That's useful for technical matters like bandwidth calculation but the user cares about clarity.

8K can display a line half the thickness of 4K. That's what matters.

The problem is that so many people have an agenda with this sort of research, it's very hard to tell who has an agenda and who is genuinely curious. Not sure what to do about this.

And his description of Rosalind Franklin do come across as a pretty sexist, even if you make excuses for his age.

They want to keep kids off hacking websites. These are not very technically minded people.

So yes. I'll concede that this is probably an overbroad interpretation of "hacking" which is why only 3 ISPs actually listed it as such, and one of them chenged their mind.

"3 private companies miscategorise CCC as 'hacking'" is hardly a major news story.

Well, what do you expect from a country that has CCTV on every corner in every town

We don't. The report that said we did had really poor methodology and a lot of speculation.

Even then, the bulk of CCTV is in private shops. You have this in every country.

Because the hysteria over this is idiotic.

• There is no "British porn filter".
• • The filters are sold as "parental controls"
  • The filters are run by the ISPs and not the government.
• In this case a total of three of them actually blocked the site.
• "Hacking" is a default category.
• • While blocking "CCC" may be an overbroad application of this filter it does provide information on a lot of subjects that would assist a would-be hacker.
• The filters aren't opt-out. You make a choice when you set up your connection. It is virtually impossible to accidentally set them up
• If you are so incompetent that you set them up accidentally, the block-page tells you how to turn it off
• Only three ISPs blocked this site. Two of them are mobile providers. One of them has since unblocked it.
  
  I'd really expect technical sites like Slashdot, and CCC to actually have a clue about these filters. Instead users have latched on to a bandwagon.

I'm not defending the other argument. I'm attacking the stupidity of focussing on a group that represents less than a millionth of the population of the world as though it's somehow relevant to homelessness or low paid, dangerous jobs.

Who gives a shit about CEOs? Really? You think gender is the only reason preventing someone from becoming head of ICI?

Men, as an aggregate are more competitive than women. They're more likely to be concerned with status and money and competition. Result: More men actually strive to become CEOs. If you want to be a CEO, fight your way up the corporate ladder and become one. Nobody is going to just hand that to you out of some guilt over inequality. Every CEO fought for their position taking advantage of anything society offered them, and finding ways to mitigate their disadvantages. They take responsibility for their own success. They don't blame society, or privilege.

Honestly, there are a lot of questionable statistics. But it seems that the numbers are close enough together that gender really shouldn't enter into it. Some people are victims of violence, usually from people they have strong enough feelings for to be completely irrational over the matter, and we should actually address this as a serious concern.

Should possibly take that with a pinch of salt.

GTA 1 & 2 didn't. Well, I guess some of the blobs might have been female but it was pretty indescriminate mindless violence.

Male agression against women is slightly higher, but we're only looking at a 40/60 split. That is, of course, reported, but then the statistics don't seem to be that different for injuries caused (I did see a figure very close to 50% here but I think that might actually be misreading of the statistics).

The main problem here is lack of awareness. The police seem very reluctant to prosecute women, and men are reluctant to apear weak.

If you need to think of something closer to home, read about domestic violence, in "the west," today.

In the UK men make up 40% of domestic violence victims, and pretty close to 50% when the abuse involved "severe force". There are 7500 refuge places in the UK for women, and 60 for men.

How dare you lecture others on equal rights when you totally disregard the millions of male victims of domestic violence!

Until then, men are the more oppressed sex

I broadly agree with most of your points but I hate this sort of thing. When you start getting into one-upmanship over who's the most opressed you come across as that social justice peasant in Quest for the Holy Grail. "Help, help, I'm being opressed!"

Women often have to deal with prejudice. So do men. Work together, and tell the SJWs and MRAs to get stuffed.

Cutting certain businesses or even entire countries out of the Internet is not nearly as difficult from a technical point of view as cloud-dreaming geeks like to think, and taking billions out of a national economy by blatantly playing the system is a very strong motivator.

Didn't mean to imply that it was trivial. Google obviously sees a business need for a presence in the UK. More the observation that it is genuinely a lot harder to claim conclusively that a transaction with Google happens in any specific place. Sure a British company advertising to British customers paying Google UK is a British transaction, but what about a Canadian company that does 17% of its business in Europe paying Google US for international advertising? And with multinationals selling to other multinationals things get even more complicated.

I'm a man. I'm not a fortune 500 CEO! Why the hell not! I was promised there's be privilige!

I have a 99.9999% chance of not becoming a fortune 500 CEO. A woman has a 99.99999% chance of the same thing. Fact is neither of us are going to become CEO. But this is petty trivial shit.

Yes, it is a problem that women are opressed in a lot of the world. I'll go on marches and sign petitions because that shit matters. Whining that women don't become CEOs (when most women don't want to be CEOs) is so trivial that it makes a mockery of the things that do matter!

Honestly, I don't have that much time for most of this. It comes across as a whine in response to a whine. Yes, we're not toally equal but there aren't any barriers to you not becoming a miner. Maybe the imbalance in college attendance is something we should care about, but there are bigger issues.

What is a big problem is men are more likely to commit suicide, much more likely to end up as criminals and likely to die younger. A man will typically get a much higher sentence than a woman charged with the same crime. If he does go to prison, the idea that he might be raped is tereated as a joke. Separated fathers often have difficulty having access to their children. Men are victims of 40% of cases of spousal abuse but there are hardly any shelters for them, and a lot of the time they're scared to call the police because they're scared they'll be seen as the agressors.

So I don't really give a fuck about the imbalance of men doing heavy lifting. There are much more important issues to worry about. I get that you;re trying to point out the hypoocrisy but it's backfiring. Whining about petty shit trivialises the important issues.