I'll lay it out for you, since you're slow and obviously didn't read the article - CEO was poly-sci major, worked for John McCain, did not previously know Javascript, and looks more Winklevoss than Zuckerberg.
And yet, you try to lay blame for this stupidity on "geeks", which is dumb for two reasons: he isn't one, and it's an absurd generalization that is false by any definition of the stereotype.
So while this joker might actually believe everyone thinks like him, you are instead slandering the victims of his crime - the poor schmucks who have to teach him and the rest of the company Javascript.
It's a fad. It's graphic designer one-upsmanship. It serves no non-ornamental purpose. It is pure wankery.
The "it helps old people" line is a rationalization. It doesn't. The same sort of people admiring this emperor's new clothes were ridiculing Microsoft Bob fifteen years ago, only now it's cool because Apple does it.
In five years, clean lines will be the fashion, and they'll be ridiculing wood grain and stitched leather textures as if they had been all along.
The marriage of operating system with services on the internet is stupid, stupid, fucking stupid.
Let apps be free. Let the apps implement that third party integration. Nobody fucking cares about Bing or Zune, stop trying to shove it down people's throats.
What they should be doing is emphasizing how little it actually matters what search engine you use, or how little matters if you post to Twitter versus Facebook, or how little it matters if apps come from iTunes or Google Play or the Zune store.
All that really matters is usability and security, and you can do that without crippling the devices and locking them down tighter than Steve Jobs' mummified sphincter.
The UI spectacular, and Visual Studio is far and away better than Eclipse and Xcode. So stop giving developers reasons to hate Microsoft and the apps will come, and then the people will come. Developers developers developers.
Seriously. I once hired a lawyer without hiring a lawyer first to ask if I should hire a lawyer. Big mistake. It was totally unnecessary. If only I had hired that lawyer he would have told me not to hire a lawyer and I would have saved a lot of money.
So then you admit that the rationale being trotted out for circumcision is that it reduces risks deriving from irresponsible sex and sloven hygiene. These studies do not throw away mistakes as outliers, they measure actual human reality.
There is a real risk of permanent disfigurement (and even infection and death, a one-per-million occurrence) on every circumcision. These doctors would have never written this paper unless they had to demonstrate a medical benefit to what is widely considered a medically unnecessary and potentially dangerous procedure.
The thing you need to ask yourself is, why are they searching for scientific rationalizations for a practice that was originally founded on complete and utter lunacy? If those Victorian crackpots hadn't popularized it way back when, would we now, in light of these studies, be rushing to adopt the practice of cutting of baby boys' dicks because it very slightly reduces the transmission of venereal disease?
Oh, look, another person rationalizing a completely unnecessary and potentially dangerous medical fad started by crackpots obsessed with masturbation by cherry-picking a comment that is a bit loony.
Government mandating home loans be provided to people who couldn't pay them back.
I hate those poor people who busted into Manhattan boardrooms, put guns to the heads of financial services CEOs and demanded they engage in real estate speculation and sell investment products that hid and lied about risks. It really is all their fault.
You've provided an astonishingly good example of fanatical opposition to any kind of reasoned engagement.
Of course, the dim moralizing mob has always been that way. Which is why we resolve disputes with them with violence. Morality may be a popular vote, but the side that wins invariably has the most guns.
Those who want the genetic engineering of human beings will certainly be capable of delivering violence to you, should you decide to interfere. The question you have to ask yourself is, are there more fanatic moralizers than people who want better lives for their children?
When reality insults you it is not a problem of reality.
I did not pick my wife based on the type of babies she would produce. I picked her based on her personality.
You seem proud of being short-sighted. When your kid is on a ventilator, just keep telling yourself "at least my wife has a great personality!"
my family has these same traits
And here is the real tragedy. Having the same flaws you were in no position to reject her, and yet by sharing those flaws you also ridiculously increase the risk of them being passed to your children.
Genetic engineering could break the cycle, but instead you'd rather deny others that freedom because it hurts your fragile ego.
Just as in political journalism, he couches everything in positive language to avoid offending conservatives, because they are a protected class and their belief system must be respected.
No, here's how it really breaks down:
Conservative = waterfall Liberal = agile
Funny that, now the resemblance to the political axis and the "reality bias" is uncanny.
Slashdot Mirror
So now it is just "arrogance", huh?
Yeah, I liked the part where you gave up defending your stupid false generalization.
un-cha un-cha un-cha un-cha
I'll lay it out for you, since you're slow and obviously didn't read the article - CEO was poly-sci major, worked for John McCain, did not previously know Javascript, and looks more Winklevoss than Zuckerberg.
And yet, you try to lay blame for this stupidity on "geeks", which is dumb for two reasons: he isn't one, and it's an absurd generalization that is false by any definition of the stereotype.
So while this joker might actually believe everyone thinks like him, you are instead slandering the victims of his crime - the poor schmucks who have to teach him and the rest of the company Javascript.
That's the classic idiot fallacy of attributing errors to people not in power.
It's a fad. It's graphic designer one-upsmanship. It serves no non-ornamental purpose. It is pure wankery.
The "it helps old people" line is a rationalization. It doesn't. The same sort of people admiring this emperor's new clothes were ridiculing Microsoft Bob fifteen years ago, only now it's cool because Apple does it.
In five years, clean lines will be the fashion, and they'll be ridiculing wood grain and stitched leather textures as if they had been all along.
Just let them wear a suit and go to business school. It's what they really want.
> Well said. You might add, let the devices be free, too.
Well, yes, they shouldn't be beholden to the carriers' interests.
Oh, I get it, you're an idiot and misinterpreted "free" by ignoring context.
The marriage of operating system with services on the internet is stupid, stupid, fucking stupid.
Let apps be free. Let the apps implement that third party integration. Nobody fucking cares about Bing or Zune, stop trying to shove it down people's throats.
What they should be doing is emphasizing how little it actually matters what search engine you use, or how little matters if you post to Twitter versus Facebook, or how little it matters if apps come from iTunes or Google Play or the Zune store.
All that really matters is usability and security, and you can do that without crippling the devices and locking them down tighter than Steve Jobs' mummified sphincter.
The UI spectacular, and Visual Studio is far and away better than Eclipse and Xcode. So stop giving developers reasons to hate Microsoft and the apps will come, and then the people will come. Developers developers developers.
Seriously. I once hired a lawyer without hiring a lawyer first to ask if I should hire a lawyer. Big mistake. It was totally unnecessary. If only I had hired that lawyer he would have told me not to hire a lawyer and I would have saved a lot of money.
Don't stop believing! Hold on to that feeling!
A rat done bit my sister Neelu
With goras on the moon
Both apps have permissions necessary for a social networking application. This is a "security" company looking for some press, ie. advertising.
Oh noes! Clutch those pearls harder!
Because why the fuck not? If it becomes possible, people will do it, and there's not a god damn thing you can do to stop them.
So then you admit that the rationale being trotted out for circumcision is that it reduces risks deriving from irresponsible sex and sloven hygiene. These studies do not throw away mistakes as outliers, they measure actual human reality.
There is a real risk of permanent disfigurement (and even infection and death, a one-per-million occurrence) on every circumcision. These doctors would have never written this paper unless they had to demonstrate a medical benefit to what is widely considered a medically unnecessary and potentially dangerous procedure.
The thing you need to ask yourself is, why are they searching for scientific rationalizations for a practice that was originally founded on complete and utter lunacy? If those Victorian crackpots hadn't popularized it way back when, would we now, in light of these studies, be rushing to adopt the practice of cutting of baby boys' dicks because it very slightly reduces the transmission of venereal disease?
You liken the foreskin to a hairlip and cancer?
You people are insane.
Oh, look, another person rationalizing a completely unnecessary and potentially dangerous medical fad started by crackpots obsessed with masturbation by cherry-picking a comment that is a bit loony.
I hate those poor people who busted into Manhattan boardrooms, put guns to the heads of financial services CEOs and demanded they engage in real estate speculation and sell investment products that hid and lied about risks. It really is all their fault.
No, you provide contradictory evidence. My assertion is easily debunkable, presuming it were false.
According to the Humane Society, for every animal adopted, an animal is euthanized. Are you trying to redefine the word "routine"?
You've provided an astonishingly good example of fanatical opposition to any kind of reasoned engagement.
Of course, the dim moralizing mob has always been that way. Which is why we resolve disputes with them with violence. Morality may be a popular vote, but the side that wins invariably has the most guns.
Those who want the genetic engineering of human beings will certainly be capable of delivering violence to you, should you decide to interfere. The question you have to ask yourself is, are there more fanatic moralizers than people who want better lives for their children?
When reality insults you it is not a problem of reality.
You seem proud of being short-sighted. When your kid is on a ventilator, just keep telling yourself "at least my wife has a great personality!"
And here is the real tragedy. Having the same flaws you were in no position to reject her, and yet by sharing those flaws you also ridiculously increase the risk of them being passed to your children.
Genetic engineering could break the cycle, but instead you'd rather deny others that freedom because it hurts your fragile ego.
An infant is less aware of its own existence than a dog. We put down stray dogs routinely.
Don't confuse your irrational sentimentality with reason.
Just as in political journalism, he couches everything in positive language to avoid offending conservatives, because they are a protected class and their belief system must be respected.
No, here's how it really breaks down:
Conservative = waterfall
Liberal = agile
Funny that, now the resemblance to the political axis and the "reality bias" is uncanny.
That's right kids. Don't use magic science to make dinosaurs, or even more ridiculous magic will happen to propel the plot!
Anyone who takes Crichton seriously is a moron.
Ok. Should we contact you by email or phone?
Apple is "inspired" by other designs, while Samsung "copies". Gotta love that fanboy doublespeak.
And using Cracked.com to cite a claim.