Reply With QuoteBut how can you blame the banks when they are being *forced* to do something?
I told you, both are to blame. You can't say it's "solely" the government's fault isn't fair.
But how can you blame the banks when they are being *forced* to do something?
don't forget to blame all the aspies who push for the efficient market hypothesis, the financial engineers who, based on the presumed validity of the emh, used the stochastic method to create a bunch of complex shit that nobody really understood and finally all the traders, executives, and analysts who were willing to bet their money (and others' money too) on exotic derivatives that they didn't fully understand. the government, the finance sector and the academics are all responsible.
wonder what would have happened had they bothered to really stress test their models.
This page is worth a read: http://maddox.xmission.com/
Prelim 2012 | Adv English | Chemistry | 3U Maths | Modern History | Physics | SOR I
Nothing is true, everything is permitted
They seemed "forced" but they gained huge amounts of profit from it as well so their was a profit motive. They weren't forced, but more like they made a mutual agreement at the coersion of the government.
The banks have enough influence over the government to do what it likes. 99 percent of the GOP are bought as well as most of the democrats! So if they threatened to stop "contributing" to the politicians, I think they wouldn't be able to "force"the banks.
But yeah, this would be type of stuff you can write about on www.subjectivemonkey.com
yeah that is a fair point
I am writing something about SOPA and PIPA and why it is bad for everyone and even if law makers are pulling out, it's important not to lose sight of what's important
Two interesting articles if anyone wants something to read:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertco...lee-from-pipa/
Tl;dr - 18 senators pulled support from PIPA after the blackout.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...1fc307d67b674d
Tl;dr - Megaupload was shut down. THE WAR IS BEGINNING. =P
HSC 2012: 91.75
http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/19/sop...ts-supporters/
"SOPA Protests Sway Congress: 31 Opponents Yesterday, 122 Now"
Still would pass though.
Show us when you finish? I could use a condensed version of what it actually means.Originally Posted by Lolsmith
It is fairly shitty but I make no apologies for it and I might have ~made things up~ about WikiLeak
Last edited by Lolsmith; 20 Jan 2012 at 6:54 PM.
the same style of censorship china utilises on its own citizens, much like fluoridation is the same style of water sanitation china utilises on its own citizens
ipso facto fluoridation is bad
you know full well what I meant by that and I think it's a valid point
but are there any other criticisms/tips you can offer funkshen?
the 'business interest' rhetoric is a bit off. this isn't about business, this is about copyright holders (businesses just so happen to hold a lot of copyrights). it will empower small and big copyright holders alike.
you might also mention how this issue has been framed ('theft of intellectual property' - piracy etc is not theft it is conversion, an infringement of property rights)
you might also mention the acronyms. Stop Online Piracy Act - it won't stop online piracy considering it doesn't punish pirates, and won't work : 1) linking to pirated material etc will just move to foreign sites, and 2) foreign sites can only be DNS blacklisted, which can be circumvented with minimal effort. if you want pirated material you can still get it.
you might mention louis c.k.'s success (though it has limited application to the wider issue) in low cost, accessible original content.
you might also question the values of the scumbags who are trying to push this through, like chris "i promise i won't be a lobbyist after i resign from congress" dodd (now head of Motion Picture Association of America)
the wikileaks example is a bit of a non-issue. determined web denizens will still access the site, and you are wrong in saying that the US can 'shut the site down'
to be quite honest a lot of the arguments about economic growth and being a content provider or crowd-based site like reddit are shit. "SOPA would make running Reddit near impossible" is another way of saying your business model is based on infringing copyrights. its like saying i can't run my restaurant without cockroaches and rats everywhere
you might also mention how fluoridation is one big conspiracy and therefore SOPA and PIPA are bad
Last edited by funkshen; 20 Jan 2012 at 6:07 PM.
I have no issue with any of those things
learning experiences yeeeee
do you think the internet should be publicly/commonly/democratically owned though
also my reasoning behind the Reddit stuff is that although there's probably copyright infringement going on, the harm is minimal, if existent at all, and doesn't need draconian regulation to reel it in
No I don't
so a little harm is okay
a little stealing from legitimate copyright holders is okay
a little ss-totenkopfverbande is okay
so what's your real objection to copyright owners controlling access to their products. is the only reason SOPA and PIPA are bad is because the gubermint is doing it?No I don't
But they aren't really ~stealing~ it. They don't take their intellectual property or copyrighted material and then claim it as their own or turn a profit from it
It's an issue of practicality. Like you said, there's no way people can't access "banned" material that is available elsewhere on the web and it will cut down the ability for future individuals to build something fantastic like YouTube and Facebook. If my understanding is correct, there is even room for exploitation of this legislation for larger firms to sabotage growing threats but that is getting a bit towards the fringe.
Whilst I have a strong aversion to the state, the reason being so, again, is an issue of practicality. The state is on the most part an inefficient and unjust operator of anything and often worsens things. There have been state successes and I recognise that, but the numerous failures outweigh and overshadow the success. I would love to see the government run like a real business and make profit for its citizenry without the need to take more money from them.
i like the cut of your jib son
The way I see it, is even if they take out google there's always going to be some other nerd from china setting up something google like, and since it's in a different jurisdiction, US gov can't do anything about it. At least google is "tamed" so to speak. If it was someone else, I think the US government would be more in trouble if they really wanted to target copyright.
Is the fight really over? http://bit.ly/A9pIyl
Last edited by inJust; 20 Jan 2012 at 7:33 PM.
is that the thing you see about it
is it really
also they can/will DNS blacklist a foreign google so your point is moot
They have the power to take down US sites right? Does it give them power to DNS blacklist?
they can add a foreign site to a DNS blacklist (SOPA and PIPA)
they can shut down domestic sites (SOPA)
it then follows that foreign sites will be DNS blacklisted and domestic sites will be shut down, amongst other things
Last edited by funkshen; 20 Jan 2012 at 7:43 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks