"Death threat" is a crime that can exist independently of speech? I don't think you can untangle the speech and the crime just quite as easily as you think.
If "death threat" is a crime, then what's wrong with "advocating genocide" being a crime?
Does this include death threats? Incitement to kill people? Instructions for how to make nuclear weapons? Fundraising for terrorists? Lying to courts? The president lying to the people? Fraud?
The problem is that new posts are shown at the end, and that there is no real way to find new replies, at least not if you want to have threading.
One much more comprehensive solution would be to order posts in reverse chornological order, and let posts inside threads bump the whole thread to the top. It's tricky getting this to work together with threading, though. Threading actually hurts more than it helps in many cases, and might not actually be a good choice for a system like Slashdot.
Oh, and I forgot to mention: You'd be more successful making the argument that censoring kiddy porn is a good thing, than tying yourself into semantic knots trying to define censorship so that it does not include banning kiddy porn. The latter argument is too easily attacked, and you will just end up in these discussions.
Actually, I'm pretty sure they'll be overrun by pedophiles soon enough, whether or not they claim to accept only legal pictures. They have no chance to patrol uploads, and relying on people to report things will either just mean people won't report enough (who REALLY wants to scan the site for kiddie porn and also doesn't want it to stay?), or else they'll get too flooded to keep up.
We'll see how serious they are about legality then.
As a whole lot of censorship is done by means of the law, I really don't think your argument can hold much water. Hell, a lot of the time you will see people arguing here on Slashdot that the ONLY thing that can be called "censorship" is censorship by the government. Neither that nor your standpoint can be called valid.
I should not that I am not advocating a completely uncensored image hosting service. I know very well what that would immediately degenerate into, and it would not be a pretty sight. I just wish they'd be a little more honest about what they mean (as someone else pointed out, they mean "we don't care about copyrights").
"You, sir" are using a horrible, overused cliché there. Please respect the intelligence of everyone around you and stop using it right now. It serves no other purpose than making you look like a pompous ass who apes anything he sees on the internet.
That aside, stop and think for a second. Every single one of those apps in that billion-dollar market are designed for phones which are NOT THE IPHONE. Pretty much none of them would work on the iPhone, as it has no keyboard. From the perspective of the iPhone, that market is as relevant as the PC games market. Even if it WAS relevant, Apple wouldn't see a cent of that money.
Now, Apple IS selling games through iTunes for the iPod. Do you honestly think they will not do that for the iPhone, too? Java games would directly compete with that business.
Given that just about everything written for smart phones is written in it...
Given that just about everything written for smart phones is a horrible, unstable, unusable mess, I really don't need to struggle at all to see why they haven't adopted it like everyone else.
Bringing your woman along for a protest without being 100% certain she's on your side is a bad idea; nine times out of ten she'll stab you in the back once things get rough. I would count letting her take the car keys and letting her hit him as mistakes as well, but they could have easily been avoided by not taking her along, or not marrying her in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
You have something against the MPEG-4 standard?
"Death threat" is a crime that can exist independently of speech? I don't think you can untangle the speech and the crime just quite as easily as you think.
If "death threat" is a crime, then what's wrong with "advocating genocide" being a crime?
So you think there should be no limits on speech?
Does this include death threats? Incitement to kill people? Instructions for how to make nuclear weapons? Fundraising for terrorists? Lying to courts? The president lying to the people? Fraud?
That's just a bandaid for a broken leg.
The problem is that new posts are shown at the end, and that there is no real way to find new replies, at least not if you want to have threading.
One much more comprehensive solution would be to order posts in reverse chornological order, and let posts inside threads bump the whole thread to the top. It's tricky getting this to work together with threading, though. Threading actually hurts more than it helps in many cases, and might not actually be a good choice for a system like Slashdot.
That would make sense, if they said "The US should stop spying on us!"
They didn't.
Apple, which is famous for its hostile attitude towards people who discover exploits as well as their secrecy about their patches are what they fix.
Famous in Slashdot-land, maybe. In the real world, not so much. Perhaps you should start being a little more critical of what the internet tells you.
So, if you're spying... You're not allowed to protect yourself from others spying on you?
Are you calling an entire field of science "doomsday cultists"?
That's a pretty grave accusation. Do you have any facts backing that accusation up?
Care to point out where on the chart it peaks over 350?
P .jpg
http://www.gci.org.uk/images/CO2_CH4_Temp_440KyrB
Contrary to popular belief, the fact that you don't know about something, does not mean it does not exist.
Who can deny that logic?
Climate scientists? Those people you don't think really exist?
This is required because Slashdot's discussion system is fundamentally broken, and only the first couple of posters get any real attention.
Meanwhile, everybody who is not an anal-retentive nerd understood the meaning perfectly.
Thank you. We are all delighted to see that you are so smart.
Oh, and I forgot to mention: You'd be more successful making the argument that censoring kiddy porn is a good thing, than tying yourself into semantic knots trying to define censorship so that it does not include banning kiddy porn. The latter argument is too easily attacked, and you will just end up in these discussions.
Actually, I'm pretty sure they'll be overrun by pedophiles soon enough, whether or not they claim to accept only legal pictures. They have no chance to patrol uploads, and relying on people to report things will either just mean people won't report enough (who REALLY wants to scan the site for kiddie porn and also doesn't want it to stay?), or else they'll get too flooded to keep up.
We'll see how serious they are about legality then.
As a whole lot of censorship is done by means of the law, I really don't think your argument can hold much water. Hell, a lot of the time you will see people arguing here on Slashdot that the ONLY thing that can be called "censorship" is censorship by the government. Neither that nor your standpoint can be called valid.
I should not that I am not advocating a completely uncensored image hosting service. I know very well what that would immediately degenerate into, and it would not be a pretty sight. I just wish they'd be a little more honest about what they mean (as someone else pointed out, they mean "we don't care about copyrights").
Oh, so by "uncensored" they meant "just about as censored as always"?
Well, I guess they might survive a little longer, then.
In other words, yes?
"You, sir" are using a horrible, overused cliché there. Please respect the intelligence of everyone around you and stop using it right now. It serves no other purpose than making you look like a pompous ass who apes anything he sees on the internet.
That aside, stop and think for a second. Every single one of those apps in that billion-dollar market are designed for phones which are NOT THE IPHONE. Pretty much none of them would work on the iPhone, as it has no keyboard. From the perspective of the iPhone, that market is as relevant as the PC games market. Even if it WAS relevant, Apple wouldn't see a cent of that money.
Now, Apple IS selling games through iTunes for the iPod. Do you honestly think they will not do that for the iPhone, too? Java games would directly compete with that business.
Given that just about everything written for smart phones is written in it...
Given that just about everything written for smart phones is a horrible, unstable, unusable mess, I really don't need to struggle at all to see why they haven't adopted it like everyone else.
In other words: You want things to be hard to use, because it makes you feel special when you can figure them out.
Your step 8 was already included in step 4. Also, there was no REBUY, just 'upgrade'.
Bringing your woman along for a protest without being 100% certain she's on your side is a bad idea; nine times out of ten she'll stab you in the back once things get rough. I would count letting her take the car keys and letting her hit him as mistakes as well, but they could have easily been avoided by not taking her along, or not marrying her in the first place.
I'm thinking you have that part down pat.
How come global warming skeptics are never skeptical of the sources that support their beliefs?