concurringopinions.com · Domains

Re:More feminist bullshit by Knuckles · 2014-10-10 07:58 · Score: 2 · on Why the Trolls Will Always Win

No mod points but AC needs to be visible:

The study found that female bots received on average 100 malicious private messages a day while the male bots received an average of 3.7.

Re:WHY are men trying to scare women away from gam by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 07:58 · Score: 0 · on Why the Trolls Will Always Win

They aren't. Some women see people attacking them and assume "They're attacking me because I'm a woman". And the media loves to play this narrative. The real reason people get harassed isn't because of their gender, it's because they're idiots.

Which is why silent bots get 25 times more harassment if they have female names than if they have male names.

Re:Anonymity == being a schmuck for a good number. by AnyoneEB · 2014-10-10 07:16 · Score: 1 · on Why the Trolls Will Always Win

I really wish we could just drop the sexism part of this right now. Both genders get attacked by these people.

Both do, but it *is* sexist. It is far more widespread and vicious towards women. Ignoring that is not helping.

Really now? Proof by assertion is not proof, it's an informal fallacy. Yes, even if you claim that not believing your assertion is "not helping". Prove that women get trolled more, and prove that the trolling is more vicious as you claim. I await your great study of everyone trolled on the Internet with eagerness.

While a complete census of internet trolling has not been conducted, it turns out there are statistics and they do support the GP: here's a study showing women get harassed at a much higher rate than men.

According to a University of Maryland study, online users who appear female are 25 times more likely to receive threats and sexually explicit messages than online users with male names.

and

The disproportionate targeting of women accords with statistics compiled by the organization Working to Halt Online Abuse (WHOA). In 2007, 61 percent of the individuals reporting online abuse to WHOA were female while 21 percent were male. 2006 followed a similar pattern: 70 percent of those reporting online harassment identified themselves as women. Overall, in the years covering 2000 to 2007, 72.5 percent of the 2,285 individuals reporting cyber harassment were female and 22 percent were male.

Re:Anonymity == being a schmuck for a good number. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 07:06 · Score: 1 · on Why the Trolls Will Always Win

Luckily, there are stats. I was about to post them in response to the GP, but someone else already did.

The study found that female bots received on average 100 malicious private messages a day while the male bots received an average of 3.7.

Re:Don't over generalize by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 07:03 · Score: 0 · on Why the Trolls Will Always Win

It's not comparable. Calling the women speaking up about online harassment weak is not helpful. It's wonderful that the women in your life have not been the target on a targeted online harassment campaign. Good for them. Going back to the link,

The study found that female bots received on average 100 malicious private messages a day while the male bots received an average of 3.7.

Simply changing the gender resulted in a more than 25x increase in the amount of harassment.

Re:More feminist bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 06:48 · Score: 0 · on Why the Trolls Will Always Win

Here's your statistics.

The study found that female bots received on average 100 malicious private messages a day while the male bots received an average of 3.7.

Re:Which company bought this 'new' rule? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-10 10:58 · Score: 0 · on EPA Makes Most Wood Stoves Illegal

Yeah, and all these conservatives have college campuses where they can expel people for expressing themselves on and off campuses. Damn consevatives.

Student Expelled for Facebook Posts Sues 2-Year College in Minnesota

Court Rebukes Le Moyne College for Censorship

University of Cincinnati: Speech Code Litigation

Modesto Junior College (MJC) students were barred from passing out copies of the U.S. Constitution in celebration of Constitution Day

Big Brother’s Lawyers

College Republicans lobbying against open club membership

FAU College Student Who Didn't Want To Stomp On 'Jesus' Runs Afoul of Speech Code

...and the Chinese follow suit on speech with the support of US universities.

China’s Peking University fires professor who criticized government

Not Orwellian enough? How about this:

'US citizen has no right to free speech?' State Dept spokesperson grill

Re:How about the nodes by Nahor · 2013-10-04 18:44 · Score: 2 · on How The NSA Targets Tor

There is a lot of overlap between anonymity and privacy but neither is a subset of the other.
http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2007/09/security_matters_0920
http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/01/privacy-vs-security-vs-anonymity.html

Re:Slashdot Official Translation by AlexMax2742 · 2010-03-14 13:23 · Score: 1 · on Obama Backs MPAA, RIAA, and ACTA

Blaming lawyers for our troubles is short-sighted. The number of opportunities in law is actually going down, and the typical advice for people who want to go to law school these days is don't bother. That doesn't sound like some dystopian future world where lawyers would be in high demand suing each other into oblivion.

If your anger should be directed somewhere, it should be directed at the wealthiest 10% of america, who own 72% of it's wealth. Which would be fine (after all, there's nothing inherently wrong with being rich), except they also don't pay their fair share of taxes either, which means cutbacks in education, social services, and so on. They will use their considerable political influence to continue that things continue the way they are, and of course, they've managed to drill into people's heads that more taxes == evil, so you have people frothing at the mouth and protesting against their own best interest.

Considerably more information by jfengel · 2010-03-12 17:31 · Score: 4, Informative · on JPL Background Check Case Reaches Supreme Court

A much better article:

http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/03/nasa-v-nelson-is-there-a-constitutional-right-to-information-privacy.html

If you'd like to read their claim in detail:

http://hspd12jpl.org/files/SCOTUS_Nelson_Pet.Opp.Response.pdf

Re:What!? by Moryath · 2009-11-02 16:42 · Score: 5, Insightful · on Feds Bust Cable Modem Hacker

It's called "padding the charges to try to force a plea deal", and it's one of the reasons our justice system is so fucked up.

Thousands of people plead guilty to shit they didn't do each year, because they're offered the "reasonable" alternative - accept a jail sentence of X amount, OR get 5x the time and financially ruined and never be able to work again because they had the "temerity" to protest their innocence.

Welcome to America. "Justice" means jack shit here.

Re:Cool by GrumblyStuff · 2009-05-10 08:24 · Score: 1 · on Warrantless GPS Tracking Is Legal, Says WI Court

Who needs GPS to do that?

http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/04/justice_scalias_2.html

Re:Duh. by kc8jhs · 2008-11-10 14:13 · Score: 1 · on Press Favored Obama Throughout Campaign

As much as I like to refer people to Snopes, they aren't necessarily the end all authority in such cases. I have friends who have sent them information regarding issues on their site, only to be told, "No thanks, we already have our answer." If they really are about the truth of the matter, that response would seem to conflict with their mission.

I have looked at the Snopes article in question, and all they link to is Berg's original motion for a restraining order and Obama's website photo of his birth certificate. Not the best evidence to present.

Like I said, I want to like Snopes, but their failure to be exhaustive at times is rather disappointing, and as a result I don't tend to refer to them for anything authoritative anymore, and don't even send my friends there for stopping email forwards/fake viruses.

For what it's worth, it took me about 2 minutes to find this on Google, which is probably more relevant the Berg's motion, for that Snopes article.

Prof Solove NOT at Georgetown by Anonymous Coward · 2008-02-07 05:55 · Score: 0 · on Facebook Sharing Too Much Personal Data With Application Developers

Actually, he's at George Washington Law (one of those other "George" schools):

http://www.law.gwu.edu/facweb/dsolove/

also, has a blog at:

http://www.concurringopinions.com/

Re:AT&T == NSA monitoring by MarkMtDew · 2007-08-13 01:40 · Score: 1 · on iPhone Bill a Whopping 52 Pages Long

Courts have rather consistently held that "envelope information", including billing records, are not protected by 4th Amendment search protections. IP address records are less certain.

http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/07 /the_fourth_amen.html

Detailing IP address records on their bills gives them a powerful argument that they are billing records, too. AT&T is quite aware of their billing costs. They are a major expense for all of the long distance carriers. They are also aware of their legal expenses, and probably terrified of their potential civil liabilities in the spying scandal. An investment in billing (printing IP address details) may yield much greater legal savings.

Re:This isn't free speech. That's retarded. by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-08 04:13 · Score: 0 · on Law Student Web Forum: Free Speech Gone too Far?

Of course it's deniable. Just because you can cite a long rant from a crazy blogger, it doesn't make it true. Plenty of people would dispute the contention that the people running the site are assholes -- they have repeatedly made it clear that they hate the trolling but aren't able to justify censoring it without violating the spirit of the board. And for a board that reporedly receives 100,000 readers a day, I doubt you can make substantiated general claims about the people who populate the board as well. Keep in mind you're talking about a handful of people being pissed off about a board with around 6000 posts a day. The vast majority have nothing to do with these women, but the philosophy that tolerates those posts is the same one that encourages many others to post interesting and possibly controversial information.

national ID by falconwolf · 2007-01-26 21:55 · Score: 1 · on Maine Rejects Federally Mandated ID Cards

I fail to see how the average law-abiding citizen's rights are threatened by an ID card that could potentially tell the federal government information about activities that violate no law. If you're worried that any illegal activities might be exposed by these cards, well...

Is There a Good Response to the "Nothing to Hide" Argument?

And you know, I bet a week of dumpster diving your trash would tell someone a lot more potentially harmful things about your habits than an ID card would, just as handing your credit card to the waitor is much less secure and easier to take advantage of than low-grade encryption on a shopping website.

Nope, what financial records I get I either file away if I'm going to keep it, or if I don't keep it, mostly credit card offers, I either shred or burn. Most of the tyme I don't even toss out receipts when I pay with cash, which I try to use most if not all the tyme, unless I shred it first.

Falcon

Re:Cool! by kamapuaa · 2006-02-21 03:21 · Score: 1 · on An Interview with Wikipedia's Jimbo Wales

Even more prescient, can Jimmy Wales edit his own interview, to make himself seem more important to the interview process?