One example: Lara Croft. Originally, she was oversexualized, a sign of an inherently female-hostile game industry. Then, later, when later games toned down her sexuality, that was female-hostile because it apparently meant that the game makers felt that, in order to be taken seriously, a female protagonist has to be more "mannish."

She set out from the startup to make videos bitching and moaning and trying to shame others into doing things her way, rather than doing anything herself. Her intentions were ignoble from t=0.

Check out Thunderf00t's response video, for starters. There are many others.

Same EXACT crew who declared Iraqi WMD confirmed fact.

How many times will you be neo-conned, by the "bogey-man dictator" ploy?

Is that when you buy US Treasuries, you don't actually get anything. They don't send you a magic stone with powers to call in a debt. What happens is there's an entry made in a computer database, a computer that is in the US.

What this means is that the US ultimately has control over the repayment. Now both legally and practically the US is obligated to repay their securities per the agreed upon terms. However, that goes out the window in the case of a war. US law allows the freezing/seizing of assets, and other countries would have no problem with the idea.

So a situation could arise where the US simply declares China's holdings to be invalid and null. So long as the other bond holders are ok with this, and the (US) courts see it as legal, then China suddenly loses over a trillion dollars in investments. They can't just run off and sell them or something, they have nothing to sell. This would tank the renminbi and really screw China over. It actually could have a positive impact on the US, particularly if the other bond holders saw this as a positive (because the US owes less) and trusted that it wouldn't happen to them.

A country selling treasury notes isn't like taking out a loan with a loan shark. It works really different. US securities are:

1) Denominated in US dollars, and thus only worth something if the dollar is.

2) Payable on defined schedules, with no ability to "call in" the loan early.

3) Nothing more than promises to pay from the US government, and thus only valid if the government decides they will pay.

Have you actually managed to sit through any of her inane dribblings that pass as videos? Plenty of evidence there.

Hell, just the fact that she took a 150k kickstarter and used it to make a video series full of self-contradictory bitching and bullshit accusations rather than, say, making a game that she claims everyone wants (and 150k is plenty to make a good indie game these days, don't let the blockbuster budgets fool you).

It's safe to assert that "intending to shame others into doing things your way" falls safely inside the boundaries of "emotionally manipulative."

The "liar" part is trivially proven, but plenty of others have already gone after that, so finding them will be left as an exercise for the reader.

Having done my stint in various online games, I've probably received more death threats than senators have received blowjobs from congressional pages.

I'm pretty confident in my current system, which is something of an inversion of the USPTO policy: When you add "over the internet" to the description of the threat, its credibility drops 99%.

If you tell me that the Earth is going to change for the worse, and there's nothing we can do to stop it, then my response is we shouldn't try. We should instead work on how to survive the change. No reason to waste resources trying to stop something that can't be, spend them on dealing with it instead.

Likewise if you tell me Earth is doomed, and there's nothing we can do to stop it, then my response is that we should just not worry about the future at all, and enjoy what time we have left because there isn't anything else to do.

However if you tell me that we are creating a problem, but we can fix that problem by changing what we are doing, then I'm interested in hearing what you propose we do, what it would cost, how it would mitigate the problem, etc, etc.

If a problem is solvable then it makes sense to talk about what it would take to solve it. If a problem is just something we can't do anything about then we shouldn't worry about trying.

I think 40+ years of militarization and the "us vs them", "thin blue line" bullshit attitude have made plenty of headway in that regard already, so it's no great loss considering the trade-off.

That's also assuming that they're using one of the Netflix "Blessed" OSes and/or devices.

The main question is how many channels are allocated for DOCSIS. Each channel gets you about 38mbps of bandwidth, though more can be had on newer standards with 4096QAM (if the SNR is good enough to support it). So if there's 4 downstream channels then a max of about 152mbps total down (upstream is separate).

How many channels can they add? Not sure with current DOCSIS specs, but the wire limits are either 600mhz for old systems, or 1ghz for most new ones. So you cold probably get in the range of 166 total channels or 6gbps or so. Of course in reality, some of those channels have to go to TV and so on.

Now DOCSIS 3.1 is adding new methods for operation and supposedly will pull 10gbps down. Not sure how much of that is tested and how much of that is pipe dream but it is what the spec claims.

I'm in ur base, strip serchin' ur cheezburgers?

It amuses me greatly that both replies to this post responded as if Bill was talking about "X" the windowing system rather than a placeholder variable.

Should've used $X. ;)

Bigotry.

How many Muslims do you know? How many are there in the world? What miniscule fraction write screeds and take up arms?

Catholicism has the bloody destruction and enslavement of the Americas on it's conquistador hands. Islam - past and present - has nothing to shade that, by way of comparison.

It is interesting to note that Ghengiz Khan was a worshiper of nature-spirit, but almost half his armies were Buddhist - His first wife was oriental Orthodox, as were a substantial minority contingent of the Mongol horde and leadership. Papal emissaries were entertained by the Khan and later his grandson Guyuk was in correspondence with the pontiff.

The "muslims" that you see and read about with violent conversion and conquest? They are created, inflated and supplied by the various trans-national agencies and alliances in Global para-politics.

Snide.

But do background on Foley and Berg. Seriously.

It ain't about foreign wars.

It's about locking up unrest at home. Those evil, ISIS guys we gave weapons? They could be your neighbors! They are able to operate anywhere, anytime! They have Mexican drug-cartels (boogey-man II) in their pocket!

If you're going to get pedantic about statistics, you should really get to know your friendly neighborhood Margin of Error. Often ignored in fluff pieces, being aware of his existence is still vital.