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.

Of course, it does mean that you don't have any buddies anymore and you've got piss all over your toilet seat.

These sorts of comments remind me that, even though my opponents are anonymous, I am nevertheless wounding them with my rhetoric. That makes me smile.

Thank you!

I've been doing this for the better part of a decade. Except, I know I'll be repeating this phrase to myself every day, so I take it as an opportunity to engage in a little self programming. It makes the passphrase personal instead of generic, and useful instead of burdensome.

"I don't like drinking with my buddies till 3 because it makes me feel rotten the next day" = "Idldwmbt3bimmfrtnd"

Now when my buddies ask me to stay out drinking on Thursday night, I'll hear "I don't like drinking with my buddies till 3 because it makes me feel rotten the next day" in my head and make the responsible choice.

Or whatever. "I put the toilet seat down because even though it's inconvenient it's better than listening to my wife criticize me"?

You can have fun with it.

I didn't realize she's only 24. She looks old for her years...

Like I said, I don't know who she is, and don't really care. Entertainers are a dime a dozen, and they're as replaceable as a washer.

Aside from being a slag who has nude pics on the Internet, have no idea who she is, so I guess I'm doing it right.

She's really too old looking for me anyways. .. not into MILF porn

You might want to check the moderation on the post you replied to, chuckle.

Your link is for a 30 year old watch with a touch screen that lets you enter numbers and symbols.
This story is a new invention watch with a touch screen that lets you enter numbers and symbols and letters.

That's why Microsoft deserves a patent on it.

-

Speaking for myself, the reason for the negativity is illustrated in this line from the article:

"The Evince appâ"GNOMEâ(TM)s PDF viewerâ"now has less interface getting in the way"

This is not just something that applies to Gnome. This attitude is pervasive across the entire industry. Windows 8, OSX, Gnome, Unity... I can't speak for KDE, haven't used it in years.

I consider this attitude to represent a regression. They're crippling the tools I use to solve problems based on the advice of fluffy headed artists and usability experts who are more interested in how an ignoramus reacts to something they've never seen before.

Frankly, if you're not interested in what you're doing enough to learn to master your tool, then what you're doing isn't important.

Crippling the tools that people use to do work so intellectually lazy baby boomers can have a toy that's easy to play with is bad for everyone.

The more you design something to be popular, the crappier it is.

If I'm free, does that mean I'm free to participate in social networks that have a "real name" policy of my own volition?

If there's a social network that has a "real name" policy, and I join it, and then someone else comes along and insists that they should be able to join this network without using their real name, what happens to me?

Do we flat out not have the right to participate in a social network that has a real name policy?