I've lost my taste for the death penalty over the years (in my 20's, I would have gladly told you to put any convicted pedophile to death as soon as humanly possible). It's the result of a system that creates criminals only to punish them. That's why I agree with you in theory, but in practice, a lot of the bite gets lost by the fact that the penal system continues to punish, not rehabilitate (you surround a criminal with criminals, the only thing you ever produce is someone who knows how to interact with criminals). And then society continues to punish.

Not that I can terribly blame society for mistrusting criminals. Again, the penal system doesn't do a good job of rehab. Some criminals return to the cycle of criminal behavior because sometimes, they have no idea what else to do.

It makes me truly sad that as a society, we're at an impasse when it comes to criminals. You can rehab the hell out of someone, but even the most self-aware criminals know there's not much hope of a regular life for them.

And no, I have no idea how to fix that. I wish I did, but I suspect there's no money in fixing that problem even if I had a few decent ideas.

This is 100% correct, but it would also require people to be responsible for their own accounts, at least to some extent. There are some people that still use default passwords for their accounts, or easily guessable ones. And that's just the least of problems with individuals.

The truth is, no one, not providers, not consumers, not the Government, not anyone, regards computer security for the crime-lousy potential that it holds. Because that would acknowledge some really scary truths about the way it actually operates, or the amount of work a user has to do in order to protect oneself.

The difference between me and other people is that I don't interject the names of the people I favor unless asked to, or to offer an alternative when one name is shouted from the heavens as an answer.

I didn't whinge and whine when Abrams was announced, nor did I shout "My guy is better than that".

I don't really HAVE a guy. I'm just annoyed with the idea that Whedon is the answer to a question that nobody asked, ESPECIALLY since there are BETTER writer/directors in the business.

That doesn't make me a troll, by the way. It makes me someone who disagrees.

"Foggy memories and the halo of nostalgia have a way of turning crap into gold"

I've never been able to bring myself to watch full episodes of the old Thundercats cartoons.

They were my favorite thing growing up, but a few YouTube clips later and I feel really old and weird.

Joss Whedon? No thank you.

I realize he's capitalized greatly on being the writer/director of The Avengers (everything he's done previously is cult-popular), but he's really not the be-all end-all nerd king. Love him or hate him, Cameron trumps him for technical merit, even if his stories lack a little soul. (IMO I've never gotten "soul" from Whedon, just a lot of hipster cynicism and shallow grandstanding.)

In fact, if we're trawling the Disney network for names, I'd go right ahead and put my vote (useless though it is) towards John Lasseter. If not, Neil Blomkamp or Guillermo del Toro.

All of those guys have a distinct track record for both visuals and story concepts (execution is certainly debatable). I'm just really tired of the idea among my peers and fandoms that Joss Whedon's the answer, when there are far superior writer/directors in the sci-fi/fantasy genre.

I rewatched the original trilogy as an adult too and found it to mop the floor with the prequels. The difference is I watched the ACTUAL originals and not whatever even-more-slapstick-and-bad-editing version they're selling now.

I have a minor interest in social engineering, partly due to my run-ins with sociopaths, but psychology has always been an interest of mine in general.

If there's one thing I, without fail, lecture my less-tech-savvy friends on anytime I ever have to fix anything computer-related, is that they are always the weak link in computer security.

At least once a year, when I become sufficiently annoyed with other people because they post things on Facebook that get my security nerves up, I will post messages like: stop telling people you're not home, or be careful with screen shots and signatures that reveal what kind of device you have.

Though the biggest anecdote I tell my friends, which in general seems to make them stop and think about things, is that if I really wanted to take up as an identity thief, I'd probably become a hairdresser. Think about how many small-talk questions they ask (it's alarming how often they ask if I have any plans for the weekend; my answer is always "staying home and cleaning the house"). Of course, I lie like a bastard if I want to be polite that day (other times I give short answers in a tone that indicates I'm not much in the mood for chit-chat) and tip generously regardless.

Point I'm making is that you should always kind of assume that everyone is at a risk for cyberattacks. There are just different vectors to get there.

Oh, they love to be challenged.

I was getting the "we've scanned your computer and there were errors on it" call from "Microsoft", and I played along for a little while. And then when I challenged the guy about actually working for Microsoft, he said something to the effect of the fact that he can't lie because he's from Microsoft.

They reassert the lie as if it somehow becomes truer and less absurd the more they say it.

I agree with you...sorta.

I mean, the best possible thing ever would be absolutely no reboots ever. I generally don't like reboots on principle because it kills the chance for new stories with new characters to be told in new worlds.

I'm not really on board with idea that because it isn't YOUR generation's Star Trek, it isn't Star Trek at all.

The problem is, if rebooting is unavoidable, you have a generation consuming the product that didn't grow up in the generation that produced it. Consequently, they don't need the franchise to be the thing that back in the day you had.

And I say this as a Trek fan, lamenting for the morality plays of yesteryear. There's new ground that can be broken in that arena, for sure, but audiences don't really want that. I have to check myself and remember that I'm older now, and nobody's making that movie for me.

So this puts the filmmakers, who I want to be optimistic about (they make it difficult, I know), in a terrible position: they either have to fail at being Gene Roddenberry (or George Lucas, as we shall see at the end of the year), or sink/swim at being themselves. I'd prefer the latter, because at least I always have reruns.

FTFS:

"Netflix, which has forcefully advocated carrier neutrality, has discriminated against BlackBerry customers by refusing to make its streaming movie service available to them. Many other applications providers similarly offer service only to iPhone and Android users. ... Neutrality must be mandated at the application and content layer if we truly want a free, open and non-discriminatory internet. All wireless broadband customers must have the ability to access any lawful applications and content they choose, and applications/content providers must be prohibited from discriminating based on the customer’s mobile operating system."

Neutrality, to the best of my understanding, is handled at the service provider level.

Service providers don't have any responsibility for the apps that developers create, and it would be impossible to regulate such a thing. Not figuratively impossible. LITERALLY impossible.

Blackberry's a dying brand, and with a CEO whose believes the mountain should come to Mohammed, it's no wonder.

Citations, please.

No, really. I'd like some citations.

So, giving my personal experience is "karma whoring" and I should just shut the hell up until I've taken my lashings like everyone else?

What's your benchmark, then? When do I get to say there ISN'T a problem with sexism?

And what's the problem with being a "gender egalitarian"? I've watched sexism happen in my life, I've watched reverse sexism happen. To me and to others. Maybe it's time MORE people came out as gender egalitarian, louder and stronger, so that people can actually engage with the notion that today's feminism isn't about equality but about how women are beyond reproach when accused of things like abuse?

The fact is, I HAVE experienced harassment and discrimination, but I'm not calling it a "universal problem" anymore, because it isn't. I had to learn to pick up and move on and find places where there isn't discrimination, because there are plenty of places where there isn't, and I know plenty of women that are doing just fine, thank you very much.

And there are plenty of places in gaming where women aren't harassed and discriminated against. I never said there weren't any places where that happens, just that it's not near the problem many feminists make it out to be.

What you're talking about is like saying there's a crime epidemic everywhere because a few bad neighborhoods are overrun by thugs and gangs. Yes, those things are bad. Yes, people are never going to stop committing crimes. But that doesn't mean there's a crime epidemic. The same way there isn't a rape culture (except for the inconvenient truth of rape culture happening in prisons among male populations, but rape is only a sensitive issue to women, apparently).

So yeah, I'm going to be a little patronizing here, but sorry if my enthusiasm for my own personal experience is kind of a bummer to you and doesn't meet up with the notion of the terrible experiences of women (myself included) you're characterizing here, but it's never going to get better if we don't acknowledge that there IS an upside and yes, we ARE getting there.

Simple: You're either lying through your teeth or simply so bigoted yourself that they seem perfectly reasonable to you.

You're making a metaphor so I know for a fact you're capable of understanding words have more than just their literal meaning. This is no different than calling a notorious coward "hero" in a sarcastic or mocking manner.

At this point you're deliberately refusing to understand plain english. SJW is a perjorative term invented as a response to feminists whining "but that's not TRUE feminism!" every time a feminist did something blatantly bigoted and anti-equality. It's a term used for people who use the language and appearance of Social Justice as a smokescreen for actually being toxic abusive bigots.

This is made exceedingly clear almost everywhere it's ever used, but you continue to try and rewrite history to somehow erase that and defend people who commit felonies and violent crimes using "social justice" or "feminism" as a shield against criticism.