I'm sorry...did you think you were responding to the post above you? Because nowhere did I see a refutation of what Burz wrote regarding WUWT (which was linked to in the abstract, making it relevant) taking funding from Heartland.

You see, "both sides do it" muddying of the waters may work in right wing circles, but it's really not a solid argument. Media Matters' funding or skew isn't at issue, here, nor did I see anyone deny it -- they cited several sources, including Watt's own post commenting on news regarding his ties to Heartland, as a reference, and had you bothered to click through, you would have seen that.

Undisclosed conflict of interest - a major difference between what you're citing and what Burz mentioned - is a serious problem. You might want to read up on it.

All scientists rely on funding. And if I were looking to get rich, I'd be producing results favorable to the denialists. There's a lot more money there, and a lot less competition.

Fine -- let's an a condition: "The science is as settled as the scientific conclusion that cigarette smoking causes cancer". I hope that clarifies things.

...that everyone seems to assume the Truecrypt developer(s) were in the U.S.

It is possible the Truecrypt project has been bleeding what developers it had for some time. It hasn't been updated in a while. Maybe this was the last one standing saying "enough, I want to do something else". Also hoping for a fork if this is legit, and with the audit and the change in license, it's the perfect time (which may also have occurred to whoever decided enough was enough). State actor or court order theories don't seem to make much sense, and given the effort involved to do all that was evidently done (beyond defacing a website), I'm now doubtful this was a compromise.

It says above that the signing key was updated prior to the change in site/posting of new binary.

Yep. The rationale provided is also at odds with past statements regarding planned development. I'd bet this is a compromised site.

And again, most people (not just nerds, and not just men) I have known who have problems of success in love put the blame on others, rather than assuming they themselves are fatally flawed.

But evidently, they're supposed to see themselves as unworthy of love, instead? Or does that only apply to men?

I'm sorry, but this is a pretty poor point to use for some sort of differentiation, much less condemnation.

I realize people are looking for answers and going after groups and alleged group attitudes is easier than facing the fact that the roots of this problem are actually pretty complex. But if the problem of violence against women is to be solved, it's going to take a little more work than this.

I've seen it. Frankly, this guy objectified everyone: women as things he wanted to own/obtain, and men as things that were in his way and from which he could obtain esteem, power, etc.

I think this tragedy is a little more complex than some are making it out to be.

I mean, seriously and for the love of God, are we now attacking men who, for whatever reason, are unsuccessful in love, for their sense of "entitlement"?

I've heard a lot of people, from both genders, complaining that they couldn't get dates/find a boyfriend/girlfriend. Why there should be an assumption that it's a problem of "entitlement" if men are complaining, and not if women are complaining (or worse, blaming men in both circumstances) I've never heard defended adequately.

And most men have never run across the discussion. It might be relevant as a response, but to the uninitiated, it simply sounds like an attack against the male gender.

These are good points. To add to them, part of the problem with solving social issues is that you need to spread awareness and win converts. It's kind of hard to do that when your messaging is so sloppy that you immediately offend a large part of your audience. When you make blanket statements regarding half the population, chances are you're going to run into problems.

In other words, if people are taking offense, it might be that they're not trying to "derail the discussion". Rather, it might be that you're actually being offensive.
br. And none of this says anything about the merits of the cause in question. Too often, activists forget they need allies, whatever the issue.

All of what you say may be correct. But one major bug doesn't prove it. I do recall seeing quite a few life-or-death bugs in closed source projects over the years -- including stuff that most people use. So it's unclear to me whether you have additional evidence to support your statement, or are simply saying something self-serving.

There's a reason why the plural of anecdote isn't evidence.

On a related note, there's a reason why most of the most prominent security researchers seem to prefer open access to source code. I have yet to hear any of them change their mind over this bug.

Dr. Nick Lane has a more extended discussion on the possibility of life originating due to naturally-occurring proton imbalances in his book "Power, Sex, Suicide: Mitochondria and the Meaning of Life".

As he points out, proton imbalances (across membranes) are actually the way all bacteria generate energy, and the way all life likely did before a phenomenal accident gave us mitochondria (in the case of most eukaryotes, it's proton imbalances across mitochondria within our cells, giving us far more energy for a given cell volume and quite possibly the thing that made multicellular life possible). He also calls the "primordial soup" life precursor picture into serious question, as fermentation is actually more complex, from an enzyme standpoint, than respiration.

Really interesting stuff.

http://www.nick-lane.net/