evan@zombot ~ $ cdparanoia -A cdparanoia III release 10.2 (September 11, 2008)
Using cdda library version: 10.2 Using paranoia library version: 10.2 Checking/dev/cdrom for cdrom...
Testing/dev/cdrom for SCSI/MMC interface
SG_IO device:/dev/sr0
CDROM model sensed sensed: ASUS DRW-24B1ST 1.03
Checking for SCSI emulation...
Drive is ATAPI (using SG_IO host adaptor emulation)
Checking for MMC style command set...
Drive is MMC style
DMA scatter/gather table entries: 1
table entry size: 524288 bytes
maximum theoretical transfer: 222 sectors
Setting default read size to 27 sectors (63504 bytes).
Verifying CDDA command set...
Expected command set reads OK.
Attempting to set cdrom to full speed...
drive returned OK.
I don't think there's any reason for each location to only be represented by one person. As long as we're dreaming, why not draw a border around each metropolitan area and assign a number of representatives proportional to population on an at-large basis? So NYC gets 72 representatives, 200 people run, and the 72 who got the most votes win. That way, you can avoid a situation where a district goes 51-49 for a relatively extreme major party candidate, and there's no one to advocate for the interests of the losing side (especially since the sides break down pretty closely on center city/suburb lines, and each has a unique set of problems).
Yeah, they might just have to talk to each other about computers.
I'm not saying there should be a prohibition on people talking to each other about offtopic subjects, I'm just saying maybe a woman goes to a computer hacker convention to hang out and talk to people about computer hacking or whatever, so you don't have to assume she's there to get some action.
Instead of forcing every woman you see to tell you no, how about you don't assume they all want to talk to you? Why does your desire to chat someone up cancel out her wishes not to be hit on at a computer hacker convention?
Expression of one's sexual desires (which is not the same as the desire to "breed") is not ingrained biologically but socially. People make passes in situations where they think it's okay, and in situations where they think other people think it's okay. On the face of it, there's no reason why a computer hacker convention would be one of those places, and the women in question clearly didn't think they would be subjected to that kind of crap. (Referring to the reasonable desire to not constantly be made to feel like a sexual object as a "phobia" is a big red flag, by the way.)
Why is your desire to make a pass at someone at a computer hacker convention more important than someone else's desire not to be subjected to sexual advances at a computer hacker convention? And given that this is a conflict, why shouldn't the convention organizer be able to say, "In the interest of all people attending this computer hacker convention being able to feel comfortable, please don't ask anyone to show their tits?"
I'm having trouble scraping together much sympathy for someone who is running around doing something that, if he were caught and prosecuted, would ruin his life. Probably don't do that.
You asked, How is an undercover cop arresting someone who gropes her not entrapment? I said, it's not, because she wouldn't be forcing men to grope her.
You're worried that hackers aren't going to feel safe if the police are there, which is fair enough, I guess, but you might also spare a tear for the woman who was groped. She might feel safer if gropers would get arrested.
Using illegality as a standard is stupid if your goal is to protect women from harassment. (If your goal is to allow creepers to get away with this kind of crap, it might serve as a good standard.)
Some of the rest might be rude but not illegal a guy asking a woman to show him her tits.
Sexual harassment,
A man the grabbed a woman's hips in a crowded party seems very situation dependent.
Definitely sexual harassment, possibly sexual assault.
I drunkard attempting to lick a shoulder is in base taste but when have drunkards been in good taste.
Sexual assault.
The only thing listed that fell outside of bounds would be the inappropriate touching.
Sexual assault.
Is it all juvenile behavioral sure, but none of it was sexual harassment that's specifically for workplaces and education that takes federal money.
It may not be legally actionable, but it's sure as shit sexual harassment.
Seems like your putting a lot of socially inept people together people are going to fail miserably at expressing themselves. But requiring a con the standard of the workplace you saying that at neither at work or in social settings may somebody make an unwelcome sexual advance. Do we need special sexual advance zones with trained technical staff and therapists standing by so that one personal can express a desire commit an act that predates our species? Lets face it go to a crowded pickup bar either gender expects some might even hope to have sexual advances made. The unwanted groping is over the line go talk to the cops not the con same as you would do at a bar, mall, or grocery store. Want a horror story's talk to the booth babes at your average trade show, and that is sexual harassment at the workplace.
Why should a woman who wants to go to a hacker convention expect to be subjected to sexual advances? Or, more to the point, why would a man at a hacker convention feel entitled to make sexual advances? After the fact, why do you feel the need to defend men who make sexual advances at a computer hacker convention?
One man was apparently out of order, it wasn't a group effort by an entire community. The creep didn't do anything bad enough to get himself arrested and was banned for life for his actions, can't that be an end to it?
No one is blaming everyone for the harassment itself, they're blaming the board for not enforcing their own policy. The lifetime ban came only in response to the outcry (which in turn came because the written policy said that lifetime bans would be issued to harassers, but the board only banned the harasser in question for two years.) There are also larger issues (Was the man given lenience because he holds a position of some minor prominence in the SF community? How can other cons and organizations learn from this and prevent harassment in the future? &c)
Or are we still running with the assumption that all white males are fundamentally evil and everything they do is sexist and/or racist.
Uh, it's not entrapment because a woman isn't forcing/asking men to grope her. You should probably want someone who's going to assault a member of your community arrested.
Women at Defcon are just "attractive young fangirl/cheerleader type women who seem to think hackers are cool for some reason but who don't even care about hacking." You heard it here first, everyone. There's no way for a woman to be a hacker. If you think you are, you just think it's cool for some reason.
We need new rules so that immature men who innocently provoke attractive young fangirls into believing they have been harassed can feel safe. That's really what gets lost in these conversations: men need to feel safe from false accusations of harassment.
(If you're being sarcastic, I apologize, because you're clearly several levels better at it than I am. If not, fuck right off.)
The cheapest family plan is $100 if you include unlimited text messaging, or $70 without it. It costs $40 to add a smartphone ($10 per line plus $30 for smartphone data). So now it's cheaper if you get less than 4GB of data. Also, $10 gets you 2 GB more, instead of 1GB for only one phone. If you use any text messages at all, it's cheaper no matter what.
It costs $10 to add a line to a family plan now, with an additional $30 if it's a smartphone, so the price has only gone up for basic phones. Also, minutes used to cost you something, and now they are included in the price of the bucket of data.
I'm currently on a family plan. I just looked at my bill, and I'm paying: $100 for 1400 shared minutes and unlimited messaging $10 per line $30 per smartphone which adds up to $180 for 2 smartphones.
With this, I would pay: $60 for 2GB data plus unlimited messaging plus unlimited minutes $40 per smartphone which is $140 for 2 smartphones. If I up the data to 4GB, it's $150.
It's the same price to add a smartphone, so you just compare the new data price to the old voice+text price.
I would think that someone who is so good at reading would realize that I was being facetious about being myself unconstitutional.
Programs that transfer money from rich people to poor people are nonetheless favored by many rich people, so it's not a case of unproductive people wanting handouts and taking them at the point of a rifle (that was bought with a rich person's tax money). We have a system in place for deciding how the government works, and we used that system to come to a consensus about the powers and limits of the welfare state (the conversation is ongoing, and the consensus is changing, which I take as a sign that the system works).
There are technical arguments about the marginal value of money, aggregate utility &c, but by "benefits everyone" I meant "benefits the country as a unit" rather than "benefits every single person." Social Security (for example) didn't just happen, we created it because people too old to work were literally starving and dying because they didn't have enough money. I think some asshole who complains about "unproductive people" and calls the only way to fund a government "taking money and property away" still benefits from not living in a country where old people starve and people die every day from easily preventable and treatable medical conditions.
I marvel at how obvious you think this is, when pretty much nobody agrees with you. "The Constitution says X and Y, but not Z, DUH!" OK dude. Do you go to the theater and yell at the actors when you think their interpretation of Hamlet is wrong?
"Basic health care for everyone" sure sounds general to me, but I guess I'm not constitutional because it doesn't mention me by name.
The fact is, the language of the Constitution is ambiguous. If it were as precise as you think it is, we wouldn't have spent the last couple hundred years and change arguing about what it means. Pretty much everyone interprets "general welfare" as including protections for vulnerable groups, because we don't want to live in a society where old people eat cat food because they can't afford real food and they can't get a job. I think that benefits everyone, you clearly disagree.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's the whole thing:
evan@zombot ~ $ cdparanoia -A
cdparanoia III release 10.2 (September 11, 2008)
Using cdda library version: 10.2 /dev/cdrom for cdrom... /dev/cdrom for SCSI/MMC interface /dev/sr0
Using paranoia library version: 10.2
Checking
Testing
SG_IO device:
CDROM model sensed sensed: ASUS DRW-24B1ST 1.03
Checking for SCSI emulation...
Drive is ATAPI (using SG_IO host adaptor emulation)
Checking for MMC style command set...
Drive is MMC style
DMA scatter/gather table entries: 1
table entry size: 524288 bytes
maximum theoretical transfer: 222 sectors
Setting default read size to 27 sectors (63504 bytes).
Verifying CDDA command set...
Expected command set reads OK.
Attempting to set cdrom to full speed...
drive returned OK.
=================== Checking drive cache/timing behavior ===================
Seek/read timing:
[53:27.17]: 18ms seek, 0.30ms/sec read [45.0x]
[50:00.32]: 17ms seek, 0.30ms/sec read [45.0x]
[40:00.32]: 20ms seek, 0.33ms/sec read [40.0x]
[30:00.32]: 16ms seek, 0.37ms/sec read [36.0x]
[20:00.32]: 21ms seek, 0.41ms/sec read [32.7x]
[10:00.32]: 25ms seek, 0.48ms/sec read [27.7x]
[00:00.32]: 50ms seek, 0.63ms/sec read [21.2x]
Analyzing cache behavior...
Drive does not cache nonlinear access
Drive tests OK with Paranoia.
Never had a single problem with this drive. Available here: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827135204
Seek/read timing:
[53:27.17]: 18ms seek, 0.30ms/sec read [45.0x]
[50:00.32]: 17ms seek, 0.30ms/sec read [45.0x]
[40:00.32]: 20ms seek, 0.33ms/sec read [40.0x]
[30:00.32]: 16ms seek, 0.37ms/sec read [36.0x]
[20:00.32]: 21ms seek, 0.41ms/sec read [32.7x]
[10:00.32]: 25ms seek, 0.48ms/sec read [27.7x]
[00:00.32]: 50ms seek, 0.63ms/sec read [21.2x]
I don't think there's any reason for each location to only be represented by one person. As long as we're dreaming, why not draw a border around each metropolitan area and assign a number of representatives proportional to population on an at-large basis? So NYC gets 72 representatives, 200 people run, and the 72 who got the most votes win. That way, you can avoid a situation where a district goes 51-49 for a relatively extreme major party candidate, and there's no one to advocate for the interests of the losing side (especially since the sides break down pretty closely on center city/suburb lines, and each has a unique set of problems).
If your only objections to the way Congress works are procedural rather than substantive, you have absolutely no idea what's going on.
Yeah, they might just have to talk to each other about computers.
I'm not saying there should be a prohibition on people talking to each other about offtopic subjects, I'm just saying maybe a woman goes to a computer hacker convention to hang out and talk to people about computer hacking or whatever, so you don't have to assume she's there to get some action.
Instead of forcing every woman you see to tell you no, how about you don't assume they all want to talk to you? Why does your desire to chat someone up cancel out her wishes not to be hit on at a computer hacker convention?
I think 90% of the time if you ask the harasser about their own behavior they'll feel remorse and regret
You have no fucking idea what you're talking about.
On college campuses, repeat predators account for 9 out of every 10 rapes.
http://news.change.org/stories/repeat-offenders-account-for-9-out-of-10-rapes-on-college-campuses
privilege, n.
1. A special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to one person or group of people.
2. The parent comment.
Expression of one's sexual desires (which is not the same as the desire to "breed") is not ingrained biologically but socially. People make passes in situations where they think it's okay, and in situations where they think other people think it's okay. On the face of it, there's no reason why a computer hacker convention would be one of those places, and the women in question clearly didn't think they would be subjected to that kind of crap. (Referring to the reasonable desire to not constantly be made to feel like a sexual object as a "phobia" is a big red flag, by the way.)
Why is your desire to make a pass at someone at a computer hacker convention more important than someone else's desire not to be subjected to sexual advances at a computer hacker convention? And given that this is a conflict, why shouldn't the convention organizer be able to say, "In the interest of all people attending this computer hacker convention being able to feel comfortable, please don't ask anyone to show their tits?"
I'm having trouble scraping together much sympathy for someone who is running around doing something that, if he were caught and prosecuted, would ruin his life. Probably don't do that.
You asked, How is an undercover cop arresting someone who gropes her not entrapment? I said, it's not, because she wouldn't be forcing men to grope her.
You're worried that hackers aren't going to feel safe if the police are there, which is fair enough, I guess, but you might also spare a tear for the woman who was groped. She might feel safer if gropers would get arrested.
Using illegality as a standard is stupid if your goal is to protect women from harassment. (If your goal is to allow creepers to get away with this kind of crap, it might serve as a good standard.)
Some of the rest might be rude but not illegal a guy asking a woman to show him her tits.
Sexual harassment,
A man the grabbed a woman's hips in a crowded party seems very situation dependent.
Definitely sexual harassment, possibly sexual assault.
I drunkard attempting to lick a shoulder is in base taste but when have drunkards been in good taste.
Sexual assault.
The only thing listed that fell outside of bounds would be the inappropriate touching.
Sexual assault.
Is it all juvenile behavioral sure, but none of it was sexual harassment that's specifically for workplaces and education that takes federal money.
It may not be legally actionable, but it's sure as shit sexual harassment.
Seems like your putting a lot of socially inept people together people are going to fail miserably at expressing themselves. But requiring a con the standard of the workplace you saying that at neither at work or in social settings may somebody make an unwelcome sexual advance. Do we need special sexual advance zones with trained technical staff and therapists standing by so that one personal can express a desire commit an act that predates our species? Lets face it go to a crowded pickup bar either gender expects some might even hope to have sexual advances made. The unwanted groping is over the line go talk to the cops not the con same as you would do at a bar, mall, or grocery store. Want a horror story's talk to the booth babes at your average trade show, and that is sexual harassment at the workplace.
Why should a woman who wants to go to a hacker convention expect to be subjected to sexual advances? Or, more to the point, why would a man at a hacker convention feel entitled to make sexual advances? After the fact, why do you feel the need to defend men who make sexual advances at a computer hacker convention?
Don't infantilize the perpatrators. Just because they're weird dudes doesn't mean they are incapable of refraining from harassing women.
One man was apparently out of order, it wasn't a group effort by an entire community. The creep didn't do anything bad enough to get himself arrested and was banned for life for his actions, can't that be an end to it?
No one is blaming everyone for the harassment itself, they're blaming the board for not enforcing their own policy. The lifetime ban came only in response to the outcry (which in turn came because the written policy said that lifetime bans would be issued to harassers, but the board only banned the harasser in question for two years.) There are also larger issues (Was the man given lenience because he holds a position of some minor prominence in the SF community? How can other cons and organizations learn from this and prevent harassment in the future? &c)
Or are we still running with the assumption that all white males are fundamentally evil and everything they do is sexist and/or racist.
Fuck you.
Uh, it's not entrapment because a woman isn't forcing/asking men to grope her. You should probably want someone who's going to assault a member of your community arrested.
Women at Defcon are just "attractive young fangirl/cheerleader type women who seem to think hackers are cool for some reason but who don't even care about hacking." You heard it here first, everyone. There's no way for a woman to be a hacker. If you think you are, you just think it's cool for some reason.
We need new rules so that immature men who innocently provoke attractive young fangirls into believing they have been harassed can feel safe. That's really what gets lost in these conversations: men need to feel safe from false accusations of harassment.
(If you're being sarcastic, I apologize, because you're clearly several levels better at it than I am. If not, fuck right off.)
If you can't write a review without spoilers, why bother?
The cheapest family plan is $100 if you include unlimited text messaging, or $70 without it. It costs $40 to add a smartphone ($10 per line plus $30 for smartphone data). So now it's cheaper if you get less than 4GB of data. Also, $10 gets you 2 GB more, instead of 1GB for only one phone. If you use any text messages at all, it's cheaper no matter what.
It costs $10 to add a line to a family plan now, with an additional $30 if it's a smartphone, so the price has only gone up for basic phones. Also, minutes used to cost you something, and now they are included in the price of the bucket of data.
I'm currently on a family plan. I just looked at my bill, and I'm paying:
$100 for 1400 shared minutes and unlimited messaging
$10 per line
$30 per smartphone
which adds up to $180 for 2 smartphones.
With this, I would pay:
$60 for 2GB data plus unlimited messaging plus unlimited minutes
$40 per smartphone
which is $140 for 2 smartphones. If I up the data to 4GB, it's $150.
It's the same price to add a smartphone, so you just compare the new data price to the old voice+text price.
I would think that someone who is so good at reading would realize that I was being facetious about being myself unconstitutional.
Programs that transfer money from rich people to poor people are nonetheless favored by many rich people, so it's not a case of unproductive people wanting handouts and taking them at the point of a rifle (that was bought with a rich person's tax money). We have a system in place for deciding how the government works, and we used that system to come to a consensus about the powers and limits of the welfare state (the conversation is ongoing, and the consensus is changing, which I take as a sign that the system works).
There are technical arguments about the marginal value of money, aggregate utility &c, but by "benefits everyone" I meant "benefits the country as a unit" rather than "benefits every single person." Social Security (for example) didn't just happen, we created it because people too old to work were literally starving and dying because they didn't have enough money. I think some asshole who complains about "unproductive people" and calls the only way to fund a government "taking money and property away" still benefits from not living in a country where old people starve and people die every day from easily preventable and treatable medical conditions.
I marvel at how obvious you think this is, when pretty much nobody agrees with you. "The Constitution says X and Y, but not Z, DUH!" OK dude. Do you go to the theater and yell at the actors when you think their interpretation of Hamlet is wrong?
"Basic health care for everyone" sure sounds general to me, but I guess I'm not constitutional because it doesn't mention me by name.
The fact is, the language of the Constitution is ambiguous. If it were as precise as you think it is, we wouldn't have spent the last couple hundred years and change arguing about what it means. Pretty much everyone interprets "general welfare" as including protections for vulnerable groups, because we don't want to live in a society where old people eat cat food because they can't afford real food and they can't get a job. I think that benefits everyone, you clearly disagree.
Kind sir, *makes wanking motion with hand*
So Congress can spend money to provide for the general welfare of the country, and it can pass any laws which are necessary and proper to that end.
Or do you actually mean that Congress cannot pass laws that do anything for the general welfare but spend money?
"general welfare"
look it up