Yes, keep thinking it's because people have thin skin, and not that they're being insulted based on their group all their lives, while you are not.

Listen up Captain Clueless, when someone uses a word for a woman's genitalia to insult a certain woman, they're definitely not doing it because they think woman as a group are wonderful people. It's like when straight people say "I don't care if you're gay, just don't be a faggot!", or when white people say "I don't care that you're black, just don't be a nigger.". Whatever their justifications, it's obvious that this person is not your friend, they imagine themselves above you, able to judge you as a representative of your group, and will move against you or hurt you if they think they can get away with it. A woman/gay person/black person that agrees with this line of thought ("don't be a "), has internalized a lot of self-hatred.

Yes I do. Like I said, using gendered insults says a lot more about the person using them than the person being insulted.

Here's what your logic is missing shitface: you're using a word for female genitalia as an insult. When you do this, you're basically saying that being female, or possessing a vagina, is an insulting state of existence. Gendered slurs, they don't say good things about the people that use them.

Slashdot has become, in the last few years, more of a conservative techie site than just a plain techie site. It's not completely conservative, but especially when issues of gender, race and prejudice come out, you'll notice the skew.

Shhhhh! Evidence is not what these MRA types have a wealth of.

Definitely j.

My guess is a lot of slashdotters, especially the MRA crowd, don't have much nice things to say about women in general. Their silence is actually a measure of respect, instead of discrimination (in their minds at least).

Not only this, but being arthropods with considerably more primitive nervous systems than mammals, it's yet to be determined if they (insects) even feel pain the same way we do. The reason why mammals such as bears and dolphins seem "cuddly" is because our close evolutionary heritage show characteristics in common between species that elicit a protective and nurturing instinct even between species. Naturalists have filled pages and pages full of anecdotes of mammalian predators who have spared and even gone on to raise young mammals of their prey species; the nurturing instinct is strong and not very discriminating.

I have a degree in biology from a uni in a tropical island country - there are so many non endangered yet critical species the mind boggles to drill down to specifics, the example I gave of monographs and journals was relayed from actual experience and not speculation; but if I must satisfy your laziness, then I shall provide as my example: the family of crustaceans generally known as krill. They are a cornerstone of the food web in sub-temperate and polar waters, with a diverse array of species feeding directly or indirectly from them, such as salmon, blue whales and penguins. They are also not nearly close to being endangered, yet if they did become endangered, the food security of several temperate and sub-arctic countries could be called into question.

Here's a tip, try searching for information at a deeper level than just googling. Maybe ecology monographs and journals on various clades of marine organisms? Did you ever consider that only endangered animals would have layman friendly SEO optimized articles written about their ecological importance, while more mundane species would have just as much if not more data about them, but mouldering away in a university library somewhere, rather than being talked about on the mainstream news sites?

Stop playing semantic games and just admit that there are no real alternative browsers, only wrappers around Apple's version of webkit, or some Frankensteinian monstrosity that offloads processing to the server.. Anyway, I joined this conversation to make a point and now must leave it point made, whether or not the recipient of my words understood them.

It's not the "real" Google Chrome because it's blocked from using it's own fork of WebKit, and cannot use a javascript JIT compiler (neither the builtin Nitro engine, nor any third party one).

No actually, Chrome on iOS uses a slower (and less powerful) version of the webkit engine than Safari does. More specifically, Chrome on iOS is blocked from using the Nitro javascript engine that Safari has access to, and is not allowed to use it's own javascript JIT compiler, due to Apple's guidelines. So no, Chrome on iOS is a shadow of it's form on other platforms. This basically means that Safari remains by design, and not by chance, the best and most performant browser on iOS.

Surely you realize that's just a wrapper around an iOS service? You are either disingenuously misinterpreting the GP to discredit their criticism, or really have no clue about the state of competing browsers on iOS (ie, there are none, only wrappers and bookmark/history syncing).

Slashdot is (or is in the process of becoming) a bastion of conservative techies. Everyone talks a good game about how they're only fiscally conservative, not socially conservative, but bring up racism, feminism or homophobia, and it's like the 1950's with better technology up in here. The people who most need to read and understand what you just said will not, because it is ideologically inconvenient.