The same prinicple applies with many of the evils online (pornogrophy, violence, fostering bad relationships, etc..)
Huh? I've heard of all kinds of alleged evils Web is responsible for, but what's "fostering bad relationships"? Is it the good old "but it's better to interact with REAL people" derivative, or something else?
I guess this is why the folks at Redmond have decided to include a reasonably featured shell in thier next OS. Face it, text modes are going to exist in the hardware whether or not your OS is using them.
I guess you are giving a knee-jerk reply without using your brains or even reading the text trying to understand it. Using serial-port connection to connect to systems has nothing to do with what I wrote.
Shell is not tied to character mode of graphics card in any way; perhaps you are familiar with thing called "xterm"? Shells are tied to textual mode of controlling things, which I have nothing against. And your assumption on my level of experience with consoles, shell, etc, are based on no facts whatsoever (hint: my first real programming was done with 65xx machine code).
As to "inexpensiveness" of text mode; it's only cheap (if it is) because it has been done and "is already there". Same way as full 8086 compatibility is "free" for latest Intel chips.
Text modes of course boil down to specialized control of vanilla standard control of pixels, just at low-level. There's no reason why it couldn't as easily be done at BIOS (etc) level, just using straight bitmapped controls just as with any graphics output device.
Setting up the video properly is one of the most difficult things to do
...
Plenty of people use linux on machines that don't have a graphics system of any kind,
True enough, but aren't there also systems that might not have text mode? (used to be the case for Sun work stations? newer ones use stock PC gfx cars, may be not the case any more).
Text mode is a weird legacy component of modern PC graphics cards; it seems to outlast its companions from past decades like floppies and ISA slots.
In many ways it'd be a step forward to get rid
of that part of hardware, and just do everything
via normal bitmap graphics?
... not this really is all that relevant for average Linux-on-x86 PC users.
Personal websites are a good idea, in theory -- but, in practice, there are far too many useless, egotistical homepages.
I don't really see a coherent claim here. Whether personal web sites are a good idea or not is independent of whether there are egoistic pricks that create lame web pages or not. In fact, having such sites available is GOOD; you get to see such people for what they are: lame egoistic wanna-bes that are insecure enough having to try to boost their self-esteem. That's same way as some people are name droppers; get excited when spotting a celebrity, brown nose their superiors and so forth.
And as to blogs, gee, don't you see any slightest possibility that exactly same distribution of useful/useless good/bad/sucky will apply to them as well (or most likely already does). Plus, "sharing one's opinions and knowledge without self-advertising"...
I seriously doubt blogs deliver any more of that than above-mentioned web pages. They are written by human beings after all; many/most of them will have exactly same self-advertising; subtle or not, explicit or implicit. Not much difference. It's all about who writes them and what their motivations are; not about medium of expression.
In fact, I'd even claim blogs are even more likely to be used for that, potentially giving warm fuzzy feeling of actually communicating with other human beings... and then it's time for soap box show.
This all makes me wonder if there are actually many people who would like to preserve "privilege" of creating home pages, blogs, whatever, to technical "elite"; to show off their "expertise". And then these ordinary common non-geeks start following the trend.... ruining it for all uber-cool self entitled tech "gurus". And when that happens there are claims that "home pages suck when l0sers create them".
most corporate Linux users are running Red Hat, Mandrake, and SuSE
And in near future biggest one seems to be dropping their desktop version. And who knows what'll happen to SuSE as it's bought out.... and Mandrake went bankrupt recently didn't it? Times are tough for commercial desktop linux distributions, it seems.
I'm wondering where will linux desktop users (like myself) go? Debian?
Good points... and another obvious niche for voice input I didn't mention was car drivers. When you need your hands (and feet) for something else, keyboard, mice etc. aren't viable options.
It's also not so much that I think existing options are perfect; but just like CRTs for displays, or combustion engine for powering cars, competition hasn't been able to improve on them enough to make them obsolete. Yet?
So far it only lacks a device for text input, like a keyboard, but maybe voice recognition will replace it?"
I'm certainly not the first poster to comment on this, but I just don't understand why many assume voice input would be the preferred method? That it'd even be better than physical controls (be that keyboard, mouse, switches, joystick, whatever). There's enough aural noise in the environment, even without more; accidental commands, specificity, technical things... And except for niches where it does make sense (if one can not use his/her hands or even legs), there just doesn't seem to be much beyond 'coolness factor'? Just like you can get carpal tunnel syndrome, your throat can go sore etc.; there are no health benefits; people can generally point/click/type faster than talk; GUIs are multi-dimensional (2 currently), speech generally single-dimensional, so there's one less way to distinguish what was the target (ie. no location information)... and so on and on.
Now as to Star Trek and other sci-fi movies (including Minority Report), isn't it fairly obvious why voice input was/is used? It's the easy way to indicate what a character is inputting, and what are the results! Even if it wasn't for futuristic touch, it's so much better for needs of movies and tv series than, say, keyboard input (keyboard and mouse are only shown when realism is needed).
Directors are in general experienced and smart professionals, and know that voice input is a very good solution for THEIR problems. Just like even though there hasn't been the need to stay on call for tracing to work for decades now, they still always imply it is, in crime series, just because that's a cheap (albeit unrealistic) trick to add some suspense to plot. Just don't assume they are prophets that show what future will be; just what works for them.
Nope, it's not buggy PoS; it may be behind in features, but it (esp. coupled with Sparc hw) has couple of benefits over most other unixes:
Stability and SUPPORT. Red Hat may discontinue support for previous OS version with tiny little transition window of, say, 6 months. Sun will continue to support old Solaris versions for much much longer; with FULL support (patches, tech support). And systems where you need 24x7 availability, not latest bells and whistles, this is a very good thing. You don't HAVE to upgrade just because vendor thinks it'd like you to.
Good raw I/O throughput. Solaris is designed to have very efficient I/O, at least on Sparc platform.
I don't think article said anything about Sun dumping sparc-based line on short term. So just like IBM builds all kinds of system (from Power - chip based servers to PCs), perhaps Sun is just expanding their product line, taking advantage of cheapness of commodity x86 processor lines. Dell does not sell non-x86 systems, and HP only sells those systems for legacy purposes (HP-PA, Alpha).
Also, I wouldn't want to have to rely on my
computer being turned on all the time in order to get phone calls.
This is one area however where it probably would make sense to just have simple appliance. Internally complete computer, but designed to be small, ultra-reliable, quiet... in fact, like what my dream PC would be as well (but in this case probably with just simple LCD display).
So, it need not be what is now your work station. It should be more like, say, your router/switch/cable modem. It just is there; generally never fails (your ISPs routers do fail, modems seldom). Infrastructure needed should be made more reliable than it is now, but the actual end-point hardware is unlikely to be the weakest link.
Fairly recently as compared to when? I remember using ftp behind NAT years ago, back in the mid-90s...and boy
does that sound strange.
Using FTP in passive mode was possible, but active mode needed all kinds of tricks (a kernel module for linux I think?). And yes, I had to deal with that in mid-90s. Thing is, FTP was designed on assumption both ends had real IP addresses (to facilitate truly bi-directional communication), and NAT was royal pain in butt to get around.
Being against all war can equate to being against humanity.
True enough, but the question is whether according to one's moral it's better to kill people (war casualties, esp. civilian ones), or to let people be killed (during tyrants reign). Ignoring cost of war on innocent, and even on iraqi soldiers in considering which action is "right" is intellectual cheating.
Additionally, iraqi soldier casualties can not be ignored either; claiming they should all just have surrendered is just childish.
It's not that difficult to think of soldiers of any country defending THEIR country; even if their leader is a certified a-hole. Just like during Clinton era; even though many soldiers despised him, they were ready to give their lives for their country. Same principle doesn't just apply to this country; other countries have patriots as well. Even if they hate(d) Saddam, many considered their duty was to protect their country against enemy invasion.
I was not interpreting constitution; I was just pointing out that if ACLU's interpretation is such that it does NOT see gun ownership as same kind of right as original poster, then it's not hypocritic of it not to defend such alleged rights. And although I have seen lots of analysis regarding meaning of 2nd amendment, I have yet to see real consensus on its meaning; meaning that ACLU is unlikely on its own with its interpretation.
I don't think anyone has every said that "anybody" should be able to possess "any weapon whatsoever" except
Fair enough. Wording was bit provocative; it's enough to say that just because their interpretation of rights is different does not mean they are lying when they say they work to protect the rights. You can hardly be demanded to work for rights you don't recognize.
I also take exception to your statement that conservatives are typically in favor of a strong govt. That is exactly the opposite of what conservatives are for. They are for less govt. and less govt. interference in peoples lives overall.
... that is, unless we are talking about sexual behavior, in which case strong laws are needed to prevent, say, gay marriages. Or woman needs to terminate unwanted pregnancy, in which case involvment is needed. Or, to force recital of some nationalistic vow each day at school, for whatever reason that is.
And so on and on. Fact is that US conservatives are about as active in pushing their wants to citizens as are others; it's just different things they want to impose.
However, more generally conservatives (outside of US of A, ie. in world history) have been favouring strong governments. Law and order, strong fatherland; these ARE core conservative values; something conservative parties are generally proud to work for. And in case of, say, Bush administration, even though they are trying to minimize economical interference from government (by abolishing EPA etc), they are certainly working to make government much stronger in military sense; to have more power externally. Plus through new draconian laws (patriot and other acts), also internally; to have police state powers. Not all conservatives think of these as part of their ideology, but many do.
That rebuttal was truly amazing, completely void of understanding (or caring about) anything I said ; esp. mistaking that I somehow thought blocking was based on partisan lines, which specifically I did and do not.
And as to pornography, you are delusional if you don't see difference. Pornography is one of big satans for bible-thumpers, whereas for leftists only feminists are strongly against it, and they only as part of alleged male dominance and oppression of women.
But I guess you are one of those self-centric just -barely-out-of-home earning-your-own-money-for-the first-time clueless wet-ear libertarians.
Those "Keep your filthy hand out of 'my' money; I can take care of my business" (never been hurt by anyone bigger than me) centers of the world, who
believe in fairy tales of perfectly functioning
market economies. Place where all wrongs can
be corrected by informed citizens via consumerism, where no laws
are needed, and everything is funded without
tax dollars. That's a nice clueless state of mind to have. In that fantasy world, simple consumerism always solves any problems; market works perfectly, people are enlightened and somehow
it all works out for common good.
It's pretty close to communism utopia, even though for some reason few libertarians recognize it as such.
Well, my comment about parents doing this and that wasn't meant to read as what SHOULD be done, but is being done, with regards to firearms.
Now, I do agree with you in some ways, mostly because there is definitely big difference between hunting weapons (rifles) and people trained to use them, and then unskilled people who buy small firearms to "protect" themselves, without either having real need or skills to use or store them safely. And hunting is something for which weapons are and will be needed, if only for controlling elk/deer population (in areas where they are found in the wild); one of few legitimate uses there are in my opinion.
It's no wonder rifles are not often used for crimes (either planned ones, crimes of passion or just impulse-based rampages). Thus, most gun control laws have (or at least should have) very different goals and restrictions for owning different kinds of firearms.
Didn't even read the/. write-up, eh? The blocked pages INCLUDE the NRAs gun law pages.
Um, well, I'll answer by another question... did YOU read last paragraph I wrote?:-)
But point taken, perhaps I better read the damn write-up to make sure there aren't finer points I missed.
I'm against blocking software, especially when mandated by gov't. And I have no doubt Symantec (and others) most likely fail to distinguish with political content, and actual gun information. However, that doesn't mean I couldn't see where they are probably coming from; something that should be able to dispell most of conspiracy theories. Just as although in general leftist are more permissive of pornography (except for feminist POV), I wouldn't claim Symantec to have conservative agenda when they block porn sites.
And finally, yes, I think it would be a good idea (or perhaps even something mandated by law) to publicize at least criteria used for choosing sites to block; and even better, if one could choose proper profile for people who are too lazy to raise their children without automated stupic blocking software.
officially sanctioned armed State could have intended that only arms sanctioned by a new State and controlled by them be allowed.
I would assume that reading would consider "state" to mean one of states that form the confederation; not the federal USA. Thus, it would specifically protect MEMBER states against authority of FEDERAl state; allowing each to have its own army, not just one common army that's centrally controlled by current leader(s).
However, an additional problem really is that in some cases constitution does show its age. Just as with 'missing' right to privacy (since back then concept of not having it would have been strange, not having technology to violate it; thing that has changes), it's impossible to really know what founding fathers would have thought about current situation, due to change of weapons technology, and general state of the democratic world.
The same applies to the police... how many incidents of frustrated cops going on shooting sprees would we have if they didn't fear that some nearby civilian might have a handgun and intervene?
Are you seriously claiming cops have more fear towards general population shooting back, than justice system (including internal investigation unit) that can actually punish them? Or that, geez, even frustrated cops might have moral values that prevent them for going amok and killing other people? In your world, is the only right that exists the right of the stronger?
Or, that their interpretation of WHAT ARE THE RIGHTS is different than yours. If they don't think there is such a right as "anybody should be able to possess any weapon whatsoever", based on their reading of the constitution, there's no reason why they should be trying protect such non-right? You are free to disagree with the interpretation, but you can not force others to take your OPINION as a fact.
What I don't understand about USA, in general, is the division between left and right wings, regarding gun laws. Usually conservatives are liberal regarding fiscal issues ("state should not control how money is earned or used"), but very restrictive regarding personal rights (abortion, "moral" issues, esp. sexual issues, condemning gays and most normal sexual behaviours as perverted). Gun rights would seem to belong in latter category, and right wing usually favours strong government (as in fascist police staes)... so how come they are not the ones trying to get rid of general hand gun ownership? Leftist I can understand, from "guns are harmful" perspective, seeing government as the nanny for general population... they don't mind state meddling with individual rights, as long as it's "foor good cause". Which, well actually, is similar to what right-wing parties generally think as well.:-)
Come on. Symantec and other blocking s/w companies could CARE LESS about what YOU read, or think about things. What they care is selling product they created, and and such think this feature (blocking sites that contain information about weapons) might be able to sell more copies.
If it wasn't for idiotic legislature (practically) mandating use of blocking software for libraries, this would be a non-issue. If customers consider specific blocking category is idiotic, they could either send feedback to the company, or vote with their wallets (choose another vendor).
Slashdot Mirror
Huh? I've heard of all kinds of alleged evils Web is responsible for, but what's "fostering bad relationships"? Is it the good old "but it's better to interact with REAL people" derivative, or something else?
I guess you are giving a knee-jerk reply without using your brains or even reading the text trying to understand it. Using serial-port connection to connect to systems has nothing to do with what I wrote.
Shell is not tied to character mode of graphics card in any way; perhaps you are familiar with thing called "xterm"? Shells are tied to textual mode of controlling things, which I have nothing against. And your assumption on my level of experience with consoles, shell, etc, are based on no facts whatsoever (hint: my first real programming was done with 65xx machine code).
As to "inexpensiveness" of text mode; it's only cheap (if it is) because it has been done and "is already there". Same way as full 8086 compatibility is "free" for latest Intel chips. Text modes of course boil down to specialized control of vanilla standard control of pixels, just at low-level. There's no reason why it couldn't as easily be done at BIOS (etc) level, just using straight bitmapped controls just as with any graphics output device.
True, but even just including industrialized nations, it'd still be total of 1 to 2 billion people, vs. 300 million... so the point still holds?
...
Plenty of people use linux on machines that don't have a graphics system of any kind,
True enough, but aren't there also systems that might not have text mode? (used to be the case for Sun work stations? newer ones use stock PC gfx cars, may be not the case any more).
Text mode is a weird legacy component of modern PC graphics cards; it seems to outlast its companions from past decades like floppies and ISA slots. In many ways it'd be a step forward to get rid of that part of hardware, and just do everything via normal bitmap graphics?
I don't really see a coherent claim here. Whether personal web sites are a good idea or not is independent of whether there are egoistic pricks that create lame web pages or not. In fact, having such sites available is GOOD; you get to see such people for what they are: lame egoistic wanna-bes that are insecure enough having to try to boost their self-esteem. That's same way as some people are name droppers; get excited when spotting a celebrity, brown nose their superiors and so forth.
And as to blogs, gee, don't you see any slightest possibility that exactly same distribution of useful/useless good/bad/sucky will apply to them as well (or most likely already does). Plus, "sharing one's opinions and knowledge without self-advertising"... I seriously doubt blogs deliver any more of that than above-mentioned web pages. They are written by human beings after all; many/most of them will have exactly same self-advertising; subtle or not, explicit or implicit. Not much difference. It's all about who writes them and what their motivations are; not about medium of expression. In fact, I'd even claim blogs are even more likely to be used for that, potentially giving warm fuzzy feeling of actually communicating with other human beings... and then it's time for soap box show.
This all makes me wonder if there are actually many people who would like to preserve "privilege" of creating home pages, blogs, whatever, to technical "elite"; to show off their "expertise". And then these ordinary common non-geeks start following the trend.... ruining it for all uber-cool self entitled tech "gurus". And when that happens there are claims that "home pages suck when l0sers create them".
And in near future biggest one seems to be dropping their desktop version. And who knows what'll happen to SuSE as it's bought out.... and Mandrake went bankrupt recently didn't it? Times are tough for commercial desktop linux distributions, it seems. I'm wondering where will linux desktop users (like myself) go? Debian?
It's also not so much that I think existing options are perfect; but just like CRTs for displays, or combustion engine for powering cars, competition hasn't been able to improve on them enough to make them obsolete. Yet?
Interesting. That definitely makes sense for them, trying to get into enterprise level deals.
I'm certainly not the first poster to comment on this, but I just don't understand why many assume voice input would be the preferred method? That it'd even be better than physical controls (be that keyboard, mouse, switches, joystick, whatever). There's enough aural noise in the environment, even without more; accidental commands, specificity, technical things... And except for niches where it does make sense (if one can not use his/her hands or even legs), there just doesn't seem to be much beyond 'coolness factor'? Just like you can get carpal tunnel syndrome, your throat can go sore etc.; there are no health benefits; people can generally point/click/type faster than talk; GUIs are multi-dimensional (2 currently), speech generally single-dimensional, so there's one less way to distinguish what was the target (ie. no location information)... and so on and on.
Now as to Star Trek and other sci-fi movies (including Minority Report), isn't it fairly obvious why voice input was/is used? It's the easy way to indicate what a character is inputting, and what are the results! Even if it wasn't for futuristic touch, it's so much better for needs of movies and tv series than, say, keyboard input (keyboard and mouse are only shown when realism is needed). Directors are in general experienced and smart professionals, and know that voice input is a very good solution for THEIR problems. Just like even though there hasn't been the need to stay on call for tracing to work for decades now, they still always imply it is, in crime series, just because that's a cheap (albeit unrealistic) trick to add some suspense to plot. Just don't assume they are prophets that show what future will be; just what works for them.
I don't think article said anything about Sun dumping sparc-based line on short term. So just like IBM builds all kinds of system (from Power - chip based servers to PCs), perhaps Sun is just expanding their product line, taking advantage of cheapness of commodity x86 processor lines. Dell does not sell non-x86 systems, and HP only sells those systems for legacy purposes (HP-PA, Alpha).
Let's hope they're cut off.
What's the penalty under the law for putting a backdoor in an open-sourced software project?
Somehow I don't think he was referring to the law. Or am I missing some obvious crime for which penalty under the law is "cutting one's balls off"?
This is one area however where it probably would make sense to just have simple appliance. Internally complete computer, but designed to be small, ultra-reliable, quiet... in fact, like what my dream PC would be as well (but in this case probably with just simple LCD display).
So, it need not be what is now your work station. It should be more like, say, your router/switch/cable modem. It just is there; generally never fails (your ISPs routers do fail, modems seldom). Infrastructure needed should be made more reliable than it is now, but the actual end-point hardware is unlikely to be the weakest link.
Using FTP in passive mode was possible, but active mode needed all kinds of tricks (a kernel module for linux I think?). And yes, I had to deal with that in mid-90s. Thing is, FTP was designed on assumption both ends had real IP addresses (to facilitate truly bi-directional communication), and NAT was royal pain in butt to get around.
True enough, but the question is whether according to one's moral it's better to kill people (war casualties, esp. civilian ones), or to let people be killed (during tyrants reign). Ignoring cost of war on innocent, and even on iraqi soldiers in considering which action is "right" is intellectual cheating.
Additionally, iraqi soldier casualties can not be ignored either; claiming they should all just have surrendered is just childish. It's not that difficult to think of soldiers of any country defending THEIR country; even if their leader is a certified a-hole. Just like during Clinton era; even though many soldiers despised him, they were ready to give their lives for their country. Same principle doesn't just apply to this country; other countries have patriots as well. Even if they hate(d) Saddam, many considered their duty was to protect their country against enemy invasion.
Now, about taking the heat... them's the fighting words, so why are you not brave enough to log in as yourself?
I was not interpreting constitution; I was just pointing out that if ACLU's interpretation is such that it does NOT see gun ownership as same kind of right as original poster, then it's not hypocritic of it not to defend such alleged rights. And although I have seen lots of analysis regarding meaning of 2nd amendment, I have yet to see real consensus on its meaning; meaning that ACLU is unlikely on its own with its interpretation.
Fair enough. Wording was bit provocative; it's enough to say that just because their interpretation of rights is different does not mean they are lying when they say they work to protect the rights. You can hardly be demanded to work for rights you don't recognize.
I also take exception to your statement that conservatives are typically in favor of a strong govt. That is exactly the opposite of what conservatives are for. They are for less govt. and less govt. interference in peoples lives overall.
However, more generally conservatives (outside of US of A, ie. in world history) have been favouring strong governments. Law and order, strong fatherland; these ARE core conservative values; something conservative parties are generally proud to work for. And in case of, say, Bush administration, even though they are trying to minimize economical interference from government (by abolishing EPA etc), they are certainly working to make government much stronger in military sense; to have more power externally. Plus through new draconian laws (patriot and other acts), also internally; to have police state powers. Not all conservatives think of these as part of their ideology, but many do.
And as to pornography, you are delusional if you don't see difference. Pornography is one of big satans for bible-thumpers, whereas for leftists only feminists are strongly against it, and they only as part of alleged male dominance and oppression of women.
But I guess you are one of those self-centric just -barely-out-of-home earning-your-own-money-for-the first-time clueless wet-ear libertarians. Those "Keep your filthy hand out of 'my' money; I can take care of my business" (never been hurt by anyone bigger than me) centers of the world, who believe in fairy tales of perfectly functioning market economies. Place where all wrongs can be corrected by informed citizens via consumerism, where no laws are needed, and everything is funded without tax dollars. That's a nice clueless state of mind to have. In that fantasy world, simple consumerism always solves any problems; market works perfectly, people are enlightened and somehow it all works out for common good. It's pretty close to communism utopia, even though for some reason few libertarians recognize it as such.
Now, I do agree with you in some ways, mostly because there is definitely big difference between hunting weapons (rifles) and people trained to use them, and then unskilled people who buy small firearms to "protect" themselves, without either having real need or skills to use or store them safely. And hunting is something for which weapons are and will be needed, if only for controlling elk/deer population (in areas where they are found in the wild); one of few legitimate uses there are in my opinion.
It's no wonder rifles are not often used for crimes (either planned ones, crimes of passion or just impulse-based rampages). Thus, most gun control laws have (or at least should have) very different goals and restrictions for owning different kinds of firearms.
Um, well, I'll answer by another question... did YOU read last paragraph I wrote? :-)
But point taken, perhaps I better read the damn write-up to make sure there aren't finer points I missed.
I'm against blocking software, especially when mandated by gov't. And I have no doubt Symantec (and others) most likely fail to distinguish with political content, and actual gun information. However, that doesn't mean I couldn't see where they are probably coming from; something that should be able to dispell most of conspiracy theories. Just as although in general leftist are more permissive of pornography (except for feminist POV), I wouldn't claim Symantec to have conservative agenda when they block porn sites.
And finally, yes, I think it would be a good idea (or perhaps even something mandated by law) to publicize at least criteria used for choosing sites to block; and even better, if one could choose proper profile for people who are too lazy to raise their children without automated stupic blocking software.
I would assume that reading would consider "state" to mean one of states that form the confederation; not the federal USA. Thus, it would specifically protect MEMBER states against authority of FEDERAl state; allowing each to have its own army, not just one common army that's centrally controlled by current leader(s).
However, an additional problem really is that in some cases constitution does show its age. Just as with 'missing' right to privacy (since back then concept of not having it would have been strange, not having technology to violate it; thing that has changes), it's impossible to really know what founding fathers would have thought about current situation, due to change of weapons technology, and general state of the democratic world.
Are you seriously claiming cops have more fear towards general population shooting back, than justice system (including internal investigation unit) that can actually punish them? Or that, geez, even frustrated cops might have moral values that prevent them for going amok and killing other people? In your world, is the only right that exists the right of the stronger?
What I don't understand about USA, in general, is the division between left and right wings, regarding gun laws. Usually conservatives are liberal regarding fiscal issues ("state should not control how money is earned or used"), but very restrictive regarding personal rights (abortion, "moral" issues, esp. sexual issues, condemning gays and most normal sexual behaviours as perverted). Gun rights would seem to belong in latter category, and right wing usually favours strong government (as in fascist police staes)... so how come they are not the ones trying to get rid of general hand gun ownership? Leftist I can understand, from "guns are harmful" perspective, seeing government as the nanny for general population... they don't mind state meddling with individual rights, as long as it's "foor good cause". Which, well actually, is similar to what right-wing parties generally think as well. :-)
If it wasn't for idiotic legislature (practically) mandating use of blocking software for libraries, this would be a non-issue. If customers consider specific blocking category is idiotic, they could either send feedback to the company, or vote with their wallets (choose another vendor).