Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government United States News

US Gov't Representatives - Who's Who? 83

Posted by Cliff from the that's-politics-for-you dept.
melankolik asks: "With all the issues emerging these days related to DRM, 'piracy', anti-trust, civil rights, big business, et al, and with tech-illiterate politicians passing laws of dubious intent or results, it can be hard to tell who the Good Guys and the Bad Guys are in our government (more realistically, who supports the Good and Bad legislation). What information can any of you politically savvy Slashdot readers offer to someone taking an interest in the political machine regarding the past and present legislation, stances, and agendas of our friendly neighborhood Senators, Governors, and other representatives?" As complex as politics are, there may not be "good guys" and "bad guys", and instead those who support your politics on some issues, and not on others. Even so, it would be interesting to know how the representatives vote on specific issues, especially those that deal with computers and online rights. Has anyone been compiling this information?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Gov't Representatives - Who's Who? More

US Gov't Representatives - Who's Who?

Comments Filter:

  • It's easy to find the bad guys.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by HotNeedleOfInquiry ( 598897 ) on Monday May 03, 2004 @10:53PM (#9047803)
    Just look at whose lips are moving.

  • Compilation (Score:3, Funny)

    by S. Traaken ( 28509 ) on Monday May 03, 2004 @10:59PM (#9047854)
    "Has anyone been compiling this information?"

    I know some Gentoo users - they compile everything...

  • Easy (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Carlos Silva ( 773727 )
    They'll all be supporting the things that give the most votes.

    • ...except for the ones who have hit their term limits. They'll do whatever they want. Typically, I would imagine, to curry favor with people who might give them high-paying jobs later.

    • They'll be supporting the thigns that get them the most MONEY. The votes are easy - they'll just lie about it later...

  • You've got to be kidding me. (Score:4, Informative)

    by pi_rules ( 123171 ) * on Monday May 03, 2004 @11:21PM (#9047999)
    All this information is recorded somewhere on the House of Reps and Senate websites. I was scanning records hourly as S 1805 (Protection for Lawful firearms commerce) was being debated and voted on in the Senate. I'll dig up the links in a second -- it'll be easier to spot once you've seen them before.

    Oh, and Thomas [loc.gov] can be used to search for the EXACT text of pending bills in both Houses. They're a myriad o them though so you pretty much need to be involved with an activist group that'll keep you posted on what bills are in committee and which ones have a chance of getting of committee. Unless your reps are on the actual committee it's not much use to call them up and voice opinions on a bill that's not going anywhere. Well, that's my take on it. Seems like your position would have more "oomph" if you call them when you know it's out of committee -- shows that you're on top of the issue.

    Yep, there it is: Congress voting records [house.gov]

    Here's a better page I gathered up from the Senate's site:

    http://thomas.loc.gov/r108/r108.html [loc.gov] ... that's at least good for the 108th Congress.

    Best way to learn how it works, IMHO, is to watch the NRA and other gun-rights groups. That's how I got involved with it all I guess.
    • You know, I was actually reading through Thomas/loc.gov when I thought to ask this.

      That's great if you want specific details on a specific bill or representative; when you're interested in a general idea of who supports what (that is, the issues and specific legislation when it's a major bill or resolution), it's a little less than informative, unless you have hours to read through each representative's history and research the meaning and implications of the texts.

      Legalese doesn't say much to real-world
      • The only way around this is to get involved with a group that will put in the man-hours to keep track of it. You'll never see a politician promite their true voting record. You can twist and skewer anything and make it look real. You absolutely have to track them down day by day on the specific bills you're interested in.

        Find a group of people that align with your beliefs and start tracking your politicians.

        Take a look at John Kerry. You can find him voting "pro-war" and you can find him voting "anti-
  • As complex as politics are, there may not be "good guys" and "bad guys", and instead those who support your politics on some issues, and not on others.... Has anyone been compiling this information?

    If we start from the top, how does the politician in the topmost position of country (you know who I mean) stack up in the opinion of /. readers under the criteria of being good for technology and it's use for masses...

  • Just had this idea... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by burns210 ( 572621 ) <maburns@gmail.com> on Monday May 03, 2004 @11:22PM (#9048009) Homepage Journal
    Wha'dya know, I just had an idea for a website that would fit this.

    Basicly, it was a 'framework' for a legislature(local, state, federal) that would cross-reference each bill or legislation with how each member voted... Want to know who is pro-abortion, simple query. Want to see all the Democrats that voted for Bush's XYZ legislation, simple stuff... Who is on what committee, and so on.

    The beauty is, if this was done open source, then it could be applied to all 50 state legislatures (and other countries!) along with Congress, so there would be a fairly large(relative) demand for such a system.

    • Re:Just had this idea... (Score:5, Informative)

      by pi_rules ( 123171 ) * on Monday May 03, 2004 @11:42PM (#9048131)
      Sorry, but that's way too simple to actually work. You're assuming that laws are voted on one issue at a time.

      That's just not the case. The recent S 1805 was a great example of this and one that I followed very very closely... as in getting updates on the issues every half an hour. My senators are now on speed dial.

      Here's how it went.

      One, the House passed a bill that would protect firearms manufacturers from frivelous lawsuits. Ie: If Beretta sells a gun to a federally licensed dealer, who sells it to a legally qualifed person, who's gun is then picked up by their child and accidentally shoots themselves Beretta cannot be held liable UNLESS the product was defective. Fairly simple law.

      This goes to the Senate as S 659. The Senate didn't like the exact wording of 659 so 1805 was drafted and brought to the floor after it got the committee's stamp of approval. It was debated and the Republicans got a vote for "cloture" which limited debate to only 30 hours. Life was good -- it was in the bag we thought.

      Nope. Apparently the Republicans let enough time laps for "riders" to be attached to the bill. They'd be debated one by one and if they had enough votes tacked onto the bill.

      My memory is a bit fuzzy now, but first was tacked on a rider forcing all guns sold in the USA to be sold with a lock. That's already the case in some states, so nobody was really TOO irked about that one.

      Somebody proposed a rider allowing all retired law enforcement officers to carry a concealed weapon through the entire nation. I'm not sure if it was attached or not.

      Then Dianne Feinstein got her pet project attached. A renewal of the 1994 legislation that will sunset, God willing, on Sept 14 2004 prohibiting civilians for buying magazines (clips some call them) that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition (bullets) -- and a slew of other meaningless things. It was attached.

      Right there, it hit the fan. Every pro-gun org. got off their butts and told their Senators to kill the whole friggen bill right then and there. A little more debate went on, and when it came to a final vote it was defeated: 90-8.

      Enough CRAP was attached that it was a poisoned bill and nobody wanted to touch it.

      So, taking a simple approach a pro-gun person would look up their Senator's vote and see that they shot it down... but unless you know the whole history of the bill and trace their votes through the whole process you won't really know their stance.

      It's a horrid process, and the president doesn't have a line-item veto so there was no way anybody wanted this thing on his desk. He even asked for a CLEAN bill, a one issue bill, but it didn't happen.

      • Re:Just had this idea... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Twirlip of the Mists ( 615030 ) <twirlipofthemists@yahoo.com> on Monday May 03, 2004 @11:59PM (#9048252)
        I have two remarks here. They're basically unrelated.

        The first is this: I admire the way you participated in the process in this case. You educated yourself, formed an opinion, and communicated that opinion to your representatives. Good for you.

        The second is this: you know who's to blame for the failure of this bill? The pro-gun lobby. That's right: not Feinstein, not the gun-control advocates. The pro-gun lobby is to blame here.

        Take a perfectly good bill. Attach an amendment to it that goes a little bit farther than you'd want to go in a perfect world. What happens? The bill dies, dead dead dead, because some people were unwilling to compromise.

        Guess what, folks? Compromise is the highest of all political virtues. The correct course of action here was for the gun lobby to say, "You know, a 10-round limit on magazines is not totally unacceptable. Let's start negotiating until we reach a point of consensus."

        Didn't happen. Instead, the cry went out across the land: vote NO!

        Damn shame.

        (Line-item veto is the WRONG answer. It effectively puts legislative power in the hands of the president. The right answer is to let our representatives know that we want them to reach reasoned compromises, not to throw babies out in pails full of bathwater.)

        • Some things are not worth compromising on. We don't like the 10 bullet limit, but might have compromised on that, if it was the only issue. Afterall we can get it removed in a few years if it was the worst restriction we face. The rest of the amendment (not just that one either) went much farther, and were not worth compromising on.

          10 bullets sounds like a lot on print, but when you are at the range you realize just how small that number really is.

          • Some things are not worth compromising on.

            Bullshit. Worst of all, it's arrogant bullshit.

            Go crack a history book sometime. The strength of this nation is that it was founded on compromise. Compromise is the only path to a just government. Without compromise, we're faced with the prospect of suffering under the tyranny of the majority.

            And as for your objections to the 10-round limit, let me say this: I do not give two shits. I do not base this opinion on time spent on a rifle range; I have an entirely di
            • Whoa boy. I didn't mean for this to turn into a gun debate, but this particular stream seems to have taken that course. I couldn't sleep well if I didn't at least do my part then.

              And as for your objections to the 10-round limit, let me say this: I do not give two shits. I do not base this opinion on time spent on a rifle range; I have an entirely different and more personal level of experience with the capacity of a weapon's magazine. And I can say with a clear conscience that I honestly could not give

              • Re:Just had this idea... (Score:5, Insightful)

                by Twirlip of the Mists ( 615030 ) <twirlipofthemists@yahoo.com> on Tuesday May 04, 2004 @02:46AM (#9048944)
                Alas, I can only buy new magazines that hold 10 rounds.

                Ain't that just a kick in the head?

                See, my dear friend, the thing is that you are not a trained and uniformed member of a law enforcement organization. You are, therefore, not entitled to be as thoroughly armed as those fine citizens. Because we, the vox populi, do not trust you as much as we trust badge-carrying members of our local garrison.

                It seems that you've had a run in with a criminal

                Guess again.

                Sorry, but if it's prudent for police officers to have more than 10 rounds on tap, it's prudent for me to also.

                I'm gonna go right ahead and call bullshit on this once again. It's a specious argument, ridiculous on its face. You're not fooling anybody.

                This is about one thing and one thing only: your personal desire to pop off a dozen rounds or more on the practice range without having to stop to reload. I, as I explained, do not give a shit about this. The benefits of limiting civilians to ten rounds per magazine outweigh any inconvenience on your part.

                The implications of only being allowed to carry 11 rounds in your Glock instead of 14 on the size of your penis, your testosterone level, or your overall fitness as a male specimen are not my problem.

                The Constitution calls for a well regulated militia. Welcome to the "well regulated" part of that particular edict.

                • See, my dear friend, the thing is that you are not a trained and uniformed member of a law enforcement organization. You are, therefore, not entitled to be as thoroughly armed as those fine citizens. Because we, the vox populi, do not trust you as much as we trust badge-carrying members of our local garrison. .....

                  The Constitution calls for a well regulated militia. Welcome to the "well regulated" part of that particular edict.

                  I take a trip to the range 2-4 times a week. Put me on the firing line with a

                • The Constitution calls for a well regulated militia. Welcome to the "well regulated" part of that particular edict.

                  Even if you were properly interpreting that phrase (which you are not, as other repliers have pointed out), it doesn't negate the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

                  "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." -- Constitution of the United States, Amendment II [loc.gov]

                  "A well-schooled e

                  • Wow. That argument was completely and utterly without merit. That's quite an accomplishment. I mean, hell, even the worst argument usually has a certain element of reason in it; it usually has some aspect that makes a kind of sense, if you sort of squint and hold your mouth just right. But not this time. This time, there's just nothin' there that a reasonable person can take seriously.

                    It's crap like this that makes me question my faith in democracy.

                • the thing is that you are not a trained and uniformed member of a law enforcement organization.

                  My right to self-defense is not lessened by the existence of professional police. Especially when said police are neither legally required to come to my defense, nor practically capable of protecting me as well as I can protect myself when armed.

                  You are, therefore, not entitled to be as thoroughly armed as those fine citizens.

                  Nonsense. My right to self-defense is no less than that of a police officer, m

                  • My right to self-defense is not lessened by the existence of professional police.

                    No. But the size of your personal arsenal is.

                    Especially when said police are neither legally required to come to my defense

                    You might want to look that one up and try again.

                    nor practically capable of protecting me as well as I can protect myself when armed.

                    Yeah. That's just the kind of arrogant snotballism that makes me want to hand you the keys to the magazine.

                    The fact that I am armed not only makes me safer, it mak

                    • You might want to look that one up and try again.

                      In several legal cases, courts have found that police have no obligation to protect any individual person from harm. [copcrimes.com]

                      That's just the kind of arrogant snotballism that makes me want to hand you the keys to the magazine.

                      WTF is arrogant about knowing that it takes police over ten minutes to respond to a 911 call, while my gun can be in my hand in a matter of seconds?

                      When you finally snap and go on your rampage, you'll be forced to stop and reload mo

                    • In several legal cases, courts have found that police have no obligation to protect any individual person from harm.

                      "Copcrimes.com?" Pass, thanks.

                      WTF is arrogant about knowing that it takes police over ten minutes to respond to a 911 call, while my gun can be in my hand in a matter of seconds?

                      The part where you jump to the conclusion that you're somehow implicitly as trustworthy as a uniformed law enforcement officer.

                      If I were planning on a rampage, pre-ban magazines are still available. Just more e
        • A right compromised is not a right! Lets compromise on the budget or something not infringement of our rights.

        • The first is this: I admire the way you participated in the process in this case. You educated yourself, formed an opinion, and communicated that opinion to your representatives. Good for you.

          Well, thank you. We had been watching S 659 and later S 1805 like hawks for months wanting it to pass.

          The second is this: you know who's to blame for the failure of this bill? The pro-gun lobby. That's right: not Feinstein, not the gun-control advocates. The pro-gun lobby is to blame here.

          Agreed, but the "no com

          • It was spelled out pretty clear in the beginning by all pro-gun groups (and the President) that they wanted a clean bill.

            That's not how things work in a republic. To get a little, you have to get a little. You can't just dictate public policy as if by the divine right of kings.

            • Re:Just had this idea... (Score:5, Insightful)

              by babbage ( 61057 ) <cdevers.cis@usouthal@edu> on Tuesday May 04, 2004 @08:50AM (#9050166) Homepage Journal
              It was spelled out pretty clear in the beginning by all pro-gun groups (and the President) that they wanted a clean bill.
              That's not how things work in a republic.

              Clearly, you've been sleeping through George Buh's America, where as far as he and his pals are concerned, that's exactly how they want things to work. You're talking about the ideals of democratic America, and they were nice, but the Rubicon has been crossed and now we've got our dear little tinpot leader changing things as fast as possible. Are we a republic any more? These days, I'm not sure that the term applies.

              Be that as it may, Twirlip is absolutely correct: compromise is the absolute core of a functioning democracy, and it absolutely cannot be sacrificed for something as petty as legislative expediency. So it takes years for Congress to get things done -- so what? Do you really want to live in a nation so unstable that the law making bodies are able to change the rules at a whim? That's not democracy, that's dictatorship, and shifting too much power in El Presidente's direction is too big of a step in the wrong direction. When congress moves fast, bad things happen: the Patriot Act is a shining example of the kind of disaster that can happen when compromise & consideration are sacrificed for political expediency, and we're not going to have to live with that mistake for years to come.

              Elsewhere in this thread, Twirlip urged you (pi_rules) to look back at history, to see how compromise has molded this country. Did you bother taking his advice? Again, he was right: every nuance of our federal system was the result of compromise. Some wanted a strong, centralized federal system, while others wanted all power devolved to the states -- hence the delicate balance the Constitution strikes between federal & state control. Some wanted to consolidate power in northern cities, while others wanted more of a voice for the rural south -- hence the compromise of building Washington DC in the (at the time) rural south, but close to what was then the middle of the country. Some wanted slavery, some were against it -- hence the 3/5 compromise, which arguably delayed the civil war by decades. Et cetera.

              A political system with no compromise is a disaster. North Korea, Iraq, <troll> Buh's America </troll>. No sane person would ever want to live in one of these places. But the line item veto is practically an invitation to give up on legislative compromise, and would undermine the structure of our carefully tuned political system in ways that would be vast, subtle, and ultimately disastrous.

              No political issue is so important that achieving it is worth undermining the entire systeem that has served us so well for decades, is it? I sure don't think so...

        • Line Item Veto is definately the RIGHT idea. The whole reason we have SO MANY bad laws on the books now is because these BAD 'riders' get attached to GOOD legislation, that otherwise would *NEVER* become a law on their own. The legislature is always making the right choice in voting down one of these loaded bills, and if they don't have the guts to do it, that is exactly why the President has the power of vetoing it.

          Personally I don't think they should be able to attach extra, unrelated riders to any bil
          • Line Item Veto is definately the RIGHT idea.

            No. Legislative power belongs in the hands of the legislature. Our representatives in the House of Representatives are directly elected; they are our direct representatives in Washington. They have the power to make the laws.

            The President is not directly elected. He is elected through an Electoral College system. He does not have the power to make laws.

            (The Senate is kind of in limbo right now, ever since the 17th amendment was passed. Sooner or later we're go
      • The phrase "and for other purposes" sends chills down my spine. Has it ever been used beneficially?

        We have such a legislative mess because our laws are kludgy and unconcise.

        That is all.
        • I swear they should right law similiar in the way you code. You decide on purpose of the program, do some psuedo code for logic, then code AND COMMENT. Sure legalize could be considered it's own programming language, but could you imagine if they commented it? Had a version control system? Made it open source? refinedthe law/program to suit the function/spirit of the law? A loophole would be considered a bug, someone could offer a patch, it could be evaluated by those with commit rights - Oh I digress, but
      • well i do realize that, though didn't make it clear in my posting. First, I think a framework system could still be made, with proper work for such things taken into account.

        Second, how do all these bills get such BS things to be attached and then fail? How do we avoiad, undo, stop, whatever, the effect of a reasonable bill getting unreasonable attachments pinned on it? That is such crap, it annoys me to no end. No legislative system is perfect, but if bill X v 1.1 (the revised by senate version you mentio
        • Your name is Burns210 (half of 420) but somehow I believe you haven't seen enough simpsons.

          If the U.S. were a true democracy there might be a chance at such things. But the U.S. is a republic, one nation under god since 1954. That means you elect rich white dudes to make bad non-costeffective bills into law.

          Then you die.
      • This topic actually inspired me to think (if you know me, you know I don't think very often, so this must be important).

        I came to realize that one of the reasons I don't regularly vote is because I don't have time to figure out who I should be voting for. There are SO many different people out there, with SO many different opinions on SO many differet issues, it's nearly impossible to keep track of, especially for people that are trying to just get by with their own lives. I also think that a lot of the
      • The "mapping" from Representative to issue/bill would be subjective leaving a lot of room for the person maintaining the data to inject political slant.

    • It is a great idea that companies have been doing since before most slashdoters were using computers.

      I worked in the legislative database business for quite a few years. It is very difficult to do, because every state's process is different and in some states a lot of the process is not automated.

      I used to work for the industry leader, StateNet [statenet.com]. They have been doing this for 29 years. I bet most slashdoters were not born 29 years ago!

  • Also useful... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Captain Splendid ( 673276 ) <capsplendid@nOsPam.gmail.com> on Tuesday May 04, 2004 @12:30AM (#9048416) Homepage Journal
    ...opensecrets.org [opensecrets.org], a good website that lets you know who's holding the leash on your favorite politician.

  • I have a rule: nobody in office gets my vote twice. If someone I agreed with a majority of the time actually got in I might change that stance...

    I try to follow the rule of vote for the best guy, but sometimes I compromise on a second (or more likely third) best just to get rid of some guy I can't stand. Or in the extreme case I voted for Coleman (republican) last election just because of the stunt the democrats pulled over the Welstone funeral. Generally though the best guy gets my vote, even though


  • I vote for the ones that back gun rights, and vote against the ones that try to enact gun control laws. Being a one issue voter makes life a lot simpler for me, and if any of them decide to vote against my wishes on some other matter, at least I'm well-armed and I can go after them for it :)

  • Orrin Hatch -- Baaaaddddd!!!!!!! (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I don't have the time to write an extensive essay detailing his crimes against the public interest, not the least of which is the CTEA, DMCA, Carnivore, Patriot Act, and any other cute acronym you can think of.

    You can google him or search slashdot. Getting him out of office would go a LONG way to promoting the public interest. I don't care if it's another republican, or an eggplant. Just that it would be better for the public interest if he were to leave office.

    If you disagree with me, I would look in the
    • > I don't care if it's another republican,
      > or an eggplant.

      I, for one, am fully in favor of replacing all our politicians with eggplants. Or oak trees. Or whatever.

      Though I must say that good old 'no-skeletons-in-my-closet' Russ is doing a good job.
  • Is to start a 3rd party yourself. The problem with a 2 party system is that if neither party agrees with you on a viewpoint, you cannot express said viewpoint. You and your friends(the internet is great for organizing this) could always start a one-issue party and run for a local office(you have to start somewhere!) and convince others to join your cause. There have been a few one-issue parties in the past in the US, some successful(such as the Whigs whose initial issue was to be opposed to everything An

  • Listen to The Randi Rhodes Show [therandirhodesshow.com]... she recently got syndicated, so might be in your area [therandirhodesshow.com]. If she's not... listen to the streamed audio over the internet.

    I'm not involved with the show, just a fan who's happy she finally got syndicated.

  • Eliot Spitzer does a lot of good internet work [state.ny.us], like suing spammers and enforcing privacy rights, and today he will announce a settlement [forbes.com] with five major music labels to force them to pay illegally-withheld royalties to musicians. He's got my vote when he runs for governor [spitzer2006.com].

  • vote-smart.org (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ThinkingGuy ( 551764 ) on Tuesday May 04, 2004 @11:44AM (#9051850) Homepage
    I'm jumping into this rather late, but I'm surprised no one else has mentioned the Project Vote Smart. Just go to vote-smart.org and it'll tell you who your federal representatives are, at the federal and state level. It tells when they're up for re-election, their voting record on various issues, and their ratings by various interest groups. It's definitely helped me to be a more informed voter.

  • Whaddaya mean no "good guys" and "bad guys"? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cr0sh ( 43134 ) on Tuesday May 04, 2004 @01:43PM (#9053607) Homepage
    Have we all forgotten the PATRIOT Act? That huge pile of paper that none of our representatives read (not to mention it seems to have been written overnight - or more accurately, was written waaay prior to 9/11 - in anticipation? Or was more known?), but every single one of them voted for (ok, that isn't accurate - I think there was one representative who didn't vote for it or voted against it or something).

    A huge document (it was supposed to be several inches thick in its entirety) - but not one of our "representatives" actually read it and discussed it before voting on it. It tramples a whole host of our rights, rights guaranteed by our Constitution (and our guns, if "we the people" weren't such pussies) - this should be treasonable action - so why isn't anything happenning?

    Don't tell me "but we are at war" - WE ARE NOT AT WAR - Congress has not issued a formal declaration of war - only they can do this, and are required to do this by our laws and the Constitution, but this has not yet happened...

    How many "wars" have we been in since WWII that have been "declared wars"? None? They have all been "police actions" or "peacekeeping missions" or some other such drivel - yet we and the media (hell, even our President!) keep calling this a war, that a war - think of the children!

    It is sickening, it is disgusting, it is an abomination to the ideals which this country was founded upon.

    This is only one piece of so-called "bad legislation" - please. I could rattle off a ton more - you know it, I know it. Most of our congresscritters couldn't find their ass with both hands, many are in the employ of the RIAA and MPAA, bought and paid for with media dollars for legislations like the DMCA, and the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act. The rest: they are bought and paid for various so-called "Christian" organizations, seeking to limit what can be done by and for science, in the name of some fantasy "man in the sky".

    Representatives, supposed "statesmen" (but very few deserve that title, once you know the definition of it) - people we supposedly elect (and even this is in question!!!) to protect our greater interests from the few - are instead in their pockets.

    Don't tell me that there aren't "good guys" and "bad guys" - most (all?) of our representatives willingly sacrificed our Constitutions when they voted and signed on to the PATRIOT Act without reading or discussing it. Many have lied, cheated, and stolen while in office. Our own President is a known alcoholic with a DUI!

    Remember friends, you reap what you sow - and this crop is the worst of them all.

Slashdot Top Deals

Always draw your curves, then plot your reading.

Close