I have no idea why you think that asking someone for sources is tantamount to calling that person an idiot. I almost never have the desire to call anyone an idiot; if the individual in question is truly an idiot, s/he is likely more deserving of our sympathy than our scorn. And, if not, then s/he is unlikely to respond to insults in a manner that moves a conversation forward (and understandably so; insults, while occasionally satisfying, are virtually never useful). I can't speak for anyone else here, but if I'm not interested in moving a conversation in a productive direction, I don't see the point in bothering with it at all.
"As though a part of your brain was uncomfortable with the possibility that high-performing women in the sciences, when compared to male peers with similar lifestyles, outperform those male peers."
It's as though part of your brain is uncomfortable with the possibility that high-performing men in the sciences, when compared to female peers with similar lifestyles, outperform those female peers.
Cute. Nice try, but you're ignoring the fact that I also said this: "By the way, I'm not affirmatively positing that you're incorrect." Guess what, friend: I'm MORE than able to accept the possibility that men outperform women, because that is the "reality" that has been thrown in my face every time I have tried to succeed at anything in my life. Any time I've been any good at anything, there has always been SOMEONE (not usually the same person from context to context) who will say, at some point, whether he means it as a "joke" or is ACTUALLY that sexist, that my accomplishments are "good for a girl." I cannot count the number of times, in fact, that I have been flat-out told I cannot do something simply because I am a woman. No matter how many times I beat the pants off of every man I know at something, my accomplishments are still dismissed or marginalized just because I'm a woman.
And no, I'm not asking for advice, and I'm not asking you to tell me to "prove them wrong," as though being ACTUALLY BETTER would be enough to convince these people that my vagina were anything other than an impediment. I'm beyond that. That's a meaningless discussion. I get how the world works, I know I have to prove myself to earn respect, and I've learned that I have to prove myself MORE than a guy would to get the same amount of respect. I'm not whining about it. It is what it is, and I've learned to live within that reality, much as I hope to change it for any daughters I may someday have (which has NOTHING, by the way, to do with the fact that I would ALSO want any sons I have to succeed every bit as much -- wanting women to succeed doesn't translate into wanting men to fail, another flawed assumption many make in these types of "discussions"). My point, rather, is that I don't need to work on being able to accept the possibility that men could be better than women at something, because it's proving that they aren't ALWAYS better than me that has had to be a focus of my energy (and yes, I DO have to focus some energy on it, not because I'm "choosing" to be offended or whatever dismissive term you want to throw out as though you have a clue what I'm talking about, but rather because we are talking about a pretty important piece of my identity that is used as a weapon against me every time this topic comes up. Bottom line: I either use the energy to fight internalizing these views, or I run the risk of injuring my own subconscious sense of self such that I hurt my own performance). I accept that men can be better than women, because I've never been allowed to think anything else. What's revolutionary is realizing that sometimes, just sometimes maybe , every once in a while a handful of women MIGHT be better than them. Maybe. If we're sure to prove it with fifteen thousand tests accounting for every possible variable and not a single author involved in the study has ever said anything remotely feminist ever, because we all know the feminists are really just trying to make men look bad because they all secretly hate men. MAYBE . Oh, and if they're not overly strident about it, and are sure to at least mention the possibility that it's because the men were socially castrated first so they weren't really performing at full capacity so it's not a real test anyway.
And don't pretend at me that hearing "you go girl" and "grrrrrl power" bullshit has somehow magically eradicated sexism, because if you actually think that, quite frankly, you're not sufficiently enmeshed in high enough echelons of society that this discussion is even remotely relevant to you.
It has also been found that Women who don't follow that biological plan typically do better than men it is just much more rare.
Well perhaps that is because the women in that particular group have an above average career drive, and are being compared to all men, not just those who share the same drive.
Asking for a source and/or clarification would have been a valid and valuable response to the comment you quoted, but rather than do that, you chose to substitute your own hypothetical explanation. As though a part of your brain was uncomfortable with the possibility that high-performing women in the sciences, when compared to male peers with similar lifestyles, outperform those male peers. I feel like there's a term that describes this phenomenon...
By the way, I'm not affirmatively positing that you're incorrect; I'm merely pointing out what you did. Unless you have a source for the basis of your suggested interpretation (I'd think you'd have cited it if you did, seeing as how you're using it to rebut something another commenter said), you're letting your assumptions and biases cloud your openness to new facts. It's very human, by the way, and something we all do. I just thought it was important to point out that people who dispute articles and studies tending to confirm the effects of sexism are every bit as guilty of selective reasoning as are people who try to demonstrate the existence of sexism -- in part to combat the wave of associational fallacies that tend to pop up in comments to articles like this one.
I guess to break it to you, in some ways (sexual drive/interests), men NEVER grow completely up. Fact of life
I find it sad that you have such a low opinion of men. I don't view men as children, and people who actually respect men should be offended that apparently many gaming companies do.
I didn't realize being a straight man meant you were attracted to every single woman of age X.
Seriously, dude, stop the sexuality policing. It's demeaning to everyone here and borderline homophobic.
There are plenty of men who ALREADY complain about even the slightest inclusion of something considered woman-friendly in games. Frankly, I'm unable to imagine a world in which women as the majority of gamers are having our preferences dictate ANYTHING, simply because men complain so quickly and loudly the instant they fear something they consider "theirs" may be finally changing to recognize that they haven't owned it for a long time, if ever.
It isn't about being heterosexual (as though this is some kind of marker of pride) or liking women's bodies. The problem with the booth babe phenomenon has nothing to do with whether or not people enjoy looking at women's bodies, and I think you know that and are simply trying to derail the discussion so you don't have to address the REAL issue, namely: is it really professionally appropriate to use barely-dressed women as objects of advertisement at a trade show for a product consumed by a diverse user base?
It's not about whether anyone "likes" it. Don't worry, boys; no one is questioning your sexuality. It's about what a professional environment is in 2013. You can't seriously suggest that straight men are so blinded by their sexual desires that they are unable to function in a professional environment without having scantily-clad women hawking products to them. I know many straight men who understand that there's a time and a place for everything. Maybe the critical distinction is that I only spend my time around people who are adults, though - which sadly isn't directly tied to age.
And men like you need to stop being afraid of discussion.
If you think that asking people to consider whether having women's bodies presented as window dressing to sell objects is perhaps not the most equality-minded message to be sending - somehow equates to prudishness or "fear" of bodies, then you're either being willfully ignorant to stave off cognitive dissonance, or you're too unsophisticated to have anything meaningful to contribute to the discussion and should come back and try again only after a few basic philosophy and psychology classes.
Without more specific context for any given scenario, making failure to answer a question a crime in and of itself could potentially face resistance from the First Amendment even in the absence of the Fifth Amendment -- although certainly your scenario is not far-fetched (the First Amendment doesn't make obstruction of justice unconstitutional, for instance, and obstruction charges may in some circumstances be brought against uncooperative witnesses). But, regardless, I couldn't agree more that the Fifth Amendment is incredibly important, whether it protects you only from the fabrication of evidence against you or from the eventual creation of a whole new category of "crime."
without the 5th amendment to eventually lean upon, there would be no need for rights to a lawyer, or Miranda warnings. The fifth ammendment is the reason that you dont have to immediately speak to the police. Without it, any delay in accurately responding to any question would be a crime.
Not a crime itself, but evidence of a crime, which might be even worse if it's a bad enough crime they're investigating.
And yes, he's an asshole for trying to do it -- "smug, ivory tower fuckwhit" is spot on, because only someone as incepid and stupidly naive as to believe that only the criminals lie or make mistakes would try this line of thinking.
I think that perhaps what I found most offensive about his ponderous, overblown ranting was his pooh-poohing of anything that benefits the innocent and the guilty equally -- as though the fact that "guilty" people might incidentally benefit from something invalidates it, no matter how critical it might be to protecting the innocent. I suppose he must not be a fan of Franklin's oft-cited view that it's better to let 100 guilty go free than to imprison a single innocent (I cite Franklin rather than the original Blackstone as Franklin increased the guilty number by an order of magnitude, suggesting that in America the principle is held even more strongly -- or ought to be).
Oh you just scored a SUPERFAIL. How DARE you suggest that someone with actual legal training and experience might have a little bit of an inkling what they're talking about and that Bennett's arrogant dismissal of every last one of them, as though no Constitutional scholar has ever been as clever and thoughtful as he, a non-lawyer without legal training, might be enough to put someone with such training off of the idea of wanting to put their valuable time and energy into explaining it to him. Again, how DARE you, sir.
"I don't believe that's any of your business, officer."
"Okay, you're under arrest for obstruction of justice."
Who needs a warrant to search your home when they have the right to ask you to identify everything inside it? And the second you give a sufficiently unsatisfactory answer ("he seemed nervous, which I found suspicious"), boom, probable cause, no warrant necessary. That's how it's tied together.
I don't have much to say except that you and I voted for the exact same candidates in the last four elections presidential elections. I'm most ashamed of my 2004 vote, but not terribly happy with any of them (for very different reasons for each). Anyway, cheers:)
Speaking as someone with a phobia of flying, your reaction could not be more different from mine... First April Fools' prank that has actually made me sigh with relief upon looking at the calendar:-P
That statement needs to be true before it's effective. Pirated content provides a better experience.
Very much depends on the content in question. For example: I just got an Apple TV. Cost 100 bucks. It directly links up with my computer, my iTunes account, my Netflix account, and my Hulu Plus account. The last of those (Hulu Plus) is the most obnoxious to use, and for that reason, it's the last one I go to. I like to think that as content delivery continues to evolves, HP will either improve its delivery mechanism or be crowded out by other providers. As for iTunes and Netflix, my experience is pretty much uniformly fantastic, convenient, and fast. I do a one-time setup for my accounts and have instant, easy streaming access. I have access to vast libraries of content, whether things I've purchased on iTunes or things available on Netflix. It's incredible. I just turn on the TV, fire up my remote (which, by the way, is my PHONE thanks to Apple's incredible platform integration), and tell my Apple TV what I want to watch today. Boom, easy, that simple.
For the small subset of things not available through iTunes or Netflix, though (or HP, which is, again, my last resort), if I go to the effort of trying to find it online or downloading a -ahem- less-than-legitimate copy, my experience is considerably lesser. First I have to fire up a program to search for the file. Then I download what I hope will actually be the file I'm looking for. Then I have to make sure it's a good copy and that it's actually what it claims to be. If it's not, there's twenty minutes wasted and I start over again looking for another download. Repeat until I find a good one. Then I hook up my computer to the TV, turn off any programs that might interrupt the show, fire up the viewing program (which requires using my laptop trackpad and keyboard rather than a few quick thumb movements on my phone), make sure the screen is properly maximized and my mouse cursor isn't sitting somewhere that will interfere with the viewing, and then I *finally* watch the show, which, absolute best-case scenario, will be of a quality equal to that from the primary content delivery mechanism. Takes much longer, requires an investment of more time and bother on my part, is less reliable, AND now I'm also using up space on my hard drive instead of being able to stream (and download to my computer or a mobile device, on demand, if and when I ever want to). Apple's relaxed DRM policy is perfectly fine with me, and low-level DRM is something I'm perfectly willing to put up with for a superior experience (up to five computers can be authorized on my account, with unlimited numbers of mobile devices that can sync with any of those computers -- not at all unreasonable for legitimate personal use, frankly). Seems to me Apple has found a pretty solid delivery scheme that's both above-board from a legal perspective and provides an overall better experience for me, the user. I just wish everyone would get on board with either offering timely on-demand content through a direct-subscription service like Netflix (or even HP, which, even coming in as the worst of the "legit" non-cable, non-satellite content-delivery services, is STILL more convenient than pirating -- even though the commercials are annoying, it requires less effort from me to ignore HP's commercials than it does to futz around for half an hour to snag free unauthorized content) or next-day availability on iTunes. HBO's "wait a year and then you can buy it" option for non-cable subscribers makes me a sad Panda.
Yes, but the one invariant is that copyright harms everyone else, with no help to be found.
Everyone "else"? Other than whom? Copyright law has excesses and abuses, of course, but copyright in the abstract is intended to encourage creation and innovation by granting certain rights to creators and innovators (thereby ensuring some form of compensation for their creation and innovation such that, in the better cases, the time they spend creating and innovating won't have to by necessity be spent earning a living through some other means less suited to their unique talents). So, at its best, copyright should, far from harming everyone, help everyone -- it helps creators and innovators through the aforementioned grant of rights and creation of incentives, and it helps everyone else by incentivizing the creation and innovation that we all enjoy/consume/experience betterment from/etc.
If your comments are strictly limited to "copyright" as in, copyright law in the United States as of 2013, then I'll grant that there is an argument to be made that it does more harm than good. But even then, it's unreasonable to say that it only harms everyone but, presumably, a select subset of content owners. Even though copyright law is quite broken, it still arguably incentivizes some creation, and some subset of things created are of sufficient use that their existence justifies their protection. Again, I'm not making an empirical (or, really, hypothetical, since we don't know what the alternative universe looks like) argument about whether on balance the current copyright regime does more harm than good, but at a minimum, your comment is vastly overinclusive to the extent it purports to deny any good whatsoever. At least, that's a more detailed and thoughtful argument that you haven't made here with your brief comment.
It's responsible for the repeated attempts at crippling the internet,
Erm, no. Copyright isn't responsible for the attempts to cripple the internet. You have good old-fashioned monopolistic practices like corporate acquisition and industry integration, with a heaping does of regulatory capture and anti-competitive lobbying at the government level, to thank for that. You don't even need a copyright when you have a sufficient concentration of wealth and power in a few hands. The reason most of us don't have FiOS, for instance, has absolutely zero to do with copyright. Copyright is an excuse many companies use for draconian power plays, but if they couldn't point to piracy, rest assured they'd point to something else. The major telecomms have had a lot of luck slowly crippling our regulatory infrastructure (and, otherwise, structuring regulations in a way that keeps out competitors) in such a way that they can control our ability to use the internet. But if you think copyright is anything more than a pawn in this overarching scheme, I respectfully suggest you stop wondering what type of bark that is on the tree over there and instead start thinking about what kind of forest the tree is growing in.
gives us fundamentally broken technologies like DRM,
DRM would exist even if copyright law were more reasonable, and most likely even if copyright law didn't exist at all. Indeed, if there were no copyright law, DRM might well be the only thing that would enable content creators to make a profit (and thereby have any reason to create the content in question). If there were no copyright law, the only way that DRM would not exist would be if the government for some reason passed a law against it, and the only reason I could think it would do that would be if the government itself was going to assert ownership over all content. I don't think either of us thinks that would be a good thing.
We really need to reconsider our copyright policies. This world can't afford to be held back just because America chooses to sell itself out to moneyed int
So what? What does that even mean? By many definitions, I'm a "successful woman." What does that have to do with what I said? You don't think successful people are plagued by self-doubt for any number of legitimately human reasons? Have you never heard of things like imposter syndrome? How does the fact that you know a number of women whom you deem "successful" have anything to do with my point that cultural expectations shape self-perception?
So if any person (man or woman) can't get the respect they think they deserve they need to do something to get it instead of using their victim roles as an excuse to (passive aggresive, anyone?) spread the poison to others.
Oh, man. You should like, become a motivational speaker or something, man. Secrets of the universe right here. Good stuff. Do you also run a suicide prevention hotline where you tell people not to kill themselves?
And as for passive aggression, there's little that's more passive-aggressive than quietly resenting (and coming to the internet to complain about) people who come out and ask for what they want (such as, for instance, affirmation).
Never claimed to. And I can do you one better, even: technically, I don't even know that you are a you at all, or that time and consciousness are anything more than illusions. So - did you have an actual point, or are we just throwing out random factoids for shits and giggles? I've never met Stephen Hawking, although I have met Shaquille O'Neal. Cherries are my favorite fruit. Cows have four stomachs. French is a Latin language. Wheee!
You wouldn't say "Genteel Emotions" if you ever had a rolling pin thrown at you. Women ARE diverse individuals--just don't do anything to piss'em off if you know what's good for you.
I get pissed off all the time. I WISH I were scary pissed off, because then I occasionally might get half of the respect I've seen my male peers get when they get pissed off, instead of people laughing at me or telling me I'm "beautiful" when I'm angry. Thank FSM I'm not short, or I'd likely have people comparing me to chihuahuas (a comparison I've heard made of several of my female attorney colleagues who committed no greater sin than being competent, brilliant, successful, and petite women). Even the way your comment is phrased makes it clear that you view women's emotions as a joke. Did it ever occur to you that your wife might be a thoughtful person whose emotions merit actual consideration, rather than someone to tease into a state of irritation, and then mock for being irritated?
25 years of experience tells me the reason Wives outlive the Husbands on average is because Hubby gave his Honest Opinion once too often.
Given that your comments suggest a total lack of respect for your wife (and/or women or wives in general), I can see why you'd be wary about giving her your honest opinion. However, your honest opinion is more likely to contribute to depression on her side than, um, murder (jesus christ, buddy), and depression is correlated with lower lifespan. So, to the contrary, more likely than not women's lifespan would be lengthened (or, rather, not shortened) if men like you refrain from admitting to their wives how very little they truly think of them.
You might need constant affirmation, too, if you'd spent your entire life being disregarded, written off, disrespected, ignored, insulted, controlled, and looked down on simply for being alternatively too pretty or not pretty enough, without regard for anything else you may or may not have to offer the world.
An iPhone would be a tempting replacement for any man thoughtless enough to think this was a remotely fair way to treat his wife. Joking aside, this shit is pretty fucking callous. But maybe no one cares. Maybe we as human beings really have become so self-centered and bitter that the idea of paying attention to another person and caring about their needs and insecurities is an actual joke to most. If that's the case, hopefully that asteroid WILL hit us, because that's just no fucking way to live.
Slashdot Mirror
I have no idea why you think that asking someone for sources is tantamount to calling that person an idiot. I almost never have the desire to call anyone an idiot; if the individual in question is truly an idiot, s/he is likely more deserving of our sympathy than our scorn. And, if not, then s/he is unlikely to respond to insults in a manner that moves a conversation forward (and understandably so; insults, while occasionally satisfying, are virtually never useful). I can't speak for anyone else here, but if I'm not interested in moving a conversation in a productive direction, I don't see the point in bothering with it at all.
"As though a part of your brain was uncomfortable with the possibility that high-performing women in the sciences, when compared to male peers with similar lifestyles, outperform those male peers." It's as though part of your brain is uncomfortable with the possibility that high-performing men in the sciences, when compared to female peers with similar lifestyles, outperform those female peers.
Cute. Nice try, but you're ignoring the fact that I also said this: "By the way, I'm not affirmatively positing that you're incorrect." Guess what, friend: I'm MORE than able to accept the possibility that men outperform women, because that is the "reality" that has been thrown in my face every time I have tried to succeed at anything in my life. Any time I've been any good at anything, there has always been SOMEONE (not usually the same person from context to context) who will say, at some point, whether he means it as a "joke" or is ACTUALLY that sexist, that my accomplishments are "good for a girl." I cannot count the number of times, in fact, that I have been flat-out told I cannot do something simply because I am a woman. No matter how many times I beat the pants off of every man I know at something, my accomplishments are still dismissed or marginalized just because I'm a woman.
And no, I'm not asking for advice, and I'm not asking you to tell me to "prove them wrong," as though being ACTUALLY BETTER would be enough to convince these people that my vagina were anything other than an impediment. I'm beyond that. That's a meaningless discussion. I get how the world works, I know I have to prove myself to earn respect, and I've learned that I have to prove myself MORE than a guy would to get the same amount of respect. I'm not whining about it. It is what it is, and I've learned to live within that reality, much as I hope to change it for any daughters I may someday have (which has NOTHING, by the way, to do with the fact that I would ALSO want any sons I have to succeed every bit as much -- wanting women to succeed doesn't translate into wanting men to fail, another flawed assumption many make in these types of "discussions"). My point, rather, is that I don't need to work on being able to accept the possibility that men could be better than women at something, because it's proving that they aren't ALWAYS better than me that has had to be a focus of my energy (and yes, I DO have to focus some energy on it, not because I'm "choosing" to be offended or whatever dismissive term you want to throw out as though you have a clue what I'm talking about, but rather because we are talking about a pretty important piece of my identity that is used as a weapon against me every time this topic comes up. Bottom line: I either use the energy to fight internalizing these views, or I run the risk of injuring my own subconscious sense of self such that I hurt my own performance). I accept that men can be better than women, because I've never been allowed to think anything else. What's revolutionary is realizing that sometimes, just sometimes maybe , every once in a while a handful of women MIGHT be better than them. Maybe. If we're sure to prove it with fifteen thousand tests accounting for every possible variable and not a single author involved in the study has ever said anything remotely feminist ever, because we all know the feminists are really just trying to make men look bad because they all secretly hate men. MAYBE . Oh, and if they're not overly strident about it, and are sure to at least mention the possibility that it's because the men were socially castrated first so they weren't really performing at full capacity so it's not a real test anyway.
And don't pretend at me that hearing "you go girl" and "grrrrrl power" bullshit has somehow magically eradicated sexism, because if you actually think that, quite frankly, you're not sufficiently enmeshed in high enough echelons of society that this discussion is even remotely relevant to you.
It has also been found that Women who don't follow that biological plan typically do better than men it is just much more rare.
Well perhaps that is because the women in that particular group have an above average career drive, and are being compared to all men, not just those who share the same drive.
Asking for a source and/or clarification would have been a valid and valuable response to the comment you quoted, but rather than do that, you chose to substitute your own hypothetical explanation. As though a part of your brain was uncomfortable with the possibility that high-performing women in the sciences, when compared to male peers with similar lifestyles, outperform those male peers. I feel like there's a term that describes this phenomenon...
By the way, I'm not affirmatively positing that you're incorrect; I'm merely pointing out what you did. Unless you have a source for the basis of your suggested interpretation (I'd think you'd have cited it if you did, seeing as how you're using it to rebut something another commenter said), you're letting your assumptions and biases cloud your openness to new facts. It's very human, by the way, and something we all do. I just thought it was important to point out that people who dispute articles and studies tending to confirm the effects of sexism are every bit as guilty of selective reasoning as are people who try to demonstrate the existence of sexism -- in part to combat the wave of associational fallacies that tend to pop up in comments to articles like this one.
I guess to break it to you, in some ways (sexual drive/interests), men NEVER grow completely up. Fact of life
I find it sad that you have such a low opinion of men. I don't view men as children, and people who actually respect men should be offended that apparently many gaming companies do.
I didn't realize being a straight man meant you were attracted to every single woman of age X. Seriously, dude, stop the sexuality policing. It's demeaning to everyone here and borderline homophobic.
There are plenty of men who ALREADY complain about even the slightest inclusion of something considered woman-friendly in games. Frankly, I'm unable to imagine a world in which women as the majority of gamers are having our preferences dictate ANYTHING, simply because men complain so quickly and loudly the instant they fear something they consider "theirs" may be finally changing to recognize that they haven't owned it for a long time, if ever. It isn't about being heterosexual (as though this is some kind of marker of pride) or liking women's bodies. The problem with the booth babe phenomenon has nothing to do with whether or not people enjoy looking at women's bodies, and I think you know that and are simply trying to derail the discussion so you don't have to address the REAL issue, namely: is it really professionally appropriate to use barely-dressed women as objects of advertisement at a trade show for a product consumed by a diverse user base? It's not about whether anyone "likes" it. Don't worry, boys; no one is questioning your sexuality. It's about what a professional environment is in 2013. You can't seriously suggest that straight men are so blinded by their sexual desires that they are unable to function in a professional environment without having scantily-clad women hawking products to them. I know many straight men who understand that there's a time and a place for everything. Maybe the critical distinction is that I only spend my time around people who are adults, though - which sadly isn't directly tied to age.
And men like you need to stop being afraid of discussion. If you think that asking people to consider whether having women's bodies presented as window dressing to sell objects is perhaps not the most equality-minded message to be sending - somehow equates to prudishness or "fear" of bodies, then you're either being willfully ignorant to stave off cognitive dissonance, or you're too unsophisticated to have anything meaningful to contribute to the discussion and should come back and try again only after a few basic philosophy and psychology classes.
Without more specific context for any given scenario, making failure to answer a question a crime in and of itself could potentially face resistance from the First Amendment even in the absence of the Fifth Amendment -- although certainly your scenario is not far-fetched (the First Amendment doesn't make obstruction of justice unconstitutional, for instance, and obstruction charges may in some circumstances be brought against uncooperative witnesses). But, regardless, I couldn't agree more that the Fifth Amendment is incredibly important, whether it protects you only from the fabrication of evidence against you or from the eventual creation of a whole new category of "crime."
without the 5th amendment to eventually lean upon, there would be no need for rights to a lawyer, or Miranda warnings. The fifth ammendment is the reason that you dont have to immediately speak to the police. Without it, any delay in accurately responding to any question would be a crime.
Not a crime itself, but evidence of a crime, which might be even worse if it's a bad enough crime they're investigating.
And yes, he's an asshole for trying to do it -- "smug, ivory tower fuckwhit" is spot on, because only someone as incepid and stupidly naive as to believe that only the criminals lie or make mistakes would try this line of thinking.
I think that perhaps what I found most offensive about his ponderous, overblown ranting was his pooh-poohing of anything that benefits the innocent and the guilty equally -- as though the fact that "guilty" people might incidentally benefit from something invalidates it, no matter how critical it might be to protecting the innocent. I suppose he must not be a fan of Franklin's oft-cited view that it's better to let 100 guilty go free than to imprison a single innocent (I cite Franklin rather than the original Blackstone as Franklin increased the guilty number by an order of magnitude, suggesting that in America the principle is held even more strongly -- or ought to be).
Oh you just scored a SUPERFAIL. How DARE you suggest that someone with actual legal training and experience might have a little bit of an inkling what they're talking about and that Bennett's arrogant dismissal of every last one of them, as though no Constitutional scholar has ever been as clever and thoughtful as he, a non-lawyer without legal training, might be enough to put someone with such training off of the idea of wanting to put their valuable time and energy into explaining it to him. Again, how DARE you, sir.
"Sir, what do you have in your home?"
"I don't believe that's any of your business, officer."
"Okay, you're under arrest for obstruction of justice."
Who needs a warrant to search your home when they have the right to ask you to identify everything inside it? And the second you give a sufficiently unsatisfactory answer ("he seemed nervous, which I found suspicious"), boom, probable cause, no warrant necessary. That's how it's tied together.
You guys! It's funny because all women need to know their place and shut up AMIRITE!
I don't have much to say except that you and I voted for the exact same candidates in the last four elections presidential elections. I'm most ashamed of my 2004 vote, but not terribly happy with any of them (for very different reasons for each). Anyway, cheers :)
Speaking as someone with a phobia of flying, your reaction could not be more different from mine... First April Fools' prank that has actually made me sigh with relief upon looking at the calendar :-P
Yeah, but nobody whines like a newborn puppy when the teacher doesn't show up.
You must have attended a school with far fewer nerds than mine. Or perhaps just a much less expensive one.
That statement needs to be true before it's effective. Pirated content provides a better experience.
Very much depends on the content in question. For example: I just got an Apple TV. Cost 100 bucks. It directly links up with my computer, my iTunes account, my Netflix account, and my Hulu Plus account. The last of those (Hulu Plus) is the most obnoxious to use, and for that reason, it's the last one I go to. I like to think that as content delivery continues to evolves, HP will either improve its delivery mechanism or be crowded out by other providers. As for iTunes and Netflix, my experience is pretty much uniformly fantastic, convenient, and fast. I do a one-time setup for my accounts and have instant, easy streaming access. I have access to vast libraries of content, whether things I've purchased on iTunes or things available on Netflix. It's incredible. I just turn on the TV, fire up my remote (which, by the way, is my PHONE thanks to Apple's incredible platform integration), and tell my Apple TV what I want to watch today. Boom, easy, that simple.
For the small subset of things not available through iTunes or Netflix, though (or HP, which is, again, my last resort), if I go to the effort of trying to find it online or downloading a -ahem- less-than-legitimate copy, my experience is considerably lesser. First I have to fire up a program to search for the file. Then I download what I hope will actually be the file I'm looking for. Then I have to make sure it's a good copy and that it's actually what it claims to be. If it's not, there's twenty minutes wasted and I start over again looking for another download. Repeat until I find a good one. Then I hook up my computer to the TV, turn off any programs that might interrupt the show, fire up the viewing program (which requires using my laptop trackpad and keyboard rather than a few quick thumb movements on my phone), make sure the screen is properly maximized and my mouse cursor isn't sitting somewhere that will interfere with the viewing, and then I *finally* watch the show, which, absolute best-case scenario, will be of a quality equal to that from the primary content delivery mechanism. Takes much longer, requires an investment of more time and bother on my part, is less reliable, AND now I'm also using up space on my hard drive instead of being able to stream (and download to my computer or a mobile device, on demand, if and when I ever want to). Apple's relaxed DRM policy is perfectly fine with me, and low-level DRM is something I'm perfectly willing to put up with for a superior experience (up to five computers can be authorized on my account, with unlimited numbers of mobile devices that can sync with any of those computers -- not at all unreasonable for legitimate personal use, frankly). Seems to me Apple has found a pretty solid delivery scheme that's both above-board from a legal perspective and provides an overall better experience for me, the user. I just wish everyone would get on board with either offering timely on-demand content through a direct-subscription service like Netflix (or even HP, which, even coming in as the worst of the "legit" non-cable, non-satellite content-delivery services, is STILL more convenient than pirating -- even though the commercials are annoying, it requires less effort from me to ignore HP's commercials than it does to futz around for half an hour to snag free unauthorized content) or next-day availability on iTunes. HBO's "wait a year and then you can buy it" option for non-cable subscribers makes me a sad Panda.
Yes, but the one invariant is that copyright harms everyone else, with no help to be found.
Everyone "else"? Other than whom? Copyright law has excesses and abuses, of course, but copyright in the abstract is intended to encourage creation and innovation by granting certain rights to creators and innovators (thereby ensuring some form of compensation for their creation and innovation such that, in the better cases, the time they spend creating and innovating won't have to by necessity be spent earning a living through some other means less suited to their unique talents). So, at its best, copyright should, far from harming everyone, help everyone -- it helps creators and innovators through the aforementioned grant of rights and creation of incentives, and it helps everyone else by incentivizing the creation and innovation that we all enjoy/consume/experience betterment from/etc.
If your comments are strictly limited to "copyright" as in, copyright law in the United States as of 2013, then I'll grant that there is an argument to be made that it does more harm than good. But even then, it's unreasonable to say that it only harms everyone but, presumably, a select subset of content owners. Even though copyright law is quite broken, it still arguably incentivizes some creation, and some subset of things created are of sufficient use that their existence justifies their protection. Again, I'm not making an empirical (or, really, hypothetical, since we don't know what the alternative universe looks like) argument about whether on balance the current copyright regime does more harm than good, but at a minimum, your comment is vastly overinclusive to the extent it purports to deny any good whatsoever. At least, that's a more detailed and thoughtful argument that you haven't made here with your brief comment.
It's responsible for the repeated attempts at crippling the internet,
Erm, no. Copyright isn't responsible for the attempts to cripple the internet. You have good old-fashioned monopolistic practices like corporate acquisition and industry integration, with a heaping does of regulatory capture and anti-competitive lobbying at the government level, to thank for that. You don't even need a copyright when you have a sufficient concentration of wealth and power in a few hands. The reason most of us don't have FiOS, for instance, has absolutely zero to do with copyright. Copyright is an excuse many companies use for draconian power plays, but if they couldn't point to piracy, rest assured they'd point to something else. The major telecomms have had a lot of luck slowly crippling our regulatory infrastructure (and, otherwise, structuring regulations in a way that keeps out competitors) in such a way that they can control our ability to use the internet. But if you think copyright is anything more than a pawn in this overarching scheme, I respectfully suggest you stop wondering what type of bark that is on the tree over there and instead start thinking about what kind of forest the tree is growing in.
gives us fundamentally broken technologies like DRM,
DRM would exist even if copyright law were more reasonable, and most likely even if copyright law didn't exist at all. Indeed, if there were no copyright law, DRM might well be the only thing that would enable content creators to make a profit (and thereby have any reason to create the content in question). If there were no copyright law, the only way that DRM would not exist would be if the government for some reason passed a law against it, and the only reason I could think it would do that would be if the government itself was going to assert ownership over all content. I don't think either of us thinks that would be a good thing.
We really need to reconsider our copyright policies. This world can't afford to be held back just because America chooses to sell itself out to moneyed int
Oh hey, a bro on the internet trying to get a rise out of me. How original. Your mommy must be very very proud of you.
Beats being a sexist prick all times of all months.
I work in an office full of successful women.
So what? What does that even mean? By many definitions, I'm a "successful woman." What does that have to do with what I said? You don't think successful people are plagued by self-doubt for any number of legitimately human reasons? Have you never heard of things like imposter syndrome? How does the fact that you know a number of women whom you deem "successful" have anything to do with my point that cultural expectations shape self-perception?
So if any person (man or woman) can't get the respect they think they deserve they need to do something to get it instead of using their victim roles as an excuse to (passive aggresive, anyone?) spread the poison to others.
Oh, man. You should like, become a motivational speaker or something, man. Secrets of the universe right here. Good stuff. Do you also run a suicide prevention hotline where you tell people not to kill themselves?
And as for passive aggression, there's little that's more passive-aggressive than quietly resenting (and coming to the internet to complain about) people who come out and ask for what they want (such as, for instance, affirmation).
Never claimed to. And I can do you one better, even: technically, I don't even know that you are a you at all, or that time and consciousness are anything more than illusions. So - did you have an actual point, or are we just throwing out random factoids for shits and giggles? I've never met Stephen Hawking, although I have met Shaquille O'Neal. Cherries are my favorite fruit. Cows have four stomachs. French is a Latin language. Wheee!
You wouldn't say "Genteel Emotions" if you ever had a rolling pin thrown at you. Women ARE diverse individuals--just don't do anything to piss'em off if you know what's good for you.
I get pissed off all the time. I WISH I were scary pissed off, because then I occasionally might get half of the respect I've seen my male peers get when they get pissed off, instead of people laughing at me or telling me I'm "beautiful" when I'm angry. Thank FSM I'm not short, or I'd likely have people comparing me to chihuahuas (a comparison I've heard made of several of my female attorney colleagues who committed no greater sin than being competent, brilliant, successful, and petite women). Even the way your comment is phrased makes it clear that you view women's emotions as a joke. Did it ever occur to you that your wife might be a thoughtful person whose emotions merit actual consideration, rather than someone to tease into a state of irritation, and then mock for being irritated?
25 years of experience tells me the reason Wives outlive the Husbands on average is because Hubby gave his Honest Opinion once too often.
Given that your comments suggest a total lack of respect for your wife (and/or women or wives in general), I can see why you'd be wary about giving her your honest opinion. However, your honest opinion is more likely to contribute to depression on her side than, um, murder (jesus christ, buddy), and depression is correlated with lower lifespan. So, to the contrary, more likely than not women's lifespan would be lengthened (or, rather, not shortened) if men like you refrain from admitting to their wives how very little they truly think of them.
You might need constant affirmation, too, if you'd spent your entire life being disregarded, written off, disrespected, ignored, insulted, controlled, and looked down on simply for being alternatively too pretty or not pretty enough, without regard for anything else you may or may not have to offer the world.
An iPhone would be a tempting replacement for any man thoughtless enough to think this was a remotely fair way to treat his wife. Joking aside, this shit is pretty fucking callous. But maybe no one cares. Maybe we as human beings really have become so self-centered and bitter that the idea of paying attention to another person and caring about their needs and insecurities is an actual joke to most. If that's the case, hopefully that asteroid WILL hit us, because that's just no fucking way to live.