Slackware has always been at the top for me.

From 2.2.0 to 14.0 and beyond.

I need a distro that lets me do what I want and does not get in my way. The package management is many times beyond what I need. And if the distro does not provide it, I have had little to no problems building anything I could need on a base install.

I personally prefer to hand build any applications I use, and routinely do so even if they are included with Slackware as I eventually find a desire for variant features.

One can royally screw up a Slackware install and easily fix the problem within minutes.

I tried RH and Debian a while back just to check them out. Needless to say, I still utilize Slackware as the basis for my systems.

Probably, it is like a dialect. You learn to speak, picking up the dialect of the ones you hear around you. When you hear someone speak with a different dialect, it just sounds plain silly. You are just so used to things being a specific way that it just seems right. Everything else is just plain silly.

In other words, he's heading straight for Gitmo?

However, this is not that particular domain seizure. This is a redirect to government servers ("spoofs", if you will) with no judicial oversight. Furthermore, there was no judicial order for VeriSign to act in such a deceptive manner in support of a government actor.

Your post only goes to prove the GPs issue on due process. If they were able to follow the rules then, why not now? This simply constitutes censorship until evidence and affidavit are submit to a judge in due process of law to obtain a writ. Only then does this become an injunction and not censorship.

Wrong. The article says that the "ICE said" that these sites were "engaged in the illegal sale and distribution of counterfeit goods and copyrighted works". These are allegations, not "facts". Preponderance of evidence proving a crime has been committed is accomplished only through proper due process. There were no references to a court order, no references to a court trial, nor any reference to admittance of a crime. It is apparent to me that the DNS redirects were accomplished under duress of an executive agency without judicial oversight:

I would call this unconstitutional, regardless of any supposed law that may be reference to the contrary. If these actions were done under a court order with judicial oversight accomplished through a supportive affidavit of the specific crime and specific circumstances, it would be different.

At this point in time, it is simply one government agency (or rather a group of related agencies), all this is is the effective removal of someone's publication of information. Until the judiciary orders its removal, it is nothing less than censorship.

We won't even go into the allusion in the article that the government is apparently deceptively redirecting site traffic to its own servers.