Syntax tip: being impregnated by the mailman does not make the mailman your father. If you are a man and so is the mailman, it could make you both criminals in some states, though. As well as get you into lots of medical journals.
One computer per department that does not have knowledge on it is connected to the net, but is also networked to other boxes in the department that may or may not have knowledge on them. Those boxes, in turn are connected to other boxes in the building that may or may not have knowledge on them, etc....
While what you say is theoretically true, as a practical matter any machine that has any really secret stuff on it is always going to be air-gapped. That is, the machines that really have to be secure are simply not physically connected to the outside world, either directly or indirectly. It's the only way to be sure there won't be a remote exploit...
Why are some people, who have obviously never had the experience, complaining about others enjoying music at something closely approximating the way the musicians played it?
Not complaining, just wondering about the priorities. After all, if it's the "live" music experience the one guy in the story was shooting for, he could have spent $140,000 on a stereo rig, sure. Or, at a hundred bucks a pop, he could have gone to three actual live concerts a week for the next nine years...
...presumably American moderator didn't recognize it was supposed to be funny.
Oh, I'm sure it was American. We seem to have experienced the rise of a new breed over here, Americanus Apologeticus, who is so terrified of reinforcing stereotypes of the "ugly American," and so desperate for overseas acceptance that they feel the need to apologize for every single thing that their 270 million fellow citizens have ever done, either historically or recently. Oh well...humor survives;)
Yeah, but of all those examples of American crap pop culture, I don't watch any of them - I purposefully avoid them. I can't avoid Steve - I have a six year old who LOVES his show. Loves it at the top of his lungs. And, let's face it, 6 is too young to grasp the subtle nuance involved in the explanation that Steve shouldn't be watched "because daddy thinks he's an asshole.":)
I used to generally have positive feelings about Australians and Australia in general. Now, I think "Fuck 'em - they'll get what they deserve." I say this after having witnessed the unleashing of an unprecedented horror on the rest of the English-speaking world by Australia, a horror that must be condemned by civilized peoples everywhere, a horror that must not be allowed to stand.
I am, of course, referring to Steve Irwin. "The Crocodile Hunter," as if you needed to be told.
Please, Australia, what did we ever do to you to deserve this? We like you - we like koalas and kangaroos. We don't like being bombarded with the fact that there are 300 species of snakes and spiders in Australia that are SO POISONOUS that people die just by looking at them from a distance.
But it's not all bad. I taped that Fedex commercial; you know, the one where Steve gets bitten by a snake and dies. Whenever I need to relax, I just pull out that tape and watch it. Again and again.
In a heavy Aussie accent:
"Lookit that! Isn't she a beaoooty? But she's REALLY mad! And I don't blame her a bit, 'cause I've got my thumb RIGHT UP HER ARSE!"
From what I understand, the burden of proof is a key difference between UK and US law regarding slander/libel.
After observing the McLibel case off and on (and from a safe distance, here on the other side of the pond), I can tell you that in order to sue someone in the US for slander or libel, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove two things. First, the plaintiff must prove that the allegations are false. Second, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant *knew* (or should have known, given a reasonable expenditure of effort) that the allegations were false, and hence made them maliciously. In the UK, the system appears to be the complete opposite. There, the defense available appears to be the truth of the allegations - the burden is on the defendant to *prove* that what they alleged is, in fact, true.
In other words, in the US, if you take some steps to investigate what you are saying, and you can reasonably believe that what you are saying is true, you're okay as far as civil law is concerned. If I allege that you are a wife-beater after being told so by your brother, your employer, and your priest, in the US, I'm probably okay, even if it later turns out to be untrue. In the UK, the burden is on me, the defendant (when you sue me), to *prove* that, on at least one occasion, you did actually beat your wife.
The moral? Given the choice, try to get sued for libel or slander in the US rather than the UK - at least that way, the burden of proof is on the person/entity suing you, rather than you. I'm guessing (but I don't know and would appreciate knowledgable comments from Aussies) that the Australian method of dealing with slander and libel is more akin the the British way than the American way. Hence, it should be no surprise that DJ wants to be tried in a US court.
The funny thing about McLibel is, it never would have gotten anywhere in the states. But in the UK, McDonald's, a large multinational corporation, was essentially able to try to use the libel laws as a way of harrassing and silencing its critics. Unfortunately for them, and fortunately for advocates of *anything* in the UK, it turned into a PR disaster for them. I don't much agree with what was alleged about McD's by those folks, but, dammit, people ought to have the right to say things that they truly believe in. If they're wrong, debate them, dammit - don't try to sledgehammer them into shutting up...
Pfft. Don't worry about it - they'll just be leaking about 3 driver sets a week, and expect you to sort out which ones work and are worth keeping. This way, they'll have everyone playing beta-tester/lab rat, rather than just their video card customers...
P4 is false, demonstratable that I knowly consume resources that I do not need to complete my job *cough* posting on slashdot *cough* therefore reducing profits.
Sure, sure - the old "I'm not a sellout, I'm sabotaging the system from within" argument.:)
And, strictly speaking, a valid argument can have false premisses and a true conclusion. It's okay that you're evil. Really. Embrace it, and think of all the things you're free to do now;)
P1: Seeking to maximize profits at any cost is evil;
P2: Businesses seek to maximize profits at any cost;
C1: Therefore, businesses are evil.
P3: All those who knowingly collaborate in an evil enterprise are themselves evil;
P4: Employees of a business knowingly collaborate in maximizing profits at any cost;
P5: QuantumG is an employee of a business;
C2: Therefore, QuantumG knowingly collaborates in maximizing profits at any cost;
C3: Therefore, QuantumG is evil.
P6: A person who is self-employed is a business;
P7: Businesses are evil;
P8: QuantumG is self-employed;
C4: Therefore, QuantumG is a business;
C5: Therefore, QuantumG is evil.
GET THEE BEHIND ME SATAN!
;)
Re:I want to be a space cowboy too!!
on
Duct Tape
·
· Score: 2
According to
Britannica (quickest reference I could find):
When concentrated, radium glows in the dark. Because of this property, it was once mixed with a paste of zinc sulfide to make a self-luminescent paint for watch, clock, and instrument dials. During the 1930s it was found, however, that exposure to radium posed a serious hazard to health: a number of the workers who routinely used the radium-containing luminescent paint developed anemia and, in some cases, bone cancer. The practice of employing radium in luminescent coatings was halted after the high toxicity of the material was recognized.
Re:I want to be a space cowboy too!!
on
Duct Tape
·
· Score: 2
But radioactive things don't glow!
Uhhh, then why was radium used for luminous watch dials and such? And if I remember right, cesium-137 has a lovely luminous blue glow (not that you'd want to play with it). Not all radioisotopes emit visible light, but some certainly do.
Their choices of precedents seem to be targetting their analogies, rather than the actual situation.
Well, sure. You're obviously not sneaky enough to be a lawyer;)
Seriously, though, they both seek to present their respective cases in the most favorable light possible. The MPAA wants it to be seen as some nasty back-alley criminal operation, while the EFF wants everyone to bask in the glorious golden sunshine of the First Amendment. So, the MPAA is forced to argue that, while at first blush it may seem to be a straight First Amendment case, they think that these other (less noble) cases are more similar to what 2600 did. You may disagree. Truthfully, I do too. But they don't have to convince us, just the court...
The MPAA is going about this in a fundamentally unsound manner. They consistently argue by analogy, comparing DeCSS to some bad physical thing or disseminating it to some bad physical act, and often arguing that said thing or act would be illegal.
Well, now, wait a minute. To be fair, both sides are arguing from analogy. In a case where the issue at hand has never been directly dealt with by a court before, that's all the lawyers on either side have to work with. MPAA lawyers argue that disseminating DeCSS is analogous to some real-world criminal act, and the EFF argues that, no, it's more appropriate to say that disseminating DeCSS is analogous to these other cases dealing with the dissemination of these other types of information. Just knocking them for arguing by analogy is not much of a criticism - very often, that's all you *can* argue. All you can do is present your analogy, and hope that the court finds it more compelling/reasonable/logical/palatable than the other guy's analogy.
That being said, I know which I fnd more compelling, anyway. Now I gotta go find this Bartnicki case and spend some time with that...
Ahh, see, I should have checked back before posting my screed below;)
Anyway, it may not be effective in the context of arguing the law, but it doesn't, I think, reflect well on us or our laws to have a legal system that actively resists logical argument...
In this section, we specify more precisely what is meant by the term "valid." We relate our formal definition to more familiar and intuitive notions by considering the method of refutation by logical analogy. Presented with the argument
If Bacon wrote the plays attributed to Shakespeare, then Bacon was a great writer.
Bacon was a great writer.
Therefore Bacon wrote the plays attributed to Shakespeare.
we may agree with the premisses but disagree with the conclusion, judging the argument to be invalid. One way of proving invalidity is by the method of logical analogy. "You might as well argue," we could retort, "that
If Washington was assassinated, then Washington is dead.
Washington is dead.
Therefore Washington was asassinated.
and you cannot seriously defend this argument," we should continue, "because here the premisses are known to be true and the conclusion known to be false. This argument is obviously invalid; your argument is of the same form: so yours is invalid also." This type of refutation is very effective.
Let us examine more closely the method of refutation by logical analogy, for it points the way to an excellent general technique for testing arguments. To prove the invalidity of an argument, it suffices to formulate another argument that (1) has exactly the same form as the first and (2) has true premisses and a false conclusion. This method is based upon the fact that validity and invalidity are purely formal characteristics of arguments, which is to say that any two arguments having exactly the same form are either both valid or both invalid, regardless of any differences in the subject matter with which they are concerned.
Actually, I'm surprised I remember it as well as I do. Shall I continue? No?
Actually, refutation by analogy is very much a valid method for refuting someone else's argument. If you present a syllogistic argument, and I present an analogous argument of the same form that is clearly invalid, then I have refuted your argument - since in deductive logic, if one argument of a given form is invalid, all arguments of the same form are also invalid. Logically invalid, that is - the particulars of the argument do not matter from a logical standpoint.
Well, I understand your definition of the term here, but I don't entirely buy that it is appropriate to apply to vote counts. If we are talking about machine counts, where some mechanical flaw or design shortcoming could result in a lack of precision, "margin of error" would only start to make sense to me if errors were random - if the miscounts are consistently biased one way or the other (like, say, if the machine simply discards every third ballot cast for Bush, or is able to count a partial punch for Bush but not for Gore), then you'd have results that were inaccurate, while still not being able to describe the inaccuracy using a margin of error, since "margin of error" necessarily implies that the error could have driven your result up OR down away from the actual total, whereas a biased machine can only drive the count in one direction.
Again, as far as hand counts go, I think the problem was fuzziness in defining what constituted a legal, valid vote. Either hanging chads count, or they don't. Two corners detached = no vote; three corners = vote. Etc., etc.
Assuming a standard exists that is observable by humans (and I've seen no suggestion that whatever the standard was, it required superhuman perception on the part of the counters), refusing to apply that standard is not an error, it is a bias.
I think the problem was a lack of a standard for measuring against - they more or less had to create one on-the-fly, varying from place to place, under a serious time constraint - not some inherent flaw in the measuring process. After all, if I point you to my sock drawer and tell you to separate the white ones from the black ones and count each, you probably wouldn't come back to me and announce that I had 10 (+/- 2) white pairs and 8 (+/- 1) black pairs;)
I'm not disputing that errors occur in tallying votes, just pointing out that the term "margin of error" has a specific meaning in statistics that doesn't really apply to vote counts. If I were going to be truly pedantic, I would, in fact, insist that *only* in the realm of statistics does the term "margin of error" have any meaning.
The vote totals in Florida were so close as to be within any reasonable margin of error, so giving the victory to one side or the other is arbitrary.
Okay, I'm going to totally nit-pick here, but elections don't HAVE margins of errors. A margin of error only makes sense to discuss in the context of a sample of a population, when you want to adjudge how accurately your sample reflects the population as a whole. A vote is not a sample of a population, it is an actual, enumerated count of all citizens who voted - it IS the population in a sense. It's not a statistical "dead heat" to win by one vote, because the vote is a *count*, not a statistic.
Of course, the difficulty in Florida was the shifting definition of what exactly constitutes a legal, valid vote. But once we agree on a definition and apply it across the board, someone who wins by one vote is just as legitimate a winner as someone who wins by 1 million votes...
Now, why would I flame that? You and I, I think, are mostly in agreement. All I'm saying (well, in other posts, not necessarily this one), generally, is that allowing politicians to pitch finance reform as a cure for all the political evils of this country is sort of like allowing the hookers to blame the johns for their choice of careers - you can't buy someone who isn't for sale, as I said.
As it is, if you want to waste lots of money on politics you have to be either (loser) Michael Huffington-rich or (winner, the bankers she borrowed from are probably gonna be losers, though) Maria Cantwell-rich to do it.
I suspect that one of the things to come out of campaign finance reform will be some serious restrictions on how people spend their own money - after all, the incumbents have largely nailed down any money from third-parties out there, so the only real threat to them is the multi-millionaire population.
So, they heavily restrict third-party spending, favoring themselves, and then restrict how people spend their own money running for office, thus insuring that Congress becomes a sinecure for those lucky enough to already be there. Cute, huh?
Slashdot Mirror
Syntax tip: being impregnated by the mailman does not make the mailman your father. If you are a man and so is the mailman, it could make you both criminals in some states, though. As well as get you into lots of medical journals.
One computer per department that does not have knowledge on it is connected to the net, but is also networked to other boxes in the department that may or may not have knowledge on them. Those boxes, in turn are connected to other boxes in the building that may or may not have knowledge on them, etc....
While what you say is theoretically true, as a practical matter any machine that has any really secret stuff on it is always going to be air-gapped. That is, the machines that really have to be secure are simply not physically connected to the outside world, either directly or indirectly. It's the only way to be sure there won't be a remote exploit...
Nahh, your equipment's fine - your ear's just wrecked from honkin' on that big bong bassoon.
:)
sorry, the brass player in me couldn't resist
Why are some people, who have obviously never had the experience, complaining about others enjoying music at something closely approximating the way the musicians played it?
Not complaining, just wondering about the priorities. After all, if it's the "live" music experience the one guy in the story was shooting for, he could have spent $140,000 on a stereo rig, sure. Or, at a hundred bucks a pop, he could have gone to three actual live concerts a week for the next nine years...
...presumably American moderator didn't recognize it was supposed to be funny.
;)
Oh, I'm sure it was American. We seem to have experienced the rise of a new breed over here, Americanus Apologeticus, who is so terrified of reinforcing stereotypes of the "ugly American," and so desperate for overseas acceptance that they feel the need to apologize for every single thing that their 270 million fellow citizens have ever done, either historically or recently. Oh well...humor survives
Besides, you're selling yourselves short. Don't forget:
Olivia Newton-John
Men at Work
Olivia Newton-John
Paul Hogan (and you can have his wife, too)
Priscilla, Queen of the Desert
Did I mention Olivia Newton-John?
;)
As an aside, I'm a troll now? Methinks someone's office switched to decaf when they weren't looking
Hey, I thought Australia Day was in January...
I used to generally have positive feelings about Australians and Australia in general. Now, I think "Fuck 'em - they'll get what they deserve." I say this after having witnessed the unleashing of an unprecedented horror on the rest of the English-speaking world by Australia, a horror that must be condemned by civilized peoples everywhere, a horror that must not be allowed to stand.
I am, of course, referring to Steve Irwin. "The Crocodile Hunter," as if you needed to be told.
Please, Australia, what did we ever do to you to deserve this? We like you - we like koalas and kangaroos. We don't like being bombarded with the fact that there are 300 species of snakes and spiders in Australia that are SO POISONOUS that people die just by looking at them from a distance.
But it's not all bad. I taped that Fedex commercial; you know, the one where Steve gets bitten by a snake and dies. Whenever I need to relax, I just pull out that tape and watch it. Again and again.
In a heavy Aussie accent:
"Lookit that! Isn't she a beaoooty? But she's REALLY mad! And I don't blame her a bit, 'cause I've got my thumb RIGHT UP HER ARSE!"
Please, no more. Please.
From what I understand, the burden of proof is a key difference between UK and US law regarding slander/libel.
After observing the McLibel case off and on (and from a safe distance, here on the other side of the pond), I can tell you that in order to sue someone in the US for slander or libel, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove two things. First, the plaintiff must prove that the allegations are false. Second, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant *knew* (or should have known, given a reasonable expenditure of effort) that the allegations were false, and hence made them maliciously. In the UK, the system appears to be the complete opposite. There, the defense available appears to be the truth of the allegations - the burden is on the defendant to *prove* that what they alleged is, in fact, true.
In other words, in the US, if you take some steps to investigate what you are saying, and you can reasonably believe that what you are saying is true, you're okay as far as civil law is concerned. If I allege that you are a wife-beater after being told so by your brother, your employer, and your priest, in the US, I'm probably okay, even if it later turns out to be untrue. In the UK, the burden is on me, the defendant (when you sue me), to *prove* that, on at least one occasion, you did actually beat your wife.
The moral? Given the choice, try to get sued for libel or slander in the US rather than the UK - at least that way, the burden of proof is on the person/entity suing you, rather than you. I'm guessing (but I don't know and would appreciate knowledgable comments from Aussies) that the Australian method of dealing with slander and libel is more akin the the British way than the American way. Hence, it should be no surprise that DJ wants to be tried in a US court.
The funny thing about McLibel is, it never would have gotten anywhere in the states. But in the UK, McDonald's, a large multinational corporation, was essentially able to try to use the libel laws as a way of harrassing and silencing its critics. Unfortunately for them, and fortunately for advocates of *anything* in the UK, it turned into a PR disaster for them. I don't much agree with what was alleged about McD's by those folks, but, dammit, people ought to have the right to say things that they truly believe in. If they're wrong, debate them, dammit - don't try to sledgehammer them into shutting up...
Pfft. Don't worry about it - they'll just be leaking about 3 driver sets a week, and expect you to sort out which ones work and are worth keeping. This way, they'll have everyone playing beta-tester/lab rat, rather than just their video card customers...
P4 is false, demonstratable that I knowly consume resources that I do not need to complete my job *cough* posting on slashdot *cough* therefore reducing profits.
:)
;)
Sure, sure - the old "I'm not a sellout, I'm sabotaging the system from within" argument.
And, strictly speaking, a valid argument can have false premisses and a true conclusion. It's okay that you're evil. Really. Embrace it, and think of all the things you're free to do now
Hey, how about if I extend this a bit:
;)
P1: Seeking to maximize profits at any cost is evil;
P2: Businesses seek to maximize profits at any cost;
C1: Therefore, businesses are evil.
P3: All those who knowingly collaborate in an evil enterprise are themselves evil;
P4: Employees of a business knowingly collaborate in maximizing profits at any cost;
P5: QuantumG is an employee of a business;
C2: Therefore, QuantumG knowingly collaborates in maximizing profits at any cost;
C3: Therefore, QuantumG is evil.
P6: A person who is self-employed is a business;
P7: Businesses are evil;
P8: QuantumG is self-employed;
C4: Therefore, QuantumG is a business;
C5: Therefore, QuantumG is evil.
GET THEE BEHIND ME SATAN!
But radioactive things don't glow!
Uhhh, then why was radium used for luminous watch dials and such? And if I remember right, cesium-137 has a lovely luminous blue glow (not that you'd want to play with it). Not all radioisotopes emit visible light, but some certainly do.
Their choices of precedents seem to be targetting their analogies, rather than the actual situation.
;)
Well, sure. You're obviously not sneaky enough to be a lawyer
Seriously, though, they both seek to present their respective cases in the most favorable light possible. The MPAA wants it to be seen as some nasty back-alley criminal operation, while the EFF wants everyone to bask in the glorious golden sunshine of the First Amendment. So, the MPAA is forced to argue that, while at first blush it may seem to be a straight First Amendment case, they think that these other (less noble) cases are more similar to what 2600 did. You may disagree. Truthfully, I do too. But they don't have to convince us, just the court...
The MPAA is going about this in a fundamentally unsound manner. They consistently argue by analogy, comparing DeCSS to some bad physical thing or disseminating it to some bad physical act, and often arguing that said thing or act would be illegal.
Well, now, wait a minute. To be fair, both sides are arguing from analogy. In a case where the issue at hand has never been directly dealt with by a court before, that's all the lawyers on either side have to work with. MPAA lawyers argue that disseminating DeCSS is analogous to some real-world criminal act, and the EFF argues that, no, it's more appropriate to say that disseminating DeCSS is analogous to these other cases dealing with the dissemination of these other types of information. Just knocking them for arguing by analogy is not much of a criticism - very often, that's all you *can* argue. All you can do is present your analogy, and hope that the court finds it more compelling/reasonable/logical/palatable than the other guy's analogy.
That being said, I know which I fnd more compelling, anyway. Now I gotta go find this Bartnicki case and spend some time with that...
Findlaw is your friend.
2'nd Circuit Court ruling here.
...like they want to charge more money if you use the connection for more than one computer...
Just out of curiosity, how the hell would they know if you were running a proxy server? Or is it just done on the honor system?
Ahh, see, I should have checked back before posting my screed below ;)
Anyway, it may not be effective in the context of arguing the law, but it doesn't, I think, reflect well on us or our laws to have a legal system that actively resists logical argument...
From Introduction to Logic , by Copi and Cohen, section 10.4, pages 367-368:
Actually, I'm surprised I remember it as well as I do. Shall I continue? No?
Here endeth the lesson...;)
An analogy is not an argument.
;)
Actually, refutation by analogy is very much a valid method for refuting someone else's argument. If you present a syllogistic argument, and I present an analogous argument of the same form that is clearly invalid, then I have refuted your argument - since in deductive logic, if one argument of a given form is invalid, all arguments of the same form are also invalid. Logically invalid, that is - the particulars of the argument do not matter from a logical standpoint.
Well, I understand your definition of the term here, but I don't entirely buy that it is appropriate to apply to vote counts. If we are talking about machine counts, where some mechanical flaw or design shortcoming could result in a lack of precision, "margin of error" would only start to make sense to me if errors were random - if the miscounts are consistently biased one way or the other (like, say, if the machine simply discards every third ballot cast for Bush, or is able to count a partial punch for Bush but not for Gore), then you'd have results that were inaccurate, while still not being able to describe the inaccuracy using a margin of error, since "margin of error" necessarily implies that the error could have driven your result up OR down away from the actual total, whereas a biased machine can only drive the count in one direction.
;)
Again, as far as hand counts go, I think the problem was fuzziness in defining what constituted a legal, valid vote. Either hanging chads count, or they don't. Two corners detached = no vote; three corners = vote. Etc., etc.
Assuming a standard exists that is observable by humans (and I've seen no suggestion that whatever the standard was, it required superhuman perception on the part of the counters), refusing to apply that standard is not an error, it is a bias.
I think the problem was a lack of a standard for measuring against - they more or less had to create one on-the-fly, varying from place to place, under a serious time constraint - not some inherent flaw in the measuring process. After all, if I point you to my sock drawer and tell you to separate the white ones from the black ones and count each, you probably wouldn't come back to me and announce that I had 10 (+/- 2) white pairs and 8 (+/- 1) black pairs
I'm not disputing that errors occur in tallying votes, just pointing out that the term "margin of error" has a specific meaning in statistics that doesn't really apply to vote counts. If I were going to be truly pedantic, I would, in fact, insist that *only* in the realm of statistics does the term "margin of error" have any meaning.
The vote totals in Florida were so close as to be within any reasonable margin of error, so giving the victory to one side or the other is arbitrary.
Okay, I'm going to totally nit-pick here, but elections don't HAVE margins of errors. A margin of error only makes sense to discuss in the context of a sample of a population, when you want to adjudge how accurately your sample reflects the population as a whole. A vote is not a sample of a population, it is an actual, enumerated count of all citizens who voted - it IS the population in a sense. It's not a statistical "dead heat" to win by one vote, because the vote is a *count*, not a statistic.
Of course, the difficulty in Florida was the shifting definition of what exactly constitutes a legal, valid vote. But once we agree on a definition and apply it across the board, someone who wins by one vote is just as legitimate a winner as someone who wins by 1 million votes...
Oooo, I love it when slapdash gets all warm and fuzzy. I'm sure you and I disagree about what's a "right", but for now I'll settle for a group hug ;)
Now, why would I flame that? You and I, I think, are mostly in agreement. All I'm saying (well, in other posts, not necessarily this one), generally, is that allowing politicians to pitch finance reform as a cure for all the political evils of this country is sort of like allowing the hookers to blame the johns for their choice of careers - you can't buy someone who isn't for sale, as I said.
As it is, if you want to waste lots of money on politics you have to be either (loser) Michael Huffington-rich or (winner, the bankers she borrowed from are probably gonna be losers, though) Maria Cantwell-rich to do it.
I suspect that one of the things to come out of campaign finance reform will be some serious restrictions on how people spend their own money - after all, the incumbents have largely nailed down any money from third-parties out there, so the only real threat to them is the multi-millionaire population.
So, they heavily restrict third-party spending, favoring themselves, and then restrict how people spend their own money running for office, thus insuring that Congress becomes a sinecure for those lucky enough to already be there. Cute, huh?