Members Ernest Buckley Posted January 18, 2012 Members Share Posted January 18, 2012 Going Dark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members frankthomson Posted January 18, 2012 Members Share Posted January 18, 2012 boo-hoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lee Flier Posted January 18, 2012 Members Share Posted January 18, 2012 I think it's great! Google and other sites have protest awareness messages and/or are going black too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blue2blue Posted January 18, 2012 Members Share Posted January 18, 2012 I'm taking all my own sites down for the day.* It's time we stopped letting lobbyists write legislation targeted to the benefit of specific industries. *Actually just blocking all the front pages and putting up a message and link to www.AmericanCensorship.org Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ryst Posted January 18, 2012 Members Share Posted January 18, 2012 I don't like it at all. I mean...how am I going to sound smart if I don't have Wiki to fact check when I argue with someone about...ANYTHING???:mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members beatpoet Posted January 18, 2012 Members Share Posted January 18, 2012 They're doing the right thing, but there's stuff I want to check on Wikipedia dammit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members philbo Posted January 18, 2012 Members Share Posted January 18, 2012 If this stupid law goes through it'll probably be taken down forever... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jeff da Weasel Posted January 18, 2012 Members Share Posted January 18, 2012 I highly support it. I'd have preferred Google to be down entirely as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lee Flier Posted January 18, 2012 Members Share Posted January 18, 2012 I highly support it. I'd have preferred Google to be down entirely as well. Me too, even though I can understand why they're not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators MrKnobs Posted January 18, 2012 Moderators Share Posted January 18, 2012 I don't like it at all. I mean...how am I going to sound smart if I don't have Wiki to fact check when I argue with someone about...ANYTHING??? :mad: Yep. Interweb arguments will be much dumber today without both sides furiously Wiki'ing up facts to support their arguments. Now, if they REALLY want to get public attention, Facebook should go dark for a day. The addicts would be screaming in the streets and people would be sitting at work with "nothing" to do. "OMG! My Farmville cows will be starving! And how am I supposed to know what 'mood' all my thousands of friends are in? What if someone tagged me on their wall? How many 'likes' do I have! Did I look OK on that {censored}ty cellphone video my friends shot at the bar last night??? OMFG!!!!" Terry D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blue2blue Posted January 18, 2012 Members Share Posted January 18, 2012 I don't like it at all. I mean...how am I going to sound smart if I don't have Wiki to fact check when I argue with someone about...ANYTHING??? :mad: And how about those of us in our dotage who rely on the 'net to take up the slack induced by aging neurons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blue2blue Posted January 18, 2012 Members Share Posted January 18, 2012 Me too, even though I can understand why they're not.It may be some form of hubris on their part, but I suspect Google feels their search engine's place in the lives of business and commerce of so many of us puts a higher level of responsibility on them that mandates that they keep that 'above the fray' to some extent. But the big diagonal black out on the Google logo (in the US, anyhow) sends a message to those who are aware of the issue. That said, I was out with two generally quite engaged pals last night, one an attorney, who recently retired from one of the largest US communications companies, the other a former college instructor -- and neither one was more than slightly aware of the fight over SOPA, despite the fact that they're both quite dependent on the web in their daily lives Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blue2blue Posted January 18, 2012 Members Share Posted January 18, 2012 Yep. Interweb arguments will be much dumber today without both sides furiously Wiki'ing up facts to support their arguments. Now, if they REALLY want to get public attention, Facebook should go dark for a day. The addicts would be screaming in the streets and people would be sitting at work with "nothing" to do. "OMG! My Farmville cows will be starving! And how am I supposed to know what 'mood' all my thousands of friends are in? What if someone tagged me on their wall? How many 'likes' do I have! Did I look OK on that {censored}ty cellphone video my friends shot at the bar last night??? OMFG!!!!" Terry D. You mean you're supposed to look at other people's walls? How boring is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members techristian Posted January 18, 2012 Members Share Posted January 18, 2012 If this stupid law goes through it'll probably be taken down forever... Because you played a C Minor chord on one of your songs!! That is a Copyrighted chord !! Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lee Flier Posted January 18, 2012 Members Share Posted January 18, 2012 It may be some form of hubris on their part, but I suspect Google feels their search engine's place in the lives of business and commerce of so many of us puts a higher level of responsibility on them that mandates that they keep that 'above the fray' to some extent. Yeah, and I don't think that's an unreasonable position. They also are assuring any sites who black out that it won't affect their search engine rankings. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57361123-38/sopa-protests-wont-damage-google-search-rankings/ But the big diagonal black out on the Google logo (in the US, anyhow) sends a message to those who are aware of the issue. Yup... I think it was the best way to handle the situation, really. That said, I was out with two generally quite engaged pals last night, one an attorney, who recently retired from one of the largest US communications companies, the other a former college instructor -- and neither one was more than slightly aware of the fight over SOPA, despite the fact that they're both quite dependent on the web in their daily lives Crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members scarecrowbob Posted January 18, 2012 Members Share Posted January 18, 2012 For one, I'm glad that Google is up. I would support them blacking out the US, though it would totally shut down my business for the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members fatusstratus Posted January 18, 2012 Members Share Posted January 18, 2012 Going Dark I think it's great! I'm not talking for the reasons of protest, but for the reasons other people have hinted at...I think it's overused and often misused. I think they should make it an annual event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jeff da Weasel Posted January 18, 2012 Members Share Posted January 18, 2012 When the GOP starts pulling out, you know there are some problems with this bill! SOPA blackout: Bills lose three co-sponsors amid protests Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) withdrew as a co-sponsor of the Protect IP Act in the Senate, while Reps. Lee Terry (R-Neb.) and Ben Quayle (R-Ariz.) said they were pulling their names from the companion House bill, the Stop Online Piracy Act. Opponents of the legislation, led by large Internet companies, say its broad definitions could lead to censorship of online content and force some websites to shut down. In a posting on his Facebook page, Rubio noted that after the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously passed its bill last year, he has "heard legitimate concerns about the impact the bill could have on access to the Internet and about a potentially unreasonable expansion of the federal government's power to impact the Internet." http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2012/01/sopa-blackout-sopa-and-pipa-lose-three-co-sponsors-in-congress.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mark L Posted January 18, 2012 Members Share Posted January 18, 2012 I highly support it. I'd have preferred Google to be down entirely as well. Hey, steady on - it's my bloody homepage! :o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Beck Posted January 18, 2012 Members Share Posted January 18, 2012 I like to see people take action like this. I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blue2blue Posted January 18, 2012 Members Share Posted January 18, 2012 I think it's great!I'm not talking for the reasons of protest, but for the reasons other people have hinted at...I think it's overused and often misused.I think they should make it an annual event.I've certainly already felt a few twinges of deprival... somewhat end-run by reading the Google search engine return page synopses -- but it's a great reminder of how dependent we've become on having an information source like Wikipedia that is continually being reinvestigated and facts re-checked, information re-vetted on an ongoing basis. But I also think fatusstratus has a good point: we should always be aware that the nature of Wikipedia is such that, at any given time, what you read might be incorrect. Of course, the same can be said of well-established encyclopedia from the print world, as well. And, of course, with those, re-vetting information is done sporadically/cyclically, as a rule, because their model is based on updated editions -- and if you are drawing from a print encyclopedia, anything that was wrong when you bought it, will be wrong as long as you use it. And, as the British science journal Nature determined several years back, comparing entries then current in Wikipedia on a number of subjects with entries in the Encyclopedia Britannica under the nitpicking eye of a panel of experts from various fields, Wikipedia at the time was only marginally less accurate than the EB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nat whilk II Posted January 18, 2012 Members Share Posted January 18, 2012 Of course, the same can be said of well-established encyclopedia from the print world, as well. And, of course, with those, re-vetting information is done sporadically/cyclically, as a rule, because their model is based on updated editions -- and if you are drawing from a print encyclopedia, anything that was wrong when you bought it, will be wrong as long as you use it. And, as the British science journal Nature determined several years back, comparing entries then current in Wikipedia on a number of subjects with entries in the Encyclopedia Britannica under the nitpicking eye of a panel of experts from various fields, Wikipedia at the time was only marginally less accurate than the EB. Yeah, I had a few things to look up today - Wikipedia as a starting point. What was interesting was how, once Wiki was off the list, the other sources available were typically far rattier than Wikipedia for gathering the info I was looking for - mostly "owned" sites, or just front-ends for sales pitches, etc. The need to check sources didn't begin with Wikipedia, anyway. I see no reason it should be singled out as a site to avoid...what should be avoided is being an easy sell on the part of the reader, reading whatever. Ninnyway - the blackout is ok by me - hope it sends a few waves. Although such agitation might result in smartening up the opposition...the law of unintended consequences is ever at work. But you gotta try nevertheless... nat whilk ii Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mileskb Posted January 18, 2012 Members Share Posted January 18, 2012 re wiki "I see no reason it should be singled out as a site to avoid...what should be avoided is being an easy sell on the part of the reader, reading whatever." Exactly... most of what I look up on wiki turns out to be facts and it's a great starting point to know what to verify if there is any question. NO SOLE SOURCE of information on the Internet or on TV or in one of the floppy paper things I line my bird cage with are infallible or above misinformation. In a prior career a learned a very important lesson. Verify EVERYTHING from THREE sources, and I do. While two should be fairly straight forward reliable resources, One of the sources can even be yourself. A gut feeling if you will. This method has never set me astray and doesn't take as long as you think. Doesn't matter if I'm buying a piece of gear, or listening to line of BS... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members realtrance Posted January 18, 2012 Members Share Posted January 18, 2012 Gave me my life back. I started and finished both War and Peace and The Golden Bowl today. B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members A. Einstein Posted January 19, 2012 Members Share Posted January 19, 2012 Wiki knowledge is written by primary school teachers for kindergarten people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.