I'll have to paraphrase, but there's a saying that you should have run into throughout your many years of Slashdotting: "Never blame conspiracy when incompetence is just as plausible." Your theory is so absurd that that it's lacks any credibility. A global scientific conspiracy motivated and funded by . ..?????? The nice thing about science is that it's not your encyclopedia or a journal or the consensus opinion of a handful of professors, science is a method for discovering knowledge. Not all knowledge is obtainable but when it comes to physical phenomena the scientific method has proven itself to be the most reliable path to understanding.
Climate scientists work within the framework of the scientific method to understand a system so complex that it is really impossible to understand 100%. But their research brings them much closer to understanding how the earth's climate functions than you or I could ever know. When studying basic logic one learns that when trying to assess a case that is beyond one's understanding it is best to 1) rely on expert opinion if there is a consensus or near-consensus 2) suspend belief if expert opinion is deeply divided 3) become an expert yourself through years of research.
Your conclusion that climate change is a hoax or conspiracy is illogical because #1 is the case, there is a near consensus among climate researchers that humans are accelerating climate change by way of pollution and the effects on future generations could be catastrophic. Because #1 is true we know #2 is false. I'm assuming #3 is also false because if you were an expert in the field and you truly believed the crap in your post you wouldn't be posting as an AC and you would have actual evidence to back up your claims rather than just wild speculation.
One of the company's key areas of expertise are in "data mining technologies".
Do you really *think* they're THAT concerned with your security, given the situation?
Why is anyone shocked that they don't want to make the world a better place, and would rather become very rich instead off their only asset.
What's shocking is that everyone knows Facebook does this crap and uses their service anyway. If consumers took more of an active interest in what corporations they supported then companies wouldn't get away with this crap.
That's a sorry excuse for supporting a POS like Zuckerberg. Especially for someone on Slashdot who is probably capable of creating their own website.
Personally, I will never compromise my integrity if it requires supporting an unethical company. For a while XBox Live was a big thing amongst my friends and they really pressured me to jump on the bandwagon, but I do not buy Microsoft products even if it means making some sacrifices.
When you knowingly support an unethical company you are being unethical yourself.
I think it is safe to say, without even a hint of hyperbole, that Steve Jobs is a fascist. As soon as censorship becomes a "moral responsibility", something has gone deeply wrong. Supporting Apple is supporting the death of the creativity and freedom that the company likes to pretend it nurtures. Think too different, and your work will be dragged out in the middle of the night and shot.
Last time I checked Jobs was a CEO of a private corporation, not the dictator of the U.S. You give him way too much credit.
You know, there are people who actually are oppressed and do get dragged out of their homes in the middle of the night and shot. Somehow comparing that situation to a single phone in a market of many not having the capability to download pornographic applications (damn, you'll have to use Safari!) just seems to be a wee bit of an exaggeration.
What's the big deal anyway? I can't think of any application with any functionality other than to amuse teenagers that would require pornography in order to work.
So your claim is that businessmen have no moral responsibility? That their fiduciary responsibility trumps whatever moral responsibilities one may have? I don't think so. We're all people regardless of where we work.
I'm not saying that moral responsibility is relevant to pornography on the iPhone, it may or may not be; but your statement is eerily similar to the excuses made by executives who have abused monopoly power, sold faulty or poisonous products, cheated their employees, cheated the IRS, and outright lied. Being involved in a business venture doesn't exempt one from their moral responsibilities.
Would you rather be helped by an uncaring person or killed by a caring person? It surprises me how some person care only about the emotional state, not whether someone does good or not. Maybe it's because it's a lot easier for people to feel rather than do.
You you rather agree with me and compromise your values or disagree with me and be a Nazi?
It’s funny how you conveniently failed to mention that this practice wasn’t ONLY conducted by Microsoft, and that HP, Dell, Asus, and many other hardware manufacturers outsource to the same company, and that out of all those companies, only Microsoft is taking action to investigate the reports.
Pictures. I agree it's a problem that extends to nearly every U.S. company that relies on Chinese manufacturing, but MS is the one that's forced to try and save face because the pictures allowed people to actually see the conditions. It's kind of like how there wasn't much outrage over the Korean war, but with Vietnam the media showed people what war really looked like. Apparently it's not enough for people to read about or be aware of inhumanity, it has to be shown before they even pretend to give a damn.
That's a weak comparison. Moviemakers winning awards can be likened to game developers winning awards for the achievements, but to compare the moviemaker winning an award to you killing PsychoMantis is just illogical.
And technology doesn't change the definition of art, it merely changes the mediums it uses.
That's like saying Chess is art. It's warfare simulation in the same vein as Starcraft. The game is a thing of mathematical beauty too, but mathematical beauty and emotional beauty are far from the same. Believe me, I love all the games you mentioned but I would never call them art. If there's anything artistic about Starcraft it's the cinematics rather than the gameplay.
Sim City and Civ don't even come close. That's like saying a blueprint is art. Or graphing paper. There are limitless possibilities with graphing paper!
Of course, I'm the type that argues against architecture as art, so my definition is more narrow than most.
Is it just me or do very few Slashdot nerds know jack shit about art? Look, I love video games but Ebert has a point. The game that I think comes closest to being art is Metal Gear Solid 3. But the part that makes it art is the non-interactive cinematic scenes, which I have on a DVD that came with my collectors edition. For my non-video game friends I've shown them the DVD to explain why I think MGS is so exceptional and they see the artistic side of the game. When I'm sneaking up on bad-guys and shooting them with my tranquilizer gun there is nothing artistic about it. There is nothing about it that transcends the actions themselves to be a meaningful introspection on the human condition. The only part of the game that is art is WHEN IT'S NOT A GAME. The game is a challenge to unlock the art.
Lets face it, the only way games can be somewhat artistic is for them to be extremely linear. Halo online deathmatches are not art. There is nothing about a GAME which is art. Game creators fuse stories with the games and the story may have some artistic value, but it's very rare to see the story dictate gameplay rather than the other way around. Bioshock, for example, had a story with artistic potential but that potential was never realized for the sake of having bosses and adhering to traditional videogame structure. It always flirted with introspection but never fully committed.
I can only think of one videogame example that would give Ebert a challenge: Shadow of Colossus. But SoC bucks Ebert's main criticism, that video games are about winning or achieving some goal. In SoC it is strongly implied that the protagonist is doing something wrong, something completely evil. But the only way to do the right thing, to be good, is to stop playing the game and refuse to win.
I used to work at a video game shop and I would listen to nerds try to justify stuff like WoW or Final Fantasy as art and they could never tell me why. They'd always give me dumb reasons like "FF uses orchestral arrangements" or "they hire the best artists" or "I loved the characters." But how does that compare with The Great Gatsby or Great Expectations? Other than SoC and MGS, I'd be hard pressed to find a video game which expanded my understanding of human nature and appeased my aesthetic appetite. I can't criticize Ebert for not being aware of these niche examples because for 99% of video games he's right, they're not art.
Gizmodo is, in whatever form, still making its revenue from news. And news-publishers, besides some very serious newspapers, will KILL for news. Which Gizmodo just did. Sad, very sad - but business as usual in media-shark land.
I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that ethics don't apply to Gizmodo because it's the nature of their industry or that all journalists are sensationalist bastards? Either way I disagree. ThinkQ says, "Would we have given same story the same treatment given half the chance? We rather think not." I'd rather think not as well.
I understand releasing the pictures but publishing this guy's name was inexcusable. He never asked for this kind of negative publicity. He's not a criminal, he made a mistake and now his resume is permanently tarnished and he's being chastised by the entire internet. Gizmodo overstepped their free speech boundaries. This engineer wasn't a public figure and didn't appear to have any desire to be one. Hopefully Apple sues them for all the money their web traffic has brought in the last couple days. It would be tragic if Gizmodo ends up being the big winner of this situation.
No, it wasn't and the fact that you and them believe it does shows your immaturity and the fact that you are uncomfortable with the human body.
Grow the fuck up, people.
When the phone was announced Microsoft said its target market was teenagers. Would you want your teenage daughter to be so comfortable with her body that everyone at her high school has her tits on their phone?
If this weren't a cellphone commercial with teenagers as the target market there would be no controversy, but it is. The whole point of the advertisement is to showcase the device's capabilities and about the only thing they do with it is take a picture of a guy's chest and send it out. The clear implication is that the phone is great for "sexting."
I am actually more annoyed by advertisments still exhibiting old gender role models.
I'm more annoyed by commercials which exhibit NEW gender role models. You know, the ones also on display in practically ever sitcom, where the man plays the role of the adorable puppy dog -- always outwitted and outsmarted by his female counterpart (owner) who is so gracious enough to take care of him because they find his bumbling machoism somehow endearing.
What's worse is race roles on television. Notice how in a commercial/show with a white guy and black guy the dumb comments are always reserved for the white guy and the black guy always has an "edgy" way to reiterate.
I hate most PC-values because they're so detached from reality. If you were to learn about America by watching our commercials you'd think that we are 50% black and that women are the dominant gender.
With this Kin add I kind of understand why people are upset. This thing was codenamed "Pink" b/c it was designed for tween girls, so the implication in the advertisement is pretty obvious. As dumb as commercials are, these little nit-picky details (just like the race and sex roles) are thought out extensively by the marketing companies who produce them. I don't think it's unlikely that they were intentionally trying to appeal to teenagers who are into the "sexting" crap. The whole reason the guy taking that picture is supposed to be funny is because it's reversing the gender roles. But it doesn't seem to be funny for funny's sake. It's clearly saying "this phone is great for taking pictures of boobs and then sending them to all the contacts in your phone." They're marketing to teenagers so that's a problem in my book.
You're right, there are a lot of U.S. workers that would like to make $9.00 per/hr. to produce goods which are sold in the U.S. but they can't because their potential job has been outsourced to the Chinese for $.60 per/hr. Not that I believe that $.60 buys you $9 worth of goods in China in the first place.
Not that bad in the sense that you would work there or not that bad in the sense that you're okay with others doing the dirty work as long as you can lie to yourself and believe this is ethical?
How about this. Copy Morgan Spurlock and spend 30 days working for a sweatshop that works you 15 hour shifts six times a week and live off the $.60 an hour they give you and then tell me it's "not that bad."
I would rather be a cotton-picking slave than a factory slave-wage. At least real slaves were owned by people who had a vested interest in keeping them alive and healthy. The factories work these people until they're used up or injured and then toss them out with nothing. Yeah, that's not bad.
You're the problem. If you've spent time in Chinese sweatshops with conditions "MUCH" worse than 6/hr for 15 hr shifts then you must work for a company that has no regard for human rights. How do you really get much worse than the conditions described? Either you're lying, you used "seen" in the sense that you read about it or saw pictures (which is close to lying because you state it like a first hand experience), or you're an asshole that contracts out manufacturing to factories you know to abuse their workers. Regardless, you're an asshole.
How do you really rationalize the treatment of humans like domesticated animals? If these factory workers were your family members would you still be so quick to disregard their plight? Most Americans would commit suicide before they worked 15 hrs per day for six days a week to barely earn enough to feed themselves. Just because these workers are willing to drudge through the abuses of these factory owners doesn't make it right. It's not about Microsoft, it's about outsourcing as a whole. It doesn't matter whether some sweatshops are worse or slightly better than this one, they're all unethical and paid for by American and European consumers. When we make the claim that it's not that bad we lie to ourselves because we don't want to feel guilty about how we obtained our possessions. We don't want to think of ourselves as accomplices to extortion, slavery, and abuse.
Yeah, go work for Valve or Bungie. There can't possibly be anything evil about two corporations that are financially dependent on Microsoft and have contributed to MS using their monopoly to leverage their position in the gaming industry.
EA certainly is no white knight, but just because you like the games Valve and Bungie develop doesn't mean they have the moral high ground. Bungie is no more than a part of Microsoft (just because they are technically "independent" doesn't mean they're not bound by contracts) and Valve is comprised of many ex-MS employees who have been hostile to supporting non-MS platforms, even when doing so would be profitable. Not to mention that Valve's intentions with Steam are highly suspect.
Activision under Kotick these past couple years has been much more worrisome to me than EA. Killing original games like Brutal Legend and Ghostbusters in favor of more Guitar Hero shovelware and then their treatment of Infinity Ward. EA takes risks with games like Black and Dead Space. Their sports monopoly may be suspect, but professional sports in America have been run by monopolies before any of us were born. That was bound to happen because that's the way the NFL likes it.
I don't feel like EA is justified in many of their business practices but ever since they got busted overworking their employees Activision has held the #2 evil spot in the videogame industry in my book. #1 of course, goes to Microsoft and direct Microsoft partners (Bungie and Valve included). I shouldn't have to explain why here.
Preachers are in high demand in Vegas for shotgun weddings. So what's your analogy supposed to mean, that you're being exploited and disgracing the cloth you're cut from?
Perhaps you should hold your tongue when you come up with similes you think are clever. Really, I don't doubt that your intentions are good, but so were Howard W. Campbell Jr.'s. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Night)
"Technology is actually the great equalizer as the cost of technology comes down."
The entire process of costs coming down is the process in which the genetic aristocracy would form. You're so forward looking that you forgot to account for step B between A and C (to use a nifty example everyone should relate to). If, as the parent says, "the rich become a different species," then it seems unlikely that these technological wonders would ever be available to all.
Furthermore, even if costs came down to the point of being available to all, there are several ethical questions left on the table. Once people live much longer, how do we control the population? Your native country is struggling with this problem today. Individuality also becomes a main concern. If we all looked like supermodels and had similar physical abilities, would we retain our sense of identity? What would become of sports?
Many of these concerns run parallel to existing ethical issues such as plastic surgery, abortion, and distributive justice. It's for this reason that I believe that this debate should start with something unthreatening such as colorblindness. Just because "curing colorblindness" doesn't sound threatening doesn't sound dangerous or morally questionable doesn't mean we should dismiss it as such. This is a case where the means may not justify the ends. I hate to use the slippery slope argument, but the reason Ms. Gunn is uneasy about the process is because it very well may be a slippery slope (remember, a slippery slope is only a fallacy when the argument isn't actually a slippery slope, it's just made to look like one).
"If humans could buy technology to improve themselves. . . " - If is a big word in that sentence. The question being asked is whether this is an actual improvement. If genetic modifications are objectively unethical then any genetic modification, whether it be as nominal as curing colorblindness or as extreme as making one fly, will be a detriment to the human. It seems that as long as the ethical status of genetic enhancement is in question that we shouldn't rush to take advantage of it, especially for something as petty as curing colorblindness. Personally, I have big ethical problems with plastic surgery (for cosmetic reasons, I have no problem with someone who survived being shot in the face getting it restructured), but I doubt it will ever be outlawed because we've allowed it to become entrenched in our society before we considered the ethical implications that there's probably no way of banning it.
I would assume the games matter more than the hardware. The gamer press has a tendency to judge hardware based on the software it runs (look at all the PS3 vs. 360 graphics debates when they first came out). Overall, the functionality of Sony's device seems very similar to the Wii's but it takes good software to realize this potential. I'm willing to bet that the Digital Foundry guys were comparing it to third-party, sloppy implementation Wii games whereas the Engadget guys were comparing it to first-party, tight implementation games. If Red Steel (1) is your example of a Wii FPS, then you probably won't have a very high opinion of the hardware (even though it's poor software which makes the controls sloppy). If Metroid Prime is the example then you'll probably think the Wii is great for FPS. Regardless, I'm sure Sony's new control scheme will be taken up by several third-party studios who do a poor job with it and several that do some really interesting things. I can't wait for Media Molecule to get their hands on this thing, but I expect most of the early games to really stink b/c that's what happened with the Wii. It takes time to get a new interface running and suits sometimes have unreasonable deadlines.
I think you missed the part where it said ". ..a layer of urea crystals breaks down the waste into fertilizer, killing off disease-producing pathogens found in feces." The difference between shitting in a hole and burying this bag of shit in a hole is that the latter is not only sanitary, but it also helps crops grow.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll have to paraphrase, but there's a saying that you should have run into throughout your many years of Slashdotting: "Never blame conspiracy when incompetence is just as plausible." Your theory is so absurd that that it's lacks any credibility. A global scientific conspiracy motivated and funded by . . .?????? The nice thing about science is that it's not your encyclopedia or a journal or the consensus opinion of a handful of professors, science is a method for discovering knowledge. Not all knowledge is obtainable but when it comes to physical phenomena the scientific method has proven itself to be the most reliable path to understanding.
Climate scientists work within the framework of the scientific method to understand a system so complex that it is really impossible to understand 100%. But their research brings them much closer to understanding how the earth's climate functions than you or I could ever know. When studying basic logic one learns that when trying to assess a case that is beyond one's understanding it is best to 1) rely on expert opinion if there is a consensus or near-consensus 2) suspend belief if expert opinion is deeply divided 3) become an expert yourself through years of research.
Your conclusion that climate change is a hoax or conspiracy is illogical because #1 is the case, there is a near consensus among climate researchers that humans are accelerating climate change by way of pollution and the effects on future generations could be catastrophic. Because #1 is true we know #2 is false. I'm assuming #3 is also false because if you were an expert in the field and you truly believed the crap in your post you wouldn't be posting as an AC and you would have actual evidence to back up your claims rather than just wild speculation.
They don't have to buy GIMP. That code is free. Add some features, clean up the interface, slap an Apple logo on it and it's a viable competitor.
One of the company's key areas of expertise are in "data mining technologies".
Do you really *think* they're THAT concerned with your security, given the situation?
Why is anyone shocked that they don't want to make the world a better place, and would rather become very rich instead off their only asset.
What's shocking is that everyone knows Facebook does this crap and uses their service anyway. If consumers took more of an active interest in what corporations they supported then companies wouldn't get away with this crap.
That's a sorry excuse for supporting a POS like Zuckerberg. Especially for someone on Slashdot who is probably capable of creating their own website.
Personally, I will never compromise my integrity if it requires supporting an unethical company. For a while XBox Live was a big thing amongst my friends and they really pressured me to jump on the bandwagon, but I do not buy Microsoft products even if it means making some sacrifices.
When you knowingly support an unethical company you are being unethical yourself.
I think it is safe to say, without even a hint of hyperbole, that Steve Jobs is a fascist. As soon as censorship becomes a "moral responsibility", something has gone deeply wrong. Supporting Apple is supporting the death of the creativity and freedom that the company likes to pretend it nurtures. Think too different, and your work will be dragged out in the middle of the night and shot.
Last time I checked Jobs was a CEO of a private corporation, not the dictator of the U.S. You give him way too much credit.
You know, there are people who actually are oppressed and do get dragged out of their homes in the middle of the night and shot. Somehow comparing that situation to a single phone in a market of many not having the capability to download pornographic applications (damn, you'll have to use Safari!) just seems to be a wee bit of an exaggeration.
What's the big deal anyway? I can't think of any application with any functionality other than to amuse teenagers that would require pornography in order to work.
So your claim is that businessmen have no moral responsibility? That their fiduciary responsibility trumps whatever moral responsibilities one may have? I don't think so. We're all people regardless of where we work.
I'm not saying that moral responsibility is relevant to pornography on the iPhone, it may or may not be; but your statement is eerily similar to the excuses made by executives who have abused monopoly power, sold faulty or poisonous products, cheated their employees, cheated the IRS, and outright lied. Being involved in a business venture doesn't exempt one from their moral responsibilities.
Would you rather be helped by an uncaring person or killed by a caring person? It surprises me how some person care only about the emotional state, not whether someone does good or not. Maybe it's because it's a lot easier for people to feel rather than do.
You you rather agree with me and compromise your values or disagree with me and be a Nazi?
Nice fallacy buddy. I take option C.
It’s funny how you conveniently failed to mention that this practice wasn’t ONLY conducted by Microsoft, and that HP, Dell, Asus, and many other hardware manufacturers outsource to the same company, and that out of all those companies, only Microsoft is taking action to investigate the reports.
Pictures. I agree it's a problem that extends to nearly every U.S. company that relies on Chinese manufacturing, but MS is the one that's forced to try and save face because the pictures allowed people to actually see the conditions. It's kind of like how there wasn't much outrage over the Korean war, but with Vietnam the media showed people what war really looked like. Apparently it's not enough for people to read about or be aware of inhumanity, it has to be shown before they even pretend to give a damn.
That's a weak comparison. Moviemakers winning awards can be likened to game developers winning awards for the achievements, but to compare the moviemaker winning an award to you killing PsychoMantis is just illogical.
And technology doesn't change the definition of art, it merely changes the mediums it uses.
That's like saying Chess is art. It's warfare simulation in the same vein as Starcraft. The game is a thing of mathematical beauty too, but mathematical beauty and emotional beauty are far from the same. Believe me, I love all the games you mentioned but I would never call them art. If there's anything artistic about Starcraft it's the cinematics rather than the gameplay.
Sim City and Civ don't even come close. That's like saying a blueprint is art. Or graphing paper. There are limitless possibilities with graphing paper!
Of course, I'm the type that argues against architecture as art, so my definition is more narrow than most.
That's the dumbest, most fallacious definition of art I've ever heard. Where'd you get that one, Andy Warhol?
Is it just me or do very few Slashdot nerds know jack shit about art? Look, I love video games but Ebert has a point. The game that I think comes closest to being art is Metal Gear Solid 3. But the part that makes it art is the non-interactive cinematic scenes, which I have on a DVD that came with my collectors edition. For my non-video game friends I've shown them the DVD to explain why I think MGS is so exceptional and they see the artistic side of the game. When I'm sneaking up on bad-guys and shooting them with my tranquilizer gun there is nothing artistic about it. There is nothing about it that transcends the actions themselves to be a meaningful introspection on the human condition. The only part of the game that is art is WHEN IT'S NOT A GAME. The game is a challenge to unlock the art.
Lets face it, the only way games can be somewhat artistic is for them to be extremely linear. Halo online deathmatches are not art. There is nothing about a GAME which is art. Game creators fuse stories with the games and the story may have some artistic value, but it's very rare to see the story dictate gameplay rather than the other way around. Bioshock, for example, had a story with artistic potential but that potential was never realized for the sake of having bosses and adhering to traditional videogame structure. It always flirted with introspection but never fully committed.
I can only think of one videogame example that would give Ebert a challenge: Shadow of Colossus. But SoC bucks Ebert's main criticism, that video games are about winning or achieving some goal. In SoC it is strongly implied that the protagonist is doing something wrong, something completely evil. But the only way to do the right thing, to be good, is to stop playing the game and refuse to win.
I used to work at a video game shop and I would listen to nerds try to justify stuff like WoW or Final Fantasy as art and they could never tell me why. They'd always give me dumb reasons like "FF uses orchestral arrangements" or "they hire the best artists" or "I loved the characters." But how does that compare with The Great Gatsby or Great Expectations? Other than SoC and MGS, I'd be hard pressed to find a video game which expanded my understanding of human nature and appeased my aesthetic appetite. I can't criticize Ebert for not being aware of these niche examples because for 99% of video games he's right, they're not art.
You miss the point. The problem is the outed him to the public, not Apple.
Gizmodo is, in whatever form, still making its revenue from news. And news-publishers, besides some very serious newspapers, will KILL for news. Which Gizmodo just did. Sad, very sad - but business as usual in media-shark land.
I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that ethics don't apply to Gizmodo because it's the nature of their industry or that all journalists are sensationalist bastards? Either way I disagree. ThinkQ says, "Would we have given same story the same treatment given half the chance? We rather think not." I'd rather think not as well.
I understand releasing the pictures but publishing this guy's name was inexcusable. He never asked for this kind of negative publicity. He's not a criminal, he made a mistake and now his resume is permanently tarnished and he's being chastised by the entire internet. Gizmodo overstepped their free speech boundaries. This engineer wasn't a public figure and didn't appear to have any desire to be one. Hopefully Apple sues them for all the money their web traffic has brought in the last couple days. It would be tragic if Gizmodo ends up being the big winner of this situation.
No, it wasn't and the fact that you and them believe it does shows your immaturity and the fact that you are uncomfortable with the human body.
Grow the fuck up, people.
When the phone was announced Microsoft said its target market was teenagers. Would you want your teenage daughter to be so comfortable with her body that everyone at her high school has her tits on their phone?
If this weren't a cellphone commercial with teenagers as the target market there would be no controversy, but it is. The whole point of the advertisement is to showcase the device's capabilities and about the only thing they do with it is take a picture of a guy's chest and send it out. The clear implication is that the phone is great for "sexting."
I am actually more annoyed by advertisments still exhibiting old gender role models.
I'm more annoyed by commercials which exhibit NEW gender role models. You know, the ones also on display in practically ever sitcom, where the man plays the role of the adorable puppy dog -- always outwitted and outsmarted by his female counterpart (owner) who is so gracious enough to take care of him because they find his bumbling machoism somehow endearing.
What's worse is race roles on television. Notice how in a commercial/show with a white guy and black guy the dumb comments are always reserved for the white guy and the black guy always has an "edgy" way to reiterate.
I hate most PC-values because they're so detached from reality. If you were to learn about America by watching our commercials you'd think that we are 50% black and that women are the dominant gender.
With this Kin add I kind of understand why people are upset. This thing was codenamed "Pink" b/c it was designed for tween girls, so the implication in the advertisement is pretty obvious. As dumb as commercials are, these little nit-picky details (just like the race and sex roles) are thought out extensively by the marketing companies who produce them. I don't think it's unlikely that they were intentionally trying to appeal to teenagers who are into the "sexting" crap. The whole reason the guy taking that picture is supposed to be funny is because it's reversing the gender roles. But it doesn't seem to be funny for funny's sake. It's clearly saying "this phone is great for taking pictures of boobs and then sending them to all the contacts in your phone." They're marketing to teenagers so that's a problem in my book.
You're right, there are a lot of U.S. workers that would like to make $9.00 per/hr. to produce goods which are sold in the U.S. but they can't because their potential job has been outsourced to the Chinese for $.60 per/hr. Not that I believe that $.60 buys you $9 worth of goods in China in the first place.
Not that bad in the sense that you would work there or not that bad in the sense that you're okay with others doing the dirty work as long as you can lie to yourself and believe this is ethical?
How about this. Copy Morgan Spurlock and spend 30 days working for a sweatshop that works you 15 hour shifts six times a week and live off the $.60 an hour they give you and then tell me it's "not that bad."
I would rather be a cotton-picking slave than a factory slave-wage. At least real slaves were owned by people who had a vested interest in keeping them alive and healthy. The factories work these people until they're used up or injured and then toss them out with nothing. Yeah, that's not bad.
You're the problem. If you've spent time in Chinese sweatshops with conditions "MUCH" worse than 6/hr for 15 hr shifts then you must work for a company that has no regard for human rights. How do you really get much worse than the conditions described? Either you're lying, you used "seen" in the sense that you read about it or saw pictures (which is close to lying because you state it like a first hand experience), or you're an asshole that contracts out manufacturing to factories you know to abuse their workers. Regardless, you're an asshole.
How do you really rationalize the treatment of humans like domesticated animals? If these factory workers were your family members would you still be so quick to disregard their plight? Most Americans would commit suicide before they worked 15 hrs per day for six days a week to barely earn enough to feed themselves. Just because these workers are willing to drudge through the abuses of these factory owners doesn't make it right. It's not about Microsoft, it's about outsourcing as a whole. It doesn't matter whether some sweatshops are worse or slightly better than this one, they're all unethical and paid for by American and European consumers. When we make the claim that it's not that bad we lie to ourselves because we don't want to feel guilty about how we obtained our possessions. We don't want to think of ourselves as accomplices to extortion, slavery, and abuse.
I don't know who LeBron James and Ja Mae Yoon are. Maybe it's because I'm Canadian. Go Gretzky!
Basketball was invented by a Canadian. Perhaps the best thing created by a Canadian next to maple syrup. Learn your history. :P
Yeah, go work for Valve or Bungie. There can't possibly be anything evil about two corporations that are financially dependent on Microsoft and have contributed to MS using their monopoly to leverage their position in the gaming industry.
EA certainly is no white knight, but just because you like the games Valve and Bungie develop doesn't mean they have the moral high ground. Bungie is no more than a part of Microsoft (just because they are technically "independent" doesn't mean they're not bound by contracts) and Valve is comprised of many ex-MS employees who have been hostile to supporting non-MS platforms, even when doing so would be profitable. Not to mention that Valve's intentions with Steam are highly suspect.
Activision under Kotick these past couple years has been much more worrisome to me than EA. Killing original games like Brutal Legend and Ghostbusters in favor of more Guitar Hero shovelware and then their treatment of Infinity Ward. EA takes risks with games like Black and Dead Space. Their sports monopoly may be suspect, but professional sports in America have been run by monopolies before any of us were born. That was bound to happen because that's the way the NFL likes it.
I don't feel like EA is justified in many of their business practices but ever since they got busted overworking their employees Activision has held the #2 evil spot in the videogame industry in my book. #1 of course, goes to Microsoft and direct Microsoft partners (Bungie and Valve included). I shouldn't have to explain why here.
Preachers are in high demand in Vegas for shotgun weddings. So what's your analogy supposed to mean, that you're being exploited and disgracing the cloth you're cut from?
Perhaps you should hold your tongue when you come up with similes you think are clever. Really, I don't doubt that your intentions are good, but so were Howard W. Campbell Jr.'s. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Night)
"Technology is actually the great equalizer as the cost of technology comes down."
The entire process of costs coming down is the process in which the genetic aristocracy would form. You're so forward looking that you forgot to account for step B between A and C (to use a nifty example everyone should relate to). If, as the parent says, "the rich become a different species," then it seems unlikely that these technological wonders would ever be available to all.
Furthermore, even if costs came down to the point of being available to all, there are several ethical questions left on the table. Once people live much longer, how do we control the population? Your native country is struggling with this problem today. Individuality also becomes a main concern. If we all looked like supermodels and had similar physical abilities, would we retain our sense of identity? What would become of sports?
Many of these concerns run parallel to existing ethical issues such as plastic surgery, abortion, and distributive justice. It's for this reason that I believe that this debate should start with something unthreatening such as colorblindness. Just because "curing colorblindness" doesn't sound threatening doesn't sound dangerous or morally questionable doesn't mean we should dismiss it as such. This is a case where the means may not justify the ends. I hate to use the slippery slope argument, but the reason Ms. Gunn is uneasy about the process is because it very well may be a slippery slope (remember, a slippery slope is only a fallacy when the argument isn't actually a slippery slope, it's just made to look like one).
"If humans could buy technology to improve themselves. . . " - If is a big word in that sentence. The question being asked is whether this is an actual improvement. If genetic modifications are objectively unethical then any genetic modification, whether it be as nominal as curing colorblindness or as extreme as making one fly, will be a detriment to the human. It seems that as long as the ethical status of genetic enhancement is in question that we shouldn't rush to take advantage of it, especially for something as petty as curing colorblindness. Personally, I have big ethical problems with plastic surgery (for cosmetic reasons, I have no problem with someone who survived being shot in the face getting it restructured), but I doubt it will ever be outlawed because we've allowed it to become entrenched in our society before we considered the ethical implications that there's probably no way of banning it.
Here's a great read that discusses the dangers of such technologies much more in depth and eloquently than I ever could: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html
I would assume the games matter more than the hardware. The gamer press has a tendency to judge hardware based on the software it runs (look at all the PS3 vs. 360 graphics debates when they first came out). Overall, the functionality of Sony's device seems very similar to the Wii's but it takes good software to realize this potential. I'm willing to bet that the Digital Foundry guys were comparing it to third-party, sloppy implementation Wii games whereas the Engadget guys were comparing it to first-party, tight implementation games. If Red Steel (1) is your example of a Wii FPS, then you probably won't have a very high opinion of the hardware (even though it's poor software which makes the controls sloppy). If Metroid Prime is the example then you'll probably think the Wii is great for FPS. Regardless, I'm sure Sony's new control scheme will be taken up by several third-party studios who do a poor job with it and several that do some really interesting things. I can't wait for Media Molecule to get their hands on this thing, but I expect most of the early games to really stink b/c that's what happened with the Wii. It takes time to get a new interface running and suits sometimes have unreasonable deadlines.
"What stops people digging latrines?"
I think you missed the part where it said ". . .a layer of urea crystals breaks down the waste into fertilizer, killing off disease-producing pathogens found in feces." The difference between shitting in a hole and burying this bag of shit in a hole is that the latter is not only sanitary, but it also helps crops grow.