if you read more feminist writing, you will discover that feminists are just as opposed to the stereotyping of men in these commercials as they are the stereotyping of women.

True, but if you pay attention, you will discover that's typically little more than lip service, often included as a coda, or twisted to blame the victim.

Evolution isn't a theory; it's an observation. That it is responsible for speciation is the theory. That's why Darwin's book is called "On the origin of the species," and not "Evolution."

Interestingly, global warming is also an observation. That humans are the driving force behind this is slightly debateable, in the same way that it's still slightly debateable whether your kid is actually your kid after the second DNA test confirmed it. (Congratulations, BTW!) Yes, your baby momma could have setup an elaborate trick, or aliens could be playing a huge practical joke on all of us. (With the climate, I mean, but obviously they could be responsible for the baby too.) But in the meantime, we should accept the available evidence as useful for decision-making purposes. And by that I mean a few people will form a cult, and the rest of us can carry on under the relatively safe bet (but not absolute certainty) that the Hale-Bopp comet is not hiding the mother ship.

At least that's the impression I get by reading the news. I can't remember the last time I heard an attack described as "simple" or "straightforward." It's never "the hackers just tried a bunch of words until one of them worked," or "turns out that if you type '); then a computer will often happily do whatever you tell it," or "if you give it a very long list of letters, sometimes the computer will start doing whatever you tell it." No, it's "the hackers used a sophisticated technique to plow through layers of security."

Although I'll grant you, that 'sophisticated' bit does sound a lot better. Maybe I should sprinkle that word around my resume.

Welcome to the late 90s.

Social engineering - not the same thing as hacking the bricking/remote wipe protocol.

Your original post didn't restrict itself to protocol attacks, even tangentially. There are no "extra points" for using one method over another.

At any rate, the law permits the user to opt-out of the technological solution, so that's the protection, not the fact that the protocol is secure (which is unknowable/unprovable). If someone is uncomfortable with it, they can disable it. Although disabling a disabling feature might be a double negative.

FWIW, the term "snuff film" was coined to reference not just a video which merely shows death -- even intentionally -- but one which was created for the purpose of entertainment, usually for sexual gratification, and sold for profit.

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/...

iPhones have had the ability to be remote wiped for a long time. Yet I have not heard of a pandemic of hacker-led mass bricking of iPhones.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/27/...

Now you have.

That's because games themselves are eligible for very limited IP protections.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/f...

I've met some rednecks who fit that description as well. And, hell, some idiots with no accent at all. Poor communication skills are poor communication skills -- it's certainly not something that's either exclusive to, or endemic of, non-native speakers.

And FWIW, I've found that most people who can't understand accents tend to be poor communicators themselves.

Exceptional workers don't need H1Bs. H1Bs are not designed to bring talent to the US; they're (ostensibly) designed to meet a temporary demand that cannot be adequately met by the domestic workforce. That's why they are temporary permits. Talented workers get first priority in immigrating, and I welcome them along with you. I welcome anyone who immigrates here, TBH. More power to them. But that doesn't change the fact that H1Bs are being exploited, and it's negatively impacting the labor market for citizens as well.

I'll admit that Noone's work hasn't exactly been Oscar material, but she's pretty hot, and her producing skills might not be bad. I say it's worth a try, at least.

He's not in jail for recording a movie; he's in jail for distributing copies and selling them. Selling copies isn't a civil offense; it's a crime. And did you miss the part where he kept selling and distributing even after his arrest? I have pretty liberal views on file sharing, but this guy was asking for it.

When you say $230, people are going to compare what you're offering -- ad-free browsing, in this case -- to whatever else they can buy for $230. Maybe it's a new phone, or some clothes, or whatever it is non-nerds spend money on. (Dates?) Regardless, it's probably going to be more satisfying than ad-free browsing.

If you rephrase it as $20/mo, you'll have a lot more takers. $20 falls into most people's "impulse buy" category. $20 will get you an order of pizza, or a short taxi ride, or a ballcap. They don't have to consider whether they can afford it, or what else they can do with that money.

But if you're looking for someone to subsidize basic research with little or no investment return potential, don't look to a competitive company to do it...

...or to Bell Labs. It's a common misconception that Bell Labs existed for nothing more than the pursuit of knowledge, but nothing in Bell Labs was meant for mental masturbation, or "little or no investment return potential." Discoveries were made as a consequence of trying to solve technological problems, but they weren't just standing around "doing science" for its own sake.

CMB was discovered while looking for noise sources in microwave communications. Transistors weren't patented because the lawyers thought it wasn't new. (Arguably a huge mistake.) UNIX made money by being used internally, and was marketed within a few years, both directly through AT&T as System V, as well as licensed to third parties. Every famous accomplishment was the direct result of looking for technologies to either add new commercial offerings, improve existing offerings, or reduce operating costs.

If you're looking for research for its own sake with little or no direct goals for commercialization, you'll only find it at a very small subset of colleges, universities, and government/NGO enterprises like CERN. Even then, it often becomes necessary to license inventions to stay afloat.

Interesting bit of the training material I found:

"Fuck you,"-- that's my name. You know why, mister? You drove a Hyundai to get here. I drove an eighty-thousand dollar BMW. THAT'S my name. And your name is "you're wanting." You can't play in the man's game, you can't close them - go home and tell your wife your troubles. Because only one thing counts in this life: Get them to sign on the line which is dotted. You hear me, assholes? ABC. A, always. B, be. C, closing. Always Be Closing. Always Be Closing!