Star Trek would obviously win. All they have to do is beam the Jedi through the transporter and all the midichlorians get stuck in the Enterprise's biofilter and you've got Chief O'Brien saying "Ok, Darth, who's your daddy?"
The classic exmaple is a star destroyer vs. the enterprise.
And the SD would "win" if they fought at any reasonable range. They simply have more guns, which would be the equivalent of flying the Enterprise through an interstellar lightning storm with exploding hail.
It has provided researchers (such as myself) with a valuable tool for protecting our intellectual property from theft.
No. All it did was add legal weight to your extant security mechanisms. Standard IP law and your encryption already protect your IP from theft, doc.
To say that people like me *aren't* allowed to profit from our life-long research is a slap in the face to all of my colleagues.
Just like, for example, saying that someone who spends millions of dollars and a hundred-or-so man-years to make a movie shouldn't be allowed to profit off of it--be that by distributing it at market cost, or hoarding it and savoring a private pleasure denied to the rest of us.
In any case, please take a minute or so to go read Title 17--which the "DMCA" is now a part of, and has been for a goodly number of years.
It's a copyright violation. The fact that a clause you want to use (ISPs having to reveal copyright infringer's identities) was passed in a bill with clauses that you don't like shouldn't matter. It's highly unlikely that the law will be overturned as unconstitutional (IMO, it's more likely to be limited to works nominally protected by copyright), so it's not going away anytime soon.
Either you're for "information wants to be free" and you don't have a thing to complain about, or your concede that there should be limits on individual freedoms, and thus recognize laws like the so-called DMCA as applicable limits on freedom for the benefit of everyone.
FWIW, it's probably easier to call the local US District Court and bug them about it. If the bloke's as bad as the article says, then he'll go down quickly enough.
But if the energy is coming from fossil fuels it only means that they will be burned at the power station instead of in your car engine.
Which is generally preferable anyway. A power station can have higher efficincy and more localized pollution, making for a more effective cleaning method of a lesser waste product.
Plus, power stations can be upgraded rather easily, while upgrading automobiles & other local engines is a PITA.
Centralized power generation is a Good Thing, and a hydrogen fuel economy is the way to get that.
I don't understand why creating water instead of carbon-monoxide is better for the environment.
Because water is a stable compound that's abundant on the environment already and vital for every form of life we can see. Carbon monoxide, on the other hand, is hardly abundant, and is at least mildly toxic to every form of life we know.
Plus, hydrogen is a lot "cleaner." Gasoline / coal exhaust isn't just carbon monoxide--there's a lot more to it. Oh, and there's a little thing about being able to have more total efficincy...
Actually, it's an appeal, not a case. Either side can appeal the ruling of an appeal--even the "winning" side.
Y'see, this is because "double jeopardly" only protects against someone being tried twice in the same court for the same crime.
And people don't appeal convictions--they appeal matters of law. You can't go to the appellate court and say "the jury made the wrong decision"; you have to blame the judge's instructions or, for extreme cases, the actions of the lawyers.
Whether or not a given act is a crime is a matter of law. However, what was in the defendant's mind and what actually happened, independant of the law, is a matter of fact, and cannot generally be appealed.
The question here doesn't seem to be about the facts (what actually happened), but about the law behind the facts.
FWIW, I think a ruling from the top federal levels on what the laws mean with regards to P2P software would be very valuable. Especially considering that they inherently cross state lines, violate a law enacted by a power reserved for the Congress, and are potentially trumped by the First Amendment.
I have to keep telling people this. If you flip a coin a million times, and lands on heads every time, you still have a 50% chance of landing on heads the next time.
No, you have a weighted coin.
Any sufficiently large statistical data that should be random but instead shows a clear pattern means that there's an influence you're not allowing for.
Yeah. So when was the last time the government did anything efficiently or cost-effectively?
Halfway around the world, just a few weeks ago.
By any count, it's a "cheap" invasion of a hostile regime a world away from our shores.
Re:IT'S THE LAW, STUPID
on
Linus on DRM
·
· Score: 1
The problem is the DCMA and the baby-DCMAs popping up at the state level. If the government makes DRM *MANDATORY*, you loose your choice. I can very easily see the RIAA and MPAA requiring that all OS's require DRM in the very near future. Think about it.
First, go find Copyright law and read (IIRC) Chapter 12. The DMCA hasn't been an act since it was signed into law, it's part of Title 17, US Code.
Now, tell me why MPAA / RIAA would need to have an ADDITIONAL law making DRM mandatory in order to require it for their own works.
DRM hooks, sure--but those can be used or ignored pretty much at will. And if you really care about it, I'm sure that GNU/Hurd (and most Linux distributions) will blissfilly not use the DRM hooks, even if they have to be there.
Re:Props to Linus
on
Linus on DRM
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Because this isn't a tech site, this is a geek site.
Your post added as little to the discussion as posting, without commentary or context, "Wine is not an emulator" in a story about cross-compatability.
Back on topic, though--DRM allowable in the kernel means that it can be, and very probably will be, adapted to a Real Linux System by someone, even if that someone isn't SuSe or Red Hat.
Which, in light of recent international events, basically limits us to extraterrestrial ports of call.
Don't forget that the USA
Has two wings of the USAF devoted to space combat
Has the world's "grandest" space program
Could relativly easily co-opt every reciever with enough power to pick up your signal
Can lock-on and destroy your transmitter if it's powerful enough to reach the entire plannet.
A better idea, if you really want to avoid the government, is to move to a friendly country, marry a native, join their military for a term or two, and then rant against the USA. I suggest France--they may not be all that friendly, but they'res so many of them bashing the US that it's not worth it for us to track them all down.
Life does begin at conception, and therefore destroying on life for the benefit of another does not make much sense.
Counter-argument 1: "What do you mean by "conception"? At the climax of the mating ritual? When the sperm and egg meet? When the zygote splits for the first time? When the zygote implants in the womb's wall? Where are the funerals, then, for miscarriages & zygotes that just don't catch?"
Counter-argument 2: "Human life begins when the child enters this world, at the moment of birth. A pregnant woman should be considered a "double human" for legal and scientific purposes, as it's impossible to."
Counter-argument 3: While it doesn't make sense to kill one person to benefit another (i.e., concieve, abort, use fetal organs to aid other child), it is foolish to not use extant biological matter arising from an ended life to benefit someone else--I mean, we do it with organ transplants already!
You're absolutey right that it's stupid and wrong to kill someone for the promise of helping someone else, but you're bloody wrong when it comes to equating using stem cells with "killing someone."
On another slightly more unrelated note, speed limits are bs. Speed limits make the roads less safe in order to provide revenue for the states. Most people drive comfortable at about 85 mph (on the highway).
You drive a car, don't you.
The current speed limts are more than fast enough for a bus or SUV in bad weather.
Rather than appealing speed limits, I'd rather have the "revenue" given to the federal government, and a federally funded program started to produce uniform speed limit enforcement in each state.
And, for those of us who like going fast, a special "can speed" license (complete with plate & logo) sounds like a better idea. Let someone take a rigorous test, apply before a judge, and get a permit to drive 5, 10, or even as much as 15 mph over the limit.
(Solve the "what if someone else is using the car" question, with "the owner of the license pays the ticket and gets a fine.")
Personally, I feel the ones that stick closest to canon are the best
You haven't read comics lately, have you?
Canon has been violated and stretched so many times as to lose plausibiity. Personally, the best comics I've seen recently are the "Ultimate Marvel" series, where they re-introduce the entire frickin' universe.
Your concern is probably with the kind of country that GWB & co. are shaping us into.
No one in their right mind can seriously claim that GWB wants more terrorism. However, a very reasonable case can be made that the _result_ of his actions, regardless of his intent, will be a worse world.
Distributing copies broadly is illegal under standard copyright.
But figuring out how to do so and then telling EVERYONE about it is not.
The DMCA, in its most twisted form, could be used to crack down on black-hats who do nothing but create cracker programs for script-kiddies.
Show of hands: Who feels they'd be better off in the US without private health insurance? Now who thinks they'd be better off in Canada. Thank you.
For the record: I'm all for an american federal health care system. We are, apparantly, a spoil to any other country's attempt to institute one. (Why stay in Britain and get paid like a government worker when you can go to the USA and sell your services to the highest bidding hospital?)
Yeah. How long will that stay up in Iraq, assuming it even gets installed there
Fairly long, I wager. No Cold War to distract the US or give us a reason to support any petty tyrant who stands against communism.
Look at Iran. They're a LOT friendlier now than they were fifteen years ago. Look at North Korea--they're talking and actually being reasonable.
I am an American, and the Great Frozen North seems more appealing by the nanosecond.
If you're going to say that, then please leave. The democratic hollywood freaks who said that they were going to leave if GWB was elected, and then not leave, have done more damage to their side than Bill Clinton ever could.
I'm an American, and leaving my country is not an option. If I oppose the administration in power, I am free to work to put a better one in its place.
Could you perhaps take the liberty of improving you grammar just a tad?
"I do not want to be liberated".
And, for the record:
I do not want to liberated to the sort of society that GWB and his rich friends want to run.
GWB and his rich friends want to run a country with no murder, no terrorism, where everything's fair and prosperity benefits all of us directly, in the pocketbook.
Your concern is probably with the kind of country that GWB & co. are shaping us into.
I do not want liberated to having the DMCA imposed in me.
Yeah, hacking should be illegal. I mean, it's a fundamental duty to not only be able to have perfect digital copies of unreleased music, but to be able to break any and all encryption designed to protect said music, and then distribute it to everyone and their brother without any fear of criminal prosecution.
The DMCA, A.K.A. Chapter 12 of Title 17, U.S. Code, is copyright law, and applies to encryption protecting copywritten works. It's not nearly as bad as/. makes it out to be. (I can find you a link so you can read it yourself if you really want to. It's got some flaws, but it's hardly the begining of Big Brother.)
I do not want liberated so that anyone on the bus or train next to me could be carrying a firearm.
They can't, legally. Most buses and trains have 'no firearms' policies that effectivly trump the second amendment, just like a homeowner's anti-gun rule does. Plus, the conceal/carry permits that trump THOSE rules are rather hard to get and keep.
Plus, nothing stops a criminal from carrying a firearm onto the bus or train--and they often have the funds to not look like criminals.
I do not want to be liberated so that my country no longer has a National Health Service or any other parts of a welfare state.
Er, last I checked the US Welfare system was still intact, and it was still illegal to not treat someone who shows up needing care at a hospital.
Go ahead and liberate the people opressed by unelected dictators but don't assume that we want to live in a society like yours afterwards.
Yeah. The right to protest the government, protect yourself from harm, profit from your work, and be religious in public is SUCH a horrible thing.
You don't sound like you're from America. Please, don't judge us by what you see on the media. Take a trip and meet us for yourself. Hell, come to Albany and I'll put you up on my couch for a few nights.
then why assume they will never do the same for budern of proof?
Please don't. By all means, keep a watch out for any moronic corrupt judge's attempt to shift the burden of proof for creative copyright infringmenet (which is different than piracy, in that a new work is created--which makes this a good time to remind the AC that IANAL-RU?)
However, the burden of proof NOW is (generally) on the plaintiff.
What would be nice would be if the burden of proof for creative copyright infringmenet ("unauthorized derivitive work" or somesuch) were shifted from "preponderance of the evidence" to "beyond a reasonable doubt."
It's a shame people hold their entertainment as such an important part of their life that there could never be a successful boycot of the MPAA or RIAA.
That's not quite the problem. Let the MPAA adopt an offical "free speach, guns, science, religion, and america are all bad" system, and the boycott will line up.
We--that is, we Americans--just don't give a rat's ass about the things the EFF rattles on about.
What's to stop the corrupt company in question (read RIAA / MPAA) to simply find a company rep in the proper riding and "decide" to give him a salary of $5 million a year. Perhaps that registered voter might "decide" to contribute $4.9 million to the candidate they wish to buy... er... support.
Anonymnity & laws against retalition.
There shouldn't be any problem with a company hiring people based on political preference, and then giving them more salary in hopes that they make political donations.
UNLESS, of course, the employee isn't allowed to keep the money for themselves, or they're punished for going against the party line.
Or just ban it outright - while you're in office, you get your paycheck from the government - anything else gets you jail time.
A better idea would be to pool all the campaign contributions--including "using one's own money"--to one pot, and then doleing out funds to each campaign either on a per-ballot or per-last-year's-party-votes system.
Slashdot Mirror
Windows makes it hard to condense its design philosophy into a similar statement.
Make every command triple-redunant, and charge $$$$ for anything we didn't think of yet.
Star Trek would obviously win. All they have to do is beam the Jedi through the transporter and all the midichlorians get stuck in the Enterprise's biofilter and you've got Chief O'Brien saying "Ok, Darth, who's your daddy?"
The classic exmaple is a star destroyer vs. the enterprise.
And the SD would "win" if they fought at any reasonable range. They simply have more guns, which would be the equivalent of flying the Enterprise through an interstellar lightning storm with exploding hail.
It has provided researchers (such as myself) with a valuable tool for protecting our intellectual property from theft.
No. All it did was add legal weight to your extant security mechanisms. Standard IP law and your encryption already protect your IP from theft, doc.
To say that people like me *aren't* allowed to profit from our life-long research is a slap in the face to all of my colleagues.
Just like, for example, saying that someone who spends millions of dollars and a hundred-or-so man-years to make a movie shouldn't be allowed to profit off of it--be that by distributing it at market cost, or hoarding it and savoring a private pleasure denied to the rest of us.
In any case, please take a minute or so to go read Title 17--which the "DMCA" is now a part of, and has been for a goodly number of years.
It's a copyright violation. The fact that a clause you want to use (ISPs having to reveal copyright infringer's identities) was passed in a bill with clauses that you don't like shouldn't matter. It's highly unlikely that the law will be overturned as unconstitutional (IMO, it's more likely to be limited to works nominally protected by copyright), so it's not going away anytime soon.
Either you're for "information wants to be free" and you don't have a thing to complain about, or your concede that there should be limits on individual freedoms, and thus recognize laws like the so-called DMCA as applicable limits on freedom for the benefit of everyone.
FWIW, it's probably easier to call the local US District Court and bug them about it. If the bloke's as bad as the article says, then he'll go down quickly enough.
But if the energy is coming from fossil fuels it only means that they will be burned at the power station instead of in your car engine.
Which is generally preferable anyway. A power station can have higher efficincy and more localized pollution, making for a more effective cleaning method of a lesser waste product.
Plus, power stations can be upgraded rather easily, while upgrading automobiles & other local engines is a PITA.
Centralized power generation is a Good Thing, and a hydrogen fuel economy is the way to get that.
I don't understand why creating water instead of carbon-monoxide is better for the environment.
Because water is a stable compound that's abundant on the environment already and vital for every form of life we can see. Carbon monoxide, on the other hand, is hardly abundant, and is at least mildly toxic to every form of life we know.
Plus, hydrogen is a lot "cleaner." Gasoline / coal exhaust isn't just carbon monoxide--there's a lot more to it. Oh, and there's a little thing about being able to have more total efficincy...
(IANAL-RU?)
Actually, it's an appeal, not a case. Either side can appeal the ruling of an appeal--even the "winning" side.
Y'see, this is because "double jeopardly" only protects against someone being tried twice in the same court for the same crime.
And people don't appeal convictions--they appeal matters of law. You can't go to the appellate court and say "the jury made the wrong decision"; you have to blame the judge's instructions or, for extreme cases, the actions of the lawyers.
Whether or not a given act is a crime is a matter of law. However, what was in the defendant's mind and what actually happened, independant of the law, is a matter of fact, and cannot generally be appealed.
The question here doesn't seem to be about the facts (what actually happened), but about the law behind the facts.
FWIW, I think a ruling from the top federal levels on what the laws mean with regards to P2P software would be very valuable. Especially considering that they inherently cross state lines, violate a law enacted by a power reserved for the Congress, and are potentially trumped by the First Amendment.
I have to keep telling people this. If you flip a coin a million times, and lands on heads every time, you still have a 50% chance of landing on heads the next time.
No, you have a weighted coin.
Any sufficiently large statistical data that should be random but instead shows a clear pattern means that there's an influence you're not allowing for.
Yeah. So when was the last time the government did anything efficiently or cost-effectively?
Halfway around the world, just a few weeks ago.
By any count, it's a "cheap" invasion of a hostile regime a world away from our shores.
The problem is the DCMA and the baby-DCMAs popping up at the state level. If the government makes DRM *MANDATORY*, you loose your choice. I can very easily see the RIAA and MPAA requiring that all OS's require DRM in the very near future. Think about it.
First, go find Copyright law and read (IIRC) Chapter 12. The DMCA hasn't been an act since it was signed into law, it's part of Title 17, US Code.
Now, tell me why MPAA / RIAA would need to have an ADDITIONAL law making DRM mandatory in order to require it for their own works.
DRM hooks, sure--but those can be used or ignored pretty much at will. And if you really care about it, I'm sure that GNU/Hurd (and most Linux distributions) will blissfilly not use the DRM hooks, even if they have to be there.
Because this isn't a tech site, this is a geek site.
Your post added as little to the discussion as posting, without commentary or context, "Wine is not an emulator" in a story about cross-compatability.
Back on topic, though--DRM allowable in the kernel means that it can be, and very probably will be, adapted to a Real Linux System by someone, even if that someone isn't SuSe or Red Hat.
When will we see the first railgun in a film?
Eraser had railguns.
Oh, sure, they were far to small, but they WERE railguns. Heck, they even have the same spiral from Quake.
What there is of an OS to be called "Linux" is built around and requires the kernel.
Saying that "Linux isn't an OS", unless you're vying for recognition of all the other necessary / popular components, is moot.
Don't forget that the USA
A better idea, if you really want to avoid the government, is to move to a friendly country, marry a native, join their military for a term or two, and then rant against the USA. I suggest France--they may not be all that friendly, but they'res so many of them bashing the US that it's not worth it for us to track them all down.
Life does begin at conception, and therefore destroying on life for the benefit of another does not make much sense.
."
Counter-argument 1: "What do you mean by "conception"? At the climax of the mating ritual? When the sperm and egg meet? When the zygote splits for the first time? When the zygote implants in the womb's wall? Where are the funerals, then, for miscarriages & zygotes that just don't catch?"
Counter-argument 2: "Human life begins when the child enters this world, at the moment of birth. A pregnant woman should be considered a "double human" for legal and scientific purposes, as it's impossible to
Counter-argument 3: While it doesn't make sense to kill one person to benefit another (i.e., concieve, abort, use fetal organs to aid other child), it is foolish to not use extant biological matter arising from an ended life to benefit someone else--I mean, we do it with organ transplants already!
You're absolutey right that it's stupid and wrong to kill someone for the promise of helping someone else, but you're bloody wrong when it comes to equating using stem cells with "killing someone."
Your roommate's right. It's not good to turn the steering wheel when the car isn't moving.
But tight parking requires it, and so justifies the extra wear to your car.
On another slightly more unrelated note, speed limits are bs. Speed limits make the roads less safe in order to provide revenue for the states. Most people drive comfortable at about 85 mph (on the highway).
You drive a car, don't you.
The current speed limts are more than fast enough for a bus or SUV in bad weather.
Rather than appealing speed limits, I'd rather have the "revenue" given to the federal government, and a federally funded program started to produce uniform speed limit enforcement in each state.
And, for those of us who like going fast, a special "can speed" license (complete with plate & logo) sounds like a better idea. Let someone take a rigorous test, apply before a judge, and get a permit to drive 5, 10, or even as much as 15 mph over the limit.
(Solve the "what if someone else is using the car" question, with "the owner of the license pays the ticket and gets a fine.")
I kow there are still TeX devotees, people who still write letters (and web pages and email!) in TeX, but they seem to be a dying breed.
What benefits, anyway, does TeX have over Postscript or XML?
Personally, I feel the ones that stick closest to canon are the best
You haven't read comics lately, have you?
Canon has been violated and stretched so many times as to lose plausibiity. Personally, the best comics I've seen recently are the "Ultimate Marvel" series, where they re-introduce the entire frickin' universe.
Quoth myself:
Your concern is probably with the kind of country that GWB & co. are shaping us into.
No one in their right mind can seriously claim that GWB wants more terrorism. However, a very reasonable case can be made that the _result_ of his actions, regardless of his intent, will be a worse world.
Distributing copies broadly is illegal under standard copyright.
But figuring out how to do so and then telling EVERYONE about it is not.
The DMCA, in its most twisted form, could be used to crack down on black-hats who do nothing but create cracker programs for script-kiddies.
Show of hands: Who feels they'd be better off in the US without private health insurance? Now who thinks they'd be better off in Canada. Thank you.
For the record: I'm all for an american federal health care system. We are, apparantly, a spoil to any other country's attempt to institute one. (Why stay in Britain and get paid like a government worker when you can go to the USA and sell your services to the highest bidding hospital?)
Yeah. How long will that stay up in Iraq, assuming it even gets installed there
Fairly long, I wager. No Cold War to distract the US or give us a reason to support any petty tyrant who stands against communism.
Look at Iran. They're a LOT friendlier now than they were fifteen years ago. Look at North Korea--they're talking and actually being reasonable.
I am an American, and the Great Frozen North seems more appealing by the nanosecond.
If you're going to say that, then please leave. The democratic hollywood freaks who said that they were going to leave if GWB was elected, and then not leave, have done more damage to their side than Bill Clinton ever could.
I'm an American, and leaving my country is not an option. If I oppose the administration in power, I am free to work to put a better one in its place.
Could you perhaps take the liberty of improving you grammar just a tad?
/. makes it out to be. (I can find you a link so you can read it yourself if you really want to. It's got some flaws, but it's hardly the begining of Big Brother.)
:)
"I do not want to be liberated".
And, for the record:
I do not want to liberated to the sort of society that GWB and his rich friends want to run.
GWB and his rich friends want to run a country with no murder, no terrorism, where everything's fair and prosperity benefits all of us directly, in the pocketbook.
Your concern is probably with the kind of country that GWB & co. are shaping us into.
I do not want liberated to having the DMCA imposed in me.
Yeah, hacking should be illegal. I mean, it's a fundamental duty to not only be able to have perfect digital copies of unreleased music, but to be able to break any and all encryption designed to protect said music, and then distribute it to everyone and their brother without any fear of criminal prosecution.
The DMCA, A.K.A. Chapter 12 of Title 17, U.S. Code, is copyright law, and applies to encryption protecting copywritten works. It's not nearly as bad as
I do not want liberated so that anyone on the bus or train next to me could be carrying a firearm.
They can't, legally. Most buses and trains have 'no firearms' policies that effectivly trump the second amendment, just like a homeowner's anti-gun rule does. Plus, the conceal/carry permits that trump THOSE rules are rather hard to get and keep.
Plus, nothing stops a criminal from carrying a firearm onto the bus or train--and they often have the funds to not look like criminals.
I do not want to be liberated so that my country no longer has a National Health Service or any other parts of a welfare state.
Er, last I checked the US Welfare system was still intact, and it was still illegal to not treat someone who shows up needing care at a hospital.
Go ahead and liberate the people opressed by unelected dictators but don't assume that we want to live in a society like yours afterwards.
Yeah. The right to protest the government, protect yourself from harm, profit from your work, and be religious in public is SUCH a horrible thing.
You don't sound like you're from America. Please, don't judge us by what you see on the media. Take a trip and meet us for yourself. Hell, come to Albany and I'll put you up on my couch for a few nights.
At the least, I can help you with your grammar.
Irregardless is not a word
Of course it is. No one reading his post has ANY question what he meant by saying "Irregardless."
It may not be proper grammar, it may be horrible slang, and it may not do much to improve the utility of the language--but it sure as hell is a word.
And so is "ain't", goddamnit!
then why assume they will never do the same for budern of proof?
Please don't. By all means, keep a watch out for any moronic corrupt judge's attempt to shift the burden of proof for creative copyright infringmenet (which is different than piracy, in that a new work is created--which makes this a good time to remind the AC that IANAL-RU?)
However, the burden of proof NOW is (generally) on the plaintiff.
What would be nice would be if the burden of proof for creative copyright infringmenet ("unauthorized derivitive work" or somesuch) were shifted from "preponderance of the evidence" to "beyond a reasonable doubt."
It's a shame people hold their entertainment as such an important part of their life that there could never be a successful boycot of the MPAA or RIAA.
That's not quite the problem. Let the MPAA adopt an offical "free speach, guns, science, religion, and america are all bad" system, and the boycott will line up.
We--that is, we Americans--just don't give a rat's ass about the things the EFF rattles on about.
What's to stop the corrupt company in question (read RIAA / MPAA) to simply find a company rep in the proper riding and "decide" to give him a salary of $5 million a year. Perhaps that registered voter might "decide" to contribute $4.9 million to the candidate they wish to buy... er... support.
Anonymnity & laws against retalition.
There shouldn't be any problem with a company hiring people based on political preference, and then giving them more salary in hopes that they make political donations.
UNLESS, of course, the employee isn't allowed to keep the money for themselves, or they're punished for going against the party line.
Or just ban it outright - while you're in office, you get your paycheck from the government - anything else gets you jail time.
A better idea would be to pool all the campaign contributions--including "using one's own money"--to one pot, and then doleing out funds to each campaign either on a per-ballot or per-last-year's-party-votes system.