US Research Open Access In Peril

luceth writes "Several years ago, the U.S. National Institutes of Health instituted a policy whereby publications whose research was supported by federal funds were to be made freely accessible a year after publication. The rationale was that the public paid for the research in the first place. This policy is now threatened by legislation introduced by, you guessed it, a Congresswoman who is the largest recipient of campaign contributions from the scientific publishing industry. The full text of the bill, H.R. 3699, is available online."

Comments

US Research Open Access only in Perl

[JonySuede]

I read that as: US Research Open Access only in Perl

Re:US Research Open Access only in Perl

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoosh stupid mod, perl and write only are almost always synonymous....

Re:US Research Open Access only in Perl

[jd]

The usual grant applications would be more readable in Perl, so maybe that wouldn't be a bad thing.

Re:US Research Open Access only in Perl

[gmhowell]

I read that as: US Research Open Access only in Perl

Oh, great, so while everyone can access it, nobody will be able to read and understand what they're looking at.

Re:US Research Open Access only in Perl

[sg_oneill]

Oh, great, so while everyone can access it, nobody will be able to read and understand what they're looking at.

Well its certainly one way of making sure your indispensable to the lab.

"What do you mean boss that none of the new chemistry grads can do reg-ex's? I think its time I got a payrise!"

dufus decisions

[k6mfw]

Any of you get the feeling that anything coming out of Washington DC these days causes problems? While many bitch that Obama is a socialist/marxist (even though nobody in this country can describe what these are) it seems these people are hell bent on creating a Soviet Russia of sorts. I say this because I heard it difficulties USSR scientists had because of restrictions on reading publications and getting published. This has gots to rank as my Bitch Of The Month.

Re:dufus decisions

[TechForensics]

FUCK ALL THESE GREEDY BASTARDS. Everywhere you turn there is anticonsumerism. It's just an extension of the copyright wars. What can we withhold for money? If "information wants to be free", what is taking so long? Why don't we squash power grabs when we see them happening? Why don't we have the clout to do it or the will to try?

Sickening.

Re:dufus decisions

[c0lo]

FUCK ALL THESE GREEDY BASTARDS.

Sorry mate, I'm not that kinky.

-

-

(what the hell? /. replies with "Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.". So that I need to post something else to dilute the caps)

Re:dufus decisions

[hey!]

Well, Elsevier is a Dutch company, and the Netherlands has a GINI quotient of 0.650 against the USA's 0.801. Which reminds me of what my old Bolshie Uncle Ivan used to say. He said, "Kid, nobody believes in socialism. Nobody believes in capitalism either. It's socialism for *me*, capitalism for *you*."

Anyhow, to be fair, Rep. Maloney was only helping out a constituent [1].

-----
1: constituent: n. A person, firm or other entity which pays for or hires the services of an elected official.

Re:dufus decisions

[gatkinso]

Greed is what inspired the US to be great.

Moderating that greed is what actually makes us great.

We need greed, as sad as that is.

Re:dufus decisions

[causality]

While many bitch that Obama is a socialist/marxist (even though nobody in this country can describe what these are) it seems these people are hell bent on creating a Soviet Russia of sorts.

Rather than trying to comprehensively define subjective and inherently nebulous terms, I prefer to keep it simple. Obama is a statist.

Unlike myself or the Founding Fathers, he does not view government as a necessary evil that's only a little better than having no government, nor does he view it as a deserving object of mistrust. He doesn't want legitimate matters of governance to be handled by the smallest and most local level of government that is able to manage them. He likes centralization for its own sake and accepts the regimentation that comes with it. He subscribes to the belief that people should be commanded and controlled rather than reasoned with, that they should not only tolerate this but also welcome it.

He may claim to be a Christian, a few may believe he is actually a Muslim, but his true religion is Statism. A lust for power is part of this religion, but only part. It's not quite that simple. It also involves a genuinely-held belief that people are unable to manage their own affairs, that they need and should desire for their "betters" to decide what is good for them and what should be important to them, that only the collective matters, that individual life and individual thought and individual liberty are meaningless. It's a form of dehumanization in favor of institutionalization.

If you understand what this really is, then you see why baser things like greed or desire for power are naive oversimplifications. Believe it or not, these people are not stupid. They know their policies cause more problems than they solve. They are not merely ignorant or misguided. People like Obama and most of Congress believe they are working towards some kind of greater good, that the damage they knowingly do to society will somehow be worth it when their utopia (really a dystopia) is finalized. The label "Marxist" is a feeble attempt to describe this quality.

Other than a few rare exceptions, this does not merely describe Obama. It also describes nearly anyone capable of acquiring the funding and the political backing it takes to win a federal election. It's sort of like an elite club and anyone who would seriously change things or otherwise rock the boat isn't invited. During the history of this nation, what we have changed from the statesman to the politician to the career politician to the ruling class with an extremely high incumbency rate. Average Joes don't stand a chance of winning a federal election. Candidates don't emerge; they are groomed.

Like they said on Monty Python's Life of Brian, "blessed are those with a vested interest in the status quo."

Re:dufus decisions

[Grygus]

I might agree with that. The problem would then be that we've dropped the moderation.

Re:dufus decisions

[Guy Harris]

Unlike myself or the Founding Fathers, he does not view government as a necessary evil that's only a little better than having no government,

And, of course, unlike that most-definitely-not-a-Founding-Father-no-way Alexander Hamilton, who made that most-definitely-not-Founding-Fatherish statement that

In countries where there is great private wealth, much may be effected by the voluntary contributions of patriotic individuals; but in a community situated like that of the United States, the public purse must supply the deficiency of private resource. In what can it be so useful, as in prompting and improving the efforts of industry?

Re:dufus decisions

[Sponge Bath]

You've asserted an interesting collection of terrible motives to the president with no supporting evidence. But, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and now we know yours.

Re:dufus decisions

[f97tosc]

Other than a few rare exceptions, this does not merely describe Obama. It also describes nearly anyone capable of acquiring the funding and the political backing it takes to win a federal election.

What I find so strange is that so many people make this very argument, yet they still go out and vote for the same standard statist candidate. For example probably most tea partiers will vote for the republican nominee and most in the occupy movement will vote for Obama (even though he is the biggest recepient of Wall Street money and all his economic people are closely tied to Wall Street). If one really believes that the mainstream candidates are the same, then one realizes that it is much better to "waste" one's vote on an independent/smaller candidate. And if enough people do this then there will be real change.

Re:dufus decisions

[AK Marc]

When liberal predictions are true more often than the conservative predictions, then that means that the person observing the truth is liberal? Apparently this means Schroedinger's cat was a man and Schroedinger was the cat.

Re:dufus decisions

[artor3]

Rather than trying to comprehensively define subjective and inherently nebulous terms, I prefer to keep it simple. The parent poster, Causality, is a child rapist.

Blah blah blah, baseless statements about his beliefs, blah blah, eloquent but unsupported assertions about his goals, yadda yadda, claim that anyone who really knows what's what would realize this, blah blah, end with with a Monty Python quote for bonus karma.

Why don't you just repost that article from a while back that asserted, with the same lack of supporting evidence, that Obama is following the mentality of a Kenyan tribesman?

Or, if you'd prefer to actually add to the discussion, come up with something, anything to support the assertion that Obama is knowingly causing harm with the end goal of a state-run utopia. His opposition to single payer health care, among many, many other things, seems to fly in the face of this.

Re:dufus decisions

[Psion]

Well said. I wish I had mod points. I'm left with applauding your post and leaving my own little tag so I'll stumble across yours again and have the pleasure of re-reading it every few years.

Re:dufus decisions

[ILongForDarkness]

What do the Founding Fathers have to do with it? Is the country supposed to remain exactly the same even if a large part of the population no longer agrees with a 55 guys that have been dead for nearly 200 years and chief complaint was the accessibility of horse and buggy parking in front of the local dry goods store?

Times change. Before telecommunications/airplanes breaking things down to the lowest level made sense on an efficiency grounds: a large amount of resources had to be spent to move things around/get decisions from the central government to Nevada by buggy. That isn't the problem anymore. I'm not saying central govenment is always efficient but it can be. Some things make sense on a country wide basis: education standards, labor law, criminal law etc. People have a fundamental right to these services/consistency of expectations of what they can and can't do and they shouldn't be different from one area to another because the local county voted on spending the money on a new water fountain in front of town hall or the mayor happens to be religion X and is opposed to evolution on personal grounds so says that the vast majority of scientists opinions shouldn't be heard in science class.

Re:dufus decisions

[AK Marc]

The GP asserted that confirmation bias determines who the observer is. Thus, someone looking for a cat, alive or dead, must be a cat. Otherwise, it's all just confirmation bias.

Re:dufus decisions

[Curunir_wolf]

While many bitch that Obama is a socialist/marxist (even though nobody in this country can describe what these are)

Marxism is an economic system where all means of production become common property (owned and controlled by the state), and private profit is disallowed. Socialism (according to Marx) is a transitional phase between capitalism and Marxism.

The current US economic system is more closely related to fascism, and has been for decades, accelerated under the current and previous administrations. That's an extremely unpopular label, but Musollini-style fascism - with close ties between the government and corporations, with each interdependent on the other - is the most accurate description of the current system. Typically euphemisms such as "public/private partnerships" or "privatizing" are used instead, but it's the same principle.

Re:dufus decisions

[Curunir_wolf]

Hey - guess what? Alexander Hamilton lived in the US at a time when OTHER COUNTRIES had great private wealth. Today, the US is a country with great private wealth.

Re:dufus decisions

[artor3]

I have lots of proof that pi is actually equal to three. I just don't have time to show you.

Re:dufus decisions

[Curunir_wolf]

Is the country supposed to remain exactly the same even if a large part of the population no longer agrees with a 55 guys that have been dead for nearly 200 years and chief complaint was the accessibility of horse and buggy parking in front of the local dry goods store?

What is this kind of asinine hyperbole supposed to signify? Oh, that we're backwards because our Constitution is outdated and doesn't recognize your right to health care, filet mignot, and a new smart phone every year? Since you seem to have forgotten what the grievances were that prompted people to go to war to oust their leaders from power, I'll remind you:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.-- Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of thes

Re:dufus decisions

[ILongForDarkness]

Sorry a lot of that is irrelevant/already solved by technology. The vast majority of this is griping about no representation non-elected rulers. Essentially marshal law of a people with no say in how the country is governed etc. Last time I checked the US doesn't have a monarch (though only having two parties with any chance of power is pretty damn close IMHO). ex. judges "dependent on his Will alone" nope you don't have that. At least except for the supreme court (and than only the members unfortunate to drop dead during the presidents term). People aren't transported "overseas" (substitute "vast distances" here I guess) for made up offenses (except of course non-americans but they don't count right?). I think people are pretty damned pampered if they compare now to the problems of "ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns" and "undistinguished destruction of all ages".

I don't agree with the NDAA either but (admittedly wikipedia) "the NDAA text affirms the President's authority to detain, via the Armed Forces, any person "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012 . This is just putting into writing the "authority" that the president already had, and I might add was used by Bush for ~7 years prior to Obama. I don't think Obama could close Gitmo/stop these things because the republicans wouldn't let him. So he was pretty much left with:

a) continuing to do something that isn't explicitly written down as something he can do, or
b) get the legislature to make explicit those powers (and cover his ass).

  Regardless I don't see how small government helps. You'd still end up with the same thing except at a smaller government scale Alabama might be arresting people for "driving while black" under their Governors authority, Arizona would be using cattle prods on illegal immigrants, etc. A ridiculous law/power isn't ridiculous because it comes from a centralized authority, is is ridiculous by its own right. A small level of break down of things that are common does lead to a large amount of inconsistencies/inefficiencies. It doesn't make sense to decide on a state by state basis whether or not birth control will be taught in PE class or not, or whether or not money will go to abortion clinics, or ... These are common issues. We aren't talking about growing crops for example, where people in NY city might not care about it as long as it ends up on their plate at a reasonable price, these are things of value, common interest that should be decided once and managed consistently so that opportunities and obligations to society are consistent for all Americans/Mexicans/Whateverians (not US centric since I'd rather not just focus on the US system as the small versus large government issue is common).

Re:dufus decisions

[Guy Harris]

Hey - guess what? Alexander Hamilton lived in the US at a time when OTHER COUNTRIES had great private wealth. Today, the US is a country with great private wealth.

And how exactly is that relevant to a response to a posting questioning whether all the Founding Fathers, who, err, umm, "lived in the US at a time when OTHER COUNTRIES had great private wealth", were fans of minimal government?

Re:dufus decisions

[Ramin_HAL9001]

He may claim to be a Christian, a few may believe he is actually a Muslim, but his true religion is Statism. A lust for power is part of this religion, but only part. It's not quite that simple. It also involves a genuinely-held belief that people are unable to manage their own affairs, that they need and should desire for their "betters" to decide what is good for them and what should be important to them, that only the collective matters, that individual life and individual thought and individual liberty are meaningless. It's a form of dehumanization in favor of institutionalization.

OK, now you are just parroting Rush Limbaugh, and every other right-wing conspiracy theorist out there. You apparently know the president really fucking well, don't you? Seriously, that's the best criticism you can offer us? You don't realize Obama has given your right-wing congress everything they have ever wanted and more? You don't realize he is as right wing as you are? Jesus fucking christ, you are a demagogue -- your religion may be American conservativism, but that doesn't mean everyone in America thinks of their politics as a religion the way you do, and that is probably true of the president as well.

If you understand what this really is, then you see why baser things like greed or desire for power are naive oversimplifications. Believe it or not, these people are not stupid. They know their policies cause more problems than they solve. They are not merely ignorant or misguided. People like Obama and most of Congress believe they are working towards some kind of greater good, that the damage they knowingly do to society will somehow be worth it when their utopia (really a dystopia) is finalized. The label "Marxist" is a feeble attempt to describe this quality.

I can sympathize with this point, but really, it is just another conspiracy theory. It's just stupid to think Obama is just some fascist emperor who is doing everything he can to attain power. That's just what Limbaugh and his ilk want you to believe. As if all of our problems are so fucking simple that it boils down to evil guys being in power, and that's the root of the probelm. That's bullshit and you ought to know better.

Other than a few rare exceptions, this does not merely describe Obama. It also describes nearly anyone capable of acquiring the funding and the political backing it takes to win a federal election. It's sort of like an elite club and anyone who would seriously change things or otherwise rock the boat isn't invited. During the history of this nation, what we have changed from the statesman to the politician to the career politician to the ruling class with an extremely high incumbency rate. Average Joes don't stand a chance of winning a federal election. Candidates don't emerge; they are groomed.

I agree with this 100%, but do you even agree with youreslf and what you are saying here? Would you apply this same logic to all the right-wing elitists you have ever voted for? Don't be naive, seriously, you have described here not just the majority of all democrats, but every Replublican candidate you have ever voted for. Why don't you vote for someone else for a change, like Ron Paul. Believe it or not, even the progressive Liberals are fighting on the right side of issues that you care about, just give them a chance. I really think you and I are not so terribly different, but I do think you are totally deluded. Stop listening to the right-wing propaganda machine and think for yourself.

Re:dufus decisions

[Ramin_HAL9001]

Any of you get the feeling that anything coming out of Washington DC these days causes problems? While many bitch that Obama is a socialist/marxist (even though nobody in this country can describe what these are) it seems these people are hell bent on creating a Soviet Russia of sorts. I say this because I heard it difficulties USSR scientists had because of restrictions on reading publications and getting published. This has gots to rank as my Bitch Of The Month.

This is the best comment on Slashdot I have seen in a month.

Why is it our "free market" with no regulations and low low taxes seems to look almost identical to the USSR? Oh yeah, because the right wing status quo is more anarchist than libertarian. No taxes, no government, no democracy, just let the whole country evolve naturally -- except that it seems to be evolving into the most socialist/fascist society in history. The only difference is, in the US when a bunch of wealthy elite socialists get together to create a "collective", they call it a "corporation" and pretend to compete with other "corporations" to give the illusion that we live in a free market economy.

Re:dufus decisions

[Curunir_wolf]

Did you even read the quote you posted? Alexander Hamilton was advocating the use of the "public purse" to support the "efforts of industry", claiming it's necessary in the US where it's not in other countries with great private wealth. Since the US now has that wealth, his argument is no longer relevant.

Besides, Hamilton stood virtually alone among the founding fathers as a statist. He didn't trust the people to rule themselves, and advocated a strong "nanny state" government as powerful as King George's.

Re:dufus decisions

[Ihmhi]

Oh come on now, it's not like we have gulags where we make people disappe-

Oh.

Re:dufus decisions

[Curunir_wolf]

The vast majority of this is griping about no representation non-elected rulers.

Haven't you been paying attention? That's the argument today about our government, too: that the representatives are swayed by moneyed interests and are not responsive to the electorate.

It doesn't make sense to decide on a state by state basis whether or not birth control will be taught in PE class or not, or whether or not money will go to abortion clinics, or ... These are common issues.

Wrong. People are not all alike, and it's unfair for 535 people to dictation personal issues to 360 million people. Communities should government themselves, first, without interference. Common issues are only those things that everyone can agree upon, and those are all enumerated in the Constitution of the US and the states.

We aren't talking about growing crops for example, where people in NY city might not care about it as long as it ends up on their plate at a reasonable price, these are things of value, common interest that should be decided once and managed consistently so that opportunities and obligations to society are consistent for all Americans/Mexicans/Whateverians

Central planning failure. When NYC decides how everything will run, they won't be getting any food on their plates because the bureaucrats that don't live in rural farmland don't know jack shit about life in rural farmlands, and eventually nobody will be growing crops anymore, or the only thing grown will be corporation GMO crops laden down with poisons so badly that nobody can survive long eating it.

Re:dufus decisions

[gottabeme]

Where did you get that definition? I found these:

a person who authorizes another to act in his or her behalf, as a voter in a district represented by an elected official.

a resident of a constituency, esp one entitled to vote

"that appoints or elects a representative to a body" (1714), and as a noun, "one who appoints or elects a representative."

A Representative should not allow a corporation to authorize her to act on its behalf. She is elected by voters in her district.

Re:dufus decisions

[ILongForDarkness]

It doesn't make sense to decide on a state by state basis whether or not birth control will be taught in PE class or not, or whether or not money will go to abortion clinics, or ... These are common issues.

Wrong. People are not all alike, and it's unfair for 535 people to dictation personal issues to 360 million people. Communities should government themselves, first, without interference. Common issues are only those things that everyone can agree upon, and those are all enumerated in the Constitution of the US and the states.

True people aren't alike but I'd argue that you probably can't find a single point in the constitution that everyone would agree with. Example right to bare arms, anti-racism amendments, women vote etc. Probably (hopefully) a majority of people agree these are good things but I suspect the number of people that disagree with them are in the millions.

Breaking things down to smaller size government doesn't help. Having a town of 50 people decide on a personal issue doesn't make it right, it just makes it passable because there is a small enough group of people that the chances of something that the majority of people wouldn't agree to can be represented by the local majority. In my experience the smaller the group making the decision the less likely the policies are to be moderate. Put ten people in a room to decide what food will be served on Fridays at the cafeteria and if you have a few taco lovers you'll have tacos every Friday. Doesn't mean it is fair to the people that didn't want that, or that it is even what the taco lovers themselves would want but it is what is settled for because it is an easy agreement to make. You can end up with minority groups that are extremely deprived of tolerable living conditions because of a small number of very vocal people that make up the majority (or at least the majority of people that care enough to vote on the issue). Small legislative groups make for the high probability of concentrations of truly odd communes of people living under laws that are far from what the constitution/bill of rights/normal "God given" rights of a person are. Laws become because of a chance concentration of likeminded individuals not a truly "government by the people" rooting out of what a "reasonable individual" would expect from a government.

Lastly: personal choice - a lot of the issues I mentioned earlier are personal choices that are being infringed. People usually don't care about their right to have an abortion for example, the ones that are upset with R v Wade are that ones that want to force their personal beliefs on everyone else, regardless of what they believe. Similarly with no evolution in classroom rules (which I might add is protecting yourself from the possibility of your children believing something different than you by keeping them ignorant of anything different than what you believe), "dry" counties, anti-gay marriage laws, bans on gays in the military, abstinence only sex ed etc. It isn't protecting people's beliefs it is protecting them from people that might believe/act differently than they like often by promoting ignorance in children so they won't try believing/doing anything contrary to their parents' beliefs. This is not a right that I think should be protect from a central government ban. You have a right to believe and act as you wish as long as it doesn't interfere with others rights to believe and act as they wish.

Re:dufus decisions

[Deus.1.01]

Oh god, where to begin.
Firstly, Marxism by itself is strictly a theoretical school, Marx used it to conclude things was fucked and to devise a solution which was the communist manifsto(the ideology).
The main point of communism was the absolution of the state, when workers could organize the manufacturing and distribution of goods without one group/actors gaining leverage over the other(the point of the classless society).

Amiable goal but the means to reach it the way Marxism foresaw was just plain wrong.

Same thing with Mussolinis pet economical theories, Italy never had what mussolini intended, what were suppose to be a bunch of autonomus syndicates with worker and business cooperation with the state as mediator turned into the backers from finance and industry community saying, "fuck that shit go smash some commies and bust up the unions".
Fascism's traits have never been defined by their economic theories, when they began as early movements they marked it as a third-way but was quickly abandoned once people supported them to fight the communists, having their own theories of social justice was a liability they got rid of.

Its just plain stupid to define fascism by focusing on a single quote from Mussolini, while ignoring the Irredentism and Nationalist identity and norms everyone had to comply to.

They were not liberal free markets, nor socialist planned economies, they were just a variation of mixed economies.

Which we have ALLWAYS had.

Re:dufus decisions

[Guy Harris]

Did you even read the quote you posted? Alexander Hamilton was advocating the use of the "public purse" to support the "efforts of industry", claiming it's necessary in the US where it's not in other countries with great private wealth. Since the US now has that wealth, his argument is no longer relevant.

I guess I should have made my point clearer. The point was that treating "the Founding Fathers" as a unified entity usable as a club to beat statists over the head only works if you ignore some of the founding fathers. The point wasn't whether his argument was valid then or is valid now, the point is that it was made in the first place.

Besides, Hamilton stood virtually alone among the founding fathers as a statist. He didn't trust the people to rule themselves, and advocated a strong "nanny state" government as powerful as King George's.

Which explains why John Adams vetoed the Sedition Act and Alexander Hamilton supported it. Oh, wait....

And as for trusting the people to rule themselves, why did not the Constitution require universal suffrage for both Federal and State elections? Perhaps some people weren't even trusted to vote for their representatives....

Re:dufus decisions

[repapetilto]

So are you saying we should amend the constitution if we don't like the second amendment, or want the Federal government to tell the states what to do with regards to abortion, education, etc? Or should we just ignore the constitution and do whatever "makes sense"? I am genuinely confused as to what your position is.

Re:dufus decisions

[St.Creed]

I think the definition came out of Ambrose Bierce's dictionary :)

(nope, I checked, it's not there. But it would fit in nicely - http://www.thedevilsdictionary.com/)

Re:dufus decisions

[YeeHaW_Jelte]

For those one the verge of looking up GINI quotient:

"The Gini coefficient measures the inequality among values of a frequency distribution (for example levels of income). A Gini coefficient of zero expresses perfect equality where all values are the same (for example, where everyone has an exactly equal income). A Gini coefficient of one (100 on the percentile scale) expresses maximal inequality among values (for example where only one person has all the income).[3]"

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient

Anyway, seems Reed/Elsevier (it's dutch/british if I remember correctly) adopted the American way of doing business. I rather imagine this would be called bribery in the Netherlands and the UK and would be illegal. At least I hope it is ...

Seems we're even better adapters

Re:dufus decisions

[Bill Dog]

People like Obama and most of Congress believe they are working towards some kind of greater good, that the damage they knowingly do to society will somehow be worth it when their utopia (really a dystopia) is finalized. The label "Marxist" is a feeble attempt to describe this quality.

I would call that "Progressive". Statism to me implies nothing beyond believing in centralized planning and control. But the desire to constantly be socially and economically re-engineering the society and humanity towards a more perfect order is Progressivism.

Then the direction in which it's manifested is another axis. Neocons utilize the national security issue. Leftists pursue the concepts of social and economic justice. So given Obama's strong redistributionist bent, it can be said that he's very much (at least for the U.S.) a Marxist, and then given that this almost always coincides with statism, makes it a sufficient descriptor.

Average Joes don't stand a chance of winning a federal election. Candidates don't emerge; they are groomed.

Average Joes possess the power to reject the candidates that both major parties groom. Just don't vote for any candidate that either of the establishments anoint. If for example a Green party candidate and a Constitution party candidate each got 45% of the vote and the Dem and Rep candidates each got 5%, the two larger parties would wake up in a fucking hurry.

Re:dufus decisions

[fudmer]

Americans have big time restrictions on reading publications today. Most Americans and small businesses cannot afford the gate prices to see the articles written by the scientists and contributors in the different fields of research. Gating has hidden from view and made practicably unaccessible articles that only a few years ago were important parts of research This is true even when the research is funded by government or an exempted by their public purpose from tax organization. The copyright communist are a work. Comparing the available information scientific and technical on the net of today to 1999 clearly shows how trapped the information needed to contribute is in the corporate lions dens. I

Re:dufus decisions

[jduhls]

I know I'm not the first to say: "capitalism killed communism, and now it's killing democracy."

Re:dufus decisions

[Curunir_wolf]

You were originally arguing to have those things dictated from Washington, and now you're saying they should not be dictated at all (which I agree with, BTW), so I don't know what your argument is, here, unless you've simply decided that the most powerful government should be deciding things by fiat for everyone because it's too hard to get people to agree.

My point was that government's role should be to first protect individual liberties and property rights, as the US Constitutions (and state Constitutions) already attempt to do. Everything else should worked out at the smallest level of government. Communities work out community rules, local governments resolve conflicts between communities, state governments conflicts between local counties, the Federal government should have no role except when conflicts arise between the states. Smaller government is always better because it is the most responsive to the people.

Re:dufus decisions

[ILongForDarkness]

I'm saying that the constitution isn't a God-given document that everyone was designed to believe every point in it and that every point in it is inherently "right". For example the constitution says nothing about education (and hence leaves the matter to the states) but I think we'd agree that elementary education is a thing that all states should be required to provide it is IMHO a fundamental right of people to receive sufficient education to be productive and be able to (at least in theory) reason about issues which democracy requires everyone to think about. It is also a fundamental responsibility, again IMHO, for a state to provide for these things because it is hard to promote trade, defense etc with an uneducated community. So if it is a fundamental right and responsibility at the state level why shouldn't it be standardized at the next larger level of government? My argument is that things should only be passed down to a lower level of government if there isn't a fundamental individual right (or responsibility of the higher government) across all the members of the smaller governments that make up the bigger government. Reinventing the curriculum for history state by state makes no sense. You might want to leave room for state-specific history in the curriculum but chances are everyone would want their students to learn about their countries founding, government organization, major wars etc. On the flip side of rights restricted: states shouldn't be able to restrict peoples personal choice. Having one state have legalized gay marriage, another not, one you can't drink, etc leads to situations where individual rights, and hence freedoms, vary from state to state.

Sure people are free to move to somewhere else if the want to but you shouldn't have to move to enjoy personal freedom's/freedom from someone else's moral beliefs.

Re:dufus decisions

[ILongForDarkness]

We the People, you know people from Ohio that have these rules, and people from NY with these rules, and people from BF Idaho that believe everything from Idaho except ... Once you accept something as the rights of all individuals managing them like there different state to state, or county to county only protects the right of small groups of nut jobs to run their area like it is part of a different country. It isn't a power grab, it is a collective right being outlined and protected at the largest level where it is still the shared belief of the majority.

Oh and by the way I've never had power and I've never wore a clown suit but thanks for the vote and the fashion advice.

Re:dufus decisions

[bondsbw]

Nobody really believes that the candidates are all the exact same. Most believe there is a lesser of two evils.

We need a new voting system. I need to be able to specify more than one candidate, in case my primary choice fails.

Re:dufus decisions

[ILongForDarkness]

Governments are elected to govern. If the majority of the electorate has voted them in on the platform that they were going to do X than it isn't governing by fiat. I'm opposed to restricting personal freedoms at any level, I'm not opposed to government enforcing/managing access to those freedoms in the most uniform way as possible. Does government screw up. Sure. For example I don't think radical legislation should happen in the years between elections. If that means things take too long than have more elections or have referendums. But as far as government doing what they said they would (at least as much as they can after the compromises to the other party) isn't dictatorship it is the will of the people.

I just don't see how it is fair that one kid learns about evolution and God, another learns about evolution, another just God etc based on where they live. One employee gets health care affordably and another doesn't based on what their state decided was the right thing to do. These to me are fundamental rights to a) remove ignorance and b) have fair access to public programs (doesn't matter which side of the public private healthcare spectrum you fall just having different rights based on your state doesn't make sense to me).

I don't feel threatened by differing ideas and I see it as my duty as a parent to teach my kids alternative ideas help make them good people sure, but let them make informed decisions about their beliefs when they are able to. Restricting access to information to make informed decisions either via an outright ban, or buy failing to fund it (a la "no government money can be used for X" even though X is a valid medical alternative or a program voted into legislation already) is to me one of the greatest evils since it promotes specific beliefs in others not by argument of reason but by lack of reasoning or removes governments power to do what the elected government deemed the will of the people.

Re:dufus decisions

[Hatta]

All of the candidates are exactly the same on any issue that really matters. They may dangle some shiny differences in front of you to distract you from the fact, but that's all it is, misdirection. They want you to focus on the .5% of issues where they differ, and not the 99.5% of issues where they are identical.

Take, for example, the biggest difference between the two parties during this presidency. That is on health care. If you look at it objectively, it's obvious that both the Democrats and the Republicans had the same goal. Maximizing profits for corporations, if perhaps a slightly different set of corporations. Nobody who thinks that corporate profits should not be our first priority ever gets a seat at the table.

Re:dufus decisions

[Curunir_wolf]

Governments are elected to govern. If the majority of the electorate has voted them in on the platform that they were going to do X than it isn't governing by fiat.

That's the way it's supposed to work, but it's not the way it's currently working at the federal level, and it doesn't sound like what you were advocating at all.

I'm opposed to restricting personal freedoms at any level, I'm not opposed to government enforcing/managing access to those freedoms in the most uniform way as possible.

What does that even mean? If I have to beg some bureaucrat for "access" to my freedom - that's not freedom at all.

But as far as government doing what they said they would (at least as much as they can after the compromises to the other party) isn't dictatorship it is the will of the people.

That's a pretty specious claim. The bank bailout was opposed by an overwhelming majority of the people, but it passed anyway. Ethanol mandates and subsidies are now completely without support but still happening. SOPA is opposed by 96% to 4%, but getting pushed through. I could go on and on with these things. Practically nobody outside DC wants indefinite detention of US citizens by the military, but there it is.

I just don't see how it is fair that one kid learns about evolution and God, another learns about evolution, another just God etc based on where they live.

That's the parent's decision, not yours, not the government's. The issue here is that education has become mostly a monopoly protected by government and paid for by forceable confiscation of private money.

These to me are fundamental rights to a) remove ignorance b) have fair access to public programs

Those aren't rights - they are goods and services. "Public services" are is a complete misnomer. There is no equal access to public services and there never will be.

You seem to have fallen for this flawed idea that resources come from the government. They don't. Government takes resource from the people to fund itself. How those funds are spent will always be contentious. But if they continue spending more than they are able to take in, borrowing against the work of future taxpayers, eventually they will run out of resource, the economy will collapse, and the government will fall.

Re:dufus decisions

[ILongForDarkness]

Governments are elected to govern. If the majority of the electorate has voted them in on the platform that they were going to do X than it isn't governing by fiat.

That's the way it's supposed to work, but it's not the way it's currently working at the federal level, and it doesn't sound like what you were advocating at all.

Agreed on the not how it is working part. Not sure what you mean by that isn't what I'm advocating.

I'm opposed to restricting personal freedoms at any level, I'm not opposed to government enforcing/managing access to those freedoms in the most uniform way as possible.

What does that even mean? If I have to beg some bureaucrat for "access" to my freedom - that's not freedom at all.

Some rights require resources. Ex. education, health care, military defense, fair courts etc. Those people/programs need to be funded and managed, my argument is that as far as the need is uniform than the program should be funded/managed in the most consistent manner. Separating funding from legislation goes horribly wrong. You end up with a party voting for a law to look like they are doing something good to help people and than not funding it (but not voting to repeal the law either because that would make them look mean), or a lower government not funding something that a higher government says they must do as away to usurp power down to the smaller government that they don't have (but want).

But as far as government doing what they said they would (at least as much as they can after the compromises to the other party) isn't dictatorship it is the will of the people.

That's a pretty specious claim. The bank bailout was opposed by an overwhelming majority of the people, but it passed anyway. Ethanol mandates and subsidies are now completely without support but still happening. SOPA is opposed by 96% to 4%, but getting pushed through. I could go on and on with these things. Practically nobody outside DC wants indefinite detention of US citizens by the military, but there it is.

Agreed. Perhaps you missed my part about platform they got elected on/referendums etc. Radical changes in legislation should be voted on, either directly by referendum or indirectly by waiting till another election and being part of the platform. Not sure about ethanol, but SOPA, Gitmo, bailout etc were all intraterm huge policy choices that were unpopular. SOPA could have waited till an election, gitmo probably had to happen quickly since the people the US wanted to hang on to were getting captured and would have had to at least be held until a decision was made (say 6 months). Bailout: another thing that was urgent not sure if a small amount of aid to allow for time for a vote would have been sufficient. Markets might not have responded and the money might just have been thrown away. But than again maybe not. That is a really tough one I think in that once it is done its done and there really wasn't much time to decide.

I just don't see how it is fair that one kid learns about evolution and God, another learns about evolution, another just God etc based on where they live.

That's the parent's decision, not yours, not the government's. The issue here is that education has become mostly a monopoly protected by government and paid for by forceable confiscation of private money.

Why is ignorance a parents decision? Doesn't the kid have a right to learn and choice for themselves when the time comes? Regardless nothing is stopping parents from teaching their kids what they want at home. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan said "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.". Parents shouldn't be able to dictate what their kids learn in science/history class etc because there are pretty clear things that science has shown over the last hundred years. You can disagree with them, you can teach your kid

Re:dufus decisions

[repapetilto]

So...

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

That sounds to me that any power not clearly delineated in the constitution is left up to the states or the people (anyone but the feds). If the situation has changed, an amendment should be made to change the constitution to be more in line with reality.

Anything other way of adapting the constitution and you can just start justifying anything under the it (the same way people interpret their holy book of choice to mean anything they want). That means there is no rule of law, and the powerful will start taking away your rights.

Does this sound reasonable?

Re:dufus decisions

[repapetilto]

Sorry, this got mangled:

Anything other way of adapting the constitution and you can just start justifying anything under the it (the same way people interpret their holy book of choice to mean anything they want). That means there is no rule of law, and the powerful will start taking away your rights.

Any other way of adapting the constitution and you can just start justifying anything under it (the same way people interpret their holy book of choice to mean anything they want). That means there is no rule of law, and the powerful will start taking away your rights.

Re:dufus decisions

[Curunir_wolf]

I agree that the money comes from the people but what is the alternative? Does the rich guy get a patriot missile system and the poor guy has to hope no bombs come to his house?

Yep, exactly. And if it does come, then the government's job is to put the rich guy away in the dungeon for a really long time, probably for life.

Do only people who can afford it kids deserve and education or every kid?

That's what we're doing now. There is certainly a benefit to the well-being of the entire country that people are educated, so I can support public funding for education, as long as the community can bear the cost. What's happening right now is that the wealthy get decent education for their kids, while the poor are trapped into government-run schools that mostly do babysitting, with a good dose of government indoctrination, lots of experimentation with social engineering, and dumbing down of anything not required to create compliant wage slaves. Public money is spent to ensure the poor are unable to have alternatives to these failing, government-run schools, and that bad teachers are treated no different than the few good ones still left. Competition for education dollars would help the situation, but the system is designed to fight even modest proposals like allowing tax deductions for private donations to scholarship funds.

How about running water?

Running water isn't free, and never has been. Plumbers don't do much volunteer work, and if you don't pay your water bill the city will cut off your water. Communities that want some common services to deal with their local resources can agree to pool their money to create them, but I fail to see how this is anything but a local issue. The Federal government has no business getting involved in the control of state and local resources, no matter what. Even controlling pollution falls into this category, because states and local communities have a greater vested interest in maintaining clean water than the federal government. If California had dealt with the Snail Darter issue in the SF Bay waters instead of the EPA, then they would not have allowed Monsanto and DuPont to point the finger at irrigation pumps instead of the pollution that their own products were causing, and the EPA wouldn't have been able to cut off water to San Joaquin and put 70,000 farmers out of work and turn a bunch of rich farmland into a new desert.

You can't spend more than you take in I agree but that doesn't mean that sometimes things are more efficiently handled centrally either because of their nature (running water for example requires infrastructure to be built out that few individuals can afford themselves), or necessity for standardization (education, traffic laws etc).

These should still be community standards, not Federal standards. The traffic around DC is the worst in the country. I can't imagine any community wanting to emulate that.

Re:dufus decisions

[DarkOx]

So if it is a fundamental right and responsibility at the state level why shouldn't it be standardized at the next larger level of government?

Maybe it should it be! You know what though the Constitution has this thing called an amendment process. If you want remove power from the states or people the right way to do it, is with an amendment. The *wrong* way to do is by re-imaging what the wording of the existing powers to be mean something that any honest person knows was never intended.

If you not going to fall the prescription of law you might just as well not have any laws. There are words when a few at the top hold power and just get to do whatever they want, its called Tyranny or Oligarchy and that is what this nation as become.

When the TSA show up at a bus station, and as I am getting off (not on mind you) and subject me to a search without any probably cause, my 4th amendment rights are being violated. When Obama makes recess appointments while congress is not in recess, the Senate's right to "consent" is being violated. We have no laws.

Re:dufus decisions

[MRe_nl]

And I read your post right after looking up GINI quotient...
Go figure, such a small world!
Anyhow, it seems hey!'s quoted GINI figures for the USA and NL are off ( should be .46 & .32 resp. )

Re:dufus decisions

[budgenator]

The real means of production isn't the capital equipment in the factories, it's the workers.

Re:dufus decisions

[causality]

guess I should have made my point clearer. The point was that treating "the Founding Fathers" as a unified entity usable as a club to beat statists over the head only works if you ignore some of the founding fathers. The point wasn't whether his argument was valid then or is valid now, the point is that it was made in the first place.

So you've never heard of this notion called preponderence of evidence? The presence of a single dissenter does not cancel out the common belief of the group. In fact, that this group had among them a dissenter who was able to articulate the opposite position and still failed to convince the rest of them of the merits of his position reinforces the point I was making.

In summary, I never claimed they were all of a single mind with no exceptions and no dissenters. See where I never said "ALL of them felt that way?" Perhaps you are more careless with your words but there was an intentional reason why I didn't say that (which of course you couldn't be bothered to consider). It gets old providing remedial reading comprehension instruction to knee-jerkers like you.

What you are doing is like observing that the Senate passed a bill by a 98 to 2 vote and then claiming that somehow it's wrong for me to say "the Senate passed that bill" merely because 2 of them dissented. It's useless.

You should not need me to clear this up for you, but I'll do it anyway. Here's the concept: just because you have an emotional reaction to something, even a strong one, even when you really REALLY don't like that thing, this does not mean you have a legitimate factual complaint against it. If you want to make one of those, you have to earn it by telling me precisely where my reasoning is flawed. If you can do that, you'll have my genuine gratitude for setting me straight and helping me to shed a false idea, even if you're a dick about it. But what you're dong here? That's just childish.

Re:dufus decisions

[causality]

Rather than trying to comprehensively define subjective and inherently nebulous terms, I prefer to keep it simple. The parent poster, Causality, is a child rapist.

So false, tasteless extremes that potentially open you up to a libel suit is the only way you know how to make a point? Of course you followed the typical form of using my own words in order to mock me. I know your type very well. Despite no collaberation you all seem to operate from the same playbook. In a way you're clones because you have no real self-hood, only what you think is your own life. I guess I'm supposed to be all upset and emotional so you can feel like you got one over on me. No, I just see what you're doing, the method you chose, what it says about who you are, and how pathetic that actually is. It's okay though, really. The world is full of people like you and they actually do have a function: nothing human beings such as yourself are the manure in which I grow.

Man, I feel like a saint next to you. Do you know that no matter how much I disagreed with someone or despised their methods, never once have I felt a temptation to stoop so low? It's like shock value is all you can do so you try turning the dial to 11. What a sorry substitute for reasoning -- especially when you imply that your intention is to correct someone who is in error.

Or, if you'd prefer to actually add to the discussion, come up with something, anything to support the assertion that Obama is knowingly causing harm with the end goal of a state-run utopia.

I'll make this real simple, though honestly this post ends my discussion with you as I just lost all respect I may have had for you. Anyway, real simple now: Obama knows that our national debt is approaching and will soon exceed our GDP. He has Greece and many less recent historical examples of what happens to a nation when they get that far in debt. Now then, in sum total, have his actions increased or decreased the national debt? Thus I draw the conclusion that since he is not stupid he knows he is not helping. For something so simple and trivial you want to make this nasty and personal?

I hope you deal with the anger and hostility you obviously cling to, before it eats you alive.

Congresspeople doing favors for donors

[trunicated]

Color me shocked.

This will never change until lobbying and donations on a corporate scale are either severely limited or outright made illegal and enforced with harsh punishment. However, since it would be Congress that would need to change those laws, it's never going to happen.

Who watches the watchers, fox guard the henhouse, etc.

Re:Congresspeople doing favors for donors

[Black Parrot]

This will never change until lobbying and donations on a corporate scale are either severely limited or outright made illegal and enforced with harsh punishment.

Thank all the gods that the Supreme Court figured out that campaign contributions don't "necessarily" buy politicians. Otherwise we might be tempted to jump to an uncharitable conclusion, in cases like this.

Re:Congresspeople doing favors for donors

[Caerdwyn]

If we outlaw corporate contributions to candidates, we must also outlaw:

• union contributions (direct or indirect)
• PAC contributions (ALL of them, including YOUR special interests)
• national party committee spending (direct or indirect)
• governmental agency lobbying
• any financing originating outside the country

The only source of campaign contributions should be registered voters, and capped. Corporations are not registered voters. Neither are unions, PACs, non-citizen immigrants (legal or otherwise), minors, felons (sorry, Wall Street, sorry, Earth First), or anything else. If you can't vote, why should you be allowed any other influence? That is a privilege reserved for citizens... it is what citizenship is all about. Yeah, sure, that means a whole lot less money floating around for propaganda, but is that bad? Why would replacing glitzy attack TV ads (expensive) with written position statements (cheap) be undesirable? And if someone isn't sufficiently motivated to open their wallets to support their candidates, fuck 'em. The lazy and apathetic will do what the motivated damned well tell them to (I'm looking at YOU, moderates, you lazy couch-dwelling motherfuckers. The national party committees, ALL of them, are owned by Constitution-hating would-be dictators because extremists are the only ones who give a damn enough to do anything other than whine, and the national committees are not about philosophy... they're about money.).

Re:Congresspeople doing favors for donors

[SETIGuy]

Yes, because when two opposing sides throw money at a politician, only one side can win, but the politician gets to keep all the money. Obviously one side was unable to buy him.

Re:Congresspeople doing favors for donors

[Black Parrot]

The only source of campaign contributions should be registered voters, and capped.

I agree, except that I would let parents contribute on behalf of their children.

Re:Congresspeople doing favors for donors

[SETIGuy]

No thanks, registered voters only. Having a pile of unnecessary kids should not get you extra political points.

Re:Congresspeople doing favors for donors

[Osgeld]

yea I never figured it out

If I attempt to bribe a congressperson I go to prison

Re:Congresspeople doing favors for donors

[Sponge Bath]

Sign me up. Simple, effective and legislatively possible, albeit difficult. Unfortunately the current makeup of SCOTUS would never allow such common sense.

Re:Congresspeople doing favors for donors

[The Grim Reefer]

No thanks, registered voters only. Having a pile of unnecessary kids should not get you extra political points.

I couldn't agree more. It's a damn shame that congress and the POTUS are the ones that would have to make this change in our current system. Judging by their behavior in modern times I have a better chance of winning enough lottery money to found my own country though.

Until then I'll keep voting for the candidate that closest matches my beliefs, or against the incumbent when that's not an option.

Re:Congresspeople doing favors for donors

[mykos]

I'm for it.

It would sting the corporations a lot more than it stings me. As it stands now, I can't buy laws, but they can. If it was all illegalized, neither of us could.

Re:Congresspeople doing favors for donors

[Eivind Eklund]

Norway (where I'm from) deals with it by forbidding political TV advertising (and possibly radio advertising - I'm not sure), and as far as I remember giving a certain amount of funding to political parties if they reach the election threshold (sperregrensen) - in Norway, 4% of the vote (and the election threshold only applies to levelling seats).

This works well; I've never met anybody that considers the system to not work. They will disagree with some politicians, but not with the entire system.

Eivind.

Re:Congresspeople doing favors for donors

[kermidge]

Interesting. I also like the check-off option in state and federal tax returns - although I'd prefer equal distribution out of that pool to all qualifying candidates.

Small but real correction: generally, felons who've satisfied their incarceration/probation debt have most of their rights re-instated, including the franchise.

Re:Congresspeople doing favors for donors

[_Sharp'r_]

It seems like the system you describe would lead to more power in elections going to incumbents, because they are already better known than challengers, and to the news media, because they publish their views without it being "advertising".

Any indications of this in Norway? Do incumbents win in a much higher percentage than challengers? Do the candidates that the media favors tend to do much better?

Re:Congresspeople doing favors for donors

[ImWithBrilliant]

governmental agency lobbying? I'm pretty sure it is unlawful already.

Re:Congresspeople doing favors for donors

[Brukenet]

Corporations are not registered voters. Neither are unions, PACs, non-citizen immigrants (legal or otherwise), minors, felons (sorry, Wall Street, sorry, Earth First), or anything else. If you can't vote, why should you be allowed any other influence? That is a privilege reserved for citizens...

Just a clarification for accuracy - The "disenfranchisement" that prevents many felons from voting is not universal. In many states, felons can regain the right to vote (either via petition or simply over time). Michigan is one example; felons in Michigan regain their right to vote automatically upon the discharge of their sentence.

Re:Congresspeople doing favors for donors

[Man Eating Duck]

It seems like the system you describe would lead to more power in elections going to incumbents, because they are already better known than challengers, and to the news media, because they publish their views without it being "advertising".

Any indications of this in Norway? Do incumbents win in a much higher percentage than challengers? Do the candidates that the media favors tend to do much better?

No, at least not due to lack of exposure. It tends to end up that way, but that's more a reflection of the public's continuing opinions. Over a couple of elections we usually have significant change. The media is also a lot more neutral over here. We have around eight parties across the spectrum which are more or less influential, they all get decent exposure in public debates and other fora. We started out with only two, way back when, but new parties which catered to different groups cropped up, and they are *real* alternatives, our government usually consists a coalition of parties. Both major American parties would be considered far right on the spectrum here, btw.

As Eivind said we have no political TV ads, but's that just part of what's good. The government is the major source for parties' campaign funds, private contributions are subject to full disclosure. Besides, any suspicion that a company or group tried to buy laws or decisions, like the insanity you have going on in the United States, would've caused a huge public outcry.

So:

* All parties can get a reasonable exposure. The bigger ones have more resources, but any citizen who is the least bit interested will easily be aware of most parties' stance on the major subjects.

* You can't "force feed" your party line on a particular issue at the public by throwing endless money at TV ads (which, as well as expensive, are also very effective). Other types of ads are allowed, but editorial exposure, positive and negative, has great impact as well. The media generally doesn't take directly part in, or have very staunch positions on, political issues.

* Buying laws is essentially impossible, any party or politician suspected of doing this would fall sharply in public opinion. It would be decried as corruption. Economically supporting a party whose views favour your situation is OK, trying to buy specific advantageous laws by lobbying is not

* Many voters are not necessarily loyal, and will vote for a different party according to a running evaluation of behaviour and stances on issues. Some parties like our Christian Democratic Party have a majority of life-long and loyal voters, but the political picture is generally very fluid. This forces voters to keep informed about current issues in order to make a good decision, and enough voter do so that the parties must continually defend their standpoints.

I'm not in any way an expert on Norwegian politics (and this post ended up rambling a bit more than I intended), anyone who knows more and wants to correct/expound on/ridicule this post is welcome to it :)

Re:Congresspeople doing favors for donors

[GameboyRMH]

Sounds fair.

Re:Congresspeople doing favors for donors

[SETIGuy]

If I had never been born, I would not notice that I was missing. If we were to wind the clock back to the day before I was conceived, the chances that I would be conceived is essentially zero, and the chance that any child would result from my parents having sex that night would not be much better. I do what I can to make my existence useful. But it was never necessary.

bribes

[Anonymous Coward]

That is what our laws are made of.
America will fail and fall flat on its face if we don't put a stop to corporate law writing for a fee.
These people think America can withstand anything thats a false belief.
Too big to fail almost wiped us off the map.

Obligatory but apt:

[forkfail]

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

The feds can't mandate openness, but...

[ironjaw33]

With this bill, the feds paying out the grants (NIH, NSF, DARPA, etc.) can't mandate the openness, but the research institutions and the researchers can do it themselves. There have already been a few discussions on here about some of the better known US schools mandating that all research be published in open conferences/journals. At the last conference I attended, there was a business meeting where it was discussed that we can (and should) attach copyright waivers to the standard ACM copyright form so that we retain copyright of our work and are free to distribute it.

Re:The feds can't mandate openness, but...

[CrimsonAvenger]

With this bill, the feds paying out the grants (NIH, NSF, DARPA, etc.) can't mandate the openness, but the research institutions and the researchers can do it themselves.

Umm, no.

No Federal agency may adopt, implement, maintain, continue, or otherwise engage in any policy, program, or other activity that--

(1) causes, permits, or authorizes network dissemination of any private-sector research work without the prior consent of the publisher of such work;

Note that the publisher has a veto on it as well, if it's published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Re:The feds can't mandate openness, but...

[jd]

Perhaps, but journals are well-known for either being pressured (or sometimes believing themselves pressured) to publish only what their sponsors want published and in the manner the sponsors want it published in. That means that hypothetical abilities to waive restrictions may not actually exist in practice. The only way you can guarantee such freedoms is if the Feds intervene at least to the point of prohibiting abuse of position.

However, it's extremely safe to say that if the Feds are themselves being whipped into submission via corporate sponsorship of politicians that abuse of position is not going to be going away any time soon.

Re:The feds can't mandate openness, but...

[ironjaw33]

You don't seem to understand the wording of the bill. Federal agencies are barred from mandating open access policies -- in the context of TFA they are talking about funding bodies like the NIH which award grant money to other institutions who perform the research. This leaves the institutions receiving the grant money, usually universities which aren't attached to the federal government, free to do as they please. Lastly, publishers accept copyright waivers all the time, and some schools, like Princeton, mandate that you submit one if the publisher wants to claim copyright. Some Commonwealth countries, like Australia, claim copyright on all publications their universities produce and submit these waivers with each publication.

Re:The feds can't mandate openness, but...

[MacGyver2210]

If the system had not been so significantly corrupted through past legislation similar to this, any funding coming from the government(public money) would immediately make any work resulting therefrom public-sector work.

Re:The feds can't mandate openness, but...

[CrimsonAvenger]

Private institutions may, indeed, do as they please.

Of course, if the publishers decide (after buying a law preventing the government from mandating openness) to say "we won't publish your paper if YOU mandate openness either", then, as a scientist, you're pretty much screwed.

I don't have a problem with "the author gets to decide" (though I think if my taxes are paying for it, it should be open unless there's a good reason otherwise).

I DO have a problem with "the Publisher gets to decide, which is what this is doing...

Re:The feds can't mandate openness, but...

[ironjaw33]

I DO have a problem with "the Publisher gets to decide, which is what this is doing...

Unfortunately, the publisher holding the copyright/controlling dissemination is the status quo. As I see it, change is only going to come from within, with researchers and institutions turning up the heat on publishers or starting their own open publications. Some of these changes are happening, with some schools and disciplines shifting towards open access policies. However, based on the current bill and the SOPA fiasco, I don't think legislators can be counted on to do the right thing when it comes to open access on taxpayer-funded research and the effects of technological advances on copyright.

Re:The feds can't mandate openness, but...

[AK Marc]

The past legislation came about because anyone who received government money published under their own name, and the people who funded the work (taxpayers) got nothing. It was corrupted from the start. Without legislation, the work was never released as belonging to the public.

Name and party affiliation

[bhlowe]

Don't make us click on the stupid article to find out the name, location, and party affiliation of a politician.
Use: Rep Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) instead of "a congresswoman"

Re:Name and party affiliation

[jd]

Well, since all politicians succumb to bribes, the name doesn't really help. The only political party on the planet is "Money Pot", so the shell entity created to represent it doesn't make any difference, and location only makes a difference if politicians care about the people in it (and you can guess my opinion on that score).

Re:Name and party affiliation

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. You listed the Democratic cosponsor, but not the Republican sponsor. So much for exposing affiliations.

Re:Name and party affiliation

[Nethemas the Great]

Make sure you include "all" sponsors. Oh wait, you only wanted to malign the democrats... Oh well, too bad, this was a bi-partisan sponsored bill so I'll FTFY.

H.R. 3699 was introduced by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and Committee member Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)

Re:Name and party affiliation

[braeldiil]

Why am I not suprised that you managed not to mention the actual sponsor, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA). Rep Maloney is the other sponsor, but the bill was introduced by Rep. Issa. For reference, this is Rep. Issa's third bite at this particular apple - he was a cosponser on a similar bill in 2008 and 2009. Rep Maloney was also a cosponser in 2009.

Re:Name and party affiliation

[DoofusOfDeath]

Are those details really relevant? The vice of corruption is something I expect of nearly all Congressmen regardless of party or home state.

Re:Name and party affiliation

[Anonymous Coward]

Good that you brought it up. Also note that Issa got money from the same group that gave Maloney hers.

Ron Paul isn't my first choice for a candidate, but right now he's the only one guaranteed to shake things up enough for real change.

Re:Name and party affiliation

[Nerdfest]

Man, your elected representatives really seem to hate your country.

Re:Name and party affiliation

[couchslug]

They are scum, and it's a tragedy the aircraft which hit the Pentagon didn't drill Congress instead.

Al Qaeda would have done the Great Satan a Great Favor.

Re:Name and party affiliation

[geminidomino]

Kind of makes one wonder about the praise Issa was getting earlier when the story broke about him calling a SOPA hearing with (tiny) tech "leaders"

Re:Name and party affiliation

[bhampton]

The truth hurts.

The academic publishing scam

[Grieviant]

There was an interesting article on the academic publishing industry recently. When you get all the material refereed for free (actually, on the dime of the colleges and research institutes who pay the reviewer's salary), there's just no reason why the charges should be soaring up past $20 per article like they have in the last 10 years.

The greed doesn't stop there either. Not long ago I was a volunteer at a fairly prominent IEEE conference. The cost of attendance per person is in the $600-$1000 range. Despite contributing 12+ hours of work, one of the co-chairs had to fight with the organizers just to get them to foot the bill for our lunches.

Re:The academic publishing scam

[Anonymous Coward]

The publisher got all the material for free?! No! Even worse! Scientists MUST pay when their article gets accepted. Reviewers work on a volunteer basis, NO payment whatsoever. The publisher often does NOTHING to article other than checking formatting issue. Often times, scientists themselves have to fix formatting issues. The review process is usually organized by a volunteer chief editor. The chief editor then decides what to publish. Publishers did ZERO on the science part and almost zero on the formatting part. After then, the publisher CHARGES libraries or individual readers for the electronic copies for which it does ALMOST NOTHING!

Re:The academic publishing scam

[Anonymous Coward]

So, if the scientists do all the work themselves, why not just start their own publishing company? Sounds like it would be cheaper.

Re:The academic publishing scam

[Grieviant]

'Non-profit' doesn't carry that much weight when a bunch of the employees are making exorbitant salaries in the $300K-$700K range (page 9).

Re:The academic publishing scam

[TapeCutter]

So, if the scientists do all the work themselves, why not just start their own publishing company?

Who do you think started the existing publishers, soccer moms?

I like the definitions section on this one...

[CrimsonAvenger]

(3) PRIVATE-SECTOR RESEARCH WORK- The term `private-sector research work' means an article intended to be published in a scholarly or scientific publication, or any version of such an article, that is not a work of the United States Government (as defined in section 101 of title 17, United States Code), describing or interpreting research funded in whole or in part by a Federal agency and to which a commercial or nonprofit publisher has made or has entered into an arrangement to make a value-added contribution, including peer review or editing. Such term does not include progress reports or raw data outputs routinely required to be created for and submitted directly to a funding agency in the course of research.

With this definition, they've basically declared all work not done by Federal Employees "Private sector", even if paid for entirely by the Federal Government, so long as the work is published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Re:I like the definitions section on this one...

[SETIGuy]

It doesn't need to be reviewed. Changing the title to all caps, adding page numbers, a header or a footer would count as "editing."

Why are bribes even legal?

[headkase]

I'm serious, why is it even legal for politicians to accept any kinds of money outside of their salary?! If that one thing was done - illegal to accept any outside money - then I'd optimistically predict that politics wouldn't be the sh*t-hole it is today.

Re:Why are bribes even legal?

[CrimsonAvenger]

I'm serious, why is it even legal for politicians to accept any kinds of money outside of their salary?! If that one thing was done - illegal to accept any outside money - then I'd optimistically predict that politics wouldn't be the sh*t-hole it is today.

You assume there's some way to prevent this.

Or are you just assuming that featuring your favorite (or least favorite) politician in a news article doesn't count as a contribution in kind?

Getting all money out of politics (except the news) would just mean more media-types controlling what you find out about your politicians, and therefore more politicians doing more favors for media-types.

Note that people who run publishing houses probably count as media-types for these purposes....

Re:Why are bribes even legal?

[Local ID10T]

Why are bribes even legal?

Because the people accepting the bribes are the people deciding what is and is not legal.

Re:Why are bribes even legal?

[artor3]

Making it illegal to accept outside money isn't enough, since a popular way to bribe politicians right now is to offer them high paying jobs for when they retire.

We need to not only ban outside money, but also require politicians to sign non-competes (sad as that is), banning them from working in any private sector job for a period of time dependent on what their role in the government was (e.g. 2 years for cabinet members and the like, 4 years for a representative, 6 for a senator, life for a president).

Re:Why are bribes even legal?

[dohnut]

Getting all money out of politics (except the news) would just mean more media-types controlling what you find out about your politicians, and therefore more politicians doing more favors for media-types.

That's why we should just pick random citizens (from the appropriate congressional districts of course) to be congressmen. No need to finance a campaign. Think of it like the draft or jury duty. I'd make the senate term 2 years like the house.

Then the president is picked randomly from the pool of retired congressmen. One 4 year term and then you are done and go back to your life.

I'd keep the Supreme Court as it is -- nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

Members of congress and the President would be compensated much better than we currently pay our congress and President. This would be the incentive to take the job more seriously and not view it as such an interruption or burden.

Yeah, you would probably get some crazies in there. I'd even open it up to those with criminal records (lest 99% of the population suddenly become "criminals"). I suppose that means we could have a rapist/pedophile for a President.

I should tell you, I just came up with this idea, so, um, it's probably got at least one flaw (other than the rapist/pedophile president thing).. It would sure make politics interesting and it couldn't be much less effective (from the point of view of the people) than it currently is.

Re:Not your representative? Now what

[nedlohs]

You realize othing actually happens unless the bill gets passed, right?

Sure one representative can propose something but it takes a majority or representatives voting for it to actually pass.

Stupid yet honest

[TankSpanker04]

TFA quotes the text of the bill as consisting of the following 3 lines:

"No Federal agency may adopt, implement, maintain, continue, or otherwise engage in any policy, program, or other activity that:
(1) causes, permits, or authorizes network dissemination of any private-sector research work without the prior consent of the publisher of such work; or
(2) requires that any actual or prospective author, or the employer of such an actual or prospective author, assent to network dissemination of a private-sector research work."

At least it's a blatantly visible abuse of our lobby system as opposed to one buried at the end of a completely unrelated congressional effort.

Oh, this should be good....

[Zocalo]

Check out the co-sponsor; it's none other than one Darrell Issa (R-CA). Yup, the same one that is opposed to SOPA and has proposed the alternative OPEN. Not so opposed to abuses of the copyright system, it appears... I now can't help but wonder whether OPEN was merely put forward as a Plan B just in case SOPA flounders in the light of all the negative publicity. Time to check the small print, me thinks.

Re:Oh, this should be good....

[nadaou]

/. nitpick:

the word you are looking for is "founders" not "flounders"

(dict.org)

From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 :

    Founder \Found"er\, v. i. [imp. & p. p. Foundered; p. pr. &
          vb. n. Foundering.] [OF. fondrer to fall in, cf. F.
          s'effondrer, fr. fond bottom, L. fundus. See Found to
          establish.]
          1. (Naut.) To become filled with water, and sink, as a ship.
                [1913 Webster]

          2. To fall; to stumble and go lame, as a horse.
                [1913 Webster]

                            For which his horse fear['e] gan to turn,
                            And leep aside, and foundrede as he leep. --Chaucer.
                [1913 Webster]

          3. To fail; to miscarry. "All his tricks founder." --Shak.
                [1913 Webster]

Re:Oh, this should be good....

[Zocalo]

Nope. I meant "flounders". As in (dictionary.com):

flounder
1 flounder pronunciation[floun-der]
verb (used without object)

1. to struggle with stumbling or plunging movements (usually followed by about, along, on, through, etc.): He saw the child floundering about in the water.
2. to struggle clumsily or helplessly: He floundered helplessly on the first day of his new job.

Nothing to do with fish. Maybe it's a Queen's vs American English thing - I'm originally the former.

I might be wrong here but

[ILongForDarkness]

The bill actually says "private-sector" several times. Is work done by a private organization still considered private when it receives public funds?

Re:I might be wrong here but

[Anonymous Coward]

The bill specifically states that any research done by a private organization is covered even if all of the funding for the research comes from federal funds.

3) PRIVATE-SECTOR RESEARCH WORK- The term `private-sector research work' means an article intended to be published in a scholarly or scientific publication, or any version of such an article, that is not a work of the United States Government (as defined in section 101 of title 17, United States Code), describing or interpreting research funded in whole or in part by a Federal agency and to which a commercial or nonprofit publisher has made or has entered into an arrangement to make a value-added contribution, including peer review or editing. Such term does not include progress reports or raw data outputs routinely required to be created for and submitted directly to a funding agency in the course of research.

This is just a blatant attempt to misappropriate public funds for the sake of commercial interests.

Re:I might be wrong here but

[Man On Pink Corner]

The comment thread on the article goes into this in detail. It seems to amount to careful parsing on the part of the Elsevier rep who authored the bill.

Obligatory car analogy: if your car has a "For Sale" sign on it, and I come by with a bucket of water and wash it, does that give me the right to dictate who gets your car?

Re:I might be wrong here but

[preaction]

No, but if I buy the parts and pay you to put the car together, I think I should be able to say who gets the car when you're done.

Re:I might be wrong here but

[SETIGuy]

In this bill "private-sector" doesn't mean private sector. It redefines "private-sector research" to be work funded by the government performed by anyone except the federal government so long as it is edited or peer reviewed by a non-governmental organization. So someone at the University of Illinois doing NASA funded research who sends something to the University of Chicago Press for publication cannot be required by NASA make copies available at a eprint server at no charge. If you want to see the research you paid for, you'll need to pay the University of Chicago Press.

(This is just an example. I don't know the preprint or reprint policies of the University of Chicago Press.)

Re:I might be wrong here but

[ILongForDarkness]

I read it differently "that is NOT a work of the United States Government (as defined in section 101 of title 17, United States Code), describing or interpreting research funded in whole or in part by a Federal agency" ie the new bill will be for private works NOT included in sec 101 t 17.

Re:I might be wrong here but

[Man On Pink Corner]

Right, that's my point. The American taxpayer bought the parts, the researchers built the car, and Elsevier washed it.

Tell your congress critter - POPVOX

[Nethemas the Great]

Make sure you let your representing congress critters know your displeasure for such legislation. Don't let corporate money be the only voice.

Re:Tell your congress critter - POPVOX

[SETIGuy]

Like members of Congress care what someone with no money say. If you don't like what they do in office, they'll just spend their money convincing you that their opponent eats a live baby every Sunday. The system is to far past broken to fix. The only questions now are when it gets torn down and by whom.

Re:Tell your congress critter - POPVOX

[Nethemas the Great]

I understand your cynicism, however, if you remain silent the only voice that the politician will hear is that of the lobbyist. Since silence from the opposition suggests indifference if not tacit approval why would/should they care?

Re:Tell your congress critter - POPVOX

[SETIGuy]

Even if I shout at the top of my lungs, the only voice that the politician will hear is that of the lobbyist.

Re:Tell your congress critter - POPVOX

[Nethemas the Great]

The lobbyist may have the greatest accessibility but they ultimately do not vote.

Re:Figures

[scot4875]

Look, if this big liberal media conspiracy that you jackasses all think exists were actually true, they wouldn't report this shit in the first place.

Quit your butthurt confirmation bias, please.

--Jeremy

Cosigned by (R)

[Anonymous Coward]

Darrell Issa (R-CA), that is.

But hey, don't let that slow down your hatefest. Let us know when you start whining about how the "liberals" of slashdot blindly ignore all the evil stuff the dems do, in the middle of 500 posts screaming bloody murder over this.

Open Season

[MacGyver2210]

I, for one, vote that we just start executing any politician who - without first consulting their constituents or evaluating the public good of a measure - does something solely to benefit their donors.

We can call it 'Rehabilitation' and make it like a death carnival during a monster truck show...

Re:Open Season

[couchslug]

Do 'em like China did with the folks who contaminated infant formula.

Named, shamed, then shot in pubic.

Re:Knuth in high dudgeon

[epine]

The second link didn't come across properly with my make-link FF extension: http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/joalet.pdf

On the positive side,

[hey!]

we now know now much it costs to buy a congressman: $5,500.

Re:On the positive side,

[Guy Harris]

we now know now much it costs to buy a congressman: $5,500.

Replace "Democrat" with "Republican" in that URL and you'll see that Issa cost less than Maloney.

Re:On the positive side,

[gmhowell]

I'm not sure which is worse: all of our government are whores, or all of our government are cheap whores.

It's easy

[rsilvergun]

just ban organizations from donating money. Only individuals can donate money to a politician. Next, ban donating to a campaign you can't vote in. If you can't vote in California's elections why are you donating money? Next, strict caps on donations. Lastly, enforce the policy with a lifetime ban on holding political office and/or long, long prison terms. Take your pick. It's clear, it's cut & dry, and it eliminates money.

As for tracking the money, how easy would it be to spot a candidate who has 10x the money of his closest rival?

Re:It's easy

[djmurdoch]

Except for the penalties, all of the above are true in Canada:

  - no corporate donations at all
  - no donations from foreigners
  - max donation of $1100 per person to a party

And our government is still in the pocket of the big media corporations.

Re:It's easy

[Grygus]

If there was a vested interest in hiding it, it could be very, very hard. I would hesitate to underestimate the financial creativity of corporate America.

Re:It's easy

[SETIGuy]

Then make the punishment commensurate with the crime of attempting to subvert the government of the United States. I'm typically not a death penalty supporter, but I'd go with both the individual death penalty and the corporate death penalty violations of campaign finance laws, for both the donor and the recipient. Kill the briber and the person who was bribed. If it's a corporate "donation," kill all the board members, too. Dissolve the corporation and sell its assets.

You'd only have to carry out that penalty once for the implications to sink in. Self preservation is a strong instinct. A corporation wouldn't risk thinking it could hide a bribe. The bribed politician would have eternal blackmail material against the briber, and vice versa.

Re:It's easy

[artor3]

The death penalty, especially against nonviolent people, is barbaric. It would be quite sufficient to sentence the briber and recipient to, say, 30 years behind bars. And there is no need for corporate dissolution (which punishes a lot of innocent bystanders). Just lock away the current executives, and promote or hire some people to fill their roles. I'm confident the new management would not make the old management's mistake.

Re:It's easy

[CrimsonAvenger]

ust ban organizations from donating money. Only individuals can donate money to a politician. Next, ban donating to a campaign you can't vote in. If you can't vote in California's elections why are you donating money? Next, strict caps on donations. Lastly, enforce the policy with a lifetime ban on holding political office and/or long, long prison terms. Take your pick. It's clear, it's cut & dry, and it eliminates money.

So, how do you deal with CBS giving favourable press to a candidate who just happens to support laws that give them huge tax breaks? Or unfavourable press to a candidate who just happens to want to raise taxes on them?

Or NBC?

ABC?

CNN?

New York Times?

New York Post?

Washington Post?

etc, etc, etc?

And how do you keep, say, General Electric from buying a major newspaper, which just happens to start giving favourable press to politicians who favour tax breaks for GE? Or unfavourable press to politician who oppose tax breaks for GE?

There is absolutely no way, short of repealing the First Amendment and restricting ALL political news to what is approved in Washington DC of accomplishing that.

And restricting all political news to what is approved in Washington DC pretty much guarantees that all incumbents (at least in the majority Party) get favourable press, and any challenger is quietly ignored.

Would that be a better system?

Re:It's easy

[JonySuede]

randomocraty is the solution
rotate a third of the now elected representative each year, select them randomly from the pool of eligible voter from that particular region. If the person selected refuse, remove his citizenship and grant him a permanent visa.

Re:It's easy

[Bill Dog]

The Progressive argument would be the same one against term limits, that then our leaders/policy makers would not have a chance to build up sufficient expert knowledge.

Even so, I'd be willing to try it. Leftists go on and on about the money canard (and only from corporations and not other special interest groups), when it's being a little too expert at being a politician that's the problem.

Re:It's easy

[JonySuede]

when it's being a little too expert at being a politician that's the problem.

Exactly, politic is supposed to be power for the people, not power on the people by the politician.History seems to indicate that every system of government gradually become a system of professional politicians and then shit start to happen, therefore, I think that we should try a system that remove the condition to allow the spawning of professional politicians... I propose randomization as most metagouvernement system could be worse than random selection

Re:It's easy

[SETIGuy]

The death penalty is only effective against nonviolent people. Violent people are unlikely to be deterred by it. The people most likely to be subjected to it (the mentally incompetent) can't be deterred by it. Someone bribing a congressman is more dangerous to society than someone who kills at random anyway.

Shouldn't all work by public employees be open?

[trout007]

I work for the government and every once in a while my boss says I should try to patent it. I always refuse because my paycheck comes from the taxpayers so it should be freely available. I have never been able to find if there is an easy way to release my designs in an open way. I don't think the lawyers want to deal with it.

Re:Shouldn't all work by public employees be open?

[AK Marc]

Technically, you should patent it. Then publish a notice of open license (or whatever it's called where you legally announce you give everyone an implicit license to your patent). It protects the invention, getting it out in the public. It also protects you personally, as if you ever did change jobs, having one or more patents will help in the job search. And it does what you are implying you think will happen. Instead, as long as your device hasn't been out more than a year, someone else can come in, file, and you aren't even considered prior art. So you could be fueling someone else's patents. Not patenting is worse than patenting it and giving away licenses for free.

Re:Shouldn't all work by public employees be open?

[John Newman]

I work for the government and every once in a while my boss says I should try to patent it.

Do you work for the federal government? Work done by an employee of the federal government in the course of his/her duties is public domain. There's not even a question of patent or copyright, it's public domain by law.

If it's work on your own time that's not part of your official duties, however, you can do whatever you like with it.

Open versus pay journals

[Egg Sniper]

Choosing to publish in a journal that charges subscription fees has the advantage that it doesn't cost you anything to publish your work and the disadvantage that a restricted audience has access to your work (with the usual excuse being that most in research/academic settings can use institutional subscriptions and who else would be interested anyway?).

Choosing to publish in a journal that is free to all has the disadvantage that it can cost quite a bit (thousands of dollars for the last one I did) to publish your work and the advantage that anyone with a computer and internet access has access to your work.

Having said that, any grant funded project likely has money marked specifically for publication (dissemination) costs (personally I think publication costs are a better investment then conference presentations but that's just me). If you know you want to have your work freely available AND you are funded by an NIH grant there's no good reason why it can't be done without publishing in a subscription based journal that's going to bitch about letting everyone see your article for free after a year.

Leave the subscription journals for the poor SOBs that don't have grant money coming in (another problem).

Re:Open versus pay journals

[raaum]

If you're working in a research/academic setting, you're paying for it either way. It just comes out of different pots of money. And since the publishers are relentlessly hiking institutional subscription rates, your institutional budget for journal subscriptions is getting out of control. What's better: pay a fixed fee up front for something that you (and everyone else) will be able to read anytime, anywhere, or pay an ever-growing recurring fee for something that only people at research/academic institutions can read?

Re:Open versus pay journals

[Egg Sniper]

There's definitely a continuum between the two extremes I mentioned. Fortunately there are some general purpose open journals, though one could argue a sacrifice of impact shying away from more focused journals. One can only hope that the more an author pays the less the subscribers pay (assuming the cost to edit, format, host/print etc. is comparable across journals).

Re:Open versus pay journals

[Egg Sniper]

If there's money to be spent on publication I would use open journals exclusively. If there's money.

Re:Recipient of Kickback (D)

[Guy Harris]

The Dem was the recipient of the kick back lefty.

(What's a "kick back lefty"?)

The Republican who introduced the bill was also one of the recipients of contributions from Elsevier. Much less money ($2K to Issa, $11K to Maloney), but still money. There are other Democrats and other Republicans on the list as well. Dunno whether Issa's just a cheaper date or what.

Re:Figures

[SETIGuy]

I guess that you can't read enough far enough to find out that the legislation was introduced my Darrel Issa, noted Republican and car thief. Wouldn't want that to get in the way of a good tirade, though.

Liberate Science!

[presidenteloco]

Some would say liberty made the US great.

In natural justice (tm) or basic apolitical logic of the situation, liberating published science is not a crime. Hoarding it and charging a toll like a bridge troll ought to be.

It's a good thing natural justice trumps US "law".

Re:Liberate Science!

[alexo]

It's a good thing natural justice trumps US "law".

Sophocles, is that you?

Democracy?

[Anonymous Coward]

You Americans are funny. All talk about rights and freedoms when really you are all now just consumers for big business. And as shown time and again, your politicians are nothing more than spokes people for business now.

Unfortunately for me, our Australian government is trying to play catchup and get in to the same lucrative deal.

I no longer believe that the version of "democracy" we see in the west is true democracy and the shelf life of the current version is almost over.

Re:Democracy?

[Aardpig]

You Australians are funny. You all walk upside down wearing cork-strung hats, talking about "throwing another snag on the barbie", and fucking sheep and kangaroos. And as shown time and time again, you simply can't resist stereotyping citizens of other nations.

Re:LAMAO!

[Aardpig]

Ah, so you missed the bit about Darrel Issa (R) being the co-sponsor. Tard.

Re:Not your representative? Now what

[bakes]

Correct - however other reps want their own bills to pass, so they'll vote in favour to get it in return. Isn't that how the game works?

Re:Not your representative? Now what

[nedlohs]

Possibly. But then you get to complain to your rep if they decide to vote for it - not being able to do that was the complaint I was responding to after all.

It is my firm belief

[zbobet2012]

that we need a constitutional amendment enforcing the removal of money from politics. Until this occurs I do not believe that democracy or capitalism can proceed as intended. Large inefficient companies will continue to legislate themselves niches and utilize the government to pad there losses, effectively removing themselves from natural market forces. This is the opposite of capitalism in many ways. Indeed it is something like a twisted socialism, where the means of production control the government (in soviet america...). Democracy will in turn continue to be polluted, where donations force lawmakers to pay more attention to there corporate constituents than there human ones or fail to be re-elected. This is as unhealthy, and unholy a marriage as a police state. That which regulates and controls should never be beholden to that which needs to be controlled.

News Press doesn't win elections

[rsilvergun]

Paid Advertisements do. You buy elections with media paid blitzes, not a few twits going on about crap no one cares about. As Rachel Maddow points out Fox news, the highest rated news broadcast in America, gets owned by Spongebob, WWE & Hanna Montana.

Bye Bye Amazon

[bnoel]

yet another company bound to migrate the majority of their business overseas...

wow, someone learned how to cut and paste

[publiclurker]

too bad they are unable to perform even the slightest bit of actual comprehension. Spoiled children are like that. Rather throw temper tantrums than grow up and learn.

Editorial standards have gone to absolute shIt

[WinstonWolfIT]

Hundreds of boneheaded laws with no chance of passing are proposed by clueless legislators. The OP needs to learn a thing or three million about what constitutes NEWSWORTHY.

Got persuaded yet ?

[unity100]

Persuaded to how this system will not work ? The one with the gold makes the rule, and the rule of the economy makes few amass the gold.

they are not even feeling the need to hide and put on a facade anymore - like they did a few decades ago. they are outright just doing whatever their paymasters paid them for directly. even the farce of 'democracy' has been dropped.

you cant

[unity100]

'removal of money from politics'. its just naive. as long as money exists and some few have mountains of it and masses dont, money will have power. they may not give money directly to campaigns for example. but instead, the retired senators can immediately find a very juicy job at the corporation that s/he passed laws for, after his/her term ends - which was also happening by the way.

you cant remove money from politics. even in middle ages and renaissance, those with the money made the rules despite they were not aristocrats and there was no legal place for them in politics. fuggers basically reigned over charles v, the 'greatest' holy roman emperor. they kept reigning over the empire after his death, because they were the ones who were lending money to the imperial throne and spanish crown. legally they had no right to.

but see, even in systems that there should be no logical point of entry to political system, those with the money find other peripheral means to do so.

Re:Figures

[jo_ham]

If this is your example of "Liberal media bias" (the D cosponsor being elevated to the position of sponsor while the real R sponsor is not mentioned at all) then... yeah! Such a liberal conspiracy! It's like the USSR propaganda machine! Something must be done!

Re:Big Dufus Decisions

[OldHawk777]

Without reason politicians a/o dogmatist seek to explain reality, which is never actuality.

A government of the people and for the people is a democracy.
A government by a republic and for the republic is a plutocracy.
A government by a syndicate for the syndicate is Statism.

Government that governs economic and social policy by law is an enfranchising capitalist meritocracy ideal state. This ideal is only possible in a pluralist democracy.

Government that controls economic and social policy by law is a delusional elitist (religion, race, monetary, legacy ...) welfare state. This ideal is only possible in a plutocratic republic.

Government that threatens economic and social stability by law is a criminal enterprise subversive state. This ideal is only possible with a statist syndicate.

When you verbally seek to victimize, encumber, a/o disenfranchise any group or anyone you betray "The USA Constitution," which is treason. When you participate and support the victimization, exploitation, a/o criminalization of any group or anyone you commit crimes against humanity. When you physically attack, destroy a/o slaughter groups or murder anyone you are mentally and emotionally dysfunctional and need to be locked-up for life or terminated.

The USA is or is not a democracy, because ....
The USA is or is not a republic, because ....
The USA is or is not a syndicate, because ....

Saying an individual is a democrat, republican, statist ... lacks reason/logic, because ....

My answer: Where is the proof? Who are the others involved. Which organization are we talking about? ...?

Re:Strike a Blow for Equality!

[Runaway1956]

You must be thinking of Janet Napolitano. She first sold her soul to La Raza, then took out a second mortgage with the MAFIAA League.

Get rid of your two-party system, then!

[fritsd]

Nobody really believes that the candidates are all the exact same. Most believe there is a lesser of two evils. We need a new voting system. I need to be able to specify more than one candidate, in case my primary choice fails.

Well, looking from the outside, there's a possible solution:

Form a political party which pledges to do only one thing: reform the constitution to allow for proportional representation voting (multi-party system), and then immediately have elections again.

It's the *only* way, because I thought there was a scientific study that showed that a two-party system is difficult to get rid of using normal elections.
That would put the USA more in line with more normal countries where there is a lively, albeit sometimes not very long lasting, sequence of coalition governments, and where it is normal for the people to vote for the party they like best, not just the left- and right-half of the Party of Power.
Such as Italy for example (OK.. *bad* example...).

You'll have to do it, because 1. I am not American and 2. I don't have the time.

PS If you'd already had done that, you wouldn't have had to suffer 8 years of G.W. Bush. Think about it.

Why not do both

[0111 1110]

If I were publishing a paper I think I would first put the paper up on my personal web site. Then I would upload it to TPB and Demonoid. Only after releasing the information at no cost to anyone who wanted it would I officially submit it for publication in a journal that only uber-rich people can afford to read.

The first action would be to truly publish my research so that anyone in the world with an interest in my research could learn from it and to encourage the worldwide collaboration among scientists that is necessary for a healthy scientific community. Science was historically about sharing information and trying to learn new things about the world together. Now science has become all about information hoarding and trying to keep research a secret so as to possibly profit from it. And we wonder why science hasn't advanced as much as some people in the 50s and 60s thought it might. We are all busy reinventing wheels instead of learning from others and moving forward.

Mod parent up! (Re:dufus decisions)

[Anonymous Meoward]

Seriously, if you think there's no difference between the two parties, take a look at what's been happening at the state level since 2010. The union-busting in Wisconsin, the gerrymander-on-steroids in Pennsylvania, and in my state of North Carolina, a push to add an amendment to the state constitution to abolish the recognition of gay marriages and domestic partnerships. For starters. And, may I add, none of the voters (except hardcore partisans and other evolutionary throwbacks) actually wanted any of this bullshit. Do you really think Republicans are not that much more evil? Really?

Yes, it does seem that we deal with the lesser of 2 evils every fourth November. But there are different shades of "evil". One is the "rather unseemly, somewhat sleazy and a bit embarrassing", and the other is "totally, truly, absolutely frigging, dangerously whacked".

I really need reading glasses

[Xenna]

I came here thinking it was a Perl tutorial... :(