I'm not very hipsterish, but I chose maybe because I do a lot of things hipsters do. For example, I type in Dvorak, I like the ∞ Peirce Quincuncial map projection ∞, I run Linux, and I use Google+ heavily. I'm not a complete hipster (I hate shoes with toes). I'm sure I forgot some hipsterish things I do, too.

I don't like these things because they set me apart, though. I feel like the Dvorak layout speeds up my typing and helps me make less mistakes. The Peirce Quincuncial map makes the mast sense to me out of all the projections I've seen. I like Linux more than Windows. I like Google+ made than Facebook because there in actually intelligent discussion on it, rather than posts about whether Whiskers likes his gourmet cat food. There is no rational reason I hate shoes with toes, though. I just don't like (read: can't stand) them.

No, I do not believe that Amanda Todd deserved to die, and I'm not sure if I'm wrong since I don't know what it takes to drive someone to suicide, but I do not feel any sympathy for her death. I feel bad for her family, and friends, and anyone who knew her. I feel bad that she was bullied so much because of one photo, but I do not feel bad for her killing herself. In addition to all of this, 500,000 teenagers try to kill themselves each year, and 5,000 succeed. Most of these are the result of bullying. I don't see how Amanda Todd's suicide is any more special than all of these other ones.

I'm barely know anything about psychology, but I'm guessing that one event is not going to make someone kill themselves. The bullying was probably the latest in a long chain of events. I don't know what it is like to be bullied as much as Amanda Todd was, but I couldn't imagine it making me want to kill myself. If you want to know how I feel about this, read ∞ This ∞.

If I could vote, I would vote for the Green Party candidate, Dr. Jill Stein. I have the luxury of not living in a swing state, and Obama is going to win in it, so there's no chance that me voting Green could contribute to Romney winning.

I would vote for Dr. Stein because I dislike both candidates. Romney would be an extremely corrupt president, and I think that he's just in the race to make money. I have a number of problems with Obama, too.

I think that no matter who wins, we are going to have troops in Iran sometime in the next four years. Also, Obama would probably keep the country relatively similar to what we have now: no Canadian or European style healthcare, the rich-poor divide continuing to grow, companies keep polluting without caring that the Arctic permafrost is going to melt in thirty years and bring the Earth's climate beyond repair, tech companies will keep abusing the patent system to destroy their competitors, and more.

I don't believe that Dr. Stein would be able to solve every one of these issues, since Congress would probably still be made up of Democrats and Republicans, neither of which would be willing to hurt their corporate sponsors, but Dr. Stein would at least be able to bring us closer to fixing this.

There are other candidates I like, too. Rocky Anderson, running with the Justice Party, has a platform that is almost identical to Dr. Stein. The only reason I would vote for Stein is that I think that the Green Party has a much higher chance of becoming mainstream than the Justice Party. I also like the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson. I don't agree with everything that he believes, but I agree with him on almost every social issue. My main problem with him is on environmental issues, such as renewable energy.

I dislike Apple for a number of political and ethical reasons, but I'll leave that out of this post and just talk about quality. I don't like any Apple product. I find all their devices extremely limiting, and a general pain to use. I don't really have any specific problem with them; I just don't like them.

I dislike iPhones and iPads for a number of reasons. I don't like the hardware (I find the black or white, flat rectangle boring), and I don't like iOS. It just isn't suited to my work styles. Lastly, there's no way to switch the keyboard from QWERTY to AZERTY or Dvorak. Finally, I just don't see anything to like about iOS.

I think that this is going to attract and repel an equal amount of people. On one hand, people like me are going to be repelled, because we want to get negative ratings for a bad post. On the other hand, more sensitive (sorry if I'm making that sound like a negative trait. That's not my intention) people, who are closer to the crowd that A β Pseudolonewolf wants, are going to join. This is certainly going to repel me, although I've been drifting away from this site for the last few months anyway, and once I finish (read: stop procrastinating on) the community site that I'm working on, I'm probably going to completely stop visiting this site, or only visit it to vote in the Random People Polls by CtG.

On the other hand, I think that people who's personalities A β Pseudolonewolf wants are going to start joining. More and types are going to join, since they will like the more light-hearted atmosphere of the revised site. Rather than being scared by negative ratings, these people will probably be encouraged to join discussions more.

This thread is about your smart phone preference. Do you prefer iPhones, Windows Phones, Android, Blackberries, or something else. This poll should be pretty self-explanatory, so I'll go straight into my answers.

iPhones: I hate iPhones. I have no problem with other people using them, but I don't like them. Besides problems I have with Apple (abusing Chinese workers, abusing the patent system to hurt competitors, etc.), I just find iThings a pain to use. One of my lesser problems with them is that the hardware is boring. I find the black rectangle with a flat top and bottom and rounded corners to be a dull shape. My favorite phone design is the ∞ one ∞ ∞ used ∞ ∞ by ∞ ∞ Motorola ∞. I like the sharper corners and more utilitarian design. Another reason I dislike iPhones is that they aren't customizable enough. Apple has a specific vision of what your device looks like, and you have to stick with it. I don't like the closed down ecosystem, for philosophical reasons. Finally, I just don't like any of the preinstalled apps. I know a lot of people love them, but I find them boring and hard to use. They just don't fit my style of working on a phone.

Androids: This is my favorite platform. I'll admit that 4.0 (which came out at the end of 2011) was the first version that was actually ready for the average consumer, but now, 4.0 and 4.1 are great platforms. I like the fact that there are different models of phones to buy, since I love Motorolas, but other people like Samsungs, or HTC's, or Asus's, or something else. I use the Google ecosystem in my day-to-day computing (I use GMail for mail, Google Calendar as my calendar, I love Google+, but nobody I know is on it, if I could afford one, I would probably buy a Chromebook and only use my conventional netbook for programming). I like the more open nature of Android, too. I like being able to install any app, rather than just ones Apple approves. My main issue with Android is custom skins. Because of Android's open nature, manufacturers usually install their own custom launcher instead of the stock one, they change icons, and they make other modifications. The solution to this, though, is the Nexus line of phones. It is made directly by Google, and uses unmodified Android.

Windows Phone: Judging by the few times I've used them, I really like Windows Phones. I like Androids more, and they don't seem like a fully mature product yet (I'm hoping Windows Phone 8 will change that), but I do really like using them. The main problems I have are that there is a very small supply of apps. (Sorry if I get these numbers wrong; they are just what I remember them being, but I think that Windows Phone has 20,000 apps, while Android has 450,000, and the iPhone has 600,000.)

Blackberry: I've never used one, but they don't appeal much to me.

So. What's your favorite mobile platform?

This the exact same as the ∞ Gregorc Learning Styles ∞. The quiz is also virtually identical to the one I took about the Learning Styles, besides that it is worded a little differently. Basically, people are either Abstract or Concrete, and Random or Sequential. This is a short description of the different blends:

Abstract Sequentials (AS) are similar to Greens on this test. They like to learn, and are generally calm and collected. They also tend to be more arrogant than the other types.

Concrete Sequentials (CS) and similar to Golds. They like to be organized and thorough. They are also very responsible. They can be overly serious, though, and can come off as cold.

Concrete Randoms (CR) are like Oranges. They are creative and like to "think outside the box." They are also controlling and aren't always reliable, getting easily sidetracked.

Abstract Randoms (AR) are like Blues. They understand emotions well, and care a lot about other people. They can be unfocused and are easily hurt, too.

If you read the different descriptions in the PDF this thread is about, you will be able to learn a lot more about the regorc Learning Styles/Colors.

Here are a few scenarios that might give you more of an understanding:



Now, about me. I'm certainly a Green. I didn't take the test, but since I already knew about the Learning Styles (which is an Abstract Sequential/Green trait), I was able to figure this out pretty easily. I have a lot of AS/Green traits, such as being arrogant, learning for the sake of learning, being sarcastic, loving to read, being future-focused, being analytical, having a good memory, loving theoretical thinking, loving puzzles, procrastinating, and others.

I chose Supernatural, because the first five seasons were good, but the last two seemed tacked on just to make more money. I think that it should have ended after season five, when they resolved the story.

The Big Bang Theory and How I Met Your Mother are both enjoyable, but I've never been able to watch a comedy for too long at a time, while I am able to watch a sci fi/fantasy show for a few hours at a time (I finished the fourth season of the X-Files in one day. It's 18 hours long).

The Simpsons is also a great show, but there have only been two or three good episodes for the past seven or eight seasons.

I would probably choose Merlin, but I've never watched it. I've never watched Breaking Bad or Desperate Housewives either, although I assum I wouldn't like the latter.

I chose "I frequently attend some kinds of parties, but not others" because I'm on the school fencing team, and during the season the team has parties almost every other week. I never go to other parties, since I don't know the people who have them often, and my social life is nonexistent. During these parties, we usually play "genderhunt" (gender neutral manhunt) and watch as much of the Lord of the Rings trilogy as we can.

My family has a Christmas Eve party (odd, since none of us are Christian) where relatives I've never heard of before and some of our close friends come. I rarely participate in this, and I'm usually hiding in my room on the chat.

Finally, all of the school music classes go on a trip to some city (last year it was Philadelphia) for a few days every year to compete in a music competition, and there is a party that everybody goes to. This is more of a classical party, with mainly dominated by dancing.

Those are the only parties that I go to, mostly because everyone I'm good enough friends with to get invited to a party is on the fencing team, so I never even hear about other parties than the ones I listed.

I chose "DLC is morally justifiable, but not DRM!". When used right, both of them are good ideas, but I can't think of any real life example of DRM being used right. Also, I'm going to be focusing on music DRM, not game DRM. Most of what I say applies to games too, though.

DRM was originally created to prevent people from copying copyrighted data. This would mean that pirates could not copy and resell the media, so that the creators of it could make money off it. The problem with this is that if people have multiple computers, they can only have their content on one of them, and they cannot back it up. I cannot think of a way around this, but I'm sure that one exists. In practice, though, DRM is used to prevent anything but a certain product from using this data. After months of reading Slashdot, I usually associate DRM with music, so one example is iTunes. I do not think that it still uses DRM, but iTunes at least used to use DRM so that only iThings could play music bought from the store. This is morally wrong, because it restricts users of that data to only using a certain company's product. For example, I couldn't use music bought from iTunes on Google Music or Windows Media Player.

DLC is morally justifiable in most cases. If DLC is used for the purpose you stated in the post, where pieces were removed from the game and resold. In any other case I can think of, it is justifiable. I find nothing morally wrong for releasing an expansion pack and making people pay for it. This is just paying the developers for their work.