Slashdot Mirror
Internet Blacklist Back In Congress
Adrian Lopez writes "A bill giving the government the power to shut down Web sites that host materials that infringe copyright is making its way quietly through the lame-duck session of Congress, raising the ire of free-speech groups and prompting a group of academics to lobby against the effort. The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) was introduced in Congress this fall by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT). It would grant the federal government the power to block access to any Web domain that is found to host copyrighted material without permission."
... I produce the sound of loud laughter aimed at any blacklisting effort ever made.
Too big to fail.
the freemen with the most money make the rules. yet, there are still a lot of ayn randists who would still attempt selling free market/capitalist bullshit to us :
money is power. if you allow any individual or group to gain more money than others, you practically give the power in their hands. no amount of 'equality' legislation in the political arena, can offset this economic power; the one with the gold makes the rule.
Read radical news here
"Grandpa, you broke my [facebook|youtube|blogspot|twitter|etc]!"
Don't those folks ever care about the children?
Check your premises.
Got a site you want to shut down? Just a) post some copyrighted material there, and b) complain. Problem solved.
With the huge backlog of important legislation requiring immediate attention in an already gridlocked congress, it's sad this is even being considered. I guess the financial incentives to its backers are just too large. Set the controls for the heart of the sun, we are doomed.
You gotta help out your Hollywood Friends before you lose the majority.
You're as bad as the Republicans (i.e. shills for megacorps).
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Gawdlmighty damn, if only once, just once they would make even a token attempt to do something useful. sighhhhhhhhh. Congress is a welfare program for people who can't hold down real jobs.
This would be annoying but would it really matter in the long run anyway? How hard would it be to use a proxy. The companies pushing this draconian copyright crap need to move on. On the other hand worrying about them changing their ways is probably just as fruitless as their efforts to stem the tide of change. :)
check out the Mp3 Garbler I built!
I just have to post copyrighted material in the user comments section to get an entire website taken down! Mauhahahahahahahaahahahaha! Say goodbye to slashdot, cnn.com and foxnews.com!
I've been saying for a long time that the day will come very soon when typing in thepiratebay.org or other torrent site will only get you a "This site has been blocked for illegal material" message. the only question was whether it would happen by government mandate or voluntary ISP decision.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
its still at the hands of united states. this, actually could cause them to totally lose it though. it was high time.
Read radical news here
That's all we need, is more lists for the government to maintain. They do a bang up job already with no-fly.
Not that it matters anymore, but I just wrote both of my senators explaining to them how this will be used as a club to quash free speech. Shame they both get so much money from Disney.
There is a war going on for your mind.
Disclaimer: I am Canadian, so I didn't vote for Obama (although I would have).
The Obama administration has turned out far worse than GWB's eight years with respect to the digital age. For all the command they had of social media and running under the 'change' they were bringing with them, they sure seem to want to bow to their old masters.
I call it 'The Aristocrats'
And yet not a single one of the Republicans in the Senate will probably vote against it either despite the fact that they could block this from ever passing.
Nobody bothered to actually ask what kind of "change" he was talking about. D'oh!
:(
Also, I told you so. I still remember the Slashdot Obama love during the election - got modded down pretty heavily for some comments that, today, would be voted up. The public is fickle
But remember, if you vote for anybody but a Republicrat or Demoblican you're throwing your vote away! So keep rubber-stamping business as usual like good sheep.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
In Soviet Russia, sacks of potatoes are bought and sold like Congressmen.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
I hope they realize there is no real way to distinguish a google torrent search from a pirate bay torrent search.
On the other hand, actual hosting- might be trickier- just Youtube then.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Oh, I wouldn't count on that. I don't know about the other new Republican senators, but this certainly goes against Rand Paul's ideals. He's going to be a huge and welcome thorn in the side of both parties.
Your brain is not a computer.
As soon as they pass legislation like this, people will just move to using proxy servers. Proxy servers lists change hourly. And I do not expect this to survive a challenge in court -- it is a restriction of trade and commerce, and it will only be a matter of time before they shut down the wrong site, cost them millions, and are forced to pay restitution.
So let's be clear -- this isn't about piracy. It's about killing free speech. Because no sooner will they pass this, than they'll add a rider saying they can shut down sites which host "terrorist" material as well... and then Greenpeace, PETA, and a lot of other political undesireables will find themselves on the list.
GO AMERICA!
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
so wait, HOW exactly are they filtering?
Domain name - I'll change my domain, and out of blacklist/their retardedness
IP address - ISP's are going to get hurt here, unable to use one of their ip addresses (or for shared hosting ?....maybe?) just buy a new one
IP address blocks - ISPs and legal sites going to be hit hard.
on another note, I'd like to say how stupid "COICA" sounds. that is all.
property would take the place of money. instead of cash donations, there would be property donations. get some logic.
Read radical news here
While it's often said that a Lame Duck congress can't get much done, it is the perfect time for them to pass unpopular legislation that powerful lobbies want passed. It's one of the few times congress can get away with it while having very few political repercussions.
I'm a libertarian (small, weak government), not an anarchist (no government), but just stop and think: If there was no government and no congress, then there would be no COICA. And no COICA would mean no way for the Corporations from stealing our stuff. We could pirate books, songs, shows without limit.
instead, your rulers would be the corporations. with their private 'security' divisions.
what you speak of, is basically feudalism. that very environment gave rise to feudalism in early middle ages.
Read radical news here
the democrats in america, arent even close to s in the word socialism. they are more capitalist than the right wingers in europe or other places of the world. your political spectrum is WAY too skewed to right, so that even the socialist there, is capitalist.
Read radical news here
In Soviet Russia people had a use for sacks of potatoes.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Islamic morality says that porn is evil.
American morality says that sharing the ideas of others is evil.
I think people thought that since Obama could competently use a computer, he would actually take a better stance than others. The problem, it seems, is that he knows just enough to be dangerous. That, and Hollywood has fairly strong ties to the Dems.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Hi there.
Do I have permission to use the text of your post for my own purposes in any way which is not intentionally slanderous? Wait, cancel that - what if we nationally publicized the Creative Commons abbreviations?
Meanwhile, how do we actually prove the original source of anything? Anything created by a corp will be copyrighted by a corp and anything created anywhere else will be stolen by a corp and faux-copyrighted to them with them daring you looking at the fangs of Harding in Legal.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
I have always found it depressing that of all the possible issues the Democrats and Republicans could unify over, that this issue was one of the few. Both major parties are for strong copyright and strong punishments for noncommercial infringement.
Speaking as someone who strongly supports the Democrats on all other issues, my party is dead wrong on the copyright issue. It seems as though the only political party that understands the internet is the Libertarian party.
As such, I believe copyright law needs a strong injection of Libertarian ideology, or we're gonna get stuck with our own version of the Great Firewall of China some day. 1984 was not supposed to be a guidebook for how to run a society...
You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
It's the damn voters. It's the voters who keep sending these sacks of shit back to DC.
The very fact that you can "spend your way into a seat" is an indictment of the voters and not the money. It means that most of them are so shallow and stupid that they act like a kitten caught between competing shiny things.
The only thing that'll fix our system is to find a way to disenfranchise such people.
So is this blacklisting to be done without a proper copyright infringement trial? If so, I'm not sure how it would be legal. If it is to be done via a proper copyright trial and a party is found guilty, I'd think we don't need a special blacklist law. Or I'm completely missing the point. Of course, when it comes to things made by Congresscritters, there doesn't necessarily have to be any logic or reason applied. Sigh.
COICA? What, no backronym? This really is a Lame Duck Congress...
Will this bill even be able to do what it's actually set out to do? So they block DNS resolution to evilp2psite.net, so long as I can still obtain that IP address through a secondary channel, they haven't exactly stopped anything, just inconvenienced people.
You actually believe that "aqua budda" shit? An single source from his college days?
Give me a break.
Show me where Paul denies it. Go on. Ought to be easy to find, right?
Give me a break. He flat out admitted it was all true.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
pray tell me ?
...
EVERYthing in a capitalist society, hinges on money. that includes the potential of getting elected. you need to have enough financial power to be able to even get your voice heard, if you are a candidate. going from town to town with train, doesnt cut it anymore. you need to buy ads, appear in mass media, get your name and opinions heard, to be even considered a candidate. you cant just be a candidate by registering as a candidate in the elections.
and, even financial power doesnt cut it anymore. no mass media outlet will let you on, and speak in their channels, even accept and run your ads, if your views do not support theirs. even more, your interests coincide with theirs. so, basically not even financial power is enough ; you need to be friendly with established hierarchy - no, you actually need to be THEIR puppet candidate, so that you can actually make your voice heard.
and what the average citizen can do ? the only candidates they can see, are the ones, well, they can actually see and hear.
the capitalist system, and its resultant established elite hierarchy, doesnt let anybody but their own puppets to be seen.
and naturally, these share the votes.
im not even going to go into constant brainwashing and 'opinion shaping' that can be affected, by using the power of big established media conglomerates. there is a whole network, sitting on top at #1, by spewing outright lies and hatred, despite they dont legally call themselves 'news' in courts anymore. (while defending against libel).
so in an environment like this, what do you expect citizens to do
Read radical news here
Let me guess....you think a Democrat would have been better?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Obama actually managed to give "Hope" a negative connotation.
You understand that the newly elected don't officially take over until January right? That is why the OP called it "the lame-duck session of Congress". They are trying to push this through while they can.
So, how does he feel about the filibuster? That's been the typical GOP response:
Dem: We need a comprehensive, effective, holistic, and economic means to initiate the process of x
Rep: I don't know what you just said, but I'm gonna filibuster it!
Dem: Aww, nuts!
That is a relatively good political philosophy, though. It's a huge step up from the mainstream political philosophy of "I'm with the government and I want to hurt someone." I'll take childish over evil any fucking day.
Nope. My Blue state congress-critters are republicans and they are all for pandering to Hollywood despite the distance between here and there.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
He's just as beholden to special interests as everyone else in Washington - it's just a different set of special interests than we were working with before.
Would you like a tissue?
Yeah, I know, but I mentioned Obama because nobody here has faith in the Republicans anyway, so there's no need to bring up that bit of obviousness. Of course I got modded down troll for telling the truth. The Obama fans still have HOPE...
The guy he was running against? No, Jack Conway is a corporate tool.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
You know what is childish? Thinking that the mainstream political philosophy is "I'm with the government and I want to hurt someone."
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
It seems as though the only political party that understands the internet is the Libertarian party.
I suspect that they have the wrong idea on net neutrality. Aren't libertarians mostly opposed?
Would you like a tissue?
For what? Your mom says she likes cream pies.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
In Soviet Russia, they have entire sacks of Potatoes?!!
Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
What's worse, is that "is found to" is something the republicans gladly will leave in the hands of the capital instead of the capitol.
I.e., what protects our esteemed elected congressmen from eventually placing all the powers in the hand of their Lear Jet buddies, allowing *IAA and Murdoch to send takedown notices directly to the root nameservers?
And what will prevent this from being abused? I can fully see the next election campaign where candidates web sites get delisted over claims of copyrights, followed later (after election) by an "oops, sorry, we made a honest mistake".
Don't give anyone the power in the first place, and it won't be abused. It's as simple as that.
I think a rock would have been better. At least it doesn't say "No" just to be contrary.
Too many times have major news outlets such as the NYT hosted images from Wikimedia without giving proper attribution. I cite Cartman V. Family Guy to point out that if you can create exception for one website, you can create an exception for another, and another, and another.
I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
If I was him I wouldn't bother denying it. Conway needs to prove its true, Paul doesn't need to prove he is innocent.
I suppose you missed the debate where he called him out on stage about it.
Gone!
And remember you're not a good citizen if you don't validate the broken system by voting like a good sheep.
Hope is for losers that gave up. I fucking PLAN!
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
The last elections weren't business as usual. Abolishing earmarks initiative that Tea Party is pushing right now isn't business as usual. There is a a long way to go but it's a good start.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
And you're doing what? Simply not voting is stupid. I would rate people who vote for the duopoly above people who don't vote at all. Nothing is achievable through inaction. Just sitting on your ass isn't going to improve anything, and if you're waiting for collapse, you might find that a failed state is far, far worse than a broken system. If you want a failed state, why wait? Just haul yourself to Somalia and try not to get shot.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
A friend of mine, who understands about computers comes to my place on saturday evening, he brings a large box , like a big floppy disk , and i copys movies, musics and games it to my computer , i ussually pay him a few beers after that :)
"I am with the Government and I want to control everything and I don't give a shit if it hurts someone."
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
What's worse, is that "is found to" is something the republicans gladly will leave in the hands of the capital instead of the capitol.
So. The end result of either of those choices is horrible.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Nobody bothered to actually ask what kind of "change" he was talking about. D'oh!
I get so tired of hearing this sentiment. I know exactly what kind of "change" he was talking about. He specifically stated he intended to change the way Washington politics worked. He promised to get rid of the partisan bickering, gridlock and blatant disregard for the populace that define Washington politics.
Unfortunately, he got into office and concentrated on his progressive agenda instead. The conservatives stopped trying to actually get anything done, and instead focused on a 24/7 dirty PR campaign. In an inept attempt at fighting the smear attacks, Mr. Obama sank into the same partisan bickering that he had previously railed against.
I liked him and voted for him. Even now, I like him better than anyone likely to run against him. But, he has not lived up to his promises. He's become just another politician, doing what politicians do. That's why the left lost their energy, and the right was able to make some gains in the recent election.
***facepalm***
You're absolutely right. That was a moment of sheer idiocy, and I apologize for getting it all over your screen.
Your brain is not a computer.
Soooo.... non-sheep don't vote? What system do YOU propose for selecting government officials??? Random lottery? Dart board?
FTA...
Support
Motion Picture Association of America
US Chamber of Commerce
Screen Actors Guild
Viacom
International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States
Obviously the election butthurt is strong with you.
As a bona-fide leftist, I was disgusted to see B.O. lift all kinds of left-sounding rhetoric during the 08 campaign. That the whole new kiddie/web2.0 set was pretty much totally fooled, even more despicable. His justice dept has continued Bush's legal battles (pro-"Patriot Act" et al..).. which has met deafening silence in the megaconglomerate (stands to gain) MSM.... his basic econ has been the wet dreams of Larry Summers and Geithner etc.. then note how the MSM eagerly promoted the billionaire-backed faux populism known as "Tea Party".. while continuing the blanket censorship of the Greens and all leftists, which has happened since Greens came to the US but has picked up steam as Dems' lies get more daring and desparate (note how they have moved in on the word "green" all over the place as an overall psy-op.) So just realize, there are real alternatives. (I've voted left of Dems since Dukakis flopped (horrified that Bush was running, knowing his fascist past. (see the front pg of yesterdays NYT re Nazis!)) Matt Gonzales was always a favorite of mine, since he won more votes but was cheated in the count by the Gavin Newsom machine.. (they just HAD to keep gpUS.org from running a major city apparently.) .. though voting for a black WOMAN-- McKinney running as Green, should've became a popular idea if it weren't for the stranglehold the MSM has.
Please folks,expand your liberty radar beyond just the digital specialization.. For starters, try the top of todays Alternet for the latest from Kucinich's econ policy guy, Prof. Hudson:
http://www.alternet.org/economy/148857/obama's_greatest_betrayal%3A_the_coming_sell-out_to_the_super_rich_and_what_it_means_for_the_rest_of_us/
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
eschew crap, proprietary jive such as Adobe Flash and "Warcraft"! Eschew war, for that matter.
I get the sense whenever there are stories like this that many here point the finger generally at "all politicians" as being at fault. But behind the scenes I detect some head scratching going on; like, "how could my Democratic majority, lame duck session, congress do something like this?" What's the confusion? Your team is full of rats who want to take away your liberties and silence you!
I assert that you can't complain as much about the tea party now because they cut a big hole in the gut of the Republican Party in order to make real change happen. You can complain all you want about their politics, but they booted some real RINO turds out of office a couple weeks ago and that deserves some respect... And you need to do the same with your Democratic party: prepare to boot out the big money fat cats in your party and replace them with legitimate reps in the next election cycle!
I sympathize with you a little. I know they're your people, and you favor them because you love to root for your "side". But many of your actual team MEMBERS are just the worst! And, until you stop voting for them and propping them up and buying into their propaganda, so are you!
Guess they will be blocking Google and Youtube
This makes me wonder if the US military hold copyright to all of their internal files.
If so, Wikileaks is doomed as an internet entity if this passes through all the sanity filters.
you may not know about it. but, its my hobby. ranging from 9800 BC to the first ever place of worship of mankind (and subsequent domestication of wheat) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe to the events in recent political history, i have spent a lot of time reading in my spare time.
i would advise you to do the same.
Read radical news here
Go here to sign the petition against it. They also deliver a message to your state representative.
Interesting. I had heard of, and didn't care about, the Aqua Buddha thing--I did stuff in college, too, though usually it was just tossing people in the creek on their birthdays. I thought it was silly that Conway made a big deal about it, though I cared even less for Paul's manufactured indignance in his response.
The opthamologist certification was news to me, so I looked it up, and it's a little shady. For anyone interested, a detailed writeup (with opinions included) is here. His stated reason for creating his own cert board was that he shouldn't be required to re-certify if people who were certified before 1992 don't have to. I understand the sentiment, but..if you're going to take a stand on something like that, you should make it very public, which he hasn't done. And recertification consists of an exam every decade--that's not THAT much of a pain. This seems quite self-serving, which lines up with your accusations.
I am not from KY--why is Harlan famous, other than being the setting for the fantastic show Justified?
Rand never struck me as the same kind of man his father, Ron Paul, is. He has the look and manner of a groomed politician which I find inherently mistrustful, and some of what's coming out is proving that impression to be correct. I like some of his platform, and I like that he has pledged to DownsizeDC to introduce in the Senate a few very important bills that would do more to clean up Congress than anything done in the past hundred years.
The more I find out about stuff like what you listed, the less I trust him, but I think the fact that he is a darling of the Tea Party works in the public's favor: they're not known for ignoring things they don't like. The post I linked is one I wrote previously, and it details the DownsizeDC bills as well as how much public pressure matters. Paul is a first-term senator and will be watched very carefully by the people who put him there. If he's as self-serving as you make him out to be, he's going to run into problems very quickly.
Your brain is not a computer.
No, Paul admitted it was true. This all came out months before Conway put those ads up. Paul called Conway out for "questioning his religion." He did not deny the charges, he denied the appropriateness of bringing them up. Conway rebutted that he wasn't questioning Paul's religion, he was questioning his judgment, a valid concern.
This has been backed up by the woman he kidnapped as well, and some of Paul's buddies on the swim team.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Who believes that? Government is there to stop people who believe that. The ones who want to get rid of government do not want government interfering with their ability to dominate and control others. Government is just a group of people, banding together to protect their interest. Some people do not want anyone protecting the weak, because they feel the weak are their rightful prey.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Nope, we control the White House and the Senate and most of the far right teabagger loonies lost big time. Just think, if it hadn't been for the teabaggers, I might actually have something to be butthurt over.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Your argument comes accross as a high school debate team. You make fallacy after fallacy and completely neglect to address your own short commings in the argument. I don't expect you to learn anything from this discussion because you obviously want someone from some central government to tell you exactly how to live your life and there is nothing that will change your opinion. That's great, but don't expect even a single other person to agree with you unless you are paying them to.
I thought it was silly of Conway to use that ad, too. Lots of us did foolish things in college. The woman in question was weirded out by the whole thing, but never thought it was anything more than a harmless prank. But it illustrates Paul's mindset: infringing on other people's liberty for shits and giggles is perfectly okay. You and I may have done some wacky thing in college, but I will hazard a guess that even 'prank' kidnapping of women was not one of them.
You could look up Harlan County on wikipedia. Company thugs killed a bunch of miners trying to unionize. More than once, if I recall.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Disclaimer: I am Canadian, so I didn't vote for Obama (although I would have).
The Obama administration has turned out far worse than GWB's eight years with respect to the digital age. For all the command they had of social media and running under the 'change' they were bringing with them, they sure seem to want to bow to their old masters.
I am also Canadian... but Obama was running with Joe Biden, so you could have known what was coming (and in fact, did come, look at the number of former RIAA lawyers being appointed).
I hope to clue you in but most people to don't give credence to bullshit stories by denying every wild accusation that crops up--and yours is a doozy even if you didn't manufacture it.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
This makes me laugh. Why not, instead of targetting copyright infringement sites, target, or at least INCLUDE in the Bill, malicious sites? I'm far more concerned about the integrity of the internet and the safety of its users. Unfortunately it seems that, in the US at least, businesses have far more power over the government than the people the government is supposed to be representing.
In a typical election, 40% of the vote goes one way, 40% goes the other. It's almost always unthinking party loyalty. There is no hope for most of those people. I know Democrats, for example, who vote Democrat despite the fact that Barack Obama, Reid and Pelosi have literally almost nothing in common with their views. It's all because "they're a Democrat/Republican family."
The points you raise are hardly insightful. Those problems have existed in literally every system of government from feudal monarchies, to Communism, to whatever-it-is-we-have-today. The establishment always plays hardball, no matter what form the establishment takes.
One of the interesting things our founders realized, like the Romans and others before them, is that a limited government with minorly democratic features is the closest thing to an ideal. If you look past the issue of slavery in the South, the US was the freest it ever was when it was the least democratic. The reason for that is simple: people in democratic states tolerate 5x more shit than those in nominally or outright undemocratic states in most cases because they don't have the pretense of "choosing their tyranny." Therefore, the government has to actually be judged on what it does, not the process by which it gets there (after which it gets a free pass because a temporary majority agreed with it).
Then how come a significant proportion of the support for libertarian movements is from the lower, weaker classes?
You're right that government is a group of people banding together to protect their interest, but mistaken as to who therefore needs to be protected from whom. A great deal of the Constitution is designed to prevent the tyranny of the majority-- that is, domination and control by means of the government. There's always a tug of war, because there are always people under the thumb of other individuals or corporations, who want more government to get out from under this...and there also are always people under the thumb of a dominating government, who want less government for exactly the same reason. Given that government is the biggest, most durable, most powerful entity that can dominate and control, and the hardest to remove once it has established that control, I'd say we should always treat skeptically the request for more of it.
And you might note, too, that your claim as to the useful role of government-- to protect people from one another-- is exactly the primary role libertarians believe the government should have. What they don't agree with is that it should go much beyond this, into what might be termed as "messing around in" the lives of people, or exerting control itself.
Of course, there are plenty of people who think as you say, who want to get what they can get and ride all over everyone else to get it, and they want government control reduced to allow them to do what they want. Except we can't forget those same people are quite ready to use government for the very purpose of giving themselves those advantages when they can get away with it. Both government reduction and government intervention are often covers for people's power plays. I think we'd be wise to understand why so many people truly view government as one of the powers they need protection from, and also need to be wise enough to recognize when an argument couched in libertarian appeals is really just a gambit for being allowed to do things that go altogether against libertarian ideals (run over other people's rights)
Your nickname is eerily appropriate to your comment...
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
The electoral college makes certain your vote is thrown away regardless. Vote as you like! It's not like it matters!
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Then how come a significant proportion of the support for libertarian movements is from the lower, weaker classes?
A significant portion of "near zero" is "near zero".
After all, I am strangely colored.
I don't mean "members of the Libertarian Party," I mean people who are generally in favor of the libertarian notions of limited government, which are what are under discussion here. Whose support base is not near zero at all, it is close to half the country.
I've been keeping an eye on this bill for over a month now. Here is where it currently stands.
The bill has been referred to committee. For those not familiar with the process of a bill entering into law in the US, this is the second step (the first being the introduction of the bill). In this case it is the Senate Judiciary Committee to be precise. At this point, the only Senators who have any say about the bill are the members of the committee.
It is scheduled for consideration by the committee on 11/18/2010.
The committee's job is to discuss the bill, make modifications to it, and decide it it should be put before the entire senate for discussion and a vote.
Ideally, a bill such as this could be killed in committee, that is the committee does not agree to move it on the entire Senate. In this case that is unlikely to happen. All but 4 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee http://judiciary.senate.gov/about/members.cfm are co-sponsors http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-3804 of this bill. And the chairman of the committee is also the sponsor of the bill.
No matter what they do, it will never work. You can't fix a social "problem" with technology. It's just another step up in the arms race that is copyright protection - The only people who are going to be hurt by this are the people like grandma who think that "proxy" means some type of skin disease. This sort of thing is just going to piss someone off, and cause them to actually make the p2p "dns" cloud the parent described.
In the end, the pirates will win, because every time a measure like this is put in place, someone will come up with a way to bypass it. The real question becomes how much damage will the MAFIAA and their paid for politicians cause before this all ends?
Our culture doesn't get smarter, it just finds new ways of being retarded.
I think you are significantly overestimating popular support for "libertarian ideals".
How many of your Libertarians voted for GWB the second time, in direct contradiction to their supposed libertarian ideals?
I think maybe you were fooled after all. He didn't become anything, he just showed the side he was hiding in a very loud way. Obama was never fairly elected to office before. In every race he has run, there had been unfair tactics employed to give himself the advantage. Some of these is like timing the release of certain information from a divorce that was under seal that ended up getting released late in an election cycle and a couple of other things.
I don't think he became anything. I think he always was and attempted to present himself as something else. some people fell for it swallowing hook, line, and sinker.
I don't think it was the left that lost their energy in the last election either. I think it's more of a burnt independent vote moving back from a position they saw as a lie. These are the people that really let the right gain seats in the last election and they were the deciding factor when Obama was elected too.
Your probably not too far off the mark though. A lot of the lame duck senators and representatives will be facing reelection in just two more years and if they take this years election as a clue, they might want to refrain from blindly supporting party lines and such. Whether it will make a difference or not is another subject matter up for debate but I'm guess they want to be reelected.
Sort of.
In the core idea of you get what you pay for- no the aren't against it. If it was only that simple, net neutrality would be pointless as all the isp's could do is give you more then you paid for. What I mean is, if you purchase a 6 meg connection from MyISP, they can't do anything or direct any actions that would cause that internet connection to be delivered under those rates. In commerce, you generally have to give a best effort to provide service if a guaranteed service level isn't stated in a contract. This means that if they restrict your communications in any way to below that level for any reason that is directly under their control or direction, they aren't giving you what you paid for. The translation to this is that if they want to contract with third parties (websites) for payment, they can only do so in order to give you more then what you paid for and if the third party refuses, they cannot restrict service to anything below what you paid for.
But in the implementation, yes, they are against the proposals so far. These proposals seem to seek to regulate everything and anything in some omnibus government coercive entitlement. The libertarians seem to be completely against that.
I tend to be against it too as all you would need is a one or two paragraph law stating that they ISP can't purposely limit the speeds of your service to below the advertised rates base on or the lack thereof payments of third parties and acts they take or direct to be taken on their behalf must be justified with an imperative need like protecting the network from attack or protecting it from damage. Throw in another line or two limiting the time span that exception is allowed to happen without a discounted service rate applying and possibly a line about infringements on the law making the consumer entitled to 5 times the amount of monthly service for each month it happens and possibly 10 times the amount or more if it's a flagrant violation.
There is no need to set up a large government panel or regulatory agency as existing ones could handle it. There is no need for complex laws pertaining to protocols or anything of the sort. And peering agreements would count as customers so even slowing third party traffic that crosses the network and is intended for delivery on another network would be outlawed.
http://www.pdfernhout.net/burdened-by-bags-of-sand.html
"This ironic story is about trying to talk the USA out of collective suicide stemming from scarcity fears and misunderstandings when the USA and the world otherwise has so much potential for abundance."
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Ah, I was looking at the city, not the county. Though even on the county WP page there's only a brief mention of the murders.
Whoever modded your original response as Troll is out of line.
Your brain is not a computer.
"Unfortunately, he got into office and concentrated on his progressive agenda instead."
You meant "conservative agenda", surely?
"The conservatives stopped trying to actually get anything done, and instead focused on a 24/7 dirty PR campaign. In an inept attempt at fighting the smear attacks, Mr. Obama sank into the same partisan bickering that he had previously railed against."
Come on, Obama (and Democrats in general) can't even start to counteract this dirty PR. Onion (as usual) is right on the mark: http://www.theonion.com/articles/democrats-if-were-gonna-lose-lets-go-down-running,18333/
about stories like this one is that both US political parties are more-than-willing whores to the Content Lords. The Tastycrats because they agree with them on other social issues and the Fingerlicans because they love them for the soulless, multinational corporations they really are.
I want to see the central government exercise few powers, while the States hold most of the power, similar to how the modern EU operates.
eu has much more federal regulation and control over members than u.s. had at any point in time. to the extent of regulatory boards doing so much regulation that, they had made an april fools' joke at one year, publishing a regulation regulating the standards of the thickness of upper and lower chicken eggs.
the standards europe is living, is due to that regulation.
im appalled that, even eu, which is TOTALLY the opposite of what the right wing nutjobs in united states want, is being used to propagate the 'no government' bullshit. either ignorance, or outright lying.
False. A limited government is one that does not exercise any powers except those granted to it by the Constitution. That style of government worked just fine from 1776 to 1900 (approximately). There were a few excursions where the US Congress overstepped its bounds, such as the Sedition Act and the Fugitive Slave Act, but for the most part it worked.
constitution, 1776, 1900. the self indulgement of you americans is really sickening. its as if nothing happened outside your country, its as if there was no other experiments that were done and succeeded, you are taking your own history and trying to apply lessons from that to entire planet.
and you dont even know your own history. nothing worked fine from 1776 until 1900. until 1800, your country was a colonization ground, rushing to colonize lands in its west, totally isolated from the world. and, trade and business wasnt as big as it was now. regulation and government was not needed at all. after all people moved, and settled on distant lands if they wanted to, in land rushes. if you didnt like the situation in an area, you would migrate. it was as simple as that.
come 1850, things changed. colonization matured, it didnt become easy to just go to a distant land with a gun, make a log cabin, plow a piece of land and then live there. business grew big, companies and corporations became big, and by 1880, almost all america risked being owned by 4 people, and everyone had to live by THEIR rules. it was the failure of the free market bullshit - something devised for 1700s standards and world, in which businesses were 'whitteley&co' level, 5-10 people enterprises, and had only power to do stuff in their locale. it was the time of globe spanning corporations bigger than countries.
if it wasnt for 'big government' that manifested itself in the form of theodore roosevelt, you americans would be probably owned by at most 2, or even 1 person in 100 years' time, living however those 1-2 people wanted you to live, for their own benefit. and no, no competition happened. no other corporation came and undid them. there was no 'choice'. ALL the choice, competition you have there today have come with the antitrust regulations and laws. even they were offset a lot, by invention of proxy corporations, big holdings, and conglomerates that span 100s of companies and brands.
yet you come and STILL advocate the same bullshit that brought your country to that point.
moreover, you say that, eu is operating like united states in 1800s. despite the fact that, before ussr had disintegrated, the ussr external affairs had to retort that, they were trying to effect a socialist revolution in europe for that long, but, european union has basically done it themselves, from the inside, and it was a curious situation.
sorry, but you dont know shit. at least dont make that stupid retort saying 'eu is like u.s. in 1700s' anywhere else, like a moron.
Read radical news here
just start with history.
roman republic history would be good. then, go with roman empire history. at the point roman empire crumbles, and migrations happen, you will see the advent of feudalism. that is the critical part in history, since it has all the parallels to this current era, with all these private property issues and whatnot. you will see that, some of what's happening today, is identical to how roman empire turned into serfdom from free citizenship, through the very mechanics of free market. (much, much more free than today's).
read extensively on advent of feudalism, and move to medieval british history, from 1066 to 1400. you will see that maybe a third of the laws, customs, methods, offices, and whatnot we have in western world today, were created in the medieval feudal britain. including the modern form of ownership of property, evolving over the farmland rights.
at that point you will have a pretty good picture of what the hell is happening on this planet, since last 500 years, and what probably will happen in future. unless, some things change radically.
Read radical news here
Patrick Leahy and the rest of Congress are a bunch of sewer rats, so this legislation should be called CLOACA (Congress Likes Obstructing Anything it Can Attack).
Not unless it's a presidential election. And even then, I defy you to point to where the electors have caused the election result to be different than the popular (hint: it didn't happen in Bush v. Gore).
Just another day in Paradise
The Net-Chinese registrar in Taiwan has accepted a service contract to register over 1,000 software piracy sites. It is just this sort of widespread abuse for which legislation like this is needed.
For the last 5 days alone, see the pirate sites listed at http://rss.uribl.com/nic/NET_CHINESE_CO_LTD_.html
For over 1,000 examples in October/November check http://spamtrackers.eu/wiki/index.php/Net-Chinese
If the US can't ensure compliance at home, how can anyone expect to convince the Taiwanese piracy sponsors?
Government officials: same as for any other job.
Career politicans: such things should not exist.
politicians, even. :/
Paul admitted it happened. The woman in question has come forward to talk about it, she says it happened. Still want to deny it?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Government officials: same as for any other job.
HAHAHAHAHAH. Oh, that's funny. I'm guessing you didn't even think through that statement, or have never had been through the process to get a job. What, are we going to have EVERY politician interviewed by EVERY voter? Even assuming that we get through that process somehow, how do we decide who is the best candidate after we finish the interviewing process? We would need to... wait for it... VOTE on it!
No, stupid. Because that's got nothing to do with what I said. Try shutting up, and reading more.