1. how do you know this for sure? The answer is that you don't, so assume they have been. If the state comes knocking making an offer you can't refuse, part of that deal is you can't admit to it without facing criminal charges.
2. yeah, you mean what happened to the telcos after edward snowden? riight.
3. Maybe so, maybe not, but at least it cannot be unknowingly usurped. At least not by those who are tracking its code changes. Is it guaranteed? hell no, but it's better than just taking some company rep's word for it.
Perhaps the problem is that your knowledge of this issue lacks scope. The only thing I can suggest is that you do a little research on your own, an effort that includes, but also scales outside, the confines of a women's studies curriculum and/or mainstream media. As far as feminism vs geek culture goes, the status quo on that is only a search away. Start with 'anita sarkeesian' and 'jessica watson'. If you do enough research, you'll start seeing the bad statistics they use. Here, I'll give you the first one on me:
Articles like Chu's are nothing new. These 'social justice warriors' are charlatanesque professional victims and people like Chu are their male white knight brigade, always charging in to the rescue (despite their hatred of the damsel-in-distress trope, go figure). I don't know his real intentions, but the fact he (badly) attempts to equate us as slightly less vile versions of elliot rodger is a perfect example of the rhetoric filled fallacies typically used to shame men who don't accept the feminist party line. Whether it's "grow up" from the left, or "man up" from the neocons, it's all just shaming language.
Chu's whole article is a diatribe against geek/nerd culture, thus he's targeting ALL the individuals within it, equating their sense of morals as a mishmash of silly stereotypes found in video games and geek social faux pas. I thought generalizing like this was something feminists eschew? I guess only when it happens to women. How 'progressive.'
1. my point is that there's no conspiracy. Men don't have it out for women, en masse. There aren't hundreds of thousands of rapists hiding on college campuses or workplaces. These people make it sound like it's a pandemic when the real numbers are miniscule.
2. Yes he did. He shamed geeks and nerds for apparent 'misogyny'.
3. It's an often quoted statistic, and yes, most would constitute 'violent control over another's body' as a case for assault.
I suppose my post referenced more than just this article, but there's nothing wrong with that. Chu's article is part of this recent trend of feminists attacking IT/gamer culture. I'm tired of this professional victim routine that's become so popular with the 'social justice' crowd, feminist or otherwise. It's parasitical and detrimental for everyone. If someone was assaulted or raped, she should call the police instead of guilt tripping communities into pity parties.
I would say that disconnect you mention has to do with feminist indoctrination. They are told to want 'nice' guys who are psychologically pliant and effeminate. When their limbic system tells them this is unattractive, they bounce back and forth between the two 'types' they've been fed definitions for, searching for men that reconcile the irreconcilable.
..or perhaps these 'misogynists' aren't misogynist at all, and it's a case of a small group of professional victims hurling the accusation around to garner political power within different subcultures.
That's just it. Under the guise of 'fighting misogyny' feminism lumps all men into a single collection of negative stereotypes which compels society to treat men badly by default. It encourages women to engage in the very behaviors it demonizes men for. This is reflected in the media, in the law, and in the rules for 'polite society.' "Do as I say, not as I do" is the refrain of the day.
Haven't you heard? Asking a girl out is apparently rape now. Basically if she thinks you're unattractive, she'll label you creepy (a common complaint for nerds and geeks), and, now, thanks to modern feminism, believes you've just 'assaulted' her. If she decides to call 911, your life is over. Isn't that nice? Apparently you're supposed to know beforehand whether she's interested.
Why should I have to imitate anyone? I am who I am. I don't care if it nets me a ton of female attention or not. These days, more and more guys are realizing it's increasingly not worth the price of admission anyway. Toxic rad-feminism being passed off as "civil rights" is to blame.
I'm not the one running around calling men pigs or bastards while whining that "bitch" and "cunt" are 'gendered insults' that should not be used. The majority of the hate and broken logic is coming from the feminist camp, not 'geek culture.' http://www.youtube.com/playlis... as an example
Why would I do this? By default, I don't treat women any differently than I treat men, by showing no sexual interest whatsoever. These days, it's the best strategy to avoid having my life ruined by a misandric woman who took a few too many 'women's studies' courses in college. Unfortunately, it's not a perfect strategy because many of these women still believe that men owe them a roll in the hay if they are interested, so they get upset anyway (multiple experiences with this one). What's a guy to do when he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't, depending on her whims at the moment? I don't I think all women are out to get me, but I do think that a lot of women have been misled about the nature of men which has created a toxic culture that hurts both sexes.
It's interesting that feminists think they have sole rights to define 'asshole behavior', or really, the entire dynamic in which men and women interact, while they claim victimhood at the same time. If women are intrinsically equal they don't need men coming to their rescue anyway.
1. There is no such thing as 'rape culture' or 'patriarchy.' In any other circumstance we'd view this kind of thinking as conspiracy. Like the other marxist isms, feminism needs a bogey man to justify the crazy inroads it demands on the 'oppressor' class, ie men. It needs to be something illusory, diffuse and easily redefinable so that any accusation or concession seems reasonable, no matter what. Feminists chose rape for this and now we have these girls running around thinking they're victims because a guy looked at them in a hallway, or were asked out in an elevator. (youtube elevatorgate).
A perfect example of how marxist ideologues target societies, organizations, and corporations on the rise. This particular example is the atheist conference scene, but the same tactics are applied everywhere. http://www.youtube.com/playlis...
2. Enough of the victimhood bullshit. I tire of being labeled an 'oppressor' because of my sex or my skin tone. Don't tell me to check my privilege. Instead, try making cogent counterarguments if you believe me to be in error. If anything, this completely biased definition of 'equality' has given women the privilege. They can lean on chivalry of men (which is still expected) and/or on 'empowerment' whenever it suits them and society will back their play. Perhaps it's time for these feminists to check their privilege. The proof for it isn't some conspiracy theory. They get preferential treatment at college, in employment, in courts of law, in 'family' court, and in the street. It's in the law and its precedent, in the prison system, and in the homeless population, all male dominated. It's there every time she decides to have the kid while knowing full well neither of them have the money, dragging him (and the taxpayer) into destitution with her. Maybe I'll start giving a shit when "Her body, her right, her choice" also becomes "her responsibility" instead of his.
3. That 1/6 ratio is bullshit. If that were true, police stations around the country would be inundated with complaints of rape. That's not the case.
Quit shaming men, regardless of their social proclivities. Quit lying about them too. One out of six men are NOT rapists. Chu must have a crazy self loathing complex to write what he did. Every nerd or geek I've known was so timid and shy around women, it's HIGHLY unlikely that they'd have the balls to talk to or proposition women, nevermind 'rape' (and I use that term loosely) them. These rampant attacks by feminism on gaming and other nerd/geek culture is a recent thing, but it's just making the bullshit fallacies it makes everywhere.
That's all true.. The problem is that today, from conception to divorce, men are still expected to live up to their ends of the old chivalry bargain, while women can opt out at any time without being shunned for it, and still hold him accountable for all of it.
Perhaps, but these days, it's hard to separate the science from the politics. I'm leery of 'studies' like this as they're usually put out by some think tank or other that's looking to provide 'scientific' justification for a particular ideology.
I know three stay at home dads who thought it would be wonderful. They are now shells of their former selves as their wives treat them as thankless slaves. Also, thanks to lizard-brain dynamics, the women don't find their husbands attractive anymore. Nothing dries a vagina faster than a guy who's providing less than she is while doing 'womanly' things. It doesn't matter how logical the trade offs and value propositions are, that she's making the 200k while he's changing diapers and keeping house. This is a case of animal imperatives conflicting with social conditioning. One described it as being the one sitting in the 'guy chair' at a women's clothing outlet, holding her pocketbook, except it's 10x worse and it's 24/7. No sense of self respect for him, and she has no respect for him. Feminists say that male distaste of traditionally feminine tasks is proof of provincial attitudes, but really all they're doing is shaming men for being men. A lot of guys fall for this now as that's how the current crop of 30something fathers was brought up. I realize this is just anecdotal and that there are cases that work out, but it does mirror the trends, tropes, and stereotypes, seen in the media. This is clearly the direction society is headed in and it's really quite sad.
The computer would be faster than you at stomping on the brakes, but you'd be far better than the computer at determining situations where that's warranted. A proximity sensor array hooked up to a computer with a list of preprogrammed assumptions (shown in the videos) will not give the computer anything close to the contextual awareness of a human.
contextual awareness is more important than reaction time. A lightning fast retard is a lot more dangerous than a reasonably intelligent driver. The issue is the distracted driving, so fix that. These expensive machines will not solve abject laziness and a lack of discipline.
or, you know, you could act like a fucking adult and preempt the problem if you plan to be inebriated, instead of expecting the rest of us to give up self-directed control over our mobility for your own personal convenience.
Just what we need, yet another bureaucracy on top of an overly complex system that will cost the taxpayer millions to operate, when a KISS attitude applied to vehicle design and operation is really the sweet spot between safety and reliability. I have a better and cheaper idea, though the cellphone companies won't like it: Remove the cell towers along the roads, or build faraday cages into cars that block cell service. Less talking, less texting, more driving.
Slashdot Mirror
It uses that only to build the bootloader. The rest of the software is compiled with vs 2008.
He wasn't worth revealing the fact there's a backdoor in truecrypt.
Point is, with NSLs you can't trust anything they say.
Depends on what they want protection from..
1. how do you know this for sure? The answer is that you don't, so assume they have been. If the state comes knocking making an offer you can't refuse, part of that deal is you can't admit to it without facing criminal charges.
2. yeah, you mean what happened to the telcos after edward snowden? riight.
3. Maybe so, maybe not, but at least it cannot be unknowingly usurped. At least not by those who are tracking its code changes. Is it guaranteed? hell no, but it's better than just taking some company rep's word for it.
which probably has the non backdoored version.
Of course not, because the argument is fallacious.
critique of feminism is not misogyny.
Perhaps the problem is that your knowledge of this issue lacks scope. The only thing I can suggest is that you do a little research on your own, an effort that includes, but also scales outside, the confines of a women's studies curriculum and/or mainstream media. As far as feminism vs geek culture goes, the status quo on that is only a search away. Start with 'anita sarkeesian' and 'jessica watson'. If you do enough research, you'll start seeing the bad statistics they use. Here, I'll give you the first one on me:
http://www.rainn.org/get-infor...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12...
Articles like Chu's are nothing new. These 'social justice warriors' are charlatanesque professional victims and people like Chu are their male white knight brigade, always charging in to the rescue (despite their hatred of the damsel-in-distress trope, go figure). I don't know his real intentions, but the fact he (badly) attempts to equate us as slightly less vile versions of elliot rodger is a perfect example of the rhetoric filled fallacies typically used to shame men who don't accept the feminist party line. Whether it's "grow up" from the left, or "man up" from the neocons, it's all just shaming language.
Chu's whole article is a diatribe against geek/nerd culture, thus he's targeting ALL the individuals within it, equating their sense of morals as a mishmash of silly stereotypes found in video games and geek social faux pas. I thought generalizing like this was something feminists eschew? I guess only when it happens to women. How 'progressive.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
Really? Feminism has its roots in marxist ideology. It's class warfare across sex.
1. my point is that there's no conspiracy. Men don't have it out for women, en masse. There aren't hundreds of thousands of rapists hiding on college campuses or workplaces. These people make it sound like it's a pandemic when the real numbers are miniscule.
2. Yes he did. He shamed geeks and nerds for apparent 'misogyny'.
3. It's an often quoted statistic, and yes, most would constitute 'violent control over another's body' as a case for assault.
I suppose my post referenced more than just this article, but there's nothing wrong with that. Chu's article is part of this recent trend of feminists attacking IT/gamer culture. I'm tired of this professional victim routine that's become so popular with the 'social justice' crowd, feminist or otherwise. It's parasitical and detrimental for everyone. If someone was assaulted or raped, she should call the police instead of guilt tripping communities into pity parties.
Welcome to cultural marxism.
I would say that disconnect you mention has to do with feminist indoctrination. They are told to want 'nice' guys who are psychologically pliant and effeminate. When their limbic system tells them this is unattractive, they bounce back and forth between the two 'types' they've been fed definitions for, searching for men that reconcile the irreconcilable.
Just a thought..
..or perhaps these 'misogynists' aren't misogynist at all, and it's a case of a small group of professional victims hurling the accusation around to garner political power within different subcultures.
That's just it. Under the guise of 'fighting misogyny' feminism lumps all men into a single collection of negative stereotypes which compels society to treat men badly by default. It encourages women to engage in the very behaviors it demonizes men for. This is reflected in the media, in the law, and in the rules for 'polite society.' "Do as I say, not as I do" is the refrain of the day.
Haven't you heard? Asking a girl out is apparently rape now. Basically if she thinks you're unattractive, she'll label you creepy (a common complaint for nerds and geeks), and, now, thanks to modern feminism, believes you've just 'assaulted' her. If she decides to call 911, your life is over. Isn't that nice? Apparently you're supposed to know beforehand whether she's interested.
Why should I have to imitate anyone? I am who I am. I don't care if it nets me a ton of female attention or not. These days, more and more guys are realizing it's increasingly not worth the price of admission anyway. Toxic rad-feminism being passed off as "civil rights" is to blame.
I'm not the one running around calling men pigs or bastards while whining that "bitch" and "cunt" are 'gendered insults' that should not be used. The majority of the hate and broken logic is coming from the feminist camp, not 'geek culture.'
http://www.youtube.com/playlis... as an example
Why would I do this? By default, I don't treat women any differently than I treat men, by showing no sexual interest whatsoever. These days, it's the best strategy to avoid having my life ruined by a misandric woman who took a few too many 'women's studies' courses in college. Unfortunately, it's not a perfect strategy because many of these women still believe that men owe them a roll in the hay if they are interested, so they get upset anyway (multiple experiences with this one). What's a guy to do when he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't, depending on her whims at the moment? I don't I think all women are out to get me, but I do think that a lot of women have been misled about the nature of men which has created a toxic culture that hurts both sexes.
It's interesting that feminists think they have sole rights to define 'asshole behavior', or really, the entire dynamic in which men and women interact, while they claim victimhood at the same time. If women are intrinsically equal they don't need men coming to their rescue anyway.
1. There is no such thing as 'rape culture' or 'patriarchy.' In any other circumstance we'd view this kind of thinking as conspiracy. Like the other marxist isms, feminism needs a bogey man to justify the crazy inroads it demands on the 'oppressor' class, ie men. It needs to be something illusory, diffuse and easily redefinable so that any accusation or concession seems reasonable, no matter what. Feminists chose rape for this and now we have these girls running around thinking they're victims because a guy looked at them in a hallway, or were asked out in an elevator. (youtube elevatorgate).
A perfect example of how marxist ideologues target societies, organizations, and corporations on the rise. This particular example is the atheist conference scene, but the same tactics are applied everywhere.
http://www.youtube.com/playlis...
2. Enough of the victimhood bullshit. I tire of being labeled an 'oppressor' because of my sex or my skin tone. Don't tell me to check my privilege. Instead, try making cogent counterarguments if you believe me to be in error. If anything, this completely biased definition of 'equality' has given women the privilege. They can lean on chivalry of men (which is still expected) and/or on 'empowerment' whenever it suits them and society will back their play. Perhaps it's time for these feminists to check their privilege. The proof for it isn't some conspiracy theory. They get preferential treatment at college, in employment, in courts of law, in 'family' court, and in the street. It's in the law and its precedent, in the prison system, and in the homeless population, all male dominated. It's there every time she decides to have the kid while knowing full well neither of them have the money, dragging him (and the taxpayer) into destitution with her. Maybe I'll start giving a shit when "Her body, her right, her choice" also becomes "her responsibility" instead of his.
3. That 1/6 ratio is bullshit. If that were true, police stations around the country would be inundated with complaints of rape. That's not the case.
Quit shaming men, regardless of their social proclivities. Quit lying about them too. One out of six men are NOT rapists. Chu must have a crazy self loathing complex to write what he did. Every nerd or geek I've known was so timid and shy around women, it's HIGHLY unlikely that they'd have the balls to talk to or proposition women, nevermind 'rape' (and I use that term loosely) them. These rampant attacks by feminism on gaming and other nerd/geek culture is a recent thing, but it's just making the bullshit fallacies it makes everywhere.
That's all true.. The problem is that today, from conception to divorce, men are still expected to live up to their ends of the old chivalry bargain, while women can opt out at any time without being shunned for it, and still hold him accountable for all of it.
Perhaps, but these days, it's hard to separate the science from the politics. I'm leery of 'studies' like this as they're usually put out by some think tank or other that's looking to provide 'scientific' justification for a particular ideology.
I know three stay at home dads who thought it would be wonderful. They are now shells of their former selves as their wives treat them as thankless slaves. Also, thanks to lizard-brain dynamics, the women don't find their husbands attractive anymore. Nothing dries a vagina faster than a guy who's providing less than she is while doing 'womanly' things. It doesn't matter how logical the trade offs and value propositions are, that she's making the 200k while he's changing diapers and keeping house. This is a case of animal imperatives conflicting with social conditioning. One described it as being the one sitting in the 'guy chair' at a women's clothing outlet, holding her pocketbook, except it's 10x worse and it's 24/7. No sense of self respect for him, and she has no respect for him. Feminists say that male distaste of traditionally feminine tasks is proof of provincial attitudes, but really all they're doing is shaming men for being men. A lot of guys fall for this now as that's how the current crop of 30something fathers was brought up. I realize this is just anecdotal and that there are cases that work out, but it does mirror the trends, tropes, and stereotypes, seen in the media. This is clearly the direction society is headed in and it's really quite sad.
The computer would be faster than you at stomping on the brakes, but you'd be far better than the computer at determining situations where that's warranted. A proximity sensor array hooked up to a computer with a list of preprogrammed assumptions (shown in the videos) will not give the computer anything close to the contextual awareness of a human.
Too bad reality is loaded with unpredictability that tends to break hard coded assumptions like what's shown in these videos.
contextual awareness is more important than reaction time. A lightning fast retard is a lot more dangerous than a reasonably intelligent driver. The issue is the distracted driving, so fix that. These expensive machines will not solve abject laziness and a lack of discipline.
or, you know, you could act like a fucking adult and preempt the problem if you plan to be inebriated, instead of expecting the rest of us to give up self-directed control over our mobility for your own personal convenience.
Just what we need, yet another bureaucracy on top of an overly complex system that will cost the taxpayer millions to operate, when a KISS attitude applied to vehicle design and operation is really the sweet spot between safety and reliability. I have a better and cheaper idea, though the cellphone companies won't like it: Remove the cell towers along the roads, or build faraday cages into cars that block cell service. Less talking, less texting, more driving.