This really sucks.
This is an excellent idea. Bravo!
Seriously, thank God for this article.
By simply creating a product he put more choices on the table. You could then decide between IBM and Apple, and later Microsoft. Or Nokia, Motorola, Apple, etc. Without his input there would be less choice. Streamlining options doesn't mean taking away choices for the consumer. And based on the consumer's reaction it didn't seem all that bad. One often gets the feeling that people who wouldn't make the Apple choice are the first ones to complain about lack of choices from Apple.
And yes, it's a good thing that the devices are easy to use and convenient. I don't see how them being difficult to use and inconvenient would be a better thing. I don't quite get the connection between something being easy to use (I disagree about them being mundane, you can still clearly see that the technology behind Apple products is sophisticated) for the consumer would stifle innovation from engineers, designers and coders. In fact just looking at the facts you are wrong, most people would agree that Apple is one of the biggest innovators right now. Not only do they revolutionize whole industries by their new way of thinking (innovation), but they keep perfecting their own products in new ways (compare the iPod 10 years ago versus the iPod Touch now, or the first iPhone and the 4, or tablets versus current iPads and their wannabes, etc). And they don't sue creativity. They sue lack of it. You don't see them going after Sony or Asus. Their tablets show creativity. They go after those who blatantly copy their products. Go on Gizmodo and read about how even Samsung's own lawyers couldn't differentiate between their Tab 10.1 and the iPad 2. Compare the Samsug TouchWiz interface and iOS (even their Photo icon was the almost the same).
Right, Apple's advances have come from others. They usually buy those companies or reward their innovation/creativity in some way. I haven't noticed how Apple made their majority of advances from jailbreaks and hacks, it seems those are always two parallel paths. Apple is a corporation, not a person. They absorb talent and profit from it. That's what most corporations do. The problem is when they copy each other without paying their dues. I don't know how it's particularly familiar to a single entity, though.
And yes, it's a good thing that the devices are easy to use and convenient. I don't see how them being difficult to use and inconvenient would be a better thing. I don't quite get the connection between something being easy to use (I disagree about them being mundane, you can still clearly see that the technology behind Apple products is sophisticated) for the consumer would stifle innovation from engineers, designers and coders. In fact just looking at the facts you are wrong, most people would agree that Apple is one of the biggest innovators right now. Not only do they revolutionize whole industries by their new way of thinking (innovation), but they keep perfecting their own products in new ways (compare the iPod 10 years ago versus the iPod Touch now, or the first iPhone and the 4, or tablets versus current iPads and their wannabes, etc). And they don't sue creativity. They sue lack of it. You don't see them going after Sony or Asus. Their tablets show creativity. They go after those who blatantly copy their products. Go on Gizmodo and read about how even Samsung's own lawyers couldn't differentiate between their Tab 10.1 and the iPad 2. Compare the Samsug TouchWiz interface and iOS (even their Photo icon was the almost the same).
Right, Apple's advances have come from others. They usually buy those companies or reward their innovation/creativity in some way. I haven't noticed how Apple made their majority of advances from jailbreaks and hacks, it seems those are always two parallel paths. Apple is a corporation, not a person. They absorb talent and profit from it. That's what most corporations do. The problem is when they copy each other without paying their dues. I don't know how it's particularly familiar to a single entity, though.
"This doesn't mean that women's desire is the primary cause of poor male body image. Men's own misinterpretation of what women want is far more of the problem. (For example, many men don't realize that their girlfriends might lust after Lautner or Gosling — and still be attracted to their own less-than-perfect male partners. These guys don't get that desire isn't a zero-sum game)."
Ah, yes. How obvious this seems now, doesn't it? But of course, men who try to achieve this ideal are just "vain," whereas women who do the same are poor victims of male pressure, right?
Ah, yes. How obvious this seems now, doesn't it? But of course, men who try to achieve this ideal are just "vain," whereas women who do the same are poor victims of male pressure, right?
No. As a human being Zuckerberg might be greater, but Jobs' achievements eclipse his. Revolutionizing personal computers, smartphones, personal music players, media consumption and tablet computers will always be better than revolutionizing social networks and how to profit from them.
You might be using Facebook more, but then again more people will be using Vitamin C than cancer or AIDS cures, and more often. It doesn't mean discovering the former is more impressive than the latter.
You might be using Facebook more, but then again more people will be using Vitamin C than cancer or AIDS cures, and more often. It doesn't mean discovering the former is more impressive than the latter.
Bravo.
You're putting your own words in her mouth and expecting me to discuss your scenario. Your argument is a different one, and much more sensible. She was not talking about the unfair consequences on most black men of the actions of some black men. She was not talking about black men behind bars and how it affects women. Reread her comment. She was justifying women calling men out on not protecting them (an issue I won't dwell on except to point out how it's contrary to one of the major tenets of feminism) by saying how black men (not some, black men in general: that's a stereotype) in particular do those evil, stereotypical things and how people of other races should stay out of it because they wouldn't "get it" since the men of their races don't.
And my scenario is not theoretical at all, it's just equally prejudiced and unfair. I didn't pull it out of thin air just to make a point. It also happens to target black women more than any other group of women. I could justify, like you did, why some black women choose to be gold diggers and materialistic and how it affects the perception of all black women (or the majority). I could also, like you did in your second comment, talk about how unfair it is that a black woman dressed with a sexy outfit is more likely to be called a prostitute than other races. But that wouldn't be equivalent at all to what she said, only to how you elevated the argument. I made the sweeping statement because that's what she did, and it's just as upsetting.
Oh, and maybe it doesn't affect you or your close ones, but yes, the image of the materialistic gold digger is as much a stereotype to black women as being a gang-banging drug dealer is to black men. It just so happens that you don't go to jail for gold-digging. I believe it's still a challenge, but feel free to disagree.
And my scenario is not theoretical at all, it's just equally prejudiced and unfair. I didn't pull it out of thin air just to make a point. It also happens to target black women more than any other group of women. I could justify, like you did, why some black women choose to be gold diggers and materialistic and how it affects the perception of all black women (or the majority). I could also, like you did in your second comment, talk about how unfair it is that a black woman dressed with a sexy outfit is more likely to be called a prostitute than other races. But that wouldn't be equivalent at all to what she said, only to how you elevated the argument. I made the sweeping statement because that's what she did, and it's just as upsetting.
Oh, and maybe it doesn't affect you or your close ones, but yes, the image of the materialistic gold digger is as much a stereotype to black women as being a gang-banging drug dealer is to black men. It just so happens that you don't go to jail for gold-digging. I believe it's still a challenge, but feel free to disagree.
Yes, it's stereotyping. She didn't say "many" or "a majority." Whatever community she's in, any black man who doesn't do any of these things should get offended by reading shit like this. It doesn't matter that you can look for justifications for these actions, implying that everyone in a group does it is stereotyping. Those are the same reasons the cops give to do racial profiling, and injustice against black men.
To be clear: how would you feel if I said "if black women in your community are not materialistic gold-diggers who only use their sexuality to get ahead financially and socially... then you don't get it?" No matter what point I was trying to justify it would be racist, misogynistic and wrong.
To be clear: how would you feel if I said "if black women in your community are not materialistic gold-diggers who only use their sexuality to get ahead financially and socially... then you don't get it?" No matter what point I was trying to justify it would be racist, misogynistic and wrong.
"If the men in your community aren't exploiting women, dealing drugs, using weapons, choosing a life of crime over college, getting several women pregnant with no income to support and provide for any of them...."
Let me guess: cultural differences allow people to be racist as well, correct?
Let me guess: cultural differences allow people to be racist as well, correct?
But do they have a right to being BoA customers? I might be wrong, but I thought private companies didn't really need a valid reason to turn people away. It's terrible for their PR, but it's within their rights, no?
" who was harmed or potentially harmed? "
Will nobody think of the children?
Will nobody think of the children?
I guess I am.
Frankly I don't even know why they updated the processor if not just to sell it at $200. They should have just upgraded the camera, sold it for $100, canned the 3GS and given the 4 for free.
I said it before, I'll say it again: in my humble opinion all these "upgrades" are just marketing ploys. I don't think engineers ask for them, I don't think developers ask for them. If they had to keep it at 512 MB to not sell it at the "Premium" price of $250-$300 the "high end" Android phones have, good.
I still can't tell the difference in speed between my iPad 2 and my iPhone 4. Sure, if I used them side by side I'd probably notice the fraction of a second, but honestly I haven't seen software that makes the dual-core that important, let alone a bump in RAM.
I said it before, I'll say it again: in my humble opinion all these "upgrades" are just marketing ploys. I don't think engineers ask for them, I don't think developers ask for them. If they had to keep it at 512 MB to not sell it at the "Premium" price of $250-$300 the "high end" Android phones have, good.
I still can't tell the difference in speed between my iPad 2 and my iPhone 4. Sure, if I used them side by side I'd probably notice the fraction of a second, but honestly I haven't seen software that makes the dual-core that important, let alone a bump in RAM.
The US is like the Eric Cartman of countries.
Truly the man.
He did say it, you're right. In my opinion it is not quite homophobic in this context, but it's still a homophobic phrase so I guess that makes one. Having said that (and not to force your gaydar), I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that he's bisexual.
Sorry for the jumpiness, was primed by the article. I get your point now.
You win, forgot that one. One could argue that he said it ironically and that it was not a diss per se, but he still said "no homo."
