"Gizmodo list of how to contact these companies, which I offer with the caveat that I'm aware at least one of these isn't really the right place to contact (the Disney contact they give is for a small office in upstate New York, whereas I'm sure the decision came from much higher, especially given how many companies listed basically ARE Disney).
That's actually a relatively short list considering just how many companies exist.
True. I can't imagine the list is exhaustive. Perhaps it's just the ones who have contacted their representatives on the record, or somesuch. But still, a potentially useful list for those who care to make consumer complaints.
In the video he is trying to mislead people into believing that big media originally created file sharing software and distributed it to the world so that they could sue people. That is not what happened. Big media bought those Internet sites AFTER file sharing had already become super popular not before.
Gover is ok-ish, but really people. gandi.net is the best registrar. It's in France, so stupid US laws can't fuck you.
Hover is in Canada.
Being in France is not the only benefit of using Gandi. The primary reason to use it is that it just lets you edit your DNS zone file as text, straight up. But they still give you the dumbass user interface, if you're a normal type person. I haven't found a single other provider that allows that.
The primary reason to use it is that it just lets you edit your DNS zone file as text, straight up. But they still give you the dumbass user interface, if you're a normal type person. I haven't found a single other provider that allows that.
When I switched over from 1and1, I was looking at Gandi, but eventually used Hover. This is good to know.
Also, Mike, I can't get to your website. Is there anything there?
Thoughts on what went on here? There's a lengthy signing statement from the President in the article. Should he have vetoed, given that his veto could be overturned? Is it better to have it signed with the intent made clear in the signing statement for how the law is intended to be used? Was there a hope that a veto would have kept this out of our legislature?
TL;DR The President's opponents played the electorate like a fiddle and will get away with it because people don't seem to realize they've been tricked into being angry at the wrong person.
He signed it because if he didn't, defense spending including benefits to veterans and their families would not have been authorized. The sections of NDAA that many people here seem to have a problem with are sections that were added into the document by primarily Republican legislators and which the President adamantly opposes but was powerless to stop. I'll repeat that: the parts of this bill that many people here hate were included against the President's wishes and in a way that he is powerless to stop. The only way he could have stopped these sections from being included would have been to try to veto the bill in its entirety, a move that would have been both political suicide as well as being futile, as Congress would simply have overridden him. He is explicit in his opposition to exactly the parts of the bill everyone here hates, going so far as to detail exactly which sections he opposes and why.
You'll notice that the bill also restricts his ability to close Guantanamo Bay; this isn't coincidence. These sections are openly hostile to the President's stated mandate - they are effectively a giant 'fuck you' to the President, as well as a nasty way of eroding the President's support with his own base. Observe:
Draft legislation that is almost guaranteed to piss of the President but more importantly piss of his base.
Attach said legislation to another piece of larger, more important legislation like, say, the Defense Spending budget for the entire year so that any attempt to dislodge the offensive legislation will result in a political shitstorm, as well as place the larger legislation in jeopardy.
Once attached, begin a PR campaign that highlights the offending legislation and brings it to the attention of as many media outlets as possible - not just the traditional media, but alternative media outlets as well (Fox news, MSNBC, Media Matters, Huff-Po, Infowars, etc.)
Here's where it gets tricky: Simultaneously, speak to both your party's base and the opposition's. To your base, argue that the legislation is necessary to 'Keep America safe' and that the President, by opposing it, is clearly soft of terrorism and endangering the military by trying to strip the legislation out. At the same time, sit back and watch your opponent's liberal supporters tear into the offending legislation as being dangerous, anti-democratic, and a threat to civil liberties. You know they will; that's what they care about most. You've designed legislation that will make them froth at the mouth. You don't even have to keep flogging the message; one look at the legislation will be enough to convince most people that it is anathema to everything they hold dear. Because it is.
Pass the 'parent' legislation. Doing so forces the President to sign it or attempt to veto it. Since the legislation in question just so happens to be the military's operating budget, a veto is out of the question. The President must sign the bill, you get the legislation you wanted, but you also practically guarantee that your opponent's base will be furious at him for passing a bill they see as evil. Even if he tries to explain in detail why he had to sign it and what he hates about it, it won't matter; ignorance of the American political process, coupled with an almost militant indifference to subtle explanations will almost ensure that most people will only remember that the President passed a bill they hate.
Profit. you get the legislation you want, while the President has to contend with a furious base that feels he betrayed them - even though he agrees with their position but simply lacked the legislative tools to stop this from happening. It's a classic piece of misdirection that needs only two things to work: A lack of principles (or a partisan ideology that is willing to say anything - do anything - to win), and an electorate that is easy to fool.
This is pretty basic political maneuvering and the biggest problem is that it almost always works because most people either don't know or don't care how their political system actually functions. The President was saddled with a lose-lose situation where he either seriously harmed American defense policy (political suicide), or passed offensive legislation knowing that it would cost him political capital. To all of you here lamenting that you ever voted for this 'corporate shill', congratulations: you are the result the Republicans were hoping for. They get the law they want, they get the weakened Presidential candidate they want. And many of you just don't seem to see that. You don't have to like your country's two-party system, but it pays to be able to understand it so that you can recognize when it's being used like this.
Geeze, that makes a lot of sense Churba. Interesting analysis. I doubt it is a simple coincidence that I was too distracted by SOPA and PIP to give this bill any real thought, too.
While this doesn't change my opinion on the President and the office of the President at all, it does make me really want to get all the congresspeople out of office even sooner.
Also, Churba.. You always seem to be very well-informed about both global and US politics, while not living here and thus not really being affected as directly about it. Why the interest, out of curiosity?
Also, Churba.. You always seem to be very well-informed about both global and US politics, while not living here and thus not really being affected as directly about it. Why the interest, out of curiosity?
To be Clear, not my analysis, but Reddit user Mauve_cubedweller's - I just stumbled across it.
That said, I take an interest for four reasons:
1)It's interesting to me, the machinations of various world governments and their interactions with each other.
2)I'm a News Junkie and freelance Journalist, the more data I have on global issues and the internal issues of the power players on the global scene, the better I can do what I do. After all, I live in a nation where our political movements also affect other nations, for example, I wouldn't be able to say much that's worthwhile or sensible(or, for that matter, worth buying or printing) on the proposed Malaysian solution for asylum seekers in Australia, if I didn't know shit about Malaysia.
3)I plan to visit the US long-term in the future(Preferably the near future, but I'm no fortune-teller, it happens when it happens), with a strong eye towards citizenship - the more data I have, the better my chances of success. Admittedly, I'm not as good as people like Tick, Joe, ScoJo, Nuri, or Jason yet, but I suppose I generally have a much broader view, rather than a narrower-but-deeper one. That said, I'm working on it.
4)The political and economic movements of other countries do have an effect on my own country, though obviously not as seriously as the various things that happen here, but still not something that should be dismissed. Thus, for my own interests here, it's generally a good idea to keep up to date on who's who and what's what worldwide, particularly in the US, UK and East Asia.
EDIT - I suppose there is a fifth. A lot of stuff happens in the US, and a lot of that makes it's way here. If I know it before it hits our shores, I'm ahead of the curve, and can better take advantage.
"This is pretty basic political maneuvering and the biggest problem is that it almost always works because most people either don't know or don't care how their political system actually functions. The President was saddled with a lose-lose situation where he either seriously harmed American defense policy (political suicide), or passed offensive legislation knowing that it would cost him political capital. To all of you here lamenting that you ever voted for this 'corporate shill', congratulations: you are the result the Republicans were hoping for. They get the law they want, they get the weakened Presidential candidate they want. And many of you just don't seem to see that. You don't have to like your country's two-party system, but it pays to be able to understand it so that you can recognize when it's being used like this. "
I argue this constantly and people don't really understand. The way things play out in public is only half the story, the other half is the high level game of political maneuvering going on at all levels at all times.. You have to really be tuned in to react in a way that is not the normal "So and So did this so he sucks". It's this type of stuff that makes most people turned off from politics but makes me fascinated.
Also, Churba.. You always seem to be very well-informed about both global and US politics, while not living here and thus not really being affected as directly about it. Why the interest, out of curiosity?
To be Clear, not my analysis, but Reddit user Mauve_cubedweller's - I just stumbled across it.
That said, I take an interest for four reasons:
1)It's interesting to me, the machinations of various world governments and their interactions with each other.
2)I'm a News Junkie and freelance Journalist, the more data I have on global issues and the internal issues of the power players on the global scene, the better I can do what I do. After all, I live in a nation where our political movements also affect other nations, for example, I wouldn't be able to say much that's worthwhile or sensible(or, for that matter, worth buying or printing) on the proposed Malaysian solution for asylum seekers in Australia, if I didn't know shit about Malaysia.
3)I plan to visit the US long-term in the future(Preferably the near future, but I'm no fortune-teller, it happens when it happens), with a strong eye towards citizenship - the more data I have, the better my chances of success. Admittedly, I'm not as good as people like Tick, Joe, ScoJo, Nuri, or Jason yet, but I suppose I generally have a much broader view, rather than a narrower-but-deeper one. That said, I'm working on it.
4)The political and economic movements of other countries do have an effect on my own country, though obviously not as seriously as the various things that happen here, but still not something that should be dismissed. Thus, for my own interests here, it's generally a good idea to keep up to date on who's who and what's what worldwide, particularly in the US, UK and East Asia.
EDIT - I suppose there is a fifth. A lot of stuff happens in the US, and a lot of that makes it's way here. If I know it before it hits our shores, I'm ahead of the curve, and can better take advantage.
Very cool. I tend to take an interest because it's interesting to me and I want to make sure that I am as well informed as I can be..
Both of my Senators (NH) are co-sponsors of PIPA, so I am making notes for when I call my Congresspeople tomorrow so that I have a well reasoned and structured message to leave. What are some of the key talking points that I may have missed, that we want to be sure to get across?
My biggest point is that those of us in the technology industry are: 1.) The most affected by the bill and 2.) the most qualified to understand the ramifications of the bill, and we are practically unanimously opposed to it. Therefore, we should be the ones to listen to, since the Senators were elected to represent us, and if they don't listen to the people most qualified to speak on a subject, then who are they really representing?
I plan on telling them that by continuing to support the bill, they will lose the votes of the entire growing technology sector in the state, and that I, among many others will campaign for and monetarily support their opponents in the next election. Will that come across like an empty threat, or is that the kind of thing they would pay attention to?
Also: Since they are currently on recess, should I call their DC offices and leave a message, or call one of their many offices in the state?
Reddit will be blacking out from 8am-8pm EST all day next Wednesday, January 18, in opposition of SOPA. Sorry, non-Americans, but this is more important than looking at cat pictures and talking about dicks when you should be working. :P
And we all know what powerful change websites like that bring about. Who can forget when Digg dug(g) a network of tunnels to mirror the Patriot Act's surveillance, or when 4Chan segregated it's boards to protest Jim Crow laws.
Comments
"Gizmodo list of how to contact these companies, which I offer with the caveat that I'm aware at least one of these isn't really the right place to contact (the Disney contact they give is for a small office in upstate New York, whereas I'm sure the decision came from much higher, especially given how many companies listed basically ARE Disney).
I think that second one is just an anchor, not an actual link.
CBS to buy CNET Networks - May 15, 2008 4:26 AM PDT
MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. - 2005
In the video he is trying to mislead people into believing that big media originally created file sharing software and distributed it to the world so that they could sue people. That is not what happened. Big media bought those Internet sites AFTER file sharing had already become super popular not before.
Also, Mike, I can't get to your website. Is there anything there?
EDIT: Oh.
Thoughts on what went on here? There's a lengthy signing statement from the President in the article. Should he have vetoed, given that his veto could be overturned? Is it better to have it signed with the intent made clear in the signing statement for how the law is intended to be used? Was there a hope that a veto would have kept this out of our legislature?
We the people were played but only a fool would believe Obama was not a player in this.
While this doesn't change my opinion on the President and the office of the President at all, it does make me really want to get all the congresspeople out of office even sooner.
Also, Churba.. You always seem to be very well-informed about both global and US politics, while not living here and thus not really being affected as directly about it. Why the interest, out of curiosity?
That said, I take an interest for four reasons:
1)It's interesting to me, the machinations of various world governments and their interactions with each other.
2)I'm a News Junkie and freelance Journalist, the more data I have on global issues and the internal issues of the power players on the global scene, the better I can do what I do. After all, I live in a nation where our political movements also affect other nations, for example, I wouldn't be able to say much that's worthwhile or sensible(or, for that matter, worth buying or printing) on the proposed Malaysian solution for asylum seekers in Australia, if I didn't know shit about Malaysia.
3)I plan to visit the US long-term in the future(Preferably the near future, but I'm no fortune-teller, it happens when it happens), with a strong eye towards citizenship - the more data I have, the better my chances of success. Admittedly, I'm not as good as people like Tick, Joe, ScoJo, Nuri, or Jason yet, but I suppose I generally have a much broader view, rather than a narrower-but-deeper one. That said, I'm working on it.
4)The political and economic movements of other countries do have an effect on my own country, though obviously not as seriously as the various things that happen here, but still not something that should be dismissed. Thus, for my own interests here, it's generally a good idea to keep up to date on who's who and what's what worldwide, particularly in the US, UK and East Asia.
EDIT - I suppose there is a fifth. A lot of stuff happens in the US, and a lot of that makes it's way here. If I know it before it hits our shores, I'm ahead of the curve, and can better take advantage.
I argue this constantly and people don't really understand. The way things play out in public is only half the story, the other half is the high level game of political maneuvering going on at all levels at all times.. You have to really be tuned in to react in a way that is not the normal "So and So did this so he sucks". It's this type of stuff that makes most people turned off from politics but makes me fascinated.
My biggest point is that those of us in the technology industry are: 1.) The most affected by the bill and 2.) the most qualified to understand the ramifications of the bill, and we are practically unanimously opposed to it. Therefore, we should be the ones to listen to, since the Senators were elected to represent us, and if they don't listen to the people most qualified to speak on a subject, then who are they really representing?
I plan on telling them that by continuing to support the bill, they will lose the votes of the entire growing technology sector in the state, and that I, among many others will campaign for and monetarily support their opponents in the next election. Will that come across like an empty threat, or is that the kind of thing they would pay attention to?
Also: Since they are currently on recess, should I call their DC offices and leave a message, or call one of their many offices in the state?
http://blog.reddit.com/2012/01/stopped-they-must-be-on-this-all.html