Actually it was more of a swipe against the Nobel prize...Obama isn't the only lemon it's been issued to.
Well if it takes a Nobel then it sounds like there's an easy fix for people like him: Just run for office as a democrat.
If that were really the case, then Morse should have won the Colorado recall by a landslide. His side literally outspent the opposition 11 to 1.
Notice something else about these is that they require actual effort to participate in.
Meanwhile a DDoS can be performed by some derp running a script while he watches game of thrones. "Oh I hate what that guy said, I think I'm going to disrupt the infrastructure for a service I never use anyways. Fuck everybody else, only my opinion matters, I get to play god here, and I say nobody should use that website while I go do something else."
It's a total dick move. If you want to protest them, then fucking picket them or something. Personally I think even picketing is stupid. I remember when PETA was picketing a local KFC once - I went inside to buy some chicken because of them. Now how am I supposed to counter-protest PETA if they decided to DDoS a website where you buy exotic meat? Oh yeah I can't, because the website is completely offline.
I never said they should be able to do that. In fact if you read my post history, I've been rather supportive of websites deemed illegal by the US government. It made me laugh when chuck schumer demanded that the DOJ seize the silk road's domain name, because for once there was a major website that the US government hated so much yet they couldn't touch it.
BoA, Wells Fargo, and Chase are the douche banks. Most banks will do better but not much, but some are pretty good.
I'm with USAA myself - haven't ever had to pay a single fee for anything I get from them. My checking account even yields interest, and features that the 3 douches charge money for are included for free. USAA was actually the first bank to offer deposits using smartphones in fact, and it always has been free.
Either way it's wrong. You don't go bring down some website like the gestapo just because they say something you don't like.
Yes, it would just be awesome to live in a world where websites could disappear without notice because some activist didn't like something they said.
I really don't get this mentality on slashdot that DDoS is civil disobedience. It isn't. It's censorship. A sit in allows the speaker to still be able to speak, a DDoS on the other hand is like the gestapo coming in and taking you away because you said something they didn't like. If there was no recourse for it, then how the fuck is the internet supposed to last long term? And worse is that it won't be just the people you like doing it against the people you don't like. Imagine the RIAA/MPAA DDoSing every website that had a picture of Johnny Depp in a pirate suit. If you think anonymous DDoS'es are effective, wait until somebody with actual resources does it. Right now it doesn't happen because people with actual resources other than two-bit botnets are quite visible and have to obey the law, much as I think everybody else should. And on that same token anonymous should never be above the law.
Case law sits at odds with that.
There's also the concept of risk vs reward. If the risk for committing a grave offense is too low, then the penalty when caught usually rises. So long as it doesn't become cruel and unusual the constitution doesn't have a problem with it.
As for this, who really cares about 5 cents? Sure the cop can issue a ticket if it is against the law, but you also need to find a prosecutor willing to prosecute it, and assuming can find that, then find a judge who won't throw it out when presented with the reasonable person standard, i.e. a reasonable person wouldn't assume there to be a crime in plugging in anything for a brief period of time.
I think there have been plenty of times, though not necessarily everywhere within the US at any one period.
That just sounds like punitive damages, which apply in all sorts of criminal offenses that include a civil suit.
For example (and states vary on this) if you shoplift in Arizona the statute says that you have to pay for whatever the price of the good is plus something like $250 (IIRC this law was last revised in the 60's where $250 was worth a lot more; it's just never been updated) and the store keeps whatever you tried to steal. This is, they argue, to help pay for the store's anti-shoplifting measures.
In this case it's also setting an example and/or sending a message to other would be offenders. This isn't an uncommon occurrence for laws that are rarely broken and/or laws that are frequently broken but the perp is rarely caught in order to raise the stakes to discourage others from doing it thinking there's no risk. It's constitutional too.
Except a sit in doesn't make your speech disappear out of the blue as if the gestapo came into the night and swept you away. Your message can still be delivered at a sit in.
A DDoS also does not afford counter-protest.
For example, if you are sitting in just to be obnoxious you still have to answer for it. I recall that chic-fil-a incident where some douche went through a drive-through for no purpose other than to bitch out one of the employees who had nothing to do with what he was protesting. People knew this guy was being more douche than messenger so he saw retribution. He got shouted down on youtube and IIRC fired from his job. Even he himself admitted that what he did was more of an asshole move than what he was protesting.
I don't think jew burning is quite central to the ideology, rather it's just a convenient enemy they needed to create in order to have something to rally the masses against.
Modern politicians do this all the time, though to a much lesser extent. They try to create an irrational fear of their opposition. US Democrats and Republicans are especially bad at this (of the rare times I see commercials, I remember seeing one a while ago showing some guy pushing a granny in a wheelchair off of a cliff, and it was some petty partisan issue, though I don't recall what.)
It could very well be that people do it more just because it's illegal and they want to be rebellious.
Think about smoking. What age group is most likely to start smoking? The one who is legally allowed to or the one who isn't? Which one is most likely to want to quit?
Though to be honest, for oppressive world superpowers the US will probably go down in history as being one of the nicer ones. Used to be that in order to keep the peace, your village had to pay tribute to the local evil empire, and whatever they asked for they received. Today to keep the peace, the US issues foreign aid. Although the US currently the most hated of any in history, I don't think it will stay that way post mortem.