This ends up with the Internet being challenged by the least free nation ON ANY GIVEN SITUATION to restrict data or access based on that nation's restrictions.

And that would force less restrictive nations to comply.

Or not.

I vote not. Let nations that cannot tolerate the freedom of others to deal with the problem at their borders.

And leave the rest alone.

This is worth fighting for.

That's why, when I (soon!) become a genocidal conqueror, I will be asking people for their voting records before I line them up against the wall.

Curses! WTF is this "secret ballot" my advisors are bringing up? *sigh* There goes my invasion plan. (If I can't have the executions, then I don't see why to bother.)

And let's also hope that nobody ever actually commits rape and gets caught and convicted.

Censorship is always a two-edged sword. I have never heard of any form of censorship where you couldn't rightly cite some examples where it's a good idea, but freedom-lovers can play the examples game too.

Loose lips sink ships, but the king is taxing us unfairly. Which side are you on?

That depends very much on what your PC is doing. Some workloads write a lot to RAM.

Just look for "industrial Flash". The problem is that it does not get the density and is way more pricey than consumer Flash. Hence it is quite possible that this is just another "wonder" storage technology that will fail. BTW, I am still waiting for those holographic tapes that will solve all bulk-storage needs forever.

If you never test bad laws or laws with unintended consequences in court, no one will ever see the bad outcomes and unintendend consequences.

And how could they? Ask them whether they are addicted to food or air and you will get responses about as meaningful.

Very much this. Very likely, 10% is smaller than the margin of error for this kind of survey. Also, kinds being worried about things they do not understand does not offer any insight into whether they really have a problem. My guess is that this is the best the censors could come up with (pathetic as it is).

Indeed. Possibly the only real danger from porn to kids is that they could think being able to perform these things is expected from them as well. Explain that the performers are specialized athletes, that this is an acrobatic performance and in addition that it is cut together from a lot of material taken over hour or days, and that danger should be dealt with.

I don't think that has ever happened to me. And I have been using the Internet for now more than 20 years. As to "shocking and upsetting" pictures, that is an entirely different beast. For example, pictures of Cameron qualify. I am routinely upset and disgusted when I am exposed to these.

"Free as in freedom" mans you have to pay for it.

I.e. the integrated backdoor and control system desired by the NSA and others?

Letterman is essentially the same as any other talk show. The distinctive feature was Letterman himself.

The Vizard show slavishly copied his mannerisms (eg. walking around with a cup at that start of the show) and the timing of the segments. It was all very strange until I saw an episode of Letterman. Of course someone who ended up being forbidden for running a company for ten years after being caught at insider trading is exactly to sort of person that doesn't care about copying someone else's show that has worked elsewhere. Few people in Australia had seen Letterman back then.
Top Gear however has a wider international reach than most things, it's broadcast just about everywhere on the planet.