I concede the point. That was unwarranted. I apologize.
At the same time, thank you for the harshness. I needed it. I spoke extremely brashly and am quite ashamed of that.
As for terms... "meaning" of life would be the answer to the question why am I here. "goal" of life would be the same.
Perhaps less... term definitions than a scope problem. What is the purpose, meaning, or goal of my life - why am I here - within the scope of the world? What difference do I make? Certainly, within individual little circles, and if defined in terms of... feelings, perhaps... then my life has meaning to various people and has various goals or purposes.
To, shall we say "pure naturalists" - those who believe there is nothing more than the natural world and we are simply a product of it - I see really no purpose in being here. I'm simply part of nature, which is simply... existing.
So, the meaning of your life is the purpose, but you don't know what the purpose is?
Wouldn't it mean that your life has no meaning (at least until you find out what the purpose is)?
I'd generally go along with that second line there. Enter "religious nut" ideas.
In light of further discussion with another poster, my original response to you was extremely unclear and careless. I want to apologize for that. I actually believe all individuals have a distinct purpose in life, and my response did not at all manifest that.
I played a fair amount of games in my life, including competitive sports. Some games I had no chance of winning and I still played them for sheer enjoyment, and I gave my very best -- knowing that I would still not win the game -- just because it made the game more interesting and more fun.
You're right, my analogy was bad. I played sports, competitively, but I enjoyed playing them because I enjoyed them, not simply because I enjoyed competition.
Now you -- you have a goal in life. A purpose.
What if you die before reaching it?
And if you don't, what happens once you reach it?
Will you kill yourself then?
You are presuming something: that I determined what the goal, or purpose, of my life is. I believe we are arguing from two different premises; I believe each individual life has a purpose. I did not say that I believed that each individual life is responsible for deciding said purpose and pursuing it...
That is because you have a very narrow viewpoint and no imagination.
Hm. I refer you to the "troll" comments that were made earlier.;) Inferring the narrow would seem somewhat dubious, but I'm pretty sure you can't infer the status of my imagination.
I think we are arguing from different terms, though. You appear to refer to "goals" as something individuals' set for themselves, and when you use the term "meaning," you are referring to it subjectively; that is, meaning is what you derive from something. Is that correct?
As for advocating termination of life, perhaps my original question was badly worded. In fact, reading back on it, it was. It was not in my original thinking and the context I was thinking in, but that clearly did not get across.
So what do you want to see happen? More regulation of advertising? That comes with it's own set of drawbacks and some people (myself among them) don't think it's the job of Government to teach caveat emptor.
Yes, you are trolling. He didn't say "useless", you did.
Then he can counter and explain why it is useful.
To me, if there is no end goal to your life, or to life, then I would say... life is useless, in the typical way we understand the term (i.e., it's "useless" to do this or that because it doesn't accomplish anything worthwhile). Perhaps it was too big of a logical jump and I chose the wrong word.
Very often the process is more important than the result. Sometimes it is the only important part.
The process is only important because of the result that comes out of the process, as opposed to the actual goal of the process. However, if my life has no actual goal, then I don't see what it matters what process I take to get to a non-goal.
If you and I are playing a game and there is no way to win or lose, what's the point? We may, I don't know, grow somehow, but then we die and it's over. There's no end-goal, and thus, I don't think there's really any meaning to it... and I would call it useless.
Apparently, you disagree with what you and I mean about "meaning," so I'd be interested in how you'd define the meaning... of life.
Hm. Discussing the meaning of life on slashdot. hehe.
Well, obviously, some are. Or it wouldn't happen. I didn't mean men in general, I meant specific men in that case. My fault there, that was unclear. Point was: something in their thinking, something in the way they viewed women, led to their decision to rape one.
I would posit that the vast majority of people are able to differentiate between porn and the real world.
I disagree. Example: what makes a woman beautiful? Most guys seem to have very clear ideas about this, and I don't think it comes from the "real world." I think it comes from porn, from advertisements, and clothing manufacturers. Or: most girls seem to have a very clear idea about what they need to do to be attractive/attract men.
One might argue that porn/adverts/clothing just mimics what people really think. I think that could be a valid argument. One might also argue that porn/adverts/clothing significantly influence the way people think, and it doesn't really make sense.
Food example: Coke. Is Coke good for you? I haven't read a study that said you can substitute coke for water and be just fine. And yet, from the advertisements and the way most kids live, you would think so. Certain aspects of society are teaching young people that soda is basically a valid substitute for water. And most people don't appear to differentiate between an advertisement and what is really true.
I would argue that everyday TV advertisements, the entertainment and fashion industries do more to objectify woman than porn does.
Errr, I would argue that a lot of "entertainment" qualifies as porn... but ok, if you want to separate it that way, then I'd agree. However, I'd suggest you include "internet advertisements" along with TV advertisements...
I watched my sister try to starve herself to death growing up so she could look like the women on TV. None of the women she was attempting to emulate were in a pornographic production.
That's exactly what I am talking about, only a different matter. The issue is what image and thinking society is "teaching." IMO, porn... and porn-related things ("sex" in advertising, entertainment, the internet, etc) is a contributor to how society is "teaching" young men to think about women, just as the "women on TV" were "teaching" your sister how she had to look in order to be beautiful/attractive/pretty/whatever. One was directly degrading to women (your sister). One is indirectly degrading to women: the way men think about them.
From a biological standpoint that is the end goal of life. Human beings are one of the few animals with the higher brain functions required to set other goals for themselves but the drive to reproduce is still there.
Certainly the drive to reproduce is still there. But this is arguing that, biologically, sex is for reproduction. That was the "stupid Puritans" comment that started this whole thing, that Puritans(/"bible belt morons":) ) think that sex is for reproduction purposes and not for pleasure.
Interestingly enough, Biblically, that's not even true. If one looks at the creation account in Genesis, one finds that a man and a woman were created to enjoy life together because God knew that it wasn't good for the man to be alone. In other words: the male-female relationship was actually for companionship. Not just reproduction. And in the account, Adam seemed to realize this.
And before I get called chauvinist or male superiority-ist, it's interesting to note that the woman was not created to be a servant, but created to complete... i.e., the man was incomplete without the woman. And conversely
while not the end goal (I don't think there is one)
This is not directly related to the conversation... but simply because you stated this, I am interested in hearing more about your view of life. I don't get the chance to ask someone who openly states what you stated:) If there is no end goal of life, then is there anything really wrong if I kill you? Most would say it violates some rights of yours... so my question is - if your life is, basically, useless, then why is it wrong for someone else to end it?
I'm not just trolling, I'm seriously interested in hearing your opinion on it. I have never understood why a worldview that holds no purpose to living can hold to "murder" being wrong or in any way unfair... it's not unfair for a lion to kill his prey, so I've always been confused why it's unfair for a human to kill another human.
But I don't try and stop churches from being easily identifiable as churches, and I don't want to try and ban people from believing in their magic stories.
And if your society consistently pressured you into thinking there is something wrong with you if you don't go to church... not church-goers, but society, businesses, etc...? Would you have a problem there?
My argument is that society pushes this view of women while remaining shocked at people who hold the view and act on it. I see that as a contradiction.
If society pushed you to go to church and then was shocked when you did, I'd agree with your analogy. As it is, you probably do not feel pushed to go to church (except perhaps by any friends of yours that go to church), and society does not look shocked when you do.
Sex is the end-goal of life.
Therein lies our dispute; all other arguments fall back this, and since we hold different ideas here, all other argumentation is likely futile.
If "improper outside of marriage" is denial, then sure. But that's my opinion, and not what I was arguing for in this case.
If "denial" means "saying that women should be respected for more than the fact that men can have sex with them," then sure.
And I did not claim to be "enlightened" anymore than you would claim to be "enlightened" if you thought you knew the answer to something that someone else didn't, like say, how to remove a virus from someone's computer. Believing yourself to be correct and someone else to be wrong does not equate to some sort of gnosticism.
I am just curious why people like you consider sex to be degrading to women but not to men,
You misunderstood me. Being considered a toy for men to have sexual pleasure with, and little more, is degrading. It seems that the typical image of women that society has today is completely related to sex. "Sex sells."
It IS degrading to men, in that it assumes that that is all men can think about. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that particular degradation is very untrue.
I am not trying to "protect" women from themselves. I'm arguing that as a society, we should not push women towards thinking of themselves in the same way that rapists think of them, and then wonder why rapists do what they do. Every time someone is raped, we call it degrading, we say that the rapist has such a horrid view of women; and yet it seems that as a society, that view of women is pushed. Women are there for sexual pleasure of men.
I'm not arguing for "no sex." Personally, as I said, I have some pretty conservative and religiously-based ideas about where it is proper, but I'm not pushing for that, either. I'm arguing that encouraging women to think of themselves in the same way a rapist thinks of them - an object for sexual pleasure for men - is not a good thing. And it seems that I am not alone in this, as it seems to me that a whole lot of studies have been conducted that show that women tend to be much less driven by "physical love" than men.
Here is a question: would you be ok with society pushing blacks into thinking of themselves as slaves while at the same time, being shocked at the attitude of whites who forced blacks into slavery? Probably not, most people would see a contradiction there. In the same way, pushing girls/women into thinking of themselves as sex objects while being shocked at the attitude of men towards women (e.g., rapists) is contradictory.
I sense a counter-argument: slavery is different, that's a degrading view in and of itself. I would argue that being thought of as an object for sex is a degrading view in and of itself in a very similar way. However, if you are coming from a worldview where we are just animals like any other animal, then your view does have consistency, because reproduction is basically the only "point." On the other hand, slavery should not be degrading then, since we're all just animals following our animalistic instinct, and I don't see any reason why I shouldn't conquer a neighboring tribe and subject them so I can reproduce better...
(this is a really big issue, once you get into worldviews! hehe.)
Unless they were forced into such a production, what's the problem here? If a consenting adult makes a choice to become a sex object I don't see why it's any of our business.
I think the issue here is not whether or not an adult consents... the issue is - were they pressured, socially, to consent?
I think we can all pretty much agree rape is bad, right? Rape degrades women. Why are men okay with it? IMO, because of the way they view women. If you really respect women, you're not going to rape them.
Just because a "consenting adult makes a choice" doesn't necessarily mean we should encourage said behavior. After all, consenting adults *all the time* consent to eating fast food, soft drinks, sugar, etc... and yet, we are growingly concerned with obesity. But why should we care? It's not any of our business. In general, I actually agree with that; but when the behavior starts to be encouraged or when companies go too far? Say... false advertising? Then people begin to take issue with it.
Really, it will come down to what society thinks is best for itself, since this is a democracy after all. I have my opinion, and you have yours. I am of the opinion that a society where women are seen as sex objects is a degrading society, in the same way that a society that sees blacks as slave-objects is a degrading society. I know, slavery was probably forced... of course, it seems to me that society is putting significant pressure on girls to think of themselves as sex objects. I'm not sure how much of a conscious "choice" it is.
Reproduction is the end-goal of all life on this blue marble.
Well, we disagree significantly there. If that IS the end-goal, then your view is, IMO, quite consistent. I appreciate the consistency. I believe mine is consistent, too... but we appear to be arguing from quite different basic premises.
Incidentally, your basic argument, on the "bible belt moron" side is one that I have never, ever heard in my life. And I am someone who considers sex to be something that should be in marriage, and someone who thinks that the porn industry is immoral and highly degrading; first degrading to women, who are turned into sex objects simply to be used for pleasure, and secondly degrading to society, who turn sex into the end-goal of life.
Steve is right that it's better for most users that the games get made for the device instead of trying to rejigger the interface.
"Made for the device" == "downloaded from the app store."
Allowing Flash on the iPhone isn't going to suddenly mean that everyone is forced to play games not written for the iPhone. I am very certain that Flash developers, as crazy as it may sound, might rewrite their games so it works well with the iPhone interface. Sorta like how there are entire mobile versions of websites. I guess if Steve Jobs had the iPhone a few years ago when mobile versions of sites weren't prevalent, he would have argued against having a browser on the phone - after all, I don't see how it would work well with the small screen!
To me, this is either very short-sighted (giving devs another platform isn't going to make them NOT develop iPhone-pointed games! keyboard and mouse expectations can't be translated, he's right, so if I were a developer, I'd write a new one so I could make more $$$... I thought that's what developers do?) or he has some other motive.
I think you mean it COULD be obsolete, and something would fill the gap. But most products are that way. Apple could be obsolete, and something would fill the gap, too.
Because, as others have noted, that's just not fair. Students shouldn't HAVE to know things to get a grade, they should just be required to try. It's not fair to people who can't learn as well to get a lower grade just because they couldn't learn as well.
That was sarcastic, just in case someone couldn't tell.
Perhaps another reason is the college is trying to weed out the "go-to-school-on-parents'-bill-and-party-then-flunk"... not that I think RFID/attendance will actually do that, but it could be that's the goal. Probably not, but it could be;)
It depends how you use the term conservative. Most libertarians that I know would be considered radical right-wingers though. Common perception appears to be that anyone who thinks you should be allowed to carry a gun around is a radical right-winger, whether or not that is the case. And probably thinks Rush Limbaugh/Glen Beck can never be wrong. And cannot possibly be really educated. Not REALLY educated, anyways.
But then, I think the "common" liberal (whatever party affiliation) and the "common" conservative (whatever party affiliation) tend to be about equal in terms of ignorance and... argumentation style.
I think it's the right-wingers that are usually on the less-government-involvement side of things.
Not sure why it seems right-wingers tend to defend privacy-intrusion though, which does give you some amount of defense of your statement... however, assuming right-wing is pro-gov't-knowing-all-about-you and left-wing is anti-gov't-knowing-all-about-you seems to be quite opposite of what tends to be the case.
Why do that? It seems the growing concept of "progress" in the US is to do what Europe does. It doesn't really matter if it works or not.
I am exaggerating, yes, but it really does seem to be a trend in US politics at the moment. We need to do this or that because Europe is doing it, and thus it is "progressive," and we certainly don't want to fall behind our European counterparts!
Actually, I was mostly joking with that phrase, just because it's pulled out of the hat so often as a trite "ha, you're wrong because correlation != causation!"...
Yes. I knew what I was doing. My point is that Apple has not gone away from the dark side. They appeared to realize they had better offer DRM-free music or people would start getting REALLY upset; yet they still want to make money off their previous DRM'd music. In other words, they don't think DRM'd music is "wrong" suddenly; they just are going with the popular opinion/popular desire. And try to make money off the shift while they're at it.
My point? Just because Apple now sells DRM-free music doesn't mean Apple is anti-DRM.
Slashdot Mirror
I concede the point. That was unwarranted. I apologize.
At the same time, thank you for the harshness. I needed it. I spoke extremely brashly and am quite ashamed of that.
As for terms... "meaning" of life would be the answer to the question why am I here. "goal" of life would be the same.
Perhaps less ... term definitions than a scope problem. What is the purpose, meaning, or goal of my life - why am I here - within the scope of the world? What difference do I make? Certainly, within individual little circles, and if defined in terms of ... feelings, perhaps... then my life has meaning to various people and has various goals or purposes.
To, shall we say "pure naturalists" - those who believe there is nothing more than the natural world and we are simply a product of it - I see really no purpose in being here. I'm simply part of nature, which is simply ... existing.
So, the meaning of your life is the purpose, but you don't know what the purpose is?
Wouldn't it mean that your life has no meaning (at least until you find out what the purpose is)?
I'd generally go along with that second line there. Enter "religious nut" ideas.
In light of further discussion with another poster, my original response to you was extremely unclear and careless. I want to apologize for that. I actually believe all individuals have a distinct purpose in life, and my response did not at all manifest that.
I played a fair amount of games in my life, including competitive sports. Some games I had no chance of winning and I still played them for sheer enjoyment, and I gave my very best -- knowing that I would still not win the game -- just because it made the game more interesting and more fun.
You're right, my analogy was bad. I played sports, competitively, but I enjoyed playing them because I enjoyed them, not simply because I enjoyed competition.
Now you -- you have a goal in life. A purpose. What if you die before reaching it?
And if you don't, what happens once you reach it?
Will you kill yourself then?
You are presuming something: that I determined what the goal, or purpose, of my life is. I believe we are arguing from two different premises; I believe each individual life has a purpose. I did not say that I believed that each individual life is responsible for deciding said purpose and pursuing it...
That is because you have a very narrow viewpoint and no imagination.
Hm. I refer you to the "troll" comments that were made earlier. ;) Inferring the narrow would seem somewhat dubious, but I'm pretty sure you can't infer the status of my imagination.
I think we are arguing from different terms, though. You appear to refer to "goals" as something individuals' set for themselves, and when you use the term "meaning," you are referring to it subjectively; that is, meaning is what you derive from something. Is that correct?
As for advocating termination of life, perhaps my original question was badly worded. In fact, reading back on it, it was. It was not in my original thinking and the context I was thinking in, but that clearly did not get across.
So what do you want to see happen? More regulation of advertising? That comes with it's own set of drawbacks and some people (myself among them) don't think it's the job of Government to teach caveat emptor.
That I don't know, heh. :)
I think most people still use it though. Unfortunately, sure, but that seems to be the case.
Yes, you are trolling. He didn't say "useless", you did.
Then he can counter and explain why it is useful.
To me, if there is no end goal to your life, or to life, then I would say ... life is useless, in the typical way we understand the term (i.e., it's "useless" to do this or that because it doesn't accomplish anything worthwhile). Perhaps it was too big of a logical jump and I chose the wrong word.
Very often the process is more important than the result. Sometimes it is the only important part.
The process is only important because of the result that comes out of the process, as opposed to the actual goal of the process. However, if my life has no actual goal, then I don't see what it matters what process I take to get to a non-goal.
If you and I are playing a game and there is no way to win or lose, what's the point? We may, I don't know, grow somehow, but then we die and it's over. There's no end-goal, and thus, I don't think there's really any meaning to it... and I would call it useless.
Apparently, you disagree with what you and I mean about "meaning," so I'd be interested in how you'd define the meaning ... of life.
Hm. Discussing the meaning of life on slashdot. hehe.
I'm confused, who said men are ok with rape?
Well, obviously, some are. Or it wouldn't happen. I didn't mean men in general, I meant specific men in that case. My fault there, that was unclear. Point was: something in their thinking, something in the way they viewed women, led to their decision to rape one.
I would posit that the vast majority of people are able to differentiate between porn and the real world.
I disagree. Example: what makes a woman beautiful? Most guys seem to have very clear ideas about this, and I don't think it comes from the "real world." I think it comes from porn, from advertisements, and clothing manufacturers. Or: most girls seem to have a very clear idea about what they need to do to be attractive/attract men.
One might argue that porn/adverts/clothing just mimics what people really think. I think that could be a valid argument. One might also argue that porn/adverts/clothing significantly influence the way people think, and it doesn't really make sense.
Food example: Coke. Is Coke good for you? I haven't read a study that said you can substitute coke for water and be just fine. And yet, from the advertisements and the way most kids live, you would think so. Certain aspects of society are teaching young people that soda is basically a valid substitute for water. And most people don't appear to differentiate between an advertisement and what is really true.
I would argue that everyday TV advertisements, the entertainment and fashion industries do more to objectify woman than porn does.
Errr, I would argue that a lot of "entertainment" qualifies as porn... but ok, if you want to separate it that way, then I'd agree. However, I'd suggest you include "internet advertisements" along with TV advertisements...
I watched my sister try to starve herself to death growing up so she could look like the women on TV. None of the women she was attempting to emulate were in a pornographic production.
That's exactly what I am talking about, only a different matter. The issue is what image and thinking society is "teaching." IMO, porn ... and porn-related things ("sex" in advertising, entertainment, the internet, etc) is a contributor to how society is "teaching" young men to think about women, just as the "women on TV" were "teaching" your sister how she had to look in order to be beautiful/attractive/pretty/whatever. One was directly degrading to women (your sister). One is indirectly degrading to women: the way men think about them.
From a biological standpoint that is the end goal of life. Human beings are one of the few animals with the higher brain functions required to set other goals for themselves but the drive to reproduce is still there.
Certainly the drive to reproduce is still there. But this is arguing that, biologically, sex is for reproduction. That was the "stupid Puritans" comment that started this whole thing, that Puritans(/"bible belt morons" :) ) think that sex is for reproduction purposes and not for pleasure.
Interestingly enough, Biblically, that's not even true. If one looks at the creation account in Genesis, one finds that a man and a woman were created to enjoy life together because God knew that it wasn't good for the man to be alone. In other words: the male-female relationship was actually for companionship. Not just reproduction. And in the account, Adam seemed to realize this.
And before I get called chauvinist or male superiority-ist, it's interesting to note that the woman was not created to be a servant, but created to complete ... i.e., the man was incomplete without the woman. And conversely
while not the end goal (I don't think there is one)
This is not directly related to the conversation... but simply because you stated this, I am interested in hearing more about your view of life. I don't get the chance to ask someone who openly states what you stated :) If there is no end goal of life, then is there anything really wrong if I kill you? Most would say it violates some rights of yours... so my question is - if your life is, basically, useless, then why is it wrong for someone else to end it?
I'm not just trolling, I'm seriously interested in hearing your opinion on it. I have never understood why a worldview that holds no purpose to living can hold to "murder" being wrong or in any way unfair... it's not unfair for a lion to kill his prey, so I've always been confused why it's unfair for a human to kill another human.
But I don't try and stop churches from being easily identifiable as churches, and I don't want to try and ban people from believing in their magic stories.
And if your society consistently pressured you into thinking there is something wrong with you if you don't go to church... not church-goers, but society, businesses, etc...? Would you have a problem there?
My argument is that society pushes this view of women while remaining shocked at people who hold the view and act on it. I see that as a contradiction.
If society pushed you to go to church and then was shocked when you did, I'd agree with your analogy. As it is, you probably do not feel pushed to go to church (except perhaps by any friends of yours that go to church), and society does not look shocked when you do.
Sex is the end-goal of life.
Therein lies our dispute; all other arguments fall back this, and since we hold different ideas here, all other argumentation is likely futile.
Denial?
If "improper outside of marriage" is denial, then sure. But that's my opinion, and not what I was arguing for in this case.
If "denial" means "saying that women should be respected for more than the fact that men can have sex with them," then sure.
And I did not claim to be "enlightened" anymore than you would claim to be "enlightened" if you thought you knew the answer to something that someone else didn't, like say, how to remove a virus from someone's computer. Believing yourself to be correct and someone else to be wrong does not equate to some sort of gnosticism.
I am just curious why people like you consider sex to be degrading to women but not to men,
You misunderstood me. Being considered a toy for men to have sexual pleasure with, and little more, is degrading. It seems that the typical image of women that society has today is completely related to sex. "Sex sells."
It IS degrading to men, in that it assumes that that is all men can think about. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that particular degradation is very untrue.
I am not trying to "protect" women from themselves. I'm arguing that as a society, we should not push women towards thinking of themselves in the same way that rapists think of them, and then wonder why rapists do what they do. Every time someone is raped, we call it degrading, we say that the rapist has such a horrid view of women; and yet it seems that as a society, that view of women is pushed. Women are there for sexual pleasure of men.
I'm not arguing for "no sex." Personally, as I said, I have some pretty conservative and religiously-based ideas about where it is proper, but I'm not pushing for that, either. I'm arguing that encouraging women to think of themselves in the same way a rapist thinks of them - an object for sexual pleasure for men - is not a good thing. And it seems that I am not alone in this, as it seems to me that a whole lot of studies have been conducted that show that women tend to be much less driven by "physical love" than men.
Here is a question: would you be ok with society pushing blacks into thinking of themselves as slaves while at the same time, being shocked at the attitude of whites who forced blacks into slavery? Probably not, most people would see a contradiction there. In the same way, pushing girls/women into thinking of themselves as sex objects while being shocked at the attitude of men towards women (e.g., rapists) is contradictory.
I sense a counter-argument: slavery is different, that's a degrading view in and of itself. I would argue that being thought of as an object for sex is a degrading view in and of itself in a very similar way. However, if you are coming from a worldview where we are just animals like any other animal, then your view does have consistency, because reproduction is basically the only "point." On the other hand, slavery should not be degrading then, since we're all just animals following our animalistic instinct, and I don't see any reason why I shouldn't conquer a neighboring tribe and subject them so I can reproduce better...
(this is a really big issue, once you get into worldviews! hehe.)
Unless they were forced into such a production, what's the problem here? If a consenting adult makes a choice to become a sex object I don't see why it's any of our business.
I think the issue here is not whether or not an adult consents... the issue is - were they pressured, socially, to consent?
I think we can all pretty much agree rape is bad, right? Rape degrades women. Why are men okay with it? IMO, because of the way they view women. If you really respect women, you're not going to rape them.
Just because a "consenting adult makes a choice" doesn't necessarily mean we should encourage said behavior. After all, consenting adults *all the time* consent to eating fast food, soft drinks, sugar, etc... and yet, we are growingly concerned with obesity. But why should we care? It's not any of our business. In general, I actually agree with that; but when the behavior starts to be encouraged or when companies go too far? Say... false advertising? Then people begin to take issue with it.
Really, it will come down to what society thinks is best for itself, since this is a democracy after all. I have my opinion, and you have yours. I am of the opinion that a society where women are seen as sex objects is a degrading society, in the same way that a society that sees blacks as slave-objects is a degrading society. I know, slavery was probably forced... of course, it seems to me that society is putting significant pressure on girls to think of themselves as sex objects. I'm not sure how much of a conscious "choice" it is.
Reproduction is the end-goal of all life on this blue marble.
Well, we disagree significantly there. If that IS the end-goal, then your view is, IMO, quite consistent. I appreciate the consistency. I believe mine is consistent, too... but we appear to be arguing from quite different basic premises.
Stop treating women like sex objects.
Incidentally, your basic argument, on the "bible belt moron" side is one that I have never, ever heard in my life. And I am someone who considers sex to be something that should be in marriage, and someone who thinks that the porn industry is immoral and highly degrading; first degrading to women, who are turned into sex objects simply to be used for pleasure, and secondly degrading to society, who turn sex into the end-goal of life.
Steve is right that it's better for most users that the games get made for the device instead of trying to rejigger the interface.
"Made for the device" == "downloaded from the app store."
Allowing Flash on the iPhone isn't going to suddenly mean that everyone is forced to play games not written for the iPhone. I am very certain that Flash developers, as crazy as it may sound, might rewrite their games so it works well with the iPhone interface. Sorta like how there are entire mobile versions of websites. I guess if Steve Jobs had the iPhone a few years ago when mobile versions of sites weren't prevalent, he would have argued against having a browser on the phone - after all, I don't see how it would work well with the small screen!
To me, this is either very short-sighted (giving devs another platform isn't going to make them NOT develop iPhone-pointed games! keyboard and mouse expectations can't be translated, he's right, so if I were a developer, I'd write a new one so I could make more $$$ ... I thought that's what developers do?) or he has some other motive.
Obsolete?
disused: no longer in use; "obsolete words"
Really? Flash is obsolete?
I think you mean it COULD be obsolete, and something would fill the gap. But most products are that way. Apple could be obsolete, and something would fill the gap, too.
Because, as others have noted, that's just not fair. Students shouldn't HAVE to know things to get a grade, they should just be required to try. It's not fair to people who can't learn as well to get a lower grade just because they couldn't learn as well.
That was sarcastic, just in case someone couldn't tell.
Perhaps another reason is the college is trying to weed out the "go-to-school-on-parents'-bill-and-party-then-flunk" ... not that I think RFID/attendance will actually do that, but it could be that's the goal. Probably not, but it could be ;)
It depends how you use the term conservative. Most libertarians that I know would be considered radical right-wingers though. Common perception appears to be that anyone who thinks you should be allowed to carry a gun around is a radical right-winger, whether or not that is the case. And probably thinks Rush Limbaugh/Glen Beck can never be wrong. And cannot possibly be really educated. Not REALLY educated, anyways.
But then, I think the "common" liberal (whatever party affiliation) and the "common" conservative (whatever party affiliation) tend to be about equal in terms of ignorance and ... argumentation style.
Could be. I didn't follow it too closely. Now I'm going to have to look it up *sigh* ;)
Sorry. Another strange thing about Americans: they sometimes lump Britain into Europe. ;)
Regarding "what they are doing there, is working" -- yes, it is working very well ... especially for Greece, Portugal, and Spain?
Right-wingers love it or leave it... hm.
I think it's the right-wingers that are usually on the less-government-involvement side of things.
Not sure why it seems right-wingers tend to defend privacy-intrusion though, which does give you some amount of defense of your statement... however, assuming right-wing is pro-gov't-knowing-all-about-you and left-wing is anti-gov't-knowing-all-about-you seems to be quite opposite of what tends to be the case.
Why do that? It seems the growing concept of "progress" in the US is to do what Europe does. It doesn't really matter if it works or not.
I am exaggerating, yes, but it really does seem to be a trend in US politics at the moment. We need to do this or that because Europe is doing it, and thus it is "progressive," and we certainly don't want to fall behind our European counterparts!
It appears to be slashdotted. Service Unavailable. I guess the web administrator is in the jungle gym...
I thought TomTom started that patent infringement thing, and Microsoft responded to them by counter-filing?
Actually, I was mostly joking with that phrase, just because it's pulled out of the hat so often as a trite "ha, you're wrong because correlation != causation!" ...
Yes. I knew what I was doing. My point is that Apple has not gone away from the dark side. They appeared to realize they had better offer DRM-free music or people would start getting REALLY upset; yet they still want to make money off their previous DRM'd music. In other words, they don't think DRM'd music is "wrong" suddenly; they just are going with the popular opinion/popular desire. And try to make money off the shift while they're at it.
My point? Just because Apple now sells DRM-free music doesn't mean Apple is anti-DRM.