Here's an issue that's dear to our hearts. At least, if you're online as much as I am --

It’s Official – The FCC Will Vote to Take Over the Internet in December

[stopnetregulation.org]

This website has a lot of information about Net Neutrality and it's ramifications --

[stopnetregulation.org]

I'm not sure it could happen...can you imagine the fight that hackers the world over would put up against it, lol...

The FCC & gov't would both be in way over their heads on this one...

Still, the very thought of an FCC regulation/takeover makes me shudder...

Removing the hype:

That article seems a little short on facts:

[www.google.com]

[en.wikipedia.org]

[topics.nytimes.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/03/2010 02:49AM by swimmer.

Sure...."Nothing to see here; move on."

Baaa, baaa, baaa....

[www.alternet.org]

wellll, All I can say on the subject, is after the 18th of last month, the governments efforts just to nail people using P2P programs increased over 10x, id get 80 to 100 attempted intrusions from the DOJ and other groups who work for the government per day on average, since the 18th of november, Ive blocked over a thousand a day, one day over 3,000, from known Government owned IP's... so they are obviously up to something, just in case I gave my pc the cleaning of its life, I destroyed my old HD which was crappy anyway, and replaced it with a new clean HD I got for $30 in the day after thanksgiving sales...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, mirror in the sky
What is love?
Can the child within my heart rise above?
Can I sail through the changing ocean tides?
Can I handle the seasons of my life?

kid,

lol Are you calling me a sheep for posting facts?

I never gave my opinion either way, just posted information.

You can keep you childish insults, I don't want them.

KidRaw,

As per usual, your links lead to that which cannot be corroborated. Is it so hard to find objective, informative data about this subject, like what swimmer posted? Posting stuff like these CT sites isn't helpful. It's provocative and alarming. And distracting.

Why the tendency toward hysterics? Why? Is it something about this site, that makes you upset? Is it something about raw vegetarian foods? What?

I thought I was posting information that would be of interest to everybody and from credible sources of those who had done their research and were well-informed.

What is a 'CT' site?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/03/2010 03:44PM by KidRaw.

Honestly, if the Internets shut down tomorrow, I would live. I am 44 years of age. I was in my early 30s before I had my first email address. Everything of value I have been turned on to has been downloaded. It's all good. "They" can't do a bloody thing. Actually, I think it would be a splendid cosmic lesson for the young 'uns to have to exist without all their gizmos for a while. Their over-reliance on electronics is unnerving...

KidRaw Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I thought I was posting information that would be
> of interest to everybody and from credible sources
> of those who had done their research and were
> well-informed.
>

"Credible"

Oh really? That's interesting...

Anyone who does a quick search would find "The Center for Individual Freedom" is a just another Washington lobby group dedicated to helping and funding one and only one political party.

Well, the NYT is the mouthpiece for the other political party, so how does that make your source credible.

Pot, meet Kettle.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/03/2010 08:11PM by KidRaw.

Now this is too silly. You can't bait me with childish stuff like that. My, or your opinion of the credibility of the NYT is not the issue.

If you want to believe opinion blogs to be facts, that's your choice. But if post links to it, you have to expect people to read it, question the validity, do their own research, and post what they find.

I did just that, so why would you have a problem with that? Why wouldn't you want people to know all the facts? Why is defending the opinion of one blogger with a political agenda so important on a raw food website?

It seems to me your asking us to be what you accused me of...be a sheep and just believe what you read posted here. Don't research, you may just find the truth!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/03/2010 08:34PM by swimmer.

KidRaw,

Quote

I thought I was posting information that would be of interest to everybody and from credible sources of those who had done their research and were well-informed.

I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that this is sincere. However, you should know that if one is truly well-informed and has done one's research on this topic, one will immediately recognize the blog you link to as the definition of "not credible." The entries consist of subjective blogging rather than plain reportage, and blogging can have validity except when, as in this case, it is riddled with provocative editorializing, and lacking in primary citations--a dead-giveaway for not credible information. By the way, say what you wish about The Times, unlike the sites you post links to, The Times[and other legitimate news sources]do hire trained journalists who know how to tell good information from bad and how to report good information concisely but fully.

CT stands for Conspiracy Theory. That is, not actual proveable conspiracy, but implausible, far-fetched, or delusional conspiracy. You know, the Rockefellers are poisoning our drinking water to sterilize us, that kind of thing.

Lastly, if I may interlope into your "your mama" argument with swimmer, I want to point out that facts aren't liberal or conservative, they are just facts. No site that purports to be credible describes events outside the boundaries of facts. That's just the way it is. If I wanna post something about Sasquatch having the Queen to tea, I shouldn't expect anyone to take that seriously as evidence of our disastrous foreign policy. For example.

Phew! I got a pass from Moderator Tamukha on this one! Next time, I may not be so lucky.

I had better fall into line and adopt the official position of the boss of the board on the issues -

Let's see -- it's good that regular lightbulbs are to be outlawed. Whatever the powers that be want to do with the internet is just fine. Chemtrails are nothing to worry about - probably just exhaust from jets. Nothing to worry about with more regulations by the FDA on our food supply. What else? Oh, yeah - 'man-made' Global Warming is real....

baaa, baaa....

Baaa, by david macaulay:

[books.google.com]

@KidRaw,

Whats with all the baiting and name calling going on here? This kind of energy doesn't feel good to me (and I suspect others here), and if it continues (the negative energy), expect to have your login removed.

[www.naturalnews.com]

what's this? my friend forwarded it to me in alarm. i can't tell what's real and whats not anymore...

coco,

Check out the article that is linked from natural news:

[www.huffingtonpost.com]

This is enforcing the 1998 expansion of the copyright laws.

[en.wikipedia.org]

The folks who need to be worried are sites that host music and movie for illegal downloads, and the warez (hacked software) sites. Everything else is just web paranoia. Site like Naturalnews is not going to be taken over. I don't have a clue why they would write such nonsense at the end of the article.

When the DHS was formed in 2002, The President at that time, for some unknown reason, included intellectual property theft as a national security risk. Now, the DHS has the technology to carry out their task.

So if you,re into song & movie downloading, and warez, it's time to stop, and be happy with what you have...my guess is that soon the hackers will indeed find other ways of getting stuff out there...I understand you can buy any software you want on disk for a few dollars in many cities in Asia and Russia.

While the laws like COICA are overzealous, it really is about big business being able to lobby to bend the laws to protect their interest.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/07/2010 01:35AM by swimmer.

Actually swimmer, if you have actually read the wording of the law, it is very ambiguously worded, this law could easily be used without any kind of twisting to get rid of ANY website with copyrighted material on it, even this website could technically be brought down, as there is tons of copyrighted material in here just check out half the signatures... the problem with this law isn't its spirit, but its scope and ambiguous wording that technically make it unconstitutional, opens up the door for any fascist in power to regulate the internet in ways that no one should ever have the right to do.

On another note, here is an interesting article on Piracy, about the only one from either side of the debate Ive ever seen that actually makes some defensible valid points based on real facts, and seems to come from more of a middle ground...
[blog.wolfire.com]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, mirror in the sky
What is love?
Can the child within my heart rise above?
Can I sail through the changing ocean tides?
Can I handle the seasons of my life?

I agree the wording goes too far, however I don't know if I would call it unconstitutional. And I don't see how it can be considered "taking over the net".

Regardless of how it's worded, for good or bad, the interest is protecting the profits of the businesses that lobbied to get the law in the first place. No one looses any money over a quoted signature, or linked passage. However, money is lost to piracy.

I also agree with the article about piracy figures being ridiculously inflated. It's more than likely that most hacked software that's downloaded is never really used, because most people downloading are just collectors. They get it because they can, not because they will ever make money off it. There are also people who used hacked software just to learn, so they can get a better job.

It's an ugly law, I'm not saying otherwise, and I'm not defending the government at all. I just think there is way too much hysteria, and way too little facts being written in blogs. Knowledge is always the best weapon against fear.

It is unconstitutional because it gives the government the ability to stop free speech, if some blogger puts the lyrics to a beetles song in one of his entries, an entire site can be taken down according to the wording of this law, a quote from a book that is still under copyright can have the same result, its what it gives them the power to do that makes it unconstitutional, this website could be taken down, as ive personally seen multiple copyright infringements... There is no other reason for them to use such ambiguous wording in the law unless they purposely intend to leave such options open...

IF they re-wrote the law to make it to where they could only take down/block sites that are specifically for pirating, id support it, even though I dl illegally often, to use though, not to pirate, I believe getting rid of the sites that are just for pirating would be fair... but they already have the power to do that to any site owned by somebody in the U.S., oh, say goodbye to youtube btw, its at least 90% copyrighted material,lol.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, mirror in the sky
What is love?
Can the child within my heart rise above?
Can I sail through the changing ocean tides?
Can I handle the seasons of my life?

Im talking about current constitutional law, under constitutional law, new laws have to have a defined purpose, their wording must be clear as to leave little or no ambiguity, as ambiguity in law, leads to massive amounts of extra work for everyone, and lots of wasted time and money... Im not talking about JUST the first things written in the constitution, but all the amendments as well, laws have to be clearly defined, this one is not even close... that is what makes it unconstitutional.

If they want to specifically go after only websites who promote piracy, then the law needs to explicitly state that, as it leaves them the room to have pretty much any website to be blocked.

"I believe I can fly, I believe I can touch the sky." Under this law, this website could be blocked from all U.S. computers because I just broke copyright law by posting that song lyric.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, mirror in the sky
What is love?
Can the child within my heart rise above?
Can I sail through the changing ocean tides?
Can I handle the seasons of my life?

Curator,

A strict legal argument of unconstitutionality cannot be made on this score; it would be impossible to clarify. Sorry. It is easy to forget that Federal lawmakers are among the greatest concentration of legal scholars in one place. They know what they are doing when they makes a document ambiguous--this is by design, as you seem to understand. This does not necessarily render a thing unconstitutional. It may render it unfeasible, however.

except there have been TONS of laws thrown out in the past and declared unconstitutional for this exact same reason:/... there is a major precedent...they made laws to specifically deal with stuff like this...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, mirror in the sky
What is love?
Can the child within my heart rise above?
Can I sail through the changing ocean tides?
Can I handle the seasons of my life?