I speak as someone who knows a fair bit about computer science but am not a web server person, so go easy on me...

Is there some reason why restricting access to images/content is "hard"? The OP says "computationally intensive" but is it really?

I ask because I was recently evaluating WordPress as a content delivery platform and was surprised to find that they also don't implement image access restriction on the basis of logged-in user identity (at least not in default/vanilla setups).

This was surprising to me - if I were writing any kind of content platform that had a notion of users and access restriction, it would just seem obvious to apply it to all the content, not just the HTML.

No it wasn't, because there isn't a representative group of people making that claim. It's just you, and I suspect you're not even making it in good faith.

I think the point is that society judges what is and isn't hate speech via its various governmental processes, not a random poster on Slashdot. It actually makes sense once you get away from the reflexive "all government is bad" position.

Sort of an ironic comment, given that arguably the world's best known expression of an absolutist free speech policy, the USA's 1st Amendment, enshrines it *right alongside* the freedom of religion. So I guess your position is that you can be as free as you like to say stuff as long as it isn't "Praise Allah".

is that "these tribes (professor and ed-tech vendors) must work together". Nothing could be further from the truth. The vast majority of ed-tech innovations are half-baked me-too schemes with no proven impact on knowledge transfer. The few systems that have serious thought and input from educators behind them can spread by word of mouth. Teaching is enjoyable but hard work and relatively expensive to provide at a high level of qualilty. Too bad.

If mobile devices had decent terminal emulators, I might still be using local mail on a machine somewhere. As it is, the ability to seamlessly access email across a huge range of devices is more than worth the small tradeoff of having a couple of unobtrusive ads on the page. I can also compose new mail even if the network goes down. I use a text editor for this task.

So what you're saying is, because the truth is inconvenient, it has to be denied?

Meandering argument, constant repetition and wild swings in tone and style. My favorite:

"The weapons were surprisingly numerous, too. Each one has a different opportunity. No single one of them murdered them, and while there was conspiracy, there was also the accident of bad timing: the right formula at the wrong time."

Back to journo school methinks.

There's more to it than that, though. The senior developer may be willing to work for less since he may find it less attractive to be shoved out onto the job market. The cost of hiring someone doesn't just depend on their skill set, it also depends on their own price sensitivity. Which is why unions exist (though not in software development because programmers are so cool and independent and free-thinking).

How about the "fines" you pay for roads/schools/police/fire dept./etc ? Wouldn't you be so much better off if you could just opt out of all of those too?

Not only that, socialism EATS YOUR BABIES! It's true, I heard it on Fox News.

--
(x ofclass RightWingVoter) => (x ofclass VeryRich || x ofclass VeryNaive)

The vast majority of students are not "paying for their education". Either the state or their parents are. And these paying customers (not the students) generally want value for money, meaning they want to see students come out of the sausage factory with something worthwhile to show for it. Colleges respond to their customers, by finding ways to make students learn. Hence, banning laptops in class (which based on my experience is eminently sensible and can easily be worked around for those students who genuinely need them).