Or, perhaps he said it because it is true. It may be true that people between 18 and 29 were always disrespectful; they just always get old and become more respectful with age, as this study seems to indicate. People change over time.

I read "The Game," and tried some of the methods described in the book despite feeling like scum. Fortunately, I found that "pickup artistry" is a scam that is designed to make money. I've posted requests on reddit to ask people to come forward who don't own a pickup business and who have actually changed their lives from being unwanted by women to being studs, and strangely not one person has responded. I still have yet to meet anyone who has benefited from the "pickup" lifestyle advocated in "The Game." As to the rest, we'll have to agree to disagree. I do have friends who are in their 30s, and they are generally respectful and honor their commitments.

One sentence that is completely true is that the more attractive a woman is, the more likely she is to exhibit this kind of disrespectful behavior. It sounds sexist, and it certainly doesn't apply to every woman, but in general it is entirely true. It is so true that I have to consciously fight against this stereotype when dealing with young women outside of a business atmosphere.

Many attractive women have been so coddled by men that they have come to feel entitled to everything the world has to offer. They come to see it as an entitlement that they can walking into bars and reject guy after guy, and get boyfriends to pay for lavish gifts for them. If you still are skeptical, look at the prices escorts charge compared to those doctors charge. A neurosurgeon with 24 total years of schooling can make $300/hr, a ridiculous fortune by any means, but a prostitute with a high-school education can make $500/hr - and a select few can make over $1000.

Therefore, society values attractive young women more highly than doctors who can save your life. The market speaks for itself. Since many attractive women are between 18 and 29, it would be a fair assumption to propose that a significant proportion of the rudeness can be explained by this effect alone.

I am 28, but my age is irrelevant to the discussion.

I can only speak from my own experience, but I've never had this problem with people who are older than 30. I've volunteered at carnivals where we crushed one ton of potatoes over six days, for years, and the 50-year-old ladies never failed. The work was brutal - imagine peeling and chopping into tiny pieces 200 pounds of onions manually. They showed up with colds, bad backs, hung over, and even drunk, but despite doing this for 120 days over two decades, there was only one time that one of them failed to show up, and she called to say why.

Yet, in my dealings with people my "own age," I encountered the incident described above, another instance where I gave someone a $75 ticket for a concert over another friend and he decided not to show up, a friend I provided $2500 of videography for in exchange for a place to stay, and she didn't pay the $160 hotel bill, 200 hours of work put into an organization at the president's request when the president didn't even bother to look at what I had produced, and the list goes on and on.

You can blame poor social skills or whatever you would like, but the fact remains that any reasonable person would believe this behavior is abhorrent. I never lied, cheated, assaulted, or bad-mouthed any of these people in any way. No matter how poor one's social skills are, nonviolent people deserve the simple respect of being told the truth, or simply the offer of an apology and an acknowledgement of having done something wrong. Kind, respectful people would think just the opposite - that someone with poor social skills could benefit from some extra help. Consider that you don't often see poor social skills develop in the first place in people who are treated respectfully as children or young adults.

Criticizing the "victim's" personality is not an excuse for the poor behavior of self-centered people who care nothing for others.

And that is still wrong.

Everyone deserves respect. If you don't want to talk to someone, then you kindly but firmly state that you are busy and aren't available to talk right now. Or, if the person keeps pestering you, you firmly state that you don't want to talk to the person again, and then ignore him or her on future occasions.

Faking or arranging a cell phone call helps nobody. The person who is talking to you might not even know that you don't want to associate with him or her and would never learn otherwise. (S)he eventually ends up confused and feeling bad. Meanwhile, you keep wasting your time as the person continues to contact you about whatever problem you're putting off with these fake or arranged calls. It's just a sign of disrespect that you won't look the person in the eye and tell the truth.

The most interesting fact from this article is that 18-to-29 year-olds are much more likely to use cell phones as an excuse to not talk to someone. This jives with my experience in real life. Finally, now it is possible to agree with our grandparents that young people are more inconsiderate than old people.

People in that age group seem to think that they are entitled to do anything they like, as if their feelings are more important than everyone else's. Instead of treating people with respect, many young people seem to think that it's acceptable to ignore the person making the request. This happens in dating, where childish women give out fake numbers; in friendships, where some idiots have decided it's acceptable to commit to something and then not show up; and in family life, where you invite people to a party and they can't take five seconds from their self-centered lives to apologize and inform you that they will not be able to attend. A year after I graduated college, a co-worker and I scheduled a bowling outing for about 30 people; despite being the organizer, she decided not to show up and was unreachable on her cell phone because "someone from Pittsburgh suddenly showed up at my house and I had to give her a place to stay."

When people pull stuff like that on me, I tell them to get lost - but they keep doing it because others are willing to put up with this crap. It's bad enough that people cut short in-person conversations to take cell calls. But it says something about how low our society's expectations are for our youth that we accept one third of that age group being so self-centered that they can't be bothered to talk to you even when they don't have anything else to do.

It doesn't, unfortunately, in either of those cases. But it does protect against the case when someone says "but he was moving in reverse!" as one guy tried against me. Had he not been recorded telling the truth an hour earlier, the case would have been a "word versus word" case and it would have been thrown out, and I would have lost $3000 in repair bills.

A black box wouldn't be perfect, but it could protect against many types of lies that cause people to wrongfully lose money today.

But a black box is not a wiretap, which is why I don't believe that this argument against abuse holds here. The box isn't recording any private information. A wiretap on a phone records information that would not be able to obtained by a normal person. However, anyone standing on the sidewalk looking at the car has a good approximation of what is being recorded by the black box, so the box is just recording publicly available knowledge.

For most people, that would be a lot of accidents, but I drove 52 miles to work for years.

I've never been ticketed for any violation in 12 years of driving. One accident was caused by a hit-and-run, DUI, uninsured driver. Another was caused by an 85-year-old woman who had vision difficulties. In all six cases, I was at a dead stop.

You can draw whatever conclusions you like, but it's not possible to avoid being hit from behind while stopped.

The issue most people have with warrantless wiretaps and searches is not an issue of whether one has anything to hide. Instead, they do not trust the police to be truthful and respectful in enforcing the law, and are concerned about police abuse. It's important to recognize that the real problem is the potential for police corruption, not the wiretapping itself, which would be fine if we were assured that every police officer was honest.

I support making tampering with the boxes illegal because I trust the police to be more honest than other drivers. Your experiences may have been different, but I sincerely believe that accidents bring out the absolute worst behavior in people and the way that some people act after an accident is undoubtedly different than the way they would normally present themselves in any other circumstance. I want the law to prohibit tampering so that I can conclusively prove that the other driver is lying the next time someone hits me.

The issue comes down to who you trust more: the police, or the other driver. If you trust the other driver, then you should oppose the tampering prohibition. However, the next time someone hits me, I'll trust the police over the other driver any day.

Of course, it's possible that any system could fail and record inaccurate information. But I'm willing to tolerate a low failure rate in exchange for greater honesty and integrity when accidents occur.

Everyone here seems to be of the opinion that (s)he has some sort of right to privacy when it comes to breaking the law. Sorry, but the law is the law. If you don't like the speed limit, then vote for someone who will raise it - but if you drive over the speed limit, you should be ticketed. If you're walking alongside a cliff, you stay far away from the edge to make sure you don't die. If the law states that driving 1mph over the speed limit is illegal, then perhaps you might try driving 5mph below the limit to make sure that you won't violate the law. What a concept!

Furthermore, those who have ever been in an accident, will know it's a nightmare. I've been involved in six accidents, each time where someone hit me from behind and I was never at fault. One time, someone attempted to say that I hadn't been using my turn signal, and another time, someone attempted to convince the cops that I was in reverse when the accident occurred. My experience is that most people, when faced with an accident situation, have no integrity and will lie through their teeth to escape any responsibility for their actions.

I will gladly submit to any sort of monitoring, even if it includes every single input I place into the car. Such a "privacy violation" and even the risk of incorrect recording is well-worth the protection I would have against people who take no personal responsibility for their actions when an accident occurs.

It's simply not true that anyone can start a website with nothing. I can put up the best website in the world (and have already spent years developing two that I had thought were pretty good), but there are so many websites out there that it probably won't get many hits. The world is flooded with good and bad apps, blogs, videos, and software.

I've spent hundreds of hours putting out press releases, posting links on forums, E-Mailing people, and so on. I E-Mailed 80 different personal messages to people in my site's industry and didn't receive one reply. I was banned from countless forums for spam, and press releases are deleted without being read. The bottom line is that nobody cares about your new site regardless of how good it is. Good sites don't get hits because they are good; they get hits because they happen to be acceptable but they are promoted by big companies or have a lot of money to spend on advertising.

Google and facebook came about in a time when there were fewer choices, so they could stand out. The Internet is becoming like the music business, where there are stories of artists who get jobs as janitors at the studios so that they can continually hound the executives until they finally get noticed. Like everywhere else in today's society, a few big sites increasingly control the destiny of all the little sites.

This whole situation could work out in the best way possible. If Sony is going to release a new hardware update, it will probably cost close to what it would cost to simply move up the Playstation 4. Releasing a Playstation 4 with backwards compatibility and a new DRM scheme both moves Sony ahead of the competition, and eliminates this piracy problem in the long term. The opportunity cost of reassigning all the engineers who are surely investigating the next generation right now into attempting to fix this problem could be devastating, and hiring new engineers unfamiliar with a system that needs to be fixed immediately is unlikely to succeed.

Well, I disagree with this disagreement. In well-designed browsers, cookies don't simply pull information out of the air. The user has to enter that information or take actions that are then reported back to the server. I've always been of the opinion that, if you don't want someone to know what you're doing, then you should seriously reconsider whether you should do it or not. We spend our lives attempting to hide our actions from others and present a "fake" persona to the world. Imagine what the world would be like if people actually told the truth. I can see an immediate positive aspect of these cookies: permanently banning people from forums. Anyone who has ever run a website that accepts user input knows that there are hackers or griefers who attempt to ruin things for everyone. With dynamic IP addresses, it's difficult to track these people down. However, unless the user reinstalls Windows, these cookies provide an easy way of denying access.