Where exactly did I say anything about you allegedly saying something about "getting tough or macho"?

Let's roll the tape, Johnny:

With all due respect, you have a severe reading disorder. First, you think the GP poster was saying you "consent". When I corrected you on that, you then think I was saying you were talking about being "macho". In actuality, no one was ever talking about consenting, being macho, or doing anything else stupid.

So, you might say you love the pea-ness?

That wasn't in the post you're replying to. If the cops order you to do something, such as turn over your ID or give them your bag, you politely say "I do not consent to this, but I will not resist" and do as ordered. File your complaints and lawsuits later. You can't negotiate with the guy with the gun.

I don't think any woman in history has ever lied about not wearing a female condom... You've never actually seen a female condom, have you? Lying about wearing one would be like an amputee lying about having both legs.

DSK? The guy who was accused of forcing a hotel maid to give him a beej against her will? The guy who said he never met the maid and has no idea what anyone's talking about? The guy who then said yeah, he met her when she cleaned his room, but the door was open and nothing happened? The guy who then said, yeah, the door was closed, but nothing happened? The guy who then said, well, he was naked and the door was closed, but nothing happened? The guy who then said, well, she gave him a beej, but she was totally into it? The guy who then said the torn rotator cuff in her shoulder was because she really liked rough sex? No, he's totally credible. You just have to pick which of his many contradictory stories you believe.

They don't need to, and neither do cable companies. 17 USC 111 provides for compulsory copyright licensing for cable providers, with rates set by the government. Once SCOTUS said Aereo was a cable company, they should have been allowed to take advantage of those licenses. However, the District Court said that they're also NOT a cable company, leaving Aereo in a legal limbo where they can't carry the content, regardless of whether they pay for it or not.

That's incorrect... If they were defined as a cable company, they could pay compulsory royalties and carry the content legally. However, the District Court recently held that no, they are not a cable company, and have no ability to pay those royalties for a license.

So, in essence, you have the Supreme Court saying that they're not NOT a cable company, and the District Court saying that they're NOT a cable company. It leaves them in a position where they are neither a cable company nor NOT a cable company, and therefore can never carry broadcast content, regardless of whether they want to pay for it or not.

You're right regarding age - they've hung up on me in the past if I've sounded too youthful, so when I'm trying to get a scammer to stay on the line, I make my voice all quavery like an old man.
I have a friend who signed me up for a free trial of adult diapers as an April Fool's joke... my guess is that's how they got my number.

Incidentally, the Fake name generator is great for keeping them on the line for a long time, giving fake credit card numbers and addresses until they catch on.

If that is true, then cite to her FB page. Otherwise, we only have Gjoni's word that those posts existed, and as noted above, he has significant reasons for fabricating them.

If they're adopting standards, then shouldn't that make using third-party hardware easier, since that hardware merely has to be standard-compliant?

That "citation" is by Eron Gjoni. You can't say "according to her" when she didn't write a single word in what you're claiming for support. At best, you can say "according to this guy who really hates her, she believes [x horrible thing]" , but then everyone would be rightfully skeptical.

Your link doesn't work. And a search on TESS for "coca-cola" as the full mark and "NOT Coca-Cola Company" as the applicant returns one hit, an abandoned application by a pro se "sovereign citizen": "Harvey W. Wiley DBA We The People INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES 900 Georgia Ave Chattanooga TENNESSEE 37402". Searching for "coca-cola" in the description of the mark with "NOT Coca-Cola Company" as the applicant returns one hit, a design for an author's business card that uses the same red color as Coke: "The color(s) coca-cola red is/are claimed as a feature of the mark. The mark consists of a coca-cola red kneeling fisherman." But it's also abandoned.

Finally, searching for "coca-cola" anywhere in the application, but NOT the Coca-Cola Company as the applicant turns up a pile of applications... from people with addresses at "Coca-cola Plaza" or "Coca-cola Park" in various cities - i.e. tenants in Coke's industrial parks. Is that what you searched for and thought you found?

Yeah, sorry, Bennett, but there's no way that someone can be bound to a promise when they're not getting anything in exchange. Contracts require consideration or an exchange of obligations... If Ello isn't getting anything in return - subscription fees, payments, etc. - then how can they be legally required to fulfill a promise? And if the users aren't giving up anything, what are our damages when they breach that promise? Our hurt feels? Our increased skepticism and distrust for organizations in the future?

Now, the one thing you note is that Ello could charge extra for special features... Privacy obligations could be tied into those features, where they have a penalty if they breach. But in a system in which users pay specially so that they remain anonymous, isn't it implied that non-paying users have their demographic information sold? In which case, isn't Ello doing exactly what Ello said they wouldn't?

Basically, all of this navel-gazing is stupid. If you want to avoid ads, don't use free services that have ads. Or, if you're going to use free services, accept that the service provider has to make back their costs somewhere, and your eyeballs are a valuable asset.

Nursing was originally a male-only profession. Unless you're seriously suggesting that we've undergone a drastic evolutionary shift in the past few hundred years, then no, there's nothing genetically innate about that interest.

We don't legislate "hate". "Hate crimes" are not the criminalization of "hate", but sentencing enhancements applied based on motive or intent. And you understand that we do punish different crimes differently based on intent, right? For example, premeditated murder is usually punished more severely than heat-of-the-moment murder, which is punished more severely than accidental homicide or reckless "manslaughter", which is punished more severely than negligent manslaughter, etc. If I swing my arm without paying attention and bop you in the nose, that's bad, but it's not as bad as if I intentionally bop you in the nose... and we as a society have decided that that is not as bad as if I intentionally bop you in the nose because you're a member of a minority group I dislike.

Or, to look at it another way, if I bop you in the nose because I dislike you, that harms you, and I should be punished for that single instance of harm. But if I bop you in the nose while ranting about people of your religion/race/gender/etc., I'm doing it to terrorize or intimidate other people of that religion/race/gender/etc. - I'm physically harming you and sending a message to others like you that they should beware because I'll try to harm them in the future. Accordingly, I should be punished for that increased harm.

And remember, there has to be evidence of that intent. If I bop you on the nose because you're a member of group X, but I never say a word about that, then I'm not going to receive an enhanced sentence simply because you're X and I'm Y. It's only when I take the additional action of letting my intent be known - and as noted above, I would do that because I'm trying to intimidate other X's.

So, in short, we're not criminalizing "hate", we're criminalizing domestic terrorism. And I'm fine with that.