Hey thanks for fixing that link, Fed. I'm back, too, btw.

I found it on bittorrent, it is very similar to Crude Impact as I thought, but there was also a lot of new material as well. Worth a viewing to be sure.

This looks a lot like Crude Impact, maybe a good complement to it perhaps. Any idea when it's coming out?

YES! They got him!
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Alex_wuori

From Encyclopedia Dramatica (just reporting on it, I did not write this) :

"Alex Wuori is an obese, acne-ridden faggot who lives in his mom's basement. After a 16-year-old girl rejected him, he asked Anonymous to raid her. After his personal army request was denied on 7chan, Alex continued to bitch until his identity was outed by an Anonymous at his school. After realizing that Juden like him produce more lulz than his proposed target, Anonymous used his magical powers to obtain more information so Alex could burn in the oven where he belongs.

He has broken nine codes of Anonymous:

* Being a lulzkiller.
* Failing to post tits of potential raid target.
* Faggotry of previously levels that were previously thought to be unattainable.
* Using Anonymous as a personal army.
* Absurd amounts of fail.
* Spitting, rather than swallowing during fellatio.
* Not lieking mudkips.
* Breaking rules one and two to the media.
* Appearing on FoxLA Channel 11 to discuss Anonymous

He is a prime example of how Anonymous does not forgive and should be an hero ASAP."

lol exactly, all they needed to make it complete was a picture of Pedobear and a 4 year old with the caption "dramatazation"

I'm neither advocating nor condemning this, but how is this illegal exactly? What aspect of it is illegal? I know plenty of people who have more than one girlfriend / boyfriend, and I also know people with illegitimate children. Is it simply the multiple congruent marriages which are illegal? If that's the case, it seems like a law that would be impossible to break, because as I understand it, if you go through with a marriage ceremony while already married, it doesn't matter how much pageantry is involved with the second marriage; it simply doesn't stick. You just can't GET married a second time while currently in a marriage. Now that may not matter to these people, they could very much act as if and believe that they are married "in spirit", and of course I have no problem with that. It just seems impossible to criminalize this kind of scenario.

*undead

It really comes off as pro-military propaganda. I do love this show, watch it whenever I get the chance, but the tone is very aggravating, almost celebrating our imperialism excessive pageantry. "Look at how awesomely unstopable we are! We've got laser guided guns that shoot other guns at you that shoot rocket powered chainsaws! America! FUCK YEAH!"

Yeah.

At the end of the piece, the narrator quotes Judge Alex Kozinski of the Federal 9th Circuit Appellate Court. I've included the extended version of that quote here. His opinions on the "right of publicity" are best summed up in his White v. Samsung Electronics Dissent. The entire opinion is worth reading, but the critical summary is found in the first section which reads:

"Saddam Hussein wants to keep advertisers from using his picture in unflattering contexts. Clint Eastwood doesn't want tabloids to write about him. Rudolf Valentino's heirs want to control his film biography. The Girl Scouts don't want their image soiled by association with certain activities. George Lucas wants to keep Strategic Defense Initiative fans from calling it "Star Wars." Pepsico doesn't want singers to use the word "Pepsi" in their songs. Guy Lombardo wants an exclusive property right to ads that show big bands playing on New Year's Eve. Uri Geller thinks he should be paid for ads showing psychics bending metal through telekinesis. Paul Prudhomme, that household name, thinks the same about ads featuring corpulent bearded chefs. And scads of copyright holders see purple when their creations are made fun of.

Something very dangerous is going on here. Private property, including intellectual property, is essential to our way of life. It provides an incentive for investment and innovation; it stimulates the flourishing of our culture; it protects the moral entitlements of people to the fruits of their labors. But reducing too much to private property can be bad medicine. Private land, for instance, is far more useful if separated from other private land by public streets, roads and highways. Public parks, utility rights-of-way and sewers reduce the amount of land in private hands, but vastly enhance the value of the property that remains.

So too it is with intellectual property. Overprotecting intellectual property is as harmful as underprotecting it. Creativity is impossible without a rich public domain. Nothing today, likely nothing since we tamed fire, is genuinely new: Culture, like science and technology, grows by accretion, each new creator building on the works of those who came before. Overprotection stifles the very creative forces it's supposed to nurture.

The panel's opinion is a classic case of overprotection. Concerned about what it sees as a wrong done to Vanna White, the panel majority erects a property right of remarkable and dangerous breadth: Under the majority's opinion, it's now a tort for advertisers to remind the public of a celebrity. Not to use a celebrity's name, voice, signature or likeness; not to imply the celebrity endorses a product; but simply to evoke the celebrity's image in the public's mind. This Orwellian notion withdraws far more from the public domain than prudence and common sense allow. It conflicts with the Copyright Act and the Copyright Clause. It raises serious First Amendment problems. It's bad law, and it deserves a long, hard second look."

-- Judge Alex Kozinski

Thanks. I didn't know what the command was.

It's crazy how many people aren't even aware of this issue. It's been completely burried by the mass media.

*fixed
*live
*notdead
*respawn
*sv_cheats 1
*idkfa
*iddqd
*impulse9

yeah i'm still tryin to find it somewhere else, i got a few days left, keep your panties on

thankyou kindsir for psting this. quite possibly the most important one you ll ever see.

excuse me i am drunk,

That really just validates his point, qualm. The definition of "sexism" has been hijacked and remodeled by the feminist movement into reflecting normal, Darwinian, evolutionary advantageous, natural male masculine behavior. And then this natural behavior is demonized by way of lionizing feminist values. This creates a "false dichotomy" logical fallacy in which one is artificially pitted against the other. I say artificially because evolution never intended the two value paradigms to be mutually exclusive; they are only useful in a synergistic relationship. Bill Maher is advocating nothing other than the allowance of men to act as dictated by their evolutionary imperative, and for women to allow them to do so. If this, then, is the new definition of "sexism", then I agree that, by that definition, Bill Maher is "sexist". To that accusation, I would respond with a question. "So what?"