I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd like to highlight that there is a second side to your coin. In other countries, it makes more economic sense to automate the manufacturing process so a larger percentage of the profit is converted to profit for those employees that remain, while those who would have done the inefficient manual assembly become unemployment statistics.

Somewhere in between your statement and mine likely lies an ideal.

Not even when he was only a Commander.

Android 4.anything will do just fine. What makes this almost a joke device is the screen resolution of NotEnough x NotEnough. Seriously... 1024x768 was a reasonable desktop resolution fifteen to twenty years ago. 600 vertical pixels in 2014 is an unforgivable sin unless you're putting them on a watch or a contact lens or the head of a pin or something else uselessly small to start with.

If you want to include the word "should", then apply it where it belongs. When you take your clothes off in front of a camera, there should not be consequences beyond your partner being aroused. That the woman in the article has to worry about her "reputation" is what is wrong. Personally the only way her having taken nude pictures impacts my view of her is that I now know she's a fun-loving person comfortable being attractive and sexual. She's not ashamed or repressed or otherwise convinced that the animal she is is somehow a bad thing.

There shouldn't be a big deal over being seen naked.

I get it that we're not there societally yet. I get it that because we're not there, there are consequences. But if we're going to talk about "should", let's put it where it belongs; we all should be comfortable in our natural state. That someone posts a picture of the shape of your butt shouldn't matter any more than someone posting a sound sample of your voice or a molding of your elbow.

Sorry, but as a non-American I have to admit I find that date format the most comfortable. Things are likely different globally, but here people tend to say "May 10th, 2014" much more often than "the 10th of May, 2014". Adding two bonus words so you can satisfy some "most granular to least granular" fetish doesn't fit.

For instance, the catastrophe that happened in the US over a decade ago is called "September 11th", not "the 11th of September".

Frankly I'd be okay with a compromise... 10(5)14 is May 10th, 2014 or the 10th of May, 2014. But as long as everyone insists on using commas, DMY will never have my vote.

I generally dislike the meme, but I mis-read this as The MILFOS Project.

I agree. This is a moment where marketing-speak masks the truth. The word they're using - demand - isn't appropriate. There was never and demand for Blu-Ray. What did exist to some degree was willingness to buy. These are not the same thing.

Demand stems from a need to strong desire. "If only someone would make a platter with higher resolution and more intrusive DRM, I'd give my left nut." That's demand. On the other hand, "I heard about this new gizmo with 1080p and intrusive DRM, and it turns out I've got money burning a hole in my pocket so I'm going to go get me one!" That's willingness-to-buy.

Turns out that to a certain degree other products are what there is demand for. Things like streaming video. Now that the products that are in demand actually exist, it turns out willingness-to-buy BluRay is shrinking.

Go figure.

People keep suggesting things like this.

Sony puts a rootkit on a CD? Boycott. Apple tells you you're holding your iPhone wrong? Boycott.

Problem is it's nonsense. A boycott is the fiscal equivalence of silence. Your favorite restaurant changes the way they make ? Boycott is the equivalent of "go somewhere else." Well, that sucks. How about "tell the manager/owner you don't like the new recipe"? Try communicating that you're unhappy and why with them. Otherwise your absence means nothing. It's statistically lost in seasonal variance, for instance.

So, for this, send a letter to the company explaining your problem. Send them a "do not like" letter, basically. Boycott alone is meaningless.

No, no, you missed it... a homeless guy makes a dubious claim. Seriously, a guy who has been homeless for six years is the basis for this thing, with him concluding that technology is desensitizing non-homeless.

It's an even bigger chunk of turd than you thought. This guy isn't a long-time homeless person who might plausibly be able to compare today to the golden yesteryear of homelessness. He doesn't provide anything even resembling evidence, just "you know, e-mail makes people lose their empathy".

I call bullshit. Being homeless makes you notice that people are today - and always have been - insensitive to the plight of the homeless, on average. This dude just never noticed how homeless are treated six years ago when he had a mother, a wife, a house, and a rip-roaring drug habit.

Just because that's an interesting assertion, I'd be interested in the required citation.

Nobody lynched him. He spoke, he was told that what he said was shitty, he quit his job because he recognized saying shitty things was going to hurt his employer. Free speech happened.

Because there are serious legal situations that surround marital status.

Because when my wife isn't entitled to my health care benefits because we don't have a kid, it's your fault. Because when my wife isn't permitted the same power-of-attorney benefits when I am ill, infirm, and/or dead, it's your fault. Because when my wife isn't allowed to visit me in a hospital situation that permits "only family", it's your fault.

Don't you get it that impinging on these sort of "benefits" makes you a bad person?

This world is not wanting for more human beings. By not adding to the human burden on the planet we are actually being responsible. But you'll happily treat us as lesser people because we don't have the same biological imperative that you do. Did I mention bad person? Personally I can't see how a hetero couple that doesn't/can't have kids is somehow lesser than someone who knocks up his wife so she can birth a kid they can raise as yet another bigot.

I don't have a horse in the gay/straight race, being hetero, but I sure as heck can tell right from wrong.

If.

What a huge prideful assumption. That life has purpose at all is a huge assumption. Life has behavioral traits... that's it. We are no more Von Neumann sludge than we are amoeba. I'm sure you've disregarded sterile human beings as non-life all along, yes? And you've disregarded humans who simply choose to not have children as non-life, yes? I'm sure you're busy lobbying for laws that make it mandatory for every human female to be pregnant as often as is possible to guarantee healthy offspring for her entire fertile life, then be euthanized, yes? And every male needs to prove that he's impregnated a female every nine months or be persecuted and eventually terminated, yes?

Purpose. There is no purpose. Life - on average - breeds. That doesn't mean every instance of every living species must do so or even should do so. It doesn't even imply it.

Bullshit. Political correctness is referring to a gay man as "a person of alternate sexual proclivities". Political correctness is passing policies that mandate one fourth of your female workforce must be lesbians because one in four women have had a girl-girl experience.

This is a man who took a high-profile job and was outed as a bigot. A man who thinks that it's worth paying money to impose his opinions one where someone else sticks their dick. A man who doesn't believe that gay people are people. That's not rhetoric, that's the way it is. Being against gay marriage is almost always on the grounds that "marriage is a sacred bond between man and woman", directly indicating that any other coupling is wrong and bad, and that those who engage in such practices should be penalized by being denied the same rights hetero-married enjoy.

Modern, enlightened society caught up with this guy when he took a job with visibility. Sorry, but him and his cro-magnan-thinker buddies just aren't right for this kind of a job because they taint the brand they represent.

You don't understand... it is not expected, required, or desired that you know the law. It is expected, required, and desired that you pay a lawyer to do so for you. Yes, for everything you do.

Mine says it's okay for me to hit Submit so here goes...