Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: James Seagrove who wrote (1018786)	6/2/2017 4:51:01 AM
From: FJB	1 Recommendation Recommended By James Seagrove Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1577883

Sexbots are going to be big: Invest now – The Writer in Black thewriterinblack.com Used to be when I said that I was joking. Nowadays I’m mostly not. Mostly. We are rapidly reaching the point where there’s nothing a woman can do for a man in the bedroom that justifies the risk of what she can do to him in the courtroom later. Consider the following exchange (the left hand side–ignore the wisecracks on the right side. Or not. There’s a bit of dark humor to be found there). So, a man can meet a woman, have every reason to believe he has her consent, have sex, and then later she can retroactively remove that consent making the act retroactively raped. Called out explicitly: Fortunately, for the moment, this position is not a legal one, but law generally follows culture. Let this attitude become general to the point where people start electing lawmakers with that view, and the laws will follow. And a certain segment of the population is trying to make it that way, and suggesting fabricating evidence to make things “work” that way even though the law does not: And it only works one way. Only the man is adjudged guilty, never the woman as in the following: “Women cannot rape”. Which explains: Both of them were drunk. Only one of them was able to be the rapist and only one of them was able to be the victim. Some people have suggested that limiting ones sexual encounters to within marriage. Well, that might improve ones odds somewhat but in the end it’s still a gamble. First off, “marital rape” is a thing: And all of the above items including retroactive withdrawal of consent can be applied. You might say that your wife (and it’s you husbands this is directed to because…have you read this far?) would never do anything like that. And you may be right. But the divorce courts are full of men who never thought their wives would “do something like that”. (And, yes, they’re also full of women who never thought their husbands would do something like that either, but the women generally don’t have to worry that their husbands will add rape charges to the issue. And women initiate divorces more than men.) So…sexbots. they’re going to be big. Invest now.

To: James Seagrove who wrote (1018786)	6/2/2017 5:04:57 AM
From: FJB	1 Recommendation Recommended By James Seagrove Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577883

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ’S OFFICE ALLEGEDLY TRIED TO INTIMIDATE SOMEONE W/ A VOICE CHANGER, FORGOT TO HIDE HER CALLER ID JUNE 1, 2017 https://milo.yiannopoulos.net/2017/06/wasserman-schultz-voice-changer/ Former Democratic National Committee chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz allegedly called a law firm investigating the DNC and attempted to disguise her voice with a voice changer – which probably would have worked out just fine if she only remembered to turn of caller ID as well. According to Vessel News, attorney Elizabeth Lee Beck’s office received a call today “from an individual who was apparently using a ‘robotic and genderless’ voice changing device, sniffing around with questions about the DNC lawsuit.” The outlet cites this post by Beck, which states that the lawsuit concerns documents leaked by “an anonymous hacker known as Guccifer 2.0” which “strongly suggest that the DNC colluded with Sec. Hillary Clinton’s campaign to perpetrate fraud on the public.” Wasserman Schultz and the DNC are defendants in the suit. Back to today’s voice changer mishap, Vessel News reports that “after a brief chat with the law firm’s secretary, the ‘mysterious’ voice-masking caller concluded the call with an ‘Okey dokey.'” Unfortunately for “the ‘mysterious’ voice-masking caller,” they forgot to turn off their caller ID. “After the call ended, a simple Google search of the phone number ‘305-936-5724’ shows that it is the phone number for Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s Aventura office,” Beck’s filing of the incident states. Indeed… “What just occurred is highly irregular and we will be filing the instant e-mail with the court forthwith,” the filing concludes. Needless to say, this has prompted quite a bit of laughter online. TWEETS: milo.yiannopoulos.net