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.

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 ... the smartwatch offers only minuscule improvements on the access a smart phone already has, while giving only a third of the screen real estate. And this is on top of the cash investment for a new device that largely emulates ALREADY OWNED hardware.

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).

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?

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".

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.

"Can Microsoft convince the skeptics?" They don't need to - Apple already did. For better or worse, the average user LIKES a unified operating experience. Microsoft is doing this because the trail's already been blazed, and the complaints from skeptics and people afraid of the spread of walled gardens aren't enough of a drawback.

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.

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.