>> ^shuac:

Her's are just a list of seemingly-relevant points that rely on their simplicity. Who's to say having a character name is always a good thing? So what if women don't talk to one another in a film? Why is that such a good thing? Why is that the measuring stick? And so what if women talk about a man in a film. Perhaps that's what the story is about.
The lines she's drawn are very arbitrary.


Ugh, do you really need this explained?

What major/driving character is nameless in a film or novel?
In what society or reality do women not relate to one another?
In what society or reality do women only talk to one another about men?

The point is to make the public aware that an overwhelming amount of popular films either depict women as secondary, dependent superfluous characters or not at all.

I'll assume you're a white male.
Now imagine that every movie from your childhood, teenage years and current life have female asian protagonists.

Not just a few, not just a large amount, but every major movie is about a female jackie chan type main character.

All deuteragonists, tritagonists and extras are female too.

The only male characters you see are the worried desperate husband, the drunken hobo, the clueless nameless youth.
No male characters have major lines.
No two male characters talk anything other then their how they miss and need wives.
No males are depicted that aren't ripped half naked & constanly flexing to attract attention from the main female.

Now imagine all the little boys that would grow up without a Batman or Spiderman or Dr. Doom to day dream about.

Are you visualizing this world?
Because for little girls this [objectification, helpless ditzy stereotype, lack of confident/constructive behavior modeling]
is a persistent reality.

Her's are just a list of seemingly-relevant points that rely on their simplicity. Who's to say having a character name is always a good thing? So what if women don't talk to one another in a film? Why is that such a good thing? Why is that the measuring stick? And so what if women talk about a man in a film. Perhaps that's what the story is about.

The lines she's drawn are very arbitrary.

Haha. I'm not sure if Golgi had valid reason to claim RadHazG's comment was false, but the simplicity in his comment made me laugh.

Hear hear!

There are many people (Republican base) who think that anyone who is smarter than them is trying to cheat them. While I don't necessarily agree with that, I would agree that anyone who makes something unnecessarily complicated is trying to deceive you.

Simplicity is the key to honesty.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

It's really easy and commonplace to look to the past and say "oh that's just common sense- of course that was the right way to do it."

The truth is that no one was making a phone that was a finger driven multi-touch, all screen "the device is the screen" device.

Now everyone seems to be- and I think that's great. But credit where credit is due. The current crop of smart phones have borrowed heavily from the iPhone in just about every way.


>> ^rottenseed:
Right...and all that really matters is what's under the hood (bonnet). At the end of the day, you have 2 good cars to choose from in your analogy. Google didn't invent the search engine, but what they did with it was revolutionary. It's ok to take an idea and build upon it. Your only comparison seems skin deep. Besides, in my opinion, the iphone's "look" is the lowest common denominator. It's not flashy, it's not sexy...it's a bit slippery though. It's not like they had a revolutionary design. Their design was based on simplicity. Which works. And you can't patent simplicity.>> ^dag:
A closer analogy would be that if everyone was driving motorized trikes -and then someone invents the Ford Mustang. Then all the motorized trike makers decide to start making Camaros.
>> ^rottenseed:
I see the shape is the same...and they're both black. They also both have icons. That's like saying 2 cars are the same because they have 4 wheels, 4 doors, and windows.

Right...and all that really matters is what's under the hood (bonnet). At the end of the day, you have 2 good cars to choose from in your analogy. Google didn't invent the search engine, but what they did with it was revolutionary. It's ok to take an idea and build upon it. Your only comparison seems skin deep. Besides, in my opinion, the iphone's "look" is the lowest common denominator. It's not flashy, it's not sexy...it's a bit slippery though. It's not like they had a revolutionary design. Their design was based on simplicity. Which works. And you can't patent simplicity.>> ^dag:
A closer analogy would be that if everyone was driving motorized trikes -and then someone invents the Ford Mustang. Then all the motorized trike makers decide to start making Camaros.
>> ^rottenseed:
I see the shape is the same...and they're both black. They also both have icons. That's like saying 2 cars are the same because they have 4 wheels, 4 doors, and windows.

>> ^bmacs27:
Alright... here's a new proposal we'll call the "Greek system". It's beauty is in the simplicity. Everybody gets a cadillac plan, retires at 58, and we mail the bill to Germany. How does that sound?


That only works if you get the banks that issue your debt to hide the fact that they expect you to default, while they bust their butts selling it to others. But once you get the Ponzi schemers involved, you're golden.

>> ^Stormsinger:
And just for the sake of accuracy, there isn't really any such thing as "THE" European system...there's a bunch of different systems used in Europe, from fully socialized to private non-profit highly-regulated insurance.

Alright... here's a new proposal we'll call the "Greek system". It's beauty is in the simplicity. Everybody gets a cadillac plan, retires at 58, and we mail the bill to Germany. How does that sound?

*isdupe ... ahhh gotta love the simplicity of the new system

I think what a lot of people need to realise is the world of computers doesn't just consist of you hardcore nerds who actually care about stuff like multi-tasking, playing with insides and any other pointlessly hopeless reason you have for hating something you haven't touched.

The thing is and I know this is going to be difficult to grasp, many people DON'T want needlessly complex interfaces to do what they want to do on the internet, neither Windows, OS X or Linux is an appropriate tool. It's great if you love working in a terminal with your 100 memorised key commands but this is not for everyone.

You need to understand that there are people that can NOT grasp the idea of a "tab" in a browser, there are people who think a browser IS the internet, there are people when you tell them to open another window, will minimize to desktop to re-click the application icon. You may call them stupid in your high chair but there is absolutely no reason these people should be deprived of enjoying the same entertainment you do. The simplicity of the iPhone/iPad OS is entirely 100% intentional, it doesn't multi-task on purpose, multi-tasking is utterly confusing! Again not for you that's great but you already have 10000 other devices you are free to choose from.

People miss one key fact, not everything is for you, not every product is going to cater to your needs. I can tell you around my circle of friends and family, not a single person could give two damns about a webcam and I challenge anyone to show me some kind of report that shows how amazingly popular video chat is. Not a single person cares that they can't "stream Pandora and write an email at the same time!", not a single one has ever even heard of Pandora, I in fact had never heard of it until I heard people whinging about it with the iPad.

Also please stop comparing this to the iPod/iPhone, if you think a bigger screen is a "small change", you need to take a course in Human Computer Interaction and then come back and repeat that sentence. I also bet you think that porting a desktop application to a mobile is just shrinking it down? Please.

I loved the movie to bits, watched it twice in a matter of days, but I love this review also. Some people, like myself, may be perfectly aware of simplicity, cliche etc but still be able to thoroughly enjoy a film anyway.

...With point and click simplicity...

They won't miss these added features because those primarily exposed to Apple's mass marketed products won't expect them by default. If Apple can define tablet PC to lack or not require GPS, a camera, possibly even Flash then that will define their expectations. I'm sure more are and will remain oblivious to the likes of the Archos 5G/9 which is superior to the iPad and does everything it should:

Archos 9 - $600
1.76 lbs.
1.1Ghz ATOM Z510. Runs Windows 7.
8.9", 1024 x 600 pixels resistive, LED backlight.
10.08" x 5.28" x 0.67" thick
7.4v Lithium-Polymer battery, 5 hours, removeable. 36W (12v @ 3a) power adapter.
HDD 60GB (1.8")
WiFi (802,11b/g), Bluetooth 2.0 (EDR)
Microphone.
Stereo Speakers.
Headphone jack.
1.3mp Webcam,
Optical trackpoint mouse,L/R mouse buttons.
Built-in Stand, 2-positions.
USB port.
Lotus Symphony included: Documents, Spreadsheets, Presentations.

iPad - Starting at $500, but $700 for that amount of hard drive space.
1.5 lbs.
1Ghz A4. Runs iPad OS 3.2.
9.7", 1024 x 768 pixels, capacitive, LED backlight, IPS, Oleophobic
9.56" x 7.47" x 0.5" thick.
25Whr Lithium-Polymer battery, 10 hours, fixed. 10W (5v @ 2a) power adapter.
16GB, 32GB, or 64GB flash memory.
WiFi (802,11a/b/g/n), Bluetooth 2.1 (EDR)
Microphone.
Speakers: Mono Audio.
Headphone jack.
iPad versions of iLife apps: $9.99 each (x 3).

Also I think the user utility associated with Apple's products is exaggerated. It's simplicity that they do well, and again the kind of people who are not aware of the customization they might appreciate, are missing out on and might benefit from are the same people that laud it. That and the fact that user utility feels like it's too often conflated with style. The scroll wheel on the iPod sure was a fancy marketing gimmick but having used a 5G iPod now for over a year, I would gladly get tactile controls back. There's simply no comparison, and really the only thing I can assume is Apple users who claim it's efficient have no frame of reference. The same can be said with OS X, sure it's full of stylish transitions, animations and some good features, but I'd wager especially with how familiar everyone is with Windows, it's no more of an efficient work tool. I see Jobs made a big deal about pointing out that the iPad will have a similar user interface to the iPhone. I think that drives home the point that there's nothing that immensely intuitive about Apple devices. They still must be learnt. People are simply more willing to invest time into learning to how to use an interface of a device that is more popular and they predict will be around for a longer time.

Coming back to the iPad, I still think even the average consumer is going to be pissed off by the lack of some features. It's pretty clear that they didn't just want to make a portable internet device that surpasses the iPhone in usability, they wanted to make something that clearly doesn't eat into the market share of their budget MacBook and MacBook Air. They could have loaded a desktop OS on it, but they purposely didn't. I think many will struggle with the idea that an internet device like this can't do Flash, doesn't have a USB port and can't run their favourite PC/Mac programs.

That may be it's downfall or marketing, and simplicity as you mentioned may win out. If Apple says 'revolutionary' enough, maybe they won't realise this device is bested by something that came out in October 2009.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^chilaxe:
I could get behind liberalism if there was a movement within it to hold accountable those fellow liberals who sabotage the cause.
Liberals have plenty of sites like 'Crooks and Liars" or Mediawatch to keep an eye on the excesses of conservatives... why can't they do the same to keep an eye on the excesses of fellow liberals?
Such a movement is certainly under way. I think Chris Dodd would have been primaried if he didn't resign (incidentally, you should rent Michael Moore's Capitalism -- he trashes Dodd pretty nicely in there and raises more than a few doubts about Democratic resolve). Charlie Rangel is a popular target too. Tim Geithner and Larry Summers, etc.
If you want a liberal taking Democrats to task with no holds barred, try Glenn Greenwald's blog. I read it occasionally, but most of the time I find him far too depressing.
I don't read Firedoglake anymore, because they've, IMO, gone off the deep end (Jane Hamsher was pushing people to work together with the tea parties to kill HCR once the public option got stripped), but if you're looking for progressives critical of Democrats, they're another good resource.
Personally, I'm a big fan of DailyKos. It's probably the biggest progressive community on the net, so often it's the battleground upon which most left vs. left fights are played out. The main content is geared towards organizing activism and electoral strategy, and commentary on the day's political events, but the Diaries are usually a grab-bag of all kinds of interesting topics, not all of which are political.
They're starting to shift from a focus on "more Democrats" to "better Democrats", but I'm not sure how many opportunities we'll have for that in 2010. Most of those that they've talked about are House races, or Arlen Specter's ongoing primary.


That's good to hear that there are left vs. left debates. However, are these mostly just folks on the far-left of the political bell curve 'pushing harder even if it means we lose'? As long as that's the dominant liberal paradigm, they don't seem to me to be reliable societal partners who can be reasoned with.

That might sound very uninvolved, but I think any intellectuals who go into politics (i.e. not Moore, Olbermann, Huffington etc.) will find that the tail wags the dog: if intellectual figures don't tell the liberal masses what they want to hear, the masses will just find figures who will. Olbermann saying "I'm not a liberal; I'm an American" seems to be a good example of that kind of permanent intellectual simplicity.

I suppose this is an inevitable macrohistorical problem... perhaps any intelligent species on any planet would face it... the necessary legacy of human evolution is that the kind of interest in cognitive complexity that's advantageous in a complex modern society wasn't sufficiently advantageous during the last 10,000 or 100,000 years to be widespread today. In other words, any collection of social norms that must appeal to 50% of the population can only achieve a limited level of intellectual accuracy.

The take-home lesson for me is: that means an individual with a greater level of intellectual accuracy can out-predict them, and thus position themselves in the right place at the right time (for whatever opportunity is targeted).

i am with Nordi on this.
plutocracy.
many here have made some good points but let me add a few that have not been mentioned.
let me do this by asking a question first?
how?
how was this even able to occur?
the answer is simple as it is insidious and subtle.
propaganda or as the federal government quaintly calls it "council of public relations".
this entity purposely chose this name due to goebbels giving "propaganda" a bad name.
considering that america has over 2000 media outlets which are only owned by 5 people/corporations,
is it any wonder that the average american population is unsure,ill-informed and kept squabbling in a divisive polemic?
they own the largest megaphone on the planet and use it like a bludgeon to keep people arguing over trivialities while the house burns down.they keep people fearful and suspicious of their neighbor.they have people convinced they are powerless and impotent to stop what is transpiring.
instilling apathy or fear. both work for those who seek to empower themselves and keep you quaking with dread in the corner,or so apathetic you do nothing.either end justifies their means.

well...ok.they have a pretty powerful propaganda machine.
how is it able to work so effectively besides the obvious?
indoctrination.
basically..in short.the public school system.
i have already shown my ire and indignation towards this abomination on another thread.
but suffice to say it is the public school systems very own curriculum that prepares young minds to tacitly accept the authority of the state.
NCLB teaches very little but specific information while disregarding the VITAL importance of teaching critical thinking skills.so students may test well but never learned the tools to not only question authority but have the ability to formulate the question in the first place.
go to school.
get good grades (a meaningless,arbitrary measuring system).
go to college or trade school.
get a job.
marry and have children.
then be a good consumer and buy buy buy:
a house,a car every three years,a big screen TV and more superficial crap in order to impress your neighbors how "successful" you are.
you are taught from a very young age that your worth is based on beauty and how big your bank account is.
your worth to american society can be measured by your ability to be a good consumer.
fail at that and america has the largest private prison system just waiting for to fill their cells.
either way... you are disposable.

one last thing.
what if the corporate propaganda machine does not work on you?
what if you were a pretty clever monkey and were able to slip through the indoctrination of public schools.
oh..they have an institution for that and it is BRILLIANT!
religion.
dont want to play by the rules set up for you to be a good consumer slave?
well they have a special place for those who do not obey god.
so..you are not afraid of the government?
you saw through the indoctrination of the public school system?
you think you are so clever but god has a place for those who do not obey.
oh no...not in this lifetime.
but the one AFTER,when you die.
so you dont want to obey the rules.
ok.
but just know that after you die god will judge you and send you to a place to burn and suffer.
for eternity.
it is brilliant in its simplicity.
and it all comes down to the same thing,every single time.
FEAR.
the most influential and divisive emotion ever is FEAR.
they got you as a child,as an adult and even after you die.
WORK-OBEY-CONSUME

once you recognize these tactics it is not very hard to walk away from them and ignore them.
but first to have to recognize the puppet strings in order to do that.

"people should not be afraid of their governments.governments should be afraid of the people" V