Agreed; this idea is just stupid. I suspect someone's brother-in-law needed a job.

It may make more sense to concentrate on those lower in the list. The works of highly rated authors are likely to remain available anyway whereas those of lower rated authors are more likely to be lost.
    Admittedly, the loss may be deserved, but I am willing to bet there are some (if not many) that will be more highly appreciated in a century or so.

'This one [Lindt 99% Excellence]is bitter.'

And wonderfully tasty with a nice Old Malmsey Madeira!

I doubt that there's enough chocolate in a 3 Musketeers candy bar to boost it much beyond $2; maybe $2.50 if they switch to higher quality chocolate.

Oh, I agree; restricting speech has to be very carefully considered and continually evaluated based to deal with edge conditions and resulting effects. I was merely pointing out consequences of the stated, proposed limitations. (For example, here in Canada, they had to places special exemptions in the hate speech legislation to allow the Bible and Koran.)

If there is speech to be banned, it would be best if it were up to me ;)

Well, on the good side, this would probably silence religious speech.

The sour grapes is strong in this one.

I hope that they include "Le Petomane", who could fart "La Marseillaise" and outdrew Sarah Bernhardt!

It's too bad I can't mod TFS funny.

Drill a hole in the pipe to the showerhead and glue in a digital fever thermometer. On, off, and the right range for a shower!

Or, adhere one of those thermometer strips available for home brewing and wine-making.

However we certainly should take steps to ensure the survival of our species.
Why?
If we don't, then what's the point of evolving to have the capabilities and self-awareness to do so?
Why should there be a point? There's certainly none in evolving.

I can see this going the same way as number of shaving blades on a razor with 5 tiered JIT js.

here you go
and more related papers at http://web.mit.edu/hamsa/www/pubs.html