Somehow Europe pulled a fast one on us, I've been talking about ACTA with work colleagues this week and none of them had a clue what it's about.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I've been talking to some of my Chinese colleagues and they tell me that there are VAST amounts of traffic to MegaUpload type sites throughout Asia that are dark to the Western world because of the language barrier.

This problem isn't going to go away. The copying cat is out of the bag, but there is a big upside that a lot of people don't acknowledge:

Millions more eyeballs are watching movies than would have is they weren't shared. The trick is harnessing this in a "free" setting. In the short term, we're probably talking about embedding things into the movies that are hard to strip - like product placements - as annoying as they are.

In the long term there may be other creative solutions. I was listening to this very nerdy podcast about the old Infocom text adventure games like Zork - and they mentioned their use of "feelies" as a form of copy protection. Perhaps, as movies become more interactive - this will be an option.

Thanks. Your comment is exactly why I posted it.

This is the power of the internet -- getting past the money-making images. Fear sells papers and catches eyes on the TV news, not love.

In reply to this comment by Kreegath:
I have colleagues and friends who've immigrated to my country from Iran and who're in in daily contact with as well as take regular trips to the friends and family they've got living there. The image I've gotten of the place is nothing like the devilish hell hole that US and European media depicts it to be. It's a modern society with an ancient culture. Sure it's a country which struggles with poverty, social injustice and religious fundamentalism, that's undeniable. However, in many regards the same image could be painted of the US or even my own country of Sweden, should anyone feel the desire to do so, even if the degree to which the national problems manifest themselves vary. What is so very important to keep in mind, and what the media is very careful not to show you, is the actual people. That's why I like this video and others like it (although the music in this one wasn't really necessary IMO), because it humanizes them in a media conversation which otherwise thrives on dehumanizing to push a political agenda.

I have colleagues and friends who've immigrated to my country from Iran and who're in in daily contact with as well as take regular trips to the friends and family they've got living there. The image I've gotten of the place is nothing like the devilish hell hole that US and European media depicts it to be. It's a modern society with an ancient culture. Sure it's a country which struggles with poverty, social injustice and religious fundamentalism, that's undeniable. However, in many regards the same image could be painted of the US or even my own country of Sweden, should anyone feel the desire to do so, even if the degree to which the national problems manifest themselves vary. What is so very important to keep in mind, and what the media is very careful not to show you, is the actual people. That's why I like this video and others like it (although the music in this one wasn't really necessary IMO), because it humanizes them in a media conversation which otherwise thrives on dehumanizing to push a political agenda.

I wrote to my Senator (Orrin Hatch-R., Utah, responsible for the Protect IP Act) about SOPA and its problems and gave them a rather "cool" scathing review about its faults and errors and the public demonstrations that have taken place like GoDaddy and the fact that three major companies had pulled out from the SOPA bill (although their political alliance group is still signed into SOPA--so they can still look good in the public eye and still, really, support the bill) and got the "printing press" release as follows (which has nothing to do with what I wrote, really--I know this bill is coming, but really, an auto-send out letter for pissed constituents?):

Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to S. 968, the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property (PROTECT IP) Act.

On May 12, 2011, Senator Patrick Leahy and I introduced the PROTECT IP Act. If enacted, S. 968 would provide law enforcement with important tools to stop foreign websites “dedicated to infringing activities.” In other words, the bill targets the most egregious offenders of online theft who profit from counterfeit products and pirated content. These goods can range from new movie and music releases to pharmaceuticals and consumer products. With this legislation, we send a strong message to those selling or distributing pirated content or counterfeit goods online that the United States will strongly protect intellectual property rights.

The bill authorizes the Department of Justice (DOJ) to file a civil action against the registrant or owner of a domain name that accesses a foreign infringing Internet site, or the foreign-registered domain name itself. However, DOJ officials must first seek approval from a federal court before taking any action. In determining whether an Internet site is “dedicated to infringing activities,” a federal judge must weigh all of the facts carefully in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure – just like what happens today in shutting down an illegal bricks and mortar storefront.

Unfortunately, there seems to be a common assumption with some online users that illegal downloads and purchases online are free and harmless. This is far from true. Fake pharmaceuticals threaten people’s lives. Stolen movies, music, and other products threaten the jobs and livelihoods of many people, and drive up costs for other consumers. Every year, these online thieves are making hundreds of millions of dollars by stealing American intellectual property, and this undermines legitimate commerce.

This also has a direct impact on Utah. As you may know, Utah is considered a very popular state for film and television production activity. Nothing compares to the red rock of Southern Utah or the sweeping grandeur of the Wasatch Mountains. Utah’s workforce is also a draw to filmmakers who come for one of the most highly educated and hardworking workforces in our country. It is estimated that the motion picture and television industries are responsible for thousands of jobs and tens of millions of dollars in wages in Utah. There is no doubt that intellectual property theft has a direct, negative impact on Utah’s economy and its workforce. This same impact can be seen nationwide.

On July 22, 2011, the Senate Judiciary Committee favorably reported S. 968 by unanimous consent. While it is unclear when the bill will be considered by the full Senate, the legislation enjoys strong support with 39 bipartisan cosponsors to date. Please know that my Senate colleagues and I are committed to crafting consensus legislation and welcome suggestions on ways to improve the bill. Unfortunately there has been some misinformation circulated about what the PROTECT IP Act aims to accomplish. In an effort to be of assistance, I have enclosed “Fact vs. Fiction” information about the legislation. I hope this information will be helpful to you.

Again, thank you for writing. I welcome your continued input on issues of concern.



Complete BULLSHIT. I hate my politicians, they're fucking half-wits!

"I'm sure that there were some private institutions that did more than inconvenience minorities before the 1960s because they discriminated, but guess what? That's not applicable today. If Taco Bell says no more white people allowed, the white people will go next door! Barely even an inconvenience."


I, as you may infer, am not white. I find it is futile to argue with many white people about overt discrimination, because they have never encountered it. Also to the credit of many households and parents, many white kids don't grow up around overt racists. As a result, they only see discrimination as an intellectual problem.

I have only seen two instances where previously disagreeing white people start to appreciate my point of view:

1) Experience direct discrimination in a non-white majority country: I live in China, and have visited Japan, Asian Pacific countries and African countries for business and pleasure. I often travel with friends and colleagues, many of whom are white westerners. I can tell you that often when white people are denied doing something very ordinary, like visiting a restaurant, solely because they are white (or rather non-Chinese, non-Japanese, etc), a usual response is them completely losing their minds. At that moment, when they are directly denied entry into a private establishment for something incidental as their race, they feel the humiliation and the anger associated with the experience. After such a personal experience, a productive conversation can happen about discrimination in the States. There still may not be agreement, but at least the discussion will have more depth than "Save the Country!!!".

2) Experience an openly American racist culture firsthand. A white buddy of mine would have sworn on a stack of bibles that the attitudes that are behind discrimination are past us all---until she visited her cousins in Louisiana. She later recounted to me that she was in shock at the free use of the word "nigger", and the half-joking fantasies about shooting and killing 'coons', among other things. I think she gets it now; at least she understands why I would not want to let these people out of the proverbial asylum by repealing the 64 Act, or its derivatives.

@chilaxe Honestly, I don't think california has ever had many high contributors as you are defining it. This group has always been a highly visible minority in the state. And this is probably shrinking as people move to greener pastures and better opportunities overseas. Frankly, I see more opportunity in Asia and Africa than in Silicon Valley, which is rather cliquish. More and more of my foriegn born Chinese and Indian colleagues agree, and there are more and more high skilled people avoiding the glass ceiling and cliques by going back.

Anonymous advised its members to protect their online identities, and not to wear the traditional Anonymous mask in public, or even purchase them online, as a core group decides if it should take on a Mexican drug cartel that is said to have kidnapped a member of the group.

The hacker group had earlier threatened to expose the identity of members and supporters of a Mexican drug cartel by Nov. 5, in retaliation for the kidnapping of a group member, and hacked the web site of a former state official, alleging that he has associations with the dreaded Zetas cartel.

But there are fissures showing among the leaders as fear of handling the drug cartel builds up, with some expressing concern that new, inexperienced members could get quickly exposed and compromised.

The action has been cancelled, Sm0k34n0n wrote in a Twitter message in Spanish on Monday. High-profile colleague anonymouSabu described sm0k34n0n as one of the campaign's promoters in another Twitter message. But other groups from Latin America are said to be considering a core action group, and warning other members to stay away. AnonymouSabu was all for the action late Sunday.

A video in Spanish posted on YouTube on October 6 by a person calling himself "MrAnonymousguyfawkes", threatened that Anonymous will publish the names, photos, and addresses of police officials, journalists, and taxi drivers that collaborate with the drug cartel, hoping the government will arrest them.

"You made a huge mistake by taking one of us. Release him. And if anything happens to him, you (expletive) will always remember this upcoming November 5th," said a masked person in the video, according to a translation provided by another user of YouTube.

November 5 is known in the U.K. as Guy Fawkes day after his November 5, 1605, conspiracy to attempt to blow up the British Parliament. The Guy Fawkes mask, popularized by the movie V for Vendetta, has been adopted by Anonymous.

Anonymous claimed on Sunday to have defaced the website of a former official in the Mexican state of Tabasco. On Monday, the website bore a message in Spanish by Anonymous Mexico stating that he was a part of Zetas.

"We all know who they are and where they are," said the speaker in the video. Anonymous did not however claim that its hacking skills gave it special access to information on the cartel. Nor are its traditional tactics such as DDoS (distributed denial-of-service) attacks on websites likely to be of use against armed gangs, according to various analysts.

The drug cartel has killed people who have criticized them on blogs and other social media, according to reports. The Committee to Protect Journalists in New York reported in September the murder of a journalist in direct retaliation for information posted on social media.

As newspapers are censored by fear, Mexican citizens, and many journalists, are turning to social media and online forums to share news and inform each other, said Sara Rafsky, a research associate in CPJ's Americas program. "So it should be no shock that drug cartels are turning their attention to the Internet."
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/242845/anonymous_threatens_to_expose_mexican_drug_cartel.html

When Ron Paul says he's for limited government and fiscal responsibility, he practices what he preaches:

Congressman Ron Paul has continued to run his Congressional office in a frugal manner, and was able to return more than $100,000 from his allotted office budget to the Treasury this year, an increase over the $90,000 returned last year.

“Since my first year in Congress representing the 14th district I have managed my office in a frugal manner, instructing staff to provide the greatest possible service to the people of the 14th district at the least possible cost to taxpayers,” said Paul.

One of my colleagues/coworkers saw something like this in Chennai, India, a few years ago.

You sound like Glen Close in Fatal Attraction. Enough of this clingy shit. I'm not your therapist. Go write a sonnet or free a butterfly from a net. Call an old friend and say hi. Send a handwritten note to a sick relative. Give your wife a good long kiss. Smoke some pot and take a nap. Every little thing gonna be alright.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Your terms again. Got it. That's twice now in one conversation. Holding others to higher standards. Again.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
What are we talking about? You said the only reason you re-friended me was because I showed up to see your movie; I only re-accepted to not hurt your feelings. Why in the holy fuck are we still talking? Go do something productive.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
It's facebook. Whether you "initiate" comments or not, people can see them. You've never had issues before recently with stirring the pot; why all of a sudden? It's disingenuous to all of a sudden take the high ground out of the blue. But you're good at that.

Also, no need to copy your comment twice (once on my profile, once on yours). It's not that important.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
When I have initiated politics, your comments have always been welcomed, but to let that bleed over to personal photos that are viewable to family, employers and professional colleagues is completely unacceptable - not to say very hypocritical from a guy who so vocally supports privacy rights. I would never go into your personal photos and try to initiate a political argument. That would be unacceptable behavior by my own personal standards.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I think I did too. The only reason I kept the friendship kindling was because you came to the Sunset 5. Now it's official. Good.

But are you so sure you've never brought up politics on FB before? I think you hold others to a higher standard than you hold yourself.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
My FB photos are no place for your politics, so I'm cutting you loose. I think you had the right idea a few months ago. No hard feelings. We can still be VS frenemies.

Your terms again. Got it. That's twice now in one conversation. Holding others to higher standards. Again.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
What are we talking about? You said the only reason you re-friended me was because I showed up to see your movie; I only re-accepted to not hurt your feelings. Why in the holy fuck are we still talking? Go do something productive.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
It's facebook. Whether you "initiate" comments or not, people can see them. You've never had issues before recently with stirring the pot; why all of a sudden? It's disingenuous to all of a sudden take the high ground out of the blue. But you're good at that.

Also, no need to copy your comment twice (once on my profile, once on yours). It's not that important.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
When I have initiated politics, your comments have always been welcomed, but to let that bleed over to personal photos that are viewable to family, employers and professional colleagues is completely unacceptable - not to say very hypocritical from a guy who so vocally supports privacy rights. I would never go into your personal photos and try to initiate a political argument. That would be unacceptable behavior by my own personal standards.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I think I did too. The only reason I kept the friendship kindling was because you came to the Sunset 5. Now it's official. Good.

But are you so sure you've never brought up politics on FB before? I think you hold others to a higher standard than you hold yourself.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
My FB photos are no place for your politics, so I'm cutting you loose. I think you had the right idea a few months ago. No hard feelings. We can still be VS frenemies.

What are we talking about? You said the only reason you re-friended me was because I showed up to see your movie; I only re-accepted to not hurt your feelings. Why in the holy fuck are we still talking? Go do something productive.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
It's facebook. Whether you "initiate" comments or not, people can see them. You've never had issues before recently with stirring the pot; why all of a sudden? It's disingenuous to all of a sudden take the high ground out of the blue. But you're good at that.

Also, no need to copy your comment twice (once on my profile, once on yours). It's not that important.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
When I have initiated politics, your comments have always been welcomed, but to let that bleed over to personal photos that are viewable to family, employers and professional colleagues is completely unacceptable - not to say very hypocritical from a guy who so vocally supports privacy rights. I would never go into your personal photos and try to initiate a political argument. That would be unacceptable behavior by my own personal standards.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I think I did too. The only reason I kept the friendship kindling was because you came to the Sunset 5. Now it's official. Good.

But are you so sure you've never brought up politics on FB before? I think you hold others to a higher standard than you hold yourself.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
My FB photos are no place for your politics, so I'm cutting you loose. I think you had the right idea a few months ago. No hard feelings. We can still be VS frenemies.

It's facebook. Whether you "initiate" comments or not, people can see them. You've never had issues before recently with stirring the pot; why all of a sudden? It's disingenuous to all of a sudden take the high ground out of the blue. But you're good at that.

Also, no need to copy your comment twice (once on my profile, once on yours). It's not that important.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
When I have initiated politics, your comments have always been welcomed, but to let that bleed over to personal photos that are viewable to family, employers and professional colleagues is completely unacceptable - not to say very hypocritical from a guy who so vocally supports privacy rights. I would never go into your personal photos and try to initiate a political argument. That would be unacceptable behavior by my own personal standards.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I think I did too. The only reason I kept the friendship kindling was because you came to the Sunset 5. Now it's official. Good.

But are you so sure you've never brought up politics on FB before? I think you hold others to a higher standard than you hold yourself.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
My FB photos are no place for your politics, so I'm cutting you loose. I think you had the right idea a few months ago. No hard feelings. We can still be VS frenemies.

When I have initiated politics, your comments have always been welcomed, but to let that bleed over to personal photos that are viewable to family, employers and professional colleagues is completely unacceptable - not to say very hypocritical from a guy who so vocally supports privacy rights. I would never go into your personal photos and try to initiate a political argument. That would be unacceptable behavior by my own personal standards. >> ^blankfist:

I think I did too. The only reason I kept the friendship kindling was because you came to the Sunset 5. Now it's official. Good.
But are you so sure you've never brought up politics on FB before? I think you hold others to a higher standard than you hold yourself.
In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
My FB photos are no place for your politics, so I'm cutting you loose. I think you had the right idea a few months ago. No hard feelings. We can still be VS frenemies.