That argument is propaganda. BitcoinXT is not an alt coin. I'm not running BitcoinXT, and not supporting it, but the people who asserted that it is an alt coin are intellectually dishonest and you should consider their ulterior motives for making such an emotional response (censorship, intellectualy dishonest statements, DDoS attacks, etc) to a math problem.
Anyone curious should read the dispassionate and logical argument for BitcoinXT on the BitcoinXT website. Then look at the negative responses everywhere else. It should be very clear that the anti-XT people reacted with emotion rather than a logical and intelligent response. Theymos, for example, being a prime offender.
I am of the opinion that BitcoinXT increases the maximum block size too rapidly to be practical which is why I'm not behind it, but I don't agree with the majority of the opposition's response.
Yeah, but it isn't as sensational when you think reasonably about this. Firing them and warning them that they are going to be fired is stupid, which fits the narrative here.
I purchased one of those drives on the day it was available at Newegg for use in Linux, and then shortly after for a pair of them in RAID0 for a desktop (gaming) system where data integrity wasn't my main concern. In both systems I ran into firmware problems and could not natively flash them in the system that was running them. I pulled them into a bench PC I have and flashed them there and everything was fine. The issue had to do with power saving and would cause some pretty frequent hardware locking issues on both systems that was painful until I was able to resolve them. All 3 of the drives are benched now, but still work fine. I never lost any data due to the lockups - they would just hard lock the PC for a second or three and then continue working like nothing had happened.
In my experience this is typical early adopter fare.
Problem 2: People who do, focus on the less powerful government and ignore the more powerful corporations
You're generalizing.
Also, while corporations can have a lot of influence, there are few that can ruin your life as well as a government can.
The government has an interest in taking my money and giving me nothing back. Corporations have an interest in trading their goods or services for my money. I like goods and services, so it is a lot easier to like corporations than governments.
On the other hand, I know some people who look at the landscape the other way: The government has an interest in my welfare and pays me money every year just to be a citizen. Corporations have no interest in me because they are just exploiting me in exchange for free or discounted services.
I don't think I want to live in a world where my mom has to spin up her own Linux server with Sendmail so that she can email me. This is the other side to that coin: Centralized networks have provided convenience and some bare minimum amount of security for the masses.
Completely agree with you though. We should be able to find a better balance in the middle. I gave a store clerk one of my email addresses on a personal domain a few weeks ago. She was extremely confused. It wasn't gmail, yahoo, aol, comcast, or any of the others she was used to seeing. "Is that a real email address?" *sigh*
Always? You are attempting to categorize everyone who reads history as being narrow minded. It boggles the mind that someone modded this even slightly up.
Terrorism gets so much attention because it SHOCKS people and it happens rarely (in this country). People still think driving is safer than flying. "People" think emotionally before they think rationally.
When the statement is made similar to "Those who worry are usually those who have something to hide or something criminal in the works," they are speaking directly to government surveillance on a massive scale. If I'm not significantly breaking the law I'll just look like background noise. It is a valid position to take based on privacy alone. If you are specifically targeting one person, then that's a completely different argument and completely unrelated to what is happening here. You are interested in your target. You have invested of your own funds and time to spy. If your target is not a criminal, what is your return on that investment? You are likely interested in damaging your target in some way. Conversely, the government's intention is not to damage its target. It is targeting everyone because that's easier than targeting people individually where they would need separate warrants for each case.
Personally, I don't agree with it because it erodes rights, and at some point, unless history has taken a new turn that it never has before, this government will become so corrupt that it will need to be replaced or significantly modified. What the State will do with the information it has and is still collecting at that point is to defend itself in its current form by attempting to destroy its opposition or to control the citizens with tyranny. People who read history books can see this coming and are opposed to this erosion of rights. Those who live in magic pink pony land defend this erosion of rights because they somehow think that the human race has evolved beyond the point of repeating history.
One of the biggest annoyances of Waze is that it seems to believe the majority rather than the truth. If the majority of people significantly exceed the speed limit down a narrow country road then it seems to think that I will too and sticks me there. I'd have to go double the speed limit in order for that road to be faster than the normal path. It also routinely puts me down "Local Access Only" roads as through roads. There is one turn on my route home that is "No Left Turn" but apparently some people with Waze break the law there too - I have seen many people do it - and so any map edits I have attempted for that turn have not stuck for more than a few weeks.
I can definitely see the appeal for Google though. This fits into their desire for automated self-driving cars. There are plenty of things (like the above) that need to be fixed before it will produce reliable material for that use though.
Isn't there a law about more outlandish articles getting more hits? This is pure sensational immature blather and shouldn't have been re-posted to Slashdot. The only conclusion to draw from this is that SanDisk made a product decision that didn't fit with Moore's law this one time. Wow so exciting.
In my rural community this map shows Verizon offering 10mbps down, 1.5mbps up. Verizon barely offers POTS here, and I just reconfirmed with them this morning that they do not offer any Internet to me. How much of this map is overstating connectivity? What a waste of money!
How many police officers and civilian lives were saved due to their use? How many criminals are still alive today because a taser was used instead of a gun?
Don't break the law and you won't risk your life to a taser. I fail to see how something that is painful and has a non-zero chance of death is automatically torture and should be outlawed. By that measure we should outlaw the average daily commute.
I see another possible side to this move, and that is to protect end users with the patent system. Microsoft would never implement such a system on an operating system that an end user has paid for. The choice then is either a subscription model OS or another bullet in a lawsuit against a malware/adware provider who "copies" this technology from Microsoft. This patent does not concern me at all.
The reactionary line of thought that says this means that "the $400 copy of Vista Ultimate that I just bought is going to start interrupting my games with advertisements! Microsoft sucks!," is just plain stupid. Microsoft is a lot of things, but it is not stupid.
I agree that many of these things should be more important to the public than they are, however this top 25 list was clearly compiled from a left leaning point of view. The title or summary should include something about this obvious bias. For example, to accuse the media of covering for Dick Cheney and Haliburton is insane. The media would take him out instantly if they thought anything they had was strong enough to do it.
The Internet debate, while very important to me, is not the most important thing in the world that has been "censored." Its position at the top of the list is designed to grab our attention and get traffic headed their way in the hopes that someone will read the rest of this. This website is no better than CNN, ABC, FOX, etc. They all are trying to get across their own viewpoints, not raw news.
I've been testing Vista Enterprise on my work Latitude D610 laptop for just over a week now. I have entered and successfully recovered from every sleep state. I have not seen a single bluescreen, and after turning Aero off have found the experience to not be terribly slow either. There were only two drivers that did not load from the DVD: Sound and the smartcard reader. I don't use the smartcard reader, but it did download the driver from Microsoft. The sound driver was available from Dell. My Verizon EVDO card (kpc650) works fine as well even though VZAccess does not (I don't need it). Aside from a few minor usability issues that I just have to get used to, I don't find it to be a bad product at all. The only real issues are that I don't like is that the screen buzzes like it did when I loaded a certain driver on it in Linux (fixed it with a different driver revision), and the Contivity VPN client does not work.
I am not advocating Vista or any product here, but I also do not think it is fair to make a blanket statement about any product until you have tested the product on all hardware. Unfortunately, The Fine Article's website is broken, so I can't read about how well they tested or didn't test. My test involved one machine so far, so I can't say definitively whether or not I have the only machine in the world that Vista works on or not, but my guess would be not. Do some testing for yourself to determine the truth before bashing. We're always asking people do that with Linux based on an appropriate use, so let's give Vista a fair shake here as well.
My parents live in a neighborhood with buried power, phone, and cable. Early last fall the power went out and the power company came and dug around the pole where all the power goes underground before going into the neighborhood it took about a day, but the power came back on. A month later it happened again. Then it started happening on a weekly basis. There was one week, and it wasn't a warm week, where the power was on and off constantly. My parents and the rest of the neighborhood patiently waited it out. How, I don't know, but they did. Problems were ongoing until this spring after the ground thawed when they dug up the main line and replaced it. All this for a neighborhood of maybe 100 homes who aren't paying any more per KWh than I am. If the problem had been in my neck of the woods they would have been able to find and fix the problem very easily since the wires are on poles and can be tested from any point they want.
Yes, I liked growing up without power lines, and for the entire time I was growing up we never had a problem like that although since our power was aerial until the last quarter mile or so, we still had the normal storm outages. These lines are now a little over 30 years old, and I suspect that some of the other lines off the main might eventually have similar problems. They're replacing poles down the road from my house that are probably also about 30 years old, although I don't know for certain.
The thing I know I couldn't stand is having the power off for hours or even a day at a time in the middle of winter. My parents have a wood burning stove, but if that happened to me I'd have to buy something that ran on propane or kerosene to keep my kids warm.
You are exactly right. I still laugh when people recommend Windows 2000 with all its service packs and patches over Windows XP for some older piece of hardware. Admittedly this is getting worse for XP as time goes on, but I still see no comparison once you put XP in legacy (Windows 2000) video mode taking out extras like themes and fast user switching among other things. I can make XP truly usable on old hardware while 2000 on the same computer will grind and crawl. The only thing I can figure is that when columnists publish this information, they've never actually tried it for themselves. I'm not talking about benchmarking which may not tell the whole truth or beta builds which are always slower, I'm talking about usability of the end product. Windows XP is more usable (responsiveness to applications, web browsing, general computer use) than Windows 2000 on the same hardware.
What does this mean for Microsoft and its reputation as a company that can eventually ship software?
Nothing. Nobody with deep pockets cares. Just more hype built up for when it eventually does ship.
What will this mean for office managers who have to plan upgrades and budgets?
Woo-hoo! That extra money in the budget this year has to be spent before the end of the year anyway! New Laptops for me! No really, it means nothing. No competent office manager was planning to roll this out right after it shipped.
Will this make anyone look at OpenOffice.org?
Sure, people are always looking, and maybe a few more will, but a quick look by any real-world test group of people already used to and using Office 2000 or above is going to point out serious reasons against converting.
My company is just now transitioning to Office 2003 from Office 2000. Few large companies are ready for the new look and feel of Office 2007 because the average user is going to need either some training, some time to get up to speed with the new interface, or more likely both.
Yeah, I never said I even wanted the government to protect my kids from porn. I said "but what about my right to protect my child from pornography online?" It is my right to protect my child from pornography as you have said. I'm not claiming anything more, nor would I want the government to give me that "protection" without my asking for it. The next thing you know they'll be protecting me from anti-US websites or websites that discuss alternate views of anything, including religion.
The reason I'm responding besides clearing up that little misunderstanding is to make the point that a library terminal blocking pornographic content is not government censorship. When I was growing up the library was a fun place that my mom took me to often. There were reading events during the summer and classes, and even research when I was older. Every time I go to the library today it is empty of people for the most part, but the computer section is full. There are shady, scruffy looking people with shifty eyes looking at pornography and sometimes glancing around the room. I feel uncomfortable bringing my children there when that is going on. There is nothing wrong with blocking pornographic content on computer terminals in a public area. If a library wants to cater to people who want to look for pornography, then there should be a separate area for this where these people can be undisturbed and where they can't be seen by children.
From a different perspective, if I was a parent without enough money to have the Internet or a computer, I would want the library to be able to protect my children as well as I do with filtering at home now. If I'm not a good typist and I type in the wrong website while helping a child look up a homework problem at the library I want it to stop me if the website is porn. The library needs to have the technology to be able to do this. People that disagree would probably also rather have the entire library organized alphabetically by author rather than by subject matter. Is it my job to walk behind my child in the library making sure that the book next to Dr. Seuss is not pornographic? Well, it is my job if there is the potential for that to happen, but why have it organized that way when it is so much easier to find the content you are looking for when it is grouped by subject. People are naive about the Internet, especially children who very easily could type something wrong or click a bad link. In a world without Internet filtering, there are a lot of pornographic titles next to Dr. Seuss. Why is it wrong to organize it so that this is no longer the case?
Censorship is preventing the creation and expression of content. Censorship does not occur when a pornographic website is blocked from a child at a library. That website still exists, and the government has done nothing to destroy the content of it or prevent the viewing of the same site at home. If that poor guy who can't afford a playboy or a computer wants access to it at the library then they can make special accommodation to provide it to him. Now we go off on a tangent about what a citizen's rights are: Maybe he should even have a right to his own room without windows since jerking off could also be considered freedom of expression. Then again, maybe it should be his right to jerk off in front of an elementary school if that's what makes him feel good about expressing himself. After all, that is his expression, and it **IS** censorship that we make this illegal. Have I gone too far yet? Maybe it should be his right to take a gun within 50 feet of that school and start shooting the geese flying overhead. He's not harming anybody, and it's his expression. A guy wants to take his fully automatic (unloaded) M-4 to work with him to show it off to his buddies. Should we allow his work to censure him? One of these scenarios should have touched one of your buttons, yet none of them have caused any harm by someone's standard.
The fact of the matter is that there are many things in this country that are censured for the purpose of
Slashdot Mirror
That argument is propaganda. BitcoinXT is not an alt coin.
I'm not running BitcoinXT, and not supporting it, but the people who asserted that it is an alt coin are intellectually dishonest and you should consider their ulterior motives for making such an emotional response (censorship, intellectualy dishonest statements, DDoS attacks, etc) to a math problem.
Anyone curious should read the dispassionate and logical argument for BitcoinXT on the BitcoinXT website. Then look at the negative responses everywhere else. It should be very clear that the anti-XT people reacted with emotion rather than a logical and intelligent response. Theymos, for example, being a prime offender.
I am of the opinion that BitcoinXT increases the maximum block size too rapidly to be practical which is why I'm not behind it, but I don't agree with the majority of the opposition's response.
User #22 here!
Yeah, but it isn't as sensational when you think reasonably about this. Firing them and warning them that they are going to be fired is stupid, which fits the narrative here.
I purchased one of those drives on the day it was available at Newegg for use in Linux, and then shortly after for a pair of them in RAID0 for a desktop (gaming) system where data integrity wasn't my main concern. In both systems I ran into firmware problems and could not natively flash them in the system that was running them. I pulled them into a bench PC I have and flashed them there and everything was fine. The issue had to do with power saving and would cause some pretty frequent hardware locking issues on both systems that was painful until I was able to resolve them. All 3 of the drives are benched now, but still work fine. I never lost any data due to the lockups - they would just hard lock the PC for a second or three and then continue working like nothing had happened.
In my experience this is typical early adopter fare.
Your mom would/should only have to know a minimum number of things to get herself up and self-hosting.
It is obvious you don't know my mom. She would find a way to accidentally misconfigure her server to provide an open relay.
Problem 2: People who do, focus on the less powerful government and ignore the more powerful corporations
You're generalizing.
Also, while corporations can have a lot of influence, there are few that can ruin your life as well as a government can.
The government has an interest in taking my money and giving me nothing back. Corporations have an interest in trading their goods or services for my money. I like goods and services, so it is a lot easier to like corporations than governments.
On the other hand, I know some people who look at the landscape the other way: The government has an interest in my welfare and pays me money every year just to be a citizen. Corporations have no interest in me because they are just exploiting me in exchange for free or discounted services.
I don't think I want to live in a world where my mom has to spin up her own Linux server with Sendmail so that she can email me. This is the other side to that coin: Centralized networks have provided convenience and some bare minimum amount of security for the masses.
Completely agree with you though. We should be able to find a better balance in the middle. I gave a store clerk one of my email addresses on a personal domain a few weeks ago. She was extremely confused. It wasn't gmail, yahoo, aol, comcast, or any of the others she was used to seeing. "Is that a real email address?" *sigh*
Always? You are attempting to categorize everyone who reads history as being narrow minded. It boggles the mind that someone modded this even slightly up.
A year from now he'll write about this brand new concept called capitalism.
Terrorism gets so much attention because it SHOCKS people and it happens rarely (in this country).
People still think driving is safer than flying. "People" think emotionally before they think rationally.
When the statement is made similar to "Those who worry are usually those who have something to hide or something criminal in the works," they are speaking directly to government surveillance on a massive scale. If I'm not significantly breaking the law I'll just look like background noise. It is a valid position to take based on privacy alone. If you are specifically targeting one person, then that's a completely different argument and completely unrelated to what is happening here. You are interested in your target. You have invested of your own funds and time to spy. If your target is not a criminal, what is your return on that investment? You are likely interested in damaging your target in some way. Conversely, the government's intention is not to damage its target. It is targeting everyone because that's easier than targeting people individually where they would need separate warrants for each case.
Personally, I don't agree with it because it erodes rights, and at some point, unless history has taken a new turn that it never has before, this government will become so corrupt that it will need to be replaced or significantly modified. What the State will do with the information it has and is still collecting at that point is to defend itself in its current form by attempting to destroy its opposition or to control the citizens with tyranny. People who read history books can see this coming and are opposed to this erosion of rights. Those who live in magic pink pony land defend this erosion of rights because they somehow think that the human race has evolved beyond the point of repeating history.
Same here. I have found the same problem.
One of the biggest annoyances of Waze is that it seems to believe the majority rather than the truth. If the majority of people significantly exceed the speed limit down a narrow country road then it seems to think that I will too and sticks me there. I'd have to go double the speed limit in order for that road to be faster than the normal path. It also routinely puts me down "Local Access Only" roads as through roads. There is one turn on my route home that is "No Left Turn" but apparently some people with Waze break the law there too - I have seen many people do it - and so any map edits I have attempted for that turn have not stuck for more than a few weeks.
I can definitely see the appeal for Google though. This fits into their desire for automated self-driving cars. There are plenty of things (like the above) that need to be fixed before it will produce reliable material for that use though.
Isn't there a law about more outlandish articles getting more hits? This is pure sensational immature blather and shouldn't have been re-posted to Slashdot. The only conclusion to draw from this is that SanDisk made a product decision that didn't fit with Moore's law this one time. Wow so exciting.
In my rural community this map shows Verizon offering 10mbps down, 1.5mbps up. Verizon barely offers POTS here, and I just reconfirmed with them this morning that they do not offer any Internet to me. How much of this map is overstating connectivity? What a waste of money!
I understand if you also install WOW your protection doubles.
Is this a problem or a feature?
How many police officers and civilian lives were saved due to their use? How many criminals are still alive today because a taser was used instead of a gun?
Don't break the law and you won't risk your life to a taser. I fail to see how something that is painful and has a non-zero chance of death is automatically torture and should be outlawed. By that measure we should outlaw the average daily commute.
I see another possible side to this move, and that is to protect end users with the patent system. Microsoft would never implement such a system on an operating system that an end user has paid for. The choice then is either a subscription model OS or another bullet in a lawsuit against a malware/adware provider who "copies" this technology from Microsoft. This patent does not concern me at all.
The reactionary line of thought that says this means that "the $400 copy of Vista Ultimate that I just bought is going to start interrupting my games with advertisements! Microsoft sucks!," is just plain stupid. Microsoft is a lot of things, but it is not stupid.
The website, particularly the FAQ area, is all pre-release stuff still. Why isn't it updated?
I agree that many of these things should be more important to the public than they are, however this top 25 list was clearly compiled from a left leaning point of view. The title or summary should include something about this obvious bias. For example, to accuse the media of covering for Dick Cheney and Haliburton is insane. The media would take him out instantly if they thought anything they had was strong enough to do it.
The Internet debate, while very important to me, is not the most important thing in the world that has been "censored." Its position at the top of the list is designed to grab our attention and get traffic headed their way in the hopes that someone will read the rest of this. This website is no better than CNN, ABC, FOX, etc. They all are trying to get across their own viewpoints, not raw news.
I've been testing Vista Enterprise on my work Latitude D610 laptop for just over a week now. I have entered and successfully recovered from every sleep state. I have not seen a single bluescreen, and after turning Aero off have found the experience to not be terribly slow either. There were only two drivers that did not load from the DVD: Sound and the smartcard reader. I don't use the smartcard reader, but it did download the driver from Microsoft. The sound driver was available from Dell. My Verizon EVDO card (kpc650) works fine as well even though VZAccess does not (I don't need it). Aside from a few minor usability issues that I just have to get used to, I don't find it to be a bad product at all. The only real issues are that I don't like is that the screen buzzes like it did when I loaded a certain driver on it in Linux (fixed it with a different driver revision), and the Contivity VPN client does not work.
I am not advocating Vista or any product here, but I also do not think it is fair to make a blanket statement about any product until you have tested the product on all hardware. Unfortunately, The Fine Article's website is broken, so I can't read about how well they tested or didn't test. My test involved one machine so far, so I can't say definitively whether or not I have the only machine in the world that Vista works on or not, but my guess would be not. Do some testing for yourself to determine the truth before bashing. We're always asking people do that with Linux based on an appropriate use, so let's give Vista a fair shake here as well.
My parents live in a neighborhood with buried power, phone, and cable. Early last fall the power went out and the power company came and dug around the pole where all the power goes underground before going into the neighborhood it took about a day, but the power came back on. A month later it happened again. Then it started happening on a weekly basis. There was one week, and it wasn't a warm week, where the power was on and off constantly. My parents and the rest of the neighborhood patiently waited it out. How, I don't know, but they did. Problems were ongoing until this spring after the ground thawed when they dug up the main line and replaced it. All this for a neighborhood of maybe 100 homes who aren't paying any more per KWh than I am. If the problem had been in my neck of the woods they would have been able to find and fix the problem very easily since the wires are on poles and can be tested from any point they want.
Yes, I liked growing up without power lines, and for the entire time I was growing up we never had a problem like that although since our power was aerial until the last quarter mile or so, we still had the normal storm outages. These lines are now a little over 30 years old, and I suspect that some of the other lines off the main might eventually have similar problems. They're replacing poles down the road from my house that are probably also about 30 years old, although I don't know for certain.
The thing I know I couldn't stand is having the power off for hours or even a day at a time in the middle of winter. My parents have a wood burning stove, but if that happened to me I'd have to buy something that ran on propane or kerosene to keep my kids warm.
You are exactly right. I still laugh when people recommend Windows 2000 with all its service packs and patches over Windows XP for some older piece of hardware. Admittedly this is getting worse for XP as time goes on, but I still see no comparison once you put XP in legacy (Windows 2000) video mode taking out extras like themes and fast user switching among other things. I can make XP truly usable on old hardware while 2000 on the same computer will grind and crawl. The only thing I can figure is that when columnists publish this information, they've never actually tried it for themselves. I'm not talking about benchmarking which may not tell the whole truth or beta builds which are always slower, I'm talking about usability of the end product. Windows XP is more usable (responsiveness to applications, web browsing, general computer use) than Windows 2000 on the same hardware.
How do they know my intestines were made by European researchers? Sounds like some pretty nasty data-mining to me.
What does this mean for Microsoft and its reputation as a company that can eventually ship software?
Nothing. Nobody with deep pockets cares. Just more hype built up for when it eventually does ship.
What will this mean for office managers who have to plan upgrades and budgets?
Woo-hoo! That extra money in the budget this year has to be spent before the end of the year anyway! New Laptops for me! No really, it means nothing. No competent office manager was planning to roll this out right after it shipped.
Will this make anyone look at OpenOffice.org?
Sure, people are always looking, and maybe a few more will, but a quick look by any real-world test group of people already used to and using Office 2000 or above is going to point out serious reasons against converting.
My company is just now transitioning to Office 2003 from Office 2000. Few large companies are ready for the new look and feel of Office 2007 because the average user is going to need either some training, some time to get up to speed with the new interface, or more likely both.
Yeah, I never said I even wanted the government to protect my kids from porn. I said "but what about my right to protect my child from pornography online?" It is my right to protect my child from pornography as you have said. I'm not claiming anything more, nor would I want the government to give me that "protection" without my asking for it. The next thing you know they'll be protecting me from anti-US websites or websites that discuss alternate views of anything, including religion.
The reason I'm responding besides clearing up that little misunderstanding is to make the point that a library terminal blocking pornographic content is not government censorship. When I was growing up the library was a fun place that my mom took me to often. There were reading events during the summer and classes, and even research when I was older. Every time I go to the library today it is empty of people for the most part, but the computer section is full. There are shady, scruffy looking people with shifty eyes looking at pornography and sometimes glancing around the room. I feel uncomfortable bringing my children there when that is going on. There is nothing wrong with blocking pornographic content on computer terminals in a public area. If a library wants to cater to people who want to look for pornography, then there should be a separate area for this where these people can be undisturbed and where they can't be seen by children.
From a different perspective, if I was a parent without enough money to have the Internet or a computer, I would want the library to be able to protect my children as well as I do with filtering at home now. If I'm not a good typist and I type in the wrong website while helping a child look up a homework problem at the library I want it to stop me if the website is porn. The library needs to have the technology to be able to do this. People that disagree would probably also rather have the entire library organized alphabetically by author rather than by subject matter. Is it my job to walk behind my child in the library making sure that the book next to Dr. Seuss is not pornographic? Well, it is my job if there is the potential for that to happen, but why have it organized that way when it is so much easier to find the content you are looking for when it is grouped by subject. People are naive about the Internet, especially children who very easily could type something wrong or click a bad link. In a world without Internet filtering, there are a lot of pornographic titles next to Dr. Seuss. Why is it wrong to organize it so that this is no longer the case?
Censorship is preventing the creation and expression of content. Censorship does not occur when a pornographic website is blocked from a child at a library. That website still exists, and the government has done nothing to destroy the content of it or prevent the viewing of the same site at home. If that poor guy who can't afford a playboy or a computer wants access to it at the library then they can make special accommodation to provide it to him. Now we go off on a tangent about what a citizen's rights are: Maybe he should even have a right to his own room without windows since jerking off could also be considered freedom of expression. Then again, maybe it should be his right to jerk off in front of an elementary school if that's what makes him feel good about expressing himself. After all, that is his expression, and it **IS** censorship that we make this illegal. Have I gone too far yet? Maybe it should be his right to take a gun within 50 feet of that school and start shooting the geese flying overhead. He's not harming anybody, and it's his expression. A guy wants to take his fully automatic (unloaded) M-4 to work with him to show it off to his buddies. Should we allow his work to censure him? One of these scenarios should have touched one of your buttons, yet none of them have caused any harm by someone's standard.
The fact of the matter is that there are many things in this country that are censured for the purpose of