1911 Beta

by **mg_** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 5:21 am

Hey, bro, if you don't have anything to hide from the government, then why not let me search your car?

by **ThatsRight** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:46 am

seaN wrote:

Never mess with Americans guns, alcohol, TV, phones, food, or Internet. That's when we get mad and might do something~

Bread and Circuses" is a metaphor for a superficial means of appeasement. It was the basic Roman formula for the well-being of the population, and hence a political strategy unto itself. In the case of politics, the phrase is used to describe the creation of public approval, not through exemplary or excellent public service or public policy, but through diversion, distraction, and/or the mere satisfaction of the immediate, shallow requirements of a populace

by **seaNsk** » Sun Jan 22, 2012 11:11 pm

by **ThatsRight** » Sun Jan 22, 2012 8:02 am

The thing that bugs me is the fact that people who download stuff through torrent, p2p, etc. act like they aren't stealing.

Fraud triangle: Rationalization.

"They are rich millionaires, so I can steal from them because they won't miss it".

I think that its just so widespread that people think nothing of it. But really, it's not any different than stealing a peice of clothing from a store.

by **mg_** » Sun Jan 22, 2012 3:00 am

The thing that bugs me is the fact that people who download stuff through torrent, p2p, etc. act like they aren't stealing. It is weird. I've only ever met 1 person who has been intellectually honest about it, and he downloads because he can.

It doesn't mean SOPA or PIPA are good laws. Hell, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is crap too.

by **lerfooled** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 4:15 pm

don't know if this is relevant(anymore) or true but i found it interesting.
hmm idk how to attach vid to post oh well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJIuYgIv ... re=related

by **mg_** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 12:51 pm

seaN wrote:
mg_ wrote:
scorch- wrote:Don't forget the additional risk of building fires associated with smoking indoors. It's bad enough that you want to try to form malignant tumors in your own body... but you want to try to do the same for other people and get upset when they tell you to stop?
It really does blow my mind. I don't want to smell or inhale someone else's cigarette smoke. The fact people think their "right to smoke" trumps my right not to smoke is hilarious.

The only place I care to smoke indoors publicly is a bar. And... You really have to understand that I don't feel that my rights to smoke trump your rights not to smoke, Its your decision. I just want to drink my beer and have a cig without having to go stand outside. At any actual restaurant its understandable why they would pass what they did. There is a bigger customer base that doesn't smoke than who does. It just sucks for going to bars in my eyes, that's about it.

It was introduced into law in Lawrence when I was doing my undergrad, most bars had outdoor patios anyway, so, it was kablamo, but man, it was great when I could sit inside without doing it. And I love a cigarette with a beer, but I just don't need to be in it 24/7.

It's such a non-issue from where I've lived at this point.

by **seaNsk** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 9:46 am

mg_ wrote:
scorch- wrote:Don't forget the additional risk of building fires associated with smoking indoors. It's bad enough that you want to try to form malignant tumors in your own body... but you want to try to do the same for other people and get upset when they tell you to stop?
It really does blow my mind. I don't want to smell or inhale someone else's cigarette smoke. The fact people think their "right to smoke" trumps my right not to smoke is hilarious.

The only place I care to smoke indoors publicly is a bar. And... You really have to understand that I don't feel that my rights to smoke trump your rights not to smoke, Its your decision. I just want to drink my beer and have a cig without having to go stand outside. At any actual restaurant its understandable why they would pass what they did. There is a bigger customer base that doesn't smoke than who does. It just sucks for going to bars in my eyes, that's about it.

by **Sears** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 12:37 am

by **Rambizzle** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 11:03 pm

by **Sears** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 7:00 pm

Rambizzle wrote:

by **Rambizzle** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 6:54 pm

alex kirk wrote:Ricky is going to fucking kill himself when he can't post anymore gifs/memes because they'll all be copied content.

by **Sears** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 6:29 pm

[youtube]4difPEQ8wA4[/youtube]

by **stealthlol** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 5:03 pm

Oh, and SOPA down.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/20/technol ... postponed/

by **stealthlol** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 4:51 pm

More like why you don't let fat cats on your furniture.

by **Swiss** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 2:13 pm

defiance wrote:
CharlieGiteau wrote:Oh I'm not a smoker; never have been and never will be. It may have been a public initiative, but it's law and now enforced by government entities. I just don't see how it's fair to small business owners. People have the decision on what places to patron, right?

this is a perfect example of why fat people dont work out

by **ThatsRight** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 1:46 pm

No place of business is allowed to have smoking inside their building. Even bars are included. Designated smoking areas are outside and businesses will be fined if they receive complaints and it is proven they're allowing it to happen. It's quite crazy actually

They've had the same law in Michigan since some time in 2010 or so. It's a fantastic law. No more eating a meal in a restaurant with the "smoking section" 10 feet away. Although, the bars think it hurts their business, and I'm sure it does. I don't remember exactly, but I'm pretty sure the casinos got it so they can still have smoking inside though.

The fact people think their "right to smoke" trumps my right not to smoke is hilarious.

Agreed.

by **mg_** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 1:40 pm

CharlieGiteau wrote:Oh I'm not a smoker; never have been and never will be. It may have been a public initiative, but it's law and now enforced by government entities. I just don't see how it's fair to small business owners. People have the decision on what places to patron, right?

Except people who work in those places don't necessarily want to put up with it. It's not just patronage.

by **defiance** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 11:46 am

CharlieGiteau wrote:Oh I'm not a smoker; never have been and never will be. It may have been a public initiative, but it's law and now enforced by government entities. I just don't see how it's fair to small business owners. People have the decision on what places to patron, right?

by **CharlieGiteau** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 11:45 am

Oh I'm not a smoker; never have been and never will be. It may have been a public initiative, but it's law and now enforced by government entities. I just don't see how it's fair to small business owners. People have the decision on what places to patron, right?

by **mg_** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 11:45 am

[youtube]wVY7qDjrPZk[/youtube]

by **kirk** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 11:21 am

mg_ wrote:
scorch- wrote:Don't forget the additional risk of building fires associated with smoking indoors. It's bad enough that you want to try to form malignant tumors in your own body... but you want to try to do the same for other people and get upset when they tell you to stop?
It really does blow my mind. I don't want to smell or inhale someone else's cigarette smoke. The fact people think their "right to smoke" trumps my right not to smoke is hilarious.

[youtube]Q65KZIqay4E[/youtube]

by **mg_** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 10:06 am

scorch- wrote:Don't forget the additional risk of building fires associated with smoking indoors. It's bad enough that you want to try to form malignant tumors in your own body... but you want to try to do the same for other people and get upset when they tell you to stop?

It really does blow my mind. I don't want to smell or inhale someone else's cigarette smoke. The fact people think their "right to smoke" trumps my right not to smoke is hilarious.

by **scorch-** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 10:01 am

Don't forget the additional risk of building fires associated with smoking indoors. It's bad enough that you want to try to form malignant tumors in your own body... but you want to try to do the same for other people and get upset when they tell you to stop?

by **mg_** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 9:49 am

Besides, the smoking ban was a referendum created by public initiative. So, it has nothing to do with government going to far. It's like the exact opposite. 60% of Ohio residents don't want smoking inside buildings and businesses that are public or serve a public purpose.

by **mg_** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 9:45 am

CharlieGiteau wrote:
scorch- wrote:
CharlieGiteau wrote:...the smoking ban in buildings in Ohio...
huh?
No place of business is allowed to have smoking inside their building. Even bars are included. Designated smoking areas are outside and businesses will be fined if they receive complaints and it is proven they're allowing it to happen. It's quite crazy actually.

Uh, it's not crazy. There is no constitutional right to smoke. Given that smoking actually causes health problems and is a physical irritant to people and the fact you equate this to some sort of constitutional right like freedom of speech pretty much epitomizes why I find libertarians and conservatives to be absolutely worthless people.

by **CharlieGiteau** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 9:43 am

scorch- wrote:
CharlieGiteau wrote:...the smoking ban in buildings in Ohio...
huh?

No place of business is allowed to have smoking inside their building. Even bars are included. Designated smoking areas are outside and businesses will be fined if they receive complaints and it is proven they're allowing it to happen. It's quite crazy actually.

by **scorch-** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 9:32 am

CharlieGiteau wrote:...the smoking ban in buildings in Ohio...

huh?

by **mg_** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 6:29 am

Real big shock to you, but the best thing the PATRIOT Act did was simply aggregate all the current disparate laws affecting your rights. PATRIOT Act isn't a new or novel attack on your rights, most of that stuff was law before it.

That's the scary part.

by **CharlieGiteau** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 5:57 am

In my opinion, the bottom line is this:

They want to battle file sharing, piracy, etc. The problem being is that they want to be lazy about it because the way it is enforced now is both ineffective and time consuming. There's still a major problem of hard copy piracy down on the city streets (ethically diverse individual with a table selling what you know is copied content). This was an easy out for them in terms of the "not so hard copy" section.

The patriot act james cited, along with this, and not to mention the smoking ban in buildings in Ohio, are all examples of regulation/legislation by the govt going too far. They do the whole fear mongering thing and people vote the shit in, or vote in legislators who will.

by **Sym** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 12:25 am

It's not like it matters. I mean, ya, the bill lost supporters and will probably be tabled and die. But then what? What stops them from just throwing it in as a rider to some appropriations bill for homeless orphan funding? What all this anti-sopa/pipa gnashing of teeth should have done is take support of a separate bill that enshrines the 'speech' everyone is blabbering about. I don't fault Reh for feeling less than encouraged by the 'protest'. For any internet-citizen it was basically an unofficial holiday. And that's part of the issue.

Taking down your 200-hit-a-month website to 'show solidarity' is petty and useless. To anyone who was watching it became clear the only reason it bumped into the national arena was because wikipedia backed it. ~Everybody~ uses wikipedia. But 'the internet' has been fighting against SOPA/PIPA for MONTHS and now I start seeing all these blogs and articles run victory laps and hand out their "I was there" buttons to one another. It's frustrating because i'm not against killing the bill, i am in absolute favor of that, but killing the bill is just a STEP. And if anyone is looking to take that next step it certainly hasn't crossed my radar. It's just frustrating to see so many platforms for meaningful agency and action put their blinders up after they--basically--achieved the goal of not shitting all over themselves.

And this goes to the group everyone keeps calling "anonymous" too (it's like saying the team of 'white' or the clan of 'tall', it's a description not a title). Taking down the doj.gov or riaa.com is like taking a dump in front of their office door. It might keep people from going in for a little while, but then they call the janitor and clean it up and things go back to normal. I feel like i'm going to explode because it's obvious these people want to 'make a difference' and strike against 'the man' but they have no idea how to do so and seem completely ignorant to the fact. But what more can you expect from a nameless group of ever-changing members spawned from a teen imageboard? At least lulzsec hacked shit.

by **Swiss** » Thu Jan 19, 2012 11:32 pm

well after the shutdown of megaupload and the arrest of its operators, anonymous moved tonight. around 7pm Department of Justice, Recording Industry Association of America, Motion Picture Association of America, and Universal Music group (and others) All Offline... reports say that Anon is working to shutdown the FBI site next.

as of right now most of those sites are back up

http://gizmodo.com/5877679/anonymous-ki ... nge-strike

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/20 ... indictment

by **ThatsRight** » Thu Jan 19, 2012 5:08 am

That's because people in fear demanded to be "protected". I don't think the general public will demand what Mitch described because they aren't being manipulated constantly about how danger lurks in every corner.

Ahhh, the classic create a problem and then offer the "solution" that you wanted to begin with.

by **james-** » Thu Jan 19, 2012 12:24 am

The patriot act took a giant shit on the country as well.

That passed no problem.

by **ThatsRight** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:51 pm

Meh, from what you describe I don't think it has a very high chance of ever actually happening. It basically takes a giant

[youtube]Gj8h6nka8RM[/youtube]

on the country.

by **fghtffyrdmns** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:21 pm

by **defiance** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:52 pm

SOPA explained in gif format

by **mg_** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:39 pm

Well, the single greatest one is the fact any individual claiming (hint: doesn't necessarily have to have one) can make application to have the website taken offline simply petitioning the Attorney General of the United States, who is then authorized by PIPA/SOPA to conduct an ex parte hearing on the matter (hint: just decide by himself), and it forbids the Courts from reviewing and interfering from the conduct.

First, it's a prior restraint on speech. You can't be denied the right to post content or state stuff without a court hearing (hint: in front of a judge) to vindicate your rights. Second, there is no grounds to prevent flimsy, spurious, or downright false claims against competitors or those you simply don't like. More over, it authorizes the U.S. Attorney General to shut down sites outside of the United States. Domain names such as .fr, .uk, etc. are all caught in this net. So long as the copyright or trademark holder petitions the government, then it can begin action. It is nonsensical to think foreign domains can be brought in under U.S. copyright law in such a ridiculous manner.

In layman's terms: you can't just issue a government order to shut down a website in a private ex parte hearing. You might as well deny a human being the right to speak in public without telling him the rationale or provision of the opportunity to vindicate his constitutionally protected speech rights.

It should say something when the Congressional Research Service looks at something and blushes and states the bill is pretty crappy in terms of constitutionality. Which it did.

I don't do the whole "download illegally" thing. Not my bag. I do respect someone's copyright, trademark, patent, etc. However, this is such a farce in the other direction it blows my mind. There is this thing about the hierarchy of rules and laws. My constitutional rights trump another person's intellectual property rights (a statutorily created property right). The freedom of speech is antecedent to the laws establishing copyright and trademark.

Basically, PIPA and SOPA should go eat a

by **james-** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 3:53 pm

Reh wrote:
errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...... So the plan here is to stop SOPA/PIPA by not buying records or movies and instead pirating them?
Quite frankly, I don't know much about them or this situation in general. I do know that stealing has been rampant my entire life. So, maybe these the SOPA/PIPA groups are actually in the right. I don't know. My original post was mainly just about people in general always complain about special interest groups whether it be in farming or banking or whatever.

Is there a real argument against SOPA/PIPA, or is it basically people just wanting to continue to steal at will? I don't know.

Because yes, obviously stealing more and more to hit them where it hurts isn't an effective way to make them back off on pursuing protection of their assets.

by **ThatsRight** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:17 pm

wellz dont pop two many blood vessels because you might end up with a mushy brain like mine thats scene one to many mushroomssss

let this bee a lessun to you kidz

by **Sears** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:15 pm

alex kirk wrote:Ricky is going to fucking kill himself when he can't post anymore gifs/memes because they'll all be copied content.

I IP banned him, not a problem...

by **Sears** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:14 pm

Oh good god... I'm leaving this one to the mitch graham/dan schey braintrust before I pop a blood vessel.

by **ThatsRight** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:08 pm

errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...... So the plan here is to stop SOPA/PIPA by not buying records or movies and instead pirating them?

Quite frankly, I don't know much about them or this situation in general. I do know that stealing has been rampant my entire life. So, maybe these the SOPA/PIPA groups are actually in the right. I don't know. My original post was mainly just about people in general always complain about special interest groups whether it be in farming or banking or whatever.

Is there a real argument against SOPA/PIPA, or is it basically people just wanting to continue to steal at will? I don't know.

Because yes, obviously stealing more and more to hit them where it hurts isn't an effective way to make them back off on pursuing protection of their assets.

by **scorch-** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:00 pm

errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...... So the plan here is to stop SOPA/PIPA by not buying records or movies and instead pirating them?

by **kirk** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:59 pm

Ricky is going to fucking kill himself when he can't post anymore gifs/memes because they'll all be copied content.

by **ThatsRight** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:50 pm

I don't think the world will ever be some magical equal fun place.

What I meant is things get done from aggressive action. Get out and do something about it instead of crying woe is me the big bad interest groups call the shots.

I am a firm believer in corrective action. Identify the problem and work towards a solution. Pointing out the problem and doing nothing is useless. Of course nothing is fixed easily or over night, but always trend in the right direction.

If I'm not mistaken many of the amendments to the constitution were pushed through pretty fast because they were huge issues that drew tons of outrage.

I don't follow politics because the two party system is nothing but a sham, but money talks. If "XYZ" media corporation was pushing for something shitty with a special interest group and the people threw their anger at them by taking their money elsewhere in mass, I think they back down. It's not just about voting the people out of office.

Do people know who the special interest groups are? All i ever hear is OH THE SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS THE SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS. Well, who are they? Find out who they are, and hit them where it hurts if their policies they lobby for are so destructive to you. That may take a little research and effort, but I bet the average American would start to get what they wanted more often beause they actually took an active roll in making it happen.

by **Sears** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:30 pm

Reh wrote:
It's a shame if only the majority of people had enough money to get the ears of their elected representatives.
The majority could get what they wanted if they were intelligent enough to be involved and demand it. Special interest groups get what they want because they actively pursue what's in their best interests. The average American sits and does nothing. They do not know anything about anything that goes on.

People will say that powerful business interests or media are getting their way....but what would happen if the majority of people said that any group that is found to be associated with this will lose financial support? I bet those groups, be it media, or what ever, will back off in a hurry.

Any company/group/what ever can be brought down by voting with your wallet.

Holy delusion.

It would be cute (fucking awesome) if this were true, but good lord if you actually believe that average persons ("majority") can compete ("get what they want") with special interests simply by "being intelligent enough to be involved and demand it", you are out of your fucking mind.

Have you really convinced yourself that if everyone was just as smart as you were that the world would be utopia of equality?

Do some mushrooms, wake up bro.

by **ThatsRight** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:47 pm

It's a shame if only the majority of people had enough money to get the ears of their elected representatives.

The majority could get what they wanted if they were intelligent enough to be involved and demand it. Special interest groups get what they want because they actively pursue what's in their best interests. The average American sits and does nothing. They do not know anything about anything that goes on.

People will say that powerful business interests or media are getting their way....but what would happen if the majority of people said that any group that is found to be associated with this will lose financial support? I bet those groups, be it media, or what ever, will back off in a hurry.

Any company/group/what ever can be brought down by voting with your wallet.

by **scorch-** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 11:01 am

My representative is retiring this year, so my county can't even throw the I'M GONNA VOTE FOR SOMEONE ELSE fear into his heart.

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Wikipedia SOPA/PIPA