Code should be readable be the person reading it. If you find one form of indentation to be readable and your partner another, then you should each be able to format it however you want. This is, after all, why we use high level languages and not machine code. So why not take it one step further and leave format up to the reader. Store the code in an easily compilable format and let the editor format it to each reader's preference.

Gee, when you talk to people that never learned programming they know nothing about programming. If you are having trouble explaining it then the problem might not be on their side.

White space works to denote code blocks only if everyone agrees on what readable code looks like. But since K&R taught everyone the wrong way, you might find it hard to get people to agree. With white space being insignifacant each reader of the code can format it however they want. One might argue that we should not even be storing formatted code but leave the format up to the ide/editor.

That's elitist bullshit. 90% of the population of the world could easily learn to program and learn to do it proficiently. If we taught binary and boolean logic earlier in life, programing would be second nature. And yes I interview crapy engineers regularly. It's not lack of capability holding them back, but rather piss poor education.

There is no such thing as a smart good looking women looking for a job in western culture. You either are to dumb to use your looks to get what you want or not as good looking as you think. (You here is a general term not aimed at the parent)

No, "dumb" animals have an instinct to control that which they can through the threat of violence. There is no proof that there is any sense of ownership, simply that they guard certain resources through violence and aggression. If you want to follow in the foot steps on animals then what's mine is anything I can take, and if I have to kill you to get it, then so be it. I don't think you want to live in a world that has animal instinct based concepts on property, unless you believe you are the most powerful person on the planet.

There is no need to know when someone might want to use it, all that matters is that they are not currently using it. Because by nature, it's not "their stuff", it's just stuff their for them to use, or theirs to restrict others use through threat of violence.

Take away the threat of violence and property has no meaning beyond current use.

I won't comment on your moral compass since you a merely a victim of a society that teaches that property ownership is right and moral. That being said, there is nothing natural about property. Without the threat of violence people would be able to use whatever it is they can find as long as it requires no violence to use. There is no harm done to others if I use something no one else is, regardless of who thinks they have a right to control that resource.

Sadly Neo-Libertarians and other supporters of capitalism often forget that without the threat of violence there is not right to property. In a society without the threat of violence collectivism becomes the norm. It's a very simple experiment, just imagine a world where all people agree to take no violent action against another (that is no violence by one person against another person). What you find out is that once there is no threat of violence there is no stopping someone from using anything not currently in use by another person. I need not any violence to walk onto property not currently occupied. I need no violence to operate a vehicle not currently occupied. I need no violence to enjoy produce not currently being consumed. On the flip side, violence, or the threat there of, is needed to stop me from those things.

Ah yes, because we all know, people that clean toilets never commit suicide, and certainly not because they regretted the choices they made in life that led them to cleaning toilets.
If we, as a culture (yes I'm talking about the repressed conservative US citizens) did not view human sexuality as shameful, maybe there would be a lot less issue with suicide among adult film stars. What is it they say here on slashdot? Correlation does not equal causation.

Can we do this for everything that some sub culture finds objectionable, like Rock Music, Scientific Research, Harry Potter, etc.? Seriously just because you don't like it does not mean that it should be treated any different than any other form of art you don't personally like. Though I would bet that you only want it to be free so you can stop paying for it.

Quality software comes from organizations interested in quality. Period. Trying to say it is based on the background of those implementing the product is laughable.

The provider is a regulated common carrier, a privately operated utility. This is not the same as a private service. I do not know about ISPs as they may not have common carrier status, but telephone companies, including mobile, do. In those regulations they can not legally deny the transmission of a phone call from the caller to the recipient without the recipients request. This regulation was put in place so that we could have a nation telephone system run by multiple private competing companies. The same rules need to exist for text messaging if we are to presume that text messaging is an important avenue for communication. Otherwise providers could easily start saying that you can not receive texts from other carriers, or worse yet, their network will not carry messages from other carriers. This may not seem like a problem until you realize who controls most of the infrastructure for text communications.

You are making an incorrect analogy. The request is not to force the individual to have to receive texts, it's just to make it that the carriers need to leave that choice up to the individual. Just like with phone calls, the individual can block certain numbers, but the carrier can not without you requesting it. The carrier has no way of knowing if you want to receive the text or not and should let all texts through unless you explicitly request them to be blocked.

Define "Spam"

Actually the request is not to ban spam filters, it is to ban carriers from applying filters which filter out speech the carrier chooses. This is not a request to prohibit individuals, or carriers on the behalf of individuals, from filtering out speech which the individual does not wish to receive. Blocking spam by the carrier of the carriers choice, is equivalent to blocking phone calls from a specific number by the carriers choice, which they are regulated not to be able to.

I hate spam texts as much as anyone else, but the argument being made in the filing is sound. The filling is not saying that you have to read or even receive his speech, only that the common carrier can not block his speech without your explicit request.

Isn't that exactly what the parent post said?