Hackers Take Aim at Republicans 1866
An anonymous reader writes "Wired reports-- Online protests targeting GOP websites could turn out to be more than symbolic during this month's Republican National Convention, possibly blocking a critical communications tool for the party... "We want to bombard (the Republican sites) with so much traffic that nobody can get in," said CrimethInc, a member of the so-called Black Hat Hackers Bloc. It's one of several groups planning to distribute software tools to reload Republican sites over and over again."
Silly hackers! (Score:4, Funny)
Rich = BIG POWERFUL SERVERS with LOTS OF BANDWIDTH!
Re:Silly hackers! (Score:4, Interesting)
Now now now....
They're not stupid. They just stopped advancing technologically, socially, and politically around the same time fire was discovered.
Compare and contrast that with the Democrats. They're willing to jump on, over, and under any random bandwagon that happens to come along in the technological, social, or political field.
Since the independents and libertarians are usually the ones driving the bandwagons, and they're so scatterbrained and disorganized that the wagon is all over the road and running down everyone else in the field, we can't really look to them for any clarity either.
The moral of this story is that they're all stupid, and people should just try thinking for themselves for a change.
Of course.... most people are stupid..... so....
that link is irrelevant (Score:5, Informative)
Some ballpark figures for assets, drawn partly from here [64.233.161.104]:
Kerry (incl. wife): $500 to $600 million
Cheney: $17 to $85 million
Edwards: ~$19 million
Bush: $6 to $14 million
So as you can see, even if those numbers are off by a lot, Kerry is still the richest by far, and Bush is the poorest of the four.
Pardon? (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't believe it because... (Score:5, Insightful)
With folks like Ashcroft at the helm of one of the more frightening departments of the government, people associate Republicans with money, power, and religion.
What I think most people fail to realize is that right now, neither party really sticks to their core values. The Democrats want to restrict freedoms under the guise of social and economic reform. The Republicans want to restrict freedom under the guise of security and religous appeal.
Which of these looks more dangerous to the typical hacker's social sensibilities? It doesn't matter if in the end, the core of the US is totally ruined and discarded. All people see right now is the road to get there.
Of course, beware the gross generalizations.
Re:Myth (Score:5, Informative)
According to this August 7th article from Bloomberg (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/business/a
Until Enron's collapse, Ken Lay - Enron's CEO - was George W. Bush's top benefactor. As to small donors vs. large see this (http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/donordem
Bernie Ebbers Worldcom's disgraced former CEO was a huge Republican fund raiser, and Trent Lott's biggest benefactor.
The Saudi's (including the Bin Laden family) did sweethart deals for George W. Bush, bailing out two of his failed companies, and making him rich while the rest of the shareholders were left holding the bag.
Bush, by far - 57,218 to 26,911, outpaces Kerry in the $2,000+ donors category, and Kerry, again by a large margin - 35% of Kerry's donors compared to 28% of Bush's, outpaces Bush in the $200 or less category.
Please do check the facts yourself, and here's a hint: you won't find them on Rush Limbaugh's web site.
Re:Myth (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't even do that. We don't even pay the same percentage of our income. It's a regressive tax system. Rich people not paying any taxes is a myth. If that were true then why would the top 5% of income earners be footing 50% of the bill (my numbers might not be exact, but they are about right).
Sure, rich people benefit from the government, but guess what? So do we. When's the last time you worked for a poor person. It's the rich people (and not the government like some people seem to think) who create jobs. How is socking it to the very people that create jobs consistent with Kerry's absurd notion of creating 10 million jobs (something he couldn't do because that would mean less than 0% unemployement)? The sad fact is that the Democrats base their platform largely on jealously and class warfare.
And in the interests of being open, I spent about 15 months in the last 30 out of work, largely because of the outsourcing of software development jobs, but you didn't hear me complaining that it was somehow Bush's (or anyone else's) fault. It's a free market, and I was temporary out of luck. So I sucked it in and dealt with it. No one owes me anything (and no, I didn't bother getting unemployement checks either, because I didn't want the Man telling me how to look for a job). Now I'm self-employed and doing just fine.
So much for... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So much for... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So much for... (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So much for... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So much for... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll say to you the same thing I'd say to the anti-GOP hackers:
Grow up.
Re:So much for... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So much for... (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, I just saw an excellent post explaining that the Republicans want lots of youthful looney tunes protestors raging around the streets of New York - they think it will help alienate middle America and swing voters. I agree with this - I'm a moderate liberal Democrat myself, not a party-voter, but one who votes on issues. No chance I'm voting for Bush in this election, since he has no redeeming qualities as a person or a leader, but I would vote for the right Republican in the right circumstances. I have always been put off by rampaging protestors, having lived in Boston and New York for years. Nobody has EVER successfully changed my mind by getting in my face and yelling while I'm trying to walk to the bank or go out with my girlfriend to a restaurant. Nobody has EVER successfully changed my mind or influenced my vote by blocking traffic and making me late to a meeting, except by successfully labelling themselves and their candidates/causes as "thoroughly looney" in my mind and making me steer well clear of them.
I support peoples' right to peaceful assembly, but most of the time I see lots of youthful exhuberence and ill-educated idiots who are out to protest because "it's cool", not because they truly believe in a cause or feel that this is their only way to make people aware of the cause. I saw this going on at Harvard all the time - you would expect better of a top Ivy League student body. By the time I graduated, I had hardened in my conservative beliefs because I'd gotten so thoroughly sick of all the ivory tower sheeple behavior. In any case, I've realized since that just because I'm a conservative by the standards of radically liberal college students, I'm still a moderate liberal compared to the rest of the world and my views are still more within the Democratic party fold than not.
The moral of the story: don't piss people off in your zeal to convert them to your cause. Same message goes out to all the Republicans voting for a nutjob like Bush. Moderates don't want to hear about your so-called "faith" or "conversion" to born-again Christianity. This shit just alienates you from every moderately educated person out there. I guess the Republicans are lucky that roughly 50% of people are below average.
Re:So much for... (Score:5, Insightful)
For the modern left, "tolerance" and "open-mindedness" only apply to ideas they agree with. Everything else is "hate speech" and thus deserving of complete extermination.
His contention is that individuals on the left speak of tolerance and open-minds only when it's with those that agree with them.
All of your points (Ann Coultier, Members of the Free Republic Board, Racially abusing your wise, censoring your sign(?), to name a few) were followed with absolutely no explination or proof. Just accusations with no substantiation. You seem to be attacking the words and thoughts of those who do not agree with you. I agree that Ann Coultier is a douchebag and that it is in very poor taste for "W" to attack the record of a veteran that actually served, but it's their right to be assholes.
These attempts you make at points are then followed-up with slinging of words like FUD, "Swift-boat", and "Speaking out of their asses". Once again, none of this is followed with any sort of proof or backing. It makes you look less like a well spoken individual with thoughts and ideas worth listening to and more like a person that acts unwisely on emotional ebbs and flows and doesn't really have any substance in their discussion.
As for the religion argument, Judiasm, Christianity, and Islam are very different religions. They all spanwed from an anchient belief in the same god and share some of the same scripture, but are vastly different in not only the rites, rituals, and requirements that each place on its members to worship god, but in the cultural aspect that has evolved with each religion individually. This blindness towards the differences is what causes a lack of understanding and insulting, sacreligous, or culturally offensive behavior that leads to hatred and war.
To also quote you, The left wing supports everyone. They don't discriminate. This comes 1 paragraph after you imply that you wouldn't support the Members of the Free Republic and 1 paragraph before you write disparagingly against veterans that speak their mind against Kerry. This is the crux of the grand-parent's point. You CAN'T be for everyone and still have opinions of your own. In fact, even true Libertarians (motto: do whatever the hell you want, as long as it effects only you or other consenting individuals) have to draw the line somewhere, because there are people that are against self-deprication.
The point wasn't that republicans are hate-filled (besides, republican != right. There are left leaning republicans and right wing people who aren't republicans, which is yet another semi-unfair generalization you make), it was that any statement made that was opposed to a left/liberal person's beliefs was automatically labelled as hate speach. If you (not you-specific, but change in audiance to you-general liberals) were truly tolerant and open-minded, you would embrace their words, consider them and either:
1. incorporate the points that you found worthwhile.
2. refute sensibly with counterpoints and proof the fallacies you find
3. respect the differing opinion while agreeing to disagree or working towards a mutual compromise.
Emotional responses with contridicting statements and little or no content such as the parent serve only as fuel to the fire rather than quench the blaze. Tolerance and open-mindedness includes tolerance of assholes and giving them your ear as well. Tolerance is easy to claim, especially when using it against an opponent's view, but is truly a tough thing to be because it requires you to ata least accept that view (but not necessarily follow it).
Cheers.
-Ab
The whole plan revolves around..... (Score:5, Funny)
Why isn't this YRO? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why isn't this YRO? (Score:5, Insightful)
In light of such actions, how can one associate "liberty" with "liberal" anymore?
Re:Why isn't this YRO? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not a free speech issue. As the corporate apologists are so fond of reminding us, free speech is about limiting government's control of speech.
In light of such actions, how can one associate "liberty" with "liberal" anymore?
Perhaps it's possible, and I am only speculating here, that someone, somewhere may consider himself a "liberal" and at the same time may also disapprove of such vandalism as this. Shocking, I know.
Liberal? (Score:4, Insightful)
Huh? What's with the idea of bringing liberals into this discussion? We're talking extremists here. Extremists on both sides of political idealogy are against liberty. Extremists are the ones who want to shut up (or lock up) their opponents. This has nothing to do with liberals or conservatives, both of whom hate actions such as this (or such as the White House neo-cons have been doing). Extremists are the problem, not conservatives or liberals.
Re:Why isn't this YRO? (Score:5, Insightful)
In the midst of this DDOS attack, voices are being stifled. Their speech is being hindered, because someone else doesn't like what they have to say.
Any way you look at it, their speech is no longer free. They are having to seek other means of expression, or they are having to take measures to overcome opression to express their ideas.
Not unexpected (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd better hear the same hue and cry in here as if a group of right-wing extremists were gleefully planning to shut down the DNC, or Nader, or any other such group.
That's just plain wrong. If you don't like someone, then debate them - don't try to shut them up.
Re:Not unexpected (Score:5, Informative)
You remember all the fuss last month when the Oregon Democrats flooded a Nader meeting in a limited-capacity hall with the explicit purpose of denying him ballot petition signatures, right? No? The New York Times managed to overlook it as well, although just a couple of days ago they managed to squeeze in one more story about imaginary roadblocks in Florida in 2000.
Re:Not unexpected (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine that. Both large political parties in the US try any means to squelch third parties. Both of them have a bone to pick after Nader in 2000 and Ross Perot in 92 and 96.
...and they tel lyou a third party vote is wasted? It's actually a pretty big threat. Nothing drains their resources as bad as a vote lost. And if neither of them takes in the vote it only shows that people are becoming disconent with both sides and their status quo BS.
This is wrong. (Score:4, Insightful)
BC
... Wrong way... (Score:5, Insightful)
The worst part about it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Listening to Bush speak and extracting information - he supports pre-emptive war, he doesn't support scientific research on most stemcells, his education and domestic policy are faltering - this type of information is what should drive the left to vote for another candidate. The "he's wrong before I've even heard his views" stance is the *worst* way to go about creating a democracy, in fact, it's the best way to silence one.
Democracy is dependant on everyone getting the facts. Interpretations of the facts are tricky, but creating your own set of facts is downright wrong. Silencing speech, in any way, is the first step towards the ideological mess that the "faith-based" Republican party finds themselves in right now: creating facts to fit beliefs about misguided assumptions.
"If you disagree with someone or some group's actions/beliefs"... first requires that you listen to that group's actions or beliefs. I hope - *hope* - that we can get this message across.
Re:The worst part about it... (Score:5, Insightful)
My point is, the American people are ill-informed and it's going to come back and bite them in the ass. What people should really be looking at is the issues swept under the carpet. I don't care if John Kerry was a war hero or not, but I'll be damned if he's going to spend my tax dollars on a healthcare plan when almost 50% of the national budget is going to be going (within the next decade) to Social Security and Medicare. No candidate can hope to get elected on the "I'm going to raise your taxes because we have to pay for shit" platform, but that's exactly what's going to have to happen in the next few presidential terms. Either that or stop spending so much fucking money. The American public doesn't like hearing that either, unfortunately.
--trb
Please remember (Score:5, Insightful)
Please remember, being anti-Bush does not make one a Democrat, and let's not let the actions of a few unsavory individuals tarnish the reputation of everyone who wants Bush out of office.
This is just like when the media focused on the SCO/spam worms and claimed that linux evangelists were out to destroy the company.
Plenty of GOPers want he out too. (Score:5, Insightful)
However that doesn't make a DDOS attack right. If Bush's message is so bad then why shouldn't it be heard. All this does is drive up sympathy and plays in to the terrorist fear mindset that is the cornerstone of the Bush agenda.
Excellent idea! (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's prove it to 'em!"
CrimethInc (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:CrimethInc (Score:4, Funny)
My favorite line before he got booted off the stage by Priest: "They can call me a terrorist, but I'll still blow up their buildings!" What an asshat.
3 Wrongs make a Left (Score:5, Insightful)
Intentions aside, people like these need to be removed from society, for they are no better than the ill they wish to remove.
If you want to change a wrong, campaign (marketing) for the change, and VOTE!! Don't commit crimes and then say it was all in the name of justice.
This is like the 'peace' protestors that assault the police or destroy other's property, or the abortion activist murdering a doctor or pro-choicer.
It's time to start skimming the gene pool...
Giving the GOP a giant gift (Score:4, Insightful)
The GOP occupation of NYC is not just designed to exploit 9/11. It is a careful and deliberate attempt to provoke protest. Preferably large, frightening, unruly protest. The more masturbatory rage they can stir up in the city, the louder they'll be laughing on their way back to the white house.
This election will be won with moderates and swing voters. Those are people like your parents. They will not identify with "CrimethInc" and "scruffy, unattractive" street protestors. They will see this event covered from inside the convention looking out.
Every act of violence, provocation, and unruly or disorderly behavior will scare those moderates right into the GOP's arms. Whether it be showing up on 6th Ave. with a mask and a shield, or DDOS'ing a GOP website, this kind of bad conduct is exactly what Republican strategists urgently want. And it will hand them the election on a silver platter.
Don't be a goddamn lemming. Save your "violence" for the voting booth!
Protests, blyeah (Score:5, Insightful)
It is, perhaps, a stereotype that most protests are filled with people between the ages of 18 to 25, but from what I've seen it's largely true, with older people leading them. It makes sense though, that's the group of people who have the time to leave their lives for a couple weeks, go accross the country, and protest. They are also the ones willing to live in the streets for a bit and have the energy to keep up that kind of passion. They are also the least likely to actually vote, and the most likely to make an uninformed decision without listening to the rationale on both sides.
Whether or not you agree with me, it's these perceptions developed largely by actually being forced to live in an area where protests were supposed to be "sticking up for me" that automatically makes me label protestors as idiots, no matter what they are out protesting. Republican, Democrat, Antiabortion, prochoice, environmentalist, antiwar, -- all of it is better served by discussion, not screaming. There are few instances I can think of where a protest would do more good than a well written letter.
Stupid, Stupid, Stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Stupid, Stupid, Stupid (Score:5, Informative)
Read this [msn.com].
Phil Singer, a spokesman for Kerry, said Thursday that Cheney was being disingenuous and was twisting Kerry's words. Singer noted that President Bush had also used the word "sensitive."
"Dick Cheney's desperate misleading attacks now have him criticizing George Bush's own words, who called for America to be 'sensitive about expressing our power and influence,'" Singer said.
In Service to Whom? (Score:5, Insightful)
I suppose this is a concept that is hardly difficult for a thinking person to unearth, but as no one above my threshold has yet commented upon it, I'll take the soapbox.
This sort of hacktivism is nothing more then the digital analogue of a violent protest. While I most certainly do not agree with the platform and politics of the GOP, I believe that it is these hackers that pose a greater danger to my 'free speech.' While the Republicans have paid to host a web site and run a server in order to communicate their vision to the world, this wonderful group of people has decided not to fight back with cogent argumentation and stunning logic, but rather with a wildly underwhelming attempt to flood the server.
This sort of free campaign fodder offered to the Republicans can only harm Kerry's cause (though he is no prize pig himself...). Just wait for the War on Terrorism to go electronic: I can't wait for a digital reprisal of Ari Fleisher's 2001 declaration [commondreams.org] that "People have to watch what they say and watch what they do."
It's time people began to think. I honestly believe that a logical policy analysis reveals the truth. Left to themselves, people reading campaign literature from either side should be able to discern the better candidate. Even card-carrying GOP members that plan to vote a straight ticket deserve to learn what their party stands for and believes.
Now flip the coin. Suppose it were Republicans DDOS'ing progressive web sites such as Salon.com, Kuro5hin, or (heaven forbid) Slashdot. Shouldn't we all have the right to publish in peace? Attack my logic and my political views if you'd like. I'm not here to argue today, but it seems to me that this is obviously a "bad idea."
Yesterday, a wonderful article [salon.com] was published in Salon regarding planned protests of the GOP convention. Article summary: "If militants violently disrupt the GOP convention, it could be Chicago 1968 redux -- and Christmas in August for the Bush campaign." There is nothing like a free victory in a battle not fought.
We recognize the right to free speech, but I personally believe in the right of anyone to be heard. By my personal moral code, the correct way to respond to a man shouting wildly on the street is not to toss a brick his way, but rather to engage in conversation.
So please, think. It might work.
-Scott
DOSers are lowlifes! (Score:4, Insightful)
To all of you DOSers out there -- in case it's not already obvious... Denial of Service attacks earn you no respect, it demonstrates no skills. It's like child molestation: it's so easy, anyone could do it. But why would you want to?
What options are left? (Score:4, Insightful)
They won't let peaceful protesters within blocks of the President or in view of a camera taping the President.
The debate process blocks anyone with a differing view.
This is just about the only way people have left to voice their views. They aren't hurting anyone and they may very well make themselves look stupid. It is simply peaceful, but unlawful, protest.
To quote Cris Rock, "I'm not saying that its right, but I understand."
An Image of Anarchy (Score:5, Insightful)
God forbid any of these people would go out and campaign for their candidate on the issues. Go door to door asking people to vote for him and telling them why they should. Contribute money to your candidate's campaign. Go to the local campaign headquarters and ask what you can do to help your candidate -- something you can tell your grandchildren about with pride.
The problem with the left is that they're so desperate to defeat Bush that they'll do absolutely anything sort of breaking the law. And I'm sure some won't stop there. Remember, it doesn't have to be a felony or a misdemeanor for something to be wrong or unscrupulous. DoS'ing the GOP's website is going to do absolutely nothing to help your candidate. And neither is causing chaos at the convention.
I, for one, am completely in favor of very strict criminal penalties for anybody who intentionally distrupts the security personnel or infrastructure at the convention or at any high profile event. Send these morons to the city jail for some serious amount of time -- like 90 days. If there's no room for them in the jail, build a tent city outside of town and keep them there.
Protesting is one thing, and you have every right to do that, despite what you and your friends might say about the GOP wanting to silence you. Nobody's going to stop you from protesting, as long as you obey the law. And yes, they might have rules about where you can be. That's not an infringement of free expression. It's a way of attempt to control a potential mob and keep them from intentionally disrupting a location that really does require a lot of security.
Bottom line -- grow up and let the democratic process work. If you really want to help this election, you can get to work educating voters how to vote properly, so we don't have the fiasco we had last time in Florida. Thanks to that lunacy, we unfortunately had to take the whole thing to the courts, which obviously isn't the way a lot of people like to see an election decided.
RP
The 'hacktivists' are the fascists (Score:5, Insightful)
Same guy from DefCon (Score:5, Informative)
The report from newsforge is under Hacktivism.
http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=04/08/02/
I swear this sounds like a guy whose site I used to work on. I saw someone had posted a code snippet from their supposed DoS tool. The code looks like their caliber, shoddy. They are nothing more than an army of spotty faced kids who grew up in suburban areas, and are pissed because mommy and daddy didn't buy them a pony for their 5th birthday.
If I do find it is the same guy, I will post the URL to the Slashdot community, and you guys can sound off on their forums about what you think of their politics.
Politics on Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
After reading the posts on this particular topic, I'm amazed at how quickly the /. community retreats to the rhetorical (albeit slightly better researched and intelligent) arguments on both sides of the Bush vs. Kerry argument.
I'm not going to advocate either candidate here as I don't really think it really matters. Both men have questionable service records during the Vietnam war. I know that service speakes to the character of each man, but just how relevant is a three decades old cold-war conflict to the modern world with regard to the completely different "war on terror"?
The grim reality we need to face is that Bush and Kerry are actually two sides to the same damn coin. Is your real tax burden really going to go down under either administration? Is the government going to be less intrusive under either administration? John Kerry hasn't met a tax increase or bigger governmental progam he didn't like. George W. Bush signed on one of the largest entitlements in over 30 years. While Bush did manage to get tax cuts handed out, how many of us felt a real impact? How many of us really believe that the cause of liberty (which I differentiate from freedom to include a measure of responsibility) will be championed by either man?
Bottom line is with either man, your taxes will go up (if you live here anyway), the government will increase its size, scope, and intrusiveness, and neither man will work toward true liberty for the citizens of the US.
Sure, John Kerry will not appoint someone as scary as Ashcroft as Attorney General, but he will appoint an equally scary Janet Reno clone. Political Correctness will be the blinders Mr. Kerry will strap on each of us to blind us from the harsh realities he doesn't believe we're capable of handeling.
On the other hand, George W. Bush won't hasten the demise of free speech via PC activism, but will use national security to the same end the blinders Mr. Kerry would see implemented. Neither man believes we the people are capable of managing our own lives and protection.
Sure GWB lowered taxes and I've heard the various arguments for and against them (left: only the rich get tax cuts, right: the rich pay the bulk of the taxes so who else should get the cuts) ad nauseum, ad infinitum. Kerry has said he'd repeal the Bush tax cuts, he's raised taxes every times he's been asked, so I believe he'll do it again. Bush tells us that the he wants the tax cuts to be permanent, but increases entitlement spending. Neither candidate is interested in really reducing the tax burden on most families. That would mean cutting too deeply into pet projects of our various congresscritters.
Why is there even a debate here about taxes? What governmental agency has gotten anything right in the past 30 years? We dump more and more money into social problems only to find them getting worse. Why not try a different approach? Oh yeah, beacuase both parties have a vested interest in getting people addicted to the heroine that is government assistance. Neither party wants to see Americans independant, able to successfully function on their own, and provide for their families needs. Republicans want us to need them for personal protection and to be good little consumers, and Democrats want us to need them for everything else.
Under either candidate's adminstrations we'll still have to deal with Ridges Retards poking around our personal possessions at airports. Under either candidate, the war on terror will take a surprisingly similar look and feel as the war on drugs. Color coded alert levels are now a permanent fixture of life here in the USA. Neither candidate will lift a finger to attempt to discredit the animating ideas that inflames those who would do us harm. While Kerry would capitulate to world opinion before acting and allow terrorists the exclusive right to the use of force, Bush's approach tends to feed fuel to the fire.
A vote for Kerry means higher taxes, a PC system designed to inhibit thoughtful int
Re:The whole idea is crazy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The whole idea is crazy (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's an anecdote: this is roughly akin to nailing two-by-fours across every door and window in my house so that you can prevent me from coming out and using my freedom of speech because you don't like the views I espouse. If you disagree with what I say, the appropriate response is to write, speak, and make your views known. It is not to simply silence the opposition by preventing them from being heard.
The US doesn't have a big problem with pro-neo-Nazi sentiment in our population. Why? It's not because we ban them from speaking or promoting their views, like in Germany. It's because every time they do speak, they get so thoroughly discredited by the opposition that everyone simply ignores them.
I would urge all people who do not agree with the White House to _write_ them, whether it's by email or snail mail. Call them, even! But I would urge everyone, both in America and elsewhere, to NOT participate in a childish act like DDOS'ing the RNC's website. The politics in this country are awful enough without resorting to a new low.
-Erwos
Re:The whole idea is crazy (Score:4, Insightful)
Aren't using DOS apps to bring a webserver down illegal?
Re:The whole idea is crazy (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not just go out and stand in front of the RNC's headquarters and block people from entering?
What they should be doing is going out and doing something positive, like getting involed with the political party they feel the most affinity for.
Personally, I think it's just a media ploy by a bunch of lowball egonauts.
Block people from entering? (Score:5, Insightful)
I know it's not all liberals/Democrats, but some of them are completely insane. If they're not actively blocking Ralph Nader from being on the ballot (after all, nobody should have any choices), they're funding smear books and movies. I constantly hear about this "Republican attack machine," but honestly all I ever see is a liberal attack machine.
Okay, so this is off-topic.
Mwhahahaa (Score:5, Funny)
Now if you'll excuse me, I'll be over here with my eyepatch, petting my Persian cat and building my GOP approved super death beam to hold all of the world governments hostage to further the shadow government which really pulls all the strings.
Then I will tell John Kerry all my secret plans right before I chop him in half with a laser.
Mwhahahaaha
Re:Bound to happen (Score:5, Insightful)
wow, could you be any more indoctrinated or what?
Yeah, those evil republicans! I know, lets just stop taking half measures and just commit random acts of violence against them... yeah, i mean, they aren't even human right? So it won't matter... yeah, next republican you see, bash her/him over the head with a brick. They have it coming to them, subhumans that they are.
You are a liberal, its your duty! To stand up against the inhuman unfairness of a republican.
This little "stunt" is about as pathetic as anything I've ever heard of... and is just a glowing indication of the inability of the left to engage in the political process in any meaningful way.
And yes, you with the mod points, sucked into the slashbot group-think, I fully expect you to mod this down as troll, flamebait... or wait... use the ULTIMATE cop-out... overrated!
Re:This is being done by Republican-SUPPORTERS, ri (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile, these "hacktivist" morons manage to be complete failures on both political and technical counts. Remember a few years ago when they tried to DDOS the World Bank and an admin there bounced their packets and flooded them off, instead? How much of a loser do you need to be to get 0wn3d by the World Bank?
And DOSing the Republican website affects the convention how? I suppose doing anything more sophisticated than a page reloading script is beyond them...
Re:This is being done by Republican-SUPPORTERS, ri (Score:4, Funny)
Just post it on Slashdot, same effect.
Re:This is being done by Republican-SUPPORTERS, ri (Score:4, Funny)
Ask Argentina
Re:This is being done by Republican-SUPPORTERS, ri (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Count only governmental aid. The U.S. is different from most other Western countries in that we are not a centralized, government-controlled society (although admittedly we become more so every year). The percentage of private vs. government aid is much higher for the U.S. that it is for most other countries.
2. Ignore perhaps the most colossal subsidy of all: Defense. For 50 years, the only thing preventing the Red Army from pouring through the Fulda Gap and into Western Europe, or the North Koreans from smashing through the DMZ into South Korea, was the U.S. military. Same situation vis-a-vis China and Taiwan. Freed from the colossal burden of defense spending, those countries used their resources instead to develop stable polities, healthy economies and the freedom to bitch about the U.S. everytime something goes wrong.
- Alaska Jack
Re:This is being done by Republican-SUPPORTERS, ri (Score:4, Informative)
a) a page reloading script certainly shouldn't all that a hacker is capable of - but since they want people to voluntarily take part in this, they can't resort to illegal things. And page reloading can hardly be deemed illegal.
b) If you DO want to personally criticise someone (and I think "You yourself are an idiot" easily qualifies for that), then at least don't hide behind an "Anonymous Coward" mask.
Re:This is being done by Republican-SUPPORTERS, ri (Score:5, Insightful)
Chicago 1968 and Seattle 1999 again.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the actions of the radical Left groups are actually going to turn off a lot of support for Senator Kerry if the Democratic National Committee doesn't distance themselves from them. Does anyone remember the riots in Chicago during the 1968 Democratic National Convention and the protest that turned very ugly during the 1999 World Trade Organization conference in Seattle? These ugly scenes played right into the hands of the people who want law and order, and probably contributed a bit to the Presidential wins of Richard Nixon in 1968 and President Bush in 2000.
These "hacktivists" are going to be grouped among the anarchists, which will defeat their aims.
Re:Chicago 1968 and Seattle 1999 again.... (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, the Swift Boat vets are NOT advocating acts of civil disobedience bordering of violence (and probably crossing that border, too) that some of the radical Left are advocating. Remember what happened in 1968 and 1999 when a small group of anarchists turned what was supposed to be peaceful protest into violent confrontations with the police and causing quite a lot of property damage? If we have a repeat of that at the Republican National Convention, those images shown on TV will turn off many "swing" voters and they'll end up voting against Senator Kerry in no time flat.
Re:Chicago 1968 and Seattle 1999 again.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I've intentionally brought up the Kent State-Tiananmen Square comparison myself when discussing the benefits of freedom and democracy with friends in China, since it offers a good chance for Americans to say "we know that our government sometimes behaves badly and we certianly don't think we're perfect." However, just for the record, here are some pertinent aspects of the comparison:
- At Kent State, protesters had burned down a building and were pelting national guardsmen with rocks; the poorly-trained troops eventually panicked and began firing at the crowd of protesters and bystanders alike.
- In Tiananmen Square, when local troops showed reluctance to start shooting the peaceful protestors, the government called in special out-of-town troops and ordered them to attack on the unarmed students.
- At Kent State, 4 students were killed and 9 injured.
- At Tiananmen Square, more than 300 were killed and countless injured.
- In the U.S., students learn about Kent State in schools and analyze what the government did right and what it did wrong. By having a free press and freedom of speech, people can offer a variety of opinions on who was at fault and what went wrong. The government has learned from this and similar mistakes that poorly-trained soldiers with guns shouldn't be given riot control duties.
- In China, it's hard to find official mention of the Tiananmen Square massacre, and when there is it's only the official government position - there's no opportunity for a free press to present opposing views. You get the feeling that, rather than "learning from its mistakes", the Chinese government actually enjoys the fact that most people believe the government would do the same thing again if faced with the same situation - that's why we don't see big protests about anything in China these days.
So go ahead and make that comparison, I'll take Kent State and the lessons learned from it over Tiananmen Square any day.Re:Chicago 1968 and Seattle 1999 again.... (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Democratic_Na
Notice the Walker Report calls it a "police riot", not a student riot or anything else.
Seattle was a little different, as there was intent by a minority of the people there to cause some serious harm to property and persons, but once again lack of police discipline in exercising a proportionate response, inluding beating innocent bystanders, result in unecessary physical harm to protestors. There isn't much hope for law and order when your own police are disordered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTO_Meeting_of_199
Similar stuff happend in Miami for FTAA. The DNC was quiet because the police, due to a tip-off, managed to seize all of the urine, blood, faeces, etc. that the anarchists were going to use. I'm not sure how many anarchists were seized as well and held until the DNC was over, but I imagine there were quite a few.
The sad part is that it probably doesn't matter to you what the facts are. You like this current Republican administration only use apparent facts to support whatever your current agenda is and if those facts change, you just find or make up new ones to support your position without even considering changing your position. That is the definition of an idealogue, in other words someone who irrational believes in something, exactly what folks like you call, and rightfully so, the anarchists. So maybe you and the anarchists have more in common than you thought?
Re:better for whom (Score:5, Funny)
He doesn't need to. He does, however, have a one-point plan for better America [onion.com].
:)
Re:This is being done by Republican-SUPPORTERS, ri (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This is being done by Republican-SUPPORTERS, ri (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This is being done by Republican-SUPPORTERS, ri (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're still going to vote for Bush, then you're supporting all of the neocon/theocons, whether or not you agree with them.
Re:This is being done by Republican-SUPPORTERS, ri (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd guess it's the theory that one side is a little closer to what you believe than the other...
Re:This is being done by Republican-SUPPORTERS, ri (Score:5, Interesting)
Then we have to deal with average people joining the Republican party just because it offers a sane choice compared to the nutjob left wingers. Hell, even crazies like Anne Coulter seem sane compared to hacker groups actively working to break the law in the name of democracy.
For years I was afraid to even admit I was a liberal. Not because I was embarrassed to care about progressive goals, but because I had to deal with being associated with misguided wierdos like these. I wish there was a t-shirt..."I'm against Bush but I don't want to kill him or take down his server or rage about how he's a filthy liar. I just want people not to vote for him because he hasn't done a very good job."
Re:This is being done by Republican-SUPPORTERS, ri (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but how can you honestly claim that these people, with the maturity level of 12 year olds, are somehow politically related to Clinton, Kerry, Cleland, Obama or anyone else who is taken seriously by Democratic Party? Janet Reno would have prosecuted these losers just as quickly as any other criminal. If you are willing to associate these idiots with the Democratic Party, then you also have to associate McVeigh, the KKK and the majority of right wing nuts listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center with the GOP. Besides, these little kids might be misguided about democracy, but the right just cares about power, which concerns me a lot more.
Personally, I'd rather be associated with script kiddies, who just need to be taken out behind the woodshed once to straighten them out, than racist wacko nutjob terrorists like the KKK and it's spinoffs. Who's worse, vandals or terrorists?
I'm a liberal because the Founding Fathers were liberals. I'm a liberal because this country is a liberal secular democratic republic. I'm a liberal because I believe in the American Revolution. I don't really give a rat's ass if someone else has managed to confuse their culture or religion with the business of the government of the US, it doesn't make their ideas valid. I'm a liberal because I believe that a political system of ideas must be internally logically consistent. Everytime I go applying scientific analysis to the historical record, to the original writings that formed the ideology behind the American Revolution, I come out looking liberal. I can logically and rationally defend my political positions and can do so consistently. That's why I'm a liberal, and anyone can try and criticize me for it all they want, but they still haven't beaten me in a debate. I'm a liberal, because intellectual conservatism is dead.
<troll>Oh, and I also think that Ayn Rand was an idiot and libertarians are, for the most part, the most politically naive group I've ever run across. They're much more fun when they're drunk and trying to defend their ideology, cause when they're sober, it's just sad</troll>
Re:This is being done by Republican-SUPPORTERS, ri (Score:5, Insightful)
They see themselves as being anti-Bush...a separate option from pro-Kerry. But many conservatives don't break it down so granularly...anybody on the other side is on the Other Side, and so we moderates voting Democrat this year are in the same boat as the draft dodging hippies and punk subversives.
In fact, one of the major problems I have with the modern Republican party is that they treat nearly everything as a binary issue. You're either for it or against it, you can't be ambivalent or vote to control the amount of something. In a way, this inflexibility makes the Republican party even more idealistic than the Democrats, and institutes a lot of what the Democrats claim is hypocrisy. How can you have a party that believes that parents should have the right to choose what school their children go to but that they're not bright not moral enough to choose whether or not to keep their child? Easy...each of these issues is broken down differently on that polar scale, and abortion falls cleanly into the "no fucking way" bin. Pragmatic decisions like keeping abortion legal, but dumping money into support and pro-child advertising campaigns to reassure scared young mothers that they don't have to kill their child, are seen as wishy washy liberalism -- even if such programs are met with greater success -- because they do not accept the artifical polarity forced onto the issue by idealistic conservatives. Yes, in a perfect world nobody would choose abortion and everybody would have a father and one parent would be able to be a primary caregiver. But these are cultural problems...and they are impossible to legislate.
Re:This is being done by Republican-SUPPORTERS, ri (Score:5, Interesting)
Wait though, the whole Alien hive mentality is fairly similar to conservative right-wing corporate America. And it appeared that the Predators had a somewhat progressive agenda, even giving up on a thousands year old tradition for the sake of the common good.
Crap, you've got my mind all wondering which side fits in with my own agenda, being a part of a crack team of Antarctict archeologists and all.
Re:This is being done by Republican-SUPPORTERS, ri (Score:4, Insightful)
1. is a diabolical, cunning Fascist.
2. is a drooling, incompetent idiot.
NOTE: It's perfectly OK to use BOTH of these arguments in reference to the same person - even in the same debate. Trust me, no one will ever notice the contradiction!
HINT: Free speech means everyone gets to express their ideas, not just you.
Re:This is being done by Republican-SUPPORTERS, ri (Score:5, Insightful)
It's amazing how slashdoters can be so fickle. Free speech is OK as long as it doesn't come from a republican.
Re:This is being done by Republican-SUPPORTERS, ri (Score:5, Insightful)
How the actions of such "activists" differ from the efforts of government, RIAA, MPAA, etc. to restrict our access to information and the truth is left as an exercise for the reader.
Re:This is being done by Republican-SUPPORTERS, ri (Score:4, Insightful)
While I hope his re-election campaign will fail (badly), I am not convinced it will.
All the guy needs to do is to occasionally raise (and then silently drop) terror alert levels again to create enough fear in the population to go for his kind of hard-liner politics...
Re:This is being done by Republican-SUPPORTERS, ri (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is being done by Republican-SUPPORTERS, ri (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is being done by Republican-SUPPORTERS, ri (Score:5, Insightful)
IANA Spaniard, but I thought most Spanish voters were pissed that the government immediately blamed those Basque people when their own intel sources were saying it was Al Qaeda.
i.e., the election was not about "caving" or "standing up" to the terrorists; it was about standing up to a government that was putting ideology ahead of solid intel.
Hmmm... why does that sound familiar?...
Re:This is being done by Republican-SUPPORTERS, ri (Score:5, Interesting)
I am Spanish. What's funny about this is that the Spanish people reacted not out of fear but anger. Ask any Spaniard you meet - did you vote because you were afraid of another attack? (Kiss Bush's)Assnar served only George Bush's agenda, and put Spanish troops in Iraq despite over 90% of the population opposing the war. The fact is that he made our country less safe by allowing the Spanish military to be led by GWB, and we were tired of a president who acted the way the president of the US wanted, not the people of Spain.
And if you're a marine, aren't you concerned about the fact that GWB never served his country?
Re:This is being done by Republican-SUPPORTERS, ri (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is being done by Republican-SUPPORTERS, ri (Score:5, Insightful)
RTFA - "However, a senior coalition source has told the BBC the round does not signal the discovery of weapons of mass destruction or the escalation of insurgent activity."
Re:This is being done by Republican-SUPPORTERS, ri (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is being done by Republican-SUPPORTERS, ri (Score:4, Interesting)
"We need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation.
Other Kerry quotes of interest... [davidstuff.com]
Re:Take off your... (Score:4, Informative)
The BND (the German CIA counterpart) stated they don't have evidence supporting this - they didn't have proof of non-existense of the alleged weapons either - but that's beside the point. Based on exactly THOSE issues, Germany did take its anti-war stance. There were (almost) no protests against the Afghan war, since people were convinced that the Taliban were in cahoots with Al Qaeda, but in the Iraq case, I have yet to meet a single compatriot that thought this war was justified...
Hint: Just because the republican Iraq war examination white-wash said "the Germans also said Iraq HAD WMD" doesn't neccessarily make it so.
The Germans happened to say, we ca NOT prove Saddam has NO weapons. But that's about the extend of it.
Germans don't like terror either - and there are people worried Germany might become a target for Al Qaeda terror cells as well. And as such, Germany would certainly support a war against any country openly supporting terrorism (or at least, a country that is proven to be supporting terrorism); but that doesn't mean to blindly follow Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld.
Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
Are we to believe that in the interim period, Iraq secretly destroyed all of its remaining weapons, on its own, with no supervision or involvement of outside monitors, all with no proof or records, all the while Saddam Hussein himself thought he was increasing his investment in WMD?
It's mind-numbingly clear that Iraq had WMD. But the war in Iraq wasn't about WMD - it was a political reason chosen in the hopes of rallying UN support, and the support of the people of the US. The war in Iraq was about a multi-faceted effort to begin exerting influence, forcibly when necessary, in the middle east, in the hopes of stopping Panislamic radicalism in a generation or two rather than in a century or two. There are MANY aspects to this strategy: it's not just about bombing people into oblivion; it's about encouraging free government with a free flow of information, and some beginnings of open economies and markets to attempt to give the young people something to do, something to strive for, as well as full, unfettered access to news, information, and education, instead of focusing their energies on hatred of the West and the Infidel as taught by some segments of radical Islam. It's also, in case you haven't noticed, about the economic well-being of not only the US, but by extension, most of the civilized world.
So yes; in effect, this is a "war for oil". But it's not a war for oil so that greedy, fat Americans can drive Chevy Suburbans. It's a war to ensure the continued prosperity of the Western world, and thus the lives and happiness of hundreds of millions of people. What about the people of Iraq, you say? WE WANT TO HELP THEM, TOO. We don't want to indiscriminately kill innocent people, though the loss of innocent life is a tragic side effect of any military action.
People think that the US just wants to arrogantly steamroll people and kill all the brownskins for oil (while installing a Starbucks and McDonalds on every street corner in Baghdad). It's a fuck of a lot more complicated than that. It's also a fuck of a lot more complicated than simplistic "you're either with us or against us"-type rhetoric. Any thinking person, of any political stripe, would realize that.
Mods on crack (Score:4, Insightful)
It's mind-numbingly clear that Iraq had WMD
To who?
Where are they?
How come only half the US believe this and most of the rest of the world don't?
It's more clear as time goes on that the premise for the war was shaky at best, due to either incompetent leadership or incompetent intelligence agencies. Saddam HAD weapons of mass destruction but that was a long time ago. As we drew up to war it seemed that he might have some still, but there was certainly no definite evidence. Now it appears there really were non, as we can't find any.
Re:Jesus, have I not enumerated enough? (Score:5, Insightful)
So although you might think you are correct you are wrong.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Interesting)
I figure I should probably answer your comment about making the middle east less of a hotbed of extremism. In the late 1800's, germany wanted an African Colony. It had finally become a unified country, and was begining to flex it's muscles. But in the process of taking that African Colony, it managed to cause France and England to ally themselves together. Now, we tend to think of france and england as friends now, but back then, they had just been through 500 years of war(give or take). So it was a big deal to get these two countries to put aside their differences and join forces.
The same thing is happening now to the US. We are turning many of our NATO allies against us, and many of our allies from other parts of the world. They are just as important, if not more so in combating the old problem of anti-american extremism. The problem is, the world is not broken into two halves anymore, since the end of the cold war, and the US is not the superpower it once thought it was. I worry that Bush is isolating us from the rest of the world with his tough talk. Tough talk is necessary sometimes, but are we actually able to back it up?
The current situation in Iraq seems to imply that we can't.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd suggest that radical Islam plays a similar role in the middle east. It provides an ideological and cultural counterpoint to an invasive foreign system. Not only has the western world colonized the rest of the world on an economic and cultural level, the US is now recolonizing the middle east on a physical level too.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not a total relativist but I'll also say Islam is a civilization and no less a valid or valuable one than then western civilization (of which Gandhi said "would be a good idea"...).
Sometimes my cynical side thinks Bush isn't even trying to stop Islamic radicalism. Fundamentalists need each other to get power at home, see Norther Ireland. Bush was a mediocre president at best until 9/11, and he's been riding the terror horse that made him #1 ever since.
Wow. (Score:5, Interesting)
First, let's talk about references. When I say something like x is due to y, I like to back it up with something like according to z(www.z.com), you get the picture.
Now the "Germany KNOWS that Saddam did have WMD" statement sounds a little overstated - I would assume you are referring to international findings of that nature and not the Germans in particular?
On that note, almost every country has WMD right now. [fas.org] I think that makes the WMD case for war a bit daft, but that's just a personal opinion.
I'm at a bit of a loss on this statement:
"Are we to believe that in the interim period, Iraq secretly destroyed all of its remaining weapons, on its own, with no supervision or involvement of outside monitors, all with no proof or records"
Let's try CNN [cnn.com] on this one. Looks like they were destroying them right up to the war.
Here's another idea I take issue with:
"it's not just about bombing people into oblivion; it's about encouraging free government with a free flow of information"
The question I have here is why, after over a year, have we still seen none of this come to fruition? Sure, we handed over power [thestar.com], but to an unelected government that we selected. Also, how did we contribute to the free flow of information by banning newspapers? [theage.com.au]
You go on to insist that this was somehow was positive for "most of the civilized world", but offer no rational for that logic. I think it's much safer to assume that the real winners here are defence contractors [yahoo.com] tied to the Whitehouse [cbsnews.com]
"People think that the US just wants to arrogantly steamroll people..." Please don't talk about the actions of the state as the actions of the US. I'm a part of this great country, and like many others [votetoimpeach.org], I consider this war a shameful crime against humanity.
Lives have actually been saved (Score:5, Interesting)
Funny how, pre-Iraq-war, virtually the same crowd of people was vehemently opposed to sanctions in Iraq, due to its detrimental effect on the people of Iraq, while having virtually no effect on the leadership; indeed, effectively strengthening Hussein's power.
So now, what of these 600,000-some dead Iraqi people under sanctions? That approximately 50,000 a year, the number we were always bombarded with during the tired "no blood for oil" protest of the 90s?
Well, here's some numbers for you:
Since March of 2003, *including* the 10000-15000 Iraqis US and coalition forces are estimated to have killed during the invasion, there has actually been a NET PRESERVATION of Iraqi lives, on the order of the thousands. A statistically significant PRESERVATION of Iraqi lives, all from the relatively minimal infrastructure and services improvements made by coalition forces since March 2003. That's how little Saddam cared for his own people, without regard to sanctions. No matter your position on the Iraq war, our direct action has saved, and will continue to save, THOUSANDS of lives of innocent Iraqis. Remember: the only alternative course of action was continuing sanctions. Even the radical idea of lifting sanctions wouldn't have changed Saddam's focus from only concentrating services and resources on Baghdad, leaving over 50% of the population to suffer and fend for itself, not to mention that France, Germany, and Russia would never have allowed the lifting of sanctions, short of military action (which we took). Think about that: exclusively because of US action, statistically, thousands of Iraqis have lived, who otherwise wouldn't have. Countless thousands of others will enjoy this same future, to say nothing of access to basic amenities of life previously not available to rural areas.
This of course, ignores the whole concept that sometimes it's necessary to take lives to save far more. Sometimes I wonder if the US is the same country that effectively fought WWII...
Re:Links? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Take off your... (Score:5, Insightful)
Historically trying to forcibly kill a cultural viewpoint has done nothing of the sort. Take Northern Ireland as an example - whilst the British government were cracking down on the Irish they were queuing to join the IRA. Once the Good Friday agreement had been signed and most of the causes for the problems had been removed then the support began to dry up.
Likewise in the middle east every attempt to control terrorism by blowing up towns, farms and houses (often of people unrelated to the problem) has caused nothing but an escalation of violence. This is why so many people world wide think the approach of the US is doomed to failure and if anything will lead to even more entrenched and violent Islamic radicalism that will last for centuries.
It would be much better to understand and remove the causes for these problems but tackling poverty and lack of education is much more dificult then dropping a few bombs and doesn't give you neo-cons such a stiffy.
Well, you're half right anyway... (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps if Bush had simply said that to begin with instead of towing the WMD line, people might have generally gone along with him. Perhaps we all could have an honest, adult discussion about the issue and what might be the best way to deal with it.
I still think war in Iraq was really not the best way to start combatting Islamic fundamentalism/radicalism, but perhaps I didn't have all the info. I certainly wasn't given the chance to change my mind or think about it, I was just told Iraq had WMDs and was linked to Osama, both of which turned out not to be true (and Osama's name hasn't been mentioned by the President more than 6-7 times in the past year - apparently not much of a concern for him).
I believe war can be just and necessary from time to time. I agree that fundamentalism of all kinds, especially the kind that tends towards militarism, is the biggest problem we need to be dealing with in the 21st century. Unfortunately Bush picked the wrong target, misled everyone and now we're in a mess that seems to be making things worse than better.
Re:Take off your... (Score:5, Informative)
Sarin is a gas. But let's ignore that, and suppose that it's a liquid and can be easily transported in drums.
Actually, Sarin is a liquid that vaporizes at room temperature. So it is a liquid, and CAN be easily transported in drums.
grammar nazi fun... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Anyone on slashdot... (Score:5, Insightful)
Mind you, I'm against it personally, but I do not believe when I became a slashdot reader I was copy and pasted from the main slashdot template to fit in. I think you are a hypocrite for pushing down free speech of others(to say they support it, etc..)
Re:Morals and Democrats (Score:4, Insightful)