

      Heck, you can even try to be dramatic saying "download music, go to jail" and "is that link legal? Do you want to risk jail to find out?" It may even have to take a little stirring of the pot in saying downloading music will become illegal (ignoring iTunes and other legal download sources). Or that YouTube video you watch might land you in jail.

      That's how you frame copyright law. Format shifting? That's fancy talk no one understands. "Copying to their iPod" everyone gets and no one sees anything wrong with it.

    26. Re:Yeah, so... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      See, here's your problem, most people already agree that "download music, go to jail" is ok. Ask anyone if they think the artist should have rights to their music, and most people will say yes. It's mainly people who want to download music for free and try to justify it who don't think so.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    27. Re:Yeah, so... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Except that, if they were out of copyright, then anyone would be able to sell the songs. You'd be able to set up a company that could sell the complete studio recordings of The Beatles for $20 - and still make a profit.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    28. Re:Yeah, so... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      When was the last time you voted or even contacted your representative based on copyright? I never have. Maybe I should, but there are other things I care about more.

      It doesn't have to be either-or, you know. You're entitled to communicate with your employee on several different matters of lesser or greater importance to you; you don't have to pick just one.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    29. Re:Yeah, so... by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      If I did not fit into the top fifth of intelligent people by some sensible measure, then I'd be fine with losing my suffrage. I'm probably not going to waste my time voting anymore under the current system, anyway. What use is it?

    30. Re:Yeah, so... by dadragon · · Score: 1

      I have both a monarchy and a representative democracy. I believe the term you were looking for is "dictatorship".

      --
      God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
    31. Re:Yeah, so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that you're going to get more for works once you're an established author. So publishers tend to get huge "bargains" when signing first-time authors.

    32. Re:Yeah, so... by lennier · · Score: 1

      In general, when considering whether "some people shouldn't be allowed to vote", the first people to be put on the list of "not allowed to vote" should be the ones who favour the idea that "some people shouldn't be allowed to vote".

      And the next three should be Bertrand Russell, Kurt Goedel and Douglas Hofstadter.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    33. Re:Yeah, so... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Good! Great! We need more people to opt out of the system.

      Especially when they think they're proving how smart they are by doing so.

      Note, by the by, that equating "intelligence" with "responsibility" isn't necessarily valid. And Responsibility is far more important than intelligence in voting

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    34. Re:Yeah, so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ^w^w would have been more efficient.

    35. Re:Yeah, so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's also kinda crazy. Gold standard??

    36. Re:Yeah, so... by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      Damn straight I'm right. If you don't take your information through observation, and infer your opinions from these observations, then you're pretty much guaranteeing that your opinions are worth less than the photons that carry them.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    37. Re:Yeah, so... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yup. My point was, I care more about posting on Slashdot than I do about getting around to the things that will actually fix copyright. Probably most people around here feel the same, whether they admit it or not.

      Patents on the other hand, are getting close to the point where I might actually feel compelled to act.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    38. Re:Yeah, so... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yup, and how much of that would the artists get? $0.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    39. Re:Yeah, so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ACTA is only so much paper. It won't stop copying, it'll just target a few noobs who do it stupidly. Why not let the jackasses think they're getting their way for awhile? By the time it hits them that it's useless, they will have wasted more of their borrowed time and money on it, and will have become just that more irrelevant.

    40. Re:Yeah, so... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      What's your point? Most of them are dead already. Do you think that knowing that you'll only be able to make a few millions from a single song would put people off becoming musicians?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    41. Re:Yeah, so... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Do you think that knowing that you'll only be able to make a few millions from a single song would put people off becoming musicians?

      Nope, but I'd still rather the money go to the artist than to some publisher who has nothing to do with the artist.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    42. Re:Yeah, so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps most voters are too uninformed to run a local government, much less a state government. I disagree with Ron Paul, and Bill O'Brien and all the rest of the vocal mass who say that we should let the minutiae of government be run by either the uninformed electorate or by the inefficient and ineffective private service companies.

      The civil service did, has done and continues to do their jobs as well or better than any private contractor has done. There seems to be a dearth of examples to show examples of private contractors doing anything other than reducing services and changing specs to reduce quality of service and then claiming cost savings. This is not cost savings, this is fraud. Let me give an example from my (extensive) career in private industry.

      In 1994 I was hired as a project manager for a small contractor who had "won" a contract to build a small doctors office for a rural doctor's group. The price that was bid to get the job was below cost based on the specs for the job. No problem, the estimator said. Then he went to the doctors and told them that the architect had over-speced the building and that he could SAVE THEM about 5% on the total cost by making some simple and unimportant changes. Then he gutted the aesthetics by replacing all the wooden trim with plastic/rubber. Replacing the wooden doors with steel doors and frames and reducing the size and quality of the windows. The savings for the doctors was substantial and they were pleased. The architect was outraged since the building now looked like a generic POC, dark, shabby and unhappy, but nobody cared about him.

      BUT, the contractor played the doctors and they didn't see it. The estimator only replaced the cost of materials in the initial bid. He left in the cost of labor (which is greater for woodwork as opposed to gluing strips of plastic on the wall or setting up steel doors) AND the overhead (roughly 10% of the initial cost) in the original bid. Problem solved, the company made about 12% on the contract, finished ahead of schedule and the people who lost were the doctors and their customers. Not to mention the contractors who bid on the job honestly. I retired the following year, disgusted with how the process had changed. This is the world that has been created by business, this is what is happening to your services by privatizing. You have been cheated and nobody is telling the truth about what and how it happened.

      No one is talking about this, it is the way everything works today. My dad, back in the early sixties, left the army and tried to work in private industry. Three jobs quit in disgust and six months later he went back to his old job as a civil servant. He said later: "I am an officer and a gentleman. I will not lie and cheat just for a little bit of money, not even for a lot of money. Those cheating bastards in business are not gentlemen, and don't forget it."

      I have a lot of respect for the civil service and believe that you have cheated yourself by trying to chase them out of government.

    43. Re:Yeah, so... by roju · · Score: 1

      There'd be nothing stopping the artist (or their estate) from selling it too.

    44. Re:Yeah, so... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      That is fine. Whatever braindead scheme the artist wants to sign up for is their problem, not mine.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  8. Re:Obama 2012! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Obviously. That's why you don't vote for the guy who can only give canned answers and fancy speeches.

    The Republicans are bad, but they can't get away with as much. If Bush or another Republican was pulling this BS the major media would be crucifying them. That's pretty much the only difference between parties. If it's a Democrat, the media ignores as much as they can, and tries to spin everything to be positive. . .if it's a Republican, it's the only time the media does it's job, making sure that every action is brought to public light.

    My criticism isn't as much that I think Democrats are worse, they just get away with a lot more. If you hate wars, corporate welfare and a police state under a Republican administration, you are a good American freedom lover who stands up for civil rights. If you hate wars, corporate welfare and a police state under a Democratic administration, you are a racist, extremist, and a danger to democracy.

    As bad as Republicans are, it's downright dishonest the double standard that the media in this country has. . . If Bush had run as a Democrat, he would have likely been hailed by the media as the best president ever in American history. I bet you.

  9. Lovely! by Sodel · · Score: 5, Informative

    America's top exports: pornography, hamburgers, movies, economic instability, and, of course, imbalanced copyright legislation. Damn it America, keep your garbage to yourself! We all have our own special interest lobby groups! The last thing we need is for our governments to feel the influence of YOUR lobby groups, too. There's hardly any highly developed countries left where people can live quiet lives with *sane* copyright legislation.

    1. Re:Lovely! by Sodel · · Score: 0

      don't worry, The United States will take care of and protect you.

      "Take care of..." has a darned scary second meaning which, unfortunately, I feel applies here.

    2. Re:Lovely! by SecurityTheatre · · Score: 2

      Man.. it would would be nice if the US was second best at anything I care about (other than number of fighter jets, executions, people in prison and money shoveling)... and technically the US is second best at money shoveling, since the EU has a larger economy, combined, than the US... sure it's not a country, ok, you can't lose them all.

      The US emits more pollution than the EU and china combined, despite having just over half the economy (PPP GDP) of the two combined. The US uses 7 times as much water per capita and 4 times as much overall as the two combined.

      What are you aiming at here? It's all about fighter jets isn't it?

      Pew pew pew. BOOM.

    3. Re:Lovely! by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      We import and export insane copyright legislation. Blaming America is idiocy, because the heart of these things is the one way ratchet mechanism aimed at 'harmonization' of laws.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    4. Re:Lovely! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      honestly, as an American, I don't know anyone that is happy with what our Wise Overlords doing in Washington DC

    5. Re:Lovely! by planimal · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      no, i was implying that i enjoy my chocolate and bacon flavored coffee sausages in the morning, take a 70 minute hot water shower despite only being inside of the shower for 5 minutes, shoot several personally owned rifles and pistols before work, drive my giant 5 mpg V10 sports car to said work, put in 8 hours manipulating second rate countries(e.g. your hellhole) into doing our bidding and elongating my lifestyle, come home and bang my fake titted wife, then browse a selection of over 1000 channels on my 60 inch flat screen while getting drunk on arguably the best bourbon whiskey in the world. you jealous?

    6. Re:Lovely! by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 0

      Okay, but in our defense hamburgers are really good.

      --
      I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
    7. Re:Lovely! by tqk · · Score: 0

      Okay, but in our defense hamburgers are really good.

      No they're not.

      On the other hand, World Series Baseball is (almost) always good.

      Sorry about that Toronto Blowjobs blip.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    8. Re:Lovely! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      don't worry, The United States will take care of and protect you.

      until they decide you have something they want at which point they will fabricate a story about you having WMDs and invade your country.

    9. Re:Lovely! by mdsharpe · · Score: 0

      you jealous?

      I feel sick, but not with jealousy.

    10. Re:Lovely! by phantomfive · · Score: 0

      Oh please, you are ranting mindlessly. The US had a much more limited copyright system until recently, when we finally adopted the Berne Convention, which was European law for a century. There's no point in blaming one country or the other, there's plenty of blame to go around.

      Unless you want to blame the US. Then carry on.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    11. Re:Lovely! by That+Guy+From+Mrktng · · Score: 0

      I can do the same in my hellhole, w/out the redneckery that is.

    12. Re:Lovely! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DMCA was limited??
      bless you!!

    13. Re:Lovely! by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      DUDES, that AC was not off-topic, he was just redundant! :)

    14. Re:Lovely! by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      The entirety of the rest of the civilized world either can't or won't tell the American government to go fuck itself off successfully. What makes you think the minority of us citizens in the United States that actually make a point to be educated and critical in our thoughts are going to be anymore successful? Here's a hint: we're trying to reign our government in as hard as we can. And yet, somehow, each election year, the same politicians that everyone declares loudly and proudly they hate with an animosity get reelected. Go figure.

    15. Re:Lovely! by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      Okay, but in our defense hamburgers are really good.

      No they're not.

      If that's what you think, you've only ever had second rate - probably fast food - hamburgers.

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
  10. Re:Obama 2012! by hedwards · · Score: 0, Troll

    President Bush got nearly 6 years of eyes turned away for him to engage in crimes against humanity. I find it really hard to believe that the press would have granted a Democratic President that much leeway to commit such crimes.

    And you're right it is downright dishonest the double standard the media in this country has. They definitely prefer GOP candidates and the reporting shows.

  11. Re:Obama 2012! by Dyinobal · · Score: 1

    I didn't vote in 2008 but I would of voted for Obama if only because I was worried McCain would get us into another war either with Iran or some other state. Plus Sarah Palin didn't help.

  12. Just slowing the flow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So they'll finally get around to kicking the stuffings out of large torrent sites. Then, everyone goes to Tor or some other darknet, and piracy will shift back to smaller scale.
    Maybe.
    Meanwhile, Usenet and IRC are still kicking, still the source of major warez, still the breeding ground for trolls, for ever and ever, world without end, amen.

  13. Imaginary Property Warriors by cosm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That is what the US will become. The warriors of intellectual property. If we can't manufacture, create, and export tangible things, then god-dammit we'll charge for any intangible a lawyer can serve papers on.

    --
    'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
    1. Re:Imaginary Property Warriors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is what the world will become, not just the US. Look at the ridicululous b.s. Apple has been able to pull over iPad and iPhone intellectual property, claiming ownership of any thin rectangular tablet device. Europe just passed a copyright extension specifically to give more money to the owners of the Beatles copyrights. And let's not forget that the original draconian copyright regime isn't called "the Berne convention": it's a European creation, rammed down everybodys throat at the insistence of European publishers and media moguls (who basically called the shots back then).

    2. Re:Imaginary Property Warriors by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      Well, when you have a rich population whose most unique valuable facet is their bourgeois capacity to obtain higher education qualifications, and to produce creative works without fear of going bankrupt, then it's a natural step to staunchly defend intellectual property. I mean, if people only value tangible goods and labour, then you're screwed.

      Luckily for them, people do value intangible goods very highly. They often just don't realise it, or care to admit it.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    3. Re:Imaginary Property Warriors by Vegemeister · · Score: 1

      And it's your job to make them realize it, is it?

    4. Re:Imaginary Property Warriors by lennier · · Score: 1

      their bourgeois capacity

      It is burgeoning.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    5. Re:Imaginary Property Warriors by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      And it's your job to make them realize it, is it?

      Nope. I gave up on that a while ago. I decided that popular ignorance spreads way too easily here on slashdot, and trying to stem the tide is simply not worth it. Slashdot will always remain a politically impotent group, so what does it really matter what its members think?

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
  14. Re:Obama 2012! by JWW · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Are you serious??

    Obama has been bombing Libya for months now without invoking the war powers act.

    If Bush had done that the Democrats would have organized marches with millions of participants protesting.

    Those millions just sit at home because it's "their guy" that is doing it this time.

    By the same token many of the Republicans that supported Bush's actions with respect to Iraq are now pissed off at Obama. Sure he's violating the war powers act and they can catch him on a technicality, but you sure as hell know they'd have been fine with Bush if he had violated it.

    Its all about "my team" vs. "your team" anymore. Americans don't stand on principle, they just proudly wear the label for their side that they belong to. And they belong to that side because they've always belonged to it.

    Its sickening.

    And of course both of our political sides happily sell us out to the Movie and Music industry, even though they're small potatoes compared to industries that'll be harmed by these brain dead laws and treaties.

  15. Re:Obama 2012! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I find it really hard to believe that the press would have granted a Democratic President that much leeway to commit such crimes.

    I agree that GP has it all wrong, but I also take issue with this statement. That's exactly what the press is doing right now. By and large, the corporate-controlled media doesn't care. NBC has more of a Democratic slant and Fox is the PR wing of the Republican party, but beyond that, as long as the schmuck in power is bought, sold and paid for like the rest of them, they'll turn a blind eye to things like this.

  16. Re:Obama 2012! by artor3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You should get into the fertilizer business with that amount of bullshit. Bush kidnapped and tortured people on a whim, stole hundred of billions of dollars from the nation in the form of unfunded wars and mandates, and still got reelected. Obama told schoolchildren that they should stay in school, and was excoriated in the media for Soviet brainwashing. He tried to reimburse doctors for helping patients write a living will, and was accused of setting of Nazi Death Panels. The guy can't get away with doing good things.

    Republicans can do whatever the hell they want, because their wing of the media owns the party and would never do anything to hurt them. The liberal wing of the media still takes Democrats to task when they do something wrong (watch Rachel Maddow for a week if you don't believe it), while the conservative media makes shit up to criticize them for whenever they try to do something right.

  17. Re:Obama 2012! by mattventura · · Score: 1

    I disagree. Republicans would generally support this, since it helps corporations and punishes the low to middle classes while benefitting the upper class. Plus, the media benefits from stronger copyright laws.

  18. Re:Obama 2012! by Nursie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If Bush had done that the Democrats would have organized marches with millions of participants protesting.

    If Bush had done that the Democrats would have organized marches with millions of participants protesting."

    Invading Iraq on a WMD/Terrorist pretext is wholly different proposition to providing air support to an in-progress popular rebellion.

    I'm not American, I don't care for Obama particularly, but the Libya actions seem to be attracting praise from people *worldwide*, whereas the Iraq debacle has ruined the reputation of the US the world over. This particular area is not something that you can or should reduce to partisan politics.

  19. Well... We know one thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Australia, Canada, the European Union and its Member States, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland....

    Are all our bitches now.. You'll enforce our IP laws and fucking like it. And we might pretend to enforce your IP laws if it suits us. But i wouldn't bet on it if an american company is involved.

    Mod me down. But it's still 100% true. Watch and see. We're now entering an age of a new unwinnable war.. The war on "piracy"! And it's going to cost us all BILLIONS!. Except hollywood and the music industry. They're the only winners.

    Damm we're retarded. But hey... Not nearly as bad as.. Australia, Canada, the European Union and its Member States, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland....

  20. Two words ... by tqk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Civil disobedience.

    No, I'm not a "pirate" and I don't steal stuff from "Rights Holders" and "Intellectual Property" evangelists. However, I do advocate boycotting them and everything they're selling for pushing draconian "legislation" such as ACTA. This sort of crap is not adding value to the world.

    Nobody *needs* anything they're selling.

    Don't buy it. Don't use it. Find other suppliers. There's plenty of them if you'd only look! Teach 'em how to rot in hell. Don't go there or play their game, and convince your friends not to as well.

    They're slime, they're acting like slime, and you need not put up with actions such as theirs. They're also co-opting your government and legal system against you.

    Just don't buy their !@#$. Watch 'em fade into history as they should.

    --
    "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    1. Re:Two words ... by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Civil disobedience.

      No, I'm not a "pirate" and I don't steal stuff from "Rights Holders" and "Intellectual Property" evangelists. However, I do advocate boycotting them and everything they're selling for pushing draconian "legislation" such as ACTA. This sort of crap is not adding value to the world.

      Nobody *needs* anything they're selling.

      Don't buy it. Don't use it. Find other suppliers. There's plenty of them if you'd only look! Teach 'em how to rot in hell. Don't go there or play their game, and convince your friends not to as well.

      They're slime, they're acting like slime, and you need not put up with actions such as theirs. They're also co-opting your government and legal system against you.

      Just don't buy their !@#$. Watch 'em fade into history as they should.

      Civil disobedience is not boycotting or finding other suppliers.

    2. Re:Two words ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's only a matter of time until they force legislation that forces everyone to "buy" their stuff. Look at poor Canada and the taxes they have to pay on any recordable media. Are those going to go away since there can be no more inherent "piracy"?

    3. Re:Two words ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So does ACTA mandate purchasing what they're selling? If not, how is this proposed boycott "civil disobedience"?

      Or is this some sort of doublespeak, where you really mean "Pirate like a mofo, but don't say I told you to!"?

    4. Re:Two words ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      unfortunately, it's very hard to cut down consumption of said media, further than 0.

    5. Re:Two words ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, it's DDoSing. /sarcasm

      Nobody knows what the fuck civil disobedience is anymore. From the point of view of most sheeple consumerists, not buying something probably is disobedience.

      Look at the "protests" going on in major US cities right now, by "The Other 99%." I've watched on-the-ground footage from the organizers, not the MSM's contortion, and what is really there? Most of it is riff raff who flock to any commotion and bandwagon. A lot of people talking about "love" and "validation." They gave some college kid a few minutes to explain why he was there, and he was off his rocker. I don't say that just to deride him, he was talking and crying like that Britney Spears girl, occasionally diverting long enough to wave around a pill dispenser and talk about how his psychiatrist gave him the pills but he's refusing to take them.

    6. Re:Two words ... by nstlgc · · Score: 1

      It is if your 'other supplier' is the Pirate Bay.

      --
      I'm Rocco. I'm the +5 Funny man.
    7. Re:Two words ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, they don't need anyone to actually buy the wares they peddle. No one's buyin'? See, those pirates are robbin' us! Quick, pass a new tax so that we can feed our starvin' toddlers!

      Want to know something? I never pirated a movie or a CD until the day my government slapped a hefty tax on blank media and computer storage, thus forcing me to pay the local MAFIAA for every snapshot I took, for every backup I performed, basically for everything I produced on my own equipment, on my own time, on my own intellectual work. And even now that I occasionally watch some movie or listen at some song on teh Internetz, I feel they still owe me.

    8. Re:Two words ... by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      No, I'm not a "pirate" and I don't steal stuff from "Rights Holders" and "Intellectual Property" evangelists. However, I do advocate boycotting them and everything they're selling for pushing draconian "legislation" such as ACTA

      That's not civil disobedience, unless they've added a constitutional amendment requiring you to buy a certain amount of stuff from IP holders every year.

    9. Re:Two words ... by Ash+Vince · · Score: 1

      It is if your 'other supplier' is the Pirate Bay.

      Yes, but then that is not "boycotting" is it. It is using it and not paying anything towards the cost of its creation.

      Now the vast majority of the money you have saved by doing this is taken from companies or people I could not give a shit about, but a very minuscule percentage will come from someone like me who just needs to work to get by in life and those minuscule percentages soon add up. It is very easy to say "screw em" to those people too and that they deserve it for signing a contract with Sony or whoever but money can be a very powerful motivator when you don't have it.

      I am not thinking about the REM's of the world here, I am thinking about very small bands like Nucleus Roots. I know you haven't heard of them, but one of my mates was in the band and asked me never to post his CD's to Napster as he needed every CD sale he could get.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    10. Re:Two words ... by Raenex · · Score: 1

      It's easy to say "screw em" to the companies, too, yet they're also providing a service. If they aren't, then there's no need for the artists to sign with them. This knee-jerk reaction of "artist good, corporation bad" is dishonest.

    11. Re:Two words ... by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Now the vast majority of the money you have saved by doing this is taken

      "Taken"? Does money somehow vanish when you copy something?

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    12. Re:Two words ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, for one, am a pirate and will continue to be one until the laws change. I still buy from small bands, small labels and other entities that aren't party to this gigantic big copyright system, though. They're not the problem and I'll gladly give them my money.

    13. Re:Two words ... by randyleepublic · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I don't (hardly) do any of that. If I want to listen to music, I go to a live show. Fuck recorded music. Movies: maybe 2 or 3 a year. TV? Oh god no! My mind is devolving fast enough solely due to the passage of time. If I want to get creative, I write software for private distribution - no worries about patent violations, what? Are *my users* going to turn me in? :) Lately I've been gearing up to start building custom cars. Nobody's going to fuck with you on that either. There's lots of stuff to do that crosses no mafia lines.

      --
      Social Credit would solve everything...
  21. Yours is deeper and browner by SuperKendall · · Score: 0

    You should get into the fertilizer business with that amount of bullshit.

    And then you proceed to bury the pile with double the volume.

    Bush kidnapped and tortured people on a whim

    This policy is continued today under Obama. So perhaps thats more the CIA than the president..

    stole hundred of billions of dollars from the nation in the form of unfunded wars and mandates

    Are banks and automobile companies really so different? Not to mention there is Libya...

    Obama told schoolchildren that they should stay in school, and was excoriated in the media for Soviet brainwashing.

    Methinks you have dropped all context totally there, as well as misunderstanding what "the media" did.

    He tried to reimburse doctors for helping patients write a living will, and was accused of setting of Nazi Death Panels

    The Death Panels part came not from doctors writing wills but from forming, well, panels deciding how much care people would get - or not. And when you don't get the care you need because the panel thinks you are too old and the treatment too expensive... draw your own conclusions.

    Or actually don't, since you seem to be unable to rationally do so otherwise.

    I don't have time to wade any further through your "output" so I'll just leave it at that, and let you have the last response since a liberal that far into the vapors will not see reason no matter how many times you read them the Golden Book on it.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Yours is deeper and browner by artor3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Liar, liar, liar.

      [Torture] is continued today under Obama.

      Lies. Rendition is still occurring, which is bad, but torture is not.

      Are banks and automobile companies really so different? Not to mention there is Libya...

      Banks were bailed out by Bush, liar. The car companies paid back most of their loans, and even if they hadn't, the money would have gone towards employing Americans during a recession instead of sabotaging Medicare with an unfunded prescription drug benefit. And Libya has cost the US about $1 billion dollars, compared to Iraq which has cost over $1 trillion.

      Methinks you have dropped all context [regarding Obama speaking to school children], as well as misunderstanding what "the media" did.

      By all means, liar, explain how Obama talking to school children really was an act of brainwashing.

      The Death Panels part came not from doctors writing wills but from forming, well, panels deciding how much care people would get - or not.

      LIAR! The Death Panels crap started over a section of the bill that would have provided optional will-writing services to people over a certain age, or with life threatening conditions. They then kept the lie going even after that section was dropped from the bill, because imbeciles like you were eating it up so well.

      Honestly, it is mind-boggling the way Republicans throw up a wall of lies when faced with criticism. Do you really believe that repeating your lie enough will make it true?

    2. Re:Yours is deeper and browner by Insightfill · · Score: 1

      LIAR! The Death Panels crap started over a section of the bill that would have provided optional will-writing services to people over a certain age, or with life threatening conditions. They then kept the lie going even after that section was dropped from the bill, because imbeciles like you were eating it up so well.

      Worse than that - the "Death Panel" was originally proposed by Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia - Republican. Something similar had strong Republican support as early as 2003, but the Republican mantra for last few years seems to be to be against anything the Democrats are for, even if it was their idea in the first place.

    3. Re:Yours is deeper and browner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Banks were bailed out by Bush, liar

      You might want to look up who the junior senator from Illinois in the fall of 2008 was, and how said junior senator from Illinois voted on TARP.

    4. Re:Yours is deeper and browner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They then kept the lie going even after that section was dropped from the bill, because imbeciles like you were eating it up so well.

      The word you're looking for is "coprophage".

    5. Re:Yours is deeper and browner by Brannoncyll · · Score: 1

      Honestly, it is mind-boggling the way Republicans throw up a wall of lies when faced with criticism. Do you really believe that repeating your lie enough will make it true?

      Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

    6. Re:Yours is deeper and browner by Lendrick · · Score: 1

      He's just not mincing words. It's time we started calling lies what they are. You're ignoring his facts because they're inconvenient for you and blaming your willful ignorance on the fact that he's calling a liar a liar. If you have a problem with that, prove him wrong. Otherwise, you're just lying about your motivations for not wanting to consider his argument.

  22. Re:Obama 2012! by Skal+Tura · · Score: 1

    So you are saying democrats are better in politics

  23. Re:Obama 2012! by dokc · · Score: 1
    President of the Imperial Galactic Government

    The President is very much a figurehead - he wields no real power whatsoever. He is apparently chosen by the government, but the qualities he is required to display are not those of leadership but those of finely judged outrage. For this reason the President is always a controversial choice, always an infuriating but fascinating character. His job is not to wield power but to draw attention away from it.

    Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

    --
    In love, war and slashdot discussions, everything is allowed.
  24. Representative democracy workin' fine by drnb · · Score: 1

    how's that 'representative democracy' working out for 'ya?

    Its working out extremely well if anti-counterfeiting legislation is near the top of our list of concerns.

    1. Re:Representative democracy workin' fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how's that 'representative democracy' working out for 'ya?

      That's the problem. It's not.

    2. Re:Representative democracy workin' fine by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The problem is, that's only the case for a tiny, insignificant minority of the "represented". In other words, they represent a tiny minority. Which is not really what I'd consider the goal of a representative democracy.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  25. Petition created at Whitehouse.gov by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Obama administration has made it possible to create petitions which, if they get sufficient signatures, will be
    responded to and potentially acted on. I've created one at http://wh.gov/4PW which I encourage all to read and
    sign if they agree with it. We can defeat this!

    1. Re:Petition created at Whitehouse.gov by pearl298 · · Score: 2

      The Obama administration has made it possible to create petitions which, if they get sufficient signatures, will be responded to and potentially acted on. I've created one at http://wh.gov/4PW which I encourage all to read and sign if they agree with it. We can defeat this!

      I am signer number 2! Only 4998 more needed to get an official response! "SLASHDOTTING" might actually count for something at last!

    2. Re:Petition created at Whitehouse.gov by c0lo · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up +Informative, please.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    3. Re:Petition created at Whitehouse.gov by ADRA · · Score: 1

      Too bad you're so far down the page. A whopping 3 responses so far. This is one of the few times I wish posts would flow upward, or cause an editor to make an update to the original post...

      --
      Bye!
    4. Re:Petition created at Whitehouse.gov by andycal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      OMFG what a terrible website experience ... no wonder only 11 signatures at the moment.
      requires sigin to vote.. ok
      pop up form incompatible with android touch kybd. ( click text area , lose kybd focus)
      use slide out kybd
      Sends validation mail.... ok
      It's not a link, I have to copy and paste
      Drops me to 404 page
      Move to laptop, try again
      Still, not a link, but copy paste better on laptop, whitehouse.gov says :Validation already used.
      Please login, requests email and password... ( I didn't ever get prompted for a password )
      request lost password
      New validation link, ( still not hot, copy paste) ... OK validated, but link valid only once, please set password.
      OK, logged in .. but *lost* is the link to the page I was on... where is that petition ?
      back to /. re-click link page comes up, .. but "Sign Petition" is still greyed-out
      click "signin" and my choices are "Sign out" and "Forgot Password"
      Now I will try logout and log back in.. will see if that works

      I get the feeling they don't actually want people to sign these things.

    5. Re:Petition created at Whitehouse.gov by Tomato42 · · Score: 0

      Kingdom for mod points!

    6. Re:Petition created at Whitehouse.gov by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      That's a good idea. I'm tempted to set up the UK equivalent, (it's http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/ if anyone wants to beat me to it).

      Of course the UK version needs 100,000 signatures, rather than 5,000, but it's still possible. I hope Slashdotters from other countries do so on their equivalents, where available.

    7. Re:Petition created at Whitehouse.gov by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      They've done the same thing in the UK, only the time allocated to discuss the content of petitions is shared with others, so no time is actually given to the petitions themselves.

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/09/committee_cannot_debate_epetitions_without_more_time/

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    8. Re:Petition created at Whitehouse.gov by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      We have the same system in the UK .... All petitions with enough signatures get considered... and the ones they don't agree with get considered and rejected

      Brilliant system of voter appeasement

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    9. Re:Petition created at Whitehouse.gov by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Public choice theory shreds any such hope of that. We are tax livestock that only matter in so far as we do not escape the pen, leave, get sick or die, and turn on the rancher. Public opinion matters only when government loses legitimacy. The government has more incentive to ignore unrest until that happens so long as the people lobbying for the legislation are bribing politicians with votes and goodies. We only get concessions when it costs nothing anyhow. Make up some wedge issue that has no actual money pushing the issue one way or another(like gay marriage for example) and then just divide by constituency.

      It is that simple. The application of this study of human action applied to politics reveals that unless there is significant uprising(which is quite relatively expensive compared to the lobbying efforts and compared to the gains and losses of both sides), a few will benefit greatly while the rest will suffer just a bit more. The only time democracy counters this is when for us the costs of fighting it are worth it compared to the costs of suffering it while for the small pressure group the reverse is true and politicians have more incentive to listen to the likewise more incentivized group.

      In short, no such petition would be meaningful. Instead it will be less costly for people to bear yet one more straw.

    10. Re:Petition created at Whitehouse.gov by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Obama administration has created a website where potentially subversive people can just sign up to be placed on a list...

    11. Re:Petition created at Whitehouse.gov by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up.

      ACTA *will* move forward regardless, because it will create revenue streams (via fines, fees, seizures), feed existing bureaucracies, and most importantly...
      appease key campaign donor and media moguls.

      The Republic died a long time back, the Democracy is a mockery of the Constitution, welcome to the new world order.

    12. Re:Petition created at Whitehouse.gov by SeeSp0tRun · · Score: 1

      This x10.
      WTF.

      --
      Something witty.
    13. Re:Petition created at Whitehouse.gov by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not so bad... nearly 60 signers in about 6 hours in the dark of night, despite the
      complaints of andycal just below. I'm pretty pleased... tell your friends to sign, too!

    14. Re:Petition created at Whitehouse.gov by The+Moof · · Score: 1

      Yep, had most of those same issues. Thought it was NoScript, so I allow the scripts, and the entire petition disappears, resulting in a blank content area of the page. Oh, and one of my catpcha words was the Greek letter omega with a subscript of one (easily fixed by requesting a new captcha, but still...)

    15. Re:Petition created at Whitehouse.gov by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone please submit this petition as a Slashdot story... I guarantee you the response will be far, far greater than just posting it in the comments.

    16. Re:Petition created at Whitehouse.gov by Tarsir · · Score: 1

      I'd sign, if I only I were an American citizen =/

    17. Re:Petition created at Whitehouse.gov by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you get a Captcha like that, just type whatever and it'll pass.

    18. Re:Petition created at Whitehouse.gov by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It appears to not work right in firefox, but works in IE... lucky I happen to be at work where I actually have a windoze box...

    19. Re:Petition created at Whitehouse.gov by ChinggisK · · Score: 1

      Submitted. Not sure I like the idea of making /. a "hay sign this petition pls!" place but this seems like a good idea. Also, what the *hell* is up with the submission window? What a huge pain to use.

    20. Re:Petition created at Whitehouse.gov by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      I get the feeling they don't actually want people to sign these things.

      Ha, like they're even ever going to READ them if you did.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    21. Re:Petition created at Whitehouse.gov by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      Not sure why you had such a tough time. I navigated to the site, clicked, "Sign Up," input my name and e-mail, accessed my e-mail on my phone, copy pasted the link from the e-mail to a web browser, clicked the, "Change Password," button that was big and blue like the website told me to, input a password that was easy for me to remember, signed onto the site from my browser on my computer and signed the petition.

      It's all pretty straight forward from what I can tell, no different than any other ,"Sign up with our site using a throw away e-mail because you won't care enough about this website to every login a second time" website that I've ever signed up for.

    22. Re:Petition created at Whitehouse.gov by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

      The Obama administration has made it possible to create petitions which, if they get sufficient signatures, will be responded to and potentially acted on. I've created one at http://wh.gov/4PW which I encourage all to read and sign if they agree with it. We can defeat this!

      So Obama is by-passing the constitution yet again? Only Congress can bind the US to a treaty, not the President. (Though personally, I think Treaties should be required to pass Congress PLUS a Super Majority of the States.) Well, if Congress doesn't pass it, then there we can basically just ignore it.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    23. Re:Petition created at Whitehouse.gov by robinsonne · · Score: 1

      Signed your petition, and as sibling posts have pointed out..absolutely HORRIBLE site, it took 3 tries to actually get logged in once I registered.

    24. Re:Petition created at Whitehouse.gov by andycal · · Score: 1

      I wasn't complaining about the petition in itself, just a crappy website. What really steamed me was getting stuck in this "signed in" and also "not signed in" state. ( felt like a Douglas Adams book) I got it to work, but how many people would have given up sooner. The validation link should have *also* signed the petition. And if they are going to email a https link they should have wrapped it as html so my email client would see it as a link. ( I didn't know until now that my email clients wouldn't see https in the text and make it hot-link. ) I suspect , not enough testing was done.

      and how is it worded, if we get 5000, they will consider responding to it.

      It's a small step, in a big fight.

    25. Re:Petition created at Whitehouse.gov by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      As a citizen of the United States of America I have a duty to defend the principles that this nation once stood for until I no longer draw breath. Lying down and giving up may be how AC's do things in your neck of the woods, but the way I was raised forbids me from giving up on this great land that I call my home as long as I have the health and some shred of resources left to fight for it.

      I can take 10 minutes out of my day to sign a damned online petition. Whether it is futile or not is irrelevant. At least I will go to bed at the end of my life saying I tried. What will you have to show for your apathy? "I told you so?" Yeah, that's something to be proud of.

      We have to do something, if for no other reason than to say that we tried everything else before we resulted to torches, pitchforks, and AK-47's.

    26. Re:Petition created at Whitehouse.gov by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      Spoken like a true American .... up to the AK47 (Avtomat Kalashnikova 47) would that not be an M16?

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    27. Re:Petition created at Whitehouse.gov by randyleepublic · · Score: 1

      Counter-intuitive as fuck, but not as bad as you describe.

      I went to the site. Filled out the register form. Got an email. Pasted the link. Got an "Under Construction" page (complete with quaint photo *rolls eyes*). Went back to the original site and the button was now live. Go figure, but I am no. 242 (and on some fucked up list for sure :eek:)

      --
      Social Credit would solve everything...
    28. Re:Petition created at Whitehouse.gov by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      Ak-47's are cheaper and easier to maintain.

  26. Re:Obama 2012! by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    Obama has been bombing Libya for months now without invoking the war powers act.

    And Pakistan. And Yemen. And Somalia. And who knows where else...

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  27. FOSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    switch to GPL! and your soul will be saved from ACTA

    donna eis requiem

  28. Re:Well... We know one thing. by c0lo · · Score: 1

    Are all our bitches now.. You'll enforce our IP laws and fucking like it. And we might pretend to enforce your IP laws if it suits us. But i wouldn't bet on it if an american company is involved.

    Don't bet for it for the future, though. It's not like the creation of new IP is a monopoly of US... and while US companies will be busy fighting among themselves and the rest of the world (Apple, Oracle, Google, ) the rest of the world won't stop, watch and eat popcorn, "Berne convention" or ACTA be damned.

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  29. And the winner is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    China

  30. hamburgers rock by Chirs · · Score: 0

    One of the best I ever had was a nice juicy ground chuck patty with swiss cheese, then a slab of ham on top then a ring of pineapple, then the usual lettuce/tomato/etc. Messy, but *really* good.

  31. sorry, no lube left, suggestions? by anarcat · · Score: 1

    we're all out.

    i wish this would have worked out and that we would won. but it seems "democracy" is only useful when we need to bomb the hell out of a nation we don't like.

    http://www.stopacta.info/about

    maybe there's still time to reverse that idiocy. suggestions?

    --
    Semantics is the gravity of abstraction
    1. Re:sorry, no lube left, suggestions? by bzipitidoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Let them have their fun. It's not entirely irrelevant, but near enough. For decades, sharing has been villified as piracy. And bans on the activity have proven time and again to be impractical to enforce. ACTA doesn't change any of that. If you aren't already, get used to being thought a criminal. And don't sweat about the possibility of being accused and threatened. The odds of it happening are low. Numbers are on our side.

      We'll just have to wait for the older generations to lose power. They won't admit that sharing is not evil and not theft, not unless they take one hell of a beating over the issue, which they probably won't. Once they're gone, we'll ditch these idiotic laws. Be nice if it happens sooner, through the election of Pirate Party politicians, but it will happen eventually, one way or another, as mortality catches up with them.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    2. Re:sorry, no lube left, suggestions? by newbie_fantod · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid we've been waiting for the older generations to lose power since the beginning of time.

  32. Re:Obama 2012! by Walkingshark · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Iraq debacle? You mean the successful invasion of Iraq for the purpose of deposing the convicted mass murderer and general crackpot Saddam Hussein

    Oh, was that the lie they eventually settled on? I lost track after the fifth time they changed the pretext for Bush and Cheney's Excellent Adventure.

    --
    The world you experience is only a close approximation of reality.
  33. Re:Obama 2012! by Nursie · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    That's the one, the one where various parts of the US government and military scrambled for as many cooked-up reasons as they could grasp in order to justify a military campaign against a country that was no threat, with a rag-tag band of allies who were drawn into it largely under the protest of their people and pretty much present just to make it look like the US wasn't taking unilateral aggressive action.

    The Iraqi people are probably better off now. Probably, after tens or hundreds of thousands of deaths. The number of allied deaths is irrelevant if we were doing this out of the goodness of our hearts, the fact you quote that statistic is very telling of your attitude.

  34. Politicians: you are not representing me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And if you ask why nobody trusts you: those shenanigans are why.

  35. Norway by HopefulIntern · · Score: 1

    Anyone wanna join me in Norway? Wealthy, non-EU state with lots of jobs!

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

      If the EU falls, EFTA might be the next target of massive Lobbying

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

      I agree.

    3. Re:Norway by glwtta · · Score: 1

      Anyone wanna join me in Norway? Wealthy, non-EU state with lots of jobs!

      No thanks. We have this thing here, where we get sunlight (hours of it!) every single day of the year - sounds crazy, but I like it.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    4. Re:Norway by HopefulIntern · · Score: 1

      It's not crazy at all, in fact, it is so common that we all like it. Which is why we live in a part of Norway that has it.

      Derp.

    5. Re:Norway by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      I would love to. I even hear your people receptive to hunting or have I been horribly misled, although I would miss hunting upland birds unless Norway has some that I am unaware of.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    6. Re:Norway by Pope · · Score: 1

      Kill the insane duties on motor vehicles, then we'll talk. :)

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    7. Re:Norway by gilbert644 · · Score: 1

      Norway is a part of EFTA and is required to adopt EU trade regulations.

    8. Re:Norway by HopefulIntern · · Score: 1

      Yes we are a nation of hunters, you should have no problem obtaining a hunting license and weapons permit provided you are knowledgeable about local flora and fauna.

    9. Re:Norway by HopefulIntern · · Score: 1

      Believe me I would love to, and I am doing my part by voting Fremskrittspartiet in the next general election.

    10. Re:Norway by HopefulIntern · · Score: 1

      Correct, though I don't think ACTA touches this. Notice how TFA specifically mentions Switzerland in addition to the EU, but not Norway, nor Iceland.

    11. Re:Norway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought Norway along with the other nations in the region have been restricting immigration? If not, you might want to contact whatever passes for the Norwegian State Department and request that they start running ads and such to pull IT staff out from the West Coast. Streamlining the job search effort directly through the consulate might also be a good idea. It worked pretty well for New Zealand, I have a few friends over there now.

    12. Re:Norway by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      I've been tempted more than once. The only real problem is picking up a 4th language at this point would be a real pain in the ass.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    13. Re:Norway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sure, got a link to immigration laws
      I have been considering leaving the states for years, it has become a truly shitty place to live-- I was born and raised in rural michigan, where wages have steadily fallen for years and prices are higher than most of the rest of the midwest--

    14. Re:Norway by HopefulIntern · · Score: 1

      No real need tbh. Nearly all Norwegians speak english, and in most professional jobs unless you were very customer facing you could easily get by on English.

  36. To the US Government. by crhylove · · Score: 1

    Fuck You.

    Put me in jail.

    I defend the second amendment with cold hard steel.

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
    1. Re:To the US Government. by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      We see your cold hard steel and raise you a sherman tank

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    2. Re:To the US Government. by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      A Sherman? Why bother with that when you can track down his location using his ISP, fly a drone there, and blow it to smithereens with a missile?

      Oh, wait, whoops, our targeting is a little off. Hope this guy's neighbor's next-of-kin doesn't mind too much. (If you think that doesn't happen, read Al Jazeera.)

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    3. Re:To the US Government. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because free sample drones just popped up on NC beaches and someone has had a chance to reverse-engineer the control protocol?

    4. Re:To the US Government. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We see your cold hard steel and raise you a sherman tank"

      Whether it's a Sherman tank or an Ambrams tank, there simply are too many people
      relative to the available weapons.

      The only weapon available to the government is, therefore, fear. And fear only works if
      you play their bullshit game.

      I don't play.

      Come and get me.

      Be ready to die, because I am.

    5. Re:To the US Government. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We see your Sherman tank and raise you poisoned water.

  37. Signed, site half-slashdotted by bradley13 · · Score: 1

    Done. I had to reload the page a couple of times for the "petition tool" to display correctly. Probably the server is overloaded...

    Of course, we are naive to believe that the O'bummer administration (or any administration) will pay attention to opinions that it dislikes. Don't expect this to change anything...

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
  38. Re:Obama 2012! by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 0

    This.

    I mean, if it was actually for the purpose of deposing Hussein, then well done, mission accomplished, but holy fuck that cost a lot of lives and made a lot of enemies for such a petty goal.

    What I thought it was about was WMDs. What most of the US public thought it was about was stopping terrorism -- a majority of Republicans, in particular, don't understand that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are two different people, and that Hussein had less than nothing to do with 9/11.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  39. China, India, Russia, etc? by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

    Missing from the list. Too bad that the west can't get some backbone and go after the biggest counterfeiters and really protect western interests - all our interests and not just the entertainment industry.

    --
    blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    1. Re:China, India, Russia, etc? by MadMonk67 · · Score: 1

      My thoughts exactly. The first country that comes to mind when mentioning counterfeiting is China. Without their involvement (and Russia too - good call), this agreement is meaningless.

  40. This argument is flawed by coder111 · · Score: 1

    Saying "representative democracy only works when people pay attention to government" is like saying "communism only works if people aren't lazy and greedy". Ignorance is just as inherent quality of human beings as greed. Hence democracy/capitalism is also flawed as communism/planned economy/other forms of government.

    Until we design a decision making process that works with selfish lazy greedy ignorant people, we won't get anywhere. I believe it can be done, using ideas like ant colony optimization or error detection or correction. We can make electronics work with a certain percentage of flaws- so why not human systems?

    --Coder

    1. Re:This argument is flawed by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Because it's way harder to replace a human system once the errors add up to the point where the system breaks down. If that happens with my computer, I throw it out and buy a new one. Now try that with a government.

      If that worked, the landfills would be crawling with politicians.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:This argument is flawed by coder111 · · Score: 1

      Replacing a human system with another working on same principles is only a temporary solution. Even if you get honest and smart and unselfish and hardworking people into the government by some miracle, 30 years later they will become or be replaced by greedy bastards working for the benefit of corporations. This system does not reward being unselfish and making decisions that would benefit everyone.

      However, if you can design a decision making system (probably assisted by computers) that makes let's say 100 random people come to "correct" decisions, you're set. Using this type of management in your company you can outcompete other corporations, and incorporating this into government you can outcompete other countries. It will spread on it's own merits, there won't be a need to have a revolution.

      It's hard to define in this context what "correct" is. It's basically a question of how can we aggregate the minds and knowledge of a number of people to come to optimum solution, one that would benefit the entire group. As an example let's assume 100 people have to make a decision on which 7 of these people are competent. Then how do we ensure that the decision is made by the 7 competent people, but in a way that takes the interest of entire group into account, not just 7 decision makers?

      --Coder

    3. Re:This argument is flawed by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah? Do you have a better system?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:This argument is flawed by Raenex · · Score: 1

      I believe it can be done, using ideas like ant colony optimization or error detection or correction. We can make electronics work with a certain percentage of flaws- so why not human systems?

      Because people aren't ants and the problems are more complex.

    5. Re:This argument is flawed by TuringTest · · Score: 1

      That's why we need to create new systems every once in a while, to replace the vested interests of the old one with something adapted to the current situation.

      The greedy bastards will need one whole generation to take over the new system, during which people can live a reasonable life.

      This is how democracy was supposed to work, but now the bastards have taken control over the system-changing process so we need a different mechanism to create the new system. Hopefully the Internet will provide the tools to build it.

      --
      Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
    6. Re:This argument is flawed by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Therefore, one doesn't exist.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    7. Re:This argument is flawed by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Possibly, but unless you or I can think of a better one, it's not really worth talking about, is it? Don't waste your breath.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  41. Let's call it FARTS by coder111 · · Score: 0

    I liked the Cracked article that described our future as FARTS based economy. That is Forced ARTificial Scarcity. Perfectly fitting acronym for it.

    --Coder

  42. Re:Obama 2012! by leenks · · Score: 1

    http://flowingdata.com/2009/11/26/fox-news-makes-the-best-pie-chart-ever/

    I love Fox news. I'm so sad I cannot receive it here in the UK!

  43. One day.. by gallondr00nk · · Score: 1

    Politicians, lobbyists et. al might actually understand what post-scarcity means.

  44. pointless law by enter+to+exit · · Score: 1
    I don't give a flying crap. Any agreement like this is completely unenforceable. I'll just ignore it.

    They'll never change anyone's behavior. The genie is out of the bottle, people have no qualms about sharing things.

    All they're doing is challenging devs to create better p2p mechanisms.

    1. Re:pointless law by queazocotal · · Score: 1

      This is why HDCP was dead-in-the-water, and most video links to monitors are not encrypted.

  45. Re:Obama 2012! by jonwil · · Score: 1

    Anyone who thinks the other guy wouldn't have signed this is living in fantasy-land.
    I doubt there was a single person in the last election cycle with a realistic chance of becoming president who wouldn't have signed this. And I doubt any of the serious people in the current election cycle are any better.

  46. Wait a second... did we get a chance to see this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did we get ANY public consultation at all about this? Did we see a legitimate draft of the text, versus unintentionally leaked versions?

    I mean, what the hell???

  47. no by unity100 · · Score: 1

    and you get out too. dont poison that predominantly social democrat country with high standards of humanity and living with your shitty, destructive american right wing capitalist mindset.

    1. Re:no by HopefulIntern · · Score: 1

      lol I'm Norwegian, but thanks for the concern.

    2. Re:no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That means you have to stay out too, as you've just demonstrated that you are violently opposed to the notion of political freedom in any possible form.

  48. Evil Evil Fucking Evil by PingXao · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised Google isn't at the forefront of this odious pice of drek.

  49. Then they don't get the work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since its value to the artist is still as high as before, absent a tiny trickle.

    Now, when your only product is the selling of someone else's work, what happens when nobody will let you sell their work?

    That's right: you are unemployed.

  50. Re:Obama 2012! by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    At first I thought you were delusional. but no, you're just trolling.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  51. UH, GUYS? by Internetuser1248 · · Score: 2

    This conversation is about ACTA. I know your petty partisanship seems mighty important to you, but the reality is it is not relevant to the wider picture at all. I believe there are numerous partisan argument forums on the web, please retire to one of those and let this thread be about something that actually matters at all.

    1. Re:UH, GUYS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      THIS!

      Partisan arguments are exactly what government wants. We're so busy arguing amongst ourselves we end up forgetting to do anything about what they're doing.

      The two party system has more to do with keeping the public in an "us vs them" mindset so we don't take any real action than it does with anything else.

      Arguing Republican vs Democrat means we won't stop them from taking away our freedoms. It's been working.

  52. Re:Obama 2012! by mcvos · · Score: 2

    You can't blame this one just on the US. The EU was also involved, but unfortunately, the EU isn't really all that democratic. The Europarliament may have objected to ACTA on various occasions, the negotiators continued anyway.

    I hope this still requires parliamentary ratification. No idea whether it'll be the national or EU parliament, but I hope they take a very critical look at it. I think it'd be a very constructive signal if they rejected ACTA. I hope that'll prevent these kind of secret, uninformed negotiations in the future.

  53. Re:Obama 2012! by jimbolauski · · Score: 1

    If you look at campaign donations those evil banks gave more to democrats then republicans, the evil healthcare industry too. Republicans want to make it easier to be successful by eliminating many of the government barriers, these barriers do two things, they give the impression that the rich are be burdened with high taxes when in actuality they are not because they all ready accumulated wealth which will not be taxed and they keep too many people from becoming rich and diluting the amount of wealth the rich have.

    --
    Knowledge = Power
    P= W/t
    t=Money
    Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
  54. Re:Obama 2012! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    So cholera was replaced with pest.

    Did anyone expect anything else? C'mon, be honest...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  55. Re:Obama 2012! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Really?

    I don't see Fox News, which is traditionally not really a big backer of Obama, go apeshit about this ACTA signing. You think it would have been the other way 'round if a Rep was in charge?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  56. Re:Obama 2012! by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    Actually it was about preventing future acts of terrorism. Saddam never took sides accept his own. But that's not to say he wouldn't have had supported one group over another if he personally had something to gain from it. Let's not forget what kind of man he was. Legally, it was about WMDs spearheaded with a testimony given by Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi. AKA "Curveball". So not only were the facts BS, but many UN members were already knee shit in corruption (Oil for Food for example). These members had a benefit to keeping that dictator in power to act as their proxy agent and pimp. As for the Iraqi's themselves? No one ever cared for their well being. Not before, and certainly not after. Those clamoring for support only do so to get back at Bush.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  57. Re:Obama 2012! by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

    Possibly because a Treaty "signing" is pretty much meaningless under US law.

    We signed Kyoto remember?

    Until the Senate ratifies it, Obama's signature means nothing at all. (and in the case of Kyoto, after Bill had Al sign it, Bill didn't even bother to present it to the Senate for ratification, knowing it wouldn't be ratified).

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  58. Re:Yeah, so...lets have e-government by kubitus · · Score: 1
    and outfit our representatives with high bandwidth channels into Congress, Senate or any other Parliament worldwide.

    There they will be represented by a life size screen and a 100 W speaker.

    And all without leaving home-town and electoral district!

  59. Re:Yeah, so...lets have e-government by roman_mir · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Exactly. There should be no reason for these guys all to fly to Washington DC, all to assemble in one room.

    Get them onto the Internet, connect them into a virtual room, have this thing broadcast over youtube.

    NO MORE PRIVATE BS CONVERSATIONS.

    Record everything they do. Anything that's not recorded must be illegal for them. Force them to live in places that they are supposed to represent.

    Have a huge ass LCD screen in every city of the State, constantly showing what the elected officials are doing.

    They better get used to this, because that's what they want to perpetrate on every one of YOU.

  60. Re:Obama 2012! by JWW · · Score: 1

    Yes, where politics is defined as getting people in the media to trumpet your cause and agree with everything you say.

    And most definitely Bill Clinton was far better at politics than either Obama or Bush. Although this is partly because he realized that "his team" wouldn't come after him for things like welfare reform and that by giving the republicans much of what they were asking for with said reform, he could neutralize complaints from their base. Although being thwarted with respect to debating Clinton on policy, the Republicans decided that fussing about his personal life was necessary.....

  61. ACTA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The everyone continues to get American jobs except Americans bill.

  62. ACTA is part of the new world order by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · · Score: 1

    So now you know the countries that are part of this. Consist of less than half of the world population. Hardly what the people wants.

  63. Re:Obama 2012! by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    That's because people 'worldwide' (*and it's not actually true*), don't understand what is really happening in Libya and what this is going to lead to.

    You get all these 'articles' in so called 'news' papers with some 'rebel' sitting in front of a large 20-30 mm automatic cannon or aiming a large gun, or whatever, and it's clearly staged.

    What is really happening on the ground is much different than what the papers are telling you. There are troops there, on the ground, from all over. The reason for the fighting are the oil wells, and JP Morgan (and GS with them, just not with their name out) are trying hard to set the grounds for their financial take over the place. They have sent on of their mercenaries - Tony Blair there. He was there meeting with Kadaffi in case the 'rebels' lose, at the same time the gov't hired mercs are there, fighting the so called 'rebellion'.

    There was NO KILLING of CIVILIANS in Libya prior to this invasion. This entire thing is staged in order to set a different gov't regime there to get easier access to oil ONE way or ANOTHER, whether Kadaffi wins or loses, JP Morgan and GS will be making money on contracts.

    At the same time USA finds one more distraction from the economic situation at home. This is not at all the same as what happened in Iraq but it's also not at all the same to what happened in Egypt.

    Also now they are reporting 20,000 ground-air missiles have been stolen from military bases there, and the people who can access those things now will have capability to take down civilian jet liners.

    This is going to get worse and worse, and those people who you believe are 'cheering worldwide' may all of a sudden find themselves on the short side of this trade, being killed while taking an airplane going to a vacation.

  64. Re:Obama 2012! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Possibly because a Treaty "signing" is pretty much meaningless under US law.

    We signed Kyoto remember?

    Until the Senate ratifies it, Obama's signature means nothing at all. (and in the case of Kyoto, after Bill had Al sign it, Bill didn't even bother to present it to the Senate for ratification, knowing it wouldn't be ratified).

    Possibly because a Treaty "signing" is pretty much meaningless under US law.

    We signed Kyoto remember?

    Until the Senate ratifies it, Obama's signature means nothing at all. (and in the case of Kyoto, after Bill had Al sign it, Bill didn't even bother to present it to the Senate for ratification, knowing it wouldn't be ratified).

    Dems, Republican, Tea Party bla bla you really think it matters. NO! The mega corps run the country and elect the people they want. Just look no further then Gore vrs Bush. Gore won the people vote but Bush won the corp vote. (I voted for Bush) who was in office? look in the last 100 years, classes are still the same the country is in about the same spot no better no worse as long as we are buying crap... Both parties have been in power a number of times. Any great reform or country changing polices NO! oooh hey give us few here and there just to make us feel good but in the end they take away our rights and give more power to themself and the big Corps. I am not sure how to fix it or if there is a "fix". I think we will need a total global collapse of some sort before we can rebuild it the right way.

    Just may two cents.

    Jeff C

  65. Re:Obama 2012! by hedwards · · Score: 1

    Really, since when is torturing people by order of a head of state not considered to be a crime against humanity? And seriously, considering the fact that he's owned up to ordering the torture, it takes some pretty substantial delusion to believe that he isn't a war criminal that needs to be brought to the Hague for trial.

  66. Re:Obama 2012! by andydread · · Score: 2

    Iraq debacle? You mean the successful invasion of Iraq for the purpose of deposing the convicted mass murderer and general crackpot Saddam Hussein,

    You probably should turn of Fox News Channel. The President and his administration did not sell the war to the American people "For the purpose of deposing Saddam Hussein."

    after receiving proper authorization in the US gov't, international approval in the UN, and including a large multinational force?

    Cheney through Bush LIED to the world claiming weapons of mass destruction. "There are stockpiles we know where they are" "Mobile chemical factories" "Niger aluminum tubes" etc etc the list goes on and on. All a bunch of lies.

    You mean the debacle that has resulted in less than 4800 allied deaths in 8 years?

    That is the number being diseminated by Fox News. But if you get your head out of Fox News nether regions you will see the more accurate figures here

    The debacle where the Iraqi people are no longer under the thumb of the fascist Ba'ath party and out of the revolutions happening in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Syria, etc... has the best bet for a fair and reasonable government?

    But I guess none of that counts since Bush did it.

    Do you have any proof that the Iraq war triggered the Arab spring? You have no clue what fascism is. The ba'ath party is an autocratic regime. I don't know how corporations play a part in propping up that regime. The Syrian people are still under the thumb of the Ba'ath party how many American lives should we sacrifice to free Syria from the Ba'ath party there? How about you be the first American to invade Syria? And what about the regime in Iran, Sudan, Zimbabwe, North Korea, Myanmar, Saudi Arabia, Eritrea, Turkmenistan and others. How much should we tax the American people to depose these murderous dictators? How much American lives should be sacrificed?

  67. Re:Obama 2012! by hedwards · · Score: 1

    Firstly the war powers act doesn't apply to this situation, that's not just the current Presidents view that's been the view going back to at least Clinton. Secondly, tens of thousands of people died in the ethnic cleansing that follow President Bush's incompetent and ill advised conquest of Iraq where he didn't send enough personnel in to prevent it from happening.

    And it might be sickening, but it doesn't make the crimes committed at Abu Ghraib, GITMO and numerous black sites any less crimes against humanity.

  68. Re:Obama 2012! by hedwards · · Score: 1

    And what about the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis that died when the US government wasn't able to prevent the ethnic cleansing that occurred when Saddam was deposed? Or would you rather ignore that problem?

  69. Re:Symptoms? by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

    "Sign this petition" is greyed out for me, IE 7 or FireFox 6. It says to sign in, but at the bottom is says Welcome {me} and I can't sign in - only sign out. Is this what everyone else is seeing?

  70. Thanks, Democrats. by EvilStein · · Score: 1

    So much for the "transparency in government" that the Obama Administration had promised us. ACTA is nothing more than a Hollywood Democrat backed hand-out to 'copyright holders' and corporate media.

    One of the bigger reasons I didn't vote for Obama was because of Joe Biden and his absolutely terrible track record when it comes to tech privacy and kissing ass to Hollywood. Same with Clinton and Feinstein. They have been bending over backwards to their Hollywood MPAA/RIAA financial donors for many years now. Wikileaks exposed this as well, but it's something most of us have seen for years.
    It's back to six of one, half dozen of the other when we vote these days.

    1. Re:Thanks, Democrats. by Shagg · · Score: 1

      They have been bending over backwards to their Hollywood MPAA/RIAA financial donors for many years now.

      You think the Republicans don't?

      --
      Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
  71. Re:Obama 2012! by Nursie · · Score: 1

    Put down the meth pipe, go get some sleep. The world will look a little less conspiratorial in the morning.

  72. Re:Obama 2012! by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    It's just 6PM here, too early to go to sleep and too late for the pipe.

  73. Re:Obama 2012! by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    Your claim that the media turned their eyes away? Ludicrous. GW Bush endured 8 years of relentless media attack on EVERY subject and area of interest. Unending, continuous, and intense condemnation.

    Whether or not he deserved it. To claim the media missed any opportunity to condemn, ridicule, or excoriate him is to deny the obvious.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  74. We need this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need this. There are credible movements to legalize pot. Without contraband, how will gangsters put food on their family?

  75. Grocery store by tepples · · Score: 1

    Want to boycott the major record labels and their affiliated music publishers? Good luck walking into a grocery store without hearing major-label music.

    1. Re:Grocery store by fotbr · · Score: 1

      You know, I don't remember ever being in a grocery store that played music of any kind, major label or not. I know we never did at the store I worked at.

      Now, it's not uncommon to hear someone with their truck's radio on listening to a baseball game at the local farmer's market, but that's not really the same as music.

  76. Federal preemption in copyright by tepples · · Score: 1

    I wanted to vote for Ron Paul, but he was mathematically eliminated from the 2008 presidential race before the primary even got to Indiana. But even if he had won, a states' rights platform wouldn't make a difference in this case: the Constitution gives Congress the exclusive right to grant patents and copyrights.

    1. Re:Federal preemption in copyright by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Ron Paul would still be of help here.

      This is what Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, empowers the United States Congress to do:

      To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

      This has to do with US copyright law and US patent law (both of these need to be abolished and written out of the Constitution, just like 18th amendment was and 16th needs to be).

      But Ron Paul would be of help, because ACTA is not about US laws within USA. This is about Congress pressuring other countries - using its status as a military empire, to pressure other countries to sign onto a treaty that would put those countries into a disadvantaged position. Of-course the real outcome of this will be less trade between USA and those countries, while within those countries there would be more corruption due to this (and likely within USA as well.)

      This is not about trading, this is about US military empire power forcing its own agenda upon other sovereign nations, now brought to you by the main US sponsors: People's Republic of China, Japan, Germany (and the Fed.)

  77. surely by unity100 · · Score: 1

    i am opposed to political freedom as such. there should be no freedom to perpetuate ideologies that end freedoms.

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

      there should be no freedom to perpetuate ideologies that end freedoms.

      That IS an ideology that ends freedoms. You are advocating a ban on free speech, and should therefore be considered a criminal by your own reasoning.

    2. Re:surely by unity100 · · Score: 1

      it is an exception in a state which can be maintained. your version cannot. it eventually ends freedoms. this, just ends freedom to end freedom.

    3. Re:surely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true, and you know it. "Freedom to end freedoms" inevitably comes to mean "freedom to disagree with me". You already mean it that way yourself, just as the "right-wing capitalists" you pretend to oppose but actually seek to emulate.

      Any attempt to ban an idea is an admission that you cannot refute it; you admit that you'd rather violate free speech than face the possibility of having to engage in it properly.

      The only possible antidote to "bad" speech is "good" speech. Censorship is championed exclusively by would-be tyrants. No exceptions can ever exist.

  78. actually by unity100 · · Score: 1

    if you had the mindset i talked about, it would mean you were more american than norwegian.

    1. Re:actually by HopefulIntern · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but you did not give that option in your comment, simply telling me to get out of my own country. You also simply assumed this was my mindset, from two short sentences... I believe, sir, that you can fuck off, and you are not welcome here.

    2. Re:actually by unity100 · · Score: 1

      you tell me to fuck off, yet you have invited hordes of americans who would totally screw your country in the way america is screwed. contradiction.

    3. Re:actually by HopefulIntern · · Score: 1

      I very much doubt that any contributor to slashdot is a biblethumping, gun-toting redneck. This is still "news for nerds" is it not? Try to be a little more open-minded, and you will have a much better life.

    4. Re:actually by unity100 · · Score: 1

      I very much doubt that any contributor to slashdot is a biblethumping, gun-toting redneck

      this shows that your view of threat to any kind of egalitarian, prosperous, social society is just too shallow and short sighted. precisely fitting of a norwegian who has lived in a relatively harmonious and socially conscious society.

      'biblethumping, gun toting rednecks' are just the bottom layer of what the philosophy and self-centricism in america produces. and, they are not the ones doing the production either - the very 'educated' people with their philosophy of furthering of self-interest at the cost of social conscience, and as a result, other people, are the ones producing the environment to breed those people.

      the culture of 'me me me, my my my, mine mine mine', supported by the belief that 'everything will SOMEhow work out' even if you are totally socially irresponsible, is what produced today's america.

      inviting the people who produced this environment with their mindset, would just be the invitation for the same environment in your own country.

    5. Re:actually by HopefulIntern · · Score: 1

      For correctness' sake, I lived most of my life in the anglosphere (US and UK) not Norway. And do not think for a minute that the norwegian mindset isnt equally egotistical and self-centered. Yes, we are more socially conscious; we do not litter, or waste resources. We do, however, strive to be rich and famous. We are just as materialistic. The reason our society works is a combination of a socialist democracy and an ultimately wealthy state, combined with a very low population. I often invite professional, middle-class westerners to come work in Norway, because the job market is good, but being filled up with immigrant labour from non-western countries, in large numbers, which causes culture clashing and a whole heap of social problems (we never had "gang warfare" until 2nd-generation immigrants took to the streets. And it's not like they live in ghettos and have a hard life)

    6. Re:actually by unity100 · · Score: 1

      The reason our society works is a combination of a socialist democracy and an ultimately wealthy state, combined with a very low population

      this.

      this means, you are not just materialistic or self centered as much as the ones in america. if you were, your society would just like be america.

      I often invite professional, middle-class westerners to come work in Norway

      beats immigrants from middle east, but still, professional middle class westerners will carry over their societal mindset to norway - including self centricism of america. which would be ultimately far worse in the end.

      you should stop accepting immigrants from middle east.

  79. Ron Paul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ron Paul is becoming a crazy old man. He's _mostly_ still there, but he's losing it. My concern is that he's so principled that he won't bother to think things through and instead rely on the philosophies he's spent decades building (read: like a crutch). If you don't think things through, you misapply stuff, make mistakes, and destroy lives.

    Most of what he stands for is good, but I think he's past his expiration date.

  80. What is the problem? by chrismcb · · Score: 1

    I don't understand the problem. IANAL but looking at the treaty it doesn't allow the US to do anything more than can be done today.

    For Example:

    in accordance with its laws and regulations, its competent authorities with the authority to order an online service provider to disclose expeditiously to a right holder information sufficient to identify a subscriber whose account was allegedly used for infringement

    Maybe I'm missing something, but this doesn't give any more permission to do anything.

  81. Start thinking by coder111 · · Score: 1

    Well maybe should start thinking of a better one then. A lot of systems have been tried, but never before in history of humankind we had capability to do automated information processing and cheap communication. Hence some systems that were unfeasible in the past can be implemented using todays technology, and maybe new ones can emerge.

    Yes, I know I have no specific solutions. However we should realize democracy+capitalism DOESN'T work as advertized, and I doubt it ever will with corporations and mass media and education being the way they are. We should start the effort to design something better. It won't be easy though...

    --Coder

    1. Re:Start thinking by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty happy with government the way it is in the US. As long as they don't bother me too much, I'll continue doing things I care about more.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Start thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you care about other things more than the issue, why did you even bother to post, pointing out the issue (and respond to the subsequent replies you got over the issue)?

  82. well excuse me. by unity100 · · Score: 1

    you are living in a world where freedom of enslaving is banned. not only that, but the proliferation of that idea is also banned. yet, you are talking about freedoms.

    with your proposition people who would want to enslave people or preach that are being ripped off their freedoms. its censorship.

    1. Re:well excuse me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a vast difference between "You cannot enslave people" and "You cannot say that you should be able to enslave people".

      The former protects people against actual infringements of their rights, and is right and proper. The latter "protects" people only against having to think. You, for example, are too stupid and morally bankrupt to be able even to mount an effective argument against slavery. And you know it. It is for that reason and no other that you advocate a ban on an idea; you don't want to be reminded of your own incompetence by having to engage in honest debate.

      You value the feeling of being an advocate of freedom more than you value freedom itself. This is proven by the fact that you want to destroy freedom through censorship. You fantasize about persecuting those who disagree with you. You're doing it right now.

    2. Re:well excuse me. by unity100 · · Score: 1

      there is no difference in between the two. one is preventing that liberty, the others is preventing the preparation of grounds for that liberty being exercised. if you do not prevent the proliferation and preaching of that idea, sufficient number of people can be persuaded into it to practice it. there is no difference in between preventing either.

      your stance is just 'you can talk about it, but not do it'. there is nothing more free in it at all. regardless of how much you talk about something, if you cant do it, it is not a liberty. and those who talk about it, WILL want to exercise it at a point in future.

    3. Re:well excuse me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course they'll want to. That doesn't mean you have to let them do it. This does not require the censorship and thought-crime that you want.

      You knew that already, of course. You're just trying to justify your desire to be a tyrant. You hate freedom, and rage impotently at the fact that it exists anywhere. You only pretend to advocate it because you hope that doing to will put you in a position to destroy it later. Just like your fellow right-wingers.

  83. no. by unity100 · · Score: 1

    it just means that you people in the west dont know shit yet. you think if you let people talk and preach, but ban practice of what they preach, 'freedoms' will work out.

    it doesnt work out. the parties wanting to end freedoms increasingly gain supporters, and start demanding an end to the freedoms you though everyone was going to have for eternity. the simplest of these examples from europe are the proceeds of islamist groups in europe, and from america, the fact that the right-wing sources have now started to give speeches and statements evaluating to 'slavery was not bad' on governorial level in midwest states of america.

    it was no different with fascism in italy, or nazism in germany. once let out of the bottle, the movements that want to end freedoms do not stay in 'talking' level.

    and im no right wing. just, you are naive.

    1. Re:no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      once let out of the bottle, the movements that want to end freedoms do not stay in 'talking' level.

      When that happens, the movements that want to protect freedoms should not stay in "talking" level either. It goes both ways.

      Those Islamic groups and pro-slavery people? Nobody's stopping you from forming an opposition to them. Gather your own movement. They step it up? You step it up too

      If they really want to end freedoms, nothing's going to stop them from trying. Outlaw action? They'll do it through speech. Outlaw open speech? They'll just spread their message "underground". The saying goes: if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them.

      So it's a futile attempt at best, and as GP said hypocrisy at worst. So this AC believe letting them speak out in the open makes it easier to catch them attempting to rise up

    2. Re:no. by unity100 · · Score: 1

      When that happens, the movements that want to protect freedoms should not stay in "talking" level either. It goes both ways. Those Islamic groups and pro-slavery people? Nobody's stopping you from forming an opposition to them. Gather your own movement. They step it up? You step it up too ...........

      yes. and this is why i am telling that you dont know shit about these and naive to the level of 'dangerous'.

      fundamentalism is never at the same level with pro-liberty ideas when it comes to activity. so you think that those fundamentalist parties will just ramp up their activities like innocent, freedom-loving ideologies ? they are so stupid as to foresee that at one point in time, they will meet prevention of their practices ?

      fundamentalist sources prepare for effecting their aims at any cost right from the start. this is why by the time you notice that fundamentalist groups are challenging liberties, you dont have the power to prevent anything from happening. actually you lose the power to even protect your own liberty at that point in time.

      the perfect examples for this is the activities of nazi party and fascist parties in recent history, and fundamental islamism in contemporary times. in iranian 'islamic revolution', pro-liberty groups did not have any means to counter them by the time they became a threat.

      even in europe now, all islamist groups proceed with the awareness of that eventual confrontation. did you know that, in quran schools which are slightly more radical than mainstream, children are also taught martial arts, for some reason ? you didnt. because it happens behind closed doors of these schools which have tall walls and barbed wire over those walls.

      no. the naive western perspective about freedoms just 'being', and people mounting a revolution when those freedoms are threatened, unfortunately doesnt work. as the europeans are currently finding out with islamists totally blanketing out various districts in major german cities and calling for establishment of sharia law for them. i can tell you from experience that when their numbers pass a certain threshold, they also demand sharia law for everyone, and they are ready to do anything to suppress you if you oppose them.

    3. Re:no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're actually agreeing with me (I'm the AC from the GP, but not the ones before), and contradicting yourself, and you conveniently didn't quote the very part that I pointed it out:

      "If they really want to end freedoms, nothing's going to stop them from trying. Outlaw action? They'll do it through speech. Outlaw open speech? They'll just spread their message "underground". The saying goes: if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them."

      ***I'm*** (again, not the same AC) the one saying they'll always be one step ahead, so it's POINTLESS for you to suggest to restrict what they can say, as they'll say it anyway, the only different being whether they do it in the open or behind the same closed doors they use now to teach their kids martial arts.

      And I'm not saying freedom is just "being". I'm saying the best way to defend freedom is to not try so hard to "restrict" people (in speech or in action), because those restrictions impede the pro-freedom folks more than those who would seek to destroy it

    4. Re:no. by unity100 · · Score: 1

      the thing you are not getting is, the more freedom you allow for this kind of thing, bigger headstart you will give.

      yes, if you ban guns only outlaws will have it. but the guns they will have will be much more weaker than what they would have without ban, due to the difficulty of obtaining and acquiring guns. see united states and see how criminals are able to sport heavy weapons. see countries which banned guns, and how criminals are at the level of 9mms, shotguns and at most uzis.

  84. Is does not always pay to be in the forefront by Immigration.to.Canad · · Score: 1

    China does not seem to be very concerned with this "problem" and, oh well, they just manufacture more stuff than anybody else and their economy is booming.

  85. Interstate Commerce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interstate Commerce - this is a CLEAR example of where the feds belong; even the constitution itself goes into "IP" law. What you should argue is that some extensions are unconstitutional because they CHANGE the constitution without an amendment.