S.O.P.A

[Desolate]

I also discovered searching during a free period,

theoatmeal.com
wordpress
psn
mozilla
icanhascheezeburger
minecraft
reddit
destructoid

[Phytotron]

"Imagine a world without free knowledge" strikes me as a bit alarmist hyperbole.

/me awaits impending lecture, especially against something I didn't assert.

[kyle]

some others are listed https://github.com/SaraJo/SOPA-PIPA-Pro ... /README.md

[sinewav]

"Imagine a world without free knowledge" strikes me as a bit alarmist hyperbole.

I thought the same thing, that even the image used on the site was a bit dramatic. But in a sense, this IS very alarming. The legislation is so, so, so bad that using every means possible to get people to notice and get active is alright by me. And the problem isn't going away; it's going to be a long battle. They'll try the same thing next year, and the year after that until they have even a little success -- then they'll keep pushing for more control.

I was equally surprised by a quote from Ray Kurzweil, which I think is said somewhat jokingly but drives home a point about access to information. He said: “Better the government shut down than Wikipedia go on strike. That would be like part of my mind going on strike. Just give them [Wikipedia] whatever they want — we don’t even need to hear what it is.”

Imagine how ridiculous our government is that they want to pass a horribly intrusive bill because of big money lobbying, but they can't come to any consensus on how to fix the economy and create jobs. Unbelievable. They should all be fired.

[Word]

http://techpresident.com/news/21700/ger ... ernets-ire

Heveling wrote an incredibly dumb text, and then his site got hacked. Rumour has it that the admin pass was his first name.

[sinewav]

Well, since you are bumping...

The Best Page In The Universe

[Phytotron]

Fine, but isn't it worth mentioning that many of those on the anti-SOPA bandwagon are there because they want stuff that "[doesn't] cost the participants any inconvenience, hardship or money?" But damn well does cost many of those who created the work inconvenience, hardship, and money.


Since so many kids won't listen to actual history, facts, or thinkers, especially those that don't stroke and reinforce their preconceived notions—I'll again come back to comedian Louis C.K.: "To steal from someone and not feel bad, you either have to be a sociopath or view the act differently. One way is to remove 'Someone' from the equation. You're not stealing from a person. Big companies do a lot to help people view them as less than human. I heard a speech by Noam Chomsky who said that corporations are like super humans. They cannot be hurt like a human can and they never die. They are not susceptible to scrutiny or accountability. This makes them more profitable. If companies want to enjoy these benefits to some degree they have to live with what else comes with being not human. You miss out on compassion, forgiveness, camaraderie, empathy, trust all kinds of shit."

"Please bear in mind that I am not a company or a corporation. I'm just some guy. I paid for the production and posting of this video with my own money. I would like to be able to post more material to the fans in this way, which makes it cheaper for the buyer and more pleasant for me. So, please help me keep this being a good idea. I can't stop you from torrenting; all I can do is politely ask you to pay your five little dollars, enjoy the video, and let other people find it in the same way. "


I wonder how many of you really understand the actual origins of copyright and what it really means—despite it being right there in the word. My wager, and observation so far, is half or more of these people who argue in favor of piracy think it only has to do with claim of credit.

I continue to contend that while some people might be well-informed and have legitimate philosophical arguments and principles, the vast majority of people who oppose stuff like this are really just hopping on a justification to get free media (music, art, literature, etc.), because they believe they're entitled to it, just because they are.

I object to this bill, there are elements of it I find objectionable and even contrary to the principle of copyright itself. However, I stand by copyright, and patent, as a throughly Enlightenment concept. Ironically, those who pirate media are no better than the monarchies, churches, or printers' monopolies—or massive corporations today—that stole copyright from writers and artists and inventors in the first place. There's a reason copyright was codified in the US Constitution, and is the only clause granting power to Congress for which the means to accomplish its stated purpose are specifically provided.

Heveling wrote an incredibly dumb text....

Maybe, but I do like the line "nobody should be forbidden to live through their second puberty on Twitter. Merely, one should not elevate that to a political program." Also,

How Anonymous Sees Themselves VS. What They're Actually Like - Cracked.com

And, to tie this all up: Louis C.K. Hates Twitter

[sinewav]

I'll again come back to comedian Louis C.K.

Every time you mention this guy I wind up watching a few of his clips on youtube. But today I decided to pay $5 and get that show of his (downloading at this very moment). Guy is hilarious.

[Kijutsu]

From a man's point of view, it can be extremely difficult to tell the difference. Yes, ANY PERSON involved has the right to withdraw consent at ANY POINT IN TIME during the act, but that doesn't guarantee that the message will get across.

I've never knowingly raped a woman. That means that, to the best of my ability to discern (and I work a bit harder than your average man to determine this), no woman has ever withdrawn consent to me after which point I continued. I have had several women withdraw consent for specific acts which I was happy to oblige (one of them being my current fiance). I can always do something different, no problems there! But I can't guarantee that every woman I've been with has been completely consensual in what we did. I just can't. I know too much, now, that I didn't know when it happened. And there is specifically one situation that still haunts me, and SHE gave consent. So why should it haunt me?

If you find a girl drunk, and she's hitting on you, and you sleep with her, is it consensual? Later, you find out that she only did it because she was drunk and horny, and she'd take it back if she could, do you still feel good about it?

It's a more complicated question than it sounds, at first. Sure, there's violent forced-on-a-victim rape, and there's drugged-out-of-her-mind date rape, but then there's a whole other area. How can anybody even be completely certain they have consent?

I say that you can't know you have consent until you do it, and then the woman's RESPONSE tells you if it's consensual. If she's not into it, then she's clearly doing it for different reasons than you want. If she's into it, participating, and showing that she's really enjoying herself, or at least trying, then it's consensual. Even so, there's no black and white on this one. It really takes a relationship to determine that, beyond all shadow of a doubt. I had a woman once who showed all signs of loving it and being into it, but the lead-up told me she was doing it because it was promised. Not because she wanted. I don't know for sure, it's complicated, and when she started in, she was quite aggressive, so while saying no was an option, it clearly wasn't an option I wanted to take. So you have to have a relationship, you have to know her pretty well, and you have to know her body language. Without that, or with fake body language, you don't know what you're doing.

But what if she's faking? (Not that I've had to face THAT scenario....)

Oh god, none of what you're saying is rape. Some tramp being drunk and throwing herself at a random Joe who doesn't say no is NOT rape, that's her not having any personal responsibility. Faking it during sex, the man obviously not stopping, is not rape either. A woman later changing her mind, not rape.

[Phytotron]

I'll again come back to comedian Louis C.K.

Every time you mention this guy I wind up watching a few of his clips on youtube. But today I decided to pay $5 and get that show of his (downloading at this very moment). Guy is hilarious.

The first time I took note of him was back when he did a special called Louis C.K.'s Filthy Stupid Talent Show for Comedy Central's "Pulp Comics" series. I remember thinking, "now, this is art." I highly recommend it. And if you haven't seen Louie, you should—even if it is a TV show.

Some tramp being drunk and throwing herself at a random Joe...that's her not having any personal responsibility.

And the argument I've made is that, regardless, Joe shouldn't take advantage of that—as a matter of respect for the dignity of persons, as well as his own personal responsibility. In part because when sober she might not have agreed to it. We have consent laws—and basic morality—concerning age and mental disability because of the idea that a person (boy or girl) of a certain age (or mental disability) doesn't have sufficient faculties required to make an informed decision and give legitimate consent. And there are terms for violating that, from corruption of a minor to statutory rape.

Now, you may not want to classify taking sexual advantage of an inebriated person as rape per se, but at the least it is unethical and immoral for a guy to take advantage of a drunk female, as well as to get a female drunk or stoned specifically for that purpose of impairing her judgement. (And, yes, reverse the genders, or have them the same for that matter, and the principle is still true.) Double that when it involves teens.

Or maybe all those boys molested by priests were just asking for it. They shouldn't have been wearing those sexy little vestment dresses, either.

[Lucifer]

Some tramp being drunk and throwing herself at a random Joe...that's her not having any personal responsibility.

And the argument I've made is that, regardless, Joe shouldn't take advantage of that—as a matter of respect for the dignity of persons, as well as his own personal responsibility. In part because when sober she might not have agreed to it. We have consent laws—and basic morality—concerning age and mental disability because of the idea that a person (boy or girl) of a certain age (or mental disability) doesn't have sufficient faculties required to make an informed decision and give legitimate consent. And there are terms for violating that, from corruption of a minor to statutory rape.

Now, you may not want to classify taking sexual advantage of an inebriated person as rape per se, but at the least it is unethical and immoral for a guy to take advantage of a drunk female, as well as to get a female drunk or stoned specifically for that purpose of impairing her judgement. (And, yes, reverse the genders, or have them the same for that matter, and the principle is still true.) Double that when it involves teens.

But if both people are raging drunk, then it's different. It's not like a completely sober person taking advantage of a totally drunk person at that point.

It can be a fine line, is all I'm saying. I know a girl who was ok with the sex, but required the use of a condom. When the guy didn't use one, and then didn't take no for an answer, I considered that rape. He didn't respect her limits, and when she tried to stop him, he just reassured her and kept going, and the position prevented her from doing much about it (she doesn't know grappling, I'd have been able to throw him off....).

I know another girl who apparently has done the same trick many times: get totally drunk off her rocker, **** some guy, then claim rape because she feels guilty about the experience. Now she's the boy who cried wolf, and probably couldn't get anybody to believe her about being raped.

[Phytotron]

I object to this bill, there are elements of it I find objectionable....

What brilliant phrasing. Seemingly redundant, while technically logical, but compositionally stupid. And it treads too damn close to inadvertently employing an internet meme. "Objectionable bill is objectionable" Shit.

[qwxy]

I would permit SOPA and PIPA to filter and crush sites which contain pirated stuff like thepiratebay.org, and I would permit them to filter any site but It would be sad if they start to crush sites like google.ba, vikipedia.org, facebook.com or youtube.com. BTW, did you see what they have done to megaupload.com?
If you havent, just go and take a look:
http://www.megaupload.com
They crushed it because it contained pirated software that some individual uploaded.
That could happen to any other site which didnt contained pirated software before.
No one can control the Internet, it is proven a long time ago.
If someone can control the internet like Microsoft, then why are there so many viruses?
Most viruses spread through internet and e-mail.
The average salary of the programmer is 85.000$. They can live with it.
I think that SOPA and PIPA could be used to censor not only copyrighted material and pirated software and viruses, but to censor the internet under the cover of copyright grounds.
That is why I dislike SOPA and PIPA.

[Kijutsu]

BTW, did you see what they have done to megaupload.com?

As much as I loved MU/MV, they were breaking the law by supporting and encouraging piracy; even charging people money for it. Unless you can convince me otherwise, I see no foul play here.

[Desolate]

And yes, we did see that, I made a topic on it a little bit ago