Sir Tim Berners-Lee Speaks Out On SOPA 188
natecochrane writes "Father of the web Sir Tim Berners-Lee called for Americans to protest SOPA and PIPA, laws he says violate human rights and are unfit for a democratic country. Sir Tim's condemnation came on the day an editorial in Australia's leading broadsheet newspapers pointed out that although the laws ostensibly applied to U.S. interests they could overreach to impact those in other countries."
The Joke's on Them (Score:5, Insightful)
"an editorial in Australia's leading broadsheet newspapers pointed out that although the laws ostensibly applied to US interests they could overreach to impact those in other countries."
The laws were written specifically for that purpose. They have clauses that (supposedly) prevent them being used on US sites and site owners. What's left? The rest of the world!
That's why it disgusted me every time I saw someone overseas saying to get this junk off their news sites because it didn't apply to them.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It doesn't apply to me. If the US block access to my site from the US, it doesn't affect me in the slightest. They could block access from the US to every site in my country as far as I'm concerned. Now, maybe it affects *someone* (I'm sure some companies would lose US import monies, but I'm equally sure the US would lose just as much in reverse), but until the EU even begin to consider similar laws that I get a say in, there's nothing I can do for you at all. I can agree with you or not. It makes no di
Re:The Joke's on Them (Score:5, Insightful)
Except when the blocking mechanism is to remove say slashdot.org from DNS.
Re:The Joke's on Them (Score:5, Informative)
Mesh networking is a proven technology that has no central point of failure. This is a site full of outraged nerds.
So... get off your ass and help render the Internet obsolete. The problem isn't the politics. The problem is the infrastructure, and the solution is ready, waiting to be deployed.
Re: (Score:2)
I am sure the passage of SOPA would accelerate that deployment.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. Sure it is. Untill mesh networks are made illegal. If you cave in every time someone tries to deprive you of your rights — there soon be no rights at all. The polititians must be educated about the concequences of their action for both public and them personally (the latter even more important) or we will end up with a chinese style firewall and laws that outlaw any kind of encrypted connection.
Re:The Joke's on Them (Score:4, Funny)
Except when the blocking mechanism is to remove say slashdot.org from DNS.
Simple solution. Just memorize the IPs to all of your favorite sites!
Re:The Joke's on Them (Score:5, Insightful)
So the blackouts affected your productivity? Then you might be interested in the fact that if those websites get taken down with SOPA or PIPA, it will likewise affect your productivity, therefore these laws *do* affect you, and your whole logic breaks down.
> In actual fact, the SOPA blackouts just made me find alternate sites and avenues to the content I would normally use.
Yes, I am afraid that's exactly what non-US people will have to do. So I guess the blackouts pushed you towards doing what needs to be done ;)
> They actually *helped* me not be reliant on people who think their service is there to push their own political agenda instead of being a service.
Actually, the "service" e.g. Wikipedia offers centers around a highly political cause itself, namely free access to knowledge. You like to treat "service" and "politics" as different things, but in this case, they aren't.
Re:The Joke's on Them (Score:5, Insightful)
Would you like your site to be removed from Google Search?
Google is a US-based company, you know.
Re:The Joke's on Them (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. Guess what would Google do if a US government comes and says something like this: "That's a nice search engine you got here. It'd be shame if it was unavailable in the US. Oh, and by the way, we're transferring your domain name to Bing". I bet Google would remove offending content faster than you can say "subsidiary company".
Re: (Score:2)
That assumes that Google can only serve the US or the rest of the world. Google would like to serve both.
Re:The Joke's on Them (Score:5, Informative)
It sure as hell applies to me. I run a (very) small software business online in Australia under a .au domain name. If a US company decides that my software infringes a patent they claim to hold then they can get my site removed from any US-based searching index and my site blocked by name or IP. That is not catastrophic as my software is not useful in the US, and reasonably well supported by word-of-mouth anyway.
However, under these abominations of law, they can also force any company with a presence in the US to cease any payment related service to my company. Mastercard, Visa, American Express, and Diners will remove their merchant accounts, PayPal is not an alternative etc. Any non-US payment processor accepting Mastercard, Visa etc. will be contractually obliged by the US companies, protecting their own legal arses, to refuse payment services also. This is a death sentence to any online business. The only recourse is to fight a legal battle in US courts, a death sentence to any small company.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
but until the EU even begin to consider similar laws that I get a say in, there's nothing I can do for you at all.
Such laws are not only considered but in full force already. E.g. the Pirate Bay is blocked in several countries already via DNS blacklisting. The technology was pioneered by the telecoms for stopping child pornography, so it was easy for the courts to require the ISP's to implement the blocking. The tools were already in place after all.
Re:The Joke's on Them (Score:5, Informative)
The SOPA was written to address "US-based interests", i.e. it specifically claims to go after only US-directed foreign websites, to prevent US-based people from seeing those foreign websites.
(Defn: "US-directed" means that the site hasn't taken steps to prevent US people from seeing the website, or other nonspecified reasons. "Foreign website" means a domain name which is registered by a non-US registrar, or an IP address which comes from a non-US block).
But the US doesn't have jurisdiction over foreign domains/websites. So, in that absence, it's US-based companies who have to act:
* US-based ISPs have to take measures to prevent their customers from "accessing" those websites 5 days. It's not clear what measures must be taken, but they include at a minimum blocking DNS lookups.
* US-based search engines have to remove hyperlinks to those foreign domains/websites within 5 days
* US-based ad brokers have to cease serving ads to those foreign domains/websites within 5 days
* US-based payment companies have to cease processing payments for those foreign domains/websites with 5 days
Moreover, any US-based service which bypasses this censorship -- TOR, Mafiaafire, free and open DNS servers -- will be shut down by the courts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm joking of course, but wouldn't be surprised if some people where thinking about it.
Re: (Score:2)
The way China does it is rather effective.
Re: (Score:3)
That's the part that just makes me mad. They're counting on the "it's only those dirty foreigners!" clause to keep voters from being annoyed, with the idiotic assertion that rights of foreigners are worth less.
Re: (Score:3)
I find this to be a common issue these days. People are held without trial or rights because they aren't citizens. They aren't enemy combatants either, so they aren't covered by any war treaties. The government then claims these people have no rights...
And that's exactly the opposite of what this country was founded on. The Declaration specifically says the rights are inalienable. It says nothing about nationality when it says so.
Re: (Score:2)
China doesn't control the key DNS servers used by everyone everywhere though. It doesn't control the .com registry - if someone loses their domain name then they have to be removed from the DNS listings don't they?
I know the US operates on a double standard - they insist on the rule of law inside the US (although thats debatable these days I suppose) but they also insist on applying US law to citizens of other countries who violated no law in their own country but did violate a US law. Worse yet other count
Re: (Score:3)
That violation of US law includes committing a crime on US territory. The analogy to historical events is firing a gun across a border.
Such events are always responded to by international actions including extradition.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Oh? And in what cases have people running websites outside the US been extradited to the US?
Father of the web Sir Tim Berners-Lee (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Father of the web Sir Tim Berners-Lee (Score:5, Informative)
Father of the web? Wait 'till Al Gore hears about hears about this poser!
Web != internet
Re: (Score:3)
That's not what Congress thinks.
Re:Father of the web Sir Tim Berners-Lee (Score:4, Funny)
Congress thinks?!
Re:Father of the web Sir Tim Berners-Lee (Score:4, Funny)
I hear if you say his name three times into a mirror, you get a 25Mbps fiber-optic connection.
Re: (Score:3)
I tried it and turned into Michael Keaton.
Re: (Score:2)
Sir Tim Berners-Lee...Sir Tim Berners-Lee...Sir Tim Berners-Lee...
Where is my 50Mbps connection?
Re: (Score:2)
You have it, what no one told you? You have to share it with everyone else who said it.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, that reminds me, I forgot to mention that if you say it six times you just get herpes.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh but that's because you didn't do it in a starbucks.... on the summer equinox...
Re: (Score:2)
Sunshine (Score:4, Funny)
I hope it does pass, I waste far too much time on the Internet.
And yet... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And yet... (Score:5, Insightful)
So long as corporations are "people" (which if they are, wouldn't buying stocks be slavery?) and money is "free speech" there's not much we can do about it.
Re:And yet... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't be so quick to resort to the usual (and frankly, warranted) pessimism. Yesterday may have been a pivotal moment when the power of the technical community was finally realized. Multiple senators dropped their sponsorship of PIPA. My senators' phone lines were busy all day long. While it's certainly a possibility that everything will return to business as usual, we finally saw a glimmer of the numbers of the masses overwhelming the influence of the money of the few. We have so few other avenues left, so we might as well see if this can effect real change.
Re:And yet... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And yet... (Score:4, Insightful)
This will be an ongoing issue that will require massive amounts of vigilance.
I thought this was one of the very basic requirements of democracy. You don't EVER get to sit back and let the thing run itself. It requires constant vigilance on the part of the people to make it work. Maybe things have been too good for too long and people forgot this fact.
There's nothing wrong with a little self-satisfaction when you're able to make your voice heard. The victories show you the system can work. Use it to give you the energy for the next fight.
Re:And yet... (Score:5, Interesting)
I do not think that is correct. We the people do get a say in what bills get passed or not. Please do not underestimate it. Defeatism and apathy are the best allies of those that want to take away our freedoms.
We the people do have power. Not absolute, but we have it, and when we use it we end up having an influence. Voting is one part of exercising power, and protest (like the blackouts) another. Raising consciousness of the issues and our power is another.
Re: (Score:2)
Your pessimism and apathy does LOADS to fix a percieved issue. Way to discourage people from trying to make a difference. I suppose instead of writing to congress, youd feel better writing to Google and Wikipedia to tell them that they wasted their time yesterday during the blackout.
All this, of course, ignores that Congress and the whitehouse have ALREADY backpedeled on SOPA [arstechnica.com] and that its sounding dead in the water at this point. But yea, the people can make no difference at all, keep telling yourself th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. It's almost impossible to fight corruption with common sense and logic, hopefully, collectively, we can seek to threaten the wallets of those who propel the state (I don't specifically mean just the USA).
I see the frist stage of the campaign against these bills as awareness, then potentially a subsequent stage being boycotts of the products which pro-sopa companies produce. Whether even this would be enough remains to be seen, combined with other strategies though it could well be.
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH, there are always Rocket Propelled Grenades or ...
Chuck Norris!
Re:And yet... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
And yet such people can still be teamed up with for the sake of a common goal; you just need to explain it to them in such terms that'll make them more likely to listen.
E.g.: "SOPA is a law that establishes filtering infrastructure that can be used for arbitrary censorship by the government; for example, liberals could use it to censor dissenting opinions on the so-called 'global warming' and 'evolution'".
The brothers MacManus solution (Score:2)
So all you would have to do is begin hunting each and every one of them down (while keeping out of the hands of every TLA in the world since the FBI CIA DOD BSA ARC and their international counterparts would all be looking very hard for you).
Bonus points if you do some sort of prayer before you "redact" one of the critters.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And yet... (Score:4, Funny)
That's how the House and Senate currently work- they intoxicate themselves with money, so that they are sufficiently blinded to consequences. It's pretty similar to beer goggles.
Analogy:
A lobbyist and Congressman are out at a bar. The lobbyist sees a girl he wants to bang, but her ugly friend is with her. To get the good looking girl, the lobbyist buys the Congressman drinks until beer goggles are worn. After that, the lobbyist gets his way.
Re:And yet... (Score:4, Informative)
That's because they're already as good as passed. At best, the blackout thing will force them to change the name. There's an anti-"child pornography" bill coming up. If SOPA fails, or only passes without the DNS provisions, they'll just be added to the Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act [govtrack.us]. Except rather than calling it "copyright infringement" they'll call it "protecting our children."
The battle's already as good as lost. About all the blackout did was piss people off. So now instead of being mad about SOPA, they're mad about not being able to access the Wikipedia for a day, and they're mad at "a bunch of nerds who are upset about laws that will stop them from stealing stuff."
Did you watch any of the news about the Wikipedia blackout? All of it put SOPA in a positive light and accused Wikipedia of being "too political."
The battle's lost. The people don't care. They're just mad at the websites that went on strike, NOT the law they went on strike over.
Re: (Score:2)
"have a shot"?
I hate to break this to you, but they can create any legislation they want. What you ( or I ) want is really not relevant, nor do we have any control over what they do. Even if they cross Constitutional lines in the process and the president signs it, the law still stands until the supreme court feels like hearing it, and if they strike it down.
Sure, we can try to vote them out, after the damage has been done..
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps it will become more subtle, but it will not stop so long as those "voices" are targeting the puppets -- and not the puppet-masters.
And that's why the logical next step for anti-sopa action is to hit the puppet-masters. A day of global boycott of media companies would send them a clear message.
It is possible to completely end sopa once and for all -- all we have to do is stop
Lobying money (Score:5, Interesting)
All that money spent on paying of politicians says one thing to me. We don't want to give people access to movies and music. If this wasn't the case the movie studios and music companies would have used that money to develop online distribution websites. How hard would it have been to take all the works you have copyrights to and set up a site where people can buy them and download them.
Re:Lobying money (Score:4, Interesting)
Indeed.
But that's how it goes with dinosaurs. They are way too big and have way too much invested in the way they've always done things, that when times change their first instinct isn't to adapt, but instead to send out the lawyers and lobbyists and stop it.
Rather than find new ways to profit in the new reality of media and data, they've stuck with their mindset of media as a physical thing that one person at a time owns.
Most importantly, I think there is a lack of rational viewpoints and thinking. No one is trying to come up with a solution that accomodates all needs. Both sides are full of extremists and it's getting us nowhere.
Personally I think people have the right to make money off their product. The fact that a copy of something "costs nothing" doesn't mean anything if the first copy cost several million dollars and you are "sharing" it with several thousand strangers. I also tend to disagree with this entitled "if I can't have it the way I want at a price I want, I'll steal it" attitude.
That said, I think the media industry goes way too far. They want to control what you view, how you view it, what you view it on... and they abuse the law as a standard practice. They want to inhibit all progress in how we use media because the old way is so damn profitable. They want to sell us something and include a list of unreasonable restrictions. If I buy something, I should own it and be allowed to do whatever I want with it.
Carrots (Score:2)
It's easier to b
Re: (Score:2)
Such distribution sites DO exist for music (the iTunes store, Amazon.com, and others). You even get some choices for the format, and non-DRM-encumbered MP3 is an option.
Such sites don't exist for movies mainly because the industry controllers don't want movies to ever exist in a non-DRM-encumbered format. They don't mind streaming movies so long as the data gets deleted as it is being watched...though even then they refuse to relax their grip on the copyrights, each studio requiring special contracts with
Re: (Score:2)
The company that I rent DVDs from just switched its streaming service over to Silverlight from Flash 'to prevent piracy' because the movie studios required this as a condition of making their work available. This means that I can no longer use it on the machine connected to my projector (running FreeBSD, but could easily be running one of the embedded Linux distributions that various media centres use), nor can I watch it on my TouchPad. I could, however, download pretty much anything that they have avail
Re: (Score:2)
They have lowered the value of the service that they offer me, for no benefit.
For no benefit to you.
They see a great deal of benefit. It fulfills the contractual conditions required for them to be able to sell the movie studio's products.
Which is worse -- for them? Not being able to sell a new blockbuster movie to anyone, or being able to sell it to everyone and YOU can't watch it? We know what you think, but there are two parties to every contract, and their thoughts on the matter do count.
Pass a law that says DRM XOR Copyright. If you, or your authorised distributors, use DRM, then you don't get any protection from copyright.
So then there is no legal remedy for them if they use DRM and someone cracks it and starts
Re: (Score:2)
They see a great deal of benefit. It fulfills the contractual conditions required for them to be able to sell the movie studio's products.
And their costs go up because they need to completely redevelop their entire customer-facing software stack. And, because Silverlight is not really portable, they then have to spend more money on apps for various mobile platforms. This is less money that they have to pay the content providers, so the content providers also lose. The only winners are Microsoft, who get to push their crap on everyone else. Oh, except that Silverlight isn't going to work in the Metro environment in Windows 8 (but HTML 5 vi
Re: (Score:2)
In the USA, they are liable for large statutory fines. The fact that is no DRM does not prevent me from seeking legal remedies.
If this was an effective legal remedy, then it would be enough to deal with the problem. **AA would be suing a lot of people for copyright infringement using this remedy and be making lots of money. The problem is that "exists" and "effective" are two different words.
Again democratic != liberal democratic (Score:5, Insightful)
Increasingly, "democracies" are passing all sorts of stuff which is repugnant the tradition of liberty:
-Panopticon street cameras in England
-Patriot Act in the US
-Web censorship and the RIM affair in India
What's needed is an emphasis on "liberal democracies", democracies that promote (classical) liberal values.
Re: (Score:3)
You'll find there are plenty of self-described "liberals" in Congress who support these bills.
Re: (Score:2)
Calling one self a liberal is not the same thing as actually being a liberal.
Unfit for a Democratic County (Score:5, Insightful)
Senator Rand Paul Promises PIPA Filibuster (Score:5, Informative)
This just came out yesterday......
"For the past several months, Sen. Rand Paul has opposed and led the charge against both the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). Yesterday, Sen. Paul issued the following statement.
"The Internet, as we know it, has had a profound impact on job creation, the global economy and prosperity. It has accelerated wealth creation and facilitated a more connected world. But the Internet's development is based on the free flow of information, innovation, and ideas, not central government control," Senator Paul said.
"Both PIPA and SOPA give the federal government unprecedented and unconstitutional power to censor the Internet. These bills enable the government to shut down websites that it deems guilty of violating copyright laws. While we support copyright protections, we are also concerned about websites being shut down without their day in court, and making innocent third parties bear the costs of solving someone else's problems."
Sen. Paul concluded, "I will not sit idly by while PIPA and SOPA eliminate the constitutionally protected rights to due process and free speech. For these reasons, I have pledged to oppose, filibuster and do everything in my power to stop government censorship of the Internet.""
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Senator Rand Paul Promises PIPA Filibuster (Score:5, Funny)
That's just what people who read a lot of Ayn Ron want you to believe.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You should get to know the family. Ron and Rand Paul are the two most principled people in the United States government! Don't take my word for it, start with YouTube.
Re: (Score:2)
No. The family as you say too narrowly interprets the Constitution. And they are not shy about taking positions that conflict with that narrow interpretation when they suit their political needs.
For example:
Paul has said that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion, stating that "the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue." However, this has not stopped Paul from voti
His thinking the US is a democratic country... (Score:5, Insightful)
...is his first mistake. Once you realize that the country is run by corporate overlords, it all makes perfect sense.
I expect this round of the bill will get shot down. Then someone will attach it as a rider to some BS terrorist or child pr0n bill later in the year with little media coverage.
Lamar Smith steals images (Score:3, Informative)
Democratic? (Score:2)
Last time i checked, actually in the only legal document that has the right to do it, the Constitution, it says REPUBLIC.
Re: (Score:2)
Republic has all kinds of definitions. one of the broadest/loosest definitions just means a country not headed by a monarch. Which is orthogonal to whether a country is democratic or not.
eg there are totalitarian undemocratic republics as well as democratic republics, and democratic countries than aren't republics.
And for another example the debate for Australia becoming a republic is centered around not having a monarch as head of state any more. That mostly symbolic change would have very little effect on
Of course the result would be (Score:2)
The .com, .orgs etc will get moved out of US control.
Let them block .us all they want.
They want to "DRM" or "Steam" the Entire Internet (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
inevitable...? (Score:3)
This SOPA/PIPA is only a symptom of a deeper underlying problem we have in the world today. There is a massive disconnect between the people who pass the laws and the people they're supposed to represent. They have been bought many times over by the private interests who changed the laws for their selfish benefit at the expense of the people.
Sure, I am against SOPA as much as you are, but SOPA is only a symptom. SOPA isn't what will kill you: it's the underlying disease that's ravaging your world. The disease is eroding your freedoms and soon you will be too weak to fight back.
Re: (Score:2)
It's only a disconnect insofar as Congress has discarded even the appearances of being part of a government of the people, for the people and by the people, and has basically declared itself interested only in what large corporate interests want. I think we're only a few decades away from a legislative branch about as functionally useful as China's National People's Congress, a rubber stamp for whatever the board rooms of Corporate America tell it to enact.
A message from Senator Feinstein (Score:2)
Ugh, I just got my email response back from senator Dianne Feinstein (CA-D). She was apparently un-phased by her email and phone line being utterly crippled with traffic yesterday in opposition to SOPA/PIPA. The train wreck watcher in me half wants this thing to actually pass. We would have solid proof and precedent that we are not in the least bit represented. Tens, if not hundreds, of millions of people screaming at congress and they just don't care, the money's already in the bank.
If SOPA/PIPA were put t
Re:Violates human rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Violates human rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Violates human rights? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why *shouldn't* the internet be a right? Is there some compelling reason we should restrict our civil liberties instead of expanding them to meet the reality of today's world?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
ok your right, the basic human right to not be a child sex salve while also being mutilated or in mass genocide based on race or religion is equal to not being able to watch spoony riff a movie
apparently you people dont know the difference between human rights and rights of citizens
Re:Violates human rights? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
HUMAN RIGHTS not the CONSTITUTION
Re:Violates human rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Violates human rights? (Score:4, Interesting)
Freedom of the press is specified in the first amendment specifically because it was the method of exercising free speech beyond the reach of your voice. It specifically refers to the device, the printing press, and in concept all devices and methods of spreading speech. That concept of freedom of the press would equally apply to internet access as it is the modern medium of mass communication.
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom of the press is specified in the first amendment specifically because it was the method of exercising free speech beyond the reach of your voice.
Incorrect. Freedom of the press was guaranteed because a responsible press is a requirement for an informed electorate. They were intended to be a watchdog on the government that the remainder of the document created. This is why they are sometimes refered to as "The Fourth Column". The first three being the three official branches of the government.
It specifically refers to the device, the printing press, ...
No, it doesn't. It refers to "freedom of ... the press". "The press" is not a reference to a specific device, it is a reference to the job and function of tho
Re: (Score:2)
"Responsible" is not a term that most people would use to describe the press around the time of the passage of the Constitution.
Then it is a good thing I wasn't trying to describe any specific instance of the press. This does not change the fact that the founding fathers had a notion of what was required to have oversight on the federal system they were creating, and something with constitutional guarantees of freedom to do that job is what they intended.
...but don't project your modern notions on historical figures in a nationalistic appeal to the supposed sagacity of the Founding Fathers.
No projection necessary. They were pretty smart folks. Smarter than modern whippersnappers want to give them credit for.
and rights which we think inhere to Internet access. We know it's a good idea, ...
You think it's a good idea. Don't project your opinions o
Re: (Score:2)
No, the press was viewed as an institution, not a device. Freedom of the press applies to dissemination of original thought expressing opinion and fact.
This is why freedom of the press applies to TV, radio, printed word, internet, etc.
However there is no such thing as an absolute freedom. Publication of content created by others is subject to copyright. There are also restrictions on slander, libel, child porn and so forth.
Re:Violates human rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Tell me, Mr. Anderson... what good is a phone call... if you're unable to speak?"
No rights were violated, they just took the means to exercise them...
Re:Violates human rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is The Internet is rapidly becoming the best way to get The Word out.
i can see in our lifetimes as different government services go online it becoming almost impossible to do anything of real value without being online somehow.
we are even now seeing places that have job applications only online and some jobs also require you to already have a phone with text messaging.
wanna be forced offline (because you have been blackballed due to being a dirty thieving pirate) in a world where business offices either 1 have 5 hour lines just to see anybody 2 are only open Mon-Wed from 11:00 am to 3:00 pm (with a semi random 45 minute Lunch) 3 some combo of both
Re: (Score:2)
Don't have a god-king... (you're probably assuming I'm American)...