This DID cause some hurt to some members of my family, but the "suppress reporting of something which actually happened because it might bother some members of the family" approach would have been more harmful to the public interest (and therefore also to us, in the long run).

Reporting on it != viewing the entire episode from grim start to grisly end. There is a huge difference. Add to that the propaganda factor this incident has (for both sides) and it does nothing but damage to the family. Again, I will ask you in the terms of your experience, how would it affect the family had those "unnatural circumstances" been recorded, uploaded to YouTube and used for political purposes?

No it wouldn't since he was only using bank transactions. His idea is to charge that penny on ALL transactions including every transaction made on the stock markets which counts in the hundreds of millions if not billions a day. Add in all the other transactions that occur daily and it is easily in the trillions a day.

"Because an institution of higher learning prefers its workers to be dumb and uninformed"

No...because an employer pays for their employee's Internet access so they can do the employer's business. It's not like there aren't multiple ways to access the Internet.

In other words people will switch to using smartphones and tablets to access Facebook, Wikipedia, politically correct websites, etc... and nothing really changes. Censorship is a game of Whac-A-Mole that the censors will always loose.

It depends on the goal of the censorship. If the goal is to prevent you from ever accessing the restricted content, then you are correct. On the other hand if the goal is to prevent you from using my network to access it, then they certainly can do that.

And illegal to knowingly distribute it.

You just knocked out bittorrent....

Shit... Now I'm in the position of defending Comcast...

Trying to sell them something they obviously aren't there for (such as additional services when they are looking for tech support) = bad.

If you read the document, you would see that upselling BEFORE the tech support issue was solved is enough to get you a "0" score. Upselling doesn't occur until their issue is resolved and the call is on track to end.

Trying to sell them something they obviously aren't there for (such as additional services when they are looking for tech support) = bad.

Even Comcast agrees with this which is why the score will drop to 0 if the support tech doesn't solve the reason for the call before trying to upsell.

Now I feel dirty for defending Comcast... Thanks a lot fella!

No it doesn't which is one reason DHS has issued at least a dozen "do not use Internet Explorer" alerts over the years.

Oddly enough though, employees of DHS can't use any other browser so to make those alerts without following it themselves rings hollow to me. And yes, I used to be a DHS employee. Now I'm with my state. You know, you grow...

I read that line quite differently. It IS the job the the Chinese citizens to change a situation they don't agree with and this is one tool to help them do that. To say it is solely up to outsiders to change the system of a country without the support of the citizens is forcing your will on those citizens.

The one that needs to go to jail is the one whose signature is on the bottom of the checks.

[she was] paid nearly $900,000 over the last ten years to give the DEA passenger lists outside of normal channels

That's the part that is sickening to me.

Charleston, WV. The reason they are in the self checkout is because there is only 1 human checkout in this 12 lane store. In short, they are trying to force people to use the machines so they can cut costs.

Are self-service checkouts surrounded by impulse-buying items in the US?

Yes... At least at the Kroger in my neck of the woods...

And if it takes you a noticeably longer time to go through the self-service checkout than the human cashier, you might just be clueless at technology, which isn't something I'd expect on Slashdot.

It isn't the /. user holding things up it is the granny before him and the twelve other grannies before her. Add to that the one human checkout lane that is backed up around the block because nobody can stand waiting for hours while granny tries to figure out the machine.

Advertising does that without requiring a direct cost from you.

I see this argument a lot and it just doesn't hold water. There is a direct cost to the end user in wasted bandwidth if nothing else. Then there is the social cost of being tracked and worse, drive-by infections.

Besides, I never did see how showing an ad that is never followed through (meaning the product being hawked was sold because of the ad) can be profitable. Which is why I think the advertising based business model is extremely flawed.

They can... And I think they should... Put a big red polygon there with the label "Indian Government Declared Sensitive Area" right on top.

... we should all be worried the USA has nukes too.

Yes we should. Especially since the US has shown it is willing to use them against another country in anger. Not once but twice.

I predict that's the way things will be in the future: "Don't want to see ads? Then, leave. We already provide 'free,' content. We will not provide content for ABSOLUTELY free."

If you have advertising on your site, then your content isn't free and it is false advertising to claim it as such. It simply is being paid by proxy. A more apt statement would be advertising supported.

For all the whining here, the option they've taken is actually the least intrusive.

And the best response that could be given would be to blackhole everything EU. They want to be forgotten, then let's forget them. Removing all links to everything EU including businesses, government and humanitarian sites would fit the bill. Restrict the crawler preventing new EU stuff from being indexed would solve the problem for the future.

The EU wants to be forgotten, let's see how the EU economy survives that.