Yes, Hollings must go, and it must be known
that the tech. community is what showed him
the way out of town.
But that can't happen until 2004. So for now
we must go after those who must run in 2002.
Top of that list should be Adam Schiff, who
led the effort to start similar efforts in
the House. Schiff is a new Representative, so
his constituents have no seniority investment
in him. If we can't defeat Schiff, then we
should just admit we have no power at all.
The only Senate co-sponsor who stands for
election in 2002 is Ted Stevens of Alaska.
Can anyone post information on his opponents?
The only way a special interest group gets
respect in Washington is to make a difference
in elections. It's not enough to stop this
bill. We must now defeat Hollings in his
next election, making it clear that the SSSCA
is the reason why. There need to be press
stories in November 2004 about the important
"geek lobby" that defeated Hollings, and how
important it is that politicians consider
their interests.
That means become single-issue voters and
supporters. Who here will pledge $2000 of
hard money contributions to any candidate who
opposes Hollings? Or the max you can afford?
Cause that's what it will really take to change
things. And it needs to be done even if that
candidate has other positions you disagree with.
Has anyone seen anything at all about this
bill anywhere but from Internet sources?
On television (C-SPAN doesn't count)? Radio?
Anywhere in the first 10 pages of any
newspaper? I sure haven't. Why give credit
to press coverage when there's been no
press coverage outside the special tech.
publications?
Back when the latest outrage was the Communications Decency Act, the protest took the form of turning web sites black. Idea was that if one could end up jail for "indecent" content on the internet, then no could risk posting anything. Got the message out to many people when their favorite web sites were missing for the day.
Seems that something similar could be done now with web sites replaced not with a black screen, but with a picture of Mickey Mouse saying "You can't copy this page unless I say so!"
The big problem is that the CDA protest was effective because most popular web sites in those days were produced by individuals. The most popular web sites today are those produced by the companies lobbying for SSSCA. So fewer web surfers would even encounter the protest.
It's good to see a mainstream figure like Ebert take on this issue. It's not so good that he did so in a column for Yahoo Internet Life. Really would mean much more for him to put this in his usual newspaper column, or to take up the subject on his television show.
On 9/11, the most important communications did not come from the government. They were the cell phone calls to/from the flight that crashed in Pennsylvania. I'd hate to think that those lifesaving phone calls among private citizens might get squeezed out because giving the governor an update on resuce efforts took priority.
So, if they get to change the terms of the
settlement, doesn't the public get another
chance to comment whether the revised
settlement serves the public interest?
If you're looking for text groups, don't
bother trying Teranews. They have text
groups on a separate server from binaries
and do not service it reliably. Only the
high volume users will become paying
customers, so they only keep the porn flowing,
not the valuable tech discussions.
Been using new.cis.dfn.de for months now,
after going a full week with no text articles
through Teranews,
and it has served me very well.
I've seen enough credible followups on
this question that I believe it is
CounterPunch who are the liars. Worse, their
lies give aid and comfort to the terrorist
attackers. I hope someone DoS's their ass
right off the 'Net.
I fear that we are unlikely to "capture" anyone. War has casualties.
Fear? I pray that is the case. I fear that
our leaders will continue their delusion that
this is a criminal investigation and fail to
fight the war with the righteous fury required
of us.
It seems most probable to me that the parties deemed responsible for this act (whether they really are or not) will wind up among the dead.
We must not limit ourselves to punishing Tuesday's
attack. We must destroy those would would attack
us next week, next month, next year. To do
anything else condemns us to a cycle of tit for
tat. We must not be satisfied with that. Our
goal must not be retaliation. It must not be
justice. It must be victory! And victory means
the utter destruction of all forces with the
capability and intent of attacking the United
States, or any other nation that will join us
against global terrorism.
I'm shocked and saddened by the failure of so
many people who fail to see this clearly. What
more wake-up call do you need?
Not sentient == not alive. Ever hear of "brain death".
According to this page about
organ donation, "brain death" is the irreversible loss of all functions of the brain. The embryo's lack of brain function is
"reversible" via implantation in a willing mother.
It appears the true brain death criterion is
"no hope for future brain functioning", not "no
brain functioning".
The difference in the cases you cite is that you are already dead before we do research with your corpse. The child is already dead before we do research with its corpse. We have to kill the embryo before we can do research on its corpse.
That distinction depends a lot on what we mean
by "dead". Consider organ donation. Organs
are taken from dead people, but those dead people
have beating hearts and are breathing with
mechanical assistance. Yet we still consider them
dead -- "brain dead" -- because their brain
is non-functioning and incapable or recovery.
How does that correspond to embryos? Embryos
also do not have a functioning brain. Does that
make them "brain dead"? But they do have the
potential to develop a functioning brain. So
does that make them not "brain dead"?
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, yeah, that's called restoring competition to the marketplace. It's the aim of the remedy.
But that can't happen until 2004. So for now we must go after those who must run in 2002. Top of that list should be Adam Schiff, who led the effort to start similar efforts in the House. Schiff is a new Representative, so his constituents have no seniority investment in him. If we can't defeat Schiff, then we should just admit we have no power at all.
The only Senate co-sponsor who stands for election in 2002 is Ted Stevens of Alaska. Can anyone post information on his opponents?
That means become single-issue voters and supporters. Who here will pledge $2000 of hard money contributions to any candidate who opposes Hollings? Or the max you can afford? Cause that's what it will really take to change things. And it needs to be done even if that candidate has other positions you disagree with.
Has anyone seen anything at all about this bill anywhere but from Internet sources? On television (C-SPAN doesn't count)? Radio? Anywhere in the first 10 pages of any newspaper? I sure haven't. Why give credit to press coverage when there's been no press coverage outside the special tech. publications?
Seems that something similar could be done now with web sites replaced not with a black screen, but with a picture of Mickey Mouse saying "You can't copy this page unless I say so!"
The big problem is that the CDA protest was effective because most popular web sites in those days were produced by individuals. The most popular web sites today are those produced by the companies lobbying for SSSCA. So fewer web surfers would even encounter the protest.
It's good to see a mainstream figure like Ebert take on this issue. It's not so good that he did so in a column for Yahoo Internet Life. Really would mean much more for him to put this in his usual newspaper column, or to take up the subject on his television show.
So all the families and all the news organizations are joining in this coverup? I don't buy it.
On 9/11, the most important communications did not come from the government. They were the cell phone calls to/from the flight that crashed in Pennsylvania. I'd hate to think that those lifesaving phone calls among private citizens might get squeezed out because giving the governor an update on resuce efforts took priority.
So, if they get to change the terms of the settlement, doesn't the public get another chance to comment whether the revised settlement serves the public interest?
Been using new.cis.dfn.de for months now, after going a full week with no text articles through Teranews, and it has served me very well.
Makes me wonder how the site treats spiders. Is Google unable to index the pages of MSN because of this?
Those Klingon bastards killed my son. </kirk>
I've seen enough credible followups on this question that I believe it is CounterPunch who are the liars. Worse, their lies give aid and comfort to the terrorist attackers. I hope someone DoS's their ass right off the 'Net.
Fear? I pray that is the case. I fear that our leaders will continue their delusion that this is a criminal investigation and fail to fight the war with the righteous fury required of us.
It seems most probable to me that the parties deemed responsible for this act (whether they really are or not) will wind up among the dead.
We must not limit ourselves to punishing Tuesday's attack. We must destroy those would would attack us next week, next month, next year. To do anything else condemns us to a cycle of tit for tat. We must not be satisfied with that. Our goal must not be retaliation. It must not be justice. It must be victory! And victory means the utter destruction of all forces with the capability and intent of attacking the United States, or any other nation that will join us against global terrorism.
I'm shocked and saddened by the failure of so many people who fail to see this clearly. What more wake-up call do you need?
Due process is for accused criminals, not
wartime enemies. Pull your head out of your ass.
Good. You don't "arrest" the enemy at wartime.
You destroy him, or you take him prisoner.
I sure hope your ``source'' doesn't suffer for your inability to keep confidential information.
...but a person could get hurt.
Nonsense. In a criminal trial an acquittal by a jury is final. No judge may change it.
Judges do have the power to overrule convictions, but I can't imagine a conviction that would be considered jury nullification.
According to this page about organ donation, "brain death" is the irreversible loss of all functions of the brain. The embryo's lack of brain function is "reversible" via implantation in a willing mother.
It appears the true brain death criterion is "no hope for future brain functioning", not "no brain functioning".
That distinction depends a lot on what we mean by "dead". Consider organ donation. Organs are taken from dead people, but those dead people have beating hearts and are breathing with mechanical assistance. Yet we still consider them dead -- "brain dead" -- because their brain is non-functioning and incapable or recovery.
How does that correspond to embryos? Embryos also do not have a functioning brain. Does that make them "brain dead"? But they do have the potential to develop a functioning brain. So does that make them not "brain dead"?
More likely they'll report it never would have happened if the Clinton Justice Department hadn't started harassing that nice company Microsoft.
1965.
Connecticut
Griswold v Connecticut
Of course it's a joke. Everyone knows it's turtles all the way down.
How nice of them to trademark the misspelling "CAN?T" and leave the proper "CAN'T" unencumbered.