But a great deal of porn is about transgressive acts, and nasty attitudes.
Nice weasel words! Not only do you get the ambiguous, unquantified "great deal of" in there, but you also insert the completely subjective adjectives "transgressive" and "nasty"! Bravo!
How does blasphemy against god hurt yourself or others? Isn't that classified as a sin? A deadly one, in fact?
You sound like you've adopted some of that new-fangled hippie Jesus flavor of Christianity where you claim, "I'm not religious! I have a personal relationship with Jesus!"
The other problem with comparing it to history is that until a few decades ago (well, a century and change), the vast majority of the human population was subsistence farmers. You can't draw any meaningful comparisons to history for *anybody* when the last 100 years have been completely unlike anything else in our history.
Why is a hen inclined to sit on eggs while a rooster crows in the morning? I mean a hen's brain looks just like a rooster's, so obviously it couldn't be a biological reason.
The thing that people somehow manage to neglect to mention in these discussions is the fact that women dominate HR departments, so if there *is* a bias against women in hiring, it's primarily *by other women*.
In fact, there's a definite trend in elementary education (especially K-3) to try to get men into that field
Since when? All the stats I've seen (I'm not going to cite any, seeing as how you neglected to cite any) show a steadily decreasing number of men in primary education, and a similar trend at the college level.
If there's a trend to try to get men into education, it's failing miserably.
Men and women have the same brain structures. Hell, they have the same bodies initially while growing. That's why men have nonfunctional nipples. They have different hormone levels, but the minds aren't vastly different.
So, let's just ignore the fact that pretty much every animal on the planet that uses sexual reproduction has specialized roles for the different sexes. Let's just assume that their brains are identical, and they (generally -- obviously biology is not 100% precise and there's a wide spectrum of behavior) just *choose* to do what all the other members of their sex are doing.
Humans? Well, we're *special*. We couldn't *possibly* be subject to the same forces that guide mindless animals.
This is a deliberate shaming and deflection tactic. Bringing up any disagreement automatically means you're a misogynist racist.
Maybe I should clarify
You can't clarify. People with this mindset are little better than religious ideologues. They do not want to understand your position, because you disagree with them. Instead, they will twist your words and attack you personally, rather than address your actual arguments. Have fun hacking at strawmen if you choose to continue to engage these types.
Easily explained: women have never, at any point in their lives, been expected to be sensitive of men's feelings. (Because men don't have any, and if they do then they just need to man up and take it, because they're the oppressor so that makes it ok for the oppressed to do whatever they feel like.)
Men, on the other hand, have had it beaten into them since birth that they need to respect and be sensitive to women's feelings.
More like "facts". The GeoHot hack happened well after the OtherOS removal. And, in typical Sony fanboi fashion, you also demonize him for releasing details that would allow people to, you know, do what they want with the hardware they own.
And yes, OtherOS *was* advertised. I don't even follow the game industry much and I remember it being listed among the "it only does everything" claims.
Are these "other devices" connected to displays the size of a living room TV, or are they stuck on a 19-23" desktop computer monitor?
If 19-23" is good enough for the user, then probably. If not, they've probably hooked it up to a larger display. Why does somebody else's use case for media consumption matter to you?
Apple lovers start by refusing to acknowledge anything negative about their beloved company, believing that no technology existed before Apple invented it, and then work from the premise that everybody else is a rip-off artist.
If you ignore outside spending, party spending, and anything other than what the Obama/Romney camps spent directly, then you're *sort of* close to 730/330 but still off by a factor of 30%, rather than the 200% that those living in the real world saw.
In other words, you just see it as an opportunity to rationalize the beliefs you already have, and to justify the activities/behaviors you plan on doing anyway. Big crabs = I was right to do what I did!
Also, false equivalence much? Just because there might be upsides to something, doesn't mean those upsides actually balance the downsides.
The thing is, everybody here knows you're already a lost cause, because you're a selfish, entitled asshole. The good thing is, we can afford to have a few people like you as long as you're a small minority of the general population. Sure, you'll get to leech off the good of society without contributing much back or being mindful of your impact, but fortunately a single individual doesn't generally have much of an impact.
However, making a value statement about a group of people just because they base their moral code on a system you happen to disagree with says a lot more about you and your personal moral code than it does them.
No it doesn't. Your misreading of GP's point doesn't give you the right to claim smug superiority, sorry.
If you're only not a murderer/thief/rapist because you don't want punishment, you are -- objectively -- not a moral or ethical person. As long as you're thinking only of yourself, you can't claim to be a moral person. This applies to both theists who fear hell and atheists who fear jail. Sorry you got butthurt over the idea that not everybody who embraces Judea-Christian is a paragon of virtue.
Slashdot Mirror
Mass facial recognition systems don't work worth a damn.
Yet. Your argument seems to be, "because this doesn't work as well as we worry that it might, we should just allow it."
--Jeremy
But a great deal of porn is about transgressive acts, and nasty attitudes.
Nice weasel words! Not only do you get the ambiguous, unquantified "great deal of" in there, but you also insert the completely subjective adjectives "transgressive" and "nasty"! Bravo!
--Jeremy
If someone is hiding their content behind JavaScript walls, they don't deserve to have it indexed.
--Jeremy
How does blasphemy against god hurt yourself or others? Isn't that classified as a sin? A deadly one, in fact?
You sound like you've adopted some of that new-fangled hippie Jesus flavor of Christianity where you claim, "I'm not religious! I have a personal relationship with Jesus!"
--Jeremy
The other problem with comparing it to history is that until a few decades ago (well, a century and change), the vast majority of the human population was subsistence farmers. You can't draw any meaningful comparisons to history for *anybody* when the last 100 years have been completely unlike anything else in our history.
--Jeremy
Question is why are they not interested?
Why is a hen inclined to sit on eggs while a rooster crows in the morning? I mean a hen's brain looks just like a rooster's, so obviously it couldn't be a biological reason.
--Jeremy
The thing that people somehow manage to neglect to mention in these discussions is the fact that women dominate HR departments, so if there *is* a bias against women in hiring, it's primarily *by other women*.
--Jeremy
In fact, there's a definite trend in elementary education (especially K-3) to try to get men into that field
Since when? All the stats I've seen (I'm not going to cite any, seeing as how you neglected to cite any) show a steadily decreasing number of men in primary education, and a similar trend at the college level.
If there's a trend to try to get men into education, it's failing miserably.
--Jeremy
Men and women have the same brain structures. Hell, they have the same bodies initially while growing. That's why men have nonfunctional nipples. They have different hormone levels, but the minds aren't vastly different.
So, let's just ignore the fact that pretty much every animal on the planet that uses sexual reproduction has specialized roles for the different sexes. Let's just assume that their brains are identical, and they (generally -- obviously biology is not 100% precise and there's a wide spectrum of behavior) just *choose* to do what all the other members of their sex are doing.
Humans? Well, we're *special*. We couldn't *possibly* be subject to the same forces that guide mindless animals.
--Jeremy
You're the second person to state that.
This is a deliberate shaming and deflection tactic. Bringing up any disagreement automatically means you're a misogynist racist.
Maybe I should clarify
You can't clarify. People with this mindset are little better than religious ideologues. They do not want to understand your position, because you disagree with them. Instead, they will twist your words and attack you personally, rather than address your actual arguments. Have fun hacking at strawmen if you choose to continue to engage these types.
--Jeremy
Easily explained: women have never, at any point in their lives, been expected to be sensitive of men's feelings. (Because men don't have any, and if they do then they just need to man up and take it, because they're the oppressor so that makes it ok for the oppressed to do whatever they feel like.)
Men, on the other hand, have had it beaten into them since birth that they need to respect and be sensitive to women's feelings.
--Jeremy
In other words: "you just don't get it. You're the problem but I'm not going to tell you why."
What a constructive and logical response! Bonus points for the additional "socially retarded" shaming.
--Jeremy
So if you really wanted to insult somebody, you should accuse them of watching MSNBC, not Fox news.
Viewership numbers of Fox News vs. those of MSNBC? False equivalence much?
Also, your "I know a lot of..." still isn't data. It's unsubstantiated bullshit. Put up real numbers or STFU.
--Jeremy
More like "facts". The GeoHot hack happened well after the OtherOS removal. And, in typical Sony fanboi fashion, you also demonize him for releasing details that would allow people to, you know, do what they want with the hardware they own.
And yes, OtherOS *was* advertised. I don't even follow the game industry much and I remember it being listed among the "it only does everything" claims.
--Jeremy
Are these "other devices" connected to displays the size of a living room TV, or are they stuck on a 19-23" desktop computer monitor?
If 19-23" is good enough for the user, then probably. If not, they've probably hooked it up to a larger display. Why does somebody else's use case for media consumption matter to you?
--Jeremy
It's funny that there are plenty of legitimate gripes about the Wii U, but you fail to mention any of them.
--Jeremy
Oh the delicious irony.
Apple lovers start by refusing to acknowledge anything negative about their beloved company, believing that no technology existed before Apple invented it, and then work from the premise that everybody else is a rip-off artist.
--Jeremy
That's the completely self-serving, Apple-zealot version of the story, yes.
--Jeremy
Yeah, I didn't think you were very close with those numbers, and it didn't take much digging to confirm that suspicion:
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/
If you ignore outside spending, party spending, and anything other than what the Obama/Romney camps spent directly, then you're *sort of* close to 730/330 but still off by a factor of 30%, rather than the 200% that those living in the real world saw.
--Jeremy
See also: "Too big to fail," vendor lock-in, copyright, patent troll, "right to profit"
And which of these are relevant to EA's 'inability' to go out of business?
--Jeremy
Not really a very good analogy, because if you cut people off and cause an accident, you *are* at fault.
However, GGP wasn't cutting people off, so GP's suggestion was a non-sequitur anyway.
--Jeremy
In other words, you just see it as an opportunity to rationalize the beliefs you already have, and to justify the activities/behaviors you plan on doing anyway. Big crabs = I was right to do what I did!
Also, false equivalence much? Just because there might be upsides to something, doesn't mean those upsides actually balance the downsides.
The thing is, everybody here knows you're already a lost cause, because you're a selfish, entitled asshole. The good thing is, we can afford to have a few people like you as long as you're a small minority of the general population. Sure, you'll get to leech off the good of society without contributing much back or being mindful of your impact, but fortunately a single individual doesn't generally have much of an impact.
--Jeremy
And very few people ever bought an iDevice or Mac BECAUSE of iOS or OSX.
Your point?
--Jeremy
Why should lighter people subsidize the cost of the fuel required to move heavier people? Are you some sort of socialist?
--Jeremy
However, making a value statement about a group of people just because they base their moral code on a system you happen to disagree with says a lot more about you and your personal moral code than it does them.
No it doesn't. Your misreading of GP's point doesn't give you the right to claim smug superiority, sorry.
If you're only not a murderer/thief/rapist because you don't want punishment, you are -- objectively -- not a moral or ethical person. As long as you're thinking only of yourself, you can't claim to be a moral person. This applies to both theists who fear hell and atheists who fear jail. Sorry you got butthurt over the idea that not everybody who embraces Judea-Christian is a paragon of virtue.
--Jeremy