Uhhhh... what is illegal porn again? Child porn involves criminal acts with a child. Rape porn, also involves criminal acts against a person. Snuff... well you get the point.

Other than obvious instances of crimes that are being visually recorded just what do you feel should be made illegal?

Sounds to me like "illegal" porn is just what you find objectionable on a moral or cultural basis, and is not actually against any law. Unless you are talking about antiquated sodomy laws or something.

Oh wait. You said flaming, not flamingos. It doesn't make any more sense now though.

WTF

I'm sitting here on Saturday reading /., and more than a little sloshed, finding myself thinking about weird pink flamingos running around in nacho filled pants....

I think Sony has something like that in the works right now....

Combining your post with the Rule of 34..................

You're incredibly naive and your logic is flawed.

Noooo. People kill People. A gun has almost never killed anybody by itself. The cases where it has killed somebody, that was a pretty damn freak accident. Like it fell from some height, or caught on fire and the bullets exploded out or something.

Less guns only removes the instrument, not the intent to kill another person. While you may argue that the removal of such an effective instrument might lead to less deaths, that can just as well be said about poisons, toxic chemicals, steak knifes, pictures-of-you-fucking-your-mistress-in-your-wifes-hands, etc.

...and you are deluding yourself about government and ignoring history. Anytime a country or government has attempted to suppress the people, it has done so most successfully with an unarmed populace. In fact, there are several instances in which strong anti-gun measures were just a precursor to the formation of a totalitarian regime (Germany).

All a gun represents is an ability to defend yourself, your property, and your liberty. People that would come take that from you by force, often under the auspices of government, are faced with non-trivial resistance when a gun is involved.

Take Burma as an example. If the populace were armed to the teeth with automatic weapons, things might be playing out a little differently.

The gun is merely a contemporary example as well, as the true principle at work is the parity between government's ability to oppress you with weapons, and the populace's ability to defend themselves with weapons. While it might be argued that the military possess far superior and sophisticated fire power, said firepower cannot be effectively directed towards urban targets or used for long term urban pacification. See Syria as an example. It is not advanced weaponry killing people en masse, but traditional arms on the ground.

Yes deeply stupid... but it does remind me of the incredibly stupid argument back in the 90's (I think) where it was discussed that we needed to change the naming conventions on IDE hard drives.

Master/Slave was just too controversial and needed to be replaced. I remember several times over hearing somebody ask another tech if they had set the drive to slave mode only to be responded with, "Oh yes Masa. Set it to slave mode right quick Masa.". Yes, we did have a sarcasm problem where I worked.

Nothing is going to change anyways. This is all just mental masturbation.

Advertising is a wholly deplorable affair in which all active participants (excluding the victims) will be "sent to the special hell where they will be skinned alive and set simple".

Look at how hard Big Entertainment is fighting the "attacks" on their advertising platform through purchased legislation, intimidation, harassment, collusion, and outright terrorism.
SonicBlue was sued out of existence for having the audacity to allow advertising to be skipped, which is not even the same as a true opt-out where the advertisers can tell their content was rejected. What was it.. Direct TV or Dish which recently said they were going to implement a skip mechanism and the brouhaha has already been started there. Big Entertainment has consistently demonstrated that they are willing to fire the lawyerpults and use insane arguments like skipping-commercials-is-stealing.

Hulu caved in like complete pussies and will start demanding that you have a cable subscription to access content like HBO already does. That's kind of like getting out of prison, but being forced to come back periodically to give a conjugal to Bubba because he misses you.

Microsoft makes only a small portion of their revenue from advertising, whereas Google makes how much of it from advertising? Of course they are not going to actually cooperate with any scheme or platform that drives their profitably down. It would be suicide as a business decision.

Microsoft turning on the DNT by default is basically a declaration of war (well we are already in one) against Google primarily, and the other ancillary business involved in online advertising, marketing, statistics, analytics, microtargetting, etc.

Lord knows why when it is such a stupid and pointless move.

The only way you are going to get privacy online and no tracking is to take it by force (technical methods are available), or hope that those whores in Congress, or your local whore at a state level implement legislation with real teeth.

Regular people do not want advertising. Anybody that says they do, should recuse themselves from the argument because they are clearly part of the advertising industry as either a client, or a provider.

The inevitable conclusion is that a war is being waged, and will be decided, by technology. People want technology to remove advertisements and unwanted content from their lives and have always demonstrated that the moment the barrier to entry is lowered enough (average level of sophistication and availability) they use it.

Only half joking, my freshman math professor actually did this. He was finishing up his doctorate at the time he taught the class I was in. Couple years later he was in a CS class with me. He'd decided the pure math jobs out there were crap, but math programming there was a market for.

The problem is that tanks and jets are pretty good for larger scale destruction, they aren't so good for keeping a population in check. For that you need soldiers on the ground, and that is real hard to do if you are literally getting shot at from every windows (the US doesn't have 10,000 armed citizens, it has more like 100,000,000). I mean yes, ultimately the government could (in theory, if the soldiers would obey) simply turn its nuclear weapons on the citizens and level all the cities. Ok fine, but to what end? What do you get as ruler of a glass radioactive parking lot?

The US military is well equipped to unleash destruction, as we've seen. However they are not well equipped to do an occupation, as we've also seen. So it would be rather difficult for the government to suppress a massive rebellion with high tech weapons, and not also annihilate its cities at the same time.

Also you might ask how useful the planes would be if a massive armed force attacked the airfields and so on.

Large amounts of people with small arms are quite an effective guerrilla force.