It was about three years ago in February that I decided to switch to BitchBetterHaveMyMoney, and I've never looked back. The application is rock solid. And it keeps track of not some of my money, but all of my money.
Truth be told, their motto is proof: "Through rain, sleet, snow, or dark of night: BitchBetterHaveMyMoney."
My understanding is that it is. I'll preface that by saying my information on PCP is limited to "government" sources which also show that you'll turn mexican and start raping puppies if you smoke marijuana. But they do assert it has addictive properties. If you have a link, however, I'd like to read it since this is a subject on which I'm lacking.
As for nicotine. I'm comfortable with the long-term health affects. Personally, I've never understood why we, as a society, try to prevent people from killing themselves. IIRC, The statistics show that the level of taxation on smokers pretty much pays for their medical bills (well, it would if we didn't use those taxes on things like roads and misc. public works). However, I think we do have an interest in preventing people from killing themselves inadvertently via overdose. But you could certainly disagree with me on that point and be 100% correct.
But this all comes back to what I said. Each drug has nuanced benefits and drawbacks. I believe what we have to do as a society is take stock of these and then determine whether or not the risks are significant enough to warrant the prohibition of drug X.
For me, I think that line lies right around the opiates.
I'm sad that you had problems controlling your opiate use, but I don't think that they should be made illegal in light of this. I use codeine, oxycodone, morphine, and meperidine on rare occasions, and love them. No addiction issues at all.
I never said I had a problem. I just said that I've used them.
That being said, the reason I still believe they should be prohibitied is how easily I saw that I could have a problem with them. I'm glad that you've been able to recreationally use a number of controlled substances with no detriment. I'm in the same boat. But when arguing for or against the legality of a substance, you have to look at the big picture. We know that some people are going to become addicted to this stuff. So the question is how many, and what's going to happen when they do become addicted.
With drugs like LSD, silocybin, alcohol, THC, and (somewhat) cocaine the answer is relatively few people, and little problems. (Considering the number of people using alcohol, the percentage of those with a real drinking problem is very small.)
With drugs like PCP, meth, crack, and many of the opiate derivatives (i.e. heroine) the answer changes to a high likelihood of addiction, one that brings with it the potential for numerous problems. I'm not sure how many heroine and PCP addicts you've known in your life but I've had the displeasure of knowing a few. I'd also advise you look at the likelihood of overdose between these two groups of substances.
*I left nicotine out of the argument for now because it's in a class of its own. The likelihood of addiction is extremely high, but the risk of overdose is very low and the physical withdrawl symptoms are never fatal.
I don't particularly care what you juice someone up with in their last days. My grandfather was on a morphine drip when he was dying of lung cancer. That's why I said opiates should be left as a controlled substance.
As far as prohibition for recreational use, I believe the potential detrimental social effects of drugs such as heroine and opium are very high versus their potential benefit. It is for that reason I don't think we should allow their recreational use.
Now then...if you want to have a discussion about how we should treat addicts. Well I'd be willing to bet you and I have some pretty similar views there;-)
The prohibition period in the US continues to this day. Marijuana, LSD, opiates, and a host of other substances less harmful than alcohol remain prohibited. It's just that the propaganda is better this time around.
As an ex user of opiates I can tell you one thing...
They should remain illegal (or, at least, controlled as they are now).
Notice a theme here? The horsepower of these systems surpassed the requirements of gamers a long time ago. The only reason for releasing the PS3 is to try and boost sales through increased press exposure and slightly prettier explosions.
No.
The keyword for gamers is immersion. A perfect example is Half-Life 2. The ragdoll physics in the game created a level of immersion never before seen in a FPS. Doom 3, for all its terrible gameplay was the same. The "mirror" scene in one of the bathrooms mid-way through the game was undoubtedly the scariest I've ever experienced. Compare this to the type of chill thrown off by, say, the original Resident Evil and there's little comparison.
It's all about the level of immersion, and old games just do not have it, or maintain it throughout the years. Your argument is akin to saying that the only reason we come out with new vehicles every year is so people can buy slightly prettier paint jobs.
Sorry my friend, but the gradual progression from atari, to nintendo, to playstation, to PS3 (all for the "slightly prettier explosions") has taken us from the world of PacMan to the world of FarCry.
Actually, it can. You see, the right to secede was reserved to the States by the tenth amendment. Here it is if you'd like to read it.
AAAHHAHHAHAHAAHAHA!
Next you're going to say that the ninth amendment still has force and effect. Is this part of some stand-up routine I don't know about?
You're a funny guy. But the ninth and tenth amendments haven't had any real effect on government in a looooong time. IIRC, Griswold was probably the last time SCOTUS "gave" us a new right.
This message was brought to you by the letters G, W, and B, and the words "Coulter" and "Scalia."
Do you realize that your argument is a huge non-sequitor?
I am bad at almost all the sports known to the human kind, and yet I manage to enjoy most of them, I don't see how complaining about tax spending is a reflection in the sporting abilities of the original poster.
Eh? How's it a non sequitur? It's obvious the poster doesn't enjoy pro sports (as evidenced by his curt wording). Moreover, it's obvious that he's not a small government advocate (as evidenced by his support for municipal WiFi). So it's not any stretch to assume the original poster has "got something against" pro sports.
You can hypothesize why all you like (maybe his dad beat him up when he was a kid). Me, I'd like to think it's because he's a fatty who can't run.
Oh, and FYI:
I do agree with the mayor premise though, the goverment will find ways to spend our money, and most of the time we will not agree with them. But that is the price of a Republic: someone else, empowered by the "people" makes the decisions, period.
The Stadium was a voter-approved undertaking. If you'd like an example of the wasting of tax dollars you'd be better served looking into the activities of Mayor Webb.
Personally, I think it's funny the amount of disdain geeks in Denver show for the stadium. One need not be an economics major to understand the ridiculous amount of revenue the Broncos bring to the Denver/metro area.
Get over it. The tax on the stadium was $.01 per $10 and the referendum passed by an overwhelming majority. Get a 50%+ vote for WiFi and you'll get it, but until that time your post is just taking another pot shot at pro-sports for no other reason than the fact that you're probably bad at them.
I had a similar problem with a Mitsubishi LCD I bought from Best Buy. I went through the rebate process word for word, dotted all my i's and crossed my t's only to get a postcard in the mail two months later that stated I wasn't getting my rebate because I sent in a photocopy of the UPC code rather than the real thing (no doubt if I had done the opposite, I'd have gotten the opposite response).
After ~4 more weeks of hassle and no money, I emailed the CEO of the rebate company ( with the Better Business Bureau and representatives at Mitsubishi CC'ed) with my solemn promise that tactics like theirs only guaranteed that neither myself nor anyone I knew would buy a Mitsubishi product ever again...including their vehicles.
Nothing like a nice fat check for $50 in your mailbox 3 days later.
The thing to remember is that there are two types of rebates:
The first type are taken care of through the seller (e.g. Best Buy or the brand you bought). These rebates are on the up and up most of the time. The company is simply betting you won't send the rebate in, but has no problem giving you your money once you do since their reputation is worth far more than the $10 you want back on that RAM.
The second type is the type that some would say should be illegal. These rebates are handled (as in my case above) by third-party companies. Essentially, they "buy" the rebates from the manufacturer at a discount or are payed by the manufacturer based on the percentage of rebates they honor (in this racket, less is more). Every rebate that isn't sent in or honered is simply another buck in the pocket of that company, so they have a vested interest in making sure you don't get your rebate.
All of the above is why I never take into account the price after rebate when I buy a product. It's just too much hassle and you can never be certain you're actually going to get your cash. Just pay the money, send in the rebate, and consider it free money if you get it.
It should work fine. I ran 2.6.10 for a day or two and it compiled fine ("sudo nvidia-installer -f" to force a recompile).
maybe you should run another make on your kernel sources.
I find it hard to believe that computer models can't tell me whether or not it will rain on Thursday, but can suddenly "absolutely nail" the predictions for temperature patterns of oceans.
There is an extreme difference between modelling accurate weather patterns 5-days out based on hundreds of different variables versus modelling widespread and highly observable change based on thousands of years of data.
Your statement above has absolutely no connection with the modelling of global warming. It is akin to talking about the Superbowl like this: "You can't tell me what the exact score of the Pats/Eagles game is going to be? You know nothing about the game of football."
The thing other people forget (not the parent methinks) is that copyright isn't granted for the sole purpose of making the author money. Copyright is granted to promote the useful arts and sciences. Monetary gains are supposed to be an impetus for content creation, not the exclusive result of it. More importantly, making millions of dollars off a single work such an album only serves to undermine the perpetuation of the useful arts and sciences as the author loses some incentive to create more in order to achieve a reasonable standard of living.
Bottom line: when copyright ceases to serve creative purposes and begins to act solely as a tool of wealth generation (as many would argue it does in the case of the MPAA and RIAA), it ceases to be meaningful and should be ignored.
Fix the problems with copyright and you'll fix the problems with copyright infringement.
The map is awesome, but I'm sticking with mapquest until Google gets their directions together. I tested getting directions from my house to work and Google tries to send me pretty far out of my way.
So...either their logic needs updating before it goes 1.0 or they've got a sweet deal going with the 20 extra Starbucks' I'm going to pass on my way to work every morning.
Im drvnig riht now, an posting to salsgdot though my wirless servic. i dont oarticulaly see the diifficulty. mabe otjers just dopnt have good drving skils.
In all seriousness, though, this simply comes down to personal responsiblity. When I'm driving and I have to take a call, I let the person on the other end of the phone know that they're only going to get the attention of the small part of my mind that isn't focused on driving. If I'm in a heavy traffic situation, I tell the person on the other end I'm going to have to call them back. In other words: take some fscking personal accountability for your actions or stop complaining that we live in a nanny state.
If their car got reposessed and their house foreclosed, whos fault is that? It behooves a person to ensure he/she can afford an item they own, be it a car, house, motorcycle or television
LOL. Sorry, I left that $200,000 I'd saved up in my other pants. Can you spot me?
It's certainly easy to play armchair quarterback when you're not the one in trouble or don't know those who are. I knew plenty of extremely well qualified individuals who lost their job during the last bubble burst, and some of them still haven't found a reasonable paying job. The saturation of H1B's, outsourcing, and general lessening of the IT job pool has caused serious problems in a lot of communities - and a lot of people who were told to go to college, get a good degree, work 80 hours a week and they'd get ahead instead got the shaft.
I'll just throw out this particular stat: In 1970 the top 100 CEO's made ~39x the pay of an average worker; Today, they make over 1,000x the pay.
You blame "personal accountability" or "living within your means" if you like. I'll call it the plundering of middle-america so fatassed CEO's can light their cigars with hundred-dollar bills.
There is almost no difference between this and the agnostic 'I don't know if god exists.' The only difference is that the 'lack of belief' part is specified. The agnostic does not believe either. For all practical purposes this is agnostic, not atheist.
This is pretty much a connotative defition of agnosticism you're using which has come about in the past few years as a way to appear hip and/or duck the argument in its entirety. Agnosticism is philosophical chic or, as I always say, agnostics are the Mac fanboys of philosophy. Please research the actual origins of agnosticism (hint: It's more than simply "I don't know"). Also, I would advise you to read the atheist manifesto and some of Sagan's works if you haven't yet.
BTW - If I'm coming across as a dick I apologize. My tank is on empty and I need some sleep.
You have bundled two distinct sets of atheists into a single group. The former being the strong atheist, i.e. one who believes that god does not exist. The later, of course, is defined as weak atheism. It is a lack of belief in God, but with the acknowledgement that a lack of evidence does not conclusively prove that God does not exist.
However, neither of these are "religion" by any sense of the word. Your above statement can and should be reworded: Strong atheists do not believe that God/Gods exist. Essentially, the two phrases are the same, but when viewed together reveal the underlying (and decidedly incorrect) premise; that belief or the lack thereof by itself is tantamount to religion.
Last time I checked, standing outside a courthouse expressing disdain for lawyers is perfectly legal.
In some states, they even allow people to carry signs and march around in circles outside of buildings. In fact, from time to time, these sign wielding people will even chant repetative slogans (gasp). My friend, people have a right to protest, be it against abortion, creationism, blacks, whites, gays, white supremacists and yes...lawyers.
Do I think these guys are stupid douchebags? Of course.
Am I outraged that they were arrested for being stupid douchebags? You bet your ass I am.
Slashdot Mirror
Where's the picture of the UPS goons handing stacks of hundreds over to Newegg VP's?
If you've been a custome of Newegg for more than six months, you know what I'm talking about.
It was about three years ago in February that I decided to switch to BitchBetterHaveMyMoney, and I've never looked back. The application is rock solid. And it keeps track of not some of my money, but all of my money.
Truth be told, their motto is proof: "Through rain, sleet, snow, or dark of night: BitchBetterHaveMyMoney."
Doctor Laura.
PCP is not addictive
My understanding is that it is. I'll preface that by saying my information on PCP is limited to "government" sources which also show that you'll turn mexican and start raping puppies if you smoke marijuana. But they do assert it has addictive properties. If you have a link, however, I'd like to read it since this is a subject on which I'm lacking.
As for nicotine. I'm comfortable with the long-term health affects. Personally, I've never understood why we, as a society, try to prevent people from killing themselves. IIRC, The statistics show that the level of taxation on smokers pretty much pays for their medical bills (well, it would if we didn't use those taxes on things like roads and misc. public works). However, I think we do have an interest in preventing people from killing themselves inadvertently via overdose. But you could certainly disagree with me on that point and be 100% correct.
But this all comes back to what I said. Each drug has nuanced benefits and drawbacks. I believe what we have to do as a society is take stock of these and then determine whether or not the risks are significant enough to warrant the prohibition of drug X.
For me, I think that line lies right around the opiates.
someone should mod your comment up, even though we're all way off topic.
It's amazing how even people who talk about "all" drugs will completely leave out caffeine.
I'm sad that you had problems controlling your opiate use, but I don't think that they should be made illegal in light of this. I use codeine, oxycodone, morphine, and meperidine on rare occasions, and love them. No addiction issues at all.
I never said I had a problem. I just said that I've used them.
That being said, the reason I still believe they should be prohibitied is how easily I saw that I could have a problem with them. I'm glad that you've been able to recreationally use a number of controlled substances with no detriment. I'm in the same boat. But when arguing for or against the legality of a substance, you have to look at the big picture. We know that some people are going to become addicted to this stuff. So the question is how many, and what's going to happen when they do become addicted.
With drugs like LSD, silocybin, alcohol, THC, and (somewhat) cocaine the answer is relatively few people, and little problems. (Considering the number of people using alcohol, the percentage of those with a real drinking problem is very small.)
With drugs like PCP, meth, crack, and many of the opiate derivatives (i.e. heroine) the answer changes to a high likelihood of addiction, one that brings with it the potential for numerous problems. I'm not sure how many heroine and PCP addicts you've known in your life but I've had the displeasure of knowing a few. I'd also advise you look at the likelihood of overdose between these two groups of substances.
*I left nicotine out of the argument for now because it's in a class of its own. The likelihood of addiction is extremely high, but the risk of overdose is very low and the physical withdrawl symptoms are never fatal.
I don't particularly care what you juice someone up with in their last days. My grandfather was on a morphine drip when he was dying of lung cancer. That's why I said opiates should be left as a controlled substance.
;-)
As far as prohibition for recreational use, I believe the potential detrimental social effects of drugs such as heroine and opium are very high versus their potential benefit. It is for that reason I don't think we should allow their recreational use.
Now then...if you want to have a discussion about how we should treat addicts. Well I'd be willing to bet you and I have some pretty similar views there
The prohibition period in the US continues to this day. Marijuana, LSD, opiates, and a host of other substances less harmful than alcohol remain prohibited. It's just that the propaganda is better this time around.
As an ex user of opiates I can tell you one thing...
They should remain illegal (or, at least, controlled as they are now).
Marijuana, LSD, and mushrooms are another matter.
Notice a theme here? The horsepower of these systems surpassed the requirements of gamers a long time ago. The only reason for releasing the PS3 is to try and boost sales through increased press exposure and slightly prettier explosions.
No.
The keyword for gamers is immersion. A perfect example is Half-Life 2. The ragdoll physics in the game created a level of immersion never before seen in a FPS. Doom 3, for all its terrible gameplay was the same. The "mirror" scene in one of the bathrooms mid-way through the game was undoubtedly the scariest I've ever experienced. Compare this to the type of chill thrown off by, say, the original Resident Evil and there's little comparison.
It's all about the level of immersion, and old games just do not have it, or maintain it throughout the years. Your argument is akin to saying that the only reason we come out with new vehicles every year is so people can buy slightly prettier paint jobs.
Sorry my friend, but the gradual progression from atari, to nintendo, to playstation, to PS3 (all for the "slightly prettier explosions") has taken us from the world of PacMan to the world of FarCry.
Actually, it can. You see, the right to secede was reserved to the States by the tenth amendment. Here it is if you'd like to read it.
AAAHHAHHAHAHAAHAHA!
Next you're going to say that the ninth amendment still has force and effect. Is this part of some stand-up routine I don't know about?
You're a funny guy. But the ninth and tenth amendments haven't had any real effect on government in a looooong time. IIRC, Griswold was probably the last time SCOTUS "gave" us a new right.
This message was brought to you by the letters G, W, and B, and the words "Coulter" and "Scalia."
The example you just gave was a non sequitur. However, my post was not. Do you see why?
Actually, third-party analysis has shown, time and again, that this is BS.
And you have a link to one of these studies, or are you just blowing smoke out your ass?
Do you realize that your argument is a huge non-sequitor?
I am bad at almost all the sports known to the human kind, and yet I manage to enjoy most of them, I don't see how complaining about tax spending is a reflection in the sporting abilities of the original poster.
Eh? How's it a non sequitur? It's obvious the poster doesn't enjoy pro sports (as evidenced by his curt wording). Moreover, it's obvious that he's not a small government advocate (as evidenced by his support for municipal WiFi). So it's not any stretch to assume the original poster has "got something against" pro sports.
You can hypothesize why all you like (maybe his dad beat him up when he was a kid). Me, I'd like to think it's because he's a fatty who can't run.
Oh, and FYI:
I do agree with the mayor premise though, the goverment will find ways to spend our money, and most of the time we will not agree with them. But that is the price of a Republic: someone else, empowered by the "people" makes the decisions, period.
The Stadium was a voter-approved undertaking. If you'd like an example of the wasting of tax dollars you'd be better served looking into the activities of Mayor Webb.
Personally, I think it's funny the amount of disdain geeks in Denver show for the stadium. One need not be an economics major to understand the ridiculous amount of revenue the Broncos bring to the Denver/metro area.
Get over it. The tax on the stadium was $.01 per $10 and the referendum passed by an overwhelming majority. Get a 50%+ vote for WiFi and you'll get it, but until that time your post is just taking another pot shot at pro-sports for no other reason than the fact that you're probably bad at them.
I had a similar problem with a Mitsubishi LCD I bought from Best Buy. I went through the rebate process word for word, dotted all my i's and crossed my t's only to get a postcard in the mail two months later that stated I wasn't getting my rebate because I sent in a photocopy of the UPC code rather than the real thing (no doubt if I had done the opposite, I'd have gotten the opposite response).
After ~4 more weeks of hassle and no money, I emailed the CEO of the rebate company ( with the Better Business Bureau and representatives at Mitsubishi CC'ed) with my solemn promise that tactics like theirs only guaranteed that neither myself nor anyone I knew would buy a Mitsubishi product ever again...including their vehicles.
Nothing like a nice fat check for $50 in your mailbox 3 days later.
The thing to remember is that there are two types of rebates:
The first type are taken care of through the seller (e.g. Best Buy or the brand you bought). These rebates are on the up and up most of the time. The company is simply betting you won't send the rebate in, but has no problem giving you your money once you do since their reputation is worth far more than the $10 you want back on that RAM.
The second type is the type that some would say should be illegal. These rebates are handled (as in my case above) by third-party companies. Essentially, they "buy" the rebates from the manufacturer at a discount or are payed by the manufacturer based on the percentage of rebates they honor (in this racket, less is more). Every rebate that isn't sent in or honered is simply another buck in the pocket of that company, so they have a vested interest in making sure you don't get your rebate.
All of the above is why I never take into account the price after rebate when I buy a product. It's just too much hassle and you can never be certain you're actually going to get your cash. Just pay the money, send in the rebate, and consider it free money if you get it.
I've actually found that the Linux version of UT2004 actually runs a bit better under Linux than under windows.
That is so true! For some reason, Linux version of UT2004 takes a huge performance hit in Windows.
It should work fine. I ran 2.6.10 for a day or two and it compiled fine ("sudo nvidia-installer -f" to force a recompile). maybe you should run another make on your kernel sources.
I find it hard to believe that computer models can't tell me whether or not it will rain on Thursday, but can suddenly "absolutely nail" the predictions for temperature patterns of oceans.
There is an extreme difference between modelling accurate weather patterns 5-days out based on hundreds of different variables versus modelling widespread and highly observable change based on thousands of years of data.
Your statement above has absolutely no connection with the modelling of global warming. It is akin to talking about the Superbowl like this: "You can't tell me what the exact score of the Pats/Eagles game is going to be? You know nothing about the game of football."
...temporary exclusive rights...
Thank you. I haven't laughed like that in days.
The thing other people forget (not the parent methinks) is that copyright isn't granted for the sole purpose of making the author money. Copyright is granted to promote the useful arts and sciences. Monetary gains are supposed to be an impetus for content creation, not the exclusive result of it. More importantly, making millions of dollars off a single work such an album only serves to undermine the perpetuation of the useful arts and sciences as the author loses some incentive to create more in order to achieve a reasonable standard of living.
Bottom line: when copyright ceases to serve creative purposes and begins to act solely as a tool of wealth generation (as many would argue it does in the case of the MPAA and RIAA), it ceases to be meaningful and should be ignored.
Fix the problems with copyright and you'll fix the problems with copyright infringement.
The map is awesome, but I'm sticking with mapquest until Google gets their directions together. I tested getting directions from my house to work and Google tries to send me pretty far out of my way.
So...either their logic needs updating before it goes 1.0 or they've got a sweet deal going with the 20 extra Starbucks' I'm going to pass on my way to work every morning.
Im drvnig riht now, an posting to salsgdot though my wirless servic. i dont oarticulaly see the diifficulty. mabe otjers just dopnt have good drving skils.
In all seriousness, though, this simply comes down to personal responsiblity. When I'm driving and I have to take a call, I let the person on the other end of the phone know that they're only going to get the attention of the small part of my mind that isn't focused on driving. If I'm in a heavy traffic situation, I tell the person on the other end I'm going to have to call them back. In other words: take some fscking personal accountability for your actions or stop complaining that we live in a nanny state.
If their car got reposessed and their house foreclosed, whos fault is that? It behooves a person to ensure he/she can afford an item they own, be it a car, house, motorcycle or television
LOL. Sorry, I left that $200,000 I'd saved up in my other pants. Can you spot me?
It's certainly easy to play armchair quarterback when you're not the one in trouble or don't know those who are. I knew plenty of extremely well qualified individuals who lost their job during the last bubble burst, and some of them still haven't found a reasonable paying job. The saturation of H1B's, outsourcing, and general lessening of the IT job pool has caused serious problems in a lot of communities - and a lot of people who were told to go to college, get a good degree, work 80 hours a week and they'd get ahead instead got the shaft.
I'll just throw out this particular stat: In 1970 the top 100 CEO's made ~39x the pay of an average worker; Today, they make over 1,000x the pay.
You blame "personal accountability" or "living within your means" if you like. I'll call it the plundering of middle-america so fatassed CEO's can light their cigars with hundred-dollar bills.
There is almost no difference between this and the agnostic 'I don't know if god exists.' The only difference is that the 'lack of belief' part is specified. The agnostic does not believe either. For all practical purposes this is agnostic, not atheist.
This is pretty much a connotative defition of agnosticism you're using which has come about in the past few years as a way to appear hip and/or duck the argument in its entirety. Agnosticism is philosophical chic or, as I always say, agnostics are the Mac fanboys of philosophy. Please research the actual origins of agnosticism (hint: It's more than simply "I don't know"). Also, I would advise you to read the atheist manifesto and some of Sagan's works if you haven't yet.
BTW - If I'm coming across as a dick I apologize. My tank is on empty and I need some sleep.
Atheists firmly believe that Dieties do not exist
You have bundled two distinct sets of atheists into a single group. The former being the strong atheist, i.e. one who believes that god does not exist. The later, of course, is defined as weak atheism. It is a lack of belief in God, but with the acknowledgement that a lack of evidence does not conclusively prove that God does not exist.
However, neither of these are "religion" by any sense of the word. Your above statement can and should be reworded: Strong atheists do not believe that God/Gods exist. Essentially, the two phrases are the same, but when viewed together reveal the underlying (and decidedly incorrect) premise; that belief or the lack thereof by itself is tantamount to religion.
Last time I checked, standing outside a courthouse expressing disdain for lawyers is perfectly legal.
In some states, they even allow people to carry signs and march around in circles outside of buildings. In fact, from time to time, these sign wielding people will even chant repetative slogans (gasp). My friend, people have a right to protest, be it against abortion, creationism, blacks, whites, gays, white supremacists and yes...lawyers.
Do I think these guys are stupid douchebags? Of course.
Am I outraged that they were arrested for being stupid douchebags? You bet your ass I am.