Just because he wrote some code that was used so widely doesn't make him more significant than a janitor who cleans after you, or the "gang" member who was evading the brutal cops for a chance for his freedom. The sooner we realize people are equal because they're human fucking beings the greater hope for humanity to avoid its imminent demise.
It's like asking what makes 5 greater than 5. Humans are all significant simply because they have rational minds and are rational beings. A human being cannot impose on others a value or worthiness, because we are rational beings and have independent minds. As you probably have noticed by now this is not me saying these things, it's from Immanuel Kant. I found these lectures on the topic absolutely amazing to watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY
It's worth mentioning that all humans are -humans- just like 5 == 5.
However, the fact humans are humans doesn't make them equal. Unlike a number humans have dimensionality. They can be taller, shorter, stronger, weaker, smarter, dumber, richer, poorer etc. Along with any number of other attributes like job, geographical location, father, mother etc.
Equality is a very precise thing and humans are anything but equal.
You need to read some more philosophy (or, I guess, watch some more.) By asserting unconditional equality, you deny the existence of the will. That position can be defended, but I'm skeptical that you're up to the task at the moment.
Because life is random and stochastic. The sooner you realize that your very existence was simply a roll of the dice, the more liberated you will become.
Don't be too sure - some of histories supposedly greatest people have also been mass killers. Your views on them largely just depend on which side of the conflict(s) you were on and what time you are in. To take a fairly simple example, Churchill. Lots of good, lots to admire. But plenty of dark decisions and many deaths attributable to these.
I'll believe it when I see it, seems very unlikely though. BGR is on a role, this has to be the second or third horrible article I've read from them this week.
I was annoyed at the sheer length of time it took to receive a formal invitation. They built up hype way too early. By the time it was available I didn't really care anymore, I had moved on to other things out of frustration. How are you supposed to successfully launch a site in which you interact with friends but not let anyone in (at a decent rate)?
I think the last time I looked at it, it required an invite. I didn't care enough to give them an email address. Or maybe it was the same as now: the front page has "login in with Facebook" and "log in with Twitter" as the only actions. I don't want to do either of those things. Just play me some music, then if I like it we'll talk about logins. Pandora got that right years ago.
Nobody wants to carry around another gaming device in addition to phones that are completely capable of doing the same things. 3DS' 3D abilities seem more gimmicky than useful. Putting classic titles on the App Store and Android Marketplace (that are no longer being sold or generating revenue) seems like a no brainer to me.
I would like to see data on developer profits from paid/ad based apps though. I wonder if this may be due to more free apps on the Android Marketplace.
It's frustrating that privacy features like this have to be secondary thoughts. Sharing your music should have been an opt in feature, not something done automatically.
