“Serving death sentence with marijuana? please. I wouldn't wish their fate upon you, but I wish you would get but a taste. Perhaps you've been sheltered, perhaps fortune has smiled upon you, perhaps the sun always shines where you tread, but your heart seems to be locked in its shadow”
“"The report calculates that 3,278 prisoners were serving life without parole for drug, property and other nonviolent crimes as of 2012, comprising about 6 percent of the total life-without-parole, or LWOP, population."
Literacy- a good thing. Now please stop manipulating this tragic state of affairs to propound your (illogical) views”
“Future votes, PR, and further advocacy of states rights, which in itself isn't bad (and in this case, is something I can agree with), but can be used later to mount an assault at the health care act.”
“WELL, obviously you haven't been in food industry. Obviously then, your opinion is trite, silly, mean-spirited, and just plain ol' ignorant. For one, ...did you know that in 2007, something called the "housing bubble" burst- not literally of course since there was no "actual" bubble!- causing a downward economic spiral that resulted in what some people call the second worst recession since the Depression? And that jobs are ...scarce? Did you know that in most service jobs, employers pay far below minimum wage (eg this one restaurant I worked at paid servers/cooks around $4/hour ...in 2009) and legally allowed to do soo because....tips are incorporated into pay. This is the norm. Usually, it should be servers only, but the place we worked at decided that everyone but the head chef/sous chef should get paid jack. I mean, given that in certain restaurants, 10-20% of a bill per bill could add up to a nice chunk of change, far above the industry standard of, last time I checked $10-15/hour, it does make sense that the people who actually make the food see some of the cash too, but that's a different argument.”
“stories like this make me wonder about the human race, somedays.
i remember asking a commentor here why he owned a semi-automatic reason. neither to hunt nor for defense, but for target practice. I mean, he (assuming it was a he) seemed to believe that his reasons were valid and his, personally, very well could've been. But as a whole and as a society, allowing what media and most people call assault weapons- dubbed such for a very good reason since that's its sole purpose outside of target practice- into anyone's hands is irresponsible.
I'll probably get blasted by the gun's right advocates on this though. And yes, pun was intended. Ugh- decontextualizing an interpretation of intent of the Constitution and then wielding it as the definitive end-all to any and all conversation on the matter is not only ugly, but ignorant and drives us as a whole further down, down from the heights of”
“well, yeah. but but people are making a big deal about it (and rightly so) not only because the Dept. overplayed their hand, but because he was big in the internet. OP's was ranting about the attention being due to race, that to minorities, this is a regular thing, but w/o the fanfare (and rightly so)”
“And if those religious belief preclude murder (ie Thou shalt not kill, and all variations)- which the US has most definitely committed, generally under the umbrella of "collateral damage"- will you sue the gov't for that? It's funny how people pick and choose.”
“(cut off) so the parallel to it would be a scenario like- instead of having protesters picket, have them "browse" around in a store and take up enough space, preventing actual patrons with the intent to purchase from entering and doing business. That, last time I checked, isn't illegal. either way, I get the impression that we're on some level in agreement the main issue, so. =)”
“there are legal and illegal ways. Extend that argument and a disgruntled customer pontificating about how So-and-so's business is horrible is, in essence, the same. You reach out and try to stop business. I suspect that you're talking about method though. Ok. Theoretically, the business in question could up their servers to handle the amount of traffic generated by the zombies (maybe not. I'm not too knowledgeable about this) I mean, it'd have to be a ridiculous amount, but it is theoretically possible. Standing outside a storefront would require patrons to physically break the blockade, and wouldn't be possible if populated by a sufficient number. Since the site is physical, they might not have the option to expand. Buying backup servers is possible. Buying backup websites mirroring each other is possible. That's beside the point. Method. Ok. Hacking and employing other computers without consent is illegal. But, and I could be off here, this isn't what they're being charged for (or would be if they were charged). Again, I could be off the mark. The impression that I've gotten is that they're charged (or would be) for what you said- damage a business, economically. It wouldn't be for damaging their reputation since their action is a result of popular opinion (and maybe only within certain sub-group, depending) and wouldn't be libel or slander. So crashing the site. But they aren't hacking the site and f*in with code or whatever. They're not smashing or rendering servers obsolete or anything like stuxnet.”
“How is it illegal though? They, whomever is involved in the DDoS attacks, are, radically simplified, simply visiting the website in question.”
special38x2 on Jan 13, 2013 at 10:18:49
“Intent to block business is the difference - but you already knew that...just like picketers standing in front of access doors blocking traffic. Trying to spin this as something other than an effort to cause damage to a business = lie...”
“DDoS is, like the article stated, flooding the server with requests. Basically, a lot of people visit the website at the same time, probably hitting the refresh button (or having a program do it) until the server crashes from overload. It's like the whole audience tossing everything in their pockets at a juggler”
Craig Schultz on Jan 13, 2013 at 20:21:10
“Usually not a lot of people.
DDoS attacks are carried out using hacked/zombied computers that create a 'bot-net' that those performing the DDoS use to attack a given server.
The owners of the computers actually attacking the server don't even know their computers are hacked and being used by someone else.”