Reply to: anyone boycotting godaddy ?

[wim121]

I dont use godaddy, so nothing to boycott.

However I am strongly against SOPA as well. All we need to do is give free legal aid to plantiffs who have issued take down requests.

Current systems work. Someone steals your content and edits out your copywright mark, so you issue a takedown request. The problem is this works most of the time, except for one or two rogue sites. If the creator of the content then wants to sue them, often money is a hurdle.

I like the oatmeals SOPA blackout, one of the most entertaining so far.

TheOatmeal.com blacked out in protest of SOPA / PIPA - The Oatmeal

[doodab]

Interesting to witness Doodab's increasing vulgarity as time goes on. Perhaps an inverse relation to the level in the wine bottle?
If you seriously think that calling someone an idiot is the same level as spewing a series of profanity, then you're right we're as bad as each other.

I wonder if that new tag is his invention? No doubt the mods will be able to tell.

Despite all your pompous whinging about vulgarity the fact is that you started the name calling and you have singularly failed to contribute anything other arrogance, rudeness and insults, whereas I have actually bothered to answer your stupid questions. Despite your own rudeness and arrogance, it seems the only reason you can imagine for someone taking a dislike to your manner is that they are drunk. As it is, I haven't had a drink for several weeks as to do so would probably involve a visit to the hospital, so you will have to look a little closer to home for an explanation.

So far, in addition to insulting your lack of intelligence I have called you an uptight twat, a hypocritical knob and a rude, arrogant little pillock. I'm happy to stand by all of those statements in much the same way as you are happy to call me a prick, small minded, idiot etc. The increasing level of vulgarity actually correlates with your increasing level of determined self righteous idiocy, which personally I find much more offensive than a few naughty words.

The only tag I've put on there is "too stupid to google" BTW. The others are presumably from people who agree with me.

[d000hg]

Interesting to witness Doodab's increasing vulgarity as time goes on. Perhaps an inverse relation to the level in the wine bottle?
If you seriously think that calling someone an idiot is the same level as spewing a series of profanity, then you're right we're as bad as each other.

I wonder if that new tag is his invention? No doubt the mods will be able to tell.

[NickFitz]

Nick, do you think all these things anti-SOPA people are claiming can happen if SOPA went though, actually would? People do seem rather rabid about it, which risks their claims being a little extreme.

The things people are writing remind me of this: Scroogled - a short story by Cory Doctorow. Tinfoil on standby...

edit: to clarify obviously it will be used on clearly dodgy sites, but does anyone really believe a site like CUK would be taken down (sorry Doodab I know you're easily confused) have it's DNS blocked simply because someone made a complaint

Excellent story by Doctorow - I hadn't had the pleasure of reading that one before

As to your question: history teaches us that when organisations are given extraordinary powers, they tend to end up exercising them, often in extraordinary ways that were not envisaged when said powers were originally granted.

Or, more succinctly: I wouldn't trust those corporate bastards one inch.

Still, in the interests of balance, here's what seems like a pretty good summary of the history of the relevant industries' interactions with various new technologies, from player piano rolls to TV: the author promises a second part about more recent technologies, but doesn't seem to have got around to writing that yet. However his blog seems to have a lot of information on the subject generally, and SOPA/PIPA in particular. I have no idea of his credentials beyond what's on his "About" page: 100 years of Copyright and Disruptive Technology | Copyhype

[doodab]

So what?

So the site isn't "taken down" is it. It's still there on the internet and accessible to anyone with the IP address. The proposed DNS tinkering could easily be circumvented by something as simple as a hosts file or use of an overseas DNS server, so the proposed measures wouldn't even work.

Wrong again. You can keep saying it if it makes you feel better. I read about it earlier this week and started a thread on the subject, actually. You seem to think not knowing the precise details how they block access to a site is the important thing... which is typical of a small-minded programmer with an inability to interact with other humans - you remind me rather of Richard Stallman refusing to answer questions on, or admit to the existence of, "Linux".

And there you go with another one of your weasel insults. Are snide digs what you consider the sign of a cultured thinker? I suppose it must be because it's clear that being able to research things or string together a coherent argument isn't something you value highly. If you want to insult someone, at least be a man about it.

In this case the precise details of how they block the sites is a pretty important thing, because they are specified in the bill and those are the main grounds on which serious technical issues have been raised, as opposed to the arm waving it'll kill the internet ones. Joe public might not care how or why a site is inaccessible but the people who need to implement these measures do, and if you want to have an informed debate about it then you kind of need to understand as well.

So, you play the "I know but I'm not telling" card if it helps you feel like the big man. I'll just sit happy I resisted being dragged down to your level.

edit: In the interests of accuracy, on closer inspection I did refer to you as an idiot. Oh well. A slight slip.

If you think you're being dragged down to my level you are upside down.

The answer by the way is no, the measures aren't permanent. The bill proposes a mechanism under which a sanctioned site can apply to have sanctions lifted. I'm only telling you this out of pity because I figure you really are too stupid to work it out for yourself.

[doodab]

A bad analogy. It would be more like closing down the street so nobody can get in or out, no?

Although - does SOPA allow them to permanently take down sites, full-stop? Or to take them down "until a proper investigation can be performed" - which might take years but is nonetheless temporary, officially? If the latter is a proposed maximum time period stipulated, similar to how we can hold suspected terrorists without charging them for a few weeks?

Are you boycotting google as well?

What in this thread made you think I was boycotting anyone? Or were you quoting me and aiming that at the OP?

The list of questions that google could have answered for you.

I bet you felt SO clever typing that. Of course the fact that searching for such information which addresses my specific question would take a couple of hours, rather than someone on CUK posting an answer in 10s, is irrelevant, when there's a "wit" like you around.

Well here we are 3 hours later and no one has posted an answer. Perhaps they assumed that as you felt you were in a position to criticise NF's analogy and make one of your own, you might have the slightest clue what you were talking about and therefore typing "What is SOPA?" into google on your behalf wasn't necessary.

As an aside, if typing "What is SOPA?" into google takes you a couple of hours you might want to seek help. Perhaps from the person treating your total sense of humour failure?

When my question is "what is SOPA" then your attempt to be cutting would be slightly less moronic. I know that SOPA allows sites to be taken down without proper legal process as we normally understand it, but my question was probably a bit too subtle for you.

In case you forgot from trying so hard to be funny, the question was "do the proposed laws mean they take the sites down permanently, or 'temporarily' while the matter is investigated. That is not something you can ask Google, and it's clearly something you don't know the answer to. It requires an intimate knowledge of the proposal that only someone who studied the subject rather than parroting what they read on Twitter would have.

As an aside - if you think that typing something into Google and understanding the answer take the same amount of time, then you're even thicker than your 'jokes' suggest.

Oh get over yourself you uptight twat. I made a joke at your expense, you didn't actually get, it so I explained it to you.

FWIW, what you think you know is actually wrong, as SOPA doesn't actually allow for sites to be "taken down" at all. It was to create a new "proper legal process" to allow the US justice department to require US companies to sever commercial ties with foreign sites hosting illegal material, for US ISPs to block access to them to US subscribers, and for US search engines to remove links to them.



I don't read anything on twitter. I do however know how to use google to find things, and I know how to read.

Had you even bothered to try you would know that in fact your question is something you can ask google. I know this, because I asked google and google took me to the subject matter. Which is how come I know the answer to your question. Of course I'm not going to tell you, simply because I think someone as rude, arrogant & lazy as you might benefit from doing his own research for a change. Who knows, you might even become confident enough to use google yourself in future.

You finally got me to laugh, that YOU would call ME arrogant & rude after your posts in this thread. I take it all back, you can make a joke.


Seriously though, you're being rather a prick. Maybe come back to CUK when the booze wears of, OK?

Why would someone spend hours reading about something they have a slight interest in, when they could ask people who are far more interested and can simply answer the question. I note you still haven't answered my actual question because you don't know the answer. Idiots like you think posting a link to wiki or some other original source counts as an answer, but the entire point of my question is to ask what it MEANS.

Just admit you don't know, there's a good girl.

I have answered your question, indirectly. Under the act, the sites cannot be "taken down" at all, because that isn't what the act allows for.

Why do you assume that it would take hours of reading to find that out without even bothering to try? Are you lazy or have you had a bad experience trying to understand things for yourself before? Are you a slow witted illiterate? You are doing a damn fine impersonation of one.

What is amusing is that you call me an idiot, then complain that I haven't put the answer in sufficiently simple terms for you

Sorry but posting a link to the bill or the wiki page isn't an answer. And your clarification on "taking down" sites, while illuminating, is NOT an answer either. You seem fixated that I'm asking "what is SOPA", when I'm not. My question "is this permanent" applies just the same to your clarification.

Given that the wiki entry on SOPA is 19 pages and nearly 10 thousand words long, your assertion that anyone who has a question on SOPA should read the entire thing is rather asinine.

If something cannot happen, it cannot be a permanent state of affairs. That you need this clarifying pretty much sums up why I think you need some practice figuring out the answers to simple questions for yourself.



Your wilful misunderstanding of everything I try and get through your thick skull is asinine. I never suggested that anyone with a question should read the wiki entry on SOPA. I suggested that someone who didn't appear to understand what SOPA actually was might like to try and find out.

Assuming you aren't in fact an illiterate moron (at this point that's a serious leap of faith) you can skim the bill in less time than you have wasted arguing with me. Not only would this provide you with all of the answers you seek, it will save you from repeatedly demonstrating your stupidity to the entire world.

I think it's safe to assume that you will never really know, for the simple reason you are too lazy and stupid to read the answer even if it were tattooed onto the inside of your eyelids.

Give it up Doodab. It's pretty clear that exactly how they deal with sites doesn't make my question invalid. To the common punter, if a web-address doesn't resolve then the site has been 'taken down'.

Since you seem unable to extrapolate, let's rephrase... does SOPA mean <whatever it is they do> would be permanent, or a temporary action while they examine the authenticity of the claims being made, or until the site fixes whatever it is that was complained about?

Care to drag your superior mind back from making personal insults and embarrassing yourself? Or is clinging to pedantic details more important to you?

To the common punter outside of the US it is quite possible that it would appear that nothing has happened as the web address would continue to resolve.



You are a hypocritical little knob. Or do I need to remind you that in recent posts you've called me thick, moronic, a prick, an idiot and so on?

I'm quite capable of extrapolating, from the fact that you are too lazy to bother to find out what SOPA is in the first place I've extrapolated that you are too stupid to answer your own question and are now hoping that someone takes pity on you.

Which leads me on to a statement of the obvious, which is unfortunately required given your level of dimwittedness. Why do you think I or anyone else would want to help you answer your question, when you are a rude, arrogant little pillock who has consistently proven himself too lazy to even try and answer it himself? The reason I haven't told you the answer isn't because I can't, it's because I don't want to, for the simple reason that you are a ****.

I said you were being a prick, and implied (maybe said, I don't recall) that the things you said in this thread were stupid. That those things are true is a matter for public record in this thread, it's a sure sign of an uncultured thinker that they quickly let a discussion deteriorate into personal attacks on the other's character rather than what they are saying in that discussion. Though from this little dalliance, I have to admit that I am left with the impression that you are somewhat of a prick.

OK so there we have your public record, in more useful form. I made you a joke, which I explained to you because you didn't get it, and you then proceeded to get your knickers in such a twist that topologists will need to think of a special name for it. Given that you have repeatedly argued that you shouldn't have to bother to lift a finger yourself and you consistently imply that comprehending the actual source materials is somehow difficult I think my characterisation of you as lazy and stupid is rather accurate. FWIW, I'd rather be an uncultured thinker than a cultured idiot.

You started the name calling BTW, you uncultured thinker you.

[d000hg]

To the common punter outside of the US it is quite possible that it would appear that nothing has happened as the web address would continue to resolve.

So what?

You are a hypocritical little knob. Or do I need to remind you that in recent posts you've called me thick, moronic, a prick, an idiot and so on?

I said you were being a prick, and implied (maybe said, I don't recall) that the things you said in this thread were stupid. That those things are true is a matter for public record in this thread, it's a sure sign of an uncultured thinker that they quickly let a discussion deteriorate into personal attacks on the other's character rather than what they are saying in that discussion. Though from this little dalliance, I have to admit that I am left with the impression that you are somewhat of a prick.

I'm quite capable of extrapolating, from the fact that you are too lazy to bother to find out what SOPA is in the first place

Wrong again. You can keep saying it if it makes you feel better. I read about it earlier this week and started a thread on the subject, actually. You seem to think not knowing the precise details how they block access to a site is the important thing... which is typical of a small-minded programmer with an inability to interact with other humans - you remind me rather of Richard Stallman refusing to answer questions on, or admit to the existence of, "Linux".

So, you play the "I know but I'm not telling" card if it helps you feel like the big man. I'll just sit happy I resisted being dragged down to your level.

edit: In the interests of accuracy, on closer inspection I did refer to you as an idiot. Oh well. A slight slip.

[mudskipper]

.

[doodab]

Give it up Doodab. It's pretty clear that exactly how they deal with sites doesn't make my question invalid. To the common punter, if a web-address doesn't resolve then the site has been 'taken down'.

To the common punter outside of the US it is quite possible that it would appear that nothing has happened as the web address would continue to resolve.

Since you seem unable to extrapolate, let's rephrase... does SOPA mean <whatever it is they do> would be permanent, or a temporary action while they examine the authenticity of the claims being made, or until the site fixes whatever it is that was complained about?

Care to drag your superior mind back from making personal insults and embarrassing yourself?

You are a hypocritical little knob. Or do I need to remind you that in recent posts you've called me thick, moronic, a prick, an idiot and so on?

I'm quite capable of extrapolating, from the fact that you are too lazy to bother to find out what SOPA is in the first place I've extrapolated that you are too stupid to answer your own question and are now hoping that someone takes pity on you.

Which leads me on to a statement of the obvious, which is unfortunately required given your level of dimwittedness. Why do you think I or anyone else would want to help you answer your question, when you are a rude, arrogant little pillock who has consistently proven himself too lazy to even try and answer it himself? The reason I haven't told you the answer isn't because I can't, it's because I don't want to, for the simple reason that you are a ****.

[mrdonuts]

fu ck SOPA what about the Elephants

[d000hg]

Give it up Doodab. It's pretty clear that exactly how they deal with sites doesn't make my question invalid. To the common punter, if a web-address doesn't resolve then the site has been 'taken down'.

Since you seem unable to extrapolate, let's rephrase... does SOPA mean <whatever it is they do> would be permanent, or a temporary action while they examine the authenticity of the claims being made, or until the site fixes whatever it is that was complained about?

Care to drag your superior mind back from making personal insults and embarrassing yourself? Or is clinging to pedantic details more important to you?

[doodab]

Sorry but posting a link to the bill or the wiki page isn't an answer. And your clarification on "taking down" sites, while illuminating, is NOT an answer either. You seem fixated that I'm asking "what is SOPA", when I'm not. My question "is this permanent" applies just the same to your clarification.

Although - does SOPA allow them to permanently take down sites, full-stop? Or to take them down "until a proper investigation can be performed" - which might take years but is nonetheless temporary, officially? If the latter is a proposed maximum time period stipulated, similar to how we can hold suspected terrorists without charging them for a few weeks?

If something cannot happen, it cannot be a permanent state of affairs. That you need this clarifying pretty much sums up why I think you need some practice figuring out the answers to simple questions for yourself.

Given that the wiki entry on SOPA is 19 pages and nearly 10 thousand words long, your assertion that anyone who has a question on SOPA should read the entire thing is rather asinine.

Your wilful misunderstanding of everything I try and get through your thick skull is asinine. I never suggested that anyone with a question should read the wiki entry on SOPA. I suggested that someone who didn't appear to understand what SOPA actually was might like to try and find out.

Assuming you aren't in fact an illiterate moron (at this point that's a serious leap of faith) you can skim the bill in less time than you have wasted arguing with me. Not only would this provide you with all of the answers you seek, it will save you from repeatedly demonstrating your stupidity to the entire world.

I think it's safe to assume that you will never really know, for the simple reason you are too lazy and stupid to read the answer even if it were tattooed onto the inside of your eyelids.

[d000hg]

Nick, do you think all these things anti-SOPA people are claiming can happen if SOPA went though, actually would? People do seem rather rabid about it, which risks their claims being a little extreme.

The things people are writing remind me of this: Scroogled - a short story by Cory Doctorow. Tinfoil on standby...

edit: to clarify obviously it will be used on clearly dodgy sites, but does anyone really believe a site like CUK would be taken down (sorry Doodab I know you're easily confused) have it's DNS blocked simply because someone made a complaint

[NickFitz]

Here's xkcd with some more links for people to not bother reading: xkcd: SOPA

[d000hg]

Sorry but posting a link to the bill or the wiki page isn't an answer. And your clarification on "taking down" sites, while illuminating, is NOT an answer either. You seem fixated that I'm asking "what is SOPA", when I'm not. My question "is this permanent" applies just the same to your clarification.

Given that the wiki entry on SOPA is 19 pages and nearly 10 thousand words long, your assertion that anyone who has a question on SOPA should read the entire thing is rather asinine.