The WHOIS database should be the way it was when it was first created, an open, free, non-commercial registry of domain names. Can we please get Network Solutions (or Versign now) out of the drivers seat and then consider whether WHOIS info should be kept confidential. I'm thinking it shouldn't, but it doesn't matter to me at this step since having Network Solution (or Versign) in control means I don't use it.
WASHINGTON (AP) - The CIA is investigating 160 of its employees and contract workers for exchanging "inappropriate" and off-color messages on a covert "chat room" in the spy agency's classified computer network, The Washington Post reported.
This is probably an attempt to force migration over to Unicode. Anyways, why is Verisign behind this? Didn't we learn from Network Solutions that a privately-owned, commercial company is not the solution to internet domain name databases (and their "ownership")?
How can one company be granted the monopoly rights to something so important to the world's economy and everyone on the Internet again? Should this be assigned to a not-for-profit entity under the auspices of ICANN?
Fellow Virgin WebPlayer owners (in case you got one -- I do!), here's the news you've been waiting for. As reported on
The Register, and found in the new WebPlayer
FAQ's, you do
not have to return your webplayer and you do
not have to pay anything for it. Pretty nifty, especially if we can figure out
how to hack it. Read up more on this
message board.
In case no one's mentioned it, the Ars Technica run down on how SDMI is cracked:
...the Princeton results? This bit on IDG.net clears things up quite a bit. Check it:
"Our focus has always been on the scientific question of whether the SDMI's technologies, if deployed, could be defeated by pirates," the statement read. "We demonstrated that they could be defeated, by making small modifications to the music files so that the watermarks were no longer detectable but the sound quality was still acceptable. "Instead of the scientific question, the SDMI has chosen to focus on who is eligible for the cash prize that they have offered. Since we chose to forgo the cash prize in order to retain our right to publish our results, we understand that the SDMI no longer considers us to be entrants in their contest. Their announcement regarding their contest does not invalidate our scientific results."
So it looks like the Princeton hacks weren't counted. Furthermore, the Princeton team will be releasing their findings to the public, so if one of the "unhacked" technologies gets picked then info on how to defeat it will soon be public knowledge. I'm sure SDMI thinks they're going to sue under the DMCA to shut Princeton up, and I hope they do. It'll make for a great test case for this unconstitutional bit of legislation.
Yeah. That's the whole point. The SDMI has to lie now or else they can't lie later. SDMI is cracked (and mathematically we already know from information theory that you can't do what they want to do). A secure system is impossible. They know it's not feasible so they have craft out these early lies to support their later lies when they go before Congress and ask for more restrictive laws and when they go before a judge and ask him to confiscate joe college student's computer and audio equipment plus levy a steep fine because joe knows how to make copies.
What concerns me is the increasing amounts of money funneled into the War on Drugs and the meagre results being shown. I am also getting sick of hearing how people's basic Constituional rights keep getting trammeled by drug police (DEA, FBI, and local law enforcement) whether or not they are using drugs.
Nader is for decriminalization of
marijuana use (not sale) and treatment for offenders (not mandatory prison sentences). This is in sharp contrast to both Gore/Bush who want to continue with the failing War on Drugs and its accompanying
problems.
Which brings us to Ralph Nader. Vice President Al Gore, on Meet the Press this week, told Tim Russert WHAT WOULD HAPPEN if George W. were elected president. Women would lose their right to have an abortion, Gore bellowed, with no equivocation and no hint of shame for what has happened on the Clinton/Gore watch.
All the pundits -- and the Democrats -- tell us that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush because all Ralph will end up doing is siphoning off votes that would have gone to Gore. This is their mantra:
"IF BUSH IS ELECTED, HE WILL APPOINT JUSTICES TO THE SUPREME COURT AND THEY WILL DECLARE ABORTION ILLEGAL!"
Well, I've fallen for this before and I ain't fallin' for it again. In fact, I will go so far as to say that George W. Bush, if for some reason he is magically elected, will NEVER do ANYTHING to make abortion illegal.
Here's my proof:
1. To recap what I have already stated: Roe v. Wade was written by a Republican, and upheld for 27 years by Republicans. No Republican president has made abortion illegal, and none will this time around.
2. George W. is, first and only, a politician. For crying out loud, 70% of the country favors legal abortion, trust me, that party boy is NEVER going to cook his goose on this issue.
....
Plus, I believe the true Nader constituency out there is among the 100 million nonvoters who have given up, thinking they no longer have a say in what really goes on in Washington. Gore shouldn't worry about Ralph taking votes from him. Rather he should think about what his administration with Bill Clinton has taken away from the women of this nation.
Come November 7, I plan to enter the voting booth and vote not from fear, but from a desire to see this country returned to the people.
So let's review -- you like Gore, you vote for Gore. He's a decent
guy. I met him last year at some benefit, he came up to me, big hug -- whoa,
this veep is no stiff, I thought -- and thanked me for this and that. He
even
quoted lines from "The Awful Truth" - whoa, scary, I thought, what's he
doing watching cable channels above 40 on the box...not much to do on
this veep gig, eh?
I told him I admired what he did when he came home to America as a
Vietnam Vet and spoke out against the war. That took a lot of courage, I
said
(his dad lost his Senate seat for being an early opponent of the war).
So, if Al Gore is your man, go for it. In fact, I insist on it, even if
you are just throwing your vote away.
What I am about to say, though, is not intended for any Al Gore
(or George W.) voters. If you are one, please click off now.
To Whom It May Concern:
I address this letter to the largest political party in the United
States - the 55% of you in the voting public who are so disillusioned
with politics and politicians, so sick and tired of all the broken
promises, so disgusted with all the b.s. that you have absolutely no
intention of voting in November.
You know who you are.
AND YOU ARE THE MAJORITY!
You rule. You are the Non-Voters, all 100 million of you!
Until now, you have been the subject of scorn and ridicule. You've been
called apathetic, lazy, ignorant. Your actions have been viewed as
unAmerican (I mean, what kind of citizen in the World's Greatest
Democracy would not exercise his or her most important and cherished
right - the right to freely choose your leader!).
Well, may I be the first to tell you that, not only are you NOT stupid
and apathetic, I believe you are smarter than all the rest of us
combined. YOU figured it out. YOU uncovered the scam. And YOU
had the guts to no longer participate in a lie. Way to go! In 1996,
you
helped set the all-time American record for lowest turnout ever at a
presidential election.
The reason you, the majority, no longer vote in America is because you,
the majority, realize there is no real choice on the ballot. The "two"
parties both do the bidding of the wealthy and agree with each other on
90% of the issues. They take 90% of their money from people who make
over a hundred-grand a year, and then enact over 90% of the laws those
contributors want passed.
On the ballot this November, you already know there is no contest. The
independent Cook Political Report in D.C. last week announced that, out
of 435 House seats up for election in November, there are only 47 seats
where there is a "true race" between opponents - and, of those, only 14
seats have a race that is even "close" between the two candidates.
14 out of 435!
"Ninety-seven to ninety-nine percent of incumbents running for
re-election will be returned to Congress in November," according to the
Cook Report.
The Non-Voters already understand this. And they are not going to waste
one iota of their day on November 7 driving to some smelly elementary
school gymnasium to participate in a Soviet-style election with no
friggin'
choice on the ballot.
So, to you brave voter-resisters, I say congratulations on your act of
civic disobedience! I joined you this primary season and refused to go
along with this charade of "choice." Nearly 80% of those of us of
voting age - over 160 million Americans - staged a sit-in on our living
room couches during this year's primaries. THAT is the great untold
story of this election year. How much longer will the punditocracy be
able to get away with dismissing this massive no-show as "a sign
Americans are content with the booming economy?"
Now that we have made our presence known (you all don't mind me speaking
for us, do you? Good. In fact, I'll just assume the currently-vacant
mantle of this majority party and serve as your leader until you say
otherwise...), it is time to find a way that says, loudly and clearly,
just how mad as hell we are and how we are not going to take it
anymore. We need to find a way where our vote screams "None of the
Above!" A chance to act, like that Chinese guy in Tieneman Square,
standing in front of a moving tank and stopping it in its path.
In November, we should find a way to follow in the footsteps of those
intelligent Minnesotans who, even thought they could care less about
professional wrestling (and even less, I'm sure, for Jesse "The Body"),
proved to the world that they not only have a sense of humor, but they
know how to stick it to the whole bloody system. Think of just how high
their level of anger must have been against the
One-Party-With-Two-Heads monopoly! I mean, state government is no joke
- somebody's gotta build the roads, run the schools, catch the
criminals. You don't want to turn the asylum over to the chief lunatic
but, damn it, that's what the people of Minnesota did - just to send a
message! Wow. That took some guts.
So, for those of you who weren't going to vote anyway, well...what if you
actually did? What if you drove down to that stinky gym where the
little shell game behind the pretend curtains is taking place ("Pay no
attention to the voters behind the curtains!"), walk in, sign in, take
the ballot they hand you, and toss yourselves inside the booth like a
political molotov cocktail.
Boom!
"You wanna tell me there's a choice here between two guys who both
support NAFTA, WTO, the death penalty, the Cuban embargo, increased
Pentagon spending, sleazy HMOs, greedy hospital chains, 250 million guns
in our homes, more bombing of Iraq, the rich getting richer and the rest
of us declaring bankruptcy?"
Boom!
Not me.
Boom!
I'm voting for Ralph Nader.
KAAAABOOM!
Friends, we are losing our democratic control over our country. We may
have already lost it. I hope not. But in the last 20 years of the
Reagan administration, Corporate America has merged and morphed itself
to such an extent that just a handful of companies now call all the
shots. They own Congress. They own us. In order to work for them, we
have to take urine tests and lie detectors and wear bar codes on chains
around our necks. In order to keep our jobs we have had to give up
decent health care, the 8-hour day (and time with our kids), the
security that we'll even have a job next year, and any unwillingness we
may have to compete with a 14-year old Indonesian girl who gets a dollar
a day.
And how frightening (and great) is it that the last place we can freely
try to inform and communicate with each other is on this very Web? Six
companies run by six men control the majority of the news we now get
from newspapers, television, radio and the Internet. One out of every
two books is bought at a bookstore owned by one of only two companies.
Is it safe in a "free society" to have the sources of our information
and mass communication in the hands of just a few wealthy men who have a
VESTED interest in keeping us as stupid as possible - or at least in
keeping us thinking like them so that we vote for THEIR candidates?
I fear the cement on this new oligarchy of power is quickly drying, and
when it is finished hardening, we are finished. The democracy, the one
that's supposed to be of, by, and for the people, will cease to exist.
We must not let this happen, no matter how cynical and disgusted we've
become at the whole electoral process.
Ralph Nader, to me, represents a chance for us to at least temporarily
stop the cement from drying. We need him in there kicking things up,
stirring the pot and forcing a real debate about the issues. Whether
it's Ralph as Candidate or Ralph as President, he may represent our last
hope to get our country back from the clutches of the powerful few.
I am not writing these words lightly. I am hoping to sound a siren and
rally the majority who, for good reason, have given up - but might just
have it in them to find the will for one last fight against the
bastards.
Can Ralph win? Well, stranger things have happened in the past decade.
C'mon, think about it, not a single one of us ever thought we'd see the
Berlin Wall come down or Nelson Mandela as President of South Africa.
After those two things happened, I joined a new school of thought that
said ANYTHING was possible. Jesse Ventura started with 3% in the polls
and won. Ross Perot in '92 started with 6% and, after proving to
everyone that he was certifiably insane, still got nearly 20% of the vote.
Ralph already has between 7% and 10% in the polls - before he's done any
serious campaigning. He's gone from 3% to 8% in my home state of
Michigan. These are amazing numbers and the pundits and lobbyists and
Republicrats are running scared. Hey, you like to watch scared
Republicrats running? Tell a pollster you're voting for Ralph.
Now, look, before you all send me a lot of mail about how weird Ralph is
'cause he doesn't own a car or is a "sell-out" 'cause he's got a few
million dollars, let me say this: I used to work out of his office, and
Ralph is definitely one of a kind. In a future letter I will write of
those experiences but, for now, let's just agree that Ralph is at least
half as crazy as Jesse Ventura - and about a hundred times as smart.
I'd say he's also saved about a million or so lives, thanks to the
consumer and environmental legislation he has devoted his life to.
And between Gore, Bush, and himself, he's the only person running who
would guarantee universal health care for all, the only candidate who
would raise the minimum wage to a decent level, the only one who would
get up each morning asking himself the question, "What can I do today to
serve all the people of this country?"
The list goes on and on. You can read more about what Ralph stands for
by going to his website (http://www.votenader.org). You'll agree, I'm sure,
there's lots of common sense there, regardless of what political stripe
you are.
But remember. If you are even THINKING of voting for Al Gore, vote for
Al Gore. Ralph Nader does not need a single Gore vote. There are a
hundred million of us out there who are uncommitted and currently not
voting. Right now, Gore and Bush are each hoping to win by getting only
40 million votes.
If you are in the Non-Voting majority and want to let 'em all have it,
if you want to get our country back in our hands...well, if even half of
you show up and vote November 7 then you won't be held responsible for
Bush winning the White House.
In fact, you won't be held responsible for putting Gore in the White
House, either.
Rather, you will have made history by putting a true American hero at
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
And you will have given every company, every boss who's done ya wrong,
the worst nightmare of their lives.
PS. Come to think of it, Democrats should be on their knees thanking
Ralph for running. Rather than taking votes from Gore, Ralph's going to
be the one responsible for turning the House back over to the Democrats.
When millions of these Non-Voters enter that booth to vote for Ralph,
and
they come across their local race for Congress, they will find no Green
Party
candidate in most of the 435 Congressional districts. So who do you
think
Ralph's army of Non-Voters will plunk down for Congress? The
Republican?
I don't think so.
The Democrats are only six seats short of regaining control of the
House. Ralph Nader will be the reason the Democrats get the House back
for the first time since Newt's Contract on America in 1994.
Democrats should send their checks to Nader 2000, P.O. Box 18002,
Washington, DC 20036.
(Or, better yet, let's try to elect enough Greens to Congress -- a dozen
or so -- and they'll hold the deciding votes because neither the Democrats nor
the
Republicans will have the majority. It'll be a friggin' Knesset!)
PPS. If you're still worried this letter might convince a weak-kneed
Gore
voter to flip over to Nader - and thus lead to President George W.
stacking the Supreme Court to make abortion illegal, well, it's all a
bunch of hooey. Please read my latest grassroots.com column entitled,
"I Ain't Fallin for That One Again."
PPPS. Tonight, Wednesday July 19, on "The Awful Truth" (Bravo, 10 p.m.
ET/PT), Crackers the Corporate Crime Fighting Chicken makes a surprise
return visit. Don't miss it!
PLEASE PASS THIS LETTER ON TO YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY.
PERMISSION IS GRANTED TO REPRINT ANYWHERE.
I think the first time I remember hearing this political urban myth was in the 1976 presidential election. Somebody told me the reason I had to vote for Jimmy Carter was because if Gerald Ford was elected, women would lose their right to choose to have an abortion. Abortion had been legal for only three years at that point. It was considered a great victory, one we all wanted to support.
So, I voted for Jimmy Carter -- and guess what? One of the things he did was to stop all abortions provided for women or wives in the armed services! He also stopped any further funding to birth control groups overseas that offered abortion as an alternative. And he ended all Medicaid payments for poor women in need of an abortion.
I felt a bit abused. I mean, Gerry Ford had been pro-choice. His wife was an ardent supporter of women's rights. And it was a Nixon appointee to the Supreme Court -- Justice Blackmun -- that wrote the majority opinion making abortion legal. What was I thinking? (Other than that the Nixon Nightmare years had to come to an end! That, I correctly rationalized, was worth the vote for Carter.)
Four years later, Democrats and liberals were going nuts over the possibility that Ronald Reagan might unseat Carter. Dire warnings were issued to all: If Reagan gets in, abortion will be illegal, period.
Well, I didn't vote for Reagan OR Carter, Reagan got in, and then something strange happened: Abortion remained legal! Sure, Reagan built on Carter's abortion restrictions, but Roe v. Wade was still the law of the land when the Gipper rode off into the sunset eight years later.
Yet Reagan had appointed plenty of wingnuts to the Supreme Court, so when the doomsayers in 1988 warned that George Bush would CERTAINLY send women back to the alleys to have illegal abortions, another bizarre thing happened -- Bush got elected, and... four years later... ABORTION WAS STILL LEGAL!
But Bush did leave us with Clarence Thomas, so when the Democrats came to scare the bejeepers out of me with what Bush would do to a woman's right to choose if he got a second term, I decided to vote for Bill Clinton.
So what's happened under our first feminist-man president?
Perhaps Clinton misunderstood his mission: he was supposed to support a womanÕs right to choose, not his right to choose women. Roe v. Wade is still on the books (mainly because of the consistent and unwavering support from the Reagan-appointed Justice O'Connor, the Ford-appointed Justice Stevens, and the Bush-appointed Justice Souter! They have voted to uphold abortion rights every single time). But it is now twice as hard for a woman in America to obtain an abortion as it was when Clinton took office. The anti-abortion terrorists have been so successful in their campaign of violence against abortion clinics and doctors and hospitals who perform abortions that a woman can now get an abortion in only 14% of the counties in the United States. That's right. Terrorism has scored its first victory on U.S. soil by assassinating enough doctors and firebombing enough clinics so that no one wants to perform an abortion. So if you live in one of the 86% of counties where not a single doctor will do an abortion, let me ask you this: what good is a "right" to an abortion if you can't get one?
The stunning thing about this virtual elimination of abortion in America is that it has occurred at a time when nearly 70% of the country supports some form of legal abortion. The terrorists have literally gotten away with murder -- with a pro-choice attorney general sitting in Washington, D.C., doing damn little about it. About the only reason I voted for these clowns was because of this issue -- and where the hell have they been?
Which brings us to Ralph Nader. Vice President Al Gore, on Meet the Press this week, told Tim Russert WHAT WOULD HAPPEN if George W. were elected president. Women would lose their right to have an abortion, Gore bellowed, with no equivocation and no hint of shame for what has happened on the Clinton/Gore watch.
All the pundits -- and the Democrats -- tell us that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush because all Ralph will end up doing is siphoning off votes that would have gone to Gore. This is their mantra:
"IF BUSH IS ELECTED, HE WILL APPOINT JUSTICES TO THE SUPREME COURT AND THEY WILL DECLARE ABORTION ILLEGAL!"
Well, I've fallen for this before and I ain't fallin' for it again. In fact, I will go so far as to say that George W. Bush, if for some reason he is magically elected, will NEVER do ANYTHING to make abortion illegal.
Here's my proof:
1. To recap what I have already stated: Roe v. Wade was written by a Republican, and upheld for 27 years by Republicans. No Republican president has made abortion illegal, and none will this time around.
2. George W. is, first and only, a politician. For crying out loud, if 70% of the country favors legal abortion, trust me, that party boy is NEVER going to cook his goose on this issue. He is already moving to the center on abortion and has been doing so since the primaries. He wants to win. He already has the majority of women supporting him in the polls, in part because a lot of women are confident he will not upset this apple cart.
3. The New York Times two weeks ago did a study of Bush's court appointees in Texas and found that he did NOT appoint right-wing crazies, but rather moderates or moderate conservatives who have upheld legal abortion in Texas and struck down some cases that tried to put restrictions on a woman's right to choose.
4. Sometimes even conservatives end up accepting that the tide has turned against them. The most stunning example of this came last month when ultra-conservative Chief Justice William Rehnquist insisted on writing the MAJORITY opinion for the court upholding the Miranda ruling that requires the police to inform an arrestee of his or her constitutional rights. Now, you know a guy like Rehnquist personally just hates forcing the police to read someone their rights. But in his decision keeping Miranda the law of the land, Rehnquist wrote that the Miranda rights are now "part of the American culture" and therefore should not be done away with. Even pro-Miranda liberals had never heard that line used by the Supreme Court in backing a decision, but it was, in essence, the truth. Reading someone their rights is now like apple pie -- and so is a woman's right to choose what to do if she should become pregnant. The overwhelming majority of Americans believe it a decision best left with a woman, her doctor, her God -- and it's nobody else's dang business. That, too, is part of the American culture. It's called privacy, and it's been around for over 200 years. Nobody, regardless of their political stripe, wants the politicians or the justices in their bedroom.
So, this year, I'm not going to let the fearmongers scare me into voting against my conscience. And I'm not going to let the Democratic candidate for president cynically use this issue when he himself has served in D.C. for 8 years allowing the right to get an abortion to be whittled away to near nothing.
Plus, I believe the true Nader constituency out there is among the 100 million nonvoters who have given up, thinking they no longer have a say in what really goes on in Washington. Gore shouldn't worry about Ralph taking votes from him. Rather he should think about what his administration with Bill Clinton has taken away from the women of this nation.
Come November 7, I plan to enter the voting booth and vote not from fear, but from a desire to see this country returned to the people.
He's not being prosecuted. He was arrested, had his property seized, and was subjected to extensive interrogation, but in the end everything was dropped (because he did nothing wrong). The arrest occurred after the MPAA contacted law enforcement in Norway through their law firm.
U.S. law, however, can affect people outside the United States both through the political clout of the United States and its corporations and via international treaties signed by other countries and the United States.
Contact a local legal advisor to decide whether you can crack U.S. encryption in Finland. There's no reason you should not be able to, except for over-reaching laws or if you are invading others' privacy by doing so.
Circumvention is a necessary liberty. Without circumvention for technology we cannot figure out how technology works or make technologies compatible (and don't tell me we're allowed to do that under the law -- look at the DeCSS case). These anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA must be struck down. They only serve to vest power into the hands of large corporations and impede technological progress. Circumvention is a right!!
Nobody stole any Microsoft code. Microsoft staged the break-in as part of its continual goal to create a perception of greater value in their product (if it weren't valuable why would people steal it; why would people pirate it; etc) & to get certain anti-hacker legislation shuttled through Congress (which will help them yield greater control over their product after you've bought it & to fight against open source software's reverse engineering of their proprietary standards for compatibility and publishing of security exploits). The Microsoft staged break-in also helps to bolster their image as a victim, like they claim in the ongoing anti-trust case, rather than the perpetrator, which they are.
These events did not transpire without a reason. Microsoft wants to control your computing experience from the ground up and will do whatever it can do to further that end.
Nobody stole any Microsoft code. Microsoft staged the break-in to create a perception of greater value in their product & to get certain anti-hacker legislation shuttled through Congress (which will help them yield greater control over their product after you've bnought it & to fight against open source software's necessity to reverse engineer their proprietary standards and publish security exploits). The Microsoft staged break-in also helps to bolster their image as a victim, rather than the perpetrator.
Be certain: these events did not transpire without a reason. Microsoft wants to control your computing experience from the ground up and will do whatever it can do to further that end.
Oops, accidently posted the Salt Lake City newspaper article. Here's what you want to read:
REALITY CHECK IS OVERDUE IN PREVENTING DRUG ABUSE
AL GORE admits and George W. Bush implies youthful drug use. So should
schools adopt a "do as I say, not as I do" drug curriculum, or seek another
approach?
Drugs are dangerous, especially for youths whose families, peers or
neighborhoods do not create pressure for responsible choices. And drugs are
illegal.
But many successful adults used drugs casually. And experimentation by
adolescents, most of whom still turn out O.K., continues. The 1990's saw
teenage drug use grow while crime by youths declined.
Effective drug education is needed, but most programs exaggerate dangers and
condemn use so harshly that youths who fail at total abstinence are not
helped. This approach may not work.
Some efforts to reduce teenage drinking or early sex seem smarter. Underage
drinking is illegal but colleges and a few high schools have "safe ride"
programs with "no questions asked." It is contradictory to offer trips home
from alcoholic parties and tell teenagers not to drink, but the mixed
message can save lives.
Likewise, health teachers urge sexual abstinence, yet some high schools also
distribute condoms. Delay sex, they say, but if you go ahead, be safe. When
AIDS seems to threaten, consistency is a lower priority.
But "just say no" dominates drug education. A common program is DARE Drug
Abuse Resistance Education, used in two-thirds of all districts at a cost
of nearly 1 billion. DARE is taught by police officers, mostly in the fifth
and sixth grades. The White House drug policy director, Barry R. McCaffrey,
calls it "the premier drug prevention program."
Yet researchers find it does not work. DARE gets children to parrot
responses about how terrible drugs are, but they then apparently use drugs
at the same rate as non- DARE students. Some evidence suggests that
DARE-trained adolescents use drugs even more.
Critics worry that DARE uses such exaggeration that once children realize
they were misled, they may discount even true messages. The DARE workbook
says marijuana users "are slow, are dull, have little ambition." But
10-year-olds know of older siblings, parents, even presidents, who used it
without becoming dull or ambitionless. Children must then choose between
DARE and their own observations. DARE is unlikely to prevail.
Other official warnings are also troubling. Advertising sponsored by Mr. McCaffrey's office tells children, if you use marijuana "it will kill your
mother." Official "tips" urge parents to say, "If you took drugs it would
break my heart."
Parents should think twice before heeding such advice. Although parents do
not want children to try drugs, half of all teenagers do. Parents should
insist that children have safe places to go with friends and that they know
not to drive when "high." But threats of parental suicide and heartbreak may
lead to secret experimentation in risky settings or with friends that
parents neither know nor approve.
Official policy is puzzling because "just say no" has a long history of
failure. Before Prohibition, schools exaggerated alcohol's dangers. A
textbook said that in adult beer drinkers, "a slight cold brings on a fatal
pneumonia." Children who saw parents drink beer and survive colds then
ignored other temperance messages.
A 1930's Bureau of Narcotics campaign warned that marijuana would cause
teenagers to commit vicious crimes. The bureau promoted a 1936 commercial
film, "Tell Your Children," warning that marijuana caused teenagers to rape,
murder and commit suicide. The film's claims were so excessive that it was
later rereleased as a satire and shown widely on college campuses, now
titled "Reefer Madness."
In 1991, the General Accounting Office found no evidence that "just say no"
teaching was more effective in reducing drug use than programs that
recognized teenage behavior but tried to limit it.
Some curriculums may be more effective than DARE. Teachers can give
realistic information about the harm drugs do, and integrate health with
other lessons. But no programs have yet navigated the problem of how to
counsel against drugs while also supporting youths who ignore the advice.
Mayor Ross Anderson of Salt Lake City recently prohibited his police force
from taking part in DARE work. Schools should not "moralize and exaggerate,
but provide students with the basis for making decisions to avoid drugs," he
said.
Salt Lake City is not the only city to reconsider DARE. But in most places,
this ineffective and costly program still holds sway.
September 27, 2000 - Drug use by our youth is a problem that cries out for commitment, diligence,
and honesty by school administrators and elected officials. Instead, for far
too long, our drug-prevention policies have been driven by mindless
adherence to a wasteful, ineffective, feel-good program, Drug Abuse
Resistance Education DARE. DARE has been a huge public-relations success,
but a failure at accomplishing the goal of long-term drug-abuse prevention.
Before taxpayers' money is spent for drug prevention, any program receiving
the funds should prove its worth.
Our school administrators and elected leaders should insist on no less. However, with DARE, the moneyas well as the crucial opportunities to
implement programs that actually workhas been blown.
In a recent guest column appearing in this newspaper, Glenn Levant, the
president of DARE America, stated that "DARE has become the most successful
drug abuse and violence reduction program in the nation..." He is accurate,
but only if "success" is based on the amount of tax and foundation money
spent on a program or the number of schools that have used the program.
However, if "success" is based on the effectiveness of a program in reaching
the goal of reduced drug abuse over the long-term, DARE has been a dismal
failure, according to numerous published studies.
In a Kokomo, Ind., study, researchers found that the level of drug use among
DARE graduates was almost identical to the usage among non-DARE students. The only statistically meaningful difference was that more DARE students
reported recent use of marijuana than those who had not been through the
DARE program.
The Department of Justice commissioned the Research Triangle Institute RTI
to evaluate DARE. Its published findings reflect that DARE students use more
marijuana than non-DARE students.
The RTI concluded that DARE's core-curriculum effect on the use of other
drugs, except tobacco, is not statistically significant. According to the
RTI, DARE might very well be taking the place of other, more beneficial,
drug-prevention programs that adolescents otherwise could be receiving.
When the City of Oakland decided to dump DARE after spending more than
600,000 per year, the director of Oakland's Family Council on Drug
Awareness noted, "The bottom line is that DARE is an expensive program that
seems to be making the situation worse."
In the longest follow-up study conducted regarding the effectiveness of
DARE, the results of which were published in the Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, the researchers noted that "[t]he widespread popularity
of DARE is especially noteworthy, given the lack of evidence for its
efficacy." They repeated the findings of many other researchers: "[T]he
preponderance of evidence suggests that DARE has no long-term effect on drug
use."
After it became apparent I was going to terminate Salt Lake City's
involvement in the DARE program, several people came to complain at the City
Council meeting on July 11. Among them were the director of DARE for the
state of Utah, officers of the Utah Council for Crime Prevention, several
DARE officers, and a member of the Salt Lake City School Board. Although
they all spoke passionately for the continuation of DARE, not one of them
made reference to any research published in a peer-reviewed journal
demonstrating the effectiveness of DARE. In fact, the Salt Lake City school
board member said she was "appalled" because I provided my research to the
school board, yet she failed to mention any research to support her
apparently intuitive notion that DARE accomplishes its objective.
Drug prevention is too important to be left to those who refuse to become
familiar with the research -- or with the availability of other programs
that have been proved to work. The DARE program, and those who have
advocated it to the exclusion of effective programs, should be held
accountable to the public.
Most important, our community should demand that our schools replace DARE
with research-based programs that will help us attain our goal of
significantly reduced drug abuse among our youth.
Among those programs are Life Skills Training LST, Students Taught
Awareness and Resistance STAR, and Athletes Training and Learning to Avoid
Steroids ATLAS. I have provided information concerning these programs and
their effectiveness to the Salt Lake City school board.
Our common goal is to cut drug abuse among our youth.
A means of helping to accomplish that goal is to implement in our schools
drug-prevention programs that actually work. Those who fail to insist on
effective drug-prevention programs in our schools are betraying our youth
and our community.
And those who are unfamiliar with the research and insist on retaining DARE
in our schools simply because it is a "popular" program are not part of the
drug-abuse solution; they are part of the problem.
The FBI is putting a black box between you and the Internet via your ISP. What this means is that your communication passes through this box. The FBI is now the Gatekeeper for whether or not your communication gets out and whether others communication (including the whole wealth of information from the Internet) gets to you. They know what you are looking at, what you download, who you email, chat with, or talk to. They know everything that you do on the Internet. And now the FBI also gets to decide if it wants you to have a connection at all.
Yes, people will say, no, that's not what the FBI is doing. They're just putting a black box in at every U.S. ISP so that they can monitor certain people's communications only after receiving a judges signature (by the way, in California the DEA has a deal under the law which allows them to no longer get a courts permission when phone tapping people accused of dealing drugs -- they can sign the warrants themselves). The FBI says they will use this technology sparingly. They say it's for our own good.
Do we really need our Internet communications being monitored? I think not.
I for one do not want a technology in place (at my taxpayer expense) which allows the government the ability to shut down the entire Internet at a moments thought.
Carnivore is one part of the start of a very dangerous trend in the United States of America. It began with the War on Drugs, the middle and early eighties saw the start of routine unlawful search and seizure by government officials and the bribing of witnesses to imprison (often with life sentences) other individuals. Lately, government officials have decided that no communications by its citizens can go unobserved or unencumbered. Complete censorship of entire categories of speech is becoming routine through mandatory "filters" at school, in libraries, and soon at your computer. Now Carnivore. The end of private communications as we know it. Now the government will know that I am the one who wants you to know about what the government is doing & that I think it is wrong.
Official PlayStation 2 Release: October 26/2000 at a price of $299 USD.
$299 for a DVD player with digital sound (Dolby 5.1), FireWire, USB, game controller, 3.5" drive bay, backwards compatibility with PSX games, and
an intitial selection of more than 30 games, including Unreal Tournament. (There are only about 7 obscure PS1 games which won't play. All current DVDs including the Matrix do play.) Here's the list of games:
Consumers can find the following titles in October at more than 20,000 retail locations
(listed in alphabetical order):
Armored Core 2, published by Agetec and developed
by From Software
Dead or Alive 2: Hardcore, published and
developed by Tecmo
Dynasty Warriors 2, published and developed by
Koei
ESPN International Track & Field, published
by Konami and developed by KCEO
ESPN X Games Snowboarding, published and
developed by Konami
Eternal Ring, published by Agetec and developed
by From Software
Evergrace, published by Agetec and developed by
From Software
FantaVisionÔ
, published by SCEA
Gun Griffon Blaze, published by Working Designs
and developed by Game Arts
Kessen, published by Electronic Arts and
developed by Koei
Madden NFL 2001, published and developed by EA
Sports
Midnight Club: Street Racing, published by
Rockstar Games and developed by Angel Studios
Moto GP, published and developed by Namco
NHL 2001, published and developed by EA Sports
Orphen, published by Activision and developed by
Kadokawa Shoten
Q-Ball Billiards Master, published and developed
by Take 2 Interactive
Ready 2 Rumble"! Boxing: Round 2, published and developed by
Midway
Real Pool, published and developed by Infogrames
Ridge Racer V, published and developed by Namco
SSX, published and developed by Electronic Arts
Silent Scope, published and developed by Konami
Silpheed: The Lost Planet, published by Working
Designs and developed by Game Arts
Smuggler's Run, published by Rockstar Games and
developed by Angel Studios
Street Fighter® EX3, published and
developed by Capcom
Surfing H30, published and developed by Take 2 Interactive
Summoner, published by THQ and developed by Volition, Inc.
Swing Away Golf, published by Electronic Arts and developed by
T&E Software
Tekken Tag Tournament, published and developed by
Namco
TimeSplitters, published by Eidos and developed
by Free Radical Design, Ltd.
Top Gear Daredevil,published and developed by Kemco
Unreal Tournament, published by Infogrames and
developed by Epic Games
Wild Wild Racing, published by Interplay and
developed by Rage Software
X-Squad, published by Electronic Arts and developed by EA
Square
More than 10 additional titles are expected to be shipped in November and at least 9 titles in December, totaling more than 50 PlayStation 2-specific software titles in market by the holidays.
November 2000 releases include (listed in alphabetical order):
Disney' s Donald Duck Goin' Quackers, published
by Ubi Soft and developed by Disney Interactive
FIFA 2001 Major League Soccer, published and
developed by EA Sports
F1 Racing Championship, published by Ubi Soft and
developed by Video System
Gradius 3 & 4, published and developed by
Konami
NASCAR 2001, published and developed by EA Sports
Rayman® 2 Revolution, published and developed by Ubi
Soft
Super Bust-A-Move,published by Acclaim Entertainment and developed by Taito
The Sky Odyssey, published and developed by
Activision
Theme Park Roller Coaster, published and developed by Electronic
Arts
World Destruction League: Thunder Tanks, published and developed by
3DO
December 2000 releases include (listed in alphabetical order):
Army Men - Air Attack 2, published and developed
by 3DO
Army Men - Sarge' s Heroes 2, published and
developed by 3DO
Carrier Morphed, published and developed by
Jaleco
Formula 1 2000 CE, published and developed by EA
Sports
MDK"! 2: Armageddon, published by Interplay and
developed by BioWare
NBA Live 2001, published and developed by EA
Sports
Oni, published and developed by Rockstar Games
Star Wars Starfighter, published and developed by
LucasArts Entertainment Company
Warriors of Might & Magic, published and
developed by 3DO
First quarter of 2001 titles include (listed in alphabetical order):
4 X 4 Evolution, published and developed by GOD
(Gathering of Developers)
All Star Baseball"! 2002, published and
developed by Acclaim Sports
Army Men Vikki's Adventures, published and
developed by 3DO
Dark Angel Vampire, published and developed by
Metro 3D
Driving Emotion Type-SÔ
, published and developed by Square EA
developed by Square
ESPN MLS Game Night, published and developed by
Konami
Fur Fighters, published by Acclaim Entertainment
and developed by Bizarre Creations
Gauntlet®: Dark Legacy"!, published and developed by Midway
Gran TurismoÔ 3,
published by SCEA and developed by Polyphony Digital
High Heat Baseball2002, published and developed by 3DO
Kengo, published by Crave and developed by
Lightweight
NBA® Hoopz, published and developed by Midway
Onimusha"!: Warlords, published and
developed by Capcom
First quarter of 2001 titles continued (listed in alphabetical order):
Star Wars Super Bombad Racing, published and
developed by Lucas Learning
The BouncerÔ
, published by Square EA and developed by
Square/Dream Factory
Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2001,published and developed by EA Sports
Ultimate Fighting Championship, published and
developed by Crave
World Destruction League: WarJetz, published and
developed by 3DO
If major speed is on your mind, Yamaha just announced some 16x writers. In conjunction with Oak Technology, Yamaha is bringing out a 16x/16x/40x CD-R/RW and just came out with (in Japan and parts of Europe) a 16x/10x/40x CD-R/RW.
"Yamaha first to market with 16X CD-RW drive designed around Oak's controller that reduces CD burn time to under 5 minutes"
16X Write 16X ReWrite 40X Read / Audio Ripping
These drives use an 8MB Memory Buffer for their high speed and to avoid buffer under-run. I can't find any indication if they use either Sanyo's or Ricoh's error prevention technology. I don't think they do.
An interesting
article on Plextor's newest drive talks about a newer form of BURN-proof and also JustLink hints that 24x write drives may be down the road.
This RAM idea is great. It shows the true spirit of open source. We can fix anything from broken RAM to Microsoft.
Now what about something to make me burn less coasters?;)
There's new error-prevention technology available, but I believe it relies on hardware and software, to keep you from burning coasters.
#1) Sanyo's BURN-Proof technology (available on the newest Creative, QPS, Plextor, LaCie etc. writers)
#2) Ricoh's JustLink technology (available on its CD-R/RW/DVD-ROM combination drive among others)
Both technologies automatically prevents buffer under-run errors which are the leading cause of coasters.
If I were in the market for a new burner, I'd go with the $349 Ricoh combination drive. It does 12x CD-R, 10x CD-RW, 32x CD-ROM, and 8x DVD-ROM all in one device. That's smart.
--
Re:How stupid do they make em? Valenti... Now this
on
Yet More SDMI fallout
·
· Score: 2
Just thought I'd post a more recent late-breaking article from Salon.com here:
Slashdot Mirror
The WHOIS database should be the way it was when it was first created, an open, free, non-commercial registry of domain names. Can we please get Network Solutions (or Versign now) out of the drivers seat and then consider whether WHOIS info should be kept confidential. I'm thinking it shouldn't, but it doesn't matter to me at this step since having Network Solution (or Versign) in control means I don't use it.
--
The Associated Press just released an article on this topic.
Spy Agency Investigating 160 Employees, Contract Workers for Unapproved Site
WASHINGTON (AP) - The CIA is investigating 160 of its employees and contract workers for exchanging "inappropriate" and off-color messages on a covert "chat room" in the spy agency's classified computer network, The Washington Post reported.
more
--
The AP article without registration:
Court Overturns AT&T Cable Decision
I am a karma whore (who hates it when the partners trick doesn't work on ny times articles).
--
This is probably an attempt to force migration over to Unicode. Anyways, why is Verisign behind this? Didn't we learn from Network Solutions that a privately-owned, commercial company is not the solution to internet domain name databases (and their "ownership")?
How can one company be granted the monopoly rights to something so important to the world's economy and everyone on the Internet again? Should this be assigned to a not-for-profit entity under the auspices of ICANN?
--
The Bios Password 'schwasck' works!
--
Fellow Virgin WebPlayer owners (in case you got one -- I do!), here's the news you've been waiting for. As reported on The Register, and found in the new WebPlayer FAQ's, you do not have to return your webplayer and you do not have to pay anything for it. Pretty nifty, especially if we can figure out how to hack it. Read up more on this message board.
--
In case no one's mentioned it, the Ars Technica run down on how SDMI is cracked:
...the Princeton results? This bit on IDG.net clears things up quite a bit. Check it:
"Our focus has always been on the scientific question of whether the SDMI's technologies, if deployed, could be defeated by pirates," the statement read. "We demonstrated that they could be defeated, by making small modifications to the music files so that the watermarks were no longer detectable but the sound quality was still acceptable. "Instead of the scientific question, the SDMI has chosen to focus on who is eligible for the cash prize that they have offered. Since we chose to forgo the cash prize in order to retain our right to publish our results, we understand that the SDMI no longer considers us to be entrants in their contest. Their announcement regarding their contest does not invalidate our scientific results."
So it looks like the Princeton hacks weren't counted. Furthermore, the Princeton team will be releasing their findings to the public, so if one of the "unhacked" technologies gets picked then info on how to defeat it will soon be public knowledge. I'm sure SDMI thinks they're going to sue under the DMCA to shut Princeton up, and I hope they do. It'll make for a great test case for this unconstitutional bit of legislation.
--
Yeah. That's the whole point. The SDMI has to lie now or else they can't lie later. SDMI is cracked (and mathematically we already know from information theory that you can't do what they want to do). A secure system is impossible. They know it's not feasible so they have craft out these early lies to support their later lies when they go before Congress and ask for more restrictive laws and when they go before a judge and ask him to confiscate joe college student's computer and audio equipment plus levy a steep fine because joe knows how to make copies.
--
What concerns me is the increasing amounts of money funneled into the War on Drugs and the meagre results being shown. I am also getting sick of hearing how people's basic Constituional rights keep getting trammeled by drug police (DEA, FBI, and local law enforcement) whether or not they are using drugs.
Harvard Study: Survey Finds Increased Use of Marijuana and Other Illicit Drugs at U.S. Colleges in the 1990s
Scientific American: Marijuana Use among Teens Increased Consistently through the 1990s
Nader is for decriminalization of marijuana use (not sale) and treatment for offenders (not mandatory prison sentences). This is in sharp contrast to both Gore/Bush who want to continue with the failing War on Drugs and its accompanying problems.
--
Which brings us to Ralph Nader. Vice President Al Gore, on Meet the Press this week, told Tim Russert WHAT WOULD HAPPEN if George W. were elected president. Women would lose their right to have an abortion, Gore bellowed, with no equivocation and no hint of shame for what has happened on the Clinton/Gore watch.
All the pundits -- and the Democrats -- tell us that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush because all Ralph will end up doing is siphoning off votes that would have gone to Gore. This is their mantra:
"IF BUSH IS ELECTED, HE WILL APPOINT JUSTICES TO THE SUPREME COURT AND THEY WILL DECLARE ABORTION ILLEGAL!"
Well, I've fallen for this before and I ain't fallin' for it again. In fact, I will go so far as to say that George W. Bush, if for some reason he is magically elected, will NEVER do ANYTHING to make abortion illegal.
Here's my proof:
1. To recap what I have already stated: Roe v. Wade was written by a Republican, and upheld for 27 years by Republicans. No Republican president has made abortion illegal, and none will this time around.
2. George W. is, first and only, a politician. For crying out loud, 70% of the country favors legal abortion, trust me, that party boy is NEVER going to cook his goose on this issue.
....
Plus, I believe the true Nader constituency out there is among the 100 million nonvoters who have given up, thinking they no longer have a say in what really goes on in Washington. Gore shouldn't worry about Ralph taking votes from him. Rather he should think about what his administration with Bill Clinton has taken away from the women of this nation.
Come November 7, I plan to enter the voting booth and vote not from fear, but from a desire to see this country returned to the people.
--
A Letter from Michael Moore to the Non-Voters of America
Dear friends,
DISCLAIMER: If you are planning to vote for Al Gore in November, good for you. Don't let what I'm about to say change your mind because I've been told by all the experts that if you do change your mind based on what I'm about to say, George W. Bush might win the election and I certainly couldn't live with myself if that connoisseur of pharmaceuticals (the kind you snort up your nose or the kind you inject on death row) won, in part, because of a letter I spit out over the Internet.
So let's review -- you like Gore, you vote for Gore. He's a decent guy. I met him last year at some benefit, he came up to me, big hug -- whoa, this veep is no stiff, I thought -- and thanked me for this and that. He even quoted lines from "The Awful Truth" - whoa, scary, I thought, what's he doing watching cable channels above 40 on the box...not much to do on this veep gig, eh?
I told him I admired what he did when he came home to America as a Vietnam Vet and spoke out against the war. That took a lot of courage, I said (his dad lost his Senate seat for being an early opponent of the war).
So, if Al Gore is your man, go for it. In fact, I insist on it, even if you are just throwing your vote away.
What I am about to say, though, is not intended for any Al Gore (or George W.) voters. If you are one, please click off now.
To Whom It May Concern:
I address this letter to the largest political party in the United States - the 55% of you in the voting public who are so disillusioned with politics and politicians, so sick and tired of all the broken promises, so disgusted with all the b.s. that you have absolutely no intention of voting in November.
You know who you are.
AND YOU ARE THE MAJORITY!
You rule. You are the Non-Voters, all 100 million of you!
Until now, you have been the subject of scorn and ridicule. You've been called apathetic, lazy, ignorant. Your actions have been viewed as unAmerican (I mean, what kind of citizen in the World's Greatest Democracy would not exercise his or her most important and cherished right - the right to freely choose your leader!).
Well, may I be the first to tell you that, not only are you NOT stupid and apathetic, I believe you are smarter than all the rest of us combined. YOU figured it out. YOU uncovered the scam. And YOU had the guts to no longer participate in a lie. Way to go! In 1996, you helped set the all-time American record for lowest turnout ever at a presidential election.
The reason you, the majority, no longer vote in America is because you, the majority, realize there is no real choice on the ballot. The "two" parties both do the bidding of the wealthy and agree with each other on 90% of the issues. They take 90% of their money from people who make over a hundred-grand a year, and then enact over 90% of the laws those contributors want passed.
On the ballot this November, you already know there is no contest. The independent Cook Political Report in D.C. last week announced that, out of 435 House seats up for election in November, there are only 47 seats where there is a "true race" between opponents - and, of those, only 14 seats have a race that is even "close" between the two candidates. 14 out of 435!
"Ninety-seven to ninety-nine percent of incumbents running for re-election will be returned to Congress in November," according to the Cook Report.
The Non-Voters already understand this. And they are not going to waste one iota of their day on November 7 driving to some smelly elementary school gymnasium to participate in a Soviet-style election with no friggin' choice on the ballot.
So, to you brave voter-resisters, I say congratulations on your act of civic disobedience! I joined you this primary season and refused to go along with this charade of "choice." Nearly 80% of those of us of voting age - over 160 million Americans - staged a sit-in on our living room couches during this year's primaries. THAT is the great untold story of this election year. How much longer will the punditocracy be able to get away with dismissing this massive no-show as "a sign Americans are content with the booming economy?"
Now that we have made our presence known (you all don't mind me speaking for us, do you? Good. In fact, I'll just assume the currently-vacant mantle of this majority party and serve as your leader until you say otherwise...), it is time to find a way that says, loudly and clearly, just how mad as hell we are and how we are not going to take it anymore. We need to find a way where our vote screams "None of the Above!" A chance to act, like that Chinese guy in Tieneman Square, standing in front of a moving tank and stopping it in its path.
In November, we should find a way to follow in the footsteps of those intelligent Minnesotans who, even thought they could care less about professional wrestling (and even less, I'm sure, for Jesse "The Body"), proved to the world that they not only have a sense of humor, but they know how to stick it to the whole bloody system. Think of just how high their level of anger must have been against the One-Party-With-Two-Heads monopoly! I mean, state government is no joke - somebody's gotta build the roads, run the schools, catch the criminals. You don't want to turn the asylum over to the chief lunatic but, damn it, that's what the people of Minnesota did - just to send a message! Wow. That took some guts.
So, for those of you who weren't going to vote anyway, well...what if you actually did? What if you drove down to that stinky gym where the little shell game behind the pretend curtains is taking place ("Pay no attention to the voters behind the curtains!"), walk in, sign in, take the ballot they hand you, and toss yourselves inside the booth like a political molotov cocktail.
Boom!
"You wanna tell me there's a choice here between two guys who both support NAFTA, WTO, the death penalty, the Cuban embargo, increased Pentagon spending, sleazy HMOs, greedy hospital chains, 250 million guns in our homes, more bombing of Iraq, the rich getting richer and the rest of us declaring bankruptcy?"
Boom!
Not me.
Boom!
I'm voting for Ralph Nader.
KAAAABOOM!
Friends, we are losing our democratic control over our country. We may have already lost it. I hope not. But in the last 20 years of the Reagan administration, Corporate America has merged and morphed itself to such an extent that just a handful of companies now call all the shots. They own Congress. They own us. In order to work for them, we have to take urine tests and lie detectors and wear bar codes on chains around our necks. In order to keep our jobs we have had to give up decent health care, the 8-hour day (and time with our kids), the security that we'll even have a job next year, and any unwillingness we may have to compete with a 14-year old Indonesian girl who gets a dollar a day.
And how frightening (and great) is it that the last place we can freely try to inform and communicate with each other is on this very Web? Six companies run by six men control the majority of the news we now get from newspapers, television, radio and the Internet. One out of every two books is bought at a bookstore owned by one of only two companies. Is it safe in a "free society" to have the sources of our information and mass communication in the hands of just a few wealthy men who have a VESTED interest in keeping us as stupid as possible - or at least in keeping us thinking like them so that we vote for THEIR candidates?
I fear the cement on this new oligarchy of power is quickly drying, and when it is finished hardening, we are finished. The democracy, the one that's supposed to be of, by, and for the people, will cease to exist.
We must not let this happen, no matter how cynical and disgusted we've become at the whole electoral process.
Ralph Nader, to me, represents a chance for us to at least temporarily stop the cement from drying. We need him in there kicking things up, stirring the pot and forcing a real debate about the issues. Whether it's Ralph as Candidate or Ralph as President, he may represent our last hope to get our country back from the clutches of the powerful few.
I am not writing these words lightly. I am hoping to sound a siren and rally the majority who, for good reason, have given up - but might just have it in them to find the will for one last fight against the bastards.
Can Ralph win? Well, stranger things have happened in the past decade. C'mon, think about it, not a single one of us ever thought we'd see the Berlin Wall come down or Nelson Mandela as President of South Africa. After those two things happened, I joined a new school of thought that said ANYTHING was possible. Jesse Ventura started with 3% in the polls and won. Ross Perot in '92 started with 6% and, after proving to everyone that he was certifiably insane, still got nearly 20% of the vote.
Ralph already has between 7% and 10% in the polls - before he's done any serious campaigning. He's gone from 3% to 8% in my home state of Michigan. These are amazing numbers and the pundits and lobbyists and Republicrats are running scared. Hey, you like to watch scared Republicrats running? Tell a pollster you're voting for Ralph.
Now, look, before you all send me a lot of mail about how weird Ralph is 'cause he doesn't own a car or is a "sell-out" 'cause he's got a few million dollars, let me say this: I used to work out of his office, and Ralph is definitely one of a kind. In a future letter I will write of those experiences but, for now, let's just agree that Ralph is at least half as crazy as Jesse Ventura - and about a hundred times as smart. I'd say he's also saved about a million or so lives, thanks to the consumer and environmental legislation he has devoted his life to.
And between Gore, Bush, and himself, he's the only person running who would guarantee universal health care for all, the only candidate who would raise the minimum wage to a decent level, the only one who would get up each morning asking himself the question, "What can I do today to serve all the people of this country?"
The list goes on and on. You can read more about what Ralph stands for by going to his website (http://www.votenader.org). You'll agree, I'm sure, there's lots of common sense there, regardless of what political stripe you are.
But remember. If you are even THINKING of voting for Al Gore, vote for Al Gore. Ralph Nader does not need a single Gore vote. There are a hundred million of us out there who are uncommitted and currently not voting. Right now, Gore and Bush are each hoping to win by getting only 40 million votes.
If you are in the Non-Voting majority and want to let 'em all have it, if you want to get our country back in our hands...well, if even half of you show up and vote November 7 then you won't be held responsible for Bush winning the White House.
In fact, you won't be held responsible for putting Gore in the White House, either.
Rather, you will have made history by putting a true American hero at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
And you will have given every company, every boss who's done ya wrong, the worst nightmare of their lives.
November 7. Payback Time.
The revenge of the Non-Voters!
So sayeth their unappointed leader, yours truly,
Michael Moore
mmflint@aol.com
http://www.theawfultruth.com
http://www.michaelmoore.com
PS. Come to think of it, Democrats should be on their knees thanking Ralph for running. Rather than taking votes from Gore, Ralph's going to be the one responsible for turning the House back over to the Democrats.
When millions of these Non-Voters enter that booth to vote for Ralph, and they come across their local race for Congress, they will find no Green Party candidate in most of the 435 Congressional districts. So who do you think Ralph's army of Non-Voters will plunk down for Congress? The Republican? I don't think so.
The Democrats are only six seats short of regaining control of the House. Ralph Nader will be the reason the Democrats get the House back for the first time since Newt's Contract on America in 1994.
Democrats should send their checks to Nader 2000, P.O. Box 18002, Washington, DC 20036.
(Or, better yet, let's try to elect enough Greens to Congress -- a dozen or so -- and they'll hold the deciding votes because neither the Democrats nor the Republicans will have the majority. It'll be a friggin' Knesset!)
PPS. If you're still worried this letter might convince a weak-kneed Gore voter to flip over to Nader - and thus lead to President George W. stacking the Supreme Court to make abortion illegal, well, it's all a bunch of hooey. Please read my latest grassroots.com column entitled, " I Ain't Fallin for That One Again. "
PPPS. Tonight, Wednesday July 19, on "The Awful Truth" (Bravo, 10 p.m. ET/PT), Crackers the Corporate Crime Fighting Chicken makes a surprise return visit. Don't miss it!
PLEASE PASS THIS LETTER ON TO YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY. PERMISSION IS GRANTED TO REPRINT ANYWHERE.
--
Michael Moore
Tuesday, July 18, 2000
I think the first time I remember hearing this political urban myth was in the 1976 presidential election. Somebody told me the reason I had to vote for Jimmy Carter was because if Gerald Ford was elected, women would lose their right to choose to have an abortion. Abortion had been legal for only three years at that point. It was considered a great victory, one we all wanted to support.
So, I voted for Jimmy Carter -- and guess what? One of the things he did was to stop all abortions provided for women or wives in the armed services! He also stopped any further funding to birth control groups overseas that offered abortion as an alternative. And he ended all Medicaid payments for poor women in need of an abortion.
I felt a bit abused. I mean, Gerry Ford had been pro-choice. His wife was an ardent supporter of women's rights. And it was a Nixon appointee to the Supreme Court -- Justice Blackmun -- that wrote the majority opinion making abortion legal. What was I thinking? (Other than that the Nixon Nightmare years had to come to an end! That, I correctly rationalized, was worth the vote for Carter.)
Four years later, Democrats and liberals were going nuts over the possibility that Ronald Reagan might unseat Carter. Dire warnings were issued to all: If Reagan gets in, abortion will be illegal, period.
Well, I didn't vote for Reagan OR Carter, Reagan got in, and then something strange happened: Abortion remained legal! Sure, Reagan built on Carter's abortion restrictions, but Roe v. Wade was still the law of the land when the Gipper rode off into the sunset eight years later.
Yet Reagan had appointed plenty of wingnuts to the Supreme Court, so when the doomsayers in 1988 warned that George Bush would CERTAINLY send women back to the alleys to have illegal abortions, another bizarre thing happened -- Bush got elected, and ... four years later ... ABORTION WAS STILL LEGAL!
But Bush did leave us with Clarence Thomas, so when the Democrats came to scare the bejeepers out of me with what Bush would do to a woman's right to choose if he got a second term, I decided to vote for Bill Clinton.
So what's happened under our first feminist-man president?
Perhaps Clinton misunderstood his mission: he was supposed to support a womanÕs right to choose, not his right to choose women. Roe v. Wade is still on the books (mainly because of the consistent and unwavering support from the Reagan-appointed Justice O'Connor, the Ford-appointed Justice Stevens, and the Bush-appointed Justice Souter! They have voted to uphold abortion rights every single time). But it is now twice as hard for a woman in America to obtain an abortion as it was when Clinton took office. The anti-abortion terrorists have been so successful in their campaign of violence against abortion clinics and doctors and hospitals who perform abortions that a woman can now get an abortion in only 14% of the counties in the United States. That's right. Terrorism has scored its first victory on U.S. soil by assassinating enough doctors and firebombing enough clinics so that no one wants to perform an abortion. So if you live in one of the 86% of counties where not a single doctor will do an abortion, let me ask you this: what good is a "right" to an abortion if you can't get one?
The stunning thing about this virtual elimination of abortion in America is that it has occurred at a time when nearly 70% of the country supports some form of legal abortion. The terrorists have literally gotten away with murder -- with a pro-choice attorney general sitting in Washington, D.C., doing damn little about it. About the only reason I voted for these clowns was because of this issue -- and where the hell have they been?
Which brings us to Ralph Nader. Vice President Al Gore, on Meet the Press this week, told Tim Russert WHAT WOULD HAPPEN if George W. were elected president. Women would lose their right to have an abortion, Gore bellowed, with no equivocation and no hint of shame for what has happened on the Clinton/Gore watch.
All the pundits -- and the Democrats -- tell us that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush because all Ralph will end up doing is siphoning off votes that would have gone to Gore. This is their mantra:
"IF BUSH IS ELECTED, HE WILL APPOINT JUSTICES TO THE SUPREME COURT AND THEY WILL DECLARE ABORTION ILLEGAL!"
Well, I've fallen for this before and I ain't fallin' for it again. In fact, I will go so far as to say that George W. Bush, if for some reason he is magically elected, will NEVER do ANYTHING to make abortion illegal.
Here's my proof:
1. To recap what I have already stated: Roe v. Wade was written by a Republican, and upheld for 27 years by Republicans. No Republican president has made abortion illegal, and none will this time around.
2. George W. is, first and only, a politician. For crying out loud, if 70% of the country favors legal abortion, trust me, that party boy is NEVER going to cook his goose on this issue. He is already moving to the center on abortion and has been doing so since the primaries. He wants to win. He already has the majority of women supporting him in the polls, in part because a lot of women are confident he will not upset this apple cart.
3. The New York Times two weeks ago did a study of Bush's court appointees in Texas and found that he did NOT appoint right-wing crazies, but rather moderates or moderate conservatives who have upheld legal abortion in Texas and struck down some cases that tried to put restrictions on a woman's right to choose.
4. Sometimes even conservatives end up accepting that the tide has turned against them. The most stunning example of this came last month when ultra-conservative Chief Justice William Rehnquist insisted on writing the MAJORITY opinion for the court upholding the Miranda ruling that requires the police to inform an arrestee of his or her constitutional rights. Now, you know a guy like Rehnquist personally just hates forcing the police to read someone their rights. But in his decision keeping Miranda the law of the land, Rehnquist wrote that the Miranda rights are now "part of the American culture" and therefore should not be done away with. Even pro-Miranda liberals had never heard that line used by the Supreme Court in backing a decision, but it was, in essence, the truth. Reading someone their rights is now like apple pie -- and so is a woman's right to choose what to do if she should become pregnant. The overwhelming majority of Americans believe it a decision best left with a woman, her doctor, her God -- and it's nobody else's dang business. That, too, is part of the American culture. It's called privacy, and it's been around for over 200 years. Nobody, regardless of their political stripe, wants the politicians or the justices in their bedroom.
So, this year, I'm not going to let the fearmongers scare me into voting against my conscience. And I'm not going to let the Democratic candidate for president cynically use this issue when he himself has served in D.C. for 8 years allowing the right to get an abortion to be whittled away to near nothing.
Plus, I believe the true Nader constituency out there is among the 100 million nonvoters who have given up, thinking they no longer have a say in what really goes on in Washington. Gore shouldn't worry about Ralph taking votes from him. Rather he should think about what his administration with Bill Clinton has taken away from the women of this nation.
Come November 7, I plan to enter the voting booth and vote not from fear, but from a desire to see this country returned to the people.
--
He's not being prosecuted. He was arrested, had his property seized, and was subjected to extensive interrogation, but in the end everything was dropped (because he did nothing wrong). The arrest occurred after the MPAA contacted law enforcement in Norway through their law firm.
You can read Jon Johansen's answer to these and other (DeCSS) questions here. Quote: "The biggest problem has been trying to explain non-tech people that encryption does not prevent copying."
U.S. law, however, can affect people outside the United States both through the political clout of the United States and its corporations and via international treaties signed by other countries and the United States.
Contact a local legal advisor to decide whether you can crack U.S. encryption in Finland. There's no reason you should not be able to, except for over-reaching laws or if you are invading others' privacy by doing so.
--
Circumvention is a necessary liberty. Without circumvention for technology we cannot figure out how technology works or make technologies compatible (and don't tell me we're allowed to do that under the law -- look at the DeCSS case). These anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA must be struck down. They only serve to vest power into the hands of large corporations and impede technological progress. Circumvention is a right!!
--
No, you're not the only one.
Nobody stole any Microsoft code. Microsoft staged the break-in as part of its continual goal to create a perception of greater value in their product (if it weren't valuable why would people steal it; why would people pirate it; etc) & to get certain anti-hacker legislation shuttled through Congress (which will help them yield greater control over their product after you've bought it & to fight against open source software's reverse engineering of their proprietary standards for compatibility and publishing of security exploits). The Microsoft staged break-in also helps to bolster their image as a victim, like they claim in the ongoing anti-trust case, rather than the perpetrator, which they are.
These events did not transpire without a reason. Microsoft wants to control your computing experience from the ground up and will do whatever it can do to further that end.
--
It was kind of funny, but not really.
--
Nobody stole any Microsoft code. Microsoft staged the break-in to create a perception of greater value in their product & to get certain anti-hacker legislation shuttled through Congress (which will help them yield greater control over their product after you've bnought it & to fight against open source software's necessity to reverse engineer their proprietary standards and publish security exploits). The Microsoft staged break-in also helps to bolster their image as a victim, rather than the perpetrator.
Be certain: these events did not transpire without a reason. Microsoft wants to control your computing experience from the ground up and will do whatever it can do to further that end.
--
Oops, accidently posted the Salt Lake City newspaper article. Here's what you want to read:
REALITY CHECK IS OVERDUE IN PREVENTING DRUG ABUSE
AL GORE admits and George W. Bush implies youthful drug use. So should schools adopt a "do as I say, not as I do" drug curriculum, or seek another approach?
Drugs are dangerous, especially for youths whose families, peers or neighborhoods do not create pressure for responsible choices. And drugs are illegal.
But many successful adults used drugs casually. And experimentation by adolescents, most of whom still turn out O.K., continues. The 1990's saw teenage drug use grow while crime by youths declined.
Effective drug education is needed, but most programs exaggerate dangers and condemn use so harshly that youths who fail at total abstinence are not helped. This approach may not work.
Some efforts to reduce teenage drinking or early sex seem smarter. Underage drinking is illegal but colleges and a few high schools have "safe ride" programs with "no questions asked." It is contradictory to offer trips home from alcoholic parties and tell teenagers not to drink, but the mixed message can save lives.
Likewise, health teachers urge sexual abstinence, yet some high schools also distribute condoms. Delay sex, they say, but if you go ahead, be safe. When AIDS seems to threaten, consistency is a lower priority.
But "just say no" dominates drug education. A common program is DARE Drug Abuse Resistance Education, used in two-thirds of all districts at a cost of nearly 1 billion. DARE is taught by police officers, mostly in the fifth and sixth grades. The White House drug policy director, Barry R. McCaffrey, calls it "the premier drug prevention program."
Yet researchers find it does not work. DARE gets children to parrot responses about how terrible drugs are, but they then apparently use drugs at the same rate as non- DARE students. Some evidence suggests that DARE-trained adolescents use drugs even more.
Critics worry that DARE uses such exaggeration that once children realize they were misled, they may discount even true messages. The DARE workbook says marijuana users "are slow, are dull, have little ambition." But 10-year-olds know of older siblings, parents, even presidents, who used it without becoming dull or ambitionless. Children must then choose between DARE and their own observations. DARE is unlikely to prevail.
Other official warnings are also troubling. Advertising sponsored by Mr. McCaffrey's office tells children, if you use marijuana "it will kill your mother." Official "tips" urge parents to say, "If you took drugs it would break my heart."
Parents should think twice before heeding such advice. Although parents do not want children to try drugs, half of all teenagers do. Parents should insist that children have safe places to go with friends and that they know not to drive when "high." But threats of parental suicide and heartbreak may lead to secret experimentation in risky settings or with friends that parents neither know nor approve.
Official policy is puzzling because "just say no" has a long history of failure. Before Prohibition, schools exaggerated alcohol's dangers. A textbook said that in adult beer drinkers, "a slight cold brings on a fatal pneumonia." Children who saw parents drink beer and survive colds then ignored other temperance messages.
A 1930's Bureau of Narcotics campaign warned that marijuana would cause teenagers to commit vicious crimes. The bureau promoted a 1936 commercial film, "Tell Your Children," warning that marijuana caused teenagers to rape, murder and commit suicide. The film's claims were so excessive that it was later rereleased as a satire and shown widely on college campuses, now titled "Reefer Madness."
In 1991, the General Accounting Office found no evidence that "just say no" teaching was more effective in reducing drug use than programs that recognized teenage behavior but tried to limit it.
Some curriculums may be more effective than DARE. Teachers can give realistic information about the harm drugs do, and integrate health with other lessons. But no programs have yet navigated the problem of how to counsel against drugs while also supporting youths who ignore the advice.
Mayor Ross Anderson of Salt Lake City recently prohibited his police force from taking part in DARE work. Schools should not "moralize and exaggerate, but provide students with the basis for making decisions to avoid drugs," he said.
Salt Lake City is not the only city to reconsider DARE. But in most places, this ineffective and costly program still holds sway.
--
DARE Should Be Discontinued
The War on Drugs and DARE are failures
Reality Check Due In Drug Prevention
The New York Times
By Richard Rothstein
September 27, 2000 - Drug use by our youth is a problem that cries out for commitment, diligence, and honesty by school administrators and elected officials. Instead, for far too long, our drug-prevention policies have been driven by mindless adherence to a wasteful, ineffective, feel-good program, Drug Abuse Resistance Education DARE. DARE has been a huge public-relations success, but a failure at accomplishing the goal of long-term drug-abuse prevention.
Before taxpayers' money is spent for drug prevention, any program receiving the funds should prove its worth.
Our school administrators and elected leaders should insist on no less. However, with DARE, the moneyas well as the crucial opportunities to implement programs that actually workhas been blown.
In a recent guest column appearing in this newspaper, Glenn Levant, the president of DARE America, stated that "DARE has become the most successful drug abuse and violence reduction program in the nation..." He is accurate, but only if "success" is based on the amount of tax and foundation money spent on a program or the number of schools that have used the program.
However, if "success" is based on the effectiveness of a program in reaching the goal of reduced drug abuse over the long-term, DARE has been a dismal failure, according to numerous published studies.
In a Kokomo, Ind., study, researchers found that the level of drug use among DARE graduates was almost identical to the usage among non-DARE students. The only statistically meaningful difference was that more DARE students reported recent use of marijuana than those who had not been through the DARE program.
The Department of Justice commissioned the Research Triangle Institute RTI to evaluate DARE. Its published findings reflect that DARE students use more marijuana than non-DARE students.
The RTI concluded that DARE's core-curriculum effect on the use of other drugs, except tobacco, is not statistically significant. According to the RTI, DARE might very well be taking the place of other, more beneficial, drug-prevention programs that adolescents otherwise could be receiving.
When the City of Oakland decided to dump DARE after spending more than 600,000 per year, the director of Oakland's Family Council on Drug Awareness noted, "The bottom line is that DARE is an expensive program that seems to be making the situation worse."
In the longest follow-up study conducted regarding the effectiveness of DARE, the results of which were published in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, the researchers noted that "[t]he widespread popularity of DARE is especially noteworthy, given the lack of evidence for its efficacy." They repeated the findings of many other researchers: "[T]he preponderance of evidence suggests that DARE has no long-term effect on drug use."
After it became apparent I was going to terminate Salt Lake City's involvement in the DARE program, several people came to complain at the City Council meeting on July 11. Among them were the director of DARE for the state of Utah, officers of the Utah Council for Crime Prevention, several DARE officers, and a member of the Salt Lake City School Board. Although they all spoke passionately for the continuation of DARE, not one of them made reference to any research published in a peer-reviewed journal demonstrating the effectiveness of DARE. In fact, the Salt Lake City school board member said she was "appalled" because I provided my research to the school board, yet she failed to mention any research to support her apparently intuitive notion that DARE accomplishes its objective.
Drug prevention is too important to be left to those who refuse to become familiar with the research -- or with the availability of other programs that have been proved to work. The DARE program, and those who have advocated it to the exclusion of effective programs, should be held accountable to the public.
Most important, our community should demand that our schools replace DARE with research-based programs that will help us attain our goal of significantly reduced drug abuse among our youth.
Among those programs are Life Skills Training LST, Students Taught Awareness and Resistance STAR, and Athletes Training and Learning to Avoid Steroids ATLAS. I have provided information concerning these programs and their effectiveness to the Salt Lake City school board.
Our common goal is to cut drug abuse among our youth.
A means of helping to accomplish that goal is to implement in our schools drug-prevention programs that actually work. Those who fail to insist on effective drug-prevention programs in our schools are betraying our youth and our community.
And those who are unfamiliar with the research and insist on retaining DARE in our schools simply because it is a "popular" program are not part of the drug-abuse solution; they are part of the problem.
--
The FBI is putting a black box between you and the Internet via your ISP. What this means is that your communication passes through this box. The FBI is now the Gatekeeper for whether or not your communication gets out and whether others communication (including the whole wealth of information from the Internet) gets to you. They know what you are looking at, what you download, who you email, chat with, or talk to. They know everything that you do on the Internet. And now the FBI also gets to decide if it wants you to have a connection at all.
Yes, people will say, no, that's not what the FBI is doing. They're just putting a black box in at every U.S. ISP so that they can monitor certain people's communications only after receiving a judges signature (by the way, in California the DEA has a deal under the law which allows them to no longer get a courts permission when phone tapping people accused of dealing drugs -- they can sign the warrants themselves). The FBI says they will use this technology sparingly. They say it's for our own good.
Do we really need our Internet communications being monitored? I think not.
I for one do not want a technology in place (at my taxpayer expense) which allows the government the ability to shut down the entire Internet at a moments thought.
--
Carnivore is one part of the start of a very dangerous trend in the United States of America. It began with the War on Drugs, the middle and early eighties saw the start of routine unlawful search and seizure by government officials and the bribing of witnesses to imprison (often with life sentences) other individuals. Lately, government officials have decided that no communications by its citizens can go unobserved or unencumbered. Complete censorship of entire categories of speech is becoming routine through mandatory "filters" at school, in libraries, and soon at your computer. Now Carnivore. The end of private communications as we know it. Now the government will know that I am the one who wants you to know about what the government is doing & that I think it is wrong.
--
Official PlayStation 2 Release: October 26/2000 at a price of $299 USD.
$299 for a DVD player with digital sound (Dolby 5.1), FireWire, USB, game controller, 3.5" drive bay, backwards compatibility with PSX games, and an intitial selection of more than 30 games, including Unreal Tournament. (There are only about 7 obscure PS1 games which won't play. All current DVDs including the Matrix do play.) Here's the list of games:
Consumers can find the following titles in October at more than 20,000 retail locations
(listed in alphabetical order):
More than 10 additional titles are expected to be shipped in November and at least 9 titles in December, totaling more than 50 PlayStation 2-specific software titles in market by the holidays.
November 2000 releases include (listed in alphabetical order):
December 2000 releases include (listed in alphabetical order):
First quarter of 2001 titles include (listed in alphabetical order):
First quarter of 2001 titles continued (listed in alphabetical order):
--
If major speed is on your mind, Yamaha just announced some 16x writers. In conjunction with Oak Technology, Yamaha is bringing out a 16x/16x/40x CD-R/RW and just came out with (in Japan and parts of Europe) a 16x/10x/40x CD-R/RW.
"Yamaha first to market with 16X CD-RW drive designed around Oak's controller that reduces CD burn time to under 5 minutes"
16X Write
16X ReWrite
40X Read / Audio Ripping
Yamaha's CRW2100:
16X Write
10X ReWrite
40X Read / Audio Ripping
These drives use an 8MB Memory Buffer for their high speed and to avoid buffer under-run. I can't find any indication if they use either Sanyo's or Ricoh's error prevention technology. I don't think they do.
An interesting article on Plextor's newest drive talks about a newer form of BURN-proof and also JustLink hints that 24x write drives may be down the road.
--
This RAM idea is great. It shows the true spirit of open source. We can fix anything from broken RAM to Microsoft.
;)
Now what about something to make me burn less coasters?
There's new error-prevention technology available, but I believe it relies on hardware and software, to keep you from burning coasters.
#1) Sanyo's BURN-Proof technology (available on the newest Creative, QPS, Plextor, LaCie etc. writers)
#2) Ricoh's JustLink technology (available on its CD-R/RW/DVD-ROM combination drive among others)
Both technologies automatically prevents buffer under-run errors which are the leading cause of coasters.
If I were in the market for a new burner, I'd go with the $349 Ricoh combination drive. It does 12x CD-R, 10x CD-RW, 32x CD-ROM, and 8x DVD-ROM all in one device. That's smart.
--
Just thought I'd post a more recent late-breaking article from Salon.com here:
Another crack in the SDMI wall
A team of researchers claims to
have successfully hacked a digital
music watermarking system
(Basically, more corroboration that SDMI has been broken & SDMI knows it.
I'm annoyed that consumer technology is being delayed [by years] for this.)
--