I would pay 1500 for the device if all it did was cause you to try to knock it off my nose. I like fighting, and a self defense defense is gold.

I would have bought one ages ago if they'd fucking sell them outside the US.

They should have realized that Americans would be the least receptive people on earth to this thing.

Stratasys have been making reliable rapid prototyping machines for many years, and that making another one isn't a noteworthy achievement.

The compelling thing about 3D printing is that there are open source, non patent encumbered implementations available.

Making an open source non patent encumbered 3D printer that is significantly more reliable would be newsworthy. This isn't.

It's all open source code. Google couldn't pull a MS with Android. So, your point is moot.

I don't know why you would say this. There is a single platform that runs on almost all devices. It's called Android. Everything else is a bit player that you can safely ignore.

This does a great job of illustrating the advantage of "diversity", which ISN'T having people approach the problem from different perspectives.

Hand in hand with "diversity" is "inclusiveness", and "inclusiveness" is the real point.

If you have a town full of people that rely on "the town farmer" to grow the food, and they have this naive idea that food is something that grows on a supermarket shelf, they're going to govern themselves like idiots any time they're given a voice in how to handle the food supply.

This means that they'd be better off not to participate in a democracy and just make this guy their master because food is so important that they'll kill themselves if they make a mistake, which their ignorance practically guarantees.

So, for the sake of their own security, they need to be included.

BUT

They're ignorant as little babies. Their ideas are founded on nothing at all. There's a system that is providing for their food supply, and their purpose there is to learn it, not assert control over it.

They are there to become grounded in reality, and to surrender to reality, and to be absorbed into what is there.

Coming into a situation with the attitude that you are there to bring something to the table and that your perspective deserves to be respected is demanding that reality be ignored in favor of making you feel comfortable and valued.

So, instead of learning to not rely on the farmer, you basically fire him in a fit of ego and then starve to death when you realize you don't know what the hell you're doing.

A lot of people miss the point on this, and they're running around with this idealistic position that they are doing a good thing by "transforming" cultures to make them more "diverse", and shoving arrogant ignoramuses into positions of authority and demanding that the people whose culture was formed around a set of problems abandon all of their hard won lessons and start playing politics as the systems that are their duty go to shit.

I said that about Windows 2000.

Then the starving artists got their hooks into the open source desktops and fucked them all up.

Windows 7 it is.

30% Interesting
30% Overrated
20% Flamebait

Final result? -2 Troll

Looks like this isn't moderation "by the people" any more...

Men and women both contribute to creating people.

A mans contribution can be completed in a single night.

A womans contribution requires 9 months, during which time any distraction, disruption or stress can cause the "person creation" process to fail catastrophically.

This is the reason we systematically transform men into specialists instead of men. It is a waste of precious resources to turn a woman into a computer programmer when she's a lot more valuable as a mother.

It's not that women are incapable of being computer programmers. It's that they have more important duties, and when they neglect those duties, the entire human race suffers for it.

At the end of the day, the problem is people like you, who don't care about the fate of the human race as long as you get what you want out of life before you die, and, frankly, the solution is NOT diplomatic in nature.

People do get that the only thing that knocked RIM from the top of the heap was the lawsuit filed by patent troll NTP, right?

They weren't beaten on technical merits. They weren't beaten because they "don't understand consumers". They weren't beaten on style, or execution, or anything else.

They were beaten by a corrupt US legal system that forced the guys running the company to stop running the company, hang around in a court room for years and in the end pay over half a trillion dollars to patent trolls.

Looking back, what they should have done was shut down US operations immediately, allowed the US government to implode and gone on to greener pastures.

Moral of the story, don't do business with Americans. One way or another, they'll fuck you over in the end. That's how they got where they are today.

Smart men just don't do business with the sharpest horse trader in town.

Comparing Internet service in the US to other nations is mostly pointless.
 
Do you get how amusing that is, given the context?

I do not agree that this is a good use of public resources, part of which are mine. That's the point of having a discussion about it.

If she wants to hire a private investigator out of her own pocket, that's all well and good.

That's the thing about a democracy... it's not based on principles, it's based on unity. If you can't convince the vast number of people who agree with me, you have no right to use our tax money to finance your investigation.

I remember when SnapChat first hit the scene, thinking that such a service shouldn't exist, that it's inherently malignant in nature. Seeing these people get burned by its failure makes me happy, and I have no interest in working extra hours so I can fund a team of people to shore up what was a bad idea in the first place.

Perhaps, if you hope to see your vision of how things ought to be realized, you should stop making authoritative statements and start providing compelling arguments that take my demographics interests into account.

Competition brings out the least in people.

If you measure yourself against the world, you'll always have room to improve.

If you measure yourself against other men, if you're the best, you'll never reach your potential.

And, because your peers have motivation to celebrate your failures, rather than your successes, you'll actually be fighting those who should be benefiting from your achievements.

On a personal level... dealing with competitive people is too tiresome to bear. Nothing they have to offer is worth dealing with their ego driven crap.

And, you can see the idiocy in their posts here. ISPs in the states are the most "free market" in the world, and they are also among the worst. The countries that treat ISPs as critical infrastructure like roads are the ones with the fastest infrastructure, but the "free market ra ra ra" crowd are still convinced that the way to improve the situation is to move further away from what is working better elsewhere.

Now, this isn't an academic debate. When you can look around, see that other people are getting better results, and you ignore that, that is just plain stupid.

Shoplifting is a great example. If a shopkeeper catches the perp in the act, they get charged with a minor crime. But, zero public resources are spent on investigation, because it just isn't worth the trouble.

I'm bored enough to play...

Let's accept the arguments and move past them. What is she seeking when she asks us to accept that she is the victim of a sex crime?

She is seeking for us to take responsibility for locating and punishing the people who distributed these photos at our expense.

Each of us asks ourselves: Will going along with her position protect me? Will it protect people I care about? Will it encourage society to change in ways that I prefer? Will it put me at risk by criminalizing behavior that I enjoy engaging in? Will it put me at risk by criminalizing behavior I might engage in unknowingly, and burden me with the need for increased vigilance? How much will it cost? What will we be sacrificing to pay that cost? Is it all worthwhile?

She wants to make this our responsibility. The "victim blamers" do not want to assume this responsibility. She is selling something and some of us aren't buying it.

And, in typical fashion, those who fancy themselves the Champions of Women are attempting to paint those who are unsympathetic as hateful and shame them into submission, making them angry and defensive.

Which is smart, because when you rationally consider the reward on investment involved in treating this as a serious crime, it's open and shut. Only an emotional thinker could think this is a rational response.