Carly spouted off on Saturday about net neutrality, and claimed that it was forced down our throats by lobbyists from Verizon and Comcast.
And she says this as a former CEO of HP. I hope her campaign fails soon because her voice gives me faceslapping injuries.
The dirty little secret of that regulation, which is the same dirty little secret of Obamacare or Dodd-Frank or all of these other huge complicated pieces of regulation or legislation, is that they don't get written on their own, they get written in part by lobbyists for big companies who want to understand that the rules are going to work for them.... Who was in the middle of arguing for net neutrality? Verizon, Comcast, Google, I mean, all these companies were playing. They weren't saying "we don't need this," they were saying "we need it."
I think my grandmother could have done a better job running HP.
Organise a "draw Jesus sodomizing Mary" contest in Texas and you'll get crazy Christian jihadists doing the same thing. If you set up an event specifically designed to insult/offend/antagonise a particular religion, you're always going to get a response like this from someone.
A carload of Christians must have pulled up and busted some down-mods into this post. The guy uses British spelling but he's absolutely correct. Organizing a "Jesus sodomizing Mary" contest in Texas would be a suicide attempt.
Leaving aside the fact that we are not discussing an image that is pornography nor of a nude woman - it is face and top-of-shoulders, which makes all of this irrelevant...
Your own link goes on to discuss (immediately after the section you quote!) how there is not universal agreement on what is objectifying, including pornography. I happen to think that a woman should be allowed to express herself however she wishes, including sexually, and specifically that she is smart enough to decide if she wants to let someone pay her to take pictures of her and put them in a magazine. I think it's pretty bigoted that you disagree. Presumably you are not so paternalistic to think that this woman, in her simple way, didn't realize that men would be sexually desiring this picture of her. So who is being harmed, exactly? She wasn't taken advantage of by any stretch of the definition. Everybody's happy except the anti-sex second-wave feminists, who missed the boat in the 90s. (Third-wave feminism generally views "bad porn as bad", in the sense that nobody should be exploited into making porn but that it is OK to choose to do so and choose to consume)
And to answer your question I don't generally take the concerns of religious extremists into account, whether they are ISIS or the "god hates fags" folks or someone who is so far gone that they think sexuality itself demeans women.
Every nation on earth has weather and climate scientists. WTF do we need NASA to study the weather?
First of all, weather is not climate.
Second, those scientists in other nations depend on the data collected by NASA, since no one else can do it as well.
Third, the idiot currently heading the committee that plans to eviscerate the NASA earth sciences program to the tune of $300 million per year sees no problem blowing hundreds of times as much money on Cold War fighter jets. One might ask,why do we need to spend $1.5 trillion dollars on F35 strike fighters that can't turn, can't climb, run hackable software, and explode when struck by lightning or running on warm fuel?
This is not about the money at all. They just don't want anyone looking into this, period.
It is a standard image. There is value to using a standard image because then you can compare how you do against the old techniques. That is, of course, why it became a standard image to begin with. Sure you could go off and use a different image, but there is 40 years of "here's how well computer image techniques work on this image" that you'll be missing out on. You might as well argue against the Utah Teapot because some people are offended by caffeine and... well, sure the teapot itself isn't caffeine, but everybody knows what it contains!
Honestly, I'm stuck (and have been for years now) trying to figure out how sexuality itself demeans women somehow, which seems to be what all this boils down to. Isn't that creeping anyone else out? I mean, I thought the whole point of the sexual revolution of the 60s-70s was that women (in particular) could express themselves sexually, right? This all seems horribly regressive.
Of course, the standard image is not a sexual image anyway, so this is irrelevant.
And what about that space stuff? Remember the space stuff?
Why yes, we just saw a story about space stuff:
NASA hopes to send the first round-trip, manned spaceflight to Mars by the 2030s. If the mission succeeds, astronauts could spend several years potentially being bombarded with cosmic rays- high-energy particles launched across space by supernovae and other galactic explosions. Now, a study in mice suggests these particles could alter the shape of neurons, impairing astronauts' memories and other cognitive abilities. In the prefrontal cortex, a brain region associated with executive function, a range of high-level cognitive tasks such as reasoning, short-term memory, and problem-solving, neurons had 30% to 40% fewer branches, called dendrites, which receive electrical input from other cells.
It's pretty clear that Republicans are seeking to get people into space so they can expand their voter base.