What is your opinion of SOPA?

I think when it boils down to the nitty-gritty of it all, they just want to have more control over the web in general for lots of reasons. Take away a lot of it's freedom over time that's made it great for using, start dictating what we can and can't do on it. No doubt later you'd then start seeing silly things like "Internet Taxes" being imposed on families and what not using it. Don't laugh either, that was talked about a few years ago, taxes being charged per household who use the web. I think they referred to it as a "computer tax".
None of that is evident in this bill, right? Your argument is basically this: We shouldn't have a military to protect us, because someday it might be used against us. Its a valid, if unlikely argument just as the arguments against SOPA are valid, but unlikely. In each case, what they ignore is that there is a far greater likelihood for damage as a result of not doing those very things.

We had a saying in the military: wrong implementation of the right idea. You fix the implementation, not reject the idea. SOPA is based on a sound idea, and in fairness, there is no implementation yet. As I keep pointing out, its first draft legislation, not even out of committee. So you address the implementation. But the attitude is "keep your government out of my internet", thats a failed proposition from the jump.

We had another saying: Just make a damned decision. Even a bad one is better than inaction. Inaction gets people killed. Well, China is stealing intellectual property at an alarming rate. So its better to do something and then adapt it than to do nothing at all.
 
Why is it bad? Its not illegal. The elephant isn't endangered or protected. The villagers were is desperate need of the meat and stripped it clean. Nothing went to waste.

I hunt. I have over 200 lbs of venison in my freezer and another 150 lbs of feral hog. Also some pheasant, duck and quail. I've also got mahi, wahoo, mackerel, red snapper and ling in my freezer - all fish I caught. I am an omnivore. I require meat.

What is more evil. To kill the meat that you eat for yourself from wild, sustainable sources or to rely on mass-produced, inhumanly treated meat sources that are raised, killed and processed in ways that would keep you from eating meat ever again if you were to witness the horror from birth to megamart shelf?
 
Why is it bad? Its not illegal. The elephant isn't endangered or protected. The villagers were is desperate need of the meat and stripped it clean. Nothing went to waste.

It's highly unlikely the elephant was killed for eating, more for sport I'd say in this case. And even poachers only kill them for the ivory tusks. Elephant's are not exactly seen as something you kill to eat.
 
Why is it bad? Its not illegal. The elephant isn't endangered or protected. The villagers were is desperate need of the meat and stripped it clean. Nothing went to waste.

I hunt. I have over 200 lbs of venison in my freezer and another 150 lbs of feral hog. Also some pheasant, duck and quail. I've also got mahi, wahoo, mackerel, red snapper and ling in my freezer - all fish I caught. I am an omnivore. I require meat.

What is more evil. To kill the meat that you eat for yourself from wild, sustainable sources or to rely on mass-produced, inhumanly treated meat sources that are raised, killed and processed in ways that would keep you from eating meat ever again if you were to witness the horror from birth to megamart shelf?

If he did social work to feed villagers certainly he wouldn't take video of hunting elephant to put it online ! Ye i like hunting ,fishing too but hunting elephant sounds weird .
 
There are a few stories on the web I just found searching for "Bob Parsons shot and killed elephant". Some support the reason for him doing it, some other stories don't. All a question of which you believe I guess? But one story I read did say the locals eat the elephant and another claims he did it to protect a farmers land crops from being destoyed.
 
Depends on what's on your bucket list and within your means, I guess. I'd like to go to Alaska to hunt kodiaks. The weather is against you, the terrain is against you and its an animal that has been know to become the hunter when it realizes its being hunted.

If driving around in a jeep until you find something the size of a barn and shooting it from 100 yards with an ultra-high powered rifle is his idea of hunting, to each their own.
 
Well my idea of hunting animals - is buying a barbecued chicken from ASDA. I don't need a gun for that, plus it's ready cooked. (y)
 
My idea of hunting is a lost group of those stereotypical young adults that you see in every horror movie ever made being stalked by me and killed off one by one in horrible ways for my snuff film that I plan to post on YouTube so I can get a million views.
 
And my idea of hunting is tracking down the animal and taking a few good pictures of it. No blood, no motherless pups left to die and good memories to pass on.

Until another form of life kills and eats it...besides...if you know how to hunt...you just need to be in the right place at the right time and not get unlucky. Short of bird hunting...the game comes to you. You just need to think like them and guess where they are going to be and of course us nature to your advantage.

We are not part of their natural habit (any more nor have we for a long time) and any animal that is scared of you is not going to let you anywhere near it, any animal that is not scared of you that you encounter has a good chance of requiring you to have a shotgun strapped to your shoulder or nature will leave you with no memories to pass on...that is the truth.

If a deer kicks you in the head, it will kill you...but you won't get that close to one unless you corner it so let's forget about those kinds of animals for a sec...a bear even a cub is stronger, faster and has way more stamina than a human. Without a weapon, you don't stand a chance...they don't care if your only armed with a camera. They view you as an intruder to their domain no matter where they are at the moment. You pose a threat to them just for being there just like almost any animal will initially view it. The difference is a bear or a coyote or a wolf will preemptively disassemble that threat before it becomes a real threat to their safety, that is if they aren't even hunting themselves. You still have a chance in this case. If they are hunting and you are without a weapon, you have no chance to survive.

I have packed a bag and lived off of nature for an extended period of time. Trust me when I say (and mind you I love nature and respect all of it's creatures) most of nature is not very forgiving or understanding and if you get too comfortable and forget that...nature can remind you at a most inopportune time of how violent it can be. I don't blame nature for that...I applaud it...that is why life thrives on this planet...the will to survive. When bees build a hive on the eve of your front door...do you not call them pests and remove them, when birds break through the louvers on your attic vents don't you get them out...or termites even ..you flush the infestation. To the termites, they are a civilization. Yet to us they are not because they can destroy enough of your house in a couple of years that it could collapse around you. It's all about survival.

When the natives of the US lived alone here...they lived in tune with nature...they never abused it and they always were thankful for it. They killed buffalo in herds...they only took what they needed and never wasted any of it...the buffalo thrived as they did. When furs started being traded for other goods at a high rate with profiteers, the buffalo heard was all but diminished. There is a difference between hunting and murdering. Any animal that I don't eat and that won't eat me or rage kill me over territory, I don't hunt or kill.

I say all of this because of the implications people often project that all hunters are heartless and cruel people because of the fact that most people have been removed from the act of actually providing their own food source and raw materials for goods.

I have killed many animals in my life, none in waste or fury. All were felled to aid in my or others survival and within the laws of whatever area I was in at the time. I have had all the permits and written permissions necessary and always respected the laws of nature and the laws of civilized man as determined by my geographical location when doing so.


Again I have posted this video somewhere already on the forum but it is so relevant. As you watch...ask yourself if you think the person communicating with the animal is a cruel person...mind you the food that is already on the ground that the animal walks past. That animal has accepted me over time because of a trust that can not be explained with words. If I sit outside in the backyard that particular squirrel will walk right behind me and sit with his back against mine. He recognizes that I also like him feel no animosity to the other and that he can literally rely on me to watch his back. When he wants to sprawl out in the sun in back yard he will come tap on the glass to see if I come out. If it is anyone else but me that opens the door...he runs.
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
How is this relevant to godaddy, sopa , bob parsons and peoples rights on the internet?

It's not.

But neither is godaddy, sopa, bob parsons and a hunting expedition.


SOPA is a very important issue and talking about what Bob Parsons does legally in his own time is not going to solve anything. Neither is getting people to side against godaddy to reject SOPA because then they are misinformed and rejecting the wrong idea entirely based on pulling heart strings of people with an affinity for animals . This topic is a whole different can of worms and talks about how he is a bad person for hunting is going to make honorable hunters like me want to respond with the facts that I know. I will gladly debate this with anyone in a different topic but this is not the place for it. Feel free to start the thread and invite me via a conversation msg.
 
You do know that they attack just the DNS...right? Then there is the http/udp/syn/etc attacks that attacks the servers. Having a separate DNS has protected me even further from attacks, along side of having the best DDoS Protection on the internet (and I've tried all the big names for the most part).

I'm not sure what your point is.

I don't dispute there aren't ways to mitigate the effects of a DDoS attack, or that there are different methods of attacks (eg., p2p, icmp floods, syn floods, etc.). Anyone who has operated servers for a large IRC network and/or a successful web site knows this. But no DDoS protection service (which mostly just perform filtering -- some provide extra bandwidth (the over provisioning I mentioned earlier)) is going to save you if someone is hell bent on bringing you down, at least not without further disrupting legitimate users in the process. Unless of course you have a really good working relationship with your upstream providers, and/or money to throw at the issue.
 
There is nothing in SOPA that even remotely allows censorship in any way, shape or form. Ohh... the boogieman is gonna get you if you don't watch out!
I'm not one of those tinfoil hat wearing people, however I think you have to much faith in the government. Just take a look over our history as it speaks for itself.
 
I'm not one of those tinfoil hat wearing people, however I think you have to much faith in the government. Just take a look over our history as it speaks for itself.
No, I take the time to become informed and make educated, rational decisions. Have you read the proposed SOPA bill? What part of it do you believe can be leveraged for censorship of sites? I've read the entire bill and there is no provision that could even be misused to that end. I invite you to do the same.

The thing about a democracy is that it implies a responsibility on your part to do the work of becoming self-informed and to think for yourself instead of being told what you should think about something.
 
No, I take the time to become informed and make educated, rational decisions. Have you read the proposed SOPA bill? What part of it do you believe can be leveraged for censorship of sites? I've read the entire bill and there is no provision that could even be misused to that end. I invite you to do the same.

The thing about a democracy is that it implies a responsibility on your part to do the work of becoming self-informed and to think for yourself instead of being told what you should think about something.
A good real world application:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/to...nline-Piracy-Act-PROTECT-IP-Senate,14393.html
As an example, imagine a user posts a video clip to the Tom’s Community of a step-by-step guide on how to set up water cooling on an overclocked i7 CPU. Playing in the background behind the voiceover is “Derezzed” by Daft Punk. The studio representing Daft Punk could issue a complaint, without being required to notify us or request a take-down. Tom’s Hardware would be liable and prosecuted solely on a good faith assertion of the copyright owner, without notification, with the site operators subject to possible jail time for not preventing the video from being posted. In short order, the http://www.tomshardware.com/ domain in the United States would no longer resolve to our servers and visitors attempting to come to Tom’s Hardware would be redirected to a “This site under review for piracy/copyright violations” page.

Tom's Hardware Community Manager commented that they would have to explode their moderation team to unbelievable numbers in order to potentially police and filter everything that was submitted by users. "One of the biggest problems with SOPA implementation would be that it would offload the assumption of innocence and the idea that sites operate in good faith with regards to intellectual properties. With SOPA, having an item up that infringes if only for a brief period of time would be an actionable cause for DNS blacklisting, and through no fault of the site owner."

What scares me is the possibility of abuse with this bill. Just accusing a site of copyright infringement allows the gov. to block it. Since media companies are the most likely to do the complaining and one of the greatest contributors to political campaigns, it gives them unprecedented control over internet content. I'm all for protecting copyrighted content to a further extent, but the problem with SOPA is the way it goes about 'thwarting' online piracy. Anyone semi tech savvy will have no issue circumventing DNS-level censorship (http://domainincite.com/docs/PROTECT-IP-Technical-Whitepaper-Final.pdf - see section III B, written by those who invented DNS). Hell, if SOPA does happen, sites will be distributed as IP lists and I'm sure it won't be long before someone writes a browser addon / extension with automatic updating and all. It's going to have about the same success combating piracy as the War on Drugs has in combating drug use.

It has been hard for some companies to police their material online because the courts can't figure out how to handle these issues, but SOPA flips the situation to the other extreme; with site owners having no rights. Investors will not put money in a site that is open to serious litigation simply based on its business model. This is horribly bad for the Internet, but because lawmakers have no clue how social media and user generated content works, they're writing legislation full of holes that does far more than their stated purpose.

There is also no recourse I've seen outlined in the bill that specifically outlines formal recourse in case the party that initiates claims against you is fraudulent. It's basically shoot first, ask questions later. If anyone has evidence that disproves this, please share.

On a related note:
Passed by Congress in the wake of 9/11 with virtually no debate, the Patriot Act this week marked its tenth anniversary. One disturbing consequence of the Act is how it has been used for law enforcement actions not related to terrorism -- which was the rationale for its passage. A glaring example can be seen in the use of 'sneak and peak' searches for drug crimes
http://www.aclu-wa.org/blog/mission-creep-patriot-act-and-war-drugs

Further reading for those interested:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...t-why-sopa-protect-ip-are-bad-bad-ideas.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act#Ramifications
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/12/free-speechs-weak-links-under-internet-blacklist-bills
http://dottvnation.typepad.com/.a/6a00d834522c0b69e201543838c9c8970c-pi

Get involved:
http://americancensorship.org/
http://campaigns.dailykos.com/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=53
http://www.avaaz.org/en/save_the_internet
https://donate.mozilla.org/page/s/SOPA?source=tw_share
 
A good real world application:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/to...nline-Piracy-Act-PROTECT-IP-Senate,14393.html


Tom's Hardware Community Manager commented that they would have to explode their moderation team to unbelievable numbers in order to potentially police and filter everything that was submitted by users. "One of the biggest problems with SOPA implementation would be that it would offload the assumption of innocence and the idea that sites operate in good faith with regards to intellectual properties. With SOPA, having an item up that infringes if only for a brief period of time would be an actionable cause for DNS blacklisting, and through no fault of the site owner."

What scares me is the possibility of abuse with this bill. Just accusing a site of copyright infringement allows the gov. to block it. Since media companies are the most likely to do the complaining and one of the greatest contributors to political campaigns, it gives them unprecedented control over internet content. I'm all for protecting copyrighted content to a further extent, but the problem with SOPA is the way it goes about 'thwarting' online piracy. Anyone semi tech savvy will have no issue circumventing DNS-level censorship (http://domainincite.com/docs/PROTECT-IP-Technical-Whitepaper-Final.pdf - see section III B, written by those who invented DNS). Hell, if SOPA does happen, sites will be distributed as IP lists and I'm sure it won't be long before someone writes a browser addon / extension with automatic updating and all. It's going to have about the same success combating piracy as the War on Drugs has in combating drug use.

It has been hard for some companies to police their material online because the courts can't figure out how to handle these issues, but SOPA flips the situation to the other extreme; with site owners having no rights. Investors will not put money in a site that is open to serious litigation simply based on its business model. This is horribly bad for the Internet, but because lawmakers have no clue how social media and user generated content works, they're writing legislation full of holes that does far more than their stated purpose.

There is also no recourse I've seen outlined in the bill that specifically outlines formal recourse in case the party that initiates claims against you is fraudulent. It's basically shoot first, ask questions later. If anyone has evidence that disproves this, please share.

On a related note:

http://www.aclu-wa.org/blog/mission-creep-patriot-act-and-war-drugs

Further reading for those interested:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...t-why-sopa-protect-ip-are-bad-bad-ideas.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act#Ramifications
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/12/free-speechs-weak-links-under-internet-blacklist-bills
http://dottvnation.typepad.com/.a/6a00d834522c0b69e201543838c9c8970c-pi

Get involved:
http://americancensorship.org/
http://campaigns.dailykos.com/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=53
http://www.avaaz.org/en/save_the_internet
https://donate.mozilla.org/page/s/SOPA?source=tw_share

Nice post.
 
If you don't engage in illegal activities, you have nothing to fear.
I think people are making a mountain out of a mole hill. If you aren't doing anything illegal, this doesn't affect you. The only "statement" people are making is they feel there is no place for law enforcement on the net, which is completely ridiculous. Would people have the same reaction if they issued a similar statement about supporting anti-pedophile activities on the net?

Review history. It may be a mole hill today but mole hills grow to mountains. The 'If you don't engage in illegal activities, you have nothing to fear.' is incorrect. The entire point about SOPA is that your domain can be seized on an accusation. There are no legal proceedings involved before you are shut down. An accusation is made and a judge orders Homeland Security (plus who ever else) to take you down. As I heard a movie industry person state when asked why not use the existing legal paths that they can not wait for the time that the normal paths take.

The Patriot Act was commented on the same way. If you aren't doing anything wrong, but what if you are labeled a terrorist? You pass on all your rights. It is short sited to view any of these actions as not affecting me. Many Jews didn't believe that the actions in Germany would go as far as they did. By the time the realized that things were getting worse, the time to act had passed. The time today is to act NOW on these issues regardless if you are doing anything illegal or not.
 
Review history. It may be a mole hill today but mole hills grow to mountains. The 'If you don't engage in illegal activities, you have nothing to fear.' is incorrect. The entire point about SOPA is that your domain can be seized on an accusation. There are no legal proceedings involved before you are shut down. An accusation is made and a judge orders Homeland Security (plus who ever else) to take you down. As I heard a movie industry person state when asked why not use the existing legal paths that they can not wait for the time that the normal paths take.

The Patriot Act was commented on the same way. If you aren't doing anything wrong, but what if you are labeled a terrorist? You pass on all your rights. It is short sited to view any of these actions as not affecting me. Many Jews didn't believe that the actions in Germany would go as far as they did. By the time the realized that things were getting worse, the time to act had passed. The time today is to act NOW on these issues regardless if you are doing anything illegal or not.

Well put.
 
Back
Top Bottom