It's just sexist bullshit - it's an attempt to invalidate their position by making it about whether or not they're "hot" or not. If you're going to criticise their legal action, why not do it for legitimate reasons (the merits of their case?) Why resort to sexist bullying?

What was this website called? Any evidence to support your claim that it failed "because women wouldn't initiate contact in almost any case" rather than some other reason?

Christ Slashdot is depressing these days. Any article at all that mentions how women have a shit time in the digital world and the overwhelming majority of comments disagree, and those marked Insightful or Funny are almost exclusively whines from men about how it's all the fault of women and the "SJW crowd". If you're lucky, there'll be one or two +5 Interesting comments expressing alternative view. And they're always Interesting, never Insightful - it's as if these alternative views are *news* to people. It's just depressing.

Now it's called the Reddit Hug. A more powerful force, by far...

You need a little socialism. You need to value workers over the owners of capital. You need a social safety-net.

The London Review of Books
The New York Review of Books
Foreign Affairs
The Times Literary Supplement

Shouldn't that be...

This gets bandied around a lot as a "reason" not to do anything, or to do very little, about reducing human impact on the environment (Not saying that this is your point, just picking the words out). It's crap for two reasons: first, the impact of the US on the global environment far outweighs India or China's impact, now or in the foreseeable future. Secondly, and more importantly, the argument effectively says "can't fix everything so there's no use even trying." It may be that you can't fix everything, but we have to start somewhere, and doing something is better than doing nothing.

The moment folk start arguing over who owns what, that's when there'll be lawyers. I don't imagine it'll take long.

Not so much. I get you're a fan but ease up on the hyperbole if you want to be taken seriously.

But they'll only be available Beta. Or maybe /. TV.

I have wondered though - interviews with RMS, Theo De Raadt, Eric Raymond (lol) have all been promised. It's as if /.'s trying to win all the doubters back over.

But you didn't have a valid insightful point. You characterized the people in the bar in a certain way, denigrated them because of it, when in fact the fine article actually points out what the other customers actually did. Nothing like what you describe.

Late to the party so I suspect all y'all will miss this but it's important to realise that The Telegraph is a very right-of centre, capital "C" Conservative news organisation. In the UK it's often called the Torygraph for it's unquestioning and unalloyed support of all things associated with the Tory (Conservative) party. For a different spin, try the Guardian's coverage, here.

Even better would be to actually read the LRB article which actually is a detailed, nuanced piece which says both good things and bad about the guy.

What are you, 13? "Go look it up in Wikipedia". Please. Sam's (your) argument is that people suffer famine because they live in the desert and this would be solved if they just left the desert area. Because that's why famine happens. And because it's easy to leave. Seriously - how naive are you? Even the wikipedia entry on famine shows you up FFS,

What a well thought through and nuanced position that is. As a rule, famine doesn't happen because people live in a desert. It happens because of crop failure. Or war. Or any combination of a number of social and geo-political factors. But because they live in a desert? Not so much. Further, the "great" Sam's position implies that people have a choice about where they live. Again, not so much.