> Now, picture Slashdot. Look around at your fellow posters. [... ] What are your
experiences with Slash relationships in the Dot?
Interesting idea. Maybe we oughta pick a day (and set up a series of threads for the occasion) where Slashdotters set up get-togethers in large cities.
Sort of a revival of the "BBS get-together" or "@party" tradition from 15-20 years ago.
> Besides, taken only a little bit futher and we can assume that since everyone is out for themselves in work and out. Soon it's > > Trust nobody. Keep your laser handy!". > >Then where are we?
> He's going to spend hundreds of dollars on plane tickets and hotel rooms. Then sit there for 2 weeks eating pizza, working, and looking out the window at all the people having fun on their holidays.
Doesn't look like you have network access from your stateroom, but if you're looking for a geeky holiday, as opposed to getting work done while on holiday...
Behold the power of banner ads and Javshit!
on
Concept PC 2001
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
From http://www.designtechnica.com/article.php?sid=689& mode=thread&order=1
Funny, I did the same thing because the page didn't even bother trying to render in my browser. So I saved the HTML and read the article in "vi". Or rather, I saved the HTML and spent 30 seconds trying to find the damn article.
1) SaveAs article.html. Cut-and-paste only the HTML that includes the article text and image HREFs.
2) SaveAs articleraw.html. Cut out the user comments, leaving the original HTML intact.
> > The ISP (Genuity) just no longer accepts spamcop complaints on that domain anymore. > > That's because that fucking black rocket they have is a nuclear spam generator.
Yeah, but since it's not like fucking Genuity ever does anything about the spam complaints they do accept, what difference does it make?
(Assfelching dialinx.net dialups in 65.*.*.* are two fucking thirds of my fucking spam load these days. I'd like to take that black rocket and shove it up their CEO's ass. Sideways. I'd shove it up their abuse department's ass, except they don't have an abuse department.)
> "We have to get away from the ethos that knowledge is good, knowledge should be publicly
available, that information will liberate us," said University of Pennsylvania bioethicist Arthur
Caplan. > > This guy has got to be out of his mind...
No, he's not. He's doing his job, which is to retard the development of biotechnology.
He's a bioethicist, not a biologist or bioengineer. That means he knows a bit about how living things work, and everything about why biologists and bioengineers shouldn't be allowed to work on 'em.
(It sounds like I'm speaking in irony, but I'm not. Think about it. When was the last time a bioethicist said "Yeah, this is pretty cool tech, let's build it"? I mean, they're always saying "Wow, sounds promising, but dangerous. Better ban research in that area for 20 years 'till we get a handle on the consequences.")
100,000 years ago, he called himself a pyroethicist, and if we hadn't clubbed his kind into submission, we'd still be living in caves and eating raw meat. ("Well, we see the potential for fire, but look at what happens when it gets out of controlTHUNKTHUNKTHUNKOOF")
> anyone have a nice 4.5 inch 800X600
TFT lcd that can withstand -60degF and has touchscreen?
Dude, where the hell do you drive, Antarctica?:-)
(Remember, the device remains in the car, so "windchill" doesn't matter - only ambient temperature. I'd be more worried about the upper limit, as a car with windows closed can easily break 140F.)
> If I had a car that could use the Onstar system, I would deliberately tell them that I would not want spam, or
else to cancel the account before I drove the car through the show room window
I think you have the order reversed.
If I had a car with OnStar and got spammed, I'd drive it through the showroom window first (hopefully crushing a cute baby or pregnant woman to death in the process), and then sue the bejeezus out of GM and the advertiser on the grounds that the spam distracted me. A few billion dollars in damages will shut these pigfucking marketroids down pronto, or at least convince potential advertisers to stay the fuck out of my car.
Surely if it's illegal for me to distract myself with a cell phone, but it ought to be just as illegal for my car manufacturer to distract me with spam, no? (That's why I hope there's a preggo or sprog in the showroom when I hit it, it'll spur the congresscritters to stop the advertising in our cars, "for the chilllllllldrun!" With any luck, I can get the next-of-kin to join me as plaintiffs in the suit!)
> Sheila Broflovski: >
Just remember what the MPAA says: Horrific, deplorable violence is okay, as long as people don't say any
naughty words!
It's truly sad
when what you thought was a funny character in South Park turns out to be real life. But yes, there really are people like that out there.
(Shameless cut-and-paste from a post of mine on another "ratings" article)
Most mindboggling thing about 9/11 - a moment where the censors just popped in raw video footage from a guy
who had a handicam pointed in the right/wrong place when the second plane went in.
The reaction of the camera holder was predictable: A scream of "Holy fucking Christ!"
The news guy apologized profusely for the language. I blurted out in shock and laughter at the patent absurdity of
that ("What the fuck?"), and a person next to me said, in a concerned voice, "Well, you know there might be children
watching"
Yeah, lady, your crotchfruit have just spent the past three hours watching 6000 people get incinerated, crushed, and
splattering on the ground like sacks of wet cement, over and over again, live and on replay on National TV, and
you're worried about them being emotionally damaged by hearing naughty words?!?!
> Ratings are a tool for pretentious assholes to make sweeping cultural judgements. They are a convenient way
for America to say, "Oh! I can let my child see this movie, because it doesn't say 'fuck'!"
Thanks for saying it.
Most mindboggling thing about 9/11 - a moment where the censors just popped in raw video footage from a guy who had a handicam pointed in the right/wrong place when the second plane went in.
The reaction of the camera holder was predictable: A scream of "Holy fucking Christ!"
The news guy apologized profusely for the language. I blurted out in shock and laughter at the patent absurdity of that ("What the fuck?"), and a person next to me said, in a concerned voice, "Well, you know there might be children watching"
Yeah, lady, your crotchfruit have just spent the past three hours watching 6000 people get incinerated, crushed, and splattering on the ground like sacks of wet cement, over and over again, live and on replay on National TV, and you're worried about them being emotionally damaged by hearing naughty words?!?!
> Oh I dunno, let me take a wild guess and say that a page is a single document viewed in a web browser.
Yeah, it got a +5. Because it deserved a +5.
When is a page delivered? When PennyProxy breaks the HTTP connection the instant it sees the "LAYER" tag with the payment information? How can you tell the difference between that and me hitting "stop" 90% of the way through the page?
My ISP does the logging and billing for me? Oh, I'm sure my ISP wants to get into that business.
> Exactly. And how do I know what the page is before I pay my one cent? Take a look at Tom's Hardware and
notice how skimpy most pages are compared to, say, one page of slashdot in flat mode.
I stopped reading tomshardware.com when I realized it took my browser longer to render the fucking page than it took me to read it.
(I'm glad I'm not the only one who's noticed how bad Tom's gotten. The technical info isn't bad, but reading it one sentence per mouseclick just isn't worth my time.)
> Is there anyone out there who managed to beat Wiz7 w/o the help of the hint book?
WizGold? Sure. It takes a long time (with or without the hints), but the story is sufficiently linear that if you take detailed notes, you'll do fine.
Now, Wizardry IV, that's another story. I still haven't beaten it. (Yes, I have the walkthrough. No, I refuse to use it. My goal is to finish the game before I die. I'm damn glad they released the Wizardry Archives for the PC, though, as I don't think I have the patience to swap and flip all those disks in and out of my Apple//e anymore.)
> the act of turning to a coporation for "governmental
sevices" is pretty much equivalent to paying Vito and his buddies a monthly fee to not 'bust up your place'.
It's anarchy.
Funny, I feel exactly the same way when the IRS comes to town.
> The difference between a GOVERNMENT and a GANG, is that the GOVERNMENT (at least in a
democratic society) is accountable to it's people.
The difference between the Mafia numbers game and the government-run lottery is that the mob gives better odds.
> Is Vito's $100 going to pay for a couple of young punks to stand
outside your restaurant to make sure nobody from any rival gang comes along? Or is it going into Vito's
pocket for his next snort of coke? Is SecureCorp's $500 going to pay for well trained well armed security
patrols in your neighborhood? Or is it going to pay for the CEO's teenage daughter's Lexus?
I ask exactly the same things about my $100 when it goes to the government. At least if Vito spends $100 on coke instead of turning it in to his boss, Vito gets waxed. There's no such accountability for incompetence among government employees.
> In an unrestricted market economy - SecureCorp might even become a monopoly.
And what is a government other than a monopoly on the use of force?
> Non-economic factors, similarly, don't get equated intot he system since they have no equivalence in the matrix.
HOw much is on'es health, or quality of life, 'worth'? What is one willing to 'payp' to support and allow the
continuation of ones spiritual beliefs?
Non-economic factors can't be valued? Hogwash.
Ask any dot-commer who said "Fuck this" and went into volunteer work after his company appeared on fuckedcompany.com one too many times.
Ask any monk (Buddhist or Catholic!) who said "Fuck this material world" and joined a monastery, where in exchange for not having to work at a 9-to-5 job, he is provided with round-the-clock work (maintaining the building and farming the crops) and religious activities (prayer).
If you don't like this materialistic veil of tears, fine. Find some like-minded people and leave it.
Or (warning, possible strawman alert!) are you saying that you want to not have the 9-to-5 job and keep all the quality-of-life things you're used to purchasing with the fruits of your labor? That's cool too -- but it doesn't mean that "non-economic things" like a desired lifestyle don't have a price tag, it just means you can't afford what's on the sticker.
Re:Heh... taliban gov't is already gone...
on
Defining Globalism
·
· Score: 1
> >...United States will ultimately destroy the Taliban government. > >
Already done [yahoo.com]. Happened this morning.
HAH! ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!
(Aaah, I've been waiting two months to yell that. Watching Taliban resistance crumble over the past four days has been like the endgame of Civ or Alpha Centauri - you fight a long war of attrition against an enemy, it's a stalemate for years, then you make some headway, his front line collapses, and it's all over in 4 or 5 turns.)
> Trade-based globalization will result in the shifting of power from cultural states (i.e. countries), to economic
"states" (i.e. multinational corporations), transcending national law, and a lot of the social reasons governments are
formed, and law is written in the first place.
Rather like Snow Crash and the concept of "franchulate"; you signed up with a government-of-choice, and when you needed services, you went to the consulate for your government, which was operated on a franchise basis.
> We need then to fill this vacuum with strong international law and
cooperation of the peoples of many nations. Otherwise we are just going to end up with a cabal of extremely wealthy
and exploitive corporations with no allegiance to any particular peoples, exploiting and oppressing for profit.
If I put my left-leaning liberal hat on for a moment, how would this differ in any way, shape or form, from the way things are now? Isn't this what "the left" is constantly carping on?
Oh, I see. By having one huge-azz government, to whom all the world's corporation are belong, we avoid, umm, the problems of how the merely big-azz government of the United States, and the multinationals stationed there, are responsible for all the evils of the world?
Y'know, given the choice, I'll take the franchulates.
> IMO, the major benefit that a LCD has over a printer is the light-to-dark ration. Photographs and prints
typically have a light-to-dark brightness ratio (contrast?) of 20-1. A CRT monitor ups this ratio to ~35-1. [LED has 250-1]
So, what this comes down to is that if you're a normal person, and usually have the lights on at night, or are at home during the day, you use a photo printer and a picture frame to display your photos on the wall.
If you're a geek, the lights are off and the shades are drawn even during the day, and you're usually only home at night anyways. So you go for the LCD or CRT to display your photos on the wall. Because an unlit surface is invisible in the dark.
(The scary thing is that I'm not sure if this'll get a +1, Funny or a +1, Informative:-)
> So, if you could virtually eliminate spam
from your inbox, how much would you be willing to pay to make that
happen?
Suppose Congress passed a law extending "open season" on spammers to 24-7, 365 days a year, and allowed for the payment of a bounty for every spammer hide turned in.
I'd chip in a few bucks a month, probably along with every other user in the country. That'd be several million bucks a month. I dunno, what's a spammer worth? $50 for the bullets and maintenance of the weapons, plus disposal costs?
Only problem is where we'd dispose of all the spammer carcasses. The EPA would be all over our ass. Spammers smell bad enough when they're alive.
But if we're just talking about some sort of filtering to get rid of the spam in the mailboxes, not a red cent. Spam is a problem that can only be stopped at the source -- stop the spammers, whether through legalized culling, jail time, or just plain beefing up ISP abuse desks (umm, and Broadwing and Genuity going bankrupt;-) and the spam goes away.
> Well then.... if Euro folks are so adimate to censor people, then why don't they just create a proxie, and firewall,
for their people? This would shelter their citizens from all that evil free speech, and free expression. While thier
at it, why not just physically remove the internet, and replace it with euro-net.... a fully contained intra-net for
euro folks that is protected from the hate-mongers?
Better yet, why not just sever themselves completely from the Internet. Make posession of a computer a crime. Make dissemination of wrongthink a capital crime. Make their women dress in burqas. Oh, wait, wrong country.
> "I want this information banned because I have the self-restraint
necessary to use this information responsibly?
Erm, s/have/lack/g.
Sheesh. Please mod the parent of this post down. I've done it right under "Corrected Post".
(Suggestion to Slashcoders - a one-time-only "Oh crap, I screwed up, delete the post" button, maybe based on a cookie that expires 2 minutes after posting?)
(Ludicrous typo in my first reply, inverting the sense of my argument. s/have the self-restraint/lack the self-restraint/g)
> [the poster agrees with] 1. Banning propaganda solely intended to cause the breakdown and destruction of a democratic system, and spreading of hate [and claims this is different than] 2. Banning things you disagree with.
Question 1 for the poster:
A lot of folks have made jokes in recent times to the effect that "1984 is not a HOWTO document!".
Ought we to ban Orwell's 1984 a manual for what to do to institute a police state (because it can certainly be used as such, especially the appendix on the design of Newspeak), or ought we to encourage its dissemination as a manual describing what citizens should be on the lookout for?
Question 2 for the poster:
The arguments used for banning Mein Kampf because "other people might be seduced into fascism" sound a lot like the arguments for banning pr0n because "other people might decide sex for pleasure instead of procreation is fun", or banning strong crypto because "[terroists|pedophiles|drugdealers] could abuse it", or to ban disclosure of security holes because h4x0rz could abuse it.
How come the book-burners never say "I want this information banned because I lack the self-restraint necessary to use this information responsibly?"
It's always someone else who can't be trusted, isn't it?
A Modest Proposal:
I propose the jailing of those who would limit my access to information, because in their hearts they see themselves as my master. They do not deserve this power. They cannot be trusted with it. Their ideas ought to be the ones suppressed in a free and democratic society.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting idea. Maybe we oughta pick a day (and set up a series of threads for the occasion) where Slashdotters set up get-togethers in large cities.
Sort of a revival of the "BBS get-together" or "@party" tradition from 15-20 years ago.
Any takers?
>
> Trust nobody. Keep your laser handy!".
>
>Then where are we?
Anywhere in america, post-9/11?
Has anyone tried Geek Cruises?
Doesn't look like you have network access from your stateroom, but if you're looking for a geeky holiday, as opposed to getting work done while on holiday...
Funny, I did the same thing because the page didn't even bother trying to render in my browser. So I saved the HTML and read the article in "vi". Or rather, I saved the HTML and spent 30 seconds trying to find the damn article.
1) SaveAs article.html. Cut-and-paste only the HTML that includes the article text and image HREFs.
2) SaveAs articleraw.html. Cut out the user comments, leaving the original HTML intact.
3) $ wc article*.*
44 381 2473 article.html
482 1742 22916 articleraw.html
Geez, a 10:1 ratio of Javashit and other dreck to actual content, and that's without loading graphics.
The sick thing is that I know that's not a record for waste.
>
> That's because that fucking black rocket they have is a nuclear spam generator.
Yeah, but since it's not like fucking Genuity ever does anything about the spam complaints they do accept, what difference does it make?
(Assfelching dialinx.net dialups in 65.*.*.* are two fucking thirds of my fucking spam load these days. I'd like to take that black rocket and shove it up their CEO's ass. Sideways. I'd shove it up their abuse department's ass, except they don't have an abuse department.)
>
> This guy has got to be out of his mind...
No, he's not. He's doing his job, which is to retard the development of biotechnology.
He's a bioethicist, not a biologist or bioengineer. That means he knows a bit about how living things work, and everything about why biologists and bioengineers shouldn't be allowed to work on 'em.
(It sounds like I'm speaking in irony, but I'm not. Think about it. When was the last time a bioethicist said "Yeah, this is pretty cool tech, let's build it"? I mean, they're always saying "Wow, sounds promising, but dangerous. Better ban research in that area for 20 years 'till we get a handle on the consequences.")
100,000 years ago, he called himself a pyroethicist, and if we hadn't clubbed his kind into submission, we'd still be living in caves and eating raw meat. ("Well, we see the potential for fire, but look at what happens when it gets out of controlTHUNKTHUNKTHUNKOOF")
Dude, where the hell do you drive, Antarctica? :-)
(Remember, the device remains in the car, so "windchill" doesn't matter - only ambient temperature. I'd be more worried about the upper limit, as a car with windows closed can easily break 140F.)
I think you have the order reversed.
If I had a car with OnStar and got spammed, I'd drive it through the showroom window first (hopefully crushing a cute baby or pregnant woman to death in the process), and then sue the bejeezus out of GM and the advertiser on the grounds that the spam distracted me. A few billion dollars in damages will shut these pigfucking marketroids down pronto, or at least convince potential advertisers to stay the fuck out of my car.
Surely if it's illegal for me to distract myself with a cell phone, but it ought to be just as illegal for my car manufacturer to distract me with spam, no? (That's why I hope there's a preggo or sprog in the showroom when I hit it, it'll spur the congresscritters to stop the advertising in our cars, "for the chilllllllldrun!" With any luck, I can get the next-of-kin to join me as plaintiffs in the suit!)
> Just remember what the MPAA says: Horrific, deplorable violence is okay, as long as people don't say any naughty words!
It's truly sad when what you thought was a funny character in South Park turns out to be real life. But yes, there really are people like that out there.
(Shameless cut-and-paste from a post of mine on another "ratings" article)
Most mindboggling thing about 9/11 - a moment where the censors just popped in raw video footage from a guy who had a handicam pointed in the right/wrong place when the second plane went in.
The reaction of the camera holder was predictable: A scream of "Holy fucking Christ!"
The news guy apologized profusely for the language. I blurted out in shock and laughter at the patent absurdity of that ("What the fuck?"), and a person next to me said, in a concerned voice, "Well, you know there might be children watching"
Yeah, lady, your crotchfruit have just spent the past three hours watching 6000 people get incinerated, crushed, and splattering on the ground like sacks of wet cement, over and over again, live and on replay on National TV, and you're worried about them being emotionally damaged by hearing naughty words?!?!
Holy fucking Christ indeed. Holy fucking Christ.
Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be done.
(I thought the idea behind Iron Chef was to get ideas on how to cook, not to lose one's appetite!)
Thanks for saying it.
Most mindboggling thing about 9/11 - a moment where the censors just popped in raw video footage from a guy who had a handicam pointed in the right/wrong place when the second plane went in.
The reaction of the camera holder was predictable: A scream of "Holy fucking Christ!"
The news guy apologized profusely for the language. I blurted out in shock and laughter at the patent absurdity of that ("What the fuck?"), and a person next to me said, in a concerned voice, "Well, you know there might be children watching"
Yeah, lady, your crotchfruit have just spent the past three hours watching 6000 people get incinerated, crushed, and splattering on the ground like sacks of wet cement, over and over again, live and on replay on National TV, and you're worried about them being emotionally damaged by hearing naughty words?!?!
Holy fucking Christ indeed. Holy fucking Christ.
Yeah, it got a +5. Because it deserved a +5.
When is a page delivered? When PennyProxy breaks the HTTP connection the instant it sees the "LAYER" tag with the payment information? How can you tell the difference between that and me hitting "stop" 90% of the way through the page?
My ISP does the logging and billing for me? Oh, I'm sure my ISP wants to get into that business.
I stopped reading tomshardware.com when I realized it took my browser longer to render the fucking page than it took me to read it.
(I'm glad I'm not the only one who's noticed how bad Tom's gotten. The technical info isn't bad, but reading it one sentence per mouseclick just isn't worth my time.)
WizGold? Sure. It takes a long time (with or without the hints), but the story is sufficiently linear that if you take detailed notes, you'll do fine.
Now, Wizardry IV, that's another story. I still haven't beaten it. (Yes, I have the walkthrough. No, I refuse to use it. My goal is to finish the game before I die. I'm damn glad they released the Wizardry Archives for the PC, though, as I don't think I have the patience to swap and flip all those disks in and out of my Apple //e anymore.)
Andrew, Robert, thanks for years of great gaming.
Funny, I feel exactly the same way when the IRS comes to town.
> The difference between a GOVERNMENT and a GANG, is that the GOVERNMENT (at least in a democratic society) is accountable to it's people.
The difference between the Mafia numbers game and the government-run lottery is that the mob gives better odds.
> Is Vito's $100 going to pay for a couple of young punks to stand outside your restaurant to make sure nobody from any rival gang comes along? Or is it going into Vito's pocket for his next snort of coke? Is SecureCorp's $500 going to pay for well trained well armed security patrols in your neighborhood? Or is it going to pay for the CEO's teenage daughter's Lexus?
I ask exactly the same things about my $100 when it goes to the government. At least if Vito spends $100 on coke instead of turning it in to his boss, Vito gets waxed. There's no such accountability for incompetence among government employees.
> In an unrestricted market economy - SecureCorp might even become a monopoly.
And what is a government other than a monopoly on the use of force?
Non-economic factors can't be valued? Hogwash.
Ask any dot-commer who said "Fuck this" and went into volunteer work after his company appeared on fuckedcompany.com one too many times.
Ask any monk (Buddhist or Catholic!) who said "Fuck this material world" and joined a monastery, where in exchange for not having to work at a 9-to-5 job, he is provided with round-the-clock work (maintaining the building and farming the crops) and religious activities (prayer).
If you don't like this materialistic veil of tears, fine. Find some like-minded people and leave it.
Or (warning, possible strawman alert!) are you saying that you want to not have the 9-to-5 job and keep all the quality-of-life things you're used to purchasing with the fruits of your labor? That's cool too -- but it doesn't mean that "non-economic things" like a desired lifestyle don't have a price tag, it just means you can't afford what's on the sticker.
> Already done [yahoo.com]. Happened this morning.
HAH! ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!
(Aaah, I've been waiting two months to yell that. Watching Taliban resistance crumble over the past four days has been like the endgame of Civ or Alpha Centauri - you fight a long war of attrition against an enemy, it's a stalemate for years, then you make some headway, his front line collapses, and it's all over in 4 or 5 turns.)
Rather like Snow Crash and the concept of "franchulate"; you signed up with a government-of-choice, and when you needed services, you went to the consulate for your government, which was operated on a franchise basis.
> We need then to fill this vacuum with strong international law and cooperation of the peoples of many nations. Otherwise we are just going to end up with a cabal of extremely wealthy and exploitive corporations with no allegiance to any particular peoples, exploiting and oppressing for profit.
If I put my left-leaning liberal hat on for a moment, how would this differ in any way, shape or form, from the way things are now? Isn't this what "the left" is constantly carping on?
Oh, I see. By having one huge-azz government, to whom all the world's corporation are belong, we avoid, umm, the problems of how the merely big-azz government of the United States, and the multinationals stationed there, are responsible for all the evils of the world?
Y'know, given the choice, I'll take the franchulates.
Fuck laser beams.
Just gimme a baseball bat and a giant penguin-shaped robot.
So, what this comes down to is that if you're a normal person, and usually have the lights on at night, or are at home during the day, you use a photo printer and a picture frame to display your photos on the wall.
If you're a geek, the lights are off and the shades are drawn even during the day, and you're usually only home at night anyways. So you go for the LCD or CRT to display your photos on the wall. Because an unlit surface is invisible in the dark.
(The scary thing is that I'm not sure if this'll get a +1, Funny or a +1, Informative :-)
Suppose Congress passed a law extending "open season" on spammers to 24-7, 365 days a year, and allowed for the payment of a bounty for every spammer hide turned in.
I'd chip in a few bucks a month, probably along with every other user in the country. That'd be several million bucks a month. I dunno, what's a spammer worth? $50 for the bullets and maintenance of the weapons, plus disposal costs?
Only problem is where we'd dispose of all the spammer carcasses. The EPA would be all over our ass. Spammers smell bad enough when they're alive.
But if we're just talking about some sort of filtering to get rid of the spam in the mailboxes, not a red cent. Spam is a problem that can only be stopped at the source -- stop the spammers, whether through legalized culling, jail time, or just plain beefing up ISP abuse desks (umm, and Broadwing and Genuity going bankrupt ;-) and the spam goes away.
Better yet, why not just sever themselves completely from the Internet. Make posession of a computer a crime. Make dissemination of wrongthink a capital crime. Make their women dress in burqas. Oh, wait, wrong country.
Same idea, though.
Erm, s/have/lack/g.
Sheesh. Please mod the parent of this post down. I've done it right under "Corrected Post".
(Suggestion to Slashcoders - a one-time-only "Oh crap, I screwed up, delete the post" button, maybe based on a cookie that expires 2 minutes after posting?)
(Ludicrous typo in my first reply, inverting the sense of my argument. s/have the self-restraint/lack the self-restraint/g)
> [the poster agrees with] 1. Banning propaganda solely intended to cause the breakdown and destruction of a democratic system, and spreading of hate [and claims this is different than] 2. Banning things you disagree with.
Question 1 for the poster:
A lot of folks have made jokes in recent times to the effect that "1984 is not a HOWTO document!".
Ought we to ban Orwell's 1984 a manual for what to do to institute a police state (because it can certainly be used as such, especially the appendix on the design of Newspeak), or ought we to encourage its dissemination as a manual describing what citizens should be on the lookout for?
Question 2 for the poster:
The arguments used for banning Mein Kampf because "other people might be seduced into fascism" sound a lot like the arguments for banning pr0n because "other people might decide sex for pleasure instead of procreation is fun", or banning strong crypto because "[terroists|pedophiles|drugdealers] could abuse it", or to ban disclosure of security holes because h4x0rz could abuse it.
How come the book-burners never say "I want this information banned because I lack the self-restraint necessary to use this information responsibly?"
It's always someone else who can't be trusted, isn't it?
A Modest Proposal:
I propose the jailing of those who would limit my access to information, because in their hearts they see themselves as my master. They do not deserve this power. They cannot be trusted with it. Their ideas ought to be the ones suppressed in a free and democratic society.