This is a great post - thanks. Sadly, as evidenced by the Overrated and Troll mods you've got, and most of the replies, you could have equally validly said:

Thanks for pointing this out - the Slashdot "BUT FREE SPEECH" circlejerk drives me nuts.

I wonder how long this will last us. 50 years? 100?

I'm currently cycle touring in central Africa and while this sounds like a potentially useful addition to my water supply solution (Katadyn water filter), it would not be a replacement for it. The main reason is that at 0.5 litres an hour (max capacity) it just wouldn't produce enough water for me. Currently, in ~30C temperatures with 80%+ humidity, riding 80km+ a day, I'm getting though upwards of 6 litres each day. It's thirsty work!

No it doesn't, it raises the question.

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.