Twitter's Block

So Twitter changed the behavior of blocking and people are upset.

Back when I was on Twitter I had blocked and been blocked. No big deal. Twitter represents some of the worst aspects of people. First problem: People thought that "Their" twitter timeline was "theirs". Firstly, Twitter is a free online service owned by Twitter and not any of the individual users. The users of Twitter generate content for Twitter, which is then used by Twitter to generate advertising revenue. Twitter is about as much yours as the dollar in my pocket is yours. Or for a better analogy, Twitter is yours about as much as the apartment you rent each month is yours.

Secondly on this "my timeline" thing: If you have a public account, then anything you say there is about the same as speaking in a public forum. Anyone can "hear" you and is free to respond to your public pronouncements. If you don't like being responded to in public then don't speak in public. Seems simple but a LOT of people don't get that.

So here comes blocking. When I did the blocking all I was interested in was not seeing the dumb ass comments reach my timeline. Here I use "my" as my subscription rather than my property. I could care less about what or whether the person I had blocked could no longer see what I was saying. After all, I made "public" posts that ANYONE could see anyway.

But I think I understand the real reason behind the uproar over the blocking change. See there are a group of people who like to block and report people who have, shall we say, differing opinions on certain topics. In fact some of these people have created an app that will add these people to a block list for all subscribers. What this amounts to are people deciding that they want to be little censor police. Not only do they not want to "hear" what others are saying, they want to deprive those persons from being able to "hear" and respond.

I think Twitter's reasoning is quite right. If you have a public account ('cause you're looking for attention anyway) you shouldn't be able to prevent people from seeing what you wrote. Seeing what you wrote is NOT harassment. Commenting on what you wrote in public back in public is not harassment. bombarding you with commentary after asking to not be addressed is harassment. The new "blocking" does this.

This reminds me of the recent request for Twitter to add or change how you report abuse. Apparently some people, particularly in the UK were perturbed by a number of rape threats made to them by random twitter persons. In the UK making a rape threat is illegal. Rather than report the accounts to the police, the persons in question wanted Twitter to change how one reports abuse. The two questions I had were: 1) What exactly was wrong with the original reporting mechanism (I used the block and report all the time on tweet deck). 2) If one took the threats seriously, why not report to the police? Certainly a visit by the local constable would be far more effective a deterrent for actual rapists than a twitter ban (which of course could be removed by creating another account).

What a lot of these complaints (to a company that is neither profitable or charging to use its product) seem to me are about self centered people who are used to being able to demand things just because. I can understand a paying customer complaining about a product they paid for, but a service that is free? Take what you get or move along. I hear Weibo is a great service.

Ultimately there was nothing wrong with the change. The problem here are users who wish to police other people in a public forum because they do not understand the meaning of public.

And The Men What?

Reading this piece on Indian dating (marriage) sites I found the following:

What those factors are, exactly, has changed as the country has, but the crux of the matter remains constant: if you’re an Indian woman, it’s statistically likely that your parents will choose the man with whom you spend the rest of your life.

Think about that statement there.

Done?

See the problem?

No?

OK. Marriage is a union of two (or more) persons. So if in India a marriage is arranged then not only is the Indian woman going to spend the rest of her life with a man that was arranged for her, but HE is going to spend the rest of his life with her.

Since that is the case why focus on the "Indian woman" rather than the arranged couple? Oh right, no need to consider what men are thinking or doing because all they are doing is oppressing.

Of course then there is the color matter.

Sure, I’d have my points of appeal, namely in the sections reserved for Education (Bachelor’s) and Complexion (Very Fair).

But we'll leave that for another blog and another blog entry.

Lack of female leadership in Silicon Valley “just as bad” as Wall Street (?)

Question for Salon.com: Is it possible for them to post a piece about women that does not include sexist and unsupported commentary about men?

Take the commentary found in this piece from Salon:

Twitter Inc.’s lack of women on its board is “a joke,” showing that Silicon Valley is no better than Wall Street when it comes to female representation, said Sallie Krawcheck, a former executive at Bank of America Corp.

A "joke" to whom? Why? Oh because there are no women on the board. Well there are no black people either. Will Salon allot space for someone to write about that too? Anyway. Why is it such a joke? Read on.

Twitter, the microblogging site that raised $2.09 billion in a initial public offering this month, has an all-male, seven- member board.

Does the above sound like "a joke" to you? a company is making 2.09 billion. Offers a free service that is used worldwide. That's a joke?

Twitter has said it’s in discussions to diversify its board.

Why? It just gathered 2.09 billion dollars as is. Why should it do anything different? No, really? WHY? And if it is a matter of "representation" then I think we should force Twitter to hire black and Hispanic board members, Well I don't know about the latter, but I know about the former. But here's the sexist kicker:

Women think differently than men and “can see problems they don’t see,” said Browner, who was an adviser to President Barack Obama and administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from 1993 to 2001.

Really? Women, by virtue of having ovaries and titties "can see problems they [men] don't see." No really. That's some sexist shit. Don't see it. Well let's just change up the sentence:

"Men think differently from women and "can see problems they don't see."

Do you even THINK such a statement would be tolerated? How about this:

"Whites think differently than blacks and "can see problems they don't see".

No really. Do you even THINK such a sentence would see the light of day in Salon? Of course not but you can get a woman to make a blatantly sexist comment and it goes unchallenged by anyone on the editorial staff. How the fuck does this happen? Back to Twitter though.

I repeat. Twitter had an IPO that netted 2.09 billion bucks. Exactly WHAT problems does Twitter need to see that the board isn't seeing that this woman knows about? It seems to me that the board of Twitter is doing a bang up job.

Here's how you get onto a board or become CEO: Start your own business. Create your own product and work damn hard. Then instead of attempting to shame people into bringing you on board, people will come to you. Take it from the black guy, people HATE when they are forced to deal with you because of some physical attribute rather than because your fucking good at what you do.

So back to the question:

Can Salon.com write an article about women in [enter business here] that does not include sexist comments about men or at least challenges them when they appear in quoted material?

Microsoft Publishes Sexist Form Letter To Help Dudes Convince Women To Let Them Buy An Xbox One

So Alex Wilhelm (among others I suppose) is upset at Microsoft's letter than men can give to their alleged female partner in order to get them to agree to an XBox One purchase. Among the sexist things listed by the author:

1) Women don't own consoles.

2) It's Hetero-normative. (and all this time you thought the majority of humans, as in the vast majority are heterosexual and that heterosexuality is how the species [naturally] reproduces).

3) Women are the only ones with families they want to talk to.

But what the author fails to notice, how I do not know, is the very idea that a grown ass man has to ask ANYONE for permission to spend his money as he see's fit.

That's called Misandry. Thank you very much. And I find that quite offensive.

Note to Microsoft and Alex Wilhelm. I'm a grown ass man. If I want an XBox One (or any other item for that matter) I will simply purchase it and bring it home. I will consider its impact on the home I share with my wife/girlfriend, but she doesn't get veto power over the use of my money because THAT is sexist.

Thank you.

Lesson From NY Police Officer Beatdown

1) I have a hard time believing that a NYPD sergeant did not know the cardinal rule of conflict: Never turn your back on someone menacing you. Seriously folks: Do not turn your back on someone who is threatening you.

2) Why does the camera man think the entire event is funny? And that whole "World Star" comment? Yeah we know what this is about. You wanna know why there is so much violent crime in black communities (even though the perp here was not black)? It is because too many of us think the violence is funny until we (or someone we care about) are the victims. That's why the camera man shouted "World Star" because the world star audience will undoubtedly find it highly entertaining.

Sexism [again] At 60 Minutes

So there I was enjoying a 60 minutes piece on Lamborghinis I was accosted by some sexist commentary that went unchallenged.

Say's a floor manager as to why the coach building is all men and the interior workers are all women:

I can tell you this. We really need women on material because the precision that the women have, unfortunately we ah as men we don't have....not the precision tha [can't make out] to create a masterpiece like our interiors

No seriously. He said that.

Never mind that right before that piece of shit was said, there was narration and video of men putting together pieces of the vehicles with exacting standards (according to the narration). Placing and aligning glass. torquing bolts and nuts to standards that anyone who works on cars knows is important. Why the hell would this man insult these workers by saying they lacked "precision"?

I don't know Lambo's history but I wonder how long they have been making cars with male interior makers before women came in? And if there was such a time, are they saying that work was inferior (taking into account changes in tech)?

How about this: Since Lambo does not use robotics to make cars and many of the parts are heavy, it makes sense that the men, who are generally stronger than women, do the heavy work and the women do the light work. Why not just say that? It's the most likely truth and it doesn't disrespect either sex. Each according to their ability.

Think about it. If the women were so superior in their "precision" wouldn't the manager want them doing both the interior and exterior? Who volunteers to put sloppy workers on the line when one could have better, more precise workers on it?

So yet another example of sexism directed against men that gets the media pass and a chuckle.

The Dangers of Being To “Informed” To See

On Oct 10, Massimo Pigliucci and Maarten Boudry penned a piece in the NY Times Opinionator in regards to the Dangers of Pseudosience in which they took a hard swipe at Chinese traditional medicine:

Asma’s example of Chinese medicine’s claims about the existence of “Qi” energy, channeled through the human body by way of “meridians,” though, is a different matter. This sounds scientific, because it uses arcane jargon that gives the impression of articulating explanatory principles. But there is no way to test the existence of Qi and associated meridians, or to establish a viable research program based on those concepts, for the simple reason that talk of Qi and meridians only looks substantive, but it isn’t even in the ballpark of an empirically verifiable theory.

In terms of empirical results, there are strong indications that acupuncture is effective for reducing chronic pain and nausea, but sham therapy, where needles are applied at random places, or are not even pierced through the skin, turn out to be equally effective (see for instance this recent study on the effect of acupuncture on post-chemotherapy chronic fatigue), thus seriously undermining talk of meridians and Qi lines. In other words, the notion of Qi only mimics scientific notions such as enzyme actions on lipid compounds. This is a standard modus operandi of pseudoscience: it adopts the external trappings of science, but without the substance.

While I am by no means even close to a professional amateur in the concepts of Qi, I find the authors of this piece quite incorrect in their discussion of it. So let me explain why Qi is in fact scientific and can in fact be tested.

In physics we know that whenever a charge travels down a wire (or other conductor) a magnetic field results.

Now out nerve cells operate in a similar fashion through a chemical process way to long to discuss here without losing a lot of people. Nerve impulses travel along the axon via a process called the Sodium Potassium pump which via an exchange of ions keeps a voltage gradient in an axon. If course where there are moving currents there are changes in magnetic fields. Which definitely means there is energy moving throughout the body and that energy can be “felt”. The science proves it.

Furthermore when discussing Qi and the energy centers of the body, one will note that the basic Chakras happen to be points in the body where there are a lot of nerves. The groin, abdomen. Head, spine, etc. We already know that one can put a device on someone's head to “read” the changes in EM radiation coming from the brain as people think. How is this not a confirmation of Qi? How would knowing that we can “read” the energy being given off by the brain would we not think that the rest of the body also has “tell tale” signals?

In the martial art of Wing Chun, practitioners are taught to develop sensitivity. When we come into contact with an opponent we feel for the slightest change in movement, muscle tension, etc. that for most people go unnoticed. How is it so unfathomable that there are people who have trained to become especially tuned to the various energies that are emanating from the human body?

Lets discuss the merits of acupuncture or pressure. We already know that if we knock someone in the knee we can elicit a reflex action. We also know that if we block a nerve from being able to send a message we can prevent that same reflex action. So then, how is it that we can call acupuncture pseudoscience, simply because a placebo effect can be seen when random points are used?

That people show, or believe they have improved symptoms simply because they have undergone some pin pricking that they believe in is no different from the mental effects of wearing a new outfit for a marathon or wearing lucky socks. It is also no different than a person who responds to a phobia. There is no actual threat yet the person still reacts physiologically to the stimulus as though there was. The belief in the effectiveness of a treatment is, in non-western cultures a part of the healing process. In Chinese medicine in particular a relaxed body (and mind) is part of the process. If one's mind is not relaxed, then it is impossible to control and manipulate Qi (Chi)

I think the good writers ought to take seriously the words of Yoda in Star Wars The Empire Strikes Back: It is their disbelief why they cannot metaphorically raise the star ship.

Underreported or Didn't Happen?

So the LA Times is reporting that Occidental College and USC “underreported' the number of cases of sexual assaults” on their campuses. Certainly we would very concerned if such a thing was going on.

At USC, officials indicated that they had not reported 13 accounts of sexual assaults to federal officials for 2010 and 2011, bringing the total for those years to 39. Occidental acknowledged that it had failed to include 24 reports during that period, bringing the total to 36.

Sounds like something to be concerned with. 13 accounts at USC and 24 from Occidental. But further in the article we find:

USC and Occidental attributed their restated numbers to the mishandling of cases involving those who reported incidents anonymously. Such cases are subject to federal reporting requirements.

Why are annonymous reports of incidents subject to federal reporting requirements? In fact why are reports rather than actual established cases the standard? Anybody can make a claim. And as we know from the internet, anonymous claims are often the most unreliable of claims.

Occidental officials say they discovered 49 anonymous reports of sexual assaults spanning several years in a 2010 survey conducted by Project SAFE, a campus group that seeks to raise awareness about sexual assaults.

So a group that has a vested interest in “reporting” conducted a survey that found 49 cases of anonymous reports spanning several years? Not established reports, but someone who said something happened. And Occidental can be fined for that?

Nineteen of those incidents should have been disclosed under federal rules, which require the reporting of all sexual assaults on campus or in the immediate vicinity.

But there was not a sexual assault. There was an anonymous claim of sexual assault. Not a proven one, not an adjucated one. Only a claim. That would be like adding a column to the murder statistics that included anonymous claims of homicide, as if that number actually matters.

At USC, the problem arose because the administration has since 2008 told students, parents and the federal government that crimes that came to light at its student counseling center would be included in official crime statistics. But they were not, the university acknowledged last week.

Campus administrators said they didn't disclose those numbers in an effort to protect the students' confidentiality. They were concerned, they said, that reporting those statistics to the Department of Education could trigger investigations by the Los Angeles Police Department, which might pressure counselors to identify the anonymous victims.

Wait. So USC didn't want to report the claims of a sexual assault on their campus because it may trigger an investigation by the relevant authorities?

What the fuck?

Sexual assault is a serious crime. Why would USC not want the LAPD to investigate and find out who committed such a crime and have that person removed from the public? Why wouldn't a victim of sexual assualt not want the perpetrator found and prosecuted? Because the alleged victim doesn't want to be identified?

What the fuck?

So then a person who is identified as a potential perp can have their name and face plastered across multiple media outlets regardless of whether he or she is actually guilty, yet the alleged victim can sit behind a curtain and make any claim they wish? That's justice?

What the fuck?

LAPD Deputy Chief Bob Green said those concerns were misplaced. "I can tell you flat out no, we're not going to do that," Green said. "We're never going to try to compel anybody to make that [crime] report.”

why not? If one is going to make a serious charge against someone, shouldn't one then own up and make the criminal complaint? So we get cases where people can make claims about other students which are not substantiated in any impartial court that can affect the target for the rest of their lives AND institutions are under Federal blackmail (fines) if they don't go along with this?

At USC, the campus will no longer list the counseling center as a source of crime statistics. From now on, students who want their sexual assaults included in crime statistics will have to inform designated campus safety officials who are required to report under federal rules, LaCorte said.

Francesca Bessey, a USC junior who said she was sexually assaulted, said making students take additional steps to have their assaults counted shifts "responsibility away from the university and toward students who have been assaulted."

Why are students, or anyone else for that matter, of the opinion that they should not have to take responsibility for reporting their alleged victimization to the proper authorities? What kind of special snowflake sentiments are these people operating under? If you are a victim of a serious crime, it is your duty to report it to those who can find out who did it and remove them from society (if need be). Anyone who has a problem with that cannot be serious about sexual assault.

Text Someone, Go to Jail.

Mark J. Randazza would like to have you believe that the recent NJ ruling in regards to text messaging doesn't mean exactly what it says:

"We hold that the sender of a text message could potentially be liable if an accident is caused by texting but only if the sender knew or had special reason to know that the recipient would view the text while driving and thus be distracted." In other words, yes, you can be held responsible if you cause an accident by sending a text message. But only if you knew that the recipient would look at the text message while driving. If you had any reason to have any doubt in your mind, then you will likely not be held liable.

Mr. Randazza wants you and I to think it doesn't mean the BS that it does. Says Randanzza:

So if you send a text message to someone, you don't need to call your lawyer or your insurance company. But if you send someone a text message and they respond back "driving, leave me alone" and then you keep sending text messages, perhaps you might be found liable.

The court has made a very stupid foray into passing blame. Mind you the precedent for this isn't as Randazza states, the McDonalds case. Instead it is actually the "felony murder" rule. See once it was accepted that you could hold a person responsible for an act they did not commit. Did not intend to commit or even agree to participate in, then this door was opened.

While it sounded "tough" to say that the person driving the getaway car from a robbery is responsible for another party's decision to kill their victim, it broke the Blackstonian rule of law whereby you prosecuted people for the crimes they committed and not for anything else. Cleary under Blackstone rules of law, the getaway driver could not be convicted of murder committed by someone else by considering the evidence. There is no weapon in the hand. There is no malicious intent. There is no intent at all.

So with this acceptance of murder by proxy by the courts (which, in my opinion should be done away with completely) allowed the NJ court to issue this dumb ruling.

In effect they are using the same logic as the felony murder. By going out to commit a crime with another party you should reasonably expect that a murder might happen, and therefore you are to be responsible for it if it happens. Never mind that the person who actually committed the act was the person responsible for deciding to kill.

Similarly a person who's phone goes off indicating a text is under no obligation to acknowledge a text. They are in complete control of their faculties and are therefore quite capable of ignoring any text messages that come in. It is impossible for a party that is not in control of the phone or the person who is driving to make them answer or look at the phone. In essence this decision makes a third party responsible for the conscious behavior of another.

That's just dumb.

What if I proposed the following? Since we know that some accidents on the road are caused by people using car radios, why not allow not only the manufacturer of the vehicle to be sued for providing a device that is a known distraction but also the radio station that the driver was listening to?

Oh what's that? It's not reasonable? Why not? The standard for the text message is knowing that the activation of the device could cause a distraction?

Ok. How about the fact that some accidents happen because men see women dressed a certain way. No doubt the women put on the clothes knowing that it would attract attention. Should we allow them to be held responsible for any accidents that occurred because a male driver was distracted by "all that ass"?

Of course we wouldn't even THINK about blaming the woman for being out in public in clothes that might prove a distraction to some men. Why? Because we expect the men to be in control of themselves. In the event that they do allow themselves to be so distracted we expect that they would take responsibility for their own conscious behavior rather than pass the buck.

But this society is fast becoming one in which people want to spread the blame as much as possible rather than face their own singular responsibility for their actions.

Elysium

It seems the older I get the more critical of movies I get. So here's two problems I have with Elysium: 1) The accident: What factory makes a door that does not disengage when there is a jam? I have a 16 YO car that will reverse the power windows if there is a jam. While I can understand the whole they are trying to be as profitable as possible, given that the door blocks radiation that apparently could kill everyone in the vicinity which would be very bad for productivity, you'd think that there would be some override or "please fully open and then close the door" kind of safety. 2) Elysium itself. If rich people want to live in space well fine. The question I have is how they get food, clothes, and the like. I didn't see any factories on Elysium. Nor did I see any farms. I saw a whole lot of mansions but no farms. As a matter of fact, I didn't see much in the way of eating on earth either. A lot of drinking but no real easting. So where is the farmland? I'm just sayin', if the population is that large there has GOT to be a means of food and clothes production. I didn't see it. Okay I have a third issue: While yeah, it's a shit move to keep the instant healing machines to themselves, if the Earth is overpopulated, how does having mass deployment of instant healing machines help that? It's not like people can GO to Elysium permanently since it is even smaller than the Moon. So essentially, per the movie, the Earth will become more overpopulated, the people will still be poor (but healthy!) and the rich will still live off world, cause from what the movie presents, living on Earth is something to avoid if you can.

Tesla Hyperloop

http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/hyperloop-alpha.pdf

Actually a quite stimulating read... If you're into this type of thing.

Anyone else think The Core, when they saw the passenger module?

Lightning Bolt

Yeah..That's about right.

Bill Cunningham | Fluent August 9, 2013By Joanna Nikas

Look at this here I think Bill Cunningham should have done us a favour and pointed out that the vast majority of the "men" in his shoots are homosexuals. Big ass lady bags. Pants so high and tight they are actually capris. Skirts and leggings.

Budgeting

McDonalds and Visa teamed up to make a budget for minimum wage workers. You can find a write up on it here:

McDonalds’ suggested budget for employees shows just how impossible it is to get by on minimum wage

The original PDF is here.

I'm going to steal this graphic 'cause I'm lazy:

Now I want to point out something here. If you're making minimum wage and assuming you don't live somewhere where having a car is absolutely necessary, then a few things should be changed in this budget:

1)No Car Payment. If you make minimum wage you will be using public transport and/or a bike for all your traveling needs.

2) No Car Insurance. Since you won't have a car, you don't need insurance. Combined that's $150 back in your pocket.

3)Cable/Phone: Umm..You make minimum wage. You do not get cable. Period. You get an antenna and you point it for the best reception of local over the air (OTA) channels. When there's nothing on that interests you, you read a fucking book, preferably one that will get you off the minimum wage treadmill.

Next you get a cell phone with the minimum cost per month as possible. Guess what? You don't have the luxury for large ass data plans. If you can afford one, get one so you can apply for jobs online during a break. Since they combined cable and phone lets say you save 50% by dropping the cable part so your savings is $50.

Next thing. You make minimum wage. You do not buy lunch while out. You carry your lunch TO work. You cook a whole mess of food on your day off. You eat left overs for the rest of the week and carry some for lunch. You're going to save a whole lot of money this way.

So by the note I made here, one adds $200 to the savings line.

The author of the blog entry complained about the heat line being 0. Every apartment I've been in has included heat and hot water in the rent. So it's OK to expect that the heat line will be 0.

A $90 electric bill is actually pretty high. Especially if it is for a single person. I have quite a few electronic devices sucking power and I rarely hit $90 in electricity costs. This usually happens in the summer when the AC is running. If you have a $90 electric bill, I'd check to see if someone is tapping your line. Seriously. Next I would be checking what is running. Unplug every damn thing in house (except the fridge) and see what's sucking power. A single person should have an electric bill around $40. Take the savings from the lack of car and insurance and purchase florescent bulbs. You'll rarely have to change them even though they will cost way more than an incandescent bulb. They will also burn far less electricity.

You making minimum wage? You should wash your clothes by hand, particularly your draws as soon as you get home. Your wardrobe should be lots of dark colors that you can get away with wearing more than once before having to wash them. Your entire existence is about efficiency in order to maximize the amount of money that stays in your hand and to maximize the time it stays in your hands.

Lastly, you and some of your minimum wage people need to start a susu. Each time you get paid you each put in a set amount of money into a pot. The pot is awarded to one of you each month/week/whatever you all decide. No one gets to drop out until everyone gets paid in the round. This will allow you all to get a once a month (or whatever) boost in income. It is like a savings account you get to tap. Interest free.

This does not negate the point that the author made about the need for minimum wage being increased. However, I have seen people with marginal income do dumb shit with their money. Matter of fact I've seen people with relatively high income do dumb shit with their money. So money smarts should always be a part of the solution to poverty.

So We're OK With Violence Against Men Eh?

Above is the new video by KFC. Let's go over it.

Man introduces himself to a woman. We'll call this the "bar scenario". Offers her some KFC. We'll call this the "Can I buy you a drink" scenario. Woman tastes the KFC bites and is so overwhelmed with emotion that she slaps the man in his face. We'll call this the "Violence against men" Scenario. This is of course a play on the widely socially acceptable phenomenon where women are allowed to hit men, in public, with no consequences whatsoever.

We'll call this the "culture of violence"

She *could* have given him a light "friendly tap" on the shoulder. She could have kept her hands to herself. The situation could have been one where there were two women and they hit each other. It could have been a situation where the dude slaps the woman in the face. Oh wait....that last one couldn't have been done.

So remember, when a woman is slapped in public by a man it's violence against women and condemned far and wide but if a man is slapped in public by a woman he "must have done something to deserve it". Besides we shouldn't expect women to control themselves when they feel an onslaught of emotion....

Osmo

Right.

So anyone who knows me knows that I take holiday to watch Le Tour De France live. Which means getting up for 8AM start times on non Col or Alp days and 6AM for anything that has the words Tormalet or Huez in it.

This year there was an advert for a product called "Osmo". Apparently Peter Sagan, an excellent sprinter is using the product. What is it? Well it's a hydration product that is said to be science based to deliver proper levels of nutrients in a manner that the body can quickly absorb. In a moment of advertising influence I looked up the website, saw all the rave reviews and decided to go get some.

So today I took my first ride with it. I used the orange flavor in a 20oz water bottle in a 16 mile ride. Definitely not a stage of Le Tour but enough for me to get dehydrated if I wasn't drinking anything and definitely enough to lose essential minerals.

Rewind. I took a 3 mile run in the morning having drunk that Gatorade Pregame fuel drink. You're supposed to have that 15 min. before "competition". OK. I'm not explaining myself properly.

Look. I cannot stand having anything in my stomach when I run. Bike? eh? But before run? No. Not only do I not like the feeling of "heavy stomach" but I risk getting cramps during the run and if I'm not careful some serious gastro issues after.

Since I run relatively quickly (6:15 min miles) Just water is not going to cut it, particularly on hot days. Particularly in the AM. Normally I'd run at midday, but in the summer, that's asking for heat stroke. So it's mornings or evenings. Mornings it is. Which means empty stomach, good for no sloshing and gastro issues, bad 'cause I've just finished an 8 hour fast. So enter sports drinks.

I long since dropped high fructose corn syrup from my diet. That eliminates Gatorade*, Vitamin water and those things. I've tried coconut water, but ended up with it fermenting in my stomach. Not good. So I was on water and losing minerals. What to do?

Osmo.

Osmo is a powder that you put into water. I saw that the on product directions said to add 2.5 scoops into 20oz of water and I got nervous. This is a small container vs. things I've gotten from say, GNC, so I thought that this was going to be an expensive habit (it is if you're poor). Luckily the scoops are small.

I put it on my bike and set off. When I drank my first swig I knew this was different. You know that feeling when you're thirsty and you drink some nice cool water and you can feel this "feeling" in your gut as the water hits it? Yeah, it felt like that. That was good. The second and most important thing to me was that unlike Gatorade and Vitamin Water, it wasn't sweet. It had a light taste. So either you're being cheated or this is serious stuff, not "lets get 'em hooked with sugar" stuff.

If you look at the ingredients you'll note that the most pronounced items are vit. B6, B12 and C. The other main ingredients are sugars (sucrose), Potassium and Sodium. I could tell there was quite a bit of sodium because I could taste it leaking out of me. I've tasted my sweat before, but this was different.

I won't say that I broke any endurance records....personal endurance records. Nor will I say that I didn't feel the workout. I did. But I did not feel drained. This is important to me because usually if I do a run and a bike in the same day, I will feel....blah, time to sleep.

Now for all I know this could all by psychological. I suppose I will find out in the days ahead but not having gastro issues makes it worth it.

I rate this a buy. I'm not being paid by these folks. I'm just a happy customer.

Reminder folks, you still have to eat right and get decent sleep.

*The regular drinks have high fructose corn syrup the pouches have sucrose. Matter of fact the ingredient list of the Gatorade Pregame drink has a lot of similar items to the Osmo but is noticeably sweeter. It may be due to the fact that it's meant as a pre-workout drink whereas Osmo is meant to be taken during a long term event.

Gandolfini Was Not "OK" Before Heart Attack

When I heard that Gandolfini had died I was not surprised. I know that sounds morbid but it's true. When I heard the rumor it was a heart attack I was not surprised either.

at 51, his death was at a relatively young age. When you're that age and you don't die of an accident, there is usually an underlying medical condition. Gandolfini's condition was not unknown to anyone who saw him for it literally right in front of him.

The news commentators were trying to be kind, but I knew that the gut that Gandolfini was carrying was the most likely "cause" of his death. Many men are carrying a lot of weight around their waists. It is known that for men, having such a large omentum is a sure sign of impending heart disease and diabetes.

We men need to take this issue seriously. That "big teddy bear" look may have some cultural cache in many communities but it is not healthy at all. Gandolfini wasn't always that big. He grew. I see this a lot among men and women. I see their high school photos and a vast majority of them, while not slim by any means were not as large as they let themselves get. And let me be clear, most of them let themselves get to whatever size they got to. They ate whenever and whatever they wanted. They avoided exercise. They made excuses and rationalizations for their increasing size. They did not take it seriously when they could not climb stairs without gasping for air.

These people are currently having their lives and health risked by so called "fat acceptance" movements by people who actually could not give a fuck about their physical health. Many have bought into the binary that says that either your huge or your anorexic. Few of them look at those pictures I mentioned earlier and see that there is a wide middle ground that they should be in.

Gandolfini did not have to die just now and if you are carrying a large gut you don't have to die prematurely because of it either.

Has Technology Killed Cursive Handwriting?

From Mashable

But in recent years, the nation's Common Core State Standards — which at least 45 states and the District of Columbia, have voluntarily adopted — took out the requirement for cursive instruction in K through 12 schools...Putting pen to paper stimulates the brain like nothing else, even in this age of e-mails, texts and tweets. In fact, learning to write in cursive is shown to improve brain development in the areas of thinking, language and working memory. Cursive handwriting stimulates brain synapses and synchronicity between the left and right hemispheres, something absent from printing and typing.

Agreed.

I never had good handwriting and I was alarmed one day when I realized I had forgotten certain cursive letters. Now I take time out daily to write the alphabet in cursive both as individual letter forms as well as a continuous string. I also pick a paragraph or two off of a website, usually a news site and rewrite it in cursive.

I definitely notice the difference. While I'm no expert on brain development I can certainly say that my fine motor skills in my fingers has improved.

Rent A Tire?

Are these people fucking nuts?

When the tires on their Dodge Caravan had worn so thin that the steel belts were showing through, Don and Florence Cherry couldn't afford to buy a new set...

The Rich Square, N.C., couple last September agreed to pay Rent-N-Roll $54.60 a month for 18 months in exchange for four basic Hankook tires. Over the life of the deal, that works out to $982, almost triple what the radials would have cost at Wal-Mart.

Just how stupid do you have to be to do some dumb shit like this?

Look, if you can't afford new tires then you buy second hand tires from a tire shop. They won't last anywhere near as long as new tires, but you aint' payin' 1k for tires that cost $300.

Secondly, if you cannot afford to purchase at least second hand tires, then you cannot afford a car. LA Times

The 92%

From A Voice For Men:

Luca Steffenoni, expert of crime, computed in a book that accusations are used in 86% of the divorces. A research by Prof. Camerini et al. showed that in Italy 80% of persons accused of child abuse are fathers, and they turn out to be innocent in 92.4% of the cases.

Remember. Women never lie about abuse. Never. If she makes a claim, you must believe it because she would never lie.

Disruptions: Even the Tech Elites Leave Gadgets Behind

Some couples who work in tech seem to be trying to step back the most. “At least once a month my wife and I jump in our car and drive until cell service drops off (yes, this is possible) and spend the weekend engaged with all things analog,” Evan Sharp, a founder of Pinterest, said — on e-mail. “We read, we walk all over the California hills, we cook, we meet people who don’t work in technology.”

Other couples have told me of a “no gadgets in the bedroom” rule. (Kindles are sometimes an exception.) Some say they leave their phones at home when they go for Sunday brunch. Rather than take a picture of their bacon and eggs to post to Instagram, they can now enjoy each other’s company, and do that strange thing called talking.<

Yes please. I certainly am one who thinks folks spend far too much time in their phones and completely ignore the rest of the world. Particularly annoying when you're on a "date". At first I thought it was simply that I was uninteresting, but I think we have a growing set of people who cannot devote the attention necessary to maintain a conversation.

More Gender Bullshit From The Verge

I'm not sure what kind of editorial overview goes on over at the Verge, but whatever it is, they apparently have no straight males who are still have their testicles attached and backs that contain anything resembling bones. Most recently they posted a report about alleged gender bias in the NY Times. Apparently an "assistant professor" at  UNC Chapel Hill ran a script  "Jailbreak the Patriarchy" to determine is a patriarchal cesspool.

You'd think a "professor" of any type would automatically be skeptical of a tool who's very purpose is biased to analyze data. That's why we have SPSS, SAS and other actually neutral statistical tools to do such work. But when you put a biased professor up with a biased tools you can expect biased  bullshit to be the result.

Instead of working from scratch, he relied on a well-known browser extension called Jailbreak the Patriarchy, which swaps gendered words on a web page ("he" becomes "she," "wife" becomes "husband," and so forth.) From there, he pulled a full week of New York Times articles from late February and early March 2013 — a total of around 1,400 pieces, excluding corrections and paid obituaries. Using his scripts, Caren picked out both some general metrics and specifics about the kinds of words that were used.

Yeah...instead of  you know..doing his own research he uses a fucking browser extension. Where the hell do they award these degrees? Lets look at his results:

After determining the thousand most common words used in these sentences, he subtracted things like proper nouns, weighted the numbers to compensate for the larger number of male sentences, and found the 50 that were most disproportionately associated with a gender. For men, that included largely sports or political words: "male" sentences got 61 mentions of "governor," for example, compared to 2 mentions for "female" ones. "Baseball," "teammates," "bank," "economy," and "political" also skewed heavily male.

Hmmm....I see.

Well how many male governors are there in the US? Well actually it's easier to find the number of female governors  ever in the US: 36. There are 50 states. The number of female governors ever is 36. But this idiot thinks that the fact that 61 mentions of governor as "male" is a sign of bias?

Lets take the rest of the list. Basball weighs heavily male? Why How could that be explained without "Patriarchy"? Oh right  MLB is a male only dominion. Which means if you mention baseball in any national capacity you will mention males.  Don't think that's fair? Fine? When the women can out hit the men (distance and speed). Out pitch the men (speed) Outrun the men (speed), then they can go try out for the Mets and Yankees. Then watch the female references rise. Until then it's not bias.

Same thing with "teammates" again, most National level sports are male only (WNBA a notable exception). Therefore is you mention the word teammates it is most likely in reference to those sports that have all male teams. You don't go reporting on male teams and switch the gender of the persons you report on just for kicks.

Similar reasons exist for "bank", "economy" and "political" as, as is mentioned all the time by feminists, these are areas that are heavily populated by males.

Lets look at his other findings:

On the female side, words tended to relate to fashion, entertainment, or women's reproductive capabilities. "Memoir," "novel," "fashion," and "singing" were all female-skewed words, as were "gender," "kids," and "abortion." The words "victim," "cancer," and "violence" were also female words

Well nothing surprising there either. The vast majority of straight men do not as a rule obsess over "fashion".  Women have "abortions", men do not so no surprise there. Since feminism has a cottage industry in creating victims (Adria Richards anyone?) we should find it unsurprising that women are correlated with victimhood. You get what you create. Similarly since breast cancer is discussed ad-neauseum by the media, even though men are diagnosed and die of all non-gender specific cancers at higher rates than women , it should come as no surprise that cancer is "feminized". And make no mistake this is not "patriarchy's" doing. It is feminists who argued that women's health has and is ignored by male dominated medical industries. So please stop with the patriarchy arguing on that one.

"To be honest, I was a little shocked at how stereotypical the words used in the women subject sentences were," Caren writes.

Shocked? I'm not an "assistant professor" anywhere and I'm not "shocked" by any of it.

HTC One Forward Facing Speaker.....

This would be the N800 circa 2006

HTC One 2013

All kinds of progress.

Manufacturer's Recommended Replacement

BMW says that you should replace your pulley and tensioner every 60k miles. Why should you do this? Well the picture above is what happens to the plastic pulley when you don't replace it. In the front is the old pulley. Right behind it is the new replacement pulley. See the cracks at the edge of the old one? Shouldn't be like that.

See the difference in thickness between the back of the old and the start of the new? That's bad. Very bad. And no, that is not because I didn't line them up properly.

See my fingers pressing on the old pulley? Shouldn't be able to do that. Nope. Not at all. So what would have happened if that wasn't changed? Ohh....pulley would have probably shattered and the belt thrown. The battery light would have come on 'cause the alternator would no longer be spinning and the engine would soon overheat because the water pump would no longer be spinning.

Nothing much I suppose.

185k miles. I don't know if that was the original pulley but a word to anyone with an older BMW. Have you had your tensioners changed? Your engine making squeaking noises that change with rpm's. You'll wanna look into that.

NY Bike Tour Bends to Stupid

This morning I awoke to the news that the NY Bike Tour has banned the use of backpacks, saddlebags and hydration packs from the tour. Why? Boston.

This has to be the stupidest move I have ever seen and reflects the growing knee jerk "we must do something, ANYTHING!" reactions to tragic events. Let me explain a few things:

1) I have done the bike tour 3 times, the last being last year. It is usually cold (upper 30's) at the beginning. Many people, including myself, wear a lot of clothes at the beginning to deal with shit like standing for over an hour at the start line. to deal with shit called "wind chill" when moving at 12-20+ mph. We're usually also carrying food and drink 'cause 50 miles, particularly for those short of Tour De France experience will need to drink and eat something during the tour.

I have two water bottles on my bike and I usually go through both of them before the end.

So these backpacks that people have are often a necessary part of partaking of the tour, particularly as the temperatures rise and clothes are shed. I suppose that folks will be tying their shed clothes around their waists and hope to God their hydration and food they have on the bike and hopefully tucked into their jerseys (if they are wearing one, a lot of people do not) make it.

2) What about all the people along the route? You can't tell people who are NOT a part of the tour to not wear backpacks. We go through many neighborhoods that look much like the finish line of the Boston Marathon. These Bike Tour people do realize it was a roadside bomb that went off right? How exactly does their announcement do anything about the risk of any person on any of the streets the cyclists will be on will not leave a bomb? Oh right. Nothing.

Look. No one is coming to the Bike Tour with a pressure cooker on their back. No one is coming to participate in the Bike Tour to blow anything up unless they plan to go with it. In which case they'll just make the bike a bomb. Think about it. If you have the skills to make a bomb then you have the skills to open a bike frame of a cheap bike and place explosives in it.

Duh.

Anyway. I'm not riding this year and until this stupid rule is lifted, won't be riding in the future. I will not freeze, overheat or starve myself for the stupidity of the folks running the event.

More With the Dumb "Sensitivity"

Americans have become a place of people who apparently need "trigger warnings" and protections from cartoons and the like because their fragile emotions will lead them to utter dispair and perhaps lawsuits. As reported by the NY Times:

A recent episode of “Family Guy” that contained jokes about deaths at a marathon has been removed from Fox’s Web site and from Hulu, the network said Tuesday, one day after twin explosions at the Boston Marathon.

The episode, broadcast on March 17, imagined a scenario in which the cartoon character Peter Griffin won a marathon by driving across the finish line, killing runners along the way. The episode also included a joke about a terrorist blowing up a bridge with two bombs, which were inadvertently triggered by Griffin’s cell phone. After the bombings in Boston, a video uploaded to YouTube showed the two scenes spliced together, leading some Internet commenters to claim that the TV show had predicted the attack. The video has since been blocked.

This is beyond stupid. The ONLY people who would be seeing the videos on the internet are those *looking* for it. And that's not even the important part. What the fuck is wrong with a country of people who need to have shit censored and removed for them because they lack the mental fortitude to "deal with it"?

Seriously this country is quickly becoming a place full emotionally unstable and fragile people. Sad. Really sad.

Fuck Zach Rosenberg.

Over at the so called "Good Man Project" one Zach Rosenberg informed his 4 year old son that he is a rapist. What did his son do?

Tried to kiss a girl in school. The girl objected.

For this Zach told his four year old that he is a rapist.

Why doesn’t she want to be your friend?”

“She didn’t like that I kissed her,” my son says, pushing his index finger into the middle of a strawberry.

“Well, did you ask her first? Or did you just try to kiss her?” He looks up and takes a bite, nonchalantly saying within a shrug “I just tried.”

“Oh, well, dude, you can’t do that,” I say, thinking this will end here.

“Why not?”

That was when I dropped the R-word.

“Because that’s rape,” I answered, matter-of-factly.

Fuck Zach Rosenberg.

Women Never Lie about Domestic Violence

Nope. Never.

Hard luck lads, todger size DOES matter: Official

According to the Register:

Two points of note:

These "taller fitter figures" were, though, considered even more desirable if they were well hung, and even if they were heading into cocktail sausage territory, "a smaller penis was less of a detriment ... than it was to shorter or potato-shaped" guys.

Translation...tall and fit gives an edge when you're sub-par.

"Penis size had a stronger effect on attractiveness in taller men than in shorter men. There was a similar increase in the positive effect of penis size on attractiveness with a more masculine body shape."

But if you're fit as hell and carry a big stick you're batting 1000.

Question for the researchers: Did you try images with erect penises?

Why Facebook Home bothers me: It destroys any notion of privacy

By Om Malik I could title this: Why I hold onto my old ass Nokia N900 for dear life.

Facebook Home

So people can use Facebook more while out in public. They can more easily sit in groups and completely ignore each other as they stare into their phones. Dates can be even more rude by having their phone light up with Facebook messages and status updates.

That is when they're not using Twitter or sending and receiving text messages....which Facebook home will make oh so passé

Oh fun.

So What Was She Doing?

So this advert popped up on my statistics site.

Exactly WHAT was she doing that dude fell over?

Haaa!

The Woman That Caused a Thousand Resignations

Apparently this woman has set back women in gaming by "being on display" and being scantily clad...at a party. I'm going to repeat my boycott call of these conferences, particularly by the male attendees over these overreactions and sensitivity bullshit. Particularly this notion that making a product that appeals to [straight] men is bad. I doubt it will happen as too many men of these days are merely sexual mature males who, having been dominated by their mothers during their formative years find themselves unable to assert their personhood, likes and dislikes in public settings. Instead apologizing for things they do not do wrong, because an asswhole or two who more likely than not got himself drunk decides to assault other attendees. Another idea is that in such events such as parties alternate groups should make "unofficial" parties for adults. You know, people who don't get upset about dongle jokes, Forking or "scantily clad women or men". The rest can go to the "children's table" where they can keep things....you know..under parental guidance lest the children become upset.

The Gender Bullshit Report

I was going to post this to my other blog but then realized that I would be posting so much anti-man stuff as to divert from the general purpose of that blog. So I'm posting it here.

"Donglegate" has been my last straw. Before that I was pretty much content to comment on the blatant gender double standards occasionally. But when two adult men cannot have an innocuous adult A-B conversation in a somewhat public venue without their very employment at risk, enough is enough.

Today I'm going to lay out some double standards that I have seen.

1) Fiat Abarth Commercial:

In this commercial the woman in the black and red dress is supposed to represent the car. The man in the commercial is "drooling" over it as he supposedly would be a woman. The car [woman] is "offended" that he is looking at her rear (while being bent over) and goes over to him and slaps him.

Why is this OK?

I get to hear every single day about domestic violence and shit and turn on the TV and have to see this commercial no less than 6 times in the space of one hour? Why is this OK? Would Fiat have even *considered* having a male "car" slap a female admirer? I think not!

2) V8 Commercial:

V8 has been rife with advertisements of women slapping (bopping) men in the head for "not eating right". Imagine if a dude said: "I hit my wife because she's eating shit all day."

The last 4 incidences of domestic violence came in a commercial entitled "husband and wife". I mean WHAT THE FUCK? Are we against domestic violence or are we NOT against domestic violence. Why, why, Why were we not treated to a single shot of the wife taking a hit? Not a one. Why is it that men are expected to take being physically assaulted by their wives (for eating what they please, when they please) but clearly the makers of V8 know that the reverse is unacceptable?

Some folks may be saying :"yoooo chill out it's only a commercial." Well fine then. When you get to the last item on the list, I say the same thing.

3) Kohler's Toilet Seat:

Ahh the Kohler self closing toilet seat. This commercial is all kinds of misandrist fail. The story here is a dude is taking a piss and then goes back to bed. His wife/lover is grinning because the seat is down and she doesn't have to treat him like a child and 'remind" him to close the seat.

Look. Men use the toilet one of two ways. We stand to piss and sit to shit. If we're bright and properly trained we put the seat UP so that we don't "miss" and piss on the seat. No one wants to piss on the seat because that means we gotta clean that up or face sitting in piss when next we shit. The point being is that adult men have learned to take the second it takes to check the status of the toilet *before* using it.

Somehow there are large numbers of women who have not learned this simple adult task and insist that the seat be left down by men so that they "don't fall in". No I'm not kidding. There are grown adult women have not learned to check first before sitting and feel entitled to blame men and berate men about what position the seat has been left in.

personally I think the Kohler commercial should have ended with "'cause the bitch is too lazy to check for herself." I'm certain at least one man in the advertising company (if there were ANY in it other than the actor) had this thought. Well actually, given what I've seen this week, that may not have been the case.

What the commercial also shows is how much men are afraid of the women they are dealing with. Scared to death to see her displeased or inconvenienced in any way. Oh boy! if I leave the seat up I might not get laid tonight! I may have to hear her complain and I don't have the guts to say "shut the fuck up about the seat already." 'Cause if I say that I might not get laid! Oh NOES!

Actually, under the new VAWA act, him saying "shut the fuck up about the seat already" would qualify as domestic abuse. I kid you not.

4) 9 Year Old Girl wants to make a video game.

Mashable posts this story with this lead image.

First what the fuck does a girl who wants to make video games have to do with boys making video games? Quick answer Not a damn thing. Look. If a 9 year old wants to make a video game that's a great thing all by itself. No need for comparisons or even discussions about boys. But if we're GOING to discuss the boys, why the fuck are you posting some goofy looking boys as a comparison?

I'll tell you why? Simply to typecast boys as sexist idiots as to gain sympathy for the girl. This is "damselling" something that's supposed to be frowned upon.

The video goes on with some real utter nonsense as it starts to shame women who are apparently "not smart"

first up is the rather lithe woman on the arms of an alleged "sugar daddy". 9 year old doesn't want to end up like her. Well that's all fine and good but what's up with the slut shaming (or better put Sugar baby shaming)? If a woman wants to make herself available to a rich man that's her business. You don't have to do it but if you do? Not my business or yours.

And note to the idiot who made the video: "Sugar Daddy" is not a "life plan" ("sugar baby" maybe). Sugar Daddy is what happens when a dude has generally "made it" and happens to still be single (or not) and can afford to pay some woman's way. And if my recent trip to Miami is any indication, there are no shortage of willing participants (male or female). Oh and many of these (sugar babies) are college students who are getting their tuition paid by these men...not too unlike getting random strangers to pay for one's programming school kickstart.

Um...yeah.

Anyway. this girl wants to make a game that does not involve getting killed as a consequence of fucking up in a game (and doesn't have "bad words". So much for her reading this blog entry). Well that's nice. Really. I just hope she understands that if you have say a "war" game that one of the consequences of fucking up in war is ummmm death. Dying is an incentive to play well. Sorry to have to break this real life thing on your playing.

Ewww...Death.

Whatever.

Look. I don't have a problem with this girl wanting to make a video game. I don't have a problem with her kickstarting to go to programming camp.

I do have a problem with the Sugar baby shaming, the sugar daddy shaming and the boy shaming.

There was no need for any of it.

5)Ford's Advertising Apology:

Patrick George (so sad for a man with two male names to be such a pussy but hey) shows his feminist ways congratulating Ford for apologizing for an advertisement.

See it's sexist for Ford to show Silvio Berlusconi in a Ford [that he'll probably never own or drive] with three bound and gagged women in the back. Wait...sorry... three bound and gagged strippers in the back. WAit..wait... three bound and gagged strippers that Silvio is going to kill and throw in a ditch How do I know they are strippers? Because Patrick says so! I mean we know Silvia has a thing for strippers but I didn't even THINK strippers. Patrick had to fill that in for me. For all I knew these were simply young women he fucked.

But see, according to Patrick, I lack "nuance" because I fail to understand the power dynamic at play

Well Excuse-eh-MOI for not even THINKING of murder and strippers when I see women. What kind of lowly man I must be to NOT assume women in close proximity to a man, a powerful man at that, are strippers.

Lets all thank Patrick for letting us low brow and uneducated men that when we see women near Silvia, they MUST be strippers AND that men who tie them up MUST be murderers.

I'm the sexist one for not reading nefarious intentions into a picture.

But lest you think I protest WAYYY to much. There are other advertisements in what appears to be a set with the same theme.

.

Why can't I assume that this chick has tied up the Khardashians and is off to kill them and throw them in a ditch? Oh right because it's a woman. Since it's a woman there is no "power dynamic".

Yes, please do laugh.

Should we mention that one of them has appeared in a sex tape?

Yeah. OK.

But this is OK by Mr. Patrick "Nuance" George.

This one is "hilarious".

I suppose it's because we can't assume these are male strippers dressed as automobile racers.

Lets' be clear Silvio is shitted on because he like fucking young women. Older women don't approve so Silvio is a scumbag. Men who are in fear of earning the disapproval of women say Silvio is a scumbag while knowing that if they had a chance (and functioning parts), they too would be fucking young women too.

So this wraps up this weeks Gender Bullshit report. This is by no means an exhaustive list of the Bullshit I saw this week. But I'm going to continue with it since apparently these double standards are being accepted.

PS: I just want to re-iterate my call for Pycon 2014 to be boycotted by those of good intentions. Let Pycon and other event organizers understand that men will not tolerate being intimidated by staff, ejected or treated like anything other than the paying adults that they are at these events. I am quite certain that one year with a 50% drop in male attendance (and whatever number of women) will get their attention. Organize a competing event if the lessons and contacts are that important to you, but if you all fail to stand up to this rank bullying it will grow and get worse.

Knot Yet: Getting married later can have economic costs, benefits

In complete contradiction to the piece in the NY Times I posted about yesterday, the LA times reports that getting married later can have economic costs, benefits

But there's a problem:

Americans are getting married at ever-older ages, and a new report says this trend may be partly responsible for the shrinking of the middle class.

I believe I said this.

For college-educated men and women, delaying marriage has paid off – literally. By enabling them to finish school and get their careers established, these younger adults are investing in themselves for the long haul. The return on this investment is most significant for women: Those who finish college and get married after turning 30 earn $18,152 more per year, on average, than women who marry in their 20s or teens. Even women who are high school graduates but don’t finish college earn $4,052 more per year, on average, than women who marry when they’re younger.

Two big problems here:

1) You don't go comparing college graduates with teenage mothers and persons who did not graduate from college. It is already known that College education alone is responsible for an increase in income.

Alone.

Whether a woman marries early or not, if she does not go to college or some post secondary education (trade school) she's going to earn less, period. Marriage has no bearing on that since one can be married AND educated or in the process of education. The only "risk" from marriage is childbearing as children are a financial liability regardless of education.

And why-oh-why didn't the LA Times fail to point out that many of these "delayed" married women with the 'extra income" also have a lot of school debt as well?

Younger Generations Lag Parents in Wealth-Building

The NY Times reporting:

Ms. Brady has plenty of company. A new study from the Urban Institute finds that Ms. Brady and her peers up to roughly age 40 have accrued less wealth than their parents did at the same age, even as the average wealth of Americans has doubled over the last quarter-century.

An interesting situation which I'm not entirely surprised about. Not to pick on the woman at the head of the post, I want to use her story as an example of why I the NY Times has missed the major reason for this.

Pearl Brady has a stable job with good benefits and holds two degrees, a bachelor’s and a master’s. But despite her best efforts, she has no savings, and worries that it will be years before she manages to start putting away money for a house, children and eventually retirement. “I’m in that extremely nervous category,” said Ms. Brady, 28, a Brooklynite who works for a union. “I know how much money I’m going to be making for the near term. I hope in my 30s and 40s to be able to save, but I have no idea how. It’s scary.”

She's 28, wants a house and children and save for retirement. Not a single mention of marriage.

She "hopes" to be able to save in her 30's and 40's.

I see.

Marriage, particularly for women is the best way to increase net worth. This is true across race. I have written about this on my other blog so I wont repeat it here.

It does not surprise me that at a time where this generation is deep in debt, it also the least married generation (in terms of age of first marriage) and the generation with the most single parents.

Single parenting is a huge drain on resources yet and still it is taboo in certain circles to mention that being a single mother is a bad idea and that getting (and staying) married is one of the best financial decisions a man and woman can make.

Of course landlords love the perpetually single younger generation because the longer they are single, odds are the longer they will need an apartment. High demand = high rent.

Entertainment companies love it too, since single men and women spend money entertaining themselves rather than worrying about mortgages, education and the stuff that adults of a generation ago concerned themselves with.

For now, millions of younger workers are on their own. “We both had vanilla lower-middle-to-middle-class lifestyles,” said Christopher Greer, a 32-year-old who works in astronomy and lives in Arizona, referring to himself and his girlfriend. “I’m not sure how that’s going to play out for us.”

Here's my advice: Stop dicking around and get married. Move in with each other and split the bills equitably. Look at all your now collective debt and make a plan to pay each one down one by one and/or one partner pay the debts while the other does the savings.

Harvard Searched E-Mails for Source of Media Leaks

I have repeatedly told people that at the job, there is no privacy so stop thinking your "personal" material sent via their servers cannot be looked at.

Harvard secretly searched the e-mail accounts of several of its staff members last fall, looking for the source of news media leaks about its recent cheating scandal, but did not tell them about the searches for several months, people briefed on the matter said on Saturday.

Too Busy For A Relationship

Ever heard that one? Ever said that one?

It's highly likely that the person who said it was lying. Yes, that includes you if you said it. Let me explain.

One of my favorite movies is Hitch. Yeah. Hitch. Judge me. The movie opener has this gem: "If she says something like "I'm too busy for a relationship." It either means "try harder" or "get away from me now."

Well I'm paraphrasing. But it's true. Really.

Think about it. Have you ever asked someone who threw that line at you exactly what they were busy doing?

Probably not. Probably because it would seem pushy or desperate. But think about it. It's a legitimate question. Exactly how busy do you have to be to not have "time" for a relationship?

In actuality such a statement reveals a lot about the person who is saying it.

Think about married people. Marriage is a relationship, no? Do married couples say to each other. Well for the next 5 weeks I am waaaaay too busy to be married so we're not married for that time.

Sounds dumb doesn't it? That's the point.

Relationships change in dynamics all the time. You don't STOP having a "relationship" because you're busy, you change the dynamics of a relationship if you are busy.

Therefore it is highly likely that if they aren't telling the truth, that they are in fact too busy for a relationship, as in quarantined in a space capsule for a month or so, they are telling you:

1) They don't like you. Don't want to like you and don't want to "hurt your feelings" by not simply saying, "eh, you don't do it for me."

Or

2) They have no clue what a "relationship" is. In which case they have probably done you a favor.

Think about it what do you "need" for a relationship. Yuu need some mutual affection and to spend quality time together. Notice I said "quality" not "quantity".

If you have time for dinner (in or out). If you have time to work out. If you have time to go to a movie. If you have time for a walk in the park. If you have time for any of that AND time for a fuck buddy. then you, my friend have time for a relationship.

What you may not have time for is a "always up under each other" relationship. But check it. Not only is that not the only form of a relationship it is probably not a good relationship. Seriously. Folks who are always up under each other are probably covering up issues that they have to face when alone. whether it be loneliness, insecurity (can't let them out of sight 'cause they might cheat), etc.

So the next time someone says "I don't have time for a relationship" ask them what makes them so busy? They'll probably be taken aback but you'll know if you're being bullshitted.

Lessons From Millionaire Matchmaker

Yes, I watch Millionaire Matchmaker. Judge me. Nothing like watching dudes fail at a date after watching dudes fail in the Octagon of Ultimate Fighter. Yeah. I watch MMA and Bravo TV. Contradiction. I know. Anyway. Last night's episode was chock full of lessons which I feel compelled to comment on.

First: From the Ultimate Fighter: NEVER. EVER. Drop your guard.

Second: If you watch the show you know that the female millionaire was a returnee who tried to buy the affections of a guy who clearly did not want her. What is her "problem"? Well she's obese. Not that it makes her a bad person. Not that it doesn't maker her not desirable by anyone. But it does mean that there are certain men she is unlikely to have express interest in her. This leads me to my first point:

Why is it that "obese" women who talk all day long about how they are a BBW (Big Beautiful Woman for those unfamiliar) and how they are "real women" because they have "curves" are apparently uninterested in BHM (Big Handsome Men)? Seriously. What is with this contradiction? In my own life I have been "hit on" by a number of women who I consider "obese" who don't give men their size the time of day (unless he has money...an entirely different conversation).

Mind you there are "chubby chasers" out there (I don't actually like the term). So it's not like these women cannot find men who like "all of this". It's simply that if you are a BBW, I think you have no business turning your nose up at BHMs.

So this chick picks a mesomorph of a man (that's a medium build to you non-science folks). He stands her up (which will be addressed later). Who shows up but the man she passed up who happened to be a BHM. Not a 10 by any means, but seriously most men are not 10s...or 8s or 7 for that matter so...

Not only does her face drop off a cliff when this guy shows up with not one but TWO bouquets, her body language was completely "fuck off" for most of the date. What is "fuck off" body language? Well if you must ask, if a woman keeps her distance from you. Doesn't touch you at all and turns her body from you, that is "fuck off" body language.

The poor guy was a "trooper" if you will and continued to be the "gentleman".

Then during dinner, he repeats what he did in the mixer where he basically offered himself as her slave.

"I'll take you to the mall." "I'll carry all your bags." "I'll fix your computer!" Basically everything she did to the last guy minus the "I'll buy your a Maserati".

He tell her how he finds her both mentally AND physically attractive.

Yes. He said that flat out. To her face.

She decides that she doesn't want to see him anymore. They never date again.

The fuck?

That was like a football player seeing the opposite team player drop the football 1 yard from the end zone and deciding "eh" I think we'll wait until it's our turn to receive.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

Which brings me to the next lesson:

DUDES! Stop with that "I'll do anything for you" bullshit.

A large proportion of women will see you as a mat and will be turned off by it.

Most women do NOT want a man they can just walk all over and get their way all the time.

Stop that shit.

Read the body language. giggling is easy to fake. Interest is easy to fake. Very few people can actually fake body language. Pay attention.

Next: I want to give credit to ol' girl for cutting dude off. It may seem cruel but it was the right thing to do. He would have been HAPPY as fuck to take her everywhere and be her man-slave. She could have taken advantage of his interest for her own ego. She did not. That was a great thing she did. Kudos.

Now we have to deal with Patty.

I don't know how much of that show is scripted and how much is "real". But Patty made a huge mistake last night. Fistly she was willing to comment that the guy millionaire was picking women "out of his league". She should have said the SAME thing to the woman. She needed to tell ol' girl that these buff guys that she likes are highly unlikely to be interested in her sexually. That SHE was picking men waaaaaaay out of her league.

This is why ol' girl was stood up. Did Patty ask all the men whether they were interested in BBWs? That would and should have been question number O.N.E.

it was so hard to watch this guy treat this woman better than anyone has probably ever treated her before and get shot down. But it simply underscores what I have told many a young man:

Don't do that shit. If she clearly does not want you "like that". Bid her a good night and lose her number and e-mail. You'll thank me when you ARE with someone who is worthy of your efforts.

Man Shaming at The Verge

One Russell Brandom wrote a piece on The Verge entitled "Never mind the hardware, why didn't Sony's PS4 event have any women?" Which was a man shaming piece of crap post that should never have seen the light of day.

Let's start with the subheading:

A boy's club industry is bad for everyone, especially gamers

Bad for everyone? That's a bold statement. Lets assume (incorrectly I might add) that games have been the domain of "boys" since the Atari 2600. This guy actually wants to tell us that all the advances in games since then has been "bad for everyone"? Really? He has no way to support such a statement. The data doesn't support it and of course he doesn't provide any. We're supposed to just believe him because we're supposed to believe that so called "boy's clubs" are inherently bad.

Fuck this dude.

Ok. I'm being harsh. I'm sorry. Russell actually begins with a pretty decent observation:

If you didn't notice, it's probably because there also weren't any female devs or executives onstage at the Wii U launch, or the EA Gamescom event, or the most recent HTC unveiling, or any Apple keynote in recent memory. With an all-male board and executive staff, Apple would have no one to send. In 2013, that should be shocking, but it's so much the industry norm that it's hard to single Sony out as especially egregious. Onstage, this is what the game industry looks like. It just isn't what gamers look like

When you analyze this statement you realize it completely crushed Russell's "boy's club" theory. Why? Because all of the companies he listed as being "boy's clubs" are wildly successful with millions upon millions of happy customers. If "boy's clubs" were inherently "bad for everyone" then it would stand to reason that Apple, among the others listed, would be in dire financial straights.

Then there's this:

According to the Entertainment Software Association, 47 percent of gamers are women — effectively gender parity. But only eleven percent of game industry employees are women, measuring across all departments. It's the same mismatch we saw last night: women in the audience, but none on stage.

The problem with the citation is that the PDF tells us nothing about what these women are purchasing and whether those purchases are relevant to a PS4 Console launch. Why is this important? It is important because "gamer" has been made to include games played on phones and other mobile devices and so just because 47% of "gamers" are female, does not mean that 47% of console users are women. The Mary Sue points out this issue:

The rise of games that can be played on smartphones probably also accounts for a more diverse audience of gamers. People not necessarily attracted to traditional console games have found love with downloadable games like Angry Birds as well as strategy and educational games. In fact, 55 percent of gamers play on portable devices.

I assure you that Angry Birds is not what people are buying consoles for.

Then there are gamers who don’t feel the need to spring for a console and simply use their computers. Online gamers account for 19 percent of the entire gaming audience; puzzle/card/trivia games make up 47 percent of computer-based gaming. Role-playing games and MMOs accounted for 32 percent of computer based games.

Ummm...I said that right? And the PS4 is what? A console? Right. So exactly what are women "gamers" playing the most? Bejeweled, World of Warcraft, Farmville, Crosswords and Sodoku, Cakeshop.

The Times of India reported on women gamers:

Much like everyday life, women are attracted to games with a social element which allow for communicating with other gamers. 43% of women have used social networking games compared to 26% of men.

I'm not going to go on and on about the statistics, but it has been clear to me for a long time that generally speaking, women "game" differently than men. And that's OK. And maybe, just maybe the lack of presence at this particular venue is related to that (though I cannot say for certain). Back to Russell though.

After the badly sourced "statistics" he then gets to the meat of his problem:

It’s why Sony thinks it can get away with sexist ads like this, only to find out too late that it can’t. It’s why you see things like the spectacularly queasy gender politics of this summer’s Hitman: Absolution trailer.

This is part of the man shaming. Men, straight men, like breasts. Straight men like to touch them. I know this comes as a total shock to some people. So the advert is a direct shot at those men. Crude? Perhaps. Sexist? Ha.

Look, I won't take anyone's commentary on "sexist" advertising until I see round condemnations for advertising that features dumb as rocks men next to their wives/girlfriends. Or the adverts where women get to slap (that's assault) the men (who are usually boyfriends or husbands). Or the wildly popular Fiat Abarth advert where the anthropomorphized vehicle slaps the male onlooker. This last advert I saw no less than 6 times in the space of a two hour movie.

As for the Hitman trailer. Le sigh. Of ALL the imagery to get upset about; nuns, a whole lot of violence, THE problem were the scantily clad women. Typical American hypocrisy where violence is OK but breasts? not so much. Russell can pass me on that one. Though I would be interested in how many Hitman customers are women.

And most importantly, it’s why women in the industry were lining up under the #1 reason why a few months ago to share stories of being harrassed or otherwise silenced. The industry alienates its female fans over and over and over. And each time it comes back to the same point: surely, if there were a woman in the room, she would have pointed out that this was a terrible idea. The men should have noticed it too, but clearly they didn’t.

Yes a woman would have pointed out how she would not like so and such. But what is lost on Russell is that simply because a women does not like something does not make it a "terrible idea". And this is the problem. This is the man shaming. This is the "you guys must change for us" entitlement attitude that permeates much of this discussion.

The more "meat":

What's worse for gamers isn't the bad ideas that get through but the good ones that don't. By now, we have a pretty good idea of what a male-dominated game culture can do — a lot of guns, mostly, which is what we saw front-and-center at Sony last night — but it's hard to even imagine the distaff counterpart

Ahh guns. That didn't take long. Well if Russell had bothered to look at the PDF of the "who are gamers" that he linked to earlier he would have noticed a few things:

42% of online games played most often are puzzles, card games, game shows and trivia. Not a gun in sight. 47% of mobile games are of the same type.

Of game console type of games sold in 2011 only 18% of them are shooters. 18%. Sports and racing combined (no weapons of any type) outrank shooters. Add "family and you have 38% of the console games sold being non weapon games.

By units sold "Just Dance" was the second most sold game.

Clearly then Russell's "boy's club" that only produces "mostly guns" is total and utter bullshit.

More importantly, even if shooters represented the vast majority of so called "boy's club" products. Who is Russell (or anybody else) to pass judgment on that form of entertainment? I don't pass judgment on women who spend hours upon hours living a double life in The Sims or girls playing My Little Pony on their Nintendo DS. It's not my business what they spend their time doing. I. Don't. Care.

but the truth is, gaming culture is so relentlessly male that it's hard to imagine games outside of it Well Russell has a poor imagination then. Perhaps he's too used to "feminists" telling him what to think. *smirk*

The result is a lot of boring games with different variations on the same testosterone-fueled themes.

Because of course "testosterone-fueled" themes are "bad". Russell could have made his case without the completely unnecessary swipes at males. He could have asked the same questions about the presence of women in the presentation by simply pointing to their use of games and how Sony intended (or not) to appeal to this growing market. That's a perfectly fine line to take. But count me in on the group of men who will no longer tolerate being "shamed" for being marketed to or for choosing to play with my fellow gents if I so chose. And yes, I agree, the "armour" on most of these female characters is quite stupid.

A Second Note on Alfredo

Progressive techies favor Free and Open Source Software because the collaboration needed to produce software means its ownership can’t be restricted. Companies believe in proprietary software because they’ve built their wealth stealing people’s thinking, claiming ownership over it, and then re-selling it to people.

Let's be serious here for a moment. I am a proponent of open source software. I use it. I modify it. However I also know a few things: Many "open source" developers do so after working a 9-5 (or whatever hours) at someone elses company in order to pay the bills. They do not, like paid product developers, make a living off of the product they produce.

Since they do not make money off the products they produce a great deal of OSS simply sucks and cease to exist not too long after they are created. There are plenty of exceptions but anyone being honest about it knows this to be the case.

Many "open source" developers live with their parents who pay the costs of living in the not-so-free world. It's all nice and cute to chuck stones at "bad" corporations when you live off of other people's 9-5, but it is not a good argument against such corporations. I am far more inclined to listen to an OSS developer who actually makes a living supporting his or herself and his or her family off the "sweat of their brow" rather than at the expense of the people who end up paying for them to "live their principles".

Look, I read Counterpunch. Every year they ask for donations from their readers, something on the order of 80K. I'm not sure how much they make over the year, but Counterpunch not only provides "free" material (paid for by those donations I'm sure) but they have a subscriber only newsletter (not so free).

I "pay" for Black Agenda report monthly. The information people get on that site is "free" insomuch that persons who "donate" allow the site to continue to operate. The point is that "free" only goes so far. People have to be compensated for their efforts or end up living off those who are. That's how it works. I'm more inclined to compensate someone for their efforts, than to bandwagon for those who live off those who are compensated.

Among my folks we call such attitudes as "free-ism" and we don't mean it kindly.

Should corporations be fair and responsible with their profiteering? Absolutely. None of the above is a rationalization for exploitation. But not all business is exploitation.