Here's the whole thing:

evan@zombot ~ $ cdparanoia -A
cdparanoia III release 10.2 (September 11, 2008)

Using cdda library version: 10.2
Using paranoia library version: 10.2
Checking /dev/cdrom for cdrom...
                Testing /dev/cdrom for SCSI/MMC interface
                                SG_IO device: /dev/sr0

CDROM model sensed sensed: ASUS DRW-24B1ST 1.03

Checking for SCSI emulation...
                Drive is ATAPI (using SG_IO host adaptor emulation)

Checking for MMC style command set...
                Drive is MMC style
                DMA scatter/gather table entries: 1
                table entry size: 524288 bytes
                maximum theoretical transfer: 222 sectors
                Setting default read size to 27 sectors (63504 bytes).

Verifying CDDA command set...
                Expected command set reads OK.

Attempting to set cdrom to full speed...
                drive returned OK.

=================== Checking drive cache/timing behavior ===================

Seek/read timing:
                [53:27.17]: 18ms seek, 0.30ms/sec read [45.0x]
                [50:00.32]: 17ms seek, 0.30ms/sec read [45.0x]
                [40:00.32]: 20ms seek, 0.33ms/sec read [40.0x]
                [30:00.32]: 16ms seek, 0.37ms/sec read [36.0x]
                [20:00.32]: 21ms seek, 0.41ms/sec read [32.7x]
                [10:00.32]: 25ms seek, 0.48ms/sec read [27.7x]
                [00:00.32]: 50ms seek, 0.63ms/sec read [21.2x]

Analyzing cache behavior...
                Drive does not cache nonlinear access

Drive tests OK with Paranoia.

Never had a single problem with this drive. Available here: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827135204

Seek/read timing:
                [53:27.17]: 18ms seek, 0.30ms/sec read [45.0x]
                [50:00.32]: 17ms seek, 0.30ms/sec read [45.0x]
                [40:00.32]: 20ms seek, 0.33ms/sec read [40.0x]
                [30:00.32]: 16ms seek, 0.37ms/sec read [36.0x]
                [20:00.32]: 21ms seek, 0.41ms/sec read [32.7x]
                [10:00.32]: 25ms seek, 0.48ms/sec read [27.7x]
                [00:00.32]: 50ms seek, 0.63ms/sec read [21.2x]

I don't think there's any reason for each location to only be represented by one person. As long as we're dreaming, why not draw a border around each metropolitan area and assign a number of representatives proportional to population on an at-large basis? So NYC gets 72 representatives, 200 people run, and the 72 who got the most votes win. That way, you can avoid a situation where a district goes 51-49 for a relatively extreme major party candidate, and there's no one to advocate for the interests of the losing side (especially since the sides break down pretty closely on center city/suburb lines, and each has a unique set of problems).

If your only objections to the way Congress works are procedural rather than substantive, you have absolutely no idea what's going on.

Yeah, they might just have to talk to each other about computers.

I'm not saying there should be a prohibition on people talking to each other about offtopic subjects, I'm just saying maybe a woman goes to a computer hacker convention to hang out and talk to people about computer hacking or whatever, so you don't have to assume she's there to get some action.

Instead of forcing every woman you see to tell you no, how about you don't assume they all want to talk to you? Why does your desire to chat someone up cancel out her wishes not to be hit on at a computer hacker convention?

You have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

http://news.change.org/stories/repeat-offenders-account-for-9-out-of-10-rapes-on-college-campuses

privilege, n.
1. A special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to one person or group of people.
2. The parent comment.

Expression of one's sexual desires (which is not the same as the desire to "breed") is not ingrained biologically but socially. People make passes in situations where they think it's okay, and in situations where they think other people think it's okay. On the face of it, there's no reason why a computer hacker convention would be one of those places, and the women in question clearly didn't think they would be subjected to that kind of crap. (Referring to the reasonable desire to not constantly be made to feel like a sexual object as a "phobia" is a big red flag, by the way.)

Why is your desire to make a pass at someone at a computer hacker convention more important than someone else's desire not to be subjected to sexual advances at a computer hacker convention? And given that this is a conflict, why shouldn't the convention organizer be able to say, "In the interest of all people attending this computer hacker convention being able to feel comfortable, please don't ask anyone to show their tits?"

I'm having trouble scraping together much sympathy for someone who is running around doing something that, if he were caught and prosecuted, would ruin his life. Probably don't do that.

You asked, How is an undercover cop arresting someone who gropes her not entrapment? I said, it's not, because she wouldn't be forcing men to grope her.

You're worried that hackers aren't going to feel safe if the police are there, which is fair enough, I guess, but you might also spare a tear for the woman who was groped. She might feel safer if gropers would get arrested.

Using illegality as a standard is stupid if your goal is to protect women from harassment. (If your goal is to allow creepers to get away with this kind of crap, it might serve as a good standard.)

Sexual harassment,

Definitely sexual harassment, possibly sexual assault.

Sexual assault.

Sexual assault.

It may not be legally actionable, but it's sure as shit sexual harassment.

Why should a woman who wants to go to a hacker convention expect to be subjected to sexual advances? Or, more to the point, why would a man at a hacker convention feel entitled to make sexual advances? After the fact, why do you feel the need to defend men who make sexual advances at a computer hacker convention?

Don't infantilize the perpatrators. Just because they're weird dudes doesn't mean they are incapable of refraining from harassing women.

No one is blaming everyone for the harassment itself, they're blaming the board for not enforcing their own policy. The lifetime ban came only in response to the outcry (which in turn came because the written policy said that lifetime bans would be issued to harassers, but the board only banned the harasser in question for two years.) There are also larger issues (Was the man given lenience because he holds a position of some minor prominence in the SF community? How can other cons and organizations learn from this and prevent harassment in the future? &c)

Fuck you.

Uh, it's not entrapment because a woman isn't forcing/asking men to grope her. You should probably want someone who's going to assault a member of your community arrested.