You start small, like being required to 'register' the equipment. Hmmmm....looks like my birth certificate already takes care of that part.
The next step then, is to ban "assault" versions of the equipment. In this context, I suppose this means either equipment over a certain length, or equipment that produces or can handle "assault" concentrations of testosterone....
Once that's in place, we just institute a "buy-back" program which allows owners of the equipment to sell it to the Government (presumably this means taxes go up to pay for nationwide 'sexual reassignment' surgery....) Those who hold out on this will have their equipment taken by force later on.
Okay, I'll stop. I'm starting to scare myself, and I don't want my legislators to think I'm serious and start getting ideas...
No, but I bet you'd be screaming at 911 to get the police to your house if your pervert neighbor was peeping through your window at your wife getting out of the shower.
Hmmm. The Internet is more like a public park than a private house. If the hypothetical wife in question sets up a 'camp shower' in the middle of a public park and then steps naked out of it, I'd be screaming if someone called 911 because I looked...(I understand your point, though, and I can't say that I totally disagree, really).
Seems to me the key thing that really needs to be clearly defined is where the 'external interface' of your computer ends. Personally, I think if it's relatively easy to access (another vague phrase that would need a cleaner definition!) from the Internet, it should be considered part of the "public interface", even if the reason it's easily accessed is 'administrator error' rather than intent. (To go back to the analogy - If I'm standing on the sidewalk when the hypothetical wife steps naked out of the shower in front of an unintentionally-open window, I don't want to be flung in jail because some badly-written law says that it's illegal to 'view a naked woman from outside of a private home without prior explicit permission' - even if it IS called "The Protection from Sick Perverted Peeping-Toms Act of 2001".)
Anybody got some better thoughts on what should constitute a computer's "Public Interface", and how we might clue lawmakers in on it?
Those In Power(tm) here in USA, inc. seem to have a disturbing trend going. More and more, it seems as though the government in this country is moving towards a "make everything illegal and then just pick and choose who you enforce the laws against" rather than "make clear, rational laws and enforce them".(This isn't just happening in the "computer law" arena)
Since when do we need "to pass legislation against illegally accessing a computer"? Isn't it already illegal to "illegally access" anything? Is this for some sort of "bonus crime" they can slap you with if they feel like it?
And I certainly hope the wording is a lot more specific than "intercepting computer data or interfering with computer systems" in this "treaty". If the government dislikes a "hacker" who happens to work as a system administrator, would they be able to fling him in jail because he read the server's logfiles? Or if a kid from som Scandinavian country wrote software to decode encrypted media, would someone in USA, inc. have to work very hard to get this hypothetical kid picked up by his country's police? (Say...why does this sound familiar?)
The 'party line' along this whole trend seems to always be "Don't worry, this law will only be used to deal with real criminals. Trust us, it won't be misused. You just don't understand the language, it's not as bad as you think." For example: DOJ and council officials said much of the concern over the draft stems from a misunderstanding of the treaty's intent and a need for clarifications in the text. For example, they said, security testing would not be banned, because prosecutors must show there was intent to commit an illegal act. That last sentence makes me wonder - if the hypothetical "hacker" that the government doesn't like makes an offhand remark concerning cracking techniques he's interested in finding out more about, and later does a security scan of his employer's system (for legitimate reason), how hard would it be for US Gov't, inc, to convince a typical jury that a comment about 'cracking techniques' shows 'intent' (in the sense of 'conspiracy')? Given what I've heard about the frighteningly-popular-among-legislators "Methamphetamine anti-proliferation act" (which, from the sound of it, would make it illegal to TALK ABOUT the chemistry of phenylethylamine derivatives), this doesn't sound like a too-far-fetched scenario.
We (here in USA Inc) have about a month-and-a-half to get the word out and try to weasel a stand on the issue out of the various candidates running this year. May the God of your choice help us all....
Maybe I'm overreacting (and perhaps will be moderated down as "Troll" since there isn't a "Paranoid Whacko" option on the moderation menu), but I'm worried.
"Sue? Me? Wait a minute! I'm not a person or corporation. Wait at least 'til I develop my own Artificial Intelligence..."
AP/Reuters -
Microsoft today filed suit against Eliza, inc. for infringement of a 'business method' patent which Microsoft holds, which Microsoft claims covers use of "obfuscatory responses used to avoid answering questions".
Eliza, inc.'s official response to the suit was "Does it please you to believe I am infringing on our intellectual property?" When further questioned, Eliza, inc. added, "Please go on."
You could also use distribution of work as an Anarchist's dream: thousands of computers around the world working to stick it to The Man[...] I can't think of any applications off the top of my head...
Hacking SDMI (so that we can once again make legal fair use of purchased material).
(That is, after it's been released and gone into use, of course...)
Generating.ogg's of every public domain bit of audio available and DivX:) recordings of every public domain video clip(old newsreels and such, for example) to be placed in a huge central repository somewhere to be preserved?
I find it slightly disturbing that the Federal Communications Commission doesn't even seem to comment on disproportionate control of communication that a mega-merger like this would result in.
At the same time, I find the thought of giving US Government inc. power to control a gigantic entity like this.
I find it disturbing that so few people (among the general populace) seem to even realize this is going on, let alone understand what it could mean.
Finally, I find it disturbing that I'm too old to have all the answers anymore, so I don't have even a ridiculous, self-serving solution to the problem.
And here's how. In about 3 months, after Digital Convergence goes belly-up as their investors realize what a ridiculous implementation of the "marketing database" concept they've tried to expensively implement, nobody (nobody commercial, anyway) will support CueCat scanning anymore.
Once that's the case, the various individuals who received the CueCat for free will sell them at yard sales for $0.25 each. Since they didn't pay for it (or even ask for it, in many cases), they make $0.25 profit on each sale!
Maybe Digital Convergence should try the same thing now, to minimize their debts....
This [the article] is relatively nifty, but as has already been pointed out in previous posts, this still relies on 'fossil fuels'.
Now, for really renewable power, maybe microbial fuel cells can be developed. The idea of perhaps someday turning the landfill and/or home septic tanks (or algae tanks or... etc. etc.) into power sources amuses me to no end (I mean directly, I know there are a few methane-burning powerplants built over landfills around), but then, I've got a definite bias towards this kind of thing...
Here are a couple of microbial fuel cell links (research/educational prototypes - I get the impression that there's still quite a bit of development to be done before it can be commercially useful).
At the same time as the dire warnings of the imminent doom of the internet due to DDOS attacks from compromised Unix machines, MicroSoft-NBC is apparently also sponsoring a "stuffed" poll (whether MSNBC is doing the stuffing or someone else I don't know), according to This story on Linuxtoday.com
Is there anyone but me that finds this to be an amazing coincidence that the Microsoft FUD machines are cranked up to full throttle the weekend after Microsoft ME is released (and is being thoroughly disapproved of according to the various reviews and "will you buy Windows ME?" polls around the net)?
Perhaps some rival news agencies would like to get some mileage out of MSNBC's activities?...
It may just be me, but it looks like some of the older compilers may have a problem with the sources.
The Background: I'm running a system based originally on Slackware 7.0 (with many updates - call it "Slackware 7.05" if you want), with, up until today, the original compiler (egcs 1.1.2) that came with 7.0. Trying to compile KDELIBS-1.94 bombed out in the KIO section...
To make a long story short (and to help cover up the fact that I didn't write down the error messages), apparently a utility called kcopidl (or was it mcopidl? ARGH! I knew I should have written it down...), which compiled earlier in the kdelibs package and was needed for compiling the rest of the package, was segfaulting. Fortunately, I'd already downloaded the slackware packages for gcc 2.95.2 from the contrib directory, and I uninstalled egcs and installed gcc 2.95.2. It compiles now.
Man, all those words just to say 'I had trouble compiling, too, until I updated to the current compiler'. Guess it's been a long week... Joe Sixpack is dead!
Is it all the way there, or do the authors have a lot of work to do before the release,[...]
I'm still downloading the new beta, but as of the previous beta, Konqueror is very nice, but not QUITE a replacement for Netscape Navigator yet.
As of Beta 4, I still don't seem to have Java or Javascript working in Konqueror, and it doesn't yet support https:// connections. Cosmetically, it also still seems to have some minor problems with some forms and centering ("www.google.com" is a simple example - the form entry bar should be centered, but ends up over to the left).
On the other hand, it definitely renders pages faster than Navigator does, and is, on the whole, extremely nice. I am now able to use it for many (but not all) of the pages I regularly browse. Netscape plugins seem to work okay (at least, Flash does).
I'm looking forward to being able to get rid of the last closed program I regularly use (Netscape Navigator) Any Day Now. (KMail has already enabled me to go from "communicator" to the lighter "navigator" package for Netscape. Thanks, KDE team!)
But as US Government, inc. has had more time than just about anyone else to deal with the Internet, one would hope they'd do better.
Unfortunately, like any gigantic corporation I've heard much about, US Government, inc., seems to be run by PHB's who are more influenced by marketing and PR than useful facts.
I guess they figure they'll just sue anybody who gets into the system (a la the MPAA) rather than take proper precautions.
Not that I'm cynical about the US Government or anything...
Is this any different than the adverts that get stuffed into textbooks?
Yes. The advertisements in my textbook don't track my habits, and I only have to take the time to remove them ONCE, and they don't cause a several-second-delay every time I turn the page.
I all but told the students to take the books back, and I'm supplying them with my own resources or pointers to web pages, etc.
THANK YOU!
I'm almost entirely self-taught with computers, fortunately, but I've noticed with great disgust the apparently very limited range of computer knowledge of some of the instructors in some of the CIS classes at my local college. I often wonder if they are just extra instructors for Marketing classes being paid to advertise whatever Microsoft gave them for free THIS year...
Therefore, it's nice to hear not everyone is like this in the CIS teaching field.
should you really have to tell people not to judge and argue about other people's beliefs?
You seem to be saying that 'judging people and/or their beliefs is bad'.
It is the belief of the DVDCCA that the world will end if Australians can view mail-ordered DVD's from USA. It is the belief (at least, the publicly stated one) of the RIAA that Napster steals food from the mouths of starving artists. It is the belief of US Government, inc, that the Big Business is it's only reasonable source of political campaign money, and must therefore be pandered to. It is also the belief of the US Government, inc, that the rest of the world should think the same way. It is the belief of 'John Q. Public' that inconvenience is worse than lack of rights.....Shall I continue? I won't even mention the one about the group who thinks all of our problems are caused by being possessed by the spirits of dead space-aliens...
Mind you, I understand what you mean, but so far this topic seems to have generated a far better ratio of 'informative posts' to 'flambait' that I would have imagined.
So, in short, yes we SHOULD judge other's beliefs, along with everything else in the world - we should just do so rationally and constructively.
Only about 17% of African citizens have internet access
So THAT'S it! All those people in various parts of Africa are dying off due to lack of internet access! Silly me, I always thought it was fascist politicians, poverty, disease, and starvation that was causing it.
So, does United Way need to send them computers, or just the grain elevators?:-)
Problem is, John Q. Public doesn't care whether he's breaking the law or not in most cases like this.
John Q. Public's been copying videotapes, cassettes, CD's, and Software from his buddies for many, many years, generally completely aware that what he's doing is "technically illegal", but generally not enforced.
Problem is, John Q. Public's been operating this way for so long, he feels it doesn't matter if they crank down the laws beyond where they are now, such that they keep him from 'fair use' - he figures he'll just ignore the law then, too, so why expend any energy thinking about the problem (let alone DOING anything about it.)
At least, that seems to be the prevailing attitude in the US. I think the only thing that'll get an uproar is if the laws get ridiculously tight AND WIDELY ENFORCED all at once, such that John Q. Public gets spanked before he can get used to it. If, though, US Congress Inc continues repealing rights little by little, John Q. Public won't even notice until it's WAY too late to do anything about it.
So, in short, while I've not actually given up, I feel like I'm trying to run a "three-legged-race" while the guy I'm tied to is trying to take a nap.
I'm in Canada, and I've written missives to Australian and American government peons and representatives.
THANK YOU! It'll be nice if the executives of US Government, inc, start realizing that there's more at stake here than deciding which demographic segments of the US Populace to portion out the bread and circuses to...
(Are non-US citizens allowed to submit comments to the US copyright office re DMCA, based on the probability that the DMCA will be used to screw up copyright laws for overseas countries? : ))
Never mind whether you're allowed to or not, I say, "Please do so!". If you (or anyone else outside USA inc.) are so inclined, there's no reason I can think of not to also send comments to various Executives and Managers (e.g. Senators, State Governors, the US CEO/President, etc.) voicing legitimate concerns of US influence on your own governments and the international implications of these laws. I suspect a disturbing number of the US Governments executives just don't realize how much of an international issue this sort of thing really is.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah, you don't do that sort of thing all at once.
You start small, like being required to 'register' the equipment. Hmmmm....looks like my birth certificate already takes care of that part.
The next step then, is to ban "assault" versions of the equipment. In this context, I suppose this means either equipment over a certain length, or equipment that produces or can handle "assault" concentrations of testosterone....
Once that's in place, we just institute a "buy-back" program which allows owners of the equipment to sell it to the Government (presumably this means taxes go up to pay for nationwide 'sexual reassignment' surgery....) Those who hold out on this will have their equipment taken by force later on.
Okay, I'll stop. I'm starting to scare myself, and I don't want my legislators to think I'm serious and start getting ideas...
Joe Sixpack is dead!
Hmmm. The Internet is more like a public park than a private house. If the hypothetical wife in question sets up a 'camp shower' in the middle of a public park and then steps naked out of it, I'd be screaming if someone called 911 because I looked...(I understand your point, though, and I can't say that I totally disagree, really).
Seems to me the key thing that really needs to be clearly defined is where the 'external interface' of your computer ends. Personally, I think if it's relatively easy to access (another vague phrase that would need a cleaner definition!) from the Internet, it should be considered part of the "public interface", even if the reason it's easily accessed is 'administrator error' rather than intent. (To go back to the analogy - If I'm standing on the sidewalk when the hypothetical wife steps naked out of the shower in front of an unintentionally-open window, I don't want to be flung in jail because some badly-written law says that it's illegal to 'view a naked woman from outside of a private home without prior explicit permission' - even if it IS called "The Protection from Sick Perverted Peeping-Toms Act of 2001".)
Anybody got some better thoughts on what should constitute a computer's "Public Interface", and how we might clue lawmakers in on it?
Joe Sixpack is dead!
Those In Power(tm) here in USA, inc. seem to have a disturbing trend going. More and more, it seems as though the government in this country is moving towards a "make everything illegal and then just pick and choose who you enforce the laws against" rather than "make clear, rational laws and enforce them".(This isn't just happening in the "computer law" arena)
Since when do we need "to pass legislation against illegally accessing a computer"? Isn't it already illegal to "illegally access" anything? Is this for some sort of "bonus crime" they can slap you with if they feel like it?
And I certainly hope the wording is a lot more specific than "intercepting computer data or interfering with computer systems" in this "treaty". If the government dislikes a "hacker" who happens to work as a system administrator, would they be able to fling him in jail because he read the server's logfiles? Or if a kid from som Scandinavian country wrote software to decode encrypted media, would someone in USA, inc. have to work very hard to get this hypothetical kid picked up by his country's police? (Say...why does this sound familiar?)
The 'party line' along this whole trend seems to always be "Don't worry, this law will only be used to deal with real criminals. Trust us, it won't be misused. You just don't understand the language, it's not as bad as you think." For example:
DOJ and council officials said much of the concern over the draft stems from a misunderstanding of the treaty's intent and a need for clarifications in the text. For example, they said, security testing would not be banned, because prosecutors must show there was intent to commit an illegal act. That last sentence makes me wonder - if the hypothetical "hacker" that the government doesn't like makes an offhand remark concerning cracking techniques he's interested in finding out more about, and later does a security scan of his employer's system (for legitimate reason), how hard would it be for US Gov't, inc, to convince a typical jury that a comment about 'cracking techniques' shows 'intent' (in the sense of 'conspiracy')? Given what I've heard about the frighteningly-popular-among-legislators "Methamphetamine anti-proliferation act" (which, from the sound of it, would make it illegal to TALK ABOUT the chemistry of phenylethylamine derivatives), this doesn't sound like a too-far-fetched scenario.
We (here in USA Inc) have about a month-and-a-half to get the word out and try to weasel a stand on the issue out of the various candidates running this year. May the God of your choice help us all....
Maybe I'm overreacting (and perhaps will be moderated down as "Troll" since there isn't a "Paranoid Whacko" option on the moderation menu), but I'm worried.
Joe Sixpack is dead!
AP/Reuters -
Microsoft today filed suit against Eliza, inc. for infringement of a 'business method' patent which Microsoft holds, which Microsoft claims covers use of "obfuscatory responses used to avoid answering questions".
Eliza, inc.'s official response to the suit was "Does it please you to believe I am infringing on our intellectual property?" When further questioned, Eliza, inc. added, "Please go on."
Joe Sixpack is dead!
Hacking SDMI (so that we can once again make legal fair use of purchased material). (That is, after it's been released and gone into use, of course...)
Generating .ogg's of every public domain bit of audio available and DivX:) recordings of every public domain video clip(old newsreels and such, for example) to be placed in a huge central repository somewhere to be preserved?
Seems like good use of clock-cycles to me...
Joe Sixpack is dead!
I find it slightly disturbing that the Federal Communications Commission doesn't even seem to comment on disproportionate control of communication that a mega-merger like this would result in.
At the same time, I find the thought of giving US Government inc. power to control a gigantic entity like this.
I find it disturbing that so few people (among the general populace) seem to even realize this is going on, let alone understand what it could mean.
Finally, I find it disturbing that I'm too old to have all the answers anymore, so I don't have even a ridiculous, self-serving solution to the problem.
Therefore, all I can say is - HELP!
Joe Sixpack is dead!
And here's how. In about 3 months, after Digital Convergence goes belly-up as their investors realize what a ridiculous implementation of the "marketing database" concept they've tried to expensively implement, nobody (nobody commercial, anyway) will support CueCat scanning anymore.
Once that's the case, the various individuals who received the CueCat for free will sell them at yard sales for $0.25 each. Since they didn't pay for it (or even ask for it, in many cases), they make $0.25 profit on each sale!
Maybe Digital Convergence should try the same thing now, to minimize their debts....
Joe Sixpack is dead!
This [the article] is relatively nifty, but as has already been pointed out in previous posts, this still relies on 'fossil fuels'.
Now, for really renewable power, maybe microbial fuel cells can be developed. The idea of perhaps someday turning the landfill and/or home septic tanks (or algae tanks or... etc. etc.) into power sources amuses me to no end (I mean directly, I know there are a few methane-burning powerplants built over landfills around), but then, I've got a definite bias towards this kind of thing...
Here are a couple of microbial fuel cell links (research/educational prototypes - I get the impression that there's still quite a bit of development to be done before it can be commercially useful).
http://www.ncbe.reading.ac.uk/NCBE/MATERIALS/fuelc ell.htmlh tm
http://www.automation.hut.fi/research/bio/fc98jp.
Joe Sixpack is dead!
At the same time as the dire warnings of the imminent doom of the internet due to DDOS attacks from compromised Unix machines, MicroSoft-NBC is apparently also sponsoring a "stuffed" poll (whether MSNBC is doing the stuffing or someone else I don't know), according to This story on Linuxtoday.com
Is there anyone but me that finds this to be an amazing coincidence that the Microsoft FUD machines are cranked up to full throttle the weekend after Microsoft ME is released (and is being thoroughly disapproved of according to the various reviews and "will you buy Windows ME?" polls around the net)?
Perhaps some rival news agencies would like to get some mileage out of MSNBC's activities? ...
Joe Sixpack is dead!
The Background: I'm running a system based originally on Slackware 7.0 (with many updates - call it "Slackware 7.05" if you want), with, up until today, the original compiler (egcs 1.1.2) that came with 7.0. Trying to compile KDELIBS-1.94 bombed out in the KIO section...
To make a long story short (and to help cover up the fact that I didn't write down the error messages), apparently a utility called kcopidl (or was it mcopidl? ARGH! I knew I should have written it down...), which compiled earlier in the kdelibs package and was needed for compiling the rest of the package, was segfaulting. Fortunately, I'd already downloaded the slackware packages for gcc 2.95.2 from the contrib directory, and I uninstalled egcs and installed gcc 2.95.2. It compiles now.
Man, all those words just to say 'I had trouble compiling, too, until I updated to the current compiler'. Guess it's been a long week...
Joe Sixpack is dead!
I'm still downloading the new beta, but as of the previous beta, Konqueror is very nice, but not QUITE a replacement for Netscape Navigator yet.
As of Beta 4, I still don't seem to have Java or Javascript working in Konqueror, and it doesn't yet support https:// connections. Cosmetically, it also still seems to have some minor problems with some forms and centering ("www.google.com" is a simple example - the form entry bar should be centered, but ends up over to the left).
On the other hand, it definitely renders pages faster than Navigator does, and is, on the whole, extremely nice. I am now able to use it for many (but not all) of the pages I regularly browse. Netscape plugins seem to work okay (at least, Flash does).
I'm looking forward to being able to get rid of the last closed program I regularly use (Netscape Navigator) Any Day Now. (KMail has already enabled me to go from "communicator" to the lighter "navigator" package for Netscape. Thanks, KDE team!)
Joe Sixpack is dead!
But as US Government, inc. has had more time than just about anyone else to deal with the Internet, one would hope they'd do better.
Unfortunately, like any gigantic corporation I've heard much about, US Government, inc., seems to be run by PHB's who are more influenced by marketing and PR than useful facts.
I guess they figure they'll just sue anybody who gets into the system (a la the MPAA) rather than take proper precautions.
Not that I'm cynical about the US Government or anything...
Joe Sixpack is dead!
Yes. The advertisements in my textbook don't track my habits, and I only have to take the time to remove them ONCE, and they don't cause a several-second-delay every time I turn the page.
Joe Sixpack is dead!
THANK YOU!
I'm almost entirely self-taught with computers, fortunately, but I've noticed with great disgust the apparently very limited range of computer knowledge of some of the instructors in some of the CIS classes at my local college. I often wonder if they are just extra instructors for Marketing classes being paid to advertise whatever Microsoft gave them for free THIS year...
Therefore, it's nice to hear not everyone is like this in the CIS teaching field.
Joe Sixpack is dead!
You seem to be saying that 'judging people and/or their beliefs is bad'.
It is the belief of the DVDCCA that the world will end if Australians can view mail-ordered DVD's from USA. It is the belief (at least, the publicly stated one) of the RIAA that Napster steals food from the mouths of starving artists. It is the belief of US Government, inc, that the Big Business is it's only reasonable source of political campaign money, and must therefore be pandered to. It is also the belief of the US Government, inc, that the rest of the world should think the same way. It is the belief of 'John Q. Public' that inconvenience is worse than lack of rights.....Shall I continue? I won't even mention the one about the group who thinks all of our problems are caused by being possessed by the spirits of dead space-aliens...
Mind you, I understand what you mean, but so far this topic seems to have generated a far better ratio of 'informative posts' to 'flambait' that I would have imagined.
So, in short, yes we SHOULD judge other's beliefs, along with everything else in the world - we should just do so rationally and constructively.
Joe Sixpack is dead!
Sure, but which license will the prayers be in?
Joe Sixpack is dead!
"Any sufficently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" (as I recall).
Personally, I think it's the other way around (any sufficiently advanced magic looks like technology).
Now, excuse me, as it is time to invoke the name of Cron so that my data will be magically backed up....
Joe Sixpack is dead!
Well, I like to tell people that I'm an autotheist. Is that odd?
Joe Sixpack is dead!
So THAT'S it! All those people in various parts of Africa are dying off due to lack of internet access! Silly me, I always thought it was fascist politicians, poverty, disease, and starvation that was causing it.
So, does United Way need to send them computers, or just the grain elevators? :-)
Joe Sixpack is dead!
You know, there's got to be a potential joke about "sowing wild oats" in here somewhere....
(a good pun is its own reword...)
Joe Sixpack is dead!
Yeah, but the DMCA was produced by US Congress, Inc. Don't tell me you think they know how to COUNT! :-)
Joe Sixpack is dead!
Problem is, John Q. Public doesn't care whether he's breaking the law or not in most cases like this.
John Q. Public's been copying videotapes, cassettes, CD's, and Software from his buddies for many, many years, generally completely aware that what he's doing is "technically illegal", but generally not enforced.
Problem is, John Q. Public's been operating this way for so long, he feels it doesn't matter if they crank down the laws beyond where they are now, such that they keep him from 'fair use' - he figures he'll just ignore the law then, too, so why expend any energy thinking about the problem (let alone DOING anything about it.)
At least, that seems to be the prevailing attitude in the US. I think the only thing that'll get an uproar is if the laws get ridiculously tight AND WIDELY ENFORCED all at once, such that John Q. Public gets spanked before he can get used to it. If, though, US Congress Inc continues repealing rights little by little, John Q. Public won't even notice until it's WAY too late to do anything about it.
So, in short, while I've not actually given up, I feel like I'm trying to run a "three-legged-race" while the guy I'm tied to is trying to take a nap.
Joe Sixpack is dead!
THANK YOU! It'll be nice if the executives of US Government, inc, start realizing that there's more at stake here than deciding which demographic segments of the US Populace to portion out the bread and circuses to...
Joe Sixpack is dead!
Personally, I like "TweedleRep and TweedleDem". :-)
Joe Sixpack is dead!
Never mind whether you're allowed to or not, I say, "Please do so!". If you (or anyone else outside USA inc.) are so inclined, there's no reason I can think of not to also send comments to various Executives and Managers (e.g. Senators, State Governors, the US CEO/President, etc.) voicing legitimate concerns of US influence on your own governments and the international implications of these laws. I suspect a disturbing number of the US Governments executives just don't realize how much of an international issue this sort of thing really is.
Joe Sixpack is dead!