This is actually pretty awesome. I would say that everyone with a crappy old laptop should encrypt the hard drive with nothing more than a text message saying "Ha ha! Made you spend resources for nothing!", then start talking about Wikileaks, Bradley Manning, yada yada; everything you can think of.
While it might hold you up in security for a few and they confiscate the laptop, they'll no doubt be working for months or years to decrypt the information. One laptop does nothing. A thousand takes a lot of time. Tens of thousands would take forever. And if every single decrypted hard drive only produced "Ha ha! You're an idiot for trying!", that would really drive the resources through the roof while producing no results.
With that much waste of taxpayer dollars, they'd have to appear before Congress or cut costs throughout their departments.
How the hell can TSA stand up against terrorists and murderers slipping through explosives, when they can't even stand up to a critic??? Are they freaking kidding me? Talk about cowards! And these people are "protecting" me?
Why not just hold up a sign to the world reading "Hi! We're TSA. And we're morons. We're such cowards that we can't even stand up to scrutiny or critics."
I don't know what's worse: TSA cowards or stupid politicians who actually allowed this to happen. No wonder the United States is seen by other countries as hypocritical, bullying, and led by morons. What an embarrassment!
And by reading this post, you've already agreed to let me come over your house, drink all your beer, date your cutest daughter (as long as she's over 18), surf on your internet connection, let me call Siberia on your phone for hours at a time, shave your dog or cat, milk your goat, force a herd of two hundred cattle rabid with mad cow disease into your home and create a stampede, swim in your pool after I cover myself with paint, bathe in your pool after covering myself with feces (probably won't happen), make your wife/husband ride a yak up Mount Everest, and slap you upside the head whenever I feel like it.
And you can't protest this in any way, shape, or form as you've already read it and agree to these terms. So don't even bother trying to fight. That's it. You're done. It's over. Period. End of story. So don't even say another word as you don't get to defend yourself.
Actually, it would make perfect sense that they would pull a story like this and try to keep it quiet. Posting a story about the president's daughter traveling somewhere (underage or otherwise) to another country could provide anyone with an anti-American agenda to attempt a kidnapping or something worse in order to control the president. Face it. If you were someone in power and had an underage daughter travel somewhere, you wouldn't want that story getting out. And if it did get out, you would most likely attempt to have it removed as quickly and as quietly as possible. Even the unimportant guy that I am, I wouldn't want people to know when my kids are traveling, let alone have it posted on the news.
"Mr. Smarta**'s defenseless daughter traveling on Boofrar Airlines on Flight 31541234512345 to Durkastan" might as well read "Hey! Someone go kidnap his daughter!" as the headlines.
Don't keep it quiet for the president. I mean I didn't vote for the guy, that's for damn sure. But I would keep it quiet for his daughter's safety. She's still just a kid/teen.
Oops... Ah well. The laws of trademark and copyright both suck. And I don't live in Texas anyway. Let them ride their horses on the range or whatever. Oh, and let them know "Don't mess with my junk." Or touch it. Or whatever. Unless she's a hot TSA agent...
"Don't Mess With Texas" contains 21 letters. If the word 'Texas' is removed, that changes approximately 24% of the slogan (removal). Adding the new phrase (12 letters) changes the slogan again with an approximate change of 57%. Combine those values and you have a mean delta of 33% total.
According to copyright law, the percentage of change required varies. In reference to Circular 14, Copyright Registration for Derivative Works, page 1 (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf), the document states that "Titles, short phrases, and formatting are not copyrightable."(third paragraph, last sentence). So this is probably all moot anyway.
Looks like AT&T might now have a copyright claim to that letter he forwarded. If they were searching for any reason to cut off the guy's service for actually having the audacity to win, they could easily use the 'copyright' card if the "this customer knocked the planets out of alignment in violation of our T.O.S." argument doesn't work. Perhaps they could even argue that the last name, Spaccarelli, is in violation of their cellular agreement. You'll see that in the revised contracts now.
Any customer with the last name Spaccarelli or any other last name hereby allows AT&T to come over and shave his dog, change the temperature setting on his refrigerator, replace his laundry detergent with used motor oil... oh, and change their mobile plan whenever the hell we choose; thereby giving up any rights to defend themselves, any rights to file a lawsuit, any rights to anything other than breathe, and any rights to speak or hire an attorney.
Why do I have the feeling the AT&T contract is about to become about 8,000 pages longer?
Think they'll scream patent and copyright infringement on WWII and sue Germany retroactively for the war? After all, WWII did occur after the copyright laws for lifetime plus 70 years, and they do 'own' the history as they're preserving it.
The way the trolls are going, I wouldn't doubt it.