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!

Ask Slashdot: What Planks Would You Want In a Platform of a Political Party?

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the mandatory-pi-day-celebration dept.

Politics 694

An anonymous reader writes "I am the Technology Manager of the Justice Party (sorry, no relationship to the Avengers). We are currently working on our Platform (version 2.0) and I would be interested to know what people in the science and technology field would like to see in a platform of a political party. For example, we are considering planks that relate to Open Government (data) access, science and maths promotion, space industries, promotion of open source, dealing with SOPA/ CISPA laws, improvement in user privacy and much more. Give us your comments so we can help build a more tech-savvy America."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

You and yours can go your way. Me and mine my way. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43495597)

That is all.

FTFY: (1)

Hartree (191324) | about a year and a half ago | (#43495731)

"You and yours must go away. Me and mine can stay."

Fixed that for you so it reflects what many feel emotionally.

Butts (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43495599)

My dick in your ass.

Planks? (5, Funny)

DontBlameCanada (1325547) | about a year and a half ago | (#43495613)

Cedar is best, but pine is cheaper. Hint: save yourself from the darkest side and take up carpentry. Do something meaningful with your life, seriously.

Re:Planks? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43495699)

We're talking about politicians here... I'd want a stronger wood, since we want the politicians to walk the plank.

Re:Planks? (5, Funny)

Dutchmaan (442553) | about a year and a half ago | (#43495799)

I remember when politicians were built from mohangay and oak, now they're all just compressed particle board and fall apart after a year or two, but we never throw them out we just keep using them with all their broken drawers because we don't want to deal with the problem of disposing of it all!

Population Control (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43495617)

I've got enough neighbors, how about you?

WTF? Is this your party or not? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43495619)

Take what you believe and make that your party planks.

Pine, as in coffin (0)

nightcats (1114677) | about a year and a half ago | (#43495627)

2 by 8's would be fine. Thick enough to stomp on and wide enough to run on (or away)

Re:Pine, as in coffin (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43495819)

I prefer them a bit wider, really a 2x12 is better for plank to walk on.
This is a safety issue too, you don't want someone who is walking a plank to fall off the long side because it was too narrow.

Proportional representation. (4, Insightful)

hendrikboom (1001110) | about a year and a half ago | (#43495637)

Proportional representation. Small factions will get represented too.

YES! (2)

Chirs (87576) | about a year and a half ago | (#43495813)

I live in Canada, and with first-past-the-post my vote essentially means nothing at all due to where I live.

Our national government has a "majority" with less than 40% of the popular vote.

Re:Proportional representation. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43495835)

No software patents, nor method-of-doing-business patents.

No political contributions allowed from corporations.

Some means of punishing politicians that do a lot of legislation to benefit a corporation and then become a member of the board of directors as soon as their term is up, so they can rake in the cash from their prior legislation.

Re:Proportional representation. (2, Insightful)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a year and a half ago | (#43495847)

Proportional representation. Small factions will get represented too.

Many countries have proportional representation. There is little reason to believe that these countries are better governed, and plenty of evidence that they are not. The biggest problem with proportional representation is often small kooky factions hold the balance of power, are are able to wield disproportionate influence. Look at Israel for a good example of this.

Re:Proportional representation. (-1)

AuMatar (183847) | about a year and a half ago | (#43495897)

And in the US without it the small kookie far right wing of the republican party can hold up everything via filibuster. For example, background checks on gun ownership which are polling at above 85%. No difference.

Secularism (5, Insightful)

elloGov (1217998) | about a year and a half ago | (#43495643)

Separation of Church/Religion & State, be it whatever religion

Re:Secularism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43495675)

THIS. Make sure people are free to worship as they please, but keep the religion in homes and churches and out of government.

Re:Secularism (1)

Nadaka (224565) | about a year and a half ago | (#43495815)

I've long believed in freedom of religious choice. But as time goes on it becomes more and more clear that freedom of thought is a vastly more important right, and one that can not flourish as long as people are infected with contagious memetic parasites that suppress their free will.

Experiments in direct democracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43495645)

Now that we have such websites as, we should turn our attention to a more responsive government.

Mandatory gun ownership (2, Insightful)

smooth wombat (796938) | about a year and a half ago | (#43495647)

If you're going to require me to pay for my neighbor's health insurance despite them smoking a pack a week, then require that every person own a gun to protect their neighbor as well.

Re:Mandatory gun ownership (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43495719)

term limits

Re:Mandatory gun ownership (3, Informative)

Mashdar (876825) | about a year and a half ago | (#43495843)

Don't know where you live, but AFAIK all states allow insurers to charge for insuring smokers. You are not paying for their habit. The insurance company has every incentive to offer healthy people the best rates they can.
Your high premiums have more to do with soaring costs on the care delivery end, which have more to do with ever more expensive techniques being invented and used with no cost-benefit analysis. Hell, they don't even do benefit-benefit analysis (drugs are not compared to eachother to determine if the new one is even worth prescribing).

Re:Mandatory gun ownership (1)

Mashdar (876825) | about a year and a half ago | (#43495879)

*Every incentive assuming a free market. One problem is a lack of competition in the insurance market. But then, the negotiating that goes on with hospitals forces the formation of large interests.

Re:Mandatory gun ownership (1)

Mashdar (876825) | about a year and a half ago | (#43495931)

Oh, and then there is the private funding of medical studies for new products, and the lack of full disclosure concerning all studies.
I forget who made the arguement, but it basically goes "If I flip a coin 100 times and selectively show you 50 of the results, I can convince you that the coin has only heads." This is being done with many products. Tamiflu comes to mind... From wikipedia: "A subsequent Cochrane review, in 2012, maintains that significant parts of the clinical trials still remains unavailable for public scrutiny, and that the available evidence is not sufficient to conclude that oseltamivir decreases hospitalizations from influenza-like illnesses."

Re:Mandatory gun ownership (2)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about a year and a half ago | (#43495937)

Don't know where you live, but AFAIK all states allow insurers to charge for insuring smokers.

Hmm, seems to me that Obamacare is going to change that. Alas, can't remember where I read that recently....

Re:Mandatory gun ownership (2)

compro01 (777531) | about a year and a half ago | (#43495851)

then require that every person own a gun to protect their neighbor as well.

Add in mandatory semi-yearly safety and marksmanship training.

Re:Mandatory gun ownership (0)

Grishnakh (216268) | about a year and a half ago | (#43495867)

WTF are you talking about? No one's requiring you to pay for your neighbor's health insurance (unless your neighbor is on Medicaid or one of the state-level insurance programs for the indigent, but that's unlikely). We don't have universal healthcare in this country, only 1) Medicare, which is paid for by people's own FICA tax contributions over their working career, and 2) Obamacare, which is nothing more than a requirement for you to buy your own insurance, at whatever rates the insurance companies feel like charging you (and if you've noticed, the rates have shot up astronomically in the last few years).

As for protecting your neighbor with a gun, many gun owners now will tell you that's a great way to land yourself in jail, and they specifically say they will not defend anyone else with their gun, only themselves and their immediate family members.

Re:Mandatory gun ownership (2, Insightful)

smooth wombat (796938) | about a year and a half ago | (#43495941)

Obamacare, which is nothing more than a requirement for you to buy your own insurance,

Key word, requirement. I am required to do so whether I want to or not. I don't need medical insurance. I can pay for my once-a-decade visit out of my own pocket without having to shell out the thousands of dollars in the interim.

Thus, if I am required to pay for something which I don't use, I am paying for my neighbor who has chosen to do something which is a known health threat.

Re:Mandatory gun ownership (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43495977)

Of course, universal healthcare reduces the overall costs to society while universal gun ownership is almost certainly going to be costly in both monetary terms and in the numbers of lives lost to accidents, but don't let such quibbles interfere with your selfishness.

reduce nonsense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43495651)

Avoid using buzzwords, like 'Planks' or 'platform'. Demonstrate that your candidates can analyse and solve issues in a logical manner rather than conforming to a predetermined ideology.

Re:reduce nonsense (3, Insightful)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about a year and a half ago | (#43495989)

Exactly. Take your platform, and burn it to the ground.

I want politicians who, when faced with legislation they support or not, will release a statement saying why it's a good or bad idea. Not a buzzword-filled piece about patriotism and inherent rights, but how the particular legislation helps or hinders your particular goals.
I want politicians who will vote however they feel is right, rather than how their party tells them to.
I want politicians who will act in support of not just their own constituents, but for all the neighboring regions as well, especially in regard to business incentives.
I want politicians who honestly care more about making the world better than about the day-to-day drama of American politics.

I also want a pony.

Cedar planks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43495653)

Soak them in some sake for about an hour. Wonderful way to cook salmon on the grill.

Vi yay, Emacs nay. (5, Funny)

beowulfcluster (603942) | about a year and a half ago | (#43495655)

I'd like to see vi become the official editor of the United States of America, and at the same time I would like to see Emacs declared an illegal tool only people of an evil doer persuasion would use and banned and hunted down. Start the War on Emacs and you'll have my vote. Thank you.

Re:Vi yay, Emacs nay. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43495803)

Here, here!

Re:Vi yay, Emacs nay. (5, Funny)

coldsalmon (946941) | about a year and a half ago | (#43495985)

I totally disagree. If we ban Emacs, it will just go underground, making the problem even worse than it is now. We need Emacs users to stay out in the open, where we can monitor them. Emacs should be legalized and taxed so the government can actually control it. And before you libertarian nutjobs go off about big government, the whole reason that government exists is to control things like Emacs, which the free market has obviously failed to do. I'd rather have people getting their Emacs at Wal-Mart after a background check than on Silk Road with Bitcoins. Sadly, our politicians are too stupid to know the difference between Emacs and Bitcoin, so we'll be stuck with our broken system for the foreseeable future, and this discussion is irrelevant.

Re:Vi yay, Emacs nay. (2)

octothorpe99 (34654) | about a year and a half ago | (#43495987)

Vi user myself, but I just noticed that "vi" is at the "core" of "evil" :)

pandering to the tech-savvy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43495671)

Controversial question, but why are you asking? Wouldn't some consider that pandering to a tech-savvy audience? Maybe that's alright, but the idea of a politician polling for positions seems very idiosyncratic. "Yes or no on abortions this year?"

Re:pandering to the tech-savvy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43495783)

And yet, that's the problem with representative democracy. Our people are elected based on "yes or no on abortions this year". There are no other planks that matter, except sometimes gay marriage. Even the tea partiers suddenly forget all about how big government is killing everything when it comes time to stand up to the Religious Right, suddenly moral decay is the root cause of all deficits and the atomic family will replace medicare, social security and end all wars.

Mandatory cosmetic surgery (1)

mooingyak (720677) | about a year and a half ago | (#43495681)

I'm tired of looking at ugly people (yes that includes me)

Constancy (5, Funny)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about a year and a half ago | (#43495685)

I want your policies to be constant. Plank Constants.

Off the top of my head (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43495701)

1) strict term limits for congress
2) corporate money is not free place for it in politics
3) Single payer health care
4) increased minimum wage that is subsequently tied to inflation
5) Large scale infrastructure projects...LARGE. High speed trains, universal fiber broadband
6) a commitment to overhaul the national power grid or begin the the process of implementing a decentralized solution to replacing the grid
7) outlaw lobbyists

Re:Off the top of my head (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43495841)

7) outlaw lobbyists

And how do you propose to do that without either 1) running afoul of the 1st amendment's "freedom to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" bit, or 2) passing an amendment to repeal parts of the 1st?

Re:Off the top of my head (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43495943)

Screw minimum wage. It expects everyone to work, which puts the workforce in a terrible bargaining position with their employers. Put into place a guaranteed minimum income to replace welfare in a completely fair way, and eliminate the minimum wage (so all work will pay exactly what someone thinks it's worth working for, rather than being forced to work terrible jobs at minimum wage to survive). Tax that wage at a significantly higher rate to compensate.

Something universally... (2, Funny)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about a year and a half ago | (#43495707)

... constant [] .

Hold tech companies' feet to fire about H1-Bs (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43495709)

Years ago, local industry where I lived had a problem getting qualified workers with the right skills. Folks said, "Like what skills?"

Industry said, "CNC Machinists."

So, the local tech schools, colleges, industry and governments got together and created CNC programs and solved the problem. Now industry has has a steady flow of qualified workers, people who may not have the talents or inclination to be a white collar cube worker have a career path to a middle class life, government has an ever increasing tax base and the local community is thriving. (CT, Pratt & Whitney, Sikorsky Aircraft, etc... to name some names.)

Contrast with the tech industry:

"Waaa! We can't get qualified workers with the right skills!! Waaaaaaa"

The rest of us, "Like what?"

Tech industry,"Waaaaa! We can't get qualified workers we need more H1-Bs! Waaaaaaaaaa!"

I think they won't mention the skills or qualifications they need because we will all see that the Emperor Has No Clothes. We would see that in fact, every college and university in the US is producing folks with the right qualifications and that the tech industry is full of shit and made up the "lack of skills and qualifications" as an excuse for H1-Bs - to state the obvious.

Max (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43495711)

Max Planck. Get him for your party. That would be one hell of a party.

Re:Max (2)

Hartree (191324) | about a year and a half ago | (#43495781)

"Max Planck. Get him for your party. That would be one hell of a party."

Party Motto: Be discrete, not continuous!

In fact, forget your platform! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43495713)

If none of those planks are hookers, blackjack, or ponies, I won't believe the response came from the internet.

Third parties, generally, are not good (5, Funny)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | about a year and a half ago | (#43495725)

The election system, as it currently exists, squeeze out third parties. Worse, however, is that if a third party does get a toehold, the main result is has on an election is to takes vote away from the major party that it's most similar to-- the "spoiler" effect. This is why in many cases third-party challengers are secretly funded by entities that oppose the platforms that the third party supports: the "divide and conquer" strategy.

So, overall, my desire for your party is that your platform should adopt all the planks that I hate. Probably your party will be irrelevant, in which case it doesn't matter what your platform is. If your party does get large enough to make a difference, that difference will manifest by your taking votes away from your politically closest competitors, so I want you to be as evil as possible.

Thus: I suggest you adopt a platform of explicit fascism.

Re:Third parties, generally, are not good (4, Interesting)

Mashdar (876825) | about a year and a half ago | (#43495769)

Or possibly a plank for election reform: (N-1)-round single elimination elections. Voters order their preference of candidates. Their vote rolls to their next choice upon elimination of their current choice.

Re:Third parties, generally, are not good (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43495913)

Worse, however, is that if a third party does get a toehold, the main result is has on an election is to takes vote away from the major party that it's most similar to-- the "spoiler" effect.

As opposed to the more of the same we have now?

I am a social liberal and government and fiscal conservative. NEITHER party represents my views.

The Dems' economic policies are stuck in 1931 and the Reps have become the political arm of the Christian Taliban.

And no, the Tea Party is over the top for me. I actually understand that Government DOES have a role in the economic health of an economy- see 19th Century USA for an example of unrestricted Capitalism in the Industrial Age. It was a cluster fuck.

So a third party would be perfect for me because frankly, I don't vote for either Reps or Dems because they are out of date. They are run by old people who don't have a clue.

I was thrilled at first with Obama because I was delusional in thinking he was a Game Changer - Hell, a Black President?! My fucking White Establishment peers weren't doing shit for me!!

He was my Great Black Hope in shaking shit up!

And then reality.

And then 2012 and it was him and Romney.

Fuck'in A!

I WANT a third party that I can stand behind. The Libertarians are off in la-la land - BUT - I have to say, they DO sway the issue LOCALLY in what I THINK is the right direction.

All we have in the US is a Chocolate and Vanilla political system.

I want Strawberry - or at least Strawberry to have a voice.

Re:Third parties, generally, are not good (2)

dkleinsc (563838) | about a year and a half ago | (#43495995)

Worse, however, is that if a third party does get a toehold, the main result is has on an election is to takes vote away from the major party that it's most similar to-- the "spoiler" effect.

The effect of third parties, typically, is that the threat of the third party candidate forces the major party candidate they're most resembling to adopt policies of the third party. For instance, the Democrats started acting rather socialist in the 1930's and 1940's because the Socialist Party candidacies were pulling enough votes that the Democrats had to be worrying about losing to the Republicans even if they were closer to the majority opinion.

R-E-S-P-E-C-T (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#43495729)

A little respect (sock it to me, sock it to me,
sock it to me, sock it to me)

Protect the rights in the constitution / BOR (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43495733)

Concentrate on eliminating government rights and enhancing citizen's freedoms. The government always loses to the rights of an individual.

The Three Laws (1)

davecotter (1297617) | about a year and a half ago | (#43495735)

Let me suggest the three laws, modified for human consumption: 1) thou shalt not override the free-will of another, or thru inaction, allow a third party to override the free will of another 2) thou shalt help those less fortunate than yourself, to the best of your ability and in a sustainable way, unless it conflicts with the 1st law 3) thou shalt have fun and do whatever you want, unless it conflicts with the first or second law It would be fun to discuss the ramifications of this. for examples of what shakes out: no wars, no "illegal" drugs, no banksters, no monsanto, no monopolies or or oligopolies, marriage equality, no slavery/trafficking, no secret backroom deals, etc etc. i fully expect some to vociferously disagree with this, and i think that's part of the fun. but i think we could go a long way toward a more civilized society by seriously considering these ideals.

Only one plank at the Federal level: Sortocracy (1)

Baldrson (78598) | about a year and a half ago | (#43495737)

At the Federal level the only humane plank is Sortocracy [] : Sorting proponents of political theories into governments that test them.

Everything else is in the noise.

polical convictions (1)

flogger (524072) | about a year and a half ago | (#43495739)

You are looking to /. readers for platform ideas.. What will you do when you find that our ideas are not popular and cause you to have absolutely no influence as a political party? Will you change your platform to be more popular? You may as well stop now and call yourself Rep. Dem. Right or Left... A real political party should have real convictions.. people will flock to the truth and real beliefs.. not wishy-washy-go-with-the-wind bullet points.

Re:polical convictions (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43495791)

Right, because changing your mind if you are wrong about something is only thing idiots do? No instead we should all be indignant and hold on to wrong beliefs and ideas because to do otherwise is t be "wishy-washy".

Re:polical convictions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43495939)

Remember: it's only flip-flopping if the liberals do it. Conservatives realign to shifting paradigms.

Farms Farms Farms (1)

Mashdar (876825) | about a year and a half ago | (#43495741)

Free market view for farm policy: Remove policies which favor large farms. Make corn cost what corn costs. (Stop artificially pushing certain crops. Let the market decide who grows what. This also yields major health benefits by removing unsound incentives for corn syrup and factory raised animal products.) Tarrifs on crops subsidized by foreign governments. Possibly insurance against short-term (1-2 year) price fluctuations in crop prices.

Re:Farms Farms Farms (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43495999)

A large nation that doesn't generate its own food supply is at the mercy of its suppliers, both politically and militarily. Farm subsidies are a sovereignty and security issue, not an entitlement -- however wasteful and corrupt it may seem.

The usual.. (1)

sinij (911942) | about a year and a half ago | (#43495743)

No matter what your policy and planks are it always boils down to following: abortions, guns, and cutting taxes.

Population Control (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43495745)

Not that anyone will take me seriously, and it would almost certainly be too unpopular to be a part of a viable party's platform, but out of control population growth is probably the greatest threat we face.

Re:Population Control (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43495929)

Yep, require a "test" to make people qualify to have kids..and how many. Include basic financial security (can't have kids if you can't afford them), psych eval (no kids if you are completely batshit crazy), background check (felons prohibited from having kids, maybe just say at least one parent must pass the background check).

All teens get one of the long term birth control implant options and it is required just like vaccinations(of course gov healthcare will pay for it). Then to have a valid driver's license or to recieve any form of government subsidy/entitlement payment you have to have an implant if you aren't pre-approved to have another child.

All I ask (1)

FictionPimp (712802) | about a year and a half ago | (#43495757)

I want a minimalist government that focuses mostly on preserving and the rights of our constitution while at the same time working to wean us off big government, give us back freedoms that were taken from us, and fix our patent and copyright systems.

Can you do that?

Re:All I ask (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | about a year and a half ago | (#43495855)

I too want the government to gid rid of all the laws I disagree with, while keeping the minimal set of laws I support.

I also want to grant Texas its independence. Most Americans support this, either because they live in Texas and want an end to Federal tyranny, or because they live outside of Texas and are fed up of the stupid, loudmouthed, assholes that hail from there.

Finally, flying, self driving, cars or a similar form of transportation.

Superhero rights! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43495777)

Oh... nevermind then!


Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43495787)

-Bank Secrecy Act
-Federal Reserve Act

These laws in conflict of 1st amendment of the constitution and/or hinder the fund-raising ability of freedom-protecting libertarians.


Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43495885)

-Legalizing making false statements to federal authorities under the first amendment
-Legalizing obstruction of justice ( most prosecutors come from top notch schools, they should be able to win conviction irrespective of the quality of evidence)

Compassion. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43495789)

A basic statement to the effect of "It is morally wrong to profit from misery" would make a wonderful foundation for sweeping reform of military, agricultural, and medical industries with perhaps conversion to infrastructure (the word 'nationalization' makes people twitchy, apparently). Probably more actual justice than people could accept, though.

Who are you? (5, Insightful)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | about a year and a half ago | (#43495793)

I know I am a little too far down, but here goes.

1. Identity Fail.
"An anonymous reader writes "I am the Technology Manager of the Justice Party..."
Really?! For me you sunk your chances right there. Politics is about promoting yourself and hoping no bad $hit from your past sticks too badly. (Because there IS some, it's only a question of relativity!)

So "Anonymous Reader", for a party I've never heard of? Nope. Go away. I won't even begin to (oh wait, I am) open the can of worms on authenticity security for ... wait for it ... the *Technology Manager*... of a party?! Sales guys, I get. Tech Manager? Oh dear gawd.

2. Too F#$%$% Sick of "Hidden One Way Flow" data-slurps in politics. You want all our notes, but you won't stand to even log a Slashdot Username to respond to replies? And this for a *political party*? Screw that. I'll dignify you by saying you're not a complete fabrication by site Mgt. Let's assume you are real. Why So Sneaky?

Bye Bye.

Some thoughts... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43495807)

1) naming yourself the Justice Party already doomed it. Justice is something defined by our laws so you'd either want to change it, which contradicts your name (since you'd want justice but only after you change what justice is) or you'd want things to stay the same (which you don't).

2) 2-party system will always have a stranglehold on US politics. If you truly wanted to make a change then work to "unite the clans" and get every single third party to merge and offer a single true alternative.

3) there are only two types of parties that would be viable opposition to the Republicans and Democrats: fiscally liberal+socially conservative and fiscally conservative+socially liberal. I'm the latter type and so are a solid chunk of Americans. You'd be better off working towards creating a solid party to do that.

4) As far as your request for what people in the science/tech fields would like then I'm sure there are people here that'll reply to that. I will say that privacy is dead, it's not in the governments best interest to have privacy, and you'd have to be in bed with corporations to run the country and you can't do that with having lots of "free" and "open" things. If you want a soundbyte - try focusing research on upgrading our power grid, methods of transportation, and fostering innovation in all growing fields. All of those create a lot of good-paying jobs not to mention ensure that our country continues to stay competitive in the global arena.

Good luck!

Randomized Death Panels! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43495825)

Every month each citizen gets a D20 roll against the Death Panel. All have a series of modifiers, i.e. age, general health, habits, etc.

Of course, you're totes fucked if the system crits on you.

A few items I've been thinking about... (1)

gQuigs (913879) | about a year and a half ago | (#43495827)

Outright Ban (or at least tax/warning) on Consumer-level DRM:
It's anti-competitive consumer restrictive technology that doesn't help anyone (except I guess those that make it). The music industry has realized this, but other industries haven't. We are wasting bandwidth, silicon, power, and making it much harder for free operating systems to compete.

Consumer right to at least inspect all code Utilities/Others place in their houses/cars:
I'm particularly thinking about smart grid technologies. In an ideal world both the utility and the homeowner could run code on the device and verify what the other does. Obviously some areas would be off limit (like the homeowner fully disabling reporting).

Internet providers/Cell phone providers can only provide 1 year contract to consumers. (Consumers being able to move a bit easier may help improve competition).

Internet capable devices need to be supported with security updates for at least 3 years after that company sells the last device.

BAN FAX MACHINES from all government offices and remove the provisions that make them considered "secure". (Sorry, fax machines really annoy me.)

All generic hardware must support at least two operating systems (one of which much be open source). This allows you to repurpose them more easily in the future.

More funds for NASA []

Make a better source to get weather directly from

Make actually the only website you need to go to for applying for government jobs

Make Navy contracters use standard networking for ships instead of running a bunch of different networks for different systems.

Wow.. I'm going to stop typing now.

True Justice (1)

Khomar (529552) | about a year and a half ago | (#43495837)

I think Asaph put it best:

“How long will you judge unjustly
and show partiality to the wicked?
Give justice to the weak and the fatherless;
maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.
Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.” (Psalm 82:2-4)

The most important thing that our nation needs at this point is true justice without partiality toward the rich, the powerful, and the connected. We need the laws that we do have to be enforced with fairness and impartiality. Given the name of your party, this should be your central focus.

Re:True Justice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43495945)

The most important thing that our nation needs at this point is true justice without partiality toward the rich, the powerful, and the connected. We need the laws that we do have to be enforced with fairness and impartiality. Given the name of your party, this should be your central focus.

So long as humans are being tried and put up for justice, humans administer justice, humans define justice, and/or humans exist, I can guarantee this will absolutely never happen.

Patents (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43495839)

America's Patent Law is awful. It's uniquely bad: probably the worst in the world. It stifles innovation, and makes it very difficult for new IT industries to get started.

At the very least
Recognize prior art in other countries,
Add a need for "non obvious to an expert in the field"
Don't allow business processes and software to be patent-able.
Stop allowing": every other country that I am aware of requires patents to be findable a couple of years after the patent is filled.

Tyranny of the Specialist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43495845)

Ugh, this crap is how bureaucratic socialism become the defacto standard for western government:

Each group of specialists, utterly convinced that they know best, gain control of an ever expanding array of governmental control somehow vaguely related to their speciality. We know the results: slow, static, unfeeling, entrenched bureaucracy, completely convinced that it is right in all things, even while its left hand and right hand act in opposite directions (to the net loss of humanity).

Judicial System Oversight (2)

Marrow (195242) | about a year and a half ago | (#43495857)

If enough people come forward and sign a petition claiming abuse of authority, this should force a officer of greater rank from an unrelated jurisdiction to come in and investigate. If a judge holds people in contempt for half their lives, there must be repercussions. If a DA withholds exculpatory evidence, there must be repercussions. If a police officer abuses his power, then the people he works with every day should not be the ones who give him a pass.
Let alternate jurisdictions oversee each other. That way they can leave without fear of reprisals. Otherwise the truth is being stolen from the people.
And at some point there must be criminal liability for abuse of power.

just know that (1)

HPHatecraft (2748003) | about a year and a half ago | (#43495861)

ideals fall pray to expediency and the necessity of doing whatever it takes to remain in, or to get into, office.

Gallows Planks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43495863)

'nuff said.

What planks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43495865)

I'm going to go with the plank length and plank time.

Jews prohibited from owning finance/media (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43495877)

Fix that and you will have solved a lot of the problems with the world.

I want.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43495881)

A party that would say they have no relation to the Justice League, not the Avengers... ffs get your comic universes right.

Only one thing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43495893)

The only thing I've ever wanted to hear from a politician is "Hey, I don't know. Let me go and talk to some experts and I'll get back to you."

thinking longer term... (3, Interesting)

Fubari (196373) | about a year and a half ago | (#43495895)

education (ok to leave some children behind).
health (self care, health care, genetics, stem cells...)
energy (simply burning fossil fuels is stupid)
space (for starters, industry & mining would be better done off planet)
values: throw in a large dose of personal responsibility.

These are the things that matter, policy that improves them is a win.
Everything else is noise.

Patent laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43495907)

I think you can gain a few votes just by taking a firm stand against silly patents and patent trolls.

Re:Patent laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43495971)

As a matter of fact, now that I think of it.. Patent silly walks and then sue the crap out of Mr Cleese!

My Little Politicians. (5, Funny)

Remus Shepherd (32833) | about a year and a half ago | (#43495909)

Note to moderators: If you feel the urge to moderate this, please do not hit the 'Funny' button. As ridiculous as it sounds, I am being completely serious:

I would like to see a Brony political party.

The planks of such a party would be the same as those that keep Equestria running well: The Elements of Harmony. Each of the elements are concepts that we need very badly in American politics right now:

Honesty -- Transparency and accountability should be a cornerstone of any government.
Kindness -- The purpose of government should be to help the poor and disadvantaged. The rich do not need help.
Loyalty -- Politicians should be loyal to their constituents and to America, not to corporate lobbies or foreign investors.
Generosity -- Liberal use of government power is good when such intervention is requested. Be generous and quick to help those who ask for it, but do not interfere with industries or states unless absolutely necessary.
Laughter -- A political candidate and party should be able to laugh at themselves. Not a consideration for governing, but it would help immensely with the dreadful campaign season.

I would *love* to see the Elements of Harmony adopted by a political party. I feel they are well thought-out principles for a just and harmonious society, and out current political system has gotten very far from any harmonious ideal.

Feedback loops (2)

David Muir Sharnoff (73602) | about a year and a half ago | (#43495915)

Laws and regulations need feedback loops so that efficacy can be determined and acted upon. This means that the goal and rationale for laws and regulations needs to be explicitly stated and then the effects measured and reported.

Please (-1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | about a year and a half ago | (#43495919)

- End to dietary supplements and homeopathic medicine
- Classify any advertisement that says you get something for free when you don't ("X is free when you buy Y" or "Free, just pay ridiculous shipping and handling"), false advertising
- Low cost (for real) dental for everyone
- Death penalty for running a stop sign
- A number on all food that indicated "If you ate nothing but this, this is how many days you will live"
- PGP over phone networks
- Research into brain transplantation

Mixed Message: (3, Interesting)

Hartree (191324) | about a year and a half ago | (#43495921)

The article is submitted by "anonymous reader" claiming to be the technology manager for the Justice Party, yet links to a web site that identifies the National Technology Manager by name.

Just one of those little daily oddities I notice.

Patents (1)

KDN (3283) | about a year and a half ago | (#43495923)

No more patent trolls, patent owners must actually make what they patent.
No more submarine patents, date of effectiveness should be that of original filing.
Patent submitters must pay proportional to the number of claims that they make.
No more patenting mathamatical functions like exclusive or.
Patent holders may lose patents if they fail to disclose prior art.

Citizens United (2)

David Muir Sharnoff (73602) | about a year and a half ago | (#43495935)

Citizens United must be reversed. This will probably require a constitutional amendment.

Term Limits for All (1)

some old guy (674482) | about a year and a half ago | (#43495949)

Two-term lifetime maximum regardless of office. No more entrenched career hacks.

Election and Voting Reforms. also, Thorium (1)

TehCable (1351775) | about a year and a half ago | (#43495951)

Any small party should definitely support: * Election finance reform. [] * Alternative Vote [] Thorium Energy Policy: I'd like to see the Government focus on developing Thorium as an energy source. Liquid Florine Thorium Reactors have many benefits, and could provide all of our energy needs. Demand for Thorium would also make Rare Earth mining viable in the US (currently all done in China). If you mine Rare Earths here, you'd bring more high tech manufacturing here as well. Policy changes to enable and promote this course of action are fairly minimal. It's just hard to get politicians to give a damn.

Perhaps using American English... (0)

Seraphim_72 (622457) | about a year and a half ago | (#43495953)

would be a good start.

"science and maths promotion"

Or perhaps you are planning on colouring all of your labour with such cromulent Britishism's

Mandatory HOST file usage on all gov systems...apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43495955)

A corrupt slashdot luser has pentrated the moderation system to downmod all my posts while impersonating me.

Nearly 230++ times that I know of @ this point for all of March/April 2013 so far, & others here have told you to stop - take the hint, lunatic (leave slashdot)...

Sorry folks - but whoever the nutjob is that's attempting to impersonate me, & upset the rest of you as well, has SERIOUS mental issues, no questions asked! I must've gotten the better of him + seriously "gotten his goat" in doing so in a technical debate & his "geek angst" @ losing to me has him doing the:


A.) $10,000 challenges, ala (where the imposter actually TRACKED + LISTED the # of times he's done this no less, & where I get the 230 or so times I noted above) -> []


B.) Reposting OLD + possibly altered models - (this I haven't checked on as to altering the veracity of the info. being changed) of posts of mine from the past here


(Albeit massively repeatedly thru all threads on /. this March/April 2013 nearly in its entirety thusfar).

* Personally, I'm surprised the moderation staff here hasn't just "blocked out" his network range yet honestly!

(They know it's NOT the same as my own as well, especially after THIS post of mine, which they CAN see the IP range I am coming out of to compare with the ac spamming troll doing the above...).


P.S.=> Again/Stressing it: NO guys - it is NOT me doing it, as I wouldn't waste that much time on such trivial b.s. like a kid might...

Plus, I only post where hosts file usage is on topic or appropriate for a solution & certainly NOT IN EVERY POST ON SLASHDOT (like the nutcase trying to "impersonate me" is doing for nearly all of March/April now, & 230++ times that I know of @ least)... apk

P.S.=> here is CORRECT host file information just to piss off the insane lunatic troll:


21++ ADVANTAGES OF CUSTOM HOSTS FILES (how/what/when/where/why):

Over AdBlock & DNS Servers ALONE 4 Security, Speed, Reliability, & Anonymity (to an extent vs. DNSBL's + DNS request logs).

1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program). A truly "multi-platform" UNIVERSAL solution for added speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity to an extent (vs. DNS request logs + DNSBL's you feel are unjust hosts get you past/around).

2.) Adblock blocks ads? Well, not anymore & certainly not as well by default, apparently, lol - see below:

Adblock Plus To Offer 'Acceptable Ads' Option [] )

AND, in only browsers & their subprogram families (ala email like Thunderbird for FireFox/Mozilla products (use same gecko & xulrunner engines)), but not all, or, all independent email clients, like Outlook, Outlook Express, OR Window "LIVE" mail (for example(s)) - there's many more like EUDORA & others I've used over time that AdBlock just DOES NOT COVER... period.

Disclaimer: Opera now also has an AdBlock addon (now that Opera has addons above widgets), but I am not certain the same people make it as they do for FF or Chrome etc..

3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF (non-mozilla/gecko engine based) family based wares, So AdBlock doesn't protect email programs like Outlook, Outlook Express, Windows "LIVE" mail & others like them (EUDORA etc./et al), Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.

4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 5-7 next below).

5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, OR make you reach them faster since you resolve host-domain names LOCALLY w/ hosts out of cached memory, hosts do ALL of those things (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw -> [] for years now). Hosts protect against those problems via hardcodes of your fav sites (you should verify against the TLD that does nothing but cache IPAddress-to-domainname/hostname resolutions ( via NSLOOKUP, PINGS (ping -a in Windows), &/or WHOIS though, regularly, so you have the correct IP & it's current)).

* NOW - Some folks MAY think that putting an IP address alone into your browser's address bar will be enough, so why bother with HOSTS, right? WRONG - Putting IP address in your browser won't always work IS WHY. Some IP adresses host several domains & need the site name to give you the right page you're after is why. So for some sites only the HOSTS file option will work!

6.) Hosts files don't eat up CPU cycles (or ELECTRICITY) like AdBlock does while it parses a webpages' content, nor as much as a DNS server does while it runs. HOSTS file are merely a FILTER for the kernel mode/PnP TCP/IP subsystem, which runs FAR FASTER & MORE EFFICIENTLY than any ring 3/rpl3/usermode app can since hosts files run in MORE EFFICIENT & FASTER Ring 0/RPL 0/Kernelmode operations acting merely as a filter for the IP stack (via the "Plug-N-Play" designed IP stack in Windows) vs. SLOWER & LESS EFFICIENT Ring 3/RPL 3/Usermode operations (which webbrowsers run in + their addons like AdBlock slow down even MORESO due to their parsing operations).

7.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than remote DNS servers can by FAR (by saving the roundtrip inquiry time to a DNS server, typically 30-100's of ms, vs. 7-10ms HardDisk speed of access/seek + SSD seek in ns, & back to you - hosts resolutions of IP address for host-domain names is FAR faster...). Hosts are only a filter for an already fast & efficient IP stack, no more layered b.s. (remote OR local). Hosts eat less CPU, RAM, I/O in other forms, + electricity than a locally running DNS server easily, and less than a local DNS program on a single PC. Fact. Hosts are easier to setup & maintain too.

8.) AdBlock doesn't let you block out known bad sites or servers that are known to be maliciously scripted, hosts can and many reputable lists for this exist:

Spybot "Search & Destroy" IMMUNIZE feature (fortifies HOSTS files with KNOWN bad servers blocked)

And yes: Even SLASHDOT &/or The Register help!

(Via articles on security (when the source articles they use are "detailed" that is, & list the servers/sites involved in attempting to bushwhack others online that is... not ALL do!)).

2 examples thereof in the past I have used, & noted it there, are/were: [] []

9.) AdBlock & DNS servers are programs, and subject to bugs programs can get. Hosts files are merely a filter and not a program, thus not subject to bugs of the nature just discussed.

10.) HOSTS files protect you vs. DNS-poisoning &/or the Kaminsky flaw in DNS servers, and allow you to get to sites reliably vs. things like the Chinese are doing to DNS -> []

11.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, obtained (for reliable ones -> [] ) & edited too, via texteditors like Windows notepad.exe or Linux nano (etc.)

12.) With Adblock you had better be able to code javascript to play with its code (to customize it better than the GUI front does @ least). With hosts you don't even need source to control it (edit, update, delete, insert of new entries via a text editor).

13.) Hosts files are easily secured via using MAC/ACL (even moreso "automagically" for Vista, 7/Server 2008 + beyond by UAC by default) &/or Read-Only attributes applied.

14.) Custom HOSTS files also speed you up, unlike anonymous proxy servers systems variations (like TOR, or other "highly anonymous" proxy server list servers typically do, in the severe speed hit they often have a cost in) either via "hardcoding" your fav. sites into your hosts file (avoids DNS servers, totally) OR blocking out adbanners - see this below for evidence of that:


US Military Blocks Websites To Free Up Bandwidth: []

(Yes, even the US Military used this type of technique... because IT WORKS! Most of what they blocked? Ad banners ala doubleclick etc.)


Adbanners slow you down & consume your bandwidth YOU pay for:



And people do NOT LIKE ads on the web:



As well as this:

Users Know Advertisers Watch Them, and Hate It: []


Even WORSE still, is this:

Advertising Network Caught History Stealing: []


15.) HOSTS files usage lets you avoid being charged on some ISP/BSP's (OR phone providers) "pay as you use" policy [] , because you are using less bandwidth (& go faster doing so no less) by NOT hauling in adbanner content and processing it (which can lead to infestation by malware/malicious script, in & of itself -> [] ).

16.) If/when ISP/BSP's decide to go to -> FCC Approving Pay-As-You-Go Internet Plans: [] your internet bill will go DOWN if you use a HOSTS file for blocking adbanners as well as maliciously scripted hacker/cracker malware maker sites too (after all - it's your money & time online downloading adbanner content & processing it)

Plus, your adbanner content? Well, it may also be hijacked with malicious code too mind you:


Yahoo, Microsoft's Bing display toxic ads: []


Malware torrent delivered over Google, Yahoo! ad services: []


Google's DoubleClick spreads malicious ads (again): []


Rogue ads infiltrate Expedia and Rhapsody: []


Google sponsored links caught punting malware: []


DoubleClick caught supplying malware-tainted ads: []


Yahoo feeds Trojan-laced ads to MySpace and PhotoBucket users: []


Real Media attacks real people via RealPlayer: []


Ad networks owned by Google, Microsoft serve malware: []


Attacks Targeting Classified Ad Sites Surge: []


Hackers Respond To Help Wanted Ads With Malware: []


Hackers Use Banner Ads on Major Sites to Hijack Your PC: []


Ruskie gang hijacks Microsoft network to push penis pills: []


Major ISPs Injecting Ads, Vulnerabilities Into Web: []


Two Major Ad Networks Found Serving Malware: []












London Stock Exchange Web Site Serving Malware: []


Spotify splattered with malware-tainted ads: []


As my list "multiple evidences thereof" as to adbanners & viruses + the fact they slow you down & cost you more (from reputable & reliable sources no less)).

17.) Per point #16, a way to save some money: ANDROID phones can also use the HOSTS FILE TO KEEP DOWN BILLABLE TIME ONLINE, vs. adbanners or malware such as this:


Infected Androids Run Up Big Texting Bills: []


AND, for protection vs. other "botnets" migrating from the PC world, to "smartphones" such as ZITMO (a ZEUS botnet variant): []


It's easily done too, via the ADB dev. tool, & mounting ANDROID OS' system mountpoint for system/etc as READ + WRITE/ADMIN-ROOT PERMISSIONS, then copying your new custom HOSTS over the old one using ADB PULL/ADB PUSH to do so (otherwise ANDROID complains of "this file cannot be overwritten on production models of this Operating System", or something very along those lines - this way gets you around that annoyance along with you possibly having to clear some space there yourself if you packed it with things!).

18.) Bad news: ADBLOCK CAN BE DETECTED FOR: See here on that note -> []

HOSTS files are NOT THAT EASILY "webbug" BLOCKABLE by websites, as was tried on users by ARSTECHNICA (and it worked on AdBlock in that manner), to that websites' users' dismay:



An experiment gone wrong - By Ken Fisher | Last updated March 6, 2010 11:11 AM []

"Starting late Friday afternoon we conducted a 12 hour experiment to see if it would be possible to simply make content disappear for visitors who were using a very popular ad blocking tool. Technologically, it was a success in that it worked. Ad blockers, and only ad blockers, couldn't see our content."


"Our experiment is over, and we're glad we did it because it led to us learning that we needed to communicate our point of view every once in a while. Sure, some people told us we deserved to die in a fire. But that's the Internet!"

Thus, as you can see? Well - THAT all "went over like a lead balloon" with their users in other words, because Arstechnica was forced to change it back to the old way where ADBLOCK still could work to do its job (REDDIT however, has not, for example). However/Again - this is proof that HOSTS files can still do the job, blocking potentially malscripted ads (or ads in general because they slow you down) vs. adblockers like ADBLOCK!


19.) Even WIKILEAKS "favors" blacklists (because they work, and HOSTS can be a blacklist vs. known BAD sites/servers/domain-host names):



"we are in favour of 'Blacklists', be it for mail servers or websites, they have to be compiled with care... Fortunately, more responsible blacklists, like (which protects the Firefox browser)...


20.) AND, LASTLY? SINCE MALWARE GENERALLY HAS TO OPERATE ON WHAT YOU YOURSELF CAN DO (running as limited class/least privlege user, hopefully, OR even as ADMIN/ROOT/SUPERUSER)? HOSTS "LOCK IN" malware too, vs. communicating "back to mama" for orders (provided they have name servers + C&C botnet servers listed in them, blocked off in your HOSTS that is) - you might think they use a hardcoded IP, which IS possible, but generally they do not & RECYCLE domain/host names they own (such as has been seen with the RBN (Russian Business Network) lately though it was considered "dead", other malwares are using its domains/hostnames now, & this? This stops that cold, too - Bonus!)...

21.) Custom HOSTS files gain users back more "screen real estate" by blocking out banner ads... it's great on PC's for speed along with MORE of what I want to see/read (not ads), & efficiency too, but EVEN BETTER ON SMARTPHONES - by far. It matters MOST there imo @ least, in regards to extra screen real-estate.

Still - It's a GOOD idea to layer in the usage of BOTH browser addons for security like adblock ( [] ), IE 9's new TPL's ( [] ), &/or NoScript ( [] especially this one, as it covers what HOSTS files can't in javascript which is the main deliverer of MOST attacks online & SECUNIA.COM can verify this for anyone really by looking @ the past few years of attacks nowadays), for the concept of "layered security"....

It's just that HOSTS files offer you a LOT MORE gains than Adblock ( [] ) does alone (as hosts do things adblock just plain cannot & on more programs, for more speed, security, and "stealth" to a degree even), and it corrects problems in DNS (as shown above via hardcodes of your favorite sites into your HOSTS file, and more (such as avoiding DNS request logs)).

ALSO - Some more notes on DNS servers & their problems, very recent + ongoing ones:


DNS flaw reanimates slain evil sites as ghost domains: []


BIND vs. what the Chinese are doing to DNS lately? See here: []



(Yes, even "security pros" are helpless vs. DNS problems in code bugs OR redirect DNS poisoning issues, & they can only try to "set the DNS record straight" & then, they still have to wait for corrected DNS info. to propogate across all subordinate DNS servers too - lagtime in which folks DO get "abused" in mind you!)


DNS vs. the "Kaminsky DNS flaw", here (and even MORE problems in DNS than just that): []

(Seems others are saying that some NEW "Bind9 flaw" is worse than the Kaminsky flaw ALONE, up there, mind you... probably corrected (hopefully), but it shows yet again, DNS hassles (DNS redirect/DNS poisoning) being exploited!)


Moxie Marlinspike's found others (0 hack) as well...

Nope... "layered security" truly IS the "way to go" - hacker/cracker types know it, & they do NOT want the rest of us knowing it too!...

(So until DNSSEC takes "widespread adoption"? HOSTS are your answer vs. such types of attack, because the 1st thing your system refers to, by default, IS your HOSTS file (over say, DNS server usage). There are decent DNS servers though, such as OpenDNS, ScrubIT, or even NORTON DNS (more on each specifically below), & because I cannot "cache the entire internet" in a HOSTS file? I opt to use those, because I have to (& OpenDNS has been noted to "fix immediately", per the Kaminsky flaw, in fact... just as a sort of reference to how WELL they are maintained really!)


DNS Hijacks Now Being Used to Serve Black Hole Exploit Kit: []


DNS experts admit some of the underlying foundations of the DNS protocol are inherently weak: []


Potential 0-Day Vulnerability For BIND 9: []


Five DNS Threats You Should Protect Against: []


DNS provider decked by DDoS dastards: []


Ten Percent of DNS Servers Still Vulnerable: (so much for "conscientious patching", eh? Many DNS providers weren't patching when they had to!) []




TimeWarner DNS Hijacking: []


DNS Re-Binding Attacks: []


DNS Server Survey Reveals Mixed Security Picture: []


Halvar figured out super-secret DNS vulnerability: []


BIND Still Susceptible To DNS Cache Poisoning: []


DNS Poisoning Hits One of China's Biggest ISPs: []


DDoS Attacks Via DNS Recursion: []


High Severity BIND DNS Vulnerability Advisory Issued: []


Photobucketâ(TM)s DNS records hijacked: []


Protecting Browsers from DNS Rebinding Attacks: []


DNS Problem Linked To DDoS Attacks Gets Worse: []


HOWEVER - Some DNS servers are "really good stuff" vs. phishing, known bad sites/servers/hosts-domains that serve up malware-in-general & malicious scripting, botnet C&C servers, & more, such as:

Norton DNS -> []
  ScrubIT DNS -> []
  OpenDNS -> []

(Norton DNS in particular, is exclusively for blocking out malware, for those of you that are security-conscious. ScrubIT filters pr0n material too, but does the same, & OpenDNS does phishing protection. Each page lists how & why they work, & why they do so. Norton DNS can even show you its exceptions lists, plus user reviews & removal procedures requests, AND growth stats (every 1/2 hour or so) here -> [] so, that ought to "take care of the naysayers" on removal requests, &/or methods used plus updates frequency etc./et al...)

HOWEVER - There's ONLY 1 WEAKNESS TO ANY network defense, including HOSTS files (vs. host-domain name based threats) & firewalls (hardware router type OR software type, vs. IP address based threats): Human beings, & they not being 'disciplined' about the indiscriminate usage of javascript (the main "harbinger of doom" out there today online), OR, what they download for example... & there is NOTHING I can do about that! (Per Dr. Manhattan of "The Watchmen", ala -> "I can change almost anything, but I can't change human nature")

HOWEVER AGAIN - That's where NORTON DNS, OpenDNS, &/or ScrubIT DNS help!

(Especially for noob/grandma level users who are unaware of how to secure themselves in fact, per a guide like mine noted above that uses "layered-security" principles!)

ScrubIT DNS, &/or OpenDNS are others alongside Norton DNS (adding on phishing protection too) as well!

( & it's possible to use ALL THREE in your hardware NAT routers, and, in your Local Area Connection DNS properties in Windows, for again, "Layered Security" too)...




"Ever since I've installed a host file ( to redirect advertisers to my loopback, I haven't had any malware, spyware, or adware issues. I first started using the host file 5 years ago." - by TestedDoughnut (1324447) on Monday December 13, @12:18AM (#34532122)

"I use a custom /etc/hosts to block ads... my file gets parsed basically instantly ... So basically, for any modern computer, it has zero visible impact. And even if it took, say, a second to parse, that would be more than offset by the MANY seconds saved by not downloading and rendering ads. I have noticed NO ill effects from running a custom /etc/hosts file for the last several years. And as a matter of fact I DO run http servers on my computers and I've never had an /etc/hosts-related problem... it FUCKING WORKS and makes my life better overall." - by sootman (158191) on Monday July 13 2009, @11:47AM (#28677363) Homepage Journal

"I actually went and downloaded a 16k line hosts file and started using that after seeing that post, you know just for trying it out. some sites load up faster." - by gl4ss (559668) on Thursday November 17, @11:20AM (#38086752) Homepage Journal

"Better than an ad blocker, imo. Hosts file entries: [] " - by TempestRose (1187397) on Tuesday March 15, @12:53PM (#35493274)

"^^ One of the many reasons why I like the user-friendliness of the /etc/hosts file." - by lennier1 (264730) on Saturday March 05, @09:26PM (#35393448)

"They've been on my HOSTS block for years" - by ScottCooperDotNet (929575) on Thursday August 05 2010, @01:52AM (#33147212)

"I'm currently only using my hosts file to block pheedo ads from showing up in my RSS feeds and causing them to take forever to load. Regardless of its original intent, it's still a valid tool, when used judiciously." - by Bill Dog (726542) on Monday April 25, @02:16AM (#35927050) Homepage Journal

"you're right about hosts files" - by drinkypoo (153816) on Thursday May 26, @01:21PM (#36252958) Homepage

"APK's monolithic hosts file is looking pretty good at the moment." - by Culture20 (968837) on Thursday November 17, @10:08AM (#38085666)

"I also use the MVPS ad blocking hosts file." - by Rick17JJ (744063) on Wednesday January 19, @03:04PM (#34931482)

"I use ad-Block and a hostfile" - by Ol Olsoc (1175323) on Tuesday March 01, @10:11AM (#35346902)

"I do use Hosts, for a couple fake domains I use." - by icebraining (1313345) on Saturday December 11, @09:34AM (#34523012) Homepage

"It's a good write up on something everybody should use, why you were modded down is beyond me. Using a HOSTS file, ADblock is of no concern and they can do what they want." - by Trax3001BBS (2368736) on Monday December 12, @10:07PM (#38351398) Homepage Journal

"I want my surfing speed back so I block EVERY fucking ad. i.e. [] and [] FTW" - by UnknownSoldier (67820) on Tuesday December 13, @12:04PM (#38356782)

"Let me introduce you to the file: /etc/hosts" - by fahrbot-bot (874524) on Monday December 19, @05:03PM (#38427432)

"I use a hosts file" - by EdIII (1114411) on Tuesday December 13, @01:17PM (#38357816)

"I'm tempted to go for a hacked hosts file that simply resolves most advert sites to" - by bLanark (123342) on Tuesday December 13, @01:13PM (#38357760)

"this is not a troll, which hosts file source you recommend nowadays? it's a really handy method for speeding up web and it works." - by gl4ss (559668) on Thursday March 22, @08:07PM (#39446525) Homepage Journal

"A hosts file certainly does not require "a lot of work" to maintain, and it quite effectively kills a LOT of advertising and tracking schemes. . In fact, I never would have considered trying to use it for ddefending against viruses or malware." - by RocketRabbit (830691) on Thursday December 30 2010, @05:48PM (#34715060)


Then, there is also the words of respected security expert, Mr. Oliver Day, from SECURITYFOCUS.COM to "top that all off" as well:


Some "PERTINENT QUOTES/EXCERPTS" to back up my points with (for starters):


"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet -- particularly browsing the Web -- is actually faster now."

Speed, and security, is the gain... others like Mr. Day note it as well!


"From what I have seen in my research, major efforts to share lists of unwanted hosts began gaining serious momentum earlier this decade. The most popular appear to have started as a means to block advertising and as a way to avoid being tracked by sites that use cookies to gather data on the user across Web properties. More recently, projects like Spybot Search and Destroy offer lists of known malicious servers to add a layer of defense against trojans and other forms of malware."

Per my points exactly, no less... & guess who was posting about HOSTS files a 14++ yrs. or more back & Mr. Day was reading & now using? Yours truly (& this is one of the later ones, from 2001 [] (but the example HOSTS file with my initials in it is FAR older, circa 1998 or so) or thereabouts, and referred to later by a pal of mine who moderates (where I posted on HOSTS for YEARS (1997 onwards)) -> [] !


"Shared host files could be beneficial for other groups as well. Human rights groups have sought after block resistant technologies for quite some time. The GoDaddy debacle with NMap creator Fyodor (corrected) showed a particularly vicious blocking mechanism using DNS registrars. Once a registrar pulls a website from its records, the world ceases to have an effective way to find it. Shared host files could provide a DNS-proof method of reaching sites, not to mention removing an additional vector of detection if anyone were trying to monitor the use of subversive sites. One of the known weaknesses of the Tor system, for example, is direct DNS requests by applications not configured to route such requests through Tor's network."

There you go: AND, it also works vs. the "KAMINSKY DNS FLAW" & DNS poisoning/redirect attacks, for redirectable weaknesses in DNS servers (non DNSSEC type, & set into recursive mode especially) and also in the TOR system as well (that lends itself to anonymous proxy usage weaknesses I noted above also) and, you'll get to sites you want to, even IF a DNS registrar drops said websites from its tables as shown here Beating Censorship By Routing Around DNS -> [] & even DNSBL also (DNS Block Lists) -> [] as well - DOUBLE-BONUS!


* POSTS ABOUT HOSTS FILES I DID on "/." THAT HAVE DONE WELL BY OTHERS & WERE RATED HIGHLY, 26++ THUSFAR (from +3 -> +1 RATINGS, usually "informative" or "interesting" etc./et al):

  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  APK 20++ POINTS ON HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 (w/ facebook known bad sites blocked) -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP CAN DO SAME AS THE "CloudFlare" Server-Side service:2011 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2011 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP & OPERA HAUTE SECURE:2011 -> [] in HOSTS:2009 -> [] IN HOSTS:2009 -> [] in HOSTS:2009 -> [] in HOSTS:2009 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> [] (still says INSIGHTFUL)
  HOSTS MOD UP vs. botnet: 2012 -> []


Windows 7, VISTA, & Server 2008 have a couple of "issues" I don't like in them, & you may not either, depending on your point of view (mine's based solely on efficiency & security), & if my take on these issues aren't "good enough"? I suggest reading what ROOTKIT.COM says, link URL is in my "p.s." @ the bottom of this post:

1.) HOSTS files being unable to use "0" for a blocking IP address - this started in 12/09/2008 after an "MS Patch Tuesday" in fact for VISTA (when it had NO problem using it before that, as Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 still can)... & yes, this continues in its descendants, Windows Server 2008 &/or Windows 7 as well.

So, why is this a "problem" you might ask?

Ok - since you can technically use either:

a.) (the "loopback adapter address")
b.) (next smallest & next most efficient)
c.) The smallest & fastest plain-jane 0


You can use ANY of those, in order to block out known bad sites &/or adbanners in a HOSTS file this way??

Microsoft has "promoted bloat" in doing so... no questions asked.

Simply because

1.) = 9 bytes in size on disk & is the largest/slowest
2.) = 7 bytes & is the next largest/slowest in size on disk
3.) 0 = 1 byte

(& HOSTS files extend across EVERY webbrowser, email program, or in general every webbound program you use & thus HOSTS are "global" in coverage this way AND function on any OS that uses the BSD derived IP stack (which most all do mind you, even MS is based off of it, as BSD's IS truly, "the best in the business"), & when coupled with say, IE restricted zones, FireFox addons like NoScript &/or AdBlock, or Opera filter.ini/urlfilter.ini, for layered security in this capacity for webbrowsers & SOME email programs (here, I mean ones "built into" browsers themselves like Opera has for example))

MS has literally promoted bloat in this file, making it load slower from disk, into memory! This compounds itself, the more entries your HOSTS file contains... & for instance? Mine currently contains nearly 654,000 entries of known bad adbanners, bad websites, &/or bad nameservers (used for controlling botnets, misdirecting net requests, etc. et al).

Now, IF I were to use My "huge" HOSTS file would be approximately 27mb in size... using (next smallest) it would be 19mb in size - HOWEVER? Using 0 as my blocking IP, it is only 14mb in size. See my point?

(For loads either in the local DNS cache, or system diskcache if you run w/out the local DNS client service running, this gets slower the larger each HOSTS file entry is (which you have to stall the DNS client service in Windows for larger ones, especially if you use a "giant HOSTS file" (purely relative term, but once it goes over (iirc) 4mb in size, you have to cut the local DNS cache client service)))

NO questions asked - the physics of it backed me up in theory alone, but when I was questioned on it for PROOF thereof?

I wrote a small test program to load such a list into a "pascal record" (which is analagous to a C/C++ structure), which is EXACTLY what the DNS client/DNS API does as well, using a C/C++ structure (basically an array of sorts really, & a structure/record is a precursor part to a full-blown CLASS or OBJECT, minus the functions built in, this is for treating numerous variables as a SINGLE VARIABLE (for efficiency, which FORTRAN as a single example, lacks as a feature, @ least Fortran 77 did, but other languages do not))!

I even wrote another that just loaded my HOSTS file's entirety into a listbox, same results... slowest using, next slowest using, & fastest using 0.

And, sure: Some MORE "goes on" during DNS API loads (iirc, removal of duplicated entries (which I made sure my personal copy does not have these via a program I wrote to purge it of duplicated entries + to sort each entry alphabetically for easier mgt. via say, notepad.exe) & a conversion from decimal values to hex ones), but, nevertheless? My point here "holds true", of slower value loads, record-by-record, from a HOSTS file, when the entries become larger.

So, to "prove my point" to my naysayers?

I timed it using the Win32 API calls "GetTickCount" & then again, using the API calls of "QueryPerformanceCounter" as well, seeing the SAME results (a slowdown when reading in this file from disk, especially when using the larger or line item entries in a HOSTS file, vs. the smaller/faster/more efficient 0).

In my test, I saw a decline in speed/efficiency in my test doing so by using larger blocking addresses ( &/or, vs. the smallest/fastest in 0)... proving me correct on this note!

On this HOSTS issue, and the WFP design issue in my next post below?

I also then questioned MS' own staff, even their VP of development (S. Sinofsky) on this here -> [] & other places in their blogs, to get them to tell me WHY this seemingly intentional inefficiency was implemented... & I have YET to get a solid LOGICAL answer on this as to why it was done - THUS, @ this point?

I am convinced they (MS) do NOT have a good reason for doing this... because of their lack of response there on this note. Unless it has something to do with IPv6 (most folks use IPv4 still), I cannot understand WHY this design mistake imo, has occurred, in HOSTS files...


2.) The "Windows Filtering Platform", which is now how the firewall works in VISTA, Server 2008, & Windows 7...

Sure it works in this new single point method & it is simple to manage & "sync" all points of it, making it easier for network techs/admins to manage than the older 3 part method, but that very thing works against it as well, because it is only a single part system now!

Thus, however?

This "single layer design" in WFP, now represents a SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE/ATTACK for malware makers to 'take down'!

(Which is 1 of the 1st things a malware attempts to do, is to take down any software firewalls present, or even the "Windows Security Center" itself which should warn you of the firewall "going down", & it's fairly easy to do either by messaging the services they use, or messing up their registry init. settings)

VS. the older (up to) 3 part method used in Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, for protecting a system via IP Filtering, the Windows native Firewall, &/or IPSEC. Each of which uses diff. drivers, & layers of the IP stack to function from, as well as registry initialization settings.

Think of the older 3 part design much the same as the reason why folks use door handle locks, deadbolt locks, & chain locks on their doors... multipart layered security.

(Each of which the latter older method used, had 3 separate drivers & registry settings to do their jobs, representing a "phalanx like"/"zone defense like" system of backup of one another (like you see in sports OR ancient wars, and trust me, it WORKS, because on either side of yourself, you have "backup", even if YOU "go down" vs. the opponent)).

I.E.-> Take 1 of the "older method's" 3 part defenses down? 2 others STILL stand in the way, & they are not that simple to take them ALL down...

(Well, @ least NOT as easily as "taking out" a single part defensive system like WFP (the new "Windows Filtering Platform", which powers the VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & yes, Windows 7 firewall defense system)).

On this "single-part/single-point of attack" WFP (vs. Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003's IP stack defense design in 3-part/zone defense/phalanx type arrangement) as well as the HOSTS issue in my post above?

I also then questioned MS' own staff, even their VP of development (S. Sinofsky) on this here -> [] & other places in their blogs, to get them to tell me WHY this seemingly intentional inefficiency was implemented... & I have YET to get a solid LOGICAL answer on this as to why it was done - THUS, @ this point?

I'll stick to my thoughts on it, until I am shown otherwise & proven wrong.


Following up on what I wrote up above, so those here reading have actual technical references from Microsoft themselves ("The horses' mouth"), in regards to the Firewall/PortFilter/IPSec designs (not HOSTS files, that I am SURE I am correct about, no questions asked) from my "Point #2" above?

Thus, I'll now note how:


1.) TCP/IP packet processing paths differences between in how Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 did it (IPSEC.SYS (IP Security Policies), IPNAT.SYS (Windows Firewall), IPFLTDRV.SYS (Port Filtering), & TCPIP.SYS (base IP driver))...

2.) AND, how VISTA/Server 2008/Windows 7 do it now currently, using a SINGLE layer (WFP)...


First off, here is HOW it worked in Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 - using 3 discrete & different drivers AND LEVELS/LAYERS of the packet processing path they worked in: []

The Cable Guy - June 2005: TCP/IP Packet Processing Paths


The following components process IP packets:

IP forwarding Determines the next-hop interface and address for packets being sent or forwarded.

TCP/IP filtering Allows you to specify by IP protocol, TCP port, or UDP port, the types of traffic that are acceptable for incoming local host traffic (packets destined for the host). You can configure TCP/IP filtering on the Options tab from the advanced properties of the Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) component in the Network Connections folder.

* "Here endeth the lesson..." and, if you REALLY want to secure your system? Please refer to this: []

APK [mailto]

P.S.=> SOME MINOR "CAVEATS/CATCH-22's" - things to be aware of for "layered security" + HOSTS file performance - easily overcome, or not a problem at all:

A.) HOSTS files don't function under PROXY SERVERS (except for Proximitron, which has a filter that allows it) - Which is *the "WHY"* of why I state in my "P.S." section below to use both AdBlock type browser addon methods (or even built-in block lists browsers have such as Opera's URLFILTER.INI file, & FireFox has such as list as does IE also in the form of TPL (tracking protection lists -> [] , good stuff )) in combination with HOSTS, for the best in "layered security" (alongside .pac files + custom cascading style sheets that can filter off various tags such as scripts or ads etc.) - but proxies, especially "HIGHLY ANONYMOUS" types, generally slow you down to a CRAWL online (& personally, I cannot see using proxies "for the good" typically - as they allow "truly anonymous posting" & have bugs (such as TOR has been shown to have & be "bypassable/traceable" via its "onion routing" methods)).

B.) HOSTS files do NOT protect you vs. javascript (this only holds true IF you don't already have a bad site blocked out in your HOSTS file though, & the list of sites where you can obtain such lists to add to your HOSTS are above (& updated daily in many of them)).

C.) HOSTS files (relatively "largish ones") require you to turn off Windows' native "DNS local client cache service" (which has a problem in that it's designed with a non-redimensionable/resizeable list, array, or queue (DNS data loads into a C/C++ structure actually/afaik, which IS a form of array)) - covers that in detail and how to easily do this in Windows (this is NOT a problem in Linux, & it's 1 thing I will give Linux over Windows, hands-down). Relatively "smallish" HOSTS files don't have this problem ( offers 2 types for this).

D.) HOSTS files, once read/loaded, once? GET CACHED! Right into the kernelmode diskcaching subsystem (fast & efficient RAM speed), for speed of access/re-access (@ system startup in older MS OS' like 2000, or, upon a users' 1st request that's "Webbound" via say, a webbrowser) gets read into either the DNS local caching client service (noted above), OR, if that's turned off? Into your local diskcac

Chuck the post: No minority rule by major parties (3, Interesting)

Defenestrar (1773808) | about a year and a half ago | (#43495969)

Number One Priority (and of most benefit to small parties like yours): Replace first past the post voting for selecting our representatives (because we are a representative republic) with something more effective in terms of game theory. I think instant run-off would work best for the American people given our history and what we are most likely to understand and adopt readily.

What's the impact on tech policy?

At the most fundamental level, tech policy should be data driven, and there is no more fundamental data than that provided by the voters. If we implement a voting system which will optimize the decisions made by members of the republic - instead of discounting a majority of the input - we have the framework to begin implementing data-driven policy in every other aspect. Otherwise - first past the post mathematically favors two opposing policies neither of which the majority of voters truly approve (rather we pick the lesser-of-evils). With a superior voting system, the constituents can indirectly favor their own tech policy (and you might get a good statistician to do some nice post-hock voting analysis to separate out the variables and tell you exactly what the people want for tech).

If you're asking for some direct policy advice - I'll post that elsewhere

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?