This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

SOPA / Protect IP

2456717

Comments

  • Anybody know a way to hack those ass-old white emacs to all simultaneously display a picture?
  • How come the Geeknights logo isn't censored yet?
    For what? Being Muhammad?
  • edited November 2011
    How come the Geeknights logo isn't censored yet?
    For what? Being Muhammad?
    No, because that's a form of protest, as seen in the link in the first post in this thread.
    Post edited by Bronzdragon on
  • Oh right, that.
  • Anyone know when the SOPA hearing starts? They were supposed to start up again today, right?
  • Anyone know when the SOPA hearing starts? They were supposed to start up again today, right?
    It's been going all yesterday and today. Their lunch recess just ended.

    http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/mark_12152011.html
  • Chairman Smith just announced that they're concluding markup for the day, to reconvene on the next practicable date. #SOPA.
  • Chairman Smith just announced that they're concluding markup for the day, to reconvene on the next practicable date. #SOPA.
    They're human beings. They want to go home early on Friday just like we do.

  • They're human beings.
    Debatable.

  • They're human beings.
    Debatable.

    At least a handful of them are, from what I've seen.

    I think the most interesting thing to see is the actual tactic used by the obviously corrupt people who are just trying to push the legislation through unchanged. They follow protocol, sit quietly while other people debate, and do not actually engage in debate themselves. For each amendment, they have a statement they read that was obviously prepared by someone else for them to read.

    Then when it comes time to vote, they just vote. They've made up their mind to follow instructions of whoever is paying them. The way has been paved. They have a majority. All they have to do is sit there and follow the instructions and they'll get their way. It doesn't matter at all what anyone says in a debate because the corrupt people aren't actually debating. They are just following the rules and voting without listening or caring.

    I had a new idea has to how to make congress not corrupt at all. Frozen funds. We have the power to freeze people's bank accounts and such. We do it all the time. So when you enter congress all of your bank accounts and holdings are frozen. You have no access. Everything will be provided for you. You may not get any money at all except your congressional salary. You can have bank accounts again after you leave office.

    If you want to come into congress for one term and get a payout from some company after you leave, ok. People do that now. But how much can you do in one term? The powerful congresspeople are the ones that keep getting reelected over and over again. That means they will have no money whatsoever other than their congressional salaries for decades. If you are willing to do some corrupt shit in your 40s on a promise that you'll get a payout when you leave office 20 or 30 years later, I say go for it.
  • I was reading today how a certain Senator from CA thinks that Silicon Valley supports the bill. Guess Hollywood pays more?
  • edited December 2011
    I had a new idea has to how to make congress not corrupt at all. Frozen funds. We have the power to freeze people's bank accounts and such. We do it all the time. So when you enter congress all of your bank accounts and holdings are frozen. You have no access. Everything will be provided for you. You may not get any money at all except your congressional salary. You can have bank accounts again after you leave office.

    If you want to come into congress for one term and get a payout from some company after you leave, ok. People do that now. But how much can you do in one term? The powerful congresspeople are the ones that keep getting reelected over and over again. That means they will have no money whatsoever other than their congressional salaries for decades. If you are willing to do some corrupt shit in your 40s on a promise that you'll get a payout when you leave office 20 or 30 years later, I say go for it.
    I told my mom your idea last night. She loved that idea. I think it is a hard sell, but I do like the idea in theory.
    Post edited by gomidog on
  • I was reading today how a certain Senator from CA thinks that Silicon Valley supports the bill. Guess Hollywood pays more?
    Yes, Hollywood pays a lot more. Despite the technology industry being so much bigger than Hollywood in terms of dollars, it spends a mere fraction of the money Hollywood spends on lobbying. I think this is perhaps for two reasons.

    One is that technology people have a morality that says corporate spending should not be what controls government. They play the game less because the game shouldn't exist. They do not want to stoop to their level.

    Two is that technology companies do not need laws to make their business models work. A technology company with a valid product could thrive in an anarchy. Hollywood can't, or at least believes it can't, have a viable business without laws enforcing their model. Therefore, they spend a great deal on lobbying under the belief that without government support they would cease to exist.
  • I told my mom your idea last night. She loved that idea. I think it is a hard sell, but I do like the idea in theory.
    My previous idea was that they would live in dorms. This is fundamentally the same idea with a different implementation. You live a life of sacrifice and service either way. It's like being in the military. Everything is provided for you.
  • I told my mom your idea last night. She loved that idea. I think it is a hard sell, but I do like the idea in theory.
    My previous idea was that they would live in dorms. This is fundamentally the same idea with a different implementation. You live a life of sacrifice and service either way. It's like being in the military. Everything is provided for you.
    Only not everything is necessarily provided for you in the military. For example, you have to pay for your own uniforms -- which makes things extra annoying when they decide to change the uniforms such that your old, perfectly good uniform, is no longer up to current dress codes.

    Also freezing accounts of people while they're in Congress probably won't help much. They can still keep accumulating crap into their accounts until they leave. So the payout is delayed, but they'll still get their corrupt payout once they leave.
  • I told my mom your idea last night. She loved that idea. I think it is a hard sell, but I do like the idea in theory.
    My previous idea was that they would live in dorms. This is fundamentally the same idea with a different implementation. You live a life of sacrifice and service either way. It's like being in the military. Everything is provided for you.
    Only not everything is necessarily provided for you in the military. For example, you have to pay for your own uniforms -- which makes things extra annoying when they decide to change the uniforms such that your old, perfectly good uniform, is no longer up to current dress codes.
    That's bullshit. The military spending budget pays for all this ridiculous shit we don't need, but it doesn't pay for the fucking uniforms? Are you fucking kidding me?
    Also freezing accounts of people while they're in Congress probably won't help much. They can still keep accumulating crap into their accounts until they leave. So the payout is delayed, but they'll still get their corrupt payout once they leave.
    You didn't read my entire thing there. Sure, you can leave and get your payout, but to get real power in congress you have to stay in for a long long long time. Can you delay gratification for decades?
  • edited December 2011
    Make them live like monks? Basic robes for attire and a dormitory?

    No more clothing allowance in the military?
    Post edited by HMTKSteve on
  • The slush money is all in campaigning, which Representatives do year round now. It's a giant shell game of "Super-PACs" and various other false fronts.

    A related case is Herman Cain - his campaign bought a bunch of copies of his own book. Which makes him real moneys, but also games the "bestseller" system. (digression: A lot of MLM setups do similar things for peopel like Robert Kiyosaki)
  • Entertainment could survive in an anarchy, it just wouldn't be so bloated. It's mind boggling how much waste there is in that industry. There are a lot of overstaffed projects and overpaid people.
  • I called my congressperson today to tell him to vote against SOPA, or would likely not be getting my vote again.
  • I called my congressperson today to tell him to vote against SOPA, or would likely not be getting my vote again.
    Unless you live in a swing district they don't care.

  • edited December 2011

    Only not everything is necessarily provided for you in the military. For example, you have to pay for your own uniforms -- which makes things extra annoying when they decide to change the uniforms such that your old, perfectly good uniform, is no longer up to current dress codes.
    That's bullshit. The military spending budget pays for all this ridiculous shit we don't need, but it doesn't pay for the fucking uniforms? Are you fucking kidding me?
    I'm not. Now it's possible that those who enlisted in the military may get free uniforms, but officers do not -- as I found out from my Navy Lieutenant brother in law grumbling about how he has to pay for all new uniforms when the Navy's dress codes changed a year or two ago. At least he got free tuition, books, room, board, and a small stipend of "spending money" at the Naval Academy, however...

    Edit: Just looked it up. If you're enlisted, you get a yearly uniform allowance of about $500 in addition to your pay check, though that probably adjusts for inflation and such as well as if you're on active combat duty. Officers, however, always have to pay for their uniforms out of their own pockets.
    Also freezing accounts of people while they're in Congress probably won't help much. They can still keep accumulating crap into their accounts until they leave. So the payout is delayed, but they'll still get their corrupt payout once they leave.
    You didn't read my entire thing there. Sure, you can leave and get your payout, but to get real power in congress you have to stay in for a long long long time. Can you delay gratification for decades?
    It depends. I probably could, but then again Congressmen get paid more than I do right now, so I'd still probably be quite happy with just my Congressional salary. If we're talking a Congressman who's already wealthy before being elected (a fairly large percentage of them are millionaires, though I don't remember the exact numbers offhand), denying him/her access to his/her pre-existing funds might be reason enough for them not to run or not to stay in office for too long.
    Post edited by Dragonmaster Lou on
  • edited December 2011
    I say freeze their account and only let them unfreeze 20 years after the last day they were in office. Once elected they should only be able to receive money from the government for the salary of their position and nothing else, relected or not, for the rest of their lives, or for 20 years after the last day they are in office (which ever expiration date occurs first).

    Sure there are probably some issues which would need to be ironed out, such as where the money will come from to pay them once they are not in office, but I would gladly pay more in taxes for a non-corrupt government, well less corrupt. There are other issues than just this that need to be fixed.
    Post edited by canine224 on
  • edited December 2011
    I called my congresswoman, but she actually co-sponsored the bill.

    Yep, there's a reason I didn't vote for that bitch.
    "The Internet is for Porn" was brought up in the SOPA debate on the grounds that if you support SOPA, you support the porn industry.
    Okay, I live in the San Fernando Valley, Porn Capital of the United States. While the statement sounds plausible, I'd like to find out if that's really the case.
    Post edited by Victor Frost on
  • "The Internet is for Porn" was brought up in the SOPA debate on the grounds that if you support SOPA, you support the porn industry.
    A "high percentage" of the Internet's use is for porn, Polis said. It's "a pornographer's wet dream!"
    That's not quite what a wet dream is, but close enough, I suppose.

    Anyway, what about those of us that have no qualms with the porn industry, but are 100% against SOPA?
  • edited December 2011
    I think that's mostly a cultural holdover from when officers were all raised from the land-owning gentry. They were not only expected to buy their own weapons and uniforms. In some cases they were responsible for equipping, feeding, and paying the men under their command.
    Post edited by Lord Mordrek on
  • I meant "you" as in congressperson. Being seen as supporting the porn industry, especially in really conservative Republican areas is a no-no.
  • I think the main reason that many people are going to vote yes to this is for the simple fact nothing is going to happen to them otherwise. They are getting paid or getting misinformation from people who are paid by the people that want to push this through.

    If it comes to a reality that we "the citizens of the Internet" would pose a serious threat to the foundation everyone loves and holds dear to them, then change would truly happen.

    One of the quotes I often remind myself of is this:

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

    Its time to remind the tyrants that we have a loud voice.
  • I've been spamming my congress people repeatedly but I doubt it will make much of a difference. If this goes through, what would actually change?

    Is there any silver lining to this at all? Any chance it simply wouldn't get enforced?

    Could we see this tied up in the courts for awhile to come?
Sign In or Register to comment.