But from what I understand, Anonymous' targets have been people who "offended" them in some way, or people so loathed by the general public that the majority will not object.
You don't understand correctly. Yes, they often attack those who offend them. But that isn't all; they're perfectly happy to attack unprovoked... such as in their campaign to ruin the ending of Harry Potter for all Harry Potter fans?
We'll never really know which group was responsible, but as a frequent viewer of 4chan.org and sometimes-contributor to Anon's antics, I wouldn't be surprised if Anon was responsible for the lulz that were had here.
This is the sort of thing that Anonymous does normally, though. Anonymous was not created for this anti-scientology crusade. It has been around long before, and this is perfectly in-character. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJ4HSwb59IA
The cult is doing this to make Anonymous look bad.
You're an idiot. No, this is the sort of thing that Anonymous would normally do -- "Anonymous" is the informal moniker of visitors to the "random" (or "/b/") section of 4chan.org, and the "group" has been around far longer than this (stupid) anti-Scientology campaign. Anonymous frequently picks on groups that are easy targets (such as in their campaign to spoil the ending of Harry Potter for all Harry Potter fans), and when Anonymous picks on a given group, it is often an entirely different group of random internet surfers griefing those victims than the groups of "Anonymous" that grief the other victims. Picking on Scientologists, as well as picking on epileptics, is just an extension of "Anonymous's" normal griefing pattern.
Trying to make sense of Anonymous's actions by interpreting them as a single, coherent organization, would be like trying to make sense of the actions of every American teenager who calls himself a "goth," by setting out with the flawed assumption that all goths are somehow organized, and share things in common. They don't. They're just kids.
That should get rid of all those typo domains, and domain squatting.
It would also make many legitimate business ventures unprofitable. Yes, you don't need a domain name of your own to give information away, but if you want to make money off of that information, you do. And many online business ventures such as social networking and online journalism give services away for free, supporting themselves with advertisement revenue. If the cost of maintaining a website increased dramatically, it would put many of these smaller websites out of business by undermining their profitability. That would, in turn, reduce the amount of free things on the web. And don't you like free things? I think I'm willing to put up with a little spam for services like photobucket.com and okcupid.com.
That's like saying that the catholic church doesn't matter, just because they're imbeciles. A lot of imbeciles in a big group can influence many things.
I watched Tom Cruise say on national television that you can be a Christian, a Bhuddist, a Muslim or a Jew and be a Scientologist. From my perspective, that is not the definition of a religion.
A better question is, why don't all churches have their tax-exempt status taken away? Isn't giving them special "exempt" status creating a law that respects the establishment of a religion?
It would be much simpler to do away with the tradition entirely, instead of wading into the murky waters of attempting to determine which religions are "more correct." Determining the validity of a religion is an inherently biased activity, and we would do best to keep human bias out of government as much as possible.
Because China's economy grows when the Chinese make money, which reinforces the current power structure -- even if they're just stealing it from westerners in elaborate (or not-so-elaborate) wire fraud scams. However, when the Chinese people are made aware of the current power's abuses, they are more likely to rebel; this undermines the current power structure.
The powers that be don't care about justice; they just want to remain in power.
You could only boycott at an individual level. Any government-level policies prohibiting citizens from trading with the United States would be a World Trade Organization violation, which would remove their protection in turn (so that others could boycott their nations at a gov't level without sacrificing their own protection).
Not to say that it would be impossible, or unwarranted.
It isn't enough in a day and age when I can download almost any book online, and surf extensive online databases of scholarly articles through my university's website. You can't download oil online, but you can write a research paper.
No, they're more dangerous. If I get some xanax in the water, I know that won't kill me. Hell, I might even like it. But what if mercury came out of my bathroom faucet? I'd notice that.
I feel that a day for God is a different length of time than a day for man, and it is Biblically based. Also, how long is a day when the sun isn't created yet?
So, did you pull that directly from the scopes monkey trial, or what?
I think it's sad that all you can do is parrot things.
Most professors I have had employed a very graceful solution to this: the grade in the class is based entirely on the exams, or perhaps a combination of attendance and exams. Homework exercises are suggested, but they are not graded nor collected -- they're meant simply to be representative of what is on the exam, so students who choose to study can do so more efficiently.
But I would never say to anyone that, because it's not right for me, that you should never take it... The bottom line is, I do not want this country to turn into a big marijuana den, where everyone gets stoned instead of going to work. That is not the kind of America that I want.
You just did, you hypocritical asshole.
What's to stop someone from saying "The bottom line is, I do not want this country to turn into a big speakeasy, where everyone gets drunk instead of going to work. That is not the kind of America that I want."
Alcohol has everything to do with this because it's exactly as harmful as marijuana, and outlawing the latter while regulating the former is simply illogical, not to mention an affront to personal freedom, and quite possibly the 5th amendment.
I find that I get more research done on the library's website than at the library itself... it only really comes down to it if you have to dredge up some dusty old tome that hasn't been converted into an electronic format. If you're working on anything that's current, all of the journals are published electronically now.
And if you really do have to open a book, you could always just order it on amazon.com, if you were determined to stick it to the library. Of course, that would be more expensive. That might be the only thing the library has going for it -- free books.
I have never seen anyone show such blatant disregard for the constitution. The fourth amendment.
This is nothing like "requiring the police to get warrants for using radar guns to check if someone is speeding," because they're observing something in public. Listening to your private communications, without your knowledge, and without judicial review, is something entirely else. You expect that to be private. It would be no different if the NSA decided to open all of your mail and read it, without having their actions reviewed by a judge, and without telling you.
How would you feel then? Personally, I'd start to feel like it resembled Nazi Germany or Cold War Russia.
What we ought to be asking is, why hasn't the supreme court acted?
Hey, who is on the supreme court these days, anyway?
Slashdot Mirror
But from what I understand, Anonymous' targets have been people who "offended" them in some way, or people so loathed by the general public that the majority will not object.
You don't understand correctly. Yes, they often attack those who offend them. But that isn't all; they're perfectly happy to attack unprovoked ... such as in their campaign to ruin the ending of Harry Potter for all Harry Potter fans?
We'll never really know which group was responsible, but as a frequent viewer of 4chan.org and sometimes-contributor to Anon's antics, I wouldn't be surprised if Anon was responsible for the lulz that were had here.
This is the sort of thing that Anonymous does normally, though. Anonymous was not created for this anti-scientology crusade. It has been around long before, and this is perfectly in-character. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJ4HSwb59IA
This attack, as any violent attack, is condemned by Anonymous.
What are you smoking? Anonymous condones violence all of the time. In fact, Anonymous even condones racial violence. Against niggers.
Stop acting like Anonymous is a unified organization. It isn't. It's as unified in purpose and philosophy as a bunch of teenage sp00ky kids.
The cult is doing this to make Anonymous look bad.
You're an idiot. No, this is the sort of thing that Anonymous would normally do -- "Anonymous" is the informal moniker of visitors to the "random" (or "/b/") section of 4chan.org, and the "group" has been around far longer than this (stupid) anti-Scientology campaign. Anonymous frequently picks on groups that are easy targets (such as in their campaign to spoil the ending of Harry Potter for all Harry Potter fans), and when Anonymous picks on a given group, it is often an entirely different group of random internet surfers griefing those victims than the groups of "Anonymous" that grief the other victims. Picking on Scientologists, as well as picking on epileptics, is just an extension of "Anonymous's" normal griefing pattern.
Trying to make sense of Anonymous's actions by interpreting them as a single, coherent organization, would be like trying to make sense of the actions of every American teenager who calls himself a "goth," by setting out with the flawed assumption that all goths are somehow organized, and share things in common. They don't. They're just kids.
That should get rid of all those typo domains, and domain squatting.
It would also make many legitimate business ventures unprofitable. Yes, you don't need a domain name of your own to give information away, but if you want to make money off of that information, you do. And many online business ventures such as social networking and online journalism give services away for free, supporting themselves with advertisement revenue. If the cost of maintaining a website increased dramatically, it would put many of these smaller websites out of business by undermining their profitability. That would, in turn, reduce the amount of free things on the web. And don't you like free things? I think I'm willing to put up with a little spam for services like photobucket.com and okcupid.com.
"New Orleans" was the first that came to mind.
That's like saying that the catholic church doesn't matter, just because they're imbeciles. A lot of imbeciles in a big group can influence many things.
I watched Tom Cruise say on national television that you can be a Christian, a Bhuddist, a Muslim or a Jew and be a Scientologist. From my perspective, that is not the definition of a religion.
Yeah, try telling that to the Unitarian Universalist Association, formerly the Universalist Church of America.
A better question is, why don't all churches have their tax-exempt status taken away? Isn't giving them special "exempt" status creating a law that respects the establishment of a religion?
It would be much simpler to do away with the tradition entirely, instead of wading into the murky waters of attempting to determine which religions are "more correct." Determining the validity of a religion is an inherently biased activity, and we would do best to keep human bias out of government as much as possible.
Try searching Google Scholar for "large hardon collider." You might be surprised.
Because China's economy grows when the Chinese make money, which reinforces the current power structure -- even if they're just stealing it from westerners in elaborate (or not-so-elaborate) wire fraud scams. However, when the Chinese people are made aware of the current power's abuses, they are more likely to rebel; this undermines the current power structure.
The powers that be don't care about justice; they just want to remain in power.
You could only boycott at an individual level. Any government-level policies prohibiting citizens from trading with the United States would be a World Trade Organization violation, which would remove their protection in turn (so that others could boycott their nations at a gov't level without sacrificing their own protection).
Not to say that it would be impossible, or unwarranted.
Mind-control headsets control you!
This is like saying that people who talk on the phone at work are not security aware, because talking can lead to giving away your password. Retarded.
It isn't enough in a day and age when I can download almost any book online, and surf extensive online databases of scholarly articles through my university's website. You can't download oil online, but you can write a research paper.
No, they're more dangerous. If I get some xanax in the water, I know that won't kill me. Hell, I might even like it. But what if mercury came out of my bathroom faucet? I'd notice that.
I feel that a day for God is a different length of time than a day for man, and it is Biblically based. Also, how long is a day when the sun isn't created yet?
So, did you pull that directly from the scopes monkey trial, or what?
I think it's sad that all you can do is parrot things.
Most professors I have had employed a very graceful solution to this: the grade in the class is based entirely on the exams, or perhaps a combination of attendance and exams. Homework exercises are suggested, but they are not graded nor collected -- they're meant simply to be representative of what is on the exam, so students who choose to study can do so more efficiently.
But I would never say to anyone that, because it's not right for me, that you should never take it ... The bottom line is, I do not want this country to turn into a big marijuana den, where everyone gets stoned instead of going to work. That is not the kind of America that I want.
You just did, you hypocritical asshole.
What's to stop someone from saying "The bottom line is, I do not want this country to turn into a big speakeasy, where everyone gets drunk instead of going to work. That is not the kind of America that I want."
Alcohol has everything to do with this because it's exactly as harmful as marijuana, and outlawing the latter while regulating the former is simply illogical, not to mention an affront to personal freedom, and quite possibly the 5th amendment.
Contest participants retain ownership of the code they write, but the winning team must license it (non-exclusively) to Netflix.
This made me laugh. I wonder if that would really hold up in court? My guess is no, but IANAL.
I find that I get more research done on the library's website than at the library itself ... it only really comes down to it if you have to dredge up some dusty old tome that hasn't been converted into an electronic format. If you're working on anything that's current, all of the journals are published electronically now.
And if you really do have to open a book, you could always just order it on amazon.com, if you were determined to stick it to the library. Of course, that would be more expensive. That might be the only thing the library has going for it -- free books.
You're not accounting for the extra time people checking their baggage will spend at that part of the airport.
Mmmm ... Gravy is tasty.
There are no "Good Guys," and we all play chess. You've just caught on to one of the advanced moves.
I have never seen anyone show such blatant disregard for the constitution. The fourth amendment.
This is nothing like "requiring the police to get warrants for using radar guns to check if someone is speeding," because they're observing something in public. Listening to your private communications, without your knowledge, and without judicial review, is something entirely else. You expect that to be private. It would be no different if the NSA decided to open all of your mail and read it, without having their actions reviewed by a judge, and without telling you.
How would you feel then? Personally, I'd start to feel like it resembled Nazi Germany or Cold War Russia.
What we ought to be asking is, why hasn't the supreme court acted?
Hey, who is on the supreme court these days, anyway?