If anyone had any lingering hope left that Snowden could get a fair trial for the probable charges that aren't simply fabricated out of nowhere, surely this clears it up.
No, they'll sue youtube-dl and Xposed now, for cutting into their revenue. "Don't be Evil" is so last month.
As I said last time this came up, browser-integrated DRM is as much about ads (especially for Google) as it is about content. Stopping you from reading/recording a video stream necessarily stops you from altering it.
He is now a man of a different conviction, who has gone a full 180 on the promises he campaigned on, ending up running the politics he campaigned against. I liked Senator Obama. President Obama, not so much.
No, you liked Candidate Obama.
In mid-2008, he voted to grant the telecoms immunity from prosecution for warrantless (i.e. illegal) wiretapping. The red flags were already there if you paid attention to his actions rather than his words.
Indeed it is. I would have thought it was far worse for people who donate to causes that Gamergate doesn't like. After all, it's Gamergate fanboys who do most of the harassment and doxxing
You sound confident in that claim, so you must have evidence of it. Do post some, because (as I said elsewhere in the thread) it's become routine for anti-Gamergate folks to portray exposure of corruption and mere disagreement with their opinions as "harrassment," and we know pro-GG folks get doxxed too (not sure about the ratio of pro-GG to anti-GG doxxing victims, and there's definitely no way to know the perpetrator ratio . . . though some do openly support doxxing, like Quinn and Harper and R Watson and Gawker's CEO, etc.).
Here's an example of what I'm looking for:
That is direct video evidence of an anti-Gamergate Sarkeesian follower threatening physical violence against Thunderfoot. We unquestionably know exactly
a) who that guy is (clearly identifiable face)
b) which side he's on (anti-Gamergate)
c) what he said ("I will fuck you over for that one of these days if it's the last thing I ever do" and "Thunderfoot's an idiot, and I will punch him dead in the face if I ever see him"), and
d) who he's talking to (Thunderfoot).
And it took me less than a minute to turn up the link. But, for some reason, this threat hasn't been reported anywhere. Everyone knows that if your side had evidence anywhere near as damning (i.e. a video of someone supporting Gamergate and threatening Sarkeesian), we would never hear the end of it, ever, across dozens or hundreds of sites--proving, BTW, that such sites are not anti-threats or anti-harrassment; they're just anti-Gamergate (i.e. anti-ethics). But just in case they have all failed to report on such evidence, feel free to post it now.
P.S. Even so, if you tell me that Sarkeesian isn’t responsible for what that jerk said, and he doesn’t represent her, then I would 100% agree with you (and ask you to put two and two together . ..)
Go ahead, post something half as damning (and conclusive) as that pathetic Sarkeesian "fanboy."
(I use the term "Gamergate fanboys" to avoid the argument about who is inside Gamergate and who is outside.)
Wow, look at you, admitting up front you can't fulfill c) above. Tell me, why is the tech news sites' reporting of Gamergate "harassment" always so disconnected (in fact, usually the opposite) of what is indicated by the evidence? Must be lots of folks just like you working the field . . .
Spinning this hack as bad for Gamergate requires some desperate mental gymnastics.
Gamergate exposed many undisclosed financial relationships between the gaming journalists and article subjects, forcing their employers to reform their ethics policies and add appropriate disclosures.
A significant chunk of those relationships were through Patreon, and at least one of the resulting ethics policy updates made direct reference to Patreon. Also note that many gaming journalists "responded" to Gamergate's successful push for greater ethics scrutiny by . . . hiding their Patreon donations by making them private.
I doubt the hack is good for either side of the "culture war", but anti-GG has a history of trying to hide where the money is coming from (and going to).
Remember how people reacted to Eich's support of an anti-gay-rights bill.
Sure do. How the reaction was widely reported in the mainstream tech news media is a completely different matter.
It makes sense. Thunderf00t made little from his videos until he started spouting bullshit about Anita Sarkeesian. The first video made him a fair chunk of cash, so he kept doing them. If the profit motive is taken away he will likely lose interest.
Your premise is faulty. He's made videos refuting creationists and promoting science for years, even though he "made little" money from them. The more likely explanation is that anti-progressivism videos were just a natural extension of his previous pro-skeptic content, especially after he saw "progressive" feminists try to infect atheism through Atheism+.
It's important because while he only does a bit of mild harassment, his videos and his cause act as a focal point for other idiots who do much worse.
Merely disagreeing with Thunderf00t or Sargon makes you a target of them and their followers.
Oh, this is fucking priceless. Got any evidence for that assertion? Here, I'll start (using a different "focal point"): https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
That is direct video evidence of an anti-Gamergate Sarkeesian follower threatening physical violence against Thunderfoot. We unquestionably know exactly
a) who that guy is (clearly identifiable face)
b) which side he's on (anti-Gamergate)
c) what he said ("I will fuck you over for that one of these days if it's the last thing I ever do" and "Thunderfoot's an idiot, and I will punch him dead in the face if I ever see him"), and
d) who he's talking to (Thunderfoot).
And it took me less than a minute to turn up the link. But, for some reason, this threat hasn't been reported anywhere. Everyone knows that if your side had evidence anywhere near as damning (i.e. a video of someone supporting Gamergate and threatening Sarkeesian), we would never hear the end of it, ever, across dozens or hundreds of sites--proving, BTW, that such sites are not anti-threats or anti-harrassment; they're just anti-Gamergate (i.e. anti-ethics). But just in case they have all failed to report on such evidence, feel free to post it now.
P.S. Even so, if you tell me that Sarkeesian isn’t responsible for what that jerk said, and he doesn’t represent her, then I would 100% agree with you (and ask you to put two and two together . ..).
Can anybody articulate more the motivations behind this hacking all the surrounding drama? I see some comments about gamer gate and social justice warriors, but I don't understand the whole picture.
A unethical journalist tried to blame the hack on Gamergate, despite the fact that the apparent hacker has made many anti-Gamergate statements. The journalist then went to a popular pro-Gamergate hub to make a show of doing the due diligence and research he should have done before publishing his inaccurate article, and got deservedly ripped to shreds in the comments.
The bottom line is the hacker appears to be third-party troll, so you should take any motivations he voices (pro- or anti- GG or SJW) with a boulder of salt.
Note that both pro-Gamergate and SJW content creators make money from Patreon, but IMO this hack has very little to do with the usual animosity between the two groups.
Some of the comments that confuse you are probably AmiMojo's, because he is trying to conflate unrelated issues and shoehorn the hack into long-running false narrative that Gamergate is a harrassment campaign against women, so he can justify censoring its voices.
For those who didn't hear about it a week ago (there was strangely no Slashdot story), a recent event pusshing that narrative was the presentation of the "Cyber Violence Against Women and Girls" report to (by?) an offshoot of the UN (UN Women). The most ridiculous (and most widely publicized) assertion in the report was that "cyber-violence" exists and is similar to actual, physical violence: http://time.com/4049106/un-cyb...
The U.N. defines violence against women as “any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts.” The report notes that cyber violence is an extension of that definition, that includes acts like trolling, hacking, spamming, and harassment.
The report also argues that “cyber touch is recognized as equally as harmful as physical touch,” suggesting that online harassment might be just as lethal as domestic violence or sexual abuse.
It's a such a blatant attempt to redefine criticism and disagreement as harassment and threats, to demonize free speech as a pretense to censorship.
The report also attacks video games by citing ridiculous sources (all at least a decade old) which say "Nintendo of America, Inc.: Manufactures Pokémon, Game-Boys, and equipment for satanic video games" and references Jack Thompson himself.
So it should come as no surprise that two of the invited the speakers (Quinn and Sarkeesian) were "SJWs" best known as prominent opponents of the Gamergate movement. Yep, Gamergate, the customer revolt demanding more ethical game journalism, whose criticism of and disagreement with the demonstrably unethical gaming press was mischaracterized as (you guessed it) "harrassment" and "threats" and widely censored in an attempt to protect the corrupt journalists, all because those journalists expressed the right politics.
Gamergate (and the FTC, responding to Gamergate pressure) succeeded in forcing many corrupt websites to update their ethics policies and start disclosing personal (and financial) relationships to the subjects of their articles, which is why you always see so many disingenuous and corrupt individuals shitting a brick over it. Two outlets that anti-Gamergate was notoriously unsuccessful at shutting down were tweets and youtube videos, which is why you saw Quinn issuing a false DMCA (against youtuber MundaneMatt) a year ago, and Sarkeesian whi
Imagine if the Ubisoft always-on DRM had been an inherent, unremoveable aspect of the game system rather than just something tacked on to a few individual games after the fact, such that Ubisoft couldn't even begrudgingly neuter it in a patch. Well, streamed games are even worse than that would be.
The game doesn't even run locally. All you get is streaming video/audio and all the lag you'd expect (including controller lag), which is a recipe for disaster in North America.
Let's say you're lucky enough to have a 30mb/s connection. Why would you want to use it to transfer your game's video instead of, uh, a DVI cable, which is capable of 4 Gb/s? The people who developed DVI apparently understood that that 1920 x 1200 pixels w/ 24 bits/pixels @ 60Hz results in bandwidth well over 3 Gb/s. The people who push streamed gaming seem very, very confused (at best).
Some people consider IPS monitors unsuitable for games requiring fast reflexes (i.e. FPSes) due to their double-digit response times. Internet latency is often worse and certainly more unpredictable than LCD monitor response time, and with streamed games it applies to audio and keyboard/controller/etc input too.
Those of us who know anything about bandwidth and compression and (especially) latency can see the enormous technical obstacles facing a service like this, and I've never heard anyone explain how they intend to solve them. Onlive (for example) did everything they could to lock out independent reviewers with NDAs and closed demonstrations. A friend of mine described it as the gaming equivalent of the perpetual motion scam, and IMO that's spot on (except that streaming would still have the draconian DRM issues even if it worked perfectly).
Streamed gaming appears designed from the ground up to benefit the game publishers and fuck the customers, exactly as you'd expect from any DRM system.
Yeah, no kidding, why aren't we taking on the ingrained misogyny and rape culture of the EPA instead. Why are we attacking a company that makes an iconic car often driven by women? Can't we find one or two mean things said about the VW CEO on twitter and make that the whole story instead?
The Dell M3800 (15") and M6800 (17") look well-built and officially support linux. I have no experience with either, but I researched them after I saw someone here on/. recommend the M3800 for linux, and I plan to buy a M6800. As a bonus, they're old enough models to also support Windows 7 (which is why I'm getting one).
Unlike most of the space probe news articles which were derailed by the shirt, this one actually is about PR to begin with. I really would be interested in their opinions as well as any steps they took, even if it was just a dress code.
The washington post article gives (very) brief lip service to the science, but is mostly dedicated to further perpetrating the PR disaster. I would call it a pretty good embodiment (rather than summary) of the problem.
the magical atmosphere and worldwide excitement surrounding NASA's New Horizons Pluto flyby
It sad to know that a large section of the press would have been happy to ruin the moments the pictures came back (and shit on the public's excitement) by trashing one of the scientists, just because a women he was friends with made a shirt that pissed off a few ideologues. I'd love to hear what the Horizons PR team thought about that, when it happened to the ESA mission.
It's worth noting that the PS4's hard drive is user-replaceable (for more space and/or SSD speed) while the X-Bone's is not. It's just one of the many things Sony did so much better this generation, even when it shouldn't have cost Microsoft much to keep up.
After the Gnome Foundation said they were out of money, it was revealed that they had blown a huge chunk of the budget on "women's outreach" instead of developing software. The top dog (Karen Sandler) departed soon after.
Will companies ever get savvy enough to detect these ideologues before it's too late, or will they do a lot more damage in the future? We've all seen what's happened at Reddit . . .
To them the "woes" were the customer revolt that forced them to backpedal on always-on connectivity, the invasive 24/7 HD spy camera and microphone, and disabling of second-hand games. And they think "preventing" that is merely a matter of tightening the lockdown.
That is direct video evidence of an anti-Gamergate Sarkeesian supporter threatening physical violence against a pro-GG guy. We unquestionably know exactly who that guy is (and which side he's on), exactly who he's talking to, and exactly what he said. It took me less than a minute to find the link.
But I bet almost no one reading this has heard of it until now. If there were a video of a guy promoting Gamergate and threatening Sarkeesian, everyone knows we would never hear the end of it, ever, across dozens (probably hundreds) of sites. It proves that those sites are not anti-threats or anti-harrassment; they're just anti-GG (i.e. anti-ethics).
Even so, if you tell me that Sarkeesian isn’t responsible for what that jerk said, and he doesn’t represent her, I would 100% agree with you (and ask you to put two and two together . ..).
Look at you, still clinging desperately to the "mysogyny and harrassment" narrative and ignoring what GG actually does.
The FTC got involved as far back as
December in direct response to Gamergate pressure, and Gawker was forced update their disclosure policy (and tons of articles that were then clearly in violation). And just recently they updated their disclosure guidelines (guess who was running an ethics campaign asking for exactly that?): http://www.reddit.com/r/Kotaku...
The section of the FTC's website that deals with disclosures was updated late last month:
Some of this new guidance directly reflects the language and particulars of the concerns GamerGate asked the FTC to address.
"Is “affiliate link” by itself an adequate disclosure? What about a “buy now” button?"
Consumers might not understand that “affiliate link” means that the person placing the link is getting paid for purchases through the link. Similarly, a “buy now” button would not be adequate
Does this guidance about affiliate links apply to links in my product reviews on someone else’s website, to my user comments, and to my tweets?
Yes, the same guidance applies anytime you endorse a product and get paid through affiliate links.
The revised webpage contains a great deal more language that needs to be analyzed but these two examples in particular reflect specific complaints GamerGate had about how Gawker Media handle their affiliate link disclosures. I know of no other group of people who were vocally complaining about this specific practice to the FTC. In addition, the FTC emails from my previous posts confirm that, yes, the FTC tailored part of their new guidance because of frequent complaints sent by GamerGate.
And then there are the many, many sites that have updated their ethics policies. It's shameful that you will lie about an entire group of people because you and the press want to pretend that GG isn't the driving force behind all this ethics reform.
If GG had only focused on issues like this, i for one would be cheering them on. But GG didn't come into existence when, for example, Jeff Gerstmann was fired under pressure from a game developer whose game he reviewed poorly, way back in 2007.
OK, try this. Go discuss Gertsmann's firing (or any other AAA corruption) on a bunch of game/tech news websites' forums or article comments and see if the discussion is censored on almost EVERY one of them.
Now try to discuss Nathan Grayson or Patricia Hernandez and see how much censorship and pure venom you encounter, by contrast.
Also notice that Gertsmann's firing was somehow not subject to a week-long, industry-wide news blackout in hopes it would go away. And that the people reporting on it weren't called harassers or mysogynists or terrorists in an attempt to intimidate them and distract from the criticism.
It is the behavior of the press that is the difference. The long-running popularity of Gamergate is the response to the gaming press's cover up of journalistic corruption and long-running smear campaign against gamers. None of the media's lies can ever change that fact.
P.S. AAA review "agreements" (for youtubers, etc.) similar to these were publicized by Totalbiscuit (a major pro-Gamergate guy) a year ago, long before the journalists caught on. GG has nothing against exposing AAA nor indie corruption.
I agree with you, but I'm not going to assume (not anymore, anyway) that all or most gay Mozilla employees wanted Eich out, just because it was reported that way. See my post above.
And for all the right wingers that cry for Eich, saying he wasn't ousted for "not being progressive"? I hate to burst your bubble but he was fired for refusing to do his job simple as that. What IS the job of a CEO? Well a very large part of it is to be "the face of the company" and to deal with the press and issues in the press that are affecting your company's image...what did Eich do? Say "I don't want to talk about it" like a little spineless coward and hid while the opposition could say anything they wanted and build up steam for the boycott because he refused to do his job and fight back! If he would have said "these are my beliefs, this is what I support and what I do not and why" and actually started a dialog? He probably could have diffused the entire thing, remember he had an entire PR team at Moz to help him craft his side, while the other side simply were speaking their minds, so he had a pretty big advantage.
Nope, I don't buy that. Firing him from a company with Mozilla's tech cred for failing to carry out the PR mission sounds like lame after-the-fact justification. I suppose it could be argued that the company's primary focus had already changed by that point--the new marketing CEO and strange decisions since then do seem to point that way--but that makes the situation worse rather than excusing it.
Eich had already created javacript, founded Mozilla, served as the browser's chief architect and the company's chief tech officer for years and years. It's tough (maybe impossible) to think of anyone more in tune with Mozilla's mission, or qualified to carry it out.
And as we've seen in the last year, "the opposition" has unreal influence over the tech news media (including Slashdot), often right down to user forums/comment policy, including the willingness and ability to spin a one-sided narrative completely disconnected from reality and/or popular opinion.
We did not "stand by and watch". Many Mozilla staff made public statements supporting Brendan as CEO, including (courageously) many LGBT Mozilla staff. Many more publicly supported Brendan than publicly opposed him. The media of course focused on his opponents because "Mozilla employees call for CEO to step down" gets more clicks than "Mozilla employees support CEO".
It's absolutely true. There were a bunch of blog posts by Mozilla employees supporting Brendan as CEO (even though many disagreed with his position on Prop 8), all completely ignored by the media. Looking at the relevant date range on http://planet.mozilla.org/ should find them...
Did you ever see any of these viewpoints reported on at tech news sites? I think the Eich fiasco might have ended differently if it happened today, now we're more savvy to the disengenuousness and bigoted (and collusive) nature of those who perpetrate outrage culture.
Slashdot Mirror
If anyone had any lingering hope left that Snowden could get a fair trial for the probable charges that aren't simply fabricated out of nowhere, surely this clears it up.
remove systemd support
systemd people are not willing to play nice with the rest of the world. Therefore there is no reason for the rest of the world to cooperate with them.
remove systemd support
systemd people are not willing to play nice with the rest of the world. Therefore there is no reason for the rest of the world to cooperate with them.
No, they'll sue youtube-dl and Xposed now, for cutting into their revenue. "Don't be Evil" is so last month.
As I said last time this came up, browser-integrated DRM is as much about ads (especially for Google) as it is about content. Stopping you from reading/recording a video stream necessarily stops you from altering it.
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
How fortunate that, as a browser maker (along with Microsoft and Apple), they've coincidentally pushed for DRM to become part of web standards.
And that they obtained considerable financial influence over the browser maker thought most likely to resist (Mozilla).
And that Mozilla gave in.
Damn, am I ever so happy (as always) that the proven tech leader was ousted as Mozilla's CEO in favor of the former head of marketing.
He is now a man of a different conviction, who has gone a full 180 on the promises he campaigned on, ending up running the politics he campaigned against. I liked Senator Obama. President Obama, not so much.
No, you liked Candidate Obama.
In mid-2008, he voted to grant the telecoms immunity from prosecution for warrantless (i.e. illegal) wiretapping. The red flags were already there if you paid attention to his actions rather than his words.
They are in charge of Gundam:
http://entertainment.slashdot....
They were likely just monitoring the botnet to ensure it wasn't used to deface the wiki article.
Seriously, google him. Trump's hair has nothing on that.
Whoops, of course that should be "you can't fulfill b) above." c) is often the only evidence anti-GG can produce, which makes it meaningless.
Indeed it is. I would have thought it was far worse for people who donate to causes that Gamergate doesn't like. After all, it's Gamergate fanboys who do most of the harassment and doxxing
You sound confident in that claim, so you must have evidence of it. Do post some, because (as I said elsewhere in the thread) it's become routine for anti-Gamergate folks to portray exposure of corruption and mere disagreement with their opinions as "harrassment," and we know pro-GG folks get doxxed too (not sure about the ratio of pro-GG to anti-GG doxxing victims, and there's definitely no way to know the perpetrator ratio . . . though some do openly support doxxing, like Quinn and Harper and R Watson and Gawker's CEO, etc.). Here's an example of what I'm looking for:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
.)
That is direct video evidence of an anti-Gamergate Sarkeesian follower threatening physical violence against Thunderfoot. We unquestionably know exactly
a) who that guy is (clearly identifiable face)
b) which side he's on (anti-Gamergate)
c) what he said ("I will fuck you over for that one of these days if it's the last thing I ever do" and "Thunderfoot's an idiot, and I will punch him dead in the face if I ever see him"), and
d) who he's talking to (Thunderfoot).
And it took me less than a minute to turn up the link. But, for some reason, this threat hasn't been reported anywhere. Everyone knows that if your side had evidence anywhere near as damning (i.e. a video of someone supporting Gamergate and threatening Sarkeesian), we would never hear the end of it, ever, across dozens or hundreds of sites--proving, BTW, that such sites are not anti-threats or anti-harrassment; they're just anti-Gamergate (i.e. anti-ethics). But just in case they have all failed to report on such evidence, feel free to post it now.
P.S. Even so, if you tell me that Sarkeesian isn’t responsible for what that jerk said, and he doesn’t represent her, then I would 100% agree with you (and ask you to put two and two together . .
Go ahead, post something half as damning (and conclusive) as that pathetic Sarkeesian "fanboy."
(I use the term "Gamergate fanboys" to avoid the argument about who is inside Gamergate and who is outside.)
Wow, look at you, admitting up front you can't fulfill c) above. Tell me, why is the tech news sites' reporting of Gamergate "harassment" always so disconnected (in fact, usually the opposite) of what is indicated by the evidence? Must be lots of folks just like you working the field . . .
Gamergate exposed many undisclosed financial relationships between the gaming journalists and article subjects, forcing their employers to reform their ethics policies and add appropriate disclosures.
A significant chunk of those relationships were through Patreon, and at least one of the resulting ethics policy updates made direct reference to Patreon. Also note that many gaming journalists "responded" to Gamergate's successful push for greater ethics scrutiny by . . . hiding their Patreon donations by making them private.
I doubt the hack is good for either side of the "culture war", but anti-GG has a history of trying to hide where the money is coming from (and going to).
Remember how people reacted to Eich's support of an anti-gay-rights bill.
Sure do. How the reaction was widely reported in the mainstream tech news media is a completely different matter.
It makes sense. Thunderf00t made little from his videos until he started spouting bullshit about Anita Sarkeesian. The first video made him a fair chunk of cash, so he kept doing them. If the profit motive is taken away he will likely lose interest.
Your premise is faulty. He's made videos refuting creationists and promoting science for years, even though he "made little" money from them. The more likely explanation is that anti-progressivism videos were just a natural extension of his previous pro-skeptic content, especially after he saw "progressive" feminists try to infect atheism through Atheism+.
It's important because while he only does a bit of mild harassment, his videos and his cause act as a focal point for other idiots who do much worse.
Merely disagreeing with Thunderf00t or Sargon makes you a target of them and their followers.
Oh, this is fucking priceless. Got any evidence for that assertion? Here, I'll start (using a different "focal point"):
.).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
That is direct video evidence of an anti-Gamergate Sarkeesian follower threatening physical violence against Thunderfoot. We unquestionably know exactly
a) who that guy is (clearly identifiable face)
b) which side he's on (anti-Gamergate)
c) what he said ("I will fuck you over for that one of these days if it's the last thing I ever do" and "Thunderfoot's an idiot, and I will punch him dead in the face if I ever see him"), and
d) who he's talking to (Thunderfoot).
And it took me less than a minute to turn up the link. But, for some reason, this threat hasn't been reported anywhere. Everyone knows that if your side had evidence anywhere near as damning (i.e. a video of someone supporting Gamergate and threatening Sarkeesian), we would never hear the end of it, ever, across dozens or hundreds of sites--proving, BTW, that such sites are not anti-threats or anti-harrassment; they're just anti-Gamergate (i.e. anti-ethics). But just in case they have all failed to report on such evidence, feel free to post it now.
P.S. Even so, if you tell me that Sarkeesian isn’t responsible for what that jerk said, and he doesn’t represent her, then I would 100% agree with you (and ask you to put two and two together . .
Can anybody articulate more the motivations behind this hacking all the surrounding drama? I see some comments about gamer gate and social justice warriors, but I don't understand the whole picture.
A unethical journalist tried to blame the hack on Gamergate, despite the fact that the apparent hacker has made many anti-Gamergate statements. The journalist then went to a popular pro-Gamergate hub to make a show of doing the due diligence and research he should have done before publishing his inaccurate article, and got deservedly ripped to shreds in the comments.
The bottom line is the hacker appears to be third-party troll, so you should take any motivations he voices (pro- or anti- GG or SJW) with a boulder of salt.
Note that both pro-Gamergate and SJW content creators make money from Patreon, but IMO this hack has very little to do with the usual animosity between the two groups.
Some of the comments that confuse you are probably AmiMojo's, because he is trying to conflate unrelated issues and shoehorn the hack into long-running false narrative that Gamergate is a harrassment campaign against women, so he can justify censoring its voices.
For those who didn't hear about it a week ago (there was strangely no Slashdot story), a recent event pusshing that narrative was the presentation of the "Cyber Violence Against Women and Girls" report to (by?) an offshoot of the UN (UN Women). The most ridiculous (and most widely publicized) assertion in the report was that "cyber-violence" exists and is similar to actual, physical violence:
http://time.com/4049106/un-cyb...
The U.N. defines violence against women as “any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts.” The report notes that cyber violence is an extension of that definition, that includes acts like trolling, hacking, spamming, and harassment. The report also argues that “cyber touch is recognized as equally as harmful as physical touch,” suggesting that online harassment might be just as lethal as domestic violence or sexual abuse.
It's a such a blatant attempt to redefine criticism and disagreement as harassment and threats, to demonize free speech as a pretense to censorship.
The report also attacks video games by citing ridiculous sources (all at least a decade old) which say "Nintendo of America, Inc.: Manufactures Pokémon, Game-Boys, and equipment for satanic video games" and references Jack Thompson himself.
So it should come as no surprise that two of the invited the speakers (Quinn and Sarkeesian) were "SJWs" best known as prominent opponents of the Gamergate movement. Yep, Gamergate, the customer revolt demanding more ethical game journalism, whose criticism of and disagreement with the demonstrably unethical gaming press was mischaracterized as (you guessed it) "harrassment" and "threats" and widely censored in an attempt to protect the corrupt journalists, all because those journalists expressed the right politics.
Gamergate (and the FTC, responding to Gamergate pressure) succeeded in forcing many corrupt websites to update their ethics policies and start disclosing personal (and financial) relationships to the subjects of their articles, which is why you always see so many disingenuous and corrupt individuals shitting a brick over it. Two outlets that anti-Gamergate was notoriously unsuccessful at shutting down were tweets and youtube videos, which is why you saw Quinn issuing a false DMCA (against youtuber MundaneMatt) a year ago, and Sarkeesian whi
Imagine if the Ubisoft always-on DRM had been an inherent, unremoveable aspect of the game system rather than just something tacked on to a few individual games after the fact, such that Ubisoft couldn't even begrudgingly neuter it in a patch. Well, streamed games are even worse than that would be.
The game doesn't even run locally. All you get is streaming video/audio and all the lag you'd expect (including controller lag), which is a recipe for disaster in North America.
Let's say you're lucky enough to have a 30mb/s connection. Why would you want to use it to transfer your game's video instead of, uh, a DVI cable, which is capable of 4 Gb/s? The people who developed DVI apparently understood that that 1920 x 1200 pixels w/ 24 bits/pixels @ 60Hz results in bandwidth well over 3 Gb/s. The people who push streamed gaming seem very, very confused (at best).
Some people consider IPS monitors unsuitable for games requiring fast reflexes (i.e. FPSes) due to their double-digit response times. Internet latency is often worse and certainly more unpredictable than LCD monitor response time, and with streamed games it applies to audio and keyboard/controller/etc input too.
Those of us who know anything about bandwidth and compression and (especially) latency can see the enormous technical obstacles facing a service like this, and I've never heard anyone explain how they intend to solve them. Onlive (for example) did everything they could to lock out independent reviewers with NDAs and closed demonstrations. A friend of mine described it as the gaming equivalent of the perpetual motion scam, and IMO that's spot on (except that streaming would still have the draconian DRM issues even if it worked perfectly).
Streamed gaming appears designed from the ground up to benefit the game publishers and fuck the customers, exactly as you'd expect from any DRM system.
Yeah, no kidding, why aren't we taking on the ingrained misogyny and rape culture of the EPA instead. Why are we attacking a company that makes an iconic car often driven by women? Can't we find one or two mean things said about the VW CEO on twitter and make that the whole story instead?
The Dell M3800 (15") and M6800 (17") look well-built and officially support linux. I have no experience with either, but I researched them after I saw someone here on /. recommend the M3800 for linux, and I plan to buy a M6800. As a bonus, they're old enough models to also support Windows 7 (which is why I'm getting one).
Unlike most of the space probe news articles which were derailed by the shirt, this one actually is about PR to begin with. I really would be interested in their opinions as well as any steps they took, even if it was just a dress code.
The washington post article gives (very) brief lip service to the science, but is mostly dedicated to further perpetrating the PR disaster. I would call it a pretty good embodiment (rather than summary) of the problem.
the magical atmosphere and worldwide excitement surrounding NASA's New Horizons Pluto flyby
It sad to know that a large section of the press would have been happy to ruin the moments the pictures came back (and shit on the public's excitement) by trashing one of the scientists, just because a women he was friends with made a shirt that pissed off a few ideologues. I'd love to hear what the Horizons PR team thought about that, when it happened to the ESA mission.
It's worth noting that the PS4's hard drive is user-replaceable (for more space and/or SSD speed) while the X-Bone's is not. It's just one of the many things Sony did so much better this generation, even when it shouldn't have cost Microsoft much to keep up.
After the Gnome Foundation said they were out of money, it was revealed that they had blown a huge chunk of the budget on "women's outreach" instead of developing software. The top dog (Karen Sandler) departed soon after.
Will companies ever get savvy enough to detect these ideologues before it's too late, or will they do a lot more damage in the future? We've all seen what's happened at Reddit . . .
To them the "woes" were the customer revolt that forced them to backpedal on always-on connectivity, the invasive 24/7 HD spy camera and microphone, and disabling of second-hand games. And they think "preventing" that is merely a matter of tightening the lockdown.
Oh, what a surprise, you forgot to post that evidence he asked for.
.).
Here, let me show you how it's done:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
That is direct video evidence of an anti-Gamergate Sarkeesian supporter threatening physical violence against a pro-GG guy. We unquestionably know exactly who that guy is (and which side he's on), exactly who he's talking to, and exactly what he said. It took me less than a minute to find the link.
But I bet almost no one reading this has heard of it until now. If there were a video of a guy promoting Gamergate and threatening Sarkeesian, everyone knows we would never hear the end of it, ever, across dozens (probably hundreds) of sites. It proves that those sites are not anti-threats or anti-harrassment; they're just anti-GG (i.e. anti-ethics).
Even so, if you tell me that Sarkeesian isn’t responsible for what that jerk said, and he doesn’t represent her, I would 100% agree with you (and ask you to put two and two together . .
P.S. As a bonus, here are journalistic ethics experts confirming unethical game journo behavior:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The FTC got involved as far back as December in direct response to Gamergate pressure, and Gawker was forced update their disclosure policy (and tons of articles that were then clearly in violation). And just recently they updated their disclosure guidelines (guess who was running an ethics campaign asking for exactly that?):
http://www.reddit.com/r/Kotaku...
The section of the FTC's website that deals with disclosures was updated late last month:
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advic...
Some of this new guidance directly reflects the language and particulars of the concerns GamerGate asked the FTC to address.
"Is “affiliate link” by itself an adequate disclosure? What about a “buy now” button?"
Consumers might not understand that “affiliate link” means that the person placing the link is getting paid for purchases through the link. Similarly, a “buy now” button would not be adequate
Does this guidance about affiliate links apply to links in my product reviews on someone else’s website, to my user comments, and to my tweets?
Yes, the same guidance applies anytime you endorse a product and get paid through affiliate links.
The revised webpage contains a great deal more language that needs to be analyzed but these two examples in particular reflect specific complaints GamerGate had about how Gawker Media handle their affiliate link disclosures. I know of no other group of people who were vocally complaining about this specific practice to the FTC. In addition, the FTC emails from my previous posts confirm that, yes, the FTC tailored part of their new guidance because of frequent complaints sent by GamerGate.
And then there are the many, many sites that have updated their ethics policies. It's shameful that you will lie about an entire group of people because you and the press want to pretend that GG isn't the driving force behind all this ethics reform.
If GG had only focused on issues like this, i for one would be cheering them on. But GG didn't come into existence when, for example, Jeff Gerstmann was fired under pressure from a game developer whose game he reviewed poorly, way back in 2007.
OK, try this. Go discuss Gertsmann's firing (or any other AAA corruption) on a bunch of game/tech news websites' forums or article comments and see if the discussion is censored on almost EVERY one of them.
Now try to discuss Nathan Grayson or Patricia Hernandez and see how much censorship and pure venom you encounter, by contrast.
Also notice that Gertsmann's firing was somehow not subject to a week-long, industry-wide news blackout in hopes it would go away. And that the people reporting on it weren't called harassers or mysogynists or terrorists in an attempt to intimidate them and distract from the criticism.
It is the behavior of the press that is the difference. The long-running popularity of Gamergate is the response to the gaming press's cover up of journalistic corruption and long-running smear campaign against gamers. None of the media's lies can ever change that fact.
P.S. AAA review "agreements" (for youtubers, etc.) similar to these were publicized by Totalbiscuit (a major pro-Gamergate guy) a year ago, long before the journalists caught on. GG has nothing against exposing AAA nor indie corruption.
They didn't erupt int
I agree with you, but I'm not going to assume (not anymore, anyway) that all or most gay Mozilla employees wanted Eich out, just because it was reported that way. See my post above.
And for all the right wingers that cry for Eich, saying he wasn't ousted for "not being progressive"? I hate to burst your bubble but he was fired for refusing to do his job simple as that. What IS the job of a CEO? Well a very large part of it is to be "the face of the company" and to deal with the press and issues in the press that are affecting your company's image...what did Eich do? Say "I don't want to talk about it" like a little spineless coward and hid while the opposition could say anything they wanted and build up steam for the boycott because he refused to do his job and fight back! If he would have said "these are my beliefs, this is what I support and what I do not and why" and actually started a dialog? He probably could have diffused the entire thing, remember he had an entire PR team at Moz to help him craft his side, while the other side simply were speaking their minds, so he had a pretty big advantage.
Nope, I don't buy that. Firing him from a company with Mozilla's tech cred for failing to carry out the PR mission sounds like lame after-the-fact justification. I suppose it could be argued that the company's primary focus had already changed by that point--the new marketing CEO and strange decisions since then do seem to point that way--but that makes the situation worse rather than excusing it.
/. post announcing the new CEO:
Eich had already created javacript, founded Mozilla, served as the browser's chief architect and the company's chief tech officer for years and years. It's tough (maybe impossible) to think of anyone more in tune with Mozilla's mission, or qualified to carry it out.
And as we've seen in the last year, "the opposition" has unreal influence over the tech news media (including Slashdot), often right down to user forums/comment policy, including the willingness and ability to spin a one-sided narrative completely disconnected from reality and/or popular opinion.
From the
http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
We did not "stand by and watch". Many Mozilla staff made public statements supporting Brendan as CEO, including (courageously) many LGBT Mozilla staff. Many more publicly supported Brendan than publicly opposed him. The media of course focused on his opponents because "Mozilla employees call for CEO to step down" gets more clicks than "Mozilla employees support CEO".
http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
It's absolutely true. There were a bunch of blog posts by Mozilla employees supporting Brendan as CEO (even though many disagreed with his position on Prop 8), all completely ignored by the media. Looking at the relevant date range on http://planet.mozilla.org/ should find them...
Did you ever see any of these viewpoints reported on at tech news sites? I think the Eich fiasco might have ended differently if it happened today, now we're more savvy to the disengenuousness and bigoted (and collusive) nature of those who perpetrate outrage culture.