Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Censoring is not just wrong morally because it hampers our freedom. Censoring also lends undeserved credibility to crackpot viewpoints, because people automatically assume "Ah ha! There must be something to what that guy is saying if the powers that be are trying to suppress his point of view!"
This moron is not succeeding in suppressing viewpoints that offend him, he's making the problem worse. If someone is offering a bad idea, then let him or her argue it out in public where everyone can see/hear. If it's a bad idea, it'll become apparent eventually.
Liberals complained about this during the Bush administration, and continued complaining about it during the Obama administration. There's a very good reason the NSA whistleblower went to a prominent liberal blogger instead of FOX News with his story: because that blogger spent years harping on this very issue while FOX News was jumping up and down about ridiculous made-up stories about Obama's birth certificate.
Rightists were the ones who flip-flopped on these issues. The government spying on us was the greatest thing in the world when Bush was in office, and now that a Democrat is in office, suddenly they decided it's something terrible. They think we won't notice that they completely reversed their positions on this issue if they accuse us of being the ones to change positions. Either they really are so stupid that they don't remember calling us traitors for complaining about this during the Bush administration, or they think we're stupid enough to fall for their dishonest debating tactic. I'm not entirely certain which is worse.
The problem is not analytics. The problem is that the analytics are applied exclusively to what will sell more games, and not to what makes better games. Obviously, they have to devote some or perhaps even most to selling more games, but they should devote at least some time and effort into making better games.
Decisions made in the absence of evidence will almost never be better than evidence-based decisions. That's why when you get sick you go to a doctor instead of a shaman.
Just because you like and dislike people based solely on their party designation, it does not follow that everyone else must be doing the same thing. Believe it or not, there are perfectly legitimate reasons to dislike Romney, hard though that may be for you to fathom.
If I may return to the topic of the original post, this doesn't exactly mean very much. Torvalds seems to launch expletive-laden diatribes in every direction. Sometimes his tirades are right on the money and sometimes they miss the mark by a very wide margin. The simple fact that Torvalds directed a bunch of expletives at Romney doesn't tell you a thing about Romney himself.