I strongly doubt Global Climate Change is driven by human activity, and even I think this is stupid.

Adminstrator: You are suspected of being a cyberbully. Give me your password to Facebook.

Cyberbully: No.

Administrator: Uh....

After a dozen years of the IPCC insisting temps would go up and them not doing so, one might accuse you of cherry-picking "this year".

Yeah, I'm sure these will be used with at least the same intellectual rigor and restraint of any internet discussion, and not applied willy nilly to everything people disagree with emotionally or politically.

Obviously not, it would be rather stupid to assume only one entity can exist in a commercial space. We have McDonald's and BK, we have WoW and (umpteen other clones of WoW).

My point was that it's perhaps not the best sense economically to make your foray into a different marketplace one in which there is already a very strong competitor that does everything you claim you want to do. Better to perhaps seek something novel instead of re-tread already worn ground?

But let's keep this in perspective, shall we?
Let's even use that 75-year number, even though we know it's fairly arbitrary, I think it will be representative:
http://demog.berkeley.edu/~and...

US life expectancy 1940, male: 60.8 years.*
US life expectancy, 2014, male, 76 years.
That's 25% more life.
*if we go back to 1900 it would be an even more startling comparison - life expectancy for males was 46 years.

So clearly, being sedentary isn't healthy. If you can avoid it, great.
But our sedentary lives (looking at them cumulatively) have ALSO given us a net "win" for the individual by 25% more life span. That's pretty great.

With detailed diplomacy, exploration, colonization....so, basically, Distant Worlds Universe?

Seriously, I've always liked Sid's games and I've been playing them for 30 years. But hey, DWU pretty thoroughly has that niche covered.

When we build a society in which government is the solution to every single problem, what else did we expect?

If smoking bothers us, instead of simply going somewhere else, we campaign for a massive national ban on smoking enforced by the government.
If eating too much makes us fat, we elect politicians who cheerfully try to ban large sodas and contemplate legislation against restaurants that serve food that doesn't meet "our" healthy standards.
If we're upset that people have made such crappy life choices that they cannot afford fundamental expenses to support their life & kids, we insist that the government take wealth from everyone to pay them.

I'd say the idea that police swoop in to intervene when we decide to parent in a way not narrowly defined as "ok" by the bureaucrats is *precisely* in line with this trend.

" However, in my state, it is illegal for you to have more than one child. Well, effectively anyway. It is illegal for you to be on a different level of your house than your child, and we had twins and another girl a year older. In order to obey the law, you would have to carry all three of them with you when you put one of them to bed."
If you're talking about states in the US, I call utter and complete bullshit.

I challenge you to cite any code or collection of codes that would even IMPLY that you're limited in the number of children you could have, or that you cannot be on a different level of the same domicile as your child.

That's absolutely nonsensical, sorry.

You're approaching this as if it's fact-based. Typical nerd error.
This is a social crusade to make sure there are more vaginas present in tech companies regardless of context, qualifications, or even women's preferences.
This is a quest not about fairness, but about righteousness.

It's curious, though, that I don't see a similar indignation that women are underrepresented as janitors, ditch-diggers, or even in the trades - electricians, plumbers, etc. Certainly, women are just as capable to fill those roles, so why no ardent crusade to bring those numbers up as well?
It's almost like they're cherry-picking where women should be treated fairly and where they should still be treated preferentially. Of course, it would be harder to summon up great gobs of indignation if your fuel is hypocrisy.

"It's stupid on every level not to acknowledge the obstacles women face when they try to join a tech company."

Seriously, just fuck off already.
(And I'm not saying that because you have a vagina, I'm saying it because you're stupid.)

Quick quiz: you're a HR manager. You have 14 positions to fill this quarter, and likely will interview at least 300 people. You have about a million other things on your desk to deal with.
Two equally qualified candidates are interviewed for a job, one male, one female.
The male candidate, particularly if he's white, will likely as not take the job and do the work (unless he's a millenial, then all bets are off about the 'do the work' bit, but that's not a gender thing). If he doesn't do the work, or doesn't fit in with the rest of the team, or for whatever reason, you can get rid of him. Done.
The female candidate you need to evaluate how 'sensitive' this applicant is to diversity, and whether turning her down is going to (at the best) dump a crapton of nonsense on your head from higher-ups about filling gender quotas and making sure you're 'sensitive' enough to see her abilities, making sure the interview and setting are 'people oriented' enough, or (at worst) get you a call in 3 days from legal saying that somehow you said/did the wrong thing and now you're getting sued....and then understanding that if you DO hire her, you may have to walk on such eggshells every flipping day, waiting for some unsocialized geek in your engineering department to have the unmitigated gall to, I dunno, ask her out, at which point legal WILL be on your phone about the 'hostile' work environment.

So please, tell me again how CONSTANT bitching about gender diversity in tech and how unfair it is that "nobody offered her a potty break" is going to possibly encourage that HR person to go ahead and give that job to a woman?

Freedom of speech is, in the first place as a constitutional issue, is only as regards government limiting the speech of citizens; ergo the government should not be able to make any speech illegal (which it has in many contexts).

Secondly, simple common sense recognizes some words are offensive. And yes, I agree with him that some people (in the internet we call them trolls) deliberately provoke with words. The legitimate response, then, are WORDS, not violence.

And you're telling me that every one of them has to stream a separate movie in HD simultaneously?

In fact, I have a family of 6 HEAVY users, ranging in age from 17-47. They all live at home weekends and summers, and with a 10meg down/1 meg up connection, we're perfectly adequate.
Two might be watching an HD movie, another watching another movie on her phone elsewhere, and 3 playing MMOs online, and aside from a rare hitch in the film - usually having more to do with the neighborhood than our home, as it's exclusively at primetime - we all get along just fine.

So yeah, "25m is the baseline" is utter bullshit.

"But by pressurizing every crack to 30,000 psi with a mixture of sand and bullshit water"
I've never seen a better metaphor for American politics in 2014.