The problem is not that these extra features are missing. The problem is that the hardware/software was specifically designed to prevent anyone from modifying it to include these features.
Using your example, I think a Model T would be considered "defective by design" if it were designed to prevent people from installing seat belts themselves.
The 360's DRM is very well-designed and not at all intrusive.
I disagree. The hardware could be used as a very good, inexpensive general purpose computer. And why shouldn't this be possible? After all, I paid for it. However, DRM inside the CPU prevents the console from running anything but the Xbox 360's OS. I once looked into booting Linux on it, but it turns out it is only possible to do this using a combination of a bug in a specific version of the Xbox 360's OS and a bug in the King Kong game, among other things. If your Xbox 360 came with a later version of the OS, there is no way to downgrade it. So the DRM effectively makes it illegal to use the Xbox 360 as a general purpose computer (thank you DMCA) and impossible to do this unless you can find an older Xbox 360 that has not downloaded any of the updates.
A girl tried this on my buddy while waiting in line for the bathroom at a bar. She started flirting and then asked if she could cut in line. He asked why he should let her cut. She lifted her shirt, showed her "boobies" to him and everyone else in line, and kissed him. Then he said, "Ok, you can cut behind me." No one complained.
You are selecting data to suit your agenda by saying that "hostile foreign governments" prefer Obama when, in reality, almost all polled countries prefer Obama. And a higher percentage of people prefer Obama in countries which are America's NATO allies than in countries from your list.
I'm not sure what you're asking in your first question. The details are in the linked articles, so you can find your answer there.
Wow, way to select only the data that fits with your agenda. Actually, a BBC poll found that all 22 countries polled prefer Obama. And a Gallup poll found that only 4 of the 70 countries polled prefer McCain: Georgia, Cambodia, Laos and the Philippines. And then there is this:
The countries most optimistic that an Obama presidency would improve relations [with the world] are America's NATO allies - Canada (69%), France (62%), Germany (61%), United Kingdom (54%), Italy (64%) - as well as Australia (62%) and the African countries Kenya (87%) and Nigeria (71%).
Why should I buy a game if there isn't the slightest guarantee it'll work?
Because a lot of money was spent building the core of that game. Just because it takes some tweaks to get it working on your desired platform does not mean that you deserve to have the entire thing for free.
I think the GP's analogy was pretty good.
Stealing the car's design and using that to build a modified version of the car that can ride on rails is more like stealing the software's source code and modifying it to run on the desired platform.
Now, if you want to buy the car and modify it to ride on rails, that is fine. In my opinion, the same should be possible for software: buy a copy, reverse engineer and modify it to your liking. Unfortunately, this isn't legal in America.
I agree. I have been using Java for a while now and have always found the information I needed at java.sun.com. Just about anything you could want to know about Java can be found in the reference section. The API section has all of the classes listed alphabetically for the more recent versions of Java with a fairly detailed description of each class and its methods.
If you have to clarify an ad, you've already lost.
Not necessarily. If the ad makes enough people think about it enough to want clarification, then the ad may have served its purpose.
Re:More than scientific learning
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 1
My only question is, when the smoke clears and we're all fine, will the doomsayers ever learn for the next time? Probably not. I'm sure next time they'll say
"this time, its different, the world is really going to end this time".
Hold on there, turbo. The doomsayers haven't been proven wrong yet. There were no collisions today.
At first glance, I was thinking along these lines as well. Is this really a good idea? Adding more water vapor into the atmosphere has the potential to do more harm than good:
Current state-of-the-art climate models predict that increasing water vapor concentrations in warmer air will amplify the greenhouse effect created by anthropogenic greenhouse gases while maintaining nearly constant relative humidity. Thus water vapor acts as a positive feedback to the forcing provided by greenhouse gases such as CO2.
However, as noted in the article, water vapor in the form of clouds has an overall cooling effect.
Clouds are a key component of the Earthâ(TM)s climate system. They can both heat the planet by trapping the longer-wavelength radiation given off from the Earthâ(TM)s surface and cool it by reflecting incoming shorter wavelength radiation back into space. The greater weight of the second mechanism means that, on balance, clouds have a cooling effect.
If enough of the water vapor generated by these ships spreads out in the atmosphere rather than creating or adding to cloud formations, this process could actually accelerate the rate of global warming. Fortunately, Latham's group realizes that more research is needed before this process is considered for use.
However, he adds more research must be done to find out a number of unknowns â" such as exactly what fraction of spray droplets will reach the clouds â" and to establish that the technique would not create any harmful climatic side effects.
what do people find so difficult about C++? Use the standard libraries, exception handling, and make sure your news all have deletes...
The standard C++ libraries pale in comparison to the standard Java libraries in terms of ease of use. And making sure all of those news/mallocs have deletes/frees is not always as easy as it sounds. The GP is right. More complex designs are easier to implement in Java, with the speed-sensitive parts coded in C/C++.
There are plenty of countries that still have little to no regulation. Why not move to one?
Definitely not a place I would want to live. Most are considered third world countries where people struggle just to survive from day to day. But hey, if you think that would be a fun way to live, I say go for it. To each his own.
I owned a Tivo before my cable provider, Cox, began offering their On Demand service. After this, I switched to their boxes. This service only works with their boxes so I didn't really have a choice. In my opinion, the quality of their boxes pales in comparison to my old Tivo. The response time (between pressing the button and seeing the result) is terrible and the fast forward and rewind jumps all over the place. I would love to buy a Tivo-made replacement for this box (the extra cost is worth it in my opinion), but I am locked into the boxes offered by Cox.
I hope that this suit forces cable providers to allow other companies to compete with their set-top boxes. Otherwise, they have no incentive to improve the quality of their boxes.
Be happy if they're not making you work 60 hour weeks for no extra pay.
No, don't be happy just because they don't make you work "too much" overtime. Be angry that they ask you to work any unpaid overtime. Tell them you will no longer work extra hours without compensation. Or just leave. Managers who treat their employees this way deserve to lose their best talent to the competition.
My boss once asked our team to work unpaid overtime (very sheepishly too, it was easy to tell he was pressured by upper management to do this). He never actually referred to it as "unpaid overtime", he danced around that term as best he could. He mostly just asked everyone to "be a team player" while there was no budget for overtime pay but we were scheduled to work about 2 extra hours per day and on weekends for two weeks. I recorded exactly how much time I worked and, fortunately, was paid for it. If not, I would have left the program and would have strongly considered suing for overtime pay. Sure I was classified as exempt, but I'm almost positive that it was not a legal classification at the time.
I agree. After all, we already allow sports in which the athletes have a very good chance of receiving permanent injuries (ultimate fighting, boxing, American football, etc.). It seems like a league that allows performance enhancing drugs would fall under the same category.
So, by giving them the right to attack us militarily, you gave them carte blanche to attack both military, industrial and civilian targets in the US.
No, their opinion that attacking civilian targets in a time of war is morally right is what gave them that right. In my opinion, it is morally wrong.
I have not, I have never said that they are obliged to attack US citizens, only that they have the right to do so, a right granted to them by you. They should defend their country against a foreign invader.
I did not grant them the right to attack all US citizens. In fact, I argued against attacking US civilians. You argued that it is everyone's duty to fight an invading force. The moment anyone enters the fight, they become a military target. Therefore, you have argued that the invading force is obliged to attack all US citizens.
if I am an Afghan and I don't like my government, it is OK for me to collaborate with an invader of my country, in this case the US.
Yes, it is morally right for you to collaborate with the invader assuming your reasons for disliking your government are morally right.
So, if I was a red in the 1970s, and I hated the Nixon government, it would be OK if I collaborated with the Soviets when they invaded?
It would be OK only if you could show that your support of the Soviets was morally right, i.e. the actions of the Soviets were morally right relative to the actions of the Nixon government. I think you would have a hard time making that case.
That is also an accepted, but slightly frowned upon, part of warfare.
This doesn't make it right. An action is not morally right simply because it is common practice.
You just made it perfectly OK for any US citizen in the 1970s to collaborate with the Soviets during an invasion of the US.
No, I didn't. See above.
To collaborate with a foreign invading power to overthrow your government, whether that government is moral or amoral is treason.
Agreed, but not sure why you chose to define "treason" here.
In all of these instances you have now given any US citizen the right to collaborate with our enemies if they tried to invade us.
No, I didn't. See above.
Even the people who tried to kill good old Adolph back in the day were committing treason. For a good cause, but treason all the same.
Exactly. A great example in which treason is morally right.
So, going by your logic, if I can find a government with higher moral standards than the current US government, it is OK for me to collaborate with this government as it is invading the US, bombing Washington and blasting it's way through New York?
If the US attacked that country, yes. However, I seriously doubt the US would initiate a conflict with any country with even mediocre moral standards.
So, if Mexico invades Texas tomorrow, you will not support the US government, but you think it is OK to support the Mexican troops.
I'm not sure how, logically, you came to that conclusion, but you are wrong. In that case, I would choose to support the US. I believe that the US government has much higher moral standards than the Mexican government. Besides, the Mexican government has done nothing to declare its desire to see the US government removed from power and has done nothing diplomatically to attempt to remove the US government from power. The very act of invading without attempting to resolve their differences diplomatically puts anyone very low on the moral standards scale.
Thinking that the US is different, particularly considering our history, is exceptionally delusional.
You're right, the US has targeted civilians. My statement that they do not target c
they themselves were not the actual mass murderers.
I never said they were. Does the fact that they supported a group of mass murderers make their actions any less reprehensible?
And yes, it is you moral obligation to defend your country from an invading force, no matter what kind of government you have.
Say your government was responsible for knowingly targeting and killing millions of civilians. Say you wanted to remove that government from power, but no group within your country was able to do so. Say another country finally got tired of seeing its citizens murdered at the hands of your government, and decided to forcefully remove your government from power. I certainly hope you wouldn't feel morally obligated to fight against the invading country's forces.
you just gave every single muslim and catholic country in the world the right to attack the US and US citizens
I can see where one could argue that this gives these people the right to attack the US government. But how in the world does it give anyone the right to attack all US citizens? I think you're still stuck in this idea that all citizens are morally obligated to defend their government, regardless of whether that government's actions are morally right.
You also morally gave any US citizen who assist in future terrorist attacks on US soil a "get out of jail" card
No, I didn't. In the past, most terrorist attacks have targeted civilians in an attempt to spread fear throughout the general population. What I said does not give anyone the right to target civilians.
You can agree or disagree with the government, but it is still your government, and you handle that however regime change is handled in your country. On the ballot or at the point of a sword.
Exactly. And if you recognize that the actions of your government are morally wrong and that it is time to remove that government from power, then you are morally obligated to do so. On the ballot preferably, at the point of a sword as a last resort. If your government chooses to support those who attack another country (as the Taliban supported Al Qaeda's attack on the US), then you must realize that the time for diplomacy is over. It then becomes time to decide which side is morally right, and fight for that side. Fighting for the side that is morally wrong (in this case, the Taliban) is morally wrong, even if it is your government.
When a foreign power invades, then you band together with your national foes though and you fight the foreign invader.
Please... I already explained why this is wrong. I'll try to simplify it for you. If your government's actions are morally wrong, then supporting that government (including fighting foreign invaders) is morally wrong.
From their point of view any government since Roe v. Wade and the re-introduction of the death penalty justifies regime change in the US, and you just gave them the right to do so forcefully.
No, I didn't. I never said it is always morally right to forcefully remove a government. I only said that it is morally wrong to defend a government whose actions are morally wrong.
Would you say that a US citizen who assisted Al Quaeda in killing Americans could use the "but we are killing thousands of children" defense?
No. The US military does not knowingly target civilians. Al Qaeda does.
it is every Afghan man and woman's right, and moral duty, to fight the invader though
Bzzzt! Wrong! If your country were ruled by a government that supports the mass murder of thousands of civilians, would you consider it your moral duty to fight anyone who attempts to forcefully remove that government? I sure hope not. Otherwise you are either outrageously ignorant, stupid or both.
I'm not saying that it is right to torture anyone. It isn't. But your argument that these people were morally obligated to defend a government that supports the murder of civilians is way, way off.
Personally, I prefer having my own vehicle over public transportation. I would rather have ample place to park my own car than be forced to use public transportation simply because it is too difficult to find parking. In my opinion, your area needs more parking rather than better public transportation.
The OP notes many advantages that private vehicles have over public transportation. I don't see how many of these demands could ever be met with public transportation.
Unfortunately, that's how American society views sex vs. violence. Look at TV content ratings. I see all kinds of gruesome violence on shows with a TV-14 rating. But show one woman's nipple (not even in a sexual situation) and the show is almost always rated TV-MA. Show it in a sexual situation and it's a guaranteed TV-MA.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is not that these extra features are missing. The problem is that the hardware/software was specifically designed to prevent anyone from modifying it to include these features.
Using your example, I think a Model T would be considered "defective by design" if it were designed to prevent people from installing seat belts themselves.
The 360's DRM is very well-designed and not at all intrusive.
I disagree. The hardware could be used as a very good, inexpensive general purpose computer. And why shouldn't this be possible? After all, I paid for it. However, DRM inside the CPU prevents the console from running anything but the Xbox 360's OS. I once looked into booting Linux on it, but it turns out it is only possible to do this using a combination of a bug in a specific version of the Xbox 360's OS and a bug in the King Kong game, among other things. If your Xbox 360 came with a later version of the OS, there is no way to downgrade it. So the DRM effectively makes it illegal to use the Xbox 360 as a general purpose computer (thank you DMCA) and impossible to do this unless you can find an older Xbox 360 that has not downloaded any of the updates.
A girl tried this on my buddy while waiting in line for the bathroom at a bar. She started flirting and then asked if she could cut in line. He asked why he should let her cut. She lifted her shirt, showed her "boobies" to him and everyone else in line, and kissed him. Then he said, "Ok, you can cut behind me." No one complained.
So yeah, boobies help.
You are selecting data to suit your agenda by saying that "hostile foreign governments" prefer Obama when, in reality, almost all polled countries prefer Obama. And a higher percentage of people prefer Obama in countries which are America's NATO allies than in countries from your list.
I'm not sure what you're asking in your first question. The details are in the linked articles, so you can find your answer there.
Wow, way to select only the data that fits with your agenda. Actually, a BBC poll found that all 22 countries polled prefer Obama. And a Gallup poll found that only 4 of the 70 countries polled prefer McCain: Georgia, Cambodia, Laos and the Philippines. And then there is this:
The countries most optimistic that an Obama presidency would improve relations [with the world] are America's NATO allies - Canada (69%), France (62%), Germany (61%), United Kingdom (54%), Italy (64%) - as well as Australia (62%) and the African countries Kenya (87%) and Nigeria (71%).
Sorry, I accidentally clicked "Overrated" instead of "Underrated." Posting to undo moderation.
Why should I buy a game if there isn't the slightest guarantee it'll work?
Because a lot of money was spent building the core of that game. Just because it takes some tweaks to get it working on your desired platform does not mean that you deserve to have the entire thing for free.
I think the GP's analogy was pretty good. Stealing the car's design and using that to build a modified version of the car that can ride on rails is more like stealing the software's source code and modifying it to run on the desired platform. Now, if you want to buy the car and modify it to ride on rails, that is fine. In my opinion, the same should be possible for software: buy a copy, reverse engineer and modify it to your liking. Unfortunately, this isn't legal in America.
Many of the brightest, most accomplished people in history made little to no money from their achievements. Worse, some were even persecuted for them.
I agree. I have been using Java for a while now and have always found the information I needed at java.sun.com. Just about anything you could want to know about Java can be found in the reference section. The API section has all of the classes listed alphabetically for the more recent versions of Java with a fairly detailed description of each class and its methods.
If you have to clarify an ad, you've already lost.
Not necessarily. If the ad makes enough people think about it enough to want clarification, then the ad may have served its purpose.
My only question is, when the smoke clears and we're all fine, will the doomsayers ever learn for the next time? Probably not. I'm sure next time they'll say "this time, its different, the world is really going to end this time".
Hold on there, turbo. The doomsayers haven't been proven wrong yet. There were no collisions today.
At first glance, I was thinking along these lines as well. Is this really a good idea? Adding more water vapor into the atmosphere has the potential to do more harm than good:
Current state-of-the-art climate models predict that increasing water vapor concentrations in warmer air will amplify the greenhouse effect created by anthropogenic greenhouse gases while maintaining nearly constant relative humidity. Thus water vapor acts as a positive feedback to the forcing provided by greenhouse gases such as CO2.
However, as noted in the article, water vapor in the form of clouds has an overall cooling effect.
Clouds are a key component of the Earthâ(TM)s climate system. They can both heat the planet by trapping the longer-wavelength radiation given off from the Earthâ(TM)s surface and cool it by reflecting incoming shorter wavelength radiation back into space. The greater weight of the second mechanism means that, on balance, clouds have a cooling effect.
If enough of the water vapor generated by these ships spreads out in the atmosphere rather than creating or adding to cloud formations, this process could actually accelerate the rate of global warming. Fortunately, Latham's group realizes that more research is needed before this process is considered for use.
However, he adds more research must be done to find out a number of unknowns â" such as exactly what fraction of spray droplets will reach the clouds â" and to establish that the technique would not create any harmful climatic side effects.
what do people find so difficult about C++? Use the standard libraries, exception handling, and make sure your news all have deletes...
The standard C++ libraries pale in comparison to the standard Java libraries in terms of ease of use. And making sure all of those news/mallocs have deletes/frees is not always as easy as it sounds. The GP is right. More complex designs are easier to implement in Java, with the speed-sensitive parts coded in C/C++.
There are plenty of countries that still have little to no regulation. Why not move to one?
Definitely not a place I would want to live. Most are considered third world countries where people struggle just to survive from day to day. But hey, if you think that would be a fun way to live, I say go for it. To each his own.
I owned a Tivo before my cable provider, Cox, began offering their On Demand service. After this, I switched to their boxes. This service only works with their boxes so I didn't really have a choice. In my opinion, the quality of their boxes pales in comparison to my old Tivo. The response time (between pressing the button and seeing the result) is terrible and the fast forward and rewind jumps all over the place. I would love to buy a Tivo-made replacement for this box (the extra cost is worth it in my opinion), but I am locked into the boxes offered by Cox.
I hope that this suit forces cable providers to allow other companies to compete with their set-top boxes. Otherwise, they have no incentive to improve the quality of their boxes.
Be happy if they're not making you work 60 hour weeks for no extra pay.
No, don't be happy just because they don't make you work "too much" overtime. Be angry that they ask you to work any unpaid overtime. Tell them you will no longer work extra hours without compensation. Or just leave. Managers who treat their employees this way deserve to lose their best talent to the competition.
My boss once asked our team to work unpaid overtime (very sheepishly too, it was easy to tell he was pressured by upper management to do this). He never actually referred to it as "unpaid overtime", he danced around that term as best he could. He mostly just asked everyone to "be a team player" while there was no budget for overtime pay but we were scheduled to work about 2 extra hours per day and on weekends for two weeks. I recorded exactly how much time I worked and, fortunately, was paid for it. If not, I would have left the program and would have strongly considered suing for overtime pay. Sure I was classified as exempt, but I'm almost positive that it was not a legal classification at the time.
I agree. After all, we already allow sports in which the athletes have a very good chance of receiving permanent injuries (ultimate fighting, boxing, American football, etc.). It seems like a league that allows performance enhancing drugs would fall under the same category.
According to South Park, no.
So, by giving them the right to attack us militarily, you gave them carte blanche to attack both military, industrial and civilian targets in the US.
No, their opinion that attacking civilian targets in a time of war is morally right is what gave them that right. In my opinion, it is morally wrong.
I have not, I have never said that they are obliged to attack US citizens, only that they have the right to do so, a right granted to them by you. They should defend their country against a foreign invader.
I did not grant them the right to attack all US citizens. In fact, I argued against attacking US civilians. You argued that it is everyone's duty to fight an invading force. The moment anyone enters the fight, they become a military target. Therefore, you have argued that the invading force is obliged to attack all US citizens.
if I am an Afghan and I don't like my government, it is OK for me to collaborate with an invader of my country, in this case the US.
Yes, it is morally right for you to collaborate with the invader assuming your reasons for disliking your government are morally right.
So, if I was a red in the 1970s, and I hated the Nixon government, it would be OK if I collaborated with the Soviets when they invaded?
It would be OK only if you could show that your support of the Soviets was morally right, i.e. the actions of the Soviets were morally right relative to the actions of the Nixon government. I think you would have a hard time making that case.
That is also an accepted, but slightly frowned upon, part of warfare.
This doesn't make it right. An action is not morally right simply because it is common practice.
You just made it perfectly OK for any US citizen in the 1970s to collaborate with the Soviets during an invasion of the US.
No, I didn't. See above.
To collaborate with a foreign invading power to overthrow your government, whether that government is moral or amoral is treason.
Agreed, but not sure why you chose to define "treason" here.
In all of these instances you have now given any US citizen the right to collaborate with our enemies if they tried to invade us.
No, I didn't. See above.
Even the people who tried to kill good old Adolph back in the day were committing treason. For a good cause, but treason all the same.
Exactly. A great example in which treason is morally right.
So, going by your logic, if I can find a government with higher moral standards than the current US government, it is OK for me to collaborate with this government as it is invading the US, bombing Washington and blasting it's way through New York?
If the US attacked that country, yes. However, I seriously doubt the US would initiate a conflict with any country with even mediocre moral standards.
So, if Mexico invades Texas tomorrow, you will not support the US government, but you think it is OK to support the Mexican troops.
I'm not sure how, logically, you came to that conclusion, but you are wrong. In that case, I would choose to support the US. I believe that the US government has much higher moral standards than the Mexican government. Besides, the Mexican government has done nothing to declare its desire to see the US government removed from power and has done nothing diplomatically to attempt to remove the US government from power. The very act of invading without attempting to resolve their differences diplomatically puts anyone very low on the moral standards scale.
Thinking that the US is different, particularly considering our history, is exceptionally delusional.
You're right, the US has targeted civilians. My statement that they do not target c
they themselves were not the actual mass murderers.
I never said they were. Does the fact that they supported a group of mass murderers make their actions any less reprehensible?
And yes, it is you moral obligation to defend your country from an invading force, no matter what kind of government you have.
Say your government was responsible for knowingly targeting and killing millions of civilians. Say you wanted to remove that government from power, but no group within your country was able to do so. Say another country finally got tired of seeing its citizens murdered at the hands of your government, and decided to forcefully remove your government from power. I certainly hope you wouldn't feel morally obligated to fight against the invading country's forces.
you just gave every single muslim and catholic country in the world the right to attack the US and US citizens
I can see where one could argue that this gives these people the right to attack the US government. But how in the world does it give anyone the right to attack all US citizens? I think you're still stuck in this idea that all citizens are morally obligated to defend their government, regardless of whether that government's actions are morally right.
You also morally gave any US citizen who assist in future terrorist attacks on US soil a "get out of jail" card
No, I didn't. In the past, most terrorist attacks have targeted civilians in an attempt to spread fear throughout the general population. What I said does not give anyone the right to target civilians.
You can agree or disagree with the government, but it is still your government, and you handle that however regime change is handled in your country. On the ballot or at the point of a sword.
Exactly. And if you recognize that the actions of your government are morally wrong and that it is time to remove that government from power, then you are morally obligated to do so. On the ballot preferably, at the point of a sword as a last resort. If your government chooses to support those who attack another country (as the Taliban supported Al Qaeda's attack on the US), then you must realize that the time for diplomacy is over. It then becomes time to decide which side is morally right, and fight for that side. Fighting for the side that is morally wrong (in this case, the Taliban) is morally wrong, even if it is your government.
When a foreign power invades, then you band together with your national foes though and you fight the foreign invader.
Please... I already explained why this is wrong. I'll try to simplify it for you. If your government's actions are morally wrong, then supporting that government (including fighting foreign invaders) is morally wrong.
From their point of view any government since Roe v. Wade and the re-introduction of the death penalty justifies regime change in the US, and you just gave them the right to do so forcefully.
No, I didn't. I never said it is always morally right to forcefully remove a government. I only said that it is morally wrong to defend a government whose actions are morally wrong.
Would you say that a US citizen who assisted Al Quaeda in killing Americans could use the "but we are killing thousands of children" defense?
No. The US military does not knowingly target civilians. Al Qaeda does.
it is every Afghan man and woman's right, and moral duty, to fight the invader though
Bzzzt! Wrong! If your country were ruled by a government that supports the mass murder of thousands of civilians, would you consider it your moral duty to fight anyone who attempts to forcefully remove that government? I sure hope not. Otherwise you are either outrageously ignorant, stupid or both.
I'm not saying that it is right to torture anyone. It isn't. But your argument that these people were morally obligated to defend a government that supports the murder of civilians is way, way off.
Personally, I prefer having my own vehicle over public transportation. I would rather have ample place to park my own car than be forced to use public transportation simply because it is too difficult to find parking. In my opinion, your area needs more parking rather than better public transportation.
The OP notes many advantages that private vehicles have over public transportation. I don't see how many of these demands could ever be met with public transportation.
Unfortunately, that's how American society views sex vs. violence. Look at TV content ratings. I see all kinds of gruesome violence on shows with a TV-14 rating. But show one woman's nipple (not even in a sexual situation) and the show is almost always rated TV-MA. Show it in a sexual situation and it's a guaranteed TV-MA.