Theoretically, yes, but the numbers for women should be higher at an earlier age, since there are more older men-younger women matches than older women-younger men.

That, and since we're talking median(rather than mean) when we say, "average", one woman having sex with 300 men would skew the median in a way that 300 women having sex with 300 men wouldn't.

That said, I don't know if one gender is especially more top heavy on sexual experiences than the other.

That was a splendid post, but I wanted to point one thing out:

We made fun of him because he was wrong and stupid.

The thing is, the speech sounded like it came directly from a lobbyist's press release. Okay, lots of speeches sound like that, but Stevens, in attempting to get the gist of the argument, changed things that no one who actually knew anything about the topic would ever say.

So, yes, he was wrong with what he was trying to say, as he was a mouthpiece for AT&T or some other company. He was stupid because he was speaking confidently from a position of obvious ignorance.

All this said, I was happy when Stevens lost his final campaign, but I find only sadness in his dying unnaturally. If he had lived longer, well, maybe he would have learned more about the internet and changed his position.

Considering that the Supreme Court appears to legislate from the bench on every issue that liberals or conservatives actually care about, judicial restraint on a topic that neither group cares about is hardly a "major win".

Personally, I've grown to detest how copyright/trademark/patent cases play out, which is that the Supreme Court decides an individual case, and provides "guidance" that virtually assures that the common person will need a lawyer in order to claim any rights.

He replaced William O Douglas, who created/discovered the constitutional right to privacy.

So, sure, Stevens is arguably as leftist as any justice currently sitting on the court, but compared to the guy he replaced he _is_ a conservative.

How about anti-trust law? How about workers' rights, such as requiring payment for certain people's overtime? Or requiring that businesses be run more safely, when they can find people willing to take the greater risk? How about the regulations that kick in once a business reaches a certain size?

I'm sure there's a reasonable argument you're almost making about how it's unreasonable to force corporations to also follow the same restrictions we put on government, but the government already restricts corporations in behavior that has nothing to do with "fundamental rights".

I also doubt your assertion that it's the case for all other private property, as, among other things, I'm not sure what fundamental right there is for the public to take money from you based on how valuable a piece of land and/or building is.

This comment reminds me of the possibility of Matrix sequels, and the possibility of Star Wars prequels. We're glad they never happened, as the creator realized that they would be unable to capture the sheer genius of their previous works.

So, personally, I suppose I'm glad to have creators with such obvious ability to assess their own talent, but I'd sure like copyrights to be shorter so that we could get dozens of attempts at making sequels and prequels, where, since it wasn't made by the original creator, we could ignore the bad ones and promote the good ones, like with what has happened with Shakespearian knockoffs and new Sherlock Holmes adventures.

How about asking if intersex people want to be cured? In that case, a large amount of intersex people already have that moral decision made for them, because certain parts of society can't imagine someone wanting to not be physically entirely male or female. So, perhaps, rather than talking about "deaf culture" and "colorblind culture", we could talk about "intersex culture", and ask a group of people who already have the choice, or had the choice taken from them.

I'd like four functional arms, the ability to see in infrared and ultraviolet, and to correct some of God's design flaws(e.g., I'd like a back that's designed for standing.). Is that normal? Probably not, but why should someone else get to make the choice for me, if it were possible? Why should some group's interests mean I won't be allowed to switch my skin color or sexual orientation?

I do agree that life would be a lot easier if society accepted different people more than it does.

You say that like it matters.

They're certainly not all attractive, 20-something genetic girls on the porn hotlines, so why would this be different? What matters is what you perceive, given that it's a pretend world regardless of how hot and sexy the worker is.

Anyway, I, for one, welcome aliens practicing their English and sexual skills by impersonating a porn human.

Somehow society thinks it's reasonable to let a 16-year-old drive a car. This decision will kill many of them. Many more than who will die from anything sex-related over their entire life. And I'd imagine that having someone you know and love die/get brain damage/be crippled is more of an emotional minefield than breakups or STIs.

So, sure, very few human societies have cavalier attitudes toward sex, but the whole car thing shows that it's not just about the actual risks.

Frankly, if you want a reasonable legal response to sex, taking naked photos wouldn't be a big deal, and teenagers would be prosecuted for sex-related crimes only if they neglected to get tested for STIs or didn't go on birth control beforehand(And condom usage would be mandatory, but I don't know how you'd prosecute for that).

Is that immoral? Possibly. I don't want the state to care about morality, I want the state to care about actual harm.

Okay, government officials covered up various embarrassing things, like photos of caskets filled with dead soldiers killed by government decisions. They also covered up the warrant-less wiretapping done by the phone companies.

That's the first two examples that come into my head. I'd also consider most of the Wikileaks info to be stuff that should have been made public, but wasn't because it makes the government look bad.

Now, on the side of info gotten from Wikileaks that caused the country actual harm... Well, okay, perhaps I'm just biased, but I can't immediately think of a single example(for leaks in general, I remember something about an embedded reporter giving out troop locations, though I'll admit I don't have any reason to think that caused actual harm, even if it was stupid.). Since you think the government is doing it right, and the leakers are doing it wrong, I would assume you could easily find, oh, half a dozen examples.

Not that I find any real flaw in your reasoning -- I just don't think the results agree with you.

Your argument makes sense so long as you fear others more than you fear the government.

After eight years where the Bush administration called virtually everything "national security", encouraged phone companies to spy on us without judicial oversight, and thought that the whole of the PATRIOT act was a good idea, we got the slightly-more-open Obama administration that somehow thinks that extreme secrecy is necessary when negotiating a copyright treaty.

Those things scare me significantly more than worrying about the stuff that Wikileaks has come up with.

Also, consider that Wikileaks only gets info that leakers give to them -- if some bit of data likely would cause the country great damage, I'd hope the person in possession of it would have the good sense not to leak it. Sure, some people in power will abuse their leaking-power occasionally, but most leakers don't reveal secrets for the hell of it.

A person intends to build a computer from scratch, and you say they should hand in their geek card because they want to get on with the building and using, rather than spending days acquiring hardware knowledge that will be completely outdated in a few months?

Come on, be serious -- yes, the OP is not a hardware geek, but saying a person who builds their own computer is not a geek is a bit like saying that a person who can only juggle three balls is not a juggler.

The poor will be with you always.

The thing is, we don't care about the people in Africa. At least not to the point of being willing to put them individually on welfare, so that they all have enough money to afford food, clothing, shelter, and a non-corrupted police force.

The life of a poor American/European/rich country-an is worth more than the life of one in a poor country. The grandparent post is merely arguing that helping a few of the poor isn't really worth it. You're arguing that helping a few of the poor is worth it.

The strength of his position is that research and development can make everyone richer, in a more permanent sense.

The strength of your position is that keeping people on welfare decreases the chance that they'll resort to crime. The other strength is that it just feels wrong to tell poor people that you don't care how destitute they are -- they're not getting money.

I Am Not A Lawyer, but theoretically a lawyer would understand that "copyright infringement" and "theft" are different things. Theft deprives someone of property(Yes, theft can have a broader meaning, but under that broader meaning murder is theft, too). Copyright infringement deprives someone from exercising their limited-term(and limited-scope) monopoly.

This doesn't mean that copyright infringement is okay; just that it's different in important ways when someone steals a CD rather than pirate the MP3s.

All that said, I think you missed the original poster's point, which is that "copyright is not theft", not that "copyright infringement is not theft".

Speaking as a Wisconsinite, I'd say that Russ Feingold both proves and disproves your statement. Disproves because he's still pretty poor for a senator, and obeys a higher ethical standard than is necessary(voluntary spending limits, voluntarily telling outside groups to not advertise for him, etc.). He proves it because he originally got elected because the other two candidates didn't take him seriously, and destroyed each other quite successfully through negative advertising. Then, when Feingold took a stand against soft money and his opponent didn't, he won an extremely close election.

He was the only one to vote against the original PATRIOT act, and he voted for John Ashcroft in Bush's cabinet because he figured a president should have the right to choose his advisors.

Sadly, while I could probably name 20+ senators without having to think terribly hard, I am unaware of any other politician who would be anywhere near those standards.

That said, given that Feingold(along with every other senator) dropped the ball on the DMCA, I have no great faith that he'll be all that helpful in at least making a stink about ACTA.