And this: [FAQ] is a weak argument, at best. Here's a rough translation of the FAQ:
Private: Sir, we've accidentally launched a nuke that's headed for downtown Maimi.
General: Boy, that sucks for Miami.
Private: Well, sir, we've got twenty minutes before the detonation -- shouldn't we sound some sirens or something and at least give them a chance to evacuate?
General: Sure, I know that evacuation sounds like a great idea, but think about it -- you'd be depriving all those people of their right to see the beautiful mushroom cloud that forms. And anyway, lots of people will probably survive the explosion. Only the unfortunate (half million or so) people who live right in the downtown area and don't have proper nuclear-bomb-proof apartment buildings will actually die. I mean, hey, maybe we could try to just evacuate those unfortunate few, but do we really want to go to all that trouble? In the end, private, evacuating Miami is "a complicated issue that would need to be thought through in great detail before being implemented."
Private: Excellent point, sir. Poor bastards.
(I took that from a comment.) Anyway, the bottom line is this:
1) Slashdotting (bringing down) a site is bad.
2) A site that is crushed by slashdotting can't generate any ad revenue, so the "depriving the site of ad revenue" argument is bogus.
3) Google caches pages, IE caches pages, therefore, Slashdot can cache pages. There simply is no legal or moral issue with caching pages.
4) Mirrordot is great, but it only helps after the site has been crushed.
5) If you're really worried about those precious banner ads, then don't cache them. Don't cache any images that are hosted by a different domain, or that are inside a link to another domain (i.e. <A HREF="xxx">, where xxx is not the same domain as the one hosting the article).
6) Just do it. Everyone wins.