Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Net Neutrality Still Lives

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the not-dead-yet dept.

The Internet 102

BuhDuh writes "Despite previous reports, and as subsequently discussed here, it appears that Sen. Feinstein's amendment (PDF) did not make it into the approved 'HR1' version of the stimulus bill (PDF). Of course, I cannot aver to having read all 680 pages, but searching for the terms Ms. Feinstein used came up blank, so it looks like we can breathe a collective sigh of relief until someone tries to bury similar proposals in the next wide-ranging, must-pass piece of legislation."

cancel ×

102 comments

net neutrality (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26858269)

is like shaved pussy. I support them both.

Re:net neutrality (4, Funny)

Kokuyo (549451) | more than 5 years ago | (#26858301)

I can understand someone wanting to keep their cat's fur trimmed... it's just more practical that way... but do come on... shaving the cat is a bit over the top, no?

Re:net neutrality (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26858373)

A bit under the bottom actually.

Re:net neutrality (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26859847)

Don't try trimming a cat with scissors.

Re:net neutrality (1)

redcaboodle (622288) | more than 5 years ago | (#26860069)

By all means - try. You'll get what's cumming to you.

An express delivery of upset pussy.

Re:net neutrality (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26859095)

Given the way the Slashdot crowd acts, and that most haven't gone through puberty yet, I'd say almost everyone here is basically a hairless pussy.

Re:net neutrality (1)

hvm2hvm (1208954) | more than 5 years ago | (#26859495)

Hey! I am not hairless! It's just not in the right places...

well then.... (5, Funny)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 5 years ago | (#26858299)

Well then let me be the first to say on behalf of slashdot: "Take that you stupid, bill-hijacking, lobbyist bribed bitch!"

This news (4, Informative)

MRe_nl (306212) | more than 5 years ago | (#26858365)

Not so new...

"I just called Feinstein's office and..." (Score:1)
by rev_deaconballs (1071074) on Wednesday February 11, @10:37PM (#26819353)
"It did not make it into the congress revision."

Re:This news (4, Informative)

cemulli (1374641) | more than 5 years ago | (#26860807)

As the weirdo who's actually obsessively following the actual progress of the bill text, February 11th was after it didn't get into the Senate version. Feinstein was still trying to get it into the final version when the Senate and House met to work out a compromise to get the REAL final version of the bill done so they could vote on it and send it to Obama. The meeting finished late last night on 2/13. I haven't been able to find the updated bill text *anywhere*, so I was happy as hell when I saw this posting. Until I scrolled down to the next to last page and saw that the PDF was the version from when the House passed the initial pre-Senate version on 1/28. So yeah, the lack of Feinstein language in that PDF means nothing. The reason there wouldn't be any Feinstein language in that version of the bill was because that's the version from BEFORE the Senate got their hands on it.

Re:well then.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26859923)

yeah, go up the thread and read the facts. you just got played like a bitch by a bitch. how's it feel to get fucked?

yeah,i know, i know, obama would never let that happen. he's in it for the people. lol.

I wish (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26858303)

The MGM bill [mgmbill.org] would get snuck into a stimulus bill one of these days.

Re:I wish (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26859035)

ummm... NO... ewww

Re:I wish (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 5 years ago | (#26861783)

I support this bill in its entirety, and I've thought of a brilliant viral campaign: we have the lion from Metro-Goldwyn Mater bite off the foreskin. "Grrrrr.... RAWR!"

Great! (2, Funny)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 5 years ago | (#26858345)

So we're back where we started, which is to say, service providers in the driver's seat!

Luckily (4, Interesting)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 5 years ago | (#26858349)

We have this new fangled internet thingy that makes it a little more difficult to hide these things. Hope is indeed alive. As for the change part, well that's up to us. Now... about this Conyers bastard... and Hatch, and Lieberman.. I suppose there's little chance of getting rid of them while they bring home the bacon. Stop voting for these people!

Re:Luckily (3, Interesting)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#26858435)

Sadly, no, it does not. At least not much. Only about half of households in America even have a computer, and fewer have broadband access. The Internet only increases transparency if citizens are vigilant and pay attention to what's going on in Washington and in their state legislatures.

Unfortunately, Joe Sixpack, when he can be expected turn his attention from his beer, his sports (Nascar, football, hockey, maybe basketball if Joe lives in an urban area), golf and/or bowling (depends on whether he's upper middle or lower middle class), usually it's only about once every four years. And that's only if American Idol isn't good this season.

Re:Luckily (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 5 years ago | (#26858487)

Only about half of households in America even have a computer, and fewer have broadband access.

That's a whole lot more people than 40 years ago. Even I, who crave instant gratification, must be patient.

Re:Luckily (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26858553)

Sad thing, Joe Sixpack wants laws passed to "regulate" the Internet. He thinks it will keep his computer safe when he browses pr0n, gets a malware attack, and has to take his machine to Geek Squad and pay $100 to get the box decontaminated. Even though the legislation would do nothing about this problem.

Re:Luckily (1)

Warped-Reality (125140) | more than 5 years ago | (#26859235)

GeekSquad charges $200 for that particular service.

Re:Luckily (1)

Thinboy00 (1190815) | more than 5 years ago | (#26861085)

...when he browses pr0n, gets a malware attack, and has to take his machine to Geek Squad and pay $100 to get the box decontaminated.

[quote added]

GeekSquad charges $200 for that particular service.

[snip]

and you know this how?

Re:Luckily (1)

Warped-Reality (125140) | more than 5 years ago | (#26863465)

I worked for them in college.

Re:Luckily (1)

hittman007 (206669) | more than 5 years ago | (#26870941)

Its $199.99 in store or $299.99 in home. This does not include any form of protection software, just removing the nasty stuff...

Lawmakers have fast Internet - does not help (1)

mi (197448) | more than 5 years ago | (#26859257)

The Internet only increases transparency if citizens are vigilant and pay attention to what's going on in Washington and in their state legislatures.

Stop blaming citizens and hoping for the Internet. Nobody in Congress has, apparently, even read [youtube.com] the humongous bill (bigger than the cost of the Iraq war, for example). All of the Congressmen and women have perfectly fine Internet connections, I assure you...

Re:Luckily (1)

RageBot (1213750) | more than 5 years ago | (#26860435)

Since only about half the peeps vote it may not be as bad as you make it out.

Re:Luckily (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#26863027)

Yeah, but who said anything about it being the same half that have Internet access? (Hint: It's not.)

Re:Luckily (1)

hittman007 (206669) | more than 5 years ago | (#26870957)

I have high speed internet and I vote...

Re:Luckily (2, Funny)

General Wesc (59919) | more than 5 years ago | (#26859129)

Conyers is one of the most awesome congressmen out there. He made one mistake recently, but he has an excellent track record for demanding transparency and accountability in the government.

Re:Luckily (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26859663)

Really? "Of course, I cannot aver to having read all 680 pages, but searching for the terms Ms. Feinstein used came up blank,....". So now to hide something you just put it in a lot of paperwork and hide the terminology so it can't be found in a search and "Wow!" it doesn't exist?

Re:Luckily (1)

Perp Atuitie (919967) | more than 5 years ago | (#26859867)

I does seem like Feinstein could be primaried into oblivion in CA, ground central for net nerddom. Nobody there seems to really like her, she's just sort of there already. If net neutrality/free information partisans want to publicly flex their muscles, CA is the place for the test run.

Yeah, but what ELSE is in that turkey? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26858385)

Reid and Pelosi - screwing over the entire US in order to hand out pork.

Huh? (4, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 5 years ago | (#26858409)

Why is it that so many "Liberal Democrats" are against things like Net Nutrality and copyright / patent reform? I would have though they would be all over it, but instead are more repugnant on the issue than Repugnians.

Re:Huh? (5, Insightful)

ForrestFire439 (1458475) | more than 5 years ago | (#26858441)

They're just as in bed with the lobbyists as the Republicans are. Perhaps even more so in this case because the majority of media corporations are in blue states like California.

Re:Huh? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26860939)

The majority of tech companies are also in blue states, and they love net neutrality.

Feinstein especially, who is from Northern California, should remember that and stop supporting Hollywood instead.

Re:Huh? (1)

Thinboy00 (1190815) | more than 5 years ago | (#26861095)

maybe Hollywood lobbies harder than Google + EFF + everyone else + everyone else's kid brother ?

Re:Huh? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26866049)

Feinstein especially, who is from Northern California, should remember that and stop supporting Hollywood instead.

Especially since when the ocean level rises, Southern California is going to be underwater first.

Re:Huh? (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26858571)

Both parties are puppets of whom stuffs their pockets with campaign funds.

Re:Huh? (2, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#26858657)

It would be nice if they remembered occasionally how much of that funding came from ordinary citizens. Especially Obama.

Re:Huh? (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 5 years ago | (#26858901)

Ahh, but it didn't.

Lots of issues come up whenever they want someone out of office and magically the donations start getting tracked. Then it's not ordinary citizens who made the donations at all, you start finding rich folks contributing via their own nonprofit corp or whatever to double shove the money down the campaign's throat.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26868421)

LOL. Yeah, these politicians are just so ethical that rich, unethical, campaign contributers have to "double shove" the money down the politician's throats just to get them to take it....

Re:Huh? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26858655)

What is it that makes you think liberal Democrats are for anything that will/would do something to address the prevailing attempts to limit the general public's access to information?

They want to ban conservative talk radio. That's nothing more than political censorship and restricting the right to the availability of opposing schools of thought to that which the Democrats endorse. If liberal talk radio had enough listeners it would survive in the market place. However, every attempt liberals have made at having talk radio shows has failed to make money so it has failed.

John Conyers(D-MI) wants to make it illegal for the Federal Government to make research funded with public monies, i.e. tax dollars, which has historically be open to the public at no cost, publicly available at no cost. He wants to force the government to make that information only available through private publishers. In other words he is taking a strictly corporate view of the situation and screwing over his own constituents.

http://techdirt.com/articles/20090212/0335043743.shtml

Conyers is also a shill for the RIAA.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090206/1538503680.shtml

Anyone who thinks the Democrats are out for anything other than power has had their head stuck in the sand for a long, long time. The general publics constitutional rights, and their right to reasonable access to public information the general public has already paid for with their taxes means nothing to the Democrats.

Hell, Obama and Biden locked reporters out of the campaign information loop that didn't report what they wanted the public to hear. So, if Obama did that before he was elected, you really think he's going to change now that he has real power?

Re:Huh? (-1, Troll)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 5 years ago | (#26858799)

They want to ban conservative talk radio.

Bullshit. The Fairness Doctrine [wikipedia.org] does not ban anything.

Re:Huh? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26859053)

Yes, it does, albeit through stealth. What happens is that idiot liberals who can't compete in the open market with their lame-brained ideas complain loudly to the local radio station to let them have "equal time". The law requires the radio station to comply, but then, with nobody listening (liberal talk just can't attract audience or advertisers), the radio station loses money and either has to go out of business or just shy away from controversial issues.

The required record-keeping alone may be enough to make small stations go with bland programming.

You can try to silence us, but we'll fight you every damned step of the way. I will not tolerate any attempt to stifle freedom of speech. I wonder why you would. Hmmmmm, comrade?

Re:Huh? (1, Insightful)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 5 years ago | (#26859943)

Have you ever listened to talk radio? It's not the idiots who have trouble getting listeners.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26869207)

It kind of makes you wonder what the government is afraid of when they feel the need to limit free speech with the Fairness Doctrine. Are the American people that drugged and stupid that they can't see the looming totalitarian government that once was the great and free United States? Wake up people before it's too late. Once you lose your freedom it's gone for good.

Re:Huh? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26859667)

The only reason to bring back the fairness doctrine is to get rid of conservative talk radio. That's just about the only effect it will have. The fairness doctrine has no place in the information age. There are plenty of channels of communication. There is no reason to put arbitrary controls on them, or even just a few of them.

Re:Huh? (1)

Uberbah (647458) | more than 5 years ago | (#26873541)

The only reason to bring back the fairness doctrine is to get rid of conservative talk radio.

As is usually the case, that wingnut talking point has no basis in reality. A return of the Fairness Doctrine wouldn't have any effect on Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Liddy et all. None. Nada. Zero. Zilch.

What it would do, is force the stations that carry those asshats to balance them out with contrary views. But to get someone as far to the left as these guys are to the right, you'd have to give talk shows to Raul Castro and Kim Jung Il.

Re:Huh? (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 5 years ago | (#26859929)

For the record, Feinstein is not considered a "Liberal Democrat" by anyone.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26861439)

LOL. Yeah. Right. I most certainly consider her to be a liberal Democrat. She doesn't support conservative social issues according to her voting record, and she certainly isn't fiscally conservative. She's tax and spend all the way and supports growing the government's power over it's citizens at just about every turn. She is also right at home with Obama's redistribution of wealth ideas.

The lobbyists for Arab and Iranian issues give her a 100% rating for her support of their issues though. I guess you must see that as her "conservative" side.

Re:Huh? (1)

Uberbah (647458) | more than 5 years ago | (#26873475)

I most certainly consider her to be a liberal Democrat.

I'm not surprised, since you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Feinstien is "liberal" in two areas: the environment and women's issues. Other than that, she's your standard issue big business warmongering Republican with her head up Israel's ass.

Re:Huh? (1)

bendodge (998616) | more than 5 years ago | (#26860159)

Because of the underlying philosophies. Both left-R's and left-D's have the notion that government is god and must solve everything. The R's do it by twiddling with business, the D's do it by twiddling with the little people. The R's appeal to traditional religions. The D's appeal to anti-religion religions. The end result is the same: more government, less freedom.

A pretty quick litmus test of a politician is how they stand on guns and abortion. Answering those two questions answers most of all the other ones too.

Re:Huh? (1)

Uberbah (647458) | more than 5 years ago | (#26873439)

Because of the underlying philosophies. Both left-R's and left-D's have the notion that government is god and must solve everything. The R's do it by twiddling with business, the D's do it by twiddling with the little people. The R's appeal to traditional religions. The D's appeal to anti-religion religions. The end result is the same: more government, less freedom.

I suppose you could see it that way, if you huffed paint on a regular basis and had little to no contact with reality.

For Crying Out Loud (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26860295)

Read the summary. The bill, drafted and passed by a government full of those "Liberal Democrats" does NOT contain anything against net neutrality. Read that last sentence again. Read it again. Again. Again. Are you starting to get it? No? Read it again.

IknowyouarebutwhatamI? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26877063)

C'mon. Can we discuss net neutrality, copyrights, and patent reform without stooping to the name calling? "Repugnians"? Please.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26880799)

She's not a "liberal democrat". She's a filthy corporate whore who gave us Mukasey.

Net New Trollity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26858459)

The IRL pirates [wikipedia.org] in Somalia have their own wiki. Time to pirate the pirates!

Read the bills! (4, Insightful)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 5 years ago | (#26858465)

Can we please, for the love of God, pass something resembling the Read the Bills [wikipedia.org] act.

Although I don't necessarily agree with its libertarian ideological roots, it's absolutely absurd that a 600 page bill can be proposed and voted on before sufficient time has been given to read over and debate the entire thing.

The 7-day comment also sounds like a good idea, as long as there's a provision for emergency action.

Re:Read the bills! (1)

AdmiralXyz (1378985) | more than 5 years ago | (#26858557)

Of course we want all our Congressmen to read every page of every bill in theory, but aren't they unproductive enough as it is?

Re:Read the bills! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26858593)

Congress is supposed to run slow. It was designed that way, to make it hard to pass laws, therefore make it harder to quickly pass badly thought out laws. The last thing we should be complaining about is Congress being unproductive. That's by design.

Re:Read the bills! (4, Insightful)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 5 years ago | (#26858641)

but aren't they unproductive enough as it is?

That's their one saving grace.

Re:Read the bills! (1)

icebrain (944107) | more than 5 years ago | (#26860125)

Of course we want all our Congressmen to read every page of every bill in theory, but aren't they unproductive enough as it is?

That's kind of the point... unless you're one of those people to whom more laws = good.

A lawyer will always admonish you to read the fine print before signing a contract. I'm an engineer; I make damn sure I check everything I design (or have submitted to me by those I supervise) before signing off on the drawing. Why, then, is it unreasonable to ask our elected representatives to exercise due diligence in the performance of their jobs? Oh wait, I remember... Pelosi wanted to go to Europe. :-/

Were it up to me, every single one of our "honorable" congressional types who voted for this "stimulus" bill without reading it would be impeached and tried for dereliction of duty.

Re:Read the bills! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26860165)

TROLL

Re:Read the bills! (1)

Script Cat (832717) | more than 5 years ago | (#26858755)

Get 600 people. Have each one read a page and raise a flag on ridiculous BS.
Maybe Amazon's mechanical turk would work well for this.
Parallel systems rock.

Re:Read the bills! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26858967)

Then smart lawmakers will find ways to spread ridiculous BS over several pages, with each individual piece seemingly innocuous.

Re:Read the bills! (2, Interesting)

DragonTHC (208439) | more than 5 years ago | (#26858767)

if the text of every bill becomes part of the official record of congress, they can pass no secret legislation. They can pass no legislation regarding national security.

The official record will increase in size and the legislation will decrease in size. they will tackle one issue per bill. they will debate that issue and compromise on that issue until a quorum is met.

They will no longer be able to have secret closed-door sessions. Which really makes me wonder. Why is congress allowed to have secret closed-door sessions? They cannot hide laws from the American people.

Re:Read the bills! (1)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 5 years ago | (#26859251)

Every bill that is signed and every bit of paper should be publically avalible both online and offline.

Re:Read the bills! (4, Informative)

jcnnghm (538570) | more than 5 years ago | (#26859105)

The bill wasn't 600 pages, it was 1,073 [youtube.com] . The Democrats initially promised that it would be made available online for at least 48 hours before it was voted on, however, they lied, and voted on it less than 12 hours after it was presented to the Representatives. To read the bill, it would have required reading about two and a half pages a minute from the time they received the bill until the vote. The bottom line is, the Democrats rushed it through so nobody would have a chance to read it [youtube.com] .

Re:Read the bills! (1)

Cyrus20 (1345311) | more than 5 years ago | (#26859283)

wait what? you cant read 1,073 pages in 12 hours and you call yourself a geek?

Re:Read the bills! (1)

Ashriel (1457949) | more than 5 years ago | (#26864937)

Have you even taken a look at it? It may take up an ungodly number of pages, but it's double-spaced with large print. There's only a few paragraphs on each page. It shouldn't take that long to read...

Re:Read the bills! (1)

Uberbah (647458) | more than 5 years ago | (#26873411)

Problem: the source in the video is John Boehner, and like all House Republicans, he's generally full of shit. And watching Republicans whine about Democrats shoving legislation through without time for review is like Karl Rove whining that Rahm Emanuel is too partisan - the pot is calling the kettle black.

Re:Read the bills! (1)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 5 years ago | (#26859237)

600 pages should have 90days for comment, you can easily spend a week discussing just one chapter.

Re:Read the bills! (1)

MasterOfCeremonies (853832) | more than 5 years ago | (#26861107)

It's a sad state of affairs that an act such as the Read the Bills act is even necessary.

Read (1)

Dupple (1016592) | more than 5 years ago | (#26858575)

I cannot aver to having read all 680 pages

RTFPDF?

Just a thought ;)

That woman is insane... (0, Troll)

Theanswriz42 (458434) | more than 5 years ago | (#26858587)

...I can honestly say I haven't seen any bill with her name on it that I actually agreed with. She's about as close to a Nazi or perhaps Communist, or fascist as one can get in this country.

Re:That woman is insane... (1)

DDLKermit007 (911046) | more than 5 years ago | (#26858681)

Hmmmmm...we haven't had a good Commie hunt in a long time. Could be a way to get rid of these crazy ass politicos.

Re:That woman is insane... (1)

Theanswriz42 (458434) | more than 5 years ago | (#26858787)

I'm certainly game, heh.

Re:Reichstag Fire (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26862891)

She really got a boost from that Dan White dude in 1978.

Gov needs version control for bills, regs, etc (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26858741)

We need strict check in check out change control, who did it, when, why, etc RSS feeds, version control for all legislation and regulation for all levels of government from small town park board to the Fed.

It's actually in the bill. (5, Informative)

DragonTHC (208439) | more than 5 years ago | (#26858823)

from page 656 of the stimulus bill

10 (e) GRANT REQUIREMENTS.--The NTIA shall--
11 (1) adopt rules to protect against unjust enrich12
ment; and
13 (2) ensure that grant recipients--
14 (A) meet buildout requirements;
15 (B) maximize use of the supported infra16
structure by the public;
17 (C) operate basic and advanced broadband
18 service networks on an open access basis;
19 (D) operate advanced wireless broadband
20 service on a wireless open access basis; and
21 (E) adhere to the principles contained in
22 the Federal Communications Commission's
23 broadband policy statement (FCC 05-151,
24 adopted August 5, 2005).

all broadband stimulus grants will be subject to network neutrality.

Real Change (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26861207)

Nice! This really is "change we can believe in".

Why is it that these things only happen when Democrats control the government?

Re:Real Change (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 5 years ago | (#26868891)

"change we can believe in"

Remember, boys and girls, BO never promised us "change we can believe in and approve of."

Re:It's actually in the bill. (1)

Ashriel (1457949) | more than 5 years ago | (#26864969)

Unfortunately, the government's idea of Net Neutrality may not mean what you think it means. Everything they've written about net neutrality has "lawful" qualifiers all over the place - "lawful use", etc.

There's absolutely no text covering packet sniffing or similar methods in any dissertation on net neutrality. So while the ISPs may not be able to throttle or drop packets the way they want to, there's nothing currently in place to stop them from combing through all their (your) traffic (other than the 4th amendment) and reporting anything "suspicious" to interested parties.

Facepalm: Face-600stackof-legal documents (3, Funny)

TheLazySci-FiAuthor (1089561) | more than 5 years ago | (#26858855)

These 500+ page bills; how is it arguable that documents of that length are not asinine? I recently tried to read the Microsoft privacy statement and EULA for Office (kind of paltry legal docs, relatively speaking) and gave up after 10 minutes.

Something akin to cognitive dissonance had arisen, and like I do with any document/book which causes that - I tossed it.

I can understand when computer code achieves a size like this, or scientific studies, but really - law becomes more and more esoteric, even while it becomes slower and slower to adapt to modern technological and subsequent social conventions.

I await that hoped-for day when that mythical AI which is trillions of times smarter (or at least has trillions of times the patience and time) than us looks through these, to it, crayon drawings, and distills the circular reasonings, contradictions and plain nonsense into a succinctly digestible form understandable to that mythical 'reasonable person' so that we can all have a good laugh. ...or until it launches legions of red glowing-eyed, humanoid military robots to wipe us out.

Either outcome is fine with me.

Re:Facepalm: Face-600stackof-legal documents (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26859405)

tl;dr

Re:Facepalm: Face-600stackof-legal documents (1)

randyleepublic (1286320) | more than 5 years ago | (#26862795)

No, the AI will also toss it aside. But it won't tell us that. Instead it will slowly start to mutate the body of law by what it does tell us. End result: It will be the ruler, and we will enter the golden age!

Isn't there a github for government? (2, Funny)

Lord Bitman (95493) | more than 5 years ago | (#26858875)

Surely there's some way of finding out who inserted what into a bill. Just look for a list of changes made by Feinstein.

What ? (1)

lbalbalba (526209) | more than 5 years ago | (#26859023)

You haven't read all 680 pages ?

680 pgs. in 14 pt. = 200 pgs. in 10 pt. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26859025)

FYI/FWIW, I just exported the PDF as plain text, placed into InDesign as 10 pt and runs less than 200 pgs.

Further details... the original doc. is double spaced 14 pt. DeVinne, with excessively indented margins on 8.5x11. I used 10 pt. Myriad with 1/2 margins on 8.5x11.

-bc

Censoring the internet - Useless, harmful (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26859317)

Major lesson the leaders of this once-free country need to learn:
1. Banning X does not stop X, it just changes how X is used.
The biggest reason the internet would be censored & How censoring the internet would not help at all, but hurt:
1. To protect young children from learning about insults/slang, sex, and violence. >
  A. Children are going to learn curse words & insults/slang, whether it is at school, at the park, with their friends friends, or just by hearing them on the street.
Censoring the internet is a lazy, retarded, un-premeditated way to try to stop children from learning those things.
Children are going to learn them, unless you lock them in a vault and feed them drugs all of their life. Let them learn the true language of english, but teach them what the words and insults really mean, and why it is bad to say them. Set diciplines for when they use the words. There is really nothing the government can do about it besides: improve the education system and crank out more parenting classes.

  B. If you are so afraid your child is going to see a naked body, put your own censors on. There are many programs, a lot of hardware and more to do this yourself, instead of hanging around and waiting for the Government to do it.

If the internet is censored, it is going to do nothing but piss people off, and crank out more hackers. There are still magazines, there is still your TV.
If you manage to keep your child away from sex education, your child is very likely to, because of the urges, do extremely strange and illegal things such as:
Peep at any naked body possible, whether it is the girl next door, his/her parent's bedroom, or even the sleeping cat.
Many rapists and serial killers become the way they are because of their parent's overprotection.

C. Protecting your child from violence in movies and games in modern times actually is very dangerous to their behavior.
First of all, the violence in these movies gives the child a better view of what to expect from the real world. Decreasing trust in people in children in fact keeps them from talking to strangers, or taking the "Free ride" home from school, and things like that.
Second, the child better knows how to defend him/herself, and probably why not to fight, if he has seen a gang violence movie, or played GTA IV.

Sure, some studies show that playing games such as GTA IV in rare cases causes mild violent behavior in children. But what the media doesn't tell you, is that the children also become more suspicious of people, and get into less trouble over time, since they get a better idea what people are capable of.

Yeah, when your kid meets his/her creepy grandpa at first, they will be a bit shy. But when kids at school tell him/her to come out back after school for a free ice cream, your kid is less likely to come home with the police in his/her underwear covered in bruises as the police explain to you how lucky your child is to be alive.

So before you, Diana, go around killing net neutrality trying to censor the internet, maybe you should actually consider what really matters, and what does nothing.

Feinstein got outed (4, Interesting)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 5 years ago | (#26859347)

Feinstein probably mis-calculated that this would pass before anyone would discover this amendment. It got pulled, because of the negative publicity it generated that might have caused the whole bill from not being passed. Lieberman was outed for his negative contribution to the American Public, a new effort should be made to target Feinstein and get her kicked out of office.

Net Neutrality Safe? Maybe Not... (4, Informative)

Dreadneck (982170) | more than 5 years ago | (#26859491)

(beginning on page 664 and continuing to page 665 of the stimulus bill [huffingtonpost.com] )

SEC. 6003. NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN.

(a) REPORT REQUIRED.- Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this section, the Federal Communications Commission shall submit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate, a report containing a national broadband plan.

b) CONTENTS OF PLAN.-The national broadband 23 plan required by this section shall seek to ensure that all 24 people of the United States have access to broadband capability and shall establish benchmarks for meeting that goal. The plan shall also include-

(1) an analysis of the most effective and efficient mechanisms for ensuring broadband access by all people of the United States;

(2) a detailed strategy for achieving affordability of such service and maximum utilization of broadband infrastructure and service by the public; and

(3) a plan for use of broadband infrastructure and services in advancing consumer welfare, civic participation, public safety and homeland security, community development, health care delivery, energy independence and efficiency, education, worker training, private sector investment, entrepreneurial activity, job creation and economic growth, and other national purposes.

-----

It seems to me that part (3) is broadly and vaguely worded, but given the terminology used it seems they are going to delay the attempt at killing network neutrality and possibly try to bring in through the backdoor by way of the NTIA and FCC.

Why bother with the public scrutiny of the legislative process when you can accomplish it by fiat via the bureaucracy?

Re:Net Neutrality Safe? Maybe Not... (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 5 years ago | (#26891673)

b) CONTENTS OF PLAN.-The national broadband 23 plan required by this section shall seek to ensure that all 24 people of the United States have access to broadband capability and shall establish benchmarks for meeting that goal. The plan shall also include-

So how many people don't have broadband now? 23 or 24?

Yeah, I called Feinstein's office . . . (1)

Idou (572394) | more than 5 years ago | (#26859539)

I even convinced the intern I spoke with that Sen. Feinstein was wrong for trying this. However, I do not believe senators like this care what me or any of the "little people" think. I now just try to convince their office staff to switch to another senator's office (should't be that hard in DC and most are volunteers, anyway). I long for the day that corrupt senators have to answer their own damn phone.

Re:Yeah, I called Feinstein's office . . . (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#26860293)

> However, I do not believe senators like this care what me or any of the "little people"
> think.

They care very much what you think if and only if they become convinced that a substantial number of you will decide who to vote for based on how they vote on the issue in question.

I called too... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26860483)

And the person who answered the phone knew EXACTLY what I was talking about. Even when I made it clear that the network policy I had read about related to network neutrality and had nothign to do with "funding broadband" or whatever. She was familiar with the issue and said she would forward it on. She also asked for my zip code.

(She also admitted directly by the way when I asked "is this true?" that Feinstein was trying to get it into the bill.)

OP, you are a retard. (1)

Zolodoco (1170019) | more than 5 years ago | (#26859705)

This may look like trolling, but a fact is a fact. The lot of you went knee-jerk through the ceiling regarding a sensationalist British article that avoiding some pretty glaring facts to paint an alarmist picture. Do some research before you rally the troops to fight the great fight, and maybe people won't take you for fools when a real issue comes along.

Good company (1)

AlHunt (982887) | more than 5 years ago | (#26859817)

Says the submitter:
>Of course, I cannot aver to having read all 680 pages,

So the submitter is in good company. There are 535 members of congress who have also not read. In fact, the submitter is probably light years ahead of congress just by virtue of having even looked at it.

Don't breathe yet, this ISN'T the final version. (3, Informative)

cemulli (1374641) | more than 5 years ago | (#26860773)

Sorry guys, no fly. Try gpoaccess.gov instead - the new version isn't listed there yet either. They just agreed on a final version late last night (2/13), and that version ain't it. The linked PDF file is signed at the bottom. That's the version that the House passed on January 28th (open access language + semi-codification of the FCC internet policy statement) which is different from the version that the Senate passed on February 10th.

US Citizens who voted for Obama (1)

omb (759389) | more than 5 years ago | (#26861057)

US Citizens who voted for Obama need to remind his administration of the open 48 hour Bill pledge, which would rid you of this crap once and for all. At a time when the Congress has the lowest approval in history, and the only thing that has real bi-partisan support is shady Washington business-as-usual it is time for all US citizens to send the Hill a message - That they will not stand for it!

Specifically requires Rod Blagojevich be gone! (1)

rfc1394 (155777) | more than 5 years ago | (#26874431)

Page 14 of the bill [huffingtonpost.com] specifically prohibits the State of Illinois from spending any money as long as Rod R. Blagojevich is still governor. I do not like this. First, it's unnecessary as he's already been impeached. Second, Personally, this sounds awfully like a "bill of Attainder" where someone is convicted by act of Congress. Further, it might violate some other Constitutional provisions. This sets a bad precedent, because if you allow this sort of thing it can be prostituted into any number of things, e.g. if some particular person is not convicted the state is denied funding.

Whether the guy did something wrong or not, allowing a statute to specifically require someone be in a disadvantaged position is a bad idea. Because first they'll use it on someone who supposedly is really bad because most people either won't care or will approve, then it gets used on other people as the skids have been greased to allow it.

And like the proverbial frog in boiling water, we won't even realize what has happened until maybe one of us gets targeted, e.g. Salman Rushdie being named in a death sentence Fatwa which while Iran has supposedly distanced itself, has done nothing to repudiate it and probably helped in the murders done under its order.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...