Crazy shit in that bill of yours, guys. Do something about it before it's too late.
QuoteThe U.S. Congress is currently embroiled in a heated debated over the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), proposed legislation that supporters argue is needed combat online infringement, but critics fear would create the "great firewall of the United States." SOPA's potential impact on the Internet and development of online services is enormous as it cuts across the lifeblood of the Internet and e-commerce in the effort to target websites that are characterized as being "dedicated to the theft of U.S. property." This represents a new standard that many experts believe could capture hundreds of legitimate websites and services.
For those caught by the definition, the law envisions requiring Internet providers to block access to the sites, search engines to remove links from search results, payment intermediaries such as credit card companies and Paypal to cut off financial support, and Internet advertising companies to cease placing advertisements. While these measures have unsurprisingly raised concern among Internet companies and civil society groups (letters of concern from Internet companies, members of the US Congress, international civil liberties groups, and law professors), my weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) argues the jurisdictional implications demand far more attention. The U.S. approach is breathtakingly broad, effectively treating millions of websites and IP addresses as "domestic" for U.S. law purposes.
The long-arm of U.S. law manifests itself in at least five ways in the proposed legislation.
First, it defines a "domestic domain name" as a domain name "that is registered or assigned by a domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority, that is located within a judicial district of the United States." Since every dot-com, dot-net, and dot-org domain is managed by a domain name registry in the U.S., the law effectively asserts jurisdiction over tens of millions of domain names regardless of where the registrant actually resides.
Second, it defines "domestic Internet protocol addresses" - the numeric strings that constitute the actual address of a website or Internet connection - as "an Internet Protocol address for which the corresponding Internet Protocol allocation entity is located within a judicial district of the United States."
Yet IP addresses are allocated by regional organizations, not national ones. The allocation entity located in the U.S. is called ARIN, the American Registry for Internet Numbers. Its territory includes the U.S., Canada, and 20 Caribbean nations. This bill treats all IP addresses in this region as domestic for U.S. law purposes.
To put this is context, every Canadian Internet provider relies on ARIN for its block of IP addresses. In fact, ARIN even allocates the block of IP addresses used by federal and provincial governments. The U.S. bill would treat them all as domestic for U.S. law purposes.
Third, the bill grants the U.S. "in rem" jurisdiction over any website that does not have a domestic jurisdictional connection. For those sites, the U.S. grants jurisdiction over the property of the site and opens the door to court orders requiring Internet providers to block the site and Internet search engines to stop linking to it.
Should a website owner wish to challenge the court order, U.S. law asserts itself in a fourth way, since in order for an owner to file a challenge (described as a "counter notification"), the owner must first consent to the jurisdiction of the U.S. courts.
If these measures were not enough, the fifth measure makes it a matter of U.S. law to ensure that intellectual property protection is a significant component of U.S. foreign policy and grants more resources to U.S. embassies around the world to increase their involvement in foreign legal reform.
U.S. intellectual property lobbying around the world has been well documented with new Canadian copyright legislation widely viewed as a direct consequence of years of political pressure. The new U.S. proposal takes this aggressive approach to another level by simply asserting jurisdiction over millions of Canadian registered IP addresses and domain names.
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6134/135/
http://americancensorship.org/infographic.html
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/11/the-stop-online-piracy-act-big-contents-full-on-assault-against-the-safe-harbor.ars
QuoteDo something about it
No.
Relax. You make it sound like the US was relevant any more.
So the law would require US ISPs to block access to pirate sites in Canada, it would require US search engines to not show results for pirate sites in Canada, and it would prohibit US payment companies from transferring funds to pirate sites in Canada.
What exactly is your beef Wolf?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2011, 06:23:05 PM
So the law would require US ISPs to block access to pirate sites in Canada, it would require US search engines to not show results for pirate sites in Canada, and it would prohibit US payment companies from transferring funds to pirate sites in Canada.
What exactly is your beef Wolf?
He runs a pirate site in Canada.
What's the problem? I mean, US domination of the Internet is a bad thing, right? This sort of thing allows for a multipolar internet.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2011, 06:23:05 PM
So the law would require US ISPs to block access to pirate sites in Canada, it would require US search engines to not show results for pirate sites in Canada, and it would prohibit US payment companies from transferring funds to pirate sites in Canada.
What exactly is your beef Wolf?
US has control of all .com, .org & .net websites plus the north american registrar is in the US.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 18, 2011, 07:21:13 PM
US has control of all .com, .org & .net websites plus the north american registrar is in the US.
Right, so replace the word in Canada with any where in the world. What's your beef?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2011, 07:25:32 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 18, 2011, 07:21:13 PM
US has control of all .com, .org & .net websites plus the north american registrar is in the US.
Right, so replace the word in Canada with any where in the world. What's your beef?
Since the NA registrar is located in the US, a canadian website say, gc.ca, could be completely block by the US government.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 18, 2011, 08:32:01 PM
Since the NA registrar is located in the US, a canadian website say, gc.ca, could be completely block by the US government.
First of all, the site wouldn't be blocked by non-US ISPs.
Second of all, WTF is gc.ca doing sharing pirated movies and videos?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2011, 08:33:51 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 18, 2011, 08:32:01 PM
Since the NA registrar is located in the US, a canadian website say, gc.ca, could be completely block by the US government.
First of all, the site wouldn't be blocked by non-US ISPs.
Second of all, WTF is gc.ca doing sharing pirated movies and videos?
It's not block by ISP, it's block by DNSses.
It just takes someone to claim it's copyright infrigment to get a site blocked.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2011, 08:33:51 PM
Second of all, WTF is gc.ca doing sharing pirated movies and videos?
American companies will claim copyright because they're dishonest and there's no incentive not to.
This sounds like litigation waiting to happen to me. There is no justification for the US assuming legal jursidiction over the internet in other countries. Maybe "Big Content" should be going after the market where intellectual property theft and copyright violation is bigger than anywhere else, aka China instead of pushing Congress to get tough on pirates with odious legislation.
"Sopa" means (a piece of) garbage in Swedish. Makes you thimk.
It means soup en español.
Quote from: Neil on November 18, 2011, 09:11:11 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2011, 08:33:51 PM
Second of all, WTF is gc.ca doing sharing pirated movies and videos?
American companies will claim copyright because they're dishonest and there's no incentive not to.
This is true. Such as when Universal Studios sued Nintendo over copyright infringement concerning King Kong, despite not actually having the rights to King Kong (and having previously sued RKO claiming that King Kong was public domain).
Or Bethesda threatening to sue the guy who did Minecraft (I think that's him? Or some other Indie dev?) because he wants to call his next game (a computer card game) "Scrolls".
Quote from: The Brain on November 19, 2011, 03:56:27 AM
"Sopa" means (a piece of) garbage in Swedish. Makes you thimk.
After thimking about it, I concluded it has the same meaning in the US.
Quote from: Syt on November 19, 2011, 05:42:07 AM
Or Bethesda threatening to sue the guy who did Minecraft (I think that's him? Or some other Indie dev?) because he wants to call his next game (a computer card game) "Scrolls".
They are doing it. Bethesda, well it's Parent Company, lost the first round in Swedish court.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2011, 06:23:05 PM
So the law would require US ISPs to block access to pirate sites in Canada, it would require US search engines to not show results for pirate sites in Canada, and it would prohibit US payment companies from transferring funds to pirate sites in Canada.
What exactly is your beef Wolf?
Severe privacy invading measures (http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/isps-versus-sopa-anti-piracy-bill-could-force-severe-privacy-invading-measures/63924?tag=search-results-rivers;item2)
Why the broken web should stay broken (http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/sopa-why-the-broken-web-should-stay-broken/63724?tag=search-results-rivers;item5)
Privacy advocates are against.
ISPs are against.
Security software companies are against.
Music&film industry lobbied intensively for it.
That, in itself, without any kind of argument, makes the case for me, to be agains SOPA.
English Wikipedia is going dark tomorrow in protest of SOPA/PIPA
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16590585
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 18, 2011, 01:20:11 PM
Do something about it before it's too late.
If I lept into action everytime my Congress was considering passing a horribly idiotic and hamfisted piece of legislation I would be a fulltime political activist by now.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2011, 08:33:51 PM
First of all, the site wouldn't be blocked by non-US ISPs.
Second of all, WTF is gc.ca doing sharing pirated movies and videos?
Heh. Your faith the legislation is going to work to only limit the stuff it was built to combat is impressive considering the enormous number of people pointing out otherwise. The interests of tons of people are going to be stomped on to serve a specific special interest. But really what else is new?
Quote from: Valmy on January 17, 2012, 09:36:53 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 18, 2011, 01:20:11 PM
Do something about it before it's too late.
If I lept into action everytime my Congress was considering passing a horribly idiotic and hamfisted piece of legislation I would be a fulltime political activist by now.
Or Dead. :ph34r:
:P
Quote from: Valmy on January 17, 2012, 09:36:53 AM
If I lept into action everytime my Congress was considering passing a horribly idiotic and hamfisted piece of legislation I would be a fulltime political activist by now.
You'd be in pretty good shape though.
Quote from: Valmy on January 17, 2012, 09:40:06 AM
Heh. Your faith the legislation is going to work to only limit the stuff it was built to combat is impressive considering the enormous number of people pointing out otherwise. The interests of tons of people are going to be stomped on to serve a specific special interest. But really what else is new?
I see an enormous number of people complaining who have a vested interest in maintaining internet traffic to pirate sites.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 17, 2012, 10:48:43 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 17, 2012, 09:40:06 AM
Heh. Your faith the legislation is going to work to only limit the stuff it was built to combat is impressive considering the enormous number of people pointing out otherwise. The interests of tons of people are going to be stomped on to serve a specific special interest. But really what else is new?
I see an enormous number of people complaining who have a vested interest in maintaining internet traffic to pirate sites.
What's the interest of Google in that?
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 17, 2012, 08:54:39 AM
English Wikipedia is going dark tomorrow in protest of SOPA/PIPA
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16590585
Now I'm definitely glad that I didn't donate any money to them.
If it makes Grey Wolf whine like little girl, I'm all for it.
:(
You'll be sorry when Languish & everything else you love about the internet is gone.
Is languish pirating? Then I say we arrest moldy!
Quote from: katmai on January 17, 2012, 11:02:44 AM
Is languish pirating? Then I say we arrest moldy!
All those avatars, one is bond to be copyrighted. Blacklisted!
Cool. Well it was nice knowing all you hosers. Later.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 17, 2012, 10:48:43 AM
I see an enormous number of people complaining who have a vested interest in maintaining internet traffic to pirate sites.
Well yes those people are going to complain but what about the issues raised by the rest of us?
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 17, 2012, 10:55:44 AM
What's the interest of Google in that?
They get paid by sites to juice their search results.
Quote from: Valmy on January 17, 2012, 11:15:45 AM
Well yes those people are going to complain but what about the issues raised by the rest of us?
You mean like false positives?
Universal Music already tried to pull a video critical of SOPA/PIPA that it doesn't actually have copyright to.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/12/youtube-universal-megaupload/
If the new bill passes, they could shut down the whole site.
Quote from: katmai on January 17, 2012, 11:05:42 AM
Cool. Well it was nice knowing all you hosers. Later.
My avatar is public property. :smarty:
We could lose the avatars and all be Mono.
How depressing.
My avatar rocks.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 17, 2012, 11:01:41 AM
:(
You'll be sorry when Languish & everything else you love about the internet is gone.
Good.
Obama just killed it. And good for him.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2012/01/16/obama-says-so-long-sopa-killing-controversial-internet-piracy-legislation/
I'm glad I didn't waste time fretting.
Quote from: garbon on January 17, 2012, 01:22:26 PM
I'm glad I didn't waste time fretting.
Yes, a lot of other people fretted so you wouldn't have to.
Quote from: Berkut on January 17, 2012, 01:06:39 PM
Obama just killed it. And good for him.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2012/01/16/obama-says-so-long-sopa-killing-controversial-internet-piracy-legislation/
Yeah, but is that "I'll veto it" against it, or "I'll sign it anyway, but I'll make comments against it in my signing statement" against it? Or perhaps "I'm against it now, but if it's placed as an amendment or a rider in another bill later, I'll sign it anyway."
Quote from: fahdiz on January 17, 2012, 01:25:33 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 17, 2012, 01:22:26 PM
I'm glad I didn't waste time fretting.
Yes, a lot of other people fretted so you wouldn't have to.
This. :)
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 17, 2012, 11:04:35 AM
Quote from: katmai on January 17, 2012, 11:02:44 AM
Is languish pirating? Then I say we arrest moldy!
All those avatars, one is bond to be copyrighted. Blacklisted!
Mine is. By me. :cool:
Quote from: fahdiz on January 17, 2012, 01:25:33 PM
Yes, a lot of other people fretted so you wouldn't have to.
They wouldn't have had to fret if other people hadn't wasted time agitating for the legislation.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 17, 2012, 01:42:44 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on January 17, 2012, 01:25:33 PM
Yes, a lot of other people fretted so you wouldn't have to.
They wouldn't have had to fret if other people hadn't wasted time agitating for the legislation.
We can hardly expect the MPAA to stop being retards overnight. They've been doing this since the invention of motion pictures.
Quote from: Barrister on January 17, 2012, 01:35:50 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 17, 2012, 11:04:35 AM
Quote from: katmai on January 17, 2012, 11:02:44 AM
Is languish pirating? Then I say we arrest moldy!
All those avatars, one is bond to be copyrighted. Blacklisted!
Mine is. By me. :cool:
But the logo is owned by the Jets. So if you lived in a US in a hypothetical universe where they passed this, the Winnipeg Jets would take possession of your firstborn. Which, if he's really good at hockey, might work out for you anyways.
So, what movie to download next?
Quote from: Neil on January 17, 2012, 01:48:11 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 17, 2012, 01:35:50 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 17, 2012, 11:04:35 AM
Quote from: katmai on January 17, 2012, 11:02:44 AM
Is languish pirating? Then I say we arrest moldy!
All those avatars, one is bond to be copyrighted. Blacklisted!
Mine is. By me. :cool:
But the logo is owned by the Jets. So if you lived in a US in a hypothetical universe where they passed this, the Winnipeg Jets would take possession of your firstborn. Which, if he's really good at hockey, might work out for you anyways.
I think the logo is owned by the CF, and licensed to the Jets. :hmm:
My kid has a little toy hockey stick. He actually picked it up and was using it to hit a ball around the floor the other day. :cry:
America's black communist president saves the internet :)
Quote from: Barrister on January 17, 2012, 01:54:57 PM
I think the logo is owned by the CF, and licensed to the Jets. :hmm:
My kid has a little toy hockey stick. He actually picked it up and was using it to hit a ball around the floor the other day. :cry:
My kid has just about worn out his little wooden souvenir Blues hockey stick. And pucks slide surprisingly well on our living room hardwood floor. In terms of "playing", so far he's showing more interest in hockey than football, baseball or basketball.
My kid has a baseball he throws around the house :cool:
Fortunately at 14 months he does not have much of an arm.
Quote from: Josephus on January 17, 2012, 02:06:12 PM
America's black communist president saves the internet :)
It's a quid pro quo.
Quote from: derspiess on January 17, 2012, 02:22:33 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 17, 2012, 01:54:57 PM
I think the logo is owned by the CF, and licensed to the Jets. :hmm:
My kid has a little toy hockey stick. He actually picked it up and was using it to hit a ball around the floor the other day. :cry:
My kid has just about worn out his little wooden souvenir Blues hockey stick. And pucks slide surprisingly well on our living room hardwood floor. In terms of "playing", so far he's showing more interest in hockey than football, baseball or basketball.
Excellent...
Of course if my kid has shown any interest ing "playing" any sport, it's probably curling. He loves to grab mommy's broom and run around with it.
It's a shame that 40lb hunks of granite make for very poor children's toys. :(
Quote from: fahdiz on January 17, 2012, 01:25:33 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 17, 2012, 01:22:26 PM
I'm glad I didn't waste time fretting.
Yes, a lot of other people fretted so you wouldn't have to.
Unlikely. We're likely looking at a few staffers whose job this is anyway. Internet angst doesn't matter much.
Quote from: Barrister on January 17, 2012, 02:29:16 PM
Excellent...
Of course if my kid has shown any interest ing "playing" any sport, it's probably curling. He loves to grab mommy's broom and run around with it.
It's a shame that 40lb hunks of granite make for very poor children's toys. :(
you foresee curler, i foresee male maid :P
So, we getting Wiki tomorrow, then?
Quote from: Josephus on January 17, 2012, 02:06:12 PM
America's black communist president saves the internet :)
Which is what it would take. Republicans have been looking forward to dismantling the internet and restricting the flow of information for years now.
Quote from: Valmy on January 17, 2012, 02:26:52 PM
My kid has a baseball he throws around the house :cool:
Fortunately at 14 months he does not have much of an arm.
:D
My 8-month old girl likes sit in her high chair and drop things that make loud sounds. Then when she sees the startled/annoyed look on my face she tilts her head to the side and smiles. She's going to get away with murder :mellow:
Quote from: Neil on January 17, 2012, 03:07:28 PM
Which is what it would take. Republicans have been looking forward to dismantling the internet and restricting the flow of information for years now.
I think that's mostly the old ones, who don't understand what the internet is. But in this case it's bipartisan ignorance.
Quote from: derspiess on January 17, 2012, 03:46:28 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 17, 2012, 03:07:28 PM
Which is what it would take. Republicans have been looking forward to dismantling the internet and restricting the flow of information for years now.
I think that's mostly the old ones, who don't understand what the internet is. But in this case it's bipartisan ignorance.
They understand to well.
Google blacked out its logo...
Quote from: Razgovory on January 17, 2012, 04:30:03 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 17, 2012, 03:46:28 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 17, 2012, 03:07:28 PM
Which is what it would take. Republicans have been looking forward to dismantling the internet and restricting the flow of information for years now.
I think that's mostly the old ones, who don't understand what the internet is. But in this case it's bipartisan ignorance.
They understand to well.
They understand that the MPAA, et al, will donate lots of cash to their campaigns if they push through this bill. That's as much as they want to understand.
And wiki is out.
Quote from: garbon on January 18, 2012, 01:20:33 AM
And wiki is out.
That soooo does not endear me to their movement.
How many people will now support SOPA just to get back at wiki?
Quote from: Monoriu on January 18, 2012, 01:51:05 AM
How many people will now support SOPA just to get back at wiki?
Contrarians, and crazy people. So probably some people on Languish, but not many else where. If you wanted to get back at Wiki wouldn't you simply not use it? The only people affected are those who use it.
Sent an e-mail to my local Rep, Richard Hanna. Combined my thoughts on the legislation plans with a general endorsement of what he's done so far. I've been more pleased than disappointed I voted for him. :thumbsup:
My current Rep thinks that Global warming is some kind of conspiracy or something. :(
At least I won't be bothered by my students reading off wiki to me today as they try to tell me the shit I'm telling them is wrong. Stupid 19 year olds.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 18, 2012, 03:44:25 AM
My current Rep thinks that Global warming is some kind of conspiracy or something. :(
It does seem like the kind of thing a Bond villain might try.
But...but...without Wiki, how else are we supposed to frame our arguments for discussion on this forum? :huh:
Quote from: Josephus on January 18, 2012, 08:30:06 AM
But...but...without Wiki, how else are we supposed to frame our arguments for discussion on this forum? :huh:
Use the mobile version
Disable Javascript
Use google translate & wiki in an other language
Or you know, make shit up as we go, Business as usual.
Hit Esc before the page finished loading.
The Esc. thing works like a charm. :D
On what browser?
I'm using chrome on a mac.
http://gawker.com/5877192/stupid-high-school-kids-and-teachers-freak-out-over-wikipedia-blackout?tag=sopa
I got my laffs.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 18, 2012, 01:01:00 PM
http://gawker.com/5877192/stupid-high-school-kids-and-teachers-freak-out-over-wikipedia-blackout?tag=sopa
I got my laffs.
That's some good shit.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 18, 2012, 01:01:00 PM
http://gawker.com/5877192/stupid-high-school-kids-and-teachers-freak-out-over-wikipedia-blackout?tag=sopa
I got my laffs.
Awesome.
The mobile version - en.m.wikipedia.org - is still up, should you really need to look anything up today.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 18, 2012, 01:01:00 PM
http://gawker.com/5877192/stupid-high-school-kids-and-teachers-freak-out-over-wikipedia-blackout?tag=sopa
I got my laffs.
:lmfao:
Just click on the cached page. Durrr.
Quote from: Josephus on January 18, 2012, 08:30:06 AM
But...but...without Wiki, how else are we supposed to frame our arguments for discussion on this forum? :huh:
QuoteToday, the Wikipedia community announced its decision to black out the English-language Wikipedia for 24 hours
Fuck.
QuoteBienvenidos a Wikipedia
Well, I guess I'll brush up.
I guess we reduced to using Conservapedia.
http://conservapedia.com/Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge
QuoteMillennia before germ theory was proposed in the late 19th century, Leviticus 15 mandated hygiene laws that included bathing, washing of clothing, destruction of contaminated pottery and washing of hands.
In Matthew 15:2, Jesus then curbed compulsive hand-washing by explaining why it n no longer typically necessary (in a non-farming, non-medical context) with respect to man's digestive system.
I had no idea...
Quoteiberal denial is the tendency of liberals to conceal, deny or censor the truth for ideological reasons. A list of the top common instances of liberal denial are the following:
Liberals deny that human intelligence inevitably and demonstrably declines from generation to generation, and that if there were another 100 generations into the future the people would not be able to understand simple concepts.
Liberals deny the very real existence of fetal pain during abortion.
Liberals deny the very real existence of Hell. Jesus talked about Hell more than Heaven.
Liberals deny how they censor the Bible from their daily activities, and encourage the censorship for others too.
Liberals deny that Fidel Castro, who has not been seen in public since his intestinal surgery 3.5 years ago, is likely to be deceased.
Liberals deny the Nobel Prize is an award given by liberals to other liberals, and sometimes even granted in an awkward manner designed to punish a critic of liberal falsehoods.[1]
Liberals deny how they deify government officials, similar to how communists deified Stalin and Lenin and still deify Castro.[2]
Liberals deny how fellow travelers engage in deceit, or at least refuse to admit it.
Liberals deny they are liberal, and that most of the media are liberal.
Liberals deny that Hollywood values, professor values and general liberal values have consequences for those who believe in them, and also for innocent victims.
Liberals deny that they have censored prayer in public school.[3]
Liberals deny that a woman significantly reduces her risk of breast cancer by having children rather than abortions
Liberals deny that about half of promiscuous people carry sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), and those STDs cause infertility[4]
Liberals deny that the strident promoters of evolution generally have weaker credentials than advocates of intelligent design[5]
Liberals deny that College faculties at nearly every American school are completely dominated by liberals, and have virtually no conservatives
Liberals deny that Homosexuality shortens lifespan for a wide variety of reasons
Liberals deny that reducing the number of guns, which are primarily defensive weapons, results in an increase in crime
Liberals deny that the war in Iraq was needed and also deny that the surge has worked
Liberals deny that Hitler and the Nazi party were in fact Liberals (anti-Semitism is a well-documented characteristic of Liberal Christianity as is the PETA-like Green wing of the Third Reich[6])
More generally, liberals also deny:
That Obama ran the dirtiest campaign since Lyndon Johnson
That more than 80% of child molesters are pornography addicts
That people like young mass murderers who take atheistic beliefs to their logical conclusions are not "crazy" or "insane", but are true believers.
That young mass murderers fit the profile of public school-trained atheism
That the intellectual justification for Hitler's attempt to build a master Aryan race was the theory of evolution
That feminists censor discussion about differences between men and women, and boys and girls.
That Lawrence Summers was fired as President of Harvard for making a politically incorrect suggestion about women and math aptitude
That state run health care has lead to Islamic terrorism in Britain, and would do so in the US. [7]
That obesity is a bigger problem than hunger in the Western world
That a school having virtually no conservative teachers and many atheists and liberals is a liberal school
That liberals attempt to intimidate and ostracize conservatives, particularly in school environments and some occupations.[8]
That liberals support taxpayer-funded abortion
That girls and women in sports have debilitating ACL knee injuries at 3-4 times the rate of men,[9] and are vulnerable to other injuries[10]
That the numerous premature deaths of Hollywood stars are the result of Hollywood values[11]
That homeschoolers often do better than those who attend public school
That culture affects politics, and people's views and lifestyles
That successful democracy, both historically and logically, is the result of Protestant Christianity[12]
That Ronald Reagan's public exhortation, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall," helped cause the nearly 30-year-old Berlin Wall later be torn down
That gun control increases crime
That reducing tax rates stimulates the economy
That choosing abortion over childbirth increases the risk of breast cancer
That the mainstream media is biased
That privately-run transport is more efficient than government-run transport
That universal health care is inferior medical care
That unions interfere with employment opportunities
That liberal leaders engage in shocking wrongdoing, hypocrisy, and abuse of power[13]
That ideas do matter, and can cause great harm, including liberal falsehoods
That Islamic extremism is a threat to the Western civilization[14]
That banning same-sex marriage is analogous to banning polygamy
That aggressive interrogation is often the only way to obtain answers from terrorists
That the liberal ideology is pushed on unsuspecting others, particularly youngsters
That free trade strengthens global democracies
That a child in a mother's womb has rights established by the Constitution
That a vote for (yea) or a vote against (nea) is an absolute position
That you can be held accountable for the statements uttered
That climate forecasts 50 years from now are as inaccurate as 15 days from now
That politicians that proclaim 'Change' actually do not break with policies of the past
That removing Saddam Hussein from power was a good thing.
That eating meat and dairy is important for physical and mental health.
That marijuana use has lasting psychological effects.
That illegal immigrants contribute to crime and poverty in the towns and cities they occupy.
That English will cease being the language of the United States in 20 years unless it is protected as the official language (and that this would be a loss if it happened).
That President Bush didn't cause Hurricane Katrina.
That President Clinton was responsible for Rwanda inaction.
That the Democratic party discriminates against African-Americans.
That restricting free speech by the Fairness Doctrine is actually not fair nor democratic.
That we can drill oil our way out of high gas prices.
That we can't replace our dependence on oil with green technologies, when in fact we need both oil and green technologies to solve our energy crisis.
That opposing same-sex marriage is justified and point to decriminalized interracial marriage bans as proof.
That they are intolerant of opposing viewpoints and then try to stifle further discussion.
That socialism and liberalism have the same political agenda.
That God should have a place in government
That modern drilling methods result in minimal environmental impact, even if they were implemented in uninhabited lands such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
That companies like Exxon should pay billions of dollars in damages to the general public, in addition to the money they spend to clean up industrial accidents and to recompense those directly affected
That selective logging keeps forests healthier by reducing the risk of wildfire
That high food prices are not caused by ethanol production, but rather by the million acres of crop- and pastureland that have been taken out of production in the interest of wildlife conservation.
That the life of a human is more important than the life of an animal or plant.
That modern technology can make coal clean
That a fence is the most effective and ultimately, the most peaceful way to protect our large border from illegal immigrants trying to get in
That socially dangerous people exhibit a well-documented pattern of reading habits
That heavy metal music is generally anti-Christian and promotes themes such as drugs, sex and Satan worship.
The existence of God and Jesus, our Lord and Savior.
That they make sweeping generalizations about Conservatives.
That Wikipedia has a systematic bias.
:lol: DPS, Derspeiss, these are your people! Here they are in their own words.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 18, 2012, 05:59:45 PM
That socially dangerous people exhibit a well-documented pattern of reading habits
Fuck. That's most of us. :huh:
Now my file hosting site is in protest?
Quote from: fahdiz on January 19, 2012, 12:35:31 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 19, 2012, 12:34:33 PM
Now my file hosting site is in protest?
Sue them :)
I'll just have to come up with another alternative. Not sure why I should have to do without a service in support of a bill that few seem jazzed about...
Quote from: garbon on January 19, 2012, 12:36:37 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on January 19, 2012, 12:35:31 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 19, 2012, 12:34:33 PM
Now my file hosting site is in protest?
Sue them :)
I'll just have to come up with another alternative. Not sure why I should have to do without a service in support of a bill that few seem jazzed about...
So your hosting site is protesting FOR SOPA/PIPA?
Quote from: garbon on January 19, 2012, 12:36:37 PM
I'll just have to come up with another alternative. Not sure why I should have to do without a service in support of a bill that few seem jazzed about...
I'm serious - I was wondering what would happen if someone like Google chose to black out - people who use gmail for their work email (lots of nonprofits and schools do this these days) would be SOL for 24 hours...I wonder if there would be grounds to sue a company who says they will host your files/email/what-have-you and then denies you access to them for a reason which is not outage or maintenance related.
Quote from: fahdiz on January 19, 2012, 12:39:50 PM
I'm serious - I was wondering what would happen if someone like Google chose to black out - people who use gmail for their work email (lots of nonprofits and schools do this these days) would be SOL for 24 hours...I wonder if there would be grounds to sue a company who says they will host your files/email/what-have-you and then denies you access to them for a reason which is not outage or maintenance related.
Can you sue someone for withholding a free service? Serious question.
Yeah, what rights do you have to access to your info on that free service? I guess it would depend on the terms of agreement?
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 19, 2012, 12:39:27 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 19, 2012, 12:36:37 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on January 19, 2012, 12:35:31 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 19, 2012, 12:34:33 PM
Now my file hosting site is in protest?
Sue them :)
I'll just have to come up with another alternative. Not sure why I should have to do without a service in support of a bill that few seem jazzed about...
So your hosting site is protesting FOR SOPA/PIPA?
:yawn:
I'm still confused.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 19, 2012, 12:41:26 PM
Can you sue someone for withholding a free service? Serious question.
I dunno; I guess that is my question too.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 19, 2012, 12:41:26 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on January 19, 2012, 12:39:50 PM
I'm serious - I was wondering what would happen if someone like Google chose to black out - people who use gmail for their work email (lots of nonprofits and schools do this these days) would be SOL for 24 hours...I wonder if there would be grounds to sue a company who says they will host your files/email/what-have-you and then denies you access to them for a reason which is not outage or maintenance related.
Can you sue someone for withholding a free service? Serious question.
Why wouldn't you?
Quote from: fahdiz on January 19, 2012, 01:12:09 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 19, 2012, 12:41:26 PM
Can you sue someone for withholding a free service? Serious question.
I dunno; I guess that is my question too.
It depends on their T&C and (in common law) if one can construe any consideration. Under civil law system a contract is still binding even if one party offers no consideration.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 19, 2012, 12:41:26 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on January 19, 2012, 12:39:50 PM
I'm serious - I was wondering what would happen if someone like Google chose to black out - people who use gmail for their work email (lots of nonprofits and schools do this these days) would be SOL for 24 hours...I wonder if there would be grounds to sue a company who says they will host your files/email/what-have-you and then denies you access to them for a reason which is not outage or maintenance related.
Can you sue someone for withholding a free service? Serious question.
Google charges for a lot of services on the corporate level.
Stewart's take :D
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-18-2012/ko-computer?xrs=playershare_fb
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 19, 2012, 11:11:49 PM
Stewart's take :D
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-18-2012/ko-computer?xrs=playershare_fb
OK, the last bit was fucking hilarious.
http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/
:)