I wouldn't be too sure. People are against SOPA because Wikipedia/Google told them to be, not because of some deep-seated ethical objections to the bill itself. Most people complaining about SOPA still support copyright despite the obvious implications for free speech, which SOPA simply took to such an extreme that some of them temporarily noticed the problem. Unfortunately, copyright and the idea that information is property is the root of this problem. As long as people can say things like, I don't know, "SOPA takes it too far, but we need to protect artists better," then we will never have an end to this. We will never have an end because the ONLY business of the RIAA and MPAA is built upon manipulating the market for a good which does not exist by bribery and legal intimidation. Until those die, and until copyright as a whole dies, things like the DMCA and SOPA/PIPA will keep being proposed and eventually, after the outcry subsides, passed.
Changing or removing information that would otherwise be available via a medium is censorship. It doesn't matter if it is the government, Google, or slashdot moderators.
Censor
an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.
I don't understand why you libertard types can't understand that not only government can violate civil rights. Corporations do it on a daily basis and we have essentially zero recourse against them in most cases, especially when a cartel or monopoly decides to violate them (like ISPs). Yet, you go around saying things like "the government didn't, as a matter of policy because of the content, take down the video," which not only missed the definition of censorship, but totally absolves private organizations of violating your rights. We are increasingly corporatist because of this bullshit line of thinking.
Copyright IS the problem. Sorry you can't see that. Physical property rights are a necessary evil to allow society to function. Making ideas property is not necessary by any stretch of the imagination, but is wholly immoral, unnecessary, and leads directly to censorship, corporatism, and global political corruption. All so you can (possibly) get some movies to watch and distract you from reality. It's not a reasonable tradeoff for society. Copyright needs to end NOW and we will not see this shit over until it is dead and buried like certain other ideas of what constitutes "property."
He was targeted because he offended the copyright industry. He is accused of doing something he did not, and should not be illegal anyway. That is why there was retaliation. If you valued freedom, you'd be calling for more. Instead, you cower and claim they "look bad" for standing up. You are despicable.
I can see you hold the same anti-science stance as the creationists I mentioned. Funny how there is so much connection between those two groups.
Basically you're the same as the people complaining about Al Gore having a private jet and thus, global warming is a lie. The fallacy is so batshit there is not even a proper name for it. The FACT is that neither Al Gore nor some climate scientists are going to make a difference, even if they decided to go live in the woods. At this point, there probably is not much difference to be made by anyone. The time to act was in the last century, yet your kin made sure that would not happen. Congrats, you were able to take your vacation to Tahiti. In 2100, Tahiti will no longer exist.
If you have ACTUAL PROOF that there is a mass conspiracy, publish it. If you have ACTUAL PROOF that global warming is not happening or is man made, publish it. In either case, you will be lauded by so many in the energy industry that you will be famous overnight. Otherwise, you're simply parroting what you have been told by talk radio about science; in which case, kindly shut the fuck up and let the adults sort out the problems of the world.
"CO2 can't possibly cause this!" - It did.
"Humans couldn't possibly cause this!" - We did.
"This isn't entirely humans!" - I am sure it isn't.
Goalposts are constantly being moved by deniers. I am sorry, science and real scientists (not people who proclaim they know better while being able to cite at most one or two studies which do not say what they are saying) do not disagree. If you do, and you believe you have a point, then go get your findings peer reviewed and published. There are literally billions of dollars in oil and coal company funding if you can actually prove this is not caused by humans to the extent currently believed. Go do it, big boy.
I'm not really qualified to be talking about it, but the explanations given by those who are sound reasonable to me. The question then is, why do you think you know better?
Pseudo-science is morons on the internet spouting off about how much they know that real scientists do not.
Half a degree Celsius is quite bigger than margin of error. It is about 1 degree F, which is well within the ability to be detected by dollar store thermometers. Stop grabbing at straws: it is happening and you were wrong, now it's too late to fix it.
Now they just claim it isn't caused by humans. Global warming deniers are the new creationists - moving goalposts every time they are proven wrong because they can't stand what science is telling them. They have zero credibility.
Funny, because a lot of real scientists disagree with you. We know humans have influenced it. It's pretty simple, really. You get into politics when you start claiming "nobody knows" when, in fact, we have a damn good idea. Are you a creationist?
Who really wanted to see these websites that badly? It's hard to be an "obstructionist asshole" if people were not really intending to use the thing you're obstructing. DoS'ing the Department of Justice is like blocking a dead end road.
Also, you are wrong, as many localities (and countries) support people's right to be "obstructionist assholes" in cases. I'll say it to you, too: you'd probably have been whining about sit-ins were you alive to have done so.
You can't steal someone's identity, since they'll still have it when you're done with it, which is a prerequisite for something to be stealing. However, you can steal their money using their identity. "Identity theft" is more shorthand for "theft of property by impersonation." Probably we shouldn't call it that, but it doesn't have the same kind of insidious undertones as equating copyright infringement to theft.
I am not embarrassed because the copyright holders have waged a legal and political war against freedom of communication for the past thirty years, largely unnoticed by the general public. It's time for a push back, and this somewhat counts as that.
Also, I disagree with the fundamental claim that anyone has a "right" to control any information. That is the underlying problem of copyright, and it's why we're seeing censorship and copyright so closely connected these days. They are the same thing.
If the creator of content can stifle creation of new works based on their work, or criticism of their works (the first has been the case since copyright's inception, the second is slowly becoming reality), that is censorship. It is preventing person A from creating something because person B created something that influenced it. That is a problem. Nothing is made in a vacuum, everything is based on prior works. I wonder what would have happened had Tolkien managed to keep control of High Elves and Dwarves...
So, just because you made something does not give you some kind of holy right to determine how it is used, nor some kind of right to profit off it; it's absurd, it's a recent invention, and it hurts us as a society to allow information to be property. Further, it isn't going to last long if this keeps up. I won't shed a tear when it is gone.
You have to look at it from the perspective of the average moron. "Oh my god, the Department of Justice got hacked!" is the thought process of many people - even if it IS just the outward site, with zero connection to any of the important underlying systems. It sounds worse than it is.
Basically, it is more embarrassing to the government. Notice that that's really all anyone is talking about in these comments. The RIAA/MPAA get hacked and DoS'd so often it isn't noteworthy.
I don't really have any issues with the WBC other than the fact they are completely insane. The way they operate makes so little sense, they offend me entirely by their disregard for causal logic.
However, I support the free speech of EVERYONE, including those I disagree with. Even the WBC. I don't think pro-lifers sitting in an abortion clinic is really comparable, it is more like them standing outside with signs, perhaps yelling at those entering. It doesn't mean that they aren't assholes, but it does mean they have the civil right to their speech. Further, there are points where legality and morality split, which I think we're definitely seeing with copyright and the anti-copyright protests, including taking down these sites.
If you only allow speech you support, it's only a matter of time until someone else gains the majority and censors you. Given you do not have the majority now, advocating censorship is insane and idiotic on the level of the WBC itself.
It shows the government is mortal. It also (repeatedly) shows that they are incompetent when it comes to technology. If people were less apathetic than you, that would mean a lot.
It's starting. Hopefully it will keep moving. We need to get this shit sorted out once and for all.
Unfortunately, instead of the revolt that is needed over copyright, we'll probably just end up with some kids in gitmo for the rest of their lives and another SOPA/PIPA copy passed in a few months.
This is a prime example of why you should never get married. Men always get screwed if it goes south, so the whole thing has essentially become a trap. Stay away.
Yes, it sends a clear message that things are already bad enough and SOPA is just the icing. The only way this is going to be resolved is to get rid of the whole system by which ideas are made property of the ultra rich. It was never intended to be that way and is not moral. It needs to end NOW. Abolish copyright and patents this decade, and we can have truly free thought for the first time in history.
That's not why I think he is crazy. I think he is crazy for advocating 18th century monetary policy and "states rights," which has basically always meant the right of southern states to remove the rights of minorities.
Yes. SOPA proves that make information property will lead to censorship inevitably, which I have been repeating for years, and twits like you have ignored. Pull your thumb out of your ass and your head out of the sand, it's time to deal with reality.
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't be too sure. People are against SOPA because Wikipedia/Google told them to be, not because of some deep-seated ethical objections to the bill itself. Most people complaining about SOPA still support copyright despite the obvious implications for free speech, which SOPA simply took to such an extreme that some of them temporarily noticed the problem. Unfortunately, copyright and the idea that information is property is the root of this problem. As long as people can say things like, I don't know, "SOPA takes it too far, but we need to protect artists better," then we will never have an end to this. We will never have an end because the ONLY business of the RIAA and MPAA is built upon manipulating the market for a good which does not exist by bribery and legal intimidation. Until those die, and until copyright as a whole dies, things like the DMCA and SOPA/PIPA will keep being proposed and eventually, after the outcry subsides, passed.
Changing or removing information that would otherwise be available via a medium is censorship. It doesn't matter if it is the government, Google, or slashdot moderators.
Censor
an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.
I don't understand why you libertard types can't understand that not only government can violate civil rights. Corporations do it on a daily basis and we have essentially zero recourse against them in most cases, especially when a cartel or monopoly decides to violate them (like ISPs). Yet, you go around saying things like "the government didn't, as a matter of policy because of the content, take down the video," which not only missed the definition of censorship, but totally absolves private organizations of violating your rights. We are increasingly corporatist because of this bullshit line of thinking.
Or they could just go to Somalia and avoid the international incident bit, but with the added bonus of pirates!
Copyright IS the problem. Sorry you can't see that. Physical property rights are a necessary evil to allow society to function. Making ideas property is not necessary by any stretch of the imagination, but is wholly immoral, unnecessary, and leads directly to censorship, corporatism, and global political corruption. All so you can (possibly) get some movies to watch and distract you from reality. It's not a reasonable tradeoff for society. Copyright needs to end NOW and we will not see this shit over until it is dead and buried like certain other ideas of what constitutes "property."
He was targeted because he offended the copyright industry. He is accused of doing something he did not, and should not be illegal anyway. That is why there was retaliation. If you valued freedom, you'd be calling for more. Instead, you cower and claim they "look bad" for standing up. You are despicable.
I can see you hold the same anti-science stance as the creationists I mentioned. Funny how there is so much connection between those two groups.
Basically you're the same as the people complaining about Al Gore having a private jet and thus, global warming is a lie. The fallacy is so batshit there is not even a proper name for it. The FACT is that neither Al Gore nor some climate scientists are going to make a difference, even if they decided to go live in the woods. At this point, there probably is not much difference to be made by anyone. The time to act was in the last century, yet your kin made sure that would not happen. Congrats, you were able to take your vacation to Tahiti. In 2100, Tahiti will no longer exist.
If you have ACTUAL PROOF that there is a mass conspiracy, publish it. If you have ACTUAL PROOF that global warming is not happening or is man made, publish it. In either case, you will be lauded by so many in the energy industry that you will be famous overnight. Otherwise, you're simply parroting what you have been told by talk radio about science; in which case, kindly shut the fuck up and let the adults sort out the problems of the world.
Here's how I see it:
"CO2 can't possibly cause this!" - It did.
"Humans couldn't possibly cause this!" - We did.
"This isn't entirely humans!" - I am sure it isn't.
Goalposts are constantly being moved by deniers. I am sorry, science and real scientists (not people who proclaim they know better while being able to cite at most one or two studies which do not say what they are saying) do not disagree. If you do, and you believe you have a point, then go get your findings peer reviewed and published. There are literally billions of dollars in oil and coal company funding if you can actually prove this is not caused by humans to the extent currently believed. Go do it, big boy.
I'm not really qualified to be talking about it, but the explanations given by those who are sound reasonable to me. The question then is, why do you think you know better?
Pseudo-science is morons on the internet spouting off about how much they know that real scientists do not.
Half a degree Celsius is quite bigger than margin of error. It is about 1 degree F, which is well within the ability to be detected by dollar store thermometers. Stop grabbing at straws: it is happening and you were wrong, now it's too late to fix it.
Now they just claim it isn't caused by humans. Global warming deniers are the new creationists - moving goalposts every time they are proven wrong because they can't stand what science is telling them. They have zero credibility.
Funny, because a lot of real scientists disagree with you. We know humans have influenced it. It's pretty simple, really. You get into politics when you start claiming "nobody knows" when, in fact, we have a damn good idea. Are you a creationist?
Who really wanted to see these websites that badly? It's hard to be an "obstructionist asshole" if people were not really intending to use the thing you're obstructing. DoS'ing the Department of Justice is like blocking a dead end road.
Also, you are wrong, as many localities (and countries) support people's right to be "obstructionist assholes" in cases. I'll say it to you, too: you'd probably have been whining about sit-ins were you alive to have done so.
You can't steal someone's identity, since they'll still have it when you're done with it, which is a prerequisite for something to be stealing. However, you can steal their money using their identity. "Identity theft" is more shorthand for "theft of property by impersonation." Probably we shouldn't call it that, but it doesn't have the same kind of insidious undertones as equating copyright infringement to theft.
I am not embarrassed because the copyright holders have waged a legal and political war against freedom of communication for the past thirty years, largely unnoticed by the general public. It's time for a push back, and this somewhat counts as that.
Also, I disagree with the fundamental claim that anyone has a "right" to control any information. That is the underlying problem of copyright, and it's why we're seeing censorship and copyright so closely connected these days. They are the same thing.
If the creator of content can stifle creation of new works based on their work, or criticism of their works (the first has been the case since copyright's inception, the second is slowly becoming reality), that is censorship. It is preventing person A from creating something because person B created something that influenced it. That is a problem. Nothing is made in a vacuum, everything is based on prior works. I wonder what would have happened had Tolkien managed to keep control of High Elves and Dwarves...
So, just because you made something does not give you some kind of holy right to determine how it is used, nor some kind of right to profit off it; it's absurd, it's a recent invention, and it hurts us as a society to allow information to be property. Further, it isn't going to last long if this keeps up. I won't shed a tear when it is gone.
You have to look at it from the perspective of the average moron. "Oh my god, the Department of Justice got hacked!" is the thought process of many people - even if it IS just the outward site, with zero connection to any of the important underlying systems. It sounds worse than it is.
Basically, it is more embarrassing to the government. Notice that that's really all anyone is talking about in these comments. The RIAA/MPAA get hacked and DoS'd so often it isn't noteworthy.
I don't really have any issues with the WBC other than the fact they are completely insane. The way they operate makes so little sense, they offend me entirely by their disregard for causal logic.
However, I support the free speech of EVERYONE, including those I disagree with. Even the WBC. I don't think pro-lifers sitting in an abortion clinic is really comparable, it is more like them standing outside with signs, perhaps yelling at those entering. It doesn't mean that they aren't assholes, but it does mean they have the civil right to their speech. Further, there are points where legality and morality split, which I think we're definitely seeing with copyright and the anti-copyright protests, including taking down these sites.
If you only allow speech you support, it's only a matter of time until someone else gains the majority and censors you. Given you do not have the majority now, advocating censorship is insane and idiotic on the level of the WBC itself.
It shows the government is mortal. It also (repeatedly) shows that they are incompetent when it comes to technology. If people were less apathetic than you, that would mean a lot.
It serves to embarrass the supporters of these laws, and to some extent, show how incompetent they are in internet matters.
I bet you would have complained about sit-ins in the civil rights era.
It's starting. Hopefully it will keep moving. We need to get this shit sorted out once and for all.
Unfortunately, instead of the revolt that is needed over copyright, we'll probably just end up with some kids in gitmo for the rest of their lives and another SOPA/PIPA copy passed in a few months.
Wake up, now is the time to stand up.
This is a prime example of why you should never get married. Men always get screwed if it goes south, so the whole thing has essentially become a trap. Stay away.
Conversely, if they sign your public key, you might as well have sex with them. This could be quite uneasy for all those Linux developers.
Yes, it sends a clear message that things are already bad enough and SOPA is just the icing. The only way this is going to be resolved is to get rid of the whole system by which ideas are made property of the ultra rich. It was never intended to be that way and is not moral. It needs to end NOW. Abolish copyright and patents this decade, and we can have truly free thought for the first time in history.
That's not why I think he is crazy. I think he is crazy for advocating 18th century monetary policy and "states rights," which has basically always meant the right of southern states to remove the rights of minorities.
Yes. SOPA proves that make information property will lead to censorship inevitably, which I have been repeating for years, and twits like you have ignored. Pull your thumb out of your ass and your head out of the sand, it's time to deal with reality.