Slashdot Mirror


AT&T Hacker 'weev' Demands One Bitcoin For Each Hour He Spent In Jail

Daniel_Stuckey (2647775) writes "The notorious troll and hacker known as Andrew 'weev' Auernheimer spent 13 months in jail for exposing an AT&T security flaw. He was recently released when a federal court overturned the conviction on grounds of improper venue. Now, Auernheimer has penned an open letter to the Department of Justice in which he demands reparations for acts of 'fraud' and 'violence' carried out against him over the past three years. Those reparations must be paid in Bitcoin, he says — 28,296, to be exact. At current market value, that comes out to $13.7 million. The bombastic letter is titled 'Open letter to federal scum,' and was allegedly bcc'd to 'a few hundred journalists.' In it, 28-year-old Auernheimer writes that he calculated the sum owed to him based on his market value:" A gem: "Know that all this wealth will be directed towards a good and charitable cause. I am building a series of memorial groves for the greatest patriots of our generation: Timothy McVeigh, Andrew Stack, and Marvin Heemeyer. You see, In the 'Special Housing Unit,' which is Bureau of Prisons codespeak for 'solitary confinement' and 'torture,' I had enough time to think about the current state of federal government. "

449 comments

  1. A fifth horseman by Qzukk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Now we can watch our rights be taken away in order to punish assholes, on top of drug users, pedos, terrorists, and hackers.

    Remember folks, what the government does to weev, it can do to everyone else.

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    1. Re:A fifth horseman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      No shit? You mean the same country's government who passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, put the Japanese into concentration camps, got people fired and blacklisted for their political beliefs, etc. is more than willingly to abuse its powers? Say it aint so!!!

    2. Re:A fifth horseman by randomErr · · Score: 2

      The government has created a martyr. If they prosecute him again it will rally his troops. If they ignore him it will rally his troops. If they pay him off he will go away for a while.

      --
      You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
    3. Re:A fifth horseman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      His "troops" that is, people who think the likes of McVeigh, Stack, and Heemeyer as heroes probably doesn't need any more reason to rally. Most normal law-abiding citizens aren't going to rally behind the banner of McVeigh. He should have played the game and named a couple random founding fathers. Now he's allied himself with only those who find murdering innocent people a valid way to change the federal government (worked well didn't it?). I don't see him gaining much support.

      And why does he include Heemeyer in when speaking of federal government? Heemeyer's problem was with the local town council not the feds. He agreed to sell his property to a cement manufacturer for $250K then reneged and demanded $375K then a million. Obviously, the cement folks said fuck you and petitioned the town council to rezone an adjacent piece of land for their plant. The whole reason for Heemeyer's rampage was his own stupidity and greed. We're supposed to rally around that guy? You really want the law to allow you to go on a rampage if you, by your own greed, refuse a deal then get cut out of the final deal?

    4. Re:A fifth horseman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      This post is far too informative and fact-based to be useful around here.

    5. Re:A fifth horseman by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The government has created a martyr.

      No, they have created a kook. Anyone that considers mass murders to be "patriots", and thinks that the likes of McVeigh, Stack and Heemeyer are admirable, has lost all credibility. Rather than making the government more accountable, people like this give everyone that opposes authoritarianism a bad name.

    6. Re:A fifth horseman by bhcompy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Honestly, it just sounds like he's picking at random, like in Die Hard.

      Karl: "Asian Dawn?"
      Hans: "I read about them in Time Magazine"

    7. Re:A fifth horseman by spire3661 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Larry Flynt was an asshole i can respect, but not weev.

      --
      Good-bye
    8. Re:A fifth horseman by Connie_Lingus · · Score: 1

      ...in order to punish assholes, on top of drug users, pedos, terrorists, and hackers.

      really??? drug users are in the same class as terrorists and pedophiles?

      jesus...with attitudes like this no wonder its so impossible for me to find any work whatsoever.

      --
      never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
    9. Re:A fifth horseman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Anyone that considers mass murders to be "patriots"

      US government drone strikes and bombings have killed thousands of people in the middle-east. In fact, thousands more than were killed in 9/11. Often, civilian "collateral damage" is considered perfectly OK.

      That is mass murder, and considered by the people doing it to be a patriotic thing.

      Thomas Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.".

      Seems like mass murder is more or less part of the national character in the US.

      Kook is a matter of historical perspective, and something the US (and in fact the world) has had in abundance for a VERY long time.

    10. Re:A fifth horseman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until you become aware that there is no such thing as a 'law-abiding citizen' anymore. There's a reason that even congresscritters can't read the laws they pass any more.

      Welcome to 'Murcia.

    11. Re:A fifth horseman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was already a kook. They created nothing, they just made the kook madder.

    12. Re:A fifth horseman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to the laws, yes.

      In fact, they're often worse. Hence, prison is filled with people arrested for drug use.

    13. Re:A fifth horseman by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      really??? drug users are in the same class as terrorists and pedophiles?

      How many billions have been spent on the war on drugs?

      Clearly someone thinks so. And has for a very long time.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    14. Re:A fifth horseman by slack_justyb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeap, this guy had a golden chance to make a cause and blew it by standing by people who kill other innocent people. Having a cause is one part knowing what to do and three parts getting the general public to like your cause. Using people who kill that general public tends to make them not like you all that much.

    15. Re:A fifth horseman by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Agreed.

      Now if he named folks like Snowden, Manning, and similar (where folks could actually go "yeah - they uncovered government badness and were whistleblowers", he could have gotten at least some support.

      I mean, c'mon: he could have even stopped short and not even named anybody. At first I figured okay, he probably got a bad shake and deserves the compensation for his maltreatment. But nooo... he goes on to let his freak flag fly, and name those dumbasses as his heroes. My thoughts immediately became: "fuck that."

      Mind you, the government is still way the hell in the wrong for locking him up if all he did was uncover a security flaw (and didn't sell or exploit it for personal gain), but holy shit...

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    16. Re:A fifth horseman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Wow, that's the worst misinterpretation I've ever seen of that TJ quote.

    17. Re:A fifth horseman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "people who use drugs should be in jail"
      "everyone uses drugs"
      "wha-- no, not me! fuck you for saying so"
      "pain killers? alcohol is a drug... so is caffeine"
      "those dont count, my doctor gave them to me"
      "..."
      "and I need alcohol to face the shitty reality of my dismal life every day"
      "you're a cunt"
      "... I know"

    18. Re:A fifth horseman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "normal law-abiding citizens" is just a flowery euphemism for "thoroughly propagandized tools of the state".

      "Your Honour, I object to the suggestion that I'm a serial killer. I am, in fact, just not a thoroughly propagandized tool of the state."

      I'll grant that those who value liberty over social harmony,

      Are we using the sociopath's dictionary? i.e. "liberty" = I can do whatever and harm whoever the fuck I want; and "social harmony" = people agreeing that it's a bad idea to let me do this.

      In your example, Heemeyer owned his land and can sell it at whatever price he likes. When the prospective buyers didn't like the price, they used the power of the state to screw him over. This is corruption, not justice.

      Wrong! The "power of the state" is what was protecting him in the first place, i.e. zoning laws. He didn't like it when the state, seeing that he was greedily reneging on the initial reasonable sale price, stood back and respected absolute private property law: the right of the neighbouring business to build whatever the fuck it wanted on the land it owned next to his own.

    19. Re:A fifth horseman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see how the state screwed him over. If he sets an unreasonable price for his land, and the company can purchase the adjacent land for cheaper, it sounds like he screwed himself over. He's allowed to set whatever price he wants, but the buyer doesn't have to pay him whatever he demands. The "David vs. Golliath" narrative might really appeal to you, but it doesn't excuse David from being a dumbass.

    20. Re:A fifth horseman by Noah+Haders · · Score: 2

      No, they have created a kook. Anyone that considers mass murders to be "patriots", and thinks that the likes of McVeigh, Stack and Heemeyer are admirable, has lost all credibility.

      actually, mcveigh is a terrorist mass murderer, but stack and heemeyer are fellow kooks and crazies. neither of them killed anybody. stack stole a tank from a military base in san diego and led police on a low-speed chase and crunched several parked cars (no ammunition in the tank). heermeyer had a crazy grudge with the city where he lived, so he bought a bulldozer, "armored it" by reinforcing all sides with concrete and steel, then demolished several city buildings. In both cases, these dudes died (stack killed by police when the broke open the tank, heermeyer suicide when his bulldozer broke down.

      the sad news is that by sending out this "manifesto" weev made sure he will always be on a terrorist watchlist and will never fly again.

    21. Re:A fifth horseman by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 1

      His "troops" that is, people who think the likes of McVeigh, Stack, and Heemeyer as heroes probably doesn't need any more reason to rally. Most normal law-abiding citizens aren't going to rally behind the banner of McVeigh. He should have played the game and named a couple random founding fathers. Now he's allied himself with only those who find murdering innocent people a valid way to change the federal government (worked well didn't it?). I don't see him gaining much support.

      McVeigh is the Oswald of our generation. A below-average special forces wanna-be who got duped into thinking he was being the hero, when in fact, he was getting setup to be the patsy for something horrible.

      Weev putting McVeigh on a pedastal for being anti-government proves that he's out of jail because he made a deal and switched sides.

      Comming soon: a new white-hat collective founded and lead by Weev, and staffed by future federal prison inmates.

      --
      "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
    22. Re:A fifth horseman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see how the state screwed him over. [...] He's allowed to set whatever price he wants, but the buyer doesn't have to pay him whatever he demands.

      The part where the state screwed him over is where the state said "fuck you, you're selling your land to this private corporation, and this is the price you'll sell it to them for". And if you disagree, then I trust you will have the balls to stand by that assertion and sell me your house for $1.

    23. Re:A fifth horseman by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 1

      What's your interpretation? Bloodshed and violence over politics are things that only happen in countries besides USA? That this quote couldn't possibly apply to the land we live in because our government isn't tyranical?

      I'm sure people told "TJ" the same things when he wrote it.

      --
      "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
    24. Re:A fifth horseman by Bob9113 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >> The government has created a martyr.

      > No, they have created a kook.

      No, they have created a radical.

      Using the term "martyr" or "kook" is a judgment of merit. I agree with the latter, he's batshit looney, but it's not objective. Casting aspersions is all well and good in the popular media, but aren't we here to try to scratch a little deeper? Fine, he's a shitbag who's trying to get his ten minutes of fame and maybe ought to be back behind bars. But is he really the interesting part of the story in any sense other than lurid sensationalism?

      What we sane and self-aware citizens should be asking ourselves is not whether a lowlife deserves to be treated like scum -- of course he does, like terrorists deserve to be assassinated and child abusers deserve to be beaten. The question for us is whether we should do what we did -- not because he deserves better, but because we may have done something that is beneath us.

    25. Re:A fifth horseman by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 3, Funny

      So you are saying we need to chose the lesser of the two weevils ? :-)

    26. Re:A fifth horseman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      US government drone strikes and bombings have killed thousands of people in the middle-east. In fact, thousands more than were killed in 9/11. Often, civilian "collateral damage" is considered perfectly OK.

      The fact that the US Government kills innocent people does not give us the right to kill innocent people ala Timothy McVeigh.

      Thomas Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.".

      Patroits and tyrants, yes. But Timothy McVeigh was not killing tyrants. Timothy McVeigh was killing innocents. Maybe a few people caught in the blast counted as tyrants, but the vast majority were innocents.

      Kook is a matter of historical perspective

      Perhaps, but saying "I did it because the US government is a bunch of kooks!" does not automatically make one not a kook, as you seem to think should be the case with Timothy McVeigh.

    27. Re:A fifth horseman by PvtVoid · · Score: 1

      Thomas Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.".

      From reading a lot of what gets posted by "patriots" on slashdot, you would think that Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the drool of wingnuts."

    28. Re:A fifth horseman by DG · · Score: 1

      And not at all surprising that it is posted as AC. Few would post something that stupid and mis-informed under their own name.

      McVeigh a hero? Sure, the same way Stalin was.

      --
      Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
    29. Re:A fifth horseman by Captain+Sarcastic · · Score: 1

      You're using facts, logic, and restraint in your posts. You must be new here.

      --
      Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
    30. Re: A fifth horseman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The men in Afghanistan marry little girls. Do they deserve to be drone bombed?

    31. Re:A fifth horseman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, was Weev imprisoned for multiple homicide or did you just jump to the most hyperbolic example you could think of in order to make your very weak point? If our laws were of the reasonable "no murdering" sort, then I doubt we'd have a problem. But we both know that law has extended well beyond what is necessary to maximize our liberties while keeping anarchy at bay. Then you allude to sociopathy and sadism (more hyperbole). Stay normal, citizen.

    32. Re:A fifth horseman by pkinetics · · Score: 1

      Shawn Nelson stole the tank. Nelson broke his back and neck after a motorcycle accident. He sued the hospital, case got dismissed. Got addicted to meth, went off the deep end.

      Stack crashed his plane into the IRS building killing Vernon Hunter and injuring 13 others.

    33. Re:A fifth horseman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nobody made him sell his land.

      After he backed off from initial deal and then asked for ten times as much, the buyer said "fuck it" and got an adjacent plot of land. You know what "adjacent" means, don't you?

      Fucking corrupt government, not making this private corporation buy only my land and only on my conditions!

    34. Re:A fifth horseman by jp_831 · · Score: 1

      McVeigh's actions did work to an extent; there have been no more Wacos or Ruby Ridges since then. Now, they'll blight your career or arrest you on trumped up charges instead of killing you and murdering all witnesses.

      In many important ways, repression has become more severe, but casual wholesale massacres are no longer on the table.

    35. Re:A fifth horseman by kaladorn · · Score: 1

      Given his opinions, I wouldn't give him $0.01, let alone 13 million. And as far as demanding to be paid in bitcoins, ROFLCopter!

      If you voluntarily associate yourself with the murderers of innocent people, it says a lot about you. His own judgment is obviously very suspect (both for choosing associates and for assessing his worth). He comes off as a narcissist and a troubled soul who is projecting his rage at the outside world, rather than accepting responsibility and dealing with his own issues.

      He is neither hero, patriot, nor poor soul. He has made his own choices and has no ability (as far as I can see) to accept the consequences of his own decisions and their consequences. If this pattern repeats, he'll end up back in jail again.

      If he was smart, he'd take his freedom and run with it and spend some time fixing up his own problems.

      --
      -- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
    36. Re:A fifth horseman by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Informative

      neither of them killed anybody.

      Stack killed one other person besides himself. He seriously injured many more, and intended to kill them.

      stack stole a tank from a military base in san diego ...

      No he didn't. He crashed a plane into an IRS building in Austin, Texas.

      You have him confused with Shawn Nelson.

    37. Re: A fifth horseman by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      You clearly have no idea. Here's your blue pill:

      http://www.theguardian.com/wor...

    38. Re:A fifth horseman by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Honestly... if McVeigh is his hero, I'm pretty happy about never having to be stuck in a tin can 35,000 feet up with him. Maybe he'd like to be a martyr to his cause, but I don't wish to be.

    39. Re:A fifth horseman by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      No, they have created a radical.

      A radical is someone who acts on their beliefs. A kook is someone that just posts their idiotic opinions on websites. This guy is a kook.

    40. Re:A fifth horseman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong Stack, I think. I believe the one you're looking for crashed a plane into an IRS building in Austin.

    41. Re:A fifth horseman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meanwhile, you seem happy to post stupid things while logged in. In what way is McVeigh comparable to Stalin other than "they're bad guys"?

    42. Re:A fifth horseman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were working for and supporting what McVeigh considered to be a tyrannical government. They were legitimate targets. Or was it wrong to knock over buildings full of nazi bureaucrats during the WW2?

    43. Re:A fifth horseman by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      oh nm. I wonder what weev thinks of nelson?

    44. Re:A fifth horseman by NoKaOi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You see, In the 'Special Housing Unit,' which is Bureau of Prisons codespeak for 'solitary confinement' and 'torture,' I had enough time to think about the current state of federal government. "

      The guy is clearly messed up in the head from his experience (or maybe he was to some degree before, I don't know). They successfully broke him. Most likely with all that time in solitary confinement, in his mind he rallied behind the names of people who are famous for hating the government, regardless of their cause. I wonder if he can find a good psychotherapist willing to accept bitcoins.

    45. Re:A fifth horseman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've never lived near the woods.

      Critters are rarely cute OR harmless.

    46. Re:A fifth horseman by jason.sweet · · Score: 1

      And why does he include Heemeyer in when speaking of federal government?

      Probably because of his sweet beard.

    47. Re:A fifth horseman by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      Remember folks, what the government does to weev, it can do to everyone else.

      Sure. That is in fact one of the reasons that people establish governments in the first place: to keep other people socially constrained to a certain minimal level of acceptable behavior and to sanction those who do not comply. In the case of the US, the Preamble to the Constitution clearly states this as a goal: "We the people of the United States, in order to [among other things] . . . insure domestic tranquility . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

      What those behavior standards are and what sanctions can be applied reflect the society that establishes the government.

      In the Weev case, I think society's expectations and the government's implementation of those expectations don't really work that well for anyone. We've got a guy with personality, psychological and social problems that make him prone to bad behavior. They also make him rather thoroughly unlikable. So when he does commit a crime, his punishment is at least as much -- IMO -- for his unlikability and society's distaste for mental illness as it is for the actual crime committed. And for his punishment we choose the one thing that will certainly make him worse: increased, extreme isolation and other abusive treatment. To not expect him to come out worse than he went in is pure delusion. But this time it's society's delusion, not Weev's.

      The obvious strawman response to this is something along the lines of: "So, Rob, we should just let him get away with anything because he's 'sick'?" To which I have no response, because it's a strawman.

      My point is if we wanted to find a way to make a bad situation like this worse, it's hard to imagine how we'd do it more effectively. It's unfortunate for all of us that this is the best we've got.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    48. Re: A fifth horseman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah but that's in the fucking Middle East where they party like its 1014 and not 2014. Who cares if it's more than 9/11 - that's actually a good thing, sends the message that if you pin prick us, we will stab you back with an ice pick a thousand times over. I'm actually an isolationist at heart - I'm all for leaving those people the fuck alone if they left us alone, but they aren't actually really people but violent Neanderthals who would kill us without remorse if we were walking down their street as an American, but our pansy free love don't want to offend anyone bullshit has to pretend that we are illiterate and cannot read their holy book where it clearly outlines that it is NOT about peace.

      Yet we have asshat college students who are all "it's a peaceful region" bullshit, when in truth if it was the 70's they have become Hare Krishnas and if it was the 80's they would have become Scientologists - whatever the "supposedly benign but controversial and therefore attractive as a rebellious fodder" religion/movement of the moment is among idiotic college kids who need to be a special snowflake.

      So yeah, couldn't care less - on one hand, I do understand how our actions breed further hate against us, but on the other, if we do nothing, they still will be jealous of our lifestyle and Beyoncé and McDonalds and porno and not living in the third world, so it's best we let them know we can hit them whenever we want to, to keep them in line. Drone baby, drone.

    49. Re:A fifth horseman by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 1

      The government has created a martyr.

      No, they have created a kook. Anyone that considers mass murders to be "patriots", and thinks that the likes of McVeigh, Stack and Heemeyer are admirable, has lost all credibility. Rather than making the government more accountable, people like this give everyone that opposes authoritarianism a bad name.

      Actually, he was a kook before this happened--his idea of fun was rape-trolling. Hardly an upstanding citizen to start with. It's part of the reason the feds felt so free to mistreat him--they knew his political views would make him toxic-waste for any activists trying to stick up for him. I'm also not discounting the possibility that they knew who this guy was and jumped at the chance to try and make anything stick just to see a world-class asshole get his comeuppance.

      Here's what's likely to happen: He'll get a lawyer who will tell him 1) You have a good lawsuit here, perhaps several, but 2) they'll never pay you in bitcoin, ever, and 3) Shut your goddamn mouth so you don't poison every potential juror on earth, because these swine will ALL roll the dice on trials with "official capacity lawsuit" lawyers defending them, so your best hope is to have jurors not know you're "pro-toddler murder" until AFTER the civil trial is over.

      Then he'll either shut up and collect his money and fade into obscurity or go for his 15-minutes-as-Cliven-Bundy and then fade into obscurity, but not before developing a lucrative right-wing/nutter following that he'll exploit through book sales and speaking fees.

      --
      Who did what now?
    50. Re:A fifth horseman by russotto · · Score: 1

      The government has created a martyr. If they prosecute him again it will rally his troops.

      He has no troops. If they prosecute him again, it'll be buried in the back page of a paper no one reads, or maybe it'll make Slashdot. Nothing will stop them, and this time they'll win. Or if they don't, they'll do it again.

    51. Re:A fifth horseman by Qzukk · · Score: 2

      drug users are in the same class as terrorists and pedophiles?

      Yes. Thanks to the War on Some Drugs, the government can steal your property without warrant or due process via Civil Forfeiture: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/...

      See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... since it apparently went over about a dozen slashdotter's heads.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    52. Re:A fifth horseman by borcharc · · Score: 1

      What does whatever he wants to spend his damages on somehow reduce his right to damages?

    53. Re:A fifth horseman by dnavid · · Score: 1

      You see, In the 'Special Housing Unit,' which is Bureau of Prisons codespeak for 'solitary confinement' and 'torture,' I had enough time to think about the current state of federal government. "

      The guy is clearly messed up in the head from his experience (or maybe he was to some degree before, I don't know). They successfully broke him. Most likely with all that time in solitary confinement, in his mind he rallied behind the names of people who are famous for hating the government, regardless of their cause. I wonder if he can find a good psychotherapist willing to accept bitcoins.

      Everyone who thinks prison broke weev's mind seem to think its possible to break a bag of gravel by putting it in the wrong box.

    54. Re:A fifth horseman by PRMan · · Score: 1

      He was already messed up in the head. This just confirms it.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    55. Re:A fifth horseman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you for lumping drug users and hackers with TERRORISTS and PEDOPHILES!!! You either didn't think before you typed, or you're a fucking cunt with runny baboon shit for brains.

      Me think you fail reading comprehension. All they did was state the, er, state of things. No where did they say that is how things should be.

      Like it or not (I know I don't), but the government has lumped those things together.

    56. Re:A fifth horseman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From memory, which is slightly hazy, he didn't just discover a security flaw, he actively exploited said security flaw with automated scripts to download as much personal information as possible.

    57. Re:A fifth horseman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're replying to a post about McVeigh, who indeed was guilty of multiple homicide.

      And it is precisely sociopathy to have an absolutist stance of "liberty" over "social harmony".

      The first person to mention sadism is you.

      Still, nice attempt to detract from your dishonesty (or incompetent misunderstanding?) over the Heemeyer case.

    58. Re:A fifth horseman by Travis+Mansbridge · · Score: 1

      FBI procedure was changed after Waco and Ruby Ridge before the Oklahoma City bombing, and even McVeigh himself regrets his actions (he wasn't aware the building included a daycare center)

    59. Re: A fifth horseman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The us govt doesn't care about boys being screwed. Male on male rape is us policy in prisons and elsewhere. What the feminist us government seeks to stop is men with young girls. And it works towards that goal.

    60. Re:A fifth horseman by TWX · · Score: 1

      Never attribute to maliciousness what you can attribute to stupidity.

      I suspect that weev's problem is that he lived a very insulated life by his own choice and wasn't forced to confront the realities of the rest of the world. Once he ran directly afoul of those realities he managed to work the reaction that he received into his existing world view, which served to reinforce it rather than to dispell it. I wouldn't be surprised if such a situation contributed to his being put into solitary confinement, and that what we're seeing is simply more reaction to how his life as he structured it came into conflict.

      I've been friends with a few other people that went through this, albeit to a lesser extent. For each of them it was a result of being surrounded only by people that either shared their view and acted as a mirror, or didn't challenge their view and thus provided essentially no help. In the case of the last friend that I found in this state I did challenge his world view, and as a consequence lost him as a friend for it.

      This is partially why education is important, and I don't mean education solely on subjects that the student wishes to learn, but general, broad education. Having one's beliefs challenged from time to time, sometimes successfully, helps keep people grounded in reality as opposed to perceiving the world to be structured in a way that it isn't. Being surrounded by only like-minded people that encourage only one view ultimately leads to disaster when things get out of hand.

      I'm not saying that weev was solely in the wrong in this instance, but I don't doubt that he actually made the situation worse for himself.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    61. Re:A fifth horseman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Governments send soldiers to kill (or be killed) so they're not credible (far from it populated with lying scum called politicians).

    62. Re:A fifth horseman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      really??? drug users are in the same class as terrorists and pedophiles?

      Well, it sounds like 'weev' overdosed on redpill.

    63. Re:A fifth horseman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Drug users and pedophiles are very much in the same class. There are violent drug users and violent pedophiles to be sure, but neither group necessitates aggression and the vast majority of people from both groups mean (and do) no harm to other people.

    64. Re:A fifth horseman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      McVeigh went after the federal building where the ATF agents who were running the situation in Waco that resulted in the massacre there were based from. I will at least say he picked an appropriate target. People who want to just murder random people, do things like drive their truck into a restaurant and start shooting people at random, or shoot people in a movie theater, etc. McVeigh was trying to specifically target people with whom it is reasonable to have a legitimate beef who were not the general public.

    65. Re:A fifth horseman by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      I believe the prevailing line among the die hard Oklahoma bombing defenders is that the daycare center was the moral equivalent of a human shield, instead of, well, an employee benefit.

    66. Re:A fifth horseman by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      oh nm. I wonder what weev thinks of nelson?

      Nelson was just crazy. He was a meth addict, and may have had some brain damage from a motorcycle accident. He had no political agenda. The others all had at least some political motivation.

    67. Re:A fifth horseman by ultranova · · Score: 1

      the sad news is that by sending out this "manifesto" weev made sure he will always be on a terrorist watchlist and will never fly again.

      So what's sad about it? He gets to pretend he's Kinda Big Deal, NSA gets to take its voyeuristic tendencies out on someone who both deserves and likes it, and the rest of us don't have to worry about the little egomaniac going over the edge and imitating his idols.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    68. Re:A fifth horseman by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      and the guy who drove an armored bulldozer through city hall? he sounds like a nut case to me.

    69. Re:A fifth horseman by Noah+Haders · · Score: 2

      it's sad because he's obviously a nut case after being in solitary and is lashing out with nasty language. He'll get over it after some R&R and therapy for several months. But he'll be branded with this for his whole life. I doubt he really understood the consequences of his actions, or didn't care because he was swept up with delerium.

    70. Re:A fifth horseman by Hategrin · · Score: 1

      Philosophically, it doesn't. But the reality of political science (if it's not business, it's politics) isn't rooted in Socratic wisdom or Aristotelian Logic.

    71. Re:A fifth horseman by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'd give him a lot more than $0.01! I'm willing to support allocating whatever government resources are needed to prosecute him in an appropriate venue and house him indefinitely.

    72. Re:A fifth horseman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that weev is the guy who founded the GNAA and hosted goatse.cx and last measure for several years, right?

    73. Re:A fifth horseman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call it "Psycho Vs. Psycho. The future of human evolution."

    74. Re:A fifth horseman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      umm, no.

      Authors Dan Herbeck and Lou Michel, who interviewed McVeigh for 75 hours, tell ABCNEWS' PrimeTime Thursday that he only wishes the dead children didn't distract people from his message, and he feels no pity for the victims or their families.

      "I understand what they felt in Oklahoma City. I have no sympathy for them," McVeigh says in the book, American Terrorist: Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City Bombing.

      http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=132158

    75. Re:A fifth horseman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they have created a kook. Anyone that considers mass murders to be "patriots", and thinks that the likes of McVeigh, Stack and Heemeyer are admirable, has lost all credibility.

      Washington was a mass killer if not a mass murderer. Meanwhile, today we have the US Army and Blackwater engage in numerous wars and hundreds of thousands to millions dead. But, yea, so long as it isn't "murder" and just "killing" it's okay. So, uh, perhaps your issue is with the ends and not the means? At that point, the question becomes when is mass killing justified and who should be killed.

      Rather than making the government more accountable, people like this give everyone that opposes authoritarianism a bad name.

      They'll get right on that, right after they blow millions/billions--" In response to the attack, the IRS spent more than $38.6 million,[9] with $6.4 million spent to recover and resume work at the building, and over $32 million spent to increase security at other IRS sites in the U.S. However, the spending on security changes was questioned as being ineffective (see below). The building was repaired by December 2011." (way more than what this kook is asking for)--and finisih engaging in all the mass spying--"The U.S. House of Representatives has substantially reduced the effectiveness of the USA FREEDOM Act, a surveillance reform bill that sought to end mass collection of U.S. citizens' data. House Leadership was pressured by the Obama Administration to weaken many of the bill's provisions." (and yet amazingly Obama can't seem to get anything else done in the House). I mean, honestly, if you think we're getting anywhere with accountability, you've got your head massively up your ass.

    76. Re:A fifth horseman by yacc143 · · Score: 1

      US government drone strikes and bombings have killed thousands of people in the middle-east. In fact, thousands more than were killed in 9/11. Often, civilian "collateral damage" is considered perfectly OK.

      The fact that the US Government kills innocent people does not give us the right to kill innocent people ala Timothy McVeigh.

      True. And McVeigh was mostly a home-made terrorist.

      That still leaves some issues:

      • How do you influence a government (and their private sector buddies, let's call them the "elite")? They've shown many times that they don't really care much about their constituents. Plus they've shown time over time, that they don't consider them bound by the rule of law.
      • One has to wonder how the press in GB at the time described the Founding Fathers. Wonder if they were described as nice loving freedom fighters. And how the current press (current language usage, morals, understandings, would describe the situation in the colonies.
    77. Re:A fifth horseman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "really??? drug users are in the same class as terrorists and pedophiles?"

      Substitute child abusers for pedophiles, and I'll agree with you. Pedophilia is widely considered to be sexual deviancy but not all pedophiles abuse children (they don't act on their urges or just watch some animated Japanese porn). These types need psychiatric help not hard time.

    78. Re:A fifth horseman by buybuydandavis · · Score: 1

      And it is precisely sociopathy to have an absolutist stance of "liberty" over "social harmony".

      Cause you know, sociopaths are always so absolutist in protecting the liberty of other people.

    79. Re:A fifth horseman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you want to imprison him because he said something you disagree with? You're a coward and a pathetic statist.

    80. Re:A fifth horseman by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

      A kook is someone that just posts their idiotic opinions on websites. This guy is a kook.

      No, kook is still a value judgment, much like calling his opinions idiotic. They may be so -- I even think they are -- but focusing on that aspect of this story is sensationalism, not thinking. It is better left to the drooling mouth breathers who think Jerry Springer is hard hitting journalism. Like calling Hitler a madman, it may be true, but it is shallow and has no place in substantive discussion.

      A radical is someone who acts on their beliefs.

      Wrong. A radical who acts on their beliefs (in the sense I think you are implying) is a specific subtype of radical, "violent extremist."

    81. Re:A fifth horseman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much time did he spend in SHU, and why? I spent time in SHU, and enjoyed reading a novel a day, the quiet, and whatnot... although, when I started trying to count the holes in a vent grate, and then draw pictures of the corner, maybe I had spent too much time in there....

    82. Re:A fifth horseman by TriCCer · · Score: 1

      It's a post about a slashdot troll, and not even the mods seem to notice.

      --
      c0w goes moo.
    83. Re:A fifth horseman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was a racist, terrorist little shit before he went in. Google will show you that on his own posts.

    84. Re:A fifth horseman by TheRealLifeboy · · Score: 1

      You're replying to a post about McVeigh, who indeed was guilty of multiple homicide.

      Ah, McVeigh, who didn't get a fair trial even close. The whole inquiry into the OCB event was just as one-sided and staged as was the 9/11 report conspiracy of the US Government.

      And then people all over the world are dumbfounded by clowns like AC who don't use an iota of their briancells to think or question. To AC and his buddies there are no woods, only a few perfectly explicable trees... not being able to see past them is the tragic comedy of mainstream US dumbed-down sheeple.

    85. Re:A fifth horseman by warpuck · · Score: 0

      Looking at past history. An amendment was added to to the US Constitution & everyone went to the speak easy to get their booze. It also created wealth for many of the off spring who continue to enjoy it. One of the odd things about prohibition is the Ambassador Bridge Corporation. The bridge was built as a conduit to bring whiskey in from Canada. It is the only international bridge in the world that is not government owned. The owner pretty much has a monopoly trucking auto parts from Mexico to Canada. He is not to happy because Michigan & Ontario want to build a trucking bridge. Eventually it was the majority population that wanted the amendment changed. However, I don't think that any one who was making millions from prohibition was happy when it went away. As for the "War on Drugs" I refer to the movie Rush Hour and Chris Tucker's line. " Want find to find out who is behind this? Look for the rich white man." The problem is those who are for the War on Drugs are already rich. So who is going to notice a few billion more in their offshore accounts. Much of the product of our legislative bodies & Executive action letters are passed mainly for reasons that are something other than what the title says it is for. We have a war on drugs because some are getting paid handsomely to see that independant distributers do not cut into the profit being made.

    86. Re:A fifth horseman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>Fine, he's a shitbag who's trying to get his ten minutes of fame and maybe ought to be back behind bars. But is he really the interesting part of the story in any sense other than lurid sensationalism?

      Why do you think he should back behind bars? He was found not guilty and now is just exercising his First Amendment rights.

    87. Re:A fifth horseman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So wtf happened to my gravel then, smart guy?

    88. Re:A fifth horseman by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Why do you specify "other people" when that was not stated before? Every champion of "liberty" over "social harmony" means their own liberty over the liberty of others.

    89. Re:A fifth horseman by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3663... He confessed. There was no doubt that he was the man. He did it. That the trial assumed that a little more than normal, but hardly "unfair". Had there been some defense, he'd have had an opportunity to present it. Which parts of the trail were unfair? The "report" isn't a trial.

    90. Re:A fifth horseman by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Billions? Try trillions.

    91. Re:A fifth horseman by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      It's not a diehard bombing defender thing, I don't condone what McVey allegedly did, the simple fact is that placing creches in certain Government buildings is a relatively recent thing. So is planting bombs in them. Under them. Next to them. Whatever. Which came first? Employee daycare, or nutballs leaving truckloads of fertiliser outside? I've been away too long, I lost my TFH passcard. May I have another?

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    92. Re:A fifth horseman by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      Hitler was a hero to the Germans, right up to the point where he was cornered in a bunker in Berlin (allegedly), only the reports of his passing had the final diehards (pardon the pun) drop their weapons and raise their arms in surrender. I'm pretty sure the Caesars were beloved of the Roman Empire, right up to the moment the knife went in. But to those who write the history, Hitler, McVeigh, Gadaffi, Hussein, and Khan were all psychopaths. History on all those people has been rewritten, redacted, classified, buried, and reworked into urban legend. I wonder if you ask an Iraqi historian, if he'll agree that Winston Churchill was a hero, or a villain?

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    93. Re:A fifth horseman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The above AC isn't a smart guy. It turns into sand... otherwise known as breaking.

    94. Re:A fifth horseman by fuzzy2k · · Score: 1

      And why does he include Heemeyer in when speaking of federal government?

      The whole reason for Heemeyer's rampage was his own stupidity and greed. We're supposed to rally around that guy? You really want the law to allow you to go on a rampage if you, by your own greed, refuse a deal then get cut out of the final deal?

      Consider the source. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but apparently would like to buy a drawer of his own. He wants to be paid somewhere between 3 and 700 dollars/hour for his time, due to getting off on a technicality. It could be he was let go more because the prosecutor couldn't figure out how to explain what he did, than anything else. Still, he wants what may be worth millions, or maybe only several hundreds, of dollars for his time and inconvenience.

      Go big or go home, as they say. He was clearly paying at least half assed attention when that phrase came up somewhere. At the very least he knows how to get some attention here.

      --
      --- Say something clever. Pretend it was me. Thanks.
    95. Re:A fifth horseman by buybuydandavis · · Score: 1

      Why do you specify "other people" when that was not stated before? Every champion of "liberty" over "social harmony" means their own liberty over the liberty of others.

      Because when I speak, I don't go along with statist propaganda about my own views. Champions of liberty mean everyone's liberty.

      Champion of "social harmony" mean harmony with their vision of society, and if you don't happen to want to live that way, they're happy to use violence and threats of violence against you until you comply.

    96. Re:A fifth horseman by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Because when I speak, I don't go along with statist propaganda about my own views.

      OK, so you make up your own words. Got it. Since you choose to ignore a common language, I guess there's nothing else to say. Whenever caught in stupidity, you'll just claim I'm using the "statist" definition or something.

  2. Clearly they've broken him and... by Assmasher · · Score: 5, Funny

    ..he's now Weev 2.0 - now with added 'crazy'!

    --
    Loading...
    1. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by rahvin112 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Prison does that. Americans are so interested in retribution and punishment that they forget what can happen to someone you treat like an animal, particularly given that said person will be released some day. The ironic part is that death row inmates are treated far better.

    2. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 2

      We need to stop letting sociopaths run our prisons. We should be giving all candidates psychological tests to make sure they're all compassionate people interested in keeping their prisoners safe and rehabilitating them so they can turn their lives around. Of course if you push for this, there are a ton of right-wing lunatics that will embarrass themselves by calling you "a bleeding-heart liberal." It's hard to reform society when many terrible people vote.

    3. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by timeOday · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Yeah, nobody sane is going to sympathize with Timothy McVeigh.

      His reference to solitary confinement caught my attention. There was a recent Frontline on solitary confinement. It is scary. It is a modern-day dungeon. These guys are so messed up there is nothing to do but lock them up and throw away the key, which messes them up even further. The convicts certainly aren't blameless to begin with, but we are over-doing it. I non-violent hacker (if that's what "weev" is/was) should not be there.

    4. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Assmasher · · Score: 1

      I totally agree.

      I can't imagine a scenario where sensory deprivation does anything other than make things worse. I can understand separating them from the population and taking away privileges, but there should be some basic privileges that you simply don't take away - otherwise you get 'crazy' more often than not (it would seem.)

      --
      Loading...
    5. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We all know this, but no one cares enough to actually do anything about it...

      A government powerful enough to give you everything you need is powerful enough to take everything you have...

      That isn't something taught in public schools of course, but it should be...

    6. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, we (USA) has created a monster. Solitary confinement can make a sane person wipe his shit on the wall just for entertainment.

      The damage is done and weev is clearly insane and bent on damaging property and killing people. He needs to be stopped. No sane people would idolize the scum he idolizes.

    7. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by TheCarp · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Oh you mean a sane person couldn't idolize a mass murderer who has used bombs to commit murder? Because that describes two men I can think of who get a lot of idolization.... Obama and Bush. Each of them and the people under them are easily responsible for more murders than any of the people on that list.

      I see no real difference. At least those people acted on their own rather than ordering someone else to do their dirty work.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    8. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Assmasher · · Score: 1

      I always wondered that with the recidivism rate so high and the cost of housing inmates so high, solving the post-release job/hiring issues by offering employers who employ ex-convicts an annual/monthly tax break for employing them.

      At rates of over 70% nationally for many crimes, offering 70% of half of that cost to employers annually would be interesting. Offering them nearly a thousand dollars a month in tax breaks for each convict employed at some specified pay rate...?

      Surely, less difficulty in securing and holding a job would lower recidivism. Very few people appear to enjoy prison, and yet struggle far worse after they get out than before they went in.

      Anyhow, I'm speculating wildly, but what we currently have does not work at all...

      --
      Loading...
    9. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you aware those are easy to thwart? I've been given a few in the past and you lie on them.

    10. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Sperbels · · Score: 2

      Well, if the rumored prisoner/guard experiments are true, even compassionate guards turn into animals when given the opportunity.

    11. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 0

      We need to stop letting sociopaths run our prisons.

      Or the US Government. Have you checked out the House or Representatives or Senate lately? And, frankly, I'm not so sure about the White House or Supreme Court either.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    12. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's plenty of things wrong with our prison systems. There should be less effort spent on "punishment" and more time spent on education and reform. I'm not talking about Clockwork Orange type of reform; I'm talking about getting these criminals into a class room and teaching them something. Not just the basics like reading, math, and history, but also a trade.

      This is critically important. Imagine some guy who had a hard time making a living. He held up a as station at gunpoint to grab a few hundred bucks to pay the bills or whatever. The judge sends him to prison for 5 years.

      What happens when this guy gets out? He had a hard time finding legitimate work before and he'll have a really hard time finding it now. So what happens? Desperation sets in. Another robbery. Maybe drug peddling. Whatever. The cycle continues.

      We need to spend time on breaking this cycle and that means training these guys and getting them prepared - especially mentally and socially - for a life after prison. What we do to inmates right now is in and of itself a crime. Is it any wonder our prisons are so full?

    13. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by timeOday · · Score: 2

      I don't follow your logic. Let's assume you're right about Obama and Bush. How does that make McVeigh a great patriot? What you do you think he accomplished?

    14. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      Unemployed? Commit a small crime, do a short sentence, then tack on "brings tax breaks" to your resume.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    15. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by gstoddart · · Score: 0

      Let's assume you're right about Obama and Bush. How does that make McVeigh a great patriot? What you do you think he accomplished?

      I think the point is if you solely base it off if there was mass murder, what is the difference between them?

      And, are you suggesting mass murder is OK as long as you accomplish something?

      What is the threshold for 'accomplishment' balanced with how many murders in this calculus?

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    16. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Assmasher · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That really makes sense. If you're unemployed, instead of getting a job commit a crime, do some time in prison, then decide, ok - now I want to get a job and I bring a tax break, you just have to accept that I'm an ex-con.

      Talk about a straw man...

      --
      Loading...
    17. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by digsbo · · Score: 3, Informative

      What rumored experiment? It's well documented: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

    18. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, nobody sane is going to sympathize with Timothy McVeigh.

      You may disagree with his premise, but probably should read Gore Vidal's take on Mcveigh in order to see how a "sane" person could sympathize with him.

      http://www.gorevidalpages.com/2001/09/gore-vidal-meaning-of-timothy-mcveigh.html

    19. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We should be giving all candidates psychological tests to make sure they're all compassionate people

      You just reduced the candidate pool to zero.

    20. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Ichijo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Governments should assess the societal cost of each inmate who continues to commit crimes and offer half of that to the prison if the inmate emerges properly rehabilitated, perhaps in lieu of the normal per-inmate payments. This would make the profit motive work for us rather than against us as crime is lowered and our streets become safer.

      Of course it might result in prisons wanting to release some murderers early because they've been rehabilitated, and some prisons may even refuse some shoplifters if they think the cost of rehabilitating them outweighs the societal cost of them stealing a pack of gum every once in a while, but would either of these results really be so bad?

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    21. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Actually, some states do (did?) exactly that. Long ago, I worked at a poultry processing plant in Arkansas, and many of the workers there lived in 'halfway houses', where they were part of a program to ease inmates of the state prison farms back into society. It was a parole alternative for non-violent offenders/convicts, but they got out of prison earlier, depending on behavior. They were paid the regular wages, worked regular shifts, but went home every day/night in a van, and the halfway house was locked up. If anyone did anything dumb, they went back to the farm, but aside from a few re-integration classes and being confined to the home when they weren't working, they were treated like anyone else.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    22. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Actually, I saw a program just like that (see above) - the company gets a solid tax break, the inmates' money is put into a savings account in their name (minus a small monthly stipend for housing), and they even had classes to help the inmate learn how to function as a normal human being.

      The soon-to-be-ex-con gets a job and a chance to prove themselves. I know of one who not only worked his ass off at the plant, but after he got out they hired him on as a supervisor with a nice raise to boot. Many of the inmates there did pretty well (most likely because the selection process to get there in the first place, the requirement to be a non-violent offender, etc.)

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    23. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Assmasher · · Score: 1

      That's not even remotely the same thing.

      --
      Loading...
    24. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      While war tends to kill a metric shitload of innocent people, there are distinct differences between it and simple mass murder.

      I'm not saying that either one is right or just, but at least try to learn the differences. Simple equivocation of the two is a sign of ignorance and/or naiveté. Please stop doing that.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    25. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      The tax breaks are there. The resume-building is there. The gaining of a good track-record is there. What more did you seek?

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    26. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need to stop letting sociopaths run our prisons. We should be giving all candidates psychological tests to make sure they're all compassionate people interested in keeping their prisoners safe and rehabilitating them so they can turn their lives around. Of course if you push for this, there are a ton of right-wing lunatics that will embarrass themselves by calling you "a bleeding-heart liberal." It's hard to reform society when many terrible people vote.

      Is it that easy? Just hire compassionate correctional officers?

      It doesn't make you a bleeding heart liberal to think the way you think. It just means you are oblivious to the realities of working in a correctional facility and the limits of human compassion. Compassionate officers don't stay compassionate after years of diseased inmates biting their tongues to spit blood at them, having feces and urine thrown at them regularly, having boiling water thrown at them, constantly being tested, constantly being setup so that the inmates can try to sue as well as getting cussed repeatedly every hour of every day.

      It's about 10x as stressful as normal police work and pays even less.

    27. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      Governments should assess the societal cost of each inmate who continues to commit crimes and offer half of that to the prison if the inmate emerges properly rehabilitated, perhaps in lieu of the normal per-inmate payments.

      dude, how much could I be paid if I went out and did a crime and confessed so I was a "first time offender" who could be rehabilitated?

    28. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by timeOday · · Score: 1

      And, are you suggesting mass murder is OK as long as you accomplish something?

      Your question is paradoxical only because of how you phrased it, since we only call something "murder" after we judge it to be unjustified.

      But I guess the basic answer is "yes," or in other words, I am not quite a pacifist. For example I cannot blame Russia for violently resisting German invasion in WWII.

      A basic calculus for this would be whether the killings (e.g. bombing an invading army) will save more lives than it costs. A more messy but more reasonable calculus also must weigh the guilt or innocence of the people likely to perish, or at least the merit of the causes those people are fighting for (since individuals generally have very little choice which side they fight for.)

    29. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Redmancometh · · Score: 1

      Read the lucifer effect by Phillip Zimbardo

    30. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Assmasher · · Score: 1

      Where, in your post, are the tax breaks?

      Where did my proposal mention resume building?

      Where did I propose anything about a "good track-record"?

      You also seem to have confused released inmates with "halfway houses."

      Half-way houses are not "parole alternatives" they are used to help parolees integrate back into society.

      --
      Loading...
    31. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by ahodgson · · Score: 1

      The CIA using drones to kill civilians in countries you are not at war with is not war. It's state-sanctioned murder.

      If the Pakistani secret police flew a drone into NYC and blew up buildings full of civilians, I'm pretty sure you'd call it terrorism. The US is doing this every single day.

    32. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, civilian "collateral damage" in Iraq and Pakistan is OK then? Because you were accomplishing something?

      Or, maybe it's what it really is ... a war crime by the US who has decided the lives of the rest of the world are disposable as long as the US gets what they want.

    33. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      McVeigh knowingly targeted a building with a day care center in it and killed 19 kids along with the rest of his victims.

      That isn't patriotism and it isn't "action against the government." That's straight up terrorism.

    34. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      Fascinating article. I'm sorry that I have no mod points to give you a boost but thanks for the thoughtful essay link.

    35. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by RazorSharp · · Score: 1

      Of course if you push for this, there are a ton of right-wing lunatics that will embarrass themselves by calling you "a bleeding-heart liberal." It's hard to reform society when many terrible people vote.

      Well, your suggestion is pretty ridiculous and it does sound like a very bleeding-heart liberal thing to say. Personally, I'd probably fail a "psychological compassion test" but I'm still pragmatic enough to realize that our current prison system is a terrible way to deal with criminals and does nothing to reform them. Your solution is very micro and does nothing to change the overall structure of the prison system. It also doesn't do anything to cull the prevalence of sociopaths among prison guards -- a defining characteristic of sociopaths is that they're pretty good liars (lying is easy when you lack a conscience), which makes subverting a "psychological compassion test" pretty easy for them when they realize what they're being tested for.

      A macro solution would be removing private industry from the prison system so prisoners aren't merely livestock for a company that lobbies to incarcerate more and more people. Turn prisons into educational facilities rather than controlled housing facilities that sometimes offer bits of education. Reduce prison populations by legalizing marijuana, improving public education, and get rid of prison sentences for most non-violent crimes.

      About the only thing psychology is good for is advertising. It's an embarrassment to science.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    36. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      Room and board. Society shouldn't require committing crimes to get these things.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    37. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Drethon · · Score: 1

      And a patriot uses indiscriminate targeting to carry out patriotic plans?

    38. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by pkinetics · · Score: 1

      Without knowing anything about him, I'm guess he has delusions of grandiose and persecutory.

    39. Re: Clearly they've broken him and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a pro women's rights anti girl child marriage pro government shill. Your religion of feminism must not be allowed to be successful in conqueroring the globe. It would be better to all be dead than forever live in a woman's world with no young girls to marry ever again. You need to go the way of the shakers. This will take a world war because you won't let any land in peace.

    40. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We need to stop letting sociopaths run our prisons. We should be giving all candidates psychological tests to make sure they're all compassionate people interested in keeping their prisoners safe and rehabilitating them so they can turn their lives around. Of course if you push for this, there are a ton of right-wing lunatics that will embarrass themselves by calling you "a bleeding-heart liberal." It's hard to reform society when many terrible people vote.

      Not gonna help. We know now from sociological experiments that the environment turns nearly all the guards into sociopaths. It's a structural problem, not a people problem.

      But the most pressing issue with our prison industrial complex is the sheer volume of citizens that are subjected to it. The US has the largest prison population by far in the entire world, both by numbers and proportion of the population. And that is directly attributable to the police-state infrastructure created and perpetuated by the Federal government, just like Weev has stated.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    41. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by umghhh · · Score: 1

      'when given opportunity' is a key phrase. Society that is by principle and openly hard on crime to keep children safe and all these other things, goes quite close to giving a hint that this i.e. treating others like trash will be tolerated behaviour. Add to this overcrowding and privatization of penal system and you get a perfect situation when the condition you stated is almost always true. It is in fact a wonder that terrible things do not happen more often.

    42. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Assmasher · · Score: 1

      It would be interesting to compare and contrast the "before being f*cked by the government" weev's thinking to post prison weev...

      --
      Loading...
    43. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not an experiment. It's a sixties era pop science joke.

    44. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      I always wondered that with the recidivism rate so high and the cost of housing inmates so high, solving the post-release job/hiring issues by offering employers who employ ex-convicts an annual/monthly tax break for employing them.

      We already do that. It's called the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC). Unfortunately, it's suspended right now and Congress is not taking up renewal until the Republicans concede to including a raise to the minimum wage in the same bill. It's sad that actual useful ideas that both sides can agree on always end up with poison pills added from one side or the other.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    45. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by timeOday · · Score: 1

      So, civilian "collateral damage" in Iraq and Pakistan is OK then?

      I didn't say it was always justified, or often justified, I just gave one extreme example in which it was justified. For what it's worth I think the Iraq war was a big sham, and also huge mistake even from a purely selfish (for the US as a whole) perspective.

    46. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Assmasher · · Score: 1

      Thanks for pointing that out. I like it, the only problem is that the amount is really low. $2400 annually tax credit at the very most and there are lots of conditions on them.

      Better than nothing though.

      --
      Loading...
    47. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      If the Pakistani secret police flew a drone into NYC and blew up buildings full of civilians, I'm pretty sure you'd call it terrorism.

      There's a difference between Pakistan and the United States that you've overlooked: We keep our dogs off their lawn. Nobody in the United States is planning the mass murder of Pakistanis. If they were we would take care of them ourselves. We wouldn't let somebody who killed 3,000 Pakistanis live 5 miles from West Point.

      Perhaps if the Pakistanis cleaned up their own backyard we wouldn't have to do it for them?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    48. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by WrongMonkey · · Score: 1

      Did you read the criticism section? The Stanford prison experiment and the related Milgram experiment are considered case studies in bad experiment design in early psychology.

    49. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A witty saying proves nothing.
      -Voltaire

      A government powerful enough to give you everything you need might not be powerful enough to take everything you have. Nor would it being so be problematic if it could be trusted not to. Your quote essentially teaches us to stop thinking about fixing the problem, as if "government" was a single toxic substance we could just avoid and then everything would be alright. It's the same rhetoric that tries to poison any attempt to better our situation as "naive utopianism" as if "better than what we have now" and "perfect" were synonymous.

      Stay in that armchair, man. At least you won't get in the way of the people actually working to make things better.

    50. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While war tends to kill a metric shitload of innocent people, there are distinct differences between it and simple mass murder.

      Which is proof that there are absolutely no differences.

      Simple equivocation of the two is a sign of ignorance and/or naiveté. Please stop doing that.

      Not really, equivocation of the two is spot on.

      There is no difference. War is mass murder. If you have anything besides an ad hominem, please let us now.

      You can say what circumstances that is better than the alternative (in defense, it is arguably better than not fighting back) but you do the world a disservice by burying your head in the sand.

    51. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by dugancent · · Score: 1

      He did no such thing. He blew up a federal building, in a different state, full of people that had no connection at all to what happened there.

      He accomplished nothing.

      --
      SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
    52. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 1

      And that is directly attributable to the police-state infrastructure created and perpetuated by the Federal government, just like Weev has stated.

      True enough, but not exactly the poster-child we'd like espousing the point of view that the government is fucked and needs desperately to be reformed.

      --
      Who did what now?
    53. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please explain how your assertion (or the criticism of these experiments) invalidates anything.

    54. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      I make simple equivocation because I understand these so called differences and judge them to be nothing more than window dressing. Those differences are immaterial to me; in fact, I would go the opposite way. You see, war is a political crime committed by people in power....people who, by the very fact that they are in power, have less excuse and should be held to a HIGHER standard for their actions, especially violent ones when they really have less justification than others for violence.

      So Tim Mcveigh yah, he did something bad, but every single drone strike is worst than what he did, because they deserve to be held to a higher standard for their behaviour. Your "differences" are little more then the excuses that allow those in power to hold themselves to the lowest possible standard or even none at all since they never face any repercussions for flagrant violation of even those standards....and even if there was a reckoning, they would just toss some of their lowest level fodder to be sacrificed for their transgressions.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    55. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sounds more like work release.

    56. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or the rant is simply misdirection. Got off on a 'technicality' did you say?

    57. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      And there is one you have overlooked.... that all people (not just citizens, not just people we like, not just people physically here) are innocent until proven guilty. So nobody there is planning it either until you prove they are in a court of law. Or at least.... the US government made in their constitution the promise to all of us that they would hold that standard. Pakistan never promised that to me or mine.

      So the US government really has no place engaging in extrajudicial killings based on heresay, which is exactly what their drone strikes are. Your claim that its about people planning to kill us is not being proven in a court of law, no charges are being filed....this is simple mass murder, and a breach of the very contract upon which the government was founded.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    58. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Innocent until proven guilty is a concept of the civilian criminal justice system. It does not apply on foreign battlefields to those who are trying to kill us. The relevant legal precedents go back centuries and don't say what you think they say. Our actions in Pakistan/Afghanistan are perfectly defensible from a legal standpoint.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    59. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      attributable to the police-state infrastructure created and perpetuated by the Federal government, just like Weev has stated.

      By the federal government?

      http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/cpus12pr.cfm

      The federal prison system had the largest sentenced prison population (196,600 inmates) in 2012, followed by Texas (157,900), California (134,200), Florida (101,900) and New York (54,100).

      The Federal system has little more inmates than Texas, and 2/3rds of the top 2 states together.

      If the Feds are to be blamed for anything as far as imprisonment goes, it is simply the War against Drugs, and nothing like what weev is referring to. End that one horribly misguided program, and the Feds will be a non-factor in terms of prison numbers.

    60. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Methinks he doth protest too much.

      My suspicion is that he cut a deal with the "fed scum" and the crazy talk is designed to (appear to) solicit approaches from "domestic terrorists".

    61. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he meant covertly by the prison companies. Don't act like they wouldn't do something like that if there was a profit to be made.

    62. Re: Clearly they've broken him and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking idiot douchebag. Try educating yourself, moron.

      All local police / prisons / courts are supported by federal grants, requirements, and policies. They are trying local police with Federal military procedures. Duh

    63. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      "Rehabilitation" is something that the general populace believes in and blindly assumes is the purpose of prison, but the legal system and prisons themselves have long made it officially clear that rehabilitation is not the purpose or intent of jails and prisons, nor is it part of their mandate. Prisons will generally take that to the extreme and point out that since they're not legally instructed to do rehabilitation, it would be some sort of illegal experiment if they tried.

      Any "rehabilitation" is entirely the responsibility of the prisoner.

    64. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Yes and that is why I don't consider that legal standpoint as a reasonable standard...and in fact, pretty fucking worthless.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    65. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Most crime is caused by poverty and unavailability of employment. A fact that has been known for well over two hundred years.

      I know some homeless people who have commited crimes for the sole purpose of getting a prison stint as it is altogether more comforting than living on the street. "At least in jail, you know where your next meal is coming from".

      Watch any documentary about homelessness and you will see this is not an anecdote but a near-universal maxim.

      Create a system where "ex-cons" are discriminated against, and those same people are going to go and commit more crimes seeking the spoils of crime or the comfort of incarceration.

      In South Korea, a persons criminal history is secret once they are released from jail. The moral logic is sound: they commited a crime, they paid the penalty, they are again on equal moral footing with everyone else. The rational logic is sound: disclosure of criminal history results in persecution which results in recidivism.

      The system we have in western countries of persecuting for life "rehabilitated" people is sickening from a moral perspective, and unsound from a rational perspective.

    66. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by airdweller · · Score: 1

      Don't read it. Zimbardo is a bad scientist.

    67. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by digsbo · · Score: 1

      You don't need to have statistical significance and best-practice psychometric design to make useful observations. There is certainly a big difference between the design of psychological studies that identify things like the correlation between childhood abuse and self-injurious behavior (cutting), and experiments such as this one, which are obviously not expected to yield statistically meaningful data, but rather create a situation in which dynamics can be observed. Many of the dynamics of the experiment which can be criticized as flaws can also be observed in the real world scenarios it was meant to emulate. The criticism of both this and the Milgram experiment are largely based on the combination of causing real harm to the subjects in addition to having a vague and statistically meaningless/useless outcome. But even by recognizing the experiment could cause real harm, we certainly advanced the science, and also became aware of dynamics that surprised people, while documenting them and providing a basis for future evaluation and refinement.

      You don't start off with good experiments and results. The beginning is rough.

    68. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the environment turns nearly all the Americans/b> into sociopaths.

      Fixed that for you.

      The similar British experiment did not exhibit the same behaviours.

    69. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Prison is the opposite of rehabilitation. It was always meant to be in the US. It's a shame that reforming people is considered "soft on crime". It's cheaper and more effective, but not politically acceptable. That always proves to me that Libertarians aren't about "small" or effective government, but sociopathic hate of everyone else.

    70. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      running prisons for profit demands that every cell is occupied - to maximise profit. Rehabilitation of offenders as productive members of society does not bode well for the future of your private prison. What's the point of it if it's empty? You also want low-maintenance prisoners. The State can keep the dangerous ones in their high security prisons where the guards carry shotguns and watch from a safe distance and behind chicken wire, I'll take the local taxation dodgers and the parking fine refusers in my private prison, because they're the fools that can't fight their way out of a wet paper bag never mind even think about anything so radical as set light to a toilet roll and stage rooftop protests... it might also help to have a friendly judge to keep feeding the machine. Wouldn't you know, just how many judges have interests in private prisons? (answer: most of them)

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    71. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      We all know this, but no one cares enough to actually do anything about it...

      A government powerful enough to give you everything you need is powerful enough to take everything you have...

      That isn't something taught in public schools of course, but it should be...

      Gerald Ford, August 1974.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    72. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Assmasher · · Score: 1

      While I have some libertarian (classic libertarian) tendencies, the people who espouse modern libertarianism seem to me to live in fear of everything.

      They're afraid of people that don't look or act like them, they're afraid of the government, they're afraid of anything they themselves didn't discover or suggest, et cetera...

      Especially relating to gun control. I'm not anti-gun, but I simply cannot understand why what APPEARS to be the majority of gun owners think that government limits on gun ownership in any way endangers their ability to reign in the government.

      All the "it's the last bulwark against tyranny" crap. Really? If the government told gun owners you could only own a single shotgun or rifle and handguns were outlawed (not that I'm saying this should happen) - do the gun 'nuts' really think they still couldn't overthrow the government with one gun?

      How many guns can they shoot at the same time during the uprising? LOL.

      Anyhow, I've gone off on a rant, lol.

      Sometimes I feel like the last reasonable American (which is both smug and clearly untrue) because I have the feeling that most moderate people are just rather quiet about their beliefs.

      Anyhow, I'll shut up now.

      --
      Loading...
    73. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      I have a question.

      Why did Germany invade Russia?
      Was it in response to the Russian invasion of Poland and annexation of Ukraine?
      Or was it the case, commonly accepted yet utterly ludicrous, that Germany thought she could take on and beat down an army easily a hundred times her size with another similarly sized army behind it (the population of China with her military history - hello, Khan?), while at the same time fight on two other fronts (the Africa campaign and the Western Front in France) while maintaining flow of fuel and ammunition to all three fronts from a dwindling stockpile of both neither of which were being replenished from anywhere??

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    74. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the environment turns nearly all the Americans/b> into sociopaths.

      Fixed that for you.

      The similar British experiment did not exhibit the same behaviours.

      That's not really accurate, is it? The British version you're referring to wasn't a scientific study at all, it was a reality TV show. It was designed at the outset to be "more cautious" and the goal was to ensure it would not "get as brutal" as the Stanford experiment. And even at that, they had to halt it early because the participants were degenerating just like they were in the original experiment. This is from the BBC's description:

      When the BBC revealed it was to replicate for television the notorious Stanford experiment, when university students were "imprisoned" to study responses to solitude and oppression, executives said that it would not repeat the brutality of the original.

      While the BBC version was approached with far more caution than the 1971 model, which was terminated after six days when the participants' behaviour had degenerated, it appears to have met a similar fate.

      Scientists overseeing the BBC project became concerned that the 15 participants' emotional and physical wellbeing was in danger of being compromised, and called a halt before it was due to end.

    75. Re:Clearly they've broken him and... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Sometimes I feel like the last reasonable American

      I felt the same, so I moved. When nobody wants to fix the obvious problems, there's nothing left to do.

      Lower taxes, more services, less corruption. Better in every way, so long as I don't want handguns for defense (guns are legal and "common", rare).

  3. Bitcoin ? by psergiu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why Bitcoin and not Dogecoin (or any other e-currency) ?

    --
    1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
    1. Re:Bitcoin ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Seems like he's been out of the loop on that for some reason...

    2. Re:Bitcoin ? by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

      Why Bitcoin and not Dogecoin (or any other e-currency) ?

      My guess would be he wanted to use the one with the most penetration, because his real objective (or at least a simultaneous objective) is to do a little crowdbusking.

      As a side note; he may be little more than an irritating troll, but it will be interesting to see where this goes. Think of him as a walking, flaming, honeypot.

    3. Re:Bitcoin ? by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 1

      You can't buy drugs with Dogecoin. At least I don't think you can. Can someone with better knowledge of black-market sites chime in?

    4. Re:Bitcoin ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also doesn't the fedgov have a big stash of bitcoin confiscated from silkroad?

    5. Re:Bitcoin ? by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Funny

      My guess would be he wanted to use the one with the most penetration

      Probably not his favourite word these days.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re:Bitcoin ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have the correct answer.

    7. Re:Bitcoin ? by __aawbkb6799 · · Score: 1

      Also doesn't the fedgov have a big stash of bitcoin confiscated from silkroad?

      This.

    8. Re:Bitcoin ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't buy drugs with Dogecoin. At least I don't think you can. Can someone with better knowledge of black-market sites chime in?

      You can buy anything with any cryptocurrency; they don't support restrictions for specific goods.

      If he just wanted drugs and not to make a point, then you'd think he would have requested the world's #1 drug currency - the US Dollar.

    9. Re:Bitcoin ? by PRMan · · Score: 2

      Because you can actually USE bitcoin? You know...to BUY things? Doge is a joke.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    10. Re:Bitcoin ? by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Which is a problem because being on drugs is a requirement to want to use Dogecoin.

    11. Re:Bitcoin ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the same nonsense argument that was used against Bitcoin years ago. For what it's worth I too prefer BTC to Doge, but even bad ideas deserve to be debunked with real facts, not BS appeals to popularity.

    12. Re:Bitcoin ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, as far as I know $*)*)£" £+NO CARRIER

  4. Patriot Act His Ass! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then see what he wants!

  5. Timothy McVeigh by berj · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wow.. good role model there.. Timothy McVeigh. I repeat.. Wow.

    1. Re:Timothy McVeigh by Zantac69 · · Score: 2

      No kidding...

      weev can get bent.

      --
      1331461 is only semiprime *sigh* Alas - I am just short of 1337.
    2. Re:Timothy McVeigh by drakaan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah...I was borderline sympathetic up until that point. What a douche.

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
    3. Re:Timothy McVeigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. So edgy. Very troll. Wow.

    4. Re:Timothy McVeigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Marvin Heemeyer is the man though..

    5. Re:Timothy McVeigh by MrBingoBoingo · · Score: 1

      All it means is he has the balls to troll both online and offline.

    6. Re:Timothy McVeigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd probably be pretty bent if I was stuck in prison for 13 months, especially with there being nebulous amounts of solitary confinement for a non-violent crime.

      Not saying he's justified. I'd prefer to think no one is justified. Everyone involved is bad people and should feel bad.

    7. Re:Timothy McVeigh by PvtVoid · · Score: 5, Informative

      Marvin Heemeyer is the man though..

      "Outraged over the outcome of a zoning dispute, he armored a Komatsu D355A bulldozer with layers of steel and concrete and used it on June 4, 2004, to demolish the town hall, the former mayor's house, and other buildings in Granby, Colorado. The rampage ended when the bulldozer got stuck in the basement of a Gambles store he had previously destroyed. Heemeyer then killed himself with a handgun." (See here.)

      Truly a 'Merkin hero.

    8. Re:Timothy McVeigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'MURICAAAAAAAA!!! Fuck Yeaaaaaaaaah!!!

    9. Re:Timothy McVeigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, not only does it indicate that he is a total douche who idolizes murderers, it's also a massive backstab to anyone who ever supported him, since now they are associated with an enormous douche.

      Fuck him.

    10. Re:Timothy McVeigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you so much for that second 'wow'. That first one certainly did not adequately cover the pure state of shock you originally conveyed with the first occurrence of the word.

    11. Re:Timothy McVeigh by GrahamJ · · Score: 2

      I would have considered him a hero if he hadn't offed himself, which is certainly a cowardly act. That aside, the rampage itself was as American as you get.

    12. Re:Timothy McVeigh by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

      Yeah, unbeweevable.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    13. Re:Timothy McVeigh by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

      That was Ted Kaczynski. McVeigh was the Oklahoma City bomber.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    14. Re:Timothy McVeigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      giyf

    15. Re:Timothy McVeigh by meerling · · Score: 2

      Yeah, and demand letters like that, especially when sent to bloody everybody including a whole packload of journalists are not a good sign regarding his mental health. I read the letter, and it's not as bad as some of the 'letters', rants, and 'manifestos' dangerous nutbags have used, but it's close enough to the earlier ones to be worrying.

      To abuse an old quote, "Get thee to a nuttery!". No, seriously, get this guy some mental healthcare before he does something totally psycho and irrevocable.

    16. Re:Timothy McVeigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I would have considered him a hero if he hadn't offed himself, which is certainly a cowardly act. That aside, the rampage itself was as American as you get.

      Cowardly? Go ahead tough guy, see if you can make a little cut in your arm. No big deal, a little blood and pain. It will be healed in a couple days. Even the 'bravest' of men shy away from the thought of hurting themselves. Fear often rules the lives of people that judge other's cowardice.

    17. Re:Timothy McVeigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think it is *always* cowardly to kill yourself.
      When the alternative is truly worse than death it's just rational.
      In his case there is a decent argument for it being cowardly, though. He could have faced justice, or something justice-like.

    18. Re:Timothy McVeigh by Narcocide · · Score: 2

      No, this is "the unabomber guy." Before they caught McVeigh though I believe it was widely speculated that his crime had been an act of the Unabomber, who had at that time not yet been caught.

    19. Re:Timothy McVeigh by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      Oh. I wonder what weev thinks of the Unabomber

    20. Re:Timothy McVeigh by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      McVey was just stupid enough to be unbelievably lucky, or he was a patsy.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    21. Re:Timothy McVeigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      A hero? Seriously? From an AC post above:

      And why does he include Heemeyer in when speaking of federal government? Heemeyer's problem was with the local town council not the feds. He agreed to sell his property to a cement manufacturer for $250K then reneged and demanded $375K then a million. Obviously, the cement folks said fuck you and petitioned the town council to rezone an adjacent piece of land for their plant. The whole reason for Heemeyer's rampage was his own stupidity and greed. We're supposed to rally around that guy? You really want the law to allow you to go on a rampage if you, by your own greed, refuse a deal then get cut out of the final deal?

      You base your hero worship on interesting criteria.

    22. Re:Timothy McVeigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every argument I have found that suicide is "cowardly" has a dogmatic (religious) rather than rational basis.

      You only get one chance at life. The only sure way to end hope is to die. To make that choice takes either mental illness (usually) or balls.

    23. Re:Timothy McVeigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Some people think Timothy McVeigh is a hero because (perhaps rightly) he observed that the government had declared war on its people when they burned alive 87 strange religious people in Waco, Texas and then put out a full court press to label them as crazy people, with little evidence. In addition the Weaver incident spun out of control due overzealous law enforcement doing surveillance based on a tip of a professional drug addict informant who was running out of real people to inform on. When Weavers dogs found a heavily armed, out of uniform, surveillance team in the woods near their cabin they panicked and gunfire erupted starting the entire incident that lead his 14 year old son dead. Then they murdered Randy Weaver's 16 year old unarmed daughter after the feds gave a shoot on sight order for anyone seen inside his cabin. Timothy McVeigh's actions were bad but he did not do them without reason, he saw an out of control violent government, killing innocents for political gain. In his mind, and many others, they felt that government had declared war on its people and responded in kind.

    24. Re:Timothy McVeigh by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      In the amount of time it took you to write that post, you could have googled it yourself. WTF? Knowledge about nearly anything is only seconds away and yet I frequently see posts like this from people too lazy to wade through a few paragraphs on wikipedia. For fucks sake.

    25. Re:Timothy McVeigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >Go ahead tough guy, see if you can make a little cut in your arm. No big deal, a little blood and pain. It will be healed in a couple days.
      >Even the 'bravest' of men shy away from the thought of hurting themselves.

      Yet teenage girls cut themselves all the time

    26. Re:Timothy McVeigh by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 1

      It doesn't take a lot of brain-power to make a bomb, kill a bunch of innocent people, and get caught.

      We'd be a lot safer if only smart people could cause us harm, but stupid people are just as dangerous.

    27. Re:Timothy McVeigh by Sperbels · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I just got trolled, didn't I?

    28. Re:Timothy McVeigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Marvin Heemeyer is the man though..

      "Outraged over the outcome of a zoning dispute, he armored a Komatsu D355A bulldozer with layers of steel and concrete and used it on June 4, 2004, to demolish the town hall, the former mayor's house, and other buildings in Granby, Colorado. The rampage ended when the bulldozer got stuck in the basement of a Gambles store he had previously destroyed. Heemeyer then killed himself with a handgun." (See here.)

      Truly a 'Merkin hero.

      Well, I guess you could say Mr. Heemeyer did NOT have a "pronounced stoutness about the tum and a predilection for little fur hats"...

      Genghis would be proud.

    29. Re:Timothy McVeigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prison can do that to you.

    30. Re:Timothy McVeigh by DarkTempes · · Score: 1

      Or maybe he's just REALLY angry after being in prison for two years?
      Can you even imagine yourself in an American prison for that long and what that might do to you?

      Not that it validates anything he says but I wouldn't call him a douche based on that little bit of information.
      He's probably a douche for all of the trolling he's done before now though.

    31. Re:Timothy McVeigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ehmmm. Have you ever heard of the 'doge' meme? Google it sometime.

      Wow. Much ignorant. Very troll. Wow.

    32. Re:Timothy McVeigh by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 1

      Marvin Heemeyer is the man though..

      Really? The label I'd apply would be "deranged hillbilly trash," but I guess to each their own, eh?

      --
      Who did what now?
    33. Re:Timothy McVeigh by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      ... Which makes weev's invocation of McVeigh ironic, since the Unabomber actually targeted government officials, and McVeigh murdered a bunch of children.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    34. Re:Timothy McVeigh by jxander · · Score: 2

      In case the point was missed, Weev is a well renowned troll.

      We have every reason to believe that the whole tirade was a setup to get people on that emotional roller coaster of "YEAH, he's right, the government is totally... wait, what?? Who?"

      For the lulz

      --
      This signature is false.
    35. Re:Timothy McVeigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calling someone you don't like a "coward" is one of the dumbest and most mindless, sheeple-y criticisms one can make. It cuts any which way someone wants it. McVeigh was coward (not really sure why, but whatever). The cops that responded were cowards, because they wouldn't go in until they 100+ buddies with them. U.N. soldiers in Afghanistan are cowards because they won't fight without overwhelming technological and aerial advantages. Insurgents in Afghanistan are cowards because they hide behind rocks until nightfall and won't fight in the open. So were British redcoats. So were American revolutionaries. Everyone's a coward because of whatever tactical or strategic advantage they're trying to leverage. It's a dumb and empty piece of rhetoric.

      McVeigh was evil, but seriously, construct some legitimate piece of criticism so you don't sound rock-stupid.

    36. Re:Timothy McVeigh by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Oh. I wonder what weev thinks of the Unabomber

      Probably not much, since Kaczynski was a luddite and would have hated bitcoin.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    37. Re: Timothy McVeigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. Lock up the idea logical enemies of the state like the Soviet Union did. Pedophiles anti feminists gun rights guys hackers etc etc. If there's a whole culture of them drone bomb them (Afghanistan). We need a world war. This government needs to be destroyed.

    38. Re:Timothy McVeigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nah, i'm an atheist and i consider suicide cowardly, dying is incredibly easy, and there's nothing to be afraid of. you experience the same thing every time you go to sleep, break in conscious thought. just a little pain, or not even that if you do it right. life means pain and experience and stress and wonder and joy... you know, life. but it also means effort and responsibility. death is easy.

    39. Re:Timothy McVeigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, he's just made himself pretty darn unsympathetic as a criminal defendant. Lots of excellent pro bono legal work went into getting him out of prison, on the basis that he was tried in an improper venue (halfway across the country from where his activities happened). The government can still try him again in the right venue, and with these kinds of comments, there are a lot of people who'd support another trial and another conviction.

    40. Re:Timothy McVeigh by bussdriver · · Score: 2

      Sorry friend, McVeigh was no coward. If he was so cowardly, he wouldn't have taken the risks he did in the first place and he wouldn't have been as easily caught. He was so anti gov he didn't have plates on the car and if he had any sense or fear he'd have not let such things make him stand out so easily. Besides, given his motives, he was trying to inspire a revolution which if at all successful would have given him an outlet to do more "cowardly" insurgent tactics. He didn't cry like a baby when they executed him. BTW, his military training was in explosives. Was he supposed to charge the building with a rifle?

      Stop calling people using their tactical advantages cowards. The American Revolution was quite cowardly and broke the rules of war of the time. If they had honorably followed the rules of war they would have lost big time. Seriously, how stupidly "courageous" do you have to be to stand up in firing lines at close range and shoot at each other like it was some kind of sport?

      Flying killer robots are cowardly; on a whole other level beyond McVeigh but that is ok?

    41. Re:Timothy McVeigh by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      I've got karma to burn.
      Here's McVeigh in his own words.

      McVeigh's Apr. 26 Letter to Fox News
      Published April 26, 2001

      I explain herein why I bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. I explain this not for publicity, nor seeking to win an argument of right or wrong. I explain so that the record is clear as to my thinking and motivations in bombing a government installation.

      I chose to bomb a federal building because such an action served more purposes than other options. Foremost, the bombing was a retaliatory strike; a counter attack, for the cumulative raids (and subsequent violence and damage) that federal agents had participated in over the preceding years (including, but not limited to, Waco.) From the formation of such units as the FBI's "Hostage Rescue" and other assault teams amongst federal agencies during the '80's; culminating in the Waco incident, federal actions grew increasingly militaristic and violent, to the point where at Waco, our government - like the Chinese - was deploying tanks against its own citizens.

      Knowledge of these multiple and ever-more aggressive raids across the country constituted an identifiable pattern of conduct within and by the federal government and amongst its various agencies. (see enclosed) For all intents and purposes, federal agents had become "soldiers" (using military training, tactics, techniques, equipment, language, dress, organization, and mindset) and they were escalating their behavior. Therefore, this bombing was also meant as a pre-emptive (or pro-active) strike against these forces and their command and control centers within the federal building. When an aggressor force continually launches attacks from a particular base of operation, it is sound military strategy to take the fight to the enemy.

      Additionally, borrowing a page from U.S. foreign policy, I decided to send a message to a government that was becoming increasingly hostile, by bombing a government building and the government employees within that building who represent that government. Bombing the Murrah Federal Building was morally and strategically equivalent to the U.S. hitting a government building in Serbia, Iraq, or other nations. (see enclosed) Based on observations of the policies of my own government, I viewed this action as an acceptable option. From this perspective, what occurred in Oklahoma City was no different than what Americans rain on the heads of others all the time, and subsequently, my mindset was and is one of clinical detachment. (The bombing of the Murrah building was not personal , no more than when Air Force, Army, Navy, or Marine personnel bomb or launch cruise missiles against government installations and their personnel.)

      I hope that this clarification amply addresses your question.

      Sincerely,

      Timothy J. McVeigh

      USP Terre Haute (IN)

      Part II:

      Q: What's the deal with you expressing interest in having your execution televised?

      A: First, it has nothing to do with seeking to be on camera - just look at how few on-camera interviews I have done. Rather, it is to make a point: In the U.S. we show, on television, re-enactments of real executions; mock-fictional executions (in movies); and real executions from foreign countries - yet we are ashamed to show our own justice system in action. It is ironic that we show foreign executions, but are afraid to show identical domestic laws being carried out.

      Q: What were some other options considered besides bombing? Who would you have targeted?

      A: I waited two years from "Waco" for non-violent "checks and balances" built into our system to correct the abuse of power we were seeing in federal actions against citizens. The Executive; Legislative; and Judicial branches not only concluded that the government did nothing wrong (leaving the door open for "Waco" to happen again), they actually gave awards and bonus pay to those agents involved, and conve

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    42. Re:Timothy McVeigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your choosing to be alive despite having decided that suicide is both painless and the "easy" option is disproving your point. If dying were easier than life, lots of people would be choosing death. But it's very rare for people without mental illness to choose death, because while pretty much everybody knows that life is "pain and experience and stress and wonder and joy" (you're trying to be poetic, yet there's nothing insightful in this!) but recognises that the good bits almost always outweigh the bad bits, and the bad bits are not unbearable.

      Your argument is not based on either logic or scientific evidence. Perhaps you knew someone who killed themselves and want to blame them because you feel bad about it. Perhaps you just haven't thought it through. While life can sometimes be tough, there is - absent severe terminal illness - hope as long as there is life. And that's better than the guarantee of lack of hope which comes with death. Severe mental illness often bypasses this logic, and (rarely) ideology bypasses it: self-sacrifice. It's nothing to do with cowardliness.

    43. Re:Timothy McVeigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From my understanding the rezoning left his muffler shop without road access. He bought that bulldozer to make a new road for his customers but the town wouldn't allow it. They intentionally destroyed his business.

    44. Re:Timothy McVeigh by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      Likewise. I hate the federal government, too, but I want to secede, not kill people. I hate the government for doing the same thing McVeigh did, only on a larger scale - can't see how worshipping McVeigh would help with any of that.

    45. Re:Timothy McVeigh by GrahamJ · · Score: 1

      He shot himself in the head. That doesn't hurt.

    46. Re:Timothy McVeigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, idiot, but he most definitely was a coward. Cowards attack buildings full of unarmed innocents rather than legitimate military targets. You are comparing the American Revolution to McVeigh's actions? What a fucking joke. I am pretty sure the Continental Army fought actual battles and skirmish actions against an organized army, not went off killing random employees of the crown and their children.

      Here's a clue, by the way, anyone who isn't a nutjob and wants to incite a revolution builds a base of supporters and who then collectively take actions that have some sort of hope of success in overturning the government. The idea that blowing up a federal building full of office jockeys would somehow spark a revolution is completely farcical. This is self-evident in that.. *gasp* not even an attempt at "revolution" happened.

      If you think McVeigh is so great, how about you man up like your idol and go join the random revolutionary terrorist organization of your choice? There are plenty of groups overseas who would love to be good chums with you. The great part about that is you will likely get to experience "tactical advantage" first hand when a 500 pound JDAM lands on your stupid ass.

    47. Re:Timothy McVeigh by GrahamJ · · Score: 1
      There is no worship involved.

      From Wikipedia:

      A hero (masculine) or heroine (feminine) refers to characters who, in the face of danger and adversity or from a position of weakness, display courage and the will for self-sacrifice

      Sounds about right. Again I'm leaving aside the suicide part so even if you look at his inevitably being busted as self-sacrifice (and certainly adversity) the shoe fits pretty well.

      I'm not condoning what he did you but you have to admire his conviction.

    48. Re:Timothy McVeigh by GrahamJ · · Score: 1

      I assure you I am the furthest thing from religious.

      In suicide they usually have the perception that life is an insurmountable obstacle, that ending it is much easier than carrying on. Whatever the cause of that perception (mental illness, deep depression etc) it's not a matter of having balls.

    49. Re:Timothy McVeigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The only sure way to end hope is to die."

      That is why suicide is cowardly. When a person decides to take their own life they are admitting that they no longer have hope. They cannot continue without hope. If they just had a little bit of hope, they'd be able to continue on. They simply give up. They are broken. It takes no courage at all to give up on hope and kill yourself. It takes all of the courage to continue forward without hope.

    50. Re:Timothy McVeigh by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      ...who just happened to be inside a Government building.

      Intent aside (I'm not a mind reader), that is the fact. There were perfectly good private creches dotted around, why suddenly did the Fed feel the need to install creches in its buildings?

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    51. Re:Timothy McVeigh by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      Smart people are individually dangerous. Stupid people are collectively deadly.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    52. Re:Timothy McVeigh by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      why suddenly did the Fed feel the need to install creches in its buildings?

      I can guarantee you it wasn't to make anyone who tried to blow the building up look like a monster.

      They probably added the daycare because they realized workers lose less time from work if their kids are in the same building. It was actually a fairly common practice in the 1990's, though not necessarily widespread.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    53. Re:Timothy McVeigh by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      it just strikes me as unbelievably odd behaviour considering the Fed's stance on other countries it reported as having prepped human shields using children, and the timing is just too perfect to have been a coincidence.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    54. Re:Timothy McVeigh by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      OK, I'm a pretty paranoid dude (enough so that I still question the official 9/11 story), and even I think that theory is nut-butter crazy. That should tell you something.

      I'm guessing that if the feds knew of a plot beforehand, a more likely scenario is that they might have tried to, you know, stop it, rather than using their own children as human sacrifices to some still unknown end.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  6. "PAY ME MY MONEY, YOU LYING SUBHUMAN GARBAGE." by PvtVoid · · Score: 2

    That's going to work.

    1. Re:"PAY ME MY MONEY, YOU LYING SUBHUMAN GARBAGE." by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      It kind of works for AT&T, Verizon, et. al. They are perhaps slightly more polite "Pay me my money, or else I'll throttle your bandwidth", but the implication that we're subhuman garbage is clear.

    2. Re:"PAY ME MY MONEY, YOU LYING SUBHUMAN GARBAGE." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, Weev is giving them a discount, so they shouldn't complain too much.

      "That's 1179 days that you used my time that I am now billing you for (I gave you a discount by not including the last day). I am owed 28,296 Bitcoins"

    3. Re:"PAY ME MY MONEY, YOU LYING SUBHUMAN GARBAGE." by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Its generally referred to as a "supply-and-demand driven market", where AT&T, Verizon, etc offer you a service, which you pay for and then receive; generally, failing to pay for your service results in the service being withheld.

      I know this is graduate level stuff, but try to stick with me here.

    4. Re:"PAY ME MY MONEY, YOU LYING SUBHUMAN GARBAGE." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      the implication that we're subhuman garbage is clear.

      Well they do know your disgusting and perverted porn predilections from their logs.

    5. Re:"PAY ME MY MONEY, YOU LYING SUBHUMAN GARBAGE." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The invisible hand seems to be jerking you off.

    6. Re:"PAY ME MY MONEY, YOU LYING SUBHUMAN GARBAGE." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      government allowed monopolies != supply and demand market

      no need for a post-doc to understand that... but enjoy your pipe dream

  7. Yeah right. by Desler · · Score: 1

    Hope he enjoys the "state sovereign immunity" rejection letter he'll receive.

  8. Why we can't have nice things... by globaljustin · · Score: 2

    Weev is ruining it for everyone with his egotistical douch-nozzle approach to this whole thing.

    I support *everything* Weev is doing, from a conceptual standpoint.

    That's where it ends...this stupid letter shows what happens to a good mind when all other voices are shut out internally.

    WE MUST CONNECT WITH OTHER PEOPLE NOT BROWBEAT THEM WITH OUR SUPERIORITY

    I mean...if we ever want to win this fight...

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:Why we can't have nice things... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      I dont know that you could call "esteeming McVeigh" "browbeating them with superiority".

      I sort of feel like theres a distinction there.

    2. Re:Why we can't have nice things... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When an asshat like Weev breaks that law, we need to condemn him loudly and clearly. Instead, Slashdot was fill of lots of bull about how this wasn't really hacking and how what he did shouldn't be illegal. If you read what Weev wrote about it, it is very clear the guy is a major asshat and he knew what he was doing was wrong.

    3. Re:Why we can't have nice things... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dont know that you could call "esteeming McVeigh" "browbeating them with superiority". I sort of feel like theres a distinction there.

      Well, he believes in a person who actually lived. That makes the score:

      weev: 1 for actually believing in something that is real, however wrong
      religion: 0 for believing in fairy tales.

      If you have something against weev, you will have to do better than ad hominems, I'm afraid.

      What are you so afraid of, that you might find something you don't like?

      Why would you be so afraid, that you can't even reason or research or think for yourself about an issue long enough to give an opinion based on logic and rational thought?

      You do weev a great service. Seriously, what have you said on this topic that is anything besides bullying?

      You are not doing much to lessen anyone's opinion that might makes right, or that the judicial system and government is anything but working against the people it is supposed to be serving and obedient to.

      If weev is so wrong and misguided, how come the only thing you can do is assassinate his character?

    4. Re:Why we can't have nice things... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or it shows what happens to a good mine when you lock it in a small room alone for a year

    5. Re:Why we can't have nice things... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      I have 3 posts on this topic (4 now), one of which is completely off topic. One defines the terms "murder" and "terrorism", and the other (the parent post here) expresses disdain for Weev's glorification of McVeigh.

      If youre attempting to post-stalk me, youre doing a crappy job of it. Nothing I've posted here could remotely be described as character assassination. I do give you props for accusing me of ad hominems and following it up with an (apparent) attack on the fact that I practice a religion, though-- that takes a good deal of chutzpah.

  9. Intelligence eclipsed by hate by Stumbles · · Score: 5, Informative

    Really? Those three deserve hommage by Stuckey? Stack intentionally flies his plane into a building kill several. Heemeyer has fun with a bulldozer. And worst of all in some respects, McVeigh detonates a bomb killing a hundred plus people. If those are the types you admire as worthy of a memorial then you have one warped sense of admiration. None of those even come close to fitting the description of a patriot.

    --
    My karma is not a Chameleon.
    1. Re:Intelligence eclipsed by hate by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 2

      > None of those even come close to fitting the description of a patriot.

      Most of the people claiming to be patriots these days are anything but. It's always selfish, clueless people who are engaging in fantasy role-playing to pretend that they're better than quality people.

    2. Re:Intelligence eclipsed by hate by GrahamJ · · Score: 1

      And neither does this guy. hmmm maybe there's some kind of connection there?

    3. Re:Intelligence eclipsed by hate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey! If you can admire war criminals like Kissinger, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Obama, etc, why not these guys? What makes them any worse?

    4. Re:Intelligence eclipsed by hate by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      Let's not forget the "patriots" who destroyed others' legal property in protest against their rightful government. What's the difference, anyway?

      ...the difference is that the patriots of the American Revolution spent a few decades lobbying and writing essays before any violence, pursuing a diplomatic resolution even after the fighting broke out.

      In my opinion, patriots don't just promote some message. They stand for and live by the ideals of their country, even if their government doesn't. For an American, that means patriots are the ones promoting peace and democracy, respecting opponents' opinions and their right to express those opinions, and above all else ensuring that the governmental processes are fair, even if the outcome isn't.

      There's nothing fair about the process of slaughtering civilians just so your manifesto is broadcast on TV.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    5. Re:Intelligence eclipsed by hate by Megane · · Score: 2

      Stack intentionally flies his plane into a building kill several.

      Not several. He hit a break room. He killed himself and one guy who was just getting a cup of coffee.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    6. Re:Intelligence eclipsed by hate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe he's just trolling us all and is really going to buy a condo in Orlando and retire.

    7. Re:Intelligence eclipsed by hate by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Weeve is not a brave kind of guy, he's a griefer and a fool; smart, but makes bad decisions. A lot of hackers do. By choosing that list of people, he's trying to scare government agents from doing it again to him. He doesn't understand the world well enough to understand how to get what he wants. Threatening violence against the government is not going to help, but he thinks it will because it's helped against other people in the past.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:Intelligence eclipsed by hate by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

      Let's not forget the "patriots" who destroyed others' legal property in protest against their rightful government. What's the difference, anyway?

      ...the difference is that the patriots of the American Revolution spent a few decades lobbying and writing essays before any violence, pursuing a diplomatic resolution even after the fighting broke out.

      No, the difference is that nobody got killed by the Boston Tea Party. Also American society mostly backed the Boston Tea Party and its goals. You can't really make that claim that the majority of Americans were sympathetic to the other 3 cited cases. When society says "You're wrong and crazy" that is a difference.

    9. Re:Intelligence eclipsed by hate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well of course he's trolling, that much should be obvious to anyone that knows of his reputation.

    10. Re:Intelligence eclipsed by hate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he's just trolling.

    11. Re:Intelligence eclipsed by hate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the generally agreed upon figure was large plurality, 40-45 perecent supported the revolutionaries, and roughly 20 percent were loyalists, and everybody else just wanted to keep their head down. Colonial society, just a bit more accuracy there, was pretty divided over the whole affair. not sure about the numbers for the Boston Tea Party, but the theft of property should not be lauded.

    12. Re:Intelligence eclipsed by hate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " Hypocrisy when it comes to the death of children? In Oklahoma City, it was family convenience that explained the presence of a day-care center placed between street level and the law enforcement agencies which occupied the upper floors of the building. Yet, when discussion shifts to Iraq, any day-care center in a government building instantly becomes "a shield." Think about it.

              (Actually, there is a difference here. The administration has admitted to knowledge of the presence of children in or near Iraqi government buildings, yet they still proceed with their plans to bomb —saying that they cannot be held responsible if children die. There is no such proof, however, that knowledge of the presence of children existed in relation to the Oklahoma City bombing.)

              When considering morality and "mens rea" [criminal intent], in light of these facts, I ask: Who are the true barbarians? ...

              I find it ironic, to say the least, that one of the aircraft used to drop such a bomb on Iraq is dubbed "The Spirit of Oklahoma." This leads me to a final, and unspoken, moral hypocrisy regarding the use of weapons of mass destruction.

              When a U.S. plane or cruise missile is used to bring destruction to a foreign people, this nation rewards the bombers with applause and praise. What a convenient way to absolve these killers of any responsibility for the destruction they leave in their wake.

              Unfortunately, the morality of killing is not so superficial. The truth is, the use of a truck, a plane or a missile for the delivery of a weapon of mass destruction does not alter the nature of the act itself.

              These are weapons of mass destruction — and the method of delivery matters little to those on the receiving end of such weapons.

              Whether you wish to admit it or not, when you approve, morally, of the bombing of foreign targets by the U.S. military, you are approving of acts morally equivalent to the bombing in Oklahoma City ..."

      -Timothy McVeigh

  10. His Time May Still Come by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

    That the court overturned the conviction on grounds of improper venue does not prevent the Gub'ment from going after him again in the "proper" venue. If he makes himself enough of a pain, it could be sooner rather than later. Certainly they are watching him closely now.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:His Time May Still Come by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and that list of names is sure to convince the public at large to be on his side . This is how not to fight oppression in 1 easy step.

    2. Re:His Time May Still Come by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because laws in different venues differ. What is crime in one venue is not a crime in another one. Whether he was convinced properly or not, that law was not supposed to apply to him.

    3. Re:His Time May Still Come by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You miss the point.

      He did not commit any crime. If the government were to try gim again in the "correct venue" I would hope that judge would toss the case out of court on the grounds that there is no evidence that any crime has occurred -- which there is no evidence because AT&T were victims of poor security practice, not "hacking". Weev did not circumvent any security systems. Period. There is no crime.

    4. Re:His Time May Still Come by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You miss the point. He did not commit any crime.

      He most certainly did, and the Feds will regroup and take care of it in the "proper" venue.

      While *you* may be a Anarchist, most people in this world are not.

  11. McVeigh hates technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He is aware that McVeigh was an anarcho-primitivist, correct?

  12. How does he get the three year figure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TFS says he spent 13 months in prison. Now, I understand that there would have been an arrest by federal agents and a trial. However, usually when people seek restitution for wrongful imprisonment, they seek it for the time they actually spent in prison. I'm sure he didn't spend nearly two years in pre-trial detention, so where does he get three years from?

  13. weev is a cunt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And he was released because the regime he's living in, while far from perfect, is more civilized than the terror he fantasizes about.

  14. Great, another pothead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just pay weev in weed, it's all he wants anyway.

  15. Sure, government would apply with currency what... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With currency what government doesn't recognize, it is clear that they could just give him some Monopoly money and say "Here you go!"

  16. You owe the state a dime by paiute · · Score: 2

    The prison library called to say there was an overdue book on his account:

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

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  17. Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by Morpeth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I absolutely detest the state of things right now, the NSA/Snowden revelations, corporations/lobbyists running the gov't, rights being ignored, etc. BUT that said, TImothy McVeigh was a murderer... including 18 children:

    Peachlyn Bradley, 3, Oklahoma City
    Gabreon D.L. Bruce, 3 months, Oklahoma City
    Ashley Megan Eckles, 4, Guthrie
    Baylee Almon, 1, Oklahoma City
    Danielle Nicole Bell, 15 months, Oklahoma City
    Zachary Taylor Chavez, 3, Oklahoma City
    Anthony Christopher Cooper II, 2, Moore
    Antonio Ansara Cooper Jr., 6 months, Midwest City
    Aaron M. Coverdale, 5 1/2, Oklahoma City
    Elijah S. Coverdale, 2 1/2, Oklahoma City
    Jaci Rae Coyne, 14 months, Moore
    Taylor Santoi Eaves, 8 months, Midwest City
    Tevin D'Aundrae Garrett, 16 months, Midwest City
    Kevin "Lee" Gottshall II, 6 months, Norman
    Blake Ryan Kennedy, 1 1/2, Amber
    Dominique Ravae (Johnson)-London, 2, Oklahoma City
    Chase Dalton Smith, 3, Oklahoma City
    Colton Wade Smith, 2, Oklahoma City

    Many people are angry and frustrated, but please read those names and ages and tell me again about his 'heroism'?

    --

    'The unexamined life is not worth living' - Socrates
    1. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by QuasiSteve · · Score: 2

      While I agree with the sentiment that thinking of somebody like McVeigh as an absolute hero, I don't think the reason for that should be hinging on the fact that children died in the attack. It's a bomb. It's about as non-discriminatory as weapons go.

      Assume no children died, would that somehow qualify him as being a hero after all?
      What about teenager Cartney McRaven, age 19?

      What about Kathy Cregan, Rheta Long, Laura Garrison, LutherTreanor, Olen Bloomer, Calvin Battle, Norma Johnson, Donald Burns Sr., Donald Fritzler, Eula Mitchell, Anna Hurlburt, John Vaness III, and Charles Hurlburt - who were all probably looking forward to their retirement or were otherwise just at the wrong place at the wrong time?

      What about the 135 other people who don't fit the criteria of child, teen or 60+?

      Timothy McVeigh was a murderer, period. Read that, and tell me again about his heroism.

      While we're at it - let's not start thinking of weev as a hero either. His mentioning of McVeigh could just as well be part of his usual trolling, which borders on the distasteful at best.

    2. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He didn't put a bunch of kids inside a legitimate target. There were also DEA and BATF in that building. Also since by current military guidelines any male old enough to carry a gun is a militant, so he killed a lot more militants than kids.

      Legitimate target? Those were civilians you freak.

    3. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      He attacked a federal building. Or as Obama and Bush say "Collateral Damage".

      But I get you, it is only "murder" when it is a foreign terrorist organization, not an American one.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    4. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by spire3661 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Dont use 'children' to prop up your argument. The adults lives in the building were just as valuable. Using 'children' language is News-Speak.

      --
      Good-bye
    5. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      By the definition civilians use, maybe. The US military wouldn't agree.

      Capcha: Sprayer

    6. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many children were burned alive in Waco Texas? Its a war, people die, wake up. You may not be next, but your on the list somewhere.

    7. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a list of children who died in the Waco seige

      Chanel Andrade 1
      Cyrus Koresh 8
      Star Koresh 6
      Bobbie Lane Koresh 2
      Dayland Gent 3
      Page Gent 1
      Lisa Martin 13
      Sheila Martin, Jr. 15
      Crystal Martinez 3
      Isaiah Martinez 4
      Joseph Martinez 8
      Abigail Martinez 11
      Audrey Martinez 13
      Melissa Morrison 6
      Mayanah Schneider 2
      Aisha Gyrfas Summers
        and unborn child 17
      Startle Summers 1
      Rachel Sylvia 12
      Hollywood Sylvia 1
      Serenity Jones 4
      Chica Jones 2
      Little One Jones 2

      Many people are angry and frustrated, but please read those names and ages and tell me again why McVeigh or anyone shouldn't have cause to be angry with the federal government. Not sayin' his action was justified, but its pretty fucking crass to only mention a list dead kids who died in the federal building without acknowledging the ones that died at Waco. The horrific death of those kids and their families is what contributed to McVeigh's reasoning to do what he did. It doesn't make him a hero, but neither are the federal agents.

    8. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by TheCarp · · Score: 3

      They were? A lot of them were males old enough to hold a gun, that is good enough to call brown people militants, and murder them in drone strikes. Sorry that turnabout is fair play.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    9. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 0, Troll

      Exactly. Had they been around, McVeigh would have probably headed up the Tea-Bagger Terr^H^H^H^H Patriot Militia.

    10. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      Even if one accepts the false premise that the people were guilty of something for working for the government, the children were not. They were innocent bystanders in that sick fucks mass murder and now this shit, weev, is praising the worthless piece of shits who murdered them.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    11. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People need to go back and research Waco and Ruby Ridge. The main steam story at the time was mostly propaganda that has been corrected by time. McVeigh didn't happen in a vacuum, he wasn't trying to destroy our way of life, his goal was protecting it, regardless how misguided.

    12. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You may want to read up on the Law of Armed Conflict and the Geneva conventions. That federal building was not a "legitimate target" any moreso than blowing up some random Park Ranger's house because he is a "Fed". The kids were not human shields, they were in a daycare for employees. And, militants to the military are also armed civilians (fine, there were probably a handful of FBI or ATF agents in the building carrying a pistol). There was no state of war or declared conflict in Oklahoma in 1996, therefore, he McVeigh carried out a terrorist attack against a mostly defenseless group, and murdered 18 children in a daycare while doing it. If he really had a beef with the US government, why didn't he go after a "legitimate target" such as a US military installation? Coward...

    13. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by Nexion · · Score: 1

      Strangely absent from that list are Mc Veigh's actual targets. They took the day off because there was a possibility that an attack would occur against their agency knowing, full well, children were in the line of fire. Mc Veigh, IMHO, was evil. However if he was evil what does that make those agents?

    14. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Nope. The children had no choice. That's why they get brought up.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    15. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by spire3661 · · Score: 2

      Neither did most of the adults.......

      --
      Good-bye
    16. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Yes a nice list of minor technicalities you have with your technical definitions that are narrowly defined so as to wrap war in a thin air of legitimacy. I really neither care for those technicalities nor the agreements which created them. I call em like I see em.... and I see a violent gang in Washington that deserves to be put down.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    17. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by Morpeth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I didn't say the adults lives weren't valuable, so don't put words into my mouth. There is NO way an infant or toddler could make ANY choice or cause ANY action that could in any way be a threat to McVeigh. Hence my pointing them out. It's not a prop or news-speak, sorry you're so cynical.

      While I don't in any sense condone ANYTHING he did, he could try to argue adults can make choices or actions that in some whacky way he could attempt to rationalize as a threat -- my point of bringing up the kids, is that they had ZERO, absolutely ZERO to do with whatever beef he had in his twisted mind.

      --

      'The unexamined life is not worth living' - Socrates
    18. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by LordLimecat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Its not murder when nation states with clearly declared intentions are involved. Its murder when its an individual in a non-combat scenario against unarmed civilians. Its terrorism when its non-governmental organizations with that target civilians.

      If you're still not getting it, you may want to re-take that poly sci class.

    19. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by rochrist · · Score: 2

      A legitimate target. What as asshole. Better make sure goverment offices never offer daycare services to their employees, because that makes 3 year olds legitimate targets for assholes like you.

    20. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      And Fort Hood was "workplace violence" .... we get it.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    21. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oklahoma was a false flag. McVeigh was probably just a fall guy.

    22. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by MSG · · Score: 1

      Trivia: you mean "newspeak". It's a reference to 1984:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...

      It is not a reference to news.

    23. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you might be the most contradictory thing i've ever seen, liberal based on your views on the war, but incredibly violent in your wordchoice. People are people, and your wording implies you view them as dogs. I would never like to know you, because you seem to be the meanest sort of person.

    24. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      from one of the articles.

      'He responded, “because it’s fucking hilarious to demand money from feds for a McVeigh Memorial grove,” adding “I honestly think we need to build statues of them just to piss off federal agents really.”'

      he's a pure troll, and i'd have to strongly resist the urge to punch him in the face if i ever actually met him. I don't know how to punch, and i'd probably break my hand, but i don't think it wouldn't be worth it. He just seems like an immature prick.

    25. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by Xaedalus · · Score: 1

      Do you remember the bloody baby that the firefighter held, that was pulled out of the wreckage? There were five others like that. And those were just the ones under 2 years of age. You willing to do something like that to further your beliefs? If so, you're no better than the enemy that's in your head.

      --
      Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
    26. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its not murder when nation states with clearly declared intentions are involved. Its murder when its an individual in a non-combat scenario against unarmed civilians. Its terrorism when its non-governmental organizations with that target civilians. If you're still not getting it, you may want to re-take that poly sci class.

      I don't care either way about weev, but you are full of it.

      Its murder every time or none of the time. Can't have it both ways.

      Might want to retake that "reality" class.

      Nation states don't murder, individuals murder.

      Define "non-governmental organization" -- governments are made up of individuals. What makes one set of individuals "government" and one not? Because you say so? Because you elected them, high and mighty and infallible that you are? What bullshit.

      Its terrorism when its non-governmental organizations with that target civilians.

      And McVeigh might say he was not targeting civilians. So by your definition, he was not a terrorist. Why are you defending McVeigh, I wonder?

      an individual in a non-combat scenario against unarmed civilians

      Bullshit. Murder is murder. Whether the murdered is armed or not.

      Define "combat scenario" and "non-combat scenario" for us, please do -- whatever you say is a combat scenario is, and anything you say is not is not?

      2 individuals killing one person is murder.

      What imaginary universe do you live in where it is not?

    27. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Well I am anti-war, not a pacifist exactly. I firmly believe in self defense and I understand and approve of taking up arms against oppressive regiemes. The only people I am mean towards really are the members and supporters of the same.

      Liberal? Yah by some standards. I really like that meme going around "I support the right of gay married couples to defend their marijuana plants with guns"..... yes that describes me. I don't even own a gun; don;t personally see the need; but I begrudge nobody else theirs....nobody except.... those who would deny them to others....those who murder others and then turn around and claim to support peace.

      That said a liberal is one who still believes in the possibility of political solutions within the system, that ship sailed for me a long time ago.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    28. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by spire3661 · · Score: 2

      It was a tweak on Newspeak, a blend of fiction and meatspace. I knew full well what i was spelling out, I meant precisely what i typed.

      --
      Good-bye
    29. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by Matheus · · Score: 2

      So you're saying McVeigh was a hero because collateral damage is acceptable and the building in question was a "legitimate target that just happened to have civilians/kids inside".

      I was going to write out a well reasoned argument but honestly the best response is "Are you fucking kidding me?!"

      Well... a piece of it...
      Whether you agree with McVeigh's politics or no at no point was he at war with the US. By his own admissions this was meant to send a message and is by definition a terrorist act. The blast also caused damage to hundreds of buildings that were not federal buildings. Even if the destruction had been limited to just that building this is a *office building bombed during the work day. Federal offices perform number of functions which inherently include civilians of all shapes and sizes (ages). He also stated that he wanted a high casualty count to emphasize his message. These were no accidental collaterals here.

      You speak as if the BATF was lining their walls with children as human shields which couldn't be farther from the truth.

      Dick.

    30. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think McVeigh was trying to murder children, he just didn't care if they were present. Just like the Generals and politicians that ordered bombings of London, Dresden, Tokyo, and innumerable other cities. War criminals are usually only among the vanquished.

    31. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You appear to not fully understand the legal definition of the term murder.

    32. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      If you see a violent gang in Washington, why bomb babies far away?

      If you want to target a violent gang, why attack unarmed and non-violent people?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    33. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The building in question was not the home for a terrorist organization.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    34. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Yup, and if McVeigh had bombed the FBI building, or the Texas National Guard, or BATF offices, or Janet Reno's house, I'd actually have some sympathy for the guy.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    35. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't use 'all caps' to prop up your argument. Proper sentence structure can just as easily convey emphasis. Using 'all caps' language is News-Speak.

      Seriously though, overusing capital letters diminishes an argument because it either feels like they put too much emotion into it or that they thought the reader doesn't get the point otherwise.

    36. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "By the 1990s the building contained regional offices for the Secret Service, the Drug Enforcement Agency (D.E.A.), and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), and other agencies."

    37. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      And if he'd found a way to confine his attacks to those who had some slight culpability in Waco and/or Ruby Ridge, or at least worked in the same organization, I'd probably feel sympathetic. I'm not at all sure that bombing the perpetrators is a bad idea. However, bombing a child care center made him no better than the worst parts of the US government.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    38. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Waco had a child care center.

    39. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.culteducation.com/group/1220-waco-davidians/24377-fbi-officials-were-worried-davidians-would-set-a-fire.html

      Louis Alaniz, the Houston man who sneaked into Mount Carmel less than a month after the ATF's botched raid, wasn't really thinking about the place being a fire hazard when he talked to the FBI.

      Alaniz left the Davidian's residence on April 17, 1993--two days before the fire that led to the death of Koresh and 75 followers.

      He left hoping to act as a mediator of sorts between the Davidians and the government.

      "I asked for a pad and paper," said Alaniz. "I drew a diagram of the building. I wanted to help resolve it. I gave them a complete layout. I told them, These people don't want to fight. But if you go in, do it in a way that you don't hurt anyone."

      "I told them there was hay up against the wall and in the foyer trying to stop bullets," Alaniz said. "They thought they were going to be shot at again."

      A Texas law enforcement official, who asked not to be named, confirmed that Alaniz reported the Davidians were using hay as a barricade.

      Worried about the Davidian children, Alaniz said he told authorities that there was a nursery on the second floor where the infants slept. Lanterns were kept there, he reported, to give the mothers light while they bathed their children.

      Alaniz said he was shocked to see a tear gas boom rip into the second floor on April 19, 1993. "Why did they have to hit that spot?" he asked. "That told me they didn't care. If they did, they wouldn't have pumped gas inside there where the infants were. No, sir, they can't lie to me no more about caring about those kids. They wanted them all dead."

    40. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only time it's not murder, is when there is no one with power to prosecute. If there's enough public support behind it, it isn't murder.

      Sometimes that public support wanes, such as post WW2 in Germany.

    41. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Collateral damage. Hey, it works for the US military when their drones bomb buildings. How many of those people are in jail, again?

    42. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      You would have to ask the person who made those choices. Unarmed and nonviolent? The BATF and DEA were both in that building....both heavily armed and ultra-violent.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    43. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      > Whether you agree with McVeigh's politics or no at no point was he at war with the US

      A distinction that matters only to people who see the US as a legitimate entity. These technicalities that seperate war as a special brand of violent act really only exist as excuses for those in power to legitimize their own terrorism. All war is terrorism; no exceptions.

      > You speak as if the BATF was lining their walls with children as human shields which couldn't be farther from
      > the truth.

      Perhaps not intentionally but....as a violent terrorist group they had to expect there could be reprisals for their actions. They were at least negligent and showed callous by being centered within civilian populations.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    44. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      You may wanna take that class, but heres a brief answer.

      Bullshit. Murder is murder. Whether the murdered is armed or not.

      Self-defense has NEVER legally been defined as murder, nor have international courts EVER considered one soldier killing another to be murder. Murder generally involves an unprovoked killing of an unarmed person in a non-combat scenario. This isnt a technical or legal definition, but my summary of the ones I have gotten (from poly sci classes, research, etc).

      Define "non-governmental organization"

      Id recommend you look that up, but this is a fairly general term. Im sort of surprised you've never heard anyone mention "NGOs"

      And McVeigh might say he was not targeting civilians

      "Government employees" are still civilians, if they arent in the military or police.

      2 individuals killing one person is murder.

      2 individuals generally do not form an NGO. If they WERE acting as an NGO, you probably could call it terrorism.

      Most of your questions are answered in things like the Geneva convention (where it establishes ground rules, such as requiring the use of clear uniforms and so forth). Generally if you have soldiers with clear uniforms and nationality, them killing each other is governed by the Geneva convention and other such treaties. If one side is not wearing uniforms but IS taking up arms, they generally lose many of their protections, but remain valid targets.

      But really you need to google this stuff, Im summarizing what is basic entry-level international relations stuff. NGO, "combat", "soldier", "murder", "civilian"-- these are all well defined terms, and its sort of irritating to pretend like theyre not. Im giving you the benefit of the doubt here and spelling some of this stuff out, but really you have a personal responsibility to be informed if you want to enter a discussion on this stuff.

    45. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Post WW2 German officials were not charged with "murder", but with provoking war, crimes against humanity, and so on. Generally you dont fire up an international tribunal because one country's soldiers killed yours-- theres an understanding that thats how war works. Where international courts get involved is when you go beyond the standard "soldiers killing each other" stuff.

    46. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm in no way going to defend McVeigh but it's interesting to contemplate that he claimed the Oklahoma City bombing was an attack on a government building in response to Waco which Wikipedia tells us resulted in the death of 19 children under 6. Care to post their names?

      I hesitate to post this since there are many on here who won't understand my point and will fly into a frothy fury. Hence AC.

    47. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Waco had a child care center. The building McVeigh bombed had a child care center. McVeigh does not get the moral high ground here over pretty much the worst the Federal government has to offer. He wasn't a hero.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    48. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The FBI says that Mcveigh claims he didn't know about the day care center (though the prosecution disputed this at trial) when he blew up the building. The FBI and BATF, on the other hand, did know about the children in the Davidian compound and managed to kill 27 of them anyway in Operation Showtime.

    49. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      How many children died when Hiroshima and Nagasaki got nuked? I remind you, the only two occasions in recorded history when nuclear weapons were used in anger. I don't consider those aircrews heroes, I consider them to be mass murderers, I don't care how you justify the killing and the fact that they were just following orders holds about as much water as the number of times that phrase was repeated at the Nuremberg war crimes trials - the fact that those aircrews were American makes it all the more disgusting when it's now Americans trying to tell the rest of the world how to behave! And just like a bomb, I make no distinction according to age, skin colour, religion or sexual preference. If you're in the blast zone, you're dead as far as a bomb is concerned.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    50. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      Hiroshima.

      Nagasaki.

      That is all.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    51. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      so were the inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Bremen...

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    52. Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      sooo... Hussein building a school in the middle of a compound is different how?

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  18. memorial groves? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think he is just going to blow up as many government buildings as he can if (he won't) he gets money. That is what he means by 'memorial groves'.

    He needs to be hunted down and jailed indefinitely.

    I worked about a mile away from the IRS building that Andrew Stack destroyed. It was horrific.

    If you can't win on ideas and effort, don't play.

    1. Re: memorial groves? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your employer wins on bullets, bombs, dogs, and prisons.

      Though the majority of humans in the USA may be with you, the majority of males may not be.
      Yours is a feminist police state terrorizing the world. You are hated for that.
      Males want nice sweet obedient and pretty young girls.
      You deny them that and drone bomb those men in the world that defy your worldwide edicts.

      The Old Testament is a good blueprint. Men marry young girls there.

  19. So we should care? by ADRA · · Score: 1

    He was convicted of a crime (assuming his guilt was established correctly) and the case was overturned on a 'venue' law, so, why the fck does anyone care about this exactly? That a douche tries to one-up his haters? If I wanted that, I'd read more Rob Ford. That's a guy with actual train-wreck entertainment value.

    --
    Bye!
    1. Re:So we should care? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      For one thing, a lot of us are concerned about the legal ruling in question. Is using a website exactly as it is supposed to be used illegal access? I don't like the consequences.

      I have no love for weev, but I'm willing to support a real douchebag when I think the government's unjustly trying him.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  20. If I were the Feds by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 2

    I would agree to pay him, but while negotiating the payment, I would make sure the IRS got word.

    Can anyone say "audit".

    1. Re:If I were the Feds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh that'll show him! Cave to his insane demands, but make sure he pays his taxes normally . Mwah ha ha you devious monster....

    2. Re:If I were the Feds by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 1

      You think that when the IRS audits him, they won't find plenty of irregularities in his books. If they even exist?
      He could wind up ion the courts for decades.

    3. Re:If I were the Feds by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Civil awards are not subject to taxes. Sorry.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  21. Don't count your chickens... by westlake · · Score: 1

    He was recently released when a federal court overturned the conviction on grounds of improper venue.

    Which means his case can retried elsewhere. He cannot claim "double jeopardy."

    if the government fails to produce adequate evidence to prove an element of the crime, then the defendant is acquitted and the government doesn't get another bite at the apple. But this has nothing to do with a conviction being vacated because of a procedural error.

    Does Double Jeopardy Forestall Auernheimer's Retrial?

    1. Re:Don't count your chickens... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The government can only try him again in another venue if and only if they do not attempt to introduce even a tiny iota of new evidence. They must also produce the same witnesses they produced in the first trial, and they must give the exact same answers as they did in the first.

      While in theory it is possible for the government to try him again, in practice it isn't, because in essence the trial must be replayed in the new court exactly as it was played in the old court with not a shred of new evidence produced.

      Any new evidence WILL trip the double jeopardy bomb. New evidence also includes any change in prior evidence or testimony.

    2. Re:Don't count your chickens... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't they just produce the witnesses by reading prior sworn testimony? that seems to handle the exact same answers portion.

      Of course, the rules of evidence are likely different in a different jurisdiction, so I would think things could be slightly different, also, impeachable testimony for a slightly different answer goes to the jury to interpret, and shouldn't cause a mistrial (I think, IANAL, but I sit in on a lot of court cases, I have never sat in on a retry of a mistrial though, which I assume the procedures for this would be similar too, but again IANAL).

    3. Re:Don't count your chickens... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't this mean that as the defendant he could change one of his own answers?

      Or is this only for the prosecutors evidence?

  22. weeve's got style, if not class by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    came here for the killdozer shoutout, was not disappointed.

    You can't fight city hall.
    But you can knock it down if you try.

  23. Bitcoin dwarfs Dogecoin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    1) 28,296 Dogecoin is only worth about $13.

    2) He doesn't want government-issued currency because he feels this would be paying into the system that oppressed him, and Bitcoin is the most popular private currency.

    3) Dogecoin changed their money supply from fixed to infinite this year, so it's probably not safe enough to store millions of dollars. It's more of a joke/tip currency.

    1. Re:Bitcoin dwarfs Dogecoin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Dogecoin supply was always infinite, even when they claimed it was fixed. It wasn't originally coded correctly, but in the end the founder decided to keep it infinite.

    2. Re:Bitcoin dwarfs Dogecoin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Dogecoin supply was always infinite, even when they claimed it was fixed. It wasn't originally coded correctly, but in the end the founder decided to keep it infinite.

      There's the difference. The Bitcoin people are so much more uptight than the Dogecoin people that they'd never tolerate something like this. They'd say "here's a pull request to fix this BUG, and also f--k you Satoshi for trying to make this decision on our behalf."

  24. His Rage is Understandable by The+Raven · · Score: 2

    But still pointless, useless, and self-destructive. The letter is bad enough that if he denied writing it, I would believe that it was a character assassination attempt. The guy didn't deserve prison, but he's still an idiot.

    --
    "I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
    1. Re:His Rage is Understandable by dubbayu_d_40 · · Score: 1

      Right on. I see guys like this loose their shit all the time because they think they're programmers, but unfortunately have limits when dealing with complexity. Oh wait...

    2. Re:His Rage is Understandable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one who goes to jail is happy about the experience. There are plenty of anti-establishment types out there -- from Occupy Wall Street to Animal Liberation Front to Anarchists. But if we let the utopian crazies run the place, it would look like the PRC or North Korea. True, the US is now a messed up Corporate Oligarchy, but its not the oppressive, jackboot-on-your-throat type -- unless you go around breaking the law and threatening people's lives.

  25. Don't feed the troll. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    See title.

  26. He knows he's going back to jail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So this guy probably knows he WILL be going back to jail. It can be in a few months, or a few years: as soon as the government feels like it's time to try him in the appropriate jurisdiction. Therefore, he decided to troll the govt before going back in.
    Now, praising Timothy McVeigh... Well, that's a bit over the top seeing as he was an amoral murderer. But hey, guess what, ordering someone to spend extended periods of time in the 'Special Housing Unit' (aka 23h a day in a small room with no comfort by yourself, then spending 1h outside by yourself), especially for hacking, is also pretty horrible... and apparently it can make way for sociopathy.

  27. no law against being an a-hole yet. by tommyatomic · · Score: 1

    In this particular situation what did anyone really expect? All loopholes aside the guy was wrongfully imprisoned. Many of his supporters admit the guy was a bit of an a-hole. I cant imagine him not being pissed about what happened and wanting a little compensation. And everyone likes a little righteous retribution. Especially a-holes.

    1. Re:no law against being an a-hole yet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no law against being an a-hole but there are 1000s of rarely enforced laws they can use against a-holes Everyone is guilty of something..

    2. Re:no law against being an a-hole yet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that's I'm still glad to be living in America rather than Somalia. You can be an outright sociopathic asshat calling for the killing of innocents and your government will still, in the majority of cirumstances, have to follow the law - even if that means letting you roam the streets because of a bureaucratic fuck-up.

  28. Im no psychologist by nimbius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But Mister Weev seems a touch frustrated by the machinations of the american legal system as they pertain to billion dollar monopolies. The US Government has granted retroactive immunity to AT&T for a cornucopia of offenses with such timeliness as to be indistinguishable from an NTP stratum. Given the historical context in which AT&T has consistently operated, it would be no surprise if the government not only categorically refused payment, but retroactively enacted legislation ensuring Weev was guilty.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:Im no psychologist by sconeu · · Score: 2

      it would be no surprise if the government not only categorically refused payment, but retroactively enacted legislation ensuring Weev was guilty

      Google "Ex Post Facto" and "Bill of Attainder". Now granted, the US.gov has been using the Constitution (or at least the Bill of Rights), as toilet paper; but even the Roberts court would choke on declaring such legislation Constitutional.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    2. Re:Im no psychologist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look up "drug analog law" --- completely makes "ex post facto" obsolete

  29. Erroneous market value by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The reason drug dealers and hackers get paid so much is risk. You're paying them to take a legal or physical risk on your behalf in order to deliver the good or service. So although that bag of weed might be worth only $20, you'll get charged $40 because the dealer is passing along the cost of potentially going to prison. When you add up all his profits and multiply by his chances of imprisonment, you will get the value the dealer/hacker places on NOT being in prison. This is part of the reason why drugs purchased online are cheaper (ignoring shipping) - there is a much lower risk to the dealer.

    So when Weev asks for reimbursement for his time in prison, he should be saying it's to pay back his customers, not to build a shrine. His self-reported market value is BECAUSE there was a chance of being thrown in prison for years. Would he be paying the state back if he hadn't been arrested?

  30. Re: by niado · · Score: 1

    I would have considered him a hero if he hadn't offed himself, which is certainly a cowardly act. That aside, the rampage itself was as American as you get.

    Suicide is generally caused by mental illness. Whether you characterize it as cowardice or not is a philosophical distinction, but portraying the "cowardly act" of a mentally ill person as a correctable character flaw vs. an illness that needs medical attention is unproductive.

  31. put him back in the can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this guy's a dirtball.

  32. Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly. There are those that want to claim you have to support domestic terrorists, or else be considered part of the problem. Sadly, those who idolize domestic terrorists are as much a problem as government bureaucrats. Neither has respect for life.

  33. McVeigh?! by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

    I am building a series of memorial groves for the greatest patriots of our generation: Timothy McVeigh, Andrew Stack, and Marvin Heemeyer. You see, In the 'Special Housing Unit,' which is Bureau of Prisons codespeak for 'solitary confinement' and 'torture,' I had enough time to think about the current state of federal government. "

    And tell me, as an innocent person who got harmed, did you have any time to think about people being harmed when McVeigh murdered them, in spite of them being innocent third parties totally unrelated to McVeigh's ostensible oppression, and also completely unrelated to anyone's complaints about the federal government?

    Weev, there's something really important that you need to hear, so please pay attention to this: Fuck You.

    I'm a fellow government-hater, except.. no. You are too much of a worthless piece of shit asshole for me to want to be a fellow anything with you. Please, please go fuck yourself (preferably with a bullet), so that they rest of us can spread advocacy of moving power back away from DC to more accountable localities, without worthless pieces of shit like you, distracting them with their nutcase "I know how to solve this civics problem: let's murder a bunch of innocent bystanders!" distractions. You are not helping, asshole.

    Well, maybe you are helping someone.

    I was sorry you got fucked, but your attempt to retroactively earn what happened to you, seems to have nullified the emotional component of that. You just did the feds a big favor; they used to have to worry about having made you a martyr, but now they can sigh with relief. When they falsely arrest the next guy, instead of the public crying out, "oh no you don't, not again!" the people will say, "Oh, another McVeigh clone? I'm glad you feds caught him in time."

    --
    "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  34. Weev always was a piece of shit by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just because his conviction wasn't proper, doesn't mean he's not an asshat, or even that he didn't break the law. Note that his conviction was overturned because of the venue (meaning it was tried in the wrong court) not because of a problem with the charge or evidence. Now that's a good thing, the state needs to do everything properly in a trial, and if they fail to do so, the defendant gets to walk. That is a cornerstone of the American justice system.

    This is just him showing more asshattery, and a pretty good indication that his time free is likely to be only temporary. Anyone with that level of delusion and self grandeur is likely to do something illegal again, and sooner rather than later, and the state will probably make sure to do everything right the second time around.

    Like a friend of mine used to work in the PD's office. He got a client who had been arrested for tagging (graffiti) since a cop stopped him and found sharpie markers in his pockets. The kid had sure as shit been tagging and had used said markers to do it, but the cop hadn't seen that, and had no reason to search him, so my friend got it tossed out. So what happened? Same kid went and tagged again, but this time the cops watched him do it and caught him in the act. The kid was miffed my friend couldn't do anything the second time.

    1. Re:Weev always was a piece of shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you know you're guilty, and you get off anyway, maybe don't do it again? Just sayin...

    2. Re:Weev always was a piece of shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >note that his conviction was overturned because of the venue

      Not so fast.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weev#Conviction_vacated
      >On April 11, 2014, the Third Circuit issued an opinion vacating Auernheimer's conviction[ ...] While the judges did not address the substantive question on the legality of the site access, they were skeptical of the original conviction, noting that no circumvention of passwords had occurred and that only publicly accessible information was obtained.[40] He was released from prison late on April 11.[41]

      As Al Capone was condemn for "tax evasion", Weev is released for the "venue". Or worded otherwise, the judiciary system knows that they just fucked up the judgment but want not to confess the mistake (or being judge at their turn for their fuck up).

  35. As Oscar Willde said to George Bernard Shaw by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yeah? Well you're a fucking idiot who knows nothing about everything.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:As Oscar Willde said to George Bernard Shaw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get back to us when you can spell Oscar Wilde's name correctly.

    2. Re:As Oscar Willde said to George Bernard Shaw by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

      That, sir, is a slanderous insult.

      I can spell it perfectly well, I just can't fucking type for shit.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:As Oscar Willde said to George Bernard Shaw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was meant to be a slanderous insult. Don't come around here talking all high and mighty about people being stupid when you, yourself, can't walk the walk.

    4. Re:As Oscar Willde said to George Bernard Shaw by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Too many commas, in, that last sentence.

      And if I disobey your orders, Mr Tailgater? Yes, AK [skid] Marc, I know it's you.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    5. Re:As Oscar Willde said to George Bernard Shaw by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Just because you lie about your identity to troll others doesn't mean I do the same. You are a lying idiot. And I've never posted AC since I bothered to register for an account. Certainly not to waste time trolling a lying idiot like yourself.

  36. Jerk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >spent 13 months in jail for trying to help AT&T fix a security flaw
    Hmm, no, never mind. Normally I'd be willing to let this kind of spin fly, but it's hard to sympathize with the asshole.

    There's no use in being "right" in a country where justice is basically discretionary and subject to motives (emotion, money) more than the good of the people, or even the very letter of the law. As a result, it's pretty stupid to be an asshole for the hell of it, unless you have MegaCorp-grade lawyers.

  37. Timothy McVeigh by geekoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    was a coward.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  38. Timothy McVeigh a great patriot? Fuck weev. by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

    Fuck him in the ass with baseball bat with nails sticking out of it. McVeigh committed mass murder and terrorism. He deliberately killed children. I didn't give a shit about weev, but now I hope they fucking bury him alive.

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  39. I hope that he gets his money by inhuman_4 · · Score: 1

    I hope he gets everything that he asks for.

    Yes the Timothy McVeigh, Andrew Stack, and Marvin Heemeyer part was in very poor taste. Yes his "open letter" is childish.

    I don't care. The government doesn't get to abuse someones rights, no matter how much of an asshole that person may be.

  40. Wow, uhm, uh... Jeez... by John+Pfeiffer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Man, having never heard of this guy before, I was rather sympathetic and thinking "Man, finally a use for all those FBI-confiscated Bitcoins" until that last part about Tim McVeigh... Then all I could think was "Uh...wow, screw this asshat."

    --

    Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
    1. Re:Wow, uhm, uh... Jeez... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just dumb attention grabbing SEO crap. The bitcoin thing is stupid, even if he won the feds could pay cash and tell him to go fuck himself (all debts and so on). $500 an hour even while sleeping is dumb. Name dropping like that only sort of helps him get into headlines and not in a good way.

      It's like an even dumber Jack Thompson

  41. Timothy McVeigh a Patriot? by TrentTheThief · · Score: 1

    What a load of horseshit.

    Patriots don't go around bombing civilian targets. That sort of shit winds you solidy in the terrorist category.

    weev? You were doing okay until you mouthed off with that nonsense. I hope some freewheeling fed decides to pop you.

    1. Re:Timothy McVeigh a Patriot? by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      I agree - as soon as he brought up Timothy McVeigh in the list of his idols then it's clear that this is a case not for jail but for a mental hospital.

      Or maybe infect him with some strange rare untreatable disease. Ebola may be too obvious, but the HeLa cancer strain could work.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    2. Re:Timothy McVeigh a Patriot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe infect him with some strange rare untreatable disease. Ebola may be too obvious, but the HeLa cancer strain could work.

      Yep. He should definitely be murdered because you don't agree with his words. I suggest we do away with trials and just let you be the judge and jury for everyone now.

    3. Re:Timothy McVeigh a Patriot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dose him with MPTP.

    4. Re:Timothy McVeigh a Patriot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Posting anon because I've spent quite a few mod points on this story. However, let me play devil's advocate for a moment.

      Patriots don't go around bombing civilian targets.

      But is that not exactly what our armed forces (and the armed forces of our allies) do? We justify bombing of wedding ceremonies abroad by claiming that there are "bad guys" among the guests. We justify the bombing of schools and hospitals on the basis that "bad guys" are using children and the infirm as human shields. We complain that the "bad guys" don't all gather together in an open field where we can easily target them without any fear of collateral damage.

      Is it not conceivable that McVeigh saw the federal government in a similar light? After all, it's not like "the man" is presenting himself as an easy target. It's not like there's some mythical place populated only by nefarious agents of "the man". Is it not possible that in his eyes, his target was the one that maximized the "bad guy" to "innocent civilian" ratio? And isn't such an optimization very similar to the one that our real "patriots" are comfortable making?

      Cue the flood of "fuck you, McVeigh was a scumbag" comments, but note that I never said otherwise. I invite you all to try your hardest to understand McVeigh's point of view before you [rightly] dismiss him. Very few individuals see themselves as evil; even Hitler misguidedly thought he was doing the world a favor.

  42. Weev / Snowden 2016 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-hhZha3x_jYw/U3zWDA1ih7I/AAAAAAAAArc/tEE4IhZ6ezM/s874-no/weevsnowden2016.png

  43. Overturned on grounds of improper venue by wiredog · · Score: 1

    Which just means that he can be tried, again, in the proper venue.

  44. Erroneous market value by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The reason drug dealers and hackers get paid so much is risk. You're paying them to take a legal or physical risk on your behalf in order to deliver the good or service. So although that bag of weed might be worth only $20, you'll get charged $40 because the dealer is passing along the cost of potentially going to prison. When you add up all his profits and multiply by his chances of imprisonment, you will get the value the dealer/hacker places on NOT being in prison. This is part of the reason why drugs purchased online are cheaper (ignoring shipping) - there is a much lower risk to the dealer.

    So when Weev asks for reimbursement for his time in prison, he should be saying it's to pay back his customers, not to build a shrine. His self-reported market value is BECAUSE there was a chance of being thrown in prison for years. Would he be paying the state back if he hadn't been arrested?

  45. The reason to point out the children by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2

    Is that there is no way they were complicit in anything.

    So the crazy nutball shithead argument for the OKC bombing is something along the lines of the government being evil, the workers in that building being part of some government conspiracy, etc, etc. You can see that kind of bullshit logic in one of the other replies to the grandparent, who talks about "McVeigh's actual targets" and gets all conspiracy nut as though it was the government's fault.

    Ok fine, but even if you accept that BS, there's the issue of the kids present. They weren't involved, they weren't complicit, etc. So it is a pretty hard action to defend. Even if someone buys in to the fact that government agents some how "deserve it" you have to deal with the fact that he chose a target where employees bring their children (and there are other federal facilities where that's not allowed).

    1. Re:The reason to point out the children by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Ok that is a much more nuanced and convincing argument than a list of child names, thank you.

      --
      Good-bye
    2. Re:The reason to point out the children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like the Children of Waco were burned alive by the government, they are just as innocent.

  46. i was with him right up until... by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I was with him right up until he revealed his love of deranged, hillbilly trash like McVeigh. Weev did get a raw deal, but it is worth mentioning that the people in the justice system (that run it) are in fact people, and people (flawed as they are) love seeing assholes (like Weev) get their comeuppance. And given what an asshole he is, I'd say that comeuppance was a long time coming.

    But hey, good news for him: He now has a legitimate cause to fight for the rest of his life. If this keeps him from discrediting other causes through his support (this manifesto essentially makes Weev completely toxic to any political activism on any topic, forever, period) then we should consider it a net win.

    --
    Who did what now?
    1. Re:i was with him right up until... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you sure he loves this guy ? The guy is a troll. And he knows how to hit the headlines.

      Don"t be too fast to condemn him on a method to reach the US defective media coverage.

      The polemic is his favorite way to level up to the mainstream media. As Gay Nigger Association of America, goatse security, ... are provocative names to get coverage. His love for McVeigh is a provocative way to get to mass market media.

    2. Re:i was with him right up until... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No shit. You'd think by the reactions of most of posts in this thread that Slashdotters had never even heard of Weev and any of his trolling antics over the years.

  47. I'm with you, however..... by tekrat · · Score: 1

    Please help me out here. I'm all for moving power *away* from DC to more accountable localities, but can you kindly fill me in on the methodology?

    You see; I'm of the opinion that the government, particularly the federal government, has become so corrupted, so full of bad political influence by monied interests, so controlled by cash (particularly in light of Citizens United and other rulings that claim that money==speech), that the only way I can see to bring the country back to rationality is via armed conflict.

    And then many people, including, unfortunately, innocent bystanders will be killed -- and it's also unfortunate to realize that our own country and armed forces kill innocent bystanders regularly -- in other countries, and yet, my guess is that you're *not* willing to consider our armed forces as the same pieces of shit McVeigh was.

    Please understand me; I'm *not* attempting to defend McVeigh, I am just pointing out that when it's done by "one guy", it's terrorism, and when it's done by an institution, it's Foreign Policy.

    Drone Strikes have allowed America to kill entire parties of people, including women and children, with impunity, with no answerable oversight, with no reporting by the media, and with no outrage from the American people. We, as a country, are guilty of murder a million times over, and yet we regard McVeigh as the monster.

    So, please, let me know what you're proposing; I'm ready to listen. I'm hoping for a convincing argument that we are not already lost as a country; because right now the 1% run things, and we have zero say in the matter. America is a schoolyard bully, and we have a long way to go before maturing into a responsible world citizen.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re:I'm with you, however..... by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      I'm going to "go off" a little here, mainly because I'm trying to talk myself into something. I almost didn't even bother posting this.

      can you kindly fill me in on the methodology? .. I'm hoping for a convincing argument that we are not already lost as a country

      By actively taking responsibility. And don't wait for, or care about, any arguments as to the future. Whether or not your part of the country is lost, is a decision (not a discovery) that you make.

      You see; I'm of the opinion that the government, particularly the federal government, has become so corrupted, so full of bad political influence by monied interests, so controlled by cash (particularly in light of Citizens United and other rulings that claim that money==speech), that the only way I can see to bring the country back to rationality is via armed conflict.

      Consider what is required, for armed conflict to viably change policies. (Not counting the policy of over-reactive crackdown; I'll give you, that you can achieve that, if it's your goal. McVeigh was successful in further empowering the feds in this regard; yet another reason to hate him.) I think armed rebellion to end corruption, would require a whole bunch of people, who currently prove every two years that they don't care about anything, to start giving a fuck. And you can't aim gun at another person (especially when you know they're likely to point one back), without first giving a fuck, about what is going to happen next.

      I think before you get even a fraction toward that level of giving-a-fuck, you'll be able to accept the lesser burden, of personally running for an office, or bothering to show up and vote for someone who does that, instead of using America's default algorithm (I think the programmer called it "negligentApathy 1.0"), which is "Whose ad budget was the highest, among those who have the correct letter next to his name? I'm voting for that guy." It is way easier to resign to your fate of having to be a US Senator, or a state district representative, or a city councilor, or a neighborhood association board member, or even a father, than it is to go risk your life sniping at people who are invariable better than you at that game. (And that's the hard version. It's even easier to not be that guy, but to write-in his name. And somewhere on the scale of difficulty between these things, is getting that guy onto a ballot so he doesn't have to be written-in.)

      Once people get that far (where people vote or run, based on politics rather than ads), all the campaign advertising money in the world will be not quite useless, but nearso. If people give a fuck and become political, then money really will be speech: most of it wasted and dissolving in the uncaring winds, like us two here on Slashdot. Let them impotently spend their money buying television ads that nobody saw anyway. Your current problem isn't that they bought the ads; it's that anyone saw them, or used them for purposes of other than counting them to determine approximations of how badly a candidate must have sold out to someone.

      If people start caring about politics, then you're never going to have to kill anyone, because long before then, you're going to get over the lower hurdle of your guys winning their first election. Not because you're a nice guy or because murder is bad, but because it's easier. Maybe not easy but easier than being a revolutionary soldier.

      Or to put it another way: winning an armed conflict to overthrow corruption, would itself require some element of civic spirit. You can't achieve it, without passionate people. And once you have the people, you don't even need your guns anymore.

      How do we get there? Here begins my bullshit (and I'm going to put some words in your mouth), but actually, I alread

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  48. trolled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    /. Has been trolled. Nice job disincentivizing the trolls, editors. But this is /. where trolling = clickbait = good.

  49. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    boo hoo

  50. ~$484 per hour! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

    So I assume he shits out gold bars for a living?

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:~$484 per hour! by dnavid · · Score: 1

      So I assume he shits out gold bars for a living?

      24 hours a day, seven days a week, even when he sleeps, apparently.

    2. Re:~$484 per hour! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he's three people.

      28296 bitcoins (one per hour) over 13 months, assuming about 720 hours per month, is about 3.02 hours per hour, or in other words, he's secretly three people in one.

    3. Re:~$484 per hour! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, what was the value of bitcoin when he cut off the internets?

    4. Re:~$484 per hour! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well you americans like punitive measures so divide by 4. Then take into account overtime pay divide by 2. Then take
        into account lost future and interesr gain divide by 2. Not talking about the torture aspects. So no seems rather on the ballpark.

    5. Re:~$484 per hour! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had a job like that once. It sucked. Everyone was always like "A-U!" That got old...

  51. Yes and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd like a pony.... Preferably Fluttershy.

  52. narcissism of ideology by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    his idolization of McVeigh shows how disconnected his thought processes are...

    the ego plays into it where if you asked Weev about this, he'd launch into a rambling speech/manifesto about his worldview and how it is superior and if you don't get it then you won't understand the McVeigh thing

    again it's about shutting out any other points of view internally...it's a sign of narcissism

    i'm not saying Weev is crazy but he's evidencing really bad judgement & this explains where it comes from

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  53. Re:Weev / Snowden 2016 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A Søren Renner, Jewy Goldstein, Memehopper Production.

  54. And the blood of babies... by Xaedalus · · Score: 1

    McVeigh knew he was going to take out a day-care center. Anyone remember the photos of those babies being pulled out of the wreckage? I still do.

    --
    Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
  55. Intelligence eclipsed by hate by bkaul01 · · Score: 1

    At least they have one thing in common: they're all dead. Maybe he'll soon follow?

  56. Weev is being stupid. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    I agree that he was wronged. But rather than imply threats or demand money in an "open letter", he would be FAR better off getting an attorney and pressing charges under 18 U.S.C. 242, "Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law".

    At first glance it appears to be an anti-discrimination statute. But on closer reading (and by both Congressional intent and court affirmation), it applies to all Constitutional and Common Law rights.

    Government officials and law enforcement are not immune... the statute was specifically intended to curb governmental abuse.

    The maximum penalty is life in prison. The conviction rate for 18 USC 242 once charges have been brought is impressive. Well over 90%.

    1. Re:Weev is being stupid. by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

      Wronged??? The case was thrown out for being held in the wrong State not because he was found Innocent.

      http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/improper+venue
      I bet he will get arrested within the next 3 years he,s an ass plus what he did was criminal and hes free on a Technicality.

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    2. Re:Weev is being stupid. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Wronged??? The case was thrown out for being held in the wrong State not because he was found Innocent.

      I grant you that -- at least in my opinion -- the guy is a large-caliber asshole. On that we can agree.

      But asshole does not equal crime. Illegal or negligent prosecution or imprisonment is.

      The EFF claims he did nothing illegal in the AT&T affair. If anybody is an authority on this kind of thing, EFF is. That isn't proof, but I tend to believe EFF over overzealous, corporate-brownnosing, incompetent government cops.

    3. Re:Weev is being stupid. by pspahn · · Score: 1

      That isn't proof, but I tend to believe EFF over overzealous, corporate-brownnosing, incompetent government cops.

      You might want to take the blinders off. The EFF does a number of really great things, but they are not always the Robin Hood everyone makes them out to be.

      A guy I met recently told me his story of the EFF. I don't recall all the details, but here's the gist:

      Business owner is using Facebook for promotion of his company.

      Owner's FB account is suspended because someone claimed trademark ownership of the business' name.

      Several other businesses with similar names also have accounts suspended. The specific part of the name that is questionable is the use of "Urban Gardening/Urban Gardeners".

      Business owner gets lumped in with other businesses in court case. His case was different because of the type of trademark he was allegedly infringing. Because he got incorrectly lumped in with the case, he was responsible for the outcome as well.

      EFF took the case for these defendants and refused to acknowledge the special circumstance this business owner had compared to the others because it was a high prestige case for them. As a result the business owner unfairly lost his business name.

      I'm not trying to flame the EFF, but before I heard this story, I had the same impression everyone around here does; the EFF is a bastion of freedom and watches the backs of the little guys. Ultimately, they are just like any other group of lawyers and will throw anyone to the wolves if they are not part of their agenda.

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    4. Re:Weev is being stupid. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      It sounds like some guy came up with a sympathetic-sounding "version" of his story, and sold it to you at face value. That tells me nothing about him, or the EFF, but something about you.

    5. Re:Weev is being stupid. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      You might want to take the blinders off. The EFF does a number of really great things, but they are not always the Robin Hood everyone makes them out to be.

      Are you nuts?

      Hey, man, I didn't claim they're perfect. But if I am faced with the choice of believing EFF vs AT&T and some known-to-be-overzealous Federal prosecutors, I'm going to believe EFF.

      I clearly stated it wasn't proof of anything. But all other things being equal, EFF has the greater credibility.

  57. Learn to read comprehensively by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hello? So what, he gave a shot out to Timothy McVeigh -- the intention was to deliver insult to the federal government (the FBI whose building was demolished) who would be most offended by such a comment.

    Because he credited McVeigh, that reflects only on his styling of writing and presentation -- not on his innocence or guilt nor the innocence or guilt of the federal government. That being said, now stop colluding the issue with your simpleton lack of reading comprehension. Jesus Christ, do any of you read any literature at all? Or are you all just pro-government spambots?

    This man was wronged, he has every right to be pissed, he has every right to be compensated. If you can't handle a passing reference to "Timothy McVeigh" then don't throw an innocent man in prison after removing him from his home at gunpoint. The "crime" of appealing to Timothy McVeigh does not even come remotely close to how offensive the crime was that the FBI commit against Weev.

    The way in which you demoralize Weev now for this letter would be as if to demoralize a Hallocaust survivor for praising Franklin Delano Roosevelt. How many Germans have died as of result of FDR's actions? Certainly more feds than Timothy McVeigh killed, I'll tell you that.

    Get over yourself, the government is wrong here. Don't let Weev's sense of flair in writing fool you of anything else.

    1. Re:Learn to read comprehensively by borcharc · · Score: 1

      This is 2014, people just regurgitates talking points distributed by whatever fake news site they started reading 10+ years ago, preferably with as much emotion, one-upmanship, and self back patting as possible. The nation is full of uneducated morons who think they are gods gift to the world. They have learned in decades of government education that saying anything fundamentally critical of the government is heresy.

  58. mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That list of kids needs a little balance

  59. The break-down by states. by westlake · · Score: 2

    The US has the largest prison population by far in the entire world, both by numbers and proportion of the population. And that is directly attributable to the police-state infrastructure created and perpetuated by the Federal government

    Now and again the geek needs to be reminded of how federalism really works in the US.

    The prison population of the US varies enormously by state. But the states of the desert Southwest and the old Southern Confederacy are right up there --- and it is damn hard to see them following the federal lead on anything.

    Here is a small sampling:

    Prisoners per 100,000 population

    1 Louisiana 867
    5 Texas 648
    7 Florida 556
    14 Virginia 468
    20 California 448
    39 New York 288
    41 Washington 269
    48 Massachusetts 200
    50 Maine 148

    List of U.S. states by incarceration rate

    1. Re:The break-down by states. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just threw a list out there shitting on the South. You didn't explain at all what this geek has forgotten about federalism. What was your point?

  60. This must be Cold Ford... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    posting anon, as his style is consistent.

  61. weev, GNAA president demands one bitcoin for... by TriCCer · · Score: 1

    Why is no one mentioning that weev was the GNAA president?

    --
    c0w goes moo.
    1. Re:weev, GNAA president demands one bitcoin for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      everyone was a GNAA president at some point...

  62. More bad US laws by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Due process is for wimps. Even the left praises the Magnitsky Act as a way to go after those who violate human rights. But the irony to me is that the law itself is an abuse of rights, such as the right to a fair trial. The act was passed for all the right reasons, but it is as evil as any of the other blunders we have made in the US.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:More bad US laws by BalthCat · · Score: 1

      Uh, abuse of rights of non-citizens to enter a country they've no inherent right to visit, and to use a banking system they've no inherent right to use? That's not exactly the poster-child for due-process abuse, you might want to find another.

    2. Re:More bad US laws by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      No rights were denied anyone through that, so why would you require a "fair trial"? The due process was denied to Magnitsky.

  63. Bitcoin is evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What happens when the Federal government realizes it can devote massive amounts of it's computing resources to bitcoin mining?

  64. Result of solitary confinement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US government uses solitary confinement in federal prisons as a weapon specifically designed to inflict long-lasting and debilitating mental illness. This "letter" is what the end result of solitary confinement looks like. They took a stupid kid with some potential but a bad attitude and turned him, in all likelihood, in to a lifelong criminal with a bitter hatred of the US.

  65. Solitary confinement is torture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's insane for aligning himself with McVeigh. That's absolutely clear. Can you guess what sort of confinement is routinely practiced in US federal prisons that's been proven to cause insanity (read: mental illness)?

  66. Re: weev, GNAA president demands one bitcoin for.. by TriCCer · · Score: 1

    "Notorious troll posts controversial letter". We're really doing this? Was no one else around when gnaa tagged every Slashdot article?

    --
    c0w goes moo.
  67. A few bits short of a Byte? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems to me that the conditions of these supermax prisons have driven this defendant over the edge. It's well known that psychosis is the unwritten "punishment" one often receives as a result of the isolation conditions. It's basically torture and I'd say this young man has suffered significant psychological damage as a result. Otherwise, why in the world would he distribute something like this now, instead of at least rationally waiting until after the deadline for the government to decide whether or not to appeal this case to the Supreme Court? He's lost it, big time and needs help. No doubt he got railroaded, though. The "crime" here was ATT not securing customer information. He's no criminal for looking at it or even automating a way to look at it.

  68. risky.biz interview with Weev by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An interesting audio interview with Weev from risky.biz (well works subscribing to the podcast).

    http://risky.biz/RB319

  69. I agree with 90% of what he said by pebear · · Score: 1

    He would have had me if he never invoked McVeigh's name. I can't stand by murders of people and those who do. Too bad because most everything he said in the letter was true. But when you mix in one lie with a pile of truth you end up with a pile of lies.

    --
    Paul E. Bahre
  70. So all I have to do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So all I have to do to earn millions from the US Gov't is to act like an A-Hole. If that were the case there should be a lot more people getting $$$ from DC. What BS and you are all buying in to it.

  71. Silence is golden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sometimes, it's just better to shut up and be quiet. Why poke an angry beehive with a stick, unless you want to get stung?

  72. 1 bitcoin per "service" ? by Optali · · Score: 1

    Mate, this is expensive, 1 bitcoin for each hour of sexual service... not even the best pron stars and luxury prostitutes earn this much... I bet he is exaggerating about his professional skills.

    --
    -- 29A the number of the Beast
  73. Debate. by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    I'm just arguing based upon actually reading about the man and expanding my understanding instead of just calling him names and demonizing him mindlessly. The world is not black and white. Learn some history.

    I would say more but the post is written by a child not mature enough to discuss the issue.