Nope. It's the "Therefore you are a bigot" part that's hurtful, that ends conversation, and starts the fight, the battle.
You're bullying, Mellon. It's like this:
A. Tell me something you love.
Maybe you love the Bible. Maybe you love science. Maybe you love The Last Unicorn, by Peter Beagle.
B. Find something in it that you could make an unseemly story about.
If you love the Bible, get the story about the guy who had sex with his daughters.
If you love science, get the story about alpha silverbacks and how they dominate the society.
If you love The Last Unicorn, get the story about the red bull pushing unicorns into the sea.
C. Now accuse the fuck out of a person.
"If you love the Bible, then you define incest as life-defining, and you're not typical. You need to redefine your life, right now."
"If you think science is true, than you believe that controlling women is the Natural Order. You need to rethink the merits of science, and redefine your life, right now."
"If you get your rocks off watching the Red Bull dominate unicorns, you're not typical. You need to redefine your life, right now."
Forcing YOUR interpretations onto others is psychic/emotional violence, and it's also the behavior of a bully.
It's too bad that some teenage boy somewhere has rushed into Anita's damsel-in-distress gambit, but gamers everywhere and gamer culture are NOT the problem. Attack that kid, DON'T attack gamers as a culture -- which is what she's been doing.
Have you seen ye olde XKCD, where if a boy does poorly in math, it's "Damn, you suck at math," but if a girl does poorly in math, its "Damn, girls suck at math?" Well, the same here, but in reverse, and then further, socially embraced: When women are acidic towards men, it's "Damn, you're an aggressive individual." But when some teenage boy is acidic towards women, it's "Damn, gamer culture is to blame, and we need to re-engineer the thoughts and feelings of gamers everywhere, using social bullying."
Where's Jed? Why isn't anyone mentioning Jed? It's got Emacs bindings, it's really light-weight, works on command-line, and is available by a simple apt-get.
FUTHERMORE. The size of the universe is unknown. Furthermore: By present estimates, the universe is near uniformly "flat." That means, you go to the edge of the visible universe on one side, and you do *not* wrap around "the other side." Rather, there's more universe past what we can see. If the universe were infinite in all directions, it'd be completely consistent with known measurements. If the universe is infinite in all directions, we can absolutely count on there being intelligent life way, way out there.
Snippet of a recent conversation:
Friend: "...and people are even 3D printing houses!"
Me: (skeptical look)
Friend: "It'll work!"
Me: "I have no doubts that the technology will function just fine. But in this case, it's not the technology that's the problem. We could have cheap housing all over the place, presently, and solve a million housing problems. But the problem isn't the technology."
Friend: "Well what else would it be?"
I explained about Seattle City's law that you can only have 8 people living in a housing unit, regardless of the size, and that this is on the liberal end of things, as far as most cities go.
I explained about zoning, and restriction, and neighbors.
I explained that if you could snap your fingers and make floating or underground housing, for absolutely free, either above or below the city of Seattle, people would rage with anger and complain of crime, undesirables, unsightlys, and plummeting housing values.
The middle class stores most of its wealth in its houses, and so everybody has a gigantic freak-out if anything happens to cause housing prices to go down. We hold as a society the notion that a house is an investment vehicle, and will do anything in our collective power to make sure that housing prices go up, up, up, faster than the rate of inflation. We'll talk about "quality" and "community" and "clean neighborhoods," whatever it takes, to make sure that the next generation spends more on our houses than the generation that came before.
What use is a 3-D printer that can print houses with ease?
What use are robots that can programmatically generate great housing in a for-loop?
I mean, besides becoming "the enemy of all humankind" and having all federal, state, and local laws applied against you with every bit of scrutiny that can be mustered?
You "study the humanities" not so that you learn some kind of scientific truth about the human being. You study the humanities so that you aren't naive, and waste the investment everybody's put into you.
Drive a motorcycle. You'll either be driving, or you'll be dead. I promise you won't be texting (for very long)!
Perhaps they should study whether the main problem is talking in the phone or simply one ringing. Digging the annoyingly ringing phone out of your pocket could be a bigger risk than talking in it.
How to prevent that? Good question.
Handsfree devices are also rather useless, especially if you are driving with automatic gear, and often result in much more distraction than just holding the phone. Fumbling when you attach the phone in the holder and especially fumbling with an earphone can be really dangerous.
Microsoft is not buying Nokia, only the Devices & Services division of Nokia, which includes its phone business. However, that might not prevent Nokia from setting up a new phones business. Perhaps it doesn't make much sense, as Microsoft does get the right to use Nokia brand for 10 years, so re-entering phone business would be rather confusing for Nokia.
Now, if the Android phone is made by the Devices & Services division, it will be transferred to Microsoft, and the Android products may be terminated at some point. It's hard to say - Microsoft could be trying to confuse the market somehow - with existing pantent licensing by Android phonemakers and the ongoing patent cases, Microsoft may try to shake Android markets with a cheaper device for which it has all the patent rights - it now can use all Nokia's phone patents as well, so making phones is almost patent-free, unlike for other Android phone makers who have to pay licensing fees to Microsoft for certain patents. So, making low-cost Android phones could be much cheaper for Microsoft than for others. And, as it doesn't use Google Play, it would bring no revenue to Google.
I'm one of the guys who got the phone two days ago. You can read my quick review here.
To summarize: the user interface based on swiping works quite nicely, even if a bit confusing at first, and the phone works OK as a minimalistic smartphone. On Day 1, there still are quite many bugs and usability issues that need to be worked out.
Compared to Android or iOS, the visual simplicity of the user interface views is extreme, no buttons or decorations almost anywhere. When you open the phone app, you just see a very plain call log. In the email app, you just get a list of emails, and when you open an email, there's just a title followed by text. On the downside, views are often rather over-simplified, so that things are hidden too well, and workflows to get to what you want are often a bit complex and unintuitive. There's no status row that is always visible, system settings aren't accessible immediately everywhere, but you need to go to the start screen, etc.
Some critical features such as WiFi access point missing (or I just haven't found it after poking around 2 days).
Around 30 native apps; some Android apps work just fine, but many do not, and the selection is in practice very limited.
I think that it is "Evolutionary Psychology" that is the religion -- not science.
If you said, "Evolutionary Psychology is ritualized Nuttery, like Economics," then I would be in complete agreement with you.
A bit of a preview for the future: Rainbow's End.
Oh, here, you can read some of the ideas and thoughts from this presentation he made.
It doesn't only seem plausible at this point, it seems practically guaranteed to arise.
A pack of hair color costs something like $10 at your local store. One problem solved. (If someone has good tips for coloring beard, I'd like to know.)
My guess is that if you want to apply to an organization that uses formal screening process, you're off worse. Networking is the word of the day and if you have a lot of previous work experience, you might already have a professional network. Use it, and sidestep the screening. If not, build your network. Participate in groups, attend conferences, etc. Be active, social, and ambitious, in the right way. Create your own projects, team up, work hard. Target smaller companies that may be more flexible about their hiring practices.
Previous accomplishments are not necessarily a proof of anything, the problem is that everyone can boast about their accomplishments, so nobody pays attention to them if they don't know you, but school grades are official and considered "objective". So, your accomplishments only matter to people who know about them - mainly your network.
Of course, you must be able to develop yourself to the tip of your field. You need to show that you have experience about the field - perhaps write a professional blog, or something, be social. Younger people often have more ambition than us older guys, and you have to rebuild that ambition in yourself, even though I know it can be hard. Be proactive, smart, and develop something bright.
'nuf of pep talk. More booze, sleep.
I can see an argument that a person's device is effectively part of their brain or their body.
I own it, I control it.
Also. Both my device and my body can catch a virus.
Perhaps the problem with BYOD is sick days.
A bunch of anti-vax types on my FB page were posting articles about how schoolchildren showed that plants that were grown with microwave water didn't grow, with side-by-side illustrations.
Until I see confirmations of the experiment, I am highly skeptical.