offenders

If you want a never ending list of shocking offenders, be sure to check out most airline sites.

Otherwise, the justification [they are sex offenders] falls flat when other types of ex-felons commit sex offenses more frequently.

At Google the worst offenders for broken builds & minor bugs were often the most experienced & productive devs.

Starting with known offenders is ok- a kind of collective intelligence on the worst ones.

It doesn't matter if there is serious crime, low-level offenders will be the primary target.

There are a ton of offenders and some of them are very well known.

NL has a good name but in fact is one of the worst offenders.

Worse, the majority of the offenders are not in your jurisdiction to begin with, and they never have been or will be.

Its pretty clear: To justify having a subset of ex-felons [sex offenders] on the list, all ex-felons have to be on the list.

Blocking offenders doesn't do any good after your number is on spam list.

I noticed recently that it doesn't seem to combat the worst offenders: sites using width= attributes or invisible-table-based margins.

That said, I do block Flash for performance reasons, which also results in getting rid of the worst offenders.

However, I don't think it should list them as "sex offenders" or the like.

> And BTW systems built "by hackers for hackers" are among the worst offenders (*nix clones in general and Linux distributions in particular are good examples.) Interestingly, I've found it to be the opposite.

Replace "women" with "people" in that article and aside from needing to fix the statistics RE: violent crime, you have a pretty standard (if slightly overwrought) argument against imprisoning most nonviolent offenders--which isn't completely beyond the pale and something I could get behind.