Not true, the obvious counterexample being the tailbone. Evolution only gets rid of useless things if they present a significant impediment to survival.
So they encourage you to report things to them rather than distributing a patch yourself. So what? Trolltech does this, MySQL does this, Sun does this, Mozilla does this; in fact virtually every significantly-sized open source project encourages you to fix problems through their own channels rather than throwing a patch around yourself. It's just good sense.
Other people have given some good info, but IMO the best explanation is the Tao of the Windows buffer overflow - it tells you exactly how a buffer overflow works, complete with working code.
You don't understand what wmv is. A wmv file cannot contain an mpeg and some junk; it's a container format like mpeg (and actually a better one). Now, if you don't like the particular container format that's fine, and you can remux it into avi or mkv or (if you're lucky, because mpeg is actually very restrictive about what it contains) using, as another poster suggested, ffmpeg, or mkvmerge for mkv. But you won't end up with any less junk.
Most of the dark fibre is dark because it's obsolete - by the time any dotcom 2.0 companies could start using it, the technology had moved on and it was more efficient to just lay new fibre.
Now you've simply pushed the problem a level higher, into the assembler / linker.
No, that's why I said hand-assemble. (And toggle it in on the front panel.) Yes, you still have to verify the hardware, but that ensures noone's messing with the software.
Surely you bootstrap things by hand-assembling a simple nonoptimizing C compiler (nonoptimizing compilers aren't that hard, surely one could be written in assembly), then use that to compile your C compiler (thus getting a binary that matches your source), then use that to recompile itself (so you have a C compiler that can actually run at semi-reasonable speed, and whose binary matches its source assuming you verified its source wasn't doing anything nasty).
Ask women how it makes them feel to be ogled. Really; do it. Then tell them they are "insane", or somehow inferior people for how it makes them feel, if they say anything other than "I don't care".
Really. Have some conviction if you're going to take this stance. Don't hide behind a computer screen on a message board; put this conviction to a real test. If you have any difficulty doing it at all, then you might consider that intuitively, you might grasp that interpersonal relationships have value of some sort, and treating people around you with basic respect, even if YOU disagree with their stance, is worthwhile.
Shrug; of course I believe in basic politeness, to everyone; more than that, I'm not going to actively put myself out so that I can be rude to them. An analogy: I think my religious friends are being insane, but I'm not going to go out of my way to be rude by bringing it up and telling them so, or even asking the religious convictions of people who don't bring it up. But at the same time, I'm not going to put myself out for the sake of their beliefs; I'm not going to refrain from eating pork in the office, and I wouldn't cover my head there, even if there are people who are offended by my doing so. Because it's them who're being unreasonable.
How is it less hassle to do things in more than one way? If I have to turn to CDs to get all the music that won't be available on the download service (read: probably most of it) then why even bother?
Because it saves you time and effort on the ones you can get from the download service.
Using CDs is hardly a hassle--I pop the disc in, and run a script to download its meta data from MusicBrainz (rarely do I have to enter it by hand), encode it into my desired formats, and save it where I want on my hard drive.
But you've got to wait for it to ship, or drive into town (at least in the general case; maybe you live next to a record store whose owner's tastes match your own, but that's hardly usual), and if it's damaged or doesn't arrive it can be hard to get them to ship a new one. Which is all hassle in my book.
Whether ogling is ACTUALLY an indicator of impending rape is absolutely irrelevant.
No, it's the supremely relevant factor - if it had something to do with it, then it would be reasonable to be intimidated by ogling. But it isn't, so it isn't.
Staring at people is no indication of anything violent either. But if you just stare at people, they will feel threatened. Rational or not, it is quite *reasonable*. Because while staring itself might not be violent, it does indicate a level of intense scrutiney that could be a precursor to an attack. They could ask you not to stare. You could rationally say, "but this is an annoyance, not being able to stare, that has no benefit". And while you'd be technically right, you'd also be an asshole, because it doesn't hurt you in the least not to make the person uncomfortable.
But it does hurt me - it's putting me out, it's making me put effort into changing my behaviour, and it carries the presumption that I was doing something wrong.
If you were in a crowd of gay men larger than you, most of whom you don't know, and they stared at you all the time, you wouldn't feel at all uncomfortable? Not even if you knew a bunch of people who had been molested or raped by gay men? That just would mean you were insane?
I can't know whether I'd feel uncomfortable since I haven't been in that situation. But it would be unreasonable of me to object, yes.
Regardless, not shitting on a large number of people for having some fear in their lives might be a worthwhile stance to work on, just for your own future.
I really don't think it's that large a group of people; I certainly hope it's not. Most women I know seem to be reasonable (or at least, as reasonable as the men I know), and I've never known one to actively object to ogling. But even if it were a large group, that wouldn't make it any more reasonable.
I never implied women have it "worse" than people in war zones. That's your connotation. Just because a male behaviour pattern can be seen as threatening doesn't get anywhere near a "war zone", and I never said it was. You tried to imply that, which is ludicruous, I agree.
You said they're living in fear. If people in war zones can manage not to do that, so can they.
The 1 in 33 simply says the number of men who have been victimized. I saw nothing that indicated the age. I speculate, with I think an ounce of common sense, that most of it occurs in childhood. Likewise, I do not know the proportion of women who were abused as children vs raped as adults. I DO know that people victimized as children have a hard time later on, so it doesn't affect the woman side of things; the fact still remains that for women, it's much more common to fear men, and they had to fear MORE men than any man does.
Sure, but since the child/adult thing is the same for men and women, the 5.5x ratio is probably about the same for adults. Which is my point.
For men, I suppose if men are checking you out everywhere you go, you too would be threatened if you were not gay and willing. But that doesn't happen at work, because only about 10% of people are gay, and of those ten percent, they all know about how acceptable it is to ogle male workmates.... not very. They would be much more likely to be abused for it then the person being ogled.
And yet, despite all this, a man is only 5.5x less likely to get raped (wheras you'd expect 9x less likely from the simple numbers of 10% of people being gay) - which suggests that being ogled has nothing at all to do with being raped.
Most men can overpower most women. I'm an "average guy".. average height, average weight.. and I've got 5" on the female average, and a good 50lbs. You do the math.
Yes, most men - but there are plenty of men who can't. If I (as a man) am 7" shorter and 100lbs lighter than you are, should I be living in fear of rape?
If you are now calling women in the workplace who might be threatened by a roomful of ogling guys equivalent to people in insane asylums, you are still not "discussing" this. You are being an idiot, defending an indefensible point.
If a woman is afraid I'm going to rape her because I'm ogling her, she is being insane, and I don't see why I should put myself out to support her insanity.
Learning not to stare at women may not be easy, but it's not exactly undue hardship either.
It's an annoyance with no benefit.
On the flip side of the coin, asking them not to be threatened by staring men asks them to be unreasonable, since they stand a real chance (1 in 6 is hardly uncommon) of actually being victimized.
No, they're the ones being unreasonable, since, as per above, gay men, for whom it's unacceptable to ogle, seem to be more likely to rape. So if anything it's the ones who don't ogle they should be worried about.
Wow, you're trying pretty hard to bury your head. If the highly biased source is misquoting the gov statistics you claim they are, go ahead and show it. But regardless, a 5.5x differential is quite significant. You're right "weak men", known as children, might live in fear,
Wow, way to miss the point. You might be a black-belt rugby player who regularly bench presses 350lbs, but not every man is. There are plenty of adult men who are physically weaker than the average woman; should they be living in fear?
I haven't seen any statistics on adult male on adult male rape, but I can only imagine it is vanishingly small outside of prison.
Well, I'd imagine that rape of adult females is vanishingly small too, but why don't we go with the 5.5x number seeing as it's an actual statistic?
Regardless, if you are REALLY going to throw out comparisons to war zones, then you have no interest in not being an asshole to those around you,
How so? Just because I actually discuss.?
Me, I don't think it's acceptable to make people approximate "living in a war zone" in order to justify my own behaviour.
You seemed to be implying that women have it *worse* than people in war zones. Which is ludicrous.
Regardless of what they "should" do, women are ACTUALLY concerned about these things.
There are people in asylums everywhere who are ACTUALLY concerned about the aliens intercepting their thoughts. Should I be worrying about whether my behaviour will upset them?
No professional computer programmer should have to worry about garbage collection. This can be automated, which means it should. Not doing so means that sooner or later, you'll end up with memory leaks.
Garbage collectors are imperfect and consume resources; there are times when it's better to avoid them. Just as there are times, few and far between, but they do exist, where writing it in assembly is the right thing to do. Certainly writing the whole of a web browser in a language without garbage collection is an exercise in stupidity - things like the bookmark manager don't need performance (except possibly in the actual drawing, but they're using a library for that, or should be), but I would find it entirely plausible that the core of the rendering engine is best done in C.
I think my time and money are better spent on CDs that give me the freedom (technologically, no DRM) to do with as I please and that have top sound quality to begin with (sure, there are formats with better sound than CDs, but none with anywhere near as wide support).
Shrug; you'll be spending a lot more money; for plenty of people a little less quality (and the difference is close to imperceptible, really) and possibly a little hassle is worth the savings.
At home I have the bandwidth to stream CD-quality music, though I don't know who's even offering such a thing. Nevermind that sometimes I want to use my bandwidth for other things. Not having music stored locally makes no sense at all right now. At work I don't have the bandwidth, and the service would probably be blocked anyways.
I think that downloading a few hundred megabytes of CD-quality music *would* be a slowdown every time I want to burn a CD. Nevermind navigating some clumsy third-party interface to find the songs I want, or the trouble of making a CD with songs downloaded from multiple different services, plus from my hard drive.
Stop fixating on the CD-quality, and the multiple services - just pick one. Everyone's CD burning interface will allow you to use files from your own hard drive
No, I think it is far better worth my while to have a master copy on CD from which I can create files on my hard drive in DRM-unencumbered formats. FLAC for use where possible, mp3 everywhere else (would use ogg if more devices supported it). I'm sure there are plenty of people out there whose listening/music usage habits are such that downloading/streaming from online services makes sense. All power to them. But even then, unless you can get all your music needs fulfilled from one source, it is undeniably a huge hassle.
Like I say, pick one download/stream source. Use CDs for anything this source doesn't have - for music that source has, it's easier, and for music the source doesn't have you're no worse off than before. This is a lot less hassle than doing it with CDs.
b) Ah yes, it makes total sense for me to stream my music collection everywhere I listen to it, in a lossless format. Right. I *always* have a broadband internet connection on hand,
Don't you? Where are you?
and I totally love the idea of downloading stuff every single time I want to put it on a CD or a portable player,
You'd have to burn or transcode anyway, so it's not like this slows you down or adds any more hassle.
my computer at work,
You don't have internet there?
my laptop,
That I'll give you, but it may well be worth it for other people; not everyone uses a laptop much on the move.
or lend it to a friend.
You'd want to do that with music you haven't listened to yourself? And if you're giving them a copy while keeping one for yourself, it's illegal and you can hardly blame them for discouraging it.
c) I definitely could not live exclusively off existing online music download services. And having to jump between different services and pay them all fees and use different technology that often won't be compatible is a GREAT way to fill one's music collection.
So don't jump. Subscribe to one online service. Buy CDs for any music they don't have. Depends on your tastes and how much music you listen to, but you may well find this is the cheapest way to get all the music you want.
b) Ah yes, it makes total sense for me to stream my music collection everywhere I listen to it, in a lossless format. Right. I *always* have a broadband internet connection on hand,
Don't you? Where are you?
and I totally love the idea of downloading stuff every single time I want to put it on a CD or a portable player,
You'd have to burn or transcode anyway, so it's not like this slows you down or adds any more hassle.
As the post on Slashdot implies that this will not be seen unless it's on Digg would tell me that whoever posted it on Slashdot has little respect for Slashdotters and Slashdot itself.
Au contraire; he's talking about it being seen by the masses, and slashdotters
like being identified as not part of the masses, as a matter of pride.
You can dig deeper if you like, but the summary on that page is 1 in 6 women are victims of sexual assault, compared to 1 in 33 men.
Shrug. Highly biased source, but if we use your numbers that's only a factor of 5.5x between men and women.
Most sexual assualts on men are BY men (99% of all rape is by men, in fact). So I'm not exactly sure how it's equally reasonable for a man to live in the same kind of fear a women should, especially considering that most men are capable of overpowering most women, but the same is not true of men vs other men.
It doesn't need to be fear of women in particular, and those numbers you quoted already have built into them the ease of overpowering or not (presumably an attempt that was fought off isn't counted; it certainly shouldn't be). So the figures are presumably much worse for a physically weak man, quite possibly as bad as for a woman; does this mean weak men should be living in fear?
But go ahead and establish your very reasonable stance. Women definitely should not worry that men acting like they are not sexually satisfied pose any kind of risk to them whatsoever. Those silly ladies, someone should tell them they have nothing to worry about, huh?
Worry all you like, but don't base your life around it. People living in actual warzones know this; you get on with life, you don't live in fear and worry about it until it happens.
There is no reason why a minimal web browser could not be implemented, utilizing something like ~100kb of memory, in fact, i have seen the code to one. However, it wont be a) fast b) portable c) full featured d) very easy to understand
Perhaps, but Opera does a, b and c (no idea about d, but last time I checked firefox wasn't much good on that front anyway) in a lot less memory than firefox.
No professional computer programmer should be incapable of programming without automatic garbage collection, just as no aeroplane pilot should be incapable of flying without an autopilot. You shouldn't be doing it very often, but you absolutely should have the ability.
why are you worried about the other possible states? you're just making a philosophical assumption, that they were there to begin with. just accept the fact that things can behave according to probabilistic models, and we can all get on with our lives.
Erm, no. The other states must have been there, otherwise we wouldn't observe an interference pattern in the one-photon-at-a-time double split experiment.
Right, go ahead and whip out those statistics that show how common that is. That's a *very* reasonable arguement.
Are you denying it happens? Sure, it's a lot less common than for women, but the risk is there. And reason has very little to do with the kind of fears you're describing.
I'm not saying all women live in quaking fear whenever they are around men. I am simply saying when we, as men, demonstrate that we are capable of objectifying a woman by staring at her body with obviously sexual thoughts on our mind, it isn't exactly a leap for a woman to feel threatened by that, because sexual violence is pretty common. She would be an idiot to ignore it
No. She would be an idiot to worry, especially if her grounds is just ability to objectify, something every human has whether subtle about it or not. The risk remains tiny, and if she's living in fear because of it, that's her problem; a man living in fear of rape would not be being any less reasonable than she is.
Slashdot Mirror
Not true, the obvious counterexample being the tailbone. Evolution only gets rid of useless things if they present a significant impediment to survival.
Duh, because they're cheaper to provide.
So they encourage you to report things to them rather than distributing a patch yourself. So what? Trolltech does this, MySQL does this, Sun does this, Mozilla does this; in fact virtually every significantly-sized open source project encourages you to fix problems through their own channels rather than throwing a patch around yourself. It's just good sense.
Other people have given some good info, but IMO the best explanation is the Tao of the Windows buffer overflow - it tells you exactly how a buffer overflow works, complete with working code.
You don't understand what wmv is. A wmv file cannot contain an mpeg and some junk; it's a container format like mpeg (and actually a better one). Now, if you don't like the particular container format that's fine, and you can remux it into avi or mkv or (if you're lucky, because mpeg is actually very restrictive about what it contains) using, as another poster suggested, ffmpeg, or mkvmerge for mkv. But you won't end up with any less junk.
Most of the dark fibre is dark because it's obsolete - by the time any dotcom 2.0 companies could start using it, the technology had moved on and it was more efficient to just lay new fibre.
No, that's why I said hand-assemble. (And toggle it in on the front panel.) Yes, you still have to verify the hardware, but that ensures noone's messing with the software.
Surely you bootstrap things by hand-assembling a simple nonoptimizing C compiler (nonoptimizing compilers aren't that hard, surely one could be written in assembly), then use that to compile your C compiler (thus getting a binary that matches your source), then use that to recompile itself (so you have a C compiler that can actually run at semi-reasonable speed, and whose binary matches its source assuming you verified its source wasn't doing anything nasty).
Really. Have some conviction if you're going to take this stance. Don't hide behind a computer screen on a message board; put this conviction to a real test. If you have any difficulty doing it at all, then you might consider that intuitively, you might grasp that interpersonal relationships have value of some sort, and treating people around you with basic respect, even if YOU disagree with their stance, is worthwhile.
Shrug; of course I believe in basic politeness, to everyone; more than that, I'm not going to actively put myself out so that I can be rude to them. An analogy: I think my religious friends are being insane, but I'm not going to go out of my way to be rude by bringing it up and telling them so, or even asking the religious convictions of people who don't bring it up. But at the same time, I'm not going to put myself out for the sake of their beliefs; I'm not going to refrain from eating pork in the office, and I wouldn't cover my head there, even if there are people who are offended by my doing so. Because it's them who're being unreasonable.
Because it saves you time and effort on the ones you can get from the download service.
Using CDs is hardly a hassle--I pop the disc in, and run a script to download its meta data from MusicBrainz (rarely do I have to enter it by hand), encode it into my desired formats, and save it where I want on my hard drive.
But you've got to wait for it to ship, or drive into town (at least in the general case; maybe you live next to a record store whose owner's tastes match your own, but that's hardly usual), and if it's damaged or doesn't arrive it can be hard to get them to ship a new one. Which is all hassle in my book.
No, it's the supremely relevant factor - if it had something to do with it, then it would be reasonable to be intimidated by ogling. But it isn't, so it isn't.
Staring at people is no indication of anything violent either. But if you just stare at people, they will feel threatened. Rational or not, it is quite *reasonable*. Because while staring itself might not be violent, it does indicate a level of intense scrutiney that could be a precursor to an attack. They could ask you not to stare. You could rationally say, "but this is an annoyance, not being able to stare, that has no benefit". And while you'd be technically right, you'd also be an asshole, because it doesn't hurt you in the least not to make the person uncomfortable.
But it does hurt me - it's putting me out, it's making me put effort into changing my behaviour, and it carries the presumption that I was doing something wrong.
If you were in a crowd of gay men larger than you, most of whom you don't know, and they stared at you all the time, you wouldn't feel at all uncomfortable? Not even if you knew a bunch of people who had been molested or raped by gay men? That just would mean you were insane?
I can't know whether I'd feel uncomfortable since I haven't been in that situation. But it would be unreasonable of me to object, yes.
Regardless, not shitting on a large number of people for having some fear in their lives might be a worthwhile stance to work on, just for your own future.
I really don't think it's that large a group of people; I certainly hope it's not. Most women I know seem to be reasonable (or at least, as reasonable as the men I know), and I've never known one to actively object to ogling. But even if it were a large group, that wouldn't make it any more reasonable.
You said they're living in fear. If people in war zones can manage not to do that, so can they.
The 1 in 33 simply says the number of men who have been victimized. I saw nothing that indicated the age. I speculate, with I think an ounce of common sense, that most of it occurs in childhood. Likewise, I do not know the proportion of women who were abused as children vs raped as adults. I DO know that people victimized as children have a hard time later on, so it doesn't affect the woman side of things; the fact still remains that for women, it's much more common to fear men, and they had to fear MORE men than any man does.
Sure, but since the child/adult thing is the same for men and women, the 5.5x ratio is probably about the same for adults. Which is my point.
For men, I suppose if men are checking you out everywhere you go, you too would be threatened if you were not gay and willing. But that doesn't happen at work, because only about 10% of people are gay, and of those ten percent, they all know about how acceptable it is to ogle male workmates.... not very. They would be much more likely to be abused for it then the person being ogled.
And yet, despite all this, a man is only 5.5x less likely to get raped (wheras you'd expect 9x less likely from the simple numbers of 10% of people being gay) - which suggests that being ogled has nothing at all to do with being raped.
Most men can overpower most women. I'm an "average guy".. average height, average weight.. and I've got 5" on the female average, and a good 50lbs. You do the math.
Yes, most men - but there are plenty of men who can't. If I (as a man) am 7" shorter and 100lbs lighter than you are, should I be living in fear of rape?
If you are now calling women in the workplace who might be threatened by a roomful of ogling guys equivalent to people in insane asylums, you are still not "discussing" this. You are being an idiot, defending an indefensible point.
If a woman is afraid I'm going to rape her because I'm ogling her, she is being insane, and I don't see why I should put myself out to support her insanity.
Learning not to stare at women may not be easy, but it's not exactly undue hardship either.
It's an annoyance with no benefit.
On the flip side of the coin, asking them not to be threatened by staring men asks them to be unreasonable, since they stand a real chance (1 in 6 is hardly uncommon) of actually being victimized.
No, they're the ones being unreasonable, since, as per above, gay men, for whom it's unacceptable to ogle, seem to be more likely to rape. So if anything it's the ones who don't ogle they should be worried about.
Wow, way to miss the point. You might be a black-belt rugby player who regularly bench presses 350lbs, but not every man is. There are plenty of adult men who are physically weaker than the average woman; should they be living in fear?
I haven't seen any statistics on adult male on adult male rape, but I can only imagine it is vanishingly small outside of prison.
Well, I'd imagine that rape of adult females is vanishingly small too, but why don't we go with the 5.5x number seeing as it's an actual statistic?
Regardless, if you are REALLY going to throw out comparisons to war zones, then you have no interest in not being an asshole to those around you,
How so? Just because I actually discuss.?
Me, I don't think it's acceptable to make people approximate "living in a war zone" in order to justify my own behaviour.
You seemed to be implying that women have it *worse* than people in war zones. Which is ludicrous.
Regardless of what they "should" do, women are ACTUALLY concerned about these things.
There are people in asylums everywhere who are ACTUALLY concerned about the aliens intercepting their thoughts. Should I be worrying about whether my behaviour will upset them?
Garbage collectors are imperfect and consume resources; there are times when it's better to avoid them. Just as there are times, few and far between, but they do exist, where writing it in assembly is the right thing to do. Certainly writing the whole of a web browser in a language without garbage collection is an exercise in stupidity - things like the bookmark manager don't need performance (except possibly in the actual drawing, but they're using a library for that, or should be), but I would find it entirely plausible that the core of the rendering engine is best done in C.
Shrug; you'll be spending a lot more money; for plenty of people a little less quality (and the difference is close to imperceptible, really) and possibly a little hassle is worth the savings.
At home I have the bandwidth to stream CD-quality music, though I don't know who's even offering such a thing. Nevermind that sometimes I want to use my bandwidth for other things. Not having music stored locally makes no sense at all right now. At work I don't have the bandwidth, and the service would probably be blocked anyways.
I think that downloading a few hundred megabytes of CD-quality music *would* be a slowdown every time I want to burn a CD. Nevermind navigating some clumsy third-party interface to find the songs I want, or the trouble of making a CD with songs downloaded from multiple different services, plus from my hard drive.
Stop fixating on the CD-quality, and the multiple services - just pick one. Everyone's CD burning interface will allow you to use files from your own hard drive
No, I think it is far better worth my while to have a master copy on CD from which I can create files on my hard drive in DRM-unencumbered formats. FLAC for use where possible, mp3 everywhere else (would use ogg if more devices supported it). I'm sure there are plenty of people out there whose listening/music usage habits are such that downloading/streaming from online services makes sense. All power to them. But even then, unless you can get all your music needs fulfilled from one source, it is undeniably a huge hassle.
Like I say, pick one download/stream source. Use CDs for anything this source doesn't have - for music that source has, it's easier, and for music the source doesn't have you're no worse off than before. This is a lot less hassle than doing it with CDs.
b) Ah yes, it makes total sense for me to stream my music collection everywhere I listen to it, in a lossless format. Right. I *always* have a broadband internet connection on hand,
Don't you? Where are you?
and I totally love the idea of downloading stuff every single time I want to put it on a CD or a portable player,
You'd have to burn or transcode anyway, so it's not like this slows you down or adds any more hassle.
my computer at work,
You don't have internet there?
my laptop,
That I'll give you, but it may well be worth it for other people; not everyone uses a laptop much on the move.
or lend it to a friend.
You'd want to do that with music you haven't listened to yourself? And if you're giving them a copy while keeping one for yourself, it's illegal and you can hardly blame them for discouraging it.
c) I definitely could not live exclusively off existing online music download services. And having to jump between different services and pay them all fees and use different technology that often won't be compatible is a GREAT way to fill one's music collection.
So don't jump. Subscribe to one online service. Buy CDs for any music they don't have. Depends on your tastes and how much music you listen to, but you may well find this is the cheapest way to get all the music you want.
Don't you? Where are you?
and I totally love the idea of downloading stuff every single time I want to put it on a CD or a portable player,
You'd have to burn or transcode anyway, so it's not like this slows you down or adds any more hassle.
my computer at work,
No, MP3 is an open format. The standard is public. It may infringe on some patents, but I'd be amazed if vorbis didn't.
Au contraire; he's talking about it being seen by the masses, and slashdotters like being identified as not part of the masses, as a matter of pride.
Shrug. Highly biased source, but if we use your numbers that's only a factor of 5.5x between men and women.
Most sexual assualts on men are BY men (99% of all rape is by men, in fact). So I'm not exactly sure how it's equally reasonable for a man to live in the same kind of fear a women should, especially considering that most men are capable of overpowering most women, but the same is not true of men vs other men.
It doesn't need to be fear of women in particular, and those numbers you quoted already have built into them the ease of overpowering or not (presumably an attempt that was fought off isn't counted; it certainly shouldn't be). So the figures are presumably much worse for a physically weak man, quite possibly as bad as for a woman; does this mean weak men should be living in fear?
But go ahead and establish your very reasonable stance. Women definitely should not worry that men acting like they are not sexually satisfied pose any kind of risk to them whatsoever. Those silly ladies, someone should tell them they have nothing to worry about, huh?
Worry all you like, but don't base your life around it. People living in actual warzones know this; you get on with life, you don't live in fear and worry about it until it happens.
Perhaps, but Opera does a, b and c (no idea about d, but last time I checked firefox wasn't much good on that front anyway) in a lot less memory than firefox.
No professional computer programmer should be incapable of programming without automatic garbage collection, just as no aeroplane pilot should be incapable of flying without an autopilot. You shouldn't be doing it very often, but you absolutely should have the ability.
Erm, no. The other states must have been there, otherwise we wouldn't observe an interference pattern in the one-photon-at-a-time double split experiment.
If we can play total annihilation then Linux wins; what else would you ever want your OS to do?
Are you denying it happens? Sure, it's a lot less common than for women, but the risk is there. And reason has very little to do with the kind of fears you're describing.
I'm not saying all women live in quaking fear whenever they are around men. I am simply saying when we, as men, demonstrate that we are capable of objectifying a woman by staring at her body with obviously sexual thoughts on our mind, it isn't exactly a leap for a woman to feel threatened by that, because sexual violence is pretty common. She would be an idiot to ignore it
No. She would be an idiot to worry, especially if her grounds is just ability to objectify, something every human has whether subtle about it or not. The risk remains tiny, and if she's living in fear because of it, that's her problem; a man living in fear of rape would not be being any less reasonable than she is.