Which shows that the word is undefined. But I would expect, whatever the actual details, "hardcore" means unsuitable for broadcast TV. I would agree that GoT might be defined as porn, but is being broadcastable automatically makes it not hardcore. My definitions would not include anything transparently consensual as hardcore, but explicit portrayal of sex is porn. But the "hard" in "hardcore" implies some level of violence or coercion.

Anyway, I introduced the word into the conversation, and what I means was the sort of non-consensual violent porn which I think would be damaging to children. Whatever the words used, there are some extreme images which are capable of damaging children. While I accept that consenting adults should be able to access such stuff via moderately protected channels on the internet or similar, they should not, as the OP suggested, be transmitted free to air on any wavelengths the transmitter chooses, including those already in use for domestic TV. There is a need for a regulator of some sort - though the rulebook for that regulator is not obvious.

Of course. But the OP was suggesting people should be free to do whatever they wanted - which would include using bandwidth wastefully and overwhelmingly (i.e. at high power). Hence the need for some form of regulator to enforce the use of efficient modes, and power levels no more than necessary, not as the OP implied at complete liberty.

I agree that modern technology makes possible a greater variety and greater number of uses of the available bandwidth. All the more reason for a good regulator to share it efficiently

No, I would not describe reasonably consensual sex of the sort required to make children as /hardcore/ porn. Hardcore porn probably requires strange ustensils, use of bodily orifices in ways that do not lead to reproduction, often blood, pain or simulated pain, obvious coercion.

Children, not having yet developed the sexual drive, do not understand the motivation for sex. However, I do not think that seeing normal consensual sex, which I would describe a porn but not hardcore porn, would be seriously damaging to children. But the violence, simulated or real, common in hardcore porn is very frightening for children who do not understand the world but know that they are weak, uninformed and defenceless. I would ezpect it to be seriously traumatising for a majority of pre-pubescent children,

I never claimed more moral authority. I claimed my right to express my opinion on /. I also suggested that I am probably in the majority. That is not a moral statement, it is a personal view. No, I think the OP is a short sighted selfish git, but I do not see it as a political statement, just an ignorant one. That, also, is a personal opinion not a claim of moral superiority,

In, I don't need evidence for "Think if the children". As a parent, I think if the children. A purely emotional response, but one that I share with most of the human race. Which is how we got here - species that don't think of their children tend to go extinct, at least at our scale (insects etc do fine on lay 'em and leave 'em). It is one of my fundamental values, along with free speech and not being eaten.

And I think expecting small children to work out what is happening and take appropriate action when Bugs Bunny is sudsenly replace by sado-masochistic sex is to have totally a unreasonable understanding of what children can and cannot do, and betrays someone who, so far as children are concerned, does not know what they are talking about.

I entirely agree one should supervise children. Children should only be watching safe channels, and adults should supervise them. But your proposal is to invade the safe channel - to replace Cartoon Network with snuff movies. This is not putting porn where the unsupervised can find it, this is forcing porn into areas where reasonable people would not expect to find it.

It is not "children might", it is "you are forcing on children". The difference between consensual sex and rape, the difference between guns in self defence and firing at random in a shopping mall.

So you want to subject children to hardcore porn?

I have no problem with adults viewing what they want, but children are different, and broadcast TV goes to children. I don't think I want to live in your world.

EM spectrum is a scarce resource, shared between all the community. If one person fills up the spectrum with high powered broadcasts, they deny others the use of that spectrum for potentially more valuable resources. You cannot buy or manufacture more electromagnetic spectrum: what we have is all there is, and more people want it than than there is space for. Would you be happy if, for example, I knocked out all WiFi and cell signals for ten miles around my house? Would you be happy if I overloaded the frequencies used by the emergency services? Would you be happy if I filled the TV frequencies with hardcore porn or a terrorist manifesto?

You have to be a sociopath not to expect there to be some sharing of limited resources.

Get rid of your dictator and adopt a representative democracy and it will be over. Indeed, nobody could have thought it would go on this long.

The idea of regarding graves as automatically for ever is relatively recent.While the wealthy might have impressive, and supposedly permanent tombstones, in medieval times people would be buried only for a few years, and then the grave dug up, the bones transferred to an ossuary, and the grave reused for another person. hence the gravedigger scene in Hamlet - the digger is recycling Yorick's grave for another occupant. So I see no problem in digging up a grave site sufficiently old that we don't know who is buried in it. The question is, as with all archaeological digs, how much to dig up now and how much to leave for later, better equipped, archaeologists.

Yeah, they probably know how well being bought by Microsoft worked out for Sublogic. Or Oddworld Inhabitants. Or Bungie, even, forced to crank out endless formulaic sequels.

On the one hand, I can't blame notch, because if Microsoft offered me enough cash to retire, I'd sell out. But on the other hand, notch is already a millionaire, right? It's not like he needs the money.

However I think there is a real danger of honest mistakes being abused, and like I said most of the abuses I know about used those.

If the cameras are only under the control of the people they are supposed to be monitoring, they will wind up being used only to clear, never to convict. I don't want the police getting any access to the videos that the accused doesn't have.

Honest mistakes are already 'abused' in our legal system. Cameras add nothing to that. But they can - if the system is set up properly - reduce a whole host of other abuses.

In the old days, before computers went solid state, smoking on startup was often put down to worn valve-guides.

Damn... I think Americans call them "tubes" -- in which case the joke doesn't work :-(

Let's be clear, does the policeman misremembering and event change what actually happened in anyway?

Doesn't change the event itself, no - but a pattern of errors can speak volumes about intent and state of mind. And many crimes (and torts) depend on intent and belief. So, note, do many defenses.

What is being unsaid is that you are accusing either side of lying to cover up and thus the lying person must be a bad person worthy of punishment for that reason

No. I am, in fact, relying on the deterrent effect of the video. I am trying to prevent lying, not catch someone in a lie. If you know your actions are being monitored, you will behave differently and note what happens more carefully. I'm not trying to 'trip people up'. I am trying to help make it so that testimony is actually accurate. If people are given the opportunity to slant their narrative, they will - this a human thing, hardly limited to police. By reducing the opportunity for this, by requiring people to more carefully examine their memories and words, I'm hoping to make "our justice system" better.

Why, have you never remembered an event wrong?

Sure I have. So what? If police misremember the event, is that somehow not relevant?

The behavior of everyone will be plain to see on the video

That was actually caught on video, that is. As I explicitly pointed out. I spoke - direct quote here - about the ability "to craft a story that fits what was recorded, and leave out or invent things that weren't picked up". What happened before, or just offscreen? Police are known to claim that someone was "reaching for a gun" - even when it didn't happen. But if the camera angle is bad, they will know they can claim that regardless of what they actually remember.

every lawyer knows the trick of picking out one detail someone got wrong and spinning that into proof that everything they say is a lie

But... but... if "The behavior of everyone will be plain to see on the video", how could a lawyer get away with that?

Frankly, I consider that a feature, not a bug, anyway. Eyewitness testimony really is ureliable. 'Bout time juries learned that applies to police too.