Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 16th Jan 2012 19:33 UTC
Internet & Networking Big news from Capitol Hill in Washington DC today: House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa has said that the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) has been "shelved" in the House of Representatives, meaning it has been put on indefinite hold until a consensus about the act can be reached. Sadly, SOPA's counterpart in the Senate, the Protect IP Act (PIPA) will still be pushed forward, meaning we must remain vigilant. Despite all of this, Wikipedia has announced it will join the blackout coming Wednesday.
Order by: Score:
Loving Puppies and God, ROFL
by matthewp131 on Mon 16th Jan 2012 19:37 UTC
matthewp131
Member since:
2011-09-21

Remain Vigilant. The content industry will not go down this easily. We need to direct all our anger and hatred at PIPA and keep an eye on Rep. Lamar Smith. We can win this, but we must keep fighting.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Loving Puppies and God, ROFL
by bassbeast on Tue 17th Jan 2012 14:49 UTC in reply to "Loving Puppies and God, ROFL"
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

Not to mention we've seen this tactic before, where they "shelf' a bill until the heat dies down and then ram it through on a weekend when they think nobody will notice. The *.A.A has bribed a LOT of politicians to get this junk rammed through and they won't give up that easily.

Personally I think We, The People should completely ignore ALL copyright laws until We, The People actually get a seat at the table again. When most of Walt Disney's works are STILL under copyright, even though the man has been dead for longer than many of us have been alive, i think "promoting the useful arts and sciences" is no longer being served. It is pretty obvious when you are talking about the level of bribery we are seeing thanks to Citizens united that voting simply won't help so we need to not only remain vigilant and complain we also need to let our elected officials know we simply won't follow unjust laws rammed through with bribes and any cases brought using these unjust laws we will use jury nullification to voice our displeasure.

if anything thanks to the Internet times should be SHORTER, say 10 years with a one time extension upon payment for another 10 years, but what we have now is "forever minus a single day" which is locking up our entire culture behind a paywall and we shouldn't stand for it!

Reply Score: 1

pqnelson Member since:
2012-01-17

Yeah, the basic tactic politicians now employ is: wait until after the Presidential elections, hope someone is elected who won't veto SOPA.

But SOPA is far from dead. Being shelved is just being paused.

You still ought to continue to write angry letters to your congressperson.

Edited 2012-01-17 15:31 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Loving Puppies and God, ROFL
by ViktorRabe on Tue 17th Jan 2012 20:34 UTC in reply to "Loving Puppies and God, ROFL"
ViktorRabe Member since:
2011-12-30

I applaud you, Comrade! To arms, to arms! If it is war they want, war they will get!

If taking Wikipedia offline won't get their attention... we will take offline YouPorn and The Pirate Bay! That's how far we're willing to go!

Reply Score: 1

Stare Blocker
by sbergman27 on Mon 16th Jan 2012 19:56 UTC
sbergman27
Member since:
2005-07-24

Just a helpful note. Special extensions exist for Chrome, Chromium, and Firefox specifically designed to block images of Jimmy's ubiquitous and annoying stare. I've just upgraded mine, as I suspect we're in for a run of exceptionally intense and widespread staring over the coming weeks.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Stare Blocker
by BallmerKnowsBest on Tue 17th Jan 2012 02:48 UTC in reply to "Stare Blocker"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

Just a helpful note. Special extensions exist for Chrome, Chromium, and Firefox specifically designed to block images of Jimmy's ubiquitous and annoying stare. I've just upgraded mine, as I suspect we're in for a run of exceptionally intense and widespread staring over the coming weeks.


http://theoatmeal.com/blog/jimmy_wales

Reply Score: 1

RE: Stare Blocker
by geleto on Tue 17th Jan 2012 19:35 UTC in reply to "Stare Blocker"
geleto Member since:
2005-07-06

And of course there is this wonderful add-on:
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/idkjdjficifbfjjkdkiimioljb...
Adds a nice Wikipedia donation banner to every single web page.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by Flash3441
by Flash3441 on Mon 16th Jan 2012 19:56 UTC
Flash3441
Member since:
2006-03-29

"We haven't won. We've only postponed our defeat."

Right you are Thom. SOPA will get passed one way or another. The companies backing this bill will throw enough money at politicians to get it through once the media gets tired of covering this as a story.

Edited 2012-01-16 19:57 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by Flash3441
by umccullough on Mon 16th Jan 2012 20:02 UTC in reply to "Comment by Flash3441"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

The companies backing this bill will throw enough money at politicians to get it through once the media gets tired of covering this as a story.


It is, however, important to note that several 2012 congressional candidates are jumping on the anti-SOPA/PIPA bandwagon already, seeing that many of their potential constituents aren't very happy.

Whether they can/will actually improve the situation, and make any attempts to undo some of the terrible laws that have been passed in the last couple decades, remains to be seen.

Reply Score: 4

Wikipedia jumping in is huge
by JoeBuck on Mon 16th Jan 2012 20:20 UTC
JoeBuck
Member since:
2006-01-11

Every American school kid uses Wikipedia, and every Congressperson who has school-age children is going to get an earful Wednesday. Congress' phone lines might be shut down by the load of calls.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Wikipedia jumping in is huge
by xskoulax on Mon 16th Jan 2012 20:32 UTC in reply to "Wikipedia jumping in is huge"
xskoulax Member since:
2012-01-16

Would be nice if lots of parents or the kids themselves contacted their representatives on Wednesday to find the answers to their homework since their representatives are responsible for Wikipedia being down.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by stestagg
by stestagg on Mon 16th Jan 2012 20:48 UTC
stestagg
Member since:
2006-06-03

I'd say we've won round one. Defeat isn't inevitable.

Reply Score: 4

lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18

http://www.osnews.com/thread?503653

Even the BBC agreed with several OSNEWS member opinions.

The stance is likely to anger many companies who have publicly supported Sopa.


Apparently the fact that the "White House Uses 838 Words to Say Nothing About SOPA" ... did seem to have an impact.

I am sure you will down play it but I don't think it is coincidence that once that statement came out , shortly after SOPA died.

Edited 2012-01-16 20:52 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Look, I have the ability to read, comprehend, and form my own opinion. Just because the BBC says something, I sould just follow suit? I'm sorry, but you'll have to come with more convincing arguments. You may not realise it, but most mainstream media cover minor news like this (which it is, sadly) by just copy/pasting AP stuff. No critical thinking goes into these minor stories.

You have not countered any of my points regarding the statement, and until you do, I'm just going to assume you can't. So, just to reiterate: it was and is a completely empty statement designed to allow Obama to go either way regarding SOPA without losing face. The fact that you fall for it and fail to argue your case is interesting.

Reply Score: 4

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Look, I have the ability to read, comprehend, and form my own opinion.


But you don't ever have any ability to say you are wrong?

Just because the BBC says something, I sould just follow suit? I'm sorry, but you'll have to come with more convincing arguments. You may not realise it, but most mainstream media cover minor news like this (which it is, sadly) by just copy/pasting AP stuff. No critical thinking goes into these minor stories.


Well it seems to counter your with an actual opinion which seems to suggest someone did some critical thinking somewhere along the line.

It seems that you think that you are the only person of critical thinking yet, mock those that oppose your opinion, without any good argument much like you did to me over email.

You have not countered any of my points regarding the statement, and until you do, I'm just going to assume you can't.


I did counter the statement in the original thread, You said "I don't read" ... I said I quote those that say my opinion better than I can. You ignored it.

Obviously I do read, because I read other articles and quote those opinions that reflect my own opinions.

I also quoted the source material which I quoted from multiple times which is normal in academic discussion ... but you did not attack my sources, you just said "You trust those sources therefore you are wrong" with no actual rebuttal.

So, just to reiterate: it was and is a completely empty statement designed to allow Obama to go either way regarding SOPA without losing face. The fact that you fall for it and fail to argue your case is interesting.


And to reiterate to you because you can't understand anything other than yourself, several OSNEWS members posted the same opinions as the BBC.

Apparently on your own you are brighter than all of them and the BBC combined, based on your own opinion.

It is an extreme amount of arrogance.

It all boils down to that you do not have the intellectual honesty to actually ever admit your are wrong.

Edited 2012-01-16 21:31 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

It all boils down to that you do not have the intellectual honesty to actually ever admit your are wrong.


Please stop with these silly personal attacks. Any cursory perusal through OSNews' story history proves that I have admitted error on my end COUNTLESS times.

I have an opinion, and that opinion is that Obama's statement was empty and pointless. Several OSNews readers, HackerNews readers, Ars Technica readers, Redditors, and people all over the web agreed with me - and, as you point out, several disagreed. That's life for you.

I suggest that you strike a more civil tone - not just against me, but in general. You've had a temporary ban for abrasive behaviour before, and that should serve as a warning.

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18


Please stop with these silly personal attacks. Any cursory perusal through OSNews' story history proves that I have admitted error on my end COUNTLESS times.


When did you admit error? Whenever I have posted I have been wrong in your eyes even when it is some thing I do for a living ... however you do not admit these.

I have an opinion, and that opinion is that Obama's statement was empty and pointless. Several OSNews readers, HackerNews readers, Ars Technica readers, Redditors, and people all over the web agreed with me - and, as you point out, several disagreed. That's life
for you.


However some here did disagree with you and instead of actually arguing with them you said the equivalent of "you are a dumbass".

I suggest that you strike a more civil tone - not just against me, but in general. You've had a temporary ban for abrasive behaviour before, and that should serve as a warning.


The temp ban was for less than a day after I asked you why I was banned and who I was rude to ... I didn't have an answer, I was just reinstated.

How btw was I then abrasive just then? I was questioning you? If you cannot stand criticism maybe you disallow a comments sections on what you post altogether.

If you want OSNEWS to stoke your own ego ... go ahead.

Edited 2012-01-16 22:12 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

However some here did disagree with you and instead of actually arguing with them you said the equivalent of "you are a dumbass".


I did no such thing, and you know it. I posted two similar comments, and both of them explain why I have the opinion I have - none of my points were countered by you. None. Zero. Nada. Posting links to articles in which none of my points are countered does not constitute countering my arguments. Here, let me repost my argument:

"The statement doesn't define anything. It doesn't have any 'hard' words in it. All it says is: "Any effort to combat online piracy must guard against the risk of online censorship of lawful activity and must not inhibit innovation by our dynamic businesses large and small."

Now go ask a SOPA-supporter if SOPA is about censorship or inhibiting innovation. They'll all claim it is not. See where this is going? Of course Obama is against censorship, but by not defining a hard line between "this is censorship" and "this is not censorship", he can sign SOPA into law without ever violating this statement. Obama has very close ties with the entertainment lobby (ask Biden), so he'll simply agree with Hollywood that SOPA is not about censorship, end of story.

If a political statement is released, look for 'hard' words, lines, definitions, etc. This statement has none. As such, it isn't even worth the bits it uses."

If you cannot stand criticism maybe you disallow a comments sections that you post.


Your lack of any form of proper grammar in this sentence seems to indicate a certain amount of agitation on your end (other than the plain lie that it is, as any of the thousands of people disagreeing with me in the comments' sections can attest to). I suggest you take a glass of water or something.

Edited 2012-01-16 22:16 UTC

Reply Score: 5

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I did no such thing, and you know it. I posted two similar comments, and both of them explain why I have the opinion I have - none of my points were countered by you. None. Zero. Nada.


Yes you did you said "you cannot believe this that and the other because I said so". In the other thread. Which is related to this one. You gave no reasoning why and then threatened me, by banning me on this website if I didn't agree with you.

Your lack of any form of proper grammar in this sentence seems to indicate a certain amount of agitation on your end (other than the plain lie that it is, as any of the thousands of people disagreeing with me in the comments' sections can attest to). I suggest you take a glass of water or something.


I cocked up and thus I saw my mistake and corrected it. Minor mistake really. If you have never made a mistake you should be the first to throw a stone.

I have already said my statements on this subject. I think you are intellecutually dishonest and cannot admit you are wrong on anything. If you wish to "ban" me that will not prove you are correct.

If you wish to get into personal discussion about my nature on there (BTW you pretty much own this place) I can be contacted via my email or website both which you can find out easily.

Reply Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

and then threatened me, by banning me on this website if I didn't agree with you.


This is a rather serious accusation. You say I threatened to ban you if you did not change your opinions so that they aligned with me?

I obviously did no such thing. I gave you a temporary ban because you were being a dick. End of story. I never threatened you in any way, so please, don't lie.

I would have some insane amount of threatening to do if I were to force everybody here into agreeing with me. I'm sorry, you're not that important.

Edited 2012-01-16 22:33 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I think you are intellecutually dishonest and cannot admit you are wrong on anything.


You're free to think that. The countless people here who disagree with me on a daily basis, as well as the many, many times I've openly admitted I was wrong, say otherwise. However, just because I disagree with you, does not make me wrong. The fact that you - still - have not made any attempt to counter my point is telling.

Edited 2012-01-16 22:40 UTC

Reply Score: 2

SlackerD Member since:
2012-01-16

"Please stop with the personal attacks."

But attacking lucas with "bad grammar" insults are A-ok, amirite?

Reply Score: 3

Gusar Member since:
2010-07-16

That sentence *does* have bad grammar, pointing that out is not an attack, it's stating something obvious.

Reply Score: 2

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

...it was and is a completely empty statement designed to allow Obama to go either way regarding SOPA without losing face.

Those are actually two distinct statements. One, that it was completely empty. And two, that it would allow some wiggle room without losing face.

The second point is likely valid. A standard political precaution which doesn't tell us a whole lot. But the White House statement, itself, was far from being completely empty. It sent a definite message, in politico-speak.

I would agree that the White House statement had as much or more to do with the "shelving" of SOPA as do the pending blackout plans.

In reality, they are all bound up in a rather complicated way that I would not venture to claim to completely understand. If I did, I would also begin questioning my own sanity.

However, lucus_maximus does have a point.

-Steve

Reply Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Those are actually two distinct statements. One, that it was completely empty. And two, that it would allow some wiggle room without losing face.


While I see your point, I actually mean one and the same thing: the statement is empty because it's so utterly vague and lacks any decent definitions or 'hard' words - thus making it completely meaningless. Had the statement included a "...like SOPA" or "...like current proposals in the House and Senate", the statement would actually have teeth.

Another option would be for the statement to specifically define what is acceptable, and what isn't, according to Obama. Not doing either of these two makes it an empty statement. Posting a statement like this in The Netherlands would be pointless - it would be chalked up as a sign of weakness on the side of the administration.

In reality, they are all bound up in a rather complicated way


It's not that complicated. There's a boatload of negative publicity going on right now, and several US senators and other supporters of the bill were backpedaling - never a good sign if you want a legislation pushed through. The White House statement, in my view, had far less influence - its lack of teeth would have made it possible for Obama to sign this law without losing any political face, i.e., he wouldn't violate the statement in the slightest if he did sign the law.

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Even though there were words highlight in bold which are kinda of the defintion of "strong" (hahaha <strong> tags) on the web.

Stop attacking the people that are apparently on your side.

Edited 2012-01-16 22:57 UTC

Reply Score: 2

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Posting a statement like this in The Netherlands would be pointless - it would be chalked up as a sign of weakness on the side of the administration.

In case you haven't noticed, the US is not The Netherlands. My stay in your country was brief and many years ago. And it came at a bad time for me, personally. I was distracted. But even so, the differences were still glaringly obvious.

Thom, we're still arguing over creationism vs Evolution, here in the US. Creationism vs the Consensus Cosmology. The educational competence of our public school graduates is steadily falling through a hole in the floor, as documented by uniform, standardized testing, while our upper education continues to do well.

We're a nation of contrasts. And the bad tends to outnumber the good, by a substantial margin, viewed on a per capita basis. And yet we all have exactly the same vote. Meanwhile, politics is the art of finding the point at which your constituency is divided more or less 50/50, and pushing your own political agenda items right to the point that you think you might just be on the 50+ side of the 50/50 balance. (Sure, corporate interests and lobbies complicate the matter.)

You really cannot expect the straight-forward strategies, which might work in your country, to be as successful here.

Sad to say, but it's true. This may be why I interpret the White House statement in a different way than do you.

Sincerely,
Steve from Oklahoma

Edited 2012-01-16 23:06 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Didn't you just confirm my point though? Politicians in the US will dilute their positions so much they lose all meaning.

You are right though. We have 8 parties in our 150 seat parliament, allowing parties to be true to their idealogies.

Edited 2012-01-16 23:25 UTC

Reply Score: 2

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Didn't you just confirm my point though? Politicians in the US will dilute their positions so much they lose all meaning.

Again, those are two points. US politicians will dilute their positions. Which is a different claim than that the statements carry no meaning.

Granted, the situation is not at all satisfactory. But it may well be the optimal strategy for the good guys in our highly *suboptimal* context. Unfortunately, the same strategy is also probably best for the bad guys.

In an abstract way, you are asking if I have any idea what an ultimate solution to our situation might be. (i.e. How can a more straight-forward way someday be made to be the optimal strategy?)

Opinionated as I may be on certain topics, I do not have definite suggestions on this one. I can tell you that I think it has more to do with the educational levels of the Sally and Bob high school graduates (or non-graduates) one meets on the streets than with Dr. Sullivan and Dr. Roberts. I can tell you that the relative ignorance of Sally's and Bob's children are likely to pack a far more deadly punch for my country in the coming decades.

But beyond really high level, birds eye appraisals which involve nebulous terms like "complacent", "fat and lazy", and "internal rot", I can't really even point to a definite cause. Let alone a proposed solution. One thing I'm reasonably sure of is that, by and large, I don't think public school system teachers, themselves, are to blame.

Tying this back into the SOPA topic, I will say that the only hope that I see for the US rests squarely with the Internet as a conduit for cheap continuing education on all levels From youth to adult. And from formal to somewhat less formal.

It is absolutely critical that the Internet remain as healthy as possible. And that, of course, goes for the entire World as well as for the US. It's just that the US is in more desperate need than some nations.

-Steve

Edited 2012-01-17 00:04 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24


Those are actually two distinct statements. One, that it was completely empty. And two, that it would allow some wiggle room without losing face.

No, he said the statement was empty and thus he could later go either way. You added the 'wiggle room' statement, why would Obama need 'wiggle room' when he hasn't in the slightest committed to anything?

The companies backing this bill will throw enough money at politicians to get it through once the media gets tired of covering this as a story.

I've seen pretty much jack-sh*t about SOPA on 'traditional' media and what little I've seen has been slanted as a bill to 'protect american jobs' (lol, yeah right), anti-SOPA has pretty much been an all internet campaign from start to finish and it's been hugely successful in building momentum.

Obviously this scares the sh*t out of alot of people with power out there, given that while traditional media is so narrow that it can easily be controlled, people on the internet get their information from a wide range of sources, not only that but they also get to discuss this information on a global scale, no longer are we confined to political discussions around the dinner table. All this together with the ease at which people can quickly rally around/against something, again on a global scale, makes all these powermongers scared and thus incredibly motivated to control the web. This goes way beyond online piracy.

Given this, obviously there will be alot of shills out there now trying to make the shelving of SOPA the result of 'the White House's statement' and downplaying the importance of the organized it-industry/internet campaign against SOPA. This is because that if people understand just how much power they have and start organising in order to make things happen then the power structure enjoyed by big organisations will start to crumble and power will be shifted.

With the internet we have a voice which can in effect rival the huge amounts of paid lobbyists the corporations and rich private interests can muster. Not only that, but we can put it into action by campaigning directly against companies who are working against our interests (see GoDaddy).

Reply Score: 6

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

With the internet we have a voice which can in effect rival the huge amounts of paid lobbyists the corporations and rich private interests can muster...

Of course, the problem you have there is keeping all your ducks in a row. Who's "we"? People who agree with you? I'd love to see that Venn Diagram evolve over time.

It depends upon the topic, of course. Protecting people's "right" to violate copyright on the sly is likely to yield you a large backing of "fine upstanding citizens" who are appalled by the bill in question, for the most ethereal, Platonic, and idealistic reasons.

But that has nothing to do with the true value or worthlessness of the bill.

What if the bill was spcifically targeted at violators of the copyright of GPL'd works, and contained a few draconian clauses. And you found yourself against it because of that. How do you think that might affect your operational definition of "we"?

Edited 2012-01-17 18:34 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

Of course, the problem you have there is keeping all your ducks in a row. Who's "we"? People who agree with you?

'We' are all of us. That includes people who doesn't share my view, that also include people who share my view on certain things and not on others, and (most unlikely) those who share my views on everything.

What if the bill was spcifically targeted at violators of the copyright of GPL'd works, and contained a few draconian clauses. And you found yourself against it because of that. How do you think that might affect your operational definition of "we"?

It wouldn't change the concept of we being able to rally support, spread awareness and apply pressure no matter which side you are on this question. I would oppose such a bill as you proposed, someone else would be in favour of it and we will both be able to use the internet to get our points across and rally support for our respective causes.

If a huge amount of people rally around either of our causes then we have a real power to affect things.

Reply Score: 2

fran Member since:
2010-08-06

http://www.osnews.com/thread?503653

Even the BBC agreed with several OSNEWS member opinions.

"The stance is likely to anger many companies who have publicly supported Sopa.



I am sure you will down play it but I don't think it is coincidence that once that statement came out , shortly after SOPA died.
"

The BBC is very Neo Liberal.
If you said even Foxnews agreed with Thom, wow yes.. but the BBC?

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Shkaba
by Shkaba on Mon 16th Jan 2012 23:06 UTC
Shkaba
Member since:
2006-06-22

lucas_maximus, stop whinning will you! It is getting old, man. I have had many heated exchanges with thom and never got banned. Granted few of my comments were removed but that was due to, uhm, colourful (?) language used by me. And I still don't agree with many points that Thom tries to make, but on this one he is spot on. White House statement had nothing to do with shelving of the bill. It CAN NOT. That statement was just a result of increased negative popularity. In other words, SOPA was well on its way to meet the shelf when the statement was released. That is how it is done in politics. When you are faced with the prospect of eroding support for a bill sponsored by one or few of your supporters, you make a statement in which you use a lot of words without saying anything. This way you are hinting that a slightly modified bill might pass and you wouldn't hesitate to support it.

Reply Score: 7

Comment by vasper
by vasper on Tue 17th Jan 2012 08:15 UTC
vasper
Member since:
2005-07-22

SOPA and PIPA!!!! Where do they find those names? SOPA in Greek means "Shut Up" and PIPA... well it doesn't mean Blue Jeans but it starts with the same letters!!!

Reply Score: 2

Arawn
Member since:
2005-07-13

In portuguese, SOPA is soup, PIPA is a type of wine cask.

In spanish, SOPA means the same, soup, and PIPA is a smoking pipe.

Reply Score: 1

koki Member since:
2005-10-17

In spanish, SOPA means the same, soup, and PIPA is a smoking pipe.


In other words, they can't have the soup, so they smoke the pipe. :-)

Reply Score: 4

you gotta be kidding..
by ulricr on Tue 17th Jan 2012 13:21 UTC
ulricr
Member since:
2012-01-14

wow to the way this and the other article was written! "it was clear to anyone with a mordicum of political sense" that the build would be shelve because of reddit and the cheese bugger network would go down for one freakking day? no one gives a damn about reddit and lolcat pictures. this build went down because of behind the scene nogotiation on the hill. and the arrogance of how this article is written, and the one where it says the white house statement said nothing, is incredible. you're the one who don't know anything about politics and you're not thinking like an adult.

Reply Score: 1

RE: you gotta be kidding..
by lucas_maximus on Tue 17th Jan 2012 20:05 UTC in reply to "you gotta be kidding.."
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Excellent Troll

Would read again.

Reply Score: 2

In Turkish
by earksiinni on Tue 17th Jan 2012 17:46 UTC
earksiinni
Member since:
2009-03-27

SOPA literally means stick...

...but more often it's used to mean "a beating". As in, "He's really asking for a 'sopa', isn't he?"

How appropriate =)

Reply Score: 2

Technical Details
by Alfman on Thu 19th Jan 2012 00:36 UTC
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

Anyone else notice that wikipedia's blackout was a javascript page modification, the pages were still served up and easily accessed without javascript.

Guess they didn't want to sacrifice their SEO stats for the blackout.

php.net blacked out their front page, but not the internal pages.

I didn't see many other blackouts among my common sites other than osnews,

Reply Score: 2