An'eye' picks up the sun? You realise solar panels are very inefficient require a very large area to collect even a small amount of energy, right? It's not like a camera lens.
Also, there is no such thing as a 'solar battery'. Solar is just a way to collect energy to recharge batteries such as lithium. It's not a type of battery.
A modern smartphone would likely need a solar panel larger than a textbook to have even a small chance of recharging it at the same speed as a wall outlet. A laptop would need one the size of a TV. naturally, that will not fit on the device.
You realise that's just communism?
Money is one of the things that encourages contribution. If there's no money, why would anyone work? How would scientists obtain the resources to cure diseases? How would products be created if you don't get anything for doing so? In fact, why would anyone even be educated if there's no difference or payoff for curing cancer compared to being a cashier?
Why would anyone obey road rules if you don't get fined? How would great products be created if EVERYONE can have everything, resulting in not enough for any (see: poverty).
In your explanation, you state "In this system, a person can have everything he needs and all the reasonable material wants he desires so long as he contributes to the society in some positive fashion". How will you judge what a positive contribution is? How will you decide what amount of 'reasonable material' he is then entitled to, without everyone just claiming everything?
Oh I know. How about providing them a suitable amount of resources equal to the amount of contribution, rarity of the job or quality of what is produced?
You know, kind of like money does.
This is one of the most stupid, short-sighted posts I've ever seen. Please go to school and learn why this is the worst idea imaginable unless you enjoy mass unemployment, poverty (no-one's farming or manufacturing because they don't have to, since there is no incentive to do any job in particular), anarchy and fighting / rioting over resources.
Having next to no money and equal access to resources has worked great for North Korea. Perhaps you should start there?
That's true, and not something I considered with my comment.
I was intending mine only in response to sexual orientation (the original post), rather than actual disabilities.
Sexual orientation is not something that affects one's ability to be independent, live a full life or needs treatment in any way; unlike some of the other example above such as autism or physical disabilities.
Even though it can be more difficult being gay, this is due to the ignorance of others. While the attitude still exists that it is undesirable to be gay, even in a 'not wanting your child to face hardship' manner, it still reinforces the notion that being gay is something to be ashamed of.
Let's reword the original post with a different group, and see if it would still be acceptable:
"You can be for women's rights without being totally fine with your baby turning out to be female, amirite?"
Disclaimer: I'm doing a PhD in the area of games.
If you look at the research rather than the need to blame something you don't understand for real-world violence, games can AT MOST have a 2% affect on a person's aggression (tendency to violence) level.
Once personality and existing predisposition to violence is accounted for, violent games do not affect aggression levels or the probability of committing real-world violence. Short-term aggression while playing games is the result of competition and challenge; much like sports. A person can be aggressive while playing Mario Kart due to this, but be perfectly placid in a hyper-violent game.
Correlation does not equal causation. An example: people are more likely to drown on days when ice cream sales are high. Does that mean eating ice cream makes you drown? Nope; people are just more likely to eat ice cream on hot days, and people are also more likely to go to the beach on hot days, therefore increasing the number of potential drowning victims.
As a researcher it annoys me endlessly when people would rather take opinion as fact rather than do the actual research. Just because you assume something does not make it fact.
I didn't read this amirite post. I just clicked Agree.
But what if they ARE speaking a foreign language? :O
No. Because it implies you are not allowed to make your own decisions or live for yourself.
Just like if your family has a business, you should not be obligated to take over it because otherwise it would be 'disrespectful' to your ancestors who started it.
There are always going to be people overlooked in their achievements, but that doesn't mean no-one should be recognized and awarded. It follows the ridiculous logic of 'if someone doesn't get something, no-one should get it'.
Eg: there are kids starving in Africa. Therefore, no-one should get food.
I'm not sure that really hold much weight. A tree doesn't feel pain and isn't aware, so is that murder too?
Personally the sentience and awareness arguments are the more important issues.
That's describing a really good game, other than the 'no time passing', particularly RPGs (role-playing games) and MMOs (massively multiplayer online games).
This is exactly why games like Mass Effect, Skyrim, Guild Wars 2, Dragon Age, The Witcher and others are so popular; they provide the exact experience you've described of living in an amazing world that couldn't exist in real life and letting you experience impossible things.
The point where you are so immersed in a game that your brain switches over to directly responding to the game as if it were real and forgetting the interface between you and the game (the controller and screen) is what's known as 'flow', and is what game designers strive to achieve.
If you haven't tried an RPG such as the ones mentioned above, I'd really recommend it; it adds the one element books and movies don't have in letting you inhabit and explore the world at leisure and make your own decisions.
Android can't really be directly compared, because there are hundreds of Android products made by many different companies. As a result, you get both amazing and horrible products, just like you can get both amazing and shoddy PCs.
Unfortunately this often means that many people will assume a bad experience with an Android product is also applicable to other Androids. For example, the HTC Thunderbolt has horrible battery life while the Galaxy S III and RAZR Maxx have fantastic battery life.
If you pick a good Android product (eg: Galaxy Nexus, Galaxy S III, HTC One X, Nexus 7), then the differences between it and Apple come down to a few things:
The issue is that the 'clean hands' thing seems to be an assumption on your part rather than having any factual evidence backing it. Just like other gay stereotypes are assumed to apply to the majority simply because only the stereotypes are immediately recognisable as being gay.
Ah, that makes more sense. :)
If you're not totally fine with your son being the way he was born, then you need to rethink your parenting.