I see these OSs merging in terms of how they perceive user tasks. The old Unix/Windows model was that you had a bunch of applications running simultaneously, which the user had to manage themselves. In Mac, it feels like the emphasis is on working with one application at a time. This can be seen when the (File, Edit, View, etc) menus change context with respect to the selected application. Unity, and it looks like Gnome 3, are moving in this direction.
For users who are used to one style, completely revamping the UI also means revamping and disrupting everyone's personal workflow. What if I want to browse and code simultaneously? If the UI prohibits such behavior, than I'll have a hard time getting work done.
I don't have a problem with the changes, but I do have a problem with these changes getting shoved down everyone's throat without proper support to revert to a classic look. A lot of the 'core' features that are being added, could simply be mods on top of the existing desktop instead of the buggy restructuring that's currently going on.
But the flip side is that if women stay more "private" and at home, kids and families benefit. American physical and mental health has been getting worse and worse as both parents usually work and start eating crap. Now everybody is obese. Everybody is busy and stressed so they spend less quality time with the rest of the family. Kids start hanging out with bad kids. Divorce is still 50% last time I checked. Stress disorders abound.
Yes, but why do women have to be the ones to stay home? Aside from the first 6 months or so of nurturing, any household task that can be handled by a woman could be handled by a man. Having some kind of work/life balance is good. Dumping all those responsibilities on an individual just because of their gender or some historical notion of roles is unjust.
Increasing the data cap is a small step in the right direction, but unfortunately Comcast continues to treat its own Internet delivered video different under the cap than other Internet delivered video. We continue to stand by the principle that ISPs should treat all providers of video services equally.
When you dehumanize a person, you can justify any crime you carry out upon them
The internet like any other information medium can be used to help or harm someone. If we're not aware of its capacity to harm someone like encouraging someone's guilt or inciting a war, our naivete could allow gross forms of injustice to occur.
I think there are many aspects that make it difficult to have a debate about internet censorship that doesn't lead to knee jerk reactions. Those aspects would be: 1) definition of censorship and 2) definition of the role of the internet.
For example, I may consider censorship as a form of banning illegal material: murder, rape, child abuse, etc. I'm sure if you started up a server that hosted outright snuff, society would find a way to shut you down.
For point 2, if the internet is considered a service in that it just sends bits to you, then adding a layer of censorship could inherently harm its usage. If it's a content delivery system then deciding what content to show/not show may make sense.
I'm not trolling for an argument. Rather I'm trying to understand what different people's interpretation of censorship and internet are.
I ask these questions because I really don't have a good answer for them. : /