Because only one gender has a history of being valued only for their appearances, and it's not the guys. When men have systematically and globally been pushed into positions like Chippendales, and mocked, discriminated against, actively legislated against, or physically assaulted for trying to do what the opposite gender does - then there's more room to complain about how the menfolk are objectified. Until then, let's try to remember that context matters.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
I keep seeing articles popping up about 'smartwatches" from Microsoft, Sony, Samsung, Apple, and even Google. What I never see is someone telling me where the demand for this market is. Smart watches, to me, don't seem to serve any particular specialized function. Battery conservation is a joke, unless the tech world has suddenly gotten squeamish about throwing a phone on a microUSB charger. Touchscreen, quick searching, quick clock access, easy navigation, easy access to
Honestly, all the recent smartwatch buzz has seemed, to me, to be a response to the impending arrival of Google Glass. (With the exception of Google's own team, who I would assume is working on a watch just in case this actually IS a new thing people want.) Other tech companies know Google Glass is going to be hugely influential, and smartwatches smell like an attempt to try and offer a low-cost alternative that has the side benefit of not being stuck in the shadow of a market icon to beat (iPhone, iPod, iPad, Android, Google Glass, etc).
No, but anyone who posts on a Bitcoin story explaining how dumb he thinks it is probably has some kind of reason for it. And an organized FUD campaign is certainly a plausible explanation for the amount and vehemency of such posts... The difference is that the people who advocate Bitcoin have a plausible non-sinister reason for doing so: they want to use it. It is harder to see what the motivation of someone who calls for mental evaluation of someone for using it might be, besides spreading FUD.
Seriously? This is the INTERNET. Anybody can voice their opinion about anything, anywhere, anytime. As far as the motivations of detractors... if you seriously can't tell why some people might be a bit wary of a non-government backed, largely unregulated currency that's recognized in only limited locations, you need to step back from the Kool-Aid bowl for a minute.
No, we don't prefer certain genres. And no, we don't demand gay sex in our games, though seeing gay and lesbian -relationships- or -characters- is nice. As for segregation - that implies walling ourselves off from the rest of the gaming community. We don't - usually, the most a 'gaymer' will do is join an LGBT-friendly guild. That's hardly a surprising move when you see some of the vitriol the gaming community at large directs at LGBT people - "faggot" is practically a synonym for any other insulting term you can think of to some people. Gaymers look for places where they don't have to put up with that, and where they can share leisure time with people who have similar interests to them, in game and out - the modern equivalent of the local bar. Is that really such a big deal?
The Entertainment Software Association responded to Rep. Franklin's bill with a statement: "Taxing First Amendment protected speech based on its content is not only wrong, but will end up costing Missouri taxpayers."
Not only would this cost Missouri taxpayers extra if implemented (assuming they didn't simply purchase out of state through Amazon), but it'd also cost them a significant amount to defend in court. The government passing laws that disproportionately impact specific speech content is a pretty clear no-no under the First Amendment. If it were ever to pass, it'd be ripped apart by the courts in seconds.
While there's potentially merit in your argument, I think most people worldwide would agree that "government censorship through secret court proceedings using illegal evidence" is not a beneficial protocol for... well, any country. This proposal isn't a slippery slope, it's a canyon drop-off, and at the bottom is "government-approved communication" and "arrests without trial for dissenting speech".
"Terrorism is not just people who kill human bodies, but who kill human feelings as well. The makers of this film have terrorised 1.6 billion people."
Fuck you, and anybody who thinks like you, pal. Terrorism puts people in fear for their lives by murdering and brutally attacking others. The makers of this film have created a bunch of racist garbage, yes, but they in no way put anybody in fear of danger. The danger comes from people like you, who scream about how freedom of speech doesn't apply to this film because it's "anarchy", because it's not "civil", because it's "blasphemous". Freedom of speech requires that all those qualities be protected. And if you believe your religion allows you to contemplate violence for words alone, you need to take a damn hard look at your religion, and then the rest of the world, because we've left the Dark Ages - you don't get to declare a holy right to commit violence against those who called you stupid anymore.
Libertarians are not republicans.
Yeah, you are. No government regulation of the "free market" (a mythical creature), no government regulation of private sector impact on the environment, no regulations on financial institutions, prohibitions on the government doing ANYTHING that the private sector can do, including education and health care, eliminating Social Security... guess which group shares those values with you 100%? You're embarrassed by Republican social values, which is a good thing, since hating on gays, women and minorities is a fairly disgusting thing, but that's about the only point where your parties diverge.
Just because you're libertarian doesn't mean you want to shut down public schools and start selling missile launchers at the local walmart tomorrow.
You need to go back and read your party's platform, because that's almost EXACTLY what they advocate. Their platform explicitly calls for shutting down public schools, and says there should be no criminal penalties for gun ownership. For someone who's advertising "climbing out of the political parties sand trap", you might want to remember that blind faith in ideology can exist in 3rd parties too.