I agree that it's not appropriate here, but in general; people do it because male forced envelopment victims get congratulated, male domestic violence victims that call for help are redirected to a hotline to confess as an abuser, males are ignored in legislation bringing more health care benefits to women, males are more likely to commit suicide, and males are less likely to succeed in lower education or matriculate into college. Also the prisons are full of men (who get longer sentences for similar crimes), where it's also a hilarious joke that they are raped because fuck criminals.
I wouldn't have replied but I hate that "what about the menz" trope. Men and women both have social problems, it wasn't appropriate to discuss men's issues here but that does not mean it is never appropriate. Maybe people need better filters than, "a discussion about gender is occurring, here is my two cents," but it's hard for people who care about these issues to find a good time simply because it's somewhat taboo to say men have problems at all. So they probably just don't mention anything until they really disagree with something being said.
We shouldn't allow disfunctional individuals to participate in our communities, but I think at the point where you photoshop nudes to damage someone's reputation, a therapist would be more appropriate than a lynch mob. I think that's why it seems childish to you, you know that shaming wouldn't make anyone change, it would just satiate our thirst for revenge.
Yes. I took some Coursera classes and it was better than reading the relevant Wikipedia articles in terms of how much I learned and retained. Net win for education IMO.
You are a hypocrite, you're just frothing at the mouth claiming anything you'd like even if it's self-contradictory. Coupled with the ad hominem attacks, we all know it is you that is the "monumental prick".
So let me get this straight, you say you've got a problem with ad hominem attacks, but that doesn't stop you from personally attacking others. And when you do, the term of abuse you employ is...(wait for it)...hypocrite.
Unbelievable.
Just out of curiosity, do even know what the words you're using mean? Specifically can you define "hypocrite" and use it properly in a sentence?
It would be nice if you had wrote about this dilemma without making a strawman argument.
It's a fact that DRM only inconveniences the paying customers. You of all people should know that. The laws preventing people from getting around it certainly aren't going to stop the one guy that rips a DVD and sends it out, but they are put to good use against the one guy that wants to help you use your Playstation hardware as you wish. Not to mention your phone. Or the guy selling you reasonably-priced watches from abroad. Their price segmentation is more important than the doctrine of first sale, right?
Nobody thinks a content provider should give it away for free, and many people arguing against copyright ridiculousness are also against piracy. Many people remark that maybe if the content providers weren't charging fistfuls for a shitty experience they might have better luck. Plenty of people would buy a movie DRM-free for $3 but don't feel entitled to download it.
Write one! Use any language. You'll probably learn a ton. McEliece looks like a particularly fun one to do, and its building blocks have a lot of other uses (unlike RSA).
