WayneDB

Tits are part of people. I have tits. People have tits and I like people and I like their tits. Without people, there are no tits. How many different ways can I say this? I don't like tits that are disconnected from people. That's disgusting.

If I am staring at a woman's tits - I am certainly giving her whole person my consideration, even though my eyes can only look at one thing at a time. WTF would I do with just a pair of tits?

No, the reason I'm looking is that I probably want more.

There was no "prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex" here though.

Obviously not everyone agrees what is sexist.

Respect is earned, not given.

I responded to your assertion that:

> Given the response that occurred in the media and in general...

So no, it's not a derailing tactic. And if you didn't notice, this thread is three pages to the right. There's nothing to derail.

When you're having a conversation in person, do you accuse them of being a Troll and derailing the conversation when they respond to your ridiculous assertions?

Give me a fucking break. This is like arguing with a three year old. OK fine, you can have the last word if it's so important to you. I've already torn apart every single point you think you've made, so fuck off.

Does "the media" regularly objectify women or not in your opinion or not?

Why not just tell me the truth instead of asking me to cite you on your own opinion?

(I just can't imagine that you think "the media" is any better than this titstare app. Have you watched TV before?)

A word can't be racist. A word can be used by racists, but the word itself - no.

There is a whole spectrum out there. The word "nigger" is a term of endearment for many.

> Now you're just trolling.

What the fuck does that even mean?

> Given the response that occurred in the media and in general...

The media is your measuring stick? The same media that regularly objectifies women in your opinion? That's rich. You should probably go think about that some more.

You and all the whiners just like you are the ones complaining about tit jokes, so you prove it.

Yeah, great argument. So if you hear a drum, you have no concept of a drummer?

No, you're right - men who see just a pair of tits think "that's all I need - nothing attached, just the tits pleaze, tyvm."

> It's childish and inconsiderate.

That's your fucking opinion though.

> I leave it to you to work out..blah blah blah.

Oh gawd. What a fucking cop-out. Stop replying to me you chicken shit.

Please prove to me that the majority of women or even a large portion are offended. Nobody has done that yet.

Furthermore, even if you could prove that - percentage has nothing to do with it. That is a completely arbitrary qualifier. Offending people is a birth given right. Get over it.

But can you agree that these people complaining about tit jokes are not accepting many other people's opinion that tit jokes are funny and that people should be free to joke about them if they wish?

> Someone's throwing their toys around today?

How so? By pointing out your illogical stance?

So then what's your point?

Don't joke about anything that anybody could possibly get offended at?

It's inconsiderate because they got all the men thinking about tits at a mostly tit-less conference.

It's more than that. Playing devil's advocate means you're expressing the opposite point of view when you don't really hold that point of view, but you're doing it to prove a point.

Guess what? Women find tit jokes funny too so don't even try and say that you know what the whole group of Women is thinking...

Fuck cencorship. The freedom to offend is more important.

You said "One other part of sexism is sexual objectification, which reduces the person or whole gender to an instrument of sexual pleasure."

And I said that nobody was reduced to being just a sexual object.

Did I indicate anywhere that some people don't have the opposite, poorly formed opinion? I don't give a shit. If they try censorship, I say offend them even more until THEY accept that not everyone agrees with them.

It's not sexist to make an app to encourage men to ogle random women's breasts and submit photos while doing so, to an audience of men and women.

Men are doing it anyway and there's nothing wrong with that either.

Entertainment is part of tech and tits as well as tit jokes are damn entertaining.

Nobody was reduced to that though.

What fun would a pair of tits floating in the air be? I'd rather stare at tits that are attached to a whole woman.

Keyboard acceleration. I have never seen an HTML control kit that handles the Tab or Arrow keys correctly or even very well.

No standards. For example - Drag and Drop. There is no standard system for Drag and Drop between components in the browser because it doesn't know about these controls, it only knows div div div div div. So, in general - it's just harder to write good code that targets HTML components because there are no standards for complex components.

(Some more patterns with no standards for complex components: Data Binding, Encapsulation (grouping one or more component into a parent component and walking parent/child components), Inheritance.)

And then, there's performance. Native trumps HTML here, no contest.

The web (http) is a subset of the Internet, so by definition Internet scale would be bigger.

How would you feel about a "web games gallery" app in the store? It would just be a catalog and launch the native browser to play games.

Do you think that would be a good idea for someone who wanted to evangelize HTML as a games dev platform?

I'm not sure if it exists or if it would Apple's terms of service.

“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.” - Einstein

The first time he was tested, he dropped a small amount of weight and the second time he didn't. Neither test was only done by one scientist and the second test was a much larger fanfare with Indian defense/government researchers present.

Bathing was also observed as was gargling (what he spit out was also measured). Even so - these "red flags" come from the same scientists that you don't trust. So, they should not support your cynicism in any way.

What are we left with?

  - Not published in a journal.
  - Incomplete CCTV coverage.

Also, it should be stated that according to many cynics, the CCTV coverage is incomplete because Jani moved out of view for moments at a time. He also received visitors and was allowed to take sun baths.

Anyway, I'm not really here to debate this case. I am just being an anti-cynic because it's been shown time and again that even the smartest people in the world have been dead wrong about what they think they know. Here is a terrific video that sums up this point very well - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8V8rtdXnLA

The chief scientist, Sudhir Shah, was the same each time and you're right that he is "an ardent proponent of Jain philosophy" according to his wikipedia page.

However, both tests were done with other researchers (in 2010, with "a team of 35 researchers from the Indian Defence Institute of Physiology and Allied Sciences (DIPAS) as well as other organizations") in the largest hospital chain in one of the most industrialized states in India.

So, still very believable to my mind, despite the reaction of the scientific community at large. Many are quick to say "impossible", citing what they know based on their own observations. It saddens me that modern scientists are such cynics. History has proven that "impossible" is just a point of view and that many things widely believed to be impossible in the past are completely doable.

Prahlad Jani has yet to be debunked and he was observed twice (in 2003, 2010) round the clock for up to 15 days without food and water intake or waste movements.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/International/man-eat-drink/sto...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prahlad_Jani

Very credulous. But, as the wise man says "We'll see." :)

Most of the native apps that I use don't serve ads and they don't pull in third-party resources from the web.

I came here to chew bubble-gum and complain about the UI...and I'm all out of bubble-gum.

Web apps and me are constantly at odds because I run all sorts of privacy extensions, I disabled Local Storage (via folder permissions) and I don't let cookies persist. So, I just stopped using web apps wherever possible in favor of native ones. It pisses me off too because the web (and the Internet) could be so much better than this.

Anyway, for the longest time - even with a bare browser (no extensions) - YouTube wouldn't save certain settings (annotations disabled, video quality), even while I was logged in.