No kidding. Apparently getting your city to build its own fiber network is a sure fire way to get a telecom off its ass, as demonstrated by a Minnesota suburb:
This little article kinda stinks. I don't have personal experience with their networks in SF or NYC, but without a y-axis on those graphs or a definition of "Voice Composite Quality Index", I don't think you can really draw any conclusions other than they are improving over time. Seems like this guy is just looking for a reason as to why his service is shoddy.
My theory is that the people with "distaste at overt sexuality in minors" are actually just uncomfortable with their own sexuality.
For example, this Skumanick guy sees young girls at the beach in bikinis and is uncomfortable with the fact that he's sexually attracted to them. To me this is just part of our biology and it's not a big deal. But this guy is so insecure that he goes on a mission to make it be known that he does not approve of this behavior because to him the thoughts he's having about the girls at the beach are impure. He even goes so far as to say he's able to prosecute minors in bikinis at the beach.
It's the same sort of situation with the article's reference to Mark Foley.
Sure just because you're highly skilled in a narrow field doesn't mean you're a better human. It sucks that because of media we relate these skills with human worthiness, but you can't say that competition at a high level is worthless because of these drawbacks.
There are good reasons to have highly competitive sports. It lets people see what our bodies and minds are capable of, and it helps gives us an identity as individuals and as humans. Not to mention that entertainment is not pointless. Unless you're only going to look at it from a philosophical perspective, then yeah, pretty much everything we do is meaningless.
This is exactly what I was thinking, but I couldn't come up with a way to articulate it as well as you did. I wanted to add that as you gain experience and wisdom, you may see just how hard it is to change society to behave in the 'ideal' fashion. Meaning as you become older, you learn better how to adapt to what society is and lose the desire to make society what you want it to be, simply because you learn that the former will give you results much quicker.
I don't get it. Your reasoning for supporting an arbitrary age line is because after "a decade or more of life-experience and hard-won wisdom", your perspective changes and you'll know that it's not unwise. I don't doubt the benefit of experience and wisdom, but where is your actual reasoning?
Logistically speaking, an arbitrary age limit is the best option for the way western urban society is set up (it actually self-reinforces the whole thing). The fact is that society does segregate young from old, and it does delay adulthood for a great number of teens.
But I'm young and inexperienced, and in due time I will see that the way our society is set up is the only way, right?
I'm agreeing that they are different. I'm merely stating that the physical and neurological differences are not enough to legislate what young people can and can't do. Society will always view young people as inexperienced, and those youngsters who haven't proven themselves will always have their place in society.
What would I make different? Not that it's practical (or even non-nebulous), but I would restore the "child-adult continuum" that the article mentions, because I agree with the author when he says the age-based restrictions tend to delay the onset of real, actual, adulthood. Which is bad.
But that's not the point. People with brains that are still developing are perfectly capable of functioning in 'adult' society. Many teenagers, and perhaps society as a whole, would benefit it we allowed those willing young people to make 'adult' contributions.