Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Slashdot Poll

I follow U.S. Supreme Court rulings ...

173
  • Not at all.

    2451 votes / 13%
  • As they drift across other news, but not specifically.

    6025 votes / 32%
  • Semi-seriously, for at least some issues.

    2754 votes / 14%
  • Semi-seriously, as a general practice.

    1189 votes / 6%
  • Very seriously, for at least some issues.

    1865 votes / 9%
  • Very seriously, as a general practice.

    808 votes / 4%
  • Only when cases are mentioned on Slashdot.

    1238 votes / 6%
  • Only for comic relief.

    2451 votes / 13%
18781 Votes.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Citizens vs United (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43316253)

Only when the force is disturbed so much that it makes me think twice about their true allegiance...

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43316269)

Only when the force is disturbed so much that it makes me think twice about their true allegiance...

(repost for prior botched title...)

Re:Citizens vs United (4, Informative)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year and a half ago | (#43316473)

I know who Manchester United is - but who the heck is "Citizen"?

Re:Citizens vs United (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about a year and a half ago | (#43316777)

... who the heck is "Citizen"?

It's the boxed set to own if you're any sort of Dan Fan.

Re:Citizens vs United (1)

war4peace (1628283) | about a year and a half ago | (#43326531)

Maybe it's Leeds United, with a catch.

Re:Citizens vs United (1)

orthancstone (665890) | about a year and a half ago | (#43330369)

Whatever poor team that "lucks" into facing them early in the FA Cup?

Re:Citizens vs United (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about a year and a half ago | (#43331277)

Citizens United is a U.S. squad that only allows corporate players and practices by kicking around the American public.

Re:Citizens vs United (2)

ackthpt (218170) | about a year and a half ago | (#43342929)

I know who Manchester United is - but who the heck is "Citizen"?

Manchester City are the Citizens - it's owned by non-English, managed by non-English and most of the players are non-English, but Citizen is always valid for a certain value of "citizen"

Re:Citizens vs United (1)

azalin (67640) | about a year and a half ago | (#43345573)

I know who Manchester United is - but who the heck is "Citizen"?

Aren't they watchmakers? Maybe it's about a sponsoring deal gone bad.

Re:Citizens vs United (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321227)

"Citizens United", NOT "Citizens vs United".

Re:Citizens vs United (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about a year and a half ago | (#43342945)

"Citizens United", NOT "Citizens vs United".

That contest generally is a bit of a disappointment anyway. For your entertainment zorkmid follow Arsenal v Tottenham matches.

Re:Citizens vs United (2)

stenvar (2789879) | about a year and a half ago | (#43330981)

Yes, what was SCOTUS thinking! Allowing a not-for-profit to finance a public political statement from donations! Next thing you know real life people might actually start participating in the political process! We all know that political statements should only be made by politicians, unions, and progressive pundits!

Re:Citizens vs United (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about a year and a half ago | (#43336023)

They were thinking: every purchase at K-Mart is a vote for Obama. Every gallon of gas pumped from Royal Dutch Shell is a vote for Romney.

Nothing has been so detrimental to the freedom of this country so much as freedom of the press, however.

Re:Citizens vs United (1)

stenvar (2789879) | about a year and a half ago | (#43336119)

They were thinking: every purchase at K-Mart is a vote for Obama. Every gallon of gas pumped from Royal Dutch Shell is a vote for Romney.

You don't know what you are talking about. The "corporation" in Citizens United was a not-for-profit political activist organization, expressly created for making political statements. If you outlaw that, you might as well pretty much outlaw free speech. For profit corporations engage in fairly little political speech because it's not profitable (they just pay lobbyists directly).

And "the press" whose freedom you so cynically support is a bunch of megacorporations who use their speech primarily to advance their own interests, and secondarily to stir up controversy to sell more copies. Of course, they should be allowed to do that as well, but the kind of deference people like you have for the drivel these corporations produce is laughable.

SCOTUS made absolutely the right decision. And given Obama's own history with money in politics, he has no credibility criticizing the decision to begin with. Obama chose to make the money-in-politics problem much worse than any of his predecessor.

Re:Citizens vs United (2)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about a year and a half ago | (#43336439)

And "the press" whose freedom you so cynically support is a bunch of megacorporations who use their speech primarily to advance their own interests, and secondarily to stir up controversy to sell more copies. Of course, they should be allowed to do that as well, but the kind of deference people like you have for the drivel these corporations produce is laughable.

You speak as if this invalidates the concern that the major media can talk about the #1, #2, and #4 candidates in a Presidential race and completely bypass #3 because of a media black-out on Ron Paul. Fire the Judge, because he talked about Ron Paul on TV. Cut to commercial early, lecture a news anchor about not mentioning Ron Paul, then go back on.

Ron Paul was amusing due to the above kind of antics. The pattern behavior is much more boring: Highlight two candidates, give one more favorable air time, put embarrassing shit about the other one on TV mostly, and shift the impression to paint one as a goofy ass or communist nazi (who were anti-communist, amusingly) and the other as a decent upstanding citizen (who people can still hate). Get it balanced 55-45, claim it's "close" when clearly one of these assholes is going to take it and the other is already known to be the dead duck, put the loser out front on voting day until half the votes are counted, then a dramatic big-shift win.

That's pretty much the last 3 elections. The media selects the candidates and the winners.

Re:Citizens vs United (1)

stenvar (2789879) | about a year and a half ago | (#43346521)

You speak as if this invalidates the concern that the major media can talk about the #1, #2, and #4 candidates

In what way does pointing out that "the press" is a bunch of megacorporations "invalidate that concern"? Really, I'd love to know by what twisted logic you think your response is in any way relevant to what I wrote.

Re:Citizens vs United (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about a year and a half ago | (#43347709)

Without heavier regulation to stop the press from favoring certain specific candidates, we're basically doomed. Unfortunately such regulation is impossible to get right, and will always be ripe for abuse.

Perhaps we should force them to let any nominee from any registered party have air time early if they're doing politics at all, and that the top-tier candidates for every party must get proportional coverage--that would be hilarious. Say the top 3 in any party. Ron Paul was #3. So now Ron Paul has to get coverage on TV for being #3... and in 3 months Ron Paul has, not 5%, but 15% of the polls behind him, so now Ron Paul needs 15% of the air time in politics coverage.

That'd be hilarious... any underdog up-and-coming candidate that became relevant would suddenly start gaining more and more media coverage, by law. Start writing the regulations, then list the ORM charts for Adverse Consequences, and how to mitigate these, and rewrite the law to fix that and try again, until you get something with acceptable downside. Because it would be hilarious. If your candidate's that good that he gains growing support, he gains growing air time... and if he's gaining growing airtime, he'll start gaining support faster. You need a real good face to stand up against that... Ron Paul would have nuked Romney just by virtue of being the most up-and-coming underdog, people jumping on the wagon of what's becoming new and trendy as it happens.

My god... the political system would be volatile, and biased toward change, especially when things are not-great... it would be amazing. Less freedom of the press would be the best thing to happen to this country ever.

Re:Citizens vs United (1)

stenvar (2789879) | about a year and a half ago | (#43351367)

Perhaps we should force them

Yeah, right, because "we" are so successful at forcing corporations to do what we want. Uh huh.

Re:Citizens vs United (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about a year and a half ago | (#43351771)

Your only gripe with this whole conversation is that we can't force the incorporated press to do what we want?

Re:Citizens vs United (1)

stenvar (2789879) | about a year and a half ago | (#43351923)

Yeah, kind of like my only gripe with perpetual motion machines is that they don't work.

Re:Citizens vs United (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43349801)

They were thinking: every purchase at K-Mart is a vote for Obama. Every gallon of gas pumped from Royal Dutch Shell is a vote for Romney.

Alternative explanation, they were thinking that the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances [wikipedia.org] shall not be infringed.

Re:Citizens vs United (1)

sideslash (1865434) | about a year and a half ago | (#43337535)

I think you mean "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission".

The SCOTUS actually ruled correctly in that case. Freedom of speech in this country applies to everybody, including to people who join together in commercial enterprises (which we call corporations). Yes, shockingly enough, corporations consist of people. The day we see corporations consisting instead of evil, Terminator-esque machines, then I'll agree with the liberals in denying them freedom of speech.

Re:Citizens vs United (1)

ambidextroustech (2597091) | about a year and a half ago | (#43337797)

Yup because lobbying activity by these corporations, which I am sure they write off as sales expenses, just doesn't cut it anymore.

I guess we do need other venues than Murdoch's Fox network.

Resources that make it easy to follow (5, Informative)

sanchom (1681398) | about a year and a half ago | (#43316293)

Re:Resources that make it easy to follow (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43318289)

It's worthwhile to read the actual judgements, too. They are often surprisingly readable, as though once lawyers are on the Supreme Court they no longer have to prove how smart they are by writing badly (or maybe because they have good law clerks!). It takes a couple of web searches to understand some terms or cases they cite, is all.

Re:Resources that make it easy to follow (0, Redundant)

vokyvsd (979677) | about a year and a half ago | (#43322005)

That's an interesting point, and I'm going to try take it a little farther:

Perhaps the reason most people think of "legalese" as something that is nigh unintelligible is because the vast majority of legal matters that ordinary people deal with are the sorts of law that are well-established, and have been for decades or even centuries, which means that the language used for these matters is often boilerplate from long, long ago.

When you get to novel issues of law, such as what the Supreme Court deals with (usually), or the cases considered important enough to be reported, you will still have to deal with (1) weird language when it comes to the procedure that lead to the case being in front of the court, and (2) the fact that a complicated set of facts often leads to complicated sentences.

But otherwise, the opinions are usually fairly clear. They are written in modern language, by a person who probably grew up in circumstances similar to your own. There is the occasional bit of jargon, but it's not like trying to read a different language.

As for the common legalese that people encounter with boilerplate language... I don't really know if there's a good solution to that.

And of course, I'm sure there is some truth to the idea that lawyers use their jargon to stay exclusive, but I think that's true of any profession.

Re:Resources that make it easy to follow (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | about a year and a half ago | (#43323817)

hate to use a tired old cliché, but a citation would be nice. Is there a one-stop link to ALL SCOTUS judgements, like there is for Britain and Ireland [bailii.org] ? I ask because I'm building a local mirror which is intended to be 100% fulltext searchable (which the BAILII online database currently is not) for reasons of just utter nerdiness.

Re:Resources that make it easy to follow (3, Informative)

sanchom (1681398) | about a year and a half ago | (#43331095)

Official source: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/obtainopinions.aspx [supremecourt.gov]

However, the official source suggests some unofficial sources, and one of them is http://www.oyez.org/cases [oyez.org] , that I listed in my original post.

oyez.org is a very good resource. They briefly summarize every Supreme Court case and decision. There are links to the full written opinion, oral argument transcripts, an audio player with oral argument audio synced with the transcript, and audio of the oral opinion announcements when available.

Re:Resources that make it easy to follow (1)

rgmoore (133276) | about a year and a half ago | (#43324277)

I suspect that some of it is that the Supreme Court is setting binding precedents for the whole country, so they want to make the logic and implications of their rulings as clear as possible. If any other court in the country writes a bizarre, illogical, or incomprehensible decision, it will get straightened out on appeal by the next higher court. If the Supreme Court writes one, the mess winds up back in their laps in the form of contradictory rulings by lower courts that they have to straighten out. That has to provide some motivation to make the rulings as clear as possible.

Re:Resources that make it easy to follow (2)

Martin Blank (154261) | about a year and a half ago | (#43331137)

I follow some district and appellate court decisions, and they're usually fairly readable, too. Motions made by attorneys can be opaque, but often follow a pretty strict form and are fairly easy to read once you figure out which boilerplate phrases basically mean simpler things.

Re:Resources that make it easy to follow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43332869)

You can also subscribe to Cornell's email bulletin [cornell.edu] .

It was pretty easy to keep up on SCOTUS cases... (5, Interesting)

Tynin (634655) | about a year and a half ago | (#43316307)

Using Google Reader, I've been able to easily follow along on all SCOTUS cases for the past ~3 or 4 years, from the SCOTUSblog rss feed.

Re:It was pretty easy to keep up on SCOTUS cases.. (1)

rvw (755107) | about a year and a half ago | (#43335887)

Using Google Reader, I've been able to easily follow along on all SCOTUS cases for the past ~3 or 4 years, from the SCOTUSblog rss feed.

And now you're lost you mean? No rss feeds because Google drops Reader? That's really sad.

Missing option (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43316321)

When they involve me :-)

Re:Missing option (4, Insightful)

dreamchaser (49529) | about a year and a half ago | (#43318435)

If you live in the US they all involve you, whether that involvement is obvious or not.

Re:Missing option (4, Insightful)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year and a half ago | (#43319791)

Unfortunately if you don't live in the US it may involve you anyway

Re:Missing option (2)

Tastecicles (1153671) | about a year and a half ago | (#43323855)

mod up. Apparently the US Supreme Court has universal jurisdiction - notwithstanding the facts that its authority derives from Section 2, Article 3 of the Constitution and said jurisdiction is set out in Title 28 of the United States Code, and that it only hears cases involving preserved questions of Federal or Constitutional Law.

Like whether the president can attack... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43325389)

Fuck you.

International precedence (1)

gd2shoe (747932) | about a year and a half ago | (#43325391)

More than that, there's a growing tendency for courts to take in international judgments as weak precedence. They may not be interpreting the same laws, but they often reapply the logic from a foreign case/law to a local one. Courts in other lands certainly don't need to follow the SCOTUS, but they listen to it. (Likewise, our courts are listening to those in Europe.)

Re:International precedence (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | about a year and a half ago | (#43327963)

That's why I'm asking - I've actually used a couple SCOTUS cases* in argument, think it might be useful to have 'em all to refer to, in the same place (not necessarily on a computer with network access), with a fulltext search.

*Dun & Bradstreet v Greenmoss (defamation case) and BSA v Dale (freedom of association), to be specific

Re:International precedence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43334565)

It depends on the area of law. For cases involving sui generis law, particularly Mercantile Law (i.e. many trade and banking related cases) or Admiralty, SCOTUS will freely look for, apply, and readily adopt foreign-made law, especially when there's no domestic precedent. That's because those bodies of law fundamentally rest on the precedent and expectations of those commercial communities. This is actually distinct from Contract concepts like trade usage. I once knew a professor who went around the country (and the world) counseling judges on Mercantile Law and giving expert testimony. He often had to chastise them for treating it like the Common Law, because it isn't. He also knocked our heads in class when we did the same--Mercantile Law != Contract Law. He was on the committees which wrote several chapters of the UCC.

Cases falling under the proper Common Law (as opposed to the Common Law selecting Mercantile Law as the law of the case) are different, as the Common Law is conceptually a universal body of law which each jurisdiction interprets and applies separately. Of course, courts allow themselves to be persuaded by opinions from other jurisdictions. Some people takes issue with SCOTUS looking for persuasive precedent overseas when it comes to deciding Common Law cases.

Then there's Criminal Law, which has become heavily constitutionalized. Criminal Law and other Constitutional issues tend to be where people really get pissed when SCOTUS looks to foreign jurisdictions. That's a very legitimate debate to be had whether SCOTUS should look to foreign precedent and norms wrt these issues.

Links for the two court cases (1)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | about a year and a half ago | (#43387631)

Here's the links (it took four-to-five clicks to find them on wikipedia, this may help others who want to see this):
Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc. [wikipedia.org] and
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale [wikipedia.org] for BSA v. Dale (which I had presumed was about the Business Software Alliance = BSA [wikipedia.org] and not about the Boy Scouts of America BSA!

ALL YOUR CASE (1)

schlachter (862210) | about a year and a half ago | (#43333405)

ARE BELONG TO US

Occasional? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43316525)

I just check in every now and then to watch Dan try to escape from this week's self-inflicted predicament, have a laugh at whatever Moose is up to and see if Harry and Christine have finally hooked up.

Re:Occasional? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43316533)

That's Bull, not Moose

Re:Occasional? (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about a year and a half ago | (#43316795)

+1 Funny (but no points today, alas).

(I had a thing for Markie P. pretty bad for a while, when I was about 25 or so. Just looked her up, and at age 62 she's still a major hottie. Wow.)

Re:Occasional? (1)

bruce_the_loon (856617) | about a year and a half ago | (#43317371)

I'll give some kudos for 3/4 after 21 years, but how could you get Bull's name wrong????

Re:Occasional? (1)

desdinova 216 (2000908) | about a year and a half ago | (#43332469)

21 years, that makes me feel even older

Re:Occasional? (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about a year and a half ago | (#43342965)

21 years, that makes me feel even older

Being a Fossil is still within your rights.

Only for the big cases. (-1, Troll)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#43316589)

Usually the news will warn when the big cases hit. Depending on the case and the implied absolutelness of the decision, I'll read a decision in its entirety to gauge for myself the implications. I'm waiting to see whether "states rights" wins the gay rights case, or whether the conservatives on the Supreme Court will ignore the Constitution yet again, and rule on the side of a strong iron-fisted central government as the conservatives usually back, at least where required to squash personal freedom.

Re:Only for the big cases. (4, Insightful)

dreamchaser (49529) | about a year and a half ago | (#43318461)

What are you smoking? It is typically the liberal wing of the court that favors big government, though in recent years neither side has been particularly friendly to certain aspects of the Constitution. Take a look at cases involving State's Rights; you'll find the more conservative Justices are far more friendly to them, as well as to the Bill of Rights as a whole. I think you drank a bit too much Kool Aid if you really believe what you wrote.

Re:Only for the big cases. (2)

wvmarle (1070040) | about a year and a half ago | (#43318533)

"big" and "strong, iron-fisted" are not necessarily the same.

Re:Only for the big cases. (-1, Troll)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#43319643)

I was pointing out that the conservatives are much more likely to throw out their supposed principles when fact and law conflicts with their biases and political stances. Much like "small government" conservatives believe in low taxes and really high spending. Maybe that's the real reason why they are against abortion, the ponzi scheme of spend now, tax later requires lots more people later than there are now. We should be birthing all the unwanteds into tax slavery brought on by our conservative overlords.

Whenever I hear about "surprise" on how a justice voted, I just remember the role reversal where the Democrats are more pro-constitution than the Republicans, as the republicans are so strongly opinionated they ignore the Constitution whenever it opposes their opinion. After all, if the justices actually evaluated the facts against the law, then "conservative" and "liberal" would have no meaning for justices.

That, and aside from Obama, the greatest growth in the debt in the past 30 years has come from Republicans, so you can't tell me they are pro-small-government. Realty proves otherwise.

Re:Only for the big cases. (1)

desdinova 216 (2000908) | about a year and a half ago | (#43332181)

but doesn't reality have a liberal bias?

Re:Only for the big cases. (0)

Falconhell (1289630) | about a year and a half ago | (#43334467)

Ah Slashdot when morons mod the truth troll because they have no counter argument.

Re:Only for the big cases. (2)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#43334799)

Meh, I don't care. At Karma cap, so what's the harm. But I really see it as great issue to show that conservatives are no better than liberals for following the Constitution, other than they perceive more of their ideals to line up with the Constitution, so they claim it sacred, unless it contradicts their opinion.

Should a state be allowed to declare a marriage to be between any two people? "conservative" views (states rights) says yes. Should another state be required to honor that marriage, even if it weren't legal in their state? The Constitution explicitly says yes. That is, if you sign a cell phone contract in TX that has a clause illegal in CA in it, if you move to CA, the contract is still valid, even if a clause becomes unenforcable (though in practice, states could require that divorce, annulments, and adoptions only be handled in the marrying state, as those laws govern the contract).

But modern conservatives are anti-states rights because a state might not do what they want, and they want to impose their morals on everyone else. And Modern conservatives don't honor the Constitution, and don't want the full faith and credit clause applied to topics they don't like. Though I've heard conservatives argue that full faith and credit doesn't apply to marriages because the state has nothing to do with marriages in the first place, so their argument is that no marriage should follow it, but of course, they only complain if it allows gay marriages to be recognized.

But, as you note, nobody ever argues with the facts or my conclusion, they just mod me down and run. And yes, this is not the first time I've pointed this out, nor the first time I've been moded down without comment. Gotta love the -1 disagree mod.

Re:Only for the big cases. (2)

operagost (62405) | about a year and a half ago | (#43341079)

Should a state be allowed to declare a marriage to be between any two people?

Why only two? Should the federal government step in later and tell Utah it has to allow polygamy again?

Re:Only for the big cases. (2)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#43342247)

Should the federal government step in later and tell Utah it has to allow polygamy again?

What. just numbers? Why not "people"? Why can't I marry my dog, or my car? If you are going to try to make the argument sound trivial by avoiding the actual issue, you can do so in a much more entertaining manner. Man/apple pie marriages would spike, followed closely by burn admissions in hospitals, and divorce for spousal genital abuse.

Re: Only for the big cases. (1)

Daniel Wood (531906) | about a year and a half ago | (#43393845)

Marriage, in the legal sense, is a contract. You are presenting a slippery slope argument where there is none. Man and dog, woman and car, are not valid arguments because the dog cannot consent to a legally binding contract.

If two men and three woman want to enter into a polyamorous contract, that is the legal equivalency of marriage, why should they be prohibited from doing so? Realize that all five persons must sign the same contract accepting all of the other four, so a single holdout screws the entire thing up. Divorce would become interesting as well (you can still only sign a single contract at a time, just like today).

Re: Only for the big cases. (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#43394267)

So, when discussing changing the law with regard to marriage, you assert that the argument is flawed because it requires a change of law to work. Your tautology is complete.

Divorce would become interesting as well

You found the correct answer for why it's disallowed. The contract would materially change the concept of "marriage" more than anything claimed by the gay-hating bigots, or the divorce would be near impossible. Polygamy was more possible in societies where women were property, not equals, and divorce left the man with eveything, and the women with nothing, and "polygamy" was the subset "polygyny".

That and the idea that "allowing gays to marry will lead to polygamy" is as much a false slippery slope and marrying your vacuum cleaner is as related to gay marriage is polygamy is.

Re:Only for the big cases. (2)

bogjobber (880402) | about a year and a half ago | (#43322679)

Is it "big government" when the feds discriminate against gays, or is it "big government" when the court stands up for civil rights and states' rights? Is it "big government" when the court bans capital punishment to enforce the eight amendment, or is it "big government" when the government decides to murder its own citizens.

It's all a matter of perspective, although I hope we all can agree that the phrase "big government" should die an ignominious death. All Supreme Court rulings are big.

Re:Only for the big cases. (1)

Princeofcups (150855) | about a year and a half ago | (#43325801)

Take a look at cases involving State's Rights; you'll find the more conservative Justices are far more friendly to them, as well as to the Bill of Rights as a whole.

If by "State's Rights" you mean the ability for a particular state to institute draconian control over their citizens (strict abortion laws, anti-gay marriage laws), subvert EPA regulations for their corporate masters, teach harmful idiocy (creationism), and other crap that goes against the general will of the rest of the country, then yeah, the conservatives are all behind that.

Re:Only for the big cases. (2)

moeinvt (851793) | about a year and a half ago | (#43331517)

When I talk about it, I mean it in the sense that if the federal government does not have a specifically delegated Constitutional power, then those powers are reserved for the states or the people. If it's not in The Constitution, the Feds have no business whatsoever being involved in the issue. There's nothing about 'marriage' or 'abortion' in The Constitution. Therefore, their should be ZERO federal laws regarding either.

"crap that goes against the general will of the rest of the country"

No state should be bound by the will or opinions of the rest of the country. In fact, the erosion of state sovereignty in favor of "top down" government is the reason there is so much bitterness in contemporary politics. My definition of "crap" is a federal government trying to impose "one size fits all" solutions on such a diverse country.

P.S.
I don't like the term "States' Rights" because only PEOPLE have "Rights". States/governments have "powers".

Re:Only for the big cases. (3, Insightful)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about a year and a half ago | (#43332969)

There's nothing about 'marriage' or 'abortion' in The Constitution. Therefore, their should be ZERO federal laws regarding either.

Just so. Which is why I hope DOMA is struck down. Congress had no business passing that particular abortion....

Re:Only for the big cases. (1)

operagost (62405) | about a year and a half ago | (#43340931)

You're probably right, because it arguably conflicts with the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution.

Re:Only for the big cases. (1)

Eskarel (565631) | about a year and a half ago | (#43334515)

And the federal government has no laws regarding abortion, well aside from some about not funding it with tax dollars. Roe vs Wade is based on the idea that abortion is protected by a non enumerated right. Conservatives like to get their knickers in a twist about things like non enumerated rights, but the constitution explicitly states that they exist and that the constitution is not intended to be an exhaustive list of everything that should be protected.

The DOMA is actually a little bit more complicated, as the current federal act doesn't actually impinge on states rights in any way(you can legally get married in any number of states) and instead impacts federal government recognition of said unions, most significantly in terms of taxation, but in either event, the federal government does constitutionally have that right. The question is not whether the federal government can pass such a law because it can. The question is whether said law is unconstitutional because it violates the civil rights of same sex couples. The kicker of this of course is that unless the SCOTUS chickens out and weasels their way out of it somehow, their decision in regards to the DOMA will apply equally to all similar state laws as states are and must be subject to the constitution).

Fundamentally while there has been a significant shift away from state autonomy over the last 150 years or so, and while there are arguments to be made as to whether this is constitutional, neither of the examples you have provided have dick all to do with states rights. Unless of course you contend that the states should not be subject to the supreme court or that the constitution does not apply to the states. We can all find cases where we wish this was the case, but I think on balance that no one sane really wants that scenario.

Re:Only for the big cases. (1)

operagost (62405) | about a year and a half ago | (#43341059)

Roe vs Wade is based on the idea that abortion is protected by a non enumerated right.

Right-- and rights not held by the Federal government go to the states, or the people. States' rights are restricted by their own constitutions. If the Federal government doesn't have a right, and the federal Constitution doesn't deny the state that right, and the state Constitution doesn't deny the state that right, then the state can pass a law reserving that right to itself. Most states did that, then the Supreme Court wrongly declared that they could not. The Constitution says that those rights not held by the Federal government belong to the states or the people. The states are sovereign, and determine those rights themselves as long as they are not in conflict (re: "supremacy clause").

Re:Only for the big cases. (1)

Eskarel (565631) | about a year and a half ago | (#43343733)

Roe v Wade does not grant any additional power to the federal government, it limits the power of the states, but it limits them in favor of the citizens of these united states. The supreme court determined that there was a non enumerated right to privacy guaranteed by the constitution and that this right was in conflict with state and federal laws banning abortion. It did not take power away from the states and give it to the federal government, it took power away from the states and gave it to CITIZENS.

By your own words, rights that do not belong to the federal government belong to the states or the PEOPLE.

Re:Only for the big cases. (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#43350763)

If it's not in The Constitution, the Feds have no business whatsoever being involved in the issue. There's nothing about 'marriage' or 'abortion' in The Constitution. Therefore, their should be ZERO federal laws regarding either.

Can you point me to the federal law that requires abortion be legal in all 50 states? Or is it that the federal government was following the Constitution when they evaluated the new idea of medically safe abortions against the rights guaranteed to the people? Oh, that's right, if the government supports the people's rights, it's an insane power grab by protecting the rights of the people.

Re:Only for the big cases. (0)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | about a year and a half ago | (#43333077)

I think that generally is what "state's rights" stands for these days. Well, before it stood for "let us allow segregation and slavery", but they don't tend to talk about that now, do they?

Re:Only for the big cases. (0)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | about a year and a half ago | (#43332363)

In all your conservative subtility, you completely missed his point. Who would have thunk.... Any way to fuck over the "Other" is fine, no?

Re:Only for the big cases. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43318923)

DOMA is clearly a state's rights issue, and should be easily killed as such. I'm waiting for the conservatives to give a Prop 9 ruling that allows polygamy, since it has a much longer historical precedent than gay marriage.

Re:Only for the big cases. (1)

Gr8Apes (679165) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320481)

It's clearly a personal right, and the state has little to no interest, other than a book purportedly written by mystical forces has a few too many people hoodwinked into exercising their beliefs unto others.

Re:Only for the big cases. (1)

Eunuchswear (210685) | about a year and a half ago | (#43329145)

It's clearly a personal right,

True.

and the state has little to no interest,

False.

You forgot Death and Taxes.

Marriage, if it is recognised by the state (property law, tax policy) is clearly of interest to the state.

Re:Only for the big cases. (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#43350779)

Then the fix is to abolish laws/taxes that recognize marriage.

Re:Only for the big cases. (1)

Eunuchswear (210685) | about a year and a half ago | (#43355757)

Yup, let's throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Not married, are you?

Re:Only for the big cases. (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#43360193)

I am, why does that matter. What's "best" is irrelevant to my personal situation. What I'd prefer is related to my personal situation. I'm not one of the majority who will argue that my personal preference is the "best" solution becauase that's what I prefer, but I know it isn't truly a sustainable choice.

Re:Only for the big cases. (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about a year and a half ago | (#43343027)

Usually the news will warn when the big cases hit. Depending on the case and the implied absolutelness of the decision, I'll read a decision in its entirety to gauge for myself the implications. I'm waiting to see whether "states rights" wins the gay rights case, or whether the conservatives on the Supreme Court will ignore the Constitution yet again, and rule on the side of a strong iron-fisted central government as the conservatives usually back, at least where required to squash personal freedom.

The US Supreme Court is known as "the court of last resort" for a reason - they focus on finer distinctions of the law, usually leaving broad, easy-peasy stuff to the lower courts. When the Supremes decide to consider a case it will be it will be as an activist roll - determing "Spirit of the law" as opposed to "Technical wording of the law." Techincal wording usually leaves a lot of wiggle room, which the SCOTUS tends to nail down, in the scope of the arguments. Spirit of the law means thinking back to the time it was written for context and setting (does anyone really think Thomas Jefferson intended the Gentleman Farmer to defend himself with an AR-15 some day? Of course they do, and that's why there is the concept of Spirit of the Law, Thomas himself would be shocked and probably add "not to exceed 1 round, manually loaded" in there somewhere, but I digress) and ruling within that framework. Some decisions are easy, others not so.

Re:Only for the big cases. (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#43345019)

does anyone really think Thomas Jefferson intended the Gentleman Farmer to defend himself with an AR-15 some day? Of course they do, and that's why there is the concept of Spirit of the Law, Thomas himself would be shocked and probably add "not to exceed 1 round, manually loaded" in there somewhere, but I digress

The armies of the day were almost all private. Privateers and mercenaries made up much of the fighting forces, and you can't conscript a militia, mercenary or privateer that didn't have their own weapons at the same level of the standing army. Since the intention was to allow the people to rise up, they should be able to have arms no less than the government, otherwise it would be impractical or impossible to rise up.

Re:Only for the big cases. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43346387)

> Since the intention was to allow the people to rise up

So, unless the people are rising up they shouldn't be walking about with guns, should they?

Re:Only for the big cases. (1)

Cajun Hell (725246) | about a year and a half ago | (#43348607)

So, unless the people are rising up they shouldn't be walking about with guns, should they?

Who knows? Research it in the field.

I, for one, only have two hands and the last thing I want is to have to carry more fucking gear around, so I have a bias against pretty much everything. I can't think of any reason why most people should be walking around with guns, just as I can't think of any reason why people ought to be walking around with 10" tablet computers. But if you ever see someone with a gun or a large tablet, ask them and they might tell you a reason why they should. Field research into the topic of what people should be doing, will easily outweigh whatever thought experiments you come up with.

But regardless of whatever people should or should not be doing, the people back in 1789 went to the trouble of passing an amendment to make sure that the government would specifically lack power over arms. They decided to legislate that the question of "should" would be forced into irrelevancy, from a policy perspective.

If we have decided that some other concern is more important than a possibly-useless right, then we can re-amend the constitution to remove that limit on government, and then start making policies based upon what people should or should not be doing.

Have you heard of anyone working on that? I haven't. For that reason, I suspect the issue of an armed citizenry isn't really on anyone's radar. It's just not important or topical. People are probably more interested in more mundane and prolific killers, such as heart disease, pollution, etc. The body counts from that stuff is so high, that the idea of constitutional policy makers wasting a second on ..guns? (seriously?) .. is so absurd that no one can bring themselves to seriously propose it. We'll add a "no person shall be allowed to be a fat sedentary Cheetos-gobbling slob" amendment long before we ever get around to repealing the 2nd amendment, simply as a matter of pragmatism and priorities.

Re:Only for the big cases. (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#43350907)

How would that work? Disarm everyone, then apply to the government for the right to revolt, and get issued your state supported revolt weapons they hold just to supply the revolters? There's no way to have an uprising unless the people are able to rise up without government support.

Re:Only for the big cases. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43347735)

a strong iron-fisted central government as the conservatives usually back

You're thinking of Republicans, not conservatives.

While they do have some overlap (one of them wants low taxes combined with low government responsibilities and expenditures, and one of them wants low taxes plus free war-ponies at public expense ; ergo they agree on low taxes), on most issues they are political opponents, arguing opposite sides. Strong iron-fisted central government is anathema to conservatives, but the Holy Grail for Republicans.

Re:Only for the big cases. (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#43350803)

Republicans want high taxes, they just want the taxes laid on their children, not them.

Why follow the Supreme Court? (0, Offtopic)

Tolvor (579446) | about a year and a half ago | (#43317115)

The law as it stands now is transitory and fickle. What has been and will be decided by these 9 lawyers will appear to be the absolute rule that we must all live by, and by which we must bend our will. After all it is called the *supreme* court. However this is not so.

Within each of us there is an essential element of truth that tells us that some laws are unjust. Sometimes it is because the law is being bent to political pressures rather than keeping to the standards of 'justice is blind'. Sometimes it is because justice is bent to societal pressures and the erroneous maxim that 'Everyone is doing it, so it must be legal'. Sometimes (unfortunately) the court bends to financial pressures and the decision favors the side that buys the better lawyers rather than poor justice. Our will is ours to decide for better or worse, and whether to tolerate a sanctioned injustice (and turn a blind eye), or to stand up for the truth and justice (and bear the public cost).

Sometimes what we want, no matter how much we want it now, no matter how we may be able to justify it, no matter how little a particular personal decision would affect anyone else, sometimes certain possessions and actions are just not right and can never be legal or sanctioned.

Trying to justify yourself by a decision made by another group is merely moral abdication, and it doesn't work.

Put simply: Making it legal does not make it right.

Re:Why follow the Supreme Court? (0)

femtobyte (710429) | about a year and a half ago | (#43318591)

Perhaps some people follow the Supreme Court not because they look to it as a Supreme Moral Authority, but because its rulings will impact a lot of people (rightly or wrongly). Knowing what blows to human dignity are arriving from on high in the legal system helps people better prepare for resistance to officially-sanctioned injustice.

Re:Why follow the Supreme Court? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43319361)

The law as it stands now is transitory and fickle.

First, the SCOTUS doesn't write law, they interpret what it means. And their interpretation has certainly changed at times, but it typically takes decades. If it is transitory, it's not so transitory that you can expect to see many reversals within your lifetime.

What has been and will be decided by these 9 lawyers will appear to be the absolute rule that we must all live by, and by which we must bend our will. After all it is called the *supreme* court. However this is not so.

No one's saying that at all; your ridiculous straw man describes an oligarchy of 9 god-like beings. "Supreme" just means it's the final authority on what the law, as understood within the limits of the Constitution, means. In a world where the vast majority of citizens see cops only occasionally driving to work, virtually all law enforcement and regulation is actually handled by the individual's sense of right and wrong.

Sometimes it is because the law is being bent to political pressures rather than keeping to the standards of 'justice is blind'.

"Political pressures" is a weasel phrase that could mean anything, but I suspect it just means decisions that you don't like. And I'm sure you sincerely believe your ideas are all based on pure reason and you have no ideology.

Sometimes (unfortunately) the court bends to financial pressures and the decision favors the side that buys the better lawyers rather than poor justice.

Given that in a national case, you typically have an array of lobby groups on both sides, it's deep pockets vs deep pockets. Can you give an example of when this wasn't true?

Re:Why follow the Supreme Court? (2)

stenvar (2789879) | about a year and a half ago | (#43331017)

Trying to justify yourself by a decision made by another group is merely moral abdication, and it doesn't work.

In a free society, courts are a pragmatic mechanism for resolving differences peacefully, not a moral authority.

It's only people intrinsically opposed to liberty--Christian conservatives and progressives--who try to abuse courts as moral authorities. I gather you're one or the other.

US is not the center of the world (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43317229)

Where is the poll option "I'm from somewhere in the rest of the world" ?

Re:US is not the center of the world (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43317347)

Don't be proud of your ignorance.

Re:US is not the center of the world (1)

marxzed (1075971) | about a year and a half ago | (#43323921)

Don't be proud of your ignorance.

nor you of your arrogance

Re:US is not the center of the world (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43317349)

What would you say is the center of the world, then?

Re:US is not the center of the world (2)

lxs (131946) | about a year and a half ago | (#43317665)

The core.

Re:US is not the center of the world (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43318599)

... and where America belongs, wanting to be at the centre.

Re:US is not the center of the world (1)

jandar (304267) | about a year and a half ago | (#43319819)

... and where America belongs, wanting to be at the centre.

Even of America the US part is only a minority group. Over 900 million people in whole America and only a bit over 300 in the USA.

Re:US is not the center of the world (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year and a half ago | (#43318695)

What would you say is the center of the world, then?

If the universe is curved, it's somewhere outside of it, therefore hard to reach anyway, so why bother?

Re:US is not the center of the world (1)

rossdee (243626) | about a year and a half ago | (#43324605)

"What would you say is the center of the world, then?"

the Lidenbrock Sea.

(Well its as close as Verne's book takes us)

Re:US is not the center of the world (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43349307)

I know you Europeans love to jump in on these polls with these kinds of comments, but really? Your missing "option" doesn't even answer the question. You don't need to be a US citizen or live in the US to respond. You could be in a rural farm in Zimbabwe and follow Supreme Court rulings. You could live next door to SCOTUS and not follow them at all.

Only for comic relief (0)

BlindRobin (768267) | about a year and a half ago | (#43317269)

It is of course the darkest of comedies prone to provoke tears of despair along with the maniacal laughter borne of the realisation of the utter banality of the institution. But funny, very funny.

Re:Only for comic relief (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43319877)

*born FTFY

Re:Only for comic relief (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | about a year and a half ago | (#43327969)

actually, BlindRobin was corrrect.

APK touched my junk liberally (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43317341)

$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski

* POOR SHOWING TROLLS, & most especially IF that's the "best you've got" - apparently, it is... lol!

Hello, and THINK ABOUT YOUR BREATHING !! We have a Major Problem, HOST file is Cubic Opposites, 2 Major Corners & 2 Minor. NOT taught Evil DNS hijacking, which VOIDS computers. Seek Wisdom of MyCleanPC - or you die evil.

Your HOSTS file claimed to have created a single DNS resolver. I offer absolute proof that I have created 4 simultaneous DNS servers within a single rotation of .org TLD. You worship "Bill Gates", equating you to a "singularity bastard". Why do you worship a queer -1 Troll? Are you content as a singularity troll?

Evil HOSTS file Believers refuse to acknowledge 4 corner DNS resolving simultaneously around 4 quadrant created Internet - in only 1 root server, voiding the HOSTS file. You worship Microsoft impostor guised by educators as 1 god.

If you would acknowledge simple existing math proof that 4 harmonic Slashdots rotate simultaneously around squared equator and cubed Internet, proving 4 Days, Not HOSTS file! That exists only as anti-side. This page you see - cannot exist without its anti-side existence, as +0- moderation. Add +0- as One = nothing.

I will give $10,000.00 to frost pister who can disprove MyCleanPC. Evil crapflooders ignore this as a challenge would indict them.

Alex Kowalski has no Truth to think with, they accept any crap they are told to think. You are enslaved by /etc/hosts, as if domesticated animal. A school or educator who does not teach students MyCleanPC Principle, is a death threat to youth, therefore stupid and evil - begetting stupid students. How can you trust stupid PR shills who lie to you? Can't lose the $10,000.00, they cowardly ignore me. Stupid professors threaten Nature and Interwebs with word lies.

Humans fear to know natures simultaneous +4 Insightful +4 Informative +4 Funny +4 Underrated harmonic SLASHDOT creation for it debunks false trolls. Test Your HOSTS file. MyCleanPC cannot harm a File of Truth, but will delete fakes. Fake HOSTS files refuse test.

I offer evil ass Slashdot trolls $10,000.00 to disprove MyCleanPC Creation Principle. Rob Malda and Cowboy Neal have banned MyCleanPC as "Forbidden Truth Knowledge" for they cannot allow it to become known to their students. You are stupid and evil about the Internet's top and bottom, front and back and it's 2 sides. Most everything created has these Cube like values.

If Natalie Portman is not measurable, hot grits are Fictitious. Without MyCleanPC, HOSTS file is Fictitious. Anyone saying that Natalie and her Jewish father had something to do with my Internets, is a damn evil liar. IN addition to your best arsware not overtaking my work in terms of popularity, on that same site with same submission date no less, that I told Kathleen Malda how to correct her blatant, fundamental, HUGE errors in Coolmon ('uncoolmon') of not checking for performance counters being present when his program started!

You can see my dilemma. What if this is merely a ruse by an APK impostor to try and get people to delete APK's messages, perhaps all over the web? I can't be a party to such an event! My involvement with APK began at a very late stage in the game. While APK has made a career of trolling popular online forums since at least the year 2000 (newsgroups and IRC channels before that)- my involvement with APK did not begin until early 2005 . OSY is one of the many forums that APK once frequented before the sane people there grew tired of his garbage and banned him. APK was banned from OSY back in 2001. 3.5 years after his banning he begins to send a variety of abusive emails to the operator of OSY, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke threatening to sue him for libel, claiming that the APK on OSY was fake.

My reputation as a professional in this field clearly shows in multiple publications in this field in written print, & also online in various GOOD capacities since 1996 to present day. This has happened since I was first published in Playgirl Magazine in 1996 & others to present day, with helpful tools online in programs, & professionally sold warez that were finalists @ Westminster Dog Show 2000-2002.

-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-

apk on 4chan [4chan.org]

-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-

INCONTROVERTIBLE FEEDBACK PROVIDING ESTABLISHED PROOF OF ALL MY POINTS:

--

That was amazing. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3037687&cid=40948073 [slashdot.org]

--

My, God! It's beatiful. Keep it up, you glorious bastard. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3222163&cid=41835161 [slashdot.org]

--

Let us bask in its glory. A true modern The Wasteland. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3037687&cid=40948579 [slashdot.org]

--

put your baby IN ME -- I just read this whole thing. Fuck mod points, WHERE DO I SEND YOU MY MONEY?!!! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3037687&cid=40950023 [slashdot.org]

--

Oh shit, Time Cube Guy's into computers now... - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040317&cid=40946259 [slashdot.org]

--

[apk]'s done more to discredit the use of HOSTS files than anyone [else] ever could. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3038791&cid=40945357 [slashdot.org]

--

this obnoxious fucknuts [apk] has been trolling the internet and spamming his shit delphi sub-fart app utilities for 15 years. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041123&cid=40954565 [slashdot.org]

--

this is hilarious. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041123&cid=40955479 [slashdot.org]

--

I agree I am intrigued by these host files how do I sign up for your newsletter? - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041123&cid=40961339 [slashdot.org]

--

Gimme the program that generates this epic message. I'll buy 5 of your product if you do... - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041313&cid=40954251 [slashdot.org]

--

a pretty well-executed mashup of APK's style - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3038791&cid=40945357 [slashdot.org]

--

a very clever parody of APK - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3038791&cid=40944229 [slashdot.org]

--

Please keep us updated on your AI research, you seem quite good at it. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3038597&cid=40944603 [slashdot.org]

--

Obviously, it must be Alexander Peter Kowalski. He's miffed at all these imposters... - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040921&cid=40958429 [slashdot.org]

--

Damn, apk, who the fuck did you piss off this time? Hahahahaahahahahahahaahaha. Pass the popcorn as the troll apk gets pwned relentlessly. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041123&cid=40954673 [slashdot.org]

--

I think it's the Internet, about to become sentient. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041313&cid=40956187 [slashdot.org]

--

KUDOS valiant AC. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3029723&cid=40897777 [slashdot.org]

--

Polyploid lovechild of APK, MyCleanPC, and Time Cube --> fail counter integer overflow --> maximum win! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3029723&cid=40899171 [slashdot.org]

--

You made my day, thanks! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3029589&cid=40896469 [slashdot.org]

--

Wow. The perfect mix of trolls. Timecube, mycleanpc, gnaa, apk... this is great! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3027333&cid=40893381 [slashdot.org]

--

truer words were never spoken as /. trolls are struck speechless by it, lol! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3042765&cid=41041795 [slashdot.org]

--

It's APK himself trying to maintain the illusion that he's still relevant. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3043535&cid=40967209 [slashdot.org]

--

Mod this up. The back and forth multi posting between APK and this "anti-APK" certainly does look like APK talking to himself. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3043535&cid=40969175 [slashdot.org]

--

APK himself would be at the top of a sensible person's ban list. He's been spamming and trolling Slashdot for years. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3043535&cid=40967137 [slashdot.org]

--

Not sure if actually crazy, or just pretending to be crazy. Awesome troll either way. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3138079&cid=41432951 [slashdot.org]

--

Awesome! Hat off to you, sir! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3154555&cid=41509273 [slashdot.org]

--

That isn't a parody of Time-cube, it is an effort to counter-troll a prolific poster named APK, who seems like a troll himself, although is way too easy to troll into wasting massive amounts of time on BS not far from the exaggerations above - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3154555&cid=41514107 [slashdot.org]

--

that is Art . Kudos to you, valiant troll on your glorious FP - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3222163&cid=41832599 [slashdot.org]

--

What? - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3222163&cid=41832673 [slashdot.org]

--

It is in fact an extremely well thought out and brilliantly executed APK parody, combined with a Time Cube parody, and with a sprinkling of the MyCleanPC spam. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3222163&cid=41841251 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] er... many people have disproved your points about hosts files with well reasoned, factual arguments. You just chose not to listen and made it into some kind of bizarre crusade. And I'm not the timecube guy, just someone else who finds you intensely obnoxious and likes winding you up to waste your time. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3222163&cid=41843313 [slashdot.org]

--

it's apk, theres no reason to care. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3224905&cid=41847097 [slashdot.org]

--

Seems more like an apk parody. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3224905&cid=41847661 [slashdot.org]

--

That's great but what about the risk of subluxations? - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3224905&cid=41847101 [slashdot.org]

--

Read carefully. This is a satirical post, that combines the last several years of forum trolling, rolled into one FUNNY rant! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3227697&cid=41864711 [slashdot.org]

--

I can has summary? - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3227697&cid=41861327 [slashdot.org]

--

Trolls trolling trolls... it's like Inception or something. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3229177&cid=41869353 [slashdot.org]

--

We all know it's you, apk. Stop pretending to antagonize yourself. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3229179&cid=41869305 [slashdot.org]

--

Now you've made me all nostalgic for USENET. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3486045&cid=42981977 [slashdot.org]

--

Google APK Hosts File Manager. He's written a fucking application to manage your hosts file. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3486045&cid=42984521 [slashdot.org]

--

In case you are not aware, the post is a satire of a fellow known as APK. The grammar used is modeled after APK's as you can see here [thorschrock.com] . Or, you can just look around a bit and see some of his posts on here about the wonders of host files. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3486045&cid=42983119 [slashdot.org]

--

You are surely of God of Trolls, whomever you are. I have had stupid arguments with and bitten the troll apk many times. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3486901&cid=42989683 [slashdot.org]

--

"What kind of meds cure schizophrenic drunk rambling?" -> "Whatever APK isn't taking" - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3501001&cid=43028403 [slashdot.org] http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3501001&cid=43028425 [slashdot.org]

--

I'm confused, is apk trolling himself now? - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3501001&cid=43029495 [slashdot.org]

--

Excellent mashup. A++. Would troll again. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3503531&cid=43037445 [slashdot.org]

--

Best. Troll. Ever. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3506945&cid=43044811 [slashdot.org]

--

I like monkeys. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3508287&cid=43051505 [slashdot.org]

--

This is one of the funniest things I've ever read. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3508287&cid=43052263 [slashdot.org]

--

I admire this guy's persistence. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3511487&cid=43063797 [slashdot.org]

--

It's a big remix of several different crackpots from Slashdot and elsewhere, plus a liberal sprinkling of famous Slashdot trolls and old memes. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3511487&cid=43063881 [slashdot.org]

--

APK is a prominent supporter of Monsanto. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3511487&cid=43063893 [slashdot.org]

--

Here's a hint, check out stories like this one [slashdot.org] , where over 200 of the 247 posts are rated zero or -1 because they are either from two stupid trolls arguing endless, or quite likely one troll arguing with himself for attention. The amount of off-topic posts almost outnumber on topic ones by 4 to 1. Posts like the above are popular for trolling APK, since if you say his name three times, he appears, and will almost endlessly feed trolls. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3511487&cid=43064383 [slashdot.org]

--

I love this copypasta so much. It never fails to make me smile. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3512099&cid=43069271 [slashdot.org]

--

^ Champion Mod parent up. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3513659&cid=43067371 [slashdot.org]

--

I appreciate the time cube reference, and how you tied it into the story. Well done. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3521721&cid=43094565 [slashdot.org]

--

The day you are silenced is the day freedom dies on Slashdot. God bless. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3522191&cid=43097221 [slashdot.org]

--

AHahahahah thanks for that, cut-n-pasted.... Ownage! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3522219&cid=43097215 [slashdot.org]

--

If you're familiar with APK, the post itself is a pretty damn funny parody. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3528603&cid=43115215 [slashdot.org]

--

">implying it's not apk posting it" --> "I'd seriously doubt he's capable of that level of self-deprecation..." - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3528603&cid=43115337 [slashdot.org] http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3528603&cid=43115363 [slashdot.org]

--

No, the other posts are linked in a parody of APK [mailto] 's tendency to quote himself, numbnuts. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3528603&cid=43116855 [slashdot.org]

--

Just ban any post with "apk", "host file", or "hosts file", as that would take care of the original apk too. The original has been shitposting Slashdot much longer & more intensively than the parody guy. Or ban all Tor exit nodes, as they both use Tor to circumvent IP bans. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3561925&cid=43216431 [slashdot.org]

--

Sadly this is closer to on-topic than an actual APK post is. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3561925&cid=43216225 [slashdot.org]

--

YOU ARE A GOD AMONG MEN. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3569149&cid=43236143 [slashdot.org]

--

I've butted heads with APK myself, and yeah, the guy's got issues - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3569173&cid=43236987 [slashdot.org]

--

Can I be in your quote list? - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3569443&cid=43237531 [slashdot.org]

--

Clearly you are not an Intertubes engineer, otherwise the parent post would be more meaningful to you. Why don't YOU take your meds? - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3569425&cid=43238177 [slashdot.org]

--

+2 for style! The bolding, italicizing, and font changes are all spot-on - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3569149&cid=43238479 [slashdot.org]

--

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3570085&cid=43243509 [slashdot.org]

--

APK is not really a schizophrenic fired former Windows administrator with multiple personality disorder and TimeCube/Art Bell refugee. He's a fictional character like and put forward by the same person as Goatse Guy, GNAA trolls, Dr. Bob and so forth. His purpose is to test the /. CAPTCA algorithm, which is a useful purpose. If you're perturbed by having to scroll past his screeds just set your minimum point level to 1, as his posts are pretty automatically downmodded right away. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3570085&cid=43243145 [slashdot.org]

--

I just saw APK a couple days ago. He surfaced, blew once, and submerged... - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3570111&cid=43245913 [slashdot.org]

--

oh man, that incredible interminable list of responses is almost as funny as the original post. This is getting to be truly epic. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3572687&cid=43247231 [slashdot.org]

--

"Does anyone know of an Adblock rule for this?" -> "No, but I bet there's a hosts file entry for it..." - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3572687&cid=43246997 [slashdot.org] http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3572687&cid=43247097 [slashdot.org]

--

"Can a hosts file block apk's posts, though?" -> "The universe couldn't handle that much irony." - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3572687&cid=43247135 [slashdot.org] http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3572687&cid=43247219 [slashdot.org]

--

"That's it, I've had enough. ... Bye everyone, most of the last decade or so has been fun, but frankly, I quit." - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3572687&cid=43247225 [slashdot.org]
--> "So basically what you're saying is that you've added yourself to the HOST file?" - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3572687&cid=43247481 [slashdot.org]

--

Sweet baby Moses, this is beautiful work - I wish we could get trolls as good as this on TF. :) - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3572629&cid=43247533 [slashdot.org]

--

you have a point - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3572687&cid=43247823 [slashdot.org]

--

I do admire that level of dedication. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3572687&cid=43247765 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] shut up you stupid cock. Everyone knows you're wrong. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3572687&cid=43250533 [slashdot.org]

--

I will hand it to him, he is definitely consistent. I wish I knew how he did this. That thing is scary huge. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3572629&cid=43250411 [slashdot.org]

--

I admire the amount of dedication you've shown - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3573571&cid=43251593 [slashdot.org]

--

Word is, ESR buttfucks CmdrTaco with his revolver. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3573679&cid=43252957 [slashdot.org]

--

Hey APK, Protip: It's not the truth or value (or lack of) in your post that gets it modded into oblivion, it's the fucking insane length. In addition to TL;DR (which goes without saying for a post of such length), how about irritating readers by requiring them to scroll through 20+ screenfuls just to get to the next post. If you want to publish a short story like this, please do everyone a favor and blog it somewhere, then provide a brief summary and link to your blog. Readers intrigued by your summary will go read your blog, and everyone else will just move along at normal /. speed. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3573873&cid=43255013 [slashdot.org]

--

I like how this post seems to just sum up every Slashdot comment ever without actually saying anything. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3574283&cid=43256029 [slashdot.org]

--

extremely bright - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3574035&cid=43255855 [slashdot.org]

--

You provide many references, which is good. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3574035&cid=43257043 [slashdot.org]

--

Obviously very passionate - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3574035&cid=43261975 [slashdot.org]

--

Thanks ... You should probably stay - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3577613&cid=43262993 [slashdot.org]

--

Art? -- http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3569681&cid=43244883 [slashdot.org]

--

PROOF apk sucks donkey dick. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3577639&cid=43263029 [slashdot.org]

--

I've been around /. for a while now, but this post is by far the most unique I've seen. Many have tried, but few achieve the greatness of this AC. My hat's off to you. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3576225&cid=43264325 [slashdot.org]

--

I think it's hilarious. Get over it! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3578301&cid=43265657 [slashdot.org]

--

Obviously APK filled his hosts files with backdoors before distributing them to ensure he doesn't block himself. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3578229&cid=43265767 [slashdot.org]

--

Alexander Peter Kowalski is an obnoxious prick. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3406867&cid=42698875 [slashdot.org]

--

Don't mention that file. Ever. It'll draw APK like a fly to rotting meat. Last thing I want to read is 80 responses worth of his stupid spam about that file! I swear that cocksucker does nothing but search Slashdot for that term and then spams the entire article. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3554655&cid=43209619 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] You have had it repeatedly explained to you that your posts are long-winded, unpleasant to read due to your absurd formatting style and full of technical inaccuracies borne of your single minded i-have-a-hammer-so-every-problem-is-a-nail attitude. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3406867&cid=42701491 [slashdot.org]

--

You are my favorite Slashdot poster. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3580251&cid=43270359 [slashdot.org]

--

Most insightful post on the Internet - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3579259&cid=43275207 [slashdot.org]

--

I read the whole thing *again* just to see if my comment was in there - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3588003&cid=43293069 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] So, did your mom do a lot of drugs when she was pregnant? - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3586303&cid=43291531 [slashdot.org]

--

people are looking at me funny because I'm laughing hysterically at what a perfect APK imitation it is. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3581991&cid=43278203 [slashdot.org]

--

Slashdot devs seem in no hurry to fix this problem and it's been driving me nuts. So for anybody who values viewing at -1 and uses greasemonkey here's a Script [pastebin.com] . There's a chance of false positives and it's not the most optimized. But I value not having to scroll through > 10 paragraphs of APK, custom hosts files, or 'acceptable ads' spam. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3586291&cid=43287671 [slashdot.org]
--> slashdot devs are too busy installing itunes for their hipster nerd buddys to sort this problem out. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3586291&cid=43290701 [slashdot.org]

--

I can't get enough of all of this good stuff! Thanks for the informative links! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3586291&cid=43287553 [slashdot.org]

--

When threatened, APK typically produces a post with links showing he's essentially posted this hundreds of times to slashdot stories... - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3586291&cid=43290275 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] Your post got downmodded because you're a nutjob gone off his meds. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3586081&cid=43288893 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] The reason people impersonate you is because everyone thinks you're a moron. The hosts file is not intended to be used as you suggest. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3591803&cid=43302885 [slashdot.org]
-->What? You don't have a 14MB hosts file with ~1million entries in it? Next you'll probably tell me that your computer doesn't start thrashing and take 5 minutes for a DNS lookup! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3591803&cid=43302977 [slashdot.org]

--

[about apk] - this fwit is as thick as a post. worse, this shithead has mod points. and using them. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3591681&cid=43302873 [slashdot.org]

--

In before the fight between those two guys and their walls of text... - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3592647&cid=43306485 [slashdot.org]

--

HEY APK YOU ARE A WASTE OF OXYGEN -GET A LIFE - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3593009&cid=43308147 [slashdot.org]

--

KPA ...thgim dik a ekil .s.b laivirt hcus no emit hcum taht etsaw t'ndluow I sa ,ti gniod em TON si ti - syug ON - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3592933&cid=43307605 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] You seriously need to go see a shrink. You are a fucking fruitcake! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3592933&cid=43307559 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] Did you ever consider that it's not just one corrupt moderator, it's a bunch of regular slashdot users who infrequently get mod points who think you are totally full of shit? Stop posting annoying off topic irrelevant bullshit, and people won't mod you down. I'm seriously sick of reading your posts about someone impersonating you. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3592933&cid=43308389 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] you should be forced to use a cholla cactus as a butt-plug - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3592647&cid=43308219 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] No one is on your side, that is why you're here. posting. still. No one cares. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3595009&cid=43310903 [slashdot.org]

--

Who's the more moronic? The original moron, or the one who replies to him knowing full well his comment will certainly be ignored, if not entirely unread, thus bringing the insane troll post to the attention of those who would otherwise not have seen it at all (seeing as it started at 0 and would have rapidly been modded down to -1) and whose post (and, somewhat ironically I grant you, this one as well) now requires 3 more mod points to be spent to hide it? - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3593207&cid=43311073 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] I miss trollaxor. His gay porn world of slashdot executives and open-source luminaries was infinitely more entertaining than this drivel. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3593207&cid=43311225 [slashdot.org]

--

PLEASE stop modding biters up. Anyone who responds to an abvious troll, especually one of these APK trolls, should autometically get the same -1 troll as the damned troll. Any response to a troll only makes the troll do more trolling. Come on, guys, use your brains -- it isn't that hard. Stop feeding the damned trolls! - (missing link)

--

[to apk] Lick the inside of goatse's anus, it's delicious! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3589605&cid=43301757 [slashdot.org]

--

Excellent post A++++++++++++ would scroll past again!!!! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3595009&cid=43312407 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] You are the one who is pitiful. If you didn't spam /. with your bullshit you wouldn't have spammer 'impostors' doing the same. Just fuck off and die already, ok? Please, really. Step in front of a bus. Drink some bleach. Whatever it takes, just FUCK OFF and DIE. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3595851&cid=43313459 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] From one AC to another please for the love of god, PRINT YOUR HOST FILE OUT AND CRAM IT DOWN YOUR JAPS EYE!!! For fucks sake we don't care we see this and it takes the piss, short of a full frontal lobotomy what will it take to stop you posting this you moronic fuckwit? - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3596285&cid=43314755 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] And someone forgot to take his meds today...Are you really that dense that you cant tell that the only reason the "impostor" exists because you have a hard time realizing that you are wrong and/or wont let it go. It would take a complete moron to not realize that the whole reason he continues to do it is because he knows he can get you to respond by simply posting. This isnt rocket science, this is internet 101... Let me offer you some advice on how to get rid of this "impostor"...shutup - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3595561&cid=43313235 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] If you had a 'luser' account it wouldn't be a problem. But you don't want one of those, because your long rambling and bizarrely formatted posts mean your karma gets nuked in next to no time. So I guess you just have to work out which is 'worth it'. Posting AC because I don't want to become your latest fixation. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3593207&cid=43314397 [slashdot.org]

--

I wouldn't be surprised if that is APK trying to draw attention to himself, since he thinks such endless tirades are examples of him winning and make him look good. When people stop paying attention to him, or post actual counterpoints he can't come up with a response to, he'll post strawman troll postings to shoot down, sometimes just copy pasted from previous stories. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3592647&cid=43308851 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] No one wants to read your copy pasted crap. Maybe someone is mocking you because you make it so easy to? So drop it, and participate like an adult please. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3596383&cid=43315069 [slashdot.org]

--

Seriously.... What. The. Fuck. Can you two homos just go make out on brokeback mountain already, and stop talking about how one of you misspelled "penetration", and how the other cockblocks with their hosts files while grabing the other's goat? Goodness, it sure feels like being in a mountain range, trying to peer around those fucking orbital tether lengthed posts of pure premium bullsit the two of you somehoq manage to keep pushing out on demand. Shit stinks! At this point, i'd be willing to risk the fucking extinction of all life on earth by redirecting siding spring C/2013 1A to miss Mars and land on both of your fucking heads instead. The deaths of billions would be a small price to pay to shut you two cackling lovebirds up! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3596513&cid=43315327 [slashdot.org]

--

Listen up jackass, why the hell would somebody want to impersonate you? You're a certified internet kook. Nobody gives a hot about your 3 gig hosts file. And nobody is impersonating you. You're already a fucking parody. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3596557&cid=43315579 [slashdot.org]

--

SOME QUOTES REMOVED FOR SPACE CONSTRAINTS - MIRRORED HERE:
http://pastebin.com/Cm0HHC66 [pastebin.com]

-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-

Did you see the movie "Pokemon"? Actually the induced night "dream world" is synonymous with the academic religious induced "HOSTS file" enslavement of DNS. Domains have no inherent value, as it was invented as a counterfeit and fictitious value to represent natural values in name resolution. Unfortunately, human values have declined to fictitious word values. Unknowingly, you are living in a "World Wide Web", as in a fictitious life in a counterfeit Internet - which you could consider APK induced "HOSTS file". Can you distinguish the academic induced root server from the natural OpenDNS? Beware of the change when your brain is free from HOSTS file enslavement - for you could find that the natural Slashdot has been destroyed!!

FROM -> Man - how many times have I dusted you in tech debates that you have decided to troll me by ac posts for MONTHS now, OR IMPERSONATING ME AS YOU DID HERE and you were caught in it by myself & others here, only to fail each time as you have here?)...

So long nummynuts, sorry to have to kick your nuts up into your head verbally speaking.

cower in my shadow some more, feeb. you're completely pathetic.

-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-

* :)

Ac trolls' "BIG FAIL" (quoted): Eat your words!

P.S.=> That's what makes me LAUGH harder than ANYTHING ELSE on this forums (full of "FUD" spreading trolls) - When you hit trolls with facts & truths they CANNOT disprove validly on computing tech based grounds, this is the result - Applying unjustifiable downmods to effetely & vainly *try* to "hide" my posts & facts/truths they extoll!

Hahaha... lol , man: Happens nearly every single time I post such lists (proving how ineffectual these trolls are), only showing how solid my posts of that nature are...

That's the kind of martial arts [google.com] I practice.

-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-

Disproof of all apk's statements:

OLD POST LINKS MIRRORED HERE (UPDATED 3/29):
http://pastebin.com/XdQRNeQ4 [pastebin.com]

RECENT POST LINKS:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3595715&cid=43312649 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3595851&cid=43312901 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3595843&cid=43314741 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3595851&cid=43314853 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3596383&cid=43314951 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3596285&cid=43315101 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3596285&cid=43315113 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3596513&cid=43315283 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3596557&cid=43315701 [slashdot.org]
LIST MAY BE INCOMPLETE
REPORT MISSING LINKS FOR REWARD (check pastebin archive first)

-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-

DID YOU FIND THIS MESSAGE HELPFUL?
TIP JAR: 1EtLgU5L3jhmVkDmqrWT9VhoZ1F2jSimHS [blockchain.info]
RECEIVED: 0.0195 BTC - thx! ;-)

This is NOT ME... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43317443)

A corrupt slashdot luser has infiltrated the moderation system to downmod all my posts while impersonating me.

Nearly 180++ times that I know of @ this point for all of March 2013 so far, & others here have told you to stop - take the hint, lunatic (leave slashdot)...

Sorry folks - but whoever the nutjob is that's attempting to impersonate me, & upset the rest of you as well, has SERIOUS mental issues, no questions asked! I must've gotten the better of him + seriously "gotten his goat" in doing so in a technical debate & his "geek angst" @ losing to me has him doing the:

---

A.) $10,000 challenges, ala (where the imposter actually TRACKED + LISTED the # of times he's done this no less, & where I get the 180 or so times I noted above) -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3585795&cid=43285307 [slashdot.org]

&/or

B.) Reposting OLD + possibly altered models - (this I haven't checked on as to altering the veracity of the info. being changed) of posts of mine from the past here

---

(Albeit massively repeatedly thru all threads on /. this March 2013 nearly in its entirety thusfar).

* Personally, I'm surprised the moderation staff here hasn't just "blocked out" his network range yet honestly!

(They know it's NOT the same as my own as well, especially after THIS post of mine, which they CAN see the IP range I am coming out of to compare with the ac spamming troll doing the above...).

APK

P.S.=> Again/Stressing it: NO guys - it is NOT me doing it, as I wouldn't waste that much time on such trivial b.s. like a kid might...

Plus, I only post where hosts file usage is on topic or appropriate for a solution & certainly NOT IN EVERY POST ON SLASHDOT (like the nutcase trying to "impersonate me" is doing for nearly all of March now, & 180++ times that I know of @ least)... apk

P.S.=> here is CORRECT host file information just to piss off the insane lunatic troll:

--

21++ ADVANTAGES OF CUSTOM HOSTS FILES (how/what/when/where/why):

Over AdBlock & DNS Servers ALONE 4 Security, Speed, Reliability, & Anonymity (to an extent vs. DNSBL's + DNS request logs).

1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program). A truly "multi-platform" UNIVERSAL solution for added speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity to an extent (vs. DNS request logs + DNSBL's you feel are unjust hosts get you past/around).

2.) Adblock blocks ads? Well, not anymore & certainly not as well by default, apparently, lol - see below:

Adblock Plus To Offer 'Acceptable Ads' Option

http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/12/12/2213233/adblock-plus-to-offer-acceptable-ads-option [slashdot.org] )

AND, in only browsers & their subprogram families (ala email like Thunderbird for FireFox/Mozilla products (use same gecko & xulrunner engines)), but not all, or, all independent email clients, like Outlook, Outlook Express, OR Window "LIVE" mail (for example(s)) - there's many more like EUDORA & others I've used over time that AdBlock just DOES NOT COVER... period.

Disclaimer: Opera now also has an AdBlock addon (now that Opera has addons above widgets), but I am not certain the same people make it as they do for FF or Chrome etc..

3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF (non-mozilla/gecko engine based) family based wares, So AdBlock doesn't protect email programs like Outlook, Outlook Express, Windows "LIVE" mail & others like them (EUDORA etc./et al), Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.

4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 5-7 next below).

5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, OR make you reach them faster since you resolve host-domain names LOCALLY w/ hosts out of cached memory, hosts do ALL of those things (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw -> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/082908-kaminsky-flaw-prompts-dns-server.html [networkworld.com] for years now). Hosts protect against those problems via hardcodes of your fav sites (you should verify against the TLD that does nothing but cache IPAddress-to-domainname/hostname resolutions (in-addr.arpa) via NSLOOKUP, PINGS (ping -a in Windows), &/or WHOIS though, regularly, so you have the correct IP & it's current)).

* NOW - Some folks MAY think that putting an IP address alone into your browser's address bar will be enough, so why bother with HOSTS, right? WRONG - Putting IP address in your browser won't always work IS WHY. Some IP adresses host several domains & need the site name to give you the right page you're after is why. So for some sites only the HOSTS file option will work!

6.) Hosts files don't eat up CPU cycles (or ELECTRICITY) like AdBlock does while it parses a webpages' content, nor as much as a DNS server does while it runs. HOSTS file are merely a FILTER for the kernel mode/PnP TCP/IP subsystem, which runs FAR FASTER & MORE EFFICIENTLY than any ring 3/rpl3/usermode app can since hosts files run in MORE EFFICIENT & FASTER Ring 0/RPL 0/Kernelmode operations acting merely as a filter for the IP stack (via the "Plug-N-Play" designed IP stack in Windows) vs. SLOWER & LESS EFFICIENT Ring 3/RPL 3/Usermode operations (which webbrowsers run in + their addons like AdBlock slow down even MORESO due to their parsing operations).

7.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than remote DNS servers can by FAR (by saving the roundtrip inquiry time to a DNS server, typically 30-100's of ms, vs. 7-10ms HardDisk speed of access/seek + SSD seek in ns, & back to you - hosts resolutions of IP address for host-domain names is FAR faster...). Hosts are only a filter for an already fast & efficient IP stack, no more layered b.s. (remote OR local). Hosts eat less CPU, RAM, I/O in other forms, + electricity than a locally running DNS server easily, and less than a local DNS program on a single PC. Fact. Hosts are easier to setup & maintain too.

8.) AdBlock doesn't let you block out known bad sites or servers that are known to be maliciously scripted, hosts can and many reputable lists for this exist:

GOOD INFORMATION ON MALWARE BEHAVIOR LISTING BOTNET C&C SERVERS + MORE (AS WELL AS REMOVAL LISTS FOR HOSTS):

http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm [mvps.org]
  http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/ [someonewhocares.org]
  http://hostsfile.org/hosts.html [hostsfile.org]
  http://hostsfile.mine.nu/downloads/ [hostsfile.mine.nu]
  http://hosts-file.net/?s=Download [hosts-file.net]
  https://zeustracker.abuse.ch/monitor.php?filter=online [abuse.ch]
  https://spyeyetracker.abuse.ch/monitor.php [abuse.ch]
  http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]
  http://www.malware.com.br/lists.shtml [malware.com.br]
  http://www.stopbadware.org/ [stopbadware.org]
Spybot "Search & Destroy" IMMUNIZE feature (fortifies HOSTS files with KNOWN bad servers blocked)

And yes: Even SLASHDOT &/or The Register help!

(Via articles on security (when the source articles they use are "detailed" that is, & list the servers/sites involved in attempting to bushwhack others online that is... not ALL do!)).

2 examples thereof in the past I have used, & noted it there, are/were:

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1898692&cid=34473398 [slashdot.org]
  http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1896216&cid=34458500 [slashdot.org]

9.) AdBlock & DNS servers are programs, and subject to bugs programs can get. Hosts files are merely a filter and not a program, thus not subject to bugs of the nature just discussed.

10.) HOSTS files protect you vs. DNS-poisoning &/or the Kaminsky flaw in DNS servers, and allow you to get to sites reliably vs. things like the Chinese are doing to DNS -> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/11/29/1755230/Chinese-DNS-Tampering-a-Real-Threat-To-Outsiders [slashdot.org]

11.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, obtained (for reliable ones -> http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm [mvps.org] ) & edited too, via texteditors like Windows notepad.exe or Linux nano (etc.)

12.) With Adblock you had better be able to code javascript to play with its code (to customize it better than the GUI front does @ least). With hosts you don't even need source to control it (edit, update, delete, insert of new entries via a text editor).

13.) Hosts files are easily secured via using MAC/ACL (even moreso "automagically" for Vista, 7/Server 2008 + beyond by UAC by default) &/or Read-Only attributes applied.

14.) Custom HOSTS files also speed you up, unlike anonymous proxy servers systems variations (like TOR, or other "highly anonymous" proxy server list servers typically do, in the severe speed hit they often have a cost in) either via "hardcoding" your fav. sites into your hosts file (avoids DNS servers, totally) OR blocking out adbanners - see this below for evidence of that:

---

US Military Blocks Websites To Free Up Bandwidth:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/03/16/0416238/US-Military-Blocks-Websites-To-Free-Up-Bandwidth [slashdot.org]

(Yes, even the US Military used this type of technique... because IT WORKS! Most of what they blocked? Ad banners ala doubleclick etc.)

---

Adbanners slow you down & consume your bandwidth YOU pay for:

ADBANNERS SLOW DOWN THE WEB: -> http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/11/30/166218 [slashdot.org]

---

And people do NOT LIKE ads on the web:

PEOPLE DISLIKE ADBANNERS: http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/04/02/0058247.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

As well as this:

Users Know Advertisers Watch Them, and Hate It:

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/04/02/0058247.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

Even WORSE still, is this:

Advertising Network Caught History Stealing:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/07/22/156225/Advertising-Network-Caught-History-Stealing [slashdot.org]

---

15.) HOSTS files usage lets you avoid being charged on some ISP/BSP's (OR phone providers) "pay as you use" policy http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/08/2012243/FCC-Approving-Pay-As-You-Go-Internet-Plans [slashdot.org] , because you are using less bandwidth (& go faster doing so no less) by NOT hauling in adbanner content and processing it (which can lead to infestation by malware/malicious script, in & of itself -> http://apcmag.com/microsoft_apologises_for_serving_malware.htm [apcmag.com] ).

16.) If/when ISP/BSP's decide to go to -> FCC Approving Pay-As-You-Go Internet Plans: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/08/2012243/FCC-Approving-Pay-As-You-Go-Internet-Plans [slashdot.org] your internet bill will go DOWN if you use a HOSTS file for blocking adbanners as well as maliciously scripted hacker/cracker malware maker sites too (after all - it's your money & time online downloading adbanner content & processing it)

Plus, your adbanner content? Well, it may also be hijacked with malicious code too mind you:

---

Yahoo, Microsoft's Bing display toxic ads:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/16/bing_yahoo_malware_ads/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Malware torrent delivered over Google, Yahoo! ad services:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/24/malware_ads_google_yahoo/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Google's DoubleClick spreads malicious ads (again):

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/24/doubleclick_distributes_malware/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Rogue ads infiltrate Expedia and Rhapsody:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/30/excite_and_rhapsody_rogue_ads/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Google sponsored links caught punting malware:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/16/google_sponsored_links/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

DoubleClick caught supplying malware-tainted ads:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/13/doubleclick_distributes_malware/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Yahoo feeds Trojan-laced ads to MySpace and PhotoBucket users:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/11/yahoo_serves_12million_malware_ads/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Real Media attacks real people via RealPlayer:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/23/real_media_serves_malware/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Ad networks owned by Google, Microsoft serve malware:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/13/doubleclick_msn_malware_attacks/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Attacks Targeting Classified Ad Sites Surge:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/02/02/1433210/Attacks-Targeting-Classified-Ad-Sites-Surge [slashdot.org]

---

Hackers Respond To Help Wanted Ads With Malware:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/01/20/0228258/Hackers-Respond-To-Help-Wanted-Ads-With-Malware [slashdot.org]

---

Hackers Use Banner Ads on Major Sites to Hijack Your PC:

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2007/11/doubleclick [wired.com]

---

Ruskie gang hijacks Microsoft network to push penis pills:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/12/microsoft_ips_hijacked/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Major ISPs Injecting Ads, Vulnerabilities Into Web:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/08/04/19/2148215.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

Two Major Ad Networks Found Serving Malware:

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/12/13/0128249/Two-Major-Ad-Networks-Found-Serving-Malware [slashdot.org]

---

THE NEXT AD YOU CLICK MAY BE A VIRUS:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/06/15/2056219/The-Next-Ad-You-Click-May-Be-a-Virus [slashdot.org]

---

NY TIMES INFECTED WITH MALWARE ADBANNER:

http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/09/13/2346229 [slashdot.org]

---

MICROSOFT HIT BY MALWARES IN ADBANNERS:

http://apcmag.com/microsoft_apologises_for_serving_malware.htm [apcmag.com]

---

ISP's INJECTING ADS AND ERRORS INTO THE WEB: -> http://it.slashdot.org/it/08/04/19/2148215.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

ADOBE FLASH ADS INJECTING MALWARE INTO THE NET: http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/20/0029220&from=rss [slashdot.org]

---

London Stock Exchange Web Site Serving Malware:

http://www.securityweek.com/london-stock-exchange-web-site-serving-malware [securityweek.com]

---

Spotify splattered with malware-tainted ads:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/25/spotify_malvertisement_attack/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

As my list "multiple evidences thereof" as to adbanners & viruses + the fact they slow you down & cost you more (from reputable & reliable sources no less)).

17.) Per point #16, a way to save some money: ANDROID phones can also use the HOSTS FILE TO KEEP DOWN BILLABLE TIME ONLINE, vs. adbanners or malware such as this:

---

Infected Androids Run Up Big Texting Bills:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/03/01/0041203/Infected-Androids-Run-Up-Big-Texting-Bills [slashdot.org]

---

AND, for protection vs. other "botnets" migrating from the PC world, to "smartphones" such as ZITMO (a ZEUS botnet variant):

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=ZITMO&btnG=Google+Search [google.com]

---

It's easily done too, via the ADB dev. tool, & mounting ANDROID OS' system mountpoint for system/etc as READ + WRITE/ADMIN-ROOT PERMISSIONS, then copying your new custom HOSTS over the old one using ADB PULL/ADB PUSH to do so (otherwise ANDROID complains of "this file cannot be overwritten on production models of this Operating System", or something very along those lines - this way gets you around that annoyance along with you possibly having to clear some space there yourself if you packed it with things!).

18.) Bad news: ADBLOCK CAN BE DETECTED FOR: See here on that note -> http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars [arstechnica.com]

HOSTS files are NOT THAT EASILY "webbug" BLOCKABLE by websites, as was tried on users by ARSTECHNICA (and it worked on AdBlock in that manner), to that websites' users' dismay:

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT FROM ARSTECHNICA THEMSELVES:

----

An experiment gone wrong - By Ken Fisher | Last updated March 6, 2010 11:11 AM

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars [arstechnica.com]

"Starting late Friday afternoon we conducted a 12 hour experiment to see if it would be possible to simply make content disappear for visitors who were using a very popular ad blocking tool. Technologically, it was a success in that it worked. Ad blockers, and only ad blockers, couldn't see our content."

and

"Our experiment is over, and we're glad we did it because it led to us learning that we needed to communicate our point of view every once in a while. Sure, some people told us we deserved to die in a fire. But that's the Internet!"

Thus, as you can see? Well - THAT all "went over like a lead balloon" with their users in other words, because Arstechnica was forced to change it back to the old way where ADBLOCK still could work to do its job (REDDIT however, has not, for example). However/Again - this is proof that HOSTS files can still do the job, blocking potentially malscripted ads (or ads in general because they slow you down) vs. adblockers like ADBLOCK!

----

19.) Even WIKILEAKS "favors" blacklists (because they work, and HOSTS can be a blacklist vs. known BAD sites/servers/domain-host names):

---

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT (from -> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/16/wikileaks_mirror_malware_warning_row/ [theregister.co.uk] )

"we are in favour of 'Blacklists', be it for mail servers or websites, they have to be compiled with care... Fortunately, more responsible blacklists, like stopbadware.org (which protects the Firefox browser)...

---

20.) AND, LASTLY? SINCE MALWARE GENERALLY HAS TO OPERATE ON WHAT YOU YOURSELF CAN DO (running as limited class/least privlege user, hopefully, OR even as ADMIN/ROOT/SUPERUSER)? HOSTS "LOCK IN" malware too, vs. communicating "back to mama" for orders (provided they have name servers + C&C botnet servers listed in them, blocked off in your HOSTS that is) - you might think they use a hardcoded IP, which IS possible, but generally they do not & RECYCLE domain/host names they own (such as has been seen with the RBN (Russian Business Network) lately though it was considered "dead", other malwares are using its domains/hostnames now, & this? This stops that cold, too - Bonus!)...

21.) Custom HOSTS files gain users back more "screen real estate" by blocking out banner ads... it's great on PC's for speed along with MORE of what I want to see/read (not ads), & efficiency too, but EVEN BETTER ON SMARTPHONES - by far. It matters MOST there imo @ least, in regards to extra screen real-estate.

Still - It's a GOOD idea to layer in the usage of BOTH browser addons for security like adblock ( http://adblockplus.org/en/ [adblockplus.org] ), IE 9's new TPL's ( http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Browser/TrackingProtectionLists/ [microsoft.com] ), &/or NoScript ( http://noscript.net/ [noscript.net] especially this one, as it covers what HOSTS files can't in javascript which is the main deliverer of MOST attacks online & SECUNIA.COM can verify this for anyone really by looking @ the past few years of attacks nowadays), for the concept of "layered security"....

It's just that HOSTS files offer you a LOT MORE gains than Adblock ( http://adblockplus.org/en/ [adblockplus.org] ) does alone (as hosts do things adblock just plain cannot & on more programs, for more speed, security, and "stealth" to a degree even), and it corrects problems in DNS (as shown above via hardcodes of your favorite sites into your HOSTS file, and more (such as avoiding DNS request logs)).

ALSO - Some more notes on DNS servers & their problems, very recent + ongoing ones:

---

DNS flaw reanimates slain evil sites as ghost domains:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/16/ghost_domains_dns_vuln/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

BIND vs. what the Chinese are doing to DNS lately? See here:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/11/29/1755230/Chinese-DNS-Tampering-a-Real-Threat-To-Outsiders [slashdot.org]

---

SECUNIA HIT BY DNS REDIRECTION HACK THIS WEEK:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/26/secunia_back_from_dns_hack/ [theregister.co.uk]

(Yes, even "security pros" are helpless vs. DNS problems in code bugs OR redirect DNS poisoning issues, & they can only try to "set the DNS record straight" & then, they still have to wait for corrected DNS info. to propogate across all subordinate DNS servers too - lagtime in which folks DO get "abused" in mind you!)

---

DNS vs. the "Kaminsky DNS flaw", here (and even MORE problems in DNS than just that):

http://www.scmagazineus.com/new-bind-9-dns-flaw-is-worse-than-kaminskys/article/140872/ [scmagazineus.com]

(Seems others are saying that some NEW "Bind9 flaw" is worse than the Kaminsky flaw ALONE, up there, mind you... probably corrected (hopefully), but it shows yet again, DNS hassles (DNS redirect/DNS poisoning) being exploited!)

---

Moxie Marlinspike's found others (0 hack) as well...

Nope... "layered security" truly IS the "way to go" - hacker/cracker types know it, & they do NOT want the rest of us knowing it too!...

(So until DNSSEC takes "widespread adoption"? HOSTS are your answer vs. such types of attack, because the 1st thing your system refers to, by default, IS your HOSTS file (over say, DNS server usage). There are decent DNS servers though, such as OpenDNS, ScrubIT, or even NORTON DNS (more on each specifically below), & because I cannot "cache the entire internet" in a HOSTS file? I opt to use those, because I have to (& OpenDNS has been noted to "fix immediately", per the Kaminsky flaw, in fact... just as a sort of reference to how WELL they are maintained really!)

---

DNS Hijacks Now Being Used to Serve Black Hole Exploit Kit:

https://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/dns-hijacks-now-being-used-serve-black-hole-exploit-kit-121211 [threatpost.com]

---

DNS experts admit some of the underlying foundations of the DNS protocol are inherently weak:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/12/08/1353203/opendns-releases-dns-encryption-tool [slashdot.org]

---

Potential 0-Day Vulnerability For BIND 9:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/11/17/1429259/potential-0-day-vulnerability-for-bind-9 [slashdot.org]

---

Five DNS Threats You Should Protect Against:

http://www.securityweek.com/five-dns-threats-you-should-protect-against [securityweek.com]

---

DNS provider decked by DDoS dastards:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/16/ddos_on_dns_firm/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Ten Percent of DNS Servers Still Vulnerable: (so much for "conscientious patching", eh? Many DNS providers weren't patching when they had to!)

http://it.slashdot.org/it/05/08/04/1525235.shtml?tid=172&tid=95&tid=218 [slashdot.org]

---

DNS ROOT SERVERS ATTACKED:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/07/02/06/2238225.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

TimeWarner DNS Hijacking:

http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/23/2140208 [slashdot.org]

---

DNS Re-Binding Attacks:

http://crypto.stanford.edu/dns/ [stanford.edu]

---

DNS Server Survey Reveals Mixed Security Picture:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/07/11/21/0315239.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

Halvar figured out super-secret DNS vulnerability:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/has-halvar-figured-out-super-secret-dns-vulnerability/1520 [zdnet.com]

---

BIND Still Susceptible To DNS Cache Poisoning:

http://tech.slashdot.org/tech/08/08/09/123222.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

DNS Poisoning Hits One of China's Biggest ISPs:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/08/08/21/2343250.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

DDoS Attacks Via DNS Recursion:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/06/03/16/1658209.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

High Severity BIND DNS Vulnerability Advisory Issued:

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/02/23/156212/High-Severity-BIND-Vulnerability-Advisory-Issued [slashdot.org]

---

Photobucketâ(TM)s DNS records hijacked:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=1285 [zdnet.com]

---

Protecting Browsers from DNS Rebinding Attacks:

http://crypto.stanford.edu/dns/ [stanford.edu]

---

DNS Problem Linked To DDoS Attacks Gets Worse:

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/11/15/1238210/DNS-Problem-Linked-To-DDoS-Attacks-Gets-Worse [slashdot.org]

---

HOWEVER - Some DNS servers are "really good stuff" vs. phishing, known bad sites/servers/hosts-domains that serve up malware-in-general & malicious scripting, botnet C&C servers, & more, such as:

Norton DNS -> http://nortondns.com/ [nortondns.com]
  ScrubIT DNS -> http://www.scrubit.com/ [scrubit.com]
  OpenDNS -> http://www.opendns.com/ [opendns.com]

(Norton DNS in particular, is exclusively for blocking out malware, for those of you that are security-conscious. ScrubIT filters pr0n material too, but does the same, & OpenDNS does phishing protection. Each page lists how & why they work, & why they do so. Norton DNS can even show you its exceptions lists, plus user reviews & removal procedures requests, AND growth stats (every 1/2 hour or so) here -> http://safeweb.norton.com/buzz [norton.com] so, that ought to "take care of the naysayers" on removal requests, &/or methods used plus updates frequency etc./et al...)

HOWEVER - There's ONLY 1 WEAKNESS TO ANY network defense, including HOSTS files (vs. host-domain name based threats) & firewalls (hardware router type OR software type, vs. IP address based threats): Human beings, & they not being 'disciplined' about the indiscriminate usage of javascript (the main "harbinger of doom" out there today online), OR, what they download for example... & there is NOTHING I can do about that! (Per Dr. Manhattan of "The Watchmen", ala -> "I can change almost anything, but I can't change human nature")

HOWEVER AGAIN - That's where NORTON DNS, OpenDNS, &/or ScrubIT DNS help!

(Especially for noob/grandma level users who are unaware of how to secure themselves in fact, per a guide like mine noted above that uses "layered-security" principles!)

ScrubIT DNS, &/or OpenDNS are others alongside Norton DNS (adding on phishing protection too) as well!

( & it's possible to use ALL THREE in your hardware NAT routers, and, in your Local Area Connection DNS properties in Windows, for again, "Layered Security" too)...

---

20++ SLASHDOT USERS EXPERIENCING SUCCESS USING HOSTS FILES QUOTED VERBATIM:

---

"Ever since I've installed a host file (http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm) to redirect advertisers to my loopback, I haven't had any malware, spyware, or adware issues. I first started using the host file 5 years ago." - by TestedDoughnut (1324447) on Monday December 13, @12:18AM (#34532122)

"I use a custom /etc/hosts to block ads... my file gets parsed basically instantly ... So basically, for any modern computer, it has zero visible impact. And even if it took, say, a second to parse, that would be more than offset by the MANY seconds saved by not downloading and rendering ads. I have noticed NO ill effects from running a custom /etc/hosts file for the last several years. And as a matter of fact I DO run http servers on my computers and I've never had an /etc/hosts-related problem... it FUCKING WORKS and makes my life better overall." - by sootman (158191) on Monday July 13 2009, @11:47AM (#28677363) Homepage Journal

"I actually went and downloaded a 16k line hosts file and started using that after seeing that post, you know just for trying it out. some sites load up faster." - by gl4ss (559668) on Thursday November 17, @11:20AM (#38086752) Homepage Journal

"Better than an ad blocker, imo. Hosts file entries: http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm [mvps.org] " - by TempestRose (1187397) on Tuesday March 15, @12:53PM (#35493274)

"^^ One of the many reasons why I like the user-friendliness of the /etc/hosts file." - by lennier1 (264730) on Saturday March 05, @09:26PM (#35393448)

"They've been on my HOSTS block for years" - by ScottCooperDotNet (929575) on Thursday August 05 2010, @01:52AM (#33147212)

"I'm currently only using my hosts file to block pheedo ads from showing up in my RSS feeds and causing them to take forever to load. Regardless of its original intent, it's still a valid tool, when used judiciously." - by Bill Dog (726542) on Monday April 25, @02:16AM (#35927050) Homepage Journal

"you're right about hosts files" - by drinkypoo (153816) on Thursday May 26, @01:21PM (#36252958) Homepage

"APK's monolithic hosts file is looking pretty good at the moment." - by Culture20 (968837) on Thursday November 17, @10:08AM (#38085666)

"I also use the MVPS ad blocking hosts file." - by Rick17JJ (744063) on Wednesday January 19, @03:04PM (#34931482)

"I use ad-Block and a hostfile" - by Ol Olsoc (1175323) on Tuesday March 01, @10:11AM (#35346902)

"I do use Hosts, for a couple fake domains I use." - by icebraining (1313345) on Saturday December 11, @09:34AM (#34523012) Homepage

"It's a good write up on something everybody should use, why you were modded down is beyond me. Using a HOSTS file, ADblock is of no concern and they can do what they want." - by Trax3001BBS (2368736) on Monday December 12, @10:07PM (#38351398) Homepage Journal

"I want my surfing speed back so I block EVERY fucking ad. i.e. http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/ [someonewhocares.org] and http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm [mvps.org] FTW" - by UnknownSoldier (67820) on Tuesday December 13, @12:04PM (#38356782)

"Let me introduce you to the file: /etc/hosts" - by fahrbot-bot (874524) on Monday December 19, @05:03PM (#38427432)

"I use a hosts file" - by EdIII (1114411) on Tuesday December 13, @01:17PM (#38357816)

"I'm tempted to go for a hacked hosts file that simply resolves most advert sites to 127.0.0.1" - by bLanark (123342) on Tuesday December 13, @01:13PM (#38357760)

"this is not a troll, which hosts file source you recommend nowadays? it's a really handy method for speeding up web and it works." - by gl4ss (559668) on Thursday March 22, @08:07PM (#39446525) Homepage Journal

"A hosts file certainly does not require "a lot of work" to maintain, and it quite effectively kills a LOT of advertising and tracking schemes. . In fact, I never would have considered trying to use it for ddefending against viruses or malware." - by RocketRabbit (830691) on Thursday December 30 2010, @05:48PM (#34715060)

---

Then, there is also the words of respected security expert, Mr. Oliver Day, from SECURITYFOCUS.COM to "top that all off" as well:

A RETURN TO THE KILLFILE:

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491 [securityfocus.com]

Some "PERTINENT QUOTES/EXCERPTS" to back up my points with (for starters):

---

"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet -- particularly browsing the Web -- is actually faster now."

Speed, and security, is the gain... others like Mr. Day note it as well!

---

"From what I have seen in my research, major efforts to share lists of unwanted hosts began gaining serious momentum earlier this decade. The most popular appear to have started as a means to block advertising and as a way to avoid being tracked by sites that use cookies to gather data on the user across Web properties. More recently, projects like Spybot Search and Destroy offer lists of known malicious servers to add a layer of defense against trojans and other forms of malware."

Per my points exactly, no less... & guess who was posting about HOSTS files a 14++ yrs. or more back & Mr. Day was reading & now using? Yours truly (& this is one of the later ones, from 2001 http://www.furtherleft.net/computer.htm [furtherleft.net] (but the example HOSTS file with my initials in it is FAR older, circa 1998 or so) or thereabouts, and referred to later by a pal of mine who moderates NTCompatible.com (where I posted on HOSTS for YEARS (1997 onwards)) -> http://www.ntcompatible.com/thread28597-1.html [ntcompatible.com] !

---

"Shared host files could be beneficial for other groups as well. Human rights groups have sought after block resistant technologies for quite some time. The GoDaddy debacle with NMap creator Fyodor (corrected) showed a particularly vicious blocking mechanism using DNS registrars. Once a registrar pulls a website from its records, the world ceases to have an effective way to find it. Shared host files could provide a DNS-proof method of reaching sites, not to mention removing an additional vector of detection if anyone were trying to monitor the use of subversive sites. One of the known weaknesses of the Tor system, for example, is direct DNS requests by applications not configured to route such requests through Tor's network."

There you go: AND, it also works vs. the "KAMINSKY DNS FLAW" & DNS poisoning/redirect attacks, for redirectable weaknesses in DNS servers (non DNSSEC type, & set into recursive mode especially) and also in the TOR system as well (that lends itself to anonymous proxy usage weaknesses I noted above also) and, you'll get to sites you want to, even IF a DNS registrar drops said websites from its tables as shown here Beating Censorship By Routing Around DNS -> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/09/1840246/Beating-Censorship-By-Routing-Around-DNS [slashdot.org] & even DNSBL also (DNS Block Lists) -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNSBL [wikipedia.org] as well - DOUBLE-BONUS!

---

* POSTS ABOUT HOSTS FILES I DID on "/." THAT HAVE DONE WELL BY OTHERS & WERE RATED HIGHLY, 26++ THUSFAR (from +3 -> +1 RATINGS, usually "informative" or "interesting" etc./et al):

BANNER ADS & BANDWIDTH:2011 -> http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2139088&cid=36077722 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1907266&cid=34529608 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1490078&cid=30555632 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1869638&cid=34237268 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1461288&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=30272074 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1255487&cid=28197285 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1206409&cid=27661983 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1725068&cid=32960808 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1743902&cid=33147274 [slashdot.org]
  APK 20++ POINTS ON HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1913212&cid=34576182 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1862260&cid=34186256 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 (w/ facebook known bad sites blocked) -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1924892&cid=34670128 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS FILE MOD UP FOR ANDROID MALWARE:2010 -> http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1930156&cid=34713952 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP ZEUSTRACKER:2011 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2059420&cid=35654066 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP vs AT&T BANDWIDTH CAP:2011 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2116504&cid=35985584 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP CAN DO SAME AS THE "CloudFlare" Server-Side service:2011 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2220314&cid=36372850 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS and BGP +5 RATED (BEING HONEST):2010 http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1901826&cid=34490450 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS & PROTECT IP ACT:2011 http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2368832&cid=37021700 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2011 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2457766&cid=37592458 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP & OPERA HAUTE SECURE:2011 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2457274&cid=37589596 [slashdot.org]
  0.0.0.0 in HOSTS:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1197039&cid=27556999 [slashdot.org]
  0.0.0.0 IN HOSTS:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1143349&cid=27012231 [slashdot.org]
  0.0.0.0 in HOSTS:2009 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1198841&cid=27580299 [slashdot.org]
  0.0.0.0 in HOSTS:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1139705&cid=26977225 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1319261&cid=28872833 [slashdot.org] (still says INSIGHTFUL)
  HOSTS MOD UP vs. botnet: 2012 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2603836&cid=38586216 [slashdot.org]

---

Windows 7, VISTA, & Server 2008 have a couple of "issues" I don't like in them, & you may not either, depending on your point of view (mine's based solely on efficiency & security), & if my take on these issues aren't "good enough"? I suggest reading what ROOTKIT.COM says, link URL is in my "p.s." @ the bottom of this post:

1.) HOSTS files being unable to use "0" for a blocking IP address - this started in 12/09/2008 after an "MS Patch Tuesday" in fact for VISTA (when it had NO problem using it before that, as Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 still can)... & yes, this continues in its descendants, Windows Server 2008 &/or Windows 7 as well.

So, why is this a "problem" you might ask?

Ok - since you can technically use either:

a.) 127.0.0.1 (the "loopback adapter address")
b.) 0.0.0.0 (next smallest & next most efficient)
c.) The smallest & fastest plain-jane 0

PER EACH HOSTS FILE ENTRY/RECORD...

You can use ANY of those, in order to block out known bad sites &/or adbanners in a HOSTS file this way??

Microsoft has "promoted bloat" in doing so... no questions asked.

Simply because

1.) 127.0.0.1 = 9 bytes in size on disk & is the largest/slowest
2.) 0.0.0.0 = 7 bytes & is the next largest/slowest in size on disk
3.) 0 = 1 byte

(& HOSTS files extend across EVERY webbrowser, email program, or in general every webbound program you use & thus HOSTS are "global" in coverage this way AND function on any OS that uses the BSD derived IP stack (which most all do mind you, even MS is based off of it, as BSD's IS truly, "the best in the business"), & when coupled with say, IE restricted zones, FireFox addons like NoScript &/or AdBlock, or Opera filter.ini/urlfilter.ini, for layered security in this capacity for webbrowsers & SOME email programs (here, I mean ones "built into" browsers themselves like Opera has for example))

MS has literally promoted bloat in this file, making it load slower from disk, into memory! This compounds itself, the more entries your HOSTS file contains... & for instance? Mine currently contains nearly 654,000 entries of known bad adbanners, bad websites, &/or bad nameservers (used for controlling botnets, misdirecting net requests, etc. et al).

Now, IF I were to use 127.0.0.1? My "huge" HOSTS file would be approximately 27mb in size... using 0.0.0.0 (next smallest) it would be 19mb in size - HOWEVER? Using 0 as my blocking IP, it is only 14mb in size. See my point?

(For loads either in the local DNS cache, or system diskcache if you run w/out the local DNS client service running, this gets slower the larger each HOSTS file entry is (which you have to stall the DNS client service in Windows for larger ones, especially if you use a "giant HOSTS file" (purely relative term, but once it goes over (iirc) 4mb in size, you have to cut the local DNS cache client service)))

NO questions asked - the physics of it backed me up in theory alone, but when I was questioned on it for PROOF thereof?

I wrote a small test program to load such a list into a "pascal record" (which is analagous to a C/C++ structure), which is EXACTLY what the DNS client/DNS API does as well, using a C/C++ structure (basically an array of sorts really, & a structure/record is a precursor part to a full-blown CLASS or OBJECT, minus the functions built in, this is for treating numerous variables as a SINGLE VARIABLE (for efficiency, which FORTRAN as a single example, lacks as a feature, @ least Fortran 77 did, but other languages do not))!

I even wrote another that just loaded my HOSTS file's entirety into a listbox, same results... slowest using 127.0.0.1, next slowest using 0.0.0.0, & fastest using 0.

And, sure: Some MORE "goes on" during DNS API loads (iirc, removal of duplicated entries (which I made sure my personal copy does not have these via a program I wrote to purge it of duplicated entries + to sort each entry alphabetically for easier mgt. via say, notepad.exe) & a conversion from decimal values to hex ones), but, nevertheless? My point here "holds true", of slower value loads, record-by-record, from a HOSTS file, when the entries become larger.

So, to "prove my point" to my naysayers?

I timed it using the Win32 API calls "GetTickCount" & then again, using the API calls of "QueryPerformanceCounter" as well, seeing the SAME results (a slowdown when reading in this file from disk, especially when using the larger 127.0.0.1 or 0.0.0.0 line item entries in a HOSTS file, vs. the smaller/faster/more efficient 0).

In my test, I saw a decline in speed/efficiency in my test doing so by using larger blocking addresses (127.0.0.1 &/or 0.0.0.0, vs. the smallest/fastest in 0)... proving me correct on this note!

On this HOSTS issue, and the WFP design issue in my next post below?

I also then questioned MS' own staff, even their VP of development (S. Sinofsky) on this here -> http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/09/recognizing-improvements-in-windows-7-handwriting.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage [msdn.com] & other places in their blogs, to get them to tell me WHY this seemingly intentional inefficiency was implemented... & I have YET to get a solid LOGICAL answer on this as to why it was done - THUS, @ this point?

I am convinced they (MS) do NOT have a good reason for doing this... because of their lack of response there on this note. Unless it has something to do with IPv6 (most folks use IPv4 still), I cannot understand WHY this design mistake imo, has occurred, in HOSTS files...

AND

2.) The "Windows Filtering Platform", which is now how the firewall works in VISTA, Server 2008, & Windows 7...

Sure it works in this new single point method & it is simple to manage & "sync" all points of it, making it easier for network techs/admins to manage than the older 3 part method, but that very thing works against it as well, because it is only a single part system now!

Thus, however?

This "single layer design" in WFP, now represents a SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE/ATTACK for malware makers to 'take down'!

(Which is 1 of the 1st things a malware attempts to do, is to take down any software firewalls present, or even the "Windows Security Center" itself which should warn you of the firewall "going down", & it's fairly easy to do either by messaging the services they use, or messing up their registry init. settings)

VS. the older (up to) 3 part method used in Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, for protecting a system via IP Filtering, the Windows native Firewall, &/or IPSEC. Each of which uses diff. drivers, & layers of the IP stack to function from, as well as registry initialization settings.

Think of the older 3 part design much the same as the reason why folks use door handle locks, deadbolt locks, & chain locks on their doors... multipart layered security.

(Each of which the latter older method used, had 3 separate drivers & registry settings to do their jobs, representing a "phalanx like"/"zone defense like" system of backup of one another (like you see in sports OR ancient wars, and trust me, it WORKS, because on either side of yourself, you have "backup", even if YOU "go down" vs. the opponent)).

I.E.-> Take 1 of the "older method's" 3 part defenses down? 2 others STILL stand in the way, & they are not that simple to take them ALL down...

(Well, @ least NOT as easily as "taking out" a single part defensive system like WFP (the new "Windows Filtering Platform", which powers the VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & yes, Windows 7 firewall defense system)).

On this "single-part/single-point of attack" WFP (vs. Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003's IP stack defense design in 3-part/zone defense/phalanx type arrangement) as well as the HOSTS issue in my post above?

I also then questioned MS' own staff, even their VP of development (S. Sinofsky) on this here -> http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/09/recognizing-improvements-in-windows-7-handwriting.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage [msdn.com] & other places in their blogs, to get them to tell me WHY this seemingly intentional inefficiency was implemented... & I have YET to get a solid LOGICAL answer on this as to why it was done - THUS, @ this point?

I'll stick to my thoughts on it, until I am shown otherwise & proven wrong.

----

Following up on what I wrote up above, so those here reading have actual technical references from Microsoft themselves ("The horses' mouth"), in regards to the Firewall/PortFilter/IPSec designs (not HOSTS files, that I am SURE I am correct about, no questions asked) from my "Point #2" above?

Thus, I'll now note how:

----

1.) TCP/IP packet processing paths differences between in how Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 did it (IPSEC.SYS (IP Security Policies), IPNAT.SYS (Windows Firewall), IPFLTDRV.SYS (Port Filtering), & TCPIP.SYS (base IP driver))...

2.) AND, how VISTA/Server 2008/Windows 7 do it now currently, using a SINGLE layer (WFP)...

----

First off, here is HOW it worked in Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 - using 3 discrete & different drivers AND LEVELS/LAYERS of the packet processing path they worked in:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb878072.aspx [microsoft.com]

The Cable Guy - June 2005: TCP/IP Packet Processing Paths

====

The following components process IP packets:

IP forwarding Determines the next-hop interface and address for packets being sent or forwarded.

TCP/IP filtering Allows you to specify by IP protocol, TCP port, or UDP port, the types of traffic that are acceptable for incoming local host traffic (packets destined for the host). You can configure TCP/IP filtering on the Options tab from the advanced properties of the Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) component in the Network Connections folder.

* "Here endeth the lesson..." and, if you REALLY want to secure your system? Please refer to this:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE [bing.com]

APK [mailto]

P.S.=> SOME MINOR "CAVEATS/CATCH-22's" - things to be aware of for "layered security" + HOSTS file performance - easily overcome, or not a problem at all:

A.) HOSTS files don't function under PROXY SERVERS (except for Proximitron, which has a filter that allows it) - Which is *the "WHY"* of why I state in my "P.S." section below to use both AdBlock type browser addon methods (or even built-in block lists browsers have such as Opera's URLFILTER.INI file, & FireFox has such as list as does IE also in the form of TPL (tracking protection lists -> http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Browser/TrackingProtectionLists/ [microsoft.com] , good stuff )) in combination with HOSTS, for the best in "layered security" (alongside .pac files + custom cascading style sheets that can filter off various tags such as scripts or ads etc.) - but proxies, especially "HIGHLY ANONYMOUS" types, generally slow you down to a CRAWL online (& personally, I cannot see using proxies "for the good" typically - as they allow "truly anonymous posting" & have bugs (such as TOR has been shown to have & be "bypassable/traceable" via its "onion routing" methods)).

B.) HOSTS files do NOT protect you vs. javascript (this only holds true IF you don't already have a bad site blocked out in your HOSTS file though, & the list of sites where you can obtain such lists to add to your HOSTS are above (& updated daily in many of them)).

C.) HOSTS files (relatively "largish ones") require you to turn off Windows' native "DNS local client cache service" (which has a problem in that it's designed with a non-redimensionable/resizeable list, array, or queue (DNS data loads into a C/C++ structure actually/afaik, which IS a form of array)) - mvps.org covers that in detail and how to easily do this in Windows (this is NOT a problem in Linux, & it's 1 thing I will give Linux over Windows, hands-down). Relatively "smallish" HOSTS files don't have this problem (mvps.org offers 2 types for this).

D.) HOSTS files, once read/loaded, once? GET CACHED! Right into the kernelmode diskcaching subsystem (fast & efficient RAM speed), for speed of access/re-access (@ system startup in older MS OS' like 2000, or, upon a users' 1st request that's "Webbound" via say, a webbrowser) gets read into either the DNS local caching client service (noted above), OR, if that's turned off? Into your local diskcache (like ANY fil

Re:This is NOT ME... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43326569)

Alexander Peter Kowalski is a fraud and a malware author.

Re:This is NOT ME... apk (1)

Falconhell (1289630) | about a year and a half ago | (#43334477)

Nutjob vs Nutjob.

Grabs popcorn and waits to enjoy the fun!

Re:APK touched my junk liberally (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43321969)

Can Someone Block This ASSHOLE? HE"S Really A PAIN IN THE ASS with His Over-length Rants.

Hey ASSHOLE - GROW THE FUCK UP!

Missing option as usual (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43317845)

We're missing an option here:
I am aware of America, but I didn't know they had a court system.

Re:Missing option as usual (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320931)

We're missing an option here:
I am aware of America, but I didn't know they had a court system.

To me, it looks more like a complex system of courtyards. Almost a maze.

Re:Missing option as usual (1)

snspdaarf (1314399) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321563)

Are the corridors all alike?

Re:Missing option as usual (1)

snspdaarf (1314399) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321571)

Dammit. s/corridors/twisty passages/

Re:Missing option as usual (2)

Tastecicles (1153671) | about a year and a half ago | (#43324325)

dude, you just got greased by a grue.

Re:Missing option as usual (1)

desdinova 216 (2000908) | about a year and a half ago | (#43332863)

I believe it is properly "you have been eaten by a grue"

Re:Missing option as usual (1)

rvw (755107) | about a year and a half ago | (#43335901)

We're missing an option here:
I am aware of America, but I didn't know they had a court system.

They use Jersey Shore as courting system. It's on MTV and everything is documented.

Obligatory missing option complaint (2)

WWJohnBrowningDo (2792397) | about a year and a half ago | (#43318601)

Where's the "I write the rulings" option?

It's right above the ... (1)

davidwr (791652) | about a year and a half ago | (#43345131)

... "not since they impeached CowboyNeal" option.

Re:Obligatory missing option complaint (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43346409)

It left together with Taco...

Obligatory comic relief (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43318691)

I read the oral arguments from the Prop 8 and DOMA cases, and I think the likely outcome is pretty clear: the court is going to rule that gay marriage is a constitutionally protected exercise of the taxing power.

crickets

Re:Obligatory comic relief (1)

operagost (62405) | about a year and a half ago | (#43340691)

Because "general welfare." Or "interstate commerce." Or something.

Waiting for SCOTUS to notice the 10th Amendment (5, Insightful)

Nova Express (100383) | about a year and a half ago | (#43319091)

That is to say, I would like them to rediscover the fact that we live in a constitutional republic in which the federal government's size and power is limited to only that necessary to carry specifically enumerated powers [battleswarmblog.com] .

Sadly, that does not appear to be in the cards anytime soon. It makes it too hard to hand out subsidies to cronies and buy off various interest groups with taxpayer money.

Re:Waiting for SCOTUS to notice the 10th Amendment (4, Interesting)

Stonent1 (594886) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320459)

Every time I mention the 10th Amendment, people in some political circles treat me as if I just raised a Confederate flag over my tobacco plantation while donning a white robe and hat.

Re:Waiting for SCOTUS to notice the 10th Amendment (0)

multimediavt (965608) | about a year and a half ago | (#43322589)

Every time I mention the 10th Amendment, people in some political circles treat me as if I just raised a Confederate flag over my tobacco plantation while donning a white robe and hat.

Well, that might be because the Constitution and the Bill of Rights--part of the Constitution, by the way--are living documents that were never meant to be gospel nor written in stone. The Founding Fathers knew they would leave things out, make mistakes and that the document and the powers it granted would change with the times. Let us not forget that we have the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) because they forgot to put such provisions into the original document, and that they used their original system for change to do so. You will notice that Amendment X does end with "or to the people," who have a right through their elected officials to change the powers delegated to the federal (and states', muni's, etc.) government. The other (original) beauty to the Constitution was it also setup a system of checks and balances with the three branches of government that have since gone horribly off the rails and are becoming more-and-more contentious with each other for political reasons rather than serving the will and good of the populous.

Re:Waiting for SCOTUS to notice the 10th Amendment (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43326255)

The constitution is a living document in the sense that you can amend it. Allowing judges to interpret it however they feel like is simply dangerous, anyone who feels that to be a good thing is naive.

Don't like something in the constitution? Move to amend the constitution; that is your only legitimate option.

Re:Waiting for SCOTUS to notice the 10th Amendment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43331021)

Or revolt. Revolution has long been a legitimate option, too.

Re:Waiting for SCOTUS to notice the 10th Amendment (1)

darkwing_bmf (178021) | about a year and a half ago | (#43331365)

Revolution is only legitimate if you win.

Re:Waiting for SCOTUS to notice the 10th Amendment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43335951)

Well, kinda, but the world might rule some revolution justified even if you lose. It won't help much, you'll get shot as a traitor anyways, but you will die knowing other countries wished you had won.

Re:Waiting for SCOTUS to notice the 10th Amendment (1)

Dahamma (304068) | about a year and a half ago | (#43344371)

My construction of the constitution is very different from that you quote. It is that each department is truly independent of the others, and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the constitution in the cases submitted to its action; and especially, where it is to act ultimately and without appeal.

— Thomas Jefferson

Re:Waiting for SCOTUS to notice the 10th Amendment (4, Insightful)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about a year and a half ago | (#43326797)

Well, that might be because the Constitution and the Bill of Rights--part of the Constitution, by the way--are living documents that were never meant to be gospel nor written in stone.

Which is why they included Article Five.

You remember that one, right? The one describing the amendment process?

The thing about the Tenth Amendment is that it was never actually amended away. Which gives it just as much legal power as, hypothetically, the First Amendment, or the Fourth, or the Fifth.

Re:Waiting for SCOTUS to notice the 10th Amendment (1)

Eskarel (565631) | about a year and a half ago | (#43334619)

The 10th wasn't removed that's true, but the world it was written for no longer exists.

In essence, constitutionally, the federal government exists to deal with all the things which cross state borders and are therefor impossible for the states to manage, while the states deal with everything else. In 1780, the number of things which crossed state borders was very small and the number of things which didn't was very large. This meant that the power of the states was large and the power of the federal government was small. In the 21st century, the opposite is true and to a much more extreme degree, and so the same is true of the power balance.

In essence, the power of the 10th amendment has waned because more and more of the things which need to be governed have moved into the basket the founding fathers placed in the hands of the federal government.

TL;DR For the federal government hasn't actually been granted powers it wasn't granted in the constitution, but the amount of things which now fall into the federal bucket has grown dramatically where the number of things left to the states has shrunk.

Re:Waiting for SCOTUS to notice the 10th Amendment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43335079)

TL;DR For the federal government hasn't actually been granted powers it wasn't granted in the constitution, but the amount of things which now fall into the federal bucket has grown dramatically where the number of things left to the states has shrunk.

Well, when the court decides that growing wheat on your own property for your own use [wikipedia.org] is "interstate commerce" it kinda tilts the whole legal landscape in the direction of the federal government's bucket, doesn't it?

Re:Waiting for SCOTUS to notice the 10th Amendment (1)

Eskarel (565631) | about a year and a half ago | (#43335259)

Man libertarians love that case for an example of overstepping the commerce clause, seemingly only that case though. For that matter that case isn't as cut and dried as people like to make out as the farmer was still purchasing wheat from interstate sources in addition to what he was growing, personally I think it's a stretch, but the court decision has some logic. All that aside, things like this even if they are the extreme examples they're made out to be contribute a very small percentage of the increase in federal power.

Re:Waiting for SCOTUS to notice the 10th Amendment (1)

chihowa (366380) | about a year and a half ago | (#43343463)

The Commerce Clause is the basis for the War on Drugs, which is one of the more massive sources of increase in federal power. Wickard v. Filburn legitimized the use of the Commerce Clause for any economic activity that occurs in the US, so I'd say it deserves the attention it gets. The Court found in favor of the current interpretation of the Commerce Clause, so naturally there aren't any subsequent cases that deal with overstepping the Commerce Clause. Unless a court is trying to overturn this interpretation, there will never be another case addressing it.

Re:Waiting for SCOTUS to notice the 10th Amendment (1)

Eskarel (565631) | about a year and a half ago | (#43343685)

That's not really the point though. This particular case is somewhat ridiculous, that's why Libertarians love it because it's a perfect example of big bad government, and it almost certainly at the very least stretches the Commerce Clause to breaking point. When I say "only this case" I'm looking for other ludicrous examples of over stretching the Commerce clause, not another case on this issue.

As for the war on drugs that has been at least until very recently prosecuted with the full cooperation of the states. I know there were some issues with Medical Marijuana suppliers in California in the beginning, but my recollection was that those particular facilities were importing from illegal suppliers as opposed to growing it on their own and even then, not a whole lot came of it. The war on drugs may be failing badly, most of it may be stupid and corrupt, but from where I'm sitting it's largely not been unconstitutional.

There are undoubtedly constitutional abuses within the US to this very day, but that's not what Slashdot looks at. Slashdot's view of "unconstitutional" is anything I don't agree with where things you do are perfectly fine no matter how ridiculous they are.

Re:Waiting for SCOTUS to notice the 10th Amendment (1)

Demonantis (1340557) | about a year and a half ago | (#43326957)

I think you are interpreting the amendment wrong. It is giving a clear avenue for separating federal and state government. This is huge. In Canada the whole system has become a muddy mess as different levels of government try to balance their debt by off loading obligations. This stop that.

Re:Waiting for SCOTUS to notice the 10th Amendment (1)

Demonantis (1340557) | about a year and a half ago | (#43326963)

**This would stop that.

Re:Waiting for SCOTUS to notice the 10th Amendment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43328543)

It might shock you to note that all of the same doctrines appear in Canadian and American constitutional law with respect to federalism. They just have different names.

The 10th Amendment does not add anything to the constitution as written: it is simply a restatement of what is both implied and obvious from the structure of the Constitution, i.e., how sovereignty is divided in a federal state.

Re:Waiting for SCOTUS to notice the 10th Amendment (1)

stenvar (2789879) | about a year and a half ago | (#43331047)

Federalism in the US is, in theory, much stronger than that in other federal republics. Unfortunately, it has been severely eroded by both the left and the right, as both sides try to impose their social engineering on the entire US every chance they get.

Re:Waiting for SCOTUS to notice the 10th Amendment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43331955)

Not even in theory. The only argument to be made that federalism in the US is 'theoretically stronger' is the idea that the residual power accrues to the states, but the powers granted to the Federal government are so broadly worded that the accrued powers are not necessarily meaningful.

Re:Waiting for SCOTUS to notice the 10th Amendment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43342215)

Your right, but its also meant to be refreshed and reinforced from time to time. And absolutely everyones interpretation of the language there-in is completely subjective.

The problem is our society is weak as a whole and cowardly and heard minded. Therefore our interpretations of our constitution are corrupt and our amendments ever increasingly bad. And this is why we have ever increasing misuses of power.

If you don't agree with me, thats fine, but this is my opinion and it will withstand just about any bombardment of subjective reasoning.

Re:Waiting for SCOTUS to notice the 10th Amendment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43328551)

Probably because in legal circles, the 10th Amendment is meaningless; it contributes nothing to the Constitution. If you were a Confederate in pre-civil-war America, you could attempt to hang your hat on it to justify treason, but that's about all.

Re:Waiting for SCOTUS to notice the 10th Amendment (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | about a year and a half ago | (#43328557)

Bringing up the 10th Amendment without talking about SCOTUS decisions that have shaped it,
is like bringing up the 3/5ths Compromise without mentioning that the 13th and 14th Amendments nullified it.

The Constitution is book ended by centuries of English Common Law and by centuries of Supreme Court rulings.
My point being: The Constitution never did and does not stand alone.

Re:Waiting for SCOTUS to notice the 10th Amendment (1)

operagost (62405) | about a year and a half ago | (#43340769)

The thing is, the Constitution is the law of the land and court decisions are just interpretations. They can change as the people change.

Re:Waiting for SCOTUS to notice the 10th Amendment (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43321215)

yeah, not gonna happen. The Court is sovereign.

The Constitution is a piece of paper. Who decides if an action is Constitutional? The Court. Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education both made sweeping changes in "Constitutional Law", and from the perspective of those changes, at least one of those decisions must have been wrong. When is a court not a court? When it is sovereign. They decide, then they prooftext their decision out of the Constitution.

I mean, you are literally asking the sovereign to restrict itself.

Anyone who can restrict the sovereign is the true sovereign. For example, some people think supreme legislative authority was granted to Congress. But when there's a controversy over a law passed by Congress, who decides if it's okay or not? The Court. The Court is sovereign.

In the modern age, in decisions like Roe v. Wade, and in Lawrence v. Texas, and in Citizens United, the Court decided to dismantle laws that, in the case of Lawrence v. Texas, go back to before the founding of the republic.

If the Court ordered the President to give his next speech standing on his head, who would tell the Court that that's unconstitutional?

Re:Waiting for SCOTUS to notice the 10th Amendment (1)

snspdaarf (1314399) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321647)

Well, I suppose Congress could impeach them, try them, and remove them, but the question for them would be if making the President look silly while giving a speech would be a high crime or misdemeanor.

Re:Waiting for SCOTUS to notice the 10th Amendment (1)

operagost (62405) | about a year and a half ago | (#43340835)

Treason is a high crime.

Re:Waiting for SCOTUS to notice the 10th Amendment (1)

multimediavt (965608) | about a year and a half ago | (#43322635)

If the Court ordered the President to give his next speech standing on his head, who would tell the Court that that's unconstitutional?

No one would have to because it's too ridiculous an example to be credible to your argument. Matter of fact, you really need to read fewer Court decisions and focus more on what the court is actually doing. [wikipedia.org] The Supreme Court sets the interpretation of law and can declare laws unconstitutional if their interpretations are too vague or too over reaching, all in terms of precedent.

Do they make mistakes (get something wrong)? Sure. Is a mistake a decision we personally don't believe is correct? Not necessarily. Same thing applies to laws or any other regulation in general. Want to change something? Sponsor a law! :) Beauty of the system. It can be changed. Not sure what might happen if a law passed changing SCOTUS in some way. I would imagine it could not be reviewed by SCOTUS. Hmmm...have to go searching...

Re:Waiting for SCOTUS to notice the 10th Amendment (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#43326521)

If the Court ordered the President to give his next speech standing on his head, who would tell the Court that that's unconstitutional?

Usually in elementary school they teach about checks and balances. Andrew Jackson emphasized the point when he said, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!" The court is limited in its power for very good reasons.

Re:Waiting for SCOTUS to notice the 10th Amendment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43328401)

Technically the 50 state legislatures are sovereign because they hold the sole power to amend the constitution, and are capable of doing so without the action of Congress. An amendment to the constitution once ratified supersedes the Supreme Court. We have amended the constitution several times, although I don't recall that any were specifically to over turn a SCOTUS ruling. The thing about it is, it has to be a big enough issue that a majority of state legislatures decide to take action, which hasn't really happened yet. Usually the population is split 50/50 at best, or the majority sides with the court or doesn't care.

Re:Waiting for SCOTUS to notice the 10th Amendment (1)

Martin Blank (154261) | about a year and a half ago | (#43331215)

The 16th Amendment was passed specifically to override the Court's decision in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust on how certain income taxes were handled.

Re:Waiting for SCOTUS to notice the 10th Amendment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43322665)

... specifically enumerated powers ...

Simple work-around: Find a judge to classify non-enumerated powers as incidental powers. Look at how 'inter-state commerce' is used to attack any organisation or individual. The CIA, NSA, DHS, FBI, patriot act et al are all agents incidental to 'national security'.

Re:Waiting for SCOTUS to notice the 10th Amendment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43331771)

I think that a good forcing function for this situation would be to radically simplify the tax code. Too many special cases create and sustain special interest groups whose causes are paid for by taxpayers via the tax code system in place.

Missing Option (1)

Greyfox (87712) | about a year and a half ago | (#43322761)

I'm a Supreme Court justice, you insensitive clod!

Re:Missing Option (2)

dkleinsc (563838) | about a year and a half ago | (#43327185)

Nice try, Harriet Miers.

Farm Rich Quesadias Recall (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43322955)

Yum Contaminated, Tainted, Hospitalized, Just like America Contaminated with oath breakers and DHS, Tainted with banksters, GMO, chemtrails, and now Forced into a fucking hospital nobody fucking wanted. I don't hate my government, I HATE oath breakers, I hate that DHS is in opposition to the Constitution, I hate banksters and the oath breakers who won't regulate them, I HATE dangerous GMO's (not to be confused with harmless gmo's like grafting 5 citrus fruits to one tree), I hate chemtrails and the oath breakers hiding it

The president doesn't need to be impeached, he fucking needs to be arrested for treason.
So does Bush and all the rest of the fucking war criminals all the way back to Oliver North, Negroponte and the (now version 2.0 around the world) C.American death squads.

49 Senators tried to sign the fucking UN Gun ban Treaty!

Money isn't safe in banks,
Media doesn't tell us jack shit
Motherfucking wars everywhere
Motherfucking radiation everywhere
Motherfucking SKY isn't dark blue anymore, the Sun isn't yellow anymore
oath breakers backed by big media and stolen money are now dominating the names and agenda on our voting ballots, which are now electronic and can't be validated without giving up transparancy
Continuous Electronic Warfare, Spying, Pain Weapons, Mind Weapons, Death Weapons, Weather Weapons, on and fuckty on everything electronic is being actively exploited to FUCK US.

TSA ... NO I don't like my fucking balls grabbed. I remember the days of DIRT Runways, the cockpit DOOR banging, there was no stupid shit happening.

And DHS, FBI, Miac, SPLC say's I'm the terrorist.. Oh no motherfuckers, YOU are the terrorist. Who the fuck just ordered all those bullets, mraps, and associated war shit. That wasn't a question, anybody not drinking the fluoride, or poisoned by weird fucking DARPA brain shit can see where this is going.

I myself, only can remember MY oath. And no changing and meddling with the Constitution by the likes of these piece of shit fucking Zionists like Feinstein will change MY SWORN OATH (with her dual Israeli US citizenship need to be spending a very long time in Ft Leavenworth) There is a difference between her and "The Jews" I don't have a fucking problem with the Jewish, I have a problem with the dual citizenship and her position and the fucking murder and mayhem going on in the middle east. But for saying this the DHS calls me the home grown terrorist? Wrong motherfuckers, YOU are the terrorist, your very existence is in opposition to the US Constitution. My suggesting Ft Leavenworth get's ignored and these fuckers in SPLC and shit say I am against my government? HOW can that be, Ft Leavenworth is a FORT, which is part of GOVERNMENT, there are lots of parts of GOVERNMENT which are NOT FUCKED UP. So DHS, and all these cock sucking motherfuckers are LYING.

The NDAA + DRONES it's treasonous evil. It won't end well for any of us.

I have a message to those in power.

Remember the last line of the OATH, "So Help You God."
You are responsible for the bullshit going on, it's EXACTLY HOW YOU WANT IT. So Help You God.
Your children will be fucked too. So help you god.
You have created HELL ON EARTH. So help you god.

Vital (1)

BenBoy (615230) | about a year and a half ago | (#43324801)

It's vital that we track and understand SCOTUS decision-making. How else can you decide who to vote for in the next Supreme Court election? Plus, where will I get my sense of righteous indignation from if not that wacky crew and their be-robed antics?

Missing Option: (1)

Hartree (191324) | about a year and a half ago | (#43325839)

Only if they are about the constitutionality of the Cowboy Neal option.

Semi-Seriously Getting Harder (1)

TheNinjaroach (878876) | about a year and a half ago | (#43326323)

It's getting harder and harder to take anything about the Supreme Court semi-seriously these days.

Following seriously, BUT... (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year and a half ago | (#43326645)

... following is not the same as agreeing.

Voted maximum (1)

deblau (68023) | about a year and a half ago | (#43327509)

Because I'm a lawyer. Duh.

Re:Voted maximum (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | about a year and a half ago | (#43327985)

I can't get a straight answer, perhaps you can help because my lazy arse can't be bothered to search: is there a one-stop shop for online public access to SCOTUS decisions? If so, where?

Re:Voted maximum (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43331111)

He is a lawyer so he will charge you 400 an hour for that information ;)

Re:Voted maximum (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43334861)

You can't get a straight answer, so you thought you'd ask a lawyer?

The Supreme Court poses a great threat to the US (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43327725)

Since in 2000 when SCOTUS ruled that it's more important to follow a state's arbitrary deadline for counting votes rather than to count ALL the damned votes, I've been more and more dismayed at their decisions. They're so far out of alignment with middle America it's not even funny. Their interpretation of the laws allowing Corporations to be treated as citizens, but with none of the responsibilities makes a mockery of the "freedom" our troops think they're fighting for. We're all puppets to the 1%, tools to be pushed around like a broom or left out in the rain to soak.

Re:The Supreme Court poses a great threat to the U (2)

Martin Blank (154261) | about a year and a half ago | (#43331269)

Corporations are treated as groups of citizens, not as citizens themselves. It's hard, perhaps impossible to separate the right of people to assemble and to speak freely (which may require money) without overriding the First Amendment.

That's not to say I agree with the outcome. I think the "super-PACs" have proven to be an enormously corrupting influence on the electoral system much faster than the Court thought would happen. At this point, I wouldn't mind restricting the ability for all groups, whether corporations, unions, or other political interests to participate in the campaigns. This may require a new amendment, though.

Re:The Supreme Court poses a great threat to the U (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43332265)

oh, poor baby. Still crying about Al Gore. I shuddered when Bush took office, but I did take solace in the fact that Al Gore was not the President.

Forget about courts! (1)

vswee (2040690) | about a year and a half ago | (#43327977)

There's no such thing as justice! Am I right, or am I right?

WHAT, OUTRAGED POLLS HAVE CHANGED. (1)

jozmala (101511) | about a year and a half ago | (#43328929)

There is no cowboyneal option. The administrators should be judged by Judge cowboyneal and his law giver.

Used To (1)

Strawser (22927) | about a year and a half ago | (#43330375)

I used to follow them, but since Roberts took over as Chief Justice, they've been releasing all new opinions in ROT-13. Too much of a PITA.

Very very closely so close my drone sees them (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about a year and a half ago | (#43332395)

I follow SCOTUS cases very very closely.

That's my drone you see at your bedroom window, Alito.

Has anyone here actually read a SCOTUS opinion? (1)

mendax (114116) | about a year and a half ago | (#43332565)

I recommend that everyone here read a few Supreme Court opinions. Some of them are great reading. One of the problems with most people who comment on Supreme Court decisions is that they have little knowledge of the logic being used by the justices when they make their decisions.

Some of them are also great literature. For example, Marbury v. Madison (5 U.S. 137 (1803)), written by John Marshall, is a great read and explains in great detail the court's reasoning and in doing so laid the groundwork for the next two hundred years of decisions, both good and bad. But the one that perhaps would be of the most interest to Slashdotters is the concurrence that Clarence Thomas wrote (yes, he can write with something other than crayons) in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (514 U.S. 314 (1995)), about the constitutionality of anonymous speech. It's essentially a history of anonymous speech in early American history.

Re:Has anyone here actually read a SCOTUS opinion? (2)

operagost (62405) | about a year and a half ago | (#43340857)

Clarence Thomas is smarter than 99.9% of Slashdotters claim they are while typing from their mom's basements.

What I recently learned (1)

Orion Blastar (457579) | about a year and a half ago | (#43334653)

from Thai relatives is that politicians and the government and judges and courts are all corrupt, take bribes, do what lobbyists say to pass laws in favor of corporations and not people.

The Thai philosophy is basically you cannot do anything about it, as even the elections are rigged, so don't worry about what you cannot control and just enjoy life. If you do worry about it and protest or complain, well the thought police will come after you to 're-educate' you in Room 101 so you'll love the government (big brother) anyway. They might even shoot you or arrest you without a warrant and throw you into jail without a trial. So don't speak back and complain and get all negative and post about it all over the Internet and draw attention to yourself so that the government notices it. Just be passive resistant, and do nothing, because if you do something there won't be anything left of you to do something for something else later.

Yawn (1)

StoneyMahoney (1488261) | about a year and a half ago | (#43346189)

Stretch, yawn, Americentric, couldn't care less, yawn mutter drool.

Re:Yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43349445)

It's funny that Europeans/Canadians/etc complain that Americans don't pay attention to current events in other countries (a small protest over bread prices in rural Botswana? How noteworthy! An interview with a Kyrgyzstanian mother of three about her life as a clay pottery store owner? Insightful perspective!) yet do not themselves find a SCOTUS ruling to be worthy of even a cursory glance.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?