Slashdot Mirror

http://jezebel.com/5592676/palestinian-man-is-convicted-of-rape-after-lying-about-being-a-jew

Those poor Jews.

This is a perfect example. Marilyn Monroe,

Yes, the example that's been done to death and played out.
You can't keep trotting her out every time someone wants to justify being fat.
Marilyn monroe being desirable at 160lbs doesn't justify the heffer in line at the ice cream shop at 250lbs.
Also being a sexy symbol is not just about your beauty, but how you work it.

and on top of that, the claim that marilyn was 160lbs seems to be utter BS.
http://www.fatnutritionist.com/index.php/the-body-of-marilyn-monroe/

The conclusion:

No, Marilyn was definitely not fat and would not even be considered overweight by today’s standards. However, she was certainly not as tall or skinny as today’s fashion models and many actresses, and she did not wear a size 0 or 2, as is becoming the norm for ‘beautiful women’ in contemporary society. Like all of us, her weight even fluctuated a bit over her lifetime.

http://jezebel.com/5299793/for-the-last-time-what-size-was-marilyn-monroe
in fact it seems no one credible seems to remotely believe the claim she was 160lbs, but on slashdot that's a +5.

Who defines what is porn?

This.

We have Hasidic Jews in NYC that are upset at bicyclists going through their neighborhood on a Saturday wearing shorts and teeshirts. Especially if they are women.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/08/hipsters-hasidic-jews-fig_n_384579.html

And that's just the US. I just read a story about how women in Saudi Arabia, that if they have "sexy eyes" while otherwise clothed head-to-toe must also cover up their eyes, or face the beatings by the Religious Police.

http://jezebel.com/5860660/helpful-saudi-arabian-committee-suggests-women-cover-their-sexy-eyes

People don't tell control freaks and prudes to fuck-off nearly as much as they need to.

--
BMO

Rouge US element?

Some would say the movie "The Social Network" helped

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/11/technology/11computing.html?pagewanted=all
http://jezebel.com/5667829/why-programming-is-hip-again-hint-its-not-the-bong-hits
http://www.chron.com/business/technology/article/That-Hollywood-touch-gilds-computer-science-1691321.php

The US-France extradition treaty is very limited unlike the US-UK treaty. So basically is no legal basis for the US to extradite Mr. Polanski, who by the way is wanted on a charge of raping a 13-year old girl.

If you think it's fine that he should be able to evade such a charge, your are an idiot.

http://jezebel.com/5372888/chris-rock-on-roman-polanski-its-rape-rape

Mind, I would be fine with a real bookstore choosing to only stock straight erotica. The major difference is that it doesn't cost Amazon money or shelf space to keep digital copies of The Color of Love. They have nothing to gain by de-listing them, and money to lose. From this, we can gather that it's either an honest mistake, or some backward moral decision. I'd lean more toward the former, except that this sort of thing has happened before.

The Islamic world wasn't the whole of his examples, just an afterthought thrown in there.

Look at any Digg story about rape. Or any article that drifts into whether abortion should be legal in cases of rape.

Then there are stories like this http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10211/1076338-455.stm where every mention of rape is assumed to actually be consensual sex (in other words, she asked for it).

Or these pamphlets that aim to spread the message everywhere http://jezebel.com/5482688/you-make-men-want-to-be-sinful-blaming-the-victim-religious-pamphlet-edition

Or http://jezebel.com/5478360/she-knew-what-would-happen-if-she-started-drinking-blaming-the-victim-princeton-edition

This shows that it isn't just a small nutball collective: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1251040/Rape-Its-fault-victims-say-50-women.html?ITO=1490&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+dailymail/home+(Home+|+Mail+Online)

The boys aren't to blame because she drank a bit: http://current.com/1db6i4c

Here's what rapists think about it: http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/04/15/why-dont-we-accept-victim-blaming-from-rapists/

There are a whole host of weirder cases, too, that imply that rape victims actually gave consent. Remember how Whoopi Goldberg ranting about how Roman Polanski's drugging and raping an unconscious child wasn't really rape? I'm not sure what she was getting at, but if it wasn't rape then it stands to reason that Whoopi thought something about the unconscious, drugged girl gave consent to Polanski.

But if you can produce mainstream commentators...

You are moving goalposts and putting them someplace strange and unnecessary. This isn't about political commentators blaming the victim, it's about members of the public blaming the victim, all the time. Fair enough that you can find a lone person with an insane definition of anything, but this is hardly a rare viewpoint.

The Islamic world wasn't the whole of his examples, just an afterthought thrown in there.

Look at any Digg story about rape. Or any article that drifts into whether abortion should be legal in cases of rape.

Then there are stories like this http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10211/1076338-455.stm where every mention of rape is assumed to actually be consensual sex (in other words, she asked for it).

Or these pamphlets that aim to spread the message everywhere http://jezebel.com/5482688/you-make-men-want-to-be-sinful-blaming-the-victim-religious-pamphlet-edition

Or http://jezebel.com/5478360/she-knew-what-would-happen-if-she-started-drinking-blaming-the-victim-princeton-edition

This shows that it isn't just a small nutball collective: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1251040/Rape-Its-fault-victims-say-50-women.html?ITO=1490&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+dailymail/home+(Home+|+Mail+Online)

The boys aren't to blame because she drank a bit: http://current.com/1db6i4c

Here's what rapists think about it: http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/04/15/why-dont-we-accept-victim-blaming-from-rapists/

There are a whole host of weirder cases, too, that imply that rape victims actually gave consent. Remember how Whoopi Goldberg ranting about how Roman Polanski's drugging and raping an unconscious child wasn't really rape? I'm not sure what she was getting at, but if it wasn't rape then it stands to reason that Whoopi thought something about the unconscious, drugged girl gave consent to Polanski.

But if you can produce mainstream commentators...

You are moving goalposts and putting them someplace strange and unnecessary. This isn't about political commentators blaming the victim, it's about members of the public blaming the victim, all the time. Fair enough that you can find a lone person with an insane definition of anything, but this is hardly a rare viewpoint.

I bet it was your run of the mill social engineering. Someone on the attacking side befriended someone on the inside and either coaxed the information out, or just waited until they mentioned it in passing. Once they knew who to target, they could then pump this employee to see if the attack was having any effect, from the perspective of an insider.

It could be a Facebook friend, it could be a normal face-to-face friend, or it might be a "swallow". Governments certainly use this method of social engineering, but I would be quite surprised if companies do not do it as well.

Mal-2

Holy crap, your statement pretty much describes Microsoft Update. Had me rolling there for a minute.

Of course it does, except MS Update doesn't require [yet] yearly infusions of cash -- they *do* require you to upgrade to their new OS, though, if you want to continue to buy new software. How much software around today would even begin to run on Win98? All ready games and desktop candy are being released that exclusively require features in Vista, that won't be backported. Eventually if you want any new software, you'll find you have to upgrade -- and if you want to keep up on security updates, you will have to upgrade because older software is no longer maintained -- AND that's the point. Many people are running software that works fine for their application and need. But if they want a fix in their product's DNS server, they have to upgrade to a supported product. If the source of "no longer supported products" was released, customers could support themselves until they wanted to move on their own schedule to something new. (By supporting self, I also include hiring someone to do the support).

I've had too many software products that I wanted to keep using - they worked and didn't have some of the problems of older products (like my old phone that got better reception everywhere, but I was forced to replace when the digital reception got flakey. Couldn't get an equivalent product phone -- AND my new phone had to include "Echelon" tech that allows 3rd party activation of my phone and location tracking. So that's another way closed source is used to weasel in new spy and monitor provisions into existing software.

The drugs aren't sold to us, but "diseases" such as ADD/ADHD are. Those who "discovered" ADD/ADHD managed to find a multi-trillion dollar "cure" in the form of "patch" drugs. Much like Coca Cola, perhaps the FDA/AMA is not a good analogy here either.

You can choose to believe in the diseases or not -- and you can choose to believe that the newly "manufactured" diseases apply to you or not. If you think the diseases are a sham, no one is forcing you to take the new meds. Whereas with software, you can't look inside the software and make any decision about how safe it is -- you are told all versions are broken and must be replaced. What can you do? You can't get a second opinion -- because no one can look inside the source to verify if your software has the problem or if the new patch *only* fixes the supposed problem and *only* the supposed problem. With software you are in the dark -- with your health, you can judge whether you feel just fine or you can get a 2nd opinion before you are forced to take a "cure" for your problem.

It's not usually like the borderline case with Gardasil (the HPV vaccine), that isn't for a current condition but is to prevent against something that doesn't exist in you yet -- and it's not usually forced on you (as Gardasil is being forced on all new immigrant women), in spite of CDC recommendations against the requirement).

When patches and shots are forced upon you because you cannot examine your own source code or determine your own risk, it's a very different situation from knowing the secret formula of Coke (which is not a product that's likely going to be causing security breaches in your systems or your body). Please get a clue.

NBC (US TV network) explained the tie-breaking process on TV that night. Judging on the technical (the B score) comes from 6 judges. They drop the highest and lowest score. The average of that is the technical and is added to the start values(the A score). If there is a tie, they compare start values. If there is still a tie, they then drop the next highest score of the technical on both athletes and get the new average. I disagree with this method in that, if I wanted a tie breaker, I would drop the next lowest and highest and not just the lowest. Mind you, this comes from courses in statistics and is not just something I'm pulling our of thin air.

As to the judging itself, I have a dislike for anything being in the Olympics that requires a human to be subjective and Team sports. So I'm automatically slightly biased against Gymnastics to being with. That said, one of the comments I heard was the disparity between the Australian (I believe) judge in that who gave the Liukin Nastia about 0.3 less than Kexin He. No other judge game Liukin Nastia less than 0.1 below their score for Kexin He. Here is hte link for the judging scores Note that B1, whose country is not listed, is supposed to be the Australian judge. Tie breaking methodology - Probably biased, but it gives the tie breaking method in full.

Cool idea, but it still takes on hand to type. Gimme a grillI can type with from the tip of the tongue.

Although at this point if you're gonna use your mouth to type text you might as well go with speech-recognition, however you could use that for when you can't speak (a trooper trying to be silent, a kid at school txting) or when the environment is too noisy.

Clove 2 guy, rob da electronics store n make yaself a grill! (sorry, I had to)

What disturbs me the most isn't that there are random assholes on MySpace (or the Internet, for that matter) taunting people (I don't like it, but assume this -- 30 milliseconds on any FPS multiplayer server desensitizes you to that). Nor that a girl committed suicide (which is sad). Nor is it that some wacko blogger decided to post public information in an act of vigilante blog-justice (which is indeed very strange and unsettling). It's the implications of the comments on the jezebel blog. The comments on the other linked sites in the article are similar. It is clear these people (do they represent a typical American cross section?), have this attitude like: "if its on the internet it must be true exactly how it is printed. I want blood NOW!" No critical thinking. No common sense. No reality testing. Just pure reactionary tooth-and-claw emotion. It is the worst sort of groupthink one can imagine (wait, sounds a little like another popular internet forum I know about...oh, nevermind). A couple examples. One blogger writes "I'm not a vengeful person when it comes to my own life, so it always surprises me that my first instinct when I hear of these things happening to others is to plot murder." Oh really? Good to know. How about "If there was a loving God, so many people would be sterile. The parents playing 'Josh' [the fake MySpace account] are a good example." It actually makes slashdot seem like a pretty reasonable, organized, dare I say, civil place. Its a mad, mad, mad, mad world.