I'm okay with that, aahz.
Mostly because it involves effort, so you're actually contributing something.
It takes time, which in term requires some money, etc. You are creating something.
(And it suggests you can't just whimsically do this for thousands of people you hate to spread misery... you have to focus your efforts and sustain them).
fleeb - how about if instead of just squatting, they do something
entertaining, funny, relevant and irreverent with the site and just
refuse to give up the site name?
The original owners of PETA.ORG were a group called "People Eating Tasty Animals"
At that time, the site was funny, irreverant, entertaining, and still managed to make some good points.
Later on, they were lawyer-bullied into giving up their domain name. A hypercommunist hate group called People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals took over the domain, and to this day are using it to distribute their hate and propaganda.
Yeah, but again, it involved effort.
What that one person is doing is directing traffic for one destination to another, involving no effort, and undermining the point of DNS; to make it easier to find the content you seek.
To a logical extreme, if people snatched up DNS entries and redirected them to seemingly-random places, one would have to come up with a collection of character unthought-of to have a DNS presence on the internet. One may as well use IP addresses at that point, if you're forced to use something like atjdisjels.com as the DNS for your website because everything is redirected to anything from cute kittens to runny feces.
I don't mind if you choose to take a DNS and do something amusing with it... but that isn't what she's doing. She's being a bitch.
It's summer. Everyone please build or attend a campfire, hang out with friends and/or family, and enjoy the fireside while making and eating s'mores.
If for no other reason, do it in defiance of the hyper-ugly mega-cunt Michelle Obama:
[ http://eagnews.org/government-smores-michelle-os-food-police-reinventing-campfire-treat/ ]
Yes that's right, folks ... MoochHell Osama wants you to stop eating s'mores.
(Is it just me, or does "Bilderberg" sound way too much like "Build-A-Bear"?)
So ... key provisions of the Patriot Act have expired.
Does anyone really think that the NSA is going to stop snooping just because it technically isn't allowed anymore? That would be a bit on the naive side.
Meanwhile, it's replacement, called the "USA Freedom Act" (seriously, who comes up with these names?) is trying to make its way through clowngress. Unsurprisingly, opposition is coming from Rand Paul, whose opponents are *shameless* -- "He obviously has a higher priority for his fundraising and political ambitions than for the security of the nation" -- that's from kommie komrade Sen. John Hussein Hitler McCain. Someone please remove the "R" from his name using a chainsaw.
Nothing new here. At all.
when the law is passed.
"Affordable Health Care Act"
I have wondered why government safety phrases have to rhyme.
"Click it or ticket"
"Drive 55, stay alive."
yea, but nowadays with that amount of surveillance you can easily outperform of what the Staatssicherheit in the GDR was capable of doing - by punishing people to watch each other.
Maybe its better because of that, but I don't think so.
It seems the reason the US wants to normalize the relations to Kuba is, that intelligence is simply to expensive without having the internet to aid doing it?
we need more sugar. Cuba has sugar.
Anyway, it is frequently pointed out by realists that we wouldn't need so much surveillance if we simply stopped allowing terrorists to enter the country.
Maryland apparently passed legislation recently to force licensed drivers to maintain 'Mexican Coverage' (as the line item on my bill calls it) on their insurance policy.
I shit you not.
I am so angry, I want to cost landscapers and builders a lot of money.
For Maryland that sounds borderline racist.
We have a problem, in Maryland, of Certain Individuals from a Certain Country not insuring their vehicles when they drive around like a maniac in this state.
We're now required to shoulder the insurance they refuse, by law, to get.
Also we should deport anyone who is opposed to deporting the illegal immigrants.
Then we should bust up the unions (using as much violence as possible), repeal ObamaCare, nuke Redmond, and draw-and-quarter Al Sharpton.
Also we should deport anyone who is opposed to deporting the illegal
Anyone opposed to deporting illegal 'immigrants' should be required to take in such a person as a free resident of their home, assuming all responsibilities therewith involved.