Most likely, he did this very easily using ActiveX and _maybe_ some pre-caching. Which would explain why after "7 times it crashes"- your hard drive is full of cached sites. Using Visual[C++, VB, C#] he just dragged the ActiveX controls for a browser and "everymedia player" onto his app. Pheobe, his little assistant is just Msoft's Agent control (commonly seen as the annoying paperclip in Office). He may have even counted the ActiveX code as his, which would mean his 1400lines/day was really done in about 4 hours the night before.
In a capitalist economy, businesses compete to provide a quality product or service at the lowest price. The companies that provide bad service will shape up or go out of business. The companies that provide good service, either by extensive training of employees or innovative solutions to improve service, will make more money.
If you introduce regulations, this upsets basic competition by placing rules that restrict businesses' ability and motivation to innovate and compete. By adding government regulations, you would actually make service worse. If you doubt this, consider: Post Office vs FedEx, Private School vs Public School, Public Transportation vs Private, etc. In almost every case, government intervention causes a worse service or product. As someone pointed out, years of regulation have done little to improve the auto industry, utilities, etc. While you may argue restaraunts are safer, you should note that people still get food poisoning, and even good establishments regularly fail inspections.
Basic laws preventing fraud, false advertising, etc. protect the consumer from the things you mentioned already, while allowing businesses to innovate. In addition, voluntary certification and training allow businesses to improve their service on their own, and thus compete.
Finally, in cases where legal recourse isn't practical, consumer advocacy groups, such as the Better Business Bureau give you a powerful voice in the free market, without looking to "big government" to solve your problems.
This system has worked pretty good for a few hundred years. I don't see why people are all of the sudden so intent on screwing it up.
Re:Is it cosher? Is it lenten?
on
Lab-Grown Steak
·
· Score: 1
Not sure about kosher, or other Christian traditions, but as an Orthodox Christian (ie Greek, Russian...), I would imagine it wouldn't fit the lenten or other fasts, because the emphasis is more on the spiritual growth gained by not giving in to one's every desire all the time. The idea is that by learning to control your eating habits, you can control other passions. Aside from the question of it violating the "letter of the law" (Is it still meat?) it would violate the "spirit of the law".
I'm of the view Microsoft has nothing to loose by letting others develop full.NET implementations for other platforms. At the very least, they can sell more Visual Studio & MSDN licenses. I recently gave Mono a test drive, and very easily ran a command-line app written & compiled on a windows box under linux.
In addition to the developer side, each implementation increases the user base of Microsoft's products. Presumably, future versions of Office, etc. would be able to run natively on Linux, BSD, etc. From Microsoft's side, it's diversification- with OS sales slipping, it makes business sense to establish a user base for other products.
The OSS developers also have nothing to loose, because they have the same benefits. Not to mention,.NET is a good technology. You don't hear many complaints that it is a bad idea on it's face, like you do with older versions of VB and with Win32 programming.
Anybody who's done much Javascript can come up with plenty more annoying tricks, like hiding the close buttons, popping up a fake window, etc. Yahoo sortof does some of these with the DHTML ads. I guess the content providers wouldn't like it, but there's alot more annoying things that could be done. That being said, this is plenty annoying for me.
Most pro-lifers don't oppose stem cell research. They do oppose killing embryos for stem cells, on the same ethical grounds they would oppose killing you for stem cells. God's existence isn't necissarily a question.
Where God comes into play is that God is a basis for many people's ethics. You may base your ethics on other things, but I assume you have some basic ethic keeping you from killing people.
We don't manage our own memory, but can we assume the runtimes, and underlying classes are managing it correctly? Is it possible that all programs using certain classes are vunerable?
We all know what buffer overruns are, but why do they seem to be so common? It would seem like this is something that could be easily prevented in the compiler or at most with very basic programming procedures. As many of us are programmers, any advice how to prevent these in our code? Is it possible to accidently allow buffer overruns in other languages besides C(Java, C#, etc.)?
This is simply not what he said.
True, he allows for parental choice, but only as a "concession" of sorts. He says, "We should distinguish between preventing people from becoming disabled from preventing the existence of disabled people." Meaning, as a society, we should prevent "inferior" (tm) people from being born. It's 'mandatory' in the sense that he is saying it is the ethical thing to do to prevent disabled people from existing. I know plenty of disabled people who would disagree.
You stand as one of the many that completely misinterpret Nietzsche
Debateable. What is not debateable is many do take the stand I refered to, and cite Neitchze to back it up. Luke Woodham, who started the rash of school shootings in the late 1990s is an example:
Live by your own laws. For now, truly, you should be at peace and your own true self. Live your life in a bold, new way. For you, dearfriend, are a superman. I would say that "live by your own laws" is a sentiment echoed by Neitchze and many nihilist & naturalist philosophers. I would also say that what Luke did is the "logical conclusion" of that philosophy.
The Nazis are coming! The Nazis are coming! Get a grip.
I don't think the Nazi's are coming, or that Atomic Zombie Supermen are coming. I'm saying that a logical conclusion of removing morals from science, medicine, etc. is genocide, that it has happened before, and that it is feasible that the same mentality could arise again. Especially in a situation where those with moral objections are silenced, ridiculed, etc.
Stem cell research will be used to develop effective treatmets
So could wierd expirements on live humans. Pluck out enough eyes, and I'm sure we could figure out how to replace them. Just because something could have positive results doesn't make it morally acceptable. There would also be positive effects of simply killing people with diseases, but morals prevent us from doing that. However, you can hold certain morals and still cure disease. Believing that it is unethical to kill embryos for research does not prevent one from supporting adult stem cell research, implants, etc.
The real objections to human cloning are based on the currently extremely low success rate.
But isn't that just you applying YOUR morals to the situation? I mean, suppose I think that it is morally acceptable to test out cloning on as many human people as necessary. If they turn out to have problems when they're 3, I'll just kill them. What do you base the criteria "easily and routinely" on? Why is it wrong to test it out on humans before then?
Another fairly new one is https://answers.google.com/answers/main. People can use it to "name your own price" for more complex assisted searches. Looks like some of the researchers make some nice cash.
Why will only the rich be able to afford gene engineered kids
The same reason only rich can afford other expensive medical treatment. Do you really think Africa will pull ahead in genetic engineering anytime soon? Have you seen outbreaks of Malaria, Dengue, etc. in Nebraska? Note that it's not just the disparity I am opposed to (that's bad enough), but the removal of ethics which would have the result of furthering the disparity.
This type of research could do away with heart disease
So could killing anybody over 50, and forced abortions and infanticide of genetically inferior children. Be logically consistant. If you don't want "morals" and science to mix, take them out all the way. Another possibility, as I stated before, is to find ways that are moral, such as using adult stem cells.
I hope you'll be honorable enough to decline any medical procedure developed through this type of research
I absolutely am.
if research is slowed because of people with your views you will have taken the choice from others
By the same token, you are slowing research on genocide by your morals. Think of the money that would be saved if we just killed all genetically inferior people. Blind, deaf, mentally ill, aged. It'd free up resources for genetically superior, or at least "normal" people if we just kill them. Body disposal is bound to be cheaper than research and treatment, especially in bulk. Of course, I don't advocate that, but you've yet to say how that is not the logical conclusion of removing morals from science.
what resposibility will you have for those who die between the possible treatment date and actual treatment date
The same responsibility you will have if someone dies because we didn't euthanize a mentally handicaped person. Example: Alice is born with a low IQ. Doctors want to kill him, but Bob objects on moral grounds. Alice grows up and murders someone. Is Bob responsible for that murder? Of course not. You could give a million hypotheticals that would result in deaths either way. You could also give hypotheticals in which opposing embryonic stem cell research improves adult stem cell research. Either way, they're all hypotheticals, and so is your assertion.
The point is: even you have some morals you apply to science. You proved this by saying my views are immoral. Therefore, it is hypocritical to ridicule people for having morals and applying them to science.
Yesterday news also hit of bioethicist Dan Brock advocating mandatory abortion for disabled people such as blind and mentally ill.
This is not a new concept, but is one that is growing in feasability and global support.
What does this have to do with cloning and stem cell research? Well they all have the same amoral drive: creating a "better" human race through science without any moral guidelines. As we see on this board, many people ridicule those of us with moral presuppositions as "non-scientific", "ignorant", etc. Above, though, we see an extreme example of this.
Fast-forward now 10 or 20 years. Science has guaranteed a "perfect" child to anybody who can afford one. A minority of rich people get smarter, stronger, better-looking, and richer, in contrast to those who still suffer with gross things like blindness and the worst- mental inferiority. It wasn't enough to genetically engineer perfect children. The question now is "Why hold on to that last moral presupposition that we shouldn't kill scientifically inferior people?" You may think me an extremist, but it's happened before.
That is the question that should be answered today. If you truely believe in removing morals from science, be logically consistent with it: advocate a super-human race and the death of all inferior people. If you believe in moral presuppositions, though, realize what unchecked research in cloning, embryionic stem cells, and science in general will lead to. Either way, the question is: what criteria do you use to value human life? You may have about a year to decide.
There are alternatives, such as adult stem cells, which have potential as well and sidestep ethical concerns.
.NET has greatly reduced our development time. It has plenty of benefits, but to me the main benefit is that it makes sense compared to COM and scripting languages. What I mean is that by logically organizing a rich set of resources into a uniform framework, it's let our developers know how to easily find the right tools for the job. Whereas with COM and other specs, you had to know sometimes obscure libraries by heart, and they all seemed to "work" differently,.NET rolls all of that up into a logical framework, which by design encourages best practices. System.Web.UI feels like System.Windows.Forms feels like System.Threading, feels like MyCompany.MyStuff etc. Sure, Java did it first, but in my experience,.NET did it better.
I haven't tried running any of our web apps in Mono, but I would encourage anybody to give it a try. Bottom line for us: we roll out better and more uniform code faster with.NET than we did with COM & friends.
If you really love your COM, they interop easily, so you shouldn't have much problem using COM in.NET.
This all sounds bad until you stop and think about the alternative: only people without opinions can donate to political parties. Wouldn't that be ideal...A voter base made entirely of people without intrests. Payoffs are wrong, but I see no problem with individuals or businesses supporting candidates that they agree with politically.
Especially if they are open about it.
Yeah, I find it interesting that detractors talk about explosive hydrogen, when gasoline is also classified as an explosive, and we drag it behind us or in canisters like it's no big deal.
Even though it won't earn me cool points for saying so, I know.NET has brought about a huge increase in productivity and scalability of apps where I work. We've rolled out several large and well-designed applications very quickly (2 months). Of course, you can always take the best tools and write bad code slowly, but.NET makes it easier to write good code quickly. If projects like Mono pan out, make that 'good, cross-platform code quickly'.
Whenever Best Buy/Radio Shack/Grocery Store/ etc. ask for a name or address, I give a fake address. I bet if you look at their records, it'd be amazing how much stuff John Doe has bought. If enough people did it, it would screw their demographics and they would a) give it up or b) require id.
Anybody else give false info for this reason?
-John Doe
Someone is sentenced to death, because they were convicted of murder on questionable evidence
Again, your "equation" is what matters. Questionable evidence is a variable.
5 + q = k depends on what q is. If q is "john was seen on a authenticated video murdering someone in a manner that deserves the death penalty" then, yeah someone who disagrees is wrong. If q is "there's no evidence, and no witness, and john has an alabi, and really, the cops picked him out of the phone book" then he does not deserve the death penalty. See, your argument would have to work both ways: you could neither objectively say he does or doesn't deserve death. So you might as well just kill him. or not. either way...
If I had done something that someone thought warranted killing me
The example was murder in cold blood. That "something" is that he thought you looked funny. It's his opinion. You would seriously say that he's not objectively "wrong" to kill you because, in his opinion, you look funny? Its a good thing you didn't design the legal system.
In the end you have no way of escaping the fact that your stance degrades logically into anarchy. I'll assume you're not an anarchist, therefore you must have some presupositions which you hold as objective. For example, you apparently think it's an objective fact that "good and bad are subjective". You believe it's objectively bad to violate a person's objectively good rights.
I am defending the right of someone else to believe that they are "right" or "good".
But you're saying I'm wrong in this discussion. So you only uphold this "value" when it's convenient for you. You are, in fact, defending FGM and killing, because if there is no objective basis for deciding they're "wrong", then you have nowhere to stand when challenging them. Nobody does. Anything goes. If FGM is "right for you", then who are you to oppose it? Any argument you could give against them, or KKK lynching, or anything else would be subjective, and therefore you could not "convict" somebody of doing anything "wrong."
But, I am not denying anybody's right to believe they are "right" or "good". You may believe all day long that it's "good" to fly a plane into a public building, but you're objectively wrong. A person may believe kids have a "right" to porn, but they're objectively wrong.
then should a site talking about Michelangelo's art be allowed?
Yes, it should, because it is clearly not pornography. It does not intend to illicit a sexual response, and does not graphically depict sexual scenes, which even "soft core" porn does. Some of the more conservative in our society are just as objectively wrong as the more liberal. But for arguments' sake, lets say this was a subjective thing. Remember this is not censorship. It's "organizing content" Just because you don't know whether to file a page under "trash" or "child", doesn't mean that all attempts at organizing fail.
Slashdot Mirror
Most likely, he did this very easily using ActiveX and _maybe_ some pre-caching. Which would explain why after "7 times it crashes"- your hard drive is full of cached sites. Using Visual[C++, VB, C#] he just dragged the ActiveX controls for a browser and "every media player" onto his app. Pheobe, his little assistant is just Msoft's Agent control (commonly seen as the annoying paperclip in Office). He may have even counted the ActiveX code as his, which would mean his 1400lines/day was really done in about 4 hours the night before.
In Soviet California, the judges rule YOU...
Has anybody out there strapped 10 together for home pc use? A $1000 terabyte isn't too bad. I'm just curious about performance, feasibility, etc.
In a capitalist economy, businesses compete to provide a quality product or service at the lowest price. The companies that provide bad service will shape up or go out of business. The companies that provide good service, either by extensive training of employees or innovative solutions to improve service, will make more money.
If you introduce regulations, this upsets basic competition by placing rules that restrict businesses' ability and motivation to innovate and compete. By adding government regulations, you would actually make service worse. If you doubt this, consider: Post Office vs FedEx, Private School vs Public School, Public Transportation vs Private, etc. In almost every case, government intervention causes a worse service or product. As someone pointed out, years of regulation have done little to improve the auto industry, utilities, etc. While you may argue restaraunts are safer, you should note that people still get food poisoning, and even good establishments regularly fail inspections.
Basic laws preventing fraud, false advertising, etc. protect the consumer from the things you mentioned already, while allowing businesses to innovate. In addition, voluntary certification and training allow businesses to improve their service on their own, and thus compete.
Finally, in cases where legal recourse isn't practical, consumer advocacy groups, such as the Better Business Bureau give you a powerful voice in the free market, without looking to "big government" to solve your problems.
This system has worked pretty good for a few hundred years. I don't see why people are all of the sudden so intent on screwing it up.
Aha! I knew it was true.
Not sure about kosher, or other Christian traditions, but as an Orthodox Christian (ie Greek, Russian...), I would imagine it wouldn't fit the lenten or other fasts, because the emphasis is more on the spiritual growth gained by not giving in to one's every desire all the time. The idea is that by learning to control your eating habits, you can control other passions. Aside from the question of it violating the "letter of the law" (Is it still meat?) it would violate the "spirit of the law".
Alas, what's a pimp to do? Next thing ya know, they'll patent hydraulics.
bling bling
I'm of the view Microsoft has nothing to loose by letting others develop full .NET implementations for other platforms. At the very least, they can sell more Visual Studio & MSDN licenses. I recently gave Mono a test drive, and very easily ran a command-line app written & compiled on a windows box under linux.
.NET is a good technology. You don't hear many complaints that it is a bad idea on it's face, like you do with older versions of VB and with Win32 programming.
In addition to the developer side, each implementation increases the user base of Microsoft's products. Presumably, future versions of Office, etc. would be able to run natively on Linux, BSD, etc. From Microsoft's side, it's diversification- with OS sales slipping, it makes business sense to establish a user base for other products.
The OSS developers also have nothing to loose, because they have the same benefits. Not to mention,
Anybody who's done much Javascript can come up with plenty more annoying tricks, like hiding the close buttons, popping up a fake window, etc. Yahoo sortof does some of these with the DHTML ads. I guess the content providers wouldn't like it, but there's alot more annoying things that could be done. That being said, this is plenty annoying for me.
Most pro-lifers don't oppose stem cell research. They do oppose killing embryos for stem cells, on the same ethical grounds they would oppose killing you for stem cells. God's existence isn't necissarily a question.
Where God comes into play is that God is a basis for many people's ethics. You may base your ethics on other things, but I assume you have some basic ethic keeping you from killing people.
Other sources for stem cells include fat rolls, and as somebody else mentioned, umbilical cords.
We don't manage our own memory, but can we assume the runtimes, and underlying classes are managing it correctly? Is it possible that all programs using certain classes are vunerable?
We all know what buffer overruns are, but why do they seem to be so common? It would seem like this is something that could be easily prevented in the compiler or at most with very basic programming procedures. As many of us are programmers, any advice how to prevent these in our code? Is it possible to accidently allow buffer overruns in other languages besides C(Java, C#, etc.)?
You may consider posting a message about it on Slashdot...
This is simply not what he said.
True, he allows for parental choice, but only as a "concession" of sorts. He says, "We should distinguish between preventing people from becoming disabled from preventing the existence of disabled people." Meaning, as a society, we should prevent "inferior" (tm) people from being born. It's 'mandatory' in the sense that he is saying it is the ethical thing to do to prevent disabled people from existing. I know plenty of disabled people who would disagree.
You stand as one of the many that completely misinterpret Nietzsche
Debateable. What is not debateable is many do take the stand I refered to, and cite Neitchze to back it up. Luke Woodham, who started the rash of school shootings in the late 1990s is an example: Live by your own laws. For now, truly, you should be at peace and your own true self. Live your life in a bold, new way. For you, dearfriend, are a superman. I would say that "live by your own laws" is a sentiment echoed by Neitchze and many nihilist & naturalist philosophers. I would also say that what Luke did is the "logical conclusion" of that philosophy.
The Nazis are coming! The Nazis are coming! Get a grip.
I don't think the Nazi's are coming, or that Atomic Zombie Supermen are coming. I'm saying that a logical conclusion of removing morals from science, medicine, etc. is genocide, that it has happened before, and that it is feasible that the same mentality could arise again. Especially in a situation where those with moral objections are silenced, ridiculed, etc.
Stem cell research will be used to develop effective treatmets
So could wierd expirements on live humans. Pluck out enough eyes, and I'm sure we could figure out how to replace them. Just because something could have positive results doesn't make it morally acceptable. There would also be positive effects of simply killing people with diseases, but morals prevent us from doing that. However, you can hold certain morals and still cure disease. Believing that it is unethical to kill embryos for research does not prevent one from supporting adult stem cell research, implants, etc.
The real objections to human cloning are based on the currently extremely low success rate.
But isn't that just you applying YOUR morals to the situation? I mean, suppose I think that it is morally acceptable to test out cloning on as many human people as necessary. If they turn out to have problems when they're 3, I'll just kill them. What do you base the criteria "easily and routinely" on? Why is it wrong to test it out on humans before then?
Another fairly new one is https://answers.google.com/answers/main. People can use it to "name your own price" for more complex assisted searches. Looks like some of the researchers make some nice cash.
Why will only the rich be able to afford gene engineered kids
The same reason only rich can afford other expensive medical treatment. Do you really think Africa will pull ahead in genetic engineering anytime soon? Have you seen outbreaks of Malaria, Dengue, etc. in Nebraska? Note that it's not just the disparity I am opposed to (that's bad enough), but the removal of ethics which would have the result of furthering the disparity.
This type of research could do away with heart disease
So could killing anybody over 50, and forced abortions and infanticide of genetically inferior children. Be logically consistant. If you don't want "morals" and science to mix, take them out all the way. Another possibility, as I stated before, is to find ways that are moral, such as using adult stem cells.
I hope you'll be honorable enough to decline any medical procedure developed through this type of research
I absolutely am.
if research is slowed because of people with your views you will have taken the choice from others
By the same token, you are slowing research on genocide by your morals. Think of the money that would be saved if we just killed all genetically inferior people. Blind, deaf, mentally ill, aged. It'd free up resources for genetically superior, or at least "normal" people if we just kill them. Body disposal is bound to be cheaper than research and treatment, especially in bulk. Of course, I don't advocate that, but you've yet to say how that is not the logical conclusion of removing morals from science.
what resposibility will you have for those who die between the possible treatment date and actual treatment date
The same responsibility you will have if someone dies because we didn't euthanize a mentally handicaped person. Example: Alice is born with a low IQ. Doctors want to kill him, but Bob objects on moral grounds. Alice grows up and murders someone. Is Bob responsible for that murder? Of course not. You could give a million hypotheticals that would result in deaths either way. You could also give hypotheticals in which opposing embryonic stem cell research improves adult stem cell research. Either way, they're all hypotheticals, and so is your assertion.
The point is: even you have some morals you apply to science. You proved this by saying my views are immoral. Therefore, it is hypocritical to ridicule people for having morals and applying them to science.
Yesterday news also hit of bioethicist Dan Brock advocating mandatory abortion for disabled people such as blind and mentally ill.
This is not a new concept, but is one that is growing in feasability and global support.
What does this have to do with cloning and stem cell research? Well they all have the same amoral drive: creating a "better" human race through science without any moral guidelines. As we see on this board, many people ridicule those of us with moral presuppositions as "non-scientific", "ignorant", etc. Above, though, we see an extreme example of this.
Fast-forward now 10 or 20 years. Science has guaranteed a "perfect" child to anybody who can afford one. A minority of rich people get smarter, stronger, better-looking, and richer, in contrast to those who still suffer with gross things like blindness and the worst- mental inferiority. It wasn't enough to genetically engineer perfect children. The question now is "Why hold on to that last moral presupposition that we shouldn't kill scientifically inferior people?" You may think me an extremist, but it's happened before.
That is the question that should be answered today. If you truely believe in removing morals from science, be logically consistent with it: advocate a super-human race and the death of all inferior people. If you believe in moral presuppositions, though, realize what unchecked research in cloning, embryionic stem cells, and science in general will lead to. Either way, the question is: what criteria do you use to value human life? You may have about a year to decide.
There are alternatives, such as adult stem cells, which have potential as well and sidestep ethical concerns.
.NET has greatly reduced our development time. It has plenty of benefits, but to me the main benefit is that it makes sense compared to COM and scripting languages. What I mean is that by logically organizing a rich set of resources into a uniform framework, it's let our developers know how to easily find the right tools for the job. Whereas with COM and other specs, you had to know sometimes obscure libraries by heart, and they all seemed to "work" differently, .NET rolls all of that up into a logical framework, which by design encourages best practices. System.Web.UI feels like System.Windows.Forms feels like System.Threading, feels like MyCompany.MyStuff etc. Sure, Java did it first, but in my experience, .NET did it better.
.NET than we did with COM & friends.
.NET.
I haven't tried running any of our web apps in Mono, but I would encourage anybody to give it a try. Bottom line for us: we roll out better and more uniform code faster with
If you really love your COM, they interop easily, so you shouldn't have much problem using COM in
This all sounds bad until you stop and think about the alternative: only people without opinions can donate to political parties. Wouldn't that be ideal...A voter base made entirely of people without intrests. Payoffs are wrong, but I see no problem with individuals or businesses supporting candidates that they agree with politically.
Especially if they are open about it.
Yeah, I find it interesting that detractors talk about explosive hydrogen, when gasoline is also classified as an explosive, and we drag it behind us or in canisters like it's no big deal.
I think the Japanese did that or something similar...4 years ago. But the American's have the market when it comes to quantum haiku
Even though it won't earn me cool points for saying so, I know .NET has brought about a huge increase in productivity and scalability of apps where I work. We've rolled out several large and well-designed applications very quickly (2 months). Of course, you can always take the best tools and write bad code slowly, but .NET makes it easier to write good code quickly. If projects like Mono pan out, make that 'good, cross-platform code quickly'.
Whenever Best Buy/Radio Shack/Grocery Store/ etc. ask for a name or address, I give a fake address. I bet if you look at their records, it'd be amazing how much stuff John Doe has bought. If enough people did it, it would screw their demographics and they would a) give it up or b) require id.
Anybody else give false info for this reason?
-John Doe
Someone is sentenced to death, because they were convicted of murder on questionable evidence
Again, your "equation" is what matters. Questionable evidence is a variable. 5 + q = k depends on what q is. If q is "john was seen on a authenticated video murdering someone in a manner that deserves the death penalty" then, yeah someone who disagrees is wrong. If q is "there's no evidence, and no witness, and john has an alabi, and really, the cops picked him out of the phone book" then he does not deserve the death penalty. See, your argument would have to work both ways: you could neither objectively say he does or doesn't deserve death. So you might as well just kill him. or not. either way...
If I had done something that someone thought warranted killing me
The example was murder in cold blood. That "something" is that he thought you looked funny. It's his opinion. You would seriously say that he's not objectively "wrong" to kill you because, in his opinion, you look funny? Its a good thing you didn't design the legal system. In the end you have no way of escaping the fact that your stance degrades logically into anarchy. I'll assume you're not an anarchist, therefore you must have some presupositions which you hold as objective. For example, you apparently think it's an objective fact that "good and bad are subjective". You believe it's objectively bad to violate a person's objectively good rights.
I am defending the right of someone else to believe that they are "right" or "good".
But you're saying I'm wrong in this discussion. So you only uphold this "value" when it's convenient for you. You are, in fact, defending FGM and killing, because if there is no objective basis for deciding they're "wrong", then you have nowhere to stand when challenging them. Nobody does. Anything goes. If FGM is "right for you", then who are you to oppose it? Any argument you could give against them, or KKK lynching, or anything else would be subjective, and therefore you could not "convict" somebody of doing anything "wrong."
But, I am not denying anybody's right to believe they are "right" or "good". You may believe all day long that it's "good" to fly a plane into a public building, but you're objectively wrong. A person may believe kids have a "right" to porn, but they're objectively wrong.
then should a site talking about Michelangelo's art be allowed?
Yes, it should, because it is clearly not pornography. It does not intend to illicit a sexual response, and does not graphically depict sexual scenes, which even "soft core" porn does. Some of the more conservative in our society are just as objectively wrong as the more liberal. But for arguments' sake, lets say this was a subjective thing. Remember this is not censorship. It's "organizing content" Just because you don't know whether to file a page under "trash" or "child", doesn't mean that all attempts at organizing fail.