The article dismisses the significant difference between the auto industry and the computer industry: if your computer is a piece of crap, it's just some lost $. (ie the only thing lost is some money and perhaps time). If your car is badly made, it can quite easily kill you and your family in a host of interesting ways.

This means that buyer conservatism is high, and willingness to 'experiment' is extremely low.

You'll notice in similar industries where computer equipment is of comparable mission-critical role, they are likewise extremely slow to adopt "the next big thing" and nothing like the 'retail' electronics marketplace.

So no, the automotive industry won't behave anything like the retail electronics market. Not at all.

Oh stop.
To suggest that being dismissive of some wuss whinging about a MAD MAX movie contributing to the gynocracy somehow means that I would therefore not care about a son (or anyone) being falsely accused of rape is the sort of histrionics that one might have, 60 years ago, attributed to an overreacting woman.

I'm not saying that the militant feminism hasn't gone too far (it has, but I submit that's symptomatic of the overwhelming force of political correctness generally, actually). What I'm saying is:

I directly dispute our culture's determination that "anything the feminine way" is the "right" way and anything "the male way" is some sort of pathology that needs to be corrected ASAP.

Part of classical masculinity is, to me:
- if shit bothers you, you go fix it, you don't piss and moan over the fence to other people trying to gin up sympathy.
- lead by doing, not by "calling" for leadership
- there's nothing wrong with feeling emotions; there are places where displaying them is ridiculous or inappropriate
- be strong; understand some shit is trivial and not worth regarding. You give it power by whinging about it.
- understand that you are not a special snowflake
- you deserve only the respect you earn ...none of these are exemplified by men crying about the latest Mad Max film.

Your prodigious display of math is all for naught since you've essentially proved 1=2.

I grew up in the early 60's when sonic booms were part of the background along with Duck and Cover. Nuclear war was just around the corner, or so we thought, and jets routinely generated sonic booms. Sometimes they'd sound like distant thunder and other times they'd rattle the house. Those were far louder, and more objectionable, than your putative 10 mph breeze.

Thankfully, they tapered off towards the end of the 60's as the Air Force realized people *really* didn't like being rattled and those same people objected to Congress. Since the later controlled the budget, the Air Force cut back on high speed overflight over the cities.

Booms weren't just domestic issues. NOVA interviewed a British Consul who was sitting in a tent in the Middle East discussing trade issues with his Middle Eastern counterparts. The Concorde flies overhead and the resultant boom startled all the conferees. The Consul said one of the men pointed at the sky and said "Concorde." at which point the Consul realized another trade issue had just been raised.

Some of those booms were anything but quiet and they sure weren't FUD as you assert.

Let's let all that "content" that is solely ad-fueled die, and we'll see what's left?

See, because I think that's pure bullshit. No, let me amend that: it's bullshit for all the content that's worth seeing.

Because, see, anyone that SELLS anything is going to see the value in connecting to customers more easily and conveniently - ergo, those sites will pay for themselves.
All the hobby sites, where Billy & friends post their dungeons and dragons house rules, well, they'll still do it because they love it.

Media sites, like say popularmechanics.com, etc have the implicit 'trade' that is the same as their physical publication: enjoy our content, and we'll trade your viewership eyeballs for ad revenue. No problem there.

The bulk of the rest of sites "fueled by ads" are none of these. ehow? Fucking worthless. Ads shoveled to me on amazon? Ebay? BN.com? I'll block those, because I'm already paying them for a service in the price of the goods; if they can't support their mechanisms on that, then too bad, they die. (I suspect that they can, and ad-revenue is just another profit-mechanism.) Huffpost? Fuck off, I'd rather read my news from actual news organizations than some shitty aggregator reposting crap.

So no, I think the things that I "need" from the web already have payment mechanisms built into their models. The rest either are labors of love or can die, and I rather suspect we'll be better off.

Part of "being a man" is not being a whiny bitch.

Just sayin'.

Face it, politics of race are ephemeral and based more on the speaker's motivations of the moment than any enduring reasoning.

Which, if you are a true meritocracy, is possible.

I know that is agony for the 'we are all exactly equal' folks, but that's it.

Considering that we humans came after the previously-mentioned span when the Antarctic was covered in jungle, maybe you want to think that comment through?

For the slow: it's ridiculous to assert that such climactic changes will result in "a dead rock" when, ipso facto, they didn't.

...maybe we'll see more of that petrified wood from Antarctica.

You know, from when it wasn't snow and ice? (Yet somehow the world didn't end?)

1) just to be clear, when he says "metals" are everything more than helium, that's an astronomer thing.

2) IANAA, but the whole 'stellar starvation' thing seems logically obvious due to the iron peak - as galaxies feed on their hydrogen, their suns fuse it up all the way to iron, then they no longer are generating energy from subsequent fusion, merely consuming it (elements above iron are normally only created persistently from supernovae), ergo, once a galaxy has climbed the fusion-energy curve up to iron, beyond that it's go nowhere to go except collapse and ultimate I'd guess black hole status?

(shrug) I think your histrionic response is a little unjustified.

No, of course "all women" aren't identical, nor are "all men". That's silly.

It's equally silly to deny the idea of "generalization", and to believe that everyone is some sort of uniquely individual snowflake whose behavior can't be roughly categorized. Even snowflakes behave comparably, in large enough masses. There are all sorts of behavioral planes of cleavage through the mass of humanity such as nationality: Japanese behave differently than South Americans, Scandinavians behave differently than sub-Saharan Africans. Curiously, even in their heterogeneity, Americans behave in collective and distinctive ways substantially differently than many of those groups. (look up the fantastic work by Geert Hofstede on that subject). Young people behave differently than old; rich than poor, etc. And yes, women behave differently than men, speaking in broad GENERALIZATIONS.

So I'm going to use the same language you did: stop being so butthurt and grow the fuck up, generalizations are a thing.

TSIA. It's meaningless pap.
"I am saying that you have a responsibility to treat every person that comes throughâSâ"âSnot only your work life but your life in generalâSâ"âSwith kindness and respect."
No, REALLY?

A PLAN would be something like:
1) "De-program the mating instinct from humanity"
2) Now watch men treat women more like each other.* ....because until you extract one of the fundamental drives from our cells (in fact, one might say it is THE drive, as reproduction is the sole reason that there exists a male gender in the first place), men are not going to stop noticing - and reacting - to women.

*personally, I believe what women are objecting to is, in a way, men treating them like each other. Obviously, not superficially; but men are competitive as hell, I daresay it's almost instinctive. And the guy who would actively demean or denigrate a woman because of her gender is the same sort of personality that would do the same thing to another man if he's brown, or from Minnesota, or had anything that could be used as such leverage.
Simultaneously, we all can easily trot out examples of women getting special treatment because they're female. Wearing a little lower-cut shirt than they needed to in that tough interview? A little eye contact gets her a free drink? Men will generally stop treating women as sex objects when they - throughout their lives - stop encountering women acting like that.

Funny, I have heard nearly the opposite: I know two people in the Hollywood scene that don't know of him, but know people that have worked directly with HS, and they've heard that he's an astonishingly talented guy but a gigantic pain in the ass and prima donna - very hard to work with.

First, a guard is possibly the least likely player on the field to get a concussion. Sure they hit hard every play, but it's almost more like wrestling than anything, and almost never the high speed impacts that result in concussion.

Second, I think it's great for young men to hear this. We've spent pretty nearly the last 20 years identifying "male" behaviors as pathologies that need to be circumscribed, if not outright "corrected", and wonder why young men are checking out. There is a joy to physical head to head competition and no reason one can't be intelligent AND enjoy such activity immensely.

I don't have time to rebut your whole post, but one part is simply, factually, untrue:

"...the majority of the planet does not even believe in the Judeo-Christian concept of God..."

According to http://www.pewforum.org/2012/1...
31.5% of the world's population are Christian
0.2% are Jewish ...and 23.2% are Muslim.

=
54.9% of the world believes in the Judeo-Christian concept of God.

Muslims, Jews, and Christians may not get along very well, but they all quite clearly are worshiping the same monotheistic entity conceptually. Hell, their prophets and holy books overlap.