There is debate as to whether Starship Troopers was actual a defense of fascism, or an attempt at satire. I tend to lean towards it being a pro-fascist piece, because it doesn't seem to be very tongue in cheek at all.
The examples where you really need special software are rare; they certainly don't include EDA or CAD.
The people I talk to online tell me KiCad is crap compared to even Eagle.
KiCad is crap. I use the Geda toolchain (note: not a single package, a *toolchain*) and that works well enough for me - has more features that I need than Eagle. It does miss one piece of functionality I would like (although, maybe that is now fixed: it's been years since I used 'em).
That's only true if you take a rather narrow definition of insults such as actually resorting to invective. It's perfectly possible to be insulting without such coarse means. For example the style of your post previously was clearly, though somewhat ineffectively, designed to be so, in a casually dismissive manner.
Well, what can I say - I don' believe microagressions are a thing. You obviously do, so you type abuse into your responses because, from *your* point of view you believe you've been attacked. From *my* point of view no insult has been given.
Where do I appear bothered?
The way you approach these threads, such as using "subtly" insulting language, dismissal of arguments without addressing them belies a discomfort in that you feel the need to do such things.
I never try to shout down opposing views with claims of "Idiot", "Stupid", etc. I never need to.
You do however resort to shouting down opposing views with claims of SJW which is functionally identical.
Nope. Firstly, me pointing out that the majority of the SJW posts are highly inflammatory, discriminatory and, in many cases, based on very little evidence is in no way "shouting down opposing views". Secondly, the Social Justice Warriors call themselves this - what exactly is wrong with me addressing people by the very moniker they chose for themselves? As a group, you are free to chose how you want to be addressed.
You do however appear to try to be careful with your very specific choice of words in order to weasel very specific claims while your actions are completely against the spirit of those claims.
You're not fooling anyone, you know.
The danger with reading between the lines is that it's probable that you get the wrong message. My posts are almost always unambiguous. Microaggressions, almost by their very definition, are felt only by the thinnest-skinned recipients; hence, if you feel my post is an attack via microaggressions, then you are an extremely sensitive individual. IOW, you're the outlier, I'm the norm.
If other's opinions bother you so much, there's a great new site you can go to - a "safe space" - where I'm sure you won't be bothered by people "making shit up". RTFA.
You seem to have this peculiarly uniform view of the world where everyone who disagrees with you fits into a very specific category, no matter how inaccurate. I suppose that helps you deal with differing opinions, for very small values of deal, by dismissing the person rather than the argument.
Not really - I almost never offer insults. It takes an incredibly long thread of receiving insults before I offer the first one.
What's particularly funny is that when you and people like you seem to get really, REALLY bothered by other people's opinions (like on this thread)
Where do I appear bothered? I merely suggested that people who want safe-spaces can generally find them. You can see from my posting history, I never, ever try to shame people into submission. I never try to shout down opposing views with claims of "Idiot", "Stupid", etc. I never need to.
and by their actions when they're not imposing anything on you (again like this thread). I mean you could just ignore it, but given how much ACs and of course you swarm all over the thread, I'm guessing you're drawn to it like a moth to a flame.
Then people lime me swarm over it because a good internet argument is of course fun.
Great fun indeed - I await your first argument with anticipation.
PS. Have you ever considered that your "arguments" in the form of insults attracts support from only a very specific type of person? I've only ever seen the argument-by-insult by religious or political zealots. As a lifelong atheist, I've gotten used to argument-via-insult.
You should ask yourself whether you want your arguments to appear like Russel's teapot or something from the Westboro Baptist Church. While on the topic of introspection, you might do well to examine your need for derogatory and inflammatory responses - why do you feel the *need* to use shaming language - language that is designed to shut down the argument?
You can't even mention the acronym SJW without a gaggle of the crybabies coming out of the woodwork to call you a meanie it seems.
Aaah typical stuff from those who like to say "SJW", which is essentially know as "making shit up".
If other's opinions bother you so much, there's a great new site you can go to - a "safe space" - where I'm sure you won't be bothered by people "making shit up". RTFA.
Why should 'civil rights' activists care that a person who got 16k/year under Welfare gets 20k under a living wage?
You answered your own question in your previous post - they will care that someone who is not a member of their favourite protected group is getting money, not that their protected group is getting money.
Seriously, UBI would mean that single white men would get the same benefits as unmarried black mothers. This is the reason that activists will prevent this. It's too equal.
Actually, that hasn't been the case for a long time.
It is the case when you factor in costs. A basic gaming PC is ~$1000. A current gen console is ~$300.
1) Just because you keep repeating it doesn't make it true. In *your* words - "A basic gaming PC" is $469.
2) I already have a computer. It already has games that still work, from 1994 to 2016. To play newer-than-2014 games I merely need to add in a $200 video card (which I did). The difference in cost means that the PC-gaming works out much cheaper than console-gaming.
3) The biggest reason to game on PC rather than on console is, in fact, cost - it's a great deal cheaper to acquire (as we already have to have the computer anyway), the games are frequently cheaper if you're willing to wait, *AND* I can still play my entire library that I purchased.
games don't have no tunables whatsoever
When the hardware is identical, you don't need to tune. Like, just in case you happen to want worse graphics? To save power?
Well, if I decided to spend $100 less on my video card upgrade I can still play the game (tunable!). Whereas, if you decided you want to spend $100 less on your console, you have to go without the console (not tunable). The PC is tunable to my specific financial situation, which is why it's so damn cheap to game on a PC.
I do, in fact, have the consoles - but they're gathering dust as my son and I tend to game on the PCs. We spent the last 6 months playing Diablo II multiplayer on a pair of old desktops I was going to throw away - roughly 300 hours of gaming, and it cost me next to nothing AND he's still getting entertainment out of it. When he gets tired of this we'll do Starcraft I-BW
When the personal attack is based on a group-attribute, it's an attack on the whole group.
1) An actual attack on an entire group may or may not be "hate against that group" - it's fairly possible to attack an entire group without actually hating that group. For example, affirmative action laws target particular groups for exclusion and yet are not considered bigotry.
and even if point 1) above was not true (which it is)...
2) An individual attack based on characteristics particular to a certain group in no way implies hate for all members of that group. It's why we are able to called people "dickheads" without being accused of misandry. It's why we are able to call people bitches without being called "misogynists".
You'll have to squint really hard to turn what is basically "This individual is PMSing" into "hatred, dislike, or mistrust of all women". To be honest, you're well into over-sensitive territory if you read "PMS" the same as "nigger", "chink", etc...
Cool, but not that impressive. My arduino is the size of an ATMega328, with the Arduino bootloader installed on it. There's nothing extraordinary being done here. You take a ATMega328, and solder it into a PCB with the smallest components you can find and you get to be called a "Scientist"? Score!
Many of the "scientists" that are referenced by slashdot posters are merely social studies coasters, and much of the "science" consists of starting with a hypothesis and cherry-picking results for support. This is actually an improvement - at least they don't pretend it is science.
You are almost right on all of your points, but miss out on facts:
- It is correct that criticizing Meg Kelly is not in and of itself misogynistic, but asserting that her (valid) question was wrong because she was having her period is.
Sorry, no - that's not misogynistic. Regardless of the validity of a persons question, making personal attacks is simply that - a personal attack. A personal attack, almost by definition, is not an attack on the group.
Yeah, not only that... there are literally dozens of platforms willing to take over from Facebook, many of them with better privacy policies. Remember Friendster? Myspace?
The thing that matters is critical mass of users, and FB proved that the newcomer only needs perhaps 35% of the userbase of the existing platform to switch. I'm pretty certain that FB taking political sides (*any* political side) is corporate suicide, and they probably know it too.
but even IF it did take 1 hour with current 250-300 mile range the people in the car would want to stop for 1 hour during the charge to eat, go to the bathroom,
Doesn't scale. Current garage forecourt on my vacation route manages to service +2000 cars/hr. Cars fill up (5m), then owners parks it in a lot somewhere so they can have their 30m break (lunch, bathroom, whatever). I'd like to see the lot that supplies fast-charge current to 2000 cars/hr.
It's nice in theory, but it only works if a fraction of the travelers need to charge *AND* those travelers want to have a 60m break. Most travelers don't stop for more than 30m, if that.
Unfortunately, I'm married to an otherwise wonderful woman who feels entitled to text in theaters. Every time we go out, I'm forced to choose between standing on the right side of history and getting sexytimes later.
She is both inconsiderate *AND* weaponising sex - even pizza delivery guys do better than that.
Whether you like it or not, the fact that many people wish to prevent men claiming to be transgender from using women's bathrooms is in no way contending the fact that there exists a group of people who wish to ban all transgender women from using the bathroom.
And whether you like it or not the fact is a line has to be drawn some place. Saying that line is whatever your current legally recognized sex happens to be is at least more reasonable than anything else I have heard proposed.
I respectfully disagree. I proposed unisex bathrooms and I feel that *that* is more reasonable than your proposal above. If that doesn't fly, then how about this: the line should be "Does this person pass as a Male in appearance" or "Does this person pass as a Female in appearance". Having it any other way means that sooner or later you are going to ask to inspect someone's genitals; an activity which is (or should be) abhorrent for obvious reasons.
That second proposal means that safety of women in the bathroom will be, at the very least, no worse than it is now (for those who were worried about that), and that the majority will not feel uncomfortable.
There is something really strange with your reading comprehension. Is English not your primary language? FWIW, I wrote:
Many people expressed a desire to prevent men who *claimed* to be transgender women entering the women's bathrooms.
You then present this as a counter-argument:
There are people who wanted ALL transwomen banned from men's bathrooms, not just men who were claiming to be women for reasons of pervery.
Whether you like it or not, the fact that many people wish to prevent men claiming to be transgender from using women's bathrooms is in no way contending the fact that there exists a group of people who wish to ban all transgender women from using the bathroom.
So, I stand by my assertion that you are a very silly person.
What a wit you possess. Your parents must be very proud.
is being hyped up to try to make people think this is a good thing (because it protects those poor hapless ciswomens from the scary dangerous perverted transwomen they would have to share bathrooms with).
Sadly on the last thread about this there were a bunch of people who were terrified of dangerous perverted transwomen. It is unfortunately impossible to reason with someone whose brain is taken over with fear.
Nice strawman there. Many people expressed a desire to prevent men who *claimed* to be transgender women entering the women's bathrooms. Whether or not their fear is legitimate, your assertion that they are afraid of transgender women is ridiculous.
Where'd you post that in this article before the date of your post now? You didn't. I checked your post history today https://slashdot.org/~goose-in... You panicked and are now caught sockpuppeting MightyMartian after apk you out a fool https://news.slashdot.org/comm... and you do what he says trolls do using sockpuppets https://news.slashdot.org/comm... You have proven apk right about what goes on here. You're busted MightyMartian/goose incarnated (or whatever many sockpuppet names you use).
You missed the sarcasm in "And yet another one of his tricks - hijacking my account"? So, by me challenging MightMartian's assertion (basically defending APK), you feel I *am* him? Do you even read?
No the best option is really simple. Have a mandatory paternity test at each birth, which verifies if the male partner involved is really the father. If a woman has a child and KNOWINGLY claims that anyone other than the biological father is the biological father -- then this is a clear case of fraud. I'm not sure how it could be seen any other way.
Well, it's already fraud - you can file a civil suit against a women who wrongly named you as father. The only question that remains is whether or not to have mandatory testing, and I'm not sure that you will ever get support for mandatory testing.
Taking DNA samples by force (mandatory testing) is not something a healthy society should do - the more records you have on file the greater the chance of a false positive.
However, note that if the efforts by various LEAs to legalise grabbing the DNA of all arrestees comes into play, an unintended consequence would be setting precedence for the state to simply take your DNA without your consent, which could open the doors to mandatory testing.
Yes, but the GGP had it in reverse. There are not many places in the world, where the males outnumber the females 50:1, and your hint to Africa would mean the reverse, females outnumber the males.
Then after a couple more generations. Probably only one or two more, since it's exponential.
It's exponentially decreasing, not exponentially increasing. Much like the graph for capacitor discharge rate.
From your previous link the half-life of the Y chromosome works out to around 500 generations in the shortest case.
Seriously, this is not contested science. The first page of googling for 'how far back does the y chromosome trace' reveals answers in the hundreds of thousands of years. It is ridiculous for you to maintain that the y chromosome will be diluted in a few generations when a quick trip to Wikipedia says otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
But it's all getting awfully samey just with larger fight scenes.
Not just the superhero movies; most of the blockbusters. See this for the formula that all recent blockbusters have.
There is debate as to whether Starship Troopers was actual a defense of fascism, or an attempt at satire. I tend to lean towards it being a pro-fascist piece, because it doesn't seem to be very tongue in cheek at all.
Did you actually *read* Starship Troopers?
The examples where you really need special software are rare; they certainly don't include EDA or CAD.
The people I talk to online tell me KiCad is crap compared to even Eagle.
KiCad is crap. I use the Geda toolchain (note: not a single package, a *toolchain*) and that works well enough for me - has more features that I need than Eagle. It does miss one piece of functionality I would like (although, maybe that is now fixed: it's been years since I used 'em).
Not really - I almost never offer insults.
That's only true if you take a rather narrow definition of insults such as actually resorting to invective. It's perfectly possible to be insulting without such coarse means. For example the style of your post previously was clearly, though somewhat ineffectively, designed to be so, in a casually dismissive manner.
Well, what can I say - I don' believe microagressions are a thing. You obviously do, so you type abuse into your responses because, from *your* point of view you believe you've been attacked. From *my* point of view no insult has been given.
Where do I appear bothered?
The way you approach these threads, such as using "subtly" insulting language, dismissal of arguments without addressing them belies a discomfort in that you feel the need to do such things.
I never try to shout down opposing views with claims of "Idiot", "Stupid", etc. I never need to.
You do however resort to shouting down opposing views with claims of SJW which is functionally identical.
Nope. Firstly, me pointing out that the majority of the SJW posts are highly inflammatory, discriminatory and, in many cases, based on very little evidence is in no way "shouting down opposing views". Secondly, the Social Justice Warriors call themselves this - what exactly is wrong with me addressing people by the very moniker they chose for themselves? As a group, you are free to chose how you want to be addressed.
You do however appear to try to be careful with your very specific choice of words in order to weasel very specific claims while your actions are completely against the spirit of those claims. You're not fooling anyone, you know.
The danger with reading between the lines is that it's probable that you get the wrong message. My posts are almost always unambiguous. Microaggressions, almost by their very definition, are felt only by the thinnest-skinned recipients; hence, if you feel my post is an attack via microaggressions, then you are an extremely sensitive individual. IOW, you're the outlier, I'm the norm.
If other's opinions bother you so much, there's a great new site you can go to - a "safe space" - where I'm sure you won't be bothered by people "making shit up". RTFA.
You seem to have this peculiarly uniform view of the world where everyone who disagrees with you fits into a very specific category, no matter how inaccurate. I suppose that helps you deal with differing opinions, for very small values of deal, by dismissing the person rather than the argument.
Not really - I almost never offer insults. It takes an incredibly long thread of receiving insults before I offer the first one.
What's particularly funny is that when you and people like you seem to get really, REALLY bothered by other people's opinions (like on this thread)
Where do I appear bothered? I merely suggested that people who want safe-spaces can generally find them. You can see from my posting history, I never, ever try to shame people into submission. I never try to shout down opposing views with claims of "Idiot", "Stupid", etc. I never need to.
and by their actions when they're not imposing anything on you (again like this thread). I mean you could just ignore it, but given how much ACs and of course you swarm all over the thread, I'm guessing you're drawn to it like a moth to a flame.
Then people lime me swarm over it because a good internet argument is of course fun.
Great fun indeed - I await your first argument with anticipation.
PS. Have you ever considered that your "arguments" in the form of insults attracts support from only a very specific type of person? I've only ever seen the argument-by-insult by religious or political zealots. As a lifelong atheist, I've gotten used to argument-via-insult.
You should ask yourself whether you want your arguments to appear like Russel's teapot or something from the Westboro Baptist Church. While on the topic of introspection, you might do well to examine your need for derogatory and inflammatory responses - why do you feel the *need* to use shaming language - language that is designed to shut down the argument?
You can't even mention the acronym SJW without a gaggle of the crybabies coming out of the woodwork to call you a meanie it seems.
Aaah typical stuff from those who like to say "SJW", which is essentially know as "making shit up".
If other's opinions bother you so much, there's a great new site you can go to - a "safe space" - where I'm sure you won't be bothered by people "making shit up". RTFA.
Also, alll the stuff about "healthy, positive communities" sounds like codespeak for "SJW's run this place"
The only problem with that is SJW means "Someone I don't like because I'm a fuckwit".
Shaming language. Basically, "I can't win this argument, so lets nuke this conversation from orbit."
The only reason to use shaming language (insults, etc) is because you already know, in advance, that your argument has no basis in reality.
Go on - prove me right and call me names.
Why should 'civil rights' activists care that a person who got 16k/year under Welfare gets 20k under a living wage?
You answered your own question in your previous post - they will care that someone who is not a member of their favourite protected group is getting money, not that their protected group is getting money.
Seriously, UBI would mean that single white men would get the same benefits as unmarried black mothers. This is the reason that activists will prevent this. It's too equal.
Actually, that hasn't been the case for a long time.
It is the case when you factor in costs. A basic gaming PC is ~$1000. A current gen console is ~$300.
1) Just because you keep repeating it doesn't make it true. In *your* words - "A basic gaming PC" is $469.
2) I already have a computer. It already has games that still work, from 1994 to 2016. To play newer-than-2014 games I merely need to add in a $200 video card (which I did). The difference in cost means that the PC-gaming works out much cheaper than console-gaming.
3) The biggest reason to game on PC rather than on console is, in fact, cost - it's a great deal cheaper to acquire (as we already have to have the computer anyway), the games are frequently cheaper if you're willing to wait, *AND* I can still play my entire library that I purchased.
games don't have no tunables whatsoever
When the hardware is identical, you don't need to tune. Like, just in case you happen to want worse graphics? To save power?
Well, if I decided to spend $100 less on my video card upgrade I can still play the game (tunable!). Whereas, if you decided you want to spend $100 less on your console, you have to go without the console (not tunable). The PC is tunable to my specific financial situation, which is why it's so damn cheap to game on a PC.
I do, in fact, have the consoles - but they're gathering dust as my son and I tend to game on the PCs. We spent the last 6 months playing Diablo II multiplayer on a pair of old desktops I was going to throw away - roughly 300 hours of gaming, and it cost me next to nothing AND he's still getting entertainment out of it. When he gets tired of this we'll do Starcraft I-BW
When the personal attack is based on a group-attribute, it's an attack on the whole group.
1) An actual attack on an entire group may or may not be "hate against that group" - it's fairly possible to attack an entire group without actually hating that group. For example, affirmative action laws target particular groups for exclusion and yet are not considered bigotry.
and even if point 1) above was not true (which it is)...
2) An individual attack based on characteristics particular to a certain group in no way implies hate for all members of that group. It's why we are able to called people "dickheads" without being accused of misandry. It's why we are able to call people bitches without being called "misogynists".
Which leads me on to point....
3) Misogyny: 1. hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women, or prejudice against women.
You'll have to squint really hard to turn what is basically "This individual is PMSing" into "hatred, dislike, or mistrust of all women". To be honest, you're well into over-sensitive territory if you read "PMS" the same as "nigger", "chink", etc...
Cool, but not that impressive. My arduino is the size of an ATMega328, with the Arduino bootloader installed on it. There's nothing extraordinary being done here. You take a ATMega328, and solder it into a PCB with the smallest components you can find and you get to be called a "Scientist"? Score!
Many of the "scientists" that are referenced by slashdot posters are merely social studies coasters, and much of the "science" consists of starting with a hypothesis and cherry-picking results for support. This is actually an improvement - at least they don't pretend it is science.
You are almost right on all of your points, but miss out on facts: - It is correct that criticizing Meg Kelly is not in and of itself misogynistic, but asserting that her (valid) question was wrong because she was having her period is.
Sorry, no - that's not misogynistic. Regardless of the validity of a persons question, making personal attacks is simply that - a personal attack. A personal attack, almost by definition, is not an attack on the group.
Yeah, not only that... there are literally dozens of platforms willing to take over from Facebook, many of them with better privacy policies. Remember Friendster? Myspace?
The thing that matters is critical mass of users, and FB proved that the newcomer only needs perhaps 35% of the userbase of the existing platform to switch. I'm pretty certain that FB taking political sides (*any* political side) is corporate suicide, and they probably know it too.
How should a court of law test whether or not a follower actually believes?
The same way *you* determine whether or not someone was actually offended/triggered.
(Yeah, when you go down the subjective-reality rabbit hole, it's turtles all the way down)
but even IF it did take 1 hour with current 250-300 mile range the people in the car would want to stop for 1 hour during the charge to eat, go to the bathroom,
Doesn't scale. Current garage forecourt on my vacation route manages to service +2000 cars/hr. Cars fill up (5m), then owners parks it in a lot somewhere so they can have their 30m break (lunch, bathroom, whatever). I'd like to see the lot that supplies fast-charge current to 2000 cars/hr.
It's nice in theory, but it only works if a fraction of the travelers need to charge *AND* those travelers want to have a 60m break. Most travelers don't stop for more than 30m, if that.
Unfortunately, I'm married to an otherwise wonderful woman who feels entitled to text in theaters. Every time we go out, I'm forced to choose between standing on the right side of history and getting sexytimes later.
She is both inconsiderate *AND* weaponising sex - even pizza delivery guys do better than that.
Something for both you and the poster above you: The last psychiatrist
Whether you like it or not, the fact that many people wish to prevent men claiming to be transgender from using women's bathrooms is in no way contending the fact that there exists a group of people who wish to ban all transgender women from using the bathroom.
And whether you like it or not the fact is a line has to be drawn some place. Saying that line is whatever your current legally recognized sex happens to be is at least more reasonable than anything else I have heard proposed.
I respectfully disagree. I proposed unisex bathrooms and I feel that *that* is more reasonable than your proposal above. If that doesn't fly, then how about this: the line should be "Does this person pass as a Male in appearance" or "Does this person pass as a Female in appearance". Having it any other way means that sooner or later you are going to ask to inspect someone's genitals; an activity which is (or should be) abhorrent for obvious reasons.
That second proposal means that safety of women in the bathroom will be, at the very least, no worse than it is now (for those who were worried about that), and that the majority will not feel uncomfortable.
Many people expressed a desire to prevent men who *claimed* to be transgender women entering the women's bathrooms.
You then present this as a counter-argument:
There are people who wanted ALL transwomen banned from men's bathrooms, not just men who were claiming to be women for reasons of pervery.
Whether you like it or not, the fact that many people wish to prevent men claiming to be transgender from using women's bathrooms is in no way contending the fact that there exists a group of people who wish to ban all transgender women from using the bathroom.
So, I stand by my assertion that you are a very silly person.
What a wit you possess. Your parents must be very proud.
is being hyped up to try to make people think this is a good thing (because it protects those poor hapless ciswomens from the scary dangerous perverted transwomen they would have to share bathrooms with).
Sadly on the last thread about this there were a bunch of people who were terrified of dangerous perverted transwomen. It is unfortunately impossible to reason with someone whose brain is taken over with fear.
Nice strawman there. Many people expressed a desire to prevent men who *claimed* to be transgender women entering the women's bathrooms. Whether or not their fear is legitimate, your assertion that they are afraid of transgender women is ridiculous.
Where'd you post that in this article before the date of your post now? You didn't. I checked your post history today https://slashdot.org/~goose-in... You panicked and are now caught sockpuppeting MightyMartian after apk you out a fool https://news.slashdot.org/comm... and you do what he says trolls do using sockpuppets https://news.slashdot.org/comm... You have proven apk right about what goes on here. You're busted MightyMartian/goose incarnated (or whatever many sockpuppet names you use).
You missed the sarcasm in "And yet another one of his tricks - hijacking my account"? So, by me challenging MightMartian's assertion (basically defending APK), you feel I *am* him? Do you even read?
And APK's other trick, to pose as his own defender. Do you think we're all idiots?
And yet another of his tricks - hijacking my account to post this:
When has APK's posts ever been removed from slashdot?
No the best option is really simple. Have a mandatory paternity test at each birth, which verifies if the male partner involved is really the father. If a woman has a child and KNOWINGLY claims that anyone other than the biological father is the biological father -- then this is a clear case of fraud. I'm not sure how it could be seen any other way.
Well, it's already fraud - you can file a civil suit against a women who wrongly named you as father. The only question that remains is whether or not to have mandatory testing, and I'm not sure that you will ever get support for mandatory testing.
Taking DNA samples by force (mandatory testing) is not something a healthy society should do - the more records you have on file the greater the chance of a false positive.
However, note that if the efforts by various LEAs to legalise grabbing the DNA of all arrestees comes into play, an unintended consequence would be setting precedence for the state to simply take your DNA without your consent, which could open the doors to mandatory testing.
Yes, but the GGP had it in reverse. There are not many places in the world, where the males outnumber the females 50:1, and your hint to Africa would mean the reverse, females outnumber the males.
True - good catch :-)
Then after a couple more generations. Probably only one or two more, since it's exponential.
It's exponentially decreasing, not exponentially increasing. Much like the graph for capacitor discharge rate. From your previous link the half-life of the Y chromosome works out to around 500 generations in the shortest case.
Seriously, this is not contested science. The first page of googling for 'how far back does the y chromosome trace' reveals answers in the hundreds of thousands of years. It is ridiculous for you to maintain that the y chromosome will be diluted in a few generations when a quick trip to Wikipedia says otherwise.