pstack

That doesn't line up with the Constitution, which clearly states what the US Government can do (I know, people commonly mistake the Constitution for a list of rights for the people rather than a list of exceptions for the government as to how they may or may not act).

The Constitution grants the right to due process for citizens. It doesn't place a limit on where that citizen is currently resided.

Killing someone in combat is one thing. The same as if you are forced into a firefight with someone as a police officer. Targeting and assassinating someone who is not immediately and directly threatening realistic harm is another - and that is what has happened, so far.

Stating "well, if they're outside the geographical boundaries of the country (or, not at least 100 miles in from the shores and borders of the US, apparently) then they're fair game" is absurd.

If the DSM doesn't have something to qualify you to be classified, medicated, or even monitored today -- they will, tomorrow.

That's not how it works.

We are the medical industry and have codified the diagnosis of aspergers to be far encompassing and include people who have absolutely no real impact on their lives, but we've convinced them it is a problem and now we're going to provide them with a pharmaceutical and psychiatric therapy to help them "cope" with it -- GIVE US MONEY.

Because 90% of geeks have /self-diagnosed/ themselves as having aspergers and they take any criticism of it as a personal attack on them and their "illness".

Don't worry, something else will come along that is way more trendy in a few years and these same people will move on to claiming they have that, instead.

(Obviously not claiming autism itself is not real and not a legitimate and difficult problem to deal with. I shouldn't have to disclaim this, but I'm obviously talking about the Slashdot type crowd that has convinced themselves that because they are detail oriented and are sometimes awkward in crowds, they have aspergers and constantly talk about it.)

Agreed. This is promiscuous behavior. One should occasionally check out their Google dashboard and see what's going on. A few times a year, I check out what has permission via my Google account and deactivate anything that I haven't used in awhile or no longer care about.

LinkedIn is the only "social network" I have anything to do with and it isn't so much on a regular engaged basis as a "well, someday it might be handy" sort of way.

It has never really benefitted me in any way (I haven't been actively job-hunting this century), but since I don't care for social networks and if I did, I wouldn't want professional contacts in the same circle as my friends and family and barely-acquaintances, it is a fantastic way to keep in contact with colleagues throughout my career, on my own terms and segregated from the rest of my life.

Unfortunately, it has become more of a nuisance in the last year. News feeds, streams full of discussions, streams full of people posting links, advertisements. That doesn't even take into account the constant spam email from LinkedIn. I'm an engineer. I know how to make sure I hit the right buttons --- and yet just when I think I have unsubscribed from nearly everything I want to be unsubscribed from, I get more spam. So and so has joined! You should join these groups! These groups might interest you! Here's what went on today! Here's what went on this week! Here's some articles from people in the industry! You should add your email accounts so we can reach out to your contacts! So and so has a new job!

It's really the only service of its kind with this sort of reach, but I'm concerned that they're going to slit the throat of their golden goose by engaging in the sort of behavior you'd expect from traditional social networks (or worse).

Other than a more intuitive grouping/categorizing and less crashing, it'll be interesting to see if anyone can improve on Downcast.

I'm really surprised by the "auction" foundation. That seems like a really dated internet fad, at this point.

I built and ran a large (not eBay large, but 100k+ members and maybe $6m in transactions) niche auction site and community for about a dozen years and I recognized that interest in the whole "auction" thing was dying out about the same time eBay probably did. Only difference is eBay had the resources and interest in trying to pivot (something they're still trying to do) and I was ready to move on to something else entirely.

If you can still find just the right niche, there's probably an avenue, but for the most part, I think there's an uphill challenge against the bias of most users against auctions (what with so many other cheap outlets that have usurped everything short of collectables).

Will be really curious to see how this plays out, in and after 2013.

Good for him. Instead of only Apple getting to make money and participate in the benefits of free enterprise and capitalism, this guy and several homeless people will make some money and benefit from it.

With all due respect to Paul Graham and on behalf of my fat ass and all my fellow (especially telecommuting) fat asses out there, /screw that guy/!. :D

I think I have read two pieces of fiction in my adult life. I'd love to read for recreation much more, but if I have time to read a fantasy or horror or science fiction novel, I have time to read something related to my field, instead.

Naw, let's put the onus on the internet and force everyone to submit their anonymity and browse only via a paid-for internet license using their real identity, instead.

That way nobody ever gets their feelings hurt and no adults have to get off their asses and do the hard work of raising or looking after children, be they parents of bullied kids, parents of bullies, school administrators, teachers, or cops. If we just skunk the internet, we can save all these poor souls from doing any heavy lifting.

Parents wont' have to go to the school or police or other parents about their poor kid. Other parents can continue to say "kids will be kids" and teachers/administrators can continue to watch youtube videos during class while pretending not to be aware of the harassment and violence occurring in their classrooms and hallways five feet away from them.

No, you just described sexism. An assertion of superiority or inferiority of one gender. Not misogyny. Words have meanings for a reason and it would be inappropriate for me to change the definition of "racism", just because I really really liked calling you a racist.

I am so confused, now. When we speak of a trans[$], is the noun used supposed to be the source-sex or the target-sex? I know it is common courtesy to refer to a person as their current preferred/identified gender, so does that apply to this terminology, too?

That is, a transgender man would not be a man who became a woman, but a woman who is now a man?

If you are a technology/business reporter reporting on technology from within the silicon valley, you are obligated to be knowledgeable about those things which you report on and the same is expected of a medical correspondent or political correspondent on an editorial staff, for their areas of coverage.

I ejected after the redhead spewed her first sentence. Painful.

Here's what people need to realize: Think of all the times you notice journalists failing with regard to topics you are an expert in. Or more than failing - outright lying or misleading. Now, multiply that by all the things other people are experts in and the things they catch journalists doing that you aren't expert enough in those other things to know about.

We make a big deal about intentionally corrupt journalism, but outright laziness is just as big of a problem.

I don't really see what this has to do with Fox News. Lack of research, investigation, verification, education, accuracy, grammar, formatting, spelling, and truth are all endemic to all reporting/anchoring/journalism, these days.

Where is their inclusion of transgender, gender dysphoric, gay, and lesbian speakers? Also, where are all the non-white/asian/indian speakers? I think this is going to require a bigger spreadsheet!

While I agree with your point, I don't see how being physically attracted to a person's symmetry is any different than being attracted to the dimensions of their hips or the size of their breasts other than being more presentable to an audience. It would be more sensible from the standpoint of the presentation, but any of those people pitchforking over focusing on physical attraction to physical attributes of human beings in this thread would have to maintain the same incredulity over one measuring each body part for symmetry.

And that would actually seem to be a really reasonable progression for this whole thing. The presenters say "we made an unfortunate judgement call and we apologize" and the conference says "so from now on, here's our short list of rules to avoid uncertainties in the future" and then we all grow up and move on with our lives.

Unfortunately the tech industry seems to be enamoured with not merely being offended, but being offended by the potential that they could have been offended. So we'll circle the drain with everyone beating the drum in support of their own personal agendas for awhile more before this is over.

By that time, someone else will have done something dumb and we'll be ready to have another go.

//"rockstars" wash up, burn out, fade away or simply die and the fall is as quick as the rise."//

So exactly as most of us have come to know the industry over the last two decades. :/

I have asserted that it's not so much that it in itself is disrespectful. It is disrespectful that they would not take into consideration that some of their audience may be made awkward by it (and a person can feel awkward about many things which are not necessarily bad in any way).

Guess what? People I don't know in a porn video performing sexual acts as their profession in order to sexually arouse people watching them are "impersonal objects". So are male and female models who exist as clothing-racks or make-up canvases. Musicians and actors exist to entertain and their dignity and personality are not relevant. My garbageman is a guy who exists to make my cans of trash go away.

Even you, as highly as you must regard every human interaction in your every moment of existence, surely deal with a great number of people on a regular basis who exist simply to perform a function that you benefit from.

As for "you can essentially do what you will with them"... I think that speaks more to you than anyone who enjoys porn, strippers, pinup posters, musicians, dancers, actors, or anyone else that they have no personal regard for. That statement is kind of like a religious person finding out that I'm an atheist and incredulously responding with "if you don't believe in god, how come you're not out raping and murdering people?!".

I just don't share the black-and-white view of the world that you may.

Objectification can be a component of sexism, but in and of itself is not sexist. It is a natural part of human existence demonstrated by both genders on a regular basis in a variety of ways. It is even the entire foundation of initial human attraction. It is not inherently wrong.

Men and women dance at strip clubs. They objectify the customers and the customers objectify the strippers. Hell, my butcher is an object that gives me steak for money and that is all we know of each other. That's okay. You are not obligated to regard everyone as a whole all the time.

We need to stop asserting that every interaction with each person (real or fictional, in person or entertainment) requires a holistic appreciation of every atom of their humanity.

If you objectify all human beings, you share a common trait of sociopaths. If the entirety of your view and interaction with the other gender is based on objectification, then you are probably sexist and have serious issues to deal with. If neither of these are the case, then you are probably a normal human being.

I understand that you're attempting to imply that showing consideration demonstrates an admittance of guilt. I'm afraid that's not a compelling argument.

It's inconsiderate, because it could potentially make some members of the audience uncomfortable or self-aware. This would not be a concern if you knew the comportment of your audience. Snoop Dogg doesn't present himself or his content the same way on David Letterman that he does at a concert.

Someone being uncomfortable with your content doesn't invalidate it nor does your taking their discomfort into consideration in either content or presentation.

It shows that you are a mature human being with empathy.

I think we would be better served if we stopped seeing everything as sexist or not sexist and determining that if a thing is not, then everyone should shut up and leave it alone.

Instead, let's dispense with the labels or making anyone out to be bad and simply think about our moms. There are countless things that are not sexist or wrong in any capacity, whatsoever. You still wouldn't feel comfortable doing them around your mom.

If it would feel awkward around your mom, then it might not be appropriate for a lot of wider audiences. Especially where we are potentially involving a professional capacity.

Both genders objectify each other on a regular basis. There isn't even anything wrong with that (unless objectifying each other is the whole of your entire concept and interaction with the other gender).

The issue here is pretty clear cut. It wasn't appropriate for the setting in which it was presented. Nothing more. A stupid app, Cosmo magazine, pinup posters, physical attraction, and so on aren't really relevant and don't need to be inherently demonized.

No it isn't.

Presenting it was not an act of discrimination or hate. It was inconsiderate and possibly both crude and dumb.

Sexism is the assertion that one sex is inferior to the other, usually because of or alongside assertion of stereotypes of that gender.

Misogyny is the hatred of women.

Neither word really has anything to do with being attracted to the sexuality of the other gender. Neither word really has anything to do with simply being unkind, mean, or insensitive. Unfortunately, we often seem to throw these labels on people (labels which stick and aren't too dissimilar from calling someone a racist or homophobe) when they're not really relevant. Having a poster of a sexualized woman or buying videogames with attractive women on the poster or laughing at a joke about the other gender or saying a particular person of the other gender is an idiot are -- while unkind and inconsiderate -- not generally matters of discrimination, superiority, or "hate".

Frankly, I feel we do a disservice to the value of these words in describing actual sexism and actual (but rare) misogyny by throwing them at everything under the sun that makes someone a little uncomfortable or is anything short of respectful. Of course, even suggesting that we should be more careful of our use of these words, I am now probably both of them.

In short, there is nothing wrong with the comedy of, say, Chris Rock, but it would probably not be a good fit for a professional working environment. Even if outside of that working environment every single person there would be laughing along with his vulgar set.

What these guys did can be both a poor choice and not wrong.