I'm aware that Slashdot's 'no deletion' policy was clearer and cleaner in the pasty. I was here for the furore over the Scientology takedown.

Blocking a post (via filters for content or proxy) and moderating are very different from deletion. So is playing with how moderation points are assigned.
I realise that these are restrictions on what can be 'said', and are part of a broader definition of censorship, but, for me, the deletion of something that has been 'said' is far more problematic and for more dangerous. If I think that I've communicated, only to find my post edited or deleted without my knowledge or consent, then my words have been changed. If I know that I cannot post, I can make other arrangements (as the GNAA posts demonstrate, you can't stop the message).

Deleting has a much greater chilling effect than up-front restrictions, IMHO.

Why? It's trivial to bypass as has been demonstrated time and again, here and everywhere else. And I cannot believe that Slashdot editors are so ignorant as to believe otherwise. What they can do, however, when they receive a complaint is to be able to say 'look, we tried'. I/we know it's pointless, but that may not stop an injunction or court order. If they can demonstrate that it's pointless, that's another matter.

That's a weak argument. 'Perhaps'? If a discussion is prevented because someone can't work out how to use a synonym, alternate spelling or character substitution, then this isn't a tech site.

The lameness filter is part of a larger 'post quality' process that includes excluding certain characters, line length etc. It's passive and doesn't stop someone who is determined. GNAA hasn't stopped and the reason it's decreased is that it's stopped getting a reaction. APK will never stop because he's mentally ill. The anti-Creimer posts will fade, just like the Kristopeit (sp?) posts (remember those - very similar MO to the Creimer spam inc. creating accounts to pretend to be the target). Grit teeth. Endure. If the poster is sane, they'll get bored when they stop getting a reaction.

Filtering doesn't work (see both APK and GNAA) and deletion is the part of censorship that I find most worrisome. I've presumed you were advocating one, the other or both and I apologise if that's a mistaken assumption.

And thanks for the civil discussion.

Please don't forget the great Emu War.

To be fair, most of the animal population is poisonous. The ones that aren't set fires and please don't mention the sea life.

But rabbits? You'd think we could handle rabbits.

A little late, but;

Some software asks to send anonymised data about crashes to the devs so they can work on bugs. That's 'good telemetry' IMHO. It's opt-in. It states up front what it's for and if you don't trust that, you don't have to participate (although if you don't trust that, why are you running the software?)

If MS made Windows 10 telemetry opt-in, explained what it was used for and then stuck by your choice not to participate (rather than resetting your choices every time you upgrade) ... then it would go some way to answering the criticism it rightly receives.

Please don't.

Slashdot is one of the few sites that doesn't delete unwanted posts. That means we get spam, but it also means we don't have posts that are deemed 'unwanted' simply because they are confronting.

None of these posts appear at +1. Most are modded to -1. Set your viewing threshhold to 0 or +1 and they will disappear. So will a lot of other A/C posts, like yours, but then, perhaps you should take advantage of the systems already in place, rather than calling for a campaign to modify an existing system so that it's more to your liking.

I'd prefer to put up with some spam than to see yet another site have to have editors making choices about what is and isn't wanted.

One aspect of the brutalisation that is bootcamp is to break down a normal person and to rebuild them into an effective soldier. That includes obedience to orders.
While I respect the sacrifice that involves, to suggest that it is anything other than an ugly necessity or that it has application in a broader context suggests a kind of fetishisation of the military that is disturbing.

Obeying a bad law is not a virtue.

The aim of terorism is not the direct damage, but the disruption of everyday life for people who might otherwise be able to ignore the conflict. To that end, the degree to which the US has increased surveillance and curtailled the freedom of its citizens is an incredible success for terrorism and part of why it keeps being used against the US.

Your acceptance of the security theater is a 'win' for terrorism. Your chances of dying due to a terrorist attack before and after these measures is statistically unchanged.

That your only comparison to the TSA search is a prison strip search should give you pause. Whether it's better or not the very fact that you choose boot camp and prison admission is an admission that this is something that should not be happening as a matter of course to non-criminal, non-military people.

Please stop being an apologist.

Straw man. No-one claims it is 'all' bad. And if it were opt-in like so many 'would you like to send anonymised data so we can improve product X' then there would be no outcry. It's the fact that not only is it not opt-in, it's a constant effort to remain opt-out.

Corporations make statements all the time. Some are even true when they make them. A change of 'direction' and whatever promise or guarantee that was made may change. Without notice. Given that Microsoft has a history of 'changing direction', dropping things they promised or doing things they said they wouldn't I have no idea why you'd even consider this statement with anything other than suspicion. But let's assume a neutral stance. Microsoft claims no foul. Where's the proof? Where's the independent audit? Where's the option to say 'no thanks?'.

The burden of proof is not on those saying that there is a risk of foul play or even just negligence. The burden is on those giving the guarantee that this data (of ours) is safe with them and will be used only for good.

No problem. I look forward to your proof that the collection of my data has no negative impact for me, now or in the future. That's the direction the burden points. It's not on me to prove foul play or negligence. In the absence of proof, I would like to choose not to trust my data to someone. Being unable to do that is a problem for some people, even if you have different priorities.

You are guilty of the very thing you are decrying. Clearly this isn't something that concerns you. Your inability to understand, on a nerd site no less, that this is of significant concern to a number of people is a symptom of the very fractiousness you accuse others of.

Please. Log. Eye.

Your use of the word 'pushing' makes it sound as though Snopes has an agenda that it is pursuing. I'd like to see some evidence to back up that assertion.

I've seen Snopes perform sloppy research. I've seen articles that were improved over time.

Snopes is no more authorative than Wikipedia, but both have the same thing going for them. They cite sources.

Snopes tells you what it did to reach the conclusion it has drawn. If those sources are incomplete, that's apparent. If information is from a source you consider biased, that's apparent. It raises the bar from the usual assertion and denial and that is invaluable.

Rather than criticising Snopes for not being perfect or unbiased, how about applauding the methodology? Encouraging people to demand sources and citations and then to check them, themselves is the only way to elevate conversation out of the 'he said/she said' nonsense of sensationalism.

There a many ways to shape perception by providing more information, rather than just restricting it. 'Letting it flow' is not an answer to information manipulation.
Criticism and analysis is, and whether Snopes has an agenda or is simply imperfect, they are at least attempting to provide both.

Yeah. Towards 'corporatism'. Everything else is spin.

50% after two years?

I'm not sure what you're using, but decent Li ion batteries should last about 1000 cycles before they hit 80%. At one charge per day that's over two and a half years.

I've got an iPhone 6+ that's probably nearly four years old. A previous owner had a 'typical' usage for about 2 years; mine has been 'light'. Probably charged once a day for most of that period and just now getting down to 83% (self reported).

That's the belief, and the basis of the 'American Dream', but it's not borne out by statistics. The US has some of the lowest economic (and hence social) mobility of OECD nations.

It's hard not to view the continued insistence that the US rewards hard work as anything more than a self-serving narrative by those at the top. Just as food stamps and cheap housing help hold off the revolution, so too does the belief that if people don't rock the boat and play by the rules, they (or at least) their children can enjoy the fruits of society.

It's not just hunger that sparks revolution. Knowing that your children will be poor, no matter how hard you or they work, will do the trick even if it takes longer.

Please don't use 'they started it' as a justification when you are called on your own behaviour. Either your behaviour is bad, or it isn't.

No one is perfect, but if you can't say 'fair cop' when called out, then it makes it hard to extricate the rest of your point. Agreement becomes a tacit acceptance of the behaviour, even with caveats and exceptions.

Not by a legal, nor constitutional definition.

Hollywood/large-media-corporations also 'mold entire communities and becomes part of the culture' - should they be treated the same way?

I think that regulation of essential services and utilities in areas where monopolies either form naturally or where competition reduces quality of service is useful and desirable. I'm not convinced that the popularity of these services makes them either essential or monopolies.

The regulation of telecommunication companies would be better compared to ISPs, not services that are built on top of neutral utilities.

Caveat, I'm not from the US and do not use Facebook or much social media.

Largely correct.

Your constitution applies only to the actions of the government, not private individuals.

You are incorrect.

Please provide citations to support your position. Google has any number of links to articles, summaries and commentary that all say the same thing - the constitutional protection for speech applies to the government, not private individuals.

Here's one.

You may also want to take a look at the Wiki article on forums.

You may be confusing a state granting additional rights or protection of free speech with those protected by the constitution. See Pruneyard Shopping Center vs Robins. I would strongly recommend reading the summary at the bottom of the article which includes reactions by other states, test cases and judicial commentary.

You may have a touch of the Dunning-Kruger going on. Might want to reign in the insults while you get that sorted.

Apple?
You mean the power supply where you can remove the mains connector to reveal that it connects via a IEC 60320 C7/'figure 8' socket, allowing a short cable to be installed moving the 'wart' to the middle of the length like you want? It's been a while since I checked and may be recalling incorrectly, but I thought that while Apple sold a cable with a moulded connector that fit in the socket and merged with the 'wart', that the socket itself was standard and you could use any suitable cable.

Frankly, these are some of the best designs I've seen. Most of the bulk is away from the mains connection, so it doesn't interfere with other plugs and you can switch between wall-wart and cable-wart.

Except that a good chunk of these are a plastic shell with some potted electronics inside without anything resembling attention to heat transfer or air cooling.

I realise that this brings the cost down and that manufacturers would prefer to go with a standard case regardless of what is going inside it, and that people who'd pay a little extra for a smaller overall package with decent thermal design are too small a market to address ...

So yes. It's about cooling. Inefficient, 'good enough' but most importantly - cheap.