I had a conversation with a veteran motorcyclist who explained the method he used to avoid getting in accidents: assume that no driver can see you, ride as if you were invisible.
Yeah, we cyclists have a similar saying: assume that they can see you, and they are trying to hit you. This applies equally well to soccer moms talking on cell phones in SUVs and bikers, in my experience. For some reason, a lot of people are not to keen on the idea that bicycles are vehicles too.
A disturbing fact continues to surface in sex abuse research. The first best predictor of abuse is alcohol or drug addiction in the father. But the second best predictor is conservative religiosity, accompanied by parental belief in traditional male-female roles. This means that if you want to know which children are most likely to be sexually abused by their father, the second most significant clue is *whether or not the parents belong to a conservative religious group with traditional role beliefs and rigid sexual attitudes*. (Brown and Bohn, 1989; Finkelhor, 1986; Fortune, 1983; Goldstein et al, 1973; Van Leeuwen, 1990). (emphasis in original)
-- "Sexual Abuse in christian Homes and churches", by Carolyn
Holderread heggen, herald Press, Scotdale, PA, 1993 p. 73
I also find some of the trolls hilarious, and I've even befriended one just because she's an excellent creative writer. So while I'm not a troll myself, I do enjoy the (very occasional) troll. I sometimes wonder if I'm too close to the border for them to restore my mod points.
Well, I have to admit that slashdot's reactions to trolls has generally been a bit over the top, but it's understandable considering what they (attempted) to inflict here. You may find them entertaining, but there are many here at slashdot who think that "a troll is someone who, finding that no-one likes them, decides to pretend that it's on purpose." It stems from being severely annoyed or offended by a particular brand of stupidity: social ineptness, which, while acceptable in the version that manifests in the soft spoken, no eye contact geek, becomes tiresome when it's more like a rich, beer-drunk yahoo that reminds us more of a frat boy than an intellectual (in fact, this might explain many of the consensus opinions here on slashdot . . . ). And these anti-intellectuals keep doing the same tired schtick day after day, not willing to change or even consider that they might be wrong. Many claim they are only being contrary to help "improve the system", but actions speak louder than words, and morons who have no conception of constructive criticism should rightly be ignored. You may find them entertaining, but gadflies and masters of wit they are not. I (and I'm sure many others) do not miss them.
Of course there could be other explanations for these results.
Well, the most common thing I hear from digg people who post here is "digg had this (N) days ago!". So maybe a lot of people read both and only clicked through when they saw it on digg first.
Another explanation, and one likely to get me flamed (or modded flame) is that the slashdot crowd is generally more technically competent (or maybe I should say "technically focused"; the digg crowd seems to have a broader base) and so accessed the nmap site a different way (of which there are many: proxies that don't give referer information, seeing it on a security related mailing list (perhaps your own), or downloading it automatically via apt-get or similar).
Just some theories, not advocating digg as "better" than slashdot or vice versa (although personally, I like slashdot better).
But they rarely completely censor people here. Does the occasional bitchslap happen? Sure, but it usually gets plenty of attention, and the comment isn't summarily deleted, nor is the user account deleted. And how many posts have we seen that poke fun at slashdot, it's editors, or it's moderation system? I've seen plenty, and that's at +5. While it would be ideal that complaints about slashdot are listenened to and fixed, it speaks well of slashdot's operators that they are not summarily censored out of hand. Not to mention that many complaints about slashdot have been addressed, albeit not in a timely fashion.
What service? The one I pay for to connect to the Internet?
you abide by the terms of the service provider.
Yes, I do; and last I checked, my ISP's terms of service don't require me to display every last piece of shit that's shoved at me.
Yes, said companies are allowed to change their Terms of Service in such a way.
Yes, they can. They can even print "you are a poopy head for using this service". Doesn't make it any more true, especially since I didn't agree to those terms.
It's their sandbox.
That's all well and good, until you realize it's not true.
It's not a "sandbox" by any definition, and it's definitely not "theirs". Last I checked, I paid for this computer, I paid for this monitor, and my hardware is running this browser and other software that I have legally acquired. What I choose to do with my property is my right, as long as it does not directly harm another against their will.
Even putting all that aside, are you going to insist that someone be forced to view their ads? That's tantamount to thought control. That sounds pretty fascist to me.
One last thing: I never went into an agreement with these people; I never signed any contract. If any agreement has been entered, it was entered by the content producers when they decided to put their content online without asking for money first. The agreement is, and always has been "if you put something up online without restricting it technologically, then you have no right to complain when someone accesses it however they please."
There is no limit in how far they can go. If you don't like the terms, don't use the service.
Yeah, maybe LiveJournal should have thought of it that way before they agreed to the implicit terms of the Internet: if they didn't want people viewing their content for free, they shouldn't have put the content online, or should have restricted technologically in a way that guarantees them compensation.
And if someone inserted such a 100 dollar a day term into their ToS, and such a ToS was accepted, then you deserve to be ripped off.
Except that I never accepted it, and LiveJournal doesn't have any technological restrictions to prevent me from viewing their content and blocking ads.
People want to communicate, shop, pay bills and trade online, play games, read news, work, organize their photo albums, balance their budgets and many other things a computer is suitable for.
I think you just answered your question. Computers are *not* single purpose devices; they are capable of doing many things, and with that power they are also complicated and will not always "just work." If someone wants to communicate, they should get a cell phone. If they want to pay bills, they should get a checkbook. If they want to trade (I'm assuming stocks), they should call up their stock broker. If they want to read news, they should get a newspaper. If they want to work, they should work. If they want to organize their photo albums, why does that require a computer? If they want to balance their budgets, they should get a ledger. None of these things I have listed is a cure-all for the others, but they work reliably, time and time again, and the user won't have to have any "special" computer skills to use them. If they can't be bothered to learn the skills to operate a computer, or pay someone to do it for them, they shouldn't get a computer.
Yes. I do and when I can't fix something I pay to have it fixed, I don't ask someone to fix it for me for free.
Do you expect people to tinker with their television's wiring?
Yes.
Do you expect people to tinker with their plumbing?
Yes. Again, I do, and when I can't fix it I pay to have it fixed. Notice a pattern here? People can pay for computer support, it's just that some people are so cheap they won't and then get pissy when they don't get excellent service.
It isn't people that aren't ready; it's computers.
While I'll agree that computers aren't perfect, I believe that you are wrong; anyone with so little curiosity as to not tinker is not fully human by my standards (much like the math quote by Heinlein). And by that definition, most people aren't ready for computers. A couple of hundred years ago, people like you would have been saying that "reading isn't ready for people" or "math isn't ready for people", and now, guess what? Everyone is expected to be able to do math and read. Guess what will happen to computing skills in 100 years (or less)?
Are we still doing this? I thought it was accepted a while ago that honest, open criticism was a healthy component of the OSS movement.
Or, in the immortal words of Jim Sting: "Remember you told me to tell you when you were acting rudely and insensitively? Remember that? You're doing it right now."
Okay, okay, so the "put up or shut up" comment was too much. But I was being serious when I asked if there was a better way. Do you know of one? I (and probably many on the Linux kernel mailing list) would be very interested in hearing a novel solution to the out of memory problem. And by novel, I mean something that hasn't already been bandied about on the list. Some would argue that solving the out of memory problem is akin to solving the halting problem (and if you don't know what that is, please don't post to the Linux kernel mailing list).
On the on other hand, I don't consider calling the Linux out-of-memory handling "braindead" constructive criticism. When I see a comment like that I think, "here is someone who is not eloquent enough to use reason to help advance his cause, but instead appeals to emotion and uses name-calling. I should ignore him, but I just can't resist pointing out the flaws in his arguments, even if I use only slightly more tact than he does."
So now, those observant (or merely hostile to me), will throw this article in my face when I make comments like this. And I'll say "oh, I was wrong, I feel stupid". Not.
Look, if you go into some random forum and start asking questions that have been answered before, without contributing anything back, of course you're going to get flamed. Not to mention that those truly qualified to help, and the ones most likely to help are not listening on those forums, they are working on the software. So what does this boil down to? People asking questions that have already been answered, getting answers from assholes who have nothing to do with the project. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft or other proprietary competitors to GNU/Linux aren't hiring people to be assholes in Linux support forums. They FUD and astroturf here at slashdot, why not support forums as well?
To come back to the original topic, too many people don't realize that they are asking for *free* support for *free* software. It's like trying to wring that last drop of blood from a stone that you used to bash the developers' heads in with.
Another thing to consider, which has been mentioned by others here, is that you should at least put some effort into learning something before asking questions to those who probably won't help you anyway. By asking questions of others first, you are basically stating that you are too lazy to do your own research and want someone else to do it for you.
Another couple of things:
Linux is only free if your time is of no value.
-- Jamie Zawinski
You get what you pay for.
-- Gabriel Biel
Only a fool thinks price and value are the same.
-- Antonio Machado
Money *is* time, the only difference being you can always get more money, you can't get more time. You can pay for support, or you can spend some time learning, or maybe, just *maybe* try the idea that open source was built around: when someone contributes to the community, everybody benefits, so if you get some benefit from open source, consider what you have contributed to it. Quid pro quo and all that. That, and don't listen to the flamers, they're not real GNU/Linux users.
If more and more people begin to use Linux systems, eventually the graphics systems manufacturers are going to have to cave to market forces and support the open source system.
And what market forces, pray tell, would those be? The same ones who converted over from Windows and MacOS and are perfectly happy with binary only drivers? I highly doubt they will even know about, much less demand, open source drivers. No, if making Linux non-free is the only way to develop greater market share, then you can keep it, binary drivers and all. I'll take freedom, thank you.
A little more seriously, let me just repost part of a comment that really illustrates the veracity of this answer:
And really, I don't know when you started to use [GNU/]Linux, but when I started (pre-1.0) we didn't have video drivers. We wrote them ourselves. We chose the freedom of [GNU/]Linux over the convenience of binary-only platforms with working drivers. It shames me that so many of the current generation of [GNU/]Linux users don't understand what the world before [GNU/]Linux was like. It was hell. Closed source binary-only drivers everywhere. Buggy code that you couldn't fix. [GNU/]Linux changed all that. Finally we have source and freedom and rights. Finally there's something to be proud of; an entirely open source operating system built through the sweat and tears of 1000s of volunteers. And you would sacrifice all that for slightly faster 3D graphics? I can't comprehend your state of mind. Your priorities are completely foreign to me.
Dev tools are Linux only and don't really work nicely with anything that's not Debian.
And the problem is . . . ? Just joking;) Seriously, though, this problem runs both ways, and it only exemplifies what Linux users have had to put up with for years: things only working on one platform, be it web pages in Internet Explorer or development tools on Linux. A company that doesn't release their data (or software in general) for multiple platforms is just asking for trouble.
It runs Linux. This means you get the braindead Linux out-of-memory handling. Opera just asked for a bit more memory to render a web page? Pop! The text file you were editing has just been lost because the kernel picked the text editor app to kill.
Do you know a better way to handle out-of-memory problems? Obviously not, as you haven't implemented it and submitted a patch to the LKML yet. Put up or shut up.
And I have yet another theory: if that's him in some of the photos on there, he's in pretty good shape, and maybe he isn't so shallow as to only care about his girlfriend's breasts?
It's pretty clear that you don't know much about Windows, which seems to be a common thread here on Slashdot. You'd rather trash Windows than spend the time to learn about what you don't know. It's easier to write off Windows as "unexplainable" just because you are too lazy to look behind the GUI.
The same thing could be (and has been) said many times coming from the other side. People who complain about Linux are, 9 times out of 10, just not knowledgeable enough. At least with Linux, you don't have to buy a book (you can if you want, though), and the source code is all readily available. The bottom line is, very few people have enough experience and expertise with both systems to make a fair comparison, even if they weren't biased in the first place. Both systems seem to "just work" for the majority of their users. The difference is that in the open source world, we are fair and open and upfront about our failings and how the system works; sometimes it feels like pulling teeth to get the information you need in the closed source world (how long have you been lurking before delivering this eye-opening post? Why not speak up sooner? Or did you get modded down all the time?).
to expect the speaker to subscribe to your personal views of what you can and can't say is rediculous
No one is saying that anyone should be censored (at least I hope they aren't!). People are mainly arguing two things: 1) the GBLT guild is being censored (main article) and 2) the reality of the meanings of the words (in this thread). The problems come when one person believes that a word is not being used for it's original derogatory meaning. This can be ignored, but just like ignoring threats or contsruing them as something else is unwise, so is ignoring the origins of words and their intended purpose. Reality can be denied, but not for very long, and not to good effect.
Do people who consider themselves 'gay' and use that term to describe themselves even realize that the original meaning of the word simply meant "happy"? It was gradually taken over by other uses and now it is generally accepted as meaning 'homosexual' and to many people it means 'male homosexual' exclusively.
There are parts of the country where soda is referred to as 'pop' but that doesn't mean people are asking you for a grandparent or a punch in the jaw when they say "give me a pop". In the same way in my encounters with people saying "that's totally gay" they don't mean "that's totally homosexual" or "I hate that in the same way I hate homosexuals" they in fact mean it as "that's totally stupid/absurd/odd". It is an ALTERNATE SLANG MEANING that has been appropriated by a subset of the culture, just as homosexuals and society re-appropriated the word 'gay' itself about a generation or two ago.
This is such a bullshit copout, I don't even know where to begin.
How about this: have you ever heard someone say, "don't niggerlip that cigarette"? Do you think that the person saying this wasn't referring to the racist idea that people with darker skin have bigger lips and therefore supposedly leave the ends of cigarettes wet after they take a drag? This phrase has been "re-appropriated" as slang, but it still retains its original racism because that is soley what it was created out of. In the same way, saying "that is so gay" has always been meant as derogatory in the sense of being effeminate, like the stereotype of an effeminate gay man. I would also like to add that this bigotted epithet can offend two groups in one sentence by implying that "effeminate" means weaker or of poorer quality. I've known plenty of straight women and gay men that could have bent you into a pretzel for saying that something "is so gay", but they wouldn't, because they wouldn't want to sink to your level.
. . . when all other real world affiliations are banned . . .
Last I checked, all other real world affiliations are not banned. There are plenty of christian guilds for example.
GLBT are not discriminated from playing the game, or from starting clans, but they are (or where) banned from bringing real world issues into a totally fantasy escapist game.
As others have already pointed out, WoW is not a "totally" fantasy escapist game; it's an MMORPG where you play with other REAL people. You're not escaping from the real world when you play WoW, you're interacting with it in a different way. If you want escapism, read a book, watch a movie or play a SINGLE player game. And if Blizzard really wants to ban bringing real world issues into their games, maybe they should start by banning hate speech against homosexuals.
From what I can tell, all religions are based on self-absorbtion. People trying to find meaning in an inherently meaningless universe will make things up to make themselves feel better. Others see this and twist it into a form of control, sometimes for good ("don't kill other people") sometimes for bad ("we must kill that guy").
And when I discuss Microsoft's "competitive" activities, I tend to think of elementary school kids running the 100 yard dash where Microsoft, instead of simply running as fast as it can, resorts to tying the laces of the shoes of other kids or to tripping them in some fashion.
One of the links from that Wikipedia article is very enlightening. Basically, Viiv is yet another attempt to end-run DRM around an unsuspecting public, and it's a pile of shit to boot.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, we cyclists have a similar saying: assume that they can see you, and they are trying to hit you. This applies equally well to soccer moms talking on cell phones in SUVs and bikers, in my experience. For some reason, a lot of people are not to keen on the idea that bicycles are vehicles too.
Well, I have to admit that slashdot's reactions to trolls has generally been a bit over the top, but it's understandable considering what they (attempted) to inflict here. You may find them entertaining, but there are many here at slashdot who think that "a troll is someone who, finding that no-one likes them, decides to pretend that it's on purpose." It stems from being severely annoyed or offended by a particular brand of stupidity: social ineptness, which, while acceptable in the version that manifests in the soft spoken, no eye contact geek, becomes tiresome when it's more like a rich, beer-drunk yahoo that reminds us more of a frat boy than an intellectual (in fact, this might explain many of the consensus opinions here on slashdot . . . ). And these anti-intellectuals keep doing the same tired schtick day after day, not willing to change or even consider that they might be wrong. Many claim they are only being contrary to help "improve the system", but actions speak louder than words, and morons who have no conception of constructive criticism should rightly be ignored. You may find them entertaining, but gadflies and masters of wit they are not. I (and I'm sure many others) do not miss them.
Well, the most common thing I hear from digg people who post here is "digg had this (N) days ago!". So maybe a lot of people read both and only clicked through when they saw it on digg first.
Another explanation, and one likely to get me flamed (or modded flame) is that the slashdot crowd is generally more technically competent (or maybe I should say "technically focused"; the digg crowd seems to have a broader base) and so accessed the nmap site a different way (of which there are many: proxies that don't give referer information, seeing it on a security related mailing list (perhaps your own), or downloading it automatically via apt-get or similar).
Just some theories, not advocating digg as "better" than slashdot or vice versa (although personally, I like slashdot better).
But they rarely completely censor people here. Does the occasional bitchslap happen? Sure, but it usually gets plenty of attention, and the comment isn't summarily deleted, nor is the user account deleted. And how many posts have we seen that poke fun at slashdot, it's editors, or it's moderation system? I've seen plenty, and that's at +5. While it would be ideal that complaints about slashdot are listenened to and fixed, it speaks well of slashdot's operators that they are not summarily censored out of hand. Not to mention that many complaints about slashdot have been addressed, albeit not in a timely fashion.
What service? The one I pay for to connect to the Internet?
Yes, I do; and last I checked, my ISP's terms of service don't require me to display every last piece of shit that's shoved at me.
Yes, they can. They can even print "you are a poopy head for using this service". Doesn't make it any more true, especially since I didn't agree to those terms.
That's all well and good, until you realize it's not true.
It's not a "sandbox" by any definition, and it's definitely not "theirs". Last I checked, I paid for this computer, I paid for this monitor, and my hardware is running this browser and other software that I have legally acquired. What I choose to do with my property is my right, as long as it does not directly harm another against their will.
Even putting all that aside, are you going to insist that someone be forced to view their ads? That's tantamount to thought control. That sounds pretty fascist to me.
One last thing: I never went into an agreement with these people; I never signed any contract. If any agreement has been entered, it was entered by the content producers when they decided to put their content online without asking for money first. The agreement is, and always has been "if you put something up online without restricting it technologically, then you have no right to complain when someone accesses it however they please."
Yeah, maybe LiveJournal should have thought of it that way before they agreed to the implicit terms of the Internet: if they didn't want people viewing their content for free, they shouldn't have put the content online, or should have restricted technologically in a way that guarantees them compensation.
Except that I never accepted it, and LiveJournal doesn't have any technological restrictions to prevent me from viewing their content and blocking ads.
Wait, there's a difference? I always thought religion (especially organized religion) was just a sales pitch.
Or why don't we just start taxing organized religion like any other business that makes a profit? They certainly make enough money.
Then you say:
I think you just answered your question. Computers are *not* single purpose devices; they are capable of doing many things, and with that power they are also complicated and will not always "just work." If someone wants to communicate, they should get a cell phone. If they want to pay bills, they should get a checkbook. If they want to trade (I'm assuming stocks), they should call up their stock broker. If they want to read news, they should get a newspaper. If they want to work, they should work. If they want to organize their photo albums, why does that require a computer? If they want to balance their budgets, they should get a ledger. None of these things I have listed is a cure-all for the others, but they work reliably, time and time again, and the user won't have to have any "special" computer skills to use them. If they can't be bothered to learn the skills to operate a computer, or pay someone to do it for them, they shouldn't get a computer.
Yes. I do and when I can't fix something I pay to have it fixed, I don't ask someone to fix it for me for free.
Yes.
Yes. Again, I do, and when I can't fix it I pay to have it fixed. Notice a pattern here? People can pay for computer support, it's just that some people are so cheap they won't and then get pissy when they don't get excellent service.
While I'll agree that computers aren't perfect, I believe that you are wrong; anyone with so little curiosity as to not tinker is not fully human by my standards (much like the math quote by Heinlein). And by that definition, most people aren't ready for computers. A couple of hundred years ago, people like you would have been saying that "reading isn't ready for people" or "math isn't ready for people", and now, guess what? Everyone is expected to be able to do math and read. Guess what will happen to computing skills in 100 years (or less)?
Okay, okay, so the "put up or shut up" comment was too much. But I was being serious when I asked if there was a better way. Do you know of one? I (and probably many on the Linux kernel mailing list) would be very interested in hearing a novel solution to the out of memory problem. And by novel, I mean something that hasn't already been bandied about on the list. Some would argue that solving the out of memory problem is akin to solving the halting problem (and if you don't know what that is, please don't post to the Linux kernel mailing list).
On the on other hand, I don't consider calling the Linux out-of-memory handling "braindead" constructive criticism. When I see a comment like that I think, "here is someone who is not eloquent enough to use reason to help advance his cause, but instead appeals to emotion and uses name-calling. I should ignore him, but I just can't resist pointing out the flaws in his arguments, even if I use only slightly more tact than he does."
Look, if you go into some random forum and start asking questions that have been answered before, without contributing anything back, of course you're going to get flamed. Not to mention that those truly qualified to help, and the ones most likely to help are not listening on those forums, they are working on the software. So what does this boil down to? People asking questions that have already been answered, getting answers from assholes who have nothing to do with the project. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft or other proprietary competitors to GNU/Linux aren't hiring people to be assholes in Linux support forums. They FUD and astroturf here at slashdot, why not support forums as well?
To come back to the original topic, too many people don't realize that they are asking for *free* support for *free* software. It's like trying to wring that last drop of blood from a stone that you used to bash the developers' heads in with.
Another thing to consider, which has been mentioned by others here, is that you should at least put some effort into learning something before asking questions to those who probably won't help you anyway. By asking questions of others first, you are basically stating that you are too lazy to do your own research and want someone else to do it for you.
Another couple of things:
Money *is* time, the only difference being you can always get more money, you can't get more time. You can pay for support, or you can spend some time learning, or maybe, just *maybe* try the idea that open source was built around: when someone contributes to the community, everybody benefits, so if you get some benefit from open source, consider what you have contributed to it. Quid pro quo and all that. That, and don't listen to the flamers, they're not real GNU/Linux users.
Wow! Talk about selling out. You sure you haven't been diagnosed with multiple personality disorder?
And what market forces, pray tell, would those be? The same ones who converted over from Windows and MacOS and are perfectly happy with binary only drivers? I highly doubt they will even know about, much less demand, open source drivers. No, if making Linux non-free is the only way to develop greater market share, then you can keep it, binary drivers and all. I'll take freedom, thank you.
A: No.
A little more seriously, let me just repost part of a comment that really illustrates the veracity of this answer:
(seen on slashdot, not said by me)
And the problem is . . . ? Just joking
Do you know a better way to handle out-of-memory problems? Obviously not, as you haven't implemented it and submitted a patch to the LKML yet. Put up or shut up.
And yet it happens all the time in the open source world . . .
And I have yet another theory: if that's him in some of the photos on there, he's in pretty good shape, and maybe he isn't so shallow as to only care about his girlfriend's breasts?
The same thing could be (and has been) said many times coming from the other side. People who complain about Linux are, 9 times out of 10, just not knowledgeable enough. At least with Linux, you don't have to buy a book (you can if you want, though), and the source code is all readily available. The bottom line is, very few people have enough experience and expertise with both systems to make a fair comparison, even if they weren't biased in the first place. Both systems seem to "just work" for the majority of their users. The difference is that in the open source world, we are fair and open and upfront about our failings and how the system works; sometimes it feels like pulling teeth to get the information you need in the closed source world (how long have you been lurking before delivering this eye-opening post? Why not speak up sooner? Or did you get modded down all the time?).
No one is saying that anyone should be censored (at least I hope they aren't!). People are mainly arguing two things: 1) the GBLT guild is being censored (main article) and 2) the reality of the meanings of the words (in this thread). The problems come when one person believes that a word is not being used for it's original derogatory meaning. This can be ignored, but just like ignoring threats or contsruing them as something else is unwise, so is ignoring the origins of words and their intended purpose. Reality can be denied, but not for very long, and not to good effect.
This is such a bullshit copout, I don't even know where to begin.
How about this: have you ever heard someone say, "don't niggerlip that cigarette"? Do you think that the person saying this wasn't referring to the racist idea that people with darker skin have bigger lips and therefore supposedly leave the ends of cigarettes wet after they take a drag? This phrase has been "re-appropriated" as slang, but it still retains its original racism because that is soley what it was created out of. In the same way, saying "that is so gay" has always been meant as derogatory in the sense of being effeminate, like the stereotype of an effeminate gay man. I would also like to add that this bigotted epithet can offend two groups in one sentence by implying that "effeminate" means weaker or of poorer quality. I've known plenty of straight women and gay men that could have bent you into a pretzel for saying that something "is so gay", but they wouldn't, because they wouldn't want to sink to your level.
Last I checked, all other real world affiliations are not banned. There are plenty of christian guilds for example.
As others have already pointed out, WoW is not a "totally" fantasy escapist game; it's an MMORPG where you play with other REAL people. You're not escaping from the real world when you play WoW, you're interacting with it in a different way. If you want escapism, read a book, watch a movie or play a SINGLE player game. And if Blizzard really wants to ban bringing real world issues into their games, maybe they should start by banning hate speech against homosexuals.
From what I can tell, all religions are based on self-absorbtion. People trying to find meaning in an inherently meaningless universe will make things up to make themselves feel better. Others see this and twist it into a form of control, sometimes for good ("don't kill other people") sometimes for bad ("we must kill that guy").
Actually, the image that comes to my mind any time I think of Microsoft "competing" is an ice skater hiring someone to club another ice skater on the knees. Hence the saying that "Microsoft is the Tonya Harding of the software world."
Intel Viiv is stupid and broken
Intel to cut Linux out of the content market
DRM: Three dirty letters you won't hear in a CES keynote
One of the links from that Wikipedia article is very enlightening. Basically, Viiv is yet another attempt to end-run DRM around an unsuspecting public, and it's a pile of shit to boot.