Except "this generation" isn't some monolithic block of people. Some will get fucked over by their openness, some will thrive from it, just like anything else.

I don't go about broadcasting my information, but I have made the conscious choice to accept that ANYTHING about me is potentially knowable by anyone, and I have made a conscious effort to arrange my life in such a way that even if my deepest, darkest secrets were known to the entire planet, nothing terribly important to me would be all that negatively impacted. It actually has been a pretty nice exercise in sorting out what is ACTUALLY important to me vs. what I only thought was important due to convention.

I disagree. In 1992 Clinton had to say he didn't inhale, and now we have a president who said that was the whole point and happily admits he dabbled. We've gone from it being an absolute career killer for any politician to even be *suspected* of being gay to it not being THAT big a deal if someone is openly gay. On stuff that people used to be scandalized by, we've gotten better because it's become more common to the point where people are more easily able to relate. So, I really don't think that the same standards you or I or other people of whatever the "older" generation will hold with younger people, especially those who have grown up in a more permissive world.

Seriously - years ago when Clinton was being hounded over *GASP* a blowjob from an intern (and lying about it under oath) would you have felt confident saying that a half-black, half-white guy who admitted to smoking weed ("Did I inhale? That was the point") with a really foreign sounding name would be elected President of the United State not once but twice, and both times with a very solid majority? We're starting to care less and less about dumb shit that doesn't matter - and every year as more and more of the old guard die off we get more permissive.

On your point about felons and acceptance of same, I don't disagree that by and large we vilify (whether correctly or not) those who have been incarcerated, but there is a rather strong trend towards recognizing that just because someone has been imprisoned doesn't necessarily mean it was just or right. A LOT of people in this country who have been imprisoned were put away for drug crimes, and as you might have noticed, states are starting to realize how fucking stupid that is and slowly moving to change it.

Shit is changing, the rate of change is increasing, and I honestly don't see irrelevant shit that people post on Facebook or whatever turning into something career ending for those seeking office or positions of responsibility. There will be exceptions (look at hypocritical assholes insisting that Weiner isn't fit for office for showing his dick on Twitter yet shockingly those same people are completely silent when one of theirs is caught trying to suck some dude off in a men's room despite being staunchly anti-gay) but it'll get better.

You're missing something though - the fact that everyone's indiscretions will be available will mean that indiscretions will matter less. In a world where everyone's got nude pics out there or whatever, nobody will give a fuck because giving a fuck is essentially risking mutually assured destruction, or, if they happen to be someone without easily discoverable dirt, they'll wind up being seen as a busybody asshole for bothering to try to shame someone.

Hell, the way tech is moving, we aren't that far from people being able to trivially find out anything they want, essentially instantly, about anyone they happen to run across with nothing more than a picture and a smartphone/watch/device.

For me, I learned a long time ago that rather than waste my energy fighting a losing (already lost?) battle, I would instead try to learn how to not give much of a fuck if people feel compelled to "violate my privacy" and how to mitigate the damage that could be done by a malicious person who chose to do so. 90% of this learning was becoming confident enough to just shrug and say "what's your point?" when nosy people try to shame me, and the other 10% was doing my best to ensure that the people who matter in my life aren't assholes.

Are you in favor of laws that require emergency responders to render aid in cases of immediately life threatening scenarios, or of emergency rooms to provide treatment regardless of ability to pay? How about the right to due process when arrested and all the people that forces to provide labor? What about polling staff etc. when it comes time to exercise your right to vote?

Helping people who have immediate needs and en encouraging them to learn to be self-sufficient once the immediate needs are met is not cultivating dependency, and I honestly have no idea where, other than your ass, you pulled out the idea that I would think otherwise.

People who are in immediate need tend to make very stupid decisions in order to solve their immediate problem - a person who does not know where their next meal will come from or where they will sleep that day is, by and large, not going to be coming up with a master plan for long-term self-sufficiently.

Further, people who are in programs where they receive welfare often have a very difficult time making the transition to self-sufficiency because idiots such as yourself have helped shape policy to the point where in many situations a person who does get part-time work winds up having their benefits cut more than the part-time work will give them, to the point where they will not be viable. And, of course, idiots such as yourself seem to constantly suggest incredibly stupid policies like drug-testing for welfare recipients (which saves very little, if anything) and cutting programs that will help recipients learn useful skills etc.

You're an idiot who compares human beings to wild animals. I find you icky as a result.

There is no possible way I can respond to any of your comments except to say that you very clearly are in significant distress. I sympathize with your pain, but I am not the appropriate person to help you with it, so I can only urge you in the strongest possible way to seek professional help as soon as you are able. I can't imagine Slashdot is the appropriate place to deal with this, nor can I imagine it being particularly helpful for your situation. Good luck.

I would say that the reason for the downward pressure on bitcoin is the laughably amateurish state of the exchanges and the rampant scamming that's going on all over the place.

Actually, I think bitcoin has been good for one thing (I mean, other than a good laugh): demonstrating exactly what would happen if you had a truly unregulated economy. MASSIVE scamming going on with a whole bunch of people doing their level best to leave the next guy holding the bag when it all comes crashing down.

I would say that the fact that he sees no meaningful difference between hungry bears and hungry human beings speaks more of his view of humanity than anything, but I think we're both angling towards the same general notion: he is whack.

I'm amused that you were modified +5 insightful for saying you see no meaningful difference between human beings and bears.

Steven Colbert should put you on his threatdown. You're clearly an enemy sympathizer!

That's the thing, though - telling people to just suck it up and deal is a shitty response because it basically lowers everyone.

Why should anyone, regardless of gender, tolerate being treated poorly where they work? There's no law of physics that states that work has to be a soul destroying experience or that employees need to take shit and like it.

I find it pretty depressing that so many people are behaving like putting up with abuse is a *good* thing.

Nah, more like I found the first reasonable opportunity to thank them for their time and the opportunity, explain that I didn't really feel like it was going to be a good match, and that I hoped they found someone who was a good fit.

I suppose I could have done a "shut it down!" kind of thing complete with slammed doors or something, which would have been fun but not terribly professional.

Actually, that's what I was talking about with affirmative action being "good intention, awful implementation" - government hiring is often based on factors other than qualifications because the government is under no obligation to turn a profit or perform at any particular level.

However, that's not applicable to non-governmental firms that are not doing government business. Some may have quotas, but I find it very unlikely that they will have hard and fast quotas when it comes to hiring a very in-demand skillset in a very competitive sector, and when a bad hire can have a very bad downside. Certainly it would not happen repeatedly to the point where it is a systemic problem - there simply aren't enough female applicants to go around for it to actually BE a problem where men find themselves systemically discriminated against in hiring for highly skilled and in-demand roles.

Except that's really not true in this context.

The article and my response is about hiring skilled workers in a very in-demand field in which there really are NOT a lot of female applicants.

If a guy is finding it hard to find a job in this industry because he is somehow unlucky enough to be applying for jobs that the vanishingly small number of female applicants are also hiring for at the vanishingly small number of technology firms that are actually using some kind of arbitrary quota system for skilled technologists, then I would venture to say the problem is that said guy is living in an alternate universe, because that in no way, shape, or form represents the reality we live in.

For unskilled jobs, yes, I'm absolutely sure people run afoul of quotas all the time. For jobs in fields where there is a surplus of skilled workers, yes, I'm absolutely sure people run afoul of quotas all the time. But for jobs in fields where skilled workers are in short supply and there is high demand? Nope, sorry, not buying it as a systemic problem.

Why? Just as I'm not responsible for the behavior of any individual but myself, I'm also not responsible for the behavior of any organization I'm not a part of.

You're making my point - you're holding me accountable for, or at least suggesting that I have a responsibility to take action about behaviors I had nothing to do with, which is ridiculous.