Slashdot Mirror

At 17 years of age, you do not have enough life experience to say anything of real importance about anything involving the greater issues facing society.

How perfectly appropriate that these choice lines should be posted by to Slashdot by an Anonymous Coward.

The timing couldn't be bettered as well.

We should certainly laud Mattel for deciding that 2014 is the year Barbie strikes out on her own as a career woman after 55 years and 150-plus jobs (including hating math and babysitting, with a welcome stint as a computer engineer in 2010).

But Entrepreneur Barbie reminds us that --- like every other ostensibly inspiring incarnation of the doll --- her main role is to look pretty and wear lots of pink.

In the end, both [Supermodel Barbie and Entrepreneur Barbie] are part of the same old problem. As 16-year-old feminist and former TED speaker Adora Svitak told Forbes' Denise Restauri this week:

''She encourages an unrealistic expectation of beauty grounded in narrow ideals --- whiteness, thinness, a lack of hair and an abundance of breast tissue --- instead of kindness, smarts, self-confidence, or athleticism.''

Mattel's Latest Affront To Little Girls: Entrepreneur Barbie [Feb 2014]

I have nothing against padded bras in general. But my immediate thought in the store was, Why the hell does a teenage girl need one?

The issue of the over-sexualizing of girls from an early age has come to the forefront with a recent news story about model Thylane Lena-Rose Blondeau posing suggestively for the cover of Vogue magazine. Over a series of photos, the ten-year-old is shown sprawled on leopard-print cushions, wearing a skimpy gold dress, stiletto heels, and posing heavily made-up, with rouge and lipstick. She's ten years old, yet she looks scarily adult in the photos.

By creating so many illusory images of physical perfection, whether on store aisles or storefront ads, magazine covers or TV shows, we speak more to the profit margins of companies than the self-esteem of today's girls. The unsaid message of that endless rack of juniors' pushup bras? No matter what size you are, it still isn't good enough.

Would You Buy This for Your Daughter? [Aug 2011]

What a load of bullshit. That sociopath prick running the company is a bully. Many people aren't going to use uber because of this sunshine. Take your astroturfing elsewhere.

That's an interesting response. You are supporting your position by emotional strength - essentially saying that the poster has to back down or you'll respond into a full-blown emotional outburst (see bully).

When I first heard about Uber's plans the first thing that came to mind is "there's no law against publishing public information".

We have fairly clear rules about what's illegal in terms of gathering and publishing data. The police have no qualms about publishing names and addresses, and sometimes courteously withhold that information for the rich and powerful while using it against low-income people.

The press has no qualms about publishing data that people want to keep private, so long as publishing it would sell papers. If someone simply wishes to live out of the public eye, it's a challenge and "Look! We've got the scoop on Satoshi Nakamoto! Find out who he *really* is and why he needs to hide! (Are your children safe?)

If no one takes action to expose the journalists, if there's no consequences for their actions, what keeps the journalists honest? What incentive does any journalist have for journalistic integrity?

This seems like a cromulent quid-pro-quot. So long as no laws are broken, I'm fine with it.

The closest thing to a libertarian in the Senate is Rand Paul. He voted against the bill. He used the chicken shit excuse that "It didn't go far enough", as if a fantasy bill that went even farther was a realistic alternative.

Its quite disturbing to see complete forfeiture of assets without a trial taking place. I know normally tycoons and other scum like Madhoff and Ken Lay deserve to be tarred and feathered and pilloried for their crimes against society and shareholders, but who exactly was DAMAGED by Silk Road? Did all of the buyers receive their goods? If so, what is the DAMAGE?

1. The assets aren't forfeited(yet). They're being converted to USD with Ulbricht's consent. Doing so locks down the value now, and he might manage to keep some of it.
2. Who was damaged by the Silk Road? Well, allegedly Ulbricht tried to commission 6 murders on it.
3. The goods were illegal, even though I disagree with them being so. Well, except when the 'goods' are contract hits and such.

Jack Ma, being a Chinese Citizen, and Alibaba, a chinese company, would be rather hard to arrest them. Blocking them would be only very slightly easier because it'd become a matter of international treaty. As for being fraud/racket/exchange, I'd ask for citations, because as far as I'm aware it's a more direct source for cheap made in china stuff, with all the usual caveats for cheap stuff from china (buyer beware, probably lower quality than you think).

Oh, I see. You're deeply entrenched in the partisan ideology blinders trap. Buying into Krugman's bullshit is one of your worst problems.

You can cherry-pick insurance rates all you want. They are going up for everyone (pre-existing interventionist state systems notwithstanding). Here's your sign, which you will also dismiss because you are one of the partisan shills that are convinced if only the other party could be defeated, everything would be unicorns and rainbows.

Obamacare is a tax. And if you don't think it's a tax, you're one of the stupid people that Jonathan Gruber was talking about.

The whole premise that anything in the ACA would make health insurance "more affordable" was a LIE. Lie of the year? "If you like your plan, you can keep it."

Rethuglican

How mature. I'm sure those decisions - the same one also made by Democrat governors (or should I use the partisan-bickering-friendly term "Democrap"?) - are all about spite and had NOTHING to do with state budgets and weighing the benefits and risks. Oh, can't be. We have to complain about ending the bickering in Washington while we show them what name-calling and hyper-partisanship is REALLY like.

Maybe because not everything is black and white?

Quite right. The Russian special forces deployed to invade Crimea were referred to as "little green men." Putin eventually admitted who they were - members of Russia's armed forces.

Maybe because asking intelligent, objective questions doesn't mean you are an "apologist"?

You apparently know nothing of his views (with which I am well acquainted) , and you should reread that post of his above. It is hardly even handed let alone objective.

Maybe because intelligent people usually know when they are being bullshitted...

That assertion leaves me with a dilemma - how is it that you don't know?

... and when a conversation goes like "Well, that is an interesting perspective, but what about...APOLOGIST!!

That isn't how the conversation went, and apparently you've read nothing of his views on Crimea. You're interjecting your ignorance into the conversation.

WHY DO YOU QUESTION THAT WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY RIGHT!!" this just serves to ring more alarm bells?

What do your "alarm bells" signal about this?

Putin Admits Russian Soldiers Were In Crimea, Slams West For Role In Ukraine Crisis
Russian Tanks Move Across Ukraine Border: NATO Chief Breedlove

I cannot speak for the guy you are insidiously claiming is on "the wrong side of the debate" but that is how your comments come across to me.

Maybe you "cannot speak for" him, but you seem to have given a real go at defending him. Why? Do you think he can't defend himself? He has regularly challenged my views. Will you defend me the next time you see me attacked? Somehow I doubt it.

Maybe because not everything is black and white?

Quite right. The Russian special forces deployed to invade Crimea were referred to as "little green men." Putin eventually admitted who they were - members of Russia's armed forces.

Maybe because asking intelligent, objective questions doesn't mean you are an "apologist"?

You apparently know nothing of his views (with which I am well acquainted) , and you should reread that post of his above. It is hardly even handed let alone objective.

Maybe because intelligent people usually know when they are being bullshitted...

That assertion leaves me with a dilemma - how is it that you don't know?

... and when a conversation goes like "Well, that is an interesting perspective, but what about...APOLOGIST!!

That isn't how the conversation went, and apparently you've read nothing of his views on Crimea. You're interjecting your ignorance into the conversation.

WHY DO YOU QUESTION THAT WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY RIGHT!!" this just serves to ring more alarm bells?

What do your "alarm bells" signal about this?

Putin Admits Russian Soldiers Were In Crimea, Slams West For Role In Ukraine Crisis
Russian Tanks Move Across Ukraine Border: NATO Chief Breedlove

I cannot speak for the guy you are insidiously claiming is on "the wrong side of the debate" but that is how your comments come across to me.

Maybe you "cannot speak for" him, but you seem to have given a real go at defending him. Why? Do you think he can't defend himself? He has regularly challenged my views. Will you defend me the next time you see me attacked? Somehow I doubt it.

Actually it has concern has little to do with 'a certified union' and is more of a concern with the epidemic of single mothers forced to live on social welfare programs to support their kids, being given incentives to not have 2 parent families, and punished by the welfare systems if they attempt to establish or maintain a two parent household.

http://newsblogs.chicagotribun...
http://www.census.gov/prod/201...
http://www.actrochester.org/ch...
http://www.crosswalk.com/blogs...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

These are just a few examples of the concern and impact this is having on society, and especially effecting certain ethnic groups.

Unfortunately while all of the corruption exist in Government this won't be fixed. You can do your own searching to find out why that is, but I'll give you a hint. Milton Friedman was one of many that explained this situation and why people want it that way.

With the recent Republican gains, the house gets 244 R vs. 184 D, instead of the 233 R vs. 199 D in the old house.
The Senate will have 53 R, 44 D (and some independent/undetermined). This is a reversal of power from the old Senate which had 53 D, 2 Independent (but rather Democratish), 45 R.

(Some sources: house vote, info on Senate)

The Republicans now have the lead, but I'm calculating their seats to be about 56% or less. That's still about 10% less than what's needed for overriding a President's veto.
I think the Republicans know that they lost a lot of popularity from the government shutdown. Right now, their best chance at making things happen, the way they really want it, to is to gain more seats and gain the Presidency in the next election. They do that by becoming more popular.

They aren't likely to try to repeal Obamacare again, yet. They gain little by trying to get a compromised bill pushed through now, while Obama is still in the president's seat. Better to not make those compromises, just wait until 2016 when further anti-Obama sentiment may help them further, and then push a less compromised, meatier bill through when there are even more Republicans in the seats of Congress and the Presidency.

Their best move right now is to stay popular, and get even more popular. Repeating earlier attempts to repeat Obamacare might make a lot more sense in 2 years. So they'll wait. They will not "spend the next two years repeatedly tryiung to repeal Obamacare". They will wait 2 years.

Then, the next years will likely involve trashing Obamacare, killing Planned Parenthood's fed funding, and all those sorts of things... if 2016 goes well for them.

How many people walk into police stations and start shooting? Ok, ok, I'm sure it has happened once, somewhere... Does it happen NEARLY as often as school shootings?

Armed teachers, armed parents, would solve this problem. Heck, armed teenagers would solve this problem. When my father went to school, you could still bring your .22 rifle to school, they had a shooting club and people had gun racks in the pack of their pickup trucks. No one would have dreamed of shooting up that school, 20 or 30 kids had guns there.

Police station shootings happen quite frequently: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/police-station-shooting/, http://ktla.com/2014/04/07/lapd-officer-wounded-in-shooting-at-police-station/, and http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/West-Deptford-Police-Station-Shooting-270886191.html.

While I do agree that we may have gone too far to in disarming otherwise law-abiding citizens, I am not sure that arming every single teacher would do anything to solve the problem. In fact I can envision many scenarios where an armed teacher (or worse, a student) runs headlong into a situation where they have little to no training, likely complicating the efforts of the police to resolve the situation. The best place for that teacher to be is locked in the classroom with their students, making sure they follow the procedures proscribed for the situation.

http://www.cchrint.org/2012/07...

http://www.cchrint.org/school-...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

http://freedom-articles.toolsf...

http://www.prweb.com/releases/...

Of course, doctor/patient confidentiality rules often prevent hard core analysis. In the case of mass shootings and such, we ought to consider changing the rules so that we can grasp fully the links between shootings and drugs. Sticking ones head in the sand and claiming ignorance is not really a good option.

This clearly means no net neutrality in the US. If Obama wanted net neutrality, he would oppose it and Republicans would then be for it

Someone mistakenly modded this as "funny" instead of insightful. In fact, this has already started to happen[not The Onion]. Here's a direct quote from Senator Ted Cruz today:

"Net Neutrality" is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government.

And here's a clarification his "spokesman" sent out:

Net neutrality puts gov't in charge of determining pricing, terms of service, and what products can be delivered. Sound like Obamacare much?

The 'Wall Street Journal' Parade of Climate Lies

Wall Street Journal: neutrinos show climate change isn't real! XD

And from the pot herself: remarkable editorial bias on climate science at the wall street journal

"Drivers across America are rejoicing at falling gasoline prices as pumps across the country dip below $3 a gallon .. while it's nice to get the break at the gas pump and the economic benefits of an energy boom at home" ..

"Specifically, with energy business as usual, the world is on a trajectory to raise the mean global temperature by at least 3 degrees C (5.4 degrees F) by the end of century, and possibly far more, a climate disruption that most scientists regard as catastrophic ref ..

Some transsexuals are extremely transphobic. They are so fearful of anyone knowing that they go out of their way to put down anyone trans-related who doesn't measure up to their "standards of purity." Being open about the fact that you're trans is a huge no-no to them - "real women wouldn't act that way" and all that garbage. To them women like Lynn Conway are not "real women." They won't be seen in public with another trans because they're afraid that someone will speculate. They make public pronouncements that nobody would expect a transsexual to make, to further obfuscate the truth. Rather than just being themselves, they do everything to be a caricature of what they see women as - which brings us back to the portrayal of women on her game website; the characters look like they were designed for horny teenage boys, by horny teenage boys.

So it's kind of ironic to see you write:

identifying common themes in video games that might be problematic to women

Ms. Wu's actions in trying to develop and market a game which reinforces those "common themes in video games that might be problematic to women" makes her part of the problem, not part of the solution.

The counter-argument, "well, we need to cater to what the market wants" is giving license to unrealistic portrayals of women's bodies that even the major fashion magazines have had to rein in. Ironic for someone who claims to be a victim of misogamy, perpetuating the same stereotypes. But hey, throw out your principles if it means maybe making a buck, because you can't actually design a game the masses want otherwise (even though plenty of others have).

But it gets whackier still. In this interview, Ms. Wu claims that before becoming a game developer, she was a journalist who also studied law. Failed at that too, btw, if you care to do any research. And she makes the crazy claim that web sites are responsible for the content users post. So why doesn't she go after Twitter? Oh, because (as the admin of 8chan pointed out) the Communications Decency Act, section 230, provides immunity from prosecution for user-posted content. It's called barking up the wrong tree for a reason. That dog just don't hunt.

while Wu does seem to have a hostile edge to her - albeit it's difficult to find out what she was like before the abuse started.

Seek and you shall find. The truth is out there (cue x-files music :-)

If you can't call a group made up of people who abuse women, and people who support such abusers, without being told you're criticizing "anyone" who "disagrees" with SJWs, then what hope is there?

There are tens of millions of gamers. Half of them are women. The problem now is the exact reverse - criticize any of the main players by pointing out their wrongs and their lies and you become the target. The SJWs and their White Knights need to do a hard reset. There are creeps on both sides - Wu on one side, the threateners on the other. They kind of deserve each other, because at this point it appears both sides need the other. Typical dysfunctional co-dependent relationship, where each gets something they need from the other party.

And people are listening to her about sexism in gaming.

If she were talking about sexism in gaming ... but she's not. And her acts speak louder than words - the artwork on her website and game promote sexist tropes.

Now if the bounty were being promoted by someone with more credibility, or even a corporate sponsor, sure, why not? But Ms. Wu?

Today Gamergate is not about sexism in the gaming industry. It's also not about misogamy. Or journalism. It's about hype, page views, pot-stirring, and in the instant case getting as much attention as possible to self-pr

fully synthetic biology is closer than you realize.

This is from 2 years ago-- Researchers succeed in creating fully artificial cell membranes

This from about 4 years ago-- First fully reproducing bacterium with fully synthetic genome

This is from last year-- Creating synthetic ribisomes

For real, being able to fully engineer a cell from the ground, all the way up, is fast leaving the exclusive realm of science fiction, and entering the realm of science fact.

That's rubbish. The damage caused by corporations opting out of the USA's repressive tax regime and incomprehensible, idiotic rules is negligible compared to the harm and actual, verifiable damage caused by incompetent politicians stuffing their porkbarrels hand over fist. Why should Amazon/Apple/Google pay for smartbombs and drones used to kill children?
 
In the US those who avoid taxes hold the much higher moral ground. Besides, it'll take hundreds of millions of years at this rate for the US to pay that debt down. Makes no sense throwing more on the bonfire of Osama Barrack's ambitions. Unless perhaps you think all the children ought to die, and it's only fair that we all pitch in for the drones.

If this is mental illness then what did he have exactly? What's your basis of diagnosis? What should've been done instead?

Mental illness is a great catch all for anyone who's trying to uphold the status quo and not willing to see the problems facing culture.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

http://www.bostonglobe.com/met...

Is this also mental illness too?

This is the first season that any electronic device could be used by coaches and players during an NFL game. They weren't using iPads before...they were using steno pads.

You're arguing a technicality. 30 seconds of Googling turned up a 2012 article on the NFL's own website with the subheading How the iPad is revolutionizing playbooks for NFL players and coaches .

While it's true that this is the first year they're allowed on the sidelines, suggesting they weren't using iPads before is patently false and doesn't address the previous commenter's assertion that they'd be using iPads if they could. iPads have been in use in the locker room and training facilities for quite awhile, not to mention the announcers, officials, and others who have been using them during the game, both on-air and off. The iPad was announced in 2010. Between the 2011 and 2012 seasons, the league went from having two teams using iPads in place of paper playbooks to having 14 teams using them, with the prediction being that all teams would have switched to iPads by last season (I haven't found confirmation one way or the other for if it actually happened).

All of which is to say, it's a bit silly to refute a "[g]iven a choice, they'd still be using iPads" argument by suggesting that because they couldn't use them for 3 hours each week "[t]hey weren't using iPads", while failing to acknowledge that they were using them for the other 165 hours of the week.

It's still Federally illegal. Even in any state that it is "legal" it can still be prosecuted. It won't be under the current president, but that can change in 2 years.

I cannot imagine how, after 6 years, you Obama supporters are still so starry eyed and ignorant. Under the "current president", prosecutions of legal marijuana use are *up* over the levels seen during the Bush administration. This isn't exactly a well-guarded secret.

Obama Explains Increasing Medical Marijuana Crackdowns
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Obama’s War On Medical Marijuana Steps Up
http://www.fitsnews.com/2013/1...

Judging From Prosecutions, Obama Is 80 Percent Worse Than Bush on Medical Marijuana
http://reason.com/blog/2013/06...

Republican Rand Paul has stated that DC should be able to legalize marijuana if they want:
http://www.washingtonexaminer....

Well the median US home costs $189k (pdf) so a $300k home is far into the upper half, where customers can afford to be picky about what they want. It's not like it would bring $5k value to every home nor would it be worth as much if it were more commonplace. Right now it's a fairly exclusive feature that can add a nice premium because it specifically attracts tech-oriented people who want it. It doesn't take that much to make a bidding war on a $300k home go $5k further if it's particularly attractive to somebody. I wouldn't dare tell how much my parents bid over the asking price when they finally found their place, but then the glove also fit perfectly after talking about it for 5-10 years. Gigabit Internet is the kind of frosting on the cake that would make me go one bid or two beyond what reason dictates.

Any heterosexual man has the same basic physical capabilites as a homosexual man, so he could easily engage in homosexual acts... [...] Face it: There is no "gay gene".

1) There is the concept of physical attraction. Looking at a woman's breasts or thighs or buttocks and being attracted. Versus looking at a man's buttocks, biceps or chest and being attracted.

2) There are simple measurable physical tests for both attraction and arousal.

For a bisexual, he can probably be aroused by another man and get an erection. For a pure heterosexual, this is simply not going to happen.

I'm sure there are porn stars who have such will and control over their erections that they can generate an erection on demand. But my suspicion is most mail porn stars are bisexuals. Ron Jeremy said, "At any given time there are about 24 reliable woodsmen, guys who keep good erections in the American porn scene. You know, myself, Randy West, Peter North, Tom Byron." But let's say they are pure hetero - that's 24 people he's talking about in the 300 million strong US population.

You're right in that there is a lot of variation in sexuality. Serial killers are aroused by murdering the objects of their attraction. I've seen estimates of up to 50 active serial killers in the US at any one time.

I'm sure there is pretty much any variation of sexuality out there one can imagine. In tiny numbers. Focusing on those instead of the larger groups is an inability to see the forest because of the trees.

But there is precedent. State Dept pressures credit cards processors (?, not sure if I got that right) to block all kinds of stuff all the time, legal or not.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

The problem with your thought experiment is that many people engage in behavior that is socially disapproved of, may have serious negative consequences, and may involve disquieting physical aspects. Just look at the people involved with drugs, especially some of the more horrific ones. The outcome of meth addiction is well know, and rather ugly, but people do it anyway. Then there are the even more dangerous drugs that rot your body like Krokodil . And what about prostitution? People engaged in that are continually doing things that have a significant "ick" factor, but do it anyway.

And lets not forget the findings of studying the Pashtun.

Afghan Men Struggle With Sexual Identity, Study Finds

An unclassified study from a military research unit in southern Afghanistan details how homosexual behavior is unusually common among men in the large ethnic group known as Pashtuns -- though they seem to be in complete denial about it.

The study, obtained by Fox News, found that Pashtun men commonly have sex with other men, admire other men physically, have sexual relationships with boys and shun women both socially and sexually -- yet they completely reject the label of "homosexual." The research was conducted as part of a longstanding effort to better understand Afghan culture and improve Western interaction with the local people.

I don't think your thought experiment covers all the ground you think it does.

Freedom of the press has taken a huge hit under the Obama admin.
Although one could argue that the wheels were set in motion during Bush's watch, it was under Obama's Napolitano that we lost the freedom to not be groped or oggled at the airport.

There are some services like education, medical care and child care that are cheaper and more efficient for the government to deliver

Is this why there are relatively few areas in the US where people with money send their kids to public schools? Is it likely that these people prefer an inferior education for their kids and are willing to shell out a lot of money for that while still paying taxes for superior educational services they have chosen not to use? Hmm... Sounds unlikely to me. My, admittedly limited, sample set of people I know who do choose to pay to send their kids to private school certainly don't do it because they are seeking an inferior education for their spawn.

That's strange, since 90% of elementary and secondary school students in the US are enrolled in public schools.

I know, dealing with facts is just so damned inconvenient when those facts contradict your biases. It's a shame, you were on a roll.

Literally 5 seconds to search. sigh

What’s Wrong With “After-Birth Abortion”?

Fourth Trimester Abortion: Are You Serious? by Dr. Robert M. Myers, President, Toccoa Falls College

Video: Planned Parenthood Official Argues for Right to Post-Birth Abortion

The U.S. is no longer the official "most over-weight" country on Earth: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

The incident you are thinking of is, I think, when Neil Armstrong crashed in the Lunar Module Simulator.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Apparently the story goes that he was back in his office eating lunch a few hours later like nothing happened.

How odd that today's Democrats (*) are perfectly aligned with Nixon on just about every issue conceivable:

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/2...

Who has actually benefited from ObamaCare? That would be the for-profit private insurance industry to which Obama sold out even while continuing to say he supported the public option.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

(*) not to be confused with people who are liberals.

Kinda relevant, Average American Male's Body Compared To Bodies Of Men From Other Nations

Learn the fucking laws people, and I mean you too police officers, and fucking use them properly.

While I agree with your statement in full, it belies the problem. You see, law enforcement has not caught up with the ease of harassing people online.
1) Most police units are barely aware of online activity past trying to catch people boasting on Facebook about breaking the law.
2) Even if they were aware, most don't see this harassment as more than some form of bullying (and most adults don't see bullying as anywhere near the huge problem it really is)
3) If they are aware and see it as a real, law-related problem, they probably have no funds to pursue it
4) If they have funds to pursue it, they need to be able to identify the perp
5) In most cases the harasser, the site(s) where s/he does most of the harassing, or both are in another jurisdiction. Now their legal system has to be involved.
6) GOTO 1

This ignores the barriers to getting the identity of the harasser, even if you can get the site to cooperate (unlikely without a subpoena/warrant, unlikely without cooperation from their area's law enforcement, etc.) such as tor, throw-away accounts, and proxies. I fully agree that existing laws can be used against these kind of horrible people, but only if those existing laws actually apply to that person and you jump through a number of other hoops (and pursuing even one of the harassers will likely make the others up their antics.)

Even a civil suit would be incredibly hard, because you have to have the money to hire a P.I. to get that information, then still go through juridstictions. I don't know if restraining orders even hold across state lines, or how you would set them up (the accused has to stay at least 10 hops away? Cannot maintain an account on another website held by the protected?)

Taking legal action against the nastier harassers (like the person who called in the shooting threat when Anita Sarkeesian was going to give a speech) would likely help a great deal. A lot of these kind of people get power from their pseudo-anonymity, so the threat of removing the mask will scare many of them off. But this success would require cooperation on a national if not international level, with the likes of the FBI or Interpol spending considerable time and money for even just a few.

Fucking anti not nice to be law bullshit.

Ah, but politicians! Politicians don't actually care about doing anything, they only care about the appearance of doing something. Raise taxes and/or retask law enforcement efforts to go after online harassers? You'd have all sorts of people calling for their heads in an instant, saying it's a waste of resources that will give little reward that requires tremendous effort. Now, laws... laws are easy and relatively cheap. You make some new law/bill, give it a cute name ("NONETBULLY Act of 2014"), and write overly-broad definitions and penalties that would get struck down quickly when challenged in court, but give the people the idea that something has been done. So you get overwhelming bi-partisan support because it also distracts from any more local and tangible problems and, boom, you get to hit the campaign trails declaring you took a "firm" stance against online harassment.

And, in the end, all the bill actually did was fund a number of riders: the park has a new bird bath, the library on fifth was renamed to Steve Irwin Memorial Library, Barbara down in the cafeteria is recognized for Best Sloppy Joes of the 20-Aughts, and some corn farmers get an extra bump in their water subsidy. Effect on curbing online harassment: none.

...The only reason for needing to know if the police are nearby is if one is a criminal and/or thinking of doing something criminal.

(Expecting downvotes from the "all police are pigs" idiots)

I have mod points right now, but rather than downmod you I'll jump into the discussion. While I wouldn't say that all police are pigs, anybody who maintains that the average law abiding citizen has nothing to fear from the police either has his head in the sand, or is trolling. If your qualifier had read "if one might be viewed as a criminal and/or thinking of doing something that the police claim is suspicious in order to further their own ends", I'd agree with you. But then, there wouldn't have been much of a reason for you to post, would there?

Of course, you may actually believe that Driving While Black, clenching your butt, wearing a backpack with graffiti on it, or carrying cash, are crimes simply because they seem suspicious to fucked-up and/or corrupt police. If that's the case, then shame on you.

Which would be fine, but it is a major educational institution with several faculty members who in fact will, at least indirectly, be the targets of these ignorant lunatics.

What the fuck is wrong with the university? What's next, a conference for Holocaust deniers?

Sure, why not? This is a refreshing change when we're seeing other colleges and universities set up "free speech zones". I don't agree with the conference's claims, but as a proud MSU alum, I would be disappointed with MSU if they denied their use of the facilities simply because they find their claims discomforting.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/15/tesla-driverless-cars_n_5990136.html

I blame the lack of autopilot for these human fingers.

Hey, it could be worse right? It's not like they'll forcibly rape you in the ass without evidence.

Oh, wait.

Thinking of cops as anything but thugs that view everyone else as the enemy, who they can lie to, kidnap, steal from, and beat/tase/mace with total impunity, is naivete now reserved only for the people who have not yet been unfortunate enough to catch a cops eye (which doesn't require doing anything illegal). These people think that not all cops are bad simply because they see them not abusing someone, and the fact that many targets of the police are criminals who need to be removed from society. That doesn't excuse the fact that any cop who doesn't, at least sometimes, violate peoples rights (the friendly cop who helped you out probably also civilly forfeited his department a new margarita machine/zamboni/trip to disney-all real, btw), is at a minimum covering for his buddies that do. The entire system is rotten to the core: there are no good cops, only cops that are less pure evil and closer to how cops should act (that is, they occasionally arrest someone who deserves it without violating their rights).

It was Bolivia's president that was detained, Evo Morales. Nice (?). See: Evo Morales, Bolivia President, Leaves Europe After Flight Delayed Over Snowden Suspicions

Now unless that article is a total white-wash, it sounds like a tragic mistake. Like insurgents who hide their weapons behind children hoping to vilify their attackers, it seems quite strange someone would place a baby's crib blocking their own front door.

Now ask why they're breaching in the midnight to 4 am time period, why they're breaching at all when there's no evidence that somebody's life is in immediate danger, etc... Heck, I was just reading about where they decided to raid both sides of a duplex and did the full 'bang&bash' before shooting a seven year old in the head. Disregarding signs of a child being in the house like toys scattered around the lawn... The seven year old didn't even live in the side where the suspect lived, there were no interior connections, etc... I don't even blame the officer who shot her all that much - his actions were the tip of an iceberg that involved the whole department. The chief's decision to have a SWAT team. The leader who decided to use them in such raids. The site lead/investigator who called them in for this case, and to have them raid BOTH sides at the same time, when reports are that he didn't have a warrant for her side at the time(got it retroactively, which is bullshit if true). The training he received, etc... Negligent? Sure. Manslaughter? I'd actually save that for the guy that ordered both apartments raided and higher.

These raids take place presumably when the drug dealers inside are at their lowest. Well, everybody is typically at their lowest during this period, so it takes them longer to identify police, and reflex actions are reflex actions.

They're not even really safer for the officers than walking up to the door and publicly presenting the warrant because death tolls DURING SWAT raids from people who manage to get a lucky shot off and worse, friendly fire from other SWAT agents is similar to officers lost handing them out the old fashioned way. If necessary, SHOW THE BLOODY SWAT VAN. At that point they know they can go quietly and painlessly or SWAT can put them down the hard & painful way. Yes, I've seen a couple incidents where they raid a house, find nothing, but in the progress of the raid one SWAT officer shoots another SWAT officer and they try to charge the occupants with assault/murder. Hell, I don't think it's justified to push an officer's death at the hands of another officer during a raid deliberately conducted when you're at your lowest ability level even if drugs are found.

Save lives - both officer and not. End the war on drugs.

The "elites" have the best education money can buy, they have the best advisers money can buy, and the free time to research what ever they need because they don't have to work 40-60 hours a week to make ends meet.

Given that little bit of information let me ask who exactly is not that smart. You or them? Just to drive the point home, lets play along with a few more questions.

How many people would an elite group have to control in order to really run the country? They don't need to control each person individually, they just need to control enough to maintain media so that they could build up or destroy a person. Nearly all media is already controlled by 3 people in the USA. It does not take manually handling politicians to control them, it takes money and errand runners. Given that the President, Congress, and Senate is less than a thousand people, you only need a few runners for each of the people in the conspiracy. They don't need to control State politics, just few Governors is all. California and New York have a big enough population to concern people, Wyoming on the other hand does not have enough population to be a concern.

Further, you don't need to direct every detail to get the result you want. Bits and pieces here and there is called compartmentalization, and we have known about this for a very long time. Agencies within the Government practice this with a high degree of precision, such as the projects that built the SR71, F117, etc... You can see it in action after the fact so you know it exists, yet you somehow want to claim that it could only work with building some of the most complex machines the world has ever seen and could not happen in politics. Come now, that's just idiocy.

As to Conspiracy in general, take the TV show Survivor. In the first series people almost immediately started conspiring with others to win. After the first series, the conspiracies became the focal point of the show. If people would conspire within a few days to win a million dollars, you don't believe it's possible that they would conspire when the stakes are much higher? This is also idiocy.

One of the most important things I ever read regarding politics was this.

FDR once said "In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." He was in a good position to know. We believe that many of the major world events that are shaping our destinies occur because somebody or somebodies have planned them that way. If we were merely dealing with the law of avenges, half of the events affecting our nation's well being should be good for America. If we were dealing with mere incompetence, our leaders should occasionally make a mistake in our favor. We shall attempt to prove 'bat we are not really dealing with coincidence or stupidity, but with planning and brilliance. This small book deals with that planning and brilliance and how it has shaped the foreign and domestic policies of the last six administrations. We hope it will explain matters which have up to now seemed inexplicable; that it will bring into sharp focus images which have been obscured by the landscape painters of the mass media.

In the past people have commented simply to discourage people from reading the book, so I won't be surprised to see that again. The book is from 1971 and titled "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" by Gary Allen.

Labeling people "Conspiracy Theorist" has happened since the same years. Anytime someone brings up an uncomfortable question, label and belittle. If that does not work simply censor and ignore. (Also covered in the same book).

I believe you need to try harder to discourage people from making connections which are easy to see. Dump the Troll handbook and actually attempt to hold rational discourse and dialogue with people.

Um, no: Orban publicly announced that he plans to eliminate liberal democracy in his country and turn Hungary into an 'illiberal state,' modeled after China or Russia. Pretty much no other country does that, which shows that Orban's Fidesz is not like any other authoritarian regime IMO.

Isn't /. and reddit a great example of how you can get pounced on in this industry. Or go post a slightly less than optimal answer on SO and see how quickly you get slapped into place. And that is how they treat someone that could be their brother, that looks just like them.

And Reddit is also the most male dominated major social site on the internet, a whopping 74% of Reddit users are male.

Silly ideas like "the cushions are flotation devices" are the reason people need to listen to safety announcements rather than assuming that they know everything.

Oh, the irony. They do tell you about the floating, removable cushions in the safety announcements.

I'm glad I didn't post that example from anywhere near Wasco, CA, Jacksonville, FL, or Staten Island, NY.

Hey, I wonder who's in that black van outsi...

*^%^#%$^*@& NO CARRIER

Egalitarianism

Wage gap myth:

http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf

Majors by Gender: Is It Bias or the Major that Determines Future Pay?

There Is No Male-Female Wage Gap

The Gender Pay Gap is a Complete Myth

Gender pay gap is not what activists claim

Equal pay statistics are bogus because they don’t compare like with like

Fair Pay Isn’t Always Equal Pay

Wage Gap Myth Exposed -- By Feminists

5 Feminist Myths That Will Not Die

The Wage Gap Myth

Don’t Blame Discrimination for Gender Wage Gap

The pay inequality myth: Women are more equal than you think

Women Now a Majority in American Workplaces

Labor force participation rate for men has never been lower.

Share of Men in Labor Force at All-Time Low

Women In Tech Make More Money And Land Better Jobs Than Men

Female U.S. corporate directors out-earn men: study

Female CEOs outearned men in 2009.

Women between ages 21 and 30 working full-time made 117% of men’s wages.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, single women between 22 and 30 years old earn an average of $27,000 a year. That’s 8% more than comparable men.

Workplace Salaries: At Last, Women on Top

Young Women’s Pay Exceeds Male Peers

The 15 Jobs Where Women Earn More Than Men

Women aged between 22 and 29 earn over £10 per hour on average, compared to men their same age who earn just under this amount.

Young women now earn more than men in UK

No, crime did not go down.

Not to mention places being specifically targeted.

In some states where corporation run the prisons it is already the case. For example Management & Training Corp. had a contract with Arizona's government that the latter should keep the prisons at 97 percent full or pay fines. Such provision is actually common in a majority of America's private prison contracts.

More here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

From an ideal standpoint it looks as if super-intelligent kids is something every parent would want. However there are some drawbacks. First, IQ is only a rough measure of intelligence, there are many factors involved and success in life is not immediately linked to IQ. See Unabomber, etc. Also super intelligent kids may not be that easy to handle. They typically hate school and may actually do poorly in school. They demand much more attention from parents (more activities, more time with them, etc). There is plenty of evidence that IQ is also linked to the environment kids grow in, so simply selecting the gene stuff and thinking this may be enough will not work. Intelligence is also linked to curiosity and independence and so perhaps to more risky behaviours. Finally there is a correlation with very high IQ and some severe forms of mental illness.

All in all, there is a cluster of reasons why the average IQ of the population is 100. High intelligence is not always that comfortable. Think of Sir Winston Churchill, hero of the battle of England, most effective Prime Minister in a time of war, Nobel prize winner in litterature. He had severe depression all his life (his "black dog"). I agree we should raise the general IQ though, cautiously.

I knew someone would ask. All the sources I do have have links that are now broken to the studies(STOP REDESIGNING YOUR WEBSITES, YOU JERKS). Which is annoying.

I've tried searching google scholar on the various things I'm certain the study's properties: they measured galvanic skin response, eye movement, and used control groups with no threatening images, and evolutionary fears for the test group(spiders, snakes, large predators).

But the best I can do for an actual cite is a huffpo article buy a guy most would find to be pretty biased. Not exactly the level of quality I wanted

Here's one that establishes the same mechanisms in adults, but that's not what I promsied

"If it turns into a real mess, all it would take is Rich people fearing for their own lives to put up the money to start mass producing this drug. Also, it appears the Russians have a few drugs starting trails as well."

Isn't it the job of the federal gob't to pony up the money in cases like this when it's a public health issue, and a potential national security issue? Is this not what we pay taxes for?

God knows they spend money on all kinds of less minor crap.

Yes, but Texans don't seem to believe in federal government. In fact, texans have been wanting to secede for awhile now. I say now is the time we let them do it. Then immediately put a travel ban in place between the rest of the country and the newly instituted "United States of Caucasia".

It was covered a lot at the time, and they even had hearings to follow-up, and hearings about the hearings. There were congressional hearings to discuss if the hearings were themselves illegal because of how they were targeting and proposing to target Muslim-Americans, and hearings to discuss the response of Muslim-Americans to the hearings about the civil rights of Muslim-Americans and their status as an internal threat to the security of the nation.

It's funny looking back at news articles, at clips of the hearings, at a brief few minutes stolen here and there. At times, it looks quite tame. Watching them actually occur was ... disturbing. After a few minutes, I was already waiting for the ghost of FDR to appear and tell everyone to just throw those brown-skinned suicide bombers into the concentration camps with the Japs and Krauts.

We talk about this once great nation; I wonder if it was ever great.