that 14 year old basement dwellers do not have rights and are not really people.

Who doesn't wear glasses in the rain

I don't.

That's what the GP wants to do. What he's tired of doing is accomplishing things that SOMEONE ELSE considers valuable.

I'm not sure that follows. Listeners compensate for both of these things by cranking up the volume only to be way over tolerance when the song goes from low point to high point or when the foam headphones shift back into place.

Which is worse for ears? Semi-loud music for 10 minutes or 10 seconds of over-the-top loud? It doesn't seem unreasonable to expect the opposite effect with flatter dynamics and a more physically stable listening device.

I have username envy.

That is a fascinating idea, but according to this story about who HIPAA applies to, employers are rarely subject to HIPAA except under some specific circumstances.

Doesn't this open them up to all kinds of legal problems? I mean if my bank account gets compromised after I use my nokia phone to check my balance, would I not have a pretty good cause for lawsuit?

Surely all the crazy people that go on rampages do it for the fame. It has nothing to do with their mental health.

Someone maintains that physical layer. Even if they are employees of the company, it doesn't follow that they can be trusted. Someone with access to the physical layer and an NTLM hack could "become" anyone else on the network and do whatever he wanted with little fear of getting caught.

Put another way, If everyone that was employed by the company could be trusted, they could all share the same login with unlimited access. If that makes you cringe, then so should NTLM. I think that's the point of the article.

A careful look at what I wrote will reveal that my misogyny accusation was not directed at the author. Notice that the title of my post was "How does this get +5 insightful?" and then I speak of him and his post in the third person, while I make the misogyny accusation in the second person. In other words I was saying, "...don't let science get in the way of your [Slashdot moderators'] shit headed misogyny".

OK, so even if I had been calling the author a misogynist, it would only be ad hominem if I had used his misogyny as disproof of his premise. But my disproof of his premise was that it was contrary to scientific data. Even if I had gone on to claim he were a misogynist, which I didn't, it wouldn't have technically been ad hominem.

OK, I think you are trying to say that a feeling of superiority to women is not the same as hatred. Yes, that's true, but that's not precisely the definition of misogyny I was picturing. See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/misogyny (noun: hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women.). I think I would have been within my liberty to have accused of mistrust given the following from the author:

And yet, to be clear again, that's not what I was doing. I was noting that the quickness that this shot up to +5 (before anything else even had +3) was (yet more) evidence of the rampant misogyny in the ranks of the Slashdot moderation crowd. I'm happy to see that cooler heads eventually brought it all the way back down.

Indeed, how will he ever conceal the fact that he can write software? He's doomed.

There's no insight here, no data. The parent just spews his own feeling that "girls are rule followers" and "boys are smarter". The scientists with actual data found that the qualities were actually "attentiveness, task persistence, eagerness to learn, learning independence, flexibility and organization", but don't let science get in the way of your shit headed misogyny.

And yet this anti-science post makes it instantly to +5, why? Because it strokes the ego of the Slashdot anti-female crowd who think that feminists are coming to take their balls away.

The answer is in the summary. Teachers give girls better grades. Standardized tests give boys better grades.

Indeed, here is the version from April 2009.

They added no such restrictions, they've always been there. The summary is wrong.

It hasn't been tightened, the summary is wrong. The following, which the summary says is new:

Is an exact quote from APRIL 2009. The new terms didn't change this.

The summary is completely wrong.

Here's what it said in April 10, 2009

Here's what it says now: