anyone boycotting godaddy ?

[d000hg]

Well here we are 3 hours later and no one has posted an answer. Perhaps they assumed that as you felt you were in a position to criticise NF's analogy and make one of your own, you might have the slightest clue what you were talking about and therefore typing "What is SOPA?" into google on your behalf wasn't necessary.

When my question is "what is SOPA" then your attempt to be cutting would be slightly less moronic. I know that SOPA allows sites to be taken down without proper legal process as we normally understand it, but my question was probably a bit too subtle for you.

As an aside, if typing "What is SOPA?" into google takes you a couple of hours you might want to seek help. Perhaps from the person treating your total sense of humour failure?

In case you forgot from trying so hard to be funny, the question was "do the proposed laws mean they take the sites down permanently, or 'temporarily' while the matter is investigated. That is not something you can ask Google, and it's clearly something you don't know the answer to. It requires an intimate knowledge of the proposal that only someone who studied the subject rather than parroting what they read on Twitter would have.

As an aside - if you think that typing something into Google and understanding the answer take the same amount of time, then you're even thicker than your 'jokes' suggest.

[d000hg]

From Wikipedia: The originally proposed bill would allow the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as copyright holders, to seek court orders against websites outside U.S. jurisdiction accused of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. Depending on who makes the request, the court order could include barring online advertising networks and payment facilitators from conducting business with websites found to infringe on federal criminal intellectual-property laws, barring search engines from linking to such sites, and requiring Internet service providers to block access to such sites.

In practice this would mean that, for example, somebody posting a link to a ripped-off ebook over in Technical could result in CUK (all of it, not just the forums) having its DNS blocked without notice by the US federal government, despite being a UK site.

Yes but permanently, or while they "more closely review" the actual infringements, or lack thereof?

[NickFitz]

Well here we are 3 hours later and no one has posted an answer.

I'd gone to the shops

[d000hg]

I'd gone to the shops

Doodab doesn't understand distributed processing... that me spending 3 hours studying the subject myself, or spending 3 hours doing some useful work until you come back and spend 10s posting a reply aren't the same thing.

I bet he's great fun in a pub quiz too.

[xoggoth]

Bloody acronyms. I can never figure out how breast implants are connected to private finance initiatives, except obviously that both will be Gordon Brown's fault.

[doodab]

When my question is "what is SOPA" then your attempt to be cutting would be slightly less moronic. I know that SOPA allows sites to be taken down without proper legal process as we normally understand it, but my question was probably a bit too subtle for you.

Oh get over yourself you uptight twat. I made a joke at your expense, you didn't actually get, it so I explained it to you.

FWIW, what you think you know is actually wrong, as SOPA doesn't actually allow for sites to be "taken down" at all. It was to create a new "proper legal process" to allow the US justice department to require US companies to sever commercial ties with foreign sites hosting illegal material, for US ISPs to block access to them to US subscribers, and for US search engines to remove links to them.

In case you forgot from trying so hard to be funny, the question was "do the proposed laws mean they take the sites down permanently, or 'temporarily' while the matter is investigated. That is not something you can ask Google, and it's clearly something you don't know the answer to. It requires an intimate knowledge of the proposal that only someone who studied the subject rather than parroting what they read on Twitter would have.

As an aside - if you think that typing something into Google and understanding the answer take the same amount of time, then you're even thicker than your 'jokes' suggest.

I don't read anything on twitter. I do however know how to use google to find things, and I know how to read.

Had you even bothered to try you would know that in fact your question is something you can ask google. I know this, because I asked google and google took me to the subject matter. Which is how come I know the answer to your question. Of course I'm not going to tell you, simply because I think someone as rude, arrogant & lazy as you might benefit from doing his own research for a change. Who knows, you might even become confident enough to use google yourself in future.

[d000hg]

You finally got me to laugh, that YOU would call ME arrogant & rude after your posts in this thread. I take it all back, you can make a joke.


Seriously though, you're being rather a prick. Maybe come back to CUK when the booze wears of, OK?

Why would someone spend hours reading about something they have a slight interest in, when they could ask people who are far more interested and can simply answer the question. I note you still haven't answered my actual question because you don't know the answer. Idiots like you think posting a link to wiki or some other original source counts as an answer, but the entire point of my question is to ask what it MEANS.

Just admit you don't know, there's a good girl.

[doodab]

You finally got me to laugh, that YOU would call ME arrogant & rude after your posts in this thread. I take it all back, you can make a joke.


Seriously though, you're being rather a prick. Maybe come back to CUK when the booze wears of, OK?

Why would someone spend hours reading about something they have a slight interest in, when they could ask people who are far more interested and can simply answer the question. I note you still haven't answered my actual question because you don't know the answer. Idiots like you think posting a link to wiki or some other original source counts as an answer, but the entire point of my question is to ask what it MEANS.

Just admit you don't know, there's a good girl.

I have answered your question, indirectly. Under the act, the sites cannot be "taken down" at all, because that isn't what the act allows for.

Why do you assume that it would take hours of reading to find that out without even bothering to try? Are you lazy or have you had a bad experience trying to understand things for yourself before? Are you a slow witted illiterate? You are doing a damn fine impersonation of one.

What is amusing is that you call me an idiot, then complain that I haven't put the answer in sufficiently simple terms for you

[d000hg]

Sorry but posting a link to the bill or the wiki page isn't an answer. And your clarification on "taking down" sites, while illuminating, is NOT an answer either. You seem fixated that I'm asking "what is SOPA", when I'm not. My question "is this permanent" applies just the same to your clarification.

Given that the wiki entry on SOPA is 19 pages and nearly 10 thousand words long, your assertion that anyone who has a question on SOPA should read the entire thing is rather asinine.

[NickFitz]

Here's xkcd with some more links for people to not bother reading: xkcd: SOPA