I'd be OK with an iPhone much as I hate Apple and the lack of flexibility and the control they exert over a device I own.
Except...the features.
There are too many features that Android has that generally make me more productive, that iPhones lack.
Apple fanbois tend to dismiss widgets and homescreens and the ability to organize apps intelligently....but really, at just a small sampling, all those features makes me more productive, allow me to use my phone more efficiently and ultimately frees up more of my time.
I wouldn't look at a phone that didn't have such functionality.
But surely Sony have left a bad taste in many peoples mouths, with removing promised features, poor security after getting hacked several times, DRM rootkits, propriety crap instead of standards...
It feels weird to say it, but XBOX is clearly the better platform here.
No, it doesn't. Society breaks down if we do that.
Do you screen the views of everyone you pay to do work for you to make sure they are in line with your own, or at least that you don't oppose them and don't want to give them money?
He is getting money for his art/work, not for his views.
If his art promoted his views, you would have a point. It doesn't, so you don't.
Firstly, homophobic is a ridiculous word -- inaccurate as hell. You can be against homosexuality (generally due to religious beliefs) and not have a phobia about it.
Secondly, it's a shame so many people will reject this movie because the author doesn't share their views or beliefs. Separating art from the creator is all too often a very important skill, that too many people lack.
The real reason I'm linking to it is it has a plethora of studies supporting my point and showing yours to be the less probable, or at the least less significant.
Again, genetics are a template....that's about it.
Comparing a different species to us is meaningless. It's not surprising a different species can never do something that isn't within their capabilities.
Human's on the other hand...
Genetics certainly doe splay a part, but to what extent?
I think nurture is just as much a part, if not more important. If you take two children with genes for average intelligence, give one a healthy diet and plenty of stimulation and knowledge, and the other isn't paid any special attention to, then one is going to be more intelligent than the other.
The brain is a muscle, and exercising it and stimulating it can cause it to grow, like any other. We know that people who learn certain skills develop different pathways in the brain, i.e. musicians vs chess players vs artists.
As for you never being able to run as fast as Usain Bolt...you're probably right. But (assuming you're young enough) You could get your body in extreme shape and be in the same general category as him. You may not be world champion, but you could get your self to the 97th percentile or something.
Genes are a template. It's rare that they are the limiting factor.
That isn't just feel good nonsense, it's what the evidence shows.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd be OK with an iPhone much as I hate Apple and the lack of flexibility and the control they exert over a device I own.
Except...the features.
There are too many features that Android has that generally make me more productive, that iPhones lack.
Apple fanbois tend to dismiss widgets and homescreens and the ability to organize apps intelligently....but really, at just a small sampling, all those features makes me more productive, allow me to use my phone more efficiently and ultimately frees up more of my time.
I wouldn't look at a phone that didn't have such functionality.
Michael! Long time no see child.
I love the smell of conspiracy theories in the morning!
Are you fucking retarded?
I've been around on here longer than idiots like you have been accusing anyone who promotes one product over another as being a shill.
Microsoft made a lot of shitty claims, but they REVERSED them.
Sony continually fucked consumers over. Microsoft did too, just not as much.
What he wants is wrong, I don't agree with him what so ever.
But, I don't care. It's his right to hold those views.
As far as watching a movie based on a work he made, and him getting money for doing that work?
I have no issue with that. It's separate from his views.
If I withheld money from people who held opposing views to me, I probably wouldn't be able to buy anything.
Sure, people who don't care any like the games...
But surely Sony have left a bad taste in many peoples mouths, with removing promised features, poor security after getting hacked several times, DRM rootkits, propriety crap instead of standards...
It feels weird to say it, but XBOX is clearly the better platform here.
So you research every small bushiness owners values before making a choice?
If that's true....kudos for sticking to your guns I suppose.
Stock Android. Nothing disabled, I can tether my phone at no charge, no crapware...
Other phones may be faster, but not enough to justify the headache of crapware.
It's the same reason I stick with Asus for laptops. Well built machines with minimal crapwear that are pretty easy to open up if you need to.
It's not fear, and it's shitty tactics to try and convince everyone that it is.
It's equivalent to anti-abortion people phrasing themselves as pro-life.
No, it doesn't. Society breaks down if we do that.
Do you screen the views of everyone you pay to do work for you to make sure they are in line with your own, or at least that you don't oppose them and don't want to give them money?
He is getting money for his art/work, not for his views.
If his art promoted his views, you would have a point. It doesn't, so you don't.
Yes, Really.
As someone pointed out above, hydrophobia is a curiosity of linguistic evolution. Homophobia is a created word intended to manipulate.
You support racists and gay haters probably every day throughout life. You support companies that do far worse than hold anti-gay views.
The difference is you don't research or question everyone's views before buying something from them.
Society wouldn't work if everyone did that.
If you see Enders Game, he is getting money for the work he did, not for his views.
If a bigot builds you a house, would you not pay him?
I'm right, for exactly the reason I stated. You just happened to paraphrase it without adding clarity.
Firstly, homophobic is a ridiculous word -- inaccurate as hell. You can be against homosexuality (generally due to religious beliefs) and not have a phobia about it.
Secondly, it's a shame so many people will reject this movie because the author doesn't share their views or beliefs. Separating art from the creator is all too often a very important skill, that too many people lack.
I don't write code professionally at all. I couldn't deal with all the documentation, testing, debugging etc.
It's just as a hobby.
My code is generally pretty ugly...because I don't care about maintainability, or even at times efficient.
I care about solving a problem, as it is a challenge. That's it.
Improving efficiency, making the code look nice, documentation...all these things are boring and I'd rather not waste my time on them.
And that's what most of coding is.
Ignorant moron.
Overpopulation is not at all the problem.
Do some reading before you start spouting nonsense.
What? Like what?
It is widely acknowledged that civilization stems from agriculture.
We really were not doing anything too advanced before agriculture besides fucking, eating and sleeping. Maybe drawing on a wall here and there.
Why wouldn't it be?
It will be supported until the hardware can't run the newer software.
I think it's pretty simple.
We know that civilization came from agriculture.
Agriculture...is a job, not just a behaviour.
Monitoring crops, watering them etc.
How is that not the first profession?
Hunting and gathering is not farming. Farming is a profession, and is older than prostitution.
In that context, food is the currency.
We had to farm before we had civilization.
We had to have civilization before we could have money, and charge to fuck.
Have a look at the wiki : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_and_intelligence
It gives a good general overview.
The real reason I'm linking to it is it has a plethora of studies supporting my point and showing yours to be the less probable, or at the least less significant.
Again, genetics are a template....that's about it.
Yeah, you're wrong.
Comparing a different species to us is meaningless. It's not surprising a different species can never do something that isn't within their capabilities.
Human's on the other hand...
Genetics certainly doe splay a part, but to what extent?
I think nurture is just as much a part, if not more important. If you take two children with genes for average intelligence, give one a healthy diet and plenty of stimulation and knowledge, and the other isn't paid any special attention to, then one is going to be more intelligent than the other.
The brain is a muscle, and exercising it and stimulating it can cause it to grow, like any other. We know that people who learn certain skills develop different pathways in the brain, i.e. musicians vs chess players vs artists.
As for you never being able to run as fast as Usain Bolt...you're probably right. But (assuming you're young enough) You could get your body in extreme shape and be in the same general category as him. You may not be world champion, but you could get your self to the 97th percentile or something.
Genes are a template. It's rare that they are the limiting factor.
That isn't just feel good nonsense, it's what the evidence shows.