This is absolutely not true, and I'm a pretty cynical guy. Law has not been a civil profession in quite some time; it's now a business. Law firms have the incentive of winning at all costs because that's how they get future business. There are no expensive lunches between opposing counsel. Rather, there are very expensive and nasty letters going back and forth about how the other guy's client is the most evil guy in the entire planet, and their claims are completely frivolous, how they're going to get stomped on if this goes to court, but for the low low price of $XX you can avoid the litigation, etc. Lawyers love to cover their asses, and they want to show their clients what complete badasses/assholes they are to the other side.
In your fantasy scenario, the patent owner gets an injunction. Do you know how big a deal that is? Once that happens, the evil corporation's business is dead in the water. Right away. Do not pass go. Also, don't you think that evil corp's clients wouldn't realize that they can buy it from the patent owner because they can't buy it from evil corp anymore?
And if you file chapter 7, you lose all the ridiculous profits that the infringing products made; you can't just take the profits, stick it into your pockets, then claim you're judgment proof as a company; that's a fraudulent transfer. The products also require assets (factories, etc) to manufacture. All that shit doesn't just go away. The bankruptcy court will absolutely take into account the current litigation between the parties, and the Trustee, who is appointed by the court and takes a percentage of the money he recovers for the creditors will absolutely hunt down every single penny because he likes money. He also hires his own law firm as counsel when unwinding all the crazy transactions, so he wins twice, but that's a scam for another day.
But if evil corp wants to import the products, you can get the court to enjoin that company as well, and believe me, courts absolutely hate it when you try to play shell games to avoid a court order. Judges have egos and they're not going to let the CEO just get away with it.
So all in all, your fantasy scenario is completely impossible and not indicative of any case that has ever happened. But hey, since when has the truth mattered?
Soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan, which has bumpy terrain and bad weather, have always wanted "eyes in the sky" that would give them a heads up on enemy attacks. The bad terrain stops the soldiers from seeing too far away because the bad guys hide in the hills. The bad weather is alternately freezing or too hot, so fixed wing aircraft such as the Predator crash and can't stay overhead constantly. A blimp could just sit there with their sensors spying away, and if you can make the tether long enough, the blimp would be outside the range of enemy fire.
What alternative does the artist have in selling her music? It sucks making pennies, but would she be otherwise selling her music in concert, on CDs, etc.?
I am confused when people say that the Second Amendment is meant to stop the government from taking over the country by force. I don't think most US military folk will be okay with killing their own guys. They're generally good dudes and dudettes who volunteered for military service, and I seriously doubt that they'll go ahead like sheep and mow down their neighbors because some guy with a funny hat said so.
But if you assume that most American military folk are okay with murdering their own countrymen in their beds, well, in that case you're fucked. Absolutely, retardedly fucked, with no hope of not getting fucked or getting unfucked, and a machine gun or assault rifle is not going to do shit to unfuck yourself. The insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan have access to heavy weapons such as AK-47s, RPGs, mortars, artillery shells, high explosives to make IEDs, heavy machine guns such as DShK anti-vehicle machine guns, MANPADsâ"weapons that no one would ever say was okay for American civilian useâ"but we're still slaughtering them. Not winning the war, necessarily, but fucking killing them on an industrial scale.
Imagine that America's military has gone full retard and helps the NWO seize power. You have your little assault rifle, and you open fire on their vehicles as they drive through your neighborhood. Whatever makes you think that they won't react by calling in a drone strike on your house, killing you and rendering everyone else "collateral damage"? What if they consistently did that and called resisters "terrorists" and "traitors" and "insurgents"? The population would probably try to kill you for getting in the way. Don't believe me? What do you think about David Koresh or Timothy McVeigh?
Face it. If the military goes nuts and wants to seize power, there's nothing an assault rifle or three hundred million assault rifles is going to do to stop them.
Judge Davis, the judge on this case, gave a speech where he made the very interesting claim that most Texans are familiar with licenses and abstract intellectual property rights because many of them are landowners who have licensed out oilfields to big companies and are aware of the concepts. I thought, well, if you have a jury pool made up of people who think that they're akin to patent owners, or at least, a judge who thinks that way, then jesus, no wonder you're going to have a pro-patent mindset when approaching these cases.
In a production system, the particles will probably be stuck onto a screen or surface to prevent them from being washed away along with the waste. A system that requires constant addition of the catalysts or a batch reaction that works for a few minutes then requires reconfiguration of the system is just not going to fly.
Well, you have to consider quality over quantity. There may only be less than one in a thousand developers who screwed up but what if the keys that were exposed belong to super-important servers such as those that control Google Chrome source code or some other big project?
I believe that it doesn't matter what Google does. With all the wiretaps and Echelon type stuff going on, I would be surprised if the social graphs based on who is calling who does not include all email service by this point. Like you said, the sender and receiver are well-known, and if you have a MITM such as a slutty ISP who gives it up easily, then you really don't need Google or Yahoo to comply.
We tried to manage gun sales by requiring background checks but the gun show exemption has been used to such an extent that forty percent of guns sold in the United States were sold without a background check. Good luck trying to get the NRA to support closing this loophole or to support a federal registry of guns.
I never understood the basic inconsistently with gun supporters regarding magazine sizes or assault rifles. They claim that limiting magazine sizes or assault rifles would not be effective in stopping bad guys from slaughtering tons of people, but then they also demand unlimited magazine sizes and an unassailable right to buy assault rifles because they are required for effective personal defense. In other words, assault rifles are not that dangerous when you're talking about killing some schoolkids, but when talking about saving their own skin, then they need the extra killing power of an assault rifle.
More fundamentally, gun supporters tacitly assume that nothing should be done regarding guns unless it is a perfect solution, and that nothing should be done regarding guns until we have resolved all other more dangerous things, such as car deaths, swimming pools, and medical malpractice. That is just not how the world works.
Your argument is basically this: we shouldn't ban hand grenades or rocket propelled grenades because some asshole can always make some sarin or fly an airplane into a building using a box cutter.
You also argue that some asshole can be just as lethal with a machete. You forget that on the same day as the Newtown shooting, some asshole with a knife walked into a school in China and stabbed two dozen or so children. None of the children died. Furthermore, the asshole was subdued by teachers using chairs. Try to do that against a guy with an assault rifle; two teachers at Newtown tried, and they were both shot in the head.
Not a cite was seen in your post but I'll just respond off the top of my head assuming that everything you wrote was true.
Guns and bullets kill many, many people in the United States. Guns are used in 2/3 of all homicides in the United States and over half of all suicides. That's not counting non-fatal accidental shootings. More guns means more accidental gun deaths and gun-related suicides. Other countries have seen a steep decline in suicides when they reduced guns. Apparently, guns make suicide more appealing and accessible than slitting your wrists or hanging yourself, and the urge to commit suicide is apparently transitory. (See my previous posts for the links.) So it's misleading to say that 0.003% of guns are used in homicides when you see that they are used to commit the bulk of the homicides.
Just because gun sales were surging doesn't mean that more people have guns. It could be the case that the hardcore gun owners have bought more and more guns. Perhaps they feared Obama taking over the government and started hoarding AR-15s. But there's no proof that more people have guns, nor is it clear that this would be the case.
The irony is that the people you claim are protecting their families are using their guns to make death threats against others. You can either take guns away from both sides or you can let both sides have guns. But you cannot say one guy should have guns and the other guy should not no matter what their political views are.
The funny party? Gun owners claiming to be responsible, law-abiding folk defending their families while making death threats once in a while.
The vast majority of murders (2/3) in the United States are committed with a firearm despite there being far fewer firearms than knifes, sticks, bats, bricks, and all other weapons and implements used to commit murders. Anyway, a guy with a gun making a threat is far more credible to me than a guy without a gun. Someone attacking me with a knife scares me far less because I can run away or lock the door. A guy with a gun can shoot through the door or shoot out the lock.
Assuming that your statistics are true, all that means is that CCW licenses are currently strictly limited. Once we make them more common and widespread, you'll see the rate of violent crime go up. But you also do not address the greatest dangers related to home ownership of guns: accidental deaths and suicides.
When one considers gun laws, you also have to consider the non-criminal aspects of gun possession. Suicides and accidental shootings go up when you have more guns. Is that something we are willing to tolerate so you can take up armed insurrection against the US government if it becomes a dictatorship in your view?
An American dictatorship would presumably be as shitty and horrible as any other dictatorship. In that case, being armed with rifles will do shit against the government forces. Your examples prove the point. Vietnam had Russia supplying it with aircraft, missiles, and other heavy weapons. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the insurgencies had access to heavy weapons such as heavy machine guns, artillery rounds, and high explosives that they used to make IEDs. Anyway, if we had an insurgency in the United States, the dictatorship wouldn't be nice and beg you to stop fighting. It will demand that you turn in your weapons or face summary execution or perhaps they'll just drone your apartment building if their soldiers take fire from it; the prospect of your kids and wife dying might make you reconsiderâ"it certainly would make your neighbors think about turning you in.
The Branch Davidians gave the government problems only because the government was trying to be "good guys". There were women and children that the government wanted to save. In any case, when the shit hit the fan the government went in with guns blazing and the Branch Davidians could do nothing to stop them. A dictatorial government would have just blew them all to dust.
But consider the most important point: the government would just call insurgents terrorists and then we'll all be in a rush to turn them in. You called the Branch Davidians nutcases, and that's what we'll call the insurgents when the government seizes power.
The importance of this is that the lower receiver on the AR-15 is the part that's considered the "firearm" for the purposes of federal law. Being able to print the lower receiver using an unregulated method means that you can buy the rest of the gun without too much of a hassle.
The Democrats in the United States are actually centrists by the standards of most countries. The liberals in America don't have any political power while their far-right counterparts have completely taken over the Republican Party. Look at the "socialist" health care plan passed by the Democrats. The heart of the plan is the very conservative idea of individual responsibilityâ"the individual mandate was a conservative idea until the Democrats embraced it, at which point it suddenly became a socialist plot against Americans. A true liberal would have pushed for a one-payer system.
Linux-based laptops might get more support phone calls from guys who were expecting Windows, or customers who wanted to try something new but then learned that Microsoft Office does not run on their new Linux computer. Slashdot guys love to mock uneducated users, but you have to give Dell consideration that these uneducated buyers of a Linux-based laptop might cost them more money to keep happy (or less angry).
It is you who suffers from a lack of historical perspective, especially when you think you're so cute and intelligent for calling other people useful idiots. You imply the Mossadegh was a bad guy because he was friendly with the USSR, but you miss the fucking point that him being friendly with the USSR might be bad for the US, but it might have been good for Iran, you know, the country that he was leading.
The Shah was propped up by the United States, and his regime was brutal and corrupt. The Iranians supported Khomeini because of his anti-Western sentiment, which was there because, you know, we propped up a brutal and corrupt regime that had screwed their country over.
The domain name has since been transferred to the CM Team, but I wanted to make a few things clear.
I purchased the CyanogenMod.com domain name 3 years ago and have been responsible for the renewal fees ever since. This means I (my company) legally owned the domain name. It was fully registered in the United Kingdom. I hear people saying about âtrademarkâ(TM). Yes, CyanogenMod is now a registered trademark in the US. But the domain was registered in the UK well before that trademark. I donâ(TM)t want to get into any legal battles here, but US trademarkâ(TM)s are not valid in the UK unless they are registered here with the IPO.
The term 'hi-jacked' is just wrong, the domain name was always in my control. I didn't hijack anything. I initiated a transfer out process with my registrar today who restored the DNS entries to their own. This in turn deleted all MX entries and other records. The term 'hi-jacked' has just derived from tech blogs creating stories for link bait.
The term 'extortion' is also wrong. If I was out for the money, why an earth would I have transferred the domain to the CM Team for free?"
Let Texas secede, withdraw all the national defense instruments we have in the region, and let them hold off the violent Mexican gangs. They will soon remember the Alamo, and not in a good way.
Please read this article, look at the picture, and tell me you think the cop was wrong. The charge was violating the law on the handling of gasoline. This moron poured 150 gallons of gasoline into regular Home Depot buckets. By the time he was arrested, the tops of the covers were bulging. Yeah, that's dangerous because gasoline burns... and gasoline vapors EXPLODE.
Because Nate Silver was PERFECT. ElectionProjection.com went 49/50 while Silver went 51/51. Furthermore, he was insisting that Obama was winning months and months ago when everyone was insisting that it was a toss up. Also, he's a gay Jew. I can't help but to think that this brought him into the crosshairs of many of his right-wing critics, most notably, that of Dean Chambers of unskewedpolls.com, who said that Nate Silver was "effeminate."
Slashdot Mirror
This is absolutely not true, and I'm a pretty cynical guy. Law has not been a civil profession in quite some time; it's now a business. Law firms have the incentive of winning at all costs because that's how they get future business. There are no expensive lunches between opposing counsel. Rather, there are very expensive and nasty letters going back and forth about how the other guy's client is the most evil guy in the entire planet, and their claims are completely frivolous, how they're going to get stomped on if this goes to court, but for the low low price of $XX you can avoid the litigation, etc. Lawyers love to cover their asses, and they want to show their clients what complete badasses/assholes they are to the other side.
In your fantasy scenario, the patent owner gets an injunction. Do you know how big a deal that is? Once that happens, the evil corporation's business is dead in the water. Right away. Do not pass go. Also, don't you think that evil corp's clients wouldn't realize that they can buy it from the patent owner because they can't buy it from evil corp anymore?
And if you file chapter 7, you lose all the ridiculous profits that the infringing products made; you can't just take the profits, stick it into your pockets, then claim you're judgment proof as a company; that's a fraudulent transfer. The products also require assets (factories, etc) to manufacture. All that shit doesn't just go away. The bankruptcy court will absolutely take into account the current litigation between the parties, and the Trustee, who is appointed by the court and takes a percentage of the money he recovers for the creditors will absolutely hunt down every single penny because he likes money. He also hires his own law firm as counsel when unwinding all the crazy transactions, so he wins twice, but that's a scam for another day.
But if evil corp wants to import the products, you can get the court to enjoin that company as well, and believe me, courts absolutely hate it when you try to play shell games to avoid a court order. Judges have egos and they're not going to let the CEO just get away with it.
So all in all, your fantasy scenario is completely impossible and not indicative of any case that has ever happened. But hey, since when has the truth mattered?
Soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan, which has bumpy terrain and bad weather, have always wanted "eyes in the sky" that would give them a heads up on enemy attacks. The bad terrain stops the soldiers from seeing too far away because the bad guys hide in the hills. The bad weather is alternately freezing or too hot, so fixed wing aircraft such as the Predator crash and can't stay overhead constantly. A blimp could just sit there with their sensors spying away, and if you can make the tether long enough, the blimp would be outside the range of enemy fire.
What alternative does the artist have in selling her music? It sucks making pennies, but would she be otherwise selling her music in concert, on CDs, etc.?
I am confused when people say that the Second Amendment is meant to stop the government from taking over the country by force. I don't think most US military folk will be okay with killing their own guys. They're generally good dudes and dudettes who volunteered for military service, and I seriously doubt that they'll go ahead like sheep and mow down their neighbors because some guy with a funny hat said so.
But if you assume that most American military folk are okay with murdering their own countrymen in their beds, well, in that case you're fucked. Absolutely, retardedly fucked, with no hope of not getting fucked or getting unfucked, and a machine gun or assault rifle is not going to do shit to unfuck yourself. The insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan have access to heavy weapons such as AK-47s, RPGs, mortars, artillery shells, high explosives to make IEDs, heavy machine guns such as DShK anti-vehicle machine guns, MANPADsâ"weapons that no one would ever say was okay for American civilian useâ"but we're still slaughtering them. Not winning the war, necessarily, but fucking killing them on an industrial scale.
Imagine that America's military has gone full retard and helps the NWO seize power. You have your little assault rifle, and you open fire on their vehicles as they drive through your neighborhood. Whatever makes you think that they won't react by calling in a drone strike on your house, killing you and rendering everyone else "collateral damage"? What if they consistently did that and called resisters "terrorists" and "traitors" and "insurgents"? The population would probably try to kill you for getting in the way. Don't believe me? What do you think about David Koresh or Timothy McVeigh?
Face it. If the military goes nuts and wants to seize power, there's nothing an assault rifle or three hundred million assault rifles is going to do to stop them.
Judge Davis, the judge on this case, gave a speech where he made the very interesting claim that most Texans are familiar with licenses and abstract intellectual property rights because many of them are landowners who have licensed out oilfields to big companies and are aware of the concepts. I thought, well, if you have a jury pool made up of people who think that they're akin to patent owners, or at least, a judge who thinks that way, then jesus, no wonder you're going to have a pro-patent mindset when approaching these cases.
In a production system, the particles will probably be stuck onto a screen or surface to prevent them from being washed away along with the waste. A system that requires constant addition of the catalysts or a batch reaction that works for a few minutes then requires reconfiguration of the system is just not going to fly.
Well, you have to consider quality over quantity. There may only be less than one in a thousand developers who screwed up but what if the keys that were exposed belong to super-important servers such as those that control Google Chrome source code or some other big project?
I believe that it doesn't matter what Google does. With all the wiretaps and Echelon type stuff going on, I would be surprised if the social graphs based on who is calling who does not include all email service by this point. Like you said, the sender and receiver are well-known, and if you have a MITM such as a slutty ISP who gives it up easily, then you really don't need Google or Yahoo to comply.
We tried to manage gun sales by requiring background checks but the gun show exemption has been used to such an extent that forty percent of guns sold in the United States were sold without a background check. Good luck trying to get the NRA to support closing this loophole or to support a federal registry of guns.
I never understood the basic inconsistently with gun supporters regarding magazine sizes or assault rifles. They claim that limiting magazine sizes or assault rifles would not be effective in stopping bad guys from slaughtering tons of people, but then they also demand unlimited magazine sizes and an unassailable right to buy assault rifles because they are required for effective personal defense. In other words, assault rifles are not that dangerous when you're talking about killing some schoolkids, but when talking about saving their own skin, then they need the extra killing power of an assault rifle.
More fundamentally, gun supporters tacitly assume that nothing should be done regarding guns unless it is a perfect solution, and that nothing should be done regarding guns until we have resolved all other more dangerous things, such as car deaths, swimming pools, and medical malpractice. That is just not how the world works.
Your argument is basically this: we shouldn't ban hand grenades or rocket propelled grenades because some asshole can always make some sarin or fly an airplane into a building using a box cutter.
You also argue that some asshole can be just as lethal with a machete. You forget that on the same day as the Newtown shooting, some asshole with a knife walked into a school in China and stabbed two dozen or so children. None of the children died. Furthermore, the asshole was subdued by teachers using chairs. Try to do that against a guy with an assault rifle; two teachers at Newtown tried, and they were both shot in the head.
Not a cite was seen in your post but I'll just respond off the top of my head assuming that everything you wrote was true.
Guns and bullets kill many, many people in the United States. Guns are used in 2/3 of all homicides in the United States and over half of all suicides. That's not counting non-fatal accidental shootings. More guns means more accidental gun deaths and gun-related suicides. Other countries have seen a steep decline in suicides when they reduced guns. Apparently, guns make suicide more appealing and accessible than slitting your wrists or hanging yourself, and the urge to commit suicide is apparently transitory. (See my previous posts for the links.) So it's misleading to say that 0.003% of guns are used in homicides when you see that they are used to commit the bulk of the homicides.
Just because gun sales were surging doesn't mean that more people have guns. It could be the case that the hardcore gun owners have bought more and more guns. Perhaps they feared Obama taking over the government and started hoarding AR-15s. But there's no proof that more people have guns, nor is it clear that this would be the case.
The irony is that the people you claim are protecting their families are using their guns to make death threats against others. You can either take guns away from both sides or you can let both sides have guns. But you cannot say one guy should have guns and the other guy should not no matter what their political views are.
The funny party? Gun owners claiming to be responsible, law-abiding folk defending their families while making death threats once in a while.
The vast majority of murders (2/3) in the United States are committed with a firearm despite there being far fewer firearms than knifes, sticks, bats, bricks, and all other weapons and implements used to commit murders. Anyway, a guy with a gun making a threat is far more credible to me than a guy without a gun. Someone attacking me with a knife scares me far less because I can run away or lock the door. A guy with a gun can shoot through the door or shoot out the lock.
Assuming that your statistics are true, all that means is that CCW licenses are currently strictly limited. Once we make them more common and widespread, you'll see the rate of violent crime go up. But you also do not address the greatest dangers related to home ownership of guns: accidental deaths and suicides.
Violent crime with guns is a small fraction of the problem. Seventy percent of homicides were perpetrated with guns. Fine. But half of all gun deaths are suicides. There were 24,000 accidental gunshot injuries in 2000. Research in Australia has shown that suicides dropped when strict gun control laws were brought into effect. (Suicides by guns dropped, and suicides by other means didn't go up.) When the Israeli military required soldiers to leave their weapons at their base before going home on the weekends, suicides dropped by 60%.
When one considers gun laws, you also have to consider the non-criminal aspects of gun possession. Suicides and accidental shootings go up when you have more guns. Is that something we are willing to tolerate so you can take up armed insurrection against the US government if it becomes a dictatorship in your view?
An American dictatorship would presumably be as shitty and horrible as any other dictatorship. In that case, being armed with rifles will do shit against the government forces. Your examples prove the point. Vietnam had Russia supplying it with aircraft, missiles, and other heavy weapons. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the insurgencies had access to heavy weapons such as heavy machine guns, artillery rounds, and high explosives that they used to make IEDs. Anyway, if we had an insurgency in the United States, the dictatorship wouldn't be nice and beg you to stop fighting. It will demand that you turn in your weapons or face summary execution or perhaps they'll just drone your apartment building if their soldiers take fire from it; the prospect of your kids and wife dying might make you reconsiderâ"it certainly would make your neighbors think about turning you in.
The Branch Davidians gave the government problems only because the government was trying to be "good guys". There were women and children that the government wanted to save. In any case, when the shit hit the fan the government went in with guns blazing and the Branch Davidians could do nothing to stop them. A dictatorial government would have just blew them all to dust.
But consider the most important point: the government would just call insurgents terrorists and then we'll all be in a rush to turn them in. You called the Branch Davidians nutcases, and that's what we'll call the insurgents when the government seizes power.
Are you kidding? Mike Hunt stinks! You have no taste at all, worshiping Mike Hunt.
The importance of this is that the lower receiver on the AR-15 is the part that's considered the "firearm" for the purposes of federal law. Being able to print the lower receiver using an unregulated method means that you can buy the rest of the gun without too much of a hassle.
The Democrats in the United States are actually centrists by the standards of most countries. The liberals in America don't have any political power while their far-right counterparts have completely taken over the Republican Party. Look at the "socialist" health care plan passed by the Democrats. The heart of the plan is the very conservative idea of individual responsibilityâ"the individual mandate was a conservative idea until the Democrats embraced it, at which point it suddenly became a socialist plot against Americans. A true liberal would have pushed for a one-payer system.
And so it goes.
Linux-based laptops might get more support phone calls from guys who were expecting Windows, or customers who wanted to try something new but then learned that Microsoft Office does not run on their new Linux computer. Slashdot guys love to mock uneducated users, but you have to give Dell consideration that these uneducated buyers of a Linux-based laptop might cost them more money to keep happy (or less angry).
It is you who suffers from a lack of historical perspective, especially when you think you're so cute and intelligent for calling other people useful idiots. You imply the Mossadegh was a bad guy because he was friendly with the USSR, but you miss the fucking point that him being friendly with the USSR might be bad for the US, but it might have been good for Iran, you know, the country that he was leading.
The Shah was propped up by the United States, and his regime was brutal and corrupt. The Iranians supported Khomeini because of his anti-Western sentiment, which was there because, you know, we propped up a brutal and corrupt regime that had screwed their country over.
He claims that he has transferred it back to CM:
"Ahmet Deveci8:22 PM - Public
For the record, regarding: cyanogenmod.com
Following the saga from : http://www.cyanogenmod.org/blog/psa-transition-to-cyanogenmod-org it would appear that I have been labelled a 'thief' an 'extortionist' a 'liar' and a bunch of other somewhat degrading comments.
The domain name has since been transferred to the CM Team, but I wanted to make a few things clear.
I purchased the CyanogenMod.com domain name 3 years ago and have been responsible for the renewal fees ever since. This means I (my company) legally owned the domain name. It was fully registered in the United Kingdom. I hear people saying about âtrademarkâ(TM). Yes, CyanogenMod is now a registered trademark in the US. But the domain was registered in the UK well before that trademark. I donâ(TM)t want to get into any legal battles here, but US trademarkâ(TM)s are not valid in the UK unless they are registered here with the IPO.
The term 'hi-jacked' is just wrong, the domain name was always in my control. I didn't hijack anything. I initiated a transfer out process with my registrar today who restored the DNS entries to their own. This in turn deleted all MX entries and other records. The term 'hi-jacked' has just derived from tech blogs creating stories for link bait.
The term 'extortion' is also wrong. If I was out for the money, why an earth would I have transferred the domain to the CM Team for free?"
https://plus.google.com/116028512018932696380/posts
Let Texas secede, withdraw all the national defense instruments we have in the region, and let them hold off the violent Mexican gangs. They will soon remember the Alamo, and not in a good way.
Please read this article, look at the picture, and tell me you think the cop was wrong. The charge was violating the law on the handling of gasoline. This moron poured 150 gallons of gasoline into regular Home Depot buckets. By the time he was arrested, the tops of the covers were bulging. Yeah, that's dangerous because gasoline burns ... and gasoline vapors EXPLODE.
No, the actual charge was putting 150 gallons of gasoline into buckets, whose covers were bulging from vapor build up when he was arrested. Seriously, this was dangerous, and he was lucky he didn't blow himself up. Look at the pictures.
Because Nate Silver was PERFECT. ElectionProjection.com went 49/50 while Silver went 51/51. Furthermore, he was insisting that Obama was winning months and months ago when everyone was insisting that it was a toss up. Also, he's a gay Jew. I can't help but to think that this brought him into the crosshairs of many of his right-wing critics, most notably, that of Dean Chambers of unskewedpolls.com, who said that Nate Silver was "effeminate."