Not only is the post very informative, but it is informative because of the many links that the poster took the time to create, and list in a very well layed out post. In my not-so-humble opinion, this post not only deserves to be highly rated, but the poster deserves whatever positive karma can be received.
It could be well worthwhile to try to find some people amongst the much-maligned "religious right" that:
Good luck. Here's some Rogane for when you start ripping out you hair.
From my experience, you not going to be able to find people with very conservative religous views, but believe in freedom of speech.
How is it that we identify members of the Religious Right? It's from their attempts to shove their beliefs down everyone's throat. It's from their attempts to legislate their morality other whether those other people share their beliefs or not.
Now, I don't think all people with conservative religious views are trying to shove their religion down other's throats. However, the people that do attempt to do so are mearly more visible. The people that do not attempt to restrict other people according to their religious beliefs are less obvious, and therefore, you are less likely to know what their beliefs are.
My belief is that religious conservatives that actively try to restrict what other people see, hear, and read are going out of their way to find things that they find obscene and objectional.
A friend of mine has a website that among other things, contains a shitlist. On this page, my friend states "I'd sooner expose my kids to hard-core gay porn than the filth that the reverend and his ilk spew out on a daily basis."
While a bit over the top, I think it makes a good point.
On taking movies out of circulation, I was peeved to hear Bill Cosby bought up all the old "Our Gang - Little Rascal's" movies and taken them private, probably for the same reasons "Song of the South" is out of circulation
Isn't this just Revisionist History? We are being deprived of our history! What kind of a future do we have if our history can just be allowed to disintegrate in some company's vault? Once it's gone, it's gone. People may RECOUNT these show. People may be able to tell you about these movies, these TV shows, etc, but it's nothing like having the actual material to review.
Aren't you glad that there's footage of WWII and Nazi Germany, and the death camps that isn't copywrited? Mein Kampft, as well. Otherwise, the evidence that much of the world has would dissappear, and the Neo Nazi claims that "There was no holocaust" might someday be believed. And that's just one example. Imagine if all the evidence of the Crusades were copywrited. Or the Spanish Inquisition. Or relocation of American Indians? If you feel a tremor, it's George Orwell doing RPM's in his grave.
(Pardon me if this is posted twice. I never got a response after clicking submit.)
The only point I disagreed with in the article concerning "old" copyrights is that I have no problem with Disney wanting to retain the copyright on Mickey Mouse. Mickey is still used to promote the company and is important to their public image so for the sake of consistency in my personal opinion I say "more power to them". I have problems, however, in how "fair use" is being bullied into non-existance. If an artist or political cartoonist wanted to use Disney as an icon of overcorporatization by picturing Mickey holding an iron fist over Disneyland, that's something that goes beyond mere copyright issues and enters the realm of political commentary.
Yea, but even after the copywrite on old Disney cartoons and films expires, wouldn't most of those Disey characters still be trademarked? I mean. I believe this is where we get into differences between Trademark Law and Copywrite Law. Anyone would be able to reproduce and charge for COPIES of old Disney material, but they couldn't use Disney trademarks for things such as advertisement, promotions, etc, without an agreement from Disney, because these characters would still be Trademarked.
The only point I disagreed with in the article concerning "old" copyrights is that I have no problem with Disney wanting to retain the copyright on Mickey Mouse. Mickey is still used to promote the company and is important to their public image so for the sake of consistency in my personal opinion I say "more power to them". I have problems, however, in how "fair use" is being bullied into non-existance. If an artist or political cartoonist wanted to use Disney as an icon of overcorporatization by picturing Mickey holding an iron fist over Disneyland, that's something that goes beyond mere copyright issues and enters the realm of political commentary.
Yea, but even after the copywrite on old Disney cartoons and films expires, wouldn't most of those Disey characters still be trademarked? I mean. I believe this is where we get into differences between Trademark Law and Copywrite Law. Anyone would be able to reproduce and charge for COPIES of old Disney material, but they couldn't use Disney trademarks for things such as advertisement, promotions, etc, without an agreement from Disney, because these characters would still be Trademarked.
Can we truly claim to even HAVE a culture if it's all owned by corperate entities and will stay that way until after we die?
No. Not any REAL culture. The only culture we will have will be created by corporate entities, spoon fed to us by corporate entities, and we'll pay coporate entities for every spoon full.
And if the flavor we want is no longer offered by the corporate entities, we'll have to choose one that is. Even if they all taste suspiciously like shit sandwich.
It's sad that so many materials are locked away, hidden and ususable by the general public. It would be interesting to be able to see period attitudes as relfected in film and print, unedited and uncensored. What's even more sad is the hands that have control of the material: Corporations that have a vested interest in controlling what we see, hear, read, and know.
George Orwell made a statement in his book 1984. It boiled down to "Those who control the past, control the present, and therefore the future." It's sad--not to mention scary as all hell--that this work seems to now serve not as not as a warning, but as a handbook to those who desire to gain power and wield that power to obtain and maintain obscene amounts of wealth, and prevent others from getting a share without their permission. This is one art that life should never imitate.
Mary Poppins be damned; there's not not a spoonful of anything that can help this medicine go down.
Bill Clinton today annouced a bill that he will send to Congress requiring a 3 way waiting period and background check for the sale of LEGO's sets, and require that all LEGO's be sold with a locking case.
In addition to the LEGO machine gun design posted on the web, Clinton cited the possible use of LEGO Mindstorm sets to plant terrorist devices.
When pressed as to how a LEGO machine gun could pose a theat to American society, Clinton responded, "You could put an eye out with those things. We must protect the children!"
Meanwhile, Al Gore, campaigning at a daycare in South Carolina, told kids that he "invented LEGOs."
I've just looked at some of the entries at http://www.cjr.org/owners/ and I must say that it's interesting to see who owns what.
Of course, if a comglomerate happens to operate a national ISP, it's not difficult at all to block out such sites. Just block out the ip's at the router.
This could be done to any site that carries alternative news, or any site that expresses an optinion that is negative toward whoever owns an ISP.
I wonder how long before you can't reach Slashdot from say, AT&T@Home or Roadrunner?
Simply the cost of the staff to do anything beyond that would run to at least $50,000 per year per office, though...so is the value of being able to email your Representative worth another $25 million or so per year in funding? It depends, but I think that'd have a tough time getting approved.
$25 million is chump change compared to some of the total crap that Congress approves in the budget each year.
Besides, if the votes of Congress members were mitigated by the combination of personal visits, telephone calls, letters, faxes, and e-mail, they might cut a lot of the spending that people DON'T want. Spending that is more in line with what the American people want could easilly save a lot more the estimated $25 million it would take to hire staff to process all those e-mails.
Along with saving money in the budget, more sensible policies could easily offset the cost of Congressional e-mail processing with additional tax revenues generated by.... ECONOMIC GROWTH! Since computer related business is one of the fastest growing industries in the US, one could easily argue that some issues as encryption policies could easily effect economic growth. More earnings would mean more incoming tax revenues, without raising taxes.
How difficult does it need to be to express your wishes to Congress before they are considered? Did Congress refuse to accept Telegrams (transmitted via telegraph) when Western Union came into being, because it was too easy? Did they refuse telephone calls when reliable long distance became a reality? How about teletype?
Before the telegraph, was writing a letter considered too easy? Would Congress only consider the wishes of their constituants if they came to them in person to express their wishes?
All of these innovations that revolutionized communications also revolutionized politics. News was faster. People could let Congress know how they wanted their representatives to act. People knew faster then ever before the actions of their Congress. But as far as I know (and I may be wrong here), but none of these advancements in communication were ever considered to be "Too Easy", and as such ignored.
It is another change, and as we have all seen, Congress never adopts and adapts to change unless they think it benefits them.
It should be easy to make our views known to Congress. We should not have to spend 33 cents for a stamp plus paper and envelope, when we can send an e-mail for no additional cost then the internet access we already have. We also should not be required to call the Congressional Switchboard long distance.
But it comes to no suprise that Congress wishes to dismiss the on-line community. After all, the Internet allows for the free flow of information, and Congress has been trying to limit that for a number of years. Remember the Telecommunications Decency Act? Attempts to tax the internet? (Yea, some were fakes, Urban Legends and people who didn't know when to stop forwarding e-mail, but a few were real.) How about the Post Office wanting to enact a fee for sending an e-mail? There's also the attempts to limit encryption for privacy purposes, attempts to enact encryption standards that they had backdoor keys for, and of course all the bad press the on-line community gets when someone commits a horrible crime and it's discovered that the perpetrator had a homepage or used the net.
&Deity forbid that congress respond to the people and actually do what we want them to. That would totally subvert our system of government!
"Look at them," others will say. "They believe they have freedom, but it's only an illusion. They used to set the precedent by which other nations were judged, but now they are another third-world country that just wants to put all of their 'citizens' in jail." I'm gonna move to Canada.
I've got a much better idea: Take back our political process.
Our representitives are only as good as the people who put them there. And right now, there aren't a whole lot of us putting them there or voting them out. Voter turnout is appallingly low. Lots of people like to complain about the government, but if they aren't voting, they're part of the problem, not the solution.
What do we have to do? We have to take back our political parties. from the huge PAC's, special interests, and businesses who buy influence with huge contributions. When you having a large, motivated, well informed voting public, money becomes moot.
Of course there are always going to be people who are motivated by certain issues. It can be quite difficult to get to the truth through all the spin and counter-spin. The signal-to-noise ratio is quite bad in that respect.
What does this mean to us? We're just a bunch of geeks bitching on the net, right? Wrong. We can be a whole lot more then that. We can be the center of an information revolution. We already are. It's time to apply the power of new medium to the political process.
I don't have the skills to pull it off, but I know that many who read Slashdot do. What I would like to see is a website that is dedicated to exposing the political records of politicians, showing where they stand on issues, etc. I envision a system where you can look up a politician by name, and see where they stand on issue, as well as choose issues, and see who stands where on those issues.
Are we tired of the direction America is going? Then lets really do something about it. Let's throw out the assnine bums.
If we really wanted to, we *COULD* influence the presidential election this year, as well as many other elections.
It's time to rock this boat. Who wants to be an iceburg?
What strikes me is that they not only seized his computers, but his Nokia wireless phone. Just *WHAT* kind of value can a wireless phone be to "prosecute" this person for cracking CSS? The only reason I can see for seizing his phone is for the phone numbers on it, so they can PERICUTE anyone that is in his phone's directory.
I just tired to look at the website listed in the article, and got the following: 500 Server Error
The hard transfer limit for this user has been reached
Not everyone has a site that can be slashdotted. Not everyone can afford it. I think in this case, someone has web hosting with limits, and we exceeded them.
A page that is probably lucky to get maybe a few hundred hits a month has probably been hit more tonight then it has in it's entire existance. In this case, some person's content may be totally inaccessable to others until their next billing period, which is sad.
Slashdot needs to remember this before linking a url in an article like that.
Problem is, I don't have a solution. Any suggestions?
The 7th seal is the sound "You've Got Pay-Per-View."
Trust me, there *WILL* be gnashing of teeth.
There was recently an article (I'm took lazy to look it up and link to it) concerning AOL's lack of diligence in dealing with abuse issues. (spam e-mail, DOS attacks, etc.) Since Time Warner is into the cable modem market (with Roadrunner), is it only a matter of time before we have AOL Cablemodems churning out spam at a record setting rate? What a nightmare when you have an unresponsive abuse department!
Actually, it's worse that that; the Germans _asked_ for Hitler to take over.
True. We don't ask for it. We beg for it. Every time we vote for the Republicans or Democrats only because we're afraid of "wasting" our vote,we beg for it. Every time we fail to go to the polls and vote at all, we get on our hands and knees and grovel for it.
Furthermore, everytime someone is wronged, and we do nothing because it doesn't affect us, we bend over and let them use our backs for a stepstool.
In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up becaues I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up becaue I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.
Search-and-seizure is bad, but it isn't the same as death camps.
Do you think the Nazi's just up and started shipping jews to death camps? NO! First, they implemented full gun registration, and increased the power that government had over the people. The military and law enforcement (the Gestapo [sp?]) could do almost anything they wanted. It got to the point where they didn't need any approval to search and seize someone's property. This was Germany in the 1930's and 1940's. Eventually, it led to the mass murder of "undesirables" and the genocide of minorities, not only jews. Gypsies, people born deformed, people who disagreed openly, etc. Why didn't they fight back? Because they had been disarmed in the name of progress, saftey, and security.
Now, fast forward to the United State in the 1990's and 2000. Police can and routely do search vehicles, seize them as being suspected "drug assets", even in no drugs are found in the car. Have any amount of cash on you? That can be seized too as drug assets. Did you do some shopping? Maybe bought a new stereo, or some nice clothes, or anything of value? If that in your car, it's gone too since it's "suspected drug assets." *YOU* have to prove that these items are NOT.
No, the United States is not Nazi Germany. It's just a pretty good way down the same slippery slope. Death Camps are not the same things as unlimited government power over people, and gun control: they are the end result. Ask any holocaust survivor.
What this means for Playboy and Slashdot...
on
Playboy And...Linux?
·
· Score: 1
And I have, of course, no comment on what the sheer number of submissions must mean about our readers. *grin*
I do. It mean that if they got Natalie Portman to do a nude spread, we might have a few less trolls on Slashdot due to the difficulty of typing with one hand.
Hopefully this would be followed by a hardcore porno with Natalie and Jar-Jar involing the use of spoons. The title? "First Post." end troll.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe it was during an IBM demo of their voice recoginition software for PC's.
Not only is the post very informative, but it is informative because of the many links that the poster took the time to create, and list in a very well layed out post. In my not-so-humble opinion, this post not only deserves to be highly rated, but the poster deserves whatever positive karma can be received.
Good luck. Here's some Rogane for when you start ripping out you hair.
From my experience, you not going to be able to find people with very conservative religous views, but believe in freedom of speech.
How is it that we identify members of the Religious Right? It's from their attempts to shove their beliefs down everyone's throat. It's from their attempts to legislate their morality other whether those other people share their beliefs or not.
Now, I don't think all people with conservative religious views are trying to shove their religion down other's throats. However, the people that do attempt to do so are mearly more visible. The people that do not attempt to restrict other people according to their religious beliefs are less obvious, and therefore, you are less likely to know what their beliefs are.
My belief is that religious conservatives that actively try to restrict what other people see, hear, and read are going out of their way to find things that they find obscene and objectional.
A friend of mine has a website that among other things, contains a shitlist. On this page, my friend states "I'd sooner expose my kids to hard-core gay porn than the filth that the reverend and his ilk spew out on a daily basis."
While a bit over the top, I think it makes a good point.
Imagine a clone of Ronald Regan. I wonder if HE could remember? Or how about Richard Nixon? "I am not the clone of a crook!"
Isn't this just Revisionist History? We are being deprived of our history! What kind of a future do we have if our history can just be allowed to disintegrate in some company's vault? Once it's gone, it's gone. People may RECOUNT these show. People may be able to tell you about these movies, these TV shows, etc, but it's nothing like having the actual material to review.
Aren't you glad that there's footage of WWII and Nazi Germany, and the death camps that isn't copywrited? Mein Kampft, as well. Otherwise, the evidence that much of the world has would dissappear, and the Neo Nazi claims that "There was no holocaust" might someday be believed. And that's just one example. Imagine if all the evidence of the Crusades were copywrited. Or the Spanish Inquisition. Or relocation of American Indians? If you feel a tremor, it's George Orwell doing RPM's in his grave.
The only point I disagreed with in the article concerning "old" copyrights is that I have no problem with Disney wanting to retain the copyright on Mickey Mouse. Mickey is still used to promote the company and is important to their public image so for the sake of consistency in my personal opinion I say "more power to them". I have problems, however, in how "fair use" is being bullied into non-existance. If an artist or political cartoonist wanted to use Disney as an icon of overcorporatization by picturing Mickey holding an iron fist over Disneyland, that's something that goes beyond mere copyright issues and enters the realm of political commentary.
Yea, but even after the copywrite on old Disney cartoons and films expires, wouldn't most of those Disey characters still be trademarked? I mean. I believe this is where we get into differences between Trademark Law and Copywrite Law. Anyone would be able to reproduce and charge for COPIES of old Disney material, but they couldn't use Disney trademarks for things such as advertisement, promotions, etc, without an agreement from Disney, because these characters would still be Trademarked.
Am I right?
Yea, but even after the copywrite on old Disney cartoons and films expires, wouldn't most of those Disey characters still be trademarked? I mean. I believe this is where we get into differences between Trademark Law and Copywrite Law. Anyone would be able to reproduce and charge for COPIES of old Disney material, but they couldn't use Disney trademarks for things such as advertisement, promotions, etc, without an agreement from Disney, because these characters would still be Trademarked.
Am I right?
No. Not any REAL culture. The only culture we will have will be created by corporate entities, spoon fed to us by corporate entities, and we'll pay coporate entities for every spoon full.
And if the flavor we want is no longer offered by the corporate entities, we'll have to choose one that is. Even if they all taste suspiciously like shit sandwich.
George Orwell made a statement in his book 1984. It boiled down to "Those who control the past, control the present, and therefore the future." It's sad--not to mention scary as all hell--that this work seems to now serve not as not as a warning, but as a handbook to those who desire to gain power and wield that power to obtain and maintain obscene amounts of wealth, and prevent others from getting a share without their permission. This is one art that life should never imitate.
Mary Poppins be damned; there's not not a spoonful of anything that can help this medicine go down.In addition to the LEGO machine gun design posted on the web, Clinton cited the possible use of LEGO Mindstorm sets to plant terrorist devices.
When pressed as to how a LEGO machine gun could pose a theat to American society, Clinton responded, "You could put an eye out with those things. We must protect the children!"
Meanwhile, Al Gore, campaigning at a daycare in South Carolina, told kids that he "invented LEGOs."
Why? So you can get your long distance for less?
Of course, if a comglomerate happens to operate a national ISP, it's not difficult at all to block out such sites. Just block out the ip's at the router.
This could be done to any site that carries alternative news, or any site that expresses an optinion that is negative toward whoever owns an ISP.
I wonder how long before you can't reach Slashdot from say, AT&T@Home or Roadrunner?
$25 million is chump change compared to some of the total crap that Congress approves in the budget each year.
Besides, if the votes of Congress members were mitigated by the combination of personal visits, telephone calls, letters, faxes, and e-mail, they might cut a lot of the spending that people DON'T want. Spending that is more in line with what the American people want could easilly save a lot more the estimated $25 million it would take to hire staff to process all those e-mails.
Along with saving money in the budget, more sensible policies could easily offset the cost of Congressional e-mail processing with additional tax revenues generated by.... ECONOMIC GROWTH! Since computer related business is one of the fastest growing industries in the US, one could easily argue that some issues as encryption policies could easily effect economic growth. More earnings would mean more incoming tax revenues, without raising taxes.
Before the telegraph, was writing a letter considered too easy? Would Congress only consider the wishes of their constituants if they came to them in person to express their wishes?
All of these innovations that revolutionized communications also revolutionized politics. News was faster. People could let Congress know how they wanted their representatives to act. People knew faster then ever before the actions of their Congress. But as far as I know (and I may be wrong here), but none of these advancements in communication were ever considered to be "Too Easy", and as such ignored.
It is another change, and as we have all seen, Congress never adopts and adapts to change unless they think it benefits them.
It should be easy to make our views known to Congress. We should not have to spend 33 cents for a stamp plus paper and envelope, when we can send an e-mail for no additional cost then the internet access we already have. We also should not be required to call the Congressional Switchboard long distance.
But it comes to no suprise that Congress wishes to dismiss the on-line community. After all, the Internet allows for the free flow of information, and Congress has been trying to limit that for a number of years. Remember the Telecommunications Decency Act? Attempts to tax the internet? (Yea, some were fakes, Urban Legends and people who didn't know when to stop forwarding e-mail, but a few were real.) How about the Post Office wanting to enact a fee for sending an e-mail? There's also the attempts to limit encryption for privacy purposes, attempts to enact encryption standards that they had backdoor keys for, and of course all the bad press the on-line community gets when someone commits a horrible crime and it's discovered that the perpetrator had a homepage or used the net.
&Deity forbid that congress respond to the people and actually do what we want them to. That would totally subvert our system of government!
I've got a much better idea: Take back our political process.
Our representitives are only as good as the people who put them there. And right now, there aren't a whole lot of us putting them there or voting them out. Voter turnout is appallingly low. Lots of people like to complain about the government, but if they aren't voting, they're part of the problem, not the solution.
What do we have to do? We have to take back our political parties. from the huge PAC's, special interests, and businesses who buy influence with huge contributions. When you having a large, motivated, well informed voting public, money becomes moot.
Of course there are always going to be people who are motivated by certain issues. It can be quite difficult to get to the truth through all the spin and counter-spin. The signal-to-noise ratio is quite bad in that respect.
What does this mean to us? We're just a bunch of geeks bitching on the net, right? Wrong. We can be a whole lot more then that. We can be the center of an information revolution. We already are. It's time to apply the power of new medium to the political process.
I don't have the skills to pull it off, but I know that many who read Slashdot do. What I would like to see is a website that is dedicated to exposing the political records of politicians, showing where they stand on issues, etc. I envision a system where you can look up a politician by name, and see where they stand on issue, as well as choose issues, and see who stands where on those issues.
Are we tired of the direction America is going? Then lets really do something about it. Let's throw out the assnine bums.
If we really wanted to, we *COULD* influence the presidential election this year, as well as many other elections.
It's time to rock this boat. Who wants to be an iceburg?
What strikes me is that they not only seized his computers, but his Nokia wireless phone. Just *WHAT* kind of value can a wireless phone be to "prosecute" this person for cracking CSS? The only reason I can see for seizing his phone is for the phone numbers on it, so they can PERICUTE anyone that is in his phone's directory.
The hard transfer limit for this user has been reached
Not everyone has a site that can be slashdotted. Not everyone can afford it. I think in this case, someone has web hosting with limits, and we exceeded them.
A page that is probably lucky to get maybe a few hundred hits a month has probably been hit more tonight then it has in it's entire existance. In this case, some person's content may be totally inaccessable to others until their next billing period, which is sad.
Slashdot needs to remember this before linking a url in an article like that.
Problem is, I don't have a solution. Any suggestions?
I can only imagine the jokes that I'm missing because I never saw X movie or TV show.
It's also nice, in a way, to see homage paid to the past.
I will not sell my kidney on eBay.
I will not sell my kidney on eBay.
I will not sell my kidney on eBay.
I will not sell my kidney on eBay...
I see an possibly worse example: Ads on the side of a school building where a shooting has taken place. At some point, someone will do it.
I'd strive for something fitting and apropriate. Something like "Whore of Babylon, Inc."
Trust me, there *WILL* be gnashing of teeth.
There was recently an article (I'm took lazy to look it up and link to it) concerning AOL's lack of diligence in dealing with abuse issues. (spam e-mail, DOS attacks, etc.) Since Time Warner is into the cable modem market (with Roadrunner), is it only a matter of time before we have AOL Cablemodems churning out spam at a record setting rate? What a nightmare when you have an unresponsive abuse department!
Alas, Babylon!
True. We don't ask for it. We beg for it. Every time we vote for the Republicans or Democrats only because we're afraid of "wasting" our vote,we beg for it. Every time we fail to go to the polls and vote at all, we get on our hands and knees and grovel for it.
Furthermore, everytime someone is wronged, and we do nothing because it doesn't affect us, we bend over and let them use our backs for a stepstool.
In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
If you wish to know a bit more about Martin Niemoller, here's a nice page at http://www.us.israel.org/jsource/biography/niemoeThen they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up becaues I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up becaue I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.
Do you think the Nazi's just up and started shipping jews to death camps? NO! First, they implemented full gun registration, and increased the power that government had over the people. The military and law enforcement (the Gestapo [sp?]) could do almost anything they wanted. It got to the point where they didn't need any approval to search and seize someone's property. This was Germany in the 1930's and 1940's. Eventually, it led to the mass murder of "undesirables" and the genocide of minorities, not only jews. Gypsies, people born deformed, people who disagreed openly, etc. Why didn't they fight back? Because they had been disarmed in the name of progress, saftey, and security.
Now, fast forward to the United State in the 1990's and 2000. Police can and routely do search vehicles, seize them as being suspected "drug assets", even in no drugs are found in the car. Have any amount of cash on you? That can be seized too as drug assets. Did you do some shopping? Maybe bought a new stereo, or some nice clothes, or anything of value? If that in your car, it's gone too since it's "suspected drug assets." *YOU* have to prove that these items are NOT.
No, the United States is not Nazi Germany. It's just a pretty good way down the same slippery slope. Death Camps are not the same things as unlimited government power over people, and gun control: they are the end result. Ask any holocaust survivor.
I do. It mean that if they got Natalie Portman to do a nude spread, we might have a few less trolls on Slashdot due to the difficulty of typing with one hand.
Hopefully this would be followed by a hardcore porno with Natalie and Jar-Jar involing the use of spoons. The title? "First Post." end troll.
Don't forget insecure children. Microsoft Baby v1.0 is out, and I'm not sure if v2.0 has been released, or still in development.