Usually, a good college class is significantly more time efficient though. There is a trade-off; I can learn anything on my own, but I don't spurn training.

How very... trollish of you.

By the sounds of things, idea generation. In reality, they're there to be appeal to different cultures. There isn't that large of a policy gap, that's for sure, but the rhetoric is radically different.

And would have completely failed at their intent; a robust 'insurance' policy.

I don't see any real security difference between broadcasting my data where only a few hundred arbitrary people can get it, and publishing it online. If it can be broken, and there's a significant payout in breaking it, it's fairly trivial to intercept all such banking communication through a server. If my bank's security won't protect me against anyone trying to exploit it enmass, I don't care if they publish it or not. If it will protect me from people with a significant profit motive to break it, then I don't care whether they would have to intercept it or not.

At best you have a bit more security by obscurity, which is really poor security in any event, particularly for inherently valuable information.

So far as releasing the key, they were pretty responsible. Not epicly so, but you've got to admit that standard news organizations should have policies in place to deal with encryption, etc.

What the guy at the Guardian did was ridiculous. What wikileaks did was less-than-optimal, but should have been fine if a handful of trusted clients had proved trustworthy.

Whoops. I assumed you were the original poster; I suspect I might have used the wrong person for my pronouns in that reply.

I didn't want you to cite a source for a text-to-speech converter. I want you to cite any decent source which claims "Before the early 20th century, rape was a constant. The majority of women experienced it at least once in their lives, many as adolescents. That is the consequences of a chaste society, a hell hole where people are hurt and no one talks about it."

Those are some pretty outlandish claims. (Most pre-20th century women raped? Eh?) A citation would be in order.

This isn't a troll, it's a joke...

Errr... Perhaps you should clean your glasses. I think the Atlantic has fogged them a bit.

This is controversial. Depends which population you look at, and is confounded with everything under the sun. Not a huge impact either way, at least.

Only provided Indiana is considered South...

And I'm a Hoosier too. We LIKE our Pies with a sliver missing!

No. Just no. Stating that there exist outliers in a distribution does not mean a given statistical technique is invalid. Or that the mean of the distribution can't be meaningfully distinguished from another. Or.. ANYTHING AT ALL!!! It's a simple assumption when dealing with random variables.

And yeah, I agree stereotyping can have a bad impact on the target population. I even agree that impact may be worst for outliers! But that in no way invalidates the technique as a useful time-saving measure.

'Europe' is not a single entity. 'Europe' is not terribly Socialist. 'Europe' is much freer than it has been in most of its history.

Noone and Everyone is free; it's a meaningless adjective out of context. Freedom is relative; they're much freer than Zimbabwe for instance.

I disagree; my stereotype of Klansmen must be different from yours. As a first-order approximation, he sounds like an English conservative I know (NOT US conservative necessarily)

If significant chunks of the political debate in Europe sounds like klansmen speaking to you, perhaps you should adjust your stereotypes.

'Wrong' is inevitably a normative judgement; it depends on morals, ethics, etc.

Steroetypes though, are something we all share. They're a heuristic. A mental shortcut built into all our brains. If it's inherently wrong, then our brains are built wrong. One can certainly argue that some stereotypes are inaccurate, unhelpful, or even harmful to the stereotypee; in that case, perhaps it is 'wrong' to encourage such error.

This is exactly the Orwellian part; government is making normative judgement about thoughts, and attempting to impose that view on part of people's public life. (Specifically the published part.)

Declaring what is and is not 'right' for people to believe, and then attempting to enforce it, is so far outside the proper role of government in a liberal society that it's appalling. It's as bad, from a principled standpoint, as attempting to ban works critical of the government. Trying to regulate the expression of ideas is inevitably an attempt to regulate the ideas themselves, which is Orwellian, tyrannical, evil, and quite a few other unpleasant adjectives.