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?

Just a note, but Software Engineering has been around since the late '50s so unless you at or nearly 70 years old then there is little chance you were programing before the term existed, and certainly not professionally. Of course in the '60s and '70s professional software development more closely represented engineering than the cowboy coding hack jobs of today. Software Engineering still happens today, though not usually at the ever growing number of start ups, and even rarely in your average business application.

I think you might want to rediscover what agile is since there are no deadlines in agile methodologies. Heck agile has been defined by some as "development without deadlines". Too many people think that breaking up a project into intermediate chunks makes it an Agile project, and it does not. Adding daily status meetings to those intermediate development cycles does not make it agile either.

I'm still of the impression that Agile methodologies might actually work. I'll let you know if I ever see them in practice. (truth be told I have seen them in use once. it did work, and the term "agile" was never once discussed.)

"Software Engineering" does "tie up" with traditional engineering. The problem is that many people use the title "Software Engineer" with out actually practicing engineering, and should be carrying the title Developer or Programmer. Developers are the plumbers and electricians of software. Some would say that Developers do the real work. But that does not mean that quality software does not include Engineering. Software Engineering, such as that discussed by Frederick Brooks and David Parnas, and utilized at IBM and Xerox, is a far cry from the Software Development done in most start ups today.

Yes, I consider myself a Software Engineer. I take Engineering Ethincs seriously and apply Engineering Principles in my designs.

The article you are referencing says that the Wii U's graphics processor could be "at least a two generations ahead" of the existing consoles. This is not the entirety of the console, and was simply refering to the "shader capabilities, shadowing and lighting effects" and only then it's considering a "generation" to being a new version of Direct X, which is not nearly the same as what a generation is in the normal console sense.

This is not only a miss leading comparison, it has no really baring of processing capability, and is only a portion of the total capabilities of a video game console.

I'm not knocking the Wii U, since I have yet to see one in use and actually think new controlled concept will have a lot more game affect than the waggle of the Wii, I'm just saying you need to understand the details of an article when you are going to use it to justify your name calling of fellow gamers.

Jonathan Swift had a solution to that problem in 1729, I bet it would still work today.

As an Anarcho-Syndiclist I object to organizations and companies so I respectful request that be remove the .org and .com TLDs.

Bull, we never once thought they were myths.