Congress Has Declared Pizza A Vegetable

[VaporTrail]

No wonder we're the fattest nation in the world.

 

 

Oh yeah, and the government is trying to censor the internet.

[Westside Steve]

Besides pepperoni and cheese what else is in pizza? Copper?

 

Ps big mama likely knows pizza.....

WSS

[calfoxwc]

onions, peppers, anchovies (my favorite), mushrooms, chicken, pineapple, bacon, sausage, olives (the black rotten kind often),

 

it isn't lunches that's making kids obese.

 

Anything to avoid talking about Obamao's failures.

 

Meanwhile, Michelle Obamao feeds her hateful, dishonest mug with fat city crap, but

 

everybody else should learn to do what she says, not what she does.

 

She's a dirtier dirtbag than Obamao.

[Pumpkin Eater]

flour, oil, eggs, yeast

[VaporTrail]

onions, peppers, anchovies (my favorite), mushrooms, chicken, pineapple, bacon, sausage, olives (the black rotten kind often),

 

it isn't lunches that's making kids obese.

 

What kids are eating doesn't make them obese? No.

 

Yes, their obesefuck parents don't give a shit what they eat and just perpetuate the problem, but the lunches filled with fat fuck and sodium aren't helping for a healthier future. All the chicks are gonna be fat. I'm totally paying my loans off, then taking the paycut, and moving to Brazil or Sweden.

[osusev]

Vapor,

 

Congress is trying to sensor the internet? What do you mean?

[VaporTrail]

SOPA

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act

 

It's ass backwards, vaguely worded, and has the same ramifications that the Obama administration got its panties in a bunch about as China's blocking of internet websites.

 

Here's a list of corporations who support it.

 

http://www.theglobalipcenter.com/sites/default/files/pressreleases/letter-359.pdf

 

here's a shorter list of corporations who don't.

 

Opponents of the bill include Google, Yahoo!, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, AOL, LinkedIn, eBay, Mozilla Corporation, and Wikimedia Foundation, the Brookings Institution and human rights organizations such as Reporters Without Borders,[70] the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the ACLU and Human Rights Watch.

 

Seeing as how $$$ > votes, there's no way this isn't going to pass. Most of the population is too stupid to care about it, so again, looks like Huxley was right.

[Westside Steve]

Hey if the food stamp money goes for Cheetos and orange soday who cares what they eat for lunch?

Pizza is a fairly balanced food.

 

I'd like to see the food stams program switched to vouchers for actual foods. Tomatoes, meat, veggies, beans, cheese, milk etc from local farms.

Better for you and cheaper than processed shit from the freezer or the snack aisle.

 

And (if you can) cut down on the practice of swapping food stamps for cash.

 

Buut basically I have no beef with sporting somebody a little chow.

WSS

[osusev]

Vapor,

 

Its simple, it takes a lot of money to create content and IP, EVERY company against SOPA benefits from distributing content and IP they dont pay for or create.

 

Every company that is for it has to pay to create, organize, and distribute IP and content.

 

This is NOT about censorship, that is just what Google and others who monetize from distributing IP have framed the argument. This is about the right to make money by distributing what is not theirs and enriching themselves while the companies who have to pay for it are trying to protect their investments.

 

Dont be fooled by what is framed as a fight for "freedom" this is all about money.

 

Consumers want great content but naturally want it for the lowest cost possible because its not their problem to pay for it or create it. Google and the others know this and have framed the argument accordingly.

 

Media companies are "evil" and the companies who use the "cloud" to supply the selfish demands of the consumers are "good" and fighting for "freedom"

 

Its all BS... its all about money and using talking points based upon focus group produced PR talking points to shape the general publics perception.

 

Full Disclosure, I have interest and work with both sides of the fight. Dont buy the hype from either side Vapor, neither side cares about the public or freedom all they care about is how they make revenue and protecting that mechanism.

 

Personally I think Google and others are wrong regardless of what consumers want, distributors have the responsibility if they enrich themselves to not infringe upon creators of original content unless they have made an agreement.

 

Google, AOL, Yahoo, Facebook and others are VERY protective or their original content and creations (look at their patents/rights to use clauses EULA's etc) yet they are very free to distribute others content which is totally hypocritical.

 

economic Innovation is only possible BECAUSE of IP protections....... one side uses that and tries to benefits by talking and acting out of both sides of their mouths.

[VaporTrail]

Fuck that. This is the same type of thing as the Great Firewall of China. It will allow the US government to block certain websites from being accessed in the country. The MPAA and RIAA business models are obsolete and this is a desperate last chance to try and hang on to it when it clearly hasn't been working for the past 15 years. The government should not be allowed to prevent people from accessing websites they deem inappropriate.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Hey if the food stamp money goes for Cheetos and orange soday who cares what they eat for lunch?

Pizza is a fairly balanced food.

 

I'd like to see the food stams program switched to vouchers for actual foods. Tomatoes, meat, veggies, beans, cheese, milk etc from local farms.

Better for you and cheaper than processed shit from the freezer or the snack aisle.

 

And (if you can) cut down on the practice of swapping food stamps for cash.

 

Buut basically I have no beef with sporting somebody a little chow.

WSS

 

Eating fresh and local isn't cheaper than eating cheap and frozen. That's where you've got this wrong. It's healthier, sure. But Food Stamps only provide people with an average of $4.50 a day for food. But if you want to run a program like the one you're talking about you're going to need A) more money for food stamps more regulations and C) more government employees to monitor food stamp users and food producers. You want to crack down on abuses, you have to hire even more.

 

Point being, if you're looking to hire people to save the government money, hiring them to chase down poor people who might trade their food stamps for small amounts of cash is pretty stupid, when you can hire an IRS or SEC agent who could find tax cheats or investment fraud and save the government millions. I guess it just depends on how obsessed you are with poor people scamming enough money to buy a fifth of Old Crow. As far as policy is concerned, it's not exactly at the top of the list of government abuses.

 

Also, pizza shouldn't be considered a vegetable. Let's get back to reality.

 

I love pizza. I think kids should have pizza. I think it's fine for schools to offer pizza for lunch every once in a while. But it's not a vegetable. That's just agribusiness leaning in on members of Congress to make it so, so that they can keep selling schools their frozen gunk. Doesn't mean we have to think it, too.

[osusev]

Fuck that. This is the same type of thing as the Great Firewall of China. It will allow the US government to block certain websites from being accessed in the country. The MPAA and RIAA business models are obsolete and this is a desperate last chance to try and hang on to it when it clearly hasn't been working for the past 15 years. The government should not be allowed to prevent people from accessing websites they deem inappropriate.

 

Wow Vapor, you have bought the PR talking points hook, line and sinker.

 

First let me ask you some questions about the Great Wall of China.... argument.

 

Is China's policy negatively affecting technology startups and growth in China?

 

What is the "internet"? and what role does government have in the "internet"?

 

I see you chose not to talk about content theft and IP protection as the basis of economic development which makes sense because those points are fairly black and white.

 

Have you heard of say Spotify, Rhapsody, Pandora, Mog, Rdio, Itunes? ALL of them have permission and contractual relationships to protect IP while USING the "internet" to distribute content they monetize on.

 

Pretty much the same as say Cable companies like Time Warner, Comcast, Verizon, ATT all who work with and negotiate with media provider to distribute content.....

 

Heres the thing, Google/Facebook and companies like them do not power the "internet" in fact they are beneficiaries and basically parasites on companies who lay fiber, build data centers to manage distribution of IP and then to

 

top it off they allow pirated and stolen content that enriches engagement of their user bases which they make money on.

 

Heres the basic facts, the "internet" is supported and created by communications companies NOT google and Facebook like companies... those fiber lines and supporting infrastructure have been built up over decades. The media companies

 

That Youtube and other web sites that do not have permission to distribute stolen content enrich Google and Co at the COST of producing companies... meaning theft and the devaluation of IP.

 

Our entire economic system is based on the protection of IP, and the Governments job is to protect IP so the economic engine continues.... Not to protect pirates who enrich themselves by allowing content that clearly is in demand and engaging to their users but at the cost of the basis of IP protection.

 

Do you fly?

Do You Drive?

 

The government creates guidelines and enforcement to foster a safe and economic incentives to use the infrastructure for companies to fairly provide services. The "internet" is new and the proper protections have not been put in place.

 

Theft is theft any way you cut it, wrapping the argument in "freedom" and censorship does not change the nature of enriching yourself by theft.

[VaporTrail]

Is China's policy negatively affecting technology startups and growth in China?

 

I don't have any idea how it affects those things, but I know that it stifles freedom of information.

 

What is the "internet"?

 

It's not a truck, it's a series of tubes.

 

and what role does government have in the "internet"?

 

Keeping the infrastructure there, and not much more, in my humble opinion.

 

I see you chose not to talk about content theft and IP protection as the basis of economic development which makes sense because those points are fairly black and white.

 

Want me to talk about TPB? What they are doing is legal outside of the US. The RIAA and MPAA don't like it, so they pressure the US to block these websites from being accessed in America. Regardless of the reason, this sets a disturbing precedent.

[Westside Steve]

Eating fresh and local isn't cheaper than eating cheap and frozen. That's where you've got this wrong.

Nope.

Anybody who can cook knows it's way more cost effective to make meals than buy pre packaged stuff.

 

Making decent meals really is pretty simple.

It may take a few more minutes but so what?

For the cost of one loaf of French bread from the store I can make you bread for a couple weeks.

 

 

It's healthier, sure. But Food Stamps only provide people with an average of $4.50 a day for food. But if you want to run a program like the one you're talking about you're going to need A) more money for food stamps more regulations and C) more government employees to monitor food stamp users and food producers. You want to crack down on abuses, you have to hire even more.

 

Well here I'm not coming from a point of saving the last penny.

As I say I'm glad to sport the people some decent cghow.

Still when the government runs things the programs tend to drift away from frugality.

 

It's pretty common for my one buddy to get food cheap since (as he tells me) there's always people glad to sell food stamps for 50% for cash.

 

Can you eliminate that? Probably not but you can try a little harder.

Anyway that dough isn't killing us.

 

Point being, if you're looking to hire people to save the government money, hiring them to chase down poor people who might trade their food stamps for small amounts of cash is pretty stupid, when you can hire an IRS or SEC agent who could find tax cheats or investment fraud and save the government millions. I guess it just depends on how obsessed you are with poor people scamming enough money to buy a fifth of Old Crow. As far as policy is concerned, it's not exactly at the top of the list of government abuses.

 

Also, pizza shouldn't be considered a vegetable. Let's get back to reality.

 

I love pizza. I think kids should have pizza. I think it's fine for schools to offer pizza for lunch every once in a while. But it's not a vegetable. That's just agribusiness leaning in on members of Congress to make it so, so that they can keep selling schools their frozen gunk. Doesn't mean we have to think it, too.

 

Oh well

Take a piece of beef, some lettuce a slice of tonato a couple pickle a piece of cheese and a dinner roll on a plate and it looks like a healthy little meal.

Stack it up and it's a cheeseburger.

WSS

[Westside Steve]

And let's not forget, that the common practice of swapping cigarette money for food stamps isn't making anyone any healthier.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

I just don't think you have this right. The cheapest way to eat in America is fast food. It's why in America's poorest areas you see lots of fast food chains and very few grocery stores. You can have all of those things you mentioned - meat, bread, pickles, cheese, and lettuce - a drink and an order of fries for $3.00. Try that at a grocery store.

 

And why is fast food so cheap? Partially because we subsidize all of the inputs - wheat, corn, soy, etc. It's why some of the loudest opponents of farm subsidy repeals are always the fast food companies.

 

There are proposals to give people vouchers for fresh produce and fruit, but they're mostly pilot programs, because again, they cost more and are harder to run than the other programs.

 

But hey, I guess I can enjoy the idea of you wanting to spend more on food stamp programs for the poor, limiting the choices those consumers have, and increasing the number of government workers and enforcement.

 

Cal, I've seen the death of your liberty, and it is Steve. He's going even further than Michellecunt Polobamapot.

[heckofajobbrownie]

And Steve, honestly, if you keep obsessing about the small number of poor people who somehow manage to turn their $4.50 a day into a pack of smokes, just know that this is your bete noire. It's not particularly relevant to anything but your own mood. I know you have mentioned some version of it every day for the last 6-7 years - which absolutely, completely doesn't suggest something weird about you personally - but I don't want you to start getting a rap as a guy who just shits on poor people all the time, you know?

 

Pardon me. Those brilliantly devious poor people. They're sublimely clever.

 

Food stamp fraud is real, and usually committed by the store owners as well as the recipients. But you're talking about something that costs somewhere around $300 million a year in a program with a budget of about $58 billion. You're talking about less than 1%. A problem? Sure. Something to try and do something about? Yes, if you can do it cost effectively. Something to point out in every post? Probably not.

[Westside Steve]

I just don't think you have this right. The cheapest way to eat in America is fast food. It's why in America's poorest areas you see lots of fast food chains and very few grocery stores. You can have all of those things you mentioned - meat, bread, pickles, cheese, and lettuce - a drink and an order of fries for $3.00. Try that at a grocery store.

 

Bud I guess you don't do the cooking at Rancho Hecko.

Even without shopping hard you can get boneless skinless chicken breast for under 2 bucks a pound.

Hamburger cheaper than that.

How much burg do you get on that cheap one?

Less than 1/8 oz pal.

Get a 25# bag of flour even at Sams.

How much is one out of a big bag of spuds?

 

Plus a big mac or quarter pounder is well more than the 3 buck dinner.

 

And you shouldn't be drinking pop anyway but store brrand drink mix and generic sugar will rot your kids teeth out and fu(k up their glycemic index if that's the goal.

 

WSS

 

And why is fast food so cheap? Partially because we subsidize all of the inputs - wheat, corn, soy, etc. It's why some of the loudest opponents of farm subsidy repeals are always the fast food companies.

[heckofajobbrownie]

I do almost all of the cooking, actually. Huge cook. If I didn't do what I'm doing now, I'd probably go back to the restaurant business.

 

And boneless skinless chicken breasts aren't $2 a pound out here. Not even close.

 

Order off the value menu at McD's, BK, Wendy's, etc., and you can get a cheeseburger, fries, and a coke for $3. Yes, you can. Go to Taco Bell, you don't even have to spend that much.

 

But hey, you're in favor of trying to make school lunches healthier, and getting healthier food options to people on public assistance. I'm with you. Beyond that, I'm not that interested in debating how much a 99 cent cheeseburger costs. Because it's 99 cents.

[osusev]

Is China's policy negatively affecting technology startups and growth in China?

 

I don't have any idea how it affects those things, but I know that it stifles freedom of information.

 

What is the "internet"?

 

It's not a truck, it's a series of tubes.

 

and what role does government have in the "internet"?

 

Keeping the infrastructure there, and not much more, in my humble opinion.

 

I see you chose not to talk about content theft and IP protection as the basis of economic development which makes sense because those points are fairly black and white.

 

Want me to talk about TPB? What they are doing is legal outside of the US. The RIAA and MPAA don't like it, so they pressure the US to block these websites from being accessed in America. Regardless of the reason, this sets a disturbing precedent.

 

China's technology sector is BOOMING regardless of the firewalls and government intrusions/regulations. Users are highly engaged and satisfied with their experiences.

 

The government has a MAJOR role in the "internet" or "tubes" because of the amount of funding/research etc the government is in fact responsible for in the creation of the network of systems that create the internet in the first place.

 

The government is supposed to act in the best interest of economy protections first... because access to the internet is OPTIONAL.... you pay to get on a private service that is regulated by FCC rules because of the interstate communication.

 

The internet does not belong to the consumer, access to the internet is a for profit private business OPTION. If you dont like the rules than dont participate in the usage. The internet is funded and ran by for profit companies who by law have to conform to IP economic based protections of our commerce system.

 

The RIAA is not dead by a long shot if you look at the explosive growth of Pandora/Spotify/Rhapsody/RDIO/MOG/TurnTable.FM etc in fact that is a solution that embraces the content owners/creators but utilizes the distribution system of the internet.

 

The MPAA is key to a great industry.... when movies cost over 100m to produce as a for profit business it is up to the MPAA and other industry reps to see that the government enforces IP protection against thieves. IF you steal something that is not yours that cost a ton of money and energy to create you are a thief just because their is an enabling system that allows you to transport data does not make it right.

 

Thats like stating that because roads and highways exist it ok to steal from a bank because the roads enable you to transport the money that is not yours.... IF a service or co-conspirator helps by enabling that transport and enriches themselves by offering a service.... well thats the same a fence who sells goods they know are stolen yet are willing to make money off the traffic going into the store by cutting advertising deals.

 

This is not about government intrusion... FACT Facebook/Google intrude and spy on your activity even after you leave their services to benefit themselves. That is a greater intrusion on your privacy rights than anything the government does.

[VaporTrail]

The government is supposed to act in the best interest of economy protections first... because access to the internet is OPTIONAL.... you pay to get on a private service that is regulated by FCC rules because of the interstate communication.

 

The internet does not belong to the consumer, access to the internet is a for profit private business OPTION. If you dont like the rules than dont participate in the usage. The internet is funded and ran by for profit companies who by law have to conform to IP economic based protections of our commerce system.

 

I'm in this boat

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access

 

So let's agree to disagree.

[osusev]

Vapor,

 

We can agree to disagree.

 

I work in the industry on both sides of the issue, I have a lot of exposure to lobbyists from both camps so I do have some insight (not that its worth anything)

 

Vapor I do think the thing we define as the "internet" (I quoted internet because it really is not a unified object more a generalization of a concept than an actual material unified object)

 

is the MOST important innovation in human history... (Hyperbole? not in my opinion)

 

The problem defining it as a "right".... electricity is much like the "internet" yet if you dont pay you dont receive access..... Is electricity a human "right"? you could make the argument that Electricity a giant necessity for humans as well.

 

For profit companies that create these services are important as well as protecting the monetary motives and protections of IP are key to innovation and upgrading of these services. Internet, Electricity, Automobiles, etc are all transformational "utilities" that humans use that have changed the course of our species. Enabling theft just because a consumer does not "like" limits or wants the product/service for the lowest costs (free) does not mean smart limits and protections that enable business are not necessary.

 

You dont have a "right" to steal(content for use or distribution without consent), or have access to a services (internet)that costs a TON of money to upkeep,upgrade and create.

 

Rules and limits are never popular, however they usually are there for reasons..... just think when you were a child and now that you an adult some of the limits now make sense because you have a greater understanding of the costs,responsibilities, potential repercussion of your actions.

 

This problem is because consumers who have never had any rules largely because the industry was in its infancy does not understand the real landscape. These rules that both sides are fighting will in the long run benefit consumers, but consumers are largely like children...... impatient,does not care about the carrying costs or what the "parents" IE Communications/media companies vs Services companies are fighting about and does not want any limitations.

[VaporTrail]

Vapor I do think the thing we define as the "internet" (I quoted internet because it really is not a unified object more a generalization of a concept than an actual material unified object) is the MOST important innovation in human history... (Hyperbole? not in my opinion)

 

Completely agree with you there.

 

For profit companies that create these services are important as well as protecting the monetary motives and protections of IP are key to innovation and upgrading of these services. Internet, Electricity, Automobiles, etc are all transformational "utilities" that humans use that have changed the course of our species. Enabling theft just because a consumer does not "like" limits or wants the product/service for the lowest costs (free) does not mean smart limits and protections that enable business are not necessary. You dont have a "right" to steal(content for use or distribution without consent), or have access to a services (internet)that costs a TON of money to upkeep,upgrade and create.

 

If it passes, anyone who still wants to download stuff from tpb will be able to do so just by entering the site's IP address. If this bill is here to curtail piracy, it's already a failure. So, since it's here to protect intellectual properties, but it isn't really protecting them, what's the point of it? It's just going to increase self-censorship by websites so that they don't get on the blacklist, which is a big no-no, imo.

 

Piracy isn't an issue for companies who choose to adapt to the market (see Valve). All these Draconian rules (DMCA anyone?) only punish the legitimate buyers, as pirates typically find a bypass around these hurdles and the only people left to deal with it are the legitimate buyers. The industry should accept that piracy is going to happen, and they need to adapt to it by releasing better products and services that people would prefer to pay for.

[osusev]

Vapor,

 

Piracy is definately a major element here, however it is much easier to come down on the supply side of the problem. Coming down on google or other major distributors of content is a target that is collectible financially and a major source of dessimination.

 

Dmca and other anti piracy strategies have not failed by a longshot. Itunes, pandora, spotify, rhapsody are successfully reducing piracy in music. Amazon videos and now ultraviolet and other lockbox dmca based systems are now entering the video system not to mention Netflix much like pandora reduces the need to pirate content.

 

The media industries are adapting successfully with subscription based products using the cloud as the delivery/admiin mechanism for users. Services like HBO GO are working with cable/satellite/DSL distributors and ESPN are successully making the transition.

 

The government is no where near as intrusive as Facebook or Google in terms if of privacy invasion and the use of flash/HTML 5 based super cookies are growing exponentially.

 

You will never stamp out theft, however you can reduce distribution from major companies as well as influence better services by prodding the players to work together by regulations that promote proper IP protections.

 

"content is king" and protecting the creators rights to IP is key to new great content being created in the future. Consumers are on the back end of the learning curve of internet based services and the regulatilons are even further. Things will stabiize sooner or later, just dont get caught up in th PR talking points and realize neither side really cares about you the

consumer....... They care only about protecting their income stream. We are just the pawns

[Westside Steve]

Actually, Shlage the company that makes locks for doors, is in effect punishing all of us law abiding citizens Since only a very few would enter the home to steal things!

WSS

[VaporTrail]

The government is no where near as intrusive as Facebook or Google in terms if of privacy invasion and the use of flash/HTML 5 based super cookies are growing exponentially.

 

I'm not at all concerned about the invasion of privacy. If you put your information on the internet, that's your prerogative. My problem is that the government is going to be able to prevent people from accessing websites.

[osusev]

The government is no where near as intrusive as Facebook or Google in terms if of privacy invasion and the use of flash/HTML 5 based super cookies are growing exponentially.

 

I'm not at all concerned about the invasion of privacy. If you put your information on the internet, that's your prerogative. My problem is that the government is going to be able to prevent people from accessing websites.

 

I get that,however when you access the internet you are opting to use for profit services that adhere to FCC controls because the nature of interstate communications.

 

If you dont like the turnpike rules in Ohio or any other state you dont have to drive on them, the same goes for using interstate communications systems like the internet.

 

Consumers believe they have some sort of predefined rights based on well nothing, you opt to use a service governed by rules that can be amended or added at any time. If you dont like limits than dont use the service.

 

I could see if the "internet" was wholly owned and subsidized by the public...... well its not by a LONG shot so you dont really have any say because this is a for profit private industry that has to abide by Federal rules.

 

Using the internet is an option/feature that you pay for....the wonderful thing about choice is that you can make another one.

[Mr. T]

If you are concerned over internet security and a all intrusive government spying on

your every breath or every website that you may google search while

looking up information then this may be of concern to everyone.

 

 

 

U.S. contemplates unprecedented internet censorship: Bill proposes web site closure link HERE

 

In 2008 in the U.S., The Motion Picture Association of America asked President Obama to introduce laws that would allow the federal government to effectively spy on the entire Internet, establishing a system where being accused of copyright infringement would result in loss of your Internet connection.

 

In 2009 the Cybersecurity Act was introduced, proposing to allow the federal government to tap into any digital aspect of every citizen’s information without a warrant. Banking, business and medical records would be wide open to inspection, as well as personal instant message and e mail communications

 

Prediction: Internet in government's hands

"Net neutrality" Prediction read it HERE

 

An opponent of "net neutrality" is explaining why the free market and religious groups should be concerned about the Federal Communications Commission's impending order.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seton Motley, president of Less Government and editor in chief of StopNetRegulation.org, says the ultimate objective of net neutrality is to drive out all private investment.

 

"The godfather of the media reform movement, a man by the name of Robert McChesney, said [net] neutrality does not commandeer control of the Internet," Motley cites. "'We're not at the point yet,' he actually uses that sentence, 'but the ultimate objective is to eradicate the media capitalists from the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.'"

 

But the Less Government president warns that when the private investment is gone, the government will be the sole Internet provider.

 

"At which point, they will be rationing bandwidth, just like ObamaCare will result in rationing of healthcare," he relates (see earlier story). "And when that happens, if they're choosing websites that get bandwidth, and they're choosing between Daily Kos [and] MoveOn.org vs. National Review and American Spectator, who's the government going to choose?"

 

 

Net neutrality is set to take effect Sunday, November 20. The House recently voted to repeal the effort, but the Senate voted against it in a 52-46 decision.

[Westside Steve]

http://www.truth-out.org/sopa-scoop-anti-piracy-bills-enrage-web-freedom-groups-divide-congress/1322581585

 

I realize this is coming from the hard left, but it may be interesting to 1 or the other of you guys on the subject.

WSS

[osusev]

Its about time (imho)...... I love how these "freedom" meaning we make money from "user/IP infringing" content distribution..... its evil to enforce the existing laws because we are beneficiaries...

 

Makes perfect sense, maybe if these companies focus on law abiding business models that generate revenue from legitimate practices they would have nothing to worry about.