So the city designs a bench to prevent people from sleeping on it, thus keeping it available for its intended use... people sitting on it. So someone comes up with a way to get around that and sleep on it, thus preventing other people from sitting on it.

How is this a good thing?

This is not wonderful... yuck!

This is not wonderful... yuck!

Talk about lack of reading comprehension... I was not trying to make a wild claim... just pointing to those who made the claim that disemvoweling kept her honest by letting people see what was posted. In fact, it doesn't.

Others made the claim (i.e. that disemvoweling somehow kept her honest). I just debunked it. It does no such thing. IF she were dishonest, disemvoweling would not stop her from doing bad things.

I specifically said that I did NOT think she did this.

Personally, I think it's good that the military is looking to the future and examining all of their options. Like it or not, wars are not just fought with weapons. They are also fought with information. Terrorists use the Internet to spread their message, coordinate, gather intelligence, etc... Our military should be studying ways to use the Internet to help win wars.

I don't think the U.S. Special Operations Command cares about political bloggers making fun of Bush/Clinton/Obama... they're more worried about Iranian bloggers, Al Qaeda cells, etc...

The fact that Teresa disemvowels does not "keep her honest" as she can still delete posts and, obviously, edit them to say whatever she wants them to say. So there's no accountability in disemvoweling.

For the record, I'm not saying that she does alter the content of posts, just that she has the technical ability to. She chooses to disemvowel only.

The roads that I see every day certainly appear to have been designed with cars in mind. The lanes, markings, signals, speed limits, etc... are all pretty much car-centric.

I don't think that one person in a car should have priority over one person on a bike. What I observed was that one person on a bike was delaying dozens of people in cars.

As far as the public paying for roads... that doesn't necessarily mean that anyone should be able to use them for anything... you can't drive your wheelchair on the road. My kid can't take his hot wheel on the road. We have all kinds of rules about what can and can't drive on the road. For that matter, bicycles and motorcycles would probably fail many of the safety tests that are currently required of cars.

Bike paths would be great... but how much should we spend on bike paths in Houston, for example, that nobody uses. We do have some that get a lot of traffic and I'm happy to spend money on keeping those up. We have others, though, that have been around for a decade or so, now, that still aren't used. And they eliminated a traffic lane when they were installed. Those should be returned to car traffic since they aren't useful.

Given that roads are really designed for cars and used by cars more than bicycles by several orders of magnitude, and that the safety/mass/speed issue is so radically different between the two, yes, I'd ban bicycles from riding on major streets.

I would say for them to take minor streets and stick to sidewalks and cross the street at crosswalks.

No, this isn't just because I personally feel bothered by all those annoying bicycles... but when one person on one bicycle slows down a bunch of people in cars, that person is being selfish.

Also, changing lanes is more dangerous than driving straight in one lane. It's not a matter of skill but a matter of risk. Changing lanes involves more risk. The more times people do it, the more likely there is to be an accident.

I understand, though, that it is currently legal for bicycles to be on the road, so I treat them with respect and try not to run over them.

Some people might take the hint.

I did take the hint... they aren't interested in discussing their moderation policy nor are they open to the possibility that they might be wrong in something.

I was told that my "low-brow" comment got moderated because it was rude. I swiftly collected a number of comments that were not just "low-brow" but vicious (as in wishing death on people for their beliefs) and pointed out that this forum is full of stuff much worse than what I posted.

The response: silence.

I was also accused of other things I did not do. In short, I was not at all impressed with the response. It was cursory, dismissive, and showed a lack of effort and/or comprehension.

It's their board, they can do whatever they want with it. I have trouble keeping quiet, though, when I hear someone claim lofty goals and demonstrates decidedly unlofty actions.

I live in Houston, so I can only speak for this city, but many streets are narrow and bumpy and there is no way for a bicycle to fit between cars and the curb.

While it's probably safer for a bicycle to ride in the middle of the lane and block traffic, this results in many cars driving slowly, which increases pollution, and changing lanes to go around the bicycle, which makes accidents more likely.

I don't hate bicycles, I just don't they belong on busy city streets. Cars are too fast, big, and heavy to mix with frail bicycles. While it's true that car drivers SHOULD look out for bicycles, this video demonstrates that our brains are wired to make this hard. You can be careful and try to watch out for them, but they will always be harder to see AND much more vulnerable.

I really, really DON'T want to kill or maim someone who is riding a bicycle. So it's kind of scary to know that even on roads where the speed limit is 40 or 45 mph, a bicycle could be tootling along at 20 mph and be hard to see. And if I did happen to miss him, I could easily kill or permanently cripple him.

I've also seen cases where a group of cars go from light to light (somewhere the lights are timed badly) and a bicycle passes all the stopped cars at the light, then the cars pass the bicycle when the light turns green. Then the bike passes the cars at the next light. And so on. Very dangerous.

We did build some bike paths in Houston, but it's so hot here and everything is so far apart, that they hardly ever get used. I rarely see any of them being used. And yet, to add them, lanes were narrowed and/or removed. Thus car traffic was made worse for . . . nothing, basically.

I think that the more Liberal side agree with the policy because they are not moderated as often. It's easy to see someone who agrees with you as more polite and someone who disagrees with you as rude or somehow out of line. I doubt Teresa does it on purpose, but it sure seems to happen that way.

I did not click the little eyeball next to the offensive posts because I did not realize what the eyeball was for. Regardless, there were a few BB posts with so many vicious and hateful comments that I found it hard to believe that they hadn't been noticed.

Even if they were merely overlooked, the fact that so many comments were left alone while a small number were moderated makes the policy seem capricious.

And I actually wrote Cory about one of my posts that had been disemvoweled, but he was just as dismissive as Teresa of my concern.

Real liberals generally value politeness as a sine qua non of serious discussion. Conservatives are frequently the ones who believe that he who yells loudest wins the argument. Turn on Fox News or listen to talk radio if you don't believe me.

Warning, broad brush ahead. From what I've seen of protest marches and Code Pink vs. Protest Warrior and what I've heard from Liberals who call up talk radio shows, the Liberals seem to be quickest to resort to name calling and insults and thuggish behavior.

This is exactly why I would like to see the laws changed so that bicycles are not allowed on most major streets. Given the weight and speed disparity between cars and bicycles, it just makes no sense to mix bicycles in with cars on busy streets.

I've also seen several cases of bicyclists blocking major streets while legally riding along. They were obeying the law and technically in the right, but they were causing a major traffic jam and inconveniencing a lot of people. Talk about selfish... I would be equally annoyed at a car driver poking along at 15 mph on a busy street.

On less traveled neighborhood streets, bicycles are much safer and more reasonable.

Personally, I find the moderation to be arbitrary and annoying. Disemvoweling is basically defacing a comment and isn't conducive to civil discourse. If someone posts something and gets disemvoweled, they are likely to be upset rather than curious as to why. The posted policy is pretty subjective, leaving a lot of uncertainty as to what will get moderated.

I spent about twenty minutes looking through the comments the other day and easily found a number of hateful, rude, and downright insulting comments with no redeeming value that had not been moderated. Boing Boing tolerates quite a lot of vicious hatred for certain groups, apparently.

I wouldn't want my daughter sticking penis-shaped things in her mouth... not that I'd freak out about it. I also don't want her watching movies with violence or complicated social situations that she's too young to understand (an understanding that changes and develops over time).

I will teach her about sex at some point (and answer questions she asks before then). But there's something wrong with having a small child sucking on a penis shaped straw.

The lady called to complain... Wal-Mart should have noted her complaint and offered to investigate... they could have then done nothing or whatever.

For those who are intolerant of people who don't want their kids drinking out of penises, shouldn't parents get to determine things like when they teach their children about sex? Or when they parade them in public drinking from sex-related toys?

As others mentioned, the transparency he describes in his example isn't really transparent. True transparency would give everyone access to all those databases, access to who is looking them up, the ability to know who is spying on you and to spy on them back, etc...

I'm not sure that this would be a good thing, but it's more equal than the example described.

The police officer could add you to a list, but in a truly transparent society, you'd know that you were on the list and why and what the list was for.

It's hard to learn what is acceptable when there is no general list and when my comment is "disemvoweled" without any explanation as to why.

This is like the teacher who smacks kids who do something wrong without any explanation as to what they did wrong.

As far as I can tell, my comment was gutted because of the opinions I expressed. If Boing Boing has ideological rules, it would be nice if they were posted somewhere.

I don't mind being disagreed with or even insulted. I don't appreciate my posts being defaced by a moderator just because the moderator disagrees with them.

I would like to apologize to the Boing Boing community. Apparently, in the previous post on this subject (here: http://www.boingboing.net/2008/02/28/billboard-liberation-1.html), I expressed an unpopular view and/or used excessive sarcasm.

Fortunately, Teresa edited my post to protect the readers of this blog from my unpopular ideas. Thank you Teresa.

Can someone point me to the Boing Boing posting guidelines? I looked a little but didn't see them. I don't want to accidentally express any other unapproved opinions.

Um... so why did my post get altered? Did I say something unpopular? I guess dissenting viewpoints aren't appreciated? Or was my sarcasm too difficult to understand?

Actually, I kind of like the BLF. The no-harm philosophy and the bottles of scotch are a nice touch.

Thnk gd smn s stndng p fr th lttl gy. Th lst thng w wnt s fr cmpns t cprt wth th gvrnmnt n tryng t ctch trrrsts. Scrw tht. Lt's mk sr tht w stgmtz ny cprtn wth th gvrnmnt r lw nfrcmnt.

ftr ll, th nw FS bll s jst n ttmpt by Chmpy McBshHtlr t wrtp frdm-lvng mrcn ctzns s ny dssntrs cn b swpt p n nmrkd vns nd tkn strght t Gtm fr dly wtrbrdng.

t's gd thng tht th trrrsts hvn't lrnd t s lwsts nd th mrcn jstc s wpn n thr fght r thy mght t p tlcmmnctn cmpns wth lwsts nd rs th cst f cprtng s tht t's tht mch hrdr fr th fscst mrcn C t cptr th Jhdsts wh nly wnt s t lv thm ln t bld thr slmc tp n th Mddl st.

I tried to post this from work, but it didn't work... it's probably too late, now.

Islamic countries, where women are second class citizens, gays are stoned to death, and education is intensely religious, get more sympathy from Democrats than American Christians, who typically obey the laws of the land and generally don't use violence to get their point across.

Of course, mocking Christians is a lot safer than mocking Muslims.

While many Christian fundamentalists are Republicans, many Republicans are not Christian Fundamentalists.

Personally, I'm not even a Republican, in that I do not identify with the party. I happen to agree with the Republican party on more things than the Democratic party. But I still find teaching Creationism/Intelligent Design to be an abomination and a travesty.

I find it interesting that the party that is most likely to support cultural relativism (and is most likely to accept, for example, Muslim fundamentalism as a valid lifestyle choice) is so vehemently opposed to teaching creationism... seems like it should be considered a valid part of their culture. But the culture of White American Christians is the only one that's not acceptable, I guess. Especially if they are Republicans.

Also, as others have pointed out, not all home schoolers are ignorant fundamentalists. My wife and I have considered home schooling our children because she is a teacher and they are intelligent and our public school system is designed to teach average kids to pass standardized tests and private schools are very expensive (or have some ideology that taints their education).

This doesn't surprise me at all. I doubt it's a new phenomenon. I have had access to various private data in the past as part of my job and I've felt the temptation to snoop. I didn't unless there was some legitimate need, but I can imagine that many people would go ahead and snoop, especially if they didn't plan on using the data.

People are curious (nosy). I agree with others... it's best not to store extra data. You can also use access restrictions and access logs to see who is looking at what.

This was the EARLY polling place, not the ONLY polling place. The article says nothing of the location of the actual polling place on election day. Early voting is a cool thing but is not the only way to vote.

Disrupting traffic is all well and good until you stop a mother from picking their kid up from day care on time. Or stop someone from getting to work on time and getting them fired. Or delay a diabetic from getting to dialysis on time. Or block someone from getting to court on time.

If their primary, election-day polling place were seven miles from campus, I could understand being outraged.

Gerrymandering in Texas is a bipartisan sport... I'm not sure who did it most recently, but I know that it's gone back and forth.

And seven miles? I drive almost 30 miles to work every single day. This was the EARLY polling place... it's not like they had to be there during business hours for one day.

Sheesh. What a bunch of whiners. I hope they didn't prevent anyone from getting anywhere important with their stunt.

I'm sure the politicians will get the idea and undo all the gerrymandering. Suuuuure they will.

There are apparently many different versions of waterboarding. The video I saw of a reporter being waterboarded did not involve water actually being forced into his body. The Japanese version described here sounds like water was actually forced into their body and they were beaten. This could very easily be fatal. The techniques demonstrated on the reporter were much safer as water was kept from actually entering the body.

None of it is good, but the term "waterboarding" is being used to describe such a broad range of techniques that it is in danger of becoming meaningless.

Just like the term "torture" is being used to describe anything from cutting off fingers to adjusting the thermostat in prison cells.

Um... given that we're still in Germany, South Korea, Japan, etc... what is the problem with being in Iraq for a long time? He did not say that we'd be fighting in Iraq for 100 years, just that we'd have troops there. Given how batshit insane the Iranians are and how likely they are to get nuclear weapons, having some bases next door isn't a bad idea.

If we withdraw all of our troops before the Iraq government is capable of defending itself, then Iran will take over.

MINTPHRESH, you have no idea what you are talking about... but that's for another thread.

The gag order is stupid, but I don't have a problem with China hosting the Olympics. I firmly believe that we should engage China more and more. They are showing signs of making economic reforms (still have a long way to go) and are probably wise not to start political reforms right away. Too much change can create problems (see Russia).

China is growing and developing and will be a major player on the world stage. We would be smart to be engaged with China and have some influence rather than opposed to China and without any influence.

While I'm not sure that I agree with the embargo, why would it be lifted just because Fidel "resigned?" If nothing changes and the Raoul takes over and continues to run the country in the same fashion, seems like nothing should change.

This is probably a good time to wait and see and not do anything until we figure out what's going to happen there.

Oh, and I work in the oil industry and we've figured out that environmentalism and safety are good business... we spend more time making our equipment safe and clean than we do just about any other single thing.

I would love to deal with environmentalists who were willing to work with me and listen to me rather than just shrilly screaming that we're raping the environment.

This is the kind of thing that animal rights activists should be doing... show food producers how it is in their interest to treat animals well. Instead of fighting them, work with them.

Hardcore PETAns won't want to compromise, but then they'll never really accomplish their goal. For more reasonable animal rights activists, though, this is how to make progress.

Personally, I eat meat. But I'd like to know that the meat I eat is treated well. Like #4 said, I don't hate animals... I love them!

If videogames were murder trainers, then school shooters would be running back and forth and jumping randomly while trying to get headshots on everyone...

Unfortunately, every President has supported the War on Drugs and the attending loss of civil rights. This foolishness transcends party lines and unites Democrats and Republicans in shredding the Constitution.

But seriously... what sort of entourage have past Presidents used? And this graphic is the entourage for travel to where?

I know everyone here hates Bush, but this is just silly... an obviously incomplete and/or inaccurate graphic used as a reason to bash Bush.

When I was in college, the G7 leaders met at our university. They welded all the manhole covers shut for blocks, closed off much of the campus, stationed snipers on rooftops all over, and had hordes of police, secret service, etc... all over the place. They did background checks on everyone and no doubt closed roads and had huge motorcades for all of the leaders.

The President of the United States (whoever he or she is) is a HUGE target for terrorists and killing him or her would provide a huge boost of prestige for whoever did it.

EI