Yes, people are mean to everyone online. The difference is you aren't pre-judged based upon your sex on whether you are good or not. You aren't harassed by these people constantly after they find out your sex.

But no, I have never had anyone tell me I didn't have the right to play the game. I know it is hard for some people, but you have to look at something from another's perspective. If you think the online experience for men and women are the same, you are flat out wrong.

This only would make sense to someone who is really mentally fucked up.

When he says people should be free to be who they are, he is talking about fundamental things such as the fact that they are a female. He is not talking about people outside of the norm. It doesn't infringe on me when someone is female. Some sexual pervert harassing me...sorry, that does violate that. Someone who is female or gay isn't pushing that on me. The sexual deviants and psychopaths out there are.

So feel free to be as screwed up as you want...just keep it to yourself.

No, no they are not. When I go online and people find out I am male, nothing happens. When women go online, they are harassed constantly by idiots. Constant messages asking for pictures, a/s//l, etc. They can handle just the random hate filled things as well as any of us can...they are not being singled out. But when their sex is revealed, they are.

So to say we are treated just as bad as women...well, that is misogynistic garbage for a bunch of pathetic men who have trouble with women because they are socially awkward.

So grow up. When men start hiding their sex online for fear of being targeted, then maybe you would have a point.

It is becoming cheaper and cheaper. When the cost is low enough, more consumers will buy and it becomes profitable.

Once people put out designs to buy for stupid things that teenagers like, it will fly off shelves. Print out your own cell phone cases or designs you can stick on your text books.

Also, you have tinkerers who will think it is fun to play with at that price.

All it will take is one killer product and everyone will start wanting one.

Because they don't want science to be compatible with religion. Religion is right and science is wrong.

Of course they do. We just don't see it because our news is terrible and only focuses in domestic issues. Get out of the country and the rest of the world pays attention to each other.

Ok, then google stops being viable as a company. You get all this stuff, for free, because google is an ad company and can make enough money doing that they don't need to charge you for its applications of services.

Don't like it, don't use it.

I guess I don't see any logic in what you wrote. Passwords are something everyone is familiar with now and is useful.

But to think that just because no one has come up with the password killer that it is necessary seems ridiculous to me.

Before airplanes....and seeing our first failed attempts at flight...you could say that the logic of human flight was broken.

Doesn't mean you give up, you come up with new ideas and try them.

Everything is vulnerable to some form of attack. But this combination makes it much more challenging.

If you do it long enough, you are loitering.

If you are coordinating a distributed attack on a system and preventing others access, thus damaging a companies ability to do business...then yes, that indeed should be illegal.

Flip this around and put yourself in the other shoes. Pretend this was your website and was the way that you made money. I'd imagine you would want it to be illegal for someone to take away your ability to run your business.

There is also a difference between an accidental attack (slashdotting a site) and doing something to intentionally cause harm. Intent matters.

No, I am pretty sure they could drive cars on closed courses to determine what is an acceptable speed based on curvature of the road, type of road (highway, residential, etc), and number of lanes. You don't need to break any laws to understand this.

In any case, your argument misses the mark because you aren't actually arguing against his point. Only disagreeing with his example.

His point is that in most cases, breaking the rules is going to lead to stricter enforcement of those rules...not loosening of them.

No, they are not antithetical at all. There is nothing stopping from a scientist who tries to build a model of the real world can't run for office and be a politician. There are certainly scientifically minded people in our government right now.

I think the issue is more that the type who is attracted to power tend not to be the scientist type. They are more the sociopath type that believes they are better than everyone else and whatever view they have is superior.

Actually, Obama has done a lot for science and is a great supported of science. One of his science cabinet members came and spoke at my company and it really illustrated a lot of the funding and effort in to funding and supporting science.

I think you also don't understand politics if you think he can wave his hands and fix the problem. You would need Republicans to support the idea of science as well. And since they pander to a base that believes in zombie Jesus over climate change...just isn't going to happen any time soon.

I completely agree. Yet for some reason I am guessing that you and I would both thing each other has "mind cancer" considering you think there are legions of "free shit" people.

You don't understand what a scientist is because there are still plenty out there and you don't need a degree.

To be a scientist, you need to conduct your research using the scientific method. Your research should be validated through peer review. If you research stands up, then it stands up. So that case, Hawking's viewpoint will be equivalent or better from a nuclear physicist because his research has passed peer review.