Also, I wouldn't say that WH "could strike out on a new path". The realm vs realm thing was done very well in Dark Age of Camelot already, long before WoW came out.
Um. Yeah. Listen, slashdot is a "niche" market. I post here because it's a good diversion at work. Salon, while big on the interbutts, is still not a major news source.
That Obama bothered to make a statement is a good thing. It means he doesn't just concentrate on the largest segments of his voter base and understands the nuances of what various constituencies are concerned about.
You're highly overestimating how many people care about this. The "politically interested" you speak of are a very small number of people. Take a look at the mainstream news sources. Of Google News, CNN, MSNBC, USA Today, ABC News, and CBS news, only MSNBC and USA Today mention the bill, and that's in the context of "Bush Signs Contraversial Bill", with the line item being in "other news" (stories about Wildfires and Karl Rove taking higher standing).
In terms of the electorate caring or even knowing what the issue *is*, this is a tempest in a teapot.
"I told you so", while perhaps inaccurate and reflects some naive idealism on your part with regards to political candidates, is still not "invoking Ron Paul".
Many state legislatures in the US don't have them either (though most of them simply require that riders have to have something immediately to do with the bill they're attached to). I don't forsee it changing anytime soon in the US Congress, though.
law enforcement is doing just fine, we imprison more people per capita than anyone.
This is mostly due to the War on Drugs. I'm fairly certain that FISA has little to nothing to do with that particular clusterfuck.
That particular problem will subside when, someday, a forward-looking political scene realizes (again) that Prohibition just leads to an attractive nuisance for organized crime.
However, the bill does not address President George Bush's claim that he has Article 2 constitutional authority as the commander-in-chief to order such activity during times of war.
Yeah, well, Bush & Co are big supporters of the unitary Executive, so that's no surprise. I am heartened, though, that Congresscritters seem to be getting on the "reform the War Powers Act" bandwagon lately, though.
The point isn't that I don't particularly disagree with you, but more that he's not turned into some random neocon-in-democratic-clothing. He has reasonable opinions as to why he voted for it, and reasonable people can disagree on these things.
I personally don't think that FISA is particularly necessary at all, but that's a "pissing in the wind" situation. Furthermore, the fact that wiretaps warrants can now be post-filed for a week now instead of 3 days doesn't really bug me as much as the idea that they can be post-filed at all. As for the wholesale algorithmic monitoring by the NSA, is anyone under the impression that this hasn't been already going on for years, and would continue to happen regardless of the outcome of this bill?
He's on the record as opposing the telecom immunity, and if elected will fight to revoke that part of this bill. To me, this is the part of the bill that would actually make a good change something that is *changable*.
So, we got 7 months to decide if we like this, or we want something better.
More like ~3 months. If nothing else, the long battle for the democratic nomination has helped to maintain the electorate's interest in the race more than in years past.
Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That's ok. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have. After all, the choice in this election could not be clearer. Whether it is the economy, foreign policy, or the Supreme Court, my opponent has embraced the failed course of the last eight years, while I want to take this country in a new direction. Make no mistake: if John McCain is elected, the fundamental direction of this country that we love will not change. But if we come together, we have an historic opportunity to chart a new course, a better course.
This right here is why I'm still voting for the guy. Yeah, I disagree with his position on this. I would certainly love to see the telecoms and Bush burned at the stake for what they did.
But throwing a tantrum because you found out Santa isn't real probably isn't the best way to go about this.
Every single person claiming 'he lost my vote' is putting us one step closer to President McCain. And I can assure you every Bush loving Republican out there is rubbing their hands in glee at that prospect.
So, do what you have to do. I guess if you truly believe Obama won't represent the majority of your beliefs, you have to vote for someone who will. But I really hope there's more of a reason than a bill that was a losing battle to begin with.
I have no doubt that some of the "he's lost my vote" folks are, in fact, clever plants by the McCain campaign to make it look like there's more dissent in the party than there actually is.
I want to take this opportunity to speak directly to those of you who oppose my decision to support the FISA compromise.
This was not an easy call for me. I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush Administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses. That's why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate.
But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year. The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any President or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court. In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited. As I've said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility
The Inspectors General report also provides a real mechanism for accountability and should not be discounted. It will allow a close look at past misconduct without hurdles that would exist in federal court because of classification issues. The (PDF)recent investigation uncovering the illegal politicization of Justice Department hiring sets a strong example of the accountability that can come from a tough and thorough IG report.
The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe -- particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer. Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention -- once Iâ(TM)m sworn in as President -- to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.
Now, I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill, and I'm happy to take my lumps on this side and elsewhere. For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions. No tool has been more important in focusing peoples' attention on the abuses of executive power in this Administration than the active and sustained engagement of American citizens. That holds true -- not just on wiretapping, but on a range of issues where Washington has let the American people down.
I learned long ago, when working as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago, that when citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable. I'm not exempt from that. I'm certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable too. I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue. But I do promise to listen to your concerns, take them seriously, and seek to earn your ongoing support to change the country. That is why we have built the largest grassroots campaign in the history of presidential politics,
The problem is that, unlike many state legislatures, the US Congress has no rule (nor will it ever) against adding riders on bills that are not related to the main proposal. Additionally, there's only so much time to actually legislate during a session, so mashing bills together is pretty necessary.
It's not an ideal system, but running the federal government more or less requires it.
Also, I think there should be some sort of phrase that describes invoking Ron Paul, sort of like Godwin's Law.
My point was that the original poster you were replying to was conflating (improperly) EULAs that are, to say the least, legally tenuous (yes, they are, do some research), and the validity of electronic signatures, which seem to be routinely accepted as legal consent.
Tab is covered by copyright because the song composer owns the copyright on the specifc arrangement of notes represented by the tablature.
Well, the song is covered by copyright. However, if I just listen to the song and then write down what I think the song composition is, I don't see how this is any different than a cleanroom reverse engineering of any black box.
While you are correct in that many venues do not pay the ASCAP public performance fee, you would be mistaken if you think that ASCAP doesn't pay attention to which venues that pull in big revenues aren't paying that fee.
Slashdot Mirror
The other thing that differentiates CL is that their users are goddamn flaghappy.
Being able to nix posts anoymously, as much as you want, with no recourse at all is ridiculous.
Best router I've ever bought. Uptime measured in months and QOS that actually works. Plus 802.11N
There's a 40k in development, but its a few years out.
There is a 40k MMO in development.
Also, I wouldn't say that WH "could strike out on a new path". The realm vs realm thing was done very well in Dark Age of Camelot already, long before WoW came out.
Um. Yeah. Listen, slashdot is a "niche" market. I post here because it's a good diversion at work. Salon, while big on the interbutts, is still not a major news source.
That Obama bothered to make a statement is a good thing. It means he doesn't just concentrate on the largest segments of his voter base and understands the nuances of what various constituencies are concerned about.
You're highly overestimating how many people care about this. The "politically interested" you speak of are a very small number of people. Take a look at the mainstream news sources. Of Google News, CNN, MSNBC, USA Today, ABC News, and CBS news, only MSNBC and USA Today mention the bill, and that's in the context of "Bush Signs Contraversial Bill", with the line item being in "other news" (stories about Wildfires and Karl Rove taking higher standing).
In terms of the electorate caring or even knowing what the issue *is*, this is a tempest in a teapot.
I said some.
And if you don't think that's possible, I have a bridge to sell you.
Also, "tremendous backlash"? 99% of the electorate doesn't even know what FISA stands for, much less has an opinion on the telecom immunity section.
You have way more confidence in the organizational skills of the randomly picked slashdotter than I do, this much is certain.
"I told you so", while perhaps inaccurate and reflects some naive idealism on your part with regards to political candidates, is still not "invoking Ron Paul".
Many state legislatures in the US don't have them either (though most of them simply require that riders have to have something immediately to do with the bill they're attached to). I don't forsee it changing anytime soon in the US Congress, though.
You have my vote, sir!
law enforcement is doing just fine, we imprison more people per capita than anyone.
This is mostly due to the War on Drugs. I'm fairly certain that FISA has little to nothing to do with that particular clusterfuck.
That particular problem will subside when, someday, a forward-looking political scene realizes (again) that Prohibition just leads to an attractive nuisance for organized crime.
However, the bill does not address President George Bush's claim that he has Article 2 constitutional authority as the commander-in-chief to order such activity during times of war.
Yeah, well, Bush & Co are big supporters of the unitary Executive, so that's no surprise. I am heartened, though, that Congresscritters seem to be getting on the "reform the War Powers Act" bandwagon lately, though.
This is an interesting post.
No, seriously, it makes me ponder.
The point isn't that I don't particularly disagree with you, but more that he's not turned into some random neocon-in-democratic-clothing. He has reasonable opinions as to why he voted for it, and reasonable people can disagree on these things.
I personally don't think that FISA is particularly necessary at all, but that's a "pissing in the wind" situation. Furthermore, the fact that wiretaps warrants can now be post-filed for a week now instead of 3 days doesn't really bug me as much as the idea that they can be post-filed at all. As for the wholesale algorithmic monitoring by the NSA, is anyone under the impression that this hasn't been already going on for years, and would continue to happen regardless of the outcome of this bill?
He's on the record as opposing the telecom immunity, and if elected will fight to revoke that part of this bill. To me, this is the part of the bill that would actually make a good change something that is *changable*.
I was under the impression that the SCOTUS had ruled death penalties for child rape unconstitutional not 2 weeks ago.
Remember that if McCain is the 3rd term of George W. Bush, Obama would be the 2nd term of Jimmy Carter.
Ah yes, all those years where Obama worked closely with Jimmy Carter's administration on policies and legislation that ranged from...
Oh wait...
So, we got 7 months to decide if we like this, or we want something better.
More like ~3 months. If nothing else, the long battle for the democratic nomination has helped to maintain the electorate's interest in the race more than in years past.
Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That's ok. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have. After all, the choice in this election could not be clearer. Whether it is the economy, foreign policy, or the Supreme Court, my opponent has embraced the failed course of the last eight years, while I want to take this country in a new direction. Make no mistake: if John McCain is elected, the fundamental direction of this country that we love will not change. But if we come together, we have an historic opportunity to chart a new course, a better course.
This right here is why I'm still voting for the guy. Yeah, I disagree with his position on this. I would certainly love to see the telecoms and Bush burned at the stake for what they did.
But throwing a tantrum because you found out Santa isn't real probably isn't the best way to go about this.
Every single person claiming 'he lost my vote' is putting us one step closer to President McCain. And I can assure you every Bush loving Republican out there is rubbing their hands in glee at that prospect.
So, do what you have to do. I guess if you truly believe Obama won't represent the majority of your beliefs, you have to vote for someone who will. But I really hope there's more of a reason than a bill that was a losing battle to begin with.
I have no doubt that some of the "he's lost my vote" folks are, in fact, clever plants by the McCain campaign to make it look like there's more dissent in the party than there actually is.
Perhaps you want to actually read what the man has to say about it:
I want to take this opportunity to speak directly to those of you who oppose my decision to support the FISA compromise.
This was not an easy call for me. I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush Administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses. That's why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate.
But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year. The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any President or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court. In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited. As I've said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility
The Inspectors General report also provides a real mechanism for accountability and should not be discounted. It will allow a close look at past misconduct without hurdles that would exist in federal court because of classification issues. The (PDF)recent investigation uncovering the illegal politicization of Justice Department hiring sets a strong example of the accountability that can come from a tough and thorough IG report.
The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe -- particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer. Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention -- once Iâ(TM)m sworn in as President -- to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.
Now, I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill, and I'm happy to take my lumps on this side and elsewhere. For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions. No tool has been more important in focusing peoples' attention on the abuses of executive power in this Administration than the active and sustained engagement of American citizens. That holds true -- not just on wiretapping, but on a range of issues where Washington has let the American people down.
I learned long ago, when working as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago, that when citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable. I'm not exempt from that. I'm certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable too. I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue. But I do promise to listen to your concerns, take them seriously, and seek to earn your ongoing support to change the country. That is why we have built the largest grassroots campaign in the history of presidential politics,
"Doing the right thing" won't get you elected in this country, you know that. The electorate is too dumb.
The problem is that, unlike many state legislatures, the US Congress has no rule (nor will it ever) against adding riders on bills that are not related to the main proposal. Additionally, there's only so much time to actually legislate during a session, so mashing bills together is pretty necessary.
It's not an ideal system, but running the federal government more or less requires it.
Also, I think there should be some sort of phrase that describes invoking Ron Paul, sort of like Godwin's Law.
They keep using them because most of the time people don't bother challenging them.
"They continue using them" isn't necessarily indicative of something having solid legal foundations.
My point was that the original poster you were replying to was conflating (improperly) EULAs that are, to say the least, legally tenuous (yes, they are, do some research), and the validity of electronic signatures, which seem to be routinely accepted as legal consent.
Tab is covered by copyright because the song composer owns the copyright on the specifc arrangement of notes represented by the tablature.
Well, the song is covered by copyright. However, if I just listen to the song and then write down what I think the song composition is, I don't see how this is any different than a cleanroom reverse engineering of any black box.
And yes, I am a musician.
While you are correct in that many venues do not pay the ASCAP public performance fee, you would be mistaken if you think that ASCAP doesn't pay attention to which venues that pull in big revenues aren't paying that fee.
ASCAP's position on the whole thing.
By and large, the fee is affordable for most non-dive venues, and gets paid as a matter of doing business.