It can remain adult, the first 6 comments (including ant's, ending with bareboards') were adult, then it quickly devolved into grade school faulty reasoning, lack of comprehension, blatant racism, and derision by someone well known for that type of post.
Conversations will never remain 'adult' when people start their posts with silly blanket derision like "Ugh, everyone in this thread is acting like an asshat." That's not an adult thing to say, and adds nothing to any discussion. Also, you include ant in that (he had posted in the thread by then) for adding it to the 'talk' channel. WHAT?!

To answer your questions,
@Babymech made a quite valid point with a clear example of why Anita doesn't owe anyone anything, and a second post explaining that even more clearly (the second with some snark, because of the insulting comment(er) it was replying to).
You just started by insulting everyone...posters, speaker, Anita, "everyone in this thread"... and made huge leaps to assume she hates and belittles sex workers (who are prostitutes if they sell sex for money, BTW).
Then you go on to apparently claim rape, or people caring/not caring about rape, or perhaps people caring/not caring about other people caring/not caring about rape is a first world problem?

Trancecoach (I had to "show it anyway", he's on ignore for obvious reasons) had absolutely no valid point to make, only a complete misread of babymech and a racist insulting rant making insanely wrong claims and conflations.

@ChaosEngine (and I) explained why she disabled comments on youtube. It was not to block valid criticism, or they would never have been open in the first place. It was because of daily rape and death threats and good advice from friends, cops, and youtube.

Your points are not valid IMO. Particularly your point about her turning off comments, I find that point completely without merit for reasons already delineated.

I'm not interested enough in her to investigate her, and see no need. I'm not a fan. That said, when people make silly statements about her (like "youtubers - commenters & personalities alike - started calling her on her bullshit. In response, she disabled the comments on all of her videos.") when I know that's not correct, I will correct you.
Gamergate (EDIT: for a vast majority of people) WAS about "an ACTUAL very serious set of issues.
Online Harassment. Slut shaming. The depiction & plight of genders in pop culture. etc. " because of the harassing, slut shaming, threatening comments it generated. That's why people know about it, not because of it's original message. Juxtapose that with the repeated serious threats of brutal home invasion & sexual assault...Then ask yourself if the nitpicky personal opinion you've already expressed maintains the situation & context. Otherwise you end up expressing terrible non-sequitur mindless thoughts like Trancecoach.

in effect - "regardless of her peer's brutal rape.. she has no right to expect someone you have labeled an outspoken proponent of women's rights (in gaming).. to respond to her.. or call attention to what you (not her) are calling the most disparaged & vulnerable/easily victimized members of society, female sex workers"...yes, absolutely. Sarkeesian is not an anti-rape advocate, she's a 'women in gaming' advocate, and has no obligation to take up another cause and drop her cause. It's disturbing you don't se the difference, and I think it's intentional.

@newtboy With contentious topics like this, the conversation is barely "adult".

It's nitpicky and tangential because everyone thinks they alone are adding some great insight to the discussion.

@Babymech hopped on the "Anita doesn't owe anyone anything" cart.

@Trancecoach was closer to base but then got all "you see, it's really the blacks that are the problem"

@ChaosEngine choose the "well youtube comments are generally insulting & abusive.. therefore it's okay to block valid criticism too!"

Great, what does that have to do with the message of the speaker.
Or my point of "hey, why are you completely avoiding the overall message of the speaker"

Furthermore, what's the difference between Baby's condescending tone and my outright insults?

Both are belittling & incongruent with "adult" behavior/conversation.

Ultimately, he too is trying to swat down argument/opinion that doesn't mesh with his.

Regardless of my brash way of speaking, my points are still valid.

I do my research. I don't talk about topics I'm ignorant on.
And as I said, I was once a fan of Anita Sarkeesian and her videos.

Then I ran into her bullshit.

There's tons of evidence on youtube that points out Sarkeesian's hypocrisy.

So if you're uninformed, why not take it upon yourself.. to educate yourself.

You folks are barely any better then lantern or bobknight with your knee-jerky devils' advocate defense of a pseudo-intellectual prestige-hound who is unscrupulous in the way she pursues her agenda.

Next you're gonna tell me that somehow Bill Cosby isn't a date-rapist.

"Well you know, it was only 25-30 women with identical experiences/anecdotes. ..MJ is still definitely a pederast tho."

My point here is:

You all frame this video with your personal opinion BEFORE analyzing the entirety of it's message & context.

I get that, because it's a pot-stirrer.
But seriously, if you just think it out:

A - Gamergate is first world problem bullshit
B - It has garnered unwarranted hype and a counter-cult of white-knight SJW supporters.
C - It's being conflated with an ACTUAL very serious set of issues.
Online Harassment. Slut shaming. The depiction & plight of genders in pop culture. etc.
D - Actual victims & movements, ON BOTH SIDES, are being undermined by this frenzy.

Juxtapose that with the brutal home invasion & sexual assault..

Then ask yourself if the nitpicky personal opinion you're about to express maintains the situation & context.

Otherwise, you end up expressing terrible mindless thoughts like @Babymech.
in effect - "regardless of her peer's brutal rape.. she has no right to expect an outspoken proponent of women's rights.. to respond to her.. or call attention to the most disparaged & vulnerable/easily victimized members of society, female sex workers"

This is why the videosift community can barely be taken seriously.

It's like 4chan flamewars for boring old people.

..now everyone is on my case for [aggressively] pointing this out.



PHO PHO PHO PHO PHO Bun cha gio, mmm.

Nothing is good about this situation and there is no reason to think this will end in anything but Greek default.

Greece's government, elected by its citizens ran up a large and unsustainable debt which was masked by easy credit before the GFC and fraudulent accounting.

There were many contributors. Corruption, hugely wasteful state owned enterprises, joining the euro zone before they were ready to lose the ability to devalue their currency and lower interest rates, and flagrant tax evasion.

But as a country they're collectively responsible for not demanding the necessary reforms of their politicians to ensure they were not vulnerable to a credit crisis when the GFC hit and lenders began to look more scrupulously at individual European countries rather than Europe as a whole. Equally, Italy is responsible for voting Berlusconi into power for every year their economy recorded negative growth under his government. Spain is responsible for not providing sufficient oversight to bad bank lending leading a huge indebting bailout package.

Some of Syriza's reforms are reasonable. Tackling corruption and trying to break up oligopolies are worthy ideas, but they are unlikely to be easy and yield any immediate benefit. Raising the minimum wage and planning to hire back state workers as they have already promised will almost guarantee they will cease to receive EU funding/ECB assistance and later IMF funding.

The simple truth from the point of view of Germany and other austerity backing Nordic countries is if they buy their loans (and in effect transfer money to Greece) without austerity stipulations, there will be no pressure or guarantee that structural reforms that allow Greece to function independently will ever be implemented. These lender government and by extension its people have no interest in transferring wealth to Greece if it stalls its reforms.

Yes fire sales of state owned enterprises suck but the likely alternative at this point if the Troika lending is stopped is that all other lending stops and Greece defaults. At that point there would be mass loss of state sector jobs and sky-rocketing unemployment relative to what is now being experienced. It would take years of reform for the Greek government to be lend-worthy again. There is simply no trust for any alternative to austerity on the part of north Europe.

Currently Greece has reported positive growth in the past quarter and excluding debt repayments is running a budget surplus. Realistically, yes they cannot pay back the 180% of GDP. The likely way forward is after several more years of real reform they (+ Spain & Portugal) would get better terms from the EU as politically, leaders in Germany and elsewhere will be able to make the case that their objective has been achieved.

The ECB's QE package is in some ways already part of this. What I guarantee won't happen is electing Syriza to oppose bailout terms helping to secure that. Germany et al will quite rightly see that if they acquiesce to Greece they will encourage other populist parties in Spain, Portugal, Italy and France and stall reforms.

Could Germany and others in theory provide a huge cash infusion to Greece, Spain and Portugal now? Sure. And those parties would be voted out in the next election and the terms reversed. Even with the relative stinginess of current loan terms, the likes of UKIP and the National Front with their anti-EU stance, have gained political standing in the EU parliament and will likely see huge boosts in upcoming domestic elections.

Naked pictures are not really the issue.

If her pictures had been stolen and looked at, but she didn't KNOW that they had been seen, her psychological damage from this theft would have been very different. Wondering who has seen them, being uncomfortable when meeting someone -- has this person seen them? That person? Not happy, not cool. And, in fact, she took back that particular psychological assault by posting this video and claiming her naked body for herself. Here. Look. I want you to look. It's my body and it is a fine body.

The real damage are the personal attacks, exposing personal information, attempted blackmail, active psychological assaults on her mind.

You guys can have your intellectual conversation about the cloud and how to protect yourself.

But that is not the problem.

I had to stop reading the comment stream when I realized it was starting to include crap about -- oh this isn't misogyny, this isn't hatred.

Yes. It is. It is violence against women, and this woman in particular.

And when you ignore that, and focus on the fact that she had made something that was vulnerable to theft... well, we get back to that feminist/humanist trope of -- you are part of the problem. #Not All Men? Well, men who focus on immaterialities while a violent psychological assault is taking place? I'd say #Those Men.

I know you don't mean any harm. I know you aren't #Those Men, not really. But I'm here to tell you that there is new harm being committed when you ignore the actual violent psychological crimes.

I am aware that some of what I have written might sound really stupid in light of the above comments, since I didn't read them. I'm okay with that. It is better than subjecting myself to what feels like an additional violation.

You almost never hear of an NHL player being upset (in a litigation sort of way) about injuries they got that resulted from fighting (drop the gloves and throw punches).

In general, the one major incident I am aware of that resulted in legal action being taken against a player was when Todd Bertuzzi checked Steve Moore down the the ice from behind and then drove his head/neck into the ice with his stick in some heavy followup hits. This is mentioned in the wikipedia article @eric3579 posted, and hinted at in the article @RedSky posted from the Economist.

In that incident, Steve Moore (a lower-level player on the Colorado Avalanche) had hit Marcus Naslund (a star level player of the Vancouver Canucks) in a previous game. That hit was a fairly normal hockey hit -- Naslund had the puck, Moore intentionally hit him to try to separate him from the puck, but arguably led with his elbow to Naslund's head. It was a dangerous play, that should have be penalized (it wasn't) -- although I don't think Moore intended to cause injury. It is a fast game, sometimes you can't react quick enough to avoid a dangerous collision like that. Still, I think that kind of play should be penalized to make it clear to players that they need to avoid dangerous plays if possible. Steve Moore didn't have a history of dirty or dangerous play, but still.

Anyway, all of that dovetails in pretty nicely with my previous post, specifically about what leads to a "spontaneous fight". Moore, a 3-4th line guy (lower ranks of skill/ability on the team) hit star player Naslund. In almost ANY hockey game where that kind of thing happens, you can expect that somebody from the star's team is going to go over to the offending player and push them around, probably with the intent to fight them. Usually it happens right at the time of the incident, but here it was delayed to a following game between the two teams.

In the next game between Colorado and Vancouver, Moore got challenged by a Vancouver player early in the first period and fought him. But I guess that the lag time and injury to Naslund (he ended up missing 3 games) had brewed up more bad blood than that so many Vancouver players hadn't gotten it fully out of their systems. Later in the game, Todd Bertuzzi skated up behind Moore when he didn't have the puck, grabbed him and tailed him for several seconds trying to get him into a second fight, and when he didn't respond just hauled back and punched him in the back of the head.

Moore fell to the ice, where Bertuzzi piled on him and drove his head into the ice. A big scrum/dogpile ensued, with Moore on the bottom. As a result of that, Moore fractured 3 vertebrae in his neck, stretched or tore some neck ligaments, got his face pretty cut up, etc. Pretty severe injuries.

So, in comparison:
Moore (lesser skill) hit Naslund (high skill) resulting in a minor(ish) injury, that could have ended up being much worse. But, it was a legitimate hockey play that just happened to occur at a time when Naslund was vulnerable -- arguably no intent to harm/injure.
Bertuzzi hit Moore in a following game, after he had already "answered" for his hit on Naslund by fighting a Vancouver player. Bertuzzi punched him from behind and followed up with further violence, driving his head into the ice and piling on him, initiating a dogpile. Not even close to a legitimate hockey play, well away from the puck, and with pretty clear intent to harm (maybe not to injure, but to harm).


Moore sued Bertuzzi, his team (the Canucks), and the NHL. Bertuzzi claimed that his coach had put a "bounty" on Moore, and that he hadn't intended to injure him -- just to get back at him for his hit on Naslund. Bertuzzi was suspended for a fairly long span of time, and his team was fined $250,000. The lawsuit was kind of on pause for a long time to gauge the long-term effects on Moore, but was eventually settled out of court (confidential terms).

All of this stuff is or course related to violence in hockey, but only loosely tied to fighting in hockey. Some would argue (with some merit in my opinion) that if the refs had called a penalty on Moore's hit on Naslund, and allowed a Vancouver player to challenge him to a fight at that time instead of the following game, it probably wouldn't have escalated to the level it did.

So, at least in my opinion, the league (NHL) needs to be careful, consistent, and fairly harsh in handing out penalties/suspensions to players who commit dangerous plays that can or do result in injuries -- especially repeat offenders. BUT, I think that allowing fighting can actually help mitigate that kind of stuff also -- as long as the league keeps it from getting out of hand and the enforcer type players continue to follow their "code".

I think the problem is that we never know who we'll be fighting next. A-10s fly low and slow, and would be completely vulnerable to an enemy with moderate AA capabilities. Sure, maybe we're "lucky" and the next war is against a ragtag militia in the mountains that can't shoot them down. But if we butt heads with Iran or North Korea, the A-10s all have to stay home.

Those laser guards don't make sense. They don't protect all the way to the blade. There is an exposed, vulnerable corner on each side of the blade. The design should have had the metal portion extending out then making a 135 degree (or more) angle back towards the main blade, so that the mini energy blade guards would provide full protection for the weilder's hand.

Wow...that thing is huge! Hard to even comprehend.

Here some more information, and part of the reason why they arent extinct:

Sunfish live on a diet consisting mainly of jellyfish, but because this diet is nutritionally poor, they consume large amounts to develop and maintain their great bulk. Females of the species can produce more eggs than any other known vertebrate. Adult sunfish are vulnerable to few natural predators, but sea lions, killer whales, and sharks will consume them.

Maybe he was going for the "I'm vulnerable" shtick?

Is that just a bad attempt at humour? Germany have won the world cup 3 times and been in the semi finals 13 out of 19 times.

And Brazil always looked vulnerable. If Neymar and co had been playing they would still have lost, just maybe not by as much.

9 years on the epitaph... What a fucking cruel life it is. I gave some money to a children with cancer collection man before, glad i did.

The wrestling is often hard to watch when not done by people who are really good at what they do. But holy shit some of those guys do things that money can't buy for some of the most vulnerable people. Ok, so that kid didn't get to grow up and live his life and do whatever he wanted to do out in the world, but right there and then at 8 years old he wanted to be a wrestler, and god fucking damned if he didn't get to pin HHH in a stadium in front of a crowd of respected wrestlers!

Most people will never get to do anything remotely like that in their whole lives, but that kid did and i think that counts for something, at least to him, and that's all that matters really. Ok a lot of them are getting paid well and a lot of people profit from the business but the wrestlers do go through a lot of immediate and exponential long term pain, and deliver one of a kind experiences to kids who don't get as long as the rest of us to find and have such experiences.

I think on balance i'm happy to pay for the odd pay per view and watch their adverts. If you can find a way to enjoy it (even ironically) then it's a good way to waste time and money.

As any geek will be able to tell you, our login capability was not affected by Heartbleed...

because our login form is not encrypted.

We did upgrade everything within a day or so that Heartbleed was announced because there are other SSL-related things that may have been affected, but our logins have always been vulnerable to sniffing without the aid of a massive two-year bug in SSL.

Your video, 5-year-old boy exposes Microsoft Xbox login vulnerability, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

If this was posted a few days ago, I would have believed it was an April Fools joke.

Also, I bet the dad found the vulnerability, but that story wouldn't make the local news

Definitely would.. if only she hadn't turned down the offer to take the Randi test.

From Wiki:

"In 2012, the James Randi Educational Foundation awarded Caputo a Pigasus Award for being, in its view, the "psychic" performer who fooled the greatest number of people with the least effort in the preceding year. A Pigasus award was also given to TLC for continuing to air the show.[59] In an article published by Wired Magazine the organization's founder James Randi explained why he believed shows like Long Island Medium were deceptive and potentially harmful to its participants:

Why do these pseudo-psychic spectacles bother those of us at the James Randi Educational Foundation? First, and foremost: They are not true. [...] But much more importantly to us, such performances seem to prey on people at their most vulnerable moments — those who have suffered the loss of loved ones — and these mediums use such grief to make a buck. Psychologists tell us this keeps the grieving stuck in their grief, rather than going through the natural stages of acceptance that are healthy.
—James Randi[1]

In June of that year, Caputo appeared in a commercial for Priceline.com in which she portrayed herself "connecting" with the late Priceline Negotiator character previously played by William Shatner.[60] However, this commercial has sparked controversy, since the commercial appears to make light of the Native American belief of smudging.[61] JREF President DJ Grothe issued a statement decrying Priceline.com: "It is difficult to watch the show and not feel heartbroken for those who are desperate to hear from the departed... and even more so if they are being manipulated by a charlatan." Grothe urged the organization to have their new spokeswoman take the James Randi Million Dollar Challenge and prove her paranormal claims."