Well, they did say that they would ban some subs dedicated to showing pictures of corpses under the same pretext. I haven't been to any of those subs, so I just let that slide, but that could be as you describe. Just showing a dead body may be distasteful, but it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with violence.

The Laredo case was a little more than shooting someone in his trailer. Here:

That's not what legislation on the subject says, at least not in many states. In Texas, for example, it's perfectly legal to shoot someone in the back who is running away from you and poses no danger to yourself or your family as long as they're carrying some possession of yours. Any possession, no matter how trivial.

... Well, we make games about it. And movies. And books, and comic books, and we plaster the faces of our fictional vigilantes all over billboards and buses and soft drink cups and onto the toys that our children play with.

I mean, we don't encourage it. ::wink:: But yeah, we encourage it.

Posting personal data is banned by a separate rule. I was using their example: advocating for drugs is okay, advocating for rape is not. They reason they give for that is violence, though they allow promoting violence in other contexts. I gave the example of vigilantism, which is also illegal.

No, they specifically mentioned legality: subs which contain illegal content (e.g.: copyrighted material) would be banned, but subs discussing illegal activities (e.g.: the use of drugs) would not be.

The procedure isn't exactly the same, but something very similar already exists in the US (it varies somewhat state by state). The difference with this bill is that the doctor would now have the option to detain unilaterally, without the approval from the mayor or a request from a family member. Also it would be any doctor who could do this, not just a psychiatrist. A cardiologist, for example.

Reddit introducing three tier content tiers: approved / hidden / banned. They announced that they would hide some of the undesirable content, as the summary said, but they are outright banning other content - they gave the example of /r/rapingwomen as a subreddit which would be banned, not hidden.

The differentiator between a sub to be banned and a sub to be hidden is officially the promotion of violence. Given the unlikelihood they that would start banning subs like /r/justiceporn though, the real differentiator is probably better characterized as: "subs which we don't like and which also have a violence theme."

Right. It doesn't happen on whim, it requires a warrant. This bill would have removed that requirement.

This doesn't seem to be an accurate portrayal of the bill at hand. The CDC already has the power to apply and enforce quarantine.

The summary says that each individual doctor would be able to make up a reason for detaining you if they wished, and apparently you wouldn't even have to be a danger to others.

It feels weird agreeing with scientologists, but you know how it goes with a broken clock.

Doctors get an awful lot of trust, much of it deserved and most of it necessary, given what they do, but seeing a doctor shouldn't mean risking my freedom. Even temporarily.

I like reviews for new hardware, I'm not against that at all, but why is it always HotHardware which gets posted? Do they have some kind of affiliation with Slashdot? Or Dice?

There are a lot of other good review sites out there.

The GP made a factual claim, saying either that Reddit had never managed to keep racists corralled or that adults had never had quality conversation there (or both). If a moderator isn't allowed to mod down an inaccurate claim, the comments will just get polluted with uninformed or malicious detritus.

Also, how the hell is this not trolling? A one line statement, obviously intended to be insulting? Troll was the right mod for this post.

Amazon seems to be doing pretty well. Lexmark has done very well with this model. Gillette has done very well for themselves as well. And IBM.

Customer lock-in wasn't invented by Apple. What makes Apple impressive is that they've managed to do it while getting their customers to keep asking for more of the same.

Ar, what a monster. He should be burned alive, but not to death, and then allowed to recover just enough so that he can fully feel all of the spikes of the iron maiden that closes on him as a manticore drips acid into his eyes.

Am i doing this right? I have no end of sympathy for your daughter, but I'm clearly not as vengeance-driven as you are. At some point in our past we decided that eye-for-an-eye was not a workable approach to justice and three lifetimes plus hundreds of years for an offense of twelve hours, no matter how awful those twelve hours may have been, goes so far beyond eye-for-an-eye... There's some horrible disconnect when it comes to sex crimes. We load down the act of sex with so much baggage that it's social anathema to do anything mildly sexually deviant, and crimes related to sex are seen as absolutely horrifying while doing relatively little physical / financial / property damage. There is of course the psychological aspect, which I by no means wish to trivialize, but I can't help but think that the psychological damage is made as severe as it is by all of the baggage which we attach to sex.

I have heard people say, without hyperbole, that they think that rape is as bad or worse than murder. Many rape victims also seem to feel that - 13% of rape victims attempt suicide. Think about that. These are people, a large number of people, who genuinely believe that it's better to be dead than raped. That's a problem, a big one, and it's a problem of perception. The courts only reinforce this, if they're handing down life-ending sentences over rape offenses, and that feeds the problem further.

Back to TFA: molestation isn't rape. Without reading the article, I'd guess based on the sentence that the offense of the guy in question was pretty small. Maybe a grope on the train or something, happens pretty often on those crowded Japanese commuter trains. Is that also worth murder?